Current Online TOPICS
What is public broadcasting?

..
Articles from Current about
What is public broadcasting?
....Why public?
....What is noncommercial?
....History of the field
....Key documents of the field

Programming
....Public TV
....Public radio
....Both
....Education through pubcasting
People in the field
The workings of public broadcasting
....Public TV
....Public radio
....Funding of public broadcasting
Technology and public broadcasting
....Digital TV
....Spectrum and access issues

Where is it going?: At a day-long Columbia University seminar in 1998 there were prescriptions, postulations, a visitation by ex-Sen. Pressler and a libertarian predicting doom. Major point of agreement: public TV is handicapped by its structure. Then in July 1998, a progressive media reform group, Center for Media Reform, urged public TV to turn its attention to its mission to distinguish it from the many cable networks. [Full text of study on CME's web site.] James Fellows of Central Educational Network charts the expected changes as public broadcasting moves into its second generation.

Why is it "public"? In a period when the marketplace is revered, pubcasters must frequently explain to themselves and others why they exist, and why they must exist. See Current's collection of speeches, musings and essays on questions of purpose.

Books about public broadcasting: A Current Briefing describes a shelf-full of histories of the field, both supportive and critical, published in the 1990s.

Commercialism: Should public TV go commercial? A Current Briefing on the perennial, fundamental issue that came back in 1995-96 as some public broadcasters proposed a new class of commercial public stations.

First Amendment status: Are state-operated public TV networks legally capable of independent journalism? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in May 1998 that the Arkansas Educational Television Network acted within its authority as a broadcaster when it excluded minor candidate Ralph Forbes from a 1992 broadcast debate of House candidates. Forbes' attorneys told the court in October 1997 that state employees at the network were being allowed to influence an election by excluding a duly qualified candidate. A federal circuit court had twice backed Forbes. In a separate case in 1997, a Ku Klux Klan group has raised similar questions by demanding that a St. Louis public radio station accept its underwriting money and announcements. The federal court ruled in late 1998 that KWMU need not accept underwriting from a willing donor—the local Ku Klux Klan chapter. [Text of decision in Acrobat PDF format.] The Klan said it will appeal.

 

Back to Current Online's
home page

 

This page revised Jan. 21, 2001
Current
The newspaper about public television and radio
in the United States
A service of Current Publishing Committee, Takoma Park, Md.
E-mail: webatcurrent.org
301-270-7240
A service of Current Publishing Committee
E-mail: webatcurrent.org
(202) 463-7055
Copyright 2001