Though it started out with success and promise, and still maintains a few bright spots, U.S. public broadcasting has failed, by virtually every critical measure, to adequately pursue its mandated purposes to provide necessary knowledge and to enhance the public sphere and democracy. At the core of public television’s failure, and the failure of any publicly purposed organization, is how it interfaces with the publics it is supposed to serve, and the means by which citizens can hold the organization accountable when it falls short. KQED-TV, which was the sole public television station with an elected board of directors, recently eliminated that process, calling it too costly. A check of the research available gives us virtually no other specific information about the structures and processes for accountability at U.S. public television stations.

To provide a better basis for policy discussions concerning a major reform of public broadcasting for the digital age, and with major funding opportunities on the horizon, we need to examine the important differences between democratically structured community media outlets and those that have merely been "democratized" by technology.

Congress established public broadcasting in 1967 as “a forum for controversy and debate”1, and a “responsive...expression of diversity and excellence... [An] alternative...that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities.”2 Though it started out with success and promise, and still maintains a few bright spots, U.S. public broadcasting has failed, by virtually every critical measure3, to adequately pursue its mandated purposes to provide necessary knowledge and to enhance the public sphere and democracy. Public television’s level of public service is usually a little higher than that of its for profit counterparts, but on many issues, such as Iraq4 and Iran5, its performance is virtually identical to them.

At the core of public television’s failure, and the failure of any publicly purposed organization, is how it interfaces with the publics it is supposed to serve, and the means by which citizens can hold the organization accountable when it falls short. KQED-TV, which was the sole public television station with an elected board of directors6, recently eliminated that process, calling it too costly. A check of the research available gives us virtually no other specific information about the structures and processes for accountability at U.S. public television stations.

In an effort to focus public and Congressional attention on issues beyond just the funding of public television and radio, CMA proposes a public television station structural democracy and accountability survey. Among the areas of research to be included are the following: trustee and advisory board selection process, availability of board minutes, availability of agendas, dissemination of board and committee meeting notice, inclusion of public comments at station board and committee meetings, board and advisory board composition regarding underserved groups, public availability of board and advisory board reports, access to tax returns, other means by which the public can provide input, and online availability of board and station documents and other information.

The mere act of inquiring to the stations about such information will itself likely cause some small improvements. More broadly, research that begins to fill this long-standing “data gap” publicly will be an important step towards fixing what ails public tv and radio.

Over a three-month period, a researcher will conduct an in-depth analysis. One month would then be used to complete the findings. The finished research, with the assistance of other media activist groups, will be published and submitted to the media and public, and soon thereafter Congress, along with any appropriate policy recommendations that will be determined based on the results.

Work on the study should be complete by October 2008, in order to take full advantage of a likely transition in government leadership following the upcoming Federal election. Soon thereafter, we will be presented with funding opportunities due to the return to the public of the extremely valuable analog television channels in February 2009. Their auction could net between $10 and $30 billion towards the permanent funding of U.S. public media.

__________________________________________________________________

1 Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, Public Television: A Program for Action. New York, Bental, 1967

2 Public Broadcasting Act, Subpart D – Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Sec. 396. [47 U.S.C. 396]

3 Various research and studies by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=16; http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=12

4 Scott Sanders, "A Litany of Lies and Omissions", Z magazine, September 2007 vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 36-40, http://themediastructurefailed.zoomshare.com/files/z_sept_07.pdf

5 Scott Sanders, “Frontline Iran docu mixed bag at best; TAKE ACTION: PBS CEO misleads us about community control of public tv”, Chicago Media Action, October 25, 2007, http://www.chicagomediaaction.org/news.php?id=577

6 Starr, Jerold M., “Air Wars: The Fight to Reclaim Public Broadcasting”, Beacon Press, 2000, p. 240