Pondering PBS
by Paul M. Weyrich

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS) was established when there were few broadcast outlets besides the big three networks providing quality programming on the issues of the day. From day one PBS tilted to the left. Despite that, I was shocked at how many conservatives told me they heard an interview I did for "Morning Edition" or "All Things Considered," two of the mainstays of PBS radio. And when Bill Moyers did his 1980 "documentary" on the Religious Right it was played repeatedly. I heard from people all over the nation, many of whom I never had met and others of whom I had long since forgotten.

PBS, especially with its children's programming (Big Bird, etc.) built a measurable audience which competed with the major networks. As a result PBS has been able to market goods related to its children's shows and earns about $1 billion a year in the process. Local telethons on PBS-affiliated radio and television stations raise millions more. Like the local school board that threatens to close the kindergartens to get its way with the city council, PBS always threatens to cut out its children's programming if people don't open up their wallets wide enough. They always do. That is why the House of Representatives, looking to balance the federal budget, cut $100 million from the money annually given to PBS. The move was modest and reasonable. It was one quarter of what Congress allocated for PBS and a mere 11% of its total budget.

If truth be told, for two reasons PBS no longer needs federal funding. Its marketing is strong enough that it can exist without federal help, especially inasmuch as it receives millions of additional dollars from corporate support in the form of pseudo-commercials. Moreover, unlike the year 1969 when PBS was established, numerous channels now provide safe children's programming. And thanks to the pseudo-commercials, even children's programming on PBS is no longer commercial-free as it was in its early days.

Congressional appropriators cut a modest $100 million from the PBS budget. Guess what? The money was restored through an amendment approved by a majority of the House of Representatives.

Sure, almost all of the Democrats voted to restore the money. Why shouldn't they? To the extent the programming on PBS radio and television stations is political, and it almost always is, the politics is far to the left. But how does that explain a majority of Republicans voting to restore PBS funding? Or to paraphrase Lenin, Republicans will pay for the programming with which they are being hung.

I happened upon one of the most able Members of the House of Representatives soon after the PBS vote occurred. He was upset about the outcome as well. Why, I asked, would this happen at a time when Congress actually had cut other budgets and actually had passed almost all appropriations bills with less funding than last year? His answer was simple. The wives. He said PBS has been smart enough to recruit the wives of Republican Congressmen to assist the local PBS stations.

Most congressional wives presumably have little to say about agriculture appropriations or transportation appropriations or State Department appropriations bills. As soon as the education appropriations bill came up, PBS management cried phony tears, threatened to clip the wings of Big Bird and send Barney to the showers. Then PBS whispered in the ears of the congressional wives, "Of course, you can help us reverse this." So the late night talk of the wives is not about their children's grades or the latest community and volunteer projects or planning for the next junket. No, it is something like this: "If you don't vote to reverse those dreadful cuts in the PBS budget, it's the couch for you, dear." Sleeping on the couch can get mighty lonely.

The fact is most congressional wives, even those married to very conservative Republicans, are to the left of the elected Member. Normally that wouldn't mean much unless a new version of the Equal Rights Amendment seriously was to be considered.

When it comes to federal funding for PBS, congressional wives swing into action and their husbands sheepishly comply. Members of Congress know that restoring that money is absolutely unnecessary to keep PBS programming on the air. They also know if they cut all federal funding for PBS it would have no real effect on public broadcasting. But then they wouldn't be on the couch; they would be on the back porch, perhaps in the dog house. That is why congressional appropriators felt that $100 million was the biggest cut they could sustain. Were they off the mark?

I well recall visiting the office of one of my favorite Senators, Wayne Allard (R-CO), just after he was first elected. Senator Allard is a veterinarian, not a lawyer. In fact, he won two tough Senate races accusing his opponent of being a "lawyer-lobbyist." Two crimes at once. Senator Allard's wife volunteers in the Senator's office at no cost to the taxpayer. Mrs. Allard invited me to inform her if her husband went off the reservation. "She is more conservative than I am," the Senator told me.

If we had more congressional wives like Mrs. Allard we would not have the PBS problem. It will take time to accomplish that but as candidates run for the House and Senate we should interview their wives. When the wives seem to be liberal, we should vote down the candidate. Moreover, we should require that the wives of congressional nominees sign a voluntary pledge that they will not become involved with their local PBS station. There are hundreds of better ways for wives to be involved in the community.

It would take a generation but if we could bring in wives who were more solid than their husbands (or husbands more solid than their wives in the case of the increasingly large female contingent), not only would we be able to cut out the unnecessary PBS subsidy but we could cut out funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) as well. Same problem.

Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

Email the Editor