Guest Opinion: A free-market enthusiast for public radio

The views expressed in Guest Opinions represent only those of the author and are in no way endorsed by Richmond BizSense or any BizSense staff member.

“Oh boy,” you’re muttering, “here comes another right-wing free-market diatribe.”  Nice try, but no. I’ll be sad to see funding for public broadcasting cut, and I disagree with Gov. Bob McDonnell’s plan to cut funding for our public broadcasting stations.  Ditto for our minority-leader-to-be, Congressman Eric Cantor.  Yes, we have a budget crisis, and, yes, $4 million would make a tiny dent in the shortfall. But it’s bad policy, as I will explain.

Now I’ll admit that there are certain reporters and commentators on NPR who make me want to jump through my radio and straighten them out in person.  I was outraged when Juan Williams got the ax.  Ever since reading Clarence Thomas’s biography, I have been a big Juan Williams fan, although I disagree with him far more often than not.

But I stand firmly in support of steady funding for public broadcasting at the national and local levels.  NPR and our local public stations serve a vital purpose and thus are a public good that ought to be subsidized with public dollars, the same way we pay for public libraries and parks.

Public radio provides an educational resource to continue a process that too often stops at graduation from college or high school, or even earlier.  And it’s pretty accurate reporting and thoughtful quality entertainment and education. Sure, Garrsion Keillor makes no secret of his politics, but at least he’s not above self parody – can we say the same for our celebrity talking heads on the right? Music and cultural information that cannot be found anywhere else these days enriches and enlightens our lives.  Where else can you hear classical music, jazz, swing and avant-garde sounds with knowledgeable commentary  that makes them accessible and meaningful? Streaming music on the web is great, but after a while, it turns into elevator music unless you challenge your ears.  I find the historical background and interpretation offered by the hosts makes the music infinitely more interesting and satisfying.

Okay, you say, there is a lot of good stuff on public radio and TV — but if it’s so good, why won’t it fund itself?  Let the listeners and viewers pay! Of course, they do to a great extent. But the reason that’s not enough is simple: market failure. The concept is sometimes referred to as the “public good/free rider problem” or the “tragedy of the commons.” Public sanitation, water, roads, police and military defense are all examples that even the most ardent free-market proponents recognize as proper subjects for collective support, because the value to society as a whole is significantly greater than the amount that a limited number of private consumers might pay. Just last week I heard an excellent NPR segment on this very subject, and it was really quite balanced (coincidence?). Free-market types might draw the line a little more stringently than their liberal counterparts, but almost all agree on the principle. Public broadcasting is perhaps not as obvious as the easy examples, but our governments often fund public art, architecture, education and other public goods  — so why not music with enduring value (as opposed to the ephemeral Top 40) and serious debate and journalism (as opposed to the mosh pits that pass for news shows on private networks)?

And really, where is the liberal bias in “Virginia Currents,” “Nova” or “Live From Lincoln Center?” There is none, unless you think that fine arts, serious music and literature are inherently liberal. That’s just reverse snobbery in my estimation. We can hear all the left-wing (and right-wing) points of view we want by flipping back and forth between Fox and MSNBC, but to my ear, the nonstop interrupting and shouting over the guests makes me reach for the remote after a few minutes of either.

By contrast, you can hear respectful and reasoned discussion between the likes of David Brooks (my favorite neo-con, if only because he went to my high school) and E.J. Dionne, each offering his clearly expressed but diametrically opposed views with civility and respect. You’ll get more real insight from five minutes of “All Things Considered” than an hour of Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olberman. On the web or cable, satellite and commercial radio, you can listen to what you want to hear all day long – but it won’t make you think the way you do when you hear an opposing point of view presented in a reasoned and respectful tone.  If you want to win an argument, you need to really understand your opposition, and that takes listening, not just nodding your head or muttering “ditto” while you drive to work to the dulcet tones of your favorite talk radio pundit.

A democratic republic based on universal suffrage cannot survive if the electorate stops learning when they leave school, whatever level they complete. We spend billions on education, and then we turn our graduates loose to make their way in the world.  They strive to make a living, raise a family, defend our homes from fire and violence, fight for our country in foreign wars, vote, maybe run for office, start a small business or run a big company.  Too often, the day-to-day routine of any of these occupations eventually gouges deeply rutted patterns of thought – and learning stops.  When we are not alert to new or challenging ideas, when there is nothing to hear but the echo chamber playing back our own preconceptions, prejudices and pet peeves, our public spirit suffers. So let’s be responsible, and not cripple these invaluable organizations for the sake of short-term political advantage or budget reductions that pale in comparison with other opportunities for savings.

After all, the shoe might someday be on the other foot.  And surely there must still be a couple of “bridges to nowhere” or other earmarked boondoggles that we can do without.  Let’s make sure we cut those before we toss our valuable treasures in the dumpster.