Listeners and Viewers Like You
Joel Kaplan
October 19, 2011
Misha Clebaner of California wants to know why, if nearly 75 percent of donors to public broadcasting are individuals while corporations like Wal-Mart and Goldman Sachs provide only about 5 percent of revenues, "how come my programming must be interrupted by commercials for these organizations? Why is it that they have the right to marketing and we, as the general audience does not? This allows them to whitewash their record."
Misha's inquiry came to me because he mistakenly believed that it is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that receives the underwriting support from corporations as well as contributions from individual listeners and viewers. In fact, CPB is a not-for profit corporation funded almost entirely by the federal government.
It is programming on NPR and PBS that receives underwriting support and individual member stations that conduct pledge drives to support their operations.
So I referred Mr. Clebaner to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler at mgetler@pbs.org as well as NPR ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos at ESchumacher-Matos@npr.org.
But I also sent Mr. Clebaner's inquiry to Ted Coltman, CPB's senior director, communications.
He agreed that Mr. Clebaner's inquiry should be referred to PBS and NPR but thought it was important to address his assertion that "corporate donors have 'the right to marketing' while 'we as the general audience' do not."
Here is what Mr. Coltman had to say:
"Since contributions to CPB from both businesses and individuals are de minimis, and contributions to public broadcasting stations from businesses and individuals aggregate to roughly equal amounts across the entire system, the correspondent's data probably pertain to production/acquisition funding for either PBS-distributed programs, NPR-distributed programs, or both. Maybe someone at PBS or NPR will recognize these data and be able to identify their source, but I don't recognize them.
"As to a "right to marketing", businesses (and philanthropic foundations and family charitable trusts) have no "right to marketing," but must be credited on air by the broadcaster as major sources of funding for the production or acquisition of the programs. Similarly, it has been standard practice in public television (and, with less standardized language, in public radio) to acknowledge support received from individual contributors, with taglines such as 'Viewers Like You' in public television and 'Listener-supported public radio from XYZ University' or something similar in public radio. Funding that public television receives from (federal) taxpayers is always acknowledged on air with the tagline describing CPB as 'a private corporation funded by the American people' or with a funding acknowledgement for a specific federal government agency or department that may provide support other than through CPB. Such acknowledgments are typically more varied in public radio, and the forms of on-air acknowledgment of tax-based funding received by both public television and public radio from state and local governments are even more diverse.
"Your correspondent should also be informed about the rather strict constraints that the FCC places on the actual message content of on-air funding acknowledgments: under FCC rules (enforced by fines that have been levied with increasing severity in recent years) messages must be purely informational, intended to identify the donor, and not promotional. The credit announcements may not include, for example, price information; comparative or qualitative statements about a donor's products, services, or public-policy agenda; or any 'call to action'."
Mr. Clebaner was very grateful for Mr. Coltman's response to his inquiry and agreed that he was probably thinking of PBS or NPR rather than CPB. He also said that "the answer about mentioning major funders makes sense logically, but I guess it just rubs me the wrong way that the majority of money coming into NPR or PBS is from people who probably oppose how Goldman Sachs aided in the downfall of our economy, so its just a bitter irony that when I watch a program, it is interrupted by a commercial for them saying how they build up our country. I'm sure you see both sides of the issues, that's just the way things work. I just wish that Goldman Sachs wasn't able to whitewash their true impact on our society. "
It turns out that Mr. Clebaner is not the only person who feels that way and, in fact, PBS ombudsman Michael Getler has already answered similar inquiries:
"I've written many times in recent months about advertising/sponsorships on PBS online and on-air because their policy changed and expanded on this subject. Here's one that reflects early unhappiness, especially with Goldman Sachs: http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2011/05/when_the_facts_of_pbs_life_collide_online.html
"Here's another more recent one showing that the on-screen promotions are not getting more popular: http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2011/10/the_mailbag_promo_still_nogo_fall_edition.html
"You can get several more by clicking on the archive section of the ombudsman's page at pbs.org and search for sponsorships."