The growing controversy in the public broadcasting has been ongoing for a long time with many opting to switch to other programs that are broadcasted by the commercial television networks. Disputes over the content to be aired have not been strange to the public broadcasting and pubic televisions (McLaughlin, and Mark 1-12). There is no doubt that the public television has been entangled in a dispute over crucial decisions regarding content. As a result, the viewer perception and rating have been adversely affected.
1. Are public-TV broadcasters ever afraid of controversy or losing viewers?
Controversies have been part of the public television as many programs have sparked concerning controversies leading to cancelation without explanations in some circumstances. It is clear that public televisions are not afraid of controversy and are ready to battle it out when it arises.
Evidence of controversies
In 2009, a controversy emerged when a newsmagazine series was canceled without explanation. The series named NOW became subject to contentious debate by the infuriated public who felt irritated about the cancelation. Despite the vented anger on the pubic-TV, nobody seemed moved or concerned about the lamentations. Instead, the PBS opted to remain silent and not give any substantive reason for the action. Despite the series winning numerous accolades, it was prematurely terminated thus increasing the public anger. It was a demonstration of the willingness by public-TV to engage in controversies (McLaughlin, and Mark 1-12). It is essential to note that the public-TV should always have the interest of the masses hence should not show any sign of dissent to the public. In this view any program that fits the public interest should always be on air provided it is within the confines of the public broadcast regulations.
2. Public television controversy
The suggestion by Mitt Romney elicited furious attacks from the public due to their attachment to programs like Big Bird. It is critical to take a view on the issue from the public interest perspective to ascertain the viability of the plans projected by Mitt Romney. From this point of view, it would not be an easy task to cut the funding of PBS. Romney’s assertions might be of concern to liberal Americans who have the sense of economic concern. However, the millions of Americans who receive free television services courtesy of government funding on PBS will get infuriated. If Romney had become the American President, it would not be a realistic to achieve the goal. It is paramount to note that the public televisions are nonprofit ventures that are aimed at informing the public. In respect to this, cutting the funding would kill the numerous programs adored by the public. It is the prerogative of the government to provide funding to the PBS so that they can support various programs meant for the public (McLaughlin, and Mark 1-12). Therefore, any attempt to stop its funding would be met with overwhelming opposition. Normally the public interest should prevail in a democracy like the US. Therefore, Mitt would not have it possible to terminate the funding. The government funds drama, programs, documentaries, public affairs programs, etc.
Business model-the public-TV employs the noncommercial business model.
Should the government fund public-TV?
Public televisions should be government supported due to their nonprofit model of operation (McLaughlin, and Mark 1-12). It makes them virtually incapacitated if there is the government should support no government fund for their operations.
How to survive in absence of government support
There are other donators of public-TV. However, the government remains the chief funder. In an event of eventuality, they could get funds from donations from private memberships as well as grants (McLaughlin, and Mark 1-12).
Work Cited
Glenn J., McLaughlin, and Mark Gurevitz. "The Corporation for Public Broadcasting: Federal Funding and Issues." (2014): 1-12. Web
