Small: OETA doesn’t need state subsidies

I've enjoyed a lot of OETA/PBS content over the years; nature programs, historical documentaries, chilren's shows, classic films on the OETA Movie Club. My wife and I really enjoy the geneological show Finding Your Roots.

But here's the thing. Is it really the proper role of government to fund public broadcasting? I don't think it is. OETA, and PBS, and NPR - all of them can function apart from taxpayer funding. In the wake of Gov. Stitt's veto of OETA's reauthorization, a lot of media stations and personalities have decried the move. Perhaps they could step up to the plate and fund OETA/PBS much like C-SPAN is funded by the cable industry.

Here's a column by OCPA President Jonathan Small on the matter:

OETA doesn’t need state subsidies

By Jonathan Small

Gov. Kevin Stitt’s decision to veto reauthorization of the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority (OETA), the state’s Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) entity, has critics acting as though the sky is falling and that Big Bird is on his last legs.

Neither view is true. Big Bird will still be around even without Oklahoma government funding, as proven by the fact that 14 other states do not provide direct state funding to PBS stations. There are no reports of children aimless wandering the streets of those states without access to any educational programming.

According to Current, a nonprofit news organization, public broadcasting receives direct state funding in only 36 states. It’s notable that the 14 non-funding states include several controlled by Democrats, such as Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Furthermore, Oklahoma’s spending on public broadcasting is excessive compared to many states.

Where Oklahoma government spends 72 cents per capita on public broadcasting, Illinois spends just one cent per capita. Other states also spend far less, including Delaware (18 cents per capita), Florida (50 cents), Indiana (55 cents), Kansas (17 cents), Missouri (17 cents), Nevada (22 cents), Ohio (34 cents), Oregon (9 cents) and Tennessee (10 cents).

The simple fact is the world has changed since PBS was created in the 1960s. Educational programming for children—the main selling point used for PBS—abounds today across multiple platforms. Oklahoma government has no need to subsidize a TV competitor to private-sector stations, and ratings suggest most families are already using alternatives to PBS.

Furthermore, PBS programming has veered into politics and social activism.

PBS Newshour recently featured a segment attacking states like Oklahoma that have advanced legislation to prevent children from being given hormone blockers, cross-sex hormones, or sex-change surgeries before age 18.

That segment included a pair of parents who claimed their son—who they say now identifies as a transgender female — “started letting us know she was transgender really before she could even speak.” The segment reportedly did not include any opposing viewpoint from those who supported the legislation.

At the same time, PBS children’s programming has waded into social issues, including on shows like “Clifford the Big Red Dog.” It’s one thing to tax Oklahomans to support programming that teaches children to read, but something else to tax Oklahomans to fund programming that tells their children what stance to take on same-sex marriage or transgenderism.

Also, as a conservative who has been interviewed by OETA news programming, I can tell you the problem of political bias is as prevalent there as on stations like MSNBC.

PBS can survive, but it needs to do so without Oklahoma government subsidies. Don’t worry about Big Bird. As seen in 14 other states, he’ll be just fine.

Jonathan Small serves as president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (www.ocpathink.org).