Public Broadcasting, Rush Limbaugh and Doritos

“I hope that you do not mean to suggest that it is the job of the federal government, through the Federal Communications Commission, to determine the content that is available for Americans to consume,” wrote Rep. Joe Barton of Texas to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps last December.  Now we know Mr. Barton wants it to be this Congress’ job.

To the beneficiaries of the vastly conservative talk radio establishment, the fairness doctrine has long been the Great Satan.  And it takes many forms, apparently.  One of them is federal funding for public broadcasting.  It is quite alright for the public to subsidize hate speech, for example, via the social costs attendant to that speech, including politically-motivated hate crimes and the public resources needed to prevent and prosecute them.  But far be it from the federal government to have to pay $1.35 per citizen to preserve even the appearance that the First Amendment is worth the paper it’s printed on. 

These days, aside from the pittance the federal government spends on public broadcasting, it seems that only privately-funded content over the broadcast spectrum is worthy of First Amendment protection.  After all, the members of Congress who are pushing to have public broadcasting removed from the federal ledger can tolerate the content, so long as it is entirely funded by either advertising or foundation support—they’re betting that, in its current form, it won’t survive in the commercial marketplace.  They’re probably right.

The judiciary isn’t much help here, either.  Just last year, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision left us scrambling for signs of free speech life.

So here we are.  I can go and buy a bag of Doritos for $1.99 even though, unbeknownst to me, Doritos runs ads in Rush Limbaugh.  Even though I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, I am effectively subsidizing him.  But somehow Rush Limbaugh’s listeners are put upon by paying $1.35 per year each for public broadcasting content.