Lunsford 1

Bradley Lunsford
COM270H
Dr. Ballinger
30 November, 2014
A Broad Effect
Since the beginning of broadcasting, there has been some form, in one fashion or another,
of public broadcasting for the sake of education, non-profit as opposed to the wide range of
other, privatized, broadcasts. The disparity between these two forms of broadcast, initially
favoring the corporate, privatized media, has only degraded further, especially in the modern
media. The question is not how each is affected by the other, but rather how we are affected by
the interplay between them.
Knowing both sides is entirely necessary in a discussion like this, and the only
responsible way to start is with the beginnings of public broadcasting itself. The earliest public
broadcasts, initially dubbed educational for their intended content, began as novelty radio
stations in electrical engineering departments. More widespread appropriation only came after
multiple decades of unification and agreement on the values necessary for Public
Broadcasting. Though there were a large number of commercial broadcasting licenses originally
given to educational interests initially, poor service and escalating cost, as well as corporate
pressure, resulted in a large majority of licensed frequencies to move from the hands of public
broadcasting to more corporate interests.
As more and more of the radio medium was turned over to advertiser-supported
entertainment programming, educators came together to fight to widen the role of educational

Lunsford 2
programming, forming quite a few organizations. Organizations like the Advisory Committee
on Education by Radio, Federal Radio Education Committee, Institute for Education by Radio,
National Advisory Council on Radio in Education, and the National Committee on Education by
Radio(Avery), all of which sprang up in the early 1920's and 30's, hoping to provide leadership
in the fight to expand the educational role of radio.(Avery). A common objective between these
organizations was the reservation of a portion of radio channels for educational use, eventually
realized in 1945, when FM broadcasting became an official section of the spectrum.
One quite important organization during this period was the NAEB, the National
Association for Educational Broadcasters, having started out in '25 as the Association of College
and University Broadcasting Stations. The NAEB, in the late forties, led the fight to reserve
channels for educational usage as opposed to commercial interests, this time, with the television.
Later, in the early sixties, the NAEB restructured itself, in response to the growing needs of a
fledgling educational television system, developing divisions it tasked with the various
problems educational broadcasting would have to deal with. The NAEB's ETS division, focused
primarily on Educational Television Stations, through smart leadership, led to the First National
Conference on Long-Range Financing, which in turn led to a proposal for a governmental
commission to, study ETV financial needs and make recommendations for a national policy on
educational television.
The proposal itself would have floundered if not for its eventual realization in the
privately supported Carnegie Commission for Educational Television, which eventually
produced a, blueprint for a strong and viable public television system(Avery), in late 1967; The
term educational had seemed too enclosed, and was replaced with the seemingly more open

Lunsford 3
public(Avery). This blueprint was taken in by congress, which eventually released new
legislation a few months following, signed into law by President Johnson, as an amendment to
the Communications Act of 1934. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 called for the creation of
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which still exists to today.
When issues arose for the CPB, which could not, itself, manage the interconnections
system necessary for public broadcasting, a solution was sought; one that would work without
combining too much power in the previously existing NET, the National Educational Televisions
service originally set up by the NAEB. The eventual solution was the creation of the Public
Broadcasting Service, PBS. Eventually, through a rough year of negotiations, this led to PBS
enveloping much of what used to be NET's area of influence, while taking in a few of NET's
ideals, though they lacked the strength of the Corporation itself, or its funding from the Ford
Foundation.
Before PBS could take up the mantle of actually providing public programming, it
became necessary to redefine the lines between PBS and the CPB, changing the general
relationship between the two. Issues over program selection eventually led the relationship
between the two to worsen. Following outcries over PBS's censoring of programs that did not
explicitly follow its original standards, PBS started airing some more objectionable content, in
turn causing the Nixon administration to express their dissatisfaction with the system in place.
Nixon's administration, in expressing the displeasure both they, and the public were feeling,
vetoed a bill to continue funding the disappointing public broadcasting. Increasing, and
unending, tensions between the CPB and PBS continued to cause problems, throughout the 70's,
though during this time, NPR, having kept to itself, did rather well.

Lunsford 4
Moving in to the subject of funding, rather important considering non-profit
broadcasting's inability to actually profit, the way in which the CPB controls and provides for its
varied and demographically diverse stations is, itself, interesting. While the CPB itself disperses
federal funds unto all of its supported local stations, the Federal contribution to public media
amounts to $1.35 per American per year(Congressional Digest), as according to the statutory
formula laid out in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
Of the millions upon millions of dollars required to keep the public media system
running, the 70% of the CPB's funds that it channels directly into public television and radio
stations only accounts for, on average, a little over 15% of the funding necessary. While
individual donors represent roughly just under 30% of this public media funding, more 121.9
million Americans tune into public television and 64.7 million to public radio on a monthly
basis(Congressional Digest), a startling ratio for a free public service. A near constant in recent
years has been the periodic cries for more funding, small as it may be, to keep those rural stations
unable to garner donations from their surroundings from going under, buoying their total
revenue, in some cases at least 50% of it, with federal money.
While an estimable 16% of public media's funding, and by extension, that of PBS, is
sourced from donations by local businesses, PBS itself must keep true to it's non-partisan basis,
lest it come against another public outcry for favoring any one side. By staying truly unbiased,
however, it severely limits itself. Though a majority of PBS's broadcast material is from either
itself, or independent productions, it systematically bans independent productions that receive
even partial support from labor or public interest groups(Starr), to avoid the possible accusation
of the program's airing potential was influenced by other factors than its educational depth.

Lunsford 5
Multiple times this has occurred, from a 1994 academy award winning documentary on
battered women, to another, 1997 documentary on homosexual civil rights struggles(Starr),
where the programs' airing was suddenly canceled by a hesitant PBS. The former, as one of the
producers was affiliated with a support group, and the latter, that a majority of the funding came
from, 'problematic' sources such as a lesbian action foundation and some labor unions(Starr),
all of which was donated in separate sums less than a sixth, and for a majority, less than a sixtieth
of the total sum.
The general prerogative in place is acceptable; presenting a non-biased view to the
public, but the manner in which it is put into action leaves something to be desired. While PBS
did halt the above programming to be unbiased, they did not see the need on others, for instance,
at least 17 programs paid for by pro-conservative sources(Starr). This extends to many other
programs, in which PBS aired programs that seemed to hold certain corporate interests above
others; times in which PBS's program schedule was filled by corporate interest programs
'educating' about their specific industry.
Unfortunate and skewed as it may be, these corporate-backing programs are paid for to
the extent that PBS will air them; it seems that our free, unbiased public broadcasting can only
go so far with the funding it has. While, from an objective standpoint, it makes sense that a
broadcasting service low on cash intake would follow the more profitable path, subjectively it
boggles the mind that our non-profit, non-partisan public service only follows its own rules when
it suits. When certain programs are refrained from on a controversy basis, but others are given
free reign with enough backing, it is sadly reassuring that local stations are only mandated to
broadcast about 10 hours of the national schedule; enough freedom for change. Then again, in

Lunsford 6
most cases, these local stations are in an even tighter place. Choosing programming to satisfy a
few visible viewers is easier than providing for the public as a whole, in many cases.
However, PBS's fallibility is not the focus here, but instead the weakness of its
foundation, and how that inability is a detriment to the children of today's society. Sesame Street,
a well known children's television program, has been in broadcast for nearly 30 years.
Throughout those few decades, it has closely followed it's base curriculum, designed to teach
preschoolers intellectual skills and knowledge relevant to success in school.(Anderson), to great
success. Sesame Street itself was a dramatically new idea for the time: from the professional
production techniques it used, to catering to children from less fortunate circumstances. Unlike
other 'educational' children's programs, it put real effort into research on how to best develop the
overall value of the program, in the eyes of its viewers; it meant to challenge the commercial
children's television of the time, for its viewers.
Sesame Streets' success encouraged the CPB and the very idea of educational public
broadcasting. A program that attracted a good percentage of its target viewer base, sold well, and
gave PBS some legitimate political clout. Sesame Street effectively demonstrated the worth of
educational non-profit television, which in 1990, during the first Bush administration, brought
about the Children's Television Act. The Children's Television Act of 1990, with a few extras, as
a public service condition for license renewal, broadcast television stations provide a minimal
amount of educational and informative programming for children.(Anderson), only hits a brick
wall, as its critics say, when assuming educational television actually benefits children positively.
While critics consistently chewed out Sesame Street on the premise of not being actually
educational, Nickelodeon, encouraged by the recent Children's Television Act, decided to sink

Lunsford 7
$30 million dollars into its own internally developed, curriculum based child-oriented programs.
Nickelodeon aired its child-targeting programs as part of a 5 hour block, titled Nick JR, free of
commercial interrupts. Nick Jr started with a variety of programs, all following some set
curriculum, drawing inspiration from Sesame Street's original work. With this, more and more
networks decided to work children's programs into their schedule.
However, the influx of new child-targeted programming did not equal straight benefit for
the child viewing audience. The average preschooler was exposed to 3801 food and beverage ads
per year, according to a 2009 study, with the number of advertisements only rising with age; not
surprising, with 93.5% of all child viewed advertisements being food or beverage related.
Surprising, with the main educational public broadcasting remaining very much commercialfree. A new initiative, the CFBAI, hopes to curb the effect to which these advertisers are able to
enforce upon younger children.
At it's base, the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative hopes to, shift the
mix of advertising messaging directed to children under 12 to encourage healthier dietary
choices and healthy lifestyles.(Harris), altering the mass of child-targeting advertising to
promote healthier living, as opposed to removing the advertising from their lives. Under the
CFBAI, it's 16 members, as of mid-2012, must advertise nutritionally secure foods when
advertising to viewing audiences judged by the CFBAI to child-composed, that is, when at least
35% of the television program's viewing audience is less than 12 years old. The FTC, too,
defined children's programs as those with a child-audience share of at least 30%, hopefully
ensuring the near complete envelopment of child-targeted advertisements under CFBAI's
standards. However, this sadly does not effect the roughly 40%(Harris) of food advertisements

Lunsford 8
run by non-participating companies, or the estimated $195 Million spent on other manners of
non-broadcasting child targeting. Even then, CFBAI's criteria only cover situations in which the
child audience portion is over a certain percent, though there are far too many programs to count
that would fall outside these criterions and still be, realistically, child-oriented: christmas
specials, for example.
Then again, in the absence of educational, or at least, programming not totally supported
by ad revenue, the advertisers will advertise to the easiest targets they can; children. Youths
control a vast degree of capital; In 2002, U.S. four to twelve-year-olds spent $30 billion.
American twelve to seventeen-year-olds spent $112.5 billion in 2003. In 2003, 33 million U.S.
teens aged twelve to nineteen each spent about $103 a week.(Calvert), overall quite a decent
flow of cash warrants the targeting of an easy audience. The methods used in this targeting are
scary, in and of themselves, not mentioning the large amount spent on tracking and adapting to
changes in the mentality of the target. In 2002, roughly $15 Billion was spent on marketing
communications directly targeting children(Moore); with children in the U.S. viewing an average
5 hours worth of commercials each week, this can't be considered a bad investment. The
advertised products, during those years and even now, stretch the bubble on healthy, or even
necessary. Networks with a specifically targeted child audience, like Cartoon Network, offer an
even better lineup.
Worse, though, than the ease of targeted advertising on children, is the effect. Without
considering the deeper mental effects, unhealthy advertising, or even the advertising of
unnecessary products, encourages health issues like obesity, and ingrains, at a young age, a sense
of materialism in an audience that controls a great deal of our economy. Oddly enough, the

Lunsford 9
research into harmful effects of targeted advertising has dropped off in recent years, despite the
vast growth it has undergone. Though, as children age, they begin to realize the basic differences
between commercial and mainline programming, and then the intent of commercials; hopefully
dulling their effect(Moore). With age, realization of the intent of commercial advertising may
come but simple skepticism may not be enough, as we can tell from Billions the advertisers rack
in. Though self regulatory action, like the CFBAI, and government initiatives may try to protect
them, the children are, currently, too sweet of a target.
As the value we put into the idea of educational public broadcasting decreases, so does
the effect weaken. The less we value media without hidden agenda, the less we notice it, and in
turn, the less we work against it. This, is what we have to fix; not the broadcasters, or advertisers,
but the people.

Lunsford 10
Sources Cited:
Anonymous, . "Public Broadcasting Appropriations: History and Current Request."
Congressional Digest, 90.5 (2011): 133-136.
Avery, Robert K, and Robert Pepper. "Public Broadcasting: An Institutional History of Public
Broadcasting." Journal of Communication (Pre-1986), 30.3 (1980): 2128.
Anderson, Daniel R. Educational Television Is Not an Oxymoron Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 557, Children and Television (May, 1998),
pp. 24-38
Calvert, Sandra L. "Children As Consumers: Advertising And Marketing." Future Of Children
18.1 (2008): 205-234. Education Research Complete. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Moore, Elizabeth S. Children and the Changing World of Advertising Moore Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 52, No. 2, Ethical Issues in Business: Perspectives from the
Business Academic Community (Jun., 2004), pp. 161-167
Grummell, Bernie. "The Educational Character of Public Service Broadcasting: From Cultural
Enrichment to Knowledge Society." European Journal of Communication, 24.3 (2009):
267-285.
Harris, Jennifer L, Vishnudas Sarda, Marlene B Schwartz, and Kelly D Brownell. "Redefining
'Child-directed Advertising' to Reduce Unhealthy Television Food Advertising."
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44.4 (2013): 358-364.
LeRoy, David J. "Public Broadcasting: Who Watches Public Television?." Journal of
Communication (Pre-1986), 30.3 (1980): 2159.
O'Barr, William. "A Brief History of Advertising in America." Advertising & Society Review,
11.1 (2010): .
Starr, Jerold M. "Reclaiming Public Broadcasting." USA Today, 130.2684 (2002): 44.
Vijayakumar, M, and S Thanalakshmi. "Impact of Television Advertising on Children."
International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management, 1.7 (2010): 106-109.