I never thought I’d see the day when “Sesame Street” became the center point of American political discourse, but thanks to the controversy spurred by Mitt Romney over federal funding for National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Station, I now get to experience Big Bird being the star of a major Obama campaign advertisement. First, let me say that while this ad somewhat misses the point and strikes me as fairly immature—not to mention is unfair to the copyright holders of “Sesame Street”—it raises an interesting point when you consider the role public broadcasting has in America. It is a medium that should not be maligned and ignored if America wishes to gain standing in the world of education and self-motivated learning.
In my mind, the major function of public broadcasting has been to encourage Americans to take an interest in learning. If I ever bring up the topic of early childhood television in conversation, I am immediately assaulted with gushing reviews of “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” “Zaboomafoo” and “the Magic School Bus,” to name a few personal favorites. Without these programs, I would likely have found myself with a severely underdeveloped appreciation for science and discovery in general. There is no doubt that many of my peers feel the same way. Let’s consider the alternative if this seems a little extreme.
A child who watches TV wants to be entertained, first and foremost. The television industry, through little fault of their own, caters to that desire. They’re just obeying the demands of the market. But what we see emerging from independent TV studios is not designed to be educational, but to encourage as many kids to watch it as possible. Slowly but steadily, programs that focus purely on learning about the world around us are fading from national consciousness. Even supposedly educational networks (I’m looking at you, “Discovery” and “History” channels) are devolving from their ideal of showing interesting yet informative material into seeing how many “real life” alien invasions and ghost stories they can fit into a day’s worth of programming.
NPR, meanwhile, stands as a bastion of reliable news reports and interesting programs in a sea of mindless politically charged talk radio and Top 40 stations. No, it wouldn’t likely hold up in a purely competitive market, but that’s the reason why the government needs to subsidize public broadcasting—so it can produce material independent of the market’s whims.
Comparatively speaking, the budget for PBS and NPR is ridiculously low. At less than 0.001 percent of the total federal budget, funding should be a non-issue, especially when compared to the amount of money this country spends devising new ways to kill people more efficiently.
I don’t know exactly what the purpose of Romney’s anti-broadcasting rhetoric is in this case, but I’ll wager it has something to do with seeming like he’s willing to take action to reduce the budget deficit while actually not doing much of anything. If he wants to talk tough, I’d grant that cutting back in health care and social security benefits are valid points. However, to bring public broadcasting into the debate is ridiculous in the highest sense of the word. No, the impact can’t be directly quantified, but the positive effect that it has in increasing the quality of public discourse and knowledge far outweighs any costs we as taxpayers may incur.
The desire to cut funding for one of the purest forms of public well-being out there seems to be pointless grandstanding by a man who is grasping at straws for salient talking points. This trend of anti-intellectualism perpetrated by the conservative leadership needs to stop if it want to maintain its credibility. America cannot afford its slide toward mindlessness, no matter how strongly it might desire to do so.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
