Dancing With the Devil: Public Broadcasting's Questionable Choices in Sponsorships

I love public programming, and it is a part of my daily life. Loving someone, however, doesn't mean being blind to their flaws (ask my boyfriend). As a rabid PBS, PRI, and NPR fan, I am circumspect to criticize they way they choose to keep themselves afloat, especially in this economy, but why do they let the corporate axis of evil -- Monsanto, Exxon, and Wal-Mart -- sponsor their otherwise socially responsible programming?

I was listening to PRI's Marketplace when I first heard the announcement that Monsanto was the show's proud sponsor. I thought it was an auditory hallucination. The monopolistic agricultural company -- whose many, many sins include being the leading producer of the toxic defoliant Agent Orange, the illegal dumping of toxic waste in the UK, being accountable for 56 contaminated sites in the US, introducing the synthetic bovine growth hormone rGBH, and monopolizing agricultural development through the use of genetically modified corn -- had the chutzpah to make their tagline "committed to sustainable agriculture".

I also can't help but choke every time Exxon Mobile, the company which supported claims that deny global warning, investing less than any other oil company in alternative fuel research, is hailed as the proud sponsor of Nightly News Report, using airtime to tell the public that they are "committed to reducing greenhouse emissions" (maybe they meant they are committed to reducing anything that gets in the way of their profits)?

I don't even want to think about the sponsorship plug for Wal-Mart that was on PBS the other night.

It is no secret that money makes the world go round, or in this case, makes public broadcasting go round (just try listening to NPR during the fall funds drive), but how did these irresponsible corporate conglomerates end up getting their life-sucking tentacles into educational programming?

And while PBS.org maintains that viewers are more likely to purchase an item from a PBS sponsor then a non-sponsor when all other variables are equal, it still seems like Exxon and Wal-Mart are barking up the wrong tree. Those at home watching two hour shows on polar bears aren't doing to swallow that Exxon is an environmentally progressive company. Not only are they more likely to be more knowledgeable about corporate misdeeds in the first place, and thus know when they are being lied to, but they are more likely to hop on a bike then drive in the first place.

While socially conscious businesses cannot afford to spread the wealth the way Coca-Cola (who sponsors Charlie Rose) can, they would jump at the opportunity to contribute to the sponsorship of a like-minded program. Isn't there a way to have somewhat responsible sponsorship? Do PBS, NPR, and PRI really need the worst of all worlds to stay afloat?

If the answer is yes, they could still shoot for a "C" or better when soliciting for sponsorship dollars. If they need the support of big buck oil companies, ok. So keep Chevron (which sponsor's Jim Leher), but ditch the reigning oil-king of evil. If Liberty Mutual continues to fund American Experiences, fine, but if AIG ever comes knocking (which as far as I know they haven't), please, please, please run the other way.

On PBS.org, they give regulating sponsorship a shot, disallowing any ads which include a "call to action," "R rated movies," "vulgar" or "controversial topics." Even if they do decide they need dirty dollars to continue programming, they could at least keep these questionable companies from using public airspace to propagate falsehoods about their business practices. They could up their commercial integrity and keep America's public airways free of at least this kind of pollution by adding one more restriction to their list of regulations- no lies.

Viewers can also help out by upping their support (i.e.: by pledging money) with a note saying more is coming if they ditch the bad guy. I know my next pledge will come with an attached note saying that anytime I hear an add for Monsanto come on, I'm going to cheat on them with KPFK.

Comments

[Clinton Forry]

PRI does not distribute Marketplace. The company that takes care of that is American Public Media (APM).

[tuckgraph]

Once congress started cutting funds for public broadcasting, there had to be an alternative source of revenue. I find it hard to believe that PBS and NPR went knocking on the doors of these questionable sponsors. My guess is Monsanto, Exxon, Wal-Mart, et al came to them with offers they couldn't refuse! It's called corporate fascism, and it permeates every level of our government. They lobbied congress to cut the funding, so they could fund them for themselves.

Yes, it is a "Great Right Wing Conspiracy." Are these new sponsorships affecting programming and content over our public broadcasting networks? I couldn't tell you, but I know these guys don't like to make bad investments.

[BuzzingAlong]

The served the right-wing republicans, including the Cheney/Bush administration, for eight years.

Why is their accepting money from Monsanto, Exxon, and Wal-Mart so surprising?

[ordinaryjoe]

So the solution is for PBS to seek other, "C or better" sponsors? Who might those sponsors be? Do you suppose PBS has not already tried this? My guess is that it has already been tried. We all know how low listener support is right now - so where should the funding come from, or should the doors be shuttered?

It's sad when a show like "This American Life" can't get any sponsors at all.

[blood1]

OK, this is the DUH answer...PBS used to be supported by our government...but when the previous adminstration started cutting all that "useless funding" for the ARTS, MUSIC Education and PBS, they have to have sufficient funds in order to pay for all their outstanding programming...and so they started with advertisers.

Don't like it....did you like your TAX cuts?

Nothing is FREE...unless you think all their programming has no costs?

The economic crisis will not be a good time for these national broadcasters to go to DC and lobby for ways to free themselves from paid advertisers....I can hear the howls 3000 miles away!

So the choice: Shut down or Paid Advertisers....no free lunch...no matter how good the programming!

[lglglg]

In many cases, I record PBS shows on my DVR and then fast-forward over the "acknowledgements" that run just before the shows begin. Of course, I can see the logos, and sustained printed materials so I can't bypass them altogether. One that really irks me is the message from THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY just before Gwen Ifill's "Washington Week". I almost cough involuntarily just thinking about it.

[Rtaco]

Interesting article with some good points.
Although while reading this article I was bombarded by advertisements by Microsoft, McDonalds, GE, and Ditech. Unfortunately ad sponsored content is the model in the foreseeable future. It is up to us to be “Above the Influence”.

[mjwca]

I don't particularly have a problem with large corporations sponsoring programming on the public airwaves but I do have a problem with allowing them to run commercials for their business. And they are commercials, the same ones I see on network TV, much as CPB and NPR deny it. They should be limited to a similar type of mention the private foundation sponsors do. And, in fact, that is what public corporations used to have to settle for. You can thank your sell out Congress (both parties) and the government appointed public broadcasting executives appointed by them, for all the sell outs. This is just one more example of how government in our country is for sale and purchase by multinationals. And to those whose reply is "yeah, so go live someplace else" - how about you people try standing up for the principles this country was founded on for a change instead of making lazy excuses for bad behavior by your government and corporate community.

[BonnieJW]

Thanks so much for this article. I cringe each morning when that Monsanto blurb comes on. I won't eat anything that contains corn, corn products, soy or soy products because they are always GMO crops when added to a product. Try and find a bread without soy in it.

[Halsey]

See..while I may not like Exxon sullying my pbs station or NPR, etc...trust me...IF they (PBS)..didn't NEED the $$ to keep on the air..they wouldn't take it. But...if they have to let the devil in..to stay on the air..well..maybe "when" the economy improves and more wealthy do the charitable trust thing (intead of leaving the family jewels to...say Paris Hilton...s­orry..ther­e are others..she's just an easy target)...­then..we'l­l hear no more "brought to you by Monsanto"..etc... when I hear those words..they are just white noise..period...I can ignore them as I still find PBS (with its BBC tie ins)..the best place for news and even opinion... I can only give $25.00 each drive period..and that's even tough now...so heck..I'll take Exxon's money...and consider it ironic...since I DO know they are the devil...naively thinking they'll change my mind about them?...I DON'T think so :-)...

oh..glad ;you mentined Liberty Mutual...I have them for disability (cancer)...and they've been GREAT..ONE CASE worker has been with me the entire time...to me..that is GREAT service since I don't have to re-tell my story over and over... but AIG...bleck... too bad Madoff can't make a donation..now THAT would be funny!

[raker]

You can't see a sporting event or a play or even get a hamburger or a bowl of spaghetti that isn't a crass imitation of itself, fouled by corporate dollars. That goes double for PBS and NPR.

[medicontheedge]

i stopped making donations to PBS long ago for just these reasons, and also the fact that i refuse to pay extra for programming that includes COMMERCIALS.

[ordinaryjoe]

Where do you get your news, then? Is there a source that has the depth and breadth that PBS has that *doesn't* accept funding from the objectionable sources listed? This is an actual, honest question, not a snide remark.

[larry278]

Listener supported public broadcasting needs corporate money to augment the money of donars. The nasty truth is that public broadcasting is commercial broadcasting. There are fewer & shorter commercials on public broadcasting but they are commercials.

[gulopartisan]

PBS was dragged into the media whorehouse by the Bush administration. Even if the organization ever returns to legitimate journalism, the taint will remain.
The United States was a great experiment: a government to protect the powerless from the powerful. It didn't work.

[gs425]

Then leave and find out how bad you have it.

[chipduyck]

Thank you for your article
On the same day Intel was busted in Europe for antitrust violation resulting in a billion dollar fine
guess who was advertising on pbs as a sponsor?
Also the "Come to Israel " campaign is running on pbs as their current government is expanding illegal settlements.
One reason why i stopped trusting pbs news.
Pbs is being used by any body with the money to buy them.