A Twenty-First Century Library of Selected Thought and Analysis About Public Media Volume1 The Hennock Institute Contents Volume1 OVERVIEWOFTHELANDSCAPE ReportontheFutureofPublicBroadcasƟng—CarnegieCommission,1979 4 PublicMediaSpectrumPolicyandRethinkingPublicInterestObligaƟonsforthe 12 21stCentury—NewAmericanFoundaƟon BuildingaDigitalDemocracyThroughPublicMedia—CenterforAmericanProgress 39 AcƟonFund 2009MediaandTechPrioriƟes—FreepressAcƟonFund 50 CivicEngagementandCommunityInformaƟon—KnightCommission 62 PublicRadio2010—ChallengeandOpportunity—StaƟonResourceGroup 102 InformingCommuniƟes:SustainingDemocraciesintheDigitalAge—KnightComͲ 114 mission PublicMedia2.0—Dynamic,EngagedPublics—AmericanUniv.,CenterforSocialMedia 262 RethinkingPublicMedia—KnightCommission 290 ConnecƟngtheEdges—AspenInsƟtute 344 EDUCATION ADigitalGiŌtotheNaƟon—LarryGrossman&NewtonMinow 401 DigitalandMediaLiteracy:APlanofAcƟon—KnightCommission 405 Volume2 PUBLICTELEVISION IsThereSƟllaPlaceforPublicServiceTelevision?—ReutersInsƟtute,OxfordUniverͲ 468 sity TheEndofTelevisionasWeKnowIt—IBMBusinessConsulƟngServices 549 ScenariosfortheFutureofPublicBroadcasƟng—DennisHaarsager 576 BigBirdtotheRescue?—ElizabethJensen,ColumbiaJournalismReview 584 NEWMEDIA GovernmentTransparency:SixStrategiesforaMoreOpenandParƟcipatory 595 Government—KnightCommission CreaƟngLocalOnlineHubs—KnightCommission 635 UniversalBroadband:TargeƟngInvestmentstoBringBroadbandServicestoAll 669 Americans—KnightCommission Mobile Internet and Broadcast Radio — Skip Pizzi, Staon Resource Group 704 Public Radio in the New Network Age — Staon Resource Group 711 Public Radio 2.0: New Media Working Group — Skip Pizzi, Public Radio New Media Working 810 Group NPR Opens Pandora’s Box on News Strategy—Digital Skepc 816 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE The Path to Significance—Staon Resource Group 818 Making the Case: Transformave Growth in Public Media’s Local Journalism—Staon 822 Resource Group White Paper on Public Media Collaboraon Models— Corporaon for Public Broadcasng 832 FINANCE Examining the Great Divide Between Larger and Lesser Total Staon Revenue Sta- 835 ons— Mark Fuerst, Public Radio Futures Forum Annual Growth Rates in Licensee Revenues—Mark Fuerst, Public Radio Futures Forum 840 Finding the Next 100 Million Dollars— Mark Fuerst, Public Radio Futures Forum 848 Individual Giving to Public Radio Staons— Staon Resource Group 864 Several arcles contained in this compilaon were originally created as Powerpoint presentaons. The content of A Digital Gi to the Naon, Scenarios for the Future of Public Broadcasng and Making the Case: Transformave Growth in Public Media’s Journalism were, accordingly, ported into the document format contained here. Report of the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting — Summary of Findings and Recommendations In 1977, a decade after the first Carnegie Commission established the idea of federal funding for noncommercial broadcasting, the Carnegie Corporation of New York appointed a followup panel to study the progress and needs of the field. Carnegie II’s report, A Public Trust, was released Jan. 30, 1979, was generally less influential. See also the commission’s membership and the preface to the report. This is the report’s summary: The Public Telecommunications Trust | The Endowment Funding | Television Programs and Services | Public Radio Technology | Education and Learning | Public Accountability Although few of us recognized it in 1965, an era of American dominance was coming to an end just as public broadcasting was coming to birth. Perhaps as acutely as any other American institution, the system of public broadcasting was caught in the transition from an American outlook that we could do anything we chose, to today’s anxiety that we may have chosen to do too much. Public broadcasting was conceived as a major new national institution, an ambitious concept that would transcend the limited fare, centered principally on public education, offered by several hundred noncommercial television and radio stations then in existence. In less than a dozen years, among the most turbulent and pivotal in our history, public broadcasting has managed to establish itself as a national treasure. From the backwaters of an industry long dominated by commercial advertising, the public system has come into its own. Millions now watch and hear, applaud, and criticize a unique public institution which daily enters their homes with programs that inform, engage, enlighten, and delight. In that sense, the ideal has been realized: public broadcasting has made a difference. Public broadcasting is now firmly embedded in the national consciousness, financed by the people who use it, as well as by an array of organized elements within society, including businesses, state, and local governments, universities and school boards, foundations, and, of course, the federal government. It was the Congress and President who, in 1967, set up the organizational framework and turned on the flow of much-needed federal dollars supporting the operations and programs of public radio and television as we know them today. There is a necessarily ambivalent relationship between public broadcasting — a highly visible creative and journalistic enterprise — and the government. The dynamics of a free press and a democratic government are unpredictable enough without adding the addition al complication of federal financial support. Herein lies the fundamental dilemma that has revealed itself over and over again in public broadcasting’s brief history and led to the empanelment of this Commission: how can public broadcasting be organized so that sensitive judgments can be freely made and creative activity freely carried out without destructive quarreling over whether the system is subservient to a variety of powerful forces including the government? Commercial broadcasting’s entire output is defined by an imperative need to reach mass audiences in order to sell products. Despite the evident need for an alternative addressed more realistically to the problems and the triumphs of American life, public broadcasting has yet to resolve the dilemma posed by its own structure. Upon the framework of the 1967 legislation a complex institution has been constructed, one that has not always been able to cultivate the creative in preference to the bureaucratic. Financial worries upstage creative urges, even among the best of institutions. And this one has experienced considerable financial worries. By 1970, the skeleton of a national structure was in place. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) — a nonprofit leadership institution created by Congress and governed by private citizens appointed by the President — would receive federal and other funds, disburse them to stations and producers, and support a wide range of activities to strengthen and expand the system. Two national, nonstatutory organizations created by CPB — the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) for television and National Public Radio (NPR) for radio — would interconnect the stations, distribute programs, and provide other services to enhance the national and local programming mission. And there were the stations themselves, upon which the national system was built. Independent and diverse institutions scattered throughout the land, the public radio and television stations are the focal point for audiences because only they can determine the mix of programs that best serves the unique characteristics of their own communities. There are high and low points in the telling of public broadcasting’s first full decade — the 1972 veto of federal funding for the system, the reorganizations of PBS and NPR, multiyear funding in 1975, the development of the satellite and the Public Telecommunications Financing Act of 1978, not to mention innumerable programming successes and much-improved service. Nonetheless, we find public broadcasting’s financial, organizational and creative structure fundamentally flawed. In retrospect, what public broadcasting tried to invent was a truly radical idea: an instrument of mass communication that simultaneously respects the artistry of the individuals who create programs, the needs of the public that form the audience, and the forces of political power that supply the resources. Sadly, we conclude that the invention did not work, or at least not very well. Institutional pressures became unbalanced in a dramatically short time. They remain today — despite the best efforts of the thousands within the industry and the millions who support it — out of kilter and badly in need of repair. Our proposal is an attempt to balance the manifold pressures within and upon an institution that in many ways mirrors the complex divisions of today’s America, providing the means with which the system can reach its fullest potential for creative excellence and program diversity. We necessarily concentrate upon the design of national organizations, their relation to the station system, and the funding mechanisms by which ‘ill components of the system can enjoy a stable source of funding without threat of interference with programming independence. The practical outcome of this proposal will be the establishment of institutions and the implementation of fiscal and management policies. However, our objective transcends this level of detail. Throughout our investigation and our report we return to a central theme: this institution, singularly positioned within the public de bate, the creative and journalistic communities, and a technological horizon