U.S. Funding Called ‘Essential’ for Public TV : Funding: Corp. for Public Broadcasting report finds cost savings and alternative revenue would not make up for lost government assistance.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, under orders by Congress to come up with a plan to become independent of federal funding for public TV and radio, submitted its report for cost savings and alternative revenue options on Tuesday but flatly concluded that these “could not compensate for a complete loss of the federal appropriation.”

“Continued public support is essential,” said the corporation’s 12-page report, entitled “Common Sense for the Future.”

Prepared over a two-month period with financial analysis provided by Lehman Brothers and in consultation with leading public broadcasting organizations, the report said that new sources of revenue “might generate $11.1 million in income starting in 1996, and by 2000, this might grow to $76.7 million.

“In the most aggressive scenario analyzed by Lehman Brothers,” the report continued, “public broadcasting could expect to reduce its annual costs by $96 million over five years.”

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting currently receives $285.6 million a year from Congress, which represents 14% of public broadcasting’s annual income of $1.8 billion. The report was ordered amid ongoing battles over funding for public radio and TV, with some lawmakers wanting to “zero out” all federal support.

*

In March, the House voted to cut 15% from the 1996 appropriation of $305 million to $258 million, and 30% from the 1997 appropriation of $315 million to $221 million. The Senate approved an across-the-board freeze at the current level. These numbers must now be reconciled in legislative conference.

Signaling some differences within public broadcasting, PBS, National Public Radio, the Assn. of America’s Public Television Stations and Public Radio International issued its own report at a joint press conference in Washington.

A major difference between the two reports involves the establishment of a trust fund, the income from which would support and supplement public broadcasting’s needs. Both support such a fund but CPB did not specify how it was to be generated.

The joint PBS-NPR report, however, said that such a fund, modeled on similar trusts created by Congress for the American Red Cross and the U.S. Olympic Committee, might be built with proceeds from various fees on the use of the public airwaves, contributions by commercial broadcasters in place of their public-interest obligations (such as for children’s programming) and private contributions that would be encouraged by tax credits.

Rep. John E. Porter (R-Ill.), chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee on labor, health and human services and education, said that it was “very encouraging that a lot of ideas have now been generated and put on the table as a means of reaching the goal of a CPB (that is) independent of the federal subsidy and not commercialized.”

On the issue of whether commercial advertising might solve public broadcasting’s financial needs, the CPB report concluded that it would be “a net money loser” because of the negative impact of additional taxes, higher union fees, commissions to ad agencies and lost contributors.

But CPB proposed allowing stations that favor commercials to conduct “a carefully controlled experiment” to test the results, much like one conducted in public TV more than a decade ago. An estimated 20 to 25 stations would be willing to participate but the plan would likely need approval from Congress and the Federal Communications Commission.