Redefining PBS: Give 'em gobs of cash?

Fresspress.net republishes an article on the financial future of public service broadcasting -- and specifically an attempt by PBS to create for itself a permanent trust fund from the government auction of the spectrum that is currently being used for analog television (broadcasters are supposed to give it up by about 2008 or 2009 -- though no-one's quite sure exactly when -- as they move permanently to digital broadcasting). The Freepress.net article describes this as "an endless Holy Grail-like quest since its founding in the 1960s: to secure ongoing and independent funding for noncommercial radio and TV." It goes on:

For decades, public TV and radio have been buffeted by political forces of Congress, which controls the key federal contributions to its annual budget. It's always been kept on a very short funding leash, which has helped keep both PBS and NPR from engaging in the kind of programming that would significantly challenge the status quo (both of media and of politics). But PBS President Pat Mitchell believes that there is now a serious opportunity to create a permanent trust fund worth billions of dollars. The new funding initiative will recommend how PBS (and presumably NPR and public TV and radio stations) can gain the revenues made possible from the sale of publicly owned airwaves.

The key question is, what would PBS do with this massive public windfall -- especially when so many people have in recent years suggested that PBS doesn't know what to do with the system it's got now? As the article points out:

For example, before any discussion of raising new revenues, we should be assured that the spirit of the original mission of public broadcasting is fully honored. Where is the commitment to producing serious news and public affairs (both at the station and national level)? How will significant programming slots be controlled by persons of color (at a time when Tavis Smiley, for example, is quitting NPR for its failure to "meaningfully reach out" to a multi-cultural audience)? How much of the schedule will be controlled by independent producers? Will ad-like underwriting vanish from PBS, especially its news and children's programs? How will the governance of public broadcasting change so it becomes more democratic? What new innovative programming ventures will be created that can harness the more than 2,000 digital channels soon to be available to public TV?

Funnily enough, these are just the kinds of questions (though not of course the exact same questions) currently being asked by Lord Burns in his BBC Charter review. Certainly, public largesse should require careful consideration about how broadcasting should best serve the public. Of course, the same thing should apply to commercial broadcasters using the public spectrum ... shouldn't it?