Is PBS doomed? Is NPR about to become extinct?

Writing in TheWrap this week (http://bit.ly/hmTG8k), Brent Lang interviews politicians who seem to think they can succeed killing off these two “left-leaning” organizations. But I’m not buying it.

First: full disclosure. I hosted a weekly business series on the nine-station PBS network in Georgia for nearly 30 years. It was a remarkable experience for which I’ll be forever grateful. I had the support of successive management teams until last year. Producing the series for three decades, I gained a perspective on the business side of public broadcasting.

Public broadcasting is a business model that doesn’t work. Much of the funding comes from state and federal governments and is prone to political whims that don’t have anything to do with programming.

The Feds help fund public TV programs at the national level in a convoluted and inefficient system called the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. State lawmakers hold the local money spigot and come budget time are usually uninformed about the value of their area’s non-commercial radio and TV stations. I’ve seen them make funding decisions based on a phone call from a constituent, something they heard second hand or comments made about them on the air by a fellow lawmaker.

I’ve seen a case where a public broadcasting board member, named because of political connections, didn’t really understand which of the two local PBS stations she represented.

What’s different right now is that government budgets are under siege. Some conservative lawmakers who view Fox News as fair and balanced are lining up to terminate taxpayer-funded “liberal” PBS and NPR. And in fact there is a greater chance than ever that government funding of public stations will shrink in 2011.

Never flush with cash (the public TV group I’ve worked with at one point didn’t even have a sales department), a reduction in funding could pose a big problem. More rounds of layoffs would likely follow and some weak stations could go dark.

And yet, as you’ve probably experienced personally, what at first seems like a setback could actually be an opportunity.

Public broadcasting is protective of its role informing America. PBS Chief Paula Kerger said on our show that trust is PBS’s #1 asset, and I’m not suggesting they lower their standards. “America’s Biggest Loser” has no place on public broadcasting, nor do endless promotional bugs that clog the screen on cable networks.

But injecting greater market-driven forces into public broadcasting could stabilize it. Earning increased financial support from advertisers and local viewers will require creative thinking and aggressive execution.

Public broadcasters will be forced to develop their own compelling local productions that underwriters (advertisers) will pay for, viewers will watch and that will integrate stations into the community even more.

After 30 years, I hated to lose my show, of course. It and others were cancelled because new management wanted to end production of staid talking-heads shows that had “Georgia” in the title. They wanted to produce bigger, more compelling television.

Is that so wrong? Public television that’s forced to compete without a government stipend will be more vital, more responsive and more alive. Maybe a show like mine would have been had resources to make for more compelling television. And frankly we wouldn’t have lasted 30 years if we didn’t move the ratings needle that validated how useful we were to the community.

At this point, I need to draw a distinction between public radio and public TV. They both operate on non-commercial TV channels and radio frequencies and are bound by government regulations about how much advertising they can run and even what can be said in the ads.

Your local NPR radio station can do more for underwriters than your local PBS TV station can offer because NPR allows it. NPR affiliates can sell announcements during shows like “Wait…Wait…Don’t Tell Me” and “Morning Edition,” not just before and after. Advertisers want that.

As a result, here in Atlanta the NPR station is a cash machine. It’s well managed, highly rated and charges rates approaching what commercial stations get for 15-second announcements.

But public television is different. Because of PBS rules, public TV stations can only run limited announcements at the beginning and end of programs that limits revenue they can earn. That in turn stifles innovation and encourages them to punch up the network instead of producing unique local programs.

Giving public broadcasting the ability to fend for itself is going to require a change in the rules that govern how they generate cash. Outlets that adapt will survive. Those who don’t, won’t. It’s a philosophy every conservative should love.

Some career public broadcasters will probably dismiss my line of thinking. “It’s the public’s obligation to support us,” I’ve heard. They’ll point to local commercial broadcasters who have downsized staffs, in some cases sacrificed the quality of their local news product and struggle to find a model that works in their new reality. Where else will we get American Experience, Nova or Sesame Street?

Those are some of the best shows on television. But what about producing more local fare to go along? That’s the real potential value of a public license.

Public broadcasting has the freedom to do more: more local programs, more events, more of what commercial broadcasters can’t because the programming doesn’t necessarily generate competitive ratings. That local content will generate grass roots support, something those busy local lawmakers will respond to.

Once public broadcasters understand sales, promotion and pricing (and as quasi-government entities, they do not), they could actually benefit from less government control and fewer government threats. And maybe even do away with pledge drives.