Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 marked a significant development in the evolution of educational broadcasting in the United States, transitioning it into a platform for news, entertainment, and education. This legislation established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to distribute federal funding to public broadcasting entities, aiming to ensure diverse and balanced programming. However, the Act included content restrictions to mitigate concerns about potential government influence and the risk of propaganda.
Notably, Section 399 prohibited public broadcasters from editorializing or endorsing political candidates, while allowing individual commentators to express opinions, thereby aiming to protect stations from political pressures. This provision was later challenged and ultimately deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984, affirming the First Amendment rights of public broadcasters. Additionally, the Act mandated that CPB-funded programming maintain objectivity and balance, a requirement that was scrutinized over the years due to concerns about infringements on expressive freedom.
Despite these measures intended to safeguard impartiality, the reliance on congressional funding left public broadcasters vulnerable to political influences, as exemplified by instances of funding cuts in response to perceived biases in programming. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, therefore, represents a complex interplay between fostering public media and safeguarding freedom of expression within the broadcasting landscape.
Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
Enacted: November 7, 1967
Place: United States (national)
Significance: Although this law was designed to develop public broadcasting, its content restrictions and failure to designate a dedicated source of federal funding constrained public broadcasting’s expressive freedom
The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 has been credited with helping what had been known as educational radio and television evolve into a mature source of news, entertainment, and education. However, because some legislators were concerned that federal involvement in broadcasting might lead to an “Orwellian” government network used for propaganda purposes, the law also included two important content restrictions.
Section 399 prevented public broadcasters from editorializing or supporting political candidates. Although it allowed individual commentators to express opinions, this section constrained station managements from broadcasting their own opinions. Some congressional advocates of the provision contended that it would help insulate stations from political pressure to support particular issues or candidates. Other supporters acknowledged that they had been the targets of commercial press editorials in the past and welcomed the ability to restrain public broadcasting from editorializing. More than a decade later a consortium of groups challenged the constitutionality of section 399. In 1984 the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn the provision as a violation of public broadcasters’ First Amendment rights in Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women Voters. The Court’s majority opinion stated that the value of editorial contributions to the marketplace of ideas outweighed any harm that public broadcasters might suffer if their editorials angered politicians.
Another restrictive provision of the Public Broadcasting Act required all programs or series funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)—which had been created by the act to channel federal dollars to public stations—to maintain objectivity and balance. Demanding such balance was viewed as a means of ensuring that public stations would not serve as propaganda voices for those supporting one side of controversial issues. In 1975 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), responding to a complaint over two allegedly biased public television programs, held that it could enforce no stronger requirement than the fairness doctrine—an FCC regulation calling for balanced coverage of issues over a station’s overall programming. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld that decision, ruling that requiring the FCC to demand balance within individual programs or series would threaten broadcasters’ expressive freedom. That case did not end congressional attempts to mandate greater objectivity within public broadcasting.
In 1992 Congress attached an amendment to the CPB funding bill, requiring the CPB to ensure that public television programming was balanced and objective, and to report annually to Congress on its progress toward achieving such balance. Congress’ action illustrates the Public Broadcasting Act’s greatest threat to public broadcasters’ freedom of speech: its failure to provide for any source of dedicated federal funding. Requiring public broadcasters to depend on congressional appropriations for a significant part of their operating budgets meant that legislators unhappy with public broadcasting programming could manifest their displeasure by reducing the system’s funding. This power was exemplified in 1972 when President Richard Nixon, angered by what he perceived as public television’s liberal bias, vetoed CPB’s appropriations bill.