I once counted and was surprised that "Marketplace" had 21 different funders. (No corporate funder covers the entire budget; nor would we be comfortable relying on just one funder.) And a few years ago, "Marketplace" pointed the microphone at itself, hiring an independent producer reporting to an independent editorial board to look at commercialism in public radio, including our relationship with major funder GE. (You can hear the three-part series on the "Marketplace" Web site.) In that series, NPR anchorman Scott Simon summed up the dilemma, saying:

I frankly don't like to hear some of the funding credits I hear. Let's put it this way: I find them indistinguishable from ads. But I say this as someone who has a vested interest in getting them on the air, certainly. To provide the kind of programming hour after hour, excellent programming that we've provided for the past 15 years, takes a lot more money. And we have to figure out ways of raising it and for the moment this is the way we do it. And it's hardly a perfect system.

So, in the end, the bills have to be paid. Those who give you money have an agenda, a purpose and a mission. The real question is this: Do they value their association with public broadcasting enough to protect it? Do they value it enough to avoid trying to influence the editorial integrity of its programs?

The potential for conflict is always there with corporate, foundation and government funding. At the end of the day, the producer, the network and the stations have to stand on their own two feet. We have to know what is and what is not for sale.

Milam suggests that we were somehow purer in the early '70s when NPR began, and that now we've sold our souls in mainstream public radio. I was at NPR on Day 1. In those early days, we sometimes thought providing an "alternative" meant covering news nobody else did. Then an NPR official pointed out that "being better is also an alternative." I don't think it is necessary to fail in order to preserve and nourish one's soul.

	Also Today National Private Radio A veteran of community broadcasting blasts public stations for selling their souls to the highest bidders. By Lorenzo W. Milam Print story E-mail story

In the past year, public radio has broadcast thousands of hours of extraordinary programming, including extensive in-depth coverage of Election 2000; The Execution Tapes; NPR's e-mails from Kosovo; American Radioworks, including Minnesota Public Radio's duPont-Columbia Gold Baton winner, Massacre at Cuska; Prison Diaries; The Forgotten Fourteen Million, an exploration of youth poverty in America, winner of a Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award; Latino USA's The Betrayal of Sister Dianna Ortiz, and Marketplace's Peabody Award-winning On the Road in Cuba, Missouri.

Public radio is a big success in America, one that needs more public support and more corporate and foundation backing. It does not bother me in the slightest if businesses want to improve their image by associating themselves with good works and public radio's fond place in Americans' hearts and minds. I welcome them with open arms and a crystal-clear idea of what they and we can and cannot say and do to acknowledge their support.

So, we have a choice. If you're a loyal listener, you have to ask yourself: "Do I listen because there are no commercials or because of the excellence of the programming?" Either we Americans can start paying, spontaneously and realistically, for high-quality broadcasting. Or we must tolerate the occasional pledge drive and messages pronouncing corporate citizenship.

Because I no longer believe in the tooth fairy, but I do demand excellence in broadcasting, I think the choice is absolutely clear. So do 1,870,000 members nationwide. They and 20 million other listeners are the "public" in public radio.

The Free Software Project
Read Andrew Leonard's book-in-progress on Linux and open source -- and post your comments.