Transparency Needed in Publicly Funded News


The Maine Public Broadcasting Network (MPBN) provides some of the best and sometimes only coverage of statewide policy issues.  That coverage often sets the agenda and shapes public opinion. Like Fox News, MSNBC  and Maine’s newspapers, MPBN has biases which effects it’s news judgement, influencing what issues it covers or ignores and how.

The First Amendment protects the media from government meddling, but competition and credibility concerns have led most media outlets towards more transparency regarding their ideological bents and potential conflicts of interest. MPBN, as a pseudo “public” entity providing a public good while receiving a taxpayer subsidy has a higher responsibility in this area than private entities, and they have failed to meet this responsibility.

MPBN has resisted efforts to disclose their underwriting/sponsor relationships when an MPBN news story involves or quotes one of those underwriter/sponsors. The public has a right to know that MPBN’s news judgement and coverage might be impacted by their financial dependence on an underwriter/sponsor, and MPBN has a responsibility to disclose those relationships when they do a story involving their underwriters/sponsors.

Here are three examples of underwriters MPBN should be disclosing when they are covered and/or quoted in stories:

Efficiency Maine

Efficiency Maine is an MPBN underwriter /sponsor. Efficiency Maine is largely funded through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap and trade program that taxes energy producers and directs those funds towards energy efficiency investments. MPBN has frequently covered or quoted Efficiency Maine in recent years, with stories from MPBN stalwarts Susan Sharon, A.J. Higgins, Mal Leary and Tom Porter. The most recent story noted a controversial (to environmentalists and Democrats at least) PUC decision to cut allowed program spending by almost 2/3. Such a cut would almost certainly reduce Efficiency Maine’s underwriting capacity. None of the stories included a disclosure of Efficiency Maine’s underwriting/sponsor status.

First Wind

First Wind is an MPBN underwriter/sponsor.  MPBN has frequently covered First Wind related stories.  Last fall, Jay Field reported on the acquisition of First Wind ; last month A.J. Higgins reported on a PUC decision to reexamine a First Wind project permit.  None of the stories included a disclosure of First Wind’s underwriting/sponsor status.

Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM)

The NRCM is a long time and prominent MPBN underwriter. MPBN frequently  quotes NRCM staff and board members. None of the stories included a disclosure of the NRCM’s underwriting/sponsor status.

Senator David Burns (R-Washington) has introduced LD 252, An Act to Increase Transparency of Entities Receiving Substantial Amounts of Public Funding.  The bill is an attempt to shame MPBN into doing the right thing. When MPBN does a story which substantially involves and/or quotes from an underwriter/sponsor, that underwriting/sponsor relationship should be disclosed. The hearing is April 1st, and I’m sure MPBN and the environmental left will have plenty of lame excuses as to why MPBN’s lack of transparency should continue unchallenged.


  1. PBS was a much needed addition to broadcast television when it was first introduced almost 50 years ago when all we had were the three major networks to chose from. Now that we have more channels and networks than Carter has peanuts it’s time to remove all public (government) funding from this network. They can sink or swim just like all the others. If they produce programing that the viewers enjoy they will swim along nicely if they don’t they will cease to exist. At the very least they will stop picking my pocket for donations extracted from my taxes.

  2. First Wind only exists thanks to legislation passed during the King administration and further enhanced during the Baldacci administration; legislation which artificially supports wind power by not allowing the much cheaper hydropower to be considered renewable energy. It also forces the major part of our energy portfolio to come from renewable resources. The result is that our electricity costs are much higher than they need to be, thereby subsidizing the wind industry. Wind power needs to be developed and tested, but not implemented at the levels it has been until the technology will allow it to be delivered at competitive prices on its own merits, not by legislating its support by the public. I have not supported MPBS for years because I do not share their particular view biases, but now that I know about their their lack of transparency to the underwriting of companies and entities such as First Wind and the others, I will actively work to have their public support removed.

  3. When First Wind became a major donor, I contacted the folks in charge. They assured me that the reporters “have no knowledge as to the donors”. Strange in that this particular donor is mentioned at the beginning of the news broadcast. What concerns me, admittedly an opposer of First Wind activities, is that MPBN was initially one of the few state media outlets that reported evenly on issues with big wind, including the early activities by the state-wide opposition groups. There came a time when the reporting has become much like those other media outlets in Maine. They are primarily embellished press releases and have not done any reporting that is critical, questioning or investigative in any way of the big wind entities. I love the concept of MPBN, but truly feel that their reporting has become one-sided and supportive of First Wind.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here