Give PBS Support It Deserves
Instead of Trashing It
Sometimes the "Gray Old Lady" can get downright ridiculous. Take a recent item, "Is PBS Still Necessary?".
As journalists ourselves, and with more experience than the New York Times writer, we are cognizant of the need to take a somewhat dif- ferent tack on a story or to attack a long-held "given." Fine, but do not throw away fact, history and reason in doing so.
The Times writer is in love with the Public Broadcasting System's audio sister, National Public Radio, as he should be. He is supposed to be a television writer, but he may be spending too much time watching "not reality" shows instead of PBS channels.
The writer defends his theory by noting how much audience each entity has and apparently sees the difference as justifying federal cuts for PBS. As with many of today's government leaders, he either has never learned or completely forgot what PBS and NPR are supposed to be about. As television writer, he should be more concerned than anyone else about preserving alternatives in an ever-more monopolistic media era.
We begin with a primer.
PBS and NPR were, indeed, created as alternatives to commer- cial broadcasting, but primarily, with regular federal financial support, as educational outlets to supply material to listeners and viewers the com- mercial stations were not offering. That proved to be a wise decision.
Remember, these two public broadcasting entities were intended to be alternatives; they were not intended to compete with commercial broadcasters for viewers or listeners and not to copy what commercial stations were offering.
Over the decades since those creations, federal laws and Federal Communications Commission regulations have evolved to require com- mercial broadcasters, in receiving exclusive rights to a piece of the pub- lic airwaves spectrum, to provide some sort of public service. Over the years that took on various hues such as providing regular newscasts, programming aimed at educating children and on an on. Many of the rules have been done away with under various Republican administra- ions, and the current Bush administration FCC ranks among the worst.
As all of those changes were taking place, public broadcasting has largely remained true to its original intent, offering alternative pro- gramming. At times it has strayed a bit. It over-promotes its program- ming, it gives too much air time to promotional (read that advertising commercials) spots in exchange for large contributions and sometimes it engages in the same stardom-oriented staging of the commercial networks.
But PBS has had little alternative but to open its air time to com- mercial interests. Driven largely by Republicans, federal funding has been slashed over the years, causing the network to sell those spots and conduct those godawful fund-raising campaigns offering the type of self-help programming that is beneath its intelligence level and the levels of its regular and loyal viewers. The more federal funding is cut, the more PBS will have to pursue these antithetical options.
The Times writer seeks to focus on entertainment shows PBS has produced in the past that have been very popular with audiences. Fine. Most of the stuff was the type of programming that could not be seen then and could not be seen now on commercial television, primarily because most of it was produced by Britain's own public television system.
But the best of PBS is not entertainment shows, although even those, such as the current Jane Austen series on Masterpiece Theater, are much more educational than anything you would see on ABC, CBS, NBC and, ugh, FOX. As an aside in defense of commercial networks, most have wanted for decades to provide an hour-long nightly news pro- gram, but have been resisted by local outlets that prefer to provide more profitable, but repetitive giggle news, amateurishly presented and so ho- mogenized, one can travel across the country watching the local news at every stop and see it all presented in exactly the same giggly manner.
The best of PBS is its informational and news programming. We prefer Bill Moyer's Journal as the best news-oriented show PBS offers. The hour-long nightly news show, The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, offers far more information on specific subjects in the news than any of the commercial networks would consider providing over a year's time. In- stead, the commercial entities laughingly offer "in-depth reports," which means they may spend two minutes instead of one on a subject, stag- ing questions-and-answers with reporters to make it appear the perfectly coiffed news anchor (more accurately termed "news readers" by the Brit- ish), actually is informed and engaged about the subject. Sadly, The NewsHour does some of that phony stuff itself.
All sorts of other news and informational programming is present- ed on PBS, probably not seen by many people, but important nonethe- less, programming that would never appear on commercial networks. Much of that programming happens to be valuable history and there is no problem with rerunning shows such as the 1987 "Eyes on the Prize" year after year after year for generation after generation.
The Times writer gives only a passing mention of "prime-time stal- warts" on PBS, but then dismisses them as old-fashioned. His tragic ef- fort ignores that fact PBS is, for the most part, doing what it always has been intended to do--offer valuable programming that would never be seen if PBS did not exist, not even on the plethora of cable networks we have today.
PBS itself trumpets these shows on its home page. Look down the line of programs, and check out the "news and views" section, and see if you cannot learn something by tuning in.
