[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

Public broadcasting is ‘the third way’

Wednesday, May 23 at 12:01 AM

By Willard D. “Wick” Rowland Jr.

In his Rocky Mountain News column of May 4, “The unfairness doctrine,” Mike Rosen asked whether there was an alternative to either private-sector media or government-run media. Well, yes, Mike, there is an alternative, and a very significant one at that: public broadcasting, which occupies the rich middle ground, the “third way,” between the marketplace and the state.

The public-service model is a well-developed and central part of the media culture in all other advanced democracies. It would be in the U.S. too, if it weren’t for the continuing misrepresentations of it as nothing but “state media” and for the claims about how the private, commercially-based system can deliver all aspects of the public interest.

Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the old Fairness Doctrine, but the reality is that in the current climate of nearly total deregulation it is highly unlikely that the doctrine will be reinstituted, and most of its opponents know that. The phony fairness doctrine debate and the hand-wringing about governmental censorship is used to distract public discourse from consideration of the no less serious censorship by the marketplace. It also helps avoid communications policy arguments for substantive, public-media structural alternatives to the commercial system.

And to lump PBS and NPR into a category of “corporate media” that includes ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN is ludicrous. It represents a new low in the talking-points process by which the conservative and libertarian think tanks manage the public debate not only about public broadcasting, but all of public culture and any notion of tax-based support for it.

Altogether, corporate broadcasting and cable in the U.S. yield about $150 billion annually. By contrast the total budget of all of public radio and television is less than $2 billion, with only about a quarter of that for PBS and NPR together. To try to link those small organizations in any serious way to the resources, ownership patterns and control mechanisms of the huge, ratings-based, profit-oriented commercial system is disingenuous.

The demise of serious news in commercial radio since the advent of deregulation, that is, of anything deeply engaging of political, social and cultural issues, is readily documented. The way NPR and the public radio system have filled that gap should be a source of great pride, not snide derision, among informed pundits.

The same goes for public television. To pretend that the commercial television regimens of weather, sports, accidents and crime constitute adequate local news, or that advertising-supported cable channels playing endless repeats of Big Technology projects, crab-fishing perils and World War II air battles are adequate replacements for PBS’ thoughtful, continuously new work in history, science, nature, performance, children’s programming and public affairs is patently absurd.

That we can know anything substantive about the world beyond the U.S. borders and that we have any opportunity in U.S. broadcasting and cable to understand the complexities of the universe — physical, social and political — is a testimony primarily to the hard, dedicated work of public broadcasters.

That public radio and television could do much more along the lines of their older, counterpart institutions abroad, there is no doubt. But those societies situate their public-service broadcasting institutions at the heart of their media cultures. As a result, they have funded their public broadcasting systems at much, much higher levels than what we provide in the U.S.

Sure, they fight about them all the time; the debates about political balance and interference are strong in all those nations. But when push comes to shove, the public media charters are renewed and their funding arrangements regularly ratified, because the citizens — the voters — in country after country know that it is necessary for informed democracies to have a strong media component that is not hostage to the censorship of commerce. Concern about that form of interference and how to avoid it is at least as worthy of debate as the Fairness Doctrine.

Willard D. “Wick” Rowland Jr., Ph.D., is president and CEO of Colorado Public Television, KBDI-Channel 12, and is dean and professor emeritus at the University of Colorado’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

READER COMMENTS

mpcicerchi-get a grip.

Posted by on May 26, 2007 10:04 AM

Hey I like Antiques Roadshow! I also think it would survive on commercial channels. If PBS is producing something worthy of watching...like Celtic Women, it will be watched. It would also be watched on a commercial station. The ditzy channel 12 "news reporter" who practically drools over every left wing nutty pronouncement or idea and foams at the mouth when talking about Bush or anything not on the liberal side is what we object to. That kind of program is not necessary and if you want to hear it you pay for it either by patronizing the sponsors or donating cash to the "cause." The PBS crud level is quite high and we are tired of paying for it. We are even more tired of being told we are too stupid to see how good it is. It reminds me of a vegetarian going into a steakhouse. They complain and lecture that everyone there should stop eating meat and throw away their plates ignoring the fact that people they are addressing made their own decisions and don't need the lecture. Perhaps we can get a consensus that PBS et al should get all the money they can earn or have donated without the taxpayers help. Or, at least they can quit complaining about being broke and ignored.

Posted by momma y on May 25, 2007 07:27 AM

Public television remains popular in other countries because those broadcasters remain true to their original purpose- to provide both culture AND entertainment. As such, they bring in the audience by producing the very kinds of shows that Mr. Rowland finds so distasteful- reality shows, raunchy sitcoms, and yes, even shows about crab fishing and WWII.

Is it "absurd" to expect PBS to provide this same role in America?

What is really absurd is the idea that with just a bit more funding, PBS can somehow coax Americans into watching its lineup of pretentious costume dramas and warmed-over British imports. It is absurd to pretend that a marathon session of "Antiques Roadshow" is somehow making America a more cultured place. And it is absurd to think that America's cultural power will simply wither and die if we do not immediately fund another batch of Burns-ian documentaries- as if the fate of our Nation depends on yet another slow-panning camera shot lingering over yet another archived photograph.

Or perhaps, as Mr. Rowland does not wish to be compared to "ratings-based" commercial networks, PBS would much rather that we simply hand over our money without question, in the hopes that something sufficiently "cultured" might be created, and that someone, somewhere will watch it on our behalf. Then we can say to ourselves "watch PBS? No thanks, I gave at the office," and go about watching things we actually want to watch.

For years PBS has been the overcooked peas on our plate, demanding that we eat them "for our own good" and trying not one bit to perhaps make themselves more edible. Enough is enough. I may not like "American Idol," but at least I don't have to pay for it!

Posted by On the other hand on May 24, 2007 10:07 PM

Finally! An articulate response to Mike Rosen's knee jerk conservatism(so called). I applaud Wick Rowland's Speakout piece in support of public broadcasting. It amazes me that the RMN regularly features the likes of Rosen and Vincent Carrol who invariably find fault with anything that smacks of government, community, shared responsibility or that even contains the word "public." For them these notions equate with socialism(oh my God, that's a really a bad word too)! They are typically the mouthpieces of power and wealth in this society, blindly supporting the "magic of the market" the "invisible hand" and "free trade" at the expense of the public good. Let's ask Mr Rowland to submit a daily commentary for the News and relegate Rosen and Carroll to writing for Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.

Posted by mpcicerchi on May 23, 2007 09:32 AM