Prevailing PBS attitudes certain to disturb

I enjoy public television and public radio. I have supported the Public Broadcasting System with cash, with words and with volunteering. Thus I speak as someone who feels as part of the family but now a family member who has been slowly but surely cut adrift.

Not that I am harkening back to the “good old days,” although that might not be a bad idea, but as I look around and listen to what is being said and done by both sides, I find myself more and more reflecting on what has happened to the PBS.

It’s not the disappearance of the opera, folks; it’s not the loss of classical music; it’s not even the constant clamor for funds, more funds and even more funds which dominate the airways. It’s not “the economy, stupid.” It’s all this and more. It’s the attitudes prevailing around PBS which are most disturbing.

Certainly there are fine people working at Maine Public Broadcasting; certainly they are interested in providing what they believe is quality programming for the public whom they reportedly serve; certainly they are interested in paying lip service to the “enhancing the diversity of programming and refocusing on the ‘public’ that public broadcasting is intended to serve.”

The issue is that the decision making does not seem to reflect what the words say: indeed, the opposite appears more to be true than ever. PBS appears less diverse; there is more corporate voice, less perspective from those who may be called the “citizens” and members of the general public.

More and more similar voices echo throughout what the programmers at PBS call their public responsibility: while it could be argued that the recent daytime election hourly talk shows spotlighted various local candidates, the majority of reporting is from the same general economic and social sectors – and their differences – as witnessed in the presidential election – if any, were and are trivial. We learn about the ups and downs of the stock market – corporate earnings, profits, stock prices – yes, necessary, but more often than not, a steady diet. We shall hear less music of any sort and more talk – talk that is readily available everywhere else.

Public broadcasting came to be, said the Carnegie Report in 1967, to help “us see America whole in all its diversity” and to “serve as a forum for controversy and debate,” to “provide a voice for groups in the community that may otherwise be unheard.” The challenge was, therefore, to “refocus on the public” and “serve” that group.

Public broadcasting appears to have come to be a narrow voice catering to what is thought to be the “market” – for example, more talk shows, less music. Public broadcasting came about in response to the lack of other media responding to the perceived needs of the people; they have become the very media from whom they are supposedly striving to be different.

Even their slogan: “If PBS doesn’t do it, who will?” doesn’t fit any longer: everyone else is doing what PBS said they were to do. One look at such stations as CNN, and its competitors, or even Discovery, The Learning Channel and others, and we see the old PBS at work; the new PBS is striving and straining to be the old entertainment-oriented, popular old media – the very thing it was to overcome. Instead of leading the way, PBS now follows; instead of shining a light where it would brighten the world around it, it hides its light under its own self-made bushel.

Intriguing, isn’t it? When PBS has never failed in Maine to make its requested fund drive amounts; when its supporters rallied around each time to assure the needs of public broadcasting were met; when the digital issue rose and was almost swamped; the supporters rose to pass the tax request: still, the folks who run the store, who wish to be paid their salaries as we all do, move away from leading and back into the commercialized. Truth is stranger than fiction: PBS “leaders” point out themselves that we, the listeners, without whose support they would be unemployed, can get that very programming unique to PBS “elsewhere.”

Come on, folks, either public broadcasting is truly for the public or else you did your job well and worked yourselves out of a job for now the commercial stations, with less commercials, do it and appear to do it better. (Let’s see: PBS has no commercials other than the ones they euphemistically label corporate sponsorship and their fund drives which if I calculate correctly come out time-wise to be as much as or more time spent asking for money than the commercials on most local stations who play music for an interrupted 45 minutes or an hour. And even then only a short commercial break.

In public affairs programming, more and more information comes from fewer and fewer sources and these sources are even more narrow than before: what passes for controversy is name calling and labeling; someone on the far right yelling at the left of right and both screaming at the right of middle. Despite noise to the contrary, journalists themselves tend to be more conservative than their readers; most of their news comes from the business-oriented outlets and give the highest quality of business news (broadcast and cable news give the worst).

Regularly, after Congress cut the budget yet again, PBS goes hat in hand to the corporations to gather in donations: as charges of candidates being owned by the corporations were made early in the presidential elections, so too can they be labeled against the PBS: creative commercials for corporations now appear, products advertised, slogans used to make us more responsive to purchasing products.

The public, when polled, responded to a Roper survey with overwhelming numbers that corporate owners were improperly influencing the news reporting. Indeed, 90 percent said they did not believe the talk show hosts. Even Peter Jennings, ABC news host, responded, “… more and more media in fewer hands, in the abstract, is reason to be concerned.” Really? In the abstract?

I could go on: with recent decisions to move toward more talk shows because “that’s what the public wants,” “that’s what’s going on in public radio elsewhere,” – away. I am sure the change will happen. I suggest you do as I did, vote with your money. Call and ask for a refund. Hit them where it hurts. Perhaps the folks running the store will get the message and turn to their listeners and hear what they are being told: then we can return with a vengeance to support public broadcasting. Otherwise, let’s call it a day and tune to the Canadian Broadcasting System as we were told to do.

Bert Marian lives in Addison.