----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Charles writes:
>Have not noticed much discussion on the diffrences between Public and
>commercial networks (could have missed it :-))
>1. Public networks are not dominated by a corporate / profit ethic.
>2. Public networks usually have specific charters which force them to cater to
a broad audience (culture/language/..) rather than demographicly (read
advertising) defined audience
>3. The level of poor (read shit) programming is MUCH lower.
>4. They have a dedication to their audience rather than advertisers.
>5. Raise (or keep up) critical comment on arts/culture/politics that
commercial networks are unable to maintain.
>6. Not dominated by ratings.
 
I read a NY Times editorial yesterday or the day before on smaller stations
suffering more from the PBS cuts, and the reason the writer gave was that a
more rural station (the example used was in North Carolina, I think) receives
something like 55% of its funding from the government, but a bigger station
like WNET in New York City gets about 75% of its funding from "other sources"
-- mostly corporate sponsors.
 
This dependence on corporate sponsorship has increased dramatically over the
last few years -- have you noticed all the 10- or 20-second commercials
attached to some PBS shows?  Technically they're not commercials, they're just
"sponsored by" announcements that are longer than most, but they're a sign of
how accommodating PBS has become to corporate interests.  I don't think it's
true anymore to say that "public networks are not dominated by a
corporate/profit ethic" or that "they have a dedication to their audience
rather than advertisers."  And I bet they are "dominated by ratings" much more
now that corporate sponsors are so important -- AT&T wants the most bang for
their sponsorship buck just like regular advertisers.
 
Molly Olsen
[log in to unmask]