----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Gorham "Hap" Kindem, who authored some excellent work on the practices of the
film industry, disappointingly writes:
>It seems to me that there are some very compelling >arguments
>in favor of PBS and NPR that were made before Congress
>immediately after detractors, such as L. Jarvik testified.
>First, people actually get an education through PBS stations
>that provide high school equivalency programs and courses.
>Public television started out as educational television, and
>this role continues to be an important one.
However, as Dr. Kindem well knows, instructional television is not the
mission of PBS or NPR. The Carnegie Commission report suggested changing the
name from educational television to public television to reflect this change
of purpose. Only a tiny fraction of the federal dollars go to ITV --
approximately 1% of the CPB budget. ITV receives its primary support on a
local and state level and from fees charged for adult courses, etc.
>Second, the educational mission is a pervasive one. How many
>commercial programs have followed Reading Rainbow's lead >in using
television to promote reading books, or the lead of
>other PBS programs in terms of teaching reading or >encouraging
>a cooperative in addition to a competitive approach to life?
>Is there any other children's programming that is as >profoundly educational
as that which has appeared on PBS?
Well, the "effect" of Reading Rainbow certainly has not been demonstrated,
especially with the target group of at-risk youth where functional illiteracy
has been rising for years. As for teaching "cooperative" approaches to life,
one could argue that Monday Night Football does a much better job of
inspiring teamwork.
>Third as much as forty+per cent of the population doesn't have
>access to cable, can't afford it, or has chosen not to >subscribe. Nothing
is a ubiquitous as broadcast television.
98% of the country has access to cable. Check your figures. About 33 percent
choose not to pay for it. Some people bootleg it. Others have friends tape
shows for them, or go over to visit. Most school districts and libraries have
connections to cable. By contrast PBS has about 2 AQH prime-time rating. That
means about 98% of Americans have no access to PBS, which they might enjoy if
market incentives forced them to air programs the American public might want
to watch.
>Does anyone really believe that commercial broadcasters will >step forward
>to fill the void left by defunct PBS stations with comparable
>programming?
No one has to step forward. No one suggested removing PBS from the airwaves,
simply removing about $285.6 million in unnecessary federal subsidies.
>Fourth, is there a better source of noncommercial art and >culture,
>as opposed to commercial popular culture, than PBS and NPR, >and
>won't our society be impoverished if both forms of art and >culture
>aren't available to virtually everyone?
How do you know noncommercial culture is better than commercial culture? What
is your evidence? Your source? The Civil War was sponsored by GM, does that
make it bad? The Three Tenors was produced for profit by Tibor Rudas, is
that a problem? Masterpiece Theatre and Mystery are sponsored by Mobil. No
good as a result? Rev. Wildmon broadcasts his anti-pornography messages on
non-commercial, educational evangelical Christian radio stations on the same
reserved spectrum as NPR stations. Does that make them good? I'm afraid
prejudices against capitalism are showing here.
> $1 per year seems a small
>price to pay, and a real bargain given the amount of additional
>money it generates, to ensure universal coverage, at least >from
my point of view.
The point is that the $1 is not a voluntary contribution, and could be made
up by increased donations from the 5.2 million PBS members, and cutting
better deals with Barney and Big Bird. Some PBS affiliated individuals are
paid salaries in excess of $200,000 a year and certainly corporations benefit
from promotion and exposure via PBS.Why should the taxpayer subsidize Mobil's
public relations campaign -- or that of the 6 billion dollar Ford Foundation,
either?
>I don't pretend to be a neutral observer, however
>since I have produced documentaries that have been broadcast
>over PBS, one of which was also cablecast by the Discovery >Channel, but
then
>it didn't reach as many people, and since it dealt with African
>American art and culture it was very important to me that it >be freely
available to everyone. A portion of the film was >also shown on Reading
Rainbow, where it made a very small >contribution to encouraging Americans to
appreciate African >American culture and to read.
How do you know it made any contribution at all? Is this something which has
been empirically tested, or is it simply an unverified and possibly
self-serving assertion? At least ratings and box office numbers have some
sort of empirical quality to them.
I wish Dr. Kindem would analyze the structure of public broadcasting with the
same keen perception he did Hollywood, etc.
Yours sincerely,
Larry Jarvik
Center for the Study of Popular Culture
|
