The PUBLIC Broadcasting System
Could we play a little game here? Let's play like you've never heard of PBS, and I'm going to tell you some things about it. I really want you to try to discorporate from whatever suppositions you have about the network. Here's a 1-paragraph snapshot of its purpose:
PBS was created in 1967 "not to sell products," but to "enhance citizenship and public service." This vision was articulated by the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, which proposed a system free of commercial constraints that would serve as "a forum for debate and controversy," providing a "voice for groups in the community that may otherwise go unheard" so that we could "see America whole, in all its diversity."
1. PBS was created to be free of commercial influence.
2. PBS was created to help Americans be better citizens.
3. PBS was created to be a forum for debate and controversy.
4. PBS was created to be a vehicle for the disenfranchised to be heard.
It's important to keep these things in mind because PBS is up to its eyeballs in criticism these days. In its attempts to be free of commercial influence, it's run donors and potential donors off because of programs which haven't pulled punches in their criticisms of those donors, or the industries they represent. People who give millions of dollars to have their names associated with PBS aren't fond of being criticized by same.
PBS lives up to its pledge to help make Americans better citizens by holding candidate forums and debates, both regionally and locally so that voters can become more acquainted with candidates' views. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer takes the time it takes to go into stories in depth. And there are dozens of other ways that PBS empowers viewers with information that will only enhance their understanding of our world.
#3 above is where PBS really gets into hot water. Its mission is to be a forum for debate and controversy has gone more unrealized than not. Though every few years some Republican or another gets so angry that tax dollars are going towards a network which doesn't cowtow towards him that he proposes de-funding PBS. As quickly as the politician proposes it viewers shout them down, and the de-funding attempt tends to rot on the vine. But now Republicans control the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the Supreme Court. If ever there were a time when it could happen, now's that time.
And then there's #4: Gays are disenfranchised. Don't believe it? What other subset of our culture has had the President propose a constitutional amendment to keep them from having the rights that the rest of us do? If they'd been black, hispanic, oriental, the President would have been shouted down as a bigot. But since it was gays Bush was talking about, he didn't get his way, but he got his objective: to enflame his bigoted base just in time for last November's election.
That aside, I'm referring here to this controversy about this children's program on PBS. Postcards From Buster is about an animated rabbit who goes all around the country finding out how different Americans live. Well, how dare Buster go off to Vermont and visit a household with two mommies who were operating a farm that was turning maple sap into maple syrup. There was of course no mention of homosexuality or gayness. There were just two mommies in that house.
By the reaction of the right wing media you'd think Michael Jackson had declared he was opening up a home for wayward boys. In the firestorm of controversy, PBS pulled the episode from its schedule and took a pretty big black eye from right wing special interests.
However, going back to its charter, PBS failed to live up to #3 or #4, despite its best efforts. So as you read this with your own opinion, and you're perhaps thinking that "yeah, but PBS needs to be fair and balanced" I'll tell you that no--it doesn't. It needs to live up to its charge.
The ideas of the right wing and of conservatives, and of business and the mainstream culture is well represented in the media. There are what? 2 or 3 all business networks, plus all the cable news outfits have hour-long programs on about business + special cut-ins constantly letting us know where the stock market is going.
But let's just say you're disenfranchised. What the heck--I'll say gay. Where's your network? Which programs can you point to which represent your interests, push information that's important for gay people to know? I don't think a half-hour of Will and Grace every week quite cuts it.
My point is that the units of measure we might judge PBS--that fair and balanced one--is not a valid measure because that is not its purpose. And indeed, to judge it on only that criteria is to make it just another channel. With hundreds of channels on satellite, the last thing we need is another channel. What we need...is Public Broadcasting.
PBS was created in 1967 "not to sell products," but to "enhance citizenship and public service." This vision was articulated by the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, which proposed a system free of commercial constraints that would serve as "a forum for debate and controversy," providing a "voice for groups in the community that may otherwise go unheard" so that we could "see America whole, in all its diversity."
1. PBS was created to be free of commercial influence.
2. PBS was created to help Americans be better citizens.
3. PBS was created to be a forum for debate and controversy.
4. PBS was created to be a vehicle for the disenfranchised to be heard.
It's important to keep these things in mind because PBS is up to its eyeballs in criticism these days. In its attempts to be free of commercial influence, it's run donors and potential donors off because of programs which haven't pulled punches in their criticisms of those donors, or the industries they represent. People who give millions of dollars to have their names associated with PBS aren't fond of being criticized by same.
PBS lives up to its pledge to help make Americans better citizens by holding candidate forums and debates, both regionally and locally so that voters can become more acquainted with candidates' views. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer takes the time it takes to go into stories in depth. And there are dozens of other ways that PBS empowers viewers with information that will only enhance their understanding of our world.
#3 above is where PBS really gets into hot water. Its mission is to be a forum for debate and controversy has gone more unrealized than not. Though every few years some Republican or another gets so angry that tax dollars are going towards a network which doesn't cowtow towards him that he proposes de-funding PBS. As quickly as the politician proposes it viewers shout them down, and the de-funding attempt tends to rot on the vine. But now Republicans control the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the Supreme Court. If ever there were a time when it could happen, now's that time.
And then there's #4: Gays are disenfranchised. Don't believe it? What other subset of our culture has had the President propose a constitutional amendment to keep them from having the rights that the rest of us do? If they'd been black, hispanic, oriental, the President would have been shouted down as a bigot. But since it was gays Bush was talking about, he didn't get his way, but he got his objective: to enflame his bigoted base just in time for last November's election.
That aside, I'm referring here to this controversy about this children's program on PBS. Postcards From Buster is about an animated rabbit who goes all around the country finding out how different Americans live. Well, how dare Buster go off to Vermont and visit a household with two mommies who were operating a farm that was turning maple sap into maple syrup. There was of course no mention of homosexuality or gayness. There were just two mommies in that house.
By the reaction of the right wing media you'd think Michael Jackson had declared he was opening up a home for wayward boys. In the firestorm of controversy, PBS pulled the episode from its schedule and took a pretty big black eye from right wing special interests.
However, going back to its charter, PBS failed to live up to #3 or #4, despite its best efforts. So as you read this with your own opinion, and you're perhaps thinking that "yeah, but PBS needs to be fair and balanced" I'll tell you that no--it doesn't. It needs to live up to its charge.
The ideas of the right wing and of conservatives, and of business and the mainstream culture is well represented in the media. There are what? 2 or 3 all business networks, plus all the cable news outfits have hour-long programs on about business + special cut-ins constantly letting us know where the stock market is going.
But let's just say you're disenfranchised. What the heck--I'll say gay. Where's your network? Which programs can you point to which represent your interests, push information that's important for gay people to know? I don't think a half-hour of Will and Grace every week quite cuts it.
My point is that the units of measure we might judge PBS--that fair and balanced one--is not a valid measure because that is not its purpose. And indeed, to judge it on only that criteria is to make it just another channel. With hundreds of channels on satellite, the last thing we need is another channel. What we need...is Public Broadcasting.
posted by VTexan at 9:30 PM
2 Comments:
You are exactly right, we NEED public broadcasting. I want something from PBS that I don't get elsewhere..in depth stories, in depth news, this covered that the cable channels don't deem newsworthy, like real substantiated facts, not sound bites. It has been bad enough that Bill Moyers retired and the show has now been cut to 30 mins, followed by a right wing show just to pander to the Bushites.
So everyone, contribute to NPR...it's pledge week this week. Go to tpr.org and contribute your bucks to Texas Public Radio. Become a member, I am.
I pledged on Friday...
Post a Comment
<< Home