Does anybody really give a hoot about public broadcasting? Conservative Republicans attempted to eliminate government funding, with that dastardly Georgia butthead Newt Gingrich leading the fight. The Newtster's plan didn't work, but he made a point. Public broadcasting needs to support itself and escape the clutches of that despicable spendthrift known as the United States Congress.
These and other troubling questions are addressed in Made Possible By . . .: The Death of Public broadcasting in the United States (Verso, $25), an intriguing new book by James Ledbetter. Fans of New York's venerable Village Voice will recognize Ledbetter as author of that leftist weekly's "Press Clips" column. Ledbetter presents the arguments on both sides of the funding question, as well as giving a more-than-we'd-care-to-know history of public broadcasting, currently observing the 30th anniversary of the Public Broadcasting Act.
Educational broadcasting stepped in deep doodoo with politicians early on. The Nixon administration, perhaps the most paranoid group of evil people in U.S. history, trained a wary eye on early programming. However, that loosely organized network provided an important service in the early years. "Sesame Street" became an American institution. Important news shows and analysis offered an alternate stand against the carefully controlled guff available on commercial networks.
Public TV has lost some of its reason for existence these days, principally because cable television co-opted the originality of pioneering public TV. With today's increasing presence (and influence) of program underwriters, bite and importance have done a fade. With "sponsors" such as some of the nation's biggest corporations, public TV abandoned its willingness to be inventive or progressive. As Congress continues its eagerness to slash the cash to these stations, programmers have begun to pander to the lowest common denominators, offering pabulum instead of probity. Ledbetter points out that public television never has been more than a blip on the ratings card, with its viewership remaining at a less-than-impressive two percent throughout its three-decade history.
Politics always comes first. "Even more than at commercial stations, what begin as broadcasting decisions for PBS and NPR immediately become political debates," Ledbetter observes. "It is true that political pressure on public television and radio rarely takes the form of yanking material off the air, but that is because the habits of self-censorship are so ingrained that naked censorship is rarely necessary."
Ledbetter writes that the commentators on "Washington Week in Review," (known as "brunch with the living dead") may occasionally speak ill of errant legislators, "but those with more sweeping, damning criticisms-from any political perspective-will simply not be invited to appear. In this way, public broadcasting's government subsidy functions like hush money to protect powerful incumbents."
There's a reason why you'll find little sex or violence on public TV, he says. "Public television doesn't scare its viewers because public television avoids just about anything that might offend anyone." Today's public television has a depressingly slender array of genres. Ledbetter says that programming consists of "largely duplicative news and business programming, aging imported British drama or mystery, nature and science programming often indistinguishable from that shown elsewhere, and arts programming that usually deviates little from the tastes of the local elite."
Ledbetter deplores "the tidal wave of commercialism" that has taken over public TV channels in the '90s. "This malling . . . is the greatest threat to the original mission of public broadcasting. Unless that trend is reversed, public broadcasting, in any genuine sense, will not survive the century. . ."
The author offers a seven-point program to help public TV survive and prosper. His ideas: resist the corporate takeover, liberate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from direct presidential control, democratize local boards, cut spending on children's shows, restore the mandate for minority and other underserved audiences, encourage more independents, and make public broadcasting more accountable. Ledbetter says that public television must treat audience members as participating citizens instead of mere consumers. Will his ideas work? Will they even be attempted? The outlook ain't good, my friends. "Barney" may be relegated to rank commercialism. (What? You say it already is? Yep, guess you're right.)
More book reviews
Back to Front Page