DAVID BIANCULLI

Founder / Editor

ERIC GOULD

Associate Editor

LINDA DONOVAN

Assistant Editor

GABRIELA TAMARIZ

Social Media Manager

Contributors

MONIQUE NAZARETH

JONATHAN STORM

GERALD JORDAN

DONNA J. PLESH

NOEL HOLSTON

DAVID SICILIA

 
 
 
 
 
PBS Station Head Assesses Landscape Following Recent Assault on Public TV
December 18, 2012  | By Tom Brinkmoeller  | 3 comments
 

A few months ago, Mitt Romney tried to resuscitate what now appears to have been a sinking campaign by loading the conservatives' silver bullet and aiming at a favorite target.

"I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS," he said during a debate. "… I like PBS, I love Big Bird … But I'm not going to… "

Be able to pull the trigger? 

Romney's gun had its firing pin removed in November. But the fact that something so lacking in capitalism as commercial-less programming should continue to be allowed to live irritates many in Congress much more than a schedule-full of sponsored offal. A landscape free of subsidized culture in which pay-their-own-way Honey Boo Boos can roam freely is Tea Party paradise. 

When plotting their kill-the-PBS-monster strategies, it might help to recheck the math, according Neal Shapiro (right). In a recent phone interview, the president and CEO of WNET, the 50-year-old giant of a PBS member station in New York City, pointed out the amount of government money used to support public broadcasting is $1.33 per person, per year. (That's two cents less than would have been spent had a member of Congress paid first-class postage instead of franking three constituent letters.) The larger chunk of the public-broadcasting budget comes from private sources: viewers, corporations, philanthropists and foundations.

It's a model the godfather of modern conservative politics, Ronald Reagan, found to be a really good one. Shapiro shared how Ken Burns talked about his Civil War PBS series with the then-president, a fan of the work. Reagan asked how he funded such good work, and Burns told him that he had leveraged the government money he had received to fill in the larger amount through private funding. Reagan reportedly congratulated Burns, telling him that such a public-private partnership was the kind of arrangement he had been advocating for years.

Reagan's comments notwithstanding, "I think it will always be a political football, especially at the national level," Shapiro said. 

He won't be surprised to see the issue raised again, though maybe not as loudly any time soon.

"Even they were surprised by the blowback they got," he said of the amount of negative reaction Romney's comment received.

The funding dilemma persists, even with the political warriors temporarily quieted. But finding money wasn't always as difficult. There was a time, especially in the '70s and '80s, when so much oil-company money funded public television that the network was sometimes cynically called the Petroleum Broadcasting System. These and other huge companies, spurred by CEOs who wanted to "put their corporate stamp on" outstanding shows, once underwrote large and ambitious programming efforts, Shapiro said.

"These functions are being taken away by marketing officers," whose need for return on investment outweighs the corporate cachet those chief executives once considered vital, Shapiro said, and added that public television's "corporate support keeps trending downward" for this reason.

"Our goal was never to get a large number of viewers," Shapiro said. Instead, he believes, PBS and the phrase "the best" are synonymous. The system, in his opinion, is stronger than ever in presenting and attracting the best, but now the funding to do that has to come even more from private sources. The challenge is to "do a better job of reaching out to the people who support (public television)." 

WNET and Boston-based WGBH are the two largest sources of public-television programming. In addition, they partner with American Public Television in running Create, a network made up of reruns of popular public-TV how-to series — which at times draws more viewers than similarly themed commercial shows on Food Network and HGTV, Shapiro said.

Despite these accomplishments, he said, "[WNET] finished our year barely in the black. This is the dance we do every year." Breaking through the "why should I pay for it when it's free?" mindset is a perennial problem PBS stations face in tapping into viewer support. Oddly enough, though, public TV's commercial counterparts aren't as laissez-faire about public television's welfare.

Before moving to WNET in 2007, Shapiro's broadcast background was commercial, working in and running news operations at ABC and NBC. So his perspective has added validation when he says commercial broadcasters don't resent public television's attempts to attract funds and viewers that otherwise might be used to shore up their more mundane offerings. Public broadcasting began with the support of commercial broadcasters who, at the time, were "being hammered" for the low quality of their programming, he said. With PBS taking the high road and deflecting that criticism, commercial networks can amble pretty much as they please across lower strata. 

"I don't think they want it to go away," he said.

 
 
 
 
 
Leave a Comment: (No HTML, 1000 chars max)
 
 Name (required)
 
 Email (required) (will not be published)
 
 Website (optional)
 
ERPQT
Type in the verification word shown on the image.
 
 
 Page: 1 of 1  | Go to page: 
3 Comments
 
 
Nolo
Yes, one does have to endure or do end-runs around dreck to get to public broadcastings good stuff. I get furious when I flip over to my PBS station and find one of those Celtic music fantasias. But hey, that television for you. Wading through dreck is a given, whether you're watching PBS, CBS or HBO.
Jan 3, 2013   |  Reply
 
 
Angela
When I check local listings for PBS Best Bets, too many times it's not available where I live. Or if it is, it doesn't show it on the PBS website provider schedule. The Beatles documentary and movie, for instance, was not available according to their website schedule. I thought that couldn't be possible so I checked the cable online guide and it was being aired, at 1am and 2am. So that's where they hide the great shows?
But it was worse a few states away from me. I rarely bothered to check the PBS stations after awhile.
I also lived in another city in the same state and I had 4 PBS channels to choose from with exceptional offerings.
Granted this was a few (cough) years back so maybe things have changed?

Is it the cable provider that decides when and what they will air from PBS? If the answer is yes than that's partly the problem.
Dec 19, 2012   |  Reply
 
 
Jim
I live in the Boston area and have been watching WGBH for over 40 years. It's no understatement to say that my enthusiasm for the station and it's programming has waned considerably in recent years. Yes they offer Nova and Frontline and the indispensable NewsHour, but those shows are now surrounded by some of the worse dreck on the airwaves. Infomercials for self help charlatans hawking their miracle cures for sagging skin or sagging finances. Embarrassing baby boomer music specials/fundraisers featuring performers who should have stayed home and left us with our memories. It's gotten to the point where my heart sinks when I see a beloved singer is going to appear on PBS. A seemingly endless array of British sit-coms that make Two Broke Girls seems like sophisticated fun. And cooking shows, followed by more cooking shows, followed by more cooking shows.

I love the idea of Public Broadcasting I just wish there was more to love about the actual programming.
Dec 18, 2012   |  Reply
 
Mac
Echo everything here.Our cable set up has two stations,Lehigh Valley and Philadelphia.Both keep this dreck on every night after midnight.Charlie Rose is almost a special nowadays.And Charlie(alongside NPR's Terry Gross)has us spoiled when Tavis Smiley tries to stumble through another discussion. Tavis is the Jimmy Fallon of public broadcasting. The idea of repeating past night's fare,something many cable stations do to offset the price of new programming,is over.The possibility of more adverturesome fare or even just showing older POV,Frontline or Independent Lens shows-not anymore.Vince the Shamwow guy is more entertaining than those get rich,defeat diabetes,expand your mind games that the stations use to get through the night.At least with Vince you know when your pocket is being picked. Are you following me,video guy?
Dec 19, 2012
 
 
 
 
 Page: 1 of 1  | Go to page: 
 
 
New From TVWW

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

This Day in TV History