Misunderstanding public broadcasting in the U.S. | #pubmedia

One of the difficulties that public media face as they struggle to maintain tax-based and viewer/listener-sensitive income is that the recommendations of so many people betray a misunderstanding of the very structure that exists in the U.S.  This even includes our most distinguished supporters.

Case in point is an article in the April Atlantic by the great Newton N. Minow, the former FCC chairman in the Kennedy Administration and a former PBS board chairman and author of the famous “vast wasteland” speech. Surely he would get it right:

…we need to give greater support to public radio and public television. Both have been starved for funds for decades, and yet in many communities they are essential sources of local news and information—particularly public radio, which is relatively inexpensive to produce and distribute and is a valuable source of professionally reported news for millions of Americans. There is virtually nothing else like it on the air. Public-television stations, as I saw when I was the chairman of PBS, are overbuilt, sometimes with four competing in the same market. Where that is so, stations should be sold and the revenue dedicated to programming a national news and public-affairs service, built on the foundation of the splendid PBS NewsHour. And a crucial part of that service—as with public media around the world—should be to promote the country’s arts and culture. [emphasis added]

Well, not really. Here he calls for the 30 or so independently-owned overlapped stations to be sold (requiring 30 separate sales) with the money aggregated somehow (sorry, Licensee, you can’t use it to fund other problems you have), to enhance a program service that probably none of the 30 carry now. At the announced sales price of public TV stations in two top-25 markets, that could raise roughly $90 million, which, invested after sales costs, would generate about $4 million per year – again if, miraculously, you could somehow aggregate it. The CPB base grants these stations have would be easier to aggregate and yield more – $12 million per year – but then we have the problem of the remaining 140 or so eligible recipients also feeling the big hurt and needing relief. Even if these problems could be solved and the money aggregated, it’s too small.  While not chump change, is a long way from being sufficient to build the kind of service Minow envisions – even if it was done far more cheaply in radio or on the web.

Mr. Minow is one of public media’s most distinguished and articulate champions, but this misses because it misunderstands the nature of what brings NPR, PBS and other programs to Americans every day.

--Dennis

Comments

[twitter.com/jmproffitt]

This is surprising, though not shocking.

I actually think that if a veteran (of sorts) like Minow can't get it right, it points to the very weakness of the system.

At one time, the "localness" of stations was a huge benefit, as local production and community engagement was fairly deep and wide -- more so than any national cable channel or even PBS itself. But stations faced with financial difficulties over the years hocked their local capacity again and again and the TV engineers' and producers' need for video and audio and overall production perfection raised costs, dropped production volumes and transferred money to the national producers and distributors.

What was left was a fundraising outpost with only a sheen of localness left in most stations. The strength of distributed action was lost.

To reinvigorate local TV in the traditional ways, would be extraordinarily expensive -- the gear, the talent. Can't be done with federal dollars under fire. And local fundraising is impossible. "Give money to you to do what? What have you done for the community lately?"

And now, as local stations go dark and have trouble raising money, the national service is threatened. The best way to preserve the national service (at least in the short run) is consolidation -- exactly what Minow proposes. But that's not possible due to the extremely distributed nature of the system and the fact that the national entity is controlled by this multi-headed hydra.

Strength turns to weakness. Coordinated action turns into every man (and every Board of Directors, composed of the biggest egos in each town and burgh) for himself.

Discovery doesn't have this problem. Nor does C-SPAN.

Local media must scale downward to sustainable levels. National media must be released from the local/national bargain struck 30 years ago.