02/14/11-by L.S. Carbonell
The chainsaw gang on the House Budget Committee want to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to meet their ridiculous campaign promise that they would cut $100 billion from the remaining 6½ months of this fiscal year. From a purely political viewpoint, this one stinks like an leaking septic tank. NPR fired Juan Williams. Conservatives love Juan Williams. Let’s punish NPR. That is exactly how this proposal is coming across – political payback.
Maybe that is the motivation behind defunding the CPB. I wouldn’t put it past them. I’m just not sure that defunding it isn’t an idea whose time has come.
The idea behind public broadcasting was somewhere between artistic elitism and condescension. At the time of its creation in 1967, there were three television networks and a handful of local stations in the major cities. The 1950′s are mysteriously called the “Golden Age of Television” because the programming was, through the haze of nostalgia, a blend of high-quality performance shows, exceptional dramas and those “perfect family” sitcoms. Without the nostalgia-haze, there were also those rigged game shows, the endless burlesque variety shows and a fair number of sitcoms that tipped over the edge into offensive ethnic stereotypes.
Programming on network television allegedly slid south, no pun intended, through the 1960′s as ratings, demographics and ad rates replaced quality in the minds of program directors. A review of the top shows of 1965-66 includes the Southern-rural quintet of The Andy Griffith Show, Gomer Pyle, The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, and Petticoat Junction (Hee Haw was ‘69) along with Batman, Get Smart and Gilligan’s Island. The dramatic programming tended to be repetitive – this is the year of the doctor, the lawyer, the cop, the cowboy, that kind of repetitive. Hit shows didn’t franchise like Law and Order and CSI, they replicated. In the 1958-59 season, twelve of the top 25 shows were westerns. Maybe it was valid to argue that public broadcasting was desperately needed to restore quality to television and to do that, it was necessary to remove it from the deadly program-decision-making influence of Madison Avenue. All Madison Avenue was interested in were the ratings numbers, and the relationship between quality and popularity has always been inverse. (For those too young to know, Madison Avenue in New York City was the home of the advertising industry. It’s where the name Mad Men comes from.)
But somewhere in the background of those “quality” arguments was the condescending one…..that we needed to create a place for quality programming for children, and especially for disadvantaged children. The whisper in the background was the idea that poor parents were likely to park their kids in front of the TV and wouldn’t it be better if they were parked in front of educational TV instead of Hong Kong Phooey. The biggest difference between children’s shows in the 1950′s and the 1960′s was the death of live action shows in prime time and daily schedules, shows like Kukla, Fran & Ollie, The Shari Lewis Show, The Lone Ranger, Circus Boy (starred Mickey Dolenz of The Monkees), The Mickey Mouse Club and Rocky Jones, Space Ranger. Sesame Street and The Electric Company did make a difference. Snotty nursery school teachers who didn’t own televisions were left in the dust by their students. Cable had the same effect.
The creation of public broadcasting was a melding of high-brow intellectuals who wanted to watch opera and do-gooders who wanted to use TV to educate children. And the American taxpayer picked up the bill.
The questions now are, do we really need it and do we really need to keep funding it?
Seventy-eight percent of American homes have either cable or satellite. Public broadcasting is no longer the only place to find quality children’s programming, science programming, dramas, music and British programming, However, it is nearly impossible to find symphony orchestras, operas and Broadway musicals on cable channels, so there is a niche audience for public television’s programming. The niche audience is what cable is all about. It is not necessary anymore for any network to pull in a third of all the viewers in America or a show to pull in half the viewers to get renewed. There are networks for every viewing need. I think I have 166 channels right now. In addition to the five or six broadcast networks, there are dozens of local broadcast stations throughout the country, so even those in the major cities who choose not to have cable have a variety of programming available.
The alternative to public funding for public broadcasting is (scary music please) advertising. This is where the CPB loses my sympathy. PBS and NPR fans are spoiled. They only have to endure pledge weeks a few times a year and don’t have to put up with annoying Cialis bathtubs. Most viewers are tired of PBS stations pulling out all the best shows only for pledge week. Where are those shows between the telethons? Not regularly scheduled, that’s where. Pledge weeks have become shill games.
The long-standing complaint that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting could not find sponsors for their high-brow shows isn’t valid anymore. Niche programming has led to niche advertising. If you’ve ever tried to find a “Talking Elmo” at Christmas time, you know Sesame Street will have no trouble finding sponsors. Want a sponsor for the BritComs? Try British Airways. The Met in New York could redirect some of its advertising budget from The New York Times to PBS. The manufacturers and services are out there that would fit the niche of PBS viewers and the ad contracts can easily include standards for content. It could actually prove to be a win-win situation for live performance in America, letting people who are actually interested in live performances see ads for them on their preferred television network. There is also a well-hidden little entity called Classic Arts Showcase or ARTS. It shows up on some local access channels late at night. Folding it into the PBS family would be awesome. It shows the most amazing videos and kinescopes of old and new performances in the classical, semi-classical, Broadway and older popular music fields. Many PBS stations go off the air at night, so this would be a perfect fit.
As for NPR, suck it up guys. I know it could be hard to find liberal-leaning companies to buy ad time on their news programming, but I’m sure they’ll manage. They should try thinking local. The big corporations may be funding John Boehner’s golf addiction, but small companies, especially in green industries, are very liberal. As for the music programming, the same applies to NPR that applies to PBS – the sponsors are out there. The will just have to work to find them.
Perhaps we should think of this as a trade-off. Cut off the funding for CPB and keep the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, with a few changes. We need to support our museums and art galleries and regional theaters, our writers and artists and performers. That’s what civilized nations do. We can look back to the Depression and the manner in which the W.P.A. Art, Music, Theater and Writers Project was handled if necessary, to tighten the grant process. It nurtured some of the most influential artists, writers and performers of our times, from Jules Halfant to Rogers and Hammerstein. The N.E.A. should not be allowed to become a victim of partisanship and buying votes for conservatives. It needs to endure if we are to be considered a mature society instead of a bunch of ignoramuses who think The Real Housewives and Jersey Shore are the height of sophistication.
I’ll bet the conservative psychics who just know how all liberals think didn’t see this one coming.
Deborah Matlack
March 5, 2011 at 7:52 pm
What made you chose the name Jules Halfant to represent an artist from the WPA era? Did you know him? How did you know him? He certainly was a prominent artist of the WPA era and of the NYC scene for 60 to 70 years of the 20th Century. I am the curator of his paintings, drawings, and prints.
Linda S. Carbonell
March 6, 2011 at 9:21 am
Thank you for contacting us. I knew about the artists’ support mostly through the theater work and the early careers of Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart. I’m a big pre-Sondheim Broadway buff who adored Alfred Drake and knows all the lyrics to musicals people have never heard of. I researched the painters. The work I was looking for originally was the post office murals, but during the research I ran across Jules Halfant and was instantly impressed. I didn’t expect very many people would recognize his name, but he seemed so representative of the era that I had to use him. I was contracted for this blog because of my age, 62. That puts me within the memory range of people who lived through the Depression and both World Wars. My maternal grandfather was a WPA worker who taught me about the artists’ support. He was a musician who didn’t make the cut, but ended up in Guam building an airstrip. If I have focused some little attention on Mr. Halfant, I’m very pleased.
Manawolf
February 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm
I have great memories of PBS shows growing up, so I am nostalgically biased. If I thought quality educational childrens’ television was viable on a ratings-hinged market, I’d say the proposal had merit. But if they depended on advertising (and advertisers after all go by ratings to find out what the timeslot’s worth to them), I think Sesame Street would have died long ago. And that would be tragic. These programs are truly valuable (and no, this is not because my parents were inclined to let the TV raise their kids).
But, okay, I’m willing to grant that it could be viable. What are some quality-driven educational shows currently supported by advertising? If it’s viable in today’s entertainment landscape surely someone has attempted a similar applicable model. You’ve given examples for successful arts-driven stations but where’s the childrens’ programming? On Nickelodon? Spongebob Squarepants is not exactly Reading Rainbow.
Also, are Classic Arts Showcase & etc. available nationally without cable subscriptions? You have cable, I gather, but I don’t and many low-income families don’t either. Will NPR’s ratings & advertising-driven model be broadcast nationally for free, or only available to upper middle class families who can afford cable and families lucky enough to live in the distribution area of a local broadcast station?
Now, let’s say it is workable. Will childrens’ programming be paid for with loud advertisements for toys and fast food? Should we need to be willing to expose our kids to that junk, in order to watch Sesame Street with them? I’m sure my parents appreciated the commercial-free zone, and I did too.
I don’t know. I think NPR provided a valuable niche to the childhood of my generation, and I’m very hesitant to agree that should be sacrificed. It was a public good to public benefit, and I believe those things should be supported by our taxes. But heck, if you can convince me we could get the same content from a purely capitalist model, I’m not too proud to conceed the point.
Bridgette P. LaVictoire
February 14, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Linda wanted me to pass this along. We still have to figure out how to make it so that she can post on the site more directly.
Ratings do not necessarily have to drive advertising. Demographics are a major factor as well. One of the sponsors of our local PBS channel is a bookstore in Montreal. That’s what I mean by niche advertising. It would take some work on PBS’s and NPR’s part to find the right advertisers for their programs, but it can be done. As for who would sponsor Sesame Street – how about the companies that manufacture those toys? Reading Rainbow, how about book pulishers? Ratings-driven advertisers are focused on the 18-49 demographic. Neilson doesn’t ever report ratings for PBS, so we have no way to judge what their situation would be. That’s the kind of matching of niche programming to niche advertisers that I think would work here. I’m not sure what markets CSA is in. They have a website if you are interested. I think they webcast.