roundtable: Re: Rightwing Attack on Publi...

roundtable: Re: Rightwing Attack on Publi...

Re: Rightwing Attack on Publi...

RznDemoPM@aol.com
Sun, 19 Feb 1995 03:39:32 -0500 

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 03:39:32 -0500
From: RznDemoPM@aol.com
Message-Id: <950219033929_25979140@aol.com>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: Rightwing Attack on Publi...


I don't mean to needlessly prolong dissention, but misleading statements
should not stand unchallenged.  Therefore...

On Feb 16, Terry Dugast wrote:
> 
> *****
> > 
> > At the ground level people die in the Third World and Americans
> > never see the connections to their government and the business elite -
> > because reports of these connections are systematically weeded out of
> > PBS, as Paul Rosenberg (?) points out with such outraged eloquence.
> > 
> *****
> 
> As I've tried to point out, PBS ain't a network.  It's just one of many 
> delivery systems that local public broadcasting stations use.  You have 
> fallen into the same philosophical trap as public broadcasting's enemies 
> by assuming that PBS speaks (or even programs) ex cathedra for Public 
> Broadcasting.  So these repeated claims of anti-liberal bias are as 
> unfounded as the claims of anti-conservative bias.
> 
> As a local programmer, I don't give a fat rat's ass what PBS feeds or 
> doesn't feed.  

But there is the *little* matter of the national programming budget.  

The folly of which was mentioned in a little rag you might have heard 
about, called "Harpers Magazine" (December, 1993).  In that instance, 
Jennifer Lawson (who just resigned from a meaningless & powerless post 
according to your logic) said to Lewis Lapham, who was seeking funding 
for "Bookmark,"  an interview program with authors, [this is 
approximate, from memory] "Bring me big projects.  Bring me Streisand 
or The Civil War.  I'd rather have you ask me for $2 million than a 
paltry $200,000."  

This was the exact opposite of the supposed rationale in nixing "More 
Tales of the City."  The figures PBS cited in this case were innacurrate 
(both for the cost of "Tales" and the projected cost of "More Tales"), 
but taken at face value their argument was essentially, "Don't ask us 
for $2 million, ask us for $200,000!"

Similarly, "Rights & Wrongs" desperately needed PBS funding (or even a 
soft feed, qualifying them for money from CPB itself) to continue 
production this year.  They have scraped together money from elsewhere 
(including ITVS), but not without laying people off and going through a 
prolonged financial crises.

And, of course, the PBS flagship news program, M/L, with its "Beltway 
Bias" does a great job of weeding out the connections between people 
dying in the Third World & the actions of business elites & our 
government.

I could go on & on, but the point should be clear: PBS funding & 
distribution DOES matter, it does affect what people get to see, 
despite the best efforts of local programmers.  

We like to say apropos of PBS censorship or exclusion, "What you *do* 
see may look good, but you can't see what's *not* on the air."  Ditto 
for programmers: "What you *do* program may be very good, but you can't 
program what's not produced (or what independents can't afford to get 
to you)."  Why do you think ITVS was formed in the first place?  Do you 
seriously think it can fill the gap with it's measly little budget?  
Believe me, ITVS knows they can only do a fraction of what they'd like.  
Just ask them if they could use another $10 or $20 million.  (Tell them 
it was my idea!)

I'd like to see Terry Dugast prove me wrong by interpolating independent 
human rights & development experts into discussions on M/L, and airing 
"More Tales of the City" without someone making it first.  That WOULD be 
quite a trick!  I'd certainly pay to see it!


Paul Rosenberg
Reason & Democracy
Committee to Save Public Media
<rzndemopm@aol.com>

[CNI Home Page]