roundtable: PBS Standards (LONG)

roundtable: PBS Standards (LONG)

PBS Standards (LONG)

Terry Dugas (DUGAST@mail.firn.edu)
Thu, 23 Feb 1995 23:17:50 EST 

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 23:17:50 EST
From: Terry Dugas <DUGAST@mail.firn.edu>
Subject: PBS Standards (LONG)
To: roundtable@cni.org
Message-Id: <D410ZVQIXL68V*/R=FIRNVX/R=A1/U=DUGAST/@MHS>


*****
> Reply to Terry Dugas. Thanks for your perspective re censorship of
> leftwing docs and programming. I'm glad to see you're independent,
> and I have a better understanding of the independence of local public
> TV stations. But are you saying that the refusal to carry the programs
> listed by Paul Rosenberg on PBS has no chilling effect on individual
> stations, or on the ease of getting these controversial programs on
> the air?
> 
>      And judging from his list, there is a clear bias against
> criticism of the elite and its national security games. How do you
> explain that? I know you don't give a rat's ass, but it appears to
> be a clear case of bias by PBS - yes? No?
> 
> Jeff Briggs
*****

You raise some good points.  If PBS were capricious in its refusal to 
air programs, or inconsistent in applying standards across a broad 
philosophical spectrum, a charge of bias would be justified.  
Unfortunately, I didn't make the decisions at PBS regarding Paul's 
list, so I can't comment on them specifically.

But Accuracy in the Media regularly posts lists of "conservative" 
programs PBS refused to run.  So I'd say they were consistent across 
ideological lines.

One chief reason, though, PBS refuses to distribute shows involves 
funding.  PBS has strict guidelines insisting that the funders of a 
program have no influence over content.  "Public television will not 
allow editorial control to be exercised by program funders.  In order 
to assure that public television is editorially independent, as a 
general rule, PBS will not accept programs for national distribution 
in which the funder has asserted or has the right to assert editorial 
control....In a program of a public affairs or controversial nature, 
if there is a very clear and direct connection between the interests, 
products or services of the potential underwriter and the subject of 
the program which would likely lead the public to conclude that the 
program has been influenced by the funder, the proposed program funding 
will be unacceptable."  (Program Producer's Handbook)

And that disqualifies many programs of high quality produced by special 
interest groups.  For example, if I produce an award winning documentary 
on the systematic destruction  of the Cajun culture, funded by the 
Society to Preserve Cajun Heritage, PBS would not distribute the show.  
The money muddles the message.

However, if I produce the same show, funded by the Ford Foundation or 
a NEH grant, the program would be acceptable.

Programs must also meet elaborate editorial standards.  Shows are 
judged on several categories, including fairness ("PBS may reject... 
a program that contains any unfair or misleading presentation of facts, 
including inaccurate statements of material fact, undocumented 
statements of fact that appear questionable on their face, misleading 
juxtapositions, misrepresentations, or distortions,") accuracy 
("Editorials, analysis, commentary, and point of view programs must be 
held to the same standards of factual accuracy as news reports,") 
objectivity, and balance ("PBS may condition acceptance of a program 
on the producer's willingness to further the goal of balance by 
deleting designated footage or including other points of view on the 
issues presented....")  Plus five other pages of standards.

If you look at what PBS does air, including recent "Frontline's," 
"Inside the FBI," "Violence in America," "Hunger in America," you'll 
see programs that are critical "of the elite and its national security 
games."  While individual programs may be excluded.  I don't see any 
institutional bias.

I do acknowledge, though, that the national PBS schedule is centrist.  
As a result of relying on both government and private donations, the 
national schedule will not stray too far in either extreme.  I 
personally believe "Tales of the City, Two" was vetoed at the highest 
levels of PBS in response to individual and government pressure.  The 
only truly independant media may be public access television.

But that does not mean individual PBS affiliates are forced to be 
centrist.  Some are quite liberal, some quite conservative.   This is 
where our alternative sources of programming enter.  Having a program 
turned down by PBS carries no stigma, has no chilling effect on a 
program's potential to be broadcast.  For a program already produced, 
alternative distribution may be a great advantage.  Local stations do 
not have to accept PBS's standards on funding or editorial control.  
I could get my little epic on Cajun culturecide, funded by the Cajun 
Preservation Society, distributed by an alternative distributor.  For 
the cost of 300+ stamps, I could send a press release to each public 
broadcasting affiliate touting my show and urging it be broadcast.  I 
would have to do this even if PBS was the distributor.

Speaking as a Producer and a former Indy Producer, the real issue isn't 
who distributes the show I just produced.  The issue is how do I get 
money for my NEXT show.  I want to go to a funder and say "my last 
program was distributed by PBS."  Sounds better and opens the wallet 
quicker than "My last program was distributed by the American Program 
Service" or "my last program was seen on 75 public broadcasting 
stations."  

The door of the American Program Service, Pacific Mountain Network, 
Central Educational Network, the Southern Educational Communications 
Association (all national distributors) and most local stations is 
always open to quality shows.

Terry Dugas
WSFP-TV
<dugast@mail.firn.edu>
"I told you it was long!"

[CNI Home Page]