roundtable: Re: Two CPB articles (posted by CITS)

roundtable: Re: Two CPB articles (posted by CITS)

Re: Two CPB articles (posted by CITS)

W. Curtiss Priest (BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu)
Tue, 28 Feb 95 13:41:25 EST 

Message-Id: <9502281848.AA04048@a.cni.org>
Date:         Tue, 28 Feb 95 13:41:25 EST
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:      Re: Two CPB articles (posted by CITS)
To: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable <roundtable@cni.org>
In-Reply-To:  Message of Mon, 27 Feb 1995 16:18:32 -0500 from


>lowest common denominator, as commercial broadcasting is?

I believe Jeffrey Briggs has made an excellent summary of the
current debate regarding CPB and an excellent point about an
educated population need not be an elitist one.

I submitted the following publication to the Boston Globe as
an op-ed piece and it wasn't printed.  I will try and find out
why, because if we don't face the fact that standing up for
an educated population is, in itself, an ideological position, then
we will blind ourselves to the political realities.

Curt


                           W. Curtiss Priest, Ph.D.
                 Center for Information, Technology & Society
                             466 Pleasant Street
                              Melrose, MA  02176
   Internet: bmslibmitvma.mit.edu, Voice: 617-662-4044, FAX: 617-662-6882

                   This document may be distributed freely

                               February 12, 1995

                              An Open Discussion
                   with Government, Foundations, Non-profits
                            and Grassroots Efforts


                        The Will to Create the Future:


                               Public Issue #8:

                   "Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- Under
                       Attack:  Strategies for the
                                104th Congress



At three PM today, Ed Markey hosted a critical forum to help shape the
debate about the fate of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting(CPB).
Held at Lexington High School in Massacusetts, the three speakers spoke to
the need to maintain the CPB.

Ed Markey spoke about the important role that Public Television plays in
balancing the type of programming offered by commercial networks, noted
that the support of CPB amounted to $2 per person per year compared to
hundreds of dollars for the reception of cable, and noted that many
children do not even receive cable in their homes.  He read off the names
of programms that were available on public television and contrasted that
with the fare offered on commercial stations -- unsuitable to children and
parenting.  He then called the Public Broadcast Station the Children's
Broadcast Stations, since from seven AM to six PM, the programming is 100%
child oriented.

Henry Becton, Chairman of WGBH, of Boston, provided a broad defense for
their programming and noted that 1) the sale of merchandise such as from
the successful show Barney was precarious -- the show may be a "blip" and
the amount is small compared to federal funding, 2) the loss of government
support would require public television to shift programming in the wrong
direction to attract advertisers, and 3) the presence of advertisers would
drive away many loyal viewers, compounding the problem.

Peggy Charren, the previous director of Action for Childrens' Television,
in Boston, spoke about the ways public television has served children, how
insensitive commercial television is to children's needs.  She spoke of
how outraged she was that to sell CPB to a private firm would be to betray
her and many others.  She noted that children's programming and
responsiveness was built on the hard work and sweat of people like her,
with no finanical return. And she spoke about the likelihood of destroying
the very quality, civic leaders like she, had worked hard to achieve.

What was unspoken, however, was the need to devise a strategy to prevent
cutbacks to CPB.  Yes, writing letters would help and, in particular,
writing to John Porter, Jack Fields, and Newt Gingrich would help.  Ed
Markey spoke of hope on the Senate side that many senators from rural
areas would recognize the importance of National Public Radio, and vote
with those interests in mind.

Unspoken, however, was the implicit ideology in the current agenda of CPB.
Indeed, when this was suggested by one of the audience at the microphone,
Ms. Charren recoiled to think that her position was ideological.

But that's the point.  Why else are powerful Republicans attacking CPB?
It isn't for the $2/year that it costs.  Rather it is because they
consider CPB to be ideologically distasteful, smacking of elitism and
liberal values.  This is not to say that their default solution -- to
leave it to the market -- would provide any better programming for the
quality of children's education, but that, in their minds, it would at
least not have the CPB bias.

Those on the side of CPB must face the fact that their agenda is every bit
as an issue of values as those who oppose CPB.  And, those supporting CPB
must see their side, not as value laden, but as value rich.  From shows on
home improvement and cooking to thought provoking documentaries, the
programming is built on the ideological belief of strong education, free
speech, and open debate of issues.

The ideological conflict must be recognized and addressed up front.  Back
door statements about the low cost of CPB misses the point.  The
Republicans don't care how little it is, as long as the government has any
role, they are upset.

The question boils down to what programming provides the backbone of a
good, virtuous society.  We have on one hand commercial programs like
"Baywatch" pandering to the baser instincts of society and, on the other,
we have shows like I'll Fly Away with You and Masterpiece Theatre imbued
with strong family values and noble traits.  Documentaries such as the one
on the Civil War, remind us of how savage we can really be and help
persuade us to tame our more beastial tendencies.

In a society fraught with violence, abuse, and divorce, programming must
address and help resolve the ills of society as well as provide amusement
and culturally redeeming education.  Programming must act in tandem with
the broad array of social values that many interests wish to bring to the
good of the country -- from the right, as well as from the left.

CPB is in the spotlight.  It needs to not only react defensively, but to
learn from the attacks from the right how to better serve the nation as a
whole.  The attacks are a signal for CPB to grow and address a wider
audience, and a country in need.

Our leadership in Washington should overcome the petty fighting about
whose values are correct, and move to instituting a CPB that achieves a
pluralism of positive programming that learns from both sides of the
debate and embodies a fuller range of values than it does today.

Only by seeing the political process as providing a "message" will there
be progress.  Protecting CPB, as is, is not enough.

This challenge is a healthy one.  All sides must entertain the possibility
of remaking a CPB that is worthy of government largesse.  And, at least
the majority leadership, must be convinced that the country is better off
with this re-attuned CPB than without it.

_______________________________________________________________________________
|           W. Curtiss Priest, Ph.D., Director       *********************** |
|      Center for Information, Technology, & Society *  Improving humanity * |
|                                                    *  through technology * |
|                  466 Pleasant Street               *********************** |
|                Melrose, MA  02176-4522         BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU       |
|                  Voice: 617-662-4044     Gopher to our publications:       |
|   Fax: 617-662-6882      GOPHER.EFF.ORG (under similar organizations)      |
_____________________________________________________________________________|

[CNI Home Page]