Where Is the Arts Programming on PBS?
One of the questions I am always asked when I teach abroad is why there are not more performances by American arts organizations available on television. In other developed nations, the great arts organizations are seen regularly on television.
There are two answers to this question. The first is the expense of filming, especially the extra wages demanded by performers and stage hands. The cost for filming one opera or ballet can exceed one million dollars, an amount that simply cannot be recouped with DVD sales after broadcast. When I ran the Royal Opera House we made a landmark deal with the artists that paid them a modest annual fee for a substantial amount of filming by the BBC. I hope we can make similar deals here in the United States.
The second reason, however, has to do with the unique nature of America's public television organization.
PBS is a vital institution. It has provided important educational, artistic, and news programming for decades. But PBS is not a network like CBS or ABC. It is a cooperative of local stations. Most programming is created by one local station and then distributed to other local stations.
While local input and content is important, this means that major, expensive programs, like arts programming and dramatic series, come only from stations that can afford to create this programming, meaning those with strong fundraising operations. And far too few of the local stations do have strong fundraising operations. This is why so many of the arts programs we do see emanate from New York City, whose WNET is one of the most prominent stations in the television service.
There is so much wonderful art being produced across the nation, but this work is not available often enough on national television. I would like to see the Dayton Contemporary Dance Company or the St. Louis Opera or Penumbra Theatre in Minneapolis -- important arts organizations doing interesting work -- featured on national public television. But the decision is left to the local stations, most without the resources to mount important arts programming.
Why can't PBS be reorganized? Why can't there be a mix of local and national programming? Why can't the parent organization determine the best in American arts and fund its broadcast across the nation? I have to believe that a national programming effort would be extremely attractive to major national funders, who are now approached primarily by regional stations.
And while the local stations might protest some loss of autonomy, if this change resulted in better programming, higher ratings and a larger contributions base to share, I have to believe that many of the stations would appreciate the change.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which annually provides hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to the parent organization and to the local stations, has the clout to make this happen. Couldn't CPB dedicate some of its grant to PBS for programming of national importance?
Isn't it time for a discussion of the merits of a change in structure?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
ElitismFighter,
When I first glanced at your posting, the tone used was so inflammatory that I actually mistook it as sarcasm. The content of PBS’s programming, made possible through viewers’ annual donations, and was primarily educational. All of this changed, however, when Ronald Reagan stepped in, replacing most of this with less esoteric subjects. Funding to the stations then began to be provided at the discretion of large commercial organizations.
Those individuals, for whom Public Television had long been a source of cultural and educational enrichment, were left with programming of significantly less value. Prior to this substantial change, Public Television was in no way the purview of “…[c]ommunist homosexual ivory tower intellectual elitist snob.”
The primary mission of the Public Broadcasting System is to help democrats get elected. You wanna watch opera? Move to New York.
I produced a Shakesperean version of Herman Melville's Moby Dick. Noted Old Vic actor Jack Aranson starred in this 90 minute adaptation. IBM was very interested because it was a quality production of a highly rated stage show taped live. Many of the PBS stations are more interested in their yearly budget that buying quality productions. I was told more than once that we get the quality productions cheap from BBC.The advertising dollars they get are to preserve the monuments they own and keep them staffed.
The federal government should introduce new taxes to fund PBS, like adding $1/month to cable TV fees, adding $5 or $10 to the price of a TV set or video equipment, or taxing TV advertising. It's a real disgrace that PBS literally goes begging for operating funds, forced to put on those notorious pledge drives in regular periods.
"CelticWomen" Oh. The footstompers. It is about money. Over the last decade I have viewed PBS take on more and more infomercials for DVD products which presumptively PBS or local station receives a handsome percentage. Could be Susan Orman, or Progressive Self-Help Version Of American Evangelist, or Motown comes back! or you get the picture. They are long advertisements.
Well at least for my local station they put on Classic Arts Showcase after midnite, dunno why AT LEAST the other PBS stations in the viewing area can't do more of that, like KVCR ch 24 KLCS ch 58, KOCE ch 50. other wise I have to find it on the cable public access channel.
William Bradford above expresses the true reason we don't have great American art on PBS. In the late 70's early 80's, PBS regularly filmed theatrical pieces in which I was involved. I remember they did Happy End when I was at Arena Stage in DC. But when the conservatives took over under Reagan, they began to politicize the arts and made a major assault on the CPB. Their constant attack against the NEA, the NEH and the CPB had the effect of making our country more like Eastern Europe under the Soviets than what it had been. I recall Maserpiece theater was often about a play that I had not seen. I agree Michael that this is totally antithetical to a free society. But the conservatives are to blame. they have never wanted their tyrannical attitudes towards governance explored on the stage and screen so they effectively gave over all of our airwaves to the enemy of democracy; that crass capitalist bureaucracy of advertisers and corporate funders who dictate the content by their purse strings. Tyranny is the only form of governance that fears great art and liberal educational programming. So there is your answer.
Well-said. On a similar note, sadly, in our local market, our NPR station has stopped airing the wonderful classical music programs and gone to all jazz after 8:00 PM and a rock history program on Sundays. I have nothing against those genres, but miss the innovative programming that they used to air. The other "classical" station in town plays only what I call "Music Appreciation 101 Playlist" ad nauseum. There seems to be no outlet for contemporary art music anywhere. There are some amazing composers in this country that even young people would really enjoy if they ever got some exposure. This week, I will attend the College Music Society National Conference and get to hear new compositions by living, breathing talented composers. It will be the best concert I hear all year, and would never be aired on PBS or NPR. Tragic.
PBS is largely a joke these days. When I was growing up in the rural midwest PBS was an amazing resource. The Nature of Things and Nova expanded my horizon.
But today PBS science shows are dumbed down. They can't focus the camera for more than 10 seconds. And nothing is discussed in depth.
And as for art, apparently the only art is kitschy irish singing or dancing. Its always "Celtic Thunderdome" something or other.
I should mention that THE NATURE OF THINGS is a Canadian show PBS picked up from the CBC.
Masher you totally said it. I'll never forget the day as a high school senior who just graduated and had started summer college courses, I walked by the tv and a hopelessly nerdy, wonky, physicist (a Dr. Phillip Morris I think?) was animatedly talking and gesturing rapidfire about charmed quarks and quantum physics and some of Einstien's previously unproven ideas. It was like a magnet, like scratching an itch that had been previously out of reach. Like filling an empty hole. A talking head talking what must have seemed like gobbledy gook to most, mesmerized me for the better part of an hour, and I was hooked on this new TV station which was pure manna to those who just couldn't turn off their brains.
Now, I'm not sure that girl I used to be would at any given time, been have been able to tell a PBS station from any other, certainly not one of the cable stations.
Does "dumbed down" mean that you hate ordinary people who work for a living, Communist homosexual ivory tower intellectual elitist snob?
No. What it means, ElitismFighter, is that smart people, maybe even ESPECIALLY those who work at "ordinary" jobs like repairing cars or doing landscape maintenance or farming, deserve some food for their minds. My car repairman is one of the most brilliant thinking people I know.
Are you saying that ordinary people deserve only the beyond dumbed-down, pure drivel , crap-on-a-stick that passes for 99% of television fare? Because the sure nuff ivory-tower elite have each other to chat up, you know, and the rich can afford to zip over to Paris and hobnob with the cream of the smartypants if they so choose.
Surely you're not saying ordinary people deserve only ordinary fare?
As an independent producer, I have not been able to get PBS funding or broadcast dates on cultural programming after September 11th. PBS and CPB informed me that in a "post 9/11 world" they were concentrating on "social issue documentaries." ITVS and National Programming Service are pooling their resources, and what they choose to present is mostly dumb-downed material. They are funding foreign made programs, using NEA and NEH money to funnel into something called "ITVS International." The handful of inexperienced young people viewing programs and turning them down are not culturally oriented and go for the "social issue" stuff -- ITVS has repeatedly told me and my colleagues they don't usually fund documentaries on artists. Yet, they are funding foreign programs on musicians and artists using funds they receive from the NEA. This has got to stop.
Another sad legacy of baby bush. PBS was gutted as was NPR by the same kind of cynical operatives that jimmied bogus voting machines and robbed all mainstream news media of credibility. The reliable government run programming suddenly took on a nefarious quality of not quite newsworthy reportage,and douched reliability like it was Dan Rather, or the NYT. Tomlinson was one culprit who saw even liberal sympathies among tele-tubbies.
The PBS, NPR approach to reliable reporting still has to recover.
One might think that there are still bush moles pulling the strings on the networks.
And they give Hugo a hard time about his media control...what a laugh.
I reduced my contributions to my local PBS station(s) because of the blatant bias of their news and commentary. We have always enjoyed the children's programming and arts features, but the news coverage - both TV and radio - is far too liberally biased.
Because of this fact, I also oppose all government funding of public media. What used to represent an unassailable academic objectivity has become just another liberal opinion outlet. Since this doesn't represent Americans fairly, it should not be funded by government money.
You've got to be joking. I watch a LOT of liberal news and PBS is NOWHERE near being truly liberal. I find them quite centered in fact, and listing slightly to the right.
I agree, pangursperson. Evidently WilliamB hasn't checked out the Nightly Business Report or Washington Week in Review. And, even the McGlothlin Report at times.
The only truly left-leaning news or issues shows I know about are Bill Moyers' Journal, and "Now", and even then, it's not a constant lean to the left. Just pointing out inconsistencies criticizing leaders and policies for unquestionable mistakes and errors in judgement and often shocking departures from good government practices , the law, or even the Constitution, does not equal "leaning to the left".
Just because it doesn't lean toward those who claim to be on the right, or even presents material questioning those on the right, doesn't mean it's on the left, WilliamB.
Agreeing with pangursperson's assessment of PBS. With the exception of Frontline, POV, Bill Moyers and NOW, most is just inanely "neutral" or leaning rightward, as you say. National Public Radio is even worse. In its early years, there were elements of investigative journalism and excellent political reportage, but in recent years it has become banal, inane, bland, careful and insipid in style and content. Unfortunately, for us radio lovers it is all there is that stands in any kind of contrast to the takeover of American radio by Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al. So, even banal and inane as it is, we are grateful for NPR. In our house, we do become simultaneously bemused and disgusted when NPR reports on the Roman Catholic church and the pope; they assume very hushed and reverent tones and report on the pope's every movement. We have begun calling it National Papal Radio. Their reporting on the organized, systemic criminality and inappropriate political influence of the Catholic church on American politics is weak to non-existent. The great BBC has also been weakened and trivialized by their government as well. Canadian radio (CBC) is excellent ("As It Happens", for example). To be fair, "The Diane Rehm" show on NPR/WAMU is wonderful, largely due to the outstanding interview style of Ms. Rehm herself.
An unfortunate result of the development of PBS, as wonderful as it is, is the ghettoizing of the arts. Before PBS was invented, the networks took arts programming seriously as an obligation but PBS got them off the hook. Remember when there was an NBC symphony? And when NBC commissioned a Gian Carlo Menotti opera? There was the Bell Telephone Hour, the Voice of Firestone, and even Ed Sullivan had ballet and opera along with the Beatles and Elvis. CBS had Omnibus on Sundays. The networks also then got rid of their documentary units. I remember an excellent NBC documentary on the history of the Louvre (narrated by Charles Boyer) and one that CBS did on the Search for Ulysses. All this programming was mainstream and the appalling ignorance of the arts that we see today was less. I used to feel (until the last few years--the landscape is very different now), that instead of PBS's interminable fund raising, the networks should have been made to subsidize it, for after all, the networks then were able to concentrate on more lucrative programming and thus we would have been spared that madness..
Couple of points for the other side:
1) Small market stations & networks have a harder time cultivating and acquiring essential corporate and large-donor funding than those big market entities because of a smaller pool of potential donors from which to draw. Asking them to share even more of their scarce resources will mean less money for them to produce their own local and regional material, so all-important to often overlooked local and rural people.
2) One complaint heard fairly often in so-called "flyover" areas outside large bi-coastal markets is that much of the nationally-distributed public broadcasting fare concentrates too heavily on issues and stories occurring in and around their mega-markets, ignoring or giving undue short shrift to stories of equal if not greater national importance occurring elsewhere in the country.
Also--that the large market stations/networks produce too many stories of local or regional importance, but which often get elevated/inflated to national coverage simply because they occurred in that large market and were easy to cover.
3) Instead of asking for more financial support from smaller market entities, why don't the larger markets ask for more funding so they can broaden coverage to the rest of the country?
Even better, why don't the larger markets choose a smaller market "sister" with which to partner, and share some resources with her? In Louisiana where some of our cities have established sister cities in France.
I've lived in New York City for 30 years and fly-over Tennessee for 25.
Excellence is excellence no matter where you are.
Yes, Dots, I agree. But how many times have you thought, dang, why is this NY-person/group/issue getting attention over X person/group/issue back in Tennessee, when the Tennessee issue actually has more national importance and or significance in some aspect, than the NY one? I know I have, plenty of times.
The answer is....the NY (or Boston, or Los Angeles, or...) broadcast entity has more resources to cover whatever happens within their local or regional reach, and the connections to spread it across the national networks and distribution paths. Consequently, on a steady diet of, say, nothing but National Public Radio, a person from Ville Platte Louisiana would hear way more kelsmer (sorry, spelling) music as he would Cajun and Zydeco, both equally obscure and regional ethnic art forms.
That's why local public stations and networks, with local resources, are essential in covering local issues, even the ones of national importance. Even if they have only a part-time college student with a portable recorder, as opposed to a 12-person production crew. Because that's frequently the only way they'll GET covered!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
