The initial foundation of public television was laid in 1952 when the FCC reserved channels for educational television but it was not until 1967 until the notion of 'public television" emerged. The idea of using money to publicly fund television stations with the purpose of education, enriching culture and providing information. The next two years would see the development of a system of programming that remains in effect to this very day.
The biggest thing to understand about public television programming is that neither the national Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) or Public Broadcasting System (PBS) can produce programming. All programming for public television stations has ot be created by the local stations or produce by other sources. This was to prevent both of these organizations which are run by politicians who owe party allegiance politically, from using public broad casting as a political propaganda tool at least in theory. Despite this, many have accused the public stations of being used in the past by the government from time to time to spread an agenda.
To further the notion of separation from government, funding must be provided by multiple sources. While all stations receive some funding from the federal government which includes local donations, local underwriting and grants. These sources for public funding have also been the source of questions regarding programming content as who provides private funds has been a source of controversy in the past.
The one thing that can be said is that from a funding aspect, public television has always struggled for funding and over the years has stayed afloat despite these struggles. Mostly funding is probably connected with the quality of programming and so it becomes a viscous cycle of getting good funding to get good programming, but if the programming is not quality, the funding drys up and you enter a downward spiral. The value of public television may be diminishing as other alternate sources of educational television are have begun to crop up as well as different delivery systems.
Technologically, public broadcasting has not always kept up over the years. In the beginning, the stations were small and low powered and I remember as a kid in the days of the Big Three we could not even get a signal and it was only the advent of cable where it became more mainstream and outside the confines of urban areas or college campuses.
Now:
The great issue facing public broadcasting now is this funding problem. Commercial television has advertising and fee services to keep their funding high, but public television programming is not allowed to advertise to make money so sometimes the alternate sources of funding are just not there. To make matters worse, many have questioned the neutrality of public broadcasting as far as the political spectrum is concerned and there have been many times that politicians have threatened to remove CPB or cut funding at the federal level.
Public broadcasting also now faces more competition than ever before. For profit educational companies produce programming that can be purchased and often has a higher quality. Streaming services and educational programs are available on demand or through services such as Netflix and others. The issue of the purpose and necessity of PBS reoccurs often and those who support public broadcasting have to do even more and more work to keep things running and budget cuts threaten programming.
The vast majority of funding comes from individuals and businesses but if other sources provide the same educational level of programming as public sources than is the motivation for both these individuals and business going to continue. Programming has changed because of this and you see more and more public television programming being purchased from outside sources to run on the stations. Their long running relationship with the British Broadcasting Corporation and often buys the rights to show programs (that are older or no longer running) in the United States.
As we look at the programming that is currently being produced, controversy continues. In 2010 the Republican dominated Congress suggested cutting funding to PBS as an unnecessary luxury in a budget that was strained to the limit at the time. Funding at a federal level is now openly questioned regularly and this has public broadcasters nervous.
The political side of this has not gone away either as conservatives attack PBS regularly and have done so since the 1980s as they assert that political commentary shows like Frontline take a more liberal and left side stance. PBS counters that they try to be balanced but the conservatives state that the fact they can level criticism and liberals do not indicates as bias. Should the tax payers fund something that is used for a political agenda? This is the constant question that revolves around PBS and their programming.
Mostly though the issue is funding and recently in July it was announced by Home Box Office (HBO), who produces Sesame Street for PBS, that they would be cutting three long time cast members. They public line was that this was or the good of the show but the rumors were more along the lines of getting rid of the three most expensive actors to make the show cost less to produce. This kind of thing happens from time to time affecting a lot of PBS programming. There is a constant challenge to cut costs and yet keep the quality of programming high.
Later:
The real challenge of looking at the future of public broadcasting is that very few people want to talk about it. In many senses, it faces the same challenges as regular television but without corporate funding it faces greater monetary challenges. The challenges of internet services for television as well as things like Netflix are going to cut deeper into the ability of all regular broadcast television and public broadcasting will far greater challenges as it tries to adapt.
From a programming viewpoint there are other sources coming into the programming realm that also do not have a profit motive. As not for profit websites create educational and informational content including a video component; it might be said their are filling the role public television was originally created to produce. The internet itself might be considered as an educational tool so does public television have a place in a world where their programming could be duplicated by other means?
I personally have mixed feelings about this situation. On the one hand, I have some emotional connection to public television in the areas of being part of my childhood and my children's childhood with programs like Sesame Street. At the same time I see my granddaughters learning from new media and so the necessity of public broadcasting becomes the focus.
I also could say that my horizons have been widened by watching shows on cable through public broadcasting that exposed me over to the years to art and culture as well as being one small window to other countries through the BBC. That said, the internet can do the same thing and I have far more choice a selection as to what culture and art I want to view and learn about. All things come to an end and I think pubic broadcasting might be seeing the beginning of the end.
References:
Goldstein, J. (2004). Public television. In A.
DiStefano, K. Rudestam & R. Silverman, Encyclopedia
of distributed learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved
from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sagedl/public_television/0
Chapman, R. (2013). Public Broadcasting
Service. In R. Chapman & J. Ciment (Eds.), Culture wars in America: An
encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices. London, United Kingdom:
Routledge. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.libcat.ferris.edu/content/entry/sharpecw/public_broadcasting_service/0
@. (2013). Funding Cuts Leave The
Future of PBS in Question. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from
http://screenrant.com/pbs-funding-cuts-cpb-mcrid-106473/
No comments:
Post a Comment