Cutting edge… 1962
Yesterday, while I was sitting at my kitchen table typing out my angry screed about Gwen Ifill, I was also listening to NPR, as I do every morning.
NPR happened to be running their annual beg-a-thon, their fundraising drive, which reminded me that Public Radio and PBS, the PUBLIC Broadcasting Corporation, are paid for by us, the listeners, or viewers. That is, PBS is ‘our’ network. Viacom may belong to Sumner Redstone and NBC may soon belong to Comcast, but PBS belongs to us. As Ronald Reagan said, “I paid for that microphone”.
This is particularly annoying when it comes to Ms. Ifill and the pure arrogance of PBS.
Initially irritated with Ms. Ifill and her cavalier treatment of Prof. Jay Rosen, I posted a response on her PBS’s website, on which she writes a blog. I posted a response because the blog calls for comments. And even if responses are limited to 500 characters (think of this as a kind of super-twitter, I suppose), I was rather astonished that Ms. Ifill did not deign to publish my response. I was so astonished, I posted again. In fact, I posted five times.
Nothing.
Now, what responses did Ms. Ifill choose to post?
Here they are:
thank you Gwen the lone voice whispering reason in the wilderness
and
Thank you for your good job of hosting and presenting the views of the reporters on washington week. It is one of my favorite media presentations. I am not one who is pleased with the divergence from “Cronkite” news to opinion dominated media programs. I applaud the program and your hosting of it. I will continue to be a faithful viewer.
or this one:
Double thank you for reasoned, focused, in-depth reporting and analysis. Thank you for not letting us know your own opinions, and thank you for giving me the information I need to make up my own mind. Thank you for being you. We love you for your generosity of spirit and for being professional in your work. And lastly, thank God for PBS which allows us to get NEWS and not opinions! What in the world would we do without you.
You see. And all this time I thought Ms. Ifill was working for “Public” broadcasting.
She is not.
She is working for Pravada. Or so she seems to believe. Perhaps she has confused ‘public’ broadcasting with ‘The People’s Broadcasting’ as in ‘The People’s Democratic Republic of China Broadcasting’.
Now, here is the interesting thing about ‘Public’ Broadcasting.
When it was founded in the 1960s, (thank you Ed Murrow), the technology of television and video was so expensive and so complex that it cost millions (even a lot then!) to put someone on the air and push that image through the em spectrum into millions of homes. So PBS gave voice to those who could not get onto NBC or ABC or CBS (as that was all there was). It was a good idea for 1962.
But that was a long time ago.
The technology has changed.
Today, the Public uploads 23 hours of video to YouTube every minute.
The Public posts 240 million blogs on the web.
The Public has something to say.
Perhaps in the 21st century Public Broadcasting should be reflective of what the Public is talking about. Perhaps Public Broadcasting should put itself front and center of the new technologies that are liberating millions of voices. Perhaps Public Broadcasting could be about becoming a publisher and editor for those millions of voices and giving them a larger and more focused platform than YouTube does, as opposed to becoming a highly controlled vehicle for Ms. Ifill to express her opinions and bathe herself in praise.
The Public has a voice and an opinion and wants to be heard. Freed of the constraints of the need to sell commercial time and appeal to the largest possible audience, perhaps Public Broadcasting could place itself on the cutting edge of the obvious revolution that is happening before our eyes in public discourse and become the pinnacle of that vibrant discussion.
This, I think, we would all be more than happy to pay for.
Instead, what is our money buying us?
Gwen Ifill… that ‘one voice whispering in the wilderness’.
Come on.
Lone Voice?
Wilderness?
12 Comments
Pingback: Rehab Centers - Healing Place still trying to open
Georgina Faulkner May 28, 2010
You have done it once again! Incredible writing!
Michael Rosenblum May 23, 2010
Dear Nino
Wow. You spend almost as much time in my life as I do. And I’m here! I can only hope you’re having as much fun as I am. DNA 2010? Were you hoping for an invitation? This year we ran a one day conference in Antwerp for European media executives only. Much more productive for us. We also gave out the Concentra Award for this year to Adam Ellick from The NY Times. Here’s a link in case you missed it. http://www.theconcentra.org/en/news/general/
If you really wanna come next year, I’ll get you on the list.
Nino May 24, 2010
“Dear Nino
Wow. You spend almost as much time in my life as I do.â€
If this blog is what you consider your life I really feel for you man, get a life.
“And I’m here! I can only hope you’re having as much fun as I am.â€
What you call fun would be justifiable suicide for most normal people
“ DNA 2010? Were you hoping for an invitation?â€
Only if I could learn to swim in manure
“This year we ran a one day conference in Antwerp for European media executives only. Much more productive for us.â€
In few words all the BS we head from you about the DNA turned out to be just another addition to your long list of failures
“If you really wanna come next year, I’ll get you on the list.â€
Only if the circus stops coming to town and I miss seeing the clowns.
Michael Rosenblum May 24, 2010
and still you are here
Nino May 24, 2010
“and still you are hereâ€
YES I AM, you have become part of my morning routine along a few other similar blogs. Thanks to the Iphone I make my morning regularity function a bit more productive than just sitting there. I used to read the paper but this is more fun.
Beside, it does wonder to my regularity
Michael Rosenblum May 24, 2010
well thanks for that bit of information, and please make sure the camera function is ‘off’ when you’re reading and posting!
Tom Weber May 21, 2010
You’re missing the big picture here. The sorry state of public broadcasting since the Reagan years is part of the systematic gutting of the publicly owned broadcast spectrum that has been going on unabated since the 1920s.
Media historian Robert McChesney has documented this extensively. The broadcast spectrum, a public resource just like national parks, has been carved up for private profit. Public service requirements, weak at best, have been eliminated. Hell, broadcasters don’t even pay an annual fee for the bandwidth they occupy.
Meanwhile, the amount of public funding for “public” broadcasting has shrunk to less than $300 million per year (CPB annual report, 2008). That’s MILLION. James Cameron spends that on one movie. The lion’s share of PBS funding comes from corporate underwriting and donations from upper middle class viewers, and that’s how PBS perceives its audience.
Yes, they’re elitist. Yes, they have failed to comprehend the sea change that is going on in mass media. But the big picture remains the privatization of public space. The same thing is going on now with broadband. The big media companies see the handwriting on the wall, and they are moving fast to colonize another space developed with public funding, namely the Internet.
Read McChesney. He says this much better than I can. Did not mean to expound at length, and I completely agree about the arrogance of PBS, but I felt the point had to be made.
Cheers
Tom
Nino May 21, 2010
” I was rather astonished that Ms. Ifill did not deign to publish my response. I was so astonished, I posted again. In fact, I posted five times.”
WOW Michael, how awful, she actually banned an opposing point of view?
Where did I see this happening before?
I remember now, It was right here on your blog, and now you’re throwing a tantrum because somebody is doing the same to you?
Did the two of you attended the same PKG for spoiled children?
Michael Rosenblum May 21, 2010
That is the difference between PUBLIC Broadcasting, which the public pays for, and a private enterprise like this blog, ….which I also paid for. If you contribute $1000 to my blog, I might feel more compelled to print your opinions. When Ms Ifill posts her own blog, she can do as she likes.. but when she’s working for The Public and paid by The Public she does not have that luxury.
Nino May 23, 2010
GET YOURSELF A DOSE OF REALITY MICHAEL, CONTRIBUTING TO FANTASYLAND? I ALREAY HAVE FREE ACCESS TO DISNEY WORLD.
If you are talking value just take a close look at the comments that you have been getting on this graveyard of frustrated wannabe journalist and photographers that you call a blog, you should be the one paying me for occasionally participating; if I can stop the hysterical laughing after reading some of the posts that is, but that’s okay, I’m charitable.
Look at your “most commented†section, it was most commented because I introduced a dose of reality to your science fiction predictions. Where are all those supporters or yours that were blasting me for telling the truth. They were supposed to put people like me out of business, instead, we are doing better than ever they are all gone and so are their web sites.
BTW, what ever happen to those international DNA meeting that were supposed to shape the future of television. I googled DNA 2010 and there was nothing about it.
Austin Beeman May 20, 2010
Public Broadcasting is exactly the same at ‘people’s republic’
This is the way it has been for most of my adult life. Money taken from the masses (under threat of government power) and used to fund the most ELITIST network out there.
I’m not even saying that I don’t watch PBS. I do. It just doesn’t represent the people of this country at all. You find minimal diversity of opinion and a very condescending attitude to the kind of people whose tax dollars support the network.
YouTube is the real ‘public broadcasting’ and it is every bit as crazy, crass, sophisticated, complex, and wonderful as our nation.
Anyway, love these articles Michael!