Date: |
Tue, 10 Aug 1999 08:44:12 -0500 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
John Proffitt wrote:
>Public television and public radio have different situations. All
>suggestions that PBS simply go away seem to be followed by "I can get
>all of that on cable, with A & E, Disney, Discovery Channel, etc.."
>
>That argument becomes partially valid only when (1) cable is free and (2)
>everyone with a TV set has cable. Current statistics are that less than
>50% of the television viewing public has cable. And the public television
>stations are "free" insofar as you don't have to pay a monthly subscription
>fee.
Perhaps we should make A & E et al. available through the airwaves and not
just cable. I would also wonder, what percentage of those without cable,
watch PBS. It would save all of those production and staffing costs of
public broadcasting.
What about those who have satelite dishes? Also, what about those who don't
have computers and network connections in their homes. Should there be a
public counterpart for those who have no computers? Public libraries do
provide such access and they also provide free check out of educational
videos.
>Radio is somewhat different, because of the manner in which people use
>radio. Radio tends very strongly to be format driven; i.e., uniform
>type of programming throughout the day.
For me, this is reactive thinking and not proactive. Again, the thinking
that the arbitron dictates content.
>People who own commercial radio stations by and large expect a return
>on their investment. ... This usually means changing to a more widely
>attractive format. This is the precise pressure that has caused a number
>of high-profile commercial classical stations to switch formats.
And I would say, has caused public broadcasting to water down content.
I often like to make a comparison between the budgets of our local NPR
station versus our non-profit member supported classical station. Why
must it cost 3-4 times as much for an NPR station to function versus our
listener supported classical station.
>Public radio stations do have operating expenses just like the commercial
>brethren, and meeting those expenses generates its own set of pressures.
>The big controversy within the public radio community right now--especially
>those stations who accept federal subsidies from the Corporation for Public
>Broadcasting--is striking the right balance between attracting an audience
>which will support the station and delivering a mission-driven programming
>stream.
Perhaps the problem is that public broadcasting does not have a clear
sense of its mission?
Karl
|
|
|