Inspired because I've been re-watching Eyes on the Prize on PBS the last few nights, the most mesmerizing documentary series I've ever seen, and acknowledging that no commercial network would or could ever give the time and focus for such a thorough, hard-hitting piece of broadcast journalism.
What this thread could be (of course the posters will make it what it will be, but here's what it could be):
Discussion/debate on the value/need for public broadcasting, and whether or not it is fulfilling its mission in this day and age.
Discussion of specific public TV/radio programs (including pledge specials), either currently on air, past programs, or coming attractions.
Ken Burns bashing, either specific or general.
Discussion of how public broadcasting differs in structure and content in various countries.
You needed to start this thread during pledge week, didn't ya? I hate pledge week.
I listen to two NPR stations every day, WAMU 88.5 and WETA 90.9. The latter is better because they broadcast so much BBC stuff. I also am fortunate to have 90.1, which is a 24 C-Span feed. C-Span, baby! 100% private, no tax money, no pledge drives, no commercials.
Never watch PBS, although my kid loves the PBS cable partners. No, wait a second, I did watch Masterpiece Theater the other night.
They always show the good stuff during a pledge drive. I agree that Eyes On The Prize is a great documentary. I taped the whole thing the first time around, along with another, shorter, follow up they aired.
Aside from not being a tv viewer anymore, I'm ambivalent about public broadcasting, both tv and radio, both of which seem to be aimed at a certain market that doesn't include me. I also feel it to be a bit misleading as while it receives public funding, it receives more corporate funding, and, finally, more subjectively, both its tv and radio variants bore me to tears. There's just something about the vibe that makes me want to shut it off. Frankly, I can't tell you the difference between an advertisement and the corporate-written blurbs they give thanking their, well, sponsors. I'm old enough to remember the old "and now a word from our sponsors...." So I see little difference.
Frankly, too, being an anti-statist, I'm ambivalent about the idea itself of state funding of the arts. However one looks at it, in the end there's an exclusionary officiality to it, most of the time, if only because they don't want to offend their government funders. But it's very hard to tell any social truth without deeply offending them. So they tend to go more toward pap, most of the time, from my perspective.
I am a huge fan of genuine *community* radio, by which I mean, radio -- also of public access tv -- that is actually completely supported by its listeners. There isn't any such radio where I live today but there was in the Pac NW when I lived there and there is still today. It produced some of the best programs I've heard, anywhere, then or since.
They always show the good stuff during a pledge drive.
Not in NYC. Here, during one of their seemingly endless pledge drives (do they have these things every 2 weeks?), they show only lectures by smarmy semi-fraudulent "self-help" authers interspersed with the same old tape of super-annuated doo-wop groups (hosted by Jerry Butler) or some sort of horrifying Yanni at the Hellhole crap, and of course constantly interrupted by interminable amateurish money-begging ("if you want to see more wonderful programming like this" -- OH HELL NO).
The rest of the time they show a few good programs, presumably with the money they got while they were showing the unwatchable junk, and of course with the corporate promos preceeding and following.
The self-obsessed Sesame Street Muppet is destroying all that is holy on children's TV.
August 15, 2006
ELMO REFUSED to be interviewed for this column. I consider this to be a supreme act of cowardice. And it doesn't surprise me one bit. Elmo is an annoying tool.
Yes, I know that children love Elmo. But children are idiots. That's why we don't let them have jobs. Could you imagine an office full of children? They'd spend all day telling dumb jokes and talking about their poop. It would be like it was before women entered the workplace.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Sesame Street" — which still has sharp, funny writing — is being destroyed by idiot cuteness. Not only is the patronizing, baby-talking Elmo usurping most of the hour, but "Sesame Street" — which debuted its 37th season Monday — added its first new female Muppet in 13 years: the sparkly haired, tutu-wearing, button-nosed, pink-skinned fairy goddaughter Abby Cadabby. Her shaky magic skills get her in situations she needs to get bailed out of, like the anti-"Bewitched."
Plus, she's got that creepy, throaty, little-girl Lindsay Lohan kind of voice, and a Paris Hilton-esque catchphrase: "That's so magic." When I watched "Sesame Street" in the '70s, the human cast and the Muppets were quirky adults who didn't talk down to me with baby voices. Now the human cast gets almost no airtime, and the show is dominated by Elmo, Baby Bear and, now, Abby Cadabby — preschoolers enamored by their own adorable stupidity.
The lesson they teach — in opposition to Oscar, Big Bird, Grover or Bert — is that bland neediness gets you stuff much more easily than character. We are breeding a nation of Anna Nicole Smiths.
I am not the only one who hates Elmo. Vernon Chatman and John Lee, the creators of MTV2's dark "Sesame Street" parody, "Wonder Showzen," think the evil red one is destroying the show.
"Elmo doesn't grow. People show him something and he laughs. He doesn't learn a lesson," says Lee. "It's the exact opposite of what old 'Sesame Street' used to do. Elmo has been learning the same lesson his whole life, which is that Elmo likes Elmo."
Chatman, who refers to Elmo as the Jar Jar Binks of "Sesame Street," worries that Elmo teaches kids to care only about themselves.
"Elmo is just a baby-voiced, self-obsessed character who is only concerned with Elmo," says Lee. "He just passively observes things: 'Elmo is looking at a sandwich. Elmo is eating a sandwich. Elmo is crapping out the sandwich and writing his name on the wall with it.' " The last celebrity to so obsessively refer to himself in the third person was Richard Nixon.
Whereas Count Von Count markets math and Oscar markets the acceptability of negative emotions, Elmo, brilliantly, just markets Elmo, leading him to be the show's cash cow, or whatever misshapen animal he's supposed to be.
I question not only Abby Cadabby but all of Elmo's associates. You may recall that Elmo testified before Congress about music education. But you may not remember who requested Elmo's appearance: Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now in jail for taking at least $2.4 million in bribes. I'm not implying that Elmo has taken dirty money, but these are the kind of people Elmo surrounds himself with.
I understand that "Sesame Street" has to compete in a Nickelodeon-Disney Channel-Wiggles-Pixar universe. In fact, the new episodes start with " 'Sesame Street' is brought to you by the following … " and then, instead of gently mocking consumerism by listing letters and numbers, they actually show real spots for McDonald's, Beaches resorts, Pampers and EverydayKidz.com — the last of which apparently helps children spell only if they want to be rappers.
I desperately don't want the show to go away, so I know they can't afford to run the "Elmo accidentally drank bleach and died" episode. Instead, they need to simply take Elmo and his buddies and give them their own hourlong show for the idiot spawn. Then put Luis, Gordon and the cool Muppets on their own half-hour "Classic Sesame" for the kids who will one day actually contribute to our society.
Whichever of the two shows you watched would serve as a convenient litmus test for the rest of your life. "Which 'Sesame Street' did you watch?" will be code on college applications, Internet dating and job applications. Blue and red states will be divided not by presidential choices, but by Grover and Elmo.
If we can't save all the kids, let's at least save the ones who can master speaking in first-person. The rest we'll use for reality TV stars.
Last edited by Sergio Zamora; October-17th-2006 at 04:06 PM.
Yeah, like those cynical assholes who make Wonder Showzen have what's best for kids at heart.
I spent a good deal of my adult life working for public television. It takes a lot out of you (and does give back), the pay is terrible and, as can be seen here, even the people who like you have more than a few complaints.
Funding pressure from all angles -- government support has shrunk to government pittance -- and an administration that has injected politics into places it never occurred before -- the CPB used to be a firewall, and now it looks more like a firing squad -- make it increasingly hard to do the actual work.
Depending on your funding authority -- pretty much every station is set up differently -- you were usually one bad budget cycle or two away from unemployment.
All respect to those still fighting the good fight, but in the end it was too thankless for me, and I now had a family to feed. Enough was finally enough.
Last edited by Chris D; October-17th-2006 at 04:14 PM.
At any time, this site provides an alphabetical list of programs that are on AT THAT VERY MOMENT on hundreds of English Language public radio stations throughout the world (mostly in the US, but I LOVE hyperbole with all my heart and all my might - as the godster is my witness, etc) - and links to the programs. It also lets you know (and sometimes chose between) the various streaming media that the linked programs are broadcast in (RealAudio, Media Player, etc.)
Since many popular NPR shows are played at various times on different station, this site allows you to listen to many programs at your convenience (even if they aren't archived).
In lieu of thanking me, send me a private message requesting my mailing address and then send cash.
Thank you
Last edited by steve(thelil); October-17th-2006 at 04:26 PM.
I'm a fan of PBS and NPR. WGBH has an HD channel on my cable provider, even.
I'm 3/4 of the way through "Viet Nam, A Television History" which was produced by WGBH (I think), and is available as a 4 disc set on Netflix. Not necessarily the final word on "Nam, but a pretty good survey type history of the war.
I also really like the Frontline series. It's what 20/20 and 60 minutes wish they could be.
Oddly enough I watch less PBS now than I did when I was younger. I think there are just so many more other high quality options now, coupled with what I feel is a certain staleness to some of the more recent PBS productions.
I grew up watching PBS religiously, starting with the Forsythe Saga, Upstairs, Downstairs, (basically every Masterpiece Theater ever made) Nature, Nova, etc... and all the Mystery series.
Now, it is rare when one of them does much for me. Some still manage to grab me, but not as many as in earlier years.
The recent American Masters two-part Andy Warhol documentary was great, however.
Lots of big band shows and nostalgia fests turn up during pledge drives in LA.
One PBS station seems to be running Donald Trump 24/7.
Another station is always running the pop violinist Andre Reiu and his endless concerts.
Eyes on the Prize has some incredible stuff in it.
During non pledge drive times, the LA PBS station runs lots of alternitive life style shows and every Holocaust documentary they can get thrier hands on.
Down the road about 40 miles, KVCR runs a more diversified programming schedule with a good deal of vintage programming.
And one of the best is KLCS...the station run by the LA school district. There you can catch ll the PBS series you mised the first thru tenth time around.
So we have 4 Public stations here. KOCE down in OC, too.
KCET - LA
KOCE - OC
KVCR - San B'doo
KLCS - LA school
I have long been against taxpayer sponsored broadcasting. The benefits are primarily for people who can afford to pay. Quality programming has many outlets these days so I'm not sure we'd miss much but that's besides the point. My brother-in-law, who was SVP in charge of Television Programming at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for three years might disagree with me.
I propose the government gut public broadcasting and spend the savings on giving free flu shots or flu mist to every public school student, teacher, and administrator in the country every year.
Last edited by Gordon B; October-17th-2006 at 07:56 PM.
They oughta do a pledge week where they threaten (offer) to kill one NPR personality unless (if) a certain dollar level is reached. I've never gone into my wallet for a penny for NPR, but I would if I knew that Diane Rehm might die if I did.
I have long been against taxpayer sponsored broadcasting.
Then you are in such illustrious company as Newt and Dubya! Congrats!
Quote:
I propose the government gut public broadcasting and spend the savings on giving free flu shots or flu mist to every public school student, teacher, and administrator in the country every year.
Won't work. The expected deluge of flu shots and mist after last year's breakdown is happening again this year...surprise!
Chris D, I have the same background. Working at GBH was rewarding in many ways, but not according to my mortgage lender.
A few comments in response to others' thoughtful pro and con statements.
First, state funding for the arts and for public broadcasting is not only a good thing but something that needs to be more fully supported. The idea was that the difference between PBS and commercial television was supposed to be the same difference as a public library and a book store. Just because you can get books at Barnes & Noble doesn't mean the government should eliminate funding for public libraries.
The problem, as has been stated, is the sense that the state must therefore have some influence on how the money is spent. In public broadcasting, this was dealt with through the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was set up to administer public funding. CPB funding is in three-year-ahead cycles, to prevent any immediate repercussions based on recent performance. Given the longstanding desire of Republican administrations to kill public broadcasting, this arrangement would be appear to be working; i.e., we still have PBS and it still produces programming that can piss off conservatives.
Other countries, such as England and Japan, are far more generous in the level of state funding for their public broadcasting enterprises. In the US, it's barely a buck a person per year. In those countries, it can get as high as double figures, IIRC.
Also, corporate funding is essential for two reasons: first, because the government ain't footing the entire bill; and second because public/private partnership is a good thing in general. There are appropriate incentives for bottom-line-thinking corporations to give to something with no direct benefit to them. While "underwriting spots" have indeed increased over the years on most national prime-time PBS program from 10 to 15 to 30 seconds, there are still important distinctions between these spots and a commercial. For one, you can't show someone actually using your product, or eating it with a shit-eating grin. You can't make any qualitative statements about the product. You can't compare or mention a competitor. There are other restrictions, too. You may think these are minor distinctions, but think about what you hate most about the content of most commercials and you'll see that PBS has compromised very little while still keeping blatant marketing pitches off the air.
A significant portion of the US population still doesn't have cable. It was almost 60% back when I was with WGBH, I'm sure it's much lower now. But still, you're talking about people who can't afford cable and people who live in rural areas. And these people have kids, too. They need quality TV they don't have to pay for.
Conservatives used to complain that PBS shows too much high-brow stuff like opera and art programs that are only of interest to wealthy folks (like them?), not programming for ordinary, decent people. Obviously that hasn't been true for a long, long time. My biggest complaint with PBS is how it caters to people who'll pledge to watch fucking idiots tell them how to live their life, like Wayne Dyer, or music that's as artful as a pap smear, like Andre Rieu. I want PBS to challenge people, to enlighten them, to expose them to something they've never seen before.
I want PBS to live up to the high standards it was founded with, back when television was described as a "vast wasteland." That's television worth supporting; that's television worth paying for.
Last edited by Gentle Giant; October-17th-2006 at 08:48 PM.
I have long been against taxpayer sponsored broadcasting. The benefits are primarily for people who can afford to pay.
First of all, this isn't true. Rich people can afford to go to the Metropolitan opera and don't need to hear it on public radio. There's a difference between saying that public radio caters to educated tastes and that "the benefits are primarily for people who can afford to pay" Are you saying that culture doesn't beneift poor people?
Secondly, I can't see how affordability is the test of whether taxes should be used to pay for something.
Or are you suggesting that rich people shouldn't get social security benefits ? Or that rich people should have to pay more taxes, since they can afford to?
I doubt it.
Interesting...the People's Network. Currently broadcasting Teletubbies, Charlie Rose, Bob the Builder, and in Search of Shakespeare.
The revolution is not being televised.
Bob the Builder is my hero. And, he has a "can do" attitude about everything. Please don't tell me that you don't allow your son to watch Bob, Monte.
I'm not hip to a revolution which needs coverage at the moment, but if there is/was one, I'd bet that Jim Lehrer would cover it . . . and, adequately and fairly.
I listen to PBS once in a while, usually when I am sick in my stomach and need something to make me upchuck. Terri Gross usually does the trick. They are a pack of self absorbed commies. I probably should send them some money for curing my nausea, then again if I listen too long I get sick again.
Please don't tell me that you don't allow your son to watch Bob, Monte.
Linear Mode
