PBS' Coded Plea For Help

by: Daniel De Groot

Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 17:15

PBS would not run the show-at least not until President Bush has left office. The show delivers impressively on a promise to "connect the dots in an investigation of interrogations of prisoners in U.S. custody that became 'at a minimum, cruel and inhuman treatment and, at worst, torture'"

While this might lead one to indict PBS, I think the real story is more interesting, and highlights the importance of strong public media.

But Horton adds a bit of background:

This spring, PBS's distinguished Frontline series aired a mildly critical account of the lead-up to the Iraq War entitled "Bush's War." As the airing of the program was announced, the Bush Administration proposed to slash public funding for PBS by roughly half for 2009, by 56% for 2010 and eliminating funding entirely for 2011. Did PBS get the message? Perhaps.

Honestly, I missed this news at the time.  I even watched the Frontline episode (and I recommend it).  Did I miss it because I missed it, or because the media buried it, because no one cares about PBS?  Doing some poking around, the PBS cuts did not attract much notice (though this is amusing from what I gather is a libertarian), and it's too bad because there was some good stuff, like this:

The CPB's president and CEO, Patricia Harrison, a former Republican National Committee official, called Bush's budget "Draconian."

So what does PBS do here, with an even more critical doc?  Well they do lose their nerve, but I have to like the intentional give-away of their reasons:

The project was first offered to PBS in September 2007, with the representation that it would be available to air after May 2008. It was completed and circulated to PBS decision makers on schedule in May of this year. Their response? According to producer Sherry Jones, PBS told her that "no time slot could be found for the documentary before January 21, 2009"-the day after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney leave office.

PBS to America:  "Help meeee!"

Seriously, PBS points out Bush's 2003 war was always full of shit five years later so the Bushies pull out the Sarah Palin playbook and try to fire the entire network.  No one says boo.  No waves.  Can you blame PBS for getting gun-shy in the face of a then not implausible McCain victory, and the likelihood that no one would be in the forest to hear PBS fall?  (after all, only PBS would report on a story like this)

Good news is that the doc will still air, Horton:

The producers decided to offer the show directly to local affiliates. As of this writing, roughly sixty-five percent of the PBS network have signed on to run the program, including the flagship New York (WNET) and Boston (WGBH) stations.

The broader points to draw from this are these:

• The crime here is not PBS being quelled into silence, but the supposedly independent private media being conspicuously quiet about this.  At least PBS is trying.

• Yes, public media is not immune to pressure from a malfeasant government determined to suppress information, but that's more reason to put PBS (and NPR) on reliable funding streams, not subject to the annual budgetary whims of various administrations.  
  

Public broadcasting needs to be on the agenda for anyone mad at the many glaring media failures of the past twenty years.  It's not a pancea, the CBC and BBC screw up too, but there is no doubt that things could be no worse for having an American public broadcaster well funded enough to run a 24-hr cable news network, not living like an abused spouse in fear of another beating.

The fourth estate is a vital societal function, and leaving it totally to run as a business is yet another glaring market failure in an era rife with them.

People need accurate and pertinent information, even when giving it to them is not particularly profitable.  Someone has to pay for journalist to do serious investigative work.  As the newspapers crumble, and gut their newsrooms, there is a role here for government.