| Brought to you this hour by |  | Advertising and Web Hosting on Woodwind.Org! |
Doublereed Archive - Posting 000062.txt from 2005/06
From: Philip McKenzie <philclimb1@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [DR-L] Enjoyed the NY Phil last night?
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:14:57 -0400
Imagine Moveon.org (thanks for the clickthru, Jim) and the Wall
Street Journal agreeing on a topic - PBS is worth keeping. Absent
the usual political histrionics, Peggy Noonan today makes a great
argument for PBS. She suggests that PBS focus on the permanent
rather than the prevalent. If interested, her article is pasted
below.
==================
P Is for Permanent
We need PBS, but we could do without the politics.
Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
You know what would be fun, and actually helpful? If in the latest
struggle over funding for public television, people said what they
know to be true.
The argument, once again, is about whether PBS has a liberal bias.
There are charges and countercharges, studies, specific instances
cited of subtle partiality here and obvious side-taking there. But
arguing over whether PBS is and has long been politically liberal is
like arguing over whether the ocean is and has long been wet. Of
course it is, and everyone knows it.
Not just Republicans, but Democrats. I doubt you could find a
Democratic senator who, forced to announce the truth, standing at the
gates of heaven and being questioned by St Peter, would not, on being
asked, "By the way, is PBS liberal?" answer, "Of course." Or, "Yes,
but don't tell Tom Delay I knew."
Just about every Democrat on the Hill, and in the newsrooms of our
country and the faculty lounges, knows that PBS in general reflects a
liberal worldview. That's why they like it. That's why they want to
keep it.
The Democratic Party naturally desires to retain or increase public
funding of a television network whose overall and reflexive tendency
is to persuade viewers to see the world as liberals see it. They say
this is a First Amendment issue, an anticensorship issue, a Big Bird
issue, and some of them mean it. But mostly they're trying to keep a
particular building on the liberal plantation up and operating.
The Republican Party naturally opposes and resents such funding. Why
should they underwrite the opposition? Why should they force
taxpayers to fund it? They say this is an issue of elemental justice,
and many really mean it. But animating some of them, I think, is a
certain spirit of destruction. If you are a conservative and have
watched the past 30 years of PBS documentaries and talk shows,
chances are you are angry, legitimately, and looking to apply a
little punishment. Or a lot.
Conservative argue that in a 500-channel universe the programming of
PBS could easily be duplicated or find a home at a free commercial
network. The power of the marketplace will ensure that PBS's better
offerings find a place to continue and flourish.
This I doubt. Actually I'm fairly certain it is not true. And I
suspect most people on the Hill know it is not true.
We live in the age of Viacom and "Who Wants to Be a Celebrity," not
the age of Omnibus and "Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts."
A lot of Democrats think that left to the marketplace, PBS will die.
A lot of Republicans think so too, but don't mind.
At its best, at its most thoughtful and intellectually honest and
curious, PBS does the kind of work that no other network in America
does or will do. Sumner Redstone is never going to pay for an 11-hour
miniseries called "The Civil War"; he's not going to invest money and
years of effort into a reverent exhumation of the rich loam of
American history. Les Moonves is not going to do "Nova." Bob Iger is
not going to OK a three-part series on relativity theory. Jeff Zucker
isn't going to schedule a calm, unhurried adult drama like
"Masterpiece Theatre." They live in a competitive environment.
Such programming would be expensive, demanding, and a ratings
disaster. It would earn Les Moonves the title, "former CBS chief."
Great TV work, the kind PBS at its best produced and produces, is
more likely to come out of unhurried and rather removed environments.
And boy, was PBS removed. They never had to worry about the bottom
line; until recently they didn't know there was a bottom line. But
some great work came from PBS's detachment from marketplace
realities. And it has even been work--such as "The Civil War"--that
helped our country by teaching our children the things they must know
to go on to become adults who love their country. This, in the world
we live in, is no small thing. It's huge.
Why, then, doesn't Congress continue to fund PBS at current levels
but tell them they must stick to what they are good at, and stop
being the TV funhouse of the Democratic Party? Nobody needs their
investigative unit pieces on how Iran-contra was very, very wicked;
nobody needs another Bill Moyers show; nobody needs a conservative
counter to Bill Moyers's show. Our children are being raised in a
culture of argument. They can get left-right-pop-pop-bang anywhere,
everywhere.
PBS exists to do what the commercial networks should and won't. And
just one of those things is bringing to Americans who have not and
probably will not be exposed to it the great treasury of American
art, from the work of Eugene O'Neill (again, ABC won't be producing
"Long Day's Journey" anytime soon), outward to Western art
(Shakespeare) and outward to world art.
And science. And history. But real history, meaning something that
happened in the past as opposed to the recent present, with which
PBS, alas, cannot be trusted.
Art and science and history. That's where PBS's programming should
be. And Americans would not resent funding it.
PBS producers would rebel, claiming such programming would rock with
age. What they would mean is, There's little personal status in art,
and much in controversy. You don't get any particular respect for
mounting a great play or a producing a great symphony: their
excellence is already known. Respect and status come from
controversy. But too bad. The point of PBS is not to employ clever
producers.
Does all this sound rarefied, a ratings loser? PBS is supposed to be
rarefied. As for ratings, let's imagine this. PBS mounts a production
of "Hamlet." No one will watch it? What if Brad Pitt takes the role?
He'd be happy to do it; he gets a high-class venue in which to show
he can actually act, and in return he earns the gratitude of those
who care about culture or say they care, which is most Americans.
He'd get points for doing it for scale, which of course he'd have to.
Young people would watch. They would thus imbibe Shakespeare, still
the jewel in the crown of Western culture. PBS would be thanked for
doing a public service. Conservative congressmen would find
themselves in the unexpected and delightful position of being called
friends of the arts, and liberal congressmen would be able to say "I
told you PBS is worthwhile."
And so on. Symphonies. A study of the work of George Bellows. A
productions of "Spoon River Anthology." David McCullough on George
Washington. A history of the Second Amendment--why is it in that old
Constitution? Angelina Jolie as Juliet, Kathleen Turner as Lady
Macbeth, Alec Baldwin as Big Daddy when you get around to Tennessee
Williams. It will keep him away from politics. Sean Penn as Hickey in
"The Iceman Cometh." There are far more great actors than there is
great material. Mine the classics, all of them, of the theater and
arts and music and history.
It is true that if you tell PBS producers they are now doing a play
series they will immediately decide to remount "Angels in America."
How about a rule: It takes at least 50 years for a currently esteemed
work to prove itself a work of art, a true classic. It proves this by
enduring. Do plays that have proved themselves to be enduring
contributions--i.e., art. Look to the permanent, not the prevalent.
PBS should be refunded, because it does not and will not exist
elsewhere if it is not. But it should be funded with rules and
conditions, and it should remember its reason for being: to do what
the networks cannot do or will not do, and that somebody should do.
--- James Jeter <jyjeter@-----.com> wrote:
> Hi, Friends - if you enjoyed hearing Judy Leclair, Tom Stacey, Joe
> Robinson & others on PBS last night, you might want to consider
> supporting PBS for its future existence!
>
> In the past, there's been a hoax email petition that keeps
> circulating
> about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now
> it's
> actually _true_. (Really. Check the footnotes if you don't believe
> me.)
>
> Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS:
>
> http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/
>
> A House panel has voted to eliminate all funding for NPR and PBS,
> starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other
> commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the
> most
> severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to
> pull
> the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch.
>
> The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year—$100
> million—and end funding altogether within two years. The loss
> could kill
> beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur,"
> and
> "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving
> low-income
> communities might not survive. Other stations would have to
> increase
> corporate sponsorships.
>
> If we can reach 250,000 signatures by the end of the week, we'll
> put
> Congress on notice.
>
> http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/
>
> Thanks!
>
> P.S. Read the Washington Post report on the threat to NPR and PBS
> at:
>
> http://www.moveon.org/r?r=745
>
> With the constant "dumbing down" of corporate media in this
> country,
> it's imperative that we support public broadcasting.
>
> Have a good Thursday! Jim
>
> --
> James Jeter, D.M.A.
> NYC Bassoonist
> http://www.westfieldnj.com/wso/jeter.htm
>
> "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important
> that
> you do it." Mahatma Gandhi
> "Mach' es kurz! Am Juengsten Tag ist's nur ein Furz!" Goethe
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> For personal help: email doublereed-owner@-----.org
> Doublereed is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc.
> http://www.woodwind.org
>
>
Philip McKenzie
847-757-7627
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For personal help: email doublereed-owner@-----.org
Doublereed is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
