We know some of what we suggest will be difficult for fans of PBS (not to mention those employed by PBS) to hear. We know revolutionizing the PBS model will necessarily lead to job transitions and even losses. We don't take this prospect lightly, but we still believe in reducing the size of PBS in order to make it stronger. To help make this medicine go down we offer the occasional Spoonful of Sugar that will focus on the good news in the public television world currently and the brighter prospects in the future.
Spoonful 1 looks toward the future of PBS. Future PBS is a public television system that has saved the country millions of dollars by eliminating wasteful infrastructure and job redundancies. FPBS may have lost some good engineers, administrative assistants, development professionals, and general managers, but it now employs more fact-checkers, researchers, filmmakers and journalists. Imagine FPBS with leaner production units (not stations) around the country to dig deeper into local issues, and these units still have the opportunity to provide relevant content to the larger system. Perhaps fewer jobs overall but more reporting, storytelling, and outreach. Built-out web "storefronts" branded local but with all the PBS web content. The smaller production offices can focus more on engaging the audience instead of worrying about broken HVAC units, depreciating camera equipment, and transmitter failures. Even if the spending remains the same, isn't this content-based model more attractive? Doesn't it serve the needs of American citizens better? Where's Mary Poppins to set this to music?
Your PBS Revolutionaries
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Like John, I'm interested to see how the dialogue develops on some of your provocative ideas. Anyone involved in the PBS system who doesn't feel the pain of investing heavily in distribution technology with ever-shrinking lifespans is in denial or in the dark. And no one wants to do away with pledge drives more than those of us who have to go on air and conduct them.
ReplyDeleteA content driven model is hugely desirable, but I need to understand just how the funding flow would change.
I'll describe the situation I know best and maybe you can help us find ways to repair or replace it... we need the ideas!
Our station has more filmmakers, journalists, editors, videographers and educators creating local content and providing hands-on educational outreach to the community than it does administrators, technicians or management. I'm not sure how much leaner we could be as a pure local content provider with a lighter technical burden. We'd still need a studio, edit bays, field equipment, engineers to maintain them and some sort of master control room to insert the local programs into the stream you imagine we'd feed to the commercial tower. Plus, we'd have to sacrifice our multicast channels that our audience has decided they really like. We would save on transmitter and other transmission costs.
Unfortunately the content creation side of media is expensive… just what the newspapers have discovered – and they don’t record in high-def!
I suppose we could transition to some system whereby national content fed via a national television feed and local content was strictly available via web, but I see two issues with this: First local content would hit that digital divide - back to the "people who need PBS the most" point. Second, local stations tailor their programming to suit the needs of their community - this would go. It would be Nova, American Experience, History Detectives nationwide at the same time every week. Convenient for branding and promotion, but not very reflective of regional tastes. Our station runs local content in prime time 3 or more nights week - much more on weekends and daytime.
Also, even a web-based local public media outlet requires the same facilities, equipment and personnel that I outlined above - especially to deliver professional content that will draw eyeballs in a cluttered media environment.
Finally, this discussion (and others on the web) have focused heavily on programming content and journalism, but few have addressed the value of station-based education departments that provide tens of thousands of hours of early childhood literacy, media literacy and teacher professional development training to school children and school districts throughout the country. Your pledge dollars support these activities, too. Where do those resources go in the FPBS?
Two thoughts...
ReplyDeleteFirst, I've heard the "tailoring our programming for our market" argument for years and I must say it's fallen flat for me from the beginning for three reasons:
[1] Most stations run the same programs most of the time anyway; even though they have local control, they don't really exercise it much
[2] Local differences are minor and are more reflective of the programmer reacting to a few complainers or major donors than actual community-based sensitivity
and
[3] If local differentiation is so important, why hasn't Discovery created tons of micro-channels to serve each little niche in every corner of the country?
Back in Anchorage our programmer tinkered with the broadcast schedule to "serve local interests," but when we ran out of money and switched to PBS' "Schedule X" service (in which virtually all local control is given up in favor of a pre-programmed service), there was some audience grumbling but in the end we brought in the same donor dollars (if not more).
I tend to be a cynic anyway, but this local argument doesn't hold enough water for me to be an effective clarion call for the maintenance of local station operations (in the traditional way).
Second, many local stations have a "cult of the Emmy" problem, in which traditional television production methods are sacrosanct. Which is why you need $100,000 cameras, million-dollar studios, multi-million-dollar editing and broadcasting gear. But what about small HD cams, laptop editors and more as promoted (and proven) by Michael Rosenblum for years now?
Consider Rosenblum's provocative question: "If Google came to your town to setup a TV channel, do you think they're going to spend several million on a huge TV studio and tons of big cameras and edit suites and more? Or are they going to hire an army of one-man videojournalists with small HD cams, laptops and a talent for storytelling?
Local funding and efforts need to be locally-focused and locally-scaled. Why don't we leave the huge investments to the big players and focus instead on actual public service media that makes a difference right where we are?
You've already pointed to the education/outreach work your station is doing. What if you kept that, eliminated the TV producers that can't produce cheaply, shutdown the studio, streamlined master control down to a repeater + minimal inserts shop and boosted your web operations and community connections?
Well stated, John.
ReplyDeletePoints of agreement:
1) Google is an apt example. Massive computing power from a web of small units rather than fewer huge mainframes.
2) The "cult of the Emmy" is definitely in play and counterproductive. We don't believe for a moment that regional Emmys = greater funding or better community service.
3) Providing local content shouldn't mean upholding the current station model. We can't say whether that means changing to a repeater, a distribution agreement with a local commercial broadcaster, or some other method (those with solutions please chime in), but we believe there are ways to ride the wave of shifting consumer habits for the benefit of PBS stakeholders and viewers.
Fodder for the discussion from 2004: http://www.current.org/ptv/ptv0412starvingpbs.shtml
ReplyDeleteRegionalization of infrastructure and administration seem like a worthwhile and meaningful "first" step.
Sorry, I missed the continuation of this thread last week and need to respond to John (and Rev's) comments.
ReplyDeleteMy producers DO produce cheaply. Their biggest expense is gas to cover the huge rural area that we serve - not glamorous high budget production gear or per diems. Our station has been shooing on Cannon XL1 (DV) for over 10 years, now we shoot on Sony VIU and ZIU HDV cams and have two XDCAM full size for our "deluxe" shoots. As for editing on a laptop... a real FCP edit bay only costs a few thousand more and is twice as efficient. You know what render times are like for HDV on a laptop? How do you edit audio?
Our entire station's yearly budget is around 3 million dollars, so we've got no "100,000 cameras" or million dollar studios. We produce well over a hundred programs every year - almost all of them in the field or with substantial field content - NOT talking heads four times a week.
Expensive studio? Let me tell you - a studio is a concrete block room with a bunch of paid-for lights. Ours is a tremendous asset for local production and gets used every week of the year... we even take a week each November to bring in 800 chorus singers from kindergarten to seniors in to record a local Christmas show - try doing that in a borrowed space - it'll look like a home video. All this with volunteer camera ops and floor managers.
Finally, we block out primetime 8pm - 9:30 from Wed - Fri every week for local content. Our public affairs block airs 6 times in multiple slots each week to make sure it is available when our viewers want it.
Our audience is rural, typically not high-speed connected (we're working on rural broadband, too) and many get us off-air. Substituting web and "community connections" for what we're doing now would mean abandoning that audience on the wrong side of the digital divide.
And what does "streamlined master control down to a repeater + minimal inserts shop" mean? We're as lean there as you can be and keep the gear turned on.
I'm not trying to suggest that other stations don't have many of the issues you're talking about, but I still think these are simplistic arguments. Show me an example of where a model you describe is working. I've seen glimmerings and pieces of these here and there, but many of them rely on talented, but grossly overworked single people who are turning out great material in a largely unsustainable way. Let's talk about living wages for real (albeit very hardworking) people with families.