New PBS Funding Plan: Not a Clear Picture : Television: Some producers think it will foster shows that look like commercial TV. Officials believe it will lead to innovative programming.

Some independent producers are complaining that a plan to restructure how money is funneled to the Public Broadcasting Service may turn PBS into just another cable-TV clone. Others in the industry contend it will mean more money for innovative programming.

Beginning October, 1990, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will give a large chunk of production money directly to PBS for disbursing. With this new plan, the CPB hopes to end an ongoing squabble over how it funds PBS.

New senior programming executive Jennifer Lawson and other public broadcasting officials believe that giving $100 million of its annual $250 million National Program Service Fund to PBS, rather than leaving the bulk of that money under the control of the CPB, will encourage more innovative programming by consolidating more money in one place.

Some independent producers, however, fear that giving more money to PBS stations will weaken CPB and foster a slate of PBS programs that look disturbingly like commercial TV.

These independent producers have protested for years that public television has become too commercial in its attempt to attract corporate underwriting--favoring easy-to-fund projects such as wildlife documentaries and leaving less room for controversial social-issue or minority programming these producers say they want to produce.

Now, some independent producers believe that the corporate restructuring, which puts almost 50% of available funds directly in the hands of the individual PBS stations, will make things even worse. They believe that with less control from CPB, stations will opt for even safer programming in order to attract corporate funds and compete with cable fare. “Those craven forces will be counterbalanced by nothing,” said Lawrence Daressa, chairman of the National Coalition of Independent Public Broadcasting Producers.

“CPB was set up to ensure that its (public broadcasting’s) money would go toward serving all of the people, serving public-interest goals and providing more diverse points of view,” Daressa said. “If CPB . . . relinquishes that control, what the viewers are going to see is more re-heated cable fare--more travelogues, more British imports, the usual.”

While public broadcasting stations such as Los Angeles’ KCET may have the best of intentions, financial pressures to scare up funding for programs forces them to pander to “yuppie” tastes, Daressa said.

“I have nothing against yuppies,” he said, “but this (PBS) is not another cable system. This is a programming service that is receiving a quarter of a billion dollars of public funds.

“This endless drift toward ‘cable-vision’ . . . is a betrayal of the whole intent of public TV. This is simply the final chapter in a long and sorry degeneration of the principle.”

Bob Gannett, director of the public television division of the Caucus of Producers, Writers and Directors, agreed. “In the (old) system, independent producers could go to CPB if they had a good idea,” Gannett said. “What’s happening now is, you have to go to the stations, and tell them who your corporate underwriters are, and what market share (of the audience) you might get. You will get very market-driven programming, rather than idea-driven programming.”

Last year, CPB established the Independent Television Service, which earmarks $6 million per year for independent producers. That sum will be unaffected by the restructuring. But it’s not enough, Gannett said. “That $6 million is, what, 30 programs?” he scoffed.

David Levy, executive director of the caucus, disagreed that the corporate changes at PBS will punish independent producers. “The whole area of public broadcasting has been fragmented with too many hands-on. I think the fewer hands-on at the top level, the better,” Levy said.

William Kobin, president and chief executive officer of KCET-Channel 28, called the restructuring “a very positive step in public TV--it concentrates considerably more authority and money in one place, which is something that we’ve desperately needed for a long time, because it speeds up the decision-making process.”

Kobin believes that consolidating funds in one place cuts red tape. “It gives PBS the opportunity to be bold and independent for the first time,” he said.

Lawson said that the financial restructuring is less important than the fact that the restructuring will place more power in one place. “It’s not the stations having control of the money, it’s the stations voicing their faith and willingness to follow one chief programming executive,” she said. “And that executive will act in coordination with a program policy committee at CPB which will include independent and minority producers. If anything, that will be an asset to independent producers.”

Eugene Katt, vice president of programming at CPB, called the independent producers’ concerns “sort of idiotic.”

“The whole process of setting this up was to provide for diversity, to protect diversity,” Katt said. “Before, there was never enough money (consolidated in one place) to be diverse. In the past, people could always say: ‘Gee, that’s a great idea, but I can’t finance it.

“I think, for the first time, you’re going to see PBS being more responsive to audience needs,” Katt added.