Critics of PBS Have Too Narrow Point of View

The Senate is expected to resume deliberation over the reauthorization of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting soon, and parallel debates can be read on editorial pages around the country.

While some have praised the wide variety of quality programming public broadcasters offer the American people, others have launched a misguided and myopic attack on a valuable public resource (“Why Won’t CPB Open Up and Answer Funding Questions?,” Calendar, Counterpunch, April 6).

Opponents of reauthorization have taken aim at a series of shows funded by a new branch of PBS, the Independent Television Service. As an independent producer myself, I was delighted to learn about the funding made available at ITVS. Finally an institution has been created to foster the kind of challenging programming that independent filmmakers typically want to produce and often lack the means of doing.

The initial roster of shows funded by ITVS seems promising and wide-ranging, including an animated film for children based on Carl Sandburg’s poem “Arithmetic,” an exploration of the effects of toxic waste on African-American and Latino communities, a history of the Hawaiian state from a native point of view, a documentary on elderly couples who have been together 50 years or more, and many other fascinating subjects. Hardly radical stuff.

Indeed, those accusing public television of a “liberal” bent fail to mention PBS’ regular “conservative” programs, in many ways the backbone of the system: “Firing Line,” “The McLaughlin Group,” “Wall Street Week,” etc.

What has emerged from the most vociferous critics is a sense that all public programming should fall under a narrow, safe definition of mainstream values, eschewing all investigation, controversy and opposing points of view. It seems to suggest that there is only one history, a history of the state that cannot even conceive of--let alone allow to democratically coexist--alternative perspectives, points of view and healthy disagreement. It seems clear that many would finally prefer no opposition--a sentiment shared only by the many worldwide dictatorships we have all struggled to eliminate.

I cannot conceive of how these detractors could in any way be threatened by an exposure to differing viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas. The old argument that government shouldn’t fund this sort of programming is ridiculous; the welfare state that so enriches many in this country (and which does such a lousy job with those who need welfare) enriches our intellectual landscape with the vigorous thinking all of these new programs--good and bad--generate.

I also detect a typical air of patronizing contempt by critics of public television for the very audience they sanctimoniously attempt to shield. The American public is not as gullible or taken in as these critics may think.

At its best, public television is a unique democratic institution. PBS offers a vital meeting place for Americans to see creative, thoughtful shows that are not dependent on the whims of advertisers or programmers concerned only with the bottom line.

For almost 20 years, I have made films that I believe needed to be made, and I alone have controlled their content. I have chosen to work independently and solely within public television because I know that regardless of their form or content, my shows would have a home on a public television service that was tolerant, open-minded and unfettered.

We should welcome the kind of shows that a funding source like ITVS can help make possible and celebrate the kind of diversity that is only possible on public television.

Public television is too important a part of our national life to be subjected to this kind of partisan and destructive posturing.