The New Threat to PBS’ Franchise

When a new partnership between the British Broadcasting Corp. and the Discovery cable networks begins in several months, science and nature shows from the BBC that might have appeared on “Nova,” “Nature” and other PBS series will be seen instead on the Discovery Channel or its allied outlets, the Learning Channel and Animal Planet.

The Discovery networks also will get first crack at historical documentaries produced by the BBC, according to executives involved in the deal.

The BBC-Discovery venture is the latest example of a growing trend: Prestigious dramas, documentaries and other quality shows that might have appeared on public television in the past are becoming signature series for some commercial cable networks.

Jane Austen’s “Emma,” Charlotte Bronte’s “Jane Eyre” and an upcoming six-part miniseries based on Henry Fielding’s “Tom Jones” are among the big-ticket costume dramas from British producers that have found a home not on PBS’ “Masterpiece Theatre” but on the A&E; channel. Documentaries about Watergate and the migration of African Americans to the northern United States, which once might have found a home on PBS, were seen instead on the Discovery Channel. And at the end of the month, the History Channel is carrying its first big original miniseries, an eight-hour adaptation of David Halberstam’s book “The Fifties.”

The new competition from cable, some critics say, is eroding the identity of government-supported PBS, which was created by Congress 30 years ago this week.

“For many years, PBS had a monopoly on certain kinds of programming,” said Michael Cascio, vice president of programming for A&E.; “If PBS is no longer the sole alternative to the major broadcast networks, does that change the role of PBS?”

Former PBS chief Lawrence Grossman believes public television must create more innovative programming to differentiate itself in a more competitive environment.

“The signature shows on PBS--’Masterpiece Theatre,’ ‘NewsHour’ and others--are the same ones that were the signature shows from 1976 to 1984, when I was president of PBS,” Grossman said. “There’s no ‘American Playhouse’ series anymore, and there is not enough news and public-affairs programming on PBS today. . . . I worry that PBS is in danger of becoming irrelevant in the future.”

Kathy Quattrone, executive vice president of programming at PBS, strongly disagrees.

“All the research data we have shows that viewers value our service very highly,” she said. “At a time when other networks are slicing themselves into narrower niches, we offer a breadth of quality, noncommercial programming.”

As evidence of PBS’ strength among viewers, Quattrone cites Nielsen ratings that show the network’s audience holding steady over the past year (averaging slightly more than 2 million households in prime time), while the major broadcast networks are losing viewers to cable and other competitors. Ratings for PBS’ children’s programming--a strong element in the network’s identity--are up significantly over the past year: 18% among 2- to 5-year-olds.

Quattrone acknowledged that “there is new competition for programming” with cable networks, which can move much more quickly, and sometimes pay more money, than PBS. PBS has an annual programming budget of $143 million.

“The challenge is to make sure that we attract the highest-quality producers to PBS,” Quattrone said.

WGBH-TV, the public station in Boston, recently made a long-term deal with England’s Granada Television for programming, she noted, and PBS is moving to make more deals directly with independent producers abroad.

To increase programming in drama, Quattrone said, the network is developing a new series of adaptations of American literary works. It also is exploring new local initiatives in public-affairs programming, she said.

Some PBS producers say that the increased competition from cable has hurt the network with potential underwriters. Veteran journalist Bill Kurtis said that when he was looking for financial support for the eighth season of his “New Explorers” science-adventure series last year, “I found a very serious attitude among corporate sponsors. Several executives told me that they didn’t regard PBS as a charitable contribution anymore, and they thought cable was filling PBS’ programming niche.”

Disappointed that PBS could not give him and Chicago station WTTW-TV $500,000 in production money while they continued to look for new corporate support, Kurtis took the series to A&E;, where it premieres Nov. 16.

Kurtis, along with Grossman and some PBS station managers, believes that PBS needs to accept some 30-second TV commercials to ensure continued corporate underwriting.

“I could have had any number of corporations underwriting my series if I could have offered them two 30-second spots--then it becomes an advertising buy, like cable, not a charitable donation,” Kurtis said. “How is it ‘corrupting’ PBS when stations already run 15-second ‘enhanced underwriting’ spots?”

“If we accepted regular TV commercials, we’d be undermining the identity of PBS as the noncommercial network,” Quattrone responded, adding that there are no plans to change the current PBS guidelines on commercials.

Everyone involved in the BBC-Discovery deal--a $500-million venture that includes new co-productions and the launch of cable channels in the United States and abroad--seeks to downplay the potential impact on PBS. Dick Emery, chief operating officer of BBC Worldwide Enterprises, and Johnathan Rodgers, president of Discovery Networks, U.S., said in interviews that their aim is not to hurt public television.

But Rodgers confirmed that while PBS will still be able to buy from the BBC, it will do so in the science, historical and nature categories only “after the Discovery networks have made their selections.”

Fred Kaufman, executive producer of PBS’ “Nature” series, which currently buys four BBC science documentaries per year, said there is “more than enough” strong programming from the BBC and other producers to fill his show’s needs.

Meanwhile, some producers who believe PBS needs to do more hard-hitting journalism see a possible salutary effect in the BBC-Discovery deal, which is expected to be approved soon by the BBC board of directors.

“Hopefully, the loss of BBC shows and others to cable will free us to focus more on fulfilling our public-affairs mission in this country,” said one producer who requested anonymity. “We’re doing too much history and not enough current affairs, too much nature and not enough environment.”