We need PBS, but we could do without the politics.
Ubiquitous
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.
************************************************************************
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author
of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon &
Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from
the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
************************************************************************
Steven L.
> 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?
If Shakespeare were alive today, he would be watching Survivor.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
FDR
Guess what, even if PBS stuck to certain topics, they would still be blamed
for being liberal. And if the topics were reduced, that would just be
another reason to get rid of PBS.
Much like the whole idea of WMD's were the reason for going to war. Didn't
matter of there were any or not, it was going to happen.
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:AbGdnaM2_tF...@giganews.com...
Steven L.
> I may have taken this more seriously, but it was written by Peggy Noonan.
>
> Guess what, even if PBS stuck to certain topics, they would still be blamed
> for being liberal. And if the topics were reduced, that would just be
> another reason to get rid of PBS.
I've heard people of all political persuasions say we need PBS to
provide "quality" programming like Shakespeare's plays, which the
profit-making networks won't touch because of low ratings.
Shakespeare *himself* wouldn't agree with this. He didn't write his
plays to appeal to a select few. He was in show biz to make money. He
wrote his plays to reach a mass audience, both nobles and paupers. In
that regard he was no different than Mark Burnett or Jerry Bruckheimer
or J.J. Abrams. And I think Shakespeare would be tremendously impressed
with what these men have been able to accomplish. Shakespeare would
undoubtedly say that if his plays no longer reach a mass audience in the
21st century, maybe that means Survivor is better than Hamlet.
Ubiquitous
_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>I may have taken this more seriously, but it was written by Peggy Noonan.
Must suck to be you, then.
>Guess what, even if PBS stuck to certain topics, they would still be blamed
>for being liberal. And if the topics were reduced, that would just be
>another reason to get rid of PBS.
Purely conjecture.
>Much like the whole idea of WMD's were the reason for going to war. Didn't
>matter of there were any or not, it was going to happen.
Bad analogy. Try again.
(Would it hurt to learn how to properly trim quoted material and post
followups?)
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
FDR
> In article <Yxpse.13697$g5.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> _remove_spam_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>I may have taken this more seriously, but it was written by Peggy Noonan.
>
> Must suck to be you, then.
Sorry, I've seen her hack jobs. Especially with the Terri Schaivo case.
Her credibility is low with me.
>
>>Guess what, even if PBS stuck to certain topics, they would still be
>>blamed
>>for being liberal. And if the topics were reduced, that would just be
>>another reason to get rid of PBS.
>
> Purely conjecture.
Conjecture. Like how there were WMD's in Iraq? It sure wasn't based on real
evidence.
Or conjecture, like PBS is liberal? I have seen how liberal they are.
Televising the Veterans day concert from DC. Running a two hour program
about Iraq, where they follow US soldiers around detailing their lives.
Yes, all terribly liberal. I suspect that unless they hired G Gordon Liddy
to host their newshour, there would always be painted as libelra.
>
>>Much like the whole idea of WMD's were the reason for going to war.
>>Didn't
>>matter of there were any or not, it was going to happen.
>
> Bad analogy. Try again.
> (Would it hurt to learn how to properly trim quoted material and post
> followups?)
Sorry, can't do.
Steve Newport
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net (Steven L.) If Shakespeare were alive
today, he would be watching Survivor.
That hack. And if Jesus were alive (and watching TV today) he would
never stop throwing up. (Paraphrase of the line Woody Allen wrote for
Max von Sydow in HANNAH AND HER SISTERS.)
Ubiquitous
_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> In article <Yxpse.13697$g5.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
>> _remove_spam_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>I may have taken this more seriously, but it was written by Peggy Noonan.
>>
>> Must suck to be you, then.
>
>Sorry, I've seen her hack jobs. Especially with the Terri Schaivo case.
>Her credibility is low with me.
Apparently you have not.
>>>Guess what, even if PBS stuck to certain topics, they would still be
>>>blamed for being liberal. And if the topics were reduced, that would just
be
>>>another reason to get rid of PBS.
>>
>> Purely conjecture.
>
>Conjecture. Like how there were WMD's in Iraq? It sure wasn't based on real
>evidence.
Hate to break it to you, but there were.
>Or conjecture, like PBS is liberal?
And yes, it's an open secret that PBS is overtly Leftist.
Steve Newport
From: _remove_spam_...@hotmail.com (FDR) like PBS is liberal?
Televising the Veterans day concert from DC. Running a two hour program
about Iraq, where they follow US soldiers around detailing their lives.
Yes, all terribly liberal. I suspect that unless they hired G Gordon
Liddy to host their newshour
Or Ollie North. Or Dennis Miller.
FDR
> In article <W9rse.13714$g5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> _remove_spam_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> In article <Yxpse.13697$g5.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
>>> _remove_spam_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>I may have taken this more seriously, but it was written by Peggy
>>>>Noonan.
>>>
>>> Must suck to be you, then.
>>
>>Sorry, I've seen her hack jobs. Especially with the Terri Schaivo case.
>>Her credibility is low with me.
>
> Apparently you have not.
Ok, tell me what I've seen because apparently you, not I, have been using my
eyes.
>
>>>>Guess what, even if PBS stuck to certain topics, they would still be
>>>>blamed for being liberal. And if the topics were reduced, that would
>>>>just
> be
>>>>another reason to get rid of PBS.
>>>
>>> Purely conjecture.
>>
>>Conjecture. Like how there were WMD's in Iraq? It sure wasn't based on
>>real
>>evidence.
>
> Hate to break it to you, but there were.
If it was real evidence then the WMD would be there.
>
>>Or conjecture, like PBS is liberal?
>
> And yes, it's an open secret that PBS is overtly Leftist.
Leftists support the military then I see.:
"Televising the Veterans day concert from DC. Running a two hour program
about Iraq, where they follow US soldiers around detailing their lives.
Yes, all terribly liberal. I suspect that unless they hired G Gordon Liddy
to host their newshour, there would always be painted as libelra.
>
FDR
>
> And yes, it's an open secret that PBS is overtly Leftist.
The term overly leftist means that they show something other than right
material.
chicagofan
> I may have taken this more seriously, but it was written by Peggy Noonan.
Make that two of us! I have zero interest in Reagan's speech writer's
opinions. The only objective thing she said, is below... which I can agree
with.
bj
-----
Rick
"FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6OAse.16732$g5.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
show something conseravative?
And what better way than air something pro military.
>>
>
>
Steve Newport
Re: We need PBS, but we could do without the politics.
From: sigm...@yahoo.comxxx (Rick)
To save 100 million dollars from being cut from your budget wouldn't you
show something conseravative?
And what better way than air something pro military.
So...damned if they do or don't, eh?
kei...@rocketmail.com
That's an excellent article by a very good and thoughtful writer. All
it would probably have taken for PBS to save their funding would be
getting rid of stuff like Frontline and replacing it with things along
the lines of what Ms. Noonan suggests. But just like the CBC here in
Canada, the people that run the place can't help themselves when it
comes to airing their left-wing views.
Rick
"Rick" <sigm...@yahoo.comxxx> wrote in message
news:P7qdneMlJ9U...@comcast.com...
be.
>