Today's Seattle Times has an op-ed by University of Washington public policy professor Margaret Gordon: "American media should be more like the BBC"
What sort of person would want to remake our free and diverse independent media into the unaccountable and confiscatory BBC at a time when British trust in the BBC is plummeting? Perhaps a one-time dean of a public policy school who is both viscerally antagonistic to and ignorant of free enterprise:
It seems clear enough that the market/profit mentality has won out, especially in electronic news, and to a considerable extent in the print media ... Meanwhile, the push for corporate profit margins much higher than those of average American businesses goes on — with 40 to 100 percent in the electronic media and 12 to 45 percent in the print media common during 2003.[A 100% profit margin could exist only in the unlikely sort of business that didn't have any operating expenses. According to the Marketguide database, of the 37 publicly held print media companies of any consequence (market cap > $100 million), the weighted average profit margin is 5%, the max is 18%. For the broadcasting industry, the average profit margin is negative, and if you look only at the more stable companies in the S&P1500, the weighted average profit margin is 3% and the max is 16%]
Rather than bemoaning this issue further, I believe we — Americans who worry about these issues — should probably finally accept the reality that nearly all American television is market driven, will only become more so as time goes on, and as such cannot be counted on to provide news that American citizens need to evaluate their governments and communities, or to use as the basis of their civic participation in voting and other democratic activities.Translation: It is difficult for Margaret Gordon to accept the fact that individuals get to decide how to spend their own time and money on the media which is most meaningful to them.
In my view, the nation needs for the sake of its highly touted democracy to develop and support a nationally broadcast British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)-type channel (or two) of television news, a fully supported National Public Radio, and methods for supporting and rewarding courageous, high-quality and responsible print media.Translation: democracy means forcing people to pay for media that they would not pay for or consume if left to make their own choices.
Why hasn't such a system evolved in the U.S.? Our feeble attempts — PBS and NPR — are so underfunded, with continuous funding threats from Congress, that it is virtually impossible for them to be thorough and courageous, and beholden only to the public. Local station leaders seem to be full-time development officers whose programming decisions reflect fund-raising strategies more than their communities' information needs.I happen to like both PBS and NPR, even though both make mistakes. I also recognize that their failure to attract a broader audience is the cause of their funding situation, and not vice-versa. Margaret Gordon doesn't tell us how the public media would be accountable to the public and also free of funding cuts from the public's elected representatives; and she doesn't tell us how the public media would determine each community's "information needs" in the absence of funding signals from the information consumers.
We need a stronger, more viable system, and should give the BBC model a try. We can't lose; the result can't be worse than what we have now.Oh, yes, Margaret, it could be worse. Not only would we expect to get lousy unaccountable media, we'd also all have to pay for it. Like they do in both Britain and Australia. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 08, 2003 01:17 PM
It's also shocking how little most people understand about business.
First, as everyone knows, you can't eat gross profits, which is what it appears she's alluding to. There's an awful big difference between gross and net.
Second, high net profits are by no means intrinsically evil. Quite the contrary--every company should try to raise them as much as possible, as it's the only action that consistently orients management activities to the benefit of the shareholders, the ultimate owners of the corporation. What's more, where does Gordon think the taxes come from to pay for NPR and PBS? A company that makes no profits pays no taxes.
Third, public funding for NPR and PBS amounts to government subsidization of a product for the largely well-to-do individuals who consume their broadcasts. If people don't want advertising on NPR or PBS, let them subscribe a la HBO. Both have long since ceased to provide whatever "public services" they were originally intended to deliver. There is absolutely no reason why NPR and PBS must continue to be publicly funded. We could pay them to produce endless documentaries (dedicating billions, if we so desired) on topics in which most consumers have no interest.
Fundamentally, I think this isn't so much about the BBC or NPR as it is about a desire to have an official arm of the government instruct citizens on how to think, specifically taking a left/liberal view on issues. Wouldn't it be grand if those plebes would just wake up to the proper worldview?
Posted by: Humphrey Bogus on August 8, 2003 03:46 PMCanada has a hyrid Big Brother system. We pay directly for the CBC and indirectly prop-up our supposedly private broadcasters through draconian regulatory barriers.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea on August 9, 2003 07:56 AMHumph is correct.
Posted by: D2D on August 9, 2003 08:05 AMYou alos forgot to mention that at nearly 200 dollars, the BBC is also considerably more expensive
Posted by: Giles on August 9, 2003 08:16 AMOf course, if a person CHOOSES to purchase cable, many systems offer BBC. Then a person can CHOOSE to watch it. In my opinion, she wants the gov't to subsidize a station she agrees with. If she could, she would probably force us to watch it!
Posted by: Tom on August 9, 2003 08:55 AMYou know, I thought that I had lost my ability to be amazed at people like this. Is it possible to be any more arrogant or egregiously asinine? No artificial limit has been imposed on NPR/PBS's growth: they can grow to the full extent they attract viewers who are willing to pledge during their many fund drives. How is it possible for Ms. Gordon to step up and, in the name of making NPR/PBS "beholden to the public", advocate the elimination of the very mechanism - competition in the arena of ideas - that would actually make them so? Only someone who senses that they are losing badly in this arena could possibly make such a claim.
Ms. Gordon may not *like* what Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, or Fox News Channel have to say. Hell, I don't always like what they have to say. But these are people who stood up, declaimed that "I have something to say about the world," and who then attracted an enormous audience wanting to hear more. No one is more "beholden to the public" than people who have to attract the public in order to survive. Yes, their ideas may often simply echo popular prejudices but, in a free society, we can challenge those prejudices. Indeed, Limbaugh and Hewitt provide a forum on their very shows during which you can challenge these prejudices. To what extent has the BBC been open and responsive to popular criticism since the start of the war? Hell, even the British troops are reportedly too disgusted to listen to the BBC any more.
As much as Ms. Gordon may find it unbelievable or even astonishing, talk radio and now weblogs *are* the popular "voices of the people."
Posted by: Mark Brittingham on August 9, 2003 10:02 AMOnly a tenure-protected person like Ms. Gordon would advance such a thing as a BBC-type news service in the United States; however, tenure does not prevent her from being laughed off the stage.
I'm guessing she doesn't actually 'watch' television or 'listen' to Rush Limbaugh, she just 'knows' from her vast store of loony-left ideas, that a type of BBC would cure us all of at least the 'propfit motive.'
The elite media was and is bad (and biased) enough in reporting on the war on terror. Imagine what it would be if we had a taxpayer funded broadcast outlet trashing the administration at every turn. Fortunately NPR and PBS are models of non-partisan reporting! :)
Posted by: Walter Funk on August 9, 2003 11:20 AMProbably most people haven't spent much time working in a public policy teaching environment. Unfortunately, I have. Incrediblby few (I am tempted to say no one except myself, to my knowledge) has ever actually operated, and earned their living from, a for-profit business. Nothing they do has ever been subjected to actual consumer (average American consumer) demand backed by actual spending choices.
THEIR consumers are other professors of public policy, almost all of whom see proper teaching and public policy as whatever it is they believe in paid for (like their teaching) by public dollars (directly, or through Pell Grants, etc, indirectly).
They have probably never been subjected to real market forces, and they despise and fear what they see when they look at the free choices made by the great unwashed. They know better, but can't convince the morons, so the only thing left is coercion in the spending of tax revenues, and, yes, Tom, these folks would force us to pay attention, for our own good.
This is class distinction at its worst. The "new class" appears to trample everything in their way in order to impose that which they know is right.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie on August 9, 2003 11:46 AMWhat many outside the Seattle area may not know is that the local PBS station, KCTS, has been plauged by mismanagement and internal strife. You may find coverage in the Seattle Times or the Seattle P-I from ealier this summer.
Some links:
The result has been _months_ of pledge drives and the kind of programming that entails. (Oldies concerts, self-help gurus, etc.) This during some of the most contentious debate in recent American history about war and peace and America's place in the world.
Professor Gordon seems to be recommending as a solution to mismanagement a course of papering over the cracks with dollar bills.
I, too, am concerned over the fragmentation of political, civil, and social discourse in the US, especially right now. But to pour money down that particular drain? No thanks.
Posted by: The Grand Panjandrum on August 9, 2003 11:59 AMIt is unfortunate that the online version of the op-ed leaves out one of the bet parts. In print the piece has an illustration: a slack-jawed TV viewer watches the news, while an apparatus atop the set with parts labeled "premasticator" and "whitewash" pumps sludge through a funnel into his open cranium.
Consider, the artist and editor believe that this represents the current situation.
Is this viewer watching Jim Lehrer? Dan Rather? Do newspapers come with similar attachments?
The contempt for viewers that is illustrated here shows exactly what we should expect from a network "beholden only to the public."
Posted by: Stuart on August 9, 2003 12:06 PMI generally agree with the comments above.
However, I have some first-hand knowledge of the world of "progressive" documentaries. Let's say someone wants to make a documentary about an important subject, and it doesn't involve tits or car crashes. How do they get the money to produce it, and how do they get Fox or another network to show it?
For instance:
"Many local affiliates of PBS have broadcast the film but national PBS, however, has refused to broadcast the film despite the Congressional mandate explicitly requiring that both sides of controversial issues be included in PBS's overall programming."
FearFactor's going to out sell TPD every time, and I don't want people like Gordon dictating what's on the tube, but at the same time there should be a way to get unpopular ideas out there.
If the preceding doesn't work for you, consider a hard-hitting documentary about Waco.
Posted by: your friends at the Lonewacko Blog on August 9, 2003 12:37 PM"A company that makes no profits pays no taxes."
Humph, in theory you're correct but it's not entirely true. Washington state's business and occupation tax is 1.5 percent on GROSS revenues. And it sucks. A small business could have an annual gross of $100,000 - have very little or even NO net (profit) - yet they must pay 1.5 percent on the 100k. (That tax was actually hiked 1 percent to 2.5 percent on gross by majority Democrats in 1993, but was repealed by Republicans during years following the 1994 landslide.)
Good links Grand P. I've been following the KCTS mess for awhile now and if somebody doesn't end up in jail over the whole thing ... well, nevermind. They won't.
Posted by: jimg on August 9, 2003 02:42 PMLonewacko: A look at the web site you've referenced regarding TPD indicates it has had theatrical, PBS, cable, and international distribution--what's your point? That it remains unpopular? The unpopular characterization results from the failure to convince others. Additionally, site content expresses concern/sympathy for the Marxist thugs Noriega and Ortega--a feeling that will remain unpopular no matter the propaganda. Your view is no different than Prof. Gordon's: you want to decide what is "important" without convincing anyone of the validity of your perpective. The marketplace of ideas will always have winners and losers. Losers complain about their "unfair" plight, while everyone else notes they lost the argument. The best loser from the left, Michael Moore, knows to move on to a new subject. After 14 years, get a new subject, you've lost the argument--there is no controversy, or "other" side.
Posted by: Forbes Tuttle on August 9, 2003 02:44 PMMs. Gordon complains of the chronic underfunding of PBS/NPR, and the point has been made about why would anyone in their right mind support (through membership) anything so bad. They're absolutely right! And, in an on-air discussion of the rights/wrongs of public broadcasting, a many-year advertising professional was asked his opinion of the situation. His answer sums it up quite nicely: The most boring advertising he has ever seen was the typical NPR/PBS fund-drive. THE CONGRESS SHOULD BLUE-PENCIL THIS ITEM PERMANATELY OUT OF THE BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES.
Posted by: Drew on August 9, 2003 03:18 PMGordon wants a BBC-style funding solution for NPR and PBS because she expects it would be a left-wing NPR/PBS grown larger. But would she still support it if it were to be staffed by extreme right-wing journalists putting out a right-wing viewpoint? Rush Limbaugh on NPR? Michael Savage on PBS? I think not. THe ONLY reason she wants it is because she expects it to be a vehicle to spread lefty ideals to more people. She should be careful. It could be right-wingy instead.
Posted by: Castle Bravo on August 9, 2003 04:14 PMReally good discussion. I had a couple of thoughts:
1.) In Boston, NPR has managed to alienate both sides of their listening audience. As a local producer I've been told that "we don't do local." That means that if you live in Boston, your viewpoint will be ignored, even though you may have been part of the build-up constituency in the 1990's.
2.) I doubt that Monty Python would have happened but for the BBC. They deserve some real slack for that.
Why hasn't anyone brought up C-SPAN? It's a cable-company subsidized service that does an excellent job of bringing the nation's public affairs to the people. The gavel-to-gavel coverage of the House and Senate is rather boring if you're not interested in the particular issue, but, it also provides the only venue you can watch all the presidential primary debates, random speeches at AEI or Cato or Brookings or the LA Book Fair, all the White House press briefings in full, Booknotes.
In terms of providing full coverage of the American political process, CSPAN is far beyond NPR and PBS in terms of quality.
Posted by: Blogster on August 9, 2003 07:01 PMBoth sides have valid points, and Gordon's point is more valid than Sharkansky lets on. My response is up at http://ivyjews.blogspot.com
Posted by: Larisa on August 9, 2003 07:04 PMNotably, the effusive praise for TPD on the website Lonewacko links comes exclusively from what many would consider "the usual suspects" of the liberal left--e.g., the New York Times and LA Times. It would hardly be surprising for the "Entertainment" sections of those sources to heartily embrace an anti-military screed. It would only be a surprise if they didn't....
Posted by: Jem on August 10, 2003 03:24 AM"Gordon's point is more valid than Sharkansky"
Gordon's point is only valid if one believes that some "enlightened despot" could do a _better_ job than markets do. A proposition that has been disproven so many times as to become tiresome. No one says that markets are perfect. One think that the last century has proven beyond doubt as well is that it is those seeking utopian perfection, be they Al Quaeda, Stalinist, Maoists, Nazis, etc, that do the most damage.
Your solution reminds me of an episode of Gomer Pyle I once saw, where Sgt Carter is teaching him poker, he has a full house, he asks Carter if this is the best hand, Carter says no, but it is pretty good. He then throws it in because "He wants the best". Of course, since it was television, he draws a royal flush, in real life, I don't think that you should count on that.
Gordon's point is only valid if you don't think about it too much.
Posted by: moptop on August 10, 2003 05:41 AMWell, Monty Python was produced over 30 years ago. Surely nobody's trying to pretend that the BBC of today is the same as it was back then? Besides, the issue is not the BBC's comedies or its soccer coverage, but its outrageous liberal slant and biased reporting on the public's dime.
Posted by: Gazzer on August 10, 2003 06:33 AM“Gordon’s point is more valid than Sharkansky”
Yep, it sure is - if you are against individual choice, the free market of ideas, and favor a robust taxpayer-funded propaganda machine of the government, by the government. But then again, no surprise here: Gordon is part of the taxpayer-funded propaganda machine.
Which is why Lonewacko's complaint "How do they get the money to produce it, and how do they get Fox or another network to show it?" is completely, totally and unequivocally off-base.
Free-speech rights don't guarantee you an audience, or even the right to access media. It simply prohibits the Government from exercising prior-restraint or imposing post-facto punitive measures for speech.
None of us - not one - have the right to demand taxpayers to fund the production and airing of our documentaries or publish our newspapers, pamphlets or books. The First Amendment isn't welfare, and Lonewacko's entitlement attitude is not only simperingly pathetic – it guts the whole point of the First Amendment.
My impression from reading the article is that the Professor is mostly concerned about the trivial nature of what is presented as news by the average media newscast. Considering that several major news shows will feature Kobe Bryant's latest court appearence, at which he said "Yes, Sir" to the judge, in features that last longer than the hearing, her point is well taken.
Unfortunately, this subject has been addressed many, many times, most famously by the movie "Network" from about 1977, and a million times since. What the Professor is really complaining about is that people don't find interesting the same important things that she finds interesting. While it is true the most widely read, and arguably most influential, newspaper in the country is "The Enquirer", found at any supermarket check-out lane, this is a symptom, not the cause of the problem.
If the Professor wants to undertake a true reform of the problem of triviality in the news media, the best place to start would be with a thorough examination of the educational level of the viewer. This would require an analysis of the quality of the viewer's education, and whether or not it included such items as history, government, political theory, etc.
As someone who is very interested in acquiring a good education for my own children, I humbly suggest that the reason so many people are enmeshed in trivia is that the most important lesson they learn in our current educational system is that good ballplayers make a lot of money.
As it is entirely possible to get a degree in English literature these days without ever having to read a play by that guy Shakespeare, I can only assume it is possible to be a professor of public policy without knowing anything about economics, education, or why the public chooses one policy over another.
Here's a hint: If you never teach anybody to read much past the 6th grade level, they don't spend much time reading the policy writings of obscure college professors from Seattle. Or following them either.
Posted by: veryretired on August 10, 2003 01:37 PMYou'd have thought that a professor in a media subject proposing that the USA adopt a compulsory funded television media outlet similar to the BBC, might actually have bothered to research how the BBC is funded. She says the BBC is "funded through excise taxes collected at the point of sale of televisions and radios, and through some annual assessments". She is ignorant of the facts (or maybe reluctant to share them...).
The BBC is funded almost exclusively through the Television Licence. This is an annual fee charged for receiving/recording television broadcasts originating in the UK (that's any broadcast, not just BBC output). The BBC collects (via subsidiary agents) the licence fees (amounting to over 2.5 billion pounds per annum) and all the revenue goes to the BBC. The BBC is a public service monopoly.
The TV licence must be paid for each UK address where television reception/recording takes place, and must be paid by a named individual. It is a criminal offence to receive/record television broadcasts without a licence. Not a civil offence like a parking ticket - a criminal offence like mugging an old lady!
What is collected at the point of sale of televisions and video recorders (not radios) are the personal details of anyone buying the same. Retailers are obliged by law to collect and provide to the BBC the details of anyone purchasing these items. Again, it is a criminal offence for a retailer to fail to collect and forward personal details.
The Television Licence fee is the same for everyone, be they the Chairman of the BBC earning more than half a millions dollars, or a single mother struggling on welfare. It currently stands at £116 ($186) per year. The fine for criminal television viewing is up to £1000 ($1,600), and failure to pay can result in a prison sentence.
The BBC keeps a list of all addresses in the UK. Whenever any address is found to be without a TV licence (regardless of whether there is television equipment there or not), the BBC send threatening letters to that address. If the address continues to be without a licence, the BBC eventually sends inspectors around to call. Although people are not obliged to answer any questions or let the inspectors in, most people are unaware of this and let them onto their property. The inspectors issue the same 'caution' as the police (people are 'read their rights'), and if functional television reception equipment is found at the address, a prosecution almost always follows. If people refuse to cooperate with the inspectors, the BBC may apply for a warrant to enter the property and search for TV equipment, if they have reasonable ground for believing such equipment is present (the BBC sets the standard of 'reasonable grounds', and magistrates almost always issue the warrant).
The BBC operates a fleet of unmarked detector vans, which are capable of detecting various emanations from a house that will give away the presence of television reception. Although the fleet is primarily for propaganda intimidation tactics, the vans are real and they do work.
The government appoints the board of governors whose remit it is to both monitor and support the BBC. The government sets the level of the licence fee each year, and passes the laws that enforce the collection. The government reviews the charter under which the BBC operates, every ten years. Thus the BBC is not independent of the government (although it is powerful). There is absolutely no mechanism of public accountability (beyond the government appointment of the board of governors). The BBC is not beholden to the British people at all. TV watching Britons are obliged to pay for the BBC even if they are appalled by it and only ever watch the alternative commercial channels.
More on the nature of the BBC, and the fight against it, can be found at http://www.tvlicensing.biz - some of us are risking fines, a criminal record and imprisonment to fight this outrage. It is pleasing to see so many Americans alert to the dangers of this Stalinist crap. Good on yer.
I like NPR too, but it angers me all of the time with its bias.
The other day I was listening to their story on the killing of an American contract worker in Baghdad.
It went like this (not a direct quote):
An American contract worker was killed in Baghdad today. He was a worker for Halliburton. Halliburton was the controversial choice of the Bush Administration to run the post war reconstruction in Iraq. Vice President Dick Chemey was once the CEO of Halliburton...and so it went.
Huh???? Unfortunately, this is typical.
Posted by: John Rogers on August 11, 2003 03:20 AMOne item missing from the discussion:
If PBS is suppossed to be the broadcast network for the American public, why so much British content? Little wonder pledge drives fail to entice.
To the intellectual barons in the cloistered halls of NPR and PBS, dramatic productions (including news analysis) in the plummy accents of the UK are without question superior to any such thing created in the land of strip malls. The BBC with its pay-up-or-else receiver tax also excites waves of jealousy among said nobility, who have to mount periodic begging festivals among their oh-so-aware public. Small wonder that NPR and PBS have become wishful knockoffs of the Beeb(complete with formats and mandatory diction), and carry much the same political biases.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on August 11, 2003 10:56 AMThe BBC's coverage of the Iraq war has been so biased it beggars belief, and I say this as someone who opposed the war.
On their website, the BBC often does not put up comments critical of it's programmes (I posted criticisms 4 times, to no avail, and numerous others have complained of this too).
The BBC does not like being criticised, the only outlet of criticism being the absurdly bland 10 minute "Points Of View".
The BBC's nonsense claims about Jessica Lynch have ben widely debunked (John Kampfner, a smug leftist "New Statesman" journalist, is hardly impartial), yet, unlike the Washington Post, it has not admitted it's errors.
Indeed, what the likes of Scheer and other American leftists described as "in-depth" was in fact a puddle shallow 5 minute segment of a tedious 50 minute documentary. As one poster on the BBC's site put it: "I desie Bush, but this is Anti-American drivel".
If the Fedayeen had carried out their ambulance-detonting stunt, the Beeb would have bought it hook line and sinker.
The BBC is, supposedly, not beholden to Multinational crporations, which is why the BBC made a 30 minute doumentary on the videogame industry which was in realit a 30 minute advert for Sony's Playstation2. The Beeb brainlessly recycled Sony's marketing PR as if it hadben paid to.
Here's something Americans will find interesting: The BBC is very, very much in favour of US intervention in Liberia(it has not given any coverage to the argument against this potential act of imperialism).
Clearly, the BBC wants to see more dead US troops.