MEMO To: Board of Directors, Oregon Public Broadcasting From: Michael Munk

July 31, 1998

The next time you deliberate about future directions and priorities for OPB, I ask you to take on the task of helping build a stronger common identity for Oregonians. You are probably aware that recent economic and social change has created a more diverse audience with reduced common histories and shared expectations of public television and radio. At the same time, the saturation of national commercial television and the virtual elimination of local media ownership have gone a long way toward displacing regional and local distinctions as the leading components of community values and culture.

Received wisdom in your enterprise holds that public media, in order to perform one of its agreed functions - to inform - must fully utilize another of its functions - to entertain. Faced with the need to capture the attention of an audience accustomed to appreciating television primarily as entertainment, national public TV seems to consider reaching a sufficient audience with "educational" content increasingly difficult.

I believe that a commitment to building a common regional identity does not require OPB to neglect the needs of a broader audience - although it was always intended to provide an alternative to, not a clone of, commercial media. But for a new programming priority to attract viewers and listeners will require imagination, talent and, realistically, a shift of your resources toward that new priority.

The commercial media have lately tended to focus on the consequences of a fragmented society, emphasizing differences and competition among races, genders, ethnicity lifestyles and one's place in the life cycle. Commercial "niche" programming also exaggerates these divisions among us by basing decisions on how different demographic components of "focus groups" respond to manipulated content.

Here in Oregon we also watch and hear much about the conflicts between our rural and urban residents, natives and newcomers, traditionalists vs. modernists, and users and conservers of our natural environment. We even report "culture wars" between those of us who hunt and fish and those who hold animal life as sacred as human. This fragmenting process probably provided an impetus to Chet Orloff's recent observation in the press, that "There is a growing hole in the psych of Oregonians where our sense of common purpose, of 'Oregoness,' of community and connection, of hope and spiritual satisfaction should be." Orloff argued that our museums and libraries can fill that gap by providing Oregon 'with a place in which a community gives itself a particular identity and strength."

If OPB chose to join in that project, I suggest that, with its ability to inform and motivate its audience, it could be an influential player.

This may be a long-winded way to urge the Board to address the issue of balance in OPB's content between regional and national content. I believe that a greater focus on the affairs of Oregonians and its people could help produce an enhanced sense of community and dull the sharper edges of conflict amoung our geographic and human divisions. By working to develop a common vocabulary, an emphasis on local content and programming could meld Oregon traditions and shared memories with varied perspectives of newer generations and residents.

This is not the place, nor am I in a position to suggest any more specifically the type of local programming that could help develop a broader sense of community or what balance between local and national content may be appropriate. My hope is that you might consider the issue individually or as a body.

I would be grateful if any of you who may find it of interest would let me know and perhaps participate in future public discussion of the prospects of more Oregon-related content on OPB.

*Michael Munk is a political scientist who grew up in Oregon and recently returned as a retiree. His current research and writing interests are neglected areas of local history.