Friends of Public Broadcasting (FOPB) is a statewide coalition of community groups, citizens and producers advocating the public’s interest in public broadcasting. We are currently involved in a statewide publicity campaign bringing these issues to the public’s attention.

We are affiliated with a national organization, Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting (CIPB) which also advocates local, community relevant programming and a national public trust fund to support both national and local public programming.

OPB does many things well, their aggregated skills and talents are remarkable, and you have quite a few devoted viewers. But its the purpose of the system that we’re questioning.

Previous attempts to articulate our position have not seemed to get entirely across, so I asked for this time to direct it, the whole picture, once again to you. As the mission setting and envisioning body of this institution, I hope you will take it to heart, create a work group around it and elect some changes in the way OPB does public television.

Public television was built with a specific purpose in mind that it does not fulfill. It is so lost in its way that critic George Will has called for its abolition, claiming its largely duplicative of commercial offerings.

Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago Law professor says: “Democracy requires at least two things: that people have common spaces where they can share experiences some of the time, and that people have unanticipated, un-chosen exposures to ideas and other people.”

Public TV was to be that democratic common space. It was to act as a medium connecting citizens so we could know, understand and cooperate with one another in running this society, its institutions and government.

Since these vital social values could not be entrusted to a broadcast system committed essentially to market values, a special system, outside and free of commercialization, had to be created.

Unfortunately they failed to say how it could be funded

.

So, how are we doing? A 1978 revisit by the Carnegie II found that: “public broadcasting’s financial, organizational and creative structures are fundamentally flawed.” A 1988 Congressional committee said it was ‘concerned that public broadcasting, in an effort to secure alternative financing and to increase ratings and viewership, is sacrificing its identity and purpose.”

Today, OPB seems to be a cultural institution struggling to support its own financial weight, auctioning programming to privatized audiences, increasingly dependent on corporate advertising and addressing an aging and declining viewership. There is little, if any, true public broadcasting on OPB, and the same market forces that run commercial television are firmly in command. The public vision and mission are sorely missed.

By targeting programs at special interest viewers with disposable income in order to gain members, OPB and PBS privatize the system and defeat its public mission. Cooking, Antiques, Opera, Lawrence Welk, British Mysteries, even Nova - have strong personal appeal and educational value for some, but what is their true public value?

Conflicts abound. While corporate sponsors bring us the financial and world news, public interest groups and labor unions are barred from sponsoring PBS programming related to their concerns. My favorite abuser on OPB is a motivational gem called: “The Courage To Be Rich,” brought to you by T. Rowe Price, an investment house. There are apparent political and cultural biases in the system.

Plenty of critics, especially outside Portland, describe OPB as either elitist, disengaged or apathetic, not caring about “us out here”; “not carrying our concerns”; having ”nothing on there I care to watch”; and “stodgie and out of date.” Art Beat and Field Guide are interesting programs but carry only minimal social relevance. Where are “Community Beat” and “Oregon People Guide?” Everywhere, people go on looking for what they resemble, and 3.5 million Oregonians have no where to go.

Local producers decry the lack of receptivity to their work and OPB’s proprietary attitude toward program production; the vigorous pursuit of national and international production income but an indifference toward local value. One producer joke is: “How many people does it take to screw in a light bulb at OPB? A: Three; one to screw in the bulb and two to see if it can be done from Boston.”

When local productions are shown, its usually only once, with no repeat, no publicity, and at poor viewing times. Another producer joke is: “What’s the difference between OPB and the IRS? A: IRS returns your phone calls.” There are many creative opportunities and much community value being wasted here.

A CAB survey concluded that OPB lacked significant programming by or about minority communities, youth or alternative viewpoints. There is no programming for community expression, where the diversity and complexity of us can be revealed; for important political, environmental and social issues; nor for election or legislative coverage. There are so many vital issues - like taxation, resource allocation, urban sprawl, sustainable economics and changing lifestyles - that to ignore them is unconscionable.

Your viewer/member profile is aging because they’re the same group of people you had ten years ago, just getting older.

Its time for OPB to commit to a truly public vision of broadcasting - at least in an equitable portion of its schedule and resources; to address its true audience and to establish funding that supports public content.

Your mantra should be: the content of public television is the public.

Your chief measure should be social relevance - the primary value we ask of public television. What does a given program offer our collective situation? Does it help people understand each others issues; invite participation and shared responsibility; promote cooperation and dialogue; demonstrate negotiation and compromise? Does it give voice and respect to the ingenuity, lifestyles, backgrounds, talents, visions and initiatives of the large, diverse population that is Oregon?

This is our real Social Capital - we need to invest and grow it.

OPB should consider a separate administrator for community affairs - to facilitate community programming and related projects, free of compromise with its other operations. There should be high community involvement and professional expertise in guiding this mission. Architects and consultants might be found among the sociologists and community development experts already at our state universities. It should be adequately funded. The Community Advisory Board, if run properly, could oversee it.

OPB has a preoccupation with creation and control of programming. It should focus on the acquisition and distribution of community content. To insist that OPB staff be the creative source of local programming is as limiting as insisting that only the librarians should write the books in a library. Employ the vast extant resources of state colleges, independent, community based videographers, journalists, storytellers and initiatives like Metro’s ‘Building Community Through Media” proposal to provide content. Set up a process oriented system - the way news is handled - to bring it to air.

We need to re-vision OPB as the mediator of our collective experience, not its definers or censors.

Bottom line, How does it get paid for without conflictive sponsorship and entrepreneurism?

First, underwriting should not endorse content. Sponsors, donors and underwriters should understand they are supporting the system and the process, not specific programs. All entrepreneuriship must be compatible with and pay for the public mission.

Out-source community production. Besides economy, you gain creativity, diversity and authenticity in production - because community based producers are closer to the subjects and stories than is OPB. Developing the quality of our community talent pool has multiple pay offs, as well.

Pursue grant money from foundations like McArthur and Pew to explore innovative public television - become a pioneer in community broadcasting.

Finally, there is a vast new membership here that is essentially untapped: the entire citizenry of our viewing area. Everyone in the state has a stake in public programming and that fact could be the basis to multiply public support. You currently have 120,000 members supplying some $8 million per year of your income. And that’s remarkable! But, there are 3.4 million people still out there waiting for connection! And you have the only medium that reaches them all!

Attractive and engaging local programming can be achieved, especially when the audiences are also the subjects. OPB’s promotional talent combined with the most persuasive medium in the world should be able to sell the public on themselves.

Some other relevant observations:

Digital technology in no way assures increased public value in programming. Content and commitment are still what matter. Expensive and expansive technology can be a distraction and force OPB further into commercialization.

PBS has launched a new initiative using the term Social Capital, of which you should be suspicious. As with dollar capital, the question is always: which way is it gonna flow? Does it bring voice and connection (i.e. profits) to the public, or is it a marketing ploy aimed at capturing new audiences? The PBS Plan 2001-2004 crassly concludes: “our goal is to attract social capitalists who we have identified as the most likely target/user to become sustainable public television supporters.” Diverting , again, the public intent to the same elite, commercial mentality. (See Canadian Plan)

After several years of pressure for community relevant programming at OPB, a Local Production initiative was announced in November 1999 that we have not heard from since. It talked of expanding current productions into new, possibly relevant, areas. While it was very encouraging to hear you talk the talk, it offered no commitment to time line nor budget. We know there is talk of other plans on the table. We are still waiting to see how you will walk the walk.

We’re asking that OPB and the community develop a long range plan for bringing public, community relevant broadcasting to OPB, with a committed time line and budget. Dedicate, say, 25% of your mission to public broadcasting; 25% of your schedule; 25% of your budget. That’s a goal - we can start with 10% now and build up.

We are asking the board to provide the vision and commitment - to modify your official mission to include community relevant programming and make the appropriate policy directives to management.

For our part, we would like to continue meeting with your committees and will continue reporting progress on these issues to the public.