Abiola Lapite has noticed a fascinating thing by asking a simple question. Who exactly is public broadcasting for, and to what audience is it supposed to cater?
...If a public broadcaster's programming is targeted at the more educated classes, how can its support from taxation of the entire public be justified? If, on the other hand, its goal is to chase ratings and appeal to as broad a swathe of the public as possible, what is it doing that the private TV networks aren't? These are questions for which I've never once seen decent answers from the apologists for taxpayer funded television, and the impossibility of giving satisfactory answers to them is what lies behind this article about a recent BBC internal report.
Wow.
Clearly when you think about it, such broadcasts are for decidedly highbrow folks of an educational bent. Nothing wrong with that. But is that really a public service? Only if there is no alternative. Growing up, I always watched PBS for the documentaries and specials. I would never miss one of Carl Sagan's shows, Jacques Cousteau's adventures or the National Geographic specials. But now all of that is handled quite aptly by The Learning Channel, The History Channel, The Discovery Channel and of course the National Geographic Channel. I think that they're all part of Discovery Networks, but there's nothing left but Frontline that even vaguely interests me in PBS. My kids are beyond Sesame Street.
This is not a right wing screed aimed at a liberal jugular nor do I desperately need those few scraps of tax dollars, but in light of the things the public really ought to know which would be a true public service, PBS is nowhere near doing the job.
Recent Comments