A Word from Leo

An unofficial quarterly reflection on the state of our industry

A DREAM CALLED PUBLIC TELEVISION

By Leo Eaton
March, 2005

This ‘word from Leo’ is concerned with public television in America so those with no interest should just ‘talk amongst yourselves’ for a while. Anyone who finds the arcane mysteries of public television strangely fascinating should read on.

Once upon a time, back in those far off days of the late Sixties when LBJ signed the Public Broadcasting Act and public television in America began to take on its present form, a documentary was produced—narrated by Orson Wells—with the title A Dream Called Public Television. In it were expressed all the hopes, aspirations and dreams of this fledgling network. It would stand for quality and excellence, creating programming to empower and ennoble. It would exist as a rock of integrity in a television landscape that FCC Chairman Newt Minow previously described as a “vast wasteland”.

That documentary seems to have vanished without trace. Unless action is soon taken, I fear the tarnished dream that is public television will follow it into oblivion, willed into inconsequence by public apathy, the harsh commercial realities of our multi-channel cable/satellite universe and—more important—a failure of vision throughout the System. Public Television still has its champions and could even survive another decade in its current form, although Big Bird is too hoary an old rooster to remain an effective champion for much longer. But if public television is not to end up on the scrap-heap of history, it must—like the Tin Man—rediscover its heart and rekindle that ‘dream called public television’.

WHAT WENT WRONG?

It’s a miracle that public television has survived this long, given its intrinsic birth defects. Public television’s founders planned to provide stable and reliable funding but politicians balked. So it ended up with the ‘dog’s dinner’ of revenue streams it has today, an uncertain blend of federal, local, membership, sponsorship and anything else desperate development execs across the country invent. From the start public television’s structure was often ungovernable and full of contradictions. It is a ‘network’ controlled by around 200 member stations that seldom agree amongst themselves yet defend their own independence to the death, even when it threatens the health of the overall System.

Then there’s the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the agency set up to distribute federal funding to the System that over the years has been sometimes supportive, sometimes ineffective and sometimes hostile to the plans and programming initiatives of public television’s executives. So long as public television was a quality alternative in a limited field of commercial broadcast networks, its dysfunctional qualities had a certain quaint eccentricity. But in a multi-channel universe where systems of program distribution expand exponentially, public television too often comes across as old and tired, preoccupied with defending existing turf without sufficient funding, flexibility and energy to react to the challenges it faces. None of this bodes well for the future.

WHO NEEDS PUBLIC TELEVISION?

Today many politicians question the value of public television. Our audiences grow older and continue to shrink (although ratings are up slightly from last year). Corporate sponsorship is drying up. A generation of Americans no longer regards us as first choice for kids TV. How can we answer those who say public television is no longer unique, superseded by dozens of other commercial channels who transmit similar programming?

In the UK, an influential public figure made the following comment in the run-up to BBC charter renewal. “So long as commercial television is more concerned with selling audiences to advertisers than programs to people, non-commercial television has a vital place.”

In the past public television has been a pioneer and innovator for so many programming styles now imitated by cablenet competitors. We used to be the Gold Standard. Now our programming has lost much of its luster. Cablenets have skimmed off the profitable ‘cream’ to sell audiences to advertisers, not programs to people. The Discoveries, A&Es, Food Networks, HGTVs and others have built their business by strip-mining program genres pioneered by public television, targeting them to distinct market niches where success or failure is judged solely by whether they reach an audience demographic required by advertisers. Of course imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and public television should be proud it has birthed so many imitators. “You saw it first on PBS” has a certain ring to it.

However pride is wasted unless we continue to innovate and create the next generation of programming that other networks want to imitate. Public television must recapture the high ground and become again the Gold Standard in every genre we inhabit. Only then can we say to every critic, every politician and every television viewer across America: “Our only concern is the quality of our programming. Our pledge is to always bring you the very best.”

THAT ‘VISION’ THING

Although television is just a delivery system for programming—free ‘over the air’, cable, satellite, video-on-demand & web-streaming—general managers within public television often forget this in their obsession with fundraising, digital conversion, HD, K through 12 classroom services and anything else they think critical to their individual station mission. Yet it’s programming alone that builds audiences. This is where public television must be unique. This is where the dream must be rekindled.

All of us who love public television—producers, PBS/CPB management, station staff and even audiences—must demand better from ourselves and those who manage our member stations and our System. Public television has to be held to a higher standard. Outgoing PBS President Pat Mitchell wasn’t wrong when she said; “keep the best and reinvent the rest” but it never happened. Most of the existing strands went right on with business much as usual, while new programming initiatives were based either on personal preference or political considerations. Public television’s current programming is okay—some good, some less good—but there’s little about it that’s fresh and exciting. Show for show, we’re better than the cable channels whose arrival was supposed to make us redundant. POV, Frontline, Nova and any number of our other strands and specials can still—on good days—generate some of the best television in the world. Yet a broad sweep of America perceives public television as old-fashioned and out of touch. For public television’s long-term survival, this perception must change.

CHANGING PERCEPTION

Unlike major cable networks and broadcasters, we don’t have funding for massive promotional campaigns to change the perception of public television across America. But we have something just as good, grass roots support on the station level. The incoming PBS President, station managers, programming executives, producers and the politicians that support us must all repeat the same message; that public television is the Gold Standard, that we deserve pride of place in the multi-channel universe precisely because we are the only channel to bring programs to people, rather than audiences to advertisers. It’s a message that needs to be consistent and constant and always spoken with passion. We’ve seen in past election years how quickly political candidates lose momentum when they get off message. PBS has been off message for a long time. If we are to rekindle ‘a dream called public television’, a clear and compelling message must be carried by more than just System executives and APTS lobbyists justifying public television funding on Capitol Hill. It must come from us all.

Nationwide perception will change if we create a buzz about public television. If press and public feel a fresh wind blowing through our System, watch how quickly it will translate into higher profile, higher ratings and higher funding levels. But if we want to ‘talk the talk’, we must also be willing to ‘walk the walk’. That means fixing what’s wrong with our programming.

A LOCAL AND NATIONAL GOLD STANDARD

No matter how proud individual member stations may be of local programming and community efforts, they should accept it is national programming that defines us and makes us what we are. In this arena, producers, major producing centers and the network execs can do better. Producing stations and existing strands rely too much on privileged cliques of tame house-trained producers. When new initiatives are launched, the call goes out: “Round up the usual suspects.” Obviously it’s less hassle to deal with producers who have solid reputations and can be trusted to deliver but it also encourages conformity while discouraging innovation. As public television reinvents itself, it must find a way to attract the best and brightest of America’s up-and-coming producers without frightening them off with unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. Frustration has driven too many good producers away from public television in the past. Program executives must look beyond those formats, filmmakers and co-production partners that have worked for us in the past to actively seek out new ideas and new talent.

For America to rethink its perception of public television, the Gold Standard must be applied at all levels, not just the prime-time national schedule. A couple of years ago there was uproar when Pat Mitchell dared criticize membership-drives (pledge) and the quality of pledge programming. But is there anyone in America who thinks pledge doesn’t demean public television? (And I speak as a producer of pledge shows.) Pledge delivers—much of the time—so we’re stuck with it until someone comes up with a better way to raise money. But that’s still no excuse for poorly-produced programs where production values are secondary to financial success. So long as pledge is necessary, the ultimate goal should be to pledge around the regular schedule, and this will only be possible when audiences are again excited about public television. If additional Specials are created for pledge, they should be truly special, meeting the Gold Standard bench-mark. Pledge can become a celebration of the best of public television, not a time when regular viewers stay away.

Finally there’s local programming! While some programs produced at station level are innovative and impressively produced, the vast majority are not. Too often local production is limited to cheap & poorly produced ‘talking head’ studio discussions whose primary merit is to allow stations to claim they fulfill a local need. Audiences don’t differentiate; public television is judged by all its programming; local, regional and national.

MENTORING THE FUTURE

There’s a great divide between local and national production in public television. Yet if we are to attract the brightest and best producing talent for the future, we neglect looking within our own backyard at our peril. Public television needs a producer-mentoring program on a country-wide level. A vehicle already exists whereby such talent can be identified – public television’s local programming awards. A large part of restoring the dream of public television needs to involve attracting, nurturing and retaining tomorrow’s talent. The best local producers must be encouraged, mentored and ultimately provided with opportunities on national strands. Surely this is a place where the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should take a leadership role so long as it resists the temptation to bog itself down in bureaucratic inertia?

COMMISSIONING EDITORS

It’s easy to talk about the need to freshen programming strands and develop new ideas and new specials; it’s much harder to put such ideas into practice, especially when the structure of public television gets in the way. There’s an unhealthy tension between national programming executives at PBS and executives at the major producing centers (Boston & New York are the biggest). PBS needs the producing centers to create the bulk of their national schedule. However, the big producing centers have come to rely on the strand series for so much of their overall funding that attempts to alter the status-quo are seen as a threat to their very existence. Some strand series have been retained long past their ‘sell-by’ date because of the power wielded by big producers who, with other member stations, also control the network. It’s another dysfunctional aspect of public television in America.

Change is difficult. It will only occur when everyone across the System accepts that public television’s survival depends on it. I suggest it’s time for public television to finally bite the bullet and put in place a commissioning model that has worked well around the world – appointing commissioning editors who have individual responsibility for specific programming genres (history, science, news & public-affairs, drama etc). To see this model in practice, one can look to the UK where public television has many kindred spirits, both producers and broadcasters. A surprisingly large percentage of public television’s prime-time schedule is either directly or indirectly produced in association with the UK.

Pat Mitchell experimented with regional programming executives (it didn’t work because it was geographic, not genre specific). The commissioning editor model is more straight-forward; each has the responsibility to ensure that their particular programming area is performing at top level. They must be accountable, judged on performance, able to commission across the country (although existing strand series would still need to be housed in the major producing centers). The commissioning editor model encourages innovation and competition, allowing more room for fresh and creative thinking throughout the network. It would encourage producers and member stations around the System to expand their horizons. Major producing stations have resisted such restructuring in the past, fearing it would lesson their influence. But surely there’s a way to answer the concerns of the major producers while still setting public television on a new course for the future? It’s time to change the paradigm.

THE BLUE-SKY FUND

Can public television create new ideas, new thinking and new strands on a consistent basis? Both PBS & CPB always say they’re looking for new ideas & new programming concepts but such initiatives are usually either overly bureaucratic (CPB) or ‘round up the usual suspects’ (PBS). We need to create a climate of excitement and openness. One option could be to create a ‘blue sky fund’ with minimal bureaucracy, open to producers across America who could pitch ideas either directly to the center (PBS) or through stations. With a selection mechanism coordinated through the commissioning editors, there should be no limitation on genre—arts, drama, history, science, current affairs, kids—provided the programs fall within public television’s overall remit. One primary condition: The pitch must be for the pilot of a sustaining series, or an initial special in a sustaining anthology strand. Up to twenty shows piloted each year, funded with individual budgets of half-a-million dollars and up.

Yup, I’m suggesting PBS creates a pilot season, just like the big commercial networks. A ten million dollar annual budget is enough to gather the best ‘up & coming’ as well as established producers together on a level playing-field. All produced pilot projects get their shot on the air. Call it Pilot Week, with audiences voting for their favorites! It’s a good way to try out new ideas and attract new talent. It has a great promotional hook and, with up to twenty new shows a year, if even one generates water-cooler buzz, public television has its next hit. Year by year, a Blue Sky Fund can generate audience-tested programming to freshen the national schedule.

As to the larger problem, how to fix the overall funding issue? Perhaps a beginning is to get America excited about public television again. Where there’s interest, enthusiasm and national attention, funding will follow, both in increased membership and sponsorship. It’s about carrying the dream of public television back to America, and making sure that the programming is worthy of that dream—a new Gold Standard!

CONCLUSION

Recently I’ve talked with many inside and outside the System who believe—like Chicken Little—that the sky is falling. Others believe there’s little wrong that new leadership and more funding won’t cure. The truth is somewhere in between. But wherever that truth lies, I know from years spent making nature shows with the Kratt Brothers that creatures become extinct when they don’t adapt to a changing environment. Public television hasn’t yet adapted to today’s television universe.

I believe there’s still a window of opportunity. But I also believe that unless we make that evolutionary leap soon, public television as we know it will go the way of the Dodo. Is change easy? Of course not, but the challenge is clear. More than 40 years ago, FCC Chairman Newt Minow concluded his remarks to the National Association of Broadcasters by saying: “We need imagination in programming, not sterility; creativity, not imitation; experimentation, not conformity; excellence, not mediocrity. Television is filled with creative, imaginative people. You must strive to set them free.”

In our unique public television world, it’s time to listen and dream anew ‘a dream called public television’.

My hope is to precipitate a debate about how public television needs to change in order to survive. I invite you to email this column to colleagues. If you wish to respond or make a comment, email me at If response warrants it, I’ll set up a message board at www.eatoncreative.com so opinions can be shared.