Date post: | 02-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | sevendaysvermont |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 2
8/11/2019 The Great Public TV Debate | Vanguard Press | Mar. 27, 1979
1/2
The Great Public T V R OebateBy Frank Kaufman
Unless the truste~s of the Universiry of Vermont
dump the. license of the state's public
broadcastIng station, Vermonters will probably see
few changes on Vermont Educational Television. And
when the shouting stops and the dust settles, the four
primary issues aired by a statewide committeeconcerned with improving the quality of television
will be focused down to pinpoint proportions, nearly
forgotten Inthe morass of university bureaucracy and
stopped cold by whar ETV critics say is an "aging andscale management.' I
Composed mostly of independent film and video
producers from throughout the state, the committee
has a sked for publi c a cc ess t o Ver mont ETV, a
formation of a citizens' advisory board with authon',yover programming policy, a substantial percentage of
programming produced by and for Vermonters, and a
review by the public of the allocation of station funds.
But the committee has been hampered by internal
conflagrations, not the least of which is an ideological
struggle ovet the function of the committee. Several
film and video producers have dropped OUt of the
committee and a handful have refused to join, stating
that its leader, Bernard Sanders, director of the
American People's Historical Society and former
candidate for governor as a Liberty Union candidate,
is using the general issue of public access as a political
soapbox for" socialist propaganda. "
In private, the station management is distressed
over the committee's coercion. Responding [0the
Public Telecommunications Financing Act of 1978,
which requires public television stations that receivefederal funds to set up advisory boards by May 1, and
calls fot a diversity of programming on local issues,
Vermont ETV claims that it is merely following the
guidelines passed by Congress.
Despite a planned series of six televised forums
exploring Vermonters' attitudes toward their PBS
station, ET V need not solicit opinions or select a boardthat is more than advisory, and neither the station
management nor the university is willing toconcede
that the new board will be authoritative.
Since the station opened in 1967, ETV has had rwo
advisory groups, a Broadcast Council, which has
served primarily as a .. rubber stamp" for decisions
m ade by ma na ge me nt; and the Educa ti onal
Television Council, whose concern is for daytime
instructional programming which is broadcast
. throughout Vermont's public school system.
While members of those committees have admitted
that their roles could change or that the current
gtoups might be dissolved, many sources in state and
federal government believe that it is "naive" to
assume that any far-reaching changes will occur with
the present station management in control and a state
university bureaucracy that holds the station's license.
"The ultimate authority over the station rests with
the trustees." says university vice-president Kenneth
Fishell, who oversees the station's interests for UVM.
"1 am recommending to the trustees that the new
board be authoritative, but they retain the right to
make the final decision. The board will have as much
authority as the trustees want to give them. ,t
If the station management is not bound by the
decisions of a governing board, many observers feelthat there is little hope that major concessions will be
made by the station.When the cameras were turned off Match 2, after
the first, live televised forum, The Public Speaks: A
Town Meeting of the Air, friends of both sides had to
restrain committee members and employees of ETV
before blows were thrown. And in the EN lobby,
where a monitor was tuned in to the program, ETV
suppotters and sraff members wete outspoken in theit
hostility toward the committee's complaints of
ptogramming suited only fot the elitist and upper
income people in the state. .
The progtam, which brought together committee
members and supporters of ptesent ETV
programmjng poljcies, became an "us against them"
confrontation halfway through the rwo-and-a- half
hout telecast, with little sign of cooperation in
discussing programming changes. The panel of 30
listened to no voices but their own in welJ-rehearsed
bursts of oration.
The five temaining forums, now in the planning
Two and a half hOUrilater, some of these people came dose to blows.
srages but indefinitely postponed due to a production
workers' strike at the station. will present discussions
by Vermont residents. representing low-income,
women, youth, the elderly, farming, and artistic
constituencies on possible changes in ETV's schedule.
" What you have a t ETV is a t ax-s upport ed
institution which the public must make use of," says
Sanders. "I would like to see the station confront the
problems in Vermont. including poverty and
unemployment .' ,
"Ifpeople's personalrealities wereconfirmed ontelevision, the endresult would
pro bably be, 'Let'sdo somethingabout it. ' "
-Bernard Sanders
Claiming "far-teaching changes in the future of
television in Vermont," Sanders says that the station
is making "significant concessions in agreeing LOfollow policies formed by the new committee." But
with the threat of cancellation of federal funds tothe
station unless they form the committee, ETV has more
to fear than soapbox rhetoric.
During the recent two-week fundraising drive, ETV
avoided the controversy on the air, preferring to him
at proposed changes that "will continue to serve
Vermonters and the issues facing them." Privately.
Station Manager Jake Dunlop and Programming
Director Garry Simpson cite a long list of Vermont-
produced and oriented films and video rapes whichwere aired during the past year.
"I have always worked with the independents on
helping them find money fpr their projects," says
Dunlop, "and we work closely with the Vermont
Council on the Humanities which provides some of
that money."Simpson adds that the station cannot produce
programs that would require the sraff to leave the
station . 'We do not own the porrable equipment and
we do not have the money.""Bullshit," says Ray Phillips, who was fired by [he
university as dean of continuing education cwo years
ago. Phillips helped launch the station in 1967, and at
his depatture was responsible to UVM for the sration's
operations. "ETV is unresponsive to the needs of
Vetmonters. The sration is no longer hungry, and
ETV now has too much money. Their time is spentdoing the wrong things. ETV is a living body that has
cancet, and it also has athlete's foot. Simpson is
treating the athlete's foot and ignoting the cancer."
., By ignoring the realities facing the nation and the
sta~e," says Sanders, "Vermont ETV is protecting the
rulIn~ class who dole OUt the funds to public
television. If people's personal realities wereconfirmed on television, [he end result would
probably be, 'Let's do something about it.' "
"Our policy," says Simpson, "has always been to
be open to suggestions. We are not afraid ofcontroversy. We'll handle any subject."
The concerns of Vermont and ir s citizens are the
targets of the five forums, which the independents are
co-producing with ETV, although the independents
must fundraise supplementary funds for theirproductions. But Dunlop is wary offuUy crediting the
efforts of the committee. "These programs have been
discussed over a long period of time, and are nor the
direct resule of rhe ccmmmee. That committee is only
one segment of Vermont's society. We win listen [0
them, but they will be handled like any other special
interest group."
S ince 1967, when the landmark report hy theCarnegie Commission on Educational Televisionwas released, part of the problem for the network of
280 stations has been defining what kinds of programs
the system should be carrying. School programming,
st il l a ma jor block of t ime on ma ny st ati on's
schedules, is only one-third of what the publicexpects, Public television as an access to special-
inter es t groups a nd m inor it ies , a nd qu1'li ty
programming that is lacJ(ing on commercial television
complete the expectations.
Until 1967, public broadcasting affiliates were
primarily an "educational television" system which
supplied instructional programming to public schools.
Following the 1967 Carnegie Commission Report,
Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act which
created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)
and provided federal funds for the stations.
By early 1970, the Public Broadcasting Service
(PBS) was incorporated; its purpose was defined as the
membership organization representing and providing
services to the stations, but furnishing no funds for
programming. It
does make recommendations,however, to the CPB for distribution of money- for
projects both within the system and to independent
prod ucer s.The switch from "educational" to "public"
broadcasting presented countless opportunities to
member stations. But twO years ago, at the request of
the public broadcasting industry, a new commission
was organized-i- The Carnegie Commission on the
Future of Public Broadcasting, or Carnegie 11. Its
purpose was "to evaluate how the public television
and radio systems wete developing and to propose a
course for their future in view of the explosion in
communication technologies. ,.
The tesult was printed in a report, released Jan. 30,
titled, The Public Trust, and it declares that "public
broadcasting's financial, organizational. and creative
struCtutes ate fundamenrally flawed. There is littlelikelihood that public television and radio might
consistently achieve ptogramming excellence under
the preseot circumstances. "
continued on page /8
THE VERMONT VANGUARD PRESSMARCH 27, /979
8/11/2019 The Great Public TV Debate | Vanguard Press | Mar. 27, 1979
2/2
co"ti"ued from page J J
And in an article in the
February issue of The AIIa"tic,
titled "The Trouble with Public
Television," Benjamin DeMon
writes that "on five major
organizational fronts public TVdeserves indictment as nothingother than straight-out enemy
of talent."Among them are:
The arrangements by which
individual broadcasting sraricns
produce or buy programs ate
ingrown, clogged, and
unimaginative.'Procedures by which
individual creators are chosenfor SUppOl! are frivolous and
arbitrary.Attempts by public
broadcasting stations to aquaintthemselves with the views and
tastes of the living American
public are spiritless and cynical.
"Fu[(hermore," writes
DeMon, "the makers of public
TV have behaved as thoughtheir prime duty was ro coat the
land with a film of philistinism,
lifelessly well-meaning,
tolerant. earnest, well-
scrubbed-and urrerly remote
from what is most precious and
viral in the soul of the nation."
And DeMott points our that
minorities are well-represented
on public television, mostly assingers. dancers, and
undereducated persons who
need improvement in math and
English.Bur programs are everything,
says the Carnegie II report. The
id ea is to turn m o ney in toprograms through greater
funding from the federal
government, and reduce the
bureaucratic mazes within the
system. And although the
independent film and video
producer is barely mentioned in
declares that broadcsseers have aduty to provide balanced
presentation. of controversial
issues, and was ammended 10
years later "ro afford ~onable
opporcunity for the d,SCUSSIOn
of conflicting views on issues of
public importance.""I don't believe that ETV
should be the only outlet for
public access," says Marvin
Fishm an , w ho is a citiz en 's
committee m ember andassociate director of theInstructional DevelopmentCenter at UVM: "What the
public needs ro meet other
publics is to decide jim whatmedium-newspapers, radio,
television-is right for the type
of information being
transmitted. "Under FCC law, public
access-" original programmingopportunities available to every
citizen" -is provided through
the privately-owned cable
companies located throughoutVermont's urban areas. ButSanders is uninterested in accessvia cable, despite successful
atrernpts in Sr. )ohnsbury,
Brattleboro, and Rutland. "The
Staff is already at ETV, the
overhead is already paid," says
Sanders, "ETV is a state-wide
system, not the city-by-city toy
that cable is, and is affordable
only to the middle class."
The most effective and
serrous lobbying efforts
throughout the PBS system
against the present structurehave come from the
independent film and video
producers, In many cases the
independents have had to raise
money on their own without thesupport of local stations, and, as
untested individuals in theirfield, are frequently turned
down by the CPB for funds.
"Afterthe m onths and
m onths of hard work on'H om e Birth, ' all weheard was why itcouldn'tget on the air. "
-Jane Kast
.
the report, their existence is notoverlooked: "Innovative and
untried programming ideas in a
wide range of genres (must be)
devised by producers working
inside and ouiside the presentsystem.' ,
The failings of public
television-inadequate federal
funds, limited public access,
absence of substantial andin no vativ e p ro gr am m in g b yindependent producers, top-
beavy administration, programs
aimed at the priviliged, failure
to meet the day- to-day needs of
local issues-are _all problems
dropped in Vermont ETV's
offices 'and studios in the lasr six
months, through a new law and
the fervent demands of a
concerned public.
Since. the Federal Communi-canons Commission (Fcq
was establilshed in 19~4, there
has been a long progression of
COUrt decisions and legislation
providing for public access to
commetcial IW"wMI, , * p~blictelevision . . F or exam ple,
b toa d c as t i ng":li'J'F air nessDoctrine, wffli.tClI in 1949,,
Vermont's independents areblum and severely critical of
ETV. "The station makes it as .
difficult as possible for us," says
)ane Kast, one of the producers
of Home Binb, a 30-minute
documentary that received nopromises from ETV on the
possibility of air time. "We
were told by ETV that they
hoped the rape didn't show anaked woman's legs flopping. "
Evencually aired on ETV after
the station wanted anadditional $1,500 to cover the
COStsof a panel discussion and
phone-in (the money was
granted by the Vermont
Council on the Humanities),
Home Birlh might not have
bee" telecast if the producers
had not been so forceful. "They
never c am e to u s," say s Kasr"we always had to go to them.','
Kasr, along with Chris
McClure and )eff Lizotte of
Videofeedback in Burlington,
are now working on an hour-long Home Dealh 12pe, It is
budgeted on the proverbial
shoesrrinjl. When questioned
!tbout funding sources, Kast isonly vaguely a"are of the
procedures of funding from
CPB, but shrugs it off in a
"why bother?" gesrure. Home
Deatb is receiving no funds
from Vermont ETV.
McClure is a holdout from
the citizen's com mittee
preferring not to join becaus;he is upset about "the leftist
politics of the group." Sander.;,
he says, is a politician who has
"fallen into media." But
McClure argues that ETV rnusr
be able to say to thecommunity, 4 ' J don't know howto do this. Help me."
"They won't admit that they
can't do a project," saysMcClure, "and they blame lackof money and equipmenr.
What they have is lack of imagination.' ,
And according to most of the
independents, the priorities at
ETV have been misplaced.
"They do have the money to
buy the portable equipment
and the sraff to help us," saysone filmmaker, "and they
could easily get OUt of the
studio and OUt into Vermontbu t they would prefer to spend
i t on administrative salaries.Sure, it might mean getting rid
of some dead wood there, bur
I'm tired of fighting them and
I'm tired of hearing how things
can't be done.""After the months and
months of work on Home
Birth, we wanted it broadcast somuch, we could taste it ," saysKast. "All we heard was why it
couldn't get on."
Claiming that it has shown
nearly a dozen independently
produced films and tapes b y
V erm on ter s in th e p ast y ea r,
ETV Public Relations DirectorAnn Curran says that "we arevery upset over the attacks on
the station's programming, andwe are distressed that the
committee and someindependents feel that they are
being shut our ofETV."
"We are doing everything we
can for them," says Dunlop.
"The people at ETV areliving in sheltered
environments," saysindependent producer Richard
Parlato. "They've lose touch
with what's surrounding them,
and there's a lot of 12lent'1here
in V er mo nt th at's n ot b ein gutilized.' ,
"If it's ever going to be what
it could be," som eone elseshould hold the license to the
station," says Ray Phillips.
"ETV could be the most
powerful, influential ..force inmedia in the state. Bur.you'vegot to be anti-esrablishment ro
do it. You've got to be creative
and do the wrong things. "
"The non-profit channels are
potentially the most powerfulinstruments ever created, bothfor showing the satisfactions of
full intellectual and aesthetic
responsiveness, and forrepresenting the breadth and
fascination of daily life in
democratic institutions.' writesDeMott. "From them we learn
what members of a free societyneed most toknow: who we are,
an d h ow , in non-exploitative.mutualistic undertakings, wecan bener ourselves."
;rhis is pari one of a two-pariseries 0"public broadcasting. ln
pari two, Fra"k Kaufman will
explore public access Ihrough
cable i" Vermo"I, and
successful efforls al public access
through PBS stalions across Ihe
country.
." M,1RCH 27. W19,,.