| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| PBS, Fighting for Relevance, Loses Its Chief |
| 2005-02-17 |
| When she took over PBS five years ago, Pat Mitchell seemed expertly qualified. She had been a college professor, a local TV producer, reporter and anchor as well as a correspondent on NBC's "Today" show and a CNN producer — the first producer to become the public broadcaster's president. But three years into the job, Mitchell was saying, "I had no idea how hard it was going to be." The Public Broadcasting Service's ratings, which began to fall as cable TV spread in the '90s, continued to sag, prompting Mitchell to warn public TV programmers in 2002: "We are dangerously close in our overall prime-time numbers to falling below the relevance quotient..." This stems from three problems: crumby programming, leftist politics, and crumby programming. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #9 PBS should eliminate -all- "news" activities and go all-arts. But they've proven uninterested in that, much like NPR. |
| Posted by: someone 2005-02-17 7:49:18 PM |
| #8 When I see Juan Williams and Mar Eliason (sp?) on Brit Hume's show I want to hurl. I know we pay them some level of salary from tax $. Whatever it is, it's too much. The absurdity of taxpayer-subsidized "journalists" always occupying the Far Lefty position on a panel discussion show - regularly - is insane. If anything they should be the centrist member. They're not. Not even close. Can the subsidy. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-17 4:56:45 PM |
| #7 So what is the Federal budget numbers on PBS this year? If they cannot be taken off the trough, they should have their funding decreased (wean effect). I saw some videos of Bill Moyers interviewing Joseph Campbell (Joseph Campbell and the power of Myth) some years ago. Campbell was on a roll, explaining things with such eloquence, and Moyers was asking semi dumb questions. Moyers did not have a clue. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-02-17 4:28:03 PM |
| #6 Both PBS and CPB (the radio side) should lose their subsidies, and their tax exemptions. They long ago ceased to be "non-commercial" and follow their donation money as slavishly as any other commercial broadcasters follow their advertising dollars. In an age of cable and the web, they've outlived their purpose. And that's before you look at their political slant. |
| Posted by: VAMark 2005-02-17 12:41:10 PM |
| #5 Bill Moyers recently announced his retirement, so that's one problem taken care of. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-02-17 12:37:31 PM |
| #4 Mark, there are quality programs on PBS, interspersed with teh drivel. We shouldn't be paying for it, though. A private channel would pick up Nova in a second. BBC-type support makes them flabby, lazy, and isolated, like Academia's ivory towers |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-02-17 12:31:59 PM |
| #3 I hate the politics of the people who run PBS. Having said that I'm the first to admit that from time to time they do get some things right. For example: The other evening NOVA had a program detailing the efforts (past, present, and future) to preserve our original founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights etc). I'm not ashamed to admit the program brought tears to my eyes. We are truly the greatest country on Earth. Or, if you like, we're the greatest country in the history of mankind. |
| Posted by: Mark Z. 2005-02-17 12:26:21 PM |
| #2 But if the public trough is closed, who will employ Bill Moyers et al? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-02-17 12:02:39 PM |
| #1 PBS's big problem is that there is now a universe of cable channels carrying the quality programming PBS used to have a monopoly on. National Geographic Channel, Arts & Entertainment, Discovery Channel, BBC America, Hallmark Channel, etc. Plus you can pick up DVD's of them at your local store or order them on line. There is no longer any reason for PBS to receive any public funding, period! Pull the plug. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-02-17 11:44:27 AM |