For Being "Public," PBS Is Very Commercial

I love baseball, it is my favorite sport. Recently a good friend of mine and I were discussing a great series on the game I saw several years ago that was produced by PBS called "Baseball." The ten part series is one of my favorite documentaries on one of my favorite subjects. Sure enough, a few days later, this friend bought me the complete set. I have been very excited indeed.

It took a while to find the time to watch it, but I finally sat down and started going through the series and they certainly do not disappoint. However, before the broadcast of each episode there are several commercials (sorry PBS, I don't know what else to call them) that are displayed in anticipation of the program. Some are for foundations, I notice one by GM, and tell you, in a commercial, that we are watching the show commercial free, thanks to these commercials. Yes, I know, a little confusing.

PBS, also known as the Public Broadcast Service, has figured out how to have its cake and eat it too. In addition to typically having a liberal political agenda in many of its programs, it enjoys government subsidies to underwrite its programming, is tax deductible and recieves donations, and has all the blessings of being a non-profit. In addition to that, it has commercials. Yes, only a few and only at the beginning, but come on!

My old friend former Congressman Steve Stockman made PBS one of his issues. He couldn't understand in an era that had History Channels, National Geographic Channels, Discovery Channels, etc. that there was still a need for government subsidized television (since they provide very "PBS" style programs). The idea behind such subsidized programming is to provide educational shows that wouldn't get on by any other means because the market may not support such. That may have been true in an era of a few national networks and a handful of independent stations in local markets, but in today's economy, it is very difficult to make the case for public programming, especially when one considers it has a political axe to grind.

I love the Baseball series and recomment people buy it (through my bookstore in particular). There are other shows, like Commanding Heights (which makes an excellent case for the market economy), but I believe that the market can provide all the programming we need without the spending of a single taxpayer dollar.

Do Blogs Hurt Journalism?

I'm not much of a fan of the editorial bent of PBS, but I do love how thorough it is in its coverage. Tonight I saw a documentary on its program Frontline, where it discussed the impact that the Internet was having on journalism (it is significant and the network actually did a fine job demonstrating such). Over all, the future is very dim for paper and ink of newspapers in particular, according to the first episode in a series.

You would think that liberals would be thrilled because of all the ink that won't go into polluting the environment and all the trees that would be spared. Furthermore, since the blog is the new force that seems to be replacing traditional media (according to the program) and it is dominated by liberals, you would think PBS would be dancing in the streets! PBS seems to have a very different view.

Frontline argues that the only serious journalism is in traditional media and in newspapers in particular. For years the front page of the New York Times has provided the lead stories of the nightly news programs at CBS, NBC, and ABC. If newspapers keep getting smaller and editorial staffs keep getting leaner, who will write the truly "serious" stories?

Yet, the program pointed out that some of the most serious stories of the last year became that way because of blogs. In particular they mentioned the incredible story of former Rep. Mark Foley and his potential inappropriate relationships with young pages that many believe contributed to the huge problems Republicans faced in last November elections. There is also the story that CBS News' anchor Dan Rather had a deceptive and politically motivated source on his broadcast about the military service record of President George Bush that was driven by a blog. That story was so damaging that the veteran newsman was forced to resign after four decades at the network. These stories were powered largely by "unprofessional" bloggers and not the major media.

I'm not convinced that traditional journalism is any where close to dying at the hands of blogs. However, if they do die, I am actually very optimistic about the ability of the bloggers to find the stories that were covered by traditional journalism. Real people who live where the stories happen, not typical academicians who are often politically motivated and unschooled in the real world. Sure, the vast majority of the bloggers are ideologues. But at least their readers know it since I have seen very few who hide behind the mask of a so-called "objective media standards."

As a strong believer in the free market, I'm not at all surprised by the decline of the press at the hands of the Web. Newspapers had been taking a beating for years with the rise of Conservative talk radio in the 1980s. Before most had ever even heard of the "World Wide Web" newspapers were being sold and merged, left and right. When I was growing up it was common for their to be a morning and evening edition every day. We haven't seen those for years. The market provides what the people want. And, although disheartening to the liberals out there who really believe they know what is "best" for us, I believe that the market will also provide what we need. A largely unpaid and volunteer army of journalists that is committed to the truth as they see it; yet honest enough to admit when it is merely their opinion. If "professional" journalists had done that, they may not be on the brink of extinction today.