>> main

*other media
film
music
on-line
on-line
television
comment on media

 

comment? discuss this article on our discussion board

 

*contact us
design?

 

*index
 

subscribe now! enter your email address to receive information and updates

*current issue
*archives

archives page

 

Visto.com Links

*television
toward real public television
printer friendly version
by frank beacham

American television broadcasters, most of whom have made fortunes exploiting the public's airwaves for the past 50 years, are now trying to scare people into thinking "free TV" might soon disappear.

"Imagine your favorite shows...gone," exhorted a recent newspaper ad bought by KRON-TV, the NBC affiliate in San Francisco. "Local news, weather and sports...gone. The Olympics for free...gone. That's what some in Congress have in mind."

Such scare tactics would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that many people actually believe them. When the owners of the most powerful information technology on the planet gear up for a disinformation campaign, attention should be paid.

Of course, to begin with, there is no such thing as "free TV." Never was and never will be. It's all a smoke and mirrors deal where the monetary price for watching the tube is included in the price of goods and services in the marketplace. Most of the cost of that box of Tide is not for the detergent inside. It's for advertising and marketing.

Then there's the social cost of TV. One can argue -- as did author Jerry Mander in his now classic Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (Quill, NY) -- that TV has had a detrimental effect on personal health, the natural environment and to democratic processes.

The damage done to generations of children weaned on a daily dose of commercial television is just beginning to be felt. As the most powerful narcotic in the society, television clearly dims the mind, reduces the diversity of genuine experience and creates a value system that celebrates the consumer culture and discourages independent inquiry.

And it has only gotten worse. As the technology of television broadcasting has improved in recent years, the quality of television programming has declined.

The "magazine" shows that replaced the dramas of yesteryear are often little more than mildly disguised pitches by celebrities for books, movies and other products. Today's news programming offers a dumbed-down, narrowly-focused world view, while public affairs programs tend to push a pro-corporate, right-wing agenda and children's shows are designed simply to sell toys and snack food.

Despite claims to the contrary, American television broadcasters have done little to repay the public for use of the airwaves they are loaned for over-the-air broadcasting. Now, as the technology of television moves from analog to digital, the broadcasters are being given -- no strings attached -- new frequency spectrum worth billions of dollars.

Digital television, which requires new television channels, offers the possibility of high definition images, multiple channels of programming from a single station and a wide range of new interactive data services.

Senator John McCain, the Republican Commerce Committee chairman from Arizona, argues that broadcasters have no special right to free licenses from the public. He waged a losing campaign to auction the airwaves to the highest bidders and let them do as they please with the spectrum.

What's not on the agenda is the simple concept of returning the public's airwaves back to the people. In light of their horrendous track record in public service over the years, why should today's broadcasting corporations be given any preference at all to new digital spectrum? A strong argument can be made that these broadcasters are parasites who have actually damaged the communities they profess to serve.

Why must digital spectrum be auctioned off at all? Who says every natural resource of this nation must be sold to the highest bidder? Why not, for once, use a valuable resource for the betterment of people and not for commerce?

Is it too much to dream of a broadcasting system that sells education, art, music and other forms of human expression rather than consumer products? Is it too radical an idea that the most powerful communications medium ever devised be used to expand human consciousness and experience rather than narrow it. Is it too dangerous to the powers that be that true diversity of thought and free expression of ideas be made available to the public at large?

Of course, a political system under corporate control will never give up its hold on over-the-air broadcasting. Its utility for dispersing propaganda and preserving the consumer culture is simply too great. But it should be noted that we have the first chance in nearly 50 years to "fix" what we don't like about television broadcasting. The question is whether we have the will to do it.

Is Public Television an anachronism? Discuss Here

Copyright © 1997 Frank Beacham All Rights Reserved

Frank Beacham is a New York City-based writer and producer. He is executive producer of the upcoming Tim Robbin's feature film "Cradle Will Rock" from Touchstone Pictures. Visit his web site at: www.beacham.com.

 

comment? discuss this article on our discussion board

copyright© 1999 - 2000 bravenewMEDIA