Despite the initial controversy, MacNeil/Lehrer’s brand of intellectually rigorous newsgathering was a hit with viewers. In 1983, pbs wanted to expand the newscast to an hour. It was another fight, says Linda Winslow, the NewsHour’s current executive producer.
“A number of stations traditionally felt they were just not convinced that news and public affairs was a big part of the mission of public broadcasting,” she says. Stations saw their role as providing an alternative to the commercial networks and questioned why they should cover the same events as ABC, NBC, and CBS.
Something else was at work in stations’ reticence to engage in news. Grossman believes the reluctance reflected their origins as extensions of controversy-averse universities and boards of education. “The idea was to avoid issues that would fragment, or raise hackles,” says Grossman. “It had a lot to do, I think, with the educational culture that says our job is not to antagonize anybody or to raise tough issues as part of education. Our job is to make everybody happy.”
The system’s risk-averse tendencies were reinforced by the reaction to a 1970 documentary, Banks and The Poor, distributed by PBS. The hard-hitting piece of journalism suggested members of Congress were complicit with exploitative banks. Soon after it aired, an antagonized Nixon administration started reorganizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which began channeling federal monies for production away from PBS and toward the local stations themselves.
Bill Moyers, speaking at the 2006 PBS annual meeting, made reference to that brouhaha as a way to explain public television’s queasy attitude toward pursuing tough journalism, lest it jeopardize federal funding, which makes up about 15 percent of the system’s budget.
“Far too many other unconventional programs never had a chance,” Moyers told the meeting. “Even when the strings are not tightly pulled, you knew they are there, and the worst thing that came out of that ugly episode was that we have never been able to completely shake out of our collective mind the fear that the chicken snake might prove to be a boa constrictor.”
Today, at times a deeply seated conflicted attitude toward news seems to ooze from every pixel. During President Obama’s State of the Union speech in January, Washington’s WETA-TV—the same station that produces the estimable PBS NewsHour and Washington Week for PBS distribution—embarrassingly forgot to turn off automated station promos at the top of hour, interrupting the President. That said, WETA was one of a minority of public television stations carrying the speech live.
Most public television stations have chosen not to rock the boat and to stick with a decades-old formula of a little bit of something for everyone: daytime educational kids shows; the PBS NewsHour and Nightly Business Report in the evening; dramas, science, performances, and documentaries in primetime; and the Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley talk shows to cap the day.
There are, of course, pockets of distinguished news coverage on PBS. Jim Lehrer in recent years has made sure that PBS alone among broadcasters has committed to full coverage of political conventions, and a much-needed overhaul of the NewsHour website has resulted in a 43 percent increase in pageviews in fifteen months. Frontline, produced by Boston’s WGBH-TV for PBS distribution, is attempting to become more nimble by presenting occasional magazine-style shows featuring multiple stories as a break from its signature long-form documentaries. Both have partnered with each other and with other news organizations, such as the nonprofit ProPublica, to co-produce timely investigative pieces.
But PBS is shrinking its Friday night public affairs schedule this fall by a half-hour—to sixty minutes, or half what it was until April 2010 when Bill Moyers Journal and Now on PBS went off air—partly in response to stations that would prefer lighter entertainment fare. Michael Getler, the PBS ombudsman, says PBS is at a “serious disadvantage” by having no news on the weekends.

FYI: KQED's second "baby Frontline" - a look at the state-federal divide over medical marijuana called Republic of Cannabis airs tonight on television and can be seen right now on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bFUASotNXk. We'll also be doing a live chat on Twitter with CIR at 7pm PST tonight - follow #capot to check it out.
#1 Posted by Ian Hill at KQED News, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 11:25 AM
This is a fine article but may leave a few false impressions. For one thing, I wouldn't use the word "indifferent" to describe the local news aspirations of local Public TV stations. And, the data is rather thin (citing what the FCC used, 68% of stations did no local news over a three week period. How vague is that?). My survey of public TV stations (all but 20), shows that 90% are committed to local production of news and public affairs. This varies, of course, in their on-air activities. But, for example, 68% were producing local documentaries! So Tom Rosenstiel is right when he questions the expectations we place on local Public TV stations. I'm not saying they shouldn't do more -- they should -- and most would if they could.
Send me a note if you want more data from the MVM/PRNDI 2010 survey -- mmarcotte (at) stanford (dot) edu
#2 Posted by Michael Marcotte, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 05:48 PM
So it has come to this: KQED, the station that, decades ago, pioneered local news on public television with “Newsroom” now is reduced to bragging about getting a second locally- produced documentary on the air. I mean no disrespect to the excellent journalists trying to do the best they can with limited resources and often indifferent or hostile management, but that confirms everything in this story, and then some.
A long time ago, I was a reporter for local public radio and television for eight years and I followed it closely thereafter. The heart of the problem is a management culture in local public television that combines the ego of Hollywood with the politics of academia. With some notable and noble exceptions, the big-city station managers tend to see serving the local community as a drag on their ambitions to produce national programming; smaller stations often don’t even try.
That’s why there is no more Newsroom at KQED, no more 51st State at WNET, and no more Ten O’Clock News at WGBH (I worked briefly for that program at WBGH’s little sister station in Springfield.)
But at least in New Jersey, so badly served by New York and Philadelphia stations, there is an excellent fully field produced nightly news program that focuses on serious coverage of state issues and - oh, never mind. After 33 years, New Jersey Network News was canceled on June 30, just about the time this story was published.
Richard Wexler
Alexandria VA
#3 Posted by Richard Wexler, CJR on Sat 9 Jul 2011 at 03:49 PM
One thing mentioned but not really discussed in piece is the cost to staff and produce a quality daily local news show, especially one that is interesting, informative, and watchable. It's not cheap. When you add controversy to the mix,
and holding accountable local officials, businesses, institutions, etc. is bound to become controversial if you are truly doing news, then coming up with a sustainable "business" model is pretty daunting.
#4 Posted by michael fields, CJR on Mon 11 Jul 2011 at 07:00 PM
Lee Bollinger offers an interesting proposal—to create an American World (News) Service to absorb and supersede NPR, PBS, and the Voice of America. In theoretical terms it has much to recommend it. We are pitifully far behind quite a few countries in such offerings.
World news in the San Francisco Bay Area provides a slightly different profile from that he gives. In my Silicon Valley neighborhood there is a significant reluctance to subscribe to cable (poor reception in some locales). An incidental benefit is that broader news and foreign-language offerings are available on digital TV, which has increased the number of public channels from three to ten over the past two years.
KCSM (San Mateo) holds the strongest hand for (non-US) world services. In addition to the BBC (recently forced to contract its world service) and PBS, its evening offerings also include Deutsche Welle (the go-to place for the Euro crisis), NHK World News (riveting coverage of the Sendai earthquake and its aftermath; excellent Pan-Asian review on Thursdays), Al Jazeera (on the spot coverage of the Arab spring), and Russia Today (nothing topical of note) on weekdays. A local commercial channel carries CCTV and Xinhua News.
Given the will of Congress and the well publicized collapse of foreign-language teaching in many US institutions of higher learning, it is hard to see how the US could marshal the resources to mount a competitive world service in the foreseeable future. The percentage of funding that PBS receives from government resources is miniscule. One would need to start from scratch. NPR gives a whole different slant to the news and sustains a much broader array of one-off features capturing real life in America.
What is more conspicuously missing in the Bay Area (and much of the rest of the US) is coverage of local and state government news of any merit. (Highest marks for state coverage go to the San Jose Mercury News, but it is forced to pick its battles carefully.) Sound-bite TV journalism, given its obsessions with police blotters, gay rights, and Presidential sweepstakes, robs us of any knowledge of budgetary, legislative, educational, and environmental issues in Sacramento and in our local communities. The collapse of in-depth reporting, and of newspaper reading as a daily habit of the educated, doom us to poorly drafted, self-serving legislation at every level of government. Were I in a position to choose between a US-branded world service and beefed-up state and local coverage, I would quickly opt for the latter.
#5 Posted by Eleanor Field, CJR on Tue 19 Jul 2011 at 04:44 PM
Wow. What a thoughtful piece of journalism...plus the insightful and thoughtful responses. May I add some thoughts, as well?
Put together a few good leaders with the will, passion, determination and wisdom to create a balanced, informative and audience admired news service; it is a worthwhile goal that can be achieved.
Just for starters, imagine the existing talent base in local public television and radio stations, local news papers, local talk radio news services, schools of journalism, corporate communications networks, etc. Take all of these resources, add a few additional persons, leverage in chunks from national program series -- and guess what -- people will start tuning in and local and national businesses and foundations will step up with underwriting.
Why will there be an audience? Because the information will be relevant to the local viewer. The news is not someone else's issue, it's information relevant to the local viewer.
In every state or region, there is a dominant public broadcasting presence. Let that station be the "anchor" that sends and receives from surrounding stations. Share resources. Eliminate redundancy and use those funds to grow content.
Internet competition? Bring it on. Be a part of it. It's just another screen for delivery. It's another delivery service. It's just one more opportunity to deliver meaningful information.
Please, let's get past being too timid to risk confrontation or displeasure from -- underwriters, academic boards, politicians, and even some viewers.
Bold programming decisions do get rewarded if the products are consistently fair, balanced over time, and properly presented.
People do want to know what's going on around them. This is the foundation, the knowledge base from which we all make daily decisions that affect us, our families and our community.
I once had the pleasure of managing two public television stations. During my tenor, the Watergate hearings came onto the scene. We ran them in prime time -- against the wishes of several board members and underwriters. It was the right thing to do. The daytime working public wanted access. We gave it to them in prime time. The public praised us with individual viewing and contributions. Our audience ballooned!
Finally, put a lot of decision power in the hands of bright, eager young professionals and get out of the way. They don't know failure, don't wish to fail, and will bring currency in technology, relationships, information relevancy and passion to the task. They have the energy and the will to win.
A conclusion to not pursue the prospect of public broadcasting achieving public support for journalism leadership and admiration equal or superior to the current support for the children's programming is -- a decision to go out of business.
#6 Posted by Jack Caldwell, CJR on Tue 2 Aug 2011 at 03:54 PM
When I first got a TV in 1959 or 1950, Louis Lyons, the curator of the Neiman Fellowships at Harvard, did a half hour live broadcast of news and his far-out opinions on WGBH.
Lyons lacked sex-appeal, his programs were monotonous sing-songs, but they were the best newscasts I ever heard.
This was at a time when the Boston Herald-Traveler moved out of downtown and its publisher tried to bribe a member of the Federal Communications Commission so the H-T could buy WHDH-TV. Only the Globe and the Record could have reported the scandal, but only Lyons did.
#7 Posted by Stephen G. Esrati, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 11:06 AM