He hopes to expand KCET’s SoCal Connected, a weekly news show, to daily production. A daily 10 p.m. in-depth interview show focused on Southern California newsmakers is also in development. “It will be reflective of public media, not oriented toward guests plugging their next movie or book,” Jerome says. A third show, Global Watch, would be a weekly international affairs newsmagazine focused on regions of particular interest to Southern Californians.
The Biggest Obstacle
Those like Jerome who want to do more news share the same problem: money.
Although public broadcasting successfully beat back efforts to cut its federal funding this year, states have been rapidly trimming or eliminating public broadcasting subsidies. Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican, was the latest to zero out funds in May. According to the CPB, between 2008 and 2009, non-federal support of public television stations fell by $260 million nationwide. For 2010, public radio and TV stations surveyed by CPB projected a 14 percent drop in revenue, due to state cutbacks and declines in corporate and philanthropic support and viewer pledges.
Philadelphia’s WHYY, licensed as a Delaware station, knows the problem well. In 2009, it ended the state’s only nightly newscast, Delaware Tonight, as a budget-saving move, subbing in a weekly program. Even New York’s WNET, a major station that wants to move more deeply into news and thinks it has found an inexpensive formula for doing so, has been stymied.
WNET’s Worldfocus international newscast lasted eighteen months before money ran out in April 2010. Its Friday newsmagazine for PBS, Need to Know, has been on the air for just over a year, but with funding likewise dwindling, PBS announced that in the fall it will cut it in half to thirty minutes. The station’s soon-to-launch MetroFocus was originally conceived of as a broadcast program, as well as an online and mobile venture. It will debut only as the cheaper digital effort, with tentative plans to start the broadcast component by the end of the year.
“If resources were available more stations would do more journalism,” says PBS chief Kerger. “It’s cheaper for them to acquire programs from us than to produce local journalism.”
The irony is that localism is the go-to argument that Kerger and others pull out when touting public television’s value in the media landscape. “We are the ultimate local organization,” Kerger told an April symposium on the future of public broadcasting.
Chicago’s Schmidt says of public television’s claims to localism: “As a system, we have good rhetoric about that. We like to say we have deep relationships in the community, and that’s what differentiates us from the cable channels. We talk a good game about all of our outreach and points of contact with our constituencies and Americans.”
But the reality, Schmidt says, is, “We are missing an opportunity to address this idea of being locally relevant.”
For some stations, there’s also a reluctance to duplicate what they see as vibrant local news offerings from their commercial rivals.
John Boland, president and chief executive of San Francisco’s KQED, wants his TV station to do more local news. But, he says, the format is an open question. “The knee-jerk reaction is we should have an evening news program on television, but I’m not convinced of it,” he says. Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, notes that public radio stations that have bulked up on news are filling a void left by commercial radio. Just thirty commercial radio stations nationwide currently program full-time news, by his count.
There’s been no such collapse of local television content. More stations are running local news than ever, and more of it. Stations in more than forty markets last year added a 4:30 a.m. newscast. “If you’re a PBS television station and part of what you think you’re doing is counter-programming, news is not as logical a thing to offer as news on radio,” Rosenstiel says.
Those arguments run counter to the high hopes that the public interest community holds for public media.
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