TeleVISIONS (Autumn 1976)

BROADCAST TV PBS News Planners Reinvent the Wheel Main innovation comes in documentaries By NICK DeMARTINO This year the public TV system has managed to reinvent the TV news wheel, launching a nightly newscast, more extensive special events coverage, documentary production units, a magazine show, and an interview series. While the bulk of the public TV news effort is a low-budget imitation of old commercial network program formulas, some recent developments may make PBS more competitive with its bigger rivals, in reputation, if not in ratings. Unless the network news operations wake up, PBS may have the field to itself as it struggles to bring a bit of substance to the news business, particularly since public TV's federal support will increase annually as a result of recent legislation. As the Dupont-Columbia Survey of Broadcast Journalism noted earlier this spring: “In the immediate wake of Watergate there was no evidence of increased commitment to serious news and public affairs on any of the three commercial networks. The hours regularly allotted to journalism in the prime time schedule remained where they had been for the past several years—at zero." Public TV is torn between two directions: ne blatant ‘imitation of ea three, ses ‘eouariae of the Senate Water gate hearings, however, impressed the country with its seriousness and capability. Meanwhile, a slowly building constituency was developing in the industry for something viewers could watch every night, and upon which stations could build their schedules: an alternative to Walter, John, Harry, and Barbara. By the summer of 1975, which was peppered with industry meetings on the subject, it was clearly becoming a question of who and how, not whether the system was ready. In public TV programming, however, the scheduling, planning, funding, and production are often performed by separate entities working at wasteful cross purposes. The production is done at a station—or by independents who offer the program through a station. Money comes from many sources—Congress, via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), corporations, foundations, or from the stations who participate in buying mechanisms like the Station Program Cooperative (SPC). Stations also finance shows from their own funds, usually solicited from the public. PBS, as the station membership group, schedules, coordinates, and occasionally plans. But, they cannot fund or produce. Thus, a seemingly straightforward matter like launching a national news show or a _documentary series becomes.a two-year campaign. ‘Such a campaign was undertaken by i WNET, the New Y°«. mega-station on behalf of their ene for the nightly e, Robert MacNeil ‘Show premiered sie in October, ee The half "s eee . _ ence hour interview program features the Canadian-born journalist with guests discussing a single issue each night immediately following the three network's nightly news strips. WNET, by getting on the air fast, was able to offer the show free to the entire network by last January. In the process WNET outmaneuvered its principal competition, Evening Edition, a nightly show featuring Martin Agronsky, originating from WETA/ Washington. WETA offered Texas-born Jim Lehrer, a WETA man and PBS old-timer, as a Washington co-host for MacNeil. By winter the two stations were planning a co-production. They conducted an agressive sales pitch for the MacNeil-Lehrer Report, which succeeded. The M-L Report became the centerpiece for the network’s public affairs plan, unveiled in May. If MacNeil can be counted a success—at least with critics and a measurable audience—another venture has been a distinct failure. USA—People and Politics, magazine show begun in February, was aired the duration of the primary and_ election season. While focused on the elections, ‘the program was designed to take a more _ creative view of the process. With slow timie ing, and g phenge. in Gast. it bit the dusts y of 60 Minutes found lust how" hard _ tr eiperave arora et aly 0 WETA/WNET which co-produced USA, were to have followed the November clos— ing of USA with a proposal for a similar, year-round program for airing in the spring. At our deadline no proposal had been made. Sources at CPB and PBS were anxious to forget the whole USA episode. The irony is that public TV was the first US news operation to try a magazine: mixing different elements within one news show. : Combining the collection of public affairs programs already on the PBS schedule and a few on the horizon, PBS President Larry Grossman unveiled in May 1976 what became known as “The Plan.” This was the first attempt to program PBS as a network, even though its meager budgets made the schedule a bit skimpy. Grossman, who came to PBS in January from commercial TV and advertising, took the position that PBS could get higher ratings by getting more show biz in its act. In public affairs, this amounted to copying the networks, when money and tradition permitted. The key to his “Plan” is simple—‘‘block”’ programming, something the networks routinely practice. Schedule shows that attract similar audiences back-to-back and you maximize “‘audience flow.” Friday night would become, he claimed, the time when hard-core news viewers could turn to PBS and stay there. While the public TV system is developing other news programming, the biggest challenge is documentary production. Documentary producers inside and outside public TV have long claimed that a single, hard-hitting documentary enhances the system’s prestige more than any other kind of programming. Yet documentaries are difficult for public ; —— They are Oe. The more ome: rn ‘ he : ~ , , e pe a yee Sy a ae, he eA Th = Tes es Ge i ates troversial the subject and style, the tougher itis upon a spineless TV system. Local stations like The Incredible Machine—the highest single rated program in PTV history because of its heavy promotional budget— more than they go for a show like Banks and the Poor, a documentary which caused a furor on many conservative station Boards. As aresult, documentary packages have failed to attract buyers when offered to stations’in the last three years. They don’t want to risk large amounts of money on an unproduced product they haven't seen. And they don’t trust many producers. ee eiekooe Se hat co ewe =. p oqube sly Ch and fe: for documentaries other than ~ the National Geographic-style films is nil. Both the Corporation for Public BroadStastrig and the Rockefeller Foundation sponsored meetings in May, 1975 on the subject of public affairs. The Rockefeller session focused upon the relationship of independent documentarians to the four national networks. A month later CPB heid the first of eight seminars for program managers to discuss public affairs for 2% days. The sessions The Friday Night PBS While video producers and newswatchers may be interested in the behind-the-scenes maneuvering at PBS and CPB, the average viewer cares what's coming up on the tube each night. Friday nights PBS will lump most public affairs shows together, save an occasional special and the nightly MacNeilLehrer Report. Friday was chosen in the first place because Washington Week in Review and Wall Street Week, two of PBS's best-liked shows, have been on Fridays for years. Agronsky-at-Large, Martin Agronsky’s new weekly interview program will air at 10 p.m. Most of the PBS scheduling staff's headaches are being caused by the 9-10 p.m. slot, which should also garner the best reviews and ratings. This hour, reserved for documentaries, has no budget—and until the two funding structures described above are functioning, the PBS schedulers must either find free programs, slot already-paid-for shows, or come up with money from other sources. The premiere showing was Jerry fon Yo este ind the money in their own budgets. Corporate “Block” (Buster?) | J TIANdVYL WOL AS NOLWHLSNTT “experts” and served to further illustrate’ that the system was beginning to make — public affairs a top priority. Present at those meetings were not only documentary producers from within stations, but independent video producers who had by then started working with sta3 tions. In February, 1976, 15 of these 7 banded into the Coalition for New Public Affairs Programming, presented a paper to the CPB Board, and began a campaign to — convince PTV industry that it SOUR COs mit itself ‘to documentaries, parti la gconendentiy-ccochced, itso: shows. ; elalite documentaries. , Two sources of funds became apparent: the foundations—particularly Ford, Rockefeller and the National Endowment—and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, — which administers U.S. tax dollars that get spent by the system for programming. In June the Ford Foundation and the Arts — Endowment hosted a meeting of some 30 — “interested parties,” which included not — only the PTV web moguls, but prominent — : filmmakers, other foundation people, and | couple of videomakers (Larry. Ki Bruck’s great film, “‘I.F. Stone’s Weekly” — on Nov. 5, followed on Nov. 12 with his _ “Waiting for Fidel.” “You Should See What You're Missing,” a WTTW/Chicago — doc about Hollywood TV writers is set for _ Nov. 19; “The Others,” (Nov. 26) a show | about mentally retarded, was prgoucad at by lowa PTV. The December line-up pckides wo | long-awaited independently Produced | video documentaries offered by WNET | Lab: “Chinatown” by. Downtown Com| munity Television on Dec. 10 and “Giving — H Birth” by John Reilly and Julie Gustafson — | of Global Village on Dec. 17. The Dec. 3 | Offering is “Carnivore,” John Beyer's documentary for lowa PTV about oot | eating. (Interestingly enough, Fred Wi | man's two-hour documentary which was | aired on Nov. 13 was about the meatproducing industry. It's called “Meat.” Other programs slated but scheduled include “TVTV Looks at ee Oscars”, “Appalshop,” “Men _ Bronze” (an independent film Pega black WWI infantry regiment), and three | from the series “California Cor | brought top management and a variety of © > rs oposais y ipresenting the Video Coalition, and Martha Stuart.) _ Ford/NEA announced their intention of este blishing an independent documentary und. It would be administered by a nonfit group and would, in effect, become Oducer-supplier of documentaries for iblic TV. 7 Many left that meeting confused about the plan's future. Independents were con vinced the administrator and agency had already been cocktail-party picked. PBS the likeliest administrator. =veryo ne was surpraed when. a sumg and a request-for irculated throughout the non \ and were reviewed by a panel Ocber 5. TELEVISIONS learned that Media /Buffalo has been _ tentatively : sd as the administrative / production 96 Ncy, subject to negotiation between s that began on Nov. 3. ier applicants included Communicafor Change, University of Indiana dation, Association of Independent and Filmmakers, Bob Geller, a filmwho is producing a series of short ‘ies under a grant from the Humanities ent, and, the CAPS program, a NY creative artists funding structure. dia Study/Buffalo, is a_ regional nedia center established by Gerald YGrady. Fund Director will be filmaker D.A. Pennebaker. John Reilly, of i ca Village, will assist Pennebaker by ducing and administering the projects in video. AN While details are entirely preliminary at ls point, the principals told TELEVISIONS would hope to distribute a total of ,000 in production, research and dement, and some step-up funds during ind’s first year. No formula has been ut Reilly assured us that video has taken seriously in the project design. BEA fund has been estabentirely for independent film and akers, which is one reason why the ation for Public Broadcasting prenot to sink any of its money in the ho Instead, CPB is in the process of allocatadditional $1 million to documentary i Puce to both stations and in ts. ally. akicanik the $1 million would be used to make grants to videomakers that submit proposals ff left thinking a group of stations would © money would be avaible os L well. The decision about proposals would have been shared jointly by CPB and PBS staff, presumably by CPB’s Candyce Martin and PBS’s Dick Ellison, both middlemanagement administrators specializing in public affairs. The complete program would then be offered for sale to the stations. They would meet the purchase price if they liked the program, thus replenishing the fund for new productions. The CPB Board, meeting in September, liked all the features of the plan—the selfperpetualing nature, the ability of stations to look at what they would buy, the potential for diversity. But they refused to concede a PBS staff veto on potential proposals. As one Board member told TELEVISIONS: “We felt that an area as sensitive as public affairs should have its ultimate test by the licensees—whether they want to buy the program. We don’t want PBS, which after all, represents all the licensees, to abide by the majority of their members and veto a program before it’s even produced.” PBS indicates it intends to fight the decision. Said Ellison: “Their decision almost invariably will mean some reduction in the stuff that will get on the air.” PBS's implied threat is clear: If we don’t have some say in programs, the stations might not run them. The future of the fund is in limbo. Two CPB Board meetings have focused on the issue, with a very tentative resolution designating authority to one administrator—Calvin Watson, CPB’s head of TV Activities. Even this decision is cloudy, with the recent addition of Peter Levathes as #2 man in Watson's department. Since Levathes is in charge of new productions, his role i in the documentaries is unclear. simme . ‘and ne DO Hility of ea conflict Bewwaen PBS a and CPB develops, producers are left with an all-too familiar 70 CABLE TV House Hearings Become Battleground Over Cable TV Year-long study ends without legislation By REBECCA MOORE WASHINGTON, D.C.—Broadcasters and cable TV representatives are through slugging out their differences in the House Subcommittee on Communications, at least for this year. A week before Congress’ Oct. 2 adjournment, the subcommittee concluded its year-long study of the nation’s cable policy with an eye towards amending the 1934 Communications Act, originally written to regulate only radio. No cable legislation was written or introduced this year, although the Congress did succeed in creating a bit of momentum for the byzantine subject of cable television. The 15th and final hearing starred all seven members of the FCC. A combative FCC Chairman Wiley defended the FCC’s record on cable regulation, claiming the Commission was “not protecting broadcasters, but protecting the public interest associated with broadcasting.” Wiley’s, and the others’, defensiveness stemmed from a Communications Subcommittee Staff Report on cable that criticized the FCC’s handling of cable TV over the years. ‘Cable Television: Promise Versus Regulatory Performance” charged the Commission with protecting broadcasters’ interests by amen cable development. — The report traces F ae 1952, when the @ Commission created its or significantly questioned by Congress sensation—confusion about the future of since. documentaries on public TV. Whither minority programs? One quiet casualty of the new scheduling philosophy has been the public TV “target audience” shows—programs like Woman Alive!, Realidades, Black Journal, ‘which are aimed at underserved segments of the population. While all of these shows have been on the national schedule only a year or two, they represent five years in the development cycie. Political pressure by minority and women’s groups upon CPB, and on Congress resulted in the programs. Most of the minority programming has been consistent with most PBS’ offerings: not terribly impressive. in addition, these programs, offered free to stations, often get shunted into bad slots on the schedule, guaranteeing an even smaller audience. In every case these shows have been transformed from full series status to a string of “specials”. Most will air in the Friday night documentary siot. With its long-term funding assured by Congress, CPB's sensitivity to these political constituencies is bound to fall off. Some minority producers now feel the target should be increased minority and female employment in the upper levels of public TV. While nobody is writing off the shows it is felt they were only a token commitment to minorities. The only high-level evaluation of the policy was a 1974 Cabinet Committee report, which made several of the same recommendations that the later House Committee report outlined. The Cabinet legislation was a casualty of Watergate, especially after its author and principle proponent, Clay T. Whitehead, left the government for a post at MIT. Two flaws were created by the 1952 plan, says the House report, caused much of the current trouble. First, the cost of broadcasting denies rural areas stations. Second, the plan mixes VHF and UHF, “thereby depriving major markets more Stations which they could easily support.” Cable TV jumped into the FCC-created vacuum. By providing a “community antenna” it carried programs into rural areas. And into the major markets it took independent signals. “This threatened the large profits of the television broadcasters in these markets,” the report says, “since it would undermine the artificial scarcity upon which those profits are based... The broadcasters reacted with all-out opposition to this new form of cable.” Some, namely the broadcasters, feel the staff report is a little too pro-cable. Said one observer, “It was almost written by the cable industry.” Cable TV has the broadcasters running scared. They fear cable will kill UHF and independents. They worry it will cut into audiences and consequently reduce ad revenue. They want cable to pay for the broadcast programs it carries — a new copyright law will provide that. And they don’t want to compete, as a highly regulated industry, with an sede ati cable industry. The FCC has not favored cable. Iti bie : ie ~ ¥ first, and the people's es to it was established.” erally protectionist, and pro-broadcasting. One example: the Commission froze all cable development in the major markets from 1966 to 1972, while the broadcasting, cable, and program production industries came to a consensus agreement. The freeze set cable back six years. Said National Cable Television Association President Richard Schmidt, “There is absolutely no evidence that any station has ever gone dark because of the presence of cable.’’ A Rand study said cable could in fact help independents and UHF. Cable brings these stations into the major markets and thereby increases the broadcasters’ audience. Despite the evidence, FCC Chairman Wiley testified that ‘‘cable’s impact falls most heavily on independents and UHF.” The Communications Subcommittee staff report makes several recommendations for cable's future. It outlines a set of principles that favors a laissez-faire federal regulatory approach. The report recommends amending the 1934 Communications Act to include cable; enacting a Rural Telecommunications Act to promote cable service; and federal monitoring to prevent siphoning — stealing — programs off the air. The staff report proposes a unique solu s equen ie . 6]0)0 ae AY Ameen spied mene ieee iat hat ns by the FCC Fe would structure cable as a common carrer, 5 broadcaster. What exactly is the public interest in cable TV development? Access to free TV, say the broadcasters. Localism, and access to an abundance of channels, says the cable industry. Free World Series games, argue the Members of. Congress. Let the FCC decide, suggests the FCC. The Commission's record in protecting the public's interest does not inspire confidence. Its rules up to now have shortchanged cable TV. Additionally, it too often represents the communications industries — cable, broadcast TV and radio, common carrier phone lines — it is supposed to regulate. Whether or not the Communications Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Lionel Van Deerlin (D-Cal), can do any better is another question. Congress hasn't enacted any communications legislation since the 1962 Communications Satellite Act. Both broadcasters and small cable TV operators wield enormous power in congressional districts. The Subcommittee hearings barely scratched the surface of some of the social implications of pay TV, although representatives from PUSH, the United Church of Christ, the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, and the National Black Media Coalition testified. FCC Commissioner Benjamin Hooks may well have fingered the main problem Congress will have to deal with: “You used to hear Joe Lewis fights over the radio. Now you get fights on closed circuit TV for $20 or $30 a seat... . We've got the concept of protecting not the broadcaster, but broadcasting. Over-the-air TV came tg ts 52 Pe oe rather than as a utichaoret monopoly A RY Re eae ‘ Bea ede oe