..as I frantically search for the remote to change the channel from American Idol to something, anything else...and, of course, find a wonderful program on SCETV, our public broadcasting television station. I am so happy that I have the option to watch a representation of the Broadway version of Les Misérables over American Idol. [see note 1]
This is not to say that I'm opposed to pop culture or sensationalist phenomena. In fact,
Two and a Half Men was one of my favorite shows for a long time, and mainstream programs from
Friends to
Gossip Girl have been a mainstay of my media environment for quite sometime. Can you get anymore frivolous than
Gossip Girl? I don't think so! But here's the thing...if we didn't want to watch that or any number of programs on major networks at the same time (The Bachelor/ette, Celebrity Apprentice, or some iteration of the whole Law and Order situation), we knew we would always have the intelligent programming of the local public broadcast station.
Another story, that might seem unrelated at first, also demonstrates this principle. After having someone brake too quickly in front of me on I-85, I unfortunately spilled soup all over my radio. One might perhaps question why I had soup in the car, but that story, which involves moving my possessions in a Sebring convertible for the second time in a year, is better told in person. Suffice it to say that the soup was spilled, although I was being very careful, and it got into the electronic recesses of my radio. The downside of this entire episode is that at the time, for some reason, I had the radio tuned to a local pop station, instead of ETV radio, the NPR station that I listen to for 95% of the day. As a result, I can't listen to anything but this one station, and what an awakening this has been for me! After one morning's commute, I quickly downloaded several NPR and affiliated public radio iPhone applications so that I could listen to something intelligent. Not that the local radio station wasn't entertaining, it was. But, wow. I'm not sure that a discussion about cheating on social media networks, one that had apparently lasted for three consecutive broadcasts, is worth listening to at any point in someone's life.
So, now I drive the 1.25 hours each morning and again each evening with my phone broadcasting a simulcast of a public radio station. This brings up the fact that public broadcasting has been innovating in many different sectors, including the provision of access in wireless and other applications. While that is wonderful, all of it must cost a lot of money.
I could also speak about how, as I went through boxes of my childhood belongings earlier this year, one of the most exciting and happy things I found was my Sesame Street library. I can still imagine the thrill of reading Grover's adventures in the "P" volume. My mother will tell you that, because she and others in my life had worked so hard to instill the skills and love of reading at an early age, I was able to call any bedtime reader on skipped sections of these stories. I truly believe that Sesame Street (a public broadcasting mainstay) was a key element in these adventures. I also remember the number song from the television show...some of you that are my age probably know this...the late 70's/early 80's arcade/pinball illustrations of a song for counting from 1 to 12.
Number Song Compilation
So, the moral of these stories is that we should all consider the impact of public broadcasting on our own lives as well as in our communities. Sure, these organizations are not perfect, just like any other ones. But if you look into their backgrounds (
The Street Gang is a great start for reading), you will see amazing good intentions and incredibly hard, thoughtful work.
I have posted short commentaries about this online as NPR and PBS have fought against the federal budget cuts that would zero out their funding from this sector. But the controversy over the ouster of CEO Schiller compelled me to write about my experiences. I know that these are my personal experiences and viewpoints, and so not necessarily those of many other people that might read this. However, the two key elements of that statement, namely that I am able to think about things in an open way and that I am able to accept and respect others' opinions, are a product of my thoughtful upbringing--one that allowed me to develop a dynamic worldview that respects all viewpoints while also being able to form an educated opinion on topics that I have had the opportunity to learn about. I thank my mother, my grandmothers, and numerous other mentors along the way for this. Without these strong, amazing people I would not have even a piece of the nascent sense of personal growth that I do now. [see note 2] But I am also thankful that I was introduced to NPR at a time when I was trying adult life out for my own. From my background combined with that experience, I have learned that good journalism will present viewpoints that make you you want to cheer out loud but also viewpoints that make your head want to explode...and, by extension, will make you confront your personal judgments and ideologies AND think critically about what you believe and why. And sometimes change your mind in a radical way.
What Juan Williams and Ron Schiller said in both accounts was wrong in so many different ways. But those of us who count on public broadcasting know that their singular statements do not reflect on the organization as a whole.
To Rep. Eric Cantor, I applaud you for listening to news events and considering how they relate to your world view. However, I think that you should parse through the various repercussions of what you are proposing, perhaps with a more open-minded perspective. First of all, does the viewpoint, however egregious, of one person represent the whole organization? In another context, as an example, do the viewpoints of junior Tea Party representatives present a comprehensive view of the Republican party? From what I've learned, that's not true, especially in budgetary issues. And I'm glad that I have been exposed to the varied viewpoints of American politics, whether or not I agree with them.
So, when you say that NPR and PBS should not receive federal funding because Ron Schiller (one person) has a viewpoint that is actually 180 degrees from the organizational mission, how does that exhibit careful thinking about public programs or how they affect and benefit our nation? We can even reference Juan Williams, whose sensationalist views at the opposite end of the political spectrum drummed up the same kind of controversy. Does R. Schiller's misguided viewpoint mean that NPR and PBS should not be a part of our society? To be even a little bit sensationalist, do his comments mean that programs like Sesame Street do not represent a worthy goal? Even though, in fact, federal monies represent a relatively small portion of NPR funding, they do represent a large part of PBS funding; in addition, other aspects of NPR funding rely on PBS as a larger organization, to the best of my understanding. Therefore, any cuts to federal funding for PBS will not only be detrimental to that programming, but also to the radio programming that is affiliated with this. It's much more complicated than just one man's overly-biased point of view.
As a corollary to that thought, if you are going to only listen to one voice, why not that of Susan Stanberg who has been with NPR for 40 years and who is not afraid to voice her opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of the management? She says, "The work that we do has been so consistently extraordinary. The strongest news organization in electronic broadcasting, and that has been untarnished. So that's the thing that I'm just trying, as a long standing staffer, to keep in my mind and keep focused on." How about considering another viewpoint before choosing to eliminate funding? How about choosing to consider the totality of reporting and work, including those that are in dangerous situations bringing us stories like the revolution in Libya, before writing off an entire organization based on the comments of two sensationalist and obviously ill-informed individuals? If this seems overwrought, remember that I'm trying to think about the issue from different viewpoints, as any good lawmaker should also do. Certainly, governmental funding should be carefully considered as it represents the dollars of all Americans. I do, however, believe that if we can consider funding a religious project supported completely by federal dollars in Kentucky, we can consider the effectiveness of funding for an organization that truly strives to be unbiased as a whole. In Kentucky, it seems like the fact that many people don't share the same religious views as that represented by this project is irrelevant. But when the reported liberal bias of NPR comes under fire, the issue of eliminating federal funding is framed in an opposite manner. Although I am a Christian (the religious affiliation of the Kentucky project), I would rather my tax dollars go to programs that are truly respectful of all beliefs and viewpoints, rather than just mine. This applies across all sectors. Even though I wholeheartedly do not agree with the Republican agenda, I feel like we should be exposed to, support, and consider all of the available viewpoints, and I am glad that I can hear about what is going on in different areas of our nation, and that I have the opportunity to listen and consider...whether when I do I feel happy or frustrated or like I realize I really need to rethink something.
Perhaps the point of this post is that a careful consideration of all sides of a story is a major impact of public broadcasting in this country. Imagine a young child who doesn't have access to programs like Sesame Street or Super Why--not because his/her family doesn't have a cable connection, a television, or programming information (or any number of other very real considerations in the varied communities across our nation), but because our society doesn't believe that this type of programming, this type of pedagogically effective technology in television, is not worth working to fund in many different ways. Of course, this also reaches to those that benefit from public broadcasting but who choose not to donate. We can't all always give monetary donations, but the actual burden of funding for these programs, in all of their modes, lies with the listeners and their donations.
Because the reported liberal bias of NPR has been so contextualized, I won't go into an imagination of life without the journalistic excellence on which I and so many others have come to rely. All I can say to this effect is to reiterate that, even when news stories are presented on NPR regarding viewpoints with which I may not agree, I can still appreciate the judicious reporting that seeks to delve into individual issues and bring them to the nation. Even when what the invited speakers or those persons being interviewed makes me want to scream, I can agree that I am glad to have a news outlet that presents all viewpoints.
All I can hope is that I will be able to continue having these opportunities, and that I would be lucky enough to hear that clear, deep, decisive voice say everyday, "This. is NPR."
Note 1: Yes, I did hear the interest piece on American Idol for Morning Edition this week. It was exceptional in that, while I could recognize the meta analysis consideration of such a phenomenon, I was totally bored after about 30 seconds...so, not that it's invaluable, but thank goodness there are other choices out there!
Note 2: I have been incredibly blessed in that the number of beneficial mentors I have had in my life is too long to list here--I am so thankful for their continued guidance, and I hope that one day I will have an opportunity to tell the world in detail about each and every one of them and how they impacted my life.
