Nailing the PBS coffin

Poor public broadcasting. Remember when it was called “non-commercial” television and radio because it really was.

Some countries still have such a thing. No commercials.

Imagine.

But here things have changed.

First we had on-air “underwriting,” which merely mentioned the name of the “underwriters,” mostly do-good foundations. The brief name mentions were limited to the beginnings and ends of the programs.

Then underwriting became sponsorships, which gradually became highly produced commercials or “promos.” Their length grew and grew, presumably with the size of the "contribution."

Somewhere along the way the term “non-commercial” broadcasting was replaced with “public broadcasting.” But because the sponsors had now largely become private corporations, “public broadcasting,” with few exceptions (like Bill Moyers' Journal and Frontlines), was bent to private interests over The Public Interest, a tenet enshrined in the original Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934 (but that's another story....)

Still, at least “public broadcasting” left programming uninterrupted by commercial or promotional interruptions.

Now we learn that those days are about to end too, with PBS planning to do “preliminary testing” of intrusive commercial fare in the middle of programing. Are PBS executives so out of touch that they have to “test” a bad idea? Sounds like a done deal.

What, pray tell, is the difference between PBS's commercial interruptions and those found on commercial broadcasting? And why should we, fellow viewers and listeners, make monetary pledges to support yet another advertising vehicle.

Do I send checks to CBS, ABC, NBC or, heaven forbid, FOX?

Oregon Public Broadcasting, which prides itself on viewer and listener support, is certain to suffer financial fallout from the PBS change.

To show you how far PBS has fallen, consider its response to a story posted HERE. The response is crafted in PR-ese by PBS communications Vice President Anne Bentley (formerly of AOL), who has clearly learned the dark art of corporate double-talk.

We are always looking at ways to improve the viewer experience. In line with that, we’ve done research and one of the things that we’re going to try is to come up with is a way to develop better flow between shows. It is all about the viewer and how the viewer gets an opportunity to see our shows.

Our intention is to test it out with a single night and see how that goes. Depending on what we learn, we’ll see where we go from there.

We’ve done some preliminary testing, but we intend to do more before we move forward absolutely.

Initial testing showed that viewers didn’t really notice the change, but we want to do additional testing. As we move forward, we’ll be monitoring it closely.

As PBS "moves forward," a few millions of us will no doubt be moving on to some other improved "viewer experience."

Taming the holiday beast

As you confront the frenzied holiday shopping homestretch, here's helpful advice from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.

"The Pen" isn't enough

You may want to check out my thoughts about commercialism in Portland's public schools as they appear here in yesterday's Portland Tribune.

My colleagues at the Coalition for Commercial-Free Schools get pretty excited when things like this get published.

I'm more skeptical. The pen may be mightier than the sword but....

Change results from civil engagement and finding agreement. If the school board is willing to meet with the coalition over this issue, we have the possibility of change.

At best, the article may get the board's attention and offer a basis for discussion.

I might add that while newly elected board member Ruth Adkins, who is from Hillsdale, didn't oppose the deal that slathered the Blazer logo on 10 school basketball courts, she agrees that creeping commercialism in the schools needs to be addressed.

The coalition is hopeful Ruth will provide a forum for establishing a school board policy eliminating such blatant commercialism in our schools.

Coca-Cola's $600K PPS threat

Portland Public Schools is finding out just how hard—and expensive—it is to back out of its Faustian "pouring rights" bargain with Coca-Cola.

Coke is trying to wrest $600,000 from the district.

Such are the perils of commercializing The Commons. See my previous post about a Portland Parks proposal that would expand commercialism in Portland's parks in exchange for cash.

The following press release from Portland-based Community Health Partnership outlines the school district's problems with Coke.

To let Coca-Cola know how you feel, call Matt Wilson, Coca-Cola Market Unit VP.

Portland, OR – Coke is showing its true colors by threatening Portland Public Schools (PPS) with a $600,000 fine for making changes this school year to the product mix sold in Portland schools.

Due to increasing concern about the epidemic of childhood obesity, PPS enacted a number of healthy changes this school year – including a policy dictating healthy beverage vending machine options – to make the nutrition environment better in all schools. Coke is now threatening PPS with a penalty that represents the salary of 15 to 18 first-year teachers.

“This is another example of the harmful power of commercial influence in our public schools" said Jeanne Roy, one of the founders of the Northwest Earth Institute and the Coalition for Commercial-Free Schools. "Coke is threatening PPS because Coke wants as many branded products as possible in front of the captive audience – our kids.”

Portland Public Schools is trying to create a school environment supportive of overall student wellness. In order to do this, PPS monitors and controls not only the foods and beverages sold in schools, but also food-based fund raisers, teacher reward systems and commercial messages promoting consumption of junk food. Coke should not force Portland Public Schools to sell liquid candy to our students.

“Portland Public Schools should not be fined for doing the right thing for the health of our students! Coke cannot be allowed to dictate the sale of unhealthy beverages to our students. This is exactly why we need a state law to set nutrition standards for snacks and beverages sold in all Oregon’s schools,” said Mary Lou Hennrich, executive director of Community Health Partnership: Oregon’s Public Health Institute.

The Coalition for Commercial-Free Schools works to promotes adoption of a model policy on advertising and commercial activities in Portland schools and raise awareness of the serious consequences of exposing our children to commercialism. Coalition members include pediatricians, a clinical psychologist, a former school board member and representatives of Northwest Earth Institute, Northwest Media Literacy Center, Community Health Partnership, Portland Council PTA and Rethinking Schools.

Media Literacy group wants The Commons protected from commercialism

In a post two weeks ago, I wrote about the Portland Bureau of Parks and Recreation's proposal to sell naming rights to our public parks facilities in exchange for corporate money.

Are you really willing to accept the The Pepsi Community Center in Gabriel Park?

Now the board of the Northwest Media Literacy Center has taken a position against PPR's proposal and sent a letter of opposition to the City Council. I’m on the board and helped draft the proposal.

Unless you really intend for your tax dollars to provide billboard and other logo and slogan space for the likes of Nike, Pepsi and The Gap, I urge you to write the council (Mayor Potter and Commissioners Sten, Salzman, Leonard and Adams) as well as Parks Director Zari Santner to oppose the measure. The public comment period ends Friday, Feb 23.

Here’s what the NMLC board resolution says:

The Board of the Northwest Media Literacy Center (NMLC) urges the Portland City Council to reject a Portland Parks and Recreation proposal to legitimize and allow corporate sponsorships and commercialism in our parks and public facilities. The proposed policy would result in the selling of naming rights to public-owned park property and would allow commercial messages in our parks and recreation facilities.

• The NMLC board believes that parks facilities are part of the public Commons, which should be a “safe haven” from intrusive and rampant commercialization.
• We further believe it is the responsibility of the Portland City Council and the City’s bureaus to safeguard the entire Commons from commercial display, including sponsorship announcements, corporate naming, trademarks, logos and other commercial messages.
• NMLC is committed to teaching people—including public servants—to critically assess media messages in order to understand their impact on our communities, our society and our planet.