I wanted to change the subject this week. I really did.
But then I saw
Charles McGrath's New York Times editorial – "Is PBS Still Necessary?" – and the comment avalanche (836 at the moment) that followed on the Times' site. I got all wound up again.
Is PBS necessary... Hmm. Well, I suppose it's not a basic human necessity anymore than playgrounds or state parks or libraries are.
However, if you're a person who's hungry for knowledge, truth or downright enchantment, turning your TV set to PBS is a cheap and easy ticket to paradise.
PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger told us when she visited last year that she's fond of ripping out the TV schedule page from
USA Today when she's defending what we do. Sure enough, the TV page is an excellent at-a-glance illustration of the value of public television. A hundred Power Point presentations couldn't say it better.
We're preaching to the choir, here, I know, but check it out just for fun:
Tonight, Rocky Mountain PBS is showing "Nova: Ape Genius," covering new findings about the intelligence of apes; "Supernatural Science: Animal Telepathy," about the horse whisperer Monty Roberts; "Frontline: Rules of Engagement," which investigates the deaths of 24 Iraqi citizens in Hadith; and "Independent Lens: Banished," which tells the story of American cities that banished their African American communities 100 years ago.
What about network TV?
We have "American Idol." "Big Brother." "The Biggest Loser." "NCIS." "Just For Laughs" (description: "A man rides his bicycle into a garbage truck"). "According to Jim."
OK, but that's to be expected, right? What's about cable?
Let's see.
A&E: "CSI Miami" followed by the crime reality show "The First 48." (Is this art or entertainment? Either way, I'm scared.)
Bravo: Back-to-back episodes of reality show "The Millionaire Matchmaker."
Discovery: Back-to-back episodes of "How it's Made" followed by back-to-back episodes of "Dirty Jobs."
E!: "The E! True Hollywood Story" covering the TV talk show "The View" followed by "Britney: Under Siege."
The History Channel: "Modern Marvels: Tobacco" and back-to-back episodes of "The Universe" (which I think looks pretty good, despite some claims that HC specials are high on melodrama).
I'm not saying I don't watch network or cable television. I often do, and I enjoy it. It's just that the odds are always better that something good will be on PBS. If I didn't have PBS, I'd be flipping and flipping and flipping until I turned it off.
We all know the commercial programming schedule looks a little fluffy because everyone's struggling to survive. So-called reality, crime drama and celebrity scandal are cheap, fresh and marketable.
World politics, environmental science and independent films, on the other hand, are "musty," according to McGrath.
Perhaps he thinks we young'uns (I'm in the mid-30s age bracket) aren't tuning in to "Lawrence Welk"? Well, that's true, but I can tell you we're watching commercial-free "Austin City Limits" and "Soundstage." We're watching "The Clash Live." We're watching "Nova," "Nature," "Frontline," "Independent Lens," "POV," "GlobeTrekker," cooking shows, sewing shows, home improvement shows and Britcoms. We're watching "American Experience" and "American Masters." We're watching "NewsHour" and "Now" and "Bill Moyers Journal." We're watching "Tavis Smiley" and "Charlie Rose." For heaven's sake, we're glued to "Masterpiece," especially the Jane Austen adaptations.
If PBS went extinct, I like to think I'd do as the bumper sticker says and kill my television.
I suppose the alternative would be giving in and developing a curiosity for celebrity shenanigans and 24-hour entertainment.
It would be so easy, in that case, to tune out the real problems of the day. One by one by one.
I can see the appeal, but no thank you all the same.
-Allison, Rocky Mountain PBS
P.S. Take a peek at the comments on McGrath's editorial. They're great.
