Noonan wants honesty about, and on, PBS

Good stuff over at the Opinion Journal today. Peggy Noonan, for example, looks at the controversy over funding for PBS. It may surprise you to learn that she supports continued support for PBS. It will surprise you less that she would prefer the network without the politics.

You know what would be fun, and actually helpful? If in the latest struggle over funding for public television, people said what they know to be true.

The argument, once again, is about whether PBS has a liberal bias. There are charges and counter charges, studies, specific instances cited of subtle partiality here and obvious side-taking there. But arguing over whether PBS is and has long been politically liberal is like arguing over whether the ocean is and has long been wet. Of course it is, and everyone knows it.
...

Conservative argue that in a 500-channel universe the programming of PBS could easily be duplicated or find a home at a free commercial network. The power of the marketplace will ensure that PBS's better offerings find a place to continue and flourish.

This I doubt. Actually I'm fairly certain it is not true. And I suspect most people on the Hill know it is not true.

We live in the age of Viacom and "Who Wants to Be a Celebrity," not the age of Omnibus and "Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts." A lot of Democrats think that left to the marketplace, PBS will die. A lot of Republicans think so too, but don't mind.

Noonan would like PBS to focus on the things it does best. These are also the things that no one else in the broadcast industry will touch. Things like the arts, classic drama, history.

Does all this sound rarefied, a ratings loser? PBS is supposed to be rarefied. As for ratings, let's imagine this. PBS mounts a production of "Hamlet." No one will watch it? What if Brad Pitt takes the role? He'd be happy to do it; he gets a high-class venue in which to show he can actually act, and in return he earns the gratitude of those who care about culture or say they care, which is most Americans. He'd get points for doing it for scale, which of course he'd have to. Young people would watch. They would thus imbibe Shakespeare, still the jewel in the crown of Western culture. PBS would be thanked for doing a public service. Conservative congressmen would find themselves in the unexpected and delightful position of being called friends of the arts, and liberal congressmen would be able to say "I told you PBS is worthwhile."

And so on. Symphonies. A study of the work of George Bellows. A productions of "Spoon River Anthology." David McCullough on George Washington. A history of the Second Amendment--why is it in that old Constitution? Angelina Jolie as Juliet, Kathleen Turner as Lady Macbeth, Alec Baldwin as Big Daddy when you get around to Tennessee Williams. It will keep him away from politics. Sean Penn as Hickey in "The Iceman Cometh." There are far more great actors than there is great material. Mine the classics, all of them, of the theater and arts and music and history.

It is true that if you tell PBS producers they are now doing a play series they will immediately decide to remount "Angels in America." How about a rule: It takes at least 50 years for a currently esteemed work to prove itself a work of art, a true classic. It proves this by enduring. Do plays that have proved themselves to be enduring contributions--i.e., art. Look to the permanent, not the prevalent.

PBS should be refunded, because it does not and will not exist elsewhere if it is not. But it should be funded with rules and conditions, and it should remember its reason for being: to do what the networks cannot do or will not do, and that somebody should do.

I was once watched and listened to Public Broadcasting a lot. I have reduced my PBS viewing along with all television viewing, but we still have a family membership. PBS has sold itself to donor organizations and its psuedo-advertisers, with the premium-quality demographics of it's audience. The network was founded, however, to bring the fine arts and educational content to people who could not otherwise afford it, but the market for such programming tends to be a pretty upscale crowd. If people don't avail themselves of the fine arts they are the losers but can only blame themselves. But if the Arts and education are not available to all then the society is to blame. Some find the underlying assumption behind PBS offensive. Who is to say that the artistic tastes of the educated elites should be funded by the general public? Well, Peggy Noonan seems to think its OK, and I'm going to agree with her. She is careful to focus on art and history that has demonstrated its worth over time, and these become elements of the culture that are otherwise available only to the elites.

Genuinely open and impartial news and analysis is something we lack and need, but PBS is not the organization to provide it.