8/11/2019 The Great Public TV Debate | Vanguard Press | Mar. 27, 1979

1/2

The Great Public T V R OebateBy Frank Kaufman

Unless the truste~s of the Universiry of Vermont

dump the. license of the state's public

broadcastIng station, Vermonters will probably see

few changes on Vermont Educational Television. And

when the shouting stops and the dust settles, the four

primary issues aired by a statewide committeeconcerned with improving the quality of television

will be focused down to pinpoint proportions, nearly

forgotten Inthe morass of university bureaucracy and

stopped cold by whar ETV critics say is an "aging andscale management.' I

Composed mostly of independent film and video

producers from throughout the state, the committee

has a sked for publi c a cc ess t o Ver mont ETV, a

formation of a citizens' advisory board with authon',yover programming policy, a substantial percentage of

programming produced by and for Vermonters, and a

review by the public of the allocation of station funds.

But the committee has been hampered by internal

conflagrations, not the least of which is an ideological

struggle ovet the function of the committee. Several

film and video producers have dropped OUt of the

committee and a handful have refused to join, stating

that its leader, Bernard Sanders, director of the

American People's Historical Society and former

candidate for governor as a Liberty Union candidate,

is using the general issue of public access as a political

soapbox for" socialist propaganda. "

In private, the station management is distressed

over the committee's coercion. Responding [0the

Public Telecommunications Financing Act of 1978,

which requires public television stations that receivefederal funds to set up advisory boards by May 1, and

calls fot a diversity of programming on local issues,

Vermont ETV claims that it is merely following the

guidelines passed by Congress.

Despite a planned series of six televised forums

exploring Vermonters' attitudes toward their PBS

station, ET V need not solicit opinions or select a boardthat is more than advisory, and neither the station

management nor the university is willing toconcede

that the new board will be authoritative.

Since the station opened in 1967, ETV has had rwo

advisory groups, a Broadcast Council, which has

served primarily as a .. rubber stamp" for decisions

m ade by ma na ge me nt; and the Educa ti onal

Television Council, whose concern is for daytime

instructional programming which is broadcast

. throughout Vermont's public school system.

While members of those committees have admitted

that their roles could change or that the current

gtoups might be dissolved, many sources in state and

federal government believe that it is "naive" to

assume that any far-reaching changes will occur with

the present station management in control and a state

university bureaucracy that holds the station's license.

"The ultimate authority over the station rests with

the trustees." says university vice-president Kenneth

Fishell, who oversees the station's interests for UVM.

"1 am recommending to the trustees that the new

board be authoritative, but they retain the right to

make the final decision. The board will have as much

authority as the trustees want to give them. ,t

If the station management is not bound by the

decisions of a governing board, many observers feelthat there is little hope that major concessions will be

made by the station.When the cameras were turned off Match 2, after

the first, live televised forum, The Public Speaks: A

Town Meeting of the Air, friends of both sides had to

restrain committee members and employees of ETV

before blows were thrown. And in the EN lobby,

where a monitor was tuned in to the program, ETV

suppotters and sraff members wete outspoken in theit

hostility toward the committee's complaints of

ptogramming suited only fot the elitist and upper

income people in the state. .

The progtam, which brought together committee

members and supporters of ptesent ETV

programmjng poljcies, became an "us against them"

confrontation halfway through the rwo-and-a- half

hout telecast, with little sign of cooperation in

discussing programming changes. The panel of 30

listened to no voices but their own in welJ-rehearsed

bursts of oration.

The five temaining forums, now in the planning

Two and a half hOUrilater, some of these people came dose to blows.

srages but indefinitely postponed due to a production

workers' strike at the station. will present discussions

by Vermont residents. representing low-income,

women, youth, the elderly, farming, and artistic

constituencies on possible changes in ETV's schedule.

" What you have a t ETV is a t ax-s upport ed

institution which the public must make use of," says

Sanders. "I would like to see the station confront the

problems in Vermont. including poverty and

unemployment .' ,

"Ifpeople's personalrealities wereconfirmed ontelevision, the endresult would

pro bably be, 'Let'sdo somethingabout it. ' "

-Bernard Sanders

Claiming "far-teaching changes in the future of

television in Vermont," Sanders says that the station

is making "significant concessions in agreeing LOfollow policies formed by the new committee." But

with the threat of cancellation of federal funds tothe

station unless they form the committee, ETV has more

to fear than soapbox rhetoric.

During the recent two-week fundraising drive, ETV

avoided the controversy on the air, preferring to him

at proposed changes that "will continue to serve

Vermonters and the issues facing them." Privately.

Station Manager Jake Dunlop and Programming

Director Garry Simpson cite a long list of Vermont-

produced and oriented films and video rapes whichwere aired during the past year.

"I have always worked with the independents on

helping them find money fpr their projects," says

Dunlop, "and we work closely with the Vermont

Council on the Humanities which provides some of

that money."Simpson adds that the station cannot produce

programs that would require the sraff to leave the

station . 'We do not own the porrable equipment and

we do not have the money.""Bullshit," says Ray Phillips, who was fired by [he

university as dean of continuing education cwo years

ago. Phillips helped launch the station in 1967, and at

his depatture was responsible to UVM for the sration's

operations. "ETV is unresponsive to the needs of

Vetmonters. The sration is no longer hungry, and

ETV now has too much money. Their time is spentdoing the wrong things. ETV is a living body that has

cancet, and it also has athlete's foot. Simpson is

treating the athlete's foot and ignoting the cancer."

., By ignoring the realities facing the nation and the

sta~e," says Sanders, "Vermont ETV is protecting the

rulIn~ class who dole OUt the funds to public

television. If people's personal realities wereconfirmed on television, [he end result would

probably be, 'Let's do something about it.' "

"Our policy," says Simpson, "has always been to

be open to suggestions. We are not afraid ofcontroversy. We'll handle any subject."

The concerns of Vermont and ir s citizens are the

targets of the five forums, which the independents are

co-producing with ETV, although the independents

must fundraise supplementary funds for theirproductions. But Dunlop is wary offuUy crediting the

efforts of the committee. "These programs have been

discussed over a long period of time, and are nor the

direct resule of rhe ccmmmee. That committee is only

one segment of Vermont's society. We win listen [0

them, but they will be handled like any other special

interest group."

S ince 1967, when the landmark report hy theCarnegie Commission on Educational Televisionwas released, part of the problem for the network of

280 stations has been defining what kinds of programs

the system should be carrying. School programming,

st il l a ma jor block of t ime on ma ny st ati on's

schedules, is only one-third of what the publicexpects, Public television as an access to special-

inter es t groups a nd m inor it ies , a nd qu1'li ty

programming that is lacJ(ing on commercial television

complete the expectations.

Until 1967, public broadcasting affiliates were

primarily an "educational television" system which

supplied instructional programming to public schools.

Following the 1967 Carnegie Commission Report,

Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act which

created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)

and provided federal funds for the stations.

By early 1970, the Public Broadcasting Service

(PBS) was incorporated; its purpose was defined as the

membership organization representing and providing

services to the stations, but furnishing no funds for

programming. It

does make recommendations,however, to the CPB for distribution of money- for

projects both within the system and to independent

prod ucer s.The switch from "educational" to "public"

broadcasting presented countless opportunities to

member stations. But twO years ago, at the request of

the public broadcasting industry, a new commission

was organized-i- The Carnegie Commission on the

Future of Public Broadcasting, or Carnegie 11. Its

purpose was "to evaluate how the public television

and radio systems wete developing and to propose a

course for their future in view of the explosion in

communication technologies. ,.

The tesult was printed in a report, released Jan. 30,

titled, The Public Trust, and it declares that "public

broadcasting's financial, organizational. and creative

struCtutes ate fundamenrally flawed. There is littlelikelihood that public television and radio might

consistently achieve ptogramming excellence under

the preseot circumstances. "

continued on page /8

THE VERMONT VANGUARD PRESSMARCH 27, /979

8/11/2019 The Great Public TV Debate | Vanguard Press | Mar. 27, 1979

2/2

co"ti"ued from page J J

And in an article in the

February issue of The AIIa"tic,

titled "The Trouble with Public

Television," Benjamin DeMon

writes that "on five major

organizational fronts public TVdeserves indictment as nothingother than straight-out enemy

of talent."Among them are:

The arrangements by which

individual broadcasting sraricns

produce or buy programs ate

ingrown, clogged, and

unimaginative.'Procedures by which

individual creators are chosenfor SUppOl! are frivolous and

arbitrary.Attempts by public

broadcasting stations to aquaintthemselves with the views and

tastes of the living American

public are spiritless and cynical.

"Fu[(hermore," writes

DeMon, "the makers of public

TV have behaved as thoughtheir prime duty was ro coat the

land with a film of philistinism,

lifelessly well-meaning,

tolerant. earnest, well-

scrubbed-and urrerly remote

from what is most precious and

viral in the soul of the nation."

And DeMott points our that

minorities are well-represented

on public television, mostly assingers. dancers, and

undereducated persons who

need improvement in math and

English.Bur programs are everything,

says the Carnegie II report. The

id ea is to turn m o ney in toprograms through greater

funding from the federal

government, and reduce the

bureaucratic mazes within the

system. And although the

independent film and video

producer is barely mentioned in

declares that broadcsseers have aduty to provide balanced

presentation. of controversial

issues, and was ammended 10

years later "ro afford ~onable

opporcunity for the d,SCUSSIOn

of conflicting views on issues of

public importance.""I don't believe that ETV

should be the only outlet for

public access," says Marvin

Fishm an , w ho is a citiz en 's

committee m ember andassociate director of theInstructional DevelopmentCenter at UVM: "What the

public needs ro meet other

publics is to decide jim whatmedium-newspapers, radio,

television-is right for the type

of information being

transmitted. "Under FCC law, public

access-" original programmingopportunities available to every

citizen" -is provided through

the privately-owned cable

companies located throughoutVermont's urban areas. ButSanders is uninterested in accessvia cable, despite successful

atrernpts in Sr. )ohnsbury,

Brattleboro, and Rutland. "The

Staff is already at ETV, the

overhead is already paid," says

Sanders, "ETV is a state-wide

system, not the city-by-city toy

that cable is, and is affordable

only to the middle class."

The most effective and

serrous lobbying efforts

throughout the PBS system

against the present structurehave come from the

independent film and video

producers, In many cases the

independents have had to raise

money on their own without thesupport of local stations, and, as

untested individuals in theirfield, are frequently turned

down by the CPB for funds.

"Afterthe m onths and

m onths of hard work on'H om e Birth, ' all weheard was why itcouldn'tget on the air. "

-Jane Kast

.

the report, their existence is notoverlooked: "Innovative and

untried programming ideas in a

wide range of genres (must be)

devised by producers working

inside and ouiside the presentsystem.' ,

The failings of public

television-inadequate federal

funds, limited public access,

absence of substantial andin no vativ e p ro gr am m in g b yindependent producers, top-

beavy administration, programs

aimed at the priviliged, failure

to meet the day- to-day needs of

local issues-are _all problems

dropped in Vermont ETV's

offices 'and studios in the lasr six

months, through a new law and

the fervent demands of a

concerned public.

Since. the Federal Communi-canons Commission (Fcq

was establilshed in 19~4, there

has been a long progression of

COUrt decisions and legislation

providing for public access to

commetcial IW"wMI, , * p~blictelevision . . F or exam ple,

b toa d c as t i ng":li'J'F air nessDoctrine, wffli.tClI in 1949,,

Vermont's independents areblum and severely critical of

ETV. "The station makes it as .

difficult as possible for us," says

)ane Kast, one of the producers

of Home Binb, a 30-minute

documentary that received nopromises from ETV on the

possibility of air time. "We

were told by ETV that they

hoped the rape didn't show anaked woman's legs flopping. "

Evencually aired on ETV after

the station wanted anadditional $1,500 to cover the

COStsof a panel discussion and

phone-in (the money was

granted by the Vermont

Council on the Humanities),

Home Birlh might not have

bee" telecast if the producers

had not been so forceful. "They

never c am e to u s," say s Kasr"we always had to go to them.','

Kasr, along with Chris

McClure and )eff Lizotte of

Videofeedback in Burlington,

are now working on an hour-long Home Dealh 12pe, It is

budgeted on the proverbial

shoesrrinjl. When questioned

!tbout funding sources, Kast isonly vaguely a"are of the

procedures of funding from

CPB, but shrugs it off in a

"why bother?" gesrure. Home

Deatb is receiving no funds

from Vermont ETV.

McClure is a holdout from

the citizen's com mittee

preferring not to join becaus;he is upset about "the leftist

politics of the group." Sander.;,

he says, is a politician who has

"fallen into media." But

McClure argues that ETV rnusr

be able to say to thecommunity, 4 ' J don't know howto do this. Help me."

"They won't admit that they

can't do a project," saysMcClure, "and they blame lackof money and equipmenr.

What they have is lack of imagination.' ,

And according to most of the

independents, the priorities at

ETV have been misplaced.

"They do have the money to

buy the portable equipment

and the sraff to help us," saysone filmmaker, "and they

could easily get OUt of the

studio and OUt into Vermontbu t they would prefer to spend

i t on administrative salaries.Sure, it might mean getting rid

of some dead wood there, bur

I'm tired of fighting them and

I'm tired of hearing how things

can't be done.""After the months and

months of work on Home

Birth, we wanted it broadcast somuch, we could taste it ," saysKast. "All we heard was why it

couldn't get on."

Claiming that it has shown

nearly a dozen independently

produced films and tapes b y

V erm on ter s in th e p ast y ea r,

ETV Public Relations DirectorAnn Curran says that "we arevery upset over the attacks on

the station's programming, andwe are distressed that the

committee and someindependents feel that they are

being shut our ofETV."

"We are doing everything we

can for them," says Dunlop.

"The people at ETV areliving in sheltered

environments," saysindependent producer Richard

Parlato. "They've lose touch

with what's surrounding them,

and there's a lot of 12lent'1here

in V er mo nt th at's n ot b ein gutilized.' ,

"If it's ever going to be what

it could be," som eone elseshould hold the license to the

station," says Ray Phillips.

"ETV could be the most

powerful, influential ..force inmedia in the state. Bur.you'vegot to be anti-esrablishment ro

do it. You've got to be creative

and do the wrong things. "

"The non-profit channels are

potentially the most powerfulinstruments ever created, bothfor showing the satisfactions of

full intellectual and aesthetic

responsiveness, and forrepresenting the breadth and

fascination of daily life in

democratic institutions.' writesDeMott. "From them we learn

what members of a free societyneed most toknow: who we are,

an d h ow , in non-exploitative.mutualistic undertakings, wecan bener ourselves."

;rhis is pari one of a two-pariseries 0"public broadcasting. ln

pari two, Fra"k Kaufman will

explore public access Ihrough

cable i" Vermo"I, and

successful efforls al public access

through PBS stalions across Ihe

country.

." M,1RCH 27. W19,,.