My parents have never paid for what we watch on TV. That means no satellite and no cable. That means 2 channels we can see all the time and 4 more if we go outside and turn the antenna. So, I did not watch Nickelodeon as a child. I watched PBS Kids. So do my younger siblings. And I think we're better for it. Because PBS does not rely on commercial sponsors, it can maintain a commitment to education that just cannot be found on channels like Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network. That's not to say that those channels don't have their place, but I think that PBS children's programming has some real advantages that cable stations just cannot compete with.
First of all, PBS has no commercial interruptions. That means that kids can receive more educational content per hour that they watch TV. Second of all, PBS does not have to answer to companies marketing to kids, the company does not have to be constantly pushing the limits to entertain kids.
The future of adult public television may be at an end, however. The programming on PBS in the evenings is usually mind-numbingly boring and catering to a very niche audience. I would exchange a few minutes of commercial time to watch something that is both informational and interesting. Fortunately, there are plenty of cable channels where one can do just that. Channels like National Geographic, TLC, the Discovery Channel, and Animal Planet provide viable alternatives to the boring shows on PBS.
So, basically I agree with the article when it comes to adult programming, but think that it fails to account for the great children's programming on PBS. Public television is not dead, but it does need to reinvent itself in light of the changing face of television. While I still think the children's programs are popular and successful, the adult programs refuse to up the ante. (The narrator on the PBS show NOVA has a voice like Ben Stein.) For every good PBS show like Frontline or BBC World News, there are 5 painfully worn-out ones like Masterpiece Theater (granted it is doing Jane Austen this month, so that's pretty cool) or Mystery!. Then there are the dumb ones like Century of Quilts or Keeping Up Appearances (which I unfortunately have watched). If the adult programs on PBS are to survive (and I hope they do because they really do contribute to academia and society as a whole), they have to think more about marketing and programs for the 21st century. It's time for PBS to catch up with the fresh new things being done at PBS Kids.
3 comments:
I also think the problem with PBS adult programming may be that it is far too heavy to be viewed on an ordinary evening. Although I may enjoy Masterpiece Theater once in a while, at the end of a long day of thinking I'm much more likely to watch something less intellectual like a the Colbert Report or a MASH rerun.
I agree with your comment; the shows are usually too long and too dry to commit to when you're washed out from the day.
I'm also curious; what are your television habits like now, now that you have cable (I'm assuming)? Do you think you watch less because you had limited choices as a child?
When I first got cable (when I moved into the dorms), yes, I'd say that I watched fewer channels. That doesn't mean that I watched less TV (because I'm kind of addicted to TV). It just means that the scope of my TV watching was limited to a few channels. But, since I've been here for awhile, I've discovered more and more channels. I actually probably watch more TV than someone who grew up with cable because I'm constantly fascinated by the fact that there's always something good on.
Post a Comment