|
|||||||||
Subscribe to Beyond the Box Monthly and have the latest news delivered to your inbox. We won't share your email address.
Last summer, ITVS convened focus groups of public television programmers in San Francisco, Chicago, Hartford, and Columbia, South Carolina - sites chosen to reflect distinctive regional issues.Thirty seven programmers representing stations in 30 states participated; we hope to include every programmer in the system in these small-group discussions within the next three years.
We welcome the opportunity to share some of what we learned with independent makers. Some of the responses might confirm your worst suspicions; others may surprise or inspire you:
Are there limits to the kinds of programming that you can air? What are they? Programmers mark the controversial broadcast of TALES OF THE CITY several years ago as a major turning point for public television, with funding cuts and conservative backlash that caused stations to become more cautious. It was a realistic response to political pressure: "The nervousness and chill starts at the top and filters down to the stations." More than one programmer noted that "even P.O.V. has mellowed out. There are no more gut-wrenching Wednesday mornings [following P.O.V. broadcasts]." This was by no means seen as a positive development; there is a sense that the PBS national schedule has become "bland" and "irrelevant," with an over-emphasis on "balance" resulting in "pabulum."
Programmers from all parts of the country spoke of internal pressures to increase annual "numbers" - audience ratings, membership and underwriting income - and how that affected their decisions and whether they can afford to take risks. The growth of 'enhanced underwriting' was singled out as leading public television programming in more commercial and conservative directions.
Across the country stations mentioned profanity and nudity as common concerns. There were some interesting gradations in whether foul language was scripted versus unscripted, whether the naked bodies were male or female, and whether the accents were American or British (there is the general sense that "you can do anything with a British accent," although most acknowledged that Masterpiece Theater's MOLL FLANDERS pushed even that envelope).
Outside the Northeast, the sensitivities of religious conservatives have come to play a large role in many stations' programming decisions, particularly regarding abortion and homosexuality. Programmers note that they are getting calls of complaint now about programs they showed without incident 15 or 20 years ago, like MONTY PYTHON. Repeatedly, they noted the large number of calls generated from organized campaigns against lightning-rod shows such as IT'S ELEMENTARY, while they run the low-profile series IN THE LIFE or even P.O.V. for season after season with few if any complaints - proving that the calls are coming from non-viewers.
Programmers acknowledge that viewer complaints are an inevitable part of their job; most expressed the strong sense that PTV should deal with controversial issues and welcome the heat when a show is worth it. One programmer said that many of the most controversial shows epitomize the station at its best, but cause him personal dread because of the response he has to anticipate from reactionary elements in the community, which he finds demoralizing. This was echoed by other programmers, who said there were "just so many" hot-button shows a station could take on, due to the wear and tear on staff.
Programmers had varying opinions about running edited versions, with some refusing to air any edited shows at all because the edits were "poorly done," while others required edited versions if they were to be able to air a show at all. Stations do not edit locally, due to lack of resources or staff time, or in one case because if the community were to find out the station could edit shows, "the demand would never end - I've gotten a complaint about a 'darn' in SESAME STREET."
What kinds of programming do you want but never find in the PTV system? Several themes arose in this discussion. In the Midwest and South, more than one programmer asked about productions with a "strong conservative voice," and whether it was possible to find "moderate" conservative independent filmmakers producing "airable" work. Programmers in these regions strongly felt that the vast majority of shows in the pipeline were urban in focus and of little or no interest to their rural communities, for whom even SESAME STREET is a "big city program."
A common theme throughout the country was foreign-born minority populations moving into communities that had been virtually all white or a long-term balance of African-American and white, and the challenges these changes posed. Some programmers said that these changes pose opportunities to "take a wider look" at their schedules, developing new audiences for non-mainstream programming; all stressed the importance of programming that would interpret diverse cultures and changing national demographics to 'traditional' PTV audiences. Several programmers, from the Plains to the Atlantic Coast, spoke of the profound ignorance of the white American population and the need for programs directed to white people about diverse cultural communities.
We specifically asked about show length, since so many of ITVS's applicants and producers would prefer to work in feature format. All things being equal, programmers across the board concurred that they preferred a 60-minute length. One programmer said that "a 90-minute will sit on the shelf unless you provide a 30-minute to fill out the schedule," while another agreed, saying he schedules 90-minute programs on a "throwaway night," where he expects no audience. On the other hand, 30-minute shows were very popular as filler: "We could use more of those."
Long-form "big footprint" limited series with national publicity such as THE FARMER'S WIFE or AN AMERICAN LOVE STORY elicited mixed responses. One programmer spoke for many when he said, "My first question is, 'Is it good?' If it's 5 nights and 10 hours, it had better be better than THE CIVIL WAR."
What is the most exciting thing you've aired in the past year, the one that you felt epitomized your station at its best? Of all questions, this generated the greatest unity of response. Twenty-one programmers cited a production which the station had produced in-house on a subject of local relevance as the single most significant program of the previous year. Local shows are top performers in pledge drives and sweeps, confirming that they are not only central to mission but develop and retain viewer loyalty and revenue. More than one programmer stressed their sense that local service distinguishes public television from all other broadcasters: "Locally produced programming is our reason for being."
Do you want to see more drama programming coming through the system? Widening the scope of drama programming available to PTV is seen as very problematic by programmers, for a variety of reasons. It was widely acknowledged that drama is not a strong suit for PBS, and the past record is marked by "dismal failures." There was general agreement that MASTERPIECE THEATER set the bar high for production values, and that any other drama programming on PTV could therefore not be of "lower quality." However, many programmers felt that there was room in the schedule for high-quality American-made work on a variety of topics.
Audience numbers for drama on PTV are often disappointing: viewers bring high expectations driven by the commercial industry, of star power and impossibly expensive production values. In this regard, programmers agreed that a theatrical run helped garner audiences for a PTV release. Scheduling drama was seen as especially problematic, because the pipeline supply is so unpredictable that it is impossible to give it a regular slot in the grid. As one programmer pointed out, "There is room for independent vision, but not a bunch of isolated one-offs. I have no idea how I'll use them, where I'll feed them to get any audience."
What do you think about independent producers? In terms of programming independent work, it was felt that there was no audience for independent work as such and no particular viewer loyalty to series such as "Independent Lens," so shows were promoted (and often scheduled) title by title, based on subject matter. Many stations do have a regular slot in the schedule for independent work, although for one station it's a "throwaway slot on a weak night - if any P.O.V. show even gets a 1 rating, I break out the champagne. I will run 'Independent Lens' and I will die; there's no audience."
Programmers were sharply divided between those who "love the passion" of independents and commit significant station support to working with outside producers; and those who used words like "rabid" and "juggernaut" to describe interactions with indies. In the Midwest, programmers were particularly interested in ITVS facilitating opportunities for more in-depth interactions with producers, which are not as easy for them as they are for programmers on the coasts. Programmers in that focus group became quite enthusiastic at the prospect of attending gatherings of indie producers, bringing established independents in to do extended residencies at stations with staff producers, and combining the "creativity" of independents with the "reality check" of the PTV staff. They consider ITVS to be in a "critical position to facilitate that conversation like no other agency...in the perfect position to be extremely valuable to the system."
This article also appeared in The Independent. Reprinted with permission of the author.
