What's Public About Public Television?

by Paul Hein

"Public" is one of those words which we use and hear every day, but cannot readily define. Generally, the term signifies the people of a place, taken as a whole, without distinction or discrimination. It is often contrasted with "private," but that comparison seems inept if we think of "private property" and "public property." Those areas designated as "public" are no more open to the public than those designated private: Try strolling into the IRS building in Washington D.C., or picnicking at Arlington National Cemetery. The White House is often considered the "people's house," which should make it public enough, but if any member of the public wanted to sell his share, or have his daughter's wedding reception there, he'd not have much luck. 

Public TV is another confusing term. You might think that a public TV station was one in which the public had some controlling interest, or which was founded by public subscription. Hardly. Our local public TV was established by a group of influential citizens associated with a local university. Funding came from a few local businessmen. About the only thing "public" about it is its incessant nagging for donations from the public. Ironically, television which brags of being "non-commercial" has the longest, most boring, and dreadfully amateurish commercials on the tube, and it has them often, but they are called "pledge drives" instead of commercials. 

About half of all the public TV stations in this country are community organizations. Another third are operated by colleges or universities, and about twelve percent are under the control of state authorities. This might lead you to think that they have a common ideology; namely, left/liberal, and you'd be right.

A great deal of public TV is directed toward children, which is frightening, considering the left-wing slant. The programs eschew violence and rough language, which is admirable. Language can be dangerous, however, without being crude. Evolution, for instance, is invariably presented as a proven, non-debatable fact, instead of a shaky theory. 

Of course, no one involved with public television is likely to admit that it is a tool of the liberal establishment, but one is entitled to wonder why, for instance, it shuns commercials. Surely, it would be possible for public TV to find sponsors congenial to its objectives, and the commercials themselves would not be nearly so obnoxious as the interminable fund drives. Commercial TV, however, must be able to give some sort of reasonable guarantee to the sponsor that the program will have a sufficiently large audience to justify its cost. Public TV, it would seem, wants to spread its message without regard for popularity or audience size. Its zeal would seem to be more toward ideology than profit. 

Public television presents itself, and is received, as the collective enterprise of a public-spirited citizenry, rather than an agent of the Department of Propaganda. And it broadcasts enough worth-while viewing to keep its ideological basis, though pervasive, subdued.  Locally, at least, it makes a point of announcing that it receives no funding from government, as though that made it politically objective. 

If I haven't said it before, I've thought it often: we are ruled by psychology. Public TV is an excellent example. 

April 6, 2002