John Proffitt said…

Two thoughts…

First, I’ve heard the “tailoring our programming for our market” argument for years and I must say it’s fallen flat for me from the beginning for three reasons:

[1] Most stations run the same programs most of the time anyway; even though they have local control, they don’t really exercise it much

[2] Local differences are minor and are more reflective of the programmer reacting to a few complainers or major donors than actual community-based sensitivity

and

[3] If local differentiation is so important, why hasn’t Discovery created tons of micro-channels to serve each little niche in every corner of the country?

Back in Anchorage our programmer tinkered with the broadcast schedule to “serve local interests,” but when we ran out of money and switched to PBS’ “Schedule X” service (in which virtually all local control is given up in favor of a pre-programmed service), there was some audience grumbling but in the end we brought in the same donor dollars (if not more).

I tend to be a cynic anyway, but this local argument doesn’t hold enough water for me to be an effective clarion call for the maintenance of local station operations (in the traditional way).

Second, many local stations have a “cult of the Emmy” problem, in which traditional television production methods are sacrosanct. Which is why you need $100,000 cameras, million-dollar studios, multi-million-dollar editing and broadcasting gear. But what about small HD cams, laptop editors and more as promoted (and proven) by Michael Rosenblum for years now?

Consider Rosenblum’s provocative question: “If Google came to your town to setup a TV channel, do you think they’re going to spend several million on a huge TV studio and tons of big cameras and edit suites and more? Or are they going to hire an army of one-man videojournalists with small HD cams, laptops and a talent for storytelling?

Local funding and efforts need to be locally-focused and locally-scaled. Why don’t we leave the huge investments to the big players and focus instead on actual public service media that makes a difference right where we are?

You’ve already pointed to the education/outreach work your station is doing. What if you kept that, eliminated the TV producers that can’t produce cheaply, shutdown the studio, streamlined master control down to a repeater + minimal inserts shop and boosted your web operations and community connections?

April 17, 2010 10:54 AM

PBS Revolutionaries said…

Well stated, John.

Points of agreement:

1) Google is an apt example. Massive computing power from a web of small units rather than fewer huge mainframes.

2) The “cult of the Emmy” is definitely in play and counterproductive. We don’t believe for a moment that regional Emmys = greater funding or better community service.

3) Providing local content shouldn’t mean upholding the current station model. We can’t say whether that means changing to a repeater, a distribution agreement with a local commercial broadcaster, or some other method (those with solutions please chime in), but we believe there are ways to ride the wave of shifting consumer habits for the benefit of PBS stakeholders and viewers.

April 17, 2010 12:15 PM

derrick said…

Fodder for the discussion from 2004: http://www.current.org/ptv/ptv0412starvingpbs.shtml

Regionalization of infrastructure and administration seem like a worthwhile and meaningful “first” step.

April 19, 2010 9:47 AM

Colin Powers said…

Sorry, I missed the continuation of this thread last week and need to respond to John (and Rev’s) comments.

My producers DO produce cheaply. Their biggest expense is gas to cover the huge rural area that we serve – not glamorous high budget production gear or per diems. Our station has been shooing on Cannon XL1 (DV) for over 10 years, now we shoot on Sony VIU and ZIU HDV cams and have two XDCAM full size for our “deluxe” shoots. As for editing on a laptop… a real FCP edit bay only costs a few thousand more and is twice as efficient. You know what render times are like for HDV on a laptop? How do you edit audio?

Our entire station’s yearly budget is around 3 million dollars, so we’ve got no “100,000 cameras” or million dollar studios. We produce well over a hundred programs every year – almost all of them in the field or with substantial field content – NOT talking heads four times a week.

Expensive studio? Let me tell you – a studio is a concrete block room with a bunch of paid-for lights. Ours is a tremendous asset for local production and gets used every week of the year… we even take a week each November to bring in 800 chorus singers from kindergarten to seniors in to record a local Christmas show – try doing that in a borrowed space – it’ll look like a home video. All this with volunteer camera ops and floor managers.

Finally, we block out primetime 8pm – 9:30 from Wed – Fri every week for local content. Our public affairs block airs 6 times in multiple slots each week to make sure it is available when our viewers want it.

Our audience is rural, typically not high-speed connected (we’re working on rural broadband, too) and many get us off-air. Substituting web and “community connections” for what we’re doing now would mean abandoning that audience on the wrong side of the digital divide.

And what does “streamlined master control down to a repeater + minimal inserts shop” mean? We’re as lean there as you can be and keep the gear turned on.

I’m not trying to suggest that other stations don’t have many of the issues you’re talking about, but I still think these are simplistic arguments. Show me an example of where a model you describe is working. I’ve seen glimmerings and pieces of these here and there, but many of them rely on talented, but grossly overworked single people who are turning out great material in a largely unsustainable way. Let’s talk about living wages for real (albeit very hardworking) people with families.

In the week since I posted my reply neither Revolution, nor commenter John Proffitt have responded to the arguments I’ve laid out above. I realize that Mountain Lake PBS is both smaller and perhaps more ambitious in its local agenda than many stations they are directing their invective at, but I still have a problem with their simplistic “solutions.” Michael Rosenblum does great work, but, as far as I know, has not translated his methodology to pub TV (if I’m wrong – straighten me out.)  In fact, as mentioned above Mountain Lake has done a great deal to move toward the Rosenblum model.

I’d love to have a few more precocious-young-techno-geeks to help create more content, more cheaply and faster than we do now, but I won’t sacrifice the diverse multi-experienced mix of young and old storytellers that I have for a pipe dream Blair Witch story.  So I say… John, Rev… bring on some examples of pubTV stations putting these practices to work and let’s talk shop.

You can also subscribe to his video channel on YouTube. If you double click the video below, it will launch in YouTube and you can click “Subscribe” just above the video window. Thanks Mark! Have fun in Yellowstone next week.

clipped from www.montrealgazette.com

Warner Bros. coming to town

To open gaming studio: Company to receive $7.5-million grant, pledges to create 300 jobs by 2015

By JASON MAGDER, The Gazette
Warner Bros. said it was talent, not government incentives, that lured it to open a gaming studio in Montreal.

The multimedia giant announced yesterday it will set up shop somewhere in the city, with an investment it hasn’t disclosed – and pledged to create 300 jobs by 2015.

At a news conference yesterday afternoon, Premier Jean Charest said he was pleased Montreal was able to beat out other cities in a heated competition for the establishment of the new studio.

With the credibility of Warner Bros., this confirms the position of Quebec as one of the major world capitals in the gaming industry,” Charest said. ctd…

Check out one this fabulous reel at Stargate Studios by clicking here.