PBS meet and greet

Tonight I had the opportunity to attend a function where the guests were Paula Kerger and John King. Some if not most of you may not know these two individuals but they are two extremely important people. In some cases, more important than those in government or corporate America. These two people are public broadcasters.

Paula Kerger is the new President and CEO of PBS and John King is the President and CEO of Vermont Public Television. Why these two are important people is something I will explain a little later on.

Paula Kerger and John King were here in Montreal tonight. I arrived as Ms. Kerger was delivering her speech and during the question and answer session I had one question and one comment. Before I tell you what the question and comment were, let me just sing the praises of Ms. Kerger as a striking public orator, and on the face of it, a gifted intellectual. I did not hear Mr. King deliver a speech but I did speak with him after, and found him to be engaging, humorous, and extremely knowledgeable.

The question I had for Ms. Kerger was with respect to a statement she made during her speech about branding, advertising and marketing to children as young as two years old. I felt the distinct impression that she felt it was an odious and unethical practice being employed by big business in conjunction sleazy advertising and marketing execs with the full backing and support of more commercially oriented advertisers and media- in other words “the devil.” I agree that the practice is somewhat twisted, if not “evil,” but it is a reality that must be dealt with.

At that moment I thought that the best way to deal with this problem is not to turn your back on branding, marketing, and advertising but to embrace these tools; fight fire with fire. With this in mind I had to ask the question of why not embrace these methods if the aim is to achieve a greater good? In other words use the same techniques, market to the same audience but maintain the highest possible moral high-ground.

I understand perfectly if the thought of marketing to two year olds is morally repugnant but “the devil” is doing it and by turning our backs on “the devil” we merely ignore what is going on; we are not actually stopping “the devil.” PBS is in a position to do what a lot of ordinary people cannot, fight a system aimed at creating mindless consumers whose only concern from the age of two to one hundred and two is consumerism, and use the tools of that system to defeat it or at least counteract its effects.

While the unscrupulous are advertising and marketing toys and games to two year olds, PBS can from the moral high-ground advertise and market knowledge and culture. While the unscrupulous are busy trying to figure out the next product that will be the next hottest thing, PBS can market the things that are really important, knowledge, learning, integrity, culture, values, and character. So I say embrace branding PBS and use your power for the greater good.

That was my first question and the thinking behind it. The answer was generic if not nebulous but it did explain that PBS certainly is striving to make inroads with audiences of all ages. Ms. Kerger also explained that PBS is trying to reach as wide an audience as possible by not only broadcasting their award winning programming but by also actively adding content to the internet. As she mentioned type in ‘Africa’ or ‘evolution’ into a Google browser and the number one spot will be PBS content.

The one comment I had made was after Ms. Kerger had to respond to yet another question concerning PBS’ supposed leftward leanings. This is an unfair question that is the result of a negative marketing campaign aimed at PBS by those who consider a broadcaster who accepts government money to be a tool of the government. As far as I know PBS has never publicly claimed o be left or right, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. PBS only claim that I know is one that they aim to maintain free and open airwaves for the benefit of the public good.

The money? Not only do commercial broadcasters and the commercial media accept money from the government, they openly give money to the government in the hopes of currying favors from the government. On top of that, thus far it is only the private broadcast industry and media that has been proven to have accepted money from the government in order to further the government’s agenda. As far as propaganda tools go, it seems the government is far more partial to the commercial broadcaster and private media organizations than to PBS. And by saying “far more” I mean “uses exclusively.”

Think about this, PBS’ attackers over the years have typically, if not exclusively, been conservative Republicans. They try to make the valid point that an organization that accepts government money may become beholden to that government and become its propaganda tool. That is true; any organization that accepts money from the government runs that risk and it is up to the leaders within said organization to remain vigilant against that. It also up to viewers to remain vigilant against an organization that becomes a propaganda arm of the government. PBS, as mentioned seemingly has never caved to pressure to become a government mouthpiece spewing government viewpoints. Can commercial broadcasters and private media companies say the same?

The hypocrisy in the whole affair is that those same people who fear PBS becoming a government disinformation machine strongly supported, argued, and tried to rationalize the governments use of private media as propaganda tools when it was uncovered that the government had paid commentators and journalists to give us a biased point of view reported as though it were ‘actual news.’ Suddenly, government propaganda was not maybe such a bad thing. To this day, I am still waiting for the fallout from those discoveries. To those who attack PBS, I say give me PBS fairly balanced programming, news and opinions any day over the ‘Fair and Balanced’ of any tainted commercial broadcaster or media organization!

This brings me back to why public broadcasters are important, particularly PBS. As far as I know, and as far as Ms. Kerger knows, there is no organization in the world quite like it. Other countries do have public broadcasters funded almost exclusively by their governments, PBS, on the other hand achieves most of its funding through individual viewers. But that is not why they are important. Why they are important is that they have consistently held themselves up to a high standard. They hold themselves up to the ideal that there should be free and publicly accessible airwaves. They hold themselves to the ideal that free airwaves encourage and promote a vigorous exchange of ideas and opinions. Free airwaves allow for increased insights into culture, the advancement of knowledge, and the instilment of curiosity. For this, PBS, VPT, Paula Kerger and John King have my deepest respect and admiration and deserve no less from you.