This week, many people are celebrating the 50th Anniversary of PBS – while its birth was a long, complex process (see Wikipedia or this week’s NYT), it was launched in October, 1970. One of the founding ideals of public broadcasting is the notion that the market alone won’t serve society’s needs. That we need space for noncommercial, public media. Quoting from the act that founded PBS (h/t to the NYT again) – that we need space for media made for: “instructional, educational and cultural purposes,” promoting “diversity and excellence,” that “involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities,” and that “address(es) national concerns and solve(s) local problems through community programs and outreach programs.” Fifty years later, it’s a good time to ask – has PBS lived up to that mission? And what is it’s future?
I won’t bury the lede in answering those questions – not well enough, and it needs to be reimagined. But before that critique, if you want to read the predominantly positive arguments on behalf of PBS, one really need look no further than these three NYT articles. And if you want to read my opinion on the subject, I’ve already written it (last year) in a post titled “ Towards a New Public Media.” I argued then that given the current realities of the market-place, and of the current US public broadcasting system, “ We need a new public media. It won’t look like the old public media, but the underlying concept is the same – to use a combination of public funding, policy, foundation and (later/even) corporate support to address the failures of the market to support media as a public service.”
But just as I was about to write this post today, and rethink my arguments a bit, I read something even better than anything I could write. Grace Lee has written a “must-read” Op-Ed/Analysis/Proposal/Manifesto for the Ford Foundation’s Creative Futures Initiative on the current state of affairs at PBS. Noting the dominance of Ken Burns on PBS, she asks:
“The decades-long interdependence of PBS decision-makers, philanthropists, and corporate funders with one white, male filmmaker highlights the racial and cultural inequities perpetuated by this system. The amount of broadcast hours, financial support (from viewers like who?), and marketing muscle devoted to one man’s lens on America has severed PBS from its very roots. Wasn’t the initial goal to break down inequality?”
Why yes, she answers, it was! And she has three great solutions to suggest – read them all in her words here, but paraphrasing: 1) diversify the leadership of public broadcasting with BIPOC leaders; 2) fund BIPOC filmmakers to make content at the same level as Ken Burns has received for 40 years, and 3) invest in more than one (white) audience.
So if you only have time to read one article on the past/future of PBS, skip on over to her article. I agree 100% with her argument. My only concern is that her proposal presupposes that we live in a US where that future vision is possible, and I’m not sure we live there anymore – if we ever did. This is less about PBS, or sincere efforts at reform, and more a loss of all hope in the politics of the US. I fear we may be at a moment when replacing may be a better word than redesigning when it comes to what we should do with PBS.
I can envision a world where the radical conversations that have already started outside of the system – and from the BIPOC creators and audiences not well represented within that system (see Getting Real or Beyond Resilience for just two examples) – leads to the development of something so fresh, exciting and new that it makes PBS irrelevant. Or that it forces them to adapt more radically. In a way, that’s how PBS got started – people wanted more than what educational TV was already offering; and it’s how ITVS and POV got started as well. But none of these previous (momentous) efforts have forced radical enough changes to give us the public media we deserve and require. We might need to dream bigger. And from the conversations I’ve been following online, it seems like we are hearing from some great voices who might actually force some radical changes - if they don’t get stifled by the bureaucracy while trying to change public media from within. (That said, if you want to change it from within, a good place to start might be as the new head of POV.)
I also think this conversation needs to be enlarged beyond documentary as well. Public media doesn’t only concern documentary, news, kids programming or cooking shows – it should also bring us other under the radar media, and that includes fiction films/shows. At a time when everyone has shifted to SVOD; and SVOD has shifted away from creative risk-taking and independent voices, and towards formulaic and reality-television (albeit with more diversity in some of the Netflix programming), we need a new home for media that truly speaks for and serves the public. Or in the words of the act that founded PBS – “one that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences.” Sure, let’s follow the lead of the documentary community – because they’ve always been better organized, but let’s not leave other independent and important media behind.
|
|
Film
The Disney Re-Org: Disney announced (read the press release) a restructuring that refocuses all distribution efforts into one unit, prioritizing direct to consumer (streaming) over legacy (theatrical) models. Analysts are divided on whether this gives more power to the creatives (including the decision as to where things live), or whether it prioritizes streaming. But I vote for the latter, and think you don’t need to read the tea-leaves, as CEO Chapek spells things out pretty clearly, telling the WSJ, ““There is a seismic shift happening in the marketplace, and you can either lead or follow and we chose to lead,” Mr. Chapek said of the company’s push into streaming, adding that the focus is now on “what platform is best to meet those consumer needs.” He also told CNBC: “I would not characterize it as a response to Covid…I would say Covid accelerated the rate at which we made this transition, but this transition was going to happen anyway…We are tilting the scale pretty dramatically [toward streaming].” He also clarified that the distribution folks own the entire P&L...a pretty clear sign of who is ultimately in charge. Disney is a slow mover, and it isn't going to throw its creative team under the bus (or abandon theaters), but this lets the Mouse get Wall Street off its back a bit, while signaling where it is going long-term.
CineWorld's Treatment of Staff: The Guardian UK reports that Cineworld is making it difficult for its laid-off staff, by not really laying them off so they can get money. But they did offer sweets! "Cineworld’s lack of respect for its staff was...summed up by the company’s decision to give them free sweets on their last shift on Thursday – but it only comprised of confectionery with a best-before-date up until November, which the company knew wouldn’t get sold to customers." Nice.
BlumHouse and Amazon Studios Live Experience - via Adweek, Amazon Studios and Blumhouse is partnering with Little Cinema to produce a few live event experiences and premieres for their new set of movies - Nocturne, Black Box, Evil Eye and The Lie. Ten rooms, 2 DJs, 4 live shows, all in a virtual house where the experience somehow ties together the themes/stories of each film. I don't have time to check this out, but it takes place this weekend and you can RSVP here.
 Resisterhood -
Screens online and in support of Cinemas - Filmmaker CJ Crim is a reader and sent me info on her new film, which has a great distribution model for the pandemic/vote/resistance time we live in. I've watched the trailer, and will be watching the film online soon - With a dual goal of supporting struggling theater owners as well as getting people fired up to vote, award-winning producer/director Cheryl Jacobs “CJ” Crim has come up with a unique proposal … She’s offering independent theater owners the opportunity to virtually screen her critically acclaimed, feature film, Resisterhood, for free from Oct. 16 - Nov. 1. She is additionally extending the offer to colleges and universities and supplying them with a Voter Toolkit to help educate and inspire younger voters.
Examining the ongoing reverberations of the 2016 U.S. presidential election from a women’s perspective, Resisterhood is a compelling and impactful documentary urging us all to use our voice and our vote to shape the future of our country … and never has it been more urgent than today. The film showcases the inspiring stories of six diverse activists as they work tirelessly to protect our civil rights and to motivate others to do the same. Resisterhood is also streaming on Amazon and Vimeo on Demand. Watch the trailer and learn more here.
Why Real-Time Engines are the Future of Production: Animation mag takes a look at the rise of the use of real-time (game) engines like Unreal and Unity for film and tv production, showing that it's not as complex or as costly as people think, and how it's the future of production. I am in agreement.
|
|
Branded Content
How Netflix Does Social Media - smart, niche audience marketing on social, that's how. Protocol takes a look at Netflix's very smart social media marketing, something many brands (and film brands) should study. With StrongBlack, ConTodo, NX and other curated feeds, each with a distinct voice and geared towards specific "niche" but large audiences, Netflix is helping audiences discover and connect with the right content for them (but mainly from off-platform). They're onto something here.
|
|
Miscellany:
Trump Exec Order on Diversity - Major issues for Arts Orgs - I'm surprised that no one seems to be writing about this, in my circles at least, but Trump's recent executive order banning the federal government, as well as its contractors, subcontractors and grantees, from offering certain diversity training on racial and gender biases - is already wreaking havoc on academia, corporations and consultants, and it's going to have a stifling and huge impact on the arts sector - and grants - in particular if this election doesn't go how people hope it goes. As the NYT reports, lawyers are interpreting it as very broad, and the Labor Department and Justice Dept. are enforcing it.
Having dealt with such overly-broad orders in the past, when I ran a nonprofit, I can tell you that if this order stands, it will mean that if your nonprofit accepted a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, for example - which funds most of our favorite film nonprofits and arts organizations- they could sue you for giving diversity training or even applying diversity standards in your grants and programming. The language is broad enough that organizations can be "blacklisted" (ironic/sad word choice, I know) or shut down as a result. I've seen such language and its overly broad interpretation hit the arts sector in the past - and it led to even major foundations such as Ford and Rockefeller to alter grant language in scary ways (back then it was in regards to language around support for terrorism post 9/11, and it impacted grants we were making at my nonprofit to Mexican activist filmmakers in Chiapas, for example). In theory, the Government could now take action against an arts organization that is explicitly giving grants for diversity, or sponsoring talks about it, if you have an NEA or NEH or other government grant. That's a big potential problem, and I don't see anyone talking about it (but maybe I'm out of this loop?).
Trust me - this is gonna have a huge impact on nonprofit arts organizations unless we resist it mightily, and/or get lucky with the election results.
|
|
|
Like This Newsletter? Subscribe & Past Issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
