A Tiny Revolution‘s John Caruso (9/5/09) caught an instance of the Public Broadcasting System “Putting the ‘BS’ in PBS” when they recently “took a break to blandish us thusly: ‘If you are seeking a unique sponsorship opportunity for your business and want to reach a prime demographic group through multiple platforms email us today.'”
Reacting to the crass appeal for a California Bay Area underwriter, Caruso reminds the broadcasters: “C’mon, guys, we’re sitting right here. Can’t you at least do us the courtesy of being subtle about the fact that as far as you’re concerned, we’re nothing but pairs of eyes for corporate sponsors?”
Citing 15-year-old FAIR warnings of the hazards of such “enhanced underwriting,” Caruso also remembers
a day not that long ago when PBS‘s purpose was to provide, you know, broadcasting services for the public. Now that they’re just selling audiences to advertisers like the rest of the corporate media, they really should change the nameâ┚¬”Âthough I suppose “Supplier of Prime Demographic Groups to Underwriters through Multiple Platforms” doesn’t quite have the same ring (and SPDGUMP doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue either).
Caruso even has a suggested rewrite of their longtime “standard sponsorship message as well”: “This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from Upwardly Mobile Middle Class Consumers Like You. Thank You! But seriously, we’re just as happy getting our money from ExxonMobil.”
Should “Corporation for Public Broadcasting” be changed to “Public Broadcasting for Corporations”?
I heard a similar announcement on one of the public stations here in Alabama. Putting the “Corporation” in CPB;>
On the other hand, making it so obvious to viewers what is going on could be viewed as a kind of media education (even if it is unintentional). You get “better” ads watching regular TV and nobody ever acknowledges what is going on. Wouldn’t you say it’s healthier if they don’t “do us the courtesy of being subtle” and at least admit what is happening?