Readers Write: Underwriting The Mysterious Human Heart

Funders are named — viewers can evaluate their motives

To the editors:

I just read your page 1 story (Nov. 5, 2007) on “inappropriate” corporate underwriting and find myself outraged, as usual, at the bizarre mindset of some supposedly well-meaning public broadcasting executives who seem hell-bent on destroying the service they profess to love.

They have trashed the reputation of one of public broadcasting’s most dedicated, talented and award-winning filmmakers by implying that he and his work can be bought, based on no evidence whatsoever.

They decided that underwriters with a perceived connection to content need to be more transparent. Apparently, the 15-second announcement at the beginning and end of each episode explicitly stating their financial involvement wasn’t clear enough for these critics.

NPR has decided they will not take money from certain government sources. [Former NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin cites the government of Kuwait. – Editor] I assume this excludes the money they have been taking (and continue to seek) from the ultimate government funding source in their hometown for the past three or four decades.

Finally, public broadcasting needs to seek funding from sources that are “absolutely disinterested” in program content. Sounds like the “intelligent design” of program funding strategies to me: “Have faith, funding will just happen.”

Have any of these critics noticed that some of the finest, most credible and most successful journalistic enterprises, such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the very best newsmagazines, all accept paid advertising? Reputation, strict standards over editorial independence and control and a superb track record are what really matter to viewers and listeners.

Do these critics really think that public radio and television audiences aren’t smart enough to figure out that program funders usually [provide funding] for a reason? Or that audiences are unable to take that vested interest into account when evaluating program content or deciding whether or not to return for subsequent episodes?

And when will these critics admit that a diversified funding base that includes members, foundations, appropriate government agencies—and corporations—is the only way to maintain public broadcasting’s integrity and independence? There’s a real world out there, and it needs to be addressed with intelligence and common sense.

(In the interest of full disclosure and transparency, a portion of my income has been derived from public radio and television underwriting initiatives since 1979. That funding—from “absolutely interested” foundations and corporations—has helped to make a lot of mission-driven, Peabody and Emmy award-winning programming possible.)

Phil Shuman
Strategic sponsorship consultant
shucomm@att.net

Audience can trust that we’re not for sale

To the editors:

Your article about corporate underwriting is old news and continues to be a tempest in a teapot. Of course, corporations that have an interest in particular subjects are the ones who fund programs on that subject. Would you expect Kodak to fund a show about photography or about Tiddly Winks?

If the U.S. government had created and funded public broadcasting as every other country on Earth has, as an essential public service rather than an afterthought, we wouldn’t be having this silly discussion.

In the meantime, we should remember that our listeners and viewers are educated and sophisticated grown-ups (except, perhaps, for viewers of our kids’ programs!) and capable of understanding that experienced, professional producers are not influenced by their funders.

And producers, producing organizations and networks need to stand up and say, “We are not for sale.” Ironically, sophisticated underwriters know they cannot have influence over content and don’t want it. Instead, they want to bask in the glow of the good feelings that public broadcasting engenders. I see nothing wrong with that.

Jim Russell
The Program Doctor, Chapel Hill, N.C., jim@programdoctor.com

Their money is OK — but not for that topic

To the editors:

I would like to clarify my quote in Katy June-Friesen’s piece on the controversial funding from Medtronic and AstraZeneca for PBS’s The Mysterious Human Heart (Current, Nov. 5). I am quoted as saying that “public TV should not have accepted the funding in the first place.”

I said I objected to using money from Medtronic and AstraZeneca specifically for The Mysterious Human Heart because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. PBS, of course, has every right to accept funding that meets its standards.

Alicia C. Shepard
Ombudsman, NPR, Washington, D.C.
ashepard@npr.org