Does Public Television Get Away With Running Infomercials?

[FredLeonard]

Add to the list: Joy Bauer's Food Remedies. WHYY-TV seems, like a lot of cable channels and even some terrestrial channels, to have devoted its overnight hours to infomercials, the same ones over and over. Again, a diet plan promising miraculous results to lose weight and cure diseases and chronic medical conditions. And a combination of the standard infomercial in-studio presentation to an enthused audience and standard pledge drive format. This show is another WHYY-TV/Winky Dink production. This time they did mention "pledging" or "supporting" but the emphasis was on buying the DVD or the package. And this time they did mention the total prices (but the total did not appear in the graphic, it was just mentioned).

Joy Bauer is a nutrition counselor who operates a chain of "nutrition centers." The presentation offered almost no specific information about her diet plan (gotta buy the book and/or DVD for that). The local pledge hosts gave what sounded like enthusiastic endorsements for her diet program.

Latest available published reports show the president of WHYY making close to a million a year. He was hired without broadcasting experience. He was a former bureaucrat at the city water department, apparently with good political connections.

The chair of the station's board is an executive VP at ARAMark, a company which sells crap food in vending machines and school or company cafeterias and which reportedly has Mafia ties. The company has also settled charges of unfair trading practices.

 

[TheBigA]

Earlier in this thread, I asked you to cite a single law that you felt they were breaking, in order to, as you say, get away with running infomercials. So far, you haven't named a single law, either from the FCC, the FDA, or FTC. Nothing. It sounds to me like you have a personal vendetta about the station, and are just using this board as a platform to air your own personal frustrations. If they're allowed to do something, then they're NOT getting away with anything. They're doing what they're allowed to do. How hard is that to understand?

 

[FredLeonard]

Earlier in this thread, I asked you to cite a single law that you felt they were breaking, in order to, as you say, get away with running infomercials. So far, you haven't named a single law, either from the FCC, the FDA, or FTC. Nothing. It sounds to me like you have a personal vendetta about the station, and are just using this board as a platform to air your own personal frustrations. If they're allowed to do something, then they're NOT getting away with anything. They're doing what they're allowed to do. How hard is that to understand?

They are a station with a non-commercial license. To paraphrase Justice Black, "non-commercial" means NO COMMERCIALS. Notice the type of programs they are running are called Info-MERCIALS. The shows I have seen, present a product, make comparisons and include calls to action.

I never try to prove things to people with closed minds. And what law says I am obliged to even try?

You prove to me what they this non-commercial station is doing is, in fact, legal, as you claim.

"Personal vendetta?" That one is really old and tired. You must be getting desperate. As I asked earlier, if this is such an important issue to you, why are you spending so much time trolling this thread?

 

[TheBigA]

As I asked earlier, if this is such an important issue to you, why are you spending so much time trolling this thread?

Having a discussion about an issue, and I've stuck STRICTLY to the issue, isn't trolling. You're making a charge that they're "getting away" with something, and you can cite no law that they're breaking.

They don't have to prove what they're doing is legal. YOU have to prove what they're doing is illegal, and you haven't done that. All you've done is complained that you don't like what they're doing, and you don't approve of the station's president. Neither of those things is illegal, and they don't require your approval to do either.

 

[frankberry]

This matter is a bit confusing. Even more confusing when you read the FCC Rules: http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/33-nature.htm
Happy reading!

 

[newsmark]

The line between commercials and underwriting announcements has always been blurry. Some of the underwriting announcements I see now, on a local level, are indistinguishable from a commercial (except that maybe it's an advertiser I haven't seen on any other channel).

I'm certainly not doubting what FredLeonard saw in his market. Here, it seems they take care to say... "get this album/book/video/whatever by making a $150 pledge to this public TV station."

 

[FredLeonard]

The line between commercials and underwriting announcements has always been blurry. Some of the underwriting announcements I see now, on a local level, are indistinguishable from a commercial (except that maybe it's an advertiser I haven't seen on any other channel).

I'm certainly not doubting what FredLeonard saw in his market. Here, it seems they take care to say... "get this album/book/video/whatever by making a $150 pledge to this public TV station."

I am starting to miss the classic coffee mugs and tote bags. They were sort of a badge. Carry the tote bag or use the coffee mug at work and proclaim your intellectual superiority to the people watching reality shows on commercial TV.

When they run the kinds of shows people associate with public television - Britcoms and dramas, American Experience, American Masters, Ken Burns' documentaries, Great Performances ... - they don't do begathons. Funny thing.

I remember seeing the kind of pitch newsmark describes. Now, it the emphasis is on selling the product, not supporting public television. The tail wags the dog.

 

[Avid Listener]

When they run the kinds of shows people associate with public television - Britcoms and dramas, American Experience, American Masters, Ken Burns' documentaries, Great Performances ... - they don't do begathons. Funny thing.

And, in those days, no competition from The History Channel, the Discovery Channel, the National Geographic Channel, the Smithsonian Channel, A&E, and a few dozen other cable networks that are now airing the kind of programs that used to be the exclusive product of public television.

Here's another little bit of truth that you aren't going to like. The "Good old days" (which were never as good as you remember them being) are GONE. They're OVER. They're never, ever coming back. Time marches on. That was then and this is now.

Get over it.

 

[TheBigA]

And, in those days, no competition from The History Channel, the Discovery Channel, the National Geographic Channel, the Smithsonian Channel, A&E, and a few dozen other cable networks that are now airing the kind of programs that used to be the exclusive product of public television.

Have you watched A&E lately? History Channel? Even Discovery? All of those channels originally intended for "educational" high brow stuff are now filled with pawn shows, storage locker shows, reality shows, and all the LCD stuff you expect from Fox. "Naked & Afraid" marathon tonight on Discovery. Smithsonian isn't on a lot of systems, and NatGeo usually requires extra money.

 

[Avid Listener]

Have you watched A&E lately? History Channel? Even Discovery? All of those channels originally intended for "educational" high brow stuff are now filled with pawn shows, storage locker shows, reality shows, and all the LCD stuff you expect from Fox. Smithsonian isn't on a lot of systems, and NatGeo usually requires extra money.

Did you miss the part where I said, "and a few dozen other cable networks"? Even if the cable networks that took over the kind of programming that PBS used to do also run other programming to pay the bills, public television was one pseudo-network with a limited broadcast day. If you want to be a pedantic nit-picker about the issue, and cherry pick a few formerly high-brow cable nets that now air some low brow programs, let's look at it realistically.

Assuming a public television station was on the air from 6:00 AM to 1:00 AM, 7 days a week, that works out to 19 hours a day, or 133 hours of programming per week. Now, let's look at the cable networks that are basically commercial supported outlets for what used to be public television's exclusive territory.

These cable networks now carry much of the same programming that used to be exclusive to public television. That includes such PBS programs as "The Frugal Gourmet" or Justin Wilson's show which are similar to what is now on the Food Network, shows like The New Yankee Workshop and This Old House, similar to what's now on networks like DIY, children's programming, etc.

A&E
American Heroes Channel
Animal Planet
BBC America
Bloomberg TV
Cooking Channel
C-Span
Discovery
Discovery Fit & Health
DIY
E!
Food Network
Government Access
H2 (fka Histoy International)
Hallmark
HGTV
History
Investigation Discovery
National Geo Channel
National Geo Wild
Palladia HD
TCM
The HUB (fka Discovery Kids)
The Science Channel
TLC
Travel Channel

That's 26 networks, each on the air 24 hours a day, for a total of 4,368 hours per week! Assuming that the local public television station broadcast 24 hours a day, which they didn't do when PBS didn't have much cable competition, that mean the local PBS station only had 168 hours a week. Now, even if the cable networks that are carrying the kinds of shows that used to be common on PBS, including such high-brow public television entertainments as "The Red Green Show", are showing low-brow junk most of the time, if just 4% of their programming is "high-brow" stuff, that's more hours of programming per week than any PBS station would have had.

And, for the record, I could have delved even deeper into finding other cable networks that are competing with public television, but that 26 I was able to collect in almost no time at all.

So, BigA, if you want to actually research some information, go for it. Find real data that demonstrates that PBS does not have an extremely high level of competition nowadays that they didn't use to have and use it to persuade me. But a bunch of off-the-cuff vague generalities don't mean diddly-squat.

 

[TheBigA]

So, BigA, if you want to actually research some information, go for it. Find real data that demonstrates that PBS does not have an extremely high level of competition nowadays that they didn't use to have and use it to persuade me. But a bunch of off-the-cuff vague generalities don't mean diddly-squat.

Each one of the channels you list is filled with reality shows. Do you know what a reality show is? Do I need to give you a show description for "Naked & Afraid?" OK, here you go: Two naked survivalists, a guy and a girl, explore a deserted beach in Dominica. Did you miss the part when I said they're naked? When was the last time you saw that on PBS? But that's what's on Discovery tonight.

Animal Planet has made a living with the series "Dirty Jobs." Tonight, that's all they're showing. Another reality show.

BBC America is showing a movie: Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. True story? Really?

Bloomberg TV has nothing similar to PBS. More like CNBC.

Cooking Channel: More reality shows. Throwdown with Bobby Flay. A pizza challenge tonight. Just like Julia Child, right?

C-SPAN: Come on. Back when PBS did Watergate hearings, it was anchored. No such thing on C-SPAN.

DIY: More reality shows, castoffs from HGTV.

History: Pawn Stars and American Pickers. Every day. If you missed it, they repeat on H2.

Palladia: My favorite channel, but it's more reality shows with Darryl Hall or repeats from MTV. Where's the Metropolitan Opera?

All the rest are more reality shows. How many channels do you need showing the exact same reality shows of guys bidding on storage lockers? Talk about high drama. But there's one on Travel, one on A&E, one on Bravo, and one on TLC.

You didn't mention Lifetime, and tonight they have a new reality show called "Bring It. Over on GameShow Network, they have a reality show about naked body painting. I'm not kidding. A&E is all Duck Dynasty. TLC has Extreme Cheapskates about people who reuse funeral parlor flowers. It just goes on. Restaurant: Impossible on Food Channel. All reality shows!

Sorry...there may have been an interest in appealing to PBS viewers with some of these channels, but they have all ditched the arts and music stuff for reality crap.

Last week I watched a whole week of the Ken Burns series on The Roosevelts. Two hours every night with no commercials. Find me a cable channel with that.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying anything is wrong with Naked & Afraid. I like a little t&a as much as anyone. But it's not a commercial replacement for PBS.

 

[Avid Listener]

Each one of the channels you list is filled with reality shows. Do you know what a reality show is?

Yes, I do. There are two kinds of reality shows. There are the competition/elimination shows, like Survival, and there are the "fly-on-a-wall" looks at intimate personal lives. The first such reality show was An American Family, which aired on -- wait for it -- Public Television in 1971. So, if you're going to kvetch about reality shows, it was PBS that invented them!

Do I need to give you a show description for "Naked & Afraid?" OK, here you go: Two naked survivalists, a guy and a girl, explore a deserted beach in Dominica. Did you miss the part when I said they're naked? When was the last time you saw that on PBS? But that's what's on Discovery tonight.

Actually, though the people are naked, they blur out the naughty bits. The first time real, actual nudity on television was on programs like Steambath and Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City. And guess what? They were both on Public television.

Cooking Channel: More reality shows. Throwdown with Bobby Flay. A pizza challenge tonight. Just like Julia Child, right?

Even though the Cooking Channel and the Food Network have their share of competition/elimination reality shows, they still have a large number of "dump & stir" shows like the cooking shows that used to fill Saturday mornings on public television.

History: Pawn Stars and American Pickers. Every day. If you missed it, they repeat on H2.

And of course, "Antiques Roadshow" isn't basically the exact same show as "Pawn Stars", except presented in a much more boring manner.

In any event, you're still making broad generalities about how much programming is on the cable networks aren't like what's on public television. You haven't addressed the fact that even if most of the programming on the cable networks is "low brow", or has mixed some elements of competition to make them more appealing to viewers, the fact remains that each week, even if only 4% of the other network programming meets your elitist view of what's so special about PBS, that still means that the cable networks offer more total weekly programming than PBS.

 

[TheBigA]

even if only 4% of the other network programming meets your elitist view of what's so special about PBS, that still means that the cable networks offer more total weekly programming than PBS.

Of course they do. You're comparing the totality of cable TV with one OTA TV station. Plus PBS stations usually run children's shows during the day. What's your point?

Meanwhile you go back to 1971 for the one PBS reality show or one show with T&A. Meanwhile, there are 40 cable channels showing reality 24/7. Is that really a fair comparison? Plus you have to pay between $75-250 a month for cable while PBS is free.

 

[Avid Listener]

Of course they do. You're comparing the totality of cable TV with one OTA TV station. Plus PBS stations usually run children's shows during the day. What's your point?

Meanwhile you go back to 1971 for the one PBS reality show or one show with T&A. Meanwhile, there are 40 cable channels showing reality 24/7. Is that really a fair comparison? Plus you have to pay between $75-250 a month for cable while PBS is free.

Damn right I'm comparing them! When Mr. and Mrs. Average Viewer, and all the Viewer family children, are tuning in their TV's, they don't care what is on the air in other markets. They care about what they can see on TV right now, when they sit down to watch. When they scan through all of their choices, and they have hundreds of channels to pick from, public television needs to have something really compelling to get them to tune in. It doesn't. And that is why public television has to skirt the laws about fund raising because if they don't, then they go dark. And during the day, cable stations also run plenty of children's shows, so even then, public broadcasting has to compete for viewers.

As for going back to the past, this entire digression is about how public broadcasting's days of glory are in the past. Public television is the "has-been" of television, and has been for a long, long time. PBS invented the reality show, but they don't have the resources to make any more of them. PBS at one time pushed the edge of the envelope, not just in things like nudity, but in breaking new ground in storytelling. Now, PBS stands for "Primarily British Shows", rebroadcasting the BBC programs that aren't good enough to get ratings in BBC America.

Don't forget, when Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" first aired, it was on PBS. The recent remake, with Neil deGrasse Tyson, was shown on cable television.

There are not 40 cable channels showing "reality" 24/7, that's a grossly inaccurate exaggeration. There are some cable channels with too many "reality" shows, but there is still more than enough other programming to attract the kinds of viewers who might have watched public television several decades ago.

As for the issue of paying for cable versus getting public television for free, that's really what this thread is all about, isn't it? Someone has to pay the bills to keep public television on the air. Who should foot the bill for it? Should the Federal Government steal even more tax money from the people who have cable in order to pay for "free" public television for viewers who can't afford cable, and who wouldn't watch Masterpiece Theater on a bet?

Or how's this for an idea. Anyone who wants to whine and kvetch about public television "getting away" with commercialism to get enough money to keep the stations on the air should have to put up, or shut up. Anyone who'll donate an amount equal to 1% of their local public television stations annual operating budget shall be deemed eligible to complain about public television's commercialism. Anyone who doesn't donate that amount can just shut up.

 

[TheBigA]

Or how's this for an idea. Anyone who wants to whine and kvetch about public television "getting away" with commercialism to get enough money to keep the stations on the air should have to put up, or shut up.

Obviously that's not directed at me, since I have no complaints, so I'll get out of the way.

 

[Avid Listener]

Obviously that's not directed at me, since I have no complaints, so I'll get out of the way.

All posts are directed at all participants in a thread. If I only wanted to communicate with you, and didn't intend what I wrote to be for anyone else to read, I'd have sent you a private message.

 

[ixnay]

There are two kinds of reality shows. There are the competition/elimination shows, like Survival, and there are the "fly-on-a-wall" looks at intimate personal lives. The first such reality show was An American Family, which aired on -- wait for it -- Public Television in 1971. So, if you're going to kvetch about reality shows, it was PBS that invented them!

And "all participants in this thread" (and everyone else) can read about An American Family on page 103 (pb copy) of Swinging '73 by Matthew Silverman, a book about the 1973 baseball season and the cultural/political backdrop it took place against. I bought my copy not from Amazon but at The Strand, a large, 4-level book, video, and CD store at 12th St. and Broadway, NYC, a store well worth visiting and patronizing (2 blocks south of Union Square, on whose north side stands a Barnes & Noble where I bought a train magazine).

ixnay

 

[Carmine5]

Now here's an interesting loophole that some of my fellow low power TV station owners spotted. There was a recent article in RW about LPFM using HD Radio. In the course of the discussion the topic came up about using HD side channels for commercial broadcasts. The FCC confirmed that there is no prohibition on a noncom using side channels or sub-channels to air commercial content.

Using this information, we thought about NCEs and noncom television stations using their sub-channels for commercial TV. Doing a little legal fact-finding and combining it with the information in the LPFM article, it turns out that there is no legal reason why a noncom TV station couldn't lease a sub-channel to a commercial broadcaster or run a network like Jewelry TV on one of its channels. In fact, there is no legal impediment to a non-profit foundation that owns an NCE, forming a for profit media company and doing a lease back on a sub-channel.

The point is, that noncom station owners are going to have to find legitimate loopholes like this to put themselves in the black. Skirting the law with questionable programs like the health and exercise or wealth-protecting shows we're seeing a lot of on noncoms is dangerous and many have been caught and fined. Better to run a tight content ship on the main channel (which is what the FCC cares most about anyway) and cut loose on sub-channels.

 

[TheBigA]

Skirting the law with questionable programs like the health and exercise or wealth-protecting shows we're seeing a lot of on noncoms is dangerous and many have been caught and fined.

Maybe you can post a list of licensees who have been fined with examples of the shows they aired. Because I looked at the FCC's list, and most of the licensees and programs were religious in nature.

Gary Null has been partnering with public radio & TV for years, and while what he and others sell may be controversial, I find no evidence that they're illegal. Here's an article from 1999 about Gary Null and Suzie Orman.

http://www.current.org/wp-content/themes/current/archive-site/mo/mo901n.html

 

[Carmine5]

Now here's an interesting loophole that some of my fellow low power TV station owners spotted. There was a recent article in RW about LPFM using HD Radio. In the course of the discussion the topic came up about using HD side channels for commercial broadcasts. The FCC confirmed that there is no prohibition on a noncom using side channels or sub-channels to air commercial content.

Using this information, we thought about NCEs and noncom television stations using their sub-channels for commercial TV. Doing a little legal fact-finding and combining it with the information in the LPFM article, it turns out that there is no legal reason why a noncom TV station couldn't lease a sub-channel to a commercial broadcaster or run a network like Jewelry TV on one of its channels. In fact, there is no legal impediment to a non-profit foundation that owns an NCE, forming a for profit media company and doing a lease back on a sub-channel.

The FCC just answered the question about NCE stations taking commercial programming on their sub or side channels. In a word, no (even though they previously said it was okay).

http://www.radioworld.com/article/no-ads-on-public-radio-hd-signals/272588