| mySPIN |
 UNC-TV Needs to Answer Four Questions
by Tom Campbell
May 20, 2010
Recent News and Observer reports that UNC-TV accepted approximately 0,000 from The Golden Leaf Foundation and then produced programming boasting foundation accomplishments were met with disdain. The Winston-Salem Journal ran a critical editorial which concluded by saying, “North Carolina taxpayers, and the UNC system, didn’t create UNC-TV so it could run 0,000 infomercials about publicly funded agencies.”
A memo from Director Tom Howe to the Board of Trustees of UNC-TV responded to the criticism by saying, “As to the article’s main point--that, by accepting money from Golden LEAF to do positive stories about successful efforts to combat challenges in economic development in North Carolina, UNC-TV does not meet traditional news journalism standards--what the author does not seem to realize is that we do not define ourselves as a news journalism organization. If we did, the first thing we would need to cancel is our extensive coverage of UNC-TV's primary funder--the North Carolina General Assembly.” Shannon Vickery, Director of Production for the UNC Center for Public Television, has publicly stated that UNC-TV is not a “news provider.”
Why not? As North Carolina’s only statewide television network, why shouldn’t UNC-TV provide viewers with statewide news coverage? When the nightly “North Carolina Now” was first envisioned, part of the program’s original mission was to present statewide news coverage within the show. UNC-TV’s own website reports that the “weeknightly television newsmagazine examines the most pressing issues of the day…” Doesn’t that sound like providing news?
And what is “Legislative Week in Review” if not a summary of news from the legislature? Granted, you seldom hear anything critical about legislators or the Assembly, nor will you see balanced, in-depth analysis on the show. UNC-TV receives much of its funding from the very legislature it is attempting to cover and dares not offend powerful lawmakers, as network officials learned following a televised analysis of a gubernatorial speech that resulted in instructions to ban two insightful political observers from the network.
UNC-TV’s management is trying to cloud the issue. It isn’t whether or not UNC-TV meets traditional journalistic standards but rather what standards the network does apply to programming decisions. If the manufacturers of the “Snuggly” offered to pay for a half-hour infomercial would their offer be accepted? The difference between such a proposal and the Golden Leaf episodes amounts only to a difference in degree.
When Billy Carmichael, Kay Kyzer and Bill Friday first envisioned state-owned television, the mission was to aid in the education of our people. That role has evolved with the expanded national offerings from PBS but UNC-TV has never excelled in local productions. The most popular local show on the network has been Friday’s North Carolina People, a one-on-one interview program.
With a new UNC President soon to take office, it would serve the network and our citizens well to redefine the mission, programming standards and accountability for UNC-TV. There are four questions which deserve answering. What is the mission of publicly owned television in our state? How well is UNC-TV fulfilling that mission? What governance system is needed to remove conflicts of interest? Finally, how is the best way to fund Public television? Public television is too valuable a resource to fail to serve the public, as it did with the Golden Leaf grants. |
|
