The TV Wars, Hillsborough and Pinellas

Looks like there are battles now on both sides of Tampa Bay over the proposal of county governments to eliminate public access cable channels, and in Hillsborough to eliminate funding for the educational access channel as well. In both cases, the government is favoring its own, government-run access channel.

I wrote about this in a column on July 17. Of course, broadcasting public meetings and the workings of our democracy is a good thing, but government TV often goes beyond that, and serves as a puff-piece propaganda mill, giving rosy coverage to existing elected officials. If we're cutting budgets, it seems like a prime target.

Last night, supporters of Access Pinellas asked the Pinellas County Commission to keep public access, and it was a better-than-average pitch. They even came up with their own, alternative budget proposal to keep public access going while making trims to the government station. The commissioners gave no indication of whether they were listening. In a meeting earlier this year, though, some of them said that public access was one of the first things they wanted to cut.

In the following two posts, I'm printing the text of letters addressed to the Hillsborough County Commission from Ann Goldenberg of the Tampa Educational Cable Consortium and from Louise Thompson, executive director of the Tampa Bay Community Network.

Comments

[GeorgeM]

Everywhere we look lately, there is an attempt by government to lessen, marginalize or eliminate the public's voice. It's no different in the Sunshine State where the sun does not shine on people's voices or concerns.

[David Mathews]

Does the St. Petersburg Times have an investigative journalist?

If so, I request the following investigation:

How much revenues does the St. Petersburg Times receive from 1) Home advertising, 2) auto advertising, and 3) retail advertising.

To what extent does the newspaper's dependence upon advertising impact the newspaper's reporting on the housing market, cars and consumerism?

I often find it difficult to distinguish between the journalism and the advertising in the news media. The problem is not limited to newspapers, news magazines and television news suffers from the same problem.

Since all of the news (and the associated advertising) insists that Americans must live in a perpetual state of hunger, greed and envy, I think it is easy to understand how Americans (5% of the world's population) have gotten into the unhealthy habit of consuming 25% of the world's resources and generating 25% of the world's pollution.

Imbalances of this sort (5% taking 25%) are unsustainable. Newspapers -- I would hope -- have an obligation to inform the American public about the dreadful consequences of the consumer lifestyle.

But how can the newspapers warn the public when their revenues are all derived from consumerism, greed and excess?

[Readr]

Everyone has something to say. No one will have the chance to say anything if the Hillsborough County BOCC decides to get rid of public access tv. Keep that opportunity alive for everyone. It's the "First" Amendment for a reason.

[David Mathews]

Look at Florida's potential future, perhaps a century from now:

"Huge sea level rises are coming – unless we act now" :
http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19526141.600&feedId=climate-change_rss20

( http://tinyurl.com/3e4j5p )

Pay special attention to the map of Florida:

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2614/26141602.jpg

( http://tinyurl.com/2ws5le )

Miami and St. Petersburg are lost to the ocean.

Why hasn't the St. Petersburg Times informed the public about this most terrible of tragedies? A newspaper that has existed for a century ought to possess the ability to think a century into the future.

But that is not what I find in the newspaper. "Today" is the only day that matters to the newspaper. Tomorrow matters only if there is some sort of sale or profit available to the reader.

Immediate gratification. No responsibility. Don't worry, be happy.

More than anything else, the newspaper conveys a feeling of calm optimism to its audience. Worried people don't shop, buy SUVs and look for a bigger house in the real estate section.

There is a danger that St. Petersburg will be wiped off the map within a century or two. Shouldn't this sort of knowledge inform the residents of this city? Shouldn't the government respond by ending all development along the coast and beginning the process of retreat now, while it still remains possible?

We are living in Atlantis. The oceans are coming to take away our homes, businesses and everything else we value about this place.

Why isn't the newspaper warning the public rather than whispering sweet nothings into the consumer's ears: "Buy! Buy! Buy! Greed is a fundamental American value!"

I have a feeling that Florida won't wake up until another catastrophe or two occurs. Maybe a hurricane or a flood or a global economic meltdown.

By the time the public wakes up it may very well be too late. The newspaper must inform the public now.