Unfortunately, there are lots of CEOs out there with a similar mindset: make a mark, make a name for myself, never mind the history or the “little people.” Boards do a great disservice to their nonprofit organizations when they hire “hero” CEOs rather than public servants.

As for your CNN comments — I’m completely with you. That channel, and so many others, do not have relevant media to share with me except on rare instances. And when said media is worthy of my attention (and the attention of millions of others), then it’s guaranteed to be available on multiple platforms — including the web.

I’ve recently started using Netflix streaming to my iPad. That plus rental DVDs, purchased DVDs, gaming, social media and so forth… I don’t need traditional TV any longer. PBS should strike deals with Netflix, setup 4 national cable channels (a la C-SPAN) and let the stations figure out what they want to do to survive (hopefully focus locally).

There may be more of a core issue than the poor scheduling and elitist programming. Namely, the increasing irrelevance of television to lifestyle choices. Television is becoming the Farmville of the airways. I didn’t stop watching PBS directly. I stopped watching cable altogether.

I remember very specifically when I turned cable off. It was about six years ago when CNN’s hottest story was a warehouse fire in West Virginia. Nobody was hurt. There was just a big fire, and CNN covered it live – every ten minutes for an hour an a half.

As someone living in Alaska, a warehouse fire in West Virginia does not warrant ten seconds of my time. That was the precise moment that I called to have the cable removed. I have never missed not having it. My point is that it is not just PBS that has a viewer problem. PBS is a cable channel, or a network channel. Interruption broadcasting, whether it is commercials or regular, irrelevant programming is something that has become increasingly easy to filter out.

While reviewing some of the research about reading habits on social media two numbers struck me. First, the average time a viewer spends on a headline is 1.57 seconds. If a person actually clicks on the headline, the average time spent reading the article is 5.2 seconds. This is dynamic filtering. It is relevance focused filtering.

When I do watch PBS it is shows I select, at times I select, about content that is relevant. I watch PBS programs on the computer. If PBS wants be begin to take steps to get through the relevance filters it could start with making archived content available at a central location that gathered content from PBS stations nation-wide. The issue is consumer choice. I don’t think that PBS gets that at all.

I sure do like watching some of the content though – when I feel like it.

I think the kids programming on PBS is probably the most important part of what PBS does today, and it’s the best work done for the network as a whole. Frontline and the NewsHour are also important, but only Frontline really illuminates public affairs issues well, because it’s got a longer production cycle where shooters and editors can get at the story without the he-said-she-said nonsense the guests often bring to the NewsHour.

And don’t get me started on pledge programming!

One part of your comment really stuck out for me: “Does PBS have core values similar to that of public radio? If so, where are they? And, are they being implemented?” I think PBS has some overlapping core values with NPR, but PBS has SO MANY core values that they can’t do any of them well. PBS needs a mission and operations reboot, from the stations to the network and back again. NPR at least has the news focus as a primary mission. They also have some mission creep issues, but so far they’ve been able to stay close enough to news to retain a clear core purpose.

I just wish people would talk more openly about the problems the stations and the network face and would consider more radical models for going forward. There’s a need for public service television in the 21st century, but PBS is not fulfilling that need consistently right now.

As someone who has worked in public radio my entire career, currently I watch more public television than I’ve done in previous years. Part of that is because I don’t have cable or satellite. But part of it is also because I now get two additional digital channels as well.

As a father of two, I trust PBS in their children’s programming. Personally, I could watch the always-charming Ruff Ruffman everyday and not get sick of it. Occasionally we all watch something on Nature, American Experience, Antiques Roadshow, History Detectives or even a cooking show. I’ll watch Frontiline and the occasional special as well. Ken Burns could make a 10-part series on the history of cement and I’d watch it.

So for me, the question is will program XX contribute to making PBS indispensable? Some programs, yes. Other programs not so much Due I believe to competition, but also I sense an overriding feeling of “we’ve always done it this way”. There are hundreds of programs out there — some legacy, some not. But, my point is that some just don’t belong on public television anymore. Does PBS have core values similar to that of public radio? If so, where are they? And, are they being implemented?

Not only that, but program schedules can be so erratic, who knows if a core PBS program will be on at the same time week after week.

Don’t even get me started on the pledge drives where we see programs (such as it were) that we never see during any other time of the year. So say these programs fall short of making PBS indispensable, is being generous at best. Just once, I’d like to know the facts of what it takes to get Frontline on the air. Also, having lived in 5 states, I can tell you that the look and feel of some local PBS affiliates just doesn’t match that of the network. The little stuff — promos and station ID’s – it actually matters what they look like.

Julie

As for TV watching, I have to admit I don’t watch much TV these days. I’ve even tried to, but it doesn’t fit in with my lifestyle and preferred pursuits. I enjoy interacting with folks — like you, for example! — via online means rather than passively take in TV programming.

That said, I do see a lot of video. Via Hulu, DVD, Netflix streaming and so forth.

As for PBS’ content, I think it’s pretty good on the whole. But the programming is terrible. As in, the shows are okay, but the video streams coming from stations via broadcast are intolerable. One minute it’s science, the next it’s investigative journalism, the next it’s a kid’s cartoon, the next it’s cooking and then home improvement and then mysteries, opera and so forth. It’s the Russian roulette of TV channels.

Since the death of “appointment television” several years back (for me, at least), I don’t know when shows are “on” or not. So the PBS schedule is irritating at best. I’m better off tuning in to Animal Planet. At least then I know what I’ll get (animals).

Based on this and other factors, I’ve learned one thing recently: I will never again work for a pure-play public television station. Dual-licensees are fine, but pure TV is not my game.

But I too have met many PBS folks who proudly claim they don’t own a TV or that they don’t watch much. And my answer has always been why? Imagine the author who proclaimed that he/she never read or not very much. Or the composer who said he/she never listened to music or not very much. If you don’t watch television how do you compare the competition? Better yet, how do you make your original content watchable?

The issue of leadership within the station is always difficult to address. One reason is for many of us we are far too close to the forest to see the trees. But perhaps more important, if you as an employee don’t like the leadership or the direction the station is going, leave; find new pastures. I say this because that is what I have done in the past.

Mr. Toperoff’s complaints may be valid. But from my perspective, when you stay at one place for so many years you fail to challenge yourself. Instead you get into a routine that become comfortable. And you resist change when it happens along or point the finger at the “leadership” for failing to initiate change. All the while the challenge of change rest within you. Change is difficult – it is difficult to accept and it is difficult to make happen. So how do we fix the situation? Take a page from Nike – Just Do It!

Measurement is another matter. Although there are lots of measurement ideas out there, I don’t think any of them are yet “definitive” in the way that an Arbitron or Nielsen report are considered definitive (even though they actually aren’t either, but they’re accepted as the coin of the realm). You’ve got both a qualitative and quantitative measurement problem here, as even small open systems can have big impacts and very large open systems can have small impacts. A small open system I worked on in Alaska made a huge difference to a family that lost their home to arson. A large open system like YouTube has many different impacts, making some people rich, while also doing nothing for millions more.

For me, measurement is pretty subjective at this point. It’s cultural. It would be a pubcasting CEO that says, “What do folks on Facebook think we should do with our second HD Radio stream?” It would be a News Director that makes all editorial meetings fully open to the public via live webcast and podcast and in-house visitors. It would be the creation, hosting and development of a public media social network of 1,000 true fans that not only give money to a station but are actively engaging with one another over important community topics, news, events and so forth.

After that, then I’d also want to see web metrics of the normal kind: analytics reports, social media traffic patterns, etc.

In any case, I think Ifill’s thin-skinness is on par for elites that are questioned by anyone — including other elites — that aren’t from inside the Washington game.

I guess when you’re a famous talking head, you don’t need to talk to the little people.

You mention the changes at NewsHour — that’s a perfect comparison. Whereas Washington Week is the same as it ever was, the NewsHour is experimenting fairly well. It’s still stodgy and snoozy for the most part, and it’s too cozy with the elites itself, but they’re not sitting still. And their web work is very good.

Thanks for the comment.

Gwen, you should be a professional and learn from accurate criticism.

Sorry to hear about the job..

Those that are able to learn from lifes lessons go on to be stronger..
Those that don’t, get bashed on the head until they do or die..!

The fact that you were able to take away from it shows the strength of your character..

Best of luck to you!

I also think the audience is perfectly willing to accept lower levels of set quality and even video quality (hello, YouTube!) if the content presented is relatively meaningful / useful to the viewer. More news from your community that’s relevant to you, your family, etc. would be something worth watching, even at lower resolution, even without fancy HD sets in fancy studios.

As for 18-minute pieces, I am thankful there’s somewhere such things can be done, but I don’t remember any piece from the pilot show that was worthy of 18 minutes. The reporting on the oil spill was basic, non-revelatory stuff with obvious quotes. The piece on the pill was worth 3 minutes, tops. The interviews were either pandering (Clinton) or too short/narrow/devoid of content (oil spill) to be useful to viewers in any palpable way.

I’ll take a series of 8-12 short pieces per hour from all over the country shot by VJs with a little lower technical quality over what we got in the NTK first outing. However, I’d use crews of 2 people rather than single VJs to do the work.

I think Rosenblum’s VJ math is best applied to the likes of CBS, who agreed to pay astronomical fees to Katie Couric — one of the lightest lightweights to sit at the helm of a national news program. Those tens of millions could have launched a fleet of VJ or VJ-lite journalists across the country.

As for 60 Minutes, that’s no longer an amazing program. Frontline does great work, but as a once-a-week series with long production lead times, it has limited impact and is not scaled to the needs of communities.

In any case, thanks for the comments. Rosenblum consistenly gives us a lot to think about. By no means should we take the advice verbatim, but then that goes for anyone out there.

But in practice the VJ model always ends up being a cost-cutting measure that reduces the quality of content.

I think that the thing that Need To Know got right was they gave a talented story-teller like Jon Larson 18 minutes of air-time to tell a story. That’s not happening many other places on television. They deserve credit for that.

Also, there is nothing wrong with spending money on a set. If they had shot it Rosenblum’s basement it would have looked unprofessional and they would have been endlessly criticized for it.

The only point on which I agree with Rosenblum is that more money should be spent on the journalism.
If you want a really amazing program you find a lot of really talented journalists (both reporters and editors), you pay them a decent wage and you give them plenty of time and legal support. That’s how 60 Minutes and Frontline do it.

Rosenblum’s assertion that ever greater amounts of quality journalism can be pumped out at half the cost in a fraction of the time because cameras don’t cost as much any more is flawed.

Oh yeah. And “Citizen Journalism” is a lame concept that is constantly executed poorly because news executives think its a way to get something for free when in reality they’re inviting an inconsistent flow of content that barely be called as such.

There’s a great book by Howard Rheingold called “Tools for Thought” in which the author chronicles the crazy people who invented personal computing. The emergence of a general-purpose computer the size of a notebook is not a trivial development, it is revolutionary. In fact a “commonplace” laptop with video editing software is a better tool for media creation and storytelling than the best-equipped TV station 20 years ago. We fail to appreciate the implications of this at our own peril.