PBS is not a TV ratings powerhouse, but last weekend's premiere of Downton Abbey drew 7.9 million viewers. This isn't a huge audience, but it is four times the primetime audience that PBS enjoys on average, and it is comparable with the major networks' audiences for the same night.
PBS isn't exactly lowering its standards or reaching for mass appeal with Downton -- on the contrary, superficially it's about exactly what you'd expect a public TV drama to look and sound like. On Sunday night, though, it was about as popular as what the major networks were offering.
With the fragmenting of audiences, we may reach a point where the audience for a PBS drama like Downton is only as niche as is the audience for network sitcoms. That could mean a higher profile for public broadcasting in this country, which could attract more funding and make it a more competitive force.
A blog about media and media economics.
Showing posts with label PBS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PBS. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Airtime for Contrarians
Media Matters has some reasonable complaints about a PBS NewsHour story from last night featuring a climate change denier. Shauna Theel raises an important point, which is that creating for the public even the perception of debate is a goal of climate change denial groups.
Theel also writes:
"While PBS mentioned that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that manmade global warming is occurring, it did not reflect this consensus by giving significant airtime to Watts' contrarian views. The segment presented Watts as the counterbalance to scientists that believe in manmade global warming -- every time a statement that reflects the scientific consensus was aired, in came Watts to cast doubt in viewers' minds. As 66 percent of Americans incorrectly think that "there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening," news organizations need to be careful not to contribute to this confusion."
I'm sympathetic to this concern, but I wonder if news organizations really need to -- as a general rule -- reflect the balance of opinions in their use of sources. I think properly contextualizing fringe views is a more important objective. That way journalists can report on the activities of climate change denial groups, intelligent design proponents, etc. when those activities have news value.
Theel also writes:
"While PBS mentioned that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that manmade global warming is occurring, it did not reflect this consensus by giving significant airtime to Watts' contrarian views. The segment presented Watts as the counterbalance to scientists that believe in manmade global warming -- every time a statement that reflects the scientific consensus was aired, in came Watts to cast doubt in viewers' minds. As 66 percent of Americans incorrectly think that "there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening," news organizations need to be careful not to contribute to this confusion."
I'm sympathetic to this concern, but I wonder if news organizations really need to -- as a general rule -- reflect the balance of opinions in their use of sources. I think properly contextualizing fringe views is a more important objective. That way journalists can report on the activities of climate change denial groups, intelligent design proponents, etc. when those activities have news value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)