Pay for television twice? Americans don't do that

ShareThis

The Public Broadcasting Service is supported by viewers unlike me.As a subscriber to the most basic cable package available, I am a regular PBS viewer. I never miss an "American Experience." Ken Burns is my homeboy. I have seen every antique that has ever been road-shown. And it all beats the dreck on network TV.I'm also an avid, almost stereotypical public radio listener. Of my car's six presets, three feature public stations. The other three buttons aren't assigned; they never get pushed. I've long since abandoned the constant commercial of the upper dial. I recently sacrificed the "Today" show in favor of breakfast with a kitchen transistor.And while I regularly support public radio, pledging my money and even volunteering my time, I have yet to spare a single cent for PBS.Part of it, I think, is the language. You "support" a radio station. It's a dying medium, right? It needs all the bracing and mortar your money can offer. Giving cash to a television station, meanwhile, isn't "support," it's a payment. And like most Americans, I won't pay for television... twice.You see, there's a fundamental difference between paying for radio and paying for a channel on TV. And it's a recent development.Today, just as it was decades ago, you can buy a radio, plug it in, and immediately tune in to every station in range. But a new television fresh from the box, unlike its black and white predecessor, offers nothing but fuzz.Television, unlike radio, requires a subscription. In this modern digital age, with local stations scaling back the analog signal, television all but requires a monthly cable or satellite fee.Think of it in terms of another relatively new development (relative to radio, anyway) -- the Internet. The vast majority of websites are free. But unless you're stealing a signal from the neighbors, a monthly fee is necessary for a home connection. You pay for the connection, not necessarily the content. But you pay nonetheless.To pay the bills, websites simply tap the same fountain that keeps television and commercial radio afloat: The commercials.Radio has its ear-splitting auto advertisements, television gives us an unhealthy dose of pharmaceutical commercials, and the Internet has the always-moving, forever-flashing pop-ups, pop-unders, and page-obscuring propositions.Content without commercials, then, almost guarantees an audience. The popularity of Public Radio has surged and Google has destroyed its competition with a clean and (mostly) unobtrusive approach. Yet public television languishes, threatened by cuts in government funding, earning poorer Nielsen ratings than the average daytime soap.The average American can't get past the idea of paying $50 to $100 a month for a few hundred channels only to donate cash in support of NOVA and Big Bird. I can't get past the idea of paying $50 for the two other channels I'd watch with full cable. Donating the difference for the channels I care about, however, actually seems like a reasonable expense.While content without commercials guarantees an audience, it doesn't necessarily guarantee viability. And as the $1,000-a-year digital television buffet becomes the norm, fewer and fewer viewers will reach that kind of conclusion.PBS, it seems, is indeed supported by viewers like me. Unfortunately, there aren't many of us left.(Ben Grabow writes for the young, the urban, and the easily amused. Contact him at thinlyread(at)gmail.com.)(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)