For some reason, people with cogent comments on this blog's ramblings seem to not want to post them, where other people might agree. Instead, they prefer to yell at me in E-mail, where I'm free to ignore them if they want. Manila needs a better way to let you know you can comment, so I'm going to put a bit of code here that will either tell you that you can comment or show you how. (I have no idea how this will look in the RSS feed, so aggregator fans, forgive me.)

You are not logged in. To post comments on messages, Log in, or sign up if you never have. It's both cost-free and spam-free, to the best of my ability.

That said, I got a letter today from someone concerning the story Why I don't contribute to OETA. The writer has some connection to the story, and that may be why she wanted her identity concealed, but I'll post the parts of it that I can without revealing that.

I came across your article and comment... yes OETA is rich, for a very good reason which you did not mention in your article; yes, they refuse to conform to other television stations in showing minority programming (such as gay and lesbian shows or documentaries). You seemed to know a lot about OETA, PBS, and the former director Bob Allen. [identifying information redacted]

I challenge you to find out why OETA is rich. I also challenge you to find out why they don't show the programming you wish they would so you could contribute. I think you'd be surprised (and hopefully humbled). :)

And the reason they don't shows minority programming, as I like to call it, is because the public pays for the shows they see on OETA, and and naturally they get to indirectly choose what shows...in other words the majority rules when it comes to OETA programming. Oklahoma happens to be majority conservative so why does it surprise you that OETA isn't showing what Oklahomans don't want to see?

I wouldn't say that it "surprises" as much as "dismays" me. What you write in that paragraph encapsulates everything that is wrong with OETA: it is responsible to the people who donate and not to the entire population of the state of Oklahoma.

We already have six broadcast networks that let viewers indirectly choose what shows they want to see by "majority rule." The system is called the "Nielsen ratings." The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 says, upfront, that it is the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest both to "encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, which will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence, and which will constitute a source of alternative telecommunications services for all the citizens of the Nation," and to "encourage the development of programming that involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities."

It says nothing about ratings, popularity, or that only the people who can afford to pay for the programming get to choose what it is. Pay-for-play is the foundation of commercial television. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 created the CPB to help make sure that educational, informative, and controversial programming would still reach Americans even if GE (80% owners of NBC), Disney (owners of ABC), Viacom (owners of CBS and UPN), News Corp (owners of Fox), and Time Warner (owners of the WB) didn't think there was any money in it.

To this end, CPB and public television stations across the country have produced progressive programming to challenge audiences, specifically to challenge audiences in places like Oklahoma. And because that might offend donors, OETA refuses to air it. Read what I wrote again. Here's a quote from the President and CEO of PBS, again:

PBS aims to increase awareness, provide multiple viewpoints, treat complex social issues completely, provide forums for deliberation, and strengthen ties between our viewers and Web users and their communities. Others may produce content within the same genres, but programming produced for PBS must always be distinct as well as distinctive.

And what did I say about that?

Specifically, OETA has refused to air every major PBS-aired documentary or program on gay and lesbian issues, not just in the past ten years, but ever. OETA edited the highly-acclaimed miniseries version of Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City to remove the female breasts. But even the edited version showed two men kissing, so OETA refused to air it until 10PM (the equivalent of 11PM on the east and west coasts, after prime time), and still was threatened with losing half its funding from the state for doing so.

OETA hasn't made the mistake of honoring the PBS mission since.

It refuses to show the award-winning PBS gay and lesbian documentary series In the Life, nor did it show the documentary "Scouting for All" about Eagle Scout Steven Cozza's efforts to get the Boy Scouts to admit gay and atheist members. OETA would not even air Out of the Past, the documentary of 400 years of lesbian and gay history.

Why? Because OETA puts the fears and homophobia of its rich donors and supporters ahead of the PBS mission of "providing multiple viewpoints" and "treating complex social issues completely." When it comes to gay and lesbian issues - and, in fact, most progressive issues altogether - OETA goes AWOL. If it weren't for PBS series like Frontline and NOW with Bill Moyers, there'd be no progressive voices on OETA at all.

What you write, my correspondent, confirms what I said. You confirm that OETA is rich because it ignores the public broacasting mandate of diversity and refuses to show any program that might offend donors. You confirm that OETA is run just like commercial television, in that those whose voices are not backed by millions of dollars will not be heard on television.

OETA is rich because it turns the purpose of public broadcasting as upside-down as it can and still call itself "public broadcasting." OETA is rich because it made sure it wouldn't run programs giving progressive Oklahomans a voice if what they said might annoy people with deep pockets.

Your letter continues:

Sure, other PBS stations show the programs you prefer to see. How many of those PBS stations are in majority conservative areas? The people decide. It doesn't bother me or anyone else I'd guess, that you decide not to contribute financially to OETA. But when you personally slander the organization and their decisions without really finding out why, it's bothersome.

[More identifying information redacted] If you ever did actually contribute to OETA you'd know that each person gets to "vote" for programming. Again, majority rules. It's the world we live in. :)

It's not just that people who pay "vote" for programming. It's also that OETA is afraid of the big donors and lets them (and the legislature) censor programming like Tales of the City. Plus, nowhere in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 will you find the concept that public television should only air programs with which most people agree. It's to inform and educate, not to pacify and soothe.

Before public broadcasting, only people who could afford TV stations, or agreed with those who did, could get programs on the air. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 attempted to change that. OETA became rich by ignoring it, as you confirm in your letter.

The purpose of the government is neither to tell people what they want to hear, nor to make sure that the only messages aired are from those who can afford to pay for it. The purpose of government, and of public television, is to serve all of the citizens.

OETA ignores all but wealthy conservative citizens to build its bank account. You confirm this even as you berate me for pointing it out. Everyone who donates may get a "vote" in choosing programming, but it's the people who can't donate who need their voices heard in this world. The Public Television Act of 1967 tried to make that happen, and OETA frustrates it. Even worse, OETA lets wealthy donors and legislators censor views they don't like.

Contributing to such a corrupt system is to endorse it, and I won't. I know the people responsible have good intentions, and I know that some of the wealthiest donors and censors would prefer to see the whole damn thing shut down or sold off to OPUBCO or Griffin for more Kelly Ogle inanities.

The majority always works to silence minority voices. That doesn't make abandoning those voices right, or excuse those who did it. Sorry. When OETA serves the entire state, I'll support OETA.