PBS viewers once again last month had to endure another
interminable “Pledge Drive” where its viewers are asked to make a contribution
to support the programming they have come to like.
Even the detractors have to admit that especially with federal support of public broadcasting being cut back, the raising of money from viewers is a necessary evil. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t a number of annoying things about these pledge drives that have drawn criticism over the years.
For one thing, some of their most appealing shows like for example, James Taylor and Carole King in concert are used to remind people that “shows like this” only appear on PBS and that they should be supported by contributions – but in reality “shows like this” almost never appear on the PBS schedule after the pledge drive programming is over.
And while it may be OK to subject people to this who have not contributed, the people who have contributed still have to suffer the endless disruptions to the normal schedule of shows.
But perhaps the biggest offender of the pledge drive is the growing use of the infomercial to raise money. Infomercials (otherwise known as program length commercials) have long been a mainstay on much of commercial TV, especially on weekends and during the middle of the night.
Infomercials on commercial TV are subject to a number of regulations and disclaimers that are there to benefit the viewer. For example, there is normally an announcement at the beginning of the infomercial that the following content is paid advertising and some channels will even point out that carrying the infomercial does not imply an endorsement of the product.
Commercials that show actors portraying users of a product or service show fine print saying “Actor Portrayal’ or something similar. Diet commercials showing the before and after pictures will usually say “Results not typical”. And the many commercials that hawk dietary supplements with claims of how they will improve your life always carry the fine print that “The FDA has not investigated these claims” along with the further clarification that the product in question is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease.
So while many viewers ignore the fine print in these ads, it
is there for viewers who choose to pay attention. But
the infomercials on PBS apparently have no such restrictions – and this
presents a problem for its viewers!
Perhaps the PBS people may deny that the diet plans and
medical advice on their program length presentations during pledge breaks are not
infomercials. But there are always the books
or DVDs or supplements to buy which benefit the presenters either financially
or at the very least with tremendous publicity for what they are promoting – so what else would you call them?
One of the infomercials that was run repeatedly was by Dr. Joel Fuhrman who advocates a diet centered on consuming the maximum amount of micronutrients. A great deal of the presentation was about the before and after photos and stories of people who have been on his diet. In addition, these productions (which are not produced by PBS) always show lots of audience close-ups with approving nods or faces in rapt attention to the speaker.
But even if these before and after stories on the people they present are true, how typical are they? There is no disclaimer that the results are not typical so we are led to presume that they are. In general, it is safe to say that the more restrictive a diet’s food choices are, the more difficult it is to stay on it. So how many people have been able to stay for any length of time on what is essentially a vegan diet that discourages both meat and dairy? In addition, the diet is said to not only promote weight loss, but there are also the claims of disease reversal and prevention.
And then there is the infomercial by Dr. Daniel Amen who
claims that by following his program that he can prevent Alzheimer’s disease!
That claim would do a better job
of getting the attention of its senior viewers more that a whole evening of
Lawrence Welk reruns!
There has been some strong criticism of Dr. Fuhrman
and Dr. Amen along
with others by physicians practicing mainstream medicine who contend that many
of the alternative medicine claims on these presentations have not been proven
by way of peer-reviewed scientific research. But that is almost beside the point! The presentations on PBS which all seem to claim
that they will change your life do not
include any of the standard precautionary restraint seen on commercial
stations’ infomercials. And indeed
during the breaks in the presentations, the presenter is in the studio to
reinforce his or her sales pitch along with the PBS studio hosts often giving what
appear to be their full throated endorsements of how great their guest is
(along with presumably what he or she is selling). No buyer beware here!
So here we have supposedly non-commercial PBS not only crossing the line into blatant commercialism, but also misleading its viewers on what they are doing. This is not a new complaint. Interestingly, PBS hired someone to serve as an ‘ombudsman’ to field viewer comments and complaints along with providing an independent critique on PBS programming and practices.
This is from More Pledge Madness by PBS ombudsman Michael Getler written back in 2009.
…it is time to repeat some of the earlier points I've made, and viewers have made, and to ask PBS in stronger terms to clarify to viewers its role in some of the productions that appear on many PBS-affiliated member stations around the country during pledge drives and that ask people to contribute to their local stations and perhaps buy products associated with these pledge programs.
And here is one of many letters in the link that have a
similar sentiment.
Please stop airing the infomercials about "Doctors" and self-help gurus selling books about how (with the help of their book) life can be so much better. These seem to always be linked to fundraising. I will not financially support PBS as long as these "educational" programs are part of the program offerings. And yes, I am one of the minority of viewers who do financially support public broadcasting. I do believe this is a question of editorial integrity.
The conclusions here are obvious. Either
PBS had better get its act together soon on reining in these infomercials or it
is going to suffer irreparable damage to its integrity and reputation. And for an organization that relies on public
donations to be able to continue on, this
could eventually prove to be fatal!
