Its Showtime

I was sitting around watching c-span, as I am sometimes apt to do, and I was drawn in to a fascinating debate going on in a house commitee. Apparently, the Smithsonian, which is partially publically funded and was created as a trust by the congress for the benefit of the people of the United States, (read their history) made some backroom deal with Showtime for a long term, 30 years, contract. All sorts of people are up in arms about this such as independent filmakers, historians, and Congress, because no one asked for their permission. The problem seems to be, besides the fact that this contract was made without congressional oversight, that if a filmaker wants to use the resources of the Smithsonian, they will have to compete with Showtime for the privledge to do so. (More details here) One of the groups that is concerned is PBS. They regularly make use of the Smithsonian archieves, but now, when the Smothsonian is deciding which projects to lend their resources to (this power seems to lie in the hands of the currators), they must decide between PBS, who will make a film for no profit and provide it to the public for free or Showtime, who will share the profits from the film that they show on their on-demand network.

This got me thinking. If we are all the beneficiaries of the Smithsonian trust, have we been taking advantage of the resources of this trust by watching shows on public television? I myself am a regular public radio and television listener/ viewer, but this should not be surprising, since I just admitted I was watching c-span for fun. And I know there are others like me out there. One of the arguments I heard put forward for this deal is that the people who watch public television are already more highly educated and have ready access to educational materials or resources. (This is one of those chicken/ egg questions: is the public television audience more intellegent because they cancelled cabel and watch PBS, or do intellegent people cancel cabel and watch PBS?) The argument would go that if we allow the private sector to produce educational/ historical films using the Smithsonian archeive, they will produce more entertaining and more appealing films that will appeal to an audience that is made up of mostly what I will call Cable Plus individuals (people who not only subsribe to cabel, but also the premium channels). These are entertainment consumers, but by feeding them simply a highly polished Smithsonian production, are we really bringing the trust of American Artifacts and Historical data to the People. I always doubt any project, the purpose of which is to appeal to the masses, and the idea that a private corporation is going to be making a profit off of what belongs essentially to the public trust rubs me the wrong way, even though I can admit the strong argument that such a contract will provide resources to the Smithsonian to fund further projects that would not be possible on its normal budget.

Before I go on too long, I want to add one more thing. One of the side effects of law school is that it gets you to start to look for both sides of an argument. I can see why the Smithsonian thought this was a good deal, but after looking at this issue from that perspective, I return to what my gut tells me. It is just wrong privitise our historical heritage and I have grave doubts about Showtimes production quality, although I am willing to give it a chance to see what they do with it. Cabel has failed. Have you watched a show on the History Channel lately. If you do, does it ever leave you with the feeling that they have the amazing power to produce an hour long show with only about 12 minutes of actual information. I guess that is what happens with commercials, which is the one possible saving grace with Showtime, but cabel is overpriced as it is. Who has an extra $25 a moth to get what belongs to us already.