Why did Mississippi Public Broadcasting drop Fresh Air from its radio schedule? The blog "A Unitarian Universalist Minister in the South" set off a blogosphere chain reaction yesterday by speculating that the "recurring inappropriate content" cited by MPB Radio Director Kevin Farrell must be the show's willingness to treat homosexuals as normal people...
via currentpublicmedia.blogspot.com
Questions Remain.
Is this a case of community standards asserting their proper place in our decentralized system of public media? Or have other pressures come to bear?
If it's the former, then the public has a right to know EXACTLY how MPB made its decision to drop Fresh Air -- because by making this programming choice it is saying something to the community about their standards.
If it's the latter, then the public wants to know whether it was a principled management decision. Worst case scenario: a state legislator or big money donor leaned heavily on station management. We'd call that a case of editorial interference.
MPB's Executive Director Dr. Judith Lewis (see statement below in comments) seems to tar all Fresh Air interviews and Terry Gross in particular with failing the civic conversation. Has this been communicated to the staff at Fresh Air? Apparently not (a Fresh Air producer posted a "who us?" kind of note on the MPB Facebook page amidst a flood of angry public posts).
Dr Lewis should remember that sometimes Fresh Air is not about the lofty debates of our times, but about popular entertainers and cultural content... things that are simply interesting and timely to people. Granted the show should offer intelligent perspective.
I figure, and hope, the Fresh Air crew would ask themselves whether they've gone over a line that separates civility from coarse popularity in any of the interviews that may have sparked this action. Just discussing material of a sexual nature is not gratuitous on its face but could be deemed so if a certain decorum is not maintained. But if discourse on homosexuality is the trigger, then producers must stand up for what is surely an important discussion. Basic civil liberties may be at the core of this and civic debate would be a healthy thing.
Let's discuss what's appropriate here -- in the context of local community standards -- but with an eye on reason and fairness. And a nose for inappropriate censorship.
ShareThis
