KQED has been a cherished resource in the Bay Area since James Day and Jonathan Rice created the station on June 1, 1953, with the new station signing on, live on-air, on April 5, 1954.
I was honored to work a few feet from Jonathan Rice’s office during my years in KQED Television Programming. His vision, dedication and drive to produce award-winning, locally relevant and entertaining KQED programming, remained a significant force at the station until his retirement in 1996.
I believe that CEO Michael Islip, the current KQED Board and Community Advisory Panel (CAP) Members, plus former CEO John Boland, are all good people, who like me, want to see KQED thrive and prosper during these troubled financial times at the Bay Area’s largest, dual FCC licensed PBS/NPR station.
In my opinion, as someone who worked with the Television Programming Department budget during Jim Scalem and Nat Katzman’s era, I believe that the recent switch to a multiplatform operation (blogging, podcasting and inhouse events), plus the $94 million invested in a Campaign 21 building remodel to house new, multiplatform employee units which increased KQED staff and management payroll to 499 employees, many of whom were not engaged in broadcast production activities, made KQED too content diversified, too delivery siloed, too impersonal on air, less financially viable, and worse, less engaging to donors, viewers and listeners, who no longer saw themselves or their communities on-air, since their donations were no longer being invested in KQED’s strength, local television and radio production.
I feel that KQED was once more community engaging and socio-economically unifying within its entire Bay Area broadcast signal area, when Jonathan Rice was still connected with the station. He and other KQED Board members were regular faces in the halls of KQED. They knew staff members, were interested in supporting locally produced programming and actively fundraised and advocated for inhouse broadcast production. Those Board members were elected by KQED members, so members still had a voice in the decisions made by the KQED Board and management.
In October 27, 2006, the SFGate reported that KQED members gave up their voting rights, giving the Board full control over the station, with the Board now appointing future Board members and Community Advisory Panel representatives. In an explanation for the Board’s 1998 decision to provide the members this option, an October 5, 2006 Current article, KQED Asks Members to Give Up The Vote, stated:
“This is about money and this is about responsiveness,” Board Chair Nick Donatiello told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It’s up to the members if they want to spend this money on elections. It could buy a lot of programming.”
Mr. Donatiello was well intentioned, yet it appears to me that locally produced television and radio programming under the now self-perpetuating Board, appears to be significantly reduced.
Allegedly, KQED now produces only 6.5 hours of local television annually, having eliminated its entire professional Television production division, as well as a majority of its staff radio Journalists.
KQED’s array of purchased television content and generic, PBS-produced Pledge Breaks, in my opinion, seem impersonal, no longer reflecting the Bay Area’s unique individuals, institutions, energy or creativity.
In contrast, I feel that the quality of KQED’s past, locally produced, broadcast television programming, plus its Bay Area-centric and local celebrity-staffed Pledge Breaks, Auctions and local programming specials, effectively personalized the station, connecting viewers and listeners to on-air talent and staff members whom they recognized and enjoyed for decades, for many years after Jonathan Rice first created those successful on-air fundraising vehicles.
The multiplatform content transition, which seems to have eliminated significant television, radio and allied production and support staff, in my opinion, was not the outcome intended by Jonathan Rice and James Day, when they created KQED.
Let’s ask the KQED Board and management to hear the voice of Bay Area members and donors once again, to produce and broadcast a minimum of 60 hours of entertainment and educational, 30 and 60-minute radio and television programming inhouse, each month.
As John Boland, former CEO of KQED stated in an April 15, 2001 SFGate article, Channeling Big Money by Dan Frost, “Everybody has a TV, no matter how poor they are.” I agree. I would also add that even the poorest among us can afford a simple, antenna-based radio as well.
Blogging and podcasts have their place, yet they should not replace local television and radio production, plus on-air broadcast of that unique Bay Area information and entertainment.
More importantly, locally-produced and broadcast radio and television programming does not discriminate between Bay Area audience members.
On-air broadcast of local content is not economically exclusive, serving only those who can afford internet and cell service, plus the extremely expensive digital equipment needed to access Web-only podcasts and blogs.
I believe that a nonprofit, dual FCC licensed station like KQED, should make all content it produces available over the air waves, as John Boland suggested in 2001. Increasing locally-produced and broadcast radio and television programming at KQED would do just that.
Locally produced television and radio at KQED were once the great equalizers which united the entire Bay Area region in a shared experience, over KQED’s dual licensed FCC broadcast signals.
Let’s ask KQED to distribute all content it creates on-air, so all members receive equal access to KQED content.
When I worked at KQED the Board members were frequent faces around the station. They greeted staff, visited our departments and were very hands-on, volunteering during KQED Pledge Drives and events. During those years, KQED members could vote on the Board member whom they felt best served the interests of the station and it’s future. There was ample member to Board and Board to member communication.
Today, after the 2006 KQED member vote to eliminate member voting rights, KQED is very fortunate to have a highly capable and accomplished, self-perpetuating Board of Directors.
KQED also has an excellent and collaborative Community Advisory Panel (CAP), who advise the Board on areas of interest to their respective regions, yet it seems that they do not regularly attend Board meetings. According the Board Web page schedule, CAP members appear to only address the Board once a year in May, yet seem to have no voting rights.
Unfortunately, I am unable to find a copy of KQED Bylaws on the KQED Web site. Likewise, I am unable to locate the process by which members, donors, staff and organized labor groups, may speak at Board meetings or contact Board and CAP members.
Let’s ask the KQED Board to provide an open process where donors, members, staff, CAP and labor groups, may attend KQED Board meetings and express their views.
This seems only fair, since KQED donor and member dollars appear to be the sole support of the dual licensed station, with staff providing the support, content and engineering needed to keep the radio and television stations, plus Web content, functioning. They are the experts and should have a voice.
Better yet, let’s ask the KQED Board to expand available positions:
1) Allow KQED donors and members to elect a representative who will present their views to the Board, with support staff for that position, who will accept incoming mail and communications, then respond to viewers and listeners.
2) Allow labor-elected union leaders from SAG-AFTRA San Francisco-Northern California members and NABET 51 to hold Board seats from each organized local.
3) Allow KQED unaffiliated staff to elect a Board member who will present their views.
4) Add two Board members from Northern California NATAS leadership.
I believe, as both a former staff member and KQED member, that it’s important for KQED to have these additional Board members, who are grounded in radio and television production, journalism, on-air talent and national television organizations, plus, a regular means of communicating with donors and members by posting Board Agendas, Action items, Financial reports, Bylaws and monthly Board Minutes, online and in print.
This photo of KQED staff was taken in the early 1990’s, just after KQED moved to it’s 2601 Mariposa Street location in San Francisco.
The photo includes many of my NATAS, Emmy and Peabody award-winning colleagues who like me, worked full time at the station, yet also volunteered their time to KQED projects and productions at night and on weekends.
This image is my personal copy, which was pinned to the wall of my KQED cubicle for many years.
The Campaign 21-remodeled KQED studios neglected to include a KQED Museum to honor past employees, to display KQED staff and programming production awards, to view vintage television cameras and early sound equipment, to view award-winning past TV productions, or to display the artifacts and memorabilia of founders James Day and Jonathan Rice.
Let’s ask KQED to honor its past by creating a large KQED Museum area in house, to honor its award-winning founders, programming, talent and staff, plus their artifacts and history.
KQED has a great capacity to create television specials and documentaries about Bay Area life, culture and history, all produced inhouse, using KQED production staff.
Ironically, KQED seems to have never produced a documentary about the life and legacy of its founder, Jonathan Rice.
Likewise, KQED, to my knowledge, has never produced a documentary about its own history, featuring highlights of its inhouse produced programming over the years, plus the lives of talent, production staff and the major donors who contributed to the station’s expansion and success.
I would like to see KQED produce more documentaries:
1) Produce a documentary about the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and Earthquake Relief Concert: It’s Everybody’s Fault, the live “rockathon” produced by KQED and Bill Graham, with excerpts from musical performances during that televised event.
2) Produce a documentary about the 1906 Earthquake, including the Panama-Pacific International Exposition of 1915, constructed near what is now Fort Mason Center. The City of San Francisco sought to host the 1915 PPIE to demonstrate that the City was now safe for tourism and business investments.
3) Produce a documentary on the IPA industry in the Bay Area.
4) Produce a documentary on the history of the Presidio.
5) Produce a documentary on the history of Fort Point.
6) Produce a documentary on the life of Bill Graham and the Filmore Auditorium, plus his many fundraisers, including Live Aid, as well as the many musical performers he introduced to Bay Area audiences.
7) Produce a documentary following the distinct stages of producing a television documentary at KQED studios, from program conception, pre-production, filming, editing and promotions.
8) Produce a documentary on the plight of young working families and individuals in the Bay Area who face job insecurity from A.I. and the stream of downsizing companies, who can no longer afford to buy a home, pay off student loans or pay for child care.
9) Produce a documentary on the continued medical research occurring at UCSF, Stanford and other local educational institutions, despite the loss of Federal funding.
10) Produce a series on the early history of Bay Area native Americans, their cultures and their conditions today.
11) Produce a series on the icons of Bay Area history: the Golden Gate Bridge, the Ferry Building, Alcatraz, the Sutro Tower, BART, Fisherman’s Wharf, Pacific Heights, Lands End and the Sutro Baths, Sourdough, the Barbary Coast, the Gold Rush, Dog shows, Hawk migration, Fleet Week, Santacon, Moffatt Field, The New Almaden Mercury Mines and their importance during the Civil War, Jack London, Herb Caen, Paul Masson, the Old San Francisco Mint, etc.
12) Produce a documentary on the challenges facing Napa, Sonoma and Livermore winegrowers as young adults move from wines to IPA, with wildfires, water issues and the marijuana industry expanding into vineyard land.
Finally, produce live, inhouse Pledge Breaks around all KQED staff-produced television programming.
Feature young, local celebrities on Pledge Breaks to generate Pledge interest and enthusiasm.
Ramp up promotions for the appearance of those local celebrities weeks before inhouse-produced Pledge programs air.
Use younger staff members and young guest hosts from Bay Area music and entertainment, to host live Pledge Breaks and interview Pledge Break celebrities.
KQED can easily find funding to utilize a plan like this one, which would once again make the station more personal, more engaged with a younger Bay Area demographic, plus more widely supported by its entire on air broadcast community.