Statement before Glenn
A. Walsh
the Board
of Directors
of WQED Multimedia:
New
Programming of Telephone: 412-561-7876
WQEX-TV 16 Electronic
Mail: < gawalsh@planetarium.cc
>
Internet
Web Site: < https://andrewcarnegie2.tripod.com/wqex
>
2007 September 27
Good evening. I am Glenn A.
Walsh of
In the Spring, I learned the
news that WQEX-TV, channel 16, would become affiliated with, yet, another
home-shopping channel. While I am glad channel 16 was not sold outright, I was
not encouraged by the comment in a March 17 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
article, attributed to WQED Multimedia President George Miles, indicating that
the only reason it was not sold is because the price offered was too low.
First of all, channel 16, as
an asset of a publicly-chartered and funded charity, is a valuable public
resource that should not be used, indefinitely, as a cash-cow simply to fund
other public assets. And, the whole idea of selling-off a valuable public asset,
such as channel 16, just to provide additional money for other public assets,
would be a very short-sighted policy that reduces the value of all public
assets to simply their monetary value at a particular moment in time.
This type of short-term
thinking will lead to the same type of problems that WQED experienced more than
a decade ago. And, if major financial problems beset this organization in the
future, then what will you sell-off?
Now, I understand that
funding has dried-up for a second educational television channel. However, with
conversion of channel 16 to a commercial license, you now have an opportunity
to find new creative ways to use channel 16 to perform your mission. Channel 16
could become an educational/commercial hybrid channel. The educational mission
could continue on channel 16 while advertising is sold to support that mission.
As channel 16 pioneered the concept of a second educational television channel
in one city, nearly 50 years ago, channel 16 could now pioneer a new concept of
how to implement a second educational television channel in the financial
realities of the 21st century. This possibility should be explored
over the next two years, during the ShopNBC contract.
In the newspaper article, Mr.
Miles also asks, "Does this market need eight channels for distribution in
the 22nd television market?” First of all, we should not be making rash
judgments that preclude options for a future WQED Board of Directors. Secondly,
I am not at all convinced that analog television will go away in two years
time.
Today, the majority of
Americans have no idea that this digital conversion is going to take place in
2009—and, how much it will cost them. Digital television is of a higher
quality. But, most Americans are quite satisfied with the quality of their
color television today. I think most people today do not think they need a
higher quality television—particularly if they have to pay for it.
The plan to subsidize this
conversion, even at more than a billion dollars, seems to be inadequate. And,
do we need something else to add to our large national debt?
When Americans begin to
realize the costs of the digital conversion, there will be an uproar—and, this
will be heard in the halls of Congress. And, Congress will respond by delaying
the conversion date.
I could be wrong, but I do
think that analog television will be with us for quite a while longer. Thus,
Thank you.
gaw