Christie commission should remember why NJN was created before making recommendation

BY CARL GOLDEN

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

COMMENTARY

When New Jersey Public Television launched its first broadcast in April of 1971, it carried the hopes of a determined band of activists — including future Governor Tom Kean — who were convinced that, with its own television station, New Jersey would receive the kind of news coverage routinely denied it by major network affiliates in New York and Philadelphia.

In the 39 years since the red light went on atop the camera in a studio in a converted supermarket in a Trenton suburb, the network has endured efforts to sell it, convert it to a commercial outlet, relinquish its broadcast license altogether, or turn it over to a foundation or non-profit entity.

It's been pilloried as ideologically slanted, and its coverage of government and politics as fundamentally unfair. It occupies a unique — some say untenable — position in that it relies to some degree on state budget appropriations granted by many of the same individuals who are its outspoken critics.

Former Gov. Christie Whitman, for instance, once famously compared the network to Pravda, the government-controlled news agency in the former Soviet Union, to make her point that state funding should cease.

Its future once again is in some doubt, awaiting the findings and recommendations of a commission to study handing the operation off to a non-profit group. It was formed after Gov. Chris Christie's budget recommendation that the network's appropriation be reduced to just over one million dollars.

NJPTV — it was 10 years before it changed its name to New Jersey Network (NJN) — was created in response to the lack of television coverage of New Jersey by commercial stations in New York and Philadelphia.

At the time, supporters claimed New Jerseyans could more readily identify the Mayor of New York (John Lindsay), than the Governor of New Jersey (Bill Cahill).

Out of state television coverage in the 60's and 70's consisted pretty much of murder, mayhem, and spectacular fires. Public affairs programming or news of government and political developments was virtually non-existent.

While attention to New Jersey has increased in the intervening years, election night coverage by New York and Philadelphia stations still is confined to 60-second updates on the hour, squeezed between commercials for used car lots and discount furniture outlets.

NJN, on the other hand, provides hours of coverage, remaining on air until results are known for every race from Governor to Cape May County Surrogate. It offers analysis from academics, journalists, and party apparatchiks — some of whom are insightful and interesting; others not so much.

It was never intended that NJN compete viewer-for-viewer with its out of state counterparts; rather, it was envisioned as a niche undertaking, one to fill the need for coverage of issues which matter to New Jersey citizens and taxpayers.

Its mission hasn't changed since 1971 but differences of opinion over whether it's been successful have dogged its existence from the beginning.

The network has met its responsibility and achieved the purpose for which it was created, supporters contend, while critics respond the state shouldn't be involved in taxpayer-subsidized news gathering.

While fund raising events have produced significant capital and grants from foundations and corporations underwrite much of the programming, these efforts have always fallen short of expenses, necessitating requests for funding from the Legislature.

The sums have declined over the years as the network weaned itself from the public purse, but in times of great economic distress — such as now — opposition to spending millions in taxpayer funds to support it increases and hardens. Demands for public dollars from a shrinking pot of resources are relentless and choosing from among competing interests becomes increasingly difficult.

The rapid expansion of cable television with its bewildering array of hundreds of channels has undercut the relevancy of public television, critics claim, and as more people turn to the Internet for news, the pressure on operations like NJN will become unbearable. The print media knows all too well the ramifications of the communications revolution.

As someone who dealt with the network's reporters as a campaign spokesperson and later as press secretary to Govs. Kean and Whitman, I've had my share of disagreements with their coverage and never hesitated to express them.

Of course, I've had many similar differences with reporters for newspapers, radio stations, and television. There was never any lasting animosity generated or grudges held. NJN's reporters were every bit as professional and capable as their print and electronic colleagues.

As the study commission mulls the future of NJN, hopefully it will familiarize itself with the network's history and keep in mind the rationale which led to its creation.

Compared to the commercial stations with their news helicopters, cadre of field reporters, and vastly greater financial resources, New Jersey Network is a miniature maple in a forest of redwoods.

That's no reason, however, to cut it down. Better to water it.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton College.