(Note: Frustrated by the failure of management to heed recommendations
coming out of our Community Advisory Board, I prepared the following
statement on April 10, 2003. It was forwarded by CAB Chairperson Eileen
Durkin to CAB members and Martin McLaughlin. McLaughlin reports our
doings to station management. What he says is not known. It is my belief
that he either downplays our concerns or fails to report them altogether.) 

WTTW's CAB stopped meeting upon the death of its chairman in early 2001.
Prodded by concerned outsiders who were acquainted with the law, a new
chairperson was named and, after a number of false starts, the first
meeting in well over a year was held on Wednesday, February 27, 2002. A
small number of CAB stalwarts attended. At the time it was decided that
the group would meet four times a year from 6-8:30PM. No attempt was made
to recruit new members until December 10, 2002, when management promised
to place a CAB-written appeal in both broadcast and print media. At the
same time it was decided that we would meet six times a year instead of
four. Unwilling to let matters stand, CAB regulars-and one new member who
had joined the board in October-took it upon themselves to personally
recruit activists from the local community. Four of these attended our
February 11, 2003 meeting.     
                             
The meeting of October 22, 2002 marked a turning point. It was then that
the CAB began. in earnest, to meet its responsibilities under the terms of
its mandate: that is, to provide effective public participation in WTTW's
planning and decision-making process. In all meetings subsequent we've
attempted to influence management decisions in a ariety of important areas
of concern. To no avail. Over the past five months it's become abundantly
clear that station management has no intention of listening to us. They
neither involve us in the planning process nor heed our ideas and
constructive criticism once a decision has been made. 

To a member, we believe that "Now with Bill Moyers" is the brightest
"alternative voice" Public Broadcasting has to offer. PBS's Pat Mitchell
has showered the series with praise. Yet here in Chicago "Now" is treated
like an unwanted leftover. It's often been preempted by other programming,
none of which was of crucial interest in light of rapidly unfolding events.
Any or all of these substitutions might easily have found a place elsewhere
on the weekly schedule. Quite frankly, I'm worried that "Now" may be
dropped from the schedule. We've twice heard grumbling from management
staff: first, of controversial material and, second, of low ratings. When we
remind management that the public broadcasting system was expressly created
to serve as "a forum for controversy and debate," we get blank stares. About
the ratings, we have doubts. Ratings, we point out, shouldn't matter. Public
broadcasting was never meant to be ratings driven. But even if ratings are
low, management has only themselves to blame. As we've repeatedly noted,
bounced on, off, and around the schedule, WTTW has knocked the audience for
"Now" off its feet. Adding insult to injury, they've not bothered to promote
it. 

During the recent pledge period in which "Now" was here preempted by "The
Perricone Prescription," WNET kept "Now" in the lineup. It beat every other
program-entertainment and public affairs-in the per-minute response. Bill
Moyers says he's received many letters from Chicagoans who think like us. He
believes there is a strong constituency in support of a better and more
consistent airtime for Now." Station management refuses to pay attention.

"Chicago Tonight" is at present WTTW's lone entry into the field of public
affairs programming. Recently expanded to an hour-long "newspaper" format,
it subsumes "Chicago Week in Review" and a four-times-a-week discussion show
of the same name. Both were half-hour long presentations. A frightfully small
percentage of time is devoted to issues of significant import. If and when
important issues are confronted, the coverage is, more often than not,
superficial. The reshaping of "Chicago Tonight" caught CAB members by
surprise. Some of us wondered why the CAB wasn't, early on, made aware of the
changes being planned-in order that we might participate in the planning
process. Though our after the fact response to the new format was generally
favorable, there was concern expressed regarding host Bob Sirott's experience
in matters outside the realm of popular entertainment. Our agenda for the
February 11, 2003 meeting called for a "discussion" of "Chicago Tonight" and
other public affairs programming-though producer Mike Leiderman's hour-long
presentation, which included a promotional videotape, seemed more like a
public relations pitch to many of us. A suggestion that moderators with
extensive knowledge of specialized subject matters supplant Sirott, Ponce, et
al was left hanging. Only once during the discussion did Leiderman respond
directly to criticism-when he promised to broaden coverage to include issues
of concern to our invited guests from Chicago Wilderness magazine, the
Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood Safety, and a representative from organized
labor. He's not kept his promise.  

It has been suggested that 'Chicago Tonight" incorporate a lively mix of
interviews, essays, commentary, and reviews, some of which might be produced
by talented persons out of house. It has been suggested that an audience-
friendly variety of adult as well as child-centered programs be scheduled
during the day. It has been suggested that WTTW produce its own series of
reality-based children's programs. It has been suggested that the station do a
better job of, first, identifying, then delving longer and deeper into the
social, economic, political, and environmental issues that are of concern to
viewers in the broadcast area. It has been suggested that "Bill Moyers Now" be
returned to its Friday, 9PM time slot, and that its be aired a second time on
Sunday morning, and that management enthusiastically promote it as a "must-
see" for those who are vitally concerned about the future of our country and
the world. It has been suggested that letters addressed to station management
be placed on file for us to review from time to time. Few, if any, of these
suggestions have been earnestly considered, much less adopted. 

Though we are heard, little attention is paid. If we are to function according
to Congressional and CPB mandates, our ideas must not only be seriously
considered but, as appropriate, acted upon as well. Those of us who take our
responsibilities seriously, should not long put up with the affront management
casts upon us.