Let's Talk: Open Letter to PBS, the SVOG Application Portal, and Using Social Media for Critical Communication

April 22, 2021 Angela Johnson

In this month’s Let’s Talk episode, Angela Johnson and B Crittenden discuss the BIPOC-led filmmaker collective, Beyond Inclusion, and their letter to PBS concerning its overreliance on Ken Burns to the detriment of filmmakers of color. They also cover the Small Business Association’s Shuttered Venue Operators Grant application process and the pros and cons of using social media as a communication pathway for critical information.

See this content in the original post

Resources

Transcript

[Musical intro, fades out]

Angela: Welcome to the Let's Talk series of Tech in the Arts, the podcast for the Arts Management and Technology Lab. My name is Angela Johnson, and I'm the Podcast Producer.

B: And I'm B Crittenden, the Technology and Interactive Content Manager.

Angela: Each month we review trending stories and discussions with topics such as streaming, artificial intelligence, marketing, social media, inclusion, fundraising, and much more. Our goal is to exchange ideas, bring awareness, and stay on top of the trends. In this month’s episode, we discuss the BIPOC-led filmmaker collective, Beyond Inclusion, and their letter to PBS concerning their overreliance on Ken Burns to the detriment of filmmakers of color, as well as the Small Business Association’s Shuttered Venue Relief Program application process and the pros and cons of social media as a communication pathway for critical information. Hope you enjoy!

[Musical intro, fades in]

Angela: Do you watch a lot of documentaries?

B: I enjoy a documentary.

Angela: I remember in...I want to say...oh, it was in high school when I was taking AP US History, and people told me, "Oh, just watch Ken Burns documentaries, and you'll be fine." [laughter] And I was like, "Oh, okay."

B: Yeah, in my high school, there was some, like, music appreciation class, and, like, Ken Burns' history of jazz was, like, pretty much all they did was just watch however many volumes there are. There are a ton.

Angela: Yeah, so I feel like everyone kind of knows at least of Ken Burns’ documentaries, whether from school or just in the zeitgeist. He's, like, the documentary guy.

B: Yeah.

Angela: And some filmmakers, specifically filmmakers of color, have been questioning this. And a group called Beyond Inclusion—which is a BIPOC-led collective of nonfiction makers, executives, and field-builders—recently wrote an open letter to PBS called, "A Letter to PBS from Viewers Like Us," basically explaining how they feel that Ken Burns takes up too much of PBS's broadcast time and that is essentially taking away from other filmmakers and documentary-makers, specifically people of color. But also, just in general, with Ken Burns being, like, the documentary guy, it almost is gatekeeping and making it feel like no one else is allowed to make documentaries. I had a good quote from the letter:

Your commitment to diversity of PBS is not borne out by evidence. When you program an eight-part series on Muhammad Ali by Ken Burns, what opportunity is there for a series or even a one-off film to be told by a black storyteller who may have a decidedly different view? Your Chief Programming Executive recently announced an initiative to fund the next generation of BIPOC makers, but where does that leave the current generation? This is about equitable support for BIPOC filmmakers to author their own narratives at all stages of their careers that rival the access and support seen by their white peers. Emerging filmmaker initiatives enforce the false narrative that BIPOC artists are predominantly first-timers lacking an experience. As the leader of the Public Broadcasting System, you are responsible to commit an open and sustained public dialogue. Questioning whether PBS could be doing better should not be seen as an attack, but as an opportunity for meaningful dialogue and action, and to engage BIPOC filmmakers as we try to course forward.

So, I feel like that really kind of is what they're talking about. And it's not an attack. It's not saying "Ken Burns is bad at making documentaries." But it is saying that the way that we think about the people who are currently making documentaries needs to change and the way PBS is treating the people who make documentaries needs to change because there are so many other artists and creators out there besides Ken Burns. In fact, one filmmaker who's a member of Beyond Inclusion—her name is Grace Lee—she actually made the documentary about Asian Americans and it was a five-hour documentary. She says that:

…it's not about Ken Burns. It's about this public television system living up to its mandate. On Asian Americans, we got five hours to tell 150 years of American history. Ernest Hemingway, one man, gets six hours of documentary primetime. This kind of disparity is something that I wanted to call attention to.

So, it's not just who is making documentaries, but what we're making documentaries about, and who is making those documentaries, because, not that Ken Burns can't make a good documentary about Muhammad Ali, but that's going to be very different than a documentary about Muhammad Ali that was made by a Black filmmaker.

B: There are just so many important points made in those quotes and in your explanations, because, like, no one's trying to, like, cancel Ken Burns. I think, like, not only is it thinking about, of course, who are we hiring? What creators are getting to make work and shed their own perspective on these important subjects? But also, like, the time that is allocated to these subjects, and, like, are we reducing all of Asian American history to six episodes? And is that enough time to tell that story?

Angela: Definitely.

B: Especially, as Grace Lee said, you're devoting how many episodes to one man, Ernest Hemingway, how can you reduce an entire ethnic group's history to six episodes? I'm sure she did an amazing job with what she had, but, like, thinking about how we're, like, allocating programming hours and those opportunities and whose voice is being heard, and so I'm really glad that Beyond Inclusion wrote this letter and that it's gotten some press.

Angela: Mhm. I think, well, this is a lot of what they're talking about, but it's just this idea of having, like, diversity in front of but also behind the camera. Not to bring it back to Muhammad Ali—it's good that there's a documentary about Muhammad Ali. He was an interesting guy who did a lot of important things. But, when it's constantly white people behind the camera and, like, doing all of the behind-the-scenes stuff, or the behind-the-scenes stuff that at least our culture chooses to care about, that makes it hard to break through an industry. It makes it harder to diversify any field, and it just, it's about, like, the perception of who is allowed to do a certain type of job and who thinks that they can, basically. Especially in something like documentaries, which we like to think of as objective, but nothing is objective. Everything is inherently subjective and documentaries, especially. Just because it's about real things doesn't mean that it's not going to be from a certain perspective. And it's weird that a lot of Americans are learning most of American history from the perspective of Ken Burns. Like, we should have other perspectives.

B: Even an organization like PBS, which, I don't know, I think has a reputation for being wholesome or, like, inherently, like, for the public. So it...I don't know, at least for me, I perceive it as having certain values, but are those values being lived up to in terms of their programming? So, in the current year, Ken Burns', like, documentary slate includes four hours each on Ernest Hemingway, Muhammad Ali—as we already discussed—Benjamin Franklin, and the American buffalo. And this quote says, "While bison merit 80% of the airtime afforded to Asian American history, it calls into question not only the leadership of public television, but also who gets to tell these stories and why."

Angela: It's true, and you know what? The bison can't tell their own stories. [Laughter] These other groups of people can, so we should let them.

B: I also think it's really interesting, going back to the quote that you shared at the beginning of this conversation, that they cited the emerging filmmakers program. Which is great—I don't think anyone thinks that that shouldn't be happening—but the letter also kind of highlights, what about the BIPOC filmmakers who have been working who our mid- or late-career and have been, like, working on their craft for so many years and might be looking for work? And we need to be supporting them, too. And I thought that was a good point, as well. Like, yes, all these emerging artists or emerging creator programs are fantastic, but there are a lot of people who are no longer considered emerging that also deserve to be given some opportunities.

Angela: Definitely, especially because, like, people of color, especially in the arts and especially in, like, the film industry, it generally often takes them so much longer, just because they have to work for so much longer in order to be seen as credible and to be seen as, like... like, there's a reason that Viola Davis didn't get famous until she was in her 40s. It's insane. But it's just because it just takes so much longer. So, this current generation of BIPOC filmmakers I'm sure are, like, super qualified and super talented, but it just takes so much longer. So to just say, "Well, there aren't any," or, "We have to give up on this generation and let's look to the next one" is not right and PBS should be doing more to not just highlight emerging filmmakers, which is important, but also current filmmakers who have been working for a long time in order to make things that they care about and tell important stories.

B: Very well put.

Angela: I wanted to list their demands, so to speak.

B: List those demands!

Angela: In the letter to PBS, they asked for more knowledge on several subjects, including how many hours of PBS nonfiction television had been directed or produced by BIPOC filmmakers versus white filmmakers over the past 10 years; of all spending on PBS nonfiction television over the past 10 years, what percentage has been directed or produced by BIPOC filmmakers; of the top 25 production companies that have produced the most content for PBS over the past 10 years when measured according to budget, how many of them are BIPOC-led versus white-led; and how many PBS management staff, including individual stations and major strands, are BIPOC versus white? How did these numbers compared to the numbers from 10 years ago? So, this is just also emphasizing the fact that, yes, they want change, but also they just want more transparency. And I feel like by PBS being forced to look at these numbers, maybe they can see also that there is a problem and that change does need to be made.

B: I was curious about this, so I did look into it briefly. PBS's website, they do list their representation, but it's pretty general, I'll say, and it does not compare it to 10 years ago. So they share that, as of July 31, 2020, the PBS staff is comprised of 40% Black, Indigenous, People of Color, and then from July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020, their new hires were comprised of 48% Black, Indigenous, People of Color. I guess I feel like, when I look at this, I would like a little bit more information, some more context.

Angela: The details, yeah. Mhm, and what positions are these people being hired to? Is it all entry-level? Are they interns? I want to know, do you pay them?

B: Yeah, like, do you pay these new hires?

Angela: We can talk about how internships are messed up another day, but...

B: Yeah.

Angela: Yeah, I want to know what position these people of color are being hired to. And are these significant roles? What content is this that is meeting these benchmarks, so to speak? Um, yeah, I just want to know more.

B: Mhmm, yeah. Same

Angela: I also just wanted to talk about, Ken Burns did respond to this letter. Well, he talked about this letter, anyway. And he said that he wholeheartedly supports the objective of the writers, and it's hugely important, and public television is about, like, having a commitment to inclusion and diversity. And he says, "But can we do better? Of course we can. Can PBS do better? Of course they can."

B: So, next, we wanted to talk about something that happened pretty recently, and anyone who owns or operates a performance venue might already be pretty familiar with this topic, but we are going to be talking about the U.S. Small Business Administration's recent Shuttered Venue Operators Grant, who started to take applications through their application portal last Thursday. That was April 8. However, the portal had to shut down for repairs due to technical difficulties. We wanted to talk about this because of the implications that it has for owners and operators of venues at a time when, really, a lot of places are pretty desperate for any sort of money coming through the door and it could be sort of a life-or-death situation in terms of the health of their businesses.

So, the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant, which we'll call SVOG, it has $16.25 billion dollars to administer to operators of live venues like performing arts orgs, museums, movie theaters, even zoos, and then even, like, venue promoters, theater producers, and talent reps. And, still to this moment that we're recording this on April 15, the applications remain down and there has been no word on when it will reopen. And so, organizations and business owners who spent months preparing for this very complicated application are just waiting for any word that it will reopen, and one of the main reasons why that's the case is because the funds are distributed on a first-come, first-served basis. So, they're distributed based on the order in which people apply. So, noon last Thursday, everybody was, like, sitting at their desks, waiting to submit their application, because those who apply as early as possible are going to have a better chance of getting the funds before the money runs out. So, there hasn't been any word on exactly what, like, their technical difficulties were. What applicants were encountering was either the inability to even, like, access the portal, which I assume is just because, like, so many people were trying to get on at the same time. And then people weren't able to upload their documents, which was essential to the application. And it seems like maybe some people were able to get through, because they kept the portal up for a while and then announced that they would be shutting it down for the sake of a fair chance for everybody to be able to apply.

Angela: In the year of our Lord 2021, government agencies need to invest in, like, IT. Like, it matters so much.

B: Yes. I also wanted to talk about how this case is sort of highlighting some of the interesting ways that we are now using social media to communicate about issues like this. And you can look at it from a couple different angles. One is from the agency or organization's perspective in which they're using their Twitter and their Facebook, primarily in this case, to share real time updates. And I just can't help but think about how it's great that if you're someone who's on Twitter or on Facebook, you can easily and quickly see updates from these agencies, but, like, what about the people who aren't on Twitter or on Facebook? And how are they getting communication surrounding this? Because the SBA website just kind of has their plain page that says, like, "hang on for updates." And a lot of agencies and public entities and organizations use Twitter to share information like this with their followers. But, I think it's worth noting that—this is according to the Pew Research Center—about one in five U.S. adults say they use Twitter. And maybe if you're a venue operator or you own an organization, you're going to be more likely to, like, have the ability to be connected on social media, but I just...I struggle with this idea of those platforms being the way that we're, like, sharing important information.

Angela: I hate the idea that Twitter is, like, where necessary discourse is happening. Like, I don't want that. I don't use Twitter really at all. One in five is not...like, it's a good amount of people, but it's not, like, the majority of people. And it's skewed very young, I'm sure.

B: It's skewed young, highly educated, wealthier than the general public.

Angela: Yeah, so then it's the, like, well-informed staying well-informed and the people who don't know what's going on continue to not know what's going on, and that's not good. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking advantage of the fact that there are people on social media, and communicating through social media is not a bad thing. But you have to have that information available other places.

B: I agree. And I was also reminded of Pennsylvania Unemployment Assistance has a Twitter account—just going to shout them out. It's called Unemployment PUA. The account was just created last summer, and it is the official channel of UnemploymentPUA.com. They were using Twitter to communicate a lot of updates on unemployment throughout last summer, and I don't think they're the only agency that was doing this.

Angela: Mhm.

B: I don't think it's bad that they're using that platform, but, like, when did we shift to this idea that people who are navigating unemployment, for example, should be, like, hooked into Twitter to get their updates? Why is it that that's the place that we're sharing information? I guess, like, logistically, maybe if they don't have everyone's emails, how else are they going to, like, share that information?

Angela: I also think it's weird because, like, these are private companies. Like, why is...these social media companies are not where we should learn what the government's doing, or, like, updates about unemployment. That makes no sense.

B: I guess I haven't landed on how I feel about it, because I criticize it, but I don't really have a solution.

Angela: Yeah. I mean, that is true, though, isn't it? But also, you know, like, why is there not, like, an app where you can get updates on unemployment, or something? I mean, that also is...I mean, all of it is kind of discriminating against people who don't have access to a smartphone or regular access to the internet, and that's a whole other issue.

B: Yeah. I mean, that's way bigger than this problem, and it's significant.

Angela: But, yes, in this magical world where everyone just happens to have WiFi, why do you have to learn about stuff on Facebook or Twitter? They should have apps or good websites.

B: So we’ve been talking about this in the context of communication coming from government agencies, but I think that arts and philanthropic organizations, or pretty much any organization dealing with the public, should be thinking about this in terms of their communication pathways with their target populations or their audiences—the people that they are trying to serve. What is the expectation, and what assumptions are you making? And how are you leveraging technology to reach the audience that you’re trying to serve, and who are you leaving out in the process? Maybe it’s the most efficient way, but is it the most effective way?

But another really, to me, an interesting use of social media in this case—and this is kind of looking at what we were just talking about from sort of the other side or the flip side—was how the applicants came together on social media. There's a SVOG Facebook group where a lot of the applicants join to ask each other questions about the confusing requirements of this particular program, and then, as it was happening, people were giving each other updates, people were sort of sharing opinions on the matter. It's an open group, so anyone can go look at it. But I just think, like, forums like this are helpful when you are missing information. Of course, there's always room for, like, speculation and then misinformation, as well, which is also an issue when it's not coming straight from the source. But, like, I was looking at the group and it seemed to be mostly supportive and people just trying to use each other's knowledge to comfort themselves or help each other out with the with the application, that kind of thing.

Angela: I feel like that's the internet at its best, just when it's people coming together to help each other figure out a problem.

B: Yeah, and especially through an experience like this, like, solidarity.

Angela: Yeah, it helps.

B: Knowing that you're not alone...I know there were a lot of posts I saw that were, like, "Is anyone else unable to upload documents?" So then I think it helps make you feel less, like, alone in this mess in which there's a lot at stake. So, as of April 15, the portal is still closed, and we'll be keeping an eye on it to see and hope that it opens soon and these venues are able to apply for funding ASAP.

Angela: Yeah. And if you've been going through this experience, reach out to the podcast.

B: Yeah, let us know how it's going for you.

Angela: Thanks for listening to the AMT Lab podcast. Don't forget to subscribe and to leave a comment. If you would like to learn more, go to amt-lab.org. That is A-M-T dash L-A-B .org. Or, you can email us at amtlabcmu@gmail.com. You can also follow us on Twitter at Tech in the Arts, or on Instagram, Facebook, or LinkedIn at Arts Management and Technology Lab. You can find the resources that we referenced today in the show notes. Thanks for listening. See you next time.

[Musical outro, fades in]