When I worked at a major university, I reported, in part, to the #3 person in the President's office, who was VP of Public and Government Relations, so he dealt with the Beltway politics for a major (and wealthy) university. He was what I call a polite Republican. His firm belief was that PBS, et al would always survive because it was a favorite kick ball to rile the Dems up and so little money it was not worth killing. And I have read fervent support by the likes of Huckabee (senior, mind you) for the NEA. But with this new administration, no old rules apply, and even if it is kept, they are masters in media manipulation. All bets are off.
Yep, I heard the same thing from lots of people. In prior battles, there was enough "polite" and moderate Republicans to not back such cuts. But there's a whole new level of anti-public pro-privatizing ethos (from the likes of Musk, et. al.) where just the existence of a public-funded anything is a threat to their core beliefs. And they'd much rather people get their information from X and Joe Rogan.
Anthony, thanks for this writing and for the IndieWire article yesterday. When you write,"....philanthropists and donors will be too busy trying to buttress basic human rights with their money......I would expect those dollars to go straight to immigration advocacy groups, abortion funds, and Planned Parenthood rather than documentaries about them", I think you are missing what educational and impact campaigns actually do after a film is made . The films are meant to educate and strengthen the work of immigration rights groups or Planned Parenthood. And raise money for them as well. It's a virtuous cycle that works remarkably well, especially if the film is funded with soft money (foundations) and not with investors hoping to make their money back.
Pamela, I believe you're right that this virtuous cycle has worked well in the past, but my concern is that 1) the foundations are going to be overwhelmed, and 2) because of the fractured media universe we live in, there are doubts that films are the best way to strengthen the work of these groups. I am, by nature, a pessimist (with hope), so I would love to know if people like you working in the field will see family foundations maintaining their commitments to documentary film.
This piece reflects my own anxieties about the perversion or possible gutting of these agencies, and I appreciate your discussion of the need to pay attention to the media coverage we still have access to and to defend it with stalwart determination.
When I worked at a major university, I reported, in part, to the #3 person in the President's office, who was VP of Public and Government Relations, so he dealt with the Beltway politics for a major (and wealthy) university. He was what I call a polite Republican. His firm belief was that PBS, et al would always survive because it was a favorite kick ball to rile the Dems up and so little money it was not worth killing. And I have read fervent support by the likes of Huckabee (senior, mind you) for the NEA. But with this new administration, no old rules apply, and even if it is kept, they are masters in media manipulation. All bets are off.
Yep, I heard the same thing from lots of people. In prior battles, there was enough "polite" and moderate Republicans to not back such cuts. But there's a whole new level of anti-public pro-privatizing ethos (from the likes of Musk, et. al.) where just the existence of a public-funded anything is a threat to their core beliefs. And they'd much rather people get their information from X and Joe Rogan.
Anthony, thanks for this writing and for the IndieWire article yesterday. When you write,"....philanthropists and donors will be too busy trying to buttress basic human rights with their money......I would expect those dollars to go straight to immigration advocacy groups, abortion funds, and Planned Parenthood rather than documentaries about them", I think you are missing what educational and impact campaigns actually do after a film is made . The films are meant to educate and strengthen the work of immigration rights groups or Planned Parenthood. And raise money for them as well. It's a virtuous cycle that works remarkably well, especially if the film is funded with soft money (foundations) and not with investors hoping to make their money back.
Pamela, I believe you're right that this virtuous cycle has worked well in the past, but my concern is that 1) the foundations are going to be overwhelmed, and 2) because of the fractured media universe we live in, there are doubts that films are the best way to strengthen the work of these groups. I am, by nature, a pessimist (with hope), so I would love to know if people like you working in the field will see family foundations maintaining their commitments to documentary film.
This piece reflects my own anxieties about the perversion or possible gutting of these agencies, and I appreciate your discussion of the need to pay attention to the media coverage we still have access to and to defend it with stalwart determination.
Excellent piece!