corporate creep 04.06.2006, 8:03 AM
posted by jesse wilbur
A short article in the New York Times (Friday March 31, 2006, pg. A11) reported that the Smithsonian Institution has made a deal with Showtime in the interest of gaining an "active partner in developing and distributing [documentaries and short films]." The deal creates Smithsonian Networks, which will produce documentaries and short films to be released on an on-demand cable channel. Smithsonian Networks retains the right of first refusal to "commercial documentaries that rely heavily on Smithsonian collection or staff." Ostensibly, this means that interviews with top personnel on broad topics is ok, but it may be difficult to get access to the paleobotanist to discuss the Mesozoic era. The most troubling part of this deal is that it extends to the Smithsonian's collections as well. Tom Hayden, general manager of Smithsonian Networks, said the "collections will continue to be open to researchers and makers of educational documentaries." So at least they are not trying to shut down educational uses of the these public cultural and scientific artifacts.
Except they are. The right of first refusal essentially takes the public institution and artifacts off the shelf, to be doled out only on approval. "A filmmaker who does not agree to grant Smithsonian Networks the rights to the film could be denied access to the Smithsonian's public collections and experts." Additionally, the qualifications for access are ill-defined: if you are making a commercial film, which may also be a rich educational resource, well, who knows if they'll let you in. This is a blatant example of the corporatization of our public culture, and one that frankly seems hard to comprehend. From the Smithsonian's mission statement:
The Smithsonian is committed to enlarging our shared understanding of the mosaic that is our national identity by providing authoritative experiences that connect us to our history and our heritage as Americans and to promoting innovation, research and discovery in science.
Hayden stated the reason for forming Smithsonian Networks is to "provide filmmakers with an attractive platform on which to display their work." Yet, it was clearly stated by Linda St. Thomas, a spokeswoman for the Smithsonian, "if you are doing a one-hour program on forensic anthropology and the history of human bones, that would be competing with ourselves, because that is the kind of program we will be doing with Showtime On Demand." Filmmakers are not happy, and this seems like the opposite of "enlarging our shared understanding." It must have been quite a coup for Showtime to end up with stewardship of one of America's treasured archives.
The application of corporate control over public resources follows the long-running trend towards privatization that began in the 80's. Privatization assumes that the market, measured by profit and share price, provides an accurate barometer of success. But the corporate mentality towards profit doesn't necessarily serve the best interest of the public. In "Censoring Culture: Contemporary Threats to Free Expression" (New Press, 2006), an essay by André Schiffrin outlines the effects that market orientation has had on the publishing industry:
As one publishing house after another has been taken over by conglomerates, the owners insist that their new book arm bring in the kind off revenue their newspapers, cable television networks, and films do....
To meet these new expectations, publishers drastically change the nature of what they publish. In a recent article, the New York Times focused on the degree to which large film companies are now putting out books through their publishing subsidiaries, so as to cash in on movie tie-ins.
The big publishing houses have edged away from variety and moved towards best-sellers. Books, traditionally the movers of big ideas (not necessarily profitable ones), have been homogenized. It's likely that what comes out of the Smithsonian Networks will have high production values. This is definitely a good thing. But it also seems likely that the burden of the bottom line will inevitably drag the films down from a public education role to that of entertainment. The agreement may keep some independent documentaries from being created; at the very least it will have a chilling effect on the production of new films. But in a way it's understandable. This deal comes at a time of financial hardship for the Smithsonian. I'm not sure why the Smithsonian didn't try to work out some other method of revenue sharing with filmmakers, but I am sure that Showtime is underwriting a good part of this venture with the Smithsonian. The rest, of course, is coming from taxpayers. By some twist of profiteering logic, we are paying twice: once to have our resources taken away, and then again to have them delivered, on demand. Ironic. Painfully, heartbreakingly so.
Sally on April 21, 2006 1:52 PM:
Yesterday's NCH Washington Newsletter included an article to help appreciate the stink of this deal...
GROUNDSWELL BUILDS IN OPPOSITION TO SMITHSONIAN "SHOWTIME" DEAL
bach on May 29, 2006 10:51 AM:
The filmakers and academics have been just too polite in protesting what is essentially a revisionist history and censorship scheme. They're scared of retaliation, especially if congress does not slap this dangerous nonsense down.
But, there is something you can do about it. Right now, pick up the phone, call your cable or sat co. and CANCEL SHOWTIME. Tell them why. Then email showtime and Smithsonian and say you'll reconsider when the deal is dissolved, and every employee who had a part in it is FIRED.
Good ol' American greed and self interest will kick in, and when the politicos and Sumner Redstone see falling numbers and a sinking bottom line, the problem will be solved--for now.
Let your elected representatives know what you want On Demand is competent management and leadership at Smithsonian---which includes fair and reasonable pricing which charges PBS, Burns,Moore etc. an access fee plus royalty, but provides almost free use to scholars. students and "labor of love" videomakers. Such contracts should call for additional payment if the result "takes off" and makes money. The smithsonian staff should have no authority to play favorites or deny any artist use of the material.
Bad things happen when good people do nothing!
bowerbird on January 18, 2007 4:34 PM:
yet another bad deal has been done: