In the course of its hearings, Carnegie II heard from writers, directors and independent producers, "who almost unanimously complained of an overly complicated structure, lack of authority to make decisions, and bureaucratic rivalry that stifled creativity." Yet by partially centralizing programming decisions--in effect limiting the pool of programs that local stations have access to--the commission seems to step backward. In the past, local stations--which produced 60 per cent of programs broadcast in 1976--were responsible for the system's best programming. "Public broadcasting," argues The Wall Street Journal, "has evolved along lines that suggest the greatest impetus for creativity comes from the local stations, where program directors are faced with the daily challenge of finding something to put on the air." National fare tended to degenerate. "At a close look," television critic and authority Les Brown has written, nationally-created programs were "marked by the intellectual prudence, the social cautions, and the feigned creative vitality that were hallmarks of commercial television in America." Successful program workshops--such as the Children's Television Workshop, responsible for both "Sesame Street" and "The Electric Company"--have supplied high-quality programs which fill a vital educational role. Disbursing funds through a central bureau might reduce support for such groups. It would no doubt, foster competition among local and national sources. What the commission labels a "useful, healthy tension" threatens to degenerate into the same type of conflicts that once plauged both CPB and PBS.

Inconsistencies and generalizations further reduce A Public Trust's credibility. The commission insists that it is important to speak in terms of public broadcasting--that is, both television and radio. But radio is quickly dismissed, despite the commission's own findings that the noncommercial sector is "disproportionately needy." Only one of the commission's original 20 members comes directly from the radio industry. While advocating a growth of radio stations in the country, the commission fails to provide the needed funds. Edward Elson and Frank Mankiewicz, chairman and president of National Public Radio, respectively, have denounced Carnegie II for its strong financial biases.

A close reading of the report also reveals contradictions. "Without leadership that is respected at the grass roots and is respectful of local processes, the system as a whole is incapable of defining its mission to serve the public," the commission notes. Is this the same group that says that in order to attract the best minds, it cannot require public financial disclosure for those nominated to serve on the Trust's board?

A PUBLIC TRUST is no doubt valuable for reintroducing the key issues facing public broadcasting today. But its solutions--obscured in page after page of tortured prose--tend to skirt the reality that advocating funding panaceas on a large scale will not change the political climate. To justify its proposals, the commission offers familiar attacks against commercial television, arguments which, though valid, do little towards establishing a workable proposal. No one should argue that public television in the United States should be put out of its misery. A practical solution might suggest concentrating on local efforts, reducing reliance on federal funds and paring down the existing bureaucracy. But pragmatism takes a back seat to idealistic visions. Says the commission:

We remember the Egyptians for their pyramids and the Greeks for their graceful stone temples. How shall Americans be remembered? As exporters of sensationalism and saliciousness? Or as builders of magical electronic tabernacles that can in an instant erase the limitations of time and geography, and make us into one people?

Carnegie II offers a dismal diagnosis. But as any responsible doctor would tell you when he recommends radical surgery, it's best to get a second opinion.