Jackie Trescott writes that confusion reigns over Smithsonian on Demand, the joint project by which Showtime pays the Smithsonian for rights of refusal to archival materials. Curiously, the her editors gave her story the headline, "Smithsonian Deal With Showtime Passes Muster." But as far as I can tell, "The Smithsonian Institution's controversial partnership with Showtime Networks has not hampered researchers' access to Smithsonian materials" so far.
Here's the kicker:
[T]he GAO found the Smithsonian received 117 requests for filming after the contract was in place and rejected only two.That doesn't sound like a clear bill of health to me, but it's all hard to say, since details of the contract haven't been made public. We're able to gloss some details from Trescott's report:GAO said its evaluation of the contract's impact was hampered by the "incomplete data and oversimplified criteria" provided by the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian says its paperwork was created for a different purpose.
Some details of the contract were made public by Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence M. Small at a congressional oversight hearing in May. Small said the Smithsonian signed a rare 30-year contract with Showtime and that it would receive $500,000 a year if the deal is successful. The contract allowed the Smithsonian to create six shows a year with non-Showtime filmmakers.What are the metrics of success for subscription-cable documentaries? What are the implications of success on documentaries? The fact that the infant agreement has not yet hampered a non-Showtime documentarian does not seem like much of a recommendation for the program. Especially since greater visibility to Smithsonian documentaries will mean more requests, and if I understand correctly, more rejections.
I'm considering several degrees of outrage. I don't yet understand the commitment that the Smithsonian has to Showtime, so I don't know what's appropriate. The documentary on the cloudy leopard sounds cool, so I'm slightly outraged about not having Showtime.
Posted by Kriston at December 26, 2006 7:15 PMI haven't been following this closely, but the AHA has and it looks like things are a bit better than they were, but still unclear.
Posted by: eb at December 26, 2006 8:35 PMI'd have to look into it to be sure, but I'm thinking the contract would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, no?
Posted by: Deepak at December 27, 2006 6:11 PMWhile we're discussing Secretary Larry Small's Smithsonian follies, don't forget about the Arts and Industries Building.
It's sitting empty. Maintenance is minimal. The roof is structurally unsound. A heavy snow could cause a collapse. It appears as if Small has decided it will cost too much to preserve this architectural marvel -- and the price rises ever higher as maintenance falls.
The first Smithsonian Museum, Cluss' masterpiece, stands empty and atrophies while corporations raise barriers to public access to public archives.
Welcome to Larry Small's Smithsonian Institution.
Posted by: b at December 30, 2006 10:19 AM