that is, the beginning and end of the Cultural Magazine
Taking advantage of this magazine’s hospitality, I would like to explain to all the “fans” of the local TV cultural magazine “Bolesławiecki Pegaz” how it was created.
Following the launch of cable TV, the possibility arose of creating a local programme. Practice shows that regional media are needed as a means of social communication. This is demonstrated both by the popularity of this publication, “Głos Bolesławca” (incidentally, professionally produced, in the opinion of many readers), and by the local TV programme “TLB”. Thanks to them, we can learn about matters concerning ourselves and our fellow citizens—those more or less familiar to us—and also enjoy some entertainment and a sense of participating in social life.
For the above reasons, “Bolesławiecki Pegaz”, or this and that about culture in our city—a magazine about culture created by its author—came into being. Its purpose was to comment on cultural events in the city. Created by its author, that is, made entirely from concept to execution under conditions of complete cottage-industry production, by the author of this letter, with the help of her colleague, Jurek Piasecki, who has passed away and will never film another event. For unknown reasons, his assailants deprived HIM of his life, which he devoted to filming many different events. HE is gone; the co-creator of “Pegaz” is gone. This is one of the reasons why the programme should end in its current form.
In response to the numerous questions about the material benefits of creating the programme, I can state with full responsibility that, apart from considerable stress, devoting our private time and occasional satisfaction from viewers’ positive assessments, we received nothing more. There were also critical comments about the not-quite-best picture, distorted sound and so on. We were also accused of “blocking” some information and of making the programme too short. We humbly accepted these comments and tried to correct all errors as far as our abilities allowed; but when we had to choose between showing nothing or showing an image in terrible lighting, we chose the latter. Since we had set ourselves the goal of providing broad cultural coverage, I cannot respond to the accusation that we blocked it. Finally, there was the programme’s duration—about 10 minutes. Perhaps, in fact, it was too short in view of the magazine format. However, we imposed time discipline on ourselves to keep the programme fast-paced and hold viewers’ attention throughout while including all the information. To this end, we edited everything, even lengthy interviews, which in any case found a place in a separate special edition. The regime of weekly current-affairs broadcasts was highly demanding, especially under conditions of complete “cottage-industry production” and alongside our regular professional duties. Viewers also often asked about contacting the artists who gave interviews. We always relied on their goodwill, offering no compensation in return. Negotiations varied, even when it came to recording a fragment of a performance. Generally, luck was on our side and we presented all the guests to you. I hope this compensated viewers for the less-than-wonderful technical quality.
Much has changed now. People are already working full-time at local TV, and I believe they will also produce programmes about all the cultural events in the city. A certain stage in TLB’s “crawling” has come to an end, along with the magazine’s author-driven and amateur format. The fact that this is how it should be is demonstrated, among other things, by the broadcast of the last “Pegaz”. On Sunday, the sound was missing at the point where viewers were bid farewell (probably as a result of a faulty recording). In the repeat broadcast, the sound was complete (hence, presumably, the numerous questions from viewers). I feel obliged to apologise for all these technical faults, especially to the programme’s loyal viewers. Once again, I bid you farewell, while wishing you good social communication.