[HN Gopher] The Push for a "PBS for the Internet"
___________________________________________________________________
The Push for a "PBS for the Internet"
Author : starkd
Score : 347 points
Date : 2021-08-02 15:16 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.axios.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com)
| 5faulker wrote:
| Isn't the Internet slowly moving towards that direction anyway?
| dotcommand wrote:
| Pushed by whom? The German Marshall Fund? Oh a state think tank.
|
| Why? "way to shift the power dynamics in today's information
| wars." So PBS, NPR, etc were originally created to participate in
| information wars. Sort of like government funded propaganda? Is
| that what she is implying here?
|
| "constraining Big Tech platforms' amplification of harmful or
| false information." That's strange. Because Big Tech platforms
| amply authoritative sources - which most likely includes PBS.
|
| https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/the-four-rs-of-responsib...
|
| I'm all for more competition. More options. It isn't healthy that
| we have such concentration of power in a few "algorithms". Not
| sure the "PBS of the Internet" will challenge it no more than
| C-SPAN challenged cable news.
| zdw wrote:
| Historically we had public access to the cable network as a part
| of the cable act of 1984 - in the 80's and 90's there was a
| concept of PEG - Public, Educational, and Governmental TV
| channels that the Cable company had to carry as a part of being
| able to put lines in the ground.
|
| https://www.fcc.gov/media/public-educational-and-governmenta...
|
| The distribution side of this was made mostly irrelevant by on-
| demand services like YouTube - where it still exists it's mostly
| videography training, or making other local content, with a few
| channels still playing tapes.
| Mizza wrote:
| But PBS is already on the internet..
|
| I love public media and have worked in the public media industry,
| and what I think what we really need is PBS for conservatives.
|
| Can you name a _single_ conservative PBS/NPR host or program? Was
| there a _single_ time in the past 5 years they gave any
| legitimate consideration to the viewpoints that 50% of the
| country hold, or acknowledged the material conflict underlying
| their ideology?
|
| It's no wonder that a) Republicans are constantly pushing to cut
| public media funding and, more worryingly, b) that conservative-
| minded people end up going down the Alex Jones/QAnon/Alt-
| Right/Whatever rabbit hole, due to the total void of any rational
| discussion or intelligent and honest media leadership for the
| conservative and working classes.
| crazy_horse wrote:
| Their history shows tend to only be political if you perceive
| different viewpoints as political slant. The hosts undoubtedly
| are liberal elites, but I think they strive for objectivity
| more than most media.
| yetipetty wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program)
| ewhanley wrote:
| I am admittedly a big fan of PBS, so maybe I'm blind to it, but
| I don't see the bias. I can't name a single conservative show,
| I suppose, but I can't name a single liberal show either. News
| and televisions don't have to have a political slant. I think
| we are all (in the US) too accustomed to opinionated news
| programming and are left searching for the bias when presented
| with plain information.
|
| PBS presents a lot of history and art. I wouldn't consider
| either of these politically charged in their presentation.
| Again, maybe I'm just missing it, but I watch a lot of PBS
| programming.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >I can't name a single conservative show, I suppose,
|
| Firing Line[0]
|
| >but I can't name a single liberal show either.
|
| Frontline[1]
|
| The thing is that William F. Buckley, Jr. (who originated
| Firing Line), were he alive today, would be demonized as a
| RINO and closet socialist by those who claim the mantle of
| "conservative" today.
|
| Mostly because those who claim to be "conservative" aren't.
| Rather, many (not all) are radical reactionaries and not at
| all conservative.
|
| Feel free to disagree, but if you look at the policies and
| priorities of such conservatives as Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan
| and both Bushes, the only policy priorities that have been
| retained by those who _currently_ claim to be conservative
| are support for big business, hatred of anything non-white,
| and bible-thumping morons.
|
| Everything else (small government, individual rights/liberty,
| equal opportunity, etc.) have fallen by the wayside.
|
| Feel free to disagree. Or don't and take the easy way out.
| But there's a reasonable and reasoned discussion to be had in
| that space. If you don't participate in that, the loss is
| yours.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(American_TV_prog
| ram...
| Wolfenstein98k wrote:
| When half of politics calls something biased against them,
| but you watch it and think it's fine, you're on the other
| half of politics.
|
| Which is fine, btw. Just worth knowing.
| libhack-hn wrote:
| PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political
| Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw
| Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back
| in office 2020.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
| technofiend wrote:
| NPR already airs opposing viewpoints regularly. I've heard them
| interview Republican senators and conservative commentators
| many times this year right alongside with people on the other
| side of the aisle.
|
| If you mean NPR needs to carve out some time dedicated to a
| particular political view, then perhaps your perception of them
| is the rest of the time they present an opposite view? In these
| highly politicized times perhaps it seems that way since people
| have trouble agreeing on things that are widely accepted and
| based on science, as one example. So any news that presents
| that as fact will naturally be dismissed as biased by anyone
| who disagrees. Personally I don't think it's really incumbent
| upon NPR to create more air time for that kind of disagreement;
| they should stick with the facts. People who disagree with
| fact-based journalism already have many other outlets and are
| (IHMO) disinclined to seek out anything that will challenge
| their views.
|
| Even so I daresay if someone _is_ on a journey to find and
| listen to opposing viewpoints, the person who finds NPR to be a
| bastion of liberal values would be far more challenged by
| listening to Pacifica. If someone wants to really hear
| viewpoints left of center, they should try listening to
| Democracy Now for a week.
| Mizza wrote:
| Maybe some of this is regional. I listen to WNYC from New
| York and WHYY from Philadelphia, maybe the coverage is
| different in other regions.
|
| To give some examples, Bob Garfield and Brian Lehrer were
| openly hostile towards Trump in such a way to disparage all
| of the people who voted for him, which was half of the
| country. Now, this isn't actually the thing I have a problem
| with, and I think I actually prefer it when hosts wear their
| hearts on their sleeves. But, you could never find the level
| of distain of Obama for his drone strikes, surveillance and
| massive wealth transfers to the rich that you could find of
| Trump for his racist demeanor, xenophobic immigration
| policies and massive wealth transfers to the rich.
|
| A lot of my opinion is from working on the inside. Public
| media in the US, at least in the urban areas where I worked,
| is staffed _exclusively_ by Warren-type Democrats. They
| really believe that there is a correct view of the world, and
| that it is to be socially liberal and economically
| conservative - manifest through complex policy. Any other
| opinions - notably Bernie-ism or Trump-ism, are populist and
| to be dismissed as unserious.
| setpatchaddress wrote:
| Utter total fucking bullshit.
|
| (a) You seem to be under the impression that Republicans would
| sit still for a reasonable network with "conservative" opinion
| viewpoints. (That was the original Fox News pitch.) What makes
| you think so? How does that network avoid turning into Fox News
| over time? The outrage and fear mongering is why Fox News gets
| massive ratings.
|
| (b) You seem to believe the 'the media is liberal' trope, and
| that's wrong. It's always been wrong. Can you name an example?
| For fuck's sake, the press is largely responsible for
| depressing Gore's turnout in 2000, and Dukakis's in 1988.
| (Respectively, the crimes were being boring and looking goofy
| in a helmet. They made fun of them on the air, during
| ostensible news programs.) What exactly do you think
| conservatives actually wanted that they weren't getting from
| the newscasts at the time? I don't think the anchors lead with
| "Heil Satan" on NBC Nightly News.
|
| (c) Yes, Fox News is still a huge problem.
| https://jabberwocking.com/yes-fox-news-deserves-the-blame-fo...
| for a discussion.
|
| (d) Fox News and the myth of the liberal media both exist
| because Richard Nixon and his followers were unable to take
| legitimate criticism. https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-
| news/why-fox-news-exists
| Mizza wrote:
| I don't think this comment really needs to be addressed, but
| since you're making my point for me: public media doesn't
| need to chase ratings, and thus doesn't need to chase
| outrage, allowing for more nuanced and in-depth reporting.
| CamTin wrote:
| If you don't chase ratings, you're not chasing viewers, and
| you're not having much impact on discourse. The current
| toxic sludge of cable news sprouted up decades after public
| broadcasting had been around.
| methodin wrote:
| Why is having an impact on discourse important? It should
| not be the job of any media to alter arguments,
| viewpoints etc... it's job is to provide the facts for
| people to make their own opinions. The fact that we think
| media should be able to shape opinion is really the main
| problem here. Cable news chases profits and profits come
| from viewership which gets us into that negative feedback
| loop. Take away money and a lot of problems disappear.
| CamTin wrote:
| Why bother to exist at all (besides profiting) if nobody
| is changing their actions based on the reporting or
| programming you provide?
|
| It's a fantasy that there was ever objective reporting,
| or that NPR/PBS was ever capable of producing it. All
| news media is propaganda and always has been. Even
| "liberal" outlets like NPR News spout extremely right
| wing, reactionary, pro-capital viewpoints while they
| pretend to dig deep for objective truth.
|
| Smart political actors and media types have woken up to
| the fact that there isn't much value in pretending to be
| "fair and balanced" anymore. This is the reason why
| middle class people who think of themselves as centrists
| (meaning that they had accepted the liberal consensus
| which dominated popular media for decades) have begun
| decrying "polarization."
|
| Moving beyond news content though, PBS also makes
| entertainment content. What does it mean to have a
| factual/objective version of /Arthur/? Do we need
| political officers in PBS Kids storyboarding sessions to
| make sure left wing concepts like sharing or feminism
| aren't accidentally introduced to the population?
| 0des wrote:
| I hope some day the internet isn't separated by political
| factions, it's a much bigger place than just the American
| political system.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| Yup, this article is pretty hilarious and is just another
| example of how mainstream media continues to stick their noses
| up at _any_ consideration of alternative viewpoints. PBS has
| largely followed the herd and has become yet another liberal
| lifestyle outlet that caters only to their liberal audience.
| How about we fix _that_ first before talking about something
| else?
| duxup wrote:
| What I find strange is that the only media outlets that
| actually cover local rural topics in detail is my local NPR
| station.
|
| Often they're lumped together as "yet another liberal" with
| PBS .... but they're more and more often the only ones
| covering those ares / giving voice to folks out there media
| wise.
| kaliali wrote:
| PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political
| Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw
| Molotov cocktails if Trump got back in office 2020.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
| AnonymousOne wrote:
| ^Low-quality comment.
|
| PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased source
| of information. You think it's a "liberal lifestyle outlet",
| but what evidence do you have to support this claim? What is
| your unbiased alternative?
|
| Maybe you should watch this series ... https://www.youtube.co
| m/watch?v=L4aNmdL3Hr0&list=PL8dPuuaLjX...
| toomim wrote:
| > PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased
| source of information.
|
| Not quite -- PBS is rated _reliable_ but _biased left_ :
| https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
| bloaf wrote:
| Studies that looked at bias in the media found PBS to be the
| most centrist of the major news organizations. People on the
| extremes of the political spectrum see PBS as biased against
| them, as they would any centrist organization.
| kristopolous wrote:
| Centrism is also an ideology
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
| toomim wrote:
| Actually, PBS skews left in the adfontes study, which is
| the most detailed one I know:
| https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
| Mizza wrote:
| Wow, this chart perfectly illustrates my original point.
| There is a great gaping hole in the upper right of that
| graph - there is no high-quality, right-skewed news, even
| though this is where I would assume just over half of the
| bulk of Americans would actually place their political
| beliefs. There's nothing of significance in between the
| Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, after which
| there is a steep cliff towards Breitbart and all of the
| horrors that come after it.
| libhack-hn wrote:
| PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political
| Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw
| Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back
| in office 2020.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
| l33t2328 wrote:
| Why are you copy pasting this comment everywhere?
| tekromancr wrote:
| It's almost like Alex Jones/qanon/alt-right/whatever are the
| logical conclusions of the conservative ideology.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| There is no " _the_ conservative ideology" - unless you
| define the phrase in a way that makes your statement a
| tautology.
| Mizza wrote:
| It would be equally as foolish to say the logical conclusion
| of liberalism is Stalinism. The underlying fallacy is the
| idea that politics has any conclusions at all.
| d6ba56c039d9 wrote:
| > The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any
| conclusions at all.
|
| I'd say that there are certain flavors of political thought
| that have an unfolding utopia built into them. With enough
| of XXXism, an optimal state is reached.
|
| It's an exercise for the reader to determine which sorts of
| philosophy of human organization have that notion built-in.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Either your vagueness is intended to make the point that
| "both sides are just as bad as each other" (which is
| unhelpful because there are more than two sides to
| politics), or you're dogwhistling that it's "the other
| side" that has the terrible philosophy.
|
| Let me therefore try to clear up that ambiguity by
| offering a solution to your exercise: The most dangerous
| political philosophy is ethno-nationalism.
| libhack-hn wrote:
| PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence
| In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov
| cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office
| 2020.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
| bloaf wrote:
| I don't think there needs to be a government owned internet media
| company.
|
| Sometimes I wonder how weird and wild a government run social
| media company would be. Open to US citizens only, identity
| verification required? No rules other than actual speech laws? No
| anonymity?
| kart23 wrote:
| We already have a government owned internet media company.
|
| https://www.voanews.com/
| jds_ wrote:
| I would like to note that PBS does actually publish Youtube
| videos via PBS Digital Studios[0][1]. They have great creators
| making PBS quality content but in "Youtube" style formats with a
| wide range of topics (science, popular culture, art, food, news,
| and music).
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_Digital_Studios [1]
| https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsdigitalstudios/channels
| stronglikedan wrote:
| PBS Space Time (from your list) is one of my favorite channels.
| Such great content of which I can't speak highly enough.
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g
| tootie wrote:
| CPB also funds local public radio affiliates and NPR.
|
| But I think the paper is calling for more than just local news.
| They want expansive digital properties to supplement all our
| browsing habits.
| nwatson wrote:
| We watch the full PBS NewsHour most nights, simulcast/streamed
| live on YouTube (also available on all/most PBS affiliates) ...
| and it's available for later viewing as well. Some would say it
| leans a bit left but I think it's the best unbiased
| presentation of (U.S.) national concerns. They get wide access
| for interview to the most relevant American and non-American
| persons across a wide range of topics and are not afraid to
| pose the tough questions.
| lsiebert wrote:
| It's centrist, it's just that looking at facts instead of
| simply accepting what politicians say at face value often
| tends to lead to support for political talking points from
| the left.
|
| This isn't intrinsic to left or right wing ideologies, there
| are plenty of areas where nobody has a monopoly on good
| policy, but when it comes to Democratic and Republican
| political leaders, The Dems look to scientific consensus
| (climate change, public health, economic disparities) and
| factual information in deciding on policy outcomes, while the
| GOP has a preferred set of outcomes they are looking to
| support.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| It's not centrist. It's pro status quo. "Things are mostly
| OK, and in the few cases where they're a little bit bad,
| we're here to tell you about them."
| jacobr1 wrote:
| Is there a meaningful difference? Isn't your definition
| of status-quo more or less the position taken by
| "centrists"?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Well, in terms of whatever the current Overton Window is,
| that's probably true.
|
| But if you view "left", "right" and "center" as having
| slightly more absolute definitions than the constantly
| shifting Overton Window, it's not really the same. "pro
| status quo" in an authoritarian fascist regime would not
| correspond to "center" on this absolute scale, even if in
| the context of that society, it might be roughly in the
| middle of the OW.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I'm going to push back on that a little bit.
|
| I think that climate change denial is one of many ways the
| GOP has sold its soul in the past 20 years, but the
| Democratic party takes it as axiomatic that certain climate
| change interventions are less harmful than climate change
| itself.
|
| We can reasonably quantify flooding of coastal real-estate,
| but that is likely to be only a small fraction of the
| effects. So the overall picture of climate change looks
| like a giant pile of risk, rather than a clear outcome. The
| Democratic party has come to a consensus that the best way
| to treat the giant pile of risk is to treat the cost of
| allowing it to continue as approximately infinity.
|
| 50 years ago it was widely agreed upon that the US (and
| possibly humanity) faced an existential threat from
| thermonuclear war. Some people argued that unilateral
| disarmament was the best solution, but there were other
| points of view as well.
|
| I would love a world in which the GOP were arguing about
| which climate-change interventions are not worth it rather
| than one in which the GOP just pretends that it's not
| happening (or not related to CO2 emissions).
|
| FWIW The Democratic Party has its own blind spots on policy
| outcomes with regards to scientific consensus e.g. when it
| comes to affordable housing. Perhaps the stakes are higher
| when it comes to climate change, but the number of times I
| have heard a Democratic politician say "Supply and demand
| does not apply to X" without any evidence of that is rather
| mind-boggling.
| lsiebert wrote:
| The very fact that Republicans continue to deny the
| existence and threat from anthropocentric climate change
| leads to simple understandings of what Dems actually want
| to do.
|
| The Democratic party has a wide range of opinions on how
| to deal with climate change, but I'd suggest people look
| at the Party Platform from 2020 to see how it wants to
| address it.
|
| It includes some bold stuff in terms of changing the US
| economy towards being zero emissions, but with goals set
| five, ten or fifteen years from 2020. That's hardly
| setting the cost at infinity.
|
| https://democrats.org/wp-
| content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/202...
| travismark wrote:
| I used to watch Newshour most nights but since last summer
| I've quit. too many stories are unbearably biased. and Mr
| Capehart is a poor substitute for Mr Shields on Fridays. The
| former is so predictable, why watch
| kortilla wrote:
| > Some would say it leans a bit left but I think it's the
| best unbiased presentation of (U.S.) national concerns
|
| It's definitely "unbiased" as long as "unbiased" means
| "standard US neoliberal views". I say this as a neoliberal
| who watches it.
|
| If you are watching news and it doesn't seem unfair in some
| way to you, you agree with its editorial biases.
| Lendal wrote:
| Yes, and the article is talking about deplatforming issues.
| What if Alphabet decided it didn't like what PBS was saying,
| and decided to use its leverage as owner of the platform to
| influence PBS content? Given everything crazy that has
| transpired over the last few years, it's not so far fetched
| now. Maybe it has already happened. Sure, eventually we would
| find out about it, but in the meantime great damage to society
| could be done.
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| Modern "Woke" PBS or old school PBS?
|
| Only the latter is useful or good.
| aty268 wrote:
| What's interesting is PBS is much less aligned with the federal
| government than most private media outlets, to put it nicely. Not
| sure how that's happened.
| ardit33 wrote:
| PBS is liberal aligned org. so it is perfectly aligned with the
| democratic party... which are in power now?
| libhack-hn wrote:
| PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence
| In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov
| cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office
| 2020.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
| jscipione wrote:
| The last thing we need is yet another radical partisan anti-
| conservative US government agency like NRP, PBS, FBI, USPS, and
| IRS.
| duxup wrote:
| Well there is:
|
| https://www.pbs.org/video/
|
| Also PBS has a great kids games app(s) that are free with games
| that are fun / no ads.
|
| And PBS kids video app is again free, great content, no ads.
|
| If you're in the US and care about that content, I suggest
| contributing to your local station. The quality of the content
| from kids to adult is outstanding. It's not usual for me to
| browse a few streaming services and just end up watching PBS's
| content in the end.
|
| Maybe when it comes to the article they mean more accessible? But
| I'm not sure as they seem to ignore the PBS content available.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| The pbs apps are made by OPB (Oregon public broadcasting)
| they've been a big partner of pbs for a long time.
|
| The apps are really good and they try to keep relevant content
| and popular shows on the apps.
| WA9ACE wrote:
| I work at PBS on one of the teams building these apps, and
| this has not been the case since I joined. PBS apps are
| maintained in house out of our Arlington headquarters, with
| most team members working fully remote during covid, but I
| fully appreciate you calling our apps good!
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| I'm sorry for my mistake. I live in Oregon and I was led to
| believe that OPB was developing the Kids apps since they
| reached out to me about 2ish years ago for working on the
| games.
| WA9ACE wrote:
| No worries! My apologies if I came off brash, you may
| have been right about the origins of the kids games.
| We're currently hiring for engineers to work on them!
|
| https://www.pbs.org/about/careers/current-
| openings/?gnk=job&...
| claudiulodro wrote:
| Quick question if you know the answer: is that position
| remote-friendly/where is it located? There doesn't seem
| to be any location info on that listing.
| WA9ACE wrote:
| I'd love to answer that, but I honestly don't know.
| danielkim1 wrote:
| I just had a phone screen with them last week! Remote is
| possible, but unlikely. Their office is next to the
| Crystal City metro station on the blue line.
| js212 wrote:
| Love the PBS app for my kid. He is using it right now :)
| duxup wrote:
| My youngest loves the games! I kinda like them too ...
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Orthogonal: Can we pause for a moment and admire how amazing
| the PBS logo is? They've kept it for many years and haven't
| fallen to "trends". Here is some history:
| https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/PBS
| joemi wrote:
| I'm not sure what counts in your book as many years
| considering that page shows the latest one is from 2019.
| Also, not sure what counts as trends, considering their
| previous logo had a gradient added (which was trendy then, or
| a few years before then), and the current one is definitely a
| flat logo in comparison (which is also trendy, though it was
| a bigger trend a few years ago) and they changed the font
| drastically.
|
| If you were just referring to the head element of the logo, I
| do like that element -- it's very recognizable and hasn't
| changed much over the years. Though I never knew (until
| looking at the page you linked to) that it's shaped like that
| because it was originally flipped on the Y axis and used as a
| 'P'.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Here is an example that went with the trends and destroyed
| the iconic mark of the Library of Congress: https://www.und
| erconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_log...
|
| Library Library of Congress. Sad.
|
| What they did with PBS logo is simlar to slight redesigns
| over the years - GE, Lufthansa, AMEX, VISA, MasterCard,
| etc.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > I suggest contributing to your local station
|
| Most PBS stations run infomercials promoting quack medicine. So
| long as they keep doing that I'll never give them a penny.
| joe_g_young wrote:
| I thought they relied on yearly fundraisers. This is how OPB
| gets income
| cdubzzz wrote:
| This is an over generalization (and will differ for each
| member station). E.g. here is the KCTS 9 schedule for the
| full day tomorrow --
| https://www.kcts9.org/schedule/kcts9/20210803
|
| You could make a case for the 1AM slot being quackery and
| there are definitely more entries like that in the greater
| schedule but its a very small amount of the content (and ever
| decreasing...).
|
| Disclaimer: I work for KCTS 9.
| laurex wrote:
| Link to donate to OPB, with like KQED is both NPR and PBS
| affiliate: https://give.opb.org/opb/ Someone I know was a PM
| there and they were often struggling financially.
| duxup wrote:
| I don't think I've ever seen that.
| asd wrote:
| > Most PBS stations run infomercials promoting quack
| medicine.
|
| Can you give details? I'm wondering if this was something
| that only a local affiliate did and not something that was
| PBS sanctioned.
| dwhit wrote:
| Ironically, if enough people gave them a penny they wouldn't
| have to run those quack informercials.
| sidlls wrote:
| Likely they'd just expand, like any other organization. PBS
| is somewhat better, but NPR is a cesspool of corporate
| sponsorship and journalism that's marginally better than
| some private, for-profit outlets but still generally low
| quality and scarcely informative.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| They don't have their full content there... only a few episodes
| from various shows.
| duxup wrote:
| I think you see a great deal more if you're a member and sign
| in.
| libhack-hn wrote:
| PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence
| In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov
| cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office
| 2020.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
| l33t2328 wrote:
| I'm not sure what exactly the point is here.
|
| "One employee of PBS said something crazy one time at a
| cocktail party"
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I donate to PBS for the streaming, but I wish they would update
| their content more frequently, or rather they have a lot of
| content that I don't care much about (especially the local
| programming). Mostly I'm interested in the nature, science, and
| history documentaries, especially the nature and nova series,
| but they only show a new episode once every few weeks.
| itgoon wrote:
| Have you looked at their YouTube channels? Eons and SpaceTime
| are excellent.
|
| EDIT: here's all of the channels:
| https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsdigitalstudios/channels
| tootie wrote:
| My kids love It's Okay to Be Smart
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Have you looked at their YouTube channels? Eons and
| SpaceTime are excellent.
|
| I agree. Eons and Space Time are both excellent. I just
| hope they both start making new episodes soon.
|
| I'd note that you can get those without YouTube's
| tracking/advertising by going right to the source[0] of
| those series.
|
| [0] https://www.pbs.org/digital-studios/
| igorstellar wrote:
| > I suggest contributing to your local station
|
| how do you find one to contribute? definitely interested in
| that, been binge watching The Great British Baking Show for a
| while now
| strifey wrote:
| Go to pbs.org. It will ask you to select a station based on
| your location and popup a big donate banner. There's also a
| donate button on the top bar. I feel like they make it pretty
| easy and obvious.
| asdff wrote:
| Search for your nearest major city + public radio.
| cogman10 wrote:
| It appears the call is for more local journalism/programming
| online. PBS has great national and children's programs and does
| have broadcast local journalism/topics of interest. However,
| getting access to that online is more difficult.
|
| Do we need this? Meh.. IDK.
| dmschulman wrote:
| Not entirely https://www.pbs.org/passport/videos/
| duxup wrote:
| Well local PBS & NPR stations ... often do that.
|
| I'm not sure the article really makes it clear what the
| situation in the first place is, or if they know.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| I get that more from my local NPR affiliate than I do PBS.
|
| Which I think is perhaps appropriate, if we've got to make a
| choice between the two. Textual media are a somewhat smaller
| jump from radio than they are from TV, and also, at least in
| my area, public radio is already doing a lot more local
| journalism. The public television station has a fair bit of
| locally produced programming, but most of it isn't really
| journalistic.
| plussed_reader wrote:
| Kqed is both the npr radio and TV station for a good chunk
| of the sf bay area. I know in other markets this is not the
| same arrangement.
| asdff wrote:
| In Los Angeles there are two local NPR stations within 25
| miles of eachother: KCRW and KPCC.
| dunk010 wrote:
| Crash Course is pretty close to PBS.
| bississippi wrote:
| Is this a joke ? The news media seems to be conflating Internet
| with web. The whole idea of the internet is decentralization,
| "PBS for the internet" in my opinion would look like the "Great
| Chinese Firewall"
|
| https://www.wired.com/1997/06/china-3/
|
| And eventually like this https://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Police-
| State-Undercover-Surve...
| Semiapies wrote:
| This doesn't seem to be much of a push or much of a coherent
| vision, just hand-waving, a little grab-bag of popular ideas, and
| a wish for more federal money.
| satellite2 wrote:
| Everyone here discuss a new online newspaper. It would be
| refreshing to get intelligent content for free and not hidden
| between an amrmada of paywalls but would not be not enough.
|
| At this point, to protect democracy and its values, full fledged
| state sponsored reverse troll farms are what we desperatly need.
|
| A lot of the engagement is simply led by fake accounts piloted by
| humans and thus realistic enough to break the organic engagement
| detection model.
|
| Creating positive content is not enough to win this war. Only
| using the same dirty tactics as the autocrats will allow
| democracy to survive.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| So what would the difference be between the two again and why
| should we trust "our" state sponsored troll farms? Frankly that
| logic is like suggesting we need to molest our kids at home to
| protect them from being molested by teachers and clergy.
| kragen wrote:
| NSFNet was a PBS for the Internet.
| 1-6 wrote:
| If we just focus on video just a sec and not the ENTIRE INTERNET,
| PBS seems increasingly irrelevant in an era where YouTube has
| narrowed the gap between content creators and content consumers.
| I remember the 90's being filled with pledge drives so PBS can
| raise funding. The content was good at the time but it's no where
| near what YouTube has become.
|
| If we go back to this original article linked, who gets to decide
| what is disinformation/misinformation? Funding should not come
| from the government because that would introduce all sorts of
| bureaucracy and gatekeeping efforts by political policymakers.
| rrose wrote:
| i understand the worry about the government gatekeeping
| disinformation/misinformation, but I think the worry is
| massively overblown. We're not talking about the government
| having a monopoly on the information ecosystem, and while there
| are certainly controversial topics where the government might
| be tempted to but their thumb on the scale if they had control
| over the news, the truth in most cases (climate change, the
| result of the presidential election, etc) is pretty cut-and-
| dried.
|
| Besides, the vast majority of the _existing_ misinformation in
| the US is coming from for-profit news agencies. You 're already
| allowing people to decide what is and isn't misinformation-
| would you rather it be rupert murdoch, or a politician that you
| can vote out of office?
| gowld wrote:
| Murdoch already decides which politicians are electable in
| right-wing areas.
| tootie wrote:
| There's also no government influence on public media
| editorial decisions. Congress provides funds to the CPB and
| the CPB can issue grants to local public media. Even PBS and
| NPR affiliates all have local editorial control over their
| broadcasts.
| starkd wrote:
| A politician you can theoretically "vote out of office" can
| be more insidious than big business ever could. Regarding a
| politician, only collective action can remedy the situation.
| At least, with business, you get immediate remedy by going
| elsewhere. And maybe eventual long term remedy if enough
| people do likewise. Of course, even big business can become
| too big as to stifle competition.
| gowld wrote:
| I can't stop Facebook from poisoning my neighbors' minds by
| boycotting. In fact, boycotting is _worse_ than joining the
| platform and engaging.
| 8note wrote:
| Don't you still need collective action for a business? It's
| even got a name "boycott"
| jameshart wrote:
| I don't think I've ever given Dennis Prager any of my
| business yet that hasn't stopped him using the money he
| does have to buy airtime in front of me. That kind of
| unaccountable media production seems far more insidious to
| me than anything government funded.
| rrose wrote:
| I just am not sure I agree that a politician is more
| insidious than big business. A big business has no
| accountability to anyone but their shareholders. PBS is
| accountable to representatives elected by citizens. And
| again, we're not talking about the government having a
| monopoly on the information ecosystem, so with public news
| you still have the "immediate remedy"of going elsewhere.
| starkd wrote:
| A lot of good programming on PBS. But ever notice that the good
| programming generally occurs during the pledge drives? I mean,
| they might as well just run commercials.
|
| That said, there are definite problems with the ad driven model
| of YT too. Maybe it's not the model that's the problem but who
| ultimately runs it.
| [deleted]
| barbecue_sauce wrote:
| Pledge drive programming is usually "best of" highlights
| programming that have been edited down to allow for the
| interruptions. (I also get the impression that people who
| would usually be producing content get drafted into the ranks
| of the pledge takers, though asynchronous internet-based
| donations have probably alleviated this need somewhat).
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I'm suddenly visualizing an online PBS-equivalent doing a
| "like & subscribe drive", and that mental picture is a real
| treat.
| devwastaken wrote:
| Problem is quality. "YouTube kids" is a big meme, because some
| of the most popular content creators were certainly not
| creating kid friendly content. Example being "spiderman and
| Elsa".
|
| In my opinion kids should not be on the internet. Not that we
| can reasonably stop them, but I don't at all believe YouTube is
| an equivalent to directed quality content like PBS.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Current PBS structure has an interesting solution for this
| issue, but I don't know if it could be mapped onto an online
| space.
|
| So since individual stations curate what they fill their
| airwaves with, they have the option of selecting what content
| coming from other PBS stations they will broadcast (or not).
| That provides a bit of a back-stop against truly wild stuff
| appearing in markets where it won't play without criticism.
| There isn't one curator; it's many curators with regional
| scope of influence.
|
| (PBS stations do end up taking criticism, and some of it can
| be funny. Anecdotally, I know my local station would get
| complaints that the exercise outfits worn by the people in a
| work-out show the station syndicated were too revealing. It
| was the '90s, and these were ankle-to-chest leotards, but
| people's opinion of appropriate attire varies widely. The
| station did not cancel the show. ;) ).
| ldiracdelta wrote:
| I don't allow unrestricted access to the internet for my kids
| and they aren't allowed screens in any room except where
| others may see them and their screens all the time. Yes, it
| is friction and not perfection. The internet is a Victorian-
| era cesspool with raw sewage and dysentery everywhere.
| They'll have to learn how to not contract cholera as they
| grow up, but I also don't let them play with firearms or
| dabble with black-tar heroin.
| asoneth wrote:
| I agree, and that's one reason I like curated content such
| as PBS. We had some inappropriate/disturbing "next video"
| suggestions on YouTube that initially seemed OK at a
| distance or for the first few minutes that we didn't catch
| right away. So I wouldn't trust kids using YouTube except
| if an adult is setting the playlist and watching with them.
|
| Whereas the PBS Kids apps (and Scratch Jr, Kahn Kids, etc)
| have curated content that I trust. We still limit their
| screen time and monitor their use by working in the same
| room, but it's not nearly as risky to let them use it on
| their own.
| ldiracdelta wrote:
| Totally agree. Burnt by youtube suggestions for kids as
| well. People creating content that seems like it is for
| kids so they can say horrific things to kids 2 minutes
| in. Absolute dumpster fire.
| gowld wrote:
| The Internet is like a free cafeteria (yay!) where the
| heroin is right next to the broccoli, but also heavily
| advertised and dressed up.
|
| Coercing people into making good choices in a non-starter.
| We need a huge broad based social effort to educate each
| other on how to be safe. The government can't be trusted to
| do it for us. We can't just say "coerce the bad guys into
| submission", because the bad guys will do the same and are
| better at it.
| seph-reed wrote:
| I feel very lucky to have grown up with unrestricted
| access to the internet in the 90s-2000s. It was still
| broccoli and heroin, but neither seemed to be able to
| advertise over the other, and there was limited supplies
| of both.
|
| Kind of forced me to try every plate.
| ultrarunner wrote:
| I think your point is valid for an equivalent understanding
| of _unrestricted_ (or popular) access. All YouTube kid videos
| lead to toy review /recommendation videos eventually.
| However, the internet is a big place, and if I have something
| in mind that explores an idea I can usually find it somewhere
| online. In contrast, legacy media like PBS doesn't generally
| allow for picking relevant content-- the unrestricted or
| passive mode is the only mode available without scheduling
| your day around TV (something I'm not keen to encourage).
|
| So no, not equivalent, but not necessarily worse.
| dj_gitmo wrote:
| I think your point is valid, but I would like to point our that
| PBS has a lot of great stuff on Youtube. I think there is a
| role for public broadcasting, but it will probably be marginal.
|
| > who gets to decide what is disinformation/misinformation?
|
| I certainly hope it isn't the authors of this paper, the German
| Marshall Fund. The GMF funds their own propaganda like the
| Alliance for Securing Democracy, and they are funded by USAID.
| USAID overtly does what the CIA used to do covertly.
| https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/13/state-backed-alliance-...
| gowld wrote:
| FYI that article reads as very crank-y. Not saying they are
| wrong, but it's impenetrable reading to an uninformed neutral
| party. Too much emotional accusations and a huge cast of
| characters, but no clear explanation of what they are
| claiming.
|
| But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA bias
| isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA project.
| dj_gitmo wrote:
| It is very cranky, no denying that.
|
| The founder of the site, Robert Parry, uncovered US
| involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking during the 80s.
| Nobody denied the facts, but by the time the story came out
| American political culture had become more conservative
| (Reaganism) and people weren't as interested in hearing
| about covert crimes the way they were in the 70s
| (Watergate).
|
| Parry got drummed out of the journalism for not towing the
| line and became somewhat bitter. It's not my only source of
| news, but it can be refreshing to read something that
| quickly attempts to poke holes in mainstream narratives.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)
|
| > But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA
| bias isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA
| project.
|
| There are laws against domestic propaganda. For instance,
| the CIA is not allowed to plant stories in US media.
|
| The German Marshall fund is part of USAID and USAID was
| founded by the members of the CIA. They're sister
| organizations that service the same political goals. It
| should raise eyebrows that USAID wants to construct a
| domestic propaganda operation.
| d6ba56c039d9 wrote:
| >PBS seems increasingly irrelevant
|
| I would agree. In terms of production quality, youtube videos
| can be all over the map (although the cost of quality continues
| to decrease), but I'd say that the large-scale commercial
| broadcasters may well continue to dwindle. Personally, 1 guy
| (or 2/3) youtube shows are my favorites, they tend to be more
| charming and cover niche areas.
|
| For newsie news, I find myself using mostly RT in my news
| reader. There's a POV of course, but they don't carry much US
| domestic news, which is fine by me.
| nikkinana wrote:
| I love government sponsored content for free, that's where I get
| all of my news and stuff.
|
| Except, wait, what, PBS isn't free? Don't we already pay taxes?
| TurningCanadian wrote:
| If the US government paid $1 in total to PBS, would you be
| surprised that PBS couldn't provide its service for free? The
| US pays about 4% of what the UK pays per capita for public
| broadcasting.
|
| https://site-cbc.radio-canada.ca/documents/impact-and-accoun...
|
| Members, corporate underwriting, and distribution fees each
| provide a bigger percentage of its revenue than the federal
| government https://publiceditor.bento-
| live.pbs.org/publiceditor/blogs/p...
| Karunamon wrote:
| > _The US pays about 4% of what the UK pays per capita for
| public broadcasting._
|
| This can't be mentioned without also mentioning that the UK
| enforces a yearly license (so, a tax) on anyone who watches
| OTA TV, and they're known to be a bit scummy and heavy-handed
| about it.
| _delirium wrote:
| PBS is kind of a hybrid, with partial public funding, but with
| the majority of its funding coming from other revenue sources.
| It gets around 15% of its budget through grants from the
| Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which in turn is funded by
| the federal government), the rest through a mix of fundraising
| and subscriptions. Some local PBS affiliates also get
| state/local support, or are hosted by a public entity like a
| university. That seems to have been Congress's intent, that it
| would be supported in part by federal funding, but not be a
| fully publicly run organization like the BBC.
| olivermarks wrote:
| PBS accepts large amounts from #bigAg, #bigPharma and various
| oligarch 'foundations'. The worry is that these huge entities
| shape the messaging. You won't ever hear monopolist Bill
| Gates critiqued on PBS or NPR for example...
| pionar wrote:
| That's certainly not true. NPR criticizes Bill Gates often
| as part of the "celebrity billionaire" group, and recently
| had a story about his affair with an employee.
| olivermarks wrote:
| 'NPR's funding from Gates "was not a factor in why or how
| we did the story," reporter Pam Fessler says, adding that
| her reporting went beyond the voices quoted in her
| article. The story, nevertheless, is one of hundreds NPR
| has reported about the Gates Foundation or the work it
| funds, including myriad favorable pieces written from the
| perspective of Gates or its grantees.'
| https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-
| journalism-fu...
| Wolfenstein98k wrote:
| When you donate billions, you help lots of people who may
| then be honest about that.
|
| What is surprising to you that beneficiaries of
| philanthropy are happy to report and promote
| philanthropy?
|
| It's not like they try to cover up his "sins", or that
| the channel doesn't report on the latest gossip about his
| marriage just because it's "news".
| disabled wrote:
| We already have this in Croatia! It works great! It's called
| CARNET.
|
| See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARNet
|
| You can also get extremely cheap access to CARNET via mobile and
| broadband providers in Croatia. They are CARNET only plans.
| runbathtime wrote:
| PBS should be privately funded.
| Wolfenstein98k wrote:
| Terrible idea - just another entity to be ideologically captured.
|
| Until we figure out how to actually enshrine political diversity,
| this will end up staffed entirely by people of a certain
| politics, and will become despised by many on the other side.
| France_is_bacon wrote:
| Just to let you know, everything is political.
|
| I'm independent politically, but PBS is the Fox of the liberals.
| Completely biased.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| Authorizing the CPB to support local reporting could be a bit of
| a game-changer for the current status quo. I don't know that the
| rest of the idea would work (there are an awful lot of reasons
| why Internet media isn't anything like broadcast media), but
| "subsidizing local reporting as a public good" is an idea I
| hadn't seen before.
| cdolan wrote:
| If I was in charge, I'd try to find as many non-spammy and
| wholesome Content Creators, like Mark Rober or Dustin /w Smarter
| Every Day, and have them figure out a way to scale a
| program/syndication that attracts content creators similar to
| them.
|
| Youtube is great. You can learn anything on Youtube... but
| Youtube is also filled with absolute trash childrens programming
| that literally rots my kids' brains as they watch it. Thats not
| to mention the unfathomable child porn rings that were caught
| time-stamp commenting unintentionally suggestive poses by
| underage kids...
|
| We need a curated Youtube for the curious mind that doesn't waste
| my time with 3 minutes of content stretched to 11 mins to get
| monetized.
| Avery3R wrote:
| Aren't they already trying that with the nebula/curiositystream
| thing they advertise endlessly?
| cdolan wrote:
| Maybe, but two things: - I follow both channels pretty
| closely and I don't know what you are talking about. So it
| must not be working that well? - It sounds like they are
| doing this nebula/curiositystream thing themselves. If
| someone/the government funded them or just gave them control
| over a program I bet they would have an even bigger impact.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| This is what it says under "why it matters" in this article:
|
| > Revamping the structure and role of public media could be part
| of the solution to shoring up local media, decentralizing the
| distribution of quality news, and constraining Big Tech
| platforms' amplification of harmful or false information.
|
| Instead of creating another _single_ content creator who can come
| with their own biases, what I would rather see is a government-
| run platform. The motivation above about constraining
| amplification of harmful or false information sounds too close to
| amplifying only what information the government wants to put out
| (in other words, propaganda). I would rather see a platform
| because it could be free of information control and censorship
| from a small set of Silicon Valley conglomerates.
| JaggerFoo wrote:
| So boring content that everyone says they like, but never
| consume, with constant requests for donations.
|
| So what would be the purpose? Current trusted platforms are
| ignored and news outlets that report on ignorant humans with
| wacko theories defying reality are thriving. One or more
| additional trusted platform will not make a difference.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > So boring content that everyone says they like, but never
| consume, with constant requests for donations.
|
| #notallnprlisteners #notallnprstations
| Noos wrote:
| No, NPR is the Ikea of radio. It should be roundly mocked a
| lot more than it is.
| bonaldi wrote:
| > decentralizing the distribution of quality news
|
| This is laudable - but it ignores the reality of aggregators and
| user behaviour in the attention economy. The audience is
| centralised, and increasingly so. The question becomes: how can a
| pluralistic public-service ecosystem flourish _within_ that
| economy?
|
| In the UK the BBC has tried a number of routes for this,
| including sponsoring local reporters, external linking to local
| news outlets to try and share their audience and so on. None have
| really been successful but it's important that they keep trying
| -- and odd that a piece like this wouldn't mention the BBC at
| all, come to think of it.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _The audience is centralised, and increasingly so._
|
| You could design a computer system that _feels_ centralised,
| but is actually decentralised - like the Fediverse[0] - and
| have people use that. That 'd solve this problem (if you had
| enough draw and interop to get people to switch).
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse
| root_axis wrote:
| I don't see how the fediverse solves this problem. Fediverse
| nodes are no different than websites with respect to
| information distribution.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Take YouTube. There is one of it. PeerTube, however, could
| potentially encompass _all_ video-hosting sites.
| root_axis wrote:
| The global http network already encompasses _all_ video-
| hosting sites. If YouTube were a cluster of PeerTube
| nodes nothing really changes, all the stated problems
| associated with YouTube 's popularity remain. e.g. if
| YouTube nodes ban your videos and you have to move to a
| less popular node, you're facing the exact same problem
| as you would getting banned from YouTube today.
| cnorthwood wrote:
| Yep, it is odd. There's also an entire piece of R&D that the
| BBC are doing that I know people on called "Public Service
| Internet" https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/public-service-
| internet
| mattlondon wrote:
| Interesting to read this - has anything come out of that
| project yet?
|
| The BBC generally has quite good online services (e.g. news,
| iPlayer) but would be interesting to see what this project is
| thinking about.
| joelbondurant wrote:
| We need robots to put the public sector into a furnace.
| ladyattis wrote:
| I would say the PBS digital work on YouTube has been quite good,
| especially the PBS Spacetime series.
| ThomPete wrote:
| The internet IS a PBS
| somenewaccount1 wrote:
| I can support efforts to create more Big Birds, but not more
| Elmo's. Worst child influence ever.
| brewdad wrote:
| *Caillou has entered the chat*
| brodouevencode wrote:
| I would always put the channel on PBS kids and didn't mind
| much what was on because I trusted it, except for Calliou.
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| And when the demand is near zero traffic, what? Legislate being
| mandatory to navigate it at least X hours per month? This is just
| the mainstream ideologic factory trying to expand itself.
| minikites wrote:
| There should be more publicly funded media of all kinds. It
| significantly improves society to have art, entertainment, and
| educational materials created without a profit motive in mind.
| stevefrench93 wrote:
| Wasn't that the point of Wikipedia?
|
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793263/Nobody-trus...
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| I had this exact idea years ago and shared it with colleagues in
| the tech sector in Phoenix, AZ. The primacy of the idea also
| stemmed from the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967[1] as discussed
| in this article.
|
| We agreed on many common points, but could not think of how one
| would create an NPR-inspired version of essentially
| Reddit/Digg/Slashdot without first-party curation, which
| completely kills the idea of a social news aggregate.
|
| I think unfortunately the idea is incompatible without heavy
| handed moderation. Hacker News seems to attract the rightish
| crowd, though, so maybe it can be done. NPR attracts the sort of
| crowd I'm looking for in a social news aggregator.
|
| I'm not a teenager anymore. I'm looking for less memes and more
| interesting reading that publications of yesteryear seem to
| produce less and less of each year.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_196...
| jonas21 wrote:
| If you look at the history of the Public Broadcasting Act [1]
| that established the CPB and eventually PBS, it seems clear that
| it was passed in response to poorly-funded educational
| programming not being able to compete with high-budget commercial
| network TV. Its authors wanted to make it easier for smaller,
| non-commercial entities to produce and distribute high-quality
| educational content.
|
| In that regard, the Internet (aided by inexpensive video gear and
| editing software) has succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams.
| The breadth and depth of educational content available just on
| YouTube is incredible.
|
| The same forces that make it easy to produce and distribute
| educational content also make it easy to produce and distribute
| misinformation. This is a problem, but's unclear how a "PBS for
| the internet" would solve it.
|
| For example, if you look at the one concrete piece of legislation
| mentioned in the article:
|
| > _The Local Journalism Sustainability Act takes a different
| approach to the government grant model. The bill would, for
| example, give a tax credit to people who donate to nonprofit
| newsrooms, or to small businesses who buy advertising at a
| nonprofit outlet._
|
| It's not clear to me why people wouldn't just choose to donate to
| or buy advertising in outlets that promote whatever form of
| misinformation or partisan information that suits their tastes.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_196...
| matchagaucho wrote:
| One solution is to offer free WiFi / fiber in communities with
| a default PBS-like content gateway.
| gowld wrote:
| Yes. Supply of PBS quality content is a solved problem.
|
| The unsolved problem is the demand side, people making better
| consumption choices. Legislation can't fix this, since the
| government doesn't have a unified view of what "good" content
| is, and is heavily interested in promoting various striped of
| partisan propaganda.
|
| Mr Rogers got broad bipartisan support. Today he's considered
| "left wing".
| beambot wrote:
| Distribution could help on the demand side... Would love to
| see more PBS content appear in Netflix and Amazon Prime.
| djrogers wrote:
| > Mr Rogers got broad bipartisan support. Today he's
| considered "left wing".
|
| I've never heard any "right-wing" people, even crazy in-law
| types, call Mr Rogers "left-wing".
| mandmandam wrote:
| See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iljhDaowoLc , in which
| Fox News calls him an "evil, evil man", for making children
| grow up with self esteem.
| pfraze wrote:
| This folds into the general class of calls-to-inaction
| which they use to pass off systemic problems. "Why are
| millenials poor and expecting more? Perhaps they were
| raised wrong by TV. Let's not examine it further."
|
| I personally didn't see shots at Mr Rogers get much
| further than this weak Fox segment among conservatives,
| for what it's worth.
| mandmandam wrote:
| Fox News ran a hit piece on one of the kindest and most
| beloved educators in America. It's obvious (to some) that
| they did this to divert from systemic problems. That's
| what they do, and they're still allowed to call
| themselves News.
|
| At what point do Americans stand up for a bare minimum
| level of journalism?
|
| And remember, that while Fox might not have gotten far
| with this particular piece in _your_ experience, they
| sent this six minute piece out to millions of people.
| They wrote it, filmed it, and aired it. They never
| apologised.
| Noos wrote:
| When he actually was broadcasting, he was never
| considered "one of the most beloved educators." That was
| recent hagiography, and I watched him as a child growing
| up in the 70s. He was one of several. Bob Keehan/Captain
| Kangaroo was another personality for very young kids. I
| can say as a child at that time we outgrew him fairly
| quickly and didn't really hang around him much. If
| anything, most of the content of that time was similar;
| Gumby, David and Goliath, Bozo the Clown, and more were
| discarded as soon as better came along. It was that odd
| time of transition.
|
| He was the definition of pablum; formula you gave to
| babies. He was outdated compared to Sesame Street and
| Electric Company, and was almost kitsch just like Bob
| Ross was. I believe he was lionized more because
| millenials and zoomers are so overstimulated they crave
| the opposite now; blandness to the point of sedation.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > Supply of PBS quality content is a solved problem.
|
| Not really. Nova, for example, has gone downhill quite a bit
| in the last few years, in that the content has been dumbed
| down more and more. It tends to candy-coat things and the
| host will say things along the lines of "golly gee
| whilikers!" It's a step above Sesame Street, but not by much.
|
| There are some exceptions. The one about the evolution of
| language was pretty good, although the information content
| was thin gruel. It's like butter that's been spread way too
| thin.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I'll expand on that a bit. Candy coating acting and like a
| six year old is not the way to make science accessible.
| Richard Feynman did it right. He never talked down to his
| audience, yet was able to make advanced concepts easily
| understandable. Watch any of his videos giving a lecture.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| >> Yes. Supply of PBS quality content is a solved problem.
|
| With good curation, sharing, and sleuthing -- I find the
| educational content on YouTube to surpass anything+everything
| even at undergrad college (minus social and minus interactive
| language classes.) I also used YouTube extensively to
| supplement grad school course materials, with great success.
| I realize not everyone learns this way, but many do, and it
| is freely available now.
|
| While there may be a demand side problem, that can be fixed
| with better curation facilities. _Legislation might not be
| able to fix this, but it can sure as heck hurt it given some
| of the current rhetoric._
|
| Unfortunately, if "big tech" is treated as a single entity to
| be enforced, we'll end up doing something monumentally
| destructive like losing YouTube as it is now (which I
| consider an international cultural and educational treasure
| w/o exaggerating.)
| sigzero wrote:
| > With good curation, sharing, and sleuthing -- I find
|
| And it's biased because of the "I find". Everyone filters
| information even subconsciously.
| snarf21 wrote:
| Well said. For argument's sake, let's say there is a PBS run
| Twitter clone? Who gets to decide what is allowed or not? So
| much of the social media space is built on using fomo and
| outrage to push agendas. These are the things that make it
| sticky. It seems clear that most people want the addiction,
| they want the drama. I think we can shrink the power of some of
| these companies with VAT on digital advertising, but even so,
| what is going to replace them? Something so bad we can't even
| imagine it now? It kinda feels a little like the one part of
| the Matrix where they reveal that the initial Matrix was
| intended to make everyone just mindlessly happy all the time
| but it didn't work until they made it mostly miserable.
| Happiness without sadness might just be too boring for humans.
| That said, humans love to belong so I don't know how we ever
| have a Internet without centralization. People always want to
| be with everyone else.
| fud7r7rgtf wrote:
| What actually qualifies as misinformation? I see lots of things
| these days that fall under that label that would simply have
| been called gossip in the past and covered from the perspective
| of exploring popular gossip.
| lsiebert wrote:
| Examples of Misinformation:
|
| scientifically debunked ideas like the idea vaccines cause
| autism
|
| Ideas with zero basis in reality like the idea that most or
| all mass shootings are actually faked using "crisis actors"
|
| Political conspiracy theories like the idea that Bernie
| Sanders would have been the democratic candidate for
| president, but was cheated by Hillary Clinton.
|
| Misrepresented ideas, like how certain people on the right
| wing just ignore what critical race theory actually is by
| redefining it into a farcical straw man argument and then see
| it everywhere (This is a repeated pattern, see sharia law,
| migrant carvans, covid safety, etc)
| [deleted]
| devteambravo wrote:
| One of these does not belong
| lazyeye wrote:
| The idea that misinformation occurs along party lines is,
| in itself, misinformation.
| lsiebert wrote:
| Please cite your source for that? My understanding, based
| on studies like the one discussed here, is that
| misinformation does tend to be concentrated along
| partisan extremes.
| https://www.npr.org/2021/03/06/974394783/far-right-
| misinform...
|
| That said, it's absolutely true that it wasn't just
| democrats pushing the idea that bernie sander's was
| cheated. It was also russian disinformation campaign.
| https://www.wired.com/story/bernie-sanders-russia-
| chaos-2020...
| lazyeye wrote:
| Source: commonsense and a basic understanding of human
| nature.
| stetrain wrote:
| I think some of the difference is coordination and spread.
|
| I suppose some gossip could be intentionally malevolent but
| it's generally not coordinated across multiple mediums and
| groups.
|
| People also don't generally don't print watercooler gossip
| out on posters and hang it up in public around their town or
| state.
|
| Patterns that cause less harm in some context can cause more
| harm when they're being used by those wanting to
| intentionally spread misinformation, and when it's much
| easier for that information to spread to millions of people.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| Large content platforms don't curate content, and so incentives
| are misaligned. I believe "curated content without click-baity
| incentives" is the kind of thing a "PBS" tries to solve.
|
| E.g.: an educational video will be followed by flat-earth
| conspiracy video if the YouTube algorithm choses so. This
| sabotages content producers with - in this case - educational
| intentions, as the platform will make producers compete for
| attention.
|
| Also, I believe what's been missing in the discussion is how
| "empowering anyone to push content" is not in itself a value,
| and that it's in fact possible to add negative value, at a
| global scale, at very little cost. This discussion won't happen
| as it's in platforms best interest to promote engagement, and
| engagement comes from pure controversy.
| babesh wrote:
| The corollary to not empowering anyone to push content is
| disempowering some from pushing content. That is incredibly
| bad because gives some the power to limit the voices of
| others. History shows that this power is abused and that the
| abuse of this power is worse than disinformation.
|
| If you look at what is happening today, this call for
| censorship in the name of combating disinformation has
| actually had no effect on disinformation. Instead, its real
| intended effect is to consolidate greater and greater powers
| of censorship in those who seek that power.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > If you look at what is happening today, this call for
| censorship in the name of combating disinformation has
| actually had no effect on disinformation.
|
| You say that, but ISIS propaganda has been soundly defeated
| outside of fringe sites like GETTR. And sure, GETTR remains
| a hotbed of terrible disinformation (such as this ISIS
| propaganda), but without a mainstream audience, its much
| less of an issue compared to giving it out to everyone on
| Twitter.
|
| You can't post an ISIS sponsored beheading video on a
| mainstream site (Youtube, Facebook, Twitter) without the
| moderators noticing and censoring it in short order.
| tootie wrote:
| I think that's debatable. As much as journalism has been
| democratized it's also nose-dived in quality. And I don't mean
| the MSM. The overwhelming majority of "citizen journalists" are
| producing very low quality or even downright detrimental work.
| At the same time, a lot of professional journalism has
| sacrificed quality for revenue. Public media like PBS and NPR
| affiliates are intended to promote professional journalism (or
| other edifying content) without the corruption of a profit
| motive.
| kortilla wrote:
| Are you just looking at previous journalism with rose colored
| glasses?
| rpmisms wrote:
| I recommend you read some newspaper articles from the 1920s
| and 1930s. Witty, well-written, and much less discernible
| spin than current news articles. Journalism has declined as
| a trade, there is no question. The real issue is whether
| journalism is net worse for society than it previously was.
| hcurtiss wrote:
| A profit motive is not necessarily bad. Likewise, there are
| other ulterior motives that may inform "public broadcasting."
| There's a fine line between publicly-funded journalism and
| state-sponsored propaganda.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| do you believe that PBS or NPR have crossed that line in
| ways that for-profit, privately-owned media has not?
| Wolfenstein98k wrote:
| No, but they haven't _not_ , either. NPR is notoriously
| biased and niche in its politics.
|
| Ask anyone on the half of the country who doesn't vote
| blue, or necessarily get along with the latest
| developments in gender identity, of NPR gives their
| worldview any coverage whatsoever that isn't bashing and
| negative.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| As someone who votes blue, they do not. In addition,
| their coverage of Jeff Bezos on his space journey really
| drove home that they aren't entirely without external
| influence.
| ekianjo wrote:
| you can still be corrupted even if you are not corrupted by
| profit. Its not like journalists or organizationa have no
| bias.
| sidlls wrote:
| That may be the intent, but the result is that PBS and NPR
| still tailor their news content to their supporters' desires
| (or what, perhaps, editors at these organizations believe are
| the desires).
|
| NPR especially is terrible at presenting real journalism.
| When it's not "both sides get equal time, even if there's
| only one fact-based side", it's vanity puff piece interviews
| and similar content, just like for-profit networks. There is
| also a very real bias in their political coverage toward
| mainstream, center-right politicians. These days that'd be
| "centrist" democrats, mainly, but they didn't get the
| monicker "Nice Polite Republicans" for no reason....
| adamc wrote:
| Evidence rather than opinion would be helpful. This is all
| opinion.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > without the corruption of a profit motive
|
| That's a fantasy. The people who provide the money _always_
| call the tune, even if it 's the government, even if it's
| donations.
|
| A more effective system is one that does not attempt to deny
| human nature, but takes advantage of it.
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| Do you have a more effective system in mind?
| WalterBright wrote:
| Nobody's ever come up with one, other than the free
| market. That's why the Constitution does not allow the
| government to limit free speech.
|
| I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the belief that it's
| the profit motive that leads to corruption. Even a casual
| review of history will amply show that government funded
| news is not independent journalism nor unbiased
| journalism.
| b3morales wrote:
| The US has always had a distinction between state and
| public ownership. You can do things on public lands that
| are restricted on government lands, for example.* The
| same can hold, and has held in the past, for Public media
| -- it does not _necessarily_ mean State media. It
| requires effort to maintain the separation, yes, but not
| an impossible amount of effort.
|
| *Not that the CPB is actually owned by the public, but
| the principle is closely related.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| The fact that they're beholden to different stakeholders is
| precisely why it's important to have robust publicly funded
| journalism and/or donor funded journalism _in addition to_
| traditional for-profit advertiser funded journalism.
|
| Just as traditional news outlets are reluctant to upset
| their advertisers. Donor-funded local newspapers are
| hesitant to upset big local donors. The BBC is awesome at
| covering non-clickbaity stories that would never get the
| time of day from a profit-oriented news outlet, but has
| always gone easy on whoever is currently in power in the
| U.K.
|
| At the end of the day, quality investigative journalism
| costs money, that money has to come from somewhere, and
| it's best if that money comes from many places rather than
| one. Allocating more money toward publicly funded and
| donor-funded news in the U.S. would help to counter to the
| monstrous infotainment media empires that advertisers have
| built.
|
| Also, have you read or listened to public news recently? It
| feels like reading a textbook or eating raw vegetables:
| refreshingly dull. We need more of it.
| babesh wrote:
| The news that is pushed to you nowadays is already
| increasingly donor funded. The last 10 years, the tech
| elite have purchased many sense making media. The
| Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos. The Atlantic is
| owned by Laurene Powell Jobs. The New Republic is owned
| by Chris Hughes. The Intercept is owned by Pierre
| Omidyar.
|
| The narrowing and shifting of the Overton window is
| precisely due to donor funded journalism. It is just a
| reflection of the underlying shift in power in the
| society and economy as a whole.
|
| Public news being dull is actually really bad. It means
| that there is no real debate. You are being fed what to
| think.
| babesh wrote:
| Also all 'sides' play this game. It is a reflection of
| the shift in power in the society as a whole. Oil has
| lost power. The Koch brother(s) have lost power.
|
| Tech has gained power and now exerts influence. Education
| has gained power. Healthcare has gained power.
| tootie wrote:
| If the money comes from listeners (and most of it does)
| then they are beholden to listeners. It's quite different
| than being beholden to companies.
| relaxing wrote:
| Very true. I remember vividly growing up in the 1980s and
| watching Big Bird explain the moral hazard of government-
| subsidized school lunches. The segment where Super Grover
| delivered weapons to Iranian forces in Iraq in exchange for
| funds for CIA-backed rebel groups in Nicaragua seemed
| rather convoluted and, frankly, outlandish, but I accepted
| it with an open mind.
|
| These days I am more wise to the ways of the world, and it
| seems clear that had PBS's intrusion into the free market
| not driven out private investment in educational
| television, I could have instead been exposed to superior,
| corporate-sponsored values. Alas.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > I could have instead been exposed to superior,
| corporate-sponsored values. Alas.
|
| I am indeed sorry you didn't get to enjoy Bugs Bunny,
| Wile E Coyote, Rocky & Bullwinkle, and other corporate
| sponsored values. You've been deprived.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >it seems clear that it was passed in response to poorly-funded
| educational programming not being able to compete with high-
| budget commercial network TV.
|
| >The breadth and depth of educational content available just on
| YouTube is incredible.
|
| It seems like the second statement I quoted shows the failure
| (at least on the Internet) of the first.
|
| When we can have _decentralized_ , or at least widely used non-
| profit distribution channels like PBS provides for TV, that
| will be a very good thing.
|
| But as long as the primary distribution channels are focused on
| raking in the cash rather than providing access to good
| educational/cultural content for that purpose, the free
| exchange of ideas is at risk.
| lazyeye wrote:
| "The bill would, for example, give a tax credit to people who
| donate to nonprofit newsrooms"
|
| I'm guessing the overwhelming majority of these nonprofit
| newsrooms will end up being party-aligned so this will
| effectively be giving tax credits for political donations.
| ekianjo wrote:
| it is so obvious. Nonprofit does not mean Nonbias.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "... it seems clear that it was passed in response to poorly-
| funded educational programming not being able to compete with
| high-budget commercial network TV."
|
| And what has changed since that time. The internet can provide
| a less expensive means of distribution than TV.
|
| The problem that we have today is not funding it is the nature
| of the content, and that stems from who is funding it and what
| they must do to survive.
|
| Taxpayers are not funding the content on YouTube. Funding is
| done through the same means as TV: commercial advertising
| sponsorship. What effect does that have on the nature of the
| content.
|
| But the even more insidious problem we have today that did not
| exist in 1967 is that the commercial entity, YouTube, which
| unlike TV networks produces no content, is able to manipulate
| what audiences see in subtle and dodgy ways to increase its
| profits, creating so-called "filter bubbles" optimised to
| benefit YouTube, advertisers and sometimes uploaders
| (publishers). It can accomplish this because we permit it to
| non-obtrusively violate notions of privacy that existed well
| before 1967. (See, e.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T
| he_Ladies%27_home_jour...)
|
| Non-commercial content, i.e., content that does not attract a
| large audience, on YouTube gets buried. (And now YouTube forces
| uploaders to accept the injection of advertising even for
| purely educational and non-commercial content.) There could be
| high-quality educational content on YouTube, but because
| YouTube is beholden to advertisers not taxpayers, that content
| may rarely be seen. Meanwhile low quality, "viral videos",
| usually commercial in nature, will be ppromoted (very
| effectively) to everyone who accesses YouTube servers.
|
| Then there is the reality that this commercial entity, namely
| its parent company's true profit source, Google, portrays
| itself as a source information akin to a public library. Unlike
| a public library it tracks every item the patron requests for
| commercial purposes. It suggests new items, again for its own
| commercial purposes. What effect does this have on a patron's
| genuine intellectual curiousity. Why did Carnegie finance so
| many public libraries. Why not let an advertising company
| perform that role.
|
| As for the legislative proposals being made, I have no comment.
| (OK, how about "they suck.") But at least some people are
| recognising we have some major problems that need to be fixed.
|
| The web as it being shaped by a few large commercial
| advertising supported-corporations today, calling themselves
| "tech" companies, leaves no room for non-commercial educational
| content. All roads lead to a world of "publishers", "companies"
| and "developers" all working toward creating "digital
| businesses".^1 There are billions of people on Earth who do not
| fit into any of those categories (and certainly not 24hrs/day)
| who are obviously needed for this "tech company"-devised
| "ecosystem" to avoid collapse. Apprently they are not
| stakeholders. A strange ecosystem indeed.
|
| 1. Look at this from YouTube's parent company:
|
| https://privacysandbox.com
|
| Privacy is incompatible with what this company needs to do to
| survive. They need to collect data about people and promote
| advertising. The result is unilateral action by the company to
| ensure its own existence and mind-numbing "tech" company
| propaganda (who even reads it?)
| brodouevencode wrote:
| Are we in the age of Reductio ad Misinformationum?
| chadlavi wrote:
| That was supposed to be the entire internet
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-02 23:00 UTC)