10 ms·
Save PBS. It makes us safer
- barsonme 10y agoFor more background on the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal (I had to look him up, might be useful for other people as well.)
- justaman 10y agoKeep PBS on the air. Consider donating today. http://www.pbs.org/donate/ http://www.pbs.org/donate/
- doktrin 10y agoAgreed. I signed up for recurring membership (in the past, I only donated intermittently or during drives). This is something worth keeping.
- helthanatos 10y agoPBS doesn't have commercials? Because I'm pretty sure it does.
- bluedino 10y agoIt doesn't have commercials, but some shows are 'brought to you by...'
- richardjs 10y agoPBS has underwriting spots that are only shown between programs and are subject to more restrictions than commercials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting_spot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting_spot No programming is interrupted, and the only marketing content is typically something like "Brand Flakes is happy to support PBS".
- jklinger410 10y agoThey are commercials.
- sushisource 10y agoWhat? Care to back up your claim at all instead of just traipsing in and saying "no"? I watch PBS every day and they are most certainly not commercials as your parent comment says. They generally are 10 seconds at most, have maybe two sentences about the company, and show the logo. Usually one of those sentences is "Company xxx is proud to support PBS".
- massysett 10y agoDictionary.com says a commercial is "a paid advertisement or promotional announcement." Companies pay PBS, they get an announcement promoting the company. It's a commercial. If Company xxx just wanted to do great things, it could easily give money and seek no acknowledgement (the same way that, ahem, viewers give money and get no on-air acknowledgement, not even a flash in crawling text.) But Company xxx wants to be acknowledged. No problem. But it's a commercial.
- doktrin 10y agoThis honestly feels like unnecessary pedantry
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tasty_freeze 10y agoYou are missing the point and needlessly tripping yourself up on nitpicking. The point of the piece is that PBS delivers a lot of quality content to children (lots of other content too, but that isn't the author's focus). A couple minutes per hour of "Brought to you by XYZ Corporation" vs 20 cumulative minutes of animated bunnies selling breakfast marshmallows aimed at 2-7 year olds is not the same thing. You can hide behind your dictionary definition and declare yourself the victor, but you must know there is a substantive difference between them and that is exactly the point that author was making.
- bgun 10y agoIf I recall correctly (haven't owned a TV in awhile), PBS highlighted its "underwriters", certain "sponsors" for specific shows, public services such as local cultural events and other PBS shows, and fundraising. The line between "sponsors" and "advertisers" was definitely blurry at times, but it just... felt different than regular TV spots.
- II2II 10y agoI think that the best answer to that is yes and no. Unless things have changed in recent years, they run what is effectively an advertisement about the funding companies or organization at the start and end of each program. They do not run advertisements related to products. It can be a fuzzy distinction in some cases, but the overall tone is very different in most.
- js2 10y agoFred Rogers testifying before congress in 1969 about why PBS should be funded: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetestimonypbs.htm http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetes...
- nightski 10y agoThe world has changed a lot since 1969. Many homes don't even have network television anymore.
- vachi 10y agoPBS news hour has 390k subs on youtube and does 50k views on their nightly 50min. Compared to other news networks this is not too shabby. So yeah don't worry they have many other ways of getting to viewers.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- CharlesW 10y ago> The world has changed a lot since 1969. Many homes don't even have network television anymore. All homes with TVs that receive broadcast, cable, or satellite TV have network television. I think you probably meant broadcast/OTA television, in which case a survey from 2016 shows that 17% of U.S. TV households rely on "broadcast-only" television reception, and that was an increase from the previous year. However, that number is disproportionately higher in poor, Black, and Hispanic households. For example, it jumps to 26% for households earning less than $30K/year.
- Larrikin 10y agoI wouldn't be surprised if the number of people getting OTA broadcasting will begin increasing. I don't know anyone my age that doesn't watch mostly streamed content, but we all have digital antennas for local broadcast and the important live events.
- randyrand 10y agoHow come PBS cannot fund itself? And make profit and revenue? Just curious.
- vinay427 10y agoIn my opinion, this will ruin the editorial standards of the PBS by eventually favoring monetary interests to keep itself alive. One of the benefits of an organization with guaranteed funding is that it doesn't need to change its activities to pander for money, and can focus on its actual published mission.
- saboot 10y agoI am very skeptical PBS would, given time, retain any amount of the high quality programs they have produced (Frontline, American Experience, Washington Week, etc.). Just look at how TLC, Discovery Channel, History Channel have changed over time to chase profits. PBS would become nothing but Antique Roadshow and shows like American Pickers which are only tangentially related to past history. PBS tackles current issues in ways no other channel provides.
- empath75 10y agoIt has monetary interests it needs to pander to, even with government funding. They're just different ones.
- knz 10y agoIt probably could fund itself and make a profit. But the whole point is that the country is choosing to invest in providing quality media content in the form of high quality detailed reporting and educational content because it's critical for the success of our nation. I think even the most partisan American would have a hard time looking at commercial media and declaring it a resounding success - educational channels like Discovery/History Channel are more of a meme than source of quality media these days and "news" is now a mix of entertainment and partisan opinion pieces between a deluge of advertising.
- 10y ago
- gingerbread-man 10y agoOutline of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's FY2014 budget: http://www.cpb.org/files/aboutcpb/financials/budget/FY2014-Operating-Budget.pdf http://www.cpb.org/files/aboutcpb/financials/budget/FY2014-O... Out of a total budget of $445m: ~66% (292m) is distributed via direct grants to local public television and radio stations. ~17% (74m) goes to television programming grants. ~7% (30m) goes to radio programming. ~11% (59m) goes to system support and administration.
- gingerbread-man 10y agoI'd be curious to hear from someone who has worked at a local public broadcasting affiliate about what their budgets look like. I enjoy state-level public radio, but I don't watch a lot of state or local public television programming. It seems like a lot of the arguments for funding PBS/CPB have been centered around their national programming, e.g. Nova and Sesame Street. But if the proposed cuts are "across the board," state and local public television programs would bear a greater share of the burden. Maybe we should be talking more about those.
- maxlybbert 10y agoIt's a simple strategy. Everybody knows "Sesame Street." Fewer people know, say, "North Carolina NOW" or "Wild Nevada." On the other hand, somebody should do local stories about local shows. Each PBS station should highlight its own programming, but they would reach a different audience (including potential new fans) by getting other channels to include a story on their local news.
- ahallock 10y agoWhy can't people just donate directly? I set up recurring payments for donation-based channels I watch on Youtube, so not sure why this can't be the same.
- strictnein 10y agoThey can. People do. We donate $10 monthly to TPT, Twin Cities Public Television (the local PBS affiliate).
- richardjs 10y agoPeople do. That's what the pledge drives and "brought to you by viewers like you" commonly heard on PBS are about. Different local stations rely on difference funding sources. Stations in smaller or rural markets would have a harder time existing on direct donations alone.
- astrodust 10y agoThe people PBS can best serve are often the ones with the least amount of money to donate.
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoCan't be stated any better than that.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- gavinpc 10y agoTo me, anybody who argues that PBS should be cut loses all credibility as a budget hawk (if they had any to begin with). PBS is an incredibly valuable public-private partnership. For every dollar the federal government spends, two or three listeners listeners voluntarily contribute a dollar of their own money, much of which goes to their local community. Other programs should be looking to public broadcasting as a financial model to be emulated. edit Not to mention the lasting value created by the content.
- 67726e 10y agoNot that I'm pro-cut, but to a budget hawk any spending is too much spending regardless of matched contribution. Edit: Keep on downvoting, it's not going to change the opposition's persepctive.
- LeifCarrotson 10y agoThat's a straw man of a budget hawk. Real budget hawks are more reasonable.
- 67726e 10y agoBury your head in the sand, man. We're not looking at reasonable folks. It's just one side trying to piss on the other.
- matthewmcg 10y agoInteresting. It always seemed odd that PBS is such an frequent target of Republicans while the Voice of America seems fly under the radar. VOA is fully-taxpayer funded to the tune of $260M/yr.
- jdavis703 10y agoTraditionally Republicans have had a more pragmatic view of foreign policy. VOA is an extension of the State Department and helps to champion the American agenda without needing hard power.
- gozur88 10y agoI'm all for getting rid of them both.
- macrael 10y agoI suspect it's because VOA flies under the radar in general. I for one have never heard of it.
- jacobolus 10y agoVoA is great if you are ever stuck in some remote part of the world with no media access but a shortwave radio.
- dragonwriter 10y agoVoice of America is government (originally, anti-Soviet) propaganda. Republicans have long been very supportive of it, and as Trump was getting ready to take office moved to centralize control of it, removing the management structure that was designed to limit political abuse.
- clarkmoody 10y ago> The federal appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — about $445 million annually — supports more than a thousand television and radio stations at a cost of about $1.35 per citizen. a) It easily could be funded voluntarily b) If it is so important (as the article argues), why is it such a small portion of the budget?
- JakeAl 10y agoAnd I have yet to hear an argument regarding exactly how PBS is still necessary. Once it was, but not since anyone with a cel phone can record and upload content accessible to the entire world.
- tptacek 10y agoThe President's budget proposal might tell you something about what the Administration is about, but it's not a serious legislating document; the budget is one of a few subjects that is entirely delegated to Congress. Meanwhile, PBS is a rounding error in the non-military discretionary budget (which is itself dwarfed by mandatory entitlement spending). It's been said, most recently I think by John Dickerson, that conservatives benefit more from having PBS around as an issue than they would by slashing its funding. As several people here have pointed out: PBS gets ~15% of its funding from the government and could easily make up the shortfall, but the GOP would lose a straw man to beat up. This particular straw man goes all the way back to Reagan. It was even a campaign issue in the 2012 election. The point of Presidential budgets is to frame the conversation, not to enact changes.
- doktrin 10y agoWithout federal funding & stakeholders, what really distinguishes CPB / PBS from any other non-profit? > conservatives benefit more from having PBS around as an issue than they would by slashing its funding There's an implication here that if federal funding ceased, the conservative assault on PBS would somehow fizzle - but couldn't the opposite just as easily be true? Cutting off federal funds is a form of de-legitimization, and we'd hear it cited for years to come as 'proof' that PBS and all its programming is liberal propaganda that can safely be ignored by one and all.
- yostrovs 10y agoIt's just not a straw man. PBS influences the decisions of millions of Americans, and steers them unequivocally to the left. If 15% of Fox news's budget would come from federal government you'd understand that the money is not a "drop", but enough to influence people.
- jazzyk 10y agoAs a long-time (but now, former) financial supporter of PBS, I am of two minds here. There is a lot to like - focus on the arts, science. serious topics, quality children programming. But in recent years, the news and politics programming has turned - almost to a caricature level - unabashedly partisan and ideological. Not a single white male to be seen on the cast of NewsHour, other than a couple of low-level field reporters such as Jeff Brown, an obsession with stories like the abuse of women in southern Nigeria, while they completely ignore white male citizens of the US are left to rot (and die from opioid abuse and suicide) in West Virginia, etc. It is their prerogative to set the agenda as they like, but I feel that a publicly funded channel should cover all points of view. I feel the same about Planned Parenthood. Even though, personally, I am pro-choice, I can understand that people who are opposed to it may have a problem with their tax money used to fund it.
- d23 10y agoThose problems should be addressed, not the entire thing defunded.
- JakeAl 10y agoThey are addressed -- by watching videos streamed from Apps, YouTube, Minds, Periscope, etc.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- alphabettsy 10y agoI've personally seen tons of stories about the Opioid epidemic on PBS especially on News Hour and including an entire episode of Frontline called "Chasing Heroin". As far as abuse of women in Nigeria, I don't recall hearing about that at all, I'll have to look it up. I personally turn to PBS coverage because I find it far more balanced than something like CNN, CNBC or Fox News. I have noticed that it was pointed out that they have primarily female anchors, and it's certainly different, but I can't say I have a problem with it. I also like the fact that they don't seem to use commentators and "expert" consultants as often, but rather the Government representatives or organizations actually involved.
- therpe1 10y agoPBS is just another mechanism by which rich, productive, urban counties are forced to finance poor, unproductive, rural counties[1]. The numbers on this are quite shocking and we can finally see it now that CPB has broken it out clearly[2]. $129m of the federal monies ends up being on average 25% of the rural station budgets. When this money goes away it's unlikely that private businesses and individuals will step in to make up the shortfall at these rural stations. So, like the military, the disaster that is the transportation bill[4], Obamacare, the farm bill, housing investment, meals on wheels -- well pretty much everything the federal government actually gets around to doing[3] -- this is just a way to stock up the empty middle of the country that can't support itself. Frankly, it would be great if the Republicans were crazy enough to cut it but I'm not holding my breath. The unfortunate reality though is that the Republicans won't cut much of anything because it's their districts that are, far and away, the biggest beneficiaries of federal spending. [1] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/17/14951868/trump-defund-pbs-npr http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/17/14951868/tr... [2] http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/rural http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/rural [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/opinion/sunday/in-trump-country-shock-at-trump-budget-cuts-but-still-loyalty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/opinion/sunday/in-trump-c... [4] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/8/a-utah-republican-might-have-the-best-urban-transportation-plan https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/8/a-utah-republic...
- tofupup 10y agoI personally would be happy to give up a few dollars of the $1,859 [1] I spend on bombs every year. That is 6 weeks of work if you are working minimum wage. The blah blah budget hawks is b.s. to remove the few elements the benefit the general public and reshape the U.S. into a developing country where we fight over scrapes. Matthew 25:40 : what you do unto the least of your brother ... if we don't start taking care of one another as a family you won't have much left. [1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...