5 ms·

How come PBS cannot fund itself? And make profit and revenue? Just curious.

vinay427 10y ago
In 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  It has monetary interests it needs to pander to, even with government funding. They're just different ones.
knz 10y ago
It 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.
- jhbadger 10y ago
  I remember how twenty years ago, the argument was made that the high quality of educational programming on the Discovery and History Channels made PBS redundant. I didn't agree even then, but at the time there really were some pretty good stuff on those commercial channels. But it turns out that shows about science and history don't make as much money as nonsense about ancient aliens and so the commercial stations stopped being that educational. It really shows how the commercial model doesn't really work for education.
  - Taniwha 10y ago
    That only works if you have a Hitler fetish (History) or and Alaska fetish (Discovery)
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    Plus, their shows are made for a 3rd grade level of understanding. None of their science shows have even a hint of math
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  > country is choosing to invest Lawmakers are spending other people's money > critical for the success of our nation That's a stretch
- Uhhrrr 10y ago
  Certainly as far as dramas and comedies go, commercial channels like HBO/Netflix/etc have left PBS in the dust. PBS Kids has really good stuff, but then they're probably already profitable.
  - cvwright 10y ago
    For the "edgy, morally-compromised anti-hero" genre, sure HBO/FX/AMC/Netflix have been nailing it for years. However, in other areas it's PBS that's leaving them in the dust. For example: I watch a lot of British cop shows. Nothing from the US can touch the stuff that WBGH brings over from BBC/ITV. Except maybe "Lie to Me", and it's been off the air for years. PBS also rules whatever you'd call the "Downton Abbey genre". The last time they had competition there was from A&E in the mid 90s.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> How come PBS cannot fund itself? Public television largely does; only about 20% of public TV funding (PBS and local station) comes from federal sources.
goatlover 10y ago
Because making profit isn't the goal of PBS.
- randyrand 10y ago
  So because that's not the goal it's impossible for them to do so? Why?
maxlybbert 10y ago
PBS has been facing funding cuts for a long time. Unlike other groups, PBS has actually made significant changes and no longer relies on federal money as much as it used to.
bsder 10y ago
I think Discovery Channel and History Channel are really good counterarguments nowadays to the idea that quality educational TV could be done for profit. Edit: beaten by everybody in the universe ... :)
- astrodust 10y ago
  Just look at the shitty state of affairs today. History Channel: "Ghosts did it" Discovery Channel: "Aliens did it"
  - cvwright 10y ago
    It's like they replaced our educational programming lineup with the one from Idiocracy or Wall-E, just to see if we'd notice. "Really Big Things" "Animals That Could Eat You" "Stuff That Blows Up" "Loud, Shiny Cars/Motorcycles" "Redneck Family Living in the Woods" Yes, we noticed.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      "Ow, My History!"
komone 10y ago
Ask yourself: Why do kids prefer to spend money on pizza and burgers, and not green vegetables and fruit? It's obvious which is the better investment.
panic 10y ago
How come Hacker News can't fund itself? Not everything has to make revenue.

In 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 ago
I 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 ago
It has monetary interests it needs to pander to, even with government funding. They're just different ones.

knz 10y ago

It 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.

jhbadger 10y ago
I remember how twenty years ago, the argument was made that the high quality of educational programming on the Discovery and History Channels made PBS redundant. I didn't agree even then, but at the time there really were some pretty good stuff on those commercial channels. But it turns out that shows about science and history don't make as much money as nonsense about ancient aliens and so the commercial stations stopped being that educational. It really shows how the commercial model doesn't really work for education.
- Taniwha 10y ago
  That only works if you have a Hitler fetish (History) or and Alaska fetish (Discovery)
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  Plus, their shows are made for a 3rd grade level of understanding. None of their science shows have even a hint of math
clarkmoody 10y ago
> country is choosing to invest Lawmakers are spending other people's money > critical for the success of our nation That's a stretch
Uhhrrr 10y ago
Certainly as far as dramas and comedies go, commercial channels like HBO/Netflix/etc have left PBS in the dust. PBS Kids has really good stuff, but then they're probably already profitable.
- cvwright 10y ago
  For the "edgy, morally-compromised anti-hero" genre, sure HBO/FX/AMC/Netflix have been nailing it for years. However, in other areas it's PBS that's leaving them in the dust. For example: I watch a lot of British cop shows. Nothing from the US can touch the stuff that WBGH brings over from BBC/ITV. Except maybe "Lie to Me", and it's been off the air for years. PBS also rules whatever you'd call the "Downton Abbey genre". The last time they had competition there was from A&E in the mid 90s.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> How come PBS cannot fund itself? Public television largely does; only about 20% of public TV funding (PBS and local station) comes from federal sources.

goatlover 10y ago

Because making profit isn't the goal of PBS.

randyrand 10y ago
So because that's not the goal it's impossible for them to do so? Why?

maxlybbert 10y ago

PBS has been facing funding cuts for a long time. Unlike other groups, PBS has actually made significant changes and no longer relies on federal money as much as it used to.

bsder 10y ago

I think Discovery Channel and History Channel are really good counterarguments nowadays to the idea that quality educational TV could be done for profit. Edit: beaten by everybody in the universe ... :)

astrodust 10y ago
Just look at the shitty state of affairs today. History Channel: "Ghosts did it" Discovery Channel: "Aliens did it"
- cvwright 10y ago
  It's like they replaced our educational programming lineup with the one from Idiocracy or Wall-E, just to see if we'd notice. "Really Big Things" "Animals That Could Eat You" "Stuff That Blows Up" "Loud, Shiny Cars/Motorcycles" "Redneck Family Living in the Woods" Yes, we noticed.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    "Ow, My History!"

komone 10y ago

Ask yourself: Why do kids prefer to spend money on pizza and burgers, and not green vegetables and fruit? It's obvious which is the better investment.

panic 10y ago

How come Hacker News can't fund itself? Not everything has to make revenue.