8 ms·
> I think public broadcasting will be stronger when it stands on its own without interference from politicians. What does the "public" in "public broadcasting"
by Pfhortune 1y ago
> I think public broadcasting will be stronger when it stands on its own without interference from politicians.
What does the "public" in "public broadcasting" mean to you?
- munchler 1y agoIdeally, it would be entirely non-commercial, funded by direct donations from the public.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Eisenstein 1y agoWhat are taxes for, then?
- otterley 1y agoThe American public's attitude towards using taxes to support media has shifted over the past few decades. There's a perception (right or wrong) that public media is liberally biased, and it's getting government attention now, and so we're seeing the consequences of that.
- munchler 1y agoThings that are supported by a durable majority of the population. I wish that included public broadcasting, but it doesn't. Personally, I'm tired of hearing conservatives whine about public broadcasting. This will at least shut them up for good.
- toomanyrichies 1y ago> This will at least shut them up for good. No it won't. The modern GOP is fueled by grievance. It needs an "other" in order to exist. They'll have a new enemy to rail against by this time tomorrow.
- munchler 1y agoYes, of course, but it won’t be public broadcasting anymore. That’s why this might be a win for public broadcasting in the long run.
- anigbrowl 1y agoThis is naive. If conservatives continue to perceive outlets like PBS as a thorn in their political sides, they'll go after their broadcasting licenses or target them with ruinous lawsuits - both actions that have been discussed or taken by conservative politicians already.
- bix6 1y agoI guess we should just support the post office with donations while we’re at it. That’ll work well!
- munchler 1y agoI suspect the post office is still supported by a durable majority. If it isn’t, then it will probably lose government funding as well.
- saagarjha 1y agoA durable majority doesn't even support funding education, and it is losing federal funding as we speak. Do you think this is a good thing?
- ptero 1y agoI don't think this is correct. The majority of people prefers states to have more influence on school curriculum and federal government to have less. Yes, there are downsides to that, but it generally means that hours on STEM will increase and hours on ideology will decrease. Removing federal influence in setting agenda while sending federal funding directly to states without federal oversight of programs would not be a bad thing. My 2c.
- bix6 1y agoBanning books and forcing bibles in schools. Right.
- ptero 1y agoNo, teaching what the local parents believe is best for their own kids. While there are certainly a few of those who will want bibles, most in my experience put much higher value in the extra STEM unhindered by ideology. My kids high school recently cancelled advanced math classes because the racial composition of students there was not what the school hoped to see. No, thank you, I want parents to have a much bigger influence on what schools teach.
- const_cast 1y agoYou can't shut conservatives up. When you give conservatives what they want, they don't become less extreme - they double down and become more extreme. What you're referring to is a kind of "respectability politics". Basically, if we're nice and do what conservatives say, then things get better and they ease off. We have literal hundreds of years of proof that this is not the case, and the opposite happens. Think about Donald Trump. When we legitimize him and continue to do so, has he gotten less extreme, or more? In 2016 versus now, is he less extreme, or more? Much, much more. But he got what he wanted, right? Yes. And then he wants more, because he feels emboldened. It's an ideology built on Greed. If you give conservatives an inch, they take a mile. If you ease up a bit on reconstruction, then suddenly you have Jim Crow. If you you give them a teensy little bit of morality legislation, then suddenly you have mass censorship proposals and the Ten Commandments in schools. As a gay man, I see this time and time again in my own community. I have been told we are too vulgar, too sexual, too gross, and this is why conservatives target us. That if we just acted more normal, more respectable, they would leave us alone, and the world would be happy. But there was a time when we were respectable, when we hid in the shadows. When we got wives just for show, just to please the conservative narrative. When we only acted like ourselves in our own hidden bars, our own hidden spaces. Out of sight, out of mind. And, well, how were we treated? Was it better? No. It was much, much worse. This will not shut them up.
- SoftTalker 1y agoVoluntary vs. Compelled is the difference.
- Eisenstein 1y agoAre you saying that non-commercial broadcasting does not count as a public good, or that taxes should be voluntary, or that it does count as a public good but taxes should not be spent on it?
- pfortuny 1y agoThat is not what "public" means in ordinary language. Public is intended to mean "supported by taxes". Support by donations is always dependent on the largest donor.
- jleyank 1y agoSee Post, Washington to see what "dependent on the largest donor" is revealed to be.
- munchler 1y agoNot going to argue semantics with you. The US government was the largest donor until now. No single non-governmental donor will ever have that level of influence again.
- GuinansEyebrows 1y agoit's not a semantic argument. you misunderstand the term in question.
- munchler 1y agoUntil this change, public broadcasting got 85% of its funding from donations, so whatever the term used to mean, that's what it means now.
- ascagnel_ 1y agoThen it becomes an organization dominated by those who donate the most -- and there have already been cases where a PBS affiliate self-censored and modified its editorial in an attempt to placate a potential donor[0]. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/a-word-from-our-sponsor https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/a-word-from-ou...
- infamia 1y agoCan we call it public broadcasting when it fails to even dimly reflect the diversity of ideas for the areas it serves? Milk toast conservatives like Juan Williams were deemed intolerable a long time ago, so calling it public radio at this point is a misnomer and a sad farce.
- tayloramurphy 1y agoI think you mean "milquetoast". The wikipedia link led me to "milk toast", which is interesting in itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_Milquetoast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_Milquetoast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_toast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_toast
- saagarjha 1y agoTIL the etymology for the word
- otterley 1y agoJuan Williams wasn't let go because he's conservative; it's because he's a bigot (unless you think being a bigot is a conservative qualification): "Look, Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." https://www.npr.org/2010/10/21/130712737/npr-ends-williams-contract-after-muslim-remarks https://www.npr.org/2010/10/21/130712737/npr-ends-williams-c... "NPR, like any mainstream news outlet, expects its journalists to be thoughtful and measured in everything they say. What Williams said was deeply offensive to Muslims and inflamed, rather than contributing positively, to an important debate about the role of Muslims in America." https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2010/10/21/130713285/nprs-firing-of-juan-williams-was-poorly-handled https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2010/10/21/1307132...