Save PBS. It makes us safer • Hacker News Board

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#91

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 1:27 AM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #48

BeetleB wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They generally are 10 seconds at most, have maybe two sentences about the company, and show the logo. aka a commercial.

ad·ver·tise·ment ˈadvərˌtīzmənt,ədˈvərdizmənt/ noun a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy. --- As long as said 10-second intervals don't promote a product, service or event, and they simply mention that Company X supports PBS, they aren't advertisements. https://www.google.com/search?&rls=en&q=define:advertisement...

It's relatively tasteful advertisement:

https://vimeo.com/41440389

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#92

Post by alphabettsy » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 2:16 AM UTC

jazzyk wrote: post #83

As 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…

I'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.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#93

Post by tasty_freeze » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 2:28 AM UTC

massysett wrote: post #25

sushisource wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? 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".

Dictionary.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…

You 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.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#94

Post by jazzyk » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 2:49 AM UTC

alphabettsy wrote: post #92

jazzyk wrote: post #83

As 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…

I'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…

While always left-leaning, PBS was much more balanced in the past. These days, most of their invited guests are either NYT, or WaPo reporters and they have become - sadly - increasingly unbalanced, leftist propagandists.

Being critical of a current administration is fine, but leaving out stories which don't fit their narrative is just... propaganda. No other way to describe it. Not that Fox News and the other right wing sources don't do the same thing, but I thought we could expect higher standards from PBS/NPR. Not anymore - so I stopped supporting them (after 25 years of solid and faithful financial support).

This sad commentary applies to all media - there just isn't a single, reasonably balanced source of news anymore. I guess being truly fair and balanced (and no, Fox News ain't it :-)) just does not sell anymore. Perhaps having 6 huge corporations owning all major media (PBS excepted) has something to do with it

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#95

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 3:36 AM UTC

theparanoid wrote: post #41

gavinpc wrote: post #35

To 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 fi…

PBS is in a dying industry. Television. Perhaps another equally good public-private partnership will arrive. The Khan Academy and Wikipedia are something like that.

You should familiarize yourself PBS Digital Studios. They have several high quality Youtube channels. CrashCourse, Space Time, Infinite, etc. are much better at using the Internet medium and specifically video for learning than Khan Academy, with high production values for a Youtube series though they have different objectives. Khan Academy is like a traditional classroom via the web.

The PBS shows are bingeworthy. Seriously, take a look at SpaceTime. It's so much better than anything the Science or Discovery channel puts on. And I've binged on several topics in Crash Course

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#96

Post by alphabettsy » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 3:39 AM UTC

jazzyk wrote: post #94

alphabettsy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'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…

While always left-leaning, PBS was much more balanced in the past. These days, most of their invited guests are either NYT, or WaPo reporters and they have become - sadly - increasingly unbalanced, leftist propagandists. Being critical of a current administration is fine, but leaving out stories which don't fit their narrative is just... propaganda. No other way to describe it. Not that Fox News and the other right w…

Media consolidation certinaly hasn't helped. It does seem to me that individual journalists are making their views known more commonly and it's definitely easier to spot when they're actively engaging their audience on social media. Part of me wonders if them being encouraged or required to participate in social media causes some bias towards getting approval from fans.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that news organizations being further driven towards higher profits also causes them to follow consumer trends and popular stories in "their audience" rather than doing more investigative journalism and objective reporting. It's almost like social media and popular opinion drive the story rather than just tipping off journalists to where the story might be, its lazy and probably cheaper.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#97

Post by cvwright » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 3:46 AM UTC

jazzyk wrote: post #94

alphabettsy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'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…

While always left-leaning, PBS was much more balanced in the past. These days, most of their invited guests are either NYT, or WaPo reporters and they have become - sadly - increasingly unbalanced, leftist propagandists. Being critical of a current administration is fine, but leaving out stories which don't fit their narrative is just... propaganda. No other way to describe it. Not that Fox News and the other right w…

I appreciate Masterpiece Mystery and Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood as much as anyone.

But unfortunately I have to agree with some of this. I watched the election night coverage on PBS. As more states started turning red, the host looked like she was about to cry. And she looked like she was physically in pain, or wanted to spit, each time she said the words "white working class" voters.

So it comes as no surprise that those voters, and the candidate they elected, are going to want to pull the plug.

It's a real shame, too. How could they not see this coming?

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#98

Post by cvwright » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 3:59 AM UTC

Uhhrrr wrote: post #64

knz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 channel…

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.

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.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#99

Post by cvwright » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 4:05 AM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #43

bsder wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ... :)

Just look at the shitty state of affairs today. History Channel: "Ghosts did it" Discovery Channel: "Aliens did it"

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.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#100

Post by Neliquat » Thu, Apr 06, 2017, 4:14 AM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #39

CharlesW wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I 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.

I literally know no one who watches ota. I tried for a while but was quickly confronted with ota quality programming (or lack thereof). The digital antenna is in a box somewhere.