Live data from Hacker News

Save PBS. It makes us safer

nytimes.com

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#101
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…

From an ideological perspective, the idea of any state-run media is pretty dissonant with my views. Being opposed to the very idea of PBS or anything like it is a totally understandable position. The case for PBS is a pragmatic one: it serves millions of kids everyday and supplies unrivaled public educational programming, for what most would consider a very reasonable public expenditure. I completely agree that other…

I certainly believe people who say they want to cut PBS simply because they don't like it, or don't see it as the government's province. But in the context of trying to balance the federal budget over time, PBS is beyond a micro-optimiziation (if, indeed, it would not actually backfire in the long term). I'm willing to assume that anyone who puts it on their shortlist is being disingenuous about their motives.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#102
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…

"they completely ignore white male citizens of the US are left to rot (and die from opioid abuse and suicide) in West Virginia, etc." :

A simple google search yields :

- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/opioid-abuse/ (1 stories) - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/opioids/ (7 stories) - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/deaths-despair-cutting-life-s...

West Virginia - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/another-west-virginia-to... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/west-virginia-school-caring-s... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/early-results-of-w-va-to... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sobering-stories-drug-addicti... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/rural-west-virginia-schools-h... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/schools-rural-west-virginia-a...

[the next statements are made with the hope of furthering dialog] Yes, they could do better as far as content, what worries me about your post is your statement "completely ignore" seems to differ from reality.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#103
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.

PBS is actually in a growth industry: financing high-quality original video content. Take a look at what Netflix and Amazon are investing in that direction, for example.

My kid watches PBS shows frequently. She has never watched TV in her life. But she knows PBSkids.org and asks for it by name.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#104
I 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_...

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#105
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…

I'd say PBS is no longer necessary thanks to YouTube, Periscope, Minds, Kickstarter and hundreds of other sources of content actually created by the public. And I actually know several VPs who work there. You mention the financial model to be emulated - that would be Kickstarter, GoFundMe, Patreon, etc. The best argument for why PBS funding should be cut is because the amount of government funding that goes to running their operations is small in comparison to the non-government funding. Defunding PBS is a direct shift of power from institutions directly to the people. People can still fund PBS if they so choose, or they can simply fund the projects they deem worthy through the many sites mentioned above.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#106
post #85
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…

Those problems should be addressed, not the entire thing defunded.

They are addressed -- by watching videos streamed from Apps, YouTube, Minds, Periscope, etc.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#107

> 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?

And 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.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hid…

[deleted]

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#109
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They didn't see it coming during election day because PBS is part of the 'bubble', just another liberal media source that doesn't understand the whole of America. Why would a Republican president want to fund them if all he'll get is negative commentary?

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#110
post #63

The 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 con…

It'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.
Post reply on HN