Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

cpb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 646 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#161

Post by mandevil »

stockresearcher wrote: post #113
toast0 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In particular, their kids programming is the absolute best. Nothing flashy or exciting, but it's laser focused on education and has zero agenda. I dunno, the Odd Squad has almost as much green screen as a Guardians of the Galaxy movie. If that's not flashy, I dunno. And Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman was pretty out there; a space ghost style host ordering kids around the streets of Boston. Also, the reboot of CyberChase…

FYI, Odd Squad was/is a Canadian kids TV show. It really surprised me to learn this; it always felt so Ohio to me.

I believe GP was quite firmly tongue in cheek.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#162

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

toast0 wrote: post #72
legitster wrote: post #38

Contrary to the conservative spin over the years, I have found public broadcasting to be one of the least biased sources of headline news and information available. (For their national broadcasts at least - local ... can be hit or miss). In particular, their kids programming is the absolute best. Nothing flashy or exciting, but it's laser focused on education and has zero agenda. And the PBS kids apps are one of the…

> In particular, their kids programming is the absolute best. Nothing flashy or exciting, but it's laser focused on education and has zero agenda. I dunno, the Odd Squad has almost as much green screen as a Guardians of the Galaxy movie. If that's not flashy, I dunno. And Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman was pretty out there; a space ghost style host ordering kids around the streets of Boston. Also, the reboot of CyberChase…

You clearly have multiple kids… or a very niche set of entrainment you prefer.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#163

Post by ncr100 »

legitster wrote: post #38

Contrary to the conservative spin over the years, I have found public broadcasting to be one of the least biased sources of headline news and information available. (For their national broadcasts at least - local ... can be hit or miss). In particular, their kids programming is the absolute best. Nothing flashy or exciting, but it's laser focused on education and has zero agenda. And the PBS kids apps are one of the…

Apologies for the following snark - it's tragic, so this is more of a reaction comment:

> I have found public broadcasting to be one of the least biased sources of headline news and information available

> kids programming is the absolute best

Fixed that for you:

> I USED TO FIND public broadcasting provided the least biased sources of headline news and information available

> kids programming WAS the absolute best

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#165

Post by another_twist »

colechristensen wrote: post #81
another_twist wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats expected. In functioning democracies state media is run for the purpose not profit. It doesnt have the corrupting influence of political money. PBS in the US could be so much better. Just look at what BBC is able to do in the UK.

>Just at what BBC is able to do in the UK. Every household that watches BBC in the UK needs to pay £174.50 ($230) a year. (the wording here has to be done carefully, let's not digress into being exact on who has to pay it) Federal funding for public media distributed out to $1.54 per person in the US last year. There's... uh... a bit of a difference in the national funding for the BBC and public media in the US.

Agreed. My argument was that US has a much stronger economy than the UK and clearly bigger state coffers. With proper funding there's no reason why state run media can't put out good quality stories and content. Not just news.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#166

Post by jleyank »

pfortuny wrote: post #120
munchler wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally, it would be entirely non-commercial, funded by direct donations from the public.

That 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.

See Post, Washington to see what "dependent on the largest donor" is revealed to be.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#167

Post by Devilspawn6666 »

thrownawaysz wrote: post #68
another_twist wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats expected. In functioning democracies state media is run for the purpose not profit. It doesnt have the corrupting influence of political money. PBS in the US could be so much better. Just look at what BBC is able to do in the UK.

>Just at what BBC is able to do in the UK. This is funny because BBC is a prime example of being a propaganda channel for the government of the day. And that's not new at all just look back at the coverage of the Troubles or the miners strikes in the 70s-80s. Yes it's not on the level of CGTN or Russia Today but BBC is not neutral at all https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-...

The BBC is pro-Establishment rather than in favour of the government of the day. I.E. Strongly pro-EU / anti-Brexit. It's also decidedly pro-Woke.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#168

Post by atonse »

jaredwiener wrote: post #143
atonse wrote: post #12

According to this page [1] PBS only receives about 15% of its funds from federal funding. The rest is from donations. 1: https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-end... So this certainly won't be the death of PBS, as I had feared. Update 2: For the record (easier to respond in this original post than to each response), I am not defending the decision at all. I grew up listening to NPR, and have been o…

PBS and NPR do not operate like the commercial networks -- ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox/Etc are big corporations that produce (or commission/license, it gets...weird) shows to be distributed on their affiliates, that, depending on the city you are in, can be owned by the network OR another company that operates it like a franchise. Their affiliate agreement governs how much of the network programming they play -- though there are…

As others have said, the big guys (WGBH in Boston, WETA in DC, etc) will have minimal impact since they have a large pool of donors.

But the little guys will suffer more. Ultimately, I think we can all agree that we hope the impact won't be catastrophic as far as the number of listeners impacted.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#169

Post by vel0city »

tptacek wrote: post #149
vel0city wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public television and public radio stations are literally being shut down, now, as per the topic article. Any station meaningfully relying on CPB is done.

I'm sure they will, but public funding for my local NPR and PBS stations amounts to something like 5% of their budget; they aren't going anywhere. NPR and PBS as institutions are more threatened by the Internet than they are by this funding cut. I don't support the cut, but I get the vibe that many people commenting on this thread don't know what CPB is.

> public funding for my local NPR and PBS stations

Ah, so it's not going anywhere because it's not directly affecting your station. Got it. For many other people it is going away.

This will affect your station though. Lots of stations spent a good bit of their budgets on content from PBS and NPR. While direct federal sources aren't a massive chunk of their income, revenues from member stations is. This will impact the content your local public TV and radio station will get.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

#170

Post by McAlpine5892 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" was so prescient. So sad to see its worst predictions come true.

I am quite literally in the middle of reading this now [0]. This would be great required reading for high school students. Anyone that runs across this comment should put it at the top of their reading list.

Most frustratingly, many people know how to be properly skeptical. To use Sagan's example, it comes out in full-force any time someone buys a used car. Never trust the dealer. Everybody knows that.

I really appreciate that Sagan refrains from looking down on anyone. It's all too easy to do and I am guilty of it at times. It also leads to a much more useful conversation. Sagan provides hope that we can educate better. Compared to say, Dawkins, who I think has ultimately hurt the cause. Nobody will listen when they feel insulted.

> So sad to see its worst predictions come true.

The most recent bit of the book I read involved James Randi. I was curious about the guy so I did some other reading. Randi gave out an annual "award" called the "Pigasus Award" to fraudsters and similar. Mehmet Oz received the award [1] three times. Now Oz runs Medicaid!

Sadly, we've lost Sagan and Randi. Sometimes it feels like the world has lost any sort of check against gullibility. To paraphrase from the book, many scientists are particularly not equipped to call these scammers out. Scientists wrestle with nature - nature has laws. Trying to call out the Oz's of the world is hard because they don't play by the rules of reason.

---

[0] https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709

[1] https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2011-apr-01-la-heb-dr-...

Post reply on HN