The Push for a “PBS for the Internet” • Hacker News Board

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#211

Post by Wolfenstein98k » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 10:44 PM UTC

olivermarks wrote: post #162

pionar wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly not true. NPR criticizes Bill Gates often as part of the "celebrity billionaire" group, and recently had a story about his affair with an employee.

'NPR’s funding from Gates “was not a factor in why or how we did the story,” reporter Pam Fessler says, adding that her reporting went beyond the voices quoted in her article. The story, nevertheless, is one of hundreds NPR has reported about the Gates Foundation or the work it funds, including myriad favorable pieces written from the perspective of Gates or its grantees.' https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundati…

When you donate billions, you help lots of people who may then be honest about that.

What is surprising to you that beneficiaries of philanthropy are happy to report and promote philanthropy?

It's not like they try to cover up his "sins", or that the channel doesn't report on the latest gossip about his marriage just because it's "news".

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#212

Post by DangitBobby » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #200

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do you believe that PBS or NPR have crossed that line in ways that for-profit, privately-owned media has not?

No, but they haven't not , either. NPR is notoriously biased and niche in its politics. Ask anyone on the half of the country who doesn't vote blue, or necessarily get along with the latest developments in gender identity, of NPR gives their worldview any coverage whatsoever that isn't bashing and negative.

As someone who votes blue, they do not. In addition, their coverage of Jeff Bezos on his space journey really drove home that they aren't without external influence.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#213

Post by rpmisms » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #109

tootie wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's debatable. As much as journalism has been democratized it's also nose-dived in quality. And I don't mean the MSM. The overwhelming majority of "citizen journalists" are producing very low quality or even downright detrimental work. At the same time, a lot of professional journalism has sacrificed quality for revenue. Public media like PBS and NPR affiliates are intended to promote professional journali…

Are you just looking at previous journalism with rose colored glasses?

I recommend you read some newspaper articles from the 1920s and 1930s. Witty, well-written, and much less discernible spin than current news articles. Journalism has declined as a trade, there is no question. The real issue is whether journalism is net worse for society than it previously was.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#214

Post by babesh » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 11:00 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #197

babesh wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The corollary to not empowering anyone to push content is disempowering some from pushing content. That is incredibly bad because gives some the power to limit the voices of others. History shows that this power is abused and that the abuse of this power is worse than disinformation. If you look at what is happening today, this call for censorship in the name of combating disinformation has actually had no effect on…

> If you look at what is happening today, this call for censorship in the name of combating disinformation has actually had no effect on disinformation. You say that, but ISIS propaganda has been soundly defeated outside of fringe sites like GETTR. And sure, GETTR remains a hotbed of terrible disinformation (such as this ISIS propaganda), but without a mainstream audience, its much less of an issue compared to giving…

The harm caused by censorship is so much greater. Look at censorship in the old Soviet Union, present day China, 50s McCarthy era US, North Korea, present day Brazil, India, solidarity era Poland, etc… It isn’t a tool for combating disinformation. It is a tool for suppressing dissent.

Also your logic and example are faulty. A beheading video is not disinformation. It is terror. It is a threat to those that oppose ISIS that that would befall them. Also, if you haven’t noticed, ISIS is about to retake Afghanistan. Getting rid of that video did nothing.

https://news.yahoo.com/mapping-advance-taliban-afghanistan-2...

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#215

Post by phone8675309 » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 11:00 PM UTC

nwatson wrote: post #34

jds_ wrote: post #6

I would like to note that PBS does actually publish Youtube videos via PBS Digital Studios[0][1]. They have great creators making PBS quality content but in "Youtube" style formats with a wide range of topics (science, popular culture, art, food, news, and music). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_Digital_Studios [1] https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsdigitalstudios/channels

We watch the full PBS NewsHour most nights, simulcast/streamed live on YouTube (also available on all/most PBS affiliates) ... and it's available for later viewing as well. Some would say it leans a bit left but I think it's the best unbiased presentation of (U.S.) national concerns. They get wide access for interview to the most relevant American and non-American persons across a wide range of topics and are not afr…

https://youtu.be/D5lvGMCF9jA?t=3270

It cannot be unbiased when it's corporate supported.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#216

Post by olivermarks » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 11:01 PM UTC

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #211

olivermarks wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'NPR’s funding from Gates “was not a factor in why or how we did the story,” reporter Pam Fessler says, adding that her reporting went beyond the voices quoted in her article. The story, nevertheless, is one of hundreds NPR has reported about the Gates Foundation or the work it funds, including myriad favorable pieces written from the perspective of Gates or its grantees.' https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundati…

When you donate billions, you help lots of people who may then be honest about that. What is surprising to you that beneficiaries of philanthropy are happy to report and promote philanthropy? It's not like they try to cover up his "sins", or that the channel doesn't report on the latest gossip about his marriage just because it's "news".

It's a great article, did you read it?

'Twenty years ago, journalists scrutinized Bill Gates’s initial foray into philanthropy as a vehicle to enrich his software company, or a PR exercise to salvage his battered reputation following Microsoft’s bruising antitrust battle with the Department of Justice. Today, the foundation is most often the subject of soft profiles and glowing editorials describing its good works. '

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#217

Post by egypturnash » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 11:06 PM UTC

Holy crap I did not know how badly I wanted “a PBS for the Internet” until I read that sentence. Grants for media designed to educate and inform, free of the constraints of “what sells” and “what doesn’t offend the advertisers”. With, yes, some actual control over the content instead of the current world where anything goes as long as it’s not explicitly breaking a law, or annoying one of the five immense vertically-integrated media corporations that have destroyed the public domain. Fuck. How do we make this happen.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#218

Post by nwatson » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 11:07 PM UTC

travismark wrote: post #209

nwatson wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We watch the full PBS NewsHour most nights, simulcast/streamed live on YouTube (also available on all/most PBS affiliates) ... and it's available for later viewing as well. Some would say it leans a bit left but I think it's the best unbiased presentation of (U.S.) national concerns. They get wide access for interview to the most relevant American and non-American persons across a wide range of topics and are not afr…

I used to watch Newshour most nights but since last summer I've quit. too many stories are unbearably biased. and Mr Capehart is a poor substitute for Mr Shields on Fridays. The former is so predictable, why watch

My wife also misses Mr Shields greatly, I do too.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#219

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 11:10 PM UTC

babesh wrote: post #214

dragontamer wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you look at what is happening today, this call for censorship in the name of combating disinformation has actually had no effect on disinformation. You say that, but ISIS propaganda has been soundly defeated outside of fringe sites like GETTR. And sure, GETTR remains a hotbed of terrible disinformation (such as this ISIS propaganda), but without a mainstream audience, its much less of an issue compared to giving…

The harm caused by censorship is so much greater. Look at censorship in the old Soviet Union, present day China, 50s McCarthy era US, North Korea, present day Brazil, India, solidarity era Poland, etc… It isn’t a tool for combating disinformation. It is a tool for suppressing dissent. Also your logic and example are faulty. A beheading video is not disinformation. It is terror. It is a threat to those that oppose ISI…

The Taliban is about to retake Afghanistan, which is a different group than ISIS / ISIL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban%E2%80%93ISIL_conflict_...

In fact, Taliban and ISIL are at war with each other for Afghanistan right now. In any case, we've been incredibly successful at censoring both of them from our mainstream platforms.

They wish for recruitment, to spread their propaganda / disinformation, and to grow their cause. Its an information war, the same as any other.

Re: The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

#220

Post by guerrilla » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 11:11 PM UTC

jacobr1 wrote: post #173

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not centrist. It's pro status quo. "Things are mostly OK, and in the few cases where they're a little bit bad, we're here to tell you about them."

Is there a meaningful difference? Isn't your definition of status-quo more or less the position taken by "centrists"?

Yes, obviously as soon as you look at more than one place or time. Think about it, the status quo varies. Also the current status quo is neoliberal, which is right-wing for Europe and South Aemrica, so not centrist in absolute terms.