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

The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 303 posts

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

#241

Post by rpmisms »

dredmorbius wrote: post #232
rpmisms wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disclaimer: I've not specialised in media history, though I've been exploring it for a few years. You can find clear bias through sources such as I.F. Stone (active 1950s -- 1970s), or George Seldes (1930s -- 1960s, lived to 1995). Earlier muckrakers included Upton Sinclair ( The Jungle and It Can't Happen Here , 1910s -- 1950s), Ida M. Tarbell ( The History of Standard Oil , 1890s -- 1920s), and Lincoln Steffans and…

I avoided mentioning bias for this reason. Discernible spin could be "obvious bias", since I'm referring to tradecraft, not honesty. Appreciate the material—I do enjoy reading older writing.

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

#242

Post by shirro »

While PBS is a player (Spacetime, Eons, Deep Look etc) science/tech content is covered in much greater depth and with more expertise on Youtube than anything that was ever on traditional broadcast tv if you curate your subscriptions.

Other public broadcasters like the BBC and Australian ABC have been into digital, particularly for news and kids content for ages. My kids stream our public broadcaster's kids only channel full of high quality content like Bluey from their devices and have for many years.

Perhap the US needs to open up more to content from elsewhere though there are geo-blocking issues as a lot of public funded content is only free in the local market then sold to foreign markets. So what is on the public broadcaster for me is Disney or Netflix content for others.

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

#243

Post by dredmorbius »

rpmisms wrote: post #241
dredmorbius wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I've not specialised in media history, though I've been exploring it for a few years. You can find clear bias through sources such as I.F. Stone (active 1950s -- 1970s), or George Seldes (1930s -- 1960s, lived to 1995). Earlier muckrakers included Upton Sinclair ( The Jungle and It Can't Happen Here , 1910s -- 1950s), Ida M. Tarbell ( The History of Standard Oil , 1890s -- 1920s), and Lincoln Steffans and…

I avoided mentioning bias for this reason. Discernible spin could be "obvious bias", since I'm referring to tradecraft, not honesty. Appreciate the material—I do enjoy reading older writing.

Fair point.

To be clear, bias need not be conscious or deliberate. There's a great piece by Lippmann on the Russian Revolution that details just how profoundly the press got the story wrong, in large part because they were relying on official sources rather than getting "the street" view (paraphrasing Lippann generously here).

Spin is pretty much always deliberate propaganda. It may not be an outright lie, but the primacy is on persuading or manipulating rather than informing.

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

#244

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

stapedium wrote: post #224
DangitBobby wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone who self-identifies as Hispanic, I find NPRs insistence on the term LatinX offensive. I’m a middle of the road New Yorker but NPR pushes their way out of journalism and into advocacy any time gender or sexual identity enter the conversation. And due to the risk of being labled anti-Semitic I’ll stay away from their coverage of anything Israel related.

And yet elsewhere in this comment thread we have people saying that "NPR is the Ikea of radio". So it seems that people's take on "what NPR is" is fairly varied, and it seems likely that it varies in part based on specific "touchstone" issues that are important to a particular group of people, but far from everyone.

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

#245

Post by coding123 »

sidlls wrote: post #128
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…

That may be the intent, but the result is that PBS and NPR still tailor their news content to their supporters' desires (or what, perhaps, editors at these organizations believe are the desires). NPR especially is terrible at presenting real journalism. When it's not "both sides get equal time, even if there's only one fact-based side", it's vanity puff piece interviews and similar content, just like for-profit netwo…

I find that NPRs stations, at least on the left coast, are pretty damn left leaning.

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

#246

Post by tkgally »

dredmorbius wrote: post #232
rpmisms wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disclaimer: I've not specialised in media history, though I've been exploring it for a few years. You can find clear bias through sources such as I.F. Stone (active 1950s -- 1970s), or George Seldes (1930s -- 1960s, lived to 1995). Earlier muckrakers included Upton Sinclair ( The Jungle and It Can't Happen Here , 1910s -- 1950s), Ida M. Tarbell ( The History of Standard Oil , 1890s -- 1920s), and Lincoln Steffans and…

Nice list of references. You might want to add The Press by A. J. Liebling [1], a witty, perceptive writer about many subjects.

From 1960, when many U.S. newspapers were going out of business: “The best thing Congress could do to keep more newspapers going would be to raise the capital-gains tax to the level of the income tax. (Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.)” (p. 706).

[1] https://www.loa.org/books/302-the-sweet-science-and-other-wr...

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

#247

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

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.

> NPR is notoriously biased and niche in its politics

Niche, eh? Have you checked the listener numbers? Yes, Carlson's show on Fox beats all NPR shows, but NPR's prime time shows are consistently among the most consumed daily media events in the USA. Shows like "All Things Considered" generally (but not always) beat out supposedly "trend-forming" cable TV shows.

As for "notoriously biased", that's typically a weasel phrase that means something like "People are saying that NPR is biased". So what do you mean by "notoriously"?

I grew up in a country where the idea of "objective journalism" was regarded as idiotic, and all journalism was accepted to have a POV. By those standards, NPR stands out as one the least clearly biased and most intelligent radio journalism examples around.

What I would consider more important complaints about NPR are the fecklessness of essentially all of its interviews, in which there is an absolute refusal to hold an interviewee's feet to the fire, regardless of who they are or what they have written, said, done or represent. Like most of the US media, they throw mostly softball questions at thos with power, and on the odd occasion that they ask something a bit more pointed, refusal to answer (or just utter evasion) is met by ... moving on the next question.

I care about these general characteristics of NPR journalism far more than I do any particular handling of a particular issue.

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

#248

Post by babypuncher »

jonas21 wrote: post #88

If you look at the history of the Public Broadcasting Act [1] that established the CPB and eventually PBS, it seems clear that it was passed in response to poorly-funded educational programming not being able to compete with high-budget commercial network TV. Its authors wanted to make it easier for smaller, non-commercial entities to produce and distribute high-quality educational content. In that regard, the Intern…

Presumably, a "PBS for the Internet" could provide a space and funding model for that wealth of quality educational content without being surrounded by garbage. Right now the problem is that good stuff like Up and Atom or Mark Rober exist right alongside Top 10 Reasons Satanists Want You To Get Vaccinated.

Having a safe educational website you can easily let your kids use without worrying about it corrupting their brains seems just as useful as having a safe educational TV station was in the '80s and '90s.

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

#249

Post by b0tzzzzzzman »

babesh wrote: post #222
dragontamer wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Censorship is a tool, not a goal. The goal was control of Afghanistan. Go look at the map of control. The Taliban have made great gains and the US and allies basically are giving up because they have bigger fish to fry. As noted, the censorship wasn’t about disinformation, it was and is just about power.

What are the bigger fish? Could you elaborate?

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

#250

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

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.

Also, I consistently hear NPR play the same game as the NYT: reach out to mythical "real America" voters, interview them, be tolerant of their perspectives even if the overall context is unfavorable towards conservative/reactionary/regressive viewpoints. You can practically hear the hosts' backs crack as they bend over backwards to try to be pleasant to both these interview subjects, and/or their intellectual leading lights.

But when was the last time I heard NPR interview an actual bona fide leftist? I don't think I've ever heard this on any of the flagship shows. Democracy Now, out of WNYC does, but that's not an NPR production. There's an almost complete absence of left politics on NPR (as on American media in general), whereas "due consideration" to equivalent positions on the right appear to be part of journalism's civic duty.

So yeah, they don't exact coddle red-leaning politics and people, but they do seek them out and try to let them have a voice amidst the stories that suggest that they are probably wrong.

Left-leaning politics? Forget that. You're not hearing that on NPR or pretty much anywhere else in this country. BTW, MSNBC is not even the exception that proves the rule.

Post reply on HN