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

291–300 of 303 posts

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

#291

Post by LostInTheWoods »

WalterBright wrote: post #154
gowld wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Supply of PBS quality content is a solved problem. The unsolved problem is the demand side, people making better consumption choices. Legislation can't fix this, since the government doesn't have a unified view of what "good" content is, and is heavily interested in promoting various striped of partisan propaganda. Mr Rogers got broad bipartisan support. Today he's considered "left wing".

> Supply of PBS quality content is a solved problem. Not really. Nova, for example, has gone downhill quite a bit in the last few years, in that the content has been dumbed down more and more. It tends to candy-coat things and the host will say things along the lines of "golly gee whilikers!" It's a step above Sesame Street, but not by much. There are some exceptions. The one about the evolution of language was prett…

Nova does oversimplify things. Tho, I have yet to hear "golly gee whilikers" on it. Nova has become the science equivalent of 60 minutes, both of which are geared toward the public at large. Personally I find these programs entertaining, and if I want to go deeper I can always fire up a browser.

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

#292

Post by kortilla »

rpmisms wrote: post #213
kortilla wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I recommend you read some history. The term “yellow journalism” came about lamenting the dramatic shit spewed by newspapers in the late 1800s.

> and much less discernible spin than current news articles.

It’s much less discernible because you aren’t familiar with any of the topics they are discussing. The best you can do is confirm a particular news article’s biases align with the biases of the current historical record’s biases.

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

#293

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #267
gwright wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like your definition of "left" and my definition of "left" aren't even remotely equivalent. It seems that much of our public debate is hobbled by an outstanding lack of consensus regarding what is meant by many political terms: right, left, conservative, progressive, liberal, capitalism, fascism, democracy, socialism, and so on. I don't mention this as a way to suggest your definition is incorrect but just to…

But the terms are not ill-defined. They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth, particularly in the USA since the Progressive period (roughly 1880-1920), when US capital got scared shitless that actua leftist politics might assume power in this country. It is absolutely in the interest of existing power and wealth that these political concepts be fuzzy, misunderstood and hard to apply. Politic…

No, I think it's just you. The American centre is much more libertarian than the centre in other democracies, but there isn't some weird cabal redefining leftism - it just isn't as popular there.

"They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth" - how? By whom?

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

#294

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #247
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I mean the word I used.

NPR is "notorious" because it carries itself with an air of impartiality, while definitely being partial.

Where CNN and Fox are openly biased and understood to be so, NPR and its fans tend to argue that it isn't - but 99% of people making that claim vote blue, and disproportionately towards the Bernie end of blue.

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

#295

Post by dane-pgp »

d6ba56c039d9 wrote: post #288
dane-pgp wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either your vagueness is intended to make the point that "both sides are just as bad as each other" (which is unhelpful because there are more than two sides to politics), or you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy. Let me therefore try to clear up that ambiguity by offering a solution to your exercise: The most dangerous political philosophy is ethno-nationalism.

>you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy. I'm simply making the point that some political systems imply moving towards an ideal goal, others do not. It isn't like monarchies (by far the most common setup) are moving towards some ideal beyond stability. Communism most certainly was viewed as a work in progress. (side note: I'm sick of the term 'dog whistling'. That term itself i…

I would say that monarchism is similar to democracy in terms of its lack of an ideal goal.

As for economic systems, I suppose you could say that the philosophy of communism is more future-looking than capitalism, but that is largely due to the fact that capitalism has already been implemented whereas communism has arguably never been fully implemented.

For comparison, suppose there are people out there who think that society was organised best under feudalism. They would support a move towards reinstituting that system, presumably in stages, so they would be equally "utopian" as the communists except they would have the benefit of an existence proof that their ideal society was achievable and sustainable (at least given certain initial conditions).

Fascism has also been tried before, and there are probably more people who support its return in some form than support the return of the feudal system. I can imagine its supporters suggesting that their policies would lead their nation towards an idealised future too, so I don't think that utopian thinking is common across the political spectrum and becomes more pronounced the further from the status quo its adherents want to take society.

(Side note: I'm also not a fan of the term "dog whistling", as I find it slightly ambiguous. For what it's worth, what I meant by it is that you were attempting to signal to like-minded people what it was you were really trying to say, without "saying the quiet part out loud". There might be good reasons for that on a forum like this, but I decided that the topic of your comment was potentially too important to not be subject to scrutiny).

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

#296

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #293
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the terms are not ill-defined. They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth, particularly in the USA since the Progressive period (roughly 1880-1920), when US capital got scared shitless that actua leftist politics might assume power in this country. It is absolutely in the interest of existing power and wealth that these political concepts be fuzzy, misunderstood and hard to apply. Politic…

No, I think it's just you. The American centre is much more libertarian than the centre in other democracies, but there isn't some weird cabal redefining leftism - it just isn't as popular there. " They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth " - how? By whom?

You're right that left politics are not as popular here. But in the Progressive period (1880-1920 as I mentioned), the US was possibly the home of the most popular, most powerful leftish movement anywhere on the planet. So what happened ...

> how? By whom?

Goodness. There are so many books on this. You could start with something obvious like Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", which is about a somewhat different issue but covers the way that the power structures in the US moved the Overton window in various ways to make leftish politics appear out of the mainstream.

This book does a reasonably good job of covering both how socialism itself shot itself in the foot in the US and how it was shot in the other foot by the existing power structures use of propaganda/media:

https://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp...

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

#297

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #294
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I mean the word I used. NPR is "notorious" because it carries itself with an air of impartiality, while definitely being partial. Where CNN and Fox are openly biased and understood to be so, NPR and its fans tend to argue that it isn't - but 99% of people making that claim vote blue, and disproportionately towards the Bernie end of blue.

I am not sure that there's widespread belief outside of Fox News viewers that CNN is "openly biased and understood to be so".

If you had grown up in a country where, as I mentioned, "unbiased journalism" was assumed to be a lie from the start, I think you'd read whether or not NPR "carries itself with an air of impartiality" quite differently.

Most of the actual leftists that I know find NPR to be biased in quite the opposite direction than you seem to. They are irritated by its relentlessly pro-business positions, its endless interviews with conservative politicians, even discredited ones, and its almost complete failure to feature actual left-ish ideas other then when a specific politician (e.g. Sanders or AOC) makes a speech about something related.

I mentioned up-thread that I believe that NPR's bias is not really towards particular political or even social positions, but towards a genial defense of "things more or less as they are". They are a supremely "don't rock the boat (too much)" media outlet, and as a result rarely feature voices and ideas from the edges of the current Overton Window, let alone beyond it.

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

#298

Post by gwright »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #267
gwright wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like your definition of "left" and my definition of "left" aren't even remotely equivalent. It seems that much of our public debate is hobbled by an outstanding lack of consensus regarding what is meant by many political terms: right, left, conservative, progressive, liberal, capitalism, fascism, democracy, socialism, and so on. I don't mention this as a way to suggest your definition is incorrect but just to…

But the terms are not ill-defined. They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth, particularly in the USA since the Progressive period (roughly 1880-1920), when US capital got scared shitless that actua leftist politics might assume power in this country. It is absolutely in the interest of existing power and wealth that these political concepts be fuzzy, misunderstood and hard to apply. Politic…

> But the terms are not ill-defined

I'm asserting that if there is no rough agreement on definitions then you can't have a coherent conversation.

You seem to be asserting that there is an effort to actively obscure the meaning of these terms, which doesn't negate my assertion.

It doesn't matter why there is no agreement (deception, lack of education, laziness, etc.) without the agreement you can't really have a coherent discussion.

Your assertion that there are some who are knowingly obfuscating language is worthy of discussion but seems like a different (but related) point. I tend to agree with you regarding muddled language, but I'm not so sure about "those with power and wealth" being the cause.

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

#299

Post by hcurtiss »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #250
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

NPR’s coverage of a leftist agenda is overwhelming, particularly on identity politics. They’re every bit as bad as the far right. Taibbi captured it well. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/nprs-brilliant-self-own

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

#300

Post by fortuna86 »

ewhanley wrote: post #41
Mizza wrote: post #5

But PBS is already on the internet.. I love public media and have worked in the public media industry, and what I think what we really need is PBS for conservatives. Can you name a _single_ conservative PBS/NPR host or program? Was there a _single_ time in the past 5 years they gave any legitimate consideration to the viewpoints that 50% of the country hold, or acknowledged the material conflict underlying their ideo…

I am admittedly a big fan of PBS, so maybe I'm blind to it, but I don't see the bias. I can't name a single conservative show, I suppose, but I can't name a single liberal show either. News and televisions don't have to have a political slant. I think we are all (in the US) too accustomed to opinionated news programming and are left searching for the bias when presented with plain information. PBS presents a lot of h…

Because conservative commentators have no interest in being part of PBS when their private sector competitors are far more lucrative and have 0 standards for accuracy or decency (which these days sadly fits their programing just fine).
Post reply on HN