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

Save PBS. It makes us safer

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 121 posts

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#31

Post by koenigdavidmj »

fullshark wrote: post #26
sushisource wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Care to back up your claim at all instead of just traipsing in and saying "no"? I watch PBS every day and they are most certainly not commercials as your parent comment says. They generally are 10 seconds at most, have maybe two sentences about the company, and show the logo. Usually one of those sentences is "Company xxx is proud to support PBS".

How is that not a commercial? Just because it's not actively annoying?

We can deliberate over the meanings of terms all day, but there is a distinction. The PBS commercials are just "this company supports PBS"; it doesn't even mention the industry the company works in. Commercials elsewhere are "this company makes this product, which does this task that will make you happy and/or surround you with beautiful women".

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#32

Post by BeetleB »

sushisource wrote: post #19
jklinger410 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are commercials.

What? Care to back up your claim at all instead of just traipsing in and saying "no"? I watch PBS every day and they are most certainly not commercials as your parent comment says. They generally are 10 seconds at most, have maybe two sentences about the company, and show the logo. Usually one of those sentences is "Company xxx is proud to support PBS".

>They generally are 10 seconds at most, have maybe two sentences about the company, and show the logo.

aka a commercial.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#33

Post by bsder »

randyrand wrote: post #6

How come PBS cannot fund itself? And make profit and revenue? Just curious.

I think Discovery Channel and History Channel are really good counterarguments nowadays to the idea that quality educational TV could be done for profit.

Edit: beaten by everybody in the universe ... :)

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#34

Post by CharlesW »

nightski wrote: post #7
js2 wrote: post #5

Fred Rogers testifying before congress in 1969 about why PBS should be funded: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetes...

The world has changed a lot since 1969. Many homes don't even have network television anymore.

> The world has changed a lot since 1969. Many homes don't even have network television anymore.

All homes with TVs that receive broadcast, cable, or satellite TV have network television.

I think you probably meant broadcast/OTA television, in which case a survey from 2016 shows that 17% of U.S. TV households rely on "broadcast-only" television reception, and that was an increase from the previous year.

However, that number is disproportionately higher in poor, Black, and Hispanic households. For example, it jumps to 26% for households earning less than $30K/year.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#35

Post by gavinpc »

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 financial model to be emulated.

edit Not to mention the lasting value created by the content.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#36

Post by 67726e »

gavinpc wrote: 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…

Not that I'm pro-cut, but to a budget hawk any spending is too much spending regardless of matched contribution.

Edit: Keep on downvoting, it's not going to change the opposition's persepctive.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#37

Post by Taniwha »

jhbadger wrote: post #29
knz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably could fund itself and make a profit. But the whole point is that the country is choosing to invest in providing quality media content in the form of high quality detailed reporting and educational content because it's critical for the success of our nation. I think even the most partisan American would have a hard time looking at commercial media and declaring it a resounding success - educational channel…

I remember how twenty years ago, the argument was made that the high quality of educational programming on the Discovery and History Channels made PBS redundant. I didn't agree even then, but at the time there really were some pretty good stuff on those commercial channels. But it turns out that shows about science and history don't make as much money as nonsense about ancient aliens and so the commercial stations st…

That only works if you have a Hitler fetish (History) or and Alaska fetish (Discovery)

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#38

Post by [deleted] »

namuol wrote: post #27
jklinger410 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are commercials.

I implore you to spend an hour consuming public media and then another hour consuming "regular" commercial broadcasting. There's an unmistakable difference between the commercials employed in commercial broadcasts vs public broadcasts. I'm sure you can find some reduction of the concept of "commercial" that fits both commercial broadcast advertisements and underwriting posts in public broadcasts, but you'd be missing…

[deleted]

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#39

Post by Larrikin »

CharlesW wrote: post #34
nightski wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world has changed a lot since 1969. Many homes don't even have network television anymore.

> The world has changed a lot since 1969. Many homes don't even have network television anymore. All homes with TVs that receive broadcast, cable, or satellite TV have network television. I think you probably meant broadcast/OTA television, in which case a survey from 2016 shows that 17% of U.S. TV households rely on "broadcast-only" television reception, and that was an increase from the previous year. However, that…

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people getting OTA broadcasting will begin increasing.

I don't know anyone my age that doesn't watch mostly streamed content, but we all have digital antennas for local broadcast and the important live events.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#40

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

nightski wrote: post #7
js2 wrote: post #5

Fred Rogers testifying before congress in 1969 about why PBS should be funded: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetes...

The world has changed a lot since 1969. Many homes don't even have network television anymore.

You're right. PBS Digital Studios has a fantastic Youtube presence. One of my favorite YT channels is PBS Spacetime, which gives a somewhat mathmatically rigorous treatment on cosmology/astrophysics. It's so much better than anything on the Science or Discovery channel. I learned about the coolest phenomenon ever: a KugelBlitz (a hypothetical type of black hole formed from light), overtaking quasars as my fave astronomical curiosity.

They also have PBS Infinite which is a maths series. I learned what a random walk is today.

I urge any and every one to check out their various Youtube channels. It truly is a travesty that we have extra money to spend on the F-35 and other overpriced, unnecessary military expenditures, but the pittance we give to PBS is being cut.

Post reply on HN