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

81–90 of 121 posts

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#81

Post by nikdaheratik »

67726e wrote: post #36
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.

I think the term "budget hawk" has been misapplied so much that it's essentially meaningless. Libertarians seem to want a Federal government as it maybe existed 100 years ago. Right wing Republicans aren't necessarily interested in lower spending or deficits, but claim "deficit spending" as a problem when the tax levels are higher than they like, or when the spending levels for programs they don't like are too high. Everything else is okay.

There are a few people who actually care about running a government that isn't running in the red for eternity, but that's not really what they campaign on or they wouldn't get elected, in my opinion.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#82

Post by [deleted] »

theparanoid wrote: post #41
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…

PBS is in a dying industry. Television. Perhaps another equally good public-private partnership will arrive. The Khan Academy and Wikipedia are something like that.

[deleted]

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#83

Post by jazzyk »

As a long-time (but now, former) financial supporter of PBS, I am of two minds here.

There is a lot to like - focus on the arts, science. serious topics, quality children programming.

But in recent years, the news and politics programming has turned - almost to a caricature level - unabashedly partisan and ideological. Not a single white male to be seen on the cast of NewsHour, other than a couple of low-level field reporters such as Jeff Brown, an obsession with stories like the abuse of women in southern Nigeria, while they completely ignore white male citizens of the US are left to rot (and die from opioid abuse and suicide) in West Virginia, etc.

It is their prerogative to set the agenda as they like, but I feel that a publicly funded channel should cover all points of view.

I feel the same about Planned Parenthood. Even though, personally, I am pro-choice, I can understand that people who are opposed to it may have a problem with their tax money used to fund it.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#85

Post by d23 »

jazzyk wrote: post #83

As a long-time (but now, former) financial supporter of PBS, I am of two minds here. There is a lot to like - focus on the arts, science. serious topics, quality children programming. But in recent years, the news and politics programming has turned - almost to a caricature level - unabashedly partisan and ideological. Not a single white male to be seen on the cast of NewsHour, other than a couple of low-level field…

Those problems should be addressed, not the entire thing defunded.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#86

Post by therpe1 »

PBS is just another mechanism by which rich, productive, urban counties are forced to finance poor, unproductive, rural counties[1]. The numbers on this are quite shocking and we can finally see it now that CPB has broken it out clearly[2]. $129m of the federal monies ends up being on average 25% of the rural station budgets. When this money goes away it's unlikely that private businesses and individuals will step in to make up the shortfall at these rural stations.

So, like the military, the disaster that is the transportation bill[4], Obamacare, the farm bill, housing investment, meals on wheels -- well pretty much everything the federal government actually gets around to doing[3] -- this is just a way to stock up the empty middle of the country that can't support itself. Frankly, it would be great if the Republicans were crazy enough to cut it but I'm not holding my breath. The unfortunate reality though is that the Republicans won't cut much of anything because it's their districts that are, far and away, the biggest beneficiaries of federal spending.

[1] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/17/14951868/tr...

[2] http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/rural

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/opinion/sunday/in-trump-c...

[4] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/8/a-utah-republic...

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#87

Post by awqrre »

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.

I get about 10 PBS channels using a $30 antenna...

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#88

Post by [deleted] »

jazzyk wrote: post #83

As a long-time (but now, former) financial supporter of PBS, I am of two minds here. There is a lot to like - focus on the arts, science. serious topics, quality children programming. But in recent years, the news and politics programming has turned - almost to a caricature level - unabashedly partisan and ideological. Not a single white male to be seen on the cast of NewsHour, other than a couple of low-level field…

[deleted]

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#89

Post by maxlybbert »

gingerbread-man wrote: post #80
gingerbread-man wrote: post #18

Outline of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's FY2014 budget: http://www.cpb.org/files/aboutcpb/financials/budget/FY2014-O... Out of a total budget of $445m: ~66% (292m) is distributed via direct grants to local public television and radio stations. ~17% (74m) goes to television programming grants. ~7% (30m) goes to radio programming. ~11% (59m) goes to system support and administration.

I'd be curious to hear from someone who has worked at a local public broadcasting affiliate about what their budgets look like. I enjoy state-level public radio, but I don't watch a lot of state or local public television programming. It seems like a lot of the arguments for funding PBS/CPB have been centered around their national programming, e.g. Nova and Sesame Street. But if the proposed cuts are "across the boar…

It's a simple strategy. Everybody knows "Sesame Street." Fewer people know, say, "North Carolina NOW" or "Wild Nevada."

On the other hand, somebody should do local stories about local shows. Each PBS station should highlight its own programming, but they would reach a different audience (including potential new fans) by getting other channels to include a story on their local news.

Re: Save PBS. It makes us safer

#90

Post by astrodust »

67726e wrote: post #56
astrodust wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Can you also shed light on some deep mysteries like the colour of the sky, if water is wet, and where bears poop?

Do you have something constructive to add?

I need answers man. What's the hold up?
Post reply on HN