The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

https://www.axios.com/pbs-internet-online-information-nonprofit-e9a78344-ae58-4214-9cb6-974ab9576cb1.html

by starkd • 5 years ago

525 279 5 years ago

1-6• 5 years ago

If we just focus on video just a sec and not the ENTIRE INTERNET, PBS seems increasingly irrelevant in an era where YouTube has narrowed the gap between content creators and content consumers. I remember the 90's being filled with pledge drives so PBS can raise funding. The content was good at the time but it's no where near what YouTube has become.

If we go back to this original article linked, who gets to decide what is disinformation/misinformation? Funding should not come from the government because that would introduce all sorts of bureaucracy and gatekeeping efforts by political policymakers.

starkd3• 5 years ago

A lot of good programming on PBS. But ever notice that the good programming generally occurs during the pledge drives? I mean, they might as well just run commercials.

That said, there are definite problems with the ad driven model of YT too. Maybe it's not the model that's the problem but who ultimately runs it.

barbecue_sauce• 5 years ago

Pledge drive programming is usually "best of" highlights programming that have been edited down to allow for the interruptions. (I also get the impression that people who would usually be producing content get drafted into the ranks of the pledge takers, though asynchronous internet-based donations have probably alleviated this need somewhat).

devwastaken• 5 years ago

Problem is quality. "YouTube kids" is a big meme, because some of the most popular content creators were certainly not creating kid friendly content. Example being "spiderman and Elsa".

In my opinion kids should not be on the internet. Not that we can reasonably stop them, but I don't at all believe YouTube is an equivalent to directed quality content like PBS.

ldiracdelta2• 5 years ago

I don't allow unrestricted access to the internet for my kids and they aren't allowed screens in any room except where others may see them and their screens all the time. Yes, it is friction and not perfection. The internet is a Victorian-era cesspool with raw sewage and dysentery everywhere. They'll have to learn how to not contract cholera as they grow up, but I also don't let them play with firearms or dabble with black-tar heroin.

ultrarunner• 5 years ago

I think your point is valid for an equivalent understanding of unrestricted (or popular) access. All YouTube kid videos lead to toy review/recommendation videos eventually. However, the internet is a big place, and if I have something in mind that explores an idea I can usually find it somewhere online. In contrast, legacy media like PBS doesn't generally allow for picking relevant content— the unrestricted or passive mode is the only mode available without scheduling your day around TV (something I'm not keen to encourage).

So no, not equivalent, but not necessarily worse.

shadowgovt3• 5 years ago

Current PBS structure has an interesting solution for this issue, but I don't know if it could be mapped onto an online space.

So since individual stations curate what they fill their airwaves with, they have the option of selecting what content coming from other PBS stations they will broadcast (or not). That provides a bit of a back-stop against truly wild stuff appearing in markets where it won't play without criticism. There isn't one curator; it's many curators with regional scope of influence.

(PBS stations do end up taking criticism, and some of it can be funny. Anecdotally, I know my local station would get complaints that the exercise outfits worn by the people in a work-out show the station syndicated were too revealing. It was the '90s, and these were ankle-to-chest leotards, but people's opinion of appropriate attire varies widely. The station did not cancel the show. ;) ).

marto1• 5 years ago

Yes, correct. Only good solution I know about this is parents providing a manually curated library of media to their kids.

Having more tools to easily achieve this would be great.

dj_gitmo2• 5 years ago

I think your point is valid, but I would like to point our that PBS has a lot of great stuff on Youtube. I think there is a role for public broadcasting, but it will probably be marginal.

who gets to decide what is disinformation/misinformation?

I certainly hope it isn't the authors of this paper, the German Marshall Fund. The GMF funds their own propaganda like the Alliance for Securing Democracy, and they are funded by USAID. USAID overtly does what the CIA used to do covertly. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/13/state-backed-alliance-...

gowld5• 5 years ago

FYI that article reads as very crank-y. Not saying they are wrong, but it's impenetrable reading to an uninformed neutral party. Too much emotional accusations and a huge cast of characters, but no clear explanation of what they are claiming.

But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA bias isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA project.

rrose2• 5 years ago

i understand the worry about the government gatekeeping disinformation/misinformation, but I think the worry is massively overblown. We're not talking about the government having a monopoly on the information ecosystem, and while there are certainly controversial topics where the government might be tempted to but their thumb on the scale if they had control over the news, the truth in most cases (climate change, the result of the presidential election, etc) is pretty cut-and-dried.

Besides, the vast majority of the existing misinformation in the US is coming from for-profit news agencies. You're already allowing people to decide what is and isn't misinformation- would you rather it be rupert murdoch, or a politician that you can vote out of office?

starkd3• 5 years ago

A politician you can theoretically "vote out of office" can be more insidious than big business ever could. Regarding a politician, only collective action can remedy the situation. At least, with business, you get immediate remedy by going elsewhere. And maybe eventual long term remedy if enough people do likewise. Of course, even big business can become too big as to stifle competition.

tootie5• 5 years ago

There's also no government influence on public media editorial decisions. Congress provides funds to the CPB and the CPB can issue grants to local public media. Even PBS and NPR affiliates all have local editorial control over their broadcasts.

gowld5• 5 years ago

Murdoch already decides which politicians are electable in right-wing areas.

d6ba56c039d93• 5 years ago

PBS seems increasingly irrelevant

I would agree. In terms of production quality, youtube videos can be all over the map (although the cost of quality continues to decrease), but I'd say that the large-scale commercial broadcasters may well continue to dwindle. Personally, 1 guy (or 2/3) youtube shows are my favorites, they tend to be more charming and cover niche areas.

For newsie news, I find myself using mostly RT in my news reader. There's a POV of course, but they don't carry much US domestic news, which is fine by me.

Mizza4• 5 years ago

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 ideology?

It's no wonder that a) Republicans are constantly pushing to cut public media funding and, more worryingly, b) that conservative-minded people end up going down the Alex Jones/QAnon/Alt-Right/Whatever rabbit hole, due to the total void of any rational discussion or intelligent and honest media leadership for the conservative and working classes.

0des• 5 years ago

I hope some day the internet isn't separated by political factions, it's a much bigger place than just the American political system.

JohnWhigham• 5 years ago

Yup, this article is pretty hilarious and is just another example of how mainstream media continues to stick their noses up at any consideration of alternative viewpoints. PBS has largely followed the herd and has become yet another liberal lifestyle outlet that caters only to their liberal audience. How about we fix that first before talking about something else?

AnonymousOne• 5 years ago

^Low-quality comment.

PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased source of information. You think it's a "liberal lifestyle outlet", but what evidence do you have to support this claim? What is your unbiased alternative?

Maybe you should watch this series ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4aNmdL3Hr0&list=PL8dPuuaLjX...

bloaf2• 5 years ago

Studies that looked at bias in the media found PBS to be the most centrist of the major news organizations. People on the extremes of the political spectrum see PBS as biased against them, as they would any centrist organization.

duxup6• 5 years ago

What I find strange is that the only media outlets that actually cover local rural topics in detail is my local NPR station.

Often they're lumped together as "yet another liberal" with PBS .... but they're more and more often the only ones covering those ares / giving voice to folks out there media wise.

tekromancr• 5 years ago

It's almost like Alex Jones/qanon/alt-right/whatever are the logical conclusions of the conservative ideology.

wizzwizz44• 5 years ago

There is no “the conservative ideology” – unless you define the phrase in a way that makes your statement a tautology.

Mizza4• 5 years ago

It would be equally as foolish to say the logical conclusion of liberalism is Stalinism. The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any conclusions at all.

crazy_horse• 5 years ago

Their history shows tend to only be political if you perceive different viewpoints as political slant. The hosts undoubtedly are liberal elites, but I think they strive for objectivity more than most media.

yetipetty• 5 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program)

ewhanley3• 5 years ago

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 history and art. I wouldn't consider either of these politically charged in their presentation. Again, maybe I'm just missing it, but I watch a lot of PBS programming.

nobody99993• 5 years ago

I can't name a single conservative show, I suppose,

Firing Line[0]

but I can't name a single liberal show either.

Frontline[1]

The thing is that William F. Buckley, Jr. (who originated Firing Line), were he alive today, would be demonized as a RINO and closet socialist by those who claim the mantle of "conservative" today.

Mostly because those who claim to be "conservative" aren't. Rather, many (not all) are radical reactionaries and not at all conservative.

Feel free to disagree, but if you look at the policies and priorities of such conservatives as Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes, the only policy priorities that have been retained by those who currently claim to be conservative are support for big business, hatred of anything non-white, and bible-thumping morons.

Everything else (small government, individual rights/liberty, equal opportunity, etc.) have fallen by the wayside.

Feel free to disagree. Or don't and take the easy way out. But there's a reasonable and reasoned discussion to be had in that space. If you don't participate in that, the loss is yours.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(American_TV_program...

Wolfenstein98k7• 5 years ago

When half of politics calls something biased against them, but you watch it and think it's fine, you're on the other half of politics.

Which is fine, btw. Just worth knowing.

fortuna863• 5 years ago

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).

technofiend• 5 years ago

NPR already airs opposing viewpoints regularly. I've heard them interview Republican senators and conservative commentators many times this year right alongside with people on the other side of the aisle.

If you mean NPR needs to carve out some time dedicated to a particular political view, then perhaps your perception of them is the rest of the time they present an opposite view? In these highly politicized times perhaps it seems that way since people have trouble agreeing on things that are widely accepted and based on science, as one example. So any news that presents that as fact will naturally be dismissed as biased by anyone who disagrees. Personally I don't think it's really incumbent upon NPR to create more air time for that kind of disagreement; they should stick with the facts. People who disagree with fact-based journalism already have many other outlets and are (IHMO) disinclined to seek out anything that will challenge their views.

Even so I daresay if someone is on a journey to find and listen to opposing viewpoints, the person who finds NPR to be a bastion of liberal values would be far more challenged by listening to Pacifica. If someone wants to really hear viewpoints left of center, they should try listening to Democracy Now for a week.

Mizza4• 5 years ago

Maybe some of this is regional. I listen to WNYC from New York and WHYY from Philadelphia, maybe the coverage is different in other regions.

To give some examples, Bob Garfield and Brian Lehrer were openly hostile towards Trump in such a way to disparage all of the people who voted for him, which was half of the country. Now, this isn't actually the thing I have a problem with, and I think I actually prefer it when hosts wear their hearts on their sleeves. But, you could never find the level of distain of Obama for his drone strikes, surveillance and massive wealth transfers to the rich that you could find of Trump for his racist demeanor, xenophobic immigration policies and massive wealth transfers to the rich.

A lot of my opinion is from working on the inside. Public media in the US, at least in the urban areas where I worked, is staffed _exclusively_ by Warren-type Democrats. They really believe that there is a correct view of the world, and that it is to be socially liberal and economically conservative - manifest through complex policy. Any other opinions - notably Bernie-ism or Trump-ism, are populist and to be dismissed as unserious.

jds_• 5 years ago

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

nwatson2• 5 years ago

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 afraid to pose the tough questions.

kortilla3• 5 years ago

Some would say it leans a bit left but I think it's the best unbiased presentation of (U.S.) national concerns

It’s definitely “unbiased” as long as “unbiased” means “standard US neoliberal views”. I say this as a neoliberal who watches it.

If you are watching news and it doesn’t seem unfair in some way to you, you agree with its editorial biases.

lsiebert4• 5 years ago

It's centrist, it's just that looking at facts instead of simply accepting what politicians say at face value often tends to lead to support for political talking points from the left.

This isn't intrinsic to left or right wing ideologies, there are plenty of areas where nobody has a monopoly on good policy, but when it comes to Democratic and Republican political leaders, The Dems look to scientific consensus (climate change, public health, economic disparities) and factual information in deciding on policy outcomes, while the GOP has a preferred set of outcomes they are looking to support.

travismark• 5 years ago

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

phone8675309• 5 years ago

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

It cannot be unbiased when it's corporate supported.

Lendal• 5 years ago

Yes, and the article is talking about deplatforming issues. What if Alphabet decided it didn't like what PBS was saying, and decided to use its leverage as owner of the platform to influence PBS content? Given everything crazy that has transpired over the last few years, it's not so far fetched now. Maybe it has already happened. Sure, eventually we would find out about it, but in the meantime great damage to society could be done.

tootie5• 5 years ago

CPB also funds local public radio affiliates and NPR.

But I think the paper is calling for more than just local news. They want expansive digital properties to supplement all our browsing habits.

stronglikedan• 5 years ago

PBS Space Time (from your list) is one of my favorite channels. Such great content of which I can't speak highly enough. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g

duxup6• 5 years ago

Well there is:

https://www.pbs.org/video/

Also PBS has a great kids games app(s) that are free with games that are fun / no ads.

And PBS kids video app is again free, great content, no ads.

If you're in the US and care about that content, I suggest contributing to your local station. The quality of the content from kids to adult is outstanding. It's not usual for me to browse a few streaming services and just end up watching PBS's content in the end.

Maybe when it comes to the article they mean more accessible? But I'm not sure as they seem to ignore the PBS content available.

cogman10• 5 years ago

It appears the call is for more local journalism/programming online. PBS has great national and children's programs and does have broadcast local journalism/topics of interest. However, getting access to that online is more difficult.

Do we need this? Meh.. IDK.

duxup6• 5 years ago

Well local PBS & NPR stations ... often do that.

I'm not sure the article really makes it clear what the situation in the first place is, or if they know.

mumblemumble• 5 years ago

I get that more from my local NPR affiliate than I do PBS.

Which I think is perhaps appropriate, if we've got to make a choice between the two. Textual media are a somewhat smaller jump from radio than they are from TV, and also, at least in my area, public radio is already doing a lot more local journalism. The public television station has a fair bit of locally produced programming, but most of it isn't really journalistic.

dmschulman• 5 years ago

Not entirely https://www.pbs.org/passport/videos/

igorstellar• 5 years ago

I suggest contributing to your local station

how do you find one to contribute? definitely interested in that, been binge watching The Great British Baking Show for a while now

asdff2• 5 years ago

Search for your nearest major city + public radio.

strifey• 5 years ago

Go to pbs.org. It will ask you to select a station based on your location and popup a big donate banner. There's also a donate button on the top bar. I feel like they make it pretty easy and obvious.

jbluepolarbear2• 5 years ago

The pbs apps are made by OPB (Oregon public broadcasting) they’ve been a big partner of pbs for a long time.

The apps are really good and they try to keep relevant content and popular shows on the apps.

WA9ACE3• 5 years ago

I work at PBS on one of the teams building these apps, and this has not been the case since I joined. PBS apps are maintained in house out of our Arlington headquarters, with most team members working fully remote during covid, but I fully appreciate you calling our apps good!

dan_quixote• 5 years ago

OPB is excellent. Oregon Field Guide is just so good. As a Seattle resident, I'm a bit jealous that Oregon has us beat with the outdoor programming. But a lot of their stories cross the state border. https://watch.opb.org/show/oregon-field-guide/

systemvoltage2• 5 years ago

Orthogonal: Can we pause for a moment and admire how amazing the PBS logo is? They've kept it for many years and haven't fallen to "trends". Here is some history: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/PBS

joemi• 5 years ago

I'm not sure what counts in your book as many years considering that page shows the latest one is from 2019. Also, not sure what counts as trends, considering their previous logo had a gradient added (which was trendy then, or a few years before then), and the current one is definitely a flat logo in comparison (which is also trendy, though it was a bigger trend a few years ago) and they changed the font drastically.

If you were just referring to the head element of the logo, I do like that element -- it's very recognizable and hasn't changed much over the years. Though I never knew (until looking at the page you linked to) that it's shaped like that because it was originally flipped on the Y axis and used as a 'P'.

goodpoint2• 5 years ago

Honest question: what's amazing about it? Am I missing some clever aspect of it?

kevin_thibedeau• 5 years ago

I suggest contributing to your local station

Most PBS stations run infomercials promoting quack medicine. So long as they keep doing that I'll never give them a penny.

asd• 5 years ago

Most PBS stations run infomercials promoting quack medicine.

Can you give details? I'm wondering if this was something that only a local affiliate did and not something that was PBS sanctioned.

dwhit• 5 years ago

Ironically, if enough people gave them a penny they wouldn’t have to run those quack informercials.

joe_g_young• 5 years ago

I thought they relied on yearly fundraisers. This is how OPB gets income

cdubzzz• 5 years ago

This is an over generalization (and will differ for each member station). E.g. here is the KCTS 9 schedule for the full day tomorrow -- https://www.kcts9.org/schedule/kcts9/20210803

You could make a case for the 1AM slot being quackery and there are definitely more entries like that in the greater schedule but its a very small amount of the content (and ever decreasing...).

Disclaimer: I work for KCTS 9.

laurex• 5 years ago

Link to donate to OPB, with like KQED is both NPR and PBS affiliate: https://give.opb.org/opb/ Someone I know was a PM there and they were often struggling financially.

duxup6• 5 years ago

I don't think I've ever seen that.

encryptluks2• 5 years ago

They don't have their full content there... only a few episodes from various shows.

duxup6• 5 years ago

I think you see a great deal more if you're a member and sign in.

throwaway894345• 5 years ago

I donate to PBS for the streaming, but I wish they would update their content more frequently, or rather they have a lot of content that I don’t care much about (especially the local programming). Mostly I’m interested in the nature, science, and history documentaries, especially the nature and nova series, but they only show a new episode once every few weeks.

itgoon• 5 years ago

Have you looked at their YouTube channels? Eons and SpaceTime are excellent.

EDIT: here's all of the channels: https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsdigitalstudios/channels

stevefrench93• 5 years ago

Wasn't that the point of Wikipedia?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793263/Nobody-trus...

marbletiles• 5 years ago

decentralizing the distribution of quality news

This is laudable - but it ignores the reality of aggregators and user behaviour in the attention economy. The audience is centralised, and increasingly so. The question becomes: how can a pluralistic public-service ecosystem flourish within that economy?

In the UK the BBC has tried a number of routes for this, including sponsoring local reporters, external linking to local news outlets to try and share their audience and so on. None have really been successful but it's important that they keep trying -- and odd that a piece like this wouldn't mention the BBC at all, come to think of it.

wizzwizz44• 5 years ago

The audience is centralised, and increasingly so.

You could design a computer system that feels centralised, but is actually decentralised – like the Fediverse[0] – and have people use that. That'd solve this problem (if you had enough draw and interop to get people to switch).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse

root_axis2• 5 years ago

I don't see how the fediverse solves this problem. Fediverse nodes are no different than websites with respect to information distribution.

cnorthwood• 5 years ago

Yep, it is odd. There's also an entire piece of R&D that the BBC are doing that I know people on called "Public Service Internet" https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/public-service-internet

mattlondon• 5 years ago

Interesting to read this - has anything come out of that project yet?

The BBC generally has quite good online services (e.g. news, iPlayer) but would be interesting to see what this project is thinking about.

bloaf2• 5 years ago

I don't think there needs to be a government owned internet media company.

Sometimes I wonder how weird and wild a government run social media company would be. Open to US citizens only, identity verification required? No rules other than actual speech laws? No anonymity?

kart23• 5 years ago

We already have a government owned internet media company.

https://www.voanews.com/

dredmorbius5• 5 years ago

Usenet was a first approximation of a government-run social network.

I'm not suggesting that Usenet itself would serve as a model for a revived social discussion platform. But whilst it existed, it was supported in large part on the (publicy-funded) ARPANET, and through publicly-funded educational institutions (both public and private research universities relying strongly on government research funding, regardless of tuition income). In general parameters, it resembles the structure proposed in TFA: government funding, multiple independent institutions, many local and trusted serving their local communities. (Students, staff, and faculty rather than residents for the most part, but again, broadly, along the lines of what's being suggested.)

nikkinana• 5 years ago

I love government sponsored content for free, that's where I get all of my news and stuff.

Except, wait, what, PBS isn't free? Don't we already pay taxes?

_delirium• 5 years ago

PBS is kind of a hybrid, with partial public funding, but with the majority of its funding coming from other revenue sources. It gets around 15% of its budget through grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which in turn is funded by the federal government), the rest through a mix of fundraising and subscriptions. Some local PBS affiliates also get state/local support, or are hosted by a public entity like a university. That seems to have been Congress's intent, that it would be supported in part by federal funding, but not be a fully publicly run organization like the BBC.

olivermarks3• 5 years ago

PBS accepts large amounts from #bigAg, #bigPharma and various oligarch 'foundations'. The worry is that these huge entities shape the messaging. You won't ever hear monopolist Bill Gates critiqued on PBS or NPR for example...

TurningCanadian• 5 years ago

If the US government paid $1 in total to PBS, would you be surprised that PBS couldn't provide its service for free? The US pays about 4% of what the UK pays per capita for public broadcasting.

https://site-cbc.radio-canada.ca/documents/impact-and-accoun...

Members, corporate underwriting, and distribution fees each provide a bigger percentage of its revenue than the federal government https://publiceditor.bento-live.pbs.org/publiceditor/blogs/p...

Karunamon• 5 years ago

The US pays about 4% of what the UK pays per capita for public broadcasting.

This can't be mentioned without also mentioning that the UK enforces a yearly license (so, a tax) on anyone who watches OTA TV, and they're known to be a bit scummy and heavy-handed about it.

throwawaysea• 5 years ago

This is what it says under "why it matters" in this article:

Revamping the structure and role of public media could be part of the solution to shoring up local media, decentralizing the distribution of quality news, and constraining Big Tech platforms' amplification of harmful or false information.

Instead of creating another single content creator who can come with their own biases, what I would rather see is a government-run platform. The motivation above about constraining amplification of harmful or false information sounds too close to amplifying only what information the government wants to put out (in other words, propaganda). I would rather see a platform because it could be free of information control and censorship from a small set of Silicon Valley conglomerates.

dotcommand• 5 years ago

Pushed by whom? The German Marshall Fund? Oh a state think tank.

Why? "way to shift the power dynamics in today's information wars." So PBS, NPR, etc were originally created to participate in information wars. Sort of like government funded propaganda? Is that what she is implying here?

"constraining Big Tech platforms' amplification of harmful or false information." That's strange. Because Big Tech platforms amply authoritative sources - which most likely includes PBS.

https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/the-four-rs-of-responsib...

I'm all for more competition. More options. It isn't healthy that we have such concentration of power in a few "algorithms". Not sure the "PBS of the Internet" will challenge it no more than C-SPAN challenged cable news.

somenewaccount1• 5 years ago

I can support efforts to create more Big Birds, but not more Elmo's. Worst child influence ever.

brewdad• 5 years ago

*Caillou has entered the chat*

brodouevencode2• 5 years ago

I would always put the channel on PBS kids and didn't mind much what was on because I trusted it, except for Calliou.

bississippi• 5 years ago

Is this a joke ? The news media seems to be conflating Internet with web. The whole idea of the internet is decentralization, “PBS for the internet” in my opinion would look like the “Great Chinese Firewall”

https://www.wired.com/1997/06/china-3/

And eventually like this https://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Police-State-Undercover-Surve...

shadowgovt3• 5 years ago

Interesting.

Authorizing the CPB to support local reporting could be a bit of a game-changer for the current status quo. I don't know that the rest of the idea would work (there are an awful lot of reasons why Internet media isn't anything like broadcast media), but "subsidizing local reporting as a public good" is an idea I hadn't seen before.

ladyattis• 5 years ago

I would say the PBS digital work on YouTube has been quite good, especially the PBS Spacetime series.

aty268• 5 years ago

What's interesting is PBS is much less aligned with the federal government than most private media outlets, to put it nicely. Not sure how that's happened.

ardit33• 5 years ago

PBS is liberal aligned org. so it is perfectly aligned with the democratic party... which are in power now?

jonas21• 5 years ago

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 Internet (aided by inexpensive video gear and editing software) has succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams. The breadth and depth of educational content available just on YouTube is incredible.

The same forces that make it easy to produce and distribute educational content also make it easy to produce and distribute misinformation. This is a problem, but's unclear how a "PBS for the internet" would solve it.

For example, if you look at the one concrete piece of legislation mentioned in the article:

The Local Journalism Sustainability Act takes a different approach to the government grant model. The bill would, for example, give a tax credit to people who donate to nonprofit newsrooms, or to small businesses who buy advertising at a nonprofit outlet.

It's not clear to me why people wouldn't just choose to donate to or buy advertising in outlets that promote whatever form of misinformation or partisan information that suits their tastes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_196...

gowld5• 5 years ago

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".

djrogers• 5 years ago

Mr Rogers got broad bipartisan support. Today he's considered "left wing".

I’ve never heard any “right-wing” people, even crazy in-law types, call Mr Rogers “left-wing”.

beambot• 5 years ago

Distribution could help on the demand side... Would love to see more PBS content appear in Netflix and Amazon Prime.

TuringNYC2• 5 years ago

> Yes. Supply of PBS quality content is a solved problem.

With good curation, sharing, and sleuthing -- I find the educational content on YouTube to surpass anything+everything even at undergrad college (minus social and minus interactive language classes.) I also used YouTube extensively to supplement grad school course materials, with great success. I realize not everyone learns this way, but many do, and it is freely available now.

While there may be a demand side problem, that can be fixed with better curation facilities. Legislation might not be able to fix this, but it can sure as heck hurt it given some of the current rhetoric.

Unfortunately, if "big tech" is treated as a single entity to be enforced, we'll end up doing something monumentally destructive like losing YouTube as it is now (which I consider an international cultural and educational treasure w/o exaggerating.)

WalterBright5• 5 years ago

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 pretty good, although the information content was thin gruel. It's like butter that's been spread way too thin.

fud7r7rgtf• 5 years ago

What actually qualifies as misinformation? I see lots of things these days that fall under that label that would simply have been called gossip in the past and covered from the perspective of exploring popular gossip.

lsiebert4• 5 years ago

Examples of Misinformation:

scientifically debunked ideas like the idea vaccines cause autism

Ideas with zero basis in reality like the idea that most or all mass shootings are actually faked using "crisis actors"

Political conspiracy theories like the idea that Bernie Sanders would have been the democratic candidate for president, but was cheated by Hillary Clinton.

Misrepresented ideas, like how certain people on the right wing just ignore what critical race theory actually is by redefining it into a farcical straw man argument and then see it everywhere (This is a repeated pattern, see sharia law, migrant carvans, covid safety, etc)

stetrain• 5 years ago

I think some of the difference is coordination and spread.

I suppose some gossip could be intentionally malevolent but it's generally not coordinated across multiple mediums and groups.

People also don't generally don't print watercooler gossip out on posters and hang it up in public around their town or state.

Patterns that cause less harm in some context can cause more harm when they're being used by those wanting to intentionally spread misinformation, and when it's much easier for that information to spread to millions of people.

tootie5• 5 years ago

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 journalism (or other edifying content) without the corruption of a profit motive.

kortilla3• 5 years ago

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

hcurtiss2• 5 years ago

A profit motive is not necessarily bad. Likewise, there are other ulterior motives that may inform "public broadcasting." There's a fine line between publicly-funded journalism and state-sponsored propaganda.

sidlls2• 5 years ago

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 networks. There is also a very real bias in their political coverage toward mainstream, center-right politicians. These days that'd be "centrist" democrats, mainly, but they didn't get the monicker "Nice Polite Republicans" for no reason....

WalterBright5• 5 years ago

without the corruption of a profit motive

That's a fantasy. The people who provide the money always call the tune, even if it's the government, even if it's donations.

A more effective system is one that does not attempt to deny human nature, but takes advantage of it.

ekianjo2• 5 years ago

you can still be corrupted even if you are not corrupted by profit. Its not like journalists or organizationa have no bias.

snarf21• 5 years ago

Well said. For argument's sake, let's say there is a PBS run Twitter clone? Who gets to decide what is allowed or not? So much of the social media space is built on using fomo and outrage to push agendas. These are the things that make it sticky. It seems clear that most people want the addiction, they want the drama. I think we can shrink the power of some of these companies with VAT on digital advertising, but even so, what is going to replace them? Something so bad we can't even imagine it now? It kinda feels a little like the one part of the Matrix where they reveal that the initial Matrix was intended to make everyone just mindlessly happy all the time but it didn't work until they made it mostly miserable. Happiness without sadness might just be too boring for humans. That said, humans love to belong so I don't know how we ever have a Internet without centralization. People always want to be with everyone else.

lazyeye3• 5 years ago

"The bill would, for example, give a tax credit to people who donate to nonprofit newsrooms"

I'm guessing the overwhelming majority of these nonprofit newsrooms will end up being party-aligned so this will effectively be giving tax credits for political donations.

ekianjo2• 5 years ago

it is so obvious. Nonprofit does not mean Nonbias.

cabalamat2• 5 years ago

I expect you're right. They would be aligned with a political (or possibly religious) cause.

nobody99993• 5 years ago

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.
The breadth and depth of educational content available just on YouTube is incredible.

It seems like the second statement I quoted shows the failure (at least on the Internet) of the first.

When we can have decentralized, or at least widely used non-profit distribution channels like PBS provides for TV, that will be a very good thing.

But as long as the primary distribution channels are focused on raking in the cash rather than providing access to good educational/cultural content for that purpose, the free exchange of ideas is at risk.

hcarvalhoalves• 5 years ago

Large content platforms don't curate content, and so incentives are misaligned. I believe "curated content without click-baity incentives" is the kind of thing a "PBS" tries to solve.

E.g.: an educational video will be followed by flat-earth conspiracy video if the YouTube algorithm choses so. This sabotages content producers with – in this case – educational intentions, as the platform will make producers compete for attention.

Also, I believe what's been missing in the discussion is how "empowering anyone to push content" is not in itself a value, and that it's in fact possible to add negative value, at a global scale, at very little cost. This discussion won't happen as it's in platforms best interest to promote engagement, and engagement comes from pure controversy.

babesh7• 5 years ago

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 disinformation. Instead, its real intended effect is to consolidate greater and greater powers of censorship in those who seek that power.

toss1• 5 years ago

>Large content platforms don't curate content
>it's in platforms best interest to promote engagement

Agree with of what you said, but I have a quibble with the opening line

The large platforms DO curate content, FAR MORE THAN any news org. Your last line quoted above points out exactly how - they actively curate every shred of content anyone posts, optimizing for 'engagement'.

The fact that truth value, moral compass, or societal value (what ordinary publishers generally curate for) is roughly inversely correlated with engagement (which often follows the basest impulses) is irrelevant to the sociopaths who run those large platforms.

This is exactly why a set of news orgs NOT beholden to the clickbait economy - a 'PBS for the Internet' - could be really helpful.

raxxorrax3• 5 years ago

I don't think so. It may not be a value to you, but it remains a subjective valuation.

brodouevencode2• 5 years ago

Are we in the age of Reductio ad Misinformationum?

matchagaucho• 5 years ago

One solution is to offer free WiFi / fiber in communities with a default PBS-like content gateway.

sandworm101• 5 years ago

PBS educational programming is also a product of the unique American political system. In short, classroom education was entirely controlled by individual states. Any new federal law/program in the education space is therefore easiest though different media. So the creation of a "public" broadcaster works, as opposed to any in-the-classroom federal program which would face constitutional challenge.

babypuncher• 5 years ago

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.

jimbokun• 5 years ago

I think the key is to decouple the discovery mechanism from the profit motive.

Algorithmic advertising driven discovery can incentivize driving people towards radicalization, if that’s what keeps them clicking.

So a system not based on advertising or profit motive could maybe avoid some of those extremes.

raxxorrax3• 5 years ago

This has become dogma that there is a large problem with misinformation.

Which information specifically do you think is so endemic, that it poses a danger? This isn't the case anywhere in my opinion.

But sure, give Bezos some tax breaks because he invested in the Washington Post... without it probably will become extremely poor.

dunk010• 5 years ago

Crash Course is pretty close to PBS.

ThomPete• 5 years ago

The internet IS a PBS

chadlavi• 5 years ago

That was supposed to be the entire internet

5faulker• 5 years ago

Isn't the Internet slowly moving towards that direction anyway?

minikites• 5 years ago

There should be more publicly funded media of all kinds. It significantly improves society to have art, entertainment, and educational materials created without a profit motive in mind.

sebastianconcpt• 5 years ago

And when the demand is near zero traffic, what? Legislate being mandatory to navigate it at least X hours per month? This is just the mainstream ideologic factory trying to expand itself.

andrewmcwatters• 5 years ago

I had this exact idea years ago and shared it with colleagues in the tech sector in Phoenix, AZ. The primacy of the idea also stemmed from the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967[1] as discussed in this article.

We agreed on many common points, but could not think of how one would create an NPR-inspired version of essentially Reddit/Digg/Slashdot without first-party curation, which completely kills the idea of a social news aggregate.

I think unfortunately the idea is incompatible without heavy handed moderation. Hacker News seems to attract the rightish crowd, though, so maybe it can be done. NPR attracts the sort of crowd I'm looking for in a social news aggregator.

I'm not a teenager anymore. I'm looking for less memes and more interesting reading that publications of yesteryear seem to produce less and less of each year.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_196...

Semiapies• 5 years ago

This doesn't seem to be much of a push or much of a coherent vision, just hand-waving, a little grab-bag of popular ideas, and a wish for more federal money.

JaggerFoo• 5 years ago

So boring content that everyone says they like, but never consume, with constant requests for donations.

So what would be the purpose? Current trusted platforms are ignored and news outlets that report on ignorant humans with wacko theories defying reality are thriving. One or more additional trusted platform will not make a difference.

PaulDavisThe1st10• 5 years ago

So boring content that everyone says they like, but never consume, with constant requests for donations.

#notallnprlisteners #notallnprstations

Noos2• 5 years ago

No, NPR is the Ikea of radio. It should be roundly mocked a lot more than it is.

kragen• 5 years ago

NSFNet was a PBS for the Internet.

disabled• 5 years ago

We already have this in Croatia! It works great! It’s called CARNET.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARNet

You can also get extremely cheap access to CARNET via mobile and broadband providers in Croatia. They are CARNET only plans.

zdw• 5 years ago

Historically we had public access to the cable network as a part of the cable act of 1984 - in the 80's and 90's there was a concept of PEG - Public, Educational, and Governmental TV channels that the Cable company had to carry as a part of being able to put lines in the ground.

https://www.fcc.gov/media/public-educational-and-governmenta...

The distribution side of this was made mostly irrelevant by on-demand services like YouTube - where it still exists it's mostly videography training, or making other local content, with a few channels still playing tapes.

runbathtime2• 5 years ago

PBS should be privately funded.

kristopolous2• 5 years ago

Then it would respond to and have the same structure as everything else. It's not diversity, it's making everything the same

A rich media landscape is about diversity of structure, not about having a bunch of news brands by the same powerful groups in society that are simply demographically targeted to different consumers.

Diverse structures producing well funded content. That's how you get a rich media

runbathtime2• 5 years ago

Diversity of thought is a problem. Diversity as commonly defined only by race is being promoted everywhere.

satellite22• 5 years ago

Everyone here discuss a new online newspaper. It would be refreshing to get intelligent content for free and not hidden between an amrmada of paywalls but would not be not enough.

At this point, to protect democracy and its values, full fledged state sponsored reverse troll farms are what we desperatly need.

A lot of the engagement is simply led by fake accounts piloted by humans and thus realistic enough to break the organic engagement detection model.

Creating positive content is not enough to win this war. Only using the same dirty tactics as the autocrats will allow democracy to survive.

Nasrudith• 5 years ago

So what would the difference be between the two again and why should we trust "our" state sponsored troll farms? Frankly that logic is like suggesting we need to molest our kids at home to protect them from being molested by teachers and clergy.

satellite22• 5 years ago

That's if you believe there is nothing that clearly distiguish intrinsically antidemocratic and divisive ideas from otherwise. I believe there is a huge space of ideas that are clearly worth defending at all cost without ever being partisan.

I understand your metaphor but I think it's closer to the paradox of intolerance, you generally escape it only by having to be intolerant to the most intolerant.

France_is_bacon• 5 years ago

Just to let you know, everything is political.

I'm independent politically, but PBS is the Fox of the liberals. Completely biased.

Wolfenstein98k7• 5 years ago

Terrible idea - just another entity to be ideologically captured.

Until we figure out how to actually enshrine political diversity, this will end up staffed entirely by people of a certain politics, and will become despised by many on the other side.

cdolan2• 5 years ago

If I was in charge, I'd try to find as many non-spammy and wholesome Content Creators, like Mark Rober or Dustin /w Smarter Every Day, and have them figure out a way to scale a program/syndication that attracts content creators similar to them.

Youtube is great. You can learn anything on Youtube... but Youtube is also filled with absolute trash childrens programming that literally rots my kids' brains as they watch it. Thats not to mention the unfathomable child porn rings that were caught time-stamp commenting unintentionally suggestive poses by underage kids...

We need a curated Youtube for the curious mind that doesn't waste my time with 3 minutes of content stretched to 11 mins to get monetized.

Avery3R• 5 years ago

Aren't they already trying that with the nebula/curiositystream thing they advertise endlessly?

cdolan2• 5 years ago

Maybe, but two things: - I follow both channels pretty closely and I don't know what you are talking about. So it must not be working that well? - It sounds like they are doing this nebula/curiositystream thing themselves. If someone/the government funded them or just gave them control over a program I bet they would have an even bigger impact.

egypturnash• 5 years ago

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.

stapedium3• 5 years ago

It’s called computers at your public library.

every• 5 years ago

PBS, NPR and local affiliates of both have long been on the web. All you need to do is frequent and support them...

fortuna863• 5 years ago

Frontline continues to be the best documentary series available anywhere.

l00sed• 5 years ago

The Internet has replaced public broadcasting altogether through its own innovation. As I understand, "broadcast" originated from the "broad casting" of seeds. The Internet, on the other hand is bi-directional and interactive. It favors participation over consumption compared to television.

The means of distributing information really transitions when adoption is ubiquitous. Literacy and the printing press, radios, televisions, to PCs and smartphones. The physical later of the network of distribution changes with each transition.

These structures have inherent directionality and balance (or imbalance) in their nodes and connections that have some truly fascinating real-world results on the quality of how information travels, thrives or dies. The question of control and power also becomes an interesting network dynamic.

The Internet is surprisingly more spatial than other media networks. Websites can now provide a connection to actual virtual worlds. Herein, I think, lies the biggest innovation. Now Facebook, LinkedIn, Reddit and others have a method to try and reproduce or reinvent a virtual public square or public house!

Broadcast television requires a paid subscription to view online for NBC and ABC and CBS. There are a growing number of companies that I'm starting to see re-broadcast local broadcast TV on the web for free. It really ought to be illegal for these broadcast channels to charge for a digital copy of free broadcast television by all counts as far as I am concerned. I think that's completely backwards.

I also think that social media has largely replaced the public square. It's a gross distortion because of the the skewed shapes and control of these networks. Twitter has literally silenced a president (which I didn't protest), but it is worrisome how these networks can exert so much power over information.

To me, the real "PBS of the Internet" would have to exist as separate networks. I love the article's reference to libraries and other community centers, but I think it falls short in not suggesting something more along the lines of a community _network_ rather than another online service. Examples I would point to are the SNET in Cuba or the NYC Mesh Network. Here in Pittsburgh there is a growing PittMesh network.

I think by creating something controlled and owned by the community that uses it, you decentralize information. This, I think, would encourage local news over conspiracy theories and perhaps provide a sheltering proxy to the the global web.

What an exciting topic. VR feels like a whole other story haha

If anyone would like to read some of my thoughts on these topics, I'd love for you to check some of my writing and leave a comment there. I love thinking about this stuff: https://l-o-o-s-e-d.net/public-internet

jackcosgrove• 5 years ago

This seems like fighting the last war.

When I hear "PBS for the internet" I think publicly-funded content.

Content on the internet doesn't have pride of place like it does on broadcast media. The internet is about platforms.

"PBS for the internet" should be about creating, first, open standards for content distribution, promotion, and moderation. And then maybe implementing those standards.

Content is basically free on the internet with the right platform. Trying to counter misinformation with good content is boiling the ocean. The better way to spread good content is to create standards and maybe a platform that incentivizes third parties to make good content.

fortuna863• 5 years ago

The better way to spread good content is to create standards and maybe a platform that incentivizes third parties to make good content.

In the article, it says exactly this. Their standards for transparency will be a model for other outlets.

shirro• 5 years ago

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.

Bud2• 5 years ago

This seems like a great idea. However, I'd argue we do already have one institution that resembles the ideals of a PBS for the Internet: Wikipedia. Is any other institution not driven by a profit motive and also even a tenth as valuable to the public? I'd say not.

spfzero2• 5 years ago

If you watch news on PBS, you see essentially the same stories, covered in the same way, as you see on any other network. Try comparing them as an experiment, it is enlightening.

ffggvv• 5 years ago

any and all of these become instantly captured by people with a political agenda and used as a propaganda source. which is exactly what they want.

jimmySixDOF• 5 years ago

A few posts here bring up the BBC and while it is an interesting case because they are so specifically funded by the public through a "TV License" [1], I think maybe a better comparison for this "Public Internet" should be to CSPAN.

Using the CSPAN model, a public good commons of internet services would be carved out through an offset program in Wireless Spectrum auctions and other Telecom Service Provider Licenses and renewals [2]. Maybe if they ever get around to the Big Tech Tax that could help too.

[1]

   You must have a TV Licence if you: watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they're broadcast. download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand.

   £159 for a colour TV Licence and £53.50 for a black and white TV Licence

https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence

[2]

   C-SPAN is a private, nonprofit organization funded by its cable and satellite affiliates, and it does not have advertisements on any of its networks, radio stations, or websites, nor does it solicit donations or pledges.

The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

Related Stories