A Different Kind Of Digital Divide 178
Logic Bomb writes: "The New York Times has a really interesting article about PBS and its struggle to convert to digital. On one hand, PBS stations need to start broadcasting their low-definition signals using digital transmission just like everyone else, and some stations are struggling with finances. On the other, better-funded big-city stations are already concerned with money for providing interactive content. Even worse, rules for determining what digital broadcast programming cable providers must carry threaten PBS with being essentially forced out of some markets. I don't watch TV much, but PBS falls into a class of things that I consider vital to our nation's citizenry. I hope things work out ok."
Re:PCI HDTV (Score:1)
Re:PBS vital? (Score:1)
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:1)
Re:Please put your money where your mouths are! (Score:1)
Not Fucking it Up... (Score:1)
Biodiversity actually isn't as important to our survival as, say, rainforest preservation (oxygen grows on trees), or rational land use (consider the clearcutting on the ol' frontier that left settlers with a lot of farmland, but no source of irrigation), but the upside is that preserving the land (or avoiding Fucking it Up, through seemingly silly things like shade-grown coffee) tends to also preserve biodiversity.
We wouldn't have so many starving deer in the Northeast if we hadn't killed all the wolves.
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:1)
Non-bias is interpeded as what you personal bias is, and biased is interped as the opposite of what your personal bias is.
You fell into this trap yourself, and it is a sign that you do not evaluate your beliefs, just defend them.
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:1)
I've heard the exact same thing said of liberals looking to expose a "lack of fairness" in reporting. Same song, different tune... both parties have finally figured out that if you lie long enough and loud enough, people will eventually start to believe you. It just took the conservatives a bit longer to figure it out.
NPR and PBS have become majorly rightwing (Score:1)
Re:PCI HDTV (Score:2)
So much fun stuff to spend money on, yet I worry about the quality of a lot of the products I want to get. Do I really want to buy the first HDTV card out there? Do I want to get the newest chipset when some companies (*cough*via*cough*) can't even get their old chips to work right?
Sure, the chicken-and-egg problem exists, but a lot of the problem here in the US is that the knowledgeable buyers are skittish about the possibility that the broadcast format might change (8VSB->DVB), or that current sets could be obsoleted because corporate interests want to introduce copy protection, etc. Not to mention the fact that lots of people don't want projection TV sets (which seems to be what 95% of the HDTVs being produced are). At least many of the sets use an add-on card for receiving HDTV, which could be replaced if the formats change (though that would still be a significant cost).
--
You're right...and wrong (Score:1)
Also, pandas and jaguars _are_ a public service. Where do you see that type of stuff on corporate TV? Once a month on National Geographic specials doesn't count.
Re:PBS vital? (Score:3)
Junkyard wars, walking with dinosaurs, robotica, and the history of britain (watching that now).
PBS is really good at carrying the shows that would not have success on regular broadcast TV - Dr. Who, Red Green, Are You Being Served, etc. Which are all done outside the US as well. *sigh*
Re:PCI HDTV (Score:1)
This is really an HDTV-digital problem... (Score:2)
...not a public-broadcasting problem.
The conversion to digital is not working particularly well. The equipment is very expensive and the benefits are limited (certainly not enough to justify the outrageous expense). People are not flocking to the new technology (as they did when color was introduced) and there is little cachet in a station going digital (or in a home going digital).
Public TV is in a bind because they have been given a deadline for conversion which makes no sense. The commercial TV stations have a large number of options: They can use the larger bandwidth for more stations while they wait for a market to develop for digital (thus bringing in more revenue). Such an option just gives public TV more space to fill.
The WNET lament about interactive content is laughable, however. WGBH in Boston produces the best web sites on the web (check out NOVA [pbs.org] and Frontline [pbs.org] for good examples of what the future of the web will be like for sites associated with TV shows. WNET is way behind in this, but it has nothing to do with anything except the bureaucracy at WNET.
Re:Why is it essential? (Score:4)
Oddly enough, when I lived in the US I had to pay taxes for roads, schools, and the miltary, even though I had no car, no kids, and did not consider myself under threat from invasion.
This is what you get from the Government (Score:2)
Re:Digital: PBS (Score:2)
That's the problem, there's a law, or a ruling with the force of law, that's says that they can't wait, they have to do it now, just like everybody else with a license to broadcast television over the airwaves. Which means that everybody has to be an early adopter and buy when the demand is the highest it will ever be.
A good book... (Score:2)
---------
Re:PBS is not vital to our nation's people... (Score:1)
Discovery is nothing but animals shows. Some may like it, but I don't. Plus their spinning off another channel with a *mission* to cover animals.
I don't watch History myself.
Note Bene: I rarely watch TLC/Discovery and I know TLC does show other things(Extreme Machines) but usually it's pretty bad and rates up there with Trauma in intellectual stimulation.
Why force PBS? (Score:1)
Huh?! (Score:2)
PBS is a nicety that is largely outmoded. When there where only 3 networks, and that was all there was as every station was affiliated with one network or another then PBS played a role in providing some form of alternative programming. However, the situation is vastly different today than it was 20 years ago. Today, there are a half-dozen networks broadcasting from traditional stations in almost every market. Moreover, satellite and cable providers offer literally hundreds of channels to most markets.
PBS is still necessary in those rare areas of the country where the market is not large enough to support traditional broadcast stations, both for radio and television. But supporting PBS stations in major market cities is simply a waste of taxpayer money. The only justification for supporting PBS is to have broadcast capabilities for emergency information in areas where there are no (or very few) other broadcast stations. Those areas are very rare in today's world.
I don't mind people wanting to support something I disagree with, but I do mind every debate being started with hyperbole. By making a claim such as PBS being "vital" to the citizenry, the rhetoric is charged so that any debate can't ever really discuss the merits of continued support. After all, if you are against continued support, for whatever reason, you wish to take away something that is "vital." Hogwash!
Re:PCI HDTV (Score:2)
If you are seriously interested in the subject, subscribe to the OpenDTV mailing list (OpenDTV at topica.com [topica.com]) and read the message archives. Beware, this is a high-volume mailing list.
The short symbol length in the ATSC standard makes it vulnerable to multipath. There is also a problem with too few bits allocated to the training sequence.
Re:PCI HDTV (Score:3)
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:1)
--
Re:PBS is not very liberal (Score:1)
To the extent that modern journalism has defined "non-bias" as a methodolgy based on reporting the facts, I'd have to say that they are generally successful, if not that interesting while doing so. However, you are correct that all editorial actions are 'bias' in one way or another.
--
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:2)
Sometime back in the past, I heard an explaination of how conservatives find "liberal bias" in presumably un-biased reporting. It turns out the act of even broadcasting on a topic which might be disagreable is interpreted of bias.
For example, a report "AIDS cases rising among (some group)" which is nothing but a dry reading of public heath statistics might be interpreted by some individuals as bias. Why? They assume that the reporter is saying "We Ought To Do Something!", when they are not, and as they dislike the group in question, they ascribe the fact that they have to hear about it as a political conspiricy.
To some extent, the media has put themselves in this situation by striving for "non-bias", which is unobtainable to the extent that you could get everyone to agree. The conservative talking heads play this much smarter, wearing their bias loudly and proudly. I think the continual "liberal media" detracters would just rather have Tom Brokaw say "We ought to do something about that" after each report, because at least they could pin them down on something, disagree, and watch the news in peace instead of imagining ghosts in the closet.
Note that "unbiased reporting" is a relatively new concept in journalism, and one that hasn't necessarily made the news media more popular. The country got along just fine when every media outlet was blatently biased.
--
Re:Trusting in the Market (Score:1)
TV is not a fundamental right, it's a convenience, and the sooner you realize that the sooner your priorities will begin to actually make a slight amount of sense.
Yeah, it'll be okay. (Score:3)
I hope things will be okay.
The RIAA and MPAA are trying to strangle individual copyright holders by controlling content delivery methods.
I hope things will be okay.
WIPO wants control of the domain name registration process.
I hope things will be okay.
Corporations are storing huge amounts of personal data on us, and selling it to government organziations.
I hope things will be okay.
We're running out of IPv4 address space.
I hope things will be okay.
Black holes are going to swallow the universe!
I hope things will be okay.
The light is blinking! The LIGHT IS BLINKING!!!
I hope things will be okay.
Re:PBS is not vital to our nation's people... (Score:1)
I don't think that "british accent==intelligence" but I do like british humor. Monty Python, Black Adder,
Variety in televison programming is a good thing. Never had my eyes and mind opened so much as when I travelled to other places. Television can help do the same thing, with things like PBS, TLC etc this make can happen. With ABC, CBS, NBC etc you are stuck in a vanilla world.
Re:PBS is vital only as a fig leaf (Score:5)
"Frontline" was the show that dared to broadcast (soon after the Gulf War) a story that contradicted many of the sacred poodles that the press and politicians had been saying during the war (such as the Isreali Defense Minister saying that Patriot missles were of no use in destroying the warheads of the SCUD missles; or that the CIA essentially coerced Hosni Mubarak to spy on Saddam before the war started, in a supposed "negotiation"; or that Kuwait spent billions on advertising and lobbying in the U.S. before the war, including a highly deceitful propaganda campaign detailing Iraqi "attrocities")
They also recently played a series with interviews of DEA agents who admitted that all their efforts to control supply into the US during the 80's had utterly failed (much their own surprise), and that many now advocated an end to the "drug war", and some form of legalization with treatment regimes, etc.
I never saw anything like this on the networks, CNN, HBO, etc. To me that is riskier TV than anything outside of cable access (and I'm ignoring the issue of whether it is accurate reporting or not; I think it is, others may not. It is still risky)
So, you may want PBS to go belly up; but it would be sad if they did, and there was no loosening of control of the airwaves in other ways. If you think PBS is afraid of corporate sponsors, imagine how all the other channels feel who are paid exclusively by corporate sponsors.
PBS irrelevant (Score:2)
It's a channel that not enough people watch to justify it's existence on television. If it could run without federal funding, it would do so (nobody likes to beg in order to do their work). There simply is not a large enough audience to make public television in this country work, in its current state, because it's not interesting. I watch public television sometimes. I think NOVA is a good show... but it's not good enough to pay for. I would rather watch a channel which is free to me than pay for a channel with third rate documentaries.
Unless PBS is willing to get sponsorship in the form of commercials and become financially independant of the government (or gain additional funding from some outside source) it has no business taking up space on the dial. It doesn't provide a service, it doesn't provide value... all it does is give a few people jobs and placate the left who can then say they're at least attempting to culture us unwashed masses.
In the end, our tax dollars should not be going to such an endevour... it doesn't add anything to our society that couldn't be done just as well and at a lower cost by private citizens running private business. We need to stop supporting these failing ideas just because we think that they may be "good" for us. If they don't work, let's try something else. Public television has accomplished very little... it's time to try something else.
--
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:2)
After all, if you're not biased you'll be more inclined not to form opinions on matters that have some moral implication. Let people choose for themselves! This in itself is regarded by the orthodox (of whichever creed) as unwholesomely permissive, liberal, unamerican, commie stuff..
What? Let people choose for themselves which gender they're attracted to?? Sodom and Gomorra! You are SO biased!! People working on sundays? You heathen! People working on saturdays? That's the sabbath! People working on tuesdays? You capitalist!! And so on...
--
Signals are inherently analog (Score:1)
Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:3)
I think most people would agree that unbiased public television is a good thing(TM) for our country, but if a large portion of people in the audience think that PBS and seasame street are really some sort of homosexual mind control (that is not meant to be flaimbait, people really think that) then how can spending lots of tax payer dollars on it be justified?
PBS vital? (Score:1)
Re:PBS vital? (Score:1)
Somthing you may know (Score:2)
--
Re:Somthing you may know (Score:2)
--
Re:Who watches PBS? (Score:2)
PBS
Sci-Fi
Comedy Central
BBC America
UPN.
That's it. And I watch BBC America and PBS more than the others. And I have digital cable. So explain that.
Simon
Re:Digital=Pointless (Score:2)
Yeah, and all of them except the pay per view movies will be MPEG-2 encoded at 2Mb/s.
Which, if you didn't know already, is kinda crap resolution. You get all kinds of artefacts if the picture changes - eg. on a fade in/out.
Simon
WTF is PBS? (Score:1)
Re:Please put your money where your mouths are! (Score:2)
You've gotta be kidding.
PBS has lots of corporate sponsors, and sells. (Score:1)
Face it, it's not that different.
Re:Trusting in the Market (Score:1)
yeah, i think you could.
"Certainly not all at once, and certainly not without having their content shot full of holes from commercial breaks every 10 minutes"
A HA! here's your real problem. commercials.
"or, worse yet, have the producers of such programming greased by sponsors who would demand changes to the program's content."
yeah, but you see, nobody is free of bias. the producers of the show have a bias, too, you know. it's not all truth and light and beauty just because there aren't any commercials attached. if that were true, movies would be the purest form of entertainment. we all know that isn't true.
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:1)
Yeah, they really bash those corporations, what with the commercials (yeah, they put them between programs, whee) and blurbs...
-grendel drago
Re:Trusting in the Market (Score:1)
free market economy is the only system by which you have a choice. most people, on the other hand, choose to give up that choice in favor of looking good to others, which vaults trends to the highest level of good.
now, admittedly, pbs is wonderful. but i shouldn't be forced to pay for it against my will. nor should anyone else. it should compete in the economy, like everything else. and it could maintain it's quality of programming, and also gain a quality of goodness.
how? by being consistent. they could get a sponsor who knew the kind of programming that was going on, and who wouldn't interfere. and if that sponsor did interfere, it would be pbs' responsibility to not compromise, and stay true to their ideals. if they didn't, they are at fault. not capitalism. but if they didn't compromise, they would carve out a segment of the market, and stay alive.
don't insult capitalism for the faults of humanity. would you rather be compelled to pay for fox and their moronic programming against your will? no? didn't think so. so don't claim how noble it is to have the compulsion to pay for pbs.
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:1)
Write your Congressman!! (Score:3)
It is amazing how well a letter or an email works for getting a message to your representatives. If congress is going to make TV go digital they need to support public television (a government program) in keeping up with the new regulations.
They are all doing budgeting right now so this is the best time to ask for money from them.
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:5)
PCI HDTV (Score:4)
With video cards already able to decode MPEG-2 streams, and others that operate as SDTV tuners, I'm convinced there's an opposing force compelling manufacturers to avoid this obvious early-adopter market. So, is it the movie industry? Local broadcasters? Syndicators? Which copyright robber barons are exerting their influence on manufacturers this time?
If anyone needed an example of how copyright *failed* to promote the science and arts, its this endless paranoia about what level of control will be built into the next generation of media distribution. So the debate drags on for ten years about which fair-use prevention technique will be embedded in the new technology, and in the mean time, we twiddle our thumbs using technology from the 50s.
Where are the independent manufacturers not cowed by the content industry?
My monitor is capable of displaying every resolution HDTV has to offer, and my computer plenty versatile to handle the metadata, so why is my PC not yet equipped with a tuner?
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:1)
Dive Gear [divingdeals.com]
Re:PBS vital? (Score:1)
Dive Gear [divingdeals.com]
The obligatory no-registration link (Score:4)
Re:Why don't they just.. (Score:2)
As for PBS affiliates showing commericals, my dad works for a PBS affiliate- and I confronted him on the issue. He explained that while they will sell spots that say "This show brought to you in part by Pheonix Insurance" they won't tell you to "buy Insurance." Apparently none of the sponsors on PBS stations will try to _sell_ you anything, but rather just get their name out. Guess that's good for those who are easily brainwashed..
Re:PCI HDTV (Score:3)
As far as computer-based solutions, for better or worse, most people don't have monitors that are nearly as large as their televisions, or have computers set up where they want to watch TV. I'm a starving college student, so I use a TV card just because it was a lot cheaper. But in the consumer marketplace, how many people are going to sacrifice the ability to sit back on your couch and watch TV for a higher-quality picture?
In short, TV is good enough. HDTV looks much nicer, I agree. But for most purposes, standard TV is high enough quality that the added expense associated with HDTV, combined with the lack of digital signals, makes the upgrade not worthwhile.
Or so it seems to me.
Re:Damnit. OT (Score:2)
And this one by the letter 'r'
Sorry, I Just had to.
Re:PBS (Score:1)
sic
Usually when you're quoting someone in your writing you'd use it, but it can work to indicate sarcasm and such in your own writing.
PBS (Score:3)
Now, whether it's big business that controls the stations or the
When you turn on your n o'clock news.. which run general for 30min or 1hr(not nearly enough time).. you basically have 50% of content dealing with people being found dead.. overdosing.. etc etc etc. Other news involve less "demended" [sic] local scandals.. with a blur about how our [sic] president/mayor/etc are doing a good job regarding some issue.. and ofcourse the sports and weather.
International news from what I've seen usually take up 5%, of news coverage (and you wonder why people can't point to Canada on the map), anything that talk unfavorably about the owner company (which usually owns so many other enterprises it's hard to talk negatively about any idustry/etc!)
I could go on and on.. but I think most of us recognize the problem.. let me just give you an example of lack of / disinformation that your local news is.. ask your average Joe about "Socialism."
P.S. Here in NYC there are 2 (more?) nice PBS stations: WNET13 and WLIW21. You can catch BBC World News (U.S. edition) on latter one.
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:1)
Why should extinction STOP because we suddenly became so fucking smart?
Nature is exitncting some swan, but some "environmentalist" knows BETTER than nature. So he takes it on himself to cause this species to survive. He, in his infinite wisdom, has foreseen that no better species will arise to take its place, and of course the swan is so weak and stupid that it can't possibly ADAPT. So it is up to him to save it. My hero.
Of course, he is jerking off this swan all day, he doesn't have a real job, so he has to spend PUBLIC (i.e. working peoples) funds in order to retard evolution.
Anyway, the point is that PBS has a liberal slant, I don't see anything in your post refuting that.
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:1)
As for "saving ourselves" your point is well taken, but I think your position is extreme given the situation.
First, unless I am misinformed, populations in "post-industrial" nations are leveling off, and more of the world is becoming post-industrial as time passes.
Second, most of the planet is still "wild" if not "unspoiled" (which I think is a bullshit phrase, since it seems to mean man, the "unnatural one" is not part of the region) so I don't think that alarmist "paved over and sterile" imagery is in line with what the future likely holds.
we've made unprecedented changes in the ecosystem
So did plants when they first escaped the seas. They filled the skies with a noxious poison call "oxygen." The side effects of this change would have been difficult to predict by an outside observer. To quote George Carlin "Mother Earth wants plastic!"
I think anyone who thinks they know what is best for Earth is a little too full of himself. I think that anyone who thinks that our first priority should be maintaining the environment in it?s current state is too in love with the present to allow the future to happen, and doesn?t respect how robust life on this planet is.
Remember, if the Democrats (or god forbid the Greens) were in charge a few million years ago I would be having a hell of a time typing this to you with my fins!
-Peter
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:2)
Forget programming for a second, how about several PBS stations (illegally) sharing their donator lists with the Democratic Party?
As far as programming goes, every show about nature ends with a sermon. Most scientific shows end with a sermon. Like ?Scientific Socialist Frontiers? with comrade Alan Alda. I love the show. Alda makes me want to vomit.
I dig watching shows about the ring-tailed fox-bat or whatever, but I don't want to hear about how I need to do something to save it from extinction.
Look, almost every species ever on this planet was extinct before the industrial revolution. Extinction is part of the process. Man is an ANIMAL when we change the ecosystem other species must adapt or perish. We are PART of nature, not ABOVE it, or somehow its enemy.
We do nature a disservice by feeding starving swans. They just breed, and we feed MORE starving swans.
Bottom line: Yes.
PBS's Anti-Diversity Bias (Score:2)
This fact, alone cuts all counter arguments off at the waist, but there is an even more fundmental problem: PBS should not receive any government support, not even from tax exemption let alone direct funding because there is no way for a government supported organization to avoid political bias. If nothing else, it will have a pro-government stance -- whether that be on the right or left of the political spectrum. It just so happens the real authoritarians in the US have been leftists since around the time of Roosevelt.
I dig watching shows about the ring-tailed fox-bat or whatever, but I don't want to hear about how I need to do something to save it from extinction.
Although I am usually regarded as somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan on the "political" spectrum, this is one of PBS's messages with which I agree. Humans are special in the following sense: We can reason about our futures and can choose the degree to which we identify with "the other". In the case of genuine diversity including other life forms, I am far more "leftist" in thoughts and actions than Alan Alda, Cokie Roberts or Margot Adler. All these people (or more precisely, their backers) do is use humanity's natural identification with the surrounding ecosystem as a weapon in the millenia-old conflict between urban vs rural populations -- primarily to justify high taxation rates levied on agrarians in support of cosmopolitans (hunter gatherers are almost gone because they don't provide as good tax base for the cosmopolitans). Rural populations, agrarians as well as hunter gatherers, are more strongly linked to their natural surroundings must more closely identify with nature than urban populations. By preaching to the rural populations about preservation of the natural environment, the urban populations can use the social circuitry of the rural populations to instill guilt which can be redeemed only by paying penance in whatever form the urban priesthood dictates -- in the case of today, April 15, taxation is highlighted as the form, as mythologized in the phrase: Death and Taxes [geocities.com]. Other than that, these neopriests preach to us that we must use transport technologies to scramble ecosystems lest we be guilty of "provincial xenophobia". They say they merely want this for human populations because "we are all the same" and at the same time they say they want to preserve human diversity as well as that of nonhuman ecosystems. But by uprooting human populations from their "blood and soil" relationships, the neopriests in fact effectively scramble everything, including non-human cultures, into a homogeneous grey goo. This grey goo, unlike Bill Joy's fears about nanotechnology, is a clear and present biological danger that is destroying vast natural wealth this instant. The problem is the grey goo is the result of a process that is of great temporary benefit to those who are well adapted to cosmopolitan environments, from which the PBS culture, itself, arises. The PBS "altruists", without any need for conspiracy, thereby follow their self-interests and lead us all to destruction.
I am especially alienated from members of my own species who destroy the primary strength of humanity by climbing atop the pulpits and preaching, usually in all self-deceptive sincerity, doctrines that cause the sacrifice of virtually all other peoples, cultures and ecologies, on the alter of their cosmopolitan heavenly city -- an artifice that itself will ultimately fall once its supporting anthrosystems and ecosystems are destroyed.
This is a uniquely human problem.
Those who claim that this is all simply "natural" evolution must then also accept the "natural" reactions thus provoked.
Re:Who watches PBS? (Score:1)
It's like switching from copper to fibre-optic (Score:1)
Will this mean better broadcasting? Eventually, yes. Coincidentally, this point is taken up by a Canadian columnist [saturdaynight.ca] in this week's Saturday Night, a supplement of the National Post.
In real terms the argument loses some degree of force as a new, parallel digital network has to be created to take the place of the old -- in other words, the investment required is huge, and oriented to the long term view, not the short term. I believe your country's problems with this have been documented in issues of Wired but I'm having problems getting the link (search for 'Reed Hundt FCC') -- and the experiences in Canada, Japan and the UK are roughly the same.
Our PBS affiliate sold out to the Cable Companies (Score:1)
They sold out in order to be carried by time warner. As far as I am concerned they don't need any of my contribution $.
PBS government funded??? NO SIR! (Score:2)
Now, what DOES offend me is that the government GAVE these license to these rich media types for free! (granted not all regular tv stations are full of money, but most are). Imagine the amount of money the FCC would have had come in if they had to pay the fee for an HDTV license! They tax us, then give the media companies who could afford these things stuff for free. Now I am not saying I am a victim or something just because I can't get one of these license's (even if I could, I would not be able to afford the equipment let alone the real estate needed for a tower)...it's the fact that the government makes stupid choices that costs them (and us) money.
Now, sometimes the goverment needs to step in and do things to spur development. But obviously this HDTV thing is being botched. The way they did this stuff is nothing close to the way that they handled AM/FM. Most of us do not remember a time when AM was the only game in town. The first successor to AM failed because it required the user to buy a new radio. When the FM standard was shown to work along side the AM standard, then FM finally took off. Now you have both AM and FM stations. I think the FCC screwed up when they drafted that all stations should be SD/HD capable by a certain date. That's not right. Analog TV works fine for 90 percent of the things broadcast. Only things that benefit from the resolution increase are movies and sporting events.
Re:Who watches PBS? (Score:1)
-J
Re:PBS is vital only as a fig leaf (Score:1)
Anyway, PBS still does some really important stuff that no other network wants to do.
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:1)
The CBC is government funded, but the 'government' dosen't decide what programming to air, what bias to have in news broadcasts, etc. This is written into the structure of the cbc... parliament, or the prime minister (I can't remember which) the director (though most prime ministers/parliaments inherit the director and never get an opportunity to appoint a new one); everything else is decided within the cbc. There is an ombusman for public complaints.. there are explicit laws against any government intereference with the _content_ of the broadcasts, political commercials during election time are split between all major (5+ ) parties and not towards the governing party, etc.
All this would be moot if the broadcasts were biased towards the state.. which they arn't. Look at the coverage of cbc news towards issues such as the tainted blood inquiery, the apec protests/aftermath, the 'shawinigate' shite, etc. If anything, the cbc has been more critical of the governing party/government than the other major tv network news, ctv.
Re:Why don't they just.. (Score:2)
Seems like a nice distinction but in reality it isn't. Most TV advertising is to establish brand recognition rather than directly telling you to buy stuff. Look at how few advertisments actually tell you to "Buy this". Many of them don't even try to extol the virtues of the product ("Here is a funny ad, let's mention the product in passing").
So in my mind, advertising is advertising. I was considering donating some money to PBS (I am originally from England so I feel that ad free television is a good thing and I heard that PBS is a great thing). But then I noticed the "brought to you by" ads at the beginning/end of programs. So I am holding off while I reconsider my position.
The funny thing is that in the UK, on the commercial channels, in-between-program advertising used to be OK but "brought to you by" advertising wasn't allowed. It caused a (small) fuss when they started allowing it. Not only that but the "brought to you by" advertising was often particularly annoying (content, not just by being there). That's partly why I'm against it but it has to be said that for childrens' programs, it's a heck of a lot better than "Buy this new sparkly plasticy thing"
Rich
Re:Trusting in the Market (Score:2)
I'm can see it now: The roads would intermittantly go out of use, be filled with advertisements and vacuous popular culture, and we'd all have to wait two hours just to use them. Where do I sign up?
--
BBC begs too. (Score:2)
PBS does regular begging sessions too, I don't think the BBC could lower themselves to that
Except the BBC have lowered themselves further than that. Every household in the UK that owns one or more devices capable of tuning television signals must pay the BBC a user fee.
Disclaimer: I am not a UKianRe:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:2)
Easily demonstrated by putting a fish in a tank. In most cases, the fish will die unless you intervene by feeding it. Or it will suffocate unless you oxygenate the water. Once you feed the fish, it starts to excrete, and pretty soon the tank's full of muck and algae. So you get an algae eater, and it swims around cleaning the tank. And using more oxygen, so you put in a plant or two, but they too need nutrients in the water to survive. The only way for that mini-ecosystem to survive without your intervention is to make it sufficiently complex.
But what happens to your fish tank if one species of fish suddenly develops a forebrain (far-fetched, I know, but bear with me) and wipes out all of its competition for food and oxygen? Pretty soon it's fucked: it can't clean up the tank fast enough to survive, and it's breeding rate is out of control and unbalanced with the resources at hand. If you're lucky, the fish just dies back and the ecosystem is balanced again. But if you're unlucky, the fish has poisoned the ecosystem so that nothing else can survive in it either. Then you've got a smelly empty fish tank, and you have to start over.
Right now humans are like that slightly smarter fish in the tank. We're hell-bent on eliminating all ecological competition so that we can expand more, but in doing so we've put ourselves in a dangerous position. We truly have the tiger by the tail - if our technology (our grip on the tail) fails us we're toast, and billions of people will die.
This might sound alarmist, but it's just biology: simple ecosystems do not survive without external intervention. Right now we're counting on our technology to be that external intervention, but it's not infallible. It's worked for a few thousand years, but that's barely blink of the eye.
Maybe one day technology will be infallible, and humans will be able to synthesize food from silicone and dirty water. Then we won't need any plants or animals; it'll just be us. All 50 billion of us, living in one large metal city under the gray sky, eating synthetic food, watching videos of the species we wiped out so we could expand. That will prove once and for all that those liberal swan-feeders were wrong: we don't need other species to survive. It will be beautiful.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:2)
Second, I agree that some species are doomed and should not be saved, and that some individuals within species should not be saved. The world is a brutal place, and many swans die of various causes. This is well and good, and your point about "retarding evolution" is well-taken.
Third, though, it's kind of sad that you apparently missed the point of my post. Since you took the trouble to reply, I'll assume you're at least a little interested and try again.
The point is that human beings have used our gigantic brains to create near-incredible technology to enable us to (a) breed and expand with few limits, and (b) kill off every species that gets in our way rather easily. In a very small span of time, geologically and evolutionarily speaking, we've made unprecedented changes in the ecosystem and environment of our planet (e.g. paving thousands of square miles with concrete or killing 99.x% of buffalo just for the hell of it).
No other species has ever had such power over its environment, and we're using that power blindly, without thought for the future. We're killing other organisms and species at a stunning rate because we can't see their immediate value to us. All I'm saying is that it's in our own best interests to keep the ecosystem of planet Earth as diverse as possible. As a species we have that power, and I think we should use it responsibly.
I'm not saying that we should save the California Condor because it's cute or some Earth-Firster loves the way its feathers shine in the sun. I'm saying we should save it to save ourselves. Simple ecosystems do not survive, and we're simplifying Earth's ecosystem very fast. Perhaps faster than our technology can keep up with the changes.
"Nature is exitncting some swan" you say. Unless you literally mean that "Nature" is a discreet entity like the Jolly Green Giant, this is a category mistake. "Nature" is a word we use to describe the natural processes at work in the world. It has no volition of its own; no goals, plans, will, or acts. Nature really is the sum of its parts, and right now human beings are the most powerful "part." It's not anyone's fault if a single swan dies. But if every species of frog [otago.ac.nz] dies because we pollute the environment, then yes, it is our fault.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:2)
I agree with this, albiet narrowly. In a strict sense, if we saturation-nuked the planet into a ball of smooth glass then yes, it would still be natural. But we'd be fucked. I'm not concerned about the health of Earth, or nature, or the ecosystem. I'm concerned about the health of us, and IMHO we're making some really stupid decisions, and not planning well for the future.
I've also seen that some populations are levelling, but the most recent figure I saw (no link - sorry) was 15 billion. Do we have the technology to keep 15 billion people alive on this planet? No one's even askign that question - we're just mindlessly expanding.
Thanks for the argument, anyway.
legs
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Another article on the subject today (Score:2)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c
This one is about the challenge which KQED (San Francisco PBS affiliate) is facing with the conversion to digital broadcasts and digital studio equipment. They have raised (through private donations) $48M of the $70M required for the conversion.
Trusting in the Market (Score:3)
Ah, the familiar refrain:
Why is PBS vital? Discovery, TLC, etc. etc.
I'll tell you why PBS is vital; because not all good programming on television can exist under our all-encompassing running-dog capitlist-pig free market system.
All the 'competing' cable channels are commercial ventures- designed to turn a profit. They sell advertising, they cross-promote, they merchandise. But, some things deserve to be produced and aired which would never, ever, in a million years, make it on any of these faux-enlightenement commercial networks.
Tell me with a straight face that I would be able to tune into the History channel on a Sunday afternoon and wach six hours of, say, 'The Civil War' or 'Connections' or 'Cosmos'. Certainly not all at once, and certainly not without having their content shot full of holes from commercial breaks every 10 minutes, or, worse yet, have the producers of such programming greased by sponsors who would demand changes to the program's content.
I can't speak for everyone, of course, and I'm probably getting ready to sound like a PBS membership drive, but this sort of in-depth stuff is what I grew up on, inspired me to not be afraid to have the big ideas, and that my big ideas don't necessarily have to be 'sponsored by Hyundai'. Commercial broadcasting is designed to sell advertisers' shit to the lowest common demoninator of the audience watching. In public broadcasting, each piece of programming is designed to be very interesting to a small segment of the population. I don't watch 'Arthur' too often, but I damn sure catch 'Frontline' when it's on. Find me a commercial network that would keep airing 'Frontline' for years and years and years.
The acts of law which orginally established the current rules for broadcasting acknowledged that the need for this sort of material existed, and mandated that each market have space in the channel spectrum reserved for such a station. Over time, of course, our corrupt goverment has been bought off and talked into believing that, like so many other issues of public interest, the market will decide.
What a bunch of goddamn red-tie republican cowardice bullshit. Another example of our whoremongering elected officials making their mortgage payments by selling off the idealistic notions of earlier generations.
Digital=Pointless (Score:2)
But why is it in our national interest to make sure we switch to digital?
--
Re:PBS is vital only as a fig leaf (Score:2)
It has as you allude, been made into a joke by the savage gelding strokes of American Mullahs, and also through the more lapidarian trimmings of corporate curators of acceptable public opinion, and the patronage of the Phillip-Morrisonian Bonsai Gardeners of Kulture.
Sometimes I am resigned to the idea that it could be better (all things considered) if the fascists had prevailed and eliminated PBS altogether. They have done a pretty thorough job already of subverting its journalistic freedom and they have completely annihilated it as a cultural actor. Leaving PBS in place but censored and powerless as it is only serves to mask the presently totalitarian nature of the American media landscape.
Better perhaps that people should be faced with the unambiguous truth that they cannot further deny by saying "Oh but I have an alternative -public broadcasting". Because in truth as an American, you have no alternative. As a consumer of media and culture, you cannot buy an alternative, not even with a million fucking dollars. (If you have billions on the other hand, you are at liberty to present whatever you think is advantageous to you but then that's just more of the sewage and brainwashing we already have, not an alternative).
You are completely naked and alone with your disbelief and outrage:
They own both major political parties - one of which proudly bills itself as the party of Corporate Cocksuckers without a trace of shame.
They own all the media outlets, which are in business it seems to tell you what to think, and more importantly, what not to think about, ever; not to discover what questions to ask.
They went on a buying spree and now own all the think-tanks, and have owned most of them for 10-15 years.
(Ergo, if you were a non-corporate cocksucker with an outlet through the media --highly unlikely, I know, I know, but let's pretend-- you would be hard pressed to host a pundit or book an expert for your show who was not a proficient cocksucker[1} even before their first media appearance.
How bad is it? Well consider that at this point in time even Christopher Hitchens now dangles from the teat of Richard Mellon Scaife. That my friends is 100% total, safe, and reliable capture of visible media dissent.)
No place left.
No place left but the streets. And it takes alot to get fatassed Americans into the streets but I confidently predict we will see it in the next 4-5 years. Fat American asses in the streets by the million. The Happy Meal is over.
[1] No offence intended to those for whom fellatio is an expression of love, or sexual attraction and affection, or just a tasty kinetic substitute for casual salutations like, "Good Morning", or "Nice Pants". No actual cocksuckers were harmed in the fabrication of this post.
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:4)
National Public Radio may be said to have a liberal character but in general I don't think you could fairly claim "bias", as there as no commercial news broadcast that begins to come close to NPRs approach to presenting multiple sides to a given issue or story. (Remember I said we would not use the make-believe sense of the term in which anyone with an education or an idea different from the RNC is considered clearly biased).
Certainly not overtly biased fascist-party media organs like the Faux News Network. They don't come close to balance and are frankly proud of their ability to avoid it.
Certainly not General Electric owned CNBS.
Some USians may think Jim Lehrer, of the once-great McNeil Lehrer News Hour, is liberal. But in that case I'll have to assure them he is not, and that they do not have the first clue about what a real liberal is. (Don't worry, by the time you have it figured out it will be too late).
Since when was TV a basic human need (Score:4)
There has been a lot of likening of PBS to BBC. I live in the UK and I pay £104 ($160) a year for the luxury of BBC1 and BBC2. That is more than I spend on my whole (albiet limited) cable TV package in a year. It's also more per channel than any of the movie channels I have on digital satelite.
For those of you in the USA, we actually have to pay for a tv license here (or they give u big fines apparently). And for that we get just TWO television channels (completely commercial free i might add) that manage to have more quality programming than the 300 or so i have on satelite.
You cant really have things both ways. Personally I prefer the way of having everyone pay a blanket fee to produce quality programs, but in the US you chose (surprise surprise) the more commercial route.
Re: Bias?!? (Warning: rant!) (Score:2)
There's no such thing as non-bias. Everyone has a bias of some sort, because we haven't grown up in a vacuum.
The point is to try and recognise your biases. And in trying, you must remember that you will NEVER be perfectly succesful.
Note that having a bias doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. I'm biased against neo-Nazi's, the KKK, and the campus fascist's [ams.ubc.ca] at my university who insist that only they have the right to express an opinion because their's are politically correct and everyone else is just biased.
Recognise that the line between bias and opinion is very slim indeed.
PBS is vital only as a fig leaf (Score:3)
For me, the quality of public television is measured by its ability to do something that market driven tv cannot dare to do -- outrage. A good public tv station, like a good judiciary, depends on some level of insulation from both the financial and the political world. Its success as a public slervice lies in its ability to leverage this insulation in order to push the envelope of free speech.
Public TV should be outrageous, or not at all.
"i hope things work out okay" (Score:2)
hope won't help
send money . i've been a donor to my local PBS/NPR affiliate for three years -- i started out at $30 and can now afford $120.
it's PER YEAR, people. like, a dime a day.
your hope is worth less than nothing, because it falsely assuages your conscience without doing anything to solve the problem.
slashdot is a relatively good place for hearing about certain stories that won't get covered by ABCTIMEWARNERMSNBC.COM. But networks like NPR are invaluable to disseminating in-depth cultural, financial, scientific information [instead of everything being standard soundbytes, stories/issues get anywhere from brief to a full day of coverage.
your money is your vote. please cast your vote for Public Broadcasting, even if it's only a few bucks.
---
Re:PBS didn't give Buckley a free forum. (Score:2)
Newshour and Frontline are great. (Score:2)
The problem is they are so boring. Guess they don't care about ratings so they just report the news and don't need to sensationalise everything.
And with nobody watching don't need to worrying about offending anybody.
Somethings you may not know (Score:4)
I would like to point out, as a system engineer working for a PBS station, That not a lot of people are aware of what a PBS station does for their community. For example: One of the services we provide is giving class content to teachers to use. They need a show on dinosaurs we can boradcast to them as needed. We are also the ones that broadcast the local city council meetings so you can stay informed (you do watch don't you) we provide topical on target content to that people can use it to learn. If we did not provide this for free then the teachers would have to buy this content. We know how little money the school have can they afford to pay the robber barons so that they can teach the kids? I think not, or at least they would not have as large of a selection.
The next thing we provide is free computer support. One of my key duties is helping the local school systems with their computer issues. Most schools do not have a trained system admin and cannot afford one. They usually have a computer lab teacher, who has had no training and cannot get any, trying to support the internet connection and the servers in their schools. They quickly get in over their heads and I come to their rescue providing free support to get them on their feet. And speaking of bandwidth we provide that to, all the schools come through us to get low cost bandwidth. We diseapear and their goes the schools internet access with us.
We support the community in computers, we give free workshops to teachers to show them how to use word and power point, we sponsor and run our areas great computer challenge for middle and high school age children. I was a room monitor last time myself on my own time and money.
The local PBS radio stations are part of us, when the tv part goes they go too. Besides no classical station and no public talk radio we are also the station that provides reading to the blind. Everyday we read the paper to the blind to help keep them informed. This service is provided free once again with no adds and no breaks, something a commercial station cannot do.
PBS is just not sesame street, it is ALL of the public services in an area. Those computer classes you where able to take in public school existed becuase of us. Their is no budget for these things, so when we go, tech teaching in the schools goes with us.
We are publicly supportted to free us from the ties that would stop us from providing USEFULL content and services. This way they do not have to buy them but we can provide them. When Digital TV comes to us, and takes 10 Million to upgrade (our estimated costs) it is not just the fact that we go off the air if we cannot raise the money, the kids are affected also, and that is a shame.
If you want to see the kinds of things that we provide for free to people go to www.whro.org We are streaming the content of our radio stations. Catch the show logon on fridays at 1:30pm EST laying on 89.5 . It's a free user call in show that fixs peoples problems. No hostile company beholding tech support, but knowledgable people who want to fix your problems correctly for free. It's a great example of the level of service we provide in a specific area as that show is locally created and boradcasted.
Hey, PBS and I have something in common! (Score:2)
Maybe it's because both of us know that the adoption rate will stay slow-as-molasses and so as a result analog TV won't be discontinued?!
Re:Please put your money where your mouths are! (Score:2)
Yeah, how dare they try to raise money! They should operate for free, or better yet, steal money from tax-payers through government subsidies!
My donations went to the EFF, thanks...
You're welcome.
Please put your money where your mouths are! (Score:5)
things that I consider vital to our nation's citizenry. I hope things work out ok
Those who really do feel PBS is "vital to our nation's citizenry," please donate money to PBS by becoming a member:
http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/membership/local.htm
And for those corporations that would like to help:
http://sponsorship.pbs.org/ [pbs.org]
Re:Does PBS have a liberal bias? (Score:2)
Dan Rather = liberal bias.
Bill Buckley = not a very liberal bias...
All in all, I think that PBS is probably the only truly un-biased source of information out there. Not to mention that it is certainly the only accurate source of information on television in the US.
The day that PBS goes under is the day I hollow out my TV for goldfish.
"I don't watch much TV" (Score:2)
It's almost like shucking that same old Yahoo-porn post [ridiculopathy.com] again and saying "I don't watch much porn."
"Here's a bit from howto.com about where to hide the bodies - but I don't kill people much."
"I caught this Linux article from the NAMBLA newsletter. I don't know how it came to my house..."
Re:"I don't watch much TV" (Score:2)
And the reason you don't get it is that you're the one being made fun of.
Re: (Score:2)
PBS=Corporate Whores (Score:2)
Like they don't get enough from ADM, GE, Pepsico, GM,
If you want to give money/support to true independent media, here are some:
PBS didn't give Buckley a free forum. (Score:2)
The reason liberal voices aren't heard is because NOBODY WILL ADMIT TO BEING LIBERAL! Liberalism is dead. It failed. Deal with it. The debate now is between Neo and Classical conservatism.
Bye Bye!
What I Know (Score:3)
Why don't they just.. (Score:2)
Why is it essential? (Score:2)
the only reason that I can see provided by /. posters is "because I enjoyed it" What about those who didn't (and since it is publicly funded , payed for it regardless)?
This is the perfect oppourtunity to sell all these stations that can't comply. The government shouldn't be in the business of owning media outlets.
by the way, I enjoyed Sesame Street, too. but not enough to imply that others should pay to keep it around, even if it is educational. Mr. Wizard was on nickelodeon for quite some time, and was the best show around, as far as I was concerned.
Re:Trusting in the Market (Score:2)
Imagine if we paid a company to maintain our roads, just like we do power lines, cable TV, airport runways, etc. Just because the government does 0wn roads, doesn't mean they should. Americans have been so indoctrinated to believe that the government has to do the "big things" because it would be impossible to do otherwise. Bullshit.
The real anger here is how can people not see what government sponsored television does? It supports ideas, some which people don't believe in. Like some kid said earlier, you may think it ridiculous that bert and ernie are gay. But do you want to silence others? the government is funded by all. therefore it should not engage itself in any sponsorship of ideas through public medium. it should be neutral on that respect. otherwise, by force, people will pay money into a system that propagates ideas they are ideologically opposed to.
Vital? (Score:3)
Once upon a time, it was the only place on the dial one might possibly catch a glimpse of actual nudity. But then, once upon a time televisions had actual dials.
Vital for what, exactly?