The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”(axios.com)
axios.com
The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”
https://www.axios.com/pbs-internet-online-information-nonprofit-e9a78344-ae58-4214-9cb6-974ab9576cb1.html
302 comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
You say that, but ISIS propaganda has been soundly defeated outside of fringe sites like GETTR. And sure, GETTR remains a hotbed of terrible disinformation (such as this ISIS propaganda), but without a mainstream audience, its much less of an issue compared to giving it out to everyone on Twitter.
You can't post an ISIS sponsored beheading video on a mainstream site (Youtube, Facebook, Twitter) without the moderators noticing and censoring it in short order.
You say that, but ISIS propaganda has been soundly defeated outside of fringe sites like GETTR. And sure, GETTR remains a hotbed of terrible disinformation (such as this ISIS propaganda), but without a mainstream audience, its much less of an issue compared to giving it out to everyone on Twitter.
You can't post an ISIS sponsored beheading video on a mainstream site (Youtube, Facebook, Twitter) without the moderators noticing and censoring it in short order.
> You say that, but ISIS propaganda has been soundly defeated outside of fringe sites like GETTR.
Really? It took me approximately 15 seconds to find and red ISIS's magazine Dabiq (and not on GETTR, which I had previously not heard of).
Really? It took me approximately 15 seconds to find and red ISIS's magazine Dabiq (and not on GETTR, which I had previously not heard of).
Yes but you had to:
. Know about ISIS
. Know they had a magazine
. Actually want to read it
This is different from ISIS propaganda being algorithmically suggested to you from a seemingly normal website like YouTube without you even seeking it out in the first place because some faceless algorithm values "engagement" over everything else.
. Know about ISIS
. Know they had a magazine
. Actually want to read it
This is different from ISIS propaganda being algorithmically suggested to you from a seemingly normal website like YouTube without you even seeking it out in the first place because some faceless algorithm values "engagement" over everything else.
The harm caused by censorship is so much greater. Look at censorship in the old Soviet Union, present day China, 50s McCarthy era US, North Korea, present day Brazil, India, solidarity era Poland, etc… It isn’t a tool for combating disinformation. It is a tool for suppressing dissent.
Also your logic and example are faulty. A beheading video is not disinformation. It is terror. It is a threat to those that oppose ISIS that that would befall them. Also, if you haven’t noticed, ISIS is about to retake Afghanistan. Getting rid of that video did nothing.
https://news.yahoo.com/mapping-advance-taliban-afghanistan-2...
Also your logic and example are faulty. A beheading video is not disinformation. It is terror. It is a threat to those that oppose ISIS that that would befall them. Also, if you haven’t noticed, ISIS is about to retake Afghanistan. Getting rid of that video did nothing.
https://news.yahoo.com/mapping-advance-taliban-afghanistan-2...
The Taliban is about to retake Afghanistan, which is a different group than ISIS / ISIL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban%E2%80%93ISIL_conflict_...
In fact, Taliban and ISIL are at war with each other for Afghanistan right now. In any case, we've been incredibly successful at censoring both of them from our mainstream platforms.
They wish for recruitment, to spread their propaganda / disinformation, and to grow their cause. Its an information war, the same as any other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban%E2%80%93ISIL_conflict_...
In fact, Taliban and ISIL are at war with each other for Afghanistan right now. In any case, we've been incredibly successful at censoring both of them from our mainstream platforms.
They wish for recruitment, to spread their propaganda / disinformation, and to grow their cause. Its an information war, the same as any other.
Censorship is a tool, not a goal. The goal was control of Afghanistan. Go look at the map of control. The Taliban have made great gains and the US and allies basically are giving up because they have bigger fish to fry. As noted, the censorship wasn’t about disinformation, it was and is just about power.
Censorship is a tool. The goal was to prevent Daesh / ISIS from recruiting Americans into dying for their cause in Syria / Iraq.
The number of US citizens flying out to die in a forsaken war on ISIS's side are miniscule to none. Believe it or not, American citizens were doing this back when the surge was happening.
We successfully disrupted their information campaign and their recruitment. And ISIS / ISIL / Daesh is now fighting for relevance (albeit unsuccessfully, mainly on GETTR).
The number of US citizens flying out to die in a forsaken war on ISIS's side are miniscule to none. Believe it or not, American citizens were doing this back when the surge was happening.
We successfully disrupted their information campaign and their recruitment. And ISIS / ISIL / Daesh is now fighting for relevance (albeit unsuccessfully, mainly on GETTR).
They never needed American recruits. This is a sideshow. There are many millions of non-Americans in the world to recruit from, and many non-internet ways to do it.
ISIL didn't exist a few years ago. They only came into existence thanks to foreign recruits.
Americans included of course. But there are recruits from all around the world. Disrupting that recruitment process is one of the shining examples of effective cyber warfare vs ISIL / daesh.
Non-Americans use Facebook, YouTube, and other websites in large numbers.
-------
ISIL is still trying to recruit from the US websites. We just censor the crap out of them so they make no progress. It's in fact, proof that censorship works in practice.
Americans included of course. But there are recruits from all around the world. Disrupting that recruitment process is one of the shining examples of effective cyber warfare vs ISIL / daesh.
Non-Americans use Facebook, YouTube, and other websites in large numbers.
-------
ISIL is still trying to recruit from the US websites. We just censor the crap out of them so they make no progress. It's in fact, proof that censorship works in practice.
What are the bigger fish? Could you elaborate?
There are articles on the Internet that say that the US is withdrawing to focus on the great powers competition (basically China). It doesn’t have the extra resources to burn on Afghanistan and Iraq anymore. The US has also drawn down troops from Iraq.
The drawdown from Afghanistan started 10 years ago. The last remnants leaving are largely symbolic from a cost and manpower standpoint.
US soldiers killed in Afghanistan is a reasonable proxy for number of soldiers actively engaged, 2009: 310, 2010: 496, 2011: 412, 2012: 301, 2013: 120, 2014: 2014, 2015: 22, 2016: 14, 2017: 17, 2018: 15, 2019: 22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...
Looking at just combat fatalities and the difference is even more obvious. 440 KIA in 2010 down to 11 in 2015.
US soldiers killed in Afghanistan is a reasonable proxy for number of soldiers actively engaged, 2009: 310, 2010: 496, 2011: 412, 2012: 301, 2013: 120, 2014: 2014, 2015: 22, 2016: 14, 2017: 17, 2018: 15, 2019: 22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...
Looking at just combat fatalities and the difference is even more obvious. 440 KIA in 2010 down to 11 in 2015.
I don’t think this dismisses the cost and the strategic implications. The US/China rivalry was recognized even 10 years ago.
[deleted]
Centralized censorship is dangerous and should be avoided. However, a distributed system of gatekeepers (e.g. newspaper editors prior to the creation of the internet) has its benefits. Competition limits the power of censorship, but the censors still have enough power to keep certain ideas out of the mainstream. This has its downsides too, no doubt. Some of the ideas being suppressed were good ones, but there were benefits as well. As with all things, there are trade offs.
Newspapers today don't have the integrity to do that. They all suck the nipples of Facebook for ad money, many of their writers are preoccupied with pre-fed ideas. This is overall a terrible idea.
>>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.
>>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.
I don't think so. It may not be a value to you, but it remains a subjective valuation.
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.
> 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.
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.
If the money comes from listeners (and most of it does) then they are beholden to listeners. It's quite different than being beholden to companies.
I'm pretty sure most of the money does not come from listeners, that's a myth they promulgate. The local stations are mostly rinkydink organizations that raise money from listeners (and say "listener support") and funnel it to the national organization to purchase the programming, but the national organization thrives on govt subsidies and keeps the budgets pretty much secret.
Do you have a more effective system in mind?
Nobody's ever come up with one, other than the free market. That's why the Constitution does not allow the government to limit free speech.
I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the belief that it's the profit motive that leads to corruption. Even a casual review of history will amply show that government funded news is not independent journalism nor unbiased journalism.
I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the belief that it's the profit motive that leads to corruption. Even a casual review of history will amply show that government funded news is not independent journalism nor unbiased journalism.
The US has always had a distinction between state and public ownership. You can do things on public lands that are restricted on government lands, for example.* The same can hold, and has held in the past, for Public media -- it does not necessarily mean State media. It requires effort to maintain the separation, yes, but not an impossible amount of effort.
*Not that the CPB is actually owned by the public, but the principle is closely related.
*Not that the CPB is actually owned by the public, but the principle is closely related.
Well maybe if we spend enough time pontificating about the theoretical corruption of imperfect solutions a better one will fall from the sky on a stone tablet.
The fact that they're beholden to different stakeholders is precisely why it's important to have robust publicly funded journalism and/or donor funded journalism in addition to traditional for-profit advertiser funded journalism.
Just as traditional news outlets are reluctant to upset their advertisers. Donor-funded local newspapers are hesitant to upset big local donors. The BBC is awesome at covering non-clickbaity stories that would never get the time of day from a profit-oriented news outlet, but has always gone easy on whoever is currently in power in the U.K.
At the end of the day, quality investigative journalism costs money, that money has to come from somewhere, and it's best if that money comes from many places rather than one. Allocating more money toward publicly funded and donor-funded news in the U.S. would help to counter to the monstrous infotainment media empires that advertisers have built.
Also, have you read or listened to public news recently? It feels like reading a textbook or eating raw vegetables: refreshingly dull. We need more of it.
Just as traditional news outlets are reluctant to upset their advertisers. Donor-funded local newspapers are hesitant to upset big local donors. The BBC is awesome at covering non-clickbaity stories that would never get the time of day from a profit-oriented news outlet, but has always gone easy on whoever is currently in power in the U.K.
At the end of the day, quality investigative journalism costs money, that money has to come from somewhere, and it's best if that money comes from many places rather than one. Allocating more money toward publicly funded and donor-funded news in the U.S. would help to counter to the monstrous infotainment media empires that advertisers have built.
Also, have you read or listened to public news recently? It feels like reading a textbook or eating raw vegetables: refreshingly dull. We need more of it.
The news that is pushed to you nowadays is already increasingly donor funded. The last 10 years, the tech elite have purchased many sense making media. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos. The Atlantic is owned by Laurene Powell Jobs. The New Republic is owned by Chris Hughes. The Intercept is owned by Pierre Omidyar.
The narrowing and shifting of the Overton window is precisely due to donor funded journalism. It is just a reflection of the underlying shift in power in the society and economy as a whole.
Public news being dull is actually really bad. It means that there is no real debate. You are being fed what to think.
The narrowing and shifting of the Overton window is precisely due to donor funded journalism. It is just a reflection of the underlying shift in power in the society and economy as a whole.
Public news being dull is actually really bad. It means that there is no real debate. You are being fed what to think.
Also all 'sides' play this game. It is a reflection of the shift in power in the society as a whole. Oil has lost power. The Koch brother(s) have lost power.
Tech has gained power and now exerts influence. Education has gained power. Healthcare has gained power.
Tech has gained power and now exerts influence. Education has gained power. Healthcare has gained power.
Very true. I remember vividly growing up in the 1980s and watching Big Bird explain the moral hazard of government-subsidized school lunches. The segment where Super Grover delivered weapons to Iranian forces in Iraq in exchange for funds for CIA-backed rebel groups in Nicaragua seemed rather convoluted and, frankly, outlandish, but I accepted it with an open mind.
These days I am more wise to the ways of the world, and it seems clear that had PBS’s intrusion into the free market not driven out private investment in educational television, I could have instead been exposed to superior, corporate-sponsored values. Alas.
These days I am more wise to the ways of the world, and it seems clear that had PBS’s intrusion into the free market not driven out private investment in educational television, I could have instead been exposed to superior, corporate-sponsored values. Alas.
> I could have instead been exposed to superior, corporate-sponsored values. Alas.
I am indeed sorry you didn't get to enjoy Bugs Bunny, Wile E Coyote, Rocky & Bullwinkle, and other corporate sponsored values. You've been deprived.
I am indeed sorry you didn't get to enjoy Bugs Bunny, Wile E Coyote, Rocky & Bullwinkle, and other corporate sponsored values. You've been deprived.
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.
do you believe that PBS or NPR have crossed that line in ways that for-profit, privately-owned media has not?
No, but they haven't not, either. NPR is notoriously biased and niche in its politics.
Ask anyone on the half of the country who doesn't vote blue, or necessarily get along with the latest developments in gender identity, of NPR gives their worldview any coverage whatsoever that isn't bashing and negative.
Ask anyone on the half of the country who doesn't vote blue, or necessarily get along with the latest developments in gender identity, of NPR gives their worldview any coverage whatsoever that isn't bashing and negative.
Also, I consistently hear NPR play the same game as the NYT: reach out to mythical "real America" voters, interview them, be tolerant of their perspectives even if the overall context is unfavorable towards conservative/reactionary/regressive viewpoints. You can practically hear the hosts' backs crack as they bend over backwards to try to be pleasant to both these interview subjects, and/or their intellectual leading lights.
But when was the last time I heard NPR interview an actual bona fide leftist? I don't think I've ever heard this on any of the flagship shows. Democracy Now, out of WNYC does, but that's not an NPR production. There's an almost complete absence of left politics on NPR (as on American media in general), whereas "due consideration" to equivalent positions on the right appear to be part of journalism's civic duty.
So yeah, they don't exact coddle red-leaning politics and people, but they do seek them out and try to let them have a voice amidst the stories that suggest that they are probably wrong.
Left-leaning politics? Forget that. You're not hearing that on NPR or pretty much anywhere else in this country. BTW, MSNBC is not even the exception that proves the rule.
But when was the last time I heard NPR interview an actual bona fide leftist? I don't think I've ever heard this on any of the flagship shows. Democracy Now, out of WNYC does, but that's not an NPR production. There's an almost complete absence of left politics on NPR (as on American media in general), whereas "due consideration" to equivalent positions on the right appear to be part of journalism's civic duty.
So yeah, they don't exact coddle red-leaning politics and people, but they do seek them out and try to let them have a voice amidst the stories that suggest that they are probably wrong.
Left-leaning politics? Forget that. You're not hearing that on NPR or pretty much anywhere else in this country. BTW, MSNBC is not even the exception that proves the rule.
NPR’s coverage of a leftist agenda is overwhelming, particularly on identity politics. They’re every bit as bad as the far right. Taibbi captured it well. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/nprs-brilliant-self-own
I feel like your definition of "left" and my definition of "left" aren't even remotely equivalent.
It seems that much of our public debate is hobbled by an outstanding lack of consensus regarding what is meant by many political terms: right, left, conservative, progressive, liberal, capitalism, fascism, democracy, socialism, and so on.
I don't mention this as a way to suggest your definition is incorrect but just to point out how difficult it is to have a coherent discussion when basic terms are ill-defined.
It seems that much of our public debate is hobbled by an outstanding lack of consensus regarding what is meant by many political terms: right, left, conservative, progressive, liberal, capitalism, fascism, democracy, socialism, and so on.
I don't mention this as a way to suggest your definition is incorrect but just to point out how difficult it is to have a coherent discussion when basic terms are ill-defined.
But the terms are not ill-defined.
They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth, particularly in the USA since the Progressive period (roughly 1880-1920), when US capital got scared shitless that actua leftist politics might assume power in this country.
It is absolutely in the interest of existing power and wealth that these political concepts be fuzzy, misunderstood and hard to apply. Political scientists don't have much problem defining them in unambiguous ways, but our political culture is full of attempts to obscure their meaning.
I would agree that there's a legitimate argument about whether or not 1-dimensional axes are a useful way to talk about political ideas. There's a lot of merit in the 2D approach that many libertarians like to use. But that doesn't change the fact that these terms are well quite well defined by those who understand the subject matter, and deliberately obfuscated by those who see problems if people were to really understand the differences and purposes of the ideas described by these terms.
They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth, particularly in the USA since the Progressive period (roughly 1880-1920), when US capital got scared shitless that actua leftist politics might assume power in this country.
It is absolutely in the interest of existing power and wealth that these political concepts be fuzzy, misunderstood and hard to apply. Political scientists don't have much problem defining them in unambiguous ways, but our political culture is full of attempts to obscure their meaning.
I would agree that there's a legitimate argument about whether or not 1-dimensional axes are a useful way to talk about political ideas. There's a lot of merit in the 2D approach that many libertarians like to use. But that doesn't change the fact that these terms are well quite well defined by those who understand the subject matter, and deliberately obfuscated by those who see problems if people were to really understand the differences and purposes of the ideas described by these terms.
> But the terms are not ill-defined
I'm asserting that if there is no rough agreement on definitions then you can't have a coherent conversation.
You seem to be asserting that there is an effort to actively obscure the meaning of these terms, which doesn't negate my assertion.
It doesn't matter why there is no agreement (deception, lack of education, laziness, etc.) without the agreement you can't really have a coherent discussion.
Your assertion that there are some who are knowingly obfuscating language is worthy of discussion but seems like a different (but related) point. I tend to agree with you regarding muddled language, but I'm not so sure about "those with power and wealth" being the cause.
I'm asserting that if there is no rough agreement on definitions then you can't have a coherent conversation.
You seem to be asserting that there is an effort to actively obscure the meaning of these terms, which doesn't negate my assertion.
It doesn't matter why there is no agreement (deception, lack of education, laziness, etc.) without the agreement you can't really have a coherent discussion.
Your assertion that there are some who are knowingly obfuscating language is worthy of discussion but seems like a different (but related) point. I tend to agree with you regarding muddled language, but I'm not so sure about "those with power and wealth" being the cause.
No, I think it's just you. The American centre is much more libertarian than the centre in other democracies, but there isn't some weird cabal redefining leftism - it just isn't as popular there.
"They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth" - how? By whom?
"They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth" - how? By whom?
You're right that left politics are not as popular here. But in the Progressive period (1880-1920 as I mentioned), the US was possibly the home of the most popular, most powerful leftish movement anywhere on the planet. So what happened ...
> how? By whom?
Goodness. There are so many books on this. You could start with something obvious like Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", which is about a somewhat different issue but covers the way that the power structures in the US moved the Overton window in various ways to make leftish politics appear out of the mainstream.
This book does a reasonably good job of covering both how socialism itself shot itself in the foot in the US and how it was shot in the other foot by the existing power structures use of propaganda/media:
https://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp...
> how? By whom?
Goodness. There are so many books on this. You could start with something obvious like Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", which is about a somewhat different issue but covers the way that the power structures in the US moved the Overton window in various ways to make leftish politics appear out of the mainstream.
This book does a reasonably good job of covering both how socialism itself shot itself in the foot in the US and how it was shot in the other foot by the existing power structures use of propaganda/media:
https://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp...
> NPR is notoriously biased and niche in its politics
Niche, eh? Have you checked the listener numbers? Yes, Carlson's show on Fox beats all NPR shows, but NPR's prime time shows are consistently among the most consumed daily media events in the USA. Shows like "All Things Considered" generally (but not always) beat out supposedly "trend-forming" cable TV shows.
As for "notoriously biased", that's typically a weasel phrase that means something like "People are saying that NPR is biased". So what do you mean by "notoriously"?
I grew up in a country where the idea of "objective journalism" was regarded as idiotic, and all journalism was accepted to have a POV. By those standards, NPR stands out as one the least clearly biased and most intelligent radio journalism examples around.
What I would consider more important complaints about NPR are the fecklessness of essentially all of its interviews, in which there is an absolute refusal to hold an interviewee's feet to the fire, regardless of who they are or what they have written, said, done or represent. Like most of the US media, they throw mostly softball questions at thos with power, and on the odd occasion that they ask something a bit more pointed, refusal to answer (or just utter evasion) is met by ... moving on the next question.
I care about these general characteristics of NPR journalism far more than I do any particular handling of a particular issue.
Niche, eh? Have you checked the listener numbers? Yes, Carlson's show on Fox beats all NPR shows, but NPR's prime time shows are consistently among the most consumed daily media events in the USA. Shows like "All Things Considered" generally (but not always) beat out supposedly "trend-forming" cable TV shows.
As for "notoriously biased", that's typically a weasel phrase that means something like "People are saying that NPR is biased". So what do you mean by "notoriously"?
I grew up in a country where the idea of "objective journalism" was regarded as idiotic, and all journalism was accepted to have a POV. By those standards, NPR stands out as one the least clearly biased and most intelligent radio journalism examples around.
What I would consider more important complaints about NPR are the fecklessness of essentially all of its interviews, in which there is an absolute refusal to hold an interviewee's feet to the fire, regardless of who they are or what they have written, said, done or represent. Like most of the US media, they throw mostly softball questions at thos with power, and on the odd occasion that they ask something a bit more pointed, refusal to answer (or just utter evasion) is met by ... moving on the next question.
I care about these general characteristics of NPR journalism far more than I do any particular handling of a particular issue.
I mean the word I used.
NPR is "notorious" because it carries itself with an air of impartiality, while definitely being partial.
Where CNN and Fox are openly biased and understood to be so, NPR and its fans tend to argue that it isn't - but 99% of people making that claim vote blue, and disproportionately towards the Bernie end of blue.
NPR is "notorious" because it carries itself with an air of impartiality, while definitely being partial.
Where CNN and Fox are openly biased and understood to be so, NPR and its fans tend to argue that it isn't - but 99% of people making that claim vote blue, and disproportionately towards the Bernie end of blue.
I am not sure that there's widespread belief outside of Fox News viewers that CNN is "openly biased and understood to be so".
If you had grown up in a country where, as I mentioned, "unbiased journalism" was assumed to be a lie from the start, I think you'd read whether or not NPR "carries itself with an air of impartiality" quite differently.
Most of the actual leftists that I know find NPR to be biased in quite the opposite direction than you seem to. They are irritated by its relentlessly pro-business positions, its endless interviews with conservative politicians, even discredited ones, and its almost complete failure to feature actual left-ish ideas other then when a specific politician (e.g. Sanders or AOC) makes a speech about something related.
I mentioned up-thread that I believe that NPR's bias is not really towards particular political or even social positions, but towards a genial defense of "things more or less as they are". They are a supremely "don't rock the boat (too much)" media outlet, and as a result rarely feature voices and ideas from the edges of the current Overton Window, let alone beyond it.
If you had grown up in a country where, as I mentioned, "unbiased journalism" was assumed to be a lie from the start, I think you'd read whether or not NPR "carries itself with an air of impartiality" quite differently.
Most of the actual leftists that I know find NPR to be biased in quite the opposite direction than you seem to. They are irritated by its relentlessly pro-business positions, its endless interviews with conservative politicians, even discredited ones, and its almost complete failure to feature actual left-ish ideas other then when a specific politician (e.g. Sanders or AOC) makes a speech about something related.
I mentioned up-thread that I believe that NPR's bias is not really towards particular political or even social positions, but towards a genial defense of "things more or less as they are". They are a supremely "don't rock the boat (too much)" media outlet, and as a result rarely feature voices and ideas from the edges of the current Overton Window, let alone beyond it.
I mean no harm, but you definitely sound like you're on the left.
Not only do you imagine that CNN isn't seen as left (except by the only pillar of right-ness you've named, Fox) - but you know plenty of people who are left of CNN, which is already left of the median voter.
That you think NPR is a status quo defender - when their coverage of anything that touches on culture topics is extremely and consistently progressive - reaffirms that.
Please understand it's fine to be left-wing, but you will see the world as controlled by nefarious powers and agendas if you don't recognise that you are.
For example -they couldn't make a July 4th post without immediately turning it into a People's History seminar with a lecture about women's and indigenous rights.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1411702308711325700
Not only do you imagine that CNN isn't seen as left (except by the only pillar of right-ness you've named, Fox) - but you know plenty of people who are left of CNN, which is already left of the median voter.
That you think NPR is a status quo defender - when their coverage of anything that touches on culture topics is extremely and consistently progressive - reaffirms that.
Please understand it's fine to be left-wing, but you will see the world as controlled by nefarious powers and agendas if you don't recognise that you are.
For example -they couldn't make a July 4th post without immediately turning it into a People's History seminar with a lecture about women's and indigenous rights.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1411702308711325700
As someone who votes blue, they do not. In addition, their coverage of Jeff Bezos on his space journey really drove home that they aren't without external influence.
As someone who self-identifies as Hispanic, I find NPRs insistence on the term LatinX offensive.
I’m a middle of the road New Yorker but NPR pushes their way out of journalism and into advocacy any time gender or sexual identity enter the conversation.
And due to the risk of being labled anti-Semitic I’ll stay away from their coverage of anything Israel related.
And yet elsewhere in this comment thread we have people saying that "NPR is the Ikea of radio". So it seems that people's take on "what NPR is" is fairly varied, and it seems likely that it varies in part based on specific "touchstone" issues that are important to a particular group of people, but far from everyone.
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....
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....
Are you just looking at previous journalism with rose colored glasses?
I recommend you read some newspaper articles from the 1920s and 1930s. Witty, well-written, and much less discernible spin than current news articles. Journalism has declined as a trade, there is no question. The real issue is whether journalism is net worse for society than it previously was.
I recommend you read some history. The term “yellow journalism” came about lamenting the dramatic shit spewed by newspapers in the late 1800s.
> and much less discernible spin than current news articles.
It’s much less discernible because you aren’t familiar with any of the topics they are discussing. The best you can do is confirm a particular news article’s biases align with the biases of the current historical record’s biases.
> and much less discernible spin than current news articles.
It’s much less discernible because you aren’t familiar with any of the topics they are discussing. The best you can do is confirm a particular news article’s biases align with the biases of the current historical record’s biases.
Disclaimer: I've not specialised in media history, though I've been exploring it for a few years.
You can find clear bias through sources such as I.F. Stone (active 1950s -- 1970s), or George Seldes (1930s -- 1960s, lived to 1995). Earlier muckrakers included Upton Sinclair (The Jungle and It Can't Happen Here, 1910s -- 1950s), Ida M. Tarbell (The History of Standard Oil, 1890s -- 1920s), and Lincoln Steffans and Ray Stannard Baker (both late 19th century / early 20th).
There's a phenomenal interview with Stone from 1974 on ... Public Television's ... "Day at Night" programme: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g
I've commented numerous times recommending Hamilton Holt's Commercialism and Journalism (1909), a short book highlighting the influence of advertising on media. It's short, readable, fact-filled, and available at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft
Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion (1922) largely established the model for the "impartial press" (so called, only partially successful as such) during the bulk of the 20th century. It was based in significant part on Lippmann's own experience with failures of the news media in reporting accurately on the Russian Revolution of 1917--23.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.126489/page/n1...
Other authors I'd recommend would be Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (the title itself is a reference to Lippmann's work), Robert W. McChesney's many books on media, Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly (cited in the famouse Google "Backrub" paper (http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html), Neil Postman's Amusing Ourself to Death, and Edward Jay Espstein, News from Nowhere (https://archive.org/details/newsfromnowheret00epst).
The last looks at television news as of 1971, including the numerous biases built in to the medium through narrative focus, budget constraints, and technological limitations, as well as the pace and scale of operations. Not all of those still apply, though some do, but it does remain a persuasive argument of how even incidental characteristics can profoundly influence a medium.
For contemporaneous criticisms of television, see Edward J. Murrow's "Lights and Wires in a Box" speech, and Newton Minnow's "Vast Wasteland" speech, from the late 1950s / early 1960s.
https://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_l...
http://www.janda.org/b20/News%20articles/vastwastland.htm
I've compiled a few further references concerning media generally in a "light reading list": https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/7k7l4m/media_a...
You can find clear bias through sources such as I.F. Stone (active 1950s -- 1970s), or George Seldes (1930s -- 1960s, lived to 1995). Earlier muckrakers included Upton Sinclair (The Jungle and It Can't Happen Here, 1910s -- 1950s), Ida M. Tarbell (The History of Standard Oil, 1890s -- 1920s), and Lincoln Steffans and Ray Stannard Baker (both late 19th century / early 20th).
There's a phenomenal interview with Stone from 1974 on ... Public Television's ... "Day at Night" programme: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g
I've commented numerous times recommending Hamilton Holt's Commercialism and Journalism (1909), a short book highlighting the influence of advertising on media. It's short, readable, fact-filled, and available at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft
Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion (1922) largely established the model for the "impartial press" (so called, only partially successful as such) during the bulk of the 20th century. It was based in significant part on Lippmann's own experience with failures of the news media in reporting accurately on the Russian Revolution of 1917--23.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.126489/page/n1...
Other authors I'd recommend would be Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (the title itself is a reference to Lippmann's work), Robert W. McChesney's many books on media, Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly (cited in the famouse Google "Backrub" paper (http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html), Neil Postman's Amusing Ourself to Death, and Edward Jay Espstein, News from Nowhere (https://archive.org/details/newsfromnowheret00epst).
The last looks at television news as of 1971, including the numerous biases built in to the medium through narrative focus, budget constraints, and technological limitations, as well as the pace and scale of operations. Not all of those still apply, though some do, but it does remain a persuasive argument of how even incidental characteristics can profoundly influence a medium.
For contemporaneous criticisms of television, see Edward J. Murrow's "Lights and Wires in a Box" speech, and Newton Minnow's "Vast Wasteland" speech, from the late 1950s / early 1960s.
https://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_l...
http://www.janda.org/b20/News%20articles/vastwastland.htm
I've compiled a few further references concerning media generally in a "light reading list": https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/7k7l4m/media_a...
I avoided mentioning bias for this reason. Discernible spin could be "obvious bias", since I'm referring to tradecraft, not honesty. Appreciate the material—I do enjoy reading older writing.
Fair point.
To be clear, bias need not be conscious or deliberate. There's a great piece by Lippmann on the Russian Revolution that details just how profoundly the press got the story wrong, in large part because they were relying on official sources rather than getting "the street" view (paraphrasing Lippann generously here).
Spin is pretty much always deliberate propaganda. It may not be an outright lie, but the primacy is on persuading or manipulating rather than informing.
To be clear, bias need not be conscious or deliberate. There's a great piece by Lippmann on the Russian Revolution that details just how profoundly the press got the story wrong, in large part because they were relying on official sources rather than getting "the street" view (paraphrasing Lippann generously here).
Spin is pretty much always deliberate propaganda. It may not be an outright lie, but the primacy is on persuading or manipulating rather than informing.
Nice list of references. You might want to add The Press by A. J. Liebling [1], a witty, perceptive writer about many subjects.
From 1960, when many U.S. newspapers were going out of business: “The best thing Congress could do to keep more newspapers going would be to raise the capital-gains tax to the level of the income tax. (Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.)” (p. 706).
[1] https://www.loa.org/books/302-the-sweet-science-and-other-wr...
From 1960, when many U.S. newspapers were going out of business: “The best thing Congress could do to keep more newspapers going would be to raise the capital-gains tax to the level of the income tax. (Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.)” (p. 706).
[1] https://www.loa.org/books/302-the-sweet-science-and-other-wr...
Wow! Thank you for this well done reply!
you can still be corrupted even if you are not corrupted by profit. Its not like journalists or organizationa have no bias.
"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.
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.
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.
>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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
The idea that misinformation occurs along party lines is, in itself, misinformation.
Please cite your source for that? My understanding, based on studies like the one discussed here, is that misinformation does tend to be concentrated along partisan extremes. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/06/974394783/far-right-misinform...
That said, it's absolutely true that it wasn't just democrats pushing the idea that bernie sander's was cheated. It was also russian disinformation campaign. https://www.wired.com/story/bernie-sanders-russia-chaos-2020...
That said, it's absolutely true that it wasn't just democrats pushing the idea that bernie sander's was cheated. It was also russian disinformation campaign. https://www.wired.com/story/bernie-sanders-russia-chaos-2020...
Source: commonsense and a basic understanding of human nature.
> Misrepresented ideas
The notion that "misrepresenting ideas" is a form of "misinformation" is chilling. It suggests that there is some privileged point of view regarding any given idea and that anything that contradicts that point of view is "misinformation".
Exactly how do you propose to determine what the correct representation is for any particular idea? Isn't it possible that some ideas are not credible and that criticism of them is legitimate? How do you propose to evaluate new ideas if they can't withstand criticism and competing ideas?
It is awfully convenient to be able to tag criticism of your ideas as "misrepresentation" and therefore "misinformation". It is just one step further to regulate the means of communication so that "misinformation" is prohibited, blocked, etc.
Ideas that can't be defended on their own merits but instead are perpetuated by ignoring, blocking, censuring, or disparaging competing ideas don't seem particularly sturdy to me.
The notion that "misrepresenting ideas" is a form of "misinformation" is chilling. It suggests that there is some privileged point of view regarding any given idea and that anything that contradicts that point of view is "misinformation".
Exactly how do you propose to determine what the correct representation is for any particular idea? Isn't it possible that some ideas are not credible and that criticism of them is legitimate? How do you propose to evaluate new ideas if they can't withstand criticism and competing ideas?
It is awfully convenient to be able to tag criticism of your ideas as "misrepresentation" and therefore "misinformation". It is just one step further to regulate the means of communication so that "misinformation" is prohibited, blocked, etc.
Ideas that can't be defended on their own merits but instead are perpetuated by ignoring, blocking, censuring, or disparaging competing ideas don't seem particularly sturdy to me.
It’s not about criticism and competing ideas, it’s about trying to force a definition of idea different from what it actually is.
One of these does not belong
[deleted]
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".
The unsolved problem is the demand side, people making better consumption choices. Legislation can't fix this, since the government doesn't have a unified view of what "good" content is, and is heavily interested in promoting various striped of partisan propaganda.
Mr Rogers got broad bipartisan support. Today he's considered "left wing".
> Supply of PBS quality content is a solved problem.
Not really. Nova, for example, has gone downhill quite a bit in the last few years, in that the content has been dumbed down more and more. It tends to candy-coat things and the host will say things along the lines of "golly gee whilikers!" It's a step above Sesame Street, but not by much.
There are some exceptions. The one about the evolution of language was pretty good, although the information content was thin gruel. It's like butter that's been spread way too thin.
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.
I'll expand on that a bit. Candy coating acting and like a six year old is not the way to make science accessible. Richard Feynman did it right. He never talked down to his audience, yet was able to make advanced concepts easily understandable. Watch any of his videos giving a lecture.
Nova does oversimplify things. Tho, I have yet to hear "golly gee whilikers" on it. Nova has become the science equivalent of 60 minutes, both of which are geared toward the public at large. Personally I find these programs entertaining, and if I want to go deeper I can always fire up a browser.
>> 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.)
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.)
> With good curation, sharing, and sleuthing -- I find
And it's biased because of the "I find". Everyone filters information even subconsciously.
And it's biased because of the "I find". Everyone filters information even subconsciously.
You're absolutely right. My approach has been to take my syllabus, ignore the textbook -- which is often completely theoretical and unnecessarily flooded with greek letters -- and found better course material on YouTube. The syllabus is important indeed. Another approach is to subscribe to lecture seriess on YouTube from other universities with better curation -- and let that university do the filtering.
Distribution could help on the demand side... Would love to see more PBS content appear in Netflix and Amazon Prime.
> 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”.
I’ve never heard any “right-wing” people, even crazy in-law types, call Mr Rogers “left-wing”.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iljhDaowoLc , in which Fox News calls him an "evil, evil man", for making children grow up with self esteem.
This folds into the general class of calls-to-inaction which they use to pass off systemic problems. "Why are millenials poor and expecting more? Perhaps they were raised wrong by TV. Let's not examine it further."
I personally didn't see shots at Mr Rogers get much further than this weak Fox segment among conservatives, for what it's worth.
I personally didn't see shots at Mr Rogers get much further than this weak Fox segment among conservatives, for what it's worth.
Fox News ran a hit piece on one of the kindest and most beloved educators in America. It's obvious (to some) that they did this to divert from systemic problems. That's what they do, and they're still allowed to call themselves News.
At what point do Americans stand up for a bare minimum level of journalism?
And remember, that while Fox might not have gotten far with this particular piece in your experience, they sent this six minute piece out to millions of people. They wrote it, filmed it, and aired it. They never apologised.
At what point do Americans stand up for a bare minimum level of journalism?
And remember, that while Fox might not have gotten far with this particular piece in your experience, they sent this six minute piece out to millions of people. They wrote it, filmed it, and aired it. They never apologised.
When he actually was broadcasting, he was never considered "one of the most beloved educators." That was recent hagiography, and I watched him as a child growing up in the 70s. He was one of several. Bob Keehan/Captain Kangaroo was another personality for very young kids. I can say as a child at that time we outgrew him fairly quickly and didn't really hang around him much. If anything, most of the content of that time was similar; Gumby, David and Goliath, Bozo the Clown, and more were discarded as soon as better came along. It was that odd time of transition.
He was the definition of pablum; formula you gave to babies. He was outdated compared to Sesame Street and Electric Company, and was almost kitsch just like Bob Ross was. I believe he was lionized more because millenials and zoomers are so overstimulated they crave the opposite now; blandness to the point of sedation.
He was the definition of pablum; formula you gave to babies. He was outdated compared to Sesame Street and Electric Company, and was almost kitsch just like Bob Ross was. I believe he was lionized more because millenials and zoomers are so overstimulated they crave the opposite now; blandness to the point of sedation.
With the death of the Fairness Doctrine, and its non-applicability to anything other than broadcast media, what mechanisms would you say Americans still have to "stand up" for journalism and to wage war on the evils of Fox News and its brethren?
One solution is to offer free WiFi / fiber in communities with a default PBS-like content gateway.
Are we in the age of Reductio ad Misinformationum?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
The apps are really good and they try to keep relevant content and popular shows on the apps.
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!
I’m sorry for my mistake. I live in Oregon and I was led to believe that OPB was developing the Kids apps since they reached out to me about 2ish years ago for working on the games.
No worries! My apologies if I came off brash, you may have been right about the origins of the kids games. We're currently hiring for engineers to work on them!
https://www.pbs.org/about/careers/current-openings/?gnk=job&...
https://www.pbs.org/about/careers/current-openings/?gnk=job&...
Quick question if you know the answer: is that position remote-friendly/where is it located? There doesn't seem to be any location info on that listing.
I'd love to answer that, but I honestly don't know.
I just had a phone screen with them last week!
Remote is possible, but unlikely. Their office is next to the Crystal City metro station on the blue line.
Love the PBS app for my kid. He is using it right now :)
My youngest loves the games! I kinda like them too ...
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/
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.
Do we need this? Meh.. IDK.
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.
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.
Huh—I judge PBS much more valuable to me, these days. Kids are a big factor in that, but also NPR's news is largely pretty poor—it's all horse-race shit and campaign Monday-morning quarterbacking around elections, the campaigns for which are now so long that they seem to be happening more often than not, and they continue to be blind to all kinds of issues and events generally—when it's not just re-broadcasting the BBC, and two of my favorite programs are gone now with nothing I consider anywhere near as good to replace them (Car Talk, and old-school A Prairie Home Companion, i.e. atheist Sunday church service). Some bright spots remain (On the Media), sure, but largely not stuff I care about or else programs that I think are simply bad.
They also spend a ton of time on ads (if you include promoting their own programs, especially).
I don't love a lot of PBS' current programming, but their historical material is a goldmine.
They also spend a ton of time on ads (if you include promoting their own programs, especially).
I don't love a lot of PBS' current programming, but their historical material is a goldmine.
Kqed is both the npr radio and TV station for a good chunk of the sf bay area. I know in other markets this is not the same arrangement.
In Los Angeles there are two local NPR stations within 25 miles of eachother: KCRW and KPCC.
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.
I'm not sure the article really makes it clear what the situation in the first place is, or if they know.
Not entirely https://www.pbs.org/passport/videos/
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
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'.
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'.
Here is an example that went with the trends and destroyed the iconic mark of the Library of Congress: https://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_log...
Library Library of Congress. Sad.
What they did with PBS logo is simlar to slight redesigns over the years - GE, Lufthansa, AMEX, VISA, MasterCard, etc.
Library Library of Congress. Sad.
What they did with PBS logo is simlar to slight redesigns over the years - GE, Lufthansa, AMEX, VISA, MasterCard, etc.
Honest question: what's amazing about it? Am I missing some clever aspect of it?
They don't have their full content there... only a few episodes from various shows.
I think you see a great deal more if you're a member and sign in.
> 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
how do you find one to contribute? definitely interested in that, been binge watching The Great British Baking Show for a while now
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.
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
EDIT: here's all of the channels: https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsdigitalstudios/channels
>Have you looked at their YouTube channels? Eons and SpaceTime are excellent.
I agree. Eons and Space Time are both excellent. I just hope they both start making new episodes soon.
I'd note that you can get those without YouTube's tracking/advertising by going right to the source[0] of those series.
[0] https://www.pbs.org/digital-studios/
I agree. Eons and Space Time are both excellent. I just hope they both start making new episodes soon.
I'd note that you can get those without YouTube's tracking/advertising by going right to the source[0] of those series.
[0] https://www.pbs.org/digital-studios/
My kids love It's Okay to Be Smart
libhack-hn(1)
> 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.
Most PBS stations run infomercials promoting quack medicine. So long as they keep doing that I'll never give them a penny.
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.
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.
Ironically, if enough people gave them a penny they wouldn’t have to run those quack informercials.
Likely they'd just expand, like any other organization. PBS is somewhat better, but NPR is a cesspool of corporate sponsorship and journalism that's marginally better than some private, for-profit outlets but still generally low quality and scarcely informative.
> 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.
Can you give details? I'm wondering if this was something that only a local affiliate did and not something that was PBS sanctioned.
I don't think I've ever seen that.
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.
I thought they relied on yearly fundraisers. This is how OPB gets income
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
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_Digital_Studios [1] https://www.youtube.com/c/pbsdigitalstudios/channels
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.
> 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.
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.
https://youtu.be/D5lvGMCF9jA?t=3270
It cannot be unbiased when it's corporate supported.
It cannot be unbiased when it's corporate supported.
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
My wife also misses Mr Shields greatly, I do too.
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.
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.
It's not centrist. It's pro status quo. "Things are mostly OK, and in the few cases where they're a little bit bad, we're here to tell you about them."
Is there a meaningful difference? Isn't your definition of status-quo more or less the position taken by "centrists"?
Well, in terms of whatever the current Overton Window is, that's probably true.
But if you view "left", "right" and "center" as having slightly more absolute definitions than the constantly shifting Overton Window, it's not really the same. "pro status quo" in an authoritarian fascist regime would not correspond to "center" on this absolute scale, even if in the context of that society, it might be roughly in the middle of the OW.
But if you view "left", "right" and "center" as having slightly more absolute definitions than the constantly shifting Overton Window, it's not really the same. "pro status quo" in an authoritarian fascist regime would not correspond to "center" on this absolute scale, even if in the context of that society, it might be roughly in the middle of the OW.
Yes, obviously as soon as you look at more than one place or time. Think about it, the status quo varies. Also the current status quo is neoliberal, which is right-wing for Europe and South Aemrica, so not centrist in absolute terms.
"Centrist" in relation to the current US Overton fits squarely into the right-wing compared to "centrist" in relation current and past societies in the world.
I'm going to push back on that a little bit.
I think that climate change denial is one of many ways the GOP has sold its soul in the past 20 years, but the Democratic party takes it as axiomatic that certain climate change interventions are less harmful than climate change itself.
We can reasonably quantify flooding of coastal real-estate, but that is likely to be only a small fraction of the effects. So the overall picture of climate change looks like a giant pile of risk, rather than a clear outcome. The Democratic party has come to a consensus that the best way to treat the giant pile of risk is to treat the cost of allowing it to continue as approximately infinity.
50 years ago it was widely agreed upon that the US (and possibly humanity) faced an existential threat from thermonuclear war. Some people argued that unilateral disarmament was the best solution, but there were other points of view as well.
I would love a world in which the GOP were arguing about which climate-change interventions are not worth it rather than one in which the GOP just pretends that it's not happening (or not related to CO2 emissions).
FWIW The Democratic Party has its own blind spots on policy outcomes with regards to scientific consensus e.g. when it comes to affordable housing. Perhaps the stakes are higher when it comes to climate change, but the number of times I have heard a Democratic politician say "Supply and demand does not apply to X" without any evidence of that is rather mind-boggling.
I think that climate change denial is one of many ways the GOP has sold its soul in the past 20 years, but the Democratic party takes it as axiomatic that certain climate change interventions are less harmful than climate change itself.
We can reasonably quantify flooding of coastal real-estate, but that is likely to be only a small fraction of the effects. So the overall picture of climate change looks like a giant pile of risk, rather than a clear outcome. The Democratic party has come to a consensus that the best way to treat the giant pile of risk is to treat the cost of allowing it to continue as approximately infinity.
50 years ago it was widely agreed upon that the US (and possibly humanity) faced an existential threat from thermonuclear war. Some people argued that unilateral disarmament was the best solution, but there were other points of view as well.
I would love a world in which the GOP were arguing about which climate-change interventions are not worth it rather than one in which the GOP just pretends that it's not happening (or not related to CO2 emissions).
FWIW The Democratic Party has its own blind spots on policy outcomes with regards to scientific consensus e.g. when it comes to affordable housing. Perhaps the stakes are higher when it comes to climate change, but the number of times I have heard a Democratic politician say "Supply and demand does not apply to X" without any evidence of that is rather mind-boggling.
The very fact that Republicans continue to deny the existence and threat from anthropocentric climate change leads to simple understandings of what Dems actually want to do.
The Democratic party has a wide range of opinions on how to deal with climate change, but I'd suggest people look at the Party Platform from 2020 to see how it wants to address it.
It includes some bold stuff in terms of changing the US economy towards being zero emissions, but with goals set five, ten or fifteen years from 2020. That's hardly setting the cost at infinity.
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/202...
The Democratic party has a wide range of opinions on how to deal with climate change, but I'd suggest people look at the Party Platform from 2020 to see how it wants to address it.
It includes some bold stuff in terms of changing the US economy towards being zero emissions, but with goals set five, ten or fifteen years from 2020. That's hardly setting the cost at infinity.
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/202...
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
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.
But I think the paper is calling for more than just local news. They want expansive digital properties to supplement all our browsing habits.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree, and that's one reason I like curated content such as PBS. We had some inappropriate/disturbing "next video" suggestions on YouTube that initially seemed OK at a distance or for the first few minutes that we didn't catch right away. So I wouldn't trust kids using YouTube except if an adult is setting the playlist and watching with them.
Whereas the PBS Kids apps (and Scratch Jr, Kahn Kids, etc) have curated content that I trust. We still limit their screen time and monitor their use by working in the same room, but it's not nearly as risky to let them use it on their own.
Whereas the PBS Kids apps (and Scratch Jr, Kahn Kids, etc) have curated content that I trust. We still limit their screen time and monitor their use by working in the same room, but it's not nearly as risky to let them use it on their own.
Totally agree. Burnt by youtube suggestions for kids as well. People creating content that seems like it is for kids so they can say horrific things to kids 2 minutes in. Absolute dumpster fire.
The Internet is like a free cafeteria (yay!) where the heroin is right next to the broccoli, but also heavily advertised and dressed up.
Coercing people into making good choices in a non-starter. We need a huge broad based social effort to educate each other on how to be safe. The government can't be trusted to do it for us. We can't just say "coerce the bad guys into submission", because the bad guys will do the same and are better at it.
Coercing people into making good choices in a non-starter. We need a huge broad based social effort to educate each other on how to be safe. The government can't be trusted to do it for us. We can't just say "coerce the bad guys into submission", because the bad guys will do the same and are better at it.
I feel very lucky to have grown up with unrestricted access to the internet in the 90s-2000s. It was still broccoli and heroin, but neither seemed to be able to advertise over the other, and there was limited supplies of both.
Kind of forced me to try every plate.
Kind of forced me to try every plate.
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. ;) ).
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. ;) ).
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.
So no, not equivalent, but not necessarily worse.
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.
Having more tools to easily achieve this would be great.
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?
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?
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.
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.
I just am not sure I agree that a politician is more insidious than big business. A big business has no accountability to anyone but their shareholders. PBS is accountable to representatives elected by citizens. And again, we're not talking about the government having a monopoly on the information ecosystem, so with public news you still have the "immediate remedy"of going elsewhere.
I don’t think I’ve ever given Dennis Prager any of my business yet that hasn’t stopped him using the money he does have to buy airtime in front of me. That kind of unaccountable media production seems far more insidious to me than anything government funded.
Don't you still need collective action for a business? It's even got a name "boycott"
Also "strike", "class action", "legislation", and "regulation".
I can't stop Facebook from poisoning my neighbors' minds by boycotting. In fact, boycotting is worse than joining the platform and engaging.
Whether or not anyone is poisoning anyone's mind is an opinion. It also assumes those minds don't have agency and the ability to discuss issues on their own terms.
Murdoch already decides which politicians are electable in right-wing areas.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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).
I'm suddenly visualizing an online PBS-equivalent doing a "like & subscribe drive", and that mental picture is a real treat.
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-...
> 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-...
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.
But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA bias isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA project.
It is very cranky, no denying that.
The founder of the site, Robert Parry, uncovered US involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking during the 80s. Nobody denied the facts, but by the time the story came out American political culture had become more conservative (Reaganism) and people weren't as interested in hearing about covert crimes the way they were in the 70s (Watergate).
Parry got drummed out of the journalism for not towing the line and became somewhat bitter. It's not my only source of news, but it can be refreshing to read something that quickly attempts to poke holes in mainstream narratives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)
> But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA bias isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA project.
There are laws against domestic propaganda. For instance, the CIA is not allowed to plant stories in US media.
The German Marshall fund is part of USAID and USAID was founded by the members of the CIA. They're sister organizations that service the same political goals. It should raise eyebrows that USAID wants to construct a domestic propaganda operation.
The founder of the site, Robert Parry, uncovered US involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking during the 80s. Nobody denied the facts, but by the time the story came out American political culture had become more conservative (Reaganism) and people weren't as interested in hearing about covert crimes the way they were in the 70s (Watergate).
Parry got drummed out of the journalism for not towing the line and became somewhat bitter. It's not my only source of news, but it can be refreshing to read something that quickly attempts to poke holes in mainstream narratives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)
> But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA bias isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA project.
There are laws against domestic propaganda. For instance, the CIA is not allowed to plant stories in US media.
The German Marshall fund is part of USAID and USAID was founded by the members of the CIA. They're sister organizations that service the same political goals. It should raise eyebrows that USAID wants to construct a domestic propaganda operation.
>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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
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.
The BBC generally has quite good online services (e.g. news, iPlayer) but would be interesting to see what this project is thinking about.
> iPlayer
I remember when iPlayer came out: it was _worse_ than what we were already using (Windows Media Center DVR, BitTorrent from UK TV tracker forums) simply due to the content expiration policy… which is downright Orwellian.
I know it’s the fault of overbearing rightsholders, but it was a dark-day overall because a lot of the UK TV tracker sites became a lot less useful because fewer people were seeding and many sites had a strict “No torrents for iPlayer content” rule to avoid being shut-down.
I wish the iPlayer launched with transparent DRM policies that named-and-shamed whichever rightsholder demanded content-expiration - instead of the blanket policy, even when the restrictions are against the wishes of the rightsholder, ugh.
I remember when iPlayer came out: it was _worse_ than what we were already using (Windows Media Center DVR, BitTorrent from UK TV tracker forums) simply due to the content expiration policy… which is downright Orwellian.
I know it’s the fault of overbearing rightsholders, but it was a dark-day overall because a lot of the UK TV tracker sites became a lot less useful because fewer people were seeding and many sites had a strict “No torrents for iPlayer content” rule to avoid being shut-down.
I wish the iPlayer launched with transparent DRM policies that named-and-shamed whichever rightsholder demanded content-expiration - instead of the blanket policy, even when the restrictions are against the wishes of the rightsholder, ugh.
> 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
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
I don't see how the fediverse solves this problem. Fediverse nodes are no different than websites with respect to information distribution.
Take YouTube. There is one of it. PeerTube, however, could potentially encompass all video-hosting sites.
The global http network already encompasses all video-hosting sites. If YouTube were a cluster of PeerTube nodes nothing really changes, all the stated problems associated with YouTube's popularity remain. e.g. if YouTube nodes ban your videos and you have to move to a less popular node, you're facing the exact same problem as you would getting banned from YouTube today.
> The global http network already encompasses all video-hosting sites.
So does the universe. I don't really think this is a relevant observation, given we're talking about user behaviour.
> if YouTube nodes ban your videos and you have to move to a less popular node, you're facing the exact same problem as you would getting banned from YouTube today.
Except users can move to KnockoffTube and still see YouTube videos. A school could use EduTube or ScholasticTube (hypothetical curated educational-resource sites) and not get recommended “video game unboxing” videos in the sidebar – and they wouldn't have to search on EduTube and ScholasticTube separately, because if something's on one it's on the other (modulo some minor curation decisions).
You could also solve this issue by curating search engines, but there are barriers to that; the idea of a search engine has been around for ages, and yet very few curated search engines exist. (Plus, you still have the “autoplay Flat Earth videos” issue, unless you proxy the video in your search engine, in which case congratulations! you've made a video platform.)
So does the universe. I don't really think this is a relevant observation, given we're talking about user behaviour.
> if YouTube nodes ban your videos and you have to move to a less popular node, you're facing the exact same problem as you would getting banned from YouTube today.
Except users can move to KnockoffTube and still see YouTube videos. A school could use EduTube or ScholasticTube (hypothetical curated educational-resource sites) and not get recommended “video game unboxing” videos in the sidebar – and they wouldn't have to search on EduTube and ScholasticTube separately, because if something's on one it's on the other (modulo some minor curation decisions).
You could also solve this issue by curating search engines, but there are barriers to that; the idea of a search engine has been around for ages, and yet very few curated search engines exist. (Plus, you still have the “autoplay Flat Earth videos” issue, unless you proxy the video in your search engine, in which case congratulations! you've made a video platform.)
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.
Wasn't that the point of Wikipedia?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793263/Nobody-trus...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793263/Nobody-trus...
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.
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.
Aren't they already trying that with the nebula/curiositystream thing they advertise endlessly?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would say the PBS digital work on YouTube has been quite good, especially the PBS Spacetime series.
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]
[2]
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[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.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...
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...
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.
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.
> So boring content that everyone says they like, but never consume, with constant requests for donations.
#notallnprlisteners #notallnprstations
#notallnprlisteners #notallnprstations
No, NPR is the Ikea of radio. It should be roundly mocked a lot more than it is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
In the article, it says exactly this. Their standards for transparency will be a model for other outlets.
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.
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.
PBS is liberal aligned org. so it is perfectly aligned with the democratic party... which are in power now?
That was supposed to be the entire internet
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.
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.
I can support efforts to create more Big Birds, but not more Elmo's. Worst child influence ever.
*Caillou has entered the chat*
I would always put the channel on PBS kids and didn't mind much what was on because I trusted it, except for Calliou.
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.
Crash Course is pretty close to PBS.
NSFNet was a PBS for the Internet.
Isn't the Internet slowly moving towards that direction anyway?
It’s called computers at your public library.
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
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
Just to let you know, everything is political.
I'm independent politically, but PBS is the Fox of the liberals. Completely biased.
I'm independent politically, but PBS is the Fox of the liberals. Completely biased.
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...
https://www.wired.com/1997/06/china-3/
And eventually like this https://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Police-State-Undercover-Surve...
PBS should be privately funded.
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
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
Diversity of thought is a problem. Diversity as commonly defined only by race is being promoted everywhere.
The internet IS a PBS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which is fine, btw. Just worth knowing.
I disagree and this is a condescending response. I know what it means to be objective. Hell, I probably lean right of the median on HN. I’m just presenting the observations of someone who could probably be called radically centrist I guess. I genuinely view PBS as the middle ground between Fox News and MSNBC.
>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...
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...
Thanks for the references. The latter bit of your response rings true to my experience. I grew up in a conservative rural area, and the mainstream conservative ideas from then are unrecognizable in today’s version of conservatism.
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).
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.
I hope some day the internet isn't separated by political factions, it's a much bigger place than just the American political system.
It's almost like Alex Jones/qanon/alt-right/whatever are the logical conclusions of the conservative ideology.
There is no “the conservative ideology” – unless you define the phrase in a way that makes your statement a tautology.
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.
> The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any conclusions at all.
I'd say that there are certain flavors of political thought that have an unfolding utopia built into them. With enough of XXXism, an optimal state is reached.
It's an exercise for the reader to determine which sorts of philosophy of human organization have that notion built-in.
I'd say that there are certain flavors of political thought that have an unfolding utopia built into them. With enough of XXXism, an optimal state is reached.
It's an exercise for the reader to determine which sorts of philosophy of human organization have that notion built-in.
Either your vagueness is intended to make the point that "both sides are just as bad as each other" (which is unhelpful because there are more than two sides to politics), or you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy.
Let me therefore try to clear up that ambiguity by offering a solution to your exercise: The most dangerous political philosophy is ethno-nationalism.
Let me therefore try to clear up that ambiguity by offering a solution to your exercise: The most dangerous political philosophy is ethno-nationalism.
>you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy.
I'm simply making the point that some political systems imply moving towards an ideal goal, others do not.
It isn't like monarchies (by far the most common setup) are moving towards some ideal beyond stability. Communism most certainly was viewed as a work in progress.
(side note: I'm sick of the term 'dog whistling'. That term itself implies a belief system.)
I'm simply making the point that some political systems imply moving towards an ideal goal, others do not.
It isn't like monarchies (by far the most common setup) are moving towards some ideal beyond stability. Communism most certainly was viewed as a work in progress.
(side note: I'm sick of the term 'dog whistling'. That term itself implies a belief system.)
I would say that monarchism is similar to democracy in terms of its lack of an ideal goal.
As for economic systems, I suppose you could say that the philosophy of communism is more future-looking than capitalism, but that is largely due to the fact that capitalism has already been implemented whereas communism has arguably never been fully implemented.
For comparison, suppose there are people out there who think that society was organised best under feudalism. They would support a move towards reinstituting that system, presumably in stages, so they would be equally "utopian" as the communists except they would have the benefit of an existence proof that their ideal society was achievable and sustainable (at least given certain initial conditions).
Fascism has also been tried before, and there are probably more people who support its return in some form than support the return of the feudal system. I can imagine its supporters suggesting that their policies would lead their nation towards an idealised future too, so I don't think that utopian thinking is common across the political spectrum and becomes more pronounced the further from the status quo its adherents want to take society.
(Side note: I'm also not a fan of the term "dog whistling", as I find it slightly ambiguous. For what it's worth, what I meant by it is that you were attempting to signal to like-minded people what it was you were really trying to say, without "saying the quiet part out loud". There might be good reasons for that on a forum like this, but I decided that the topic of your comment was potentially too important to not be subject to scrutiny).
As for economic systems, I suppose you could say that the philosophy of communism is more future-looking than capitalism, but that is largely due to the fact that capitalism has already been implemented whereas communism has arguably never been fully implemented.
For comparison, suppose there are people out there who think that society was organised best under feudalism. They would support a move towards reinstituting that system, presumably in stages, so they would be equally "utopian" as the communists except they would have the benefit of an existence proof that their ideal society was achievable and sustainable (at least given certain initial conditions).
Fascism has also been tried before, and there are probably more people who support its return in some form than support the return of the feudal system. I can imagine its supporters suggesting that their policies would lead their nation towards an idealised future too, so I don't think that utopian thinking is common across the political spectrum and becomes more pronounced the further from the status quo its adherents want to take society.
(Side note: I'm also not a fan of the term "dog whistling", as I find it slightly ambiguous. For what it's worth, what I meant by it is that you were attempting to signal to like-minded people what it was you were really trying to say, without "saying the quiet part out loud". There might be good reasons for that on a forum like this, but I decided that the topic of your comment was potentially too important to not be subject to scrutiny).
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?
^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...
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...
> PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased source of information.
Not quite -- PBS is rated reliable but biased left: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
Not quite -- PBS is rated reliable but biased left: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
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.
Actually, PBS skews left in the adfontes study, which is the most detailed one I know: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
Wow, this chart perfectly illustrates my original point. There is a great gaping hole in the upper right of that graph - there is no high-quality, right-skewed news, even though this is where I would assume just over half of the bulk of Americans would actually place their political beliefs. There's nothing of significance in between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, after which there is a steep cliff towards Breitbart and all of the horrors that come after it.
Many possibilities for why this is apparently the case though. Could be a miss-match in who people identity/affiliate themselves with and where they actually land. Lot of talk of the "window" having moved in the passed decade. Possible middle-left bias ate up a bunch of those who would have been middle-right? A lot of moderate right pundits have landed at left biased orgs over the past years. Would be interesting to see what this chart would have looked like 15-20 years ago.
It could be that media corporations are in cities, which have become strongly leftist in the last few decades. The rural areas simply haven't had the density of human organization to create a reliable corporate media.
Another theory is that reliable corporate media is stocked with university graduates, and universities have also gone left.
> Would be interesting to see what this chart would have looked like 15-20 years ago.
Indeed, I think most of these were centrist news organizations 15 years ago!
Another theory is that reliable corporate media is stocked with university graduates, and universities have also gone left.
> Would be interesting to see what this chart would have looked like 15-20 years ago.
Indeed, I think most of these were centrist news organizations 15 years ago!
[deleted]
Centrism is also an ideology
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
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.
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.
libhack-hn(1)
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.
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?
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?
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.)
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.)
We already have a government owned internet media company.
https://www.voanews.com/
https://www.voanews.com/
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?
Except, wait, what, PBS isn't free? Don't we already pay taxes?
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.
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...
That's certainly not true. NPR criticizes Bill Gates often as part of the "celebrity billionaire" group, and recently had a story about his affair with an employee.
It is fair to say that funder bias is a significant concern in the not-for-profit world, including in public broadcasting.
There's been open mainstream speculation of that "PBS sold its soul" to the Koch Brothers:
As David Sirota, the author of the PandoDaily expose, wrote in its aftermath, PBS doesn’t stand for “Public Broadcasting Service” anymore. As it becomes more addicted to big-bucks donors, it risks becoming the Plutocrat Broadcasting Service.
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-xpm-2014-feb-17-...
Tiny Spark is the podcast of Nonprofits Quarterly, and has dedicated numerous episodes to the question of funder influence.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/podcasts/
Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, and Robert W. McChesney are voices on the left who have called out corporate / fundraiser bias on the part of PBS, NPR, CPB, and other public broadcasters in the US. McChesney notes:
Public broadcasting today is really a system of nonprofit commercial broadcasting, serving a sliver of the population. What we need is a system of real public broadcasting, with no advertising, one that accepts no grants from corporations or private bodies, one that serves the entire population, not merely those who have high-brow tastes and disposable income to contribute during pledge drives.
https://www.lehigh.edu/~jl0d/J246-02/oligopoly.html
There's been open mainstream speculation of that "PBS sold its soul" to the Koch Brothers:
As David Sirota, the author of the PandoDaily expose, wrote in its aftermath, PBS doesn’t stand for “Public Broadcasting Service” anymore. As it becomes more addicted to big-bucks donors, it risks becoming the Plutocrat Broadcasting Service.
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-xpm-2014-feb-17-...
Tiny Spark is the podcast of Nonprofits Quarterly, and has dedicated numerous episodes to the question of funder influence.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/podcasts/
Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, and Robert W. McChesney are voices on the left who have called out corporate / fundraiser bias on the part of PBS, NPR, CPB, and other public broadcasters in the US. McChesney notes:
Public broadcasting today is really a system of nonprofit commercial broadcasting, serving a sliver of the population. What we need is a system of real public broadcasting, with no advertising, one that accepts no grants from corporations or private bodies, one that serves the entire population, not merely those who have high-brow tastes and disposable income to contribute during pledge drives.
https://www.lehigh.edu/~jl0d/J246-02/oligopoly.html
'NPR’s funding from Gates “was not a factor in why or how we did the story,” reporter Pam Fessler says, adding that her reporting went beyond the voices quoted in her article. The story, nevertheless, is one of hundreds NPR has reported about the Gates Foundation or the work it funds, including myriad favorable pieces written from the perspective of Gates or its grantees.'
https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-fu...
When you donate billions, you help lots of people who may then be honest about that.
What is surprising to you that beneficiaries of philanthropy are happy to report and promote philanthropy?
It's not like they try to cover up his "sins", or that the channel doesn't report on the latest gossip about his marriage just because it's "news".
What is surprising to you that beneficiaries of philanthropy are happy to report and promote philanthropy?
It's not like they try to cover up his "sins", or that the channel doesn't report on the latest gossip about his marriage just because it's "news".
It's a great article, did you read it?
'Twenty years ago, journalists scrutinized Bill Gates’s initial foray into philanthropy as a vehicle to enrich his software company, or a PR exercise to salvage his battered reputation following Microsoft’s bruising antitrust battle with the Department of Justice. Today, the foundation is most often the subject of soft profiles and glowing editorials describing its good works. '
'Twenty years ago, journalists scrutinized Bill Gates’s initial foray into philanthropy as a vehicle to enrich his software company, or a PR exercise to salvage his battered reputation following Microsoft’s bruising antitrust battle with the Department of Justice. Today, the foundation is most often the subject of soft profiles and glowing editorials describing its good works. '
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...
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...
>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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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...