The Push for a “PBS for the Internet”

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.

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.

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.

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-...

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?

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.

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

> 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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.