Save PBS. It makes us safer | Hacker News Reader

Save PBS. It makes us safer

nytimes.com

176 pointsckozlowski108 comments

To me, anybody who argues that PBS should be cut loses all credibility as a budget hawk (if they had any to begin with). PBS is an incredibly valuable public-private partnership. For every dollar the federal government spends, two or three listeners listeners voluntarily contribute a dollar of their own money, much of which goes to their local community. Other programs should be looking to public broadcasting as a financial model to be emulated.

edit Not to mention the lasting value created by the content.

From an ideological perspective, the idea of any state-run media is pretty dissonant with my views. Being opposed to the very idea of PBS or anything like it is a totally understandable position.

The case for PBS is a pragmatic one: it serves millions of kids everyday and supplies unrivaled public educational programming, for what most would consider a very reasonable public expenditure. I completely agree that other agencies should look to PBS as a financial model to be emulated.[1] But it's unfair to discount the validity of your opponent's argument just because the pragmatic counter-argument is strong.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/penta...

There's an important distinction between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_media though. I'm pretty into the former but share your distaste for the latter.

From a practical perspective I completely agree, but my nightmare scenario for PBS isn't seeing it defunded, but seeing it lose some or all editorial control. That scenario seems very unlikely at present, but not impossible. I just wanted to point out that it's not a completely unreasonable case to make.

I certainly believe people who say they want to cut PBS simply because they don't like it, or don't see it as the government's province. But in the context of trying to balance the federal budget over time, PBS is beyond a micro-optimiziation (if, indeed, it would not actually backfire in the long term). I'm willing to assume that anyone who puts it on their shortlist is being disingenuous about their motives.

I see media as being at least partly behind this. They can't advertise toys and games to kids on PBS. Regardless of how much time kids spend watching ads on non-PBS channels, there could always be more. The broadcaster hunger for these ad dollars can't be greater than now, when kids and their parents have other media vying for control of their time (internet video, I'm looking at you). It's completely in the wheelhouse of broadcasters and cable providers to try to meddle with policy through lobbying and strategic placement in policymaking positions. If only our government were transparent enough to follow the money...

Not that I'm pro-cut, but to a budget hawk any spending is too much spending regardless of matched contribution.

Edit: Keep on downvoting, it's not going to change the opposition's persepctive.

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

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

That's a straw man of a budget hawk. Real budget hawks are more reasonable.

> That's a straw man of a budget hawk. Real budget hawks are more reasonable.

Is this an ironic no-true-scotsman?

Bury your head in the sand, man. We're not looking at reasonable folks. It's just one side trying to piss on the other.

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

Do you have something constructive to add?

I need answers man. What's the hold up?

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

You should familiarize yourself PBS Digital Studios. They have several high quality Youtube channels. CrashCourse, Space Time, Infinite, etc. are much better at using the Internet medium and specifically video for learning than Khan Academy, with high production values for a Youtube series though they have different objectives. Khan Academy is like a traditional classroom via the web.

The PBS shows are bingeworthy. Seriously, take a look at SpaceTime. It's so much better than anything the Science or Discovery channel puts on. And I've binged on several topics in Crash Course

The USFG is "an execution company," not an "innovation company." If we had diverted 50% of CPB's budget a decade ago to funding "new technologies for public interest educational programming," it's very unlikely it would have turned into Wikipedia or Khan Academy. PBS is an extremely successful program whose benefits don't show any signs of slowing down. Eventually, it will evolve or be replaced by something better, but there's no reason to get hasty with that. I watch Nova pretty regularly on my appleTV. They don't seem to be anywhere near technological obsolescence just yet.

PBS is actually in a growth industry: financing high-quality original video content. Take a look at what Netflix and Amazon are investing in that direction, for example.

My kid watches PBS shows frequently. She has never watched TV in her life. But she knows PBSkids.org and asks for it by name.

Yes, we should all get our under ten year old kids a computer and let them loose on Wikipedia. I'm sure they'll learn tons of stuff and never get into any trouble whatsoever.

There's a place for things like PBS. It's inexpensive, it's curated, and it's hard to mess around with.

Are those resources as easily accessible to people who are not privileged? What about the children's shows? Are those easily accessible to underprivileged people's televisions?

Cause it's a stretch for them to freely publish online using the same model?

Cause they're already doing that.

I'd say PBS is no longer necessary thanks to YouTube, Periscope, Minds, Kickstarter and hundreds of other sources of content actually created by the public. And I actually know several VPs who work there. You mention the financial model to be emulated - that would be Kickstarter, GoFundMe, Patreon, etc. The best argument for why PBS funding should be cut is because the amount of government funding that goes to running their operations is small in comparison to the non-government funding. Defunding PBS is a direct shift of power from institutions directly to the people. People can still fund PBS if they so choose, or they can simply fund the projects they deem worthy through the many sites mentioned above.

Fred Rogers testifying before congress in 1969 about why PBS should be funded:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetes...

The world has changed a lot since 1969. Many homes don't even have network television anymore.

You're right. PBS Digital Studios has a fantastic Youtube presence. One of my favorite YT channels is PBS Spacetime, which gives a somewhat mathmatically rigorous treatment on cosmology/astrophysics. It's so much better than anything on the Science or Discovery channel. I learned about the coolest phenomenon ever: a KugelBlitz (a hypothetical type of black hole formed from light), overtaking quasars as my fave astronomical curiosity.

They also have PBS Infinite which is a maths series. I learned what a random walk is today.

I urge any and every one to check out their various Youtube channels. It truly is a travesty that we have extra money to spend on the F-35 and other overpriced, unnecessary military expenditures, but the pittance we give to PBS is being cut.

PBS news hour has 390k subs on youtube and does 50k views on their nightly 50min. Compared to other news networks this is not too shabby. So yeah don't worry they have many other ways of getting to viewers.

> The world has changed a lot since 1969. Many homes don't even have network television anymore.

All homes with TVs that receive broadcast, cable, or satellite TV have network television.

I think you probably meant broadcast/OTA television, in which case a survey from 2016 shows that 17% of U.S. TV households rely on "broadcast-only" television reception, and that was an increase from the previous year.

However, that number is disproportionately higher in poor, Black, and Hispanic households. For example, it jumps to 26% for households earning less than $30K/year.

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people getting OTA broadcasting will begin increasing.

I don't know anyone my age that doesn't watch mostly streamed content, but we all have digital antennas for local broadcast and the important live events.

It is increasing, a lot. There was a recent study that had OTA using households increase from 9% in 2013 to 15% in 2016. Or as one headline put it "almost double".

Added: Here are some numbers not from memory:

* http://www.ooyala.com/videomind/blog/ota-usage-growing-more-...

Added2: OK I found my numbers, which were slightly off. Fixed...

* http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20170127/tv-antenna-ri...

I literally know no one who watches ota. I tried for a while but was quickly confronted with ota quality programming (or lack thereof). The digital antenna is in a box somewhere.

PBS has a streaming channel on my Roku...

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

The President's budget proposal might tell you something about what the Administration is about, but it's not a serious legislating document; the budget is one of a few subjects that is entirely delegated to Congress. Meanwhile, PBS is a rounding error in the non-military discretionary budget (which is itself dwarfed by mandatory entitlement spending).

It's been said, most recently I think by John Dickerson, that conservatives benefit more from having PBS around as an issue than they would by slashing its funding. As several people here have pointed out: PBS gets ~15% of its funding from the government and could easily make up the shortfall, but the GOP would lose a straw man to beat up. This particular straw man goes all the way back to Reagan. It was even a campaign issue in the 2012 election.

The point of Presidential budgets is to frame the conversation, not to enact changes.

Without federal funding & stakeholders, what really distinguishes CPB / PBS from any other non-profit?

> conservatives benefit more from having PBS around as an issue than they would by slashing its funding

There's an implication here that if federal funding ceased, the conservative assault on PBS would somehow fizzle - but couldn't the opposite just as easily be true?

Cutting off federal funds is a form of de-legitimization, and we'd hear it cited for years to come as 'proof' that PBS and all its programming is liberal propaganda that can safely be ignored by one and all.

It's just not a straw man. PBS influences the decisions of millions of Americans, and steers them unequivocally to the left. If 15% of Fox news's budget would come from federal government you'd understand that the money is not a "drop", but enough to influence people.

Comments like this are pretty much what I mean by the GOP wanting PBS around as an issue to beat up.

Why bother with rounding errors in the budget when every large spending has some biased influence on the population?

Of course it's much harder to make real effective changes to the budget than bicker.

Outline of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's FY2014 budget: http://www.cpb.org/files/aboutcpb/financials/budget/FY2014-O...

Out of a total budget of $445m:

~66% (292m) is distributed via direct grants to local public television and radio stations.

~17% (74m) goes to television programming grants.

~7% (30m) goes to radio programming.

~11% (59m) goes to system support and administration.

I'd be curious to hear from someone who has worked at a local public broadcasting affiliate about what their budgets look like. I enjoy state-level public radio, but I don't watch a lot of state or local public television programming.

It seems like a lot of the arguments for funding PBS/CPB have been centered around their national programming, e.g. Nova and Sesame Street. But if the proposed cuts are "across the board," state and local public television programs would bear a greater share of the burden. Maybe we should be talking more about those.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"they completely ignore white male citizens of the US are left to rot (and die from opioid abuse and suicide) in West Virginia, etc." :

A simple google search yields :

- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/opioid-abuse/ (1 stories) - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/opioids/ (7 stories) - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/deaths-despair-cutting-life-s...

West Virginia - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/another-west-virginia-to... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/west-virginia-school-caring-s... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/early-results-of-w-va-to... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sobering-stories-drug-addicti... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/rural-west-virginia-schools-h... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/schools-rural-west-virginia-a...

[the next statements are made with the hope of furthering dialog] Yes, they could do better as far as content, what worries me about your post is your statement "completely ignore" seems to differ from reality.

OK, so "completely ignore" was an exaggeration. They do talk about opioid abuse as a problem in general, but rarely ever mention that the affected segment of the population is about 65% white male (in West Virginia, not sure about other areas). If there is a program on PBS or NPR about it, it is almost always a young female being interviewed - just my subjective observation. Details, but they add up quickly and create an ideological bias, where there should not be.

"If there is a program on PBS or NPR about it, it is almost always a young female being interviewed"

I posted the link : http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/opioids/

So I read through a few of the stories, and of the first few that focus on the stories of individual addicts all three are white males.

- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/montanas-pain-refugees-l... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/opioids-as-a-first-respo... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/painkillers-controversy-...

Although they fall short of giving the specific statistic you quote take a lot at these stories : "white" is in the title and url and they both mention the toll males are taking.

"He’s been seeing a lot of dead white males of late, especially ages 45 to 54." : http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/deaths-despair-cutting-life-s...

"So, here is a male with no identity. He’s not working. He’s supposed to be a provider for his family. He can’t even do that. So that low self-worth, along with that hopelessness feeling, we start seeing tremendous depression." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/feeling-falling-behind-fuels-...

I just don't know how you get from "subjective observation" to what I am reading. I stay this as I also worry your perception is alienating you from folks that have your interests in mind as I am doubtful it is the folks calling for cuts do.

I've personally seen tons of stories about the Opioid epidemic on PBS especially on News Hour and including an entire episode of Frontline called "Chasing Heroin". As far as abuse of women in Nigeria, I don't recall hearing about that at all, I'll have to look it up.

I personally turn to PBS coverage because I find it far more balanced than something like CNN, CNBC or Fox News. I have noticed that it was pointed out that they have primarily female anchors, and it's certainly different, but I can't say I have a problem with it. I also like the fact that they don't seem to use commentators and "expert" consultants as often, but rather the Government representatives or organizations actually involved.

While always left-leaning, PBS was much more balanced in the past. These days, most of their invited guests are either NYT, or WaPo reporters and they have become - sadly - increasingly unbalanced, leftist propagandists.

Being critical of a current administration is fine, but leaving out stories which don't fit their narrative is just... propaganda. No other way to describe it. Not that Fox News and the other right wing sources don't do the same thing, but I thought we could expect higher standards from PBS/NPR. Not anymore - so I stopped supporting them (after 25 years of solid and faithful financial support).

This sad commentary applies to all media - there just isn't a single, reasonably balanced source of news anymore. I guess being truly fair and balanced (and no, Fox News ain't it :-)) just does not sell anymore. Perhaps having 6 huge corporations owning all major media (PBS excepted) has something to do with it

I appreciate Masterpiece Mystery and Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood as much as anyone.

But unfortunately I have to agree with some of this. I watched the election night coverage on PBS. As more states started turning red, the host looked like she was about to cry. And she looked like she was physically in pain, or wanted to spit, each time she said the words "white working class" voters.

So it comes as no surprise that those voters, and the candidate they elected, are going to want to pull the plug.

It's a real shame, too. How could they not see this coming?

They didn't see it coming during election day because PBS is part of the 'bubble', just another liberal media source that doesn't understand the whole of America. Why would a Republican president want to fund them if all he'll get is negative commentary?

Media consolidation certinaly hasn't helped. It does seem to me that individual journalists are making their views known more commonly and it's definitely easier to spot when they're actively engaging their audience on social media. Part of me wonders if them being encouraged or required to participate in social media causes some bias towards getting approval from fans.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that news organizations being further driven towards higher profits also causes them to follow consumer trends and popular stories in "their audience" rather than doing more investigative journalism and objective reporting. It's almost like social media and popular opinion drive the story rather than just tipping off journalists to where the story might be, its lazy and probably cheaper.

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

They are addressed -- by watching videos streamed from Apps, YouTube, Minds, Periscope, etc.

For more background on the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal

(I had to look him up, might be useful for other people as well.)

Keep PBS on the air. Consider donating today.

http://www.pbs.org/donate/

Agreed. I signed up for recurring membership (in the past, I only donated intermittently or during drives). This is something worth keeping.

Why can't people just donate directly? I set up recurring payments for donation-based channels I watch on Youtube, so not sure why this can't be the same.

People do. That's what the pledge drives and "brought to you by viewers like you" commonly heard on PBS are about.

Different local stations rely on difference funding sources. Stations in smaller or rural markets would have a harder time existing on direct donations alone.

The people PBS can best serve are often the ones with the least amount of money to donate.

Can't be stated any better than that.

They can. People do. We donate $10 monthly to TPT, Twin Cities Public Television (the local PBS affiliate).

PBS doesn't have commercials? Because I'm pretty sure it does.

PBS has underwriting spots that are only shown between programs and are subject to more restrictions than commercials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting_spot

No programming is interrupted, and the only marketing content is typically something like "Brand Flakes is happy to support PBS".

In the Bay Area, at least, shows will have multiple supporter mentions which are basically brand endorsements, a la, "Brought to you by ADM, Supermarket to the World! And GE, bringing good things to life."

They are commercials.

I implore you to spend an hour consuming public media and then another hour consuming "regular" commercial broadcasting.

There's an unmistakable difference between the commercials employed in commercial broadcasts vs public broadcasts.

I'm sure you can find some reduction of the concept of "commercial" that fits both commercial broadcast advertisements and underwriting posts in public broadcasts, but you'd be missing the point.

Furthermore, the discussion here isn't merely about the ads themselves; it's about the _underlying business model_ of commercial network broadcasting vs public broadcasting. Commercial networks' incentives are squarely in line with the incentives of their advertisers, but publicly-funded broadcasters incentives are more in line with their users, because their funding is derived most directly from them.

Deleted comment

Have you tried any of PBS Digital Studio Channels on Youtube?

What? Care to back up your claim at all instead of just traipsing in and saying "no"? I watch PBS every day and they are most certainly not commercials as your parent comment says. They generally are 10 seconds at most, have maybe two sentences about the company, and show the logo. Usually one of those sentences is "Company xxx is proud to support PBS".

Dictionary.com says a commercial is "a paid advertisement or promotional announcement." Companies pay PBS, they get an announcement promoting the company. It's a commercial. If Company xxx just wanted to do great things, it could easily give money and seek no acknowledgement (the same way that, ahem, viewers give money and get no on-air acknowledgement, not even a flash in crawling text.) But Company xxx wants to be acknowledged. No problem. But it's a commercial.

You are missing the point and needlessly tripping yourself up on nitpicking. The point of the piece is that PBS delivers a lot of quality content to children (lots of other content too, but that isn't the author's focus). A couple minutes per hour of "Brought to you by XYZ Corporation" vs 20 cumulative minutes of animated bunnies selling breakfast marshmallows aimed at 2-7 year olds is not the same thing.

You can hide behind your dictionary definition and declare yourself the victor, but you must know there is a substantive difference between them and that is exactly the point that author was making.

This honestly feels like unnecessary pedantry

How is that not a commercial? Just because it's not actively annoying?

We can deliberate over the meanings of terms all day, but there is a distinction. The PBS commercials are just "this company supports PBS"; it doesn't even mention the industry the company works in. Commercials elsewhere are "this company makes this product, which does this task that will make you happy and/or surround you with beautiful women".

Do you think these companies would keep giving PBS money if they stopped reporting who was giving it before/after each show?

Also your claim isn't even true, I recall an ad for a European Boat Touring company before Rick Steve's Europe for example. The ad was clearly "this company sells this product."

It's all just another form of lifestyle ad / virtue signaling. "We support PBS and the things you care about, support us too."

>They generally are 10 seconds at most, have maybe two sentences about the company, and show the logo.

aka a commercial.

ad·ver·tise·ment

ˈadvərˌtīzmənt,ədˈvərdizmənt/

noun

a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.

---

As long as said 10-second intervals don't promote a product, service or event, and they simply mention that Company X supports PBS, they aren't advertisements.

https://www.google.com/search?&rls=en&q=define:advertisement...

It's relatively tasteful advertisement:

https://vimeo.com/41440389

I think that the best answer to that is yes and no. Unless things have changed in recent years, they run what is effectively an advertisement about the funding companies or organization at the start and end of each program. They do not run advertisements related to products. It can be a fuzzy distinction in some cases, but the overall tone is very different in most.

If I recall correctly (haven't owned a TV in awhile), PBS highlighted its "underwriters", certain "sponsors" for specific shows, public services such as local cultural events and other PBS shows, and fundraising. The line between "sponsors" and "advertisers" was definitely blurry at times, but it just... felt different than regular TV spots.

It doesn't have commercials, but some shows are 'brought to you by...'

I personally would be happy to give up a few dollars of the $1,859 [1] I spend on bombs every year. That is 6 weeks of work if you are working minimum wage. The blah blah budget hawks is b.s. to remove the few elements the benefit the general public and reshape the U.S. into a developing country where we fight over scrapes. Matthew 25:40 : what you do unto the least of your brother ... if we don't start taking care of one another as a family you won't have much left.

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

How come PBS cannot fund itself? And make profit and revenue? Just curious.

It probably could fund itself and make a profit. But the whole point is that the country is choosing to invest in providing quality media content in the form of high quality detailed reporting and educational content because it's critical for the success of our nation.

I think even the most partisan American would have a hard time looking at commercial media and declaring it a resounding success - educational channels like Discovery/History Channel are more of a meme than source of quality media these days and "news" is now a mix of entertainment and partisan opinion pieces between a deluge of advertising.

I remember how twenty years ago, the argument was made that the high quality of educational programming on the Discovery and History Channels made PBS redundant. I didn't agree even then, but at the time there really were some pretty good stuff on those commercial channels.

But it turns out that shows about science and history don't make as much money as nonsense about ancient aliens and so the commercial stations stopped being that educational. It really shows how the commercial model doesn't really work for education.

Plus, their shows are made for a 3rd grade level of understanding. None of their science shows have even a hint of math

That only works if you have a Hitler fetish (History) or and Alaska fetish (Discovery)

> country is choosing to invest

Lawmakers are spending other people's money

> critical for the success of our nation

That's a stretch

Certainly as far as dramas and comedies go, commercial channels like HBO/Netflix/etc have left PBS in the dust. PBS Kids has really good stuff, but then they're probably already profitable.

For the "edgy, morally-compromised anti-hero" genre, sure HBO/FX/AMC/Netflix have been nailing it for years.

However, in other areas it's PBS that's leaving them in the dust.

For example: I watch a lot of British cop shows. Nothing from the US can touch the stuff that WBGH brings over from BBC/ITV. Except maybe "Lie to Me", and it's been off the air for years.

PBS also rules whatever you'd call the "Downton Abbey genre". The last time they had competition there was from A&E in the mid 90s.

In my opinion, this will ruin the editorial standards of the PBS by eventually favoring monetary interests to keep itself alive. One of the benefits of an organization with guaranteed funding is that it doesn't need to change its activities to pander for money, and can focus on its actual published mission.

I am very skeptical PBS would, given time, retain any amount of the high quality programs they have produced (Frontline, American Experience, Washington Week, etc.). Just look at how TLC, Discovery Channel, History Channel have changed over time to chase profits. PBS would become nothing but Antique Roadshow and shows like American Pickers which are only tangentially related to past history. PBS tackles current issues in ways no other channel provides.

It has monetary interests it needs to pander to, even with government funding. They're just different ones.

> How come PBS cannot fund itself?

Public television largely does; only about 20% of public TV funding (PBS and local station) comes from federal sources.

I think Discovery Channel and History Channel are really good counterarguments nowadays to the idea that quality educational TV could be done for profit.

Edit: beaten by everybody in the universe ... :)

Just look at the shitty state of affairs today.

History Channel: "Ghosts did it" Discovery Channel: "Aliens did it"

It's like they replaced our educational programming lineup with the one from Idiocracy or Wall-E, just to see if we'd notice.

"Really Big Things"

"Animals That Could Eat You"

"Stuff That Blows Up"

"Loud, Shiny Cars/Motorcycles"

"Redneck Family Living in the Woods"

Yes, we noticed.

"Ow, My History!"

Because making profit isn't the goal of PBS.

So because that's not the goal it's impossible for them to do so? Why?

PBS has been facing funding cuts for a long time. Unlike other groups, PBS has actually made significant changes and no longer relies on federal money as much as it used to.

How come Hacker News can't fund itself? Not everything has to make revenue.

Interesting.

It always seemed odd that PBS is such an frequent target of Republicans while the Voice of America seems fly under the radar.

VOA is fully-taxpayer funded to the tune of $260M/yr.

Traditionally Republicans have had a more pragmatic view of foreign policy. VOA is an extension of the State Department and helps to champion the American agenda without needing hard power.

Voice of America is government (originally, anti-Soviet) propaganda. Republicans have long been very supportive of it, and as Trump was getting ready to take office moved to centralize control of it, removing the management structure that was designed to limit political abuse.

I'm all for getting rid of them both.

I suspect it's because VOA flies under the radar in general. I for one have never heard of it.

VoA is great if you are ever stuck in some remote part of the world with no media access but a shortwave radio.

> The federal appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — about $445 million annually — supports more than a thousand television and radio stations at a cost of about $1.35 per citizen.

a) It easily could be funded voluntarily

b) If it is so important (as the article argues), why is it such a small portion of the budget?

And I have yet to hear an argument regarding exactly how PBS is still necessary. Once it was, but not since anyone with a cel phone can record and upload content accessible to the entire world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com