Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government

The Push For a 'PBS For the Internet' (axios.com) 169

Posted by BeauHD from the decentralizing-the-internet dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Axios: The concept of a new media ecosystem that's non-profit, publicly funded and tech-infused is drawing interest in policy circles as a way to shift the power dynamics in today's information wars. 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.

Congress in 1967 authorized federal operating money to broadcast stations through a new agency, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and what is now PBS launched down-the-middle national news programming and successful kids shows like "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" and "Sesame Street." NPR was born in 1971. Despite dust-ups over political interference of national programming and funding, hundreds of local community broadcast stations primarily received grants directly to choose which national programs to support.

A new policy paper from the German Marshall Fund proposes a full revamp of the CPB to fund not just broadcast stations, but a wide range of digital platforms and potential content producers including independent journalists, local governments, nonprofits and educational institutions. The idea is to increase the diversity of local civic information, leaning on anchor institutions like libraries and colleges that communities trust. Beyond content, the plan calls for open protocol standards and APIs to let consumers mix and match the content they want from a wide variety of sources, rather than being at the mercy of Facebook, Twitter or YouTube algorithms. Data would be another crucial component. In order to operate, entities in the ecosystem would have to commit to basic data ethics and rules about how personal information is used.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Push For a 'PBS For the Internet' More

The Push For a 'PBS For the Internet'

Comments Filter:

  • And for the love of God. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Monday August 02, 2021 @05:13PM (#61648337)
    Fund content provides like YouTube does using the funds based of views. And for the love of God, keep religious people out of any decisions about what content should be allowed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by I75BJC ( 4590021 )
      Why exclude "religious people" from the programming?
      They are helping to pay for this proposed magical fantasy!

      • Because they believe in magical fantasy.

      • Probally meaning not having the fundies dominate the entire thing. Such an "Internet PBS" needs to be 100% agnostic when it comes to religion.

    • It's still part of the US constitution that the government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion, including within publicly-funded programs. This is why churches qualify for tax-exempt status just like any charitable organization, religious or not. Some of us value that freedom from interference in religion by our government.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by arQon ( 447508 )

        Some of us value that freedom from interference in religion by our government.

        Every single time I've heard this line, it's from people who only value the fact that their government is pushing *their* religion, rather than actually staying out of it.

        • There is very little danger of the government pushing my Christianity. If anything, they are antagonistic towards it.

        • I have never once faulted anyone the practice of their religion. I accept that there are people who call Satan their god, I accept that Muslims are going to practice their religion in the way they want, and I expect them all to respect my practice of my Catholicism. The first amendment is about the state not choosing any religion as the only approved religion. If it was Catholicism they chose, I would fight it to the end, even with it being my religion. It is wrong for any religion, as that only leads t

    • Yes, let's only allow people who worship power and government institutions instead to make content decisions.

    • It's their money too, why don't they get a say?

      And is it wise to promote power without morality?

  • I would rather see.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Monday August 02, 2021 @05:14PM (#61648345)
    A publicly funded platform for all political candidates that gave everyone equal access and eliminate campaign contributions, private ads, and PACs all together. Compete on merits and how well you manage your assigned resources. It was a better idea before all the fake social media followers you could hire. Maybe the platform gives no indication of followers or give platform for bots to input. Gasp! We have to use word of mouth to talk to people in person.

    • I get to hear most of the local candidates for office on NPR, and all those state level candidates that can't get a word in on the privately owned media stations. This includes far left wackadoodles and for right wing nuts, they can all get their say.

  • very limited choices. Now with choices galore I think all funding should just end. These programs are examples of funding that once had purpose but now is just a tax payer subsidy.

  • traffic (Score:4, Interesting)

    by antus ( 6211764 ) on Monday August 02, 2021 @05:22PM (#61648371)
    This is a nice thought, but there are plenty of local and quality news sites out there already. The problem is more to do with traffic. Even though the sites exist the gap is how to get eyes on the quality ones. Maybe some of the funds need to go towards paying for google adds or some kind of marketing of the brand.

    • To summarize: it's a great idea, the problem is how to get anyone to use it.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by arQon ( 447508 )

        Indeed. But it may not really be a hard problem.

        The USA recently had a president who did almost nothing BUT post on (anti-)social media. Put him and AOC etc on a government-run Twitter clone instead, and the audience WILL come. For bonus points, have the system be built by someone competent and link to their voting record, legislation they've been involved in, and so on.

        One of the most ridiculous things I've seen recently, while the West Coast is basically one giant fire, is governmental institutions doing

        • Put him and AOC etc on a government-run Twitter clone instead, and the audience WILL come.

          I'm not sure it's that easy. Didn't Trump start his own social network thing lately? How many people are on that?

  • It'll be useless during pledge drives which are every two to three months and will pause your internet experience every 5 minutes for a period of 10 minutes while they spout off incessantly about how great they are. Oh, and it'll be sponsored by Darlene Marcos Shiley whose old man made a ton of money on replacement heart valves. See that, boys and girls, your healthcare dollars at work.

  • I'm a retired IT guy and a student of critical thinking. I challenge social media misinformation with arguments from legitimate sources.

    For the hard-headed, I have no influence, but they are not my target. I'm going for those who doubt, yet lack the fucking skills to google stuff.

    It sure would be nice if entities like PBS would start publishing on the Internet.

  • Too late (Score:4, Insightful)

    by damn_registrars ( 1103043 ) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Monday August 02, 2021 @06:05PM (#61648473) Homepage Journal
    How could government possibly provide a trusted source of news when we have a significant chunk of the country who believes that all problems are the fault of the government? Even if Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and the entire SCOTUS all endorsed it they still would be skeptical at best.

    You'll have a better chance convincing Niagara Falls to flow uphill.

    • How could government possibly provide a trusted source of news

      Perhaps by making a sincere effort at not lying continuously?

      • How could government possibly provide a trusted source of news

        Perhaps by making a sincere effort at not lying continuously?

        I'm not sure if you missed my point, or if you're just out to dramatically support it. As many have noticed, American voters often insist that the other side is filled with pathological liars while their own side is uniquely truthful. Stated goals - that only apply to the other side of course - such as "not lying continuously" are really just weasel words, impossible goals as there is no way to define a way to meet that request.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by arQon ( 447508 )

          No, you missed his. The list of people you offered includes at least one *actual* pathological liar; at least one person who we *know* lied during his confirmation hearings; and a third person who, again, has been caught lying on too many occasions to count.

          Your list would have had more credibility if it was "a used car salesman, an MLM BossBabe, a 'reality' TV star, and an Instagram influencer".

          Your point is valid, despite that - but you couldn't have done a worse job of making it if you tried. :)

    • Maybe we could call it "the Department For Shutting Down The Government". The ones who decide everything at the jerk of a knee will be happy, and those of us who know its real purpose can just smile and nod.

    • You mean, "how could government possibly provide a trusted source of news in a country founded on not trusting the power of government"? It can't, by design and by nature.

      • You mean, "how could government possibly provide a trusted source of news in a country founded on not trusting the power of government"? It can't, by design and by nature.

        If that were the issue here, that would be one thing. However that is not the reality of the current American situation. Right now what we have is a large group of people who distrust the government - unless their party is running it. This is what brought us Fox News, which is essentially a mouth piece for the GOP - and therefore a mouthpiece for the government when the GOP is in control.

        In other words we have a lot of people who don't distrust the government, they just distrust people who disagree

  • See subject. Great YouTube channel. Maybe it's also on other platforms - hurray if it is.

    Axios is so full of shit, as usual. Worthless would be an upgrade.

    • PBS Spacetime is truly fantastic. PBS' has a huge slate of YouTube channels that go into great depth about very specific topics -- music, literature, paleontology, etc. I encourage everyone to look into them and find some that appeal to them. If they continue to expand in directions like this, I will gladly throw money at them.

  • PBS "for" the Internet? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Oligonicella ( 659917 ) on Monday August 02, 2021 @06:18PM (#61648505)
    The Internet already *is* PBS.

  • You cannot have an objective and useful video system, that is just not possible, but we strive to do our best.

    So, even a smaller site would have millions of user generated videos. How would one want to spend their time sifting though the content? By of course searching and ranking.

    First option: Ranking by popularity: will get you all the crappy popular stuff. Ironically, popular is the least likely to be useful for my tastes.

    Second option: Rank by personalization: great, the machine learning system knows al

  • PBS is great because it is funded by the entire county, not just one state.

    Similarly, as the internet covers the entire world (exceptions for North Korea, etc.) it needs funding from multiple countries.

    I would start by talking to Europe, Japan, Canada, UK, Australia, and other friendly countries with similar values around free speech that would be willing to contribute

  • OMG what kind of internet technology is "tech-infused"?

  • Here's an interesting long-ish article from the Atlantic how Germany is using public broadcasting to reduce social polarization. I think that, while admiting its flaws, it's quite hopeful. The main thing seems to be to establish a shared pool of facts which can then be discussed "around the fireplace" according to each's opinion.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/id... [theatlantic.com]

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by arQon ( 447508 )

      Interesting, sure - but not applicable to the US.

      As soon as Kelly Conway popularized "alternative facts" and her party then followed up on the idea hundreds of times, even that basest of baselines no longer exists here.

      On top of that, there are 100s of 1000s of Americans who *literally believe* that lizard people secretly control the US. Little things like "facts" don't stand a chance when faced with that kind of batshit insanity.

      • And that's a great example of how biased the media is, and how biased framing can be used to make facts disappear.

        If you'll recall, (don't expect you to, the media made sure of that), when she used the phrase "alternative facts" she wasn't saying something like, "well, you say it's a fact that X is false, my alternative fact is that X is true", as the reporting was framed to imply. What she was actually saying was akin to, "three things happened, why are you only talking about one?". "Alternative facts

  • In Australia the ABC is probably equivalent to PBS.
    The conservative LNP party / private broadcasters have been successful in reducing and silencing the ABC.
    The ABC was early in using the internet, much to the chagrin of the private networks.
    We also have the SBS which is partially funded by advertising but isn't full of lefty commos like the ABC.

  • The BBC is so keen to be on the Internet they're like to pretend only people of pensionable age watch over the air, and tailor their programs accordingly - i.e. repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats.

  • Like the USA, western European countries have had public broadcasting for decades, although it appears in many cases somewhat better funded. Almost everyone has heard of the BBC & there are high-quality national counterparts in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. (You can find them on Wikipedia). All or most of their content is also available online, on-demand & there are additional digital resources, e.g. for learning foreign languages & curriculum materials for studying at nationally funded op

  • One of the things that characterizes PBS is that it is broadcast for free. All you need to receive it is a TV and an antenna.

    One of the things that characterizes websites is that you have to have an internet connection to visit them, and receive their content.

    The only way to have a true PBS equivalent on the internet is if the internet access is paid for by donations from viewers like you, and by taxes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      The only way to have a true PBS equivalent on the internet is if the internet access is paid for by donations from viewers like you, and by taxes.

      The government sponsors internet access for millions of people - there's the lifeline program (originally focused on cellphone service, then smartphones, and it has been expanded to broadband internet) for low income people, as well as the $50/month subsidies being offered to people impacted by pandemic/shutdowns, and other programs that force providers to offer access for as little as $10/month.

      People without internet access lack access because either of where they choose to live, their ignorance of federa

      • The government sponsors internet access for millions of people - there's the lifeline program [...] for low income people

        Have you ever tried to get on that? They want like your complete financial history, access to your bank account and shit. With PBS you just turn on the TV and watch.

        People without internet access lack access because either of where they choose to live

        I believe I hear the voice of privilege, what a fucking shock.

        Where they choose to live? You don't know what things are like for most Americans at all.

  • 40 years too late. PBS is in the crapper, just a shadow of its former self in quality scripted programming, and gone full woke in current events and documentary programming, not to mention droning narration and boring content, slow as molasses. Put it out of its misery already.

  • Are they unaware of how PBS and NPR are already online? Where did they pull that list of trusted community anchors from? Since when are librarians heroic community leaders, and why should they be given extra power? Why did they leave churches off that list when they are the only community institution that actually fits the bill?

    Most importantly, do they really not recognize that they're contradicting themselves and calling for a new media power structure that will immediately become what they're trying

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close