Comments on: Exploding public media

By: Jake Shapiro » links for 2006-08-07

Jake Shapiro » links for 2006-08-07 — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 09:23:16 +0000

[...] BuzzMachine Â» Blog Archive Â» Exploding public media (tags: beyondbroadcast publicmedia ddcgroup) [...]

By: Anthony Hunt

Anthony Hunt — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:23:38 +0000

John,
You need public broadcasting because there is still a theoretical space where it is important to provide programming that has a certain standard that also isn’t TOTALLY directed by how much money it makes. The space where the programming is for you, not for the advertiser who is paying to reach you…public broadcasting cuts out the middleman.

Government has to help pay for a portion of the total expense such maintaining balanced budgets are possible. In the US, that “cost” is approximately $1.25 per person to support the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In the UK, the cost is approximately $120 per person to support the BBC. I’d like to think the best possibility lies somewhere in the middle…especially since most news operations are eliminating jobs. This further erodes the ability for common Americans to really know what’s going on since fewer & fewer reporters are around to do the investigative work. While it may be true that the “truth is out there” on the web somewhere, even if you know where to look, what is the likelyhood that you are going to regularly go to the effort? Is this something the majority of the populus would do, or maybe would it be better to create a common “news aegis” in public broadcasting where a baseline starting point could be maintained.

I would hope that news on public broadcasting would not be the only source people would use as their sole window to the world, but since it has been independently proven to be the most informative place to actually UNDERSTAND what is going on, it is vital to continue to cooperatively fund public broadcasting (listeners who contribute, businesses who underwrite, grants, & local, state, & federal governments).

By: Ted10s

Ted10s — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:01:00 +0000

If public broadcasting is to be freed of public (read, tax-based) funding and if it “can and should be supported by the market,” it must be allowed to function normally in that market. Federal law prohibits pubcasting from selling advertising (yes, the underwriting you hear - and especially that you see on PTV - is a sort of advertising, but if you read the law, you’ll see that pubcasting is hamstrung by severe restrictions on language that make underwriting irrelevant to the vast majority of potential advertisers). Your tax dollars are buying you a respite from the abundance of commercials on other channels, and from the nature of those commercials.

As for “enjoy(ing) the priviledge [sic] of government protection,” I don’t know what that protection consists of. Except that pubcasters don’t have to pay the FCC filing fees for renewals, license changes, etc. that commercial broadcasters do.

By: John Davidson

John Davidson — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:56:32 +0000

it’s not just the state’s direct funding of PBS/NPR (which includes significant moneys to local affiliates), it’s the state’s endorsement of a closed market. The budgets are the easy part, especially for children’s programming where the production cost is nearly always covered by licensing and off-channel income. There’s simply no reason that the public broadcasting entities should enjoy the priviledge of government protection. If there is adequate demand for certain public broadcasting products, they can and should be supported by the market. There’s no evidence suggesting that a government protection results in better programming or higher quality, certainly not in today’s market. The blind faith we have given public broadcasting has run its course but instead of challenging the necessity (or Constitutionality) of public broadcasting, we have to talk about exploding it or what its role is? We’re avoiding the elephant in the room, which is: why exactly do we need it at all. The internet (and other technological advances) has proven that the good work of the public can easily happen without the government endorsing it or holding its hand in the marketplace.

By: Radioguy

Radioguy — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:05:17 +0000

Consider that government funding makes up a smaller and smaller amount of the bugets at PBS and especiall NPR and other public radio operations.

Now consider the quality of the programming you get for that small amount of federal funding.

Sesame Street and Morning Edition (among countless others programs) have been THE quality standard in broadcasting in their respective genres.

The internets and user generated contect are great - but I would not (yet) trust them with my child’s time or as a primary news source.

Those of you who support public broadcasting - thanks!

BTW - I’m pretty sure PBS does get a cut of Sesame Workshop sales.

By: props

props — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:14:31 +0000

I like NPR and PBS, but I don’t feel that it should be sponsored by the government. Both of those networks could exist without government funding: PBS would have been funded forever if they would just get royalties on sesame street dolls and books.

With the emerence of vlogging and sites like yourtubes, there is no longer a need for governement funding of media because we already have true “Public” broadcasting.

By: John Davidson

John Davidson — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:33:37 +0000

remind me one more time why tax dollars should be supporting PBS or their affiliates

By: Steven I. Weiss

Steven I. Weiss — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:05:57 +0000

Jeff - Sorry to use your comments section for this, and please do delete this after reading, but I’ve been trying quite hard to reach you with no success. Have you received my e-mails?

By: Bob Wyman

Bob Wyman — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:39:17 +0000

The key is: “we will need to curate content…”

Newspapers, radio, television, etc. have built their businesses on the assumption that they control access to the limited distribution range or bandwidth provided by the technologies they relied upon (paper and EM Frequency). Today, the Internet competes not with the newspapers or the broadcasters, but with the technologies they exploit. By providing for effectively unlimited, geography free distribution of information, the Internet invalidates the old models and changes the importance of roles in the system.

The media has traditionally focused on being the gatekeepers who determined what content was distributed. In the future, they will focus more on being the guides who help you find which content you will consume. (i.e. they will have to focus more on the curatorial function and less on distribution.)

This reminds me of a quote I had in an article by J.D. Lasica almost 10 years ago (Nov 1996): “The gate is gone, thus, the gatekeepers need new jobs. What we need today fits much more the image of a filter or a guide. Someone who can walk us through the forest of information and show us which are the really interesting trees.”

bob wyman