
You might want to reconsider that donation to the Reading Rainbow Kickstarter - duck
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/28/you-might-want-to-reconsider-that-donation-to-the-reading-rainbow-kickstarter/
======
cwyers
"All this adds up to a criticism that has been levied at high-profile
Kickstarter campaigns before: Crowdfunding is theoretically supposed to
bolster charities, start-ups, independent artists, small-business owners and
other projects that actually need the financial support of the masses to
succeed. It’s not supposed to be co-opted by companies with profit motives and
private investors of their own … which, despite Burton’s charisma, is exactly
what the Rainbow reboot is."

Says who?

Look, it's a consensual relationship between backers and people looking for
crowdfunding. Obviously outright fraud is wrong, but the article isn't
alleging that this is anywhere close to that -- everyone agrees that they're
asking for money for what they say they want money for. (And corporations with
profit motives and outside investors are, oddly enough, a hedge against the
biggest problem with crowdfunding -- the risk that the product won't be
delivered upon. "[C]harities, start-ups, independent artists, small-business
owners" are more likely to fail to deliver than an otherwise successful
business that turns to crowdfunding to support a project.)

~~~
owlmanatt
Yes, exactly. The other half of the article feels exactly the same: "PBS
decided to kill the show, so LeVar is obviously wrong for wanting to continue
anyway". It doesn't present an argument that teaching language is more
important than creating a desire to consume books; it just appeals to PBS's
authority.

But aside from the article's shortcomings, I do agree with their sentiment.
You typically see Kickstarter pages explain what they need the money for in
some level of detail -- who would want to give strangers money otherwise?

The idea of promoting literature to children is great, but that's just a
mission statement. The entire pitch is frustratingly unspecific about what
exactly they're making with their million dollars. I can take some pretty good
guesses, but why should backers need to guess at that?

~~~
cwyers
I haven't really checked out the Kickstarter -- Reading Rainbow doesn't tickle
my nostalgia fancy as much as some people, so while I'm glad they have a
chance to contribute if they want, I'm not really interested in it myself.

But when the history of this day and age is written, we're going to look back
at Kickstarter as a candle in the darkness -- right now it's one of the very
few ways in which "new media" is grappling seriously with the idea of figuring
out how to get consumers pay content producers for content they want, rather
than requiring content producers to figure out how to turn their creative
endeavor into a convenient medium for advertising. The way some people want to
throw it under the bus just because people are actually using it to make money
rather than keeping it "pure" for the starving artist annoys me. I want people
to make money off Kickstarter. I want more and more content to be made because
it's what consumers want, not because it's how advertisers can reach
consumers.

------
austenallred
"If Reading Rainbow is so epically popular, then why was the show cancelled to
begin with? And now that it’s coming back — as a for-profit company, not a
charity — is it really the best vehicle for teaching literacy to “millions of
children”?

So the crux of the argument is that Reading Rainbow is no longer a non-profit.
I really don't care about that.

~~~
Jun8
"If Reading Rainbow is so epically popular, then why was the show cancelled to
begin with?"

This, of course, assumes perfect knowledge and efficiency. I wonder if the
author of this piece would make the same sloppy argument against, say, _Tell
Me More_ , which, NPR announced this month, will be cut
([http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2014/05/20/314256024/npr...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2014/05/20/314256024/npr-to-end-tell-me-more-lay-off-28-people)). Or
consider _Firefly_ , the arch-example of clueless program cutting
([https://www.blastr.com/2013-5-3/netflix-exec-explains-why-
th...](https://www.blastr.com/2013-5-3/netflix-exec-explains-why-theyd-never-
bring-back-firefly)).

I'm not saying this program was good or should be brought back (I never
watched the original and don't know anything about it) but doing a hack piece
on a KS campaign with such scant reasoning is not cool.

~~~
chc
I think Star Trek is an even better example. It was under constant threat of
cancellation (saved only by fans writing in), then finally moved to a death
slot and killed after three seasons. Then it went on to become the second-
biggest science fiction franchise ever.

------
tptacek
Everything else in this article aside, I think the point about "fewer than
half of households with less than $30k income having access to high-speed
internet" is a bad one.

The flip-side of that statistic may well be "close to half of households with
children below the poverty line have high-speed Internet". If that's the case
today, the trendline is probably going to continue in the direction of more
people getting access to high-speed Internet access.

So look at the timeline of a project like this (setting aside whether it's a
good project or not, which is besides my point) and think 5 years out; think
of the number of households we're _already_ talking about with the current
statistic, and how many households it'll be in the future.

~~~
massysett
It may well be more than half considering Pew made an odd decision to exclude
3G and even 4G cell phone networks from its definition of "high-speed
internet."

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/29/how-pew-
rese...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/29/how-pew-research-
calculates-broadband-adoption/)

To be fair this may not have much effect on their results now, as they say
only 10% of their respondents had a smartphone but no home internet; even so,
for many people cell phones give the best value and as wireless networks
improve and get cheaper I bet more people drop expensive cable operators in
favor of wireless--or, alternatively, people who just never saw the need for
wired home internet will say "oh, this Facebook thing is neat, I can keep in
touch with family and do it right here on my phone."

~~~
snowwrestler
The WashPo article takes this into account by attempting to ding Burton for
targeting "desktops first", when lower income families are more likely to
access the web via phone.

But my understanding is the new Reading Rainbow will be a website, meaning it
will work fine on phones if it follows modern web standards.

------
zwieback
I'm not at all convinced that focusing on _how_ to teach kids to read is
ultimately better, which was apparently one of the reasons the show was
cancelled. If you give kids a reason to _want_ to learn to read then maybe the
hows will fall into place.

My kids and I loved Reading Rainbow so I think whatever shape it comes back as
is going to be a plus. If it's only a vehicle for LeVar advocating reading
then that's good enough for me.

------
personlurking
LeVar is currently giving an AMA on Reddit
[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/26sn1c/im_levar_burton...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/26sn1c/im_levar_burton_but_you_dont_have_to_take_my_word/)

------
worklogin
I think some valid points were made. It also saddens me that "love of books"
takes a back seat to "learn to read". What went wrong? Has education quality
decreased? Has parenting quality decreased?

~~~
DanBC
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States)

> he study, the most comprehensive study of literacy ever commissioned by the
> U.S. government, was released in April 2002 and reapplied in 2003 giving
> trend data. It involved lengthy interviews of over 90,700 adults
> statistically balanced for age, gender, ethnicity, education level, and
> location (urban, suburban, or rural) in 12 states across the U.S. and was
> designed to represent the U.S. population as a whole. This government study
> showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate
> information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed
> materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of
> information."

Depends what you call literacy. The US has good rates of literacy (over 95%)
but as can be seen from the study quoted in WP that doesn't seem to mean much
if between 1/5 and 1/4 of the population can't use printed material to extract
information.

------
magicalist
> _In other words, when Reading Rainbow began in 1983, the big question was,
> “how do we get kids interested in reading?” By 2009, that question had
> become, “how do we teach kids to read, period?”_

> _Unfortunately, it’s unclear how the new, digital Reading Rainbow will
> address that disparity — if it chooses to at all._

Maybe it will address that disparity by recognizing that there _is_ a
disparity: those are two different things that both need to be addressed, and
it was ridiculous to focus on one while completely abandoning the other in the
first place (to be fair, PBS funding somewhat forced the issue).

This is Reading Rainbow continuing to go after "fostering a love of books" and
no, not teaching the basics of reading. Why is that an issue?

edit: it also isn't going to be for the desktop, but for the web, something
still much more ubiquitous than tablets, especially in low-income areas.
Explicitly supporting and testing on the mobile web would be a great goal for
them, though, if they don't already plan to do so.

------
fixermark
One point the author makes that I'm hoping the Reading Rainbow team will
address is the need for high-powered devices to consume this content. I don't
think a million dollars is going to cover the subsidy needs to get this
content into the hands of kids that could use it if it has to cover the cost
of iPad-equivalent-performance devices to handle all the audiovisual bells and
whistles that we see in the tablet app (and, to some extent, that made Reading
Rainbow so much fun to watch on TV).

So I have some concern there... But in general, a project betting _against_
devices in the future---even in the hands of at-risk demographics---being more
powerful is a project that is targeting wrong. So the concern may be
overblown.

------
tbrake
Joke is on them; I was already willing to drop $250 on an autographed headshot
of Levar Burton.

------
guppyfinsoup
The problem isn't merely that they're a for-profit entity. It's that they're a
for-profit entity semi-masquerading as a charity. "RRKidz," a company with
multiple large, private investors, is appealing to donors' sense of altruism
to receive $1 million+ in additional revenue. The investors (not donors) are
all expecting a share of the profits in proportion to their investment.

------
jqm
''' ...in 1983, the big question was, “how do we get kids interested in
reading?” By 2009, that question had become, “how do we teach kids to read,
period?” '''

I remember learning to read. I taught myself (mostly) because I wanted to read
books. I went to a tiny rural school with 3 grades in each room. After school
it was an hour or so before my dad could come get me. I sat and looked at
books. When I didn't know a word, a very patient older lady, the teacher,
would tell me what it was while she sat and graded papers (probably cursing my
dad to herself). I learned to read in kindergarten, a full year before the
rest of the class (admittedly this wasn't a high achieving school and was
nearly 40 years ago).

The point is... To teach kids how to read is just like teaching anything else.
Get them interested in it. Or, we can keep trying to club them over the head
with reading. Even though that approach doesn't seem to be working.

------
KwanEsq
>In fact, while the Kickstarter promises to deliver more books to low-income
kids, there are already some hints that it’s not totally up to speed with
those same kids’ digital realities. It’s well-documented fact, for instance,
that low-income households are disproportionately more likely to access the
Internet by cellphone. And yet Reading Rainbow wants to put its app on desktop
computers first — which requires both computer ownership and high-speed
Internet access. (Less than half of households earning less than $30,000 a
year have high-speed broadband, per Pew.)

It looks like the writer of this article may be one of those disadvantaged
illiterates. Or at least a technoilliterate. The kickstarter is about getting
Reading Rainbow on _the web_ , and thus everywhere; desktop, tablet, phones. I
see no mention of any desktop-specific app, or indeed any app except the pre-
existing iPad one.

------
feverray
I actually think that Washington Post has some other interests they are not
mentioning here, in order to write this article against Reading Rainbow.

WP writes say "neither WNED nor PBS wanted to pony up because both believed
that the show was no longer the best way to teach kids reading skills. "

However if you google a little bit these two, you can find that PBS has a
partnership with Washington Post. PBS said in their website: "We’re very
excited to announce this partnership because the Washington Post is an ideal
partner for many reasons." Read:
[http://tinyurl.com/mj48log](http://tinyurl.com/mj48log)

------
spbaar
Just because the focus of publicly funded programs has shifted from
encouraging kids to read more to teaching them how to read does not mean that
RR has become less useful or its' goal less noble, only that the checkwriters
have different priorities.

That the kickstarter was so successful among the kids of yesterday speaks to
its' long lasting influence and positive impact. Even if it's just nostalgia
and a catchy themesong driving the money, they will certainly do some good.

------
implicit_none
Oh noes - my Obduction pledge was driven by nostalgia and fed to a for-profit
company!

------
protomyth
Kickstarter is basically tech's closest thing to a PBS pledge drive. This is
quite a bit less problematic then Sesame Street. I really don't get the
writer's outrage other than he needed to fill column inches.

------
austinstorm
It's a nostalgia tax for my generation.

------
dueprocess
Shouldn't Reading Rainbow be economically viable and self-sustaining? I don't
see what the problem is here.

------
infinitone
In the campaign page, it states that 1 in 4 kids is illiterate in the US. Is
it just me or does that seem untrue? I would of expected it to be something
like 1 in 10 maybe...

~~~
DanBC
It depends how you define illiterate. People need to show what figure they're
using when they claim a particular illiteracy rate.

