
Save PBS. It makes us safer - ckozlowski
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/opinion/stanley-mcchrystal-save-pbs-it-makes-us-safer.html
======
gavinpc
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.

~~~
theparanoid
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.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
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

------
js2
Fred Rogers testifying before congress in 1969 about why PBS should be funded:

[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetes...](http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetestimonypbs.htm)

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

~~~
vachi
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.

------
tptacek
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.

~~~
yostrovs
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.

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

------
gingerbread-man
Outline of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's FY2014 budget:
[http://www.cpb.org/files/aboutcpb/financials/budget/FY2014-O...](http://www.cpb.org/files/aboutcpb/financials/budget/FY2014-Operating-
Budget.pdf)

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.

~~~
gingerbread-man
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.

~~~
maxlybbert
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.

------
jazzyk
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.

~~~
tofupup
"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/](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/opioid-abuse/) (1 stories) \-
[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/opioids/](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/opioids/)
(7 stories) \- [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/deaths-despair-cutting-
life-s...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/deaths-despair-cutting-life-short-
white-americans/)

West Virginia \- [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/another-west-virginia-
to...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/another-west-virginia-town-sues-
drug-wholesalers/) \- [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/west-virginia-school-
caring-s...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/west-virginia-school-caring-
students-addicted-parents-cant/) \-
[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/early-results-of-w-va-
to...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/early-results-of-w-va-towns-needle-
exchange-program-shows-progress/) \- [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sobering-
stories-drug-addicti...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sobering-stories-drug-
addiction-west-virginia-237/) \- [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/rural-west-
virginia-schools-h...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/rural-west-virginia-
schools-help-grandparents-parenting-second-time/) \-
[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/schools-rural-west-
virginia-a...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/schools-rural-west-virginia-aim-
improve-students-prospects/)

[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.

~~~
jazzyk
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.

~~~
tofupup
"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/](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/montanas-pain-refugees-
leave-state-get-prescribed-opioids/) \-
[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/opioids-as-a-first-
respo...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/opioids-as-a-first-response-to-
pain-hospitals-are-rethinking-that-policy/) \-
[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/painkillers-
controversy-...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/painkillers-controversy-
doctors/)

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...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/deaths-despair-cutting-life-short-
white-americans/)

"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-...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/feeling-falling-behind-fuels-deadly-
distress-white-americans/)

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.

------
barsonme
For more background on the author:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal)

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

------
justaman
Keep PBS on the air. Consider donating today.

[http://www.pbs.org/donate/](http://www.pbs.org/donate/)

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

------
ahallock
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.

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

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Can't be stated any better than that.

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

~~~
richardjs
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](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".

~~~
jklinger410
They are commercials.

~~~
sushisource
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".

~~~
massysett
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.

~~~
tasty_freeze
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.

------
tofupup
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_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita)

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

~~~
knz
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.

~~~
jhbadger
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.

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

------
matthewmcg
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.

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

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

------
clarkmoody
_> 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?

~~~
JakeAl
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.

