Slashdot Mirror
A Different Kind Of Digital Divide
Logic Bomb writes: "The New York Times has a really interesting article about PBS and its struggle to convert to digital. On one hand, PBS stations need to start broadcasting their low-definition signals using digital transmission just like everyone else, and some stations are struggling with finances. On the other, better-funded big-city stations are already concerned with money for providing interactive content. Even worse, rules for determining what digital broadcast programming cable providers must carry threaten PBS with being essentially forced out of some markets. I don't watch TV much, but PBS falls into a class of things that I consider vital to our nation's citizenry. I hope things work out ok."
Now, I can sympathize with what you're saying, but only in the context of there being TRUE alternatives to corporate owned and controlled TV. "Frontline", in my opinion, puts on more hard edged news stories that any of the networks, or even the cable channels that I've seen; this is an example of PBS providing a type of programming that just isn't provided elsewhere. However, you are right that even they are swayed by the ways of the political winds in their programming, but are still more risky (in my view) than the networks.
"Frontline" was the show that dared to broadcast (soon after the Gulf War) a story that contradicted many of the sacred poodles that the press and politicians had been saying during the war (such as the Isreali Defense Minister saying that Patriot missles were of no use in destroying the warheads of the SCUD missles; or that the CIA essentially coerced Hosni Mubarak to spy on Saddam before the war started, in a supposed "negotiation"; or that Kuwait spent billions on advertising and lobbying in the U.S. before the war, including a highly deceitful propaganda campaign detailing Iraqi "attrocities")
They also recently played a series with interviews of DEA agents who admitted that all their efforts to control supply into the US during the 80's had utterly failed (much their own surprise), and that many now advocated an end to the "drug war", and some form of legalization with treatment regimes, etc.
I never saw anything like this on the networks, CNN, HBO, etc. To me that is riskier TV than anything outside of cable access (and I'm ignoring the issue of whether it is accurate reporting or not; I think it is, others may not. It is still risky)
So, you may want PBS to go belly up; but it would be sad if they did, and there was no loosening of control of the airwaves in other ways. If you think PBS is afraid of corporate sponsors, imagine how all the other channels feel who are paid exclusively by corporate sponsors.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Yes conservatives read slashdot and yes, PBS does have a liberal bias. Although, it is not so bad. In answer to your tax question, why do you think Democrats fund CPB (Corperation for public Broadcasting) and Republicans want to cut it. Personaly I like PBS and although CPB programing does have a slight libral bias I think it's tollerable. Bias in media is not restricted to CPB programming. I think the Rosie O'Donnel show was more libraly biased than anything on PBS ever. NPR is very biased and it bothers me but public television is A OK in my book.
I don't watch TV much, but PBS falls into a class of
l
things that I consider vital to our nation's citizenry. I hope things work out ok
Those who really do feel PBS is "vital to our nation's citizenry," please donate money to PBS by becoming a member:
http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/membership/local.htm
And for those corporations that would like to help:
http://sponsorship.pbs.org/
"And like that