Jump to content

Talk:PBS/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:PBS

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 10:42, 2 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2

Comment

I cant believe how biased this article is. PBS produces the most thoughtful and smart news programming on TV. Other programming is both informative and entertaining. PLUS: No commercials. What the hell is going on in WIKI? We are usually smart about this type of things. The editors should be banned. RAF

I think there should be clarification of the role of viewer payments in the Funding section. I get the impression that the channels are available for free on terrestrial television, that there are no subscriptions, and all viewer payments are completely voluntary. Is this correct? Do lots of people actually donate? Do people make monthly donations or just one-off donations? Are donations tax deductible? Wincoote 15:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That sounds about right. I'm also pretty sure that donations don't have to have a pattern to them. As for being tax deductible, I'm not sure. I've never donated, though I've thought about donating to WSIU, since I sometimes listen to its NPR/PRI programming. In case it matters, here's a link to WSIU's donation page as an example. --/vs/ /tk/ /kntbju()nz/ 06:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Viewer support is tax deductible. I support my local station and know this for fact. Support can be made monthly or annually based upon what one's budget will permit. Ka4tll 19:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It's obvious that the neo-conservative right iS attempting to use Wikipedia to further it's continuing war on Public Broadcasting of any kind. Any criticisms--of any kind--against user-supported or donation-supported entities on Wikipedia have to be the height of hypocrisy. Let's think for a moment. . . . just how does Wikipedia support itself? Hmmm . . . try looking over to the left on any page. Hint Hint. And it's the height of arrogance to suggest that any Public Broadcasting medium today is biased in any way, in the face of the corporate control of every single other broadcasting medium in the hands of what now, five major corporations issued talking points by their board of directors every week? It was just a matter of time before they found a way to 'swift boat' public broadcasting. 'Some say' "Fox and CNN and MSNBC and the three major networks are ten times more slanted and conservatively biased--through corporate coercion". Then again, 'some say', "the obscene part is that Wikipedia apparently condones it". Dnyhagen 08:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a link to nationalism at the bottom of the page? I think it should be removed.

Does anybody think its weird that theres no educational childrens shows on pbs? They're all about how children should behave and socialize and expand their imaginations, none are actually about learning real facts, ect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.89.104 (talk • contribs) .

All the Children's programs on PBS are educational. Socialization is part of education, learning how to interact with others and learning about how you feel and how to behave politely are all educational and part of functioning in our society. Not much can be said for other services who's shows are mostly entertainment and have absolutely no artistic or educational value what so ever. Please actually inform yourself before making sweeping judgments like that.

--Cerrasponda 15:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is completely biased and was written by someone who doesn't understand what PBS stands for, and has stood for. It should be removed and replaced with something less biased, and more fact based.

Sesame Street-language arts, Cyberchase-mathematics, Postcards from Buster-geography/social studies,...Digit LeBoid 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Not entirely tax deductible. It's available on Canadian cable systems, & we don't get the break from Uncle Sam. ;D We're free (in fact encouraged) to donate, tho. Purely voluntary. And it beats the hell out of CBC (except on hockey coverage). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 07:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesed move

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
If you cast a Support vote there is no need to Oppose the other Proposals.

Proposal: move Public Broadcasting Service to PBS

Public Broadcasting Service → PBS because I feel sure this is the way the network has been known as by most Americans within the past 20 years. Georgia guy 22:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal move PBS (disambiguation) to PBS

Discussion

Add any additional comments

There are a lot of links to PBS, all expecting the US broadcaster. Certainly the links can be changed, but their number suggests that people are going to keep writing PBS for the US broadcaster even if we move this page. When we start getting lots of articles about Maltese TV programmes, that would be the time to think about moving this page. Gdr 14:39, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

I agree with Gdr. While technically PBS (disambiguation) should be at PBS, in this case it makes more sense to leave things as is. Disamb'ing every PBS link to Public Broadcasting Service would be a major, and on-going, headache. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMPORTANT COMMENT

Dear Wikipedians: Please note, that a similar question arose for NBC, and there, it was suggested that it be moved to National Broadcasting Company. IN EACH CASE, THE SAME JUSTIFICATION WAS GIVEN FOR COMPLETELY OPPOSITE DECISION. Namely, with PBS, because "Public Broadcasting Service" is "clearly predominant", that most people "know what it stands for", this is used as justification that it STAY at Public Broadcasting Service, and that PBS redirect to here. Yet, at the discussion at NBC, the article title "NBC" is kept because "about 99,999 people out of 100,000 will be looking for the National Broadcasting Company, not the Newfoundland Barbering Commission or the National Bowling Congress.", and "it will be the name most people are likely looking for". I believe this is evidence that of one of 2 things:

  • The redirect and renaming policies are unclear or confusing.
  • The policies are clear, but people ignore them and just invoke them to support whatever they think is best.

Which is it? Revolver 21:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

A third thing it could be, according to Bkonrad is that while for NBC, the full name National Broadcasting Company is no longer official, the full name Public Broadcasting Service still is. Georgia guy 23:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Another comment

Currently (as of when I am typing this) there is a proposed move from United States to United States of America. Some Wikipedians say that the article should not be moved because the United States is more well-known as such than as the United States of America, even if the latter is official. Is this network more well-known as Public Broadcasting Service or as PBS?? Georgia guy 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 16:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Logos question

The logos in this article say the second logo was used from 1971-1984 and the third from 1984-1989. However, according to how I remember television from when I was a little kid, I remember seeing both the second and third logos, though the third much more common, and I was born during the period this article claims is for the third logo. Any opinions on what this means?? Georgia guy 23:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recall seeing the second logo used on television concurrently with the third as well. Presumably, the second logo continued to be affixed to all prints of 1971-1984 programs rerun on PBS stations after the third logo was introduced in 1984 and until the fourth logo (according to the article) "was affixed on all new feeds of PBS shows in October 1989." Andrew_T. 03:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Use of term "logo"

This term is often used in this article to describe an "ident", that is a short internal advertisment promoting a channel (or programming block on a channel). A logo is just the pictogram used to represent the station. The PBS logo has undergone few changes, but many more idents have been produced.

The logos

I would suggest trying to find public domain versions of the logos. I say that because this many images REALLY pushes "fair use". --Woohookitty 08:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Is Woohookitty's comment above related in any way to the recent edits I made yesterday regarding logo info?? Georgia guy 20:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

i hate pbs kids

pbs what a good waste of tv,i mean the only time anybody ever watchs it is when they have a little kid or baby in the family,thats just how bad it is,i mean there no where near nick and cartoon network fame there are about 10000000000 shows there are better than pbs kids shows,parents always say that shows on cartoon network are bad for your kids,thats because they dont want there kids to see the truth behind the media world.if it wasnt for shows like dragonballz,danneyphathom,and chalkzone kids today whould be mindless.i mean a cartoon needs action you cant have a hamburgar without meat and you cant have a cartoon without action.its just a fact.and as far as the reading and writeing goes you can learn all that stuff in a classroom i mean what do you think schools for.take this messge to heart for i give you that truth.Guyi 12:04 jun 28 2005

I don't watch PBS (I'm more of an NPR or PRI guy), but I'm hoping this is sarcasm. Seriously, if you aren't being sarcastic, use a blog instead of Wikipedia.--/vs/ /tk/

/kntbju()nz/ 23:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Legends of the Hidden Temple is the best show in the world.

Does anybody think its weird that theres no educational childrens shows on pbs? They're all about how children should behave and socialize and expand their imaginations, none are actually about learning real facts, ect. Its better to be intelligent than to have an overactive imagination. And they're trying to take kids' personalities and home-taught values away by telling them to get along with each other no matter what! And to add to that, some stupid kid shows' even try to get their viewers into other religions! I kind of, KIND OF like Arthur though, but im not sure about it yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.89.104 (talk • contribs) .

To some extent, children need to learn good from evil in a cartoon. However, if they don't have the ability to do basic reading, math, being able to get along with others, what good is it then. I am all for PBS and the children's programs they offer. As to educational, programs such as Sesame Street, Cyberchase, Arthur, teach things along the mathematics. Reading Rainbow, Between the Lions, teach fundamentals of reading. Maya & Magil, Arthur, Barney, teach social skills, such as working together. You can only learn so much in a classroom now days with the current over crowding that is in some districts, but these basic elements continue daily throughout life. Not only that, but you also have both teachers and instructors. Teachers actually teach. They take their time with each child to the fullest of their abilities. Instructors, on the other hand, just give the information with no explanation to it. They expect you to find the reasoning on your own. Ka4tll 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Children's programming on PBS is often written by professional educators recognized for their expertise in certain content areas. The Department of Education funds a good deal of children's shows and the programs are held to the same standards as classroom teachers. They need to show growth in children's learning. The fact that they have done so reliably time and time again is evidenced by the long-life of much of the programming. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but "C" is for "Cookie" a fact and has nothing to do with imagination. The part about converting people's religions is very cute and funny. I'm certain you were joking about that, and you have succeeded. MChmiel (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)MChmiel

"How PBS Might Survive" -- propose deleting this section

Unless these speculative strategies have some substantial source other than the editor(s) who contributed them, this entire section should be removed.--Adoorajar 29 June 2005 04:00 (UTC)

I completely agree; it looks like original research. --Misterwindupbird 1 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

"Organizational structure" section

Organizational structure
Unlike the CBC-SRC state broadcaster in Canada, it is uncommon to find a single PBS broadcasting entitity serving an entire state. This is partly due to the origins of the PBS stations themselves, and partly due to historical license issues.
This organizational structure is outmoded in the modern broadcast marketplace. One PBS network per state would probably be the most optimal arrangement. This could be done by a legal restructuring of the PBS network in each state, and not violate the original mandates of the PBS member stations.

A few "beefs" with this section:

  • "This organizational structure is outmoded in the modern broadcast marketplace" is a statement of opinion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
  • PBS stations have to function as part of their local (or regional) communities, as they depend on the local community for funding and assistance. This would still be true even if the WNET licence said "New York" like WPBS, WLIW, WCFE and the others, instead of listing "Newark, New Jersey". AFAIK, Newark is listed for WNET only because the sole possible way to grab the last of the VHF spectrum was to buy an existing independent station, and evidently NY stations WCBS, WNBC and WABC just didn't happen to be for sale that day.
  • A one-station-per-state approach fails to take into account the large variation in size between US states. One can cover Delaware with just one station, sure, whyy not... but New York or California? I doubt everyone from Buffalo to Manhattan wants their local station replaced with an identical copy of whatever's on WPBS as the communities served differ widely.
  • However, there are PBS members which do serve an entire state, even a somewhat large state, through a statewide network of translator stations. Georgia Public Broadcasting is the example that comes first to my mind. (Oh, and kudos on the pun from the call letters of Wilmington's PBS station!) -- SwissCelt 03:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to add to SwissCelt's comment above, Like GPB, North Dakota's Prairie Public Television (PPTV) as well is another example of a state-wide PBS network, also having several "satellite" stations all across the state simultaneously broadcasting PPTV's main feed originating out of their headquarters (via terrestial digital microwave relay) in Fargo, North Dakota. misternuvistor 04:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • CBC-TV does *not* have the same mandate as PBS. While publically-owned, it operates much like a regular commercial station. It is not an education channel. TVOntario/TFO, BCtv, Télé-Québec and the like are education channels. Unlike the US, education is not constitutionally under federal jurisdiction in Canada but is provincial for historical and linguistic reasons.

Concerning the statement that PBS is "outmoded."

I agree.

Just look at what kind of quality TV PBS produces. And compare that with the quality of those kind of shows nowadays--I would have to agree that they are somewhat "lacking."

How is the article leaning toward one opinion--be it positive or negative? Nowhere in the article does it state that PBS isn't or is bad or good--it is just stating the results of research.

--JFB

PS ...And what IF research leads us to conclude that something is either positive or negative? What then?

No amount of research makes a matter of opinion objective. -Alex

Well...Hitler is either bad or good--if you do research, you will discover that Hitler was a pretty wicked man. (I'm going to see if the article on Hitler is NPOV. I doubt it though...)

You are right in the fact that no matter what evidence you give folks, they CHOOSE to not believe it...and therefore, it won't be objective to them because of this decision to NOT be objective. --JJ

Hitler invented highways, you fail. Countchoc

PBS In The Early 90's.

I propose we delete this from the external links, as it appears to be nothing more than a Yahoo Group reminicing about old PBS shows. Deathawk 20:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the following:

* The frequent airing of Joseph Campbell, both in lecture and interview form angers many on the right and the left. He is seen by many as a promoter of New Age propaganda and PBS is criticized as giving his "new age nonsense" a mouthpiece and platform upon which his views are spread to millions of people.

Clearly POV. Jersey Devil 08:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PBS/Archive_1&oldid=1074822195"