Talk:Public Broadcasting Service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Television Stations This article is part of WikiProject Television Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Television stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Proposal move PBS (disambiguation) to PBS

  • Oppose. See Special:Whatlinkshere/PBS. Gdr 09:31, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Support. PBS is ambiguous enough, particularly between the US and Maltese broadcasters that the disambig at PBS is beneficial. The links to the US broadcaster can be disambiguated. Thryduulf 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. From Wikipedia:Disambiguation if one meaning is clearly predominant, it remains the general title. PBS meaning Public Broadcasting Service is so predominant in the US I think it satisfies clearly predominant in the English speaking world. -- Rick Block 14:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep PBS as a redirect. None of other topics at PBS (disambiguation) are nearly as notable. --rogerd 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] "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)

[edit] "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.
  • Education is not constitutionally under federal juristiction in the US, either. -- SwissCelt 03:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • CBC entities do not in most cases "serve an entire state", whatever that means. CBC programming is to some degree regionalised - Toronto is not Ottawa is not Sudbury. Exceptions would be provinces with under a million population, such as Newfoundland and Labrador or Prince Edward Island. --66.102.74.170 18:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, as far as CBC television programming goes, Toronto is Sudbury; Sudbury has no distinct programming on its CBC television transmitters. It's pure CBLT. Bearcat 00:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Still known by full name??

Wikipedia's naming conventions of acronyms says that abbreviations should be used only if it is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation. Well, how well-known is PBS by its full name Public Broadcasting Service?? Only the first 2 idents in the PBS idents article mention the full name, and it has been more than 20 years since the third came into existence. Is the full name still common enough?? Georgia guy 23:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Masterpiece Theatre

I don't want this in the article, I just wanted to share it:

- - - - - - - - Gail Shister | PBS offers Oprah a 'Masterpiece Theatre' partnershipBy Gail ShisterInquirer ColumnistPASADENA, Calif. - Oprah's Masterpiece Theatre? It could happen. With PBS's crown jewel still sponsor-less since ExxonMobil bailed in December '04, outgoing network president Pat Mitchell pitched Oprah Winfrey a partnership in the franchise in an e-mail Saturday, Mitchell confirms. And if Winfrey kicks in enough green, she could get her name above the title, Mitchell says. PBS guidelines require a commitment of $8 million to $10 million a year for that to happen - tip money for the billionaire talk-show queen. "There's no downside," Mitchell said in an interview at the TV critics' winter meetings. "How can you get a better trademark, a better brand? Look how many books they sell based on her recommendation." Mitchell and Winfrey go back more than 20 years. Though Mitchell and MT executive producer Rebecca Eaton only began brainstorming the idea on Saturday, Mitchell outlined her perfect scenario: Winfrey and Eaton would coproduce some of the books to which Winfrey owns broadcast rights as TV movies or mini-series, to air on PBS under the MT banner. Winfrey's infusion of capital would dramatically strengthen the overall MT brand in the marketplace, enabling an increase in productions. Simple, right? "The fact is, Oprah could just write a check and save public broadcasting," says Mitchell. " 'Here's your budget for the next three years.' I don't think she's going to do that. She has other things on her plate. Masterpiece Theatre is a really good fit." ExxonMobil had been MT's sole corporate underwriter since its 1971 launch. PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have been keeping it afloat, but with far fewer offerings than in the past. MT will do 10 titles this season, including an eight-hour adaptation of Charles Dickens' Bleak House that begins Sunday. "There's no way I'll let Masterpiece Theatre leave our schedule," Mitchell promises. The final decision on the Winfrey plan - if there is one - would be up to Eaton and Boston's WGBH, the producing station, Mitchell says. "It seems like a wonderful combination," says Eaton, e.p. since '85. "I feel her sensibilities and our sensibilities are quite similar." One example: Tolstoy's Anna Karenina was a Winfrey Book Club selection as well as an MT production. To Eaton, Winfrey "is huge. In another culture, she would be an oracle, like the woman in the village everyone came to for guidance." Eaton says she spoke to Winfrey's Harpo Productions two years ago about coproducing a mini-series based on her book picks, "but they said their plate was full. Now might be the right time to go back." Museum-bound. In her new job as chief executive officer of the Museum of Television and Radio, lame-duck PBS chief Pat Mitchell plans to look to the future, not the past. Mitchell, who begins March 15, says one of her top priorities is to make many of the museum's 100,000-plus TV and radio programs available on the Internet (for a fee). (Fun Fact: Mitchell downloads podcasts of ABC's Desperate Housewives and Lost. She watches them on airplanes.) Named in 2000 as PBS's first female president, Mitchell announced almost a year ago that she would leave the public network at the completion of her contract in June '06. The PBS board has allowed her to exit early, she says. The network is expected to name Mitchell's successor within two weeks. Names on the short list are said to include Gary Knell, head of Sesame Workshop; Vivian Schiller, general manager of Discovery Times Channel; and Jerry Wareham, vice chairman of PBS's board. Mitchell plans to use her new position "as a platform to talk about hugely important issues - how media influences the way we think and live, and the decisions we make." She has signed a two-year deal. The nonprofit museum, with locations in New York and Los Angeles, was founded in 1976 by William S. Paley. Mitchell says she's finding it tougher to leave PBS than she expected. After announcing her planned departure, "I pushed it to the back of my head. We were all in denial. Now that we're actually dealing with it, it's hitting home."

[edit] Abortion mention

Is the phrase under criticims of PBS "mandatory abortions would be perhaps even more wrong than banning abortions, for example" needed? While I appreciate that the writer of that quote is trying to be neutral by playing to both sides of the abortion debate, I think there could be a less evocative example of a tax-supported liberty infringement. Because PBS is often criticized as too liberal (as the article notes), seeing a sentence about abortion juxtaposed with "Criticisms of PBS" makes the casual reader think that PBS might have some controversial involvement with the abortion issue. There's no reason to bring up such a divisive example when there are much more tame examples of government funding not representing the viewpoints of all citizens funding the required activity/speech.

[edit] Corporate name

Their website now says at the bottom:

"Copyright 1995-2006 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)". Any view on this?? Georgia guy 23:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPR

People at KCTS have said that PBS does both television and radio broadcasting(NPR). Timothy Clemans 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. An individual station may have a radio and TV Broadcast arm, however, at a national level, PBS is only television and Internet and NPR is strictly radio and Internet. I work for PBS, so that is how I know.MChmiel (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)MChmiel

[edit] "Public Broadcasting as Censorship"

Under the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, several statements in this section are wrong. The Court has pointed out that government funds spent on speech from general tax revenue do not present the same constitutional problems as a fee exacted for the sole purpose of subsidizing speech activities. See, e.g., Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977). Furthermore, with respect to the latter, the statement that "[f]orcing someone to pay for speech they do not agree with is the same violation of their freedom of expression as censoring them" is not entirely accurate. The Supreme Court has held that under the First Amendment, an individual can be forced to subsidize speech with which she disagrees provided that speech is germane to the reasons for which the speaker in question exists. See, e.g., Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977). Nevertheless, given the Court's position to expenditures made from general tax revenues, this doctrine of compelled speech is not implicated by public broadcasting funding. To the extent that the inaccuracies in this section are only communicated as the beliefs of some critics, that should be mentioned so that this section is not misleading as a truthful statement of the law. Alternatively, it should be made clear that these are not legal or even constitutional arguments, but ones under a classical sense of liberty that are not entirely supported in American jurisprudence.

[edit] Statments RE PBS handeling of Islam

Let's be fair, Death of a Princess caused tremendous scandal and uproar when it was broadcast, the program is openly hostile to Islam and makes disturbing (unfortunatly probably true) allegations about women under Islam. (WARNING SPOILER!:: The program concludes that the she was murdered by grandfather)

Well if its true than whats wrong with it? They should have more true things on TV. Islams are often sadistic savages, we've seen that for ourselves havn't we? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.89.104 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Navigation box at the bottom of this article

Given that this network is incumbent, is anyone predicting that this network will discontinue sometime within 10 years?? Please explain if the answer is "yes". Georgia guy 20:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tucker Carlson is a NeoCon, not a Libertarian.

The section on Political and ideological bias mentioned "PBS made room for libertarian commentator Tucker Carlson" Libertarian my ass, he's a right-wing neo-con who is poorly disguised as a "liberal".

Don't believe me? Go read the Wiki article on Tucker Carlson.

I can't believe anyone actually thinks Tucker is a Libertarian. That's like thinking George W. Bush is a member of the Peace Movement or Saddam Husein was a decent human being. Get actual, people.

PBS is also an abbreviation for "Portable Batch System", a queuing system for compute cluster networks.


I added this link to the reference cluster: Back to Bias Basics at PBS by Brent Bozell III, May 2, 2007 Asteriks 09:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The problem with the political/ideological bias section...

The problem with the bias section is that it focuses on uncited, and all too-specific programs that do not make up even a majority of PBS productions. PBS and its affiliate create thousands of hours of content every year, and its absurd to suggest, by picking out one or two programs, the whole tone of PBS. The more generalized bits about the issue of objectivity and its role in public broadcasting should be kept, but individual programs cut out, and reserved for pages dedicated to said programs. What do other people think? SiberioS 19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording seems to be biased against conservatives. If Wikipedia is NPOV, then reword this section. -Yancyfry

I think most of the criticisms offered to support an idealogical bias within PBS might be better suited for the specific shows themselves. Overall I think PBS is pretty balanced, but when you get down to a few specific shows (PBS Frontline is a classic example) that's where the objectivity is lacking. So while I do agree that PBS seems to fit a certain agenda to get more funding from it's viewers, I think it may be better to keep most of the criticism to the specific shows that exhibit bias. FreedomFighterXL (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just some general thoughts

Since the conception of television, it was started as a way to entertain and bring important news to the world. PBS is no different in that respect. PBS has used childrens programs to promote learning of reading, writing, arithmatic, and social skills. In the later years of PBS, it started incorporating more informational programs for the older children, young adults, and on up. True, as one person commented, local PBS stations rely on local support from the community they are providing service to. The local, state, and federal governments have all had their issues with budgets, thus cutting available funds for these services that PBS provides. Individuals do donate to their local stations; either one time annual pledges or monthly pledges. It's all up to the individual and their budget on how this plays out. PBS still strives to give the most in education, whether it be in children's programming to the news of the world, to the arts and dramas during the prime time hours in the evening. It is beneficial to have information available, but PBS does it in a way that enables a person to learn details from a program without all the local ads and breaks as in the other national networks. I know this for a fact, since I am a member of my local PBS station and an employee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.18.43.110 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Question

I understand PBS is composed of member stations, but does it have a headquarters of its own? I think it is centered in Washington D.C., while the CpB is in Arlington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.129.37 (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PBS does have a national headquarters in Arlington, VA. CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting)is headquartered in Washington DC, just across the river.MChmiel (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)MChmiel

[edit] removed stuff

and some are uncomfortable with shows such as Wall $treet Week which they see as promoting a corporate outlook without any corresponding series featuring opposing views from labor unions

I took that out because it was unsourced, and OR. The show also isn't on, anymore. As far as the point, it's been a long time since I watched it, but think unions were covered when they made news. I don't know of any mainstream union-centric news outlet, either, (in contrast to CNBC, Bloomberg, WSJ, etc) and union news is just an aspect of business news, so expecting a devoted show might be unreasonable. I also couldn't find a source making this criticism. 171.71.37.29 00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Doors

The Doors played a few songs in March or April 1969 on a PBS station called WNET. The show they played on was called "Critque". Can someone add this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix X91 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercials

This article is categorized with "Commercial-free television networks," but there are now commercials on PBS. Sure, programs have always ended with "This program was brought to you by," and the names and logos of sponsors, but now those have turned into full sales-pitch advertisements, take for example Budweiser's spots. Should this category tag maybe be removed? At the least, there should be mention of this change in policy in the article. I'd do it, but all I have is my OR. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The local program credit on the broadcast itself is limited to 15 seconds according to http://wpbstv.org/Sponsorship.htm although there are advertisements elsewhere, such as in local programme guides. Not sure if there is a national policy on these. --carlb (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox at the bottom...

Under External Links, that infobox doesn't seem appropriate to the context--"preceded by--succeeded by"--especially when you consider that "succeeded by" links to "incumbent". That's not a good link; it takes you to a description of the POLITICAL meaning of "incumbent", which has nothing to do with PBS. Unless someone can provide a good reason to keep it, I'd like to remove it. Thoughts? Gladys J Cortez 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)