Your Feedback

I listened and watched the interview with Public Media CEO. It was rational, reasoned, calm, boring, I could have gone to sleep and none of it struck. Nothing was memorable. If you want to save your funding you definitely need to take note of Governor Pritzker's speech in New Hampshire. Make some noise, have some PASSION! Get Loud!

Try telling the truth

Hey. Today was a hateful day focused on CPB and PBS. I just want to add my voice to thank you for your hard work especially in these times. Thank you! No funding fight will defeat your work or your viewer.

I object to the use of my tax dollars to fund PBS, because of its liberal and partisan bias. Why do most of the shows make only occasional token efforts to talk to true conservatives? What can be done to make it more fair and balanced? Why are there no documentaries and reports about how democracies are vulnerable to drifting toward socialism, histories of failures of socialism, about how so many socialistic countries depend on defense alliances and military equipment from more capitalistic countries, the damaging effects of high taxes, high national debt, excessive regulations, excessive labor power, artificially high wages, big government, etc. on economic growth, jobs, global competitiveness, etc.? PBS cares about social, economic and environmental justice but not about the damaging effects of their socialistic results on the economic, military, industrial and technological power needed for national security and to defend and promote Western values in the world (liberty, true democracy, human rights, rule of just law and individualism). Why have there been no fair and balanced documentaries about the national debt crisis and how to best fix it? Why does PBS not care about keeping America strong and competitive enough to continue to defend and promote Western values?

[Query to Grok AI] To determine which U.S. broadcast or streaming service best fulfills the original intent of the FCC charter regarding television as a public utility, we first need to consider the foundational principles laid out in the Communications Act of 1934, which established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This act, particularly in Section 1, aimed to regulate communications "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." For broadcasting, this translated into a mandate for licensees to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity," a phrase that has guided FCC policy ever since. Television, as a broadcast medium, was envisioned as a public utility not in the sense of a government-owned entity but as a resource that should provide widespread access to information, education, and entertainment while promoting diversity of viewpoints and local community needs. The FCC’s early vision for television emphasized accessibility, public service programming (e.g., news, educational content, and emergency information), and a balance between commercial viability and societal benefit. Over time, this evolved with technological shifts, including the transition to digital broadcasting and the rise of streaming services, but the core expectation remained: television should serve the public good, not merely private interests. Now, let’s evaluate some prominent U.S. broadcast and streaming services against this charter: 1. **Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)** PBS, a noncommercial, publicly funded network, aligns closely with the FCC’s original intent. It prioritizes educational programming (e.g., *Sesame Street*, *NOVA*), local content through its member stations, and access to cultural and informational resources for all Americans, regardless of income. PBS operates under a mission to "inform, inspire, and educate," funded partly by government grants via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and viewer donations, ensuring it remains free over-the-air and widely accessible. Its focus on children’s programming, documentaries, and public affairs directly reflects the FCC’s emphasis on serving the public interest. However, PBS’s reach is limited compared to commercial giants, and it relies on broadcast infrastructure rather than competing in the streaming-first landscape. 2. **National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), or American Broadcasting Company (ABC)** These traditional broadcast networks were shaped by the FCC’s regulatory framework, including requirements for public service programming (e.g., news and emergency broadcasts). They offer free over-the-air access, fulfilling the accessibility aspect of the charter, and their local affiliates address community-specific needs to some extent. However, their commercial focus—driven by advertising revenue—often prioritizes entertainment over education or diverse viewpoints, diluting their public utility role. Streaming extensions like NBC’s Peacock add flexibility but introduce paywalls, straying from universal access. 3. **Netflix** As a leading streaming service, Netflix excels in delivering entertainment to a broad audience with original content and global reach. Its on-demand model enhances convenience, arguably a modern interpretation of "efficient" service. However, Netflix is a subscription-based, for-profit entity with no obligation to serve the public interest beyond customer satisfaction. It lacks the local focus, emergency broadcast capability, or free access that the FCC charter envisioned, making it a poor fit as a public utility despite its cultural impact. 4. **YouTube** YouTube, owned by Google, offers a hybrid model: free access to a vast array of user-generated and professional content, including educational videos, news, and local perspectives. Its accessibility (no subscription required for most content) and diversity of voices align with the FCC’s goals of widespread service and viewpoint diversity. However, its ad-driven model and algorithm-driven content prioritization often favor sensationalism over public service, and it lacks the structured public interest obligations of broadcasters. Premium tiers and uneven quality control further complicate its fit. ### Best Fit: PBS Among these options, **PBS** most closely fulfills the original FCC charter for television as a public utility. Its commitment to free, over-the-air access ensures it serves "all the people of the United States," while its emphasis on education, local programming, and noncommercial content mirrors the public interest standard. Unlike commercial broadcasters or streaming services, PBS isn’t beholden to profit motives that could conflict with public service goals. Its digital presence (e.g., PBS.org and apps) extends its reach without abandoning its core mission, adapting the 1934 vision to modern technology. That said, PBS isn’t perfect. Its funding model is precarious, and its audience share is smaller than commercial competitors, potentially limiting its impact. Streaming services like Netflix or YouTube might better reflect modern viewing habits, but they lack the public trusteeship ethos baked into the FCC’s charter. If we stretch the definition of "public utility" to include universal access and societal benefit in a 2025 context, PBS remains the strongest contender for upholding the spirit of the Communications Act as it applies to television.

At a time when funding and budgets are being evaluated, I would like to advocate for NPR funding. NPR has the ability to bring the world to Americans and inspire us to see the world and make a difference in our world, country, and community. In 2001 I was listening to NPR in rural Burlington, Illinois and heard a story about tigers in the Sundarbans. I already volunteered in my community but this story inspired me to ask the question, "what can I do to see and make a difference in my world?" This led me to the "Toughest job I'll ever love" and I became a Peace Corps Volunteer (Kenya 2002-04). NPR is important to our Nation and our world. My experiences continue to shape me and inspire me to make a difference in my American community and World community.

Shame

I'm not racist at all but to see unhappy people on the 'Finding Your Roots ' show is obvious? Does the genetics help make anyone feel better?

You say "Public Media Shines a Light on Neighbors Helping Neighbors..." 'media' is the plural of 'medium'... so the correct grammar would be "Public Media Shine a Light on Neighbors Helping Neighbors..." It is more than a nitpick... 'media is' (a nonsense phrase) implies it's all one medium... whereas 'media are' correctly implies the media ARE made up of various agencies... JTC