PBS ‘NewsHour’ in financial trouble
Cory Bergman May 18th, 2008
The show is several million dollars short, and it may reflect a larger issue for PBS. Explains Elizabeth Jensen in the NY Times: “Public television’s model — soliciting long-term commitments — is also increasingly out of step with the changing needs of corporations, which no longer sponsor public television programs for purely philanthropic reasons.”
7 Comments Add your own
1. db | May 19th, 2008 at 2:07 am
How sad. The NewsHour is one of the finest news products on TV, in my opinion.
I will typically only watch about 5 minutes of local TV news every day and then turn it off — it’s usually just full of police blotter and sensational “fear” pieces — but I will watch the entire NewsHour. I love the fact that they quickly cover the day’s highlights and then spend the rest of the show digging further into select stories. I come away from the show feeling more smarter, unlike the intelligence-degrading local news programming.
Although I don’t feel like craigslist has an obligation to support news, I think they should seriously consider sponsoring the NewsHour. It would help take some pressure off of craisglist (”hey, we aren’t killing news — we donate to the NewsHour!”) and would help keep a valuable news program on the air.
2. Anonymous | May 19th, 2008 at 2:23 am
I haven’t watched it much in years. I like the ‘old folks’ shows like Welk and Waiting for God” and Doctor Who.
Being in my forties I know that sounds a bit odd but they reflect the earlier public TV I really loved.
3. Michael A. Burris | May 19th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I’m shocked to hear that this show is in financial trouble. But given the current economic climate, PBS takes the hit all over. The News Hour is the finest news and current events show on television in North America. Having recently watched NBC Nightly News and the CBS Evening News this past week, I can say that not only does the News Hour give a balanced and informative analysis of every subject it touches, but it doesn’t pander to emotionalism, which is so characteristic of the main-line media outlets. Perhaps when they have another PBS Fund Raiser, I’ll give a bit more next time. It’s clearly worth it.
4. Safran | May 19th, 2008 at 11:12 am
This proves a sad point. People say they want intelligent news. But when given the option of a show such as this - well, they don’t watch. When given the option of watching sensationalist crap - they watch.
How many times have you heard from people “I only watch PBS?” NewsHour would be the biggest show on TV if those people were telling the truth.
5. Steve | May 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Would you say the Networks and PBS represent extreme ends of the TV news spectrum? NewsHour is indeed good journalism, but it’s rather dry. A bit more glitz might make it palatable to younger viewers.
6. will | May 21st, 2008 at 9:28 am
Please note that this is the same show that made a big deal about its lavish conversion to HD earlier this year. What, so we can see the wrinkles in the anchors’ faces better? This is a news/discussion show, not Desperate Housewives.
7. kent | May 31st, 2008 at 5:05 am
HD TV is mandated by law so it isn’t fair to knock them for that. The news hour is the most intelligent, and fair, news on the air in this country. If we lose it, the next place I’ll be watching our national news would be on BBC.
Our corporate owned news outlets pander to their own interests. I’m glad to contribute more for programming like Jim Lehrer and the fine journalists that work with him.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed