I had a dream that I met @kairyssdal. We were on crowded public transit (a tram?!) so he couldn't get away.
Rather than talk to him about his show, economics or the many things we have in common, I gave him a fediverse elevator pitch. He didn't seem interested, but was at least gracious to listen given he was stuck. I even said fedi is the #PublicMedia of SM (an @ottergoose observation) Oh whale.
"česká veřejnoprávnost selhala s izraelskou genocidou"—"proizraelská zaslepenost se s naší veřejnoprávností táhne dávno"—"Neprofesionalita,malost a lhavost"—"veřejnoprávnost selhala v pokrytí Palestiny"—"jak Český rozhlas,tak česká televize
nanejvýš ideologicky předsudečné"—"české veřejnoprávní informování v rozporu s realitou"—"Když česká veřejnoprávní média
informují o dění v Gaze,kde podle mnoha odborníků i institucí probíhá genocida,utrpení tamních lidí bagatelizují,a podílejí se
tak na jejich dehumanizaci,která jejich masakrování umožňuje"—"Česká televize v tomto podle mého názoru neutrální není a ani se o neutralitu nesnaží"
https://blisty.cz/art/133679-silena-situace-v-ceske-televizi.html
#israel #palestine #genocide #czechtv #pbs #publicmedia #zionism #hasbara #propaganda #bias #statemedia #unprofessional #narrowminded #lies #czech #czechia #czechrepublic #media #tv #radio #ct #ceskatelevize #bagatelization #genocidal
#PBS #NPR - On Thursday, June 4, local public media stations, partners, and advocates are uniting for Protect My Public Media Day, a national moment to protect the future of local, noncommercial service.
This year’s theme, Locally Rooted. Rising Together., reflects the spirit of the day: locally grounded service, collective action, and shared commitment to protecting the future of local public media stations.
Here’s how you can help on June 4:
Take action: Contact your Members of Congress and urge them to restore federal funding for local public media stations.
Share your story: Record a short video message or submit a brief testimonial about what your local public media station means to you, how it has shaped your life or how it strengthens your community.
Spread the word: Post on social media and encourage others to rise in support of their local public media stations. #PublicMedia #PublicBroadcasting
Passport Was the Beta
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — May 12, 2026
Overview
Public television has already tested digital delivery. Quietly, cautiously, and without fanfare, it ran an experiment large enough to answer the most important question: would audiences actually use a public-media streaming service?
The answer was yes.
PBS Passport was never intended to be revolutionary. It was designed as a supplement, a donor benefit, and a proof of concept. In that role, it succeeded. The mistake would be to treat that success as an endpoint rather than evidence.
What Passport proved
Passport demonstrated several facts that were not theoretical.
First, audiences were willing to create accounts and log in specifically for public media content. Second, they were willing to associate access with financial support, even in modest amounts. Third, they used the service repeatedly, not as a novelty but as a reference library.
These are not trivial findings. They counter the long-standing assumption that public television content only works when delivered passively through broadcast schedules.
Passport showed that intentional access exists.
What Passport was never meant to be
At the same time, Passport was intentionally constrained. It was framed as a perk rather than a platform. Discovery tools were limited. Archives were partial. International access was inconsistent or unavailable. The interface prioritized safety over ambition.
These constraints were not technical failures. They were institutional decisions made to avoid political attention, contractual disruption, and mission creep accusations.
Passport was designed to be non-threatening.
The limits of the donor-only model
As a donor benefit, Passport performed well. As a public access system, it remained incomplete. Tying digital access primarily to donations reinforced an internal framing that streaming was ancillary rather than central.
That framing matters. It positions digital delivery as optional, even as audience behavior shifts decisively toward on-demand access. Over time, this mismatch risks marginalizing public media content not because of quality, but because of visibility.
The beta worked. The scope did not.
Signal without escalation
One of Passport’s most important achievements was political. It expanded digital access without provoking significant backlash. This demonstrated that modernization itself is not inherently controversial when framed carefully and rolled out incrementally.
That lesson matters. It suggests that the barrier to further development is not feasibility, but institutional confidence.
The question is no longer whether public television can operate digitally. It already does.
From experiment to strategy
Treating Passport as a completed solution misunderstands its role. It functioned as a controlled test environment, not a final architecture. It answered questions about audience behavior, funding tolerance, and technical viability.
What it did not answer—because it was never allowed to—is how public media performs when digital delivery is treated as primary rather than supplementary.
That distinction defines the next phase.
Establishing the transition
Public television now faces a choice. It can continue to treat Passport as a ceiling, or it can recognize it as a foundation. The difference is strategic posture, not mission.
The essays that follow will examine how the lessons of Passport can inform a broader delivery strategy, one that aligns public media’s digital presence with the scale and value of its archive.
The beta is complete. The data exists. What remains is the decision to act on it.
For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived as part of the ongoing WPS News Monthly Brief Series available through Amazon.
Cliff Potts holds a degree in telecommunications management, a diploma in radio broadcasting, and a PhD in metaphysics. He is the sole author of this series.
References
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (2023). Public media facts and financial overview. CPB.
Lotz, A. D. (2017). Portals: A treatise on internet-distributed television. Michigan Publishing.
Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. Columbia University Press.
#digitalDelivery #mediaInnovation #PBSPassport #publicBroadcasting #publicMedia #streamingStrategy
Why on earth is rnz.co.nz - a website run by 100% publicly-funded RNZ - still quietly serving scripts from third-party domains?
If the software they're running is Free Code they can serve it from their own domain. If it's not, depending on it is a ruinous compromise, in some case with known DataFarms, owned by technofacsists who are cozying up to the antidemocratic regime currently occupying the White House.
(1/2)
Who Delivers Public Knowledge?
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — April 14, 2026
Overview
Once the value of public television’s archive is established, the central question becomes unavoidable: how does that knowledge reach people now? Content alone no longer guarantees access. In a media environment defined by platforms, algorithms, and on-demand consumption, delivery determines whether public knowledge is discoverable or effectively invisible.
Public television’s challenge is no longer production. It is distribution.
The end of default access
For most of the twentieth century, public television benefited from default access. Broadcast signals reached households automatically. Cable bundles ensured placement alongside commercial networks. Viewers did not need to seek out educational content; it arrived on a schedule, in familiar places.
That model no longer governs media consumption. Audiences increasingly expect content to be available when needed, on devices they choose, without regard for broadcast schedules or channel numbers. Access is intentional, not habitual.
In this environment, institutions that rely on legacy delivery systems lose visibility regardless of the quality of their work.
Option one: using other people’s platforms
One delivery option is partnership. Public media content can be distributed through existing platforms operated by commercial or institutional intermediaries. This approach offers immediate reach, reduced infrastructure costs, and technical scalability.
The tradeoff is control. Platforms prioritize their own incentives, not public service goals. Algorithms determine discoverability. Licensing terms dictate availability. Policy changes can alter access without warning.
This model treats distribution as a service purchased rather than an asset owned. It reduces operational burden, but it also externalizes risk.
Option two: federated public delivery
A second approach builds on the existing structure of public media. Local stations retain ownership and branding while sharing common digital infrastructure. Content remains decentralized, but delivery systems are standardized.
This model aligns with public broadcasting’s historical governance. It minimizes political visibility and distributes risk across multiple institutions. It also allows gradual experimentation without a single, high-profile launch.
Its limitation is coherence. From the audience perspective, federated systems can feel fragmented. Discovery depends on navigation rather than invitation. The value proposition is real, but not always obvious.
Option three: a dedicated public streaming platform
The most direct option is ownership of delivery: a unified public media streaming service. This approach treats distribution as a core institutional function rather than a secondary concern.
A dedicated platform offers clarity. Audiences understand where to go. Archives become searchable rather than buried. Public media establishes a direct relationship with viewers rather than relying on intermediaries.
The risks are equally clear. Upfront costs are higher. Political scrutiny increases. Governance and licensing complexities must be resolved. This model requires deliberate staging and careful framing.
It is also the option that most closely aligns delivery with mission.
Control, access, and resilience
These options are not mutually exclusive. Public media already employs elements of each. The strategic question is not which path exists, but which path dominates.
Control over delivery affects more than convenience. It determines how resilient an institution is under pressure. Systems dependent on external platforms can be influenced indirectly through policy, funding, or algorithmic change. Systems that own their delivery have greater insulation from those forces.
In the current environment, delivery is no longer a technical detail. It is an institutional choice with long-term consequences.
Establishing the decision space
This essay does not prescribe a single solution. It defines the decision space.
Public television possesses content of enduring value. The remaining question is whether it will continue to treat delivery as a legacy function shaped by past constraints, or as a strategic priority shaped by present realities.
The essays that follow will examine how these delivery options can be evaluated, combined, and staged over time. The issue is not whether public knowledge deserves access. The issue is who controls that access, and under what terms.
For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
This essay will be archived as part of the ongoing WPS News Monthly Brief Series available through Amazon.
Cliff Potts holds a degree in telecommunications management, a diploma in radio broadcasting, and a PhD in metaphysics. He is the sole author of this series.
References
Aufderheide, P. (1999). Communications policy and the public interest: The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Guilford Press.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (2023). Public media facts and financial overview. CPB.
Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. Columbia University Press.
Starr, P. (2004). The creation of the media: Political origins of modern communications. Basic Books.
#digitalAccess #institutionalResilience #mediaDistribution #publicBroadcastingStrategy #publicMedia #streamingPlatforms
JL Johnson 
Karel 'Clock' K.
Charlie McHenry
Columbus - Feeds
WPS News
Strypey
William
Home ━ The European Conservative [Unofficial]