Is PBS Still Necessary?

That's the question asked by Charles McGrath in the Arts & Leisure section of Sunday's New York Times ("Is PBS Still Necessary?", Feb. 17, 2008). I read the article on Sunday morning and remember thinking, "That's going to upset some people." But Sunday was my birthday, and I quickly forgot about it.

So I was surprised earlier this evening to hear Jim Lehrer, at the end of The NewsHour broadcast, mention the lively conversation about PBS unfolding in the comments section attached to McGrath's article at the Times Web site. I know. PBS "got" the Web years ago and has done an admirable job of integrating its on- and offline content offerings. But this was Lehrer, the grand old man (sorry, Jim!) of public television news, urging viewers, in his understated way, to check out the user-generated content on the Web site of a rival news outlet. How Web 2.0 of him!

Anyway, as of an hour ago there were more than eight hundred comments in the thread and the pro-PBS side was winning by a landslide. Obviously, McGrath (intentionally, I suspect) hit a nerve. But what are the larger lessons here? What, if anything, does the overwhelming support for PBS expressed by Times readers say about the viability of traditional media in a Web 2.0 world? What's the secret to getting the average Jane or Joe to engage with Web-based content? And how is the role of traditional journalistic gatekeepers like the Times and PBS changing in this brave new media world?

-- Mitch Nauffts