American TV viewers actually watching...PBS???

[Refractive Reflections]

I was reading for the past couple of months how PBS (Public Broadcasting Station) was been having sizable ratings that have been beating broadcast and cable television with their hit show Masterpiece Theater's "Downton Abbey".

What's even more remarkable is that the show became the second highest rated show on Super Bowl Sunday, just after the Super Bowl itself, with around 6.6 million viewers!

See: http://www.citizen-times.com/article...nclick_check=1

I watch PBS far more than other channels. I usually enjoy most of their programming: watching their cooking shows (i.e. Cook's Country), traveling shows (Globe Trekker), their history shows (American Experience), science shows (NOVA), and occasionally their news programs (Frontline).

So I'm kind of in a state of disbelief that the average American viewer is actually starting to watch PBS. When these same Americans viewers are responsible for making American Idol, The Bachelor/Bachelorette, The Voice, Honey Boo-Boo, Kim Kardashian, and the "Real Housewives of..(Pick your City)" popular in television.

Are any of you big time PBS viewers? Are you as surprised by the ratings that PBS is getting? (Mind you Masterpiece Theater may not be "educational TV" compared to their science/history programs, but at least its more cultured then the reality TV programming that seems to have flooded the airwaves.)

[Raph's Girl]

I watch PBS sometimes for the concerts but mostly for the UK shows. My local PBS station airs the original Doctor Who shows in order. I've seen all the eps available thanks to PBS.

[BubblyShell22]

I don't watch PBS, but I'm sure people do it to watch Downton Abbey as that's a successful show.

[Irishmile]

I actually like Downton Abbey..

[Machias Banshee]

I Only watch PBS for Downton Abbey and the Red Green show... it's like hanging out with my brother. And the occasional cooking/gardening show.

[D-Nizzy]

The wife and I dig Downton.

[Refractive Reflections]

Speaking of being a PBS viewer, not only does it's program Globe Trekker go to unique places/activities but it has some charismatic hosts too. Megan McCormick's personality is magnetic, she would be awesome to travel with!

[MrPliggins]

I've helped produce some shows for PBS so that's cool to know. It used to be known as mainly a kids' channel, but they've come a long way since then.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

As a drama, Downton Abbey certainly works. But when I mentioned it on a World War One-themed forum, they weren't impressed with it, history-wise. For instance, servants were typically treated far less kindly.

[Refractive Reflections]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

As a drama, Downton Abbey certainly works. But when I mentioned it on a World War One-themed forum, they weren't impressed with it, history-wise. For instance, servants were typically treated far less kindly.

Oh for sure, the show doesn't depict the intense elitism of that time period, not only for that period but in Britain no less. It's the same way how some movies/TV shows overtly romanticize the past as being "better" or "more glamorous/peaceful", one example is "Gone With The Wind" depicting the antebellum Southern United States. It's a wonderful classic movie and I love it, but if people base actual historical race relations strictly on that movie...oh brother... (Rhett and Scarlett having a "gentle" demeanor toward their slaves or farmers in the master-slave or property owner-sharecropping relationship.)

There was actually a small documentary on PBS, no less, about the transformation of the whole manor house system in Britain during the 20th century that had been established for the past 1000 years or so. It's very interesting if you want to see just how radically the 20th century changed things politically and socially: http://video.pbs.org/video/2188820445
The reason I find the documentary interesting and worth the time is because all of the social and political change forced both the aristocracy and the general public to change their mentality on their importance and power in society. (One of the reasons why I watch PBS more sometimes...)

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Reading Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer book series, though, shows that people did fraternize with slaves-Tom and Huck did so all the time with Jim the slave. But the series doesn't glamorize slavery; in fact in The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn, Jim ultimately runs away from his mistress when she gets angry with him and threatens to sell him down the river (which she is later revealed to be sorry about, and frees Jim in her will). Also, Jim reveals that he has a wife and children who are the slaves of others. So slaves were treated as people-but people without rights.

[Refractive Reflections]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

Reading Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer book series, though, shows that people did fraternize with slaves-Tom and Huck did so all the time with Jim the slave. But the series doesn't glamorize slavery; in fact in The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn, Jim ultimately runs away from his mistress when she gets angry with him and threatens to sell him down the river (which she is later revealed to be sorry about, and frees Jim in her will). Also, Jim reveals that he has a wife and children who are the slaves of others. So slaves were treated as people-but people without rights.

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

So slaves were treated as people-but people without rights.

...Uh....Er... Okay, I'm going to say this tactfully just so I don't misunderstand anything, and I mean no offense or anything, but you do know that slaves were seen as "property" basically right? That slaves were subject to any kind of abuse based on their master's emotional whims?

I really hope you aren't generally insinuating that the American slavery system was simply "slaves were treated as people-but people without rights" and the Jim Crow experience (after Civil War until the 1960s Civil Rights movement) was markedly better because that's ...phew... really belittling the experience. There are a very few notable exceptions of slaves being treated "civilly" (as much as possible within a slavery system), but for the most part slaves were treated as "livestock" and their owners could do anything to them.

I'm not trying to start any type of argument or anything, but I'm just trying to understand your position. If somehow you believe that I am exaggerating the slavery-Jim Crow Experience, then please watch this documentary video about it: http://video.pbs.org/video/2176766758

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Originally Posted by JLS

...Uh....Er... Okay, I'm going to say this tactfully just so I don't misunderstand anything, and I mean no offense or anything, but you do know that slaves were seen as "property" basically right? That slaves were subject to any kind of abuse based on their master's emotional whims?

I really hope you aren't generally insinuating that the American slavery system was simply "slaves were treated as people-but people without rights" and the Jim Crow experience (after Civil War until the 1960s Civil Rights movement) was markedly better because that's ...phew... really belittling the experience. There are a very few notable exceptions of slaves being treated "civilly" (as much as possible within a slavery system), but for the most part slaves were treated as "livestock" and their owners could do anything to them.

I'm not trying to start any type of argument or anything, but I'm just trying to understand your position. If somehow you believe that I am exaggerating the slavery-Jim Crow Experience, then please watch this documentary video about it: http://video.pbs.org/video/2176766758

Let me remind you that Mark Twain was a man who saw slavery from firsthand experience, not from a documentary produced many decades after the fact. Also I did point out how Twain mentioned that slaves could be sold into cruel conditions (what is meant by the term "sold down the river"), and slave families were often broken up. That doesn't mean people didn't fraternize with them; that happened all the time in the Tom Sawyer stories. Try to avoid misinterpreting what I am saying.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

And if you wish to, we can start a thread about Mark Twain and his writings in the literature forum.

[Refractive Reflections]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

Let me remind you that Mark Twain was a man who saw slavery from firsthand experience, not from a documentary produced many decades after the fact. Also I did point out how Twain mentioned that slaves could be sold into cruel conditions (what is meant by the term "sold down the river"), and slave families were often broken up. That doesn't mean people didn't fraternize with them; that happened all the time in the Tom Sawyer stories. Try to avoid misinterpreting what I am saying.

Thank you for clarifying it. I appreciate it.
(The documentary had actual documented testimonies of actual African-Americans who experienced those hardships at that time [1800s]. That's the reason why I put the link up.) But anyways, it's just the line "slaves treated as people-but people without rights" just seemed somewhat off, since they were treated far less than that...but that's all. (It was nothing against Mark Twain per say, but just understanding how some were interpreting his novels.)

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Originally Posted by JLS

Thank you for clarifying it. I appreciate it.
(The documentary had actual documented testimonies of actual African-Americans who experienced those hardships at that time [1800s]. That's the reason why I put the link up.) But anyways, it's just the line "slaves treated as people-but people without rights" just seemed somewhat off, since they were treated far less than that...but that's all. (It was nothing against Mark Twain per say, but just understanding how some were interpreting his novels.)

Well, I'm just saying what I've found for myself; you can believe as you wish. But if you've ever read Uncle Tom's Cabin...if Simon Legree considered slaves to be subhuman, why did Uncle Tom give him such a headache?

[Machias Banshee]

Okay, Downton Abbey Fans... what are your thoughts on tonight's season finale?

The trip to the Highlands was great.. the area was gorgeous, the storylines with the servants were good, the Bates are adorable...

Spoiler:

...but WHY did they have to kill Matthew off?! Right after the baby was born? This completely crushed me - Matthew and Mary were my favorite couple. I was all happy for a nice season ending, and then two minutes left, they Kill him in a car rollover. I know about the whole contract thing, but... Dammit, why so Sudden and brutal and.. final? It's going to be like losing Cybil all over again... another child gone.

I don't know how they're going to handle the next season...

[pannoni1]

I've enjoyed PBS since the days of Seasame Street, Mister Rogers Neighborhood, and so many other great children's shows such as Carmen Sandiego. From NOVA, great classical/pop music concerts, documentaries, along with programs with few commercial breaks. Newshour with Jim Lehner is a good alternative to the Big Three's news shows.