Well, well, well. Liberals are crying foul because conservatives are trying to bring balance to the government-funded entity known as the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which promotes PBS programming, is doing his job: trying to bring fairness and objectivity to the left-leaning, taxpayer-supported network.
The writers of this New York Times (reg. req.) story don’t seem too keen on Tomlinson (”Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases”), and they portray him as some kind of radical figure when he’s actually expressing the sort of view PBS claims to want to protect. What they choose to include and exclude from the story is revealing. For instance, the article begins with an ominous tone, informing us that Tomlinson, “Without the knowledge of his board…contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests’ political leanings on one program, ‘Now With Bill Moyers.’”
It doesn’t sound to me like he did anything illegal or unethical. Then again, unlike PBS and the NYT, I admit my bias. I’m with Tomlinson all the way on this. The left-leaning network, or whatever it’s called, needs to make a dramatic move to the center, and “center” shouldn’t be defined by the same liberals who’ve been running the place for years. Or having tantrums
The writers also make sure we know that Tomlinson “encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast ‘The Journal Editorial Report,’ whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.”
The horror!
Pseudo-intellectuals and “progressives” weaned on the NYT and National Public Radio (another left-leaning, government-sponsored entity) must be aghast. I’m sure it’s quite traumatizing to know that the voice of a conservative from a right-leaning newspaper is broadcast from the sacred halls of public television. That conservatives are also members of the public whose taxes support PBS is lost on them.
This is a telling section:
Mr. Tomlinson’s tenure has brought criticism that his chairmanship has been the most polarizing in a generation. Christy Carpenter, a Democratic appointee to the board from 1998 to 2002, said partisanship was “essentially nonexistent” in her first years. But once Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor in chief of Reader’s Digest, joined in September 2000 and President Bush’s election changed the board’s political composition, the tenor changed, she said.“There was an increasingly and disturbingly aggressive desire to be more involved and to push programming in a more conservative direction,” said Ms. Carpenter, who is now a vice president of the Museum of Television and Radio. One of the more disturbing developments, she added, was a “very vehement dislike for Bill Moyers.”
Anyone of average intelligence can read between these lines. Tomlinson is the first conservative in years to stand up to PBS cronies and challenge the network to produce balanced programming, and the exalted ones are naturally ticked off. His efforts are bound to cause division. Nothing new under the sun, people.
You see, liberal types in media and public television really believe they’re moderates and conservatives are extremists. Upsetting the big, fat, tax-funded apple cart has sent them rolling, and they’re resistant to even consider that Tomlinson may have a point.
[Note: I deleted some rather strong language in the previous paragraph about "perversion and deviancy." I'm not one to back down unless I'm wrong, but I don't want to go over the top trying to make my point, either. PBS does broadcast a few quality shows. "Anne of Green Gables" is one of my all-time favorites, so I need to keep that in mind as I criticize the network.]
I had my own encounter with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting last year. I interviewed for some position in history programming, I think. I suspect I was there for purposes of “diversity,” because I certainly wasn’t qualified. Knowing I probably wouldn’t get the job, I decided to speak frankly about PBS. I said something about “diversity of ideology and not just diversity of skin color,” and “obligation to balance programming,” etc.
The interviewers never bothered to challenge my implication that PBS leaned left. I blogged about it in The PBS Incident.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 78 comments }
Interesting….If we conservatives were to do this, there would be all sorts of “Right wingers throw tantrums!” on the air…..Nice to know that someone speaks out…Both at PBS and here on a GOOD Blog!
Dan
That PBS/NPR can’t acknowledge the plain fact of their bias is perhaps the most telling proof of how we need to dismantle state-financed media in this country, and the sooner the better.
How much does PBS and NPR get from the govt? And don’t they have tucker carlson on?
I never go to NPR for news coverage. However, they do have the best music stations in the country.
At least there’s one place someone with a taste for different music can get away from the corporate-payola loving top 40 radio stations that dominate the market, including both Clear Channel and Infinity.
But, of course NPR and PBS are left-leaning. It would be hard for me to deny that. When I do listen to NPR news I find myself playing the semantics game, wondering how some of the reporters and producers come up with their particular brand of grammar “usage.”
I haven’t seen their budgets, and yes, Tucker Carlson is on, which wouldn’t be unusual if PBS were balanced. Another conservative type is on PBS, too.
The McCloughlin Group is on PBS–annoying show. I like having the option of watching PBS–their documentaries are good and so are some of their other shows.
How is Sesame Street mainstreaming perversion?
The lesbian thing mentioned in the article and an HIV character, which appears only in the international version, at least it did last time I checked.
You know what? Why single out Sesame Street? Include the whole network in the comment. In fact, I’ll just make the edit.
What’s especially amusing about this is that some liberals who are against Tomlinson turn around and argue for the revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” that ended in 1987. They can’t beat talk radio in the marketplace, so they’re trying to regulate it out of existence.
Actus, don’t you blog anymore, or do you just hang out here? – Admin
It’ funny, but there really is *no need* for PBS — there is no lack of outlets for news and information now.
It’s a sinecure for people who hold a certain view. But it’s not needed and it’s entirely a waste of money.
“It’ funny, but there really is *no need* for PBS — there is no lack of outlets for news and information now. ”
Where will Ken Burns go?
So I guess you don’t want to answer the question? OK – Admin
Maybe I don’t look so hard at PBS as the rest of you guys do..PBS has outstanding nature and travel programming as well programming like Frontline and Nova. Perhaps you are referring to the news programming, but I don’t really watch PBS for that. I consider Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley more interview shows than news programming.
I guess I don’t see the ‘raging’ battle that is supposed to be ensuing. I don’t mind PBS being more balanced, I guess. I just don’t watch for those reasons.
I have no problem with your blog link, Actus. I asked a question that you haven’t answered. As you can tell, I don’t like being ignored. And a valid e-mail address will be helpful. It won’t be displayed. – Admin
For Tiffany:
Ditto that I also don’t watch PBS for news – there are too many other sources.
But they do offer some special programs no other outlets do.
Their Sat Night Britcoms are the best, as are their British “Mystery” series.
And after Bill )’Reilly’s shameful raising the “racism” issue for the handcuffed child, I will be watching less of O’Reilly and more of PBS.
What I mind the most about PBS are those beg-a-thons featuring infommercials by Dr. Perricone, Suze Orman, Duane Dryer, and a number of other people who market their wares at the cable shopping channels when PBS isn’t begging for money. On that alone, it’s time to close the PBS shop.
“partisanship was “essentially nonexistent†in her first years”
Which is to say, the Conservatives, if any, let the Liberals run things with nary a discouraging word.
In my state PBS or NPR (I forget which) gave the Democrats their mailing list to use for fundraising.
Great post, La Shawn.
The libs view PBS as their sacred cow, much like civil rights, women’s rights, diversity in the workplace, etc. Any encroaching upon their territory by anyone considered conservative leads to a toatal lambasting as a neo-conservative Christian extremist.
Reminds me of why I feel so wonderful to fit so neatly into a political box.
Hi, I’m generic conservative guy!!!
I think PBS is pretty balanced. They attack the people in power, regardless who it is.
Where will Ken Burns go? I am sure History, Discovery or TLC would love to have him.
But they may want him to follow a more productive schedule.
The only thing I see PBS having over cable is that it is free. And there are people in America that cannot afford cable.
But then again, here in Philly the politicians (including Time’s worst mayor in America) are bragging that the new projeects all have cableTV, central air and ‘all the ammenities’… so maybe that’s not going to be the case for so long.
La Shawn:
A liberal, it has been said, is someone who will defend to the death your right to agree with them. Thus the NY Times is about to burst a journalistic blood vessel at the mere thought of those conservatives expressing an opinion now and then on PBS. To them, it is a clear case of the right-wing infidels defiling the Holy (Broadcast) Lands.
Maybe it’s my ignorance of PBS, but from what I do see, most of it is not political.
Of the shows on NPR that I listen to, it’s a good mix. But those shows are local shows.
“Actus, don’t you blog anymore, or do you just hang out here? – Admin ”
I don’t blog anymore and I don’t just hang out here.
Now lets discuss whether it is balanced for PBS to include or exclude the HIV positive and lesbians in our society who are trying to live lives just like the rest of us. This is going to get interesting.
I did hear how the new PBS (or maybe it was CPB) political officers didn’t watch any PBS/NPR programs.
Oh, I love Anne of Green Gables!!! I’ve read all the Anne books, and I just loved the shows (though I didn’t watch the third one, which was entirely made up and had nothing to do with the books). I’m glad you’re an Anne fan!
Yeah, I love the way liberals think they’re moderate or even conservative sometimes (Kerry, Hillary), and then we’re not even on the scale. They like to invent the scale themselves: the Sierra Club is right, North Korea is moderate, and….
The word “moderate” in politics was deliberately hijacked. In another state when I was very active in the Republican Party and also active in feminist groups, a group of women formed the GOP feminists. Since I was known to be pro-life, I was not invited to the founding meeting. When they drew up their constitution they put a pro-abortion policy in it. Then they announced themselves with great fanfare, saying they were the party “moderates.” That way the rest of us could be assumed to be right wing “nuts.” Sadly, in that group of women was a city council woman for whom I had walked miles and miles to help her get elected.
Did Actus ever apologize for trying to smear Pope Benedict XVI?
Actus apologize? No, never. Whenever shown to be mistaken, his MO is to ignore the issue and go on to the next insinuation. So over a period of time, a casual review shows that he’s changed subjects more often than one would change underwear.
“Did Actus ever apologize for trying to smear Pope Benedict XVI? ”
What was the smear? Its not a secret he was in the HJ. I’m the last guy to expect the pope to be a clean-as-a-whistle type.
I’ve only watched KQED, San Francisco, off and on for 35 years, and these things come to mind.
1. Most of their superior fiction is originally from the Beeb.
2. They make Pravda seem pro-American.
3. Bill Moyers.
4. They have run commercials for over twenty years and feel quite self-righteous dissing major contributors, ie. Mobil. (Masterpiece Theater, among others).
5. To actus: About $400 MILLION DOLLARS
Thanks, La Shawn, as always.
MonkeyBoner’s comment under SCSIWUZZY’s post on Pope Benedict XVI at A Planet Where Apes Evolved from Man has the perfect retort to people who want to smear the Pope about his activities during WWII.
I have watched KQED, San Francisco, on and off for 35 years.
1. Most of their superior fiction comes from the Beeb.
2. Makes Pravda look Pro-American.
3. Peddles the culture of victimology.
4. Bill Moyers.
5. Self-righteous in dissing major contributors (Like Mobil), except for Democratic administrations.
6. About $400 MILLION per year.
As always, Thanks, La Shawn
“6. About $400 MILLION per year.”
Where does that go? Would they cut car talk and Frontline?
Thanks for your tenacity with respect to the obtuseness of those responsible for public affairs programming at PBS/NPR.
It’s entertaining to see Christy Carpenter making Tomlinson’s point for him when she says partisanship was “essentially nonexistent” until he came along. Please.
I guess she’s waiting for the high sign from the NYT that it’s okay to acknowledge the lack of diverse views.
PBS….Push Button…Snooze
# 35
If you read Bias that’s the main point Goldberg makes is that the left viewpoint is so pervasive in MSM it’s not perceived as bias because it’s what ‘everybody’ believes.
Does every news outlet have to be “Fox News” to satisfy Right-Wingers?
What will the Right try to dismantle next, because they now have to the power to do so?
We’ve seen the unrelenting assault on SocSec, while Bush keeps giving more and more tax breaks to his already obscenely wealthy “base”.
On what planet are critics of PBS living on when they say there’s bias in their politics?
PBS may be the last national news source available that has not been tainted by corporate ownership that seems willing to do anything, including kissing Bush’s pinkie ring, to keep on the good side of the Repubs now that they control everything.
And what do these Right-Wing critics of PBS propose to replace the current programming with?
24 hours a day of Rush and O’Reilly? That would be really educational.
Puleeze.
“PBS may be the last national news source available that has not been tainted by corporate ownership that seems willing to do anything, including kissing Bush’s pinkie ring, to keep on the good side of the Repubs now that they control everything.”
PBS gets a lot of corporate funding. I don’t know how that compares to their government funding.
“brought to you by ADM, supermarket to the world.”
All the more reason to rip this old dog from the public teat.
NOW with Bill Moyers was an extraordinary program, and remains so with its new host. But sure, PBS has had a liberal slant. why not add a more conservative show to counter-balance NOW?
I didn’t know the public had teats. Are they anything like cat teats?
Thank you Evon,
Though MB was actually quoting me
And why do moral relativists always become moral absolutists, with no room for doubt or human growth, when discussing people like the Pope? They give a pass to Castro, Robert Byrd, Ward Churchill, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy et al, for their voluntary actions as adults, but they can’t overlook the compelled actions of a bloody child?
So, actus, I am curious: A 14 year old forced into a group like the HJ, Rotary Club, Little Leage or Yound Democrats… is responsible for said membership?
Who cares if PBS is fair and balanced? Typically, Andy has the correct solution for this.
“Oh, so you wish to kill Big Bird.” Sesame Street, especially, pays for itself many times over, as does much of the more popular programming, and many more [Nova, Nature, even Are You Being Served] hold their own. I’m guessing that the sows that require subsidation are such gems as “The Transgendered Latino Looks at Stigma”.
Quality programming free of commercials? Bunk. Public Broadcasting has as many commercials as the networks did 30 years ago.
“I didn’t know the public had teats. Are they anything like cat teats?”
In some parts of the country its shaped like a pentagon.
In other parts of the country, it’s shaped like the education, arts and other superfluous administration/departments.
The defense department, on the other hand has an explicit constitutional mandate. And how could you forget that your idol, FDR, built the pentagon?
“The defense department, on the other hand has an explicit constitutional mandate.”
yes. Art. I, sec 8. But who would call that ‘on the other hand’?
“And how could you forget that your idol, FDR, built the pentagon?”
He also had as a VP a man who cut his teeth fighting war profiteers. Back in the day that was considered patriotic.
FDR was the biggest war profiteer around, for he benefitted through power. LBJ created the CBP and PBS, and this was one of the less horrible things he did.
The election of the New Roman Pontiff got me to thiking, perhaps, instead of being honored, LBJ ought to be tried the same manner as Pope Stephen tried ex-Pope Formosus.
The liberal media over at the Washington Times gives us this gem:
“The head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is pushing ahead with a campaign to eliminate what he perceives to be a liberal bias in public broadcasting, even though CPB reportedly has data from two separate polls suggesting that the public is content with programming on PBS and National Public Radio.”
click my name for link.
CPB reportedly has data from two separate polls suggesting that the public is content with programming on PBS and National Public Radio
Now, what actus as usual fails to bring up, is where the ‘reportedly’ comes from. The CDD, Center for Digital Democracy, is hardly a non-partisan assembly with no agenda to push.
” The CDD, Center for Digital Democracy, is hardly a non-partisan assembly with no agenda to push.”
Where are the polls from?
actus, do tell. Where are the polls from, and what were the polls asking and designed to measure?
“actus, do tell. Where are the polls from, and what were the polls asking and designed to measure? ”
If you RTFA, you find out the polls are commissioned by the republican chairman charge of the CPB — the subject of the post. The two polls were done by a republican firm with the help of a democrat firm.
I have no idea what the republican chairman of the CPB was trying to measure with the polls that asked people if they thought PBS was biased and then followed up with focus groups of the people who claimed bias.
note that the CDD didn’t make the polls. they just pointed out that the polls existed.
And without knowing what the polls asked, you take lobbyist group at their word. Way to let the point circle up there like it was taxiing over O’Hare.
“And without knowing what the polls asked, you take lobbyist group at their word.”
I take the washington times at its word. The polls are in an annual report. Its not like they’re the only source. Do you think the times would run a single source story?
What do you think the polls said?
actus, I don’t know what the polls said. What I see in the Times article is a reporter using press releases from a lobby group as sourcing. Does it look like they looked deeper, or asked any questions of the pollsters? It doesn’t to me. What I see is a journalist that had a storyline, found some supporting verbage, and didn’t look any deeper. This is where bias becomes a problem.
“This is where bias becomes a problem.”
Ya. Washington times. Does your bias considerations also come in when thinking about how a political operative asked for a poll and then didn’t really publicize it?
Whatever actus. The story goes along with what you believe, and you don’t question it. And it doesn’t look like the reporter or the editors did either.
Me, I never take any single source at it’s word. That’s one of the reasons I went from liberal to conservative.
“The story goes along with what you believe, and you don’t question it.”
I do question it. I see a biased chairman, and I balance that with a biased CDD. The chairman is hiding something, the CDD is broadcasting it. What does that tell you? Do you think that the biased chairman that commissioned the polls comissioned a poll calculated to show something against his bias?
again, whatever. You ask the questions the reporter asked, I’m asking the ones he did not.
I actually believe these polls. PBS has put out some good programming, and the people are generally pleased. This is, I believe, because people enjoy “This Old House”, “Hometime”, “The McLaughlin Group”, “Star Hustler” etc. and shut it off when the more overtly leftist programming comes on.
“You ask the questions the reporter asked, I’m asking the ones he did not.”
like what? what the poll was commissioned to do?
You’re the expert actus. Tell us what the polls asked and reported. The reporter didn’t, and the CDD didn’t, and as you’ve pointed out, PBS hasn’t.
It’s still a lazy reporter regurgitating a press release from a lobbyist organ hostile to the current CPB chairman. Show us where he dug deeper.
“Show us where he dug deeper”
What do you mean? he gives us the facts that we need. The republcan CPB chairman commissions a poll , run by a republican and a democrat polling firm. The republican chairman hides the poll and the CDD brings it to light. What do you need to know about what the poll asked? do you think hte chairman would make a bad poll?
You’re proving my point, actas.
SCSIWuzzy
Sorry. I went back and reread your post and that was YOUR last paragraph. I don’t know how you missed it. That nailed it though.
Has Actus apologized yet?
“You’re proving my point, actas.”
What is your point? that Its improper for me to rely on the fact taht the republican chairman of the CPB would hire a competent pollster?
“Has Actus apologized yet?”
You could try asking him
Evon,
I’m not sure what actus has to apologize for this time. He’s just being him. I’d sooner expect my pit bull to apologize for licking himself. It’s just what he is.
actus,
you rely on what a lobbyist says the poll says, and what a reporter says based on a lobbyist press release. You can believe what you like, but don’t expect the rest of us to see it as the “gotcha” that you seem to.
Like a previous poster said, if the question is are you pleased with PBS programing, most people will say yes if they like shows like This Old House, Yankee Workshop, Nova etc. But the question wasn’t “do you think PBS news and commentary is unbiased”. Which is what the PBS chairman believes. And no where in your article does it say that the public beleives PBS isn’t left leaning or unbiased. It say that most people int he survey think PBS is doing it’s job well.
SCSIWuzzy
There isn’t a this time for actus. I am still referring to the “Cardinal Ratzinger was in the Hitler Youth” piece on non-edifying information.
I enjoy discussing issues with people who are serious about them. The “Hitler Youth” comment was more like throwing a stink bomb instead of adding useful information.
All of my ancestors came from Germany and I have a great interest in things German. The time when Hitler took over was a horrible time for Germany and left many people with horrible choices. Some people made bad choices; some were forced into bad situations. We live in awonderful democracy, which for all its failings, lets us take freedom for granted and rail with great energy at those things we don’t like. We have no idea what it is like to live under a horrible tyrant. A while back I read a book about some young people who were beheaded just because they posted flyers at their university challenging Hitler.
People who brought up Lucy’s one Communist vote when her family was dominated by her Communist grandfather did the same type of thing.
Cardinal Ratzinger has sixty years between the time he was in the Hitler Youth and now. What he has done since then counts for far more.
I’ve quit reading comments with the name “actus” under them.
Evon, hear, hear!
Actus, now that you’re done spouting the NYT talking points, check out Brent Bozell’s take on the issue and Ms Tomlinson
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050507-111851-6784r.htm
“you rely on what a lobbyist says the poll says, and what a reporter says based on a lobbyist press release. You can believe what you like, but don’t expect the rest of us to see it as the “gotcha†that you seem to.”
I’m also relying on the what the CPB chairman did.
“All of my ancestors came from Germany and I have a great interest in things German.”
I don’t have the great interest, but I do have the ancestry. Even a passport.
“Some people made bad choices; some were forced into bad situations.”
But not all of them are the pope. I think its fair to expect quite a bit from the guy that’s the pope. Then again, if he has bent his will in the past, maybe he’ll do in the future, and to the extent his moralit conflicts with mine, it will bend.
“A while back I read a book about some young people who were beheaded just because they posted flyers at their university challenging Hitler.”
There’s a movie about it. “white rose society” or something.
actus, the pope was a boy. What great moral stand, with the alternative being death, were you undertaking at the age of 14? When he was drafted, and placed in the army, he deserted rather than shoot down allied flyers. The penalty for desertion in Germany at the time, was death.
And am I reading it right, but are you saying that your moral integretiry is greater than that of the Pope?
SCSIWuzzy,
Thanks. Somehow this poor excuse for an argument has proved to me again the futility of discussion with some liberals. Not only is their forte ad hominem attacks but they go back decades in time to find something negative and don’t do any research to see if they can find a pattern in a life [as the many, many, many flip-flops of John Kerry].
“What great moral stand, with the alternative being death, were you undertaking at the age of 14″
none. I just expect a little more infallibility than most people would have from a pope is all. More than I would have. But hey, if his morals can move for pragmatism, maybe he’ll be a good pope.
If you want negative nowadays, evon, you can just watch how this pope silenced people he disagreed with.
Like I said on my blog, Evon, the only person WHO might meet the requirements some people like actus seem to set for being Pope is Jesus Christ. I am not certain of that however, since I could see them try to disqualify Him as well. Only in warped mind like this are the actions of a compelled child described as pragmatism.
Anyway, I won’t take up more of La Shawn’s blog on this. Feel free to come to my blog actus, Evon, if you want to continue.
“Only in warped mind like this are the actions of a compelled child described as pragmatism.”
Its very pragmatic to do things which are compelled by the nazis.
Hmm, lessee Peter attacked and cut the ear off one of the high priest’s servant. Apostle Paul was rounding up and killing Jews until he met God on the road to Damascus. I guess the esteemed actus morality would preclude Peter and Paul from leading the church. This is what happens when outsiders presume to tell an organization of any ilk how they should chose, let alone follow their leaders.
Actus, even if you are a catholic, you have no say-so on who the pope should be, plain and simple. Don’t like it, go start the church of actup. This notion applies to the Mormons, Hindus & etc. I believe that’s known as freedom of religion — their freedom to chose their leadership, regardless of what we might think.
Heh, imagine us having this discussion 50 years ago criticizing the klan for chosing Byrd-Droppings as their kleagle.
Per a wisewoman’s suggestion
Andy,
Byrd votes democrat. He is above reporoach or crtitcism. I thought you knew this by now.
And couldn’t you guess that would be the link to spill off the page? I’ve moved it down a bit. – Admin
http://scsiwuzzy.typepad.com/a_planet_where_apes_evolv/2005/05/an_open_thread_.html
“Actus, even if you are a catholic, you have no say-so on who the pope should be, plain and simple.”
Of course not. The church is no democracy. Don’t matter what I was baptized as.
Comments on this entry are closed.