Update: House Appropriations Committee votes to cut PBS funding. If politicians want to save the taxpayers some dough, this is good place to start. Well done.
————————————
Well, well, well. So the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) has finally gotten the message. The taxpayer-supported network is updating its editorial policy in light of complaints about a leftist bias, which they still deny. A couple of months ago I went on a tirade against PBS. It was fun.
According to ABC News, PBS is hiring an ombudsman to deal with viewers’ complaints and “review controversial programs.” Conservatives serving on the board at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which was formed in 1967 to fund PBS, raised so much ruckus that the public entity had to do something.
Unfortunately, you have to “get loud” with some people to get your point across. A Republican majority in all three branches of government definitely helps. From now on, opinion segments have to be clearly identified as opinion and not news. This is what my liberal detractors don’t seem to get. The problem is not a news outlet’s editorial slant. Newspapers, news shows, etc., will inevitably lean one way or another. Disguising an opinion as objective news is the problem.
From the Los Angeles Times:
CPB Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson has recently led a charge to add more conservative programming on PBS, saying that the service has a liberal reputation.Though PBS had contemplated the creation of an ombudsman’s position for more than six months, its decision comes after the CPB appointed two ombudsmen this spring to evaluate public television and radio content. Those hires caught PBS officials off guard.
In addition to mandating neutrality, the new guidelines instruct journalists to enter into inquiries with open minds and to provide viewers with a sense of transparency about their news-gathering methods and sources. The new standards also require opinion pieces to be clearly identified.
It’s about time. Read about the job interview I had last year with the CPB. That was fun, too. 
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 52 comments }
“from now on, opinion segments have to be clearly identified as opinion and not news. This is what my liberal detractors don’t seem to get. The problem is not a news outlet’s editorial slant. Newspapers, news shows, etc., will inevitably lean one way or another. Disguising an opinion as objective news is the problem.”
I guess they should create a no-spin zone. That sounds fair and balanced enough.
Actus, do you hang around waiting for me to post? Good grief. It’s been up for…only 13 minutes.
Ombudsman? Hmmm, how about Ombudswoman? Methinks you should send the CPB board your resume and article,
La Shawn, I hang around waiting for Actus to post after he waits around for you to post.
PBS/NPR should be totally defunded. If they can’t stand on their own, let them fall. And fall they will, unless they reform their deceitful ways. And they know that, which explains why they are so fiiled with angst over the prospect of losing out on the taxpayer-funded gravy train.
“Actus, do you hang around waiting for me to post? Good grief. It’s been up for…only 13 minutes. ”
I read while having b-fast, before work. It’s not personal.
LaShawn wrote (original post):
“The problem is not a news outlet’s editorial slant. Newspapers, news shows, etc., will inevitably lean one way or another. Disguising an opinion as objective news is the problem.”
I absolutely agree, but I don’t think that the problem will be solved simply by hiring an ombundsman, because there are lots of different ways that bias can enter into ‘news’. For example:
1. You’ve got a three minute spot in a broadcast to cover a story from Iraq. Do you talk about a school that GIs helped build, or talk about Abu Ghraib?
2. The president offers a proposal to reform Medicare. How much time to respond do you give to critics and to supporters? Which critics and supporters do you choose to show on air? Do you show an elderly couple faced with massive medical expenses who are worried that their benfits are going to be cut?
3. Do you use the term ‘pro-abortion’ or ‘pro-choice’?
4. You have reported that a prominent Republican leader has been accused of breaches of ethics. You learn that prominent democrats have committed or have been accused of committing similar breaches. Do you report this?
See what I mean? There are lots of ways to slant the news without actively editorializing. Further, if the ombundsman happens to share the ideological bent of the reporter, he probably won’t even see that a problem exists.
Docjim,
It’s a start, however. You don’t expect an alcoholic to be dry on the first day after admitting he might have a problem.
“Those hires caught PBS officials off guard.”
I just luv that comment
What is “off guard”? It really means “caught them not doing their job or what they are being PAID at tax payer expense to do”
I remember that JOB opportunity post of yours.
Sounds to me that they wanted to use you. Make sure to send that emailer that scenario.
La Shawn,
did you see PBS’ “America Beyond The Color Line”, narrated by Henry Louis Gates jr.? It was the first thing to ever convince me to buy soemthing from PBS! I got the DVD.
I probably did but can’t recall.
I have to say that when I hear from fellow conservatives that pbs and npr are liberal I didnt believe it. Tonight I was bored and decided to watch “NOW” Well Moyers is gone but the liberal is still there. I am very upset by the way christians were demonized. I am actually hurt that the government is paying for this. They talked about the recent atlanta courtroom violence and the white judge whose family was murdered and compared it to christians upset with judicial decisions. they said nothign about the fact that those violent circumstances had nothing to do with the “culture war” DEFUND PBS AND NPR
“I guess you didn’t read the article. “Motivation (such as hate)is not known as mens rea, a term that refers to criminal intent or unlawful purpose, not to the activating reason for the conduct.”"
didn’t some republican senator make the same connection?
The insular world of the liberal elite is like a cocoon. I suspect that most liberal NPR/PBS types are really quite unaware of their own biases actually being biases. That doesn’t excuse their actions, of course, but it might explain them.
Remember the illuminating comment made by elitist media person Pauline Kael, upon hearing that Richard Nixon had won the White House? She inadvertently defined the liberal elitist problem by saying, “How is that possible? I don’t know ANYONE who voted for him!”
“She inadvertently defined the liberal elitist problem by saying, “How is that possible? I don’t know ANYONE who voted for him!—
Doesn’t this happen in red states as well as blue?
No, Actus, it doesn’t. We Red Staters are all too aware of what the elitists think and how they vote. They’re the ones feeding us all the liberal pablum via movies, tv, network news, etc. It’s impossible to escape.
Earlier this week there were two programs in a row promoting the gay lifestyle on PBS, yet I don’t recall ever seeing a pro heterosexual family program. I don’t recall seeing any PBS programs that support the evangelical lifestyle.
Poor “public” broadcasting…after all those millions they made on the Cookie Monster (who is now non-p.c. due to his carby diet) and the other money they made selling their mailing list to the Democrats…or did they give it away?
I’d only support a tax-payer subsidized communications program that ran the Righties and the Lefties. Never gonna happen, so turn off the faucet. Most of the biggies draw little down from the govt anyway.
I quit listening some years ago. Can’t remember when. I’d listen to an am station in Spanish saying the rosary before I’d turn on anything from NPR. Except Car Talk.
And whoever mentioned that opninons underlie language choices is right. “Resistance fighter” is a cute term. “Insurgents” is another. ” Far Right-wing” for conservatives vs. “activist” for the most lemming-Left members of our polity.
Then there’s “Bush” for “President Bush…”
Come to think of it, a fun task would be to listen just to pick up the language cues. That would make a fun game.
“No, Actus, it doesn’t. We Red Staters are all too aware of what the elitists think and how they vote. They’re the ones feeding us all the liberal pablum via movies, tv, network news, etc. It’s impossible to escape.”
And the left doesnt’ notice who runs congress or the presidency?
[sigh] Actus, are you really missing the point? Or are you deliberately trying to avoid it?
Well, those who say only PBS can put on a nature show on-air haven’t been watching UPN.
I just got thru watching HD-TV’s Serengeti, narrated by James Earl Jones. The show following was something about 16th century explorers (apparently Discovery had something to do with it since I saw their logo), but I confess, I had to switch to watch NCIS
” Actus, are you really missing the point? Or are you deliberately trying to avoid it?”
The point is that apparently people on the left aren’t aware of what teh right thinks? And yet the right is aware of ‘elite’ opinion of the left?
I think the left is very aware of the right, if not at least because the right has, well, the rather elite position of having the power of 2 and arguably 3 branches of government.
Redbeard, sing it with me, and dance along:
(8) Doin’ the Actus shuffle (8)
Andy,
Or Fox’s “Fast Animals, Slow Children”
“Actus, do you hang around waiting for me to post? Good grief. It’s been up for…only 13 minutes.”
He’s just doing the usual liberal patronizing, condescending thing of setting [what he thinks are] poor, ignorant, misguided conservatives straight.
By the way PBS did a series on the Presidents that wasn’t very good. Since I like history I watched it and somewhere in the middle of the series I asked myself, “Why are they doing this series. Then the answer came to me:
To give Bill Clinton a chance to justify himself and sell his legacy.
Sure enough, on the segment on Bill Clinton that is just what happened.
Note to Bill Clinton: It’s similar to shock and awe. If you have to sell it, it’s not a legacy.
:D
“Redbeard, sing it with me, and dance along:
(8) Doin’ the Actus shuffle (8)”
What is it that you don’t understand. I’d be more than happy to let you know.
You could state your position in the first place, rather than resorting to “witty” obscure comments. But of course you don’t want to do that, since this allows you to sidle off to the next inanity once others zero in on you.
B-b-b-b-ut…if they de-fund PBS, all those cute little creatures on Sesame Street will starve to death! LOL…
“You could state your position in the first place, rather than resorting to “witty†obscure comments.”
My position is that both right and left are aware of what the other side is doing. That’s what I said.
What is it that you don’t understand. I’d be more than happy to let you know.
Well, for starters, you could address people who have asked you the question, rather than another post
As in, I asked you no question (thus you should tell me no lies LOL ), yet your post implies that I have, and that I do not understand.
Anyway, keep on dancing!
And for anyone interested, I’ve posted the lyrics and a contest, for the Liberul Shuffle on A planet where apes evolved from MAN?!?
(follow the blogroll link or click on my name)
“As in, I asked you no question (thus you should tell me no lies LOL ), yet your post implies that I have, and that I do not understand.”
No need for you to have asked in order for me to help you understand, rather than dance to some tune in your head.
One doesn’t have to look far for bias in public broadcasting. Take NPR’s “All Things Considered”. Really? ALL things? Isn’t that just a tiny bit… arrogant? (Granted, no worse than say, O’Reilly’s ‘No Spin Zone’, but he’s not asking for public funds.) Instead, how about ‘Nothing Rejected’? Or maybe ‘Anything Goes’, or ‘No Moral Compass’. ‘Radio Whatever’ would be equally appropriate, or perhaps they could roll up their sleeves and get competitive by calling it ‘The Original Air America’. Let’s start with a 100% cut. Then we can build back up based on a de novo look at why particular shows are a) truly in the broad public interest and b) require government funding in order to survive. Public broadcasting might very well thrive after such an exercise, but it would certainly be different.
Lisa : Mom, Dad’s on PBS!
Marge : Hmm? They don’t show police chases, do they?
Homer : [on TV] Um, it’s an honor to give ten thousand dollars. Especially now, when the rich mosaic of cable programming has made public television so very, very unnecessary.
Marge : From now on, one of us always stays home.
jms,
I love that one, esp when Big Bird and the Daleks chase Homer through the streets trying to collect his bogus pledge.
I have friends that work for PBS (3 sep. stations). I have never seen such mismanaged operations in my life. Everytime a pledge drive is done, they spend like drunken sailors, often on things unrelated to operations (cappucino machines, desk swag, furniture). By the time the next drive is scheduled, they are looking for change under the cushions.
The smart donators don’t give money. The give equipment, so stipulate how the money must be spent (on program X, Y, Z or of type A, B, C). Needless to say, management often hates these strings attached donations. But many of the grunts love them, since it increases the chances they’ll get that new editing console or camera they’ve been trying to get.
# 35, a case in point.
(8) Shuffle (8)
“# 35, a case in point.”
Really, whats the problem. You told me you asked me no question. And I addressed that. Do you really not understand what is going on?
Lets just cut this PBS out i mean its a rip off its all liberal propeganda i mean those damn predge breaks have become so damn bad they go around and accuse viewers of stealing the programs for not paying for it what a crock and then on NATURE they were touting this GAIA nonsenses what a lot of malarkey
(8) Say, we can act if we want to, if we don’t nobody will
And you can act real rude or totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile
Say we can dance, we can dance
Everything’s out of control
We can dance, we can dance
They’re doing it from pole to pole
We can dance, we can dance
Everybody look at your hands
We can dance, we can dance
Everybody taken the chance
The safety dance (8)
OK LB, I’m done with the dancing jokes for now.
Saying it’s safe to dance on PBS’ immiment demise?
Here in Tampa, one of the two “public” broadcasting station (WUSF, Channel 16) is actually running spots in which they implore viewers to contact Congress to insist that funding be restored. You have to admire the arrogance of using a tax supported medium to agitate for continued tax support. (BTW – the other station – WEDU – runs a spot giving contact info and asks that viewers let their representatives know whether they think support should be cut or restored.)
Jim Rockford,
The more pathetic of Philly’s PBS stations is doing the same thing. THis is the station that advertises itself as the voice of gay Philadelphia, and gives us the great programs like In Bed With Butch, and helped foster Tim and Eric onto the wider world (Tom Goes to the Mayor)
Hey Jimbo,
Just goes to show, people on the public dole just hate the thot of actually cutting loose and making their own way in the world.
Rocky
Public broadcasting, at taxpayer expense, might have had a small justification back in the day when there were only 3 or 4 channels to watch. It would have been impossible to run a viable commercial station for the arts and education in direct competition to the other giants. But today, with hundreds of special interest channels floating around, there’s ample opportunity for specialized programming of all types. If Animal Planet can survive in the commercial arena, then NPR/PBS/CPB and all the rest should be able to exist their own merits, without slurping out of the public trough.
“If Animal Planet can survive in the commercial arena, then NPR/PBS/CPB and all the rest should be able to exist their own merits, without slurping out of the public trough.”
In communications law and policy broadcasting — which is free — is usually treated differently than cable TV — which costs money.
Waitiminute…don’t public funds (taxpayer expense) also go to President Bush’s propaganda campaigns involving “fake news?”
>>>The Bush administration has come under a lot of criticism for its attempts to fob off government propaganda as genuine news reports. Whether federal agencies are purchasing the services of supposedly independent columnists or making videos extolling White House initiatives and then disguising them as TV news reports, that’s wrong. But it is time to acknowledge that the nation’s news organizations have played a large and unappetizing role in deceiving the public….
…As documented this week in an article in The Times by David Barstow and Robin Stein, more than 20 federal agencies, including the State Department and the Defense Department, now create fake news clips. The Bush administration spent $254 million in its first four years on contracts with public relations firms, more than double the amount spent by the Clinton administration…
…Most of these tapes are very skillfully done, including “interviews” that seem genuine and “reporters” who look much like the real thing. Only sophisticated viewers would easily recognize that these videos are actually unpaid commercial announcements for the White House or some other part of the government. Some of the videos clearly cross the line into the proscribed territory of propaganda, and the Government Accountability Office says at least two were illegally distributed.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031605O.shtml
So this issue is beyond liberal and conservative. It’s about FACT and FICTION.
–Cobra
Cobra, fact or fiction is in the eye of the beholder.
As for the ‘fact’ budget being twice as much as that spent by the Clinton administration, that is meaningless without context. Who is spending how much for what? We have new agencies, new initiatives which all have to do their PR — which is part of their job to inform the public.
So what? Give us some apples to apples comparison. All I’ve seen are apples to oranges comparisons including these howlers:
““We strongly disagree [with] and are very disappointed by the administration’s actions,” Walker says. “This is not just about what’s arguably legal; it’s about what’s right. Taxpayers have the right to know if and when the government is trying to influence them with their own dollars.””
To which I say the public has a right to know if and when the MSM is trying to influence them. And speaking of tax-funded entities, is Mr Walker also directing some of his rage at PBS/NPR? No? Why not?
Here’s another:
““Deceiving the American people about government policies and proposals is not the American way,” Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., wrote to President Bush after those revelations. “Propaganda should not be coming out of the White House.””
And deceiving the American people about chappaquiddick, Bush’s policies and proposals is not the American way. Blah, blah… Propaganda should not be coming out of the MSM/DNC
Yawn!!! Pot meet kettle. Methinks if the MSM can’t be bothered to report the good news, somebody has to do it. Actually I think the sturm & drang is due to the fact that the MSM shapes its message to the blue State stronghold while ignoring the so-called flyovers and the MSM/DNc is all up in a snit that the govt manages to get its message out to those people. My, my life is so unfair.
“Cobra, fact or fiction is in the eye of the beholder. ”
I was wondering when postmodernism would make its way onto the blogosphere.
That breathless “story” that Cobra posted has been making the rounds on the internet for a long time now, and it never has gained any traction. The reason is that it’s clearly a case of Mr. Bush’s opponents being in a childish snit because they have lost power. They’re running all over Washington, enlisting the help of whatever sympathetic “news” organizations they can find, in order to whine about a president having the dastardly nerve to actually advance his own agenda instead of theirs. Gadzooks! Who woulda thought it?! [insert rolling eyes here]
“They’re running all over Washington, enlisting the help of whatever sympathetic “news†organizations they can find, in order to whine about a president having the dastardly nerve to actually advance his own agenda instead of theirs.”
Um, there’s quite a bit more going on here than just the advancement of an agenda.
Actus: “Um, there’s quite a bit more going on here than just the advancement of an agenda.”
Yup, sending the moonbats to the corner for a permanent timeout. NPR/PBS is but one front in which we’re taking back the control of the signal.
Andy writes:
>>>Yup, sending the moonbats to the corner for a permanent timeout. NPR/PBS is but one front in which we’re taking back the control of the signal.”
Who’s “we”? And what is so “moonbat” about the home of “Firing Line” by William F. Buckley and the “Wall Street Journal Editorial Board”?
–Cobra
Comments on this entry are closed.