"Hands Off Public Broadcasting"

[Relbeek Einre]

http://mediamatters.org/handsoff/

Media Matters is launching a fight back against the Bush Administration's alleged attempts to turn the Corporation for Public Broadcasting into yet another propaganda arm of the Republican Party.

It doesn't help that Bush's appointee to head the CPB believes that a model for balanced independent journalism is Fox News. (The same Fox News that drew Jeff Gannon a derisive laugh from his audience when he claimed it wasn't conservative.)

[Rsak]

You mean Clinton's Appointee Ken Tomlinson?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157574,00.html

Oh wait my source is the dreaded horribly unbalanced source Fox News so it must be false.

[Relbeek Einre]

Not exactly false, just misleading.

Clinton appointed him to the board of CPB in 2000. He was Bush's pick to chair the CPB in 2003.

Nothing I wouldn't expect from Fox News, of course.

[Eidolon Faer]

Bush's sekrut konspiracy to turn public broadcasting into just another propaganda arm of the Republican Party is a horrible idea...it'd been a propaganda arm of the Democrats for decades, after all. How DARE he.

Personally, I think he should eliminate it completely. Then the issue'd be settled.

[Kulaf]

Not exactly false, just misleading.

Clinton appointed him to the board of CPB in 2000. He was Bush's pick to chair the CPB in 2003.

Nothing I wouldn't expect from Fox News, of course.

The article hints that he was "elected chairman of CPB". How does this involve president Bush? Doesn't the PBS Board of Directors pick its Chairman?

[Riggen]

I don't think it'd be an issue either way if CPB didn't draw on public funds.

[Eidolon Faer]

Exactly, Riggen.

Public Radio has been buying up private stations in Minnesota, including buying the college radio station for St. Olaf in Northfield, MN (it was a multimillion dollar deal that was in the news a few months ago) so they're hardly hurting for cash. And Public TV gets the great majority of its' operating fees from membership donations.

Anything that the government funds, the government can regulate. It's the same in PBS as it is in Public Schools, Farm Subsidies, and a whole host of other areas. Frankly, it's about time that the majority party (holding legitimate elected control of House, Senate, and Presidency) took PBS in hand and pulled it out of the FDR / Barry Goldwater era.

Let's face it, if PBS were conservative in outlook, the Clintons would have done a purge that would have made Josef Stalin envious. Remember the White House Travel Office, anyone?

[Partha]

Anything that the government funds, the government can regulate.

And pro business factions scream if they do regulate things they fund. Your point?

[Trollbait]

Doesn't the PBS Board of Directors pick its Chairman?

Yes. I believe the PBS Board of Directors picks its Chairman.

How does this involve president Bush?

Becuase Relbeek thinks that anything bad in his opinion must be attributable to Bush.

People like Relbeek have a 2 degree of seperation mentality about anything bad and the Bush administration.

[Eidolon Faer]

Anything that the government funds, the government can regulate.

And pro business factions scream if they do regulate things they fund. Your point?

Simple, Partha.

I'm pointing out that the CPB was a political football LONG before this thread. Let's face it, any station where Lake Wobegon / Garrison Keilor is their biggest blockbuster show can only be attributed to political chicanery or satanic influence.

If you want it to NOT be a political football for either side, privatize it. Cut off the public money. There's still a market for the kind of broadcasting PBS does, and given the sort of crap the networks are putting out lately, PBS could end up buying out ABC in a few years if they just de-socialized it.

[Partha]

I'd say if you wanted to regulate it, the best way to regulate it is not to have the man who is in charge of getting out approved American broadcasting be simultaneously in charge of public radio.

[Relbeek Einre]

It's a quaint myth that PBS is somehow nothing more than a liberal bastion.

Such shows as the McLaughlin Group and Bill Buckley's Firing Line made their home on PBS for decades, and neither could be said to be biased to liberalism. (One Firing Line debate show: "Resolved: The ACLU is full of baloney," with Buckley himself on the pro side of the argument) NOW with Bill Moyers was certainly a more liberal program (and Moyers has been a favorite whipping boy of the Right fully six months after his retirement). But then there's Wall Street Week, Washington Week in Review, etc.

As past threads have delved into, sourced and everything, those who get public broadcasting as their primary radio/TV news source are the best informed of any who get their news from the major TV/radio news sources - with Fox News viewers, you may recall, being the least well informed. It seems the most informative and accurate news source on TV and radio could hardly be called "biased" unless the facts themselves are unfavorable to conservatives. (Of course, I think they are... )

(As a side note, young people are getting so disgusted with the network news that The Daily Show on Comedy Central is becoming a leading news source. Eek.)

But of course, for people who believe the laughable notion that Fox News represents unbiased journalism would find public broadcasting to be liberally biased, but then they'd also believe that Alan Colmes is a balanced counterpoint to Sean Hannity, that Bill O'Reilly isn't an amazingly egocentric windbag, and that James Dobson is the Vicar of Christ on Earth (except when the Rev. Moon is, of course), so they don't seem to have much of a grasp on reality anyway.

The Public Broadcasting Act, signed over 35 years ago, states that the CPB must provide quality programs and independent journalism free from commercial or government pressure. Ken Tomlinson has violated that act by taking his cues from the White House on how to modify the content (and then denying meeting with the White House though the proof is there that the converse is true) and by altering staff and content of public broadcasting to bias the networks towards the far right - including raising $5 million to give the editorial board of the WSJ their own show (the Journal Editorial report).

Some people may not like the concept of public broadcasting - after all, it's much better if Clear Channel and Disney own all the radio stations and five corporations control the TV news, right? - but it serves an immensely important purpose in providing an outlet for truly independent journalism and programming. And some stations, like Minnesota Public Radio or WBUR in Boston, could certainly make it on their own, having cash cows like Prairie Home Companion or Car Talk to rely on for income, but the majority of public television stations don't have that luxury.

But please, let me not cloud the rantings of conservatives, whose primary source of information on this issue seems to be the Freep, with any facts.

[Rsak]

As past threads have delved into, sourced and everything, those who get public broadcasting as their primary radio/TV news source are the best informed of any who get their news from the major TV/radio news sources - with Fox News viewers, you may recall, being the least well informed.

Dear god what do you do with that horrenduously overinflated ego of yours. Shame there is nothing factual to support that statement except your overblown delusions.

[Klast Brell]

Rsak. You are going to get spanked again. we already discussed that subject on this board a few years ago.

[Relbeek Einre]

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/ ... Report.pdf - bitch.

[Aabe]

It's a quaint myth that PBS is somehow nothing more than a liberal bastion.

Such shows as the McLaughlin Group and Bill Buckley's Firing Line made their home on PBS for decades, and neither could be said to be biased to liberalism. (One Firing Line debate show: "Resolved: The ACLU is full of baloney," with Buckley himself on the pro side of the argument) NOW with Bill Moyers was certainly a more liberal program (and Moyers has been a favorite whipping boy of the Right fully six months after his retirement). But then there's Wall Street Week, Washington Week in Review, etc.

As past threads have delved into, sourced and everything, those who get public broadcasting as their primary radio/TV news source are the best informed of any who get their news from the major TV/radio news sources - with Fox News viewers, you may recall, being the least well informed. It seems the most informative and accurate news source on TV and radio could hardly be called "biased" unless the facts themselves are unfavorable to conservatives. (Of course, I think they are... )

(As a side note, young people are getting so disgusted with the network news that The Daily Show on Comedy Central is becoming a leading news source. Eek.)

But of course, for people who believe the laughable notion that Fox News represents unbiased journalism would find public broadcasting to be liberally biased, but then they'd also believe that Alan Colmes is a balanced counterpoint to Sean Hannity, that Bill O'Reilly isn't an amazingly egocentric windbag, and that James Dobson is the Vicar of Christ on Earth (except when the Rev. Moon is, of course), so they don't seem to have much of a grasp on reality anyway.

The Public Broadcasting Act, signed over 35 years ago, states that the CPB must provide quality programs and independent journalism free from commercial or government pressure. Ken Tomlinson has violated that act by taking his cues from the White House on how to modify the content (and then denying meeting with the White House though the proof is there that the converse is true) and by altering staff and content of public broadcasting to bias the networks towards the far right - including raising $5 million to give the editorial board of the WSJ their own show (the Journal Editorial report).

Some people may not like the concept of public broadcasting - after all, it's much better if Clear Channel and Disney own all the radio stations and five corporations control the TV news, right? - but it serves an immensely important purpose in providing an outlet for truly independent journalism and programming. And some stations, like Minnesota Public Radio or WBUR in Boston, could certainly make it on their own, having cash cows like Prairie Home Companion or Car Talk to rely on for income, but the majority of public television stations don't have that luxury.

But please, let me not cloud the rantings of conservatives, whose primary source of information on this issue seems to be the Freep, with any facts.

What!! No one liner?? A short story length post?? OOooo..

I will disagree with you on the point that because a source makes people the most informed it is less biasd.

I could easily make a program that produces absolute facts, spin them terribly, leave my listeners the most informed on the topic, but still have shaped their thinking about the facts in a VERY biased way. That is probably why I was required to take a stat class to get my Chemistry degree. Learn how to shape facts and report them, in a mannor that most supports your point of view. ( actually was supposed to help me NOT do that, but you learn both sides when you study the topic)

The best propoganda is fact based, not bald face lies.

For example: If I wish to push a negative view of the war. Report daily the death count of soldiers (with no benchmarks of course), report every possible negative fact about whats going on, "Lt. Manson went home on leave and killed his family", make it top priority to show ANY abuse of anyone over there or here, point out any failing in the military system to support our boys, show as much protesting over there as possible, and give any postive comments by the Iraqi people minimal air time or state something about how the government might be spinning information to their own people. (tthere must be some fact to base any statement like this though you just cant make it up.) Use some commentators to state their "opinions" for places where facts are hard to find to make a case for a point.

We could reverse the whole thing, make it a score board, show the number of INSURGENTS killed daily with a running total or vs number of Americans dead. (bring in the sports minded crowd). Show only short clips of any anit american protest and give long interviews to people that love their new freedom, show returned exiles kissing the ground, show stats on our care of current POW's vs the care given by Russia or other countries that have records of abusing POW's. Show daily progress of infrastructure rebuild in Iraq. Give a daily interview of someone that is in the NEW Iraqi army and find ones that feel they are gaining control of their contry back. (Don't ask them to lie, just find the ones that feel that way). Bring in some guys and have them talk about what kinds of senarios could bring about a final peace in the middle east and what that would mean to the muslim people.

In either case you must bring up opposing points of view on each topic or you wouldnt be reporting all the facts, but only give opposing points minimal lip service, possibly have the person giving the opposing points laugh while he states them. Saying things like, some people actually believe that us being in Iraq <ruins our reputation in the area, is causeing a long term stabiliity to be forged, is a mistake by the current administration, is spreading liberty>

Actaully you don't need to have the person laugh that is trying to spin against a fact, they can be very suble, raised eye brow in disbelief, questioning tonality, scepical look or "in wrap up to our story tonight, to be fair we must tell you that "some" people seem to believe that <fact> causes <effect>."

I would never lie, but you would sure have a different picture of what was happening veiwing the exact same facts and events.

Of course there is that little point of what does "more informed" really mean? Does more informed mean you know the dates events occured, who voted for what and how many people and much money has been used? ( you can be very extreme with either point of view and know the facts presented in either light) Or does "most informed" people mean the ones most closely agreeing with whoever the polster was that determined who was "most informed"?

[Rsak]

Bitch?

You have serious misconceptions about what that article proves.

It dealt with a 3 narrow subjects and you think that porves the absolute statement that public broadcasting produces better informed people then major TV/radio news on everything?

Get your head out of your ass as you try to remember that Correlation does not imply Causation.

[SicTimMitchell]

Funny, I don't recall being told I had to stick to liberal propaganda before any of the shows I've taped for PBS.

I'll let you guys know when and in what cities the new stuff is airing. I just gave this advice to young people: "Stay in school, obey the law, listen to your parents. And smoke cigarettes. They make you look cool."

P.S.

"'Mental Engineering' is the most interesting weekly half hour of social commentary and criticism on television."
- Bill Moyers

[Harlowe]

Dear god what do you do with that horrenduously overinflated ego of yours. Shame there is nothing factual to support that statement except your overblown delusions.

He did not just say this to someone else....this is hilarious and frightening in the "I'm an incurable borderline personality.." way.

[Rsak]

With all that bravado and no one is willing to put their money where their mouth is? When you show me your Physicology degree you might find someone willing to listen when you talk smack.