Charges of bias at PBS, NPR lead to changes, backlash

[smartvoter]

For many Americans, public TV means "Sesame Street," "Masterpiece Theatre" and "Antiques Roadshow." But for Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, it came to mean liberal bias in its news and public affairs programming.

Two years ago, the Republican former head of Voice of America and Reader's Digest set out to restore what he called objectivity and balance to the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio.

Now Tomlinson's makeover attempts have made their own news: Angry chiefs at PBS and NPR; an investigation of whether his actions amounted to illegal political interference; and questions about whether he may have overreached.

Media specialist Patricia Aufderheide said Tomlinson's actions show a "wanton disregard" for the corporation's mission.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/politics/11826647.htm

[cobaindrain]

1. we need to go after Roger Ailes as well

though he is probably better insulated than this tomlinson fellow, we can not allow what they've done to stand.

[Deep13]

2. So, the facts = liberal bias.

Public broadcasting exists to help people find the truth, not to present a balanced view. It does not make any sense to balance an hour of facts with an hour of lies.

[forgethell]

3. On the other hand,

the debate is over what "truth" is. Political ideas do not have the same undebatable solidity of say, Newton's 3 laws, or the laws of thermodynamics, or E=mc^2. Not to give both sides, "balance" if you will, is nothing but propaganda, not "truth".

The legal system, which is supposed to determine "truth", is adversarial by design, the assumption being that this is the best way to arrive at the truth of something that cannot be determined by a repeatable experiment.

[Deep13]

7. Not all opinions are reasonable.

Those supported by fact are and those supported only by ideology are not. Giving political or ideological hacks the same credence as real scientists, for example, distorts the truth. Global warming is real and mostly man-made. That is a fact and the alternate point of view is just a smoke screen. Same for evolution. Same for many observed social phenomena. Guess work should not be presented as equal to well-researched ideas.

Most public broadcasting is not political per se, but the views it offers offend right-wing extremeists.

[forgethell]

9. Socialism, progressivism, liberalism are

ideologies. There is considerable debate about them. Who decides what the "facts" are.

DU really has a lot of supporters who would suppress free speech. What are they afraid of?

Look, there are people who still believe in a flat earth. They don't get air time because the overwhelming consensus is that they are wrong, and no one is interested in further debate. And they are wrong. The same situation does not obtain with most of the political issues of today, or they would not be political issues. The only way to arrive at a consensus is to let both sides air their opinions and "facts". The average American is more than intelligent enough to distinguish between logic and bullshit. Give them the information and they will make the right choice.

The attempt to suppress debate is undemocratic, unconstitutional, illiberal, and a losing strategy in the long run.

[Ron Green]

10. There's a difference between "suppressing debate" and skewing the sides

in such a way as to give credence to false premises. This whole idea of "balance" has done just that, which is to put up some cockamamie position to balance a fact-supported one, and then let people decide between jasmine and sandalwood.

Additionally, I don't agree that "the average American is more than intelligent enough to distinguish between logic and bullshit." If this were true, life in the US in 2005 would be much different.

[forgethell]

11. Well, I guess

we'll just have to disagree abaout the average intelligence of the American voter.

But again, who get to decide what is "cokamamie", and what is not? Most social and political issues are not settled by scientific analysis, nor should they be.

[Ron Green]

14. Cockamamie idea #1:

The earth is 6000 years old.

Cockamamie idea #2: Humans' use of fossil fuels over the past 200 years has not fundamentally altered the environment upon which we depend for our lives.

Cockamamie idea #3: At the moment of conception, a human soul enters the gamete (what about those frozen ones? Do they have souls? What happens when the zygote divides after a few weeks? Does each embryo then have only half a soul?)

There are lots of cockamamie ideas, and in the media they are often given one "side" against another "side," which happens to be based in fact. And lots of social and political issues are attached to these scientific ones, although some of them (Trickle-down economics comes to mind) can certainly stand on their own.

[forgethell]

17. So you want

to shut off the debate? OK. Free speech for all, except when I disgree with them.

[Ron Green]

18. I don't want to shut off the debate. I do want to have a real debate, in

which the positions are based on facts. And the only way to get to the facts is for journalists to do their jobs, which is to dig out the truth.

Instead, what we've got are "he said-she said" talking point contests in which most people, who I don't believe are rational as much as emotional, will make a decision based on "balance" rather than on the truth.

Plato knew that the masses couldn't govern themselves directly, and it's still true. The question is, Who will be the experts? Who will be the best and wisest?

[forgethell]

19. Your final question

is the thing. Someone has to decide what are "facts" and what are not. Why not the Repukes? I mean they're in power now, anyway.

Nope, I prefer an adversarial debate. Let the public act as the "fact-finders" for public policy. Putting scientists, or "experts", in charge is a one-way street to tyranny.

[Ron Green]

26. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I believe that people are not capable of their own fact-finding for public policy, not as long as the "debate" is controlled by the fear mongers. Emotion trumps reason every time, and we must rely on real scientists, not market-controlled ones, for rational explanations and solutions.

Let there be an adversarial debate, but first call a lie a lie.

[forgethell]

30. But do not

try to shut the "lie" up. Let it hang out there for all to see.

And the scientists can make their policy recommendations like every body else, but it is up to the public to accept or reject them. I don't see how any progressive, or liberal, or (little d) democrat, can fail to see this. Experts are like beans, you buy them and sell them as you need them. They are there to tell you how to get where you want to go, not tell you where you must go.

[Ron Green]

31. I'm with you about letting the lie hang out there for all to see.

But what about the lie that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? How many people figured that one out? Unfortunately, not quite enough.

And hiring experts to say whatever you want said is the market-based approach. If our public policies allow and encourage real science, not bought-and-paid-for science, there might be a chance that people, even in their perpetual fog, will choose a better way.

[forgethell]

34. You misunderstand.

I do not say hire the experts to say what you want. I say listen to what the experts say, then decide what you want to do. It is perfectly valid to ignore their advice if you do not agree with their goals. For instance, most medical professionals will tell you to stop smoking for various health-related reasons. Maybe you like to smoke, anyway. It is perfectly correct for you to do so.

[Ron Green]

40. Here's a different example:

Most experts in environmental health and biodiversity will tell you not to use chemicals when you garden, because it destroys soil health. Most experts in formulating and marketing pesticides will tell you to use them because it gives greater production. Most reasonable people will agree that building soil health is most important, but which experts are you going to hear? The ones with the money, of course, hired by Ortho and other poison merchants. Where's the money going to come from to tell the other side? Only one set of "facts" will be heard, because the message delivery system is bought and paid for. That's why it's a myth that "balance" is important, when the truth is actively suppressed.

[forgethell]

42. I disagree.

I think that it is easy enough for anybody who cares to be informed about this or almost any issue. There are plenty of NGOs with lots of money (even some taxpayer funding) out there to counterbalance the other side's opinion.

But let's get back to your example. In this particular case, both sides have "truth" on their side. Pesticides do give greater production to commercial farmers (and the consumer) at a more reasonable price than do organic methods. Both sets of facts are out there. But you cannot have the advantages of cheap production with organic methods, nor can you have the health and environmental benefits of organic production with commercial pesticides. So a decision must be made. That's why it's called the "marketplace" of ideas. How much of a benefit are you willing to pay for? If the commercial opinion was suppressed, that would be as bad as if the environmental side was suppressed.

I have a reasonable income, and my wife is health conscious, so we eat a lot of organic vegetables, free range chicken, etc. But my income is not so reasonable that I can afford to pay for it every meal, and I like well-marbled beef, so we eat a lot of factory farmed stuff, too. That's our decision, and it is our decision.

[Ron Green]

43. With all due respect,

I think your notion that the "marketplace of ideas" operates according to some laws of free exchange is just naive. We live in a world of propaganda and emotional manipulation, and the masses of consumers and even of voters don't have enough of the whole story to make good decisions. Hell, they don't even know HOW to look for the whole story.

Like you, I have enough money to afford the stuff that's good for me, and the sense to balance my wants and my needs. I imagine almost all of us on DU have good sense as well. But I don't hold such hopes for the masses. They have decided, and we have Wal*Mart and George W. Bush as a result. And this is why NPR won't be fixed by the "marketplace of ideas."

[forgethell]

48. Well, we'll have to disagree

on this one, I guess. I have a lot of faith in people's abilities to make the right decisions for themselves, regardless of what other people want them to do.

Hey, yeah, not all ideas can make it in the marketplace of ideas. Too damn bad. Not all widget manufacturers make it in the commercial marketplace, either. The good ones survive, the bad ones do not.

It is also highly hypocritical to to think that only one side uses propaganda and emotional manipulation in disseminating its message. Especially if the side that claims the high ground is represented by Howard Dean, who is becoming an embarrassment by the over-the-top hyperbole of his public statements. And he gets heard. Maybe the Republican-controlled media realizes what an asset he is to their side.:shrug:

[Deep13]

12. We're not suppressing anything.

I just don't think that RW extremeists should be defining the issues. There are planty of commericial stations that allow them to do that anyway. Attention, like broadcast hours, is a limited resource. By continually shoving bullshit into the face of the public, we are crowding out reasonable debate.

[forgethell]

13. NO, we're not.

We competing in the "marketplace of ideas", and doing it badly, in my opinion. We can do better, but not by shutting off debate, not by limiting access to our opponents, especially if they are, through their taxes, paying for part of it.

[Ron Green]

15. Would that it were the "marketplace of ideas," rather than the

Marketplace of Emotions it really is.

[forgethell]

16. Calling it something else does

not change the essential nature of the thing. We are losing in the marketplace of ideas, and, incidentally, in the electoral process, and those of us who are unwilling to examine why will continue to meet with defeat.

[Tsiyu]

22. You are confusing issues

Saying that there should be free and open discussion of issues will only work WHEN ALL ISSUES ARE PLACED ON THE TABLE.

In the case of NPR, I turned them off several months ago when many, many of their "news" stories quoted a Repuke source yet refused to offer an opposing view.

If the media do not tell us about the carnage in Iraq, if the media do not tell us about the Downing Street Minutes, if the media do not tell us about Prescott Bush, if the media do not tell us about the protests and the extreme voting irregularities in the last election, they are BIASED BY DEFAULT.

How can any America debate issues if only half the facts are presented? Sorry, forgethell, your logic is not flawed but your distraction is.

[forgethell]

28. I'm not distracted.

Yes, all issues should be on the table, but I don't think they all have to be presented in the same forums. It doesn't bother me, for example, that FAUX is a conservative network. I know that and can examine what they say with that in mind. Look, liberals will try to put out the facts that suit their world-view, just the same as conservatives will. I try to get all the facts that are relevant. Before you ask who decides what facts are 'relevant', let me answer. I do. I'm the only one in the whole world qualified to do so for me. Just as you are for you.

So I don't mind Rush, or Sean, etc, giving their viewpoint, any more than Al Franken giving his. I want it all. Even the flat-earthers. I think a biased media is far better than one that tries to be objective, because, well, being human, they can't really be. But when everybody has a chance to speak, and to listen if they choose, the true facts will come out. Your mistake is in thinking that the media does not tell us these stories. The information is there for those who want to know.

[Tsiyu]

32. Your mistake is in thinking that the media does not tell us these stories.

(sic)

Really?

I see the media missing quite a few stories. And that is bias, sorry. If they don't tell us about Guckert/Gannon and choose instead to focus on MJ or the runaway bride, they are biased by default.

Journalists used to be trained to be non-subjective. They were taught to report the facts, to thoroughly investigate reports and statements made, to keep their own opinions and political bias out of their work.

Not any more apparently, and apparently, many Americans are fine with this. Not me. A free America depends on a free, non-biased press.

Anything less from journalists is just treasonous whoring.

[forgethell]

35. But they have

NEVER reported all the facts. And the facts that they leave out are dependent on their own prejudices. That's why I am in favor of a "biased" media. That way I can get more of the facts, and decide for myself which ones are relevant to the problem, in my opinion.

[Tsiyu]

37. From a Constitutional standpoint

an information source funded by public monies is wrong and treasonous if it is biased politically.

Your preferences are not covered in the Constitution. The Framers' respect for checks and balances trumps your desires.

[forgethell]

38. And, yet,

how can it not be biased? It's run by human beings. Perhaps that's why the Constitution makes no mention of government funded news or opinion sources. Ya think?

[Tsiyu]

39. There are checks and balances in the Constitution

precisely to keep one party from controlling government. They could not have envisioned the media we have today, but had they known of their influence on American citizens, the Framers surely would have included the media in the concept of separation of powers.

The first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,..."

Websters defines "abridge" as: 1 shorten, as by omission or condensation, 2 cut off, curtail.

If Congress allocates funds for a public broadcast and the broadcast does not cover all sides of any given issue, it is abridging the freedom of the press.

[forgethell]

41. No, there are no

checks and balances to keep one party from controlling the government. Read the Constitution carefully. The checks and balances are set up between the branches of government, not between any parties. If one party has enough of the voters with them to control the two political branches, they will eventually control the judicial branch also. Think of the early 1960s where the Democrats were in charge of all branches of the government.

If Congress allocates funds for a public broadcast and the broadcast does not cover all sides of any given issue, it is abridging the freedom of the press. Right. And the conservatives feel that their side is not being properly covered. We feel that it is objective. But both opinions are opinions. Just opinion and nothing more. So the real proper way to do it is to have conservative and liberal shows on where everybody knows where the hosts are coming from. Or, even better, Congress could get out of the business of disseminating news and opinion altogether and let it stay in the private sector where it belongs.

Because, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, when government pays the bills, government will control the media. And when one party is in power, it sets the agenda.

[Deep13]

25. marketplace of ideas

Markets are regulated, you know. Ideas are not supposed to be.

Again, journalism is not a debating society or a trial. They are supposed to ascertain the facts and report them and to provide reasonable analysis. The issue here is are we going to allow political hacks at the CPB to dictate the terms of the debate? Advertisers in corporate media already do that. Public media is supposed to be objective.

[forgethell]

29. Supposed to be objective.

But, being human, cannot possibly be. I prefer a partisan media where all sides are heard. Then I can make up my own mind, instead of having the politically correct pablum of the day spoon-fed to me.

Some market places are regulated. They are not free markets. And as you say, ideas are not supposed to be. Therefore, conservative ideas have just as much right to be broadcast, and be heard as do progressive ones.

[Tsiyu]

33. Again, you confuse issues

This isn't about censoring conservatives. This is about a public entity taking public money and using it to further an agenda. The "P" in NPR stands for PUBLIC. They should not take sides. They are called to a higher standard than FU(X) News.

You are totally confused here, because you are claiming a right to somthing no one disputes, while refusing to see that the public also has a right- to hear both sides of issues, to have all issues presented and debated. This is what's known as fairness. Yeah, I know. Some folks refuse to play fair. And they will be criticized and then some people will defend them. But that doesn't make them right or good for our society.

[forgethell]

36. As I understand the

conservative position on this issue, that is what they want, too. They consider public broadcasting to be 100% liberal, and they want some time. I don't agree with them but, no, I'm not confusing the issue. You are.

Frankly, the best thing would be to cease all taxpayer subsidies for broadcasting opinion. Then the issue goes away, and we can use our energy on something important.

[Igel]

44. You've never seen the scholarly work claiming that the

scientific method and scientific orthodoxy exists to promote and propagate male hegemony, and express deeply patriarchal views?

Wow. My point: there is nothing, and I exclude few things, that can't be taken as promoting some sort of worldview that somebody somewhere thinks is wrong.

Hollow-earthers? Therians? Velikovsky supporters? Zero-point energy (I think is the term)?

I hate the legal system. I can see it working, in principle, but it requires two reasonable sides that respect each other and can act civilly. The preconditions aren't met.

[forgethell]

49. I've heard about it.

I've read some excerpts.

The whole idea is ridiculous. These 'scholars' don't even qualify as competent clowns. The scientific method is not sexist or racist any more than a hammer is. It's just a tool, but a tool that works whether it is a man or a woman, a white or a black, a Christian or a Muslim that wields it. No matter how much you may believe otherwise, if you screw with Mother Nature, she will fuck you over.

OK, assuming your post-modernist ideas are correct, then why is patriarchy and male hegemony wrong? It's just another equally valid world-view.

Nope, the scientific method is much more reliable at getting at the truth than the legal system is, which in turn is much more reliable at getting at the truth than whining about the power structure is. Both, however, must be used in their proper spheres.

[Igel]

50. Please!

I mention such folk in the context of hollow-earthers and therians not by accident.

I rather like the scientific method.

Generally when I venture into the post-modernist ... um ... field, it's to argue with people on their own terms. Or to spoof it. Although the latter is generally far, far too easy a sport. (I personally find this field to be one that has constantly standing water, weeds, and the occasional cypress tree.)

[BiggJawn]

20. You're right, it doesn't.

" It does not make any sense to balance an hour of facts with an hour of lies."

That's why we need TWO hours of lies. NPR Liberal? With Juan, Cokie and Mara? Oh, that's a LAUGH. :sarcasm:

Almost as funny as saying FOX is a liberal network because they have a cartoon character mooning people and saying "Eat my Shorts".

[indepat]

4. PBS and NRP will never receive a penny from me with a Tomlinson-type at

the helm.

[Deep13]

5. Local station get the donations,

not the CPB.

[Junkdrawer]

6. I'd like to comment on this, but I'm at work...

((insert rude comment decrying the inadequacy of the current NPR whoring and suggesting even more demeaning whoring here))

[lala_rawraw]

8. Send him back to Cheney's lap n/t

[Zenlitened]

21. If a republican says there is a "lack of objectivity" in coverage...

... it means he or she is all a-twitter because someone deviated from spewing repuke talking points.

Everybody knows that. We just need more people willing to say it out loud.

Republicans don't give a shit about "fairness." They want everything their way all the time, or they'll stamp their little feet and whine and cry and scream until they do get their way.

Republican = crybaby.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. In other news, Pravda has rented new offices in Arlington and has a new

contract to provide news supplied by the Boosh administration but sourced as unbiased news. The plan is to use the bones of what was once the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to beam a VOA-type broadcast to unsuspecting Americans.

All on-air talent will be required to wear sweaters and ties. Men will be required to have beards and longish hair, all in an effort, as one insider termed it "to appear for all the world like reasonable, warm, fuzzy, trustworthy characters."

Recently fired CNN morning host, the vacuous dunce, Bill Hemmer, along with Rush Squeeze Daryn Kagan have been tapped for key anchor spots.


Hemmer, shown here without the glasses the property department supplied him in a effort to look less like an underwear model in the Sears catalog, is reported to be the front runner for the daytime anchor slot.


Shown in this photo, Kagan, far right (how appropriate), is made to look softer by posing with character actresses hired specifically to appear average.

Candy Crowley, also of CNN, is reportedly in talks with Pravda for a key producer spot, preferring to finally retire from her on-air roles. Krispy Kreme has reportedly been a party to the talks with Crowley.


Ms. Crowley, shown in a recent photo, and next to a photo of her body double, who may also be a part of the deal, according to spokespeople for sponsoring donut maker, Krispy Kreme.

The role of the Krispy Kreme company is, at this point, unclear. How large a 'roll' they'll play in any final negotiations between Crowley and Pravda is also unclear. Said an anonymous source close to the talks, "Candy can't keep her mouth shut when Mr. Krispy's in the room." Media industry watchers giggled at the statement, but allowed that they may well understand the cryptic response.

[Bluebear]

24. 'vacuous dunce'

true true true. :rofl:

[bpilgrim]

27. YES! YES! YES! - stand up to these FASCIST FUCKS

or we're ALL dead :nuke"

peace

[marions ghost]

45. in the article

it says that number of listeners to NPR has doubled since 2000--
?!? WHY? Is this the result of pandering to conservatives, or what?
It could just be an indicator that TV viewership is falling. Dunno. I can't figure out why when I see NPR as LESS worthwhile and MORE biased, others are listening even more?

[bpilgrim]

46. anyone in the 'NEWS" bizz has seen their numbers zoom since 12-12-2000

specially since 911.

PBSish outlets were the least biased of bunch and i bet people flocked there but the neoCONs are on to'm and try'n to change all that.

i still listen to NPR when i have to and it is really creepy with everything i know by reading the news from global sources.

:scared:

peace

[sendero]

47. The article says..

... that CPB gets only 15% of its budget from the Federal govt.

I thought it was a lot more. I wish they'd tell the government to shove that 15% up their ass, and get viewers to pick up the slack.

I'd be happy to contribute to PBS without influence of shitheads like Tomlinson.

[GiovanniC]

51. The Problem With News In This Country

The mainstream news media, particularly cable news, has devolved to a point where facts are debated right alongside opinions and viewpoints. Often you will have two or four idealogues on a "panel" with a "moderator" whose job involves throwing a controversial issue out to the dog pack much more than it involves actual journalism. The panelists take the allotted time to attack each other on various positions.

When it's all over, the viewer comes away with the message (whether it's spoken or unspoken) that "the truth must be somewhere in between. Even worse, you often get a "Hannity-type" on the right and a "Lieberman-type" on the left. So what you get is a centrist debating a far-rightist, and people think the truth is in between.

To make things even more out-of-whack, the truth is NOT always somewhere in between. If Howard Dean says that 2+2=4 and Bill Frist says that 2+2=6, THAT DOESN'T FUCKING MEAN THAT 2+2=5, MOTHERFUCKERS.

The problem the right-wingers have had with public broadcasting is that public broadcasting has had much less of a financial incentive to pretend that 2+2=6, like Fox News would say, or even that 2+2=5, as CNN and MSNBC would say. They would come right out and say, "Howard Dean is right... 2+2=4. Bill Frist was completely full of shit when he said 2+2=6." And so there goes the right-wing, pissed at the "liberal bias".

It's not a liberal bias, it's a truth bias, and eroding it from public broadcasting only serves to make this nation weaker.

Cocksuckers.