Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Anyone think we need PBS

The problem using any one example is it's simply anecdote, not a meaningful review. And saying you can say anyone over any period of time makes it even less than anecdotal.

As to the group doing the study, the methodology is easily enough reviewed in the study released.

As to whether they are misconeptions or not, again, review the material. Where WMDs found? Was a link between Iraq and 911 evidenced?

I don't know which "side" I am presumed to be on, nor do I know how many sides there are presumed to be. Apparently only two, which is simply inaccurate.

Where were feminists when Bill Clinton was accused of harassment? Presumably they did what is appropriate: looked at the case and made their best determination based what they knew. I don't see how that is betraying their own side".

No one would expect a white man on a jury to always side with the white male defendant - or if they did expect it they wouldn't condone it. I'd guess in this case they simply didn't believe the accusation. And given the financing of the accusor, I'd say was not unreasonable.

But, should financing make a difference if the accusation is real? After all, good ole' Dan Rather didn't want us focusing on the truth, only the seriousness of the accusations in the document scandal.

I don't presume, Joe. I don't know which side you come down on, for all i know you may be libertarian. But again, simply saying something doesn't make it true, and you know as well as i do that even "methods" are subject to skew by phrasing, intent, and usage. As for wmd's, their not having been found does not mean they did not exist. You can't prove a negative.

Of course the financing would not make a difference if the accusations are real. But as I said, I expect people looked at the case and made their best determinations. The financing may compound suspicions.

And unless someone has psychic powers I don't know about, there's no way or reason to say what Dan Rather wanted.

Then the suggestion is no methodology can reasonably assure results?

This is an unfortunate extension of the worldview that there are two sides and everything is politicized. No poll has any meaning, no science any veracity, no documentation any authenticity - it's all just 2 sides of a political struggle.

As for WMDs, the question in the polling was not whether you believe they exist but whether they were found. And on that point, as every other in the study, FOX viewers were significantly less accurately informed, and NPR/PBS viewers more accurately informed.

Just a note that you guys really rock in your discussion of this matter. While Rick is out of his gourd with respect to Fox (it's the Republican's propaganda machine!), it's great to have to such well-reasoned discussion.

My limited knowledge of the relationship between the CPB (funded by Congress) and PBS and NPR (which have entirely separate governance from CPB and each other), is that a relatively large share of CPB funding goes to news programming (especially the Lehrer News Hour), mainly because news is expensive to produce.

PBS Charter
Funding
It's the CPB funding and the wording "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs" required for the CPB funding, which opened the door.


"ALL PROGRAMS"

Half the states were red.

The wording taken strictly omits the funding even if one program is "red" and the very next one "blue."

Funding is based on showing programs and only programs that obtain diversity AND balance of opinion. The programming is very skewed "blue" in any accounting from my observation, whether it be red-blue-blue-blue or measuring the balance within a program.

The traditionally left leaning Board was negligent. They didn't maintain balance. Another large precept of PBS programming is supposed to be that the audience is trusted to be intelligent, yet they haven't trusted the viewers to be able to make decisions based upon balanced programming. This is particularly chilling with childrens' programming.

I'd much rather have a child make a decision contrary to mine on counter-prevailent culture issues such as the value of two Daddies based upon being presented diverse opinions on the subject, than the child deciding in accordance with my beliefs based upon receiving one narrow side. Government supported programming should challenge and promote thinking, not indoctrinate.


The "right" as well as the "left" should be challenging the programming, continuously. That this is a recent event tells me that someone hasn't been doing their job.

Thanks B Boy.

But I missed any indication that the proogramming is "left leaning" other than hearing some conservatives say so.

I don't know which children's shows have made decisions for people - though I do know they emphasize being kind and respectful and so on.

Again, I don't know that any programming on PBS has been used to indoctrinate.

Again, I know themese of respect and kindness are there.

I know there have been shows (not for kids) about the Holocaust, which I guess could have been balanced with a Holocaust denier show.

But I was not under the impression that "balance: meant presenting two opposing views on each subject where there are opposing views.

Incidentally, the Republican controlled congress does not say proposed funding cuts are a response to lack of balance. So suggesting that as a cause is a little funny, since the people making the decisions never said it.

If you want to look at lack of balance, consider the recent series of disclosures about Kennth Tomlinson - head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting - who is now under investigation by the corporation's inspector general.

These include his decision to hire a researcher to monitor the political leanings of guests on the public policy program "Now," the use of a White House official to set up an ombudsman's office to scrutinize public radio and television programs for political balance, and payments approved by Mr. Tomlinson to two Republican lobbyists last year.

More recently it emerged that Tomlinson provided false information in hiring the researcher to monitor "Now". Turns out his hiring of Fred Mann was not approved as he said it was.

It also turns out that Fred Mann was so far to the right that he identified Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as a liberal. I guess under the current leadership Balanced means point/counterpoint by a mainstream Republican and a far right Republican.

I have yet to hear any factual (non-anecdotal, non-conjectural) evidence supporting the fact that PBS is wildly out of balance.

As a matter of fact, I have yet to even hear a definition of "balance" as it applies to children's programming that we can all agree upon. If we don't know what "balance" even is, how can this discussion be fruitful in any way?

You're not the only one.

CPB Board chair (and Karl Rove crony) Kenneth Tomlinson nicely managed to bury the results of not one but two National Public Opinion polls.

The polls were conducted on Tomlinson's instruction to support his assertion that the American public considered PBS too liberally biased. The polls were conducted by 2 firms - one considered republican and one democratic.

After the 2002 survey, CPB ordered the firms back into the field the following year. Why?

Could be the results.

The National Public Opinion Survey #2 showed that public broadcasting had an 80 percent “Favorable” rating; only 10 percent of those polled had an “Unfavorable” opinion of PBS and public radio.

More than half of those surveyed believed that PBS news and information programming was more “trustworthy” than news shows on the commercial networks, including ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and CNN (while between 6 and 15 percent found PBS programming less trustworthy). Similarly, more than half of those surveyed believed that PBS provided more "in-depth" news and information programming than the networks (compared to between 17 and 24 percent who thought such programming was less in-depth). Only about 8 percent thought that PBS’s Iraq war coverage was “slanted.” More than a quarter of those surveyed said the reporting was “fair and balanced” (while 63 percent had “no opinion” at all). NPR received similar results. Few respondents believed that PBS and NPR “coverage of the Bush Administration” was “slanted” (a result that no doubt disappointed those at CPB who had formulated the question).

Finally, more than half (55 percent) said that PBS programming was “fair and balanced," with strong support for its “high quality programming” and as “a valuable cultural resource.” NPR received an even higher approval rating for its programming - including perceptions that it is “fair and balanced” (79 percent of respondents).

Focus groups in 2003 confirmed these results.

Tomlinson - the man who ordered the surveys - decided they were meaningless. The results were not shared with PBS or NPR, nor were they shared with the press (despite having something to crow about). They were buried in an annul report to congress.

Putting Tomlinson in charge of the CPB is worse than the fox guarding the henhouse - at least the fox likes the hens.

Define "conservative?" Two sides can play that game...and they are. I'm not.

YOU "know" children's shows emphasize being kind and respectful and so on but you represent you as much as I represent me. It also is a bit of a strawman. There were films showing Hitler youth (yes yes extreme analogy) being kind. It means nothing to isolate one component of programming and say, "hey that's something we can all agree on. The programming must be balanced already."

Others have the right to challenge whether or not there are other aspects of those shows that represent their viewpoints, whether the shows are "balanced" as required by Charter.

Define "balance?" Exactly the problem. How is the accounting to be done? By debate and persuasion, same as always.

My point, my only point (other than bringing a few facts from PBS' charter into the discussion) is that it is Congresses' role to represent all the people. To "account," the "reds" have every right to challenge the balance of the programming as the "blue."

As far as the PBS Board traditionally leaning "left," well then we can again slow time on defining "left." Let's not. Easier to go see who appointed the Board. My guess? Clinton. Be interesting to see how many Board members were retained from Poppa Bush's years.

The reason challenges are now starting to happen (only read one article on this) is because the two term President from the (I'll let someone else play the define game) right appointed a few new Board members.

My only challenge is to the thought that the threat to funding is Congress' doing. It was the doing of the PBS Board. Congress is doing what it is supposed to do, stand up for constituency.

I see what's happening as being what is supposed to happen. Debate by Congress. The ammunition for that debate was supplied by the previous Board. The ambiguity was supplied by the wording of their own Charter.


The reason I call the old Board "left?"

Whether one sees PBS programming as left or right would probably be colored by ones' own politics yeah? Not sure who Stalin saw when he looked to his right or Hitler to his left (do I have those in the correct order? I live in what would be called a VERY "blue" town. My politics are normally considered middle of the road, in a very union district. We don't even have a functional Republican Party. We have Democratic A and Democratic B. By most standards countrywide, I'd be considered "liberal" on social issues and "conservative on economic issues. I certainly don't recall a time where the "blues" complained about the programming. That there probably says something about the leaning? The left has hardly been scarce to complain about FOX, why no cause to complain about PBS? So, my thoughts on whether PBS programming has generally been "leftish," "rightish" or "balanced?" Clearly "leftish." No argument here is going to change an opinion based upon observation, extended observation (no cable in my house )


So, does anyone want to take the challenge of defining "balanced" and start counting the words used in the programming?

Absolutely.

And as I pointed out in the post above, the board chair paid for multiple polls, using multiple firms (including one used by the Bush / Cheney campaign.

No strong public sentiment that PBS runs left was revealed.

But since Congress hasn't said these cuts have anything to do with political bias or lack of balance, what does that have to do with it?

Under the Public Broadcasting Act, the White House can put appointees of one political party in no more than five of the nine CPB Board seats.
The White House reliably goes to the max, swinging the board's majority to its own party as the six-year board terms expire.

One of the Democrat seats has been open for some time, so Republicans have a healthy majority.

Once more, evvery time the CPB has sought out support for the claim of liberal bias it has instead turned up strong support for PBS, its accuracy and balance.

And, yet one more time, Congress has said this is the outcome of broad cuts, not lack of balance.

DC said this:

"Just a note that you guys really rock in your discussion of this matter. While Rick is out of his gourd with respect to Fox (it's the Republican's propaganda machine!), it's great to have to such well-reasoned discussion.

My limited knowledge of the relationship between the CPB (funded by Congress) and PBS and NPR (which have entirely separate governance from CPB and each other), is that a relatively large share of CPB funding goes to news programming (especially the Lehrer News Hour), mainly because news is expensive to produce. "

New York Times
Atlanta Journal and Constitution, i think it is.
Washington Post
LA Times
Seattle Post
NBC
CBS
ABC
CNN
MSNBC

All cogs in the left conspiracy to turn the US into a moral cesspool just so they can sell more news items, become richer, and call repubs mean ole' rich white people.

See, anything can be said about anything or one at any time.

I do think it funny that the one major news media outlet that is actually willing to air genuine conservative ideas is castigated by the side that wants "tolerance for all" and "free speech".

Course, that isn't really true, but thats what they say.

I think you must again be tallking about PBS.


One of PBS's few straight news programs, The Newshour, consistently features a political array of pundits, and all without screaming at each other too.

And speaking of genuine conservative ideas, I am apparently the last living human in the US to remember William F Buckley's FIRING LINE, an hourly conservative commenntary that ran on PBS for 33 years, as recently as 1999. And strangely enough PBS was not deemed to have a right wing bias as a result.

Alas, these days the neo-conservatives havve framed the worldview such that there is no no news, there are no facts, just two opposing sides. Heck, I'm not ALL that old but I remember when there were Republicans, Democrats, moderates, and the extremes of liberals and conservatives.

These days there are - in the minds of many - only SIDES and only two of them, and little recognition of the many gradations between. And woe to the one who dares challenge that - like longtime Republican Chuck Hagel who was declared a liberal by Tomlinson's reviewer.

Holding a party affiliation doesn't mean that you actually believe in the platform of the party on all, or even many accounts. Examples:

Mayor Bloomberg of new york, switched to the republican ticket so he could run, but is really a democrat.

John McCain, scary little Napolean complex dude, says he's republican, but does his best to stymie anything in hopes of getting attention and "looking like a maverick".

Arnold schwarzen...schqartzen...the califoria governor...Fiscally and politically republican, socially democrat.

And having one or two programs like firing line does not a general atmosphere make.

As for the shades of gray...lets get real for a moment.

"Tolerance is for everyone"...to paraphrase.

"Unless you are wearing a robe and banging a gavel, you shouldn't be judging anyone!" NBC and the dude from will and grace like to tell us.

Really? I'm supposed to be tolerant to everyone and not judge anyone?

Bull twaddle. I make judgements every day, and so do you, if you are honest. I may be nothing more than not taking a friends call because you think they are gonna dump a load of grief about themselves on your lawn...but its still a judgement. Should i be tolerant of NAMBLA, or wife beaters, or pedophile priests? How bout Idi Amin?

maybe i should be tolerant of the pimp that beat up his hooker the other day at the gas station? My wife witnessed this, and it really disturbed her to see the cop calmly call in the report before pepper spraying the cokehead pimp.

"Ah", you might say, "but these are people doing something wrong, hurtfull even, to others."

Really, then what about the american neo-nazi party members who never do anything more than attend rallies and fly flags? Should i tolerate that?

How bout', and this is a real stickler, the kid that wants to pray before class to a Christian god. Cause dang it, thats just plain wrong, right?

Shades of gray are nice, nuance is nice, but sometimes, there is right and wrong, and you have to be willing to stand up for the tough thing and do what is right, even if it costs you. I feel bad for the baby born to an unwed teenage mother that cant support the baby yet. But the simple fact of the matter is, unless its a case of rape, there is no real reason why she had to get pregnant to begin with, is there? So, society tells me that i have to possibly neglect my family, if i am at the poverty line or barely above it, to pay taxes so that she can support the baby, or to get an abortion.

I do judge the dads that run out on their families, or the babies that they make out of wedlock.

I make judgements every day, decide what is right to tolerate every day. And you do too, if you are honest enough to admit it.

Absolutely. But are you saying Chuck Hagel is a LIBERAL?

And with regard to your other examples, all campaigned for and supoprted Bush. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them non-republicans.

Or have we reached a point at which the center is so far to the right that if you support Bush, campaign for and WITH Bush, but disagree on any issue you're a liberal?

Really? Tomlinson's only citation of a LIBERAL show was "Now" with Bill Moyers.

With regard to "Tolerance", I have no comment - I haven't said anything to anyone about tolerance. Not my issue.

And I don't see what NBC's PSA's have to do with PBS's funding.

That kid can pray his or her heart out. How would anyone even know?

Well that's nice to hear. Especially amidst all the calls of "balance".

You see, I recall when news balance meant being accurate but fair. Today it means two oposing viewpoints giving their spin with no indication about who's right or wrong about even the FACTS of the case, much less the merits.

I wouldn't say society tells you that, so much as the democvratic process does. It's the same democratic process that requires pacifist tax payers to pay for bombs, and Libertarian tax payers to pay for libraries.

But you've got a simple solution to that: just get enough of the electorate to agree with you and change the laws.

It would be interesting to have people get to check off a list those things their tax $ would support, and no doubt it would change the face of US spending. Especially since the blue states pay considerably more in taxes than the blue states, which in turn get more than they pay.

Joe, i hate to tell you this, but that is EXACTLY what democracy does. You build coalitions and get things passed or undone.

As to "one or two shows", i mentioned before, commentators like Steve Inskeep and others like Terri Gross are anything but fair and balanced. Their tone of interviews, who they softshoe and who they get aggresive with, it all adds up to the atmosphere of the network.

As for balance and right and wrong, i completely agree. They are supposed, when reporting the "news" to be objective. But yellow journalism has existed since it began. And i agree, it happens on both sides. What i was getting at, was that i think Fox does a better job of letting both sides be heard. I didn't say they were unbiased. I think it is less of a bias.

Look, as a commentator or host, its fine to have your own views and put them out there. As a news reporter, you are supposed to check your bias at the door, and report the news, uncolored by your own perceptions. Far too many "reporters" don't do that. Do you really think Rather was unbiased?

Thats why i think reporters should be held up to the same scrutiny that politicians are. And they should have their histories available at their employment places. If you have a reporter that has been arrested or used dope, and he is pushing for a relaxation of the narcotics laws, people have a right to know were that reporter is coming from, don't you think?

You needn't hate to tell me - I'm not unhappy about it, though like you I'm not always happy with the outcomes.

I'm aware that that's your feeling. But there's nothing concrete to lend credence to it. And as I pointed out several times, when even the CPB chair commissioned polls through Republican firms to back that up he couldn't. The news came back again and again that the public broadly considers PBS to be a good source as is.

Now you may well disagree with the poll results -but an organization needs some systematic ways to collect and measure data other than a disgruntled individual.

I'd disagree. And the study of news viewers certainly indicates that FOX does a worse job of accurately relaying the news.

Moreover I'd disagree that it's the job of the news to provide "both sides". I'd say it's the job of the news to provide the news, not two sets of spin.

Now we're left with a situation in which a report about Tom Delay's ethics violation is considered biased.

Well sometimes the facts are "biased".

Nope. Only in as much as news about anyone in the public eye is fair game. It's the job of the news publisher to make sure the product is not biased.

But if yuo want to screen journalists that way we should also screen the corporate owners and publishers who actually make the decisions. You know, like Roger Ailes.

I think my general feeling on this, as well the earlier comment "about there used to be shades of grey" but now it is one side or the other, is

ta da dummmmmmmm

the system hasn't changed, I have. I recall thinking the same thing, that there used to be "balance" and that now it seems something has changed. But when I look at the old news reels or think even of my college years, it was this or it was that, mostly for the convenience of talk's sake. There was in between, but for convenience we boiled it down to two sides. The perspective I see today is no different really. Things have just moved a a few more notches to the right than before. you never used to hear from the "right." They just kind of were the quieter party.

Heck when Nixon was in or even when Reagan was in, I don't recall seeing anywhere near the activity on campuses by the Republicans as I see now. I went to a pretty conservative school by nature: the students were small town/ag at uni for engineering mostly. There was no visually active "Republican Party." Now, shoot, I'm at a liberal, liberal arts college and half my students seem Republican. There's actually debate instead of a louder, bigger, group shouting down one poor soul.

The country I think is just on it's normal slow swing back and forth. How we are different than those that swung too far and didn't return without bloodshed, is that we have debate on things like PBS programming. We go so far until enough people get fed up or bored with that direction, and we start to swing back

There may even be some of that "power corrupting" that swings it back. Though my town is overwhelmingly Demo, the state is overwhelmingly Repu. Now the powers got too lax and unrestrained and find themselves in scandal. Think that will swing the play a bit back towards the left? ya betcha! Love a good scandal.

How did we get this present swing to the right? Hmmm, any left leaning people in the upper echelons of government get themselves involved in scandal lately? heh heh. Love a good scandal. Nothing "balances" the politics quite like it.


As for the original premise: do we "need" PBS? No. I think it's a good idea though. How else we going to provide work for all those phone bank people? Where else am I going to go and not see a "reality show?" (though I love that cooking show)

OH Joe! BTW I'm not ignoring your last post. Just that that one takes some reading up to make a reasoned response. This one I could do and remain stupid.

Man, we're all going to be super typists when this one's done.

You may not agree, but in knowing where a bias, even an unconcious one, lies, people are more able to get at the truth. and that is what reporters are supposed to get at, the unvarnished, uncolored truth.

Lets face it, publishers don't do their jobs on either side when it comes to news. The pick and choose what they put out, what is sexiest, or will grab attention the most. Do you really think it only beautiful blonde girls that go missing? There are just as many, proportionately of the latino and black community. But when is the last time you heard a real hue and cry about it?

As for what the public perceives...the mass public is only as smart as it's dumbest person. I don't claim to be the smartest man on the planet, but i can generally tell whats up. And yeah, i do realize that things get skewed on the conservative side, but sometimes, especially in the difficult times, you have to cut through the chaff to get to the heart of the matter.

And sometimes, trying to see each and every possible shade of gray or nuance leads to paralyzation of the body American.

Taxes are a good example. Class envy, greed, a desire for power, they all come into play at every level. People's beliefs frequently have nothing to do with reality. People rant about tax cuts for the wealth, but don't understand that those tax cuts are either spent, which moves an economy, or saved; they don't disappear into the ether. If they are spent on yacht's, so what? that means that some blue collar guy out there keeps, or gets a job building them. He is then able to feed his family, and pay his bills. And because he does this, the grocery is able to stay open, and have food on hand for others.

Money saved is put back into the economy in the form of housing loans, or capital to act as startup for other business' that employ and hire.

But listen to the news and you only hear..."well, the rich just keep gettin' richer, folks." And the clear implication is.."Why should they get it?" And the answer is, because this is america, which runs on a capitalist system. The country was started so that you could build wealth and a life not reliant on who your daddy was. It still happens, yeah. Bush was a recipient. But for me, a blue collar guy that works to be envious of someone that got lucky like that when i aspire to do better finacially and pass that wealth on when i die to my decendants would be the heighth of hypocracy, wouldn't it?

Things tie in in various, sometimes sly ways. Subterfuge is a powerful weapon.

As for corporate owners, yeah, they have a responsibility to the people that own shares in teh company. And they frequently are vetted for the jobs. The instances of the good old boy network handing out rich jobs to skull and crossbones, while existing, are not as prevalent as you think.

tell me about it, BB. My fingers are cramping, lol.

Look, the country, like it or not, is set up on a two party system, and that means that you are gonna have a range of choices and decisions, but ultimately, they are gonna boil down to heads or tails. Most people cant coalate too many different options.

Plus, there studio is about 15 minutes from my house and I plan on applying for some crummy job there.

Then by all means, check into the bias of the corporations that own the publishers and set editorial guidelines.

And don't forget, you don't know the bias - you're assuming it.

Yes, but everyone think they can tell what's up. In fact most are sure of it. And at least half disagrees with another half.

That's the beauty of democracy - no matter how much smarter you think you are than anyone else, you still get the same vote.

You're again discussing your opinion as if it's factual - take taxes. Tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy don't patricularly stimulate the economy because they don't patricularly change spending. Tax cuts that benefit the lower and working classes provide a greater stimulus for the reverse reason.

But for the purposes of this thread I'd suggest rather than an economics or tax debate, a suggestion on how the news should approach the topic.

That may be what you hear, or project. Doesn't mean it's there.

And what's definitely not there is a fair analysis of the impact on even families with a tax break as tax funded services are cut.

But there's nothing non-capitalist about determining the best place for tax cuts. And strangely enough, the elimination of inheritance taxes does precisely the reverse: it builds wealth based on who your daddy was.

I don't suggest envy as a motivation or basis for decision making for anyone.

Umm, not to sound snide, but i studied economics and finance. I know how money works in a capital society's markets.

You aren't arguing market effects, you are arguing philosophy there. Disproportionate effects and such like are buzzwords that are used to arrive at an outcome already chosen. Believe me, i had those exact same thoughts, and had more than one go round with some professors.

Now, maybe you did too. You might be a wall street finance whiz for all i know. But the basic defining principles dont change. Hence, Bill Clintons incredibly stupid statement mentioned above.

I just read that the funding has been restored.

As to how smart i think i am, yeah, i do think that i am more informed than a lot of the people that don't take the time to look at what is happening. I don't claim to have the best take on things all the time, heck, i got the OJ, Blake, and Jackson trial outcomes wrong, lol, but yeah, you have to work on what you think, measure the information, and go with what you have. No one, not you, not me, not the congress, not the president or pope has perfect knowledge.

But lets face it, whether it's bubba from longs, SC, or Mario from Staton Island, some folks out there are gonna be more in the dark because the DON'T take the time to investigate more.

From our previous debates, it's obvious that you are a highly informed person. And i do think that you try to be impartial, up to a point. Just like me.