Post from My Blog:
PBS and it's Future
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.
I am a big fan of PBS. Big fan. Give me two hours and a show on String Theory (the proposed "theory of everything") and I am amazingly content and...captivated. However I digress.

Joe Gandelman writes a superb piece on Kenneth Tomlinson, the former director of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Gandelman shows how Tomlinson only wanted, not to make PBS a network of the middle ground but rather simply a place for a conservative viewpoint.

The case is made that there are "responsible" members of the GOP (eds.: what? Is that an oxymoron?) who could have done what, frankly, needs to be done to the CPB. And that is to make it a place, not for one political idealogy, but rather to make sure that conservative voices are not marganilized or misrepresented.

I have to agree. The goal of the CPB is ultimately to provide broadcasts for the people. If it is to be "for the people" then there should not be one dominating political idealogy throughout its programming. It should be the government promoting both sides and not indoctrinating people. After all, once a government starts indoctrinating people, its leaders start to sound like this loon and drain on civilized culture.

Reader Comments

Comments are closed for this post.

  
Uh, dude?
By jr Nov 4th 2005 at 12:20 pm EST
Tomlinson's problem (like the problem with this piece) was that he went looking for a bias that wasn't there, not that he tried to hard to fix one.

There ISN'T an ideological bias on PBS.


...Yet it remains unclear what the evidence is for PBS's liberal bias. What are the egregious examples of so-called unfairness that are fueling the current controversy? Tomlinson himself rarely singles out any particular programming as being guilty of bias, or of not meeting public broadcasting's journalism standards. Rather than cite any actual infractions by PBS programs, Tomlinson has said he's concerned by the mere perception of a bias.

...

But the question remains, a perception of political bias by whom -- Republican politicians and conservative activists, or PBS viewers? If most PBS viewers and other Americans don't think the programming is biased -- and two internal polls prove they don't -- then why is the CPB unleashing this campaign?

...Last year CPB handpicked two new conservative-leaning programs to balance out the alleged liberal bias on PBS: "Tucker Carlson Unfiltered," hosted by the conservative pundit, and "The Journal Editorial Report," featuring the uniformly pro-Bush editors from the Wall Street Journal's editorial page. The two shows became perhaps the first in CPB history to be greenlighted specifically because they had an overt political perspective.

...

In March, Tomlinson hired a White House staffer to help draft guidelines for the new positions of PBS ombudsmen, who would specifically monitor bias in programming.

Last month, without informing PBS first, CPB appointed the ombudsmen. One of the men last year publicly endorsed a Republican for governor in Indiana, and the other, a self-described conservative, is a close friend of Tomlinson's.

...

Even when Moyers hosted the show, which routinely aired critical reports about the Bush administration, "Now" wasn't exactly a lightning rod for viewers' wrath. According to an attachment to CPB's annual report to Congress, CPB, eager for public feedback, created "Open to the Public," an interactive forum in which viewers can express concerns. For calendar year 2003, the most recent year for which statistics are publicly available, the initiative produced 1,139 e-mails from viewers. According to CPB, just 24 of those -- or roughly 2 percent -- were angry e-mails about "Now." (Drawing the most comments was "Sit and Be Fit," an exercise program for seniors; viewers e-mailed asking that it be shown on more local stations.) While individual PBS stations may have logged more complaints about "Now," CPB's own feedback mechanism barely registered any concern about the program.




Now I'll admit that I'm a big fan of Bill Moyers (and that NOVA on string theory was fantastic--even the cinematography was outstanding, especially with the cellist in the mirrors). I'm also a fan of balance and objectivity. I have seen NO EVIDENCE to suggest there is anything but fairness and objectivity in their journalistic standards, and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you haven't either.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Re: Uh, dude?
By jr Nov 4th 2005 at 12:21 pm EST
The link for those quotes (sorry): Link
  
Campus Progress

Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.

Campus Progress