CPB v PBS

[Sovrana]

I thought it would be best to start a new thread for this topic. Here are a couple of links to recent programs on NPR that I managed to catch. The first is the Diane Rehm Show with Tomlinson, the CEO of CPB that has been investigating PBS, NOW, and Bill Moyers.

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/05/18.php

The next link is the broadcast of this week's National Press Club featuring Pat Mitchell, the CEO of PBS.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4665136

There is somewhere a transcript of a recent speech or two by Bill Moyers that I can't find right now, but it is excellent.

[Orville Wrong]

I thought it would be best to start a new thread for this topic. Here are a couple of links to recent programs on NPR that I managed to catch. The first is the Diane Rehm Show with Tomlinson, the CEO of CPB that has been investigating PBS, NOW, and Bill Moyers.

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/05/18.php

The next link is the broadcast of this week's National Press Club featuring Pat Mitchell, the CEO of PBS.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4665136

There is somewhere a transcript of a recent speech or two by Bill Moyers that I can't find right now, but it is excellent.
New York Times had a pretty good piece on the CPB goings-on, but it appears to be behind their subscription firewall -- fuckin' capitalist moneygrubbers.

Also, the CPB FAQ page (http://www.cpb.org/pubcast/) is an excellent resource to explain the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (if you count me, this fine year produced TWO abominations... and Sgt. Pepper's). It breaks down the relationship between CPB, PBS, NPR, &c and details their sources of funding.

Side note: Here's "how to get a show on the air":

I have an idea for a radio/television program. How can I get it on the air?
Back to top

Here are some typical ways program producers get their shows on public broadcasting. This should not be regarded as step-by-step instructions for producing a program that will be aired. There is no one "right" way.

* Secure at least partial financing in order to produce the program. [See also "Other Funders of Public Broadcasting."]

* Begin production. Depending on the scope of the program, you may complete production on your own, or you may require assistance from additional funders or a radio or television distributor.

* If more funding is required at this stage, it may be appropriate to seek a grant from CPB [see Radio Program Grants and Television Program Grants] and/or additional sources.

Where is "Fellate a producer in the Spago parking lot."????

[markalot]

Bill Moyers belongs on a left wing talk show station, not PBS. His extreme left bias sickens me. He doesn't even try to present alternate viewpoints.

[Orville Wrong]

Bill Moyers belongs on a left wing talk show station, not PBS. His extreme left bias sickens me. He doesn't even try to present alternate viewpoints.
Bill has retired from broadcasting. He's no longer on the state payroll, and surprise of surprises, is now inflicting his opinions on Angelinos via the op-ed page at the Times, which sorry rag has now been forced to publish repeated corrections of his badly fact-checked columns.

[twentyshots]

C'mon, other than Moyer what is the gripe (And they even threw Tucker Carlson out there for ballast)? The heavy bias of blue state antiques? Not enough Toby Keith on Great Performances?

[supra-genius]

He doesn't even try to present alternate viewpoints.

You can thank the Great Communicator himself for that one. It was under Mr Reagan's watch when the "Equal Time" requirment was dropped by the FCC. The removal of this requirement is what allowed for the ever expanding list of one-sided vitriolic rant-athons which now pass for radio and television shows.

[markalot]

C'mon, other than Moyer what is the gripe (And they even threw Tucker Carlson out there for ballast)? The heavy bias of blue state antiques? Not enough Toby Keith on Great Performances?

None of the far ____ yakkers belong on PBS.

[BronxDJ]

Bill Moyers is hardley Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn or Angela Davis. BTW I would love for any or all of these three to get a show. PBS is not radical left. It is ceterist left. Does anyone watch their news hour? Mark Shields is supposed to be the liberal. He bends over backwards fauning over republican operatives and never asks a critical question. They also employ David Brooks who is on the NY Times op-ed page, but belongs in the NY Post.

The CPB should have more funding and fewer restrictions. This effort to silence alternative or independient voices started in earnest with Newt Gingrich. Look behind what's going on.

[Sovrana]

Here is the transcript of Bill Moyers' first speech since retiring from NOW.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/22021/

I'm highlighting the following:

"I decided long ago that this wasn't healthy for democracy. I came to see that "news is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity." In my documentaries -- whether on the Watergate scandals 30 years ago or the Iran-Contra conspiracy 20 years ago or Bill Clinton's fundraising scandals 10 years ago or, five years ago, the chemical industry's long and despicable cover-up of its cynical and unspeakable withholding of critical data about its toxic products from its workers, I realized that investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity is not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference.

I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies as well as the Big Lie of the people in power. In no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence."

The statement I emphasized seems to best implicate wat Tomlinson says over and over again in the NPR interview. He says he just wishes to present both sides and let the viewer decide. This is the exact same song and dance that Fox new has been playing: "We report, you decide." And Moyers then I think convincingly defines what is objective....something that we do not see in the news...not since Fox has redefined news and other broadcasts stations have followed suit.

This really is a great speech and Moyers has become my new hero.

[Jumpman]

Bill Moyers belongs on a left wing talk show station, not PBS. His extreme left bias sickens me. He doesn't even try to present alternate viewpoints.


I'd have to disagree with this one. While I do think he is fairly liberal, mostly because he's bright, he had republicans on NOW all the time. He does a much better job than most other journalists in at least asking decent questions. He is certainly critical of the Bush Administration, but how could you not be. I guarantee you he would be asking smart well-informed questions of a democratic White House as well. Bill Moyers does a great job.

[markalot]

I'd have to disagree with this one. While I do think he is fairly liberal, mostly because he's bright, he had republicans on NOW all the time. He does a much better job than most other journalists in at least asking decent questions. He is certainly critical of the Bush Administration, but how could you not be. I guarantee you he would be asking smart well-informed questions of a democratic White House as well. Bill Moyers does a great job.


Sorry, I've watched a lot of his shows. And this statement While I do think he is fairly liberal, mostly because he's bright shows just a little smidgen of bias on your part. Smart people are liberal, dumb people are conservative.

So yea, I can see why you feel the way you do. :)

[markalot]

The statement I emphasized seems to best implicate wat Tomlinson says over and over again in the NPR interview. He says he just wishes to present both sides and let the viewer decide.

But the problem is Moyers has to apologize, almost daily, for his own fibs and fantasies. He constantly drops 'facts' about things he does not like and then has to issue public apologies because he can't back them up. So yea, I agree with his speech, I just don't think he practices what he preaches.


One reason I'm in hot water is because my colleagues and I at NOW didn't play by the conventional rules of Beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if, instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news.

So what did he do? He presented his viewpoints and called it news. I really wish he was the guy he claims to be, we need someone like that, but I'm tired of Moyers and Moore presenting their viewpoints as if they are undisputed facts.

[Jumpman]

But the problem is Moyers has to apologize, almost daily, for his own fibs and fantasies. He constantly drops 'facts' about things he does not like and then has to issue public apologies because he can't back them up. So yea, I agree with his speech, I just don't think he practices what he preaches.




So what did he do? He presented his viewpoints and called it news. I really wish he was the guy he claims to be, we need someone like that, but I'm tired of Moyers and Moore presenting their viewpoints as if they are undisputed facts.

You're correct, I'm plenty biased, like everyone, hence my smart assy comments.

I think you've got a good point here as well about viewpoints as news. It's the same reason that I can't stand when people listen to talk radio, Hannity, Limbaugh, Springer (I haven't heard his show) for information. But I really do think that Moyers has been more of question asker than anything, with real thought provoking issues. Moore on the other hand, I don't know. I really do see Moyers as a man with quite a bit of integrity as a professional, and I trust him much more than I trust about 95% of the the rest of "fact" finders out there.

[stpdgirl]

I LOVE PBS/NPR. Frontline and Antiques Road Show are my faves. Since 97X has been off the radio, NPR is all I listen to. Diane Rheem, Fresh Air, News and Notes, Tavis smiley. These are great shows that have guests from both sides and ranging the whole political spectrum. The Bush administration threatening to take away funding is basically just saying, if you aren't going to say what we want you to say, then find funding elsewhere.

[Sovrana]

But the problem is Moyers has to apologize, almost daily, for his own fibs and fantasies. He constantly drops 'facts' about things he does not like and then has to issue public apologies because he can't back them up. So yea, I agree with his speech, I just don't think he practices what he preaches.

So what did he do? He presented his viewpoints and called it news. I really wish he was the guy he claims to be, we need someone like that, but I'm tired of Moyers and Moore presenting their viewpoints as if they are undisputed facts.


mark,

I think if you look back at the second paragraph that I quoted where he defines what he think objective journalism is, it may answer your concern. I read it to mean that you present a case base on facts (the facts that support his case.* Like any research you can concede to certain ideas or points of view and allow these other points of view present themselves (he did this on NOW). But your goal is to present your case, not another. You let someone else do that....then you have discourse. Again, he presents this as an alternative to reporting both sides and letting the audience decide. Afterall, the journalist is the one to do the research.

*sure, you can argue the facts, but at least in the way he presents it, the facts are there to debate those are the rules that need to be adhered to. He claims the facts are instead hidden...that the gov't is hiding them. If the facts are hidden, then there is no way to debate.

[markalot]

mark,

I think if you look back at the second paragraph that I quoted where he defines what he think objective journalism is, it may answer your concern. I read it to mean that you present a case base on facts (the facts that support his case.* Like any research you can concede to certain ideas or points of view and allow these other points of view present themselves (he did this on NOW). But your goal is to present your case, not another. You let someone else do that....then you have discourse. Again, he presents this as an alternative to reporting both sides and letting the audience decide. Afterall, the journalist is the one to do the research.

*sure, you can argue the facts, but at least in the way he presents it, the facts are there to debate those are the rules that need to be adhered to. He claims the facts are instead hidden...that the gov't is hiding them. If the facts are hidden, then there is no way to debate.


I mostly agree with that kind of reporting, but there is a fuzzy line drawn when you say based on facts.

For example, the guy in Kentucky building a creationism museum could make a show (let's call it THEN) all about creationism and present his case with the facts as he sees them. Most of us would disagree with him, some of us would wonder how the hell he got his own show to begin with, etc. etc. It all depends on the subject. He claims he is dealing in fact, we know he is dealing in fiction.

Now take NOW. Most of his shows were politically charged. He presented his facts as he saw them, dare I say as most liberals see them. Conservatives saw those facts as lies. Conservatives looked at the PBS lineup and noticed that there were no conservative shows that matched NOW from a different perspective. Why?

Isn't the answer to put on conservative hacks who wear bow ties and let them present facts as they see them and then have some discourse? So instead of having a single show where two hacks yell at each other you have two shows where each hack yells at the viewer. I'm not so sure I see the difference.

Moyers is liberal. Liberals see Moyers as a standard bearer for the truth while conservatives don't. No big suprise. Moyers thinks conservatives (or just the far right as he puts it) are liars. Conservatives think Moyers is a liar.

Who's correct?

Moyers is a better newsman than most if not all of the conservatives, so his show merits respect at least from that angle, but there is still a balance problem.

[Sovrana]

Who's correct?



All of yours are good questions, questions we should ask when watching any news program. I agree that facts seems fuzzy at times and your example of creationism is an interesting one. With that, I think that if the fact that creationism is presented as based on a religious belief system, then that is okay. If it is presented and the history of the world, then there would be a problem.

[Sovrana]

Moyers is a better newsman than most if not all of the conservatives, so his show merits respect at least from that angle, but there is still a balance problem.

I think I know what you mean, but let me suggest something. First one could convincingly argue that NOW presents an exceptionally balanced report if you consider the list of guests.

But instead of arguing that, I wonder if our notion of "balance" is something that has been defined by FOX News that keeps injecting the word. The repeating of "Fair And Balance" so much that whenever someone says the word balance it invokes FOX News! While you may not have had the time to listen to the Tomlinson interview that I linked, I will tell you that he quite easily referred to "fair and balance" programing as a goal. It was odd to hear and I could not help but wonder if he was intentionally recalling FOX or not.

Though my point or better yet, my question, "what is balance?"

[twentyshots]

I watched NOW earlier tonight and thought it was terrific. The show now lasts a half hour since Moyers split and it almost seems a little lighter but still effective.
Personally I want more media that questions the authority of our government regardless of which party currently is holding court because that IS a public service. We don't need cheerleaders we need scrutiny to hold governments and corporations accountable. If Kerry had been elected I would hope to be seeing the same analysis.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[purple_octopus]

An opinion piece that I thought some of you would enjoy:

The Assault on NPR (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/26/the_assault_on_npr/)

By Tom Ashbrook | May 26, 2005

WHEN GOVERNMENT media masters ask broadcasters to replace news with music, watch out. That was the Kremlin's way on bad days in Soviet-era Moscow. Days when someone important had died. Days when things had gone badly wrong.

Now, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson, is ushering in an era when National Public Radio member stations may, reportedly, soon be encouraged by the corporation to shift their programming from news to music.

News has made NPR America's great radio success story of the last 20 years. While commercial radio has cut news, gone Top 40, and stumbled, NPR's listenership has soared. It now tops 23 million a week, its largest audience in history.

Tomlinson says he is concerned with a perception of liberal bias in public broadcasting. He has singled out Bill Moyers at PBS for criticism, even as Moyers has departed and PBS has -- at the direction of the corporation -- brought on the conservative Tucker Carlson and editors of The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page. Last month, despite objections from NPR, which already had an active ombudsman, the corporation appointed its own ombudsmen -- one right leaning and one left -- to monitor public broadcasting content for political slant. This is almost certain to raise partisan tensions and tempt more intervention.

It is time to step off this path. America's public broadcasting system was born with bipartisan support under a Democratic president, Lyndon Baines Johnson. It has grown under administrations of both parties. Now the Corporation for Public Broadcasting board is dominated by appointees of a Republican, George W. Bush.

But NPR's listeners self-identify themselves across the American political spectrum -- one-third conservative, one-third liberal, and one-third independent. Repeated surveys ordered up by Tomlinson himself have found that large majorities of listeners do not hear liberal bias at NPR. For its latest survey the corporation commissioned two polling firms, one Republican and one Democrat. They found that fewer than 15 percent of Americans say that NPR coverage of the war or the Bush administration is slanted. And 80 percent of Americans say they have an overall favorable impression of NPR. Those are pretty darned good numbers. And, yet, the swords are drawn in Washington. How do we move beyond this?

First, to NPR: Don't retreat. Do reach out. Don't shrink back. Be more bold. Don't rest on those poll numbers. Know that this whole country, with all the people in it, is your ideal audience. The whole population -- red states, blue states, everybody. So speak to all. Listen to all. Test every assertion and premise. And be journalistically critical of all. Not in a desperate balancing act between parties and competing agendas. The goal is not to balance two spins. But listen and dig for honesty, for the understanding and insight the whole country needs. Does that sound difficult in this divided time? Yes, but that's the job.

Second, to Kenneth Tomlinson: Don't build walls. Don't drive wedges. Don't divide. Think big and long-term. The one barrier the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has historically tended is a firewall between public broadcasting's news-gathering mission and meddling politics. That is important for the continuing health of any news organization and especially a public one. NPR may get only 1 percent of its funding from the corporation these days, but member stations rely on it for from 5 to 15 percent of their budgets. Don't use that financial clout to drain the news or try to cow those who would ask tough questions. Tough questions are assets, not threats. Let's open up the big national conversation, not run it through a partisan splitter. Let's celebrate tough reporting, the big tent, and the big mission, not small politics.

Two ombudsmen? One for liberals and one for conservatives? Parked outside of NPR and PBS and throwing down conflicting accusations? This is a bad idea. It sounds more like two battling censors-in-waiting. Let's not recreate ''Crossfire" on NPR's doorstep or, worse, in its newsroom. Let's pull together for great, independent broadcasting and vigorous journalism.

More music instead of news? Please. America is awash in music. Clear-headed, inquiring, fair-minded news is the more rare thing. And it is what's needed.

Years ago, on the other side of a Cold War wall, Soviet citizens got music instead of news when the news was too difficult. Today, there are those who would build a high partisan wall between Americans facing a difficult world. But news and understanding will ultimately unite, not divide. So tear down that wall, Mr. Tomlinson. Don't build it higher.

Americans know this can be done. And they're watching. And listening.

Tom Ashbrook is host of WBUR's ''On Point," distributed nationally by NPR.

[akip]

thanks for the NPR piece, purple.

this disturbs me no end. fox can do whatever it wants with no fear 'cause it will shamelessly cater to a low level of discourse, which is profitable. they can be as blatantly biased as they want. npr expands its audience by providing one of the last broadcast outlets for in-depth news and has to face down attempts at de facto censorship and accusations of bias.

pretty soon i will just read news. the amount of wasted air/dial space flabbergasts me.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

20Shots - i completely agree - if the media is going 2 err, they should err in being 2 critical of the current govt

of course BALANCE should B strived 4 - but i think TRUTH is more important

i like the idea of a liberal & a conservative journalist teamed up on a show - they do the research & present the mutually agreed upon FACTS - then analysis, interpretation, discussion, etc can begin w/ those FACTS as the baseline

[Sovrana]

i like the idea of a liberal & a conservative journalist teamed up on a show

are you saying then we should have more programming like Hannity and Combs and Crossfire?

[Orville Wrong]

libraries are next.
Public libraries are not the same. Their collection development is handled on a system-by-system, if not branch-by-branch, basis. Acquisitions are essentially market-driven, as section budgets are tied to check-out rates, which tends to ensure that both Al Franken and Ann Coulter are going to find their way to the stacks in the same proportion as Marx to Hayek.

They're certainly not "next." If anything, they were first, as they've been fighting (and usually winning) First Amendment battles on behalf of readers through the legal muscle of the American Library Association for more than a century.

[Sovrana]

The house seeks to ending funding within the next 2 years:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902283.html

[markalot]

Lot's of quotes in that article that could be used against the repubs.

But there are lies on both sides. For one, PBS can survive without the 25 million. Two, people really do support PBS more than the repubs think. Who didn't watch Mr. Rogers or Sesame Street when growing up?

But PBS has some real issues with some of the shows it hosts. Letting a show like NOW on the PBS airwaves was asking for trouble and they knew it. This IS corruption, pure and simple. Both sides are distorting the facts.

[Sovrana]

For one, PBS can survive without the 25 million.


Why should it merely survive?