Replies

[Moyers] has gotten rich off supping at the public trough, treating PBS as his personal fiefdom (in part because he filled his friend Lyndon B. Johnson's head with the bad idea for PBS) while violating the law mandating balance that set it up years ago.

Not just PBS but broadcasting as a concept is based on the idea that the government should enable us to get the word. But the First Amendment says something different:
Amendment I
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Each aspect of freedom mentioned in the First Amendment reinforces all the others. The federal government is explicitly forbidden to conduct the religious discussion. But the fact that government noninterference in religion, politics, or any other public discussion is mandated in a single sentence rebuts the conceit that bright lines can separate religion, journalism, and politics. The public discussion ought not to be conducted by the government.
The law purports to assure fairness in PBS, and the "Fairness Doctrine" purported to assure fairness in all broadcasting. But he natural tendency of government is to censor dissent.
So naturally, government "fairness" censors dissent. Government attempts to enforce fairness in radio had the effect of enforcing as the Establishment the inherently arrogant, negative, and superficial perspective of "objective" journalism.
And it is not to be thought that what the Establishment labels "dissent" necessarily is such in fact; "establishment dissent" is a classic oxymoron. In America only those whom the Establishment labels "conservative" truly dissent from the Establishment.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate