Posted on 05/03/2005 9:21:59 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The old news: PBS is still a liberal monstrosity transforming the hard-earned dollars of many Bush-loving taxpayers into fire-breathing Bush-loathing programming. The new development: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has plans to get serious about seeking a better balance of political views on PBS.
From the sound of the New York Times front page on May 2, they must have been waving smelling salts in the face of liberal reporters. Kenneth Tomlinson, the "Republican" chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was said to be pressing aggressively to correct "what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias." The Times approach, pretending this issue is a gigantic question mark, makes about as much sense as an article taking exception to what "conservatives consider the blue color of the sky."
But remember, we're talking about the New York Times. In this story, "Republican conservative" Tomlinson was opposed by the president of PBS, Pat Mitchell, unlabeled by the Times as either a Democrat or a liberal. Nor was it fit to print her ties to liberal celebrities like Robert Redford or Ted Turner, or her role in the CNN "Cold War" documentary that was so biased conservatives have written entire books debunking it. Mitchell's first major initiative after being named PBS boss in 2002 was to give Bill Moyers an hour every week to bash conservatives.
So what has Tomlinson done to deserve front-page coverage in the New York Times? He plans to have two ombudsmen look over the content. Stop the bloody presses! Bill Schulz, a longtime editor at Reader's Digest, and Ken Bode, a longtime reporter for NBC and CNN and a former host of PBS's "Washington Week," will be moonlighting in part-time positions, and won't even screen PBS programming in advance. But this is Crisis Time for the entrenched leftists at PBS who want no scrutiny whatsoever.
Schulz and Bode would have had plenty of work on the Moyers show "Now," even after the 2004 election. In November, Moyers attacked Condoleezza Rice and her successor as national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, for their "pattern of ineptness," and despaired as the president turned America's credibility in the world over to "two of the people who helped shred it. Both are known first and foremost for loyalty to the official view of reality, no matter the evidence to the contrary."
Also in November, Moyers interviewed ultraliberal nun Joan Chittister about the evil American atrocities against civilians in Iraq. He asked: "Depending on the sources, Sister Joan, there have been 37,000 civilians killed in Iraq, or as many perhaps as 100,000. Why is abortion a higher moral issue with many American Christians than the invasion of Iraq and the loss of life there?"
Chittister said yes, dropping bombs on civilians, including pregnant women, is "military abortion." To which Moyers added: "Somebody said to me the other day that Americans don't behead, but we do drop smart bombs that do it for us." Is there a politician anywhere in America who made that nasty a commercial last year? Equating our military's bombing missions with terrorist beheadings of civilians?
If you still don't believe Moyers is the poster boy for liberal bias at PBS, take it from Current newspaper, the must-read publication for PBS insiders. They found in November 2004 that a six-month review of Moyers showed that "of the 75 segments over six months that treated controversial issues like the Iraq War, the state of the economy and the corrupting influence of corporate money on politics, only 13 included anyone who spoke against the thrust of the segment." That study didn't make the New York Times story on "alleged" PBS bias. For Moyers, it is a great night of taxpayer-funded broadcasting when the conservatives get no chance to rebut his personal attacks.
It should also be noted that while "Now" shrunk to a half-hour show, it continues in its liberal way, most recently with a big segment bashing the U.S. military over Abu Ghraib. Scrap any thought that Moyers has stopped his omnipresent role on PBS, since he's now hosting a global-affairs show called "Wide Angle," where he recently ran down Pope Benedict XVI for stifling "dissenters." PBS is not now, and never has been, a conservative network.
In the final analysis, Ken Tomlinson is trying to balance out the PBS image so that it will have more success getting more and more federal funding. So it's clear that conservatives are not really getting the conservative agenda if Tomlinson succeeds in his goals. Conservatives wish every taxpayer dollar destined for public broadcasting in a 21st-century media universe was returned home to their wallets and purses, where it belongs.
I'd prefer that PBS just exit stage right...we don't need it anymore if we ever did in the first place.
I can't imagine that that pre-cable TV monstrosity of PBS is still running. What's even worse is that it's running on the taxpayers' dime. There's far more interesting and well-balanced entertainment on any one of the hundreds of stations out there. To keep the PBS dead cow alive so they can continue to attack America and all that's good about America, to me is an outrage.
Pull the public plug and let the market place take over. Let's see how many people are willing to buy (excuse me, "donate") a hundred dollars to get a CD with nature music on it.
Enough already!
A few minutes ago I just watched the PBS Frontline program titled "The Camps".
PBS may be the only format for airing this documentery of the holocast. This episode of Frontline is a must see and in my opinion ranks with the most important video media of all time- lest we forget.
Until the case is made to completely privitize PBS a hard look to correct the generally left tilt by the new director is a welcome developement.
You are 100% right about that. Why do we taxpayers put up with allowing our own money to be funding everything that we despise?
If there's ever been a liberal that needs a good ass kicking it's Bill Moyers.
Editorial, New Hampshire Union Leader - May 3, 2005
Public narrowcasting: PBS fights effort to ensure objectivity
AFTER BEING American television’s home for left-wing political and cultural programming for decades, PBS suddenly is horrified that politics has reared its ugly head at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. What a hoot.
The New York Times reported yesterday that CPB Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, a Republican and a Bush appointee, was ruffling PBS executives’ feathers by insisting that the network abide by its mandate — written into its charter — to ensure “objectivity and balance” in its programming. Man the barricades, it’s a conservative takeover!
Liberals have an ingrained sense of ownership over PBS, a sort of proprietary instinct. It is their network. Yet at the same time they deny there is even a hint of left-leaning bias there. If PBS contains no programming, or very little, that makes liberals uncomfortable, while being chock full of shows that make conservatives cringe, how can it possibly be considered objective and balanced?
The reaction to Tomlinson’s efforts to make PBS abide by its own charter has been hilarious. Opponents have said it amounts to political intimidation and violates the First Amendment. There is no way they are going to let more than one token conservative show onto PBS without a fight.
Perhaps this little spat will illustrate to liberals the pitfalls of taking government money. As long as PBS takes money from taxpayers, who include large numbers of conservatives, it has no right to complain when conservatives ask for balance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.