My letter to Nightly Business Report (and to PBS in general)

When I tune in the NBR, I expect an unbiased look at business and the markets, particularly since my tax dollars help support PBS. However, I am not stupid, realizing that PBS is dominated by leftist ideology. I further realize you must appear to maintain step with the left or you may lose your slot on PBS. But do you have to be so obviously left-leaning?

Your bias toward President Bush's stimulus plan this week has been far too obvious. And tonights commentary opposing the President's dividend tax plan was remarkably biased, with no opposing opinion whatsoever. Not one mention of the remarkable growth period that began in 1985 under the Reagan administration (which, naturally, Clinton took credit for). Only a silly, "Save the tax money for Social Security", absurdity. How about mentioning (many times so it will soak in) that: "It takes two workers to support one senior citizen. Therefore, we need more workers, so we must try all means necessary to stimulate the economy and create jobs".

I probably would not have written this letter if not for the hatchet-job Jim Lehrer's "News" hour gave the same dividend tax plan immediately prior to your program. That was, at least, equally biased, particularly regarding the silly notion that, "We are all subject to double-taxation since we pay sales taxes," as if there was some correlation. Of course there was no mention of the fact that those who are already double-taxed on their dividends are triple-taxed when they make purchases with those dividends (using the same silly logic). But the left relies on the ignorance of the masses to get their "point" across, so why complicate matters.

Update:

Reply from NBR

dear viewer:
thanks for your recent e-mail to nightly business report. while we respect that you certainly are entitled to you opinion, i would ask that you please NOT lump our program in with others.. and that you please make judgements on our content based on OUR content. that said, i also ask you to consider that we go to great lengths to provide as wide a range of commentator viewpoints as possible, since we believe we have intelligent viewers who are capable of making up their own minds on an issue. that process gets easier when they have all the options at their disposal. so, for every alice rivlin commentary, there is also one by, say, barbara hackman franklin, commerce secretary under the first president bush, who has appeared often on our air defending the current president's policies. if you view our work from a larger viewpoint than a single night or two's commentators, i believe you will find we are (to quote another news organization)... fair and balanced.
sincerely,
wendie feinberg
senior producer
nightly business report

My response

Wendie,

On 2/12/03, your commentary was by Alicia Munnell, Director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The theme of her commentary was "tax cuts for the rich". There was no opposing argument or commentary. Instead, NBR rehashed Greenspan's reservations on the Bush plan.

On 2/11/03 your commentary was by Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve. The theme of her commentary was "cutting taxes is crazy". There was no opposing argument or commentary. NBR did, however, air Greenspan's reservations on the Bush plan.

On 2/06/03 you had Gray Davis as a guest in a "one-on-one". I have to admit Davis was not nearly as partisan as I anticipated. But in reponse to a question on the Bush stimulus package, his response included, ". . . what we really need is an economic stimulus in 2003", as if the President's stimulus plan does not provide immediate relief in the form of reduced payroll deductions. There was no opposition to the Davis mis-statement on 2003 stimulus.

On 2/04/03, there was a report on John Snow, with the implication that Snow as attempting to reassure the markets. But instead of a reassurance, the report was more of a debate with opposing inputs from Reps John Spratt and Gil Gutknecht, both of whom were most un-reassuring. You attempted to justify the opposing inputs by stating the fact that Gil is a Republican. Why not a democrat or republican who supported Snow's assurances, rather than two in opposition? Also, why bring up the Democrat's side at all in the report?

On 2/03/02, there was a report on the President's budget plan. Interjected into the report was this quip from "Allen Schick, Public Policy Professor, University of Maryland: "This is the first president in American history who has declared war, in effect, and proposed cutting taxes in the same breath, and those two things do not add up together."

I am sorry, Wendie. But I am not buying your "unbiased" claim. When the left speaks there are no opposing viewpoints. When the right speaks, well . . .

Will Snow get the chance, tonight, to state his case without opposition? Of will this be more of the same.

Update:

Wendie,

Thank you for your response.

Certainly commentaries are opinions, and not news coverage. But there is no denying that recently, on two consequtive days (2/11/03 and 2/12/03), the commentaries supported the ideology of the far-left wing of the Democratic Party. In fact, the past three commentaries dealing with Bush Administration fiscal policies have been left-wing hatchet jobs (the third was the 01/27/03 commentary by Alice Rivlin on Defining The Dividend Tax Plan). As I see it, you need to insert three consecutive pro-Bush commentaries if political neutrality is your goal (denying Alice Rivlin the opportunity to air her extremism on your program would add substantial credibility).

Anyway, thanks for the fair interview with Secretary Snow last night.

Update

Wendie,

The Feb 18 commentary by Barbara Hackman Franklin was disappointing. Not because she is not conservative enough or a first class speaker, nor because the challenges of the SEC which she spoke of are unimportant. But because opposing viewpoints to the three consecutive Bush-bashing commentaries I mentioned in my previous letter remain unchallenged on NBR by conservative, Bush-supporting, commentators. And, today, your guest commentator was another Bush-bashing leftist, Charles Schultz, from that bastion of liberal "thinkers", the Brookings Institute. And what was his message? Does "massive Bush tax cut" ring a bell?

Your program has no credibility, Wendie. It is just another left-wing propaganda machine disguised as a pro-capitalist "Business Report".

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.