Posted on 06/25/2005 10:58:50 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting ought to protect America's public TV and radio stations from political interference. Instead, CPB Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson is leading a politically motivated attack on public broadcasting's editorial independence.
Tomlinson has pressured public broadcasting to add politically conservative programming. He hired a consultant associated with a conservative think tank to monitor liberal bias, and he is supporting a former chairman of the National Republican Party to become the new president of the CPB.
Moreover, his criticism of public broadcasting for displaying a liberal political agenda provided the background for last week's vote by a Republican-led House committee to cut $100 million from next year's public broadcasting budget.
Tomlinson should back off, and Congress should make sure that he does. His crusade to steer public broadcasting to the right is not only wrongheaded but also obscures more important questions about the future of public TV and radio.
Both the CPB and Congress should devote less attention to whether programming is liberal or conservative and more attention to the question: Is public broadcasting doing enough to make itself relevant in the era of 100- channel cable systems and diverse radio formats?
Public broadcasting has long had a special connection to Wisconsin, from the way local public programming spread UW System expertise throughout the state to the term former Madisonian David Carley served as the first president of the Association of Public Television Stations.
That's why Wisconsin should have a special interest in maintaining public broadcasting's independence from political meddling.
Complaints that public radio and TV display a liberal bias are not new. And they are not without some merit. But decisions about what to broadcast should be made by local stations, accountable to viewers and listeners.
After all, if a conservative administration can steer programming to the right, a liberal administration can steer programming to the left, leaving public broadcasting's integrity in the dust.
Congress should follow the lead of Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who stood up for public broadcasting's integrity. In a letter, the two congressmen warned the CPB that reports of Tomlinson making personnel and funding decisions based on political ideology are "extremely troubling."
With Tomlinson raising a fuss about bias in programming, neither the CPB nor Congress is adequately considering the bigger problem of public broadcasting's ability to maintain a niche in the broadcasting market. Public stations are no longer the only place to find high- quality children's programs, shows on cooking and travel or in-depth news analyses.
Even Wisconsin's Obey has criticized public broadcasting for its failure to distinguish itself from the myriad commercial stations.
When public broadcasting can no longer justify its public investment with distinctive programming that informs and enriches, it should not receive public funding. But neither funding decisions nor programming decisions should be made to suit the political agenda of the party in power.
I'll save you the few million you'd scam out of our taxpayer pockets to complete your stilted 'research.'
The answer is, "No."
"After all, if a conservative administration can steer programming to the right, a liberal administration can steer programming to the left, leaving public broadcasting's integrity in the dust."
Aaaarggh! But they're DOING IT with money from taxpayers! COMMERICAL enterprises can lean any way they want. When the TAXPAYERS help to fund something, then YES, YES, 1000 TIMES, YES...keep POLITICS out of it.
(Boy, am I dreamin'!)
Yup. Eliminate all public funding. Problem solved.
What he means is: Keep PBS squarely in the leftist camp.
As long as PBS is going to demand taxpayer dollars, we taxpayers have a right to politically meddle.
Kill off PBS.
Gutless House Republicans said otherwise.
Thanks for post. The dumbing down of America must continue.
"Complaints that public radio and TV display a liberal bias are not new. And they are not without some merit. "
Let me translate this so you there is no doubt about what this goof is trying to convey.
People have been complaining for years - let them - our agenda is to push left-leaning points-of-view. We are liberal and very, very biased so we think, "WE DESERVE YOUR TAX DOLLARS." After all the US of A is well undertaxed compared to our socialist brothers in Europe.
Gosh, what a surprise.
Translation: "We liked it when the most conservative thing on it was David Gergen. Don't change that. We liberals hate having our stereotypes challenged."
PBS: Political Biased Streaming
"The dumbing down of America must continue."
Interesting enough on Thursday I was channel surfing and I came upon a report on higher education on PBS. Basically, the libs were admitting that the universities in America were useless and "grade-inflation", "self esteem mania" and rampant partying were causing major problems.
So the libs have ruined our higher education system admit it -- BUT -- their solution was to be even more understanding of the problems of our youth. We have to make kids like their teachers -- so we have to have "more fun ways" to teach kids.
Every time the libs get kicked in the teeth, e.g. when the POTUS made comments not the far back that the L/MSM are relentless in their pursuits to slant in favor of the democrates etc., there is a "hush down". When the purple fingers where shown on national TV, there was a hush down.
They are snakes. The are designed to take full advantage of their environment in order to eat. They are equiped with those features required such as stealth, and inherent knowledge as wnen best to strike and when not to strike.
So it is only natural to sometimes hear something that approaches honesty, or fairness in appraising a particular happening slip through their double twiching tongues.
Don't know how else to put it. Certainly we shall see no movement within the liberal community to expound on all their short commings in public discourse. That would be like a rat snake that no longer hunts lets say field mice.
The State Journal is not really a lib paper, but here they miss the point completely. No one is arguing against political content of whatever sort on a public or private station. What conservatives have a hugely creditable point about is the overwhelmingly leftist slant of PBS and public radio. Ever since Bill Buckley's show went off the air, the lib bias has been off the charts. As a resident of Wisconsin, I had to quit listening to WPR because I became nauseated hearing the same ultra-liberal garbage day in and day out. And WPR even has John Nichols editor of The Madison Capitol-Times, a true progressive (leftist) paper, as a regular guest.
"The State Journal is not really a lib paper..."
You're right; and I subscribe to the WI State Journal Sunday paper. They're not nearly as bad as 'The Capital Times,' which may as well be printed in red ink.
The First Amendment doesn't require journalism to be fair, balanced, objective, wise, or have any other virtue. In fact, just the opposite - the First Amendment requires the government to keep hands off of print journalism (and book publishers as well) no matter how unfair, unbalanced, unobjective, or unwise the government may suppose a given print journalism to be. The First Amendment codifies the right to be, by the lights of any administration, wrong.In fact, it makes no constitutional sense at all for the government to be in the business of saying whether any journalism is "in the public interest" or not. For if the government is virtuous enough to be able to judge that, it makes no sense at all for the government to have to submit to the judgement of people who are not, in general, wise and virtuous. Elections would then make no sense. But what we know beyond peradvernture is that if the government is allowed to define wisdom, it will define "wisdom" in terms of eternal incumbency. It is for the people, and only for the people, to decide what is wisdom, and whose speech is in the public interest.
And that implies not only that the government has no buisiness sponsoring NPR or PBS but that the govenment has no business censoring broadcasting. Which means that broadcasting - the transmission of radio signals by licensees only, and the censorship of those who do not have the imprimatur of the government to broadcast "in the public interest as a public trustee" - is illegitimate and fundamentally unconstitutional.
The mistake that people make when they criticize efforts to measure the leftist slant of PBS is, quite simply, the error of selfrighteousness. They assume that because everyone they know who is intelligent agrees with their perspective, that what they think is just what is - and any attempt to hold their own perspective up to measurement is inherently illegitimate. That is an easy mistake to make, but it it arrogance.
Such people actually assume that they do not need the First Amendment because they are always right. But the First Amendment exists because the people who know they are right just may happen to be wrong.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
It's just not fair!!!
So does that mean we can get a refund for the past 40 years of public funding?
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.