Turning PBS into another propaganda tool

So the liberal, govt supported mouthpiece of the left is being forced to be more honest in it's reporting? What is the issue?

How many conservatives are on NPR or PBS? I would say if the govt is supporting them then they need to have a balance.

Re: Turning PBS into another propaganda tool


Blatham you've got it wrong again.........all we want is a little balanced reporting at NPR and to tar and feather Moyers before running him out of "Dodge". Whew.....talk about a forked tongued snake........

I have a question for you Blatham........what is the noise made when speaking out of both sides of your mouth? Answer......it's Moyer-Speak.

If you weren't so enraptured with his message to the choir you would recognize that when reading the text of his speech which you so thoughtfully presented. With every other breath he uttered a contradiction but then that is standard operating procedure with LIBS so you might not recognize it.

They come right outta the woodwork, don't they, Blatham?

A few of the usual suspects, there are others

Well, it's interesting to read them if for no other reason than to remind us the dangers to democracy of a poorly educated citizenry.

<bookmark>

somebodycall me? I was guttin a possum.

Nope. No one called. Return to the guttin.

Do you have no response other then to prod the people who do respond?

No, none. You've made your case just as Bill Moyers made his.

ok, baldimo. How much PBS have you ever watched? You do not know of what you speak, and that's evident from your suggestion of bias on the network. The Newshour, which I've been watching for a dozen years almost every night of the week NEVER presents one side of a debate...NEVER. Anyone can look at the web site and see who has been on. For any speaker on any issue that might lean partisan or ideological, there is someone from the other side as well. You could go to the site and count the number of American Enterprise Institue speakers they have each week, for example. And on each friday evening, there is a political roundup with a dem supporter and with a repub supporter...presently David Brooks, before him was Paul Gigot now editor of the WSJ. On Bill Moyers show NOW, you could listen to Norquist, Luntz, etc etc. He always presented a voice from either side and counter-viewpoints.

So I know you haven't been watching PBS, nor has the other fellow. And thus I also know that you guys are intellectually content speaking what you don't really know about. You shouldn't be.

From the Bill Moyers speech:

And the Baton Rouge Advocate said, "NOW invites viewers to consider the deeper implication of the daily headlines," drawing on "a wide range of viewpoints which transcend the typical labels of the political left or right."

The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party became. That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth.

This is the point of my story: Ideologues don't want you to go beyond the typical labels of left and right. They embrace a world view that can't be proven wrong because they will admit no evidence to the contrary. They want your reporting to validate their belief system and when it doesn't, God forbid.

Never mind that their own stars [the right] were getting a fair shake on NOW: Gigot, Viguerie, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Stephen Moore, then with the Club for Growth, and others. No, our reporting was giving the radical right fits because it wasn't the party line. It wasn't that we were getting it wrong. Only three times in three years did we err factually, and in each case we corrected those errors as soon as we confirmed their inaccuracy. The problem was that we were telling stories that partisans in power didn't want told ... we were getting it right, not right-wing.

Strange things began to happen. Friends in Washington called to say that they had heard of muttered threats that the PBS reauthorization would be held off "unless Moyers is dealt with." The chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson, was said to be quite agitated. Apparently there was apoplexy in the right-wing aerie when I closed the broadcast one Friday night by putting an American flag in my lapel and said - well, here's exactly what I said:


"I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans.
"Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

"So what's this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo ?- the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little red book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.

"But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war.

"So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash). I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that war ?- except in self-defense ?- is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country."

And I'll just speak up for NPR who always gives both sides a voice. I find both networks to be the most honest in their reporting of any network. Perhaps you have some specific accusations as to either's honesty in reporting? Or do you just have the usual "NPR is liberal" unthinking, unsupported, uninformed position?

Why would ANYONE argue about a TAX PAYER FUNDED TV Station becoming un-biased?

Show that it's biased, and then we can argue.

I am a regular NPR listener and you are wrong here. NPR has a definite liberal slant and a definite anti-Bush undertone. They are honest when it comes to reporting a pro-left point of view, but the few measly pro-right pieces you actually hear still end up having some sort of liberal bias to them.

I remember ONE interview that was actually pro-Bush regarding the elections in Iraq. I remember it clearly because it wa THE FIRST TIME I HAD EVER HEARD IT! It shocked me!

So please spare me the idea that NPR is somehow honest.

Making cogent argument isn't woiyo's game. Nor is reading and spending time at checking evidences and viewpoints. woiyo is a happy little fellow. Simple was good enough for grandpa and its good enough for him.

And yet you heard it on NPR. The fact that you don't agree with the reporting doesn't make it biased. Maybe it makes you biased. How can a pro-right piece have liberal bias?



This is the one that I don't believe you can really back up. You don't agree with the reporting, it doesn't fit your view of the world. Ok. But how is that dishonest? Just show me and example of NPR's reporting (reporting, as in the news and indepth news stories) where there is dishonesty. As in lying, since that's what it means to be dishonest. What exactly is dishonest about it?