Turning PBS into another propaganda tool

rayban1 wrote:

I will suggest listening to one of the Neocons whom I'm certain you detest.......Richard Perle. He's very soft spoken but he usually obliterates the opposition in any debate and he never raises his voice.......a real pleasure to listen to.

Since others are chiming in, I will too. I think the above is kind of the point blatham was trying to make. At any rate, I also find him interesting to listen to. Most of us are not opposed to hearing ideas that don't agree with ours, but don't like having them shouted at us. In fact, I don't even like ideas that I agree with shouted at me.

As the debate over fairness and balance in public broadcasting rages on, there's a curious historical connection to be found between two men at the forefront of the current conservative crusade and a famous radio broadcaster from 50 years ago. How the three crossed paths -- and the way they practiced journalism -- put some of the debate into sharper focus.

A main figure in the roiling controversy is Kenneth Tomlinson, the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, who insists that public radio and television suffer from a liberal bias and that actions -- such as adding conservative-leaning programs to the lineup -- must be taken to counterbalance it. Tomlinson recently singled out the weekly news program "Now," once hosted by liberal Bill Moyers, as the cause for his concern about bias....

Tomlinson's charge of liberal bias runs counter to two nationwide polls conducted by the CPB in 2002 and 2003, which found little concern among Americans about bias in public broadcasting. The CPB is a federally funded agency that serves as an umbrella organization for public radio and television. Created by Congress, its purpose is both to help raise money and awareness for public broadcasting and to protect it from political pressure. But now the CPB itself has become the source of such pressure.

Tomlinson's attempt to push back the so-called liberal media is not surprising given his journalistic past -- which is where Fulton Lewis Jr., the broadcaster with the intriguing, albeit distant, connection to the ongoing debate, comes in. A prominent radio broadcaster in the '40s, '50s and '60s, Lewis was known for his complete lack of objectivity. At his commercial peak he was heard on more than 500 radio stations and boasted a weekly audience of 16 million listeners. An erstwhile Rush Limbaugh, Lewis was the master of the partisan smear who rarely strayed from GOP talking points. In 1948, New York Herald Tribune radio columnist John Crosby suggested that Lewis "ought to be recognized as a campaigner, not as a commentator, and his national air time be paid for and so listed by the Republican National Committee."...

Even after McCarthy was revealed as a phony who could not document his claims that hundreds of communists had infiltrated the federal government, Lewis remained loyal. Over time, the broadcaster's reputation faded, and today he's a largely forgotten figure (although in 1987 the Washington Post remembered Lewis as "one of the most unprincipled journalists ever to practice the trade").

What's interesting about Lewis now is that two men at the forefront of the effort to rid public broadcasting of its presumed liberal bias both learned journalism at his knee. One, CPB chief Tomlinson, worked as an intern for Lewis. The other, William Schulz, whom Tomlinson recently named as one of the CPB's two ombudsmen, was a writer for Lewis.

I thought McGintrix's post sounded familiar. McG apparently worships at the 3-inch spike heeled shoes of Ann Coulter.

And don't you just love his little trick to increase Coulter's column income? By posting "source" instead of siting her as the author of the article, you have to click on "source" to learn the authorship. This adds to the number of hits count on Coulter's site---increasing her ability to inflate her asking price for hate mongering.

Very clever McG.

BBB

I thought McGintrix's post sounded familiar. McG apparently worships at the 3-inch spike heeled shoes of Ann Coulter.

And don't you just love his little trick to increase Coulter's column income? By posting "source" instead of siting her as the author of the article, you have to click on "source" to learn the authorship. This adds to the number of hits count on Coulter's site---increasing her ability to inflate her asking price for hate mongering.

Very clever McG.

BBB

full story here

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I thought McGintrix's post sounded familiar. McG apparently worships at the 3-inch spike heeled shoes of Ann Coulter.

And don't you just love his little trick to increase Coulter's column income? By posting "source" instead of citing her as the author of the article, you have to click on "source" to learn the authorship. This adds to the number of hits count on Coulter's site---increasing her ability to inflate her asking price for hate mongering.

Very clever McG.

BBB

I wasn't trying to be clever. I generally do that when copying and pasting articles. You can look back through my history if you wish.

In the future, if you hoover your mouse over the link, it will tell you where it goes on the status bar at the bottom of your screen. That way you won't have to actually follow the link.

It never ceases to amaze me how people react to Coulter. I'll ask this time, like I almost always do, what has she said that is not the truth?

rayban

Gush or don't gush, at your pleasure.

McG

If I referred to Barbara Bush, say, as a weasely old cow of a Texas strumpet, would that be a statement you could label as not true?

OK, then just name one or two. That shouldn't be hard. Do they compare to PBS? Is what is being funded political indoctrination of the public?