Turning PBS into another propaganda tool

rayban1 wrote:

Since Blatham may still be "Zipping" and not available to respond, I hope you don't mind if I inject myself into the conversation. With the exception of your avatar (Krugman.....YUK) your post is interesting but ....

rayban grows in my estimation with every post.

I am intriqued why you would accept Blatham's allegation that the US gov't is now controlling PBS.

Why would you not at least consider the possiblitly that putting Tomlinson in charge and giving him a mandate to bring about more political balance to a news organization that has morphed out of control by supporting and giving a voice to a rabid conservative hater such as Moyers, is not controlling but merely forcing it to live up to it's responsiblity to inform the public with facts and not to attempt to influence them politically right or left with poltical commentary.

I ask you also to explain the difference in the responsibility of PBS and that of the BBC which was forced to adjust it's very political stance from that of judge, jury and executioner , back to one of informing and educating the public who finance it.

I feel very strongly that any publicly financed news organization must scrupulously adher to only their journalistic responsibility of informing the public with facts as they know them and to let the public make the final decision. Anything short of that is elitist and condescending and must not be tolerated by any oversight agency.

A decade ago, there was a show on the Public Broadcasting System called The Kwitny Report. Hosted by former Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Kwitny, it presented serious, well-researched investigative reporting with a critical edge.

WNYC, a PBS affiliate in New York, produced and financed the program which was a great success, not only journalistically -- it racked up a prestigious Polk Award -- but also in terms of viewers. It was broadcast on more than 100 stations nationwide, mostly in prime-time slots.

But then, the management of WNYC decided to spend the station's limited programming funds on something else. PBS also was not willing to make available any of its national budget. Kwitny could still do the show. He just had to raise a minimum of $2.6 million for another season. So Kwitny went hat in hand to foundations and corporations, but with no success.

"Corporations were not really interested in being associated with a program like this," Kwitny said in an interview. "Companies that underwrite PBS programs gear their programming pretty generally to things that will promote their interests. Military contractors sponsor public affairs programs that promote the need for a stronger military. Housing companies fund the do-it-yourself home improvement shows. Cookware companies sponsor cooking shows, and the American ballroom dancing championships were sponsored by Doctor Scholl's foot pads." Not all potential underwriters rejected Kwitny out-of-hand. Some foundations expressed interest in funding his program if a certain point of view was taken. "Nobody wants anybody who is independent," Kwitny said. "They want control. We could have gotten funding to do documentaries with a certain point of view committed in advance. I just think that's poison." The Kwitny Report went off the air.

A decade later, the challenge facing independent producers has only gotten worse. Federal money has dropped from nearly 30 percent of the PBS budget in the early 1970s to less than 15 percent today. Meanwhile, corporate sponsorship has risen from about five percent to 20 percent. The deep cuts in federal funding have forced public TV into ever greater dependence on corporate underwriters.

And, like Kwitny, other independent producers find that corporations want their names linked to high-brow cultural and grand historical shows, not critical programs that might draw heat from elements of the public or political interests. Few companies want the grief from an association with a probing and controversial television show.

But the absence of innovative controversial programs on PBS means that its programming schedules have come to resemble that of cable television more and more. That, in turn, has raised the question: with PBS's watered-down content, should anyone care if PBS lives or dies?

"You know, I've found public television so uninteresting for such a long time that I've stopped paying attention to it," comments Todd Gitlin, a media researcher at New York University. "It's stale, its unadventuresome. It's preoccupied with fundraising and therefore it produces the kind of stuff that goes down nicely on the Upper Eastside."

Aside from the few programs sponsored entirely by PBS -- such as Frontline, or the occasional historical series, such as Ken Burns's Civil War or Baseball, or its educational children's programming -- most PBS stations are dominated by old sit-com reruns, opera performances from the Met and pundit chat shows, not that much different from commercial fare.

rayban1 wrote:

I am intriqued why you would accept Blatham's allegation that the US gov't is now controlling PBS.

Not to split hairs, but did you notice that I said "to the extent that ..."? This extent currently runs at 25%, which translates to a significant, but far from total amount of control. I still think it's 25% too much

thomas wrote:

Why would you not at least consider the possiblitly that putting Tomlinson in charge and giving him a mandate to bring about more political balance to a news organization that has morphed out of control by supporting and giving a voice to a rabid conservative hater such as Moyers, is not controlling but merely forcing it to live up to it's responsiblity to inform the public with facts and not to attempt to influence them politically right or left with poltical commentary.

1) Because I don't believe in balance for news organizations, especially not in their political commentary. 2) Because so far as I have watched it, PBS also gives voice to conservative liberal-haters, and routinely runs conservative shows such as Tucker Carlson Unfiltered and Uncommon Knowledge. While PBS's perspective is liberal more often than it is conservative, I don't think it's out of control, and much less that it needs a government official to bring it back under control.

thomas wrote:

I ask you also to explain the difference in the responsibility of PBS and that of the BBC which was forced to adjust it's very political stance from that of judge, jury and executioner , back to one of informing and educating the public who finance it.

Was it? My understanding is that BBC had to revoke a few stories that turned out false, and part ways with some executives responsible for the stories. But neither of this was brought about by a regulation agency, and nothing drastic changed in its basic mode of operation. I am not convinced that the premise of your question is correct.

Thomas wrote:

I feel very strongly that any publicly financed news organization must scrupulously adher to only their journalistic responsibility of informing the public with facts as they know them and to let the public make the final decision. Anything short of that is elitist and condescending and must not be tolerated by any oversight agency.

I would have said that it's naive to rely on oversight agencies to hold a news organization accountable for "adhering to only their journalistic responsibility of informing the public with facts..." About as naive as relying on a fox to guard a henhouse -- you might as well hire a censor.

It appears you missed my point that you accepted Blatham's allegation that the US gov't is controlling PBS and turning it into a US propaganda machine.

Did you really mean to say you "don't believe in balance, especially not in their political commentary"? Thomas, I'm surprised because you generally offer intelligent and reasoned opinions .......

Is it naive to insist that news organizations, especially those financed by Public money, should adhere to the Professional Journalist's Code of Ethics which is posted quite early on in this thread.

OK, but he's right about the avatar.

Let's consider last night's listings. PBS presented a program on the demise of the British Empire that strongly resembled America today, followed by a program on Mao's Cultural Revolution.

One of the regular networks offered a program that would let us know what Vanilla Ice looks like today.

georgeob1 wrote:

OK, but he's right about the avatar.

Jesus george, have you been hitting the sauce?! Such erudition!

Even in your more sane moments, you're really nothing more than Ollie North with a bigger degree.

So typical of you AND Rayban. You both snipe but you don't address the issues. Rayban maligns Noam Chomsky but he won't address the actual issues. Try actually arguing against Paul Krugman's points of view and see how long you last.

WHAT!!!??? You don't care about Vanilla Ice???!!!

Thanks, Thomas, for re-inforcing my point.

You and Krugman must be cut from the same bolt of cloth......your accusation that I will not debate the issues is similar to one his lies about the Bush administration. The New York Times, in an attempt to give the appearance that it is cleaning up it's act, has just hired Daniel Okrent as it's ombudsman therefore I post this article as background for the readers of this thread: