Will PBS finally become objective?
Z
PBS Scrutiny Raises Political Antennas
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 22, 2005; Page C01
Liberal commentator Bill Moyers is out on PBS stations. Buster the
animated rabbit is under a cloud of suspicion. And right-wing yakkers
from the Wall Street Journal editorial page have been handed their own
public-television chat show.
Some observers, including people inside the Public Broadcasting Service,
see these recent developments as troubling. PBS, they say, is being
forced to toe a more conservative line in its programming by the
Republican-dominated agency that provides about $30 million in federal
funds to the Alexandria-based service.
Officials at the agency, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, say
they are merely seeking to ensure balance and fairness in the network's
presentation of political news and ideas.
Under its mandate from Congress, which created the agency in 1967, CPB
is required to act as an independent buffer between lawmakers and public
broadcasters, although it can set broad programming goals. Appointees of
President Bush currently control the majority of seats on CPB's
eight-member board. Each board member serves a six-year term.
Typically one of the quietest bureaucracies in Washington, the
quasi-governmental CPB has been unusually active in recent weeks. CPB
this month appointed a pair of veteran journalists to review public TV
and radio programming for evidence of bias, the first time in CPB's
38-year history that it has established such positions. PBS officials
were unaware that the corporation intended to review its news and public
affairs programs, such as "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" and
"Frontline," until the appointments were publicly announced.
In negotiations with PBS earlier this year, the corporation also
insisted, for the first time, on tying new funding to an agreement that
would commit the network to strict "objectivity and balance" in each of
its programs -- an idea that PBS's general counsel described in an
internal memo as amounting to "government encroachment on and
supervision of program content, potentially in violation of the First
Amendment."
...
Thomas Reynolds
"Z" <Z...@no.spam> wrote in message news:VEaae.5269$Gq6....@fe02.lga...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8067-2005Apr21.html
>
> PBS Scrutiny Raises Political Antennas
>
> By Paul Farhi
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, April 22, 2005; Page C01
>
> Liberal commentator Bill Moyers is out on PBS stations. Buster the
> animated rabbit is under a cloud of suspicion. And right-wing yakkers from
> the Wall Street Journal editorial page have been handed their own
> public-television chat show.
>
> Some observers, including people inside the Public Broadcasting Service,
> see these recent developments as troubling. PBS, they say, is being forced
> to toe a more conservative line in its programming by the
> Republican-dominated agency that provides about $30 million in federal
> funds to the Alexandria-based service.
of how anti Bush the BBC has become in its news coverage. The talking head
interviews are especially obvious. An interviewee who says something nice
or approving about the US administration is quickly shut down. Those
against, get led by the interviewer into more such stuff, A blond named
Katie something is the overall worst and quite impressed with herself. She
is also a panelist on the Sunday AM talk shows on NBC run by Chris Mathews.
Way over her head and now I hardly ever watch BBC news these days.
is...@earthlink.net
be so stupid" the day after election day and you're surprised the BBC
is anti-Bush?
Andy
is...@earthlink.net
discussing the pros and cons of the Social Security account issue with
a moderator. One was pro and the other was con. There were good
arguments on both sides. No name calling, no shouting. Very good show.
Andy
carol...@raines.com
Buster goes, so does Will & Grace.
C.C.
Thomas Reynolds
<carol...@raines.com> wrote in message
news:1114262989.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Are ABC, NBC, CBS etc., objective? Are they being monitored? If
> Buster goes, so does Will & Grace.
>
> C.C.
They are not objective, but they seem to try harder at times. And they have
less reason to be objective since they, unlike PBS, receive no tax money to
support them. It is sort of like the disgusting Mapplethorpe (sp?) "art"
issue. He had the constitutional right to make that stuff and the demented
had the right to buy it. The problem was some of the demented were in
charge of the National Endowment and decided that tax money should subsidize
it. And yes, I saw several examples and it was really gross. Actually, I
do not think art should be directly subsidized for any reason (although
public entities should be free to purchase art for public buildings, etc.)
carol...@raines.com
no government money. And yet they had a Mapplethorpe exhibit.
Including his flower photos AND his homoerotic ones. Closer to art, I
opine, than their recent exhibit of Ralph Lauren's fancy car
collection.
What do you mean by "directly subsidized"? Do you have any idea of the
selection process involved in public art such as courthouse bronze
doors and park fountains? Do you know about the 1% for Art program for
federally-subsidized construction?
C.C.
Thomas Reynolds
<carol...@raines.com> wrote in message
news:1114268245.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
You'll be glad to know, then, that the Boston Museum of Fine rts gets
no government money. And yet they had a Mapplethorpe exhibit.
Including his flower photos AND his homoerotic ones. Closer to art, I
opine, than their recent exhibit of Ralph Lauren's fancy car
collection.
What do you mean by "directly subsidized"? Do you have any idea of the
selection process involved in public art such as courthouse bronze
doors and park fountains? Do you know about the 1% for Art program for
federally-subsidized construction?
C.C.
Mapplethorpe got federal grant support as I understand it. That is a
subsidy since the artist continues to own what was made using the money (or
sell it to others). However, an artist who sells the art to someone, even
public entities, is getting paid, not subsidized. I assume the selection
process used in determining what to buy for public buildings is competitive
and locally based. Again, competitive bids for purchases using public funds
seems normal enough. And local elected officials responsible for the
buildings will need to explain obscene bronze doors or whatever, rendering
the idea of a Mapplethorpe painting on the new city hall...improbable....
carol...@raines.com
That giant statue of George Washington with naked shoulders & arms in a
Greek toga, is shocking. All those female nude sculptures outdoors
where - gasp - children can see them! are disgusting. Those
sheela-na-gig "sacred" ancient figures in Ireland should all be wrapped
in little diapers. Lingams and yonis and old stone copulating couples
in India are all indecent. The Venus of Willendorf's only excuse for
being shown in photos is its alleged meaning as a fertility symbol,
hmmph. Allowing actors on TV to kiss open-mouthed and show tongue is
wrong. Oh, lighten up, Tom.
Or are you baiting me, since you know I'm an artist? Silly me, not to
catch that. But you're good at it. You are definitely a master
baiter. :)
C.C.
Z
> Are ABC, NBC, CBS etc., objective? Are they being monitored? If
> Buster goes, so does Will & Grace.
In the case of ABC, et al, being biased is not a violation of their
funding mandate. In the case of PBS, it is.
Thomas Reynolds
<carol...@raines.com> wrote in message
news:1114269587.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I simply have to assume you have not seen Mapplethorpe's excretions when you
try to juxtapose a discussion of his silly twisted crap with the work you
mentioned e.g., prehistoric mother earths probably and a misconceived Greek
revival statue of Washington (in the crypt under the Capitol as I remember
seeing it). Carol change the subject? Yup. I am talking about tax payers
having to pay gift funds to support that crap and you are talking about
privately commissioned or simply purchased work. BTW Carol, do you often
have people end their correspondence to you, public or private, with stuff
like your last sentence to me? Just curious as to why you felt the need,
and worse, ever decided to indulge it once you passed the age of 13.
pla
> In the case of ABC, et al, being biased is not a violation of their
> funding mandate. In the case of PBS, it is.
You missed the point...
You call PBS "biased" because it presents more "liberal" views
than the major networks. But just because one group hasn't
had their tongue surgically lengthened so they can reach
George's prostate, *doesn't* make them biased.
Or to put it another way, "more liberal" means the same
as "less conservative", in this situation. If you have
an extremely conservative basis of comparison, then any
truly unbiased view will *necessarily* lean more to the
left than most others.
That said, I *would* consider PBS, NPR, and just about *all*
of the "independant" media available to us as somewhat left
of true center. But FAR, FAR less left of center than the
big four (five? six?) go right of the same.
- pla
carol...@raines.com
play on words. Are you telling me I wasn't the first person to think
of it? I really should read more, sigh.
And I didn't change the subject. All art ever created, from chipped
stone-age godlets to installations and happenings that you may not like
, is one long continuum. I am allowed to mention various kinds of art
in the same sentence. You are dismissing contemporary work of
homoerotic imagery and accepting work of dubious quality made in 1820
and also thousands of years ago. The 1% for art program by law takes
federal money and spends it, with federal supervision, on public art
for new construction. Also, many art museums which are partly
subsidized by federal money, purchase art objects that you might never
approve of.
Much current art which is commissioned and decided on by committee, is
second-rate. The leveling effect of committee members who owe their
positions to public vote or appointment by public servants, and who try
to compromise on such decisions of taste, can produce mediocre art
choices. Usually the best artworks have been commissioned and chosen
by wealthy people in power, without committees advising them: popes of
the Renaissance, Dutch burghers, Russian czars, rich English
businessmen, Japanese nobles. And art historians, museum curators and
gallery directors. These are the taste-makers whose opinions influence
others who then also buy art (if they can afford it). Art that is
chosen (by groups in power) to reflect popular taste, leads to dreadful
excesses such as massive Soviet heroic statues, ugh. Better art
(bought by tax money) that takes chances, than deadened "safe" art.
Of course I have seen Mapplethorpe's work. Have you seen his flower
photos too? And what are "gift funds"?
C.C.
Thomas Reynolds
<carol...@raines.com> wrote in message
news:1114289094....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
stuff. I object to taxes paying for it. I said this right at the
beginning. And as for Museums who choose to show really offensive stuff, I
disapprove of public support of them...I object to public support of most
art except I do not object to "beautifying" public buildings to prevent such
US buildings looking like Moscow's in the 50s. Such beautification will
never use bull whips as Mapplethorpe did IMO, however. The issue is not
what the general public might approve of so much as what revolts the general
public. A lot of art is silly IMO, but not objectionable except as it is a
waste of money. Some is revolting and it makes folks like me vote for those
who would simply cut off all access to the tax money. All this tax subsidy
is going to art which cannot sustain itself due to the fact the public will
not support it voluntarily, so "art elites" compel it to be funded with
money taken from the public against their will...taxes. Art which is viable
is everywhere available and supported. A lot of popular music, photo books,
dance, etc. successfully sustains itself. A fair question is why must the
public be compelled to pay to support work it doesn't like enough to support
voluntarily though individual purchase or subscription. Your success means
good stuff pays its own way. Why must bad stuff get tax support. (Gift
equals federal grant, i.e., money with no requirement for a deliverable to
the government or anyone else....take the money and play with your clay
etc.)
Z
> Standards of what is art and what is pornography are always changing.
While that is certainly true, I've yet to see a statue in a Roman piazza
of someone with a bullwhip shoved up his arse, a la Mapplethorpe.
Z
May 10, 2005
'Alleged' tilt at PBS
By L. Brent Bozell III
The old news: PBS is still a liberal monstrosity transforming the
hard-earned dollars of many Bush-loving taxpayers into fire-breathing
Bush-loathing programming. The new development: The Corporation for
Public Broadcasting plans to seriously seek better balanced political
views on PBS.
From the sound of the New York Times front page on May 2, they must
have been waving smelling salts in the face of liberal reporters.
Kenneth Tomlinson, "Republican" chairman of the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting was said to be pressing aggressively to correct
"what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias." The Times
approach, pretending this issue is a gigantic question mark, makes about
as much sense taking exception to what "conservatives consider the blue
color of the sky."
But remember, we're talking about the New York Times. In this
story, "Republican conservative" Tomlinson was opposed by the president
of PBS, Pat Mitchell, unlabeled by the Times as either a Democrat or a
liberal.
Nor was it fit to print her ties to liberal celebrities like Robert
Redford or Ted Turner, or her role in the CNN "Cold War" documentary so
biased conservatives have written entire books debunking it. Miss
Mitchell's first major initiative after being named PBS boss in 2002 was
to give Bill Moyers an hour every week to bash conservatives.
So what has Mr. Tomlinson done to deserve Page One coverage in the
New York Times? He plans to have two ombudsmen look over the content.
Stop the bloody presses. Bill Schulz, a longtime Reader's Digest editor,
and Ken Bode, a longtime reporter for NBC and CNN and a former host of
PBS' "Washington Week," will be moonlighting in part-time positions, and
won't even screen PBS programming in advance. But this is Crisis Time
for the entrenched leftists at PBS who want no scrutiny whatsoever.
Messrs. Schulz and Bode would have had lots of work to do on the
Moyers show "Now," even after the 2004 election. In November, Mr. Moyers
attacked Condoleezza Rice and her successor as national security
adviser, Stephen Hadley, for their "pattern of ineptness," and despaired
as the president turned U.S. world credibility over to "two of the
people who helped shred it. Both are known first and foremost for
loyalty to the official view of reality, no matter the evidence to the
contrary."
Also in November, Mr. Moyers interviewed ultraliberal nun Joan
Chittister about the evil American atrocities against Iraqi civilians.
He asked: "Depending on the sources, Sister Joan, there have been 37,000
civilians killed in Iraq, or as many perhaps as 100,000. Why is abortion
a higher moral issue with many American Christians than the invasion of
Iraq and the loss of life there?"
Miss Chittister said yes, dropping bombs on civilians, including
pregnant women, is "military abortion." To which Mr. Moyers added:
"Somebody said to me the other day that Americans don't behead, but we
do drop smart bombs that do it for us." Is there a politician anywhere
in America who made that nasty a commercial last year? Equating our
military's bombing missions with terrorist beheadings of civilians?
If you still don't believe Mr. Moyers is the poster boy for liberal
bias at PBS, take it from Current newspaper, the must-read publication
for PBS insiders. It reported that in November 2004 a six-month review
of Mr. Moyers found "of the 75 segments over six months that treated
controversial issues like the Iraq war, the state of the economy and the
corrupting influence of corporate money on politics, only 13 included
anyone who spoke against the thrust of the segment." That study didn't
make the New York Times story on "alleged" PBS bias. For Mr. Moyers, it
is a great night of taxpayer-funded broadcasting when conservatives
don't get to rebut his personal attacks.
It should also be noted that while "Now" shrunk to a half-hour
show, it continues in its liberal way, most recently with a big segment
bashing the U.S. military over Abu Ghraib. Scrap any thought Mr. Moyers
has stopped his omnipresent role on PBS, since he's now hosting a
global-affairs show called "Wide Angle," where he recently ran down Pope
Benedict XVI for stifling "dissenters." PBS is not now, and never has
been, a conservative network.
In the final analysis, Ken Tomlinson is trying to balance out the
PBS image so it can get more and more federal funding. So it's clear
conservatives are not really getting the conservative agenda if Mr.
Tomlinson succeeds.
Conservatives wish every taxpayer dollar destined for public
broadcasting in a 21st-century media universe was returned home to their
wallets and purses, where it belongs.
Z
WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS?
May 25, 2005
Bill Moyers, the lamented, demented former host of the PBS program "Now
With Bill Moyers," referred to the American-led war in Iraq as doing "to
the people of Baghdad what bin Laden did to us."
He called American flag pins "a little metallic icon of patriotism"
comparable to Mao's Little Red Book being displayed on every Communist
Party official's desk in China. This is silly. The metallic icons of
patriotism that Mao used to keep the masses in line were considerably
longer and sharper, and were usually applied to the back by a fellow
"comrade."
Moyers denounced Condoleezza Rice for her ineptness in not preventing
the 9/11 attack, despite a clearly worded memo stating: "Bin Laden
determined to attack the United States." In other breaking news:
Waitress in L.A. Determined to Become Actress. As Condi said, "I don't
think you, frankly, had to have that report to know that bin Laden would
like to attack the United States."
In his lengthy diatribe against Rice, Moyers said she had cried wolf,
intentionally misleading "America and the world about the case for
invading Iraq." Apparently Rice had said Iraq was "a part of the war on
terror" on the grounds that Saddam was: (1) supporting terrorists, (2) a
weapons of mass destruction threat and (3) "a tremendous barrier to
change in the Middle East."
But as regular viewers of PBS know, in fact, we invaded Iraq for oil.
Yes, precisely. That's why U.S. forces seized Iraq's oil fields right
after Baghdad fell, confiscated their vast oil reserves, and now we can
buy all the gasoline we want here at home for just pennies a gallon any
time we want. Sorry, we what? Folks, my switchboard is completely lit up
and this isn't even a radio show.
Moyers responded to the 2002 midterm elections in which Republicans
bucked history by gaining seats in both the House and the Senate by
warning Americans of the coming Rapture: "(I)f you like God in
government, get ready for the Rapture." As Moyers described the horror
that was to come: "That agenda includes the power of the state to force
pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives."
I'm pretty sure even the harshest anti-abortion laws would only prevent
a woman from killing her baby, not send her to a slave labor camp. But
with his broadcast career crashing down around him, Moyers took a brave
stand against the internment of pregnant women.
Moyers also said the agenda of the coming theocracy "includes using the
taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich." (And
we'd appreciate it if you poor people would fold the bills a little more
neatly before mailing them in next time.)
As the extra little cherry on top, all Moyers' nut conspiracy theories
were being broadcast on PBS, subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. Not only
that, but Moyers takes a cut of every video of his show sold, and he has
family members on the payroll. Let's see now: a corrupt, partisan
demagogue and his family caught feeding at the taxpayers' trough. Let's
just hope he never took a free golfing trip to Scotland!
When Ken Tomlinson, chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
suggested that PBS was maybe a smidgen left of center, Moyers began his
lengthy public nervous breakdown. Already well-known as an insufferable
jerk, it turns out Moyers is also a crazy megalomaniac, too.
In a recent speech to the the National Conference on Media Reform — a
conference dedicated to increasing liberal representation in the media
from 94.6 percent to 99.8 percent — Moyers responded to his critics by
reading from his fan mail, reading favorable news articles about
himself, and comparing himself to Jesus Christ or, as he put it, "one of
our boys." If it were possible that he actually believed in God, PBS
would be doing a special report on Moyers after a remark like that.
He said his critics were "obsessed with control, using the government to
threaten and intimidate" — almost as control-obsessed as 45 senators
trying to tell 55 senators which judicial nominees are acceptable. The
threat is: Provide balanced programming or stop expecting subsidies from
the U.S. taxpayer.
Moyers also noted that his critics were the ones behind the bin
Laden-like attack on Iraq in order "to make sure Ahmed Chalabi winds up
controlling Iraq's oil." (And that's why gasoline is so cheap!) Yep,
it's all right there on the Project for a New American Century's agenda:
(1) invade Iraq, (2) somehow get Bill Moyers' PBS show canceled, (3)
invade Syria, (4) invade Iran ...
Moyers has clearly reached the next-to-last stage of the megalomaniac's
life cycle: the persecution complex. We'll know Moyers has reached
end-stage megalomania when he begins to exhibit an inordinate fear of germs.
According to Moyers, the reason these right-wing radicals focused on him
despite the fan mail he gets — to say nothing of favorable write-ups in
the mainstream media — is that he "didn't play by the conventional rules
of Beltway journalism." (That and the giant piece of tinfoil on his head.)
These contemptible "rules of Beltway journalism" apparently consist of
reporters completely ignoring important conspiracy theories regularly
featured on Moyers' program and instead functioning as "government
stenographers" — as Moyers called one reporter for The New York Times,
no less.
Moyers did live by one rule of old-media journalism: He believed he
should not need viewers to have a TV show. During fund-raising drives,
scores of local PBS affiliates would drop Moyers' program for fear of
driving away donors. Let me say that I personally believe this was a
mistake. Moyers' show was the one PBS program that made the pledge
drives seem interesting.
But the absence of an audience is no concern for liberals. After all,
Air America is still on air. How about making George Soros pay Moyers'
salary? Then at least he'd have a little less money to spend on wrecking
the country. Hey — maybe that's what Moyers meant about the Republican
government transferring money from working people to the rich.
pla
> anncoulter.com
If you don't want the link again, don't post crap.
I've refrained from posting links to the likes of Al Franken, out
of respect for your ability to spot steaming piles of donkey dung.
You could show the same courtesy... Elephant dung smells just as
bad, y'know...
- pla
Z
>> anncoulter.com
> If you don't want the link again, don't post crap.
I remember when you would argue content and ideas instead of just
replying with http://www.ifuckedanncoulterhardintheass.com.
What happened?
pla
> What happened?
I stopped feeding trolls.
If you want to put forth a point you'd like to discuss, by
all means do so. If you want to discuss the merits or faults
of Bill Moyers, or the stacking of the deck at the CPB, or any
related topic, I'll gladly respond to you in a valid logical
manner. But I most certainly will *not* waste my time in
responding to the drivel-passed-off-as-argument in the
rantings of a party shill (for *either* party).
As I said, if *I* posted an Al Franken story, would *you*
feel the need to do a paragraph-by-paragraph destruction
of its content?
- pla
Z
>> What happened?
Maybe. Or I might ignore it. Heck, I might even agree with some of it. I
certainly wouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand or post a link to some profane
blog site.
Attack the content, pla, not the author.