| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Save Public Broascasting! |
| 2005-06-06 |
| THE CONTROVERSY over recent actions by the chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting might not be so disturbing if the organization were not engaging in the exact kind of political interference it was designed to prevent. I agree with this statement. Thomlinson is interfering. Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who has quietly headed CPB for 18 months, recently emerged with an agenda that includes hiring monitors to find examples of liberal bias on public affairs shows, appointing ombudsmen to carry out further monitoring and making thinly veiled threats to pull funding for shows that don't meet his fairness criteria. Oh how awful, monitors. It's fascism, isn't it? Mr. Tomlinson's first salvo was to cut Bill Moyers' weekly show, NOW, from one hour to 30 minutes after Mr. Moyers' departure, then fund two programs with conservative viewpoints: one hosted by Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the other by former CNN commentator Tucker Carlson. Now Mr. Tomlinson is considering launching an investigation into whether National Public Radio's Middle East coverage is pro-Arab. No question that is is pro-terrorist. To view these moves in their proper context, it's important to understand the origins of the CPB. Congress established the CPB in 1967 as part of a new public broadcasting infrastructure. Unfortunately, in creating the system, Congress failed to set up an endowed trust to pay for programming, so monies are allocated annually by a panel of commissioners appointed by the U.S. president. The CPB was charged with shielding public broadcasting from political pressure and with ensuring that programming is objective and balanced. A mission it has failed, miserably. Unlike the time-honored philosophy of openness and collaboration practiced by CPB boards for decades through Republican and Democratic administrations, the current board appears to prefer to work behind a wall of secrecy, shrouding its motives and agenda. How terrible. That is exactly how NPR came to be a leftist publicly funded news outlet. Funny how that works. Mr. Tomlinson's reported efforts to terminate funding of startup national news programming appear to be an attempt to prevent the development and success of original content aimed at one of public broadcasting's core missions: to provide in-depth, contextual programming that promotes diverse voices and serves the underserved. Another mission it has failed, mierably. It is important to note that a recent survey of the American public commissioned by the CPB, undertaken jointly by a Republican and a Democratic polling firm, found that "the majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased." Specifically, 78 percent of the general respondents indicated that NPR did not have a liberal bias. Deomcracy works for in NPR's favor at last. In another study, the NPR listening audience identified itself as one-third conservative, one-third independent and one-third liberal. And congressional support for public broadcasting is and always has been bipartisan in nature. Doesn't mean a thing to me. Now The New York Times reports, "An association of news ombudsmen has rejected an attempt by two ombudsmen from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to join their organization as full-fledged members, questioning their independence." No, CPB did that all by themselves. Ironically, the CPB's scrutiny of public radio has a minimal effect on NPR, as CPB funding to NPR is minimal. Rather, it's the individual stations across America that will suffer if the CPB withholds grants to them as a way of protesting perceived NPR biases. Then there is no reason not to cut them loose. Locally, WYPR-FM has always attempted to fairly present all sides of an issue. The Marc Steiner Show and the 22 other programs produced by WYPR-FM are most certainly inclusive. While 7 percent of WYPR-FM's annual budget comes from the CPB, if the CPB pursues this errant course and attempts to assert influence upon our content, WYPR-FM would immediately reject CPB funds. Again, there is no reason not to cut them loose. Government tampering with independent journalism is a very bad idea reserved for tyrannical governments. Attempting to inject balance into public broadcasting is an imprudent, and quite possibly dangerous, idea. I agree with a lot of this. Public broadcasting is garbage, not quite as bad as commercial TV, but very very bad in its own way. You are wasting time resources and effort trying to wash the garbage. And the concept of balance in public broascasting is long gone. The only cure, in my most humble opinion is the death penalty. Cut CPB loose, with no funding and no public support. Let them achieve their own balance. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #11 I stopped listening to NPR when they went to the "All Abu Ghraib" format. |
| Posted by: AJackson 2005-06-06 20:25 |
| #10 Not without getting your madras shorts wrinkled, at any rate. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-06-06 13:16 |
| #9 Shipman - I've looked the beast in the eyes (well maybe about two dozen of the eyes literally and a bit intoxicated at that) at a number of parties down in DC over the years. To be sure, the people are nice enough but blindered, hypocritical and stuck in an ideological time warp of sorts that leaves them with a 290 degree moral blindspot. Don't worry 'bout me though because I'm not going to go Sunni, er uh, I mean "postal." As a member of the NYT's 91st percentile of classissitude I could never besmirch my good reputation or soft hands touching an axe, hatchet, chinese cleaver, newport menthol, masonry hammer, reciprocating saw, or orphan drink. |
| Posted by: EuGenE Tkat, III 2005-06-06 13:15 |
| #8 I just found this link: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20031112.shtml Never mind. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-06-06 12:30 |
| #7 Presumably the poll questioned only NPR listeners, since non-listeners would have no basis for an opinion. The same type of polling would show that 78% of CBS news viewers and 78% of Fox news viewers report no bias. Agenda pollsters are a growing menace. |
| Posted by: Marlowe 2005-06-06 12:22 |
| #6 NPR's news and news oriented programing is an awkward dinosaur that can only be fixed with clearcutting and burning of the undergrowth followed by reseeding LOL! Careful with that metaphor eugene. :) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-06 12:15 |
| #5 NPR's news and news oriented programing is an awkward dinosaur that can only be fixed with clearcutting and burning of the undergrowth followed by reseeding |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-06 12:14 |
| #4 Defund NPR and let them compete in the marketplace. If there are enough people who want to hear - and support - it, fine. Otherwise, welcome to the real world. QUIT TAKING MY TAX DOLLARS FOR THIS POS! |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-06-06 12:04 |
| #3 Of course, 78% of NPR listeners believe there is no bias there. This is like Dan Rather saying that the NYT is "middle of the road." |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-06-06 09:57 |
| #2 NPR's bias is fairly pervasive and comes out in alot of idiotic ways. Much of it takes the form of Daniel Shore (senior (read senile)"news analyst" - somebody needs to tell him the world doesn't revolve around JFK, Nixon, and Watergate)and Robert Reich (sp)(nasty reckless SUV driving professor/midget) mutterings as well as bitter little stunted 1960's liberal ankle biter jabs thrown by newsreaders in with an adjective or phrase here and there. The bias can often be clearly seen in the choice of topics and context in the segments presented. It is annoying, pointless, and often juvenile at best. NPR's news and news oriented programing is an awkward dinosaur that can only be fixed with clearcutting and burning of the undergrowth followed by reseeding with a more intelligent staff operating under proper supervision and real guidelines for conduct. It seems to be a pervasive people problem there. Many of the reporters and news readers see their job as a crude personal soapbox. At last check that was not the role intended for NPR. I've been a sporadic listener for years but listen less and less as the quality drops and rhetoric rises. The idea of NPR is great but the crude expressions of political bias need to be brought to an end. Until that time I'll probably continue to get nausea and alternately, urges to inflict grievous bodily harm, ever time they start begging for money by tooting their own whistle claiming to be some sort of pure news outfit. |
| Posted by: Tkat 2005-06-06 09:31 |
| #1 "78 percent of the general respondents indicated that NPR did not have a liberal bias" Well then surely that was the 78% that never listens to it. What a crock. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-06-06 08:55 |