Are right-wingers taking over PBS?

[BrainGlutton]

From The Nation, August 12, 2004 (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040830&s=alterman):

THE LIBERAL MEDIA by Eric Alterman
PBS Adds Insult to Injury

The far right’s decades-long campaign to falsely brand PBS a leftist conspiracy–one that apparently included giving shows to such commies as William F. Buckley, Louis Rukeyser, Ben Wattenberg and Fortune magazine–has really hit pay dirt this year, first in creating a show around CNN’s conservative talking head Tucker Carlson, and now, far more egregiously, in creating a program for the extremist editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.

Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson is a nice guy and among the least offensive of contemporary conservative pundits. Unfortunately, that is damn faint praise indeed. In recent weeks, the purposely inflammatory demagogy of PBS’s newest host has included a description of John Edwards as “specializing in Jacuzzi cases,” owing to the lawyer’s successful representation of a small child who saw her intestines sucked out inside a wading pool. Carlson has compared the Democratic Party’s efforts to keep track of its own racial data to those of Gestapo head and SS chief Heinrich Himmler, and he accused John Kerry of demanding that “dark skinned foreigners from the Middle East fight our war for us.” No less odiously, he defended GOP smear tactics against the legless Democratic Vietnam veteran Max Cleland, who was linked with Osama bin Laden in one of the most scurrilous campaigns of the past century.

Still, the insult of throwing up Carlson to quiet the whining of crybaby conservatives pales in comparison to the injury of offering up millions of dollars in taxpayer and viewer-donated resources of our public broadcasting service to the far-right ideologues behind the Journal Editorial Report. Short of turning the broadcast day over to Rush Limbaugh or Richard Mellon Scaife, it’s difficult to imagine a more calculated effort to undermine PBS’s intended mission of providing alternative programming than this subsidy to a wealthy, conservative corporation to produce yet another right-wing cable chat show.

Is this a real change? Has PBS been drifting rightwards over the past few years?

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

Is this a real change? Has PBS been drifting rightwards over the past few years?

I assume you are using US metrics for judging left, center, and right. That said, I’d say that PBS MIGHT be drifting close to US center, but remains left of US center. I think actually that most of the major media that have in the past been considered ‘liberal’ are slowly drifting towards the US center…because they have found they are losing market share otherwise. Media like Fox which is very definitely right of US center have really made inroads on capturing large percentages of the market, and the other media outlets are simply following suit. Of course, PBS isn’t exactly in the same boat as CBS, CNN, etc, but I think they are simply following the same trend.

Of course, all this is just my WAG…I haven’t really deeply looked into this issue. I could be completely wrong, or wrong by degree.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

I assume you are using US metrics for judging left, center, and right. That said, I’d say that PBS MIGHT be drifting close to US center, but remains left of US center.

x, would you not agree that the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal is radically right-wing even by American standards? And that Tucker Carlson is too? And Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour is generally acknowledged to be rather to the right of center. And Bill Moyers has announced his intention to leave PBS after November. Really, what remains on PBS that would define it as “left of US center”?

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

x, would you not agree that the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal is radically right-wing even by American standards? And that Tucker Carlson is too? And Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour is generally acknowledged to be rather to the right of center. And Bill Moyers has announced his intention to leave PBS after November. Really, what remains on PBS that would define it as “left of US center”?

I would agree that the WSJ is right of US center…but ‘radically right-wing’? No, not by US standards. Radically right-wing is in the realm of neo-nazi stuff…and the WSJ isn’t even close. By EUROPEAN standards of course both Fox and WSJ is radically right-wing…but then, by US standards many of their main stream publications are left wing, if not radically left-wing. Thats why comparisons between the political structures is mostly meaningless IMHO.

I can’t give you a blow by blow of PBS where they still remain left of center, or are now right of center, as PBS isn’t my main media outlet…I always found them uninteresting so only occationally tuned in. Perhaps someone more familiar with PBS can come in and give an unbiased assessment of their current content. I think its a bit of a stretch though to claim that PBS is now somehow right of US center though and I’d need more to back that up than the change in the content or make up of a few of their editorials or talk shows.

-XT

[Matchstick]

@BrainGlutton

Really, what remains on PBS that would define it as “left of US center”?

Barney the Dinosaur, of course. “I love you, you love me…” What kind of wishy-washy tree-hugging feel-good liberal claptrap is that?

But seriously, PBS is funded by the Republican-controlled government and by contributions from large corporations. It’s only natural it would have a liberal bias.

[Governor_Quinn]

It isn’t that new a charge. Mother Jones was claiming it back around 1991 or so.

[BrainGlutton]

@Governor Quinn

It isn’t that new a charge. Mother Jones was claiming it back around 1991 or so.

Were they wrong, in your opinion?

[Governor_Quinn]

I haven’t a clue, as I was only 6 at the time (I found the article years later.)

BTW, did you ever contact Jennifer Dunn?

[Sam_Stone]

So if the running string of left-wing shows is interrupted by a couple of conservative shows, that makes PBS ‘right wing’? If there were no right-wing shows on PBS at all, would that make it ‘centrist’ or ‘balanced’?

Like it or not, if you want balance you have to represent both the right and the left. Since PBS is publically funded, and since about half the nation is to the right of center, don’t you think it’s reasonable that PBS offer some right-wing programming?

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam Stone

Like it or not, if you want balance you have to represent both the right and the left.

That’s pure, stinking bullshit, Sam. If you want balance you have to present the truth, without fear or favor to any ideological camp. That’s what journalism is about.

[rjung]

There is no “liberal media,” except in the minds of right-wing pundits who need a convenient scapegoat for unflattering news. The OP is news only to those who believed the myth.

[Czarcasm]

@Sam Stone

So if the running string of left-wing shows is interrupted by a couple of conservative shows, that makes PBS ‘right wing’?

And this “string” of left-wing shows would consist of…?

[BrotherCadfael]

Are right-wingers taking over PBS?

Only during pledge week.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrotherCadfael

Are right-wingers taking over PBS?

Only during pledge week.

That raises an interesting question . . . what percentage of PBS’s budget comes from viewer donations, and what percentage comes from the government, and what percentage comes from corporate donations? Does anybody know?

[BrainGlutton]

The PBS website says only this about its funding (http://www.pbs.org/producers/funding.html):

Funding for PBS programs comes from a variety of sources. In addition to seeking foundation and corporate support, producers are able to seek production funding through PBS. While PBS’s production funds are quite limited, the majority of funding is distributed through a PBS general fund and projects considered for funding are evaluated based on the criteria outlined in the Content Priorities section of this site.

But no figures or percentages.

I found some interesting stuff on the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS):

Sources of funding

The largest source of revenue for U.S. public television stations comes from donations by individual viewers. In addition to these member fees, PBS receives federal government money through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). PBS-distributed programs may be funded in part by corporate sponsors and non-profit groups such as the Annenberg Foundation. Depending upon their location and licensee, local stations may also be funded in part by state governments, colleges and universities. They can sell small portions of their airtime in the form of underwriting, which differs from traditional advertising in terms of restrictions on language and product usage.

But no actual figures.

Criticism

PBS has been the subject of some controversy.

Some conservatives dislike its perceived liberal bias and its tax-based revenue and have periodically but unsuccessfully attempted to discontinue funding of CPB. Although state and federal sources account for a minority percentage of public television funding, the system remains vulnerable to political pressure.

Certain liberals dislike how much of its funding comes from corporate sponsorships and some are uncomfortable with shows such as Wall $treet Week which they see as promoting a corporate outlook without any corresponding series featuring opposing views from labor unions.

Individual programs, particularly those dealing with the subject of homosexuality, have been the targets of organized campaigns by those with opposing views.

It was founded to provide diversity in programming at a time when all television was broadcast (as opposed to today’s coaxial cable or satellite transmission methods) and most communities received only three or four signals. Today most households subscribe to cable TV or have satellite dishes that receive tens or hundreds of signals, including varied educational and children’s programs. However, public television proponents insist that the service is intended to provide universal access, particularly to poor and rural viewers. It is also argued that many cable and satellite productions are of lower quality.

Most stations solicit individual donations by methods including pledge drives or telethons which can disrupt regularly-scheduled programming. Some viewers find this a source of annoyance.

Criticism by left wing groups has been made at CPB and PBS for making room for conservative commentators Tucker Carlson, a co-host of CNN’s Crossfire and an upcoming show with Paul Gigot, an editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

[mks57]

@BrainGlutton

That’s pure, stinking bullshit, Sam. If you want balance you have to present the truth, without fear or favor to any ideological camp. That’s what journalism is about.

Boy, did you just open a bucket of worms. The truth is, of course, being defined as what our intrepid journalist, with all his cultural and political baggage, believes to be the truth. Do you see the problem here?

[Hyperelastic]

@BrainGlutton

x, would you not agree that the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal is radically right-wing even by American standards?

The WSJ advocates a Constitutional amendment reading “There shall be open borders”. That used to be a radical left-wing position; maybe now it’s a radical right-wing position. Either way, it’s pretty damn radical.

[BrainGlutton]

@mks57

Boy, did you just open a bucket of worms. The truth is, of course, being defined as what our intrepid journalist, with all his cultural and political baggage, believes to be the truth. Do you see the problem here?

The problem is that real journalism involves a lot more work than simply transmitting the statements of two sets of partisan spokespersons and giving “equal time” to each. Ever since the '70s right-wingers have been screaming for “balance” in the media but what they really mean by that is (at least) equal time for right-wing viewpoints regardless of their merits or content.

[jshore]

@Hyperelastic

The WSJ advocates a Constitutional amendment reading “There shall be open borders”. That used to be a radical left-wing position; maybe now it’s a radical right-wing position. Either way, it’s pretty damn radical.

Yeah…But they want this to be in a climate of minimal labor protections for these and other workers. In other words, what they are advocating for is a pro-corporate position that there should be lots of cheap labor available. The WSJ editorial page tends to be fairly conservative across the board, including on social issues, but where they really focus their interest is on economic issues…i.e., they are very libertarian on these sorts of things & are also wacko anti-environmentalists (global warming deniers, etc.) and very anti-labor and pro “tort reform.”

It should be noted, however, that despite this skew on their editorial page, their reporting is pretty good and unbiased…to the point where there are often amusing contradictions between their news pages and their editorial pages.

[Sam_Stone]

Brainglutton, we’re just not going to agree here. I can point to any number of shows on that network that have a liberal bias, (“The Charlie Rose Show”, “Washington Week in Review”, “The Newshour with Jim Lehrer”, “NOW with Bill Moyers”), and you’ll either A) deny they are biased, or B) claim that they are at best centrist or even slightly right. And from your extreme lefty persuation, it might seem that way to you.

The way I see it, PBS should be lauded for trying to add some balance. Tucker Carlson is far from being Attila the Hun. He’s actually pretty moderate - a ‘mainstream Republican’. If you can’t tolerate his views being on the air, perhaps it’s time to examine your own levels of tolerance.