# Are right-wingers taking over PBS? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 19, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033 "2004-09-19T20:14:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/21 "2004-09-20T00:49:01Z")
> [@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.** That’s great for science programs, but political “truths” depend on the assumptions you start with. Different people start with different assumptions and arrive at differnent conclusions. It’s best to present as many sides as possible, and to clearly explain what assumptions are made and how the conclusions are reached. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/22 "2004-09-20T00:56:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. When we start allocating airtime based on merit and content, left-wing viewpoints will disappear from the airwaves forever! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/23 "2004-09-20T01:17:08Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > “The Newshour with Jim Lehrer” Here are some beefs that FAIR has with The Newhour recently: [http://www.fair.org/activism/newshour-iraq.html](http://www.fair.org/activism/newshour-iraq.html) [http://www.fair.org/media-beat/040415.html](http://www.fair.org/media-beat/040415.html) [http://www.fair.org/activism/newshour-parenti-update.html](http://www.fair.org/activism/newshour-parenti-update.html) Against evidence that PBS used to be left, [here](http://www.fair.org/reports/macneil-study.html) is a study of the NewsHour that dates back to 1990. And [here](http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/npr-study.html) is a recent FAIR study of NPR in general: > [@](#): > > That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives. Spanning from the early ’70s, when President Richard Nixon demanded that “all funds for public broadcasting be cut” (9/23/71), through House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s similar threats in the mid-’90s, the notion that NPR leans left still endures. > > … > > Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study. > > Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition, 6/26/03). > > Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each. I’ll grant you that Bill Moyer’s NOW has a left-wing point-of-view. However, even with it, you find a sense of “balance” that will occasionally even result in a tilt to the Right on something. I saw this a few months ago when they did a report on how corporations were trying to influence the climate talks [in Spain(?)]. Accompanying that piece on the web, they had a discussion of the climate change debate which was “balanced” to the point of really giving the fairly small minority of climate scientists that deny the importance of anthropogenic warming more weight than they would certainly get in any sort of respectable scientific publication, like _Science_. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/24 "2004-09-20T01:34:38Z")
Oh, and of course, no analysis of media bias is complete without discussing the degree to which Americans [believed manifestly false things in regards to the Iraq War](http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf). If the media has a left-wing bias, they are doing a hell of a shitty job in getting it across in relation to the Administration (and their allies) lying and deception propaganda machine! And, some conservatives on this very board, at least one participating in this very thread, have made claims about how before the war everyone believed that Iraq had WMD and how everyone found Colin Powell’s presentation at the U.N. very compelling at the time, completely ignoring that there was in fact a group of people who did not. That they were largely invisible to you guys ought to be taken as evidence against a liberal media bias and ought to make you start thinking about the need to get some of your information from the _real_ liberal media (like _The Nation_) if you don’t actually want to be so far off the mark relative to the actual facts in the future! ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/25 "2004-09-20T03:57:27Z")
> [@Matchstick](#): > > Barney the Dinosaur, of course. “I love you, you love me…” What kind of wishy-washy tree-hugging feel-good liberal claptrap is that? Then there are all of those nature shows, full of “ecology” and “global warming” liberal propaganda. And smutty British sitcoms full of double entendres when everybody knows conservatives don’t “get” double entendres. And cooking shows that show MEN cooking–INDOORS! Then on national holidays the show former soldiers telling about their experiences and some of their stories are not all upbeat and glorious and some of the wusses even cry. Liberal rubbish, trying to stain the memories of our fighting men. And during pledge periods they show big bands and elderly crooners like Rosemary Clooney (aunt of prominent liberal George Clooney) and Lawrence Welk and we know what a commie HE was. And their Fourth of July extravaganza? Hosted year after year by Barry Bostwick, who was in that homersexual abomination “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” with (shudder!) SUSAN SARANDON! You can’t tell THIS American that PBS isn’t a hotbed of pinko subversives set to sell this country to Fidel for a bottle of rum and a bag of Angolan heroin! ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/26 "2004-09-20T07:25:30Z")
If there really was a liberal media, Michael Moore could’ve gone on vacation for the last two years. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/27 "2004-09-20T08:41:44Z")
**xt:** _Radically right-wing is in the realm of neo-nazi stuff._ **Sam:** _And from your [BrainGlutton’s] extreme lefty [persuasion? position?] […]_ Part of the problem with evaluating journalistic bias, I think, is in this sort of inconsistency about **degree** of bias. Obviously, **xt** and **Sam** can’t be talking about the same kind of “extremism” or “radicalism” here. On a scale on which “radically right-wing” is as far off center as neo-nazis, “extreme lefty” would be groups like the anarchists or the Spartacists. (Even the Socialist Workers Party IMO isn’t quite as “radical left” as neo-nazis are “radical right”. ) And there’s no way in hell someone like **BrainGlutton** would count as an “extreme lefty” on that scale. So evidently, we need to figure out some kind of agreed-upon standards for approximately quantifying political bias before we can ever hope to reach any kind of agreement about what sort of and how much bias there is in the media. ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/28 "2004-09-20T09:07:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > would you not agree that the editorial board of the _Wall Street Journal_ is radically right-wing even by American standards? I would not agree that the WSJ editorial board is radical right wing. Radical right wing is Pat Buchannon, Pat Robertson, loonies who shoot abortion doctors; if anything the WSJ staff rags on them as much or more than anyone else. I would say the WSJ board is considered damn near an enemy by the radical right wing, certainly Buchannons band of merry men. Its just silly, this acting as if left and right in this country are two seperate things; its a charade. They are two sides of the same thing; government control and intervention. They only differ on what and how govt controls and how, why and when govt intervenes. By and large, the WSJ board seems to be in favor of reducing govt control and intervention as much as possible (being free traders) and so nowadays they are niether left nor right wing. Groups sit in the wings, individuals sit in the center. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/29 "2004-09-20T10:10:43Z")
Lets not forget **The McLaughlin Group**. His typical panel leans heavily conservative. John Mclaughlin, Pat Buchanan, Tony Blankley are conservative. Mort Zuckerman is a moderate conservative. Clift is the token liberal. How long has this show been on? Over twenty years I think. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/30 "2004-09-20T17:15:58Z")
> [@Voodoochile](#): > > I would not agree that the WSJ editorial board is radical right wing. Radical right wing is Pat Buchannon, Pat Robertson, loonies who shoot abortion doctors; if anything the WSJ staff rags on them as much or more than anyone else. I would say the WSJ board is considered damn near an enemy by the radical right wing, certainly Buchannons band of merry men. As **icerigger** noted, Pat Buchanan **already has** a spot on PBS; he’s a regular on _The McLaughlin Group._ > [@Voodoochile](#): > > Its just silly, this acting as if left and right in this country are two seperate things; its a charade. They are two sides of the same thing; government control and intervention. They only differ on what and how govt controls and how, why and when govt intervenes. So what? When people in this country use the terms “conservative” or “right-wing,” they usually **don’t** mean “Libertarian.” For that matter, the Libertarians don’t consider themselves conservative or right-wing. But it would be nice if there were at least one TV news network ideologically dominated by the Libertarian Party instead of (like Fox – and, increasingly, PBS) the Republican Party. ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/31 "2004-09-20T17:36:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So what? So, the thread was in part about whether PBS is going conservative, and one argument in favor of that view was that the WSJ ed. board was getting a program. ‘So what’ I was saying, and apparently you agree, is that the WSJ ed. board is not an example of right-wing or conservative, so I was taking issue with that particular argument in the article you posted. > [@](#): > > But it would be nice if there were at least one TV news network ideologically dominated by the Libertarian Party instead of (like Fox – and, increasingly, PBS) the Republican Party. I think it would be nice to not have ideologically dominated shows at all, but hey. Personally I think its a fad, and while a few core programs will remain, most of this whole left show/right show thing will go the way of the Sally Jesse Raphaels and all that crap. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/32 "2004-09-20T18:00:34Z")
> [@Voodoochile](#): > > ‘So what’ I was saying, and apparently you agree, is that the WSJ ed. board is not an example of right-wing or conservative, so I was taking issue with that particular argument in the article you posted. No, **Voodoochile,** the WSJ editorial board **is** conservative. Not Libertarian. There’s a difference. Conservatives are pro- **business,** favoring whatever is profitable for established business interests, including public bailouts for struggling corporations, and fat government contracts for well-connected ones like Halliburton. Libertarians are pro- **market,** favoring total government inaction in the economic sphere regardless of who gets hurt. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/33 "2004-09-20T18:38:26Z")
> [@Voodoochile](#): > > So, the thread was in part about whether PBS is going conservative, and one argument in favor of that view was that the WSJ ed. board was getting a program. ‘So what’ I was saying, and apparently you agree, is that the WSJ ed. board is not an example of right-wing or conservative, so I was taking issue with that particular argument in the article you posted. To claim that the WSJ editorial page is not right-wing is freakin’ ludicrous! As I noted, they are most passionately right-wing in regards to business / economic issues where they are rabidly right-wing. To point to just 2 examples: They are essentially indistinguisable from the “Club for Growth” types on taxes…which means they hammer even moderate conservatives like Senators Snowe and Voinovich for not towing 100% to the supply-side religion. They are essentially indistinguishable from the most rabidly anti-environmental groups like Competitive Enterprise Institute, Science and Environment Policy Project (SEPP), Cato Institute, and National Center for Policy Analysis on environmental issues like climate change. Even on social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, they are right-wing even if they are a little less rabid. I am willing to give the WSJ credit for running a good and, as near as I can tell, basically unbiased news reporting organization despite their right-wing editorial page. But to seriously claim their editorial page is not right-wing?!?! Give me a break! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033/34 "2004-09-20T19:54:45Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Like it or not, if you want balance you have to represent both the right and the left. > [@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.** > [@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? > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. > [@John Mace](#): > > That’s great for science programs, but political “truths” depend on the assumptions you start with. Different people start with different assumptions and arrive at differnent conclusions. It’s best to present as many sides as possible, and to clearly explain what assumptions are made and how the conclusions are reached. A good, honest take on this issue comes from Eric Alterman’s “The Liberal Media” column in _The Nation,_ September 20, 2004, in a discussion of how the media coverage has lent credibility to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth lies: > [@](#): > > The exchange [an April 18 interview of Kerry by Tim Russert, about Kerry’s 1971 testimony about atrocities in Vietnam] flashed again into my mind as I read that Russert – who, lest we forget, is one of the two or three most influential and respected journalists on network television – has reportedly told viewers that the dishonest and morally disgusting Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisements that have now been fully discredited had “scored a direct hit on one of the main bases of the Kerry campaign, his war record.” It did not matter to this grand pooh-bah of the punditocracy that the ads were pure mendacity from start to finish. What mattered is that they were “effective.” But why were they effective? Because Russert and his colleagues had not the wherewithal to point out that they were lies. “We are not judging the credibility of Kerry or the [Swift Boat] Veterans, we just print the facts,” _Washington Post_ executive editor Len Downie explains. > > \ > > . . . [T]o point exclusively to the dishonest machinations of the right-wing media would be to miss the significance of the so-called liberal media (SCLM). Their willingness to treat scurrilous slander as mere “politics as usual” abdicated the most fundamental responsibility of journalism: to ascertain, as best as one can, just what the truth of a given situation may be. . . . > > We must rely on Jon Stewart’s fake news reports on _The Daily Show_ to illustrate the point, as he and his bevy of crazed contributors continue to turn out comedy sketches that offer a truer picture than do the so-called journalists of the Sunday morning gabfests and cable food fights. Here’s their fake-take on the situation: > > **CORDDRY:** I’m a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called “objectivity” – might wanna look it up someday. > > **STEWART:** Doesn’t objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence and calling out what’s credible and what isn’t? > > **CORDDRY:** Whoa-ho! Well, well, well – sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [_high-pitched, effeminate_] “Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks credibility! Mmm, mmm, mmm!” Listen buddy: Not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me. Couldn’t have said it better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-right-wingers-taking-over-pbs/265033.md?page=1)