The NYTimes piece said that NPR is not experiencing the same pressure
as PBS, because they have a greater degree of autonomy due to the huge
endowment from Joan Kroc. But I think a plausible alternative theory
is that they have already given in to conservative bias.
I got the following reply from Palast's people when I asked them if
his treatment at KUOW had changed:
Hi Matt,
NPR have been really bad and utterly gutless. Several times we've had
what appear to be enthusiastic producers wanting Greg on the air only
to cancel after having a brief pre-interview chat with him.
Go figure...
Regards,
LENI
Which didn't really answer the question, I asked, but they are busy,
out doing real journalism. I enjoy his e-mail updates, I'm getting
news I don't get from the government propaganda outfit. And speaking
of which, Chomsky mentioned several events that I never heard about on
NPR, how about you folks?
I have not heard back from the Nader people yet.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FAIR <fair@fair.org>
Date: May 5, 2005 10:24 AM
Subject: CPB Exerting Political Pressure on Public Television
To: Matt Love <matt.mattlove1@gmail.com>
FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2508
ACTION ALERT:
CPB Exerting Political Pressure on Public Television
Chair cites dubious evidence of public television's "liberal bias"
May 5, 2005
A front-page New York Times story (5/2/05) added to mounting evidence that
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) under chair Kenneth
Tomlinson is pressuring public television officials to produce more
conservative programming, and to rein in shows it perceives as liberal.
"The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is
aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other
conservatives consider liberal bias," reported the Times, adding that CPB
pressure has prompted "some public broadcasting leaders-- including the
chief executive of PBS-- to object that his actions pose a threat to
editorial independence." An unnamed senior FCC official used even starker
terms, telling the Washington Post (4/22/05) that the CPB under Tomlinson
"is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the truth, but to
impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It's almost like a right-wing coup. It
appears to be orchestrated."
As a private, non-profit institution, the CPB is tasked by Congress to
distribute funds to public broadcasters with a view toward balance.
Although it was intended to shield public broadcasting from political
influence, the CPB has long since become a mechanism for transmitting
Congress' ideological desires to public broadcasters.
Tomlinson says the CPB is only trying to rectify liberal bias in public
television-- a dubious role for an official tasked with shielding public
broadcasters from prevailing political winds. But Tomlinson has presented
little evidence of any pervasive left-wing bias in public broadcasting; in
fact, his only specific criticisms seem to be aimed at the program Now,
which was, until recently, hosted by Bill Moyers.
Tomlinson was instrumental in the development and funding of the Journal
Editorial Report, a program that features the Wall Street Journal's
hard-right editorial board and was supposed to be a "balance" to Now
(although unlike the Editorial Report, Now frequently had guests whose
views differed from those of the show's producers). The CPB's ideological
influence has grown as it has become increasingly staffed by White
House-friendly board members and officials. In addition to Tomlinson,
major Republican Party donors Cheryl Halpern and Gay Hart Gaines were
added to the board in 2003. Earlier this year Ken Ferree, a former aide to
FCC chair Michael Powell, was made both chief operating officer and
interim president of the CPB.
If Tomlinson and his CPB colleagues are doling out public broadcasting
funds based on the premise that PBS's left-wing slant must be corrected,
then they should first be required to show the public that such a bias
exists. Contrary to those familiar charges, a 1999 FAIR study found that
the news and public affairs programming available on PBS affiliates
displayed an elite, pro-business slant. The FAIR survey examined the
regular public affairs programming-- news, talk/interview, business and
documentary-- during a two-week period in late 1998. The findings
indicated that PBS shows often mirrored the narrow range of debate
available in the mainstream media:
-- Government officials (50 percent), professionals (31 percent --
overwhelmingly journalists) and corporate /Wall Street representatives (11
percent) dominated the debate over domestic politics, leaving little room
for consumer advocates or public interest voices.
--Only 22 percent of the sources were women;
--On economic stories, corporate/Wall Street sources dominated (75
percent), with labor unions rarely being heard (1.5 percent of sources).
Not a single representative of organized labor appeared in discussions of
corporate mergers or of layoffs.
If the CPB is truly interested in "balance" on PBS, they might want to
investigate why so many affiliates regularly air business and investment
programs (Nightly Business Report, CEO Exchange, Wall Street Week With
Fortune), some of which are distributed by PBS, but have no shows devoted
to labor or consumer rights. They might ask why PBS stations have long
featured talkshows hosted by conservatives (McLaughlin Group, Think Tank
with Ben Wattenberg, Tony Brown's Journal) but none hosted by
progressives. (The Tavis Smiley Show, arguably the closest thing to a
progressive talkshow on public TV, mostly interviews actors, musicians and
other cultural figures.)
PBS has also demonstrated a curious double-standard when it comes to
policing conflicts of interest. In 1993, PBS distributed The Prize: The
Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, a documentary series funded by
PaineWebber, a company with significant oil interests; almost every expert
featured was a defender of the oil industry. PBS carried Living Against
the Odds, a 1991 special on "risk assessment" funded by the oil company
Chevron that asserted, "We have to stop pointing the finger at industry
for every environmental hazard." In 2002, PBS distributed Commanding
Heights: The Battle for the World Economy, a look at globalization funded
by global corporate entities like BP, FedEx and Enron.
Yet PBS has rejected documentaries dealing with labor issues-- even
historical features dealing with 19th century labor struggles-- because
they received funding from labor unions. Defending Our Lives, a film
about domestic violence, was rejected in 1993 because one of its producers
was the leader of a battered women's support group. In 1997, Out at Work,
a film about workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians, was
rejected because it was partially funded by unions and a lesbian group.
The whole point of public broadcasting is to be an alternative to
commercial media outlets-- in part by creating a platform for dissenting,
marginalized and controversial views that for-profit networks won't air.
To try and apply Republican appointees' notions of "balance" to every PBS
or NPR program, as the CPB has suggested, would almost certainly stifle
those voices.
The CPB has recently appointed two ombudsmen to, as NPR reported
(4/28/05), "review the journalism that airs on PBS and NPR member
stations, along with programs from other public broadcasters such as
Pacifica Radio and Minnesota Public Radio."
Given the current partisan make-up of the CPB, this arrangement could
serve as a cover to de-fund programming that Republican members of the CPB
find objectionable, and to promote and enhance funding for shows that
serve and promote conservative interests.
ACTION:
Let the CPB know that it is the left and not the right that has been
traditionally excluded from public broadcasting. Remind them that public
broadcasting is supposed to serve as a platform for dissenting and
controversial views-- not simply another forum for conservative and
corporate voices.
CONTACT:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Phone Numbers:
202-879-9600
800-272-2190
mailto:comments@cpb.org
As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
maintain a polite tone.
----------
Your donation to FAIR makes a difference:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=103
SUBSCRIBE TO EXTRA! AND GET FAIR'S NEW BOOK FOR FREE:
The Oh Really? Factor
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=114
FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at
FAIR's online store:
http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/
FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130
stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station
nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=5
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send
copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any
responses, to fair@fair.org .
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our
subscriber list is kept confidential.
FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: fair@fair.org
---
You are currently subscribed to fair-l as: matt.mattlove1@gmail.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to:
leave-fair-l@comet.sparklist.com
NOTE: To change your address, simply unsubscribe your old address, and
re-subscribe with your new address.
