Cal Thomas on NPR/PBS controversy

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050625-095248-9930r.htm

excerpt:
"Mr. Moyers is entitled to his views. But he is not entitled to taxpayer money to promote them. If Mr. Moyers thinks he represents the public, let PBS and NPR be 100 percent privately funded by people who want to hear and see his ideas and those of his like-minded colleagues."

Or let both sides be equally represented.

A good commentary by Cal Thomas in the Washington Times. Balance is a good thing in political /news / commentary broadcasting. I listen to NPR and have noticed that their is a slant, I don't believe it is as bad as it used to be prior to 1996 when Newt Gingrich first called to cut CPB funding. I haven't watch "NOW" on PBS, but based on the stats presented maybe some tweeking in that balance is called for on NPR and PBS. I agree with Cal Thomas that if public broadcasting is going to receive public money they should offer a balanced look at the world, not just a liberal view or just a conservative view. A good start for NPR and PBS would be to give Cal Thomas a weekly show, assuming his contract with Fox would allow such a move. There are plenty of solid good conservative voices out there, if Cal isn't available, maybe folks like Dennis Prager, Michael Savage, Bill Bennett, Laura Ingram, etc from the Salem Radio Network that might be available to offer some balance to the "NOW" program. Maybe Newt Gingrich is looking for a radio/TV gig. That would make for an interesting show, Newt and Bill Moyers squaring off each week. Of course, Cal's other solution would work too, take NPR/PBS off the public dole and then allow the market forces of supporters support those one sided shows. My guess is NPR/PBS would be able to fill the void of the loss of government cash by increasing their corporate underwriting/15 sec semi-commericals.

Of course, the difference with FOX which does skew conservative is they do not recieve public money, so if the market would bear a conservative network fine. So, maybe it's time to see if the same market would bear a liberal network. My guess is it would.

h> ttp://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050625-095248-9930r.htm
>
>
> excerpt:
> "Mr. Moyers is entitled to his views. But he is not
> entitled to taxpayer money to promote them. If Mr. Moyers
> thinks he represents the public, let PBS and NPR be 100
> percent privately funded by people who want to hear and see
> his ideas and those of his like-minded colleagues."
>
> Or let both sides be equally represented.
>

h> ttp://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050625-095248-9930r.htm
>
>
> excerpt:
> "Mr. Moyers is entitled to his views. But he is not
> entitled to taxpayer money to promote them. If Mr. Moyers
> thinks he represents the public, let PBS and NPR be 100
> percent privately funded by people who want to hear and see
> his ideas and those of his like-minded colleagues."
>
> Or let both sides be equally represented.



Here's a quote from his own washington times' reporting staff...link follows:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050502-051219-5106r.htm

Heres a quote from the article:

"CDD Executive Director Jeffrey Chester told United Press International that separate polls conducted in 2002 and 2003 indicated that the public does not perceive a bias in public broadcasting.

The CDD reported that the Tarrance Group -- which it said has worked for Republican clients including the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign and Republican National Committee -- conducted the polls with help from the Democratic polling firm, Lake Snell Perry and Associates. It said that the 2003 survey found that public broadcasting had an 80-percent favorable rating, while 10 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of PBS and public radio.

More than half of those surveyed said that PBS news and information programming was more "trustworthy" than news shows on the commercial networks, including ABC, CNN, CBS, Fox and NBC -- while 8 percent thought that PBS's Iraq war coverage was "slanted." "

Sounds pretty good for a biased station doesnt it? This whole alleged effort to balance is just a bunch of BS...


Mr Nelson says let both sides be equally represented.....if you go down a list of PBS News programming can one truly say there is a liberal bias?......

NOW - this is the only show the right wing keeps parroting in the echo machine.
But if you use the NY Times article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/a...5db&ex=1272686400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

you will see the following take on the bias situation ....quoted excerpt below:

"Mr. Tomlinson did help get one program, "The Journal Editorial Report," on the air as a way of balancing "Now." Ms. Mitchell backed the program, but public broadcasting officials said Mr. Tomlinson was instrumental in lining up $5 million in corporate financing and pressing PBS to distribute it.

Public television executives noted that Mr. Gigot's show by design features the members of the conservative editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, while Mr. Moyers's guests included many conservatives, like Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition; Richard Viguerie, a conservative political strategist; and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform."

so taking that Mr. Tomlinson...the CPB president went out of his own way to finance a new show to "allegedly" balance NOW. If one has actually watched the show, there is only one view on the show, the view of conservative editors on the show WITHOUT one dissenting/alternative view....EVER on this show...

If you want to allege Bias, Bill Moyers' and David Branccacio's reports are archived on the PBS website...watch some...and see if what is percieved to be bias is simply good reporting.....there are plenty of alternative views in each and every segment that was aired. Use your real judgement, dont let someone else who either hasn't watched one segment or just is spewing the weeks' republican talking points decide for you what is bias....

After NOW, which the right has decided to be PBS' "gay marriage" target of division. No one in the echo machine mentions that NOW's original host, Bill Moyers, has retired and is no longer hosting the show...the show was subsequently cut to 30 mins from 1 hour by pressure from CPB ('Tomlinson) and is hosted now by David Branccacio, formerly the host of Marketplace, a business show that was based out of Los Angeles. He is a good reporter that shows both sides of the issue based on his work in business reporting.......again look at various archives and see if you honestly find bias....take a show break it down and report back here for all of us to consider.....

Look at the News Shows that were/are on PBS and identify to me and the others here the bias....after careful and thoughful research, it should become clear that one cant find bias...Lets review the lineup:

Wall Street Week with Fortune - no doubt one would not find bias here - this is a business report with economic views on both sides. Its easy to get alternative views....and if you watch any archived segment on PBS.org...one can easily see that there is no bias on this show

Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered - until he left the show, he had an unchallenged opportunity to display any view he decided - Tucker was no liberal - plus he did at times have both sides on...archives may still available if they werent removed after Tucker left.

Frontline - also archived - weekly news "mini documentaries" that are well made and cover may aspects of current politics...there are over 45 Frontline documentaries archived - certainly one cannot find bias when they covered in recent times Karl Rove, Wal-Mart, Rumsfeld, the war on terror, etc....Frontline is not biased but in fact one of the well researched shows on television. I had the pleasure to meet David Fanning (executive producer), who has been a force for good journalism for years..he is not biased...i think Frontline exposes weakness in all critical news stories for the world to see...All politicians fear frontline...dem and republican and foreign as well.

The NewsHour - bias in the news hour...
ARE YOU KIDDING....if Jim Lehlrer was really biased do you think both parties would accept him as they do WITHOUT question on debates? Bush likes Lehlrer as much as anyone. Again the show is archived and is available on cable systems that have ON-DEMAND

Radio:

All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Talk of the Nation, etc are all archived for general review - pick one check for bias report back.....there has always been great reporting on these shows....


Mr Nelson is just wrong.......someone's OPED does not prove a thing except that they have an opinion. Moyers has the right to express his opinion just as Cal thomas and anyone else...the difference between Thomas and Moyers is that Moyers is a well respected Jounalist and Thomas is just the republican HACK de Jour. Its not Ken Tomlinson's job to try to shape programming at CPB, hes not doing his job..hes listening to the Bush Administration telling him to destroy the wonderful NPR/PBS public television stations.....he should resign immediately.

Re: Just One Person's Opinion On Government Funding

Having worked at a NPR affiliate for many years a lot of people would be surprised to hear me say that I'm in total agreement that government funding should be reduced or eliminated entirely to public broadcasting stations.

It's not because I dislike public broadcasting; I happen to think they do a great job when it comes to a number of programs like The American Experience, NOVA, the gardening and food programs and This Old House.

Even when I participated in local pledge drives, I expressed numerous times to listeners that it’s the PUBLIC that makes public broadcasting work. And if more people who listen or watch public broadcasting would contribute, then PBS/NPR affiliates wouldn’t have this ‘Sword of Damocles” hanging over their heads every few years worrying about government funding.


One of the disturbing things I discovered when working for public broadcasting is the salaries and especially the perks paid to top executives. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t begrudge anyone from making an honest living. But please don’t cry for me Argentina during every pledge break that your station is broke and Big Bird will be homeless when the GM makes more than the governor and is given a fully-loaded SUV every two years. Someone making over $250,000 a year and works for a non-profit agency can certainly afford to buy his or her own car and the gasoline to run it.

Some executives at NPR/PBS affiliates know that eventually the government troth will run dry. So before that happens they are preparing now by being ahead of the game by selling more underwriting and redesigning their pledge drives to make them shorter, but stressing the point of audience participation.

I’ve said if before and I will say it again. How many of these newspaper editorial writers and supporters of public broadcasting actually donate to their local NPR/PBS affiliate?

Senator Markey of Massachusetts recently said he had a million signatures to keep government funding for public broadcasting. So if those million people gave a dollar a day for an entire year, that would total $365 million dollars; almost twice as much as a Congressional committee wanted to cut from CPB’s funding.

It might not have made AFI’s famous quotes from movies, or maybe it did I don’t know, but the saying goes “Show me the money”!


<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

> A good commentary by Cal Thomas in the Washington Times.

did you read it....it was lacking in fact...but was merely conjecture...its a commentary based on hackery,..

> Balance is a good thing in political /news / commentary
> broadcasting. I listen to NPR and have noticed that their
> is a slant, I don't believe it is as bad as it used to be
> prior to 1996 when Newt Gingrich first called to cut CPB
> funding.

Please, mr news analyst....where exactly is the slant...is it when they tell the truth about the casualties in the war...is it that they report exactly what Bush said versus his actions is it in the fact they report what alleged social security reform is...what is it?....point out ONE clear cut bias...use the archives so we can all see....i dont think you can nor can any of these conservatives who parrot this point...just point out one....


I haven't watch "NOW" on PBS, but based on the
> stats presented maybe some tweeking in that balance is
> called for on NPR and PBS.

See you shouldn't let Cal Thomas tells you whats right and wrong....read the damn article....Louis Babrash, is a PBS contributor and former member of the CPB...who has a right to his opinion....Thomas cherry picks from the article to give Babrash the weight of a person doing a detailed news analysis...thats not what this article does by any means...its another OP-ED with the author doing his own "analysis" hardly scientific or free of bias..This guy even quotes when Cal Thomas...thats right CAL was on the show himself....gee thats biased...

..link below:

http://www.current.org/news/news0421moyers.shtml

I agree with Cal Thomas that if
> public broadcasting is going to receive public money they
> should offer a balanced look at the world, not just a
> liberal view or just a conservative view.

If you knew what you were talking about about instead of repeating others, then maybe one could agree or disagree but it doesnt seem that you have a opinion yet...or someone else gave it to you.


A good start for
> NPR and PBS would be to give Cal Thomas a weekly show,
> assuming his contract with Fox would allow such a move.
> There are plenty of solid good conservative voices out
> there, if Cal isn't available, maybe folks like Dennis
> Prager, Michael Savage, Bill Bennett, Laura Ingram, etc from
> the Salem Radio Network that might be available to offer
> some balance to the "NOW" program.

Why not look at/research now and other pbs programming to see if there is a true need to fox-ify the network?



> Of course, the difference with FOX which does skew
> conservative is they do not recieve public money, so if the
> market would bear a conservative network fine. So, maybe
> it's time to see if the same market would bear a liberal
> network. My guess is it would.

Right now there is no liberal network .....all the MSM is leaning right...so i guess that will have to be tested...
>

Re: Just One Person's Opinion On Government Funding

I agree, Mark. The sooner PBS/NPR ditches gov't funding, the better. and I work for a public radio station.


> Having worked at a NPR affiliate for many years a lot of
> people would be surprised to hear me say that I'm in total
> agreement that government funding should be reduced or
> eliminated entirely to public broadcasting stations.
>
> It's not because I dislike public broadcasting; I happen to
> think they do a great job when it comes to a number of
> programs like The American Experience, NOVA, the gardening
> and food programs and This Old House.
>
> Even when I participated in local pledge drives, I expressed
> numerous times to listeners that it’s the PUBLIC that makes
> public broadcasting work. And if more people who listen or
> watch public broadcasting would contribute, then PBS/NPR
> affiliates wouldn’t have this ‘Sword of Damocles” hanging
> over their heads every few years worrying about government
> funding.
>
>
> One of the disturbing things I discovered when working for
> public broadcasting is the salaries and especially the perks
> paid to top executives. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t begrudge
> anyone from making an honest living. But please don’t cry
> for me Argentina during every pledge break that your station
> is broke and Big Bird will be homeless when the GM makes
> more than the governor and is given a fully-loaded SUV every
> two years. Someone making over $250,000 a year and works
> from a non-profit agency can certainly afford to buy his or
> her own car and the gasoline to run it.
>
> Some executives at NPR/PBS affiliates know that eventually
> the government troth will run dry. So before that happens
> they are preparing now by being ahead of the game by selling
> more underwriting and redesigning their pledge drives to
> make them shorter, but stressing the point of audience
> participation.
>
> I’ve said if before and I will say it again. How many of
> these newspaper editorial writers and supporters of public
> broadcasting actually donate to their local NPR/PBS
> affiliate?
>
> Senator Markey of Massachusetts recently said he had a
> million signatures to keep government funding for public
> broadcasting. So if those million people gave a dollar a day
> for an entire year, that would total $365million dollars;
> almost twice as much as a Congressional committee wanted to
> cut from CPB’s funding.
>
> It might not have made AFI’s famous quotes from movies, or
> maybe it did I don’t know, but the saying goes “Show me the
> money”!
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by testing on 06/27/05 03:10 AM.</FONT></P>

I did read the Washington Times commentary by Cal Thomas. Below is an excerpt where he gives stats from a newspaper for PBS insiders called "Current".

OK, how about some accountability? How do you know something is biased? You can count the ways.
According to a newspaper for PBS insiders called "Current" (not a conservative publication), writer Louis Barbash watched the "Now" program and found that, of 19 segments Mr. Moyers did on the Iraq war, only four included a guest or interview subject who supported it.
In one 9-minute segment about the burden the war has brought to military families, the contrary point was just a 41-second sound bite from Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, saying hard-pressed families receive help from neighbors and family members, as well as government. In only one of those 19 segments, writes Mr. Barbash, did anyone offer a substantial defense of the war.
It was the same with the show's other topics. According to Mr. Barbash, of the 75 segments he monitored over six months that addressed controversial issues like the Iraq war, the condition of the economy and the corrupting influence of corporate money on politics, just 13 included anyone who took a view contrary to the thrust of the show.
A 17-minute segment accusing the Pentagon of understating U.S. troop injuries in Iraq, offered a Defense Department spokesman 90 seconds to reply. That's unbalanced by any objective standard.

Assuming those stats are correct and PBS isn't disputing them, then Cal is correct. The program "NOW" apparently does not present a balanced look at the issues. That should be corrected or PBS should not receive government do-re-mi.



> > A good commentary by Cal Thomas in the Washington Times.
>
> did you read it....it was lacking in fact...but was merely
> conjecture...its a commentary based on hackery,..

I'm just a wee bit testy...moderator note

Good topic; much to be said on both sides.

I noticed a trend toward name-calling a little further down.
It hasn't gone exceptionally far as yet and it's NOT going to.

Thanks for cooperating....

<P ID="signature">______________
Due to underwhelming popular demand...</P>

I personally think it's the height of wierdness for any news org, including NPR and PBS, to get all snitty about being called to account about possible bias. as a responsible journalist, you should be constantly on the lookout for this, and welcome input. look into it, investigate, change some things if it turns out to be true. it is not a bad thing to have someone question you, if they are conservative, liberal, whatever . It IS a bad thing, imho, to catagorically deny any such bias is happening, and blame any such inquiry on politics.

That stinks.

my opinion.


> I did read the Washington Times commentary by Cal Thomas.
> Below is an excerpt where he gives stats from a newspaper
> for PBS insiders called "Current".
>
> OK, how about some accountability? How do you know
> something is biased? You can count the ways.
> According to a newspaper for PBS insiders called
> "Current" (not a conservative publication), writer Louis
> Barbash watched the "Now" program and found that, of 19
> segments Mr. Moyers did on the Iraq war, only four included
> a guest or interview subject who supported it.
> In one 9-minute segment about the burden the war has
> brought to military families, the contrary point was just a
> 41-second sound bite from Rep. Duncan Hunter, California
> Republican, saying hard-pressed families receive help from
> neighbors and family members, as well as government. In only
> one of those 19 segments, writes Mr. Barbash, did anyone
> offer a substantial defense of the war.
> It was the same with the show's other topics. According
> to Mr. Barbash, of the 75 segments he monitored over six
> months that addressed controversial issues like the Iraq
> war, the condition of the economy and the corrupting
> influence of corporate money on politics, just 13 included
> anyone who took a view contrary to the thrust of the show.
> A 17-minute segment accusing the Pentagon of
> understating U.S. troop injuries in Iraq, offered a Defense
> Department spokesman 90 seconds to reply. That's unbalanced
> by any objective standard.
>
> Assuming those stats are correct and PBS isn't disputing
> them, then Cal is correct. The program "NOW" apparently
> does not present a balanced look at the issues. That should
> be corrected or PBS should not receive government do-re-mi.
>
>
>
>
> > > A good commentary by Cal Thomas in the Washington Times.
>
> >
> > did you read it....it was lacking in fact...but was merely
>
> > conjecture...its a commentary based on hackery,..
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by testing on 06/27/05 03:18 AM.</FONT></P>

Did you read the "current" article....i posted details about the article in the post i made earlier....if you read the article in context...you would see that Louis Barbash's "analysis" is not scientific....and that his article too is an OPED.....


> I did read the Washington Times commentary by Cal Thomas.
> Below is an excerpt where he gives stats from a newspaper
> for PBS insiders called "Current".
>
> OK, how about some accountability? How do you know
> something is biased? You can count the ways.
> According to a newspaper for PBS insiders called
> "Current" (not a conservative publication), writer Louis
> Barbash watched the "Now" program and found that, of 19
> segments Mr. Moyers did on the Iraq war, only four included
> a guest or interview subject who supported it.
> In one 9-minute segment about the burden the war has
> brought to military families, the contrary point was just a
> 41-second sound bite from Rep. Duncan Hunter, California
> Republican, saying hard-pressed families receive help from
> neighbors and family members, as well as government. In only
> one of those 19 segments, writes Mr. Barbash, did anyone
> offer a substantial defense of the war.
> It was the same with the show's other topics. According
> to Mr. Barbash, of the 75 segments he monitored over six
> months that addressed controversial issues like the Iraq
> war, the condition of the economy and the corrupting
> influence of corporate money on politics, just 13 included
> anyone who took a view contrary to the thrust of the show.
> A 17-minute segment accusing the Pentagon of
> understating U.S. troop injuries in Iraq, offered a Defense
> Department spokesman 90 seconds to reply. That's unbalanced
> by any objective standard.
>
> Assuming those stats are correct and PBS isn't disputing
> them, then Cal is correct. The program "NOW" apparently
> does not present a balanced look at the issues. That should
> be corrected or PBS should not receive government do-re-mi.
>
>
>
>
> > > A good commentary by Cal Thomas in the Washington Times.
>
> >
> > did you read it....it was lacking in fact...but was merely
>
> > conjecture...its a commentary based on hackery,..
>

I agree 100%. They may try to be balanced, but the news reporters, editors, etc are human and sometimes without meaning for it to happen, a bias can develop. NPR/PBS should look in to it and fix the problem if one exists, just as you said.

> I personally think it's the height of wierdness for any news
> org, including NPR and PBS, to get all snitty about being
> called to account about possible bias. as a responsible
> journalist, you should be constantly on the lookout for
> this, and welcome input. look into it, investigate, change
> some things if it turns out to be true. it is not a bad
> thing to have someone question you, if they are
> conservative, liberal, whatever . It IS a bad thing, imho,
> to catagorically deny any such bias is happening, and blame
> any such inquiry on politics.
>
> That stinks.
>
> my opinion.

Lest we forget...

The Washington Times is owned by the Moonies and the Rev Moon stated publicly he founded it to advance a political agenda.

Bill Moyers came to public prominence at Lyndon Johnson's press secretary and lied to the American public to help promote American involvement in Viet Nam.

I have a tough time listening to lectures on ethics in journalism, fairness, balance or objectivity from either source.


h> ttp://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050625-095248-9930r.htm
>
>
> excerpt:
> "Mr. Moyers is entitled to his views. But he is not
> entitled to taxpayer money to promote them. If Mr. Moyers
> thinks he represents the public, let PBS and NPR be 100
> percent privately funded by people who want to hear and see
> his ideas and those of his like-minded colleagues."
>
> Or let both sides be equally represented.
>

> Bill Moyers came to public prominence at Lyndon Johnson's
> press secretary and lied to the American public to help
> promote American involvement in Viet Nam.

You must admit, Moyers has never run from his part of the responsibility for that quagmire. He has used what he learned from that youthful experience (he was 31 when Johnson appointed him Press Secretary) to warn us, as in his NOW commentary from Oct 12, 2002:
http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers14.html.

Iraq is not Vietnam, but war is war. Some of you will recall that I was Press Secretary to Lyndon Johnson during the escalation of war in Vietnam. Like the White House today, we didn't talk very much about what the war would cost. Not in the beginning. We weren't sure, and we didn't really want to know too soon, anyway.

If we had to tell Congress and the public the true cost of the war, we were afraid of what it would do to the rest of the budget — the money for education, poverty, Medicare. In time, we had to figure it out and come clean. It wasn't the price tag that hurt as much as it was the body bag. The dead were coming back in such numbers that LBJ began to grow morose, and sometimes took to bed with the covers pulled above his eyes, as if he could avoid the ghosts of young men marching around in his head. I thought of this the other day, when President Bush spoke of the loss of American lives in Iraq. He said, "I'm the one who will have to look the mothers in the eye."

[...]

Don't get me wrong. Vietnam didn't make me a dove; it made me read the Constitution. That's all. Government's first obligation is to defend its citizens. There's nothing in the Constitution that says it's permissible for a great nation to go hunting for Hussein by killing the people he holds hostage, his own people, who have no choice in the matter, who have done us no harm.

Unprovoked, the noble sport of war becomes the murder of the innocent.

> I have a tough time listening to lectures on ethics in
> journalism, fairness, balance or objectivity from either
> source.

Moyers' job as press secretary was not to be an objective reporter. Journalistic ethics have no bearing on what he did then.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>