Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (5744)	10/24/2003 12:25:44 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

REVIEW & OUTLOOK Fair and Balanced? PBS sees only the left-wing side of "complex topics." Friday, October 24, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT In polite company, it is now well known that the Fox slogan "fair and balanced" is not to be uttered unless accompanied by a knowing roll of the eyes or some ironic inflection of the voice. But judging from an education initiative offered by WNET New York, public television has fairness issues of its own. And they make Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes look positively mainstream. The exhibit here is "Human Rights 101." A "multimedia human rights initiative" aimed at students, it was launched earlier this month by WNET's Educational Resources Center. The package offers kids "insight into such complex topics such as tolerance, racism, women's rights, refugees, and religious freedom," with the goal of leaving them "equipped for life with knowledge that will help them effect change." On one thing we agree: These are indeed "complex topics." But a review of the listed human-rights organizations yields little hint of complexity. To the contrary, with the exception of Freedom House, the resources students will find here are pretty much those you might expect to be given by, well, the Democratic National Committee. That might not be surprising: WNET is the same station that a few years back was embarrassed when it was found swapping mailing lists with the DNC and a host of other, mainly Democratic groups. Human Rights 101 evinces similar ideological predilections. A student who clicks onto Environmental Defense will find out how to oppose drilling in the Arctic. The American Friends Service Committee lists a "press availability" for explaining how "Bush's Arm-twisting Victories in Congress and U.N. Will Deepen Quagmire in Iraq, Budget Crisis at Home." Equality Now, dedicated to women's rights, cites a "global campaign against sexual exploitation of women by US military forces in South Korea and around the world." Madre, another women's group, is today hosting "the Patriot Act Un-birthday Bash." And so it goes down the line, on everything from abortion to globalization. If you believe that there may be other sides to these issues, you certainly won't learn where to find them from this list. On religious freedom, for example, where is the Acton Institute for Religious Liberty or the Becket Fund or even the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom? On trade and globalization, wouldn't students benefit hearing from, say, the Cato Institute, or seeing a reference to The Wall Street Journal/Heritage Foundation annual Index of Economic Freedom, which underscores the critical role of free markets and property rights for poor people in developing nations? The same gaping hole runs through almost every issue. On the environment, where's PERC, the Montana-based green group dedicated to private stewardship? And what about Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship, which has done yeoman's work on behalf of prisoner rights and rehabilitation? Come to think of it, though the Web site for Human Rights 101 includes virtually every United Nations rights declaration, what about steering American students to something really radical: say, a discourse about James Madison and the Bill of Rights? Remember, the people who think this WNET list provides an objective overview of the subject are the same people who can't keep their brie down when the subject turns to the conservative domination of Fox News or talk radio. But whatever the direction private broadcasters may take, they at least do it on their own dime. With the General Accounting Office now in the midst of the first review of funding for public broadcasting in nearly two decades, that's something Congress might want to consider before cutting its next check.