Sesame Streetfight, "B" is for Bias - Part II.
Although the mainstream media has done everything possible to discredit Kenneth Tomlinson as a Bush Administration stooge, there is even more misinformation about CPB's new President, Patricia Harrison. Her election of has been routinely described in this manner:
The Republican effort to deal with what conservatives call a left-wing bias in the nation's public television and radio stations went a significant step further yesterday with the selection of Patricia de Stacy Harrison, a former co-chair of the Republican National Committee who was no prior broadcast experience, to assume the top job at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The selection by the CPB's eight-member board of directors came less than a week after a group of Democratic lawmakers urged board Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson to drop Harrison's name from the running, referring to her as a "partisan activist." Tomlinson had publicly favored Harrison for the job.
Harrison's candidacy was no doubt helped by her Republican bona fides - and her political giving. She and her husband have contributed $56,000 to Republican candidates and party committees since 1989. Harrison's donations included a $15,000 contribution to the RNC in 1998. She and her husband each contributed $2,000 to President Bush's reelection campaign last year.
What liberal bias?
Did you notice the repeated use of the word selection instead of election? If the tables had been reversed, and she was a democratic "partisan activist" for whom journalists naturally gave the benefit of the doubt, do you think they would use the term "selection by the CPB's eight-member board of directors" to describe a vote of the Board?
Once again, allusions are drawn, innuendo is spread, and she is being nailed to a cross of rhetoric.
Most articles wrongly assert that Patricia Harrison was appointed by Tomlinson, who has already been depicted as a puppet of the Bush White House. They sensationalize her lack of experience in the field of broadcasting, and focus instead on her political connections.
While she may not have much experience in the field of broadcasting, that may not be the reason she was elected in the first place. Most news readers are unaware that federal funds only account for about 10-15% of the operating budgets of stations like PBS and NPR. This leaves 85-90% of costs that must be raised privately; an endeavor that has proven more and more difficult in recent years.
Many news readers/viewers would also be surprised to learn that in just a few years at the State Department, Patricia Harrison nearly doubled the budget of her agency - which just so happened to be Educational and Creative Affairs.
There is a laughable 'selective outrage' at work here. Patricia Harrison's history with the Republican Party is cited as evidence that she cannot fulfill her administrative duties in a fair and unbiased manner.
Let's keep in mind that she is not actually hosting or moderating any news shows, and instead, let's focus on who is:
Bill Moyers, Now, PBS:
President of left-funding Schumann Center for Media & Democracy.
Played key role in shaping President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" programs.
Authorized notorious LBJ "Daisy" ad in 1964 that suggested Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater would, if elected, cause nuclear war.
Bill Moyers, days after September 11, 2001: "Not just religious true believers threaten our democracy. It's true believers in the God of the market who would leave us to the ruthless forces of unfettered monopolistic capital where even the laws of the jungle break down. And they're counting on your patriotism to distract you from their plunder."
Chris Matthews, Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC/The Chris Matthews Show, NBC:
Top aide to Democratic Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill during 1980s.
White House speechwriter for Democratic President Jimmy Carter.
Worked for Ralph Nader in 1973.
George Stephanopolous, This Week, ABC:
Prior to joining ABC News, Stephanopoulos served in the Clinton administration as the senior advisor to the president for policy and strategy. He was a key strategist in both Clinton presidential campaigns and was involved in the development of virtually all major policy initiatives during Clinton's first term in office.
During the 1992 presidential election, Stephanopoulos served on the Clinton/Gore campaign as the deputy campaign manager and director of communications. He oversaw polling, policy, scheduling, press relations and media operations.
Before joining Clinton's campaign, Stephanopoulos was executive floor manager to House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt.
Tim Russert, Meet the Press, NBC:
Counselor in Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo's office in Albany in 1983 and 1984.
Chief of staff for Democratic Senator Daniel P. Moynihan from 1977 to 1982.
Bob Schieffer, Face the Nation, CBS:
Author of a book titled, The Acting President: Ronald Reagan and the Men Who Helped Him Create the Illusion That Held America Spellbound.
"Whether you agree with him or disagree with him, you now know where John Kerry stands on what has happened in Iraq." - Bob Schieffer discussing Kerry's performance in the first Presidential debate.
Dan Rather, Nightly News, CBS (ret.):
No explanation necessary.
It is a blatant, bigoted double standard to suggest that all of these media personalities can keep their own politics from interfering with the facts, but a Republican can't. It's also a double standard to suggest that liberally-biased shows and journalists should be taken seriously while conservatives should be written off as "partisan activists".
Despite all of those liberal journalists complaining that someone with a political past shouldn't be allowed to oversee CPB, and despite their mocking of Ken Tomlinson's claims of liberal bias at PBS and NPR, I would like for them explain this to me:
How would they react if the self-proclaimed "Fair & Balanced" Fox News irresponsibly and emotionally suggested that a liberal advocacy group like MoveOn.org was responsible for the Anthrax attacks in Washington, DC. How would they act if Fox waited more than a year to retract it?
Could you imagine the outrage? Could you imagine the way that every news agency would pounce on Fox News like a wounded tiger who finally revealed his stripes? The story would be everywhere. Everyone would be talking about it. Everyone would report it, debate it, and reference it whenever Fox News investigated another liberal group.
Of course, Fox didn't randomly and/or hatefully allude that a liberal group was responsible for the attacks - it was NPR that alleged that a conservative group was to blame:
NPR Issues Apology for Conservative Slur
By Scott Hogenson
February 07, 2003
After more than a year, National Public Radio has settled a simmering dispute and issued a formal apology for suggesting that a conservative advocacy group was involved in the mailing of anthrax to Senate offices.
A statement from NPR on February 6 said its January 22, 2002, report on the network's Morning Edition program about contacting the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) and asking if the group had been contacted by the FBI regarding the anthrax incident "violated NPR editorial principles."
The apology, which was published on the NPR Internet site, said, "NPR deeply regrets this mistake and apologizes for any false impression that the coalition was involved in this investigation."
And for anyone who still suggests that CPB, NPR, PBS et al are untarnished, there are a few more things you should know:
It seems like every show I listen to on NPR is sponsored by either the Pew Charitable Trust or The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. They are two of the major donors who help these stations fulfill that 85-90% of remaining operating costs. But journalists never seem to question the ideology and politics of these groups?
We often read stories about conflicts of interest between parent companies and their network news divisions, but we never hear about the same situation regarding PBS, NPR and their donors. Maybe this will spark their interest as to who is giving aid and comfort to public broadcasting's news divisions:
"I'm going to tell you a story that I've never told any reporter," stated Sean Treglia, a former program officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, during a March 2004 conference at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. "Now that I'm several months away from Pew and we have campaign finance reform, I can tell this story."
Speaking to an audience of the initiated, Treglia described how the crusade for campaign finance reform was "an immense scam perpetrated on the American people by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a mass movement," wrote New York Post reporter Ryan Sager. In a March 17 story based on a videotape of Treglia's presentation, Sager described how "Pew and other left-wing foundations plotted to create a fake grassroots movement to hoodwink Congress....The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot - that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about [campaign finance] reform.".....most of the money propelling the campaign finance reform crusade - $123 million, or 88 percent of the estimated $140 million spent to lobby for the measure - "came from just eight foundations," notes Sager. These special interest lobbies included Pew ($40.1 million), the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ($17.6 million), the Carnegie Corporation of New York ($14.1 million), the Joyce Foundation ($13.5 million), George Soros' Open Society Institute ($12.6 million), the Jerome Kohlberg Trust ($11.3 million), the Ford Foundation ($8.8 million), and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($5.2 million).
That money was distributed through a network of left-wing advocacy groups and media organizations to create the illusion of a nationwide groundswell of public support on behalf of federal enactment of campaign finance reform.
Another problem many liberal journalists and legislators have with the recent developments surrounding PBS and NPR is the Congressional threat to reduce federal funds.
I would only like to point out that stations like PBS & NPR play the 'we need federal money' card when it suites their needs, and play the 'we take mainly private money' card on other occasions.
In an article titled, NPR's Public Funding Questioned After $200 Million Donation, Christine Hall wrote:
National Public Radio is basking in the surprise and delight of having received a $200 million bequest by the late Joan Kroc, widow of the founder of McDonalds fast food restaurants, liberal philanthropist and Democratic Party donor. But NPR's good fortune has already renewed questions over whether it should still be subsidized with federal tax dollars.....the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a government-funded nonprofit corporation created by Congress in 1967, funnels tax dollars to some 700 NPR affiliates nationwide in the form of Community Service Grants.....But only a small percentage of NPR's $104 million annual budget comes from federal taxpayers, [NPR President & CEO Kevin Klose] said....."It is a common misconception that NPR is supported by federal dollars, by direct federal appropriations to NPR," said Klose.
"It is true that when NPR was organized and chartered in this city in 1970 as a 501(c)3 in its early years, virtually all its money came from direct stipends and direct grants from the [CPB]," Klose said.
"But beginning in the late '70s and through the sequential years, the amount of federal support directed to us has disappeared to almost nothing," Klose reported.
Of course, not many people would turn down millions of free dollars, but Mr. Klose sure does make it sound like they could certainly do without the federal subsidies.
Liberal journalists and legislators are also complaining that under Tomlinson and his new ombudsman watchdog, all PBS & NPR news segments will have to "pass the GOP test" to remain on the air.
This is sensationalism at its best. In truth, not only is Mr. Tomlinson justified in his research into the claims of liberal bias at PBS, he is legally bound to do it. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 states that;
"...the Corporation is authorized to - facilitate the full development of public telecommunications in which programs of high quality, diversity, creativity, excellence, and innovation, which are obtained from diverse sources, will be made available to public telecommunications entities, with strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature..."
If someone is suggesting that shows on PBS and/or NPR are not objective and balanced, then the Chairman of the Board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should take notice. Mr. Tomlinson did this by studying the claims of bias, and appointing an ombudsman to offer guidance to everyone on how to follow the guidelines of the Public Broadcasting Act.
Time Magazine quotes Jeff Chester, Executive Director of the liberal Center for Digital Democracy as saying;
"The idea that a schedule filled with the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Antiques Roadshow, children's programming and British mystery classics is a shrill liberal bastion is absurd."
I agree with Jeff for the most part. But then again, we should remember why President Clinton's top aides used to call Jim Lehrer "our moderator" during the Presidential debates. We should also note that it was the liberals, not the conservatives/republicans who demanded that Cookie Monster become the cookieless monster so as to fight childhood obesity.
Jeff Chester is just another liberal who doesn't understand what liberal bias is, because he can't see that he speaks/writes with a liberal perspective. Bias is not a planned and coordinated attack on Republicans. It stems from insulated, institutional, like-mindedness that allows the news to be delivered in a slightly lopsided manner.
I'll let David Boaz's Op-Ed titled, End Taxpayer Funding of Public Broadcasting, explain further:
WASHINGTON - Congressional Republicans cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds public radio and television stations. After having their fun, they then agreed to restore most of the money and dropped their threat to eventually phase out all taxpayer funding. But they shouldn't back down.
In fact, they should finish the job: End all taxpayer funding for government broadcasting stations and let them compete in the marketplace like other broadcasters.
In a 500-channel world, why do the taxpayers need to subsidize one more channel? Defenders of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System tell us it's because we need "independent journalism." But can we really expect to get truly independent journalism from a government-funded network?
It's time to establish the separation of news and state. Journalists should not work for the government. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize news and public affairs programming.
Tax-funded broadcasters are up in arms over what they see as political interference from the Bush administration. Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the Bush-appointed chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, has proposed to make a Republican activist president and CEO of the CPB. Like many Republicans, he has also complained about liberal bias at PBS and NPR.
Public opinion polls commissioned by PBS have found that most Americans don't perceive tax-funded radio and television as politically biased. Of course, the most effective bias is bias that the listener doesn't perceive. That can be the subtle use of adjectives or frameworks.
For example, a report that "Congress has failed to pass a health care bill" clearly leaves the impression that a health care bill is a good thing and that Congress has "failed" a test. Compare that to language such as, "Congress turned back a Republican effort to cut taxes for the wealthy." There, the listener is clearly being told that something bad almost happened, but Congress "turned back" the threat.
A careful listener to NPR would notice a preponderance of reports on racism, sexism and environmental destruction.
David Fanning, executive producer of Frontline, PBS' documentary series, responds to questions of bias by saying, "We ask hard questions to people in power. That's anathema to some people in Washington these days."
But it seems safe to say that there never has been a Frontline documentary on the burden of taxes or the number of people who have died because federal regulations keep drugs off the market or the way that state governments have abused the law in their pursuit of tobacco companies or the number of people who use guns to prevent crime. Those "hard questions" just don't occur to liberal journalists.
Anyone who got all his news from NPR would never know that Americans of all races live longer, healthier and in more comfort than any people in history, or that the environment has been getting steadily cleaner.
One dirty little secret that NPR and PBS don't like to acknowledge in public debate is the wealth of their listeners and viewers. But they're happy to tell advertisers - oops, I mean sponsors - about the affluent audience they're reaching.
A few years ago, NPR enthusiastically told advertisers that its listeners are 66 percent wealthier than the average American, are three times as likely to be college graduates and are 150 percent more likely to be professionals or managers.
Tax-funded broadcasting, like tax-funded arts, is a giant income transfer upward: The middle class is taxed to pay for news and entertainment for the upper middle class. It's no accident that on NPR you hear ads for Remy Martin and "private banking services," not for Budweiser and free checking accounts.
Under threat from the House Republicans, NPR and PBS are using their tax-funded airwaves to reach their millions of affluent, influential fans. Local stations are running 30-second ads over and over urging their listeners and viewers to call members of Congress. Their Web sites offer instructions on how to "call, fax or e-mail Congress." With about 800 radio and TV stations running these ads, this is a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign.
It's simply wrong for tax-funded broadcasters to use our tax dollars to lobby on behalf of getting more tax dollars. When government money is used to influence the government, it's like putting a thumb on the scales of public debate. Government itself is tipping the scales in one direction.
Tax-funded broadcasting has become a vast $2.5 billion enterprise, with more than 350 television stations and 780 radio stations reaching every corner of the country. It's time to cut this "infant industry" loose and let it make its own way in the marketplace, without any more money from the taxpayers. |
