PBS Updates Editorial Standards

[edDV]

point should be made (again) the funding was put back in and it is status quo at this point ....

Status quo on gov't funding but with a Republican operative instead of a Dem in charge for once.

This play is just in the first act.

PBS needs reform, the Republicans are tightening the vice. I hope they are smart about this. They can easily toss the baby with the bath water.

PBS still has a place presenting objective deep backgound journalism, but it is not the place for political advocacy.

When you look at the demographics of PBS individual donors (members), they are disproportionately suburban Republican lookalikes and this has been true for years. The left has never funded this circus with out of pocket conviction other than the limo liberal class. The bread and butter has been the suburban middle class and the tax payer.

I often think this is why the PBS infrastructure considers playing to this group somehow beneath them.

[shelbyGT]

That's a pretty blanket statement about PBS donors. Perhaps you'd like to back that up with some proof instead of just spewing out what you think is the case.

[edDV]

That's a pretty blanket statement about PBS donors. Perhaps you'd like to back that up with some proof instead of just spewing out what you think is the case.

If you read above I was on an internal fund raising project.

Contact your local PBS station for a donor demographic.

Better yet join the development team at you local PBS station and you will see exactly who donates in Kansas City.

[Cornucopia]

Have friends who are station managers in Central Illinois and Upstate NewYork and have talked to them re: fundraising. Plenty of suburban, middle-class, LIBERAL taxpayers! Somebody's taking up the void left by government cutbacks, and it's not JUST corporations.

Maybe it's just your experience.

Scott

[BJ_M]

when someone calls in a pledge, how they know if they are even a Martian, much less a member of some loosely defined left right center upside downside party?

[Cornucopia]

Pledgers give up more info than just $$ amount, and they're often asked to provide additional statistical/demographic data (not mandatory, mind). You usually get a whole packet full of stuff in the mail. Oh, I forgot. You probably don't have to do all that stuff in Canada, do you? (Lucky!)

Scott

[edDV]

Here is an intro to local PBS station membership drives. WGBH, like KQED is in a a heavy blue territory but the reliable donors are a different demographic mostly over 45 and from both parties. Younger donors are most likely to be supporting childrens or local programming. Volunteers come mostly from business groups. Political programming seldom draws member $ or volunteers.

All you need to do is watch a typical "pledge week" to see who the donor targets are and you don't see much political programming during pledge week.

Just like a real business, gaining ongoing donor support requires apolitical "customer" handholding.

http://www.directmag.com/mag/marketing_personalized_broadcasting_systems/

[BJ_M]

Pledgers give up more info than just $$ amount, and they're often asked to provide additional statistical/demographic data (not mandatory, mind). You usually get a whole packet full of stuff in the mail. Oh, I forgot. You probably don't have to do all that stuff in Canada, do you? (Lucky!)

Scott

no pbs in canada -- there is the CBC , which is GOV funded - i.e. out of our taxes

[lordsmurf]

Here's a perfect example of how unreliably biased Fox News is:

Tonight, a Rangers baseball pitcher got into a scuffle with a Fox Sports cameraman. The pitcher knocked a camera out of the cameraman's hands and kicked it around. The pitcher is not fond of being chased by cameras. This was all pre-game, during practice.

The local FOX channel had a "breaking news" segment to cover the "crazed baseball player" and showed pictures of the cameraman on a stretcher with all kind of neck braces. Of course, at no time did the pitcher physically beat the guy, he hit the camera.

The Fox Sports Southwest channel carried a post-game "news" segment, and this was their poll online, where they told everybody to go vote:
.... A) Suspend him, B) Fine him, C) Release him .....
Biased? Ya think!? What about "Leave him alone" ??

This story was "Foxed" to hell and back:
- Editorializing a guy as "crazed" (and other choice adjectives).
- Showing "ambulance chase" type images that were far from accurate to what happened. The ER scene.
- Potentially stalking sports players, possible cause of the whole incident.
- Condemning the man before all the facts are looked at (which is PRECISELY what team management, MLB, and the local police have said is what needs be done), using polls and having reporters talk endlessly about it.

Other networks didn't do this. You won't even see this story on PBS, not even newsworthy to them. DO PEOPLE REALLY WANT PBS TO BE "updated" TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

edited for spelling and brevity

[edDV]

Here's a perfect example of how unreliably biased Fox News is: ...

This shows a simple lack of journalism etiquette on the part of the Fox cameramen.

How does Fox enter into the arguement? They pay tax and as far as I know get zero government funding. They and the New York Times can say whatever they want.

CBP and NPR could easily step up to independance by finding a way to be self funding. Then they answer only to their funders not the government.

I have less problem with the educational side of PBS (in support of local schools) although one may easily detect bias in much of their educational programming as well.

[lordsmurf]

If you've been reading the whole thread, you'll understand.

When the announcement was made that PBS was going to lose funding, people jumped up with "oh so what, they were evil biased liberals anyway, we should all go eat some cake and watch Fox".

And then the "editorial standards update" has been rumored to be a shift "more like Fox" which is bad. PBS is fine as it is. It comes under fire because it's not sucking the teet of certain types of politicians (generalizing strictly for the purpose of not making this a "political" statement) like FOX tends to do. And when those that can control PBS funds don't like it ... need I explain further? It should be fairly obvious what's happening here.

Take a peak at this:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051805O.shtml

And this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430894/posts

The two topics (FOX and PBS) are definitely related right now.

[edDV]

Well the New York Post has a point.

Locally, PBS still offers an alternative but this should be funded locally. Nationally PBS programs are very similar to those on cable networks and often are produced by the same production outfits.

They still excell at the big projects like "American Experience", Ken Burns specials and "Great Performances" but in almost all cases, those top shows are funded by corporate sponsors or foundations.

Current PBS policy prevents national fund raising from the general public. It is thought that this would put them in competition with the local PBS stations.

The obvious path to me at least is for them to seek broader corporate and wealthy donor support.

I often wonder who calls the editorial policy shots at Discovery, History Channel and A&E-Biography. These channels are mostly owned by consortiums of media companies but their programming tends middle of the road. The reason is they are in business to satisfy the widest highbrow audience worldwide.

News Corp skews some programming right. Time-Warner skews mostly left. That is their business decision.

[rkr1958]

Fox News is here to stay. By the way, have you seen the latest politicial analyst that Fox has hired, General Wesley Clark. Didn't he run for President ... as a Democrat? Seems Fair and Balanced to Me.

[lordsmurf]

Wesley Clark is weird. I almost wonder if he's in the same reality as the rest of is. Various networks have always hired him for "expert" advice on military topics.

[CuCuy]

Fox News is here to stay. By the way, have you seen the latest politicial analyst that Fox has hired, General Wesley Clark. Didn't he run for President ... as a Democrat? Seems Fair and Balanced to Me.

Can you name any others? Fair and balanced, my ass.

Regarding the baseball story that Smurfy posted, it doesn't surprise me at all. Still the guy brought it on himself to some degree. It's analogous to feeding a pit bull a steak with gravy on your hand and then wondering why you were bitten.

It was recently unconvered that Tomlinson over at CPB has been spying on Bill Moyers for quite some time. Yet he has the nerve to question Moyers' ethics? Laughable, I tell you.

[pepegot1]

Lordsmurf is right on.

The reactionary forces in this country are grasping for power by any means available. They lie, cheat and distort reality to fit their agenda. Thanks to our Geart Divider-Bush.
I can see how things must have been during pre-civil war times. Now, we have the Blue & the Red instead of the Gray. Programs like Frontline cannot be seen on corporate TV. They want to keep the masses ignorant as they pursue their agenda of control of the media.
I agree with their premise that the country is going to hell, but their self righteous solutions are not the answer. Mixing church and state is very dangerous. History is replete with examples. PBS can be a thorn in their side, as they do not respect any oher point of view, but their own.
Fair and Balanced like FOX is what they want!

[normcar]

Oh, so its ok for PBS and NPR to be extremely biased on the liberal side (and have the government pay for it), but it is sooo bad to possibly change their editorial preference to be less liberal (not even conservative, just less extreme liberal). Excuuuse conservatives for even living. Now everyone can see how big tented liberals really are. The big tent contains the few you allow in who agree with everything you say, and want the government to pay for it.

[lordsmurf]

I don't think anybody has agreed that PBS is liberal. It's just not conservative. Which, sadly, most conservatives see as "liberal" instead of factually neutral, or at least close to it. That's just more proof that conservatives deal in absolutes, a world of black and white only. However, we exist in a world that is built on shades of gray.

If PBS says something that is NOT 100% aligned to a certain view, they are suddenly "evil lying liberals". Even 98-99% is not good enough. I don't understand how people can think that way. It makes no sense to me.

[Gritz]

I think Fox News will continue to increase market share .... and for good reason. And I do disagree with some of the views here .... and without being disagreeable and emotional! We ALL tend to reinforce our own views with OUR perspective ... so what! Where would the fun be if we were all alike. How about appreciating the good from both sides???

[CuCuy]

At the risk of sounding too political, Bush said the other night in his speech how Islamic extremists hate tolerance and dissent. That sounds strikingly similar to conservatives, with their efforts to "pacify" PBS and ban gay marriage.



that was to political and caused the thread to be locked -mods