PBS Updates Editorial Standards

[Cornucopia]

...While I OTOH am willing to pay somewhat for the voicing of ideas different/opposite from my own--as long as a view similar to my own isn't ignored.

I don't think PBS is completely balanced either, but I think they try harder to do so than many commercial alternatives, mainly I think because they take their mandate seriously.

Considering how many consecutive years of cuts PBS has had (deadwood basically gone long ago), I bet you would be hard pressed to find another government sponsored branch that would still be running.

Scott

[Scarpad]

As long as this new edict to label opinion and commentary such applies to all the mass media including Fox, CNN etc I'm all for it and hope they all apapt it. I would'nt hold my breath thou.

[Bschuler]

I still love the part of "Outfoxed: The war on Rupert Murdoch" where they compare FACTS vs. people's beliefs based on what they watch. PBS I think was part of the study.

It is amazing that the more people watch FOX news.. the less facts they really know. That is frightening. News that uninforms.

[normcar]

Oh so watching the other 3 networks, which say the same thing about the same stories, sometimes at the same time is informed. Fox presents a viewpoint which is different than the 3 networks, whose ratings have plummeted, so the news they present is wrong. As the saying goes you could write volumes on what isn't included in papers or on the news. Reporters themselves indicate that well over 75% of reporters said they are democrats and/or voted democrat in the past few elections. How many keep their personal beliefs out of their report editing. How many times have you been at an event that was reported on, and you wonder what event the reporter really attended, because you know that none of the reporters observations were the same as your own? Its funny that the only time both sides are usually saying the same thing, is when someone is caught doing something wrong. However when it comes to "punishment" of the wrongdoing, they are again at odds.

The problem with government sponsored TV, Radio or any other medium, is that it can be used by those in power to slant the news. Why can't these few programs on PBS and NPR find legitimate funding other than the government. If they can't, then is their content necessary. The marketplace is very good at deciding who or what the people find necessary. Government funding simply skews the demand/supply curve by supporting that which may not be otherwise supportable. And again why should someone's taxes pay for opinions that he or she does not agree with? . This is the fact that no one seems to be able/willing to answer. If the opinions are that meaningful, then the free market will support it.

[trossin]

I agree normcar. I don't want to pay for propaganda like the no child left behind "editorials" that we all got to pay for that misled people into thinking that a famous columnist was speaking his mind instead of being paid to speak the Bush administration's view.

Nor do I want to pay for the Iraq war, nor the abstinance programs, nor the drug "studies" on behalf of the FDA that are pro-drug anti-consumer, nor the Faith Based Initiatives, nor do I want to pay for Bush to fly around the country for the last 6 months having ego boosting parties of hand picked republicans pretending that he is selling us a fix for social security instead of actually listening to real ideas from real people, .... I could go on for days.

But I pay my taxes and suck it up. Maybe you can deal with the tiny amount of the buget that goes for PBS and NPR that helps pay for a tiny fraction of the few shows that you do not like. The U.S. is a big place with lots of people with many views.

A nice left leaning link for ya about PBS:

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv

[normcar]

Do you also want the PBS/NPR to not report on the "unwanted" government info you do not like. The non-governmental sources do a good job reporting on this without governmental interference. It sounds like you do not trust government, yet you want the government to pay those who report on the government. This sounds unusual.

Like it or not, the other things you do not like were done by those who were elected to do this business. They were not elected to report on themselves. The first thing that Putin or other leaders do is shut down the non-governmental press before doing something that is clearly illegal. The press is best when government is not in charge of paying for it.

[lordsmurf]

but think back to the last time you heard a reporter call George W Bush "Presdent Bush". Usually you hear these journalists reporting the news refer to him as "Mr. Bush", and not "President Bush".

Yes, that's all fine. Mr. President, Mr. Bush, President Bush. All are correct usage. Some of this is covered in the AP style book. Some of it is mere precident, mostly from 1960s broadcasts.

And yet these same talking heads still refer to Bill Clinton as "President Clinton", even after his exit from office several years later.

No they don't.

[BJ_M]

many governments sponsor a media outlet ..

USA (voice of America, stars and stripes and a few others)
UK
CANADA
JAPAN
ISRAEL
SPAIN
ITALY
RUSSIA
MEXICO
and many others ...

[winifreid]

I wrote that the government funds 15% of the PBS budget and the bill in question proposed to cut a quarter of that funding. Therefore a 4% total cut in PBS funding. Again, I think we should be more specific. I rarley see much bias in any news reporting, even Fox. Yes, there is a great deal of bias in commentary shows on all Networks. But PBS really doesn't have many of these. I forgot 2 in my previous post. There is also Washington Week and McGlaglen (spelling) Group. Both tend to get reporters/commenators from both sides to speak.
I don't think bias is really our problem; it is the lack of substance and depth. For example, the reprot today about credit card info being stolen really didin't tell any details like who might be affected and what might happen to them. We rarely get much detail from any commercial news programs. Pbs isn't prefect in this regard, but it is still better than most in precenting in-depth reporting.

[BJ_M]

they did not report that info because the CC companys in question did not release that info ...

Since there is an active FBI investigation going on - info may be a little sparse for awhile ..

[lordsmurf]

The McGlaughlin Group is opinion/editorial/entertainment. It's not news. Why is this so difficult for people to understand? I just don't get it.

That Playboy TV strip news segment is more news than some of these shows that are being referred to in this thread.

[normcar]

The broadcasts that the US sponsers in other countries is in large part propraganda. Is that what you want here in the US?

The talking heads may not be reported news, but they are very much editorial content, which is considered news. Again I ask, since no one wants to answer, why is the US government paying people for editorial content or any other content when there is so much available otherwise?

PBS once had a part when there were only 3 or 4 stations in a market up until the 70s, but now it is simply not necessary. If these programs are not good enough to get funding on one of the more than 100 channels we currently have, then why does the government need to pay for them? Most of the broadcasts have such low ratings, they are rarely ever mentioned in any place most people can find.

[BJ_M]

T.......why is the US government paying people for editorial content or any other content when there is so much available otherwise?
.....
.

The US government pays a huge amount of people for editorial content and propaganda, like speech writers, politicians, entire departments, etc ..

Every country does ..

[normcar]

But PBS is not considered the government by most people. Therefore they have a greater influence than most governmental agencies.

[BJ_M]

If they are not the government, then the government can not dictate their content.


And you are saying no one pays attention or believes media when issued by a government agency or person ?

[lordsmurf]

Most of the broadcasts have such low ratings, they are rarely ever mentioned in any place most people can find.

So rather than low rated educational content, you'd rather have high rated Paris Hilton shows? I hope you're joking.

[normcar]

Discovery, history and other networks are hardly Paris Hilton type networks. In fact a lot of the type of programming I used to see on PBS is now on networks like these.

If someone is paying you money (the government), then that fact alone is enough to question your objectivity toward the payee.

Someone asked do you question what government employees/politicians tell us. Do you really have to ask this question? More people believe in UFOs than believe that they will receive Social Security when it is time to retire. Do you believe there is money in the Social Security Trust Fund? There are only IOUs. In about 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it receives, and since there is no actual money in the trust fund, then taxes will rise or benefits will fall, yet how many times do you hear that everything is fine until about 2048?

[gadgetguy]

I would submit based on Lordsmurf's definition of what constitutes news that Fox News is indeed fair and balanced, however, the Fox News Channel as a whole represents a more conservative viewpoint. This is, in my opinion, in sharp contrast to the other news channels that represent a more liberal viewpoint.
Several years ago I stopped regularly watching news programs because I no longer had faith in their ability to provide me with the information that I found important. As stated by others I would watch a report on an event that I attended and wondered if the reporter and I had been at the same event. I saw reports about products that I owned and/or used and didn't understand how they could come to the conclusions that they did. I've seen reports on the "facts" of health and science that were subsequently proven to be erroneous theories. I've seen repeated attacks on the values and beliefs that I hold dear. All of them coming from so called "objective" journalists. I've withdrawn halfway through more than one poll because of the way that questions are phrased and watched subsequent "news" reports on what the poll represents. I don't even believe the weather reports on my local channels because they are wrong as much as they're right, (of course they always use the excuse that my area is the most difficult in the world to predict the weather, but it's still unreliable reporting).
I do tune in from time to time on all of the news channels, to see if anything has changed, and sadly I'm disappointed every time. As for PBS, I think it's probably a good thing that they are reviewing their editorial procedures, but I don't expect anything to change. It's nearly impossible to review yourself objectively, and it's even more difficult to accept a review from others if the conclusions differ from your own. Personally I have not contributed directly to PBS since they stopped broadcasting Dr. Who, but every time I'm scanning and come across PBS there's another fund drive going and I find the programming that they choose to use to attract new contributors to be completely un-interesting.
OK, that's my little rant. I'm going to return now to trying to help those I can, and learn from those I can't.

[lordsmurf]

Discovery, history and other networks are hardly Paris Hilton type networks.

They also hardly get "high ratings".

[normcar]

Discovery, history and other networks are hardly Paris Hilton type networks.

They also hardly get "high ratings".

But my tax dollars are not supporting them. They do it the old fashion way, they show really annoying commercials.

[lordsmurf]

Your tax dollars go to lots of things. I would suggest to you that, in the grander scheme, you should be a LOT more worried about some of the others that get funding. Public donations to educational tv shouldn't even remotely be a worry.

[normcar]

You assume that I don't mind the government taking my money, and giving it to others. I believe we could survive very well (better even) with a much, much smaller government. What does the government do, that they do not manage to totally screw up over time? I've worked in government offices as a consultant. First if the workers actually did any work, they would not have to hire outside consultants, but it would also be nice if they stopped looking at porn, and getting drunk at lunch.

Again I say, the govermnent has no reason to pay to support TV or Radio. There is so much available content, that it is no longer necessary for government involvement. If you like to support PBS, then by all means please send them your money, but leave my money alone.

P.S. For those of you that feel that you are not taxed enough, then please send additional funds to the government, but leave the the rest of us our money.

[normcar]

Sorry for the ranting, but I'm a TVaholic. I do not like government involvement of any kind because they will screw up a good thing. Believe it or not, the US TV is the best in the world. (I pity the rest of the world because it must be physically painful to watch TV there.)

[shelbyGT]

No, the US television shows would be the best in the world if they weren't so conservative. Just go to Europe and watch as naked people are selling you soap during commercial breaks. That's awesome.... I'd love it. But America's the land of the conservative, so that won't happen!

[lordsmurf]

No, European, Australian and Canadian tv has long ago left USA programming in the dirt. In fact, sadly, there are now MANY shows made in the USA that get released overseas/Canada first. And there have been instances lately of Japanese shows going direct to non-USA markets, even after having been translated here. That blows.

Sci-fi, sitcoms and cartoons are the ones most affected.

If you want to live somewhere based on tv programming, USA should be several pegs down on the list. It's not the top or even close. In fact, being in English language and having quantity is why it even makes the list. Quality is not one of the factors it earns points on, just the happenstance of being the correct language and having more variety.

[normcar]

Their TV must be really bad if the best part is nude people in commercials. Did they show really dirty grimy people before and after using the soap?

[lordsmurf]

Their TV must be really bad if the best part is nude people in commercials. Did they show really dirty grimy people before and after using the soap?

I think you're missing the point. "Boobies bad, guns and death good."
That's the modern litmus test of USA tv.

PBS luckily has neither. I have no problem giving more to PBS. In fact, let's do this. Give me your tax portion of PBS, and I'll trade you my portion of something you do like and I do not. See, problem solved.

That's how things work, it's called compromise. Many people see value in PBS, so it should stay as is. Having funding cut isn't great. If they're worrying about budget, there are a lot of other things that should top the list. I'd love to list them, but this site is anti-politics.

[adam]

This seems a little ridiculous to me. PBS is registered as a nonprofit organization. Any company that meets the legal requirements to do this can be nonprofit and YES this entitles them to, among other things, government funding. This isn't the government's seal of approval or control over the content. It is simply recognition of the fact that PBS provides a "public service."

Now as a nonprofit organization PBS's assets and funding are completely disclosed to the public. Last year they received approximately 25% of their revenue from the Federal Government, so I don't think the government's cuts are insignificant but PBS does make plenty of money on its own.

But the most important thing that people are ignoring is that probably most of the government funding doesn't even go to their news reporting. Most federal grants are for specific programs and PBS lists all of their educuation programs on their website and specifies which ones are funded by the government. So X% of the government funding goes to their "Ready To Learn" program and Y% goes to their "TeacherSource" program. These are purely educational programs conducted at the local community level and the only thing that is political about them is the source of the money.

[normcar]

This is not an independent non profit organization. Just look at the outcry that occurred when the new political appointee suggested that the content on PBS should be more balanced (how horrible). Non profits are not allowed to support one candidate over another or make politically supportive speeches. I believe the NAACP leader (or ex-leader) is in trouble for this, and their non profit status is being reviewed. But the vast majority of content of PBS is very much supportive of the left.

Perhaps to save money, the wealthy people who receive money from being on PBS, should pay to be on the channel. You can't tell me that Charlie R. and Jim Lehrer don't make a lot of money from being on PBS.

The most disturbing part of this discussion? Most of you do not like the government telling you that you cannot backup your own DVD, but you don't mind the government supporting a single political point of view.

[lordsmurf]

The outcry is because he said he wanted it, not just more balanced, but "more balanced like Fox News" which is why the outcry.

Fox News, as stated over and over here, is a farce when it comes to "fair and balanced".

That's why.