PBS Updates Editorial Standards

[BJ_M]

You are wrong, Non Profit Corporations can be politically active.

They can even donate money to a party of person running for office. NRA is a good example and see below.

In the United States Supreme Court case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. The court ruled that private corporations were protected from state control. The decision provided the legal foundation for the subsequent development of the nonprofit corporation and civil society in the United States.

By the way - for a little history, Both Federalists and Republicans after American independence believed that corporate trustees were political officeholders. Only in the face of intense partisan and religious conflict did they change their minds.

read the following legal article for some recent background:

Everyone Was Wrong About McCain-Feingold!
We all missed a giant loophole in the law.
By Mickey Kaus
Posted Thursday, April 25, 2002, at 12:44 AM PT

I was wrong about the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. The New York Times was wrong. Peter Beinart was wrong. And E. J. Dionne was wrong, too!

We all missed an important wrinkle in the new law—important because understanding it reveals a gaping hole in the bill, a hole the bill's legal defenders (if you ask them) freely admit exists.


Necessary background: Along with many others, I criticized McCain-Feingold for banning last-minute TV and radio ads sponsored by nonprofit advocacy groups even when those ads were paid for by individual citizens (and not by profit-making corporations or unions). This ban, it seemed to me, violated the principle—embodied in the Supreme Court's key Buckley v. Valeo ruling—that American citizens should be free to band together and spend their own money saying what they think about politicians when it matters most (i.e., just before an election).

It might be OK to restrict spending by corporations and unions, in this view. It might be OK to limit contributions to the campaigns of candidates. But if you want to spend your own money, independent of a candidate's campaign, to express your views—well, it's a free country. Or should be.

Here's the wrinkle: It turns out the new law's ban on last-minute ads only applies to corporations. True, most nonprofit "advocacy" groups—such as the Sierra Club and the ACLU—are corporations. But (and this is the point I didn't understand) they don't have to be. It's perfectly possible to form a simple unincorporated association and still get nonprofit tax status. (You just have to show that your articles and bylaws meet IRS requirements.) And if you're not incorporated, then McCain-Feingold's ad ban doesn't apply.

Why is this important? Because during the McCain-Feingold debate, a great deal of fuss was made, by Sen. Paul Wellstone in particular, about the need to prevent last-minute ad campaigns like the one launched by Texas businessman (and Bush pal) Sam Wyly against John McCain on the eve of the Super Tuesday primaries. Wyly's nonprofit group, calling itself Republicans for Clean Air, paid for $2.5 million worth of ads charging McCain with voting against clean solar and renewable energy. McCain was outraged, although in his version of the campaign finance bill he didn't ban such ads. (McCain's version only required that the ads be funded by individuals, not corporations, and that their sponsors be disclosed.)

But Wellstone argued that it was important to go further and have a provision ensuring that groups like Wyly's "can't do this 60 days before an election." Wellstone successfully sponsored a provision that seemed to impose this ban. If it didn't pass, Wellstone warned, "your are going to have a proliferation of these organizations. Republicans for Clean Air. Democrats for Clean Air. People Who Do Not Like Any Party for Clean Air."

But now we learn that Wellstone's provision (now part of the law) doesn't actually stop Wyly. Wyly could still run his ads in future elections as long as his organization didn't incorporate. Republicans for Clean Air lives! And Democrats for Clean Air, and all the other possible permutations feared by Wellstone. Wyly could even get a nonprofit tax exemption.

True, Wyly (and his brother, who also seems to have contributed) would have to use their personal funds, not funds from a corporation. Their group would also have to disclose where its money came from. But there's little reason to think either of these hurdles would have stopped the Wylys. They can almost certainly foot the bill for last-minute ads from their personal accounts—as can many rich and semi-rich Americans, especially if they join together in unincorporated associations. We can expect such unincorporated groups to spring up by the dozens, if not hundreds and thousands, in the first election after McCain-Feingold takes effect.

This is a big gap in the law—a "loophole," in the sense that, thanks to this "unincorporated interest group" possibility, the McCain-Feingold bill won't do what many of its backers, and many commentators, thought it would do. For example:

The New York Times was wrong to say, "The only thing the campaign finance reform law prohibits is spending in excess of federal campaign limits to pay for a campaign ad masquerading as something else." In fact, the campaign finance reform law doesn't prohibit that—as long as you don't incorporate, you can spend as much as you want for a campaign ad masquerading as something else, even in the last 60 days!

Beinart and Dionne were wrong to defend the requirement "that organizations pay for such ads with hard money—that is, through a political action committee (PAC)," as Beinart put it. There is no such requirement for non-corporations.

Kausfiles was just as wrong to complain that, under McCain-Feingold, if "two or three, or 20 [semi-rich] people want to get together and form a nonprofit group to pay for an "issue ad" attacking George Bush, they are prohibited from spending more than $5G's apiece." They are only prohibited if they incorporate.

Does all this mean McCain-Feingold is constitutional because anyone can get around its most onerous provisions by simply not incorporating?

I don't think so. The central issue, remember, is whether American citizens can get together to spend their own money on political ads, independent of the candidates' campaigns, before an election. If this is speech—as it clearly is and as the Supreme Court seems to think it is—what's the rationale for denying these citizens the ability to incorporate? Mainly the corporate form provides liability protection for the corporation's principals—a handy thing to have if you're starting a group designed to last a long time, which is why most big, influential nonprofits choose to incorporate. Telling them they can't incorporate if they want to participate in pre-election debate seems an arbitrary penalty, like telling them they have to pay three times as much for postage or Xeroxing.

Another way to put the issue is this: Do the defenders of McCain-Feingold simply want to restrict political ads financed by for-profit corporations, as they tend to argue when it's time to file briefs in court? Or do they really want to limit the speech of individual citizens who may be rich, as their rhetoric about leveling playing fields and "curbing the influence of money" suggests?

The latter sort of restriction runs head on into the First Amendment, as (rightly!) interpreted by the court in Buckley. The former restriction—on spending by profit-making corporations—is much more defensible. For-profit corporations typically don't get their money by soliciting donations from like-minded citizens. They get their money from commerce with citizens who may disagree with them, the profits from which are then protected by the limited liability law. There's an element of involuntary contribution when for-profit corporations are allowed to use their treasuries to interfere in elections.

But then why not limit the McCain-Feingold-Wellstone ban to for-profit corporations, and let ordinary citizens (even the slippery Wylys) form political nonprofits and enjoy the benefits of incorporating?

That may be where the law ends up. This is because there's a key Supreme Court case (the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, or MCFL, decision) that seems to say just that—that citizens who formed a nonprofit corporation to distribute pro-life propaganda, and who didn't take for-profit corporate money, not only didn't have to limit the size of the individual donations they'd accept, they also didn't have to abandon the corporate form.

McCain-Feingold lawyers may try to sell the court on a narrow reading of MCFL that would restrict it to "small grassroots organizations" of the sort that raise money at bake sales—like the pro-life group involved in the MCFL case itself. (There's some dumb language in the MCFL opinion that supports this reading.) But why should citizens in "small" environmental or anti-abortion organizations have rights but citizens in larger organizations—i.e., organizations that might actually be effective in advocating the same things—not have those rights?

If the Supreme Court doesn't whittle MCFL down to bake-sale nothingness, then Wyly and all the Wyly wannabes will also be able to incorporate before they spend millions from their personal fortunes on last-minute ads. If MCFL does get narrowed, then the Wylys of the world will just have to avoid incorporating before spending millions on last-minute ads. But, one way or another—incorporated or unincorporated—they will be able to spend what they want to say their piece.

As Wyly's enemy McCain implicitly acknowledged—before Wellstone's amendment mucked up his bill— that just seems like part of what freedom to speak means.

I hope this clears everything up!

Just in: David Broder's wrong too! In his most recent column he describes McCain-Feingold's effect:

If the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association or any other interest group wanted to buy ads praising or criticizing a candidate for federal office in the weeks leading up to Election Day, it … would have to solicit its supporters to make additional gifts ... within the contribution limits.

Not if the interest group wasn't incorporated!

[normcar]

I agree, it would be a farce to call PBS or NPR fair and balanced.

[shelbyGT]

I'm just getting sick of the whole "conspiracy" crap flying out of both sides of the line.

I'm going to start a moderate party and rule this world... no fan-boys (/girls) allowed.

[BJ_M]

[rkr1958]

What do think about this Fox News article on PBS? Fair and Balance? Or, Slanted?

[BJ_M]

Seemed fairly fair - they presented the facts of the case, though a quote from a critic was an editorial comment ..


The whole thing was about the right leanings in general throughout the industry also ..

[thomseye]

You don't seem to account for the fact that when news is "Sponsored" by huge corporate dollars there is a degree of censorship. Big companies can pull their ad dollars if a news station doesn't report the news the way they see fit.

Also, since all broadcasting companies are overseen by the FCC, a commercial news organization can sometimes reflect the news differently than they would have if they weren't being overseen by the FCC... Case in point... Murdoch's Fox News aquired DirecTV which had to be approved by the FCC due to anti-trust regulations... Is Fox News going to air anything that might reflect in a negative way the current government or the FCC in general? The governent creates policies that affect the broadcast industry and now that consolidation is the rule (one company owning 50 cable channels) there is a game being played to please the government so that regulations can benefit the broadcast company.

Think about all the other properties Murdoch owns... Are they going to report a negative story on any of them? I lost count of all the times that the New York Times has been slammed for a story on Fox News. Is this because Murdoch owns the rival newspaper (The New York Post)? Or how about all the times they promoted (as news) a movie that's produced on 20th Century Fox. They have (as well as other large media companies) too many horses in the race that affect their reporting. Heck they don't even have a newsroom.

Since the Greta Van Sustran show began... think of all the white and financially well off missing women have been reported. There are hundreds of missing people each week in the US, but because the "Greta" show needs a soap opera-like case to discuss (as this is the show format), they over-report a single case and ignore many others that don't have the "star" power. (I could go on and on)

PBS has the most flexibility due to the fact that they don't answer to huge corporate dollars (although, they do accept donations) and don't own any other companies.

People seem to think that in a democracy, the people determine the outcome... Although this is true to an extent... Due to huge $$$ big companies tend to dictate a lot more of what we get.

thomseye

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 ..

[lordsmurf]

Most places have separation of ad and op/ed. That's a cardinal rule of journalism. Pulling dollars won't do anything. For every one that is lost, another takes its place. It has FAR LESS effect than people realize. You'd have to work in the field to understand it.

Of course, broadcast is different, sometimes (places like SINCLAIR are all about favoritism towards dollars). Print, broadcast and radio are all different. There is no such thing as "the media". More likes "the medias" (although "media" is already a plural).

[thomseye]

It's funny you mention it... I do work in the industry... for some 17 years. News Anchor awards on my wall.

You must remember that one company (say PepsiCo) own not just pepsi, but about 10 other entities. And they may not just pull off of one channel... they may pull back their buy on 'all' of the channels (radio and television) owned by said 'media company'. So, when they pull their ads, that's a lot of cash.

This is different that many years ago. You say other companies will fill their spots... True to an extent (they may not pay what had been being paid). Trust me however, that no Ad Rep wants to lost a big account (especially a major National account).

[quote="lordsmurf"]Most places have separation of ad and op/ed. That's a cardinal rule of journalism. Pulling dollars won't do anything. For every one that is lost, another takes its place. It has FAR LESS effect than people realize. You'd have to work in the field to understand it.

[edDV]

The controversy is being reported tonight on PBS Newshour

[BJ_M]

I'm debating the issue and I dont even get PBS (i think)

[edDV]

I'm debating the issue and I dont even get PBS (i think)

I could post the segment if there is bandwidth here.

[edDV]

All about nothing on funding. Today the house restored full funding (both parties).

It was just a "wakeup call" or "a threat" concering news bias depending on your point of view.

[BJ_M]

they must be reading videohelp.com

[shelbyGT]

no more bias huh? or just a new one:

Former GOP official named CPB president

[BJ_M]

Still the legislation would eliminate a $23 million for the Ready to Learn program, which subsidizes children's educational programming and distributes learning materials. Instead they are using this money to switch (partially) to digital ...

that sounds like far ahead - NOT - planning , judging by the quality of kids English reading and writing these days ...

[Gritz]

If we're choosing up sides here I'll go with Fox News anytime when I want the news. Or better yet .... News International. Certainly not by watching ANY of the other major TV networks. Lately however, I'd call it all "Tabaloid News" .... I'm a little sick and tired of Aruba, Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson ... and things that don't affect me. All the sensational crap. Sure, I want to know, but I don't want the 24/7 details. Maybe there's a reason that Fox News outrates all the others combined ... and maybe it's because people are starting to trust them and believe what's reported, I don't know. But I don't think they "slant" the news the way they feel today. I don't want somebody's opinion given to me as news .... or to tell me how most of Americans feel. If they knew how most Americans feel then they could predict the elections, and they can't. They often just hope to influence people in a certain way. In reality I get more "news" from the Internet ... like today. 7 car bombings & 100 Taliban killed! Anyway .... how does this topic help me make a copy of my DVD? Yes ... I AM conservative .... but I'll listen to ideas anytime .... but not to why somebody hates somebody else! Facts .... just give me the facts man! (JW)

[shelbyGT]

Conservative media outlets tend to do better (talk shows, radio, et cetera). Guess the liberals don't care for that. And don't go saying there's that many more conservatives out there... the last 2 presidential elections were nearly 50/50.

Just my non-expert observation.

[Gritz]

ShelbyGT,
You're exactly right ..... it IS about exactly 50/50 ..... and that's good. We need more than just one view on everything .... and in the complex enviroment that we live in we need a LOT of ideas!! Not blasting this person or that party because they think differently ... but coming up with possible solutions that might work. We can disagree on anything without being disagreeable ...

[edDV]

I have a love-disgust attitude toward PBS that goes way back. I think highly of their general programming both national and especially local. They do fill a need. I'll sidestep the news bias issue.

I once was asked to volunteer my assistance to KQED-TV in San Francisco during one of their capital equipment upgrade drives. They needed new studio cameras and switching equipment in order to secure a national program contract with PBS. They had a government grant that funded half the project subject to the remainder being raised locally.

Government tax rules at the time allowed local PBS stations to raise up to 10% of their operating revenue from profit making activities. It turned out this KQED studio would be the best equipped and largest in the western USA other than LA and Salt Lake City. I surveyed the local production community and advertisers for interest in renting the facility. There was a potential strong steady demand especially by ad agencies for shooting car and other large object commercials. Also broadcasters wanted a studio for national uplink. Since the studio was unused 70% of the time while the PBS show was out of production, it seemed a win win for all. The revenue from this activity would have exceeded any on air fund drive including the annual auction. Despite management support, the plan died due to strong objection from the local program producers and the unions who opposed any "for profit" activity. I assume the union figured they would get paid either way.

I was later told that fund raisers get no cooperation from the local production staff. These atitudes were in my opinion non-professional and would have resulted in firings anywhere else. Although this attitude was extreme in San Francisco, I've read it goes to the top at PBS where fundraising is viewed as somehow dirty.

There has long been a need for injection of reality throughout PBS.

[lordsmurf]

Conservative media outlets tend to do better (talk shows, radio, et cetera). Guess the liberals don't care for that. And don't go saying there's that many more conservatives out there... the last 2 presidential elections were nearly 50/50. Just my non-expert observation.

Only because we live in a hype society. Fox and other conservative outlets tend to dramatize it especially for the reality tv generation.

Why watch the NBC story on "serial killer escapes" when you can get the Fox version "vicious cannibal madman goes berserk and may be in your backyard! your children are in danger!"

Fox does a lot of questions too. "Could this madman be peaking in your window this very minute?! Stay tuned for more!" ... Or "How can you protect your children from being the next victim of this sadistic criminal? Keep watching, and we'll tell you how".

One of my friends calls it "old people news" because they have to scare the living s**t out of them to get them to tune in and watch. It works, look at the ratings. That's why they do it. Not fair, not balanced, but ratings.

You should also pay attention to words like "madman, vicious, sadistic" which are editorial embellishment that is simply irresponsible journalism. This is FOX.

For as much as people complain, PBS and more reliable outlets do NOT do this kind of yellow activity. And even when it does happen, because nobody is perfect, it's not a DAILY EVENT THAT IS PLANNED like Fox does, and some of the others.

[thomseye]

'smurf you seem to see what I amongst many others see. they do use the "fear" tactic as much as they can.

since i've worked in both radio and tv for some time, here's my take as well as many others that I've worked with...

one of the reasons that conservative shows do so much better than liberal or "middle of the road" shows is because liberal folks tend to be more open minded to all views than conservative viewers/listeners.

case in point... there is a substantial amount of liberal listeners to Rush Limbaugh and viewers of Fox News. conservatives tend to not want to hear anything unless they agree with it.

so on a liberal show (air america for example), there are much fewer conservatives that listen in comparison to rushs' liberal listeners.

if you think about it, part of being liberal is looking at all sides of an issue even if you at first don't agree with it.

I even listen to Rush and watch Fox News, cringing along the way, but I don't mind hearing things I don't agree with. It's funny sometimes because I'll be sitting there arguing with the TV all by my lonesome at times. But there you go...

(I'll never forget the "bumper/promo" fox news used during the election season... it went something like this...

[insert fox news voice guy]
"Find out about the Senator from Massachusettes attacking the Commander In Chief over the US roll in Iraq... Does he think we've already lost and our men and women aren't serving our Country respectfully? Or does he think that the way -he- served would be the way to go?... Coming up on Fox News Live"
[end] )

I was like... woah! How can they get away with that? ...whatever.

thomseye

Conservative media outlets tend to do better (talk shows, radio, et cetera). Guess the liberals don't care for that. And don't go saying there's that many more conservatives out there... the last 2 presidential elections were nearly 50/50. Just my non-expert observation.

Only because we live in a hype society. Fox and other conservative outlets tend to dramatize it especially for the reality tv generation.

Why watch the NBC story on "serial killer escapes" when you can get the Fox version "vicious cannibal madman goes berserk and may be in your backyard! your children are in danger!"

Fox does a lot of questions too. "Could this madman be peaking in your window this very minute?! Stay tuned for more!" ... Or "How can you protect your children from being the next victim of this sadistic criminal? Keep watching, and we'll tell you how".

One of my friends calls it "old people news" because they have to scare the living s**t out of them to get them to tune in and watch. It works, look at the ratings. That's why they do it. Not fair, not balanced, but ratings.

You should also pay attention to words like "madman, vicious, sadistic" which are editorial embellishment that is simply irresponsible journalism. This is FOX.

For as much as people complain, PBS and more reliable outlets do NOT do this kind of yellow activity. And even when it does happen, because nobody is perfect, it's not a DAILY EVENT THAT IS PLANNED like Fox does, and some of the others.

[CuCuy]

.... I'm a little sick and tired of Aruba, Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson ... and things that don't affect me. All the sensational crap.

You shouldn't be watching Fox if this is the case. They offer up tabloid crap in spades.

I don't want somebody's opinion given to me as news .... or to tell me how most of Americans feel.

Again, you're watching the wrong channel. Not that other networks don't do some editorializing, though. Fox fully integrates opinion into its news. Let's run down the list of anchors:

Linda Vester- CONSERVATIVE

John Gibson- CONSERVATIVE

Neil Cavuto- CONSERVATIVE

Brit Hume- CONSERVATIVE

Bill O'Reilly- CONSERVATIVE

Sean Hannity- CONSERVATIVE

John Kasich- CONSERVATIVE

Tony Snow- CONSERVATIVE

There are exceptions of course. Shepard Smith, Greta Van Sustren, Geraldo Rivera and Chris Wallace are all pretty straight shooters. Doesn't it strike you as biased that they only have one known liberal personality(Alan Combs)? Or do you still think they don't lean to the right?

[shelbyGT]

Alan Combs barely even talks on that show, he's just their whipping boy at times.

[Mister Flonk-Flonk]

you have to draw the line yourself.


one is facts - without embellishment presented by a speaker with no viewpoint.

the other is embellished facts presented in the speakers viewpoint.

one can transmorph into the other and back again.

Of course - an issue is WHAT is reported on.. By leaving out facts, you can slant a news piece.

"Facts" of course can be fudged - and often are for various reasons.

See: Fahrenheit 9/11 vs real documentaries.

[smearbrick1]

you have to draw the line yourself.


one is facts - without embellishment presented by a speaker with no viewpoint.

the other is embellished facts presented in the speakers viewpoint.

one can transmorph into the other and back again.

Of course - an issue is WHAT is reported on.. By leaving out facts, you can slant a news piece.

"Facts" of course can be fudged - and often are for various reasons.

See: Fahrenheit 9/11 vs real documentaries.

Why does everyone who is on the losing end of a discussion always bring up Fahrenheit 9/11 and how it stacks up to other documentaries?

Please let us avoid yet another discussion on the true nature of Fahrenheit 9/11. Everyone knows Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary in the true sense of the word/genre. It is a very biased, opinion/editorial film. Nothing more... nothing less. You can believe what you want to about the film (all of the claims made in the film are backed up, and references can be found on Michael Moore's website).

[BJ_M]

http://imdb.com/title/tt0433561/

Fahrenheit 9/11½ (2007)
Directed by
Michael Moore

Writing credits
Michael Moore

[Mister Flonk-Flonk]

Why does everyone who is on the losing end of a discussion always bring up Fahrenheit 9/11 and how it stacks up to other documentaries?

I know you aren't directing that comment to me, having not participated in any such discussions, so please feel free to point out for the rest of the group just who exactly your angst there is channeled at.

Regards,

flonk!

[normcar]

<EDIT>

I can say this because it happens all too often (see all comments about FOX vs Most other major media outlets).

Fox should change their slogan to be "Fox is the fair balance to all the other unfairly balanced media."


please leave politics out of this - this post is over the edge - consider this and informal warning - part of post was edited to remove political comment - bjm

[BJ_M]

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