WASHINGTON - The Public Broadcasting Service is hiring an ombudsman and revising editorial practices in the face of criticism that its programming has given short shrift to conservative views.
Changes approved by the PBS board now go to the service's funding organization, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, for its consideration, and millions of dollars in revenue for PBS could be at stake in the corporation's review.
PBS, which rejects accusations of liberal bias, said it has been reviewing its procedures since before Republicans in Congress moved to cut its financing. The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, has specifically accused the show hosted by Bill Moyers of featuring guests hostile to conservative views.
Revisions adopted by the PBS board include a requirement that commentary and opinion be labeled as such, and that program producers offer more information on how they gathered material and made their editorial decisions.
PBS also said it would hire an ombudsman to review controversial programs.
About 15 percent of PBS' budget is from the federal government, with appropriations approved by Congress and provided through the CPB.
About $55 million in funds for a variety of programs over two years is at stake in the CPB's review of the new standards.
Jacoba Atlas, senior vice president of programming at PBS, described the new standards as "some refreshing, not a total overhauling in any way."
"The American public believes PBS is trusted, valued and fair ad accurate," she said, citing various polls. "We feel our producers have been doing an excellent job, and the 1987 editorial standards to which all our producers adhered, did stand the test of time."
CPB has begun reviewing the 70-page document that PBS submitted, according to spokesman Eben Peck. The corporation has until Oct. 1 to share any concerns with PBS over the standards.
The updated standards and policies are the result of more than a year of evaluation by PBS, it said in a statement Wednesday.
PBS created a committee of experts over a year ago to review PBS content policies.
The updated policies are not a significant departure from those PBS has used since 1987, PBS said. The committee noted policies need only "minimal changes and should be altered only as necessary to reflect evolving technology and journalistic norms," PBS said.
PBS is a private, nonprofit media enterprise that serves the nation's 348 public noncommercial television stations, reaching nearly 90 million people each week.
___
On the Net:
Public Broadcasting Service: http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_standards.html%b
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
Closed Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 110
Thread
-
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
-
Will TV Ever Get Past Partisan Bickering?
Frazier Moore
NEW YORK - Dead at 23: CNN's "Crossfire" argued its last not long ago. Its passing was unmourned and, for the most part, unnoted.
Not that its impact won't continue to be felt. With panelists deployed "from the left" and "from the right," "Crossfire" established TV debate as rhetorical smackdown.
What a crummy legacy.
"You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably," Jon Stewart told "Crossfire" combatants Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala during his memorable appearance last October. "Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America!"
Thanks in part to Stewart's brash but dead-on observation that those emperors of bombast weren't wearing any clothes, "Crossfire" has indeed called it quits.
Still, there's no cause to celebrate.
Even in the absence of "Crossfire," TV discourse today prefers a face-off between archrivals, with viewers rooting for their team before the first word is uttered. This kill-the-bums paradigm makes writer-commentator Matt Miller wonder if reasoned persuasion is a relic of a bygone era.
"Is it possible in America today to convince anyone of anything he doesn't already believe?" Miller posed in a recent New York Times column. "If so, are there enough places where this mingling of minds occurs to sustain a democracy?"
Unlike talk radio, opinion journals and partisan books, where, thanks to audience segmentation, pundits mostly preach to the converted, TV chatfests have an opportunity to bridge the divide. They could bring about that mingling of the minds. And yet they're typically staged more like a demolition derby than a dialogue.
"Governing successfully requires influencing how people actually think," Miller wrote. "Yet when the habits of persuasion have been buried, the possibilities of leadership are interred as well."
However dire his forecast, Miller began the piece with a nagging personal concern. As a columnist engaged in the persuasive arts, he lamented "the feelings of futility I'll suffer if it turns out I've wasted my life on work that is useless."
Let me offer personal witness: I have felt the same fears.
Along with Miller, I am someone who aspires to change a few readers' minds with what I write. And I, too, sometimes have to wonder if I'm breaking through.
In particular, I am perplexed by how much of the e-mail I get seems uninformed by the piece I wrote that spurred it. I am struck by how, instead, what I wrote often serves only as a trigger for readers to sound off on what they already believed, with no reference to my article apart from referendumlike praise or condemnation directed toward me ("you're great" or "you're an idiot"), based on whether or not we seem to agree.
It seems to be just another sign of an us-against-the-other-guys culture: Pick your side and shout down the enemy.
This dilemma was broached recently by journalist Bill Moyers. A longtime presence on PBS, he is the favorite whipping boy for conservatives who insist public broadcasting has a leftward bias.
Moyers has never denied being a liberal, but in his decades of interviews, he has talked with — and listened to — people of all stripes. On "Now," the newsmagazine he created then retired from in December, "We threw the conversation of democracy open to all comers," as he said in a speech last month at the National Conference for Media Reform.
For this, among many things, Moyers is exceptional.
Citing an analysis of public TV whose findings would surely be even bleaker for commercial broadcasting, Moyers said, "The so-called experts who got most of the (on-air) face time came primarily from mainstream news organizations and Washington think tanks, rather than diverse interests."
To have it any other way, he explained, would jeopardize the status quo. It might shake viewers up.
"An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only on partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias ... is less inclined to put up a fight, to ask questions and be skeptical," Moyers warned. "That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy — or worse."
That was also Stewart's message to his "Crossfire" hosts ("Stop hurting America!") last fall.
Now "Crossfire" is gone. But how much will be different remains to be seen. Former panelists Begala, James Carville and Robert Novak retain their assigned roles elsewhere on CNN. Meanwhile, Carlson premiered his own weeknight talk show, "The Situation," on MSNBC this week, complete with a pair of from-the-left and from-the-right sidekicks.
But I haven't given up. I continue my vigil, hoping against hope to hear the following on Carlson's, or anybody's, TV show someday: One advocate speaks his piece, whereupon his opponent responds, "Hmmmm. You make a good point. I'm going to have to rethink my position. Maybe even change my mind."
Live on TV: the process of persuasion, laid bare! I would argue for that."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
-
I think it would be helpful if critics on both sides could be more specific and give examples of all this bias.
As far as PBS is concerned, it isn't going the way of the Dodo. The bill proposes a 25% cut in funding, but the Federal government only funds 15% of PBS. In other words about a 4% cut in total. And it hasn't passed, yet.
Everyone is talking about the bias in the news, but PBS really only has a few news programs. I find it hard to believe that the News hour is particulairly biased. They do have introductory segments, usually produced by ITN, but then they get people from various sides to talk about the situation. The moderators basically just ask each guest what they think. No yelling allowed. I sometimes wish thay would force people to stick to the point or answer the actual question, but I guess they want to keep the focus on the guest's opinion and not theirs.
Then there is the BBC (pretty staight news) Charlie Rose, Frontline, Now and that republicain guy.
Charlie Rose usually just asks questions as if he is everyones friend. Maybe he ddoesn't get many republicains on his show (never actually counted), but I suspect that is because they won't come. Then Frontline uses independantly produced items. During the presidential campaign, they ran two items about Bush and Kerry. One was about Bush's evenagelical religion. If you are happy that your president is an evengelical, then you would think it was a fair story. If you didn't want people to know he was an evangelical, then you might think it slanted. They also ran a story about bith Kerry and Bush. I found it pretty balanced - good and bad about both.
Obviously Now, is a liberal show, but I think they try to balance this with Carlson's show.
Some may argue that show's like teletubbies and SS is slanted, but get real.
-
extremly good point winifreid
only amounts to a 4% cut if what you say is true ..
which is nothing really ..
but also means that PBS has a 2.5 billion $ budget ?"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
-
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
I enjoy PBS programming (not the News but other programming such as PBS for Kids, Nova & Science / Medical related programming).
I do enjoy and get my News from Fox News, which is pretty much the standard for News where I live. For example, it's not unusual for Fox News to be on in Doctor's & Dentist's waiting rooms. Not kiddie Doctor's & Dentists ... if they show anything they usually show Disney Channel or Videos.
This may surprise you (and others) but I want PBS it's new programming to stay. I also support the right of "Air America" to put their stuff on ... even though I may not care for it ...
I believe debate, even heated debate, about the issues is not only heathly but is critical to freedom.
One thing I believe is wrong in the World today, and I'm gulity of this too, is that we don't listen to others. If people Believe what they Believe, then that's what they Believe. Also, I've found that there is usually truth to both sides of any issue and that there are very few, if any, things in which, "Truth" is absolute.
Oh well, good points all and I appreciate the opportunity for the intelligent debate.
-
there is a point here that is not taken well ----
there is "news" , i.e. reporting, true journalism ..
then there is debate, both sides of an issue, pro and con , editorials, talk shows and the like ...
they are two different things ... the problem many see is that the later is perceived as the former .."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
-
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."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
-
Originally Posted by BJ_M
You have to consider your audience when writing a story. You don't tell them things that are not important to them. Often referred to as the "local angle". That DOES NOT mean to "slant" or "tell a side" but merely to present the information in a way that matters to the viewer.
Sports is an easy example:
Your team and my team are playing. My team loses. My local paper leads off with info on how my star player was not in the game, and how a few errors lost us the game. It then goes on to mention how your team is in a streak and that certain rookie is scoring extraordinarily well.
Your paper, hoever, leads off with how the rookie has carried the team again, and talks about the winning streak. More towards the end or middle it refers to how my team was missing it's star and how all those errors contributed to your win.
Neither of these is "slanted" or "biased" in any one way. It's still the facts, just presented in reverse order, giving YOUR audience preference. This is simple journalism 101 stuff, week 1 lectures. Inverse pyramid. This is still all facts, not editorializing or "slants".
So when CBS talks about THE USA first, and other countries second, remember this. Europe, Canada, Australia, Antarctica, .... wherever else.... those are not as important as the "local" USA.
.................................
I think the old Iraqi media was the best at funny slants. They would tell you how they supposedly killed 100's of Americans, and then conveniently forgot to mention the capture/killing/surrender of 1000's of Iraqis. NOW THAT'S SLANT!
Fox does it by only giving "flowery" coverage to a certain political party. And lovers of that party/network call the other networks "another political name" because the less flowery coverage (which is often more cut/dry and to the point, more factual) is not so favorable to the Fox-favored party.
It's even worse when politicians encourage that, often known as "softball lobbing". And it goes to the top offices too. That's almost like communist countries where the only questions you are allowed to ask must end in something positive for the government.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS
-
BJ_M & lordsmurf,
Both your last posts illstrate the point I was trying to make. Let's continue with lordsmurf sports analogy. I'm an Atlanta Braves fan. Let's say they're playing the Chicago Cubs. Let's say the game is being carried on both TBS (out of Atlanta) and WGN (out of Chicago). As a Braves fan I'd rather watch the game on TBS. While WGN is broadcasting the same game it's slant and analysis on it is entirely different than on TBS. Both channels are reporting on the same game, the same plays and the same scoring but from entirely two different perspectives. Which one is right? Which on is slanted? Both are. I guess in this analogy that ESPN would be the "fair-and-balanced" channel presenting both "sides" of the baseball game coverage.
Many of us that watch "Fox News" see it as the outlet that will acknowledge both sides in it's coverage ... even the "Non-Policitally Correct" one.
-
Well, therein lies your problem. With straight news, there are no "sides" to the issues, although there can be audience lead-in differences. And you're once again confusing what is and is not news.
BROADCAST sports coverage, not written news, is going to be one-sided coverage for the most part. It has a distinct and admitted bias in one direction. Nobody tries to cover this up. You cover your home team, period. Also note the word COVERAGE is used, and not NEWS. It's an entertainment show, not a journalism/news segment. Do you for one minute think John Madden or Troy Aikmen are journalists? Or whatever locals they use for your network (in my case, for baseball, it's two former players of the same team).
The post-game WRITTEN ARTICLES in newspapers (NEWS!), however, are quite thorough on all aspects, though the lead-in style usually follows the "local interest" reverse pyramid standard of writing. Even broadcast news tends to cover a bit of everything, though broadcast sports news in general is very quick, so they often only pick one small tidbit for the quickie 15-30 seconds they use on sports review of that certain game.
THIS IS NOT AT ALL THE SAME AS FOX!
Fox embellishes facts with opinion and only covers the portion of the facts that help their agenda. Fox never covers some of the facts because it doesn't paint as pretty a picture as they'd like. So they just "ignore" them or hide them behind "space/time constraints".
That would be fine if they stuck to broadcast sports only. But that same broadcast sports style doesn't work on straight news, not at all. If FOX wants to "cover the home team" then say so, admit to being a one-sided biased network, giving play by play coverage for their "team". Don't use bullshit "fair and balanced" slogans that are a complete farce.
ESPN, much like CNN, has no "local audience". They actually have long-standing policies that have removed the word "foreign" and anything similar so that the networks can give "side-less" coverage to a "world community". It makes it a bit more dry and boring, but that's how it goes. You'll notice they carry LOTS of international sports programming for this very reason. ESPN is like CNN for sports. And ESPN is a mix of coverage and news.
Again, this lack of understanding probably comes back to people thinking everything on tv being "news". It's not.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS
-
did someone say Fox News was "Fair and Balanced" ??? Wow! even some of my conservative friends laugh at that one.
Great points lordsmurf! It's unfortuante that so many people don't seem to understand what news is supposed to be. I'm afraid that many people only want to hear things that they believe (or want to believe) with an editorial opinion to justify it.
Sometimes (actually, a lot of times) the news is not entertaining or even something I agree with... but if it's the truth then that's what the "journalists" should be reporting. Leave the opinions to the viewers without trying to persuade the viewer.
We're going down a troubling path with the current state of TV news reporting. It makes me a bit nervous.
thomseye
-
If I may make one simple observation to those of you who believe that the news media isn't slanted one way or the other . . .
News may well be news, 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".
And yet these same talking heads still refer to Bill Clinton as "President Clinton", even after his exit from office several years later. George H. W. Bush is "former President Bush", so why sn't Bill Clinton??? Hmm, think on that a minute . . .
No bias in the media - who's kidding whom?
Don't take my word for it, just open your eyes and ears and listen yourselves for a change.
Avoid the "sheep" mentality and open yourself up to real observations, and then you will see the real undercurrent of bias in the media, and news media specifically.
The one observation I've made from watching this thread is there are those who can think for themselves and make their own observations on the state of the news, and the there are those who virulently live in a state of denial.
While news should a statement of facts and not conjecture, the educated mind can see a reporters personal bias in the same way that body language gives away liars and thieves. It's painfully obvious to some, but most often overlooked by the masses."I've got a present for ya!" - TTWC
-
Originally Posted by TaoTeWingChun
Also, all former presidents are supposed to continue to be referred to as "President so-and-so" and "Mr. President", for life. However, now we have a case of potential misunderstanding. If we refer to "President Bush" and actually mean G.H.W.Bush (Bush the 1st), we might confuse the listener, so they've come up with "former" to clarify the point. That is explicit and intentional and appropriate on the part of journalists.
BTW, really good liars and thieves are like actors, and can feign many varieties of body language. Plus, according to clinical psychologists (my wife is one), a certain body stance/pose can be the result of a number of factors--it's not just BodyL "A" = Word meaning "A".
I don't consider myself naive. I perceive that possibly a good majority of journalists/reporters may be quite liberal. However, their bosses--the editors and publishers and owners, the ones who make the decisions about what gets put out there or not--AREN'T. This I know from firsthand experience.
Scott
-
I used to like and respect Charlie Rose, but since President Bush was elected and the Iraq war started, his hatred of Bush is palatable. He can’t contain it. During an interview with Henry Kissinger, he tried numerous times to get him to agree the Iraq war should never have happened, and was badly managed. It may be his own personal opinion, but as a taxpayer, I should not have to have my money helping him spread his opinion, whether it is left or right leaning. He has done the same thing with every politically related guest he has had for several years. If these programs are so great, they should be able to get along without taxpayer money.
Everyone agrees that the government should not support "religious" related functions or programming, but why should the government support a political point of view?Some days it seems as if all I'm doing is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic
-
a 'point of view' is not news - it is editorializing.
and as such is protected under first amendment free speech, also protected under gov. interference.
if A gov. says: I dont not like this line of questioning or content, therefore we will squash it.. golly, that sounds like whats happening in china right now..."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
-
I think that voiding all slants is akin to watering down discussion/dissention, similar to religous pasturization.
I think it's better to "know thy enemy" and allow "intelligent" or substantiated argument and debate on topics, than it is to reduce journalism to objective facts only. Once again, who determines what's objective? ( I DO! )
Kind of like a see-saw (teeter/totter).
It can either be unbalanced-tipped to one side or the other,
or it can be balanced with even weight applied to both sides,
or it can be balanced by taking away the fulcrum and having it rest on the ground.
I prefer the middle one.
Scott
-
I never said I wanted to quash it. I just said I did not want to pay for it. I believe everyone has a right to his or her own opinion. The government should not be paying anyone to editorialize on my dime. I don't care if they are to the right or to the left; I believe the government should not be in the business of supporting or excluding anyone. And anyone who thinks that PBS or NPR is balanced has not listened with a practiced ear. It is easy to believe that everything is balanced when you agree with everything you hear. PBS and NPR only support one side of the issue with very few exceptions such as Frontline, which is usually good at presenting all viewpoints.
And if the government’s support is only 4%, then why do they need that. Show me any government organization that can't be cut 4% deadwood. So they should stop whining, and get replacement funding for the 4%.Some days it seems as if all I'm doing is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic
Similar Threads
-
Clinton-American Presidents (pbs), where's Part 2?
By bat999 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 3Last Post: 5th Mar 2012, 09:56 -
How to download a PBS video?
By inspiration100 in forum Video Streaming DownloadingReplies: 20Last Post: 19th Nov 2011, 21:58 -
Is there a way to download PBS TV shows that are online?
By johnharlin in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 2Last Post: 17th May 2011, 00:15 -
Question how to capture PBS Frontline stream
By jimdagys in forum Video Streaming DownloadingReplies: 3Last Post: 10th Nov 2010, 22:48 -
PBS HD - Story of India conversion
By txporter in forum Video ConversionReplies: 10Last Post: 9th Jun 2010, 18:09