IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> 25% Cut in Funding for PBS?
necrolyte
post Jun 19 2005, 10:36 PM
Post #31


a playa hater
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 16,544
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



No
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Y2A
post Jun 19 2005, 11:24 PM
Post #32


Subliminal message
********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,812
Joined: 14-June 03
From: New Jersey
Member No.: 388



http://www.apts.org/actioninc/lookupyourmember.cfm

Anyone that cares about good informative news coverage instead of the typical Michael Jackson stories should go to this link and send an e-mail to your local congressman to stop this nonsense.

DS-Either you provide facts to back your unfounded assertion that NPR/PBS are more biased then Fox News or get your crap off of my thread. Simple as that.

This post has been edited by The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A: Jun 19 2005, 11:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dragonspirit
post Jun 20 2005, 06:19 AM
Post #33


Still the Highlightest of the Sitest
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,440
Joined: 21-August 02
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 150



http://www.urbin.net/EWW/polyticks/nra-npr.html

QUOTE
In December of 1989 NPR conducted an editorial essay, masked as a "news feature," in support of gun control. In one broadcast NPR reporter Nina Totenberg said "(t)here may be a lively debate about whether the Constitution confers on individuals the right to bear arms, but that debate is not going on in America's courts, its law schools, or its scholarly legal journals. Indeed, even the National Rifle Association could not recommend for this broadcast a single constitutional law professor who would defend the Second Amendment as conferring on individuals the right to bear arms."

No debate in America's scholarly legal journals? An informal survey of the literature suggests that no less than 28 law journal articles supporting the thesis that the Second Amendment protects an individual right appeared between 1960 and 1989; this includes the American Bar Association Journal. No Constitutional law professors who support this view? Hardly. In December 1989, the very month in which Miss Totenberg made this broadcast, University of Texas Professor Sanford Levinson, a distinguished constitutional scholar, had published an article in the Yale Law Review entitled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." In the article, Professor Levinson says that the right protected (not "conferred", as she would have it), is an individual right. So on these counts, at least, she was demonstrably, flat out, wrong. Give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe America's premier legal reporter just hadn't visited a reasonably well equipped law library to review the Periodical Guide to Legal Literature, or had not seen the Yale Law Review when she made the broadcast.

What about the National Rifle Association and the names of the legal scholars? This is a different story. When asked for the names of scholars, NRA spokeswoman Debbie Nauser gave Miss Totenberg the names of three (3) -- count them -- scholars. There is no room for doubt here. In the words of Josiah Royce, the reporter had "willfully misplaced her ontological predicates."

More recently, the CrimeStrike Division of NRA, following the murders of several Korean-American merchants in the District of Columbia, met with a group of these merchants to discuss some legislation which we had proposed for D.C. Following this meeting, during an NPR news magazine and documentary broadcast, an NPR commentator, Bebe Moore Campbell, gave a harangue against the NRA for having attended the meeting. She said that we had gone there to tell Korean merchants that blacks are criminals. She said that our initials should stand for the "Negro Removal Association." She said that we wanted sixteen year old boys to carry Uzis because the gun would probably be used to kill a black person.

This is not responsible editorializing, let alone news; it is vicious libel. The NRA had been formed in 1871 by former officers in the Union Army, men who had fought to end slavery. The first signature on our charter, and the first president of NRA, was Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who had been forced to stand by and watch the men of his division slaughtered during the battle of Sharpsburg, the battle which induced Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Gen. Ulysses Grant and Gen. Phil Sheridan also served as presidents of the NRA. Unlike any other social organization in the country in 1871, African Americans were never excluded from membership in the NRA. An African American member of our Board of Directors, after this broadcast, came to me and told me that as a young boy growing up in the District of Columbia, the only place he could go, where he was always welcomed regardless of his race, was a rifle club run by the NRA. Civil rights leader Roy Innis is also on our Board of Directors. In fact, the meeting with Korean American merchants had been arranged by black NRA members in the District of Columbia, and one black NRA member participated in the presentation.

We have asked every one of the hundreds of NPR member stations for an opportunity to give an adequate response to this scurrilous attack. One, and only one, gave us this right. This is an abuse of the public trust. However, it does serve to help prove our point. Public Broadcasting is designed, by those who run it, to serve as the ever flowing fountain of venom, serving the insatiable desire of the cultural elites to have someone to hate. As America was the arsenal of democracy during two world wars, public broadcasting serves as the arsenal of dyspepsia in the culture war. It is wrong to ask us to pay so that others may tell the world how much they hate us.



Now then, you can kindly put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Of course, you are yet to prove that Fox is biased at all even though I have demonstrated NPRs obvious bias.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cerian
post Jun 20 2005, 06:27 AM
Post #34


Unique Forms of Continuity in Space
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,607
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 112



Hmm

QUOTE
Fox's Slanted Sources
Conservatives, Republicans far outnumber others

Extra! July/August 2001

By Steve Rendall

Perhaps the most reliable method of gauging an outlet's perspective is to study its sources. If Fox News Channel is the bastion of balance that it claims to be, then its pool of guests should reflect a full spectrum of debate, from left to right, and neither major party should dominate over the other.

To test Fox's guest list, FAIR studied 19 weeks of Special Report with Brit Hume (1/1/01-5/11/01), which Fox calls its signature political news show looking specifically at the show's daily one-on-one newsmaker interviews conducted by the show's anchor. The interview segment is a central part of the newscast; Hume often uses his high-profile guests' comments as subject matter for the show's wrap-up panel discussion.

FAIR classified each guest by both political ideology and party affiliation. Only two ideological categories were used: conservative and non-conservative. Guests affiliated with openly conservative think tanks, magazines or advocacy groups, or who promote openly conservative views, were labeled as such. All other guests were grouped together in the non-conservative category, including centrists, liberals and progressives; non-political guests (e.g., Cheney's heart doctor); and "objective" journalists who do not avow any ideology. Republicans were not automatically counted as conservatives: Moderate Republicans like Christopher Shays, Christine Todd Whitman and David Gergen, for example, were classified as non-conservatives.

Sixty-one percent of guests were current or former Democratic or Republican government officials, political candidates, staffers or advisors. These guests were classified as either Democrats or Republicans. All others -- including conservatives with no official party connection, such as Jerry Falwell or David Horowitz -- were classified as non-partisan for the purposes of the study, along with bipartisan officials such as career diplomats.

The numbers show an overwhelming slant on Fox towards both Republicans and conservatives. Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.

On Special Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1. While FAIR did not break down the non-conservative guests by ideology, there were few avowed liberals or progressives among the small non-conservative minority; instead, there was a heavy emphasis on centrist and center-right pundits (David Gergen, Norman Ornstein, Lou Dobbs) and politicians (Sen. John Breaux, Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Christopher Shays).

As a comparison, FAIR also studied the one-on-one newsmaker interviews on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports over the same time period, and found a modest but significant tilt towards Republicans, and a disproportionate minority of guests who were conservatives--but in both cases, there was far more balance than was found on Special Report.

Of Blitzer's 67 partisan guests, 38 were Republicans and 29 were Democrats -- a 57 percent to 43 percent split in favor of Republicans. Thirty-five out of 109 guests (32 percent) were avowed conservatives, with the remaining 68 percent divided up among the rest of the political spectrum, from center-right to left.

Only eight of Special Report's 92 guests during the study period were women, and only six were people of color -- making for a guest list that was 91 percent male and 93 percent white. Wolf Blitzer Reports was hardly a model of diversity either; its guests were 86 percent male and 93 percent white.

Special Report's guests who were women or people of color were strikingly homogenous in ideology. Seven of the show's eight female guests were either conservative or Republican, although women in general tend to be less conservative and more Democratic than men. Although African-Americans and Latinos show an even more pronounced progressive tilt, five of six people of color appearing on the show were either conservative or Republican; the sixth was an Iraqi opposition leader championed by congressional Republicans. (On Wolf Blitzer Reports, nine of 15 female guests were conservative or Republican; four out of five of the show's American guests who were people of color were non-conservative.)

The fact that the study included the beginning of a new Republican administration may excuse a slight tilt toward Republican guests. But at a time when the Senate had a 50/50 split and the White House was won with less than a plurality of the popular vote, Special Report's 50 Republicans to 6 Democrats reflects not news judgment, but partisan allegiance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dragonspirit
post Jun 20 2005, 06:32 AM
Post #35


Still the Highlightest of the Sitest
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,440
Joined: 21-August 02
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 150



Makeup of the guests does not indicate a bias, as first of all there are currently more Republicans in government than Democrats.

What's more, as many liberals boycott Foxnews, it's natural the numbers of quality guests of the left willing to appear on the station would be less.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
necrolyte
post Jun 20 2005, 06:34 AM
Post #36


a playa hater
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 16,544
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



Ya one NPR show in 1989 V a long standing trend.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dragonspirit
post Jun 20 2005, 06:40 AM
Post #37


Still the Highlightest of the Sitest
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,440
Joined: 21-August 02
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 150



What long standing trend?

Oh, and one example?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbo...b20031022.shtml

QUOTE
Last week, NPR's own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR's talk programming. The daily program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" -- a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature and also politics -- airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain. Gross recently became a hot topic on journalism Web sites for first having a friendly, giggly interview with "satirist" Al Franken, promoting his obnoxious screed against conservatives on Sept. 3, and then on Oct. 8, unloading an accusatory, hostile interview on Bill O'Reilly's show. She pressed the Fox host to respond to the obnoxious attacks of Franken and other critics. Dvorkin ruled: "Unfortunately, the (O'Reilly) interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias ... by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."


QUOTE
Reporter Mike Shuster was intent on driving home the theme that the Bush foreign policy may (read: we hope) one day be analyzed as an utter failure. His three primary, supposedly nonpartisan "experts" were Ivo Daalder, a member of Clinton's National Security Council; Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign; and John Mearshimer, a regular critic of Bush foreign policy who argued in Foreign Policy magazine that Iraq should have remained under "vigilant containment," which we could also describe as maintaining a murderous tyrant in power. Their controversial views and Clinton connections were not developed by NPR


QUOTE
On Oct. 18, NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg pronounced from her regular panelist perch on the TV show "Inside Washington" that General Jerry Boykin, who sermonized in Christian churches with the shocking, less-than-Unitarian message that Christianity is true and other creeds are false, should be fired.

Well, that's not the way it came out. First, Totenberg said Boykin's remarks were "seriously bad stuff," and then she said, "I hope he's not long for this world." Host Gordon Peterson joked, "What is this, The Sopranos?" Withdrawing to damage-control mode, Totenberg said she didn't mean she hoped he would die, just that he shouldn't last long "in his job."

But it's Totenberg who ought to fear for her job with these outbreaks of hate speech. Totenberg used this very same TV show to wish in 1995 that if the "Good Lord" knew justice, Senator Jesse Helms will "get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."


http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/20...er-example.html

QUOTE
The failure to ratify a European constitution could also affect trans-Atlantic relations. Many European analysts suspect there's a sense of relief in some American circles -- those that fear a stronger Europe could evolve into a counterweight to U.S. power, and those who prefer a less united continent, where Washington can pick and chose its allies, as it did in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. (Bold added)

America didn't pick and choose European allies in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

America worked hard to build an alliance that would include all European countries. Most joined.

Even those European countries that didn't join the alliance -- principally France and Germany -- acknowledge America wanted them to be part of it.

So how can NPR go ahead and tell us of an America that "can pick and chose its allies, as it did in the lead-up to the war in Iraq?"

NPR's claim is leftist and false.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006657

QUOTE
When Fox bested other networks in ratings during the Republican National Convention, Ms. Gladstone said: "So how do you explain the success of Fox News this week? Simply that the converted were being gathered in front of the electric fireplace." (It is impossible to imagine such a comment being directed at CNN or any other network for a seemingly Democrats-related ratings bump.) Ms. Gladstone nurses a particular distaste for Fox personages, most notably Bill O'Reilly. In February 2003, she sneered, on no compelling evidence, that the Fox pundit was "willing to attack families of the victims of 9/11 in his pursuit of the war." Fair and balanced media criticism this was not.
Still, at least it was media criticism. This is rarely a given with "On the Media." Even more than barking at Fox, the show relishes attacking the Bush administration. When mainstream media outlets scored the president's speech at the GOP convention, Ms. Gladstone, in a revealing burst of on-air candor, cheered their instincts: "I don't know where this new knife-wielding impulse comes from--maybe testosterone or guilt--maybe it was all the free massages the media got at the convention. I only know--I like it."

Similarly, when Dan Rather came under fire for using fraudulent evidence to cast aspersions at President Bush's service in the National Guard, host Bob Garfield rallied to the anchor's defense. Mr. Garfield stressed that "evidence of military dereliction by a future war president is also news." Of the president's visit to Baghdad in December 2003, Ms. Gladstone insisted that "a number of observers see it as yet another taxpayer-subsidized PR stunt by President Bush." There was little doubting that the hosts of "On the Media" were among them.

When President Bush held a press conference on Social Security several weeks ago, he touched off a barrage of criticism. But the commentary of Mr. Garfield had a distinctive edge. What riled him was less the content of Mr. Bush's words than the composition of his audience. In Mr. Garfield's estimation, this was a "vain and bizarrely deferential press corps" whose members were "not so much being journalists as playing ones on TV." They had failed miserably, in his view, to contest "the president's 70-minute political commercial." A first-time listener to "On The Media"--wrongly assuming a fair treatment of such matters--might have been forgiven for thinking that the press had been giving Mr. Bush a free pass on Social Security reform.


QUOTE
"Over the past four years, we have received mail from many listeners impugning our objectivity--mostly charging that we were biased against the president. After reviewing our four year record, we readily admit that we can detect an increasingly critical tone."


QUOTE
NPR "comes under attack quite frequently for its apparently left-wing bias," he explained, "but most of these criticisms come from media organizations that are openly conservative. So I take those kinds of criticisms with a certain amount of salt." Mr. Dvorkin also noted that liberal bias, far from being a problem, should be seen as an occupational quirk among journalists: "There is some kind of liberal empathy on the part of some journalists, because their curiosity about how other people live tends to involve a certain liberal stance," he said.
An incident this week inadvertently revealed the reflexive character of this "curiosity." Tom Magliozzi, co-host of the NPR staple "Car Talk," described President Bush as what the Washington Post termed an "unprintable vulgarity." NPR spokeswoman Jenny Lawhorn offered the classic defense: "I'd like to point out that 'Car Talk' is editorially independent." How comforting.


This post has been edited by Dragonspirit: Jun 20 2005, 06:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
miltonfriedman
post Jun 20 2005, 12:05 PM
Post #38


tenured. can't touch me.
*********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 10,273
Joined: 8-September 02
Member No.: 164



Those programs are not NPR news, with exception of the very first post you provided. Do NPR programs show a bias against Bush? Hell Yes. Does NPR NEWS show a serious bias? No. And I think I have made it plainly clear when I was speaking of NPR NEWS. That excludes 'Fresh Air", or "On the Media" (with Gladstone), or a plethora of other fine programs that I listen to.

Grasping for straws, DS? Another ignorance revealed.

Now that it has been confirmed you neither listen to NPR nor are familiar with its operation, this will again be filed under 'Zell Miller is a moderate' argument.

QUOTE
Of course, you are yet to prove that Fox is biased at all even though I have demonstrated NPRs obvious bias.


You pretty much got us ONE story in its 30-odd years of existence that showed a mistake in reporting (which can be attributable to internal bias, but it is not a direct link). And that alone is now considered a proof? Oh well, since the bar is extremely low, here is one about Fox News (seriously, we need to prove it to DS that Fox News is slanted?):

QUOTE
January 16, 2004

The controversy over comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler in two ads submitted to the anti-Bush ad contest run by the online activist group MoveOn.org says less about the state of left discourse than it does about the double standards at Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

News Corp's Fox News Channel started the controversy on January 4, airing Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie's complaint about the Bush/Hitler comparison. "That's the kind of tactics we're seeing on the left today in support of these Democratic presidential candidates," Gillespie charged, calling such tactics "despicable."

The whole next day (1/5/04), this was a major story on Fox News Channel. John Gibson asked, "What about the hating Bush movement, the MoveOn.org and George Soros sponsoring these ads that compare Bush to Hitler?"--before being corrected that the ads were not sponsored by MoveOn (or Soros, a funder of the group), and were taken down in response to complaints.

Sean Hannity accused a guest: "You guys on the left are going so far over the cliff. You're making comparisons to the president and Adolf Hitler." Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said on Hannity's show, "This is the hateful, vitriolic rhetoric that has become the Howard Dean Democratic Party." Bill O'Reilly cited the ads as evidence that "right now in America the Democratic party is being held captive by the far, far left."

It should be noted that however hyperbolic, comparisons to Hitler and fascism are not unknown in the American political debate. Rush Limbaugh has routinely called women's rights advocates "femi-Nazis," and references to "Hitlery Clinton" are a staple of right-wing talk radio. Republican power-broker Grover Norquist on NPR (10/2/03) compared inheritance taxes to the Holocaust.

Closer to home for Fox News, on the very same day that Gibson, Hannity and O'Reilly were talking about the Hitler/Bush comparison as evidence of the left's extremism, a column ran in the New York Post that described Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean as a follower of Josef Goebbels, referred to him as "Herr Howie," accused him of "looking for his Leni Riefenstahl," called his supporters "the Internet Gestapo" and compared them to "Hitler's brownshirts."

The New York Post, like Fox News Channel, is part of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's conservative media empire. And this piece wasn't just put up on the Post's website as part of a contest--it was written by a right-wing commentator who frequently appears in the Post's pages, Ralph Peters, and selected for the op-ed page by the Post's own editors. So it's more than a little embarrassing that these blatant Nazi comparisons were being made in the Post while the paper's corporate sibling was denouncing such comparisons as a sign of derangement.

So what did the Murdoch organization do? Fox appears to have completely ignored the Post's own Nazi analogies--there's no reference to the column whatsoever in the cable channel's transcripts. And the New York Post seems to have sent the column down the memory hole--clicking on a link that used to go to Peters' story gives you a "page not found" message, and the text isn't found in the Nexis media database. (Ironically, in light of this Orwellian disappearing act, the column also compared Dean to Big Brother.)

In the interview that started the brouhaha, the RNC's Gillespie was asked if he would oppose similar attacks on Democrats. He replied: "If they stoop to the kind of despicable tactic like morphing a candidate into Adolf Hitler, yes, absolutely, I will tell you right here on the air. Have me back if any organization does that, I would repudiate it."

The same organization that interviewed him did that, through another of its branches, the very next day. So far, Fox News hasn't had him back on to condemn the New York Post.

http://www.fair.org/activism/hitler-ads.html


DS: Edited flames

This post has been edited by Dragonspirit: Jun 20 2005, 03:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
necrolyte
post Jun 20 2005, 04:16 PM
Post #39


a playa hater
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 16,544
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



Terry Gross's interview with Bill O'Rielly was hardly evident of liberal bias. Bill O'Rielly is just widely known as being a large crybaby who gets massively worked up every time he hears any accusations against his "good name".

The way I think of it, having him on the air and asking him serious questions while throwing silly softballs to Franken shows that O'Rielly has more credibility as someone with political opinions. Credibility which he subsequently looses when he bitches about unfair treatment by other pundits on a regular basis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dragonspirit
post Jun 20 2005, 04:22 PM
Post #40


Still the Highlightest of the Sitest
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,440
Joined: 21-August 02
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 150



QUOTE
The controversy over comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler in two ads submitted to the anti-Bush ad contest run by the online activist group MoveOn.org says less about the state of left discourse than it does about the double standards at Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

News Corp's Fox News Channel started the controversy on January 4, airing Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie's complaint about the Bush/Hitler comparison. "That's the kind of tactics we're seeing on the left today in support of these Democratic presidential candidates," Gillespie charged, calling such tactics "despicable."

The whole next day (1/5/04), this was a major story on Fox News Channel. John Gibson asked, "What about the hating Bush movement, the MoveOn.org and George Soros sponsoring these ads that compare Bush to Hitler?"--before being corrected that the ads were not sponsored by MoveOn (or Soros, a funder of the group), and were taken down in response to complaints.


The outright bias (not to mention obvious wrongness) of the opening paragraph aside, "fair" also is lying by omission. While MoveOn did not sponsor said ads, it DID host them on it's website for IT'S contest.

Fair of course is anything but.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
miltonfriedman
post Jun 20 2005, 04:29 PM
Post #41


tenured. can't touch me.
*********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 10,273
Joined: 8-September 02
Member No.: 164



QUOTE (Dragonspirit @ Jun 20 2005, 11:22 AM)
The outright bias (not to mention obvious wrongness) of the opening paragraph aside, "fair" also is lying by omission.  While MoveOn did not sponsor said ads, it DID host them on it's website for IT'S contest.

Fair of course is anything but.
*

Wait, wait, let me get this straight. You said there is an omission on some parts, but did not EVEN ADDRESS the bias within the Fox News Corp. that the article brought up. Your nice 'cut-n'-paste' was, oh, what do you call it, 'lying by omission'?

Your defense was so blatantly bad that I cannot even sarcastically say 'nice try'.

Oh, btw, be sure to read your own 'proof' next time before bringing it here. To wit:
An incident this week inadvertently revealed the reflexive character of this "curiosity." Tom Magliozzi, co-host of the NPR staple "Car Talk," described President Bush as what the Washington Post termed an "unprintable vulgarity." NPR spokeswoman Jenny Lawhorn offered the classic defense: "I'd like to point out that 'Car Talk' is editorially independent." How comforting.

First of all, people are DISCOMFORTED by a political comment made by a radio host of a CAR MAINTANENCE program? DS, you are disturbed by a car mechanic's political commentary? Seriously?

Really, who here think NPR is actively influencing the comments made by the Click and Clack and the Tapper Brothers on CAR TALK?!

This post has been edited by miltonfriedman: Jun 20 2005, 04:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dragonspirit
post Jun 22 2005, 05:06 AM
Post #42


Still the Highlightest of the Sitest
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,440
Joined: 21-August 02
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 150



Check this out --

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/The.../tomlinson.html

QUOTE
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), ranking member of a House panel on telecommunications, called at a rally yesterday in support of public broadcasting for the resignation of Kenneth Tomlinson.

“In his zeal to impose his own view of ‘political balance,’” said Markey, “Ken Tomlinson has lost sight of his core mission — to protect the children’s-television network of the Public Broadcasting System of America. And he should resign from his position as the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting” (CPB).

Tomlinson has come under fire recently for hiring an ombudsman to gauge perceived biases in PBS shows such as “Now,” previously hosted by Bill Moyers. Liberals say such an action is tantamount to government censorship.

Markey also called on Tomlinson to resign as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the Voice of America, Alhurra and other government-sponsored international broadcasting operations.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) echoed Markey’s sentiment, calling Tomlinson “a propagandist.”

At the rally in front of the Cannon House Office Building, House and Senate Democrats presented Congress with more than 1 million signatures calling for the restoration of full funding for public broadcasting. The fiscal year 2006 labor-HHS-education appropriations bill sent to the House floor for debate this week mandates cuts in excess of $100 million for public television and radio, including a 25 percent cut for the CPB.

Joined by stars of PBS children’s programming, including “Clifford the Big Red Dog,” “Maya & Miguel” and “Between the Lions,” Democrats hailed the educational nature of public broadcasting, especially in contrast to the content of commercial broadcasts.

Markey said that, while PBS stations “offer up to 12 hours per day of nutritious, beneficial children’s programming,” commercial broadcast networks program shows like “Jerry Springer,” “Montel” “Maury,” “Judge Hatchett” and “Divorce Court.”

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) agreed that commercial networks are not providing sufficient educational programming, noting that, according to the National Television Violence Study, “children are exposed to six acts of violence and hour, and violence on the so-called commercial ‘children’s shows’ is on the rise.”

“The idea of taking away the money for children is particularly offensive,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), founder of the Bipartisan Congressional Public Broadcasting Caucus, emphasized that the cuts would hurt what he sees as a unifying force in the country.

“Today, because of the multiplicity of choices, we really don’t have that national voice that once united us,” Blumenauer said. “NPR, PBS are as close to a national voice as America has any more.”

Blumenauer added, “The areas that will be denied public broadcasting services if this scheme is allowed to go forward will be areas of rural America, small-town America, where it’s more expensive to broadcast and where there isn’t the population base to make up the difference.”

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said, “We have a message today for the Republicans: don’t mess with public broadcasting.”

Tomlinson and a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee could not be reached for comment by press time.



Hopefully NPR will follow suit. Hiring an ombudsman sounds like a good step toward restoring balance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
necrolyte
post Jun 22 2005, 05:32 AM
Post #43


a playa hater
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 16,544
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



Agreed. Looking for NPR bias from Car Talk is digging too deep, and is showing you to be a partisan on a witch hunt. Them making a joke about Bush does not make them rabid liberals. They make fun of a variety of people including one another, and if you listen to them for serious political commentary you should get your head checked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dragonspirit
post Jun 23 2005, 06:30 PM
Post #44


Still the Highlightest of the Sitest
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,440
Joined: 21-August 02
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 150



How the worm turns!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_en_...new_president_3

QUOTE
WASHINGTON - The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, already embroiled in controversy over allegations of a liberal-leaning bias in PBS programming, chose a former Republican Party co-chairman Thursday as its president and chief executive.

Patricia S. Harrison, the assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs, was selected following three days of closed-door meetings by the corporation's board of directors.

Democratic lawmakers last week urged the CPB to put off choosing a new president, citing concerns about political interference by the corporation's chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson. A Republican, Tomlinson, has been critical of public affairs programming at PBS, alleging that it's too liberal.

In a letter to Tomlinson, Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.,    Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and others expressed dismay at the expected appointment of Harrison.

"We find it astonishing that Ms. Harrison, given her former prominence as a partisan political figure, would even be considered as a candidate for a job that demands that the occupant be non-political," the senators said in their letter.

The corporation, which was set up by Congress in 1967 to shield public broadcasting from political influence, funnels federal dollars to PBS, National Public Radio and hundreds of public radio and television stations.

In a statement, PBS said it looked forward to working with Harrison. It added: "We have every expectation that she will execute her responsibilities with nonpartisan integrity."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
miltonfriedman
post Jun 23 2005, 07:25 PM
Post #45


tenured. can't touch me.
*********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 10,273
Joined: 8-September 02
Member No.: 164



QUOTE (Dragonspirit @ Jun 23 2005, 01:30 PM)


This is expected. Tomlinson has made many political appointments before stepping down. The Board of CPB is now filled with those who had ties with both political parties instead of nonpartisan figures. Funny thing is, DS didn't care about how CPB has made overt political nominations due to Tomlinson's influence.

A cautious and a cheering news: the cuts are likely to be restored in the Senate. DS=pwn3d by the Republicans.

This post has been edited by miltonfriedman: Jun 23 2005, 07:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shankar
post Jun 24 2005, 03:00 AM
Post #46


Working dog
*******

Group: JFTD
Posts: 2,858
Joined: 19-August 02
From: USA
Member No.: 144



Don't listen to NPR, but PBS is a great educational resource for our youth and others and should recieve funding much like our schools do. Certain shows on PBS do have a policial bias, but they put forth both sides, such as Bill Moyers on the left and Tucker Carlson on the right. Although, imo it wouldn't hurt PBS much if they started having some more commercials.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
miltonfriedman
post Jun 24 2005, 04:21 AM
Post #47


tenured. can't touch me.
*********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 10,273
Joined: 8-September 02
Member No.: 164



Just heard that CPB hired a guy to listen to Bill Moyer's program 24/7 to catalogue his liberal bias. Seriously, has Bush and his cronies lost their minds? Could they try to at least humor us and hide their intention to turn CPB into a Conservative organ?

This post has been edited by miltonfriedman: Jun 24 2005, 04:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dragonspirit
post Jun 24 2005, 04:25 AM
Post #48


Still the Highlightest of the Sitest
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,440
Joined: 21-August 02
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 150



I posted the article regarding the hiring of an ombudsman.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
miltonfriedman
post Jun 24 2005, 04:29 AM
Post #49


tenured. can't touch me.
*********

Group: JFTD
Posts: 10,273
Joined: 8-September 02
Member No.: 164



didnt bother to read your stuff. and I thought any rational person would think hiring a person just to catalogue one or two specific shows is tentamount to insanity if not wasteful... but then again, you thought a car mechanic's opinion is reflective of the culture in NPR news.

This post has been edited by miltonfriedman: Jun 24 2005, 04:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2017 - 10:25 AM