4 ms·
NPR and PBS seem to have no problem with balanced and insightful journalism, despite being publically funded. Many people accuse public broadcasting of having a
by hooande 16y ago
NPR and PBS seem to have no problem with balanced and insightful journalism, despite being publically funded. Many people accuse public broadcasting of having a liberal bias, but in my years of listening I haven't heard that much if at all. They give fair time to all sides and they rarely favor any administration. I find it very hard to believe that public radio and television are a waste of taxpayer money.
For profit news may be in trouble, but journalism will be okay. Most people don't want informative journalism from foreign bureaus...they want confirmation of their biases from Fox News or MSNBC.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- bokonist 16y agoMany people accuse public broadcasting of having a liberal bias, but in my years of listening I haven't heard that much if at all. The liberal bias of PBS is a matter of what topics they emphasize and which facts they select. One small example of many - Frontline has done several documentaries about atrocities committed by American soldiers. But it has never done a documentary about how ultra-strict (by any standard, of any war, ever) rules of engagement have caused the death of soldiers. I could come up with dozens of similar examples. The only way to realize the extent of PBS's left-wing bias, is to actually read intelligent right wing sources, like Powerline, View from the Right, or Unqualified Reservations. Otherwise you'll never know the stories and facts that you are missing.
- danbmil99 16y agoThis. PBS & NPR's selection bias is much more subtle and well-crafted than FOX's bang-you-on-the-head agenda, but it's there for anyone with a wide range of sources to see. Personally I've always felt publicly financed media is just a bad idea. The WSJ is just looking for a way to survive, and is willing to throw their supposed libertarian/free-market principles under a bus to do so. Can't blame them given that there's been public funding for liberally-slanted news for decades.
- jsz0 16y agoThe Wounded Platoon and Behind Taliban Lines both touch on the subject. I agree the engagement rules are worthy of having its own program but bias by admission of coverage is a tricky subject. They only have so many hours of programs they can produce. I can recall in recent months that College, Inc, The Quake, Obama's War and Obama's Deal were critical of the administration at times too.
- tkahn6 16y agoAccording to Wikipedia, the PBS Newshour has a 'pro-establishment' bias [1]. [1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_NewsHour#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_NewsHour#Criticism]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Gormo 16y agoNPR and PBS are independent nonprofits that get most of their funding from private donations, and are in no way subject to government oversight. Only a small fraction of NPR's and PBS's funding come from government, and most of that doesn't even come from the government directly, but from another nonprofit, the CPB, which in turn receive federal grants. Whatever government influence is present in the existing public broadcasters is negligible and is entirely diluted by the influence of civil society in general. The article is pretty vague as to what it's proposing, but it seems to be suggesting much more direct political funding of the press, and not just broadcasters, but newspapers. More importantly, the author is suggesting that the government should consider funding the press because without new sources of funding, the established press will become extinct. In other words, he's advocating setting up a system in which the press is dependent upon political funding for its survival. This would be an unprecedented situation, and would generate conflicts of interest unlike anything we have now.