6 ms·

But PBS is already on the internet.. I love public media and have worked in the public media industry, and what I think what we really need is PBS for conserva

by Mizza 5y ago

But PBS is already on the internet.. I love public media and have worked in the public media industry, and what I think what we really need is PBS for conservatives. Can you name a _single_ conservative PBS/NPR host or program? Was there a _single_ time in the past 5 years they gave any legitimate consideration to the viewpoints that 50% of the country hold, or acknowledged the material conflict underlying their ideology? It's no wonder that a) Republicans are constantly pushing to cut public media funding and, more worryingly, b) that conservative-minded people end up going down the Alex Jones/QAnon/Alt-Right/Whatever rabbit hole, due to the total void of any rational discussion or intelligent and honest media leadership for the conservative and working classes.

0des 5y ago
I hope some day the internet isn't separated by political factions, it's a much bigger place than just the American political system.
JohnWhigham 5y ago
Yup, this article is pretty hilarious and is just another example of how mainstream media continues to stick their noses up at any consideration of alternative viewpoints. PBS has largely followed the herd and has become yet another liberal lifestyle outlet that caters only to their liberal audience. How about we fix that first before talking about something else?
- AnonymousOne 5y ago
  ^Low-quality comment. PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased source of information. You think it's a "liberal lifestyle outlet", but what evidence do you have to support this claim? What is your unbiased alternative? Maybe you should watch this series ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4aNmdL3Hr0&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtN07XYqqWSKpPrtNDiCHTzU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4aNmdL3Hr0&list=PL8dPuuaLjX...
  - toomim 5y ago
    > PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased source of information. Not quite -- PBS is rated reliable but biased left: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
- bloaf 5y ago
  Studies that looked at bias in the media found PBS to be the most centrist of the major news organizations. People on the extremes of the political spectrum see PBS as biased against them, as they would any centrist organization.
  - kristopolous 5y ago
    Centrism is also an ideology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
  - toomim 5y ago
    Actually, PBS skews left in the adfontes study, which is the most detailed one I know: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
    - Mizza 5y ago
      Wow, this chart perfectly illustrates my original point. There is a great gaping hole in the upper right of that graph - there is no high-quality, right-skewed news, even though this is where I would assume just over half of the bulk of Americans would actually place their political beliefs. There's nothing of significance in between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, after which there is a steep cliff towards Breitbart and all of the horrors that come after it.
      - Rapzid 5y ago
        Many possibilities for why this is apparently the case though. Could be a miss-match in who people identity/affiliate themselves with and where they actually land. Lot of talk of the "window" having moved in the passed decade. Possible middle-left bias ate up a bunch of those who would have been middle-right? A lot of moderate right pundits have landed at left biased orgs over the past years. Would be interesting to see what this chart would have looked like 15-20 years ago.
        5y ago
- duxup 5y ago
  What I find strange is that the only media outlets that actually cover local rural topics in detail is my local NPR station. Often they're lumped together as "yet another liberal" with PBS .... but they're more and more often the only ones covering those ares / giving voice to folks out there media wise.
- kaliali 5y ago
  PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
- libhack-hn 5y ago
  PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
  - l33t2328 5y ago
    Why are you copy pasting this comment everywhere?
tekromancr 5y ago
It's almost like Alex Jones/qanon/alt-right/whatever are the logical conclusions of the conservative ideology.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  There is no “the conservative ideology” – unless you define the phrase in a way that makes your statement a tautology.
- Mizza 5y ago
  It would be equally as foolish to say the logical conclusion of liberalism is Stalinism. The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any conclusions at all.
  - d6ba56c039d9 5y ago
    > The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any conclusions at all. I'd say that there are certain flavors of political thought that have an unfolding utopia built into them. With enough of XXXism, an optimal state is reached. It's an exercise for the reader to determine which sorts of philosophy of human organization have that notion built-in.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Either your vagueness is intended to make the point that "both sides are just as bad as each other" (which is unhelpful because there are more than two sides to politics), or you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy. Let me therefore try to clear up that ambiguity by offering a solution to your exercise: The most dangerous political philosophy is ethno-nationalism.
      - d6ba56c039d9 5y ago
        >you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy. I'm simply making the point that some political systems imply moving towards an ideal goal, others do not. It isn't like monarchies (by far the most common setup) are moving towards some ideal beyond stability. Communism most certainly was viewed as a work in progress. (side note: I'm sick of the term 'dog whistling'. That term itself implies a belief system.)
crazy_horse 5y ago
Their history shows tend to only be political if you perceive different viewpoints as political slant. The hosts undoubtedly are liberal elites, but I think they strive for objectivity more than most media.
yetipetty 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program)
setpatchaddress 5y ago
Utter total fucking bullshit. (a) You seem to be under the impression that Republicans would sit still for a reasonable network with "conservative" opinion viewpoints. (That was the original Fox News pitch.) What makes you think so? How does that network avoid turning into Fox News over time? The outrage and fear mongering is why Fox News gets massive ratings. (b) You seem to believe the 'the media is liberal' trope, and that's wrong. It's always been wrong. Can you name an example? For fuck's sake, the press is largely responsible for depressing Gore's turnout in 2000, and Dukakis's in 1988. (Respectively, the crimes were being boring and looking goofy in a helmet. They made fun of them on the air, during ostensible news programs.) What exactly do you think conservatives actually wanted that they weren't getting from the newscasts at the time? I don't think the anchors lead with "Heil Satan" on NBC Nightly News. (c) Yes, Fox News is still a huge problem. https://jabberwocking.com/yes-fox-news-deserves-the-blame-for-american-rage/ https://jabberwocking.com/yes-fox-news-deserves-the-blame-fo... for a discussion. (d) Fox News and the myth of the liberal media both exist because Richard Nixon and his followers were unable to take legitimate criticism. https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/why-fox-news-exists https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/why-fox-news-exists
- Mizza 5y ago
  I don't think this comment really needs to be addressed, but since you're making my point for me: public media doesn't need to chase ratings, and thus doesn't need to chase outrage, allowing for more nuanced and in-depth reporting.
  - CamTin 5y ago
    If you don't chase ratings, you're not chasing viewers, and you're not having much impact on discourse. The current toxic sludge of cable news sprouted up decades after public broadcasting had been around.
    - methodin 5y ago
      Why is having an impact on discourse important? It should not be the job of any media to alter arguments, viewpoints etc... it's job is to provide the facts for people to make their own opinions. The fact that we think media should be able to shape opinion is really the main problem here. Cable news chases profits and profits come from viewership which gets us into that negative feedback loop. Take away money and a lot of problems disappear.
ewhanley 5y ago
I am admittedly a big fan of PBS, so maybe I'm blind to it, but I don't see the bias. I can't name a single conservative show, I suppose, but I can't name a single liberal show either. News and televisions don't have to have a political slant. I think we are all (in the US) too accustomed to opinionated news programming and are left searching for the bias when presented with plain information. PBS presents a lot of history and art. I wouldn't consider either of these politically charged in their presentation. Again, maybe I'm just missing it, but I watch a lot of PBS programming.
- libhack-hn 5y ago
  PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I can't name a single conservative show, I suppose, Firing Line[0] >but I can't name a single liberal show either. Frontline[1] The thing is that William F. Buckley, Jr. (who originated Firing Line), were he alive today, would be demonized as a RINO and closet socialist by those who claim the mantle of "conservative" today. Mostly because those who claim to be "conservative" aren't. Rather, many (not all) are radical reactionaries and not at all conservative. Feel free to disagree, but if you look at the policies and priorities of such conservatives as Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes, the only policy priorities that have been retained by those who currently claim to be conservative are support for big business, hatred of anything non-white, and bible-thumping morons. Everything else (small government, individual rights/liberty, equal opportunity, etc.) have fallen by the wayside. Feel free to disagree. Or don't and take the easy way out. But there's a reasonable and reasoned discussion to be had in that space. If you don't participate in that, the loss is yours. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(American_TV_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(American_TV_program...
technofiend 5y ago
NPR already airs opposing viewpoints regularly. I've heard them interview Republican senators and conservative commentators many times this year right alongside with people on the other side of the aisle. If you mean NPR needs to carve out some time dedicated to a particular political view, then perhaps your perception of them is the rest of the time they present an opposite view? In these highly politicized times perhaps it seems that way since people have trouble agreeing on things that are widely accepted and based on science, as one example. So any news that presents that as fact will naturally be dismissed as biased by anyone who disagrees. Personally I don't think it's really incumbent upon NPR to create more air time for that kind of disagreement; they should stick with the facts. People who disagree with fact-based journalism already have many other outlets and are (IHMO) disinclined to seek out anything that will challenge their views. Even so I daresay if someone is on a journey to find and listen to opposing viewpoints, the person who finds NPR to be a bastion of liberal values would be far more challenged by listening to Pacifica. If someone wants to really hear viewpoints left of center, they should try listening to Democracy Now for a week.
- Mizza 5y ago
  Maybe some of this is regional. I listen to WNYC from New York and WHYY from Philadelphia, maybe the coverage is different in other regions. To give some examples, Bob Garfield and Brian Lehrer were openly hostile towards Trump in such a way to disparage all of the people who voted for him, which was half of the country. Now, this isn't actually the thing I have a problem with, and I think I actually prefer it when hosts wear their hearts on their sleeves. But, you could never find the level of distain of Obama for his drone strikes, surveillance and massive wealth transfers to the rich that you could find of Trump for his racist demeanor, xenophobic immigration policies and massive wealth transfers to the rich. A lot of my opinion is from working on the inside. Public media in the US, at least in the urban areas where I worked, is staffed _exclusively_ by Warren-type Democrats. They really believe that there is a correct view of the world, and that it is to be socially liberal and economically conservative - manifest through complex policy. Any other opinions - notably Bernie-ism or Trump-ism, are populist and to be dismissed as unserious.
libhack-hn 5y ago
PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE

by Mizza 5y ago

0des 5y ago

I hope some day the internet isn't separated by political factions, it's a much bigger place than just the American political system.

JohnWhigham 5y ago

Yup, this article is pretty hilarious and is just another example of how mainstream media continues to stick their noses up at any consideration of alternative viewpoints. PBS has largely followed the herd and has become yet another liberal lifestyle outlet that caters only to their liberal audience. How about we fix that first before talking about something else?

AnonymousOne 5y ago
^Low-quality comment. PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased source of information. You think it's a "liberal lifestyle outlet", but what evidence do you have to support this claim? What is your unbiased alternative? Maybe you should watch this series ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4aNmdL3Hr0&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtN07XYqqWSKpPrtNDiCHTzU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4aNmdL3Hr0&list=PL8dPuuaLjX...
- toomim 5y ago
  > PBS is consistently rated as a reliable and unbiased source of information. Not quite -- PBS is rated reliable but biased left: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
bloaf 5y ago
Studies that looked at bias in the media found PBS to be the most centrist of the major news organizations. People on the extremes of the political spectrum see PBS as biased against them, as they would any centrist organization.
- kristopolous 5y ago
  Centrism is also an ideology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
- toomim 5y ago
  Actually, PBS skews left in the adfontes study, which is the most detailed one I know: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
  - Mizza 5y ago
    Wow, this chart perfectly illustrates my original point. There is a great gaping hole in the upper right of that graph - there is no high-quality, right-skewed news, even though this is where I would assume just over half of the bulk of Americans would actually place their political beliefs. There's nothing of significance in between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, after which there is a steep cliff towards Breitbart and all of the horrors that come after it.
    - Rapzid 5y ago
      Many possibilities for why this is apparently the case though. Could be a miss-match in who people identity/affiliate themselves with and where they actually land. Lot of talk of the "window" having moved in the passed decade. Possible middle-left bias ate up a bunch of those who would have been middle-right? A lot of moderate right pundits have landed at left biased orgs over the past years. Would be interesting to see what this chart would have looked like 15-20 years ago.
      - 5y ago
duxup 5y ago
What I find strange is that the only media outlets that actually cover local rural topics in detail is my local NPR station. Often they're lumped together as "yet another liberal" with PBS .... but they're more and more often the only ones covering those ares / giving voice to folks out there media wise.
kaliali 5y ago
PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
libhack-hn 5y ago
PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
- l33t2328 5y ago
  Why are you copy pasting this comment everywhere?

tekromancr 5y ago

It's almost like Alex Jones/qanon/alt-right/whatever are the logical conclusions of the conservative ideology.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
There is no “the conservative ideology” – unless you define the phrase in a way that makes your statement a tautology.
Mizza 5y ago
It would be equally as foolish to say the logical conclusion of liberalism is Stalinism. The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any conclusions at all.
- d6ba56c039d9 5y ago
  > The underlying fallacy is the idea that politics has any conclusions at all. I'd say that there are certain flavors of political thought that have an unfolding utopia built into them. With enough of XXXism, an optimal state is reached. It's an exercise for the reader to determine which sorts of philosophy of human organization have that notion built-in.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Either your vagueness is intended to make the point that "both sides are just as bad as each other" (which is unhelpful because there are more than two sides to politics), or you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy. Let me therefore try to clear up that ambiguity by offering a solution to your exercise: The most dangerous political philosophy is ethno-nationalism.
    - d6ba56c039d9 5y ago
      >you're dogwhistling that it's "the other side" that has the terrible philosophy. I'm simply making the point that some political systems imply moving towards an ideal goal, others do not. It isn't like monarchies (by far the most common setup) are moving towards some ideal beyond stability. Communism most certainly was viewed as a work in progress. (side note: I'm sick of the term 'dog whistling'. That term itself implies a belief system.)

crazy_horse 5y ago

Their history shows tend to only be political if you perceive different viewpoints as political slant. The hosts undoubtedly are liberal elites, but I think they strive for objectivity more than most media.

yetipetty 5y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program)

setpatchaddress 5y ago

Utter total fucking bullshit. (a) You seem to be under the impression that Republicans would sit still for a reasonable network with "conservative" opinion viewpoints. (That was the original Fox News pitch.) What makes you think so? How does that network avoid turning into Fox News over time? The outrage and fear mongering is why Fox News gets massive ratings. (b) You seem to believe the 'the media is liberal' trope, and that's wrong. It's always been wrong. Can you name an example? For fuck's sake, the press is largely responsible for depressing Gore's turnout in 2000, and Dukakis's in 1988. (Respectively, the crimes were being boring and looking goofy in a helmet. They made fun of them on the air, during ostensible news programs.) What exactly do you think conservatives actually wanted that they weren't getting from the newscasts at the time? I don't think the anchors lead with "Heil Satan" on NBC Nightly News. (c) Yes, Fox News is still a huge problem. https://jabberwocking.com/yes-fox-news-deserves-the-blame-for-american-rage/ https://jabberwocking.com/yes-fox-news-deserves-the-blame-fo... for a discussion. (d) Fox News and the myth of the liberal media both exist because Richard Nixon and his followers were unable to take legitimate criticism. https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/why-fox-news-exists https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/why-fox-news-exists

Mizza 5y ago
I don't think this comment really needs to be addressed, but since you're making my point for me: public media doesn't need to chase ratings, and thus doesn't need to chase outrage, allowing for more nuanced and in-depth reporting.
- CamTin 5y ago
  If you don't chase ratings, you're not chasing viewers, and you're not having much impact on discourse. The current toxic sludge of cable news sprouted up decades after public broadcasting had been around.
  - methodin 5y ago
    Why is having an impact on discourse important? It should not be the job of any media to alter arguments, viewpoints etc... it's job is to provide the facts for people to make their own opinions. The fact that we think media should be able to shape opinion is really the main problem here. Cable news chases profits and profits come from viewership which gets us into that negative feedback loop. Take away money and a lot of problems disappear.

ewhanley 5y ago

I am admittedly a big fan of PBS, so maybe I'm blind to it, but I don't see the bias. I can't name a single conservative show, I suppose, but I can't name a single liberal show either. News and televisions don't have to have a political slant. I think we are all (in the US) too accustomed to opinionated news programming and are left searching for the bias when presented with plain information. PBS presents a lot of history and art. I wouldn't consider either of these politically charged in their presentation. Again, maybe I'm just missing it, but I watch a lot of PBS programming.

libhack-hn 5y ago
PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE
nobody9999 5y ago
>I can't name a single conservative show, I suppose, Firing Line[0] >but I can't name a single liberal show either. Frontline[1] The thing is that William F. Buckley, Jr. (who originated Firing Line), were he alive today, would be demonized as a RINO and closet socialist by those who claim the mantle of "conservative" today. Mostly because those who claim to be "conservative" aren't. Rather, many (not all) are radical reactionaries and not at all conservative. Feel free to disagree, but if you look at the policies and priorities of such conservatives as Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes, the only policy priorities that have been retained by those who currently claim to be conservative are support for big business, hatred of anything non-white, and bible-thumping morons. Everything else (small government, individual rights/liberty, equal opportunity, etc.) have fallen by the wayside. Feel free to disagree. Or don't and take the easy way out. But there's a reasonable and reasoned discussion to be had in that space. If you don't participate in that, the loss is yours. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_Line_(TV_program) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(American_TV_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(American_TV_program...

technofiend 5y ago

NPR already airs opposing viewpoints regularly. I've heard them interview Republican senators and conservative commentators many times this year right alongside with people on the other side of the aisle. If you mean NPR needs to carve out some time dedicated to a particular political view, then perhaps your perception of them is the rest of the time they present an opposite view? In these highly politicized times perhaps it seems that way since people have trouble agreeing on things that are widely accepted and based on science, as one example. So any news that presents that as fact will naturally be dismissed as biased by anyone who disagrees. Personally I don't think it's really incumbent upon NPR to create more air time for that kind of disagreement; they should stick with the facts. People who disagree with fact-based journalism already have many other outlets and are (IHMO) disinclined to seek out anything that will challenge their views. Even so I daresay if someone is on a journey to find and listen to opposing viewpoints, the person who finds NPR to be a bastion of liberal values would be far more challenged by listening to Pacifica. If someone wants to really hear viewpoints left of center, they should try listening to Democracy Now for a week.

Mizza 5y ago
Maybe some of this is regional. I listen to WNYC from New York and WHYY from Philadelphia, maybe the coverage is different in other regions. To give some examples, Bob Garfield and Brian Lehrer were openly hostile towards Trump in such a way to disparage all of the people who voted for him, which was half of the country. Now, this isn't actually the thing I have a problem with, and I think I actually prefer it when hosts wear their hearts on their sleeves. But, you could never find the level of distain of Obama for his drone strikes, surveillance and massive wealth transfers to the rich that you could find of Trump for his racist demeanor, xenophobic immigration policies and massive wealth transfers to the rich. A lot of my opinion is from working on the inside. Public media in the US, at least in the urban areas where I worked, is staffed _exclusively_ by Warren-type Democrats. They really believe that there is a correct view of the world, and that it is to be socially liberal and economically conservative - manifest through complex policy. Any other opinions - notably Bernie-ism or Trump-ism, are populist and to be dismissed as unserious.

libhack-hn 5y ago

PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller Incites Political Violence In Radical Left-Wing Agenda saying we need to throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings if Trump got back in office 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE