You are here

PBS fears conservative change in the works for CPB


mdoneil writes "The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is now dominated by Bush appointees. The CPB was created by congress in 1967. As a quango it is to act as a buffer between government authorities and broadcasters. For the first time the CPB has appointed monitors (2 veteran journalists) to screen content for bias.

PBS is all worked up over this and is calling it a potential violation of the First Amendment. Is this more liberal whinging? We report, you decide!

More can be found here.

N.B As I type this I am watching Tele-tubbies which is much better than the Stepfordp-like medicated tots on Barney."


"Late last week, CPB's board declined to renew the contract of its chief executive, Kathleen Cox, a veteran administrator at the agency. She was replaced by Ken Ferree, a Republican who had been a top adviser to Michael Powell, the former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Ferree appointment followed the dismissals or departures in recent months of at least three other senior CPB officials, all of whom had Democratic affiliations."

It's always gratifying to learn that having Republican appointments is worrisome, but packing a liberal or Democratic bias is no problem at all.

>It's always gratifying to learn that having Republican appointments is worrisome, but packing a liberal or Democratic bias is no problem at all.Darn straight. Next week we'll cover why having a physician practicing voodoo is worrisome, but having a scientific bias is no problem at all.It reminds me of the quote, "The difference between democratic journalists and republican journalists is that the former are journalists first while the latter are republican first." The same could likely be said of librarians.

I find it intriguing that Republicans consider the moves at CPB as providing balance. Does this mean that those same Republicans will be in favor of restoring the Fairness Doctrine for radio? After all, the airwaves belong to the public as well.

I really don't understand this post. Voodoo vs allopathic medicine?

Perhaps you could clarify your point. I think you are attempting to say that republicans cannot be objective. If that is your point I'll have to agree with the flamebait moniker and disagree with any claim you may have of insight.

It's perfectly clear. Republican appointments = voodoo, and Democrat appointments = competent, thoughtful, well researched science. No bias in that post.

Well, the -1 Flamebait, +1 Insightful was what I thought of Norma's post above. While intended as a troll, it actually is a valid point.Let me try a closer analogy. Which worries you more (a) public school students being taught the central and unifying principle of biology; or (b) public funding and promotion of religion? Like this one, many republican positions are not objective by definition.As with the phony media mentioned above, republicans have presented boldfaced lies about everything from our health to the environment to the military to science in general.Let's not forget Iraq and Bush's flip-flops either.The administration also does things like ignore right-wing terrorists while SUV vandalism is prosecuted as a terrorism. Why just yesterday I got my annual Social Security statement, which was full of dire warnings about its budget going bust.People who recognize this pattern are justifiably biased against republicans. Bush shrugs it off with dismissals like, "I haven't spent a lot of time why professors feel the way they feel."PBS sure wasn't run perfectly before, mind you -- but when a political party with that kind of track record takes control of more media, especially with an organization that they've wanted to privatize and cut all federal funding to, yes, it is worrisome.

Too many links to click for something that only provides ~10% of PBS funding.

This is another debate that will never be won, so I'm not going to further it any more. You will believe that Republicans are self-serving corporate fat cats, and I will believe Democrats are tax and spend leftists.