Will PBS' Alleged Liberal Bias Impact its Federal Funding?

Public television is finding itself on the hotseat for programming that many say has a liberal bias, anti-Bush administration perspective. Whether it's Bill Moyers' obvious liberal commentary about the Irag war, Buster's visits to lesbian parents, or News Hour coverage, Republicans in Washington are speaking out.

Public television is funded by the Corporation for Public Television (CPB) which was created in 1967 by Congress to provide "objectivity and balance in all programs...of a controversial nature." The intent behind the act was to bring more intellectual programming to television to raise it out of its "vaste wasteland" that Newton Minnow talked about. Government leaders were concerned that commercial broadcast television wasn't exactly educating the public on the important issues, during Captain Kangaroo, the Brady Bunch, or Hee Haw.

This year, the CPB will provide $387 million to PBS and NPR to assist with programming. The CPB annual government payment to PBS contributes to about 15% each year of the PBS budget.
Such government funding is causing great concern to the chairman of the CPB, Kenneth Tomlinson, a Bush appointee, who has created the positions of two "ombudsmen", one a conservative and one a liberal. Their charge is to monitor PBS for liberal content. Tomlinson claims in an article on the topic in the May 23rd Washington Post, that "liberalism is too prominent on public TV...while conservative ideas are marginalized."

PBS' concern is that assigning content monitors for liberal bias directly impacts the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech. They argue that government should not be monitoring television for its content in any form. An internal PBS memo identified the effort as "government encroachment on and supervision of program content..." Public television advocates say that programming decisions should be made at the local community level.

Tomlinson argues that PBS has been getting away with a liberal bias for too long and the ombudsmen will help provide a more balanced political perspective between liberal and conservative views.

1st Amendment advocates say that no government authority should be monitoring television programming beyond the FCC rules of indecency and obscenity, which are difficult enough to identify, let alone identify political bias. If we can't all agree on what is indecent when the government decides to fine broadcasters, how will these two ombudsmen agree on political perspectives?

And even if they did, what authority do they have over public television to direct its content?

Some agreeing with Tomlinson suggest that government should just get out of public television funding altogether. Spend that $387 million on something else. Public television advocates will say without that $387 million, viewers will lose public television because it can't be solely supported by contributions. (remember, advertising isn't allowed, only underwriting)

Does public televison have a liberal bias? Is its programming not "objective and balanced" as the act which created it requires?
Should the government continue to fund public television? Would a democrat in the White House consider cutting funding for public television? Is Tomlinson's concern more about not being able to promote a Republican agenda?

Another black eye for the news media

Newsweek’s retraction of their story alleging prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay raises new questions about credibility of the press and the use of unnamed sources. This time 14 lives were lost because of a lapse of judgment. From Jayson Blair to Jack Kelley to CBS and now Newsweek, journalism is under fire for not getting it right. The erosion of trust in the media continues to grow as new scandals come to light. A recent survey reported in Editor & Publisher says that 53% of the American public believes that stories with unnamed sources should not be published at all. For those of us who remember Watergate, that is a frightening statistic. However, recent history has revealed abuses of the practice of using unnamed sources…with little “ends” to justify the “means.” In response, major news operations are currently rewriting the rules for unnamed sources in an attempt to restore credibility. Is it too little too late? What do you think?