Latent racism in the republican party?

Perdition writes:

quote:

---

In America, if we had something like this where the money went anywhere near the government, the government would assume all control.

---

You mean the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is under complete government control? Indeed, Bush certainly tried to make PBS and NPR arms of the Republican Party during his term (the president of the CPB is the former chair of the Republican National Committee and the chair of the CPB had to resign due to ethics violations regarding introducing conservative bias into the programming), but the CPB has done a much better job and maintaining neutrality in the American system of reporter-as-bad-stenographer school of journalism.It's why those who got their news from NPR and PBS were the least likely to be misinformed regarding what was happening in Iraq.Now, the vast majority of funding for public broadcasting comes from donations (only about 15-20% from federal funds), but the CPB was established by the government and the government provides funds to it.Now, I'm hardly saying that government sources are always pristine and perfect. But what I am saying is that government, since it isn't working for profit, usually has a "promote the general welfare" motivation to it and when managed properly, is more likely to work for the service it is trying to provide than other interests.This used to be why network news did well: The news was always considered to be a loss leader. The rest of the programming would bring in the money which would be used to pay for the news. When the broadcast companies decided that news should be a profit-making center, the motivation for doing the news shifted.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Taz writes:

quote:

---

So, the question again. Why is the country tolerating this crap?

---

Well, the simple answer is that the country is still racist. The fact that we managed to vote for a black person doesn't mean we are free of racism.And given that the broadcast news has shifted from actual journalism to reporter-as-bad-stenographer, there will never be any investigation into such ridiculous claims, never any editorial control to refuse to dignify such lunacy, and will in fact become part of the problem. Since there is never any pushback regarding the last outrageous claim out of fear of cries of "bias," that only encourages an even more ridiculous incitement.And let us not be disingenuous and try to invoke the "Pox on both your houses!" whine as if the excesses of the left are anywhere near the scope and significance of the excesses of the right. The right will play off of the racism that is still pervasive in this country, the media will refuse to call them on it, and it only encourages more.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Perdition responds to me:

quote:

---

In that case, were PBS/NPR to be overly critical of said government, and were PBS/NPR to remain as low on the radar of most people in the country, how long do you think it would take before said government just pulled the plug?

---

The conservatives have been trying to get rid of PBS since at least the 90s and so far, the response that has kept it has been effective:The Republicans want to kill Sesame Street.As long as Big Bird can remain the face of PBS, it will still be around.And PBS and NPR used to be much more critical of the government. But because the conservatives have been working the refs, screaming "BIAS!" at every opportunity, even public broadcasting has fallen into the trap of bad-stenography, thinking that merely quoting "both sides" is sufficient investigation...and then misquoting people in the process so as to ensure there are "both sides" to talk about.

quote:

---

Most people are disconnected from their government

---

In a conscious sense, yes. Most people don't realize just how connected to the government they are. Air, water, food, drugs, all the things we take for granted and use every day, the government is involved. The mail we receive, the television we watch, the very internet we're communicating over right now, all of that has government hands all over it.That's why we have people at these astroturf convocations whining at the top of their lungs, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" They simply don't understand just how much their lives are touched by government services.I'm not sure how to bring this back on topic. No amount of public television is going to be able to stop people from being racists. They might be able to at least prevent the people who aren't blatantly so from thinking that there is any legitimacy to such things as saying that Obama is a Kenyan, a Muslim, a terrorist, but that requires a deeper change in the entire journalistic enterprise.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Straggler responds to me:

quote:

---

Pardon my ignorance but can I ask a couple of questions:

---

No worries. We're talking about a media corporation from a country foreign to you.

quote:

---

1) How is PBS funded?

---

The US Public Broadcasting Service is funded primarily by private donations, both from individual members of the public as well as from corporations and other non-profit organizations (about 60% of funding). For the longest time, it was non-commercial and even today, one could say that it isn't really that commercial. At the ends of shows, there would be a funding statement: "Funding for this program was provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and viewers like you." More recently, businesses have become involved in the funding and the ends of the programs have a slightly more commercial tinge: "Funding for this program is brought to you by , who reminds you that ."

​

Various PBS stations produce their own content and then distribute it throughout the network. Each station is independently run and will purchase whatever programming they think will do well in their broadcast area. Many programs are extremely popular and thus will probably be run throughout the network such as Sesame Street and Nova. Others may require some convincing. The programming costs money not only to produce (thus the funding statements at the end of the programming) but also for the individual station to purchase for broadcast. Thus, WGBH (Boston) is the station that produces the program Nova. In order for KPBS (San Diego) to broadcast it, they need to pay for it. Throughout the year, PBS stations will have a "pledge drive" where they will display special-event style programming, interrupting it frequently to request donations.

​

Then there is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This was a private, non-profit organization founded by the US Government in 1967 in the Johnson administration. It provides about 20% of the budget of public broadcasting stations (the remaining 20% comes from state and local taxes.) It provides funding to PBS and NPR (National Public Radio) to assist in the production and purchasing of content for broadcast.

​

In 2009, the CPB budget from Congress was about $400 million. By mandate, no more than 5% of the CPB budget can go to overhead with another 6% reserved for the infrastructure of the network (rather than to an individual station).

​

quote:

---

2) The fear with any "state" broadcaster is that it will effectively be a mouthpiece for the government. What measures are in place to avoid this?

---

​

Well, much of it is statutory. While the largest source of funding is from private donation, the CPB is a significant source of income and it has requirements for those stations that will receive money. When the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was founded, it had a dictate to maintain "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature."

​

Too, in order to receive funds, the station must abide by certain methods of conduct such as holding open meetings, having a community advisory board, open records regarding donors and political activities, etc.

​

Since the primary source of funding for PBS stations is private donation and since PBS stations can purchase content from anywhere (you will find a lot of British-sourced programming on PBS: The US knows of Monty Python because it was broadcast on PBS. We also only know of Are You Being Served, Waiting for God, and a host of made-for-TV dramas because they were made by British television, bought by PBS, and broadcast here), the federal government doesn't have a huge amount of control. Instead, it is local authority that provides more issues of concern.

​

For example, in 1991 the PBS-produced series P.O.V. included a documentary by Marlon Riggs regarding homophobia, racism, and AIDS, Tongues Untied. While it included no actual sexual content, it discussed sexuality in a very frank nature. Many PBS stations decided not to air that episode which they have the ability to do as they are independent. And since P.O.V. was produced with CPB money, there was an outcry that government funds were being used to propagate "pornographic art" (Pat Buchanan).

​

That said, please note that this was from 1991 when George Bush was president.

​

The rest comes from the general mission of PBS and from local advisory boards regarding content. This is what I was saying before regarding those who look to work in public service: The attitude and incentives are different since you're not working for profit. This doesn't mean that there is no influence. During the last Bush administration, there were quite a few scandals regarding the CPB and PBS regarding ethics violations as the Bushies tried to turn PBS into a version of Fox.

​

Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman of the CPB in 2005, told PBS officials that, "They should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate." He secretly hired a consultant to monitor NOW with Bill Moyers in an attempt to have it be shown as "liberally biased" (since Moyers was routinely critical of the Bush administration). Moyers resigned in protest after more than 30 years on PBS and then came back after Tomlinson was forced to resign.

​

However, PBS was then made to bring on Tucker Carlson, a right-wing commentator, to have his own commentary show but it was received so poorly that it was dropped by PBS (and picked up by Fox News Channel).

​

quote:

---

3) Is PBS commercial in any sense? Is it, like the BBC, advert free? Does it take the same sort of lengths as the BBC to remain brand impartial (e.g. covering brand logos on TV programmes)

---

​

Not as such. As mentioned before, PBS is essentially commercial-free. Unlike network TV, PBS programming does not contain commercials during the show. However, before and after the program, there will be mention of where funding for the programming came. In the past, this was mostly of the plaque-listing-donors type: A brief statement listing the really big contributors and a plug to remind you to donate ("Viewers like you.") More recently, businesses have been donating in order to make sure that their company name (rather than a non-profit arm of the company set up to do public service funding) is listed. For programs like Hometime, This Old House, and The New Yankee Workshop where the show is about do-it-yourself home improvement, having the show funded by companies that make tools makes a bit of sense and seeing those bits at the end isn't quite as slimy feeling.

​

Contrast this to other instances such as children's programming funded by food companies.

​

But during the program itself, there is no attempt to hide corporate identities, though they don't make endorsements, either. For example, The New Yankee Workshop is funded by Minwax which makes stains, waxes, and varnishes for woodworking and Delta which makes power tools. The show is all about making furniture using powertools and thus, you see Norm Abram working on table saws, using routers, and staining and varnishing the pieces, but he never mentions brands, the camera does not seek out the logo to display it, or anything along those lines.

​

quote:

---

4) Is it international in any sense or US based and available only.

---

​

Well, since some might say that half of the shows on PBS were originally produced by the BBC, why wouldn't it go the other way? Anybody can produce a program for PBS...it's just a question of getting the stations to purchase it for broadcast. PBS doesn't have any central progamming studio (though NPR does) and thus the vast majority of programming you see on your local PBS station was produced somewhere else. Certain stations have large production studios (WGBH in Boston, KQET in San Francisco, WNET in New York), but it's still produced locally to be sold to other stations.

​

WGBH in Boston, since it is so successful, has gone international. They've been so successful that they are now known as "PBS International."

​

quote:

---

5) To bring back vaguely on topic - What is the PBS take on Obama? Does it have opinion based reporting? Or is it purely dry factual content only?

---

​

That would depend upon the program. There is no centralized authority and commentary made during The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer will be different from commentary made during Charlie Rose.

​

NPR, which does have a centralized programming source (though again, most of the content is produced by stations and then distributed), tends to be more neutral though it has fallen prey to complaints about "bias" and is drifting toward journalism-as-stenography. However, NPR has long-format policy discussion shows so rather than have a program that flits across as many topics as can possibly be fit into half an hour, they will discuss only one or two.

​

quote:

---

I hadn't really heard of PBS until you mentioned it here. That is why I am asking. I guess ultimately my point of comparison is the BBC so in what ways is it similar or different are the most obvious questions for me to ask.

---

​

No worries. The workings of another country's television network aren't exactly public knowledge. In fact, I very much doubt most people here in the US understand how PBS works.

​

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.