Today FOX News Specials with E.D. Hill aired the film banned by PBS, "Muslims Against Jihad".
According to FOX: "It was commissioned as part of the PBS series "America at the Crossroads" about the post 9/11 world, but PBS executives rejected it."
Why? PBS said it was because the filmmakers were "alarmist, overreaching and unfair."
The filmmakers, which include Frank Gaffney, however say it was because of liberal bias at PBS. One of the filmmakers said he was asked by PBS, "Don't you screen the politics of those you use?" (specifically of Gaffney).
The film includes stories of moderate Muslims who are against Jihad in France, the banning of which is reminescent of Steve Ermerson's film, "Jihad in America - Terrorists Among Us," the 1994 PBS Documentary on terrorist cells in America, that was banned by PBS from further broadcasts.
Question: Ah, isn't PBS public broadcasting?
Oh, and it was financed with $675,000 of taxpayers' money.
Sharon Hughes is Founder and President of The Center for Changing Worldviews and a radio talk show host on KDIA in San Francisco, RIGHTALK.com, NPLR and Salem Web Network’s Oneplace.com. Her column appears in many recognized news sites and publications, including FRONTPAGEMAG. Websites www.changingworldviews.com, WOMANTalk.us, and Blog
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yet again ***
July 22, 2007 - 17:12 ET by deakonnDoes anyone think the 'Fairness Doctrine' could/would be applied here?
Traitors among us...or just idiots?
July 22, 2007 - 18:19 ET by Army BratDo we need further proof of the liberal bias at PBS? They have provided the proof themselves! How can we change them? They are insulated form the Ameican people, by the money provided to them by the leftist anit-Americans that live here amongst us, pretending to be patriots. Happy Trails...
Fairness Doctrine for PBS? Works for me.
July 22, 2007 - 19:37 ET by Dave Rdeakonn,
First of all, welcome to NewsBusters.
Sady, the only target the "Fairness Doctrine" is aimed at is the airwaves, specifically the radio airwaves, as TV is exempt. Same for the print media My personal belief is that it is being driven by the democrats need for revenge, who, after they lost control of congress in 1994, quickly blamed it on talk radio.
As PBS is, in part, funded by our tax dollars, I would love to see some form of fairness rules put into place to balance things out, as they have been nothing more than part of the MSM public-relations arm of the Democrat Party for years.
The only way I see it happeneing is for the republicans to grow a spine and force the issue, which is why it probably isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Won't work on me.
July 22, 2007 - 19:44 ET by sarcasmoI'll tell you right now...There is NO WAY any bureaucrats you hire could ever "balance things out" in a way that even remotely satisfies me. Only total and absolute defunding will work, and then people like me can decide whether Bill Moyers or Nova is a better use of our dollars. PBS and the "Fairness" Doctrine are really just 2 sides of the same censorship/forced-speech coin. Defund, defund, defund.
JMR
a type of Fairness Doctrine
July 22, 2007 - 19:49 ET byis already used on churches to retain their 501-c3 status
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Yet, for some reason that's
July 22, 2007 - 19:53 ET by sarcasmoYet, for some reason that's beyond my ken, people these days don't mind welfare for churches and propose various other extensions of government's already-substantial involvement in religion...Anything but cut spending, I guess.
JMR
Without getting into the
July 22, 2007 - 20:02 ET byWithout getting into the whole flat tax, fair tax scenario is it welfare not to take tax from money that people donate which has already been taxed? It could be said to tax donations to churches is making a law effecting the free expression thereof
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
sarc,
July 22, 2007 - 20:10 ET by Dave RI agree. If it were up to me, there would be no public funds going to PBS or NPR, period.
The problem is the republicans don't have the spine to even try and put an end to it. They made a show of doing it back in the mid '90s, but caved when push came to shove. Now that the dems are running the congress, there is no chance at all that the public funding for PBS and NPR will be eliminated. Not any time soon, at least.
If we are going to be forced to pay for this garbage, they at least could try and make the garbage more balanced.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Excellent John Fund column
July 23, 2007 - 06:57 ET by sarcasmoGeorgia's dumping the spineless ones for us (thank you for another kick-ass doctor, hard-to-fool-twice Georgia conservative voters!). I say if we can't get rid of the government's restrictions on speech and tax-funded bastions of forced-speech during my lifetime, what's the point of having an internet at my disposal? I want total victory, too, the wholesale eradication of agencies -- not mostly-dead like what happened with the draft, where there's still a big government office out there finding ways to spend millions of tax-dollars. This excellent victory represents not just a good thing for local Georgia voters -- it's a shot across the Republican big spending faction's bow, and a pretty damn loud one...
JMR
Sarc, Nice Link
July 23, 2007 - 07:09 ET by BlondeI particularly enjoyed this sentence:
"....Broun's victory has "terrified those incumbent Republican House members who had thought themselves safe for re-election in 2008" primaries." (Italics currently not working...sorry).
Lose the RINO's...any chance we'll have some of these type candidates in Florida? Ahhhhhh.
Money's ammo in politics,
July 23, 2007 - 07:24 ET by sarcasmoMoney's ammo in politics, and I've promised myself not to run for anything again until I can outspend my opponent(s), since I was so-much more efficient than they were last time in dollars spent per vote, so Florida is safe from me. And so far, the county Republicans have yet to contact me, but I suspect that to change soon. I wonder if I'm on some sort of s-list from all my Dade County politically-incorrect activities? Probably not, but I'd LOVE to find a way to check! :)
JMR
could - maybe. would -
July 22, 2007 - 20:08 ET by jpm100could - maybe.
would - no.
Bureaucrats know who butters their bread the best.
Well, I wished this was new
July 22, 2007 - 18:09 ET by bigtimerWell, I wished this was new news....
I have heard el zippo from the republicans in power about this ban by PBS, I have been very disappointed.
If ever there was a chance for the repub's to use a very important issue and the hypocrisy with PBS being funded by us tax payers and then deciding they will not show the film has been despicable.
Of course I suppose you could bring up the Fairness Doctrine, what I would like to see if the republicans saying they will not support PBS with our money out here anymore.
That simple...
Of course I know by now that will most likely be when pigs fly.
In addition to liberal bias,
July 22, 2007 - 19:44 ET by GalvanicIn addition to liberal bias, PBS and its stations appear to be stuck in a pre-9/11 world, where classical music performances, British sitcoms, the Antique Roadshow, cooking programs, Bill Moyers Journal, homosexual issue shows (Beneath the Pink Carpet), and the News Hour are all one needs to stay informed about what's important. Well, there is an exception: If the program has to do with anti-American perspectives on the War on Terrorism, they're on.
File FCC Complaint Against PBS and the Rockefellers
July 22, 2007 - 20:49 ET by Lame CherryThere is little mystery that PBS is nothing public at all. It is run and operated by literal and proxy family and allies of the Rockefeller global cartel.
Pretty good deal having the public taxpayers have their money stolen from Congress all so the Rockefeller world view can be spread to all our children from Big Bird right up on up to Bill Moyers. You will never see their subtle and overt programs banned, because they follow the doctrine of globalism. So what if Big Bird does 90 percent good and it is the 10 percent seed of wacko ideas gets into kids, because it is all in the name of "community best over individual citizen".
Everyone should file a complaint with the FCC requiring a top to bottom shake up at PBS so this is no longer a free non stop unending political campaign commercial for liberals.
Enough people start making a stink and the Rockefellers loose their control, you would be surprised how good the programming could be all the time and not just spurts.....and I am not talking about the new This Old House promoting GlobAL Gore nonsense.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Right write right
July 23, 2007 - 08:30 ET by JohnMI completely agree that the way to combat this Public-BS is to write to the FCC, the PBS Ombudsman, congress, (anyone else?) and to keep this issue visible on sites such as this.
Like most posters here, I have no problem writing on lists like NB and voicing my opinion. Where I tend to get stuck is in trying to find viable email addresses for those entities.
Finding the right email address can be time-consuming. (Not good, as I'm usually trying to squeeze off a quick email between work tasks.) Then when I am able to locate emails, I find that a lot bounce. So what should be a straightforward task becomes a chore, drawn out over a day or two, maybe more.
Does anyone already have good email addresses, or is there somewhere that the email addresses (or links to feedback pages) could be posted for permanent reference? Would NB be willing to host a Quick Reference page?
Thanks for any help...
Hmmm. Bad points: My tax
July 23, 2007 - 08:39 ET by sarcasmoHmmm. Bad points: My tax dollars (that should not have ever been spent) fighting my tax dollars (that also should not have ever been spent). Good point? They could be doing a variety of things more-destructive with my money, as they've amply proven. Overall, it sounds like a wash in my case...
JMR
}}}----> The PBS angle
July 23, 2007 - 06:41 ET by Cool ArrowPBS is perfectly happy to do their share in stifling the voices of those Muslims willing to endure prersonal risk to tell their stories.
It's just not PC to even suggest there is a Radical Islamist connection to any significant degree of terrorism.
The 911 "pilots" were just a little overzealous in their wish to show their ability to fly jetliners. After all, if you're considered unqualified to do a job, where else can you get the experience.
"Why? PBS said it was
July 23, 2007 - 20:21 ET by Republic1"Why? PBS said it was because the filmmakers were "alarmist, overreaching and unfair.""
If "alarmist, overreaching and unfair" were applied to all the liberal, leftist propaganda broadcast by PBS, and used as a reason to stop airing those shows, there would only be about half a broadcast schedule left. I'll remember the above quote the next time I see Bill Moyers claiming sinister Republicans want a Christian religious theocracy running the country. And I don't know if it's on anymore, but who can forget Tony Brown's Journal? That little chestnut of a show used to parade every black racist conspiracy theory like absolute fact. "Alarmist, overreaching and unfair"? Nah. Everyone knows conservatives want to destroy Democracy, and the white devils are responsible for all the ills of the planet.
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." -Muhammad