We have a new Special Report posted on the main MRC Web site on the ideological sandbox we call PBS. In previous years with Democratic control of Congress, PBS has played a more activist role within the media, dragging the rest of the national media further to the left and spurring more aggression and ill will against conservative and Republican leaders. Just as 2007 has been a year for a "surge" of troops in Iraq, it's also been a year of "surging" activism within PBS.
At the same time, Democratic congressional leaders now in the majority have been entertaining the idea of reviving a federal "Fairness Doctrine" which would require private broadcasters to comply with notions of balancing out each station's daily schedule of news, talk, and public-affairs programming. These same Democrats have been highly offended at the idea that anyone outside or inside taxpayer-funded broadcasting would monitor PBS content for fairness or balance.
Despite taking federal money from all taxpayers, PBS stations across America often air programs and documentaries that tilt decidedly to the left. In funding filmmakers to go out and make one-sided left-wing films and talk programs, public broadcasting subsidies serve, in effect, as ideological pork-barrel spending. While conservatives like Frank Gaffney have seen their films stripped from the national PBS schedule due to his activist "day job," liberal activism is not eschewed at PBS, but encouraged. In this analysis, the Media Research Center outlines three trends that herald an increasing misuse of public television against American conservatives:
--Bill Moyers and His Impeach-Bush Bandwagon. Partisanship was redefined as statesmanship when the latest reincarnation of the PBS program Bill Moyers Journal devoted an hour of supportive air time on July 13 to two guests who agreed that President Bush and Vice President Cheney urgently need to be impeached. Even PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler found the show wasn't remotely balanced in its zeal to abort the Bush presidency, reporting "there was almost a complete absence of balance."
-- Tavis Smiley Campaigns Against the GOP. PBS authorized Tavis Smiley, who hosts a nightly natonal talk show out of Los Angeles PBS station KCET, to organize two presidential debates at black colleges in 2007. The Democratic debate in June was overtly friendly and barely made a national ripple. But in September, Smiley grew furious when four Republican front-runners decided to skip the GOP debate right before the third-quarter campaign fundraising deadline at the end of the month. He skewered the candidates before, after, and during the debate on PBS, and also took his anti-GOP outrage to other TV networks. On his PBS show, he asked if the no-show Republican candidates "will pay" and suggested the empty podiums he set up to dramatize their absence will be props in Democratic campaign ads in 2008.
-- The "Independent" Television Service. ITVS, a left-wing filmmakers' collective with its headquarters located in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district, draws about $15 million a year from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to make films supporting their statement of values that "a civilized society seeks economic and social justice." Taxpayers have funded a long list of films knocking the Bush administration's policies, celebrating leftist agitators, and promoting "progressive" sexual politics. Nurturing a new generation of liberal filmmakers, and not conservative filmmakers, is the mission of ITVS.
The report concludes with some simple recommendations for public broadcasting executives. Since public television is supported by taxpayers of all political stripes, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting ought to live up to its mandate to monitor content for objectivity and fairness. Calling for impeachment of Republican presidents with one-sided panels doesn't help make PBS look fair. If public broadcasters want to moderate presidential debates, its moderators ought to display fairness and balance toward both political parties. If the system funds liberal filmmakers, it ought to fund conservative filmmakers as well, and not just serve as a political organizing tool for one side. The nation's PBS stations should reflect the diversity of its whole audience.
Kudos to MRC intern Joe Steigerwald for really helping with research on this over the summer.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is so true - a place where the Fairness Doctrine is needed
November 2, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Dee BunkAny TAX PAYER funded show should be regulated by a fairness doctrine.. If you accept government money - you have to represent both sides - equal time. That includes NPR.
Of course it still sucks to have all the network news and news mags be liberal dominated but, like talk radio, they are different because they are for profit with no government funding. If they apply the fairness doctrine to talk radio then it should have to apply to all media whether its news or entertainment including sitcoms and drama.
I'm tired of Republicans being silent on this.
Excellent Question
November 2, 2007 - 17:02 ET by mattmIf there should ever be any such a thing as a "fairness doctrine" at all, it should first apply to government funded media. (Which there should not even be)
The only fairly balanced political program ever allowed on PBS was Firing Line, which was erroneously spoken of as being Right Wing because it was Wm. Buckley's show.
However, unlike Moyers and the rest of the Marxists on PBS, Buckley always allowed both and all sides to have their say.
But then, to the Left, fairness and balance means the exclusion, if not the outright misrepresentation and slander, of conservative points of view.
I do not want a Fairness
November 2, 2007 - 17:35 ET by DaMavI do not want a Fairness Doctrine at PBS. I want PBS defunded. It is a disgrace that during all those years of Republican control of Congress this was not done as promised by many. An absolute disgrace.
The local station is almost exclusively left wing propaganda, including long speeches by Angela Davis, a hard core communist trashing the United States. They are not non-commercial as they claim -- they broadcast brief ads with a punch line and website address by their sponsors. "Joe Schmoe legal services -- a trusted name for years on the web at....". This is interrupted at regular intervals by self righteous begging for contributions in exchange for items of monetary value. All of it underwritten by our tax dollars.
There is no role whatsoever for the government to be involved in commercial media, competing with private businesses that pay taxes. It's like forcing GM to pay taxes so that the money can be given to Ford.
When I raised this with some fellow Republicans after Bush took office, I asked whether there was any chance of eliminating the CPB subsidy. I was told the plan was to make it more conservative or at least balanced. As expected, that didn't work out at all.
Cut these parasites off at the knees. There is no justification at all for continuing to fund select private media. Their blatant left wing bias only rubs salt into an already gaping wound.
/rant_mode
They've tried a few times to stop or reduce funding to PBS
November 2, 2007 - 17:54 ET by Dee BunkEvery time it's tried the media demonize it as killing Big Bird and Sesame Street. I do have to say that I really appreciated PBS for it's children's programming when my son was young. Most mothers do.
If they were to do a "fairness doctrine" on government funded programs then that couldn't be demonized.
Big Bird and Sesame Street
November 3, 2007 - 04:07 ET by DaMavBig Bird and Sesame Street were sufficiently popular that they require no subsidy to succeed, on public TV or anywhere else. I thoroughly enjoyed the content with my very young children many years ago as well. But I don't see that that has anything at all to do with a need to take tax dollars and subsidize the corporation. Surely you would agree that Sesame Street would have had no trouble at all attracting commercial sponsors.
Dav Mav - It doesn't mattter that they could succeed
November 5, 2007 - 12:54 ET by Dee BunkMy point is that liberals would attack any funding cuts as getting rid of Big Bird. They have done that in the past and it works. If PBS goes under, Big Bird goes under whether that particular show pays for itself or not. People like the idea of the government helping to provide educational television without the brainwashing commercials especially the ones aimed at children.
Unacceptable under any condition
November 2, 2007 - 17:54 ET by ThalpyUnder no circumstance should the Fairness Doctrine be accepted-none. It is no more acceptable for Bill Moyers Journal, Tavis Smiley, or Diane Rehm's Show than it is for any other talk radio show. If the Fairness Doctrine is acceptable for any, then it is acceptable for all. Government can't do what is supposed to now; it certainly has no business dictating what can and can't be said over the air waves. Once again, the government, led by the left, is trying to guarantee outcomes instead of opportunities. Had Al Fanken and others been worth a damn, they would have remained on the air. Their hateful, empty message was not received well by the American people and Air America was rejected-just as it should have been.
NPR does have a few shows that are ok, but they should still have to carry their own weight.
Acceptance of this doctrine at any level would just be the beginning.
I think a clear distiction can be made between government
November 2, 2007 - 18:11 ET by Dee Bunkand non government funding. This all or nothing thing doesn't work for conservatives. Every all or nothing program goes to liberals. That's why limiting abortion is so hard because so many people will only focus on outlawing it completely so the liberals get their far left way. Their judges are never demonized for thinking abortion at any age and any stage is okay.
It was the same with campaign finance. Conservatives were sure it would be declared unconstitutional and they got royally screwed. Now they need to get in there and start making it fair. It will never be overturned.
Only in America
November 2, 2007 - 18:11 ET by nkviking75Only in America can the state-owned media work against the head of state.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
A Simple Perspective
November 3, 2007 - 10:23 ET by pilsenerAdjust your heads ladies and gentlemen. The view from Democrats, government bureaucracy, and the American educational establishment proclaims:
PBS and NPR are dead center in American politics. They speak in soft monotones and publicize the correct and all-you-need-to-know view of every issue. The intentions of public broadcasting are pure and beyond reproach.
The reporting at NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN aims for objectivity, but crass commercialism and their corporate owners push them slightly to the right. The editorial page of the NY Times is slightly left, but the Washimgton Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, et.al. are all center right newspapers.
On the far right we have the Wall Street Journal & Financial Times. The Ultra-right wing is composed of Republican voters , Fox News, and all Rupert Murdoch newspapers (the WSJ is doomed).
The far right and ultra-right don't listen to NPR, or watch PBS, since they are incapable of understanding intelligent programming. Ergo, it is not necessary to take their views into account concerning the past, present, or future of government funding.
---------------------------
The only difficulty with the comfort zone created by the above perspective is why 48-52% of the country votes for the Ultra-right wing candidates. Just an anomaly of democracy that is unexplained.