Bozell Column: Back to Bias Basics at PBS

Photo of Brent Bozell.
  • Bookmark and Share

A few years ago, the Left pulled several muscles exerting itself with the strange theory that the Public Broadcasting Service was lurching dangerously to the right. When Corporation for Public Broadcasting chairman Kenneth Tomlinson had the audacity not only to speak internal profanities (“fairness” and “balance”), but to try and build on them, it became clear to them that he was out of control and needed to be stopped.

Tomlinson made several small but significant steps toward balance on our taxpayer-subsidized airwaves, nudging the creation of two right-leaning talk programs – “Tucker Carlson Unfiltered” and “The Journal Editorial Report” – and both suffered from the TV equivalent of crib death. Liberals really erupted when they learned Tomlinson secretly hired someone to assess the political balance of some PBS and NPR programs. This initiative was doomed, not only because the internal bureaucracy would never tolerate it, but because proving liberal bias at PBS is beyond easy. It’s like proving Rosie O’Donnell has a liberal bias: is it really necessary to conduct a study?

The Left maintains an iron grip on PBS with all the maturity and sophistication that a four-year-old hangs on to a Happy Meal toy. The motto of their public and private campaign against Tomlinson’s alleged transgressions should have been “Mine! Mine! All Mine!”

Tomlinson is long gone and Democrats now control Congress. But another step was necessary for the reemergence of classic PBS propaganda: the return of Bill Moyers. He was back to full-time fulminating duties on April 25 with a special titled “Buying the War.” The entire thesis of this 90-minute taxpayer-funded lecture? The national media were willing cogs in the neoconservative machine that took America to war. How is this for PBS balance: Moyers didn’t allow a single conservative, neo- or otherwise, to challenge this ludicrous idea. Oh, there were assorted clips of conservatives (yours truly included) speaking in the months after 9/11, but only to “prove” his case for a noxious “patriotism police” which would not allow dissent.

He did invite far-left media critics like Eric Boehlert and Norman Solomon to echo his conspiracy theory that the major media were stuffed with sticky pro-Bush saps. But then, Moyers also added major media players, from disgraced CBS anchor Dan Rather to former CNN boss Walter Isaacson, to agree with him that they were all woefully lacking in anti-war fervor.

In the same week, defense expert Frank Gaffney was telling a far different story – in fact, the opposite story. Unlike Moyers, Gaffney had proof. Back in the Tomlinson era, CPB pursued the idea of a broad-based documentary series on how America would respond to the post-9/11 world. Gaffney’s documentary proposal on “Islam vs. Islamism,” focusing on moderate Muslims’ efforts to challenge Islamofascists, was given a green light as one installment in the 11-part series called “America At The Crossroads.”

But once Tomlinson was out, the permanent liberal bureaucracy kicked into gear. The series was shipped to PBS D.C. superstation WETA. They promptly expressed horror that anyone would allow Gaffney anywhere near a PBS production because of his “day job” with a conservative advocacy group. They wanted Gaffney fired as an executive producer. When that didn’t happen, they censored the film, refusing to air it.

This is a clear double standard. Take Moyers as Exhibit A. Even as he constantly produces PBS programming, he has an advocacy-group job as well, as president of the leftist Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, and no one inside PBS has ever cared.

There was one “neocon” film that did air in the series, titled “The Case for War,” which starred conservative theorist Richard Perle. The PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler – who, to be fair, has occasionally faulted shows for a liberal tilt – came unglued that Perle was allowed so much access to PBS viewers.

“I personally find the decision to produce this film, as it has turned out, to be a stunning avoidance of the real crossroad that we are at and an abdication of journalistic principal [sic] on the most crucial issue of our time and our future,” Getler protested on the PBS website. “This was not the subject or the time, in my opinion, on which to have a ‘point of view’ film controlled by an advocate.” Getler added that the film had a “propaganda tone” and “it is structured so that Perle always has the last word and controls the flow.”

To Getler, it is an abdication of journalism to allow antiquated and disproven conservative arguments on PBS. But how could Getler watch the Moyers propaganda special and not see how that spectacle was obviously structured so that Moyers always had the last word – the only word!

There is only one journalistic principle and one standard for the liberals who dominate PBS. It’s mine. It’s not yours.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

“This was not the subject o

“This was not the subject or the time, in my opinion, on which to have a ‘point of view’ film controlled by an advocate.” Getler added

I guess the far left decides what the proper subject and time is . . . not to mention what point of view is appropriate.

You don't get it, do you? Nor

You don't get it, do you? Nor Bozell. Nor anyone else. This is called Leftest Compromise. /sarc

Seriously, I agree with you totally. I think this PBS attitude is classic leftest. And if you ask them, they actually believe that they have gone as far as they could in compromising to achieve the balance they really believe is in their programming.

Now, you should spend the rest of the evening admitting all the mistakes you have made in your life, just so that the Left can feel superior.

Regarding the "taxpayer-

Regarding the "taxpayer-subsidized airwaves" - what percentage of PBS's income comes from the Federal government?  I am assuming by taxpayer subsidized you don't mean that PBS is a non-profit and doesn't pay income taxes.

PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit

PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit. Here's some information I found at GuideStar (http://www.guidestar.org/). You need to register to view organization information, but they offer free registration.

According to their 2005 Form 990, PBS received $232,524,982.00 in direct publict support, and $31,800,708.00 from government contributions. The organization also got $35.696,968.00 from program revenue including government fees and contracts.

This is only for the "parent" PBS organization. There are also all the various PBS stations that have their own 501(c)(3) status. Each of them get government funding.

There are significantly diffe

There are significantly different figures on www.pbs.org for 2005 (total revenue $531,603,000; $69,234,000 in grants (13%))) .  Total revenue includes "Imputed value of donated broadcast rights."  However, taking your figures, less than 30% of their total revenue is from the Federal government if 100% of the "program revenue including government fees and contracts" is from the Federal government.  If half were, then the figure would be more on the order of 21%...

Part of the $531,603,000 is f

Part of the $531,603,000 is from PBS membership fees ($162,198,955), interest on savings and temporary cash investments ($393,655), and dividends and interest from securities ($3,000,187). They also had a profit of $34,286,930 from sales of inventory, and other revenue ("from communications and miscellaneous services to stations and other nonprofit educational institutions") of $2,863,476. I only listed their 2005 contributions, gifts and grants - public support and government contributions.

"only 30%?"

ONLY 21 to 30% is government money?   Well, j faux wilson, that 21-30% is paid out of taxes received from all of us.  It should ensure that PBS be more balanced and not the obvious liberal mouthpiece that it is.

I’ve often said that docume

I’ve often said that documentaries are the most biased form of journalism. The producer includes criticism so that he can claim objectivity, but he controls the criticism and effectively mutes it. In a previous thread, another commenter suggested that a documentary producer doesn’t need to be balanced, so long as the documentary tells the truth. But by that logic, we should skip the defense attorney’s presentation if the prosecutor “told the truth.” There’s nothing wrong with presenting your side of the topic and using every rhetorical trick in the book, so long as you allow different sides the same opportunity.

That’s the problem with a Bill Moyers documentary (and, for that matter, documentaries from Michael Moore, Al Gore, and others): they don’t want to be a prosecutor, they want to be the judge. They don’t respect the public to decide public affairs; instead, they want to inform the public what’s good for them (in their view). The public decides public affairs. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t try to silence other views. He may ridicule them, and satirize them savagely (even unfairly at times), but he never advocates silencing them. Moyers wants to silence them.

What law states a documentary

What law states a documentary can't take a position?  Did you see The Thin Blue Line?  Should the producer have spent equal time suggesting the protagonist really was guilty?  Did you see Hearts & Minds? The producers made no bones about the fact they were making a powerful case for one side of the story - that's what gave the film such merit.

Now, the producer should not state that the presentation is "fair and balanced" if that was not the intent.   But If someone makes a documentary about the Memphis Bus Boycott should they also present the case of the city fathers, that racial segregation was just fine and the way God intended things to be?  Or if someone makes a documentary about the Holocaust, should equal time be given to the Nazis?

Depends

Documentaries are suppose to merely report facts associated with a given subject. They are not suppose to present a specific stance on an issue, and only show the facts (a lot taken out of context in the case of Michael Moore) of an issue, they want seen. A documentary is suppose to be completely and totally non-political in nature, to allow the person watching, to receive all the facts, and allow them to make up their mind on a given subject -- that is what a documentary is suppose to accomplish.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

And your credentials as the d

And your credentials as the documentary policeman are?  So - by your lights "Why We Fight" was worthless because it didn't include the Nazi point of view?  "Victory at Sea" would have been great - if only it had included the point of view of the Japanese navy?

Wow... you can't read?

Apparently, you have trouble reading. I don't recall ever once saying that I was the documentary police. I also don't recall saying anything other then a documentary is suppose to simply report the facts... not interject opinions.

Get your head out of your @$$ Frank, and quit thinking with your "heart". You asked a question about laws -- I did not say there was a law -- I merely told you what a documentary is suppose to be. Judging by your incredible list of documentaries... I'd say that you either have too much time on your hands, or else you need to get yourself out of your mom's basement and meet a girl -- being 30 and living at home is not a good sign -- get a life.

Next time you ask a question -- be prepared for the answer, or shut the hell up the first time.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

Even Moore was forced to stop calling his film a "documentary"

Public ridicule forced Moore to stop calling his film a "documentary."  He began calling it "satire."

Even a pig like Moore understands that there are rules surrounding what a documentary is or is not.

Too bad j. faux wilson is incapable of grasping the concept. 

Didn't the doctor warn you ab

Didn't the doctor warn you about skipping your meds?  Temper!  Temper!

You're the one who set yourself up as the documentary policeman, telling one and all how it's supposed to be.  Unfortunately, you failed to address my point.  Sorry if there were too many examples for you to follow.  Didn't mean to befuddle your brain.

Don't be an arse frank.As w

Don't be an arse frank.

As with anything else these days, the definition is changing (change is not
always good btw). Documentary used to mean "to document reality". Now...
take your pick.

Mr Bishop (like me) prefers to watch actual documentries, not the politically soaked versions presented today.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

So you would maintain "W

So you would maintain "Why We Fight" was missing the Nazi point of view - and "Victory at Sea" really needed the perspective of the Japanese navy to be a acceptable documentary?  Can't wait to hear your opinion of any documentary of the Battle of the Bulge - gee, those German soldiers had a good reason to murder GI's...

You need to reread what I o

You need to reread what I originally wrote, and stop skipping over the big words. To make it easier on your pea brain, here it is:

Documentaries are suppose to merely report facts associated with a given subject. They are not suppose to present a specific stance on an issue, and only show the facts (a lot taken out of context in the case of Michael Moore) of an issue, they want seen. A documentary is suppose to be completely and totally non-political in nature, to allow the person watching, to receive all the facts, and allow them to make up their mind on a given subject -- that is what a documentary is suppose
to accomplish
.
I don't recall anywhere where I stated that a documentary is must have all "viewpoints" associated with it. I did say that it is suppose to be totally non-political and show all the facts -- facts, NOT viewpoints idiot.

However, having said that... the only good documentaries are the documentaries that DO show everyone's actions, thoughts and perceptions -- not simply the one-sided that you prefer to watch. Amazingly, every single documentary I have ever seen, has every position presented of a given issue. On events, when the documentary researches the event they are presenting, they use whatever information they have available in order to achieve that goal of presenting the event in its entirety. In either case -- they are presenting facts on an issue, NOT opinions -- which is what a person's "viewpoint" is.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

What are you talking about

What are you talking about frank? What do those documentaries have to do with a film that has a political bias (unless the liberals are at WAR with the conservatives). But they won't admin THAT. They will pass this stuff off as unbiased when it aint. Everyone knows what to expect from your examples they are about winning the war, about the winners! You really are a goof. and oh so funny.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Wrong again slick.

To begin with, I don't take meds -- nice try, but obviously you are an idiot.

Secondly, I don't recall anywhere wherein I said I was the Documentary Police, or even set myself to be that. You asked an asinine and just plain stupid question on a law of documentary. I responded with what a documentary is suppose to be -- by it's very definition (look it up moron).

You then throw out this documentary title, or that documentary title, as a way to validate your existance, but it only goes to show that you really have no life -- since you live in your mother's basement in your 30's -- with nothing to do all day, but watch a documentary, and think that it holds all the answers.

Now, if you want to get into a pissing match with me, fine -- I will play your game. However, you will lose it since you're already wrong on this subject, but like several others -- you want to dig yourself a deeper hole. You want to dispute what a documentary is, then tell me, Mr. Documentary Freedom Fighter -- what is a documentary suppose to do, if not provide the facts, unbiased?


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

Living in my mother's basemen

Living in my mother's basement?  How five minutes ago.  My Mother passed away a number of years ago, so you may leave her out of it.

A documentary does not require the producer to not take a position.  You don't like my examples because you'd rather blather than deal in facts. 

You set yourself up as the world expert.  And you can't take it when someone cuts you down to size.  Just like when you posted that there isn't a civil war in Iraq - despite the National Intelligent Estimate and the Secretary of Defense who don't happen to agree with you...

PS:  I won't get into a pissing contest with a skunk.

Hardly

Sounds like you're getting a little unnerved sitting in your mother's basement Norman Bates...

You need to learn how to read, that much is obvious. I did not set myself up for anything, other then to kick your ASCII @$$ down the stairs back to your mother's basement. I did not claim to be anything of an expert, I merely replied to you as to what a documentary is suppose to be, not what you think it is.

Secondly, if you can take the moment to actually read -- I said that a documentary is suppose to present FACTS, NOT OPINIONS. Therefor, where you get this notion that this documentary is not good, or that is not because it does not present this person's viewpoint, or that person's viewpoint, fails on the logic level -- since I never once said they must present someone's viewpoint -- I was completely against showing people's VIEWPOINTS.

Next, if you want to "cut me down to size", you have to still get your head out of your @$$ and show me wherein my posts, I ever once set myself up as an expert on documentaries, claimed to be an expert on documentaries, or anything else of that nature. Good luck with that since it was never mentioned, not even close.

Your last sentence on the civil war in Iraq has no bearing on this, and it doesn't matter. You have taken way too much out of context, ignore what you want to, and quote only what you will, whenever it pleases you. You quote from the National Security Estimate now, but would ignore it from 2002, as well as what the Secretary of Defense said then. In addition, I would really like to see the National Security Estimate and statements, in their entirety from the Secretary of Defense, as to a civil war in Iraq. I can guarantee that if you read them in their entirety (which I know you have a problem doing...) they would not say what you are insisting they say.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

So, the situation in Iraq tod

So, the situation in Iraq today is the same as 2002?  There's a tenanable position.  Fight to the death to defend it - especially when you discover you're standing alone.

The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq is readily available on the Internets - although I am surprised it may not be found in your extensive library.  Ditto for Secretary Gates' remarks.  Check out the BBC website - February 2, 2007.  I'm sure even you can locate them.

Have you seen "Harlan County, USA?"  If only they'd included more information on those wonderful coal companies just out there doing their best for their workers...And skipped the Socialists suggesting there is such a thing as Black Lung Disease...Maybe you'd like to see the KKK in a documentary on Dr. MLK, Jr.

Probably.

As for your "guarantee" - there's something I'm going to put a lot of faith in...

PS:  We certainly are in agreement on one thing - you don't know anything about documentaries.

Gee, never said that, can't show me where I did

Good luck trying to show me where I said anything close to the situation in Iraq today, being the same as in 2002.

In response to your comments on the NSE, as well as Gates's remarks, I notice you haven't read them in their entirety, you only quote from websites that tell you what they say. Not surprising there.

Finally -- you still can't show me wherein I said anything remotely close to a documentary has to show everyone's opinion on a given subject. In fact, I said just the opposite -- opinions detract from a documentary. And in last, don't tell me that I know nothing about documentaries, since you cannot show me where that is true -- in fact, what I can show you, is that we DO agree on one thing: documentaries are not suppose to show people's opinions. You said as much when you questioned whether or not a documentary was good based upon them not showing the "viewpoints" of the Japanese or Nazis.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

I know you don't take your me

I know you don't take your meds - but you certainly should.

And your bit about believing in the Bermuda Triangle - hilarious!  Be careful, though - you keep saying that crazy stuff, someone might not get the joke and start believing you.  You wouldn't want a reputation for being a wacked out right wingnut...

Read it again

I think you need to take the time to read everything written, instead of what you want to. For you to do so, I shall capitalize every letter, in the hopes it gets through your brain:

I DON'T TAKE MEDS -- which means, I don't have meds, don't need meds, so drop it.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

It's very difficult to resolv

It's very difficult to resolve a problem until you're willing to admit that you have a problem.  Talk with a medical professional about the "don't need" part...

Speaking of problems, j. faux.....

Speaking of admitting to a problem, j. faux, do you discuss with your psychiatrist your apparently insatiable need to make a fool of yourself every day?

And your credentials as the d

And your credentials as the documentary policeman are?

And your credentials as the checker of credentials of the documentary policeman are?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  my litmous test for President.      BT(adapted)

And your credentials as the c

And your credentials as the checker of the checker of credentials of the documentary policeman are?

PS:  Re your tag line - where in the US Constitution is the Supreme Court given the explicit power or responsibility to determine that laws passed by the Congress are constitutional?

They're not

In response to your PS -- the Supreme Court has no authority to determine laws to be constitutional -- they've been acting illegally for the past 200 years.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Dude... lighten up..

And who says they have been a

And who says they have been acting illegally?  Themselves?  The Congress when it passes a law claiming the Judicial Branch has no right to review it?   

Ok, let me be more clear abo

Ok, let me be more clear about the context. When you write: "What law states a documentary can't take a position?" you'll notice that I did write: "There’s nothing wrong with presenting your side of the topic and using every rhetorical trick in the book, so long as you allow different sides the same opportunity."

Is Moyers obligated to include others' points of view in his own documentary? No. But Moyers and friends at PBS (as Brent Bozell mentioned in the Newsbusters item above) undermine every opportunity for others to present their views. And that's precisely the point. Moyers doesn't believe anyone else's opinions deserve to be aired. Moyers is convinced that he has no bias, and that what he's presenting is objective truth. He denigrates different points of view because, in his mind, his conclusions were entirely objective. (The fact that his opinions always support the Left's political positions only proves, to him, that the Left is always correct.)

  • Consider a speech he gave in 2005, cited here. Read the whole speech, if you like, and see that Moyers' whole approach is that he is an objective observer; therefore, no other opinions need to be included. Note the following excerpt:

" ... I realized that investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity is not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference.

I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies as well as the Big Lie of the people in power. In no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence."

Moyers believes that if he "nails" the report, no other opinion matters. That's simply a denial (or delusion) that reporters have any bias. Therefore, in Moyers' logic, he's perfectly justified in suppressing other opinions. In fact, in Moyers' self-delusion, he's actually doing us a favor by excluding other opinions. Moyers believes that presenting two points of view means that viewers (meaning the stupid public) will just "split the difference." The fact that we might evaluate competing opinions is, apparently, something Moyers feels we're incapable of doing. He shows zero respect for the public, and zero desire to allow the public to make up our own minds.

What Moyers nailed in his 1.5 hour biased and slanted opinion

What Moyers nailed in his 1.5 hour biased and slanted opinion. Nothing.

I knew it was going to be absolute crap when on PI, he whined "Wait till you see how we lay it out". That was his "selling point". How it's "laid out",or rather how they "lay it out", meaning ' Gosh we did a tremendous job spinning everything into our corner'.

 I watched it, and found that the usual " tempo of the accusation " was insanely overblown and at the same time insanely under-supported by 5 second sound bites and friendly opinions, that whined about "living in fear, being silenced, and labelled as traitors"... pretty much 1.5 hours of 5 word quips cut up with " people with screen time complaining they are silenced and in fear".

 I mean how much of an idiot do you have to be to produce something like that. These people like Moyers are shamefully incompetent and move and shake on "the conspiracy that cannot be proven" - but they pride themselves on how they "lay it all out" 4 or 5 years after the fact.

 I note not a single moron Moyers had on his 1.5 hours of opinionated lies could state they knew anything other prior to the worldwide consensus of nuclear and biological and chemical weapons scientists and investigators had proclaimed WMD was present in Iraq.

 THESE MANY YEARS LATER THEY STILL DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE PERSON OR PAPER OR PAGE OR PHRASE THEY CAN LIST ON THEIR SHOWS. NOT EVEN ONE.

 My gawd, I'd like to give them at least credit for being reasonable sentient human beings, but as I look and view their story and how they "lay it out" the empty shell of "wishing it were" is the most apparent fact driven home, besides the endless "talking heads who cannot even now tell the truth" because of the massive imtimidation machine, apparently controlling ever minute of the full 1.5 hours of Moyers production.

 How disappointing. As a leftist, I would FIRE that idiot piece of crap for his pathetic presentation. They cannot get a shred of evidence to support "their view". I'm sorry, but I certainly could. How is that immense incompetence excused in their circles ? I just do not understand it.

Actually, there were folks wh

Actually, there were folks who pointed out before this war that Iraq didn't have WMD.  The problem is their voices were drowned out by the tide of people who refused to consider any alternative point of view.  You are using the "Enron Defense."  All the misinformation came from one source - then, when events proved the misinformation to be precisely that, the defenders say "well, everyone agreed."  Despite the fact everyone didn't agree, many of those who did were depending on the information in the books that had already been cooked.

Or are you one of those true believers trying to pass out the daft notion that Brits have a different meaning for that phrase?  There was a serious point of view!

Names and links, please, j. faux wilson...

"Actually, there were folks who pointed out before the war that Iraq didn't have WMD."

Names and links, please.

"All the misinformation came from one source."

 Name and link, please.

PBS

The Pelosi Broadcasting System is supported by public funding and yet continues to lean left day in and day out. Our area PBS stations can have all the telethons they want but until their attitude takes on a 'fair and balanced' approach, they will not get one dime from me.

Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.

I wonder just how much PBS pr

I wonder just how much PBS programming is money driven? For example, the "Newman's Own" foundation sponsors the America hating "BBC World News".  If a religious organization donated a ridiculous amount of money to sponsor a conservative program, would PBS run it?

"...is it really neces

"...is it really necessary to conduct a study?"

Is it really necessary to ask whether it was his own money the "conservative" was spending on the dimwitted study, instead of mine? (This kind of no-incentive, socialistic waste is why we need no PBS & no FCC.)
JMR

Why are we paying for this ag

Why are we paying for this again? Oh that's right, because liberals will start screaming "what about the children" the moment we question the validity of a public broadcasting. Fine, we'll pay for Sesame Street, and they can do what the rest of the broadcasters have to do: find an audience, earn money.

Imagine the outrage if Fox News got even a cent from the taxpayers.