PBS - No Better Than Corporate Whores.

On Democracy Now today - Christian Parenti of The Nation spoke about his appearance on PBS - where he critized Hallilburton & Bechtel. The next day the producer of News Hour phoned him and told him that Jim Leher was very upset about what he said on the broadcast as being "unbalanced"??? - Jim Leher went as far as to read an apology the next day.

Then tonight on NOW with Hal Holbrook, they spoke about the fact that PBS was in negotiations with Holbrook to do an hour special of Mark Twain, but wanted him to cut out the "Huck Finn" part, because of the anti-war message. Keep in mind, the TV special ran by CBS featuring Holbrook as Mark Twain originally ran in 1967 and has never run again on TV, inspite of the fact that 22 million people tuned in. CBS tired to censor Holbrook on the Huck Finn portion and saying the word "nigger". Holbrook refused CBS, they however came back and said OK. PBS on the other hand said NO and the project was nixed.

From Democracy Now.

CHRISTIAN PARENTI (RECORDING): Why are Iraqis so angry and willing to point the blame at the US after this sort of bombing? A lot of it has to do with the failure of meaningful reconstruction. There still isn't adequate electricity in many towns like Ramadi. When I was there there wasn't adequate water. Where is all the money that’s going to Halliburton and Bechtel to rebuild this country, where is it ending up? And I think that is one of the most important, fundamental causes of instability, the corruption around the contracting with these Bush-connected firms in Iraq and unless that is dealt with, there is going to be much more instability for times to come in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Christian Parenti on the air. What happened after that?

CHRISTIAN PARENTI: Well, then I went home and went to sleep and the next morning I got a call from the producer, who is a very nice guy, Dan Segalan, and he was upset that I had been unbalanced and I asked him what was unbalanced and he said, “Well, it is not that you said that was problematic, but we didn't have someone to count you are your points about Halliburton.” I said, “Wait a minute, you don't have someone countering administration positions every time they're on.” And he agreed that that was true. He said but, you know, overall it all balances out. We get different positions on and overall it all balances out. Then I don't understand why my comments won't be balanced out the next time you have someone from the administration or somewhere else on. And so then he hung up and he was -- I didn't understand what he was getting at. And then he called back and said that Jim Lehrer was so upset that Jim Lehrer was going to read some sort of apology on the air. Which I thought was ridiculous. But I was very flattered that he though it was so important what I said.

AMY GOODMAN: On March 4, Jim Lehrer returned to the end of the show, at the end of the program, and read the following statement – “For those whose were watching two nights ago, a discussion about Iraq ended up by -- ended up not being as balanced as is our standard practice, while unintentional, it was indeed our mistake and we regret it.”

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/19/156204

It works every time!

from an excellent source--they got a little RW astroturf.

About a tenth the amount of email they got complaining about the apology! The apology got them over 1200!

why don't we on the left scream as loudly and take action as frequently? If everyone on DU wrote at least ONE letter to the media every week, we might make some real changes for the better.

that not everyone in their audience is a Bush-supporting fool.

licans (ie, if he told the truth).

I believe that Too Close to Call has some very unflattering commentary on the way Jim Lehrer protected Bush from hard questioning in the debates, incidentally.

It's just corporate shilling. Lehrer's pathetic apology for Parenti's views is little different from those offered in recent years when the program has had a Palestian guest on making a forceful point: expressions of heterodox opinion do not go unnoticed or unpunished, and the backlash reliably gives Lehrer occasion to do his best crawling (even more spectacular than his regular fits of servility before official Washington).

No surprise in any of this, given who now controls PBS. What's really astonishing is what otherwise intelligent people will do to be on TV. Witness the aging Mark Shields--no fool, yet keen to nod and split the difference with David Brooks in the marginal spectacle that passes for liberal-conservative debate. Or take Ray Suarez. One of the saddest spectacles in all our media is that of Suarez, once free to think critically on radio, now shackled and long-faced at his TV job. Bad move, Ray; surely you didn't see yourself ending up as a toady?

Mark Shields does land a punch or two every time but
hardly makes up for David Brooks who can really stay
on message "Bush good. War good. Bush makes us safe."
on and on and on.

But that says more about Juan than it does about Ray.

I gave up Talk of the Nation 50% with Ray 100% with Juan.

It started as a great show with Hockenberry, I remember the
topic was often "The big lie." it went down hill from
there as has much of NPR since the rise of corporate
advertising.

Not much better than Pravda in the old days.

Hallilburton & Bechtel in the vanguard of the empire.

All glory to god, all cash to us.

Are you referring to the News Hour... some other PBS shows? Or PBS generally?

This is a good start 1 of 3 antiwar government officials appeared on PBS 2 on FOX.

Antiwar voices made up 3% of PBS sources so my 50:1 was a slight over statement I should have said 33:1 sorry.


Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent
FAIR study finds democracy poorly served by war coverage

http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html

...

Starting the day after the bombing of Iraq began on March 19, the three-week study (3/20/03-4/9/03) looked at 1,617 on-camera sources appearing in stories about Iraq on the evening newscasts of six television networks and news channels. The news programs studied were ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume, and PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.*

...

Of a total of 840 U.S. sources who are current or former government or military officials, only four were identified as holding anti-war opinions--Sen. Robert Byrd (D.-W.V.), Rep. Pete Stark (D.-Calif.) and two appearances by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio). Byrd was featured on PBS, with Stark and Kucinich appearing on Fox News.

...

The FAIR study found just 3 percent of U.S. sources represented or expressed opposition to the war. With more than one in four U.S. citizens opposing the war and much higher rates of opposition in most countries where opinion was polled, none of the networks offered anything resembling proportionate coverage of anti-war voices. The anti-war percentages ranged from 4 percent at NBC, 3 percent at CNN, ABC, PBS and FOX, and less than 1 percent--one out of 205 U.S. sources--at CBS.

o'reilly says PBS is full of a bunch of left wing nutjob ideologues! he can't be wrong, can he?!

WTF is going on in the world? :wtf:

It's sickening.

... is that the chairmen of PBS and NPR, respectively, are former heads of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. They're seeing to it that propaganda to the American people has a nice face put on it.

I used to watch the Newshour all the time. And I'm quite shocked.

If a guest says something highly controversial, the interviewer should question it right away and get the guest to clarify it. In this case, they should have brought the guy Parenti back, and maybe had an administration spokesperson there if they felt it was unbalanced.

This stupid apology, I don't think I ever saw anything like that over an interview before. Ridiculous.

That damned Contract on America was the end of NPR as far as I'm concerned. Balance and facts have gone out the window. Environmental coverage, which was accurate and very good is now virtually nonexistant. That goes for both radio & tv. Our local PBS(SC) is particularly coporate. Dank Gott for the internet!

I don't watch much PBS so I really can't comment other than this stinks.

But on NPR "overall it balances out" is patently false. Not even close. Not even remotely close.

Public Broadcasting is over. It has been co-opted. Why should anyone apologize for a reporter, an insider at that, expressing his opinion.

Jim Lehrer, I've always suspected it but now I know - you're just another media whore. Enjoy your paycheck.

So if a reporter is doing a story on corruption in a city government, then the expectation is they will have the mayor's nephew on, explaining how his uncle is "just taking care of the family"?

If I do a story on the impropriety of the "chumminess" betwixt Halliburton and Cheney and Bush, and report on billions of dollars going down a rabbit hole w/no accounting, I'm expected to let Halliburton assasinate my character in the name of "balance"?

This is reporting. If what I was offering was being offered as an Editorial position, well, then I could see a need to let the other side respond. But this is news reporting. I did research, I followed leads, I interviewed people and then reported the findings of all that work. The facts speak for themselves, and I'm under no responsibility to make sure I "balance" my story by putting in some fiction from whoever came off looking bad.

That's be like doing a story on how turds definitely STINK, but in the interest of balance, I have to mention that some people actually enjoy the aroma of shit.

Insane.

... there is no reporting any more. There is just "he said" and then "she said", with no attempt made by the "reporter" to ascertain the facts of the situation.

In the fullness of time, the whole sorry mess with Halliburton and friends will come out. Will Jim Lehrer come out and apologize for being an enabler? Yeah, right.

"And now for an alternative view of life in the concentration camps, we have Joseph Goebbels..."

It's uncomfortably close to what they actually do.

..then Lehrer was correct to make that apology.

The Newshours standard practice is to have two or more sides of an issue presented. In a case like Parenti, where Parenti was presenting one POV, they would also be interviewing someone else who held an opposing POV.

This is very different from,say, the other newsnetworks, particularly Fox (what ive seen of it) where there is a bias in panel discussions, or the interviewer goes on all-out attack against a liberal or Democratic "guest" (victim would be a better word).

You usually dont see this bias. If there is a bias on the Newshour it is towards a sort of centerist/moderate POV ..they usually dont go too far to the left or right with their guests (though the former editor...I forgot his name.... of the Progressive did appear on some of their round-robin journo panels a few years ago)

.... the facts are not in the "center"?

Truth is truth, regardless of where on the PC spectrum it might fall.

..the person or entity being charged should have an opportunity to defend him her or itself.

if the Newshour standard practice is to have two or more sides...what would the other side be? Lies? Does a credible news organization present lies? NO...it does not. What has left or right to do with the isseu? Not a damn thing. Truth is truth. If I say the earth revolves around the sun...that is the truth. It matters not whether I am from the left or the right.

RC

Hart got a good one in for a change. Hmmm, Let's see i think it ran along the lines of "what's the rush?" "It's gonna be a fair and balanced debate!" "How's that?" and in the last panel, you have 2 speakers, one standing on the usual pedestal labelled "TRVTH" and another on one labelled "LIES".

Yep, "Fair and Balanced-You consume, WE decide"

My first letter:
I think you should apologize to a loyal audience that has depended on the News Hour to uncover and raise the important questions we are faced with. Your disagreement with Mr. Parenti has nothing to do with the publics right to know whether or not his opinions hold water. Many of us DO suspect a problem with the performance of the sub-contractors working in Iraq and we deserve answers. Apparently we can cross PBS off our list of probable trustworthy sources.

PBS Response:
Dear sir or madam,
In response to your recent email I would like to explain the rationale for
Jim Lehrer' Editor's Note on the NewsHour on March 1.
We have no quarrel with what Christian Parenti said at the end of the
segment in which he was interviewed. He was asked a question and
appropriately gave us his answer. Our concern was with the lack of another
view. We should have asked the other guest, Professor Juan Cole, for his
reaction.
Balance is one of our most important standards. It is a signature
characteristic of the program. We believe our viewers value it as much as we
do. Therefore, we decided to acknowledge that we regretted the imbalance
which occurred.
Thanks for writing and for you interest in the NewsHour.
Sincerely,
Les Crystal
Executive Producer, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

My second letter:
If, as you state, the fault lies with you in not asking for an opposing opinion, why then was it Mr. Parenti who has not been asked back. And since when is a statement such as Mr. Parenti made dismissed as opinion. Is it not your job to explore his accusations and uncover the truth if you have any question of the veracity of his remarks.
Please do not make this worse with lame excuses. I will be expecting to see this issue featured soon. This is a very serious situation and we need to know if Mr. Parenti had any basis for making his accusations.

I don't think what Lehrer did was right re: Parenti, but
I can't tar and feather the whole network because of one
misunderstanding.

It's the only place where I can get an hour of news without shouting competitions and stupid music. :cry:

but for in-depth analysis of the news of the day, it's the Newshour or nowhere.

I can't stand it myself.

(Begala is from Texas, Carville from Louisiana.) After wimps like Kinsley, I absolutely love listening to kick-ass liberals.

:evilgrin:

How CNN has two Southerners represent us. I would prefer it though if there was more Carville and less Begala and more Novak and less Carlson.

to assume that the Parenti example is just ONE misunderstanding is naive. Tar & Feather the entire network is a tad extreme -

PBS is a wonderful network - but it just goes to show you that they too have buckled to the right-wing. Which probably has more to do with the rights constant threats to pull government funding. Their constant whining about Bill Moyers prompted them to balance the network by adding a show in the near future with right-winger Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson is no Bill Moyers.

What really bothers me is the fact that they nixed the Mark Twain project.

states like Oregon have radically gutted the amount of state funding for public broadcasting--so PBS is even more indebted to whatever dollars that dribble in from the Feds.

I have my own quibbles with PBS--I absolutely detest Gwen Ifill for example. And Charlie Rose goes entirely too easy on the likes of Richard Perle.

But on the whole PBS is the best source on TV for credible news.

(Tucker Carlson, eh? First I'd heard of that one.)

Just what is PBS? It's a conglomerate of shows produced by various groups. I'd hardly compare the quality work that Frontline often produces with the generally pro-status quo views expressed on the News Hour.