Major FAIR Exposé of PBS: Taking the 'Public' Out of Public TV

[unhappycamper]

Major FAIR Exposé of PBS: Taking the 'Public' Out of Public TV
Published on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

A multi-part FAIR exposé of PBS's most prominent news and public affairs programs demonstrates that public television is failing to live up to its mission to provide an alternative to commercial television, to give voice to those "who would otherwise go unheard" and help viewers to "see America whole, in all its diversity," in the words of public TV's founding document.

In a special November issue of studies and analyses of PBS's major public affairs shows, FAIR's magazine Extra! shows that "public television" features guestlists strongly dominated by white, male and elite sources, who are far more likely to represent corporations and war makers than environmentalists or peace advocates. And both funding and ownership of these shows is increasingly corporate, further eroding the distinction between "public" and corporate television. There is precious little "public" left in "public television."

FAIR undertook the examination following news last fall that PBS was canceling Now and that Bill Moyers was retiring from Bill Moyers Journal. PBS announced that it was replacing the two shows, which exemplified the public broadcasting mission, with Need to Know, a news magazine launched in May and anchored by two journalists from the corporate media world.

FAIR's findings reveal:

Need to Know. FAIR's study of the first three months of Need to Know's guestlist and segments finds that its "record so far provides little encouragement that it will ever serve as an adequate replacement for Now and the Bill Moyers Journal."

[amyrose2712]

1. ...

[w8liftinglady]

2. man.Bill Moyers was one of my favorites..and from Texas,to boot.

I hate to see this migration,especially since a lot of us don't have access to MSNBC or Free Speech network.

[myrna minx]

3. K&R n/t

[Starry Messenger]

4. k & r

[Romulox]

5. Unreccing for all the "white male" crap--as if whiteness (and not corporate $$$) was the problem

When it focuses on race and not POWER, FAIR's rhetoric is either wittingly or unwittingly in service of the latter. America cannot be saved by televising more African American plutocrats.

[Lance_Boyle]

9. Seconded.

Maybe PBS would be better if Condy Rice had a show. Or Michelle Malkin.

FAIR is being unfair here. But "white male" is an easy and acceptable target these days.

[Peregrine Took]

12. Amen! So 1960's to blame "whitey" again. Good and bad in all races

no group can claim superiority.

[lightningandsnow]

19. Like it or not, white men have white and male privilege.

Nobody's saying all white men are bad. However, we do need to allow marginalized groups to have their voices heard. Race (and gender, ability, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and the like), sadly, are often determinants of who has power and who doesn't.

[Romulox]

25. Nonsense. The true powers that be are TERRIFIED of a diversity of class

Which is why they insist that race be made a proxy for class.

"Race (and gender, ability, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and the like), sadly, are often determinants of who has power and who doesn't."

If we aim to add diversity of class, why is there a need to seek a proxy? Let's add diversity of class to list, full stop.

[lightningandsnow]

27. So you'd support TV where all the people on it are white, straight, able-bodied men?

Just as long as they are on the left and not the right?

Let me guess. You're white, straight, able-bodied, and male.

[Romulox]

29. Would you support replacing Bill Moyer with the Condi Rice Hour?

:shrug:

Why is it so important to you that class not be discussed? :shrug:

[lightningandsnow]

31. I included class.

Why is it so important to you to deny the existence of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism as forms of SYSTEMIC oppression, not just individual bigotry?

Also, nice strawman. There are plenty of progressive women, ethnic/racial minorities, people with disabilities, and queer/trans people.

[dionysus]

32. cause they're keeping us white guys down!11!! or.. something...

:sarcasm:

[Romulox]

33. And class-based discrimination is not also systematic?

'Why is it so important to you to deny the existence of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism as forms of SYSTEMIC oppression, not just individual bigotry?"

I haven't said anything like this, nor is it what I believe.

"There are plenty of progressive women, ethnic/racial minorities, people with disabilities, and queer/trans people."

I also didn't say anything like this. I just want to know if PBS is better off without Moyer?

[lightningandsnow]

36. We already both agreed that there is classism,

and it is systemic, therefore, I didn't need to reiterate it.

Nobody is saying to kick Moyer off the air. Chill out. Seriously, why are you so opposed to diverse media representations?

[Romulox]

39. Then it's not clear to me what you are disagreeing with...

"Chill out. Seriously, why are you so opposed to diverse media representations?"

I'm perfectly chill. This is a discussion forum. We like, discuss stuff. I ain't mad atcha. :hi:

"Chill out. Seriously, why are you so opposed to diverse media representations?"

For the third time, I didn't say that. I just said that the issue is corporate influence on PBS, not "white maleness".

[progressoid]

24. Um, corporations?

You mean like in the rest of that paragraph?

...who are far more likely to represent corporations and war makers than environmentalists or peace advocates. And both funding and ownership of these shows is increasingly corporate, further eroding the distinction between "public" and corporate television. There is precious little "public" left in "public television."

[Romulox]

26. The article cites whiteness, maleness and then eliteness as the first three negatives

And conflates them together. Quite frankly the author lost all credibility with me at that point.

[progressoid]

35. And who best represents the corporate viewpoint?

The people that run most corporations: white male elites.

[Romulox]

40. Right. My argument is that the "eliteness" is the essence of their power

Poor white folk aren't on PBS, either. :hi:

[dionysus]

30. yeah, us poor oppressed white guys have it so ruff...

:crazy:

[Gator_Matt]

38. What exactly is your point?

Do you think it is ok to use "white male" in a generic, negative sense?

No one is claiming whites are the target of systematic racism. What is being claimed is that only a tiny minority are privileged elites. The rest of us are busting our asses just like everyone else. It pisses us off to no end when the implication is made that we have everything handed to us. I'm 28 and still in school, studying my ass off, to get ahead. No one holds my hand when I study/work 60-80 hours a week. When/if I land a great career as a result of this hard work, I don't want my years/decades of hard work to be dismissed because I'm "whitey."

[Gator_Matt]

34. As a white male I'm tired of being a pejorative

White males discovered antibiotics and put men on the moon. The implication that all white males are corrupt elites is absurd. It's like saying all British people are out-of-touch royalty.

The fact is that many of us are progressive, and we have to work very hard to get ahead. It's not like I receive a free pass to Harvard in the mail. I have to bust my ass just like everyone else.

[ixion]

6. k/r...

very sad. :(

[Wickerman]

7. Not entirely fair

I like Austin City Limits, Antique Roadshow, and the This Old House Stuff - and Bill Moyers.

Oh, largely White male. This Old House is owned by Chevy and Stanley tools. Nevermind.

[Overseas]

8. K&R!

Long overdue. PBS and NPR have been trending conservative for a long time now.

More of the fake "balance" than would be honest. If facts support the liberal side, then right wing opinion is given time to pretend they don't matter. Instead of just letting those facts stand in PBS, which used to be our antidote from bought and paid for commercial media.

Even though we have a billionaire's pet project-- a 24/7 Anti-Democratic opinion channel blasting away-- PBS still feels it needs to inject right wing pontificating into its schedule.

[Peace Patriot]

10. Love the graphic! Great post! So true! nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

11. Ramen to that!

[nashville_brook]

13. here's the numbers -- NewsHour's guestlist was 80% male and 82% white

-- The NewsHour's guestlist was 80 percent male and 82 percent white, with a pronounced tilt toward elites who rarely "go unheard," like current and former government and military officials, corporate representatives and journalists (74 percent). Since 2006, appearances by women of color actually decreased by a third, to only 4 percent of U.S. sources.

-- Women and people of color were far more likely to appear as "people on the street" providing brief, often reactive soundbites, than in more authoritative roles in live interviews.

-- Viewers were five times as likely to see guests representing corporations (10 percent v. 2 percent) than representatives of public interest groups who might counterweigh such moneyed interests--labor, consumer and environmental organizations.

-- While Democratic guests outnumbered Republican guests nearly 2-to-1 in overall sources, Republicans dominated by more than 3-to-2 in the program's longer format, live segments. (FAIR's 2006 NewsHour study, which examined a period when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress, showed Republican guests outnumbering Democrats in both categories: 2-to-1 among all sources, 3-to-2 in the longer live interviews.)

-- On segments about the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the most frequent story of the study period, viewers were four times as likely to see representatives hailing from the oil industry (13 percent of guests) as representatives of environmental concerns (3 percent).

-- On segments focusing on the Afghan War, though polls show consistent majorities of Americans have opposed the war for more than a year, not a single NewsHour guest represented an antiwar group or expressed antiwar views. Similarly, no representative of a human rights or humanitarian organization appeared on the NewsHour during the study period.

[Ron Green]

14. Even the non-whites and non-males are pushing right-wing talking points.

PBS and NPR have been whored out for years.

[southernyankeebelle]

15. Start donating to Link TV.com it is liberal leaning. Democracy Now with

Amy Goodman show is a no frills news show and you will get the truth from them. They cover things that mainstream media isn't showing us. It is on Direct TV. Please take a look.

[w8liftinglady]

18. I love Democracy Now-it is an EXCELLENT news program strictly fact-based.

[AmandaMae]

20. +1, Democracy Now is one of the best news programs out there.

[EFerrari]

21. LINK and Free Speech TV are on DirecTV and DISH. n/t

[RainDog]

16. Fair Does Great Work

I remember hearing about the Bush admin. attempt to take over PBS back in 2005 or so.

[glinda]

17. Same thing is happening to MPR.

[Scurrilous]

22. K & R

:thumbsup:

[upi402]

23. FAIR's mag, Extra! exposed PBS as a shill in the 90's

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4
Great publication.

They exposed the corporatist slant of PBS with their one-sided pro-NAFTA airtime. The comments against were less than persuasive, or merely 'man on the street' commentary. Which the array of pro-NAFTA pundit were later allowed to triangulate on afterward, uninterrupted and unchallenged.

We are in this mess due to the TV News' betrayal of democracy. FAIR tells that story heroically.

[BlueIris]

28. Thanks for this. nt

[earth mom]

37. Bush made sure his rethuglican friends took over PBS and now they've f*cked it up.

These days whenever I see something that is even slightly liberal on there, I wonder how it got past those bastards! :grr:

PBS used to be my favorite channel. :cry:

[Supersedeas]

41. same with NPR

[Gold Metal Flake]

42. Hey, guys, remember this?

Now why did they fire Juan Williams again? Need to change the narrative much?