6.25.2005
Partisanship at PBS
Certainly, Patricia Harrison has the credentials to be the next president of PBS. But nominating a former chair of the Republican National Committee raises just too many questions for a position that should be as apolitical as possible. PBS remains one of the major news outlets in the US that is not controlled by corporate interests, and any indication that it might be controlled by a political party would complicate its mission. I also have an issue with those who accuse PBS of having a liberal bias; arguments like these are specious and not constructive.
The US badly needs a BBC: a media source that is publicly funded and commercial free, where journalism is more of a craft than the news-cycle "story of the day" format that dominates CNN/MSNBC/Fox.
The US badly needs a BBC: a media source that is publicly funded and commercial free, where journalism is more of a craft than the news-cycle "story of the day" format that dominates CNN/MSNBC/Fox.
# posted by Juanson : 3:29 PM
Comments:
<< Home
OK...
My take on the "liberal bias."
First off all, let's eliminate publications and news sources that are blatantly partisan: on one hand, The Nation, Mother Jones, Common Sense.org, Village Voice, etc.
One the other hand, the National Review, Washington Times, Fox News, et al.
These sources all have biases that they are in no way trying to hide.
That leaves us with the "mainstream media," i.e. the three networks, along with the major newspapers and weekly magazines.
It is specious to label this media as having a liberal bias, because in many ways, these sources are simply reporting facts, and doing very little in the way of analysis. When considering that the current administration has been in power for four and a half years, it is easy to do a "news analysis" to see where the Bush administration has been criticized in the mainstream media. When mistakes are made (and people on all sides of the spectrum will agree that several mishaps have plagued this administration), the media is going to report them. This does not mean that they are biased.
Naturally, there is not going to be as much criticism of Democrats when they are not in control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress.
I dont believe that it is constructive to go down the road of arguing the bias of the media because all you do is end up going around in circles. Each side could, ad nauseum, provide evidence of the bias held by the mainstream media.
In the end, however, it's safe to say that our media - when boiled down to the evening news and the news cycle format - does very little real questioning of policies and often ignores what are pressing issues because of the forces that drive news coverage. On the other hand, the fringe publications become marginalized because of their decided slant.
I think that any move that places a very partisan individual in the head of PBS (I would have said the same for say, Howard Dean) has just too much potential for controversy, which leads discourse down the road of bickering between liberals and conservatives.
(I also believe that the mainstream media does a great job in convincing America that there is this huge gulf between the right and the left, when in fact the bulk of both parties are mired in the center, but that's another topic for another thread...)
Post a Comment
My take on the "liberal bias."
First off all, let's eliminate publications and news sources that are blatantly partisan: on one hand, The Nation, Mother Jones, Common Sense.org, Village Voice, etc.
One the other hand, the National Review, Washington Times, Fox News, et al.
These sources all have biases that they are in no way trying to hide.
That leaves us with the "mainstream media," i.e. the three networks, along with the major newspapers and weekly magazines.
It is specious to label this media as having a liberal bias, because in many ways, these sources are simply reporting facts, and doing very little in the way of analysis. When considering that the current administration has been in power for four and a half years, it is easy to do a "news analysis" to see where the Bush administration has been criticized in the mainstream media. When mistakes are made (and people on all sides of the spectrum will agree that several mishaps have plagued this administration), the media is going to report them. This does not mean that they are biased.
Naturally, there is not going to be as much criticism of Democrats when they are not in control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress.
I dont believe that it is constructive to go down the road of arguing the bias of the media because all you do is end up going around in circles. Each side could, ad nauseum, provide evidence of the bias held by the mainstream media.
In the end, however, it's safe to say that our media - when boiled down to the evening news and the news cycle format - does very little real questioning of policies and often ignores what are pressing issues because of the forces that drive news coverage. On the other hand, the fringe publications become marginalized because of their decided slant.
I think that any move that places a very partisan individual in the head of PBS (I would have said the same for say, Howard Dean) has just too much potential for controversy, which leads discourse down the road of bickering between liberals and conservatives.
(I also believe that the mainstream media does a great job in convincing America that there is this huge gulf between the right and the left, when in fact the bulk of both parties are mired in the center, but that's another topic for another thread...)
<< Home
