COMMENTS: 56
Right-wing Coup at PBS?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.
You may recognize this quote from the Lutheran anti-Nazi activist, who formed a resistance movement and was then arrested and spent years in prison for his beliefs:
"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
The ongoing conservative coup at the quasi-governmental Corporation for Public Broadcasting seems to have come at last for lame duck PBS president and CEO Mitchell. The evidence is everywhere, as detailed recently in articles in such mainstream mouthpieces as The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Mitchell is being publicly criticized as "tone deaf" by CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, after having been "jokingly" told by him to ensure that PBS programming better reflect a Republican "mandate."
Meanwhile, as the Post noted (in an April 22 article "PBS Scrutiny Raises Political Antennas" by Paul Farhi):
"Liberal commentator Bill Moyers is out on PBS stations. Buster the animated rabbit is under a cloud of suspicion. And right-wing yakkers from the Wall Street Journal editorial page have been handed their own public television chat show."In addition, CPB officials recently appointed for the first time in history two "ombudsmen" to review PBS news and public affairs programs (such as the award-winning "Frontline" and "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer") for evidence of bias -- without bothering to inform Mitchell. They also insisted for the first time on tying new federal funding (CPB provides nearly $30 million annually to PBS) to an agreement that commits PBS to strict "objectivity and balance" in each of its programs -- something that, according to the PBS general counsel, amounts to: "government encroachment on and supervision of program content, potentially in violation of the First Amendment." And recently Ken Ferree, a top Republican operative and former FCC media bureau chief under Chairman Michael Powell, was named as an interim replacement for CPB chief executive Kathleen Cox. Ferree is meant to keep the seat warm until Tomlinson's choice for the post -- Assistant Secretary of State (and former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee) Patricia Harrison -- receives approval from CPB's board members, many of whom have been appointed by President Bush.
"We don't want to be alarmist, but I would be less than honest if I said there wasn't concern here," one senior executive at PBS, who insisted on anonymity because CPB provides about 10 percent of its annual budget,' told the Post. "When you put it all together, a pattern starts to emerge."A week and a half later, Mitchell went on the record, telling The New York Times "I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective that I do not consider appropriate."
Among the attempts cited by the Times: the hidden hiring of a consultant by CPB Board Chairman Ken Tomlinson to "review" the content of "NOW with Bill Moyers"; Tomlinson's assistance in lining up $5 million in corporate financing and subsequent PBS distribution of "The Journal Editorial Report," the weekly chat show featuring members of the conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal; his penchant for involving the White House in matters ranging from legislation affecting the CPB board to addressing concerns about "objectivity and balance;" all the way to remarks at a "fun occasion" -- a post-election meeting last November -- when Tomlinson told PBS officials, including Mitchell, that they ought to make sure their programming better reflected the Republican "mandate."
"I was in that room," Mitchell told the Times. "I was surprised by the comment. I thought it was inappropriate."
An unnamed senior FCC official went further, however, telling The Washington Post that CPB under Tomlinson "is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It's almost like a right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated."
Ken Tomlinson dismisses such concerns, however, as "paranoia," telling the Post that his critics should simply "grow up," remarking in the Times, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters that there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance."
Tomlinson says his goal is "to see programming that satisfies a broad constituency," and he is "concerned about perceptions that not all parts of the political spectrum are reflected on public broadcasting." He told the Post that he is: "only seeking balance" and that: "there are no hidden agendas."
But Tomlinson kept hidden the results of two "National Public Opinion" surveys indicating that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. public is happy with PBS programming. The documents, buried in an annual report to Congress, were neither released to the press nor shared with PBS. But both surveys confirm the same thing: "The majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased. The plurality of Americans indicate that there is no apparent bias one way or the other, while approximately one-in-five detect a liberal bias and approximately one-in-ten detect a conservative bias."
According to the Center for Digital Democracy, the surveys showed, that:
"public broadcasting had an 80 percent 'Favorable' rating; only 10 percent of those polled had an 'Unfavorable' opinion of PBS and public radio. ... More than half of those surveyed believed that PBS news and information programming was more 'Trustworthy' than news shows on the commercial networks. ... "
"Similarly, more than half of those surveyed believed that PBS provided more 'in-depth' news and information programming than the networks. ... Finally, more than half (55 percent) said that PBS programming was 'fair and balanced,' with strong support for its 'high quality programming.'"There is definitely deafness at PBS headquarters, and has been for more than a decade -- but not of tone or balance, Instead, PBS officials like Pat Mitchell are guilty of ignoring the deafening clamor of conservatives mounting an assault on public media of all types, and particularly public television. Right-wing activists began organizing their CPB "coup" long ago, but PBS officials such as Mitchell and her predecessors have done nothing but stand by silently. Led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and assisted by character assassins and political hit men like David Horowitz, they began by going after PTV's equivalent of Niemoller's "socialists, trade unionists and Jews."
I know, because I was one of them.
Along with Bill Moyers, David Fanning and "Frontline," my partner Danny Schechter and I were high on the original hit list. Our thought-crime? Producing the anti-apartheid newsmagazine program "South Africa Now," which appeared weekly between 1988-1991 on more than 150 public television stations. Unlike the Wall Street Journal, our company Globalvision received no funding or distribution assistance from either CPB or PBS. And when Horowitz -- then as now backed by the largesse of conservative funders -- labeled us "hard-line Marxist propagandists" and "advocates, not journalists," in major metropolitan newspapers, few within the public television hierarchy said a word. The same proved true when Horowitz later met secretly with top officials at the Los Angeles public television station KCET, which abruptly pulled our series off the air without discussion or notification.
After a week of public protest and a spate of articles about the controversy in the Los Angeles Times -- including its Pulitzer Prize-winning critic denouncing the station's "boneheaded decision" -- the station relented and reluctantly allowed the program back on the air, albeit after imposing a dumb, distancing disclaimer stating that "This program represents the views of its producers."
So they came for us, and the community spoke out, our viewers spoke out, and the Los Angeles Times spoke out, but PBS officials said nothing. The same was true of the attacks then and now on Moyers and Fanning and "Frontline," -- not to mention poor Buster and his lesbian, socialistic, Jewish, trade unionist supporters.
Now that they've come for PBS, its officials and its programming, is there anyone left to speak out?
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: owlbear1 on May 3, 2005 3:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And this FUCKER has the audacity to tell people to 'Grow up'?
Tell you what COWARD, when YOU stop lying like a fucking rug maybe I'll consider stop treating you like a 10 year old.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 'Reality-based' information apparently not part of New GOP?
Posted by: naryaquid
» RE: 'Reality-based' information apparently not part of New GOP?
Posted by: goldennugget
» shut up and do something, you coward....yeah!!!! YOU
Posted by: naturalbornflyer
» RE: 'Reality-based' information apparently not part of New GOP?
Posted by: christenxx
» RE: 'Reality-based' information apparently not part of New GOP?
Posted by: Iamnotafruittree
Comments are closed-
Posted by: churchofone on May 3, 2005 4:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A lion with no teeth
Posted by: cin9713
» The major media in this country chooses to NOT put their teeth into ... the GOP and Bush ...
Posted by: Cybernalt
» RE: The major media in this country chooses to NOT put their teeth into ... the GOP and Bush ...
Posted by: Chiron
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sharonsreed on May 3, 2005 4:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2 "Having, expressing, or following views or policies that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing."
And the definitions go on in a similar and appealing vein in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Would someone please explain to me, in terms I can understand and accept, how the angry, right wing has managed to turn the word LIBERAL into a frightening, four letter word? I feel that my country of origin has been hijacked by reincarnated souls from the 17th Century.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Definitions
Posted by: Edward George
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pubradiocat on May 3, 2005 5:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.cpb.org/talktous/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Send Tomlinson a message, and pass it on
Posted by: soulfulnotes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goldbeme on May 3, 2005 6:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Saving CPB
Posted by: nothreat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sharon on May 3, 2005 7:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wadavis on May 3, 2005 8:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: epubican POV
Posted by: mjm3iii
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CJC on May 3, 2005 8:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't that enough?
Now they're putting other foxes in charge of the chicken coop.
What kind of 'ombudsmen' aren't familiar with the service they are 'monitoring?'
"Monitoring" is not an ombudsman function.
"Ombudsman. 1. A man (person) who investigates complaints and mediates FAIR settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as comsumers or students and an institution or organization. 2. A government official, especially in Scandanavian countries, who investigates citizen complaints against the government or its functionaries." Am Heritage Dictionary. Emphasis is mine.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nakis on May 3, 2005 9:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The invader never admits what they are really up to. Using the example the author cites in the beginning of the article. The Nazis didn't start off telling everyone what they had planned. They lied and deceived to keep people off guard. They use the laws that support freedom to subvert and elminate those laws. Whatever it takes to support their agenda.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Armagedon"
Posted by: Cybernalt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oaktowngrrl on May 3, 2005 9:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[Italians have become unhappy with their failing economy. Though Berlusconi recently resigned, forced by the center right parties who did not fare well in recent elections, he did get a vote of confidence to form a new government. ]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Roger Király on May 3, 2005 9:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering PBS "leftist" or "radical" is a joke. Maybe Bill Moyers seems "radical" to the Neo-cons running the GOP but, to me, he seems more like a centrist. There's nothing wrong with being a centrist, but let's see Moyers for what he actually is, not the bugaboo the GOP is trying to create.
The problem with PBS is NOT that it is too leftist or radical, but that it's not radical enough. We don't need PBS to hear James Taylor or The Beach Boys.
Where are the discussions on PBS of the museum system and its relationship to living artists, the co-opting of the arts by academia, the marginalization of radical art, or the myopia of grant givers?
If people want conventional political discourse, let them watch Fox or MSNBC or, for that matter, the networks. The GOP wants everything to reflect only their limited worldview and have all media homogenized and sanitized---remove wrapper before watching. I would have the same opinion if the Democrats were trying to do the same thing.
I encourage people to support magazines like The Nation, The Progressive, The Progressive Populist, The Hightower Lowdown, among others, and support Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, AlterNet, and WorldLink TV instead of PBS. Don't rely on PBS for much of anything.
If PBS keeps ignoring its charter and continues with its watered-down, bland, conventional programming, it should be abolished.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The "Mission" of PBS
Posted by: Cybernalt
» RE: The "Mission" of PBS
Posted by: Lochinvar
» RE: The "Mission" of PBS
Posted by: sterlingwisdom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Reality Chick on May 3, 2005 10:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One wonders where the spirit of Revolution that founded this country and that reared its head in the 60's has gone. Are we all just fat and happy, with our SUV's and flat screen TV's that we either don't want to upset the apple cart or are convincing ourselves that, seriously, it can't REALLY happen that we, America, could regress back to the early 20th century, where Americans routinely died of curable diseases for lack of care, sold our children into economic bondage for lack of money and education and elevated snake oil salesmen to lofty esteem for lack of better presidential and senatorial candidates?
It sickens me to see what is happening and I don’t know what to do about it. I’ve put my money where my mouth is. I’ve voted in every election I have been eligible to since coming of age in 1977. I’ve worked for my candidates, licked the envelopes, dialed the phones, waved the placard. For naught? Apparently.
What will it take to return to the culture of fairness, equality for all, the promise of the American Dream? For good people to rise up and say ‘No More.’ No more shoving your religion down my throat. No more discriminating against people who are different from you. No more theocracy where democracy is supposed to live. No more Ms Nice Guy.
Throw down, Progressives. Claim your Liberal outlook proudly. Write to companies who pander to the Frightened Fundamentalists. Start a revolution. Or kiss this Great Experiment good-bye. Next year, we have the opportunity to throw the American Taliban regime out on its ear. But it has to start yesterday, with commitment, vision and fearlessness. Start talking and don’t stop until you are heard.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: trapped in twilight zone
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: Dissenter
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: Chiron
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: Reality Chick
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: Bluecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Robert on May 3, 2005 10:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The KPD, or Communist Party of Germany, was the first political party that was attacked wholesale by the Hitler regime shortly after he became Chancellor. If we do not understand this, we cannot understand the reason for the Reichstag fire, or be properly aware of the significance of the wholesale anti-Communist propaganda attack, combined with the arrest and imprisonment of Communist political figures. Not to be aware of it also is not to be aware of how Hitler forged his dictatorship in part by taking advantage of and benefiting from the political rivalry of the KPD and SDP (German Socialist Party). The most militant, most determined anti-Nazi force was isolated and largely destroyed in February of 1933, a month before the passage of the Enabling Act and its aftermath, which brought about the extinction of all other opposition parties and the arrests of many of their leaders and members. The beginning of the Nazi "divide and conquer" drive for power that Niemoeller describes begins with the Reichstag Fire of 2/33, not with the Enabling Act of March of the same year. The technique of anti-Communism has been used effectively to consolidate political power in many countries, including the United States.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: calebhummell on May 3, 2005 10:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mandate?
Posted by: Cybernalt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Molly McRae on May 3, 2005 2:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now the local station has many more infomercials for obscure products than documentaries. I am anxiously waiting for when I can truly pick and choose what I want to watch when I want to watch it. Maybe PBS can lead the way.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cybernalt on May 3, 2005 4:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The major media in this country chooses to NOT put their teeth into ... the GOP and Bush ...
Posted by: spyderbaby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skinstretcher on May 3, 2005 4:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "America was based on a flawed premise"
Posted by: Cybernalt
» RE: "America was based on a flawed premise"
Posted by: skinstretcher
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kajamian on May 3, 2005 4:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Tomlinson, former editor-in-chief of Readers Digest, his aim is to help public broadcasting "gain financial and political support" but "not removing shows or tampering internally with shows." However, one of his ombudsmen is Ken Bode, former NBC correspondent. The other is William Schulz, a former editor at (surprise) Readers Digest.
Can we hope Mr. Bode can also be a spy on the spy?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You Ain't Seen Nuthin' Yet!
Posted by: spyderbaby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on May 3, 2005 5:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The talking heads on PBS invariably represent the predictable positions, since they get the invitations. You can get that anywhere.
Moyers is an exception, and he perfected his craft when access was available. I regret that his like will find it harder to get visibility.
I shut down my tv for everything but videos five years ago. My life is better. You might want to try it, too.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Blow Up Your TV -- and your radio too?
Posted by: Cybernalt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thirdmg on May 3, 2005 5:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, that kind of response is why Republicans and their religious right allies can get away with so much and can intimidate so many. On hot-button issues, their side appears numerically large, passionate, highly organized and alert to protecting their interests, while our side looks diminutive, half-hearted and unconcerned. Unfortunately, our side still doesn't seem to know how to wage war and go on the offensive. If Spellings had been deluged with protests from progressives about "Buster," maybe the Bush administration would have been intimidated for a change and backed off from attacking PBS any further.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: epublican Attacks on PBS Succeed - An Example
Posted by: Cybernalt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hoverz on May 3, 2005 9:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The efforts to replace The Austin Music Network is being done at the same time as Austin Access Television assumes management of the music network and has boldly attempted to push changes to the Constitutional Guarantee of Freedom of Speech that was drafted as a preamble for Community Access Television Resources in 1991.
The city awarded the contract to another company who missed their deadlines to have a signal on the air. Austin has allowed the music network to stay on the channel for the time being but they have no money and only run media from their archives.
Many believe that the new network was never really supposed to happen, that TW wanted the channel back from the city and wanted to create a situation that would break the charter. The attempts to change the Free Speech Guarantee by controlling content and pulling shows that are critical of any religion or faith among other things.
If you would like to hear this story from some really expressive artists and media personalities who are directly involved.. oh and they play some great music along the way too. goto STRANGE DAZE http://www.musictexas.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: naturalbornflyer on May 4, 2005 12:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a parallel that we can also see in our government's unofficial view on Muslims and their power over women.
Frankly they wonder how they can keep those mouths from ever opening up against them. The Saudis ultimate control is looked at in awe, as we publicly mock them. It is said, that the
only thing that an Arab man understands and respects is power and force.
So when we look at how our military conducts itself in other countries, and what types of results they claim......maybe we should take a good hard look at ourselves, and say......What is it worth? When words no longer serve a purpose.....you never see in the news, a headline that reads, "Man arrested for typing on the internet". That is because it WILL NEVER GET YOU ANYWHERE. So as long you understand that words can only do so much, then know that is all you are capable of, and leave the real work to the men who have the guts to put it on the line. For good and evil are just as relevant as your geographical location. It is time......., and if you can't fight for it, you deserve what you get.
HISTORY IS NEVER WRITTEN BY THE LOSERS!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Life is a jungle...
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: You are all bunch of Pussies
Posted by: Bluecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobbyV on May 4, 2005 10:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: familyfarm on May 4, 2005 10:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: arlete27 on May 25, 2005 5:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: owlbear1 on May 3, 2005 3:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And this FUCKER has the audacity to tell people to 'Grow up'?
Tell you what COWARD, when YOU stop lying like a fucking rug maybe I'll consider stop treating you like a 10 year old.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 'Reality-based' information apparently not part of New GOP?
Posted by: naryaquid
» RE: 'Reality-based' information apparently not part of New GOP?
Posted by: goldennugget
» shut up and do something, you coward....yeah!!!! YOU
Posted by: naturalbornflyer
» RE: 'Reality-based' information apparently not part of New GOP?
Posted by: christenxx
» RE: 'Reality-based' information apparently not part of New GOP?
Posted by: Iamnotafruittree
Comments are closed-
Posted by: churchofone on May 3, 2005 4:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A lion with no teeth
Posted by: cin9713
» The major media in this country chooses to NOT put their teeth into ... the GOP and Bush ...
Posted by: Cybernalt
» RE: The major media in this country chooses to NOT put their teeth into ... the GOP and Bush ...
Posted by: Chiron
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sharonsreed on May 3, 2005 4:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2 "Having, expressing, or following views or policies that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing."
And the definitions go on in a similar and appealing vein in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Would someone please explain to me, in terms I can understand and accept, how the angry, right wing has managed to turn the word LIBERAL into a frightening, four letter word? I feel that my country of origin has been hijacked by reincarnated souls from the 17th Century.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Definitions
Posted by: Edward George
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pubradiocat on May 3, 2005 5:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.cpb.org/talktous/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Send Tomlinson a message, and pass it on
Posted by: soulfulnotes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goldbeme on May 3, 2005 6:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Saving CPB
Posted by: nothreat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sharon on May 3, 2005 7:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wadavis on May 3, 2005 8:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: epubican POV
Posted by: mjm3iii
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CJC on May 3, 2005 8:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't that enough?
Now they're putting other foxes in charge of the chicken coop.
What kind of 'ombudsmen' aren't familiar with the service they are 'monitoring?'
"Monitoring" is not an ombudsman function.
"Ombudsman. 1. A man (person) who investigates complaints and mediates FAIR settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as comsumers or students and an institution or organization. 2. A government official, especially in Scandanavian countries, who investigates citizen complaints against the government or its functionaries." Am Heritage Dictionary. Emphasis is mine.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nakis on May 3, 2005 9:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The invader never admits what they are really up to. Using the example the author cites in the beginning of the article. The Nazis didn't start off telling everyone what they had planned. They lied and deceived to keep people off guard. They use the laws that support freedom to subvert and elminate those laws. Whatever it takes to support their agenda.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Armagedon"
Posted by: Cybernalt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oaktowngrrl on May 3, 2005 9:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[Italians have become unhappy with their failing economy. Though Berlusconi recently resigned, forced by the center right parties who did not fare well in recent elections, he did get a vote of confidence to form a new government. ]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Roger Király on May 3, 2005 9:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering PBS "leftist" or "radical" is a joke. Maybe Bill Moyers seems "radical" to the Neo-cons running the GOP but, to me, he seems more like a centrist. There's nothing wrong with being a centrist, but let's see Moyers for what he actually is, not the bugaboo the GOP is trying to create.
The problem with PBS is NOT that it is too leftist or radical, but that it's not radical enough. We don't need PBS to hear James Taylor or The Beach Boys.
Where are the discussions on PBS of the museum system and its relationship to living artists, the co-opting of the arts by academia, the marginalization of radical art, or the myopia of grant givers?
If people want conventional political discourse, let them watch Fox or MSNBC or, for that matter, the networks. The GOP wants everything to reflect only their limited worldview and have all media homogenized and sanitized---remove wrapper before watching. I would have the same opinion if the Democrats were trying to do the same thing.
I encourage people to support magazines like The Nation, The Progressive, The Progressive Populist, The Hightower Lowdown, among others, and support Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, AlterNet, and WorldLink TV instead of PBS. Don't rely on PBS for much of anything.
If PBS keeps ignoring its charter and continues with its watered-down, bland, conventional programming, it should be abolished.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The "Mission" of PBS
Posted by: Cybernalt
» RE: The "Mission" of PBS
Posted by: Lochinvar
» RE: The "Mission" of PBS
Posted by: sterlingwisdom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Reality Chick on May 3, 2005 10:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One wonders where the spirit of Revolution that founded this country and that reared its head in the 60's has gone. Are we all just fat and happy, with our SUV's and flat screen TV's that we either don't want to upset the apple cart or are convincing ourselves that, seriously, it can't REALLY happen that we, America, could regress back to the early 20th century, where Americans routinely died of curable diseases for lack of care, sold our children into economic bondage for lack of money and education and elevated snake oil salesmen to lofty esteem for lack of better presidential and senatorial candidates?
It sickens me to see what is happening and I don’t know what to do about it. I’ve put my money where my mouth is. I’ve voted in every election I have been eligible to since coming of age in 1977. I’ve worked for my candidates, licked the envelopes, dialed the phones, waved the placard. For naught? Apparently.
What will it take to return to the culture of fairness, equality for all, the promise of the American Dream? For good people to rise up and say ‘No More.’ No more shoving your religion down my throat. No more discriminating against people who are different from you. No more theocracy where democracy is supposed to live. No more Ms Nice Guy.
Throw down, Progressives. Claim your Liberal outlook proudly. Write to companies who pander to the Frightened Fundamentalists. Start a revolution. Or kiss this Great Experiment good-bye. Next year, we have the opportunity to throw the American Taliban regime out on its ear. But it has to start yesterday, with commitment, vision and fearlessness. Start talking and don’t stop until you are heard.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: trapped in twilight zone
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: Dissenter
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: Chiron
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: Reality Chick
» RE: Fear and Loathing in America
Posted by: Bluecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Robert on May 3, 2005 10:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The KPD, or Communist Party of Germany, was the first political party that was attacked wholesale by the Hitler regime shortly after he became Chancellor. If we do not understand this, we cannot understand the reason for the Reichstag fire, or be properly aware of the significance of the wholesale anti-Communist propaganda attack, combined with the arrest and imprisonment of Communist political figures. Not to be aware of it also is not to be aware of how Hitler forged his dictatorship in part by taking advantage of and benefiting from the political rivalry of the KPD and SDP (German Socialist Party). The most militant, most determined anti-Nazi force was isolated and largely destroyed in February of 1933, a month before the passage of the Enabling Act and its aftermath, which brought about the extinction of all other opposition parties and the arrests of many of their leaders and members. The beginning of the Nazi "divide and conquer" drive for power that Niemoeller describes begins with the Reichstag Fire of 2/33, not with the Enabling Act of March of the same year. The technique of anti-Communism has been used effectively to consolidate political power in many countries, including the United States.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: calebhummell on May 3, 2005 10:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mandate?
Posted by: Cybernalt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Molly McRae on May 3, 2005 2:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now the local station has many more infomercials for obscure products than documentaries. I am anxiously waiting for when I can truly pick and choose what I want to watch when I want to watch it. Maybe PBS can lead the way.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cybernalt on May 3, 2005 4:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The major media in this country chooses to NOT put their teeth into ... the GOP and Bush ...
Posted by: spyderbaby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skinstretcher on May 3, 2005 4:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "America was based on a flawed premise"
Posted by: Cybernalt
» RE: "America was based on a flawed premise"
Posted by: skinstretcher
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kajamian on May 3, 2005 4:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Tomlinson, former editor-in-chief of Readers Digest, his aim is to help public broadcasting "gain financial and political support" but "not removing shows or tampering internally with shows." However, one of his ombudsmen is Ken Bode, former NBC correspondent. The other is William Schulz, a former editor at (surprise) Readers Digest.
Can we hope Mr. Bode can also be a spy on the spy?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You Ain't Seen Nuthin' Yet!
Posted by: spyderbaby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on May 3, 2005 5:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The talking heads on PBS invariably represent the predictable positions, since they get the invitations. You can get that anywhere.
Moyers is an exception, and he perfected his craft when access was available. I regret that his like will find it harder to get visibility.
I shut down my tv for everything but videos five years ago. My life is better. You might want to try it, too.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Blow Up Your TV -- and your radio too?
Posted by: Cybernalt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thirdmg on May 3, 2005 5:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, that kind of response is why Republicans and their religious right allies can get away with so much and can intimidate so many. On hot-button issues, their side appears numerically large, passionate, highly organized and alert to protecting their interests, while our side looks diminutive, half-hearted and unconcerned. Unfortunately, our side still doesn't seem to know how to wage war and go on the offensive. If Spellings had been deluged with protests from progressives about "Buster," maybe the Bush administration would have been intimidated for a change and backed off from attacking PBS any further.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: epublican Attacks on PBS Succeed - An Example
Posted by: Cybernalt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hoverz on May 3, 2005 9:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The efforts to replace The Austin Music Network is being done at the same time as Austin Access Television assumes management of the music network and has boldly attempted to push changes to the Constitutional Guarantee of Freedom of Speech that was drafted as a preamble for Community Access Television Resources in 1991.
The city awarded the contract to another company who missed their deadlines to have a signal on the air. Austin has allowed the music network to stay on the channel for the time being but they have no money and only run media from their archives.
Many believe that the new network was never really supposed to happen, that TW wanted the channel back from the city and wanted to create a situation that would break the charter. The attempts to change the Free Speech Guarantee by controlling content and pulling shows that are critical of any religion or faith among other things.
If you would like to hear this story from some really expressive artists and media personalities who are directly involved.. oh and they play some great music along the way too. goto STRANGE DAZE http://www.musictexas.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: naturalbornflyer on May 4, 2005 12:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a parallel that we can also see in our government's unofficial view on Muslims and their power over women.
Frankly they wonder how they can keep those mouths from ever opening up against them. The Saudis ultimate control is looked at in awe, as we publicly mock them. It is said, that the
only thing that an Arab man understands and respects is power and force.
So when we look at how our military conducts itself in other countries, and what types of results they claim......maybe we should take a good hard look at ourselves, and say......What is it worth? When words no longer serve a purpose.....you never see in the news, a headline that reads, "Man arrested for typing on the internet". That is because it WILL NEVER GET YOU ANYWHERE. So as long you understand that words can only do so much, then know that is all you are capable of, and leave the real work to the men who have the guts to put it on the line. For good and evil are just as relevant as your geographical location. It is time......., and if you can't fight for it, you deserve what you get.
HISTORY IS NEVER WRITTEN BY THE LOSERS!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Life is a jungle...
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: You are all bunch of Pussies
Posted by: Bluecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobbyV on May 4, 2005 10:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: familyfarm on May 4, 2005 10:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: arlete27 on May 25, 2005 5:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
Can Obama and Dems Overcome the Right's Talk Radio Monopoly?
Why We're Addicted to Disaster Porn




