As has been posted in other diaries (mea culpa for not linking, my search feature seems to be 'down' this morning), public broadcasting is under threat from the very people who are supposed to be serving as a bulwark supporting its independence. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, believes that: "Public television has a problem. A liberal problem."
His answer to this supposed problem: PBS and NPR need to be "balanced" ...
Now, what is the objective ... balanced (or, as some might put it, "Fair and Balanced") or accuracy?
As well reported, for example in the
Washington Post
this morning, the CPB Chairman is attempting to -- against the very concepts underpinning the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- shape public television and radio to be more -- in his opinion -- representative of the American political spectrum.
From the Post,
"It was November 2003, and he was watching Bill Moyers, host of the Public Broadcasting Service show "Now," talk about how free-trade policies had harmed small-town America. Tomlinson knows small-town America -- he grew up outside tiny Galax, Va., in the Blue Ridge Mountains -- and Moyers's presentation of the issues struck him as superficial and one-sided. Indeed, it struck him as "liberal advocacy journalism." Right then, Tomlinson said, he decided it was time to bring some "balance" to the public TV and radio airwaves."
What has that meant ... bring in Tucker Carlson ... give the Wall Street Journal editorial board carte blanche to run a show ... (I'm holding my breath for when Rush Limbaugh hosts an evening during pledge week ...)
Out of this discussion, I am stuck on the word "balanced". When it comes to broadcast journalism today, the main user of that term seems to be that ever so bi-partisan, ever so thoughtful Faux News -- as in "Fair and Balanced".
The question we should be asking -- it seems to me -- and perhaps a basis for framing this issue is whether public broadcasting should focus on being "balanced" or whether "accuracy" is more important. Are PBS/NPR to concern themselves principally as to how they shape the public (thus, concern over being politically balanced) or are they to be responsible in terms of educating the public (thus, are they "accurate" in what they report and enable people to developed educated opinions)?
As virtually everyone who even dabbles in DailyKos is aware, if the second is the charter, with all their warts (and their are many), PBS/NPR are doing a reasonable job (better than any other mass media organization / set of organizations) in their education role.
This has been extremely documented -- as, again, we are aware. When it came to Iraq, PBS/NPR viewers/listeners were least likely to be misinformed about facts (ABOUT FACTS) related to the situation as is well documented in this excellent University of Maryland analysis. Surprise, surprise, when we turn to "balance", the most ill-informed people where those who relied on the "Fair and Balanced" media giant, Faux News.
When it comes to expending MY (OUR!) tax dollars, I will always choose accuracy over balance if the balance forces me to abandon reality-based policy-making.
Our political opponents, however, seem to choose the opposite (as long as "balance" does not mean 100% in their favor). This doesn't only relate to broadcasting, but also to textbooks. What is the argument for placing "intelligent creation" into high school science textbooks? The need to "balance" evolution with an alternative theory ... even if it is not a scientifically-based (but religiously based) theory.
My rallying cry:
PBS/NPR: Accuracy to educate the Public not balance to spin it ...
