Bush bashes PBS (again), and The New York Times helps

I understand why Bush takes cheap shots at PBS. But what's The New York Times' excuse?

The Bush administration has been attacking PBS' funding for years, and in 2005 actually helped plot a public -- and bogus -- campaign to rid public broadcasting of its alleged liberal bias. Now the White House has submitted the largest funding cut ever proposed for public broadcasting.

Unfortunately, this year Bush's attack picked up a quasi-endorsement from Times in the form of a recent, above-the-fold cover piece in the newspaper's influential Sunday Arts & Leisure section headlined, "Is PBS Still Necessary?" The essay really was a train wreck.

Read the full Media Matters column here.

Comments

[NoPCZone]

Why wouldn't the MSM like to kill PBS? I would wager that Time Warner and the rest would love to get their hands on all of those station licenses to give us more Home Shopping, (un)reality shows, infotainment and reruns of 15 year-old Network TV.
Frontline, Wide Angle, Expose- America's Investigative Reports, NOW, Bill Moyers' Journal and other shows have been covering what the commercial media will not. The fact that PBS viewers scored better on current events knowledge than those of any cable or broadcast news operation is not lost on them.

[ChiGuy]

Can't stand the scrutiny from shows like Frontline.

Gutless bastards.

[SamThornton]

Conservative hostility toward PBS is simply another wedge issue promoted by the right to distract attention from more important issues they wish to conceal, such as their continuing enhancements to their program of corporate welfare.

[realpolitic]

Bush hates PBS because it tells the truth. Conservatives do not think governemnt should promote the arts and sciences. Conservatives prefer government promote war and that is all.

[Durango]

PBS has Bill Moyers.

Bill Moyers is a true American hero.

[StephenSmoliar]

Something weird is going on here. "Is PBS Necessary?" was Charles McGrath's TELEVISION column, which appeared in THE NEW YORK TIMES on February 17. So what are the circumstances that led the TIMES to reprint the column in last Sunday's "Arts & Leisure" section? Surely it was more than a one-month anniversary party! My guess is that considerable word-of-mouth "buzz" formed around the column; and, since the Sunday paper has a larger and broader subscription base than the dailies, the TIMES decided that this was the way to distribute it to a wider audience in THEIR name, rather than that of interested bloggers on both sides of the issue.

My own contribution to the blogosphere is at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/02/gap-that-cable-cannot-seem-to-fill.html

My position was that "McGrath's arguments are about as stale as the state that he claims the Public Broadcasting System is suffering. " However, I begin with a disclaimer about my personal viewing habits: "The sad truth is that the only PBS channel I watch with any regularity is KQED World, which is only available in digital format and comes to me through my Comcast box; and the only thing I watch on it is the BBC World Service Television news feed that is provided about four times a day (except on Saturday). I even went as far as to sent a polite message to Comcast, informing them that the BBC feed was available 24/7 to any provider who wanted to pay for it; and I got the expected formal response that there was not viewer demand for this sort of thing." After that most of my attention goes into coverage of the performing arts (particularly "live" broadcasts), rather than "news and opinion."

I have now read the entirety of Boehlert's post, and I found it to be more rant than substance. The reason why I "retreat" to the BBC is the same reason why I read news through RSS: Just as the institution of print journalism has pretty much abandoned their role of "public trust," broadcast journalism has done the same. Even NEWSHOUR is slowly deteriorating into self-serving gingerbread, even if the preening is not as blatant as it is on those so-called "all news" cable channels. If there are still useful background pieces on programs like FRONTLINE, they are also losing their "turf" as cable provides independent documentarians with more opportunities for distribution. Thus, between their home-made dramas and the documentaries they air, HBO has shown more backbone than all the other "news channels" combined (although this may change with the recent shakeup of the HBO management structure).

I would say that the question, "Is PBS Necessary?," is less the concern of either McGrath or Boehlert and more the concern of PBS. Does it still have a mission statement; or has that been eroded into a meaningless scrap of paper, like Charles Foster Kane's list of principles? For all the bullet lists and hyperlinks that he summons, Boehlert has not made a convincing case for the needs that PBS now satisfies; and, if he cannot do that, he has not responded to McGrath's question!

[CaptainObvious]

So we should all be forced to buy cable? PBS is actually broadcast over the airwaves, for free. The cost to taxpayers for the services they provide is less than 5 cents per year. Some of their revenue comes from private organizations and foundations. Most of their revenue comes from PBS viewers, like me.

The REAL question is, why do you want to get rid of it?

[knowhelpnow]

I support the PBS and will continue to do so. I think Bush should back out and let it be his term is over and I see no reason for him to cut funding for the PBC except that it tries to tell the truth with out political interference.

[Merlin7]

I have no doubt that PBS and the entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting is riddled with waste and inefficiency. What large bureaucracy isn't? Where do those hundreds of millions of dollars go? Much of it goes to expense accounts and three-hour lunches for the CPB's high-ranking Republican-appointed employees, I'll bet. But Bush no doubt fears PBS because it could be transformed into an effective, responsible news and information organization that really informed the public about what's going in the world, unlike the pablum we now get from the commercial networks. And if Americans are ever really informed about what's going on in the world, Bush and those like him in both political parties probably will be chased out of the country. In the meantime we have to put up with swirling graphics, faux populism and bumper-sticker patriotism dispensed by blow-dried blow-hards.

[tmckly]

I want to get rid pbs..........why should they get tax money for the rank propaganda they put out. pbs should have to compete in the market place

[ClevelandTom]

I have listened to other PBS/NPR critics like you that claim their news is deeply biased. When I ask them to point to an example of that bias I get silly stuff like, "When they refer to Ted Kennedy, they say senator from Mass. When they refer to Rick Santorum they say conservative senator from Penn." I guess that passes for bias in some circles but not in the real world.

Please tell me, what is wrong with a news organization that is not completely beholden to the corporation that owns them and corporations that buy their ad time?
Do you really believe that those corporations that own media and buy media time do not have a political agenda?

[Donk]

That would be "Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania"

[dadw5boys]

So when PBS is gone the Corporate Media will control all the news and you have no other resources..

Yeah that would enforce freedom of the press.

PBS's very existence show our need and desire to keep the mass media honest.
You can watch Fox News all you want and be lied to and fooled but most of use choose not too.

[Teritt]

"Rank propaganda"??? This story is about PBS, not FOX...I think you have your stations confused!

[sws3030]

No, the real reason is it makes him feel inferior. I am absolutely certain that Sesame Street leaves him feeling absolutely at a loss. Anything later in the day? Forget it. Maybe if theynhad a brush clearing program he would be alright.

[desmirl]

Of course Bush wants rid of PBS. They tell the truth.