PDA

View Full Version : Details of Secret Public Broadcasting Study




IJ Reilly
Jul 1, 2005, 11:09 AM
Warning, your tax dollars at work...

A consultant to the agency that distributes government funding concluded that Bush foes got more airtime, documents show.

WASHINGTON — A consultant who secretly monitored four public broadcasting programs last year for the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting concluded that critics of President Bush got more airtime than those who agreed with him, according to documents released Thursday.

Many interview subjects — including Republicans — were classified as liberal because they questioned White House policies.

The bulk of consultant Fred Mann's reports focused on "NOW with Bill Moyers," a PBS public affairs program hosted by the liberal commentator until he retired in December. Mann also tracked the political leanings of guests on National Public Radio's "The Diane Rehm Show" and the PBS talk shows "Tavis Smiley" and "Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered."

Mann, based in Indiana, had prepared the analysis at the request of Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the chairman of the CPB, an agency that distributes federal funds to public broadcasters.

More than 100 pages of Mann's informal summaries were released for the first time Thursday by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who had obtained a copy from Tomlinson.

In a news conference at the Capitol, Dorgan called the report an "amateur attempt to prove that there was a liberal bias." He dubbed it "nutty" and a "waste of taxpayers' money."

In his analysis, Mann categorized guests as "liberal," "conservative," "anti-Bush" and "anti-DeLay," and painted the picture of a broadcasting system awash in liberal viewpoints.

A summary of Moyer's programs from Oct. 17, 2003, to June 25, 2004, for example, concluded that 92 of 136 segments "clearly opposed administration/government policies." The consultant also took note of conservatives who did not hew to the administration line.

In one report, he labeled former Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) as opposed to the administration for his criticism that the Patriot Act violated civil liberties. Radio host and former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock was listed as "anti-Bush" for saying the military was underpaid. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) was tagged "liberal" for an interview with Smiley in which he criticized White House policy in Iraq.

Hagel spokesman Mike Buttry called the report "silliness," adding that the senator's record "speaks for itself."

Half a dozen reporters drew scrutiny as well. Associated Press President Tom Curley was listed in a chart as "liberal/Democrat" and under "oppose administration" for discussing whether there was a need for more government openness on Moyer's program.

Other reporters similarly classified were former NPR anchor Bob Edwards, New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston and Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and Robin Wright.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-et-cpb1jul01,1,5334043.story



mactastic
Jul 1, 2005, 12:29 PM
Have these guys forgotten completely about Firing Line?

zimv20
Jul 1, 2005, 12:46 PM
with those definitions, of course the finding will be "liberal." as would an examination of just about any well-formed journalistic effort.

among the tell-tale signs of a foregone conclusion in search of a study is that they never bothered to track things like "anti-kerry", "anti-democratic party" and "use of liberal as putdown."

IJ Reilly
Jul 1, 2005, 01:04 PM
The intentions are obvious: anyone who disagrees with the administration for any reason at any time is an enemy.

mactastic
Jul 1, 2005, 01:14 PM
Funny, there sure must have been an awful lot of "anti-Clinton" people with a 'D' after their name in 1998. So I'm sure these guys would have reached the conclusion that the media was biased to the right then?

solvs
Jul 3, 2005, 02:59 AM
What bothers me is that our government seems to have no problem wasting money to study PBS, and pay people to support Bush's programs (not to mention how many billions we spend on the war)... but a few million for PBS is too much money. :confused: As is health care, public education, environmental concerns. Remember, we don't know if global warming is real. We have to study it more. And apparently 5 years isn't long enough. :rolleyes:

Point being, doesn't it negate the argument that money is the main concern when they're spending so much money to try to prove they're partisan? Or whatever they're trying to prove. I'm still kinda not sure what the point of this is.

Inspector Lee
Jul 11, 2005, 12:05 AM
The intentions are obvious: anyone who disagrees with the administration for any reason at any time is an enemy.

Yeah, I can't wait until next year's olympics. Looking forward to seeing that Jesse Owens guy run here in town. Oh wait a minute... :D