The corruption of the so-called liberal media

SoAnyway

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 10, 2011
476
179
PBS, the last bastion of any objectivity in the media has falling to corruption by conservative infiltrators:

The Wolf of Sesame Street: Revealing the secret corruption inside PBS’s news division

In a way, I'm not surprised that this is happening. There was a series I watched recently and cringed every time I saw "Koch" as a sponsor. I mean, the objectivity of the programing has been withering away for years and now we know exactly why. I'm actually glad to see what's happening at PBS exposed for what it is and hopefully, we can get some sanity back in the media.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
That was quick.

Following Pando’s exclusive report on a secret financing deal between public broadcasting officials and the nation’s leading anti-pension activist, officials from PBS have announced they are returning the $3.5 million from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

In a breaking-news story published Friday afternoon, the New York Times credited PandoDaily for breaking the original story and ultimately for public broadcasting officials’ decision to return the money:

WNET, the New York City public television broadcaster, said Friday that it will return a $3.5 million grant it received to sponsor an ambitious project on public pensions amid charges that it solicited inappropriate underwriting for the series.

In the absence of the funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the project, called “Pension Peril,” will go on hiatus…

Earlier, following a critical report on Wednesday by David Sirota on the website PandoDaily, WNET officials said they were comfortable with the foundation’s funding. Mr. Sirota sharply criticized WNET for accepting the Arnold Foundation money because John Arnold, a former hedge fund manager, has financially backed efforts to convince municipalities to cut public employee pension benefits.
http://pando.com/2014/02/14/nyt-pbs-to-return-john-arnolds-3-5-million-following-pando-expose/
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Gee, I may have to change my viewing habits and start watching PBS.
I guess this means no Curious George, Peg + Cat, Downton Abbey, Sherlock, and Daniel Tiger's Neighbourhood, n'est-ce pas?

Those are great shows, and I'd take a marathon of those along with Thomas And Friends, Super Why and NOVA over anything Fox News and Breitbart offer.

BL.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,835
Midlife, Midwest
That was quick.
Well, I give them credit for recognizing when something didn't pass the smell test. And kudos to Pando for writing about it in the first place.

No organization, even the best managed and most well-intentioned, is perfect. And obviously this is a case where the flagship PBS station made an error in judgement. Funds are no doubt tight all over the journalistic world, so the pressure to cut the odd corner must be overwhelming. And lets not pretend we aren't all getting suckered into more and more "sponsored content" masquerading as bona fide news.

The strange thing is, defined benefit pensions - usually for public sector employees - actually are a serious "ticking time bomb" for our national finances. If a cop or firefighter can retire at 50, and get ~ 95% of his or her final paycheck, plus benefits, for the rest of their life - its obviously going to strain the ability of governments to pay for pretty much anything else. Such arrangements maybe made sense when people died at 62 and a doctors visit cost $10. Not so much these days.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
I find it odd how when AOL makes a change to how they fund their employees retirement (401K), we get up in arms and the bad press forces them to change back to the way it was in 2 days yet we clamor to take away what we promised those who chose to work for the government. I guess it really is all about, I got mine. now **** you.
 

malman89

macrumors 68000
May 29, 2011
1,651
6
Michigan
As long as the reporting for the project was objective and the donor didn't have any oversight into the reporting, I don't see what's the big deal. I would think PBS, an established news organization, would have the journalistic integrity to do so.

I worked for a political watchdog/advocacy nonprofit in IL, a state dominated by Democrats for decades. Naturally when your party is the majority and full of long term incumbents, it was just basic odds that our investigations targeted Democratic politicians more often than not. We had a fairly diverse donor base, but with time, we began to attract wealthy conservative donors. It didn't influence our investigations either way.

The best part was those same people assumed we leaned to the right, but it's probably the most liberal workplace I've been in.
 

MorphingDragon

macrumors 603
Mar 27, 2009
5,160
5
The World Inbetween
All media is corrupt. Whether it be news or reviews, product reviews or people's earnest reactions posted to youtube, a company somewhere, somehow has managed to bend the system to their needs.

Stuff like this would only surprise people who haven't had a inkling of self awareness or introversive thought in the last decade.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
Sure, talk radio is predominately conservative to right-wing. But many believe that the majority of the mainstream media has pretty much rolled over for the Administration. Most notably, papers such as the NYT and WaPo as primary examples. ABC/NBC/CBS have long been seen that way.

Regardless of one's own opinion, I just now ran across this:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-16/us-plunges-46th-world-press-freedom-index-below-romania

"... the United States had suffered “one of the most significant declines” in press freedom last year, dropping 13 places to 46th in the 180-country index, wedged between Romania and Haiti."

So, if a reporter or his medium doesn't cater to the Administration, he/it has a problem. For many reporters, access is a necessity--and if they don't kowtow to the establishment they have serious career problems.
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
What Liberal Media?

When I saw the title, I was thinking something along the lines of, "Oh no! There goes Mother Jones!"

There are no mainstream Liberal Media in the U.S. Conservative media, moderate media, no Liberal media. Atlantic is about the most liberal mainstream magazine; it is hanging on to its liberal heritage, but, doesn't have readership that it used to.

Public radio is sometimes slightly liberal, depending on the station, but, PBS? Hardly. It is supposed to be middle-of-the-road, which means that it is mildly conservative.
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
The Atlantic should have stayed in Boston. They are a dreadful magazine now. DREADFUL.
When my parents subscribed, it was a Liberal literary magazine. It is a totally different animal now, more commentary and short subjects. I guess that you dislike the complete change in direction; since I forgot about it and did not read it very often for a couple of decades, I now find a lot of interesting little articles in there for my internet-shortened attention span. I'm not sure if I would read the old version any more -- if I want to read a novel, I read a novel.

But, back on topic -- what Liberal media? For all practical purposes, invisible or gone entirely.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,228
quae tangit perit Trump
Gee, I may have to change my viewing habits and start watching PBS.
I don't understand this argument. So, you're argument is, if a media has become corrupt and is now covering subjects based on donor input, you're going to starting watching?

Um, okay.


...

Regardless of one's own opinion, I just now ran across this:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-16/us-plunges-46th-world-press-freedom-index-below-romania

"... the United States had suffered “one of the most significant declines” in press freedom last year, dropping 13 places to 46th in the 180-country index, wedged between Romania and Haiti."

So, if a reporter or his medium doesn't cater to the Administration, he/it has a problem. For many reporters, access is a necessity--and if they don't kowtow to the establishment they have serious career problems.
Regardless of whether reporters kowtow to the White House—and a number of reporters take great pride in pissing in various agency cornflakes on a daily basis—the Index is more than how the White House and federal officials treat the press. It also tracks violence against media, press law, and well as the corporate ownership of media outlets.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,330
29,883
Catskill Mountains
When I saw the title, I was thinking something along the lines of, "Oh no! There goes Mother Jones!"

There are no mainstream Liberal Media in the U.S. Conservative media, moderate media, no Liberal media. Atlantic is about the most liberal mainstream magazine; it is hanging on to its liberal heritage, but, doesn't have readership that it used to.

Public radio is sometimes slightly liberal, depending on the station, but, PBS? Hardly. It is supposed to be middle-of-the-road, which means that it is mildly conservative.
The Atlantic should have stayed in Boston. They are a dreadful magazine now. DREADFUL.
When my parents subscribed, it was a Liberal literary magazine. It is a totally different animal now, more commentary and short subjects. I guess that you dislike the complete change in direction; since I forgot about it and did not read it very often for a couple of decades, I now find a lot of interesting little articles in there for my internet-shortened attention span. I'm not sure if I would read the old version any more -- if I want to read a novel, I read a novel.

But, back on topic -- what Liberal media? For all practical purposes, invisible or gone entirely.
Well the far right should look out then. What they have driven underground, they don't see digging the tunnels, eh? :p
 

CalWizrd

Suspended
Jun 21, 2011
373
1,554
NYC/Raleigh, NC
I don't understand this argument. So, you're argument is, if a media has become corrupt and is now covering subjects based on donor input, you're going to starting watching?

Um, okay...
Sorry that my somewhat serious/somewhat sarcastic/somewhat humorous (to me, anyway) comment was a contributing factor in your lack of understanding.

To be honest, while I have found many excellent productions presented on PBS, the mere presence of Bill Moyers made me want to vomit whenever I heard him speaking. For that reason, I tended to shy away from viewing.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,228
quae tangit perit Trump
Sorry that my somewhat serious/somewhat sarcastic/somewhat humorous (to me, anyway) comment was a contributing factor in your lack of understanding.
I went back and forth about whether you were being sarcastic or serious in your post. Apologies that I missed your tone.
 
Last edited:

SoAnyway

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 10, 2011
476
179
As long as the reporting for the project was objective and the donor didn't have any oversight into the reporting, I don't see what's the big deal. I would think PBS, an established news organization, would have the journalistic integrity to do so.

I worked for a political watchdog/advocacy nonprofit in IL, a state dominated by Democrats for decades. Naturally when your party is the majority and full of long term incumbents, it was just basic odds that our investigations targeted Democratic politicians more often than not. We had a fairly diverse donor base, but with time, we began to attract wealthy conservative donors. It didn't influence our investigations either way.

The best part was those same people assumed we leaned to the right, but it's probably the most liberal workplace I've been in.

I take everything you say about having conservative donors not having any influence with a lot of skepticism.

Just look at Fox as an example. Their motto is "We report, you decide" which seems objective enough. But the moment we go deeper and see who their funders are and what their reporting is really like, we come to realize that their motto is nothing more than a facade.

----------

When I saw the title, I was thinking something along the lines of, "Oh no! There goes Mother Jones!"

There are no mainstream Liberal Media in the U.S. Conservative media, moderate media, no Liberal media. Atlantic is about the most liberal mainstream magazine; it is hanging on to its liberal heritage, but, doesn't have readership that it used to.

Public radio is sometimes slightly liberal, depending on the station, but, PBS? Hardly. It is supposed to be middle-of-the-road, which means that it is mildly conservative.
When my parents subscribed, it was a Liberal literary magazine. It is a totally different animal now, more commentary and short subjects. I guess that you dislike the complete change in direction; since I forgot about it and did not read it very often for a couple of decades, I now find a lot of interesting little articles in there for my internet-shortened attention span. I'm not sure if I would read the old version any more -- if I want to read a novel, I read a novel.

But, back on topic -- what Liberal media? For all practical purposes, invisible or gone entirely.

I agree with you that today's mainstream media is in now way liberal. In fact, the mainstream media is very conservative despite what anyone says.

Where we slightly differ is the content on PBS. I agree that in recent years, the content on PBS has leaned more conservative, thanks to these conservative donors as we know. However, I remember growing up when much of what was on PBS was very much middle of the road and objective. They actually presented facts with no conservative commentary.
 

Wild-Bill

macrumors 68030
Jan 10, 2007
2,538
604
bleep
"All" media is not corrupt. The media outlets that do the bidding of their corporate masters are corrupt.

Find a media outlet that does not rely on corporate sponsorship (and preferably one not owned by Rupert Murdoch) and you'll find some independent journalism.
I prefer RTAmerica myself (Breaking the Set, Abby Martin), and of course a little Bill Maher.
I also heard that Al Jazeera America is supposed to be good, but that's just asking to be on one of the NSA's "lists"....

Visit cnn.com with a browser with ad blocking disabled. You'll find a plethora of ads from the good folks at the ANGA (American Natural Gas Alliance) or the "clean" coal industry lol.

Fox News? Sorry, I can't say that with a straight face. NeoCon, tea-bagging troglodytes.
 
Last edited:

SoAnyway

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 10, 2011
476
179
"All" media is not corrupt. The media outlets that do the bidding of their corporate masters are corrupt.

Find a media outlet that does not rely on corporate sponsorship (and preferably one not owned by Rupert Murdoch) and you'll find some independent journalism.
I prefer RTAmerica myself (Breaking the Set, Abby Martin), and of course a little Bill Maher.
I also heard that Al Jazeera America is supposed to be good, but that's just asking to be on one of the NSA's "lists"....

Visit cnn.com with a browser with ad blocking disabled. You'll find a plethora of ads from the good folks at the ANGA (American Natural Gas Alliance) or the "clean" coal industry lol.

Fox News? Sorry, I can't say that with a straight face. NeoCon, tea-bagging troglodytes.

Exactly. Not all media is corrupt but the moment big money is involved, we can forget all objectivity and (typically) a conservative point of view is presented.

I'll gladly take the Cenk Uygur's, Abby Martin's, Thom Hartmann's, Sam Seder's, etc. of the world any day over the imbeciles at Faux and the apologists at MSNBC.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
Wild-Bill, which major media outlets are NOT owned by giant corporations?

E.g., NBC is owned by GE, whose bosses are supporters of the president.

Newspaper chains? Try Cox, among others.