The Politics of Public Television

Pages: 1 2

In  the  absence  of  countervailing  portrayals  of American  cold-war  policies  and  institutions,  the indictments  presented  in  PBS  documentaries amounted  to  an  editorial  position.  In  the  PBS perspective,  the  United  States  emerged  as  an  imperialist,  counterrevolutionary  power  whose  national-security  apparatus  was  directed  not  at containing an  expansionist  empire  but (in  the words of  the  producers  of  On  Company  Business)  at suppressing  “people  who have  dared  struggle  for a better  life.”

Ironically, this Marxist caricature received a full-dress treatment on PBS channels  in  1989,  the  very  year  the  Communist utopia collapsed  in  ruins.  The American Century was  a five-part,  five-hour  series written  and hosted by  the  editor  of Harper’s,  Lewis  Lapham,  which purported  to  chart the  course of American  foreign policy  from  1900.  The final segment traced American cold-war policy from 1945  to 1975.  It did  not pay  tribute  to  the  heroic  efforts  of  containment which  would  soon  result  in  the  liberation  of millions upon millions of people  from  the chains of a  tyranny as  great as  the world  has ever  known. It  rehearsed,  instead,  the  same  old  left-wing  litany-Guatemala,  Iran,  the Bay  of Pigs-to claim that  under  the  cloak  of  anti-Communism,  third-world  progress  had  become  the  victim  of  greedy U.S.  corporations and their secret allies  in  the U.S. government  (described  by  Lapham  in  relation  to Cuba  as  “the agent of  the reactionary  past”).  This summary  segment of  the series was  called Imperial Masquerade, and  it  appeared  in  December  1989 even  as  East  Berliners  were  tearing  down  their Wall.

The  view  of  America  as  an  evil  empire  was powerfully  reinforced  by PBS’s  treatment  of  post-Vietnam  Communism  in other documentary  pro-grams.  In  1975,  PBS  aired China Memoir, a piece about  the Maoist  paradise  by  the  actress  Shirley MacLaine.  So  wide-eyed  was  it  that  PBS’s  own chairman was  forced  to concede  that  it was  “pure propaganda.”  China Memoir was followed by The Children of China (1977), which was praised by Communist  officials  who  thought  it would  help Americans  to  “understand  the  new  China.”  The “new” North Korea and the “new” Cuba were also the  focus  of  promotional  features  in North Korea (1978),  Cuba, Sport and Revolution (1979),  Cuba: The New  Man (1986),  and Cuba-In the Shadow of Doubt  (1986),  about which the New York  Times commented:  “At  its  best,  the  documentary  has  a romantic  infatuation  with  Cuba;  at  its  worst,  it is  calculated  propaganda.”

As  the  locus  of  the  cold war  shifted  to Central America  in  the  1980′s,  documentary  after  documentary  appeared  on  PBS  celebrating  the  Sandinista  dictatorship  in  Nicaragua  and  the  FMLN terrorists  in  E1l  Salvador.  These  included From the Ashes  . . . Nicaragua  Today  (1982),  Target Nicaragua  (1983),  and El Salvador, Another  Vietnam?  (1981).  The producers  of these  programs, all presented by WNET, were  the radical activist  filmmakers  who  had  come  in  from  the  70′s  cold (among  them: World  Focus Films of Berkeley,  the Women’s Film Project, and the Institute for Policy Studies).

As  with  its  celebrations  of American  Communism,  PBS  showed  no  eagerness  to  balance  this advocacy  with other views.  In 1983, the American Catholic Committee offered WNET a program critical of the Marxist regime, Nicaragua:  A Model for Latin America? The Catholic  film was  based on  documentary  footage  and  dealt  with  government  repression  of  the press,  the Roman Catholic Church,  and  independent  labor  unions.  WNET rejected  the  film,  on  the  ground  that  it  had  “a better way  to  handle  this  information.”

And  indeed  in  1985,  a Frontline  program  called Central America  in Crisis did  take  a critical  look at  the  various  sides  of  the conflict,  while  in  1986, Nicaragua Was  Our Home-a  film  focusing  on the  plight  of  the  Miskito Indians-was aired  in response  to  the  protests  over  WNET’s  previous offerings.  But for  the  most part,  the  “better way” to  handle  information  about  Nicaragua  turned out to be pretty much  the way  it had been handled before.

In  1984,  for  example,  the  Frontline series  featured  Nicaragua: Report From  the Front whose message  (in  the  words  of  the  New  York  Times reviewer  John Corry)  was:  “Sandinistas  are  good: their  opponents  are  bad.  There is no middle ground.”  The same wisdom was the message of two subsequent Frontline  reports:  Who’s Running This War? (1986),  which  portrayed  the  contras  as Somocistas  bent  on  violating  human  rights,  and The  War  on  Nicaragua, which  was  named  one of “The Worst Shows of  the Year”  in 1987  by  the liberal  critic of  the San Francisco  Chronicle,  John Carman,  who  called  it  “shoddy,  unfair,  and manipulative  journalism.”

Nor did the PBS approach to Communist movements alter when addressing the conflicts in other Central  American  countries.  Thus  Guatemala: When  the Mountains Tremble (1985)  was  panned by the New York Times as a “vanity  film”  because of  its  agitprop  character,  and  the  Washington Post’s TV  critic,  Tom  Shales,  summed  it  up  in the  following  terms:

The  film  is  bluntly  didactic  and  one-sided  in portraying Guatemalan  rebels  as  noble freedom fighters  and  Guatemalan  peasants  opposed  to the  present  regime  as  the victims  of  repression, torture,  and  squalor.

At  least  four  of  the programs  on Central America  which  PBS  chose  to  air  during  this  crucial decade  before  Communism’s  collapse  were  the work  of  a  single  director  and  radical  ideologue, Deborah  Shaffer,  whose  “solidarity”  with  the Communist  dictators  of  Nicaragua,  and  their guerrilla allies  in El Salvador  and Guatemala, was a proudly  displayed  item  in her  curriculum  vitae. Her  most celebrated  documentary,  Fire From  the Mountain  (1988),  an aggressive  promotion  of Sandinista  myths, was  based  on  the autobiography  of the  Sandinista  secret-police  chief,  Omar Cabezas, while  her other  films-El Salvador: Another Vietnam?  (1981),  Witness  to  War: Dr.  Charlie Clements  (1986),  and  Nicaragua: Report From  the Front  (1984)-all  reflected  her commitment  to  the politics  of  the Central American  guerrillas.

In  1988,  the  Congressional  Oversight Committees  for Public Television,  led by  their Democratic  chairmen,  Representative  Edward Markey  and  Senator Daniel  Inouye,  institutionalized  this  revolutionary  front  inside  PBS  by authorizing  the  transfer  of  $24  million  of  CPB monies  to  set  up  the  Independent Television  Service  (ITVS)  as  a  separate  fund  for  “independent” film-makers.  Representing  the  independents  in testimony  before  the  committees  were  Deborah Shaffer’s  producer,  Pam  Yates  of  Skylight  Productions,  and Larry  Daressa,  co-chairman  of  the National  Coalition of  Independent  Public Broadcasting  Producers.  Daressa,  who  later  turned  up on  the  ITVS  board,  was  also  the  president  of California  Newsreel,  flagship  of  the  radical  film collectives  and  producer  of  such  60′s  classics  as Black  Panther and  The  People’s War,  a  triumphalist view  of  the Communist  conquest  of Vietnam.

Biting  the  hand  that  had  fed  him  and  his ideological  comrades  so  generously,  Daressa  attacked PBS  for  knuckling  under  to  “corporate interests”:

Independent  producers  have  found  themselves progressively  marginalized  in  this  brave  new world  of  semi-commercial,  public  pay  television.  Our  diverse  voices  reflecting  the  breadth of  America’s  communities  and  opinions  have no  place  in  public  television’s  plans  to  turn itself  into  an  upscale  version  of  the  networks. We  have  found  that  insofar  as  we  speak  with an independent voice we have no place in public television.

But  as  one  veteran  member  of  the  public-television  community  scoffed  on  hearing  this  testimony:

These people are not “diverse,” they’re politically correct.  Nor are they “independent.” These are the commissars of the political Left. These  are  the  people  who basically  owned  the Vietnamese  and  Cuban  and  Nicaraguan  franchises,  who got so close  to  Communist officials and  guerrilla  capos  that  if  you  wanted  to  get access  for  interviews or permission even  to bring camera  equipment  into  the  “liberated  zone”  in certain  cases,  you  had  to go  through  them.

Nevertheless,  Congress  authorized  $24  million in  public  funds  to  the  artistic  commissars  of  the ITVS,  thereby providing  the  extreme Left with an institutional  base  in  public  television.

All  during  its  tenure,  the  Reagan  administration  battled  Soviet-backed Marxists  in  Central  America  and  the  Sandinista dictatorship  in Nicaragua.  Yet there was  no direct White  House  response  to  the  PBS  attacks  on  its Central American  policies,  or even  to PBS’s propaganda  war  in  behalf  of  the  Communist  enemy. Far  from  attempting  to  control  public  television through  CPB,  as  the  Nixon  administration  had (unsuccessfully)  done,  the  Reagan  White  House even  reappointed  Sharon  Rockefeller,  a  Carter nominee and  liberal Democrat,  as CPB  chairman. Penn James, who handled White House  appointments,  recalls:

Our  intention  had been  to  remove  her as  chairman,  just  as  we  tried  to  do  with  every  other agency.  But when we announced our intention, her father, Senator Charles Percy, was outraged. He went storming over to the White House and told the President:  “If you want my cooperation on the Foreign Relations committee, you’d better reappoint my daughter.” So we  did.

But  with  Reagan’s  reelection  and  her  father’s defeat,  Rockefeller  was  replaced  as  chairman  by Sonia  Landau.  The  following  spring,  a  Reagan appointee,  Richard  Brookhiser,  offered  a  modest proposal  to  the CPB board.  Brookhiser  suggested that CPB undertake a scientific  “content analysis” of  the  current-affairs  programs  it  had  funded  to see  if  they  were  indeed  tipped  to  one  side  of  the political  scale.  The board  would be  “derelict,”  he said,  if  it did not  try  to assure  the  “objectivity  and balance”  of  its  programming  as  the  1967  Act had mandated.

It  seemed  a  straightforward  request,  but  the reaction  was  almost  entirely  negative.  Charges  of “neo-McCarthyism”  were  hurled  in  Brookhiser’s direction,  and  PBS  vice  president  Barry  Chase scolded:

It  is  inappropriate  for  a  presidentially  appointed  group  to  be  conducting  a  content  analysis of  programming.  It indicates  that  some  people on  the  CPB  board  don’t  fully  understand  the appropriate  constraints  on  them.

In  an  interview  with  the  Los  Angeles  Times, Bruce  Christensen,  president  of  PBS,  was  less restrained:

In  1973,  President  Nixon  in  fact  tried  to  kill federal  funding  for  public  television  through his  political  appointees  to  the  board,  and  the kind of chicanery  that went on at the time. They didn’t do a  “content analysis.”  Content analysis seems  to me  a  little  more  sophisticated  way  of achieving  those  ends.

Such  accusations  were  sufficiently  intimidating to  stall  the proposal.  Brookhiser could not secure enough  support  even  from  the Reagan-appointed majority  to  get  approval.  Meeting  in  June,  the CPB  board  decided  to  postpone  its  decision  on the   study  until September.  But before  it could  do so,  a  new  controversy  erupted,  which demonstrated  just how  weak  the  conservatives’  influence  on public  television  was,  and  how  powerful  their liberal  adversaries  had  become.

The casus belli was  a  nine-part  series  on Africa presented  by WETA.  The Africans had  been  underwritten  by more  than $1  million  in grants  from PBS,  CPB,  and  the National  Endowment  for  the Humanities  (NEH).  When  Lynne  Cheney,  the chairman  of  NEH,  received  an  additional  request from WETA  for $50,000  to promote  the series,  she decided  to  screen  it.  Her  response  was  outrage:

I  have  just  finished  viewing  all  nine  hours  of The Africans. Worse  than unbalanced,  this film frequently  degenerates  into  anti-Western  diatribe….  [One  entire  segment,  Tools of  Exploitation]  strives  to blame  every  technological, moral,  and  economic  failure  of  Africa  on  the West.  ….  The  film  moves  from  distressing moment  to  distressing  moment,  climaxing  in Part  IX  where  Qaddafi’s  virtues  are  set  forth.

Shortly  thereafter,  pictures of mushroom  clouds fill  the  screen  and  it  is  suggested  that Africans are  about  to come  into  their  own,  because  after the “final  racial conflict”  in South Africa, black Africans  will  have  nuclear weapons.

Cheney  told WETA  that not only would she  not finance  the promotion  of  the  series, but  she wanted  the NEH credits  removed  from  the  print.  “Our logo  is  regarded  as  a  mark  of  approbation,  and NEH  most  decidedly  does  not  approve  of  this film.”

Cheney’s position was  in  striking contrast  to  PBS’s  defense  of  the  series, which  was  to  disclaim  all  responsibility  for  the product  that  bore  its  imprint.  Said Christensen:

We  don’t make  the  programs  at  PBS,  and  we have  no  editorial  control  ultimately  over  what is  put  in  the  program….  Until  a  series  is delivered  to  PBS  for  distribution,  we  have  no editorial  input  or  oversight  over  the  producer or anyone  connected  to  the project.

It was an evasion  that the bureaucratic complexities  of  the  system  made  possible.  True,  PBS  did not  actually  “produce”  programs  and,  in  that most  technical  sense,  could  not  be  held  responsible  for what  was  in  them.  But  this  was  to  beg the  question.  As  “gatekeeper”  for  the  national distribution  of  programs,  PBS  daily  rejected  projects  simply  on  the  grounds  that  they  “did  not meet  PBS  standards.”  A  thick volume  of  “Standards  and  Practices”  was,  in  fact,  distributed  to independent  producers  warning  them  that  public television  had  to  “maintain  the  confidence  of  its viewers,”  and  that,  consequently,  producers  had to  adhere  strictly  to  the  official  PBS  guidelines for  quality.  Moreover,  once  a  series  like  The Africans was  aired,  it  bore  the  PBS  logo,  and  was promoted  and  distributed  by  PBS  on  cassette  and often  in  companion  book  form,  with educational aids,  to  schools  and  libraries.  Such  activities  constituted  an  active  endorsement  and,  like  the  decision  to  air  the  programs  in  the  first  place,  was not merely an imposition,  as  Christensen  implied.

In seeking support  from  the press and Congress, however,  PBS executives  deployed  a more  persuasive  argument  than  their  own  impotence.  For NEH or PBS  to exert any judgment on the quality of The Africans, they claimed, would be  to engage in  a  form  of  censorship. NEH,  Christensen  told the  Los  Angeles  Times,  is  “not  the  Ministry  of Truth,”  and warned  that  if Cheney  were  to  insist on  entering  the  editing  room  “there  will  be  no NEH  funding  in  public  television.”

This line of reasoning was more effective but no less spurious.  It  simply  ignored  the  right  (let alone  the obligation)  of a  funder  to impose  guidelines  and  conditions on  the recipients  of  its  gifts. It  also  ignored  the  fact  that  CPB’s  own  standard contract  with  producers  stipulated  that  it  would be  allowed  to  see  rough  cuts  and  make  changes it regarded  as  necessary.  Christensen’s  argument also  ignored  PBS’s  own  responsibility-emphasized by PBS  officials  on  other  occasions-for  the character  of  programs  they  distributed  and  promoted.

With PBS again polarized as the public’s David against the government Goliath, Brookhiser’s proposal was doomed.  A move by  57  House members to  stimulate  an  inquiry  into  the  matters  that Brookhiser  had  raised  was  easily  rebuffed  by  the appropriate  committee  head,  John  Dingell.  To consolidate  these victories,  PBS appointed  a  committee  to review  its own procedures.  Stacked  with an  in-house  majority,  the  committee  avoided  any systematic  review of programming, and concluded with a pat on  its own  back:

PBS’s procedures  …  have encouraged programs of high quality that reflect a wide range of information,  opinion,  and  artistic  expression and  that  satisfy  accepted  journalistic  standards. The fact that business would proceed as usual became quickly apparent. In the fall of 1989, WNET presented a 90-minute documentary about the Palestinian intifada entitled Days of Rage. It turned out to be a catalogue of horror stories about the Israeli occupation, featuring  interviews  with Palestinian  moderates  and  Israeli  extremists,  and omitting any  mention  of Palestinian  terrorism.

During  the  battle  over  Days of  Rage, WNET was  besieged  by  public  protests  and membership cancellations  but held  fast  to  its  decision.  Reflecting later on his role in airing  the program, WNET vice  president  Robert  Kotlowitz  displayed  an  attitude  that was both perverse  and at the  same  time characteristic  of  that  of  other  public-television officials:

I thought the intifada program was a horror. It was a horror. And I wasn’t happy with having it on the  air. But I’m still happy that we made the decision to go with it.

It  was,  by  any  standard,  an  extraordinary  admission  for  a  professional  journalist.  One  would be  hard  put  to  imagine,  for  example,  a  CBS executive  first  acknowledging  a  story’s  indefensibility  and  then  claiming  an achievement  in  running  it.

In trying to  understand  this attitude,  as well as the generally  leftist bias of PBS, it  is necessary  to  recognize  that the  entire  public-television  community  (and  that  includes  its friends  in  Congress)  operates  out  of  loyalty  to what  insiders  refer  to  as  the  “mission.”  Simply put,  the mission  is  a mandate  to  give  the  public what  commercial  television,  because  it  is  “constrained  by  the commercial  necessity  of delivering mass  audiences  to  advertisers,”  allegedly  cannot provide.  The  words  belong  to  the  current  president  of PBS,  Bruce Christensen,  and  are  contemporary.  But they could as well have been taken from the Carnegie Commission  report  of 25  years ago.  The mission is what makes public television “public.”  It is its life principle and raison d’être. It  is  what  justifies  the  hundreds  of  millions  of government  and privately contributed  dollars necessary  to  keep  the  system  going.

But the mission  is also what provides  a rationale under which  extreme  Left viewpoints  have  a presumptive  claim  on  public  air  time.  This  is  the rationale  that justifies  the  indefensible  propaganda  of programs  like Days of Rage and  the promos for  Communist  guerrillas  in  Central  America.  It is  the rationale  under  which a partisan  journalist like Nina Totenberg, who was  involved in the  leak that  nearly destroyed  Clarence  Thomas,  could be assigned  by  PBS  as  its  principal  reporter  and commentator  on  the  hearings  triggered  by  that very  leak.

Just  how  much  a  part  of  the  ethos  of  public television  this  attitude  has  become  can be  seen  in a  recent  controversy  involving  Bill  Moyers,  who has  been  praised  as  a  “national  treasure”  by  the present  PBS  programming  chief,  Jennifer  Lawson.  Moyers  had  come  under  fire  as  the  author of  PBS’s  only  two  full-length  documentaries  on the  Iran-contra affair,  The  Secret  Government (1987)  and High Crimes  and Misdemeanors  (1990). Critics  (of  whom  I  was  one)  questioned  whether these  programs  met  the  standards  of  fairness  and balance  that  public  television  was  legally  supposed  to  honor. Moyers’s  response  was  a  tortured invocation  of public  television’s  mission:

What  deeper  understanding  of  our  role  in  the world could we  have  come  to by praising Oliver North  yet  again,  when  we  had  already  gotten five  full  days before  Congress, with wall-to-wall coverage  on  network,  cable,  and  public  air-waves,  to  tell  his  side  of  the  story?  In  fact,  it hardly  seems  consistent with  “objectivity,  balance,  and fairness”  that  the  other side  of  his story got only  two 90-minute documentaries  on public television. [Emphasis  added.]

For  anyone  not  steeped  in Moyers’s  own  political mythology  this was  an eccentric  view of what had  taken  place.  North, of course, had not produced his own network documentary. He had been hauled  before  a  congressional  committee  largely made  up  of  political  enemies  who  were  bent  on exposing  him as  a malefactor  and on discrediting the  administration  in  which  he  had  served.  Yet because  he  had  turned  the  tables  on  them  and emerged  from his  ordeal  with a positive  approval rating, Moyers  blithely  and  blandly  assumed  that the  commercial  networks  had  been  telling  only North’s  “side  of  the  story.”  Therefore  the mission of public  television  was  not  to  present  a  balance of  views within  its  own  schedule,  as  its enabling legislation  required,  but  to  attack  North  more successfully  than  the  stagers  of  the  hearings  had managed  to  do.

Quite  apart  from  its  absurdity,  Moyers’s  position  reveals  how  out  of  date  is  the  concept  that originally  inspired  public  television.  For  the  fact that the  Iran-contra  hearings,  which attempted  to impugn  the  integrity  and  even  the  legitimacy  of the  Reagan  presidency,  were  aired  on  all  three networks,  not  to  mention  C-Span  and  CNN, means  just  the opposite  of what Moyers  seems  to think it means.  It means  that public television  can no  longer  position  itself  as  the only  channel  on which anti-establishment  views  can  be  broadcast. Recognizing  this  occupation  of  its  point  on  the spectrum,  public  television  has  sought  a  new space  by  positioning  itself  even  more  firmly  on the  Left.

There  is  also,  perhaps,  another  factor  at  work here-bad conscience.  This bad  conscience  stems, first,  from  PBS’s  increasing  reliance  on big  corporations  in  its  search  for  funds.  Thus,  between 1973  and  1978,  corporate  “underwriting”  of public  television  went  up  nearly  500  percent.  By  the 1980′s,  corporate  sponsorship  accounted  for  almost  as  much  of  the  public-television  budget  as its  entire  federal  subsidy. Worse  yet  for  the  liberal conscience,  the  leaders  in  this  trend,  contributing more  than  half  the  total  support,  were  big  bad oil companies  like Mobil,  Exxon,  and Gulf.

But even more significant  is the degree  to which, with  the advent  of cable, commercial  stations have begun  to  compete  directly with  PBS.  The Arts & Entertainment  network  (A&E)  was  started  by  the head  of  PBS’s  cultural  programming,  and  its schedule-whether  showing  European movies,  or serious  drama,  or  biographies  of  historical  figures-is  comparable  to  anything  PBS  can  offer. Another  cable  channel,  Bravo,  features  drama from  Aeschylus  to  O’Neill,  film  from  Olivier  to Bufiuel,  and music  from Monteverdi  to Messiaen. The  Discovery  channel  now  repeats  the  nature shows  that made  PBS’s early  career,  while  C-Span provides  ’round-the-clock  political  interviews  and discussions  at  the  most  serious  level,  including live  sessions  of  Congress,  and  political  conventions and meetings. The one PBS feature that these channels  do  not offer  is  the  monotonous  diet  of left-wing  politics.

But  if  left-wing  politics  is  PBS’s  ill-conceived  solution  to  its  identity crisis,  it  is  also  in  the  last  analysis  the  key  to  its financial  unease.  For  as  the  country  has  become more conservative,  PBS’s radical posture  has alienated  a  major  part  of  public  television’s  audience of  supporters  as  well  as  its  Republican  constituency  in  Congress.  Indeed,  it  is  only  because Congress  has  remained  stubbornly  Democratic against  the conservative  tide  that public television is  not  in  even  deeper  financial  trouble.  But  the current  situation  is  inherently  unstable  and  will remain so  as  long as  public  television  fails  to  live up  to  its  statutory  mandate  by  presenting  a  fair balance  of views  reflecting  the  broad  interests  of the  population  that  is  being  taxed  to  help support  it.

*The  other five G-7  stations are WETA (Washington,  D.C.), WTTW  (Chicago),  WQED  (Pittsburgh),  KCET (Los Angeles), and KQED  (San  Francisco).

Pages: 1 2

  • Bear from Russia

    How nice: “anti-Communist rebels in Afghanistan” . How Brzeziński admited recently USA lured USSR to Afghanistan to make a Vietnam like war for soviets. CIA created Ben Laden and modern Islam terrorism. But 30 years ago these bandits were “anti-Communist rebels in Afghanistan” and now US fight in Afghanistan itself. History has irony.

  • Bear from Russia

    How nice "anti-Communist rebels in Afghanistan". As Brzeziński admitted recently US lured USSR to Afghanistan to make a Vietnam like war for the soviets. CIA created Ben Laden. And now US fights with these "anti-Communist rebels" itself. History has irony.

  • Beth

    In the Article Above:….

    "I couldn’t believe the final product when I saw it. He cut out everything I said that contradicted his film, and left only the parts that supported his claims"

    Where do I begin?..

    With the students? … with the parents?

    The bottom line is this:

    "We reap what we sow"

    Keep visiting the liars – and they'll keep the power of your future.

  • Jim Johnson

    It is amazing how such a boring redundant net work could stay on television with few watcher but much finance.
    If you want left wing TV then watch Link when once in a great while they have something good on. Well when they aren't filling the time with boring music.

    Of course they aren't financed by Government or corporation. In fact i don't think they are financed by any body.

    But I learned more about today's Iran than I learned from any other channel. I also learned more about North Korea than I learned from any other channel. It was far from pro communist.

    Of course the same can not be said about the in between show commentators who might as well be a bunch of Communists

    • Jim Johnson

      I think the same thing.

  • rrbs

    How would you define "economic democracy"? I would define it as individuals that are free to participate in the economy as they see fit. e.g. capitalism.

  • davarino

    You want fair and balanced? It sure aint PBS. Let the free market decide cause the government sure cant, but the left knows, that if the free market decides, they lose. And we thought the USSR was the only place that had propaganda TV. You younger people dont even know how controlled the network news was back in the 60s and 70s. I remember as a kid flipping to the different news channels and it was amazing how they were all on the same subject at the same time, all the time. I wondered at the time how that could be.

    If you ideas are so great then let them withstand the free market. Let the people decide. Oh, I guess they are, now that Obama let everyone know exactly what the left's ideas are. They are now voting on a fair and balanced display of the ideas.

    Thanks O

  • http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/ Al C

    "The Secret Government (1987), which insinuated what no congressional investigation had ever established: that the CIA was a rogue institution subverting American policy. … "

    Spoken like a true Scaife-funded puppet. "Rogue institution" sums up he conclusions of the CHURCH COMMITTEE nicely … also John Kerry's investigation of BCCI, statements of Iran contra investigators (those who weren't Republican stooges doing the bidding of Dick Cheney and Lee Hamilton, who buried the truth about CIA and drugs), federal investigations of Air America and Southern Air Transport, and of course the Watergate probe demonstrated clearly that the CIA is a nest of rogue jackals. Barbara Boxer has spoken publicly about the CIA and drugs. Then you have untold thousands of books and articles by independent investigators – many of them former CIA agents themselves – and journalists, WikiLeaks, etc.

    David Horowitz himself,as I mentioned, takes Scaife (CIA) funding, so he's one of those rogues, and this explains his trademark inane denials in defense of a ROUGE agency. ]

    • scum

      nicely put. Thanks Al C.

  • John Son

    If the US Govt did not fund NPR it would have folded like a cheap pair of pants….

    More tax payer money wasted on a losing proposition…NPR has not made a dime since its inception…..sounds like Amtrak, yet another federally funded boondoggle! Think about it.

  • http://www.twosetsofbooks.blogspot.com PBSfree

    It does, however, provide nuggets of information; Goldstone, Colin Powell on Rachel Corrie … etc. LINK TV, Democracy NOw, PBS… same brand with different wrapping…
    Post: Richard Goldstone / Lee Hamilton Bombshell:
    http://wwwtwosetsofbooks.blogspot.com/2010/10/ric
    Who C… http://t.co/lvzb0ps

  • http://www.mysapce.com/freddawes1776/ Fred Dawes

    TV Is about following the leader to the end game.

  • Ghostwriter

    I don't know if you know this by my local PBS station,KAET for a couple of years ran a program from Britain called "MI-5." To me,the show was,in my opinion,a carnival of anti-Americanism. Few,if any,Americans who showed up on the show were good guys. Most of the time,the only Americans who showed up were villains or crazy people. Although it had some great drama,the way it portrayed this country left much to be desired. Recently,it was taken off the air and replaced with other programming.
    All in all,I hope another network in this country isn't stupid enough to get this show.

  • scum

    Classic Horowitz when it comes to Agee. Agee, of course, exposed the illegal activities of the CIA, a small fact purposely overlooked by David the Goliath. Moreover, Horowitz once again forgets to mention the countries that Agee was thrown out of BECAUSE OF EXPLICIT PRESSURE FROM THE CIA. Agee was hounded around the world. Of course, this is a site devoted not to the truth, but rather to a 'conservative' presentation of such. What we need is objective and honest evaluation, not more partisan nonsense.

  • badaboo

    Yea everyone should be balanced , bi-partisan and non-opinionated …..LOL…like David .

  • Simon T.

    I think this article is great to understand the politics behind the television and print media. There are many important things noted here.
    Regards
    Simon T.