Politics of PBS?

[Strange]

I'm doing some background research for an article and came across a blog describing the USA's Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) as being "far right, alt-right". 

I am not that familiar with PBS. I have listened occasionally when in the US and hadn't noticed any particular bias. So is this opinion justified, outrageous or just indicative of the blogger's own biases?

 

p.s. just read through to the end of the blog post inquisition and it ends with a ridiculous (but presumably deliberately provocative) straw man.  Which, oddly, seems to be something someone on the far right would say. So I'm not inclined to take his opinion seriously.

But I would still be interested in others' thoughts.

[StringJunky]

Every broadcaster/publisher is biased to someone because it's all relative to their own position. If you don't sense any bias then that's where you naturally lean. Don't you think?

[swansont]

PBS is typically portrayed as being liberal, and conservatives keep threatening/trying to yank funding. 

[Ten oz]

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Every broadcaster/publisher is biased to someone because it's all relative to their own position. If you don't sense any bias then that's where you naturally lean. Don't you think?

Saying everyone has a lean lumps together those who diligently try to ensure they are producing a truthful and transparent product with those who knowing just obfuscate reality and push a specific ideology. I don't think that is fair. There are journalists and researchers out there who go out of there way to produce unbiased work. That is one of the reasons why quality editorials and papers list the numerous materials sourced. 

As for PBS specifically I have not personally follow it. As Swansont mentioned Republicans have made various attempts over the years to cut their funding. I suppose it is possible that as part of the GOP's attempt to bring PBS down they infiltrated it on some level. 

[EdEarl]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Every broadcaster/publisher is biased to someone because it's all relative to their own position. If you don't sense any bias then that's where you naturally lean. Don't you think?

I think people who prefer a particular news cast can discern the bias of news casters. I like The Young Turks and watch daily on youtube. I also watch other channels such as PBS, Al Jazeera English, MSNBC, CBS, CNN and FOX sometimes. They are all biased in one way or another. I like a progressive bias and despise corporate propaganda. I think others can, too.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

PBS is typically portrayed as being liberal, and conservatives keep threatening/trying to yank funding. 

That is pretty much the answer I expected! Do they get government funding? I thought it was all from fundraising and sponsors?

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Every broadcaster/publisher is biased to someone because it's all relative to their own position. If you don't sense any bias then that's where you naturally lean. Don't you think?

There is some truth in that. But some sources do attempt to be unbiased, or at least to present more than one point of view. I think the BBC generally does this very well - they are criticised about equally by those on the left and this on the right. (My biggest problem is when they try to hard to be unbiased on topics like climate change where they will have a scientist and, for "balance", a loony right-wing ex-politician with an axe to grind about fox hunting.)

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is pretty much the answer I expected! Do they get government funding? I thought it was all from fundraising and sponsors?

There is some truth in that. But some sources do attempt to be unbiased, or at least to present more than one point of view. I think the BBC generally does this very well - they are criticised about equally by those on the left and this on the right. (My biggest problem is when they try to hard to be unbiased on topics like climate change where they will have a scientist and, for "balance", a loony right-wing ex-politician with an axe to grind about fox hunting.)

There can also be bias in what they cover, or not. The things that the editorial team cares about can give certain subjects more coverage; influencing by exposure or omission.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

That is pretty much the answer I expected! Do they get government funding? I thought it was all from fundraising and sponsors?

PBS gets some funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is federally-funded. in 2014, the CPB gave PBS $26.67 million in direct support and about nine times that went to individual public TV stations. Various government agencies might also be sources of funding for PBS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting

One should note that PBS isn't all of public TV. But cutting CPB funding would hurt public TV.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

came across a blog describing the USA's Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) as being "far right, alt-right". 

It's sad that we can no longer distinguish right-wing publications and people from satire. A few years ago, such a claim would be laughed out of the room. 

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Of course. After all, it lets evolution happen!

[EdEarl]

Reality has been cursed. Perhaps it is a curse.

[DanTrentfield]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

I'm doing some background research for an article and came across a blog describing the USA's Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) as being "far right, alt-right". 

I am not that familiar with PBS. I have listened occasionally when in the US and hadn't noticed any particular bias. So is this opinion justified, outrageous or just indicative of the blogger's own biases?

 

p.s. just read through to the end of the blog post inquisition and it ends with a ridiculous (but presumably deliberately provocative) straw man.  Which, oddly, seems to be something someone on the far right would say. So I'm not inclined to take his opinion seriously.

But I would still be interested in others' thoughts.

The days of reporting died when opinion became news instead of news, such is journalism. 

 

Typically when "Far-Right, or Alt-Right" pops up one of several scenarios is playing out: A European country is refusing immigrants over safety concerns and interest in preserving it's heritage, The President of the United States opens his mouth to speak, The U.N. is denouncing the U.S. because it's actually acting in it's own interest, Something about Trump's Wall pops up, or something about how a country isn't accepting enough "refugees" pops up. 

 

Typically all of it is: A. Propaganda, B. An attempt to cover something up, or C. Fear mongering. 

 

Sometimes, however, the "refugees" ("Refugees" implying they are hopping on that plane to a first world country to leave crazy people and cruel regimes behind) are really refugees like how a group of Muslims that now live in my area had to run for the hills because they were helping people of other religions leave the Jordan/Iran/Iraq area because they don't want them to be killed and truly are acting in interest of everyone, in which case the refugees are quite welcome. 

 

And sometimes the "Far right, or Alt Right" truly are the bunch of Nazis they're sized up to be. But typically it's socialist agendas that push that title. 

 

So my recommendation on all news: Take it with ten thousand grains of salt, remember it's an opinion, not what actually happened. 

Edited January 17, 2018 by DanTrentfield

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

There is some truth in that. But some sources do attempt to be unbiased, or at least to present more than one point of view. I think the BBC generally does this very well - they are criticised about equally by those on the left and this on the right. (My biggest problem is when they try to hard to be unbiased on topics like climate change where they will have a scientist and, for "balance", a loony right-wing ex-politician with an axe to grind about fox hunting.)

I think one distinction with PBS is that their shows are underwritten as opposed to sponsored. An entity can pay the costs to produce an episode, and they get a discreet mention at the beginning and end. No commercials or profit-driven advertising.

I agree with iNow though, a few years ago suggesting PBS is a far-right organization would be a LOL moment. I picture Big Bird spouting racist Archie Bunkerisms and it seems pretty silly. Oscar the Grouch, maybe (/Sesame Street references).

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Oscar the Grouch, maybe

I’m a bit out of touch, but he’s the President now, right?

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

I’m a bit out of touch, but he’s the President now, right?

Oscar's diplomatic skills are much better than the current POTUS. And if you do touch him, you can just wash your hands, whereas with Trump you might prefer dipping them in honey and letting fire ants eat them off completely.

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Every broadcaster/publisher is biased to someone because it's all relative to their own position. If you don't sense any bias then that's where you naturally lean. Don't you think?

That's an interesting way to look at it. I'd like to think my reasoning skills help with most of the bias, but it's a good place to look for the way you lean. None of us are beyond the bias.