Turn PBS Off
By Tom Barrett (05/16/05)
Columnist Charles Krauthammer describes PBS as a "Wholly-owned subsidiary of liberalism." Although that is most certainly an accurate characterization, I never thought I would see the day when the national media would be discussing taking tax money away from Public Television.
The New York Times recently ran an article titled "Time to Defund PBS?" The bias at PBS has gotten so bad that the president of The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has acknowledged that its programming leans to the left. All Americans support PBS with their taxes, but the "Public" network pushes a far-left agenda that represents the beliefs of only a fraction of taxpayers.
Although I do not believe this, some would make the case that there was a time when the United States actually needed PBS. There were three networks that controlled what Americans saw on television. Our younger readers won't remember this, but there was really a time when you could not surf 240 channels. This was that wonderful period in our history prior to the advent of the Communist News Network (CNN).
The Big Three seldom ran historical or scientific programming. TV was for entertainment, and history and science just weren't all that entertaining to the masses. But if America needed PBS then, it certainly does not need it today. The History Channel and the Discovery Network, along with a host of other free programming sources, more than fill our needs for culture and education. PBS is simply no longer needed.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created to feed from the public trough by a group of elitists who convinced Congress that the Untied States would become a vast cultural wasteland if the government did not pay for alternative programming. Instead of insisting that public schools teach our children effectively, these well-meaning but misguided folks believed that the one-eyed babysitter could transform our children into privileged geniuses who could quote all the major passages of Shakespeare and hum complete Mozart symphonies.
Regardless of whether there was ever a need for PBS, you will never convince me that it was ever constitutional or even sensible for our government to underwrite any part of its horrendous cost. Historically, art and culture have been supported by wealthy patrons. That is as it should be. But I defy anyone to show me that portion of the Constitution of the United States that mandates (or even allows) our government to pay for culture. If the elitist believe that there is a need for PBS today, let them pay for it. The majority of Americans should not be forced to pay for it through their taxes.
Ken Tomlinson, the aforementioned president of The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, started this debate by declaring that NOW With Bill Moyers was so left-leaning that it jeopardized PBS's tax-exempt status and its government funding. He stated, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance." The Corporation Tomlinson heads dispenses hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to public television and radio every year. Tomlinson is responsible for seeing that that money is spent in a legal manner.
It is illegal for tax-exempt entities to support political parties or candidates. Anyone who has had the stomach to watch PBS's "public affairs" programming over the last decade cannot question the network's undying support for the Democrat platform and Democrat candidates. If there were a viable Socialist Party in this nation, PBS would be campaigning for them.
So the liberals are crying that Tomlinson is trying to kill PBS. Far from it. Tomlinson is trying to SAVE PBS. He knows that Public Television stands to lose government funding if it does not start reporting issues in a fair and balanced manner. If anyone questions whether PBS's political programming is UNfair and UNbalanced, they can simply go to area of the PBS website that lists the programs appearing on NOW (see LINK below). Every one currently listed is either negative toward the United States or toward our military personnel.
Tomlinson commissioned an independent study of Moyers' NOW program. It found (no big surprise) that the show consistently slanted its coverage to benefit fringe leftist causes and ideologies, and was equally consistent in its hostility toward conservative and middle of the road Americans.
Let me close with a small sampling of "NOW with Bill Moyers" programming. Please understand that this program is not an anomaly on PBS. While it is arguably the most blatantly liberal program on Public Television, it as just one of a plethora of highly objectionable programs that attempt to brainwash the American people in favor of the hard left point of view.
Let's start with a November, 2004 article in Current newspaper, a publication for PBS insiders. It reported that a six-month review of Moyers showed that "of the 75 segments over six months that treated controversial issues like the Iraq War, the state of the economy and the corrupting influence of corporate money on politics, only 13 included anyone who spoke against the thrust of the segment." So Moyers was not only allowed to slant the news in these shows, he was allowed to exclude any balancing comments in 83% of them.
Moyers has stated on his program, "Somebody said to me the other day that Americans don't behead, but we do drop smart bombs that do it for us." Even Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy wouldn't make such a horrible statement, but Moyers didn't hesitate to accuse our brave military of being terrorists who behead innocent civilians with bombs.
L. Brent Bozell, in an article on Human Events Online (see LINK below) had this to say about a NOW program in 2004: In November, Moyers attacked Condoleezza Rice and her successor as national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, for their "pattern of ineptness," and despaired as the president turned America's credibility in the world over to "two of the people who helped shred it. Both are known first and foremost for loyalty to the official view of reality, no matter the evidence to the contrary."
Moyers, in an interview with an extremely liberal nun named Joan Chittister, asked, "Depending on the sources, Sister Joan, there have been 37,000 civilians killed in Iraq, or as many perhaps as 100,000. Why is abortion a higher moral issue with many American Christians than the invasion of Iraq and the loss of life there?" The lefty nun agreed that dropping bombs is "military abortion." Military abortion? Where do they get these people?
I could go on, but it should be clear to anyone with discernment that Moyers and the management of PBS:
1) Are extremely liberal, far to the left of the majority of Americans.
2) They take every opportunity to bash our military personnel.
3) They use their platform for overtly political bashing of the President and his agenda.
4) And they do all of the above illegally through a non-profit corporation that receives many millions of our tax dollars from the federal government.
PBS, reacting to public scrutiny, has removed Moyers from the NOW program and reduced it to 30 minutes. But he is still a player at PBS, he has a new show, and his former show still spews forth liberal hatred and lies.
If there was ever a time when the US needed PBS, that time passed a long tome ago. There was never a time when it was legal or constitutional to steal money from citizens through taxation to support causes that most of us deplore. Public sentiment is starting to turn toward defunding Public Television. I encourage all of you to contact your representatives and say, "TURN PBS OFF - FOR GOOD!" Let PBS raise its money through its famous beg-a-thons.
I will close with a quote from Ross Mackenzie's blog on Townhall.com (see LINK below). "Will anyone seriously contend that if Ken Tomlinson were asking public broadcasting to be fairer to the left than to moderates and conservatives, he would be blasted - as he amply is blasted now - for comments that have a 'chilling effect' and threaten public broadcasting's editorial independence?"
Turn PBS Off
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Maybe the public should pay for that. Then would you still agree to pay for it? It may be slanted. But isn't the whole idea of a vibrant democracy to allow freedom of speech from all sources?
Bookmarks