Letter to the Editor
Prefers PBS
Published Sunday, March 23, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!March 14, 2008
To the editor:
On any weekday night, more news is presented in the first 10-minutes of the “Lehrer News Hour” (Channel 9, PBS) during his News Summary than in the 30-minute news broadcasts on any of the major networks. If you doubt this, simply tune in to both on any given night and compare.
This appears to be in large part because the major networks are so biased. They cannot bring themselves to provide normal coverage of Republicans, nor broadcast good news regarding President Bush or his administration. Bush had a very well received trip to a number of African nations; NBC news did not inform us as to why he was so well received. Bush had a showdown with Congress over the budget, and prevailed — not reported on NBC. Bush signed the “Stimulus Package” — not reported on NBC. On and on and on.
A few months ago NBC reported that air traffic accidents over the five-year period ending in 2007 were demonstrably lower than the previous five years. NBC did not credit Bush or his administration — they dug out a 1997 clip of Al Gore, calling for improved air safety.
Three weeks before the Iowa Democrat caucuses I was not know sure if the Republicans were also holding caucuses there. There was no doubt the Democrats were, as Clinton and Obama got a news clip almost every night, with a sound bite. Later, when Republicans were covered, they generally did not get a sound bite, unless they said something stupid. It is obvious to even the most partisan that the favorable sound bites afforded the one party is the result of bias.
Do you know what political party Gov. Spitzer of New York represents? Not if you get your news from the major networks, where his party affiliation has not been mentioned. (Update, March, 13, 2008, NBC identified Spitzer as a Democrat.) To be better informed, catch the first 10-minutes of the PBS “Lehrer News Hour,” and read the Washington Times at www.washtimes.com.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I agree with you, Mr. Burgess. PBS does cover news in greater depth, and commercial t.v. networks are biased.
My political leanings are left of center. I'm neither a fan of the Republican party, nor of our President, but I, too, see the bias you're talking about.
A lot happens on any given day on this planet, and it's impossible to provide news coverage of every news worthy event. Bias is unavoidable. The first form of bias occurs in the selection of which events are reported. The second form occurs in how those events are presented. Bias is unavoidable, but if you know that it exists, you can get closer to the truth by looking at the same event from different perspectives. It's good that shows like Lehrer's on PBS offer alternative perspectives.
I like your litmus test, by the way. No, I did not know that Spitzer is a Democrat. For some reason - maybe because I watch NBC news too much :) - I assumed he was Republican. I didn't know otherwise until I read your letter to the editor, followed by a few google searches. Mr. Burgess, thank you for getting me to challenge my assumptions.
well, NBC... you don't have to say anymore. in my view NBC has discredited itself, like the new york times has a long time ago. after watching the local news weather with mike shultz i scramble to turn the channel to anything else so i don't even have to see the NBC logo or hear their news broadcast theme music. to me, both NBC and the new york times are like those tabloids. they are more fiction and bias than truth.
LadyNYC - are you a New Yorker or a former New Yorker? If so, how did you not know the party to which the governor of that state belongs? As a New Yorker living in Alaska I was a little surprised by that.
While I agree that all network news - including FOX - is biased one way or the other (since news is researched and reported by human beings rather than robots) I think people have to take a little personal responsibility for what they know rather than being passive, empty vessels who flip a switch expecting to be filled with any and all important information there is to be had at the end of the day. I'm pro-active about "what I know" and sometimes that takes a little legwork (or keyboard work). If something hits the national news the way the Spitzer thing did (FYI, the "D" was displayed after his name on most of the major news outlets I watched) I do a little research on my own.
CU . . .
Lady(former)NYC. I've lived here in Alaska for over 30 years, and haven't kept up with a lot of what's going on back in NY. But many of my world views were shaped by having grown up there.
Nope, I didn't catch the "D" displayed after Spitzer's name in any of the broadcasts I watched. If it was there, I overlooked it. Just goes to show, there's a tendency for a person to see what s/he wants to see, regardless of if that person is a reporter covering an event, a newsroom editor making decisions about which stories will get air time, or a viewer watching the news.
The news is biased, and apparently, so am I. I care about the truth, and like to think I have an open mind. It's especially important to me, then, to have those biases revealed, including my own. Mr. Burgess' letter has done just that.
I'm certain that the bias is not accidental human error, especially on NBC and CNN. They have specific agendas that their news departments are part and parcel of.
Consider the war in Iraq. Before the surge, it was leading the news every single night. "More casualties", "quagmire", quotes from leading Democrats about how the war was unwinnable and our troops were murderous thugs on par with Nazis. Since the surge has shown some success, casualties are down, and constructive events have happened in previous war torn areas, what news do we get? Not much at all. The Democrats need a bad economy to run on, and I'll be darned if that is not what leads the news every night. "Worst economy since the Great Depression", "Bush is out of touch", blah, blah, blah.
Time and Newsweek magazine are also a joke. New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times are all full of beans.
the cartoons on PBS are great for my baby. She watches Clifford and sometimes Sesame Street while Im making her breakfast. What I dont like are the 800 numbers that pop up and down blocking half the screen. Do they have to do that during a cartoon for babies? The 800 number also blocks Antique Road Shows $ amount that is displayed, when the appraiser tells the person its value.
LadyNYC-
I agree that we're all biased - me, you, the man in the moon. That's why I'm always amused by the shock and irritation of people who find bias in the news. News is created by humans, investigated by humans, reported by humans. Of course there is a bias.
I do still find it amazing that in a place where I'm constantly referred to as a "liberal New Yorker" (or where NY is constantly referred to as "liberal") that there is surprise that the governor of NY is a Democrat! :-) I happen to be from a pretty conservative, Republican-dominated county of NY but NY seems to be viewed by most as a haven for the liberal- (read: weak) minded ;-)
Glacierles - I doubt the bias on Fox is accidental human error, either. :-)
Happy Easter, all!
And for the record, I believe the "specific agenda" of media outlets - any media outlet, "liberal" or "conservative" - is profit.
Glacierles, that was a critical distinction you made. Bias is one thing, unavoidable, and therefore almost forgivable. Agendas, on the other hand . . . there's something nefarious about television networks, which reach millions of people, having an agenda, having a preferred outcome that they seek to influence and shape by what they choose to broadcast.
I'm liberal. I tend not to see the agendas of networks and newspapers since their agendas generally coincide with mine. This letter to the editor and subsequent comments are making me realize, though, that if I really care about learning the objective truth of any given situation, it behooves me to read and watch news sources that have a perspective and agenda other than my own.
Mr. Burgess suggested the Lehrer News Hour and Washington Times as alternative sources of information. Glacierles, can you suggest additional ones?
CU - profit as an agenda is about as American as apple pie. No, it's more than the mere desire for profit that I see as nefarious. It's the whole "king maker" role and Orwellian mind control agenda of the networks that I see as dangerous, although I wouldn't want any of it censored for even a New York minute.
We have checks and balances built into the structure of our government. But in terms of something as powerful as the media, the only checks and balances that we can have is by virtue of what information we choose to expose ourselves to.
The Washington Times is blatantly a extreme conservative outlet, somewhat the Rush Limbaugh of print. I have an education in television journalism, but I decided I didn't want a career in it for many reasons. Mainly, television does a great job covering disasters in the immediate sense--e.g. the day after an earthquake. But television does a terrible job covering more complex, issue-based stories that don't offer flashy pictures to entertain us. (Make no mistake, television news is an entertainment business!). I am probably more of a liberal than conservative, and quite a bit of a libertarian. The prevailing bias and agenda (yes, good distinction) I see is a corporate agenda. Commercial news is directly beholden to their corporate sponsors. News executives, editors and reporters have very little time or ability to slant their coverage left or right because they are too conscious of the expectations of their corporate funders. PBS is somewhat beholden to corporate sponsors as well, but less so than commercial media.
Some leading conservatives, such as Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and others from the 70s and 80s have quite shrewdly made a concerted effort to call the media "liberal." That massive effort has had the effect of making journalists, editors and executives hyper-sensitive to the appearance of liberal bias.
And finally, Mr. Burgess' examples of NBC are worthlessly anecdotal. However, PBS reporting (and the great variety of comment/discussion shows such as The McLaughlin Group, Washington Week and many others) provides so much more quality and depth than commercial outlets. This depth almost always translates into less reporting bias as more angles are presented in any given story.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
Lately I have been getting about 8 to 10 hours of television news a day. I agree that Jim Lehrer News hour has more raw, unbiased info than 10 hours of CNN, MSNBC, or FOXNEWS.
Its scary to think that this country will be electing a president soon based on the information we have been given so far about the canidates. The debates are a joke. No one will force these canidates to answer serious questions on their positions.
Obama preaches "unity", but has attended a black seperatist church for 20 years. This leading democratic presidential hopeful actually said the words "typical white person." Can you imagine what would had McCain or Clinton said "typical black person?"
To Imusuallyright: You could have saved your dignity by answering Mom's question than making such a rude remark.
To Arctic_Amy: I believe they are replacing the semi-annual pledge drive with the 800 number on the screen rather than interupting programming for a week...including Lehrer News Hour.
arctic_amy, the 800 number annoys me, too (only slightly), but I get over it the instant I remember that it's a wonderful alternative to the commercials on for-profit television. I bet you'd agree it's less obnoxious television for your child to watch, as well.
LadyNYC, some sources I've used lately for interesting perspectives...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com has up-to-the-minute political coverage (polls especially), but I love it for the wide variety of opinion pieces listed with links.
http://alaskanews.wordpress.com/ is a new blog by someone in Fairbanks with a strong social-conscience and environmental focus on northern issues.
huffingtonpost.com and talkingpointsmemo.com are openly left-leaning, but provide enough range of reporting and links that an open-minded reader of any political leaning would find them useful.
If "Mom" had been paying attention to the television her baby is watching, she would have known the answer to her question.
None of us is spoon-fed the news or is being given information. We live in the information age and if we want to know all sides of any issue, it is up to us not to believe everything we see and hear, do some research for ourselves, and make informed decisions. We should all be able to recognize that bias exists and take some steps to ensure that it affects our decision making as little as possible.
what i think is interesting is the differences in the political spectrum between here and the lower 48. a lower 48 conservative is our moderate, our liberal is a lower 48 moderate. but that seems to be the way it works in a land like ours that is young and undeveloped like alaska. there is interest in allowing people freedom to go out and manipulate the environment for the assumed benefit of all. in lands that have been overdeveloped and over populated the call is for stronger government to come in and moderate human activity.
i don't think we here in alaska keep reelecting questionable representatives to congress and the senate and lean to the right because we are greedy people who want nothing but to get rich off of the less fortunate, but because nature here at times threatens to overwhelm us and we'd all secretly, or openly, like a little more human habitat and a little less natural habitat. in a place like the way over developed southern california area the situation is the reverse. they've about eliminated the natural habitat and have way too much human habitat and they want to protect what is left and even bring back some more of the latter. somewhere in the middle is probably a good balance.
humans are complicated animals. we are animals born of the earth and we have an affinity with the earth's present ecological regime. and at the same time we are children of god and we are not truly a part of this planet at all, but instead with the spiritual one who created our species.
I ignore liberal discussions. I do not like liberals. This is not a discussion forum, it is a comment section and I was commenting to the original letter to the editor. If you would like a discussion with me, you can email me.
*That's* what I'm talking about, critical_reader.
Thanks for the four links you provided. I took a quick look at all of them. The last three seemed a good fit for my political views. The first one, though, the link to RealClearPolitics, is the one I'll find most useful. I was impressed by the diversity of perspectives as represented by the publications listed there. That one link will lead me to many others that can provide me with well-reasoned views that are opposed to my own.
And that's what I'm looking for: a counterbalance that neither inflames passions nor provokes enmity. My mind shuts down and my ears close up with Rush Limbaugh-esque type of commentary. Having one end of the political spectrum attack the other end only creates a shouting match where the only goal left is one-upmanship, and proving that only *your* position, *your* side, is the correct one, regardless of which side you're on.
I'm *so* tired of that. Plus, it does nothing to address real issues and arrive at real solutions, and is therefore a monumental waste of time. I feel that the problems we have in our nation and world are so pressing, so urgent, that the last thing we need is to waste our time trying to invalidate and eradicate opposing points of view.
I have strongly-held convictions. I have reasons for them. I am willing to act on them. I want my actions to be well-reasoned and just, and for this to happen, I need to be well-informed. I welcome having my biases pointed out to me. I welcome having my assumptions challenged. I especially welcome learning of views that are different from mine because it allows me to make the best decisions.
Thanks again, critical_reader, for sharing information.
LadyNYC, WOW, you said it! I couldn't agree more (ironically?) that I love having my assumptions challenged, etc. I love realclearpolitics because I can easily find a variety of views that are harder to find on their own, and it gives me titles/opinions that I hadn't thought of before. The other 3 I listed--mostly I agree with the views I read there, but I love it when I find something I don't.
Very well stated thoughts, LadyNYC.
I too have enjoyed PBS since I was a child. I have, however, noticed the 30 second GM spots between programs that usually ends in "General Motors proudly supports Public Television" or some other BS that looks like a commercial - but is actually not? Sure looks like a commercial to me! I could agree with the author of this letter 10 years ago, when PBS was PBS. But lately I've seen enough evidence that the station is headed the direction of major media outlets. Inevitable, I suppose.
arctic_amy - You hit the nail on the head. This is not anyone in specifics argument, and you have every right to comment on the article however you wish. Imusuallyrights comments are personal attacks in a public forum. Very classy indeed. Its a pretty typical response of someone who feels they are losing an argument. My five year old does it all the time.
I love these sections - you can really say what you mean without all the PC stuff getting in the way. I'm relatively young (so to speak) and have always disliked politics because of the way the politicians presented themselves. LadyNYC put it very succinctly - I do have reasons for believing what I do, however if I ever want to grow as a human being, I have to be willing to have an open mind. I find that those that don't are usually the ones to get defensive quicker. If you don't like being criticized, don't put yourself out there where it's inevitable. It's called learning from your mistakes and owning your responsibility. I've been doing it since I was a baby. (Both making mistakes and learning)For me watching the news is hard - it seems that most media deliberately focus on the negative, maybe it's just me. But trying to find both sides of an argument is really challenging sometimes. I would like to be able to vote for a particular person based on what I've learned about him/her but if the only things I'm exposed to are biased how the hell can I trust the decision I've made. You can't trust the politicians anymore because you KNOW they have their own agenda and they're only saying what they think you want to hear. On the other hand, I look at it like I do lawyers. You hate them up until the point when you need a lawyer, then guess what? I guess I'm dissatisfied with the knowledge that media is just a tool by those with the power and the money, how do you fight that?
LadyNYC---
For a nice smorgasboard of news try drudgereport.com
For a well written conservative view of the news, I'd suggest the late William Buckley's great contribution to American culture, the National Review, which is also online.
The thing with Rush Limbaugh is that one should listen to him, and not just to what his critics say about him. More often than not, he is taken out of context, or downright lied about, as Harry Reid attempted a few months back. He is polarizing for sure, but to just dismiss his views is to just dismiss the views of millions of Americans. Literally.
Lj