Tag Archives: PBS

NPR and PBS: What Should Be Done?

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

Congress has recently been holding hearings on the National Public Radio (NPR).  The issue is whether NPR, and to a lesser extent, its related television organization Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), are politically biased and whether they should continue to receive federal taxpayer funding.  President Trump has consistently maintained that these two media outlets are consistently against conservative principles and messages and are strongly biased towards supporting leftist ideology.  Let’s take a look at some facts and see what should be done, if anything.

The NPR was created in 1967 by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, and at the time was totally funded by the federal taxpayer.  NPR consisted of a centralized program content and opinion service that was made available to local affiliated stations throughout the country.  Their offices are in Washington, D.C. and in Culver City, CA, not exactly centers of conservative thought.  Over the years, both NPR and PBS have reduced their dependence on federal taxpayer funding and now receive a majority of their funding from private corporations and individuals.  Consequently, the actual burden on the taxpayer is minimal.

The issue of their left-wing bias is more dramatic and, in many ways, more problematic.  An examination of their management structure is revealing.  Most, if not all, of the members of the board of directors of NPR/PBS are registered Democrats and/or donors.  Their current CEO, Katherine Mayer who testified before a Congressional committee, holds an undergraduate degree in Middle East and Islamic Studies and served in the Hillary Clinton State Department.  The issue of NPR bias has been raised for many years.  In fact, the Reagan administration and Congress in 1983 proposed steps to cease taxpayer funding of NPR because of anti-conservative bias complaints against NPR.  Interestingly, over the years there have been surveys and studies showing that NPR does indeed have a bias as alleged.  In fact, one of their own staff members, Business Editor, Uri Berliner, documented that bias on several occasions.  One occasion was in 2016 when Trump first ran for the presidency.  Another incident occurred during the 2020 election when NPR refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story, which many political pundits believe was a major factor in Biden being elected.  Even the present CEO of NPR, Katherine Mayer, admitted during recent testimony that hiding the Hunter laptop story was an act of bias on the part of NPR and should not have happened.  It should be noted that NPR left Twitter after Elon Musk purchased that platform and listed NPR as a government affiliated news source.   Guess, they did not like the truth.   There is also ample evidence to support the accusation that NPR has been pro-Hamas and the Palestinians, in the current conflict with Israel.

As far as the audience for NPR is concerned, a recent poll showed that 87% of listeners are Democrats and only 12% are Republicans.  Clearly, the fact that the broadcast content is favoring one side of the political divide is obvious to the listeners.  Of concern is that many of the local stations that broadcast NPR, are affiliated with universities and the listeners are predominantly college graduates/students.

So, what we have here is a leftist biased media platform that was originally started by the federal government that has morphed into a biased left wing media platform funded mostly by private sources.  While they may be unduly influencing university students and younger people, the conservative audience appears fully aware of what ideology is supported by NPR; and has obviously chosen other media platforms.  There appears to be two options for conservatives.  The first is to cease all federal taxpayer funding as proposed in legislation by Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-TX; or second, to leave the funding in place and use it to apply pressure for a less biased and more balanced programming and content.  Holding NPR accountable to the public as was done in the recent Congressional hearings may be the most effective.  We will see what Congress decides.

Racing Toward Irrelevance

Posted on by

I think most Americans are willing to let bygones be bygones in terms of the mainstream media. Americans are a forgiving bunch and have not yet totally tuned out the mainstream media yet. However, the mainstream media is not helping their cause.

On Tuesday, Hot Air posted an article titled, “And the New Hoaxes Begin….” Unfortunately, that is an accurate title. Some of the mainstream media is already shouting that the Trump administration is made up of Nazis. I really am tired of everything the liberals don’t like being labeled ‘Nazi.’

The article reports:

Did Elon Musk give a Nazi salute at an inaugural rally with Trump supporters? In a sane world the question would be absurd to even consider, but we live in the Truman Show.

…If you believe the Pravda Media and the left-wing hoaxers, you might think he did. I took a quick break from watching X and the festivities to lie down yesterday afternoon and was greeted by a torrent of tweets insisting that Elon Musk has liberated his inner Nazi and spoke at the Nuremberg rally or something.

Here are some screen shots of the posts at X about the matter:

Note that the first screenshot is from PBS. We paid for that. It’s really sad that the mainstream media not only finds this necessary, but begins it hours after the swearing in of a new President. The other thing to watch for is the use of ‘Mr. Trump’ in reporting rather than ‘President Trump.’ That is still going on.

When The Mainstream Media Simply Makes Up Stories

Posted on by

On Thursday, Red State posted an article about a story the mainstream media simply made up.

The article reports:

According to Woodruff ((long-time reporter Judy Woodruff), who was anchoring PBS News’ live coverage from the DNC, Trump colluded with the Israeli prime minister to stop a ceasefire deal in Gaza because it would “help” Harris. Here are her original comments, which occurred on Monday evening.

WOODRUFF: The reporting is that former President Trump is on the phone with the prime minister of Israel urging him not to cut a deal right now because it’s believed that would help the Harris campaign. I don’t know where, I don’t know, who knows whether that will come about or not, but I have to think the Harris campaign would like for President Biden to do what presidents do, which is to work on that one, and maybe there are some other domestic issues that, you know, they’d like to see come home.

That’s quite the accusation, and one you’d think a seasoned reporter wouldn’t make without impeccable sourcing. It smacks of the Russian collusion hoax, being yet another claim that Trump is somehow using foreign sources to “interfere” in the election.

Just for the record, it would be foolish for Prime Minister Netanyahu to accept any deal the allows Hamas to regroup and repeat their actions of October 7th.

The article explains what happened when Judy Woodruff was caught in the lie:

Woodruff then went back on air to offer a quasi-clarification, explaining that she was just repeating reporting from Axios and Reuters.

The only problem with that claim was that neither Axios or Reuters had ever reported the story.

The article notes:

Worse for Woodruff, both articles she cited on Trump and Netanyahu said the former president encouraged the prime minister to take the deal (with the same source saying he wasn’t sure). Later, Netanyahu would deny the phone call even took place.

The article concludes:

At no point did any news outlet report that Trump told Netanyahu to not take a deal with Hamas, much less for political reasons as Woodruff claimed. She made the story up out of whole cloth, and then, instead of admitting it, doubled down on lying about it by blaming other outlets. That’s a breach of journalistic ethics that would make Dan Rather blush. That she hasn’t been pulled off the air and punished is more proof that PBS shouldn’t be getting a dime of public funding.

You tax dollars paid for these lies. It’s time to stop funding PBS. Let them discover the free market and sink or swim.

Let’s All Spy On Our Neighbors

Posted on by

In an article I wrote on January 16th, 2013, I said the following, “Back in the early sixties when folk music was the rage, there was a group called the Chad Mitchell Trio that recorded a song called “The John Birch Society.” It was a great song. Some of the lyrics stated:

Oh, we’re the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society

Here to save our country from a communistic plot

Join the John Birch Society holding off the Reds

We’ll use our hand and hearts and if we must we’ll use our heads

Do you want Justice Warren for your Commissar?

Do you want Mrs. Krushchev in there with the DAR?

You cannot trust your neighbor or even next of kin

If mommie is a commie then you gotta turn her in.”

I don’t necessarily agree with the slam on the John Birch Society, but unfortunately what they were singing about back then is happening today.

On January 4th, Newsbusters posted the following:

Wednesday’s edition of the PBS NewsHour featured veteran journalist Judy Woodruff cheering on an obsessive group of “citizen investigators” who have teamed up with the media’s favorite domestic surveillance organization to turn in people who entered the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021: “How citizen investigators are helping the FBI track down Jan. 6 rioters.”

One suspects these unlabeled, left-wing activist “Citizen investigators” would have been condemned as troubling vigilantes by PBS if they were crowdsourcing video for Black Lives Matter rioters and thieves in 2020.

Host Amna Nawaz: The federal investigation into 2021’s January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is the largest FBI operation in history. More than 1,200 people have been charged and over 900 convicted so far, and hundreds more charges are expected before the investigation concludes. But it has stretched the bureau’s resources, and it’s often had to rely on the work of a bipartisan group of citizen investigators who came to be known as sedition hunters….

“Sedition hunters.” The tolerant left’s lexicon certainly sounds McCarthyite these days. This is a “public broadcasting” trend. NPR touted the “sedition hunters” last year at this time.

Woodruff interviewed someone who spends her every waking hour playing detective, seemingly determined to put everyone who walked into the Capitol on January 6 in prison. She won’t give her name, or show her face, but she exposes everyone else.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is chilling.

Bias Is Not Only How You Tell The Story–It’s The Stories You Choose Not To Tell

Posted on by

On Sunday, Newsbusters reported the following:

In the last Congress, PBS and NPR enthusiastically broadcast every moment of live coverage requested by Nancy Pelosi’s “Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.” But in 2023, they won’t offer live coverage of Republican-led events. In fact, they often ignore them altogether.

On Wednesday morning, House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer held a dramatic press conference to release new bank records showing how President Biden’s family was awarded millions in foreign payments while he was Vice President. Not only did PBS and NPR skip live coverage, they skipped all coverage — including “Week in Review” packages on PBS NewsHour and NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday, as well as Washington Week on PBS. 

On the NewsHour on Wednesday night, co-host Geoff Bennett even conducted an eight-minute interview with House Democrat leader Hakeem Jeffries, and there was no question on the Biden financial scandals. Instead, questions like this: 

BENNETT: This is your first time on the NewsHour in your capacity as House Democratic leader. And I want to take the occasion to ask you, one, how you view your role, and, two, what Democrats hope to achieve even while in the minority right now.

The article notes:

Back in March, we noted PBS and NPR audaciously ignored when the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing of the new Congress with Attorney General Merrick Garland, despite a dramatic grilling by Senate Republicans…or because of it.

But on May 2, the same Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing into the ethics of federal judges, especially Supreme Court Justice Thomas. On that night, the PBS NewsHour devoted almost nine minutes to that event, summarized under the loaded transcript headline “Senate probes Supreme Court ethics after questionable financial dealings by justices.” PBS at least mentioned liberal former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, briefly referencing her outburst against then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016 as an example of lack of impartiality.

They touted a recent PBS/NPR/Marist poll, finding more than six in 10 Americans said they have little to no confidence in the court.

Keeping Americans in the dark about the Biden family scandals is a contribution to President Biden’s campaign for re-election. While we probably can’t change the lack of reporting on the various scandals by the mainstream media, we can encourage people to find news sources that tell the whole truth.

In What World Is This Rational?

Posted on by

Project Veritas is known for exposing things that go on behind the scenes. They have a way of showing us what is really going on. They have done it again–they have exposed the prejudice of at least one person at PBS.

The information below was contained in an email I received today from Project Veritas. They have resorted to emails because some of their social networking has been censored.

The email included a video of PBS Principal Counsel Michael Beller stating the following (I can’t figure out how to embed the video):

“They’ll [Trump supporters] be raising a generation of intolerant, horrible people – horrible kids.”

“We go for all the Republican voters and Homeland Security will take their children away…we’ll put them into the re-education camps.”

“Enlightenment camps. They’re nice, they have Sesame Street characters in the classrooms, and they watch PBS all day.

Project Veritas has also obtained a message sent by PBS CEO Paula Kerger to her staff:

Dear Colleagues:

We recently learned that a staff member in PBS’s legal department was targeted by Project Veritas, a far-right activist group that is known for producing deceptive videos. A video of that individual’s personal interaction with an undercover member of Project Veritas was released today.

In response, we issued the following statement: 

“This employee no longer works for PBS. As a mid-level staff attorney, he did not speak on behalf of our organization, nor did he make any editorial decisions. There is no place for hateful rhetoric at PBS, and this individual’s views in no way reflect our values or opinions. We strongly condemn violence and will continue to do what we have done for 50 years – use our national platform and local presence to strengthen communities and bring people together.”

Now wait a minute. If you dismissed the employee, why are you accusing Project Veritas of being a far-right activist group known for producing deceptive videos? Was the video accurate? If not, why did you fire the employee? I really don’t think you can have it both ways.

It is disturbing that anyone (particularly a person in a corporation funded with taxpayer dollars) would think any American belongs in a re-education camp. Based on that statement, I am not sure it is the Trump supporters who are intolerant.

Jumping The Shark In Children’s Television

Posted on by

Yesterday, WCYB Channel 5 reported that the writers of the children’s show “Arthur” have decided that this season Arthur is going to a wedding of his teacher Mr. Ratburn where Mr. Ratburn marries another man.

The article reports:

Following the scene that shows the teacher and his husband Patrick walking down the aisle, Arthur is shown at the reception saying he cannot believe that Mr. Ratburn is married.

“Yep. It’s a brand new world,” says Arthur’s friend Francine in the episode entitled “Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone” which can be seen by clicking here.

The article continues:

The Public Broadcasting System issued a statement on the episode on Monday to the publication People:

PBS KIDS programs are designed to reflect the diversity of communities across the nation. We believe it is important to represent the wide array of adults in the lives of children who look to PBS KIDS every day

Why is PBS doing this? Parents will introduce their children to diversity when they feel the children are ready for it. Children do not need to be indoctrinated by Public Television. Keep in mind that our taxpayer dollars are paying for this garbage. Children should be taught respect and tolerance, but it is up to their parents to teach them the values the parents espouse. I would never want a child to be disrespectful of a person because they were gay, but I would also want my child to understand the Biblical view of homosexuality, despite the fact that it is in opposition to the current liberal view.

How Much Is Big Bird Actually Worth?

Posted on by

Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line today about President Trump’s plan to cut funding for Public Broadcasting. The article illustrates the fact that in some cases, executives of nonprofit organizations make salaries that don’t sound as if they are appropriate for an organization that is nonprofit.

The article reminds us of two conflicting statements made by NPR about their budget:

On average, less than 1% of NPR’s annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB [the taxpayer-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting]  and federal agencies and departments.

…Federal funding is essential to public radio’s service to the American public. Its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR. . . Elimination of federal funding would result in fewer programs, less journalism—especially local journalism—and eventually the loss of public radio stations, particularly in rural and economically distressed communities.

Both of those statements cannot be true. I have no idea which one is.

The article further reports:

According to tax filings — the most recent of which covers 2014 — then-president and CEO Melvin Ming was paid more than $586,000 in salary and benefits in the nine months before retiring, which included a $37,500 bonus and $18,700 in benefits. The year before that, Ming cleared $672,391 in salary, bonuses and benefits.

That’s five times the average pay for CEOs at nonprofits, according to Charity Navigator. (It’s twice as much as the CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets paid.)

The average compensation for the other 10 top officials at Sesame Workshop in 2014 was a very handsome $382,135 — which is about six times the median household income in the U.S.

Big Bird is big business. The article states:

Last year, Sesame Workshop had $121.6 million in revenues. Of that, $49.6 million came in distribution fees and royalties and $36.6 million in licensing of toys, games, clothing, food and such. In 2014, only 4% of its revenue came from government grants.

I suspect there are other programs on Public Broadcasting that would do quite well if they chose to market items related to their television shows. I truly think it is time to give the free market the chance to work its magic in the area of Public Broadcasting.

One Opinion On The Cause Of Ferguson

Posted on by

Yesterday PJ Media posted an article entitled, “The Real Villain of Ferguson.”

The article opens with the following comment:

It’s hard to have sympathy for anyone in the Ferguson affair — the cops, the demonstrators, the pontificating politicians, the exploitative media or we its pathetically loyal audience that keeps tuning in.  The whole event plays out like the umpteenth rerun of the famous quote from Marx about history repeating itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

The events in Feguson have gone on for a number of days now. It is unfortunate that a young man died, but I just don’t understand why that justifies looting and violence. As more evidence becomes public, the story changes from the original sympathy for the innocent young man brutalized by the police to a young man, possibly high, charging a policeman. We shall see how all of this shakes out.

Meanwhile, the story at PJMedia concludes:

But, you say, this was a white-on-black crime. An o-fay cop offed a brother. (Never mind that brothers can butcher brothers like it’s going out of style, this pig had white-skin privilege.)  Well, yes, and we don’t yet know the circumstances, but even accepting the narrative of, say, the Huffington Post that the cop was the reincarnation of Bull Connor and that the “youth” was a “gentle giant” on the way to a contract with PBS as the next Mr. Rogers, the event is basically a charade.  Everyone knows we’ve seen it before and everyone knows we’ll see it again.  In fact, many parties don’t want it to go away.  The beat must go on.  It has to go on or their very personalities will disintegrate.  And I will tell you why — what caused it.

The Great Society.  There, I’ve said it.  The Great Society, which I voted for and supported from the bottom of my heart, is the villain behind Ferguson.  Ferguson is the Great Society writ large because the Great Society convinced, and then reassured, black people that they were victims, taught them that being a victim and playing a victim was the way to go always and forever.  And then it repeated the point ad infinitum from its debut in 1964 until now — a conveniently easy to compute fifty years — as it all became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Great Society and similar policies screwed black people to the wall. It was racist to the core without knowing it.  Nobody used the N-word.  In fact, it was forbidden, unless you were Dr. Dre or somebody.  But it did its job without the word and did it better for being in disguise.  Those misbegotten kids running around Ferguson high on reefer and wasting their lives screaming at cops are the product of all this.  Stop it already.  No one has said this better than Jason Riley, author of Please Stop Helping Us.  Listen to Jason if you want to end Fergusons.

There are people out there who represent the voice of reason. We need to start listening to them instead of those the media places in front of us.

Seeking Donations From Uninformed Voters

Posted on by

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a copy of a recent letter sent to potential Democrat donors.

This is the letter:

Subject: seriously, thanks!

John –

Last week, we asked you to help us do something big, something truly record breaking.

Well, thanks to your generous support, we had our BEST online showing for May ever!

Your contributions are already being put to use, protecting access to affordable higher education. In fact, we just launched an ad campaign on college campuses across the country, calling out House Republicans for voting to more than double student loan rates. Our campaign has been featured on PBS, CNN, and ABC News — but we’re just getting started.

Will you condemn House Republicans for attempting to make college more expensive?

Stand by President Obama’s veto threat against Republican student loan hikes: Click here to automatically add your name >>

Thanks for all that you do,

Democrats 2014

This is a very persuasive letter–unfortunately very little of it is accurate. The article at Power Line explains some of the inaccuracies:

Only interest rates on subsidized Stafford Loans will be impacted by the July change. Subsidized Stafford Loans are need-based loans for undergraduate students only.

Interest rates on subsidized Stafford Loans issued after July 1, 2013 are set to double to 6.8 percent. Loans issued before this date will come with 3.4 percent interest, which is locked in for the life of the loan.

The article concludes:

So how do the Democrats try to justify their claim that House Republicans “vot[ed] to more than double student loan rates?” They don’t try to justify it. It is an absurd lie, easily recognized as such by anyone who has the faintest acquaintance with the issue. But the Democrats’ fundraising appeals are not directed to the well-informed. They are aimed at low-information voters who turn out for the Democrats in droves because they have no idea what is really going on, and are easily fooled. No doubt the “ad campaign” of which the Democratic Party boasted today will fool thousands, maybe millions, more.

What is remarkable about this is not that party operatives are willing to lie for money, but that not a single prominent Democrat has objected to the practice. Is there a single Democratic office-holder who is willing to criticize his party’s use of blatant lies to seek political advantage? The answer, so far, is: No. Not one.

At the present time, the political left seems to have lost its moral compass. In the past there have been Democrats of principle, but right now we seem to have very few of those. Eventually this sort of activity will catch up to the Democrat party. At that time, I hope there will be some honest men who will step forward and lead the party back to its roots. I was a Democrat for much of my life. It breaks my heart to see where my party has gone.

Enhanced by Zemanta