why do conservatives hate PBS and NPR

Schadenfreude

patriot and widower
maybe it is because of their unbridled investigative work


Public media puts millions into investigative work​

Associated Press/AP Online


By BRETT ZONGKER WASHINGTON - NPR, PBS and local public broadcast stations around the country are hiring more journalists and pumping millions of dollars into investigative news to make up for what they see as a lack of deep-digging coverage by their for-profit counterparts.

Public radio and TV stations have seen the need for reporting that holds government and business accountable increase as newspapers and TV networks cut their staffs and cable television stations have filled their schedules with more opinion journalism.

"Where the marketplace is unable to serve, that's the role of public media," PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger said last year at a summit on the future of media at the Federal Communications Commission. "PBS exists to serve the people, not to sell them."

In the past three years, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has invested more than $90 million in federal funds on new journalism initiatives. That includes a $10 million local journalism initiative that is paying for the creation of five regional centers that will help local PBS and NPR stations cover news that affects wider geographic areas. Also, a $6 million grant from the group expanded the PBS investigative series "Frontline" from a seasonal series with a summer break to a year-round program.

Meanwhile, NPR has started an investigative reporting unit supported by philanthropic funds - including $3.2 million donated in the last year.
The need for such probing journalism was highlighted by a 2010 study by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism. It noted the "old model" of journalism that supported watchdog reporting - by valuing stories based on their significance over their individual popularity - is breaking down. In new models driven by the Internet, revenue is more closely tied to individual stories and how popular they are, leaving less incentive for civic news.

Newsroom staffs also continue to shrink, the study found.
Still, the prospect of tax dollars going toward public stations' journalistic efforts has already drawn criticism. Their push for more news reporting also comes as conservatives seek to cut all federal public broadcast funding as part of their budget proposal. It's a threat public broadcasters take seriously, though similar efforts in the 1990s and 2005 did not succeed.

Randolph May, president of the Rockville, Md.-based Free State Foundation, argued at the FCC summit that government-funded media should not be involved in shaping public opinion.

"In an age of information abundance, we do not need, and should not want, government-supported media acting as a filter or a megaphone," said May, whose group is nonpartisan but advocates for libertarian principles.

Patricia de Stacy Harrison, the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said she can take the heat for using public dollars for probing journalism, because it's an important public service.

"Doubtless, if all of these people do the jobs they're supposed to do, our phones will be ringing, e-mail will be coming in," Harrison told The Associated Press.

The corporation is the primary conduit for federal funds distributed to public media, and Harrison described it as a firewall between Congress and nonprofit stations so they aren't government media. She's a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee and a State Department official under President George W. Bush.

In 2010, Congress appropriated $420 million for public broadcasting, primarily for local stations. Many stations rely on that for more than a quarter of their budgets, while also seeking donors.

To increase its news content, PBS has created a show called "Need to Know," and it has revamped the nightly "PBS NewsHour." The network also is hiring journalists to coordinate local and national news content to expand its audience online. At the same time, a federally funded digital platform will allow local stations to share content with national public outlets.

In San Diego, public grants allowed KPBS-TV and Radio to hire two journalists to cover the U.S.-Mexico border. They're among nine hired at stations in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico, who are creating a joint bureau called Fronteras: The Changing America Desk.

Senior News Producer Natalie Walsh said the effort is paying off with investigations and long-form pieces, including a recent story about an increase in Mexican cowboys in rodeos and their challenges in that arena.
"I think we have a place at the table," and more respect, Walsh said, "now that we have the boots on the ground to back it up."

Walsh said that as bigger outlets in the area have cut staff and reduced coverage of the border, her staff has been able to step in.

At NPR, the radio audience has grown substantially over the years as it increased its emphasis on news. The network recently marked the first anniversary of its investigative reporting unit, which has eight full-time journalists.

NPR investigations have included revelations about mine safety, the military's handling of brain injuries and a series that aired this month on problems in U.S. morgues. Many of the projects were done with nonprofit partners, including ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity and PBS' "Frontline." Last week, two public broadcast projects with ProPublica earned George Polk awards, one journalism's most prestigious honors.

Susanne Reber, whom NPR hired from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to head its investigative unit, said she is asking reporters to flex muscles that they already have - namely good sources - in a different way.

"They've been asked to do a certain kind of reporting, and most of the reporting on any radio service is fast turnaround," she said.
While other networks have cut back on international coverage, NPR maintains 17 foreign bureaus. It is also preparing to launch an effort to cover state capitals.

Executive Editor Dick Meyer, who spent most of his career at CBS, said NPR needs to do investigative work because others have eliminated such expensive projects.

"At CBS, I saw a radical evolution in an organization that was about a mission, about news, to one that was about making money," Meyer said. "NPR right now feels like CBS when I got there in the '80s."
---
Online:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting: http://www.cpb.org
Fronteras - The Changing America Desk: http://www.fronterasdesk.org/
NPR: http://www.npr.org
PBS: http://www.pbs.org
A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .
 
As a conservative, I delighted to hear they will do more "investigative work" in their programming....I hope its both scientific and political .....

The only thing that remains to be seen is if they investigate and expose politicians from only one party or if they investigate both parties with equal zeal........
and I don't mean finding a conservative guilty of stealing millions of dollars and a liberal guilty of jaywalking.....

Their news reporting is undeniably slanted toward the liberals so I'd guess any investigative political expose' will go easy on liberals and hard on conservatives...
 
Its because when you take away the "Commercial" support of news, it quickly appears much more favorable to the liberal reality.
 
Its because when you take away the "Commercial" support of news, it quickly appears much more favorable to the liberal reality.

are you talking about liberal media reality that barely touches a story of ATF scandals that try to infringe on the 2nd Amendment while resulting in the deaths of federal agents and call them 'broken eggs'?????
 
are you talking about liberal media reality that barely touches a story of ATF scandals that try to infringe on the 2nd Amendment while resulting in the deaths of federal agents and call them 'broken eggs'?????

Im talking about the Corporate funded media.
 
Its because when you take away the "Commercial" support of news, it quickly appears much more favorable to the liberal reality.
LOL Liberal philosophy and reality are mutually exclusive. That's why they need to distinguish liberal reality from plain old every-day reality.

When your paycheck is dependent on financial support of big tax-and-spend government, guess which political philosophy will be supported in the manner news is investigated, reported, and opined? NPR and PBS news are viewed by conservatives in the same manner - and for the same justified reasons - that liberals view Fox news. Bias leads to inaccurate reporting, regardless of which way the bias leans.
 
Its because when you take away the "Commercial" support of news, it quickly appears much more favorable to the liberal reality.
Poor jarhead just don't get it....

When the public want to support media, you see media like Fox News win ratings hands down.....the only reason there is an NPR is because they steal taxpayers dollars under threat of prison to exist....

I don't know how much of my tax money goes to NPR, but I know it would be ZERO if I wasn't forced to give them some through taxes...:palm:
 
Its because when you take away the "Commercial" support of news, it quickly appears much more favorable to the liberal reality.

^ this says it all

a liberal admitting pbs and npr are biased in favor of liberal views and he has no problem with it, in fact, he says a liberal slant is "reality"

i don't hate them, and in fact have watched or listened many times and still do. what i don't like is my tax dollars used for spreading liberal propaganda. if we are paying even just a little for those stations, they should not be biased.

and jarod...both stations are also funded with "commericial support", so your theory is flawed.
 
Publicly funded media is one of several definitions of propaganda. There should be a total separation of the government from the press.
 
Publicly funded media is one of several definitions of propaganda. There should be a total separation of the government from the press.

The two aren't mutually exclusive though.

Our lovely BBC is publicly funded and yet accused of favouring/criticising both Left and Right.

And as far as impartiality is concerned, it pisses on any of the commercial US channels.
 
Publicly funded media is one of several definitions of propaganda. There should be a total separation of the government from the press.

the first doesn't say the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of the press....

i agree with you, but i wonder why our founders didn't include that....
 
The two aren't mutually exclusive though.

Our lovely BBC is publicly funded and yet accused of favouring/criticising both Left and Right.

And as far as impartiality is concerned, it pisses on any of the commercial US channels.

LOL
yeah, BBC is just amazing.

What a dumbass you are. You're fed feces and you rave about it. LOL
 
As a conservative, I delighted to hear they will do more "investigative work" in their programming....I hope its both scientific and political .....

The only thing that remains to be seen is if they investigate and expose politicians from only one party or if they investigate both parties with equal zeal........
and I don't mean finding a conservative guilty of stealing millions of dollars and a liberal guilty of jaywalking.....

Their news reporting is undeniably slanted toward the liberals so I'd guess any investigative political expose' will go easy on liberals and hard on conservatives...
and as a fiscal conservative and social liberal I agree. As for their investigative reporting, watch them, I think that will ease your concerns. PBS "The News Hour" is the best news program on TV (broadcast or cable) in our nation right now. It's the only News outlet on TV that I truly trust for objective reporting.
 
Last edited:
Publicly funded media is one of several definitions of propaganda. There should be a total separation of the government from the press.
Yea, instead lets have News Corp and other media conglomerates decide whats news based on what sells the most commercials and supports their commercial interest. Oh no, that couldn't possibly be propaganda or have any flaws!

Dude, have you watched the news on TV lately? Local news is a fucking joke. It's a bunch of condescending bullshit geared towards making house wives with 6th grade reading skills feel good. Cable news is dominated by divisive op-ed coverage that doesn't report the news or hold government or other public entities accountable, as is the role of journalism, but rather rationalizes specific economic interest or, as in the case of Fox News and MSNBC are flat out propaganda outlets.

Internet news isn't based on holding government or public entities accountable either. It's based on, as the article said, what's the most popular story, what gets the most hits. So instead of getting detailed reports on federal budget negotiations were getting story after story on Charlie Sheen.

Our system of reporting the news in a manner that provides objective coverage that fills the civic function informing the public and of holding government and public entities accountable to the public is clearly broken and public broadcasting, as long as they maintain objectivity, is clearly serving a valuable role!
 
The two aren't mutually exclusive though.

Our lovely BBC is publicly funded and yet accused of favouring/criticising both Left and Right.

And as far as impartiality is concerned, it pisses on any of the commercial US channels.
No doubt about it. I watch BBC World News on a regular basis. It's nice to hear the news with out listening to some partisan mouth breathers opinion.
 
Poor jarhead just don't get it....

When the public want to support media, you see media like Fox News win ratings hands down.....the only reason there is an NPR is because they steal taxpayers dollars under threat of prison to exist....

I don't know how much of my tax money goes to NPR, but I know it would be ZERO if I wasn't forced to give them some through taxes...:palm:
That's true but is that news? Is that journalism? Are media out lets like Fox serving the public ineterest vis-a-vis the fifth estate or are they serving the commercial and political interest of others? Are you getting the news and being informed from media like Fox/MSNBC or are they selling you what you want to hear? Is that what you want or do you want to be informed as to what is going on in our government, business and our other public entities and institutions?

Keep in mind that media outlets like Fox and others are not wholly private. They are public corporations, majority owned by the public, licensed or permitted to broadcast by the public and protected from certain commercial liabilities by the public and as such they have a very real obligation to serve the public interest and if they fail in these obligations the public has the right to remove these licensing and public protections that these media corporations enjoy.

I would argue that many of the public media, such as Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc are failing in their obligation to serve the public interest and should be held to account on those charges.

Conversely, I would also argue that currently public broadcasting is filling a needed and valued civic function that the commercial media is failing to provide.

What's really laughable about 3D's post is you can tell he's never watched "The News Hour.". I love their format. They take just a few current issues and investigate them thoroughly in an hour program. No 30 second sound bites or partisan op-eds. Just straight up reporting. There are times where I wish they could be broader in scope but they are quite informative none the less. It's not up to quite the quality of BBC World News but I do respect their professionalism and objectivity.
 
Last edited:
the first doesn't say the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of the press....

i agree with you, but i wonder why our founders didn't include that....
Think about it you two. None of the commercial media outlets are truly "private". They are predominantly public institutions. They just serve a commercial interests and not a civic one.
 
Back
Top