so I'm a idealist, but yeah trying to balance political agendas never works... in the best of all possible worlds CPB would be neutral... and barring that, you bring in the best people for their job and say, "We serve Every American..." OI. Nevermind me... too centrist.
i guess what i find interesting about it is that the guy was fired, not necessarily that he was intentionally trying to "balance" the viewpoints. for a network, i don't think that's a bad idea in conception. execution could get messy, but i think the concept is a solid one. they present the news, from "all" perspectives, and viewers make up their own minds. wacky me.
the other thing i find interesting is that he was fired by "liberals", and not in any perjorative sense of the word. i wonder if, had the network had a "conservative" bent, would a "liberal" have been fired for attempting the same thing?
wonder if, had the network had a "conservative" bent, would a "liberal" have been fired for attempting the same thing?
betcha even quicker... thing is, it sounds like he was breaking law, and that is the axefall right there. They could have argued all they wanted and so forth like boardrooms nationwide, and it would have been a good thing really. When he decided to do a workaround he ran headlong into the things at the fed level that don't let you do that AT ALL. The board didn't have to make nice at all then... Here's something to boggle the brain, imagine if FOX had to be run as a state sponsored entity, or NBC... The political rhetoric on top of the internal rhetoric? It'd get ugly.
I'd say it's all much ado... except I love my PBS and wouldn't want it to change for the worse... heh, I get 2 stations and one of them has BBC and Deutche News... I've even had a little prayer that they'd bring The Doctor, as they once did. :shrug:
from what i've read, it doesn't sound like he was breaking the law actually...but that's for lawyers and such.
Here's something to boggle the brain, imagine if FOX had to be run as a state sponsored entity, or NBC... The political rhetoric on top of the internal rhetoric? It'd get ugly.
i don't see FOX as a good analogy. CNN, yes.
I'd say it's all much ado... except I love my PBS and wouldn't want it to change for the worse...
see, and that right there's what i mean. why would it be worse by default because it was an attempt, however misguided, to balance from left to right?
and don't get me wrong. i love PBS just the way it is, but then again, i'm talking about televised PBS. the only thing i can stomach on NPR is its music broadcasts. it helps that they are brilliant, but i think you know what i mean.
no it wouldn't be worse per se... Human beings are political animals, that makes our institutions that as well. It's just that this is an overt thing. If the head of PBS call the white house to try and align with them, it isn't all that good. Politics change on a whim, what's expedient this year wont be next. That's why you want to keep some long term institutions out of it. NASA is another fab example. Now you look at me and say 'poor naive boy, there already is the left bias there'... Yup, I agree. But I think politicizing it more by saying we need to balance politically is a bad road. In some ways PBS is like the Smithsonian... Kind of like caretakers of history and knowledge. So I would think de-politicaizing it would be better, but I have no frelling idea how to do so...
But I think politicizing it more by saying we need to balance politically is a bad road. In some ways PBS is like the Smithsonian... Kind of like caretakers of history and knowledge. So I would think de-politicaizing it would be better, but I have no frelling idea how to do so...
i think if journalists did what they should be doing, providing the full story, right up to telling the reader where the writer's bias lies, then there wouldn't be a need for "balance". it would inherently be present.
which leads me to your Smithsonian analogy...if they actually were like the Smithsonian, being keepers of knowledge as in all the knowledge, then again, that would, i think, eliminate the need for "balance".
it's the pretending that gets under my skin.
did this guy do it too overtly? i have no idea, because we certainly won't get the whole story from the press.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2005-11-18 02:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-18 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-18 11:20 pm (UTC)the other thing i find interesting is that he was fired by "liberals", and not in any perjorative sense of the word. i wonder if, had the network had a "conservative" bent, would a "liberal" have been fired for attempting the same thing?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 12:21 am (UTC)betcha even quicker... thing is, it sounds like he was breaking law, and that is the axefall right there. They could have argued all they wanted and so forth like boardrooms nationwide, and it would have been a good thing really. When he decided to do a workaround he ran headlong into the things at the fed level that don't let you do that AT ALL. The board didn't have to make nice at all then... Here's something to boggle the brain, imagine if FOX had to be run as a state sponsored entity, or NBC... The political rhetoric on top of the internal rhetoric? It'd get ugly.
I'd say it's all much ado... except I love my PBS and wouldn't want it to change for the worse... heh, I get 2 stations and one of them has BBC and Deutche News... I've even had a little prayer that they'd bring The Doctor, as they once did. :shrug:
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 09:34 pm (UTC)Here's something to boggle the brain, imagine if FOX had to be run as a state sponsored entity, or NBC... The political rhetoric on top of the internal rhetoric? It'd get ugly.
i don't see FOX as a good analogy. CNN, yes.
I'd say it's all much ado... except I love my PBS and wouldn't want it to change for the worse...
see, and that right there's what i mean. why would it be worse by default because it was an attempt, however misguided, to balance from left to right?
and don't get me wrong. i love PBS just the way it is, but then again, i'm talking about televised PBS. the only thing i can stomach on NPR is its music broadcasts. it helps that they are brilliant, but i think you know what i mean.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 11:02 am (UTC)no it wouldn't be worse per se... Human beings are political animals, that makes our institutions that as well. It's just that this is an overt thing. If the head of PBS call the white house to try and align with them, it isn't all that good. Politics change on a whim, what's expedient this year wont be next. That's why you want to keep some long term institutions out of it. NASA is another fab example. Now you look at me and say 'poor naive boy, there already is the left bias there'... Yup, I agree. But I think politicizing it more by saying we need to balance politically is a bad road. In some ways PBS is like the Smithsonian... Kind of like caretakers of history and knowledge. So I would think de-politicaizing it would be better, but I have no frelling idea how to do so...
no subject
Date: 2005-11-21 07:24 am (UTC)i think if journalists did what they should be doing, providing the full story, right up to telling the reader where the writer's bias lies, then there wouldn't be a need for "balance". it would inherently be present.
which leads me to your Smithsonian analogy...if they actually were like the Smithsonian, being keepers of knowledge as in all the knowledge, then again, that would, i think, eliminate the need for "balance".
it's the pretending that gets under my skin.
did this guy do it too overtly? i have no idea, because we certainly won't get the whole story from the press.