Bush Calls for Propaganda Surge, Slashes PBS

The latest twist of Bush's budgetary knife lays bare the White House's information priority: Fake news trumps real reporting.

Out of his depth
George W. Bush is trying—yet again—to smother NPR, PBS and other public broadcasting while at the same forcing an escalation (sorry "surge') in funding for propaganda.

The president's proposed fiscal year 2008 budget for "U.S. international broadcasting" calls for an overall increase of 3.8% from the last year's recommendation.

All told the budget calls for $668.2 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the federal agency that supervises all US government non-military propaganda.

Journalism Slash and Burn

At the same time Bush's budget proposes steep cuts to federal funds for public broadcasting by nearly 25%. According to the Association of Public Television Stations, the Bush budget would cut up to $145 million from the $460 million proposed FY 2008 budget for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting.

The amount allocated to the BBG is a 3.8 percent increase from the agency's 2007 budget with monies specifically "targeted to the war on terror." These tax dollars would flow to government mouthpieces including the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Alhurra, Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting.

According to a BBG release: "The budget also fully funds initiatives … to critical Muslim audiences. These include the expansion of VOA television to Iran to a 12 hour stream, VOA Pashto radio programming to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region, television programs to Afghanistan and Pakistan and Alhurra Europe, the 24/7 service to Arabic speakers in Europe."

Taxpayer money well spent?

Measure the overwhelming public support for funding of public broadcasting against their growing dissatisfaction with the war effort. According to a 2005 Roper poll, 82% of Americans believe that taxpayer funding given to PBS is "money well spent". A recent AP-Ipsos poll counts 62% of Americans who now think that going to war in Iraq was a mistake.

Bush proposed cuts to public broadcasting will have "Sesame Street" and other ad-free kids' shows are under the knife. So is the watchdog journalism, critical voices and diverse fare that PBS, NPR and other public media offer. The cuts continue the partisan war on journalism once led by the ex-chair of public broadcasting, Ken Tomlinson. (Remember him?)

It's now up to Congress to set the budget right and restore funding to media that more accurately represents the public's priorities. You can help.

posted by Timothy Karr at 8:17 AM

http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... surge.html

PBS traffics in liberal propaganda....



P Is for Permanent
We need PBS, but we could do without the politics.

Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:01 a.m


You know what would be fun, and actually helpful? If in the latest struggle over funding for public television, people said what they know to be true.

The argument, once again, is about whether PBS has a liberal bias. There are charges and countercharges, studies, specific instances cited of subtle partiality here and obvious side-taking there. But arguing over whether PBS is and has long been politically liberal is like arguing over whether the ocean is and has long been wet. Of course it is, and everyone knows it.

Not just Republicans, but Democrats. I doubt you could find a Democratic senator who, forced to announce the truth, standing at the gates of heaven and being questioned by St Peter, would not, on being asked, "By the way, is PBS liberal?" answer, "Of course." Or, "Yes, but don't tell Tom Delay I knew."

Just about every Democrat on the Hill, and in the newsrooms of our country and the faculty lounges, knows that PBS in general reflects a liberal worldview. That's why they like it. That's why they want to keep it.

The Democratic Party naturally desires to retain or increase public funding of a television network whose overall and reflexive tendency is to persuade viewers to see the world as liberals see it. They say this is a First Amendment issue, an anticensorship issue, a Big Bird issue, and some of them mean it. But mostly they're trying to keep a particular building on the liberal plantation up and operating.

The Republican Party naturally opposes and resents such funding. Why should they underwrite the opposition? Why should they force taxpayers to fund it? They say this is an issue of elemental justice, and many really mean it. But animating some of them, I think, is a certain spirit of destruction. If you are a conservative and have watched the past 30 years of PBS documentaries and talk shows, chances are you are angry, legitimately, and looking to apply a little punishment. Or a lot.

(article continues...)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110006824

I'm not sure of your point here. Aren't you free to support this organization yourself? If PBS is really of value to Americans they'll gladly privately fund it.

Who are all the liberals on PBS? Charlie Rose? Pat Buchannan? Oscar the Grouch?

Leninflux, you don't even watch PBS.

And how should it approach programming? Peggy Noonan is a twat. She doesn't even want to drop examples. She says that PBS should only promote the arts and sciences and that with regards to anything else it "cannot be trusted." Well that's crap. Politics, current events, and history are entwined to those subjects. Not sure how that promotes liberalism. You'd rather have them glorify war, discrimination against gays or drug addicts? Public Broadcasting has the right to promote news and the truth, that's what it is there for. Any media that puts the horrors of war into a negative context is somehow unpatriotic. Coming from someone who wants to make media in the most truthful way possible, that's kind of offensive. It serves as one of the only alternatives to the consolidated media.

I'm not really angry with you, instead I feel sorry that you posted a poorly written editorial from a former member of the Reagan administration, who slaps an ignorant label on the entire network. PBS is crucial to keeping our media as democratic as possible.

Uh, in some respects it is privately funded. It's a nonprofit organization, so private citizens don't expect a financial return on their investment. It makes keeping the network afloat other than from taxpayer money rather difficult. That's why it's called "public media." People have more of a say in it as voters, not necessarily as investors.

Well, in all fairness, cutting funding to CPB is probably the easiest way to decrease government expenditures. Compared to say, Social Secuirty or Defense spending its nonessential. I'm a big fan of PBS, but I don't know how crucial Federal funding is seeing as how they already get most of their money from "viewers like you". I think I was the main reason that my parents pledged, so I think I threw in my $1.05 for freedom.

Unfortunately, you're probably right.

Glorified - I was in Mr. Rodger's neighborhood every day when I was young. Take that, commie.

No, I do watch PBS for "Frontline." It's a great documentary series. They do tip towards a liberal perspective, but mostly it's balanced with this series. If you haven't seen them, I highly recommend taking a look.

I've also watched other shows now and again, and I formed a personal opinion that PBS is a liberal channel. On the social issues, I'm all for it. It's when they dip their beak in the political stuff with the liberal viewpoint that I have a problem with it. And PBS...the PUBLIC broadcasting station, should not lean in either direction. Just my opinion.

Do you have any examples of PBS being a "liberal channel"? Or is this just a gut feeling?

I dunno, but VOA certainly isn't the mouthpiece of propaganda that people make it out to be...

And who do you think is fair? FOX? I don't think there's really a question of quality between PBS and most consumer-targeted corporate media which can be benign fluff. CNN.com is certainly good at reporting the latest celebrity poodle fashions. PBS reports news. It seems Cheney would rather watch Hannity talking down some liberal's patriotism than hear accurate truth.

Petition: http://civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/

Imagine a petition to save PBS created by a left-wing smear site! And who says PBS isn't a dispensing machine of liberal propaganda!?!

Basic economics says this would never work, due to free-riding.

Your posts in favor of Bush's cock are pretty machine-like.

"If you're listening to public radio and you haven't pledged - you're stealing!"




But srlsy, the individual stations get the vast majority of their funding from the public as is. The Feds don't really pay for a whole lot, rather similar to their involvement with education. I think it would be quite possible for most stations to make up for the funding loss. Thats not to say it isn't bullshit to make this a partisan issue.

SS, back to your comment about cutting funding to PBS and NPR is easy...don't you think it would be easier to trim useless pork-barrel military expenditures than cut back on public broadcasting? Like, surely there are other things that can be cut. Trimming PBS budget seems like a cheap shot from an administration that admittedly loves FOX news. I'm not turning this into a PBS vs. FOX issue, but 25% is a massive cut for a subisdary that is just as useful as corporate news, without all the annoying populist interests.

I hate siding with g_v, but if buying one less F35 would save PBS... I think that would be a smart investment for our future.


One Less!

Those babies are pretty expensive

Oh lordy how we should cut useless pork barrel military expenditures. I'm no expert, but it certainly seems to me that almost all of these weapons system contracts are thinly veiled graft. It seems like the actual needs of servicemen and usefulness of the systems are secondary to who is making them.

For the record, I believe the F-35 is supposed to be a 'low cost' attack aircraft. The F-22 is the real expensive doohickey.

I definitely agree that funding PBS is a relatively good use of government money - that is a valuable service is provided. However, I'm not convinced that this is the governments responsibility and that others couldn't fill in for the government.

But then of course, I could just be sore that my tiny town has no real NPR to speak of. The Public radio station plays the news like once a day and jazz or classical the rest of the time. I want my goddamn morning current events programs!