Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is American public television’s most prominent programming provider.
PBS is a non-profit organization that receives about 15% of its funding from the government.
Everyone understands that National Public Radio (NPR) – which also receives some federal funding – is operated by and for the Left. But according to PBS’s official statement on “Editorial Standards and Policies,” PBS’s content depends on the “intention to inform, not to propagandize.” All journalists are supposedly held to fairness, accuracy, and objectivity.
This claim ironic in light of the news that PBS Vice President Toby Chaudhuri has joined forces with “Lawyers for Good Government” – group of 120,000 law professionals preparing to “challenge and resist the Trump Administration’s anticipated abuses of power and attacks on human rights” (quote from Traci Feit Love, the group’s founder).
“It is obvious…that this conference is a partisan gathering intended to organize political resistance to Donald Trump and Republican legislators,” reports National Review.
The truth is also obvious when you look at the group’s upcoming session, entitled “The Reality of 2018 and the Hope for 2020,” which features one Democratic speaker and no Republican counterpart.
PBS’s Toby Chaudhuri is the featured speaker in another upcoming session on “Communications Strategy in the Era of Fake News.” During his talk, Chaudhuri will advise a purely liberal audience about how to “organize their communications strategy to benefit their side of the political aisle,” reports National Review.
This does not mesh with PBS’s standards (mentioned above). Chaudhuri’s involvement with “Lawyers for Good Government” raises serious questions about the accuracy, objectivity, fairness, and partisanship of PBS.
When Congress discusses funding for PBS in its next budget, members should consider whether Americans – especially those who voted red – should be forced to subsidize PBS (or Chaudhuri’s salary).
PBS’s Biased Study on Election Results
As I reported shortly after the presidential election, biased polling played a huge role in Hillary Clinton’s defeat. The world was certain she would win, and she didn’t.
PBS published a study with a similar claim – that election coverage was skewed by “journalistic bias.” In the article linked below, Frontline reporter Sarah Childress argues that “journalistic bias,” evinced by the over-coverage of Trump and the Hillary v Trump contest, contributed to Trump’s victory.
The report found that “Trump dominated media coverage” even “before the primaries began.”
“Trump might have won the Republican nomination in any case,” says the report,” but one of his assets, certainly, was his press advantage.”
The report argues that Sanders and Clinton were “overshadowed” by the dramatic GOP race. Sanders may have been overshadowed, but as far as I can tell Hillary was in the spotlight during the months leading up to the election.
Childress argues that Trump continued to dominate the headlines even after his nomination. “Although Trump no longer had active opposition, he received more news coverage in the last month than did either Clinton or Sanders, a development that has no possible explanation other than journalistic bias.”
This report is interesting (and I would say, biased) in that it blames the media’s supposed “over-coverage” of Trump for Trump’s victory, whereas other sources have blamed the liberal media’s skewed polling and over confidence in Hillary for the same result.
Editor’s note: Anyone who watches PBS know is it slightly to the left of Karl Marx. With this kind of bias, the Federal government should not be paying for what is essentially a commercial for the Democratic Party.