I'm not certain that they will move much closer to center. The addition of four ombudsman strikes me as a very small motion with respect to a very large field. There will likely be problems with the implementation as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a large flux of crackpots complaining at the start. I also find it unlikely that balance by this method would be reached primarily due to a majority of conservatives have likely already written off PBS as liberal and will have nothing to do with the programming, especially the news.
This is an interesting bit:
What level of change will come? And how much of it is correct? Most of the PBS stations get large amounts of funding from charitable giving. This is where the public gives to support what they like. If the government is only providing 30% of the funding, does this allow them to make such editorial control decisions? I don't think so. But, they would be the largest individual provider and then should have a greater say. I'm viewing this as if each PBS station is a company and not a government organ.
My understanding is the NPR has separated itself from most of the government funding. I don't care if they want to be wing nuts in that case. I don't have to listen nor support them. The agencies that receive government funding should have to meet a centrists standing though. The news should be balanced and frankly, without editorial comment. Documentaries and other content certainly should be allowed editorial comment. But the balance must be maintained in both time slot and day equality.
It is a complex balancing act. Though I agree with the present demand for better balance.
This is an interesting bit:
PBS appointed a panel of journalism experts last year to update its editorial policies, the first such review since the standards were adopted in 1987. The panel's recommendations, which were adopted by PBS's board yesterday, probably won't be noticeable to the average viewer, said Jacoba Atlas, PBS's top programming official.
"The good news is that our producers have absolutely been meeting the standards of accuracy, fairness and trust set forth in 1987, and you can see that reflected in every [viewer] poll that has been taken about PBS," she said.
What level of change will come? And how much of it is correct? Most of the PBS stations get large amounts of funding from charitable giving. This is where the public gives to support what they like. If the government is only providing 30% of the funding, does this allow them to make such editorial control decisions? I don't think so. But, they would be the largest individual provider and then should have a greater say. I'm viewing this as if each PBS station is a company and not a government organ.
My understanding is the NPR has separated itself from most of the government funding. I don't care if they want to be wing nuts in that case. I don't have to listen nor support them. The agencies that receive government funding should have to meet a centrists standing though. The news should be balanced and frankly, without editorial comment. Documentaries and other content certainly should be allowed editorial comment. But the balance must be maintained in both time slot and day equality.
It is a complex balancing act. Though I agree with the present demand for better balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment