The bombing of Libya has sharply divided public opinion, but the PBS NewsHour has avoided a wide-ranging debate by overwhelmingly featuring the views of current and former government and military officials. If you’d like to see a more diverse group of voices arguing the pros and cons of intervention, see FAIR’s Action Alert.
Please leave copies of your messages to PBS, and comments on the alert, in the comments thread of this post.
On what foreign policy adventure doesn’t PBS look like State tv?
A critique of Obama’s speech from the Left:
“In his first speech to the American public on what is now a 10-day-old war against Libya, President Barack Obama Monday night made a case for US imperialism’s right to carry out military aggression anywhere in the world where it sees its â┚¬Ã…“interests and valuesâ┚¬Ã‚ at stake.”
“Riddled with contradictions, evasions and lies, Obama’s speech failed to enunciate in any comprehensible form what these â┚¬Ã…“interests and valuesâ┚¬Ã‚ are. Nor did it explain to the American people why and how he had arrogated to himself the right to launch a war without first explaining its causes and aims, much less seeking a vote of authorization from the US Congress.”–Bill Van Auken
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/obam-m29.shtml
The Newshour has no antiwar opinions in its broadcast, why not? Are the only views that count made up of the beltway pundits who get it wrong most of the time? Shape up or ship out, you’re not living up to your mandate. If I want a biased news show, I’ll watch FOX noise.
“There are many aspects of the Libya War that should be discussed on public television, featuring the views of those outside of elite Beltway circles. The 1967 Carnegie Commission report that gave birth to PBS envisioned it as a “forum for debate and controversy” that would “provide a voice for groups in the community that may be otherwise unheard.â┚¬Ã‚ The NewsHour should include those principles in its decisions about whom to include in its coverage of Libya.”
Raymond
Westminster MD
[Your Libya Coverage…] …has been Good. I approve of the interviews you’ve done and think Fair.org is off-base. Thank you!
Folk need to re-watch or read the transcript of President Obama’s speech last night
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/03/28/president-obama-s-speech-libya ~ if they don’t see the radical difference between his foreign policy and Bush’s (either of them).
Not for nothing did the prescient Nobel Prize Committee award this President its Peace Prize…
Julie Bond-Meers
Chapel Hill, NC
I’m dismayed that PBS does not have better coverage of the US military action in Libya. To date, PBS has had no credible sources from the Middle East who could help the viewing public assess the impact of the NATO air strikes on the hearts and minds of people in the Middle East. I realize that news bureaus everywhere are strapped for operating cash, but Al Jazeera, or other credible international news sources would be preferable to retired US officials and apologists.
Please let me know what plans PBS has to provide wider and more credible and objective coverage of world affairs.
Dear Sir/Madam:
I would like to hear more balance in your interviews; specifically,
would you include anti-war voices. And please consider how much
time you give to the pro-war vs. anti-war positions.
Sincerely,
Jane Hirsch
310-463-4764
1127 Las Pulgas Pl.
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
This and other example of extreme white (yes, I mean ‘white’) opinions and discussions are why I have not supported PBS and NPR for decades. They are not the liberal bastion that conservatives claim they are in any way, and their non-news programming is very skewed towards white upper-class alleged liberals who make some conservatives look like Howard Zinn by comparison. While I do not agree with 99% of what the Republicans are doing to destroy this country, the sooner we are rid of the white upper class puke and pablum that are PBS and NPR, the better!
DDB9000 said it better than I could. Thanks for sharing. My sentiments exactly.
Has FAIR done an analysis of how many leftist publications and news outlets supported the PanArab revolt *until* the US intervened on its side? Would love to see a head count – the anti-Obama forces on the left seem to vastly outnumber the pro-Arab Revolt forces. Kind of like the Tea Party with a Union Card.
Dear Michael Getler,
I wanted to express my concern over the lack of voices in PBS NewsHour’s discussions of Libya.
Certainly, the program has had many guests speaking on the issue of war in Libya. However, these guests are all from a narrow segment of the greater population of people concerned with and educated on the conflicts in the region. There has been a noticeable absence of anti-war voices, legal experts and critics of U.S. foreign policy in NewsHour’s programming concerning Libya.
Including these marginalized voices will serve to increase balanced, critically-minded and thoughtful education on and understanding of the war in Libya. Providing a diversity of voices will also speak to PBS’s dedication to its mission to create content that educates, informs and inspires.
Continuing to ignore these “fringe” voices will only further alienate PBS from its mission, its audience and its responsibility to the public. As ombudsman, I appreciate your role as a liaison between me and my public programming. I know that you will do all you can to address these concerns and PBS’s shortcomings in its promise to the public.
Thank you,
Desiree Perez
Where are the reasoned, intelligent voices questioning — yet again — US military policy? I hear them on community radio; I read them on progressive websites; so I know they exist. Why not on national, publicly supported television?
Its not about the Lybian people (stupid)! It’s about Tamoil… Anything goes.
Dear Michael Getler
With the increasing monopolization of the mainstream media by individuals and corporations having strong interests in controlling the public dialog, we need good journalism from PBS more than ever. With the increasingly fragmented and chaotic noise from the internet and blogosphere, PBS’s mission of bringing diverse and legitimate viewpoints to the public becomes more important to our Democracy than ever.
Unfortunately, with regard to the U.S. war on Libya, PBS Newshour is failing in this all too important mission. Time after time, the Newshour has featured various Beltway authorities telling us all the reasons that this war is necessary and why the costs, in the long run, will be worth it. That is all fine and good. But there are many good reasons why we should not be involved in this action against Libya. This side of the debate is not being covered on the Newshour. Many Americans do not believe that ‘the costs are worth it’ and many Americans are not sure where they stand on this difficult issue. These perspectives are not being heard on PBS Newshour.
Open up the discussions on this important topic to voices outside of Washington DC to include antiwar critics, critical foreign policy authorities, and critical legal experts. We need a reliable resource for unbiased professional journalism. Don’t let us down.
Sincerely
Juan
To Whom it May Concern:
I’m discouraged to hear that NPR evidently has a media blackout on anyone who DOES NOT think invading and/or bombing Libya is a good idea.
If Jim Lehrer really wants some real â┚¬Ã…“perspectiveâ┚¬Ã‚ on the Middle East why is he talking to Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft?
American media is being held in a chokehold by corporate interests so it’s no surprise when I hear or see this garbage being pushed by Rupert Murdoch.
I expected a hell of a lot more from NPR.
We have been viewers for decades. Recently my husband and i have become less enamored of your reporting because the voices you provide on the issues are limited to mainstream voices and there are more and more of us who crave a more broad interpretation of events.
The most recent example is that we have not yet heard from people critical of U.S. foreign policy nor people who are simply anti war and look to alternatives.
I wonder if this is because of your corporate sponsors?
I don’t know the answer as to why this is but please take note that we are now seeking news from other sources and most evenings, we may or may not listen to your headlines (often already stale) and we delete the NewHour without watching it.
Marjorie Gauley
To Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman
Dear Mike,
I understand that public television is being attacked by the right wing Republican factions in our government. Having virtually every guest who supports the war in Libya does not offer an alternative viewpoint, particularly when there are many anti-war candidates for you show who offer sound reasoning as to the illegality as well as the moral dilemma this war has fostered. If you conduction an opinion poll of the American people regarding the war, particularly if the question was posed as follows, â┚¬Ã…“Do you support the spending on another war in the Middle East while government domestic programs to assist the poor, funding cuts for infrastructure, job training, and education are being slashed at home?â┚¬Ã‚Â, I suspect the poll would indicate Americans are tired of foreign wars and meddling in other countries domestic problems.
When Americans hear a narrowed debate with only proponents for American military action in countries like Libya, the media is not doing its job creating a diverse dialogue that is in essence the middle ground for effective and honest debate.
I expect more from Public Broadcasting I would hope that PBS will do a better job in the future of creating the space for real dialogue on important issues like our involvement in Libya. Please do us a favor and broaden your choice of talking heads to cover the full array of issues and opinions on subject like this. We expect better from PBS.
Respectfully,
Patrick Carano
Tallmadge, Ohio
to the News Hour and to Ombudsman Getler,
I truly wish the news hour had opened up its Libya discussions to voices outside the Beltway, including antiwar voices, U.S. foreign policy critics and legal experts whom we seldom hear on the mainstream media. It is sad that the big corporations and war mongers who are running the mainstream channels always forget that most of the American people, like me, are sick and tired of war and seldom have a voice.
Helen N. Hanna
183 Gifford Way
Sacramento, CA 95864
Dear Newshour Editor:
I am writing to convey my deep disappointment, again, with the Newshour’s poor coverage of yet another war our government has decided to engage in. There are so many sides to this latest issue but watching the Newshour certainly doesn’t let anyone know that.
Over the last two weeks, the Newshour has had the parade of all the usual suspects that traipse in and out of network studios as well as PBS. Their views, information, and opinions go all the way from A to B on the subject. Wow! I expect better. We live in a country with some of the top foreign policy and legal experts in the world who have many, many differing, legitimate perspectives to offer yet you would never know it from the Newshour.
Perhaps you have forgotten why PBS was created. Let me refresh your memory. The 1967 Carnegie Commission report that gave birth to PBS envisioned it as a “forum for debate and controversy” that would “provide a voice for groups in the community that may be otherwise unheard.â┚¬Ã‚ The Newshour is doing a lousy job of living up to that mission as is the rest of PBS. Where are the dissenting voices? Where are the experts not connected to the power elite? There is plenty out on the web so what’s your problem? They aren’t hard to find.
And, not only do you offer a terribly biased, one sided discussion, you aren’t even doing your job to disclose conflicts of interests re your guests resulting in huge financial gains for them by supporting US involvement. For example:
On March 24, the NewsHour interviewed retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and Frederic Wehrey, a former Air Force officer and Iraq War vet now at the Rand Corporation, both of whom supported sending some U.S. ground troops to Libya. Viewers weren’t told that Keane’s consulting firm, Keane Associates, includes major military companies among its clients (USA Today, 3/10/10), or that Keane is also on the board of General Dynamics, a major military contractor.
Honestly, follow the money people! Be real journalists. Do your homework and inform the public fully as is your mandate. Its the oldest game in the book, war for profit and personal gain. How about having some guests on who aren’t playing that game to enliven and broaden the discussion? THAT would be news.
Open up the Libya discussions (and all the Newshour discussions quite frankly) to voices outside the Beltway, including antiwar voices, U.S. foreign policy critics and legal experts. Reflect the dicussion that the nation is having and DC is not listening to. DC needs to hear that discussion most of all whether they want to or not and its your duty to present it. Those voices are every bit as important and legitimate, probably more so, than the usual parade both you and the networks offer up again and again.
As someone who has watched PBS almost since the beginning, first when I couldn’t have cared less about the news but my Dad insisted on watching it, and later when I realized the importance of being informed, I am saddened by the downward trajectory of the quality your coverage on anything of import. If you think toadying up to the Whitehouse, war hawks in Congress, and corporate america will save you from funding cuts, don’t bet on it. Haven’t you noticed that being weak only makes them bolder?
Sincerely,
Jean Waller
Chicago, IL
From Fair’s website, “About Us:”
“Uniquely, FAIR works with both activists and journalists. We maintain a regular dialogue with reporters at news outlets across the country, providing constructive critiques when called for and applauding exceptional, hard-hitting journalism.”
Did FAIR talk with PBS Newshour before denouncing them? If not, why not? PBS Newshour is wide open to feedback.
Additionally, if FAIR wants to persuade me that PBS is unfair on Libya, then show me an analysis of PBS’s entire coverage, which dates to February 16, 2011.
Otherwise, FAIR risks giving the appearance that it either:
1. Lacks intellectual rigor
2. Is biased on this issue
3. Has some an antipathy to PBS Newshour in general.
4. Has a more general bias.
Again, why wouldn’t FAIR adhere to its “About Us” statement and contact PBS Newshour? It reminds me of Soviet times, when the first sign of dissatisfaction was a denoucement in Pravda.
…good for FAIR! I submitted this:
PBS, FOLLOW MOYERS
Dear PBS and NewsHour,
Could perhaps PBS NewsHour have UCLA law professor Asli Bali and others of that intellectual depth/vision/development to give some Libyan analysis and shed some light, perspective and challenge amid the US response there?
If PBS could consider the many people with powerful learning and good thought as being guests on your news and issues programming it would be most refreshing to the joint corporate government complex of media delivery in the USA.
Diversity with truth would achieve the following:
1) The USA imperial military reach would be better understood and questioned as a sustainable mandate in the world
Sorry to suggest to “patriotic” PBS representatives that the USA is an imperial military arm but in fairness and perspective one should by now be questioning much: “We were wrong about nuclear, wrong about Vietnam and Iraq and climate change – what other mass “givens” might we be wrong about”?
2) Real humanitarian assistance and development would manifest in the poor/oppressed world, replacing the obsolete puerile bully war/oil economies of the violent racist west
3) PBS would show a willingness to adopt it’s foundational responsibilities of providing engaging perspective and establishing independent intelligence – (different to that of the Pentagon at least)
4) I would return to PBS as a viewer, supporter, and advocate instead of being a critic and voice of warning to others
Even though I quit PBS coincidently at the time Bill Moyers did, (or now I think about it, perhaps more in line with Bill Moyers) I am concerned now that the media influence you have is dangerous to your audience, especially young people who won’t go to FOX, MSNBC, CNN but look to PBS for some affirmation of their insightful beliefs in a sustainable peaceful future for themselves and their children, but who are far from informed, and rather, intellectually suppressed by PBS. A station I fear that, when Bill Moyers left had proved to be systemically unable and had run its course.
PBS was never truly independent needing to shine a rosy tinted light and slant on the some critical and ugly modern and historic truths of the USA, but now, with the vacuum of Bill Moyers, with no replacement in sight, it appears PBS has lost its way and subject to Tea Party and Republican Party threats.
The ship needs a good captain and support from the team or those that cant stomach working for an anti-Christ should do something good for the revolution abound and go work for other nonprofits and independent news organizations.
Something very important and fragile was lost when Bill Moyers left PBS. Remember he held to his statements, his choice of guests and integrity not only through the (at-odds) rally to war cry from W. Bush and group media after September 11, 2001, but all those years into that unlawful, unwarranted war – and his voice was all but unique in a dark passage of USA history.
The Obama Administration must now have its Uncle Sam feet held to the fire in a way that will burn this hideous pathetic effigy off the face of the earth forever and allow all people their dignity that comes with information education and independence with intelligence. I doubt PBS is the vehicle for that, but the people of PBS are. Follow Moyers.
Michae Daly
Artist
Hawai’i
Dear Ombudsman,
I’ve always respected PBS but wonder why all recent discussion of US military involvement in Libya focused on military advisers, some with financial interests in military contracts.
Where are the voices of ‘groups that may otherwise be unheard’? I understand this is the mandate of PBS, at least in part. There are many that do not want military intervention, in fact, Libyan rebels don’t support international military intervention, yet this fact isn’t part of your discussions. I see a definite pro war slant and focus and no counterbalance from the antiwar movement, and Libyans who strongly oppose the interference of outside forces in their own struggle for independence. What about the many that forsee another Iraq that enriches General Dynamics and impoverishes and undermines the country?
Yours
Don McGinnis
Vancouver Canada
We’ve been through this before.
I want the NewsHour to open up its Libya discussions to voices outside the Beltway, including antiwar voices, U.S. foreign policy critics and legal experts.
Peace
The lack of critical or dissenting voices concerning coverage of Libya on NewsHour is disturbing. Official viewpoints are easy to find on the networks; potentially public broadcasting could offer an outlet for views opposed to a Washington consensus. Unfortunately, NewsHour has not been that voice. I ask that in the future you include guests critical of US policy – particularly those outside of the Washington beltway, and not affiliated with either the Reps or Dems.
Daniel Johnson
Binghamton, NY
“Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has just provided a very useful analysis of PBS’s recent coverage of Libya. It appears that a heavy preponderance of your interviewees about Libya have U.S. government or military backgrounds, and nearly all of the remainder are from inside the Washington Beltway. I strongly urge you to give your viewers more balanced coverage. Please include government critics, antiwar voices, and legal experts in your coverage of Libya, and bring us more voices from across the US.
“Also, when you interview someone like Gen. Jack Keane, with a clear vested interest in one side of the debate, you should make this interest known. You didn’t mention that his consulting firm, Keane Associates, includes major military companies among its clients, or that Kean is on the board of General Dynamics.”
This is the message I sent to PBS (including the ombudsman), subject: The Shame That Is PBS:
TO: Public Broadcasting System
I have received the below message (I’ve truncated it somewhat) from FAIR, a media monitor for which I have the greatest respect and admiration. FAIR wouldn’t, of course, have to exist if the Fourth Estate of today’s America stood up for the hallowed traditions of journalism.
FAIR’s recitation of your dismal performance with respect to the ongoing-and-escalating war on Libya resonated deeply with me, to the point of taking the time to write to you.
You, PBS, are chartered and obligated to be the â┚¬Ã…“people’s media network,â┚¬Ã‚ providing perspectives and in-depth coverage far removed from the typical trash and sound bites of the groveling mainstream media. You failed any such responsibility â┚¬“ even were one to factor in the â┚¬Ã…“rare guestsâ┚¬Ã‚ profiled below â┚¬“ over the several-day continuum displayed, and I can but condemn you in disappointment and anger.
PBS, there are many antiwar activists, staunch critics of our foreign policy, seasoned geopolitical intellectuals and analysts including retired, trained (as opposed to politically appointed) diplomats of the caliber of Ambassador Chas Freeman, and experts in international law who could and should be at the forefront of PBS’ coverage of Libya, Iran, Palestine-Israel (my particular passion), the continuing tragedy we have wrought of Iraq, Afghanistan, and on and on. Our country is terminally â┚¬Ã…“dumbed downâ┚¬Ã‚ and bankrupt, fiscally and morally, and â┚¬“ I don’t expect you to be repentant, but this needs to be written â┚¬“ future historians will count PBS as complicit in our descent into irredeemable failure. You are among the â┚¬Ã…“embeddedâ┚¬Ã‚ shills for the corporatocracy, the warmongers, the imperialists, and (to cite one specific example) the despicable, criminally psychotic forces bent on perpetuating the vast injustice perpetrated on the tormented Christians and Muslims of Palestine in and even before 1947.
Sincerely, in despair for the America I served for four years as an enlisted Army soldier and 31 years as a Federal civil servant,
Robert H. Stiver
98-434 Hoomailani Street
Pearl City, Hawaii 96782
Tel. 808-455-9823
As is all too frequently the case on the Newshour, your coverage of the U.S. role in the Libyan conflict has been quite one-sided, featuring the usual roster of elite, inside-the-Beltway “experts,” all of whom are in fundamental agreement with U.S. foreign policy. In so limiting the perspectives it presents, I believe the Newshour is shortchanging the American people. I would hope, rather, that the Newshour would be, as the Carnegie Commission originally envisioned, an exemplar of diverse opinions, serving to inform, rather than to inculcate, its audience.
Unfortunately, DemocracyNow is just as bad. Except for a very limited interview with Phylis Bennis, the reports on the invasion of Libya has been very one-sided and evidently in support of the US coalition’s targeted bombing of Libyan clinics, hospitals, roads, bridges, schools and any and all civilian infrastructures. Their reporters are embedded with the freedom-fighting/democracy seeking rebels…who have reportedly executed hundreds of black African immigrants.
http://somalilandpress.com/libya-rebels-execute-black-immigrants-while-forces-kidnap-others-20586
This article from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting recently came to my attention, and I’d like to bring it to yours:
[quoted this action alert]
I write to urge you to open up your airwaves to the true spectrum of thought on this issue. You’re meant to provide a voice for the people, so please do. Democracy Now! has had excellent coverage on Libya and the Middle East and offered a much wider range of debate (see: http://bit.ly/dUows8 and http://bit.ly/hsfgR3).
PBS has recently become the most trusted news source, I ask that you do not squander this trust and open up your network to those outside the establishment.
Thank you,
Luke
Barb, You left a link from the Somalilandpress even though your comment starts out saying Democracy Now is just as bad(as PBS I assume). You gave no evidence for your assertions. Why not a link about what you have asserted as being the case with Democracy Now? You only mention immigrants being harmed by Libyan rebels and then provide a link with no further comment.
Your post is a mess. You mention a “limited” interview with Phylis Bennis, but say nothing about what was said without giving a link to show what you are referring to.
What are you talking about?
Barb, another thing, the Somali link you provided tells mostly a story of Libyan prejudice overall, not just the rebels, that means that Ghadafi’s supporters are also harming immigrants. And that just indicates a long standing historical problem that some countries have regarding other ethnic groups. The US has many bigoted white supremacists groups who do just as the Libyans do, which is to demonize immigrants and in some cases actually do physical harm. Though it is terrible for the immigrants, unfortunately the situation is more complex that you seem to want to admit. How could anyone be for the targeting of immigrants by xenophobic bigots? No matter what country they are from? What point are you trying to make? Simply that helping the rebels is wrong? Then I suggest you make your case instead of just attacking other opinions without reference.
Fair suggested we post letters/comments to PBS I hope they ment here- this is my letter below-
I very much appreciate PBS and feel very concerned by the general media trend to sensationalize the news and to perpetuate an image of America threatened by terrorism. I see in my home state of Hawaii financial ruin of small businesses who have been affected by cutbacks which defunded agricultural inspectors while simultaneously funding homeland security. The real terrorist threat to our country is having bankruptcies and failures of already fragile economic survival at the expense of a very aggressive and immoral pursuit of war unending on nations with different politics (corporations) than ours. Please air and interview critics of the war strategy and those who suggest other tactics to get needs met other than military intervention. Diplomacy justice and understanding is not discussed enough. War is a failed attempt at communication. Thank you, J. H. resident of Hilo, Hawaii