FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING

Challenging media bias since 1986.

FAIR

FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.

Challenging media bias since 1986
▶ ADVANCED SEARCH
FAIR

Comments

  1. So glad you posted this! I saw this segment last night and couldn’t believe it. Here’s the letter I sent to PBS (sorry, forgot to drub them about the faux Lincoln quote).

    I was appalled by the Newshour’s segment featuring Richard Epstein last night (Oct. 26).

    Perhaps it would have been more palatable had Jeffrey Brown been capable of debating Mr. Epstein, instead of allowing him to simply fire off his points with only the weakest of challenges. A curious viewer looking for an opportunity to analyze the issues at hand (me), had to look elsewhere (in my case, to Doug Henwood’s LBO News).

    I’ll remember this segment, and the Chevron ad that ran not long after it, next time I hear a PBS pledge appeal.

  2. Dear Friends at PBS,
    As a retired teacher of history, I was sorry to hear a guest on you News Hour using a quotation often used by conservative and right wing writers and comentators, because the quote was not accurate. There is no evidence that Lincoln said it, though Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh have been among the many attributing it to our great President. Please, we expect PBS to reflect views we don’t hear on commercial news outlets. We hear the side of th e1% all the time, but rarely the side of the 99%–that’s why so many folks are out in the street with the “Occupy” movement, trying to get those views heard. Please, our democracy, our world is at stake. We depend on you.
    Jack Burgess, Chillicothe, Ohio

  3. I just spoke with someone in the news room and voiced my concerns to him. Based on his response, they don’t give two hoots about our concerns and their behavior won’t change.

  4. My e-mail to PBS:

    I am distressed that my favorite news source is downplaying the extemes of inequality in the United States. The problems are enormous and cannot be justified by Richard Epstein or anyone else. Please don’t join the corporate-owned media in choosing to support the upper level of the caste system in the United States, the one that dictates that one stays in the level in which one is born. Thank you.

  5. Sirs and Madams:

    I would be interested in learning why the PBS NewHour is so partial to guests who downplay or revel in the economic inequality that exists in this country.

    In addition, I suggest you to at least make sure your shills touting the ponzi scheme of capitalism, at least know their history; in particular Richard Epstein, who put words in Abraham Lincoln’s mouth to support his argument.

    I urge you to issue a correction of this false Lincoln quote.

    Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

  6. To whom it may concern,

    On October 26th edition of the PBS NewsHour you had guest Richard Epstein attempting to explain the upside of extreme economic inequality in this country. As the director of the Global Economics Group, it is clearly in his interest to make these justifications, therefore impossible for him to have an objective and impartial opinion on the matter. Not only that, he stated a quote which he falsely attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a way to reinforce his belief.

    As a watcher and supporter of PBS I demand that you are more transparent in revealing the special interests of so-called “expert” guests. Finally I recommend you issue a correction acknowledging that Richard Epstien used a false Abraham Lincoln quote to support his position.

  7. Please correct the error on your program where the speaker quoted Abraham Lincoln. Richard Epstein invoked a false Abraham Lincoln quote to support his pro-inequality argument. PBS should have disclosed that Epstein is also a director at Global Economics Group, a corporate consulting firm that advises on issues like financial regulation and employment law. Regarding the quote: The NewsHour should, at the very least, tell its viewers that this quote is a well-traveled hoax. It’s been falsely attributed to Lincoln for the better part of a century, and has been debunked almost as long. Please explain why you are so eager to present the contrarian view. Public broadcasting is supposed to be dedicated to showcasing viewpoints that “would otherwise go unheard” in commercial media. Voices championing inequality are heard loud and clear in the corporate media; public television should be doing something different. Thank you.

  8. Here’s my letter
    “To PBS NewsHour.

    Please issue a correction explaining that guest Richard Epstein invoked a false Abraham Lincoln quote to support his pro-inequality argument.

    And as a public television supporter, why is newshour eager to feature one-on-one interviews with guests who downplay–if not outright celebrate–economic inequality.

    If this truly is PUBLIC television, you’re putting your money on the wrong horse. Quite soon, the 99% will note this corporate support. News travels fast on the www. For now I will not renew my PBS support given for over 40 years, until I feel the old standards are re-instated. We get enough of corporate point of view by the sponsorship of most tv newscasts. Surely report, but give balanced reports. Or become a corporate shill. “You takes the money you takes your chances.” as they say in the carnival. “

  9. Copied below is the email I sent to PBS about this. Interested folks should definitely watch the TED talk linked in the email! Thanks to FAIR for highlighting this issue/problem!

    Hi-

    Please respond to the two following issues-

    1- Correction to 10/26/11 pro-inequality segment done by Paul Solman

    Please issue a correction explaining that guest Richard Epstein invoked a false Abraham Lincoln quote to support his pro-inequality argument.

    2- Why is the NewsHour show so eager to feature one-on-one interviews with guests who downplay–if not outright celebrate–economic inequality?

    More helpful content on this subject is available from resources like a TED talk from this past summer titled, “Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies”. His impartial research findings provide valuable insight on the newsworthy(!) dangers faced by our nation, directly due to economic inequality. A link to the talk is- http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html#.Tqg1muS7py0.facebook

    Thanks and I look forward to your response!

    Regards,
    Edric

  10. NewsHour – why are you so eager to present segments that portray economic inequality as no big deal? Brown’s introduction called this a “contrarian” view, but defending inequality is hardly contrarian in mainstream media–including on the NewsHour.

    On September 21 Solman presented a segment featuring American University economics professor Robert Lerman, who was critical of a previous NewsHour broadcast for apparently being too one-sided: “It would be nice if there was more equality, but let’s not overdo it.” Lerman’s point was that seniors enjoy vast riches in the form of Social Security and Medicare (FAIR Blog, 9/23/11).

    Public broadcasting is supposed to be dedicated to showcasing viewpoints that “would otherwise go unheard” in commercial media. Voices championing inequality are heard loud and clear in the corporate media; public television should be doing something different.

    Please issue a correction explaining that guest Richard Epstein invoked a false Abraham Lincoln quote to support his pro-inequality argument. Lincoln never said “you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.” How many times does the lie that Abraham Lincoln said this have to be dubunked. I remember a time when public TV was really in the public interest. Let’s get back there please.

    Sincerely
    Margaret

  11. To PBS NewsHour:

    Paul Solman’s interview with Richard Epstein on October 27 constituted blatant, dishonest pandering to PBS’s major sponsors. You own your listeners an apology, and some answers:

    1) “Of course (the top one percent) have a disproportionate impact (over the political system), but that doesn’t mean that they control it. They also ought to have it.”

    If they have a disproportional impact, in what way don’t they control it and why should they have it? What on God’s earth is Epstein talking about here?

    2) “I’m going to quote Abraham Lincoln, because I like to do that — which is, he said, quite rightly, that you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.”

    Can Epstein, a professor at a law school, possibly not know that this quote, long attributed to President Lincoln and a favorite of Ronald Reagan’s, has never been verified and, on the contrary, has been debunked again and again?

  12. Dear PBS NewsHour,

    I am writing to respectfully object to no correction being made involving the words spoken by your guest Richard Epstein from NYU Law School on October 26: “I’m going to quote Abraham Lincoln, because I like to do that–which is, he said, quite rightly, that you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.”
    This “quote” falsely attributed to President Lincoln was long ago debunked and certainly should have been immediately fact-checked and corrected.

    The destructive nature of economic inequality has not ever been debunked. Why are you seemingly so eager to give special time and attention to a guest who makes the case for a free market that has caused such widespread misery? Why didn’t you disclose Mr. Epstein is a director of Global Economics Group, one of the corporate groups that advises on financial regulation and employment law? Are the corporations now so important as grant cows to PBS that you, too, are tainted?

    It is not too late to try to repair some of the damage. It would be heartening to this disappointed member of your audience if you took steps to restore some integrity by making a statement about this newscast. Surely I am not the only one to notice!

    Very sincerely,
    Louise B Brown
    New York City

  13. I just sent the following message to PBS:

    When I happened to tune in to your interview with Richard Epstein on October 26, for a moment or two thought I had accidentally clicked on Fox News. I am familiar with Prof Epstein and was not surprised, given the general bias at PBS, that you did not disclose that he is a high-ranking corporate consultant. In addition, the silly Lincoln quote was exposed as a hoax sometime back in the nineties. I would expect a correction from a responsible news source, but we apparently don’t have those any more.

    Given that just a few weeks ago, our great crisis was the deficit, did you include a “contrarian” view during that period? Is PBS even aware that over the last decade or so average income has risen about 18% while that of the the top 1% increased by 275%? That is a recent revelation. Is PBS going to cover it? Never mind. I know the answer.

    Don’t worry that this will influence me to stop contributing to PBS or any of its affiliates. I did that long ago. You are obviously doing quite well with corporate sponsorship.

    Joel Roache, PhD
    Salisbury MD

  14. Saw the the Epstein interview and felt led down by Newshour. Mr. Epstein was allowed to mislead and to denigrate the Occupy Wall Street protest with little or no resistance from Paul Solman- just like he did with Robert Lerman some weeks back. For instance, when Mr. Epstein was extolling the motivational virtues of capitalism as being the main reason why people strive to become wealthy (at least Paul sounded a little skeptical on that point), I wish that Mr. Solman, who is a very smart person, would have asked Mr. Epstein if he thought that that was also the reason why Willie Sutton was motivated to rob banks or that Bernie Madoff felt the need to scam so many people for 60 billion dollars. Of course, Mr. Solman could have simply asked what role GREED played as a motivational factor in the upper 1%’s desire for more than they can spend in twenty lifetimes.

    It seemed that each statement made by Mr. Epstein was a YES-BUT qualified one with the full intent to deceive and Mr. Solman let him get away with it. Was it intentional by Newshour? Subsequent interviews will answer that very important question.

  15. Dear PBS NewsHour,

    Your guest Richard Epstein thinks inequality isn’t so bad? So now you’re serving the 1%?

    Here’s how to balance that out:
    Have as your guests Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson and read their book.
    The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger.

    ~ Charell W. Charell
    Pico Rivera, California

  16. The New Hour is becoming Fox news, making it up as it goes along. Where did Lincoln ever say what Professor Richard Epstein (October 26) falsely attributed to him?

    Yours, etc.

    James Bobrick

  17. “You’re the ‘public’ in ‘public broadcasting'” …

    Right.

    Think they’ll use this segment as a selling point during the next pledge drive?

    How about a “LET THEM EAT CAKE” T-shirt as a premium?

    “Milton Friedman Sings Gershwin”?

  18. Shame on PBS for having a corporate voice telling us income inequality may not be so bad! And failing to disclose that was a corporate spokesman. And making up a “quote” from Abraham Lincoln?

    With right-wing propaganda clogging the airwaves, wouldn’t it be fair and reasonable that we would get actual facts and truth from tax-supported “public” broadcasting? Well, apparently not, since what is mislabeled “public” is actually no different from mainstream media: Corporate-supported.

    Is there no one who cares about preserving what’s left of our democratic system?

    Tobi Dragert

    Los Angeles

  19. PBS has been for a long time, and is becoming more, just another media propaganda organ like the Fawning Corporate Media. Case in point, the above referenced show. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has informed me of these Hitlerian boasts by Epstein. If you remember, Hitler said if you’re going to tell a lie the bigger the better. The bigger, the more likely to be believed.

    “Inequality creates an incentive for people to produce and to create wealth.”

    The “fundamental truth is the tax system is more redistributive than it was before… and the regulatory burden on the economy is vastly greater.”

    “I’m going to quote Abraham Lincoln, because I like to do that–which is, he said, quite rightly, that you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.”

    Shame on you PBS. Contemptible but not surprising. The contemptible and celebrated alleged objectivity in the corporate media, is only a propaganda excuse for telling a second side of an issue that only has one truth.

  20. In his interview with correspondent Paul Solman on the topic of financial inequality, I was not happy to her Richard Epstein drag out the long discredited quotation falsely attributed to Abraham Lincoln. When there was no comment from the interviewer questioning that bogus attribution, I hoped that it would be corrected at some point. It has not been and it must be. Allowing guests to play fast and loose with the truth without being questioned is unfortunately occurring more often on PBS. Is it sloppy journalism, or something worseâ┚¬Ã‚¦like a thumb on the scale of public opinion ?

    Helene Brazier
    Bonsall, California

  22. I support Fair and agree with their criticism of Mr. Brown and the Solman interview with Professor Epstein. The remark made to the nursing home patient was an insult. In addition to the patient’s Social Security check, his care may well have been paid by the home he was forced to use as insurance, a very common problem. The US is a third world country but apparently the News Hour, Mr. Epstein, Mr. Brown and Mr. Solman have never seen it. Please make some justification for the error regarding Old Abe. Lincoln was not a banker, he was a presidential physician. Had he lived he would have struggled againt opposition to heal the wounds of both the North and the South. Because he was assasinated the South became nursing home, poor and angry, still baring the scares of slavery today–as do the current economic protesters suppressed by deregulation and corporate control. Yes, I support PBS, WPR and WPT and MPR and TCT for so many great programs but the news hour is just cold oatmeal–bland. You need a knife, fork and fact checker, not a soup spoon.

    Thomas Chisholm, MD retired.

  23. Working for the One Percent

    NewsHour recently featured an interview with Richard Epstein who used a Lincoln quote that is well-known to be a hoax to support economic inequality. There *is* no mainstream liberal media and organizations continue to outdo themselves to prove that they don’t fit that category even so. ENOUGH. How about accurate, unbiased, and truthful coverage that challenges speakers’ falsehoods for a change?

    Amrita Burdick
    burdicka@umkc.edu

  24. It seems that the corporations have not only successfully co-opted the mainstream media but have done a pretty good job in leading what is supposed to be our last bastion of impartial news reporting astray from it’s sorely needed mission and purpose.Some activists just don’t carry signs.PBS must stand for (PLEASE BE STUPID).

  25. The following is what I sent to PBS.

    The very least you should do is explain that Epstein incorrectly misquoted Linclon in support of inequality of wealth.

    Judy Deutsch,
    Supporter of both WGBH and WBUR

    Reverend Judy Deutsch
    41 Concord Road
    Sudbury, MA 01776-2328
    USA
    ph 978 443-8609
    fax 978 443-3072

  26. PBS NewsHour, to whom this should concern:

    Last night, for a “contrarian view” to the Occupy Wall Street protests, your correspondent Jeffrey Brown introduced Richard Epstein without fully disclosing his affiliations and vested interests. This omission requires correction.

    But furthermore, a general and serious problem you need to recognize with such left/right, black/white, he said/she said, presentation of opposing viewpoints, whether face-to-face in debate, or serially, is the chronic failure to cover the complete spectrum of perspectives.
    Pitifully, the critical journalistic objective to be” fair and balanced” (and insightful) has been corrupted by the farcical Fox News, but you, too, fall far short of this standard.
    Too often on issues you show the span from A-to-C, rather than A-to-Z, and even more frequently pit plainly unequal proponents to presumably opposite sides of a particular dispute.
    On the political playing field, your elevation to sacrosanct status of Republican vs. Democrat (as if even within those parties there is consensus) to the exclusion (or disparagement) of others, demeans the diversity of “we the people,” and undermines the democracy that we aspire to hold.

    Last night your correspondent Paul Solman proceeded to engage Richard Epstein as he attempted to defend, and indeed praise, economic inequality.
    While it is acceptable for you to give platform to his libertarian, Darwinian economic creed (survival of the powerful, and devil take the hindmost), you must then give the same to various other views, especially those advocating for a moral commonwealth.

    Finally, you must acknowledge and correct the shockingly fraudulent quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln with which Mr. Epstein concluded his argument for inequality.

    Expecting you to act responsibly,
    –Erik Roth
    Minneapolis, MN

  27. PBS NewsHour:

    PBS is one of the few places where unbiased reporting can be found. Most of the time. What on earth were you thinking when you invited Richard Epstein to speak as an advocate of economic inequality??? Irresponsible….

    Will you next be inviting guests who believe the earth is flat, that there is no such thing as global warming because it snowed in Texas or who are holocaust deniers — as â┚¬Ã…“contrariansâ┚¬Ã‚??

    And then, the lie of quoting Abraham Lincoln. Look it up. NYT and CNN debunked Reagan’s misquote (remember, he was the president who quoted people who were inside a crashing plane….. And who died without being in contact with anyone on the ground beforehand). Even Rush Limbaugh corrected that one in 1996.

    And what about your guest Robert Lerman, who told a nursing home resident that â┚¬Ã…“Medicare is like a stash of wealth you’re drawing on…â┚¬Ã‚? Can I introduce you to my mother, who worked in a factory 46 years, carefully saved money for retirement and lost most of her pension when the factory â┚¬Ã…“borrowedâ┚¬Ã‚ from the pension plan and declared bankruptcy? Now in assisted living, my mother pays for it with her entire social security check, her entire meager pension check and draws down each month from her savings to pay the balance. She only hopes she won’t outlive the money. Would you care to explain Lerman’s â┚¬Ã…“stash of wealthâ┚¬Ã‚ she’s drawing on, that she paid into for all those years only to hear people describing that as an â┚¬Ã…“entitlementâ┚¬Ã‚?

    Shame on you. Where is the OTHER side, the side of the people who have been at the bottom of the inequality scale?

    You should correct these gross errors and apologize to the public. If this is what we can expect from PBS in the future, this network will no longer be on my viewing list. Nor will it receive my support.

    I’m sharing what NewsHour is doing with friends, neighbors and colleagues who will also be interested.

    Loret Steinberg
    Rochester, NY

  28. Can I expect a correction on Richard Epstein’s false claim that Abraham Lincoln said “. . .
    that you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor”?

    Manley Witten
    Pittsburgh, PA

  29. My letter to NewsHour, which I will also be sending to PBS.org:
    As a longtime PBS viewer, I cannot understand why the NewsHour is not giving more balanced news. Its practice year after year is to favor and more frequently interview people who are in favor of the growing inequality in the US. It caters to the Republicans in government, as if there were no other point of view. I am not overstating my case, as a few interviews of more moderate guests does not balance the overall trend of the show.

    Consequently, I almost never watch it. It should be as good as the BBC but it’s not even close.

    So now with folks of every age protesting the bad economic situation they are in, caused by the financial frauds of many banks and hedge funds, your show once again gives a forum to one-on-one interviews with guests who downplay–if not outright celebrate–economic inequality. You are simply a more polite Fox News but no less biased.

    At least the PBS NewsHour should issue a correction explaining that guest Richard Epstein invoked a false Abraham Lincoln quote to support his pro-inequality argument.

    I know that you are ducking from rightwing criticism and pandering to them, but frankly we viewers would be better served if you would just go off the air and leave the funds for some better programming.

  30. It would seem your program is nothing but a shill for the economic and power elite of the country (10-26-11 broadcast) and perhaps you don’t need or deserve public funding any longer. I know your used to hearing that from the right but, I’m coming from the left and now you can get used to that too. When ordinary working people of the right and the left see that they have some things in common your show will be history. Enjoy your largesse while you can.

  31. PBS NewsHour needs to issue a correction explaining that guest Richard
    Epstein invoked a false Abraham Lincoln quote to support his
    pro-inequality argument. Why is NewsHour so eager to feature one-on-one
    interviews with guests who downplay–if not outright celebrate–economic
    inequality?

    The airwaves belong to “we the people”.. their use is a matter of the
    Public’s Trust.. NewsHour’s actions are a betrayal of that trust.

    Athena Melville

  33. To the producers of the recent program on inequality:
    What a disgusting celebration of inequality. What next, celebration of racism? Please issue a correction as the supposed Abraham Lincoln quote regarding inequality is false, a hoax being transmitted through the internet, etc.
    Disappointed,

    Craig Imig

  34. To the producers of the recent program on inequality:
    What a disgusting celebration of inequality. What next, celebration of racism? Please issue a correction as the supposed Abraham Lincoln quote regarding inequality is false, a hoax being transmitted through the internet, etc.
    Disappointed,
    Craig Imig

  35. Please immediately issue a prominent statement explaining that News Hour guest Richard Epstein perpetuated a hoax by using a false Abraham Lincoln quote to support his pro-inequality argument.

    I used to watch the News Hour every day, but rarely do so now because it (and many other PBS programs) have become almost indistinguishable from the corporate media. I also contribute less to my local PBS station than I used to. With rare exceptions, PBS seems completely to have lost sight if its charter to showcase viewpoints, opinions and speakers who would otherwise have no voice. Your independence is mostly gone. It has been bought by large corporations and wealthy individuals. This is disappointing and very sad.

  36. Dear Sirs,

    What an extraordinary insensitive, biased, out of touch interview from yourselves, a Public Service, dedicated to giving voice to the less heard voices of the public, outside of corporate interest.

    Epstein, as you know, is a director of Global Economic Group advising on employment law and financial regulation. This was clearly a bad choice for unbiased “outside of corporate interest”, public broadcast.

    Cap it with Epstein’s false quote from Abraham Lincoln.

    “I’m going to quote Abraham Lincoln, because I like to do that–which is, he said, quite rightly, that you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.”

    Cap it again with Richard Epstein saying that taxes on the wealthy would harm the economy and that tax distribution is working well.

    Now we have something looking like Orwellian propaganda show, rather than unbiased public broadcasting.

    I am sure that PBS can do much better than this, and honestly, if not, some hiring and firing needs to be done in order retain the integrity of Public Service Broadcasting.

    Yours faithfully,

    David Dene.

  37. Hi there,

    Thanks for all your great work at FAIR.

    Here’s the email I sent to PBS.

    Dear PBS:

    Last night I watched your segment which asked “Does U.S. Inequality Have a Good Side?” I think you people are really on to something big and important here! Never mind that your crusty professor misattributes a rich-serving quote to Abraham Lincoln. PBS is right: we should also consider inequality’s positive sides. And while we’re at it, we should also ask some equally germane questions, such as:

    Does the Fukushima nuclear meltdown have a positive side? And, (why not?) did the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a positive side?

    Closer to home, you might ask, does the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center have a good side?

    Does slavery have a good side?

    Did the Nazi Holocaust have a good side?

    Really, the list could be endless. My personal hope is that you guys will cook up a new series to explore this contrarian theme.

    And those people who argue that PBS reporting is irrelevant, or corporate-driven, or not at all contrarian? Obviously, they’ve never considered the good side of secret prisons, homelessness, home foreclosures, and zero-taxes and public subsidies for corporations!

    Keep up the good work!

    Sincerely,

    Andrew Gebhardt

  38. To The NewsHour:

    Please correct, on air, Richard Epstein’s use of a long debunked quote falsely attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

    As for Robert Lerman’s comment during a report by Paul Solman that we wouldn’t want to “overdo” equality? Spoken like a
    healthy New Confederate. I saw this segment the evening itwas broadcast and nearly threw my shoe through the television. This report should not
    have aired without rebuttal from a sane beneficiary of medicare and social security. Might I offer my 95-year-old father as counterpoint?
    (On that note, how about fewer academics as guests? Or at least a more diverse group? Surely there are many smart people other than those
    sequestered on elitecampuses racking up theirTIAA/CREF accounts who could shed light on the current state of affairs?)

    In addition, I would appreciate coverage of the economy and the economic crisis that fairly and honestly looks at the
    tremendous disparity in wealth and the negative impact on the majority of American citizens. It is unacceptable for
    the NewsHour, through it’s reporters or guests, to align themselves with the one percent! That is not news, it is
    perpetuating the status quo.

    Thank you.

    Jill Nelson
    NYC

  39. Dear NewsHour,

    It is not â┚¬Ã…“contrarianâ┚¬Ã‚ to express views that uphold oligarchy, nor is it unusual for people who do so to invent â┚¬Ã…“factsâ┚¬Ã‚ (though I must admit that involving Abraham Lincoln in this chicanery adds an interesting extra layer of sleaze).

    What *would* be contrarian would be to have a network that is public, nonprofit, and devoted to covering news and opinion from perspectives not routinely found in the rest of the (corporate-owned) media system. Such a public, nonprofit network might even cover economic issues from the perspective of people who *work* for a living instead of from the perspective of people who *own* for a living — what with those working people making up the majority of the â┚¬Ã…“publicâ┚¬Ã‚ and all. But I guess PBS was hamstrung from the start by its dependence on corporate donations (if not corporate commercials), so it’s probably silly to expect PBS to look significantly different from its corporate-media competitors — when it comes to economic coverage, anyway. Still, it would be nice if PBS understood â┚¬Ã…“contrarianâ┚¬Ã‚ to mean, say, â┚¬Ã…“an alternative to the 1%-friendly coverage found in the rest of the media.â┚¬Ã‚ Perhaps too many of you read *Slate*.

    At any rate, it would be nice if PBS could at least inform its viewers that a guest passed along a fake quotation from one of America’s most revered presidents in order to support his oligarch-stroking position. Whether he did so out of ignorance or out of dishonesty, you may well leave your viewers to decide for themselves.

    It might also be worth pointing out that he could instead have chosen this *real* quotation from The Great Emancipator — but for obvious reasons, he did not:

    â┚¬Ã…“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.â┚¬Ã‚ [First State of the Union Address, 1861]

    Sincerely,

    –JW
    John Walchak

  40. To Whom it May Concern:

    How are we to trust the one of the few actually trustworthy source of news, when they let misstatements and untruths slip by? One hopes it is not by design.

    Your guest Richard Epstein had a right to argue his point, but surely you had the intellectual and journalistic obligation to question him closely and to call him on error of fact! e.g. the supposed Abraham Lincoln quote.

    We suspect that bending over backwards to meet objections of so-called bias accused by the Right Wing power brokers is a difficult pose. We hope that you will find it possible to resist demeaning your standards. Our future and democracy, one could say, depend on telling the truth and uncovering the lies.

    Sincerely,

    Karen and John Wilson
    PO Box 347
    Egg Harbor, WI 54209

  41. On October 26, you had a guy on, a corporate shill named Richard Epstein, who misquoted Lincoln and you let it slide. Were you not aware of Reagan having done the same thing in a speech maybe in the 80s and 90s? Okay, you don’t monitor all your guests words before the show, fine. But why even have someone on who thinks inequality is a good thing??? Have you not seen what is going on at Occupy Wall street? Or do you think they’re just there for a stroll? Why does Epstein seem to think that folks have to starve in order to have the incentive to produce and create wealth? The ones who create the wealth are hardly the ones who are wealthy. It is the labor of the working classes not the investor class that creates wealth. All the investors do is place bets on which company will make them the most money, they don’t work or produce anything. What was the incentive for Wall street criminals to blow up the world’s economy with their fraud and criminal activites? Hell, they were just creating wealth, right? For themselves only. There is a newsletter report from Organizing for America with a link that shows Obama has passed fewer regulations than Bush did,

    “Yesterday, a Bloomberg News analysis found that the Obama administration has passed fewer regulations than George W. Bush had at this point in his presidency — and on top of that, they’ve come at far lower costs to the economy than the annual high mark for regulatory costs set by the first President Bush, or regulatory costs in President Reagan’s last year for that matter”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-passed-fewer-regulations-than-bush_n_1033086.html

    And to have this bafflegabber Epstein, talk the same Boner/Cantor over regulations nonsense is suspect. Okay, so the report came out after Epstein was on, I doubt it would change his mind anyway. I have come to expect better from PBS. I have already thrown overboard NPR for their dishonest one sided reporting, keep up what you’re doing and you are next. PBS/NPR where have you gone? Your credibility that is. More reporting like this and you’ll not get any more support from me, and I have been a supporter for many years. When asked if the top 1% have too much control, he said this:

    “Of course they have a disproportionate impact, but that doesn’t mean that they control it. They also ought to have it.”

    “The last thing you would want to do in any kind of sensible society is to have a set of rules in which one man/one vote dictates over every issue.”

    And this:

    “I’m going to quote Abraham Lincoln, because I like to do that–which is, he said, quite rightly, that you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.”

    All I can say about these quotes is !@#$%$ and more !@#$%. He thinks the top 1% ought to have a disproportionate impact over the political system? And he believes not in democracy, but in fascism. Sounds like someone I have heard before.
    “Fascism should be more appropriately called corporatism, for it is the merger of the corporations to the state.” Benito Mussolini

    This is more than a contrarian view, he suggests that the cruelty of capitalism is a good thing, with clear winners and losers, with the top 1% easily the winners. He is full of s**t. And we don’t really have a free market system, we have a corporate system that is protected, subsidized, given special privileges that no citizen gets, by the gov’t. Not to mention the patent system and the new drug protections, and copyrights, all protect business interests(the copyrights may of course protect some individuals, but you know what I mean). I think we should have partnerships only, so that when a business goes under the partners goes under as well as their personal wealth. Maybe a system with some accountability in it where responsibility is on the line for all involved. Before the Wall street deregulation started by Rubin during Clinton Wall street investment banks were partnerships formed by personal fund investments, so when they invested there was skin in the game, they stood to lose all their money and their yachts, and summer homes, and all their personal wealth. Todays Wall street is run by the top 1% crooks, who use money that doesn’t belong to them to make their derivatives bets.

    You have got to do better, or I will just stop watching. Remember, you are supposed to be dedicated to showcasing viewpoints that would not otherwise be heard on the MSM, but with you having a voice on that champions inequality is what is all over the Main Stream Corporate Media. PBS should be doing something different, not beating the same corporate drum. You should issue a correction of the Lincoln misquote Epstein used to justify his pro-inequality argument.

    You have one more chance, I gave NPR at least 5 chances after I started complaining about their sucking up to the right wing with their corporate FOX noise reporting, and in just the last six weeks or so, you had a guy on talking about how great seniors have it with their miniscule SS & Medicare(Lerman I think was his name). NPR is so bad now that it took only two months to out them with their five chances to do better.

    Thank you,
    Raymond

  42. I was appalled that your interviewer (Newshour, October 26) accepted many of Richard Epstein’s statements at face value, though many of them were clearly false and/or misleading. While journalists and broadcasters have an obligation to air opposing viewpoints, due diligence must be exercised to prevent the spread of propaganda and outright lies. Much of the U.S. population is currently uneducated or under-educated and rely on programs such as yours to hear the FACTS about our world and the way it works. Viewers expect interviewers to be versed and knowledgeable in the subject matter at hand so that misinformation/lies/propaganda can be confronted and corrected. This should hold true for interviews with parties from all sides of a debate. Paul Solman was either not prepared for the interview, not knowledgeable of the subject matter, or simply complicit in the spread of lies and propaganda. In any case, it was an example of poor journalism on the part of PBS, it’s producers and staff, and a reason why I, several years ago, decided to cease donations to KERA/PBS. Your organization’s motto and charter have been tossed aside in the interest of appeasing factions of our oligarchy/plutocracy that have threatened to cut off your funding. In the process, you’ve cast aside your integrity. I rarely watch your program any longer, and just happened to catch this airing. Now I remember why. I much prefer to support and watch DemocracyNow! with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez – journalists with true integrity, and who aren’t afraid to stand up for their beliefs because they have to fear being reprimanded by their corporate masters. It would give me great pleasure to see Congress cut off all of your Federal funding if this is the direction you are intent on moving in your future.

  43. The one percent doesn’t include me. I’ve worked all my adult life, including working my way through graduate school. But I have learned that every family is only one disaster away from poverty. I’ve weathered a series of difficult circumstances — starting with caring for an elderly parent with Alzheimer’s Disease — hanging on by my fingernails. At times I despair of every crawling out of the hole, much less lasting long enough to collect the social security benefits I have earned by working for over 30 years, often at jobs that paid little. When I read or watch the news it’s most often public radio or TV that I turn to. Yet last week, network news reported on the growing disparity between the rich and the middle class in terms of how much their income had increased in the last few years. It was discouraging to be reminded that I have slipped out of the middle class, much less to learn that a source I have trusted for many years is producing less-than-balanced reports on the economy. I know times are tight for everyone but I don ‘t think you can depend on these reverse Robin Hoods to keep the News Hour afloat. It’s people like me who contribute small but meaningful (for us) amounts of money that keep you on the air. At least provide a chance for another viewpoint to rebut the most egregious statements.

  44. Here is my letter:

    Dear News Hour,

    I was really disgusted by your interview with Richard Epstein the other day.

    He and his ilk are of course the reason our society has degenerated from possibly the most successful and equitable in human history to a desperately unworkable state where we are destroying the environment and human lives wholesale. This is the first civilization I am aware of that made greed the highest good. The Tea Party and the Occupy movement are both in the vanguard of the reaction to what has been wrought by the glorification of greed – although the Tea Party has been co-opted and misdirected by some of the one percent.

    Although I often hear it repeated, Epstein’s contention that we need obscene inequality to produce innovation is not only pernicious but silly. If that were true, we would have had no innovation in the 1950’s and 60’s which were in fact at least as as innovative as any other period. Real innovators like Steve Jobs are usually driven by a creative urge that is validated by financial success but not dependent on it.

    Epstein’s contention that heirs of the super rich are more worthy recipients of vast wealth than the millions who would benefit from more equitable taxation is one of the most inane I have ever heard. I grew up in very comfortable circumstances and in the company of many really rich people and in many cases great wealth was a burden to them, and there was certainly no indication that their being rich was an asset to society at large. To their credit, some of the most successful people like Warren Buffett and Jimmy Pattison have provided finite and relatively modest sums for their children and the rest of their fortunes will go elsewhere.

    If you really want to find out about the effects of gross inequality on society, I urge you to interview Professor Richard Wilkinson, author of The Spirit Level.

  45. Dear PBS,
    After your commendable look at the dimensions of American income inequality in “Land of the Free, Home of the Poor,” whatever compelled you to broadcast later interviews that make the point that maybe inequality is not such a bad thing? Here we have a situation where 40% of the population has 0.3% of the income, 20% of it have 84% of the income, and the remaining 60% have 15%. So when you tell us how the standard of living has declined for the bottom 99%, why do you feel that the top 1% deserve equal time? When you give them equal time, it isn’t like giving political candidates or pundits equal time – its letting spokesmen for the rich cut in at the front of the line. I guess their used to being able to do that, and PBS is happy to oblige. That’s not telling it like it is. To me it’s shameful toadying and I want you to stop being a platform for proponents of an economic system that continues to dump Americans and their hopes for the future into the ditch. There are many, many more representative guests you can draw from. Find them. LISTEN to them.

  46. Bravo to the letters and comments. I’d like to suggest also posting directly on the show’s website: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec11/makingsense_10-26.html

    An interesting rebuttal video is David Packman’s interview with Richard Wolffe (conveniently posted on YouTube a week prior to the NewsHour Show).
    http://www.youtube.com/user/MidweekPolitics#p/u/28/DcFajLlj2Nc
    Interview begins at 1:35

    In sum, Wolffe makes a cogent (and entertaining) evidence-based counter-argument: â┚¬Ã…“The economic good results supposedly to come from greater inequality are the exact opposite of what the historical record shows us.

  47. My letter to the newshour: I am not shocked, unfortunately, but I am appalled that your coverage of the Occupy protests around the country featured Richard Epstein, a law school professor who is all for inequality. Why not feature Ann Coulter or Ayn Rand (dead or not) for a change? For that matter, I hope you plan to do a lot of coverage of the fractured skull of one protester’s, an Iraqi veteran, in the Occupy Oakland events the other night. Try having someone like Paul Krugman or Joseph Steiglitz to answer questions on these issues–most of us would appreciate seeing that point of view on our public TV. You say these programs are brought to us “by viewers like you.” Well, hello, we are the 99 percent.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Wheeler

  48. Dear NewsHour,

    It’s nice that your guest New York University law school professor Richard Epstein likes to quote Abraham Lincoln. It would have been nice if he HAD quoted our sixteenth president but, I suppose, being a law school professor he has other worries on his mind.
    However, you being a supposed news program should really have known better than to allow him to attribute an already well known Ronald Reagan misquote of Abraham Lincoln to Lincoln himself. Lord, even the New York Times and CNN had pointed this out way back in 1992! Are your editors and fact checkers not eating breakfast these days?! Really, you should pay them a mite bit more, perhaps, so they aren’t falling asleep on the job.

    I expect you to issue a correction of Epstein’s misquote as soon as possible. A public apology is also expected.

    Public broadcasting is supposed to be dedicated to showcasing viewpoints that “would otherwise go unheard” in commercial media. Voices championing inequality are heard loud and clear in the corporate media; public television should be doing something different.

    I’ve heard these pro-inequality views for decades from other media sources I had considered less fair. Now I hear it from the ones I’d turned to for real journalism. Why are correspondent Paul Solman and your editors so eager to present these hardly new views to the public without proper criticism?

    I demand an explanation.

    Thank you.

  49. What a bunch of great letters here! Here’s mine:

    to the “News Hour”:

    I think you owe your viewers a correction on the silly Richard Epstein story you ran the other day, in which he invoked a fictitious quotation supposedly from Abraham Lincoln, in order to buttress a spurious argument in favor of rule by economic elites in America.

    You should have disclosed Mr. Epstein’s financial self-interest here: one of his paychecks comes from the Global Economics Group, a corporate consulting firm that depends on corporate good will for its business.

    You also should employ a reporter who is intellectually able to question such nonsense when he hears it, as your on-air personalities are apparently incapable of doing.

    It would also be inaccurate for the News Hour to preen too much about presenting “contrarian” views, since they seem to be exclusively from the far right (Mr. Epstein is joined in his use of the phony Lincoln quote by Rush Limbaugh and that noted historical scholar, Ronald Reagan).

    If you REALLY want to go contrarian, I suggest you be even-handed about it: give Joe Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Yves Smith, or Jared Bernstein that kind of exposure; you won’t find bogus quotations or faulty factual arguments from any of that crowd.

    Meanwhile, by unquestioningly offering supposedly “contrarian” views that are actually all too common on the airwaves already, the News Hour makes itself look irrelevant, supplicant to the tired narratives of Washington DC, and a reliable mouthpiece for commonplace right-wing “wisdom.” You can invoke your awards all you like, but if you pretend to hold yourselves to a higher standard, you should DO so. It is easy to appear distinguished in a roomful of Murdochian thugs and droolers.

    I think you owe your viewers an apology, and a correction.

    Sincerely

  50. Once upon a time I had the impression that PBS was a more or less center-left outfit. The People’s channel – taxpayer and volunteer funded, appealing to would-be intellectuals, promoting a cultured citizenry, and whose mandate, I assumed, was to cultivate, to make aware and to encourage the thinking of the educated viewer. Sure, some academics and curmudgeonly old school intellectuals pooh-poohed Masterpiece Theater or whatnot for mid brow pretentiousness or elitist preciousness, but I always thought that Robin McNeil and Nature, the Shakespeare plays and Nova set the tone for the thoughtful, humanistic, vaguely “liberal” (as in liberal arts) sentiment that pervaded PBS.

    Of course, that was before the CPB was taken over by Republicans during the Buzsh Administration, when PBS was perennially threatened with draconian funding cuts, and when PBS News went on the defensive and morphed into, essentially, FOX light. During those dark days when war mongers Donald Rumsfeld and Zbigniew Brzezinski were treated as honored guests, when Bill Moyers was the subject of an inquisition and subsequently canned, and I wrote to PBS saying that as a long time contributor, PBS could henceforth count me out; that after some 25 years I no longer cared to watch the News Hour or anything it broadcast except perhaps the occasional “Frontline” which somehow continued in the tradition of thoughtful, critical investigation. But henceforth the News Hour no longer was must see tv.

    And now this Paul Solmon piece of October 26 that promotes what Jeffrey Brown called a ‘contrarian view’ to the issues raised by #OWS and We the 99%ers. That Solmon let pass New York University law school professor Richard Epstein’s specious claim that “inequality creates an incentive…” was bad enough, but should PBS allow to stand a quote that Epstein claims issued from President Lincoln without correction it would cross the line of journalistic integrity.

    That is, it would be unacceptable, indeed a sham, should the PBS News Hour allow to stand as uncorrected a long debunked and misattributed to Abraham Lincoln â┚¬Ã‹Å“quote’ that was used to justify and/or rationalize a position that defends the income inequality Americans have endured over the past 30 years.

    Please, PBS, as â┚¬Ã‹Å“you’ are a person/corporation, do yourself a favor and read the comments at the website FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [https://fair.org/index.php?page=4424] Indeed; the very idea that Solmon, a PBS investigative reporter, would present a spokesman who holds a position that defends the 1% against 99% that is We the People as merely the other side in an argument is unacceptable. Is creationism really a viable alternative to Biology? Are climate change deniers really a viable alternative to the mountain of scientific evidence that testifies to its reality? That is not journalism that is obfuscation.

    If “The News Hour” has any journalistic decency it will follow the recommendations in this piece and issue a correction; and if it really represented We taxpayers, it would issue a full disclosure. That viewers were not informed that “Epstein is also a director at Global Economics Group, a corporate consulting firm that advises on issues like financial regulation and employment law” may be minor point, unless, that is, corporation capitalism is precisely what is wrong with America, and, as their pr man, Professor Epstein is representing reprehensible views. In which case non disclosure presents a fundamental challenge to the News Hour’s integrity as an institution funded by We the People.

  51. Anyone scrolling down through these many letters should not skip over the one by Lucius just above. It describes the self-destructive turn PBS has deliberately taken better than anything else I have seen.

  52. I don’t waste my time watching PBS NewsHour. Most especialy since PBS has become a corporate sponsored shadow of its former self. I gave up watching PBS long ago.

  53. I agree with most of the above comments. However I thought that Paul Salman, the interviewer, reacted with disbelief to most of what he was hearing from Epstein, as did I. I don’t think that it is necessarily PBS’s job to point out or defend equality or inequality. It is their job to present the news in a balanced fashion. Jim Lehrer, in fact, does not vote because he feels it might cause him to present things in an imbalanced fashion. That said, the Newshour could do a better job of presenting lesser known viewpoints. I’d like to hear Epstein interviewed by Diane Rehm, a far better interviewer than any of those on the Newshour.

  54. Fair asked for a copy of my letter- my apologies as this letter was a fast one-

    I am ever disappointed of late in the non objective reporting and interviews of PBS. You appear to be promoting a biased view, and in an attempt to appear inclusive, have aired propaganda, nonscientific bunk. PBS/NPR is supposed to have high standards, but I see/ hear you airing /erring too often. You would better serve a public needing to think and have facts by being truthful about the inequality and the bailouts of the banks and wall street, instead of mainstreet- to quote the 99%. I wish to address 3 grievous errors made by public broadcasting:

    You attempt to give a balanced view of Palestine and underreport their casualties and peaceful attempts at recognition in favor of pro Zionistic Israel. Where are the discussions of Israel’s Peace movement that is against raising Palestinian homes while building up the settlements?

    Why even air Creationism, when it is a misrepresentation of facts? PBS/NPR you are behaving as if you were bought or are in fact controlled by right wing influence. Clean up your act. I will not donate to you until you repatriate Bill Moyers- now there is a true unbiased reporter.

    I will not donate to PBS or NPR until you rehire the woman who lost her job at NPR for participating in an Occupy Wall St protest-Her job at NPR was neither political nor did she go to the protest during work time.

    News Hour could serve the public by exploring the issues brought to the 99% protests, instead of ‘white washing’ them with more falsehoods that helping line the pockets of industry increases jobs. Garbage! Money handed to industry does not create jobs. Unless there is a demand for goods, availability of goods, and protection against trade inequity, plus protection for workers you will continue to have protests. Getting our country back would be a good thing for you to report on!

FAIR

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.