PBS says the series “National Desk” is meant to generate controversy and debate. Isn’t this a good thing?
It would be, if public television’s overall lineup were balanced with controversial shows from both the left and the right. PBS has a history of playing the controversy card when criticized for running a right-wing program, while refusing to distribute left-wing programs with the excuse that the network needs to be cautious and balanced. It’s as if “more balanced” has become code at PBS for “more conservative, more corporate.” PBS needs to be judged not by its rhetoric, which is often admirable, but by its programming.
Is FAIR saying that public television shouldn’t run programs that represent conservative views?
Not at all. We think public television should present a wide variety of views. But we do object when programs misrepresent or distort facts, and we do object when programs with a clearly partisan political perspective are packaged as balanced journalism.
National Desk is touted by PBS as a “hard-hitting” journalistic series that gives voice “to all sides” of the issues it covers. Why, then, did the series on the “Gender Wars” allot progressives a small fraction of screen time, and only rarely allow them to directly rebut attacks on their work? To take one of many examples, the “War on Boys” episode focuses on criticizing the American Association of University Women’s (AAUW) acclaimed gender equity studies. Yet AAUW representatives speak for only three minutes of the hour-long show, and much of this footage is taken from a seven-year-old archival interview with AAUW’s former director. Are these the hallmarks of a balanced, journalistic investigation?
Even if one show does have a bias, isn’t it public television’s line-up as a whole that counts?
Yes, the balance of public television’s lineup as a whole is the central issue. And, on balance, public television programming is tilted to the right.
FAIR studies have shown that public television stations lack the offerings that could make them a real alternative to corporate-owned media. With a glut of investor-oriented business programs that virtually exclude labor and consumer voices; a talk show lineup that tilts right; and a systematic gender imbalance (a recent study found that women accounted for just 21.5 percent of sources on public affairs shows), public interests have a hard time getting a word in edgewise on public television.
Aren’t there documentaries on public television that give voice to progressive views?
Documentaries are occasional and are generally historical— in other words, they do not have the same influence that public affairs programming does on debates over public policy issues of the day. While PBS does distribute some valuable progressive documentaries, they cannot be expected to counterbalance the rest of public television’s predominantly conservative and corporate programming.
Isn’t it true that PBS underwriters are not allowed editorial control over programs?
In fact, it’s unclear exactly what PBS‘s guidelines are on monitoring program funding. For instance, PBS refused to distribute “Defending Our Lives,” an Academy Award-winning documentary about domestic violence. Why? One of the producers was the leader of a battered women’s support group, which PBS felt gave her “a direct vested interest in the program.” Yet PBS distributed the eight-part series “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power,” funded by PaineWebber, a company with significant oil interests. The list of such inconsistencies is long, and suggests a partisan double standard.
National Desk is underwritten by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the right-wing John M. Olin, Lynde and Harry Bradley, and Sarah Scaife foundations. It is one of many public television programs to feature guests identified only as “experts,” but who have in fact been underwritten by the funders of the show. The third episode of National Desk’s series on the “Gender Wars,” for example, featured Walter Williams, a guest identified only as a professor of economics. Williams— who asserts that “mental differences between men and women” cause “ladies” to be “nicer” and therefore less fit for military service—is an Olin fellow who received at least $150,000 in Olin grants in 1996. He also sits on the board of the Olin and Scaife-funded Cato Institute. One wonders what qualifies this economics professor to give authoritative commentary on gender. Instances like this raise serious questions about the influence underwriters exert over the content of public television programs.
FAIR says public television underrepresents women—what about the all-woman debate show “To the Contrary”?
The only PBS show that regularly brings liberal and conservative women together to debate policy issues, “To the Contrary” is certainly a welcome addition to public television’s lineup. However, “To the Contrary” is one show, hosted by one woman, and it cannot be considered—as PBS would like to claim—”a series about gender issues hosted by feminists.” Simply having women on a show or discussing gender does not automatically make it a feminist program.
The bottom line is that a single show cannot and should not be expected to redress a systematic programming imbalance that underrepresents women’s voices.
Doesn’t PBS distribute high quality, award-winning programming?
Public television’s mandate is to “provide a voice for groups in the community that may otherwise be unheard,” to serve as “a forum for controversy and debate,” and to broadcast programs that “help us see America whole, it all its diversity.” We must judge PBS by whether or not it meets these standards—whether it is truly public broadcasting— not by how many awards it has received.
See FAIR’s extensive background information on PBS:
A list of the members of the Feminist Coalition on Public Broadcasting
A FAIR fact sheet on PBS programming
Rally ‘Round the Boys: PBS‘s National Desk enlists in the “gender wars” (Extra!, 9-10/99)
FAIR’s archive of past research on PBS.
