It’s not enough to have Faux News.  They want PBS too.

     From the New York Times. 

     A story about how the Republicans think that it isn’t fair that PBS’ current affairs programming is so “liberal”.  Evidently, detailed, timely, in-depth and nuanced reporting that draws logical conclusions and addresses many facets of a given issue is “liberal”.

     Sigh.  Does anyone out there remember what “objectivity” means?

     Objectivity is beginning an exploration with an hypothesis, but pursuing your investigations without a bias for a specific outcome.  Just because the outcome a given program comes to can be defined as “liberal” is not proof of a liberal bias.

     The assertion of the Republicans that PBS current affairs programming is consistently anti-Bush, Anti-DeLay and anti-corporate, does not necessarily mean that there is a liberal bias in PBS programming.

     Especially in the current climate, where the majority leadership defines anything rational, scientific, or deliberative as “liberal”.  Science is liberal, education is liberal, peer reviewed journals are liberal, the courts are liberal, the media is liberal.  To quote the Daily Show’s spoof of this apparent attitude:  “Why do the facts hate America?”

     Many conservatives have come to different conclusions than president Bush on a number of issues.  People on both sides of the aisle think the Enron disaster was a crime and should be punished.  Many conservatives find DeLay’s constant ethics violations troubling.    

     One cannot claim by any stretch of the imagination that John McCain, Arlen Spector, Richard Clark or Paul O’Neil have a “liberal bias”.  They have, presumably, come to their conclusions independently and through careful and thoughtful exploration of the topics.  Presumably, they would prefer to be in agreement with their party and support its policies.  Their tendency would be toward a “conservative” bias…but their dispassionate reason has lead them, in some cases, to “liberal” conclusions.

     That’s because the “liberal” conclusions make sense, are good for the country, promote the needs and address the concerns of the middle and working classes and the conservative agenda doesn’t.

     Let’s explore bias a little bit.  Faux News is biased.  Look at Hannity and Colmes.  The only way that show could be more biased is if Alan Colmes was a cardboard cut-out…oh wait, no…a cardboard cut-out wouldn’t be as mealy-mouthed, pandering and  ineffective at representing the liberal viewpoint as he is.  Coincidence?  I think not.

     Michael Moore is biased.  He doesn’t pretend otherwise.  He sets out to prove a particular point, and orders facts around his premise.  He’s promoting a world view, and he does it very well. 

     Rush Limbaugh is biased.  He also does not pretend otherwise.  He and Michael Moore are mirror reflections of each other…each from their own side.  Of course, I find Michael Moore’s brand of propaganda much more in line with my thinking than Rush Limbaughs…but I can’t pretend it’s anything but what it is…incredibly effective evangelizing of ideas based on isolated facts put together to create a semblance of order.

     And propaganda has it’s place as an energizing and unifying force…

     But informative it isn’t.  News, it isn’t…fodder for the minds that are supposed to make intelligent, informed, reasoned decisions for how they are going to tell their representatives to run the country…it isn’t.

     I wonder if this renewed attack on PBS has anything to do with the PIPA study that showed that MPR and PBS viewers/listeners were many times more informed than those who watched Faux News.

     We can’t have that…can we?  I mean, people knowing actual verifiable facts?  From peer-reviewed sources?  With reasoned and educated commentary rather than speculation and innuendo?

     Those facts hate America, and only liberals think they are important!  We need to have the “other side” presented.  If you are going to present facts and history and in depth analysis that makes the other side look bad, they should have a chance to respond with “equal time” for their fake statistics, gay-baiting, and talking point echo-chamber parrotry.

     And on the taxpayer’s dime.

     Right.  Because the Republican leadership doesn’t already have enough tax-payer-bought-and paid for journalists shilling for it.  I think the taxpayers have spent enough on the “fair and balanced” message of the far right.  Right Armstrong Williams?  Maggie Gallager? 

       Objectivity means looking at the facts and analyzing them in a dispassionate manner.  Objectivity does not mean giving equal weight and validity to clearly unequal conclusions.