Say what you mean to say

After reading FAIR's report "Study finds lack f balance, diversity, Public at PBS NewsHour," I realized that OK PBS obviously caters to its higher-ups. We all know that by now. So the main question is....Should it man-up and state its bias? Should it say, "We are PBS and we support and believe in so-and-so,"? Being completely fair and balanced shouldn't be that difficult, but I believe with sponsors it can get complicated. That's why PBS should stop trying to fool everyone and just say what its goals are out in the open.

A closed-minded public broadcasting system

Sandra Day O'Connor was quoted in the article "PBS Discriminates Against Alternative Views" saying:

We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country.

This must be because the Internet is expanding which scares big businesses.

Because 75 percent of public broadcast funding comes from the public — corporations are the single largest source of underwriting for programs — the way PBS broadcasts is largely dependent on what corporations want.

Former "NewsHour co-host Robert MacNeil said, "We [at PBS] are not as provocative, innovative, creative or original as we should be."

But shouldn't public broadcasting be for the public? And shouldn't any program be provocative, thought-provoking and creative? If not, why show it?

Trust funds for the media

The article "Happy Birthday, Public Broadcasting!" is first of all, very bias. There were hardly any facts to back up the Jerold Starr's point. Aside from that, the article did bring up a few interesting points that relate to independent journalism.

First of all, there is this ideal that all things outside of the paper realm are meant to be like a newspaper. In paragraph eight, Starr said:

KQED itself produced scores of documentaries and offered a "Newspaper of the Air" that featured local reporters commenting on the news items of the day.

As independent journalists know, news doesn't just come in the form of printed word. News comes in packages, sound slides, videos and quotes.

Secondly, after hearing that the U.S. pays only $1 per person for public broadcasting, I understood the need for a trust fund.

But if there is an agency that is in control of the funding, will there be an agency in control of the content broadcasted?

One thing that's nice about independent media that is listener-supported is that the audience gets the issue's it thinks are important covered. If that were to change, watching PBS would be like watching any other government sponsored show.

And that's a threat no independent journalist wants to hear.