LaShawn:

According to ABC News, PBS is hiring an ombudsman to deal with viewers’ complaints and “review controversial programs.” Conservatives serving on the board at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which was formed in 1967 to fund PBS, raised so much ruckus that the public entity had to do something.

Quoting the LA Times:

In addition to mandating neutrality, the new guidelines instruct journalists to enter into inquiries with open minds and to provide viewers with a sense of transparency about their news-gathering methods and sources. The new standards also require opinion pieces to be clearly identified.

I don't have a problem with PBS presenting controversial or politically-slanted (or religiously-slanted) programming. A liberal/leftist view is a valid and not uncommon outlook in contemporary life. It's not wrong to present that on a "public" television network.

However, the problem I have is that a conservative outlook is also a valid point of view, and I simply never see that portrayed on PBS. Yes, I saw Bill Moyers talking about how evil -- well, whatever was evil that week. But did I see Dennis Prager or David Horowitz granted the same access? No.

Guidelines suggesting journalists "enter into inquiries with open minds" are useless -- the problem is either ignorance or cupidity: either the journalist does not know what she does not know, or else he or she is willing to be deliberately dishonest. Either way, "mandating neutrality" will have no meaningful effect.

Even the guideline asking opinion pieces be identified is useless. There is a deep bias which enters the news just by selecting which stories -- and facts from those stories -- are presented. Stories which disprove a particular outlook can be ignored. Facts which might undermine one's cherished narrative are not presented. The reporter can voice his or her own opinion just by selecting a source or sound-bite which echoes his or her own beliefs. None of these involve directly injecting one's opinion into a supposedly factual piece.

I can't see any neat way to make PBS into truly "public" television. Any board of directors can be subverted. Mandates can simply be ignored. We could divide it up politically, giving half the time to one major party and half the time to the others but non-partisan issues which both parties would prefer to ignore would go unaddressed.

I personally think it's wrong to force people to subsidize the propagation of material which directly undermines their own values -- left or right. If we spin it off, undoubtedly PBS will have to start thinking about profit. Is that shallow? Yes, indeed. But let's face it, advertising is just a method of trying to attract eyeballs. It drives the content in the way the greatest number of eyeballs will want it to go. That's actually fairly democratic.

I don't often like the result. These days, I seldom watch television. But people who watch are are at least getting what they want and deserve.