By Brent Bozell, Creators Syndicate
August 1994 – Psychologists call it denial. For the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the supposed monitors of PBS and National Public Radio, it’s a way of life. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the attendant public outrage over it, CPB has now reported to Congress that “no glaring or egregious pattern of bias, social slant or partisan predisposition has surfaced in CPB’s year-long opinion soundings, including its statistically valid opinion survey.”
These “year-long opinion soundings” refer to CPB’s Open to the Public Forums wherein the public was allowed to voice its collective opinion on PBS and NPR programming. Forums were held in Washington, D.C., Dallas, Seattle, Tampa and Columbia, S.C. But there’s a catch. The “Open Forums” in Dallas, Seattle and Columbia weren’t open at all; audiences were “scientifically” selected by CPB. Tampa had a call-in show.
For the Washington, D.C., event the CPB heard testimony from organizations across the political spectrum critical of its programming. Then, in its report to Congress, CPB declared that the liberal and conservative groups who testified at their January 12 “Open to the Public” hearing in Washington are not to be listened to. “The opinions of concerned groups vary greatly, according to the interests of persuasions of each particular group and its agenda. Most often, programming criticized by one group is praised by another. To the extent that public broadcasting strives for diversity, inclusion and variety in its national programming, this is not an unhappy result.”
Disagreement among CPB’s critics means that nothing is wrong, regardless of the validity of what any of them have to say, regardless of the years they’ve spent studying the content of public broadcasting. Why, then, were they invited to testify? Why was the forum held in the first place?
CPB asserts that no pattern of bias has been proven, and points to their “statistically valid opinion survey.” But the poll is contradictory at best. Near the end of the survey, pollsters asked a sample of 1,000 people: “Now that we’ve talked a lot about public television, are there specific things you think indicate public television is biased or slanted?” CPB says 77% answered “no,” and only 13% answered “yes.”
Delve a little deeper into the survey and another story emerges.
Of the 471 poll respondents who said they’ve watched the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour, 50% said they believed the show slants the news (either “a lot” or “a little”)–crystal clear evidence of bias.
But most critics of public broadcasting will defend the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour as quality programming. It is the politically loaded documentaries that have historically given public broadcasting its reputation for leftist propaganda. When asked why they compared network news only with the well-liked MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour, CPB’s pollsters explained that not enough of their sample watched documentary series like Frontline, Bill Moyers’ Journal, or Point of View.
So the CPB public opinion poll is meaningless.
The poll looked even sillier with offensive “push” questions designed to derail conservative opposition. For example CPB asked if PBS “pushes a liberal political philosophy too aggressively by always showing children of different ethnic backgrounds on shows like Sesame Street.” Which is asking what of the respondent? Do you agree with those crazy (racist) conservatives (racists) who don’t want blacks on television?
Why do a poll anyway? Since Congress asked CPB to rededicate itself to insuring quality programming, the job requires CPB to do the actual monitoring of the content of public broadcasting. But nowhere in the CPB’s report to Congress is its own evaluation of the programming content that aired in 1993. The very fact that CPB is defending itself with a poll instead of content analysis shows it isn’t serious about its assigned duties. CPB President Richard Carlson told reporters that he had made no effort to improve upon or make up for biased programming. After all, how can you fix it when you’re not monitoring it?
This whole enterprise begins to look like a colossal joke. Usually it’s on the public and on the Congress. Last week, it was meant to be on the national media since they were invited to a much ballyhooed press conference to review the results. Thankfully, the national media weren’t biting: virtually none showed up, and virtually no one bothered with the report.
Congress should respond to this public-relations snow job by keeping the fire under CPB to do actual content analysis. After all, if senators like Paul Simon and Byron Dorgan can pressure the private networks into hiring monitors for sex and violence, why can’t they require the same for our tax-funded television?
The one question the CPB’s hired guns didn’t even consider asking is the one question that is on the public’s mind: “Should taxpayers be forced to subsidize public television and radio, or with a rapidly evolving information superhighway, should public broadcasting be privatized?” 
