The Question Of "Balance"
Ken A. Bode
September 1, 2005
Over the past few months this issue has been the main topic of press coverage regarding CPB, PBS and NPR. The matter of balance also has been the main concern of those viewers and listeners who contacted the Ombudsman Website.
When the Board of CPB established an Office of the Ombudsmen, CPB President and CEO Kathleen Cox described its purpose:
"Congress has asked the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to both protect the production of public broadcasting from undue interference and to ensure that it represents high standards in accuracy, balance and objectivity. The ombudsman office is a tested and reliable way to support those twin objectives."
The charter establishing the Ombudsman Office charges us to "encourage public discourse aimed at achieving high standards of excellence and balance in public broadcasting."
So, in this posting, let us look at some of what has been said and done in recent months around the question of "balance" in public broadcasting.
CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson commissioned a study of the program "NOW," then hosted by Bill Moyers. The study supported what Tomlinson characterized as "the image of the left-wing bias of "NOW" -- unchallenged by a balancing point of view on public broadcasting's Friday evening line-up." Tomlinson characterized this as "unhealthy," and encouraged CPB support for a new program, "The Wall Street Journal Editorial Report," which is now offered to PBS stations for Friday night broadcast.
Moyers, now retired as host, responded in a number of venues, arguing that "NOW" was not "liberal advocacy journalism." His journalism, said Moyers, showed "the actual experience of regular people is the missing link in a nation wired for everything but the truth." Moyers characterized Tomlinson as "an ally of Karl Rove and the right-wing monopoly's point man to keep tabs on public broadcasting." Tomlinson, he said, "found kindred spirits at the right-wing editorial board of the Wall Street Journal where the 'animal spirits of business' are routinely celebrated."
This dialogue between Tomlinson and Moyers illustrates a fact that is strongly supported by the submissions to the Ombudsmen Website: For many in America PBS and NPR are a Rorschach test. What you see in the matter of bias or balance depends on the point of view you bring to the table.
Some conservatives have long thought that public broadcasting has outlived its mission. When Republicans took over the US House of Representatives in 1994, at the top of the list of congressional objectives was to "de-fund public broadcasting." The list of complaints we have received as ombudsmen go well beyond Bill Moyers to include NPR's Daniel Schorr, Diane Rehm, Amy Goodman, Juan Williams, Nina Totenberg, Robert Reich, Scott Simon. On PBS, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer gets high marks for balance, but the half-hour version of "NOW", hosted by David Brancaccio, "Frontline "and "Washington Week in Review" are among those criticized as too liberal.
That is one side of the story.
The other point of view holds that NPR and PBS are the most important remaining sources of accurate, in-depth news in America today. This is by far the prevailing view expressed on the Ombudsmen's Website. The messages we have received indicate that a significant portion of the NPR/PBS audience genuinely fear that mainstream media is a profit-driven enterprise, controlled by ratings and has become a race to the bottom in terms of quality of programming.
KATHY BELL of Pennsylvania wrote: "The chairman (Tomlinson) is correct that it has a liberal bent and in its progressive leanings it is THE balance for virtually all other commercial broadcasting."
There was also a feeling among our correspondents that the idea that mainstream media are dominated by liberals is one that has been promoted by conservatives for many years. Its advocates today would include Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Tony Blankley, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough and many others.
DAVID C. POWELL of California sent along a list of some 45 very conservative journalists who write for mainstream newspapers or appear on broadcast or cable television.
I have reviewed over one thousand e-mail submissions to the Ombudsmen Website. A sizable majority want NPR/PBS left alone.
SUSAN TENNERY of Minnesota wrote: "I'm concerned about the drive to include additional conservative voices in PBS broadcasting . . . these voices are adequately represented in the private media."
PBS president Pat Mitchell recently cited a poll showing that 80% of PBS viewers perceive no bias in its programming. That percentage probably reflects the responses to our website. Bill Moyers referenced a study from a few years ago which showed that "two thirds of the people see our news and public affairs as a mixture of political persuasions."
However a significant minority have responded to the controversy over balance by encouraging a better presentation of alternative points of view.
RANDALL (JAN) VAN OOSTEN, a former NPR station manager from Fresno, CA wrote: "After leaving NPR I see more clearly how imbalanced the programming and 'tone' of the network seem to a large segment of the American public."
The former journalist Carl Stern has said, "Balance just means, 'I want to hear more from my side.'" That certainly is part of the story, but only part.
Balance also can be a measure of a broadcast's claim to fairness and objectivity. Viewers, listeners, and most importantly program producers know when one side is allowed to build its case and the opposing point of view is given less than equal chance.
The producers of "NOW" have a plan to continue Bill Moyer's tradition of journalism but with David Brancaccio, a new host, and a plan to take the show out of the studio. In late May, the program took an early look at prospective judicial nominations. The conservative side was represented by Janet LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, a group dedicated to bringing Biblical principles into all levels of public policy. The liberal side was represented (separately) by Texas political columnist Molly Ivens. In the middle segment, David Brancaccio introduced viewers to the record of Janet Rogers, a potential nominee to the DC Court of Appeals.
The program brought sharply different perspectives in a balanced fashion. I did not have a stop-watch on the program, but I came away feeling that each side had ample opportunity to explain itself.
Not every program attempts to achieve balance within each broadcast.
For more than two decades, the nation's most eloquent conservative, William F. Buckley, was the host of "Firing Line" on PBS. No one doubted Buckley's political pedigree, but his program featured liberals, conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. Tavis Smiley does much the same thing today. It is what keeps Smiley's programs current and newsworthy. Buckley leaned one way, Smiley leans the other.
In these days of political and media polarization, public broadcasting has shouldered an important obligation: to provide balance in its programming to an audience that believes an informed citizen should understand more than one point of view.
Pat Mitchell told the National Press Club that PBS "has a commitment to offer a fair and balanced schedule, one that is not defined by any one point of view, any one person, any one program, even any one series." Mitchell added, "We are going to support a range of personal perspectives as different as Bill Moyers and Paul Gigot."
On PBS, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer is the mother ship of balance. It has been criticized most often for going too far out of its way to provide both (or many) points of view. Over the years, the regular Newshour commentators, Mark Shields v. Paul Gigot or David Gergen or, now, David Brooks, are a clear balance of liberal v. conservative. But these commentators know how to disagree without being disagreeable. A balanced, civil dialogue.
At this point, I offer no definitive judgments on balance in public broadcasting, just some preliminary discussion of the subjects raised in the press and among the many postings in our Ombudsman Website.
My own conclusion is no different than my perception of PBS and NPR when I accepted the position of ombudsman in April -- that considerations of fair and balanced is not as big a problem here as elsewhere. This is not Fox News.
Thanks for visiting the CPB Ombudsman Website.