Blogs > Liberty and Power > End Taxpayer Support of PBS Propaganda

Nov 22, 2004 5:40 pm

End Taxpayer Support of PBS Propaganda

As regular readers of Liberty and Power know David Beito has pointed out CBS’s Sixty Minutes broadcasted some extremely poor journalism in regards to the Emmett Till case. However, at least CBS paid for that tripe themselves. In today’s Washington TimesBruce Bartlett tells about a partially taxpayer funded program on PBS, Frontline, with even lower standards of journalistic integrity.

Although the program’s chief correspondent, Hedrick Smith, spent several hours interviewing him, Bartlett’s total on camera time ended up being about three seconds. In today’s column Bartlett relates some of the many salient facts left out of the Frontline attack piece. He wrote, “I also noted to Mr. Smith that Wal-Mart, all by itself, was responsible for a significant amount of the U.S. productivity miracle over the last decade. In a 2001 report, the McKinsey Global Institute, a respected think tank, concluded Wal-Mart's managerial innovations increased overall productivity by more than all the investments in computers and information technology of recent years. Other Frontline omissions included the fact that Wal-Mart’s lower prices primarily benefit the poor and research by University of Missouri economist Emek Basker, which concluded that when Wal-Mart comes to town local employment sees a permanent rise.

Bartlett’s column is one more piece of evidence in a long chain, which points to the conclusion that taxpayer funding of PBS distortion is an unjustified waste.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Keith Halderman - 11/24/2004

Chris, the only direct quote was in bold which I copied directly from the linked column, the rest was me paraphrasing from the article. Bartlett did not mention the article you reference.

Matthew Humphreys - 11/23/2004

Hey guys,

If you think you have it bad with PBS, here in the UK our BBC is funded by a £106 annual licence fee for the right watch tv!!! You still have to pay even if you don't want to watch any BBC channels! In fairness, the corporation does make a number of entertainment shows that are worth seeing, but their news content is at least as biased as what you have over there:

(Sorry, I can't figure out how to "embed" the link into the text)

I wonder, is there something about public service news that makes it particularly susceptible to bias?


David T. Beito - 11/23/2004

Sure, I would. In fact, if Harvard, the University of Chicago, or Yale (or another "privatized" school) offered me a job, I'd certainly consider it!

M.D. Fulwiler - 11/23/2004

I'm not interested in a low paying Wal-Mart cashier/ stockboy job, but many semi-skilled people find such jobs to be just fine and, believe it or not, Wal-Mart needs to pay the market rate for management/professional positions, just like anyplace else.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/23/2004

Come on, you folks! How many of you are lined up to take some of those terrific jobs that Wal-Mart offers its employees? Is my friend, David Beito, ready to sign onto what a contract at the University of Alabama would look like if the University were privatized?

Chris Matthew Sciabarra - 11/23/2004

Hey, Keith, I couldn't find that precise article with those Bartlett quotes at the link provided. And I've not seen the Frontline broadcast either. I was wondering: Do you know if Bartlett was responding to these types of allegations, made by Good Jobs First, that Wal-Mart has made extensive use of government privileges and subsidies? See here.