'NYT' Preview: New Public Broadcasting Chief Wants Conservative Viewers

http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000893426&imw=Y

***Wasn't watching it, but definitely won't be, even accidentally, after this.
....
NEW YORK In this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Ken Ferree, the new president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, says he wants PBS, long considered a liberal bastion, to attract more conservative viewers. "Does public television belong to the Democrats?" he asks.

He also says he still has no idea what led to the recent departure of his predecessor, Kathleen Cox, which according to rumors occurred at least partly because of complaints from conservative groups and the "Postcards from Buster" flap.

"I don't know what led to what," he says.

Asked if he is worried that liberal PBS loyalists may exit, he says: "Well, maybe we can attract some new viewers." More conservative ones? Deborah Solomon asks. "Yeah! I would hope that in the long run we can attract new viewers, and we shouldn't limit ourselves to a particular demographic."
......

Yay!

They seem quite happy with the crap they are being fed by cable
and the Big Networks.

So much of what is on PBS is educational or artistic. What do Conservatives
want to be educated about? What kind of artistic stuff do they like?

The truth is Conservatives are not big on education (they prefer "belief")
and as for art and music: I shudder to think.

Bunch of fucking moron hypocrites

They want it all. They now have the useless PBS. In case you haven't noticed, they want the universities and the courts.

BTW, they want YOU and YOUR family.......

He doesn't listen to public radio and Lerer Hour(sp?) is too slow, and prefers reading People magazine when he relaxes at night and drives a cycle to work so isn't able to listen to the radio. Yep, he is perfect for the job. He doesn't know why last Pres left and doesn't talk politics at work. Guess we know where public broadcasting is going from here. Cut off their tax dollars. Wish the article would mention what he does like other than People magazine.

media ownership rules...... Yeah, he's a scumbag

http://www.cpb.org/about/corp/bios/exec/ferree.html

He was known as "The Enforcer"
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2003-05-11-ferree_x.htm

Now head of the Federal Communications Commission's media bureau, Ferree is perhaps the most colorful bureaucrat at the staid agency, and is still doing the dirty work. The square-jawed, 6-foot-6 Ferree, 42, who favors loud ties, plans today to deliver to the five commissioners his staff's 200-page recommendation for the most sweeping deregulation of media ownership rules in decades.

It is expected to propose letting media giants such as Viacom get bigger — and is likely to irk the FCC's Democratic minority and consumer advocates, who fear a loss of diversity and local voices.

The fireworks will be among the commissioners, who are to vote June 2 on the proposals, which largely reflect the views of Chairman Michael Powell. Yet Ferree — a libertarian intellectual — is quietly playing a central role because an appeals court struck down several FCC ownership caps as lacking legal basis. Ferree's document is expected to provide that basis and ensure the new, relaxed rules will hold up on appeal.

school of charm.

I've dealt professionally with Ken Ferree for a number of years and while I've often disagreed with him, I've never seen him be abusive to anyone that works for or with him. In fact, I know a great many of the people who worked for him at the FCC and to a person they all had a great deal of respect for him as a person, even if they didn't necessarily agree with him on all things.

That being said, based on his track record on policy,not on his personality, we need to watch closely what he has in store for the CPB, .

onenote

They can just have a direct feed for Savage, Ingraham, and Hannity and declare themselves as offering enlightened programming. For balance they can offer O'Reilly and Coulter. Music will be offered by Toby Keith and Charlie Daniels. I've given my last dollar to PBS.

They ain't going to get viewers to switch from fox to PBS. PBS is just about going to lose the audience it has. The right wingers are not interested in literature (too liberal), history (too liberal) or art (too liberal). The only thing PBS will be able to sell to its new conservative audience will be news. Sooo, since they will just be copying fox, it's not likely they will get this wonderful conservative audience Ferree thinks is out there. Conservatives have too many other option to watch PBS.

Makes perfect sense. You take over this "liberal" broadcasting system, change the programming, watch the ratings drop and private contributions dry up. Then, Voila! No more wasting all that government money on funding TV when a private corporation can do it better.

It sounds like another Bolton-type appointment -- put someone in charge of something he has open contempt for.

By the way, the "PBS has a liberal bias" was always a crock. The usual array of mostly white, mostly male, mostly conservative guests turn up on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer," and of course there are myriad other examples of the conservative presence on PBS. Mark Russell mocked the claims of bias 10 years ago or so, and recited a list of conservatives who regularly got airtime on public stations.

I worry about an increasingly commercial tone and a decline in programming quality. This character can keep his People magazine if he won't take away "Reading Rainbow" and "Great Performances" and the like.

I see us being more and more marginalized. I fear for us if something doesn't happen in 2006. It's the destruction of our entire culture. I mean, it's really turning into pap.

*propaganda on c-span
*propaganda on TBN
*propaganda on the History Channel
*conservative heading NPR
*disassemibling of humanities departments at the university level

and now this.

All in the name of protecting America from gays and other foreign ideas.

The ultra right wingers always do themselves in through stupidity and hypocrisy. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

No, but it belongs to intelligent people, in my humble opinion. So conservatives are pretty much excluded.. :-)

To bad I have never given them any money, now I don't the opportunity to tell them that I am not donating because of their new position. Well, I can always call and tell them I won't donate because of this..

Just imagine how we Liberal Progressives would feel if Air America did not exist. Just in the nick of time, sez I. :)

as best I can tell. It is not like PBS, everywhere.

and Thomas Kincaid paintings on the wall...

the programming. Their topic: Bush, Frist, Delay are the "right" ones to usher in the Rapture.

Like I said, enjoy, these extremist nuts always bury themselves.

He's in his early 30's and already an old Biddie.

They lost their mandate to inform the public a long, long time ago.

Perhaps you want to see another Lawrence Welk program?

Sorry, but as a "leftist," PBS/NPR fell down the dark well long ago.

Good thing Ken Burns got his while it lasted.

PBS/NPR NEVER stood up for their principles since Newt started attacking them years ago. Now they are a wimpy version of "intellectual" programing.

PBS/NPR have refused to actualize their mandate. They are worse than useless. In fact, PBS/NPR have been instrumental in mainstreaming the fascism that is engulfing this nation. Shucks, since they promoted it, they never seem to find the time to talk about what they helped to create.

PBS and NPR have become the 'Good Germans' of this day. I despise them.

Well said, I totally agree.

Who in Hell needs this marriage of Corporate and Federal propaganda anyway?

I don't feel that any taxes I pay should go for this crapola in the first place :patriot:

almost worst than FAUXNEWS in the sense that one can be lulled into thinking that they are presenting issues in an intelligent way. i quit listening to NPR when they played more and more * quotes and very little from the progressive side. no more PBS for me, either.

watches PBS ... says it's too slow!

He doesn't listen to NPR either.

This is scandalous!

may his supporters enjoy.

...they find it hard-going to listen to radio that doesn't bash gays/liberals/the Democrats/muslims/France every second of every day.

By spewing hatred?
By preaching intolerance?
By laying out religious dogma as fact?
By being pro-war?
By bringing in more white people?

:shrug:

They may have the few GOP blacks, Sowell, Williams, Watts, Thomas in on occasion. Juan Williams may again pretend to be less than a conservative. But basically the answer is yes.

Colin Powell has pretty well told the GOP to go to hell.

with NASCAR races.

:rofl:

I live in a border city. CBC comes in on my cable.

New Sesame Street segments, coming soon to the "neo and improved" PBS!

-- Guns with Grover!

-- Who are the people in your gated-community neighborhood?

-- Elmo buys a Humvee! (sponsored by Shell Oil)

-- Bert and Ernie's Wacky Gay-Bashing Clubhouse!

-- Outsourcing With Oscar!

You made me laugh soooooooo hard :)

Were I them I'd ramp things up on an even more progressive track, and if the thug wants to try and bring the hammer down, Sessamee Street can relocate to Network TV, I'm sure any of the big three, or hell even HBO Family would love to have THE #1 Juggernaut children's show of all time in their lineup. They already make a fortune on toy and children's book sales, imagine what they could do in the private sector! There should not, of course, be any ground given on content, or creative freedom. I think Sessame Street has proven beyond any doubt that it has long been the dominant force in children's television for a reason. Commercials, though necissary on Network Television, should be kept to an absolute minimum. HBO on the otherhand wouldn't need to impose this consession, though it's audience might be more limited, I feel subscriptions to HBO family would increase dramatically as a direct result of Sessame Street being added to their morning lineup.

P.S. If this jackass does anything to infringe upon the quality or content of Sessame Street, I firmly believe Jim Henson himself will rise form his grave and slay him.

I watched last week with my granddaughter and the majority of the show was dedicated to eating fruit.
Very little substantial numbers and letters for the kids to learn.
Not only that--guess who it was sponsored by?
The US Government--No Child Left Behind.
I was appalled that they couldn't fund the schools to carry out the program, but were able to lay a chunk of cash down to sponsor a pre-school program.
Maybe that federal government grant is what "persuaded" PBS to sell out to the fundies. That would be my guess.

As the idol of Conservatism, Ronald Reagan once stated "facts are stupid things".

I think he meant that facts can be inconvienient, especially if you're Republican.

I just hope we won't see Newshour warped into a lame imitation of MSNBC/FNC/CNN and wall-to-wall evangelical programming every day.

the whole point to begin with was to offer programming that was more educational and intellectually stimulating (since only lowbrow "fluff" seems to earn big $$ on commercial television). Once the facts and intelligence are gone, then it's no different than every other channel.

It's sickening. Eight years ago PBS was all I watched. Now I just have Netflix. :-(

very little on PBS now.

For example, this morning on "Off the Shelf" on BBC World Service, I heard a reading from "Will in the World", a brilliant book about Shakespeare and his world. Radio Netherlands next week has a show about the rise of Europe. If you want to know about Africa, the BBC has tons of news. Radio Canada Int'l gives you the full flavor of what's going on up there politically.

If I didn't have my Grundig 400 and (when necessary) that 50 foot of wire, I'd go nuts.

I agree. The Grundig 400 is a good choice, I hear. I have a few Sangean-Radio Shack digital display radios, plus a bunch of analog affairs.

Where to begin?

If you are new to shortwave, try reading these pages for a good introduction:

Goes to a variety of links.

Sesame Street will become a gated community - no more "undesirables" like Gordon and Maria.


And all of the programming will be sponsored by major corporate underwriters...oh, wait a second.

Bye bye PBS. Enjoyed you when your mind was free ask questions. The cancer is now spreading to you. So sorry. So sad.

"Conservatives" RUIN EVERYTHING!!! In the last 20 years, what have they done that has been of benefit to humanity and the earth? Is there not one thing????

well pbs won't be getting any of my money.

Too bad, I liked their reality shows.

Instead of the contribution, put a letter in the envelope explaining why you will not be sending a donation.

Ferree is head of the CPB, which provides funding for PBS programming. CPB gets its money from the taxpayers. When you contribute to your local PBS station you are providing them with an alternative source of programming which means that they aren't as dependent on what CPB provides.

Frankly, having the government fund programming has always been a concern for me. I'd like to see the stations funded through fouundation grants and, in the next few years, from the billions that is going to be raised auctioning off the analog broadcast spectrum. The fewer "strings" between the money that funds public broadcasting and Congress, the better.

onenote

I haven't seen a chart that shows the breakdown of how much viewer support versus government support versus corporate support for CPB, but do know that more and more CPB has corporate sponsorship of programs, including Walmart. And that corporate sponsorship affects what programs PBS or NPR will air-nothing that might offend and cut off the tap.

The board also has veered to the right- Cheryl Halpern thnks it's okay for board members to intervene to censor content - http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/18831/

There used to be an argument from the right that the taxpayer shouldn't be funding public broadcasting (I remember a crisis public broadcasting some time back when it appeared it would end and the public rallied). Selfish, but because at the time it was the only major alternative to the wasteland, it seemed worth fighting for. And perhaps it's time to address whether paying for public broadcasting still serves its purpose.

But when you have a man heading it who does not watch tv, who would prefer to read People magazine over watching Jim Leher news, who was for media monopolies in the same market, who didn't believe in meetings for the public because they are only exercises in "foot-stomping" and one of his fellow board members would act as a censor for content, not sending them one more thin dime is NOT an unreasonable action to take.

...this is the US version of a state-run broadcaster.

We are talking about a TV network with an on-paper mandate for public service, but which does not even break any major news stories themselves. In reality, they have a revenue-based mandate not to offend the government or the wealthy.

PBS was never actually public, because they were never an independant public corporation (like the BBC). The CPB is funded strictly as a result of the political process, which is unacceptable for this kind of institution.

I think media reform should begin by creating a true public broadcaster that has a license-fee funding model.

sending in their contributions ... we will see how much of the money of the wealthy will keep PBS going for how long and for how far.

DO YOU EVER WONDER HOW MUCH MONEY ANY OF THESE BUSHES HAS EVER CONTRIBUTED TO ANY OF THE PBS STATIONS?

AND, IS KEN FERRE ONE OF THE NEWEST ARMS OF THE KARL ROVE WHITE HOUSE?

Nightly series:

The News Hour with Hannity and Coulter

Nova, hosted by Dr. Duane Gish.

RWPOV (Rightwing Point of View): life as seen thru blinders.

Masterpiece Theatre: featuring the complete dramatized works of Jack Chick

StormFrontline: uncovering the conspiracies of gays, liberals and the mud people that threaten to dilute our pure Aryan blood.

This Old Trailer: home improvement tips.

National Geographic: exploring the primitive culture and lifestyle of girls gone wild (co-production with the FOX TV network).


Daytime:

Teletubbies in Hell: your children will delight in following the daily adventures of a band of limpwristed, traditional marriage threatening furballs as they suffer eternal torment at the hands of our loving god.

Reading Brainburn: encourages your children to burn books while explaining why too much knowledge will rot their brains.


Documentaries and Specials:

The Founding Fathers: host David Barton provides conclusive evidence that the U.S.A. was founded as a Christian theocracy in this 2 minute documentary.

Civil War.

we are already inundated with an overload of Lawrence Welk on the weekends thanks to ultra conservative PBS broadcasting from Grand Rapids MI , home of the DeVoss (R) family.
I long ago gave up membership to PBS, and wont give them another dime.

self delete

The reason PBS is considered a "liberal bastion" is because it shows, you know, those liberal elitist things like theater, etc.

How depressing.

Accurate, insightful analysis = Democratic
Making shit up to stroke ideologues = conservatives.

Therefore, rightwing news = handjobs!

for the Media Ownership Rules originally until the public demanded them. Michael Copps drew attention to the lack of hearings.

Editor and Publisher-http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1735208

But his call for hearings may go unheeded. Powell has said he "wouldn't commit to it." And FCC Media Bureau Chief Ken Ferree in a private meeting held late last month derided hearings as an opportunity for "foot stomping" and little else. That could leave the battle over ownership rules to take place inside the Beltway. The FCC wants written comments from both sides of the issue by December and expects to vote in the spring.

and look what they did - turned into Faux News, Part Deux.

need it.

In the beginning PBS was non political. The conservatives call anything that they don't agree with, liberal then set out to destroy it.

Yes PBS will and has lost people like me a long time ago.

Add to that NPR.

The right has succeeded in destroying PBS.

rules going on in local communities; makes me think that if Ferree is on a side of this, the other side ought to be heavily researched as the liberal side.

all I ask is that whatever they say be supported by facts.

Don't have a link, but in the Sun newspaper an article mentioned a Conservative "higher-up" was hired either this past week, or the week before. It's a woman. Do not recall her name but she's a neoconservative and will being changing PBS to a more convervative agenda.

Are you sure her name isn't that of "Kathleen Cox?" It's a conservative women that I read about. Not exactly how you expressed it, above, respectfully.

It made me sick. PBS has been around since I was a kid.

Ferree wants conservative viewers? The vocal minority? Hehheh

AFAIK, he's already gottem.. there just aren't that many. They're just loud, that's all.

Sue

* voters don't wanna watch Tucker Carlson, they wanna see Sgt. Slaughter (or whoever the fuck they have on wrestling now) kick the crap out of some Arab.

Give them power projection!

Does being liberals make us right? No.
Does being conservative make others wrong? No.

I don't see the solution to the current state of politics in this country as a liberal press vs. a conservative press. While it may be a necessary interim step to returning to balance (to have Air America got head-to-head with Limbaugh, etc.), if that's our long-term solution, we're all in a heap of trouble, because we continue to pit people ideologically against one another. I don't see that that solution ends up accomplishing anything but deeper polarization.

It seems to me that the way to bring disparate voices together is to offer, in an honest and forthright way, varying opinions in an ideally actual fair and balanced forum. There are people on the right and left who can communicate with each other in an intelligent, civil way. Unfortunately, they're being drowned out by the shrill, relentless attack-mentality "journalism" of the right. We liberals are therefore put in a necessary position of attempting to counter attack in the same shrill tone. Again, probably a necessary short-term (2-4 year) evil, but hopefully leading to a saner, less divisive solution.

In the long run, unless we create and support media platforms in which reasonable people with opposing views can be heard in the same venue, I don't think we can hold a lot of hope for bridging the huge cultural/political divide in this country. I simply don't think any media platform is going to draw in reasonable viewers by catering to only one side.

While many people perceive Public Broadcasting as the "liberal" media, they're not. They are fair and generally balance in a true way, which often means they do go after targets that happen to be conservative. But, many on the right interpret these as attacks directed at them personally or as a group, when, in fact, these reports are simply being honest. But unless they offer a wide range of opinions, they leave themselves open to the "liberal" label and, in turn, the potential to lose millions of listeners/viewers who might well be convinced that the conservative way of doing business is not necessarily the right way.

While all of this may be pie-in-the-sky idealism, I don't think it's an unrealistic goal. CBS stands (an outside) chance of creating something like this as they rethink their news organization, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. CPR probably continues to hold the most hope for altering the media landscape.

Caveat: In the meantime, in the face of relentless attacks from the right, I will not play dead and I will not accept the trash journalism of Republican shills. I will not watch this great country go down at the hands of manipulative corporate/political/religious/media extremists bent on world domination.

and sadly, it is now completely "us versus them".
There is no liberal media as you may have been led to believe...that myth is a propagation of the right wing.
You will NO LONGER find any media outlets that do not lean either right or left--there is nothing sacred in this fight.
You may believe that the whoring of Public Broadcasting System is nothing...but believe it or not...it was NOT a liberal leaning institution.
It has been a realistically programmed station with fact based programming until this point.
I was wondering why they took Boobah off, now I know. The fundies couldn't handle it.
Next thing you will see is Barney only playing with white upper class kids.
This is a very sad thing, IMHO.

Jim Lehrer is a right-wing hack. He was despicable as a presidential debate moderator. He despises 'union-types' and liberals and describes them as 'whiners.'

When was the last time you saw the criminality of the Bush administration exposed on PBS/NPR? Never? When have they even questioned the validity of the vote tabulation? Voting goes to the heart of our democracy. PBS/NPR can't be bothered with such nonsense.

While neo-fascist mouthpieces like the Heritage Foundation have always been represented -- hence mainstreamed --, where are the counterparts? Where are the socialist voices. Where are the union voices? Where are the voices of working Americans? Nowhere!

PBS/NPR is a mouthpiece for the corporate state.

Where is their exciting arts programing?

Where is their challenging cultural programing?

PBS/NPR has NOT offered an "other side" to the fascist takeover of this country. When we needed them most, they hired Tucker Carlson, the son of a PBS bigwig. Phooey!

Now even in science and technology we have "data" being derived for
a particular purpose.

This statement shows the colors of this guy...what happened to
the truth, unbiased statistics, information unfiltered?

Sick and sad and yet another example of what is happening
to America.

Might as well change their name too, because that is exactly what they'll be doing.

trying to compete with FAUX as the most conservative tv network, now we have yet another egotistical creep trying to push other TV stations in the same way.

:eyes:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=569645

<snip>
The anti-democratic bias goes even deeper. According to the Center for Public Integrity, when the FCC was deciding how to go about loosening restrictions on media ownership back in 2002, it based its market research primarily on analyses not available to the public. This private data was only released to public interest groups after the FCC issued a "protective order" designed to keep the information secret.

Who made the decision to hide the data from the public? Coincidentally, it was Ferree himself. He personally stipulated that the data be made available only to "authorized representatives" and those "designated by the commission in the public interest." In order to have access to the data, viewers had to swear, in writing, not to share it, and were only able to view the data at FCC headquarters and were not allowed to make copies.

Now that Ferree has left the FCC and is in charge of public broadcasting, we can expect an accelerated commitment to the very policies that the public, Congress and courts all rejected as anti-democratic and contrary to the public interest. Given the power and influence he will be able to exercise on some of our most precious public resources, you'd think it might be worth a story … somewhere.

</snip>