PBS ombudsman: Ignoring single payer was a mistake

PBS ombudsman: Ignoring single payer was a mistake

Single-Minded About Single-Payer: The Ombudsman Column

By Michael Getler
PBS, April 23, 2010

PBS's venerable public affairs and investigative series Frontline is, I confess, a favorite of mine, and has been for as long as I can remember watching public television.

That doesn't mean that at times it doesn't stumble, or produce something that draws questioning and substantive criticism from viewers. Indeed, Frontline has been the subject of several ombudsman columns over the years. Yet one of the distinguishing things about Frontline from where I sit is that many of those who write at times to express disagreement frequently do so by also saying, first, how much they respect the program. In other words, even when it is bad, in their view, it's still good.

At least some of that ambivalence was in evidence this week when our office was deluged with almost a thousand critical e-mails from people who said they were upset and angry that an hour-long look back at how the White House ultimately hammered out a historic agreement on health care, aptly titled "Obama's Deal," failed to deal with the single-payer system advocated by many of those who were not part of the deal.

Many of these e-mails appeared to have been generated in response to a handful of websites that criticized the program for what they saw as failures to deal fairly or adequately with this single-payer option and with one of its major proponents, Dr. Margaret Flowers. She is an activist member of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), who also appeared in the film, and was interviewed briefly on camera.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/april/pbs-ombudsman-ignoring-single-payer-was-a-mistake

:thumbsup:

I get to participate in Judgement Day for Big Media.

after its all over

During the year long debate PBS carefully made sure those words never passed their lips or were mentioned in any broadcast.

I agree. Mistake my foot.

These shows just aren't put on the air willy nilly.

Mistake my butt.

"In other words, even when it is bad, in their view, it's still good."

Mmm Mmm good -- NOT!

or too little, too late.

These 'networks' run on the premise of letting private corporations break news stories first, then editing out the most egregious spin.

What you're left with is:

Paraphrased U.S. stories from private corporations ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/CNN
- minus what those networks originally left out
- minus the spin that went over the top

Spotty contributions from the BBC for international stories

Whatever "Official X said" and "Retired General Y stated" (the output of the PBS/NPR "reporters" in D.C. and state capitals).

With NPR, you also get all this wrapped in posh nasally accents and offbeat music letting you know you're so cool, so hip for listening and donating.

With PBS, you get FRONTLINE telling you some of what was omitted 8-24 months after the fact, stuff you already knew 8-24 months ago if you read European and Asian news sites.



That leaves a heck of a lot to be desired IMO. Any news network that won't break major stories on their own is next to worthless. Any news network that doesn't attempt local service is next to worthless.

People should think long and hard as to whether a combination of charity from well-heeled individuals and foundations, plus budgeting by government politicians can deliver reasonably complete and objective news. I ask whether a fig leaf is either complete or objective because that's what these "public" networks are: a fig leaf for a system comprised of horrendously self-interested corporate mouthpieces.

spot on. The only things you neglected to mention was their constant preening of their own feathers and the endles, tiresome, lengthly, "human interest" stories and commentary they put on.

Thanks for the thread, IndianaGreen.