Public Television Under Secret Attack posted by Ben

From the NY Times, via Common Dreams:

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has decided to replace its president and chief executive, Kathleen A. Cox, who has been in the post about nine months.

While it seeks a successor for Ms. Cox, the corporation will be led by W. Kenneth Ferree, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission who played a significant role in the failed effort to loosen rules to make it easier for media companies to expand into new businesses and geographic areas. Last month, Mr. Ferree, a telecommunications lawyer, was named chief operating officer of the corporation. Mr. Ferree said he hoped to be a candidate for the job, and he took issue with statements raised by groups critical of his appointment.

Asked whether he shared the criticism by some conservative groups that public broadcasting is either out of touch or too liberal, Mr. Ferree said: "We can always do better in programming. We're for balance. We want balanced programming."

Unfortunately for Mr. Ferree, discussing 'balance' is unlikely to mitigate his history support of right wing media goals for a couple of reasons. First, public media has been under quiet attack by conservatives over the past few years as Republicans have worked to place ideologues into positions of programming power at public television and radio, citing concerns about out-of-touch programming. Second, the quest for 'balance' is doing more to destroy the credibility of our mainstream media than almost anything else in modern times.

What do I mean? Balance is not the same as truthtelling. For instance, C-SPAN recently came under a great deal of flack when, citing the need for balance, they offered equal airtime to a holocaust denier following the proposed broadcast of a lecture by a holocaust historian. Would it be balanced to teach in geography that the world is round, but that it could be flat? Would it be balanced to teach in math that two plus two equals four, unless they equal five?

All of the major television news channels use 'balance' as a justification for inviting the statements of quacks and frauds onto the air and for giving those statements equal weight with the truth. For example, think about how many so-called experts weighed in on the Terri Schiavo case with the authoritative opinion that she was conscious, could communicate, and wasn't really brain-dead, all in direct contradiction to verifiable fact.

Sorry, Mr. Ferree. You claim balance, but we know now that you're just speaking code for the insidious process of diluting the truth with lies, distortions, and unproved opinions from extremists. Even if you are so oblivious that you've accepted the 'balance' frame wholesale from the loins of some conservative think-tank, the result can only be more quacks, frauds, and liars from the far right clamoring for their chance to counter science and legitimate news with more noise, vitriol, and confusion for the average television viewer.