Right Wing Nut House

You’ve got to be completely clueless and totally out of touch not to know that the Public Broadcasting System has a decidedly liberal slant when it comes to programs that touch in any way on politics. Then again…there’s the New York Times:

The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.

Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests’ political leanings on one program, “Now With Bill Moyers.”

PBS has been a liberal sacred cow almost since its inception. And while some of its non-political programming - including science shows like “Nova” and “Nature” - as well as its broadcast of the theater and music programs have made invaluable contributions to excellence in broadcasting, only the most willfully self-deluded would argue that its political programming is anything but a recitation of liberal themes and dogmas.

The Bill Moyers show was a perfect example. While Moyers occasionally had conservative guests on his interview show, the questions he asked were of the “How many times did you beat your wife today” variety. Conversely, liberal guests receive the gushy treatment with Moyers carrying on colloquies with guests where the guided conversation could have been lifted out whole and made into a Democratic Party campaign commercial.

The coordinated attack on Mr. Tomlinson by people inside the PBS family is to be expected. After all, these are the same people that sold lists of PBS financial contributors to the Democratic Party. And why not? Surveys show that PBS viewers are more supportive of Democratic positions on the environment, on education, and a whole litany of other liberal causes.

So it should come as no surprise that Mr. Thomlinson’s efforts to bring some balance to the network’s leftward tilt would meet fierce resistance:

Pat Mitchell, president and chief executive of PBS, who has sparred with Mr. Tomlinson privately but till now has not challenged him publicly, disputed the accusation of bias and was critical of some of his actions.

“I believe there has been no chilling effect, but I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective that I do not consider appropriate,” Ms. Mitchell, who plans to step down when her contract expires next year, said Friday.

Why isn’t it appropriate when the PBS charter requires “balance?”

The corporation is a private, nonprofit entity financed by Congress to ensure the vitality of public television and radio. Tension is hardwired into its charter, where its mandate to ensure “objectivity and balance” is accompanied by an exhortation to maintain public broadcasting’s independence. Mr. Tomlinson said that in his view, objectivity and balance meant “a program schedule that’s not skewed in one direction or another.” Some corporation board members say that complaints about ideological pressure are premature.

Bill Moyers (who left “Now” earlier last year and now hosts another PBS show “Wide Angle”) is not the only blatantly leftist program on the network. The relentlessly liberal “POV” that highlights “independent” filmmakers almost uniformly deals with issues that highlight leftist causes. And the news documentary show “Frontline” has been shown to be as biased in reporting a story as any mainstream press organ.

The “Frontline Election Special” is just one example. The program gave what were supposed to be side by side bios of both Senator Kerry and President Bush. What emerged was a breathtaking model of bias so one sided that it’s a good thing hardly anyone watched it. Not only were the snippets of Kerry invariably accompanied by flattering pictures and worshipful commentary from friends and colleagues but the focus on issues and Kerry’s position on them were from a decidedly Democratic point of view. When the “documentary” for instance, focused on Iraq, the liberation wasn’t even mentioned. Instead, the “issues” were Abu Ghraib, rising casualties, and the futility expressed by commenter after commenter.

Contrasting that portrayal of Kerry and the issues, with images of the President in the most unflattering light imaginable along with backhanded compliments (even from friends!) is what made the piece so fascinating to me. I couldn’t tear my eyes away from it. It was exactly like watching a really bad movie. You just had to stick around and see how much worse it could get.

“Frontline Election Special” did not disappoint.

Recently, Tomlinson sought to have PBS stations live up to their charter in deeds as well as words by holding up the contract local stations sign with the Corporation:

Recently, PBS refused for months to sign its latest contract with the corporation governing federal financing of national programming, holding up the release of $26.5 million. For the first time, the corporation argued that PBS’s agreeing to abide by its own journalistic standards was not sufficient, but that it must adhere to the “objectivity and balance” language in the charter. In a January letter to the leaders of the three biggest producing stations, in New York, Boston and Washington, the deputy general counsel of PBS warned that this could give the corporation editorial control, infringing on its First Amendment rights and possibly leading to a demand for balance in each and every show.

As it stands now, Tomlinson can do little except fight a rear guard action on behalf of conservatives. He’s pushed to have Paul Gigot’s excellent “The Journal’s Editorial Report” featuring Wall Street Journal reporters and editors accepted going so far as assisting in lining up the private financing necessary to put it on the air. But such programming is a drop in the bucket compared to the implacable leftist slant that permeates programming on public TV.

I don’t support cutting off all funding for public television for the simple reason there are programs that simply would not find a home anywhere else in the increasingly dull uniformity of cable and satellite channels. But some reform is necessary. And Mr. Tomlinson appears to be doing the best he can.

Anytime you get liberals angry at you, you’ve got to be doing something right.

UPDATE

Jesse Taylor has some intelligent thoughts on relative bias:

PBS hosts/hosted Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot, who just happen to also be conservative talking heads on 24-hour cable nets - the conservative presence at PBS in one fell swoop has far outstripped any liberal influence the channel might have…but it may still be infected with the dread liberalism.

MMMMM…I don’t know if I buy it. If you have 1 hour of Paul Gigot (Carlson’s show, now cancelled, was as quirky and boring as the host’s ridiculous bow ties) and 23 hours of POV, Moyers, etc. it seems like a stretch to say that the impact of someone as recognizable (?) as Paul Gigot outweighs everything else.

Then again, I’m not used to thinking like a liberal. Now, maybe if I put my tin foil hat on and adjust it like so…

UPDATE II

One more interesting note…A Technorati search reveals that out of 27 blogs posting on this NYT story, I seem to be the only conservative. C’mon guys help me out here!

When Italian communist and propagandist Giuliana Sgrena first began her rollercoaster ride to leftist stardom following the tragedy at the Bagdhad checkpoint, I thought that the most damage she could do with her crazy-quilt patchwork of lies and distortions of fact was in undermining the Italian government’s steadfast support for US policy in Iraq. After all, the Italians have 3000 troops assisting our military in trying to secure that country and Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi has had a tough time trying to maintain support for the mission while trying to stay in power himself.

It now appears that Sgrena’s lies have taken on a life of their own with devastating consequences for our military in Iraq as well as some innocent civilians here at home.

The fervor whipped up by Sgrena’s bloodcurdling tales of being targeted by the US military for her anti-war beliefs have roiled Italian politics. Not only has the Prime Minister agreed to start withdrawing Italian troops beginning in September, but the investigation into the checkpoint incident by the US government has been completely discredited by Italian investigators to the point where they will issue their own report later this week accusing the military of tampering with evidence:

The official Italian report on the incident expected to be published this week will accuse the American military of tampering with evidence at the scene of the shooting.

The Americans invited two Italians to join in their inquiry, but the Italian representatives protested at what they claimed was lack of objectivity in presenting the evidence and returned to Rome.

Relations between Rome and Washington remain tense.

In short, Berlusconi won’t touch the American report on the incident with a ten foot pole. Thanks to Sgrena’s propaganda campaign (with a great big wet kiss salute to the rabidly anti-American Italian media) and the fact that Berlusconi is in an impossible political position, Italian authorities are, in effect, forced to partially acknowledge Sgrena’s point, albeit in a roundabout sort of way. By accusing the American military of tampering with evidence, they concede American duplicity but not culpability. Sgrena’s claim she was targeted is allowed to die a quiet death while the Italian media rails against American falsity and a cover-up of trigger happy GI’s who shoot first and ask questions later.

It’s all Berlusconi’s got and it will probably work.

Meanwhile, the entire report absolving the soldiers at the checkpoint, including material that was orginally classified, was published over the weekend in Italian newspapers:

A Greek medical student at Bologna University who was surfing the web early on Sunday found that with two simple clicks of his computer mouse he could restore censored portions of the report.

He passed the details to Italian newspapers which immediately put out the full text on their own websites.

The missing text contains the names and ranks of all of the American military personnel involved in the killing of Nicola Calipari, the Italian agent who was given a state funeral and awarded Italy’s highest medal of valour.

Revealing the names and ranks of all the soldiers involved in the attack is flat out irresponsible. Not only does it place those soldiers at risk of retaliation by any number of loons and crackpots-including rogue elements in the Italian intelligence community who may seek revenge- it also places their families at risk here in the United States. As sure as night follows day there are already reporters hard at work trying to track down parents, spouses, siblings, and other family members of those soldiers who will just as surely reveal their location. These innocents will now live in fear for their lives as terrorists wishing to make a media splash or some domestic anti-war moonbat could target them.

At the very least, once their names are revealed, the families will suffer harassment at the hands of the anti-war crowd - a price no family with sons or daughters in a war zone should ever have to pay.

The classified sections of the report make pretty dry reading -unless you’re a terrorist or insurgent seeking to kill American soldiers. Here’s Austin Bay’s excellent analysis in which he points out an advantage to our enemies if they decide to target an armored vehicle called a “Rhino Bus.”

The “classified” sections on “Rhino Bus” (armored bus) convoy operations leave me cold, but for that matter, so do the unclassified sections. If I could erase anything from the posted document it would be this material– but I can’t. Once it’s on the Internet it’s out there. (The Rhino Bus schlepps US and coalition personnel between installations in Baghdad. It’s an impressive beast with bullet-proof glass and armor.)

That’s my gut reaction. Now a cooler caveat. Close observation of the freeway gives a clever enemy those details, and Route Irish passes hundreds of houses and apartment buildings– each one a p0tential observation post. The Rhino Bus material from the report (probably) confirms the details gleaned by enemy observers.

So how do we deal with it? The enemy knows what we want to do (move the Rhino Bus). He knows how we’ve done it in the past (based on his intelligence gathering and now this report).

Commanders will now change the routine– amend convoy times, vary routes, vary convoy vehicle mix, vary the lay-down of traffic control points. (The Sunni holdouts and Zarqawi’s klan change tactics and procedures– it’s a vicious dynamic of war.

Other operational details could, according to Mr. Bay, simply confirm information that the insurgents already had. While not as damaging, by confirming intel the insurgents can now reassign assets that would have been used in trying to validate the information. In other words, the release of classified material just made our enemies job a little easier.

The released report comes on the heels of some leaked information regarding satelite evidence that confirm the fact that Sgrena was lying through her teeth when she said that the car was going at a “normal” speed of about 30 MPH. The images show the Italian’s car was travelling closer to 60 MPH which probably means the driver was intent on running the checkpoint.

At the very least, Giuliana Sgrena’s lies set in motion a series of events that now lead to the probablity that Americans both here and in Iraq are in greater danger. For that alone, she should be held in the utmost contempt by decent people everywhere. Her actions following the tragedy at the checkpoint have proven her to be a small time bunko artist whose 15 minutes of infamy have now turned into an unending nightmare for our military and their families.

Others with Analysis and Updates:

Michelle Malkin does her usual great job with some prescient analysis and links to the best sources of information on the story.

Blackfive points out why Kevin Drum and the gloating left should keep their damned mouths shut.

Kevin at Wizbang questions the CBS story on satelite evidence regarding the Italian car and links it with the released report.

Rhiel World questions the docs themselves finding some interesting discrepancies.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE

The Captain points to the Italians issuing their report today. He also pokes some pretty gigantic holes in their story if they’re going to contradict what they said a few weeks ago about not informing the Americans of the transfer:

Readers who have followed this story closely will already see the holes developing in the Italian rebuttal, if the BBC report is accurate. First, the three-second warning does not reflect on American action nearly as much as it indicates the rate of speed that Calipari’s car approached the checkpoint. By acknowledging the three-second time span, Italy admits that the car traveled at much faster speeds towards the checkpoint than Sgrena first claimed, making the reason for shooting the car plain. Second, it demonstrates that the Americans did try to warn the driver to slow down and did not simply open fire, either out of malice or incompetence.

As far as whether the Americans knew about Calipari’s mission at all, Italian newspapers answered that question in March, when two of them reported that not only did Italian commander not tell the Americans about the hostage release, he may not have known about it himself. General Mario Marioli sent his report to Rome, where presumably investigators still have access to it. The reason for the secrecy emerged within days of Sgrena’s release and subsequent wounding, when Italy’s ransom payment to the terrorists became public knowledge.

I think the Capn’ has nailed it. Any way you want to look at it, the Italian report will be for domestic consumption. They’ll probably ignore any contradictory statements made previously and stonewall when it comes to any explanations for the discrepancies.

Can’t we all just get along?

The rhetoric on both sides of the religious debate has plain and simple gone too far. Now, don’t get me wrong. I enjoy hyperbole as much as the next political hothead. But this idea that the religious right is about ready to establish a Taliban-like theocracy unless they’re stopped is not only absurd, it’s a slap in the face to those of us who are not religious in that they actually think we’re stupid enough to believe it.

This is what came out of a weekend conference of the loony left that met to discuss the “problem” of the coming theocracy:

“The religious right now has an unprecedented influence on American politics and policy,” said Ralph White, co-founder of the Open Center, a New York City institution focused on holistic learning. “It is incumbent upon all of us to understand as precisely as possible its aims, methods, beliefs, theology and psychology.”

Ah! The “psychology” of the religious right. This is a favorite tactic of the left going back to the election of 1964 when a dozen or so prominent psychiatrists signed a letter stating that in their opinion, Goldwater was nuttier than a fruitcake. By implying there’s a “psychology” to religious conservatism what they’re really saying is there’s a pathology at work - a disease factor - when someone believes in God; or at least with more fervor than they do.

Walking into this conference sounds like walking onto the set of some Hollywood movie, a hellish adaptation of some Stephen King novel where the monsters are on the loose and only a brave few are left to battle the evil stalking the land:

“This may be the darkest time in our history,” said Bob Edgar, general secretary of the left-leaning National Council of Churches and former six-term Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania. “The religious right have been systematically working at this for 40 years. The question is, where is the religious left?”

Speakers outlined such concepts — others would say conspiracy theories — as Christian reconstructionism and dominionism to a crowd that Mr. White said does “not understand the further reaches of religion.”

Notice that former Rep. Edgar wonders where the religious left is. I would say they’re right where they’ve been for the last 50 years - right in the thick of politics working like hell to have judges and politicians espousing their viewpoints elected and appointed. But you see, that’s perfectly alright if you’re a liberal. You can throw God in the face of conservatives for years, telling us we’re “immoral” for opposing any aspect of the welfare state. But when Christians stand up and timidly ask that you not put bare breasts or naked buttocks on prime time TV all of a sudden they’re the Taliban:

Tax cuts combined with increased funding for faith-based social programs and decreases in welfare spending, Ms. Bokaer said, were examples of “the theological right … zealously setting up to establish their beliefs in all aspects of our society.”

She compared the Federal Communications Commission’s threatened crackdown on indecency on television with the Taliban, the repressive Islamic rulers of Afghanistan who harbored Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network until toppled by a U.S.-led invasion.

“Indecency police are a major part of theocratic states,” Ms. Bokaer said, flashing a picture of Islamic women covered head to foot under the title, “Taliban: Ministry for the Protection of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.”

This is loony. This isn’t just over-the-top rhetoric. What’s truly frightening is that these moonbats actually think they’re battling evil. But then, liberals aren’t really happy unless they’re standing on the castle wall, outnumbered and besieged by a ruthless enemy, with the townsfolk looking up at them with a look of awe and worshipful admiration.

LOOK AT ME! I’M GOOD! I’M FIGHTING UNSELFISHLY TO PROTECT YOU FROM EVIL! LOVE ME!

At bottom, liberals have the emotional maturity of 12 year old girls - minus the cuteness.

There was one voice of sanity at this conference. It came from Chip Berlet of the human rights watchdog Political Research Associates:

“I’m uncomfortable when I hear people of sincere religious faith described as religious political extremists,” he said. “What does that term mean? It’s a term of derision that says we’re good and they’re bad. There is no content.”

Afterward, in an interview, Mr. Berlet added: “The Democrats do just as much name-calling as the right. It’s great for fund raising. [But] it’s a heck of a way of building a social progressive movement.”

But Mr. Berlet has been a lone voice tossed about on an ocean of hyperbole and intolerance.

The left is now in full-throated cry against religious conservatives. Politically, they think they’ve found a winning issue. Just as the left used to browbeat Republicans every two years over social security by scaring the beejeebees out of old folks, telling them Republicans wanted to steal their social security checks and put them out on the street so they could eat dog food, liberals are now excited at the prospect of hoodwinking their fellow citizens by raising the specter of “theocracy.” Aided and abetted by the usual suspects in the media who know a good story when they see it (especially if it hurts Republicans), the left, as Mr. Berlet points out, is raising gobs of money and attracting all sorts of attention by accusing Christians of…what?

The same thing they’ve been doing for 50 years: Participating in the democratic process as citizens of the United States of America.

The left is barking up the wrong tree if they think the American people are worried about stake burnings for heretics or Colosseum like spectacles involving hungry lions, tigers, and bears for network executives who put lewd or lascivious fare on TV.

Although… the prospect of seeing some network suit running around the arena in his own “reality TV show” just might prove to me that there is in fact a God.

UPDATE

The Captain knows exactly who to blame for this witch hunt:

This orgy of namecalling and paranoid conspiracies gets its impetus from such politicians as Howard Dean, Al Gore, and Ken Salazar, who have green-lighted a war on religion from the Left, especially during this debate over judicial filibusters. They have rationalized the unprecedented obstruction of qualified judicial nominees for their religious beliefs by creating out of whole cloth a threat to the Republic from Christianity, which managed to co-exist with democracy and promote it for over 200 years up to now.

McGehee at Yippee Yi Kay! is also blogging the story with some links to other thoughts on establishing state religions.

Zimbabwe’s dictator Robert Mugabe is probably enjoying this joke as much as anyone:

Zimbabwe, the human rights pariah accused of violence, intimidation and suppression of free speech against its people, has been re-elected to the United Nations Human Rights Commission for a three-year term over the strong protests of Australia, the US and Canada.

“How can we expect the Government of Zimbabwe to support international human rights standards at the Commission on Human Rights when it has blatantly disregarded the rights of its own people?” asked William Brencick, of the US.

Zimbabwe maintained repressive controls on political opposition and the media, and encouraged “a climate where the opposition fears for its safety”, Mr Brencick said.

President Mugabe, whose autocratic rule has been condemned around the world for its brutality, is nothing if not a wildly creative dictator. The elections last spring should be held up as an example to all would-be autocrats for the ingenious and innovative ways in which Mugabe and his thugs stole the contest:

“Thousands were turned away from the polling booths, there are serious, unexplained discrepancies between votes tallied and the official numbers later announced.

“Other abuse was rife. This included food aid being misused, ghost voters, a lack of equal access to the media, abuse of draconian security legislation and an election commission packed with Zanu-PF supporters,” he added.

He said even observers approved by Mr Mugabe had commented that at least 10% of voters were prevented from casting their vote, while independent observers put the figure closer to 30%.

Mugabe even went so far as to appear at a rally shortly after the polls closed congratulating himself on his “victory over imperialism.”

For all Mugabe’s shennanigans, the real comedy here is that the UN Human Rights Commission is slated by Kofi (”Talk to the hand. I’m not guilty”) Anan to be disbanded. The reason? Duh!

In a wide-ranging series of reforms unveiled earlier this year, Annan said he wanted to replace the rights commission with a permanent, smaller council composed of member states committed to tackle abuse throughout the world. “We have reached a point at which the commission’s declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole,” Annan said earlier this month.

I’ll say this about the crook; he has a marvelously understated sense of irony and a keen eye for the absurd. After he’s finished at the UN - and if he’s not in jail somewhere - he may have a future as a stand-up comic or maybe a writer for “Comedy Central.”

Mark Noonan says “it’s like electing Al Capone Police Commissioner.” With past members like Cuba and Sudan, the Human Rights group may want to consider renaming itself the “UN Commission on Bovine Excrement.” That’s what they’ve been shoveling our way for years.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network