While defending PBS against what she regards as unfounded attacks that it is politically partial, Mitchell said she was not questioning Tomlinson's motives.No, certainly not. When he looks at PBS and sees a liberal tilt, he's just a victim of his own unconscious bias.
Mitchell said PBS presents political views as diverse as those of Moyers and Paul Gigot . . .One of those two (guess who!) is an actual journalist with actual experience in putting out a newspaper, on both sides of the "chinese wall." The other is and always has been a partisan hack masquerading as a journalist (although PBS is increasingly the only broadcast source that buys his act) who more and more has become a mindless bombthrower.
"The facts do not support the case he makes" for political bias, Mitchell said of Tomlinson. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority of the public does not perceive bias in public broadcasting, she said.Jesus, did she really say that? Hold on . . . Yeah, she did. There's no bias in public broadcasting because "surveys show . . ." Talk about your rock-solid evidence. I bet NPR listeners think that's pretty balanced, too. And most people who read Paul Krugman's column think that he's got a pretty solid grip on the facts. Let's face it: Public broadcasting, for obvious reasons, isn't likely to get a lot of repeat business from conservatives, which tends to leave them underrepresented when it comes time to survey PBS's viewership.
As a final, though not dispositive, point, I cite O'Sullivan's first law: "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing." In my experience, this is true, doubly so for any organization that feeds from the public teat.