TV Worth Blogging

I would trade both Newshour and NBR for NOW.

Bill Moyers and NOW were just about the only two voices “We the People” had left on any mainstream media.  Almost everything else just presents far-right balanced by center-right viewpoints.  Our media, politicians and public phyche all are now controlled of, by and for the welfare of corporations at the expense of the Good of the Whole.

We the People will miss our voice.

Without Bill Moyers and NOW, we might as well give up on public TV.  Why give them more money?  It’s clear they are in thrall to the corporations, like the rest of TV and the mainstream media.

Dear Mr. Thiel,
What is your understanding of why Now is being cancelled and do you know of any movements to have it reinstated?  I believe its cancellation strikes a stake in the heart of our democracy, which depends on an informed citizenry.  Week after week it explores and tells the truth about our government and the powers and forces that rule America.  It truly fulfills the PBS mission.

    I fear that under the guise of PBS “reinventing” its “news genre” it is being closed down for political reasons, just as it was in 2004.  Can you shed any light? Anyone interested in discussing this please write to me at hschoen at superlink.net.

While I don’t profess to have the inside scoop on the workings at PBS, I have no sense that there’s anything sinister going on.

Shows get cancelled; that’s one of the immutable rules of television. NOW has a had more than respectable eight year run, including the three with Bill Moyers at the helm.

If NOW wasn’t cancelled for political reasons during the previous administration, there’s no reason to believe that it would be now, in a climate that is on the whole friendlier toward public broadcasting.

That said, finances continue to be very tight. PBS has never had much money available to develop new ongoing series. The only way they can try anything new is to drop something else.

A new public affairs series, NEED TO KNOW, will premiere in May. I’ll have more details in an upcoming blog post, but we’re told that it will focus on “the economy, energy and environment, health, security and culture.”

Speaking of long runs—what about the Charlie Rose Show?  With the cancellation of Now, there will not be even one-half hour of a progressive voice on PBS, unless you count Front-Line, which is much more occasional and impersonal in its documentary format.  And yet neocon Charlie Rose is allowed to continue his five night a week reign of biased, right-wing interviewing ad infinitum.  During the eight years of Bush he was a cheerleader for the Iraq war and the Administration, cutting off his few guests with opposing views; now his mission is to bait guests into saying that Obama has made a mistake about whatever the issue of the day is.  How does that comport with the PBS mission?  Why doesn’t PBS shut him down to make room for new programming?  That will be the day.

I would disagree that progressive viewpoints on public television are confined to “Now”/“Bill Moyers’ Journal.” Check out “P.O.V.” and “Independent Lens,” our two ongoing independent documentary series. You’ll hear a lot of different voices on those.

Besides, as I pointed out, there will be a new public affairs series entitled “Need to Know” premiering in May. (See yesterday’s blog post for details.) While it’s too early to say, you may find that it picks up where “Now” left off.

Regarding “Charlie Rose,” I have to say that in my 22 years in public television, this is literally the first time I’ve heard any comment made about his politics. (And trust me, over the years I’ve heard a lot of complaints about political bias made from both left and right, sometimes about the same shows.)

The PBS mission isn’t about airing progressive—or neoconservative—voices, it’s about presenting viewpoints from across the spectrum of political, cultural and religious thought. That means that at times there will be people with whom you’ll disagree.

Why does one show continue while another is cancelled? It’s not a game of “well, you cancelled X, so you should cancel Y too.” They don’t all emanate from the same place; they’re not all funded in the same way; they don’t all serve the same purpose. A magazine show with reporters and field pieces is likely to be much more expensive to produce than a talk show shot on a “limbo” set in a studio. The expectations for prime-time are different for those of late night. There are probably a hundred other factors, and I don’t pretend to know them all.

In the end, I think it comes down to this: PBS wants to experiment with new forms of news gathering—including citizen journalism—and to better tie together its web and broadcast efforts. The “Newshour” recently changed its format to meet this mandate. They’ve got something similar in mind with this new Friday night series, and it’s too early to tell how it will pay off. I hope that you’ll give “Need to Know” a chance this May.

I will miss both Moyers and Now. Whether I will be watching much PBS as much after the changes depends on how they play out but I do worry that they will not bring us the sort of coverage that these shows have provided. I want more international news and more investigative reporting. I am not particularly interested in hearing other people’s opinions in lieu of news and in depth reporting.

Monsanto is now a major contributor to PBS.  They sponsor the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.  Hmmmmmmm

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I’ll be honest here, it bothers me when others imply that public television programming decisions are made to serve corporate interests. Every major public TV program supplier, and most (if not all) stations have rules to maintain a separation of funder and content. As an industry and as individuals, we take that responsibility seriously and speak up when something appears to cross the line. It’s not a perfect system, and I’m sure that someone can point to an example or three that slipped through. (Usually, but not always, they come from “off-brand” producers.)

What I’ve *never* seen is a scenario in which Corporation A funds Show B, but only if Show C is cancelled. Especially when Show C has no financial or organizational relationship to Show B except that they both air on Program Service D. It would be like Burger King agreeing to buy advertising on “Dancing with the Stars” only if ABC cancelled “Ugly Betty.”

How can you present “viewpoints from across the spectrum of political, cultural and religious thought” if progressive viewpoints are not presented?

And I find the FOX-style “fair and balanced reporting” rhetoric incredibly disingenuous. Not all viewpoints are equal, and not all pundits and commentators deserve the same level of exposure/coverage—giving equal time to the lunatic fringe as rational discourse is not objectivity. I’m not saying that that’s what PBS does, but let’s not pretend that giving equal voice to all political leanings makes a media network more respectable.

Likewise, feigning to have no political leanings does not put one above those with expressed political convictions (though simple-minded partisans we may be). Being a centrist isn’t ‘taking the moral high-ground’; it’s a moral cop-out. So don’t dismiss complaints from people just because they’re honest about their political leanings.

Honesty and integrity should be the goal of any good media network, not trying to maintain the appearance of perfect political impartiality. Truth and reality aren’t formed from democratic consensus or averaging two extremes. Often times, journalistic integrity means taking a stand on a controversial issue and expressing unpopular views, even if it results in accusations of partisanship.

Who said that progressive viewpoints will not be presented? If you are a regular viewer of “Independent Lens” and “P.O.V.,” you know that’s not true. For example, next month we will air the broadcast premiere of the Oscar-nominated film “Food, Inc.” I suspect that a harsh look at the food industry will be deemed “controversial” by some here in the midst of the agricultural belt. But we’ll show it in primetime, because that’s what we do.

Honestly, I’d have an easier time responded to your other accusations if I’d actually written any of the things you’ve attributed to me. You’ll never find me claiming “fair and balanced.” That’s a cable network’s marketing slogan, not the mission statement of WILL.

Balance, in my view, isn’t tit-for-tat. It’s not about giving equal time to extreme opinions. That’s what you’ll find on some television channels. But that’s not WILL. We promote honest, rational discussion of ideas. You may not like all of the ideas you hear, but that’s okay.

We air thousands of hours of programming across three channels. I challenge anyone to watch us every night from 5:00 pm - 10:00 pm during a single Monday to Friday period and then tell me that we only engage in simple-minded partisanship.

If you truly find that to be the case, I want to be told about it. But I will tell you that in my two decades at WILL, I’ve found that virtually all complaints of bias boil down to someone picking out one or two program segments with which they disagree and declaring them to be “all they ever hear.”

I don’t dismiss arguments because they arise from an identifiable ideology. What I do object to is the presumption that our programming decisions have hidden political or financial motives. I know that that’s not true of WILL. I don’t believe it to be true of PBS.

I agree that honesty and integrity are absolutely important if we are to maintain the trust of our viewers. That’s why I’ve been engaging in an open and truthful conversation in this forum. I’m not the spokesperson for PBS or the entire public television system, but I will attempt to respond to questions about WILL-TV to the best of my ability.

For the record, I’m sorry that Bill Moyers will not be on our air on a regular basis. He’s been a powerful voice for many years, and I have the greatest respect for him. I think he’s earned his retirement, but I hope that he’ll come back from time to time.

THIS PROGRAM WAS THE LAST BASTION OF HOPE FOR CITIZENS IN THIS WRETCHED NATION IN DESPERATE NEED FOR ACTUAL INFORMATION—NOT OPINIOTAINMENT. 

I WILL MISS IT DESPERATELY.  I HOPE THEY KEEP THE ARCHIVES OF THE PROGRAMS ON THE PBS WEBSITE. 

HIS PROGRAM WAS THE ONLY REASON WE USED TO SEND DONATIONS.  I THINK I’M GOING TO CRY.

I came upon your site only after following a link to find out more about Moyers’ retirement. After reading through all the comments, and your own responses to them, I have two of my own: 1) I really wish WILLtv was available for my own viewing pleasure, and 2) PBS would be lucky to have it’s OWN David Thiel. Thank you for your efforts, and keep up the great work!

We will miss Bill Moyers, but he really has earned the right to retire if he so wishes.  He has been a beacon of light for many years.  But we are very upset about NOW.  David Brancaccio and Maria Hinajosa were wonderful at digging out the underbelly.  I wish PBS would be a little more transparent about the reasons behind its decisions.

The loss of Bill Moyer’s and the spin off “Now” program are a dark point in public broadcast history… similar to the end of Edward R. Murrow.  It appears PBS has chosen the “safe road” of broadcasting mindless pap like the endless reruns of the Irish Tenors, or endless variations of Dr. Wayne Dyer telling us how evolved and humble he with his walls of awards in his 3 million dollar Hawaii home.  Truly brilliant investigative journalism does not fit in an oligarchy like the US.  There journalism wasn’t afraid to take on the big banks, Wall Street, and Washington DC hypocrisy.  Farewell independent news.  Hello Pravda.

Bill Moyers has been a given on my regular viewing schedule for a long time.  Not necessarily because of his political bent (although I am liberal in my leanings), but because of the quality of the journalism.  Charlie Rose is in the same category.  Both hosts provide an environment of varied perspectives which allow the viewer to virtually engage themselves in the conversation.  This is, of course, unlike right wing blowhards who promote only their own narrow point of view. 

The fact that Bill Moyers is retiring is significant in that he is only a man and has had a good run, but now wants time for himself outside of his public persona.  Hero worship is a very real social phenomenon.  How easy it is to embrace the values of someone so erudite and forget his common humanity.  Instead of mourning his passing from the airwaves, my response is to wonder where the next one of his ilk will come from.  Just as Barak Obama emerged from obscurity to become the leader of the United States, surely there are other journalists waiting in the wings for a chance to grab the baton of balanced journalism. 

If there doesn’t seem to be anyone willing or able to fill the void, I would have to ask myself how willing I would be to make the sacrifices necessary to do what no one else will: put themselves on the line as watchdogs and informers of things as they really are.  In the end, I am grateful for what good journalists we do have and trust that our democracy and PBS will allow for and produce others of the likes of Bill Moyers given time and support. 

I look at this change not as an ending, but as the promise of a new beginning.  And never forget that if we are not part of the solution we are a part of the problem.  Get involved somehow, anyhow!  Try hosting your own show on Public Access TV and find out what life in the media is really all about for yourself.  Who knows?  The next journalist superstar might be you!

I am saddened by the departure of Billl Moyers and Brian Boccaccio, NOW. I’ve looked forward to these shows to tell the truth of what’s really going on in the US.
I’ve rearranged my calender to be sure to watch these shows. It will be a loss to those PBS viewers, like myself, who have depended on PBS to provide the truth.

With their leaving PBS, it will be a challenge for the channel to come up with programs that are equally as informative and honest in reporting.  Many of us feel overwhelmed by government’s limited truthful communications with the public. We need someone willing to investigate behind the scenes of many issues only superficially reported in the newspaper.  I mourn the loss of Bill Moyers and NOW.

If trustworthy programming is not forthcoming, I will seriously reconsider donating to PBS.  I never thought it would ever come to this sense of loss of truth-exposing programs on PBS.

Just a thought: The level of funding of Now, as of this Sunday 4/25, has dramatically diminished. Three sponsors compared to a roster of 10-12 a few years ago. One can only speculate why it is so, but the cruel fact is that money has been less forthcoming. A verdict?

I feel like the world just spun suddenly and violently to the right and I am sliding off hanging on only by my fingernails.  The loss of Bill Moyers Journal and Now at the same time is just too much.  Most TV coverage of important issues has been superficial and biased; we relied on Moyers and Now for some balance.  PBS has made a huge mistake and violated a trust with it’s viewers.

With their leaving PBS, it will be a challenge for the channel to come up with programs that are equally as informative and honest in reporting.  Many of us feel overwhelmed by government’s limited truthful communications with the public. We need someone willing to investigate behind the scenes of many issues only superficially reported in the newspaper.  I mourn the loss of Bill Moyers and NOW.

Sad to see Bill go, its been quite a journey, the memories I will cherish. Enjoy your retirement. Bill, get a tan at some tropical paradise or just have fun with family and friends.