The fallout continues from Charles McGrath's essay "Is PBS Still Necessary?", published in the New York Times on February 17th. Public television's Newshour has, understandably, paid close attention to the piece, inviting its fans to post response comments on its Web site. Here's one I'll bet the PBS suits especially like:

I find the comment of the New York Times writer [McGrath] , "Jim Lehrer, 73, has been with “NewsHour” since 1975, so long that some of his early viewers are now in assisted living," to be both condescending, and a cynical attempt to lead readers to a discriminatory judgment. This article (Is PBS Still Necessary?) is contemptible and beneath the 'dignity' of the New York Times. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is the best news program on television.

To be fair to the poster's feelings, McGrath no doubt intended to be provocative when writing the essay, eg. his left-handed dismissal of accusations of left-wing bias:

"Scanning the PBS lineup, in fact, it’s hard to detect much of a bias toward anything at all, except possibly mustiness. Except for 'Antiques Roadshow,' all the prime-time stalwarts — 'The NewsHour,' 'Nova,' 'Nature,' 'Masterpiece' — are into their third or fourth decade, and they look it. . . . Since corporate sponsors were allowed to extend their 'credit' announcements to 30 seconds, commercials in all but name have been a regular feature on public television, and that’s not to mention pledge programs, the fund-raising equivalent of water-boarding."

McGrath says he likes public radio better, arguing that "by not trolling after ratings, it has managed to stay distinctive: it does what nothing else on radio does and sticks to its core: news and public affairs and the oddball weekly show like 'Car Talk' and 'A Prairie Home Companion'." But it should be noted that, like public television, public radio broadcasts spots that are, for all practical purposes, commercials. They just have to stay within certain bounds. Read the rest at allvoices.com

Bookmark/Search this post with: