An old friend has sent me an article by Brent Bozell concerning the sexual harassment problems at the long-time American institutions NPR and PBS:
The swift revolution against sexual harassment is ending the careers of a series of media “icons,” left and right. But perhaps nowhere is this hypocrisy more notable (and deeper) than at PBS and NPR. These were the entities that made sexual harassment the boiling feminist issue when Anita Hill testified during Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearing in 1991.
Here’s an easy question: Why didn’t this sudden spirit of self-discovery and investigation happen back then? Or in any year since? It could have happened when then-President Bill Clinton settled with Paula Jones in 1998, or even last year as these networks enjoyed reporting on sexual harassment scandals inside Fox News. All along the way, it appears that very same sexual harassment was alive at both PBS and NPR.
I’ll just interrupt the tirade to note that this is a very typical rant. PBS and NPR have been long time targets of the right-wing due to both content and the fact that they’re funded through taxes, one of the evils of government. More importantly, though, is that leadoff statement: “These were the entities that made sexual harassment the boiling feminist issue when Anita Hill testified during Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearing in 1991.” This assertion is provided without proof, and, in actual fact, this would be exceptionally difficult to prove or disprove. Brent slips it in as a way to ratchet up the emotional content of the article, and he wants that for a very specific reason.
After a series of shots at the current shooting gallery members, Brent finishes:
In what way, then, is “public” broadcasting morally superior to corporate broadcasting? And how deep is the hypocrisy on the left considering it waited decades to hold sexual harassers in its own taxpayer-funded ideological sandboxes accountable? They don’t deserve one more red cent from taxpaying Americans.
And did you catch the sleight of hand? He’s tried to suggest that public funding is all about paying the salaries of sexual harassers.
Well, no. We all know that’s false, we just need to be reminded that PBS and NPR missions have nothing to do with hypocrisy, they have to do with public service. The fact that powerful men and women[1] may use their positions for morally dubious purposes is not confined to any one ideology, although some do not condemn it or may even celebrate it (not common in the American milieu, though). We see it at Fox News, NBC, and it seems positively rife in religious settings – although I’m sure an intellectually honest measurement would show it to be sparse.
But the proper response is to correct the situation, not to indulge in an impulsive termination of the entire enterprise, and that’s what we’re seeing – powerful people being fired. The enterprise should be judged on how well it fulfills its mission, and how important that mission is to the nation. Note that the question of sexual harassment does have an impact on the performance of the mission, because sexual harassment has a negative impact on the productivity of those who are victimized. An organization demoralized by a boss whose proclivities are not properly restrained will not be a successful organization.
Also, note Brent’s intellectual dishonesty of implying “the left” even knew about these offenders in their midst. It would be equally dishonest for me to suggest that the fans (or former fans) of Bill O’Reilly, ex-employee of Fox News and host of their “O’Reilly Factor,” the most popular cable show for 16 years, were aware that he was a serial sexual harasser, and Fox News had actually made substantial payoffs to settle lawsuits resulting from his behavior, and they continued to watch regardless because they all approved. No, of course they didn’t know, because the entire sexual harassment phenomenon embarrasses the victims, and then if they do lodge complaints, they’re going up against people in powerful positions who can make their lives quite difficult. By the same token, “the left” has no general knowledge that some leader X is actually a sexual harasser.
Bozell should be ashamed that he wrote that sentence.
I’ll also note in passing his mistaken conflation of “the left” with PBS and NPR. The fact of the matter is that all of us pay, or have paid, taxes, and that gives all of us a stake in these enterprises. If they appear “liberal” to viewers of a conservative bent, this may be more indicative of the state of the world than the ideological mindset within these institutions.
Up to here, this is just a simple close reading of Bozell’s prose and being sensitive to the use of emotional currents to cover up intellectual weakness. But now I want to address one more point, using one of my hobby horses that’s been out to pasture for a while. Long time readers are aware of my analysis of the sectors of society, which boils down to realizing that categorizing our various sectors also reveals their differing goals, and how those goals necessarily affect the selection and optimization of processes for achieving those goals – and explains why attempting to import one sector’s processes into another sector is an intellectually suspect project, also known as “elected business leader Y because he has leadership experience.” And then he flops (with some exceptions). Interested readers should click here.
Brent asks,
In what way, then, is “public” broadcasting morally superior to corporate broadcasting?
Of course, firmly fixed in the pliant reader’s mind is the entire sexual harassment episodes, linked to hypocrisy, and how surely this compromises the entire “left” – a position I think is quite weak. But implied in that is a right-wing frustration that the private-sector model of news reporting is always considered a little suspect when compared with public broadcasting.
First, we need to understand the importance of accurate news and information dissemination in our society. We function and do well on good information; we misfire, we make poor decisions, we elect bad leaders, when we have poor quality information.
The processes and goals of our news sector should be bringing the best quality news and information to its viewers, uncontaminated by political and commercial concerns. That is the ideal. The roles of competition, innovation, delivery modes, gathering modes are interesting but irrelevant here. A key problem is that the viewing audience should reward those who do this task best, but that requires rationality from a species that is only capable of rationality, but is not rational itself.
So? Corporations have financial, political and commercial interests that can, and sometimes do, contaminate the information that reaches the audience. I’ve commented before on the ongoing disaster which is Fox News, and Bruce Bartlett’s analysis of same. Another example, which may become worse if the government neglects its role in preventing and dismantling monopolies, is the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which is trying to buy Tribune Media and thereby gain a dominant position in the market – and stifle competition. How are they contaminating information? From The New York Times (which might be considered a competitor, but has a long and honorable history in the news sector):
They are called “must-runs,” and they arrive every day at television stations owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group — short video segments that are centrally produced by the company. Station managers around the country are directed to work them into the broadcast over a period of 24 or 48 hours.
Since November 2015, Sinclair has ordered its stations to run a daily segment from a “Terrorism Alert Desk” with updates on terrorism-related news around the world. During the election campaign last year, it sent out a package that suggested in part that voters should not support Hillary Clinton because the Democratic Party was historically pro-slavery. More recently, Sinclair asked stations to run a short segment in which Scott Livingston, the company’s vice president for news, accused the national news media of publishing “fake news stories.”
Yes, because a news company is qualified to issue “terror alerts”. Nothing like amplifying the bad news and minimizing the good news in order to keep your audience cowed and compliant, eh? Compliant for what? Voting the way SBG wants.
So how does this connect to Brent’s plaint? Funding sources. Corporate broadcasting is necessarily tied to a company, which, to reiterate, will have commercial, financial, political, even religious desires – because corporations are motivated to deliver good news, but to make money, whether it be directly, or by manipulating the audience into doing what’s desired.
But public broadcasting? Readers who believe the funding is direct might complain that it, too, is susceptible to political influence – which is why the funding goes through a separate entity, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, thus insulating them from the strong political taint that might otherwise apply. Not that this will stop the determined leader at NPR or PBS from possibly tainting their productions – but that is not the mission, and employees will let that be known, as they appear to be a dedicated bunch.
And corporate broadcasters know the importance of appearing to be bringing you the best news. Consider Fox News‘ recently retired “Fair and Balanced” motto – anything but, but bought into by an audience eager to hear what it desired to hear, rather than what might be true but unpleasant. NBC, ABC, and CBS all have put together strong news rooms throughout the years, and exhibit journalism prizes and awards with pride and joy, for both journalistic and corporate reasons. A corporation is not staffed only with corporatists, but by specialists such as journalists.
Ditto the newspapers to varying degrees.
In a perfect world, the news sector would not have to intermingle with the private sector, and would produce news and information without contamination from those corporate interests, but that’s not the world we live in. The public funding of NPR and PBS is an attempt to inject some independence into a sector otherwise flooded with corporate intrusions and potential contaminations. By their very existence they are a reproach to the corporate broadcasters and publications who have failed the test of the ideal news sector, sometimes purposely. And, thus, the right’s anger – the reproach stings when one believes the private sector can do no wrong.
But the private sector is not the cure for all ills.
[h/t Greg Edmonds]
1While no women have yet been caught up in this nation-wide scandal, Disclosure (1994) is a graphic reminder that women may abuse their positions, too.
