Talk:Kenneth Tomlinson

Untitled

It seems like this page is entirely devoted to some kind of investigation into Kenneth Tomlinson's activities at PBS. Most of the writing in the article seems highly POV, especially the sentence with the citation leading to Newshounds. Newshounds is such a POV source that I was surprised to find it linked in a wikipedia article. While one may claim that it is only cited to show the kind of accusations being aimed at Tomlinson, it would be better to use a source that is so entirely biased that they could not be trusted to investigate any issue in a NPOV manner. --lborchardt 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.137.30 (talk)

Lborchardt: Tomlinson would probably not merit an entry were it not for his controversial activities at PBS. The remainder of your comment has been the subject of previous discussions, please read them below. Cronos1 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

oh boy, now he gone and done it. running a horse racing operation out of his office. not too smart, kenny boy. [1]

Accusation of Tomlinson turning PBS into a Fox-like right wing network: http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/25/kenneth_tomlinson_wants_pbs_to_get_foxed.php

& another:

http://prorev.com/2006/11/ken-tomlinson-fails-to-make-it-past.htm

I'm not certain about those refs. Newshounds looks like a blog, so its reliability is questionable. The prorev.com ref links to the WaPo (why not link to that, rather than to the bloggy and questionable "prorev.com?"), which is a reliable source, but it only talks about the horse-racing operation[2]—not any ideological efforts on Tomlinson's part.

I think it's likely that Tomlinson did intend to Foxify PBS, but you'll need better links if you're going to publish that in the article.--RattBoy 11:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Tomlinson intended to Foxify PBS, but whether critics levelled that specific charge as stated in the article. I provided two examples. I'm sure there are many others. I am not 'publishing' that in article, just reverting to the version which included the phrase that was edited out. Moreover, I believe the charge, erroneous or not, belongs in the article to provide context. Cronos1 23:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a 'non-blog' citation (tho, I don't really think blogs are automatically disqualified) its an op-ed from Broadcasting & Cable, a Television Trade Journal:

"When he uses terms like "fair and balanced" in talking about what PBS should be, it is understandably seen as code guaranteed to evoke charges of the "Foxification" of PBS and raise alarm bells with liberals and moderates, as well as with viewers who just don't care about a political agenda at all."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA621465.html?display=Opinion

Cronos1 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There has been another attempt to remove the 'Foxification' charge. This was a charge levelled at KT; it is relevant to the article regardless of whether the charge itself is accurate. If someone wishes to cite KT supporters or other critics who reject the 'Foxification' charge, that would be appropriate, but charge should remain. The WSJ editorial board is well known for being 'conservative', this aspect of the statement should remain. Cronos1 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

One of two things needs to happen. The sentence with the FOX statement needs to be changed, because it's confusing. From my viewpoint, it sounds as if the charge is simply being made that Fox is right wing, not that critics claim it's right wing. So, it either needs to be rewritten to clarify that or it needs to be removed, especially considering the source is Newshounds- a far left blog, which I think is safe to assume doesn't fit as a legit source.

Please sign your comments. The offending phrase (which I did not write) is 'accusations that he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right wing agenda similar to FOX television', is the explicitly expressed in the criticisms. If you wish to rewrite, fine. If you do not wish to be revised, you should write it in such a way that conveys the critics charge that KT's efforts were to make the station like Fox News and that the critics think this is an unbalanced Right Wing presentation of the news. Your description of 'Newshounds' as a far left blog would make some think you are coming from a far right POV. There is another source listed above which make this same charge (which can easily be substituted for the Newshounds citation), you may question what end of spectrum the criticisms come from, but you would need to provide some documentation to justify inclusion in the article, if you do not wish to be revised, that is.Cronos1 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed this text:

His close friendship with Karl Rove is one of many concerns the public has had about his own bias and his intent with respect to CPB, and accusations that he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right-wing agenda similar to FOX television.

As it violates Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources- Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Reviewing Newshounds about page shows that they are in fact a group blog.

Additionally, "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" I believe newshounds, which may be a great and valuable blog, meets the criteria of Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources, particularly as it relates to a living person, as they are primarily a blog of opinion.

Further, from my reading of the newshounds blog posting, and the transcr.ipt from a Fox news piece it includes, I cannot find how it in any way substantiates the statement that there were accusations that "he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right-wing agenda".

Finally, the content reverted stated that PBS had balanced content before Thomlinson's tenure. This is a matter of significant dispute.

Before this material is re-added, please address these issues.

Thanks! Packetmonger (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Packetmonger removed appropriately sourced material: "His close friendship with Karl Rove". Packetmonger removed 'foxification' charge based upon inappropriate use of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources; as has aleady been explained in discussion from December of 2006 and April 2007, this blog is not being cited as a source on the article subject, but as direct evidence of what subject's critics have said. If you wish to challenge, I urge you to do so..."If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

Whether you agree that Newshounds makes a compelling case is not important (nor is it important that someone thinks they do make a compelling arguement), what is important is that they are saying so in criticism of Tomlinson.

Finally, your POV that PBS was biased doesn't reflect the polling of PBS viewers at the point of history we are discussing, it doesn't mean you are wrong, it just means that you are introducing POV.Cronos1 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cronos1, I will be removing this one more time, based on the reasons above. If you continue to re-add it, I will report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. I lay out a clear reason why this content is not appropriate on objective grounds- I have not even discussed whether it is or is not helpful to the article, as I haven't developed an opinion on the subject yet. To answer your points (and you have not answered any of mine to date, so before you re-add, I think you should do so).

The close friendship element of the sentence is meaningless without the second half. Given that the page mentions that Mr Rove and Thomlinson are close friends three times, a simple statement that Mr Rove and Thomlinson are close friends, for a third time, with no other context is meaningless in this section. I will remove this element of the sentence again, as it is meaningless without the second part.

My reading of the past discussion on this matter is that you did not respond to the points made by other editors- you stated their points were meaningless because the section only states that "the public" believed something. I won't go into all the reasons this is a false argument, but will say that it is an argument that has been clearly answered in the guidelines for biographies of living people and other places.

As best I can tell, your point in Whether you agree that Newshounds makes a compelling case is not important (nor is it important that someone thinks they do make a compelling arguement), what is important is that they are saying so in criticism of Tomlinson. is that the blog is not being cited as a source on the article subject, but rather to show that critics have said negative things (I seem to have a difficult time parsing your sentences for meaning, so I am clarifying that this is how I am interpreting your sentence. This is a clear example of why Wikipedia policy does not allow single or group blogs, particularly opinion related ones, to be sources in a Biography of a Living person. You have not refuted (and I don't think you will be able to) that Newshounds is a group blog, or that it is an opinion blog. I have made no comment on whether newshounds makes a compelling case or not- I am reserving judgement on that because I believe that issue is pointless- it cannot be used as a source in this article per Wikipedia policy. Living people who are well known enough to have Biographies on Wikipedia are likely to have blogs written about them that express unusual views. That is but one reason they are not allowed.

Even if Newshounds were an appropriate source for this article, the article linked does not meaningfully support the statement you are making, unless I missed it when I read it. The title of the blog says foxification, and the first sentence says it, but none of the content discusses the subject- it merely quotes a (ironically, Fox) transcript showing that there was debate over what shows should not be on the air at PBS and whether KT was introducing bias. Then it goes on to note that Fox didn't quote Bill Moyers. Regardless of the validity of the source itself, the blog entry does not significantly support the statement made in the article.

If you can find better sources for this charge, then we can discuss whether this should be included- I will want to review Wikipedia policy to make sure it is appropriate and use common sense, but I am inclined to think that if there is evidence that there was widespread concern over the "foxification" of PBS it should be included- though, as stated previously, the article needs a significant amount of work reorganizing and cleaning it up. I have merely started with the most innocuous of edits and removing content that is improperly sourced and for which I cannot find other sources via trivial searching.

You are incorrect in stating that I am introducing POV wrt PBS bias. I never said anything revealing a POV on this subject, and certainly introduced no POV into the article. I said that the statement in the article demonstrated POV- that PBS was unbiased prior to KT. This is a point of contention and reflects POV. The sentence is not neutral. Again, the point is moot unless the citation is improved. If that is done, then I will make/propose appropriate changes to the section to make it more neutral-POV. Packetmonger (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

“Cronos1, I will be removing this one more time, based on the reasons above.”

Reasons which have already been explained to you are invalid. I will give you an example. Supposed Mr. Tomlinson’s friends have a blog that claims that he is the “best horse-owner in the USA”. It would be a violation of living persons biographies to write ‘Mr. Tomlinson is the best horse-owner in the USA’, it is not a violation to write ‘Mr. Tomlinson’s supporters say he is the best horse-owner in the USA.’ because the subject of the comment in the article is not Mr. Tomlinson but Mr. Tomlinson’s supporters. The same thing applies here, but we are talking about his critics.

“I will report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.”

I have already invited you to do so.

“To answer your points (and you have not answered any of mine to date, so before you re-add, I think you should do so).”

Not sure if this sentence fragment is supposed to mean something, but the parenthetical comments are not true.

“The close friendship element of the sentence is meaningless without the second half. “

I have re-read the article and agree that this reference comp’d to the other two seems unnecessary (not sure but this may have been the first mention). I did not write this originally, so do not know if original editor would have a problem, but I would accept ‘His critics have made accusations that he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right-wing agenda similar to FOX television.[7]’

“I have made no comment on whether newshounds makes a compelling case or not”

Maybe I am having trouble parsing meaning from your writing…“I cannot find how it in any way substantiates the statement that there were accusations that "he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right-wing agenda".

“You are incorrect in stating that I am introducing POV wrt PBS bias. I never said anything revealing a POV on this subject”

It’s really not worth talking about in the context of this sentence. I’m not going to revert, but will consider how to represent the opinions of Tomlinson’s critics. The reason this statement is needed in the article is to provide clarity to the position of KT and his critics. The reader can decide if KT or his critics are wrong. The IG’s findings that KT appears to violated Federal Law and CPB rules is followed up by two sentences where KT makes counter-charges and defends himself. On one hand, I’m not too sure that’s necessary. I mean, how many pages would you give John Hinckley to refute his verdict? On the other hand, I think it gives a more complete picture which is what including the opinions (stated as opinions, not fact) of KT’s critics provides.Cronos1 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You're comparing KT to someone who tried to kill a President of the USA, admitted to doing so, and was found not guilty by reason of insanity? The difference there is so vast it boggles the mind. In US Jurisprudence there is a significant difference between being found guilty, or admitting that you did something and being found not-guilty. Beyond that, there is an even larger distance to not being charged. There is yet further distance to not being criminally investigated. At each point on that spectrum, the person being accused should be allowed an increasingly larger amount of content to dispute the charges.

The IG reports carry weight, but they are not judicial, and in the State Department case, the prosecutor chose not even to pursue an investigation whereas in the CPB case either no one actually thought there was an enforceable law broken, or the prosecutor chose not to investigate or prosecute (I can find no further explanation than in the articles referenced here). This is significant. NPOV and policies on Biographies of Living Persons mean that KT's arguments should be fully documented. Packetmonger (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Unsourced content, grammatical errors, inaccurately listed as a religion related page, significant POV, General cleanup

I think most people would agree that this page needs some work.

A quick read through revealed significant POV- the lead implies that Thomlinson may still be under investigation and makes no mention of whether or how those investigations were resolved. The article contains several- perhaps many- unsourced and/or vague allegations (which may be true, I have no idea) such as that he hired lobbyists, that "the public" has had concerns about his bias, there are multiple mentions of a close and long friendship with Karl Rove, but I can find only one reference in one article that states that the two are friends, and no mention of the time of their friendship. The page states that Karl Rove helped Thomlinson get his position but provides no reference. An unlinked, undescribed New York Times article is used as a source, but since I cannot find the article, I have no way to evaluate the content. Mr Rove is described as President Bushes "Chief Advisor"- this is an opinion that has been contradicted by both Mr Bush and Mr Rove, and Mr Rove never (that I can find) held that title. This is not an innocuous error, it is intended to skew the view of the reader.

The page states that Tomlinson "pursued aggressive policies of adding conservative viewpoint" but provides no citation or justification for this statement. Additionally, the WSJ editorial board is described as Conservative, yet the program that the WSJ editorial board replaced- Bill Moyers- is not described as Liberal. If it is appropriate to call the WSJ editorial board Conservative (and it may well be), it is certainly appropriate to describe Bill Moyers, and his productions, as Liberal. The page leaves the impression that a non-biased show was replaced with a dramatically biased show. Having seen both shows, this is not a reasonable impression to give.

I understand that much of the controversy around Tomlinson revolved around charges raised against him, yet it is also reasonable to describe those making the charges. In many cases, a blog- which may well be describing things accurately- that has a distinct bias is cited. Certainly it is accurate that the charge was made that he was trying to create a FOX News like Right-Wing Bias. However, it is entirely appropriate to make it clear that those stating this were themselves strongly biased. Additionally, the page gives the appearance that PBS was not biased, and that the allegation made was that Tomlinson created bias- "and accusations that he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right-wing agenda similar to FOX television." The accusation made was that PBS was balanced and that Tomlinson tried to change that. There is strong controversy over whether PBS was at the time, or currently is, balanced.

I have made no edits to the page yet, but I want to raise these issues for discussion before beginning to work on cleaning it up.

I have no particular inclination towards Tomlinson or the Bush administration, but I do think biographies of people currently alive should reflect facts and note the sources/biases of criticisms of them. There are definitely facts, and criticisms in this article, but they need to be documented and their sources should be described when making strong accusations and not being well known journalistic organizations. Packetmonger (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Before you start making changes, you may want to clarify some of your statements and build some concensus...For instance, you say 'Mr Rove is described as President Bushes "Chief Advisor"', are you saying he wasn't a chief advisor of Pres. Bush? If so, that's the first time I've ever heard such a POV.Cronos1 (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am saying he was not President Bushes Chief Advisor, as the article states. Saying he is demonstrates bias, and it should be corrected. Additionally, after reviewing the Wikipedia policies on biographies of living persons, most of this article should be removed as non-compliant, or revised to be compliant. I am not going to wait to build consensus to make edits removing content that violates wikipedia policy and that such policy says should be immediately removed without discussion. I have waited a reasonable amount of time for people to respond to the issues I have raised with the article, and other than your comment, have seen none. I have no intent of removing valid content, only improving the article and making it meet wikipedia guidelines. Packetmonger (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how Mr. Tomlinson's relationship with Mr. Rove and Mr. Roves with Pres. Bush is Biased.Cronos1 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Please read what I write rather than imagine what I write. I am saying that this section contains AN ERROR OF FACT. It states that Karl Rove held a position that he did not. The error of fact introduces bias in the context of the section, as it creates the impression that the Chief Advisor to the President was somehow involved in the actions stated, which is more significant than a Senior advisor or Deputy chief of staff. This article seems to be littered with references to how KT and KR are close, longtime friends and that this friendship affected policy. Whether this is relevant, and whether it is reasonably and accurately conveyed in the article are a separate discussion- but at the very least the statements should be accurate. I am removing this again as it is an error of fact. Packetmonger (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Too bad you didn't say that the title was AN ERROR OF FACT when you posted 01:14, 14 June 2009. I'm not sure why AN ERROR OF FACT should be perceived as "bias". I would think simply correcting the title or saying a senior advisor would correct the error of fact. You will find that your efforts to improve this article will go much smoother if you avoid throwing words like 'bias' around. Cronos1 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously questioning whether "I am saying he was not President Bushes Chief Advisor, as the article states." at 01:14, 14 June 2009 and my initial comment that "Mr Rove is described as President Bushes "Chief Advisor"- this is an opinion that has been contradicted by both Mr Bush and Mr Rove, and Mr Rove never (that I can find) held that title." at 8:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) are not in fact me saying that the title was an error of fact? I think you are more literate and reasonable than that. Packetmonger (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have have provided citations for the items you identify as unsourced...assume that the citations got separated in the editing process over the years. Regarding your other objections..."The page states that Tomlinson "pursued aggressive policies of adding conservative viewpoint" but provides no citation or justification for this statement."

You’ll need to explain what you mean buy this…I believe Tomlinson himself would describe his actions as aggressive…certainly many of the cited sources do, & when you do things without informing the board, I would think that would have to be considered aggressive…

"Additionally, the WSJ editorial board is described as Conservative, yet the program that the WSJ editorial board replaced- Bill Moyers- is not described as Liberal. If it is appropriate to call the WSJ editorial board Conservative (and it may well be), it is certainly appropriate to describe Bill Moyers, and his productions, as Liberal. The page leaves the impression that a non-biased show was replaced with a dramatically biased show. Having seen both shows, this is not a reasonable impression to give."

The WSJ editorial board is well known as conservative, but regardless, the Broadcast Chief Violated Laws, Inquiry Finds source specifically describes it thusly. KT’s views on the “bias” of PBS have already been mentioned, but if you want to explore that subject greater, feel free. By eliminating “conservative” you are leaving the impression that a biased show was replaced with a unbiased show. Having seen both shows, this is not a reasonable impression to give.

"Additionally, the page gives the appearance that PBS was not biased, and that the allegation made was that Tomlinson created bias- "and accusations that he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right-wing agenda similar to FOX television." The accusation made was that PBS was balanced and that Tomlinson tried to change that. There is strong controversy over whether PBS was at the time, or currently is, balanced."

Boy this really depends on your POV, pbs viewers do not feel it is biased. Conservatives do. Not sure that this could be considered strong or that the minority viewpoint deserves the weight you seem to want to give it or that in doing so you stray into POV territory. I’m sure you could make a case that there are members of the public that think PBS is too conservative.Cronos1 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cronos1, Thanks for adding the citation to the New York Times article of Nov 2005, that provides a source for a number of the accusations that I could not find in the other articles or in cursory searches. Packetmonger (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: WSJ conservative label. Bill Moyers is well known as not just Liberal, but significantly and vocally so (to be clear- I am not implying there is anything wrong with that). Perhaps we should describe Moyers as Liberal and the WSJ editorial board as conservative, but we should not describe the WSJ as conservative and not label other shows mentioned that were at least as biased.

In answer to the PBS POV issue- the question is not whether viewers of PBS shows view it as neutral (I can't find links to the polling on this subject, but will look further), it is a question of whether PBS is neutral. I don't think your comment on this is entirely true, but I would agree that most Conservatives do not regularly watch PBS, just as most Conservatives do not watch MSNBC. If you poll people who watch content regularly, they are likely to describe that content in a more positive light. I suspect people who regularly watch Fox News believe it is more neutral than those who do not regularly watch it, just as viewers of MSNBC and readers of the WSJ or NYT's feel the same. In any case, alleged PBS bias has been the subject of several Congressional hearings. My only point on this subject to date has been that it is not NPOV to describe PBS as unbiased prior to KT's tenure, as that is a point many people disagree about and as in most matters of media bias is almost impossible to objectively establish. I will (now) say that the overall NPOV of the article would be enhanced by better explaining why KT felt PBS was biased and why he felt his actions were warranted. This is relevant as much of the allegations against him relate to his attempts to change this and the resulting internal conflict and alleged violations of policy, ethics and law. Packetmonger (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Its difficult to take allegations of bias from non-viewers seriously. Its pretty easy to find the poll data, one poll says that 24% of viewers think that PBS has a liberal bias and 52% that think it has no bias or is conservatively biased. The majority of those polled indicated they were Republican and the polling was done by a Republican pollster.Cronos1 (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And it's difficult to take seriously the opinion of viewers that something is non-biased. :) That is the problem with self-selecting respondent pools- they self select. This is a common problem in political polling, statistics and science. Further, the matter isn't simply a question of polls of people, the question is whether there is bias. As to that poll (I found it), it was conducted by a combination of a Republican firm (Tarrance Group) and a left-leaning/progressive pollster(Lake-Snell-Perry, now Lake Research) it breaks down as- 24% Liberal, 15% conservative, 37% No apparent bias. I saw nothing in the poll results on PBS's site describing whether respondents were Republicans or Democrats. I think those numbers can be interpreted in many ways, but don't see how they can be interpreted as showing either a lack of perceived bias, or a lack of perceived Liberal bias. They might show a lack of perceived Conservative bias, but I'm not sure I would buy that.

However, the matter isn't simply a question of polls of people, but whether there is bias that can be proven. We cannot say KT was correct that there was bias at PBS, and we cannot say that others were correct that there was not bias. Neither view is outside the mainstream, and both views can be supported by the data available. In any case, the only context I can see that charges of bias are relevant here is that KT believed there was bias and did things they felt would correct it, which caused the significant effects it did, including allegations of bias against KT. We should be careful to make sure the article does not describe actions as bias or organizations as biased, but rather describe what groups had an opinion that there was bias. It is relevant to describe why KT felt there was bias as this was the motivation for his action, but that should be described as his opinion rather than fact, and the fact that others strongly disagreed should be included.Packetmonger (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link that includes some more information that probably should be added to the bio/timeline. It also mentions that the US Attorney determined a criminal investigation was not warranted wrt the State Department investigation.

I moved this section of the talk page to the bottom where more recent discussions are typically placed. Packetmonger (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Religion tag

I removed the tag at the top of the discussion page saying this was a religion-related page. Packetmonger (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Added statement that KT denied charges, no formal action was taken re: CPB IG report, revised ref, made minor edit to description of CPB IG's report

I made the following changes:

• Added KT's denial of charges.
• Added that no formal action was taken against him as a result of CPB IG report. The ref for this was a duplicate, I don't know if there is a way to make it simply point back to the previous ref or if we should move the ref to the bottom of the paragraph.
• Changed the name of the ref as I think the article title was updated.
• Changed the sentence regarding the CPB IG's report on investigators findings to make it more clear that the report was from the IG.

It is important that the article include that KT denied wrongdoing, and make it clear no formal action was taken in the CPB case and that no criminal investigation or charges resulted from the State Department IG report. We should also include that his resignation from the CPB was immediately after the board was given the IG's report. This information should be in the lead.Packetmonger (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted my own changes as I forgot to include descriptions on the intermediate changes.Packetmonger (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification By Current PBS Member

Here on this talk page I would like to say that I think the current design of the article is pretty fair seeming. When I have time I will try to add a few more printed sources. Although my own experiences would be considered "Original research" & therefore not valid, i have worked & volunteered at my local PBS station for over 25 years. Been a viewer for about 40 years. The current (soon to retire) general manager is Republican, as is about 2/5ths of the staff & volunteers. The demographic of this stations broadcast membership is about 50 percent republican / conservative. Over the years I have seen political analysis programs that POV'ed the breadth of political spectrum's. From William F. Buckley's classic show, & the McLaughlin Group, to the Washington week in review type programs... Public Broadcasting always seemed to be stretching to be fair to the wide Spectrum of viewpoints. Remember that when in its early days it presented viewpoints critical of the Vietnam War, A Democratic administration was in power. (Bill Moyers was even a political operative of that administration. ) & while most "Commercial broadcast venues" didn't show much interest in the Subject, Public Broadcasting was doing stories on the plights of returned Veterans & their struggles. I would argue that there is indeed roughly a 50% conservative viewership of PBS, (Estimate from membership response) AND- (Don't be a 'hater ' on my POV Bias here) they are INTELLIGENT conservatives. (I truthfully believe there IS such a thing.) & They grumble sometimes about a viewpoint like Moyers, but they feel in general that the network IS balanced. There was genuine concern at this station (Including among republican staff) about some of the things that KT was doing during his tenure, KT sounds like a perhaps genuinely nice person in private life... but thoroughly ethically challenged for most of his Public Sector work. I think this article generally reflects that. Hey what can I say, I really liked the "Readers Digest" , in spite of the occasional 'conservative slant' of "Humor- In Uniform"! Im Just sayin... 71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)