🚀 go-pugleaf

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 00:07:29 EDT
From: Harel Barzilai <harelb@math.cornell.edu>
Subject: PBS: Congress's only Independent Takes on PBS

------------------------------------------------------------------
replies-->harelb@math.cornell.edu please; I can't read all newsgroups
------------------------------------------------------------------
    "In other words, radical thought that it
    may be, public television is supposed to represent the interests of
    the public."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Sanders of Vermont speaks out.

[It somehow wasn't newsworthy enough that for the first time in 40
years, an Independent was elected to Congress. One Independent is
still in Congress; all the others are Dem or Rep. Most people probably
don't even know this. The Corporate Media know better than to give
airtime to let the public know about Sander's popular progressive politics]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic 15        PBS, Labor & Funding
lvpsf   Public Broadcasting      6:42 PM  Jul 29, 1994
From: Labor Video Project <lvpsf@igc.apc.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------

     SPEECH ABOUT PBS FROM CONGRESSMAN BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT)
                             6/28/94

     Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman - I yield 7 minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
     (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)

     Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and urge Members
to support the bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations.
I do want to say, however, that unless there are some substantial
changes in Public Broadcasting and its relationship to the working
people of America, my vote and my position might be very different
next year.

     Mr. Chairman, one of the great dangers in America today, and
something that frightens me and many other Americans very much is
the growing concentration of ownership in the mass media.  Fewer
and fewer and larger and larger corporations increasingly control
what we see on television, what we hear on the radio, and what we
read in the newspapers and magazines.  The noted journalist and
author Ben Bagdikian has written in his book ~The Media Monopoly~
that by the turn of the century a handful of huge multinational
corporations will not only control what we see and hear in America
but in fact will be controlling what much of the world sees, hears,
and reads.  That is a very dangerous trend.

     Mr. Chairman, it is not an accident that the Rush Limbaughs,
the Pat Buchanans, and the G. Gordon Liddys dominate commercial
radio talk shows.  Their views reflect the interests of the
corporations which own those radio networks.  It is also not an
accident that on commercial radio and television there is very
little serious discussion about the enormous problems facing the
working people and the poor of this Nation.  The average working
family in America is in trouble.  They are under stress.  They are
hurting.  But that reality is not reflected in the corporately
controlled media.  Yes, we do have round-the-clock analysis of the
O.J. Simpson case and the Menendez brothers saga and the Bobbitt
family adventures and the Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan
adventure.  Yes, we have in-depth analyses of why the Houston
Rockets were able to defeat the New York Knickerbockers and why the
Washington Redskins did not do so well this last session.  Yes, the
airwaves are filled with violence and blood and 30-second
commercials which are having an extremely negative impact on the
cognitive abilities of the young kids of America.  But somehow,
just somehow there is virtually no programming which explains to
the American people why the standard of living of American workers
has gone from 1st place in the world 20 years ago to 13th place
today.  Somehow we do not have programming which deals with that.
Somehow there is very little discussion or portrayal on television
about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in America.  I
guess we do not have time on TV for that or about the fact that the
wealthiest 1 percent of our population owns more wealth than the
bottom 90 percent, or about how multinational corporations are
moving to the Third World and are hiring workers at 15 to 20 cents
an hour while they are throwing American workers out on the street.
I guess that is just not interesting enough to put on our TV
airways.  Should we be surprised that General Electric~s NBC or the
corporations that own the other networks do not focus very much on
these issues? Well, I am not surprised, and I think the average
American is not surprised.

     Mr. Chairman, the reason that Public Broadcasting was
established and why taxpayers are contributing to Public Television
and Radio is that it is supposed to offer an alternative point of
view to that offered by the corporately owned networks.  It is
supposed to give a voice to those who have no voice.  It is
supposed to be able to deal with controversywithout being afraid of
offending corporate sponsors.  That is the reason that it exists.
It is supposed to take on the entrenched special interests because
it is funded by the ordinary people of this country, the people who
are not wealthy, the people who are not powerful, the people who do
not own ABC, CBS, or NBC. In other words, radical thought that it
may be, public television is supposed to represent the interests of
the public.  I know that is a radical thought, but that is the way
it is supposed to be.  Sadly, despite what its original mandate
was, despite the fact that there is some excellent programming on
public television, some very fine children~s programming on public
television, despite all of that, very few people can argue that
public television has fulfilled its original mandate.  In fact,
year after year it appears that public television is more and more
coming to resemble commercial television.

     Mr. Chairman, I do not object that there are three regularly
scheduled business shows on PBS. I do not object that there are
three regularly scheduled shows - Wall Street Week, the Nightly
Business Report, and Adam Smith~s Money World. I have no problem
with those programs.  I do have a problem, however, that there is
not one regularly scheduled program on the PBS which focuses on the
needs and the problems of the working people of America.  If there
are three regularly scheduled business shows, why is there not at
least one, just one, regularly scheduled show reflecting the
interests of working people and organized labor?  I do not object
that three weekly public affairs shows on the PBS stations are
hosted by individuals who have been associated with the National
Review, a leading right-wing magazine: William Buckley~s Firing
Line, John McLaughlin~s McLaughlin Group, and McLaughlin~s One on
One. I do not object to these shows.  But I do object that there is
not one weekly PBS show which is hosted by a journalist from a
labor or a progressive point of view.  Our side also has
articulate, well-informed journalists and commentators who are
capable of presenting interesting and informative television, and
that point of view has a right to be heard.

     Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting is at a crossroads.  If it wants to resemble
commercial television, Mr. Crane has a point.  If it wants to
resemble commercial television, if it wants to go out and hunt for
more and more corporate money, then maybe we should say once and
for all that it should become a private entity which competes in
the marketplace with the corporate media.  Mr. Crane does have a
point.  But I do not think that is what it should be.  It seems to
me that in a time when more and more of the media is controlled by
big money, it is imperative that we really do have a public
broadcasting system which deals with the real problems facing the
working people of America.  Tonight I will oppose Mr. Crane~s
amendment.  I hope PBS changes, or next year I will not.

  CONGRESSMAN SANDERS INTERNET ADDRESS IS bsanders@igc.apc.org