PBS launching new conservative political talk show

[brooklynite]

Source: AP

NEW YORK (AP) — Columnist Michael Gerson and commentator Amy Holmes are teaming to start a conservative-oriented talk show on PBS that takes its cue from William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line,” which aired from 1966 to 1999.

The new show, “In Principle,” will air Friday nights starting April 13. PBS will decide after an eight-week run whether to continue.

The hosts plan to interview two guests each show, hoping for an in-depth discussion on issues and their formative political experiences. No guests have been announced yet, but Gershon said he’d like to discuss issues like race, gun control and whether conservatism is the right message for the working class.

...snip...

Gershon is known to the PBS audience as a frequent guest on “NewsHour.” Holmes worked on MSNBC and on Glenn Beck’s media company, The Blaze.

Read more: https://www.apnews.com/caaf8e2edbd447b99f08b96d9b879e9e

[chelsea0011]

1. And a progressive/liberal show is soon to follow? I didn't think so.

[Ligyron]

2. I'll be sure not to watch it.

I think?

[turbinetree]

3. Really.................................is Bill Moyers on after this "show and tell"

Like the country need more right wing programming..........................

[jayschool2013]

4. PBS

Pandering Bullshit Service

goes with the NPR

Nice Polite Republicans

[Cryptoad]

39. PeeeeeeeeeeeeBS

[Plucketeer]

5. A GIANT friggin' LOL

Well, that's one way to insure their federal funds aren't cut off! I'll bet NPR's negotiating with O'duncelly and Hatetity for a new feature show! > All one percent considered<

[Historic NY]

6. Sad #PBS wouldn't survive w/o liberal contributions...

as conservatives cuts budget and funding that benefit them. Hand-Feeding the lion doesn't mean it won't take the hand too.


[link:http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/12/media/public-media-funding-2019-budget/index.html|]

[link:https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/02/donald-trump-budget-pbs-public-media-spending-cuts|]

[link:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/13/trump-proposes-cutting-all-federal-funds-for-npr-pbs.html|]

[Paladin]

7. Yeah, because there's not nearly enough right-wing bullshit on TV these days.

I bet the trump administration is already putting together an interview schedule. Fuck you, PBS. See if I ever give you another penny.

[Chakaconcarne]

8. Great way to turn off many donors to PBS when their funding is already on the chopping block

[Weed Man]

9. Cancelled After 24 hours

When these morons realize that Faux provides their needs.

[clayton72]

10. Factual news for conservatives? That's really good!!

I'd love to see factual coverage conservatives will tune in for. Get them out of the bubble!

[patricia92243]

11. Baically, they are saying they will report made-up news. Real news is progressive, because

the world goes forward.

[solara]

12. Oh. Goody.

Just what we need, more hateful rhetoric and trumpian apologetics

[Deb]

13. Trying to save scraps of Conservatism from coming GOP failures

In-depth discussions

[llmart]

14. No thanks.

I won't be watching it.

[relogic]

15. The Fix was in

The fix was in when CPB/PBS pressured by Reaganite era pubs to whittle away the public contribution aspect of revenue over to the typical funded corporate advertising-privatization of the common good of science, critical thinking skills had to be diminished. Corporate, Trump America does not abide by a viewership that actually thinks.

Today, if one views any news, science or prime time programing this is totally obvious. Clearly, the inescapable corporate logos that prelude each corporate-funded propaganda contained therein says it all. Now, if you want skewed messages in favor of banks, energy, military and media entitlement-no one has to go any further than PBS.

Contrast all this if you can recall the programs you watched just 20 or so years ago.

SAD (as one might say if that descriptor hadn't been invoked to the detriment of the English language by one unfit to sit where he actually squats).

[appalachiablue]

16. Premier on Friday the 13th.

[rainin]

17. I stopped contributing because they pandered to the right so much.

I'm sure many liberals felt the same way I did and stopped contributing. I've wondered if PBS has had to rely on corporate funding more and more as liberals drop off and this becomes a vicious cycle.

It's pretty smart of the right wing to go after PBS. They've taken everything else.

[relogic]

21. Self-inflicted

Self-inflicted-a feature and not a bug (oops, why are more members dropping from support of our corporate meme shows)?

If Wall Street America's, predatory capitalism does anything well- they tuned the destruction of the common good institutions to a fine art. OWS was the last heave of breath to address this vast chasm of ignorant, uninformed population that accepts economic and education disparity without complaint.

[infullview]

18. Just what we need..

More conservative talk shows

[JohnnyRingo]

19. Survival

There's no way the GOP will continue their march to slash PBS budgets now.

It also opens the door for future liberal opposition programming (I believe it's pretty neutral now). PBS can promote itself as offering programming for all Americans. Even the kooks, though I highly doubt the conservative show will be anything like Hannity.

I see little harm and much to gain with this move, though I'm a pathetic optimist.

[Guilded Lilly]

28. I agree with you. Guess I am a pathetic optimist, too!...

Smart survival tactic. One conservatively voiced show could also open the door to a liberal counterpoint.
Give them a bone to gnarl in the corner and it will keep the beast away from the gourmet dinner being served on the table!

[summer_in_TX]

37. I agree also. (And yes, I may be a pathetic optimist too.)

I hope the survival tactic works. Although conservatives have made it hard for public media to survive and remain free of commercial influences, the trend that direction has been an existential necessity, more than a failing of public media. And it can be fixed by enacting better policies.

What I'd hope for from such a program is that they would push back against the lunatic element within their own party while they advocate and educate on the better ideas within the conservative tradition. Who better for conservatives to hear from to rethink the craziness that has overwhelmed their party and taken it into the toilet.

[mpcamb]

20. What the hell for? Conservatives own the media. Why give them public time?

[Honeycombe8]

22. Unfortunately, conservatives like Buckley don't exist, anymore.

The current crop are mainly extremists and have hate in their hearts. There are a few that are "normal," but not many.

Buckley's program was successful because he was such a unique individual, very smart, unique way of expressing himself. I remember watching his program when I was very young & being fascinated by him. The words he used, the way his face moved when he spoke (eye movements & such). This was probably about the time I started to develop an interest in politics. Buckley may have held views that I didn't understand...I just watched the show sometimes as a matter of interest & because of Buckley. (As a note of trivia, Buckley's son was fired from The National Review in recent years for not being extreme enough,and he did not vote for Trump.)

This could turn out to be not a terrible idea, if it ends up countering Faux News hate with moderate views and "facts," rather than an arm of the disgusting, hate-filled alt-right, like Faux News is. I don't know this Gershon fellow, so will have to read up on him.

Brooks & Shields is a talk show where each of those guys are in different parties, but both seem to be moderate. Why not stick with that forum? The only reason The Firing Line existed was because of Buckley. Not because it was a "conservative" interview show. Is Gershon that type of unique, important person that Buckley was? I doubt it. Like I said, all those people of note are gone in the Republican Party now.

UPDATE: OMG...this guy is terrible. He's an evangelical, and ardently so. AND was involved in selling the Iraq War to the people. NOT a Buckley type of conservative at all! And NOT known for sticking to REAL FACTS. OTOH, there was one good thing I read: He's not a Trumper.

So WHY? My guess is that NPR/PBS has been threatened with total removal of all funding, if it didn't install a conservative-only show.

[relogic]

24. Tepid

Tepid representation of the left side is all you really get anymore on most major network programs. In addition to this most panels discussing any topic have an obvious balance even in the numbers games of who and how many get to interject timely points (if permitted by tepid, moral equivalency, paid "whore hosts&quot .

For obvious examples look at the Sunday AM line-up of propaganda programs. It's beyond bizarre worldliness to think there is really any liberal media left of any significance.

For example, the country is so mesmerized by military hero culture that a Senator having ridden the wave of faux maverick-ness for decades, runs for president and selects the baser, reckless, hateful VP nominee to endanger our country.
Yet- he escapes from condemnation and defamation, getting more air-time of any other guests on Sunday morning.

If someone's terminal condition could redeem them and expunge from the country the enormous damage inflicted by faux heroes-that defines bizarre world.

[Honeycombe8]

29. I like Meet the Press & Fact the Nation. Good shows.

I like exposure to both sides of an argument. Biased media shows are important, since they point out things I may not pick up on. But for the basics of any issue, I like to hear both sides expressing themselves. I can decide on my own which side makes more sense. And that is really the point of a neutral news show.

MSNBC has shows that counter the Faux News alt-right shows, although the MSNBC shows deal with real facts and are not arms of the Dem Party, to spout anything they're told to (like Faux News does). I like these shows, too.

The media in the form of raw news and in the form of talk shows is doing pretty well, actually, IMO. Without them, the public wouldn't know all that we know, and understand the implications. If not for the Maddow Show, for instance, I might not be aware of how to connect the dots of things, that Rachel is so good at doing. It's complicated, and Rachel, with her brains and PhD, is able to understand it all and lay it out there in simpler terms for people like me. But she will also say when she doesn't understand something. Good show.

[relogic]

35. Ownership matters

I would suggest looking carefully at who owns and manages any of these significant "information platforms" (my quotes).
There are numerous examples just on MSNBC since their acquisition. There are of vocal, outspoken persons contrary to Comcast's agenda (the owners) who paid the price of having been expunged.

Mind experiment. Would Comcast-owned MSNBC allow a full-fleshed out, balanced panel discussion of net neutrality that indicted them and the extreme FCC collusion. Note: If you own the mics/cameras/towers/cables,internets-you select the message.

[Honeycombe8]

41. Not really. The owners want to make money.

CNN was run for years by The Carlysle Group....a group of mega-rich suits (including George HW bush at one point). Didn't make one bit of difference. When the top dog shifted to another group of rich suits, no difference in CNN's coverage.

The news organizations have their own method of operation and rules they operate under. Newspapers print reports, but ownership and editor matters in the EDITORIAL PAGE.

Yes, any news organization owned by Comcast or AT&T would be able to thoroughly discuss Net Neutrality. What you can't do, probably, is directly blame the owner for something.

This is why occasionally you'll hear a news person or talk show host remind the viewers that so-and-so is an owner or part owner of the station, if the story relates in any way to that organization.

There are exceptions...like Faux News. Where the owner bought the station as a mouthpiece for his political goals. And everyone knows it. It was apparent. Murdoch never denied it.

[FakeNoose]

25. I think they're going for the never-Trump Republicans

Those people have all been ignored by Faux News and the rightwing media.
So they're not our friends but they're certainly not enemies either.
Maybe they'll behave like grownups when they're on PBS.

[Honeycombe8]

26. Maybe. We can hope. nt

[relogic]

32. Precisely

That is the crux of what has happened to PB. The gun held to the head (not even necessary anymore) to lean in favor of the extremer aspects of relevant and irrelevant issues-it need not be presented to the programming heads. Once media became owned by those very corporations directly by their huge portion of funding to C-span (to note one unmentioned beneficiary)-
it was game over for a progressive-aired viewpoint.

I suppose (as Digby blogspot) recently noted that we older Conkrite viewers of the 70-80 era can see the enormity of discussing any these issues in the Trump-all-news-except-mine fake regime-is blatantly clear and has damaged our country, maybe irreparably.

[rurallib]

23. ABC, NBC, CBS, FUX, CNN and parts of MSNBC don't already have this covered?

Plus all the Jesus radio and TV?

Poor old FreeSpeechTV stands alone over in the corner as the only real liberal TV station. Most people have never even heard of it.

NPR is almost unlistenable these days. In my area it is the only radio to the left of ultra right.

[Honeycombe8]

42. Did you ever see Firing Line? It was different.

It was a high level, quality, intellectual, deep one-on-one discussion between Buckley and one guest. There's nothing like it on tv today, partly because there's no one like Buckley. He was very serious, unusual, highly intelligent, and was known for his wide vocabulary. So wide that many educated people didn't know the definitions of words he used. Once someone asked him why he used rarely used words; he said that's what words are for, to be used.

It would be a slow, non-exciting format for today's television. It's for the thinking crowd. I can't imagine this new guy, though, would be interesting enough. If a show is slow and in-depth, it requires a commanding presence to hold attention.

[Fiendish Thingy]

27. I would be thrilled if this produced criticism of Trump from the right nt

[Guilded Lilly]

30. Yup yup yup!

[FakeNoose]

31. Yes it's a good possibility

They're not our friends but they aren't enemies either.

[Still Blue in PDX]

33. That's just what we need! nt

[hibbing]

34. Conservative principle, like jumbo shrimp n/t

[Quemado]

36. The "P" in PBS stands for

plutocrat:

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/17/business/la-fi-mh-how-pbs-soldr-20140217

https://www.salon.com/2014/02/13/when_did_pbs_become_the_plutocratic_broadcasting_service_partner/

[Cryptoad]

38. What's that Rumble Sound?????

thats WFB rolling in his grave for being associated with anything the GOP stands for nowadays!!!

[TeapotInATempest]

40. I'm a sustaining member of my local station, WTTW.

I very much appreciate PBS's children's programming and WTTW's local news show, Chicago Tonight. My annual renewal is at the end of March; does anyone know if supporting your local station supports PBS as a whole? If so, I will not be renewing my membership and I will tell WTTW why.