Liberal bias (media) has to be corrected?

[babylonsister]

Amy Goodman on Democracy Now just mentioned this, so no link.
How can our perspectives be so totally different?

Edit to add NYT link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/arts/television/02public.html?

Report: CPB Chair Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Bias
In media news - the New York Times is reporting that the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- Kenneth Tomlinson -- is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias. The CPB is a private, nonprofit entity financed by Congress to ensure the vitality of public television and radio. A number of former Bush administration employees now have top positions at the CPB. In March. Tomlinson hired the director of the White House Office of Global Communications as a senior staff member. And Ken Ferree, a former top aide to Michael Powell at the Federal Communications Commission, is now the acting president of the CPB. In addition, the Times reports that Tomlinson hired an outside consultant last year to keep track of the political leanings of guests on the program Now With Bill Moyers. The consultant was asked to place the program's guests in categories like "anti-Bush," "anti-business" and "anti-Tom DeLay," In December 2003, three months after he was elected chair Tomlinson sent the head of PBS - Pat Mitchell -- a letter charging that Moyers' show "does not contain anything approaching the balance the law requires for public broadcasting." At the same time, Tomlinson was encouraging public broadcasters to begin broadcasting a weekly show hosted by the editor of the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Tomlinson has rejected charges that he is trying to impose a political point of view on programming.

[bloom]

1. Of course it's bullshit...

Molly Ivins mentioned it in this column.

AUSTIN, Texas -- I was all set to write a column about the nuclear option -- the proposal to change the rules of the Senate in order to get President Bush's most questionable judicial appointments through -- when, lo, word came that there is no nuclear option anymore. It is now called "the constitutional option."

Who changed it? Why, the Republican Party, of course. Having found that "nuclear option" does not poll well, the Republicans simply decreed the rules change can no longer be described by that name. Further, the Republican Party sent media operatives around to major news organizations to inform them that anyone who fails to obey the new diktat on usage will be demonstrating the dread "liberal bias."

Since this particularly fateful rules change was first christened "the nuclear option" by Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi in 2003, and has been called "the nuclear option" ever since -- by Republicans, along with everybody else -- I have to say this is a distinctly Orwellian development....

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=miv