More Standards! More Ombudsmen!

Jesse Walker | June 15, 2005

The war over public broadcasting takes another turn.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← "History's Has-been" | Main | Goin' Back to Neverland →

See all 8 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|6.15.05 @ 12:08PM|#

So does "ombudsman" literally translate as "make work job"?

|6.15.05 @ 12:23PM|#

Seriously, instead of worrying about it, why don't they just say, "hey, we don't want your damn money anymore, and we'll make and broadcast whatever type of programming we want!" (Of course, they'll have to follow FCC rules on decency and whatnot, but whatever.)

|6.15.05 @ 12:26PM|#

"Separately, Alexandria-based PBS also said it would hire an ombudsman for the first time to review controversial programs after they air."

See? They'll only review programs after they've aired, so there's nothing to worry about!

"But both actions, at the very least, could help PBS dispel the impression that it is unresponsive to its critics just as Congress is considering public broadcasting's federal funding for next year."

...and here I thought they were shootin' for unbiased!

P.B.S. Did anyone else catch that Frontline on Walmart last night? The Cato guy was a breath of fresh air, but other than that--whew--what a stinker of a documentary that was!

|6.15.05 @ 12:44PM|#

Ken - that was a re-run...so yeah, I've seen it. And you're right, for libertarians, only the Cato guy made much sense. Everyone else was pretty much just belly-aching.

I do have a question, though, for more economics-savy posters - why isn't the huge trade difference with China a problem? ie, the fact that they're shipping much, much more product to us than we are to them. (That was one thing in that Frontline that I didn't have a rebuttal to.)

|6.15.05 @ 12:47PM|#

"So does 'ombudsman' literally translate as 'make work job'?"

Might as well. Most media ombudsmen have little or no authority to alter editorial decisions and policies, as far as I know. They are little more than a public sounding board--sort of like that store employee who takes your complaint about crappy service and then tells you why the service you received was actually wonderful.

|6.15.05 @ 1:17PM|#

"...why isn't the huge trade difference with China a problem?"

Generally speaking, nations don't trade with each other, individuals and companies do.

|6.15.05 @ 2:02PM|#

why isn't the huge trade difference with China a problem? ie, the fact that they're shipping much, much more product to us than we are to them

Hmm. Well, they suffer a net loss of products, since they get less back than they send to us. At first blush, that would sound bad for Chinese producers and exporters, except that they get money from the US for all those products they send, just like American producers and exporters get money back for all the products they send.

|6.15.05 @ 2:09PM|#

ie, the fact that they're shipping much, much more product to us than we are to them.

In short, we are sending them little pieces of colored paper, they send us lots of cool stuff that we can use- now.

Having nothing else to do with all those pieces of paper- they buy our gov't debt- driving down our interest rates and letting our gov't spend like drunken sailors- thereby increasing growth in our economy.

We buy back that debt using inflated dollars from an economy that is (hopefully) larger proportionately that the debt/interest payments.

No problem.