June 30, 2008
[PBS re-posted my comment; see the update.]
The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) has a relatively new effort called "Engage" [1] in which they solicit feedback from their viewers. However, they only want the "right kind" of feedback and are willing to delete or ignore comments that are critical of their (public) network. In this particular case, a comment I left that was critical of Gwen Ifill appeared and then was later deleted. The whole sequence of events - and the comments in question - are included below. If the reader thinks the comment shouldn't have been deleted, please contact PBS and let them know what you think:
pbs.org/engage/contact
pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback.html
I'm also considering filing a FOIA request related to this issue; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has claimed that they're exempt but has also admitted that they'd comply with FOIA. Yes, I realize that in the greater scheme of things a deleted comment isn't that big a deal. However, PBS is a publicly-funded entity that's supposedly impartial, so such a reaction is justified.
Here's the sequence of events:
1. I tried to leave a comment on the post pbs.org/engage/blog/folks-back-home-are-talking-about-obama-mccain on June 9. It was put into a moderation queue, but never appeared. Now, certainly, some bloggers might not even be aware that they have a moderation queue or it might be so clogged that they ignore it. You can see that as the first comment in the extended entry [2].
2. I tried again with a different comment on a different post (pbs.org/engage/blog/five-good-questions-gwen-ifill) on June 25. That also was put into the moderation queue, and it also never appeared.
3. I tried to leave the last message again on June 26, and this time I used a different user name (NoMoreBlatherDotCom instead of LonewackoDotCom), and I also removed the 'http://' which was in front of one of the links. That's the second comment in the extended entry. [3]
Success! The comment appeared.
However, when I checked back the next day, the comment was gone. PBS had deleted the comment, despite it not violating any of their listed rules: it was on-topic, it didn't contain profanity, and it wasn't a personal attack but simply a discussion of PBS' and Ifill's low journalistic standards.
Note that at the Gwen Ifill link, almost all the comments are supportive, with some even gushingly so: inquiring about who does her lighting, suggestions that she take Tim Russert's place, and so on. Also, a comment containing a link in the body has been there since I left the second comment. If their rule is that comments containing links are moderated, that means that that comment was approved by a moderator and thus they do pay attention to that queue. And, if PBS objects to me including links, then they're playing favorites, saying that a link to metagovernment.org is OK but not a link to my site. Note that for the final comment both links were in bare format, which the user would have to copy and paste into their browser. Note also that there are about 35 comments at the Ifill link, yet there are 63 anchors (the part after '#' in a comment's individual URL) used. That implies that several comments were deleted. What did they say?
UPDATE: PBS sent this response to my email:
Thank you for bringing your comment to our attention. We've taken a look at your post in light of our terms of service, and we've concluded that we should have allowed it on the site. We reposted your comment yesterday afternoon... As the Engage initiative grows and more people participate in our discussions, we're continuing to evaluate our moderation policies. Feedback like yours helps us clarify our thinking about these issues, and we appreciate it.
[1] Their "Engage" site started in October but I found out about it due to a BlogAds campaign they're running. The reader might want to send this URL to sites that are running their BlogAd.
[2] HERE'S THE FIRST COMMENT I TRIED TO LEAVE; THIS WAS MODERATED BUT NEVER APPEARED:
PBS and NPR are just leftier versions of the MSM, and neither do any real reporting and instead just push their agendas.
Examples I can provide come from the topic I cover: immigration.
1. The NPR debate was a sham:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007291.html
2. NewsHour segments on the topic almost always feature "debates" with two people on the same basic side:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007264.html
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/006003.html
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/005823.html
3. Instead of following the money, NPR offered a tear-jerker designed to make illegal immigration acceptable:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007616.html
[3] HERE'S THE SECOND COMMENT I TRIED TO LEAVE; THE FIRST VERSION WAS MODERATED BUT NEVER APPEARED, THE SECOND VERSION OF THIS COMMENT APPEARED AND WAS THEN DELETED:
1. Back in 2006, you offered two guests discussing an issue, and they turned out to be on basically the same side. Have you considered that debates between two people who basically agree is how things were done in the Soviet Union and how things should not be done in the U.S.?
Details:
lonewacko.com/blog/archives/006003.html
2. At a "average voter" panel you moderated, a supposed "regular voter" (who turned out to be a wonk) made various inflammatory claims, none of which you called him on. Why didn't you do that? Was he a "plant", similar to what CNN did with audience members with their debates? And, why couldn't you find a regular voter who supports our laws?
Details:
lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005823.html
Posted to Bloggage at June 30, 2008 09:43 PM
