At KPBS, News Reporting is “For Sale”

Aynd Rand Undesignated 3 Comments


Saw an interesting discussion on Twitter today about the Inewsource arm of KPBS.  What shocked me was this passage from Inewsource promotional material that revealed some big money contributor approached KPBS’ partner and worked out a “three year joint plan” for their reporting.

Here’s the passage:

Around the same time, she said a local philanthropist reached out with concerns about the daily newspaper. “When he learned of the relationship with KPBS, we both met with him with a joint plan,” she said. The result was three years of funding to add another inewsource reporter plus an investigative producer for KPBS.

So let me get this straight:

KPBS is willing to run news “paid for” by a mega contributor.

That mega contributor is motivated by concern that the local newspaper is too conservative. Presumably the mega contributor has a liberal view.

KPBS runs stories that are driven by some undisclosed “plan” that was hatched in direct consultation with a mega contributor.

Good to know that at KPBS is for “pay to play” these days.

But it raises a bigger question of media bias in San Diego.  About 18 months ago, Voice of San Diego faced budget shortfalls – even laid off staff.

Then “poof” – Voice’s budget problems seemed to disappear, and new hires were announced.

Since then, Voice has gotten pretty opinion-based, rather than news-oriented.

In one article, Voice even said they “lobbied” to get a city government policy changed.

Who is funding Voice?  How much?  What is their agenda?

We hear enough about Doug Manchester’s “bias” from liberal mouthpieces at KPBS, CityBeat and Voice of San Diego.

But you know what they say about those in glass houses…



Comments 3

  1. KPBS has a liberal bias? Film at eleven!

    Yes, PBS funding tells the tale. Federal funding, liberal foundations, and liberals period.

    Read the reader comments and you see an OVERWHELMING liberal slant. It’s their demographic. The only disputes that arise online seem to be between lefties and extreme lefties — a fine line, to be sure.

    I don’t have a problem with that. I have TWO problems.

    1. They refuse to admit their astonishingly obvious liberal bias (unlike the U-T owners who were up front from the day they took over);

    2. Federal funding — including funding of the CONTENT of national PBS shows on local TV and radio stations.

    Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican government started funding Fox News? Well, that’s not totally fair — Fox News is more objective than PBS and NPR radio.

  2. Richard,

    I remember the UT admitting that they would use the power of the press to further causes they believed it like keeping the Chargers in San Diego, but I do not remember them ever saying that they would have an obvious conservative bias in their reporting. Can you cite when they said that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *