PBS's role is to ensure that there is a forum on television for subjects which otherwise may not be available on television. They entertain and educate children, represent the arts and provide music based programming. Also they are responsible for presenting controversial news stories without any biases. In theory they are free from the vices of advertising and greed. The public broadcasting network is set up to serve the public.
             Unfortunately, the air of objectivity surrounding PBS has come under extreme scrutiny. Accusations of biased and inferior journalism have surfaced. In light of frontlines stories on Reagan, should PBS continue to thrive with the support of taxpayer dollars?
             The first question to consider is whether or not the Reagan stories were in fact biased. Did Ronald Reagan subvert the constitution, by going against congress and working out is own deal with Iran for the release of the hostages in order to ensure a win in the election? PBS used as its chief witnesses a self-confessed drug smuggler/ money launderer along with other illegitimate sources including Gunrunners. No hard proof was provided and very little in terms of fairness. Which was similar to their piece on Hoover. That story also used second and third hand accounts, no hard proof and out and out slander. What if the allegations are correct? I certainly am not convinced that the events did not occur. There is always a possibility that the government acted in an immoral way. However even still, this is not the type of journalism one would win a Pulitzer Prize for. And it certainly does not pass any test upon the fairness doctrine. A story as controversial as this does not belong on PBS unless credible and substantial proof is offered. Clearly there are forums on television for this type of journalism. Other networks run stories of slander against people, using very little proof and objectivity all the time. However those networ...