

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Steve Rendall, Senior Analyst,
Office: (212) 633 6700 ext. 13;
A multi-part FAIR expose of PBS's most prominent news and public affairs
programs demonstrates that public television is failing to live up to
its mission to provide an alternative to commercial television, to give
voice to those "who would otherwise go unheard" and help viewers to "see
America whole, in all its diversity," in the words of public TV's
founding document.
In a special November issue of studies and analyses of PBS's major
public affairs shows, FAIR's magazine Extra! shows that "public
television" features guestlists strongly dominated by white, male and
elite sources, who are far more likely to represent corporations and
war makers than environmentalists or peace advocates. And both funding
and ownership of these shows is increasingly corporate, further eroding
the distinction between "public" and corporate television. There is
precious little "public" left in "public television."
FAIR undertook the examination following news last fall that PBS was
canceling Now and that Bill Moyers was retiring from Bill Moyers
Journal. PBS announced that it was replacing the two shows, which
exemplified the public broadcasting mission, with Need to Know, a news
magazine launched in May and anchored by two journalists from the
corporate media world.
FAIR's findings reveal:
Need to Know. FAIR's study of the first three months of Need to
Know's guestlist and segments finds that its "record so far provides
little encouragement that it will ever serve as an adequate replacement
for Now and the Bill Moyers Journal."
The program's heavily white (78 percent) and male (70 percent) guestlist
failed to "break out of the narrow corporate media box." Corporate
representatives outnumbered activists 20 to 12. And black people
appeared overwhelmingly on stories on drugs and prisons.
PBS NewsHour. If PBS's signature news show is any indication, the
system is doing little to help us "see America whole, in all its
diversity."
-- The NewsHour's guestlist was 80 percent male and 82 percent white,
with a pronounced tilt toward elites who rarely "go unheard," like
current and former government and military officials, corporate
representatives and journalists (74 percent). Since 2006, appearances
by women of color actually decreased by a third, to only 4 percent of
U.S. sources.-- Women and people of color were far more likely to appear as "people
on the street" providing brief, often reactive soundbites, than in more
authoritative roles in live interviews.-- Viewers were five times as likely to see guests representing
corporations (10 percent v. 2 percent) than representatives of public
interest groups who might counterweigh such moneyed interests--labor,
consumer and environmental organizations.-- While Democratic guests outnumbered Republican guests nearly 2-to-1
in overall sources, Republicans dominated by more than 3-to-2 in the
program's longer format, live segments. (FAIR's 2006 NewsHour study,
which examined a period when Republicans controlled the White House and
Congress, showed Republican guests outnumbering Democrats in both
categories: 2-to-1 among all sources, 3-to-2 in the longer live
interviews.)-- On segments about the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the most frequent
story of the study period, viewers were four times as likely to see
representatives hailing from the oil industry (13 percent of guests) as
representatives of environmental concerns (3 percent).-- On segments focusing on the Afghan War, though polls show consistent
majorities of Americans have opposed the war for more than a year, not
a single NewsHour guest represented an antiwar group or expressed
antiwar views. Similarly, no representative of a human rights or
humanitarian organization appeared on the NewsHour during the study
period.
The NewsHour, "public TV's nightly newscast," is actually privately
owned. For-profit conglomerate Liberty Media has held a controlling
stake in the NewsHour since 1994. The company is run by industry
bigfoot John Malone, who has declared that "nobody wants to go out and
invent something and invest hundreds of millions of dollars of risk
capital for the public interest." Public dollars still support the
NewsHour, and former PBS president Ervin Duggan declared the show "ours
and ours alone," but Liberty CEO Greg Maffei refers to the program as
"not our largest holding," but "one we're very proud of."
And it's not just the NewsHour. The Nightly Business Report was sold
earlier this year by public station WPBT to a private company. The
details of the deal-- which shifts the most-watched daily business show
on television into private hands-- are mostly unknown.
The Charlie Rose Show--a show produced outside the PBS system but
widely carried on public television stations--boasts a remarkably
narrow guestlist. FAIR found the most common guests (37 percent) were
reporters from major media outlets, and corporate guests, well-known
academics and government officials also made frequent appearances. Of
the 132 guest appearances, just two represented the public interest
voices that public television is supposed to highlight (equaling the
number of celebrity chefs who appeared). Eighty-five percent of guests
were male, and U.S. guests were 92 percent white.
Washington Week, the longest-running public affairs show on public
television, suffers from similar problems--which would seem to be by
design, given the show's inside-the-Beltway focus. In four months of
programs (May-August 2010), Washington Week presented 29 [64] reporter
guests; only one did not represent a corporate-owned outlet. Only four
of 64 appearances by guests were by non-white panelists (6 percent),
and the guestlist was 61 percent male.
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
The Trump administration's boat strikes have now killed at least 168 people, according to NPR.
The United States military has killed five more people suspected of drug smuggling in the latest boat bombing operation that many international law experts consider to be acts of murder.
In a Sunday social media post, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) announced it had "conducted two lethal kinetic strikes on two vessels" that it had deemed to be run by "designated terrorist organizations." As with the dozens of other boat bombings the Trump administration has conducted since last September, the military did not provide evidence that the vessels were involved in drug trafficking.
"Intelligence confirmed the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and were engaged in narco-trafficking operations," SOUTHCOM said. "Two male narco-terrorists were killed, and one narco-terrorist survived the first strike. Three male narco-terrorists were killed during the second strike."
SOUTHCOM said that it had alerted the US Coast Guard to conduct a search and rescue operation of the lone survivor of the two strikes, although it provided no further details of his well-being.
According to NPR, the US has now killed at least 168 people with its strikes on suspected drug boats, which began in September and have since continued despite being denounced by human rights organizations such as Human Rights and Amnesty International.
Brian Finucane, senior adviser with the US Program at the International Crisis Group, took note of the latest boat strike by remarking, "The lawless killing spree at sea continues."
A coalition of rights organizations led by the ACLU last year sued the Trump administration to demand it release documents that provide legal justification for its boat-bombing campaign.
The groups said that the Trump administration’s rationales for the strikes deserve special scrutiny because their justification hinges on claims that the US is in an “armed conflict” with international drug cartels akin to past conflicts between the US government and terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda.
The groups argued there is simply no way that drug cartels can be classified under the same umbrella as terrorist organizations, given that the law regarding war with nonstate actors says that any organizations considered to be in armed conflict with the US must be an “organized armed group” that is structured like a conventional military and engaged in “protracted armed violence” with the US government.
Before President Donald Trump's Pentagon began conducting the lethal boat strikes last year, drug trafficking in international waters was treated as a criminal offense, with law enforcement agencies and the US Coast Guard intercepting boats suspected of carrying drugs and arresting suspects.
Trump's bombings of boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have been called "extrajudicial killings" by advocacy groups including Amnesty International.
"He’s a clear and present danger to America and the world," wrote one critic. "We’ve got to do whatever we legally can to remove him from office."
US President Donald Trump's flurry of increasingly deranged late-night social media posts over the weekend—combined with his continued violent belligerence overseas—prompted fresh calls on Monday for congressional Democrats to immediately force an impeachment vote.
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) introduced 13 articles of impeachment against Trump last week, accusing the president of usurping congressional war powers by waging unauthorized assaults on Iran and other nations, illegally deploying National Guard troops in US cities, unlawfully detaining and deporting citizens and immigrants on the basis of their political views, lawlessly dismantling worker- and consumer-protection agencies, and other offenses.
In a statement on Monday, constitutional attorney John Bonifaz applauded Larson for introducing the impeachment articles but said that "we need the congressman to now take the next step and force an immediate floor vote on these articles at this critical hour for our nation."
"And, Democratic leaders in the Congress should stop standing in the way of such a vote," said Bonifaz, co-founder and president of Free Speech for People (FSFP). The group's petition urging the US House to impeach Trump a third time has received more than a million signatures, but the Democratic leadership has so far shown no willingness to push ahead with another impeachment process—which would require some Republican support to be successful.
"Momentum is on the side of action," FSFP said Monday, warning that "further delay only emboldens the president."
Bruce Fein, a constitutional scholar who served in the Reagan Justice Department, said Monday that the "impeachment of President Donald Trump is urgent."
"How can any decent person indulge Mr. Trump’s Hitler-like declaration that ‘a whole civilization will die tonight’ with our tax dollars-paid weapons?" asked Fein, referring to the US president's genocidal threat against Iran last week.
By one count, more than 85 Democrats in the Republican-controlled US House have called for Trump's removal via the impeachment process or the 25th Amendment in recent days. Last week, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said he would introduce legislation to establish a commission tasked with removing the president if he is deemed unfit to serve.
“This is plainly out of the realm of normal politics," said Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, urging the White House physician to immediately evaluate Trump's cognitive fitness. "When the president of the United States threatens to extinguish a civilization on social media, rants about combat missions with children at the Easter Egg Roll, and drops profane tirades on Easter morning, we have indisputably entered the realm of profound medical difficulty and concern."
Growing calls for Trump's impeachment and removal came after the president launched into an unhinged social media tirade late Sunday, hours after high-level talks with Iran ended without an agreement to halt the war that the US president and his Israeli counterpart started in late February.
Trump is having a mental health episode right now. He’s been posting on social media all night. He posted at:
9:49pm (Ai Jesus photo)
9:50pm (Trump tower on moon)
10:10pm (dumb meme)
10:32pm (news clip)
10:53pm (news clip)
12:43am (announcing Hormuz blockade)
2:35am (article…
— Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) April 13, 2026
Trump said Sunday that he would impose a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz—an illegal act of war—and is reportedly considering a resumption of aerial strikes on Iran.
After the talks concluded, Trump posted a lengthy attack on Pope Leo XIV, a vocal critic of the war on Iran. The president then posted an artificial intelligence-generated image depicting himself as a Jesus-like figure.
"Beyond mentally unstable," Rep. Yassamin Ansar (D-Ariz.) wrote in response to Trump's post.
Robert Reich, the former US labor secretary, wrote in a blog post on Monday that "the president of the United States is stark-raving mad."
"He’s a clear and present danger to America and the world. The American public is beginning to see it," Reich continued. "We’ve got to do whatever we legally can to remove him from office. The 25th Amendment would be useful if Trump’s Cabinet and key advisers had any integrity, but they don’t. They’re ambitious, unprincipled traitors. Which leaves impeachment."
"The message of the Gospel is very clear: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers.'"
Pope Leo XIV on Monday said he would not back off his criticism of President Donald Trump's war of choice in Iran after the president targeted him with an unhinged late-night social media rant.
In a Sunday Truth Social post, Trump accused Pope Leo of being "WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy," even though dealing with crime and running US foreign policy are not part of the pope's job description.
"Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician," Trump wrote at the conclusion of his long tirade. "It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church!"
A short time later, Trump posted an artificial intelligence-generated image that depicted him as a Christ-like figure.

Pope Leo in recent weeks has been openly critical of the US war in Iran, taking particular issue with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claiming that the conflict was being waged in the name of Jesus Christ.
“This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” the pope said during a Palm Sunday sermon last month. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”
According to a Monday report from the Associated Press, the pope remained defiant in the face of criticism from the president.
"The message of the Gospel is very clear: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,'" he said. "I will not shy away from announcing the message of the Gospel and inviting all people to look for ways of building bridges of peace and reconciliation, and looking for ways to avoid war any time that’s possible."
Leo added that he is "not afraid of the Trump administration or of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel," and insisted that "I will continue to speak out strongly against war, seeking to promote peace, promoting dialogue and multilateralism among states to find solutions to problems."
Trump's attack on the pope drew a rebuke from Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who said it was reflective of a presidency circling the drain.
" Donald Trump is flailing," Kelly wrote in a social media post. "His war in Iran has led to the death and injury of American servicemembers and the death of Iranian children. He will attack anyone or anything to try to protect himself, even the Church that millions of Americans find faith and comfort in every day."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal suggested that Trump's anti-pope rant was more evidence that he is mentally unwell and should be removed from office.
"The deranged and disgusting post from Trump attacking Pope Leo should certainly help him appeal to the more than 50 million Americans who identify as Catholics," she wrote. "Perhaps this will convince JD Vance to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office?"
Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, said he was "disheartened" that Trump "chose to write such disparaging words about the Holy Father."
"Pope Leo is not his rival; nor is the pope a politician," Coakley added. "He is the vicar of Christ who speaks from the truth of the Gospel and for the care of souls."
The Rev. James Martin said he doubted Pope Leo "will lose any sleep over" Trump's rant, but added "the rest of us should" because "it is unhinged, uncharitable, and unchristian."