The director is refuting the charge that NNN has a bias towards being conservative. Recently, the channel hired a liberal news personality, which should have made the channel more liberal (as it has one more person who has liberal views, as opposed to conservative). However, in response, the channel added an additional conservative news program.

To an outsider, this would seem that the channel tried to maintain its bias for being conservative by trying to neutralize the effect of one additional liberal news anchor through an additional conservative news program. This is the charge that is made against the news network.

However, the director refutes the charge by saying that the conservative news program helped to balance the effect of added liberalism in the news network through the liberal anchor - it was an attempt on the part of the news channel to help maintained a balanced perspective, not to 'make up' for the presence of more liberalism (through the new anchor) by introducing more conservatism (through the news program). In summation, the director is saying that the news network strives to provide a balanced perspective to its viewers, not to maintain a bias towards conservatism.

So in this question, the correct answer choice is (1).

1) If the news network has always established an additional liberal news program whenever a new conservative personality has joined, it shows the commitment of the network to balance out liberalism and conservatism IN THE SAME WAY as it has in the question stem. Therefore this is the right choice.
2) Even if the network airs one program focused on the opinions of its viewers, that does not make it committed to showing the balanced perspective as a whole (there could be many more program not focused on viewer opinion).
3) This is irrelevant to the argument
4) Even if the new personality has not felt any editorial pressure, we cannot comment on the situation in general.
5) Viewer rating has no relation to the new network showing a balanced perspective.