Signals Crossed at the CPB (WaPo starts to get it)

The Washington Post ^ | November 27, 2005 | Meathead Editorial

[neverdem]

THE CORPORATION for Public Broadcasting is supposed to act as a two-layered heat shield -- both to prevent political interference with public broadcasting and to ensure balance and objectivity in publicly funded programs. A report from the corporation's inspector general illustrates that former CPB chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson repeatedly -- and dangerously -- departed from the first goal in pursuit of the second. Mr. Tomlinson was ousted from the board after it received the inspector general's report, but his departure isn't all that's needed: The report should serve as a wake-up call for the corporation to reform itself.

Mr. Tomlinson had made it his mission at CPB, which distributes about $400 million in federal funding for public television and radio, to root out what he perceived -- with justification in some cases -- to be a liberal bias in its programming. Inspector General Kenneth A. Konz's report details how Mr. Tomlinson's concern about politicization failed to extend to his own actions, which violated the organization's rules and federal law.

It found that Mr. Tomlinson was in touch with the White House about "shaking up CPB" and that "political tests" were a major factor in choosing the corporation's current president, former Republican National Committee chairman Patricia Harrison, despite the statutory prohibition against considering political ties. "Specifically," the report said, "we identified e-mails between the former Chairman and staff in the Executive Office of the President that, while cryptic in nature," give "the appearance that the former Chairman was strongly motivated by political considerations in filling the President/CEO position." According to The Post's Paul Farhi, the White House officials included White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

Moreover, according to the report, Mr. Tomlinson made extensive efforts to develop and promote the conservative "Journal Editorial Report," featuring Wall Street Journal commentators...

[neverdem]

Mr. Tomlinson had made it his mission at CPB, which distributes about $400 million in federal funding for public television and radio, to root out what he perceived -- with justification in some cases -- to be a liberal bias in its programming.

How about with justification in almost all cases? P.S. The Journal Editorial Report has announced this will be their last season. PBS and Us Have you heard the one about fair and balanced public TV? I sent to two local PBS affiliates a link to that WSJ editorial and an explanation why they shouldn't expect donations from the right.

[SittinYonder]

the report should serve as a wake-up call for the corporation to reform itself.

In the age of cable television and satellite television and the Internet, PBS and NPR have outlived whatever usefulness they might have served.

If there is a need for NPR and PBS, let them sink or swim in the marketplace, they can sell commercials and raise donations, but they don't need tax dollars.

I thought selling the whole thing to Als Gore and Franken for GoreTV and Air America was the best way to deal with them.

[GoforBroke]

So those that have been at CPB before Mr. Tomlinson are ok? I see, only Mr. Tomlinson's sh#*t stinks?

[Batrachian]

"...they can sell commercials and raise donations, but they don't need tax dollars."

Why is a Republican congress still funding them? I can think of some reasons, but not good ones.

[SittinYonder]

I can think of some reasons, but not good ones

ROFLOL ... that just about describes my thoughts on nearly every federal program!

[truth_seeker]

"Why is a Republican congress still funding them?"

Because the Republican congress is still funding EVERYTHING. The Republican President is complicit, for NOT a single VETO.

Republicans hold a majority.

Conservatives do NOT hold a majority.

[marsh2]

Our PBS station (Redding CA) shows "Democracy Now." That is full of leftist propaganda. On a Christmas show break yesterday, they celebrated "diversity" as they invited donations. Although I really enjoy some of the musical specials, I sure as heck don't want to support the "enlightened" leftist point of view and radical programs that accompany them.

[bigsigh]

Here's a preview from the republican platform draft for 2006. "Vote for us, we're a little more conservative then the other guys."

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

Because uber leftist Juan Williams and Mara Liasson would have to look for jobs in the private sector.

[marron]

I agree with you. We should sell the whole thing to Gore and Franken for a dollar. It would be the best deal we ever made.

[grey_whiskers]

Wait, wait.

I thought FrankenGore (remember the Dems' mantra ReaganBush a while back?) were on PBS.

"Air America" = "Pathetic Bull Sh*t" = P.B.S.

Cheers!

[truth_seeker]

Here's a preview from the republican platform draft for 2006. "Vote for us, we're a little more conservative then the other guys."

That will be case by case. The proability of replacing an incumbent is very small.

If that task is ousting a popular moderate Republican, in favor of a more conservative Republican--good luck. The name recognition and fundraising advantage is hard to overcome.

So "a little more conservative" may be the best likely outcome. Unless success is measured by watching an ideologically pure candidate run, then lose every two/four/six years.

Name a candidate that has the political savvy, issue positions, smarts, funding to beat Boxer or Feinstein. Chances are it would be "moderate" Republican.

And if that came to pass, I would be pleased as can be, to be represented by that Republican.