Via the NYT: Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases

The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.

The answer to this one is simple: stop public funding of PBS. I can see no justification for the continued federal funding of this enterprise. Not only have television options exploded since PBS’ inception, but there is no constitutional basis for Congressional funding of broadcast television. Further, the channel could survive without federal funds. Not only are their donors who already help fund the programming (and I mean corporate sponsors, not just individuals) but a good deal of the programming, especially the children’s programming, has the potential to be quite profitable. And, quite frankly, if they had to sell commercials, exactly why would that be a bad thing?

Further, if PBS were no longer funded by the feds, these crazy arguments over its leanings would be irrelevant. Instead, we get government employees running around trying to create content guidelines. Does this really sound like a good idea to anyone?

Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests’ political leanings on one program, “Now With Bill Moyers.”

In late March, on the recommendation of administration officials, Mr. Tomlinson hired the director of the White House Office of Global Communications as a senior staff member, corporation officials said. While she was still on the White House staff, she helped draft guidelines governing the work of two ombudsmen whom the corporation recently appointed to review the content of public radio and television broadcasts.

Mr. Tomlinson also encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast “The Journal Editorial Report,” whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. And while a search firm has been retained to find a successor for Kathleen A. Cox, the corporation’s president and chief executive, whose contract was not renewed last month, Mr. Tomlinson has made clear to the board that his choice is Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee who is now an assistant secretary of state.

Mr. Tomlinson said that he was striving for balance and had no desire to impose a political point of view on programming, explaining that his efforts are intended to help public broadcasting distinguish itself in a 500-channel universe and gain financial and political support.

First: that last sentence makes my point: “A 500-channel universe.” I know that not every family in the US has cable, but there is substantial access to various programming options to the degree that there is no need for this channel to be subsidized.

Second: because it is a governmental entity in part you are going to get this type of interference in programming, which will have a political tinge to it no matter the motivations.

I can’t disagree that, on balance, PBS has had a liberal-leaning perspective. However, the idea that the government, in any capacity, is to be influencing content is disquieting.

Of course, the reason the government has a hand in such matters at all is because the government helps fund PBS. Hence, the solution here is easy: end federal funding. I guarantee that if that happens, Big Bird will not go away.

And there is no avoiding the fact that if the government funds something like PBS then there will be politics involved:

“There was an increasingly and disturbingly aggressive desire to be more involved and to push programming in a more conservative direction,” said Ms. Carpenter, who is now a vice president of the Museum of Television and Radio. One of the more disturbing developments, she added, was a “very vehement dislike for Bill Moyers.”

Gee, I can’t imagine why Bill Moyers would be the target of criticism from conservatives…(however, it is irrelevant).

But, having such political programming is going to elicit responses from political appointees, especially when the charter dictates “balance” in content:

In December 2024, three months after he was elected chairman, Mr. Tomlinson sent Ms. Mitchell of PBS a letter outlining his concerns. ” ‘Now With Bill Moyers’ does not contain anything approaching the balance the law requires for public broadcasting,” he wrote.

I am opposed to the now defunct “Fairness Doctrine” on principle, and this is just a similar iteration of that idea: the all opinions have an equal and opposite that can be deployed to “balanceâ€? one another. I am not even sure what constitutes “balance” not certainly how one would measure it.

And stuff like this simply isn’t helpful:

Shortly after, Mr. Tomlinson hired a consultant to review Mr. Moyers’s program; one three-month contract cost $10,000. The reports Mr. Tomlinson saw placed the program’s guests in categories like “anti-Bush,” “anti-business” and “anti-Tom DeLay,” referring to the House majority leader, corporation officials said. The reports found the guests were overwhelmingly anti-Bush, a conclusion Mr. Moyers disputed.

First off, what a waste of money to hire a consultant to figure out the leanings of guests. Second, and on a more serious note, the idea of government money going to determine whether political commentators are “pro” or “anti” the President is distasteful at a minimum and sinister at worst.

As I have stated: end federal funding, and this whole situation ceases to be an issue.

11 Comments

1. I’m going to also say that the 500 channel universe is bunk. At most, there are maybe 200 channels that have content that isn’t a direct duplicate of some other channel (like CBS east and west)

   Comment by bryan — Monday, May 2, 2024 @ 9:15 am

2. OK, take 200 channels. That is still an enormous amout of channels.

   I get expanded basic cable (no premium channels) and I get something like 95 channels. I could not tell you what about 30 of them even were.

   Comment by Mark — Monday, May 2, 2024 @ 9:23 am

3. Granted–the 500 is clearly an overstatement.

   Still, the current environment is a far cry from the early 70s when a person had, maybe, ABC, CBS, NBC, an independent and PBS (and that would be a in large city)

   Comment by Steven Taylor — Monday, May 2, 2024 @ 9:24 am

4. How much money does PBS get from the feds, anyway? From what I understand, NPR gets a pittance from the gov., but is rolling in dough thanks to a bequest from the Ray Kroc family.

   Comment by bryan — Monday, May 2, 2024 @ 9:32 am

5. I think the cost of PBS works out to be 50 cents a year per tax payer.

   Astounding the level of vitrol these right wingers have for the institution.

   I mean, it’s not like 300 billion for a war you don’t agree with or anything.

   Comment by Hal — Monday, May 2, 2024 @ 12:07 pm

6. “End federal funding, and this whole situation ceases to be an issue.”

   Amen.

   Comment by Karl Maher — Monday, May 2, 2024 @ 1:40 pm

7. If taxpayers actually got to directly choose where their money was spent, I wonder what is country would be like. Just something to think about.

   Comment by Jan — Monday, May 2, 2024 @ 2:10 pm

8. Whoops. It’s actually more like 25 cents per federal tax payer. I must say, you people really are amazingly focused on such triviality. What a bunch of whiners.

   Why don’t you pay attention to the 150 billion in steel subsidies or 500 billion in agricultural subsidies. Or lord only knows how much in military subsidies.

   Oh wait, I know the answer to that. . .

   Comment by Hal — Monday, May 2, 2024 @ 2:10 pm

9. I’m also against steel and agriculture subsidies, but what does that have to do with this issue? This isn’t a question of how much PBS gets, but of whether it’s appropriate for them to get anything at all.

   The problem is this:

   A) the government should NOT get involved with the content, particularly the political balance, of a TV or radio source;

   AND

   B) the government SHOULD get involved with the content, particularly the political balance, if it is subsidizing it.

   The only solution is to end the funding.

   Comment by Ann — Monday, May 2, 2024 @ 3:05 pm

10. Hal,

    Whiners? No. I just don’t see the point. There are a lot of “nice” things the government could do with .25 per head–that doesn’t mean they ought to do them.

    Further, there is the broader point about government officials trying to manage content. Since I was essentially criticizing the current administration, I’d think you’d be on my side at least a little

    Comment by Steven Taylor — Monday, May 2, 2024 @ 3:55 pm

11. Oh, I am quite oppossed to steel subsidies and have blogged, more than once, against agricultural subsidies.

    In re: PBS–can you actually argue that it is something that the federal government actually needs to be doing?

    Comment by Steven Taylor — Monday, May 2, 2024 @ 4:15 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The trackback url for this post is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=6945

NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.