Right-wing Coup at PBS?

[Guest guest]

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21914/

 

Right-wing Coup at PBS?

 

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted May 3, 2005.

 

Is Pat Mitchell the Martin Niemoller of public television?

 

You may recognize this quote from the Lutheran anti-Nazi activist, who

formed a resistance movement and was then arrested and spent years in

prison for his beliefs:

 

" First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because

I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I

did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came

for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then

they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. "

 

The ongoing conservative coup at the quasi-governmental Corporation

for Public Broadcasting seems to have come at last for lame duck PBS

president and CEO Mitchell. The evidence is everywhere, as detailed

recently in articles in such mainstream mouthpieces as The New York

Times and The Washington Post.

 

Mitchell is being publicly criticized as " tone deaf " by CPB chairman

Kenneth Tomlinson, after having been " jokingly " told by him to ensure

that PBS programming better reflect a Republican " mandate. "

 

Meanwhile, as the Post noted (in an April 22 article " PBS Scrutiny

Raises Political Antennas " by Paul Farhi):

 

" Liberal commentator Bill Moyers is out on PBS stations. Buster

the animated rabbit is under a cloud of suspicion. And right-wing

yakkers from the Wall Street Journal editorial page have been handed

their own public television chat show. "

 

In addition, CPB officials recently appointed for the first time in

history two " ombudsmen " to review PBS news and public affairs programs

(such as the award-winning " Frontline " and " The NewsHour with Jim

Lehrer " ) for evidence of bias -- without bothering to inform Mitchell.

They also insisted for the first time on tying new federal funding

(CPB provides nearly $30 million annually to PBS) to an agreement that

commits PBS to strict " objectivity and balance " in each of its

programs -- something that, according to the PBS general counsel,

amounts to: " government encroachment on and supervision of program

content, potentially in violation of the First Amendment. " And

recently Ken Ferree, a top Republican operative and former FCC media

bureau chief under Chairman Michael Powell, was named as an interim

replacement for CPB chief executive Kathleen Cox. Ferree is meant to

keep the seat warm until Tomlinson's choice for the post -- Assistant

Secretary of State (and former co-chairwoman of the Republican

National Committee) Patricia Harrison -- receives approval from CPB's

board members, many of whom have been appointed by President Bush.

 

" We don't want to be alarmist, but I would be less than honest if

I said there wasn't concern here, " one senior executive at PBS, who

insisted on anonymity because CPB provides about 10 percent of its

annual budget,' told the Post. " When you put it all together, a

pattern starts to emerge. "

 

A week and a half later, Mitchell went on the record, telling The New

York Times " I do think there have been instances of attempts to

influence content from a political perspective that I do not consider

appropriate. "

 

Among the attempts cited by the Times: the hidden hiring of a

consultant by CPB Board Chairman Ken Tomlinson to " review " the content

of " NOW with Bill Moyers " ; Tomlinson's assistance in lining up $5

million in corporate financing and subsequent PBS distribution of " The

Journal Editorial Report, " the weekly chat show featuring members of

the conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal; his

penchant for involving the White House in matters ranging from

legislation affecting the CPB board to addressing concerns about

" objectivity and balance; " all the way to remarks at a " fun occasion "

-- a post-election meeting last November -- when Tomlinson told PBS

officials, including Mitchell, that they ought to make sure their

programming better reflected the Republican " mandate. "

 

" I was in that room, " Mitchell told the Times. " I was surprised by the

comment. I thought it was inappropriate. "

 

An unnamed senior FCC official went further, however, telling The

Washington Post that CPB under Tomlinson " is engaged in a systematic

effort not just to sanitize the truth, but to impose a right-wing

agenda on PBS. It's almost like a right-wing coup. It appears to be

orchestrated. "

 

Ken Tomlinson dismisses such concerns, however, as " paranoia, " telling

the Post that his critics should simply " grow up, " remarking in the

Times, " I frankly feel at PBS headquarters that there is a tone

deafness to issues of tone and balance. "

 

Tomlinson says his goal is " to see programming that satisfies a broad

constituency, " and he is " concerned about perceptions that not all

parts of the political spectrum are reflected on public broadcasting. "

He told the Post that he is: " only seeking balance " and that: " there

are no hidden agendas. "

 

But Tomlinson kept hidden the results of two " National Public Opinion "

surveys indicating that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. public

is happy with PBS programming. The documents, buried in an annual

report to Congress, were neither released to the press nor shared with

PBS. But both surveys confirm the same thing: " The majority of the

U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information

programming on public broadcasting is biased. The plurality of

Americans indicate that there is no apparent bias one way or the

other, while approximately one-in-five detect a liberal bias and

approximately one-in-ten detect a conservative bias. "

 

According to the Center for Digital Democracy, the surveys showed, that:

 

" public broadcasting had an 80 percent 'Favorable' rating; only 10

percent of those polled had an 'Unfavorable' opinion of PBS and public

radio. ... More than half of those surveyed believed that PBS news and

information programming was more 'Trustworthy' than news shows on the

commercial networks. ... "

 

" Similarly, more than half of those surveyed believed that PBS

provided more 'in-depth' news and information programming than the

networks. ... Finally, more than half (55 percent) said that PBS

programming was 'fair and balanced,' with strong support for its 'high

quality programming.' "

 

There is definitely deafness at PBS headquarters, and has been for

more than a decade -- but not of tone or balance, Instead, PBS

officials like Pat Mitchell are guilty of ignoring the deafening

clamor of conservatives mounting an assault on public media of all

types, and particularly public television. Right-wing activists began

organizing their CPB " coup " long ago, but PBS officials such as

Mitchell and her predecessors have done nothing but stand by silently.

Led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and assisted by character

assassins and political hit men like David Horowitz, they began by

going after PTV's equivalent of Niemoller's " socialists, trade

unionists and Jews. "

 

I know, because I was one of them.

 

Along with Bill Moyers, David Fanning and " Frontline, " my partner

Danny Schechter and I were high on the original hit list. Our

thought-crime? Producing the anti-apartheid newsmagazine program

" South Africa Now, " which appeared weekly between 1988-1991 on more

than 150 public television stations. Unlike the Wall Street Journal,

our company Globalvision received no funding or distribution

assistance from either CPB or PBS. And when Horowitz -- then as now

backed by the largesse of conservative funders -- labeled us

" hard-line Marxist propagandists " and " advocates, not journalists, " in

major metropolitan newspapers, few within the public television

hierarchy said a word. The same proved true when Horowitz later met

secretly with top officials at the Los Angeles public television

station KCET, which abruptly pulled our series off the air without

discussion or notification.

 

After a week of public protest and a spate of articles about the

controversy in the Los Angeles Times -- including its Pulitzer

Prize-winning critic denouncing the station's " boneheaded decision " --

the station relented and reluctantly allowed the program back on the

air, albeit after imposing a dumb, distancing disclaimer stating that

" This program represents the views of its producers. "

 

So they came for us, and the community spoke out, our viewers spoke

out, and the Los Angeles Times spoke out, but PBS officials said

nothing. The same was true of the attacks then and now on Moyers and

Fanning and " Frontline, " -- not to mention poor Buster and his

lesbian, socialistic, Jewish, trade unionist supporters.

 

Now that they've come for PBS, its officials and its programming, is

there anyone left to speak out?

 

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

[Guest guest]

I think the term " right-wing " coup of PBS confuses the

issue. Both Democrats and Republicans are following

ONE AGENDA--that of the globablists as decided by

non-governmental councils that actually plan world

events, often decades in advance.

 

The bottom line is the powers-that-be-have all kinds

of plans for us little people, and it is going to

decide what we are allowed to believe or know. Of

course, that includes the party line because Bush is a

globalist. (So was Clinton)

 

One of the tools PBS uses a lot to control its staff

and listeners is shaming. For example, to suggest that

only a nut would get his information from the

Internet.

 

PBS is totally compromised as is all mainstream media.

 

The PBS staff have an intense desire to succeed in

this controlling " elite " culture which taps into huge

power and money, and I suppose they know that if they

start thinking too much for themselves, it's pretty

much over for their careers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The PBS staff have an intense desire to succeed in

this controlling " elite " culture which taps into huge

power and money, and I suppose they know that if they

start thinking too much for themselves, it's pretty

much over for their careers.

 

 

 

Do you work for PBS or know anyone that does? I think you are jumping the gun

to say that the staff as whole thinks this way. I know for a fact that is not

in anyway true on the local level where I live. The corporate PBS offices this

is pretty much right on the nose though. In fact, many local stations have

turned down contracts offering $20,000 + per year to air PBS Sprout. That would

also require them sign a non-compete in that they would not be allowed to air

any competing children's stations. There are many that have signed this, but

there are many, many more that feel that they would be doing a great dis-service

to the children by having any affiliation to PBS Sprout.

 

BTW...I didn't get the first message on this for some reason.

 

Kelly