1
   

Public Broadcasting Targeted By House

 
 
au1929
 
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 04:21 pm
Quote:

Public Broadcasting Targeted By House



Panel Seeks to End CPB's Funding Within 2 Years

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 10, 2005; Page A01



A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster."

In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which passes federal funds to public broadcasters -- starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million.

In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue.

Expressing alarm, public broadcasters and their supporters in Congress interpreted the move as an escalation of a Republican-led campaign against a perceived liberal bias in their programming. That effort was initiated by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's own chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson.

"Americans overwhelmingly see public broadcasting as an unbiased information source," Rep. David Obey (Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said in a statement. "Perhaps that's what the GOP finds so offensive about it. Republican leaders are trying to bring every facet of the federal government under their control. . . . Now they are trying to put their ideological stamp on public broadcasting


Continued
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902283.html?referrer=email


What are your thoughts on why the house would take the action and attempt to stifle the voice of public broadcasting?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,726 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 05:20 pm
It fits in with their privatization/"free" market philosophy--no government sponsored programs, no government regulation.

Besides, their buddies in the business world don't like that there's a source of news that they don't own.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 06:24 am
sickening, in a few years we won't even recognize this country. It will all be owned by just few very rich people and the rest of us will be like the peasants back in old England of which our ancestors escaped from.

Maybe future generations will have enough of it and we will have a revolution. (yea, you know...)

Can't they just leave anything alone?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 06:46 am
I would support that. PBS has never been nor should it be expected to be "the voice of the people" as you describe.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 11:30 am
woiyo: "Voice of the people?" It's a voice to the people--the only one not owned by big business. Rather than cutting funds, PBS should be wholly subsidized by the public as the CBC and BBC are. A small tax on televisions would do the trick.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 12:35 pm
If it's going to be funded by the public, then it should reflect the public interest. I'd like to see more christian-conservative programming on PBS. Perhaps a Newt Gingrich news show.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 12:42 pm
I'm curious--now that Bill Moyers is retired, how liberal is PBS? This is an honest question. Whenever I check, they're showing some sort of filler--Suzy Orman (or however you spell her name)--or it's a fund drive.

But if there is so much "liberal" programming on PBS, then sure, invite some big-hair folks from over fromthe Trinity Network to have a show of two on PBS. Fair enough...
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 12:56 pm
Mills75 wrote:
woiyo: "Voice of the people?" It's a voice to the people--the only one not owned by big business. Rather than cutting funds, PBS should be wholly subsidized by the public as the CBC and BBC are. A small tax on televisions would do the trick.


I agree!

Since Masterpiece Theatre lost its funding from Mobil Exxon, hardly any shows have been produced. Masterpiece Theatre was the best drama ever on television using the world's greatest literature as its source material. Americans are spending their money on better and better TV technology while the programming itself gets worse and worse.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 01:15 pm
Mills75 wrote:
woiyo: "Voice of the people?" It's a voice to the people--the only one not owned by big business. Rather than cutting funds, PBS should be wholly subsidized by the public as the CBC and BBC are. A small tax on televisions would do the trick.


There is already a "small tax" to subsidize PBS. If they can not raise there own funds, do not come to me for more of my money. If you want to subsidize it, write a bigger check to PBS then you already do. Keep your hands out of my pocket in this matter.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 01:19 pm
PBSkids is great and I would hate to loose it and I don't see how it can be termed liberal or conservative. Those shows for kids are way more educational than the shows on disney or nickelonian. There are also other educational programs that are regulary shown in classrooms.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 05:16 pm
McGentrix: PBS has major religious programming about as often the average person attends church--during Christmas and Easter; sounds pretty representative to me. And aside from the fact that most conservative politicians and commentators hate PBS because it isn't owned by one of their buddies, PBS probably couldn't afford Newt Gingrich.

D'artagnan: "liberal," in this case, is just a conservative code word for thought-provoking and critical--it may criticize people and agenda on the left, but if it ever criticizes people and agenda on the right, then it has a liberal bias. PBS has been governed by a nonpartisan board of directors since its inception. One or two left-leaning on-air personalities does not make a TV or radio network liberal, just as a few centrist personalities mixed in with all those right-wing wackos does not make Fox News "fair and balanced."

woiyo: What tax do you pay for the expressed purpose of supporting PBS? Since we live in a democratic republic, an independent and reliable source of information is as essential as a military is for our common defense.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 05:25 pm
coluber2001: It always bothered me that PBS had to rely so heavily on corporate donations. Have they stopped making MP Theatre?

revel: That's because PBS doesn't design it's children's shows to sell a product (not that products haven't been made capitalizing on the popularity of PBS's more memorable characters).
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:10 am
revel wrote:
PBSkids is great and I would hate to loose it and I don't see how it can be termed liberal or conservative. Those shows for kids are way more educational than the shows on disney or nickelonian. There are also other educational programs that are regulary shown in classrooms.


It seems to me that unless a program propagates conservative views, it is called liberal by the right-wingers. For instance, "The Diane Rheem Show" an NPR talk show would be considered very liberal because she refuses to take sides or attack liberal guests.

Yes, children would miss out if PBS was gone.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:25 am
Mills75 wrote:
coluber2001: It always bothered me that PBS had to rely so heavily on corporate donations. Have they stopped making MP Theatre?

revel: That's because PBS doesn't design it's children's shows to sell a product (not that products haven't been made capitalizing on the popularity of PBS's more memorable characters).
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:28 am
Lobbyists' Role for Public TV Is Investigated
B
Quote:
y STEPHEN LABATON
Published: June 16, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 15 - Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are examining $15,000 in payments to two Republican lobbyists last year that were not disclosed to the corporation's board, people involved in the inquiry said on Wednesday.
One of the lobbyists was retained at the direction of the corporation's Republican chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, they said, and the other at the suggestion of his Republican predecessor, who remains on the board.

The investigators, in the corporation's inspector general's office, are also examining $14,170 in payments made under contracts - which Mr. Tomlinson took the unusual step of signing personally, also without the knowledge of board members - with a man in Indiana who provided him with reports about the political leanings of guests on the "Now" program when its host was Bill Moyers.

While the amounts of the contracts are relatively small, the issues they pose are part of a broader examination by the inspector general of Mr. Tomlinson's efforts to bring what he says is more political balance to public television and radio and what critics say is political interference in programming.

It comes as Republicans in Congress are threatening to cut support for public broadcasting sharply, and as a number of crucial staff members at the corporation have quit and privately cited concerns on Mr. Tomlinson's leadership.

The people who described the inquiry and the declining morale include officials unhappy with the corporation's course under Mr. Tomlinson. Concerned about retribution, they spoke on condition of anonymity.

Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor of Reader's Digest appointed to the board by President Bill Clinton in 2000, said on Wednesday that he would not comment on details of the investigation but was certain that he had done nothing improper.

"We are confident that the inspector general's report will conclude that all personnel arrangements were and continue to be made in accordance with the statutes and rules governing CPB's use of funds," he said in an e-mail message.

Corporation officials said the two lobbyists did not approach lawmakers but provided strategic advice on handling a bill last year that would have given public radio and television stations more representation on the corporation's board. The measure, which died, was opposed by the White House and Mr. Tomlinson but was supported by stations.

One of the lobbyists, Brian Darling, was paid $10,000 for his insights into Senator Conrad Burns, a Montana Republican who sponsored the provision. This year, he briefly served as a top aide to Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, but resigned after the disclosure that he had written a memorandum describing how to exploit politically the life-support case of Terri Schiavo.

Mr. Darling did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

The other lobbyist, Mark Buse, a former top aide to Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said he provided advice on the legislative process over a month and did not talk to any lawmakers. Mr. Buse, who was paid $5,000, said he was hired at the suggestion of Katherine M. Anderson, a former chairwoman of the corporation and a current board member.

The corporation is financed entirely by taxpayer dollars and is supposed to be a political buffer between lawmakers and public television and radio. For years, it has told groups representing the stations that federal law prohibits it from retaining lobbyists to approach lawmakers or push for legislation.

Mr. Tomlinson has said in recent interviews that he has no desire to impose a political point of view on programming, and that his efforts are intended to help public broadcasting distinguish itself in a 500-channel universe and gain financial and political support. His critics, who include top officials at the Public Broadcasting Service and at National Public Radio, say his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.

The inspector general is looking at contracts signed by Mr. Tomlinson with a man named Fred Mann to monitor the political leanings of "Now." The inquiry was requested by two Democrats, Representatives John D. Dingell of Michigan and David R. Obey of Wisconsin, after they learned about the monitoring.

Officials said the inspector general was examining whether Mr. Tomlinson, as chairman of the corporation, had the authority to approve the contract or the payments.

Mr. Mann, who was listed in the contracts as living in Indianapolis, could not be located, and officials at the corporation said they knew nothing about him.

The inquiry comes as Mr. Tomlinson finds himself at the center of a political battle that threatens to reduce the corporation's budget significantly, and internal turmoil that has sharply eroded morale and recently prompted significant staff defections. The corporation's general counsel, Donna Gregg, left the corporation this month. Last week, Nancy R. Rohrbach, the senior vice president for corporate and public affairs, submitted her resignation.

Ms. Rohrbach has told friends that Mr. Tomlinson repeatedly ignored her advice. She and other officials were described as being upset last week when Mr. Tomlinson rejected a proposed statement by senior officials at the corporation denouncing a vote by a House appropriations subcommittee that would slash the corporation's budget by 25 percent, or $100 million, to $300 million.

The House Appropriations Committee is expected to approve that measure on Thursday.

Officials said that after the panel's vote last Thursday, staff members confronted Mr. Tomlinson about his refusal to approve a statement condemning the Congressional action.

While public television and radio groups denounced the subcommittee vote and called the corporation to seek a similar statement, late in the day Mr. Tomlinson issued a milder response, saying that the corporation was "concerned" and would "be joining with our colleagues in the public broadcasting community to make the case for a higher level of funding as the appropriations measure makes its way through Congress."

The corporation's Democratic and independent members, meanwhile, are preparing to urge the Republican-controlled board to delay the appointment of a new president of the corporation at its regularly scheduled meeting next week. The former president, Kathleen Cox, left in April after her contract was not renewed.

Mr. Tomlinson has said that his top choice is Patricia Harrison, an assistant secretary of state and a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jun, 2005 05:16 pm
Isn't having Republicans running PBS a little like putting the wolf in charge of the flock?
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 10:26 am
McGentrix wrote:
If it's going to be funded by the public, then it should reflect the public interest. I'd like to see more christian-conservative programming on PBS. Perhaps a Newt Gingrich news show.


Talk about contrary to the public interest! Perhaps, we should join the Jehovah's Witness organization and not go to college or read the newspapers.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 10:28 am
I'm certain many would agree with me that what is on PBS is what's on. This is just another step toward the dumbing down of America. Let's all watch Fear Factor!
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 04:11 pm
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2005 11:06 am
You need to read the May edition of Mother Jones.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Public Broadcasting Targeted By House
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 03:17:50