Common Cause Blog :: In Nixon's Shadow ...

In Nixon's Shadow ...

By Lauren Coletta
Posted on Wed May 25, 2005 at 01:54:33 PM EST

Over the past several days Kenneth Tomlinson, the Chairman of Corporation of Public Broadcasting ("CPB") has been defending his actions in the media by repeating his mantra that public broadcasting has a liberal bias and needs to have "balance." He positions himself as a dedicated supporter of public broadcasting who is trying to save it from itself. Yet the only way Tomlinson seems to do it is by promoting ideological conservative shows, such as the Wall Street Journal program, which are broadcast by profitable companies that don't need public funds.

This type of double speak is nothing new. President Richard Nixon and House Speaker Newt Gingrich both thought public broadcasting was too liberal and tried to undermine it one way or another. Like Nixon, who sought to takeover the CPB board and infrastructure as a way to control his "enemies," Tomlinson is stacking the CPB payroll with fellow Republicans and former White House staffers.

He appointed Ken Ferree, former advisor to Republican FCC Chairman Michael Powell. He hired Mary Catherine Andrews, a White House communications officer as a "special advisor" to create the controversial CPB ombudsmen positions tasked with evaluating NPR and PBS programs for bias...a first in CPB's 38 year history. It is also widely known that he is considering filling the CPB presidency vacancy with former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, Assistant Secretary of State Patricia Harrison, a clearly partisan choice.

There are some in the conservative camp who are always going to think the news and public affairs programming on public broadcasting has liberal bias-no matter what the majority of Americans think. According to a poll the CPB itself funded, "the majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased."

No matter how he tries to frame it, Tomlinson is injecting politics into public broadcasting. He is interfering with the editorial independence of NPR and PBS, and he is using the CPB purse strings to do it. We need your help to stop him. Please join us in sending him a clear message that we don't believe his double speak. If you haven't already, please sign our petition to Tomlinson which we will present to him at the CPB board meeting on June 20. We have already collected more than 33,000 signatures - let's get the number to 100,000 by June 20th.

Tags: Media and Democracy (all tags)

In Nixon's Shadow ... :: 15 Comments

Simultaneous top-down attack on BBC

The BBC is also under attack from the top down (what a coincidence). Its board has determined to cut 3,800 jobs and to privatize parts of the corp.--the most drastic cuts in BBC history. The employees' unions are striking.

Please go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_ra dio/4538929.stm for (a bit) more info and to comment in support of the strikers.

And please tell your friends what's happening both here and in the U.K.!

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed May 25, 2005 at 05:02:30 PM EST

Re: Simultaneous top-down attack on BBC

免费电影免费成人电影免费黄色电影免费色情电影免费激情电影免费性交电影租车坝上上海租车汽车租赁上海汽车租赁法律咨询律师北京律师窃听器虚拟主机货架传奇私服照明设计考勤机法国留学分类目录 GOOGLE排名租房 vb 网址大全人造美女中国人造美女处女膜人造美女图片丰胸中医减肥减肥中心郝璐璐中国第一人造&# 32654;女脱毛妇科瘦脸北京整形医院痤疮隆鼻美容整形青春痘整形医院整形美容医院处女膜修补美白割双眼皮口腔北京美容医院双眼皮手术医疗美容疤痕祛斑光子嫩肤美容医院痤疮疤痕人造美女郝璐&# 29840; 中医美容疤痕治疗隆鼻手术美容中心体检双眼皮乳房整形处女膜修补术整形美女激光除痣美容咨询脱发激光祛斑北京整形整形修复瘢痕修复疤痕修复隆鼻修复失败整形手术双眼皮修复假体置换唇额裂上俭下垂烧伤

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:18:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tomlinson & CPB

I don't have a Common Cause User Account because I don't believe signing petitions have any effect in the current political climate. We wouldn't be telling Tomlinson something that he doesn't already know and that Pat Mitchell (PBS) hasn't told him many times over. Nixon certainly wasn't brought down by petitions.

I urge Lauren Coletta to give us a well-researched article on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--its mandate, its structure, and its relation to NPR/PBS affiliate stations. That will allow us to "follow the money." In Newt Gingrich's time there was an attempt to dismantle PBS, but certain people have gotten wise to the fact that public broadcasting can be used to reach a different demographic than Fox. Why is that? What do they know that we don't? Shouldn't we try to find out?

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed May 25, 2005 at 05:02:48 PM EST

Re: Tomlinson & CPB

Hi There,

Common Cause has written quite a bit on the subject. Here is a piece we did a while back that will give you some of what you are looking for at http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/{FB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665}/022404_PBS_ Edit_Memo.pdf

Also, "The Current" a publications that deals with public broadcasting issues has a great website on the structure of CPB and how it relates to NPR and PBS and how the funding stream works.

The cpb website itself is a good resource--http://www.cpcs.umb.edu/faculty/johnson.htm

I have to disagree you about how effective petition are..they do matter because they express public sentiment. It certainly isn't our only strategy but its a a basic way to let public officials know how we feel. We will be delivering the petitions to chairman Tomlinson at the cpb board meeting on June 20-and anticipate that the press will be present-this multiplies the impact of the petition and amplifies our viewpoint..besides it only takes a minute, signup!

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed May 25, 2005 at 05:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tomlinson

Sorry, but I must agree with Mr. Tomlinson that libels in the public broadcasting arena all too often use their position to put forth their libel agendas. Balance is necessary. In a profession that is stacked with socialists, globalists, and "moral cripples" the only manner to accomplish this is to counteract this trend at the advisory level. The public airways should have balance particularly when federally funded. I would argue to the contrary if conservative values are shoved upon the public in an equivolent manner as liberal ones are done now. I rarely watch public TV because of the obvious bias that exists.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed May 25, 2005 at 05:10:10 PM EST

Re: Tomlinson

So speaking the truth or providing substantive news program backed up by facts and analysis constitute "libel"?

What is your version of fair and balanced news? Bloviation from Anne Coulter?

by bluestreet on Wed May 25, 2005 at 05:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tomlinson

I have become so disillusioned with NPR and CPB since this news broke about Tomlinson that I have found it difficult at best to listen. I hate feeling manipulated and the media in general does its best to manipulate the public on a daily basis. From Fox "News" to Jeff Gannon to Matt Drudge we are surrounded by spinmeisters - and I won't take it anymore. I get my news from Air America. Thank god for them!

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu May 26, 2005 at 07:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tomlinson - P.N.A.C. link

I started googling the P.N.A.C. members listed here and came up with the site below about the BBG

Peter Rodman is one of the P.N.A.C. members...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article53 01.htm
"So what is the Project for a New American Century? Basically it's a right-wing think tank. What makes it different is its membership. On June 3, 1997, PNAC laid out its agenda. Twenty five people signed that document: Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, Gary Bauer, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis *censored*uyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalizad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel and Paul Wolfowitz. "

http://www.sw-asia.com/People/Bio952.htm

BBG - Broadcasting Board of Governors:
"Veronique Rodman Appointed to the Broadcasting Board of Governors
Washington, DC., December 31, 2003--

Veronique Rodman, a public relations specialist and former television producer, has been appointed to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the bipartisan, nine-member board which supervises all U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasting.

President Bush nominated Rodman to the BBG on October 24, 2003, and gave her a recess appointment on Dec. 26, 2003.

"Veronique Rodman brings to the BBG an understanding of international affairs and broadcasting,"
said Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the BBG's chairman.

I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world. Eugene V. Debs

by lazydog on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 02:56:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PBS, NPR bias

Bias, these days, appears to be in the eye of the beholder. Once all bias is expunged from the media, we will only hear the tone of a test pattern; there will be no news, biased or otherwise. From a dogmatist's point of view, all views that diverge from their own are seen as biased. If the truth is thrown out with the bath water, the foundations of every aspect of our life and culture will be on very shaky ground. This is how nations and civilizations implode, and once imploded, Right, Left, the truthful, the liars; all are punished.

by Alfred on Wed May 25, 2005 at 06:01:02 PM EST

PBS

It is too late to save PBS. It has been dead for some years. Like that village in Vietnam in order to save it we must destroy it.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed May 25, 2005 at 06:48:31 PM EST

Re: full and fair coverage on PBS

PBS now does a nightly, and at least 2 weekly business shows. Where are all of the labor and environment oriented shows that document all the issues that people have with business?

Some of the regular shows cover some of these issues sometimes, but there are not nightly and weekly coverage of these issues like there is on business.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed May 25, 2005 at 09:36:17 PM EST

PBS

In 1965 I was an art director for KQED National Educational Television, in San Francisco. That was before it was swallowed up by the new Public Broadcasting. We saw that takeover as the death of everything we had treasured. It comes as no surprise that our fears have now been confirmed. After all, what can one expect when Public Broadcating's right wing sponsers are the likes of Shell Oil and Macdonald Douglas. War profiteers! You cannot sell your soul to the devil and not take the consequences. In 1965 we had no sponsors whatever. Just like Pacifica Radio today, we were beholden only to our members. For over fifty years, Pacifica has survived and flourished without taking one dime of dirty money.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:24:59 AM EST

PBS

The CPB can be contacted directly about the proposed censorship of comprehensive news at: 1-800-272-2190 (comment line only), 1-202-879-9600, cpb.org/talktous/ ,or----
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Attn: Executive Vice President and Senior Advisor to the President
401 Ninth Street, NW
Washington D.C. 2004-2129
Could you email this information to people on your list? Thanks for all your work.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun May 29, 2005 at 12:13:35 AM EST

PBS and bias

To even consider that the (for profit)American Press has a libral bias is ludicrous.While I agree that many reporters, having the experience of fact-finding and the real information they are privy to, tend to lean to the Left,it is just as certain and more relevant that the owners, managers and publishers of the for profit print and broadcast press are (almost all) spot welded to the Right. These "moguls, movers, and shakers", when stripped of their double-speak, are revealed to be personal-fortune stimulated and philosophically vapid. Trendy and loud (usually shouting)they reward the sycophantic and perpetually reinforce their topical doctrine by tightly controlling which leads turn into stories and stories turn into features.
Thus,in the United States we have a "news service" which looks liberal, sounds liberal, and feels liberal, but the content of which is predominately conservative; repressive, bordering on fascistic. The regional bosses control the private sector media by virtue of their capacity and willingness to pump LARGE sums of money into the coffers and pockets of lobbyists and politicians who periodically adjust the broadcast and publishing world the way a football player realigns his jockstrap. None of these people welcome an an informed citizenry, and, for them, the beauty of the truth holds no particular appeal, so, by default, Americans are force-fed regurgitated buzz-words and gossipy "shiny things" until many just resign themselves to the mediocre world where decisions are made for them and new information is problematic.
Into this monochromatic landscape enters Public Televsion. In Colorado, we have an alliance called Rocky Mt. P.B.S. which, more or less follows the national programming schedule and we have the mostly-independent public station in Bloomfield

annerackham

by annerackham on Mon May 30, 2005 at 12:13:06 PM EST

PBS

Those who run the CPB are appointed by the current administration and Congress. And he is appointing like-minded people to help him run it? Hhmmmm ... yes, that is incredibly suspect!

It's obvious that programming on PBS has an overwhelmingly left-leaning base. Those in charge of these programs have had many years to evaluate and change their messages, if they were so inclined, if they wanted to remain on the air. But they didn't, and so it has come to this. They saw this coming and are now crying foul.

"...the majority of Americans find PBS to be a trusted and neutral conveyor of information."

The majority of Americans don't watch PBS, so how could they make an informed decision in that poll?

"There are some in the conservative camp who are always going to think the news and public affairs programming on public broadcasting has liberal bias-no matter what the majority of Americans think."

The majority of Americans voted for conservative representatives over those which MoveOn.Org said were the "correct" candidates. So, if the majority of Americans lean toward a conservative base (yet most probably consider themselves middle-of-the-road as a group), and the CPB and PBS are supposed to serve the public's interests, then why is it wrong to add political balance to the programming?

Because once again, according to the Left, the concepts of free speach, 1-man-1-vote political representation, and a free press are perfectly okay unless they go against the Liberal agenda. Examples are: The 2004 election results and the calls of election fraud, attempts to stop Sinclair Broadcasting from running a documentary on John Kerry, The New York Times position that it's wrong for a politician to court voters who happen to be both conservative and religious, and MoveOn.Org's attempts to get the courts to silence conservative 527 ads while churning out Liberal messages through their own 527 subsidiaries. Amazing!

"I contend that an open society may also be threatened"..."from excessive individualism." -George Soros. Major contributor to the Kerry Campaign & MoveOn.Org

by NoGuff on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 05:17:24 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.

In Nixon's Shadow ...

By Lauren ColettaPosted on Wed May 25, 2005 at 01:54:33 PM EST

By Lauren Coletta
Posted on Wed May 25, 2005 at 01:54:33 PM EST