Frank Rich reveals what he believes to be a bigger plan then simply cutting funding to the a "biased" NPR and PBS. He definitely sounds like he's done his homework:
"That money is not the $100 million that the House still threatens to hack out of public broadcasting's various budgets. Like the theoretical demise of Big Bird, this funding tug-of-war is a smoke screen that deflects attention from the real story. Look instead at the seemingly paltry $14,170 that, as Stephen Labaton of The New York Times reported on June 16, found its way to a mysterious recipient in Indiana named Fred Mann. Mr. Labaton learned that in 2004 Kenneth Tomlinson, the Karl Rove pal who is chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, clandestinely paid this sum to Mr. Mann to monitor his PBS bête noire, Bill Moyers's 'Now.'
After Mr. Labaton's first report, Senator Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, called Mr. Tomlinson demanding to see the "product" Mr. Mann had provided for his $14,170 payday. Mr. Tomlinson sent the senator some 50 pages of "raw data." Sifting through those pages when we spoke by phone last week, Mr. Dorgan said it wasn't merely Mr. Moyers's show that was monitored but also the programs of Tavis Smiley and NPR's Diane Rehm.
Their guests were rated either L for liberal or C for conservative, and 'anti-administration' was affixed to any segment raising questions about the Bush presidency. Thus was the conservative Republican Senator Chuck Hagel given the same L as Bill Clinton simply because he expressed doubts about Iraq in a discussion mainly devoted to praising Ronald Reagan. Three of The Washington Post's star beat reporters (none of whom covers the White House or politics or writes opinion pieces) were similarly singled out simply for doing their job as journalists by asking questions about administration policies."
It's been assumed all along-not without basis-by supporters of NPR and PBS that the cuts that the House Appropriations committee recommended to the House were more about threatening or punishing the radio and television network for their supposed "liberal bias" then about trying to save money. What appeared to be a rather blunt and heavy-handed approach has been rebuffed for the time being, but given that this is the Bush adminstration we're talking about, of course it's not that simple. Instead there appears to be a covert process of identifying the more "liberal" elements at NPR and PBS, in what may be assumed to be an effort to sideline, punish or possibly replace those elements. Of course what the likes of Tomlinson really want to do away with are not liberal elements, but rather those who are not favorable to the Bush administration. Of course what the likes of Tomlinson want to replace those elements with are not even those that are necessarily "conservative", but those that are pro-Bush, in an effort to produce a radio and television network that is more a propaganda machine of Bush Republicans, paid for by the taxpayer, then a service beholden to the public good.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
PBS is a non-profit, just like any other nonprofit. Yes, it receives funding from the federal government, as do many non-profits, faith-based or not. However, it has learned over recent years and continues to learn every year how to deal with less and less government funding. Take Catholic Charities, for example. We receive federal funding for various programs, including emergency assistance and immigration. Every year, regardless of who is President or what party is in power in the House or Senate, the dollars decrease. Nonprofits are learning not to budget these funds as they used to. Government funding, just like any other funding, is no longer a "sure thing". The number of non-profits competing for federal funding grows exponentially every year. Over 3,000 nonprofits apply for 501(c)(3) status from the IRS every month! It's the private contributors, the viewers who pledge money during pledge breaks, who dictate what shows are broadcast and what things they want to see or hear. Government funding to PBS doesn't have "strings" attached to it. PBS and NPR broadcast what the community wants to see or hear. If you don't like it, turn it off. If you like it, put your money where your mouth is - open up your pocket book and give what you think that program is worth to you personally.
While I agree with you in general about non-profits needing to find fudning outside of government largesse, and PBS being a non-profit after all, there is the fact that PBS was instituted very deliberately as a public service, funded largely by the government. I really have no problem with PBS and NPR learning to get by more on private donations(though I do still think that government should play a role in providing a network that caters to more then just commercial interests.) But I very much disagree with any efforts by the administration to influence the "message" on PBS and NPR. If I thought the House simply wanted to cut funds because they're cheap and trying to save money, I'd be saddened, but not angry. What upsets me is the conservative "talking point" that PBS is liberal, and needs to be yanked to the right. The fact that such talk takes place is what makes me cast a suspicious eye on studies paid for by the CPB to hunt for liberalism, or threats to cut funding by Republicans.
I don't believe that they can. In fact, I wouldn't say that's what they were up to; simply that it troubles me that someone like Tomlinson is paying for a specious "study" of political content on PBS. And while I also believe that you cannot target a particular program, I think that some in the House probably intended the large cuts as some kind of warning.
Whitey, I think you missed the point. The Bushies are trying to punish them for "liberal" (meaning anti-Bush) programming. It's real simple, anti-Bush means money cuts. The point is if they had some kind of behind-the-scenes program of enforcing pro-Bush talk, the money wouldn't be threatened. That's what these guys are trying to do.
Post a Comment