July 18, 2005

Tomlinson's term is nearly up, but...

Tomlinson's term at CPB expires in September and he can't be reappointed to the chairmanship. Great news, right? Not so fast. Cheryl F. Halpern, who may get the job, has been, along with her husband, a major financial supporter

of Republican candidates for years. At one point during the 2004 elections, Mother Jones magazine ranked the Halperns among the nation's top 100 "hard" money donors (contributions made directly to candidates, not party organizations) and said they contributed a total of $81,800 to, among others, President Bush and Republican Sens. Trent Lott (Miss.), Sam Brownback (Kan.), Conrad Burns (Mont.) and Christopher Bond (Mo.). The magazine said that 95 percent of their contributions during that election cycle went to Republicans.

Ok, no guilt by association practiced here, but:

At the Senate confirmation hearing on her nomination to the CPB board in 2003, Halpern expressed agreement with [Senator Trent] Lott after he questioned the objectivity of PBS journalist and commentator Bill Moyers.

"There has to be recognition that an objective, balanced code of journalistic ethics has got to prevail across the board, and there needs to be accountability," she said at the hearing. She agreed with Lott that penalties were justified when balance fails, although she acknowledged that CPB rules prohibit interfering with programming decisions. Neither she nor Lott elaborated on what sort of penalties they favored.

It looks like the problem won't go away even if Tomlinson does. We have to pin our hopes on the CPB Inspector General's report showing that there is no slant to news reporting at PBS and NPR, and even then, as we've seen, the Republicans will claim there is.

Posted by Linkmeister at July 18, 2005 12:01 AM | TrackBack
Comments

heh

Even though I do not support the politization of PBS (by any Administration), my own view is that Moyers is indeed not an objective journalist, but has always been intensely partisan, as is his right.

The issue really goes to whether a government-funded media operation. Especially now with the proliferation of viewing choices, just what is the purpose of PBS?

nota bene: I watch several programs on PBS regularly, and would follow them if they migrated to corporate-owned channels. If there is a market for something, then viewers will respond.

Posted by: Pixelshim at July 18, 2005 04:56 AM

Well, for one thing, not everyone in the country can afford cable. I think current market penetration is about 85%.

Secondly, there's not a single hour-long newscast on any of the broadcast networks, yet the News Hour has shown it works. The market is not always infallible.

Posted by: Linkmeister at July 18, 2005 11:47 AM