WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-17 13:41:38 +0000

I can't read it because I won't register. Same thing with the NYT op/ed pages. I can only assume it's about Tomlinson resigning. Good riddance. He's still under investigation for what's been happening at VOA. There is a difference between providing diverse opinions and setting out to get specific opinions published.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-17 13:45:49 +0000

PBS and Us Have you heard the one about fair and balanced public TV? Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST We have low expectations for government, and they're usually met. But even we were surprised this week to find ourselves sideswiped by an overlord of public broadcasting for producing a program that PBS asked us--no, all but begged us--to create. Serves us right, we suppose, for assuming that PBS actually wants intellectual balance on the airwaves. That's the meaning of this week's report by Kenneth Konz, the inspector general of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), on the alleged political interference with public television. After a media flap this year over former CPB Chairman Ken Tomlinson, Mr. Konz was tasked by John Dingell and David Obey, two House Democrats whom these columns have criticized going back 20 years, to investigate. Mr. Konz has now done his politicized duty and strafed Mr. Tomlinson with drive-by accusations of--egad!--trying to influence the programming of PBS. As producers of "The Journal Editorial Report" on PBS since September 2004, we got hit with some of Mr. Konz's stray innuendo. This is a story that takes some time, so bear with us as we relate the history. The first time we heard from anyone at PBS about doing a WSJ program was well before we'd ever heard from Mr. Tomlinson. In early 2003, Linda O'Bryon of the Miami PBS station contacted our publisher. PBS wanted to start up another public affairs show, and would we be interested in working together? Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot and WSJ vice president for television Kathryn Christensen worked with Ms. O'Bryon to develop a proposal for a 30-minute program. We went so far as to pitch it in the spring of 2003 to a panel of CPB and PBS potentates. We were later told they'd chosen "Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered" instead, which was fair enough. Only months later, in December 2003, did Mr. Tomlinson first contact Mr. Gigot to suggest that perhaps another show would be possible. The two never did meet in person, but in emails and a couple of phone calls Mr. Tomlinson urged Mr. Gigot to pursue the idea. Mr. Konz, the Inspector General Clouseau of these proceedings, has seen these emails, and in his report he seems aghast that "the former Chairman had been dealing directly with the former PBS commentator [Mr. Gigot] during this same time period." Mr. Konz hasn't released the emails, but we have them and are making them available here (in PDF) so readers can judge for themselves if this amounted to a nefarious cabal at work. The emails need to be understood in context, however. Whatever his email boasts, in his former role as chairman of the CPB board Mr. Tomlinson lacked the power to put any show on the air. CPB is a funding and oversight body but it can't decide to broadcast so much as a 30-second spot. That decision rests with PBS itself and its member stations. And in the case of "The Journal Editorial Report," that meant PBS President Pat Mitchell, who contacted Mr. Gigot in a phone call in early 2004. Could she come by and talk? The two met, along with Ms. Christensen, on February 6, 2004, in Mr. Gigot's office. Ms. Mitchell said she wanted to get Mr. Gigot back on PBS--on "Now" with Bill Moyers immediately, and on a separate Journal program down the road. We should explore the first option with Mr. Moyers, she said, and the second with some of her PBS deputies and folks from CPB. She never mentioned Mr. Tomlinson. Our point here is that PBS came to us, not vice versa. Ms. Mitchell gave every appearance to us, then and since, of believing a Journal editorial-page program would be an asset to her network. If she or anyone else at PBS had ever thought Mr. Tomlinson's efforts were illegal or unethical or otherwise out of bounds, they could have said so. Since when is the president of a broadcast network a potted plant? (Mr. Gigot appeared on "Now" until Mr. Moyers stopped inviting him.) We knew Mr. Tomlinson was pushing for the program from his perch at CPB, but our job wasn't to dissect the internal debates and politics of public broadcasting. That's too opaque for any outsider, and even apparently for an insider like Mr. Konz, whose report is laced with such weaselly and inconclusive phrases as "the questions involve whether" Mr. Tomlinson "breached his fiduciary responsibilities." Well, did he or not? Even Mr. Konz is forced to concede that "our review found no evidence that CPB ever actually discussed withholding" money from PBS, which is supposedly the big threat Mr. Tomlinson had over Ms. Mitchell. Instead, this Beltway sleuth insinuates darkly that Mr. Tomlinson's "suggestions may have" influenced the show's "format" decisions. Had Mr. Konz bothered to ask us, we'd have told him he had bought somebody's political spin. Apart from the kibitzing rights of any other viewer, Mr. Tomlinson has had zero influence over the show's format and content. The original planning meeting for the show, following Ms. Mitchell's suggestions, included two PBS officials, Jacoba Atlas and John Wilson, as well as CPB officials Michael Pack and John Prizer. They were consulted every step of the way, from the spring of 2004 through the pilot, through the program's September launch. One of Mr. Konz's slimier bits of innuendo is that we somehow misspent taxpayer money by conspiring with Mr. Tomlinson to include taped pieces from the field and not just talking heads. The initial pressure to use taped pieces came from PBS and CPB officials who did not report to Mr. Tomlinson, and one of the strongest advocates of using tape was Ms. Atlas of PBS. As one of Mr. Gigot's emails makes clear, we were ambivalent about such pieces and certainly didn't insist on them. "The Journal Editorial Report" is essentially the creation of Ms. Christensen, Mr. Gigot and Paul Friedman, the show's executive producer whose previous credits include producing the ABC evening news and the Today Show. As our show has evolved, we have used fewer taped pieces, and thus spent less money than expected. The original CPB grant was for $4.1 million for the pilot, startup costs and 26 weeks on the air. We stretched that to cover at least 35 weeks, not to mention putting enormous amounts of our own management time and advertising space, as well as no small amount of money, into the project. We also did exactly what both CPB and Ms. Mitchell had asked of us, which was to get a corporate sponsor for the second season of 26 weeks. As it happened, Mr. Konz conducted merely a cursory interview with Ms. Christensen and Journal lawyer Stuart Karle, said he had no interest in even talking to Mr. Gigot, and never asked at all about Mr. Tomlinson. To call him Inspector Clouseau may be unfair to Peter Sellers. Beyond these details, the larger political tale spun by Mr. Konz and other critics of Mr. Tomlinson is preposterous. We are supposed to believe that the vast bureaucracy that is PBS, with all of its inbred policies and interests, was somehow cowed by a single conservative board member who lacked any real management power. Any regular PBS viewer knows the opposite is true. The real story is that Mr. Tomlinson was a rare political appointee who took seriously CPB's mandate to pursue balanced programming. As even Mr. Konz concedes in his report, under federal law CPB is required to review "national broadcasting programming for quality, diversity, creativity, excellence, innovation, objectivity and balance." And he also concludes that "CPB's actions were consistent with their responsibilities under the Public Telecommunications Act of 1992." Most nominees to these broadcast boards enjoy the perquisites of the job and do nothing. An avowed conservative, Mr. Tomlinson sought to restore balance to a PBS lineup he saw as skewed left, especially the "Now" program with Mr. Moyers that had become the cornerstone of PBS's public-affairs lineup in the wake of 9/11. Moreover, he did so openly, appearing everywhere this spring to make his case. He was similarly open about his support for the Journal program. What really tripped him up was the CPB board's decision early this year not to renew the contract of CPB President Kathleen Cox. The media leaks started not too long after that, all spun as if Mr. Tomlinson were attempting a conservative coup by trying to get a measly 30 minutes of conservative programming a week on PBS. House Democrats picked up the scent, commissioning Mr. Konz, who has now spent months and many taxpayer dollars to find Mr. Tomlinson guilty of such violations in the CPB universe as . . . encouraging Mr. Gigot to return to PBS. We're proud of "The Journal Editorial Report," which has done well in the ratings despite being blackballed by some of the largest PBS stations. As an organization, the PBS system resembles late Ching Dynasty China: The Emperor at headquarters may give an order, but the warlords who program individual stations might or might not follow it. This is supposed to mean "local control," but in practice it means a group of programmers can work together to damage any new show. In our case, PBS put the program on its Friday evening lineup. But we quickly discovered that some of the network's largest stations refused to carry us. The last time we checked, PBS stations in eight of the top 30 TV markets don't run the show at all, and another four do so in the dead zone of the post-midnight morning. There is more to say about those programmers and their motivations than we have space for today. But suffice it to say we know how Mr. Tomlinson must feel as he reads the stories about his profound influence over PBS. The reality is just the opposite. Some weeks ago, we made a business decision not to seek a third season of our show on PBS. We informed PBS about this on November 1, before we knew what the Inspector General was doing or even when he'd file his report. When we called Ms. Mitchell to let her know, she expressed regret, and she acknowledged that PBS had failed to deliver the national carriage that she had thought she could obtain. She also repeated the truth that "it was my decision" to invite us to do a program. Some of our friends think it was a mistake to attempt a show on PBS given our opposition to its funding over the years. And let's be clear: We haven't changed our minds. If there ever was a need for PBS, there isn't now in a world of hundreds of TV channels. But as long as PBS exists, we don't see any reason that its prime time public-affairs programming should be a satrapy of Bill Moyers and a single point of view. If Mr. Tomlinson made a mistake, it was in believing that "public broadcasting" is supposed to represent all of the public. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-17 15:45:29 +0000

Sorry, I tried to read it, but stopped when they compared Mr. Konz to Inspector Clouseau. Yes, that's ugly. Why can't they criticize his actions instead of resorting to that sort of ad hominem attack? . . . OK, I lied, starting to fisk: "We have low expectations for government, and they're usually met." Which is exactly why conservatives should stay out of government. Don't give people responsibilities if they've already determined that nothing good will come if it. Talk about pre-judging... "The emails need to be understood in context, however. Whatever his email boasts, in his former role as chairman of the CPB board Mr. Tomlinson lacked the power to put any show on the air." Oh, so, just reading Tomlinson's emails someone might get the wrong impression? Please, disinterested third-party Opinion Journal, please explain to my wee pea brain what his emails really mean. If my boss tells me he's going to fire me because of the color of my skin, should I take that as an indication of his ability to be fair and impartial to me, even though he lacks to power to do so? "The last time we checked, PBS stations in eight of the top 30 TV markets don't run the show at all, and another four do so in the dead zone of the post-midnight morning. There is more to say about those programmers and their motivations than we have space for today." They whine when the federal government makes choices for them, and whine when programmers at individual stations make choices. Very convenient. Citizens displeased with the programming choices of their local PBS affiliates should stop giving money. "But as long as PBS exists, we don't see any reason that its prime time public-affairs programming should be a satrapy of Bill Moyers and a single point of view." When was the last time anyone saw Moyers on PBS? 2002? If 50% of viewers think PBS slants left and 50% think PBS slants right, doesn't that indicate they're doing a decent job? (Or am I confusing PBS with NPR on that one?) Which PBS are they watching., NewsHour and McLaughlin Group do a pretty bang up job providing equal time to both sides (I won't even get into ludicruous notion that every issue has exactly two viewpoints via which opinions may be addressed). How many times have I had to restrain from through the remote at some smarmy National Review pundit on NewsHour? What about Paul Kangas, is he chopped liver? So, yeah, ugly hackery. They completely skipped over the manner in which that latest CPB president was appointed, which I think is the most damning thing about his chairmanship. Finally, whether Tomlinson was in the right or not, he has obviously failed as a leader. If no one in your organization trusts you, it's pretty hard to be effective.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-17 16:20:36 +0000

The 'Editorial Report' was a disaster from start to finish. Two old skool conservatives and two neo-cons talking does not make good television. I do not care for the "balanced" political shows, 'The McLaughlin Group' or even 'Hanity and Colmes', but at least there is some inherent entertainment in the disagreements. A woman saying, "Tax cuts, we need to spur the economy, we need tax cuts" and three people agreeing with her is boring. Put aside the WSJ's agenda driven actions and Opinion Journal, my argument always has been for objective programing. I take Paul Krugman's example again: If Hillary Clinton says the earth is flat, and a news outlet then has a geographer come on and say he is quite sure the world is round, the news agency is being balanced, but not objective. Earth is round, and the news outlet should point out Hillary is wrong, and to even let it become a discussion, is not objective. Less diverse, maybe, but more objective. I have no idea what Charlie Rose's political leanings are, or where Tavis Smiley stands on Roe vs. Wade, or who Jim Lehrer voted for. It's nice to see people reporting and interviewing that impartially for years and years. To go to the other extreme as the Editorial Report did, is predictable and a waste of my tax dollars, even if it was some pinko commie shit, instead of hard line - right of center. Nope, PBS will not be more diverse, but it will be much more objective.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-17 16:45:52 +0000

there goes Dawn, valuing the differences. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-17 17:26:26 +0000

Thank you. I think we can all agree single minded PBS is exactly what we don't want and Editorial Report was exactly that (hence the name of this thread, though not sure I understand "back to" as PBS has stepped away from "single minded views." Sarcasm, rladew?).

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-17 17:55:27 +0000

Wait I get it. Rladew's claiming that without The Editorial Report, PBS will then have single minded views. I think the inverse and converse are true. It's the only single minded show on PBS.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-17 18:22:30 +0000

... and the line "The PBS airwaves will be so much more diverse once the WSJ is gone..." was sarcasm, not earnest, correct rladew? ... I'm finding this endlessly entertaining...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-17 18:33:01 +0000

And this is sarcasm here. Please, rladew. I want more objectivity and a more diverse discussion group on a talk show. I'd say that's valuing differences more than the alternatives.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-17 19:27:21 +0000

I love the smell of SARCASM in the morning... it smells like victory... _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-17 19:43:32 +0000

well, sounds like neither one of us will watch pbs, then _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-17 20:01:30 +0000

Been really busy at work. I'll have to fisk yr Fisk later. For now though (Pardon the 'Now' pun): Wide Angle sees no danger / nor controversy as a result of its political views. also, While Moyers may no longer be the host, he was the founding Host of Now Which is still very very on the air. So, I disagree that Bill Moyers does not have a heightened presence on PBS. (especially now that it is increasingly clear that people like Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot are PBS pariahs that should never under any circumstance be listened to) Have fun w/ all of your Non-elitist objectivity, though. _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-17 20:15:02 +0000

Converse are pretty true. (At least on my feet) _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-17 20:24:53 +0000

OK, so Bill Moyer is still on PBS via Wide Angle. Although, to claim he's still on solely because he founded a show is a little weak, does the ghost of Robin McNeil still roam the halls? Please point out to me how Now or Wide Angle has systematically saught to remove opinions that might offend the delicate sensibilities of liberal viewers. I'm really lost on that one. What exactly hace I posted that comes across as elitist? I expressed my opinion?

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-17 20:41:06 +0000

On second thought, much like John Zorn, I don't care whether I come across as elitist or not. I'd rather know why you disagree than just get some offhand comment that signifies disagreement and no explaination.

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-17 22:34:21 +0000

Touche. :) The "elitist" comment I owe you an apology for. I was working and posting - not a good combination. I'm sorry for the comment without thought. As far as my fisk of yr fisk - stay tuned - It's gonna take me some time... _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-11-22 22:16:55 +0000

Fisk of the fisk: ""(WSJ)We have low expectations for government, and they're usually met."" "Which is exactly why conservatives should stay out of government. Don't give people responsibilities if they've already determined that nothing good will come if it. Talk about pre-judging..." I didn't see it so much as prejudging as observing from past experience. Remember the PJ O'Rourke quote ("Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys") I posted awhile ago? What I got from reading the WSJ on this one mirrored that sentiment exactly. When you give the government a lot of resources which will have to be handled through countless bureaucracies, judging from past experience, the government (IMHO) is more likely than a private group to screw things up. "Oh, so, just reading Tomlinson's emails someone might get the wrong impression? Please, disinterested third-party Opinion Journal, please explain to my wee pea brain what his emails really mean. If my boss tells me he's going to fire me because of the color of my skin, should I take that as an indication of his ability to be fair and impartial to me, even though he lacks to power to do so?" What I understood from those e-mails was that it was a Miami PBS station manger in 2003 and then in early 2004 ultimately the president of PBS, Pat Mitchell, 2 individuals with no political agenda that I can see, who were interested in adding the WSJ's output to PBS. Tomlinson jumped on board after this. The idea of Tomlinson being some kind of Karl Rove manipulating PBS to spew a republican agenda is absurd. "They whine when the federal government makes choices for them, and whine when programmers at individual stations make choices. Very convenient. Citizens displeased with the programming choices of their local PBS affiliates should stop giving money." Not too much to argue with you on this point. If you are going to fly in the face of what most other media outlets say, you're probably going to "get on the mix late in the night" as Chuck D said, if you get in at all. "When was the last time anyone saw Moyers on PBS? 2002? If 50% of viewers think PBS slants left and 50% think PBS slants right, doesn't that indicate they're doing a decent job? (Or am I confusing PBS with NPR on that one?) Which PBS are they watching., NewsHour and McLaughlin Group do a pretty bang up job providing equal time to both sides (I won't even get into ludicruous notion that every issue has exactly two viewpoints via which opinions may be addressed). How many times have I had to restrain from through the remote at some smarmy National Review pundit on NewsHour? What about Paul Kangas, is he chopped liver?" Refer to my other post below on Moyers. Not only is Moyers well received on PBs currently with his own show, but the show that he created, still has the title it had when he was on it along wih the same format. This, at least for me, still remminds me of his presence and his point of view. What makes me sad is that he stopped inviting Gigot on as a guest. Even Bill Maher's HBO show puts Tucker carlson or PJ O Rourke on (admittedly the other 3 panelists will be shouting over whoever has the stones to be in the curmudgeon / devil's advocte / necon bastard viewpoint). I dont know Paul Kangas. Ill have to check him out. "So, yeah, ugly hackery. They completely skipped over the manner in which that latest CPB president was appointed, which I think is the most damning thing about his chairmanship." "Finally, whether Tomlinson was in the right or not, he has obviously failed as a leader. If no one in your organization trusts you, it's pretty hard to be effective." I didn't think the main point of the opinion piece was Tomlinson, but you keep coming back to it. So what if he did a study of Now that he didnt tell them about? why are the WSJ and other points of view a bad thing on PBS? Ultimately, I think there will have to be some kind of cable channel that at least features conservative intellectuals such as Daniel Henninger and Paul Gigot. I feel that it would be better for whatever that avenue may be to also include dissenting points of view, but it seems as if most viewers as well as most media outlets have to keep these two groups seperate, like Beta fighting fish. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-23 01:51:11 +0000

I completely agree RE: boys and money: CPB (federal) funding for 2004: $400,000,000 (20% of CPB's budget) Cost of war in Iraq in 2004: $66,000,000,000 Why are we even quibbling over this? ----- The Opinion Journal was trying to fend off the charges that arose from the Tomlinson investigation that the WSJ misspent taxpayer's money. I don't know enough to have an opinion about that. Other points of view are not a bad thing on PBS. However, I don't think the best way of "gauging" the opinions on PBS is by clandestinely recording pro-Bush/anti-Bush statements (rather than ascribing opinions to a broad spectrum of ideas). Since 1992, the CPB has been charged with doing annual surveys in order to maintain a so-called balance. Tomlinson overstepped his authority by hiring an outside contractor without notifying his Board. (See pages 7 & 8 of the report.) Finally, if I want an opinion like one that'd come from the WSJ, I'll pick up the WSJ. One of the reasons we have Public Broadcasting is to serve and give voice to communities that are usually skipped over by commercial interests. That may indeed include conservative intellectuals (they sure as hell aren't on FOX). How about "Cozy Friend Chat" with William F. Buckley? Paul Kangas hosts the Nightly Business Report; says he's a U-M grad., so he's probably a nice mid-western liberal.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-23 02:01:33 +0000

I still don't see why people who do not believe in good government should work for it, based on past experience or not. The whole: "We have low expectations for government, and they're usually met" mentality is absurd. Imagine a football coach, Restaurant GM, or CEO of a company saying, "Well, we're going to be bad, maybe even come in last, things won't work..." The organization should get rid of them. The same holds true in government.

Posted by tgl on 2005-11-23 02:23:39 +0000

Read this today on the train, from December's Atlantic: A Few Good Bureaucrats It's pretty clearly not a good idea to recruit the former head of the International Arabian Horse Association to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency—but a new study suggests that the unfortunate case of Michael Brown represents just one extreme example of the problem with tapping outsiders to head government bureaus. Using the Bush administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool, which grades federal programs on a scale of one to 100, a political scientist has found that agencies headed by career civil servants score five or six points higher, on average, than those run by political appointees (factors such as the size and complexity of the agencies were controlled for). He notes that although political appointees tend to have more education and more-varied management experience than bureau chiefs who come up through the ranks, longtime civil servants have experience within the agency they head and tend to remain in their posts longer than political appointees. In addition, political appointees are likely to have other appointees, rather than experienced civil servants, as their top advisers: 10 to 33 percent of executives in appointee-run agencies are appointees themselves, compared with just three percent in agencies run by career officials. Brown's FEMA, the study comments, had a particularly "appointee-laden" management structure. —"Political Appointees, Bureau Chiefs, and Federal Management Performance," David E. Lewis, Princeton University ...................................................... You would stereotyping public servants by claiming they're more likely to be liberal than conservative, but, I'm not sure that'd be far off the mark.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-11-23 05:14:58 +0000

Are you kidding here too? It's easily the best news source my rabbit-ear TV antenae gets.

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-07 13:42:38 +0000

IMHO: they ended on a high note: "Most of all, thanks to you, our viewers, for allowing us to share your time. The fact that many of you surely disagreed with some, or even all, of what we said makes us all the more grateful that you have been willing to hear us out. Too much of our political debate these days is accusatory and shrill, and we've tried on this program to engage in a debate over ideas, rather than about motives. The clash of ideas is essential to our democracy. And as long as taxpayer-supported public broadcasting exists, we think it has an obligation to represent all of the public. Thanks again, and farewell." I'm personally sad that when this show returns it will be on Fox News ( a network Im really not a big fan of) Its PBS's loss... _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-07 14:07:12 +0000

"And as long as taxpayer-supported public broadcasting exists, we think it has an obligation to represent all of the public." I don't agree with that statement. I'm going out on a limb here, but I dare say you won't find anything regarding an obligation to represent all of the public in the Charter of PBS or CPB. What were they saying on the Editorial Report that they weren't saying in the pages of WSJ? Taxpayer funded broadcasting should not be used to give access to views that overwhelmingly available in other media.

Posted by rladew on 2005-12-07 14:47:49 +0000

I gave my .02 already, but, I'm willing to try just one last time. Lets strip the above quote of any CPB references, and also strip the identities of the authors of the above quote. as just words per se, do any of you have a problem with: "Most of all, thanks to you, our viewers, for allowing us to share your time. The fact that many of you surely disagreed with some, or even all, of what we said makes us all the more grateful that you have been willing to hear us out. Too much of our political debate these days is accusatory and shrill, and we've tried on this program to engage in a debate over ideas, rather than about motives. The clash of ideas is essential to our democracy" ? I hope not... _______________________________ I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -John Cage

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-07 16:31:19 +0000

IMHO, it's PBS's gain. Single POV programming is boring. Hooray for diversity!!! And Gigot is a confirmed liar on multiple occasions. Hooray for truth!!!