03
May
Then They Came For Me
Is Pat Mitchell the Martin Niemöller of public television?
You may recognize this quote from the Lutheran anti-Nazi activist, who formed a resistance movement and was then arrested and spent years in prison for his beliefs:
“First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”
The ongoing conservative coup at the quasi-governmental Corporation for Public Broadcasting seems to have come at last for lame duck PBS president and CEO Mitchell. The evidence is everywhere, as detailed recently in articles in such mainstream mouthpieces as the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Mitchell is being publicly criticized as “tone deaf” by CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, after having been “jokingly” told by him to ensure that PBS programming should better reflect a Republican “mandate.”
Meanwhile, as the Post noted (in an April 22 article “PBS Scrutiny Raises Political Antennas” by Paul Farhi):
“Liberal commentator Bill Moyers is out on PBS stations. Buster the animated rabbit is under a cloud of suspicion. And right-wing yakkers from the Wall Street Journal editorial page have been handed their own public television chat show.”
In addition, CPB officials recently appointed for the first time in history two ‘ombudsmen‘ to review PBS news and public affairs programs (such as the award winning “Frontline” and “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer”) for evidence of bias – without bothering to inform Mitchell. They also insisted for the first time on tying new federal funding (CPB provides nearly $30 million annually to PBS) to an agreement that commits PBS to strict ‘objectivity and balance’ in each of its programs – something that, according to the PBS general counsel, amounts to “government encroachment on and supervision of program content, potentially in violation of the First Amendment.” And recently Ken Ferree, a top Republican operative former FCC Media Bureau Chief under Chairman Michael Powell, was named as an interim replacement for CPB chief executive Kathleen Cox. Ferree is meant to keep the seat warm until Tomlinson’s choice for the post – Assistant Secretary of State (and former co-chairwoman of the republican National Committee) Patricia Harrison – receives approval from CPB’s board members, many of whom have been appointed by President Bush.
“We don’t want to be alarmist, but I would be less than honest if I said there wasn’t concern here,” ‘one senior executive at PBS, who insisted on anonymity because CPB provides about 10 percent of its annual budget,’ told the Post. “When you put it all together, a pattern starts to emerge.”
A week and a half later, Mitchell went on the record, telling the New York Times “I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective that I do not consider appropriate.”
Among the attempts cited by the Times: the hidden hiring of a consultant by CPB Board Chairman Ken Tomlinson to “review” the content of “Now with Bill Moyers; Tomlinson’s assistance in lining up $5 million in corporate financing and subsequent PBS distribution of “The Journal Editorial Report,” the weekly chat show featuring members of the conservative editorial board of The Wall Street Journal; his penchant for involving the White House in matters ranging from legislation affecting the CPB board to addressing concerns about “objectivity and balance;” all the way to remarks at a ‘fun occasion” – a post-election meeting last November– when Tomlinson told PBS officials, including Mitchell, they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican “mandate.”
“I was in that room,” Mitchell told the Times. “I was surprised by the comment. I thought it was inappropriate.”
An unnamed senior FCC official went further, however, telling the Washington Post that CPB under Tomlinson “is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It’s almost like a right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated.”
Ken Tomlinson dismisses such concerns, however, as “paranoia,” telling the Post that his critics should simply “grow up,” remarking in the Times, “I frankly feel at PBS headquarters that there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance.”
Tomlinson says his goal is “to see programming that satisfies a broad constituency,” and he is “concerned about perceptions that not all parts of the political spectrum are reflected on public broadcasting.” He told the Post “he is “only seeking balance” and “there are no hidden agendas.”
But Tomlinson kept hidden the results of two “National Public Opinion” surveys indicating that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. public is happy with PBS programming. The documents, buried in an annual report to Congress, were neither released to the press nor shared with PBS. But both surveys confirm the same thing: “The majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased. The plurality of Americans indicate that there is no apparent bias one way or the other, while approximately one-in-five detect a liberal bias and approximately one-in-ten detect a conservative bias.”
According to the Center for Digital Democracy, the surveys showed that “public broadcasting had an 80 percent ‘Favorable’ rating; only 10 percent of those polled had an ‘Unfavorable’ opinion of PBS and public radio… More than half of those surveyed believed that PBS news and information programming was more ‘trustworthy’ than news shows on the commercial networks…
“Similarly, more than half of those surveyed believed that PBS provided more ‘in-depth’ news and information programming than the networks… Finally, more than half (55 percent) said that PBS programming was ‘fair and balanced,’ with strong support for its ‘high quality programming.’”
There is definitely deafness at PBS headquarters, and has been for more than a decade – but not of tone or balance, Instead, PBS officials like Pat Mitchell are guilty of ignoring the deafening clamor of conservatives mounting an assault on public media of all types, and particularly public television. Right-wing activists began organizing their CPB “coup” long ago, but PBS officials such as Mitchell and her predecessors have done nothing but stand by silently. Led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and assisted by character assassins and political hit men like David Horowitz, they began by going after PTV’s equivalent of Niemoller’s “socialists, trade unionists and Jews.”
I know, because I was one of them.
Along with Bill Moyers, David Fanning and Frontline, my partner Danny Schechter and I were high on the original hit list. Our thought-crime? Producing the anti-apartheid newsmagazine program “South Africa Now,” which appeared weekly between 1988-1991 on more than 150 public television stations. Unlike the Wall Street Journal, our company Globalvision received no funding or distribution assistance from either CPB or PBS. And when Horowitz – then as now backed by the largesse of conservative funders – labeled us “hard-line Marxist propagandists” and “advocates, not journalists” in major metropolitan newspapers, few within the public television hierarchy said a word. The same proved true when Horowitz later met secretly with top officials at the Los Angeles public television station KCET, which abruptly pulled our series off the air without even talking to us.
After a week of public protest and a spate of articles about the controversy in the Los Angeles Times – including its Pulitzer Prize-winning critic denouncing the station’s “boneheaded decision” – the station relented and reluctantly allowed the program back on the air, albeit after imposing a dumb distancing disclaimer stating that “This program represents the views of its producers.”
So they came for us, and the community spoke out, our viewers spoke out, and the L.A. Times spoke out, but PBS officials said nothing. The same was true of the attacks then and now on Moyers and Fanning and “Frontline,” – not to mention poor Buster and his lesbian, socialistic, Jewish, trade unionist supporters.
Now that they’ve come for PBS, its officials and its programming, is there anyone left to speak out?
Re: PBS Coup. Dumbing-down America is what this move is all about. “Liberal Media Bias” does not, of course, exist. What these right-wing ideologues want is blind obediance to their agenda, without question or dissenting voice. We know this is true because of the language they employ to rile up the masses. “Elite,” “Liberal” (Never mind that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are Liberal documents.), the “media” is to blame (Always slay the messenger.), “People of Faith” (As if only born-again Bible thumping evangelicals can be called people of faith.), and on and on.
What it comes down to is fascism in America. These are the bullying, propagandistic techniques that were used by Hitler and Stalin. The “big Lie” technique that swayed the peoples of Germany and the USSR to follow their leaders blindly are now being used in America. Of course PBS and NPR are the enemy of these ranting ideoloques. {That James Dobson was even given a voice at the mistakenly named “Justice Sunday” should make every thinking American afraid.} To win over the hearts and minds of the masses in America, PBS and NPR must be destroyed, for these are voices of and have been reflective of intellectual America. Not “Liberal,” but thinking, intellectual America. And this is the danger to these people - that Americans might begin to think for themselves and question whether “Clear Skies” might really be about allowing pollution; that the “Patriot Act” might really be about curbing freedom of dissent; that tax-funded, staged “Town Hall Meetings” might really be about policy promotion instead of debate and questions about issues.
Oh yeah, Social Security is really bad for your character and, by the way, what is this week’s reason for the Iraqi invasion?
May 3rd, 2005 at 7:56 amPrior to the election of 2000 I listened to NPR and watched Newshour. Now I just cannot stomache the fact that they give the truth 50% of the airwaves and the Republican response the other 50%. The constant parade of people from the Heritage Institute and other think tanks airtime is sickening and I’m not even to Cokie Roberts, the Republican and Genocide Apologist. I haven’t given a dollar to NPR since 2000 and won’t give again until the warmongers in the Democrat and Republican parties are behind bars (that will never happen).
May 3rd, 2005 at 8:12 amThe previous comment says it all. 50% truth and 50% Republicans. No bias here. See PublicBiaS
May 3rd, 2005 at 1:54 pmThe U.S. rolls down hill towards the one party theocratic state and ALL media reflects the right wing bias that seems to have taken hold of the American people like a bad rash. Ignorance reigns supreme, science takes a back seat to religious dogma, and wars of aggression becomes the national pastime. PBS is gutted of it’s content and the last outlet for truth in America. We are doomed as a nation and a people.
May 4th, 2005 at 7:06 amWhy is it that liberals consistently deny being liberals? You should have had the courage, publicly (on the air) as well as privately, to state your political affiliation.
Regarding your poll. For decades PBS has used tax dollars to promote the views of the left. The consquence is that you have the left as an audience. Naturally these viewers will support PBS. Preaching to the choir gains little for your cause. Wouldn’t it have been more logical to address the broad political spectrum? At least you would have had a chance at a convert or two.
In the mid-fifties I went to high school a year or two behind Bill Moyers in Marshall, Texas. While intelligent, he was seen as a bit distorted by his peers and has only become extreme with time.
Finally, my personal view is that public funding for PBS should be stopped. If PBS must continue, I suggest you use CSPAN as your model. CSPAN has opened a lot of eyes and changed political influence. Eliminate the spin and let your viewers get opinions straight from the horses mouth. In other words, bring a little sunlight into your programming.
May 4th, 2005 at 1:26 pmPravda…
May 4th, 2005 at 1:41 pmYes, Sam, if only PBS had balanced their coverage with more pro-Apartheid documentaries, how much more respected they would be! Maybe a newsmagazine hosted by David Duke could have blown the lid off the biased depiction of South African officials as bumbling stooges in “Lethal Weapon II.”
May 4th, 2005 at 4:13 pmWith the garbage that PBS has put on the air(like the shows supporting homosexuality), this network should be stripped of public support. I have no problem with their right of say anything they like–I just do not want to pay for it.
May 4th, 2005 at 6:23 pmThe government should not be in the broadcasting business or supporting the arts. where in the Constitution does Congress find the authority to provide funds for this?
We cannot have a democracy without and informed public. Only hearing from the talking heads on the right is misinformation more times than not.
PBS has always been over-rated. There are a lot of documentaries they have refused to air over the years.
The only channels on television who are attempting to air the truth about our world are LINK TV and FSTV on satellite. Everything else BLOWS compared to their programs and news.
Sick of the MSM? Quit bitching and take action.
Meet me in St. Louie! :) Media Reform Conference.
http://www.freepress.net/conference/
May 4th, 2005 at 10:15 pmWOOPIE !!! FINALLY WE CAN GET THE LIBERAL LEANING PROGRAMS SHUT DOWN AND SPEND TAXPAYERS MONEY ON SOME ONE ELSES ‘’PORK BARREL'’ [LOL] IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE THESE CRY BABIES HAVE SOME THING TO REALLY CRY ABOUT –LOOSING THEIR ‘’HONEY SWEET ‘’ DO NO GOOD JOBS.. ANXIOUSLY AWAITING THE DAY ‘PBS’ [LOL] BECOMES EXTINCT……………..
May 5th, 2005 at 12:42 amI quit NPR and PBS mid-Clinton something. (’Clinton-something’ taken from Harry Shearer, which, come to think of it, means I have not “quit” — Harry is my one exception.) PBS had serious good stuff, which I can define in a minute, until Rash Lamebrain circa ‘89, started in and rolled out. All of broadcasting, and with public subsidized broadcasting in the lead, went mute in the presence of Lamebrain’s hitlerism, mccarthyism, whatever it could be called, (because that’s what it is). NPR / PBS went silentmost of all, It seemed everyone in the biz thought such hate would eventually consume itself or somehow just go away. And programmers said literally that. When Lamebrain’s supremacism, racism, misogynism, (Franken had a good line, hearing today Lamebrain is going for marriage door number 4: “Marriage should be 3 strikes and you’re out,” lock Rash up, indeed), his zealotic nationalism, and reciprocal xenophobia, any of it deserving to be fried under a magnifying lens from the very first, when pointed out, got brushed off with ‘it’ll go away.’ It didn’t. The first despot Bush, the Sinister, (as distinguished from Bush, Jughead), earned subversion impeachment, not protection, when he pardoned Iran-Contra, and BCCI, and S & L thieves. The final straw was NPR / PBS not laughing in the face of Newtie nihilism and his Monica follies, but instead keeping muted, in radio silence, like such banality politics was uncritically due some respect, and worse yet gave it sober low-toned serious-coverage treatment.
Really, the germ that turned NPR / PBS sickly, and ultimately now, lifeless — dead phosphors glowing — was the cause of Rash Lamebrain, ‘89-91, the mean meme mesmerist, the hypnotist of hate. That mad cow bawling should have had its throat cut when it was born and PBS should have swung the knife.
What was so defeating, or frustrating, was that claimed broadcast professionals did not hear the act. Namely: It isn’t his words, it is his tone of voice. And it is done by calculated imitation, not talent — the repetition, the sing-song, the modulation, the neenerneenerneener, nyah nyah nyah, la-ti-da; which is why it is so easy and certain to spot.
I finally reconciled the mystery, of why no pro’s ‘got it,’ as being due to them not knowing of the early radio (1938? ‘48?) openly conducted experiments in mass hypnosis. Experiments that found, and concluded: It works. It is real. Allowance (and regulation) for the effect must be made. (Tokyo Rose, ‘brainwashing,’ and proto-Manchurian Candidate topics were threads in the skein of that era.)
As promised, the definition of ’serious good stuff’ in the documentary or educational or news style of the public broadcast, informed citizen concept. This: Just the facts. Go, investigate, get the story, do the coverage, tell what’s known, get it on the air.
Nothing in that looks to see if there are politics in it, let alone which way they may lean. Evolution happens, and that’s not political. Global climate warms, and that’s not political. This idea that the partisanship of the audience has to be considered and carried into production values, is ridiculous, laughable-on-its-face ridiculous. Just for thinking it Tomlinson is wrong, and for saying it he’s fired, a charlatan, an incompetent fool.
As getting ‘just the facts’ on so many in this whole administration shows is the story with all of them.
For a solution, now that CPB is toxic: what Frank Chisholm said: PBS must be destroyed. Disassembled to ground level, zeroed out its line item, and a new one begun and built.
May 5th, 2005 at 4:47 am-
the NY Times and Wash Post are not and never have been “mainstream mouthpieces” and “the overwhelming majority of the U.S. public is happy with PBS programming” is nonsense … the majority of the US public doesn’t watch or could care less about PBS; finally … separation of church and state is cherised so why not separate our tax payer dollars (government funding) completely from PBS
May 10th, 2005 at 7:15 pm