Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Don't Get Fooled Again

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted July 18, 2005.


The leading contender for new public broadcasting boss is another GOP donor who bragged about forcibly removing a journalist found 'editorializing.' PS: She finds Bill Moyers 'irresponsible.'
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Meet the new boss.

She's the same as the old boss -- or maybe even worse.

So if you've been appalled at the "creeping conservative" coup in public broadcasting ... dismayed at seeing Bill Moyers pilloried while millions of taxpayer dollars were lavished on a public affairs program anchored by the soft-right son of a former chief of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), and a news chat show featuring the hard-right editorial board of the Wall Street Journal ... horrified by the selection of the former head of the Republican National Committee as CPB president ... and were moved to call for CPB Chair Ken Tomlinson to leave his post ... watch out!

You're about to get what you asked for.

The controversial Tomlinson's second one-year term expires in September -- and he cannot be reappointed. As the Washington Post reported last week, a leading Republican donor named Cheryl F. Halpern is the top candidate to replace him.

Halpern and her husband Fred -- long major financial supporters of Republican candidates -- have given more than $324,000 to Republicans since 1989. During the last election, Mother Jones magazine ranked them among the nation's top 100 "hard" money contributors.

Appointed to the CPB board three years ago by President Bush, Halpern is a close ally of Tomlinson and part of the five-member Republican majority now controlling the board. She and Tomlinson served together on the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees the federal government's international broadcasting services, such as Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe. Those overseas government information services often serve as a feeder system for pubic broadcasting officials.

(Tomlinson chairs the BBG as well as CPB, and directed VOA during the Reagan administration; former CPB Chairman Richard Carlson once headed the VOA; former CPB President Bob Coonrod was a longtime U.S. Information Agency executive; current CPB board-member Ernest J. Wilson III was a U.S. Information Agency official during the Clinton years; current NPR President Kevin Klose was the BBG's top executive; his deputy, Ken Stern, also worked there.)

As the chair of CPB, the agency that distributes federal funds to noncommercial radio and TV stations and supposedly serves as a buffer between public broadcasting and politicians seeking to influence its news reporting and programming, Halpern would be far from impartial. At the Senate confirmation hearing on her nomination to the CPB board in 2003, for example, she suggested that public broadcasting journalists should be penalized for biased programs. She also agreed with Senator Trent Lott, R-Miss., when he questioned the objectivity of the award-winning PBS journalist and commentator Bill Moyers.

"I certainly think he's the most partisan and nonobjective person I know in media of any kind," Lott said of Moyers. "It's the most blatantly partisan, irresponsible thing I've ever heard in my life, and yet [CPB] has not seemed to be willing to deal with Bill Moyers and that type of programming."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Vuts dat u say? Aha, alvays tastee liberrals!
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 18, 2005 7:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the '50s, I went door to door collecting contributions for WTTW, public television in Chicago. I contributed regularly to educational television in every place I've lived -- until 5 years ago. PBS was my last excuse for wandering in the 'vast wasteland.' I now only watch videos on my tv set.

I objected whenever I saw a news item accusing PBS and NPR of a leftist bias. That was so ridiculous, especially since by this time PBS had allowed itself to become a billboard for corporations. Yes, there was Bill Moyers and a few progressive voices remaining. But news was so 'balanced' I could predict in advance what would be said, simply from the names of the people being interviewed.

Since the conservatives have no positive agenda but only want to roll back time to the 'good old days' of robber barons and exploited workers, pre-New Deal, pre-Social Security, (pre-television? does that make me a conservative?) the vampires have to keep looking for new liberal blood. Even if they've already sucked us dry, they're willing to settle for anyone's blood -- especially tax payers' blood.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll miss Moyers
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jul 19, 2005 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like Moyers. He always seems to be concerned with the overall well being of the US. He may be biased but I do not care about bias if I feel the person is really caring.
Moyers can not be any where near as bias as a person like O' Reilly. Is he the kind of people we may get on PBS now?

O' Reilly and his like spew forth so much anomosity and hatred that I can not listen to them long or I get so angry it makes me sick.

I sure hope PBS does not become another post for the republican divisiveness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brick through the TV screen?
Posted by: kabac55 on Jul 19, 2005 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The plus side of not currently being able to afford cable TV is that I don't have to see O'Reilly, Novak, and others who make me want to throw a brick through the TV screen. I rely on the folks at PBS and NPR for intelligent and insightful current event coverage. Yes, I am one of those intellectual, liberal types, but I also am one of those folks who have supported public broadcasting for over 20 years by volunteering and contributions. If the take-over of one of the few remaining bastions of sanity on TV and radio continues, I won't be contributing either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bias?
Posted by: schnoggi on Jul 19, 2005 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if bias means just going ahead and reporting actual facts that are inconvenient to the hypocrisy and denial of neocons and looking-back-to-what-never-was fundamentalists, then hell yeah, bring on more bias.

standard reactionary tactic, defund the opposition and then take it over whatever's left standing and bleed it dry (HUD scandals anyone?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is this a bad thing?
Posted by: Gun Bunny on Jul 20, 2005 6:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand the premise.

PBS takes $100 million+ tax dollars a year, not all of which are mine, but I think that many of those dollars could be better spent on munitions like JDAM, which, as we all know works perfectly; first time, all the time.

If broadcasters like Moyers want to editorialize, then they should do it on commercial television, which is polarized and discountable already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nazi's are infiltrating everywhere, why should PBS be exempted?
Posted by: Pepper on Jul 26, 2005 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think if we are going to "nazify" this country, PBS should not receive any special priviledges and be exempt. All institutions should be nazified or it won't work.

We all need to cooperate with it and embrace it and support it, don't you think??? Otherwise if we resist we won't have the corporatism that comes with it and the GDP growth to our economy. We have always had a good standard of living and the nazi's and the corporations have been very patient with us and PBS.

Now its their turn and we should be grateful to be a part of their slave society. Where else are you going to be totally cared for from birth to death??? No where. Who wants to be on our own??? I like having a Daddy gov to take care of me and to tell me what to do, where to go and to control what I read and hear on PBS.

I prefer the blue pill. Thank you very much (sarcasm intended)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]