Public broadcasting, the focus of political controversy in the past, seems to be in the hot seat once again.
Just last week, The New York Times carried an article headlined “Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases.”
Is it that public broadcasting is too liberal, or is it that we are just not ultra-conservative?
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is, by nature, a political animal. Created by Congress, CPB’s primary mission is to distribute federal funding fairly and act as a heat shield against political influence from Congress and any incumbent administration. The function of heat shield has been tested several times in recent decades.
During the Nixon administration, the documentary “Death of a Princess” drew heat because the program revealed some not-so-favorable events concerning the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia during a time when President Nixon was trying to woo the Saudis into a closer relationship.
At the time, the shield held up and public broadcasting was spared fatal cuts to its funding. Keep in mind, however, that the president of CPB is a presidential appointee and so are the board members. Therefore, one might expect that there would be times when the government would attempt to influence the outcomes of policy at CPB.
Fast forward to 2005. WGBH, the public broadcasting station in Boston, produces a program called “Postcards From Buster” in which the cartoon character visits the home of same-sex parents. The Public Broadcasting Service, the purchaser of the program, becomes aware of the controversial episode only weeks prior to air and pulls it from the network’s lineup.
U.S. Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings threatens to withhold funding for that particular episode and, soon after, steers other funding for educational programming away from public television.
Then, with a new federal budget calling for dramatic cuts in the Health and Human Services budget, the place where public broadcasting gets its funding, there is a move afoot to reduce public broadcasting’s share by 25 percent.
Cause and effect? Who can really say?
Meanwhile, back at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the program “NOW” – with (or without) Bill Moyers – is in the crosshairs for alleged left-leaning bias, causing the corporation to engage in a self-examination of its programming funding practices. What’s the question? I spoke with Moyers at the outset of the program with concerns about that very issue. His response was something to the effect of, “Congress is Republican controlled, the administration is Republican … someone has to stand up for the left.”
Soon after the creation of “NOW,” PBS commissioned a program with Tucker Carlson, a quirky right-winger, in an attempt to help balance the schedule. While Carlson has since decided not to continue doing the program, PBS is seeking others to take on the role of right-wing spokesperson.
Obtaining balance and objectivity in programming is an art, not a science, and viewers subjectively interpret the messages of programs in different ways. What Rocky Mountain PBS strives to do is to present a variety of opinions and a diversity of thought and, by doing so, create a fair and healthy balance in our overall schedule.
If what is happening in Washington goes unchecked, we will probably have to start counting which shows or even which guests on shows will balance or counter-balance each other, and then start tabulating the amount of minutes, or even seconds, devoted to ideological points of view.
Such a witchhunt must stop and common sense must somehow gain a foothold in this very dogmatic political environment.
James N. Morgese is president and general manager of Rocky Mountain PBS.
