PBS and Us

[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] The WSJ defends itself in the CPB storm by attacking PBS and CPB Inspector General Kenneth Konz (who is compared unfavorably to Inspector Clouseau). Former CPB Chairman Ken Tomlinson had no influence over the format and content of "The Journal Editorial Report" -- and played only a small role in creating the show. 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 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, the WSJ writes, 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." The paper concludes: "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."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113219093088899675.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
(requires subscription)