|
The most remarkable moment of the
British election returns Thursday night went largely unreported in the
United States.
Along with the
other candidates for his seat in Parliament, Prime Minister Tony Blair
stood on a stage at the Newton Aycliffe Leisure Centre in his home
constituency, Sedgefield, to hear the official results.
Blair won, of
course, but the emotional victory went to one of his opponents, Reg
Keys, an independent who ran as an anti-war candidate, capturing ten
percent of the vote.
Keys, 52, is a
Welshman whose 20-year old son, Lance Corporal Tom Keys, was killed in
Iraq nearly two years ago. Prime Minister Blair listened as the father
dedicated his campaign to the 88 British troops who have died in the
Iraqi war and attacked his opponent.
"I hope in my
heart that one day the Prime Minister will be able to say sorry, he
will say sorry to the families of the bereaved and one day the Prime
Minister will feel able to visit wounded soldiers in hospital,” Keys
said.
"If this war had
been justified by international law I would have grieved but not
campaigned. If weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq,
again I would have grieved but not campaigned."
Under any
circumstance, this confrontation would have been extraordinary. But
with the exception of his debates with John Kerry, can you imagine
George Bush standing there taking it as someone ripped into him and
his policy?
You can't,
because it would never happen. Control freaks -- obsessed with
secrecy, orthodoxy, censorship and the squelching of information and
conflicting points of view -- manage this administration and the
Republican Party.
Whether it's the
President's scripted, invitation-only town hall meetings on social
security, suppressed government reports and evidence (like the
documents on UN Ambassador-designate John Bolton's alleged meddling in
US policy on Syria) or the entire GOP campaign to end Senate
filibusters on judicial candidates, we are in the clutches of a cabal
deliriously devoted to the suppression of free speech.
This obsession
extends to public broadcasting, the largest single funder of which is
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a non-profit
organization created by the Congress and funded by the Federal
government. CPB is supposed to encourage the growth of public
broadcasting and act as a so-called “heat shield” to protect the
Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio from government
and political interference. It has done the opposite
As the New York
Times led in its May 2 edition, “The Republican chairman of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public
television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal
bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders -- including the
chief executive of PBS -- to object that his actions pose a threat to
editorial independence."
In the interest
of full disclosure, for more than thirty years, off and on, I have
toiled in the vineyards of public broadcasting, sometimes more
fruitfully than others.
I was around when
the Nixon White House attempted to kill public broadcasting. PBS
correspondents Robert MacNeil and Sander Vanocur were on the Nixon
enemies list and the administration used CPB to divert funding away
from national production centers in Boston, New York and Washington --
perceived hotbeds of nattering kneejerking -- to local stations.
Nixon didn't
succeed, but not for lack of trying. It always has struck me as ironic
that his downfall was brought about, in part, by public television's
nighttime rebroadcasts of the Senate Watergate hearings, exposing his
perfidies to a wider, primetime audience. In turn, that coverage
strengthened PBS and heightened its identity.
Ronald Reagan and
Newt Gingrich tried to eviscerate public broadcasting, too. But what's
happening now is far worse. As the Times wrote in a follow-up
editorial May 4, Tomlinson, a former Readers Digest editor-in-chief
and Steve Forbes campaign strategist, is “pushing public broadcasting
over the ideological line to the Republican side, with blatantly
partisan programming and the hiring of more Republican partisans to
control the corporation.”
These include:
o A White House
staffer overseeing two ombudsmen hired to monitor public broadcasting
programs for bias, one of whom is a former Digest colleague of
Tomlinson's;
o A senior FCC
official as CPB's chief operating officer (who told the Times he
rarely watched or listened to public broadcasting - a statement he now
denies);
o A State
Department official and former co-chairwoman of the Republican
National Committee Tomlinson wants to make CPB's president and chief
executive.
o What's more,
over the last decade, two of the corporation's board members have
donated more than $800,000 to the Republican Party.
One of
Tomlinson's primary targets is PBS' Bill Moyers, of whom he has “a
very vehement dislike,” according to a former CPB employee, for his
liberal point of view. (In the interest of even further full
disclosure, for that aforementioned thirty years and more, I have
been, off and on, a colleague and/or employee of Bill's.)
Tomlinson means
to answer Moyers and his ilk with conservative counterprogramming such
as “The Journal Editorial Report,” hosted by Paul Gigot, editorial
page editor of the Wall Street Journal.
Moyers'
commentaries were (he has retired from the weekly series, “Now”)
progressive counterprogramming to those who dominate our government.
But contrary to Tomlinson's beliefs, the rest of Moyers' reporting and
interviews were scrupulously fair. I speak from personal experience --
on several occasions Bill reined me in when he thought I had gone too
far (once, coincidentally, when I suggested that the Bush
administration was the most secretive in history...).
What's happening
is frightening for another reason. PBS has never been a pillar of
strength when challenged by authority (witness the Buster the Rabbit
lesbian mommies dooharoo with Secretary of Education Margaret
Spellings). At the merest anticipation of government disapproval, it
frequently has folded like a three-dollar suitcase.
In recent memory,
I worked on a public TV documentary, one of the executive producers of
which ordered minimal, revealing soundbites from President Bush,
apparently afraid of upsetting Washington. Self-censorship is perhaps
the worst kind; weak and self-defeating. We should stop playing dead
-- they can smell fear and for it have nothing but disdain.
The Times
editorial continued, “Although he has insisted that he does not want
to politicize PBS or cut any programs, Mr. Tomlinson has managed to
spread the word throughout the PBS community that he does not like
anything that he considers too anti-corporate, anti-White House or
anti-Republican. For journalists whose basic code is to 'speak truth
to power,' this is not good news: those are the main powers in the
country.”
Tomlinson, even
your pal Karl Rove, speaking April 18 at Maryland's Washington
College, has admitted that the media is “less liberal than it is
oppositional." (He also confessed to listening to NPR.)
Journalists, Rove
said, see themselves as “being put on the earth to afflict the
comfortable, to be a constant thorn of those in power, whether they
are Republican or Democrat.” He was alluding to Mr. Dooley's famous
definition of journalism's purpose, “to comfort the afflicted and
afflict the comfortable.
As reported by
the Center for Digital Democracy, two public opinion surveys
commissioned by CPB but buried in its annual report to Congress and
not released to the media -- including PBS and NPR! -- revealed that,
in reality, public broadcasting has an 80% favorable rating and that
“the majority of the US adult population does not believe that the
news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased.
In fact, more
than half believed PBS provided more in-depth and trustworthy news and
information than the networks and 55% said PBS was “fair and
balanced.” So, as happened in the Terri Schiavo brouhaha, once again
the White House and its Republican allies have flown in the face of
public opinion.
Tomlinson did
seem to express some contrition to Monday's Los Angeles Times. “I'm a
fan of public broadcasting,” he insisted. “I'm going to reach out to
liberal advocacy groups and assure them that I wouldn't harm a hair of
their favorite programs.”
But his comments
bear the vulpine whiff of Red Riding Hood's wolf. Just in case, five
public interest groups, including Common Cause and Consumers Union,
will be holding informational sessions around the country to “take
public broadcasting back to the people.” Unlike a White House town
meeting, these will be open to everyone, including ... viewers like
you.
Michael Winship,
Writers Guild of America Award winner and former writer with Bill
Moyers, writes a weekly column for the Messenger Post Newspapers in
upstate New York.
© 2005 Messenger
Post Newspapers |