Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Boston Globe Op-Ed: The assault on NPR & related Media Matters action

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 01:30 PM
Original message
Boston Globe Op-Ed: The assault on NPR & related Media Matters action
The chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson, is ushering in an era when National Public Radio member stations may, reportedly, soon be encouraged by the corporation to shift their programming from news to music. That was the Kremlin's way on bad days in Soviet-era Moscow, warns Tom Ashbrook.

Note: posted in full with Tom's permission.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/26/the_assault_on_npr/

The assault on NPR
By Tom Ashbrook | May 26, 2005

WHEN GOVERNMENT media masters ask broadcasters to replace news with music, watch out. That was the Kremlin's way on bad days in Soviet-era Moscow. Days when someone important had died. Days when things had gone badly wrong. Now, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson, is ushering in an era when National Public Radio member stations may, reportedly, soon be encouraged by the corporation to shift their programming from news to music. News has made NPR America's great radio success story of the last 20 years. While commercial radio has cut news, gone Top 40, and stumbled, NPR's listenership has soared. It now tops 23 million a week, its largest audience in history.

Tomlinson says he is concerned with a perception of liberal bias in public broadcasting. He has singled out Bill Moyers at PBS for criticism, even as Moyers has departed and PBS has -- at the direction of the corporation -- brought on the conservative Tucker Carlson and editors of The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page. Last month, despite objections from NPR, which already had an active ombudsman, the corporation appointed its own ombudsmen -- one right leaning and one left -- to monitor public broadcasting content for political slant. This is almost certain to raise partisan tensions and tempt more intervention.

It is time to step off this path. America's public broadcasting system was born with bipartisan support under a Democratic president, Lyndon Baines Johnson. It has grown under administrations of both parties. Now the Corporation for Public Broadcasting board is dominated by appointees of a Republican, George W. Bush. But NPR's listeners self-identify themselves across the American political spectrum -- one-third conservative, one-third liberal, and one-third independent. Repeated surveys ordered up by Tomlinson himself have found that large majorities of listeners do not hear liberal bias at NPR. For its latest survey the corporation commissioned two polling firms, one Republican and one Democrat. They found that fewer than 15 percent of Americans say that NPR coverage of the war or the Bush administration is slanted. And 80 percent of Americans say they have an overall favorable impression of NPR. Those are pretty darned good numbers. And, yet, the swords are drawn in Washington. How do we move beyond this?

First, to NPR: Don't retreat. Do reach out. Don't shrink back. Be more bold. Don't rest on those poll numbers. Know that this whole country, with all the people in it, is your ideal audience. The whole population -- red states, blue states, everybody. So speak to all. Listen to all. Test every assertion and premise. And be journalistically critical of all. Not in a desperate balancing act between parties and competing agendas. The goal is not to balance two spins. But listen and dig for honesty, for the understanding and insight the whole country needs. Does that sound difficult in this divided time? Yes, but that's the job.

Second, to Kenneth Tomlinson: Don't build walls. Don't drive wedges. Don't divide. Think big and long-term. The one barrier the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has historically tended is a firewall between public broadcasting's news-gathering mission and meddling politics. That is important for the continuing health of any news organization and especially a public one. NPR may get only 1 percent of its funding from the corporation these days, but member stations rely on it for from 5 to 15 percent of their budgets. Don't use that financial clout to drain the news or try to cow those who would ask tough questions. Tough questions are assets, not threats. Let's open up the big national conversation, not run it through a partisan splitter. Let's celebrate tough reporting, the big tent, and the big mission, not small politics.

Two ombudsmen? One for liberals and one for conservatives? Parked outside of NPR and PBS and throwing down conflicting accusations? This is a bad idea. It sounds more like two battling censors-in-waiting. Let's not recreate ''Crossfire" on NPR's doorstep or, worse, in its newsroom. Let's pull together for great, independent broadcasting and vigorous journalism.

More music instead of news? Please. America is awash in music. Clear-headed, inquiring, fair-minded news is the more rare thing. And it is what's needed. Years ago, on the other side of a Cold War wall, Soviet citizens got music instead of news when the news was too difficult. Today, there are those who would build a high partisan wall between Americans facing a difficult world. But news and understanding will ultimately unite, not divide. So tear down that wall, Mr. Tomlinson. Don't build it higher. Americans know this can be done. And they're watching. And listening.

Tom Ashbrook is host of WBUR's ''On Point," distributed nationally by NPR.


&

HANDS OFF PUBLIC BROADCASTING

http://mediamatters.org/handsoff/

5/24/05

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee, and Rep. David Obey (D-WI), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, have written a letter to the Inspector General of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) urging him to investigate recent efforts apparently aimed at imposing a conservative political agenda on public broadcasting. Help make sure that the Inspector General conducts a thorough investigation.


&

http://mediamatters.org/handsoff/pr_20050523.html

5/24/05
Media Matters Launches "Hands Off Public Broadcasting" Campaign

Since the signing of the Public Broadcasting Act more than 35 years ago, Americans have relied on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), and other public broadcasting outlets to provide quality programs and independent journalism free from political or commercial pressure. According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the public believes that PBS programming is free from political tilt: A survey reveals that "the majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased." Unfortunately, that is not sufficient for some -- like CPB chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who wants public broadcasting to reflect his conservative political beliefs.

Tomlinson's recent actions endanger the independence of PBS and NPR and threaten the quality of its programming:

He has hired two ombudsmen, Ken Bode and William Schulz, both of whom have ties to conservative institutions and politicians.

He has hired Mary Catherine Andrews, the former director of the White House Office of Global Communications who wrote the guidelines for the ombudsman position while still at the White House, though Tomlinson now says this isn't true.

Unbeknownst to other members of the CPB board, he spent $10,000 in taxpayer money, to investigate alleged bias on the PBS program NOW, formerly hosted by Bill Moyers. Tomlinson has suggested the results confirm his belief that NOW's guest list is slanted to the left -- but he hasn't explicitly said so, and hasn't publicly released the taxpayer-funded study.

He helped raise $5 million to produce The Journal Editorial Report, a PBS program featuring the right-wing editorial board of The Wall Street Journal.

He named W. Kenneth Ferree as president and chief executive officer of CPB. Ferree is a former official at the Federal Communications Commission who played "a significant role" in the failed effort to loosen rules to allow a few large companies to further consolidate the mass media by acquiring multiple outlets in the same local market and lifting caps on how many TV stations one company can own nationwide. Ferree is an especially odd choice to run CPB, given that he says he isn't "much of a TV consumer," doesn't "watch a lot of broadcast news," prefers People magazine to The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, and doesn't listen to NPR because he commutes to work on his motorcycle. Farree explained why he won't install a radio: "y bikes are real cruisers. They're stripped down deliberately to look cool, and I don't want all that electronic gear."

Fortunately, some of our elected officials have taken action. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee, and Rep. David Obey (D-WI), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, have written a letter to the Inspector General of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting demanding an investigation of recent actions by the CPB that may violate the Public Broadcasting Act. Dingell and Obey write: "Recent news reports suggesting that the CPB is increasingly making personnel and funding decisions on the basis of political ideology are extremely troubling."

We at Media Matters for America agree with Dingell and Obey. That is why we have begun our "Hands Off Public Broadcasting" campaign to monitor, analyze and fight back against efforts to turn PBS, NPR, and other public broadcasting outlets into yet another outlet for conservative misinformation.

We are asking for you to take action. Please contact your representatives and ask them to support Dingell and Obey's call for an investigation into Tomlinson's political pressure on PBS and NPR. Let your representatives know that you support quality programming and independent journalism at PBS.

We will be constantly monitoring this situation and calling for action when needed. Media Matters will keep you informed about the background of the key players, key issues, and key facts in this battle. We will also let you know about useful resources and about others doing work to help keep public broadcasting free of right-wing political interference. Please visit www.HandsOffPublicBroadcasting.org regularly for the latest information.


Take Action: Support the call to investigate political influence in public broadcasting - http://mediamatters.org/handsoff/emailrep.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. well if he screws around with this guy
ol` kenny will be in deep pig shit...
http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/

maybe kenny needs some catsup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is a concerted effort to stifle the last remaining news outlets.
Dan Senior (Carlyle), the future VP of Google, CBS/Dan Rather, FCC going after bloggers (next week?), list goes on... we're next. After another terrorist attack, expect an Internet shut-down. The CIA just finished their "Internet war games" yesterday, and I'll bet there's a FEMA contingency plan in place.

Meanwhile, brown-shirt freeptard drones try to stifle the speech of Americans on this board 24/7... "REAL ID" ... "free speech zones" ... one party control ... endless war ... Stick a fork in us. Democracy is almost done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. alternative to Internet
Alternatives to the Internet are under development:
http://www.freenetproject.org/

as an aside, i sure wish you made your icky pictures smaller, I'm sure you post them for the attention but they provoke the same reaction in me that popup ads do -- IGNORE! IGNORE! IGNORE!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Buying and using this software will eventually net you time in prison.
Don't believe me? Just use it after the rules change and encryption becomes a felony.

By the way, I consider your post promoting this software as SPAM, and worse than pop-ups. I'd rather use a carrier pigeon.

You can put me on ignore now. No need to open any of my posts anymore as they will likely have 40-100k pics. I got all the attention I need now. Thanks :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. after what rules change?
pray tell.

And how does sharing information become spam? People post links here all the time, and I have no personal stake in freenet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Time for more research
"as an aside, i sure wish you made your icky pictures smaller, I'm sure you post them for the attention but they provoke the same reaction in me that popup ads do -- IGNORE! IGNORE! IGNORE!" - I took this as an insult, and since you didn't "ignore" me, I suspect that it was intended that way. If you are on dial-up, well, I suggest you get DSL or put me on "ignore" for the time being.

Your information was essentially a link to buy someone's software. I get hundreds just like it in my email every week. It "felt like" SPAM to me. Perhaps there is a fine line between SPAM and information sharing in this medium.

Since I couldn't remember the source of the last article I read (some of the info came from a Senate bill too), I Googled the topic (Boolean operators: encryption software illegal). Here's the first link I found:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/encryption/encryption.htm

I'm not telling you NOT to use encryption software, but there are risks of which you should be aware. My concern is based on dozens of articles I've read, from Senate and House bills to IT guys expressing fear of government snooping. Also, from what I've gleaned, this is NOT a partisan issue. All free-thinking Americans should be scared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-05 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. please accept apology - and freenet isn't for sale.
Look, I'm sorry to have offended you, and I thought to write about this last night but I was too sleepy to think well.

I was saying yesterday that your rather unpleasant-looking but enormous *image* (not your post, which I read) compelled me to look away and treat it like I do most banner ads, which is to ignore them. Its size - in pixels, not bytes - was so large that it wasn't doing a good job of communicating your message. It was communicating something other than your message. I was giving you feeback as one artist to another.

In contrast, the pic on your 1st reply to me (curious george) wasn't as large and wasn't unpleasant so I looked at it longer. So I think that if you cut your icky picture (and you did make it to be icky, so that's no insult) down to say, 600px wide it would communicate better.

This is primarily because you're then designing with the web's lowest common denominator in mind: people with lower desktop resolutions will have the whole thing fit in one screen. Scrolling to see an entire image kills its effectiveness. That's all.

Now yesterday I rushed it, did a bad job and offended you. What I did wrong was shout IGNORE! and assume you'd get what *I* was talking about, and furthermore to do so in public. I'm sorry. I didn't realize at the time that Ignore in DU means something very different than it does when talking about the effectiveness of art. I'm rather new here, and can't spend much time on the forum. Even though that's a bad excuse, please forgive me. I will find out how to write people privately and then take the time to do so in the future.

The next thing I did wrong was simply post a link to the Freenet project without an explanation as to what it was.

It was in response to your postulation that the govt would shut down the Internet after the next attack and we'd all be in the dark.

I wasn't telling anyone to buy anything: Freenet is FREE, one of those volunteer collaborative software projects on SourceForge. It's meant to be a secure, peer-to-peer document sharing system. It's different than the Gnutella network because hosts have no idea of the content they're hosting and all communication is anonymous...it's not supposed to use IP numbers, for example.

Freenet is intended to circumvent censorship. Because content is decentralized and anonymously hosted, a gov't can't just remove content from Freenet by shutting down one server, the way we've seen certain projects have a hammer dropped on them in the past.

Also, it's intended to be a low-cost alternative to the Internet way of doing things. Essentially anyone can put information onto the Freenet without having to use agencies such as web hosts and domain registrars. That cuts considerable expense. There's also no 'slashdot effect' where one server is overwhelmed with requests for popular information, and no extra cost to the author/publisher experiencing the wild popularity.

In the Freenet model, content is 'forgotten' when it's unpopular, in a similar way that it is here in DU.**

There are problems with Freenet. One is that when I played with it, it was slow and hard to design for (why I never really picked it up) and overwhelmingly male-oriented, so I lost interest in that regard too. But another is that it'd be damned hard to shut down.

So we're on the same side. Thanks for the Washington Post link, I'll read it now.

Peace,
crikkett

**ironic that I came to this thread because paineinthearse was complaining that their NPR-going-to-music story wasn't being taken seriously and dropping too fast for their comfort, in contrast to the Paris-bathing-with-her-car topic. Well, my discussion of alternative news sources is still slightly on-topic, or at least, this is a kick? or am I wrong again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-05 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Thanks
Welcome to DU! :hug: I was a bit sleepy and a bit trigger happy - we are constantly attacked by RW nutjobs who want to do nothing but disrupt, so now I'm kinda conditioned to react a certain way... my bad too. I do appreciate advice, however, especially from other artists. I agree that we need software and websites like Freenet, as long as they are effective, but I'm really concerned about the consequences of using encryption since the neo-fascist Praetorian Guard will be looking for encrypted files and arresting Americans... this is part of my dark vision of the future.

Suggestion: If your time is limited here at DU, please go to the Women's Issues and Rights forum. We need your help because we are constantly attacked for questioning the patriarchy... even by long time DUers on occasion. We are trying to start an official group as well, so the more people we can get the better.

PS your kicks are welcome. :)
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. recipe for disaster, but other items are on menu
I bet they'll lose lots and lots of financial support from people like me. I won't listen to NPR anymore if its format changes.

But let it. After last year's election I started to think they spun their news to be overly friendly to the * administration anyway, and so listen less than I used to already.

There must be a good news/human interest podcast out there... Rachel Maddow's show, http://www.maddowonline.com is quite a good one, but it's only 40 minutes long. I might make one, myself.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AirAmFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. Tomlinson STILL is Propagandist-in-Chief for the State
Department's and CIA's disinformation arm, the Voice of America. Bush's appointment of him to run the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is pure intentional "blowback" from deep dark spook psy-ops overseas. He should resign from CPB for that reason alone. He can't both head a domestic cultural and objective news operation AND be Board Chairman overseeing official international disinfo, spin, and PR for Dubya and Condi.

And Tomlinson should take his new choice for CPB president--Patricia Harrison, the Acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs--with him.

See http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/washingtonwatch/tomlinson.html .

Your article's reference to Soviet domestic disinformation practices is right on point. It IS happening here, right on PBS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. We need assistance from Louise Slaughter
She has introduced HR 501 (restore fairness in media). I am sure she would be most supportive.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1748027
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-05 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
10. "Assault" on National Propaganda Radio?
"Occupation" is more like it.

Selling Cokie, Mara , and Juan to FAUX would go a long way towards establishing "balance" at NPR.
I mean Geebuz, If I want to hear somebody getting a blow-job, I got plenty of videos that I could turn up REAL loud, and it'd sound EXACTLY like Cokie Roberts talking about "Our Glorious Fuhrer"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC