OPB Elects Three New Board Members

Last modified on March 7, 2007 12:08 PM

Oregon Public Broadcasting elected three new members to its board of directors at the organization's March board meeting. Elected to serve three-year terms from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010 are: Tinker Hatfield, vice president of Innovation, Design and Special Projects at Nike in Beaverton; Jim Huston, managing director of Blueprint Ventures, a technology growth capital firm in Portland; and Elizabeth Schwartz, a partner at Perkins Coie LLP in Portland.

Funding to Replace OPB and SOPTV Rural Translators Included in Governor's Proposed Budget

Last modified on December 8, 2006 03:34 PM

Governor Kulongoski's proposed FY 2007-2009 budget includes $2.75 million in capital funding to cover half the cost of replacing 55 rural analog translators with digital translators and $1 million in operating funds to help cover the expense ($500,000 per year) for supporting this extensive and expensive infrastructure. The proposed funding will allow OPB and Southern Oregon Public Television (SOPTV) to continue to provide quality programming over-the-air and free of charge to all Oregonians while also operating the state's Amber Alert and Emergency Alert Services.

The cost of serving rural and remote parts of Oregon is high and the population too sparse to provide enough financial support to fully cover the cost. Serving each home in Eastern Oregon is 11 times more costly than serving those in the Portland area. In Central Oregon, the cost is nine times more than in Portland.

This funding is not guaranteed and the final outcome will not be known until the legislature approves the final budget by mid-2007. OPB and SOPTV face an FCC-mandated deadline of February 19, 2009, when the analog broadcast service will be shut off, which will require the replacement of up to 55 rural analog translators with new digital translators.

Since the loss of state funding in 2003, voluntary contributions from members and business partners have provided 80 percent of OPB's operating revenues. Even during difficult times of financial austerity, OPB continued to support services that traditionally benefited the state (in roles that are voluntary not compulsory) including management of the state's Emergency Alert Service, the Amber Alert system and a reading service for the blind and visually impaired.

Interview with Morgan Holm, OPB Vice President of News & Public Affairs, About OPB's Role in Fostering Civic Engagement

Last modified on October 27, 2006 03:01 PM

Part of our mission at Oregon Public Broadcasting is to use our service to enable our viewers and listeners to engage more fully with their local communities and the wider world.

Morgan Holm, OPB vice president of News & Public Affairs, discusses the concept of civic engagement and how he perceives OPB's role in creating new avenues and tools for deeper community engagement.

How do you define civic engagement?

MH: Civic engagement is simply taking an active role in the community. It means being informed about what's going on in the life of the place in which you live, and being able and willing to offer opinions and help toward improving that place. It also means living responsibly, or in other words, just being a good citizen.

From a historical perspective, how does civic engagement today compare to say 20 years ago?

MH: The spirit of civic engagement in Oregon has remained strong over the past couple of decades in the face of significant changes in society. Even though people have greater demands on their time due to work and family commitments, many Oregonians are still willing to invest time and energy in opportunities to contribute to public life. For some that means attending hearings or writing a letter to the newspaper or an elected official. There does seem to be less attention overall to civics education in school now, however, and that may affect future generations' ability and willingness to act as citizens. To be effectively engaged as a citizen requires understanding things like how federal, state and local governments work, how and why tax revenues are collected and spent, and how a person can influence decisions about those things. There are still many and varied opportunities for engagement, but fewer opportunities to learn how to use those opportunities.

How does the rise of technology play a part in civic engagement? Does it help or hinder? How?

MH: On balance, I would say technology has opened many new avenues for civic engagement. From blogs to audio and video available on Web sites, both the amount of information and the number of places to talk about public policy have exploded. The dangers include being overwhelmed by the technology or the opportunity, and not being able to sort out what is truly factual and useful from material that is either uninformed or needlessly polarizing. More than ever, people who have strong political points of view or those who have expertise in particular areas of public life are able to find other citizens who share their interests and want to talk about subjects of common concern. Technology has enabled those conversations in unprecedented ways. But people still need to exercise good judgment about the amount of time and resources they devote to their civic responsibilities and where they decide to allocate their personal resources to be effective. A few sound choices are going to be more effective, in the long run, than participating in every chat, blog or discussion group that comes along.

What role is public media currently playing as a conduit for civic engagement?

MH: Well, this is an area where public media could probably improve. The sensibility exists in most public media organizations, in my experience. There are many civic-minded people working in public media and looking for opportunities to expand use of the public media for civic engagement. But that hasn't turned into very many actual projects or partnerships that I'm aware of. I recently attended the Citizens Media Summit, sponsored by J-Lab, and was surprised to be one of the few broadcasters present and pretty much the only person from public media in the crowd. This is an area that will no doubt rise higher on the agenda at many public stations in the future, and it is an area that offers many possibilities when it comes to connecting with our communities and providing real and virtual spaces for community members to connect with each other.

Some say that the younger generation is less inclined than earlier generations to engage with former touchstones of citizenship such as voting and following news about public affairs. Do you think these shifts are actually taking place? How might new media formats or online experiences better link young people to credible information and satisfying participation opportunities?

MH: I don't think it is fair to say that younger people today are less engaged, at least compared to younger generations in the late 20th century. It is simply a fact of life that as people get older and their family and work responsibilities even out over time, they become more engaged in civic life. So, if a young family isn't as engaged right now, that doesn't mean they aren't interested. It might just mean they are weighing their priorities carefully. There is evidence to suggest that Generation X, Generation Y and the Millennium generation is very interested in current affairs; they are just seeking out and consuming information in different ways than previous generations. Instead of reading newspapers, they're getting RSS feeds on their own homepages, for example. The biggest trend I see is that younger generations are much more skilled at determining what information they want to be exposed to and because of that they might be missing out on both the benefits of experienced editorial judgment that respected news organizations bring to their publications and broadcasts each day and on serendipitous news experiences that could be enlightening and enjoyable.

Might the online experiences of young people today (in such frameworks as myspace) be considered as civic engagement? Could these experiences be somehow translated into broader engagement with civic life, politics, public life?

MH: I don't think social networking sites like myspace fit the definition of civic engagement. There certainly are communities of interest interacting with each other in those online environments, but they are not aimed at community benefit, which is integral to the civic engagement concept. However, the skills and desire necessary for such interactions are similar to those needed for engagement in public life, so I think there is reason for optimism when you consider how active many people are in these social networks. That could easily be translated to participation in aspects of public life, but it will take initiative by public bodies and the media to build those bridges and make those opportunities available.

Life is hectic and people are busy - how can citizens become more active in community processes when their time is limited?

MH: If only there was an easy answer! Well, the foundation is education. Involvement should proceed from a well-informed citizenry. So, I would say the first step is identifying trusted sources of information and making a habit of following those regularly. The next step would be to select just one or two issues or areas where a person hopes to make a difference and then concentrate on those. That may mean volunteering a little time each month or going to a public meeting or writing a letter. The point is that doing something is better than doing nothing at all.

What are some current examples of OPB programs that engage the community in a meaningful way? What stories are there that demonstrate that OPB is already positioned as a conduit for community engagement?

MH: Well, we don't have any that do a particularly good job (on the radio side). We've been focused on news broadcasting for so long that we are just now analyzing how we could do a better job at engaging the community. We've opened up some new ways to comment on our programming on our Web site, but we need to do more to live up to our responsibility as a public broadcaster. The kind of news coverage we do already draws Oregonians who are concerned about the quality of life in the state and how changes in public policy affect them personally as well as their environment. Our next challenge is to help build connections in the audience between those who have similar interests and then help connect those folks with the ones making decisions. We're upgrading technology and changing the way we think about what we do to accomplish those goals.

OPB reaches a lot of people in Oregon. What role can we play in engaging our listeners and viewers and web users to encourage them to become more civically involved?

MH: One of the best ways we can serve our audience is by creating spaces for civic engagement. Since we do have such a wide reach in the state, we could be a primary vehicle to not only inform people about the issues facing them, but to provide them with virtual, and in some cases even real, spaces in which to engage with one another. Fewer and fewer media organizations reach such a diverse audience as public broadcasting. And it is consistent with OPB's mission to seek out and create opportunities for people to join and build communities of interest. We're exploring how new technology coupled with our existing broadcast resources can be harnessed to do just that. For example, we are developing a new OPB program that will combine an online public space with a radio program that promotes discussion about local and regional issues. This will offer our audience a significant new opportunity for civic engagement. Watch for more details early in 2007.

Morgan Holm is currently vice president of News & Public Affairs at Oregon Public Broadcasting. He has been a news director, assignment editor, producer and reporter in his 16 years at OPB. Morgan oversees OPB's local news operation, acts as executive producer of local radio and television news/public affairs programming and manages local news content for OPB's Web site.

USDA Awards Oregon Public Broadcasting $138,000 Grant to Provide Digital Broadcasting Services to Rural Residents

Last modified on September 12, 2006 02:34 PM

Oregon Public Broadcasting was awarded a $138,106 Rural Utility Service (RUS) grant by the Department of Agriculture to provide digital broadcasting services to Baker City and the Baker Valley and also support a pilot project using digital technology to improve educational services in the Baker City schools.

OPB currently operates an analog translator (K48DC) serving Baker City and will build a companion digital translator on channel 20. In addition, OPB will install datacasting equipment to receive needed educational content to all seven K-12 schools in rural Baker City, Oregon. The necessary components of this project should be in place with training and testing completed before the beginning of the 2007 school year.

This partnership with educators in Baker City and the RUS will assure digital services will thrive for years to come in the community and help deliver new and specialized content and training to students and teachers.

In addition to bringing digital television, including high-definition television, to the Baker City area, OPB will connect the area to a wide variety of resources including a considerable library of Oregon-specific content, connectivity to television facilities and resources within the State Capitol in Salem, the Oregon Health Sciences University medical facilities, the Portland Public Schools (the state's largest school district), and most of Oregon's public two- and four-year colleges in the Willamette Valley.

Up until 2002, OPB received support from state government to help operate its rural statewide television network. However, due to revenue shortfalls, that funding was eliminated, putting OPB's ability to maintain services to rural Oregon in serious jeopardy. This project will demonstrate the merit and efficacy of content delivery via DTV broadcasts to the rural regions of the state and be invaluable for building a rationale to request the restoration of the government funds necessary to replace and update the equipment needed to operate a new DTV statewide translator system (more than 40 need to be converted) to provide new and continuing services to rural Oregonians.

New Vice Presidents Named at Oregon Public Broadcasting

Last modified on June 22, 2006 09:23 AM

Oregon Public Broadcasting has promoted four individuals to vice president: Lynne Clendenin to vice president of Radio Programming; Jeff Douglas to vice president of Local Production; Morgan Holm to vice president of News and Public Affairs; and Lynne Pollard to vice president of Interactive Services.

An OPB Original Production: Tour Fort Vancouver with the History Detectives

Last modified on June 22, 2006 09:22 AM

Your mobile phone soon could be your source for on-site tours of some of the nation's most popular tourist destinations, thanks to Oregon Public Broadcasting, History Detectives and a group of technology and business partners. Together, they just launched a mobile content prototype, dubbed "Road Trip," using Fort Vancouver as the first historic site to get the mobile Road Trip treatment.

OPB hopes the prototype will be the first in a national rollout of interactive, mobile tours developed and hosted by the History Detectives from the popular PBS series.

The tour, available as a stand-alone mobile application for download on your cell phone, includes an interactive map of Fort Vancouver, along with a series of short videos about the historic trade center in its heyday. History Detective Wes Cowan walks mobile users through the fort's architecture, furnishings and frontier-era medical facility. The mobile tour has an interactive feature that lets users quiz themselves and their family as they walk around the grounds of the fort.

"Right now the application is available for download only on Sprint's Samsung A900 phones, but we hope to expand the application to other phones in the future. This is a great example of OPB making its content available over a multitude of platforms, so you can watch us anytime, anyplace," said Marion Rice, executive producer of the project.

"The History Detectives Road Trip is a unique mobile application accessible through an easy access icon residing on the phone at a desired location, enabling fans of the series to access extra content on their mobile phone and interact with the series beyond the confines of their living room anytime they want. For the first time, our viewers have a permanent and a very visible access to an appealing application that extends the original program," said Rice.

Under the auspices of the American Film Institute's Digital Content Lab, OPB partnered with Rentrak, Lion TV, Big Spaceship (a Los Angeles design firm) and NPTV (an interactive development firm in Paris) to use their BANDO technology that enabled a rapid development for this unique mobile application. The Road Trip is being distributed by Sprint on their Samsung A900 phones with PowerVision enabled. Use the Search function to find "HD Road Trip." Download the Road Trip locally to your phone.

History Detectives airs on the stations of Oregon Public Broadcasting Television Mondays at 9pm.

Andrea Brambila Awarded OPB's Tuttle Minority Internship

Last modified on May 9, 2006 01:20 PM

Oregon Public Broadcasting has awarded the 2006 Jon R. Tuttle Minority Internship to Andrea Brambila, a student at Reed College and a resident of San Francisco, CA.

OPB established the internship in 1994 to encourage future generations of compassionate broadcasters and journalists. Historically, the internship enables an outstanding minority student to spend the summer studying telecommunications and broadcast journalism in a hands-on environment. "We are thrilled to offer this internship to such an impressive student," said Debbie Rotich, vice president of Human Resources. While at OPB, Brambila will work in News and Public Affairs. The three-month internship begins in June.

Brambila expects to graduate from Reed in August 2006 with a degree in Anthropology. In her internship application, Brambila said, "There are few internships that would give me more pleasure and learning experience than a position at OPB where I can be part of gathering and distributing important information to the public." She also said that she "...hopes this internship will serve as a stepping stone leading to further study in journalism."

Brambila was selected from a pool of candidates from throughout the nation. The internship is in memory of Jon Tuttle, one of Oregon's most respected broadcast journalists, who died in 1991 after a brief battle with leukemia. Jon Tuttle was a working journalist and a lead producer for OPB's documentary unit. Prior to OPB, Jon worked for KGW TV.

The internship was made possible by a generous grant from the Charles J. Swindells family. Other contributors include the Portland Trail Blazers, the Jackson Foundation, Paula Craig, Patsy Smullin, Muriel Walsh, Madeline Nelson, The Oregonian Publishing Company and PBH, Inc.

For more information on the Tuttle Minority Internship go to opb.org/internships.

Steven Bass Assumes Leadership of Oregon Public Broadcasting

Last modified on January 31, 2006 09:31 AM

Steven M. Bass takes the reins today as president and CEO of Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), succeeding Maynard Orme who retired December 31, 2005 after 19 years as head of the public broadcasting affiliate. Bass, 48, comes to OPB from Nashville Public Television where he served as president and CEO since 1998.

"It is a distinct honor to have been chosen to lead OPB," said Bass. "OPB is a well-respected and highly successful organization. This is apparent from the kinds of programs produced here as well as the support that the public provides. I can assure you that we will continue to do our utmost to serve the needs of listeners and viewers."

"It is a tremendous credit to Maynard and all those who make OPB so successful that we attracted a gifted leader like Steve Bass," said OPB Board Chair, Doug Tunnell. "Steve is truly one of public broadcasting's brightest lights."

In Nashville, Tennessee, Bass oversaw the station's transition from a government-owned service to an independent, community-operated public television station. Bass also served as executive producer on a number of programs broadcast on PBS, including: Bill Monroe: The Legend Lives On (2003); Christmas at Belmont (2003); Hank Williams: Honky Tonk Blues (American Masters & BBC, 2004); and The Carter Family (American Experience, 2005).

Previously, Bass was vice president and manager of television stations for WGBH in Boston, Massachusetts where he directed a three-station network serving the entire state. He was responsible for improving the station's local programming. He launched "Greater Boston," a nightly public affairs program that has been a successful model for similar broadcasts nationwide.

Bass was vice president and general manager at WGBY in Springfield, Massachusetts from 1992 through 1995. Prior to his posts in New England, Bass worked for the fund-raising arm of the Public Broadcasting Service in Washington, D.C.

Bass is a graduate of Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, where he received his bachelor's degree in economics and in music in 1979. He worked as a professional clarinet player and earned an MA in business from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981.

Bass and his wife Sara and two daughters, Catie, 15 and Caroline, 12 will reside in the Portland area.

Senate Passes Conference Report Which Includes Funding for Public Broadcasting

Last modified on January 31, 2006 09:31 AM

From Association of Public Television Stations

APTS Web site

Last week, the Senate gave public broadcasting an early holiday gift with the passage of the conference report on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies appropriations bill. The conference report, which was earlier passed by the House, contains solid funding for public broadcasting programs, even in the midst of these difficult fiscal times. Advance funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) in FY2008 was preserved at $400 million, and FY2006 funding levels are:

Corporation for Public Broadcasting (FY06): $400 million
CPB Digital: $30 million
Interconnection: $35 million
Ready To Learn: $24.5 million
Ready To Teach: $11 million

Funding for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program was set at $22 million in another appropriations bill already signed into law.

All domestic programs will be subject to an across-the-board funding cut, perhaps of approximately 1-2 percent.

CPB: Caught in the Balance

Last modified on January 31, 2006 09:31 AM

Six months ago, OPB's Board of Directors asked OPB radio reporter Colin Fogarty to research the controversy over former CPB chair Ken Tomlinson and the funding debate over public broadcasting on Capitol Hill. He gave this report to the board at its Dec. 6 meeting calling it "an attempt to tell a single comprehensive story about both issues".

Fogarty interviewed many of the key players, including Pat Mitchell at PBS and Ken Stern at NPR, and assembled tape of Ken Tomlinson's comments over the last six months.

Listen to Colin Fogarty's report

Read the report

Links to web sources:

Current reports on the Inspector General's report

Inspector General's report

CPB reforms announced

New CPB Board chair responds

Patricia Harrison responds

Basic facts about CPB

Center for Digital Democracy

Wall Street Journal weighs in

Frederick Mann report

Two Diane Rehm shows on the issue
May 3, 2005
May 18, 2005

Ken Tomlinson interviewed on CSPAN

On the Media interviews Ken Tomlinson

NPR story on Tomlinson invoking White House authority

Original New York Times piece in May (subscription required)

CPB: Caught in the Balance
Colin Fogarty

When Brenda asked me to name this presentation, I spent a long time wracking my brain, trying to come up with something zippy and clever. Finally, I just stole a name from the NPR show On The Media. "CPB: Caught in the Balance". In that segment, in May, CPB Board Chair Kenneth Tomlinson asked this question to host Bob Mondello, and he might as well have been speaking to the entire public broadcasting industry.

Ken Tomlinson: "Why can't you accept let's have one program, if it's tilted one way, let's make sure we have other programs tilted the other way?"

It's important to remember, that Ken Tomlinson's statements on this issue don't get much deeper or more complicated than that. In all the interviews and speeches that I've found, his point comes down to a basic mathematical equation.

Ken Tomlinson: "I don't want to achieve balance by taking programs that are the favorites of good liberals off the air. I want to make sure that when we have programs that tilt left that we also have programs that tilt right so that the viewer can make up his or her own mind. Today you have a 30 minute NOW program in many markets and you have a 30 minute Wall Street Journal program in many markets. People can pick and choose. That's balance."

But is it? At the heart of Ken Tomlinson's rise and fall at the CBP is this fundamental question: what is balance? For Pat Mitchell, the head of the Public Broadcasting Service, it's also a mathematical equation, but one that sounds more like algebra than addition.

Pat Mitchell: "Balance over the course of a schedule, not balance within each and every program."

But Mitchell doesn't like the way Tomlinson frames the question of balance.

Pat Mitchell: "By the way, when did we decide in this world that there are only two sides to every issue. That to me is one of the more dangerous things that has come out of this whole conversation that on every issue there's a Republican and Democratic view and that's it. What happened to the rest of the people?"

Mitchell's view is a lighter shade of a view taken by Tomlinson's arch-nemisis in this story, Bill Moyers.

In May, Moyers gave his definition of balance to the National Conference on Media Reform in St. Louis. He said he was in the room at the creation of the current public broadcasting system as a staffer in the Johnson White House. Moyers said in his view, the role of public broadcasting is to provide a counterweight to the "Washington elite", to seek balance between the governing class and those who are governed. From that perspective, it was he who was trying to bring balance to PBS.

Bill Moyers: "Public television unfortunately all too often was offering the same kind of discussions and a similar brand of insider discourse that is feature regularly on commercial television. I know first hand that the Public Broadcasting Act was meant to provide an alternative to commercial television and to reflect the diversity of the American people."

But there are others who have a more existential view of balance. Our own Maynard Orme, who's had two five-year stints on the PBS board, says balance is like an infinite curve on a graph, that struggles to get closer and closer but never reaches its goal.

Maynard Orme: "It's like truth. It's never attainable totally, because it depends on your brain type. So there is no balance. There never will be. I think fairness, to try to be fair, is another word that's hard...its like truth, only approachable, never achievable."

This debate over balance ripped wide open during Ken Tomlinson's last six months as chair of the CPB board. He specifically targeted Moyers, but made sweeping statements questioning whether NPR and PBS were balanced. The stock response from public broadcasters was essentially, just who do you think you are? And his response back was, I'm the head of CPB. And both sides claim their points of view are backed up by the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act. It says the role of the CPB is to insulate the system from politics. It was part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society ambitions. In signing the act, he said the CPB "will get part of its support from our government. But it will be carefully guarded from government or from party control. It will be free, and it will be independent -- and it will belong to all of our people."

At the same time, federal law says that the CPB is to -- and I'm quoting here... "review, on a regular basis, national public broadcasting programming for quality, diversity, creativity, excellence, innovation, objectivity, and balance, as well as for any needs not met by such programming"

This debate began to unfold last spring, at first quietly and later with screaming headlines in some of the nation's top newspapers.

Ken Tomlinson is the lead character in this narrative.

He lives in rural Virginia, three counties over from DC. He began his career in the 1960s as a reporter, but landed at Reader's Digest in 1968, where he worked until 1982, when he spent two years as head of Voice of America for President Reagan. In 1984, he became executive editor at Reader's Digest and editor in chief in 1989.

Tomlinson retired from that job in 1996 to spend his time on breeding thoroughbreds and racing them. In the Bush administration, he's also head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is the umbrella agency for Radio Free Europe and Radio Sowa. He was first named to the CPB board in September, 2000 by President Clinton. He was elected chair in September, 2003.

After that, Tomlinson doesn't make much news. But behind the scenes he was already making waves. In December of 2003, he sent a letter to PBS head Pat Mitchell complaining about Now with Bill Moyers, saying the show in his words "does not contain anything approaching the balance the law requires". But this conflict remained quiet until April 5, 2005.

That's when the CPB established an ombudsman office, with two commentators for all public broadcasting programming, one from the left and one from the right. They are NBC producer Ken Bode, who was host of Washington Week in Review in the 1990s, and former Reader's Digest executive editor William Schulz. This decision raised a lot of eye brows since the CPB is a funding agency, and any comment on programming or content comes with it an implicit threat that strings are attached to those dollars. Tomlinson tried to allay those worries by saying the CPB "will not permit concerns over balance to allow CPB to engage in pre-broadcast censorship or post-broadcast penalties of public broadcasters." but "will help ensure the goal of balance and accuracy in public broadcasting." I should also note that the job pays $50,000 a year and to date the two ombudsmen have produced nine essays between them.

A few days later on April 8th, another public indication that something was up was the surprise resignation of Kathleen Cox, who was president of CPB. At the time, she and Ken Tomlinson released a statement saying she was there to work on certain tasks and those were done, so it was time to go. But as we'll find out later, it was a lot more complex than that.

In April, CPB had a meeting, in which the board told its staff to redirect the remaining grant money for public radio away from news programming and toward music. Part of the debate in that meeting revolved around a story told by one member of the board, Gay Hart Gaines, Newt Gingrich's former political action committee chair. She said on her way over her taxi driver complained that his local public radio station had dropped classical music. NPR's executive vice president Ken Stern says the board's decision that stemmed from that story contradicted a year of work and study by CPB staff and public radio programmers.

Ken Stern: "Completely dumped. It's a backwards way of thinking about it. It's a factless, opinion driven process by people who are really public broadcasting professions."

Still, though, this rising tension was happening behind the scenes. That started to change.

In April 24th, 2005, the New York Times Magazine had an interview with Ken Ferree, who was at the time the interim president after Kathleen Cox. He said he doesn�t watch much PBS and described the Newshour with Jim Leher as "akin to Shakespeare" at the end of the day. "Sometimes I really just want a People magazine" he said. This of course was quite alarming to people who devote their lives to serious minded educational and public affairs broadcasting.

Then, a week later, on May second, the story burst wide open in the New York Times. The headline was "Chairman exerts pressure on PBS, alleges biases". It described three basic charges, that Tomlinson hired someone directly from the White House to establish that ombudsman program, that he hired a consultant to monitor bias on public television and radio, and that he was working to balance Now with Bill Moyers with the more conservative Journal Editorial Report. The reporter at the Times, Stephan Labaton was on NPR�s Diane Rehm show the next day.

Stephan Labaton: "The flashpoint between the programmers and the CPB is whether this effort at what Ken Tomlinson calls "objectivity and balance" is really a veneer for something else, whether it's overall objective is really to turn public broadcasting into a more conservative Republican direction, something that Tomlinson denies adamantly."

Something else that came up in the Diane Rehm show that day was two surveys commissioned by the CPB in 2002 and 2003 but not released to the public. Paul Farhi with the Washington Post described what the pollsters found.

Paul Farhi: "They found that the public gave both NPR and PBS quite high marks in terms of their fairness and balance, relative to other media and in and of itself. In trying to find bias, CPB could not find the bias in the public, that the public perceived that bias."

Diane Rehm: "So why then if those polls were conducted, why do you suppose this issue is coming up now?"

Paul Farhi: "Because there are about 535 people whose opinion really matter. Those are the people in Congress who vote the funds for the CPB and ultimately for public television and radio."

As we heard from Tomlinson earlier, his principle target was Bill Moyers who he alleged was using the show to promote a liberal agenda. When Tomlinson appeared on NPR's On the Media on May 6th, Bob Mondello took him to task.

Bob Mondello: "Ken, aren't you confusing liberalism with journalism? The two have a lot in common...suspicion of authority, sympathy with the little guy, the instinct to reform, and so on. Of course Frontline and Now with Bill Moyers will question the establishment, will question power, no matter who is in power, which ever party. That isn't ideological bias, Ken. It's journalism."

Ken Tomlinson: "I beg to differ. I have no have a quarrel at all with Frontline. I did have a quarrel with the politics of the Moyers show. But did I want it removed? Absolutely not."

The head of PBS, Pat Mitchell throughout this time was a staunch defender of Now with Moyers. She says the Journal Editorial Report was dominated by one side of the politic spectrum, which she said was not the case with Now.

Pat Mitchell: "The show took complex, difficult issues of importance to the American people and examined from all different points of view. And if you look over the time of Now's broadcast, you will see liberal voices conservative voices, and most importantly, out of the mainstream voice."

One other piece of news around this time that CPB had considered ways to monitor NPR to document what Tomlinson and others on the board considered anti-Israel news coverage. But as far as I can tell, they never figured out a methodology to do that study.

On May 11th two House Democrats John Dingell and David Obey wanted a study of their own. They asked CPB's Inspector General Kenneth Konz to look into allegations that Tomlinson was exerting political pressure on PBS and NPR.

A few days later, on May 16th, Bill Moyers gave that speech in St. Louis to the National Conference on Media Reform. He had nothing but disdain for Tomlinson, recounting how back in the 1970s Richard Nixon wanted Moyers off the air.

Bill Moyers: "I always knew Nixon would be back...again and again. I just didn't know that this time, he would ask to be chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting."

Moyers also questioned the $10,000 spent to monitor his show.

Bill Moyers: "Jeekin! For two dollars and 50 cents a week, you could pick up a copy of TV guide on the newsstand. Or for that matter, Ken all you had to do was watch the show. Hell, Ken, you could have called me collect and I would have told you who we were having on the show."

Two days later May 18, Ken Tomlinson appeared on NPR's Diane Rehm show, trying to tone down the rhetoric.

Ken Tomlinson: "This debate has gotten a little hot in recent days and I think we need to turn down the temperature. While sometimes a debate over balance is healthy, sometimes it gets to the point beyond which it's healthy. I think Bill Moyers' Now program represented outstanding broadcasting. He's a very talented and gifted man. It's just that Bob Dylan said you don't need a weather vane to see which way the wind is blowing. It was not a balanced program."

Diane Rehm asked Tomlinson about those CPB polls in 2002 and 2003 showing that a majority of Americans don't believe bias is a problem on public broadcasting. Tomlinson said while the surveys were good, they do show a perception of bias. Rehm pressed him on statistics.

Diane Rehm: "While approximately one in five detects a liberal bias and approximately one in ten detects a conservative bias."

Ken Tomlinson: "That's a proper reflection of the poll."

Diane Rehm: "Well then how does that lead us to believe that we must have something to balance a program like Bill Moyers?"

Ken Tomlinson: "Well, do you agree that Bill Moyers was liberal advocacy journalism?"

Diane Rehm avoided answering that question as deftly as Tomlinson had just evaded hers. But in this interview, Tomlinson said something that would be relevant later. He had been talking all along about the value of having the Journal Editorial Report with Paul Gigot on the air to balance out Now, but he downplayed his role, giving Pat Mitchell credit.

Ken Tomlinson: "Pat made the initial contact with Paul Gigot, the Wall Street Journal. The decision to fund the show was done by our professionals within CPB. I do not participate in those decisions."

Later, the CPB Inspector General said Tomlinson did play a pivotal role. In fact, the Wall Street Journal even said it was Tomlinson who contacted Gigot in December 2003 and the two exchanged a number of emails about it. Keep in mind, Tomlinson's emails point out that the CPB doesn't have control over programming decisions.

Pat Mitchell told me the idea of putting the Journal Editorial Report on the air goes back to 9-11 when PBS made a decision to, as she put it "strengthen the public square". She said as PBS was considering Tucker Carlson Unfiltered, it also liked the idea of a show with Paul Gigot, but went with Carlson instead. So, when Tucker Carlson went to MSNBC, she said the PBS programming team turned to the Journal Editorial Report.

Back to our 2005 timeline. We're now in early June.

June 9th, a House budget subcommittee voted to slash funding for the CPB by $100 million. This was a rescission, that reached back in time, cutting money already promised to stations. The subcommittee also voted to zero out future funding. Taken along with cuts to related programs -- like one to help rural TV stations convert to digital television -- this amounted to a 45 per cent cut in federal funding for public broadcasting. Those close to this debate say because of strife and confusion at CPB, public broadcasting looked like a weak doe in a family of deer, being stalked by wolves. In the next two weeks, what happened though was a huge grass roots lobbying effort across the nation. There was even a group of home schoolers and an organization of stay-at-home moms who joined the fray.

A week after that subcommittee vote, the New York Times reported in more detail about what the Inspector General was investigating. We learned that Konz was looking into $15,000 in payments by CPB to two Republican lobbyists.

One of them, Brian Darling had resigned from a Senate staff position after he wrote a memo describing how to politically exploit Terri Schiavo. Regardless of who the lobbyists were, though, the CPB had previously said that it would be against the law to directly lobby Congress. What's more, neither of these payments were disclosed to the full board. They were handled exclusively by Ken Tomlinson. We'll get to what the IG said about that later. All this was separate from a contract with Frederick Mann, a consultant in Indiana. Tomlinson paid him a total of $14,000 to examine Now with Bill Moyers, NPR's Diane Rehm Show, the Tavis Smiley Show, and PBS's Tucker Carlson Unfiltered. Mann's report was not released by the CPB. Tomlinson said on the Diane Rehm show he was successful in convincing PBS to get Journal Editorial Report, he dropped the study.

Ken Tomlinson: "When that disagreement ended, then I didn't need any consultant to grade the Bill Moyers show to demonstrate its point of view and I turned the page and we moved on."

On June 18th, a few days after that story on the lobbyists, the New York Times reported that back in March and April, Ken Tomlinson had exchanged many emails with Mary Andrews at the White House on setting up an ombudsman program at the CPB. She was still on the White House payroll at the time, but was on her way to a position at the CPB.

By this time, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey called for Tomlinson to resign for trying to "inject partisan politics" into the CPB.

June 23rd, 2005 was a big day for public broadcasting. Two things happened: first, the CPB board hired Patricia Harrison as president and CEO. From 1997 to 2001, she was co-chair of the Republican National Committee and she worked in the State Department in the Bush administration. Ken Stern at NPR said her lack of experience in broadcasting was what most concerned him. And he said the timing was lousy for Harrison.

Ken Stern: "I think it's only the confluence of what Tomlinson has done at CPB and her background that bring sort of scrutiny to her role. But that being said I think people in public radio, generally are willing to give her now that she's here the opportunity to show that she can work in a nonpartisan professional manner, designed to advance the historic role of CPB and advance the purposes of public broadcasting."

The same day, June 23rd, the House voted to restore that $100 million. This was a surprise and to understand how it happened, I talked with Democratic Congressman Earl Blumenauer. He co-chairs the public broadcasting caucus in the US House. It has 109 members, mostly Democrats, but also some Republicans. He said, the debate over CPB funding was happening as Tom DeLay's legal troubles were brewing.

Second, he says many House Republicans were chafing under budgetary hard ball. So, on June 23rd those dynamics created a chance for a little rebellion against restrictive rules in the House.

Earl Blumenauer: "On critical issues today, it's not uncommon for all the decisions to be made by a dozen or fewer people, half of whom are not elected. Well, this bothers a number of Republicans. So the combination of they felt uncomfortable with what was going on, and it was a chance to assert some independence meant that we had a potential playing field of what I felt 100 people. We got 87 Republicans to vote with every single Democrat. This sends a message that this isn't one of the areas to mess around with."

A week later, on June 30th NPR got a copy of that thus far illusive Frederick Mann report, which the CPB never released officially. Mann categorized guests on Now with Bill Moyers as liberal, conservative, or neutral. Not surprisingly, it found more liberals than conservatives, but Mann's definition of liberal appeared to be "critical of the Bush administration or Tom DeLay". For example, listed as liberal were some reporters, and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, apparently because he disagreed with the Bush administration on Iraq. It was faxed to CPB from a Hallmark Cards shop in West Lafayette, Indiana. NPR's executive vice president Ken Stern called the methodology a "mockery" and "laughable".

Ken Stern: "I think it just showed he wasn't interested in having an open, careful, thoughtful dialogue. He was interested in bootstrapping his political views onto public broadcasting. And fortunately, it was an effort that has not taken root so far."

On July 11 Patricia Harrison and Ken Tomlinson appeared before a budget subcommittee chaired by Arlan Spector. This was one of Harrison's first public appearances in her new job and she struck a diplomatic tone

Patricia Harrison: "I believe that public broadcasting is in the public interest, that it furthers the general welfare of all our citizens. Public broadcasting strengthens our civil society and it merits the investment of moneys represented by our budget for 06 and 08."

In that hearing, Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin pressed Ken Tomlinson on what role he played in getting the Journal Editorial Report on the air.

Dick Durbin: "Did you feel that it was your responsibility or authority to go out and put together the Wall Street Editorial page show?"

Ken Tomlinson: "I felt that the law required us to reflect balance in our current affairs program."

By this time, North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan asked Kenneth Konz to widen his investigation into Patricia Harrison's hiring.

On July 24, Ken Tomlinson did an hour long q-and-a session with Brian Lamb on C-Span. Lamb asked him about something Paul Gigot said, complaining about how a lot of stations either didn't pick up his show or put it in the wasteland of the middle of the night. Tomlinson seemed to agree.

Ken Tomlinson: "But I would never try to push the system publicly to change that because this is a delicate system. And I've never tried local televisions run the show."

It was also around this time that Patricia Harrison spoke to the National Educational Telecommunications Association. She made sure to distinguish herself from her immediate predecessor, Ken Faree -- the one who said he never watched public television -- by naming a long list of personal connections to public television: a college internship at WAMU, an interview later on the Diane Rehm show, Big Bird told her daughter to write the letter "L" with lipstick on the mirror. Harrison also it was her job at the state department to create cultural exchanges in a non-partisan, non-political way.

Patricia Harrison: "And this is just one of the reasons I am committed to protecting the nonpartisan nature of public broadcasting. [applause] The 1967 legislation which created CPB instructed that it be free of political or government interference and that it represent a diversity of views. And believe me, after you've run almost a 120,000 exchanges for almost four years from every country in the world, every race, every ethnicity, every economic and religious level, every political opinion, you're very comfortable hearing a diversity of views and in fact you welcome them."

In Harrison's words, "I want to see us shape the debate and not be in a reactive position". Meanwhile, Ken Tomlinson's two-year term as chair was up in September. September 27th, Cheryl Halpern was selected as the new chair of the CPB board. This didn't really comfort Tomlinson's critics because Halpern is a major Republican fundraiser. After being elected by her colleagues on the board, she vowed to continue to encourage "objectivity and balance" in public broadcasting. Traditionally, the chair and the vice chair of CPB come from different parties, but in this case, the vice chair is Gay Hart Gaines, an interior designer and also a major GOP donor. Both of them were originally recess appointments back in 2003.

For the next five weeks after the change in leadership at CPB, the controversy remained quiet as those in the industry and at CPB waited for the Inspector General's report, due on November 15th. But a few things happened first.

On November 1 the Wall Street Journal told PBS that it would not be renewing the Journal Editorial Report for a third season. The paper called it a "business decision". One of the reasons it gave is that eight of the top 30 public television stations don�t run the show at all and another four run it after midnight.

OPB, by the way, airs the Journal show at 6pm on Fridays. I talked with Pat Mitchell before this decision, and she told me PBS was already concerned about the show because it found that viewers couldn't tell that it was primarily an opinion and commentary show, not a news program. And she felt it may violate PBS's editorial standards, to make the difference between news and opinion very clear.

Either way, the Wall Street Journal and PBS divorced and last week, the Journal Editorial Report landed on the Fox network after several months of behind the scenes discussions.

In the meantime, November 3rd, the CPB board under Cheryl Halpern saw the IG's report. Ken Tomlinson promptly resigned and the board released this cryptic statement.

"The board does not believe that Mr. Tomlinson acted maliciously or with any intent to harm CPB or public broadcasting, and the board recognizes that Mr. Tomlinson strongly disputes the findings in the soon-to-be-released Inspector General's report. The board expresses its disappointment in the performance of former key staff whose responsibility it was to advise the Board and its members. Nonetheless, both the board and Mr. Tomlinson believe it is in the best interests of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that he no longer remain on the board. The board commends Mr. Tomlinson for his legitimate efforts to achieve balance and objectivity in public broadcasting."

November 15th, the IG delivered his report.

It boils down to three basic charges, one that Tomlinson overstepped his authority in dealing directly with the Journal Editorial Report. Remember, Tomlinson downplayed his precise role. But the report found that he pushed hard, that he admonished senior staff to stay out of the way of his efforts to bring more balance to PBS programming, and -- here is the most serious and damning accusation in the report -- that Tomlinson threatened to hold up funding to PBS, quote "in a New York minute", if he didn't get his way.

The second charge is that Tomlinson had what Konz called "political tests" for the hiring of the current CPB president, Patricia Harrison

CPB did go through a 79-day executive search with a firm, but the IG notes that even before any of that was done Tomlinson spoke with quote "staff of the Executive Office of the President," and that the person ultimately hired was in fact the same one discussed with the White House. Konz stopped short in the report of identifying that staff has Karl Rove, but later confirmed it in press interviews. But he has said that Tomlinson sent Rove emails about developing a conservative talk show and quote "shaking up" CPB by hiring more Republicans. Tomlinson has said hiring a more "political" person would be good for CPB. By the way, the IG report includes a statement by the former CPB president Kathleen Cox, claiming that Tomlinson told her that he wanted her out because her quote "personal integrity" was getting in the way.

On the third charge of hiring a consultant to monitor programs, the Inspector General said that's consistent with the law, the 1992 Public Telecommunications Act specifically gives the CPB authority to
"review, on a regular basis, national public broadcasting programming for quality, diversity, creativity, excellence, innovation, objectivity, and balance, as well as for any needs not met by such programming;" but the IG found that "problems arose" when Tomlinson failed to tell the board and that the CPB doesn�t have a clear policy on handling these kinds of issues.

Another charge that Tomlinson contracted with Republican lobbyists, which is also against the rules, the IG says they provided only strategic advice, not direct lobbying of members of Congress. So that wasn't a violation of the law. But again, the IG portrays the rules about these things as squishy.

In Konz's words, "Our review found an organizational environment that allowed the former Chairman and other CPB executives to operate without appropriate checks and balances."

Here's how Maynard Orme described it.

Maynard Orme: "There was a certain lack of clarity about what the policies and procedures were, which gives someone like a Tomlinson the ability to go in and do things and claim innocence and say, well, there's nothing that says I can't do this."

Tomlinson called the Inspector General's report "malicious and irresponsible" and said it would discourage other reformers like him from seeking change. "As a result," he said "balance and objectivity will not come soon to elements of public broadcasting".

The Wall Street Journal issued a scathing response to the IG report, at one point saying that calling Kenneth Konz Inspector Cluseau would be an insult to Peter Sellers. The paper argued that it was PBS that came to them, not the other way around. And besides, they don't see the big deal in Tomlinson being in contact with them, if part of CPB's job is to insure balance. Pat Mitchell told me it was not Tomlinson, but PBS, who decided to put the Journal Editorial Report on the air

Pat Mitchell: "I just think it's very important for your board to understand that CPB did not put that program on PBS. CPB does not have the power, and certainly not their board, to put anything on PBS."

This general point -- not just the specifics of Tomlinson and the Journal Editorial Report -- was a very important point to Pat Mitchell. In fact, she told me when she visits stations she spends at least an hour talking about it.

Pat Mitchell: "Because none of these things are simple yes or no answers. And there's so much at stake in people really understand the difference, this swirling controversy about the definition of balance, what their job is, what our job is. And the last year has been fractious. And each of us has a mission, each of us has a reason for existence. And I'd like us to get back to the business of that. CPB's charter calls for them to distribute federal funds and to be a firewall, a heat shield between those funds and content distributed by PBS and any public television station. That is critical, a critical component to the independence of public broadcasting. We are independent, therefore nonpartisan, with no political agenda. And it is essential for I think the support of this institution going forward that that independence is reaffirmed in every way possible."

Now, one way to do that, would be for public broadcasters to simply divorce themselves from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Why not? Isn't it time? The answer I got universally was no. It's simply too much money and though not the largest portion of funding, it's still important nonetheless. National Public Radio, gets just one per cent of its budget from CPB, usually for special things, digital radio, satellite radio, and start ups like the midday show, Day 2 Day. But NPR is primarily funded by member stations and they get an average of 11 per cent from the CPB. Some get more, for example Alaska Public Radio gets half its budget from CPB and one station in rural northern Arizona is the only source of news for the area. In 2002, there were rampant wildfires there and KNNB was the only source of information about what to do and where the fires were. KNNB gets 2/3 thirds of its budget from CPB and would simply go out of existence with it.

OPB by the way about 15 per cent of the budget from the CPB, which is about average for most public television stations. Aside from the practical considerations, there's a more philosophical point that many, including Maynard Orme, make about the role of federal funding.

Maynard Orme: "Without it, you're just another commercial station. And then you're starting to pander to whatever you think those needs are. And then I think you lose your soul, you lose the very thing that gets you here. So I am an absolutely believer that the federal government should pony up money for this public service.

So what's the lesson here? What are public broadcasting to take away from the last year. Pat Mitchell offers one observation.

Pat Mitchell: "The lesson learned here is that people like to see people on the air who agree with their point of view. And when they don't agree with their point of few, they tend to call them biased. And that, by the way, comes from the left as well as the right."

But what about next time? Remember, the current chair and vice chair of the CPB are big contributors to the Bush Cheney campaign. Of course, after the Inspector General's report, anyone at CPB wanting to come in a shake things up is going top think twice.

But Skip Hinton, with the National Education Telecommunications Association, said the IG report lacked a certain narrative.

Skip Hinton: "Honestly, I was not real impressed with the glue. It doesn't tell much of a story. It was really a statement of this happened in the following manner and on these dates. I think its up to us now to go in and read with a little more depth and draw some conclusions and really write the narrative in the context of how this story should help us behave in the future. And I really am talking inside the family now.

Hinton told me that our interview was the first time he was articulating this notion. He took personal responsibility what happened with Ken Tomlinson.

Skip Hinton: "I don't believe there were many people who were even half way watching who didn't have some sense of the fact that CPB was taking steps to utilize their resources, or the resources they have on behalf of licensees, to influence program decisions both at PBS and also at the station level. And with that hint of that activity going on, I think it certainly was the responsibility of those of us who were supposed to pay attention to this, and who are supposed to help the licensees pay attention to this, I think in the end we did a rather poor job here."

All of this leaves a number of unanswered questions, not the least of which is this: If Patricia Harrison was hired for political interests, should she stay on? And next time the board wants to get rid of executive like Kathleen Cox, are they going to provide a $600,000 "golden parachute"?

Another question is if the loose "organizational environment" at CPB contributed to Tomlinon's "problems" what is the board doing to tighten the rules? The board announced a series of internal reforms. Two new committees were formed on corporate governance and executive compensation. The board said the moves were aimed at bringing more transparency as well as quote "insulating public broadcasting from undue political influence". But critics of CPB want to go way beyond procedural changes. The industry has been pushing ways to get people with actual broadcasting expertise on the board. Some argue CPB board members should not be appointed by the president at all.

The last issue in limbo is this year's CPB appropriation. As it stands now, with the June vote in the House, CPB is facing a one per cent cut, which is apparently the best case scenario in this budget cutting environment. This restoration held last month when the Labor HHS budget came up in the House. But the whole bill went down over other issues, not related to CPB funding. It's not clear when or how that budget bill will be resolved.

I'll end with an observation about the structure of public broadcasting that I think links the stories of Ken Tomlinson and Bill Moyers together, that sheds light on both the strength and weakness of public broadcasting. It's an observation made by the Wall Street Journal in the paper's response to the Inspector General report.

"The PBS system resembles late Ching Dynasty China: The Emperor at headquarters may give an order, but the warlords who program individual stations might or might not follow it. This is supposed to mean 'local control', but in practice it means a group of programmers can work together to damage any new show."

Now, the Wall Street Journal thinks this dispersed structure is a bad thing. But to others, that is the very reason someone like Ken Tomlinson can't just waltz in and shake things up. What all that local control does is make programmers sensitive to local tastes and opinions. But that's also why public broadcasting has a tendency to be risk averse. Remember, Bill Moyers complained PBS too often succumbs to providing a safe brand of "insider discourse". So, as the issue of balance on public broadcasting leaves the headlines, local stations -- for better or worse -- have proven their ability to give the system its own definition of balance. Thank you very much.

-----------------

Author's note: After the live presentation, the incoming CEO of Oregon Public Broadcasting Steve Bass pointed out an issue that I left out. One "backstory", as he called it, was an early conflict between Tomlinson and public broadcasters was over the make up of the board of CPB. The Association of America's Public Television Stations wanted more broadcast professionals on the board, but Tomlinson fought the plan. He apparently also took personal offense at the APTS move.

From the APTS Web Site:
www.apts.org

Last modified on January 31, 2006 09:31 AM

House Defeats Conference Report on Labor-HHS Bill
Measure Included Solid Funding for Public Broadcasting Programs
Congress Extends Continuing Resolution Until December 18

In an unusual turn of events, the House of Representatives narrowly defeated passage of the conference report for the FY 2006 Labor-HHS-Education and Related Agencies bill. Normally conference reports on appropriations bills are treated as must-pass legislation and are approved along party lines. However, a group of 22 moderate Republicans joined the entire Democratic caucus in voting against the measure, purportedly because it contained some unpalatable spending cuts.

Ironically, the Labor-HHS conference report represented a significant victory for public broadcasting, as it provided level or near-level funding for almost every public broadcasting program that is covered in the bill. Conferees essentially accepted the levels proposed by the Senate over those recommended in the House bill. The conference numbers were as follows:

• CPB Advance Funding (FY 2008): $400 million
• CPB Funding (FY 2006): $400 million
• CPB Digital: $30 million
• Interconnection: $35 million
• Ready To Learn: $24.5 million
• Ready To Teach: $11 million

In the case of Ready To Learn, the program actually received an increase of $1.1 million dollars, even as Ready To Teach sustained a modest cut. To receive either level funding or an increase is a substantial achievement given the extraordinarily difficult budget environment.

At this point, however, it is unclear how Congress will resolve the Labor-HHS funding dilemma. Although options range from reopening the conference report to passage of a so-called full-year Continuing Resolution - which extends the FY 2005 funding levels for the remainder of the current fiscal year - it is still too early to speculate. Congress did approve another month-long CR, which will enable the government to continue to operate until December 17.

Public Broadcasting Ex-Chief Targeted in Report

Last modified on January 31, 2006 09:31 AM

2005-11-15

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting appeared to have been motivated by politics in recruiting a new board president, the corporation's inspectors reported on Tuesday.

Their report into the activities of Kenneth Tomlinson said "cryptic" e-mails between Tomlinson and the White House indicated by their timing and subject matter that Tomlinson "was strongly motivated by political considerations in filling the president/CEO position."

A former co-chair of the Republican National Committee, Patricia Harrison, was named to the post.

The report also found that Tomlinson, a conservative who resigned from the board earlier this month, erred when he failed to tell the board that he was hiring a consultant to review program content for objectivity and balance.

It also said Tomlinson did not follow proper procedures when he hired lobbyists to help deal with legislation to change the composition of the board.

The inspectors' report was prompted by media reports that Tomlinson and the board were making personnel decisions based on political ideology, criticism that was heightened after Harrison was named to head the board in June.

Tomlinson sought to add more conservative-minded shows to the line-up to counter what many conservatives considered a liberal bias in public broadcasting.

"While our review found no evidence that personnel decisions were based solely on 'political tests,' we did find evidence that politics may have influenced some decisions," the inspectors wrote.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a federally funded nonprofit corporation and the largest single source of money for U.S. public television and radio programming, including PBS and National Public Radio. It is governed by a presidentially appointed board.

Download the CPB Inspector General's Report (1 MB PDF)

More About OPB & CPB

Other Resources
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Download CPB Reform Recommendations from APTS (24 KB PDF)
National Public Radio
Public Broadcasting Service

Oregon Public Broadcasting Selects New CEO

Last modified on January 31, 2006 09:31 AM

The Board of Directors of Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) announced today that it has selected a veteran broadcast executive, television producer and one-time performance musician as OPB's next president and chief executive officer.

Steven M. Bass, 48, will move into the top job at OPB, succeeding Maynard Orme who is retiring after a distinguished 19-year career as OPB's chief executive.

Bass has served as president and CEO of Nashville Public Television since 1998.

"What I've always enjoyed about Steve is his energy, his passion and his deep commitment to public broadcasting," Orme said. "I look forward to working with him during this transition."

Previously, Bass was vice president and manager of television stations for WGBH in Boston, Massachusetts. He oversaw a three-station network serving the entire state.

In Boston, Bass was responsible for improving the station's local programming. He launched "Greater Boston," a nightly public affairs program that has been a successful model for similar broadcasts nationwide.

Bass was vice president and general manager at WGBY in Springfield, Massachusetts from 1992 through 1995. Prior to his posts in New England, Bass worked for the fund-raising arm of the Public Broadcasting Service in Washington, D.C.

"It is a tremendous credit to Maynard and all those who make OPB so successful that we attracted a gifted leader like Steve Bass," said OPB Board Chair, Doug Tunnell. "Steve is truly one of public broadcasting's brightest lights."

In Nashville, Bass oversaw the station's transition from a government-owned service to an independent, community-operated public television station. Bass also served as executive producer on a number of programs broadcast on PBS, including: Bill Monroe: The Legend Lives On (2003); Christmas at Belmont (2003); Hank Williams: Honky Tonk Blues (American Masters & BBC, 2004); and The Carter Family (American Experience, 2005).

Bass is a graduate of Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, where he received his bachelor's degree in economics and in music in 1979. He worked as a professional clarinet player and earned an MA in business from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981.

Bass and his wife Sara have two daughters; Catie, 14 and Caroline, 11. Bass is expected to move into the job at OPB in early 2006.

How to Help Hurricane Katrina's Victims

Last modified on January 31, 2006 09:31 AM

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, the American Red Cross and other government and private agencies are scrambling to respond to the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast. Following is a partial list of groups and their phone numbers:

• American Red Cross
  1-800-HELP NOW (435-7669) English,
  1-800-257-7575 Spanish

• Mercy Corps
  1-888-256-1900
• Northwest Medical Teams
  1-800-959-4325