> Update: 11:56am: “This e-mailer would point out that the show started on CNBC before moving to PBS so wouldn’t the evil corporate minions of General Electric have provided the seed money to launch the show which then moved to PBS? And really, how much seed money does it take to start a show that consists of a bunch of reporters sitting around a table talking about what they wrote in the paper this week? This news consumer would love to know.”
An e-mailer asks: “Brian, no word in your WSJ coverage about the conspiracy angle, where Tomlinson provided the seed money from taxpayer funds to develop the show for Fox? Nothing at all about the stovepiping of taxpayer money into right-wing talking heads like the Journal group and Tucker Carlson? Nothing about the blackballing of Bill Moyers?”
I don’t normally cover PBS, but yesterday I posted about Tomlinson’s efforts to “get the program on the air ‘as a way of balancing ‘Now.'” It’s worth repeating, this time from the report by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s Office of the Inspector General:
“Our review of the selection and funding of these programs disclosed evidence suggesting the former Chairman violated his fiduciary responsibilities and statutory prohibitions against Board member involvement in programming decisions related to creating ‘The Journal Editorial Report.'”
The rest of the report’s references to the Journal Editorial Report are printed in full after the jump…
Our review disclosed that CPB officials and the former Chairman encouraged PBS to
explore adding a former PBS commentator to the “NOW with Bill Moyers†program, as a
counterbalance. When those efforts were unsuccessful they encouraged PBS to give
him his own show, which later became “The Journal Editorial Report.â€
While these events were confirmed by our interviews of both CPB and PBS officials, our
review also showed that the former Chairman had been dealing directly with the former
PBS commentator during this same time period. The former Chairman advised him
about strategies for getting his own show and even suggested a format modeled after
“NOW with Bill Moyers,†including a panel and remote reporting. At the same time, he
admonished CPB senior executive staff not to interfere with his deal to bring a balancing
program to PBS. These actions raise questions about the extent of the former
Chairman’s involvement in selecting and funding of “The Journal Editorial Report.â€
Specifically, the questions involve whether he breached his fiduciary responsibilities,
was directly involved in programming decisions, influenced the program format
increasing the cost of the program, and exceeded his role as a Board member in
directing the actions of CPB staff.
The former Chairman said he was a strong supporter of bringing “The Journal Editorial
Report†to PBS. He said he informally pushed hard for the creation of a balancing
program. He wanted to fulfill the mandate of the law and bring real balance to “NOW
with Bill Moyers†in the Friday night line-up. He said PBS needed political balance to
represent the contemporary conservative perspectives. He said he had discussions
with PBS officials about program content to balance their public affairs line-up but got
involved because he lacked the confidence that PBS and CPB staff could bring a true
balancing program to the air.
While the former Chairman’s direct dealings with PBS encouraged them to balance their
public affairs line-up, his internal e-mails told CPB staff to threaten to withhold National
Program Service (NPS) funds from PBS, if they didn’t balance their programming.
However, CPB had no authority to withhold NPS funds without advising Congress of
their intentions. While our review found no evidence that CPB ever actually discussed
withholding NPS funds with PBS, we also saw no evidence that this strategy was ever
discussed with the Board or that the former Chairman was acting at their direction.
Further, in analyzing the evidence, we believe the former Chairman’s program format
suggestions may have led to the decision to create a program format that included a
panel of commentators with remote reporting to enable the program to better compete
with “NOW with Bill Moyers,†resulting in a more costly program than CPB normally
recommended. The first season of the program cost $4.1 million and was 100 percent
funded by CPB. This total figure included start-up costs, the pilot program, and 35
episodes.
Our review of the negotiations between CPB and “The Journal Editorial Reportâ€
producer disclosed that there were internal CPB concerns over the high cost of the
program. One internal e-mail said the initial cost budgets for the program were out of
scale with public broadcasting production costs and out of line with what CPB has been
advocating to the system (cost efficiency, production value in digital age, etc.). Further,
13
CPB staff attributed the high costs to the program’s format, which was based on a
network model of chasing many stories to come up with a few they could use, which
required using more producers and associate producers.
In describing the cost of the program to the Board the former President/CEO wrote, in a
July 29, 2004, e-mail:
“The cost of the series is approximately $4.5 million. The show is costlier than
many public affairs programs because of the high-profile of the Wall Street
Journal and the expedited timetable for bringing such a show to the air in time
for the election. Following the initial 26 episodes, CPB will assess carriage,
ratings, costs, relevance, and other factors to determine the benefits of
renewing the series for another season.â€
During the current second season “The Journal Editorial Report†made changes and
costs were reduced to $2.3 million for 26 episodes. The second season is jointly funded
by a corporate underwriter and CPB. CPB is funding only $746,684 of the second
season’s costs.