Tuesday November 15, 2005

And Balance for All?

Here’s a follow-up to the Ken Tomlinson news, now that I’ve digested the whole report. Tomlinson, as you would expect, is following the GOP script and accusing the CPB Inspector General of opting for “politics over good judgment” and insisting on his own “lawful and sincere” objective of bringing “balance and objectivity to public broadcasting.” He also bashes the IG for employing “New Age rhetoric and 1960’s-era encounter group idealogy,” which certainly sounds like a euphemism for something.

Mostly, the report is a big bore, detailing how Tomlinson engineered the launch of The Journal Editorial Report with Paul Gigot (CPB isn’t supposed to be involved in programming decisions) and packed the corporation with cronies while sidestepping HR protocol. But here is the smoking gun that gives the lie to Tomlinson’s “sincere” quest for balance and objectivity. In evaluating NOW with Bill Moyers:

The former Chairman [Tomlinson] asked the consultant to record the topics covered and characterize the guests’ points of view. The consultant confirmed this and explained that he was also asked to see whether the guest’s comments supported the host’s views or presented contrary views. He was also asked to characterize the views as either conservative or liberal. Depending upon a show’s topic, the consultant also characterized the guest’s views as pro-administration versus anti-administration, pro-Bush versus anti-Bush, or pro-DeLay versus anti-DeLay.

Now, why would someone seeking balance writ large evaluate guests in this manner? Why not pro-Democrat, anti-Democrat? Pro-Hillary or anti-Hillary? Because in the world Tomlinson inhabits—along with the White House and Fox News—it’s us against them, and balance just means balance for the home team. Let the other guys get balanced treatment on their own watch.