Friday November 18, 2005

Which Part of “Nefarious Cabal” Don’t You Understand?

Predictably, the Wall Street Journal has issued an exceptionally weaselly editorial, explaining (or, rather, attempting to explain away) a recent report detailing how former Corporation for Public Broadcasting chairman Kenneth Tomlinson advised WSJ editorial page editor Paul Gigot on how to get The Journal Editorial Report on the air. The paper even produces e-mails exchanged by Tomlinson and Gigot and challenges readers, rather sarcastically, to “judge for themselves if this amounted to a nefarious cabal at work.” Surprisingly, seeing that the WSJ released them, that is pretty much what the e-mails amount to. We see Tomlinson—who is not supposed to be involved in programming or the distribution of programming—coaching Gigot on how to game PBS every step of the way. You can read the full emails here (pdf), but here are some choice quotes from Tomlinson’s end:

“I’m trying to pressure [PBS president] Pat Mitchell to produce a real conservative counterpart to Moyers.”

“I understand PBS is going to be talking to you about assuming a role that serves as a political balance to Moyers. I do not trust Pat Mitchell but I have a deal with others stipulating that you will have access to the same deal Moyers has. So do not accept if they try to toss you onto Moyers’ show as an after thought commentator.”

“The more I think about (sic) the more excited I am about a 30-minute Wall Street Journal equivalent to Moyers now airing this fall. Feel free to press Mitchell hard, and I will do everything I can from my end to make it happen.”

“… I do not turn loose of CPB’s money or let authorization go forward until you have a show that gets everything Moyers gets except for time.”

Sort of makes you wonder what the Journal’s idea of getting involved in programming would look like. The editorial even has the gall to forgive Tomlinson’s promise to put fiscal pressure on PBS by pointing out that he didn’t have the power to do so, which is kind of the point of the whole investigation, now isn’t it?

In the end, however, there is good news. The Journal isn’t renewing The Journal Editorial Report for a third season, which is apt since—as their editorial points out—the paper opposes the very concept of public broadcasting. No wonder they aren’t particularly concerned about its mismanagement. As for the piece’s parting shot, which claims Tomlinson’s only mistake was “believing that ‘public broadcasting’ is supposed to represent all of the public,” I guess we’ll never know if it does. Tomlinson ended his tally of pro-Bush and anti-Bush guests once The Journal Editorial Report became a reality. (Further evidence that Tomlinson’s interest was in leverage rather than balance.) Perhaps Moyers’ guests did represent “all of the public” by running two to one against the administration, just like the President’s approval ratings.