It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Corporation for Public Broadcasting Appoints Republican As President/Chief Exec (moved from ATSNN)

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:10 PM
The American Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is tasked with shielding public broadcasts from political interfernce, has seen the Republican Party co-chairman - Patricia S. Harrison - appointed as its President. The corporation has been embroiled in arguments claiming that PBS is too liberal-leaning. In a statement, PBS said it looked forward to working with Harrison. It added: "We have every expectation that she will execute her responsibilities with nonpartisan integrity."

WASHINGTON - The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, already embroiled in controversy over allegations of a liberal-leaning bias in PBS programming, chose a former Republican Party co-chairman Thursday as its president and chief executive.

Patricia S. Harrison, the assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs, was selected following three days of closed-door meetings by the corporation's board of directors.

Democratic lawmakers last week urged the CPB to put off choosing a new president, citing concerns about political interference by the corporation's chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson. A Republican, Tomlinson, has been critical of public affairs programming at PBS, alleging that it's too liberal.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

So the best way to prevent liberal leaning tendencies in an apolitical corporation is to appoint its polar opposite as President? Great logic

This is a recipe for disaster and does nothing to assuage concerns on both sides that public broadcasts are becoming political tools.

[edit on 23/6/05 by subz]

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:18 PM
Tomlinson secretly spent 10k on a Republican lobbiest to report on how bias the PBS show "Now" with Bill Moyer was. It seems that Tomlinson thinks that any commentary that is against the Bush Administration has a liberal bias.

Truely sad that one of the last bastions of unbiased investigative reporting in the US might have its days numbers. I remember turn the infancy of the recent Iraq invastion and listening to live interviews of Anne Garrels (See her book "Naked in Baghdad") via Sattilite phone who was reporting on the conditions of Iraq. Truely amazing and vastly differant then any other news program out there. That year I donated $100 to WIsconsin Public radio just because of her reporting.

I just wish the Media was a little more sensitve and was able to expose such bia in a orginization that is suppose to have no bias

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Jesophant
It seems that Tomlinson thinks that any commentary that is against the Bush Administration has a liberal bias.

That's the crux of the issue and why many discussions on the impact of partisanship seem to stall before they begin.

The labeling of a viewpoint has become more important than the actual viewpoint.........which is a bunch of BS because everyone ends up running around crying fowl because an illusory concept of good and bad is not being adhered to.

'Tis a shame that PBS, a source of non-political, scientific and artistic entertainment is being caught in the mudslinging.......

Edit: It would seem that the "warn" label is a loophole for the anonymity of 'sub'missions.......

[edit on 23-6-2005 by MemoryShock]

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:39 PM
Aye, I sent a gripe/help on the matter as soon as I posted it.

Oh well, it matters not if my username precludes votes as I would of already denied myself those votes with my concluding paragraph

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:46 PM
How can you stop political interference in business when all of them are feed by the same spoon.

Its not way around, sad but true.

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:49 PM
A big tenet of American politics is "to the victor goes the spoils."

As long as PBS is funded by the government, it will be subject to the leadership of the American government.

Why is this so shocking to liberals whose liberal governments have molded it as a liberal mouthpiece over so many previous years?

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:27 PM
Public Broadcast means it's for everyone not just the Demo's and the Tree Huggers.

The Tax payers are funding a big hunk of the PBS budget, yet they (PBS)broadcast a left or Democratic view, and is this fair to hear only one side of the story.

This type of Public broadcasting sounds like the propaganda from Cuba or a Chinese broadcast, only one sided?

Please, if I want to watch Democratic programing, I will turn to PMSNBC or CNN, which I pay for on my Satellite channels.

It's time for a change, yes PBS needs to be in the center and not lean to the left or right, we on the right just want equal time on PBS thats all.

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:42 PM

Originally posted by SIRR1
It's time for a change, yes PBS needs to be in the center and not lean to the left or right, we on the right just want equal time on PBS thats all.

No. I dont condone a public channel being used as the personal mouthpeice for any political party. That applies equally to democrats as much as to republicans.

If this trully was a battle about restoring PBS to an impartial bipartisan entity then an ex-Republican co-chair should not be tasked with leading it.

Two wrongs do not make a right. (well in this case they do

[edit on 23/6/05 by subz]

posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:15 AM
Liberal - not braindead patsy for corporate consumption culture. Retains the ability to criticize pompous institutional authorities.

Conservative - spoon fed entire value system by somebody else, incapable of original thought. Is a clone and wants to force everyone else to be a clone along with them, like a factory farm animal.

top topics


log in