[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13131-13132]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to speak about the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting. My understanding is their board of directors is 
meeting today. I don't know whether they are going to select a new 
president for the corporation, but I know that was at least announced 
as the intention today of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Let 
me go all the way back to Big Bird. Everyone who grows up watching 
Sesame Street and Children's Television Workshop understands that 
Cookie Monster, Big Bird, and all of those things represent learning 
devices and the wonderful characters on Sesame Street. The Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting was created a long while ago as a part of an 
approach to do something unique.
  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Public Television, and 
National Public Radio have been pretty remarkable. Every week 94 
million Americans watch public television or some portion of public 
television and 46 million people listen to public radio. That is a 
remarkable statistic. Public radio and public television are available 
to over 90 percent of American homes. We have come a long way since 
President Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
  It is the case that public broadcasting will tackle issues that other 
broadcasters don't tackle. I admit you won't see Fear Factor on public 
television. You won't tune in and see someone sitting in front of a 
bowl of maggots to see whether they can eat an entire bowl in 15 or 30 
seconds. That is not the kind of television I watch. But occasionally 
when you are browsing through the television routine, you tune in to 
programs that have that kind of approach. You wonder what has become of 
good television. Or you might tune in to another program where you see 
a couple of women or men engaged in a fist fight over some romance that 
turned sour, where on that program day after day they hold this 
imperfection up to the light and say: Isn't this ugly? Let's entertain 
ourselves with everyone else's dysfunctional behavior.
  You won't find that on public broadcasting. They sink their teeth 
into some pretty interesting things. I mentioned Big Bird. I suppose 
could you say Big Bird isn't quite so serious, but a lot of children 
grow up with Sesame Street watching Big Bird and the lessons therein. 
Frankly, it is wonderful television--more than television for children, 
I will give you an example of the kinds of things public broadcasting 
tackles that others will not.
  Do you think ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX is going to tackle the question of 
concentration in broadcasting? There are no more than five or six 
companies and people that control what we see, hear, and read. Because 
we see all of these concentrations of television stations and radio 
stations, the Federal Communications Commission decided in their 
ruling, which the court subsequently stayed, that it is OK to open this 
up. And the Federal Communications Commission said: We believe that in 
one major American city, one company ought to be able to own eight 
radio stations, three television stations, the cable company, and the 
dominant newspaper. We think that is fine.
  It is not fine with me. It is limiting what people can see and read 
and hear. The controversy surrounding public television, public radio, 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting saddens me. My hope is that 
perhaps actions taken in the next couple of days might resolve that.
  There is apparently a board meeting this afternoon and apparently 
another meeting of some type tomorrow where they will choose a new 
president. This all is with the backdrop of the chairman of the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, who has consistently and publicly 
said that public broadcasting, public television, public radio has a 
liberal bias. There have been all of those allegations over some long 
period of time. A liberal bias, it is easy to say. It doesn't have a 
liberal bias. It is just independent television which most people 
appreciate.
  Let me talk for a moment about my concern about where we are heading. 
Press accounts from last week noted that the House Appropriations 
Committee approved a spending bill on Thursday that would slash 
spending for public television and radio by nearly half. That includes 
a 25-percent cut in financing for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting and a total of $112 million in additional cuts for 
programs that provide continuing children's programming.
  Just the news coming out of the Appropriations Committee in the House 
is ominous. But more than that, inside the organization, the chairman 
of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting hired a consultant to 
evaluate the bias in public broadcasting. He hired a consultant to go 
after the program called ``NOW with Bill Moyers.'' He hired that 
consultant without notifying the board of directors. This is the 
chairman of the board. He hired that consultant with public funds.
  As an appropriator, I asked him: Would you provide me with the 
information that the consultant provided you.

[[Page 13132]]

  This is what I received. I received a substantial amount of what he 
called raw data. It didn't include any summary, just raw data. I was 
struck and disappointed to see that a consultant was hired, and this is 
a summary of April 4 to June 4, just to pick one. And they go through 
the list of programs, and they label anti-Bush, anti-Bush, anti-DeLay. 
I guess if he reported on the controversy about Tom DeLay, it is anti-
DeLay programming.
  It says, ``anticorporation.'' In fact, they did a program about some 
waste. It might have been about Halliburton, although I have done 
hearings on Halliburton. I guess that would then be declared 
anticorporation. It is really not. Again, it reads anti-Bush, anti-
Bush, pro-Bush.
  I am struck that it is way out of bounds to be paying money for a 
consultant who decides to evaluate public broadcasting through the 
prism of whether or not it supports the President. That is not the role 
of public broadcasting, to decide whether it supports the President of 
the United States. If we ever get to the point where you can't be 
critical of public policy, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the 
President, then there is something wrong.
  Interestingly enough, they used another approach on another set of 
programming, and they divided these segments that were shown into 
either liberal or conservative segments. And there was a segment on 
June 7 last year and Senator Hagel from Nebraska, a conservative 
Republican, was on that segment and apparently said something that 
wasn't completely in sync with the White House. So he is labeled as a 
liberal. A conservative Republican Senator from Nebraska is labeled a 
liberal by the consultant for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 
Why? Because he said something liberal? No, apparently he just didn't 
have the party line down and said something that was perhaps at odds 
with policy coming out of the White House.
  This list goes on and on. My guess is my colleague Senator Hagel is 
going to be mighty surprised to discover that a consultant hired by the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting views his appearances on public 
broadcasting as appearances that contribute to a liberal bias because a 
conservative Republican Senator from Nebraska shows up on public 
broadcasting.
  I don't mean to make light of this. I think it is serious. In 
addition to all of this, an allegation of bias--a relentless allegation 
of bias by the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, in 
addition to his hiring a consultant to do this kind of thing--evaluate 
programming, whether it is anti-Bush or pro-Bush--in addition to all of 
that, there is now a discussion and potentially even a vote today in 
which they would select a new president of the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, and the leading candidate for that job is a former 
cochairman of the Republican National Committee.
  I would not think it appropriate for a former cochair of the 
Democratic National Committee to assume the presidency of the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting; nor would I think it would be wise 
for Mr. Tomlinson, the chairman of the board, to usher in a former 
partisan as president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  Again, I only say that, going back some 35 years and more, I think 
public broadcasting has been a real service to our country. Public 
television and public radio tackle things other interests will not 
tackle in this country. They are, in fact, independent. That is 
precisely what drives some people half-wild. My hope is that the 
actions of Mr. Tomlinson, the chairman, the actions of the board, 
whatever they might be today--my hope is that those actions will not 
further contribute to injuring public broadcasting.
  We fund public broadcasting because we think it is a great 
alternative to commercial television. If you tune in--nothing against 
broadcasts in the evening on the commercial station, but I happen to 
think Jim Lehrer has one of the best newscasts in our country. He 
covers both sides aggressively. I think it contributes to our country 
and I think, in many ways, public broadcasting is a national treasure. 
I regret that I have to describe these things--consultants who evaluate 
whether or not something is anti-Bush. That is not the prism through 
which one should evaluate whether something makes sense. I will wait to 
see what happens today at the meeting taking place of the board. My 
hope is that they will not take action that will further injure and be 
detrimental to public broadcasting.

                          ____________________