Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.

We have seen quite a bit of political ballyhoo this year with regard to bias in public broadcasting. Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), feels that these government funded stations have an unacceptable liberal bias that should be replaced with a more objective approach. After all, this is the $400 million of taxpayer money that the CPB distributes to PBS and NPR annually. Why should this money subsidize political bias? In fact, the CPB charter expressly forbids such bias, stipulating that the corporation adhere to "objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." So Tomlinson is right to demand more objectivity… isn’t he?

Many at PBS, including former president and CEO Pat Mitchell, say that Tomlinson’s actions are a direct threat to editorial independence – something that is also forbidden by the CPB charter. Public broadcasters are supposed to enjoy independence from the political establishment, for obvious reasons – PBS was never meant to be subject to pressures from whichever party is in power at a given time. So public broadcasters are right to demand independence from partisan politicians like President Bush and Kenneth Tomlinson… aren’t they?

In 2004 Tomlinson hired a consultant to analyze the political ideology of guests on four PBS and NPR public affairs shows (Bill Moyer, Tavis Smiley, Diane Rehm, and Tucker Carlson). NPR alleges that this consultant himself is a biased conservative, who graded the shows not on their full content, but on their degree of support for the Bush administration.

A New York Times editorial a few weeks ago reported that “journalists and executives seemed stunned to learn that they were being scrutinized” (SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (NYT) 7/1/05).

Taxpayer funds, but with no expectation of scrutiny. Hrm. Would that I had such a job. A wakeup call was definitely in order for these people. But that’s not the general tone of the press. On May 4 the New York Times editorial page included a scathing piece on the situation, accusing Tomlinson of politicizing public broadcasting. NYT says “his goal of expanding PBS audience includes not more centrist programming but pushing broadcasts over ideological line with blatantly partisan programming and hiring of more Republicans” (NYT 5/4)

The American left (most notably commentators from PBS and NPR) have attacked Tomlinson’s demand for “balance”, calling his efforts a “ideological putsch” (NYT 6/15) and “political interference in programming” (NYT 6/16)

Diane Rehm says she hadn't known she was being monitored by CPB until the story broke. Her reaction blows me away. Here is what she says other journalists should learn from the situation:

If I investigate you, Diane Rehm, you will tone down your program and you will make sure that there are more conservative opinions on the air than there are liberal opinions -- because we want to make sure that the conservative perspective is out there.

Rehm sounds like she has been hoping to play the martyr role all her life. Unfortunately, her flair for drama has outstripped her ability to give a balanced, objective view of her own situation. Irony?

I am stunned that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be spending money to monitor my program.

Ms. Rehm, I am stunned that you would expect the CPB to dish out $400,000,000.00 per year, but not monitor the damned programs it is funding! Such hubris at taxpayer expense - literally!

Some organizations on the left say they want "the people" and "the local stations" to have more say in the future of public broadcasting.

Policy and programming decisions should not be based on the perceived interests of the public deduced by political leaders and executives under fiscal, political and organizational pressure. Public hearings will tell us exactly what the people want.

Public hearings? No, it’s called the free market. I’m glad to find lefties who agree with me about removing public funds from the equation. You want to know exactly what the people want?

Of course, no political conversation would be complete without a good old fashioned Nazi reference. Rory O’Connor at AlterNet.org is happy to provide it.

PBS now faces deep cuts, advocated by the Cato Institute and this weblog. Liberals and public broadcasters say that any cuts would be political punishment from the Republican dominated Congress. Too bad they didn’t think about that ahead of time. In the interest of full disclosure, I listen to NPR pretty much every day. I love it. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, in order to get the government out of it.

Take another look at that Top Ten list from David Boaz at Cato. Take special note of point #6 on the list, and ask yourself if you really understand it. No network or reporter can be objective to the point of eschewing bias – let’s get our tax dollars out.