Tomlinson Updated Rove on ‘Balance’ Efforts

Tomlinson kept White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove informed of his efforts for a conservative show on PBS. CPB Inspector Gen. Kenneth Konz told us while “specifically we didn’t see anything that Karl Rove asked Tomlinson to do, we saw a few [e-mails] whereby Tomlinson reported to Rove that he was being successful in getting a program to balance the Bill Moyers show.” Tomlinson also told Rove he was “shaking things up” at the CPB to get more Republicans hired. Asked if the hiring of CPB Pres. Patricia Harrison figured in Tomlinson’s correspondence with Rove, Konz said: “No, not in any correspondence with Rove.” In his report, Konz said White House influence played a part in Harrison’s hiring, but he told us he can’t name the White House officials involved.

Tomlinson’s direct involvement in the show’s creation was cited by Konz as a violation of “fiduciary responsibilities and statutory provisions” barring CPB board members from getting involved in programming. In a Dec. 4, 2003, e-mail, Tomlinson told Gigot he was now the “rather powerless” chmn. of CPB and he was “trying to pressure” Mitchell to produce a genuine conservative counterpart to the Moyers show. He said he still held the post of Bcstg. Board of Governors chmn., “which has clout.”

In a Jan., 2004, message, Tomlinson said he understood Mitchell was planning to talk to Gigot about his taking a role on the show that would “serve as a political balance” to Moyers. “I do not trust Pat Mitchell,” Tomlinson said, assuring Gigot that he had an arrangement with “others” that would give Gigot “access to the same deal Moyers has. So do not accept if they try to toss you onto Moyers’ show as an afterthought commentator.” In a Feb. 8 missive after Gigot explained his “strategy” regarding the Moyers show, Tomlinson said he had a deal that Moyers would be “balanced this fall.” The CPB, he said, would “hold up her [Pat Mitchell’s] money if she doesn’t deliver this fall.”

The IG reported Tomlinson asked the CPB staff to threaten to withhold programming funds from PBS if it didn’t balance its programming, but said “our review found no evidence that CPB ever actually discussed withholding” funds from PBS. But, as Communications Daily has reported, a public spat did occur between PBS and CPB officials over CPB threats in talks over PBS’s programming contract to withhold money over “objectivity and balance” language insisted on by CPB management (CD April 21 p11). Denying CPB threatened to cancel the contract, CPB Vp- Business Affairs Steve Altman told us at the time CPB has the right to approve PBS editorial guidelines. “We believe that is an appropriate function” for CPB, he said. Altman called that position consistent with a U.S. appeals court decision saying “basically CPB, not court or agencies, has the responsibility” to ensure statutory requirements of balance and objectivity are met. He said the contract provided that CPB FY 2006 funding for PBS hinged on “PBS putting acceptable guidelines on the table….what that really means…. is that if PBS doesn’t get the guidelines done in time, there is a possibility that CPB could delay FY 2006 funding until it’s completed.” PBS clarified that objectivity and balance language later was removed from the contract, the issue was settled to PBS’s satisfaction and funds were released.

In another Feb. e-mail, Tomlinson told Gigot he was close to a deal that would ensure Gigot got his own show on public TV: “I realize God is in the details, but this is a deal we can live with. But 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.” In a later e-mail suggesting what the Journal Editorial Report could look like, Tomlinson said he not only wanted Gigot’s show to “outshine Moyers -- I want it to beat the socks off Tucker Carlson [show].”

In a lengthy editorial explaining its decision to produce a program on PBS, the Wall St. Journal took Konz to task for having done his “politicized duty and strafed Tomlinson with drive-by accusations of -- egad! -- trying to influence the programming of PBS.” As producers of the Journal Editorial Report, the paper said, “we got hit with some of Konz’s stray innuendo.” PBS asked the Journal about doing a show well before “we heard from Tomlinson,” it said. “PBS came to us, not vice versa. Ms. Mitchell gave every appearance to us, then and since, of believing a Journal editorial page program would be an asset to her network.” The publication said it is proud of the program, which has “done well in ratings despite being blackballed by some of the largest PBS stations.” It said it recently made a “business decision” to pull the show, telling PBS so Nov. 1 -- “before we knew what the inspector general was doing or even when he'd file his report.” Apart from “the kibitzing rights of any viewer,” Tomlinson had “zero influence” over the show’s format or content, the paper said.

The editorial “really echoes PBS’s assertion” that it’s independent in its decisions and actions, said Sloan. The editorial talked of how Tomlinson had no power to make programming decisions, she said, and “Pat [Mitchell] has said many times that PBS gets pressure from all sides. It’s our job not to succumb to it.”

Meanwhile, media groups urged that CPB leaders and IG Konz immediately release all evidence the IG found, including e-mail between White House staff and Tomlinson. In letters to CPB Chmn. Cherly Halpern, Pres. Harrison and Konz, the groups said Konz’s Nov. 15 report cited delivery of a “separate investigative report along with specific evidence indicating possible wrongdoing to the board,” calling it “highly inappropriate” for the CPB and Konz to keep “these materials secret.” Free Press, Center for Digital Democracy and Common Cause said the public’s right to know transcends the “politically convenient ‘confidentiality agreement'” the CPB said bars release of the documents.

In response, the CPB referred to a Nov. 15 statement by Konz that he couldn’t accede to media requests to release his “investigative report” because his review found improprieties cited in the report didn’t amount to criminal offenses, but “rather conduct issues.” The IG’s overall conclusions were in his public report, he said. He gave the board the investigative report to “provide a full understanding of the nature and extent to action taken by various officials.” Because many of the documents contain “proprietary information and relate to confidential business and personal matters,” he said, “I see no reason for us to release the investigative report.” As a private corporation, the CPB doesn’t come under the Freedom of Information Act, Konz added.