Earlier, on "Fox News: 'Rock Bottom,'" I got into a
discussion about Alan Chartock, and an article that he wrote in the WAMC program guide about his feelings about the Bush appointees to NPR's oversight board, and whether these appointees have anything to do with Bob Edward's being fired from
Morning Edition.
The article was too long for me to post in that thread, so I created this diary to post it (I know, horrible reason to make a diary-- and my first one, at that) because I couldn't find a link to it. I'll post the piece in the extended copy, but it's obvious to any listener that there is something going on in our NPR that has caused the quality of their news reporting to deteriorate horrible over the last few years. Obviously it's a problem older than Bush, but could Bush's appointees be hastening the decline of NPR?
"The America that I love and respect is under fire in a way that threatens to undermine our very democratic foundation. The one thing that has always been so special about this country is the orderly transference of power. To some, it may seem like a no-brainer that a country should have free elections and that the people should have the right to throuw the rascals out. In fact, the present occupant of the White House, George W. Bush and some of the neo-conservatives behind him, have said time and again that the reason why we are in Iraq is to bring democracy to that country. Yet from the events in Florida just a few short years ago now, every indication is that we are in deep trouble when it comes to the preservation of democracy in this country."
"It is not fair to say that we are a democracy and then to subvert the rules in such a way that only one side can win. We recently saw yet another instance of loading the game when President Bush nominated two new members to the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the body that Congress created to make sure that NPR and PBS, among others, were shielded from ugly, down-in-the-gutter, partisan politics.
"Between them, the two appointees, Cheryl Halpern and Hart Gaines, have given more than $800,000 to the Bush campaign. To be fair, this is the kind of patronage appointment that goes to faithful givers, no matter what their stripe. Bill Clinton certainly appointed his share of wealthy contributors to the CPB board. What differs, however, is what the appointees do after they are seated. Clinton's appointees never cast a political cloud over the content on the nations public broadcasting stations. But Bush appointees Halpern and Gaines have done exactly that. Gaines is a follower of Newt Gingrich who, you will remember, is the guy who once said that he would "zero out" public broadcasting because of NPR's political orientation. But it is with Halpern that I have my greatest problems. She indicated in her confirmation hearings that she would welcome empowering CPB board members to intervene in program content when they felt a program was biased.
"This is very serious. Taken to its natural conclusion it could mean that when a station like WAMC plays a program like Alternative Radio (there are days that it infuriates me) or when I interview Noam Chomsky or Greg Palast or Mario Cuomo, our federal funds could be cut off because we did not pass the political litmus test of Ms. Halpern and her colleagues. Naturally, not one peep has been made about applying the same litmus test to the use of the public airwaves by right wing zealots like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage who say the most unspeakable and reactionary things on the AM radio dials. These folks, and all the others like them, are granted public airwaves without having to pass the same litmus test that public broadcasters will need in order to get the federal money we receive.
"As many of you know, I have long predicted that it would come to this. I believe that NPR has moved to far more conservative ground so as not to antagonize these people. I was astounded to hear Fox Searchlight Pictures identified as "...proud sponsors of National Public Radio." Is that Fox as in Rupert Murcoch's Fox? It leaves WAMC in a tight position. If the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does impose this political litmus test on our stations, what would you have us do? I know what I will recommend. The day they do it, we should make a court challenge out of it, and if we lose before the very Supreme Court that chose the last President, we should refuse to take money with the strings attached. It may mean a fourth fund drive, but unless we take that course, how can we maintain our integrity?"
There follows a plea for money in the upcoming fund drive.
WAMC
Chartock does a show called "The Media Project."
While I don't like everything that Chartock says on air, I find him a refreshing breath of fresh are (an NPR host with an opinion!) from the other radio station I listen to (at home, rather than at school)-- WSLU/ NCPR-- on which I've never heard a political opinion.
God-damn. Just think of the position we're in-- it's possible that the second most listened to radio host in the country was fired because of political appointee's disapproval of him.
America, I despair for you.