Massachusetts News
By Curt Lovelace

September 2--Even though WGBH caused severe damage to the entire PBS network last month when it was discovered that the station was giving the names of its contributors to the Democratic National Committee, it has not severed its relationship with Alan Solomont who is an important fundraiser for the Democrats and a member of the Board at WGBH.

In fact, it used him as a spokesman during the height of the affair.

As a result, many people are wondering about the station’s lack of ethics after the surfacing of Solomont last month as the chief fundraiser for "Gore for President" in Massachusetts. Solomont was formerly the finance chairman at the DNC. He held a fundraiser for Bill Clinton this spring at his house in Weston. He obviously doesn’t see this conflict as an embarrassment to the station.

When the scandal broke last month, many experts told Massachusetts News that it really wasn’t important whether any laws were broken. What mattered was that the complaints of conservatives were confirmed that programs on WGBH, which is funded with federal money, have a liberal slant identical to the views of the Democrats.

"This confirms why WGBH programming has a slant which is much closer with the beliefs of the Democrats," one list broker said.

Solomont told the Boston Globe when the scandal was unfolding, "Unfortunately, people will try to now exploit this for political reasons when there’s really nothing of that nature here." His wife, Susan Lewis, was also an employee at the station for 15 years, most recently as its chief fundraiser.

The scandal has made many commentators wonder why the federal government should be funding a television network anymore than they would fund a federal newspaper.

Tim Graham of the Media Research Center, who recently testified about WGBH before a congressional subcommittee on telecommunications, told Massachusetts News "that the Solomont conflict of interest is more evidence showing that PBS is not just a partisan Democratic tool on the air, but it is a partisan Democratic tool behind the scenes as well."

The media in Massachusetts have all tried to protect WGBH except for Massachusetts News, which broke the story to 170,000 homes in Massachusetts and to many persons in Washington D.C. in the beginning of June. The story was then brought to the attention of Congress and the nation. With the help of the other media, however, WGBH has done an excellent job of controlling the story even after the nationwide exposure.

"Republicans Made Me Do It"

When the scandal broke, the reaction at the station was to blame itall on the Republicans. "If the Republicans hadn’t lowered our appropriations, we wouldn’t have had to cheat," was the mantra. Congressman Markey stated it well when he told the Boston Globe, "It would be ironic if all the Republicans who seek to cure the problems of list-swapping, the method PBS used to generate more revenues, then decide to cut the PBS budget further. Obviously, that would drive PBS to even more desperate means." A Harvard Professor of Psychiatry, Alvin F. Poussaint, said, "If PBS is trading off lists with donors, they’re doing it under pressure; they need to survive."

This led one ethicist to exclaim, "So there you have it, if you don’t get everything you want in life, it’s okay to get it by any means possible. Gosh, if the Republicans cut their budget ‘even further’ and WGBH is driven to ‘even more desperate means,’ what will they try next?"

Another told Massachusetts News, "The problem is increased by the fact that WGBH is loved by Massachusetts residents more than any other organization in the state. You can see its decal being displayed proudly on the windows of cars in every mall. Yet, there’s another side to this institution. It’s run by humans who have opinions, prejudices and foibles, just like everyone else. Although the whistle-blowing at WGBH is a little difficult for many to comprehend, it appears that another look by them may be necessary."

Bigotry Against Christians

WGBH aired a film last month called "It’s Elementary," which was intended to instruct parents and educators on how to teach children about homosexual issues in schools. It was distributed by Women’s Educational Media, which said, "Our film advocates acceptance and tolerance."

But many Christians dispute that claim. They say that Christians are stereotyped in the film. They wonder why it shows a student saying that Christians think if you are homosexual, you will go to hell and be tortured. They also wonder about an instance in which a skinhead is shown on the Ricki Lake Show threatening homosexuals and using the Bible as his guide. They also wonder why the producers of "It’ s Elementary" chose to show someone screaming into a microphone on the Phil Donahue Show that God hates fags. Many people wondered, "Does WGBH really believe those people represent the views of Christians in Massachusetts?"

Fundraising Hypocrisy

When the Republican Congressional class of 1994 began to take up the matter of funding for public broadcasting, its members were bombarded with letters from schoolchildren, who according to Laurence Jarvik were told that Big Bird might be killed. Classrooms were mobilized to protest the mean-spirited deliberations of the Big Bird slayers.

Despite the fact that very little decrease in federal funding has ever actually occurred, public broadcasters still tell viewers that they fear a total loss of funding and need to count on them even more in these dire times.

According to George Pieler, in an article titled "Big Bird Meets Cash Cows, Corporations Respond to PBS Fear Tactics," the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has a sample script for fundraisers on its website. Among the quotes found there is: "What you may not know is that just fifteen percent of our income comes from the federal government and that number is shrinking." Yes, that number, a percent of the whole, is shrinking. Not because the dollar figure is getting any smaller, but because the gross revenues of public broadcasters has grown immensely.

The fact of the matter is that total dollar amounts from the federal coffers have actually gone up. Pieler reported in his April, 1999, article that, "The budget cuts of 1995, modest as they were, didn’t stick." He states that funding for FY 2000, which begins October 1, will be at $300 million. It then goes to $340 million in FY 2001. The appropriation has never been higher.

There’s more. Pieler points out that CPB is not the only source of federal funding received by public broadcasters. The Department of Commerce kicked in $21 million in FY 1998. In several grant programs, the Department of Education put up more than $560 million in FY 1998.

Remember the tax break. On revenues this large, the tax exemption alone accounts for multiple millions of dollars in federal handouts.

Corporations Give Big Money

There appears to be no letdown in the confidence of underwriters/advertisers that PBS is a good venue for reaching customers. On the list of underwriters who paid more than $1 million to PBS in 1998 are 38 corporate names. The helpful hardware man at Ace Hardware plunked down more than $1 million. So did booksellers Barnes & Noble, Ford Motors, GTE, Kellogg’s, Texaco, Texas Instruments and the 3M Company. Archer-Daniels-Midland, the agricultural commodities speculator and suspect in numerous fraud cases, also is on that list.

Two federally-funded organizations also managed to get their names on the $1 million plus list. Both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities were able to ante up the entry fee to the exclusive club.

On the $500,000 to $999,999 list are the National Park Service and the U.S. Department of Energy, as well as the National Endowment for Children’s Educational Television. They are joined by such corporate entities as A.G. Edwards, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, The Chase Manhattan Bank, Intel, Iomega Corporation, Libby’s Juice (happy to fund children’s programming) and Xerox Corporation. There are 41 names on this list. That’s a lot of money. And the list goes on to include more than 50 corporations who underwrote PBS in 1998 to the tune of $100,000 to $499,999. The Annual Report reveals that foundation and corporate underwriting increased from $142.6 million to $186.1 million between 1997 and 1998.

According to Pieler, "The picture of PBS which emerges when you look at all its facets is entirely schizophrenic; it markets itself as a guardian of the public interest to get more government funds, casts itself as a digital-age entrepreneur to maximize the value of assets it gained as a ‘public interest,’ and takes up the challenge of aggressively soliciting private donations when it is criticized for feeding at the public trough. In fact, PBS is feeding from many different troughs all at once."

Public broadcasters, none more vocal than WGBH’s President Henry Becton, still refuse to accept the notion that they might be commercial entities, however. It was Becton who spearheaded an effort to keep public broadcasting pure by keeping it non-commercial. He wrote a letter in 1995 to then chair of the Telecommunications Subcommittee Jack Fields, in which he claimed that "advertising is antithetical to our guiding principles and is economically unsound. We believe that it would unfortunately lead to the eventual demise of America’s most respected and valued television service." The letter was signed by 85 top public broadcasting executives.

Most viewers, however, find very little distinction between a commercial on commercial television and an "underwriting spot" on non-commercial television. This is especially true since many public stations have begun using thirty-second underwriting spots. In fact, more than one study commissioned by public broadcasters has found that viewers think underwriting is advertising. They also indicate that it isn’t a problem for them.

Direct sales of products is but one of the many cash flows for WGBH and its associate stations. The station is involved in numerous for-profit ventures and even has its own commercial marketing division. The most recent for-profit acquisition was the purchase of a stake in an Internet service planning to provide an online network specifically for public radio listeners. WGBH joined 14 other major players in public radio as well as Public Radio International in purchasing what one source called a "substantial interest" in Public Interactive, Inc.

Tom Lix, President of Public Interactive was quoted in a news report as saying "Public Interactive will provide syndicated content and technologies that our stations will promote aggressively on-air."

Many Do Well at PBS

There are many people doing very well in public broadcasting. Private producers who sell programming to PBS and its affiliates have gotten very rich. Jim Henson, whose puppet characters are some of the more enduring names in television history, became a multimillionaire. Some argue, however, that this largesse seldom actually reaches into the public broadcasting companies themselves. They, it is claimed, are still poor and pure. Not according to many insiders.

One media critic told Massachusetts News "Nothing is second-rate at PBS. Everything is gold-plated." And everything costs more. According to the Boston Globe’s Dan Golden, WGBH programs cost more than network documentaries and "several times as much as those on cable." He cites costs for such programs as "Nova" and "The American Experience" as averaging more than $500,000 per hour. "Biography," a cable network show, on the other hand, seldom costs more than $150,000 an hour, he reports. The salaries and perks aren’t bad either. According to a report recently published in the Globe, Becton at WGBH receives $182,000 for his labors as President and chief cheerleader. Vice President Peter S. McGhee makes $159,000 and V.P. for Development Victoria Devlin gets $165,000. These are not astounding figures. They are in line with what one might expect a top exec to be making in Boston. One has to wonder, however, how accurate they are.

Reading an annual report from a public broadcaster doesn’t take very long. There is no real information and a lot of self-congratulatory hyperbole. Hidden payments and bonuses abound in public broadcasting. Current magazine, reporting on executive compensation, noted that Pittsburgh’s WQED paid President Lloyd Kaiser $277,000 a year, "including tens of thousands that had been hidden in undisclosed subsidiary pay." Former President of KERA in Dallas, Richie Meyer, made $207,345 in FY’95. Almost half of that, Current reported, was in expenses, "including car and housing allowances." The station had shut down its studios in May of that year.

Not many people complain about executive compensation in public broadcasting. It has been noted, however, that the salaries continue to rise, despite dire warnings to the public about financial need and the cancellation of popular programming due to "lack of underwriting." Columnist and former on-air host at KERA Bob Ray Sanders put it well when he said, "The public doesn’t understand how an institution that begs can pay salaries four and five times what they would make."

On a needs basis alone, Congress should probably defund public broadcasting. Public broadcasters have proven over the past five years that funding is truly not a major problem. There is little fear that any public station will go off the air simply because it doesn’t get its fix of federal funds. Perhaps the tax money could be better spent – or not collected at all.

Public Affairs Programming is Elitist

William Hoynes, of Vassar College, authored a study of PBS in 1992, which concluded that PBS public affairs programming was "elitist" in its orientation. After revisiting the study in November and December, 1998, Hoynes concluded that, "The two studies, despite their six year time gap, found similar elite-oriented sourcing patterns and a shared emphasis on the strategic dimension of domestic political issues." Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute testified before a subcommittee of the U.S. Congress in 1995 to urge defunding of CPB. Regarding the programming of public broadcasting, he said, "It’s been said that a preponderance of the public affairs programming it supports is little more than propaganda for big government and the welfare state. It’s been called a pork barrel for the rich because most of the programs cater to the wealthier and better educated. And it’s been said that government subsidies corrupt its recipients who dare not venture into areas that are unlikely to win favor of the grant givers. Those are all valid points."

Many have declared that Public Broadcasting simply isn’t distinctive any more and that commercial and cable outlets are producing similar programming for less money – and at no taxpayer expense. Pieler, concluding his article on Big Bird and the cash cows, states, "The proliferation of broadcast outlets can bring a wide range of political and cultural viewpoints to the airwaves. By contrast, PBS seems stuck in a programming rut with a moderate liberal bias. For every mainstream Ken Burns blockbuster, there is a ‘Frontline’ expose of man-made chemicals destroying life on the planet. Worse yet are the self-help marathons and specials masquerading as public-spirited ‘cultural’ programming. Why should taxpayers or even private donors subsidize this peculiar melange?"

Hoynes questions just what makes public television today, "innovative, independent, or alternative." He also opines that cable networks can and do offer public affairs programming which is at least as engaging as that which is found on public television.

Journalist and radio historian Jesse Walker, notes that CPB was originally funded to provide alternatives to commercial radio and television. These alternatives were intended, Walker writes, to be "defined by their devotion to local programming and programming outside the mainstream." CPB subsidies, Walker argues, have distorted the original goals, and the emphasis on replacing local volunteers with professionals along with the quest for more funding have led to the abandonment of both local programming and experimentation.

Citing many of the concerns outlined here as well as CPB rules and regulations which strangle both objectivity and real diversity, Walker calls for the defunding of public radio for its own good. Walker states, "There are many good reasons to defund the CPB. It seems wrong to force any taxpayer to fund speech he disapproves of, be it NPR or the Voice of America. And it is not fair to force low-income taxpayers to underwrite news and entertainment for NPR’s generally affluent audience. But there is another problem, less often noted: federal funds inevitably eradicate local diversity and character."

Even former PBS favorite and LBJ staffer Bill Moyers, back in 1972, declared to the New York Times, "The government should not be funding news and public affairs if that would mean government interference with content." Laurence Jarvik quotes Moyers as repeating an old Texas proverb, taught him by President Johnson, which says, "He who hands out the dough slices the bread."