CONTINUED SCRUTINY

July 21, 1999
		Congressmen Edward Markey (D-MA) and Michael Oxley (R-OH) discuss charges that some PBS and NPR stations improperly traded, rented or swapped donor lists with political organizations. The NewsHour Media Unit is funded by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Public Broadcasting Investigation July 20, 1999: A background report on the House hearings. Politics background reports Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the media.   House of Representatives PBS Commerce Committee Democrats	TERENCE SMITH: The controversy over PBS stations sharing fund-raising lists with partisan organizations developed just as the House Telecommunications Subcommittee was to vote on legislation to fund Public Broadcasting. The bill under consideration would authorize $475 million, more than the President requested. Joining us are two subcommittee members. Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts is the ranking Democrat. And Ohio Michael Oxley is the vice chairman. Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Congressman Oxley, you heard the defense offered by the Public Broadcasting executives, basically that the list swapping amounted to stupidity, in their words, not partisan politics. Were you convinced?
	A 'mea culpa' kind of defense
	REP. MICHAEL OXLEY: Well, it was a 'mea culpa' kind of defense. And what appears to be - what originally we heard from WGBH was this was an isolated incident. It turned out it went on for several years now. Now, it's 30 some of the public stations that were trading these lists. We think that an independent investigation is warranted to find out exactly how many stations were involved in this and for how long. Whether it was a partisan effort or whether it was stupidity clearly violated what appears to be the tax exempt status of these stations and obviously hurt them very badly politically in the committee. TERENCE SMITH: Congressman Markey, from your perspective, did you find it persuasive? REP. EDWARD MARKEY: Well, they were contrite. They promised that it would not happen again. It was obvious that they were embarrassed and that they knew that they had been hurt. I think the real question now is whether or not the punishment will be to cut the budget of PBS. I don't think that's the solution. In fact, that would even worsen the pressure on public broadcasters to search for even more money from the commercial side of the world that could compromise their independence, their integrity, the very identity of the Public Broadcasting System itself. TERENCE SMITH: Congressman Oxley, you have supported for years reducing the public funding of Public Broadcasting. In light of this latest incident and what Congressman Markey just said, what's your position now? REP. MICHAEL OXLEY: Well, my position is basically not to reduce, but to slow the rate of growth. I was stunned when I saw the mark, when it was first brought out in the subcommittee, which meant that the amounts for Public Broadcasting were far in excess of what the Clinton administration had asked for. For example, the transition to digital, the Clinton administration had asked for $20 million. TERENCE SMITH: A year. REP. MICHAEL OXLEY: A year. The bill asked for $100 million, a fivefold increase from what the administration was asking for. I think it's unrealistic to expect a Republican Congress, whether we had this scandal or not, to support that level of funding. TERENCE SMITH: You also mentioned earlier in your first answer, Congressman Oxley, the idea of an independent investigation. Are you talking about the General Accounting Office? Who are you talking about? REP. MICHAEL OXLEY: Well, it could be. As a matter of fact, our witnesses, Ervin Duggan and Mr. Coonrod, both I think endorsed the idea of having an independent source do this investigation to give it some credibility. So whether it's the GAO or whether it's a particularly adept accounting firm, I think is essentially irrelevant. It's just the fact that it's somebody independent giving the Congress a real report on exactly what went on. TERENCE SMITH: Ed Markey, what do you expect to happen on the money levels? And do you believe, as Congressman Oxley does, that the bill before the committee is actually too much money? REP. EDWARD MARKEY: Well, you know, Mike Oxley had an amendment which he was going to make which was going to give a slight increase to the Public Broadcasting System. But then he was going to keep it at the very same amount all the way through the year 2005, which, in effect, would be cutting it year after year if you factor in inflation. So I think, to be honest with you, at the end of the day, we'll all agree on a bipartisan basis that what has happened at these public TV stations is wrong and it shouldn't happen again, but I think that we'll realize that we have to give sufficient funding to the Public Broadcasting System. They'll get increases. It will take a while for that to settle in, but creeping commercialism ultimately is going to compromise the identity of the PBS system as an electronic oasis for children's television, and for other programming that just isn't available on other broadcast stations. TERENCE SMITH: Congressman Oxley, do you agree with that? Do you expect that you will arrive at perhaps a compromised figure but an agreed figure on funding? REP. MICHAEL OXLEY: Well, I think if that happens, it's going to be quite some time before that happens. I think a lot of this has to play out. I think the investigation has to be conducted. I think we have to know all of the facts. My guess is there are not the votes there now for any kind of reauthorization in the very near future, at least.
	Public Broadcasting: A liberal tilt?
	TERENCE SMITH: All right. Let me ask you, Congressman Oxley, a point that -- critics of Public Broadcasting have been known to discern a liberal or left-leaning tilt in Public Broadcasting. Do you discern such a tilt? REP. MICHAEL OXLEY: I have not usually made that, although I have seen some programming that I have considered to be left. But I really focus in on the funding more than the so-called bias. TERENCE SMITH: All right, Congressman Markey - REP. EDWARD MARKEY: But I do think there is something to that argument. TERENCE SMITH: Ed Markey, what would you say to that? As a viewer, do you discern any tilt? REP. EDWARD MARKEY: One, it's children's television from 6:00 AM until to 6:00 every night. "Wall Street Week" with Louis Rukeyser, William F. Buckley, Ben Wattenberg-- I think most of the programming is balanced. I mean, yeah, maybe Big Bird is a liberal, but Oscar the Grouch is a Republican. You know, every one of these programs is balanced out. Paul Gigot is balanced out by Mark Shields. I think there's a very conscious effort that's made to ensure that there is a real balance in every one of the programs. TERENCE SMITH: Well, in fact, Congressman Markey, critics from the other side sometimes say that Public Broadcasting is bending over in putting on a number of business shows, bending over to try to appeal to the underwriters and the business community that supports it. Is there substance to that? REP. EDWARD MARKEY: I don't think that in this era when people define themselves increasingly by the S&P 500 or the NASDAQ, when 55 percent of all Americans are in the stock market, that you have to defend covering those stories. In fact, I think you'd be more vulnerable to attack if you didn't cover this change in the way in which America views its relationship with the marketplace. TERENCE SMITH: Congressman Oxley, some have argued that the ideal solution would be for Public Broadcasting to be privatized. Is that your position? REP. MICHAEL OXLEY: Well, not necessarily. I do think that we ought to look at other ways of funding Public Broadcasting. I don't think they've really come to fruition as to what they could do in terms of licensing products, in terms of enhanced underwriting and advertising and the like, something that I've advocated in the past. I think that there is a responsibility on the part of the taxpayers to some extent for Public Broadcasting, but I think they can do a lot better job in raising money. After all, only about 14 percent of their support comes from the government. I think they can do a better job of raising money if they really worked at it. And I'm also concerned, frankly, about the duplication of signals in many markets. I think there could be some real consolidation there that would save a substantial amount of money. TERENCE SMITH: All right. Ed Markey, a final word from you, if we may. I take it you assume that when the dust settles, Big Bird will still be on the air. REP. EDWARD MARKEY: I think Big Bird will still be on the air. I think we'll have a fight as to how much we want to see a commercialization of public television, but I think in the end, the public wants the integrity, the identity, to be retained. Having additional commercialism would be like trying to save a church by renting billboard space on the steeple. I don't think that's what the people of our country want the public television station network to turn into. TERENCE SMITH: Gentlemen, thank you both. Appreciate it very much.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.