A Loss for Public Broadcasting

Last week, with neither hype nor headlines, Ken Tomlinson asked the president not to resubmit his name for another term as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (though he will serve until a successor is confirmed). His departure will mark the end of a long and valorous career in public broadcasting that began in 1982, when he took the helm at Voice of America. Besides the BBG, his service during the Bush administration included time as chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

From the beginning, he was the target of a relentless and dishonest smear campaign led by Democratic members of Congress, the public broadcasting establishment, and liberals inside both CPB and BBG. As Tomlinson sought to strengthen America's image throughout the world, investigators in Washington pored over his email and phone records in a desperate search for signs of malfeasance. Tomlinson's political enemies instigated the inquiries and cheered from the sidelines.

The irony: These members of the so-called "peace party" thwarted the efforts of a Bush appointee whose job was to carry out exactly the kind of public diplomacy in the Middle East that liberals tell us can be so effective in preventing wars.

Tomlinson earned the enmity of the left because he took his job seriously. If American taxpayers are going to fund public broadcasting--at home and abroad--the programming should reflect basic American values. He recognized the overwhelming liberal bias of NPR and PBS and had the audacity to do something about it. For this, he was attacked relentlessly as his critics played dumb: Bias? What bias?

As if to provide an answer, PBS omnipresence Bill Moyers announced last week his return to public broadcasting. He attacked the mainstream media as slaves on a plantation, captive of the "neoconservatives" and the "war party." He seems actually to believe this. Moyers announced a new documentary called "Buying the War," but made no mention of the vast wealth he has made over a lifetime sucking from the public television teat. Speaking to an audience of the fringe left, ever humble, he cast his return to television as a solemn duty [prepare to gag]:

I 'm coming back, because it's what I do best. Because I believe television can still signify, and I don't want you to feel so alone. I'll keep an eye on your work. You are to America what the abolition movement was, and the suffragette movement, and the civil rights movement. You touch the soul of democracy. It's not assured you will succeed in this fight. The armies of the Lord are up against mighty hosts. But as the spiritual sojourner Thomas Merton wrote to an activist grown weary and discouraged protesting the Vietnam war, "Do not depend on the hope of results. Concentrate on the value and the truth of the work itself."

While Moyers and his comrades congratulate each other, Tomlinson is undertaking a valuable new project. In his January 9 letter to the president, he said he had decided "it would be far more constructive to write a book on my experiences rather than to seek to continue government service." There is much to say and an urgent need for the country to hear it. THE SCRAPBOOK has one piece of advice for Tomlinson: Write quickly.

Where Have We Heard This Before?

Count us underwhelmed by the logic of the ballyhooed Joe Biden/Carl Levin/Chuck Hagel resolution attacking Bush's Iraq policy. It all sounds eerily familiar: "accelerate training of Iraqi troops"; keep a small U.S. footprint; the problem isn't military, instead "Iraqis must reach a political settlement." Yes, it's almost as if Biden had plagiarized the mantra we've been hearing for the last two years from the departing commanders, Generals Casey and Abizaid. The only thing missing is a call for U.S. forces to stand down as the Iraqi forces stand up. If you can figure out why a senator would embrace a strategy that (a) he has been consistently condemning and (b) has already failed, then you, too, may be qualified to chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Great Moments in Voir Dire

As reported January 18 by National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "A newsroom source relays this bit of news from the Scooter Libby trial: As jury selection continues, five of six questioned today have been excused. One of them was a young female Washington Post reporter (Arts section). She reportedly announced: 'I feel VP Cheney puts his business priorities over the good of the country,' and 'I don't trust him or anybody associated with him, and anyone associated with him would have to jump over a hurdle for me to think he was ever telling the truth.'"

Repeat after us: There is no such thing as media bias. There is no such thing as media bias. There is . . .

More, Please

Attentive readers will have noticed over the past few years this magazine's persistent calls for a larger military. In an individual, this is called obsession. As journalists, we prefer to think of it as an editorial campaign. This campaign began in earnest even before 9/11. To pick one early example, from our special Bush inaugural issue of January 22, 2001 (cover line: "Charge!"), Gary J. Schmitt and Tom Donnelly urged the new administration to "Spend More on Defense--Now." They noted that "for the last several years, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have provided Congress with lists of their 'unfunded requirements.' Last year, they reported to Congress more than $15 billion in unmet needs for 2001 and nearly $18 billion for 2002; a new estimate totaling $30 billion is said to be in the works. There's not much to criticize on the chiefs' lists--mostly spare parts, improved combat training, and other very basic needs, as opposed to controversial, expensive new weapons."

Lamentably, the new administration chose to make its first and last stand for fiscal discipline in this one area that was crying out for increased resources, after the penury of the Clinton years.

Many of the points that we have advanced as part of our campaign over the succeeding six years have now been gathered together and argued in more systematic fashion in a handsome new volume, edited by the aforementioned Schmitt and Donnelly and published by the American Enterprise Institute, entitled Of Men and Materiel (see aei.org for ordering information).

"Most Americans," they note, "believe that our military's capacity was expanded in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The core strength of our military forces has continued to erode. . . . American forces are now stretched painfully thin by the grinding pace of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. We have spent billions of dollars on the operational costs of these wars, but very little has been available to replenish the military's equipment or increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps. The result has been a 'hollow buildup.'"

Of Men and Materiel--which includes contributions from a number of experts--is an altogether admirable effort to advance the case for a real buildup. We commend it highly to our readers and hold out hope that it will end up on the reading lists at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Help Wanted

There are two openings at THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Job One: We're seeking a website developer who can both manage our site and help with new projects. Our ideal candidate will be a superb techie who can code in a variety of languages. Send résumé and salary requirements to Catherine Lowe at hr@weeklystandard.com.

Job Two: We're also looking for an accounting manager--a person with the right education and experience who can work with Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable and do bank reconciliations. Send résumé and salary requirements to Paul Weisner at hr@weeklystandard.com.