Good Morning . . .
Are there still more problems at PBS? Actually, it is the same set of problems. Now they are more and more seeing the light of day and some scrutiny.
In remarks made to PBS station executives, outgoing PBS president Pat Mitchell said that she spoke "at length" to CPB president Kathleen Cox about the 'Buster' debacle and that the decision not distribute the controversial episode came before the letter from Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings.
A spokesperson for Cox says that Cox does not recall any conversation with Mitchell about the 'Sugartime' episode and that Mitchell told her that the decision to cancel the episode came after the letter from Spellings.
What's the real story. No one will ever know. A spokesperson for Mitchell now says Mitchell has been traveling so much it is hard to pin down a date for the conversation with Cox or when the decision to pull the 'Surgartime' episode was made.
It should be obvious that the decision came after the Spellings letter in hopes of saving funding for the 'Ready to Learn Program' that PBS oversees. The Departmnent of Education already announced funding for Ready to Learn would be distributed to other educaltional agencies this year.
Who Framed Buster Rabbit? The Fallout Continues (washingtonpost.com)
Although some PBS producers are becoming sensitive to recent rulings on language and content by the FCC and Congress, the producers of 'Frontline' cannot be included in that group.
Instead of editing an upcoming episode of 'Frontline' for language, WGBH sent a letter to PBS stations warning them about the language. The epsiode will be distributed to stations as is with no edits. Stations that air the unedited episode will be required to sign a letter stating that they are taking the risk.
Will stations take the risk? Many stations in the PBS system are so arrogant that they will run the uneditied episode and later blame the producers for not telling them about it in advance. It will be business as usual for public television stations.
Poynter Online - Forums
--
The big weelend story was the release of 'private' conversations between the President and 'friend" Doug Wead.
The conversations were taped without Bush's knowledge between 1998 and 2000. The discussions on the tapes cover a wide range of topics that include Bush's decision to run for President, what problems he may have with his past, and comments about his opponents.
A review of the information on the tapes uncovers nothing new. It is all information heard before. The tapes do provide some insigvht into the thoughts of a future President.
The most interesting comments I found are about former Attorney General John Ashcroft. On the tapes the president desctibes Ashcroft as a "very good Supreme COurt nominee" or a "fabulous vice president." I would agree with both, but the political realities in 2000 would not allow for Ashcroft to be succesful on the Bush ticket. He was, and remains, more conservative than would have been right for the country.
I wonder if Ashcroft is still on the White House 'short list' for Supreme Court nominees? That would be a interesting hearing and debate.
Why were they released? Simple, Wead has wriitten a book that is due for release. It's all about the book.
The New York Times > Washington > In Secretly Taped Conversations, Glimpses of the Future President
--
There is much speculation about Democrat nominees for President in 2008. Clinton, Liberman, Kerry, Edwards, and a host of others are considering a run.
There is little speculation, thus far, on the Republican ticket for 2008. The Conservative Political Action Confrence over the weekend started to stir interest in the race and poissible candidates.
In a straw poll of possible candidate no one received over 20%, but the names inlcuded top vote getter Rudy Guiliani, Bill Drist, John McCain, George Allen, and Newt Gingrich.
One surprising name that received 18% of the vote was Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
American Conservatrive Union chairman David Keene said that the results of the straw poll do not mean that they will support Guliani. "The questions was, who do you think will win the nomination, not who will you vote for in the primaries," Keene said.
Conservatives Predict Giuliani/Rice Ticket in 2008 -- 02/21/2005
--
Several prominent economists including a Nobel Prize winner say that the "transisition costs" for Social Security changes are a "myth."
The trillion dollar totals that Democrats cite as "transition costs" are actually the amount the government is borrowing to pay current Social Security benefits combined with the massive debt already owed to the so-called Social Security "Trust Fund."
"We hear a lot about transition costs," Arizona State University professor Edward Prescott, 2004 winner of the Bank of Sweden Nobel Prize in Economics, said. "But I'm going to use some economic jargon, not 'political accounting' jargon.
"There are no transition costs," Prescott said at the Cato Institute Feb, 9. "Re-labeling debt is not a cost."
Social Security 'Transition Costs' a Myth, Say Economists -- 02/21/2005
--
More later in the Afternoon Update.
No comments:
Post a Comment