“It mystifies me,” says Geneva Overholser, a Washington-based University of Missouri journalism professor who served as the Washington Post’s ombudsman from 1995 to 1998. “What in the world does it mean to have two? It makes no sense.” She argues that ombudsman responsibilities are specifically designed to be carried out by just one person as way to demonstrate that a single journalist can be open-minded and listen to all sides of a dispute. By setting up a sort of left-vs.-right, “Crossfire” approach, Overholser says, the CPB model “participates in the ideological charade that journalists can’t be fair. This is a perversion of the ombudsman. I’m surprised Ken Bode would feel comfortable with this.”

Bode, a former NBC and CNN reporter, is one of the CPB’s newly hired ombudsmen. He most recently worked as a columnist for the Indianapolis Star, where readers often wrote angry letters deriding him as a liberal, though he endorsed a Republican last year for governor of Indiana.

When asked last year to write about his worst day as a journalist, Bode detailed the afternoon President Reagan was shot, recalling, “Like many Americans, I never saw President Reagan quite the same again. As someone said at the time, he went into the hospital as Ronald Reagan; he came out as John Wayne.”

The CPB’s other new ombudsman is William Schulz, an avowed conservative and former editor at Reader’s Digest, which the National Review once described as “the quintessential magazine of ‘red-state’ America.” Schulz worked alongside CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, a Republican, for decades at Reader’s Digest.

On Monday, the New York Times reported that during a meeting in February with the head of National Public Radio, Tomlinson outlined the CPB ombudsmen’s responsibilities and specifically noted that the board planned to hire one liberal ombudsman and one conservative one.

Both Bode and Schulz declined to comment for this article.

The two-person, right-vs.-left approach “is antithetical” to the ombudsman position, says Jeffrey Dvorkin, who holds that position for NPR and serves as president of the Organization of News Ombudsmen. “The value of the ombudsman is as an ideological and political independent.”

“Why stop at two ombudsmen? Why not have four or a committee of 12?” quips Carl Stern, a former correspondent for NBC News who teaches journalism ethics at George Washington University and, like Overholser, is a member of PBS’s Editorial Standards Review Committee. “Balancing ombudsmen — when will this end? Are we going to have armies of ombudsmen? This is silliness.”

The CPB’s unorthodox action comes against a backdrop of increasingly heated allegations about liberal bias at PBS’s 349 stations nationwide. Tomlinson has been making several moves to counter what he says is PBS’s lack of “objectivity and balance” or, more specifically, the perception of a lack of balance at PBS.

Last week the Beltway battle escalated further when Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., and John Dingell, D-Mich., asked the CPB’s inspector general to investigate whether Tomlinson overstepped the law by secretly hiring a consultant, at a cost of $10,000, to monitor the weekly PBS news program “Now With Bill Moyers” for liberal bias. The Democrats want a determination of whether Tomlinson violated the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which “prohibits interference by Federal officials over the content and distribution of public programming” and the application of political litmus tests in hiring decisions.

On May 12, the inspector general announced he would launch the requested investigation. Then on May 15, in a speech in St. Louis, Moyers blasted Tomlinson, insisting conservatives’ real agenda is to silent journalists who ask tough questions. “The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party gets,” Moyers said. “That’s because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth.”

Tomlinson declined to comment for this article. As the controversy continues to intensify, he has been sticking exclusively to the friendly confines of conservative media to tell his side of the story. Last week he wrote an on Op-Ed for the Washington Times. And he appeared on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor” on May 12 and PBS’s “Unfiltered With Tucker Carlson” on May 13. During the O’Reilly interview, Tomlinson insisted that he has never talked to the White House about PBS. “The point is not to gain support for the Bush administration,” he said. “The point is to gain support for public television.” Yet Tomlinson hired Mary Catherine Andrews to oversee the creation of CPB’s ombudsmen’s office while she was still on the White House payroll.

Tomlinson was among those who greenlighted the creation of PBS’s “Unfiltered” last year to provide an additional conservative platform on public television. Fittingly, the show served a useful purpose for Tomlinson on the May 13 broadcast, where he continued to make the unsubstantiated — and unchallenged — claim that PBS suffers from a liberal bias and that programs like “Now” do “a lot of damage to public television.”

The claim is unsubstantiated because the CPB’s own internal polling — surveys it has refused to release independently — shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans do not think PBS has a liberal bias. As for the “damage” caused by “Now,” the program generated exactly 24 angry e-mails to the CPB during calendar year 2003.

Tomlinson was not challenged much during the O’Reilly and Carlson interviews. At the conclusion of his interview with O’Reilly, Tomlinson said, “We love your show,” and Carlson concluded his “Unfiltered” interview with, “I suspect your liberal critics will always feel threatened by you. And [that's] good, as far as I’m concerned. Ken Tomlinson, I think you’re great.”

One of Tomlinson’s key fairness-and-balance” initiatives — implemented with the help of the White House aide he hired — was to create guidelines for the new CPB ombudsman positions. The newly unveiled charter notes that the position is independent and “will encourage public dialogue aimed at achieving high standards of excellence and balance in public broadcasting.”

An ombudsman typically functions as an advocate for, or representative of, news consumers — a designated person they can contact to complain about a report. As the Organization of News Ombudsmen outlines the position, “A news ombudsman receives and investigates complaints from newspaper readers or listeners or viewers of radio and television stations about accuracy, fairness, balance and good taste in news coverage.”

But the CPB itself has no “readers or listeners or viewers.” That disconnect was evident in the first programming critiques offered by Bode and Schulz, which did not appear to be driven by listener or viewer concerns. Instead, both men simply sampled specific programming and wrote up their thoughts. (They reviewed different reports.)

As the station group that purchases, schedules and airs programming, “PBS is the more appropriate organization for an ombudsman,” notes Christy Carpenter, a former Democratic-appointed member of the CPB board.

National Public Radio already employs an ombudsman, and PBS is exploring hiring its own. And while there had been some public discussion about CPB’s hiring its own ombudsman, the announcement of the hiring of Bode and Schulz caught PBS officials unaware; they were not told that candidates were being interviewed, let alone that the two men would soon start.

But it is CPB’s tapping of two ombudsmen that has most raised eyebrows in journalism circles, particularly the suggestion by Tomlinson that Schulz would serve as a sort of conservative advocate while Bode represented liberal complaints.

“I don’t think ombudsmen should be in the ‘Crossfire’ business,” NPR’s Dvorkin says. “I think it exacerbates conflict rather than resolves it.”

Overholser adds, “The whole two-person approach is rigged. Everything about this smells of adhering to a certain ideology and dressing it up as concern about objectivity and balance.”

If approved, the new rule would require the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox affiliates in the top 50 markets to make their files on political advertising available online immediately. Other stations would have a two-year grace period.

In the meantime, the mighty giants of broadcasting have been fighting back. A number of senators serving the industry have spoken up against the proposal and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) — led by their top lobbyist and president, the frozen food millionaire and former Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith – have been meeting with commissioners urging them to scuttle its proposal or at least water it down until it means nothing.

As Jeffrey Rosen of The New Republic magazine wrote:

“The arguments against transparency offered by the networks show that, having experienced the windfall of advertising dollars that Citizens United unleashed, they have little interest in meeting their legal and ethical responsibility to serve the public interest.”

The FCC is scheduled to vote on their proposal on April 27, and on Monday its chairman, Julius Genachowski, walked into the lion’s den – the really nice one in Las Vegas – and addressed the NAB’s annual convention. He noted that, “Using rhetoric that one writer described as ‘teeth-gnashing’ and ‘fire-breathing,’ some in the broadcast industry have elected to position themselves against technology, against transparency, and against journalism.”

He added, “[T]he argument against moving the public file online is that required broadcaster disclosures shouldn’t be too public. But in a world where everything is going digital, why have a special exemption for broadcasters’ political disclosure obligation?”

Whatever the result on the 27th, those negative attack ads already are cluttering the airwaves like so much unsolicited junk mail and it’s only going to get much, much worse as the super PACs, political parties, the moguls and tycoons, many acting in secrecy, lavish perhaps as much as three billion dollars on local stations between now and November.

But now there’s something new in the mix, especially appalling to anyone who truly cares about public broadcasting. On April 12, by a vote of 2-1, two of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of KMTP, a small public station in San Francisco, and struck down the federal ban against political and issue advertising on public TV and radio. For decades there’s been a rule against turning those airwaves over to ads for political campaigns and causes. Now the court has ruled that the free speech rights of political advertisers take precedence.

Imagine if you turned on your TV set someday soon and were greeted by “Sesame Street,” brought to you by the letter C, for “creeping campaign cash corruption.” Perhaps that’s a bit of a stretch, but as the late William F. Buckley, Jr., used to say, the point survives the exaggeration.

If ever there was a camel’s nose under the tent, this is it – and we don’t mean one of those humped creatures that show up on PBS’ “Nature” or an episode about backpacking through Egypt on “Globe Trekker.” The current public system was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967. “It will get part of its support from our government,” Johnson said, “but it will be carefully guarded from government or from party control. It will be free, and it will be independent — and it will belong to all of our people.”

The Public Broadcasting Act uses the word “noncommercial” 16 times to describe what public television and radio should be. And it specifically says that, “No noncommercial educational broadcasting station may support or oppose any candidate for political office.” We’ve taken that seriously all these years, and most of us who have labored in this vineyard still think public broadcasting should be a refuge from the braying distortions and outright lies that characterize politics today — especially those endless, head splitting ads.

But in its majority decision the court wrote, “Neither logic nor evidence supports the notion that public issue and political advertisers are likely to encourage public broadcast stations to dilute the kind of noncommercial programming whose maintenance is the substantial interest that would support the advertising bans.”

Sorry, your honors: This is the same so-called “logic” that led the U.S. Supreme Court to issue its notorious Citizens United decision, the one that opened all spigots to flood the political landscape with cash and the airwaves with trash.  “To be truthful” one former PBS board member said, “it scares me to death.” Us, too.

The court decision did uphold the ban on public broadcasting selling ad time for commercial goods and services, although, as corporations and others cover the cost of programming through what’s euphemistically referred to as “enhanced underwriting,” public TV already is close to the line of what differentiates it from commercial broadcasting.

And understandably, with our stations always in a financial pickle, frantically hanging on by their fingertips, it won’t be easy to turn down those quick bucks from super PACs and others. But hang in there, brothers and sisters in the faith: If ever there was a time for solidarity and spine, this is it.

Stations KPBS in San Diego and KSFR, public radio in Santa Fe, have said they won’t do it. If enough of you say no, this invasion might be repelled. And viewers, they need to know you’re behind them.

Yet it also was a time of innovation and creativity. As the system evolved we saw bold experiments like “PBL — the Public Broadcasting Laboratory” and Al Perlmutter’s “The Great American Dream Machine,” each a predecessor to the commercial TV magazine shows “60 Minutes” and “20/20.”  The TV Lab, jointly run by David Loxton at WNET in New York and Fred Barzyk at WGBH in Boston, nurtured and encouraged the first generation of video artists — Nam June Paik, Bill Viola and William Wegman among others — and the early documentary work of such video pioneers as Jon Alpert and Keiko Tsuno of the Downtown Community Television Center, Alan and Susan Raymond, and the wild and woolly, guerrilla camera crews of TVTV.

The descendants of those pathfinders are the independent filmmakers whose works have not only re-energized the motion picture industry but also have vastly expanded the realm of the documentary — in both the scope of its storytelling and the size and diversity of its audience. Public television has faithfully provided an enormous national stage where non-fiction films can be seen by far more people than could ever buy tickets at the handful of movie houses willing to put documentaries up on their theater screens.

As Gordon Quinn of the independent documentary company Kartemquin Films (“Hoop Dreams”) told Anthony Kaufman of the website IndieWire, “In terms of having an audience in a democratic society, in terms of getting people talking about things, there’s nothing like a PBS broadcast. PBS is free, and it’s huge in getting into rural areas. That reach, all over the country, it’s a critically important audience that’s vastly underserved.”

Two PBS series have provided outstanding showcases for the work of new and established documentarians and between them have 13 Oscar nominations and 54 Emmys to prove it. For years, “Independent Lens” and “P.O.V.” held a nationwide time slot as part of the PBS core schedule on Tuesday nights, with public TV stalwart “Frontline” as a worthy lead-in, funneling to the independent films just the kind of audience that enjoys and appreciates documentaries.

But this season, PBS chose to move “Independent Lens” and “P.O.V.” to a new time slot — 10 pm, ET, on Thursday nights. This may not seem like such a big deal at first, until you know that on Thursday nights stations can broadcast any program they like in prime time, whether it’s part of the PBS schedule or not. Many take the opportunity to offers viewers locally produced programs, British sitcoms or reruns of “Antiques Roadshow.” As a result, episodes of the independent documentary series can now be run anywhere local stations choose to fit them in (here in New York, WNET airs the films at 11 pm on Sundays) or maybe not at all.

“P.O.V.” does not begin the new season — its 25th — until June, but as Dru Sefton first reported in the public broadcasting trade publication Current, in the first few months since “Independent Lens” was shuffled into its new Thursday time slot last October, ratings plummeted 42 percent from the same period last season. With programs scattered throughout the schedule in different cities, not only is it now more difficult for viewers to find them but coordinated national advertising and promotion campaigns are, at best, extremely difficult.

The team at PBS consists of dedicated people; all are our colleagues and many are our friends. They are constantly looking for ways to increase the audience that watches public television. But there is always a danger, in any organization, of  only seeing the world from the top down, and then counting heads to measure whether something is good or not. An open letter to PBS from Kartemquin Films says it well:

Public television is not just a popularity contest, or a ratings game. Taxpayers support public broadcasting because democracy needs more than commercial media’s business models can provide. PBS’ programming decision makes a statement about PBS’ commitment to the mission of public broadcasting.

It goes on to note the mandate cited in the recently revised and reissued Code of Editorial Integrity for Local Public Media Organizations: “Our purposes are to support a strong civil society, increase cultural access and knowledge, extend public education, and strengthen community life through electronic media and related community activities.”

Most of both our careers have been in public television. Our affection and gratitude for it abideth, but we are not blind to the problems. Public broadcasting’s ever-tenuous funding places it in a perpetual dilemma and forces it into a delicate balancing act. PBS provides programming like “Independent Lens” and “P.O.V.” that may not garner the most viewers but helps fulfill its essential mission of public service — and, candidly, attracts grants from kindred spirits who believe in a robust mix of ideas and visions. But to lure a wider audience, it also airs what our neighborhood diner calls “lighter fare” — whether entertaining, upscale imports  like “Downton Abbey,” home-grown, how-to programs like “This Old House” or  (during pledge drives) nostalgic reruns of  folk musicians, pop crooners, and financial and spiritual gurus — aimed at older viewers with, presumably, more disposable income.

Add to this the constant political pressures, especially from conservative politicians ever eager to cut off its funding (Mitt Romney says he wants to see commercials on “Sesame Street”), plus the self-censorship that all too often results, and you get a tendency toward orthodoxy and an aversion to controversy.

A PBS spokesperson told The New York Times that the service “is fully committed to independent films and the diversity of content they provide.” That can quickly be demonstrated by reversing a bad decision and returning to a national core time slot the independent documentaries created — often at real financial sacrifice — by the producers and filmmakers whose own passion is to reveal life  honestly and to make plain, for all to see, the realities of inequality and injustice in America.

Along with its open letter to PBS, Kartemquin Films published a petition and asked for signatures from independent filmmakers and their supporters. We two are among the more than 300 who have signed it as of this writing. If you think the creativity and unique visions of  life captured by independent producers, journalists, and filmmakers deserve the best possible platform on public television, you can read and sign it yourself.

The effort has made a difference. Talks are ongoing and the Times reports that PBS now has “agreed to find a new home next season” for the two series. An announcement is expected to be made at the PBS annual meeting in May. That’s good news, but until the decision is made, it’s important to keep letting them know how you feel — write PBS or sign that petition.

Some of the Amish wonder if this is particularly good idea, since they have to rub shoulders so much with “the English” —  as they call the outside world — with their excess weight, leisure time and unusual questions.

Surrounded by the supercharged evils of modern America, they live in rural settings of hard work and simplicity that must not be so different from life 200 years ago. But it’s different enough to make some striking images: Bands of one-room school-bound kids in bonnets and straw hats but carrying matching new red mini-coolers lunchboxes; a scene of potato pickers at dawn that seems right out of a Corot painting; kids playing outdoors in their old-fashioned clothes but on a new-fangled trampoline.

It may be true that Puritans fled England for religious freedom, but only to a place where they could practice their beliefs and prevent others from practicing theirs. So in the early days of the Amish, according to the film by David Belton, thousands were killed for the outlawed behavior of adult baptism.

That led to these tight-knit communities in outposts that allowed such behavior, and the survival of it today depends on shunning outside temptations, especially for the young people.

Because of a belief not to be photographed, no Amish speak on camera in the documentary; they sit in shadows or more often speak off camera as remarkable, mesmerizing, slow-paced agricultural footage unspools before us. One speaks of the daily schedule as we see a group of young Amish women from afar walking up a road. It seems we see them go about a quarter mile. The voices of the elders explain their thinking, augmented by sociologists and anthropologists (whose faces we do see), speaking with some insight and little condescension.

The Amish have successfully shunned the mainstream all these years, with general success. There are compromises: They’ve had to put those orange triangles indicating a slow vehicle on their buggies (and they generally hate bright colors like pink and red).

There have been local skirmishes about obtaining building permits before a barn-raising or adhering to smoke detector requirements. But they famously won a 1971 Supreme Court case that defended their practice of educating until the eighth grade and that’s it. (Though at the time the sect was so little known that Walter Cronkite, reporting the news, called them AIM-ish).

The key to understanding the rules of the Amish is to understand that each of the communities make their own set of rules and revise them regularly. One community may ride bikes while the next one down the road bans them.

There is a brutality to the choice given to young people: Join forever or forever be shunned, and a couple of people who decided against the Amish lifestyle speak of their experiences.

The Amish have had to adjust, too, to national economic realities. It’s not practical for so much of the community to rely on agriculture as their sole income. So some have enlisted at local factories and a shot of Amish men scrambling at a factory building trailers is the most fast-paced moment in the film.

The harsh reality of childhood hunger may not be quite what one would expect from the place where the air is sweet, and it certainly isn’t an issue one would instantly associate with the special’s sponsor — Wal-Mart. You remember Wal-Mart: the company famed for its aggressive anti-union stance, the one that just last year wiped out its profit-sharing program while continuing to award bonuses to top executives? Maybe Lily’s family is hungry because her parents work for a corporation that could easily afford to pay its employees a better hourly wage, but doesn’t.

Yet the much reviled corporate behemoth has in recent years listened to the demands of its patrons in other regards — offering more eco-friendly products, reducing waste, and selling some healthier food. Sure, responsible acts make for good press for a company badly in need it, but they also help people. And you can loathe Wal-Mart’s corporate practices and still note that the company’s $1.5 million anti-hunger initiative is nothing to sneeze at — especially when you’re talking about cash-strapped PBS.

Despite its breezy tone, Sesame Street has never been a place where everything is A-OK all the time. The Muppets have helped kids work through the deaths of loved ones, the challenges of having a parent serving in the military and of living with HIV and AIDS. That in the midst of an ever-worsening economic crisis, the show would take on a painful and all-too-common subject shows its enduring innovativeness and a deep sensitivity to its audience.

Childhood is not all happy songs and manic monsters. The Department of Agriculture estimates that 17 million American children have “limited or uncertain” access to affordable food. In New York City alone, the number of homeless children in the public schools has skyrocketed 41 percent in the just the past few years. A couple of talking furballs and a country singer alone won’t change that. But they can help kids and families understand and empathize — and maybe to see that the school breakfasts and lunches some of their classmates are getting may be the only meals they receive that day. More significantly, they may just inspire families to take actions like participating in local food banks and gardens. Or even add themselves to the growing tide of Americans demanding that executive greed stop interfering with sustainable wages, so fewer real-life Lilys have to go to bed hungry.

Burton wants participants to join him in performing the show’s opening song, which, if you don’t recall, goes like this:

While this might not be a “flash mob” in the traditional sense — if it stays as well-publicized among Burton’s 1,662,476 Twitter followers as it has been to this point, it could lack a certain element of surprise — there’s no doubt it will succeed in redirecting attention to the now-defunct show, and whatever new projects are up Burton’s sleeve.

[Hat tip: GalleyCat]