Public Broadcasting Board OKs Objectivity Measures : Television/radio: Executives emphasize their commitment to editorial integrity but some broadcasters fear procedures could lead to government interference.

The board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on Tuesday approved procedures that will be implemented to meet a congressional mandate to ensure objectivity and balance in programming on public television and radio.

The measures include setting up an 800 telephone number for viewers to call, holding a series of “town meetings” with the public, reviewing controversial programming and, in some instances, funding programming to redress a perceived imbalance in the way that an issue has been covered.

Executives of the corporation, a nonprofit organization that funnels federal funds to stations and producers, emphasized their continued commitment to protecting “the editorial and artistic integrity of public broadcasting” from “any undue influence from any source.” But some broadcasters and others expressed fears that the measures could lead to government interference in news and public-affairs programming and make public broadcasting susceptible to manipulation by special-interest groups.

“This is a highly sensitive issue of fundamental First Amendment importance,” Douglas Bennet, president of National Public Radio, said in an interview.

Noting that CPB has a statutory obligation to safeguard the editorial independence of public broadcasting, Bennet expressed concern that program reviews would “have a chilling effect” on producers and could create the appearance of “official” radio and television.

“We hear from our listeners every day in large numbers, and we take their comments and criticisms seriously,” Bennet said. “But it’s important that we as journalists make the editorial decisions.”

Bennet said that NPR would not participate in the production or distribution of any “remedial” programming designed to address a perceived imbalance in programming. “We will be happy to receive the findings (of program-reviewers), but no one is going to contact our editors and reporters in the news department” to discuss any perceived imbalances in programming, he declared.

CPB board members said they felt they were required by Congress to institute such measures. “We are trying in the best way we can to do what Congress has insisted we do,” said Sheila Tate, chairman of the board. CPB President Richard Carlson acknowledged that the program review measures were “rife with pitfalls and problems.” But he said in an interview that, after consulting on proposed plans with a variety of public broadcasters, he believed that the measures were the best method for carrying out Congress’ wishes. (The idea of CPB staffers reviewing programming, for example, replaced an earlier plan to have panels of outside experts on a particular issue review programming.)

Objectivity and balance in programming already were called for in public-broadcasting legislation. But last August, Congress, in approving new funding for the system, appeased critics who felt the public TV and radio had a liberal bias by calling for opportunities for the public to comment directly on programming to the CPB board, reviewing national programming “for quality, diversity, creativity, excellence, innovation, objectivity and balance,” and taking steps to redress objectivity and balance where it has been found to be lacking.

Carlson insisted that CPB was “not talking about censoring shows.” Point-of-view programming--such as the documentaries in the PBS series “P.O.V.”--”has an important place on PBS,” he said, and would not be affected.

What will be looked at, based upon public comment, will be the overall balance of programming throughout the PBS and public-radio schedule.

Carlson also emphasized that if it is determined that an issue has not received balanced treatment over a period of time, the idea of funding a program to redress balance would be, in effect, a last resort after attempts to provide balance by working with producers and broadcasters within the PBS system. He cited possibly having a segment on an existing PBS public-affairs series as one way to address any problems in balance.

Carlson acknowledged that special-interest groups, in theory, would be able to organize letter-writing and phone campaigns. But he said, “We’ll use common sense” in evaluating such organized campaigns.

Not everyone was convinced.

“Public broadcasters have an obligation to be open and accountable to the public, and, to the extent that CPB is gong to relay public criticism and comment, that’s fair,” said David Salniker, executive director of the Pacifica Foundation, which operates several non-commercial radio stations. “But if you have somebody issuing judgments about programming, it’s hard for me to distinguish that from censorship.”

He said that representatives of the Pacifica Foundation, People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union and others recently had met to discuss possible legal action regarding the CPB measures.

Dennis Brugger, president of the Assn. of America’s Public Television Stations, said, “Many of our stations are concerned that these plans could bypass their own relationship with their audiences, and, with controversial programming, many of them already do follow-up local programming to air opposing views.”