Thank you so much for your excellent show about the threat to abortion providers. Of course there will be complaints about the truths you revealed. Your courage as journalists makes my world and the world of my grandchildren safer!
Marjorie Ford, Tucson, AZ
We know abortion is very polarizing. We know some will kill abortion doctors. Of course that is murder and, besides being against the law, morally wrong. But, we also know some amazing things about fetuses because of cameras in the womb. Things like they respond to music, things like they feel pain and display a silent scream during an abortion. We also know that they have unique DNA and a unique heartbeat so it's not true that abortion is just about a woman having freedom over her own body. So, any reason why some of these things are being left out of some of your broadcasts like the one about Tiller or the one about music?
Boston, MA
Good Column . . . good remarks . . . too bad some cannot stand another viewpoint.
Karin Hazelhoff
Maria Hinojosa's NOW program on the terrorists who kill abortion clinic doctors was an excellent one. Everyone needed to have heard it, not just the comparatively few who watch PBS. As someone else pointed out to me, the right-wing has everything but PBS. This show WAS FAIR; it made it perfectly clear what the terrorists' views were and even treated the anti-abortion views respectfully. This is the ONLY time any half-way liberal views get aired, the ONLY time those who don't know learn that these doctors performing late term abortions are helping women with difficult choices.
I never had to have an abortion but doctors like Dr. Tiller being available to help women who have problem pregnancies makes MY life better TOO just knowing there is help if one is ever in need. I find it abhorrent that I live in a country where these vicious terrorists are not jailed as quickly as any other type of terrorists would be. I find it abhorrent that Dr. Tiller had to live under such harassment when he had asked for help from the feds. Thinking, caring people need to turn in all of the terrorists who are restricting women's rights.
Brenda
Kudos to PBS for having a non-sectarian policy! You have fantastic programming that intelligent people can enjoy. Don't let the religious fundamentalists bully you. They can get their religion in church. Non religious people don't want to watch their dogma on TV. More and more people are becoming secular because they don't wish to be associated with such small minds.
Great story on Dr. Tiller and right-wing terrorism.
Tammy Wright, Sioux Lookout
Re the no religious broadcasting . . . please then remove Wayne Dyer from your begathon. He is as New Age as they come. I have noticed over the past several years you have also done away with over HALF (at least at WETA and WMPT) of the British Comedies. More Hispanic and more "ethnic" you have become. It doesn't interest me. Where I used to do the "whole enchilada" in supporting PBS I no longer support it at all. We pay for it through our hefty cable bill and that is enough. Many of us are encouraging our representatives to forego funding for "PUBLIC" broadcasting. You are FAR from non-political.
M. Smith, Woodbridge, VA
I believe that I must agree with many of the people that have already written you. I am disgusted with PBS. It's not just that you are taking off the religious material, you are allowing programs that uplift abortionists and left-winged politicians. Your programming has gone from wholesome to disgusting. What next, will you be televising gay marriages, homosexuals on sesame street, or more of your idiotic opinions?
Jessica Bethke, Lewisville, TX
If PBS's whole reason for being is to provide the American public with a forum within which the views of everyone may be expressed, it makes no sense to me why its administration would deny equal access to some solely on the basis of what it (subjectively) defines as sectarian. Let's not get lost in abstractions about this — The effect of this decision clearly favors the political left in this country, and alienates a lot of citizens who deviate from party-line political correctness. Citing the board's "compromise" with regard to allowing previously run programs to continue is no rejoinder to this, since the effect of such a compromise will be for such programs to be phased out slowly. I see grounds for such a concession other than avoiding public outcry.
The irony of this whole thing is that the very rationale for this change in policy was to foster pluralism, yet the only voices now permitted to speak on PBS are those that openly or tacitly sanction the "pluralistic" views of its board of directors. Far from moving toward its ostensible goal in this decision, Public Broadcasting has only shifted itself further into a kind of political provincialism. This is a very sad day for PBS.
C. Shea, Saint Louis, MO
I have always loved PBS and thought you were a clear beacon of good programming when there is so much garbage on TV, but like so many others these days you too have not realized what the 'others' are trying to do: the systematic removal of God in this nation! That is a very wrong decision. We were founded on Christian values and while there is a separation of church and state we have the right and freedom of religion, not from it as stated in the Constitution itself . . . thoughs that have the faith to stand for what is right will continue to stand firm in their faith in God and thoughs that are the weak of today, think they can do anything with their lives bunch will see what happens to a nation the was found on faith but turned its back when we fall into ruins that what you all want that do not believe we have the right to religion, faith and to have quality programming somewhere on the TV . . . look at all the stations that present your smut . . . we want quality TV for us and our children as well as you like yours. I am very disappointed in PBS and will never give another dime. You course people all the time to fund you, well you just blew a hole in your finances with this foolish move. We have not been a very vocal group in the past, us Christians, but just watch us now . . . we being stepped all over and we will stand up and be heard. We do not want to see God's blessings on this nation end. Nor do we want the freedom and right to have what we want as much as you do! PBS you have failed in a truly cowardly way to cave to Washingtons anti God, anti faith and anti morals clap trap! God forgive you all for you have no idea what you do!!!!!!!
R. H., Mesa, AZ
I read part of what you wrote about the separation of church and state as it somewhat pertains to my original criticism. In recent years, even more than in the past, PBS has become a fanatical proponent of Zionism and the cause of Israeli terrorism. No real opposition is ever heard. One of the worst offenders (though far from the only one) has been the Charlie Rose Show. For example the attempt of Israeli Twitter to destabilize the government of Iran has been applauded. What if the supporters of Al Gore had been encouraged to riot in the street by a foreign government with messages written in a foreign language?
Rita Biddle, Denver, CO
Well, I was going to tell you all the things on my mind about this decision but I can see "YOU" have already made up your mind so I will not confuse you with the facts as I see them.
Bob Hyde Sr., Vista, CA
I was appalled to learn that PBS will not produce/air religious programming in the future. I love PBS and NPR. Your programs help me to stay informed about current events, other cultures and in the past other religions. You have made it possible for people like me to have a voice — where we don't have one on regular broadcast television and radio.
Where will I be able to turn now? I certainly don't expect mainstream media to suddenly produce and air quality, thoughtful, informative programming on religion. With PBS out of the arena, will we be forced to rely on religious stations for related content? I submit to you that the possibility that stations with a particular religious bias will present ALL the information, including that which challenges their own dogma is slight at best.
Please reconsider this decision. To the argument that tax dollars should not go into religious programming, fine, do not fund said programming with tax dollars, but with the other 84% which comes from viewers like myself.
Briget Petroniero, Denver, CO
My goodness! It is difficult to get through some of the comments regarding the decision on religious programming! Some of them are quite abusive and wouldn't be accepted on a lot of blogs.
Firstly, many of the commenters have implied that PBS is stopping all religious programming, which it is not. One wonders if they read the full report before they ran to the keyboard? Personally, I don't think compromise is appropriate; change the rules if you must, but stick to them in the meantime. It's actually inexcusable that the rules have been openly violated for so long. Having said that, I am not a mean person and if a lot of elderly people depend on these programs, I can accept the compromise without having an emotional meltdown. It might be interesting to put this question to the NY Times ethicist, Randy Cohen!
Secondly, of course these same people always complain that PBS is "leftie" in their programming. I guess that's because you offer science and history programs actually based on science. What these people should say is: "I don't like your programming because it is at odds with my 'faith'".
I, too, am appalled at the creeping commercialism, but where were those voices when the republican congress was gutting PBS's funds? Personally, I'd like to have the British system — a yearly fee (like car registration and license plate renewal, etc.) and fully fund a national network. As with health care, most all other first world countries have this.
Janet Camp, Milwaukee, WI
I am deeply disappointed by the Board's decision. It shows the continued lack of understanding of the meaning of the separation of church and state. Instead you are cutting off millions of people from programming that they depend on because of your own or other persons dislike of religion. I have supported Public television and radio in the past. I will not do so in the future. I will however continue to pray for the conversion of all the policy makers who are leading our country on such a destructive path.
Virginia Hughes, Boonton, NJ
I agree with the decision not to allow more new religious programming. Educational programs about various religions are fine.
Mary Davidson, Lawrence, KS
No religion on PBS. No donations to PBS! You have your choice, and so do I.
C. Barton, Mississauga
Although this decision regarding religious programming is not surprising I have a couple of questions. Will you continue to run Religion & Ethics Newsweekly? This program offers critique on religion which would seem out of bounds considering you won't show what you're criticizing. Also, will this mean the end of the New Age Religious programming (Wayne Dyer, Dr. Andrew Weil, etc.)? If these shows are not shown the same treatment it will constitute bias.
Suellen Brewster, Buffalo, NY
My local church thanks PBS for increasing its income by the amount I formerly gave to my local PBS station. The constant badgering for money and the increasing time devoted to commercials [excuse me, supporter recognition] plus the edict to not allow "religious" programming has made the decision easy.
Fred Young, Tucson, AZ
Sir: I have the option of turning off religious things, I am not forced to watch everything on PBS.
I have a bigger problem with the 'noncommercial' statement. Whenever there is a fund drive, the talking heads (especially) provide books and other 'gifts' for additional money. Since when is this 'noncommercial'. While PBS may derive added funds, the individual companies supplying the 'free' gifts are making a profit. There is no such thing as a Free Lunch. Also I don't find the talking heads supply valid information as they are too busy looking for sales and a profit.
Tillie Krieger, Eugene, OR
Regarding the new restrictions on the religious programming on stations that broadcast PBS content, it certainly seems like a decent compromise to me. The unhappy (and sometimes ugly) comments from the pro-religious content people certainly show the hot emotions that things like this can cause, but after all, PBS is PBS, not PBS for Jesus.
Hugh Caley, Albany, CA
PBS, funded by taxpayer dollars, should represent all the people who pay those taxes. Sadly, this is not the case, and will be even less so with the recent decision to restrict religious broadcasting. However, this newfound attention to the rules should result in a cessation of politically liberal programming as well. Just about anything by Bill Moyers comes to mind . . .
Shaune Scott, Miami, FL
]]>A column earlier this week sought to catch up on the PBS Board decision on June 16 that banned "new or additional sectarian broadcasting," which means advocacy of a particular religion or religious point of view, on channels clearly "branded as PBS or that feature PBS content." But the Board also allowed five member stations that have been airing such programs for years to continue what they have been doing. It also allows sectarian content to be broadcast on other digital channels now operated by many member stations as long as these other channels or platforms do not carry the PBS label or branded content.
So what follows is a second serving of catch-up, on my part, with viewer reaction to what has been happening.
Both of the NOW broadcasts have produced spirited and contentious debate among hundreds of viewers on the program's Web site and that makes good reading. But it was the June 12 airing of the program questioning the link between some anti-abortion attacks and a form of domestic terrorism that produced, by far, the most mail to me. A sampling of those e-mails, pro and con, is printed below.
I should state at the outset that while both of these programs are vulnerable to some criticism, they were both, in my view, important presentations of big, timely and controversial issues that are absolutely in the public interest and that more than likely would not find their way, in any in-depth fashion, onto network television. So the dominant reaction I had, personally, was that these were a big plus for viewers.
That they were presented as well as they were in half-hour programs, that means only 23-25 minutes for the actual segments, seemed to enhance the focus on the subject matter even more. At the same time, both programs could have used at least some more comprehensive balancing segments on the air. As is very common now, television programming routinely tells viewers if they want to know more, go to our Web site. I have always doubted that many people actually do this and that the critical impact of these programs is what you see on the screen when you see it. Web material that provides some of the balance and background missing on the screen doesn't quite do it for me.
The most explosive and controversial of the two programs was the one dealing with abortion. It aired soon after the shooting death on May 31 in Wichita, Kan., of Dr. George Tiller, who performed late-term abortions. The program noted at the start that groups that both oppose and support abortion condemned the shooting, but host David Brancaccio then asked the audience to "consider this: if terrorism uses violence to change behavior, was Tiller's killing an act of domestic terrorism? And viewed through that gruesome prism, did it succeed?"
The program also noted that another physician, Dr. David Gunn, was shot in the back three times in 1993 at his Florida clinic; and that there were six more murders of abortion providers, including that of Dr. Barnett Slepian outside Buffalo, N.Y., in 1998. He was shot by a sniper through his kitchen window in front of his wife and son.
Senior correspondent Maria Hinojosa said as the program began, "We wanted to know what it's like to live your life as a target on the frontlines of the abortion battle. And we wanted to find out what the violence directed at abortion providers means for medical doctors, for free speech and for our society."
The program featured in-depth interviews with two doctors who perform abortions — Dr. Leroy Carhart, who worked with Dr. Tiller, and Dr. Warren Hern, also a friend of Tiller's who works in Colorado. Both men said they live under siege, are daily targets of threats, and never know what to expect. Hern told how one day he found the city of Boulder, where he lives, plastered with his photo on a poster saying "a baby killer lives in your neighborhood." The doctor said: "It's terrifying. And it's infuriating. There's no excuse for this. It is hate speech. It's part of the message that it's okay to kill a doctor who does abortions. That's the message. 'That's what we want to happen.' That's what happened to Dr. Tiller."
Later in the program, Hinojosa said, "Anti-abortion groups portray doctors who perform late abortions as murderers and there are lots of examples." Then the program puts together a string of on-the-air comments from Bill O'Reilly, host of the popular "O'Reilly Factor" television talk show that appears five days a week on the Fox News Channel. From 2005 until his death, Hinojosa reported, "George Tiller's name was brought up on 27 episodes of the O'Reilly Factor."
Abortion is, of course, one of the most emotional and controversial issues in America, and there are millions of people with strong and sincere positions on all sides. But that string of quotes from O'Reilly is definitely jarring. Whether you agree with O'Reilly or not, this segment leaves a searing, hard-to-forget reminder, if one is necessary these days, of the kind of very tough talk that is uttered daily on some cable television and radio programs.
This is from the O'Reilly clips: "In the state of Kansas, there is a doctor, George Tiller who will execute babies for $5,000", "Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands", "You want to kill a baby you hire Tiller, you gotta pay him $5,000 up front and he'll kill the baby", "I wanted George Tiller, Tiller the baby killer going ehhh, I can make more money killing babies now", "Tiller the baby killer, as some call him", "Dr. George Tiller, known as Tiller the baby killer", "Tiller the baby killer", "I wouldn't want to be these people if there is a judgment day."
Dr. Hern responded, "As far as I'm concerned, Bill O'Reilly calling Dr. Tiller 'Tiller the Killer' is hate speech. It's offensive, it's vulgar, it's grotesque, it's a Fascist speech that's designed to get Dr. Tiller killed, and it worked."
And when people say, Hinojosa asked, "Dr. Hern, we have free speech in this country," the physician said, "Yeah, there's a limit to free speech, and it stops when it hurts other people."
To its credit, NOW also used a clip of O'Reilly, who went on the air the day after Tiller's murder, to respond to that sort of criticism. "Now, when I heard about Tiller's murder I knew pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters would attempt to blame us for the crime and that is exactly what has happened. Every single thing we said about Tiller was true and my analysis was based on those facts."
I don't want to review this entire program, but I thought it was a timely, powerful and necessary exploration of the extremes to which this issue carries people and the effects, especially on the doctors who legally carry out these services and their families. I would like to have seen the program actually make it clearer that abortion is legal. It is mentioned, but only in passing. Maybe everyone knows that but it seemed to me it needed to be emphasized to keep the actions against doctors, patients and clinics more in context.
I also thought the program suffered by not having an on-camera interview, even a brief one, with a representative of the pro-life movement who could keep the movement itself, and its arguments, separate from the most extreme, violent elements. The theme was to put the dark side of this issue on display, and that was proper, I thought, and successful. But some dose of additional perspective and balance would, in my opinion, have added a broader value to the program.
Ken Bode, the ombudsman for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — the private, non-profit group that, among other things, channels federally appropriated funds to public television and radio — published a very strong endorsement of this program and of the overall reporting quality of NOW, on June 12, immediately after the broadcast.
Bode, in his column, made different suggestions for others that could have been on the program. "I also would have liked to see a different point of view from the pro-life movement," he wrote, "one where the consequences of the 'free speech' they exercise are acknowledged and accepted." He quotes Frank Schaeffer, an author who formerly was a long time anti-abortion activist, who wrote, "Words are spoken that lead directly to violence by the unhinged or the truly committed."
I was stunned by the poor journalism in NOW's program featuring Drs. Carhart and Hern. Aside from a seconds-long disclaimer, the entire program equated the Tiller murderer and his few sick supporters with the pro-life movement in general. Would PBS have reduced the Abolition Movement to the murderous John Brown?
Given the apparently large numbers of Neo-Nazi groups, and the recent (apparently) Islamic extremist-inspired killing of a U.S. military recruiter, I can't imagine why the entire program on domestic terrorism should have been spent on allegations against the pro-life movement, especially in the absence of evidence that any significant numbers of people are behind the violence or the websites referenced.
The program failed to even mention the violence of abortion, but only presented abortion as an unquestioned good, needed and required by women. My confidence in PBS as a source of truth is deeply shaken.
Rosemary Anton, Phoenix, AZ
The program on Tiller's death was very poorly done because it was one sided. As a woman who not only had an abortion in the 70's and deeply regretted it as have thousands of others, and as a person who has helped pregnant women for 10 years, I know of what I speak. (I personally tried to talk to one of Tiller's patients here in CA and she told me she wanted to get rid of her almost 9 month old unborn child just because. Her friend was frantic and said she'd adopt the child but the woman's heart was cold. There was no medical reason for the late term abortion).Tiller did indeed do abortions for frivolous reasons. If so many Americans are upset over these deaths, why not find out why instead of calling them terrorists or spewers of hate speech. Have you looked at pictures of aborted late term babies or considered they get no anesthesia when they are burned to death or torn apart? I like pbs usually, but I was deeply disappointed of your coverage because it was just shoddy reporting which promotes only more division. Thank you for listening.
Santa Cruz, CA
Maria Hinojosa did women (and men) a service with her program about late-term abortion. She should not be penalized for her good work, no matter how much the anti-abortion forces rail against her. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1.21 million abortions were performed in 2005 (latest date for which they have posted figures. Each year, about 2% of women 15-44 have an abortion. Half of all American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45 and current rates, about one-third will have had an abortion. It is fully appropriate for PBS to cover the topic of abortion in a factual manner. I hope PBS will support its own courageous staff member, Ms. Hinojosa.
Katherine Forrest, Portola Valley, CA
I wanted to send a note of thank you and support to Maria Hinojosa for her excellent PBS NOW segment on Dr. Tiller's killing. I thought it was candid and interesting.
Lori Freedman, Oakland, CA
Please thank Maria Hinojosa for exploring the experiences of abortion providers living under siege. I think it is important for us, as a nation, to question why we are so complacent about ongoing harassment, hate speech, and violence directed against people seeking and providing abortion care.
Kira Foster, Oakland, CA
The accusation that Bill O'Reilly is promoting domestic terrorism was the last straw. Apparently PBS has become the judge and jury. I will never again donate to PBS fund drives and will actively encourage others to severe their ties to PBS.
Dave Moore, Big Timber, MT
I can't believe PBS accused Bill O'Reilly of being guilty of promoting domestic terrorism. Was there a court room trial on this, or is it just their opinion? My opinion is that they are helping to see the truth and the corruption that is going on in the White House. I used to enjoy PBS but I will no longer support your stations with any of my donations!
Mark P., Vista, CA
The second program on NOW while I was away dealt with another big, festering sore within the nation's broader economic troubles — millions of college graduates who owe very large amounts of money, are paying very high interest rates under student loan plans and are now defaulting on those loans in record numbers.
"Student Loan Sinkhole?" aired on June 19.
Unlike the program on abortion, the student loan program didn't produce any e-mail to me, with one big exception. That was a letter, and a detailed critique of the NOW program, from Martha Holler, vice president and spokesperson for Sallie Mae, the nation's leading provider of student loans, including both federal and private loans for undergraduate and graduate students and their parents. Originally created in 1972 as a government-sponsored organization, a transition to privatize its operations was completed in 2004.
Holler said the program included "a range of errors and omissions about student loan debt, default aversion and forbearance" and raised concerns about the "double standard in PBS reporting and the credibility of its sources." She claimed that in a number of instances, the program had "ignored" contradictory information that the company had sent. She also said the company had "made clear to PBS and its production company concerns and information about the credibility of PBS' sources, in particular Mr. Michael Zahara."
Holler then sent along a line-by-line critique of statements on the program and responses from Sallie Mae. I passed this along to NOW Executive Producer John Siceloff who now has offered the program's response.
This back-and-forth is quite extensive — seven full pages — and rather than reproducing it in full in this column, you can read the Sallie Mae critique and NOW on PBS response here.
I managed to catch up with this program before all the detailed criticism between Sallie Mae and NOW began to unfold. As a viewer, I felt this was a smart, well told and important story that was a good choice to highlight at a time when still more financial landmines are lurking out there that either will blow-up in our faces or be defused.
I also think that NOW's Siceloff offers some good responses to some of Holler's points. But there was something about this program that bothered me at the time I first watched it, and there are two things that bother me now after this back and forth.
It is hard to capture this fully without going through a summary of the whole program, but the first thing that bothered me unfolded on-screen about halfway through the program. Viewers have been engaged from the start with the sad story of Gina Moss, a well-spoken, single mom from Baltimore who NOW uses to illustrate the plight of many people who are at the heart "of a colossal controversy" in America today — 70 million people who owe a collective $700 billion in student loans.
Then program host David Brancaccio guides her into describing her Federal Family Education Loan Program, or FFELP, loans and she says collectors from these loans talked her into paying them before her rent. She is about to be evicted.
Then Brancaccio asks: "Is it really true that collectors for 'FFELP' loans are pressuring student debtors like this way? To find answers, we looked into the collection practices of a leader in the student loan industry, Sallie Mae. While Gina's FFELP loans came from other companies, Sallie Mae is the largest FFELP lender. It's the company many of us think as the old government sponsored lender, but in fact, it was reorganized as a private company in 1997 and it purchased the name 'Sallie Mae' for $5 million."
Sallie Mae's Holler, in her critique, asks: "Why wouldn't PBS speak with Ms. Moss' lender, instead of Sallie Mae, about its collection practices? PBS stated that Ms. Moss' loans were not with Sallie Mae, still asked Sallie Mae to respond to the rent/student loan payment accusation and then did not include any of the following response that Sallie Mae provided . . ."
The post-program back and forth between Sallie Mae and NOW that we link to above gets into this, but based on what was on the screen at the time, it seems to me that Holler asks a good question. That's what bothered me: there was a noticeable disconnect on screen, a segue into Sallie Mae when the woman's loans clearly came from another lender who was not identified and not interviewed. It left an impression with me. Sallie Mae is an easy target, and maybe it should be a target. But this looked like a questionable way to shift focus.
The second thing that bothered me happened immediately afterward but I didn't fully realize it until several days later, after the charges started flying from Sallie Mae.
Without breaking stride, Brancaccio continued: "Most Sallie Mae employees are bound by confidentiality agreements, and don't talk to the media, but we found one man willing to break ranks. Mike Zahara, a former Sallie Mae debt collector, was so angered by what he saw happen at his branch in 2005 that he decided to speak with us."
Zahara is the central character in the basic indictment of Sallie Mae conveyed by this program. He is at the core of what one comes away thinking about this. As I watched, I thought he came across as a confident and compelling witness on the program, laying out what he said he had heard within Sallie Mae and what he had done.
Brancaccio, to his and the program's credit, then lets the viewer in on another side of this story. He says: "After he complained to the government about the practice, he was fired. The termination letter stated Zahara had violated the company policy that 'we expect our employees to safeguard confidential information.' Why should anyone believe a debt collector fired by Sallie Mae? His allegations are supported both by a lawsuit filed last year by Sallie Mae's own shareholders and in company emails and documents from a lawsuit Zahara once filed against the company. We requested an interview with Sallie Mae . . . and the company responded with an email denying Mike Zahara's allegations. A faxed statement from Sallie Mae said Zahara 'demonstrated a pattern of accusing others of wrongdoing, regardless of merit.' And the company said that 'forbearance is used as an option of last resort.'"
Zahara comes across as the classic whistle-blower, a character we come to depend on when there is no other way to get at some important allegations of malpractice. I have no idea if what Zahara claims is true or not, but the subsequent claims and counter-claims about him are substantial. He seems to have been at the center of a number of controversies. Much of this is summarized in Statement #7 of the document we have linked to.
After going through this, I'm left with doubts, wondering whether to believe him or not, wondering how it was "that he decided to speak with us," as Brancaccio said on the program, and who contacted whom? I wondered whether there wasn't a better way, or better person, to get at and assess Sallie Mae's role in what is, indeed, a huge problem for millions of young Americans and is a worthy subject for a hard look on television.
]]>On June 16, the Board approved, as a requirement for station membership, a recommendation from the Station Services Committee that would allow five PBS-member stations that have been including some sectarian, or religious, programming as part of their broadcast schedules to continue to do so. That's the compromise.
But it would ban any "new or additional sectarian broadcasting" on channels "branded as PBS or that feature PBS content." That means all the rest of the 356 member stations that make up the PBS system, and also means no new programs on the five that have been grandfathered. Sectarian content means advocacy of a particular religion or religious point of view. So that is the uncompromising part of the decision.
The five stations that have rather steadily engaged in sectarian broadcasting, and will be allowed to continue, are KBYU in Salt Lake City, KDBI in Denver, KMBH in Harlingen, Texas, WHUT in Washington, D.C., and WLAE in New Orleans.
Since 1985, PBS policy has been that member stations provide a "nonsectarian, nonpolitical, noncommercial educational program service." But the nonsectarian part was never enforced in those five member stations. So the June 16 ruling is a commitment to now enforce the old policy for all three of the "nons" and make sure they don't spread under the branded PBS flag.
On the other hand, with the vast expansion of digital technology many member stations — all of whom are independent — now have the ability to "multicast" on other digital channels and the PBS Board voted to allow sectarian content to be broadcast on any of these other platforms that do not carry the PBS label or branded content. In fact, the Board said "stations are encouraged to offer such content as part of their non-PBS services" on other multicast channels, Web sites or other media platforms.
The Board's action on this issue has been controversial for some time, well before the June 16 decision. News stories this spring about the issue facing the Board triggered a wave of commentary from viewers, pro and con. I called attention to this in an Ombudsman's Mailbag last month and published several letters. Since the Board decision, more than 100 additional e-mails have been sent to me. All but a couple of these were critical of PBS for such things as "silencing religious programming . . . caving in to the atheist evangelicals . . . failure to present what the public wants." Others have claimed that PBS does not adhere to the other "nons" in terms of what they see as programming biased to the left or spreading commercialism.
The June 16 decision also provoked many follow-up news stories. Here's a sample from The Washington Post and another from FOXNews.com.
My own view is that the PBS Board compromise seems to be reasonable. It allows existing programming to continue and allows new programming on non-PBS labeled multicast and Web outlets operated by member stations.
Personally, I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state and the "wall of separation" between them that President Thomas Jefferson used to describe the meaning of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said, in 1947, "must be kept high and impregnable."
Indeed, it could be argued — and has been by the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State — that because PBS gets some of its funding (about 16 percent) from taxpayer funding through Congress, that there should be no exceptions, or grandfathering, to the PBS policy about sectarian programming. That's a valid argument, in my opinion, but not a practical one in this case.
In the aftermath of the Board decision, PBS did not actually issue a public statement. Rather, they informed people who wrote to them through the following response, which I'm posting here for those who are interested but didn't either write or receive an explanation.
"Beginning in January 2008, the PBS Board, which comprises PBS station managers and general directors who represent the public, reviewed the policies concerning admission to and retention of membership in PBS. PBS is a mission-driven membership organization that emphasizes local station autonomy and control, unlike a commercial broadcast network that owns affiliates and controls their programming.
"The PBS Board vote on June 16 dealt with criteria for PBS membership. Since 1985, the membership policy has stated that 'PBS Members provide a nonsectarian, nonpolitical, noncommercial educational program service.'
"The board engaged in a methodical review to determine how to best interpret this policy in light of the rapidly expanding media landscape. Many stations now have resource-rich Web sites and the capability to 'multicast' — that is, to broadcast more than one channel of programming — among other forms of distribution.
"The board vote allows stations to air sectarian content on any channel or distribution platform that does not include the PBS brand or PBS content. Sectarian content includes programming that advocates a particular religion or religious point of view.
"The board also determined that stations currently airing sectarian programming on their PBS-branded channels may continue to do so. However, no new or additional sectarian programming may be broadcast on channels branded as PBS or that feature PBS content. Stations are encouraged to offer such content as part of their non-PBS services, such as the multicast channels, Web sites or other media platforms mentioned above.
"News coverage of a religious program, historically significant programming about religion, cultural (i.e., arts and entertainment) performances of a religious nature or other objective commentary presented in a religious venue (church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.) are not considered sectarian.
"PBS provides its stations with a wide variety of programs that focus on many aspects of faith that are not considered sectarian. This will not change. Series such as the long-running RELIGION AND ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY will remain part of the PBS service, as will miniseries and specials that present the historical, cultural and social aspects of religion, such as CITIES OF LIGHT: THE RISE AND FALL OF ISLAMIC SPAIN, GREAT PERFORMANCES 'Renée Fleming: Sacred Songs and Carols,' THE JEWISH AMERICANS, THE MORMONS, PETER AND PAUL AND THE CHRISTIAN REVOLUTION and WALKING THE BIBLE, among many others.
"The review included feedback from member stations and the communities they serve. These policies take effect immediately. The members of the PBS Board are pleased to have found a solution that allows the continuation of programming that is valued by individual communities while adhering to our policy of presenting a noncommercial, nonpolitical, nonsectarian service. PBS will continue to welcome stations' efforts to provide programs about all faiths to their communities."
"Mission-driven??" "nonpolitical??" Thank you for the laugh. In the future, I will know better than to take my comments to your automated robot reply system. How could I have thought it possible to pierce the Orwellian sheath which surrounds such a well-endowed bureaucracy. My recourse is to do what I should have done in the first place — deliver my comments directly to my senators/congressman, and to the committees charged with oversight of funding for your bloated "membership organization." And to the devil with the "pleased" PBS board-toadies.
Claud Shirley, Cumming, GA
Well congratulations . . . you finally caved-in to the atheist evangelicals just like everyone else who is denying what the one and only living God, the father of Jesus Christ, has done to make this country the most blessed land on earth. Sleep well and know that all funding from this home is over.
Luke Wood, Orlando, FL
Now that PBS has decided to enforce the restriction against religious programming, when are you going to start enforcing the "non-partisan" restriction? I hate that even one cent of my tax money goes to support that joke of a "Public Broadcasting Service," and I find the sudden (and typical) sanctimonious position of the liberal scum that comprises the board of directors to be laughable in the extreme. You people collectively make me gag. I hope we get a Congress that gets rid of PBS and puts those idiotic jerks you call journalists out in the bread line where they belong.
Jerry Lemieux, Washington, DC
I was dismayed to read about PBS decision to curtail religious programming. While I am aware that PBS has no religious affiliation, I thought the idea was to provide quality programming that the viewers want. The organization's stand that PBS avoids political affiliation is a joke. PBS is and has always been far left leaning. You have now made it official.
Robert Green, San Diego, CA
I am an extremely tolerant person. Fortunately, in my area we have EWTN & Boston Catholic for my faith to have its programs broadcast. The elimination of new religious broadcasts is not what the "public" wants. Especially in rural areas that do not have the large market such as Boston. We have a growing Muslim community here and I think it is a mistake to prevent the airing of new religious programs, especially if there is so much misunderstanding of previously nontraditional religions to the USA. Lack of understanding of other religions can be eliminated by PBS' mission of being a representative of the "public". This secular movement by PBS will affect my financial support of PBS.
Tom Keogh, Bourne, MA
Well the board has gone and done it now! Dump all religious programming. Way to go! What's next FREE SPEECH! Who pressured you into this? Did OBAMA The Messiah threaten to fire someone or ruin their lives? I guess you will never see another dime out of my family ever again.
Hugh Foster, Ponte Vedra Beach, FL
About the PBS Board decision to not allow any new religiously based programming . . . PBS has held onto a long-standing tradition of programming excellence and diversity leading to some of the most outstanding programming on TV. My wife and I frequently watch PBS and support it.
The decision to stop any new religious programming goes counter to what PBS has stood for. PBS will air all manner of diverse life from a diverse world. Yet, PBS will not allow any new religiously based programs. This decision shows an intolerance that is not acceptable. If the PBS Board does not reverse its recent ruling about religion, then my wife and I will have no choice but to stop watching and supporting PBS.
Robert Winston, Jasper, GA
It will be hard to support PBS now that its Board has decided not to renew religious programming. Hasn't our country faltered enough from its values? USA is a God fearing country, not Alla. Immigrants need to learn about our borders, culture and language if they are to remain in the USA. The best start is to learn the Bible!
PBS always meant "good, pure TV" to me. PBS still has great programming compared to other stations, but to publicly declare the end of religious broadcasting is telling me as well as the rest of the public that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is not worth the contempt against sectarian laws that prevent their publishing. Please be brave and get rid of the rules that PBS are citing that prevent the religious broadcasting. Remind them (ACLU?) that Christianity has a place in America just as much as Muslim, Islam and Judaism have.
Mark Hannah, Brooklyn Center, MN
YOU seem to be confused, PBS, the constitution says "freedom of religion", not freedom from religion. Why don't you rename your network what it really is, the Liberal Propaganda System. I am going to advocate to my crooked, corrupt, leftist government that they stop all funds to you. Fat chance that will happen, right. Hopefully people will do the same and your pathetic, biased broadcasting will fade away and die.
Robert Kroeger, Pinckney, MI
I have recently heard of your phasing out of religious programming on your station. I just pray that God puts a burden on your hearts for those shut-in people who cannot get out to go to church and the only word of God they hear is through your station. It is truly sad when the only thing our nation thinks about is how to make more money instead of being servants to others. I know this is not your sole decision but it takes each of us to stand up for what we believe in. Your station has showed what they believe in with their current decision. I apologize if this has offended anyone but I am just standing for what I believe in and that is keeping God in everything I do and say. Thanks for your time.
Rhonda Maston, Shawnee, OK
I applaud PBS's decision to not broadcast local, modern day religious programs. I am sure you will hear from others against this decision, but I support and applaud your decision.
Therese DuBravac, Portland, OR
]]>What follows are some more letters and lengthier correspondence dealing with two recent programs that sparked both a good deal of interest and, unexpectedly, a fair amount of controversy.
The first group consists of another round of e-mails dealing with the aftermath of the nationally televised 20th annual National Memorial Day Concert that aired on May 24 and has been the subject of the two most recent ombudsman columns.
The second group involves one important new letter, a response from the producer, and two other contributions — all of them rather weighty and long — dealing with challenges arising from the five-part American Experience series "We Shall Remain" on American Indian history; specifically the final segment, broadcast on May 11, on the events at Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota in 1973. That was the subject of the ombudsman column on May 20.
First, a few brief notes.
The earlier column on Wounded Knee contained a lengthy and detailed challenge to several specific statements and aspects in the broadcast by the former FBI agent in charge of that agency's role on the scene, Joseph H. Trimbach, and some others. The letter from Trimbach, who, with his son, has also authored a book on the subject, was the equivalent of some seven type-written pages. But it was included in the column. At the time, the series producer offered, and I posted, a response. But in an effort to gain a more detailed response, I also asked two scholars and historians — both of whom were listed as advisors either to the series or a specific segment — to respond, and those responses are included in full in this column.
At the time, I also suggested that, because this program and its related Web material are likely to be primary source material for some time to come, it would be even better for PBS to present Trimbach's challenges to a small group of acknowledged scholars who have no connection to the series. I think that is still a good idea, but my sense at this point is that it is not going to happen. Nevertheless, the responses toward the end of this column strike me as quite informative and a serious addition to the debate over Wounded Knee, which undoubtedly will continue for a long time.
The continuing letters over the National Memorial Day Concert concern a segment of the broadcast in which two Broadway actresses dramatize the role of the mother and sister caring, in their Florida home, for severely brain-injured and traumatized Army National Guard Sgt. Jose Pequeno. They are posted first.
Some of the new e-mails continue to reflect the intense personal anguish felt by people on all sides of this situation, and criticism of the airing of family tensions surrounding it. Indeed, there were other e-mails from viewers, who asked that their names not be used, containing numerous personal allegations on all sides that are not printed here because they go beyond the two editorial issues that sparked original interest in this situation — the failure to name the wounded soldier's wife and three children (one by a previous marriage) in the broadcast as well as the fundraising and wheelchair accessible house-building efforts of people in his hometown in New Hampshire, and the question of whether the producer knew of certain publicly documented facts and did background checks before the broadcast. There was no attempt, in the columns, to take sides in the ensuing controversy.
I am the mother of Jose's eldest daughter, Mercedes. I have known Jose since we were both 17. Anyone who knows Jose knows that he would never want all the attention that he has gotten if it was to exploit him for pity purposes. But, if his injuries and family struggles are helping other injured vets, then he would be more than willing to do whatever is needed for the cause. The story did not mention his wife or children because the story, as I took it, was about the struggles of what the caregivers go thru to be by their family members side. Kelley makes it well known every chance she gets that she is still Jose's wife, but why is it she has not bothered to see him in 18 months? She admits that there is a rift, which is no hidden secret. But Nellie and Elizabeth had always been willing to work out an arrangement so that they weren't all present at Jose's side at the same time.
There is no doubt that the town of Sugar Hill, and New Hampshire, love Jose. A wonderful thing was done by raising money to build a handicapped accessible home for Jose to come home to. But, those fundraisers were done shortly after his accident, before anyone could even know if and when Jose would ever be able to return to his hometown. There are no VA [hospitals] in New England capable of treating Jose — Boston tried and failed. For those that want to bring up Nellie's past, well, it's the past. She has paid her dues, and even though Jose was upset and embarrassed, he loved his mother. People make mistakes, as we are only human.
Kelley admits that there is a court-appointed guardian for Jose. So, let's think about that for a moment. Not only does he make all decisions on Jose's behalf and in his best interest, but he controls Jose's income as well. Kelley not only lost guardianship, but all control over Jose's money . . . I loved the program featuring Jose, Nellie, and Elizabeth. And Mercedes was so proud to get to be there. She is not upset that she wasn't mentioned. She UNDERSTANDS that Auntie and Grammy have sacrificed 3 years of their lives to care for her daddy.
Lori Chabe, Auburn, ME
Thank you for staying with this story. Over a period of years PBS has made some disappointing choices regarding the production of these concerts. Both the Memorial Day Concert and the Fourth of July Concert were more authentic and more enjoyable when they were completely locally produced by WETA. The increasingly contrived and glitzy productions of recent years don't do those special holidays justice.
Carol Lawrence, Rochester, NY
I'm appalled to see the letters written about SGT Jose Pequeno's family issues and even more shocked that you would allow them to be read. I don't know Jose or his family but now I know A LOT more than any stranger ever should know, especially about a fallen hero. It's disgusting the way you have all aired this dirty laundry out for everyone to read. These are private matters and do not belong on a public forum.
People are talking about exploiting this soldier but many of those same people are the ones publicly announcing this young man's family issues. You have just done more harm with that than a beautiful ceremony honoring him and the family who have been at his side day in and day out since his injury could ever do. Secondly, no matter what troubles his mother has had in the past, they are completely irrelevant. The story was about what happened to Jose and how he and his family have had to cope with such trauma. So many people like myself felt moved by his story and inspired by the love his mother and sister have shown him and opened my eyes to what so many soldier and families are going through and just how hard it is to cope with an injury of this magnitude. Everything I've read about Jose says that he was a remarkable young man who was always willing to help others. If this is true, which there doesn't seem to be any doubt, I would imagine he must be very pleased that he was able to help so many soldiers and their family by allowing them to find strength and inspiration in his story and battle.
Tracy Morgan, Lansing, MI
My wife and I have tried to distance ourselves from the Pequeno controversy. I know much more about the family situation than I generally let on. However, the recent Memorial Day Concert that featured Jose's mother and half sister has required us to speak out. The PBS Concert over emphasized the care being provided by the Jose Pequeno's mother and sister and completely missed another part of the story. We are not certain we understand the emphasis on Jose's mother and sister, but a disservice was done by not mentioning his wife and children. It was painful to watch Jose being exploited for a reason that we hope we do not understand.
We are pleased that Jose's mother and sister are willing and able to provide the care to Jose, however if they did not provide the care, I am certain that others would. What was missed was the fact that Jose's wife has been without a husband for over five years and his children without a Dad during that period. The military did a disservice to Jose when they used extraordinary measures to allow his heart to continue to beat and his lungs to breathe. They did not save his life. Jose in his current state is neither a father nor a husband. I worked with Jose in Sugar Hill and I am certain that he if he could, he would acknowledge that he is not living.
I believe the real story is not the caregivers, but the affect that the war and the injury to Jose has caused to his wife and children. We tend to forget the burden that they bear because of Jose's injury. They did not volunteer to go to war, but they are the ones that carry the greatest burden. Jose's wife Kelley has not disappeared as might be thought when she is not mentioned, but instead has taken on the difficult task of raising Jose's children. That is what Jose would want done and that is what she is doing. Although Jose is trapped inside his own body, the lives of his children continue. They require attention and love as they attempt to reconcile what has happened to their father.
The other story that was missed is how the friends of Jose, the (New Hampshire) community that he served and the communities in the area rallied to assist Jose and his family. They raised in excess of $250,000 in donations either through cash or donations in kind to demonstrate their support to Jose and the family. The result of those efforts was a fully handicapped accessible home with four bedrooms, a large porch and an oversized two car garage to provide the family with a comfortable home and the hope that their husband and father could eventually come home. This was accomplished fully aware that Jose may never come home. In addition, to the new home, the existing mortgage was paid off and funds set aside for the on-going maintenance of the home and needs of the children.
As a living legacy to Jose, a foundation was established that supports the families of law enforcement, firefighters and EMS personnel when bad things happen to good people. The Foundation has helped six families in the short period that it has been created including that of a police officer from the next town to Sugar Hill who was brutally murdered while on duty. We do not take anything away from the good that Jose's mother and sister are doing. We believe that if Jose in his current state of health was in his new home, that it would result in an even greater burden on his children. We believe that PBS has a responsibility and an obligation to be fair and unbiased. Ignoring the wife and the children of Jose and their burdens was neither fair nor unbiased.
Allan and Gail Clark, Sugar Hill, NH
Life is seldom as simple as we would like it to be. I have known Jose and his mother and sister for over three years now. I can only speak to this period and in that context what was said and portrayed about them on the PBS special was accurate and fair. Nellie and Elizabeth have been at his side constantly during this whole time and have sacrificed their lives for his well being. They have literally kept Jose alive and given him the possibility of a good life. As for his wife during this time period sometimes saying nothing can be the kindest thing to do.
Edward Meagher, Great Falls, VA
I became a trooper with the South Dakota Highway Patrol in 1967. I was stationed in Sturgis for 11 years. I went from there to Mobridge, Sioux Falls, and Rapid City. I attained the rank of Captain and became the Commander of the Rapid City district that covered the western 1/2 of the state. My work assignments put me on and near every reservation in the state except Sisseton. I retired in 1998. I am as aware of Native American issues as any law enforcement person from my era could be.
During the occupation of Wounded Knee, I was sent to man roadblocks outside of the government blocks. Our task was a first line of contact to try to keep non-reservation persons from getting to government blocks and causing trouble from the exterior to the interior of the government perimeter. We were in constant contact with the government roadblocks and we monitored their radio frequencies. I can verify the truth of [FBI retired] Special Agent Trimbach's statements about the occupation.
When a group of persons came to Custer to demand that Darrel Schmitz be tried for 1st degree murder, I was part of the law enforcement group that was to monitor the courthouse for safety and security. We were deployed in the main hallway about 1/2 way into the building. Several persons were allowed in to speak with the state's attorney, Hobart Gates. Among these persons were Dennis Banks and Russell Means. The group was not able to persuade Mr. Gates to change the manslaughter charge. The group left the meeting room and went to the front door of the courthouse. By this time several hundred persons were gathered on the front steps and in the street in front of the courthouse. Dennis Banks yelled to the crowd, "they are not going to charge him with murder, let's get them" At this point dozens of members of the crowd charged into the hallway. The dozen or so law enforcement officers in the back of the hallway met this group about halfway and a pitched hand to hand battle broke out. In this battle, Russell Means sustained a broken arm and was arrested from the bottom of a pile of fighting people. I was an eye witness and participant in all of this.
I was struck in the back by a heavy swivel-back chair that was swung by Dennis Banks. This is one of the acts that led to his eventual conviction for riot. Law enforcement was able to clear the hallway and set up a line on the front steps of the courthouse. Our hope was that the crowd would disperse. This is when the incident portrayed in the PBS special occurred. Sarah Bad Heart Bull, who was very intoxicated, grabbed the jacket of Sgt. Sprague of the SDHP. She lost her footing and pulled him into the crowd. Sgt. Schmoll moved in to try to free Sgt. Sprague, who was being struck and jostled. I was immediately to Sgt. Sprague's left and charged into the fray to try to help get the two officers free. I was able to stop the main combatant, Robert High Eagle of Wakpala, SD, with a blow from my riot control baton. Both Sergeants were able to return to the law enforcement line.
Sgt. Schmoll had been badly injured from a blow to the head. That blow came from a 4' X 3/8" piece of drill steel swung by Robert High Eagle. I personally arrested Robert High Eagle. He was eventually convicted of riot on my arrest. He had come to the meeting armed and prepared to fight as had many others that day. Any suggestion that law enforcement caused the riot in Custer defies imagination!
Suggestions that the occupation at Wounded Knee somehow helped the Native American population of Pine Ridge are not supported by fact. Comparisons of unemployment, alcoholism, and child abuse from 1972 through the present, clearly show an increase of incidents of all three. What is so upsetting to me is that all of the allegations of Special Trimbach's letter and the statements I have made could have been verified in several hours with only a few phone calls. The scholarship leading to the PBS special does not rise to any level of accuracy or fairness. I believe that the special, as shown, did an enormous disservice to many persons on and off of the Pine Ridge reservation, and glorified AIM in a way that is breathtakingly untrue.
Captain Terry Mayes, South Dakota Highway Patrol (retired), Rapid City, SD
Here is a further response from American Experience Executive Producer Mark Samels. In that response, Samels also gives his views about the program's broader response to the criticisms raised and mentioned in this column in recent weeks. The comments of the two program advisors that Samels refers to appear after Samels' remarks.
"I believe that you now have two responses to the 'Trimbach letter' by two of our series advisors, Dave Edmunds and Paul Chaat Smith. Together with my initial response, we feel that American Experience has responded fully and responsibly to Trimbach and his associates. Simply put: Wounded Knee is a complex, violent and controversial event; people have understandably strong feelings about the incident; we stand behind our portrayal of the event as an pivotal moment in the larger story of Native American history, particularly as a culmination of a sequence of events in Native history stretching back to the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890. We do not feel it necessary or prudent to respond point by point to the numerous assumptions and allegations made in the Trimbach letter.
"As to the most recent letter from the state trooper, we were impressed with the details he offered about his role in the events in Custer that preceded the occupation of Wounded Knee. Our film, however, clearly shows that the violence in Custer was instigated by AIM members; it is AIM members who are seen forcing their way into the courthouse, setting fire to buildings and smashing cars. The film does not say that law enforcement personnel caused the riot.
"Similarly, while our film does describe how the occupation galvanized Indian identity across the country, it doesn't state or even suggest that the siege at Wounded Knee improved the economic or social conditions of Pine Ridge residents."
Here is the assessment of Paul Chaat Smith, associate curator, Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian:
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views on the Wounded Knee episode of "We Shall Remain." As you know, Robert Warrior and I authored a 1996 book about Indian activism of the 1960s and 1970s, and also were paid consultants for the film.
I want to speak directly to the allegation that the production was unfair, misleading, and sensational. I know you'd prefer a point by point rebuttal, but I am unfamiliar with many of the issues raised in the May 10th letter by Mr. Trimbach and others, and were not issues Warrior and I discussed in our book, or ones that I have investigated since then.
The beginning point of any honest discussion must recognize that Wounded Knee 1973, perhaps the most neutral way to describe the events, is widely regarded as the most controversial and divisive moment of 20th century Indian history. People died, both during the (Occupation? Rebellion? Armed resistance? U.S. invasion? Reign of terror by a criminal gang?) and later. Wounded Knee was a complex, multi-faceted series of events that remain deeply contested almost forty years later. I think any impartial observer would have to agree the authors of the letter would have profoundly disagreed with any version of this film whose main point was not that AIM was, in fact, a criminal enterprise, with no redeeming values whatsoever.
This is a bold argument, and I am glad Mr. Trimbach has written his book and explored these issues at length. His perspective is not mine, but it's entirely possible that in another few decades it will be widely shared by scholars, historians, people interested in the era, and citizens of Pine Ridge. But I can emphatically state that today this is an extreme point of view, and I don't mean to denigrate their argument by calling it extreme. I like extreme views. Have a few myself. But nowhere do I see the acknowledgement that Wounded Knee 1973 is widely celebrated by many on Pine Ridge today, and that it has been observed as an official tribal government holiday. For many on Pine Ridge, Wounded Knee has turned into a reconciliation project, trying to bring those who were with AIM and those with Dick Wilson together, with some real success. The U.S. government museum where I work, whose first director was an expensive private attorney, and whose current director ran the BIA for President Clinton, and which has always been guided by mainstream, establishment Indian folks, has considered in the past (and is still considering) exhibitions about AIM framed by the idea that it was a flawed yet profoundly important organization that is responsible for many positive changes in Indian country, and many feel that NMAI itself would not exist without AIM's inspired, often stupid, and sometimes brutal activism.
Again, this does not mean that Mr. Trimbach is wrong, but it raises the issue of what constitutes fairness where a vast minority (at the very least) of the U.S. Indian world believes AIM did far more good things than bad, and others, who include many people who've never met Mr. Trimbach, sincerely believe AIM was a disaster. Where is the middle ground in this case? Stanley Nelson's film reflects as close to a consensus position on AIM as there can be on such a contentious issue.
One question Stanley gets at every screening is why didn't he discuss Leonard Peltier, who many in the left regard as Nelson Mandela. For these folks, the film was a sellout, and certainly Russell Means is not alone in sharing this view. Having partisans on both sides furious at you doesn't mean you are being fair, but it does persuasively suggest those who find Wounded Knee a love letter to AIM have their own agendas.
What follows are the comments of Professor Russell D. Edmunds, a specialist in the history of Native American people at the University of Texas at Dallas:
Obviously, the program was designed to portray these events from a particular Native American perspective, and although not all Native American people supported the American Indian Movement and its leaders in their occupation of Wounded Knee, I'm pretty sure that the majority were supportive, and in retrospect believed that the occupation focused the attention of the American public on issues within the Native communities that needed to be addressed/resolved. It seems to me that Mr. Trimbach's criticism is that the program did not portray the federal government, FBI, or the Wilson regime at Pine Ridge in a "fair" or favorable manner, but the program was produced and presented to illustrate the general Native American point of view on these events — and in this case, I think it did so.
Mr. Trimbach's litany of complaints is so lengthy that any well-constructed, fully developed (with documentation), and nuanced response would amount (in my opinion) to a document of at least fifty pages (and I think that is a conservative estimate). Moreover, Trimbach's letter impressed me as a protest by a few individuals (Trimbach, relatives of Dick Wilson, and survivors of some of the people killed during the siege) who felt personally aggrieved that they or their relatives did not receive adequate coverage in the film. But obviously the film cannot contain everything that everyone thinks should be included.
I must admit to almost no legal expertise, so I am unable to gauge the legal impact of Trimbach's complaints; but as an academic who has taught Native American history/studies for almost 40 years and who has worked extensively with both the academic and Native American communities, I believe that Trimbach's protest reflects the perspective of a very small group of people with a particular agenda, and will be generally ignored by almost everyone else. I've worked on quite a few TV documentaries, and in my opinion this series ("We Shall Remain") is by far the best series with which I have had the privilege to be associated. Throughout the series there are some interpretations or perspectives with which I do not agree, but that is the nature of a collaborative project — particularly a film.
]]>The segment, which lasted nine minutes including an introduction and embracing of actors and the mother and sister at the end, was meant, according to the producers, as a special tribute to caregivers who devote themselves to helping these severely wounded servicemen and women go on with their altered lives.
It was a very powerful and wrenching dramatization, but as soon as it ended, I began to get some e-mails that suggested there was more to the care-giving story. One pointed out that Sgt. Pequeno had a wife and three children, one by a previous marriage, and that his small hometown in New Hampshire, where he had been the police chief before volunteering for National Guard duty in Iraq, had raised some $65,000 to build a wheelchair-accessible home for him and his family. There was no mention of the names of the wife and children or the New Hampshire effort on the program and only the briefest suggestion that he even had a family beyond the mother and sister.
I don't want to repeat the whole column and story here. But as I researched the history of this very brave and popular young man, more and more stories about him over the years turned up. Many of them were referenced in last week's column. Some of the more recent stories told of how rifts had developed between the families or, more accurately, between the wife in New Hampshire and the mother in Florida.
And like any story that is more complicated than it first appears, the more you pull on the string, the more complicated it gets. So that is not unusual. What is unusual, and extremely uncomfortable in this case, is that it involves care for a brave and terribly traumatized soldier who has no say in anything but who requires a huge amount of care, is widely loved and respected and for whom many people and organizations — in Florida, New Hampshire and elsewhere — have reached out with great generosity over the past three years.
In the aftermath of last week's column, more letters arrived and some of them continued to describe a real-life situation that is even more tense and complicated than it appeared. For example, one of the e-mails printed below refers to the mother as "a convicted felon." There were one or two others that made similar allegations. When that string was pulled, it turned up an article published in the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper on Nov. 23, 1996 and now available only in the paper's paid archive. The article is a list of the recent court and crime activity at the time. The lead paragraph follows:
"DOVER — A Cabletron employee has been indicted for allegedly bilking her co-workers of nearly $2,000 to pay her daughter's non-existent medical bills. Nelida S. Bagley, 45, of 4A 2 Cascade Flat Apartments in Gorham, allegedly told co-workers between Feb. 1 and July 1 she needed money to pay for her daughter's cancer treatment. She raised $1,955, including $500 from Cabletron Chairman Craig Benson and $500 from Chief Executive Officer Robert Levine. She is charged with theft by deception, a class A felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison, according to Assistant County Attorney Diane B. Dubay. The indictment was handed down at the Strafford County Grand Jury's Nov. 15 session and unsealed Thursday. All those indicted are scheduled to be arraigned Dec. 2 at 1 p.m. in Strafford County Superior Court, unless they file a waiver of arraignment."
I sent this article to the concert producers and asked if they knew about this or had made background checks. The response of Jerry Colbert, executive producer, Capital Concerts, follows:
"Jose is one of the most gravely wounded soldiers in American history. The story was suggested to us by a representative from the national organization the Wounded Warrior Project. In deciding to proceed with the segment, we conducted research in New Hampshire, at Walter Reed Hospital in DC and in Florida. Our program serves as the nation's memorial service and in the limited time available to us on-air we focused on Jose's struggle over the past three years. During that time his mother and sister never left his side. They are representative of the more than 10,000 family members caring for our severely wounded veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
"These disabled warriors have become our living memorials, a visible reminder of those who sacrificed so much for the principles we stand for, and for their families who take care of them and will continue to sacrifice for them for the rest of their lives.
"Jose's youngest two children were invited to attend the concert through their legal guardian, however, their mother declined. Had they been in attendance our plan was to introduce them in the audience. As it was, Jose's eldest daughter from a previous marriage did attend, but it did not seem fair to us to single her out when his other children were not present."
As I said, this is uncomfortable. In the research I did after the initial round of e-mails last week, nothing about the indictment had been mentioned by any of the newspapers I read that reported on Jose Pequeno since his March 2006 injury. In fairness to the producers, had I not been told about this, I probably would not have found it. And, of course, it may not mean anything. It was 13 years ago, and there seems no doubt of the love, devotion and care that Jose's mother and sister provide. Nevertheless, the episode underlines the value of checking things out. Would a producer of a nationally televised program — any program — want at least to know this beforehand? I would think so. Maybe it would not have, nor should not have, made any difference to the point or casting of the program. But there were PBS viewers in New Hampshire who knew a more complicated story.
In researching this, I did determine, from New Hampshire court authorities, that Nelida Bagley did plead guilty in 1997 and served time in the New Hampshire State Prison for Women, and that there had also been an earlier "theft by unauthorized taking" conviction in another New Hampshire county, Grafton, to which a guilty plea had been entered in 1989.
Having the background on the wounded soldier casts a very different light on what I watched during the Memorial Day service. I now feel more sorry for his inability to control how he is handled or mishandled as the case may be. It's unfortunate that the producer allowed himself to be played by certain members of the family to what I now see as the detriment of the disabled veteran.
Dwight Bobson, Washington, DC
I just wanted to say thank you so much for everything you have said in this [This is a reference to last week's column]. Jose [Pequeno] and I have been married since 1997. I hate how our children are left out. Those kids are our life . . . my daughter was disgusted at everything that was said [on the program]. My son was extremely angry. I just want to know how the military tells people they are so family orientated but there are 100's of families falling apart? Why doesn't the military back up the wives/husbands? We are the dependants. I just don't see how we were so overlooked AGAIN . . . very sad.
Kelley Pequeno, Lisbon, NH
Thank you very much for the column on Jose. It did a lot to set the record straight and somewhat restore my faith in PBS. Sadly, this is not the only experience I have had in which something I have personal knowledge of is misrepresented by the media. I can only guess that this is the rule, not the exception. It is very, very difficult to convey life's complexities, I am sure. I just want more from you guys.
Nancy Martland, Sugar Hill, NH
Jose Pequeno was a wonderful man, police chief and member of our Sugar Hill community. He would have been horrified at the spectacle you [PBS] and his mother and sister have made of him. His mother (a convicted felon) and his sister tore him away from his wife and children and community and obtained all the financial aid they could scam from any person and agency that would be sucked in by their tale of woe. Shame on them and on PBS for glamorizing a sad and painful event. Jose would have been the first to say what a sham this all is. Please check all of your facts before tugging at the heartstrings of America with a falsehood such as this.
Meri Hern, Sugar Hill, NH
All of the music was stunningly beautiful and appropriate. However, the program was ruined by the exploitation of Jose Pequeno. We know Jose and his wife. We can in no way condone displaying him the way you [PBS] and his mother did on this program. As his wife said to my son, he would have HATED this. Every family, with or without war, has its own dynamics. But you have truly soured us on how you obviously have been duped about this situation. You owe it to every spouse and child of a service person to get the whole story and not allow a fine man like Jose to be a spectacle of the worst sort. Check out the whole story. And next time just stick to the music.
Lee Williams, NH*
I thoroughly appreciated the National Memorial Day Program as I think all or our service people and families should be honored, much more than they are. Personally I do not think Jose would have appreciated being on camera so much and his family should at least have been named, I am sure he loved then dearly and was proud of them, or he was not the person you portrayed. I do not understand why famous guest singers have to change the style of the famous patriotic songs they are asked to sing (like this program and at ball games) in stead of just putting them forth as they were sung when we were growing up with them. PBS is a treasure for out country to keep and support and I hope many of our youth watch it and appreciate it. Thank you.
Peggy Mangano, Fremont, CA
Normally, I watch the broadcast of the Memorial Day Concert. This year, every time I tuned to that station, I heard singers who, I thought, were not good and were kind of whiny. That may just be my age preference. After reading your article and the letters, I am glad that I did not watch. What made me proud in the past was seeing people assembled in the capital of our country commemorating all those who have preserved our freedom. From what I read here, that honor of all our veterans was missing. God bless our beloved country and those who serve in all the military branches.
Olive Lohrengel, Buda, TX
I never watch these programs. The best way to support the troops and veterans is to fully fund the VA medical system so that it can adequately address all the needs of all veterans. How does singing and flag-waving help the wounded? I'm glad it makes viewers "feel better" about the plight of veterans.
Janet Camp, Milwaukee, WI
Supporting the troops should mean that we support them when they need us. Our nation's injured or aging Veterans fall victim to unlawful and abusive guardianships/conservatorships — and are forgotten. They are abused, neglected, and lose everything they have, including the freedom they found and sacrificed for. Please visit NASGA, specifically the "Veterans in Peril" page, and the NASGA blog.
Elaine Renoire, Loogootee, IN
*This letter arrived just after deadline and was added minutes after the initial posting.
This year's program, noting that in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan almost 5,000 American servicemen and women have died and at least 34,000 have been wounded, also paid special tribute to the families who are left behind to grieve, or to care for those who need it. The program, produced by Capital Concerts Inc. under Executive Producer Jerry Colbert, is always among PBS's most popular and widely viewed offerings.
As usual, most of those who wrote to me about the concert were stirred by it and grateful for being able to share in it. Many of the e-mails printed below reflect that. There were also some critical comments. Some of those are roughly similar to ones that have come in previous years having to do, for example, with the dress or demeanor of one or two of the performers, or not enough focus on Korean War vets. A few others question whether the tone or message the program conveys is the right one.
But sometimes viewer comments go beyond what one might consider the inevitable shortcomings of any 90-minute live commemorative presentation, even one that is extremely popular. And that is what happened this year.
The first letter printed below is from a viewer in New Hampshire who wrote after having seen a segment of the program devoted to telling the story of Army National Guard Staff Sgt. Jose Pequeno, who suffered a devastating and traumatic brain injury and nearly died in March 2006 when the Humvee he was riding in came under attack in the Iraqi city of Ramadi.
First, a bit of explanation. The sergeant was not expected to live and the story of his battle to survive and the extraordinary care and devotion that he is receiving in that battle from his mother and sister in Florida was dramatized on the program by two major actresses — Dianne Wiest and Katie Holmes, who played the role of the wounded soldier's mother, Nellie Bagley, and sister, Elizabeth, respectively. This was a very powerful and riveting segment; it seemed to me also to be among the longest on the program. And cameras frequently also focused on Sgt. Pequeno, head back in his wheelchair, in the audience with his mother and sister holding on to him.
Here's the letter that caught my eye:
"I was unprepared and thus shocked to see our former police chief, Jose Pequeno, featured on the National Memorial Day Concert. I was equally astonished to listen to the story presented about his family, which was incomplete at best, since his wife and three children were left out. Omitted was the fact that the Town of Sugar Hill and its residents, who love Jose, rallied around his wife Kelley and their three children (who were not even mentioned by name in the piece). Funds were raised to construct a fully accessible house for Jose to come home to and for his family to live in; the house was built and is ready for him. Perhaps this part of the story would have detracted from the theme of sacrifice presented by his mother and sister? Not a fair or full representation."
Nancy Martland, Sugar Hill, NH
In looking into this, I found several things. One is that Sgt. Pequeno, 35, is an extraordinary and very popular man. He was born in New Orleans to Puerto Rican and Cuban parents but grew up in the northern part of New Hampshire. He was in the Marines before he signed up with the National Guard and then volunteered to go to Iraq. He was a local hero in New Hampshire many years earlier when he dove into the Lost River to save an 18-month-old girl who had fallen in. In 2001, he became the police chief of Sugar Hill. "Everybody here is a Jose lover," said a Sugar Hill resident on a New Hampshire Public Radio broadcast about him in April 2006.
The reason she said that is the same reason that the letter-writer above cited. That small town of about 600 residents raised about $30,000 to build a new house in Lisbon, N.H., designed for wheelchair accessibility, for Jose, his wife and his three children, one by a previous marriage. In addition, the state Police Chief's Association agreed to furnish the new home, and site work, foundation, electrical work and septic system had all been donated by local businesses. The Concord Monitor later reported that $65,000 had been raised in the "Bring Jose Home" campaign. The Washington Post also wrote about Pequeno a few years back.
One of the most complete accounts about Pequeno and his family, and some of the tensions about care, appeared in Florida's Tampa Tribune last December and was also picked up by vawatchdog.org. The Tampa newspaper also reported on the housing, renovation and living expense help provided to Pequeno's mother in Florida by the American Legion and the Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund.
Then last Sunday, the day of the concert, a story appeared in the New Hampshire Sunday News that also surfaced some of the tensions that seem to exist behind the scenes in this story. The story said that Jose's wife, Kelley, and their two children — Alexandria, 12, and Gaige, 11 — would be watching the PBS broadcast from their home in New Hampshire. Another daughter, Mercedes, lives in Maine with Pequeno's first wife. It reported that Kelley was conflicted over her husband's appearance on a float in the annual Memorial Day parade in Washington on Monday, a day after the concert. The newspaper said she didn't object when Jose's court-appointed guardian told her about being on the float, but quoted her as saying: "I hate it. I hate it because I know that he would hate it."
The newspaper also reported that his wife knew that Jose was being honored but didn't realize his story would be dramatized, and that while she knew the program would focus on the care his mother and sister have given him, she hoped it wouldn't ignore his family back home. "I just hope that when they honor Jose, that they say the children's names."
Actually, the program did not mention the children's names, or that of his wife, or the outpouring of donations from his hometown in New Hampshire.
The only glancing reference to the fact that he even had a wife and children came in a sentence spoken by Wiest as she was portraying the mother's words: "There are a lot of young wives with children like Jose's who can't care for such a severely disabled husband and the VA [Veterans Affairs] disability check went to her and the kids so we had to find a way to make do on our own."
Today an article in the Littleton Courier, a New Hampshire weekly, reported more about the story behind the story:
"Kelley said last week sometimes she gets angry at how she and the children get overlooked, as if she abandoned Jose. She said she spent the first five months after he was wounded at his side at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C., before returning to her children in July 2006, visiting as often as possible after that, she said. Rifts developed between her and her in-laws over where Jose should be and how he should be taken care of. The Bagleys tried to get custody of Jose. They failed and a court appointed a guardian, ordering Kelley to return to Lisbon [N.H.] to take care of their children in August 2007.
"Currently Jose lives in a house in Florida with his mother and sister. Kelley said she pays them $1,000 a month out of Jose's disability check.
"Kelley said she sent the children to visit Jose for two-and-a-half weeks in February and another week in April but she didn't go. 'The three of us [Kelley, Nellie and Elizabeth] in a room would not be pretty,' Kelley said.
"Jose's replacement as Sugar Hill's police chief, Dave Wentworth, said he has noticed the lack of mention of Jose's children in the media and by Jose's caretakers. 'That's wrong because he was so proud of those kids,' Wentworth said."
When I told the program's producers that I had heard from some New Hampshire viewers who asked why there was no mention of the sergeant's wife and children or the fund-raising and house-building campaign there, and asked for a response, they said: "The focus of this particular story segment in the program was on caregivers and for the past three years Jose Pequeno's mother and sister have performed this role."
This is an uncomfortable kind of story. There is no question of the care and devotion of the mother and sister and the inspirational role it documents. There was a lot of heroism on display — Jose's, for sure, and his mother and sister in real life and on television. But there are also clearly some family considerations that don't quite fit into the picture as presented.
It seemed to me that if the mother and sister didn't acknowledge the wife and children more specifically in the staged presentation of their stories, then the narrator should have found a way to do so in introducing the six-minute or so segment using the two actresses. There are, undoubtedly, huge strains in all families suddenly confronted with the kind of extreme trauma that Jose and others like him come home with. A lot of the stories surrounding each case are complicated. But it seems strange, and wrong, in my view, that a nationally televised dramatization about a rather amazing young man and his devoted mother and sister didn't bother to make clear that he also has a wife and three children, that they have names, and that he has a community in New Hampshire that also loves him in very tangible ways.
I watched the Memorial Day celebration and, generally, I thought it was the best so far — not too much schmaltz. On the other hand, I thought the over coverage of the wounded soldier Jose was very much overdone and went from honoring to exploitation. His story and a song dedicated to him would have been appropriate. The camera went back again and again on him and his mother and sister and to Gen. Powell and Tom Cruise to the exclusion of very many others. This detracted from an otherwise excellent show.
Hal DuDash, Spring Mount, PA
It has been a Memorial Day tradition for my family to watch the National Concert. Of late these concerts have become more and more maudlin. Last night's concert went over the boundaries of maudlin to sickening.
The young man who suffered so much so bravely was held up to be an object of pity. That is the last thing any veteran — or any person, would want. I was disappointed that Colin Powell endorsed that pity party.
I hope there is a survey of those who watched this sad performance so that it is not repeated. We shut off the television because we were so revolted.
Harrisburg, PA
Last night I viewed PBS's Memorial Day program from the U.S. Capitol. I was moved by the patriotic songs and recognition of veterans, especially as my father was a retired U.S. Army colonel.
However, two aspects of the program were inappropriate. First, the repeated view of the brain-injured veteran from New Hampshire was overdone. Let the man have some dignity! Second, I question why Tom Cruise was seated next to General Colin Powell. Is Tom a veteran? Probably this decision relates to the power of "superstars" to attract larger audiences. Mr. Cruise was dressed in Hollywood style, with his open shirt and sunglasses straddling his jacket pocket. Proper attire for the solemn occasion, I think not. And his wife, Katie Holmes, seemed to pinch her ear at the end of her performance. Probably she was signaling to her daughter at home. Obviously the tragedy of the story she told was soon forgotten following her "act." PBS should use real people with real emotions to perform, not Hollywood types who are too self-absorbed to relate to life's tragedies.
Ellen O'Neill, Buchanan, VA
Thank you for airing the wonderful Memorial Day concert. What a great way to celebrate those who have served their country so courageously and proudly and those who continue to do so. May we all continue to support our troops and their families.
Dana Sandifer, Hopkinsville, KY
The Memorial Day concert on Sunday was inspiring as in the past. Altho Tammy Wynette has done it before, the lyrics to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" should remain as originally written, on the PBS broadcast. The memorial is meant for the ones who have "died" to make men free in my opinion.
E.C. Dimitri, Nashville, TN
Michael, Thanks for doing what you do for PBS. We watched the Memorial Day Concert from DC last night on our local PBS station. It upsets me to see the US flag worn as clothing. Joe Mantegna's tie and the orchestra director's BOW TIE seemed especially out of place. Also, I remember the fuss made when candidate Barack Obama didn't wear a flag lapel pin, and I thought, "Hmmm, wonder if those pins are made in China. I wonder where most flags we see in this country are made." It's not your problem I know, but if you have any connection to pass on the idea, I say, all US flags should be made in our country.
Patricia Bares, Saluda, NC
Both my husband and I wish to congratulate PBS on the absolutely fabulous show last night honoring Memorial Day! From start to finish, it was the best ever! My husband is a Vietnam Vet and would not miss this show every year. Great Job! Our only hope is that the Obama Administration, our Congressman and Senators all sat and watched this broadcast, as we did, and were as proud to be an American — today and everyday!! HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY!!!
Lorraine Grimaldi, North Babylon, NY
I was appalled to see once more, a Memorial Celebration in which all veterans of the Korean War are ignored. My husband Joseph was in "Old Boldie" where he was wounded, trying to save one of his men. He was discharged with a 90% disability as his whole left side was paralyzed. He's now considered a 100% disabled veteran.
The media and the government make more of the Desert Storm and Iraq wars, while the Korean veterans are never remembered. What an injustice!!! I am sick of this. Please let me know who in the government I can write to balance the gratitude these veterans deserve. I thought about writing to the President but it would probably not to him . . . Thanks for your assistance in this matter.
Victoria M. Bernard, St. Pete Beach, FL
I must tell you how very much I enjoyed your 24 May 20th Anniversary Memorial Day program. It was a true American program. At times I had tears streaming down my cheeks and other times thrilled to the various musical numbers. It was a program that anyone could enjoy. No politics, just good old fashioned patriotism. Thanks so much!
P. M., Elk Grove, CA
Thank you for the wonderful Memorial Day Concert last evening! By far, it was the best one we have seen. It should be required viewing by all school children. Thank you again and we look forward to more PBS "special concerts" of this quality.
Suffolk, VA
The Memorial Day Concert 2009 was far inferior to the preceding nineteen. Mrs. Perry and I found the relentless emphasis on the dead and injured and their families to be surrender to those who preach peace-at-any-price. There was virtually no mention of the noble causes fought in defense of the US and many allies. I never heard one mention of "victory" or "enemy," both terms obligatory in any review of military losses and sacrifice. Oh yes, Tom Hanks (I think) did say as an afterthought about D-Day, " . . . and they did prevail, barely!" We are both veterans and have seen plenty of sacrifice and death, while spared ourselves. The next Concert should not give the impression that all we did in past wars was suffer losses and cause families grief. We won all but one, damn it, and that one, Vietnam, we gave away! Let's celebrate the full history of our protection over many years of the entire free world! Our wounded and dead and their families have not sacrificed in vain. Without the United States military there would be no United States of America, and probably no Western Civilization either!
Col. Hugh Perry (Ret.), Nashville, TN
I have a question — I watched all of the Memorial Day observance shows tonight. I enjoyed them very much but my question is in regards to the Medal of Honor show — Why did you not give honor or mention Audie Murphy during the show? I feel that it was a huge error. He was our most decorated soldier in WWII. Why?
Jacksonville Beach, FL
As a Korean Veteran, The Memorial Day program today was probably the best thus far. To me it seemed that all of those performing gave me the impression of sincerely dedicating their time and talents to recognize the contributions that all of us Servicemen made and continue to make, without any apprehensions whatsoever, in these days of political correctness. It brought back some long suppressed memories to me. Thanks for the reminder. I can rededicate myself more fully now.
Cornelius Dora, Phoenix, AZ
Just watched the Memorial Day Concert. As usual they left out my branch of service. I wish the producers of the show would do their homework. I served in the US Public Health Service. No we don't pull triggers, but we take care of the people who do. We are the medical team for the Coast Guard and the Merchant Marine. At D-Day there was a USPHS hospital ship just off shore — in harm's way — ready to receive the wounded. We do wear uniforms. The VA accepts us as veterans. We do have a flag and we do have an anthem. (Details about flag and anthem can be found at Commissioned Officers Association.)
Dale Stewart, Bakersfield, CA
I just finished watching your Memorial Day tribute to all of America's military. As I was watching and seeing the pictures and soldiers of America's greatest soldiers, the wounded, and their strength and courage to endure I realize the VA is greatly underfunded to take care of these soldiers and VA benefits don't provide enough, why can't someone develop a fund rising activity like the Jerry Lewis telethon which is a yearly event and raises a lot of money for MD. Why not an event to raise funds for disabled veterans and their families, and not just a remembrance on Memorial Day. The performers like Tom Hanks, Toby Keith, Gary Sinise who already provide a lot of support to Veterans could be great MCs for a fund raising event.
LTC (Ret) Richard G. Currier, Lehi, UT
PBS is my favorite station. Tonight the program on the National Mall filled me with so many wonderful feelings. especially my love of country, in spite of all our problems and frustrations this is a wonderful place to live. I am so glad my grandparents left Russia in 1898. The program on the Mall followed by the National Parks filled me with feelings for which there are no words. I want to express my heartfelt appreciation and thanks for all of the wonderful programs you provide.
Annette Steinborn, Rockville, MD
I see by the Memorial Day concert, that the thousands of military men and veterans who don't get killed or wounded don't seem to matter much. Also it was interesting that the national march, Stars and stripes forever, didn't get played.
one time member of a navy band (1946) and later on a communications officer on the aircraft carrier U.S S Tarawa (1952 thru 1955)
Lakeland, FL
]]>The new stuff involves lots of e-mails that amount to pre-emptive strikes by viewers on both sides of a tough and touchy decision that faces the PBS Board of Directors next month. On June 16, the Board will vote on how its member stations' long-standing commitment to provide non-commercial, non-partisan and non-sectarian educational programming should be interpreted when it comes to clearly religious broadcasts by stations.
A detailed report on the choice facing the Board appeared on April 13 in Current, the bi-weekly trade newspaper about public television and radio. But it was a follow-up article in The Washington Post about the issue on May 16 that appears to have attracted wider public attention. More recently, several other news organizations have written about the controversy.
At the moment, this would affect only a small number of stations — about five out of some 356 member stations. But the issues are large. On one hand, there is separation of church and state that, as many viewers express it, is absolutely central to our democracy. On the other, there are special programs and services that have been provided to communities by some stations for many years. For example, WHUT, the PBS member station at Howard University in Washington, D.C., has been broadcasting "Mass for Shut-Ins" on Sundays for 13 years. The station has already notified the Archdiocese of Washington that it could cancel the program depending upon the Board's action.
But there are also less benign examples. I stumbled across this tricky issue for the first time more than two years ago during a controversy involving a Harlingen, Texas, station, KMBH, which is licensed to an educational non-profit and managed by the local Catholic Diocese of Brownsville. Viewers complained of censorship because the station did not broadcast a major Frontline program that dealt with victimization of a young boy and his family caught up in the sexual molestation scandal within the Archdiocese of Boston.
The non-sectarian requirement has been in PBS membership bylaws since 1985 but hasn't been enforced strictly. The Board is now seeking comment from its member stations on this issue that will help frame what, exactly, the Board will vote on, and some PBS officials believe that what may emerge from that response will be a discussion about how best to serve communities yet stay within the confines of the bylaws.
There was one more "new" item in recent days. A number of people wrote to say, as one viewer from Covina, Calif., put it, that they were "outraged that the NewsHour tonight [May 21] gave so much air time to Dick Cheney. I am sure that the time given his speech was more than was given to President Obama. Voters repudiated Cheney's party and the policies, and he is out of office. It is irresponsible of PBS to give his hateful, fear-mongering views this attention."
Here's what Linda Winslow, executive producer of the NewsHour, had to say in response:
"Our President Obama excerpt ran 5:07 minutes. Our former Vice President Cheney excerpt ran 4:38. We aired both because they were directly addressing the points the other has made recently. To have aired only one speech and ignored the other would have been a dereliction of our duty to report the news of the day. The fact that Cheney waited until the President finished speaking dictated the order in which we ran the segments. The package, in its entirety, is what we call 'news': something important that happened today."
I agree with the NewsHour's news judgment. It was the same as virtually every major TV and print news outlet that I looked at. Today's Washington Post ran a banner headline: "In Dueling Speeches, a National Security Debate." The Wall Street Journal's front-page headline said: "Obama and Cheney Face Off Over the Fight Against Terrorism."
The "old" issue I mentioned at the top is not very old. It involves viewer response to Wednesday's column about the five-part PBS documentary series on the American Indian, "We Shall Remain."
Here are the letters:
I have read that PBS is reviewing our local station KBYU and the possibility exists that it may lose its PBS affiliation because it broadcasts religious programs. In a world where faith, values and anything good is being shunned this type of action seems counter intuitive to me. I have supported PBS and purchased programs but if this indicates your direction you will lose any future support from me. I encourage you to reconsider this action.
Clair Oman, Ogden, UT
(Ombudsman's Note: KBYU-TV is associated with the College of Fine Arts and Communications at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. The university and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the sponsoring institutions.)
I just read that PBS may be punishing affiliates that have religious programming, such as BYUTV and others. If this happens, I will no longer listen to or watch any of your productions. I will also encourage anyone I know to do the same. Please reconsider your decisions on this matter.
Robert Rokes, Riverside, CA
Before you think I'm a religious idiot PLEASE just finish reading this. I am not a religious zealot or anything like it. I found out that PBS is either considering or planning to remove some stations from PBS because of religious aired programming. This is ignorant! To accept someone who has scientific views about any field of research but not to accept a religious viewed person is bias. What are you teaching children? Religion is bad but science is your unbiased friend who never does wrong? I am the first to admit that some religions (even many) are hokey or trying to mislead or control people. We see this happen but not all religions do this and some "scientific" minds try to do the same. Until we know everything than anyone on any side of any debate can be just as wrong as the next guy. To teach that it is okay to listen to a scientific argument but not to listen to a religious one . . . How "scientific" is that? I realize this isn't a science/religion debate but PBS is stating that religion isn't something that should not be related to PBS even if paid for separately.
Salt Lake City, UT
I just read that the BYU radio station is likely to lose its PBS affiliation because of some religious content, which is supposedly against PBS's 'non-partisan, non-religious' rules. This is truly laughable! While I enjoy some of PBS content here in southern Nevada, I consider PBS one of THE MOST POLITICALLY BIASED RADIO STATIONS on the air! During the past election, for instance, it was quite clear that PBS was engaged in Obamamania, with no news, and certainly no good news on McCain, Palin, or other candidates. Removing BYU radio will simply serve to prove your bias against all things traditional and pro-American, and you bias for progressive, liberal, anti-traditional-American beliefs and lifestyle.
A. Hall, Henderson, NV
Please, whatever you are doing MUST CONTINUE. I get more informative, multi-religious reporting from PBS than anywhere other than religious specific outlets. NONE of the other major media outlets provide nearly as much in-depth, well-balanced reporting. WHY is this even being debated? Let me repeat — KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING. It is unbiased, balanced, INFORMATIVE and A FREAKING PUBLIC SERVICE. Thanks and keep up the great work!
Eric Nelson, Fairfax, VA
I recently heard that PBS will be voting to remove support from any station that broadcasts any kind of religious programming. The reason given is to maintain non-partisan, non-sectarian bias. I am appalled. One would think that removing biases is done by exposing more people to what groups believe and think about. I feel that PBS would be encouraging separatism and bigotry by withholding program support to stations who meet the needs in their communities by broadcasting religious programming. I feel strongly enough about this that if PBS withdraws support from these stations, then I will withdraw my support, my viewership, and anything else I have ever had to do with PBS. Perhaps my one little email won't make a huge difference, but it only took a single rock, hitting the right spot for David to take down Goliath — if this is too sectarian for you to understand — look it up in the book that I doubt you want to recognize as having any worth — the BIBLE.
Deborah Jessop, Denver, CO
I recently read an article in our local paper taken from the Washington Post that said that PBS is to vote next month on a committee's recommendation to strip the affiliation of any sectarian content. It went on to say that losing its PBS relationship would mean that a station could no longer broadcast programs that the service distributes from Sesame Street to Frontline. It stated that it could lead to a ban on broadcasts of local church services and other faith oriented programs.
The Mass for Shut Ins is in jeopardy and while I am not Catholic, it concerns me that these kinds of bans on faith based programs would be a sad state of events in this country.
My husband and I are retired teachers. We have taught our students that all freedoms are protected in the United States. With an action like this from PBS, it implies that all freedoms EXCEPT for religious ones will be protected. PBS has offered all kinds of programming. To exclude programs of faith would to us be a national tragedy.
All kinds of garbage are on the air. It's almost impossible to find something to watch that doesn't have coarse language, sexual content and plain old garbage out there. I guess these programs are protected and not church programs?
Cheswick, PA
I just read that PBS will be more strictly enforcing the "secularization" forces in their mandate. Actually, much of the public believes in a God, and one of the values of a public station is to broadcast what people want to see. If that includes programs of worship, that is one of the important programs they are donating to see. Quite frankly, as a disabled person, the idea of removing the "Mass for shut-ins" is more than offensive. This is what some of us can only find on PBS. Only "megachurches" preaching the prosperity gospel can afford to broadcast their message on network television. I think that you should ask those who donate to support PBS what they would prefer. I can give you my vote now. Keep the legacy "Mass for Shut-ins" on the air. Your decision will determine whether I continue to contribute, and I will discuss the idea with those whom I know. It is true, that as a disabled person, I can't give as much as people who can be more directly engaged in society, but I have found that those of us who feel strongly about such issues can make their voices heard. Just consider the outcome of the last election. PBS is not just bound by journalistic integrity; it is also bound by the choices of the public who support them. Democracy is messy, but pluralistic. That includes worship for God in many different ways. If the population near a station wants to watch Mass on PBS, why would you remove that program.
Joan Hanley-Hyde, Rockville, MD
I hope that PBS will enforce its long-standing policy of not providing programs to stations who do not respect the separation of church and state. I recently became aware of this situation by reading it in one of the newspapers to which I subscribe. As a long time viewer and donor to PBS, I would like PBS to stand firm on its commitment to the separation policy. Please inform policy-makers of my comment.
Margaret Farley, Needham, MA
PBS can be proud of the high quality journalism and programming it has provided for our country. I know I speak for many when I say "thank you" for your hard work and integrity. I feel compelled to contact PBS over an issue recently reported in the Washington Post titled PBS Weighs Separation of Church & Stations. As an American, I cannot stress enough the need for separation of church and state. While religious elements in our society continue to chip away at the foundation of our majestic constitution, it is imperative that Americans stand strong in opposition to religious threats, whining, and financial coercion.
Please be assured that, while quiet and civil, humanist and rationalist are large in number and strong in spirit and support PBS as it nobly fulfills the mandate it has been given by the United States of America. Please continue to enforce the American tradition of separation of church and state by keeping PBS free of religious content.
Jeffrey R. Cates, Oregon, IL
I encourage PBS to stop broadcasting sectarian programming as recent news stories have indicated is being considered. I look to PBS for objective programming that will serve citizens of all sects and creeds, not just members of specific denominations.
Algonquin, IL
I completely agree that KBYU should be cut because it is an organ of a church that spends a lot of time on devotional programming. When I first moved to Utah I was shocked that a PBS affiliate would program its schedule the way KBYU does. There is an alternative station in our community — KUED — that serves the needs of the PBS viewers broadly. Let KBYU be supported by its church's members not the general public and PBS's sponsors.
Salt Lake City, UT
I agree that this series was very informative. It touched on areas that would spark interest, raise questions and bring into focus the state of Indian Country here in America. I was an active AIM member during the 70's and witnessed first hand how things were. It was the leadership that first brought the truth and focus to light. And it was the leadership that brought shame upon our people when the money and fame went to their heads. The spirit of the American Indian Movement was and continues to be the everyday Native American. We truly believed in what we were doing, bringing about a positive change and justice to right all the wrongs that our ancestors had endured. Today, we want exactly what we wanted then. The sad truth is that the leadership of the past has slipped into the category of those that need to be dealt with through the justice system. Programs like the one that PBS has aired are welcomed by the majority of us in Indian Country. As for the detractors from this wonderful series, they all have their own agendas, each with their own means to gain by trying to shed a bad light on such an outstanding project. Thumbs up from a grandmother who is teaching her grandchildren the truth about our personal history!
M.W., Fullerton, CA
It may be understandable that recent events in the Native American's story would evoke responses, but let's look at the entire series. It was naturally painful and heartbreaking to watch, but long overdue that things should be examined and recorded from their side.
In Hawaii we are similarly confronted by the story of our native population, and only recently has what we all read in our history books been balanced by the actual events of the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, as shown on TV. I say — let's continue to be brave enough to absorb all sides of history, and PBS should be commended for helping us to do just that.
Karin Hazelhoff, Kamuela, HI
Thank you for your words and for presenting a comprehensive story. There will always be controversy about this issue. Most times the truth is ignored, on both "sides" of the issue. I am Alaska Native (Kenaitze) and married to a Crow. It is important for our histories to be told to a broader audience and especially for our next generations. And it is especially important to be able to relate multi-faceted viewpoints. Somewhere in the middle is the truth. We need to tell our own stories, in our own words, and instruct our children in how to do that effectively. Thank you for your writing. Please keep it up.
Eagle River, AK
Thank you for opening the door to further discussion about what went on behind the barriers at Wounded Knee. In addition to the Robinson murder, there are other secrets AIM leaders at Wounded Knee are trying to hide. Our concern is that the film "Wounded Knee" has helped them do just that. We have heard from people who were assaulted, chained to beds and interrogated, and raped. We have been told by people who claim to know that as many as half a dozen people were shot to death inside the village during the last desperate days of the occupation. We believe it is only a matter of time before these crimes come to light. To the extent you have enabled the conversation to continue, we appreciate your comments and welcome your support. Perhaps some day there will be another film about Wounded Knee that will tell a far different and much more disturbing story than that which has now taken center stage. Until then, the real story of Wounded Knee must take a back seat to the PBS production and other media treatments of the village's demise.
John Trimbach, Atlanta, GA
Just watched the Wounded Knee episode for the 2nd time. Thought it was excellent.
I could see the revisionist history from Trimbach and all coming. I do think PBS would have been better served by presenting more of Wilson's side by having his supporters interviewed, but I know that opens up a whole can of worms that is not appropriate for this series.
A few observations about Trimbach's letter:
1. I believe the U.S. Government found that Dick Wilson stole the election from Means that Trimbach mentions as proof the Lakota supported Wilson. Convenient memory.
2. The paternalistic tone of much of Trimbach's letter, where he dismisses the concerns of Indians nationally, and in Pine Ridge, is laughable. It would be great if PBS could take a serious look at the so-called "reign of terror" imposed by Wilson before Wounded Knee, but especially after.
3. Especially with respects to the Reign of Terror, I think the film actually is too easy on just how terrible Wilson's regime was to people that did not agree with it.
Doug Shinkle, Denver, CO
As one who was an adult during Wounded Knee '73, it was good to see a portrayal of the events. I was deeply moved and saddened and ashamed how my own government has treated Native Americans. It brought tears of sorrow and sense of deep compassion for all Native Americans who have suffered since 1492. A follow up to what has changed or improved since '73 is important. Thanks for including the segment of the horror of the Indian schools and the relocation stories. New information for many Americans. We all need to examine our conscience how we can begin to right the thousand wrongs perpetrated on our Native Americans.
Richard Roth, Tubac, AZ
Having just watched We Shall Remain: American Experience on Wounded Knee I am having considerable difficulty trying to understand why no mention whatever was made of Leonard Peltier who, I understand, still is imprisoned in a federal penitentiary for a crime he allegedly committed at Wounded Knee but from all that I can read he was convicted by an all-white jury and even the FBI admits he did not commit the crime for which he was charged. Why wasn't this obvious miscarriage of justice not referenced in a film on Wounded Knee? This appears to be gross neglect and another egregious injustice committed against an innocent Native American, something I am surprised and disappointed by from PBS.
Charles Silas, Mason, MI
I'm a California Indigenous person of Esselen decent and I would like to compliment PBS on their series on "Native American Indians." It is very important to us Indigenous people that the truth gets out to the American people of the loss of our Heritage, Pride and Dignity. Also I believe that your series also shows of how we are still fighting to protect what we have left.
Roots Rosales, Monterey, CA
Thanks for covering this issue. I don't know about other journalists or bloggers, but I'm covering it in my Newspaper Rock blog.
Rob Schmidt, Culver City, CA
In my personal opinion, Native American History is something that has lacked coverage. American Experience brought something to the table that others have not. Though certain individuals would like to dispute the accuracy or authenticity of "We Shall Remain," American Experience has opened our eyes to parts of history that have been pushed into the shadows. If these individuals really think that their story has not been told in a fair and just manner, there are many avenues that they may take to dispute them. I have always been interested in the Lakota Nation and American Experience's coverage on the Siege of Wounded Knee was another exciting and informative study in Lakota History.
Seth M. Ward, Indianapolis, IN
]]>This unusual documentary — combining re-enactments with archival photos and films, and loaded with mostly Native American historians and talking heads, and a narrator who carried the theme of valiant yet ultimately fruitless resistance to the encroachment of the white man — took viewers from the time in 1621 when the Native Americans first encountered the Pilgrims who came aboard the Mayflower to the still-controversial siege at the historic village of Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, in 1973.
The mini-series, titled "We Shall Remain," is part of the broader "American Experience" documentary series produced by WGBH in Boston. In promoting the films, PBS described the series as one that focuses on pivotal, historic moments "from the Native American perspective" spanning more than 300 years of American history. It "shows how Native peoples valiantly resisted expulsion from their lands and fought the extinction of their culture" and it represents "an unprecedented collaboration between Native and non-Native filmmakers and involves Native advisors and scholars at all levels of the project."
That invocation of scholarship has become an issue for me because a group calling itself "The Wounded Knee Victims and Veterans Association" has issued a lengthy and detailed challenge to numerous aspects of the final 90-minute episode that aired last week.
The letter, dated May 10, containing that challenge is signed by nine people, seven of them Native Americans. But the lead writers are the now retired former FBI special agent in charge during the 1973 episode, Joseph H. Trimbach, and his son, John M. Trimbach. The father and son have also co-authored a book, "American Indian Mafia," which offers a sharply different and critical view of events at Wounded Knee and especially of the activities of the American Indian Movement (AIM) members who took over and occupied the village and confronted Federal agents during the 71-day siege. The title of the book mocks the name of the AIM.
The letter from the Trimbachs and their colleagues was addressed to PBS President and Chief Executive Officer Paula Kerger, and it is a detailed, non-stop, frontal attack on the program. Here's the first paragraph:
"We wish to express our concerns about the PBS-backed production of 'Wounded Knee,' the final installment of the 'American Experience — We Shall Remain' series. We believe that the producer, Stanley Nelson of Firelight Media, violates PBS's own guidelines for editorial integrity, honesty, and fairness. PBS guidelines state: 'When editing, producers of informational content must not sensationalize events or create a misleading or unfair version of what actually occurred' and that '(p)roducers must assure that edited material remains faithful in tone . . .' and is presented '. . . in a manner that fairly portrays reality.' Wounded Knee fails on all counts. This production employs distorted editing, deceptive statements, audience manipulation, and a propagandistic narrative that rationalizes the terror, violence, and murders perpetrated by members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) during the 1973 occupation of the historic Indian village of Wounded Knee."
The letter (which is printed at the end of this column) goes on for six full pages, with challenges to several specific statements and scenes in the segment. I'll come back to the body of that letter, but on May 15, Kerger wrote to John Trimbach and included a response from Mark Samels, the executive producer of American Experience, "describing the steps the producers took to help ensure the integrity of the referenced program."
"The film 'Wounded Knee' was reviewed at various stages in its production, from script treatment to final cut, by a group of prominent scholars of Native American history, who served as advisors to We Shall Remain, the ground-breaking series on Native history of which 'Wounded Knee' is a part. In addition, 'Wounded Knee' was reviewed by several program advisors who are expert in this particular chapter of Native history.
"Our film was not intended to be a comprehensive history of either the American Indian Movement or the village of Wounded Knee. Instead, it was designed to focus on what happened at Wounded Knee during the 1973 occupation, and what role the siege played in the larger story of Native Americans in the 20th century. We were particularly concerned with the events preceding the siege that contributed to a sense of dislocation and desperation in many Native communities across the country. And we were interested in what effect the occupation, and its widespread media coverage, had on Indians far removed from Wounded Knee.
"We believe there is ample evidence in the film of AIM's controversial use of armed confrontation and violence, from the preceding events in nearby Custer — where AIM members attacked and laid waste to the courthouse — to the sacking of a family-owned store in Wounded Knee. Archival footage featured in the film clearly shows devastation in the village during the siege, as Mayor Dick Wilson characterizes AIM members as 'hoodlums' and 'clowns.' As one of the interviewees states in the film, 'Where AIM goes, chaos often follows.'
"Our producers took great pains to be even-handed in the portrayal of the siege at Wounded Knee. This is a difficult piece of American history and we believe our film presents it with the care and complexity it deserves."
First, a logistical note. The critique presented by the Trimbachs and their co-signers is, as I said earlier, very long. As far as I know, no one else has written about this other than a news story on rapidcityjournal.com on May 13 reporting on the Victims and Veterans Association's accusation that PBS had slanted the telling of the Wounded Knee story to glorify AIM and disregard the real victims of Wounded Knee, the villagers who lived there. The story did not post the letter online. Trimbach wrote and asked that it be posted on my site and I have done that for those who wish to pursue this in greater detail.
My reaction as a lay viewer to the series, including the final segment, was one of feeling grateful for the production. The history of Native Americans in this country is so extraordinary, so important to understanding who we are and how we got here, so revealing of diversity among tribes, of suffering by all of them, and of the emergence of extraordinary natural leaders from within that suffering population, that all serious reminders of this story should be welcomed. And this was a serious production.
The reviews I read about the series in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and The Washington Post were all generally positive and did not focus or mention the kind of challenge to the history of Wounded Knee that is contained in the protest letter. As I checked various impartial online reference sources about the siege that began on Feb. 27, 1973 and ended on May 8, including, for example, a lengthy report by former Sen. James G. Abourezk there was also little mention of, or material to resolve, the kind of challenges raised by the Trimbachs and their co-signers.
On the other hand, there is no question but that there were, and are, continuing disputes about exactly what happened inside Wounded Knee during that period. There were deep divisions, pitting AIM and some of its generally impoverished tribal allies against other Indians of mixed-blood, like the authorities within the reservation who were reviled and portrayed as corrupt by AIM and many more traditional Indians. AIM was a militant, activist group with a long string of protests and demonstrations, some of which had turned violent, that had grabbed public attention. They sought to take advantage of the growing civil rights movement in the country at that time. And, as dramatic as the siege of Wounded Knee was, and for all the press coverage it attracted, the Nixon administration that would try to deal with the armed stand-off was also distracted by something else that was unfolding at the same time — Watergate.
The confrontation at Wounded Knee in 1973 — which had also been the scene of a historic massacre of Indians in 1890 — was dramatic and confusing. Some of the history and events will undoubtedly always be disputed. In the end, it looked like a defeat for AIM and its supporters among the local Oglala Sioux. But the episode remains one of those formative events that focused the attention of a nation that traditionally looks forward on something that happened in its past that hasn't quite been fixed.
As a viewer, the film left no doubt with me that it was indeed recorded from a Native American perspective. Yet I think Samels' response, although brief, is correct in that the violent and radical actions of AIM were at least there to be seen in the film. In Trimbach's assessment, however, and that of his co-signers, although seemingly a minority view, the role of AIM and others — particularly the government forces, the local authorities, and the "victims" inside the village who lost everything because of the take-over and siege — was inaccurately presented and unfairly represented.
In my research, I did find some support for that view in two relatively recent articles by Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota Indian and founder of the Native American Journalists Association.
In his response, Samels mentions twice that the series was reviewed by "a group of prominent scholars of Native American history" and by "several program advisors who are expert in this particular chapter of Native history." Having said that, it seems to me that PBS ought to present Trimbach's complaints to these scholars or, even better, a small group of scholars not connected to the program, for some kind of more detailed reply. This might take a while but it seems worth it, especially since there are a lot of teaching materials associated with the series.
Samels is also almost certainly correct that this film "was not intended to be a comprehensive history of either the American Indian Movement or the village of Wounded Knee." Nevertheless, this is PBS, where people, and students, look for authenticity, and the segment on Wounded Knee is likely to be at the forefront of material on the subject for a long time. So going back and taking a second look at these challenges, responding more fully, and making changes, at least online, if warranted, seems worthwhile to me.
"This film attempts to explain away the destruction of the village by invoking historical issues (broken treaties, Indian boarding schools, government-sponsored relocation, etc.) and by rationalizing the criminality of the perpetrators. One of the film's worst transgressions is its contemptible disregard for the real victims of Wounded Knee, the villagers who lived there. Aside from a brief statement from one of the Indian hostages, Agnes Gildersleeve, the villagers' stories are virtually absent from this film. 'Wounded Knee' does not even show how AIM systematically tore the village apart and reduced it to complete devastation. The film does not mention that AIM looted the town, stole people's personal possessions, slaughtered cattle in their bedrooms, fire-bombed their homes and vehicles, and desecrated their churches. AIM occupiers stole or destroyed a collection of priceless Indian artifacts when they pillaged the Wounded Knee museum. Rather than condemn AIM violence, 'Wounded Knee' serves as a mouthpiece for the perpetrators who spew their distortions and lies without challenge. To glorify AIM in this way is not only deceitful, it is offensive. This film cheapens genuine Indian valor and heroism.
"For a documentary that purports to be about the armed takeover of a community and its consequences, these are serious shortcomings that demand a response. From a philosophical point of view, the argument that the terror, violence, theft, and loss of life associated with the razing of an Indian village were somehow justified is an argument that is fundamentally flawed and must be exposed.
"Producer Nelson went to great lengths to tell only the perpetrators' side of the story. He misled interviewees, such as Wounded Knee resident Walter Littlemoon, about what would be in the film. Nelson reneged on his agreement to interview Wounded Knee veteran Richard Two Elk, a condition agreed to in exchange for Joe Trimbach's participation. Nelson used Trimbach's interview anyway. Nelson or his surrogates omitted American Indian Mafia from the PBS bibliography. This book, which is supported by thorough documentation, is arguably the most complete and factual account of Wounded Knee's destruction. After Joe Trimbach registered a complaint with your legal department, Mafia was added to the PBS list. One wonders if Mafia was initially excluded simply because it exposes several of the books in the same list as falsified and fraudulent accounts of AIM history and of Wounded Knee. Nelson relies on these falsified books to support his distorted version of what happened in the village. To reference only the falsified accounts is inexcusable. To use this tainted information to construct leading questions for the PBS-endorsed school curriculum is equally scandalous and must also be exposed. There is not one question, for example, that asks how the villagers lost everything they owned.
"We believe that Nelson's failure to interview Two Elk was partly due to the fact that he witnessed the Wounded Knee murder of Perry Ray Robinson, a topic Nelson shows no interest in pursuing. Robinson, the only black man seen inside the village during that period, was a civil rights activist and a colleague of Martin Luther King. Robinson was shot by an AIM leader during a heated argument. His death and burial near the village ruins is one of many AIM secrets that Nelson's production has now helped cover up. A letter from Robinson's widow, Cheryl Buswell-Robinson, is attached.
"Another example of deception is the conspicuous absence of any footage showing Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, a prominent and highly visible AIM member at Wounded Knee. Aquash was murdered by AIM leaders in 1975 because they mistakenly believed that she was an FBI informant. Ironically, Wounded Knee warrior Madonna Thunder Hawk, featured throughout the film, is also implicated in Aquash's murder and its subsequent cover-up. Carter Camp, another featured AIM leader, has been repeatedly caught in a lie about knowing Ray Robinson. Today, Camp denies ever meeting him. On camera, Camp has nothing to say about Anna Mae either. In fact, most of the AIM leaders interviewed for this film have been implicated in the Aquash and Robinson murders. Anna Mae likely knew about the Robinson shooting and her leaders' attempts to keep his death a secret, and now it appears Nelson has joined the effort to write her out of existence as well. AIM leaders must surely approve.
"Attached are specific examples of the distortions and outright falsehoods in this film. We believe these examples prove that 'Wounded Knee' falls well outside what might be allowable under artistic license or interpretation of historical events. Instead of documenting Indian history, this film denigrates genuine Indian sacrifice and makes a mockery of true Indian heroism shown in previous segments. We intend to pursue every means available to expose this film for its dishonesty, its revisionist agenda, and its abject failure to tell a fact-based and fair-minded story of Wounded Knee. This production abuses the public trust by recycling and legitimizing what can only be described as vintage AIM propaganda. A PBS-sanctioned curriculum that indoctrinates our children must also be challenged. We therefore demand redress. We want equal time for rebuttal, balance, and clarification. The American public deserves better from our publicly-funded programming. We ask for your immediate response to our concerns.
JoAnn Gildersleeve Feraca (Chippewa)
daughter of Agnes and Clive Gildersleeve,
Wounded Knee Trading Post
Romona and Saunie Wilson (Lakota)
daughters of Tribal Chairman Richard Wilson
Richard Two Elk (Lakota)
Wounded Knee Veteran and former member,
American Indian Movement
Joseph H. Trimbach
FBI Special Agent in Charge (Retired)
Professor Patrick LeBeau,
(Cheyenne River Sioux, Chippewa)
Professor of Indian Studies,
Michigan State University
Paul DeMain (Oneida-Ojibwe),
Editor, News from Indian Country
Shawn White Wolf (Northern Cheyenne)
CEO, White Wolf Media Group
John M. Trimbach
Co-author, American Indian Mafia
"'Wounded Knee' constantly cites historical events of the 1800s, the boarding schools of the 1900s, and the government-sponsored Indian relocation plans as a means of rationalizing the terror and violence visited upon Wounded Knee, a village where most of the residents were Indians. Destroying the village had nothing to do with what AIM's Russell Means called 'dignity and self-pride' and must not be used to glorify AIM leaders.
"Film narrative: 'For the next 71 days, Indian protestors at Wounded Knee would hold off the federal government at gun-point.' This statement misreports the facts: government roadblocks were set up to contain the violence and minimize casualties, not to engage the militants in gunfights. This false allegation plays right into the perpetrators' hands and is characteristic of the falsehoods that AIM leaders have so often hoodwinked the media into reporting. It would be more correct to say that Federal Agents and Marshals, in the face of almost nightly, unprovoked gun fire from the militants, tried to protect surrounding villages and towns from violent attacks that could easily have spread across the reservation.
"The film shows several views of Indians donning war paint but does not mention that they were gearing up for the firefight of March 8, 1973, when several carloads of militants attacked a handful of FBI Agents and U.S. Marshals at Roadblock 3. At the beginning stages of this unprovoked attack, AIM gunmen armed with long-range rifles nearly shot to death one of the FBI's first female Agents, who was armed with only her pistol. The group's distress calls were answered by other Agents who rushed to the scene and repelled the attack. Featured warriors Milo Goings and Webster Poor Bear were injured when FBI Agents returned fire. 'Wounded Knee' neglects to mention that this incident and dozens of shooting incidents were initiated by the militants.
"The APCs: 'Wounded Knee' leaves the false impression that the armored personnel carriers were brought in as offensive weaponry. No one from law enforcement is shown explaining that the APCs were moved into position at the roadblocks to protect FBI Agents and U.S. Marshals from almost daily gunfire attacks. At night, the militants would venture out of the village, move towards the roadblocks, and open fire. Law enforcement personnel, showing incredible patience and restraint, often opted to take cover rather than return fire and risk shooting misguided militants. At times, however, there was no other choice but to repel attacks with return fire. The APCs saved lives on both sides of the barriers at Wounded Knee, a fact never mentioned in the film. Another point not mentioned is that government riflemen could have picked off dozens of militants on numerous occasions. The two official deaths occurred in the late, desperate days of the occupation, during the most intensive gunfights. Had it not been for the professionalism of the FBI and the U.S. Marshal Service, the casualties at Wounded Knee would have been much higher.
"The hostages: 'Wounded Knee' leaves the false impression that the hostages were free to leave once Senators McGovern and Abourezk arrived. This is akin to people breaking into your house and holding you against your will until the authorities arrive and declare that you are now free to leave and turn over all your worldly possessions to the invaders. The truth is, the hostages were never really free, and the media presence may have been the only reason they were not further brutalized. The film fails to report Agnes Gildersleeve's statement that she would give up her home ' . . . only over my dead body. If you're going to burn my home, I'll go with it.' Nor does the film report Dennis Banks's reply, 'That can be arranged.' Agnes's only mention of her status as a hostage is relayed via her captor Russell Means. She is not shown speaking candidly about her predicament. This technique of having the criminal speak on behalf of his victim is patently biased and propagandistic.
"Film narrative: 'On April 26, Wounded Knee sustained the heaviest gunfire of the siege. When the shooting subsided, Buddy Lamont, a thirty-one-year-old Oglala from Pine Ridge, came out to investigate.' This glib distortion fails to report the events that preceded Lamont's death. Lamont was shot and killed during the fiercest gun battle of the occupation, after sustained fire from the militants was aimed at all roadblocks following an illegal weapons and ammunition re-supply. Lamont did not 'come out' as he was already engaged in the firefight. Heavy firing from the village continued from the late hours of April 26 until past noon the next day. The militants had posted one or more snipers at the left flank after which the supervisor on the scene authorized return fire. At 12:20 pm, the militants refused a ceasefire offered by the U.S. Marshals. Lamont was shot during the ensuing firefight, but it is unclear who shot him. Reports show that Lamont was shot in the back. AIM commanders Carter Camp and Stan Holder chose to leave Lamont's body where it lay in a field for two hours before calling for a ceasefire. How did they know if Lamont was even dead? None of these facts are mentioned in the film."
"FBI Agent Trimbach's statement that he immediately proceeded to the main entrance to Wounded Knee is juxtaposed with a daytime reenactment of two cars driving by. Trimbach actually approached Wounded Knee at night, soon after the militants had taken over the village. This distortion minimizes the dangers faced by Trimbach and the handful of poorly-armed Agents left exposed at the emergency roadblock on Big Foot Trail.
"Trimbach's explanation of what it was like to initially approach the militants the first morning of the takeover, unarmed, is juxtaposed with Trimbach's fourth meeting with the militants, once the media had arrived to film it. This distortion minimizes the danger Trimbach faced, since the militants had already fired at FBI Agents, responding Indian firemen, and Indian policemen the night of the takeover. Footage of the fourth encounter does not reflect the reality of the first; it does not show the small group of angry riflemen, all aiming their weapons at Trimbach at close range, as he alone walked up to the barricade. The militants were much better behaved when the cameras were rolling. 'Wounded Knee' constantly showcases the staged, on-camera behavior of the militants to distort the reality of what was happening.
"Film narrative: 'After stripping bare the Wounded Knee Trading Post, the village's only store, the protesters took over a local church, holding the minister and other white residents hostage.' In fact, the majority of hostages were enrolled members of various tribes. The film fails to mention that the militants later burned the Trading Post to the ground and that the hostages were threatened and intimidated into making complimentary statements about their captors when the media was present and the cameras were filming. 'Wounded Knee' completely papers over the fact that the captives were always under duress.
"Film narrative: 'When traditional Oglalas challenged corruption in the tribal government, Dick Wilson responded with force.' 'Wounded Knee' repeatedly demonizes Tribal Chairman Dick Wilson with charges of corruption and strong-arm tactics but fails to report that Wilson initially supported AIM until they looted the BIA building in Washington, D.C. After that incident, during which Indian land deeds were lost and destroyed, Wilson warned Means not to bring the violence back home. 'Wounded Knee' also fails to report that Wilson and his family, under death threats from AIM, were placed under protective custody on February 23, 1973, four days before the takeover of the village. The record shows that much of the violence that engulfed the reservation following the occupation of Wounded Knee was in fact instigated by AIM members, not the Wilson administration. The U.S. Justice Department investigated over 50 allegations of civil rights violations against the tribal chairman and found evidence of possible wrongdoing in only a few cases. Some of those incidents were likely instigated by AIM members. The film does not mention that the Wilson administration was audited by the accounting firm of Touche, Ross, & Company and that no serious wrongdoing of any kind was found. Additionally, Wilson's 'Goons' [Guardians of the Oglala Nation], much maligned in the film, were in fact a legally sanctioned group created for the express purpose of protecting tribal buildings from AIM violence. It is fair to say that Wilson's Goons came into existence to oppose Russell Means's AIM goons.
"Film narrative: 'Prompted by the dissidents, the tribal council held impeachment hearings in February, 1973. But Wilson intimidated witnesses, strong-armed council members and managed to survive.' This statement is read while showing a newspaper article that contradicts this statement. The narrative also fails to mention that Russell Means and his AIM recruits intimidated and terrorized people far more than Wilson and his deputized 'Goons.'
"Film narrative: 'Just weeks before the occupation of Wounded Knee, a white man killed an Indian near Custer, South Dakota, fifty miles from Pine Ridge.' This statement leaves the impression that the Indian was an innocent victim. In fact, the Indian involved was beating another man to death with a tire chain outside a bar in Buffalo Gap. The third man intervened with a pocket knife and inadvertently nicked the assailant's aorta. This incident led to the Custer riot. By failing to mention the details of this death, PBS plays right into the hands of AIM propagandists."
"Film narrative: 'Not only was Dick Wilson still firmly in charge, he would exact revenge on his opponents as the federal government looked the other way . . . In the three years following the siege, two FBI Agents and more than 60 AIM supporters were killed, giving Pine Ridge the highest per capita murder rate in the country.' Even when juxtaposed with Dick Wilson's bravado, these statements are false and inflammatory. The FBI investigated all murders that fell within their jurisdiction. The myth that 60 AIM supporters were killed is nothing but off-the-shelf AIM disinformation. This falsehood has been repeatedly exposed as such and has been rebutted in an FBI report. Some of the listed victims were children who died from abuse or adults who died from exposure after intoxication. Some of the genuine AIM victims were likely murdered by AIM members. Repeating this lie about 60 murders is a despicable attempt to excuse AIM violence and exonerate the guilty. Furthermore, a U.S. District Court found that there was no evidence that the FBI failed to investigate alleged abuses of non-AIM members. Upon examining these cases, the Court stated that the case files did not ' . . . reveal a lack of investigatory effort on the part of the FBI towards non-AIM members, nor do they indicate a failure to prosecute once meaningful evidence had been discovered . . . the evidence simply does not show that the efforts of the government to limit criminal conduct and to bring the perpetrators of it to justice have been discriminatorily directed at the AIM faction.' Parroting the lie that the federal government 'looked the other way' serves no purpose other than to deceive the viewing audience, promote disrespect for law enforcement, and further the lies of AIM leaders.
"Film narrative: 'The Oglalas had exhausted all legal options' in response to 'Wilson's harassment and intimidation.' This statement, offered as fact, is specious. AIM had committed dozens of illegal acts in the run-up to Wounded Knee. It is dishonest to suggest that the Oglalas had tried all legal options before inviting AIM violence onto the reservation, and it is incorrect to characterize the tension between Russell Means and Dick Wilson as only Wilson's doing. The statement also ignores the dozens of tribal programs initiated by Wilson to improve living conditions on the reservation. The film ignores the views of the vast majority of Pine Ridge residents, who resented AIM's intimidation and violence. 'Wounded Knee' also fails to mention that Wilson, who was largely supported by a sometimes contentious tribal council, later defeated his opponent Russell Means in the tribal chairman election.
"Film narrative: 'Government negotiators were uncompromising. They rejected demands to uphold treaty rights and insisted that they were powerless to remove Dick Wilson, regardless of the charges against him, as he was chairman of the sovereign Indian nation.' This statement is false and misleading because treaties require Congressional action: government negotiators are powerless to either uphold or reject treaty rights. Furthermore, the Oglala Sioux tribe had a constitution which governed the rules of impeachment. It is misleading to suggest that government representatives would not allow Wilson to be investigated. In fact, the Wilson administration was investigated by the U.S. Justice Department which later cleared him of the charges alleged by AIM members and supporters.
"Film narrative: 'In the frigid winter of 1890, Chief Big Foot was leading a group of Lakota, mainly women and children, to shelter on the Pine Ridge Reservation. On the morning of December 29, they were attacked by the U.S. Army on the banks of Wounded Knee Creek.' This statement is blatantly false and misleading. On December 28, Chief Big Foot surrendered under a white flag to Major Whitside and his troops. Whitside elected to lead Big Foot and his people to a site near Wounded Knee Creek. The gun battle erupted the next morning after the Indians refused to give up their weapons. There were casualties on both sides. There is ample factual material in the Congressional record which tells the story of what really happened at Wounded Knee Creek in 1890. There is no justification for inventing details of this historic event."
]]>But first, there was something else of interest that unfolded this week: Two of the stories that were awarded Pulitzer Prizes on Monday — one for Local Reporting and another for Investigative Reporting — had also been the focus of ombudsman columns.
One of two Pulitzers awarded for best local reporting went to Ryan Gabrielson and Paul Giblin of the East Valley Tribune in Mesa, Ariz., for a series last year that took an in-depth look at the activities of the popular sheriff of Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, who takes a tough line on illegal immigration. That newspaper series became the basis for a report by PBS's investigative documentary program "Expose: America's Investigative Reports" that, in turn, figured prominently in a broadcast just last month (March 27) on NOW, the weekly public affairs program. Sheriff Joe has lots of supporters, and critics as well, and many of each turned up in the Ombudsman's Mailbag on April 2 along with an assessment (positive) of the program from my perspective.
The Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting went to David Barstow of The New York Times for a pair of stories detailing the circumstances surrounding the appearance on television of many retired, high-ranking military officers as "military analysts," especially during the run-up to the Iraq War and beyond. The first article, published on April 20, 2008, was the crucial one; a lengthy, in-depth, front-page story that profiled the background and, in several cases, business and Pentagon connections, of 17 retired officers who have appeared, sometimes quite frequently, on CNN, FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC and, in one case, NPR. Although PBS was not mentioned in the Times article, I wrote about it at the time because four of those officers had also appeared occasionally on PBS.
PBS, as it turned out, did rather well because the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, as usual, paired these officers with others who took an opposing view. The NewsHour also did better than others at reporting the various connections. One of the things I noted in that column was that, despite the power and front-page prominence of the Times story, "as far as I can tell, none of the major networks followed up on the story even though it went right to the heart of how they operate on a significant issue."
I mention this because I happened to be watching the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams on Monday evening (I watch the NewsHour earlier) after the Pulitzers were announced, and there was, again, no mention of the award to Barstow, even though it is among the most prestigious of the awards and many of those analysts have appeared on NBC. Williams did take note that Eugene Robinson, a Washington Post columnist and frequent guest on NBC's sister cable-channel MSNBC, was awarded the Pulitzer for commentary. If there were an ombudsman at NBC, or any of the other major television news channels for that matter, a good question to have asked of management would have been: Why no mention of the Pulitzer to Barstow? The NewsHour did mention the investigative award briefly on Monday evening as an introduction to a longer segment on what was happening to investigative reporting in the midst of the crisis in the newspaper business.
According to Salon's Glenn Greenwald, NBC was not alone on Monday evening. He said that as far as he could tell "no other major television news outlet implicated by Barstow's story mentioned his award."
Now, back to the letters.
The writer from Boston [quoted at length in last week's ombudsman's column] seems to be spouting a bit of his own propaganda. What are such people afraid of? He certainly is not capable of seeing the all important "two sides of the argument" that is so touted these days. I'm sure that mantra serves to educate, especially in the case of the uneducated, but it is certainly what journalists strive for.
I've been watching World Focus and noted the coverage from Al Jazeera with interest as I had read about the AJ English when it started up. I specifically subscribe to Direct TV so that I can get Link TV, which includes Mosaic. I think the best way to be informed, short of travel to these areas, is to watch other countries' news programs presented in English. I often watch the DW news and am an old friend of the BBC from whom I subscribe to a number of daily and weekly podcasts.
The person from Boston has his own agenda just as surely as does Fox News, and neither is "fair" or "balanced" by common journalistic standards. Boston has political views that are negative to the Arab world and that is known as bias. So it seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Thank you for making the distinction about the World Focus program not being produced by PBS and how it is obtained. I didn't realize that. This came up with the fundraising infomercials as well. I hope you can see that people tend to think that anything on PBS is from, well, PBS. Having said that I don't think the fact that PBS doesn't produce a program means that they can be absolved from criticism of a program. I guess that's why they have you!
As usual, Fox has made "much ado about nothing" and I think you are being very fair to give the Boston reader as much time and space as you did — very fair. I, for one, would like to see more Al Jazeera and will have a look at the website; but then I once furtively checked out Mein Kampf from the library — not because I admire Hitler or because I felt I needed "both sides of the argument" on genocide, but because I simply wanted to read a primary source of such delusional thinking. I suppose Boston reader would reprimand the library for having this book on the shelf — or burn it!
Janet Camp, Milwaukee, WI
I read the Fox News trash about WorldFocus airing Al Jazeera English stories and want to let you know that as a loyal viewer of the program I completely support them using these reports on their broadcasts. The stories that I have seen by AJE are top-notch and it's important that WorldFocus continue to carry content from this partner since most cable operators in the United States do not carry the channel. This censorship by the large cable companies should be the object of a protest by the general public.
I appreciate you standing by WorldFocus and supporting their attempts to broaden Americans' horizons by airing world news from a variety of perspectives.
Charlie Remy, Gorham, ME
I read Al Jazeera on-line and watch Al-Jazeera English nightly. While I do not agree with the views of some of the people they interview concerning extremism and other Middle East topics, the same can be said of any US network I might watch as well. I have found the network to be very balanced and present true, neutral reporting on issues. The network's recent documentary on the Israeli-Egyptian Camp David Peace Accords, "A Cold Peace," was excellent. Al Jazeera English is doing something the news entertainment folks in the US are not: keeping themselves out of their stories. That's professional journalism.
Dave M., Tampa, FL
While I am not a fan of censorship and I defend your right to broadcast propaganda like Al Jazeera, I don't think public funding should support it. I don't appreciate my tax dollars going to support an anti-American agent of disinformation. And the fact that President Obama chose to give them an interview doesn't speak well for him or elevate Al Jazeera in my esteem.
Joanne Jones, New York, NY
(Ombudsman's Note: According to Marc Rosenwasser, executive producer of Worldfocus, "So far, the show is being paid for exclusively through private funding.")
Are you kidding me? PBS is using Al Jazeera as a news source? What are you people thinking??? Even if extremist ideology is not always spewed, we do not need a sympathetic view of those hate-filled, terrorist supporting people! I am offended and will no longer be a PBS supporter. Where is your love of country . . . our country?
Robin L., Saginaw, TX
With what you say about Al Jazeera I can concur. I just wish I could receive it daily as e-mail as I do 4-5 other newspapers that are both on paper or online or only the latter. I don't read it regularly mostly because I forget to access it or I am out of time. What I have read there has been no more slanted than what I find on PBS or New York Times. At least there I get some details of what is going on in the Middle East without Israel getting all out of shape if it's not favorable to them. I also find the Palestine Chronicle to do a good job of covering all the Islamic countries and their attitudes toward what we/US are or should be or not be doing. Al Jazeera is no more propagandistic than our major papers. More of your viewers and readers of this and PBS should take a few minutes and access Al Jazeera online. They even let you sign in to access it more easily the next time.
Patricia Wilson, San Jose, CA
I have watched al Jazeera on the web a number of times and think that most Americans should have the opportunity to learn about as many points of view as they can find in order to understand what is going on throughout the world. Being limited to only US sources will lead to simplistic (and erroneous) views of the world. Don't Americans trust themselves any longer to hear all points of view before making a decision?
Tillie Krieger, Eugene, OR
Your choice to incorporate Al Jazeera as a news source/partner is a troublesome matter. Islam is notorious in its use of disinformation in its 1400 year campaign against non-Moslems and Al Jazeera is but one branch of this practice. May I suggest you send independent teams from the US to the Moslem world to get a less biased perspective on the views of people in those areas. Al Jazeera is no less politicized than Fox, probably more so. It is inappropriate and unnecessary to say the least that our tax dollars should be spent on incorporating the Islamic-sympathetic viewpoint of a vehicle such as Al Jazeera.
D. Hannon, Los Angeles, CA
I am glad that PBS was able to include Al Jazeera footage or audio to expand the reporting they do or are able to include through various shows and programs. I wish there was MORE variety in the information presented on PBS more of the time. As far as information from Al Jazeera goes, I find it has more factual reporting included than most of the mainstream media channels available in the U.S. And I have to say it definitely has no more propaganda, and possibly less, than one sees on U.S. channels that are commonly available. So: please continue to expand the sources of information you access to help U.S. citizens and residents be able to accurately and knowledgeably relate to, and engage with, the rest of the world. That's what PBS and NPR are there to do, I hope.
Boise, ID
I read with great interest your response concerning what has transpired vis-à-vis "Sick Around America". Thank you for clarifying what occurred surrounding the film and subsequent on-line discussions, etc. I do have one question for PBS: Since you interviewed Karen Ignagni in the film, why did you not interview individuals representing other perspectives such as someone from Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP)? There are other proposals for improving our health care insurance system that should, in all fairness, be included in this type of film. I, personally, am an advocate of a single-payer type of system, but I really wonder why it is that we have traditionally taken an idea or ideas from varying sources and created an improved "product," yet we do not seem to be able to do so with our health care insurance system. To answer my own question: because we (the USA) have a for-profit system for health care coverage, and those companies (health insurance and pharmaceutical, for example) that stand to loose their profits don't want to kill their "golden goose." One other thing, why is it that a medication developed and produced here in the USA can be purchased more cheaply from Canada? (At least that is my understanding of this situation.) Is it because the Canadian government subsidizes its pharmacies?
Again, thank you for what you do for PBS and the American public.
Chuck Killingsworth, Pittsburg, KS
Thank you for your excellent critique of the feedback from the public and Frontline's response to the program "Sick Around America". Is there a way that the issues raised around this program can be publicly aired, either by editorializing in a major publication or by pressuring Frontline to do another program on the subject that looks more directly at the political and economic interests at play in this mess? It is good to know PBS has an ombudsman!
Nancy Galland, Stockton Springs, ME
"But there is then a tricky line that requires reporters not to become advocates." So very true, and a line so often stepped across in today's 24-hour news cycle media. In 55 years as a reporter/editor, it was a line — no, a wall — I insisted on vigilantly protecting. Another excellent report. Thank you.
Dennis Anderson, McMinnville, OR
]]>Although only four people wrote to me, and all of the e-mails appeared to have come from viewers who had seen the FOX News story rather than the public broadcasting program involved, the episode is interesting because it raises issues of censorship and propaganda.
What follows are some excerpts from the April 8 FOX News report and broadcast and a response from the producer of the program called Worldfocus, which was the subject of the FOX News report. Then comes a letter from a person in Boston (who asked that his name not be used) that encapsulates the arguments against the use, on occasion, of film and reports from Al Jazeera English (AJE), the English-language off-shoot of the original Arabic language TV network, along with clips from many other international news organizations on the program. Worldfocus, which started seven months ago, is a half-hour, five-nights-a-week program of global news.
I also stick my two cents in at the end, but I should say at the beginning that I do not agree with the critics on this one.
The story was introduced online this way: "PBS' new program, WorldFocus, airs international reports from Al Jazeera's English channel, leading some lawmakers to declare that PBS, which is partly funded by taxpayer dollars, should not be promoting Al Jazeera."
Correspondent Shawn then reported: "Al Jazeera television is known for airing Islamic extremist videos and even hosted an on-air birthday celebration for convicted Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar who murdered four Israelis in 1979. 'It is a professional institution but it is a militant institution that wants to convey an ideological Jihadi message,' said Walid Phares, a terrorism analyst for FOX News.
"Critics charge that the Jihadist message now is making its way to public broadcasting in America. PBS' new program, WorldFocus, airs international reports from Al Jazeera's English channel — one of many foreign broadcasters, like England's ITN and Israel's Channel 10, included in the newscast.
"But according to some in Congress, there is little difference between Al Jazeera's networks that broadcast in Arabic or English and, they say, PBS, which is partially funded by taxpayer dollars, is recklessly promoting Al Jazeera by airing the segments.
"'My concern is that the American people should be pretty darn upset about the fact that their tax dollars are going to fund this,' said Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C. 'I mean, they're already upset about what their tax dollars are going to fund, and now they're funding propaganda.'"
The program then reported that "WorldFocus declined an interview on its use of Al Jazeera reports but sent a statement," and included portions of that statement in the news broadcast. I won't repeat them here because they are printed in full below.
I have three quick points to interject here:
First, the story says "according to some in Congress," but there is only one person quoted, Rep. Myrick. I have no doubt that there are others who would object if they were told anything with Al Jazeera in the name was appearing on U.S. television, let alone PBS. But the segment, as broadcast, leaves me wondering whether even Rep. Myrick knew about this or had ever seen the program or, rather, was told about it by the reporter and asked for comment. I don't know that, but that's the way it came across to me.
Second, while a critic of AJE is interviewed, there is no sense that AJE has its defenders in the U.S. press. For example, when David Marash, a veteran U.S. TV correspondent and former substitute host for ABC's "Nightline" program, resigned in March 2008 after less than two years as the first Washington anchor for AJE, he was critical about what he considered at the time to be signs of bias emerging from the network's planning desks in the Doha, Qatar, headquarters when it came to stories about the U.S. But he also told the Columbia Journalism Review that globally "Al Jazeera sets a very, very high reporting standard" and that "in Africa, in Latin America, in the Middle East, in Asia, on Al Jazeera. You see state-of-the-art, world-class reporting . . ."
Third, Worldfocus is not, technically, a PBS program and it is not distributed by PBS. The program is produced by a company named Creative News Group in New York City for WNET.org in New York and presented by WLIW on Long Island, N.Y. Both of those are member stations of PBS but this program is not a part of the core National Program Service of PBS and PBS, as an organization, has nothing to do with it. Rather it is distributed by American Public Television, which is actually older than PBS, and is another source of programming for the nation's public television stations.
Here's the response to the FOX News report by Marc Rosenwasser, executive producer of Worldfocus:
"Al Jazeera English is one of many partners Worldfocus uses to help provide American viewers with a unique perspective on international news. Among the others are Channel 10 of Israel, ITN of Britain, Deutsche Welle of Germany, TV Globo of Brazil, Africa 24, ABC of Australia, Link TV (which is an aggregator of Middle Eastern news channels), the new website Globalpost, the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, ABC and NBC. We also occasionally interview reporters from the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.
"We typically pay our most regular contributors but not occasional partners. We do not pay Al Jazeera English and we have not used packages from the Arabic-language Al Jazeera network. With all contributions from our partners, including Al Jazeera English, we reserve the right to edit content — and we often do.
"Though many people who have not seen Al Jazeera English think of it as a propaganda machine for Islamic extremist causes, much of what it produces is not ideological and much is not even from that part of the world. Certainly, the vast majority of what Worldfocus has aired from AJE has not been ideological at all. Among the pieces we have taken from Al Jazeera this month are features about Tibetan monks living under Chinese rule, the opening of the Syrian stock market, elections in El Salvador, a dispute in Malaysia about what language should be used to teach science and math, Italians no longer visiting their once-favorite vacation destination in Kenya because of the global recession, and the opening of the 'killing fields' genocide trials in Cambodia. Some of these reports come from former American television network correspondents and producers.
"We also believe Al Jazeera English does sometimes offer us and our viewers a unique perspective from various parts of the world where it has access that others don't. During the war in Gaza, we frequently aired reports from Gaza from AJE. We typically paired those reports with reports from our Israeli partner, Channel 10. With that approach, we saw both sides at once. We have also taken a number of spots from Al Jazeera English from Afghanistan, where it has interviewed Islamic militants, and from Pakistan, particularly from the Swat Valley, where the Taliban recently took control from the pro-Western government. We believe there is value in seeing what is going on around the world, even if the news is bad. Ignoring bad news does not make it go away."
"The decision of the PBS program 'Worldfocus' to include material submitted by Al Jazeera English is contrary to PBS' Editorial Standards.
"Mr. Getler, I have seen Al Jazeera English. It is most definitely a propaganda machine for Islamic extremist causes. At the very core of Al Jazeera's mission is its dedication to advancing an Islamic extremist agenda in whatever way it can, including glorification of even the most abhorrent terrorist behavior, as it did in its birthday celebration for Samir Kuntar, who murdered a little girl's unarmed father in front of her, before bashing her brains in with a rifle. Al Jazeera English markets a more subtle, sanitized version of its Islamist propaganda, but it is Islamist propaganda nonetheless.
"Although I personally have never seen Al Jazeera English coverage of any world event that was not stained by its jihadist bias, I will accept that 'much of what it produces is not ideological.' An argument could be made that WorldFocus should therefore accept content from Al Jazeera English, after carefully inspecting that content for evidence of obvious distortion.
"However, I take issue with that argument, and with WorldFocus' assertion that Al Jazeera English offers an otherwise unavailable perspective. The Arab world is large in population, geographic area, and diversity of journalistic sources. There are other Arab media outlets that have not so thoroughly and repeatedly disgraced themselves as propagandists supporting the most vile of extremists. Any perspective that is uniquely offered by Al Jazeera is virtually guaranteed to be a perspective that stinks of unfairness, inaccuracy, lack of objectivity, and bias. WorldFocus only cheapens itself by relying on a organization that has so thoroughly demonstrated its contempt for journalistic integrity in the past."
When I asked Rosenwasser about this letter specifically, he said: "The only thing I would like to add [to his previous statement] is: Our partnership with the 'Mosaic' program of Link TV enables us to get reports from other Arab broadcasters besides Al Jazeera English. In fact, we air these regularly. So Al Jazeera English is hardly our only supplier from that part of the world."
As I said near the top of this column, I don't agree with the critics about this program. I think it is a plus for American viewers to see and understand what is on Al Jazeera English, and that viewers of public broadcasting are quite able to make up their own minds about whether what they are watching has news value or is propaganda. Worldfocus, as its producer points out, uses material from many news organizations and reserves the right to edit content.
Al Jazeera's pioneering Arabic-language satellite news channel (it started in 1996) has become a huge factor in the Arab world. Tens of millions of people watch it. It dwarfs any other Arab channel, both in audience and coverage. Long gone are the days when Western giants such as CNN and the BBC had a monopoly on international viewers and the prism through which they got the news. It seems to me that it helps Americans to have some idea of what millions of other people are watching and how the news is presented to them.
Al Jazeera does view things through an Arab world prism because that is its main audience. And it also focuses heavily on the civilian costs of war — whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or Gaza. So its filming and reporting became valuable from these regions, even if, at times, they are hard to look at. Yet it is better to know this as part of the mix of reporting, in my view, and to absorb it in context with all the ways we get information, than to have only the often sanitized version of warfare that one gets on American network television.
It is difficult to be precise about the size of Al Jazeera English's audience, but it has been estimated at more than 80 million households. More than a half-million Israeli households receive it. AJE, however, has had very little success in penetrating American television and cable distribution companies, which is another story, although it can be watched on the Web.
The tiny and wealthy Persian Gulf country of Qatar, where Al Jazeera is headquartered and gets its financial support from the government there, is actually fairly pro-American, with the United States maintaining a military base outside the capital city of Doha. The news service's top editor has said the network gives far more coverage to the U.S. than it gives to radical Muslim movements and that, "We do not support al-Qaeda's policies. Al Jazeera tries to cover all sides in the U.S. conflict with al-Qaeda. It attempts to balance stories by giving both points of view." Its reporters and camera crews have been kicked out of, or harassed in, many Arab countries.
Although the Bush administration was a harsh critic of Al Jazeera, many of its top officials were interviewed by the network, and last year AJE broadcast an extensive interview with U.S. Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was the first Arab network to broadcast interviews with Israeli officials.
It was a topic of considerable press coverage in January when a newly inaugurated Barack Obama gave his first major TV interview of any kind, as president, to another Arab network, Al Arabiya, even though it reaches a considerably smaller audience than Al Jazeera. Perhaps the White House felt it didn't want to touch, at this point, the lightning rod that is Al Jazeera in some of American public opinion. The questioning the president got from Al Arabiya was quite polite. There were no questions about the just-ended fighting in Gaza, for example.
Al Arabiya, operating out of the nearby United Arab Emirates, was founded in 2003 as something of a more moderate voice than Al Jazeera. But it, too, has its funding linked to government; in this case it is the Saudi Arabian government-controlled Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC) that is the major part-owner. So take your pick.
The real test of intense and graphic coverage for these relatively new networks will come, it seems to me, when there is new conflict within the Arab and Muslim worlds, as happened during the long Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and when Saddam Hussein used gas against Kurds in Halabja in 1988 and when he invaded Kuwait in 1990.
]]>Well, the criticism didn't stop there. It escalated and then exploded, producing another round of critical mail and a serious journalistic dispute. To understand this, you need to first have the equivalent of a theater's Playbill with a cast of characters.
First, there is the single-payer system. This describes a system in which there is a single payer, or source of money, to pay doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. That source is usually the government, as in systems in Australia and Canada, and the Medicare system for seniors in the U.S. Advocates believe this is a good way to deliver universal health care and that it has many advantages. A bill (H.R. 676) proposing this, with more than 60 co-sponsors, has been introduced in the House of Representatives. Opinion polls suggest it has a fair amount of support, but the Obama administration does not appear to favor it.
Second, there is Russell Mokhiber. He is editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter, a newsletter that appears both in print and online. On April 2, he wrote an online column on that site headlined "Something Is Rotten at PBS" that was sharply critical of Frontline's broadcast. Mokhiber's article was picked up by several other Web sites, among them CounterPunch, Crooks and Liars and Atheo News. It was Mokhiber's article that provoked much of the follow-up criticism and mail.
Mokhiber was identified on those Web sites and others as editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter. But he is also an activist and founder of an organization known as Single Payer Action, which describes itself as a "national non-profit . . . seeking to implement a single-payer health insurance system in the United States," a "Medicare for all" style program.
Mokhiber's article attacking Frontline did appear on the Single Payer Action site, but without a full byline. Some other sites that picked up the article, such as Common Dreams and OpEdNews, did identify him with both organizations. I mention this because a number of sites that used or referred to the article did not call attention to his association with the advocacy group.
Next comes the man who wasn't there, T. R. Reid. Here, I pause for a bit of full disclosure. Reid is a friend and former colleague at The Washington Post. Reid is a reporter and author who also, in recent years, has focused on the health care issue and has done two previous films with Frontline, "A Second Opinion" and "Sick Around the World," which was the precursor to the current production and which emphasized that several major countries outside the U.S. with good health care coverage did not allow for-profit health insurance companies to sell basic medical coverage. He had also been working on "Sick Around America."
But Mokhiber, aside from criticizing the Frontline program, also reported that Reid "was cut out of the film when it aired this week," even though "Reid did the reporting for the film." Mokhiber wrote that the film "didn't present Reid's bottom line for health care reform — don't let health insurance companies profit from selling basic health insurance . . . Instead, the film that aired Monday pushed the view that Americans be required to purchase health insurance from for-profit companies."
Mokhiber accused Frontline of having "a deceptive segment [involving an interview with Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans] that totally got wrong the lesson of Reid's previous documentary." Other countries do not require citizens buy health insurance from for-profit health insurance companies, Mokhiber wrote. "In some countries like Germany and Japan, citizens are required to buy health insurance, but from non-profit, heavily-regulated insurance companies. And other countries, like the UK and Canada, don't require citizens to buy insurance. Instead, citizens are covered as a birthright — by a single government payer in Canada, or by a national health system in the UK. The producers of the Frontline piece had a point of view — they wanted to keep the for-profit health insurance companies in the game," he claimed.
Mokhiber then quotes Reid as saying: "We spent months shooting that film. I was the correspondent. We did our last interview on January 6. The producers went to Boston and made the documentary. About late February I saw it for the first time. And I told them I disagreed with it. They listened to me, but they didn't want to change it."
Reid has a book coming out on this subject this summer titled "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care."
"I said to them — mandating for-profit insurance is not the lesson from other countries in the world," Reid said. "I said I'm not going to be in a film that contradicts my previous film and my book. They said — I had to be in the film because I was under contract. I insisted that I couldn't be. And we parted ways."
"Doctors, hospitals, nurses, labs can all be for-profit," Reid said, according to Mokhiber. "But the payment system has to be non-profit. All the other countries have agreed on that. We are the only one that allows health insurance companies to make a profit. You can't allow a profit to be made on the basic package of health insurance."
"I don't think they (Frontline) deliberately got it wrong, but they got it wrong," Reid said, adding that "it's perfectly reasonable for people to disagree about health policy." But Mokhiber then concluded: "It might be perfectly reasonable for people to disagree about health policy. But it's not perfectly reasonable to mislead the American people on national television in the middle of a health care crises when Congress is shaping legislation that will mean life or death for the for-profit health insurance industry."
As I mentioned earlier, the widely reproduced Mokhiber article produced a second round of critical mail. I asked both Frontline and Reid for more details about their differences, and those are included below, along with a sampling of the letters to me from either viewers or advocates.
But at this point, I'd like to inject my reactions.
My initial reaction to the broadcast, as a lay viewer, was that this was a not-very-controversial documentation of horror stories about how bad our existing mixture of health care coverage can be for many people, and how good it can be for some others — if you happen to work for Microsoft, for example, which has excellent health care benefits for its employees. The program seemed, on the one hand, to be recording, with Frontline's usual dose of drama and expertise, something very timely but also something that we all already know. Yet it didn't tell me anything that I didn't know, although it did use phrases, such as "guaranteed issue" that I hadn't heard before and confused me.
So I actually did not think much more about the program until the first round of critical letters began arriving from those taking strong exception to the omission of any mention of the single-payer system.
As I looked further into this, I was struck by a couple of things. The program, itself, was largely ignored by television critics in major newspapers, perhaps a reflection that it had little impact and few, if any, new insights. The one large paper that I saw that did review it was the Los Angeles Times, and reviewer Mary McNamara concluded by saying that the broadcast "remains very hazy, offering scattershot examples of a far too familiar problem and very little in the way of solutions, or even hope." I thought that said it rather well, although this review also never mentioned single-payer.
A much more critical and extensive review was found in the Columbia Journalism Review. Writer Trudy Lieberman described it as a "limp, flat journalistic effort that did nothing to help the public understand the current politics of health reform." In the end, she said, "it just made for a confusing and unfulfilling hour of television, and made me think that Frontline missed an opportunity to say something meaningful and new about the topic at hand."
In that review, as well, there was no specific mention of "single-payer," although its concept was described. As I looked further, I found a brief but fascinating study last month by the media watchdog group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) that documented how rarely major newspaper or broadcast or cable television stories actually mention the idea of a single-payer system as a part of the national dialogue, despite considerable support in polls and among a fair number in Congress. Only 18 out of hundreds of stories surveyed in one week dealing with health care reform mentioned it.
So, belatedly, I find myself in agreement with those who wrote initially and who felt it was a missed opportunity by Frontline to shed some light on where this specific idea — clearly telegraphed in the previous program about how other countries do it, enjoying some level of popular and professional support and formalized in a bill before Congress — stood in today's political environment.
As for the dispute over Reid's in and then out status, here is what Frontline most recently had to say to me in response to Reid's comments as reported by Mokhiber.
"FRONTLINE takes a strongly different view of the characterization of its editorial disagreement with T.R. Reid as presented by Mr. Reid and Russell Mokhiber in the recent blog entry, 'Something is rotten at PBS.'
"That blog entry describes the dispute about FRONTLINE's 'Sick Around America' as a disagreement about the correct health care policy for the United States and says that FRONTLINE 'had a point of view — they wanted to keep the for-profit health insurance companies in the game.' Those claims are not true and falsely characterize the reporting in the film.
"'Sick Around America,' in fact, made no assertions about the path health care reform should take, but simply reported on the current state of health insurance in the country, focusing primarily on how inadequacies in the current private health insurance system, both for-profit and non-profit companies, were negatively impacting many Americans. Our reporting revealed that both non-profit and for-profit insurance companies were concerned with keeping costs down and maximizing their market share. As a result both write policies that can be changed yearly based on the experience of the particular business in the case of employer-based coverage and both use medical underwriting (in all but five states) to reduce the number of sick or potentially sick individuals they cover. Both employ the practice of rescission, as we reported."
The Frontline response, at this point, goes on to challenge what it calls Mokhiber's "erroneous critique" of one portion of the film involving Karen Ignagni. That can be read online, along with this whole response, on Frontline's Web site but it is omitted here for space reasons.
"FRONTLINE sees the dispute with Mr. Reid as one not about for-profit vs. non-profit health insurance or health care policy, but instead about journalism. The dispute with Mr. Reid centered on a decision to include a section on the recent attempts by Massachusetts to reform its health care system. Mr. Reid objected to the inclusion of Massachusetts, the only state to require its citizens to purchase health insurance, and to require insurance companies to sell them policies with an adequate standard of coverage.
"Reid repeatedly told FRONTLINE that including Massachusetts in the program at all, was to advocate for that kind of reform as opposed to Reid's preference of a 'Medicare for all,' one-payer system for the entire country. FRONTLINE's position was that simply reporting on the state's plan was not advocacy and, in fact, our reporting would focus not only on the benefits, but also on the problems with the Massachusetts plan. We think any objective viewing of that sequence in 'Sick around America' will confirm FRONTLINE's view that it was a piece of reporting not advocacy.
"Editorial disagreements are common in the making of documentary films, but for more than twenty five years, FRONTLINE has been able to find a way to resolve those differences with a wide variety of producing and reporting teams. We were surprised to be unable to find consensus with Mr. Reid and found him resistant to working through the problems with us. He refused to travel to Boston to conduct a critical interview with the Massachusetts Secretary of Health or to have requested face-to-face meetings on his editorial differences with the FRONTLINE team. Instead, Mr. Reid demanded that he be completely removed from the film and FRONTLINE reluctantly honored his request."
"We would also note that on March 17, just three weeks after he asked to be removed from the film, a Denver magazine reported that T.R. Reid said he was interested it being appointed to a vacant seat in the Colorado House of Representatives, citing that his concerns about health care reform in the U.S. were 'enough to push him from the reporting side over to the policy-making side. And he thinks Colorado would be a perfect testing ground.' FRONTLINE's editorial guidelines explicitly state that 'when working on any politically controversial programs the producer [or correspondent] should engage in no personal political activities . . . and should not lobby for or against any specific piece of legislation.'
"In the end, FRONTLINE believes the dispute centered on a conflict between FRONTLINE's journalistic commitment to fair and nuanced reporting and its aversion to policy advocacy and Mr. Reid's commitment to advocacy for specific health care policy reforms, for positions he apparently advocates in his forthcoming book.
"One last point: Mr. Mokhiber writes that Mr. Reid 'did the reporting for the film.' In fact, as is true in most FRONTLINE films, virtually all of the detailed reporting for 'Sick Around America' was conducted by the film's producer, Jon Palfreman, and his co-producer Kate McMahon. Mr. Reid consulted with Mr. Palfreman and conducted some of the interviews. However, Mr. Palfreman conducted many of the other interviews in the film. As is always the case, this was a collaborative journalistic effort. We regret that the collaboration had such an unfortunate conclusion."
Here's what Reid had to say to me:
"Since 2006, I've been working on a book that explains how other rich countries manage to provide universal health coverage but spend half as much as we do. People are listening to me, because I've done more reporting than just about anybody when it comes to foreign health care systems. FRONTLINE made two good films of me reporting this book: 'A Second Opinion,' and 'Sick Around the World.' We worked well together, and the producers listened to me on health policy issues.
"I thought that would be the pattern on 'Sick Around America' as well. But the producer, Prof. Jon Palfreman [he's a professor of broadcast journalism at the University of Oregon], wrote the film without consulting me. He and Mike Sullivan spent weeks editing the film without consulting me. When I finally saw their product, about mid-February, I told them it was wrong as a matter of health policy. In late Feb., I wrote a revised script. Rejected. I then proposed 16 specific changes to the Palfreman script. Rejected. On Feb. 21, I suggested we delay the broadcast so that we could fix the problems with the film. Rejected.
"My position — as you've seen in the news stories — is that 'it's perfectly legitimate to disagree on health policy.' But it wasn't legit to make me appear in a film that I disagreed with. Eventually David Fanning, the boss of FRONTLINE, called me from China to say I would not have to appear if I disagreed with the film. I was grateful for that, although it leaves me with nothing to show for months of hard work.
"I admire the people at FRONTLINE. But I'm less sympathetic than perhaps I should be about the bad reviews and harsh criticism they've received for 'Sick Around America'. That's because I warned FRONTLINE about the reaction they'd get if they broadcast the film they had made behind my back. I told them that if they wanted to consider health-care solutions, they ought to mention several approaches including Medicare for all, single-payer, and the John McCain consumer-driven model. They refused. The only solution they mentioned was mandating people into private insurance. So I don't think the problems with this film are my fault.
"I was struck by one of the explanations that FRONTLINE posted on the web site for 'Sick Around America' in response to all the criticism. It says: 'America's for-profit medical system means that insurers have a fiscal duty to avoid risk and make profits for investors. Thus, insuring people who already have serious, chronic illnesses works against the interests of stockholders.' That thought comes right out of the script I wrote for the film; but it's not in the film.
"I'm amazed at the long, angry screed FRONTLINE has posted as its 'extended response.' A lot of it seems factually wrong to me. There's no point trying to correct everything. But one point is important: Contrary to what the 'extended response' says, I don't see 'Medicare for all' as the solution to our health care mess. Instead, I'm looking for a politically viable route to the goal of universal coverage at reasonable cost."
It seems to me that the best solution here would have been for Frontline to resolve this by interviewing Reid for the program (although I have no idea if both sides would have agreed), thereby taking advantage of his reporting and allowing leeway for the conclusions that could be drawn from that reporting.
One, of course, can't get into the head of producer Jon Palfreman or the Frontline team to know if, deep down, there was some bias at work when it came to their views or Reid's views and any would-be solution to the medical care issue. Palfreman was the producer of the earlier "Sick Around the World" with Reid as correspondent and co-writer and that seemed to work.
I did not come away from this program, however, feeling that Frontline had somehow sold-out to the for-profit health insurance companies. Maybe as a lay viewer, I missed the subtleties. But years of watching Frontline does not suggest to me that they are soft on special interests. On the other hand, as independent critics have said, and I agree with, this program was indeed less impressive that what one has come to expect of Frontline and missed an opportunity to carry viewers forward in their thinking and understanding. My guess is that if a way had been found to keep Reid involved he would have sharpened the content and value of the program.
As for my friend (I hope that is still a fact) Tom Reid, I think he emerges in this post-broadcast episode as a reporter who, after years of reporting, has some clear views about achieving universal health care in this country. That is not unusual for any journalist who drills into any subject long enough. But there is then a tricky line that requires reporters not to become advocates. My guess is that the evolution of Reid's reporting-based views, along with the forthcoming book and the quest for that seat in the Colorado House of Representatives (not successful), tipped him over that line and into that reporter/advocate status. That would be a legitimate problem for Frontline. Or it could be an excuse. Let's hope that it was the former and that's all there was to this.
Concerning Frontline's program Sick Around America, I am very distressed at the biased perspective presented by Frontline and by PBS in favor of keeping for-profit health insurance companies in the game.
It is my understanding that PBS had asked T.R. Reid to make this documentary as a follow-up to his outstanding Sick Around the World. Then after he'd done all the work you excluded his bottom-line perspective when the show aired — namely, that the U.S. should not let health insurance companies profit from selling basic health coverage. The only perspective you showed was that of Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, lobbyist for the industry.
It is both appalling and highly unreasonable for PBS and Frontline to mislead the American people on national TV by purposely disallowing Reid's point of view. Single Payer health care, which has saved me and so many others senior citizens and which COULD cover everybody, deserves full presentation and consideration as Congress approaches decisions in this crisis situation.
Mary B. Strauss, Oakland, CA
I'm writing to protest the shameless, pro-insurance corporation bias in your presentation — or should I say "infomercial" (complete with industry talking heads) "Sick Around America." PBS manipulatively doctored T.R. Reid's carefully documented investigation and conclusion, favoring a single payer, not-for-profit health insurance system, to favor exactly the contrary point of view. Thus, you are continuing the grand old tradition of "embedded" corporate media of shutting out points of view that don't square with the "acceptable" (i.e., corporate) parameters of debate.
The "only" solution is to disband the for-profit health insurance industry and institute a government-run, single payer, not-for-profit system of health care, such as that implemented in the UK, Canada, and elsewhere. Contrary to your mendacious presentation, in most countries where health care is a public right, purchase is not mandated, but rather health care is assured as an entitlement.
Michael Friedman, Hewlett, NY
Regarding Ms. Wright's "explanation" for the complete exclusion of "single payer" in the recent Frontline "Sick Around America:" Mr. Reid filmed and narrated "Sick Around The World" last year and it was a great success. According to FAIR and Corporate Crime Reporter, Mr. Reid had a contract with Frontline and helped film it but was not allowed to air his conclusions. Frontline claims that he was biased. It sounds like he quit because he was being muzzled. Ms. Wright's explanation was weak at best. I still did not hear why there was no mention of "single payer" in concept, which smacks of biased reporting. Frontline has let the public down. I used to have more respect for the program.
Portland, ME
Why was the "documentary" Sick Around the World, presented on Frontline, missing the voice of the gatherer of the information, reporter T. R. Reid? Why was his material re-directed with misinformation which enhanced the health insurance industry in a false manner? Why should I support PBS when you are pandering to corporate sponsors via the last administration's illusory machinations?
Mary S. Reader, Middletown, NY
Your "Sick Around America" seemed to be intentionally cooked to push the insurance based healthcare system and mandates for insurance and corporate welfare. You did not even mention single payer and mischaracterized other plans in other countries. How disappointing, if not malevolent.
Ed Cloonan, Munhall, PA
I strongly believe PBS owes the public an explanation (as well as one to T.R. Reid) on why single-payer and a not-for-profit basic healthcare package isn't the healthiest alternative for the sick system we have now, which "insures" that profits will be first over people's health. Shareholders' profits are not more important that people living and dying!! PBS needs to address this grievous error and omission as soon as possible if it is to truly represent the public good.
Bremerton, WA
]]>Viewer response to two programs dominated the mailbag this week. Most of the mail and certainly the strongest sentiments - all of them critical - focused on last Friday's (March 27) broadcast on NOW about "one of the most controversial figures in the illegal immigration debate," Joe Arpaio, the Sheriff of Arizona's huge Maricopa County, roughly 100 miles north of the border with Mexico.*
Sheriff Joe, as he is called is both controversial and very popular. He's been the county's chief law enforcement officer for more than 16 years. He takes a hard line on enforcement of immigration laws and is vocal in defending himself and his actions against his critics. But has the sheriff, as NOW asks at the start of the program, "crossed the line when it comes to serving and protecting his community? Some critics have accused him of racial profiling."
The program opens with a segment contributed by NOW's colleagues at "Expose: America's Investigative Reports," a PBS documentary series featuring high-impact investigative journalism. In this case it was based upon a five-part series, originally published in July, 2008, by a team of reporters at the local East Valley Tribune, near Phoenix, that took a look at what Sheriff Arpaio was doing in the name of law enforcement.
Illegal immigration is a huge and emotional topic, doubly so for those communities that live with it close-up and feel the full range of its impact. So it is not surprising that emotions run high. The Expose segment, however, was well-reported and well-documented, in my view; solid journalism with all sides represented and no punches pulled. The NOW program also noted that the newspaper, in November 2008, reported that three Federal agencies - Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the FBI and the Government Accountability Office - were also examining the sheriff department's immigration enforcement practices. Investigations are just that; investigations, not findings. So this story isn't over and some follow-up for NOW viewers would seem necessary.
Much of the criticism of the program that came to me alleged bias and a one-sided approach, and much of that seemed focused on the segment following the Expose portion. That segment involved an interview with Arpaio by NOW Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa, who followed up and homed-in on the newspaper's findings. This was one of the more intense interview segments I've seen on public television. Hinojosa is clearly of Latino heritage. As I listened to the program, twice, I found the questioning to be challenging, at times aggressive, yet proper, considering that this is a tough subject and a tough sheriff. My sense was that those same questions would have been asked in the same manner by an interviewer on CBS's "60 Minutes."
And she was persistent, which was definitely required, especially in getting at one of the pivotal points raised in the Expose segment: that of 669 people arrested by the Sheriff's special units, 665 of them were Latinos, most stopped for traffic violations. Yet there were no records to be found or seen of other people stopped for traffic violations.
When I asked NOW senior producer John Siceloff if the program was going to respond to the criticism, he said that the e-mails that had been received by the program thus far "have not challenged the factual content of the broadcast. They are opinions, often fiercely expressed, about immigration, legal and illegal." The NOW online home page for this program does have a very large number of reactions from viewers on all sides of this issue and is well worth reading.
When I asked if NOW has done, or is planning to do, a program on the impact of illegal immigration on these border communities, Siceloff cited these earlier programs: Attacking Affirmative Action (August 29, 2008), The Border Fence (August 15, 2008), Immigration on Main Street (October 19, 2007), Alien Nation (September 29, 2006), Be Our Guest (May 26, 2006), and Latinos Today: A National Conversation (May 12, 2006), and added that: "We are planning a program on the intersection of immigration with the economic recession and jobs."
What follows, first, are the viewer comments on NOW's "The People's Sheriff." Then come letters about Frontline's "Sick in America" broadcast, followed by a response from Frontline to the viewer comments.
I viewed your documentary/interview with Joe Arpaio this evening. First let me say I disliked immensely the interviewer, Ms. Chavez. It was clear to viewers in general that perhaps her ethnic origin gave way to her nasty look and disposition towards Joe and the side of the fence she obviously is aligned on are racist against those of us that have had it with illegal immigrants feeling they are entitled to our American benefits and freedoms. Enforcing our laws regarding the illegal aliens has dropped our crime rates and the statistics she gave are old statistics and do not reflect the drastic reduction in crimes and the opening job markets to our citizens. Joe Arpaio gets more votes than any politician running and is in the 80 percentage area. Get your ideals back on the side and support of our laws here and we all may live a better future here. I know my kids will if every one had a just Sheriff like Joe.
Richard Schultz, Surprise, AZ
Again PBS with the show NOW shows its contempt for The United States of America, from which it requests donations. The Sheriff enforces the law on illegal immigration and guess what, all white people are racists. Your "journalist" asked the Sheriff about statistics and response times to crimes, and insinuated it was racism. Of course no statistics were presented by her on who was committing the crimes: ethnically. Her whole point was racism but no stats on who commits crimes. I wonder if Sheriff did not have to respond to illegal alien law enforcement if response time to other crimes would improve. Ms. Hinojosa is obviously an ethnocentrist to her own race, she always take pride in pointing out others racism but never observes herself. If she were an American rather than a Latino as she likes to say, maybe she could see things better. Americans are American in the USA no matter what race or ethnicity. PBS can't see that. You know if a lot of "latinos" are arrested on our southern border that is because Mexico is not Sweden. That is geography not racism. I do not pledge to PBS because it always hates the USA. We have done more, for the most, at greatest cost than any nation in history, yet PBS just hates America which created and supports it.
Thonotosassa, FL
Your coverage of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ, was totally unfair to Mr. Arpaio. Particularly the interview by Maria who obviously is one of the supporters of illegals in this country. The reality in our Texas cities, as in other states, is that illegals are draining our taxpayer resources while undercutting our standard of living. This is not a "racist" statement as grant-funded screechers keep repeating in their hysterics. It is a fact. No amount of data manipulation by anyone can change that reality. PBS needs to be more objective lest you lose your credibility.
Rodolfo Quijano, San Antonio, TX
I just watched a segment on a Sheriff in Arizona. The subject matter was very intriguing, which is why I watched it. However, early into the show it was very apparent that the reporting and the media were biased and had an agenda. Obviously!!! I strongly disagree with this being able to be aired. I feel it should have been pre-viewed and then rejected because it was biased and lacked a balanced view.
Chris Rutter, Eureka, CA
I just watched the PBS interview "The People's Sheriff" of Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa interviewing Joe Arpaio. I must say I was really disappointed in her biased questioning. She should watch the old McNeil/Lehrer hour news shows and see how interviewing should be done. However it was very apparent which side of the issue she was taking. I commend Joe for not loosing his cool. Maria you're not a reporter you're an activist.
Mekoots Yasim, Sacramento, CA
I think Chief Arpaio should head up our border patrol and be allowed to do it as he has proven he is capable of. We can't keep hiding the problem, drugs and illegals. Your reporter believes the press and not honesty.
Latrobe, PA
The story about Sheriff Joe was very one-sided. Every incident in history can be construed in various ways if you bend facts as was this case. We need more people like Joe or our country will fall into ruin, and be the playground of the very far left idiots.
Winnemucca, NV
I just watched your NOW show on Sheriff Joe. It was ridiculously one-sided, as usual. You might have mentioned that since he was re-elected, maybe what he is doing, enforcing the laws on the books, is what his constituents want him to do. I don't think PBS is a constituent. Also, you never mentioned what percentage of the population, illegal and legal, are Hispanic. You guys never want to look at the reality of the situation. The illegals are coming in and committing crimes in these border areas. That is why they are arrested. Why don't you focus on trying to get a good bill passed to handle the problems that already exist here?. I suggest you might want to interview George Bush. I happen to agree with what he wants to do about immigration. But, I also believe we need to enforce our laws about immigration that are on the books now, and about drug users and sellers. How can you be so biased and oh ...never mind. You aren't listening anyway.
Joan Secrest, Sanibel, FL
I question the approach of PBS with respect to Sheriff Joe in AZ. I was in AZ in early February 2009 for one week. To say out of 669 people, 665 were Latino and were illegal is misleading. What would you expect on the Mexican/US Border? Driving from Mesa AZ to Tucson, and I-19 you often see groups of people under small trees along I-10/I-19. Without knowing too much, I would think these are the persons who were not picked up by INS/or Border Patrol and are illegal. I was stopped on Country Club Road in Mesa because my rental car had no license plate. I did not get a ticket, and had to show my rental agreement and NYS Drivers license. What is wrong with this? If someone has no license, defective lights at night, and is illegal why not get arrested!
Kenneth Weissman, NYC, NY
I just finished watching "Border Control" spotlighting the activities of Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Maricopa County, AZ. I live in NJ and I applaud his efforts. However, I must admit this show was so biased against the Sheriff I have a had time believing it wasn't funded by La Raza. I thought PBS had higher standards in what they air. Obviously, I'm wrong on that issue. However, I firmly believe people who enter our country illegally should be hunted down and locked up. The show failed to mention how many crimes are committed in that county by illegals. So what if the vast majority have Hispanic names. It's not profiling, it's a statement of fact. Arizona is located in our southern border, not northern. Which ethic group do you think is coming across illegally the most at that location? Unbelievable! It's hard to believe the Tribune, described as a local paper, could not report/find one good thing to say about the Sheriff. I wonder why that is? They failed to mention any discussions about or investigation into the Sheriff's staff retention records. If the Sheriff was making his deputies break the law as the Tribune would want you to believe, why didn't they investigate the officers or determine the turn over ratio as compared to other departments. Like I said in the beginning - a very biased reporting job and it didn't belong on PBS.
John Laudenslager, Sewell, NJ
Shame on PBS! How dare you shield illegal behavior? American cities need more sheriffs like Joe Arpaio who is a loyal and responsible American.
D. Linker, Brooklyn, NY
I saw the Frontline program, "Sick in America" last night and was disgusted. Not one mention of the concept of "single payer." I would like to know from the producer why the very concept wasn't even discussed. I'd suggest he talk with the California Nurses Association or bring up HR 676 with Congressman Conyers.
E. Rivers, Portland, ME
Just watched Frontline's "Sick in America." What a misleading portrayal of the healthcare alternatives. References to other country's healthcare made it sound like they require each individual to buy health insurance. There was no, NO, mention of the only viable health coverage alternative-- SINGLE PAYER-- that is, indeed, the coverage those others countries provide at a cost through taxes much less than are totally inadequate coverage in USA. I am very disappointed. Frontline usually presents a very hard hitting look at its subject matter. This one was basically saying yes things are bad but let the insurance companies fix them and make the actual providers and recipients of health care be the scapegoats.
Stephen Vernon, Albany, CA
I just watched with interest your program on healthcare in America. I am appalled that the program failed to represent the only real solution to affordable health care for all: the single-payer system. Only when this country removes the insurance companies, who siphon 30% off healthcare dollars for their profits, and whose interests are served by denying care, will we achieve a workable universal system. Government run healthcare is more efficient and cost effective and has proven successful throughout the developed world.
Judith Gardner, Durham, NH
I just viewed Sick in America on Frontline. There was serious misinformation presented re: the coverage people in other countries receive and a serious omission re: the remedy for the high administrative costs of health insurers in the USA. In other countries, health care is publicly funded, directly out of tax revenues and all citizens are covered that way as in Gt. Britain or France. The program states that all citizens in other countries are mandated to have coverage. It is their governments in the name of their people who mandate coverage for all and pay for it so no one goes without coverage. There may be private insurers but the mandate is PUBLIC.
That leads to the program's serious omission of the difference in administrative costs even with the high health care costs this country demonstrates. The Medicare program has administrative costs of 3 percent compared to the private insurers, 15 per cent or more. Those numbers were NEVER cited. Nor was the broad based support by our citizens for a single payer, publicly administered universal health plan as proposed in HR 676. Medicare for All. Just the way Obama left this out of his health care summit (until forced by citizens' protests to include it), Frontline failed to include single payer in the discussion of reform.
Nancy Goldner, Brooklyn, NY
The Frontline program "Sick in America" failed to inform in a fundamental way that most of the industrial world provides universal health insurance and comprehensive medical care for their citizens. The single payer model that eliminates the insurance industry is a viable solution that has been widely supported in polls of the public done in the US and by many experts and numerous political leaders. The program provided the usual banal recital of individual troubles without exploring the real political questions of power, corporate interest, and industry lobbying the have prevented any needed changes in the US. It was a sorry and shameful betrayal of the Frontline tradition of audacious journalism. I had looked forward to the program. I regret that it proved to be an incredible waste of public television funds as well as my time!
Schenectady, NY
Here's a response to viewers offered by Frontline Story Editor Catherine Wright:
"We have heard from a number of viewers who found fault with the program for not discussing the solutions to the healthcare crisis in this country, and in particular the single payer system. It's an important part of any examination of the healthcare system and how it can be improved; it perhaps merits a program all its own. Alas, even in an hour on television, we cannot cover in detail or enough depth every part of such a large and important story. We would like to point out that we did examine how the single payer system works in many European countries in our program last season, "Sick Around the World," and how other countries have managed to establish universal healthcare for their citizens (though struggle even now to control the costs of healthcare). You can view this program on our web site here.
"We believe that our report this week, "Sick Around America," was equally of value in focusing on our current private health insurance system and showing how many Americans are only one or two events away from financial disaster or total ruin because they can't afford this insurance, or because it offers inadequate coverage, or because it suddenly can be rescinded by the insurer for alleged omissions or errors. We also felt it important in this report to look at another major problem with the private insurance system: America's for-profit medical system means that insurers have a fiscal duty to avoid risk and make profits for investors. Thus, insuring people who already have serious, chronic illnesses works against the interests of stockholders. The healthcare system in this country is a broad and important subject, and one we will likely return to in the future."
*Correction: The original version of this column described Maricopa County as bordering Mexico.
But the issue hasn't gone away and so it is time to repeat some of the earlier points I've made, and viewers have made, and to ask PBS in stronger terms to clarify to viewers its role in some of the productions that appear on many PBS-affiliated member stations around the country during pledge drives and that ask people to contribute to their local stations and perhaps buy products associated with these pledge programs.
The focus of critical viewer attention this time is an hour-long program called "The UltraMind Solution." It is based on a book of the same name by Dr. Mark Hyman that also carries the subtitle: "Fix Your Broken Brain by Healing Your Body First." The last time I wrote about the pledge issue was the May 15, 2008 column, and it was based on an earlier program called "Change Your Brain, Change Your Life" featuring Dr. Daniel G. Amen, who is described in promotional material as a "best-selling author, psychiatrist and brain-imaging specialist."
There are lots of similarities. The promotion material for the program featuring Hyman is also described as "based on the best-selling, highly acclaimed book." Both the Hyman and Amen programs are distributed by the Executive Program Services, which is not PBS. EPS describes itself as "a major supplier of quality programming to Public Television Stations across the nation" and is "headed by two former PBS programming executives, Alan Foster and Dick Hanratty." First the Amen program, and now the Hyman program, have also both come in for sharp criticism by another physician, Dr. Robert Burton, the former chief of neurology at Mount Zion-UCSF Hospital.
Dr. Burton also happens to be a medical columnist for Salon.com and so his quarrels with both the medical claims in these programs and the lack of vetting or review by either local stations or PBS became much higher profile and undoubtedly spawned even more letters to the ombudsman. And, as in the earlier case and to its credit, Salon.com has also printed rebuttals to Burton, most recently by Hyman.
My role here, as in the earlier case, is not to judge the science or the medical qualities. I recommend reading the exchanges on Salon.com.
As I have pointed out many times, PBS member stations are all independent; they can run whatever they want, aside from programs distributed by PBS. And since these are member stations, there is no PBS policy requiring them to vet these other programs. But I do think that PBS and the member stations are failing to fulfill an obligation to viewers to make absolutely clear — in unmistakable ways either visually on screen or spoken — that these are not PBS programs, that PBS does not vet them or distribute them. This would seem pretty easy to do, and pretty obvious when it would seem necessary.
This is vitally important, in my view, because it is very clear from any routine scanning of online material by member stations that viewers and readers can easily feel this is PBS and all the trust that goes with that. Virginia Public Television, for example, advertises the $365 package of items linked to Dr. Hyman's program as "exclusive to public television." A sponsor of the pledge program, Immuno Laboratories, publishes on its Web site the times and broadcast dates nationwide when "PBS will be showing The UltraMind Solution with Dr. Mark Hyman." It appears that hundreds of stations use this and similar programs.
Whatever the values or flaws of these programs, when they appear on local PBS-member stations, along with the other accompanying material I just cited, viewers have a right to be told that this does not mean it has some PBS seal of approval that conveys the kind of confidence in content that PBS seeks to insure and promote.
Dr. Burton also wrote to me asking a string of questions for PBS management about PBS's role. What follows are his questions, with answers supplied by Joseph A. Campbell, vice president of fundraising programming.
Q — Does the producer of the program pay the station to have his program aired? If so, what is the arrangement, and does it vary from station to station?
A — Producers do not pay the station to air a program. It would violate FCC regulations. PBS provides members stations with over 100 hours of pledge programming each year. Stations that wish to air this programming pay dues to receive the full slate of content that they schedule at their own discretion. There is no per-program fee for PBS content. There are other sources of pledge programming, such as American Public Television, Executive Program Service, among others. PBS does not determine the practices or procedures of other pledge program suppliers.
Q — Is there any overall PBS set of guidelines as to how such programs are purchased?
A — PBS member stations are independently owned and operated and are entitled to acquire programs that fit their needs.
Q — How is the money paid to the local stations actually dispersed? Does the program producer get a percentage, or does he/she donate the program to the station? In short, does the producer get any percentage of the pledge donation, either directly, or as part of the proceeds of the DVDs, books, etc. that are being sold?
A — Individual contributions are retained in their entirety by the individual stations to support local operations. As stated above, PBS provides members stations with over 100 hours of pledge programming each year. Stations that wish to air this programming pay dues to receive the full slate of content that they schedule at their own discretion. There is no per-program fee for PBS content. By donating to a PBS station, people become members. The stations use that revenue for their operations and membership dues to PBS.
As for the thank you gifts used with PBS programs, the items are provided by individual companies that sell the premiums directly to stations. The producer benefits from the sale of the premiums to stations. These shows are often negatively financed, so the proceeds go toward recouping the producer's investment.
Q — I realize that PBS has washed its hands of any responsibility for what programs can be aired on pledge night, but it is important for viewers and potential contributors to know whether PBS takes any advisory role in how programming is screened/funded and where the viewer's pledge dollar goes.
A — PBS stands behind all of the programs it provides for local stations. However, PBS is not the only source of programming for public television, so we simply cannot speak to programs that we do not distribute. It is important to remember that PBS is a membership organization, not a network of affiliates owned and operated by single corporation. Our mission is to provide content and technical services to member stations that are wholly independent, locally operated entities.
PBS's editorial standards are posted on our Web site and apply to all the content distributed by PBS. Public television is comprised of many independent organizations of which PBS in only one. Public broadcasting in this nation was designed to be locally autonomous and decentralized so that it could reflect a wide variety of voices and points of view and be responsive to the individual communities that it serves.
Robert Burton's article "PBS's latest infomercial" (Salon, 12 March 2009) is right on the mark. When will PBS take some action against the use of the PBS name and logo for the promotion of pseudoscientific rubbish and quackery?
I have just read again your columns "The Lone Rangers" (30 January 2006), "Pledging Allegiance, or March Madness" (24 March 2006) and "Caution: That Program May Not Be From PBS" (15 May 2008). The last of these columns suggests that you are unaware that some local stations show the PBS logo continuously, in the lower-right corner of the screen display, during the broadcasting of infomercials. And when the local stations' hucksters ask for donations in return for the trashy books and other merchandise that the infomercials promote, the hucksters often refer explicitly to PBS and deliberately lead viewers to believe that the infomercials are PBS products. ("This marvelous program about using superfoods to boost your reading speed, enlarge your sex organs, and achieve spiritual wonderfulness is another example of the great programming that you get from PBS.")
You needn't tell me, Mr. Getler, that local stations aren't supposed to do these things. I know that. And I am telling you that they do it anyway. I have noted your explanations of the relations between PBS and its local affiliates, and I understand that PBS cannot dictate the local stations' programming. Even so, I think that PBS can do some things to mitigate the exploitation of its name, its logo, its constituency and its credibility by unscrupulous stations that will say or do anything to get money. At minimum, PBS can establish and publicize a Web page that will identify, and warn viewers against, the infomercials that unscrupulous affiliated stations are using.
There are other things that PBS can do, but a Web page would be a good, inexpensive beginning. I am sure that viewers who care about PBS, its reputation and its fortunes would help by quickly reporting to PBS the introduction of new infomercials into the program schedules of local PBS affiliates.
William J. Bennetta, Petaluma, CA
Here's Joseph Campbell's response: "The on-air logo used by stations during primetime programming is a co-branded 'bug' that includes both the local station's brand as well as the PBS symbol. This is a reflection of the local-national structure of PBS.
"Our stations are not affiliates of PBS, rather they are members. They work in partnership with PBS to bring their community a wide variety of programming. While much of this programming comes from PBS, not all of it does. This is not unlike a commercial network station airing a syndicated program while still using the network's identifiers.
"Each PBS station is a locally owned, locally operated entity. Nearly 40 years of experience, as well as our research, shows us that each station has its own distinctive identity in its community and that viewers understand that what they see on the air is the result of the station's independent decisions."
I resent the fact that PBS uses the infomercial of Dr. Mark Hyman during its fund-raising. He doesn't say anything different than other physicians about improving and maintaining good health (eat right, get regular exercise, reduce stress) until the section on needing to take supplements — obviously ones from which he receives a kickback.
During the same time segment of the fund raising which featured Dr. Hyman, a PBS spokesman talked about how PBS is trusted by 2.5x more people than trust commercial television — I lose my trust when it promotes someone like Dr. Hyman. Why not have a panel discussion of trusted physicians/researchers from the National Institutes of Health providing evidenced-based guidelines — even commercial television does that?
Fairway, KS
As a science teacher it is important for me to have reliable science-based resources to use in my classroom. I have, in the past, relied on creative and interesting PBS programming to inform and inspire my students. This is why I find it particularly disturbing that you are allowing non-science based programming, essentially infomercials promoting alternative based "therapies" and new age ideology, to run on your stations without so much as a disclaimer that these programs are not PBS productions. This issue was brought to my attention by Dr. Harriet Hall, a skeptical blogger and writer who understands, respects and uses the methods of science. Surely there is better programming that can be brought in to finance PBS. While this would be preferred, a disclaimer would be the minimum I would expect. Please do not continue to jeopardize the trust your audience has in your station.
G. Payne, Delta
The following was also sent to my local affiliate WOSU: I know that times are tough and that you are looking for ways to generate pledges while reducing costs but you have gone too far. The dramatic increase over the last couple years of infomercial programming has now put you on par with late night cable. Whatever you think the PBS brand stands for, please understand that every time you air these inane book/DVD hawking ramblings you erode the foundation of PBS.
Look at your own statement on standards.
Now look at last Saturday's programming: Ed Slott's Stay Rich for Life; Magnificent Mind at Any Age with Dr. Daniel Amen; Suze Orman: Women & Money; UltraMind Solution With Dr. Mark Hyman; You: Inner and Outer Beauty With Dr. Michael Roizen; Be Well Now! With Nancy Snyderman, MD
Not a single one of these 'programs' can even come close to meeting your set standards of Editorial Integrity and Quality. The 'medical' content is horrific — not a shred of meaningful, peer-reviewed science in any of it. PBS is better than this. PBS is NOVA, Charlie Rose, Masterpiece Theater, This Old House, Mr Rogers, Jim Lehrer, New Yankee, etc.
Paul Rothrock, Columbus, OH
Please stop airing the infomercials about "Doctors" and self-help gurus selling books about how (with the help of their book) life can be so much better. These seem to always be linked to fundraising. I will not financially support PBS as long as these "educational" programs are part of the program offerings. And yes, I am one of the minority of viewers who do financially support public broadcasting. I do believe this is a question of editorial integrity.
Lincoln, NE
Re: UltraMind Solution: Defeat Depression, Overcome Anxiety and Sharpen Your Mind with Mark Hyman, M.D.
I was shocked, shocked that the local PBS affiliate, KPBS, would run this piece of medical charlatanism at all and especially as a fundraiser. Anyone can cite unsupported antidotal evidence as a claim for great medical insight. Let him support his assertions with a peer-reviewed journal article, in a respected medical journal, before permitting him access to the public airwaves.
His medical recommendations are mainly benign but dangerous in implying that dementia, Alzheimer's and ADD can all be "cured" with the simplistic remedies that he is pushing with his book and DVD through appearances on PBS. What has the NIH, AMA, etc. to say about his simplistic remedies for these major maladies? I think he should be charged with medical malpractice or, at the very-least, with false and deceptive advertising in knowingly pushing his simplistic solutions to these major complex medical problems.
PBS sponsors many important medical-related contributions, such as WGBH's Nova series, but it totally destroys its credibility with these medical charlatans being presented along side high-quality medical-related programming, such as WGBH produces.
J. Dennis Bender, La Jolla, CA
Pat & Dennis Bender Medical Research Foundation
Well, we're in pledge season again. I read your 2006 comments about the deadly programming and complaints about some of the lecturers. I guess nothing has changed because we just had a rerun of Wayne Dyer. I found his lecture insulting, and wondered about all those rapt faces in the audience. I didn't know there were that many gullible people available.
I've never understood your pledge week options. Mostly they are programs very different from your usual programming. So what are you trying to do? Your regular viewers spend the week watching Netflix movies like we do, and those "new" viewers you attract will be greatly disappointed next week when Nova and Frontline come back on. Why can't the pledge drive be more of what you already do so well, minus the 20 minute "gimmie" breaks, times when you show off your best, rather than cheap stuff that you should be ashamed of?
Linda Carter, Toledo, OH
It's pledge drive time again, and once again, columnists and viewers are questioning the quality of some of the "self-help" gurus that stations are giving pulpits to. I know many of these programs are not "distributed by" PBS but they taint viewers' perceptions of the network.
New York, NY
I'm disturbed by PBS pushing Dr. Daniel Amen's infomercials on local PBS stations. You have not done your due diligence on his claims and methods. My concern arose when I saw my 87 year old mother watching the show and taking notes. She asked me where she could get the supplements he recommended. This is a prescription for disaster. see: http://www.quackwatch.org/06ResearchProjects/amen.html. Didn't Bernard Madoff teach us any lessons about blindly following without questioning?
Frank Genovese, Emerson, NJ
]]>I'll be away from the office from March 10th through the 18th but please keep your e-mails and calls coming. My associate, Marcia Apperson, will be here to deal with some of them and I'll read them all as well when I return.
Here are the letters.
Your title should be Nanny not Ombudsman. I'm only half-kidding. These people (Jewish or otherwise) need to grow up. It's a FICTIONAL story. There are good guys and bad guys of all ethnicities and there are other Semitic peoples than those who practice Judaism. These people took Moyers' [Jan. 9] comments out of context and now they're taking Fagin out of context. This sort of attitude does not help stop anti-Semitism; in fact, it encourages the whiney stereotype. This story was shown a couple of years ago — was there a ruckus then? Jewish people know the story and if they don't want to see stereotyped characters, they shouldn't watch to begin with. Perhaps some discussion of this could have occurred if PBS still had the Alistair Cooke type of introduction.
Janet Camp, Milwaukee, WI
Although I am Jewish, I dislike the prettifying that goes under the name of 'bringing up-to-date' those things that are not current. I don't like re-writing history, or what an author wrote or thought. I accept that Dickens was a writer of the 19th century and I prefer to read him than to see (or be subjected) to a re-write. I also accept Mark Twain as a man of the 19th century and prefer to read him as he wrote and thought and not try to edit, or read what he might have written if writing in the 21st century.
Tillie Krieger, Eugene, OR
Your [Masterpiece official's] excuse regarding Fagin and the PBS production of Oliver Twist was pretty lame. I did not see the production and am only discussing the weak argument you employed. You make it sound as if you were discussing Rod Steiger's sympathetic portrayal of a Jew in the Pawnbroker. You mention Dickens and his second thoughts on how he portrayed the character. But based on what you write, you rationalize why Fagin needed a more cutting edge as a nasty Jew. So, what you are saying is your production company could not follow the simple instructions of the author's wishes, based on documentation he left behind.
Ken Orsholm, Houston, TX
Overreaction is what I'd call the angry letters about Dickens' portrayal of Fagin. After all, it wasn't what PBS tries to convey; it was Dickens, a writer who's been dead for years. I watched the shows, and felt Fagin was almost a nice guy, considering what they might have done. I never gave a minute's thought that the portrayal might have been anti-Semitic.
Michael S., New York, NY
The scene that generated so much reaction near the end of Oliver Twist calls attention to the problem of audiences writing too much into what they see. The critics did not see two individuals, the judge and Fagin, instead they see two representatives of particular religions. Just because the judge is Christian, and I assume by context he is Protestant Christian Church of England, does not mean that he automatically speaks for all Christianity. The judge did not even get his own religious beliefs correct when he implied that Fagin's God and his own were different. They are in fact the same and both religions share much of the same "Old Testament" verses. Actually he may have gotten his "own" beliefs correct, but not the doctrinally correct position of his "Church;" which brings up the point that the judge can address legal matters, but he is not within his jurisdiction to speak to doctrinal issues. This is a district magistrate speaking not for the Pope or even the Queen of England.
Reprehensible characters can profess any religion. Are we to be restricted from giving characters certain religious backgrounds because of oversensitivity to negative portrayals? There are good people and bad people in all religions and more accurately complicated individuals everywhere. Stereotypes take root when the individuality of the character is rejected.
Patrick Stinson, Annandale, VA
(Ombudsman's Note: The letter below refers to a point about Cromwell made in an article in a British newspaper that was quoted in last week's Ombudsman's Column.)
Please allow me a minor correction or two. Oliver Cromwell did not, himself, accomplish the return of the Jews back to England in 1664, centuries after their expulsion in 1290. That would have been difficult for him that year since he died in 1658. Though Cromwell most definitely wanted to "invite" the Jews back to his Avalon, which is widely known. While that movement began under his watch, he never actually put this intention into effect. That was formally accomplished after the restoration of the crown in 1660, under the restored King Charles II, as I understand it.
Nevertheless, the curious affinity of 17th c. Puritans, overcoming centuries of Euro-Anti-Semitism, is fascinating to consider here. Some few English Puritans are even known to have converted to Judaism during Cromwell's time. Cromwell's Puritans were attempting to "purify" their faith in order to get back to its most basic roots. For some few Puritans this process even included conversion to Judaism. Interestingly, New Haven & Guilford, Connecticut, were themselves founded in the late 1630's by ardent Puritans who set-up their government solely on the basis of so-called "Mosaic Law."
Stephen Squires, Storrs, CT
I've been a devoted NewsHour watcher for many years. I am furious with the recent coverage of the Republican Party's obstructionist tactics and efforts to push the United States into economic and political meltdown. Why does PBS give these extremist ideologues so much undeserved coverage? They offer no workable solutions to our country's problems, yet PBS continues to cover their every vile declaration as though they were actually relevant. This coverage should stop until and unless Republicans put forth some solutions more realistic than simply continuing those policies which have been proven failures for the past eight years and longer.
I'm especially disappointed that the NewsHour devoted almost a third of their program tonight (March 3) to Republican infighting without any progressive reaction or response. Why would you do that? Why would you give them so much free time on the NewsHour? These people have essentially destroyed the middle class and have put the future of the United States at severe risk — why are you empowering them by giving them so much coverage?
Please give intellectual progressives more time on PBS. Please stop empowering that small percentage of neocon ideologues who plan to use obstructionist tactics to cause the failure of progressive policies.
New Orleans, LA
In the interest of appearing "fair," it seems that things are going overboard at PBS with respect to presenting the Republican Party/Conservative talk radio point of view regarding the Obama economic recovery program and related issues. These viewpoints are receiving inordinate and unproductive coverage, and have had 8 years of political play that produced national and international disaster on an unprecedented scale. Please make the coverage more congruent with reality, and stop inviting ideologues of the "opposition" who have no credibility. This is "reverse political correctness," and is actually more inappropriate than its namesake. The losers lost, so please do not portray them in the media as the most important purveyors of political responsibility and guidance.
Bill Kinlaw, Hanover, NH
Judy Woodruff's interview of Budget Director Peter Orszag on the NewsHour Thursday, Feb. 26, was dreadful to watch. Your interviewer appeared to have an actual list in front of her of all possible objections to the Obama budget and to be simply reading them off, one by one, without attention to Orszag's answers. In short, it was not 'an interview,' which implies some sense of dialogue, at all, but rather Ms. Woodruff seemed to be presenting what someone had decided was the conservative complaint list — a rant, as it were — without caring at all what Mr. Orszag's responses might be. I expect much more from NewsHour and from PBS.
Highland Park, IL
Tonight on the NewsHour, Judy Woodruff had a disapproving tone throughout her interview with Orszag. She needs to be objective. Woodruff was using Republican spin and harassing questions, e.g. "taking from the rich & giving to the poor" and "redistributing wealth". The way she said it conveyed a bias and an assumption that to stop the super-rich from continuing to abuse their power to redistribute wealth upward is not a good thing to do. Since the topic was "Orszag Outlines Policy & Priorities in Budget Blueprint" Woodruff should have designed her questions to convey an understanding to viewers of just that. I don't think it is her job to amplify & give validity to political attackers such as Senator Judd Gregg.
C N, Colfax, CA
I found her interview with Peter Orszag more of an inquisition than an interview.
Christopher Johnson, Berkeley, CA
I was pleased to hear Judy Woodruff's interview of Secretary Janet Napolitano, especially regarding activities along our border with Mexico, and in particular her comments about the fence. That is no policy, it is a fiasco. Feet on the ground are always more effective. I look forward to an improvement in how our government handles the border situation. I just have to comment on what a pleasure it is to listen to Judy Woodruff's calm, intelligent work.
Olive Lohrengel, Austin, TX
How could PBS not know about the CPAC convention last weekend (Feb. 26-28) in Washington, attended by 8,000 people representing a significant portion of the American people? We are forced to find alternative sources of information to hear about issues we deeply care about.
E & R Shannon, Check, VA
]]>