But a portion of that segment last Friday produced an unexpected amount of heat, rather little light, and a fair amount of letters, several of which are posted below, from viewers startled by the reaction of Shields, in particular. The topic, as raised by senior correspondent Judy Woodruff, was the announcement earlier in the week by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that, as Woodruff put it, "social service providers have to include contraceptives in their health coverage, whatever a group's religious or ethical views are."

Watch Shields, Brooks on Romney's 'Silver Earplugs' on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

This is a complicated subject but there was rather little basic information and explanation provided to help the average viewer before diving into an analysis of it. Rather, what many saw was an uncharacteristic emotional response by the normally even-keeled Shields about how "cataclysmic" the fallout would be for the White House and the president. "Really?" a seemingly surprised Woodruff asked. Then Shields — normally an Obama supporter and stating "I say this as a Catholic" — went on a rather emotional tear, claiming the policy was "indefensible." Brooks agreed, but in a more conservative manner.

In the aftermath of the Friday broadcast, almost 200 comments landed on the program's website. And the NewsHour, I think wisely, decided to follow up on Monday evening with a reported segment on the issue with health correspondent Betty Ann Bowser. That helped, but frankly I think further reporting is needed on exactly what is in the new policy, what institutions are exempt, and what it will mean in real terms. Sebelius, perhaps trying to shed more light as controversy grew over the policy, wrote a brief op-ed piece for USATODAY.com on Feb. 6 titled "Contraception rule respects religion."

On that same Feb. 3 program, Brooks said he thought the administration's policy announcement, upsetting many Catholics and evangelicals, was "the most under-reported story of many months." That is proving to be a wise observation. The press coverage and commentary have clearly intensified since the program. And, as it turns out, the case of the exercised columnists may not have been as excessive as it seemed to some at the time. By Tuesday, the Associated Press was reporting hints of a compromise by the White House. Surprise.

The Other Letting Off of Steam

Several of the letters about the Shields and Brooks discussion are next.

But posted below those is a very long exchange about a Frontline documentary on Jan. 17 titled "Nuclear Aftershocks" that examined the broad impact of the earthquake/tsunami-stricken Japanese nuclear facility at Fukushima last year.

The New York Times' blog Dot Earth gave the program a good review, but several viewers wrote to me who were critical of it.

This, also, is not an easy subject and many of the letters were extremely long. I sent a representative few of them to Frontline to get a response and chose one of the more comprehensive critical letters to post in this mailbag, along with the response.

First, About Those Commentators

I have always listened to Mark Shields and David Brooks with their incredible comity discuss issues that split us apart as Democrats and Republicans. In particular, I have always felt that Mr. Shields has one of the most remarkable pundit minds on the current scene. That view had to be revised when I heard Shields declaim in support of the Catholic Church and its Bishops demanding that the Obama administration retract its demand that Catholic health organizations be required to support birth control.

I was raised in the Catholic Church. Their pretense of helping the "poorest of us" always struck me as ludicrous when there was a pompous Pope living in luxury, while he demanded that the poor have as many babies as possible. Contraception is about aiding women in poverty to escape their poor conditions. Mark Shields needs to rethink his position.

Tim Ryan, San Jose, CA

~ ~ ~

I appreciate that Brooks and Shields are supposed to provide balance on hot political issues, but the system did not work on Friday Feb 3 regarding contraception. What a surprise to find that Mark Shields is a fundamentalist Catholic opposed to universal access to birth control. On this issue, you should find someone else to provide balance. Aside from airing his personnel convictions on the matter, he failed to describe accurately the important nuances in the administration's position. This lost PBS some credibility.

Ronald Smith, North Haven, CT

~ ~ ~

Check what Brooks and Shields as well as the moderator said Friday about the HHS rule for insurance coverage for religious organizations. They all parroted what Gingrich has said on the subject: all religious institutions must provide contraceptive counseling etc. PolitiFact has ranked Gingrich's statements mostly untrue because the HHS rule provides an exception for churches (but not for church hospitals and schools with employees of other beliefs). The tone on Friday was that Obama has made a massive, inexplicable mistake (Obama's Waterloo, like Romney etc.). A discussion over whether the exemption should also apply to church-owned schools and hospitals would be enlightening and interesting. The misleading "analysis by Brooks and Shields" on Friday hurt the integrity of the News Hour.

Dan Curll, Alstead, NH

~ ~ ~

I would like to speak out about the conversation between David Brooks and Mark Shields regarding Catholics and the Obama decision and health requirement to provide birth control in insurance . . . give us a break; a long harangue with NO factual data. As a Catholic woman, I'd like PBS to remind that 98% of American women use birth control, including CATHOLICS. Mark was way off base . . . and just wrong about Catholics, and the amount of time was Not at all appropriate. Brooks happily agreed it was so wrong of Obama. I turned you off. First time in 50 years!

Naples, FL

Not for Men Only

Please send this comment to Judy Woodruff and Mark Shields/David Brooks: Yesterday's discussion of the alleged betrayal by Pres. Obama of Catholics was one sided: You should have had a woman, preferably Catholic, in that discussion. Does Mark Shields seriously think that Catholic women don't need (and use) birth control from the employer-based health insurance? 98% of Catholics use birth control! When will this hypocrisy end? Please pass this on to the NewsHour. I don't know how else to contact them.

Helma Lanyi, Washington, DC

~ ~ ~

There is a difference between accepting government funds and then trying to impose special religious standards on the program in question — or simply paying for your own program and then insisting on your special religious ideas. Government has a right to ask for services to be provided without restriction if they pay the bill.

Gwynedd, PA

~ ~ ~

Last evening, both David Brooks and Mark Shields criticized the decision by President Obama to require church-affiliated institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception, and it concerned me as well. However, today I received an email from Mitch Stewart of BarackObama.com indicating that "There will be an exemption for churches who mainly employ and serve members of their own faith. But to make sure women of all faiths can get the care they need, other religious-based institutions that serve the general public will be included in this new law." In addition he stated that ". . . these rules will also cover the 'conscience clause,' meaning no doctor will be forced to prescribe contraception." With these exemptions, I fully support President Obama's decision and wonder if Mr. Brooks and Mr. Shields were aware of these details at the time of their criticism. Should this information change their opinion, I hope that they comment on this the next time they appear or in some other public manner.

Lois Tigay, Montclair, NJ

A Tough Issue

This is an extremely difficult issue, and in theory we don't want to force anyone to provide a service that they find to be immoral — as a health care professional, I don't want to be in this position. But this issue cannot be discussed with integrity unless one adds two facts: (1) Most Catholic health care facilities receive a lot of government money; and (2) the Catholic health care organizations have become such huge actors in the hospital and health care industries that in some communities there simply are no other health care options available. If we are going to permit the Catholic hospitals to take government money and impose their choices about available health care in these communities, we should not have allowed them to take over so much of the health care delivery sector.

Similarly, there are some towns where women cannot buy plan B at any pharmacy. That leaves poor women being expected to take the bus to the nearest large city the day after they are raped. On one level, you can say that Mr. corner pharmacist shouldn't have to offer a product that they find to be immoral and Komen doesn't have to give $ to planned parenthood. But if either Walgreens, the Catholic Church or Komen have enough of a corner on the market, the prohibition is effective even if not official.

It is possible that Mr. Shields does not agree with this position. Or perhaps he thinks that Catholic hospitals should make this available to patients but not be required to provide it to their employees. Either way, the NewsHour neglected to address the issue of either government funding or whether non-Catholic services are available to the women in those communities. Your neglect of that issue makes this purely a political story and utterly neglects the health care dimension. None of this makes this an easy issue and I understand Mr. Shields' feelings, but he should not be "shielded" from these facts.

Los Angeles, CA

~ ~ ~

I watch your news every night and you do a pretty good job until last night [Feb. 6]. On the mandate for catholic institutions to pay for contraception you neglected to tell the public that any institution can forgo the mandate if it decides to stop taking tax money. Catholic charities received $73 million federal tax dollars in 2011. All the Catholic Church cares about is the money not their church principals.

Michael Teply, Chico, CA

On Frontline and Fukushima

Here's the exchange about "Nuclear Aftershocks." Sorry about the length but stuff about this subject has a long half-life. The first letter is from a viewer in Massachusetts. It is followed by a response from Frontline Managing Editor Phillip Bennett.

A 'Few' Points from a Viewer

Horrible. Unbelievable whitewash. Gigantic public disservice. Just a few key points:

• Shoddy work from the get-go — there were 5 plants operating at Fukushima Daiichi, not three. (5 and 6 may also be in trouble.) Also not mentioned that Daini, 7 miles away, has plants in trouble.

• The meltdowns were triggered by the earthquake, not the tsunami; and meltdowns can and do happen by human fault, rather than nature (Three Mile Island, for example).

• TEPCO knew they had 3 meltdowns almost immediately and covered it up for months. Nuclear officials and experts in the US figured it out pretty quickly as well, and by not publicly contradicting TEPCO and media reports, participated in the cover-up.

• NOT true that nuke plants are carbon-free; construction, decommissioning, uranium mining, other support activities are energy and carbon intensive.

• False equivalence made between paid for lies of Giuliani (NOT cheaper, not cleaner) and factual statement of responsible official Andrew Cuomo (siting of the plant was never a good idea in the first place).

• Opponents of Nuclear are made to seem irrational, fearful. Supporters of nuclear technology are given most of the quality time; there are absolutely no renewable energy experts consulted, and none of the many former nuclear industry experts that want all the nukes shut down.

• None of the inherent design flaws and dangers of the GE Mark 1 plants are discussed. Nor is it mentioned that an NRC report recommended that they all be shut down in 1972(!). In 1976 three GE engineers actually publicly resigned in protest. "Gregory Minor, Richard B. Hubbard and Dale G. Bridenbaugh resigned from the division of G.E. that built nuclear reactors in 1976, because they believed "nuclear power presented a profound threat to mankind". All three were managing engineers who had spent most of their working life building reactors, and their defection galvanized anti-nuclear groups across the country."

More from the Critic's Corner

• False impression that the only danger of Indian Point is from an unlikely natural disaster; no mention of the several years it was shut down for egregious safety issues, or the ongoing radiological contamination of groundwater and the Hudson River.

• There was no mention of the spent fuel tanks left exposed to the air by the explosions, no mention that uranium and plutonium became airborne (and have been detected miles from the plant) no mention that the spent fuel pool in 4 probably caught on fire, no mention that there was a nuclear explosion of Unit 3, no mention that the total radiation released so far into air and water is vastly greater than that of Chernobyl (misleadingly only mentioning that the initial release from one of the plants was only 10% of Chernobyl), no mention that the meltdown and release of radiation has continued all these months.

• Irradiation is vastly worse than was reported — MUCH MUCH higher than the figures given, and are continuing to increase; Miles completely fails to mention vast amounts of irradiated food stuffs on land and in the sea; in fact, most of the radiation is in the ocean, and has migrated for thousands of square miles. And meanwhile, people are actually dying from radiation poisoning every day in Japan.

• NOT true that a small increase in radiation has no danger. No amount of radiation is safe, it's cumulative, so more is bad, regardless. Much worse is the false comparison made between external radiation sources (like CAT scans) and internal (ingested or absorbed). IT'S AN OUTRIGHT, EVIL LIE that they are comparable.

• The publicly announced evacuation zone (20km) was vastly smaller than what government officials and other countries (including the US) were told privately. (The US directed US officials and citizens to move at least 80 km from the plant; we now know that Japan shared data with the US government that it withheld from citizens.)

• People in Japan are scared because they've been lied to by TEPCO consistently, and because they're increasing getting sick. Lots of workers and citizens have actually died from radiation poisoning, all of this is being hushed up as much as possible (one Japanese radiation specialist recently told a journalist that a woman publicly complaining about radiation sickness (teeth, nails, and hair falling out, skin blistering) was just a problem of women being overly sensitive to stress. A prominent TV personality who ate irradiated food from areas near Fukushima on the air to show it was safe, was subsequently hospitalized with acute leukemia.

• Also not mentioned — the radiation in the US. Infant mortality in several major US cities has significantly increased as a result. This week it was disclosed (by a Nuke-supporting graduate school) radioactivity in milk in San Francisco has increased from 6 months ago. There is probably severe contamination in Alaska that's being hushed up; dead seals are washing up on shore.

• The Baseload argument is nonsense, and widely debunked. All forms of power generation, and, more importantly, power consumption, are intermittent to varying degrees.

• Nuclear plants aren't being built because they make NO ECONOMIC SENSE. The fact that a single accident can have such catastrophic effects is the nail in the coffin.

• Solar and wind are already cheaper than Nuclear, and are expanding exponentially. Not mentioned in the program is the percentages of power ALREADY gleaned from renewables.

• Nuclear is only going to get even more expensive, because it requires fuel that we're running out of faster than oil at current rates of consumption. Also not mentioned in the program is that almost half of the US supply will end in a couple of years, and then we'll be competing with China, India, and Russia — the pressure to build new plants is coming in large part from energy companies (and commodities traders) looking to make a killing. There's also considerable pressure to restart nuclear weapons manufacturing in the US to "replace aging nuclear weapons".

Frontline's Managing Editor Phil Bennett Responds:

Thank you for your message regarding "Nuclear Aftershocks," which was forwarded to me by Michael Getler, the PBS ombudsman. I have discussed the many points you raise with Jon Palfreman, the film's producer. Mr. Palfreman presented evidence contesting your claims of errors of fact, and offered some of the following arguments to counter your assertions of inaccurate analysis or sloppy reporting:

• There is agreement among the principal accident investigations that only three reactors were operating at Fukushima Dai-ichi on March 11 (the other reactors were shut for refueling and maintenance). The IAEA report, for example, says: "Although all off-site power was lost when the earthquake occurred, the automatic systems at TEPCO's Fukushima Dai-ichi successfully inserted all the control rods into its three operational reactors upon detection of the earthquake, and all available emergency diesel generator power systems were in operation, as designed."

• The claim that "The meltdowns were triggered by the earthquake not the tsunami" is not supported by the reports, which attribute the meltdowns to the loss of emergency back-up power caused by the tsunami. The NRC report, for example, says: "Approximately 40 minutes following the earthquake and shutdown of the operating units, the first large tsunami wave inundated the site followed by multiple additional waves. The estimated height of the tsunami exceeded the site design protection from tsunamis by approximately 8 meters (27 feet). The tsunami resulted in extensive damage to site facilities and a complete loss of ac electrical power at Units 1 through 5, a condition known as station blackout (SBO). Unit 6 retained the function of one of the diesel generators.

• Despite the actions of the operators following the earthquake and tsunami, cooling was lost to the fuel in the Unit 1 reactor after several hours, the Unit 2 reactor after about 71 hours, and the Unit 3 reactor after about 36 hours, resulting in damage to the nuclear fuel shortly after the loss of cooling."

• FRONTLINE identified the General Electric Boiling Water Reactor design in a detailed animation. But there is no evidence as yet that the GE design (including the Mark I containment) was responsible for the accident. It turns out that units 1, 2, and 3 had hardened vents that should have vented the hydrogen. But due to power failures this system did not work.

• The issue of Fukushima Dai-ichi's spent fuel pools turned out to be not as serious as initially thought. Most experts aren't now certain there was a fire in the unit 4 spent fuel pond. The current theory says hydrogen from unit 3, which shared duct work with unit 4, found its way into unit 4 and caused an explosion in that reactor building damaging the spent fuel pool.

• The estimates that the Fukushima radiological release is about 10% of the Chernobyl release come from the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is a very complicated estimate to make as it depends on different radioisotopes with different half-lives.

• Since March 2011, radiation has been tracked by many organizations inside and outside Japan. There is no credible evidence that anyone in Japan has died from Fukushima related radiation exposure. There is also no evidence that radiation released in Japan has led to an increase in infant mortality in the US or to dead seals in Alaska.

• Fukushima's radiological releases caused massive dislocation to the Japanese people, with some losing their homes and others — like fishermen, farmers, and food vendors — having their livelihoods adversely affected. That said, there is no evidence that the radiological releases have been under-reported. The map the viewer encloses (http://jciv.iidj.net/map/) has figures that are in line with the official plume data (http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/). But it's necessary to convert the units for an accurate comparison. The 20 milliSv/yr (thousandths of a sievert per year) evacuation criteria corresponds to 2.28micro Sv/hr (millionths of a sievert/hour) which equals 2283 nanoSv/hr (billionths of a Sievert/hour). To take one example, the map that the viewer encloses measures Iidate Mura Nagadoro Community Center at 4,500 nSv/hr (nanoSv/hour). That is 4.5 µSv/hr (microSv/hour) or about 40 milliSv/yr (above the evacuation threshold). By comparison, the commonly used map of the plume puts the town of Iidate in the 3.8-9.5 microSv/hr zone. So the two maps (and data sets) are quite compatible.

• It's true that some radiological release ended up in the ocean. This was reported in the FRONTLINE film.

• Once a nuclear plant is operational, nuclear reactors generate electricity without greenhouse gases and air pollution. It's true that greenhouse gases are generated before and after the plant is operational. But this is equally true for other forms of energy. Coal plants, gas turbines, wind turbines, hydro plants and solar plants, also produce greenhouse gases during mining, fabrication, construction and decommissioning.

• Regarding the safety record at Indian Point, FRONTLINE was focused on a Fukushima scale accident and concentrated on what we felt were the major safety concerns — seismic preparedness and adequacy of evacuation plans. Indian Point's safety history is not markedly worse than most US reactors.

• Nuclear energy is not cheap, and the high cost of new reactors ($4-6 billion) is one factor limiting its future. But there is no immediate shortage of uranium in the world. There is an estimated five million tons of naturally occurring recoverable uranium. Even with the loss of the Megatons to Megawatts program, at current usage supplies should last 70 years.

If I were king, I'd make fact-checker columns on important issues regular front-page features in major newspapers and on their websites, and advocate for much more near real-time efforts on television news programs than we get now.

There are several organizations that do a good job of this, such as FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. There are links to some of their recent postings in this mailbag. Among newspaper fact checkers, one of my favorites is The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler.

Kessler appeared on the Jan. 25 edition of the PBS NewsHour in a segment with senior correspondent Gwen Ifill that was aimed at fact-checking President Obama's State of the Union speech the night before. That's the right thing to do, but it didn't go well in the opinion of several viewers who wrote to me. Some of their letters are posted below. I didn't think it went particularly well either, so there are some comments by me in a couple of cases.

Earlier this month, I wrote about the continuing reaction of many viewers to what they see as the relentless domination of the evening news for months now by Republican primary politics. That, of course, is indeed news and needs to be covered. But it also presents special challenges, in my opinion, to editors and producers to deal with the impact of such an imbalance.

So, for example, in the Jan. 25 broadcast about the president's speech, there was no fact-checking of the Republican response by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Nor was there any fact-checking earlier, for another example, about Newt Gingrich's widely and often repeated charge that "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history."

FactCheck.org offered critiques of the president's speech, of the Republican response and, earlier this month, the Gingrich claims about the "food stamp president."

Here Are the Letters

What has happened to PBS? I watched Gwen Ifill this evening [Jan. 25]. Commentators, critiquing Obama's SOTU, sat there and not only espoused biased opinions but also blatantly lied about issues discussed — several times — and were never challenged with their veracity by Ifill. Just one example: GM and Ford bailouts. Ford refused bailout money. This was a specific; others were perceptions and opinions. Again, unchallenged. I used to respect PBS — and thought Gwen Ifill should have been picked instead of David Gregory for Meet the Press. Not any more.

Pat A., Royal Palm Beach, FL

(Ombudsman's Note: Several viewers mentioned that Ford did not take any federal funding. Kessler, in answer to a question from Ifill, made the mistake of saying that the Treasury gave assistance "to General Motors and Ford." But about a minute or so later, Ifill interjected that she wanted to correct what had been said and pointed out that it was Chrysler, not Ford, that got bailout money, along with GM.)

~ ~ ~

There was a lot of president bashing tonight, Wednesday, January 25, on the NewsHour. It seemed very unbalanced. Gwen's interview included a tough talking man and a wimpy woman who did not adequately defend the president's positions. Previous to this, the reporter from the Washington paper could criticize, but couldn't recall, what Obama had accomplished. Overall, weak guests!

I watch daily and am frequently impressed with the depth of content and additional perspectives. I love Shields and Brooks, but there are many others like the guys who were on earlier this week talking with Margaret about Syria who are very interesting. Margaret is fantastic, great interviews. You really did Obama dirt tonite, but I bet you can fix it.

Cheryl Quinn, Falmouth, MA

(Ombudsman's Note: Not a good night on television for, in my opinion, the normally very astute and fair Kessler. When Ifill asked for examples of what Kessler said were many things that Obama had proposed in last year's speech that never made it into law, Kessler went blank. I can sympathize with print reporters hit by a surprise question on national television, but it didn't help the cause of fact-checking.)

~ ~ ~

Tell Gwen that it was GM & Chrysler, not Ford that were bailed out. It's also that [billionaire investor Warren] Buffett & other capital-gains people pay less % in taxes, not less $.

Santa Fe, NM

Equal Opportunity Bashing

What has happened to the NewsHour? Tonight you had an expert talking with Gwen and together they cut Obama's speech to death and discussed the truth and mistruth of the speech. But I watched patiently because it was the NewsHour, and I fully expected you to follow it up with a similar dissection of the Republican rebuttals. But you didn't! Thus, you made the president look bad without making his opponents look just as bad. Is there no place left to get an unbiased news perspective? If you cut down the president, then please give equal time to cutting down his opponents!

Nancy H., Austin, TX

~ ~ ~

I am a long time significant financial supporter of PBS and a regular viewer of the NewsHour, which under Jim Lehrer had a history of fairness. I am increasingly irritated at the tilt to the right that is occurring on the NewsHour, especially on the part of Gwen Ifill. Last night's two Ifill pieces about the President were great examples. In the first piece she said she would be fact-checking the President's speech. She then brought on Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, who was not a fact checker but rather a commentator critical of the President. His criticism was echoed by Ms. Ifill, and there was no rebuttal. Then in her second piece she introduced Douglas Holtz-Eakin as an economist, but he presented as a right-wing ideologue weakly countered by an ineffective second guest.

Lloyd Milliken, Indianapolis, IN

~ ~ ~

In assessing the truthfulness of the statements made the night of the state of the union address, I think it would be only fair to have also discussed the remarks of [Republican responder] Mitch Daniels. One item of note that I'm sure to be false is the great number of jobs that the U.S. can attribute to Apple.

Furthermore, Glenn Kessler seems awfully biased. He seemed to suggest that President Obama left Iraq simply to keep a campaign promise; as I understand it many Republicans say that we left as we did, because the Iraqi government would not agree to providing immunity from prosecution to the U.S. troops and a particularly powerful faction apparently wished for us to leave and used this issue to accomplish that.

I also think that he's being obtuse to suggest that providing support to the auto industry necessitates a bailout of its stockholders. The government could do that with any other industry that can be considered of value to the economy, the same thing that the FDIC does with failing banks and what we should have done with all the financial institutions that we did bail out: it can and should take an equity position in a given company, rehabilitate it to what extent possible by the government and see that it is sold to another party to continue operations in a manner agreeable to the long-term interest of the workers and the nation.

He also appears evasive with regard to the comment on Obama's phrase "phony financial profits." Much of the bailout money did go toward payment of bonuses and wasn't used as intended to loosen lending and assist homeowners.

I think that someone could stand to do some fact-checking on his comments regarding the Buffett Rule. He seems to have taken a narrow view of what is to be classified as income when computing the taxes paid by millionaires. I imagine that he excluded capital gains, focused exclusively on ordinary income and probably turned a blind eye to the river of money that finds its way to tax shelters such as the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. When addressing the "Buffett Rule" he should be discussing it within the context of how it has been defined by Warren Buffett. Of course, in this spirit not only income taxes but also payroll taxes should be included in the comparison. You may also note the loophole exploited by Newt Gingrich among others to avoid payment of a significant portion of Medicare portion of FICA through use of an S-Corp in connection with this.

Chicago, IL

PBS, and millions of American viewers, have gone gaga over Downton Abbey, the British period drama set in the years leading up to and in to World War I, and now in its second smash season in this country as part of PBS's Masterpiece Classic. The weekly series is a huge artistic and popular success, more than doubling the number of viewers who normally watch the public broadcaster.

Aside from the tube, Downton Abbey dominates the PBS website, pbs.org, every day, and the press clippings about public broadcasting that are accumulated and distributed internally at PBS daily are also dominated by articles about Downton. I've come to label that The Daily Downton.

Early this month, the New York Times reported on how PBS now "faces the challenge of translating the buzz and enthusiasm for the show into donations to local stations and public financing" and into a broader viewership and programming strategy.

The Mail Arrives

Then yesterday, Britain's irreverent Mail Online, as in the Daily Mail, carried a story headlined: "Downton Shabby: Unofficial collection of jewellry unveiled by U.S. TV network."

Here's some of what the Mail reported on Jan. 23:

"With its memories of a bygone age and class, Downton Abbey has proven to be as big a hit in America as in Britain. But despite being showered with awards across the Atlantic, producers of the ITV period drama are less than happy after an American TV network launched a collection of somewhat tasteless themed jewellery.

"Producers Carnival were forced to call in lawyers to stop the Public Broadcasting Service, the US network that airs Downton Abbey, from naming jewellery after the show's most famous character, Lady Mary Crawley.

"PBS has launched the Downton Abbey collection for viewers who are keen to copy the style of Lady Mary and her sisters. The 'Lady Mary knotted pearl necklace and earring set', available for £102 ($159.99), was doing a roaring trade until Downton producers complained. The PBS Downton merchandise website described the item as 'the epitome of elegance, inspired by the character of Lady Mary Crawley, this luxuriously long pearl necklace and matching diamante earring set is a must have for all ladies of quality.' The sales pitch added: 'As it was in the Edwardian era, this stunning pearl necklace could easily move from your afternoon tea to evening dinner.'

"However," the Mail Online reported, "none of the profits from the Downton Abbey Collection were returned to the writer and creator Julian Fellowes or Carnival Films, the UK producers of the series, which own the copyright to the series. Carnival, which has approved an official range of Downton DVDs and books, was horrified to find that PBS, its broadcast partner, was cashing in on the show's popularity. A spokesman for Carnival said: 'We did not authorise the sale of Lady Mary jewellery. Our lawyers have been in contact with PBS in order to remove these items from sale.'"

In its initial Jan. 23 posting, the Mail Online also reported, "PBS is continuing to sell the jewellery as part of its Downton Abbey collection, but has now agreed to remove direct references to Lady Mary and other characters from the show — and all mentions of Downton characters have now been deleted from the website."

But the Plot Thins as PBS Responds

When asked to comment on this matter today, PBS officials said: "ShopPBS obtained jewelry from a number of third-party vendors and placed them within a collection of products dedicated to 'Downton Abbey.' An email from the business affairs office of NBC/Carnival was received requesting that we remove these items. PBS complied immediately and the products are no longer being offered."

Here's what the Jewelry & Accessories page on the ShopPBS site looked like earlier today, with nothing listed:

The comments about the story posted by Mail Online make lively reading, as might be expected. But it was a comment signed by a guy named "Dave" from Chicago that made a better defense of PBS in this matter than PBS did, which is also not unusual, and a good journalistic observation as well.

'Dave' Responds:

"I'm not sure why there's no mention [in the Mail Online story] of PBS being a public television network that does not receive any revenue from advertisements and receives less and less from government grants, with each passing year. To stay on the air, they rely on fundraising, telethons, and gimmicks such as these. I'm not saying this excuses them from attaching the names of characters they don't own to these products, just that PBS has to get creative in order to stay afloat. This is not some giant, profit-driven media corporation; this is the Public Broadcasting System — the same one that airs Nova and Sesame Street. I'd think that this information would be worth a mention, as it seems pertinent to the article."

That's What We Do

"We believe, obviously, that the race for President of the United States is an important news story, that the race begins with the contest to determine who will be President Obama's GOP opponent, and that it is our job to cover significant developments in that race.

"We weigh many different things before we commit to mounting an on-air discussion or producing a video story about the political campaign, including the other news available to cover on that day. When the Republicans were campaigning in Iowa, the President was on vacation. Most of the candidates spent their time in Iowa talking about how much better than Mr. Obama they would be at doing his job. The NewsHour, in Iowa for five days before the voting, asked undecided voters to explain their concerns about the issues, and how that influenced their views on individual candidates, including the President. Those five days on the ground produced two video reports in advance of the Iowa caucuses. I don't think that constitutes 'excessive' coverage of the first voting event of the political season. We repeated this drill in New Hampshire. We think it is very important to hear from voters, as opposed to candidates, since they are ultimately the deciders in any election.

"When the President returned to work in early January, he did not choose to respond to the GOP's attacks on his leadership. Instead, he or someone in his administration, unveiled a number of new programs and policy decisions. We covered each of them as significant news stories as they occurred, and we will continue to do that. We put each story in context, explaining and /or analyzing everything we think is not self-evident.

First, but Almost Forgotten

"We have also been conducting one-on-one, in-depth interviews with each GOP candidate. Our first was with Congressman Ron Paul. It's true that many of our guests — political reporters and pollsters alike — had to be specifically prodded to mention Congressman Paul initially. Like many of our viewers, I found it hard to understand why they wouldn't even mention the man who was running second in most polls at the time. I understand that many pundits think his campaign is quixotic, but I asked our correspondents to at least make sure his name was included in our discussions. As it happened, the more votes he attracted, the more his name was mentioned. By the time the New Hampshire primary was over, I did not detect an imbalance in Ron Paul mentions in our NewsHour discussions. In addition to our other reporters and analysts, Mark Shields and David Brooks have devoted some time to him each Friday for the last three or four weeks. Since their segment constitutes our 'most watched' every week, I don't think Ron Paul has been invisible on the NewsHour.

"We have also covered the President's political fund-raising trips, and comments he has made that were obviously political. We intend to keep including the President's comments about Republican candidates in our political reports whenever warranted. We will include, as well, the comments of the President's surrogates, who have begun speaking up more often on his behalf. For example, on the night of the Iowa caucuses, Judy Woodruff interviewed DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to get her reaction to all the Obama-bashing. However, I dispute the idea that we are obligated to include a Democratic response in every single segment we produce about the GOP campaign.

Not Your Grandfather's Newscast

"PBS NewsHour is much more than a one-hour broadcast five nights a week. We are a multi-platform journalistic operation that, while not 24/7, begins publishing stories online at 9 a.m., interviews people and posts many of those interviews throughout the day, produces a one-hour broadcast at 6 p.m. ET, and uploads that broadcast, plus relevant podcasts, online supplements, and other material until roughly 11 p.m. That material includes coverage of many different subjects and issues, all of which is available for review now on our website. In addition, we have made an extra effort to cover the early voting in the 2012 elections. On the night of the Iowa caucuses, the NewsHour team worked until 2 a.m., updating the results online. After both Iowa and New Hampshire, we produced a half-hour election special for PBS at 11 p.m.

"To distinguish its coverage from that of so many other news organizations, the NewsHour has created a Digital Map Center that showcases the many layers of our unique kind of political journalism. It lives on our website. There you will find the Patchwork Nation Project, which explores how citizens and opinion leaders in communities across the country see the most important issues in this campaign, as well as what they think of the GOP candidates, and of President Obama. You'll also find complete transcripts and video downloads of our in-depth interviews with each of the major Republican candidates, plus the stories Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill have produced in Iowa, New Hampshire and, coming soon, South Carolina. Viewers will also find transcripts of program segments that dealt with GOP ads, which I think you'll find were put in an analytic context, not simply regurgitated as free publicity.

"In short, I don't think it is accurate to say the NewsHour is not covering issues or stories other than the GOP campaign. On any given day, different stories take precedence in our coverage of the news, but I believe we have a good overall record as a multi-platform news organization dedicated to helping our audience understand what's happening in this country and around the world."

They probably are annoyed at all the networks but what comes to me is the frustration some feel mostly with the PBS NewsHour, which is the only weeknight, hour-long broadcast and so has even more time for politics, but lots of other things as well.

Last week's ombudsman's mailbag contained a sampling of the letters sparked mostly by the coverage of the Iowa caucuses. This week the pace picked up as New Hampshire took center stage and the seemingly endless amount of politics on the airwaves just builds and builds with the only end in sight still 10 months away.

Another Surprise: I See Both Sides

I have a lot of sympathy for the complaining viewers. I feel their pain, at least some of it. And that would be true as well if this were a bitterly fought battle for the Democratic nomination. Anybody remember the Obama-Clinton/first-black, first-woman coverage four years ago?

But I also, not surprisingly, have some sympathy for NewsHour producers. This is a messy, at times excessive, and naturally unbalanced story to cover in the sense that it is overwhelmingly about Republicans. But it is indeed important news and what often unfolds unexpectedly in these often irritating campaigns becomes revealing and relevant.

I've asked Linda Winslow, the executive producer of the NewsHour, for her thoughts about the coverage and the complaints, and about what goes through her head as she deals with an extended story that is certain to appear annoying and one-sided to some viewers. She has promised to reply soon, but in the meanwhile I'll mention a couple of things that strike me as issues that should be on the mind of editors and producers.

Things That Occur

One is the impact on journalism and on voters of free, stereophonic, political advertising. Not only do the candidates and their political action committees now spend mega-millions buying big chunks of air time locally and nationally, but the television news programs then re-play segments of those ads over and over for free and for a vastly greater audience. They give a huge bounce to that initial advertising investment.

Another is how coverage is handled when only candidates for one party are competing, and the Republican National Convention doesn't start until Aug. 27.

Despite the letters posted below, my sense is that most viewers take the campaign in stride, understand what is happening and that coverage is necessary even if excessive and, at times, less than illuminating, and that eventually it goes away. But the reinforcement on tuned-in citizens of candidate talking points in coverage and advertisements for such a prolonged and one-sided campaign could become very significant.

Which brings me to two special candidates — Pres. Obama and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

The Democratic National Convention begins Sept. 3, so the president and the Democrats will get lots of air time as that approaches. But what strikes me about these past several weeks, and may be the case for months to come, is that the domination of coverage by Republicans is, in part, because Obama is keeping a relatively low profile, which may be smart while the Republicans hammer each other.

But it also reinforces one-sided, horse-race rather than issue coverage, and it also may be because the president does not appear to have powerful political spokesmen or personalities of stature around him that serve as wise explainers on television. There is no James Baker or James Carville or Karl Rove. There is basically just the president, and that can't be overdone. So how does that affect coverage?

As for Rep. Paul, coverage of his campaign has been underplayed by many news organizations from the start. I wrote about this earlier. More importantly, perhaps, is that the impact of his campaign is being under-reported or under-analyzed.

Newsrooms will focus scarce resources on those likely to win a nomination, and Paul, by all accounts, is not going to get the nomination. But he is attracting a significant group of young people, especially, as ardent supporters and he is doing so, in part, by taking a strong position against future U.S. combat abroad. That is not a typical Republican argument and it his campaign, alone, that is illuminating this important issue, one that is worthy of more coverage and analysis than it is getting.

Here Are the Letters

Please ask PBS to spare us the endless overkill on the Republican primaries. I am so tired of tuning into PBS's (and NPR's) so-called news programs and getting the same old GOP primary stuff over and over and over again. There is so much more going on in the world — including the many accomplishments and challenges of the current administration — that just isn't being covered. This is a travesty of a network that takes pride in its reporting standards. Gordon Peterson, on this week's [Friday, Jan. 6] Inside Washington (which, by the way, is the best news summary on the air, in my opinion), said (paraphrased), in the last 4 or 5 minutes of the broadcast that "here we are almost finished (after beating to death the GOP primary story) and we haven't even mentioned the changes in the Pentagon, the jobs-increase story, (and other matters)." By the time I got to "Washington Week," I was utterly disgusted to see the whole gang in New Hampshire — ENOUGH ALREADY! — and I snapped off the TV. I'm looking to the BBC online news to get any REAL news, domestic and foreign.

Roberta Gutman, Washington, DC

~ ~ ~

I very much wish that with so much time being devoted, by all PBS's news and analysis programs, to the Republican-nomination candidates, there would be some significant coverage of Jon Huntsman. Though I will not be voting Republican in November, I continue to be keenly interested in all aspects of the Republican nomination process. I think responsible news reporting and analysis should investigate/assess all candidates, regardless of whether they "made news" today. Huntsman is, in my judgment the most interesting candidate — far more broadly experienced, mature, thoughtful, and well-spoken than any of the other candidates. He has a lot to say, but does not get the stage. Unbiased public-interest reporting should be providing some of this exposure — we expect you to see and meet this need. We are a bit tired of the repetitive reporting on the other candidates by PBS and NPR. I am a long-time PBS devotee, and could not live comfortable without you or NPR.

Butte, MT

~ ~ ~

I have watched with great dismay the Republican primary campaign coverage of PBS NewsHour and Washington Week in Review. Almost all coverage has centered on the race, campaign tactics, the polls. Where is coverage regarding the crucial issues facing this country and the candidates' policy positions on these issues? If PBS does not report about these essentials of the campaign, who besides the NY Times will?

Michael W. Richter, Ridgefield, CT

~ ~ ~

I was so delighted to see that I am not alone in deploring the amount of time the NewsHour has spent with the pre-campaigning details and all these people who are so excited about getting their views and faces on TV for their moment of fame. Now I am considering only watching the BBC News which is mostly really NEWS.

I find listening to details about candidates and who is rising and who is falling in polls embarrassing and wonder about those pundits who give their time and thought to discussing these matters. Real things that matter are happening in our world and in our country, and should actually be happening in government. It seems as though all politicians want to do is run, and speak against Washington and the government. When did actual governing fall out of fashion and when did the NewsHour succumb to treating this situation as though it made news?

Nancy M. Jensen, Menlo Park, CA

~ ~ ~

I get the feeling that the PBS NewsHour is working for the Republican Party. Last week, after a long period of candidates in Iowa blasting the Obama Administration, the following segment emphasized the poverty of a family in financial trouble. PBS must develop an even handed treatment of the political parties. Some of your segments are too long, beating its subject to death. A broader coverage of world news is needed.

George Helmke, Liberty Corner, NJ

'Liberal Idiots'

I just read your [Jan. 5] column which included comments from obvious liberal idiots! They don't like the coverage of the Republican campaigns for President! Duh! This is news! If these idiots want equal coverage, I would suggest that they have some Presidential campaigns of their own! When it comes down to a Republican vs an Democrat for president, they will get more than their share of coverage from you and the rest of the extremely liberal mainstream (laimstream, leftstream) media! History proves this!

Ed Kertz, Ballwin, MO

~ ~ ~

The presidential election is in November this year, about 10 months away. Must we be inundated with the minute details of every move made? When everything is sharpened up and there are only the final November candidates I may start paying attention, but I have a short attention span and don't want this all drummed into my head until October 2012 and I'd bet there are many others who'd feel as I do.

Tillie Krieger, Eugene, OR

~ ~ ~

Why was there no response from the producers and/or hosts of the NewsHour about the incessant coverage of the Republican Horserace? I agree with [the email in the Jan. 5 column from] Tim Ryan of California that it seems that all of the MSM and sadly PBS (NPR, too) are doing their darndest to insure that the Republicans are competitive, or more than competitive with Obama and Democrats. They are certainly the beneficiaries of far more face time and ample opportunities to distribute their message at NO cost to themselves.

I actually have decided that part of it is because PBS (and NPR) are tilting way right, so as to insure that sources of funding won't continue to be reduced. Even so, I have never recalled so much focus on the process and so little attention to the real issues that the President and Congress should be addressing. Way too much attention is being given to the GOP. We all know that the broadcast and cable companies are owned and operated by the most privileged among us, who largely tend to vote Republican. However, those of us way below that level of income and power have hoped for more fairness and equitability from our public media. We're NOT getting it.

Donna Williams, Macon, GA

Keep It Short

Occasionally the NewsHour takes leave of its normally good journalistic sense to concentrate excessively on a single story. Now excessive coverage of the Iowa caucuses has driven me back to the reruns. Why the NewsHour would devote so much attention to a small, unrepresentative segment of the US electorate is beyond me. This coverage is not only dull and repetitive, it helps to distort the democratic process by encouraging the egregious spending needed to command press attention. Please renew my trust in the NewsHour by treating future primary campaigns as a small part of the broad range of world news that you usually cover so competently.

Carol S., Marietta, OH

~ ~ ~

When will PBS start challenging the Republican horse-race coverage with insistence on substantive issues. As it stands, PBS's coverage looks and smells just like mainstream media pabulum. Is PBS afraid of treating its audience as intelligent voters, rather than an advertising target market?

E. Rivers, Cumberland, ME

~ ~ ~

Can't watch PBS NewsHour after seeing piece by Judy Woodruff on Bain Capital (all lies). Cut jobs and costs to make $$. Big investigative piece in NYT three weeks ago. Why didn't she have that reporter on? Then Paul Solman's piece on raising taxes on rich. Another big joke with Reagan's tax cut man telling us why we shouldn't raise taxes on rich. 57% support goals of Occupy and you never even talk to them. Make NewsHour public--truly public, not owned by McNeil/Lehrer, but by public board. What a joke.

Mary Lewin, Pittsburgh, PA

And Then There Is This . . .

On the NewsHour tonight [Jan. 12], you have the story of Haley Barbour and you have the map of Louisiana! I realize you east coast people have little knowledge of the southern states, but Barbour is from Mississippi.

Cornell Littell, Aptos, CA

~ ~ ~

Last night you ran a story about former Gov. Haley Barbour and the pardons. You showed the state of Louisiana instead of Mississippi. Of all the controversy, you couldn't get the state right??

Carol Breedlove, Hattiesburg, MS

And This . . .

"Yep. We screwed up," says the NewsHour's executive producer. "And there's no good explanation. My apologies to Mississippi and Louisiana."

On the other hand, the originators of these campaigns often make important journalistic points and worthy observations, even if they fit a particular self-interest. So I pay attention. Personally, I would pay just as much attention if the organization simply posted its critique for its subscribers and also sent it to me.

The campaign this week was based on a posting on Jan.10 by Peter Hart of the organization known as FAIR, for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, and was headlined: "PBS's Dishonest Iran Edit." It dealt with the way in which a segment of the PBS NewsHour on Monday evening, Jan. 9, reported on comments Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made about Iran's nuclear program on the CBS Sunday program "Face the Nation" the previous day.

FAIR and Hart produce rather frequent critiques of NewsHour segments and I have written many times about them.

Here's What Hart Wrote:

As if tensions between the United States and Iran weren't high enough, here's PBS NewsHour anchor Margaret Warner (1/9/12):

The Iranian government insists that its nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes only, an assertion disputed by the U.S. and its allies. On CBS yesterday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta repeated international demands that Iran stop enriching uranium.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON PANETTA: But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that's what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us. They need to know that, if they take that step, that they're going to get stopped.

The way that's presented you'd think that the United States has evidence that Iran is pursuing a weapon. Leon Panetta's soundbite is from his appearance on Face The Nation on Sunday. But the NewsHour removed one key phrase; right before Panetta says, "But we know," he said this:

Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.

So Panetta's statement — that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon — is being used to argue that the United States disputes Iran's long-standing contention that it not building a nuclear weapon.

Good Catch

I have a couple of thoughts about this issue. I think FAIR makes a good journalistic catch in calling attention to the fuller quote by Panetta on CBS. It was a very brief and clear statement by the defense secretary on an important point about whether Iran is actually developing a nuclear weapon. After FAIR pointed this out, I was mystified about why the NewsHour would cut this short and declarative preceding sentence, and I asked for an explanation, which is posted below.

On the other hand, I think FAIR goes too far in describing the PBS editing as "dishonest." The logical understanding that NewsHour viewers — and anyone who has been following this subject — would draw from the portion of the Panetta quote that was used is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon but that they are developing a "nuclear capability" and that the U.S. warning, as Panetta expressed it, is not to cross "our red line" and actually develop a weapon.

NewsHour Foreign Affairs and Defense Editor, Mike Mosettig, Responds:

In a word, it would have been better had we not lopped off the first part of the Panetta quote. But even without it, is clear from what we did air, that Iran is not at this moment putting a bomb together. That said, the segment (tape and discussion) was not about whether Iran has or does not have a bomb at this time or whether they will have one soon, but the pressure on Iran not to cross "red lines." So bottom line: an unfortunate edit but not a game changer.

The NewsHour and the News

I usually watch the hour-long PBS NewsHour at 6 p.m. on Maryland Public Television and at 7 I usually tune-in to the 30-minute NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. On Wednesday evening, I thought the NewsHour had an especially interesting and informative program on several timely subjects. But when I switched to NBC, I realized that the NewsHour had not reported on the two stories that were at the top of the NBC program and were big news in many other places as well.

One was news that the outgoing governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, a prominent national figure as well, had granted full pardons to 193 criminals, including five who had been convicted of murder, on his last day in office. All three major commercial networks carried that story and the controversy it provoked.

The other was about the surfacing of a video that appeared to show a small group of Marines in Afghanistan urinating on dead Taliban fighters. The authenticity of the video had not yet been verified by the Marines but it was clear from statements by the Marines and the Pentagon that they were deeply troubled by the scene. NewsHour editors point out that this was a late-breaking story, which is true. But NBC and ABC both managed to carry it, although it was not on that evening's CBS News.

No explanation yet about the missing Barbour story but I was surprised that, within an hour-long news program, there was no mention of these two broadly interesting news stories.

I use it as an introduction to this mailbag only because the phrase seems also to illustrate the never ending and surprising array of new observations that viewers contribute to the ombudsman's inbox every week.

For example, a viewer wrote to ask why her local member-station aired the NOVA program on Darwin during prime time on Christmas evening. The viewer said she didn't object to the program but felt it was an inappropriate time to air it. This is actually an older program, first aired nationally by PBS after Christmas in 2009, and then repeated nationally this year before Christmas on Dec. 21 and, apparently, again in some regions on Christmas Day. So the local station was able to tell the viewer that the scheduling was not done locally. There is a fuller, official PBS explanation at the end of this posting.

Then on New Year's Eve, PBS broadcast, as part of its "Live From Lincoln Center" in New York series, a spectacular concert by the New York Philharmonic performing the Symphonic Dances from West Side Story by Leonard Bernstein and George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue. This music is so beautiful to my layman's ears that it brings tears to my ombudsman's eyes.

But the choice, once again, of the versatile and controversial actor Alec Baldwin to host these concerts and conduct interviews of the performers brought other thoughts and emotions to the eyes and ears of some viewers. I must say that I, too, had an instinctive reaction as I watched that Baldwin's presence, especially because of one of his more recent public scrapes, would distract from the performance.

A sampling of those letters is posted below, along with others raising questions about all the Republican political coverage during this campaign season overwhelming any balanced presentation of political news these days.

NBR Has Holiday Specials, Too

And, finally, producers at the long-running Nightly Business Report — which recently came under new management and has also switched back to its original distributor, American Public Television, after five years or so with PBS — explain that they also use financial market holidays to present some special programs.

Despite its new distribution arrangement, NBR is still broadcast on 273 PBS-member stations, about 78 percent of the total. So I still get mail about it and a couple of viewers reacted very critically to a "special episode" of NBR on "Women in Leadership" that aired on Jan. 2 and in which, according to the program's Facebook entry, "we profile Pamela Newman, who heads up Newman team at Aon, the global insurance giant. Aon is one of the biggest players in the insurance business and Pamela is one of its biggest stars."

I got only two critical letters from viewers but I felt their pain, added some observations of my own, and wrote to Tom Hudson, NBR's co-anchor and managing editor, and presenter of the special on Newman. He, in turn, responded vigorously to the complaints, including mine.

My message and his response are posted below. Here is the video of the 25-minute special so readers of this column can judge for themselves.

About the NBR 'Special'

Here are two brief emails about the program. The first is from James Stragand in Honolulu who said: "Tuned in to watch some news on the Nightly Business Report. Instead I got a 30 min promo on Pamela Newman. I did not donate for this BS." And a viewer in Wayne, Penn., said: "As a long term supporter of WHYY, I was very disturbed to watch Nightly Business and Tom Hudson tonight (1/2/12) and Pam ? Totally Bad! What are you doing??? I recently wrote a check for $250 to WHYY. If you continue with Tom Hudson, I am beginning to think you are in trouble, which means we are all in trouble."

I wrote to Hudson about these comments and added: "I must say that I was amazed and puzzled by it [the program] as well. It was like she wrote the script. Not a single challenging question, observation, criticism, controversy or really substantive insight into anything except how great she is. I have no quarrel with Newman or her success, but this came across as hagiography. Personally, I felt it was embarrassing for NBR, but maybe I'm missing something."

Here's Hudson's Response:

"Thanks for the opportunity to respond. Our special on Ms. Newman was no more 'a 30-minute promo' than our upcoming special on the president of Harvard University (look for it Monday, January 16, 2012) or previous special programs featuring the work of young entrepreneurs. NBR takes our responsibility very seriously and we use market holidays to present a variety of information and insight, including focusing on women leaders, their successes and strategies for achieving those goals.

"In regards to your accusation of 'not a single challenging question, observation, criticism, controversy or really substantive insight into anything except how great she is' I respectfully disagree. We spotlighted her response to 9/11, the attributes she used building her career and her approach to charity. While some may think that hagiographical, we offered it as examples of achieving success in these trying economic times. We believe Ms. Newman's doggedness in what had been a male-dominated industry, positive attitude and team spirit are useful lessons. For the record, Ms. Newman played no role in writing the script, nor did she participate in any editorial decision."

On Baldwin and Bernstein

I watch PBS and listen to NPR regularly and consider these to be my most important sources of TV and radio news and entertainment. I request that you think how best to include Alec Baldwin with PBS/NPR productions. I consider him one of the poorer examples of well-meaning Hollywood stars due to his personality in general and specifically the examples he's shown with his daughter and most recently when flying on a public plane. What is most troublesome is his inability to admit mistake or poor behavior. Because of this I find it difficult to watch live from Lincoln center on NYE even though this is my preferred program tonight. I vaguely remember that he was the host a year ago which was also a big turn-off and think he had shown poor behavior with a photographer around this same time. I don't mean to overstress this as an issue but do believe it has some negative impact on the reputation of PBS and NPR and also the fund raising. I hope PBS and NPR can separate itself somewhat from the weaker representatives of Hollywood and New York. Thank you.

San Francisco, CA

~ ~ ~

Really PBS? I tuned in to watch Live at the Lincoln Center for New Year's Eve celebration and you have a controversial, hate-filled sociopath like Alec Baldwin hosting? Not a good argument to continue funding. Needless to say I turned the channel but I don't want my tax dollars going this way. Of all the people you could have picked who have some class?? Jeez!

Dale Liston, Kansas City, KS

Problem: Providing 'Balanced' Coverage During a Republican Free-for-All

I believe the PBS Republican coverage has been one-sided and basically a huge free campaign ad. I am sick of hearing on PBS what is called coverage, which is really just free advertising, including the interviews of fringe candidates and their spokespeople. Where is the equal time for Democrats? These are political ads and as such the Dems should garner equal time. What has been going on for months and continues under the guise of covering a Presidential election, has been spouting the Republican agenda day in and day out and ignoring the real issues facing the country every day. Again, how about equal time to Democrats. PBS is losing me due to this one-sided approach. This is not news coverage. It is a long- winded Republican campaign ad and the media is falling for it. These are elements of the fringe, and PBS calls it news. Wise up PBS, the majority does not wish to listen to these fringe wackoes and especially when called news, PBS loses credibility. Way too much air time has been devoted to this. PBS is being duped. This is the Republican agenda, to keep their message on the air and PBS does their bidding. I won't support it, and many others are wise to it also.

Gordon Nadel, Eugene, OR

~ ~ ~

Is it me or does anyone else remember the mainstream media, including PBS, getting so busy with trying to help a party out of power to regain the White House. The onslaught of bald face kiss ass for the Republican Party's every move is astonishing. Every utterance from each of their clown-faced idiots is treated with David Brooks-like deference. We now have a 12 month non-media "hiatus" in which they caress each of the Republican candidates in turn in hopes of nurturing them to confront Obama. "Encourage the Horserace Spectacle."

Tim Ryan, San Jose, CA

~ ~ ~

The incessant and lengthy coverage given to the Iowa caucuses by NewsHour has finally annoyed me to the point of writing to you. There is simply no need for the endless, in-depth presentations and discussions to which your viewers have been subjected; especially since there appears to be no action among Democrats in Iowa. The other night we saw I believe six "representative" Iowans discuss their political philosophies. I suppose these people were chosen as a cross-section of voters. But did they represent those who will actually vote in the caucuses? Information from other sources leads me to believe that caucus-goers will be overwhelmingly white, old and affluent. But, no doubt, we will be allowed to watch endless dissections of the voting so perhaps we will be told about the demographics. Iowa is behind us for another four years but New Hampshire, South Carolina etc. ad nauseam are to follow. PLEASE restrict the reporting on primaries to the "other news" segment. Until the conventions and the campaign, I can think of little that is worth the time spent on primary voting thus far.

Robert B. Macartney, Los Gatos, CA

PBS Explains Darwin on Christmas

Sunday afternoons on PBS' 24/7 secondary feed is scheduled with repeats from within the week, and this past Christmas day followed that same pattern. The NOVA "What Darwin Never Knew" fit in the usual NOVA repeat slot on early Sunday evenings on this channel, following a primetime airing the preceding Wednesday. "What Darwin Never Knew" first aired in 2009, which marked the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his influential book The Origin of Species. The original debut of the episode took place towards the end of the calendar year, which is how it ended up airing in late December as a repeated program.

The NOVA episode appeared on the west-coast-oriented PBS feed. PBS' primary feed for eastern/central stations at this time on Christmas day featured NATURE "Christmas in Yellowstone" and episode three from the first season of "Downton Abbey." A slate of children's programming and concerts were also provided to stations throughout the day to offer additional programming options for the holiday.

PBS remains committed to advancing the highest standard in national programming and strives to be sensitive to all of our viewers when preparing content for broadcast. Please assure your member that PBS programming is discussing this viewer's concerns and will take them into account as we make future scheduling decisions.

Here's a sampling of the letters and, in several cases, responses from the NewsHour:

For 15 minutes you [Dec. 27 NewsHour] let the Iowa Republican party spokesman blather on without rebuttal while your local Iowa radio station rep kissed his ass. Did any of you stop to consider that this was a political ad for the Republican Party? There was no rebuttal to this Republican ... assertions about President Obama. Once again Judy Woodruff and PBS confirm their spineless 'wimptude' when asked to be the bag-people for the Republican Party message. Do you even review what you say on the air?

Tim Ryan, San Jose, CA

(Ombudsman's Note: I can understand the chagrin of this viewer and one or two others who complained about this segment. The NewsHour, over time, generally exhibits enviable balance in political interviews. But Matthew Strawn, Iowa Republican Party Chairman, delivered a basically uninterrupted, unpaid anti-Obama commercial that struck me as embarrassing — for the program — because it was so blatant.)

What I witnessed tonight, December 20, on the PBS NewsHour was nothing short of attempt to subvert the democratic process. Smug pundits intimated that if Iowa voters allowed Ron Paul to win the caucuses they would be viewed as irrelevant in future elections. None of the mainstream news outlets has provided fair coverage of Congressperson Paul's campaign but this crosses a line. To attempt to discredit the voters of an entire state is beyond the pale. You owe your viewers, the Iowa electorate and the entire country an apology for this travesty. The glibness with which this blatant propaganda was delivered only exacerbates the injury. We the people of the United States are tired of letting the media pick our Presidents through innuendo and self-reinforcing poll results. We have been told for months, if not years, that Ron Paul is not 'electable' and now that he is on the verge of winning in Iowa your guests would try to fault the voters themselves. This is a monumental disgrace and you should be truly ashamed. It is especially disgusting that this subversion of journalistic integrity would take place on PBS.

David Gondek, Fox Lake, WI

~~~

On Washington Week on Friday evening, Dec. 12, Gwen Ifill, in asking a question of one of the panel members, referred to President Obama as "a weak president" in reference to the president vis-a-vis an obstructionist congress. Her characterization was wildly out of place, and as a moderator, she had no business editorializing in such a manner. Characterizing his predicament with congress as a struggle is certainly true. Labeling him as weak is harmful and irresponsible, and I believe she owes the President a retraction. Comments such as that become grist for the anti-Obama mill, and I would hope that PBS, as a matter of policy, would steer clear of contributing to that destructive chatter.

Rochester, NY

Gwen Ifill replies: "I understand your concern that by characterizing the President as weak, I was making an editorial judgment. That is certainly not what I intended. Instead, I was attempting to place the President's challenges — a weak economy and overwhelming cynicism toward Washington — in some political context. In my defense, I offer you two items — this Gallup poll historical analysis of the President's status in historical terms: http://www.gallup.com/poll/151106/Obama-November-Approval-Weak-Historical-Perspective.aspx And this column I wrote for the Washington Week and PBS NewsHour websites: http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/blog/hate-washington-join-club Taken together, I think you will see I was attempting to explain why the President's reelection is not a slam dunk — that Republicans see a real opportunity to unseat him. Even though his approval rating, at 47%, has recently crept higher than his disapproval-rating, he was at 70 percent approval when his term started. In a political sense, that is weakness. The White House does take this seriously. So in my mind, it is not a matter of personal weakness, but political disadvantage."

~~~

Who is watching the NewsHour? You just had a story [Dec. 21] about a 320 million dollar fine against Bank of America (countrywide) involving minorities. Your report said minorities paid $1,200 a month more than whites did and this involved 200,000 people. Do the math: $1,200 times 200,000 equals a month and half of overcharging. The reporter didn't bring it up and they're going to give back the people a whopping $2,000 AND NOT LOWER the payments. Hire me. You are asleep at the switch.

Rob Petey, Redington Beach, GA

The NewsHour explained: The quote you referenced came from Attorney General Eric Holder, not from one of the NewsHour correspondents. It was excerpted from Holder's comments at a news conference that day, and Holder used it as an example of the systematic discrimination, not as a complete explanation of the extent of the problem. I have included the text of the quote: ERIC HOLDER, U.S. attorney general: "Now, these allegations represent alarming conduct by one of the largest mortgage lenders in the country during the height of the housing market boom. For example, in 2007, a qualified African-American customer in Los Angeles borrowing $200,000 paid an average of roughly $1,200 more in fees than a similarly qualified white borrower."

Quite often, what is NOT said (or left out) is as important as what IS said. I think that is the case in the recent Republican legislative effort to extend the payroll tax cut. No mention was made in the NewsHour's reporting about the inclusion in the bill for 1) drug testing for unemployment applicants (and who will pay for that?), 2) pushing the State Department for approval of the Keystone pipeline, 3) limiting the EPA's authority to regulate pollutants, 4) lowering the length of time unemployment benefits are paid, and several other reprehensible add-ons as well.

Additionally, I have seen no in-depth coverage of the Keystone pipeline project. Inflated claims of "thousands of jobs" have been bandied around but as far as I can determine, only a few thousand temporary construction jobs results, along with less than a hundred permanent jobs. Who benefits from this project? What is the real risk to the water supply for America's heartland? Why does the pipeline need to go to Texas? PBS NewsHour is one of the few places where trustworthy news is still available in the USA. Don't let us down. Give us the WHOLE picture.

Ed Newman, Alamogordo, NM

The NewsHour's National Affairs Editor, Murrey Jacobson, sent the following reply: "I wanted to alert you to our record of covering the Keystone story repeatedly on our program. While I certainly recognize that most viewers don't have time to see all of the reporting we do, we have chronicled the developments on the story repeatedly on our program and have had no reluctance to do so. I also recognize that we may not have answered every question you listed. But we have worked hard to cover many dimensions of this story — the economic questions, the environmental concerns, the political considerations that have played into it as well.

"Our recent coverage began this summer with an extensive tape piece on July 8 reported by Tom Bearden on the battle over the pipeline in Nebraska and the potential risks it could pose to the aquifer. On August 28th, we had a studio debate pitting environmentalist Bill McKibben (one of the leading opponents against the pipeline) against Robert Bryce. On November 10th, we updated the story with Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post when the Administration deferred a decision on the pipeline. And then we referred to the pipeline provision at least four times during the battle over the payroll tax bill extension. By my count, the program reported on that issue and its role in the legislative debate either briefly or at some length on December 13, 15, 16 and 22. To your comment about the battle over payroll tax debate: We did repeatedly make reference to the potential impact it would have on unemployment benefits."

~~~

We are long-time contributors to PBS, and we're troubled by what we see as a noticeable lack of coverage on the NewsHour of the tar sands project in Alberta, Canada. A few weeks ago you ran a story that graphically showed the destruction of the rainforest in Peru due to poor gold mining practices, and we applaud you for that story. The boreal forests just north of our border in Canada, however, are being destroyed at a far greater rate than are the forests of Peru, yet the NewsHour seems conspicuously silent on this topic, especially given that the tar sands are such a timely topic as Canada and the Republican Party here in the U.S. continue to push for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline into our Midwest. We believe the American public would be shocked if they were to SEE the magnitude of environmental destruction in Alberta, if video of the pollution and the decimated forests and muskeg ponds of the area were actually shown to your audience. Therefore, we continually ask ourselves "why doesn't the NewsHour run a story with video from the tar sands?" One answer we come up with again and again is that Chevron is an underwriter of your program, and this connection may well interfere with your ability to run a blatantly honest video that exposes the tremendous environmental destruction from this project. Or, maybe you've already shown footage from the north and we just missed it. If that is the case, would you please tell us when you ran that story so we can watch it? If not, will you run one in the future?

Lynn and Vince Murray, Moscow, Idaho

Murrey Jacobsen of the NewsHour explains: "We decided to report the Keystone/TransCanada story this summer to produce one piece to air in late June or early July. A key consideration was finding a place where the debate was being joined and where we would see the environmental and economic impact in a U.S. community. Working in a short time frame — with limited resources to travel — we chose Nebraska. I believe that decision was wise, given that the Obama Administration has cited Nebraska's aquifer as a reason for deferring their decision on the pipeline. We simply had to make a choice on how to approach the story. Having said that, we will watch developments in the coming months and look for ways to cover the tar sands story in Canada. We must work within budget and time constraints, plus this is a busy campaign season. Our correspondents and producers will be hopscotching with the candidates, so it's unclear when or how soon we can get them to Canada in the near future. But please know the story is very much on our radar."

And Now, a Change of Pace: Back to the Headhunters

The letters below are a sampling of those in response to last week's column.

I'm sorry someone found the program so disturbing, but the news of the war and the violence in the Middle East are quite graphic, more so than the head hunters! The news, many of the programs, especially those dealing with crime, both real and imagined are also violent, and the wrestling and boxing programs are bloody. Many ads are offensive. All I can think is why watch TV at all, because there is not always, or often a warning given?

Tillie Krieger, Eugene, OR

~~~

You didn't emphasize this, but if in three years of airing, The Airmen and the Headhunters, only generated one complaint to you, I think that says more about the complainer than the show.

Michael Freed, Sylmar, CA

~~~

Not reading your latest posting until after most things Christmas, yesterday morning, I must agree with you that, in context, it is untimely. Beyond that, I must agree with that viewer, about the lack of appropriate advance notice of disturbing graphic images, especially if it's severed human heads in prime-time when breast-feeding mothers and vulnerable children might be watching, but not the bare breasts of native women of that same era and culture. What weird sets of editorial guidelines and moral values the FCC and PBS have adopted to educate and enlighten current and future generations of Americans.

Satire and sarcasm aside, it is quite obvious that PBS is increasingly promoting the arbitrary, contrived, frivolous and trivial agendas and cultures of greedy elitists of little self-worth, and insatiably profit hungry corporations. Otherwise, programming would be more oriented toward the real needs and values of the vast majority of the public, the downtrodden poor and working-classes, and news, commentary and documentaries would be informing viewers of what is really wrong in America and exactly who is to blame, especially during election years. How absurd for PBS, too, to glorify the so-called 'Royal Wedding' some two hundred plus years after a bloody war for independence, and a continuing failure to inform and remind the public that Israel is nothing but 'an establishment of religion' that the U.S. Congress 'shall make no law respecting' (not specified to apply only to domestic establishments).

Perhaps if PBS didn't waste so much of its limited resources on preserving and promoting fanciful elitist culture, false corporate images, unproved deities and defective foreign entities and policies, and rattling the sabers of the King's Army, it wouldn't be doing so much begging for support these days.

Charles Shaver, Westfield, WI

A Piece of a Master?

I am a supporting fan; however, as much as I enjoy Downton Abbey (again), I am sorry to see PBS airing a program with blatant plagiarism as part of the script content. Mr. Fellowes should have excluded the flower contest segment or you should have made sure that the writer for Mrs. Miniver was given credit for this portion of the script. The lack of originality (putting it mildly) was evident to many watching the program.

Austin, TX

Steven Ashley of Masterpiece replies: "Thank you for your note about the scene from "Downton Abbey" and its comparison to a similar scene from the film "Mrs Miniver." The question came up during the series' run in the UK last Fall (2010). At that time, screenwriter Julian Fellowes said publicly that it is a matter of opinion whether people think the scene resembles one from the film. He said that he last watched the film about 40 years ago and one cannot say either way if that particular scene was buried in his subconscious and then sprang forth. If so, he wasn't conscious of it."

Other Stuff

I have always respected PBS, but I would like to know the reason for the dishonest and misleading coverage of developments in Nigeria. Last Ramadan, Christians attacked a[nd] murdered Muslims and this was ignored. Now that Muslims have attacked Christians, it is world news and the attack on Muslims is forgotten. This is promoting hatred toward Islam. I firmly believe it is fair to ask PBS to put this two-sided dispute in context.

Delaware, OH

~~~

Good grief!!! Why is it so difficult to give positive feedback!!! You (PBS IT department) talk too much and need to listen. I've been wanting to say Suzie Gharib is terriffic. An English major with business savvy.... not at all surprising. English majors can be smart as hell. But Suzie is also beautiful, kind and courteous, and very SMART. Her interviews are probing. She holds up beautifully next to the men who need to heed her. If she is "Arabic" we should know that as well... she is a role model of a fine professional and human being.

Dr. C. King Stephens, Milwaukee, WI

~~~

PBS is excellent! Commercial stations put animated bugs to circumvent folks who "tivo" past commercials and promos. With the excellent videography of Nature, Nova and other fine programs, the "bug" is a major distraction and "commercial." I can see why you want to promote a program, but possibly you would consider eliminating the crass commercial marketing ploy. Thank goodness NATURE is running now and there's not one bug. Keep up all your excellent efforts. PS — The Nightly Business Report is tending towards some weak segment icons — strange segment titles — almost childish — and people "floating" on digital blue sets in front of huge stock charts. Not sure what it's all for. It feels like Cramer's Mad Money set is slowly sneaking into the background.

Erie, PA

At issue here is an episode of the popular, often fascinating and long-running PBS series "Secrets of the Dead." The hour-long episode in question is titled "The Airmen and the Headhunters" and was broadcast, most recently, last month. It is an absolutely amazing story about how a small group of World War II American airmen, shot down by Japanese gunners over Borneo in 1944, survived in the dense jungle they parachuted into and the Japanese efforts to find them.

I'm certain only very few people are aware of this story and I'm posting this column, aside from the editorial issue involved, so I can include the video because it is so fascinating and, in my view, definitely worth watching. However, it does come with an ombudsman's warning that it includes some graphic images — brief shots of shrunken, severed heads, to be precise — that may be jarring to some.

Watch The Airmen and the Headhunters on PBS. See more from Secrets of the Dead.

This program first aired in 2009, then was re-broadcast in 2010 and again in November of this year. In those two years, I've never received a single complaint about it. Rather, those broadcasts all sparked lively and interesting historical discussions on the program's website.

But a viewer in Niagara Falls, Canada, watching via the Buffalo, N.Y., PBS member station, wrote to claim that it was "callous and cruel" of the program's producers to show "disturbing and graphic images of human heads . . . without warning."

What follows is an exchange between the viewer, who asked that his name not be used, and the program producers, and then my thoughts. These exchanges are long, but I felt they were worth recording.

First, however, it is important to understand that the airmen survived only with the help and protection of the primitive Dayak tribe in Borneo, who hated the Japanese and whose culture included headhunting, and an eccentric major in the British army who devised an audacious rescue plan.

The View of the Viewer

"I'm writing you this e-mail to convey my absolute disgust and anger at the disturbing and graphic images of human heads shown on Secrets of the Dead: Airmen and the Headhunters. Like many PBS viewers, I have mental health issues, and seeing such trash could lead me and others to suffer permanent mental breakdown. I think that it was callous and cruel of that program's producers to show those images without warning. I'd like to request that you launch an investigation of the journalistic standards of the episode. I really believe that someone must stand up to producers who only crave sensationalism at the expense of their viewers."

After forwarding this complaint to the program's producers, here is the response I got from Stephen Segaller, vice-president for programming at WNET in New York:

"While the images of severed heads in the Secrets of the Dead program 'Airmen and the Headhunters' are vivid, they are central to the telling of the story. The program explores the efforts of the Dayak people to save American soldiers who were trapped by the Japanese on the remote Pacific island of Borneo during World War II. The practice of 'headhunting' and the preservation of heads of defeated enemies was a ritualistic aspect of these people's culture and religion. The heads were prized and played a role in the group's ideas about masculinity. In the decades prior to World War II, Christian missionaries and the colonial government in Borneo managed to all but eradicate the practice although not all Dayaks converted to this new system of beliefs. And once the Dayaks decided to launch guerilla strikes against their Japanese occupiers, Western forces encouraged them to return to traditional warfare practices that included headhunting.

"The images used provide an anthropological look at this remote group of people, give an understanding of what their society was like and how they lived their lives. Every effort was made to ensure the images did not glorify violence and were not exploitative. The film goes into great detail to explain how headhunting practices were a part of the Dayak people's lives. Secrets of the Dead strives to offer viewers glimpses into the lives of vastly different groups of people-whether those differences be a product of geography, history or culture. To overlook this element of the Dayak culture, particularly in a story about war, would have been a disservice both to viewers and to the Dayaks themselves who courageously risked their lives to save American GIs.

"We do understand your concern about such graphic images so please know that we did take care in our choice to include them. Our ultimate decision to do so was made on the basis of the context in which the images were used and the opportunity they provided to teach Western audiences about this relatively unknown tribe and their way of life. Finally, the fact that the program had the title 'The Airmen and the Headhunters' might have alerted viewers of a sensitive disposition not to watch, or to be forewarned."

Another Round

I thought that was quite a reasoned reply, but the viewer said he found it "completely unsatisfactory." Here's what he said:

"To begin with, Mr. Segaller notes that the program title should have alerted the viewer to the graphic nature of the program. I have two responses to that assertion. Firstly, I saw the images of human heads at the very beginning of the program before the program title was even displayed. Thus I had no opportunity to exercise my discretion. Secondly, and more importantly, an explicit warning should be given to alert viewers to graphic content. This is standard practice for most news and television production organizations. Using Mr. Segaller's logic, one should expect to see images of a dismembered corpse when viewing a special about serial killers or other sociopaths. This is absolute nonsense, of course. It is reasonable to expect to be warned by the producers.

"Moreover, I reject the reasons that Mr. Segaller gave for the inclusion of graphic images. I do not believe that those images are necessary at all, let alone for the reasons he outlined. The images do not help you understand the conflict between the American/headhunter alliance against the Japanese with any more clarity than had they been omitted. Furthermore, those images do not foster cross-cultural understanding of headhunter culture and rituals with any more depth and, in fact, detract tremendously from approaching the subject with a clear mind. The images of human heads are gratuitous, appalling and impede the pursuit of understanding and the production of equanimity. In summary, I find Mr. Segaller's arguments entirely inadequate, and to be rather blunt, somewhat disingenuous."

My Thoughts, and Some Additional PBS Thoughts

Personally, I did not find the program, and the brief patches showing severed heads, at all disturbing. I don't particularly like to see such images, but in the context of the very powerful story being laid out, it struck me as relevant to a tale in which nothing is remotely relatable to our personal, contemporary experiences. One sees ghastly things all the time on television. Also, the series is, after all, called "Secrets of the Dead," the clue-containing title, "The Airmen and the Headhunters," was, according to Segaller, widely listed in advance, and there have been other PBS programs on "Nova" and "Secrets" dealing with subjects such as human sacrifice and mummification, he pointed out.

There is, however, an issue here about whether a viewer, who may be repulsed or offended by such images, should have been specifically warned beforehand. The first glimpse of two severed and shrunken heads was presented for a few seconds during the introductory segment of the program even before, as the viewer points out, the title came on to the screen.

Here's the relevant section of the PBS Editorial Standards and Policies:

L. Objectionable Material

"Responsible treatment of important issues may sometimes require the inclusion of controversial or sensitive material, but good taste must prevail in PBS content. Morbid or sensational details, or material that is gratuitously offensive to general taste or manners (e.g., extreme violence, racial epithets, strong language, nudity, sexism), should not be included unless it is necessary to an understanding of the matter at hand. Questions of taste cannot be answered in the abstract, but when specific problems arise, they must be resolved in light of contemporary standards of taste, the state of the law, and the newsworthiness and overall value of the material. If PBS concludes that the exclusion of such material would distort an important reality or impair the content's artistic quality, PBS may accept the content provided it carries appropriate notice to the viewer. Conversely, PBS may reject content that, in its judgment, needlessly contains objectionable material that compromises the content's quality or integrity."

The key phrase here is "provided it carries appropriate notice to the viewer."

In dealing with potentially controversial material, PBS relies heavily on the individual program producers, and the editorial guidelines in general provide producers considerable discretion. Program reviewers within PBS sometimes recommend that "viewer discretion advisories" appear on screen before a certain program but, again, it is largely up to the producers and the advisories are not mandatory.

In the case of "The Airmen and the Headhunters," it did not strike the producers at WNET or the distributers at PBS, back in 2009, that a warning was needed.

"I don't think it occurred to us, to be honest; I guess none of us found it objectionable," said a WNET official. No objection was forthcoming from reviewers at PBS at the time, either, although one program reviewer explained that PBS normally screens programs before they are packaged, so a reviewer would be unaware the heads appeared in the introduction at the very beginning of the program. The reviewer added, "I generally tell producers to avoid shocking material upfront — with or without a viewer's discretion advisory."

The official added: "I understand [the viewer's] concern. We try our best to consider the audience's reaction when we screen and rate programs. Looking over my original screening report, I see that I was more concerned with confirming the edit of potential FCC actionable image of a topless native woman than I was with the graphic images of the shrunken heads. Please feel free to tell [the viewer] that I appreciate his feedback and will keep in mind possible audience sensitivities when I pre-screen programs. Given [the viewer's] reaction, it might have been better to rate this as a 14 [which indicates stronger material]. However, there was no reason editorially for me to request these images be removed from the episode."

So, one could argue that some advanced warning should have been given before these images were shown, and that there was, indeed, a technical violation of the guidelines. In my view, it comes down to an editorial judgment call, and I would agree with the judgment at the time that this did not appear to either the producers or the PBS reviewers as something that required a specific warning to viewers or was not relevant to telling the story.

Nevertheless, the viewer has provoked what I believe was a useful and challenging exchange and provided one more thing for producers and PBS to at least think about as they go about their appointed rounds.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and Happy New Year to all.

Just a few days ago, I wrote about a segment of the venerable PBS NewsHour on Dec. 9 in which economics correspondent Paul Solman used the Occupy DC encampment in a park in the nation's capital to represent "liberals" in a report assessing whether conservatives — represented by young professionals interviewed at a well-known Washington think-tank — were happier than the liberals in the park. This visual comparison was seen as unworthy and unfair by those liberals who complained.

Then this week, on Tuesday the 13th, the NewsHour ran another segment, hosted by senior correspondent Jeffrey Brown, reporting on an imaginative and widely praised effort called the News Literacy Project that uses experienced journalists and top news organizations to educate middle school and high school students around the country about how to sort fact from fiction within the blizzard of news and information that comes their way these days. The project was started by former Los Angeles Times investigative reporter, and Pulitzer Prize winner, Alan Miller.

But once again, the visual presentation used by the NewsHour to accompany the classroom interviews and the one with Miller in his office is what caught the eye, and the ire, of several viewers. Specifically, during an interview with Miller, and just as he says, "There is so much potential here for misinformation, for propaganda, for spin, all of the myriad sources that are out there," a quick but unmistakable TV screenshot of Bill O'Reilly, the host of the popular show on FOX News, appears.

Watch News Literacy Project Trains Young People to Be Skeptical Media Consumers on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

That is red meat and a guaranteed red flag for some viewers and so the e-mails began arriving, a sampling of which is posted below.

When I asked the NewsHour why they did this, I got the following response from Anne Bell, the public relations manager for the program.

"Last night the PBS NEWSHOUR ran a nearly 7 minute segment on the News Literacy Project — an educational program that strives to teach young people how to be better consumers of news and information. As the piece showed, the project recognizes that students get their information from a myriad of sources — email, social media, cell phone texts, radio, newspapers, television, podcasts and websites — and it encourages students to get their information from a wide range of sources, but stresses they need to be critical consumers of that information.

"Throughout the segment, several examples of a wide range of media outlets and sources are flashed on the screen — including, MSNBC, BBC, YouTube, Facebook, The Daily Mail, email, cellphone text and FOX News. FOX and MSNBC were selected as examples of cable television outlets. At no point does the NewsHour pass judgment on the quality of any outlet shown, rather the point of the segment is that consumers should take the time to carefully scrutinize all of the information they receive."

Well, that may be what the NewsHour thinks it was showing and doing, but unless you were a cryptographer with laser-vision the only recognizable image was that of O'Reilly. The website of the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, was clear because a wrong and inflammatory story on that site was being used as an example in class. But you would be hard pressed to recognize anything or anyone else beyond O'Reilly.

Miller, who had nothing to do with editing the segment or what was chosen to illustrate it, and Brown are both excellent and highly-regarded journalists. But the picture of O'Reilly used by segment producers in the presentation distracted from the otherwise excellent content, and that almost always diminishes, needlessly in my opinion, the broader impact of these stories.

When I pressed for further details about how it happened that O'Reilly was the only recognizable figure illustrating that segment and whether that had occurred to anyone, a revised explanation was offered.

I was told that at the time when the segment was produced "no one raised a flag, however . . . others here agree that in retrospect the problem is more clear. The shot of Mr. O'Reilly lasted 2 seconds and covered the words '. . . sources that are out there.' Mr. O'Reilly charges that its position in this sentence visually suggests he engages in 'spin.' Since he is the only recognizable newsperson in the sequence, he has a point. The NewsHour apologizes for the unintended implication."

Here Are Some of the Letters

News literacy project piece: "There is so much potential here for misinformation, for propaganda, for spin and all of the myriad sources of more and more the onus is shifting to the consumer . . . etc."

To my horror I saw a clip of Bill O'Reilly's program over the above quote (I am sure you are aware The O'Reilly Factor is the number one rated news program in America at over 3.2 million viewers nightly) and that was clearly a reckless, stupid, and incendiary jibe not so much at O'Reilly but at his audience. My Fear is with all of the Federal budget cutbacks that these types of oversights are steak tartar for right-wing dogs snarling to pull funding! I don't watch O'Reilly but the people who help to pay your salary do, unless you want to rely completely on Goldman Sachs et al to pick up the tab. I realize that may be a bitter pill but that is the reality.

Please reprimand the producers of these pieces and demand retractions. It is your duty to protect and preserve the neutrality, excellence, integrity and survival of what I consider to be a national treasure: The News Hour.

John Johnston, Canoga Park, CA

~ ~ ~

I have a problem with the PBS NewsHour on Dec.13. In that broadcast they were showing a picture of Bill O'Reilly while they were talking about propaganda and misinformation. That was wrong and very deceptive. That is no way to attack a person. I expect much more than this from PBS. I know they are supposed to be neutral but we all know about NPR. This was a cheap shot. I also noticed the "Topic" Bill was discussing on the clip was "The Occupiers." Tell the editors their little message was noticed. I feel sure this won't be the only message you get about this. KEEP IT HONEST . . . AND UNBIASED.

Cathy Powell, Roswell, GA

~ ~ ~

PBS is not holding to any standards of editorial integrity when they do a shabby, dishonest piece about unfair broadcasting and showed a picture of Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly and Fox News are both fair and balanced. This PBS NewsHour was unfair. You do not deserve to get ANY federal money for this politically-motivated broadcasting. APOLOGY to Bill O'Reilly and edit this piece.

Anne Fredrickson, Pleasanton, CA

~ ~ ~

I am appalled and incensed that PBS has shown a picture of Bill O'Reilly when indicting news organizations for "misinformation" and other negative comments. PBS is given tax money, and as such, does not have the right to lean one way or the other politically or socially. If congress had a backbone, they would have cut off this tax money years ago, but alas, they do not. I would appreciate it if you would police yourself and hold yourself to a higher standard. Otherwise, your integrity is not only in question, it is non-existent.

Ernestine S. Bonicelli, Millington, TN

The headline above, for example, refers to a caller's critical description of characters appearing in a PBS NewsHour segment last Friday. The segment is part of a year-long series of reports by economics correspondent Paul Solman on income inequality under his signature financial news feature called "Making Sen$e." Last month, I wrote about an earlier controversy involving this series.

And, once again, almost all of the recent mail was directed at one thing or another on the weekday-evening NewsHour. Back in April, I made a similar observation and surmised that "it's probably because there is so much important political news these days and people are so exercised about politics, or perhaps because nothing else on PBS has stirred up much controversy lately." That still seems to be the case.

Finally, over the years, I've described, most recently in July, what I call "Lone Rangers," a single individual who calls attention to an interesting editorial issue that no one else wrote or called about, at least to me. That was on display this past week as well.

First, to the Solman segment, which asks the provocative question: "Why are conservatives happier than liberals?" It is designed around a study by Yale University social psychologist Jaime Napier that concludes economic inequality does affect people's subjective sense of well-being and that conservatives, who believe there is equality of opportunity in America, are happier than liberals. To check on this, Solman visits with a group of young staffers at a conservative Washington DC think-tank (AEI) and another group of mostly young people protesting at a nearby park who presumably are meant to represent "liberals."

Watch Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals? on PBS. See more from PBS NEWSHOUR.

AEI vs ODC

AEI stands for American Enterprise Institute, a well-known and well-funded conservative brain-trust in the heart of the nation's capital. ODC stands for Occupy the District of Columbia — an off-shoot of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement against extreme income inequality that has spread to many cities. Its focal point is a collection of tents a few blocks from AEI.

Within minutes of the Dec. 9 segment ending, I got a call from a woman who said: "I'm a liberal in San Francisco. I really think that was so unfair of Paul Solman's report to do the people in the park versus the people in the AEI. You had scruffy and unkempt versus clean-cut and well-groomed. It was so unfair I just can't believe he couldn't find a group of liberals somewhere else. I mean that just fed into every kind of conservative viewpoint about liberals in this country. And I love the show and I've never got upset, but that just really bothered me because that was just so, so blatantly unequal in terms of . . . a silly little survey, unscientific or whatever. I'm sorry. It was really bad to do that. I'm not an Occupy person and I just was really upset by that and I think that you did an unfair thing in contrasting all those clean cut kids with all those messy kids. Just not right."

I forwarded the voice message to Solman, asking for a response. He answered this way: "We didn't imagine anyone would take the Occupiers to represent all liberals, any more than the AEI folks to represent all conservatives. And I, at least, didn't find the Occupiers to be especially scruffy, or dismissible on account of their dress. Yes, Brookings [a well-known, more center-left think tank also nearby] would have been an analogous venue. But a lot less interesting. Still, I understand the criticism. Doing it again, I suppose I would acknowledge the lack of symmetry and explain we mean nothing by it."

My Thoughts

You need to watch the segment — it's only nine minutes — to really form a view on this because the dominant visual message is as powerful, and maybe more so, as anything that is said. I watched it live and thought I'd get lots of critical mail. But it was just that one caller from California until a sprinkling of emails arrived on Monday.

I would agree with Solman that the ODC protesters actually interviewed were not a "scruffy" or "unkempt" lot and that they expressed their views quite candidly and well.

But the impact of the background visuals of the encampment and other inhabitants that were not associated with interviews, and the accompanying contrast between the AEI conference room and the park scene did give the segment, in my opinion, a decided editorial tilt that did, indeed, feed negative stereotypes about "liberals."

Obviously, there are millions of liberals in this country that look like the people in the AEI conference room, even if they agree with the thrust of the Occupy movement. I have no idea if they are happier, or not, than conservatives. And I have confidence that Solman's routine quest for unconventional and catchy journalistic approaches to present issues — much of which works — is not driven by bias. Indeed, I saw no problem with the spoken, interview components of this report. But I felt that this segment was very much open to a charge of poor editorial judgment with the way it was presented on the screen.

I was also surprised that more people didn't complain about it to me. On the other hand, Solman's website actually contains a lengthy and lively discussion of this segment by scores of viewers, many of whom do criticize the contrasting choice of venues and visuals.

Here's a Letter to the Ombudsman on the Same Subject

At a time of national economic, financial and political turmoil, it is surprising that Paul Solman would trivialize the subject by presenting a poll which poses the question: "Are conservatives happier than liberals?"

Members of supposedly representative groups are asked to rate their personal level of happiness on a scale from 1 to 5. On the one hand, young impeccably-dressed business managers in a plush office environment; on the other, equally young (but mostly grungy) left-wing protesters camping out on inner-city streets. Conclusion: conservatives are indeed happier than liberals because they still believe in the American work ethic and think anyone can succeed based on his or her merit. Message: the protesters are lazy, neo-hippie bums.

But wait! How could these motivated, junior execs NOT say they are happy when they are being interviewed on national television at their own company's headquarters? They might lose their jobs and suddenly find themselves living in a tent at one of the local OCCUPY camp sites. And how could the protesters NOT say they are unhappy about something (mass unemployment and corruption in high places, for example) when they are willing to brave the cold 24/7 on the street to stage their demonstrations? Maybe, after all, the young rebels have a point. Meritocracy, like democracy, is not always applied in a uniform manner. If it were, big banks and corporate CEOs would never be richly rewarded when they fail.

A related problem: all the talent and ambition in the world can be of little use when employers systematically refuse to hire. And what about all the unhappy conservatives out there? Oddly, the report makes no mention of the ranting and raving of right wing talk show hosts, populists and Tea Partiers who constantly vent their anger and disdain toward "socialist" liberals. Granted, Solman's poll has no scientific basis. It is nevertheless a biased, superficial treatment of a serious issue and falls short of the excellent editorial standards of the PBS NewsHour.

Paul Kistner, Albuquerque, NM

New Subjects: Where Did the Guns Come From?

The following two letters came from the same viewer, Greg Thielmann, in Virginia in November and December:

Having watched the NewsHour's coverage yesterday evening [Dec. 9] of the latest shooting at Virginia Tech, I'm tempted to repeat the question I asked earlier: "Why wasn't it newsworthy to say something about the source of the murder weapon?" I admit that the question is not as compelling as in the case of the White House shooter, but since I never heard anything about the response to the question last time, I thought I would make a pest of myself to raise it again.

~ ~ ~

I wanted to share a reaction to tonight's [Nov. 17] PBS NewsHour coverage of the White House shooting. I found it interesting and informative with one glaring omission — no mention of where the suspect got the gun and why he was able to buy it. It was as if how he got an AK-47 was of no more interest than how he got a driver's license. This is a common feature of contemporary news coverage about gun crimes in our violent society. It's just that I expected better of PBS. How can we ever have sane gun laws with this conspiracy of silence among journalists?

(Ombudsman's Note: As the viewer noted, no answer was forthcoming on the November episode but with respect to the Virginia Tech shooting, NewsHour producers told me they only even learned the identity of the shooter after the program went on the air Friday night and barely had time to get his name in the story. They said they were pretty sure that piece of news was not accompanied by a detailed history of the provenance of his gun. I think the viewer raises a good point and observes, correctly, that tracing the gun is a question that many news organizations routinely fail to report or follow-up on. But, as he says, he expects better from PBS.)

The Relentless Russell Cook and Other Voices

MacNeil/Lehrer journalism guideline #3: "Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."

Regarding the NewsHour's 12//12 discussion of the Durban climate talks, the two guest commentators were basically in complete agreement on the topic. Not a word was said about the fresh revelations found in the 2nd batch of released ClimateGate emails, not a word was said about the latest revelations concerning the overall credibility problems plaguing the IPCC, and not a word was mentioned about a very detailed report issued by skeptic speakers at Durban who used it to describe how the global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts. Why is this entire other side of the story still missing from NewsHour global warming segments?

Russell Cook, Phoenix, AZ

~ ~ ~

Why was PBS unable to field junior comments from Financial Times' news correspondent Dan McCrum, whose analysis of U.K.'s choice to back out of the Euro Summit agreement was barely educated? Did no one hear David Cameron's key word "Sovereignty" in his explanation for not joining into the grand IMF/global banking plan? Does no one at your publication consider the repercussions of countries being coerced into "integrating" at the cost of their own economic autonomy — risking the loss of their freedom to world Banking?

Your superficial response to McCrum's childish analysis was appalling — especially in these times when individual freedoms are being compromised in "increments" by the fear-mongering tactics of Big Business. We know the money is made up. And whoever controls the money controls the world resources. Please TALK about what EU countries will do when they are in DEBT to the central Big Banking system, which ultimately controls world resources. Sad to see smart people tiptoeing around — or half asleep. Sorry, I like PBS, but this issue is huge.

G. A., Littleton, CO

~ ~ ~

I'm a diehard fan of the NewsHour, but I've been meaning to write you about a pet peeve — small, but with substantive overtones. Many times each week, the program presents talking heads from think tanks, mostly but not always based in Washington. The names of the think tanks are mentioned but they are usually unhelpful. Don't we need some kind of guidance, in each intro, about the political coloration and/or fund source of each?

Hoboken, NJ

~ ~ ~

I have a concern regarding PBS using the coal industry as a sponsor and promoting, through the industry's "Clean Coal" ads, that clean coal is a good thing. There is not one environmental leader who believes that clean coal is doable financially or environmentally. By supporting their ads, isn't PBS placing itself in the role of public educator that this ruse by the coal industry is sound?

Stew Plock, Palo Alto, CA

Getting the most mail, and thereby earning the headline on this posting, was additional viewer reaction to an appearance earlier this month on the Nightly Business Report by financial analyst Mark Skousen. The first reaction to his appearance from viewers was that he had introduced an anti-Obama spin when making his case about what's wrong with the economy. But that assessment, in turn, provoked other viewers to say they disagree with the first chorus and that Skousen was merely telling it like it is.

The Nightly Business Report, by the way, is under new management. You can read about it in Current, the newspaper reporting on public media.

There was also some follow-up viewer reaction to last week's column about the Masterpiece Contemporary feature film, "Page Eight," and then a collection of letters spread across a couple of subjects, but all reflecting some of the anger and frustration that is felt by many people these days about how some issues are treated.

First, on NBR and Skousen

Regarding Mark Skousen's comments on the effect of the federal minimum wage on teenage unemployment: Those with experience in business understand that you will not pay exorbitant wages to an untrained individual with no track record on employment. A training wage would offer an opportunity to hire a young individual so they could earn a track record. By requiring a large minimum wage for unqualified trainees, companies will decide to either do without, or hire an older employee who at least knows they have to pull up their pants and report to work!Unfortunately, it appears that many who commented on this segment either don't live in the real world, or don't want to hear the truth.

Carter Wilson, Fairfield, CA

~ ~ ~

I have been subscriber to some of Skousen's investment strategies and found the results to be above the market averages. I believe many of his statements regarding this last interview are definitely to be noticed for their accuracy.

Myles Peinemann, New Braunfels, TX

~ ~ ~

Skousen's observations were a highlight to an otherwise routine review of recent market action. The type of insight he offered is of value to understanding the effects of government policy on the market and economy. I submit that more reporting of why, with documented substance to support opinions, will lead to a healthy, robust debate and better information for investors.

Whitehouse, OH

~ ~ ~

I am quite surprised that many of the critics of Mr. Skousen don't realize that when a law is passed saying that business will do or not do something, that law is having an effect on business either for better or worse. The judgment about being better or worse is subjective, but the very fact that a law dictates something to business says that that law can be discussed either as a legal/political item or a business item as it is in fact both. It is very difficult to draw lines separating many items, for instance: tax payers and voters (don't voters pay taxes), or military personnel and citizens (aren't most military personnel also citizens—a few aren't).

Bob Albers, Mandeville, LA

~ ~ ~

I think Skousen's comments were "right on." I think every person should try to make a business work. All these people do is criticize. The easiest thing to do is criticize! The government is supposed to boost business, not make it so difficult. The least little comment against Obama is blasted by left-wing media.

K. Scherbarth, PC Beach, FL

~ ~ ~

Investors and businesspeople would be making a major error if they believed central-government economic and social policies could be treated as irrelevant to their economic lives. To say, "Sometimes [investment] strategy is influenced by politics" is to say something like, sometimes the time of day affects temperature (it doesn't always, but usually does).

As you hinted, Bush started many of the most recent revolutionary financial policies and Obama has merely followed Bush's lead. Therefore it is not a question of Republican versus Democrat but of citizen versus the state. Central economic policies do affect the financial well-being of individuals and businesses, so I think it is very reasonable to talk about them in the context of business and investing.

Friendship, MD

Not Afraid of 'Page Eight'

I saw the program [Page Eight] and was grabbed by the idea of how governments lie and how little we know about what lies behind actions of any government. I'm Jewish and was not immediately (or later) annoyed that a story about governments, true, false, or a bit of both would make good drama. I hope that PBS will NOT shirk from showing good stories, imagined or real, regardless of who is shown in a favorable light. I did think the ending was weak after the build-up we watched, I expected something more.

Tillie Krieger, Eugene, OR

~ ~ ~

I am a station programmer who has been asked about airing "Page Eight." In addition to steering folks to your column, I've added the following considerations: The piece that I think is missing from the letters cited in the Ombudsman's column is that fictional dramas have been demonizing one or another foreign power for many years. The terrifically popular "24" treated Arabs as one dimensional villains, and the BBC has had its share of Arab villains too. Much more widespread (and making a comeback), Russian nationals have been the target of remarkably vicious portrayals in both US and British productions for decades. That the Israeli Defense Forces, the CIA and British intelligence were depicted as brutal and/or inept is not such new territory for many dramas of the last 10 years or so. The dialogue reminds me of the controversy swirling around "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Da Vinci Code" that alienated many Christians and Catholics. My feeling is that fiction be acknowledged for what it is…a flight of fancy on the part of the author and we be thankful that there are still organizations (the BBC in this case) willing to produce exceptionally high quality fiction for television.

Colin Powers, Mountain Lake PBS, Plattsburgh, NY

~ ~ ~

My wife and I were very impressed with "Page Eight." We loved it and I said to her "we better write and praise it because I bet some people won't like it." I am sorry that I waited until I received the Ombudsman's report to write our STRONG APPROVAL for this Masterpiece Theatre. Thank you for making us think and considering us adults.

Bruce Hann, Denver, CO

~ ~ ~

I don't usually write in like this but the bias in this program was quite unfair. By giving a false understanding to the viewer of what might happen, it undermines the integrity of the Masterpiece name, BBC and PBS. It's hatred of Jews wrapped in nice British accents. The harmful falsehoods may be given credence by PBS viewers because it is presented on PBS. This should be a concern not just for those who care about the liberal, democratic, egalitarian, law-abiding, tolerant, rule of law based, state of Israel. This should be a concern for those who care about truth, integrity, decency and the value of the brand PBS.

Woodbridge, CT

~ ~ ~

Wow! It must be great to have your job!! Every few weeks you can pretend to be an "ombudsman" while spewing your irrational illogical liberal garbage!! The most recent example is your extolling the "Page Eight" program as is part of what is called "Masterpiece Contemporary"!! You had high praise for it even though you included numerous emails against it and ONLY ONE for it!! WHERE IS YOUR OMBUDSMAN OBJECTIVITY??!!

Ed Kertz, Ballwin, MO

Is PBS Taking on the Challenges?

PBS seems to be falling behind in taking on the Congressional excesses that are now so obviously threatening our democratic form of gov't. Both CBS (60 Min) and CNN are now taking on Grover Norquist, insider trading, and special interest lobbying. I hope you're not being cowed by a threat of losing federal funding.

Len Sullivan, Chevy Chase, MD

~ ~ ~

Thanks for the upcoming American Masters' program celebrating the life of that pedophile Woody Allen. Perhaps you should have a show on Jerry Sandusky, the football coach/molester? PBS used to be an uplifting experience. Thanks for helping to end that.

D. Gallardo, San Francisco, CA

~ ~ ~

I'm concerned about the move of PBS streaming videos to YouTube because of the ads/suggested videos that appear next to the PBS content. While watching Washington Week online Saturday (11/19), linked from the PBS website, I was inundated with YouTube suggestions to watch "The Truth about Scientology." It was a Paid-Ad from the Church of Scientology; NOT a group that PBS programing should be seen as supporting or endorsing.

Steve Bloomfield, Cleveland, OH

~ ~ ~

I think it is inappropriate that the PBS News Hour has on "experts" from an extreme right-wing organization like the Manhattan Institute —supported by millions of dollars from the Koch Brothers — without properly identifying them as such— especially since the Koch Brothers are leading donors to PBS!

James Adcock, Bellevue, WA

(Ombudsman's note: The Koch Brothers are not financial contributors to the PBS NewsHour or other public affairs programs such as Washington Week, Frontline and Need to Know. David Koch is a supporter of the science series, NOVA, at WGBH in Boston.)

Watch Fri., Nov. 18, 2011 on PBS. See more from NEED TO KNOW.

PBS no longer represents the public. We will no longer support PBS (financially or otherwise). In the most recent episode of Need to Know (segment on the military budget), you presented the American [Enterprise] Institute as an arbiter of fact. Yet, they are a biased and partisan think tank-this is demonstrable fact & we are certain is no secret to your producers.

Additionally, PBS is growing increasingly afraid of its own shadow in our ever-partisan political climate. Falling into the pit of presenting what, on the surface, appears to be two sides of an issue is simply a venue for partisan 'hacks' to present biased information and not factual evidence. At what point do you cease to be representatives of the people —becoming tools for the state and corporate donors? The question is rhetorical because we both know-we all know-that that line is being crossed. Even within PBS, employees feel this way. Can we all be wrong? You certainly are. Continue to ask the 1 percent for donations—the 99 percent are broke.

Carmel Valley, CA

~ ~ ~

I'm writing in response to a program which aired 11/19/11 at 1:30am. I do not recall the name [Need to Know] but, it was two discussions on the defense budget. I do not watch PBS as much as I would like but I have always revered and respected the integrity of your journalism. It is for this reason that the following occurrences have left me feeling well…kind of sad as if, a loss has occurred.

In the first portion of the program an honest discussion appeared to be under way when a graph appeared to depict some measure of military spending. The source of the data was the Heritage Foundation. It seemed an odd provider for PBS. The second portion involved a discussion centered on the same subject with Ray Suarez and a "fellow," I believe, from the American Enterprise Institute. As a conservative organization composed of so many persons who've espoused often, harsh and unrealistic positions, politically combative and partisan in nature, it seemed a strange ingredient for an honest, informative discussion.

Now, I can't say, with certainty, what stance AEI has on any one position w/o some research but I know they are less reputable and unnecessarily partisan than many legitimate resources available to PBS. The Heritage Foundation would be laughable if they weren't so hard at work concocting misinformation …This is not a secret, the evidence is readily available. So, I'm left to wonder, "What the hell, PBS"? Is this the ultimate virtual reality in which I am made to believe the last bastion of insightful, uncorrupted journalistic integrity has become a platform for today's right-wing extremist lunacy? I really am stunned! Are you being bought out as a stopgap until they abolish you all together, congressionally? PBS, where have you gone?

Danny Smith, Tallahassee, FL

~ ~ ~

(Ombudsman's Note: With respect to the two letters above, I thought Need to Know did a good job on this segment. Aside from a Heritage Foundation graphic there was one from the Center for Defense Information, an organization that brings a critical eye to Pentagon spending. And, the first round-table segment of this program contained considerable questioning of the Defense Department's undertakings while the AEI representative presented the opposing view in straight-forward terms.)

I'm not a film critic. But as a viewer, I thought this was superb theater; a brilliant cast that captured—through wonderful acting performances, dialogue that didn't waste a word, and photography that enhanced both—a dark underside to Her Majesty's government and secret service.

It is fiction, say the film's producers. But is it? Is it just a movie, or is it propaganda? Is it, as some have asked through the ages, "good for the Jews?" Almost certainly not. Will it be far more controversial on public broadcasting screens in the United States than it was in the United Kingdom, where it first aired last summer and where criticism of Israel is more routine? For sure.

Those are some of the questions—along with hundreds of e-mails and calls from outraged PBS viewers—that bring this film to my attention.

As with intelligence matters, much of what is going on here isn't clear. The film is, in one sense, a fictionalized extrapolation of some events that we know actually took place in the aftermath of 9/11. This is combined with a fictionalized account of another event that we think might actually have happened, or can imagine it happening, but never did happen in the way the film portrays it.

The film, as entertainment, is very much worth watching if you click on the video below.

Watch Page Eight on PBS. See more from MASTERPIECE.

The plot is impossible to summarize in a very short space, so here's a synopsis provided by Masterpiece. In the shortest short-hand, here is what is at the heart of the controversy.

The main character, Johnny Worricker—a wise, experienced and senior MI5 analyst dedicated to telling it like it is, and his similarly wise but older and sickly boss, discover that the British Prime Minister has known, all along, about the secret U.S. operation to transport suspected terrorist prisoners to other countries where they can be tortured for information. But the Prime Minister did not share this with his own intelligence agency and so this top-level British dedication to U.S. secrecy about the operation may have cost British lives in the battle against terrorism. The boss dies and it is up to Worricker to surface the truth in the face of a British political-intelligence axis determined to stop him at any cost. Some of this, at least the stuff about overseas prisons and torture, is right out of yesteryear's headlines.

But where the film takes an unusual turn is when Worricker meets his next-door neighbor, the beguiling Nancy Pierpan—Syrian-born and with a famous father who is an Arab scholar. She is distraught because, as she explains to Worricker, her brother, a peace activist, was killed by the Israeli military in the occupied territories. He was waving a white flag and trying to stop the Israelis from knocking down a house.

"The Israelis were trying to build a wall through the occupied territories and the wall went right through the house," she said. "My life was changed when my brother was killed. He was killed by the Israeli Defense Force. Nothing they say makes any sense. I don't believe a word of the official inquiry."

There is more, later in the film, about how the Israelis suppressed the report on the death.

A Subplot That Becomes the Main Plot for Many

The segments dealing with the Israeli Defense Force are a subplot but play a key role in how the film ends. And they were clearly enough to cause a fair number of viewers to come out of their chairs and rant at PBS about showing a film that they consider anti-Israeli propaganda.

Again, I'm not a film reviewer, and I don't want to spoil things, so don't read the rest of this paragraph if you want to be surprised. But in the end, Worricker, the impeccable seeker of truth, leaks a report about the alleged Israeli cover-up of the alleged shooting to the BBC, and dumps the report of the presumably more deadly prime ministerial cover-up—that may have cost many British lives, although we are never told how—in the trash. That, to me, seemed out of character for the MI5 analyst, although his future in the UK would have been endangered, he had a bag full of money, and a knock-out, Syrian girlfriend who just might follow him out of the country.

Some really bad things have been happening routinely to both sides, Arabs and Jews, in the Middle East for what seems like forever. There have been some peace activists killed—none that I'm aware of who were waving a white flag—and the overseas prisons usage was for real. So when you watch this film it comes across as very engrossing fiction made more powerful by the adroit use of events that either did happen or that we probably think happened. Most of the reviews I read do not even mention the Israeli subplot.

The impact of the film is to slam U.S. and British leadership, as well as the Israelis. Alessandra Stanley, writing in the New York Times, was one of the few that went after the substantive impact. "It could be that just this once," she wrote, "the wise and world-weary British spy has it all wrong, and C.I.A. brutality actually prevented a terrorist attack. Maybe, just maybe, Israeli soldiers didn't deliberately kill an unarmed pro-Palestinian demonstrator.

"Of course not," she continued."None of those scenarios are possible because 'Page Eight' was written by the British playwright and filmmaker David Hare, and his feelings about the West Bank and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq supersede his storytelling: he cares too much to give a surprise twist to this oft-told tale of American perfidy. And it's a shame because 'Page Eight,' a BBC film that will be on PBS on Sunday, is a moody modern-day espionage tale with flawless performances by the likes of Bill Nighy, Rachel Weisz, Michael Gambon, Judy Davis and Ralph Fiennes."

Program Ends, E-mails Begin

I watch these programs as a viewer but the ombudsman's alarm is always in my head and it went off as I was watching because one has to know that the portrayal of the Israelis, whether fictional or not, is going to alienate a segment of the PBS audience. So I was not surprised when the first sharply critical e-mails arrived. I asked Masterpiece to respond.

At first, publicist Ellen Dockser replied: "The Masterpiece Contemporary series often touches on current world events about which there are varying points of view."

When I asked which current events they were referring to, I was told that: "Although Jake Pierpan [the activist who was killed when waving the white flag] is an entirely fictional creation within a fictional drama, a memory of the news story of Tom Hurndall lingers for British viewers." Hurndall, Dockser explained, "was a British peace activist who was shot in the Gaza strip by the IDF, and he was the subject of a recent TV drama [on British television], so his story is quite widely known here."

Hurndall, from what I read about the case, was a UK citizen, not of Arab descent, who volunteered for the International Solidarity Movement. He was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper in 2003 in the Gaza Strip. He was not waving a white flag.

The initial Israeli inquiry was routine and concluded Hurndall was shot accidentally. But largely because of British pressure, a subsequent investigation, and a change of testimony by the sniper, brought a manslaughter conviction and eight-year prison sentence by an Israeli court.

When I asked if the Hurndall story did influence the "Page Eight" story line, and also about Masterpiece's decision to air this film in the U.S., Steven Ashley, senior producer of Masterpiece, explained that Hurndall was a UK citizen and that the author, David Hare, did not reference him. But, he pointed out, Hurndall is referred to in a subsequent BBC explanation of the subplot of "Page Eight." The BBC mentions that the fictional story of Jake Pierpan is not unlike the story of Hurndall and that of Rachel Corrie, a young American member of the same protest group. She was also killed in 2003 in the Gaza Strip by an Israeli military bulldozer in an episode that an Israeli investigation described as an accident but was highly controversial nonetheless.

On the broader question, Ashley went on to say: "MASTERPIECE is a co-producer of the film with Heyday Films, Runaway Fridge TV, Carnival and NBC Universal for the BBC. We, of course, were aware that this and several other plot points could be provocative to segments of the audience. As befits its definition, Masterpiece Contemporary frequently exhibits dramas drawn from modern themes: in this case, an international espionage thriller taking place in politically-charged times where everything and anything can be a flash point of tension.

"There are several story-lines and many potentially controversial points of view in this film - the American senator's disclosure of UK complicity in torture; the UK prime minister's effort to cover up the scandal; the story of the British man shot by the Israeli army. They are linked together by the plot of PAGE EIGHT, as well as by first-class, intelligent writing and acting. We think it would be wrong to shy away from a program because it might be provocative to a segment of an audience.

"Sir David Hare is a respected and honored writer and director of dramas featuring international and political issues. Mr. Hare was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from Tel Aviv University for his play 'Via Dolorosa,' an examination of the Israel-Palestine conflict."

My Thoughts

However open this film is to criticism, it is, in my view, "a grabber," meaning it grabs your attention right away and doesn't let go for almost two hours. It cleverly uses things we know or think we know to add credibility to what is a smart, fictional drama. I agree with Steven Ashley that it would be wrong to shy away from such a program because it might be provocative to a segment of an audience. And I also think that unless viewers have been in a cave for half-a-century, most have formed an understanding of what happens in the Middle East and who is responsible for what atrocities.

On the other hand, I can't blame those viewers who feel outraged and wonder why PBS needs to broadcast this nationwide. PBS will probably pay a price for this.

The subplot is obviously one-sided and sympathetic to the Arab or anti-Israeli side as personified by the perfect Nancy Pierpan character, her dignified father and the slain brother/son who, one would assume from the film, is of Arab ancestry. But Tom Hurndall was a Brit and there was no white flag being waved, and the described circumstances of the fictional Jake Pierpan's death contain the worst, yet most sympathetic, of possible activities: killed by the Israelis while waving a white flag for trying to stop them from knocking down a house because the wall they were building through the occupied territories went right through the house.

Here Is a (small) Sampling of the Letters

Having been a fan of Masterpiece Theatre and PBS, I watched in horror, on Nov. 6, David Hare's "spy thriller." Mr. Hare certainly left no doubt as to where his sympathies, or on the other hand his animosities, lie. To portray the IDF as villains and to portray America as torturers is pure propaganda. Incidents happen, but overall the Israelis do not murder defenseless persons and the Americans are trying to protect themselves and the world, actually. I really resent the fact that PBS aired this program. I certainly will not punish myself by not watching Masterpiece, but I certainly will not support PBS financially. Shame on them.

Mignon Rosenthal, Baltimore, MD

~ ~ ~

Over the years, PBS's Masterpiece Theatre has well lived up to its name, by presenting numerous excellent BBC dramatic productions. "Page Eight" decidedly is not among them. Very roughly based on a couple of highly controversial incidents, and wholly informed by an extremely tendentious reading of those events, it is an extraordinarily crude piece of anti-Israel agitprop. It is unworthy of the BBC that produced it and, even more so, of PBS, for inflicting it on an unwary American public.

Creating a wholly fictitious denouement of official British government condemnation of Israel is particularly offensive, representing the stretching of dramatic license well beyond the breaking point. Demonization of Israel was total and unrelenting throughout. Needless to say, your audience, not to mention the truth, was very ill-served by this appalling presentation. It deserves an abject official apology for an extremely poor programming decision.

Future broadcasts of this defamatory material, particularly on the internet, ought, in fairness, to be accompanied by a statement explicitly noting its entirely fictional character and emphasizing that the views expressed therein are solely those of its producers.

Richard Wilkins, Syracuse, NY

~ ~ ~

Regarding David Hare's "Page Eight," I have never seen such a rabid piece of anti-Israel - and actually given its basic dishonesty, blatantly anti-Semitic - propaganda shown on MPT. I'm still reeling and can 't believe that Maryland Public TV could have shown it. Essentially it blames Israel for whatever axes Hare has to grind, and Israel is scapegoated throughout while not being in any way central to the play's central themes.

This kind of balderdash only limits the effectiveness of those like myself who for years have been critical of both sides: Israel for its settlements policies; the Palestinians for their continuing peace-precluding terrorism. And to think that this British Jew-hater cites as authoritative the report of the Iranian secret service…or that even an unjust killing is in any way commensurate with the huge numbers of innocent Israelis, many of whose funerals I've covered, who have been slaughtered…such as at the S'barro Pizza Restaurant in downtown Jerusalem, whose perpetrators have just been released in the large prisoner swap for one kidnapped Israeli soldier who was held for five years.

You'll forgive me. Perhaps I could make my case a bit more eloquently, but I'm still in a state of shock after seeing this program, which as few others I've ever seen on your channels deeply violates not only my sense of balance but so very deeply my very sense of truth. I would be deeply grateful if you would pass this letter on to the Director of MPT.

Jack Eisenberg, Baltimore, MD

(Ombudsman's Note: A Maryland Public Televisison official, in response to Eisenberg, said, "We are not planning to rebroadcast this film.")

A Rejection Slip?

I have just watched the online Masterpiece presentation of "Page Eight" and was highly offended by much of the subplot and politicized theme of the show. It was basically an anti-Israel diatribe and distorts reality by not expressing any of the alternate perspective of what has been happening in and about that country with respect to the Palestinians. Your production staff should have refused to broadcast despite the fact that you have a time slot to fill! You accepted this airing as a channel receiving public tax supported donations and have an obligation to be "politically balanced" in dealing with controversial subjects.

Dr. Stephen Kollins, Las Vegas, NV

~ ~ ~

Last Sunday, Nov 6, I settled down to enjoy Masterpiece Theater. The show was called "Page Eight." Frankly, I've long had great affection for Masterpiece presentations. I love Inspector Lewis, the Swedish fellow Wallender, and Detective Poirot. But, as I watched Masterpiece Theater's "Page Eight" unfold, I grew sick.

Here in the States we are well aware that police shows, such as Law and Order, will take stories that emerge in the news, and build on them narratives that closely follow the plot lines of actual events. I often smile as I recognize the events the writers have used to create their stories. But, what I haven't seen recently—and maybe I don't watch TV enough— is where writers create propaganda and suggest that it is based on what we already know to be true. Propaganda is what you do when you're at war. It was true during the Cold War. It was true during the Vietnam conflict. No war is propaganda-free. But, is that what we are to take away from this Masterpiece presentation? Are we to see ourselves at war with Israel, the only country in the Middle East that extends civil rights to its women, to its minorities, to gays, and to anyone else regardless of their religion? This nation, Israel, that observes the laws of war and the treatment of prisoners more scrupulously than any other country in the world? Those of us who follow world events have long been aware of Britain's Jewish problem. But for Public Television to bring such hatred of Israel to the U.S. is unconscionable.

Harry M. Mahn, Bellmore, NY

~ ~ ~

While watching the program below, I noticed important, disguised or perhaps just plain overt anti-Semitism. The "Masterpiece" theme revolved about an aging British spy. The injured person was the actress Rachel Weisz, who in real life is a Jew. Rachel's role was that of a distraught person because the IDF had killed her husband/friend [brother] while showing a white flag, and of course she then hated Jews (= Israel). She meets Nighy (spy) who at the end decides to help, no less than to vindicate the name of her brother. The vindication was needed because the IDF had not spoken the truth about the man with a white flag. I do not understand a) the role of Jews in this type of film and b) the reason to use Israel or Jews as the bad people. What was the purpose? I thought that the Merchant of Venice, etc, were things of the past.

Pablo Nankin, MD Beverly Hills CA

~ ~ ~

PBS was always about classics and education. Is airing "Page Eight" in the public interest? A fictional, one-sided piece with bias against an ally? If you have traveled to England recently you will know that it is becoming an extension of Arabia and that television such as "Page Eight" will more and more be part of the fabric of local programing. Please don't bring this crap to the U.S.

Riverwoods, IL

~ ~ ~

Your decision to air "Page Eight" is reprehensible. Why don't you just air the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? PBS should not air such a canard. What is the next fictional show you are going to air—one where Jewish adults kill a Muslim child to make Matzah? The blood libels continue and you help promote them.

Marten Hirsch, Wynnewood, PA

~ ~ ~

I write to protest the egregious anti-Israel hit piece "Page Eight" that aired last Sunday on Masterpiece (KQED). We see [none of this is shown] allegedly brutish Israelis killing an innocent peace-loving protester intent only on halting the Jews' callous seizure of land and the construction of a wall through an Arab home. No mention of terrorism or threats from Hamas or other Palestinian militants, suicide bombings, killing of Israeli civilians. I am a long-time admirer of Masterpiece (Theater) but using this venue to present a one-sided demonization of Israel is disgraceful.

Lewis Glenn, Danville, CA

~ ~ ~

My wife and I saw "Page Eight" on Channel 13 last week and were appalled by its trumped up and totally unnecessary anti-Israel propaganda fiction disguised as drama. BBC's anti-Semitism is repellent, and there is absolutely no good reason for our Public Broadcasting Corporation's stations to pass swill like this along to American audiences.

J.B. Russell, Danville, CA

On the Other Hand

Please can we have more programs like "Page Eight," which was on Masterpiece Contemporary last week. It was superb!

Fort Collins, CO

(Ombudsman's Note: Many of the letters may have originated with a Nov. 11 "alert" to subscribers of CAMERA, which stands for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. But the program aired on Nov. 6, and several people wrote prior to the CAMERA alert.)

"Do you view China as a potential military threat to the United States?" Woodruff asked.

Cain's answer, in part, was: "They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat."

The Chinese have had nuclear weapons for some 50 years. This is a rather widely known fact, which was subsequently pointed out in numerous newspaper and online editorial commentaries, on "Meet the Press" and elsewhere on television.

Where it was not pointed out, unfortunately, was during this NewsHour interview.

There has been so much media attention focused on the allegations of sexual harassment surrounding Cain that the China gaffe by a front-runner in the polls actually did not get as much attention in the press as one would normally expect. And the journalistic failure to challenge Cain immediately during the interview got much less attention than the China blunder.

But that's the kind of thing that interests me, and some viewers like this one in Sacramento, CA, who writes: "When a candidate for president implies in an interview that he doesn't know China has nuclear weapons and a reporter fails to follow-up on that line of questioning, the reporter is committing journalistic malpractice. I'm sorry, [but] what was Judy Woodruff thinking…or not thinking?"

What She Says She Was Thinking

Woodruff is a highly-experienced and alert interviewer and what she was thinking, she says, was that she had about two minutes left in the interview in which to get to policy questions and, as Cain was starting to answer her China questions, "I was mentally dropping several other policy questions in order to leave time to ask him one final question about the broad challenge he faced to win the nomination. When he said at the end of that answer that China was trying to develop nuclear capability, and they want to develop more aircraft carriers, I made the quick assumption he meant they wanted to ENHANCE their existing capability, but hadn't said so. In that split second, I decided against asking him to clarify, because I was worried about how much time it would take. In retrospect, I should have. It was too important a point to leave it ambiguous."

I've always had sympathy for television or radio reporters who, during live interviews, know or suspect that they just let something slip by them that should have been challenged. It's tough to be on full alert all the time about almost everything. On the other hand, it also strikes me that too often, and especially in the last several years, the lack of factual or contextual challenge on the spot—particularly on the main, strictly down-the-middle network evening news broadcasts, and I include PBS in that—is contributing to public confusion and irritation over many issues.

That's a big indictment, for which I have only one example—and sort of a second one in the section just below—to point to in this column, since I stick to PBS. But years of watching mainstream network television have convinced me that it's true.

Nightly Business Report Gets Poked

The second example unfolded during the Nov. 4 broadcast of PBS's Nightly Business Report, a program that is now in its 32nd year, with new ownership, a devoted audience and normally not a generator of much mail to the ombudsman.

But several viewers e-mailed and called about an interview during the "Market Monitor" segment of the program with guest Mark Skousen, editor of the financial market letter, "Forecasts and Strategies." They complained about what they saw as a right-wing assault on the Obama administration couched within his views on the market.

Here's some of what Skousen had to say to interviewer Susie Gharib:

GHARIB: Let`s talk first about your outlook for the markets. You are upbeat even though today was not a good day. Tell us why.

SKOUSEN: Well, it wasn`t good and the unemployment rate demonstrates once again the headwinds that this country is facing in the Obama administration. I want to mention just in particular the material you had on teenage unemployment. I was surprised that nothing was mentioned about the dramatic 40 percent increase in the Federal minimum wage law. And economists have warned over and over again that when you have to charge these huge prices, $7 or so forth for teenagers who are relatively untrained, you`re going to have a real problem with unemployment. And among male black teenagers, the unemployment rate is over 50 percent. And I think it`s directly related to the Federal minimum wage law. This is a problem that our country faces, is these very serious headwinds with Obamacare, Federal minimum wage law, Dodd-Frank, all of these burdens are placed on business.

Here's a Sampling of the Letters:

Tonight (11/4), PBS Nightly Business Report interviewed a stock broker introduced as a stock market analyzer. Instead, he gave a right-wing editorial about the "evils" of Obama polices and how the minimum wage is responsible for our high unemployment. If the show is going to present the right-wing political views, it should be introduced as such and not as analysis of stock market trends. This was deceptive and unprofessional.

William Fitzgerald, Sacramento, CA

~ ~ ~

Mark Skousen's political spin in Friday's "Market Monitor" segment was out of line. Guests who wish to comment on the political campaign for president should appear on an appropriate program - not NBRI.

Bill Harned, Shepherdsville, KY

~ ~ ~

Tonight on the Nightly Business Report, one of the guests, Mark Skousen, repeatedly and pointedly bashed the Obama administration. I felt his behavior was insulting and showed a lack of regard for the Business Report and the host. Not sure what the policy is for content on the show, but you might want to establish or strengthen them.

Houston, TX

~ ~ ~

As a long time listener to and supporter of PBS, I was upset at the remarks of the "guest" on the Friday Nov. 4 edition of Nightly Business Report. His comments re: minimum wage, Obamacare etc. were so stupid and so far below the quality of your program that it was difficult to understand his appearance.

Norman Narin, Eugene, OR

NBR's Co-Anchor and Managing Editor, Tom Hudson, Responds:

Mr. Skousen's political beliefs expressed on Nightly Business Report on Friday, Nov. 4, were his own. Mr. Skousen is not a stock broker. He is an editor of a well-established and respected investment newsletter in addition to being an economist. His investment ideas have been featured on NBR for many years. NBR and its audience are less interested in an investment professional's political persuasion and more interested in their investment strategy. Sometimes that strategy is influenced by politics. However, our focus remains on the financial strategy and insightful outlook provided by our guests. We will continue working hard to that end, holding ourselves and our guests to that high standard.

My Thoughts

This interview with Skousen was by NBR's co-anchor Susie Gharib, an experienced financial journalist who has been with the program for more than a dozen years. Throughout the interview, Gharib's questioning stayed focused exclusively on the market and the outlook. But Skousen's answers at times also set-off my political spin alarm, and no on-air challenges were forthcoming.

One thing that struck me here—something that I was aware of and might have been pointed out—is that the multi-year increases in the Federal minimum wage were mandated in 2007 during the Bush administration. At another point later in the program, when talking about the pipeline industry, Skousen said this could be a strong growth area "if the Republicans take over the three branches of government, which is a very real possibility with this unemployment." My assumption here is that he meant the White House and both houses of Congress, rather than the Federal judiciary.

Nor was any more detailed description of Skousen's background offered to viewers. Perhaps that was not necessary because he is a well-known figure in the financial field and had been on the program before. But informing viewers about a show's guests, beyond a job title, is helpful when producers know there is more background than a title may convey.

Skousen's website describes him as a known "maverick of economics for his contrarian and optimistic views, his sometimes outrageous statements and predictions." He is a proponent of the "Austrian" model of economic thought championed by the late Friedrich Hayek and others, is a frequent speaker and writer for the Cato Institute, the Libertarian Party and the conservative weekly, Human Events.

I'm not taking issue with Skousen's views. Clearly there are many critics of the president's economic policies, and I agree with NBR's Managing Editor that financial strategy is sometimes influenced by politics. But the thrust of Skousen's remarks did, to my layman's ears, seem to have a partisan political tone, and that surprised me—admittedly not a regular viewer—in the context of what is essentially a business news program.

Photo courtesy of pbs.org/newshour

That has been the case, especially, during September and October. Solman has been covering this beat for the NewsHour for just shy of 25 years, but this year he has been doing a series on the growth of income inequality in this country—a widely documented trend over the past several years—with six or so special segments thus far. The last two of these—one about the "social security safety net" broadcast on Sept. 21 and another asking whether U.S. economic inequality "has a good side" on Oct. 26—drew a great deal of comment, mostly critical, both on the NewsHour's web site and in my inbox.

In fact, in the closing summary of the NewsHour broadcast on Monday, Oct. 31, correspondent Hari Sreenivasan specifically called attention to Solman's online response "to the avalanche of viewer reaction" from the Oct. 26 interview with NYU law school Prof. Richard Epstein.

Some Factual Errors

Both of these recent segments contained errors and both were quickly acknowledged and explained in editor's notes on Sept. 22 and Oct. 31 and made available on the NewsHour web site.

The first note said: "Many viewers took us to task for failing to acknowledge in our report on Wednesday's program [Sept. 21] that custodial nursing home care is paid for by Medicaid, rather than Medicare. They are correct." It then went on for a fuller explanation. I did not write about the segment at the time because the editor's note quickly and rather fully dealt with the error that clearly upset a lot of people.

The Oct. 31 correction involved a quote that Prof. Epstein mistakenly attributed—as have others, including former President Reagan—to Abraham Lincoln rather than to Rev. William John Henry Boetcker, a conservative Presbyterian minister who wrote in 1916 that "you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich."

A Wider Challenge

But much of the criticism aimed at these pieces was actually broader than the two factual mistakes. The sampling of letters posted below deals only with the most recent segment last week on the "good side" of income equality.

From where I sit, we don't have any journalistic crime here by Solman. Rather what we have, it seems to me, are two programs, more or less back-to-back in a series, that turned out to be ill-timed, with invited guests focusing on aspects of our individual and national economic situation that are legitimate to point out. Yet they are on the fringes of what is bothering so many people when tens of millions are seriously hurting, when the gap in wealth has never been wider—never seemed further away from any reasonable or healthy proportion—and never been more vociferously challenged by more Americans.

So you can't blame some viewers of the "social security safety net" report for being upset when Robert Lerman, a longtime friend of Solman who is a professor of economics at American University in Washington, D.C., suggests, in a nursing home setting, that a big source of wealth "is embodied in the right to your social security flow of income and also to the guaranteed health insurance that you get."

It is true that for many people those programs provide vital income to pay some vital bills. And there is nothing wrong with pointing it out, except that most people in nursing homes or on Medicare and Medicaid can be forgiven for not feeling, or actually being, wealthy.

Then along comes Prof. Epstein, a libertarian and a lawyer, not an economist, who is presented to viewers as offering a "contrarian view." In answer to Solman's questions about income inequality, Epstein says: "What's good about inequality is if, in fact, it turns out that inequality creates an incentive for people to produce and create wealth. It's a wonderful force for innovation…And one of the fundamental mistakes about the egalitarians is they're so interested in trying to minimize differences that they don't understand the completely adverse effects that it has on the size of the [economic] pie."

Solman asks a lot of the right questions and Epstein answers in ways that clearly provoke some viewers. Much of what he offers are assertions and interpretations rather than statistics. But Epstein, it seems to me, describes a perspective on American capitalism that is shared by a fair number of people and he voices a legitimate argument, whether or not you agree. I knew, as I watched this, it would draw mail and criticism, yet I felt it was a lively and worthwhile interview. It's just that you wanted to hear an equal-time challenge to his views right away.

It's a Series, Not a Segment

As is the case with any series of programs or news reports, it is best to judge them as a continuum, or as a whole. The series on inequality included these titles earlier in the year: "Many Americans Feel 'Stuck in a Rut' as Economy Improves, But Inequality Grows"; "Land of the Free, Home of the Poor"; "Americans Facing More Inequality, More Debt and Now More Trouble? " They didn't draw much criticism.

Solman, at the end of what struck me as a quite long and rather defensive response on his web page, invokes these earlier programs and says, finally, that "I think we've told the inequality story carefully, comprehensively and provocatively from early in the trend," and that, "Robert Lerman and Richard Epstein were clear enough and straight-forward enough for any thinking person to evaluate what they said."

I agree with that. But, as I said earlier, the combination of these interviews seemed to reflect unfortunate timing. They both had something of an it's-not-so-bad quality and offered legitimate, yet somehow irrelevant-sounding, arguments for this moment of national trial.

Below are some of the letters I received about the Epstein interview, and below that is a longer commentary by a viewer named David Ramsey that was the first to appear on Solman's online "Business Desk" discussion soon after the Oct. 26 broadcast with Prof. Epstein. I thought the Ramsey comments and opinions encapsulated the broadest viewer concerns about that segment.

Here Are Some Letters

Last night (October 26) you interviewed a Professor Epstein of NYU Law. As an NYU alumnus, I was absolutely embarrassed by Epstein's circular thinking in this time of the Great Recession and for his narrow views on why the rich are indispensable. He never addressed the issues of dishonest lobbyism in DC, phony legislation like Jobs for Americans which REALLY gave no jobs but a 35 percent tax break for corporations to go overseas. I won't go into the litany of ills. Epstein should read "Third World America" by Arianna Huffington and the April issue of Mother Jones Magazine, with its "America's Vampire Economy" replete with REAL graphs by Harvard Business School showing that with deregulation and Congress's reliance on the super-rich corporations for campaign funds and the perversion of legislation to suit corporate needs through a "Shadow Elite," the middle and working class in this country is being systematically destroyed by unregulated greed and sneaky legislation

It is amazing how many people are uninformed about the reality of what is happening in our country and talk well-pronounced nonsense to explain away criminal behavior. The last time we had this situation with corporations, we had a tough and honest president (Theodore Roosevelt) who busted bullies in the rail and oil industries from monopolies down to harmless nothings. Unfortunately no such Knight exists in DC today - where all Congressmen and US Senators act out of self-interest rather than concern for the public as they line their pockets with lobbyist gold. Professor Epstein [has a] fanciful view of the true economic situation existent in this country.

Virginia Dayan, Astoria, NY

~ ~ ~

Professor Richard Epstein stated how inequality makes us all better, how the tax system is more redistributive than it has been and that the regulatory system is greater than previously. I don't know where he has been but both of these statements are far from the truth. It seems that PBS's NewsHour continues to expose its viewers to one-sided points on a regular basis. These are not views experienced or expressed by Joe Q Public. So, inequality is something positive and which PBS supports via the guests that you showcase? This is a Public Broadcasting Station that is supposed to have all sides of an issue covered. I have found this not true.

Seattle, WA

~ ~ ~

Although I found Mr. Epstein's position disgusting and reminiscent of Marie Antoinette, I don't object to your airing an extremist, who backs the 1 percent's views. However, please follow up with an equally "extremist" view of Wall St from Stiglitz, Galbraith, Naomi Klein or Krugman. Hopefully, you will not placate your audience with a moderate, portraying them as "far left."

In my humble opinion, what PBS has done recently to shift the news to the right has been reprehensible. Your disregard of Occupy Wall Street, until other mainstream media started, was deplorable.

E. Rivers, Portland, ME

~ ~ ~

As a longtime PBS viewer, I cannot understand why the NewsHour is not giving more balanced news. Its practice year after year is to favor and more frequently interview people who are in favor of the growing inequality in the US. It caters to the Republicans in government and corporate sponsors, as if there were no other point of view. I am not overstating my case, as a few interviews of more moderate guests does not balance the overall trend of the show.

Margalo Ashley-Farrand, Portland, OR

~ ~ ~

On Oct. 26, you had a [Professor] Epstein speaking on the ECONOMY. After listening to claptrap for minutes I find that he is a LAWYER —NOT an ECONOMIST. He is not expert and should not have been advanced as one on your show. If you have to air wing-nut economics views, you can at least get Taylor (Stanford), or George Schultz. However, why not try some of the Nobel Prize winners (e.g., Krugman) if you want an informed opinion instead of a wing-nut opinion? Or is it because in your zeal to be "balanced" you feel you must give the Flat Earth Society equal time?

Buffalo, NY

The Ramsey Comment

Paul: I am frustrated by economists such as your guest this evening that seem to insist upon revisionist views of U.S. economic history. The "trickle down" theory dates back at least to the Nixon administration. Special tax benefits for the rich have never resulted in economic benefits to the general public. It is instructive that Congress determined that the appropriate highest tax bracket in the 1990s was 39 percent. Microsoft and Apple - examples cited by your guest - made substantial profits in the 1990s as did many other companies. The 39 percent tax rate was determined by Congress to be reasonable at the time of its imposition and the economic gains of the 1990s bear out the reasonableness of this determination.

The [George] W. Bush tax reduction for the wealthy was simply a gift to W's peer group. Obviously, it produced no long term economic benefits, and only exacerbated the burden of the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars on the economy. The extension of the Bush tax breaks in December of 2010 - despite conservative assurances - did not result in an increase in jobs, or other benefits to the economy. The reality is that the wealthy already enjoy a 7+ percent tax break that middle class Americans don't, in the form of the Social Security tax which terminates at about $106,000 in income. Returning the wealthiest Americans to the 39 percent tax bracket - an increase of about 3 or 4 percent - is no great burden on the wealthy. If federal budget deficits are the economic demon that conservatives insist they are, then generating additional revenues through a modest increase in the tax rate on the wealthy should produce greater economic benefits for all Americans, the wealthy and the middle class.

Moving jobs overseas, and the failure to reinvest recent corporate profits in jobs and American productivity, is a very short-sited corporate policy. Unfortunately, the current explosion of corporate executive compensation based on short-term business performance, does not encourage long-term investment. We simply cannot continue to forfeit the overall control of the U. S. economy to corporations controlled by executives that are interested only in short-term profits to justify their short-term executive bonuses. I recall that Adam Smith - the father of capitalist economic theory - praised the exercise of "enlightened self-interest" by business owners. Current practitioners of capitalism - the overpaid corporate executives and Wall Street profiteers - have replaced the "enlightened" element of the theory with simple greed.

Greed has driven the re-distribution of wealth in America in favor of the wealthy in unprecedented proportions. Greed has generated the current "occupation" movement of protesters. Greed will be the downfall of our economy if the federal government does not intercede with changes in tax policy that protect the status of the middle class as the foundation of our prosperity.

I recall the political cartoon included in my high school American history text - the picture of Teddy Roosevelt the "trust buster" battling the corporate profiteers of his era. Unrestrained capitalism is and has always been simply greed; and the failure of the federal government to contain economic greed "to promote the general welfare" has been, and continues to be essential to our economic success.