Two storms blew through PBS in the past two days. One came from above on Thursday, shutting down much of the Washington area (including PBS headquarters) and New York. The other came the day before from an unlikely corner and stirred up the place. It came in the form of a lengthy article posted online at PandoDaily by David Sirota titled: "The Wolf of Sesame Street: Revealing the secret corruption inside PBS's news division."
The headline is clever and timely, playing off the Oscar-nominated film "The Wolf of Wall Street," although the article has nothing to do with the esteemed, and independent, "Sesame Street" children's series, and PBS actually doesn't have a "news division."
I have other quarrels with some of the language and characterizations used in the article, but the most important thing about it is that it is important. It shines a light, once again, on what seems to me to be ethical compromises in funding arrangements and lack of real transparency for viewers caused, in part, by the complicated funding demands needed to support public broadcasting, and in part by managers who make some questionable decisions.
Fortunately, this doesn't happen very often. Although I write critically about one thing or another that goes wrong in a vast public broadcasting service, PBS and its stations in the broadest sense adhere to very high standards. My job is to call them on it when they slip, even if they do not agree.
Sirota's article was picked up and headlined by many major websites and produced a heavy flow of critical email to me and other PBS destinations. Here's how he started it:
"On December 18th, the Public Broadcasting Service's flagship station WNET issued a press release announcing the launch of a new two-year news series entitled 'The Pension Peril.' The series, promoting cuts to public employee pensions, is airing on hundreds of PBS outlets all over the nation. It has been presented as objective news on major PBS programs including the PBS News Hour. However, neither the WNET press release nor the broadcasted segments explicitly disclosed who is financing the series. Pando has exclusively confirmed that 'The Pension Peril' is secretly funded by former Enron trader John Arnold, a billionaire political powerbroker who is actively trying to shape the very pension policy that the series claims to be dispassionately covering . . . In this particular case, PBS seems to be defying its own rules and regulations about conflicts of interest. At the same time, the fact that PBS is obscuring the financial arrangement suggests the network may be deliberately attempting to hide those conflicts from its own viewers."
I have written a number of times over several years about questionable financial support that has attracted my attention and that of some viewers on drones, Dow Chemical, George Shultz, Las Vegas and Koch/PBS. I would urge those interested in this issue to read the PandoDaily article because there are a lot of elements to it.
But I also think it is important, at least at this stage, to point out a couple of things to readers of this column that jumped out at me as needing some clarifying. First, there is absolutely no question that the issue of un-funded and under-funded liabilities in many states is a very big one and that government pension obligations is a big part of it. So this is a worthy subject.
Second is to state that I am not an expert on this issue but the segments of this series that I saw on television and online did not convey a message of bias to me as a viewer. However I'm open to the idea that for those following this very closely there was a detectable message, as Sirota says, and that there are other potential spending cuts that are better than the pension category and that are not discussed in the series.
Third, it seems to me, in looking into this just a day or two after it unfolded, that this is more an issue of what the New York station, the well-known Channel Thirteen, did than what PBS or even the PBS NewsHour did. PBS does not produce television programs. It distributes programs produced by member stations, all of which are independent, or by independent filmmakers. The PBS NewsHour is produced at WETA just outside Washington, D.C. For all of its almost 40-year history, the NewsHour has been a five weekday-night program. In September of last year, it added a Saturday and Sunday night weekend edition. That program comes under the PBS NewsHour rubric but it is produced by WNET in New York and, as far as I can tell, none of the "Pension Peril" segments have been aired by the weeknight NewsHour.
Finally, Sirota writes: "The news of PBS actively soliciting financing from billionaire political activists — and custom tailoring original program proposals for those financiers — follows a wave of damning revelations about the influence of super-wealthy political interests over public broadcasting. Thanks to collusion with PBS executives, those monied interests are increasingly permitted to launder their ideological and self-serving messages through the seeming objectivity of public television." The main "wave of damning revelations" that Sirota refers to is the article in The New Yorker magazine by Jane Mayer last year about the Koch brothers that I also wrote about.
This is indeed troubling, but as I wrote earlier there is no actual evidence that the Koch brothers sought to interfere editorially, and the same may be true of the Arnold Foundation. But as I also said at the time, and repeat now, there is clearly a danger of hard-to-prove self-censorship by PBS-related producers somewhere along the line when large funders with political agendas wind up as big-money supporters of public broadcasting.
So, this brings me to the two issues where I felt WNET (and PBS if they were part of this) went seriously wrong.
One is that the decision to accept a grant of $3.5 million from the Arnold Foundation, with a stated interest in "public employee benefits reform," flunks PBS's own "perception test," which is part of the service's Funding Standards and Practices. This is long but worth reading. It says, in part: " . . . where a clear and direct connection between the products, services or other interests of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program would be likely to lead a significant portion of the public to conclude that the program has been influenced by that funder . . . the proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable regardless of the funder's actual compliance with the editorial control provisions."
The other is what I would say is a common-sense failure not to be far more transparent to the viewers about who funded this particular and well-publicized series of segments on the PBS NewsHour Weekend. WNET argues that in all three segments thus far, the Arnold Foundation is listed as a supporter. But they are listed along with all other supporters of the program and not listed or identified anywhere as sole funders of this very specific series dealing with "Pension Peril." The foundation is never mentioned in the press release that accompanied launch of the series, and there is only one line at the end of one online transcript of one segment that mentions where the funding comes from.
The irony here is that because the foundation financial support for this specific series is virtually impossible for an average viewer to find if you depend on WNET to let you know, or unless you happen to know something about the foundation and spot its name in the longer list of Weekend program sponsors, you wouldn't really know they are flunking the perception test.
In all the previous columns I've written about this kind of issue, it was viewers who took offense because the funding and the subject matter were apparent either on-screen or in the text and you could voice your opinion about that. In this case, nobody really knew until Sirota wrote about it.
In a statement issued yesterday in response to the controversy about the handling of these segments, Oregon Public Broadcasting said, in part: "Our view is that while the Arnold Foundation was listed as a funder of PBS NewsHour Weekend, WNET should also have clearly disclosed the foundation's specific funding of the Pension Peril series." Other station managers made the same point to me privately.
Okay, here is the block-buster new statement by WNET and PBS:
Over the past few days, PBS and WNET have been in close consultation regarding the funding for Pension Peril, a WNET initiative that aired in part on the PBS NewsHour Weekend; it looked at the critical issue of the economic sustainability of public pensions. These segments were funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, one of the largest philanthropic organizations in the country, which has interests in many areas including criminal justice, K-12 education and public accountability.
Concerns have been raised about the funding of these segments because pension reform is one area of focus for the Arnold Foundation. While PBS stands by WNET's reporting in this series, in order to eliminate any perception on the part of the public, our viewers, and donors that the Foundation's interests influenced the editorial integrity of the reporting for this program, WNET has decided to forego the Arnold Foundation support and will return the gift.
"We made a mistake, pure and simple," said Stephen Segaller, Vice President of Programming at WNET. "The PBS NewsHour Weekend is a new production and while we thought we were following the guidelines and the correct vetting processes, we were incorrect. WNET sought the Arnold Foundation funding because of our belief that public pensions is an important issue. The Arnold Foundation did not direct or prescribe our reporting, never attempted to do so, and is not responsible for our mistake."
WNET believes that the topic of public pensions is a matter of journalistic importance and will continue to report on it as it has in the past.
PBS and WNET are grateful for the support of the foundations, corporations and individual members of public television stations that together make our mission-driven service possible. With the help of our many stakeholders, we look forward to continuing to provide the public with outstanding content found nowhere else in American media.
]]>Specifically, most of the mail at first was about the choice of comedian Sarah Silverman and actress/writer/filmmaker Lena Dunham, who stars in the HBO "Girls" series, to be among some 60 women to be profiled.
In the past week or so, the focus of those who write and call has been exclusively on Silverman. My office has now received more than 80 emails and phone calls, and the PBS main phone line has been bombarded by somewhere between 2,500 and 2,750 calls. And there may be other areas within PBS that have received additional calls.
The purpose of this column is, in part, to simply acknowledge the receipt of all these additional emails and messages but also, in part, to mull over this situation a bit more. Obviously, there is no way to assess or react to, or know anything about, the segment involving Silverman until it airs. But the interesting issue that is out there now, and will remain, is why she was selected by PBS.
In last month's column, I said I didn't know much about Silverman and Dunham other than that they are both edgy and controversial and are well-known for performances that push the envelope. But so are a lot of other personalities these days, male and female.
At the time, I had asked filmmaker Dyllan McGee for her response to the critical email I was receiving. I posted her full response in which she said, in part, that the series "is a project that celebrates women who have and continue to shape our nation" each in "a different sphere of influence" and "who have reshaped and ultimately transformed the landscape of their chosen profession." As for the focus of the criticism, she said only: "Ms. Silverman and Ms. Dunham were selected for this project as they have both created, starred and led their own series, each of which has garnered significant attention for bringing a new, distinctive voice to television."
I said at the time that I would agree with what little McGee had to say about those particular choices but also that I wished she had given us a broader insight into her reasoning because of the controversies that these performers also stir-up. When the heavy flow of email continued and focused on Silverman, I did some more web searching and some of what I saw for the first time on YouTube was truly pushing an envelope, in my opinion. This prompted me to write to McGee again, via PBS, saying, having seen some videos, that I was now more curious about her reasoning. But I was told, by PBS, that "given the responses that we have already provided and since films are in pre-production, it's premature to discuss further details about this project." It was pointed out in the press release, PBS noted, that this series shines "a light on the women who broke down barriers in vastly different areas . . ."
I should note here that Silverman is undoubtedly popular, has a significant following, has won awards, can be very cutting but very funny, is a habitual challenger of almost any taboo you can think of and, of course, has a perfect right to perform as she does. That is not an issue. What continues to interest me, even more now that I have seen more of her work, is what went into the choice by PBS and the filmmaker to include her in a series that, as McGee said, "celebrates women who have and continue to shape our nation."
Of the scores of emails and phone messages that came to me, all but two were very critical. They tended to be brief, outraged, and almost all called for an end to any PBS funding from taxpayer revenue. Many focused on religious themes that come up in her work, but what caught my newcomer's attention was other stuff, such as a political proposal. Here are some excerpts from viewers around the country who sent signed emails in the second wave of messages:
"As a taxpayer, I'm disgusted by PBS's decision to use MY tax dollars to profile the bigoted Sarah Silverman as some sort of a heroine 'who makes America.' PBS cannot use taxpayer dollars to promote hate speech with impunity, and I denounce PBS's decision to use my tax dollars in this manner. Please pass on my opinion to Beth Hoppe [programming chief at PBS]."
"I am writing to object to this coming summer's planned inclusion of comedienne Sarah Silverman in the 'Makers: Women Who Make America' documentary series. This woman is intolerant of and offensive to my religion, and her hate speech should not be included on a PBS program. I regularly enjoy many PBS programs, but this woman has no place next to the quality programming you normally provide."
"As a taxpayer and former supporter of PBS I'm disgusted by PBS's decision to use MY tax dollars to profile that bigoted Sarah Silverman as some sort of a heroine 'who makes America.' It is an absolute outrage and must be stopped by your management. Further it is not appropriate for any tax-supported 'public' media station such as yours to advocate for any political figure — no matter their position(s) or philosophy."
"Echoing some of the letters you posted, I find it sad that you take my tax dollars to celebrate someone of the low caliber of Sarah Silverman and hold her up as an example of a woman of some standing. She is rather crude and nasty towards people that have a different view than she and does not make me feel very positive about PBS for supporting this type of woman."
This kind of mass emailing always creates some difficulties for me. A lot of people who write, on this or other issues, clearly do so as individuals upset by what they see or hear. But in today's environment, many are also driven by partisan websites who tell them what has been aired, or is scheduled, and what's wrong with it. Some, undoubtedly, are not PBS viewers. Some writers may well have never seen or heard Sarah Silverman. That doesn't mean they are wrong about an issue, just that it is not spontaneous or based on first-hand experience.
So in deference to the god of suspicion, here are the only two contrary letters I received that clearly were not part of anything:
Here's one from Waterford, PA:
"Oh, dear. The writers complaining about the 'Makers' series are very likely not PBS viewers. For reasons beyond my comprehension, the first series was also vilified; the women provoking similar terror were then Hillary Clinton and Gloria Steinem. Before it aired, my local online TV listing had been Freeped and bore a 1-star rating from 'viewers.' Right-wing blogs had a collective case of the vapors. There are people in this country who are paid to write letters and make ugly comments about the right wing's targeted choices for attack. The assignments include newspapers with comment sections, radio hosts such as Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz, YouTube videos, Facebook (of course) and, less frequently, PBS. 'Work at home' ads often lead to this activity. The comments are usually very similar and focus on the same individuals, in this case Silverman and Dunham, who happen to be Democrats. Favorites from previous years include Nancy Pelosi and George Soros. Those commenting have little or no knowledge of their subjects but work from supplied bullet points. I was raised in an environment which performed this function in the 70's and 80's, though of course without computers. Letter-writers of the era gathered in my basement to oppose the ERA, OSHA, the EPA and others.
"Something to consider for the 'Mailbag' is to print a couple letters rather than the Breitbart.com brigade. They are seeking attention, not careful thought. When progressive think tanks start offering money for letters written, I will probably write daily! Until then, I'll write when I personally have something to say. Good luck fending off this bunch. I look forward to the new series."
And another one from South Bend, IN:
"About the controversy over honoring some women in TV like Silverman, I think those complaining viewers are demanding too high a level of political-correctness. They need to take a deep breath — we all need a thicker skin when, as a democracy with separation of Church and State, some programming doesn't follow our personal points of view or lack of appreciation for irreverent humor.
"PBS, though, sometimes caves in to celebrity seeking and pandering to tastes of the 'in-crowd' regarding its picks for the spotlight. If mostly TV celebrities were selected to represent the creativity of women, that would be a mistake. What about celebrating women who have found a creative way to solve social and public problems in government, science, tech and business? Our young people need more of these types of female role models."
What follows is a catch-up on a couple of other issues that drew some letters.
I am disgusted by the grotesquely skinny women featured in the Ralph Lauren ads that play prior to every episode of Downton Abbey on PBS. Please stop encouraging unhealthy body weight as a cultural norm and stop promoting a designer who jeopardizes the health of his models and girls all over the world by glamorizing the grotesque. Please, please insist on healthier models from your design sponsors. I don't have the power, but you do.
Chandler, AZ
~ ~ ~
The Ralph Lauren ads that run prior and following Masterpiece Theater and other programs are getting on our last nerve. The visuals are not so bad, the featured models look like young girls playing dress-up. However, the pretentious voice track claiming that "it's all about a woman, her hopes and desires" as the camera lingers on the face of what looks to be a 14-year old, is ridiculous, insulting, and increasingly irritating with each viewing.
Bill Brown, Takoma Park, MD
~ ~ ~
I am so offended by the ads of Ralph Loren that I am considering stopping my support. You apparently will allow anything for money. That's not the PBS I love.
Michael Morton, Whitefish, MT
~ ~ ~
While watching "Downtown Abbey" with women friends last night, we all commented on the Ralph Lauren commercial. We all really dislike it for a number of reasons: pandering to so-called "women" (using girls as models), the pompous, egotistical message from Mr. Lauren (including a snappy photo of himself). While we understand that he generously supports the program, we wished that he had used better taste and messaging. We are all middle-aged/senior citizens, young at heart, intelligent, educated, love the arts and PBS.
Flint, MI
~ ~ ~
This is part of PBS's mission: "PBS and our member stations are America's largest classroom, the nation's largest stage for the arts and a trusted window to the world." On that stage, in what can only be called commercials (even though they're not called that), what is being learned — by young and old alike — can be nothing more than the acceptance of cruel practices. I'm speaking about the Ralph Lauren ads PBS runs over and over with Downton Abbey and other shows. These high-fashion ads feature women wearing different articles of clothing made of fur — unnecessary, vanity items produced through cruelty and suffering. Awful ads, just awful — and on public television!
Jeri O'Donnell, Manhattan Beach, CA
(Ombudsman's Note: Here's some language from Ralph Lauren passed along by Masterpiece producers regarding the fur: "Ralph Lauren stopped using fur in our apparel and home collection in 2006. We take very seriously our responsibility for ensuring a safe and healthy working environment for the people who make our products and the ethical treatment of animals used in our products. Ralph Lauren requires all licensees, vendors, contractors, sub-contractors and trim and material suppliers to adhere to strict operating guidelines. Please be assured that we do not buy angora, shearling, or other animal products from companies that knowingly harm animals and we require our suppliers to sign a letter of guarantee that states the same.")
~ ~ ~
Thank you for completely ruining the viewing experience with intrusive station bugs and constant, garish, large pop-up advertising for upcoming programs (as if viewers are too stupid to know what channel they have tuned in to, and can't check the channel listings to see what shows are on). It is extremely insulting and disrespectful to the viewing audience, and to the integrity of the programming. PBS used to be a welcome place of refuge to get away from that sort of garbage; since you've sold out, I guess I must now look elsewhere.
Cranston, RI
~ ~ ~
The first episode of the new season of Downton Abbey had no on-screen advertising "bug" interruptions. That was greatly appreciated. However, they were back on the screen in tonight's episode. Not only were they there, they were big, used vivid colors and stayed on the screen a long time. PLEASE stop inserting these bugs. Viewers don't want them, nor do viewers need them to know what program they are watching or what the schedule is for upcoming programs. PBS can survive without them. PBS members pay their membership dues so they can enjoy a viewing experience free from commercial interruptions. These "bugs" are in reality ads for PBS and they should not be there. By inserting them into program content, PBS is violating its contract with members.
Jeffrey & Marcia Keimer, Portola Valley, CA
]]>The new series, as PBS explained it, "expands on the critically acclaimed three-hour PBS documentary [of the same name], which premiered in February 2013 and told the story of the American women's movement of the last half-century." That series did indeed receive critical acclaim and also reportedly attracted some 5.2 million viewers for the premier and some 58 million online video views.
The new series, which will debut in June and seems to be more contemporary in theme, presents more than 60 women who have made a mark in war, space, comedy, business, Hollywood and politics. There is a description of the forthcoming series posted in the online PBS Pressroom, where you can also find the full press release on the upper right side.
Some of the publicity generated by the announcement was routine. But out of these five dozen or so personalities to be featured, two women — comedian Sarah Silverman and Lena Dunham, the actress (also a writer and filmmaker) who stars in HBO's "Girls" series — were focused on in the headlines of online sites such as Deadline Hollywood and the politically conservative site breitbart.com.
I don't know whether those sites inspired some people to write to me. But I did receive several extremely critical letters about the choice of Silverman and Dunham, in particular, as among those to be focused on in a series about "women who make America."
The letters are posted below. I sent all of them to PBS and asked for a response and explanation. A lengthy statement from filmmaker Dyllan McGee is posted below the letters. It contains just one sentence about Silverman and Dunham, which says: "Ms. Silverman and Ms. Dunham were selected for this project as they have both created, starred and led their own series, each of which has garnered significant attention for bringing a new, distinctive voice to television."
I have, of course, not seen this series, and while I have seen both Silverman and Dunham, although not as a regular viewer, it is clear that they are both very edgy and controversial. But so is much of what we see and hear these days and both are very well-known for performances that push the envelope. So I would agree with what little McGee has to say about these particular choices. But I would have preferred that a filmmaker whose series is to air on public television would have given us a broader insight into her reasoning, addressed more of the controversy that these performers stir-up, at least within this sample of the public presented below, and why she felt they are important to the making of our world.
We will work to end taxpayer funding of PBS and cease our donations if the PBS persists in doing a misguided tribute to two unworthy women, Sarah Silverman and Lena Dunham, who do nothing but coarsen public debate and dishonor women. There are so many nameless and faceless women in this country who work hard to improve the lives of all women and their families. Honor them not these embarrassing self-promoters.
K. S., Santa Barbara, CA
~ ~ ~
I will never, and I mean never, contribute or promote anything that PBS will be associated with, if Sarah Silverman is acknowledged with an award from the PBS Network. I cannot even fathom what idiot at PBS decided to award this comedian with anything. If you honor this celebrity and her act, it will be unbelievable! This woman openly mocks Jesus Christ and offends even tolerant Christians. (Even if you do not subscribe to the Christian faith, where is your respect and appreciation for another person's beliefs, that tolerance PBS so enthusiastically promotes). This goes well beyond comedy, it will be perceived as an agenda. I tell you now, this will change my view of PBS forever. Please re-consider your decision.
Massillon, OH
~ ~ ~
The women who make America . . . really. sarah and lena . . . wow, what great role models for our girls if you want them to be crude and classless. you know there was a time when PBS had some class. why are my tax dollars paying for trash like this. well, maybe the next president will pull your funding. I am ashamed and disgusted how classless you have become. integrity, please, that is a joke.
M. J., St. Louis, MO
~ ~ ~
What is wrong with PBS . . . Lena Dunham and Sarah Silverman used as any kind of example of the modern female? How low can you go? Your day is coming PBS, you need to be dissolved, you do nothing of value to the public using freaks of nature as an example.
Debra K., Bonita Springs, FL
~ ~ ~
Why is PBS (an entity supported by MY TAX DOLLARS) choosing to HONOR Lena Dunham and Sarah Silverman? Lena Dunham is a semi-porn star who (evidently) enjoys showing off her nudity and strips down to naked at the drop of a hat, AND Sarah Silverman is a very UNFUNNY, HUMORLESS woman who advocates the unrestrained killing of innocents through abortion. These women ARE NOT representative of most American women and should not be so honored. After reading the PBS Mission and Values, I still do not understand why you would sponsor such a program. I see NO VALUE in such programming. But, obviously PBS is under the mistaken impression that these are women who should be honored through their organization, therefore PBS can do it on their own dime. ALL PUBLIC FUNDING BY U.S. TAXPAYERS should be stopped immediately, and I will make every effort to make this happen.
Moody, TX
~ ~ ~
Are you kidding? Having controversial losers like these disgusting women, Lena Dunham and Sarah Silverman on Makers: The Women Who Make America series. Do you not understand? I will never give you another penny with your liberal agenda. You should be de-funded. I AM your demographic, very affluent and very well educated. When you lose me you've lost much of the country.
Tulsa, OK
~ ~ ~
I am writing to protest your celebration of women who have done the most damage to civilized society with their hateful, bigoted, vulgar activities. Here is a partial list:
Kathy Griffin-vowed to insult & mock the Palin children.
Sarah Silverman-said, "as a Jew she would effing kill Christ, all over again."
Lena Dunham-random and inappropriate nudity (her ratings are so low, why is she included?)
Jane Fonda-traitor who actions resulted in the deaths of many Americans (why is she included?)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)-lied about her Native American ancestry
Hillary Clinton-failed to protect the embassy in Benghazi
Plus many more who support abortions on demand when there exists much safer and cheaper over-the-counter contraceptives. I could go on, but you get the idea. PBS does not deserve my tax dollars unless PBS represents ALL Americans.
Martha Ridgeway, Pomona, CA
~ ~ ~
I just read the announcement by PBS of the lineup for the series "Women Who Make America". Is this a joke? Every single woman on the list is left-wing except for two liberal GOP members of Congress. The women featured in the politics section are 8 democrats and 2 republicans. The list for women and Hollywood is a nothing but a who's who of far-left entertainers. How on Earth is this neutral for a tax payer funded organization? There was not ONE single legitimate Conservative that could be featured?
Matt Johnson, Mobile, AL
MAKERS: WOMEN WHO MAKE AMERICA is a project that celebrates women who have and continue to shape our nation. MAKERS uses both long-form documentaries as well as a vibrant, and growing, online video collection to highlight and examine the achievement of women from many different walks of life. The first three-hour MAKERS documentary debuted in February 2013 and earned both critical acclaim and millions of viewers. From June to September of this year, six one-hour films will be presented, building on this multi-platform initiative.
Each of the new documentaries tackles a different sphere of influence, including business, war, space, Hollywood, politics and comedy. Each program will profile prominent women — from famous entertainers to war veterans, business leaders and more — who have reshaped and ultimately transformed the landscape of their chosen vocation.
Ms. Silverman and Ms. Dunham were selected for this project as they have both created, starred and led their own series, each of which has garnered significant attention for bringing a new, distinctive voice to television.
In all, more than 60 women will be profiled in the 2014 series of films, including other women in entertainment and comedy, such as Carol Burnett and Glenn Close, and leaders from very different fields of endeavor. Among the women featured will be Ursula Burns, the CEO of Xerox and the first African-American woman to head a Fortune 500 company; Susan Collins (R-ME), who recently led the Senate in shaping a deal to end the government shutdown, Vice Admiral Michelle Howard, the highest-ranking woman in the history of the U.S. Navy; General Angela Salinas, at her retirement the highest ranking woman serving in the USMC; Olympia Snowe, the youngest Republican woman ever elected to the House of Representatives; Peggy Whitson, the first female commander of the International Space Station, and many more.
The goal of THE MAKERS initiative is to shine a light on the achievements of women from a broad spectrum of experiences, achievements and perspectives who, in their own individual way, have broken new ground and opened doors.
Thank you for devoting so much space to my recent documentary, "State of Conflict: North Carolina." I am pleased that you found it important enough to write about.
You raise many good points, and I will comment on just a few.
You were right to point out that UNC-TV was not in fact "censoring" the broadcast by running it on the narrowcast channel accessible only on cable. For reasons never explained to me, UNC-TV programmers have long carried my work on that subsidiary channel. State of Conflict: North Carolina was treated no differently. It was an episode of my weekly series and ran in the usual time slot.
There was, however, a missed opportunity, and I'm pleased that you raised the question of why the programmers didn't make an exception and show a broadcast about North Carolina on the channel where the most North Carolinians would see it. Not only would that have let more people make up their own minds about its content, it would have provided an excellent opportunity for UNC-TV to do what public television stations often do when there is a local public-affairs controversy: air a program and then invite specially chosen guests on for a live discussion in the studio afterward. Though they didn't respond to our interview requests for the program, it would certainly have been in the public interest for Art Pope and Governor McCrory to appear on their own state's local PBS to say whatever they wished about the report.
As for suggestions our report was "one-sided": Investigative journalism is not a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. My team and I aim to be fair to the subject but we must be truthful with the public if our journalism is to be credible. That meant sharing what we found about the extraordinary influence of Art Pope's money on North Carolina politics and governance. A few days before the broadcast I wrote Mr. Pope to remind him the program was about to be broadcast and to invite him to appear on a subsequent edition of Moyers & Company (my weekly series) for an unedited conversation. Three weeks later, I have still not heard from him.
Having refused my interview requests, and having been afforded no opportunity to respond on his local public television channel, Mr. Pope relied instead on the John William Pope Foundation, one of the nonprofits in his network, to respond. You did your readers a service by linking to that press release. I would like to ask them now to consider my response to it.
David W. Riggs, the President of the Pope Foundation, charges that my colleagues and I made "false" claims and "concealed" information about the Pope Foundation's "charitable" spending. That's not true. There is nothing false in our reporting, and Mr. Riggs did not identify a single inaccuracy or challenge one fact that we presented. He argued instead that we should have produced the documentary he and Art Pope would have preferred to see — one reporting on Mr. Pope's humanitarian "charity."
There is, however, something false about labeling the heavy spending the Pope Foundation does to influence North Carolina politics as "charity." Mr. Riggs points out that the Pope Foundation spends million on causes such as food banks and homeless shelters, and for that we agree it should be lauded. But our report was not about his "charity." It was about the unique power one man wields in one state — power that Mr. Riggs ignores in his critique of our documentary.
If David Riggs, or anyone else in the Pope network, knows of any other single individual anywhere in the United States who, like Art Pope, has spent so many tens of millions to attain so much influence over so many elected officials (including the Governor) and then has been handed the keys to the state budget by that same Governor, we would welcome the sharing of that information. And we would do a story on how that individual — Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal — had spent a fortune to attain the power to steer the state in the direction of his or her choosing.
Until Mr. Riggs supplies that information, we think it's journalistically appropriate, and a public service, to shine a spotlight on the unique way that Mr. Pope has used his money — at least as much of that money as can be traced.
Which brings me to another point in your column.
You concluded that "what seemed missing" from our program was help in judging how significant a role "big money" has played in North Carolina politics. I beg to differ. Granted, it's a very difficult task to undertake in this era of "dark money" when donors can hide their contributions to political candidates and causes. One of the insidious aspects of uncountable, untraceable amounts of money in politics — and perhaps one of the reasons so few journalists, as you point out, even attempt to cover the subject — is that its effect can't be measured quantifiably. Thanks to measures like the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, the dollars themselves can't even be counted! The "smoking gun," so to speak, has been wiped clean of fingerprints and tossed in the deepest part of the river in the dark of the night. The suspect under scrutiny can simply declare: "Prove it!" — and in this case point the journalist and the public toward his "charity."
So journalists, like detectives, have to try to figure out why the dog didn't bark.
The case for the power of money — whether to win elections or influence the debate — is almost always, per force, a circumstantial one. It's like the "dark matter" that exerts a powerful force in the cosmos and may be the source of the pressure driving the accelerating expansion of our universe. Astrophysicists don't know what it is — they can't even see it — but they know it's there by studying the effect the "dark matter" has on other bodies. Things happen because of this unseen force. So does money influence politics even — especially — when it is invisible; "dark money" makes other things happen.
And that's true even when some of the spending can be traced, as in the case of over $2 million that Art Pope and his allies put into local legislative elections in 2010. Remember, campaigns in local elections feature a lot more lawn signs and hand-shaking at the strip mall than the expensive TV advertising that Pope's money paid for. Is it a coincidence that Pope's side won? One could argue yes, because you can't "prove" otherwise.
Fortunately, however, the First Amendment gives journalists the right to draw conclusions from the evidence we do collect. We are not just stenographers, left helpless if the subjects refuse to speak on the record. When the health and welfare of the public are involved, we are obligated to address the real implications of our reporting. Doing so in pursuit of an informed citizenry is nothing to apologize for; failing to do so is a cop-out.
For example, our broadcast reported how money from a Republican political action committee in Washington, itself funded by secret donors, found its way both into the work of North Carolina legislators as they gerrymandered the state for their partisan advantage (Mr. Pope, according to one witness, was sitting at a work bench in the room as the redistricting was done) and into the campaign of one of the state's supreme court justices who will now be passing judgment on a challenge to the legitimacy of the redistricting. The money trail may have been obscured and so deliberately tangled as to be virtually impossible for everyday citizens to sort out, but a journalist, having been convinced by the validity of research and reporting, is empowered to call this duplicitous arrangement a conflict of interest and abuse of public trust.
So I hope you would agree that to ignore the extraordinary concentration of one person's money when evaluating election results would be journalistic malpractice. We presented to our viewers the well-considered case that Art Pope's money is a prime mover in North Carolina politics and the success of its far-right agenda. We included in our report his contention that his money was spent to simply to "educate" voters, but having done our homework, we weren't prepared to leave it there. I think we did as well as journalists can do at helping the viewer judge the impact of that money on the election process and legislative agenda.
What would help journalists and the public even more, of course, are disclosure laws that make transparent in every case just who is spending how much to win elections and influence policy in statehouses across the country. But that's a different story, for a different documentary. Stay tuned.
Bill Moyers
]]>Toward the bottom are a couple of additional letters about the ombudsman's column posted on Jan. 9 about a Moyers & Company program about politics in North Carolina.
First, thank you so much for the beautiful series!!! We have looked forward to it every Sunday. My family was, however, really disappointed in the choice to include sexual violence in Downton Abbey last night. We have LOVED having one show each week to escape the brutality of network TV shows, and real life for that matter. It's not that much of an exaggeration to say that Downton has been a little TV oasis, and weekly escape from a super stressful job and a coarse culture. We were so disturbed by the choice to show brutal sexual victimization. What value does it add? We are not watching to be educated about the realistic history of feudal England. We have been drawn to the high moral standards of many characters, the gentility of ages past, and a beautiful, romantic, Jane Austin-esque storyline where there are happy endings and no salacious brutality. Everyday news gives us QUITE enough of brutal reality. My husband, who watches almost NO TV besides Downton, said this morning that he likely won't watch any longer. Anna was one of his favorites . . . altruistic, strong, feminine, honorable, young-girlish . . . It really disturbed his peace to see that. It was still bugging him this morning. I just wanted to give feedback from a loyal, all 4 seasons, family of fans. We love the escape, and the uplifting of civility and humanity. Please leave the salacious brutality for the rest of rotting network TV.
[second message]
After reading the ombudsman response to the negative feedback on Anna's rape on Downton, I have to say, he just doesn't get it . . . That's not what we watch the show for!! Read the comments . . . We look forward to being UPLIFTED by Downton. We don't care about harsh realities, we want the peace of being uplifted by the storyline. Don't give us more brutal reality, PLEASE! We are trying to raise a generation who almost never get to see gentility, civility, honor, respectfulness, modesty, etc. etc. We need it from somewhere!! That's how you got your global audience! Please hear us!
Lauren and Pete Arendt, Columbus, OH
~ ~ ~
I watch PBS because all the other stations are so full of violence and I can count on Quality showing on PBS. NOT anymore, the rape scene Sunday night changed the quality program to TRASHY program. Everyone I have talked to has agreed, Sunday violent show has brought DA down to just JUNK. Did you receive any letters applauding this violence?
Sylvia Nagy, St James City, FL
~ ~ ~
I cannot believe that PBS would allow such foul material on Downton Abbey. Any high regards for PBS just got absolutely marred. In a society full of explicitly, the values supposedly upheld by PBS stand out all the more. Mr. Fellowes has overplayed his hand. Our world is full of enough evils. People do not wish to get emotionally stuck in the perils of television characters. Allowing such material on your programming is wretched. I dare not ask what inspires your dark writing Mr. Fellowes . . . I want to spew you out like poison. PBS . . . I don't think viewers need to be "educated, informed, or inspired" on such topics as rape. Perhaps your ratings and donations will speak for themselves from here on out. What an embarrassment for the dignity of your programming.
Los Angeles, CA
In regards to Downton Abbey (as you know season 4, ep.2) I am shocked and angered at the fact you probably knew about the reaction from the earlier British release yet there was no warning of the extreme violence written in the show. This is not what I have come to expect from PBS. With all the other stations that continue to influence violence to children and people in general, PBS could be counted on for clean viewing. These writers have no imagination any more there writing is so predictable. I now have chosen to skim read the story on the net. And have no intention of watching this show any further. This will hurt your sponsorship if these shows are to appear on your station.
[second message]
Thank you for your reply to my comments on Downton Abbey episode 2. Yes there was a non- suitable warning, but it should have read: contains violent scenes and rated 18. As much as it may be less violent than most American TV, that makes no exception to putting a rape scene in. If the writer had to, he should have been aware of his fans and I think it would have been less upsetting if it would have been one of the other maids. The story is now predictable without watching it, that Bates will retaliate and Anna will become pregnant. I'm glad the USA pulled him off if they do season 5. Maybe a new writer will pay attention to his or her audience and write with a good feeling show without copying the depressing violence of every other show.
Martin Barrett, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
~ ~ ~
The latest episode of Downton Abbey has not only divorced me from the series, which was beloved to me until last night, but has made me doubt PBS for the first time ever. I do not remember ever feeling so betrayed by an episode, a writer, a script. Is this truly how you gain ratings? There was more than one rape, there were thousands. I don't know if there is a way to make amends for this, but it will involve deep introspection, apology and wisdom.
Princeville, HI
~ ~ ~
I was outraged at the scene in Sunday's episode of Downton Abbey — the rape scene. This was not necessary at all. The reason I watch PBS programming is to move away from all the violence on other channels, but I guess violence is now taking over PBS. My husband wants to give up on Downton but I will give it another chance and hope for no more violence. KEEP VIOLENCE OUT of Great Television.
Joanne Cichocki, Vernon, CT
~ ~ ~
The last episode of Downton Abbey with the rape scene was totally uncalled for. You are getting away from terrific writing and as a viewer I do not see any place for this type of scene in your show. It was like watching Law and Order SVU. I am interested in seeing how the lords and ladies live act and think. And how the servants live and deal with the life they serve in. I will be turning off your show. It is extremely sad your writers have to try and mimic the violence that is on main stream TV.
John Drega, Vernon, CT
~ ~ ~
I have read the comments about the rape story line and seen episode 2 this year. My disappointment was that the rape story and the defense of this story is simply an expression of current American controversy over this issue. The view that rape is common in the American sexual experience was offered by Susan Brownmiller in the 1970s and became government policy with the Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s. It seems the definition of gratuitous to insert this position into the Downton story line.
John Brigham, Bridgeport, CT
The minute the rape scene began . . . we both thought that you would be hearing from lots of DA fans . . . and everyone loves Anna . . . so it was the most shocking plot twist . . . but I agree with you . . . it will be interesting to watch how they handle the reactions of the rest of the cast in future episodes . . . We'll still be watching!
Charlottesville, VA
~ ~ ~
Thank you to Downton Abbey for portraying a rape with sensitivity. Rape is real and more frequent than those of us untouched by it would like to believe; therefore it is a perfect topic for a superior program like PBS's Downton Abbey and its author to handle. In my profession as a legal consultant, I am confronted by it often enough to remind me how fortunate I am not to have experienced this trauma. Anna made it clear why she chose to protect her beloved, and I know from my consultations that many women and girls protect their families often for those who don't even deserve it, unlike Anna's husband. I marvel at the genius of Julian Fellowes, and although I was shocked the first time and cried each time I perceived this scene (twice), I realize that we will see how events unfold and be coached as usual about how love and forgiveness must ultimately prevail over politics, religion, race, sexism, classism, brutality, revenge and other human failings. I agree with the reply by the Ombudsman and will never fail to watch any product of Masterpiece Theater for any reason whatsoever. Thank you PBS for delivering outstanding products, and I hope those who are disappointed return to see that the Victorian era as any other era involving humans, was not all pretty.
Newark, NJ
~ ~ ~
I respect DA viewers' disgust regarding rape violence as part of the plot line. It was emotionally explicit. Since rape is the most common form of sexual assault against women, it also sets up a plethora of important paths for Anna as the representative of powerless women of her era, and I think it could be one of the most insightful threads of the show going forward. Was the violence of WWI not offensive, or the casual classism, the condescension toward Irish Tom the chauffeur, the rigidity of social and financial spheres for all? It's all offensive to me, but a great drama like this walks us through the consequences for people in different eras, from which we all can learn and grow. Alas, rape is as common as ever. So I didn't think Anna's assault was gratuitous or included as an "in-your-face" TV plot point. She and Mr. Banks will have a lot of conversations ahead, and I'm looking forward to them.
Janice Z, San Luis Obispo, CA
~ ~ ~
Your reaction to the pearl-clutchers complaining about Downton's recent episode was succinct and appropriate. The problem with popularity of a PBS show is often the same. There will be those who want it watered down to their own expectations. There are many silly shows out there which are light and amusing. Good riddance to such sheltered casual observers.
On Moyers. We have so few news people who care or even know about those who make less than $100,000 per year, much less those in poverty. A strong commitment to democracy is unusual in these times, and few journalists have more than the most fleeting interest in it. Bill Moyers is one who does know and care; his life has been a rich one from which to draw perspective. His voice is needed now more than ever. Yes, it is advocacy journalism, but so is that which favors the powers that be. Moyers gives voice to the powerless and the plucky. In his letter to a viewer from Missouri, he addresses stupidity with tact and grace. I already miss the 30 fewer minutes per week and will be in mourning when the remainder is no longer.
Samantha A. Matson, Waterford, PA
~ ~ ~
Bill Moyers is the reason I stopped donating to Public Television. His "journalism" is nothing but liberal ideology using liberal hacks to push an agenda. His programs should be labeled as his opinion and may not reflect any reality concerning the subject matter. His piece on the NC elections is so far from reality that it doesn't qualify as journalism.
Sherrills Ford, NC
This posting was updated at 2:16 p.m. to include an additional letter.
Also in the ombudsman's mailbag in recent days were emails about last Thursday's ombudsman's column dealing with a Moyers & Company program about politics in the state of North Carolina. There is also some information about the latest version of that series. And there are interesting viewer observations on other things as well.
My wife and I were BETRAYED by PBS' Masterpiece Theater tonight by the decision to include a rape on Downton Abbey. We will NOT watch any future episodes and will STOP recommending the show to others. The standards that Downton Abbey has set in the past would have allowed for an attempted kiss, followed by a slap to the offender and his subsequent firing from the staff. Nothing more. Therefore it was, before, SAFE entertainment on Sunday night with tension produced ONLY by romantic intrigue, personality conflict, monetary problems, war, etc. and containing much commendable content in period history and social manners, leaving us entertained and informed to end our weekend. But NO LONGER for us. The rape made the show the equivalent of R-rating content which we would not choose to watch. It was imposed upon us by surprise and let us upset and unhappy. We cannot support such programming.
Thomas & Joan Gibbons, Oak Park, IL
~ ~ ~
The showing of Downtown Abby last night Jan. 12, 2014, was disturbing to our group of women that have watched all three seasons. We were completely turned-off by the rape scene of Anna. It is not necessary to add this new story line to get viewers. We are loyal because of the shows charm and integrity and class. Do we now have to watch another reality show . . . you lost all of us last night . . . shame on you. You have ended our love affair with the show.
Naples, FL
~ ~ ~
I am angered and betrayed by J. Fellow's script for Downton Abbey Season 4 week 2. Rape is not entertainment: it is the piercing of the soul. To have all characters upstairs listening to opera and the audience helpless to react makes us all complicit in Anna's terrifying experience. One in four women in America are raped by the time they are 20. I ask you to think of four women you know: your mother, sister, first girlfriend, daughter. One of them has been raped. It has destroyed a part of her spirit and her life. Do you know? Are you entertained? Delighted? Do you think it was "handled sensitively"? Of course not. Julian Fellows and the entire cast of DA do women and great disservice — and reinforce the insidious power of patriarchy — in this episode. I will not watch again.
Elizabeth Ferry, South Royalton, VT
~ ~ ~
My family was troubled by yesterday's episode of Downton Abbey where the rape scene of Anna, the housemaid, was featured. It was troubling that the narrative showed that Anna did not report the crime and even greeted her attacker subsequently. Given that millions of viewers are young fans of Downton Abbey, is this really a good example for women (and men)? Further, the guide to this Downton Abbey episode read "Anna encounters trouble" or something to that effect. The key word being "Trouble". Rape is not "Trouble". Rape is a crime. The guide should have been explicit in saying that Anna was the victim of a crime.
New York, NY
~ ~ ~
I was very disappointed in Downton Abbey series 4 and it has lost my viewership after last night's episode. I've been a steady fan for all of the seasons, even though I suspected the series was sliding into popular media violence, sex and shock drama last season. What a shame that my fears were well founded. I had hoped there was some decency left at least on PBS.
Arlington, VA
~ ~ ~
I can't tell you how disappointed I am at the most recent episode of Downton Abbey. Do you know why half the world loves this show? Because it's different than the rest of the junk on T.V. It's mostly lighthearted and humorous and totally enjoyable, or at least it has been. I've never watched an episode and been left with a bad feeling afterward. I've always felt entertained and uplifted. That's why I look forward to it every week. How could they have a key character who is well loved and have her violently attacked like that? I honestly don't know who to write to but felt strongly that I needed to say something.
La Grange, KY
A spokesperson for UK Producer Carnival Films issued this statement when the episode premiered there: "The complex and loving journey of Anna and Bates has been central to the narrative of the show. The events in this episode were, we believe, acted and directed with great sensitivity. Viewers will see in the forthcoming episodes how Anna and Bates struggle to come to terms with what has happened."
(Ombudsman's Note: As a viewer, and as just a personal observation, I was not offended. The scene was painful, as it should be. But the pain was conveyed by screaming. The visuals — so common on almost everything else on American television and in American movies — were thankfully absent. Downton is a drama unfolding in early 20th century England and the reason I found such a scene at least potentially worthy is because it could lead to exploration about what a woman could do or felt she had to do in such circumstances during such times. I have no idea what lies ahead in the series, but would a servant such as Anna lose her job if she complained? What chance would she have with the police or the justice system of that era if she brought charges, with no witnesses, against the male valet of an aristocrat, Lord Gillingham, an invited guest to Downton? How does a smart young woman of that time — probably the most perceptive figure in the drama, and possibly impregnated — deal with such an act, which is ageless? Does she lose control of her decisions because she can't keep others in a gossip-filled mansion from finding out, becoming involved and taking matters into their hands? Finally, although this attack is distasteful but real, it is about the only thing in the first three hours of the new season that seems to me to have produced any dramatic tension or interest other than Lady Mary's switching from her black "I'm still grieving" dress to a purple outfit, signifying something.)
I liked "To Catch a Trader." It's a good movie and it's a real reflection of Insider Trading and how common it is. Also it's a direct reflection of the movie "The Wolf of Wall Street."
Vallejo, CA
(Ombudsman's Note: This is a reference to the Frontline investigative documentary that aired on Jan. 7 and that I thought was outstanding and definitely worth seeing if you missed it.)
~ ~ ~
Why has Frontline programming been pushed to late night or the early morning hours as of late? Frontline IS the only objective investigative journalism program that I am aware of on the air in the United States. Everything else is controlled by corporate interests. Unfortunately, one has to go overseas to find anything with any similar content. Seems like Europeans are more up on what ails America than Americans are. The media bubble in the US is so obviously designed to pacify the masses. Important stories like 'To Catch a Trader' should be shown in prime time. It looks, to the casual observer such as myself, like PBS management is more worried about minimizing damage to their contributors than getting the story out. Unfortunate state of affairs in our country. Americans have lost faith in this country's institutions. The message appears to be 'playing by the rules is for idiots'. We glorify people like Cohen who appear to define the current American ideal — smart people figure ways around the rules/laws — while our young soldiers die for those ideals (like it or not) in foreign lands. Pathetic — truly.
Stephen Romero, Anderson, CA
Re: Bill Moyers 1Hour program on PBS on Sunday afternoon at varying times, lately. Why has Bill Moyers above program been cut to one half hour? I do not understand this and do not like it either. Mr. Moyers is a very bright ray of light in my progressive sadness to the current disarray of political America. His is one of the few honest, enlightening programs on television. That's why I don't understand this and resent it because I donate every year to PBS. Please reply and explain this.
Judith Nappe, North Bonneville, WA
(Ombudsman's Note: Bill Moyers' most recent program — the weekly, hour-long Moyers & Company — has been distributed for the past two years by American Public Television, not by PBS. In October, Moyers announced that this series would end, as originally planned, on Jan. 3, 2014. But a few weeks later, he announced that the program would, indeed, continue but as a half-hour weekly broadcast beginning Jan. 10. Here's the story as reported in the New York Times and also the fuller announcement by Moyers as posted online by Deadline Hollywood which, mistakenly, includes a PBS logo rather than APT.)
~ ~ ~
Bill Moyers is one of the very few journalists deserving of respect in the North American "free" media. Outside of his program, it's pretty much a desert. All the stuff and guests I've seen on Moyers' programs are what Public Affairs TV should be about, not the mamby-pamby interviews conducted on PBS's NewsHour.
Carlos Coimbra
~ ~ ~
I think this is one of your better columns. In particular, you wrote, "My sense is that an independent, fair-minded viewer watching this would have no doubt that Moyers does not like what is going on in North Carolina, disagrees with all of it except the protests . . ." I agree with you. That also is my main criticism of Moyers, whom I generally admire. I just finished reading David and Goliath, by Malcolm Gladwell. Its nine chapters illustrate how "underdogs" can succeed by using innovative methods to outflank powerful opponents. Protests such as Occupy Wall Street only pit the masses in a frontal assault against powerful foes, who largely ignore them.
James Bruner, Oak Harbor, WA
I just watched tonight's [Jan. 9] PBS NewsHour segment on poetry in medical education and in medicine. The story is welcome, encouraging, and heartwarming. Dr. Campo is to be lauded for his efforts to humanize medical care. We need more of this approach to caring for people.
However, I thought, as I have so many times before, why is there never something similar about nursing? I am acquainted with school nurses who have used music and art to help school children with chronic health problems, and hospital nurses who have used alternative healthcare techniques with critically ill or dying patients. I so understand the media's perspective; nursing is just not thought of, is not considered important enough. Nonetheless, for the thousands of us who are nurses and part of the healthcare delivery system, this view gets old. Thanks for listening.
Susan Proctor RN, PhD, Placerville, CA
~ ~ ~
I am an endocrinologist associated with Harvard Medical School. Several days ago, I watched the program featuring Dr. David Perlmutter and was appalled by its content. The measures he advocates, a radically low carbohydrate diet and gluten aversion to avoid Alzheimer Disease, diabetes, etc., have no standing in the scientific community and there is massive evidence to the contrary. Worse he offers sufferers of these distressing illnesses a false path to health, which is hardly a public service. I cannot imagine why this program was selected for a PBS special.
David Singer, Cambridge, MA
~ ~ ~
I used to have a high opinion of PBS. They ran excellent programs like Nova and Masterpiece Theatre and I felt I could count on finding good programming when I tuned into my local PBS channel. No more. It was bad enough when they started featuring Deepak Chopra, self-help programs, and "create your own reality" New Age philosophy, but at least it was obvious what those programs were about. What is really frightening is that now they are running programs for fringe medical claims and they are allowing viewers to believe that they are hearing cutting edge science.
Neurologist Robert Burton has written excellent articles for salon.com pointing out the questionable science presented by doctors Daniel Amen and Mark Hyman in their PBS programs. Please click on the links and read what he wrote. These programs are being shown during fundraising drives as if they were examples of the best PBS has to offer.
Several people (myself included) protested to our local stations and to the PBS ombudsman. The ombudsman basically said those are not PBS programs and the local stations choose whether to run them. PBS doesn't take any responsibility for their content — but how are viewers to know that? There is no disclaimer, and the PBS logo has sometimes appeared on the screen during these programs.
PBS is providing airtime to fringe practitioners for what amounts to infomercials. They are lending their cachet to ideas that are not accepted by mainstream science, and they are not giving their viewers any clue that these ideas are not generally accepted. One commenter on the salon.com website said, "I worked at a PBS station in Tampa for several years and I can tell you the reason they run that crap — it's because it pays the bills. Unlike every other show on the station (like Nova and American Experience) the station gets a check when the show airs instead of having to pay to air it." If this is true, it is reprehensible.
If PBS really wanted to support good science, it would not air these infomercials. If it insists on airing them, it should at least provide a disclaimer and make it clear that the programs are not endorsed by PBS. Burton says: apparently PBS's mission is to raise money by exploiting viewers' gullibility at the expense of trustworthy programming. If so, it has achieved its goal — and undermined the central reason for having educational TV in the first place.
Frederick, MD
(Ombudsman's Note: I have written a number of times about this issue, including a lengthy column several years ago about these specific programs and criticisms that touches on all the issues raised in this letter and make perfectly clear that I believe PBS should, indeed, do more to make very clear that these are not programs distributed by or provided by PBS.)
~ ~ ~
I just wanted to pass along an observation. A post on my Facebook page concerning "60 minutes" coverage on the lack of progress with renewable energy received a massive amount of disagreement with the report. Many questioned whether or not the reporting on "60 Minutes" could be trusted. One response asked if there was any place where you could get the truth and get the news. Every response thereafter said PBS NewsHour. That's a great reputation to have. And a high standard to maintain. Well done.
Dan Cignoli, Coram, NY
Though PBS was thankfully muted, tonight the broadcast still referred to the 'wind chill' factor as though such a thing actually existed. Please put a fact checker on this bogus metric. Here are a couple common sense observations.
1) Accuweather calls it 'real feel.' Well how would they (or anyone) know? Say the temperature is -5 and the 'wind chill factor' is -30. By the time a human body has actually reached that temperature, it can't feel anything, because it is dead! And by -5, frozen solid.
2) The temperature outside is 33, with a 100-mph wind. Look up the bullsh... I mean wind chill factor on the NOAA website. Then put out a springwater bottle. It will not freeze. And the thermometer will continue to read 33. That's because there is no such thing as a 'wind chill factor.'
Now the wind DOES present a real danger. And that is: wind accelerates the rate at which a warm object will cool to ambient temperature. And that IS a danger, to be sure - in terms of frostbite and hypothermia. So instead of a 'wind chill factor' we should have a 'heat loss factor.' A mom sending her kid out to the middle school bus stop would be better off knowing that frostbite (in this wind) can occur in 6 minutes, not the usual 20 minutes. But a fantasy reading of 'feels like 40 below?' Meaningless to the point of dangerous.
'Wind chill' is pseudoscience on the same order of creationism: it's unprovable, untestable, nonscientific . . . in short, theology (or economics!), based entirely in speculation and fantasy. No wonder America's schoolchildren are stupid (and 21st in science is stupid). Is PBS going to continue to be a part of this?
David Maurand, Essex, MA
]]>Meanwhile, in North Carolina, a much smaller but vocal PBS audience was not at all pleased about something that wasn't watched. An hour-long program on the upheaval in the state's traditional political power structure — that gave Republicans sweeping control in a traditionally Democratic state — titled "State of Conflict: North Carolina" and presented by Bill Moyers was not shown on the state's major broadcast channel, UNC-TV, on Friday night, Jan. 3. It could only be seen on one of the station's digital sub-channels, UNC-MX.
UNC-TV is the largest PBS-member station in the state — actually a 12-station network with more than four million viewers — and what this meant is that viewers state-wide who don't have or can't afford cable and rely on the station for over-the-air broadcast of their favorite shows could not see what was a very hard-hitting — and mostly one-sided, in my view — program about what had unfolded in their own state.
The program was widely available nationally and online and was also broadcast over-the-air by a separate PBS-member station, WTVI in Charlotte, N.C., on Sunday morning. So many within that city's large viewing area could, indeed, watch it.
Here's how one viewer in Stokesdale, N.C., put it in an email to me:
"The public in North Carolina have been grossly mistreated by PBS. Many people have been trying to view the Bill Moyers documentary 'State of Conflict.' This program has been seen by people in California, Colorado, and other states whereas most of North Carolinians cannot see it. I think PBS has a political agenda that they are trying to push in NC. I also think the people will be outraged that PBS continues to request donations from those people who have been unable to view a program about NC, in their own state!"
I have said many times in these columns that things involving PBS frequently are "complicated," and this one is no exception.
For one thing, Moyers retired from his last program series on PBS, "Bill Moyers Journal," on April 30, 2010. His new weekly series, "Moyers & Company," debuted two years ago. But — and this is a big "but" — it has been distributed from the start by another provider of material for public broadcasters, American Public Television (APT), not by PBS.
So in one sense, this is a controversy involving a program distributed by APT rather than PBS. But, for the following reasons, I think it's fair game for the PBS ombudsman.
Moyers is an iconic figure in broadcasting and his long career with PBS continues to identify him with this service. And, since all PBS-member stations are independent and can air whatever they choose, many stations continue to broadcast the new Moyers show over the air via APT. So, lots of people still watch him on their local PBS stations. Furthermore, although distributed by APT, the program is "presented," or introduced into the system, by WNET, the big PBS member-station in New York.
The identification with PBS was extended in another way as well. The program's content focuses intensively on Art Pope, a wealthy businessman and political mover in the state as "at the heart of this conservative onslaught" that has put the power into Republican hands. I'll get back to Pope, but in a rebuttal to the Moyers' presentation, the Pope Foundation posted a response to "Bill Moyers' Unfair Attack . . . Broadcast through the PBS network on Jan. 3."
And there is this final bit of connection: Although top PBS officials declined to distribute the then new Moyers & Company series for broadcast two years ago, it did reach an agreement with APT this spring to present the program through PBS's online video player and mobile apps.
The situation in North Carolina is also complicated. It produced a fair amount of angry comments from viewers who do not have cable and were upset that they could not see a nationally-distributed program about their state on the largest channel in their state, and from others who did see it and found it "unabashedly political, one-sided programming," as a viewer in New York described it in an email to me.
I'll come back to the "one-sided" issue as well. But what initially I found most interesting about this situation was the fact that, for viewers of public television, it could not be seen on UNC-TV unless you had cable. After this was called to my attention and I watched the program, it also seemed to me that many people who could not watch this program might well have been those most affected by, and in agreement with, the subject matter as presented by Moyers.
One main reason why it is complicated is because Moyers & Company has always been shown only on the UNC-MX sub-channel since the series began in January 2012.
In a statement after the controversy erupted, UNC-TV's director of communications and marketing, Steve Volstad, made the following points:
"Contrary to some published reports, UNC-TV did not 'black out' or 'bury' the Moyers and Company episode . . . which was broadcast on UNC-TV's digital channel UNC-MX on Friday, January 3 at 10 p.m., and repeated on UNC-MX on Saturday, January 4 at 6 p.m. In fact, the series has been broadcast on UNC-MX since [its] inception in January 2012 — a fact which should be familiar to regular viewers of the program . . . This was also the case with the earlier Moyers series, 'Bill Moyers' Journal,' which was carried on UNC-MX from October 2009 until the series ended in April 2010, so there is a well-established history of programs produced by Bill Moyers being carried on UNC-MX."
Volstad goes on to explain that an on-demand streaming video file of the program is still available on the UNC-TV website and that UNC-MX is one of four channels provided by UNC-TV, and features several kinds of programming, including a number of public affairs programs like Moyers & Company. But it is toward the end of his statement that he explains: "Because of technological limitations, currently UNC-MX is only available to cable television subscribers, and not to over-the-air viewers." He adds that the station expects to overcome that and broadcast UNC-MX over the air sometime in the first half of the year.
This is all very helpful, but it also raises other questions. Why not make an exception and put this edition of Moyers & Company — which puts a sharp focus on the political situation in North Carolina that has attracted national attention in the press and is hosted by a major figure in broadcasting — on its main over-the-air channel? And why is Moyers only on the sub-channel list to begin with?
In a telephone interview, Volstad said that all the major, so-called common carriage programs that come from PBS are broadcast on the main channel, and that there has, of course, been lots of local coverage about what's happening in North Carolina. Also, I would point out that there was a lengthy PBS NewsHour segment on the battle over voting rights discrimination in the state back in August and another one in September, and one on gay rights in the state in May. Volstad said, in response to questions, that he was not aware of any specific discussions with programmers about moving this particular Moyers program to the broadcast format and pointed out that something else would have had to be taken off the schedule to make room for it. "Most people who are fans of Moyers have been able to find him and watch and I don't think it occurred to us to put it on. It was just in its normal place. If we wanted to censor it we wouldn't schedule it at all."
Aside from the APT/Moyers program, the only major PBS program delegated to UNC-MX is "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly," which also deals at times with touchy subjects.
It is easy for me to say, since I don't have to figure out how to do these things, but it does seem to me that a real opportunity was missed here to more broadly serve public television viewers of a major station on a subject very close to home by finding a way, in advance, to have broadcast this program over the air and perhaps even to have sponsored a 30-minute discussion of it afterwards, as some stations do from time to time on controversial programs.
And this is a controversial program. But it strikes me as controversial in a couple of ways — one that is not so good but another that is worth thinking more about in today's political and media environment. These conflicting attitudes are why I concluded that this was a missed opportunity — assuming it could have been arranged — by UNC-TV to serve all its viewers better while also perhaps debating afterward how some approaches to what some describe these days as "journalism" or "documentaries" fit into the picture of informing people about what is going on. If you have not seen this program, you should do so by clicking here.
Below are some of the messages, all critical, I received about this program.
And, as an inducement to keep reading through this long column, there are personal responses to these letters from Bill Moyers.
At the beginning of this column I also offered my view that this program was "mostly one-sided." Here's what I meant.
In the online introduction to the program, it is described as a "documentary." It points out that Republicans now hold the governor's mansion and both houses of the state legislature and "are steering North Carolina far to the right." At the heart of this, in Moyers' view, is Art Pope, a businessman "who is so wealthy and powerful that he is frequently described as the state's own 'Koch brother.'" This is a reference to the mega-billionaire Koch brothers who are also a powerful financial force in furthering conservative Republican causes. One of the main people interviewed by Moyers is New Yorker magazine writer Jane Mayer who is one of the few, and probably the leading, reporter in the country who has delved deeply and critically in print into both the Koch brothers and Pope. The Moyers program theme goes along similar lines to Mayer's piece on Pope.
But in my view, this is not your father's documentary. This is not Frontline. This is better described as advocacy journalism. My sense is that an independent, fair-minded viewer watching this would have no doubt that Moyers does not like what is going on in North Carolina, disagrees with all of it except the protests, and that the thrust of the program supports that view.
There is an interview with the head of a Pope-funded foundation but the saving bit of balance from what one would call an informed participant with no dog in the fight was provided by Adam Hochberg, who teaches journalism at the University of North Carolina. Moyers, in fact, leads into this, pointing out that the state's Democrats played right into Pope's hands in 2010 when "a Democratic governor had pled guilty to a felony campaign finance charge."
But then Hochberg weighs in: "We had a Democratic Speaker of the House go to prison on a bribery scheme. I mean there was a lot of, a lot of sleaze in the Democratic Party. We saw a backlash against President Obama and Obamacare, which is the same thing we saw nationally. We saw frustration over a lousy economy, which was the same thing we saw nationally."
I would add that while Obama, with a large minority, independent and youth turnout, narrowly won the state by just 14,000 or so votes in 2008, he lost by about 100,000 in 2012 with some of those folks staying home. What seemed missing from this program, aside from Hochberg's contribution, was any help at judging how big a role Art Pope, the unfettered money supply, the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision opening the floodgates to more money in politics, the redistricting (also done by Democrats when they can) actually played in North Carolina, as opposed to malfeasance or ineptness by some Democrats, dismay over national events, and Democrats not turning out. The Republican governor and legislature were, after all, elected by a majority of the voters. Whose fault is that? Did Pope engineer all that?
On the other hand, some kind of a well-balanced he said/she said documentary might not have had any impact beyond what people already know. All of the issues that Moyers targets — big money in the hands of a few controlling interests, new regulations on voting rights, corporate taxes, cuts in education and medical care — are very real, legitimate issues and need to be aired without pulling punches. Whatever one feels about Moyers, he is one of the only figures on television that goes after these issues head-on. These are tense times. Advocacy journalism needs a place at times within the mix of public discourse.
But I have always felt, as a consumer of news and as a journalist, that programs suffer rather than benefit when they are easily perceived, by people who come at this with an open-mind, as advocacy messages. Even when facts are there, and Moyers' program presents lots of them, most people can smell a tone a mile away.
You must have tough and hard-hitting reporting to expose the realities of today's extraordinary wealth, influence and politics. But you also need to lay out the complexities of these situations.
Please explain how PBS can ask for public money and donations when it carries unabashedly political, one-sided programming like Moyers & Company? I stopped donating to PBS long ago because of the Moyers program and never watch it. Unfortunately, my TV was still on PBS after I had watched Downton Abbey. I couldn't believe how much worse Bill Moyers had become. His program was an attack on the North Carolina Republican Party and free programming for North Carolina progressives. The material was an attack piece filled with out and out bias. This is not journalism. It is partisan politics of the worst kind. I didn't know how far PBS integrity had fallen until tonight. PBS does not deserve public support in any way. I would suggest that no one send contributions to an entity that is just another branch of the progressive movement.
New York, NY
~ ~ ~
In response, we can't speak on behalf of PBS or its fundraising policies. We can, though, note that we take no money from PBS or public television stations for the programs we produce and provide to those stations at no charge to them. We also respectfully disagree with your description of the documentary as an attack. That's simply not true; it was a fact-based report. Indeed, none of the facts presented in the report have been challenged as untrue. Unfortunately, first and second most powerful Republicans in North Carolina, Art Pope and Governor Pat McCrory, did not respond to our interview requests, and Mr. Pope has not responded even now to our invitation that he appear on an upcoming broadcast to discuss what we reported. Francis De Luca of the John William Pope Civitas Institute did appear and spoke well on behalf of the Republican agenda, did agree to speak with us. Furthermore, in noting the "sleaze" in the Democratic party (our film does not use that word with regard to Republicans), we in no way imply that one party is above criticism in North Carolina, and we welcome all efforts by North Carolina public media outlets to investigate Republicans and Democrats alike, and to help citizens there better understand how hidden money is spent on politics by Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and progressives, and anyone else hoping to influence the debate in your state.
Sincerely,
Bill Moyers
My comment is about the one sided reporting that too often dominates PBS. Today my disbelief centers on the Moyers and Company programming on North Carolina. This program is not reporting but vilification of conservatism. You insult the voters of North Carolina, who by the way put these people in power, by insinuating that it only took money. And while much of this may be true, then to be fair, the same principles, or lack thereof, apply to both sides of political landscape. With a minimal amount of research, one could find equally grotesque abuses of power from the liberal agenda enacted by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. We could even take the idea of buying your way into power straight to the top if you examine the rise of President Obama. Finally, regarding the idea of requiring a picture ID for voting, who are we kidding? Identification is the very foundation of the United States. Why don't we just use the IRS for voting verification, it is good enough for the affordable care act. Thankfully, Adam Hochberg offered some non-partisan points of view. Perhaps I have missed the pro-conservative shows that showcase how states like Texas have prosperity through conservatism or the reporting of the good things that are happening for North Carolina because of the fiscal decisions that were made. The whole country is not liberal, please keep that in mind when you program for the Public Broadcast Station.
Ellisville, MO
~ ~ ~
Thank you for the comment, and for conceding that "much of [what is in the program] may be true." In fact, it's all true. We would note that in the John William Pope Foundation's critical response to our program, no fact that we reported was challenged as incorrect.
Your assertion that both sides of the political aisle are guilty of "grotesque abuses of power" is not one we would take issue with; in fact, we heartily agree. We even called attention in the report to the corruption of the Democratic Party in North Carolina that "played right into" conservative hands. However, it was not our intention — nor could it possibly have been in the short time allotted to our program — to do a report that catalogues the many abuses of power of American political life. Rather, we chose to focus on something unique to North Carolina: the extraordinary story of a single individual having so much influence and power in one state.
We do take issue with another of your assertions, that "identification is the very foundation of the United States." Rather, we would argue that the Constitution is the foundation of the United States. And it is enfranchised voters and, yes, a free press, that help keep that foundation solid. Finally, we respect your right to say that we insulted the voters of North Carolina, but with equal respect we respond that in fact we have done what the job of the press has always been to do: we have informed the voters of North Carolina.
With best regards,
Bill Moyers
The story involves the announcement, on Dec. 16, by GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, that "it will no longer pay doctors to promote its drugs, and it will stop compensating sales representatives based on the number of prescriptions doctors write," as the PBS NewsHour reported in introducing the story.
First, some background. I often get email and calls from people who get PBS and NPR confused. But I rarely hear from someone comparing their approach to the same story. Both are public broadcasters but both are separate entities.
When it comes to news, NPR is actually among the biggest news operations in the country, with a large newsroom in Washington, D.C., dozens of bureaus in this country and around the world, and some 350 reporters, correspondents, producers, editors and other news staffers. PBS does not have a newsroom and does not produce anything for television. Rather, it distributes programs produced by its member stations and independent producers. The venerable, flagship news program, PBS NewsHour, is produced by MacNeil/Lehrer Productions in association primarily with member station WETA just outside Washington. In comparison with NPR, the NewsHour's own news team is quite small.
Here's what the viewer wrote:
"I'm a devoted watcher of the NewsHour. I'm talking decades (I'm 67). I'm also a devoted listener to NPR. The two news organizations broadcast roughly similar news stories. Sometimes one is better than the other or vice versa. But yesterday [12/17], the situation was outrageous. Luckily I had listened to the NPR story before I watched PBS. The NPR story about GlaxoSmithKline was excellent, interviewing top experts on the issue. By contrast, the PBS NewsHour interviews amounted to a whitewash of the drug/medical complex practices. Given the enormous importance of the issue for this country, you should make amends. I'll be watching for them."
I should say at the outset that I didn't find the PBS NewsHour treatment of that story to be outrageous or a whitewash. It was informative, as I find most NewsHour segments, and took the time to capture some of the complexity surrounding this issue. But, as always, it does so in a traditional, polite NewsHour style, with the interviews frequently conducted by one of the two anchors, in this case Judy Woodruff, in which there are two guests with somewhat different views and a fair amount of asking one guest what they think about what the other guest just said.
The NewsHour segment took nine-and-a-half minutes. The NPR radio report took less than half that time, was also informative, but had a sharper edge throughout and was conducted by a general assignment business correspondent, Yuki Noguchi. Being on radio, rather than in a television studio with the guests sitting next to the host on camera, Noguchi was also able to succinctly summarize the views of those she interviewed, while using fewer long quotes from them.
Both programs used Dr. Jerry Avorn of the Harvard Medical School as one of the featured guests, which is another reason why I don't agree with the characterization in the viewer's letter. But Noguchi, helpfully I thought, tells the listening audience right at the start that Dr. Avorn also "writes about the medical community's conflict of interest problems." Woodruff made no attempt at the outset to describe the views of the two guests other than to say "they have different views."
Woodruff did not shrink from the controversial nature of this subject, telling viewers as she introduced the segment that GSK's "moves come following other problems for the company, including a bribery scandal in China involving payments to allegedly boost sales, and a settlement with the U.S. government last year on marketing drugs for improper uses."
Her other guest was also from the Harvard Medical School, Dr. Thomas Stossel, who took an opposing view on some of Dr. Avorn's criticisms but added more complexity to the controversy — and value to the discussion, in my opinion — pointing out, for example, that for physicians and ultimately for patients, "it's the quality of the information, not the judgments about the motives of the people providing it, that is important."
That kind of complexity was not contained in the NPR report, which had a slight editorial tone but was livelier, more focused, more critical but also managed to provide other important aspects in less than half the time.
Today, HealthNewsReview.org published a strong criticism of the NewsHour segment, describing it as "almost waste of time" and pointing out that The Harvard Crimson newspaper called Dr. Stossel "the Pro-Industry Professor."
The tone I mentioned above came through, as I heard it, in the reporter pointing out: "The pharmaceutical industry and GlaxoSmithKline have run into many legal problems about their marketing practices in recent years." That's for sure. But then she went on to state: "That is part of what is driving Glaxo's changes." The reporter summarizes points from industry critic and founder of the advocacy group Public Citizen, Sidney Wolfe, about a $3 billion guilty plea last year and $1 billion more in penalties over the last decade. Then Wolfe is heard from directly saying, "If you look at what they have been caught doing in 2003, 2005, 2010 and 2012 . . . are not part of their new set of promises." I have no reason to doubt that but a few more seconds of explanation might have helped.
On the other hand, the NPR report, in contrast to the longer NewsHour segment, very helpfully pointed out that the administration's new health care law is also driving the change in pharmaceutical promotion because next year the government will launch a public database detailing how much every doctor receives in compensation from drug companies.
Other useful points made quickly in the NPR report were that the regulatory and business environment for the industry is shifting, that new drug promotion is becoming less necessary because fewer new drugs are being launched, that doctors get more information online these days, and that GSK says that all the new changes will be implemented in all the countries it operates in by early 2016. It also pointed out that GSK said the idea of its new policies was to be more transparent about how it sells drugs.
So, whether you watched or listened, what you got was news, analysis and opinions about a new development by a leading company within an industry that provokes a lot of strong feelings among consumers, consumer advocates and critics. But I didn't see the NewsHour treatment as a "whitewash" or "almost waste of time." I think viewers can figure these things out for themselves.
]]>I am writing to express my puzzled state of disappointment and dread at PBS choice of host for Downton Abbey. Hmmm . . . it just doesn't gel with the gentility and elegance of Downton Abbey. This is the actress [Susan Sarandon] whose character evokes images of anger, pushiness, violence, oddness, strife, screaming, fighting, and New Jersey? The seemingly nutty actress who attempted to censor a radio show just because the views expressed did not agree with her own? Not that she's not an accomplished Hollywood actress . . . it's just . . . host to Downton Abbey??? It's just a walking oxymoron. My friends and I just don't get it. We loved the lovely Laura Linney!
Columbus, OH
~ ~ ~
Thanks for RUINING DOWNTON ABBEY by hiring that limo liberal Susan Sarandon to host the show tonight. She's all about the people but makes sure she lives in the whitest neighborhood, sends her kids to the whitest schools — a hypocrite. I'd rather have seen Ted Bundy host this.
New York, NY
~ ~ ~
Could you have found a less enthusiastic host than Susan Sarandon? She is TERRIBLE! She appears drugged during her introduction as well as unknowledgeable about Downton Abbey content. I understand her political alliances contracted the job, but she is an AWFUL presenter. Please do not stoop to her level.
Holly Hennessey, Westlake, OH
(Ombudsman's Note: Laura Linney remains as the host of Masterpiece's "Downton Abbey," according to a program producer. Susan Sarandon is the host only for the special pledge-drive, fourth-season preview segment that aired before the new season begins in January. Last year, Angela Lansbury carried out the same role. Masterpiece officials say the fund-raising, pre-season segment is produced for PBS by another producer and that Masterpiece has no say in the selection of the host for that segment.)
~ ~ ~
Sesame Street Porn — OK for your kids? How in the world is Lady Gaga appropriate for Sesame Street and a children's audience? Can I trust that you are OK with your kids and grandkids listening to a scantily clad woman sing "throw me on the bed, squeeze, tease and please me — that's what I said . . . touch me in the dark, put your hands all over my body parts . . ."? Please do your job and stop the insanity of PBS sexualizing America's children. Matthew 18:6 James 4:17
Katy, TX
(Ombudsman's Note: This appears to be a reference to the 90-minute, Thanksgiving night performance on ABC Television — not PBS — of "Lady Gaga & the Muppets' Holiday Spectacular." The Walt Disney Company owns both ABC and the Muppets and the characters on the ABC special "are completely separate from PBS or the Sesame Workshop," according to a PBS spokesperson.)
The Charlie Rose "Let's all Worship Another Wall Street Titan Show" is getting pretty old at this point. His interview [Dec. 2] with Stanley Druckenmiller was, and I don't say this lightly, disgusting. Do Charlie a favor and eliminate the possibility of me having to watch him fawn over his idols on public television. Encourage him to work on Wall Street where he can be closer to those he admires so much. In the interview, Charlie never challenged Druckenmiller's stance on earned benefits, as most people call them, once. They are not entitlements, they are earned benefits. In case PBS hasn't got the message, there's a class war going on, and out here in working America, we don't care much for Charlie's idols on Wall Street. And we don't care much for puppets like Rose who gives them a platform to spew their sociopathic ideas.
John Kuhn, Cincinnati, OH
~ ~ ~
Year after year the lack of empathy in this country becomes more apparent. The interview last night with this black-hearted hedge fund manager was as scary as any monster movie I've ever seen. The man's name is Druckenmiller, a hedge-fund manager still espousing the challenge of the stock market when any sentient person knows with the new computer trading, the game is rigged. But more serious is his CRUSADE to start a generation war between youth and seniors (who are already crime victims). Going to colleges and ramping up the vitriol is disgusting. PLEASE explain to C. Rose what "entitlement" means as he never mentions it. Maybe he thinks the senior audience is asleep when he interviews these people. How shameful, the millionaire and the billionaire discussing the final solution for the little people.
Johnson City, TN
(Ombudsman's Note: Here's a link to the program so you can judge for yourselves.)
Can't the NewsHour find better spokespeople [12/11] for the conservative point of view? Holtz-Eakin is such a retread and appears everywhere representing this view. Romina Boccia of the Heritage Foundation parrots conservative ideologues but she is so strident that she hasn't earned the right to do so.
Bill McLin, Annapolis, MD
~ ~ ~
I'm a long-term viewer and fan of the NewsHour but have become increasingly concerned about their "balance" in reporting on economic issues. Yesterday, 12/11/2013, they reported on the currently proposed budget deal and followed up, as usual, with a roundtable discussion. That table, as is now standard, had a centrist democrat, the former Economic Advisor to George W. Bush II Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and a spokesperson for the ultra-right wing Heritage Foundation. Holtz-Eakin was the guiding light behind the Bush II multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations that a) eliminated the Clinton tax increases that had produced a budget surplus and b) that were supposed to stimulate growth and balance the budget through taxes on that growth (while creating loop-holes for Wall Street traders, reducing the capital gains tax etc.).
We all know where that went: our National Debt doubled, we had the lowest employment growth in decades, reduced economic growth and then, our recent depression rebranded as "the Great Recession." Within that Bush II era we again tested the idea that ignoring Federal agencies created to regulate markets and avoid risk left the public with massive unemployment, loss of homes, loss of a "future" for recent graduates while also sticking us, again, with a multitrillion dollar bail out of the companies that benefited from their unregulated "financial innovations." Holtz-Eakin created the fertile field for the Anti-Keynesian radical Republicans who see public spending as a hindrance to wealth transfer to the top 0.1% and parts of the top 1% (the real success of the Reagan, Bush II economic program).The NewsHour rarely ever has a representative Keynesian economist even though that "theory package" is widely respected as true and effective in stimulating recovery from a depression/recession. Any balanced roundtable should have at least one or two actual economists who understand and can defend a rational economic policy, and there are quite a few recent Nobel Laureate Economists who write and speak publically about these issues as there distinguished professors also capable of supporting that set of ideas. You would never discuss physics or chemistry issues with a full roundtable of people who reject Einstein's works, Quantum Mechanics, or String Theory or a roundtable discussing evolution who all reject Darwin's work as the origin of our understanding . . . there are too many examples of purposeful rejection that you do not follow. Why then this one great exception?
Ronald B. Cohen, PhD, Tarzana, CA
When reporting on sentiment about the budget agreement, we found it broke down into three basic camps. There were Democrats who felt it didn't go far enough because it does not raise taxes or provide an extension of unemployment benefits, and Republicans who felt it did not go far enough on deficit reduction. But both groups actually still supported the measure as "good enough" and had laudatory things to say. The third group, on the right, opposed the measure for not maintaining sequester level cuts. Our panel reflected those views and captured the essence of the debate over the agreement. As for Holtz-Eakin himself, we weren't intending to litigate Bush-era policies during this segment about the Murray-Ryan budget. Though we certainly have done so many times on our program, including with Holtz-Eakin himself.
NewsHour producers add to Bellantoni's response by saying that the overwhelming vote of approval (332-94) in the House last night demonstrated that her analysis of the situation, as reflected in her choice of guests, was correct.
I would differ with both appraisals and find myself more in-tune, at least on the question of balance rather than politics, with the writer from California. There is, in fact, no one representing progressive or liberal left-of-center economic views on this panel. I should also say that I have an appreciation for how hard it is to gather a panel on short notice — although you could see this vote coming — that closely reflects a real-world balance of views. But this is a panel — as is not unusual on TV generally in my unscientific opinion — that most charitably can be best described as center-right — in political terms at a time when the country is quite clearly more sharply divided over economic policy and income extremes.
What you had, basically, as the progressive media watch group FAIR described it, was "Wall Street Democrat Steven Rattner, who has worked for most of the big banks and currently runs his own investment firm . . . From the right, viewers got Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum, which anchor Judy Woodruff called a 'policy think tank.' Holtz-Eakin was a McCain economics adviser whose think tank is involved in, among other things, helping corporations lobby against tax hikes. But someone at PBS thought viewers needed one more voice from the right: Romina Boccia of the Heritage Foundation. So the spectrum of debate was right, righter and Wall Street Democrat."
(Ombudsman's Note: Woodruff did describe Holtz-Eakin as an economic adviser to President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign.)
It seems that pledge drives are much more frequent than in the past — or much longer. The respite of good programming between these pledge drives (with vacuous "specials") seems shorter and shorter. It has become a topic of conversation among those of us who have loved and supported PBS for years. But, some say we should abbreviate the contributions such as the good programming has been abbreviated. I will still contribute, BUT those pledge drives are much more of a "turn-off" than a "turn-on." Annoyance increases and appreciation waivers.
St. Louis, MO
(Ombudsman's Note: A PBS official explains it this way: Over the past four or five years many stations have increased the number of days they fundraise in December. At other times, while the number of minutes of pledge time has increased (usually weekend daytime or overnight), there have been fairly modest increases in the number of days. A number of stations have also started to split up their drives. For example, there are stations that now pledge for a few days in August and a few in September. In those cases, while the number of days hasn't increased, it may create the appearance of additional fundraising. The fundraising environment generally is tougher these days.)
~ ~ ~
I am writing to express my extreme disappointment in the scheduling a 5-minute fund-raising appeal right in the middle of the Shields and Brooks segment of the NewsHour tonight [12/6]. I understand the acute financial challenges PBS faces and appreciate the need for fund-raising segments between programs and during entertainment programming. I am even willing to endure the short commercials for corporate sponsors who underwrite programming. But to interrupt a news commentary segment midstream for more than 5 minutes totally destroys the flow of the discussion and is insulting to your loyal viewers. I will continue with my annual support of WGBH in Boston but ask that Programming folks at PBS show better judgment and respect for their viewers when deciding fund-raising segment placements.
Jeff Whitestone, Boston, MA
Your web site does NOT make it easy to send input from viewers. Let's not assume you folks are infallible. For example, why not have a Charlie Rose show or Frontline on UKRAINE? This is a key democracy struggling under authoritarian leadership, being lost to Europe and bullied by Russia. Ukraine is vital to Europe and US. Please give the situation more attention!!
Frances Plude, Cleveland, OH
~ ~ ~
I am very disappointed in the fact that PBS's NewsHour has yet to report on the contested Honduran election. As in the past, the US seems to always back right-wing dictators over more populist elected officials. Ignoring these ongoing anti-democratic elections will not make our imperialist efforts go away. Please do not insult the public's intelligence. Do you think we are unaware of our colonial efforts in the world?
E. Rivers, Portland, ME
~ ~ ~
I have heard several PBS-based news programs including the NewsHour and BBC World claim that taxpayers were on the hook for over $10 billion from the GM "bailout." This is deceptive if not dishonest. Stock value was far from the only consideration in financing auto manufacturers. Loans were repaid with interest, and millions of jobs were preserved. Let's say there were no loans or capital investments. Estimated losses in tax revenue along with increased use of unemployment, Medicaid, food stamps et al (from those who became unemployed) would have cost taxpayers over $40 billion. How do you intend to correct the disinformation so prevalent in the PBS news community?
Samantha Matson, Waterford, PA
~ ~ ~
When the Swiss reported that it looked like Arafat was poisoned, the NewsHour was all over that report. The French have just reported he died by natural causes. Not a peep out of the NewsHour. Why is that? Is it cause if he died by poisoning Israel would be the implied murderer but if natural causes not?
Jacob Zeder, Atlanta, GA
~ ~ ~
I have two major issues with recent reporting. Regarding pension shortfalls and "legacy costs:" I have seen in person how employers will, over the years, deliberately underfund pension obligations. This is usually not because they can't afford it (after all, they did agree to these contracts), but because they would rather use those funds for something else. Then, surprise, surprise — the fund is in crisis. This makes the public think that employees were getting outrageously generous and unsustainable early retirements, and of course it sets the stage for blaming the employees and justifying cutting what was promised. The employer gets the double benefit: having spent the money elsewhere all along, and then being allowed to escape even more expenses in the future.
I also must say how irritating it is to me that your interviewers often just segue between two "experts." "Well, you heard what he just said. What do you say to that?" Informed staff work should provide the interviewers with the hard questions that each side does not want asked. It does not help educate the public, or get in- depth to the substantive policy issues. Please don't just be the voice in between each "side's" talking points and sound bites. And why do we only hear the two mainstream positions?
Diane E., Traverse City, MI
Upon watching the Nova science program the other night, the host David Pogue stated that one of the reasons why the United States lacks in science and math abilities is that still 50% of us and our children do not believe in the theory of evolution. What a preposterous statement that should come out of such a learned man! Does he not know of Newton, Kepler, and Galileo, and countless others that do not ascribe to evolution's "theory?"
Waretown, NJ
~ ~ ~
As a former Alaskan that still works and travels the State, I was shocked at the piece about Arctic ice recession in the North. This was a nothing more than a propaganda flick crafted to influence a gullible public for political purposes. Arctic thick ice has increased over 40% in 2012 alone. So much for artifacts lost "burning a library" or unsupported claims made by government paid "scientists." This all makes me ill. I know the game, nice play PBS. I plan to cover as many as I can on my email list with this fraud, including my representatives in Congress that fund this garbage.
Mark Rose, Albany, OR
]]>I wrote about this on Tuesday but now it turns out that author/writer Joe Hanson has decided to remove the video from the web. Here's how he explained it in a posting on Wednesday afternoon:
"I have decided to remove 'A Very Special Thanksgiving Special' from the It's Okay to Be Smart channel. We failed in using satire to shine some light on the problem of women's under-representation in science and the on-going disrespect and harassment women face in the field. I hope it is clear that I never set out to offend anyone. Harassment is real and unacceptable — I never meant for my work to indicate anything other than that. I am looking forward to continuing what has always been my mission for It's Okay To Be Smart: Inspiring people — all people — to learn about the beauty and wonder of science."
What follows is a representative sampling of letters that arrived after my column was posted but before the video was deleted. Then come letters — along with ombudsman commentary in some cases and a response from PBS about a children's program — about a variety of other subjects from health care coverage, the endless debate over the Kennedy assassination, the interview with former Vice-President Dick Cheney and Tavis Smiley. My apologies for such a very long mailbag but I wanted to get this posted before the holiday break.
Writing as a new parent and life-long fan of PBS programming, I was impressed with your response to the Thanksgiving video that depicted an Einstein puppet assaulting a Marie Curie puppet, but extraordinarily disappointed with the official corporate PBS response that you posted below it. Is there any further recourse at this stage to express dissatisfaction with that official response? I am already starting to share with my baby girl the marvels of children's educational programming that PBS has for decades offered as a sterling public service. I really cannot fathom why the network would jeopardize its well-deserved reputation in defense of a grossly offensive web video. PBS relies on viewer contributions, and it will be a tragically counterproductive outcome if donations for so much wonderful programming are with-held on account of this ill-conceived defense of a single 5-minute online clip.
Jake Yeston, Alexandria, VA
~ ~ ~
Your Corporate Communications person states, "With this video, Joe has opened up an important, though difficult, debate. We believe we are meeting our public service mission by providing an open forum where this and other conversations about complex subjects can take place." I don't understand. He didn't open up anything but a can of worms which you've unsuccessfully tried to stuff back in the can. The debate was already open, and it had traveled well past the ground Hanson claims to have covered. Far more nuanced voices than his have commented on the issue of sexual harassment (many of them female, I might add), and yet you've chosen this piece of dreck to represent it? Shame on you. Take it down.
Vancouver, BC
~ ~ ~
The response by PBS to the outcry over the Thanksgiving video depicting sexual harassment and assault was not appropriate. Even the added warning that some people were offended on the video adds insult to injury. The offered apologies have been of the false "I'm sorry if you were offended" type, and not any sincere indication that this was not just inappropriate because it might offend delicate sensibilities. This portrayal was hurtful, perpetuated the problem for which you now pretend it 'opens a debate' Do you mean to say there is any *debate* about whether sexual harassment and assault hurts women? Would you have allowed Einstein's bobble head to call a Neil DeGrasse Tyson's bobble head by a racial slur, just because it might have been acceptable in Einstein's time? You would not.
M.S., Millis, MA
~ ~ ~
I would like to add my voice to those that support taking down Joe Hanson's recent "Thanksgiving" video and publishing some kind of statement of apology. Dr. Hanson is a outstanding science communicator and this was an accidentally offensive piece.
Michael Tomasson, St. Louis, MO
For the record, I don't think Joe Hanson has done anything wrong. At all. For example, today I laughed at a movie trailer where a baby appeared to be thrown into the road and hit by a truck. I laughed *not* because I make light of baby-throwing. And similarly — and obviously — Joe is not making light of sexual harassment. Please don't encourage such PC witch hunts by apologizing or bending.
Dr. Mark Changizi, Columbus, OH
~ ~ ~
It's disgusting that Hanson had to apologize (probably in order to have enough of a career left to feed his children, pay his rent). The video was funny. Where were all the people complaining that Tesla was portrayed as a boob? Or about the others? Your apology, which I also understand — correct response to a witch hunt when viewer/contributor dollars are at stake — dismayed me. My response, in full, is here — "The PBS Bobblehead Controversy: Victim-Feminist Science Ladies And The Men They've Co-opted Have Their Panties In A Wad Again." The comment I left on the video on YouTube: This was humor through scientists being humanized and behaving badly — as people do. Tesla makes outrageous boasts, for example. One way people behave badly is by hitting on other people who aren't interested. Men do it to women and women do it to men. This video is funny. I deplore those who try to squash any bit of speech that isn't politically correct. The answer to speech you do not like is more speech, not trying to shut down the career of the person who makes speech you have a problem with. The upshot, as I see it: If you feel diminished as a woman and as a scientist because of a video like this, well, I don't think you're much of a person or a scientist. Men hit on women. Sometimes they do it in a way that is oafish. Why do men hit on women and not so much the other way around? See basic evolutionary biology. Women are the ones who have babies that need to grow up and be fed and cared for. They are the choosier sex because of it and generally are the pursued rather than the pursuers. The video is reflecting life. Deal with it ladies — and all you silly men who feel guilty for being born with a penis and are now compelled to do penance by falling in with the victim-feminists and calling for women to be treated specially instead of equally.
Amy Alkon, Santa Monica, CA
~ ~ ~
Let me first just say that I had no idea that PBS had an ombudsman, and while I've never completely understood the role and purpose of one (I know we have one at our university) I'm starting to understand through reading your blog. You are awesome. Thanks for your comments on Joe Hanson's Thanksgiving video. I understand it's hard to appeal to everyone (I had no idea how many people were that offended by Downton Abbey, for example) and I really appreciated an honest viewpoint from an unbiased party. I think that's all my feedback. It doesn't assuage the disappointment I feel as PBSDS continues to leave the video up, and not give a satisfactory apology, but I really appreciate your contribution to the debate. Thanks again, and I will now be a loyal reader of the PBS ombudsman blog.
Rachel Bloom, Durham, NC
The woman whose "story" about health insurance aired on the NewsHour tonight [11/20] never mentioned comparing her coverage to what is available on her state's exchange. The only other option she talked about was a more expensive policy from Kaiser. How could both the interviewer and the commentator allow her to omit the most relevant alternative?
Stamford, CT
~ ~ ~
NewsHour has been running a series about people's health insurance under ACA.
When NewsHour reports that a person has lost a policy because the policy does not meet the standards of the ACA, the NewsHour should explain exactly what standards were not met. That allows the listener to evaluate whether the old policy is substantially different than the new policy. It also allows the listener to evaluate whether the old policy is really insurance.
Kevin Dalley, Oakland, CA
~ ~ ~
I just listened to an infuriating interview in which a woman who was cancelled by Kaiser complained about the 67% increase of getting a new policy with them. The news person did not suggest that she check with the Obamacare web site to see whether she could get or qualify for a better plan — they just focused on her problem. THIS IS VERY POOR JOURNALISM! Alternatives should be explored! That is, unless sensationalism is your goal, and warping the public perception of health care alternatives is the object. SHAME!
Bennett, NC
(Ombudsman's Note: The series being run by the PBS NewsHour is a good public service. But the viewers whose emails are posted above, and some others, make a good point in that a number of these segments allow long explanations from the consumer but then move on to "the bigger picture" with a discussion with an independent observer. That is also informative but it can leave viewers hanging about the credibility of the view offered by the consumer.)
Ladonna Compson on Arthur & PBS Kids: This character is disparaging and extremely condescending. How do I explain this to my Louisiana children who are watching PBS, when the character is a totally mockery of our citizenship, rooted in French heritage. The accent is not even close — why don't you have a character with a really bad Boston accent as well, who is a gang member or the like? Shame on PBS, and shame on WGBH! Your editors are asleep at the switch. You do not even begin to comprehend the negative impact you are having on this region and the prejudices you are exacerbating. Your work is harmful to children from Louisiana, as well as those who have never visited!
Baton Rouge, LA
(Ombudsman's Note: The following response is from the executive producer of "Arthur," Carol Greenwald, who has also offered to be in touch directly with the viewer to discuss his views in more detail.)
We appreciate your thoughtful viewing of the program, and we sincerely regret that you have been offended by our portrayal of this character. As you may know, our overarching educational goal with the ARTHUR television series is to promote basic literacy and to foster positive social skills. We work closely with Marc Brown, author of the Arthur book series, advisors, and writers to create engaging, meaningful and developmentally appropriate stories that reflect the lives of real kids, while exploring some of the issues that kids and their families confront.
The character of Ladonna, like many on our show, is based on a real person. The writer for the episode that introduces her had a childhood friend from the South who was a nonstop storyteller. He wanted to explore the situation of "the new kid" who is trying to make an impression and make friends in a new school, and he used her storytelling as her approach. Like all of the characters on ARTHUR, Ladonna is not perfect — she makes mistakes — in this case, tells exaggerated stories in an effort to get kids to like her. We have also featured Ladonna (and her brother Bud, who becomes friends with D.W.) in a few other episodes in which she experiences her first snowstorm, gets overloaded with activities, and helps restore a kite to its rightful owner.
Our goal with Ladonna, and her brother Bud, was to introduce Arthur and his friends, and our audience, to kids from another part of the country, as a way of fostering a positive connection. We know it is always tricky to get regional accents just right, but clearly you feel we have fallen short in more ways than that, which we are extremely dismayed to hear.
I have 2 suggestions! 1. Most Important: PLEASE provide Washington Week with a full hour! 30 minutes is never enough time for that fluctuating group of journalists to address all the issues. I am so tired of being left wanting more, although I suspect I would feel that way even after an hour of this terrific program. 2. Make it easier to provide feedback for a specific program. It should not take 15 minutes to find a spot like this that allows for input. Thank you so much for all your wonderful programming, I rely on it.
Christine Holmes, San Francisco, CA
~ ~ ~
Washington Week, Fri. Nov. 15 was absolutely terrible. The reporters continually said the same thing in substance about the ACA rollout and President Obama's "bad week." They said NOTHING about what the president requires of the insurance companies if they do re-issue their junk policies; hence the public was not informed about the "fix" in such a way as to make thoughtful judgment. It was a gossip feast.
John Wilson, Tucson, AZ
Regarding Nova [Nov. 13] on the JFK assassination: the ballistic experts showed how the bullet used on the first shot that hit both JFK and Gov. Connelly was virtually unmarked. To test whether this was possible they fired the same type of bullet into pine blocks and found the bullet traveled through almost three feet of these blocks and was virtually undamaged. Yet no one questioned or commented on how the next bullet to hit JFK in the head fragmented into pieces. You need to watch the JFK program aired on REELZ to see how a proper investigation of such an obvious red flag is done.
Joseph Basciano, Chilton, WI
~ ~ ~
What are the odds ANY response to the shoddy, ludicrously biased "Nova: JFK-Cold Case" material broadcast recently will be allowed to air? What's most farcical is that there were repeated instances of long discredited "evidential facts" deployed to lend plausibility to their shenanigans, in the guise of "objective science." Cf. Meagher's Accessories After the Fact (Vintage edition, 1992) for example. Absolutely egregiously shameful misconduct by PBS if there is no response allowed to the "critics" and broadcast ON PBS with similar publicity.
Richard Turnbull, Minneapolis, MN
~ ~ ~
The recent American Experience episodes [two hours each on Nov. 11 and 12] on JFK did a great disservice to the understanding of the Kennedy administration by its obsessive focus on the President's health and marital infidelity. The majority of Americans who are too young to remember President Kennedy would likely assess his Presidency in a negative light if they were to rely on the PBS documentary for their impression of that significant time. One of our greatest Presidents, FDR, had similar issues. While they deserve some mention, as was the case with Roosevelt, such issues do not overall diminish JFK's forward-looking and inspiring Presidency.
Stuart Endick, Burke, VA
~ ~ ~
PBS' two-part series "JFK" was quite a pathetic smear job of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Would anyone even know — based on the snow job by Caro, Thomas, and Dalleck — that JFK was a true intellectual; scholar of history; a brilliant mind cultivated in part from boyhood to manhood during his fierce bouts with illness at times leaving him near death? No. Caro is the biggest fan of LBJ, the man who orchestrated the assassination of JFK. PBS neglected in whole to inform the viewing public who these three men were selected by PBS for what had been billed as the most definitive documentary on JFK. Your PBS did a great job of painting him as nothing more than a rich Harvard-educated effete . . . for this I will watch PBS for its FICTION programming only. PBS owes this country an apology for a slamming, negative and gossipy piece while here we thought, my generation, we would be shown a documentary honoring one of if not the greatest President of the 20th century.
Levittown, PA
~ ~ ~
Who are the Rich Lying Nasty people supporting your lie-filled show on JFK? I just saw your Quack Host Luke Haag on the MSNBC show "The Cycle" say, and I quote "People find it hard to believe that a Peasant could kill a King." Really!!! Why would he disparage JFK's memory by calling him a King?? He was our President and he should be respectfully referred to as such!!! And, we are Citizens and we should be respectfully referred to as such!!! How dare he make such an arrogant, asinine, offensive statement. It makes it very clear that he is not a credible person since he cannot even respect the memory of JFK or the Citizens of this country.
Michelle Ronning, Saint Paul, MN
(Ombudsman's Note: With respect to the letters above, the circumstances surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy have been a subject of debate for 50 years and are likely to remain so, perhaps forever. Similarly, the personal and public life of the murdered president is so complicated; hard to capture adequately on film even in four hours of American Experience. In general, I thought PBS did quite a good job in marking this 50th anniversary of his death. The American Experience effort was the centerpiece and won high-marks from the Los Angeles Times and others. I thought it managed to capture his charm, intellect, privilege, toughness, luck and recklessness to present a pretty well-balanced picture. As I watched, however, I recall feeling it fell a bit short in not probing the depth of his father's accepting views about Hitler and Nazi Germany a little more, and in not having someone address the huge national security risks that JFK took in his involvement with other women. Also, I thought the producers should have supplied more information about the many writers and historians that appeared on screen. The most detailed critique I read is by Sheldon Stern, the former historian at the Kennedy Library. As for Nova's "Cold Case," here, too, the attempt was to test certain aspects of the assassination with modern forensics. This debate will never end but here's how Newsday and Inside Science reported on this program. As for the viewer who objected to the "peasant" and "king" language on another channel, that's just a figure of speech and I would not draw any conclusions about the person who used it.)
The NewsHour program this evening [Nov. 12] was extremely disappointing to me. Selected segments were critical of others, namely the CBS 60 Minutes program immediately followed by a woman complaining about her healthcare insurance being canceled without any clear indication that the NewsHour staff had confirmed the story. It was accepted. Then followed a discussion of the government failures. Finally Dick Cheney was introduced to advertise his book. Cheney is a man who has caused this nation much trouble with his many misleading statements. In summary I find the presentation of this material was equally irresponsible as the 60 Minutes program they had criticized.
Chapel Hill, NC
~ ~ ~
Shame on you PBS for letting Dick Cheney ramble on limitless non-facts trashing the Obama Administration on the NewsHour, 11/12/13. During the Bush years this would have been considered treason. Your previous story was about the need for CBS to vet their stories with more care. Perhaps you should vet Mr. Cheney's fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Portland, ME
(Ombudsman's Note: I thought the interview, or at least most of it, was actually very useful. True, Cheney would gain some promotional value for his new book, but whatever one thinks of the vice-president's performance in office, he is a fascinating example of someone who has pursued a demanding career against considerable odds. I think most people understand that if you are secretary of defense or vice-president, you get better than average care. But you still need to survive and he did so and I thought that made an interesting tale. Letting the interview migrate into the pros, but mostly cons, of Obamacare was probably inevitable but, in my view, distracted from an engaging personal story.)
~ ~ ~
Congratulations: finally outing CBS, Simon & $$$chuster, and 60 Minute$$$' commercial connection hyping the latest in a long line of episodes of right-wing nut Benghazi-gate! Check out the movie rights (and plastic action figures) — was CBS getting a cut in that as well? What about the book editors and producers at both S&$ or 60 Minutes? Interview them. Why not also compare Dan Rather's treatment for broadcasting the truth about W. Bush as a deserter. Love to see what additional lies were to be in the liar's book. BTW: you panelist is partly correct — 60 Minutes is not the 'gold standard' of anything beyond producing gold for the parent company.
Evanston, IL
~ ~ ~
Ms. Woodruff's interview [Nov. 14] with BATFE Director B. Todd Jones was a puff piece, anti-gun to its core. First, why would you want to keep track of guns used in crimes? If you know a gun was used in a crime, it is already in the hands of law enforcement. Thus what good would it do to keep track of these guns? They will never again see the light of day. Second, you completely ignored the BATFE's criminal gun-running operations, the biggest being Operation Fast and Furious. This operation was directly connected to the deaths of two federal law enforcement agents, not to mention the deaths of hundreds of Mexican civilians. Further, there are still hundreds of guns missing from F&F. Not one ATF agent was criminally charged with what is clearly a gun-running operation across international borders. The whole interview was geared at attacking the NRA and nothing about the criminal activities of the ATF . . . pandering to liberals and no interest in the truth of the ATF activities.
Gary Hoff, Middletown, OH
After listening to Tavis Smiley's comments to [film actress] Nia Long during a recent interview, I am convinced that he is an anti-white racist and a bigot. Someone should tell him about it.
Marc Bush, Greeneville, TN
(Ombudsman's Note: My guess is that the viewer above is referring to a clip on the show in which Long is shown kissing a white male actor and Smiley asks, "Was that you kissing a white man?" Then he comes back to it again a minute or so later and says, "Saw you kissing a white guy, so I wasn't expecting that." Then Smiley adds, "I should stop this, because all the white guys are going to hate me.")
~ ~ ~
As a lifelong supporter of PBS programming I have as of late become concerned with the on and off-air rantings of Tavis Smiley. Viewers are MORE than clear on his bigoted opinions but as a PBS representative we would hope he could keep them deemed personal and private.
Atlanta, GA
]]>First, a bit of background. PBS Digital Studios started last year and, by most accounts that I've seen, "has had a heck of a first year," as Digiday put it. Forbes described the launch as a way "to give the public broadcaster a way to create and distribute content that was created just for online viewing, as opposed to just distributing content that was being created for TV."
It was a way to connect big-time with the YouTube audience and an early offering called "Garden of Your Mind," based on the venerable Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, has been viewed more than nine million times.
One of the new video series is called "It's Okay to be Smart," but it appears that the Thanksgiving Special, set at a holiday dinner table, is more akin to the proverbial skunk at the picnic.
I've received a fair amount of mail about this five-minute segment and all of it is sharply critical. A sampling of those emails is posted below. I'm in agreement with the viewers.
There are far more comments posted below the video on YouTube than came directly to me and they, too, are almost uniformly critical.
The video presents a clever idea — to shed light on the personalities of some world famous scientists using bobblehead dolls to represent them around the table and some catchy dialogue. Only one is a woman, Marie Curie. She gets some sexual harassment-type attention from the Albert Einstein bobblehead and that's where "Okay to be Smart" gets dumb. Einstein, as a matter of fact and probably like others of that era, did not have what you'd call a great track record when it came to behavior toward women. How many people, do you think, know that?
But this attempt to be creative and humorous goes south fast. So fast, in fact, that the video now contains this statement at the beginning: "Several have taken offense to a scene at end of this video. Please see link in description to read our apology." The writer, Joe Hanson, to his credit, posted an explanation and apology on his blog.
What astounds me is that, while risk-taking is often to be applauded, this depiction of Einstein and Curie is so not funny, so off-the-wall, so not likely to be understood yet virtually guaranteed to anger a huge segment of a viewing audience for no good reason that one wonders how it was decided to show it. On the other hand, in an era where clicks count the most, maybe it is not so dumb.
What follows is a sampling of the letters to me, followed by a statement from PBS's Jan McNamara, senior director for corporate communications.
My husband and I have supported NPR and PBS forever. For an equally long time we have been working to improve science education for all students and to increase the quality and diversity of the scientific workforce. And, oh yes, for many years we have been working not just providing services to rape victims but to change the culture that makes rape "ok."
We thought that we and PBS were on the same page until we saw your "A Very Special Thanksgiving Special/ It's Ok to be Smart." I don't know where to start — having Albert Einstein sexually harass Marie Curie and later in the piece, strip naked and "accidently" assault her could be a beginning. Does it make it worse that the woman being assaulted was the only woman there or that someone decided it was cool to make Albert Einstein a rapist or that everyone was white or that someone thought having Einstein try to rape the best known woman in science was a great way to encourage girls to enter science or . . . I just can't go on. I don't know what the heck you were thinking but I do know what I am thinking and it strongly impacts my future long-term support of public broadcasting.
Patricia B. Campbell, PhD, Groton, MA
~ ~ ~
I find the PBS Digital Studios video, "It's OK to be Smart," to be very offensive and unacceptable. I am very disappointed that PBS — normally a bastion of intelligent conversation and equality — would endorse such a blatantly sexist production.
Christopher Hunter, Warsaw, IN
~ ~ ~
I'm appalled that PBS allowed the video short, A Very Special Thanksgiving, to be distributed. Sexual harassment of women in science is not humorous, it's appalling. I expect more of PBS.
M. Eblen-Zayas, Northfield, MN
~ ~ ~
Have you seen the incredibly stupid and offensive "It's Okay to Be Smart" video done in PBS's name that has a naked Albert Einstein sexually assaulting a timid Marie Curie? Please, take down the video and have PBS issue an apology. There are so many things wrong with this video, from wronging Einstein and Curie, to making Curie (and thus women scientists in general) look like meek, "just grateful to be here" token sexual objects, to making male scientists look like misogynistic jerks. It is so embarrassing that this has been done in the name of PBS. This video sends exactly the opposite message of "it's okay to be smart." It suggests it's not only okay to be stupid, it's also okay to sexually assault a woman colleague or watch someone do it without saying anything.
Alice Dreger, PhD, East Lansing, MI
~ ~ ~
SO DISAPPOINTED IN PBS! Einstein raping Marie Curie? What were you thinking? Not funny, not appropriate, not up to your standards. Shame on you.
Acton, MA
~ ~ ~
The PBS Digital Studios youtube channel put up a Thanksgiving Special edition of Joe Hansen's It's Okay to be Smart series, in which a group of scientists from the ages gather for Thanksgiving dinner. In the video, Albert Einstein spends the entire time sexually harassing Marie Curie. He starts by blowing on her neck — with the scripted encouragement of Joe Hanson as narrator — and then continues with escalating physical and verbal attacks. He drops his clothing and jumps on her, knocking her over, at the end of the video. Many people have written to Hanson — via twitter, via comments on his blog post — and he has responded with a sort-of-apology post on his blog (which suggests people who don't see the humor in the sexual assault aren't understanding his intent), by linking the sort-of-apology post underneath the "see more" fold on youtube, and by adding a little text that appears if you hover over the play button that says "several have been offended by a scene at the end of the video." In the meantime, PBS (which promoted the video on its twitter feed) and PBS Digital have been silent . . . I am heartsick that a) Hanson does not seem to be able to hear the critiques, b) PBS Digital is letting that video stay up and, c) PBS/PBS Digital has not spoken to any of this.
The PBS imprimatur usually tells me that something is good; that it's educational; that it's something I'd be proud to show my kid. In this case, your brand is being seriously damaged.
Susan Harrington, Burlington, VT
Joe Hanson issued a sincere apology on his blog, which is the channel he chose to discuss this issue. It included a detailed explanation of how the video was created, what he was trying to accomplish and the statement, "this video makes a joke to call attention to the sexual harassment that many women still today experience, often from wannabe Einsteins. The joke is uncomfortable because these issues are uncomfortable. To be very clear: that joke is not an endorsement of sexism in science. We aimed to ridicule miscues of science in society, past and present, using dolls, and we failed."
He also asks in the post that people form their opinions based on his past videos and writings, such as the video from the previous week, where he examines the fact that the vast majority of Nobel prize winners have been white men and criticizes women's "Nobel snubbing" as a "symptom of a larger problem," that "women are under-represented in science in general."
There have been a number of comments about "A Very Special Thanksgiving Special" since it debuted that have ranged from critical to laudatory. With this video, Joe has opened up an important, though difficult, debate. We believe we are meeting our public service mission by providing an open forum where this and other conversations about complex subjects can take place.
I'm posting a second time about the program because, while the thrust of my criticism had to do with what I felt was all but left out of the American Experience treatment of the episode, critics who have studied this episode have raised other challenges.
That 1938 radio broadcast is said by many to be the most famous of our time and it did set off a ruckus and frightened lots of people for a while when Welles used fake radio bulletins to break into the program and report that Martians had indeed landed at Grovers Mill, N.J., and were wreaking havoc.
I wrote that the program was valuable and well done and was careful in its narrated description of the scale of what happened. But the main focus of my assessment was critical in that the producers, in my opinion, had underplayed and failed to explain more fully an important factor that challenges the extent to which the radio program truly "provoked such outrage, or such chaos," as the narrator says at the outset, that "upwards of a million people [were] convinced, if only briefly, that the United States was being laid waste by alien invaders."
What jolted me as a viewer was one line casually uttered by the narrator in the final seconds, and after an hour of panic-suggesting newspaper headlines, that stated: "Ultimately, the very extent of the panic would come to be seen as having been exaggerated by the press." Actually, I did not know that and I wrote: "Really! Is that not part of the real story? Is that not worth more than a sentence at the end of an hour-long program?"
I quoted and agreed with author and critic W. Joseph Campbell who wrote that PBS had squandered an opportunity to offer "content that educates" and could have "confronted head-on" whether the program actually did provoke hysteria and mass panic. I mentioned other scholars who were critical and also quoted another article by Jefferson Pooley and Michael J. Socolow that laid out in some detail how "the newspaper industry sensationalized the panic to prove to advertisers, and regulators, that radio management was irresponsible and not to be trusted."
What follows is my attempt to summarize — although in what turned out to be a lengthy posting — the additional issues that have surfaced, along with responses from American Experience (AE) and some further views of my own. In the aftermath of the PBS broadcast, I forwarded complaints from Campbell, but primarily from Socolow — an associate professor in the Department of Communications and Journalism at the University of Maine — to AE's Executive Producer Mark Samels. Both of these critics have written extensively about this program.
The most contentious issue raised by the critics, especially Socolow, revolves around one of the 16 individuals whose reaction to the 1938 broadcast is re-created, using actors, in the AE documentary. Her name in the documentary is "Sylvia Holmes," which is not her real name.
That name comes from a well-known study about the program in 1940 by Princeton University public opinion researcher Hadley Cantril. The study was titled: "The Invasion from Mars, a Study in the Psychology of Panic." In his study, Cantril conducted detailed interviews with 135 persons and selected 100 who were "known to have been upset by the broadcast." Cantril also made clear that: "All names of respondents used in text are fictitious and identifying characteristics are disguised, but the true flavor of the case studies is preserved."
The new PBS documentary does not make this clear in the case of "Sylvia Holmes." It does not indicate that Sylvia Holmes is a pseudonym or that her words come from the Cantril study. Toward the end of the documentary, a written statement is shown on the screen stating: "The first person reports dramatized by actors in this program were taken from the accounts of actual listeners." That is true as far as it goes.
Socolow, in an email to me, points out that the Cantril study refers to "Sylvia Holmes, a panic-stricken Negro housewife who lived in Newark." Thus, Socolow writes, "the PBS documentary presents 'Sylvia Holmes as a 'panic-stricken Negro housewife' even though Cantril explicitly wrote that 'all names used in the text are fictitious and identifying characteristics are disguised.' So I'm curious why the documentary claims Sylvia Holmes was the real name of an actual person, and how the documentary producers knew she was 'a panic-stricken Negro housewife' when Cantril explicitly stated 'identifying characteristics are disguised.'"
Socolow calls the use of the Sylvia Holmes name and description "an egregious lapse in editorial judgment" and a "violation of PBS Editorial Standards and Policies" with respect to factual accuracy and providing appropriate labels and transparency.
First, let me say that the American Experience program never describes Sylvia Holmes, portrayed by an African-American actress in the broadcast, as a "panic-stricken Negro housewife." She is not described in any way. Viewers of the program can judge her words, which are real, on their own.
When I asked American Experience to respond, they made the following points: Of the 16 interviews recreated in the film, 14 of them are from actual letters written at the time to Welles, the CBS "Mercury Theatre" program that aired the original dramatization, or the Federal Communications Commission. These letters are archived mostly at the University of Michigan and the National Archives. A 15th is taken from a book and New York Times obituary.
As for "Sylvia Holmes," the program has this to say:
"We used an account published in Hadley Cantril's 'The Invasion From Mars' from 'Sylvia Holmes, a panic-stricken Negro housewife who lived in Newark.' Cantril's book is not a work of fiction, nor was he an author of fiction. The book is a researcher's published study of the broadcast. When Cantril wrote 'all names of respondents used in the text are fictitious and identifying characteristics are disguised' we understood this to mean disguised, as opposed to wholly fictional.
"In the report, for example, he gave details about some of the respondents that we had no reason to think were invented from whole cloth. For example, he describes a man who works at 'a filling station operation in Newark;' a woman who lives in 'a poor section of a large eastern city whose husband is a day laborer'; 'a young high school girl in Pennsylvania;' 'an ardent Catholic living in a New York suburb.'
"Our reasonable interpretation of the word 'disguised' was that Cantril omitted specific names and addresses of his interviewees and did not identify their specific places of work, what actual high school or literal church they attended, etc. We understood the description of Sylvia Holmes to be in this vein and in the interest of representing the diversity of the listening audience at that time, included her account.
"A report about the provenance of the sources of all recreated letters was submitted to the WGBH Legal Department prior to the broadcast of this program. The final card in the program was written to accurately accommodate for the variety of sources used for the first person accounts in the film."
Technically, Socolow has a point about the way the "Sylvia Holmes" segment was portrayed. The producers could have somehow pointed out that Sylvia Holmes was not a real name, whereas the other 15 were. But I don't view this as a war crime or as a spiritual violation of PBS standards. Whatever her real name, she was a real person. Her words were recorded by Cantril. Was she a "Negro?" Who knows? Was that part of Cantril's attempt at "disguise" or was it the "housewife who lived in Newark" part?
Samels said in one earlier email to me, "This whole exchange [with the critics] is taking place within a conceptual bubble, an assumed world where everything is based on 'hard data' — a journalistic utopia of facts where everything is tangible and annotatable. Well, we made a film. A documentary film. Not an annotated lecture."
Referring to the background of all the letters, he said in another email, aside from the brief statement toward the end of the film, "such historiography didn't belong in the film. We try to strike a balance between engaging and entertaining an audience. Others, such as college professors, might find that balance at a different point.
"Our filmmaking team did their best to find out as much as they could about the letter writers," he wrote. "Often that trail was cold after seventy-five years. Knowing their words were real, the filmmakers tried to imagine the person writing them — their dress, their personalities, their comportment. We made the decision to put them on camera, rather than employ the more typical voice-over device, in order to bring them to life and put them on the same level as other protagonists in the story. Too often accounts of 'War of the Worlds' have focused on Welles or Grovers Mill, where the aliens supposedly landed. We wanted to focus on the Americans whose lives were affected that night, which for many was one of the most memorable of their lives."
One interesting thing about those actual letters is that they were discovered by a recent University of Michigan graduate and radio buff, A. Brad Schwartz, who looked over some 2,000 of them in the university and national archives.
After the program, Campbell called my attention to a recent USA Today interview with Schwartz in which he says that about 90 percent of the letters were favorable in tone. "A lot of them were from people who had heard the broadcast and weren't frightened by it, but were really upset when they read in the papers that so many people were. Like a lot of things," Schwartz told the paper, "there's a middle course. A lot of people were frightened by the show, (but) not statistically a lot." Campbell wrote, "If so, it appears the letters PBS selected amounted to a very unrepresentative sample."
American Experience doesn't buy that and said: "There is a glaring logical error in this assertion. The letters at the University of Michigan numbered in the hundreds, as do those at the National Archives. It doesn't matter how many could be characterized as favorable to the War of the Worlds radio broadcast or not . . . What is important, at least to us, is that our film reflected the range of responses to the broadcast, from angry calls for the creation of a radio czar to bemusement that anyone was gullible enough to be fooled. Welles was both praised and reviled by letter writers. Our film represents that spectrum of sentiments."
Socolow, ever alert to what he views as holes in the handling of this documentary, also noted that, in the aftermath of the program, PBS "altered the website for the 'War of the Worlds' with no acknowledgement of their corrections or revisions. I find this troubling and unethical," he said.
Here is what the one-paragraph introductory page looked like initially and after it was changed on Oct. 29.
The key change is that the original text said, "Although most listeners understood that the program was a radio drama, thousands of other — perhaps a million or more — plunged into panic, convinced that America was under a deadly Martian attack." The latter version made two substantive changes. It read: "Although most listeners understood that the program was a radio drama, the next day's headlines reported that thousands of others plunged into panic, convinced that America was under a deadly Martian attack." The italic emphasis is mine and it goes to the point that critics, including me, had suggested — namely that the newspapers played a questionable role in the aftermath of the broadcast, and also suggests some greater caution on the numbers.
This was a good catch by Socolow, and I thought it was a good change for the program to make. But in keeping with web culture, some note could have been made of the revision from the earlier paragraph. Again, I don't think this was some gross lapse but it was worth calling attention to.
Asked about this, American Experience explained: "The copy we replaced was a very early promotional text that became outdated as the film developed. We routinely update our website, and do not make announcements when we do."
Socolow, in another email, makes an additional criticism. "The documentary asserts," he says, "without any hard evidence or data, that 'millions of people' turned their dials [from another program] to Mercury Theatre of the Air during the Welles broadcast. Hadley Cantril offers percentages based on faulty AIPO [American Institute of Public Opinion] data . . . but he does not give an actual number of late arrivals/dial twisters. Because he can't." Socolow points out that WYNC public radio's Radiolab said in its treatment of the anniversary that "thousands, hundreds, we don't how many listeners, started to dial-surf." The idea that many people dial-surfed over to Welles only emerged later because the hard data did not match the sensational newspaper reporting. It was useful because it was basically impossible to prove or disprove in any way."
Here's the AE response: "Our film is not about what Mr. Socolow would like it to be about, which as far as we can tell seems to be some kind of statistical, data-driven analysis of how the media covered the radio broadcast. Print, particularly in the form of an academic paper, is a much better medium than film for this purpose. In our film, we chose to focus on the radio play's historical context, especially as it conditioned a range of reactions on the part of Americans across the country to what was indisputably a memorable night in 1938."
So what does this add up to? I come out pretty much where I started — finding the program valuable but convinced that its biggest flaw was failing to deal more thoroughly with the role that the press played after the broadcast in suggesting there was more panic than was actually the case. That, in my view, would have contributed to a more contextual public understanding of what actually happened in 1938.
In response to my column, Samels said: "To be sure, there is a story to be told about the extent to which the reports of panic were exaggerated by the press. However, that was not our story. Ours took its lead from the recently-discovered trove of letters that animate the film, a collection that demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, that some Americans believed the broadcast to be factual and were frightened by it. Our film set out to understand why they felt that way, to explore what conditioned those responses, and to suggest that Americans seventy-five years ago were no more gullible or unsophisticated than we are today."
As for the critics, I'm pleased that Campbell, Socolow and others called attention to these issues. They make valuable contributions to an exchange of views and help hold producers' feet to the fire. But I'm not going to endorse Socolow's charges of unethical behavior and egregious breaches of PBS's own guidelines. I have called out PBS on occasion for violating those standards but I don't think that is what took place here.
In the overall scheme of things and in terms of what the viewers were presented with, I don't see these lapses as meriting assertions that ethical and standard lines had been breached. My experience tells me that however much producers generally may resent and reject this kind of criticism, it is healthy in the long run and leads to ever more care in what is to come.
This particular exchange, however, did stir up some very strong feelings. Here is how Executive Producer Samels concluded his response to my inquiries:
"Finally, a general comment on the campaign against War of the Worlds being conducted primarily by Mr. Socolow. Over the past month, his attacks against the film have been numerous and ever shifting, as if he was searching for something — anything — with which to discredit it. One minute he is questioning our use of letters to Welles, the next our decision to include diversity in our cast of actors who delivered those letters.
"What is most perplexing is that Mr. Socolow's own work, as best as we can tell, doesn't appear to stand in contradiction to our film. His statistical analysis of the media coverage of the event, and the ongoing controversy over whether the event was a form of mass hysteria or not, is an interesting aspect of a rich historical episode. That we chose a different focus shouldn't have posed such a threat to Mr. Socolow, but it clearly has.
"Previous American Experience films have been the subject of Ombudsman columns. While rarely enjoyable to be part of, they have often stimulated an exchange that was largely free of animus and often resulted in new insights. Mr. Socolow's campaign to discredit our film is of an entirely different nature. We stand firmly behind our film and the work of everyone who contributed to it, including our young student writer. We only wish Dr. Cantril were alive to defend his work as well."
]]>That phrase jumped into my head Tuesday night as I was watching "War of the Worlds," an hour-long documentary on PBS's history series, "American Experience."
The documentary marked the 75th anniversary of the famous hour-long drama with the same name that was broadcast on CBS radio's "Mercury Theatre on the Air" on the night of Oct. 30, 1938. The original program was billed as a dramatization of a novel written 40 years earlier by British author H.G. Wells titled "War of the Worlds." The radio adaptation was the work of another writer whose name was similar — a brilliant, 23-year-old producer named Orson Welles — and it skillfully used fake radio "news bulletins" to break into the program to report that Martians had, indeed, landed in New Jersey and were ravaging the locals.
The rest, as they say, is history. Or is it?
The 1938 radio broadcast is said to be the most famous of our time. It did indeed cause a ruckus in an America that was still in a severe economic depression, might be headed for a war in Europe, was just getting used to radio and got its spot news frequently from bulletins on the air.
Within the first minute of the PBS documentary, the narrator tells us, "Never before had a radio broadcast provoked such outrage, or such chaos. Upwards of a million people convinced, if only briefly, that the United States was being laid waste by alien invaders, and a nation left to wonder how they possibly could have been so gullible."
On the screen we are immediately shown several banner newspaper headlines the next day from across the country. "Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact" was the way the New York Times front-page story was headlined. "Radio 'Martian Attack' Terrorizes U.S. Hearers, Thousands in Panic" bannered The Light of San Antonio. Others from Boston and Chicago portray a terrified and scared nation.
American Experience then goes on to tell the story of the broadcast and its impact through actors re-creating the reactions of frightened citizens.
But then, just seconds before the documentary ends, the narrator, just casually in his final summing up, includes this sentence: "Ultimately, the very extent of the panic would come to be seen as having been exaggerated by the press." Really! Is that not part of the real story? Is that not worth more than a sentence at the end of an hour-long program? Could that be described by some as burying the lead?
On the morning following the broadcast — which was Halloween on Oct. 31, 1938 — the New York Daily News reported "unbelievable scenes of terror in New York, New Jersey, the South and as far west as San Francisco."
But in reviewing this week's American Experience documentary, the Daily News TV critic David Hinckley had this to say: ". . . this new 'American Experience' special on that famous broadcast spins a good yarn. Whether it's all true, well, it's still a good yarn. The legend, repeated here, is that Welles's hour-long drama about a Martian invasion threw America into panic. Fooled by the fake-newscast style of the program, the story goes, millions of listeners despaired, wept and poured into the streets, seeking refuge from imminent doom.
"Trouble is," Hinckley continued, "several recent articles have convincingly argued that while a modest number of folks didn't realize 'War of the Worlds' was just another production in a drama series they heard every week, the supposed panic was largely a creation of the press. (Imagine that.) There were, for instance, no confirmed accidents or injuries, which panics tend to generate . . . All that said, it's still a good story . . . But when a show flashes headlines about mass panic, and casually repeats suicide rumors, it should mention that there's also a yarn spinning around in here."
In fairness to American Experience, which has been presenting highly-regarded and well-researched documentaries for a quarter century, the program was valuable, well done and careful in its narrated description of the scale of what happened, while at the same time re-creating the front-page news from coast-to-coast, with reports of jammed highways, traffic accidents, hordes of panicked people fleeing their homes and re-creations of general panic described by others at the time. The famous film director Peter Bogdanovitch, a close friend and collaborator of Welles, says "it scared half the country."
So my quarrel is not with what was presented but what, with the exception of one line at the end, was left out of a story that is indeed very famous, very instructive, continually cited and rarely complete or honest in the re-telling.
I find myself in agreement with the judgment of W. Joseph Campbell, the well-known critic and author of "Getting It Wrong: Ten of the Greatest Misreported Stories in American Journalism" who headlined his comment: "PBS squanders opportunity to offer 'content that educates' in 'War of the Worlds' doc."
Campbell, who has written about the aftermath of the 1938 broadcast before, points out that "a growing body of scholarship — which the documentary completely ignored — has impugned the conventional wisdom and has offered a compelling counter narrative" that the "program sowed no widespread chaos and alarm." PBS, Campbell argued, "could have confronted head-on" whether the program actually did provoke hysteria and mass panic but failed to do so.
I asked American Experience Executive Producer Mark Samels for his response to Campbell's critique and that is posted, in full, below.
Campbell's posting links to the work of other scholars who have criticized the reporting of the broadcast's aftermath, including Jeffrey Sconce, Edward J. Epstein and Michael Socolow. Another important post by Socolow and Jefferson Pooley appeared on Slate this week that seems to me to contain the argument that was most worthy of inclusion, even if briefly, in the American Experience program.
Here's a portion of what they wrote: "How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America's newspapers. Radio had siphoned off advertising revenue from print during the Depression, badly damaging the newspaper industry. So the papers seized the opportunity presented by Welles' program to discredit radio as a source of news. The newspaper industry sensationalized the panic to prove to advertisers, and regulators, that radio management was irresponsible and not to be trusted.
"In an editorial titled 'Terror by Radio,'" they reported, "the New York Times reproached 'radio officials' for approving the interweaving of 'blood-curdling fiction' with news flashes 'offered in exactly the manner that real news would have been given.' Warned Editor and Publisher, the newspaper industry's trade journal, 'The nation as a whole continues to face the danger of incomplete, misunderstood news over a medium which has yet to prove . . . that it is competent to perform the news job.'"
Pooley and Socolow also describe a 1940 report by Princeton University academic Hadley Cantril, which is a primary source for reporting in the documentary, as "skewed" and as having "solidified the myth in the public mind."
It is regretful that Mr. Campbell feels this was a missed opportunity to educate. The film went to great lengths to place the broadcast within a number of historical contexts, which offered multiple lenses through which to view the story. Some of those perspectives included the impact of the Depression domestically, as well as growing international hostilities; the history of media; the evolution of news broadcasting and the role of radio; human psychology; and the understanding of Mars and the understanding in 1938 whether it could support life. Many viewers responded in reviews and on social media that this contextualization was valuable to them.
Our film does not say that people panicked, nor does the script include the phrase "mass hysteria." Our script reads: " . . . upwards of a million people convinced, if only briefly, that the United States was being laid waste by alien invaders . . . and a nation left to wonder how they possibly could have been so gullible." This is the only time we attempt to quantify the reaction to the radio broadcast in the film. Our source for that number came from Hadley Cantril's "Invasion from Mars" publication in 1940. Cantril's reputable research has been a primary source for many who have written on the broadcast, and we saw no compelling reason to not use it.
Mr. Campbell himself, in fact, repeats this sentiment in a recent interview with the BBC4. At 38:4, he says, "there may have been upwards of a million people or so who were frightened or disturbed, upset by what they heard, but that is far cry from engaging in panic or mass hysteria."
We did make a very conscious nod to the work Mr. Campbell and others have done in our final piece of narration: "Ultimately, the very extent of the panic would come to be seen as having been exaggerated by the press. But there was no disputing that something had happened that night in 1938 — and it would haunt the nation for decades to come." We have included his book in the bibliography on our website so that viewers wishing to dig deeper have resources such as Mr. Campbell's book available. If he would prefer, we would be happy to remove the reference to his book.
]]>So, this brings me to what I consider, in the greater scheme of things, to be a small event: a three-hour documentary, produced and first broadcast by the BBC in 2011, titled "The Life of Muhammad" that aired on PBS on Aug. 20 of this year. I wrote about this at the time, posted some emails from viewers who were critical in one way or another of the film, and gave my views.
I noted that, given the events of our current times, it was actually surprising how little mail I got about a program devoted to the life of a sixth century prophet who would found what has become the world's second largest religion. And I theorized that it "may mean that many viewers saw this as informative, a useful primer on what is known and cannot be known about this man, and more even-handed than provocative." I added: "That would also be my view."
I had read perhaps six or eight newspaper and online film reviews and cited one in the Los Angeles Times that seemed to me to best capture the general reaction to the program, which was favorable.
However, I also reported that "the U.S.-based, pro-Israel, media watch group known as CAMERA has headlined a critique — originally posted in The Algemeiner, which bills itself as "the fastest growing Jewish newspaper in America" — claiming that "PBS Includes Vicious Anti-Semites in Show About Mohammad." Although readers of the column could click on the link provided to read the full CAMERA critique, I did not deal with the details in the column, which was relatively brief and also dealt at the top with a brewing flap between PBS's Frontline investigative series and the National Football League.
Then two weeks ago — about seven weeks after my column appeared — Dexter Van Zile, writing on behalf of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) where he is the Christian Media Analyst, emailed that "you did not respond to the specific allegations raised in this [CAMERA] article. The producers did not respond to these allegations either. This is troubling because the specifics are quite damning and are not something that can be glossed over or ignored."
Specifically, he wrote: "One source, Sheikh Ikrema Sabri, (the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem), engaged in Holocaust denial and invoked The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a well-known anti-Semitic forgery, as a credible source of information about the Jewish people. He has also accused Jews of wanting to destroy the Al Aksa Mosque. This allegation has been used to incite violence against Jews for decades.
"Another source, Abdur Raheem Green, declared that Mustafa Kamal Attaturk, the founder of modern Turkey, was 'an extremely, thoroughly unpleasant, nasty kafir. He was a Jew, he was a Jew.' In one instance (not mentioned in the article), Green stated that 'The purpose of the jizya is to make the Jew and the Christian know that they are inferior and subjugated to Islam, OK?' Elsewhere in this same video, he states that 'It is from Islam to create an environment where people are pressurized and encouraged to be upon the path of haq [embrace Islam] . . . '
"Your failure to address the anti-Semitism of the sources who appeared in the documentary is troubling because their statements bear directly on the message offered in the documentary in which they appear — that Islam, in its truest form, as enunciated by Muhammad, does not promote hostility toward Jews. There is a logical problem here that transparency requires be made known to PBS viewers. The problem is this: Anti-Semites are appearing in documentary that states that anti-Semitism is not an authentic expression of the Muslim faith as enunciated by its founder Muhammed. If anti-Semitism is not a legitimate part of the faith, then why are these people in the documentary and invoked as credible sources about Islam?"
He also points out that "PBS editorial standards state that 'the audience generally should be able to know not only who the sources of information are, but also why they were chosen and what their potential biases might be.' This standard was not met in the documentary and as PBS Ombudsman, you have an obligation to say so."
Actually, I would have an obligation to say so if I agreed with his assessment. But, although Van Zile correctly cites one segment of PBS standards, I do not agree with the thrust of the overall critique, or with his assessment of the "message offered in the documentary," which I'll explain as we go along.
Also, just so there is no confusion among readers, those citations above mentioned by Van Zile and CAMERA do not appear in the documentary.
Van Zile does raise important challenges, as CAMERA frequently does, although the organization is dominated by the self-interest of calling out anything that they evaluate as an inaccurate or unfair portrayal of Israel or Israeli interests, of reporting on the Middle East and of anything that they believe conveys anti-Semitism.
They also tend to engage at times, in my opinion, in extreme and provocative headlines on their dispatches to subscribers that impute anti-Israel or anti-Semitic motives to their targets. On Aug. 19 they sent a message to subscribers about two films — which I wrote about Aug. 21 and Sept. 4 — in the documentary series POV that was headlined "PBS Doubles Down on Anti-Israeli Films" and then four days later came the CAMERA release headlined "PBS Includes Vicious Anti-Semites in Show About Muhammad."
I forwarded Van Zile's letter to PBS and to Faris Kermani, the London-based, British-Pakistani producer/director of "The Life of Muhammad," for his response.
Here is what he e-mailed: "Sheikh Sabri is the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem and he was filmed for the sequence that talked about Muhammad's Night Journey from Jerusalem to the Seventh Heaven. The Sheikh spoke only about the importance of that story in Muslim mythology and, as he has an association with Jerusalem, we deemed him to be the right person to discuss this topic.
"Abdur Raheem Green is a British Muslim preacher who holds conservative views and, as we wanted a wide range of opinion in the film, we interviewed him. In the context of what he spoke about, he was not espousing anti-Jewish views and talked mainly about the marriages and the conditions of Jews during the Muslim rule in Spain. In fact the whole tone of the programme in Episode 2 was to condemn very strongly the prevailing anti-Semitic feelings in the Middle East.
"Over the course of producing this series, we interviewed a wide range of scholars of religion and Islam and sought to share a diverse group of opinions, utilizing a number of researchers and advisors. The film does not embrace or affirm any particular point of view but rather to use these opinions and findings to create a historical picture of Muhammad's world and beliefs."
In response to further questions from me about his awareness of the background of these two individuals, Kermani wrote: "My team and I were aware of the background and credentials of all of the participants in this film. Sheikh Sabri and Abdur Raheem Green were chosen for the segments in which they appeared for the reasons I outlined earlier. Our goal in making LIFE OF MUHAMMAD was to include a wide-range of voices, including scholars who have very diverse opinions about the historical and interpreted nature of Islam. As the producers of this film, we believe we have created an insightful documentary that helps people understand the origins of this major world religion."
I have no reason to change my initial thoughts about this film; that it succeeded as an informative and useful primer on the life of the man who founded Islam and about whom most non-Muslims probably know very little.
There were some 36 different people interviewed during the three-hour film. All of them were identified on screen, although not with much detail. On the other hand, most documentaries with so many different interviews tend not to go into much greater detail. Aside from the two people that CAMERA and Van Zile focus on, there were also two strong, present-day critics of Islam interviewed, Robert Spencer and Nonie Darwish, as I reported in my initial column.
Both Sheikh Ikrema Sabri and Abdur-Raheem Green have relatively brief comments recorded in the film and, with one exception, they had nothing to do with Jews. That one exception came in a discussion among several scholars and program participants about a controversial battle in 627 A.D. and the actions and fate of a Jewish tribe within the besieged city of Medina where Muhammad was as well.
A professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ella Landau-Tasseron, says on screen: "There is, by the way, no record of any actual attack of the Jews against the Prophet or anything like that." But later in the discussion, Nonie Darwish, identified only as the author of "Now They Call Me Infidel," says: "This is the first holocaust against the Jews. How can a prophet order a massacre of 800 men even if they tried to kill him? He could have banished them or he could have moved."
Green, identified as with the Islamic Education & Research Academy in London, then responds: "It had nothing to do with the fact that they were Jews. They could have been a Christian tribe or any other tribe, it wasn't a holocaust. It wasn't done directed at the Jews because of their religion. If that was the case then it would have set a precedent in Muslim history and we would not have found the golden age of Jewish Enlightenment taking place under the Muslims in Spain, if this claim was true then we would have found the position of Jews throughout Islamic history would have been very, very different."
The discussion then moves on to how this incident has impacted the outlook of Islam towards the Jewish world. The Muslim narrator, Rageh Omaar, describes this impact: "spreading like a virus across the Muslim world is a new form of anti-Semitism that claims some form of legitimacy from the Qur'an. Its offensive rants are to most Muslim and non-Muslim ears abhorrent and vile."
My sense, as a viewer and ombudsman, was that the PBS viewer saw a three-hour production that was meant to shed light on the life of Muhammad and that also dealt, rather forthrightly and along with many other issues, with the issue of anti-Semitism and its origins within the Islamic world. Whatever the views of the two individuals singled out by CAMERA, their participation dealt with Islamic history and religion and did not appear to inject any anti-Semitic views into the program.
I'm not quarreling with CAMERA's research on the background or some of the past utterances of these two men. But my sense is that they are being used in this case to undermine a film about Muhammad and Islam that struck me, and most of the reviewers that I've read, as informative and straight-forward, not as an attempt to indoctrinate viewers.
CAMERA ended its original critique by saying, "Viewers who watch the PBS series will recognize it as a clear attempt to indoctrinate people with the idea that the violence being done in the name of Islam is contrary to what Muhammad taught his followers." But then they go on to say, "It's an arguable point." Well, yes it is. And that's the point. This program rather well lays out what is known, what may or may not be true, and what is unknown about that time almost 1,500 years ago.
As for those editorial standards, I have written a number of times that they are so comprehensive that they enable almost any side to be argued. Van Zile is correct that those standards say, in part, that the "audience generally" should also know "why they were chosen [as sources] or what their potential biases might be." So, technically, PBS could be said to be in violation of that general standard because not much information was given about any of the 36 people interviewed. Nor is it likely that any documentary with so many voices would have much detail.
But there is another section in PBS guidelines called "Roles and Responsibilities" that states: "Primary responsibility for content necessarily rests with the producer; generally, producers create the content, particularly on television, and are uniquely positioned to control its elements. Not only would it be impractical for PBS to second-guess the producer's decisions at each step of the production process, but respect for that process demands that producers be allowed the freedom required for creativity to flourish. Thus, in selecting content for distribution, PBS must rely heavily on the producer's honesty, integrity, talent, skill, and good faith. Producers of content for PBS have an obligation to inform themselves about and adhere to these Standards and Policies and all applicable PBS production and funding guidelines."
CAMERA also argues that "the show's producers might want to do a better job of picking out their sources when making their case." I think that is a point that can be debated, at least in the case of Green. But Sabri is the head of the Supreme Islamic Council and a former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem so it would not be at all unusual to include him among three dozen people to discuss Muhammad. And it should not be a surprise to anyone that there are undoubtedly large numbers of Muslims these days who harbor strong, antagonistic feelings about Jews and Israel. There are also many who harbor such views about Islam.
So here, too, I don't come down hard on the producers who say they sought a diverse collection of people to interview.
When I asked PBS officials if they knew about, or had been told by the producers about, the backgrounds of the two men singled out by CAMERA, they said no. But they didn't fault the producers because they said that they were specifically aiming for a broad perspective of views and backgrounds within the Islamic community as well as among Christian and Jewish voices on the program. And they say they couldn't vet every person to see what they'd said or written over their careers and that "we really have to trust the producers to do that."
The PBS internal "roles" standards, one official said, are meant to keep programmers from "getting in to the weeds" in that fashion. On a subject like Islam, one official said, someone is going to be upset no matter what you do and we felt it was important that we present a wide perspective of people to weigh in, to make sure it was an even-handed, historical telling that didn't get into polemics and to make sure that there were counter-points.
If I were a programmer at PBS and this film were being purchased from an independent producer, I would expect the fullest disclosure from the producer, at least about any potential red flags that could go up from within an American audience. That doesn't mean that the producer should be second-guessed or that the program should not have been bought by PBS and broadcast. But it does mean that one should ask or be made be aware of what might follow programs on controversial subjects.
]]>These appear on many PBS programs. But what seems to most annoy the people who write to me is when they pop on to the corner of the screen three times an hour during the highly-regarded drama series "Masterpiece," or during other programs that generate intense focus among viewers. One of the great, traditional benefits of PBS has been uninterrupted viewing. These small "promos" don't actually interrupt but they can be distracting.
Here's how one California family expresses it as part of a letter posted below: "Imagine you are attending a theater and during the performance someone keeps appearing at the side of the stage with a brightly illuminated sign promoting a future performance, or worse yet, a sign telling you what show it is you are watching right then!"
I've written about this issue a number of times before, most recently about a month ago, and have posted a number of emails from viewers. That September mailbag included the following response/explanation from PBS. "We understand that not everyone enjoys on-screen messaging, but research also shows that it is helpful to many people. Our colleagues are working hard to balance many different sets of needs and preferences, which vary widely among our viewers. Our primary goal is that members of our audience enjoy the experience of watching PBS, and we will continue to work on every aspect of our presentation."
As it turned out, that, too, annoyed some viewers who are readers of this column. I don't blame them. Here's what I'm told in asking PBS officials for a fuller explanation.
First, they say, PBS has to exist within the current media landscape and that means many hundreds of channels, far fewer printed schedules such as TV Guide, and many television viewers generally who jump around and may or may not be clear what channel they are tuned in to. They said surveys 4-5 years ago showed that a big portion of viewers were not sure which programs appeared on which channel.
So PBS says it uses these on-screen devices — which pop-up on average three times an hour during many, but not all, programs — to remind viewers what they are tuned in to and what comes next and to help them find their way back to PBS if they are channel surfing. Officials claim PBS's on-air audience has been growing and that the service's primetime rating is up more than 5 percent over the same period a year ago, according to Nielsen statistics, while, they say, many other broadcast networks are shrinking. They believe these on-screen pop-ups have contributed to that and in that sense are helpful to viewers and to PBS, which must maintain its audience to carry out its mission.
They claim that the on-screen pop-ups have been scaled back in size from the time they were introduced two years ago, that they are generally timed to occur when commercial networks have their breaks and that they are quite subtle and not at all like those lengthy, actual "breaks" in programs on other channels that feature long previews of coming attractions and star-filled promotions. And, despite complaints to me, they say that PBS headquarter's main audience services department gets very few complaints, considering the many millions of viewers for the overall broadcast schedule.
My wife and I continue to be greatly annoyed by the on-screen pop-up ads promoting PBS programs that appear while we are watching another program. They are unnecessary and inappropriate, especially during programs such as Masterpiece Theater. Imagine you are attending a theater and during the performance someone keeps appearing at the side of the stage with a brightly illuminated sign promoting a future performance, or worse yet, a sign telling you what show it is you are watching right then! That's exactly what PBS is doing with these pop-up ads. What theatergoer would tolerate that?
I have read in the PBS.org mailbag letters from other viewer-members complaining about this. A PBS reply to one of those letters said: "We understand that not everyone enjoys on-screen messaging, but research also shows that it is helpful to many people." What research shows that many viewers find them "helpful"? How could anyone "enjoy" these intrusions? I am willing to wager these pop-up ads are being run because someone at PBS thinks they might promote increased viewership, and not because viewers find them "helpful".
We have been a PBS member-supporter for over 30 years and have never been angered by PBS policy, but we are by this one. It's something commercial TV would do, which is just what PBS is supposed to NOT be and is why we make annual membership contributions. Do the right thing. Respond to members' feedback and abandon this misguided idea . . . Please, tell me how can I help you make the case against these with PBS executive management. I, and I know other viewer-members too, am baffled that PBS persists in their use, as they are so much in conflict with the PBS foundational concept of an advertisement-free viewing experience . . . Member-viewers are looking to you to be their voice with PBS on this baffling practice that PBS has adopted.
Jeffrey and Marcia Keimer, Portola Valley, CA
~ ~ ~
I am in support of the idea of eliminating pop-up ads on PBS shows such as Masterpiece Theater. I believe that there is time for informing the public about new shows and time for the show itself and they should not overlap. There certainly was a great deal of air time devoted to promoting Downton Abbey (a great show!!).
Errol and Jan Schubot
~ ~ ~
Enough with the pop-up ads.
David L. Smith, Hayward, CA
~ ~ ~
Our family objects to the on-screen promotions that pop up during Masterpiece presentations. We do not believe such promos have a place on PBS and especially during such excellent programs as Masterpiece. They are distracting, demeaning and annoying, much more suited to commercial television and not PBS.
Jerome Denz, Kamuela, HI
~ ~ ~
I, too, am annoyed by the pop-up ads during programming. The last egregious experience was during the "Hollow Crown" this week. Not even Shakespeare is exempt from this lack of respect for a program. I think we need to mount a write in flood to corporate PBS directly. Stations don't seem to have a voice in this.
Liz W., Albany, CA
In regards to the increase in ads on PBS we respond by simply ending our donations. That is why we donate . . . so we don't have to put up with endless ads. As far as sponsors are concerned they shouldn't be given any more privileges than someone who donates a dollar. We also do not appreciate paying excessive prices for items for sale. Also attempting to make out your security words is to say the least difficult.
El Gabilon, Longview, WA
~ ~ ~
I was saddened to learn that "Lower third" pop-up ads on Masterpiece Theater are embedded at PBS rather than KQED where I am a supporter and 'larger' backer at the 501c3 level of Quest and Center for Investigative Reporting. On Masterpiece Classic last Sunday came Part One of a delicious period piece called "The Paradise." It's impossible to completely enjoy "a costume and scenery drama" piece with annoying "Genealogy Show" ads popping up. If it happens tonight, as I expect it will, we will filter through our Comcast On Demand provider to see if we can avoid, even though the picture quality will be diminished. As I mentioned to you (and also touching on the similar "Downton Abbey" ruckus) these kinds of ads, while maybe suitable for "news programs" if at all, are out of place on certain shows and could be counter-productive. See if you can get a suitable response on this. Perhaps you could poll your larger corporate backers as well.
Hugh Fullerton
~ ~ ~
For as long as I can remember PBS programming has been underwritten by a variety of corporations, and they were always listed and thanked in the credits either before or after the program. Then the "thank you's" morphed into very short simple promotions for those sponsors. Now they are full blown advertisements, produced by slick Madison Avenue firms, who are extremely well paid to persuade viewers that Company XYZ really does care about what we, the viewers, care about. If XYZ really cared about what we care about they would simply put up the money and quietly let PBS do the terrific job it has always done. I won't go so far as to say shame on PBS for taking the money from these "sponsors" but I will say I wish you would stand up and say no to their insistence on running regular commercial ads. If you don't, it won't be long until your journalistic integrity is gone and your credibility is the same as the commercial "news" programs, i.e. zero. Thank you for accepting my meager contribution and please tell Goldman Sachs that I did not click on their How We Saved the Universe pop-up.
Dean Erickson, Prescott Valley, AZ
~ ~ ~
I read your recent posting on my nearby radio station KQED website. Thank you for your comments. I, for one, like Walmart, which sells products at affordable prices for those who work there and for those of us who shop there. My reason for writing is that I used to support KQED radio on a regular basis because I listen to it all the time, but stopped my support because of two things. One was religious programming and the other, more recently, has been the annoying, lengthy ads which are not just a few words about the sponsorship, but about a particular product, like the Herman Miller chair, now available in "true black" . . . blah, blah! and many more commercials like that which go on even longer than that one! Wouldn't a "limit" on the number of words the underwriter could put in their offering be a small concession and less annoying to those individuals who also sponsor the station?
I also read your comment about running TV ads for other programs while a current program is airing. How about running the ad during the underwriter's commercial . . . then we could either ignore both or read what interests us. Many thanks.
Diana Petersen, Vacaville, CA
~ ~ ~
The woman who complained that no PBS stations in her viewing area carried an analysis of the President's televised address reminds me of most students in my algebra courses. For years, they neglected to read the assigned text and attempt the assigned homework prior to coming to class, spent every lecture period (which included ample time to ask questions) fiddling with their electronic devices, and then complained that I didn't "teach" them anything.
Why should PBS "analyze" or "interpret" anything the President says? After all, he doesn't speak Greek. Networks that do provide near-real-time "analyses" are really just letting other politicians take turns supporting or rebutting what the President just said, in keeping with their own biases.
Same goes for the "commercials," including those by Grumman, which "sponsors" occasional "documentaries" highlighting its military aircraft and the people who fly them. Thanks to TiVo, I blast through all "sponsor" announcements, whether on PBS or elsewhere. They are a waste of time, especially those that thank "Viewers like you."
James Bruner, Oak Harbor, WA
~ ~ ~
I've watched Chicago's several PBS stations for some 40 years now. At PBS, as in so many areas of U.S. life, intellectual rigor/quality has gone downhill, that rush to the Lowest Common Denominator having become a torrent. I'm sure this is due to financial necessity married to the wish to remain au courant . . . but that dual-drive lessens quality everywhere, inevitably.
The most nakedly current commercial is the Ralph Lauren black and white/color haute couture attempt at advertising art which sponsors many Masterpiece dramas on Sunday nights. I have no wish to enter "Ralph's World" which is as fantastic as it is expensive. If PBS (WTTW in Chicago) needs to appeal to the less than 100 area billionaires to stay on air, so be it.
"Nova" is no longer a good place to view rigorous science, riddled as it is with would-be comedians: memo to Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson and David Pogue, you two are merely self-indulgent, not very funny. (David Pogue, you've made errors in your science column at Scientific American, by the way.) Your "humor" wastes too much time in a limited time slot. I'll continue to watch "Nature", which seems to have maintained its high standards for 30+ years, and isn't sponsored by a Koch brother. All of my negative critiques make me sad. I'll watch PBS programming, but won't donate a nickel, as it is now only somewhat better than the free networks.
Amber Ladeira, Forest Park, IL
~ ~ ~
I have been trying to watch some of the videos on the Nova site on my computer. But I have noticed that there are plenty of commercial ads embedded into nearly all the videos I am watching. This is a disturbing turn for an organization that is part of PBS which does not involve commercial advertising. You should be ashamed of yourself and shame on your parents for making you the way you are.
Don Damour, Lewiston, ME
]]>