Viewers irritated over the forthcoming cancellation of the weekly newsmagazine series NOW on PBS continued to vent their objections in a heavy flow of e-mails that dominated the Ombudsman's Mailbag for the second week in a row.
PBS officials have not said anything more publicly about the cancellation than they did in a statement issued initially on Nov. 20, which didn't say much and explained even less. That statement was included in last week's Mailbag.
The half-hour NOW on PBS broadcast is hosted by David Brancaccio and has been a steady Friday night presence on many PBS-member stations since January 2002. It is produced by JumpStart Productions, LLC, in association with Thirteen/WNET in New York City. The series has won several awards and probes many tough and controversial issues. Its host for the first couple of years, when it was an hour-long program, was Bill Moyers, and the broadcast originally was called NOW with Bill Moyers. Brancaccio was brought in by Moyers as co-host in 2003 and Moyers left the program at the end of 2004, after which it was cut back to its current half-hour status.
The program, and Moyers in particular, was at the center of controversy at the time involving the former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who resigned in November 2005, just before a report, which Tomlinson contests, by the CPB's own Inspector General was made public. That report was highly critical of Tomlinson for using political tests in hiring practices and for violating internal ethical guidelines and contracting procedures, one of which included hiring of a consultant, unapproved by the CPB board, to monitor the political leanings of guests on NOW.
So the statement by PBS last month acknowledging both the conclusion of the NOW on PBS series on April 30, 2010, and the weekly, hour-long Bill Moyers Journal, which has been running for three years in its latest incarnation, at the same time next April, marks an important moment in PBS's 40-year history. But it sure didn't have a historic ring to it.
Both programs have devoted followers and critics but both are clearly among the signature public affairs programs on PBS, and on television generally. Moyers is 75 and so it is not surprising that his Journal will end. But the NOW cancellation did come as a surprise.
I must say that as a steady viewer of these programs, not just as the ombudsman, I find the one and only PBS public statement thus far about the ending of these programs to be puzzling; unresponsive to dedicated viewers and to the high-profile role for public affairs junkies that these broadcasts have played for years on public television. There is no real explanation of why NOW, in particular, is ending or what, if anything, will replace both programs. Privately, PBS officials say they weren't planning to make any announcements last month about the conclusion of these two programs. Rather, they were going to do so in January at the annual "press tour" when new plans are laid out. But the news leaked out, first about Moyers and then about NOW.
Even so, one would assume that when you know, internally, that two leading-edge programs are going out of business, PBS would have been ready with something more substantive to say. Indeed, one can easily understand how the combination of these two particular programs being taken off the air simultaneously could be seen, certainly by many dedicated viewers, as signaling a move away from hard-hitting, controversial programs.
In its November statement, PBS talked generally about "our review and reinvention of the News & Public Affairs genre on PBS" and about its initiative "to revitalize public media." It discussed forthcoming changes to The NewsHour and Nightly Business Report, and then added only that "both Bill Moyers Journal and NOW will conclude their weekly series at the end of April 2010." It said that additional changes to the public affairs line-up will be announced in January that will take effect in May and that because these plans are still in development, "we will not comment on them publicly until January, since it would be premature to do so." So I guess we will have to be patient.
I asked John Siceloff, executive producer of NOW, if he or Brancaccio could shed anymore light on the demise of NOW. He said: "The folks at PBS headquarters are handling all media inquiries about the cancellation of NOW." But he wanted to make one point. "I can say that published accounts that NOW's cancellation was due to financial difficulties are wrong. Of course, the recession made this a tough year for us — as it did for everyone in the news business. But we balanced our budget and got through the year without laying off a single employee. Our funders stayed with us, giving a bit less because of the impact of the recession on their endowments, but committed to continuing support for the tough investigative journalism that has become the show's signature."
So, that leaves an interesting question. If the cancellation of NOW was not due to financial difficulties, as Siceloff maintains, what was the reason?
When I asked PBS officials for more details, they referred to the November statement and said only that the moves are part of the "revitalization," according to Lea Sloan, vice president for communications.
In the meanwhile . . .
I am deeply disappointed in the decision to cancel both NOW and The Bill Moyers Journal. Both programs provide journalistic excellence, thoughtful commentary, and provocative reflections on issues facing our culture and democracy. This decision, and its lack of a credible rationale, is reminiscent of the actions of PBS in the Bush era when Bill Moyers was forced off the air in the previous rendition of NOW.
If PBS is seeking to make its news programming relevant to a younger audience, I would submit that removing gutsy reporting, insightful commentary, and conversation with cutting edge thinkers is not the way to go about it. You don't have to dumb down to be hip. I watch both programs with my teenagers. We end up having great conversations and in the process they are becoming engaged citizens. I thought that was part of the mission of PBS. Please, reconsider.
Lisa Hunt, Houston, TX
Unless NOW on PBS is continued, or a full explanation is provided for the cause of its demise, and a substitute is found for the Bill Moyers Journal, I will have no reason for continuing support for the PBS network.
Lew Amack, Monterey Park, CA
Let me add my voice to the swelling chorus: PBS cancels "NOW" at its peril, especially in the wake of the Moyers retirement. Unless the new news/public affairs lineup to be announced in January contains similarly independent, thoughtful, and serious journalism programs to fill the huge void left by Moyers' Journal and NOW, you shall NOT receive further support from this long-time viewer and supporter. NOW, Moyers, and Frontline are the few programs on any TV stations that are worthy of thinking viewers. Don't allow yourselves to be dragged closer to the shallow idiocy of commercial television.
Glenn Campbell, Lakewood, OH
The news of Bill Moyers' retirement is sad, but not unexpected. But the news of the cancellation of NOW with David Brancaccio and Maria Hinojosa is just dumbfounding! This show is by FAR the BEST news program on television. The most in depth, truthful, unbiased reporting ANYWHERE. It will be sorely missed. What is the reason? I truly hope PBS will reconsider. If not, I hope another station will pick it up. Unfortunately, it will probably have to be a cable station. What is the deal? Is PBS only going to program classical music from now on? Is NOW too controversial? Will Sesame Street soon be considered too controversial, as well?
Amy Peters, Glen Cove, NY
I was saddened to hear of Bill Moyers' upcoming retirement but I've known he could not last forever and at 75 he's certainly earned the right to slow down! I was thinking an expanded NOW with David Brancaccio would be the ideal replacement. Then I read further and literally felt sick as I learnt NOW was being cancelled! For that, frankly, I see NO good excuse. There really is NO substitute for NOW on TV. It is one of the few programs I never miss and which I most frequently suggest to others. I'll probably go back to reading more because without both NOW and Bill Moyers' Journal it'll take a lot of motivation to even consider turning on the TV let alone PBS. It's not too late: an expanded NOW can still carry on where Bill Moyers' Journal leaves off!
John Duggan, New York, NY
Just to add our response to the news of Bill Moyers' retirement and NOW's cancellation. These two shows have been the primary reasons for our PBS membership. If these shows are not replaced with programs of equivalent content and integrity . . . we will be less motivated to renew our membership.
Nederland, CO
I am so sorry to hear that Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio will be leaving! The depth of their programs will be missed. I am pleased that PBS includes Al-Jazeera English as a part of World Focus — their perspective is a welcome addition to the BBC and to U.S. newscasts.
Noel Werle, New Haven, CT
I was really shocked to find out that 'NOW' will be canceled. I strongly feel it is a very poor decision on the part of PBS. Along with 'PBS News Hour' and 'Charlie Rose Show', this has been one of the most informative programs I've seen.
Ken Haruta, Bethlehem, PA
Bill Moyers Journal and NOW should not be taken off-air. They (and Frontline) are what makes PBS still relevant in terms of social and political analysis and commentary. Someone should take over Moyers' show and NOW should continue. In a time of so many problems (War, recession, global warming), these programs are needed more than ever. You do a huge disservice to your viewership by ending these programs.
Rick Anderson, San Diego, CA
I watched NOW last night and afterwards David Brancaccio was soliciting pledges for NOW. I was inspired to pledge $100. Now I find out NOW has been canceled. Why is PBS using NOW to solicit pledges for a show they've canceled? Is there some conspiracy to get rid of all voices that represent peace and community lovers?
Port Chester, NY
I am greatly disappointed about the loss of Bill Moyers and Now. I always watched those programs. Bill Moyers is retiring, which will be a big loss but his choice. But NOW is the only other program I HAVE to watch every week on PBS, since [Fareed] Zakaria went to CNN. I have been a supporter of PBS for 20+ years but I am now reconsidering my support. Why not drop McLaughlin or even Washington Week instead. That news we can get elsewhere. Not NOW and Moyers.
Susan, Kihei, HI
I sincerely hope PBS will follow "Bill Moyers' Journal" and "NOW" with something of equal or greater value and quality. These shows for years have provided essential balance to other media coverage and unequaled depth and would be difficult to match, but it will be an incalculable loss to the public if they are not.
Bill DiNome, Wilmington, NC
I am 92 years old and look forward to Fridays and seeing NOW. Despite my age, it always teaches me something new. Please reconsider your decision to cancel this special program.
John Honey, Rhinebeck, NY
Very sorry to hear about NOW and hope it will be replaced with something similar. I'm sure that Bill Moyers will continue to be a presence if one looks for it. He writes books, after all. The bottom line is that we are all left wondering if it isn't pressure from the lunatic fringe that masquerades as a loyal opposition that is responsible for this. I can buy that Moyers wants to retire, but what's with hatcheting NOW? PBS needs to offer more than the bland and, as you say, rather unhelpful "statement".
Janet Camp, Milwaukee, WI
I contribute to MPTV and I don't understand PBS canceling "NOW" in April. It is a flagship show for public television, extremely well done and very popular with membership and non-membership viewers. It is a show for thinking people and for those who want to think. It is just what your "Be more . . . inspired . . . curious" etc., campaign is about. Why would you cancel?
D. Metzger, Milwaukee, WI
It is with utter sadness that I learned of Bill Moyers' decision to retire his program in April of next year, as Mr. Moyers is a true living hero of mine. I understand his decision to move on after so many years of providing the best analysis and critique in any media going, but I remain hopeful that even as he lets go of the weekly format, he will continue to be the best damn journalist out there and will continue to produce innovative special programming for PBS.
Like other viewers, whereas I understand Mr. Moyers' decision, I am very disturbed by the fact PBS has decided to cancel "NOW." Rather than scrapping another of the best programs on television, PBS should be striving to multiply the number of intrepid journalists willing to forgo the unbearable "you must hear both sides of the story" (even when we know one of the sides is lying) platform, and to provide truthful information about issues that affect so many people so deeply. Every time I see Chevron's ads on PBS I cringe. PBS has lost so much of its independence already, and the decision to cancel "NOW" I fear just highlights the network's continuing decline. In thirty years from now, we will most likely wonder why in the world we didn't realize what we were doing to ourselves and to this planet, and it will be too late to turn back the tide. As a media outlet originally designed to be independent of corporate power and to reflect truly important ideas, PBS, in particular, has a moral obligation to awaken the slumbering public at this critical moment in human history. I strongly urge you to keep "NOW," make "Democracy Now" a permanent part of your early evening programming, and do everything you can to convince Mr. Moyers to gift us with a few more programs. Please don't abandon your viewers on the left — we are ready to contribute when you are.
Sarah Aird, San Francisco, CA
Please convey to PBS program decision-makers my vehement opposition to the current decision to cancel the news program NOW. This program is highly informative and valuable, and tackles the kind of subjects that Americans need to know more about.
It is premature to rely solely on the online news coverage option to inform PBS audiences about important issues. That may be a relevant approach in another decade, but right now, it is essential to continue to use the TV broadcast medium to convey to voters the complexity of stories about how Americans are struggling and coping with the recession, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and community concerns.
Bill Moyers' valuable program will be greatly missed. He has been a true public servant. But for PBS to be cutting off NOW from TV broadcast, another valuable public service, has the appearance of a cost-cutting measure, and a foolhardy gesture.
M. Smith, Oakland, CA
I am writing to express my extreme displeasure with the PBS decision to remove "NOW" from its broadcast schedule. Programs such as "NOW" are what distinguish PBS from the myriad of cable and broadcast channels. This is why we watch PBS — not the '60's Do-Wop shows or the wrinkle cream programs. This is the PBS Brand and you are in serious jeopardy of losing it.
San Francisco, CA
NOW is an extremely valuable program, and I am appalled to see that it is being cancelled. How valuable is NOW? I credit it with enlightening me — and angering me — to the extent that I left a successful 25-year career to attend law school so I could work to fight some of the injustices depicted. I recently graduated, and I credit NOW both with motivating me to go to law school, and keeping me motivated through those demanding 3 years.
L. von Biela, Sammamish, WA
]]>Last Friday evening, Nov. 20, the New York Times posted a brief news item on its Web site reporting that Bill Moyers would end his public affairs program, "Bill Moyers Journal," on April 30. It was also reported that the public affairs program "NOW on PBS," which follows Moyers on Friday nights on many PBS-member stations, was also ending its run on that same date.
The Times quoted Moyers as saying "I am 75 years old," that the program has recently been having "a good run of it," and "so I feel it's time." John Siceloff, executive producer of NOW, said the program, hosted by David Brancaccio, has been "a unique voice at a time when outlets for insightful journalism are diminishing. We're all looking for places to continue that work."
In my column posted Friday, I said that I would be away from the office this week, returning on Dec. 1. That is the case, but e-mails from disappointed viewers began to arrive soon after the report by the Times, and also by the public broadcasting trade newspaper Current early Saturday morning, and I wanted to get at least the first round posted.
These are two iconic programs, unique not just to PBS but to television generally. They have large and devoted followings and generate engagement and controversy — often a testimonial to tackling subjects that usually do not get taken on elsewhere in television, at least with much depth. Whatever one feels about these programs, they bring to public attention issues that are central to a fuller understanding of what's going on, along with interviews with interesting people who also are not likely to show up elsewhere.
At the moment, there is not much more than the early Times report. A PBS statement is printed below, following the e-mails from viewers. But it adds almost nothing to public understanding of this development at this time, except to be patient. Moyers' retirement was not unexpected, but NOW's demise comes as a surprise. I'm sure we will be hearing a lot more about all of these changes in coming days and weeks, and also a lot more from viewers. I will certainly come back to this, but for now . . .
Tonight's (Friday, 11/20/09) "Now," focusing on care of U.S. soldiers with TBI, deserved to be seen by EVERY U.S. citizen. It was excellent, but also heart-breaking. Ironically, later the same night, I read that "Now" is canceled, effective April 30, 2010. What a huge loss to us, and what a foolish decision by PBS. My wife and I are longtime contributing members of WNET-13, now contributing monthly, and "Now" is one of our favorite PBS news shows. We urge you to reconsider, especially with Bill Moyers retirement (his "Journal" is another favorite).
Ed Ciaccio, Douglaston, NY
I am very distressed to learn that both Bill Moyers Journal and NOW are being discontinued. These are about two of the only reasons left to watch that vast wasteland called television. I am VERY unhappy about this decision.
Birmingham, AL
I am bereft at the news: cancellation of "Now, with David Brancaccio" and the retirement of Bill Moyers. The PBS Friday night lineup has been my "must see TV" because it has provided coverage — thoughtful, deep, and honest — of the important stories the frenzied 24 hour cycle news ignores. I would not ask Mr. Moyer to reconsider — at 75, he has earned time off, but I do plead for renewal of "Now."
Lucinda Olasov, Isle of Palms, SC
I am disappointed that Bill Moyers has chosen to retire after April 30th, 2010, but that is his personal decision. I am aggrieved that PBS has chosen to cancel NOW, the only other program from which a viewer can LEARN about the significant issues of the times. I ask for a review of that decision and look forward to the Jan. announcement of your public affairs programming. I am a monthly sustainer.
Gloria G. Karp, Hartsdale, NY
I am dismayed at the news that Bill Moyers is ending his show on PBS. I do understand he has been working on this and other projects for a long time and may need a rest or a change. I am quite disturbed, however, at the news of the cancellation of NOW. I have been watching PBS for 40 years, since I was 7 when I remember watching "The Forsyte Saga." That PBS would cancel a show of such unique quality, integrity and, what I believe is necessity, indicates to me a change in the programming on PBS that is not interested in challenging and informing the viewer. I will be much less inclined to support PBS with my viewership and membership dollars if similar actions continue.
Seth Hoff, Chicago, IL
As I just read CommonDreams.org, Bill Moyers is retiring and "Now" is cancelled. I can understand Bill Moyers retiring; however, I cannot understand the cancelling of "Now." Other than "Frontline" there will be no reason for me to watch PBS. Will you please reconsider reinstating "Now"? Thanks!
Brian Schatz, Tampa, FL
I hear that "Now" will be cancelled come next May. I strongly urge PBS to reverse this decision. I know times are tight throughout the broadcast industry, but part of PBS' core mission is to fill in the gaps left by other broadcasters and television outlets. If you look at today's TV landscape, you can't help but conclude there is an enormous gap in serious, objective, in-depth reporting — just what "Now" provides. Please don't forget why PBS exists.
Joe Ferullo, Los Angeles, CA
I have just heard what I'm hoping is a false rumor, that "Now on PBS" is being dropped. This is devastating! There are scant resources on television for honest, independent journalism, and you are eliminating the best outlet for true journalism left on television. I have faithfully enjoyed watching NOW every week for many years and I sincerely hope you come to your senses and continue to provide this outstanding program.
Barry Howarth, Walnut Creek, CA
I am very upset to hear you are taking NOW off of the air. For heaven's sake, you of all networks should be leading the way, and fighting against cuts in news, and public affairs programming. Shame on you. Reinstate NOW, and do it now!
Chuck Rosenow, Croton on Hudson, NY
I am mortified and in disbelief to hear that PBS has decided to cancel NOW on PBS. It is a gem of a show that every week skillfully and very often movingly highlights and enlightens us on issues of national significance — unlike the preponderance of the other broadcast networks' newsmagazine programs. Now on PBS is precisely what distinguishes PBS from everyone else and make it relevant and meaningful. Canceling this unique and irreplaceable program is a terrible, terrible idea and must be reversed. What were you thinking?
Steve Brand, New York, NY
KEEP "NOW" ON THE AIR. IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PROGRAM.
Joanna Roy, New York, NY
Removing NOW is removing the best program PBS offers. The only rational reason I can think of is that someone in Washington, DC is tightening the thumbscrews, or perhaps a corporate sponsor — but the tide is turning, so what gives? Why else would you take the truth off the air? (And one of the main reasons I tune in.)
Hoboken, NJ
I'm shocked and saddened to hear NOW is going off the air. Losing Moyers is bad enough but we expected that; but to intentionally and unnecessarily remove NOW from the airwaves is an abdication of your responsibility to educate and inform the American public. Please tell headquarters to reconsider this decision. Yes, news is expensive and yes, times are tough. But once we've weathered this financial rough patch we'll be standing here realizing we have nothing left to rely on for our information.
New York, NY
I woke up to some very sad news today. My three favorite programs on all of TV are the Lehrer hour, NOW, and the Moyers hour. When I read that Bill Moyers will stop producing his show, I thought, how sad, but then he's past retirement age. Then I read that Now has been cancelled, and I could hardly believe it. That is a terrible loss, as there's no other program that regularly does that kind of investigative news and analysis of otherwise overlooked issues. It's simply the best.
Why not consider changing the time Now is shown? Friday nights I am usually doing something social (though I always record Lehrer, Washington Week, Now, and Moyers and then watch the recordings later, on the weekends). Having Tuesdays be science night is such a good concept (I'm a lot less likely to overlook a science program now that I've caught on). Why not make Thursday news analysis night, with special features like those on Now? I can only hope you will do something to rescue Now before it is lost. Now is an important part of what makes PBS an oasis in the news business.
Cindy Lyle, San Diego, CA
Please stand up to the political pressures that be and do not cancel "NOW" from the PBS line-up. It could only be certain political agendas pushing for the cancellation of this program as the quality of reporting and integrity of the NOW's content are upstanding. The kind of reporting that scares the you-know-what out of certain political agendas. Ethical journalism in America has become a very difficult to find these days. As the person responsible for public broadcasting you have a responsibility to provide what the network media has "assumed" is not profitable and therefore not beneficial to its shareholders, regardless of what is best for our society. But, if the cancellation of NOW was part of your agenda then you must be a very happy wolf guarding the vulnerable PBS hen house.
It is thanks to years of decisions like these, made by men like you, that very many Americans have become clueless to the important issues in this world. There are serious economic, social and environmental consequences resulting from the dumbing-down of Americans. Don't you get it? Shame on you. It is sad, but I have to assume that you are just another greedy baby-boomer that wants to get "his" while he can and "----" the rest of us regular folk. We need programs like "NOW" and reporters like Bill Moyers in TV media more than ever! Please prove my assumptions of you wrong and do not cancel this excellent program. Grab a spine while you still can. A very frustrated NOW viewer.
C. M., Kingston
"As a part of our review and reinvention of the News & Public Affairs genre on PBS, we continue to carefully examine our approach to this critical content area with respect to our on-air television offerings, as well as the role of online distribution and aggregation of the content. This initiative is undertaken with input from numerous sources both inside and outside public television.
"As discussed at the PBS Showcase meeting in May 2009, our goal for the News & Public Affairs Initiative is to revitalize public media in the context of today's rapidly changing communications environment. The public's evolving use of media is central to the planning of the initiative. At Showcase, we announced two of the first changes viewers can expect to see resulting from this work: On December 7, PBS NEWSHOUR will debut its unified approach to on-air and online editorial content along with a new title and anchor team headed by Jim Lehrer; in January 2010, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT will re-launch with a new host to be announced (replacing Paul Kangas, whose retirement had been previously announced) and a new look. In addition, both BILL MOYERS JOURNAL and NOW will conclude their weekly series at the end of April 2010.
"In January, we plan to announce additional changes to the public affairs on-air lineup that will take effect in May 2010. These plans are still in development; we will not comment on them publicly until January, since it would be premature to do so."
]]>More than 900,000 soldiers and Marines, and some from other services, have felt the warmth and respect of their presence for the past six years. Bangor is the last, and the first, spot on U.S. soil for many of those who serve in these wars.
The program, I thought, was superb in every way. Not many people wrote to me about it, but those who did felt the same way.
"I just watched 'The Way We Get By' on POV," wrote Judy Conley of Pelican Island, N.J. "I have never been more moved and touched by anything I have ever viewed on PBS or read anywhere. What an outstanding documentary and how wonderful to showcase those three amazingly selfless people. Thanks for such poignant programming." Kathleen Feustel of Jacksonville, Fla., added that, "Your piece on Veterans Day was moving and inspiring. My husband served 23 1/2 years and it is good for people to see the reality and pain that service members go through no matter what age they are. Thank you for the integrity of your shows."
PBS distributes lots of good programs, even lots of jewels. But this column is not about what's been on the air that viewers comment about, but rather what is not on the air that some high-profile critics have recently commented about. Keep in mind that PBS is not a network like NBC or CBS. It doesn't produce programs. It distributes them; it is a conduit, often for important programs that one can't find elsewhere and uninterrupted by commercial breaks. The programs are produced by some of the member stations, of which there are some 340 around the country, plus independent film and documentary makers.
What follows are segments of three important commentaries that have been made public recently that all have something to say about what is not on public broadcasting, or at least not very often. They are offered here without comment, but rather as some worthwhile background reading.
The first comes from a report published last month under the auspices of The Journalism School at Columbia University in New York. It is called "The Reconstruction of American Journalism." Its authors are Leonard Downie Jr., former executive editor and now vice president at large of The Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, a professor at Columbia. The report is about the extraordinary array of challenges now confronting American journalism. It provides an excellent survey of new initiatives being tried around the country to sustain vibrant, independent reporting, and places special emphasis on what Downie has always called "accountability reporting" that is essential, especially, to civic life at the local level. It also makes some recommendations.
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer reported on the Downie-Schudson study last month and asked Downie about the recommendations regarding public broadcasting.
This is a long report but a slightly shorter version was published this month in the Columbia Journalism Review. Despite its length, this is fast-moving and well worth reading. It devotes only a couple of relatively short segments to public broadcasting, but it makes important points. Here is one of the report's recommendations and some of the supporting observations.
"Public radio and television should be substantially reoriented to provide significant local news reporting in every community served by public stations and their Web sites. This requires urgent action by and reform of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, increased congressional funding and support for public media news reporting, and changes in mission and leadership for many public stations across the country.
"The failure of much of the public broadcasting system to provide significant local news reporting reflects long-standing neglect of this responsibility by the majority of public radio and televisions stations, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Congress. The approximately $400 million that Congress currently appropriates for the CPB each year is far less per capita than public broadcasting support in countries with comparable economies — roughly $1.35 per capita for the United States, compared to about $25 in Canada, Australia, and Germany, nearly $60 in Japan, $80 in Britain, and more than $100 in Denmark and Finland. The lion's share of the financial support for public radio and television in the United States comes from listener and viewer donations, corporate sponsorships, foundation grants, and philanthropic gifts.
"It is not just a question of money, but how it is spent. Most of the money that the CPB and private donors and sponsors provide public broadcasting is spent on broadcast facilities, independent television production companies, and programming to attract audiences during fund-raising drives. In many metropolitan areas, the money supports more stations and signals than are necessary to reach everyone in the community.
"At the same time, outside of a relatively few regional public radio station groups, very little money is spent on local news coverage by individual public radio and television stations. The CPB itself, in its new Public Radio Audience Task Force Report, acknowledged that 'claiming a significantly larger role in American journalism requires a much more robust news gathering capacity — more 'feet on the street' with notebooks, recorders, cameras and more editors and producers to shape their work' for broadcast and digital distribution by public radio stations. 'The distance between current reality and the role we imagine — and that others urge upon public radio — is large,' the report concluded. And that distance is immense for the vast majority of public television stations that do no local news reporting at all.
"The CPB should declare that local news reporting is a top priority for public broadcasting and change its allocation of resources accordingly. Local news reporting is an essential part of the public education function that American public radio and television have been charged with fulfilling since their inception.
"The CPB should require a minimum amount of local news reporting by every public radio and television station receiving CPB money and require stations to report publicly to the CPB on their progress in reaching specified goals. The CPB should increase and speed up its direct funding for experiments in more robust and creative local news coverage by public stations both on the air and on their Web sites. The CPB should also aggressively encourage and reward collaborations by public stations with other local nonprofit and university news organizations.
"National leaders of public radio and television who have been meeting privately to discuss news reporting should bring their deliberations into the open; reduce wasteful rivalries among local public stations, regional and national public media, and production entities; and launch concerted initiatives to increase local news coverage. The CPB should be more assertive in its efforts to consolidate duplicative public stations and signals, and it should encourage changes in the leadership of public stations that are not capable of reorienting their missions.
"Congress should back these reforms. In its next reauthorization of the CPB and appropriation of its budget, Congress should change its name to the Corporation for Public Media, support its efforts to move public radio and television into the digital age, specify public media's local news reporting mission, and significantly increase its appropriation. Congress should also reform the governance of the reformed corporation by broadening the membership of its board with appointments by such nonpolitical sources as the Librarian of Congress or national media organizations. Ideological issues that have surfaced over publicly supported arts, cultural activities, or national news coverage should not affect decisions about significantly improving local news reporting by public media."
This report, even longer and published just before the Columbia report, also deals with what it calls "Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age." A good summary of the study was reported by the trade newspaper Current in its Oct. 13 edition. One of the study's recommendations is to: "Increase support for public service media aimed at meeting community information needs." Here's what it says:
"Like private media, public broadcasting in the United States has a mixed history of providing local news and information. On the one hand, a 2007 Roper opinion poll found that nearly half of all Americans trust the Public Broadcasting Service 'a great deal,' higher than the numbers rating commercial television and newspapers. On the other hand, with some notable exceptions, public broadcasting in America has been widely criticized as being insufficiently local or diverse. Public stations do not have a strong record of spearheading local investigative journalism, and most public radio broadcasters have little or no local news reporting staff. Finally, again with some promising exceptions, local public stations have failed to embrace digital innovations as a way to better connect with their communities.
"The American commitment to First Amendment values has long bred an appropriate caution against reliance on government as a sponsor of news and information. But public broadcasters in the United States have demonstrated their capacity to deliver high-quality, fair, and credible news and information programming free of government interference.
"Public broadcasting in the United States has added a context and fullness to news and information during the past 40 years. But it has fallen short of its promise. Breakthroughs in children's programming have not been mirrored in the information field. Simply put, our public media do not fully reflect the public nor engage with it sufficiently on the community level.
"It is important now for public policy in the digital age to play a more determined role in enhancing the performance of public broadcasting in local news.
"Public broadcasting needs to move quickly toward a broader vision of public service media, one that is more local, more inclusive, and more interactive. This means pursuing greater integration of new technologies and communication practices with traditional forms of broadcasting. It means using digital platforms to engage local institutions effectively in the public sphere. To advance this, government as well as private sector donors should condition their support of public media on its reform. They should support the creating, curating, and archiving of public media content on the community level.
"The Commission agrees with the recent conclusion of American University's Center for Social Media that '[w]hat is needed for the future of high-quality [public media] content is at least partial taxpayer support for the many existing operations and for innovative new projects.' Other countries with similar commitments to freedom of speech and of the press make much larger per capita contributions to the financing of public media. The United States federal government, for example, spends $1.35 per capita for public media, as compared to $22.48 per capita in Canada and $80.36 per capita in England. A modest increase in tax-supported revenues would not compromise the American model of combined government seed money and local contributions, and it would recognize that seeding local public media makes sense in the digital age. Accordingly, Congress should increase the funding available for the transformation and localization of America's public media."
Finally, there was this recent challenge to PBS by Michael Kaiser, president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, in The Huffington Post:
"One of the questions I am always asked when I teach abroad is why there are not more performances by American arts organizations available on television. In other developed nations, the great arts organizations are seen regularly on television.
"There are two answers to this question. The first is the expense of filming, especially the extra wages demanded by performers and stage hands. The cost for filming one opera or ballet can exceed one million dollars, an amount that simply cannot be recouped with DVD sales after broadcast. When I ran the Royal Opera House we made a landmark deal with the artists that paid them a modest annual fee for a substantial amount of filming by the BBC. I hope we can make similar deals here in the United States.
"The second reason, however, has to do with the unique nature of America's public television organization. PBS is a vital institution. It has provided important educational, artistic, and news programming for decades. But PBS is not a network like CBS or ABC. It is a cooperative of local stations. Most programming is created by one local station and then distributed to other local stations.
"While local input and content is important, this means that major, expensive programs, like arts programming and dramatic series, come only from stations that can afford to create this programming, meaning those with strong fundraising operations. And far too few of the local stations do have strong fundraising operations. This is why so many of the arts programs we do see emanate from New York City, whose WNET is one of the most prominent stations in the television service.
"There is so much wonderful art being produced across the nation, but this work is not available often enough on national television. I would like to see the Dayton Contemporary Dance Company or the St. Louis Opera or Penumbra Theatre in Minneapolis — important arts organizations doing interesting work — featured on national public television. But the decision is left to the local stations, most without the resources to mount important arts programming.
"Why can't PBS be reorganized? Why can't there be a mix of local and national programming? Why can't the parent organization determine the best in American arts and fund its broadcast across the nation? I have to believe that a national programming effort would be extremely attractive to major national funders, who are now approached primarily by regional stations. And while the local stations might protest some loss of autonomy, if this change resulted in better programming, higher ratings and a larger contributions base to share, I have to believe that many of the stations would appreciate the change.
"The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which annually provides hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to the parent organization and to the local stations, has the clout to make this happen. Couldn't CPB dedicate some of its grant to PBS for programming of national importance? Isn't it time for a discussion of the merits of a change in structure?"
I'm going to be away from the office next week and back on Dec. 1, but you can't say that I didn't leave you with lots of reading material.
]]>The column did not include comment from program officials and that was an omission on my part. I did e-mail a question to the producers a day before the column was posted, asking why Pox News was chosen, but did not get a response. I should have waited a bit longer. In any event, Sesame Street clearly deserves a say in this and here it is:
"On behalf of Sesame Workshop and the producers of 'Sesame Street,' I wanted to clear up a misunderstanding about our Grouch News Network segment that re-ran on October 29. I realize this may have drawn more attention because of the recent dust-up between Fox News and the White House, but I assure you that no political comment or comment about Fox News, subtle or overt, was intended!
"First, the show was first aired in Season 38, which premiered in August 2007. That means it was written in the fall of 2006 — long before the Fox-Obama controversy, even before Obama was President. The whole segment was a parody of CNN (called GNN) or the 'Grouch News Network.' Children who watch Sesame Street (and adults who remember what it felt like to be a kid watching Sesame Street) know that Oscar the Grouch is a contrarian. He lives in a trash can and loves everything 'yucky,' and 'disgustin.' For a Grouch, 'Trashy' is high praise! Not only would child-viewers be unlikely to connect 'Pox News' to Fox News, in the context of this scene, they would understand the characters to be saying that 'Pox News' is better than 'GNN.'
"As for your comment that producers would have to be 'anesthetized' not to assume that many parents would hear this as a shot at Fox News, it misses the point. The writers expected that adult viewers would make the connection to Fox News as well as the connection to CNN. This was equal-opportunity parody — Oscar always tries to offend everybody! In the full story, Oscar keeps trying to find angry, frustrated and grimy stories, but each time he finds someone feeling bad, they soon look on the bright side and cheer up. The curriculum for that episode was recognizing emotions.
"Writing on two levels, addressing young children with age-appropriate curriculum and adults with humor, is a trademark of Sesame Street that has kept the show popular for 40 years. Jim Henson, Jon Stone, Frank Oz and others set a witty and silly tone for Sesame Street that our current writers work to maintain despite the demands of political correctness. Your readers might also be interested in why we have that grumpy, grouchy, contrarian Oscar on the show. His curriculum purpose is to teach differing perspectives — an important life skill where children learn that it takes all kinds of people to make a world. Watching Oscar shows kids that you can listen to someone with a very different world view, and even be friends with them, without losing your own perspective.
"Maybe we should all take another look?"
Miranda Barry
EVP, Creative
Sesame Workshop
Since last week's column appeared, a couple of hundred additional e-mails landed in my mailbox, the overwhelming majority of them critical of the segment involving "Pox News" and in the same vein as the original handful of letters that I published.
But there were also several in recent days that took a different view and, as one viewer asked, please publish some of those letters. Here are some of them.
I hope you will post emails from viewers who were not offended by the "Pox News" reference. It is only fair. You seem to have posted only those who did not like it. I hope to see others who are not so sensitive respond to this issue.
Jude Vasconcellos, Rutherford, CA
You should be ashamed of yourself for giving in to the lunatic fringe of the far right by stating that broadcasters shouldn't have given in to the skit. Think about this for a second. This is a parody on a children's show, and people are getting upset over it. If you don't want your kids to watch a certain show, change the channel. And think about what this says about the mentality of conservatives. Anytime they see a slight, whether real or imagined, they go into overdrive and start accusing people of a liberal bias when that may not have even been the intention. Find something to do instead of getting your panties in a wad over something this trivial!
H.H., Monroe, LA
I just wanted to say that PBS has always been and always will be a GREAT station with WONDERFUL programming . . . I grew up watching many of the children's shows and sesame street is one of the best. I find it rather silly that adults could find something wrong in the skit about POX news and Oscar the Grouch. I could see the humor in this without associating it with FOX news. After all it was sesame street that helped to teach me the difference between the letter F and the letter P. Sesame Street is educational and funny and my children grew up watching it as well. Thank you PBS for all the wonderful years of learning through all your great shows.
Peggy Thompson, Oshkosh, WI
The debate over the Sesame Street "Pox News" skit is ridiculous. A sense of humor goes a long way for both adults and children — and these bloggers seem to have lost theirs. Did the adults have to explain to these children why they were so offended by the "Pox News" bit? Likely. Isn't it possible that youngsters can see the humor in something that has become a standard media joke — which is as old as political satire . . . left vs. right?
Laura Amrhein, Little Rock, AR
You are all a bunch of losers. Get on with your lives and leave what was good, good.
Queens, NY
Please do not censor Sesame Street. I notice the letters you received were lop-sided. The letter writers did not complain that the character that lives IN the garbage can — who is also the host (Oscar) of the show in the skit — called the other news channel in the skit, GNN "all grouchy, all disgustin', all yucky." Yet, all the letter writers claim they heard Fox instead of Pox called "trashy."
My point: if Sesame Street was being political — they nailed both the left and the right. Thus, NO bias and no one from Sesame Street is trying to indoctrinate children or get to parents through the children that watch Sesame Street. I wish you would have underscored that fact a little more in your reply without your attempt at agreeing that Sesame Street tried to indoctrinate kids and get to parents through those kids. What I found evident in the letters you posted from the letter writers is they all shared a sense of paranoia.
If parents don't like GNN being called "all grouchy, all disgustin', all yucky" and/or Fox instead of Pox called "trashy" they have two choices, cringe and continue to let your child watch or turn off the show. Please do not censor shows . . . please. Not only is that un-American it would play into the hands of the paranoid people who falsely look at education and diversity as indoctrination.
Cynthia Proffitt, Louisville, KY
Being a conservative Republican I feel I can state this. I just listened to the Grouch Pox news skit, and actually, it was not offensive, both Oscar and the viewer, live in trash cans, that is their home. So to say Pox News is a "trashy" network meant it is a "home" network . . . was it necessary, no. Clever yes.
Hilton Head, SC
]]>Now, the venerable Sesame Street is suddenly and surprisingly (for me) in the crosshairs. The question is this: Did this icon of public broadcasting and gold standard for high quality educational broadcasting for children for 40 years stoop to take a camouflaged shot at Fox News?
The letters from complaining viewers are printed below. There are not many of them, but as is often the case, even a single viewer can make an important observation worthy of reporting and discussing. My eagle-eyed assistant, Marcia Apperson, reminds me that we have received the occasional complaint about this particular episode before. It aired for the first time two years ago and a couple of times in 2008 and this year. But I confess that this is the first time it caught my eye and the first time we heard from a number of viewers.
The episode, which aired Oct. 29, involves one of Sesame Street's scores of colorful creations, the Grouch News Network, in which muppet Oscar the Grouch is the host, pursuing GNN's dedication to "all grouchy, all disgustin', all yucky" news. But another character feels that the Grouch is not grouchy enough and threatens to switch to "Pox News, now there's a trashy news show," she says.
Everybody who wrote to me heard this as "Fox News," and I can't really blame them. When I went and watched the tape for the first time, I thought I heard "Fox" as well, perhaps because of the association one assumes when you hear "news" right after the word. However, when I watched and listened more carefully a second time, it was clear that the character said "Pox" and not "Fox" and the closed captioning that runs across the bottom of the screen when the sound is muted also stated "Pox News."
Now, on one level, Pox News as an alternative and competitor to the Grouch News Network would seem to be a clever and appropriate title. But you would have to be anesthetized as a producer not to assume that many parents will hear this, or assume this, to be a clever shot at Fox News. It's a parody, a play on words, and has a timely feel to it at this time, especially, because of the battle now going on publicly between Fox and the White House. So it's probably not surprising that last week's showing got more people's attention.
I don't know what was in the head of the producers, but my guess is that this was one of those parodies that was too good to resist. But it should have been resisted. Broadcasters can tell parents whatever they think of Fox or any other network, but you shouldn't do it through the kids.
Here are the letters, followed by a sampling of mail from viewers about other recent ombudsman columns on Sid the Science Kid and on Frontline's "The Warning."
I just wanted to write and let you know that I was both surprised and extremely disappointed in PBS this morning. My children were watching Sesame Street and Oscar the Grouch had his own TV news show. There was another grouch character that kept threatening to turn off grouch's show. In the end she finally states that she will turn off grouch's show and switch to Fox News "because that is a real trash news station!" I was shocked that PBS would enter into this type of ridiculous behavior especially on a children's television program. You state that you depend greatly on public support for your broadcasting, with this these type of statements made on children's programming I know that I can no longer support PBS in good faith.
Christine B., Albuquerque, NM
You may not be the proper person to direct this complaint to, but I was very disturbed at the reference to Fox News as "trashy" in an episode of Sesame Street that recently aired. The show is for teaching children their letters and numbers, not the producers' political view and biases. As a taxpayer, I am deeply concerned about PBS allowing such nonsense on a children's show.
Parkersburg, WV
I was incredibly disappointed in PBS and the Sesame Street episode aired on October 29, 2009. The parody of Oscar acting as an obvious Fox reporter was truly a new low. Even more shocking was the mention of Fox News as "trashy." I will never watch Sesame Street again and find it pathetic that you would use it as a platform for pushing the White House message and apparent conflict with Fox. I am a Fox News watcher and PBS children's show watcher. Some things should not mix. I refuse to let children's programming brainwash my child into certain political views. It is not right and should be addressed. Having conservative views is not a bad thing and I plan to raise my children to think for themselves and not listen to radical liberal thought. It is not right. Save it for the NewsHour and not Sesame Street.
Andrea Tarr, New Boston, NH
Hello: Where is the editorial integrity? My husband & I are grandparents who help take care of our 20-month-old granddaughter while her parents work. We have Sesame Street on the tv — there was a comment (channel 15 8:15am) — the characters said "Fox news, now that's trash or trashy (couldn't hear that well) tv". Why is it necessary for such a wonderful learning experience for very young children to be corrupted by the political leanings of the production staff. I love pbs's children's programming, British mysteries, McLaughlin report, etc. but keep the political brainwashing away from my children.
Linda & Pasquale D'Aguanno, Palm Coast, FL
It is clear from the anti-vaccine lunatic letters that even more science programs than you usually provide are needed. Hang in there and keep on providing good science programs.
Hattiesburg, MS
As the friend of someone who was paralyzed by Guillain-Barré after a swine flu shot in the 70's (not sure of the year) I can understand the hesitations that people are having. They said then that the vaccine was 'perfectly safe' but one may be forgiven for having doubts. The first family children have gotten their shots, so we can only pray that indeed, this time the vaccine IS perfectly safe.
Karin H., Kona, HI
I understand that 20% of Americans have gone bonkers and are dedicated adherents to the Faux Noise network and its loony on-air "entertainers." I also understand that the rest of us in the 80% should not have to put up with the insanity cultured by the far right for profit-making purposes. Kids' science shows should be off limits to parental misguidance and should remain in the hands of the obviously responsible. Do occasional bad things sometimes happen as a result of generally good things? Yes. Everyone is sorry about that, except maybe trial lawyers, but let's not inject the carefully cultured craziness currently infecting some in the U.S. to color the quality production values of PBS programming.
Dwight Bobson, Washington, DC
I am appalled that pbs chose to weigh in on the vaccination debate this week with a special program targeting preschoolers. Sid the Science guy was more than scientific in his study of vaccines. The message was also strongly motivational, implying a response: go get vaccinated. Parents not preschoolers should have been the recipients of this message. Going forward I regret that I am not able to completely rely on and stand behind pbs' children's programming.
Jamie M. Chicago, IL
All of those who protested the vaccine-oriented children's program are "anti-vaxers". They are science illiterate and get their science information from the University of Google. Vaccines are NOT "controversial" including H1N1 in the view of anyone credible in the science/medical community. If parents "choose" to not vaccinate, it threatens to destroy what is known a herd immunity, so their decision affects more than their own children. If the "choice" is based on ignorance or pseudo-science and defies reason, I don't see why this is held sacrosanct as a parental privilege.
People are free to "believe" (in the religious sense) that there is a vaccine-autism link, but science is right to advise us of their belief (evidence based) that this is not true. PBS should not be cowed into offering unscientific views in the interest of "balance". Criticism in the form of personal anecdote (my baby and I were injured . . .) is hardly a reason to curtail information that will inform young minds.
Janet Camp, Milwaukee, WI
I just watched Sid the Science Kid with my son yesterday. Normally, I love this show. It's fun and educational. But this particular episode was about the flu shot and I found it quite concerning. It was very one-sided and didn't present the fact that there are side effects for every vaccination. It also didn't mention that they don't know the long-term effects of this vaccination or that many flu vaccines still contain thimerosal (which contains mercury) and other potentially harmful chemicals. They also didn't mention that many times the flu vaccine doesn't even protect against the flu because scientists who formulate the vaccine have to make educated guesses about the particular strains coming out each year.
All that was presented was that we all need to get our flu shots to stay healthy. And then they danced around and the worst anyone had to worry about was the little prick of the needle. They did mention hand-washing and coughing into your arm. However, they didn't mention that eating healthy diets, getting plenty of rest and exercise and vitamin D are other more natural ways of boosting our immune systems. I think the natural methods are preferable to injecting our children with dangerous chemicals with questionable effectiveness. If they are going to deal with controversial topics, they need to at least present both sides. I was very disappointed with this episode. I trust PBS to give my child educational, unbiased, intelligent programming or I used to. I'm not so sure anymore.
Cheryl Johnson, Sellersburg, IN
I was watching Inside Washington. I tape it every week and I was so upset at the true spin and lies being spewed, that I've deleted that show from my programming. Specifically, the intro claims that people are "upset because there's no swine flu vaccine". Everyone I speak to have no plans on getting the shot or letting their children get it.
I'm shocked at the brainwashing, convince everyone there's a shortage of something that could leave them with lifelong debilitating effects that hasn't been tested . . . only for efficacy . . . and not for side-effects. What makes this even worse is that your own reply to the "Sid" episode outrage means that you know that most Americans aren't going to get the shot . . . yet the spin was that "people want it but can't get it". Most of us have learned not to trust our Gov't anymore and when it comes to vaccines, the veil of deception is coming off.
Gerri L. Bunnell, Blasdell, NY
The Frontline WARNING was not just excellent journalism but the 1st time in a year that I learned the real story. I hope you will rebroadcast this so I can tape it. Thank you.
Cornelia Cree, Farmers Branch, TX
I'm the Sunday Business editor at The New York Times. I was also interviewed extensively for "The Warning," the Frontline piece you examined on your site today, and I appeared in the documentary as well. I also assigned and edited many of the pieces in the Times' series last year on the financial crisis, "The Reckoning." A couple of thoughts:
1) Frontline did a wonderful job with the program and none of us at the Times have any great concerns with how they marketed the program (i.e., unearthing the "secret history" of the financial crisis, etc.).
2) You credit The Washington Post with actually unearthing the tale of Brooksley Born and the roots of the crisis in a piece they published on October 15, 2008, titled what went wrong. The Post piece was strong and smart but . . .
3) The Times published two lengthy pieces, both of which I edited, on the cover of our Sunday Business section on April 27, 2008 and on our front page on October 9, 2008, that detailed, among other things, Ms. Born's failed efforts to regulate derivatives. And . . .
4) The Wall Street Journal wrote a long cover story, on an even earlier date that I can't recall off the top of my head, about Ms. Born's travails in Washington.
So I don't think that the Post was, indeed, the first to "unearth" the Born episode.
Tim O'Brien, New York, NY
(Ombudsman's Note: Here was my response to Mr. O'Brien: I hope the following doesn't sound too defensive, but I did say that I thought the Post, "and maybe others that I'm not aware of," was way ahead and deserved some mention somewhere in the script. The two NYT stories you refer to were fine pieces but they are both quite long and don't even mention Born until what looks like a couple of thousand words into them. The Post piece stood out because it focused on her at the center of the drama and, when you take a second look at it, is absolutely the closest thing to a template for the Frontline program. It is also the only piece referred to in the "essential background" section of the program's Web site. I didn't credit the Post with actually unearthing the secret history. I know that she has been written about even in the late '90s. The point of the piece was to call Frontline on their promotion, which is widely distributed and quoted and clearly suggests that Kirk unearthed this. I thought it was worth doing that, even though the program, as I said, was excellent.)
Mr. Getler, I enjoyed "the Warning," but I was deeply disappointed by the distorted impression it gave that the financial crisis was caused by OTC derivatives. Frontline either didn't understand the role derivatives played (and didn't play) in the financial crisis or was intent on forcing the facts into a pre-set storyline in which the noble Brooksley Born took on a trio of obtuse curmudgeons who were, for some inexplicable reason given their differing political affiliations and backgrounds, united by a blind obedience to Wall Street.
True, some types of (but not all) OTC derivatives exacerbated Wall St. risk-taking in the mortgage market by providing a false hedge against losses. In this respect, Born accurately foresaw the danger of allowing the swaps market to continue growing without imposing some transparency. The $85B bailout of AIG is a testament to that danger. But the swaps market was neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of the financial crisis, which was rooted in a housing bubble fed by cheap credit, lax mortgage underwriting, a boom in securitization, and rating agency failures, among other things.
Moreover, Frontline utterly failed to explain WHY Greenspan, et al. were opposed to regulation of OTC derivatives. Right or wrong, their reasons were defensible: it wasn't clear the CFTC had the legal authority to regulate private contracts (as all OTC derivatives are) and tossing around the idea of doing so without adequately defining what form the regulation would take was casting a pall on the enforceability of existing contracts. It's not farfetched to suppose that if Born had pushed forward without first getting buy-in from other regulators and market participants, she might have precipitated a major market dislocation in the process.
Frontline also did a major disservice to Greenspan by portraying him as a dupe of a dead pseudo-philosopher (Ayn Rand). I laughed at the ominous music that played toward the end of the piece as Greenspan sits before a Congressional committee purportedly confessing his sins. If Frontline had bothered to read his remarks, they would have known that the errors in judgment Greenspan refers to involve banking regulation, not his spat with Born, which was a pretty peripheral event in a long and significant career as an economic policymaker. In short, I consider Frontline first-rate broadcast journalism, but in this instance, the program fell victim to the shortcomings that afflict much of TV today, namely a myopic focus on personalities and lessons writ large. Such an approach, while it may be entertaining, inhibits informed public discourse on important and complicated issues. PBS viewers expect and deserve better.
Brett D., Yonkers, NY
A couple of qualms about Michael Kirk's film, The Warning. First, the piece strongly inferred that Brooksley Born endured resistance from the WH Working Group because of her gender. But no evidence was presented to support that disparaging idea. Greenspan, Summers, and Geithner are sexists? Really? How exactly does Kirk know this?
At the beginning of the film, Greenspan is described as a protégé and admirer of a woman, Ayn Rand, who is one of the preeminent thinkers in modern economics. Summers and Geithner, viewers are told, are also followers of Rand's free-market philosophy. That seems strange indeed for gentlemen who are supposedly hostile to economic ideas that come from women.
Also, there didn't seem to be any voices in the story that spoke to the virtues of free-market economics. Sure, Greenspan and the others declined — but could no one be found to advocate for the ideas of the free-market philosophy? Are viewers to assume that there is total consensus that Brooksley Born was entirely correct and that her approach is without consequences or risks of its own?
Jim McCarthy, New York City, NY
]]>The episode dealt with youngsters getting vaccinated, something that is depicted as good for them and good for their friends and community. It very carefully, it seems to me, focused on the flu vaccination and did not mention swine flu by name or H1N1, although it does mention at two points the "new flu virus" and the "new flu vaccination." Rather, its central melody sung by the animated Sid and his pals talked about "stopping that virus, that's our goal." They go on to sing, "The virus won't spread if we don't let it, so roll up your sleeve and come and get it" and then later add, "this vaccination is a great opportunity."
Those viewers who wrote were, for the most part, objecting to flu vaccinations generally and the message for children and parents that they felt was conveyed by the program. Given the timing of the program and the enormous publicity being given to the spread of the swine flu and the considerable controversy surrounding the use of a vaccine for that specific strain, the program also struck me, and at least one of those who wrote, as also meant to boost the use of that H1N1 vaccine. This is not a series that I would ordinarily watch. I did so because of the viewer letters and I did come away feeling that certainly one unstated message was to encourage vaccination against H1N1.
When I asked PBS's director of children's programming, Paul Siefken, about this, he said the episode is not an advocacy film about getting the H1N1 shot but rather educational in the sense that the concept of the series is to explore the science behind relevant experiences for many children and the vast majority of kids get vaccinations of all kinds. And, of course, the topic was timely since it is also the annual flu season. So it turned out to be an interesting way and time to talk about vaccines. Siefken adds that the program is never presented as anything but parental choice.
The episode must also have struck others as linked to the battle over the swine flu vaccine. Among the sponsorships for the program is a grant from the Department of Health and Human Services. The HHS grant to "Sid the Science Kid" was also pointed out in a lengthy Newsweek magazine article this week about the government going on "an unprecedented multimedia information campaign" to fight back against "both H1N1 and the lies and misperceptions about the disease."
The magazine reports that the show's executive producer, Lisa Henson, said that she and her colleagues were already interested in doing a show on the topic, but it was HHS's sponsorship that allowed them to produce it on a pushed-up schedule in time for flu season. Siefken said that funding for the program is sought by the producers but that he was not aware of any pressure to mention the H1N1. "There is a flu season every year and vaccination is extremely useful to the majority of parents out there," he said.
That may be so, but perhaps because of the novelty and publicity about this particular strain, polls show that half the population of parents with young children may be choosing not to take this shot even though the overwhelming majority of authoritative information about it from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other sources is that it is safe. The respected FactCheck.org says "claims that 'swine flu' vaccine is dangerous range from seriously overblown to flat-out false" in a detailed and up-to-date analysis posted this month.
On balance, I thought this program was a good, smart and timely public service, but perhaps too clever, at least as I viewed it, in trying to get a specific message across without being specific about what that message was. Perhaps it is precisely because the Sid series is widely viewed as good and educational, and because it is on PBS — which seeks to engender trust among kids and their parents — that you can understand how at least some parents feel as though they were ambushed by a message they perceived as going beyond getting a flu shot.
What follows now are three segments. The first includes the letters from viewers. Then comes the response to those letters from PBS Viewer Services. Then comes some additional explanation from PBS vice president for communications, Lea Sloan, in response to some questions of mine.
It is shameful that PBS Kids is pushing the flu shot issue and agenda of the CDC on 3-year-old children on Sid the Science Kid. You should let parents make their own decisions and not imply that parents are negligent or do not love their children if they do not vaccinate.
Natick, MA
There was an episode of Sid the Science Kid which featured the promotion of flu shots. My baby and I were injured by vaccines in 2007. I don't appreciate this bogus information being displayed for millions of viewers to see. I feel like we are being assaulted all over again. Vaccine injury and death are very real and for you to pass it off like these parents are vaccinating out of sheer "love" for their children is not only ignorant, but downright dangerous . . . start investigating the ingredients in the flu shot. You'll be surprised to find that one of them (beta propiolactone) has been proven by OSHA to cause cancer in humans. Please get educated!! Read "Fear of the Invisible" by Janine Roberts to find out about the vaccine contaminants and what they are doing to our health. Our government officials are fully aware of it and making a killing (no pun intended).
Dawn Crim, Concord, NH
Has the once impenetrable PBS shield of independent programming finally been corrupted by propaganda seekers? I couldn't believe my eyes when I watched in horror as "Sid the Science Kid" and his made up friends get a flu vaccine. As the parent of a child, and yes, as one of many who believes in the link between autism and vaccines, I take offense to allowing such manipulative rubbish into my household. Either put the superb Mister Rogers' Neighborhood back on the air and quit playing with kids' minds or come clean with your viewers and admit that independent programming and PBS no longer jive.
E. Chin, Sandy Hook, CT
Please do not use PBS to send a message about vaccines to our children. There is clearly a variety of opinions about vaccines, especially the swine flu vaccine. Parents should be educating their children about this themselves.
Marietta, GA
I want you to know that the vaccine pushing on your programs are horrible and I will not be watching anymore. It is against my moral and spiritual beliefs to vaccinate. My children would watch Sid the science kid but not anymore. It is wrong for you to take such a stand not everyone wants aborted fetus tissue and toxic chemicals forced into them via "shot" and getting them does NOT equal immunity or healthy. Please do not force this on anyone.
Anne Z, Liberty Twp., OH
I CANNOT believe that Sid the Science Kid was pushing flu shots on the show. This is the worst form of brainwashing I've seen on a child's program to date. Not only are flu shots a miserable representation of science effectiveness, they are loaded with mercury and formaldehyde. I can't wait to see what Sid is pushing next. Maybe, "Yeah! Let's eat high fructose corn syrup!"
Caro, MI
"We regret that you were disappointed with this episode of the series. We have shared your comments with the producers and with PBS' programming executives.
"PBS understands that not every family will choose vaccination and that this is a decision for parents to make. In the episode, the teacher points out that everyone must have a parental consent form in order to get a shot. This program is about the science behind vaccinations, how antibodies work to immunize the body and staying healthy. As a character who explores the science behind the everyday experiences of preschoolers, Sid is a perfect guide to help children understand the science behind germs, viruses and vaccines. The episode also addresses topics such as sneezing into your elbow, effective hand washing and disinfecting common household surfaces to prevent the spread of germs. During a time of year when children hear a great deal about illness and ways to stay healthy, this program offers age-appropriate answers to their questions, including why some people receive vaccinations. It is designed to be relevant for every flu season or other times when a child may have questions about getting sick or getting a shot.
"All PBS KIDS content is created in conjunction with subject experts. For 'Getting a Shot,' the producers worked directly with medical and educational advisors, including Cyrus Rangan, M.D. FAAP ACMT, who is Director of the Toxics Epidemiology Program at the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Public Health, as well as Moisés Román, who serves as the Diversity in Action Chair for the California Association for the Education of Young Children as well as Curriculum Coordinator for UCLA Early Care and Education.
"PBS KIDS helps preschoolers navigate through challenging life experiences, such as getting a shot. Our series have also covered such topics as divorce, a new sibling in the house or losing loved ones. We recognize that these issues may directly affect a child or that they may have been introduced by a friend or classmate.
"Parents, of course, want their children to be healthy, and they will, and should, choose whether or not their children are vaccinated. Children want age-appropriate answers to their questions, including why some people get shots. PBS wants to help create an informed society, foster dialogue, encourage kids to understand their world and empower parents to make choices for their families. An informed citizenry is crucial to our democracy. It's important that people talk about issues that affect their families."
In response to further questions from me about possible advocacy and funding issues, Lea Sloan, PBS vice president for communications, said:
"We emphasize that it is the choice and decision of parents. The episode was created as a way to help children understand what they or their friends/classmates are going through, overcome fears they may have around getting a shot if their families choose to do so, and answer questions they may have around the flu or getting a shot.
"The Jim Henson Company followed specific PBS guidelines to insure editorial independence. PBS guidelines do not allow funders to drive editorial content, thus HHS did not contribute to or review scripts, but underwriters/funders often actively participate in activities to promote the program.
"HHS is not the majority funder for this episode. SID THE SCIENCE KID 'Getting a Shot: You Can Do It!' is funded by First 5 California, The Boeing Company, The Rose Hills Foundation and The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, with additional funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and The Association for Prevention Teaching and Research."
]]>Also this week, I began receiving some early comments about the next Frontline program that aired on Oct. 20. It was called "The Warning." It was about the smart, courageous but unheeded former chief of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Brooksley Born, who warned, in the late 1990s, of a coming economic disaster because of the hidden and unregulated markets in derivatives and other not well understood securities.
This was, in my view, an excellent and powerfully presented program, shedding light on a rare and what turned out to be extremely high-stakes confrontation at the highest levels of government during the Clinton administration in which the woman who lost, Ms. Born, might have helped avert our recent financial calamity had the outcome been different.
But there was one slightly troubling thing about this, less about the broadcast itself than about its promotion and description by Frontline. In introducing this film online, Frontline says this: "In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008."
It's the "unearths the hidden history" part that I take some exception to, and that's because anyone who reads The Washington Post may well remember a major, triple-bylined, 4,400-word front-page story exactly one year ago, on Oct. 15, 2008, headlined "What Went Wrong."
Here's the way it began: "A decade ago, long before the financial calamity now sweeping the world, the federal government's economic brain trust heard a clarion warning and declared in unison: You're wrong.
"The meeting of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets on an April day in 1998 brought together Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. — all Wall Street legends, all opponents to varying degrees of tighter regulation of the financial system that had earned them wealth and power.
"Their adversary, although also a member of the Working Group, did not belong to their club. Brooksley E. Born, the 57-year-old head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, had earned a reputation as a steely, formidable litigator at a high-powered Washington law firm. She had grown used to being the only woman in a room full of men. She didn't like to be pushed around."
When I asked Frontline producers how come the Post story didn't get some mention or reference in "The Warning," they pointed out that there were links to it in the Analysis and Readings sections of the Web site. That's true, and it's also true, I would add, that Born had declined to talk to the Post last year but was interviewed in-person on the Frontline program. Nevertheless, I don't think Frontline, as good as this program was, "unearthed" the hidden history of this crisis nor Born's role at the center of it. I think the Post, and maybe others that I'm not aware of, was way ahead and deserved some reference somewhere in the script.
Now, back to the letters about last week's column on the controversial footage in "Obama's War" and some early letters about "The Warning."
Thank you for your input on this topic. I started reading with very mixed feelings and no strong opinion in favor, but leaning a little to "poor taste." I didn't watch the program because I read a lot and am "war weary" at this point (health care weary as well). Your column succinctly makes the case for public informedness with appropriate guidelines. I might still favor letting the family have the final say if the person in question has been publicly identified as being the person in program-specific footage.
This reminds me of something similar. I read of the dead soldiers and feel sad, I see their pictures at the end of NewsHour, when they are shown, and tears well up. The impact is much greater with the image. Impact matters if those of us who aren't personally involved are going to understand the consequences for those who ARE involved.
Janet Camp, Milwaukee, WI
Thank you for the article on the Frontline presentation of Obama's War. I've lived through WW II and all the wars since, so I did not choose to watch it. In principal, though, I totally agree with you that reporters should show us the horrors of war. It is not pretty, it is not as clean as it sometimes appears today and people need to know that death in war is horrible. Sometimes it becomes necessary, but we would be far better served to avoid commitment to wars that are not required to defend the safety of our country. As to the title, how could anyone dispute the obvious fact that it has become Obama's war to oversee?
Olive Lohrengel, Buda, TX
I agree wholeheartedly with your judgment on this. I also agree that our recent wars have been much too sanitized. War reporting must include the deaths on both sides, it seems to me, or the public is not being fully informed or properly served. The Marine's father says it well.
Bruce Nelan, Rockville, MD
Here, Here to everything you wrote. If anything I would strengthen it. This is war. It is awful. It is horrible and brutal. It is the truth and it is reality. Not to show it is a lie. I'm so sick and tired of this war pornography that makes war look like a video game. And what about the victims, the tens of thousands of people we murder and maim? It's gotten so bad you will see more violence watching NFL football on Sundays.
Tom Felt, Tucson, AZ
Explicit images of a soldier dying have absolutely nothing to do with mislabeling a war. One is a lapse in common decency, and the other is a lapse in intellectual honesty. What's the point of being an ombudsman if you're just going to defend this kind of junk? Frontline has hit plenty of home runs over the years, but it has also struck out in pretty spectacular fashion. Unfortunately, the show fails to grow. I suspect that's because all the pieces are farmed out, and in fact, Frontline is actually just a front for several independent production companies. I doubt you'll be writing about that.
Dave Parks, Birmingham, AL
I couldn't disagree with you more about calling this episode OBAMA'S WAR. It makes it seem like PBS has just been taken over by Fox. Certainly it gives the impression that it's President Obama who's guilty of creating this nightmare and then making it worse by ineptitude that further botched it up. The program should have been called something like, "BUSH'S WAR, OBAMA'S HEADACHE." You may think that by trying to undo the damage, President Obama is "owning" this war, but he's just trying to clean up the mess that should have been his predecessor's responsibility. I could hardly believe that PBS would use such an inappropriate title. NOW where do we turn for "fair and balanced" reporting?
Holly Helmstetter, Antwerp, NY
Re: President Obama's War: The title of this piece is poorly chosen. It implies that he started the war. As he has only been in office for 10 months of the over 8 years and he has not announced his new strategy or goals, it is misleading. I will definitely watch it. But what about the people who do not and those who do not have the journalistic ethics that PBS has had that will be more than happy to use the title to blur history and the mismanagement of the start of this war and the back burner that it has been put on so we could invade Iraq?
Donna K., Berkley, MI
It appears to never fail that when a new President takes office all of the blame for the previous administration gets imposed on him. Obama did not start this war. Cheney and Bush and his minions have dropped the ball and put this country in such a deep hole, it is more like a chasm. It will take more then one term to try and undo or remedy the disastrous condition Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and that good ole boy network left this country.
Ginger Ferrer, Manchester, NH
FrontLine always reminds me of what journalism should be and how much is missing from the media networks. I had the privilege of watching two great shows, Obama's War and The Warning, in just a few short days. If only Frontline were H1N1 it might infect the other media outlets with their virus of intelligent investigating and reporting. Will it ever happen, or is Fox the rabid carrier of our day.
Michael Sheridan, San Diego, CA
I was watching PBS last night, the program about the current situation with Afghanistan and Pakistan. I was greatly disturbed that the f-word was left in, clear as a bell, THREE times in less than thirty seconds. I reported it to the FCC (because I doubt PBS's elitist leftist program managers would care to do anything about it otherwise). Normally, I allow my children to watch SOME of PBS's programming, but it's falling on my popularity list. I can tolerate some of the socialist indoctrination, but I will not tolerate profanity of that magnitude.
Daniel Hennis, Kuna, ID
First, Frontline is my most favorite program on all of television. I'm not sure of your political party interests, nor do I particularly care. But I'm sure you know that way back when the severe left wing liberals at one time controlled PBS. As of lately, the last 10 years or so, programming on PBS changed, very much for the better. Before the last decade all that was on PBS was music shows and other "crap" that nobody could care less for, except for the deep hearted liberal interests. Well now I can usually find something on PBS, almost every night that I find interesting.
All I want is unbiased, center of the road reporting to be done by Frontline reporters. Let's take the last report, "Obama's War," for example. When Frontline covered "Bush's War" last year, he was dragged through the coals! In this past report, there was no mention of the billions being spent each month, like in last year's report. There was no mention that Obama promised to get our soldiers out of Iraq, nothing at all was said that was contrary to Obama's policies. Don't be afraid to tackle Obama. You didn't mind doing the tough reporting when it came to Bush.
Hutchinson, KS
Well, how long did it take Vietnam to become "Nixon's War"? My recollection is that it was Nixon's war by the time of the November 1969 "Vietnam Moratorium" marches given much press coverage at the time.
Mark Richard, Columbus, OH
My hat's off to PBS for broadcasting on Frontline — "The Warning." Brooksley Born is a true American hero to have the knowledge, integrity and foresight to challenge the debacle of the derivatives market. Great viewing — keep up the good work.
John Robitaille, Glastonbury, CT
I'm a longtime PBS supporter and would like to strongly commend the Frontline report on the financial meltdown and Brooksley Born. First-rate reporting.
Cedar Rapids, IA
I just finished watching Frontline's special "The Warning" and wanted to provide my feedback. This type of journalism is what has assisted the collapse of this country. You guys were either afraid or lacked the balls or possibly were ignorant of the facts behind this story. Greenspan is part of the Global Elite and the New World Order and he along with his . . . comrades in government intentionally have played out a plan of collapsing the American Empire. You failed to go to this level of reporting. Our country will collapse within the next two years and you guys are partly to blame. Did any of the reporters make the connection about the Bankers Trust and who had control of this Bank? Of course not.
Moyock, NC
]]>Rather, the tough but proper decision, in my view, was to include footage of the fatal wounding of 20-year-old Marine Lance Cpl. Charles S. Sharp early in July while on patrol with his company in Helmand Province, a Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan that is one of the most dangerous areas in the country. The footage appears just minutes into the film as freelance photographer Danfung Dennis, joined later by veteran Frontline correspondent Martin Smith, travels with the Marine company that was part of a big build-up of U.S. forces there this past summer.
In mid-September, a relative of the young Marine wrote to me expressing "concern" about the footage to be used in the then forthcoming documentary and its effect on the family. I passed this along to Frontline producers at PBS-member station WGBH in Boston, and this was followed up, according to a chronology supplied by Frontline producers, by a series of contacts between the producers and the family.
The chronology also lists earlier contacts in August with Marine Corps press officers in Afghanistan and at Camp Lejeune, NC, the home-base for Sharp's unit, informing them that Frontline "would like to air the Sharp footage." Officers in Afghanistan, the chronology reports, expressed no opinion about the footage and at Camp Lejeune, public affairs officials said they had informed the family about Frontline's intentions and "there was no indication of any objection from the family," according to the chronology.
Then on Tuesday, just hours before the Frontline broadcast was to be aired, I received a copy of a letter sent to PBS President and CEO, Paula Kerger, from Marine Corps Col. B. F. Salas, Director of Public Affairs.
"I wanted to write and urge you to remove the explicit imagery of Marine Lance Corporal Seth Sharp in his dying moments from the PBS report 'Obama's War.' It is without question the right of PBS under the rules of embedded journalism to include this imagery in this program and distribute it globally and inform the public. There is no disagreement on this count, and we in the Marine Corps' public affairs community share your mission.
"However, I would appeal to you on the basis of journalistic good taste not to include this imagery. The media does not show graphic imagery of drunken driving victims, much less use material accompanied by their name that shows their face and the horrible circumstances of their vulnerable moment of loss. This should be the standard applied also to this case. War and combat operations like the one Lance Cpl. Sharp and his unit were involved with involve daily exposure to horrors and abject terror that is unspeakable.
"America counts on journalists to inform them accurately of these realities, and to convey in some measure by their reporting, the courage of those citizens who seek to protect the innocent and defend our interests. An accomplished storyteller can inform us without resorting to graphic imagery or what might be termed 'combat pornography.'"
"The footage documenting the mortal wounding of Marine Lance Corporal Seth Sharp is an extraordinary reminder to viewers of the remarkable sacrifices made by American troops and exemplifies the formidable challenges on the ground in Afghanistan at a time when coverage of the war is dominated by policy arguments in Washington.
"These images were captured in accordance with the military's guidelines for embedded media, which read, 'Photography from a respectful distance or from angles at which a casualty cannot be identified is permissible.' In the battle scene, the camera is not intrusive; it stays at a respectful distance, and Lance Cpl. Sharp's face is completely obscured.
"On October 13, Rick Sharp, Lance Cpl. Sharp's father, appeared on 'The Takeaway,' a Public Radio International program, and said he did not object to this footage being shown. When asked why, he answered, 'Just so the story could be seen of what our men and women are having to do to give us our freedom, the stuff that we take for granted every day, that it's not an easy job that they're having to do.'
"In telling its story of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 'Obama's War' is meant to honor all the men and women who are risking their lives each day and to give the American public a sense of their exceptional courage. I greatly appreciate your sharing your concerns with me, and I thank you for your service to our nation."
I'm with PBS on this. The showing of mortally wounded American servicemen and women has been a vexing problem for news organizations for a long time. Just last month, there was considerable controversy over a photo of another young Marine fatally shot in combat in Afghanistan that was distributed by the Associated Press. Defense Secretary Robert Gates even got involved in that one personally and publicly. Some news organizations ran it, others did not. Some others published it only online rather than in print editions. My colleague and fellow ombudsman at Stars and Stripes, Mark Prendergast, wrote what I felt was a thoughtful column about that episode at the time.
Col. Salas, in his letter, agrees that the Frontline correspondents were acting under established rules, but he makes his appeal on the basis of "journalistic good taste." I don't agree with that, and I think Salas's use of the phrase "combat pornography" is not helpful or appropriate. I don't think there is any way that you could put Frontline's treatment of this tragic moment in that category. As a viewer, one suffers for the terrible fate of this young Marine three months ago. But you don't see his face and wouldn't know his name except for his buddies calling out his nickname in an effort to keep him struggling to survive long enough to get him evacuated.
Death is part of the story of war and, if anything, America's battles in the last 15 years have been far too sanitized, in my opinion. Those battles, ever since President Nixon moved the country to an all volunteer force in 1973, have been fought by a tiny fraction of Americans. The idea that your son or daughter might have to serve has been taken off the table for the overwhelming majority of American families, shielding almost all of us from the real costs and emotions of the battlefield.
In the first Gulf War in 1991, and in smaller earlier skirmishes in Grenada and Panama in the 1980s, U.S. defense and military officials did their best to keep reporters and photographers from seeing anything, especially at the beginning of these operations. There were rules for many years preventing photographing of returning flag-draped coffins at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, and there has actually been very little photographic record of U.S. combat fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan published in the American press.
Nobody is advocating not playing by the rules of notifying next of kin first, not using visibly identifiable images, and being respectful of families. But just as the military has a serious, and often dangerous role in our society, so do reporters and photographers in recording the wars that our government has committed us to. And it is the news organization's decision whether to publish these.
You can argue about whether the all-volunteer force is a good idea, or whether it is too small, or whether it makes it easier politically to commit troops to battle. Personally, I think it does make it easier. But I don't think the press ought to shy away from recording, in full and with respect, what this means, nor to contribute to further shielding American readers and viewers from the realities of combat.
Several viewers in recent weeks, having seen the promotion for the Frontline program, have written to complain about the title. After all, the argument goes, it was President George W. Bush who invaded Afghanistan in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks but who rather quickly switched focus and resources to attacking Iraq, a country that did not attack us, without finishing the job in Afghanistan.
I think that is a valid argument. On the other hand, President Obama has steadily affirmed the importance of the war in Afghanistan and quite recently described it as a "war of necessity." That is a strong term. He has appointed new diplomats and military leaders and adopted a new strategy, and he now faces crucial decisions on the future size of the U.S. military commitment. So I think it is fair to say that it now has become Obama's war and the public generally understands how this has come about, although the documentary falls a bit short when it comes to the history of foreign powers in Afghanistan.
That, however, seems a minor flaw, in my opinion. This struck me as an excellent film, in keeping with Frontline's tradition of strong examinations of frontline issues. As the eighth anniversary of the war came and went, there has been a step-up in reporting from and about Afghanistan in newspapers and on television, which is all to the good.
But this hour-long Frontline exploration struck me as uniquely valuable: solid reporting and analysis on all sides that conveys the almost maddening complexity of any approach; a sizable segment devoted to Pakistan's involvement-without which it is impossible to understand the challenge that the war presents; especially timely because of the decisions now awaiting the president, and the luxury of an hour of uninterrupted, logical presentation that allows one to make more sense of this than you can get by short bursts of reporting elsewhere.
Most of the letters about the series are very positive, which is not surprising since Burns is perhaps the premier television documentarian of our history and culture, and certainly the most productive. A fair number of those who wrote, however, found fault, especially in what they perceived as an excessive element of religion that co-mingled with the narrative of natural beauty and the struggle to preserve it within a national system. There were other criticisms as well. Any project of this scope and duration will naturally attract differing points of view. As a viewer of Burns' projects over the years, I've always felt that whatever flaws they may contain, it was far better, in the end, to have had these documentary projects than not to have them; they represent an extraordinary body of work that will endure.
The shortest of all the letters printed below comes from a viewer in Detroit who says that the series was too much in too short a space; jamming six two-hour segments back to back for almost a week was just too much forced viewing. I had the same feeling. It would have been better, I thought, to have spaced these out more to once or twice a week to help make each segment stand out, especially because the tone, pace and style of every nightly offering seemed similar, hence a sense of repetition. There is no doubt that this had very high viewership at the start, but it made me wonder how many people actually stuck with it. PBS officials say they hope to have some stats on this by the end of the month.
I am writing to express my gratitude after watching, Ken Burns' documentary. I am not sure how to express my charmed delight in this film series. I watched each night and then on Sunday to once again partake of this extraordinary footage. It is as though someone handed me an intricate connect the dots drawing and then magically connected them before my eyes adding color and dimension to reveal a landscape so rapturous that words cannot describe. I have visited 18 of the 58 parks. My husband and I hope to visit all of them in this lifetime.
Kathleen Edwards, Tampa, FL
I just wanted to express my profound gratitude for the National Parks series. It was probably the most dazzling and emotionally stirring program we've ever watched, and PBS has had quite a few of those. Thank you for letting us experience such beauty interwoven with such an exciting history of the evolution of our National Parks. I would have liked to have sent a personal note of thanks to Mr. Burns, but I am sure you'll convey to him our eternal gratitude for the lovely program.
Katy, TX
The National Parks series was a wonder to behold. The beauty that each park brought to the series was nature at its best. To bad that there were so many narrow minded people at its onset of creation (Park Service). Finally PBS has brought back memories of what PBS had started sooo long ago. I remember the nature series, the science series the most. Hope to see more (Nova) style programming. Again kudos on the Park series, and thank you for taking the time to read this.
Bernard Brodeur, Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada
I want to thank Ken Burns for a wonderful series. What would Muir, Mather, Murie and other pioneers think now I wonder, especially in Alaska where wolves are being shot by hunters in helicopters. I think this film should be shown in schools. Also Peter Coyote was a great narrator.
Norma Harris, Warminster, PA
I love the Ken Burns series — I have been glued to it long after I should be in bed. I was especially taken with the short segment on the work of Chiura Obata. When I search for his name online I find very little: I hope someone out there will produce more for the public on this amazing artist.
Trenton, NJ
I thoroughly enjoyed The National Parks series this past week and recorded it so I can view it again and share it with friends. It prompted the following question/suggestion: Are PBS programs available via the Armed Services TV network? My son is serving in the Air Force in South Korea, and he and his colleagues deserve to be able to see the many marvelous programs PBS offers. I could find no way to contact either the AFN or Ken Burns in this instance to make this suggestion to them. I hope you can either tell me that PBS programming is already available to the military deployed abroad or that you will take steps to move the suggestion toward the desks of appropriate people at PBS and the AFN in hopes of making that a reality.
Barbara Blomgren, La Jolla, CA
(Ombudsman's Note: It's on AFN. Here's a link to the schedule.)
I have visited many of our national parks and was looking forward to this week's series. I have been absolutely appalled at the plethora of totally unnecessary religious references to the mythical Christian deity and savior. I have always thought that PBS should be a place that is grounded in science and reality. When did the Christian cult that has taken over our government and destroyed our country's economy also gain control of PBS?
Richard Feldman, Pomona, CA
When I read about the series on our national parks, I asked my husband to record the series. We watched part of episode one, and I got so annoyed I had to quit watching! I wanted to see the majesty of our parks, not hear religious sermonizing. My husband deleted the rest of the series from our recordings. What a huge disappointment!
Susan Robinson, Modesto, CA
The Ken Burns series on national parks really got carried away emphasizing religion in connection with geology and beauty. I realize some do believe in the supernatural but many do not and it became apparent that they were emphasizing this connection every time they could. Sad.
Ramona Memmer, Seattle, WA
To reiterate: "Many famous environmentalists, unlike John Muir, felt the natural world was enough for them: 'above us only sky,' as John Lennon put it. Environmentalists such as Aldo Leopold roundly rejected religion. We hope as your series continues that there will be an acknowledgment of the many of us who treasure and support our national parks who are not religious, who have a devotion to this world, our only world, instead of to some unseen, speculative afterworld and its 'creator.'"
Ruthe Milan, W. Bloomfield, MI
I would very much like to know why it is that a documentary mini-series about our national park system has to include offensive sectarian comments and lyrics. We are living in the 21st Century and comments in favor of any particular religion or favoring religion over irreligion demonstrate intolerance and a complete disregard for the rights of the viewing public. Maybe Ken Burns should just limit himself to producing materials for religious organizations.
John Ross, Washington, DC
This Burns doc is a complete waste of time and an embarrassment to him and you. How much did you pay for this overwrought garbage? He easily could have shrink this doc-by-the-number from what, 30 hours, to one or two hours. Boring, self-indulgent drivel. I mean, who cares? Using up Tivo space for what? I'm sure this 30 hours of programming could have been much better used for actual docs that say something to us, not two hours on John Muir and endless photos of people driving through towns on buggies or nature shots. A total commentary on the irrelevance of PBS as well as the lack of self-restraint on Burns' part. Guess he has read so many overflowing with BS praise about himself he thinks anything he throws out there will be fascinating. It's such a waste of time and resources. He should give the money back and you should give your self-praise back. Real mediocre crap and so much of it. Who do you think you are, Bush?
Frank Fong, Yosemite, CA
What an extraordinary series. Until the last event. Why, Oh! WHY did you have to insert the black propaganda into this exceptional series. It just destroyed the last Chapter and left me unsettled and took away the perfectness of the program. These poor people . . . who have made unbelievable strides in the last 50 years to be normal like everyone in the USA . . . and you insert all that repulsive derogatory nonsense. What in God's name did their morally repugnant past have to do with the beauty of the Parks? What possible motive did the Editor have for allowing such unrelated footage to be inserted into something so incredibly beautiful. That section completely eliminated my desire to purchase the series for my grandchildren.
Frances Smith, Knoxville, TN
While I like the National Parks feature by Ken Burns, I do not like his anti-white and anti-American position and I like it even less when he spews his discriminatory anti-isms in his films. Criticizing what people did to other people centuries ago without the benefit of having walked in their shoes in their time is stupid and meaningless. Criticizing only whites is discriminatory. Insinuating that America is the only bad country to have ever existed is hypocritical. If Ken Burns does not like whites and/or America, why doesn't he move to the Congo? The answer is freedom and money. That is why I do not voluntarily financially support Ken Burns or PBS.
Fred Tessier, Las Vegas, NV
I must say, the "Parks" is a good story, except for the last part about "Civil Rights." I am sick and tired of every production on PBS to be centered around civil rights. If you see and listen to anything educational like a documentary as The National Parks, racism or the thought of racism is invoked into the story. Why can't we tell the story, and let black, white, Asian be who they are. It's time to drop the civil rights movement. Let's start the American movement.
Paul W., Spanish Fort, AL
I would prefer the National Parks programs to have been more widely spaced apart/out . . . perhaps one or two a week rather than jammed in on one week . . . I simply don't want to devote a week to full time TV viewing.
Detroit, MI
I am watching National Parks. I also work at Historic Mill Creek, which is part of the Mackinac State Historic Parks in Michigan. I think it is a gross omission of the program that no mention has been made of the fact that Mackinac Island was made the second national park in 1875 only after Yellowstone and maintained by the Department of War or that there was a concerted effort by islanders and vacationers there to preserve it as a park when the Army planned to leave Fort Mackinac in 1895 without regard for its uniqueness. It was only then transferred to Michigan as the first State Park before there even was a Michigan State Park system. Even most Michiganders do not know this history.
Richard Amacher, Rochester Hills, MI
Unable to visit the Parks due to financial and time limitations from farming, I was in high hopes of seeing the much hyped program. Repeatedly, the previews showed beautiful panoramic photography of amazing places beyond my comprehension. Those photos though, must have been the compilation of all the color photos in all the segments put together! I patiently wait through all the black and white stills, repeated shots of narrators, and history of Yellowstone and Yosemite, for a 30 second glimpse of a park in color, every half hour or so, as I thought the program would highlight! It is torturous. Even my old book of Yellowstone shows more colorful beauty than hours and hours of Ken Burns' take on this treasure. Even his choice of music is wrong. Music suitable for the Civil War does not cross over to the 30's and WPA projects in parks.
Dee Marie Moore, North Manchester, IN
I am watching the final part of Ken Burns' The National Parks. This is so awesome that I cannot find words to express my appreciation for this work. Part 5 got to my period of recognition: CCC & FDR. I felt more comfortable with that one. It is being repeated each night, so I have often watched twice on the same night. I was wishing for more about wildlife, but the Florida everglades with the incredible birds and now the wolf in the snow have gotten to what I was hoping to see.
I am one of those people who does not need to see my local station identified or be reminded of what I am seeing. Thank you for publishing some of the mail with the same complaints. Other than that, Nevada Barr, one of my favorite authors, showed up in one of the segments, and they didn't even mention that she was the author of several books set in the parks where she had served — Mesa Verde, Big Bend, and others. If you read her novels, you almost feel like you are there. The park rangers are blessed to be able to work in the parks and their love for the parks shows through in what they say and write.
Olive Lohrengel, Buda, TX
Just another vote against the pop-ups during the National Parks Program. Others have eloquently made the case that we don't need these reminders, they're annoying, detract from the visual beauty and are a reminder that PBS today is not the wonderful PBS of yesteryear.
Marian Grant, Reisterstown, MD
I just found this ombudsman service while looking at some of the searches that found my blog. I recently posted about all six episodes of the National Parks series. I also find the use of this "TV bug" very annoying. It seems to be a common industry trend. Since PBS is not commercial I would hope that our contributions would keep these annoying commercial trends off the PBS screen.
Lisle, IL
Maybe I have become so accustomed to the afore-mentioned "pop-ups," that I no longer even notice them. There is a related topic, however, that I do find to be annoying. It is the habit PBS seems to have acquired from the national networks and elsewhere, of minimizing the end credits of a program and running promos for future episodes or other programs below. You should realize that as the music plays and the credits role, it is an opportunity for the viewer to meditate on what he or she has just seen, while still under its powerful spell. This practice is a disservice to the profound and contemplative nature of a series like "National Parks," and betrays a surprising lack of sophistication on the part of PBS.
Barry Anglin, Oklahoma City, OK
PBS is supposed to be neutral and report to the people in a balanced way. There is no balance at all, it is completely under the influences of the establishment and corporations. Every night we are obliged to watch commercials for the oil companies. Every night we have retired generals and political hawks discussing Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Why do we never, ever hear from anti-war leaders? Why is there never a voice of Amnesty or the Peace movement. My taxes go to pay for the propaganda PBS puts out? We get 30 minutes of business news for the rich every night and never a program of 5 minutes about Unions or the homeless or women's rights. There's no integrity at all in PBS reporting. The producers and announcers are lackeys and a disgrace.
John Dunnicliff, Escondido, CA
Mr. Getler, I do not know why you want this job! It is certainly a thankless task in many respects. PBS needs to do a better job of making it clear that the stations are independent and can run anything they want. I, too, have been offended at programming offered by my local station and did not understand the situation until reading about it here. If PBS can run endless promos for reruns of Sherlock Holmes, and run explanations of the digital changeover ad nauseum, perhaps they could spare some time to make this clear. Of course, if there weren't so many pledge breaks, there wouldn't be so much of this questionable programming, would there?
As to the Jewish person in Maine, I really had to laugh. Ken Burns' programs are run, rerun, rererun and then start all over again for YEARS. You WILL get to see the thing, believe me. Just for the record, I would not have a problem watching a worthwhile program on Christmas; in fact, our family go to a movie on Christmas every year. We have not been struck dead yet.
To the 9/11 people I really do not know what to say but I hope they will all apologize for skewering you for supposedly not watching the film.
About the "bug" thing: I got fed up with all that long ago (and all the reruns and pledge drives) and killed my television. Of course I do have friends and family so I do see television, so that's why I read this column.
Janet Camp, Milwaukee, WI
We were all hypnotized into believing that two commercial aircraft struck the World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001. While we imagined the jet fueled fire for over an hour someone responsible for surreptitiously placing enough explosive to bring down the building(s) set it off. A "deceptive controlled demolition." If I understand the claim correctly that is pretty much what is being claimed by the 9/11: Blueprint for Truth group.
No competent engineer would look at the available video of the fire and collapse and form any conclusion regarding the cause. The official conclusion makes sense and is supportable by the facts without a lot of complicated explanation. A large plane loaded with jet fuel struck the building blowing insulation off of the structural steel. The jet fuel and whatever was available as fuel in the building burned until the steel failed causing one floor to drop on to the next again and again!
I reject the 9/11: Blueprint for Truth explanation as too complicated, requiring far too many conspirators with rare even singular capabilities. When, in the real world has a deceptive controlled demolition ever been used? That is the most moronic of oxymorons. An explosion has no need to be deceptively controlled it need only be controlled and you not be caught lighting the fuse and you can effectively deny responsibility leaving open the wink, wink nod, nod option for future threats. A perfect surreptitious explosion demands a new perfect one every time you wish to make a point. One that can be attributed to you but not pinned on you is far more valuable. The ability to create the former does not exist. The ability to create the latter now that is a different story. Come up with one bit of evidence and I am on board.
Keep up the good work! Do Not Resign!!
Michael Knight, Tampa, FL
Nice October column. I read your column as a public television viewer and lawyer. The people who think that the WTC attack was an "inside job" by our government are true lunatics who choose to ignore extraordinary amounts of detailed objective evidence as to what happened. In particular, the assertion that the towers were demolished by explosives is incredible. By coincidence I recently stumbled on an authoritative explanation in laypersons' language as to why that could not possibly have been the case. "Objectivity and balance" certainly does not require that the theories of psychotics and the truly ignorant should be given airtime, especially without contemporaneous rebuttal. Anyway, thanks for your work.
Washington, DC
]]>The sweeping, six-part, 12-hour documentary series by Ken Burns, "The National Parks: America's Best Idea," is still running at the time of this posting, so I'm going to save some of this week's mail commenting on the project until it's over and then pull it all together. On the other hand, most of the mail about the series received in my mailbag so far deals with two issues that have more to do with PBS and nothing to do with the substance of the Burns film.
One involves the decision to debut the highly publicized and promoted series last Sunday evening, Sept. 27, which is also the beginning, at sundown, of Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.
The other is the decision to flash what is called in TV lingo a "bug" on the lower left side of the screen every 15 minutes or so, throughout the entire series. Actually, it's more than a bug. First, the standard, glowing PBS logo appears, which qualifies as a bug. Then, a line appears that says: "Presents a Film by Ken Burns." Then the title, "The National Parks: America's Best Idea," is presented. It winds up with a second PBS logo just for good measure.
I'll come back to these two issues in a moment, but first a brief guide to two other subjects that are included in this week's rather long Mailbag.
One involves viewer response to a half-hour documentary titled "Autism: We Thought You'd Never Ask." All of the mail I got was critical but this was not a PBS program — no logo at all on this one. I haven't seen this film and have no real idea how many member stations have used it. As I've reported many times in this column, PBS's 350 or so member stations are all independent and can broadcast whatever they choose. This film was produced by a company in Boulder, Colo., called Landlocked Films and was distributed by the National Educational Telecommunications Association (NETA), which is also a membership organization, much smaller (93 members) than PBS, that also serves public broadcasting license holders. I passed along these complaints to NETA, and a representative sampling of the letters and a response from NETA appear below.
The largest flow of e-mail to me this week was aimed at me, specifically for what I said in my column last week about a film titled "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" that also was not a PBS project but that was used by a member station, KBDI, in Denver, Colo., as part of a fund-raising pledge drive. The film, the official description says, "offers evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rises were destroyed not by fire and damage, per the official story, but by explosive-controlled demolitions on September 11, 2001."
The mail I received was all critical. A sampling appears below along with a brief synopsis of my view.
Now, back to "The National Parks." When I asked PBS about the two complaints mentioned at the top of this column, I was told that they were answering viewers this way:
On the issue of timing: "Since Yom Kippur begins at sundown on September 27, episode one of NATIONAL PARKS, 'The Scripture of Nature,' will air multiple times throughout its premiere day, beginning as early as noon in some areas, including New York, Los Angeles, Orlando, Cleveland, Phoenix, Minneapolis and many others. Please check your local listings.
"In addition, PBS will stage marathon viewings on the weekend following the film's debut, and the series will be rebroadcast on PBS World Channel following the original broadcast. A Web page dedicated to the series has been launched at www.pbs.org/nationalparks, and each episode will begin streaming the day after its broadcast premiere through the week following the broadcast of the final episode broadcast, October 2. PBS will rebroadcast the full-six part series in early 2010."
Here's how they are answering viewers who don't like the on-screen displays: "We are sorry you disliked the title and PBS logo 'bugs' in the lower left screen. These on-screen markers are included to let viewers know what they are watching and on which network. We do our best not to be intrusive and appreciate your thoughts on the matter."
I find both situations regrettable and maybe avoidable, although the latter is easy for me to say. PBS officials told me that the date was nobody's first choice and nobody was happy about it. They say that several factors were involved including a late falling Labor Day, the need for on-air promotion time after Labor Day, the Emmy Awards broadcast on another network on Sunday the 20th, and even the baseball playoffs in early October. I also don't know how clear it was to viewers in those cities that this program would air before sundown, or how many are not in the habit of watching during daylight hours. I am sure that anyone who wants to catch up with part one can easily do so. Still, it seems like a strange decision; to pick this one out of all the Sunday nights in the fall to start this extraordinary series.
As for the "bug" explanation, I will share a laugh with all the e-mailers and callers who voiced their annoyance with this tactic. The explanation is actually more annoying than the repetitious on-screen display. Is there any TV viewer on this planet that doesn't know, and hasn't been told dozens of times on every conceivable platform, that Ken Burns produced "The National Parks" for PBS? I, personally, did not find the displays very intrusive, at first, and I guess there is a case to be made that some person isolated in a cabin for the last six months and surfing the screen would come across this and not know what he or she was watching. But after a while, it does get annoying, especially on big screens. It seems like endless promotion. We get it. PBS-Burns-Parks. We know what we are watching.
I am writing to complain about the complete lack of sensitivity by PBS to the most important Jewish Holiday when a decision was made to schedule the first segment of the upcoming Ken Burns National Park documentary. The first 2-hour segment of this exciting program is due to be broadcast the night of Yom Kippur, September 27.
I am a National Park Service employee and I was eagerly looking forward to watching this important series about the agency that I have been working for my whole career. Unfortunately, I won't be able to watch the introductory segment because I'll be participating in the evening service at my synagogue (I don't have the capability of taping the program) and will need to find someone who did record it.
I realize that PBS can't take into account all religious holidays when programming, but I dare say, no one at PBS would ever have considered starting such an important series on Easter or Christmas Eve. Overlooking the start of this important Jewish holiday is so very surprising from such a broad-minded media organization. I am truly very disappointed in the lack of consideration by PBS.
Bar Harbor, ME
Just a note that I am seriously disappointed that you decided to schedule the first episode of Ken Burns' National Parks series on the evening of Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. It is probably the one day when the majority of Jews are in a synagogue.
I am curious why the series' launch could not have been delayed by one week?
El Cerrito, CA
I want to express my concern with the scheduling of the National Park series commencing this Sunday night. This Sunday night is a very holy days for those of Jewish faith. This would be equivalent to scheduling on Christmas Eve. The lack of sensitivity is indeed disappointing.
Fredric Meyer, Rochester, MN
You are currently running these magnificent films of our national parks by Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan and every fifteen minutes up pops your PBS logo with the announcement that this is "A film by Ken Burns," right in the middle of some of the most gorgeous scenery in America, scenery that these films are mostly about and should not be spoiled by this kind of interfering, crass commercialism.
Joe Carder, Tucson, AZ
I am thoroughly enjoying the latest Ken Burns effort. The images are wonderful and the story is engaging. I am thoroughly disgusted with the constant interruption of the images and story with station icons, with PBS icons and with Ken Burns icons. They destroy the magic of the program with "Hey! Look at Me, Look at Me!" I know I am watching PBS, I know I am watching Channel 21, I know I am watching Ken Burns' The National Parks! I tuned into this channel, I desired to see his documentary and I took the steps necessary to do it. I know where I am and what I am doing. I don't need the constant reminders, they distract from any consistent flow in enjoyment. I can't imagine that Mr Burns wants these distractions in his work. Certainly tell us who made the documentary, who supported the documentary and who is broadcasting the documentary at the beginning and at the end. Allow the artists to present their work as they created it! I can't tell you how annoying this is. If you would like I could get a list of 40 to 50 people I know who feel the same way.
Michael Brockmeyer, Madison, WI
The first episode of Ken Burns' National Park series was as wonderful as we have come to expect. But why, oh why, must we see, every 10 minutes or so, a flashing sign in the bottom left of our screen informing us that we are watching Ken Burns' America's Best Idea on PBS. For heaven's sake, we know that! And the constant intrusion of that irritating gaudiness on the beautiful park scenery is all too reminiscent of the commercial attempts to take over the parks being documented in the series. Begone with this!
Don Bishoff, Eugene, OR
Awed and amazed, I've just watched the first segment of Ken Burns's National Parks series. Magnificent work. However, the program and my appreciation of Burns's intent were marred by jarring graffiti scrawled periodically across the glorious imagery. Incomprehensibly, PBS has decided to follow the lead of "artists" of city gangs by "tagging" the spectacular scenery, previously pristine, with its logo and other text. I finally lost it when — in a dark blue-black scene of mountain and river serenely lit by a full moon — a glaring PBS logo, whirling and turning garishly, popped up superimposed over the perfect quiet monochrome beauty of Burns's scene.
W. Balk, Beaufort, SC
I'm writing in response to the documentary that PBS aired this weekend titled, "WE THOUGHT YOU'D NEVER ASK: Voices of People With Autism." I was disturbed to see a documentary about Facilitated Communication that did not include the facts. As early as 1994, the American Psychological Association put out a resolution on Facilitated Communication due to the mountains of scientific research showing that the facilitator controls the disabled person's response and does so without necessarily realizing it. In their resolution, the APA notes, "Consequently, specific activities contribute immediate threats to the individual civil and human rights of the person with autism or severe mental retardation." The resolution concludes with, "THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that APA adopts the position that facilitated communication is a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy."
I have been working with youth with autism since 1994 and have been aware of the research on Facilitated Communication (FC) since then. It's extremely concerning that these documentaries continue to be shown, given the abundance of scientific evidence discrediting FC. The greatest risk of touting treatments like FC is that concerned caregivers may pursue FC at the expense of other, evidence-based treatments, wasting their own and their child's valuable time and resources.
Marla Saltzman, Sherman Oaks, CA
I am the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation. We are devoted to opposing pseudoscience, flummery, and deception. Your program on the "Facilitated Communication" farce is an example of what we oppose. This notion of "FC" has been thoroughly disproven scientifically — even on a Frontline program on PBS! — and is draining federal and state funds, as well as private support, devoted to this nonsense. FC SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK, and though we have offered any and all "practitioners" of the practice, our million-dollar prize if they will simply demonstrate its validity, they have all declined to accept the challenge. Will you issue these opposing comments to those who viewed this very erroneous material? I am not alone in being offended, dismayed, and angered by the misinformation PBS chose to promote, and the parents of the children involved have been deceived and lied to.
James Randi, Fort Lauderdale, FL
I work with children who have Autism and I know the difficulties of teaching them communication skills. I understand the strain that is put on the families of the children as well as the children themselves. Once I saw that the children in your program were using Facilitated Communication (FC) it broke my heart. FC has done such a disservice to families all over the world. Not only does it give the families a false hope, it delays the process of teaching these children skills through interventions that are scientifically researched and based on empirical evidence. I understand that your show wanted to bring to light that people are trying to help these children, but unfortunately you picked those that are actually harming these children. My worry is that some families may see this program and invest their hard earned money to seek FC and be in the same place they are now years later.
Mike Berlin, Simi Valley, CA
Here's the joint response from NETA and the film's producers: "'AUTISM: WE THOUGHT YOU'D NEVER ASK' features several adults with autism speaking candidly about living with the disability. Each communicates in the fashion best for him or her. No treatments or therapies are discussed or advocated. This documentary is about what these individuals say, not how they say it."
The following letters are a sampling of those I got in response to a segment in last week's column dealing with the use of a film called "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" by KBDI, a PBS-member station in Denver, as part of a pledge drive to raise funds. My column can be read via the link at the beginning of this Mailbag, but let me reiterate a couple of points. The thrust of the column was about incidents in which PBS, as a television service, and its programs were not involved, but stations or individuals were. PBS had nothing to do with the 9/11 film. Also, I did view the film. I don't write film reviews but rather write about editorial issues raised by viewers about programs. I said KBDI had an obvious right to show the film, and I added that "on a personal level I find the idea embedded in 'Blueprint' of a government conspiracy to blow up those buildings to be preposterous and simply beyond belief and I fault the station for promoting this as part of a pledge drive and presenting it without an accompanying on-the-air program in which critics have their say."
Here are the letters:
Michael Getler should resign as ombudsman effective immediately. His personal emotions are obviously getting in the way of his doing his job, which in this case would involve reviewing the film Blueprint for Truth with an open mind. In fact, virtually every architect or engineer who sees Richard Gage's presentation of the material in the film is convinced that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were obviously destroyed by deceptive controlled demolitions, which were then covered up by FEMA and NIST, which report directly to the President. If the supremely important historical fact of these demolitions is too much for Getler to handle, perhaps he should find a less stressful job, one that doesn't require him to face current political reality.
Kevin Barrett, Madison, WI
You folks are pathetic 'gate keepers' putting out hit pieces about 9/11 truth that some of us have put more than 8 years into. You lost a viewer for life and you should be ashamed for parroting the treasonous lies of the Bush son's and daughters of bitch's who mass murdered Americans on Sept. 11, 2001 in a huge 'false flag' attack blamed on others who had nothing to do with it.
Dennis Cimino, Silverdale, WA
9/11 was an inside job. Listen closely . . . active thermate in the dust. Do your job and look at our side . . . we are called Truthers for a reason. Get on the right side of history Mike.
Poote Genous, Deland, FL
I have just finished viewing 9/11 Blueprint for Truth, the film you refused to watch yet managed to review, even as far as laying out the "message" of the film. Your words regarding the message of the film: "In other words, someone wired these buildings with explosives intending to bring them down in this attack, and this has been covered up by the government, the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media. That's the message."
I watched the film along with 400 others on Friday night at an independent theatre in NYC. I must tell you, the audience response was astoundingly unified with regards to the message of the film, and it had nothing to do with the Government wiring the towers with explosives, or any Conspiracy theory at all. The film was a straight forward analysis of the collapses of three skyscrapers from a perspective reliant on the laws of physics. The overwhelming message of the film was that there needs to be a new investigation. It couldn't have been any clearer. This was confirmed when I managed to see a poll taken after the film, and out of 300 people who answered the question, Do we need a new investigation? All 300 responses were YES.
I have read your work before and have been satisfied with your sensibilities and recommendations, but I am dumbfounded as to how you have come up with such radical conclusions from a film which you have not even seen. I would love to hear your explanation of this.
Brian Michels, New York City, NY
I just finished reading your article "PBS, Yes or No" and was somewhat stunned that you would comment on the quality of the evidence presented in a film like "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" without actually viewing it. This kind of attitude is exactly the one shown by so many people who rail against public broadcasting without actually viewing any of the content. For a person who plays an important role in the public broadcasting, I would think that the very thought of doing this would make you cringe. I will have to say however that as much as I feel like I want to express further discontent with what you've written, I do have to remind myself of the time when I thought such ideas were ludicrous and impossible. I urge you to cast aside your a priori assumptions and take a small amount of time to research the matter which you right now are obviously filing in the kooky/crazy category. "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" is actually a great place to start.
Mark Michel, Gulfport, FL
]]>Included are a couple of unusual but not widely known episodes that unfolded last week that I thought might be of interest more broadly to PBS viewers. They can be seen to have at least some association with PBS in the way they were presented or appeared to the public. Yet PBS, as an enterprise, didn't have anything to do with them.
These things happen because PBS is a strange beast within the world of media. Its hundreds of member stations are all independent and can broadcast what they want, and some of the superstars associated with PBS programs are also forces unto themselves with lots of other interests and outlets. Yet these stations and these superstars are widely perceived, rightly or wrongly, as joined at the hip to PBS in the mind of many viewers.
So these episodes — one involving a member station in Denver and the other involving talk show host Tavis Smiley — struck me as interesting and worthy of sharing beyond the normal back and forth with viewers over the widely viewed and well-known PBS programs that are broadcast nationally and that we all associate with public television.
The first episode involves PBS member station KBDI in Denver, Colo. Earlier this summer and again in mid-August and last weekend, the station ran a series of independent documentary films labeled: "America: Freedom to Fascism," "9/11: Press for Truth," and "9/11: Blueprint for Truth." These films ran as part of a pledge drive by the station to raise funds. These are controversial films that feed conspiracy theories and theorists about the origins and results of the 9/11 attacks. The "Blueprint" film, for example, "offers evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rises were destroyed not by fire and damage, per the official story, but by explosive-controlled demolitions on September 11, 2001," according to the official blurb describing the film.
In other words, someone wired these buildings with explosives intending to bring them down in this attack, and this has been covered up by the government, the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media. That's the message.
Now, America has no shortage of conspiracy-minded people. The Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, and 9/11, all have provoked lingering questions and suspicions and are fair game for many people, even those not inclined to always see conspiratorial forces at work, who believe there is more to these stories than has come out of official investigations. And KBDI, of course, has the right to air unpopular, alternative perspectives on such events. The station bills itself as "Denver's bold, diverse and independent PBS station." Its spokesmen say on the air that they are "taking risks," that viewers don't have to agree but they are "doing stories outside the mainstream media." And they say as they did, for example, in presenting the "Blueprint" film, they are the "first TV station in the nation to do this."
That is undoubtedly true and so far, as far as I can tell, this remains exclusive to KBDI among the 350 or so PBS member stations. I'm not going to review the films, but on a personal level I find the idea embedded in "Blueprint" of a government conspiracy to blow up those buildings to be preposterous and simply beyond belief and I fault the station for promoting this as part of a pledge drive and presenting it without an accompanying on-the-air program in which critics have their say.
PBS actually did make an early stab soon after the attacks at providing some preliminary assessments, explanations and perspective of "Why the Towers Fell" in a NOVA science program on April 30, 2002. That program included this observation from Matthys Levy, author of a book titled "Why Buildings Fall Down." He said at the time: "It was very much like a controlled demolition when you look at it, because the building essentially fell vertically down, as if someone had deliberately set a blast to take place to cause the building to fall vertically downward." Levy was making an observation, not offering "evidence," and there were many other observations presented by inspectors.
The programs have not attracted much national media attention. Arts and entertainment columnist Joanne Ostrow, writing in The Denver Post on Aug. 21, said that KBDI "has a reputation for broadcasting bold, distinctive documentaries" but "just where to draw the line between bold/distinctive and kooky/irresponsible is a matter of opinion." Both the Denver Post article and another on Sept. 8 in Current, the trade newspaper for public television and radio, also noted that "staffing the phones last month were volunteers who adhered to the programs' assertions that the federal government intentionally allowed the terrorist attacks that brought down the World Trade Center in 2001 and has covered up the deed ever since," as Current put it.
Station officials quoted by Current said that viewer reaction has run about 4-to-1 in favor of airing the films and that the pledge drives in which they were used have been among the most successful.
As has been pointed out many times, all member stations are independent and can air what they choose, and only programs that bear the PBS logo at the beginning and end identify programming that was distributed and approved by PBS. Officials at PBS said the service had nothing to do with these films and that the station is under no obligation to inform PBS about what it plans to use during fund-raising pledge drives, according to Jan McNamara, director of corporate communications, and decisions about whether to have opposing views or who to use as volunteers are also local, she said.
Another PBS official added this: "KBDI has a long tradition of broadcasting (and sometimes pledging) controversial point of view programs. The fact that they ran them would probably not come as a surprise to many of their viewers. Think of them as more akin to a Pacifica station rather than a traditional PBS station. In markets where there is more than one PBS station they are always trying to differentiate themselves, and broadcasting POV (point of view) programs is one way that KBDI does it."
These films, of course, don't carry the PBS logo, but on the on-screen banner during the station's promotional segment, alongside the station's logo and the phone number, is the little PBS logo. And certainly some viewers associate this with PBS.
Here's what one viewer from Alpine, Colo., wrote to me last week:
"I have a great respect for PBS and always listen to it when we are in our 2nd home back in Virginia. But I had occasion to listen to the KBDI station out of Denver CO tonight [Sept. 17] and was exposed to this nonsense about 9/11 essentially being a hoax.
"As a career army officer and Vietnam veteran I really do understand the tendency of my government to mould the truth to fit its political needs, but the garbage and pseudo science surrounding this particular PBS sponsored program does the entire PBS community a great disservice. It was presented during a station fund raiser which made it all the more incredible to me. The content was presented from one perspective and the local PBS commentators all but gushed over it as being the 'truth' incarnate. They looked out at us viewers with steely eyed sincerity and could have said our landing on the moon or the attack on Pearl Harbor was a government hoax and done it without blinking. Needless to say every conspiracy nut in the Nazi part of Colorado or in range of KBDI feels vindicated and the grassy knoll crowd and UFO buffs will be clamoring for air time. I have never heard such tripe from any PBS station and if you guys have any form of internal review for program content, you might want to give this one a real close examination. Shame on PBS for allowing these loonies to use the PBS moniker.
"I understand and admire PBS stations that are willing to air controversy. That is a good thing! There have been many programs you guys have aired that have had a major influence on helping me form opinions, but normally the more controversial shows provided explanatory comments or hopefully opposite viewpoints, all in the same show however so the listeners could decide for themselves. The folks who run KBDI are a bit 'off the reservation' it would seem to me."
The second episode involved Tavis Smiley, who is a big star on PBS but who also is a force on many other platforms. He owns the popular weeknight "Tavis Smiley" talk show he hosts on PBS, raises the money for it and has many other independent involvements. One of those outside interests came back to bite him earlier this month yet it seemed natural that his prominence on PBS is what probably most defines him to the public.
The headline above the online story on Sept. 17 by The Washington Independent said: "Suit Alleges Trusted Blacks Drew Minorities to High-Rate Loans." The story by reporter Mary Kane began: "As the housing market began booming in the mid-2000s, Wells Fargo & Co. teamed up with prominent African American commentator and PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley and financial author Kelvin Boston, the host of 'Moneywise,' a multicultural financial affairs show, to host something called 'Wealth Building' seminars in black neighborhoods."
Smiley was the keynote speaker and the big draw, Kane reported, with standing room only crowds in several cities. "But," she wrote, "what appeared on the surface as a way to help black borrowers build wealth was actually just the opposite, according to a little-noticed explanation of the 'Wealth Building' seminar strategy, contained in a lawsuit recently filed by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.
"Wells' plan for the seminars all along was to target black borrowers for higher-cost subprime mortgages, not for wealth-building, the suit charged. And," Kane reported, "the seminars were a part of the bank's overall illegal and discriminatory practice of steering black and Hispanic borrowers into riskier and more expensive loans, the suit said."
This is still just a lawsuit and nothing is proven but Smiley quickly announced, according to blogger Richard Prince, that he had cut all ties to Wells Fargo & Co. until the case is resolved. The bank had sponsored Smiley's radio show on Public Radio International and was an underwriter for the annual "State of the Black Union" conference that Smiley presides over and is telecast by C-SPAN. Smiley had issued a statement that said, in part: "In this economic climate we continue to be reminded every day that there is no perfect company. Part of the process of accountability is making sure that companies are taking steps to do the right thing, and that includes appropriate outreach to communities of color."
The Washington Independent also quoted Boston, host of the "Moneywise" series on American Public Television: "Basically we were just speakers for hire. We didn't have any role or any control over what else happened. The main point is that we were not involved in any of their discussions or in anything they sold."
This next brief segment I felt fit into the earlier discussion that touched on free speech and the Denver station's decision to broadcast very controversial films.
Every once in a while I get a letter from a viewer objecting to the fact that one company or another is advertised as a sponsor of a program. I'd say the company most often mentioned is Chevron, the big oil conglomerate that is among the sponsors of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
Here's one that arrived this week from a viewer in Lancaster, Calif.:
"I love and trust the NewsHour. I feel it is one of the few media outlets that is not corrupt. However, I am worried about the fact that Chevron is a sponsor. How can PBS have so much programming about global warming and saving the environment, and then have Chevron as a sponsor? Is it not a conflict of interest? How can PBS let its name and goodwill be used by Chevron? How long will it take be before PBS bends to the pressure and influence large corporations like Chevron, if it has not done so already? Where are the principles?"
When I asked PBS officials about this they made several points.
PBS guidelines, Cathy Hogan, senior director of program underwriting policy, explained, "permit producers to accept funding from a wide variety of companies, with very few exceptions (liquor, tobacco products, and firearms). While we review credits for their compliance with FCC and PBS noncommercial standards, we do not discriminate on the basis of any particular business or industry category."
She added: "Public television is made possible by a remarkable public-private partnership involving individuals, businesses, state and federal governments, foundation and educational institutions. PBS policies are intended to preserve the highest standards for editorial integrity. For example, underwriters are never permitted editorial control over content." And, she pointed out, that "as one of the current underwriters of The NewsHour, Chevron has helped make important news coverage possible."
I'm not a fan of the oil companies either, but I would add a simple free speech, First Amendment factor to PBS's policies. Chevron is a legitimate company with millions of consumers who need and use its products and it has a right to advertise — a form of free speech — and PBS, it seems to me, doesn't have grounds to reject it or limit that form of speech.
On the other hand, the answers I got from PBS on this issue struck me as falling short of the stricter standards for advertising or sponsorship that are rather common in newspapers, for example, where ads can be rejected if they advocate actions that are illegal or incite violence, or if they are demonstrably false or in bad taste.
(Ombudsman's Note: PBS station officials said later that these kinds of conditions are implicit.)*
Finally, on Aug. 12, I reported in a mailbag that more than 50 postcards from around the country had been received objecting to a program that aired on July 14 as part of the POV (Point Of View) series. The program was called "The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court." The postcards all had the identical message and were supplied by an organization known as Accuracy in Media, along with instructions to write to me. They claimed that the film was biased and sympathetic to the Court. I didn't see it quite that way, but I do want to report that we have now received more than 500 of those postcards.
*This column was updated on Sept. 25, 2009 at 12:03 p.m.
If you want a sure-fire, hot-button, journalistic double-header guaranteed to generate controversy you can't do any better than Israel vs. Hamas followed by the role of race in American public life. So it is not surprising that it generated responses from viewers. A sampling of the letters is posted below.
Much of it is critical of Ifill, but as I watched both episodes I thought her questioning was what made both of these segments more informative than they otherwise might have been. These are both very tough and touchy subjects and her questioning struck me as alert, smart and challenging, playing quickly off what the guests were saying and asking the questions that the average NewsHour viewer would have wanted to be asked.
But the format of the segment on the U.N. Human Rights Council investigation and report about the Israeli assault into Gaza also raised questions in my mind as well as some of those who wrote to complain.
The first guest was Justice Richard Goldstone, a respected South African judge who is widely known internationally and who headed the U.N. investigation. He was interviewed by Ifill from the U.N. earlier in the evening. The other guest, interviewed in the studio, was the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, who blasted the report and the Council, as have officials in Israel who have said the Council is biased and questioned the panel's legitimacy to undertake such a mission. Israel had declined from the start to cooperate with the investigation.
So, if Israel had refused to take part in the U.N. mission, why invite the Israeli ambassador on the program to criticize the panel's findings? When I asked NewsHour Senior Producer Mike Mosettig that question, he said: "More than three-fourths of the report was devoted to criticism of Israel. We offered them a chance to reply, which they decided to do after some cogitating on the matter."
Ideally, it might have been better if Goldstone had been able to appear for another minute or two to challenge the ambassador's views, or if reporters who had covered the fighting and its aftermath had been guests to assess the U.N. report. So what actually unfolded was Ifill questioning Goldstone about the harsh criticism of Israel in the report and whether fair conclusions could be reached without Israeli cooperation, and the Israeli ambassador getting a chance to voice strong Israeli condemnations of Goldstone's mission and report.
On the other hand, Ifill also pointed out to the ambassador that some Israelis had actually flown to Geneva to give their testimony to the U.N. group and introduced the segment with the very tough language of the report which, she said, "concludes that Israeli [forces] deliberately targeted civilians by launching military operations against homes, factories, schools and hospitals in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force. The 574-page report focuses primarily on what it calls grave breaches by Israeli forces, including willful killing, torture, or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property."
So, you could argue that the guest list might have been better structured if there was time to do so. But I thought this wound up being a pretty good representation of the report's findings, the Israeli reaction and the questions surrounding both aspects, and that there was enough there for viewers to get a better feel for this highly contentious issue than they might otherwise have.
Here are some of the letters, as well as some about the segment on race.
Gwen Ifill conducted an interview with UN Judge Richard Goldstone (who, BTW, is Jewish), who in fact has been representing the World's people in investigating what went on in Gaza early this year for the UN Human Rights Commission. But then, I was astounded to see that PBS had the totally unjournalistic gall of following that with an interview of the Israeli Ambassador to the US, who of course dissed the forthcoming report, a report for which Israel was invited to contribute but for which it refused to provide data.
In other words, Israel was given the opportunity to oppose the (somewhat mild) conclusions of the report by PBS, unbalanced by any other views. Not only that, but, for the casual and momentary viewer, Amb. Michael Oren appeared to be a regular commentator, as, during this lengthy interview, his name and position (Ambassador only, could have been to the US or to the UN) were only put up onscreen three times (at the beginning, and twice more), remaining visible from between 2 to 10 seconds each time.
Carlos A. Coimbra
Shame on Gwen Ifill for conducting a set of interviews on the UN report on Gaza that basically gave a platform to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's effort to delegitimize it. She first interviewed Justice Richard Goldstone, the report's author, and repeatedly challenged the fairness of the report rather than focusing on the allegations of war crimes. She interviewed Oren second, who did the Israeli government spin job, and the soft-spoken Goldstone was never given a chance to rebut. The effect of this was to forward the Israeli governments' talking points and undermine the legitimacy of Goldstone's investigation. And why was no Palestinian interviewed?
Nina Tannenwald, Providence, RI
The segment on 9/15 on the UN report on Gaza could just as well have been produced by AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] for all the objectivity it demonstrated. Very strange to see this from Gwen Ifill who is one of your best correspondents. Just in case anyone missed the point that the UN report was complete rubbish, the Israeli Ambassador was brought on to reinforce it. Where is the balance you tout? Contrast this discussion of the UN report with the segment presented the following night on whether racism plays a role in criticism of Obama and specific incidents like Congressman Wilson calling the President a liar. The segment was informative, balanced, and nuanced. Why is it OK to have a frank discussion of black and white relations in this country, but not about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? I feel this is a legitimate question, but the Israeli lobby has been so effective at stifling questioning of Israeli policy or actions (let alone criticism) that I am afraid to have you post this with my name for fear of being labeled as anti-Semitic.
Richmond, VA
I was very disappointed in the NewHour's report on the study about Israel and Gaza strip. Gwen Ifill's questions to the UN's respected chair of the study were not objective, and letting the Israeli ambassador make a false case and hand out more propaganda was too much. I turned off the NewsHour. Hope you do more than cater to the Israel lobby groups.
Salem, OR
Shame on PBS and shame on Gwen Ifill for allowing Israel a free platform to discredit the UN report on Israeli war crimes against Gaza. Thousands of defenseless Gazans were killed, yet PBS failed to give them a voice. When will the US media ever hold Israel responsible?
Glen Ellyn, IL
Do you care to comment about Gwen Ifill's use of the word 'teabaggers' to describe some of president Obama's critics on a segment discussing racism charges on the 9/16/09 NewsHour program. You are aware of what that means?
Since racism charges were directed at President [Bill] and Hillary Clinton during the campaign, as well as media questions such as Time magazine's questioning whether Obama was black enough, fixing a narrow focus on this type of charge seems short sighted. Was it also necessary for a black host to have a panel of comprised of three other blacks and one white? Does the NewsHour have a diversity problem?
Robert Holmgren, Menlo Park, CA
(Ombudsman's Note: Ifill says, "Turns out I am the only person with access to email who never knew this was a term with a sexual meaning. I used it in an offhand manner as a shorthand referring to the 'tea party' movement. It was a slip I was unaware of, and I regret it." I would add that I didn't know that either.)
I was deeply offended by Gwen Ifill's segment on racism and in the current political scene. I do not think that was the title of the segment but that was the message of the segment. These are the areas in PBS stated Guiding Principles which I felt where breached.
Accuracy, The guest and Ms Ifill were all guessing and superimposing their beliefs about and onto the actions of those whom they were speaking of (the tea party members and other unnamed but-implied-to-be out-there voters). There were no tea party members invited as guests, although their reputation and intention was the main topic and was being misconstrued which leads to the lack of fairness.
Add to that there were three guests and Ms Ifill who held the view that racism was a definite part of the tea party members' belief system, actions and intentions. There was only one guest who was (I guess appointed) to voice the side of the tea party members (although he was not a tea party member) He was decent enough to state that the tea party people and other who where being labeled as 'secretly racist in their motivated', should be taken at their word and that reporters should not tilt their coverage (and guest) to express their predetermined agenda. This of course goes to the unbalanced nature of the selection of guest.
Kennewick, WA
Having been a subscriber since Watergate, I am sorry to say that I can no longer support your system. What with the ties to NPR, Gwen I. calling people teabaggers on the NewsHour, this does not seem like a balanced news hour.
Kirkland, WA
I am writing to object to Jeffrey Brown's interview with Congressman Boehner on tonight's (Sept. 17) NewsHour. It was amateurish in that he allowed the Congressman to simply rely on talking points without requiring him to be specific. The subject was health care reform and when the question of what the Republican proposal is, the congressman was allowed to simply refer to a website without being drawn out on specifics.
Boehner did cite two suggestions that were of minimal potential effect on costs and was not pressed about how the major problem (costs) would be addressed. In the past I have enjoyed Jeffrey's interviews on the show but, in this instance, I am very disappointed in that it was an opportunity to put the Republican position (heretofore unarticulated) before the public and Jeffrey simply blew the opportunity.
John Daniels, Wilmette, IL
We watched the interview with John Boehner this evening. He said two things that were accepted without question. First: We have the best health system in the world. Second: The Obama administration is spending us into great debt. On the first statement, by many measures, we rank well below the rest of the Western World in our health care. On the second statement, the Bush tax cuts are responsible for a great bit of our deficit. Those cuts were made by a Republican Congress and President. Why were these statements not challenged? Does the NewsHour not challenge such statements from the House Republican leader for some reason not shared with the audience?
John Elsbree, Bethesda, MD
]]>It has had an extraordinary run — 26 years and hundreds of awards, including more than two dozen Emmys. It ranked only behind the icons of "Sesame Street" and "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" in the pantheon of PBS's longest-running children's programs, and was widely recognized as the top reading program and was used in classrooms nationwide. The program was not meant to teach youngsters how to read but rather why they should read. It was meant to ignite enthusiasm and excitement, a love of books and stories by youngsters who already knew how to read. The program was produced and originated from WNED-TV in Buffalo, N.Y., and was hosted and guided by Emmy-award winning actor LeVar Burton.
Yet, despite its recognition and longevity, the program fell on hard times in recent years, a victim, for sure, of funding problems but maybe also of changing directions in such programming as emphasis from government, in particular, has switched ever more toward teaching children the basic mechanics of reading, which can be tested and measured. And, it may also simply have run out of gas with young viewers after an extraordinarily long run.
In one sense, the program went quietly. No new episodes of the program had been produced for the past three years (only repeats of earlier shows have been aired) and, perhaps not surprisingly, viewership "has declined dramatically," say PBS officials, far below even the average rating for kids' shows generally and many times lower than top PBS children's shows now such as "Curious George" and "Super Why!"
Recent "carriage" reports, according to PBS, that measure how many member stations carry specific programs and at what time indicate viewership for "Rainbow" at only about one-third of the core weekday series of kids' programs on PBS.
There has not been any PBS-related funding of the program since April 2006, when Educate Inc., a Baltimore-based educational services company, bought into the production rights for the program and reportedly committed to funding 52 new episodes, according to a report in the Atlanta Business Chronicle and another in The Buffalo News. But the funding for those new episodes never came together, according to John Grant, chief content officer for WNED, and what funding was available was used to keep the series alive through repeats of earlier shows, a process that also costs money.
Grant also pointed out that the program won't die completely and that it will live on in various non-broadcast Web and video formats, although the "Reading Rainbow" Web site on pbskids.org will end in December.
The demise of "Reading Rainbow" has not been quietly received, however, by about 80 or so viewers who wrote to PBS headquarters or Viewer Services or to me to protest the end of the series and to urge for it to be supported. Some of the letters to me are printed below, as is the official response that PBS's Viewer Services is sending to the e-mailers.
The end of a long-running program is not a usual topic for an ombudsman. It doesn't deal with the editorial standards of a specific broadcast that I usually get involved with, and it does deal with internal business and funding decisions that I normally would not get involved with. Yet the letters to me on this subject seemed so much to reflect this sense of loss that I felt they were worth recording in this space. You can question how much of this is from people who still watch the program, or if it contains at least a bit of nostalgia for a well-remembered program. But it still seems sincere and important as I read it.
Officials at headquarters here say they understand this allegiance but, in response to some of the criticism, they say that PBS did step up to the plate for two decades of support for this program, that 26 years is many times longer than what is generally perceived as a hit show on television, and that many of the newer children's programs are about words and literacy meant to make reading interesting and exciting.
Nevertheless, new grant projects to PBS such as the U.S. Department of Education's Ready to Learn Literacy Framework, based on the recommendations of the National Reading Panel, focus heavily on pre-reading and reading language and word skills that are measurable, and many PBS children's programs focus, at least in part, on all the sub-categories of measurement. This is undoubtedly important and augments what one is supposed to learn in school. But who will get kids hooked on the sheer joy of discovering and reading a great story?
I am writing to say that ending the production of Reading Rainbow is a crime against literacy. During my 31-year career as an elementary classroom teacher, I taught hundreds of children to read. Learning the nuts and bolts of phonics and skills happens appropriately and efficiently in classroom instruction. What is often more difficult is helping children 1) to develop background knowledge of themselves and the world around them necessary for understanding what they read, and 2) to develop a love of reading so that they will practice sufficiently to become highly skilled. Reading Rainbow helped with both of these. To replace it with skill and drill on the screen is to sell a birthright for a mess of pottage. Shame on PBS.
Wendy Swanson, Portland, OR
As a librarian for 35 years, I know how influential READING RAINBOW was on children!
Beverly Ellingwood, Webster, NY
After 26 years of superlative programming, as attested to by its winning more than two-dozen Emmys, news of the cancellation of "Reading Rainbow" came as a complete surprise and is truly a tragedy for those of us who have enjoyed this program for so many years. As an educator, I know that the program has provided both students and teachers with a source of inspiration about reading, as well as a means of modeling the behavior of effective readers and critical thinkers.
If the NCLB [No Child Left Behind] agenda of reducing reading to sounding out phonemes (e.g., DISTAR, DIBELs, and skilling and drilling) continues to reign, without a doubt our dream of becoming a "Nation of Readers" will most likely become one more of the unreachable "Dreams" that Langston Hughes so aptly described many years ago. I implore PBS and the foundations that have funded "Reading Rainbow" over the years in its very successful trajectory to reconsider their decision, and to renew the program for the sake of the children and adults who have benefited from it.
Mattituck, NY
I am absolutely shocked and very saddened at the decision to take Reading Rainbow off the air. As a teacher, I recognize the importance of programming designed to engage children in reading rather than in "drill and kill" (it kills the students' love of learning and love of school) isolated phonics and spelling. Programs such as Super Why? which actually engage students in a meaningful story as well as in embedded phonics activities are great, and programs like Reading Rainbow only further this learning and serve to help our children understand why they should read as well as expose them to peers who love to read. If we are only concerned with programming that drills skills into our children, we will have a nation of students well versed in phonics skills who have been taught by scripted curriculums and who loathe reading. They may not even understand why they should read and they certainly will not want to read for pleasure. I am appalled at this decision and call for PBS to reinstate Reading Rainbow as a developmentally appropriate program that peaked students' interest in and love for reading.
Holly J. Matthews, Nashville, TN
I am writing to implore you to keep Reading Rainbow in your programming and in production. It's one of your best shows for children. I am an artist, teacher, and mother of an avid reader. Reading Rainbow books have inspired us at home and in the classroom. The love of reading and the love of stories is what this show is all about. Without the passion for a good story, we'll never entice children to learn to read. It's this connection — to place, to story, and to the incredibly talented authors and illustrators who create the books — that makes Reading Rainbow a unique and special public broadcast offering. Please tell us you've changed your mind. I can still recall favorite episodes such as Ox Cart Man. Hearing the children give book reviews is yet another aspect of this show that is unique and powerful. Articulate children expressing enthusiastic reviews for books is something largely absent from media. Please save Reading Rainbow, one of the great treasures of children's broadcasting. I look forward to hearing from you on this issue.
Robin E. Brooks, Augusta, ME
I believe you are wrong to take Reading Rainbow off the air. It has inspired children to read for years. They get enough phonics in school and you are ignoring an essential part of reading . . . motivation. Teaching children to love books was a big part of what Reading Rainbow was all about. This is another sign that children's programming has gone downhill on PBS. In one word . . . boring!!!
Nancy Bailey, Collierville, TN
As Ombudsman I felt you might be the one to hear my comment. I am sadly disappointed in PBS for canceling Reading Rainbow. It appears that the educators on your staff were hoodwinked into believing that the NCLB Act under the Bush Administration is supportive of our children. This act was written based on data from Texas when Bush was governor. Talk to the teachers there. I have. The data was false and erroneous and did not improve their schools or drop out rates. There has been a push for early literacy, let's teach two-year-olds how to spell. What happened to play time? Kids are marked from their pre-K screening test now if they don't know how to spell their names or read when entering Kindergarten. We're creating kids with extreme anxiety before first grade! Reading Rainbow was created to give children a love of books so when their time comes to enter school, they have been exposed to the wonderful world of literature and be eager to learn. It was never intended to "teach" children how to read. That is the job of our educators, not a TV program or even a reading program. People teach. Programs are tools.
By canceling RR you will now create a generation of children who have never been exposed to books at all. Parents who don't read to their kids, impoverished parents who don't have time in between their three jobs count on programs such as RR to expose their children to literature and begin that love of learning. My own brother-in-law sat and watched it with his son daily because he was embarrassed by his own reading skills and knew how important it was to expose my nephew to books. Sesame Street helps kids learn how to read — it did me; I walked into Kindergarten already reading because of that program. Reading Rainbow filled a whole different set of needs. I work with fifth graders who have never heard nursery rhymes. I wonder how long it will take before Kindergarten teachers are saying they are shocked that a child has never seen a book or has been read to.
I wish that PBS, of all stations, recognized the importance of children just sitting down and listening to a story being read to them to develop imagination, listening skills and a love of learning. The program didn't require prior knowledge. You didn't have to watch the day before. You don't have to interact. You just sit and enjoy a book. Everyone loves to be read to no matter what age. Even my seniors love it. And if it never happens for a student, they won't know what they're missing but there will be a huge hole in their lives!
Shannon Murdoch, Lynnwood, WA
I am saddened to hear Reading Rainbow with LeVar Burton is being cancelled after today. Teaching the love of reading is as important as teaching the building blocks of reading, such as phonics, etc. I hope PBS can find it in their budget to continue this very beneficial and educational program. My children are now grown, but loved this program when they were young.
Carolyn Solomon, Haslett, MI
PBS and member station WNED, the producer of READING RAINBOW, have been contacted by individuals inquiring about returning the series to our schedule. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to do this.
Production ended on READING RAINBOW several years ago, viewership for the show had declined dramatically and now broadcast rights have expired. Off-air educational rights for the series are still currently available for the classroom and remain in effect for a year following the last broadcast of each episode.
Nationally-recognized stories authored by children for the Reading Rainbow Young Writers and Illustrators Contest will be available online until December 2009, at which point the READING RAINBOW Web site on pbskids.org will end. PBS and WNED are discussing plans to continue the contest on a national level as well as plans to build a literacy Web site for school age children.
PBS KIDS continues to be committed to leveraging the power of media to further children's development cognitively, socially, emotionally and physically. As a non-profit media enterprise, our limited financial resources are focused on new and current productions that promote literacy education as well as math, science, the arts and overall healthy living. Series such as SUPER WHY!, WORDGIRL, MARTHA SPEAKS, the all-new THE ELECTRIC COMPANY and others encourage a love of reading and books and help guide children through literacy skill development.
(Ombudsman's Note: An earlier response to viewers also included these paragraphs.)
Through new series and websites created in alignment with the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Education's National Reading Panel of 2000's research assessment on reading instruction, several PBS KIDS series are dedicated to fulfilling these research-based reading practices, including SUPER WHY! and the all-new THE ELECTRIC COMPANY, among many others.
In addition, two recent studies funded by the Department of Education on SUPER WHY! proved that children, especially those from low-income families, are learning core early literacy skills from the TV series and its educational support materials. For more information about PBS literacy programs, please visit PBSKids.org, PBSParents.org and PBSTeachers.org for new and updated resources.
]]>The headline on this column is from an answer I got from Linda Winslow, the executive producer of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. In the mailbag this week, not surprisingly, were a number of e-mails from viewers who were upset over some of the statements and questioning on a segment of The NewsHour on Aug. 13 that dealt with the heated debate over health care reform and that featured former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey as one of the guests.
Moderator Judy Woodruff pointed out at the start that Armey was also the leader of FreedomWorks, a conservative group that has rallied protestors at health care town hall meetings. The other guest was Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager of the liberal advocacy group Health Care for America Now.
I sent a couple of those viewer e-mails to Winslow seeking a response. Those e-mails, some of which are printed below, focused especially on two things that Armey said: "If you're over 65 years old in America today, you have no choice but to be in Medicare. Even if you want out of Medicare, you have to forfeit your Social Security to get out of it . . . That's pretty heavy-handed, and people fear that."
Those who wrote said Armey was not speaking the truth, and frankly I thought it sounded strange as well and so I sent them along to Winslow seeking a response. Because The NewsHour presents a full hour of news five nights a week it, naturally, provokes a lot of commentary from viewers. In my experience, Winslow has always been a solid responder — candid and tough-minded. But this time she sent only a terse note, along with a link to the transcript that readers can check:
"Here's the transcript of last night's discussion. Seems to me the guests were asked to rebut one another. Judy was the moderator, not the judge. Check out http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec09/health_08-13.html."
Woodruff did, indeed, turn to her other guest and ask, "What about this charge?" But Kirsch responded in a way that didn't answer those specific assertions raised by Armey and the discussion moved on to other points. So Armey's points about Medicare and Social Security benefits were left hanging out there, viewers wrote to challenge them and The NewsHour wasn't going to clear the air. Armey made much the same charge on NBC's Meet the Press program last Sunday and it also went largely unchallenged.
There are two issues here for me: One is the accuracy of what Armey said. The other is the question of whether moderators, if not serving as judges, need to at least challenge guests more forcefully, especially on subjects such as health care where the degree of falsehoods and fear-mongering has reached very high levels, so that the viewer has a better chance of getting at least close to the truth.
On this point, the focus here is not on Woodruff, personally, who did seek to get a rebuttal or challenge on these points. Rather it is on the broader need for journalists to question and challenge points that they know, or suspect, to be factually wrong.
The NewsHour, for example, did a good job on Aug. 10 in dealing with Medicare misinformation, including what former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin described as Obama's "death panels." The points Armey was raising and that were focused on by viewers in the e-mails below are harder to challenge off the top of one's head unless you are an expert in the arcana of Social Security and Medicare. Nevertheless, The NewsHour occupies a unique spot on the TV dial for many people in that one can get a nightly, extended, courteous, in-depth report and discussion of the issues. But when it falls short on tough questioning — not behaving like a judge issuing a verdict but asking pointed questions that illuminate a fuller or more complex picture for the public — then viewers are going to be disappointed and, in many cases, angry, and rightly so.
As for Armey's assertions, from what I can gather he is both wrong — you can choose not to be in Medicare and you can get out without penalty under certain conditions — and right about losing Social Security benefits if you've signed up for them. These are actually very complicated issues and precise answers depend upon specific circumstances of each individual. When I asked the Social Security Administration's press office about Armey's statements, they explained that:
"Medicare is a voluntary program. Medicare Part A helps pay for in-patient care in a hospital or skilled nursing facility following a hospital stay and is free for most people age 65 or older who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States. If you sign up for Medicare Part A but do not sign up for Social Security monthly benefits, then you can withdraw from Medicare Part A at a later time if you choose. However, if you sign up for Social Security monthly benefits and also sign up for Medicare Part A, you cannot then withdraw from Medicare Part A without losing your Social Security benefits. To withdraw from Medicare Part A, a beneficiary must submit a written request for withdrawal and must refund any Medicare Part A benefits paid on his or her behalf."
Here are the letters.
On Aug. 13, Dick Armey and Richard Kirsch were discussing Health Care. Armey made statements that were incorrect, and as a former congressman, knew it. The most obvious was that seniors have no choice except traditional Medicare for health insurance. Seniors can choose an HMO (private insurance) and have the premium paid by the government. In fact, this costs the government about 13% more per individual than the government spends on traditional Medicare coverage. Either Kirsch or the moderator should have corrected this false statement! Maybe a correction should be broadcast on the NewsHour.
Martin Raphael, East Hills, NY
On 8/13/09, Judy Woodruff was interviewing Dick Armey. Mr. Armey stated "that you cannot decline to have Medicare, and have other health insurance." That is not a true statement. He also stated that if you do not take Medicare, you will lose your Social Security. That is also not true. Ms. Woodruff allowed Mr. Armey to lie about these very important facts concerning the subject of health care.
Mary Ahrendt
Re: 8/13/09 newscast; Judy Woodruff. Once again I feel very frustrated by the misinformation & outright dishonesty of individuals interviewed on the newscast. In this case it was Dick Armey re: proposed health care legislation. Case in point: he states he had no choice when he turned 65 but to sign up for Medicare. That simply is not true. When I turned 65 I had private health insurance. No one told me that I "had" to sign up for Medicare when I signed up for Social Security, I was told it would be a good idea. I did so by choice while I retained my private health care. Shortly after signing up I had major surgery resulting in a $60,000 bill. My private insurance paid the bulk of the bill & Medicare paid as a supplemental insurance. I had no deductible to pay & in fact I did not have to pay anything out of pocket. Mr. Armey seems to be very enthusiastic to distort, lie, or whatever to scare people re: a new health care plan. This and other distortions from individuals such as Mr. Armey without any attempt to point out these distortions by PBS is (for me) very distressful and does make me question the accuracy of other reports given by PBS. I understand that individuals that appear on the program have a right to their own opinion but that does not give them the right to lie and certainly does not give PBS carte blanche to accept everything they say as factually correct. I believe PBS does have a responsibility to fact check what is said on air and make corrections on air as is appropriate.
Phyllis Koch, Portland, OR
Former [Rep.] Dick Armey was with Judy Woodruff on Health Care debate representing Insurance Co, Why did she not ask him about his insurance? Does he not retain his wonderful benefits as a former senator or did he give them up for the wonderful insurance freedom he seems to support? She missed a real opportunity in my estimation.
Joseph Carlomagno, McLean, VA
How dare the NewsHour interview that anti-American Dick Armey who is behind the Screaming Thugs in the Town Hall Meetings. He is the bought and paid for prostitute for the Filthy Rich Private FOR PROFIT Insurance Companies which have taken America's good health care to the same level as Slovenia and Cuba, all due to the Republicans — in fact Richard Nixon. He has used their huge amounts of lobbying money to organize, pass around outright lies, fear and what amounts to paid thugs to derail the democratic process. You should better spend time investigating how Dick Armey has disrupted the democratic process, who pays him and HOW MUCH, and what he has personally done to spread lies for his masters.
John Bowen, Edmond, OK
Today [Aug. 14], Richard Armey announced his resignation from the Washington, DC, law firm DLA Piper, citing as the reason the negative reaction to his association with FreedomWorks, the conservative activist group that is involved in orchestrating protests against health care reform being considered by the Obama administration and Congress.
Armey's resignation immediately reminded us of the Lehrer NewsHour interview that Judy Woodruff conducted with Armey and another guest last evening, August 13, about the health-care reform debate. During the interview we were appalled at the soft-ball questions that Woodruff lobbed at Armey. Although she mentioned his role with FreedomWorks, at no point did she press him about the orchestrated "astroturf" campaign being sponsored by Freedom Works and other groups, which are disseminating misinformation about "death panels," the "socialist" takeover of our government, and universal health care as the first step toward a "Nazi regime" in this country.
Woodruff mentioned none of these facts, even though FreedomWorks' involvement has been reported for weeks. We've known about it, as have millions of other Americans, and now Armey finally has to leave a reputable law firm because of the taint of FreedomWorks. Yet not so much as a peep was heard from Judy Woodruff, who is right there in Washington!
Jon and Peggy Saari, Yellow Springs, OH
Last night [Aug. 11] on the NewsHour, during the discussion on health care reform, Cynthia Tucker referred to the fact that many of the people criticizing health care reform appear to be folks who are on Medicare, a public health care program for seniors 65 or older who are Social Security eligible. As if on cue (I expected it), the gentleman from the Detroit Free Press referred to this as a failed public/government health care program. I would like the NewsHour to set the record straight on this issue. Is Medicare a failed program? Or just one with problems — flawed funding stream, a caseload consisting of that part of the population with the greatest healthcare demand — the elderly?
When I hear the health care reform discussion, I get livid at what I hear. Senator Grassley is against the public option because, to hear him say it, that would be the preferred choice of people, this would crowd-out private insurance, and we would wind-up with a system like the Canadian one. Does he listen to himself? Does anybody listen and see the flaw in this argument — "everybody will prefer the public option, even though it's not a good option". Gimme a break.
Joseph Costa, Baltimore, MD
This letter refers to a viewer comment published in last week's Ombudsman's Mailbag and an Ombudsman's Note that I had appended to it.
A letter to you concerning Judy Woodruff's interview [Aug. 5] with Sen. Grassley on Healthcare complaining that Ms. Woodruff did not challenge Sen. Grassley's inaccurate and misleading comments drew the following quote from you, as somewhat of a defense for Ms. Woodruff:
(Ombudsman's Note: Judy Woodruff introduced her interview with Sen. Grassley with the following important point: "Since in the past two weeks, we've heard both the president and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, make the case here on the NewsHour for reform from the Democrats' point of view, tonight we get the views of the senior Republican sitting in those sessions, Charles Grassley of Iowa.")
There thus arises an important question on the role of an interviewer on public television; to wit, is this role only to allow interviewees a platform to state whatever they want to state, regardless of the truth or validity or accuracy of their statements? My own opinion is no, but rather, the interviewer must make an effort to ensure that the truth/untruth of statements be measured or acknowledged in some way. Especially statements involving gross errors, as in the case of Sen. Grassley. For this, the interviewer must know her stuff. Anything less is a reflection of incompetence as an interviewer, and an act of collusion to people spreading deceitful propaganda.
Tom Tonon, Princeton Junction, NJ
(New Ombudsman's Note: Mr. Tonon raises a point with which I agree. The reason I put that note under that particular letter last week was only because one of the things the viewer said was, "On topics as important as healthcare reform it is crucial that time be allotted for opposing views to be presented.")
]]>