New Mexico In Focus
Pastoral Letter Calls For Nuclear Disarmament
Season 15 Episode 36 | 29m 29sVideo has Closed Captions
The Archbishop of Santa Fe calls for international nuclear disarmament in pastoral letter.
Correspondent Megan Kamerick speaks with the Archbishop of Santa Fe about his recent pastoral letter, calling for international nuclear disarmament. Archbishop John C. Wester explains his stance, while noting the presence of two federal nuclear weapons laboratories here in New Mexico.
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback
New Mexico In Focus is a local public television program presented by NMPBS
New Mexico In Focus
Pastoral Letter Calls For Nuclear Disarmament
Season 15 Episode 36 | 29m 29sVideo has Closed Captions
Correspondent Megan Kamerick speaks with the Archbishop of Santa Fe about his recent pastoral letter, calling for international nuclear disarmament. Archbishop John C. Wester explains his stance, while noting the presence of two federal nuclear weapons laboratories here in New Mexico.
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback
How to Watch New Mexico In Focus
New Mexico In Focus is available to stream on pbs.org and the free PBS App, available on iPhone, Apple TV, Android TV, Android smartphones, Amazon Fire TV, Amazon Fire Tablet, Roku, Samsung Smart TV, and Vizio.
Providing Support for PBS.org
Learn Moreabout PBS online sponsorshipMEGAN: Archbishop Wester.
Thank you for joining us on New Mexico in Focus.
ARCHBISHOP: It's an honor to be with you, Megan.
Thanks for inviting me.
MEGAN: In your pastoral letter, “Living in the Light of Christ's Peace: A Conversation Towards Nuclear Disarmament,” you talk about growing up as part of the generation doing nuclear drills by hiding under your desk during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
But, it was a visit to japan in September 2017 that really changed your point of view on nuclear weapons.
Why?
ARCHBISHOP: Well, I just, the two Bishops and I went on a little vacation, a part of that was to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
And, it was really sobering.
And it took us out of the vacation mode and put us into more of a reflective mode, just looking at the muses, the art, you know, the… all the different ways that the atomic bombs, you know, the effect that they had in Japan.
The pictures of people suffering after the attack.
And it was just so horrific and especially with the children, I mean, the whole thing was difficult, but… I read that the children saw the bright light and they ran to the window to see what the light was, you know.
And I can only imagine what happened either then or shortly after, with the exposure of the radiation, so… And then, coming back to Santa Fe and taking friends, you know, through the muses and all that and seeing, “Well, here's where those very bombs were built and manufactured and sent off to Japan.” So, it just really, I think the it just really it touched me very deeply.
And so, here, it just, I felt that we should be, as the Archdiocese and the Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe, we should be part of this conversation that would lead toward non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.
MEGAN: How did this trip, this realization, affect your view of New Mexico's very large role in the creation of nuclear weapons and the state's ongoing role in this industry, through our national laboratories and other things?
ARCHBISHOP: Well, it's a very complex, a good question, Megan.
It’s a complicated question, in my mind.
I mean, I think, you know, it's a question of, obviously, on one level, I'm very proud of our laboratories, you know LANL and Sandia.
I think it's, these are wonderful scientists who are committed to science, committed to the country and doing, you know, good things.
I think it's… So, from that point of view, I respect what they do and I think they do a lot of things and can do a lot, even more things, you know, that really build up life and help our planet and our han beings.
But, on the other hand, you know, these are weapons of war and that's not their fault, you know.
Han beings have been at war with each other since, you know, time immemorial.
So, I think it's up to all of us, you know, citizens of the world, to speak to this, you know, so it's not a, you know, I'm on one hand, I'm proud of the place that New Mexico has, in terms of helping our country, you know out and, but we need to go beyond that and we need to use this technology, this scientific know-how to get beyond nuclear wars, because what we've created is something that changes the entire dynamic, you know, of war.
It’s just, completely, a different… it's a paradigmatic shift.
And so, we have to take a second look at, you know, the Just War Theory and what constitutes a just war and all that.
It's changed now with atomic weapons.
MEGAN: And the Just War Theory, if you could remind our viewers and listeners, this was a doctrine developed by the church?
ARCHBISHOP: Yes, this was St. Augustine is famous for it, many centuries ago.
The Just War Theory, that he looks at, you know, it has to be, you know, an appropriate response.
It has to be something that protects innocent civilians, etc.
The motivation has to be looked at it, has to have a reasonable chance of success, has a series of criteria that have to be met for it to be a just war.
But, in the, with atomic weapons, as you can imagine, all those criteria seem to get, no pun intended, blown up, you know.
Because, that's, you know, how do you prevent innocent people, non-combatants from being killed in an atomic attack?
The whole world would be destroyed, conceivably.
MEGAN: Going back to Japan and Hiroshima, Nagasaki, my father served in the Pacific in World War II and his ship swept minds ahead of large invasions.
I bring this up, because despite his Catholic Faith, he was internally divided over what the right choice was with that first bomb in Hiroshima, given what we knew about Japan's seeming unwillingness to surrender.
But, you note in your pastoral letter, there is historical debate on how necessary these bombs were?
ARCHBISHOP: Yes, that's a… I debated that point, you know, leaving that in or not.
I think it's an, it's a debate.
It's an open question.
There are many who've written about it on both sides of the issue.
Some say that, you know, and indeed it was something that saved American lives.
And that was an important, we had to do it.
Others say, “No.” We knew that the world was coming to a close.
We had evidence that despite the ferocity of the Japanese generals at the time, that we had had a sense that they were going to surrender.
So, I don't really know about that.
I left it in there, because I'm trying to start a conversation about this and this is part of that conversation.
And this is part of the, you know, even now with the terrible tension between Russia and Ukraine and the NATO and the West and the United States, you know, we're living in, and, which is going to be someone's history someday.
And, I'm sure that they'll be looking at motivations then.
Was this, did President Biden do the right thing by adopting a hard line with NATO and all, or should we have done this or that?
Or, you know, what was Putin's, what are his… So, I mean, that's always going to be a question, but I think it brings to the to the focus.
It brings focus to the fact that these are the kinds of things that happen in our world and will happen.
And so, if we have nuclear weapons and if we were, heaven forbid, got to the point where we used them on each other, it would be catastrophic.
And so, I think that, you know, I want this to be a conversation not really about a historical one, about should we have dropped the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I want to be a conversation on should we work toward nuclear disarmament?
And, of course, I think, you know, we've committed to it in the past, but we've, we, it's lagging, you know, that commitment is lagging.
And, as, you know, many of these protocols, we pulled out of or that they've been deferred for the future, you know.
So… MEGAN: I like that thought of, we are living in what will be somebody's history in the future.
It's an interesting idea to contemplate.
As you point out, there have been people in the Catholic Church who have spoken out against nuclear weapons over the years and have even served prison time for protests.
In the 1980s the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter on war and peace calling for progressive disarmament.
This was at a time when the possibility of an all-out nuclear war with the Soviet Union, at the time seemed like a real possibility.
Ehy do you see a need for to push for disarmament now?
People might feel like, “Well, we no longer have that two minutes to midnight on the atomic clock, right?
ARCHBISHOP: Right, yet I think that, you know, back in 1983, when the bishops of the USCB wrote that pastoral, I think they were, you know, moving toward that direction of disarmament.
And, at that time, though, there was still a belief in deterrence.
And, I think that and the church, as I understand it, the Catholic Church and other religious denominations held that there was a morally acceptable, it was morally acceptable to have nuclear weapons for deterrence.
But, I think we see now that Pope Francis has changed that, and, considerably, when he went to Hiroshima in 2019 and he gave his speech there, and he said that the mere possession of nuclear arms is immoral.
That really changed the whole landscape, of the moral question of having nuclear arms in my view.
And the view of the Pope and, I think, that he's right, because I think that they're so destructive and they're so powerful.
More powerful than we can even imagine.
I mean, the bombs, sadly, that and that were dropped in Japan in 1945 were like little pop guns compared to what we have right now.
And so, and then and the, of the, weapons that we have, that we and Russia have, you know, that, you know, you only need a few hundred weapons to be for deterrence, we have thousands and we do know that from good docents that have been made available to the public, that we have plans, we've strategized, you know, for first strikes.
These generals have talked about that.
So, it's not simply deterrence.
There have been.
So, I think that that argument is off the table in my opinion and now we just have to really be serious about nuclear disarmament.
MEGAN: Many of the scientists in the Manhattan Project were focused on creating the first bomb before Nazi, Germany created it.
And some even had fled Nazi, Germany and I bring that up because, today, there are people working in the national laboratories who may have a similar sense of mission, by protecting the nuclear arsenal.
What would you say to them?
ARCHBISHOP: Well, I would say that the nuclear arsenal is, it's a false sense of protection.
It's a false sense of security.
I know that, you know, we all feel that… we watch, you know, Rambo-like movies and the powerful United States and… but it's false sense, because it's not protecting us.
As a matter of fact, is probably our greatest threat, I would say, in the world today, you know.
We talk about Father Pope Francis talks about Mother Earth, your common home, and climate change, and doing what we can to help the earth.
Well, here's a huge threat, you know, that if this ever was unleashed, that it would be catastrophic.
So, I don't think that it is, by modernizing our weapons, by continuing to develop them, we're not protecting anybody.
It's, that's just not true.
The real protection of, of the glow of the world, would be for us to come together and to, and to use diplomacy, to talk with one another and to work out our differences that way, and to get rid of nuclear arms.
I'm not naïve.
I realize that, you know, a lot of these countries are not going to just go, “Oh, okay.
Well that's, what a fine idea you have, but Mr. President, let's all do that.” It's going to be difficult and we hope we can avoid even war with conventional armaments.
But, the point is that, you know, I compared my own mind, you know, even to the argument we talk about with guns, you know.
If you've got a one of those sub-automatic weapons, you can kill a lot of people in a very short time.
If I have a knife, I might kill somebody, but it's going to be limited, you know.
So, both are bad, you know.
We want to get rid of all instruments of destruction and weapons like that, but in the sense, to be used for war, but I think in this case, we need to get rid of nuclear armaments because they're so destructive.
MEGAN: New Mexico is a poor state, as you know, with very few industries producing well-paying jobs.
The national laboratories represent billions of dollars of economic impact.
That includes businesses that rely on work with the labs.
What if people face losing their livelihoods if disarmament brings an end to the nuclear industry here?
ARCHBISHOP: It's my view and I realize again this is a very good question you ask.
And I have a deep concern for many of our Catholic people and all my fellow citizens in New Mexico working in the labs and that's the source of livelihood.
But, I really, firmly believe that this would not endanger that, because, if we were really to pursue this nuclear disarmament, it would require even more from our labs, because that's going to take all kinds of technology to verify.
We're not going to just accept the fact that a certain country says, “Okay, we've gotten rid of…” “Oh, thank you very much.
We'll send you a thank you note.” No.
We want to, as President Reagan said, “Trust but verify.” That's a huge industry right there, to make sure that everybody has indeed disarmed and to make sure that we have ways that nobody, especially a rogue nation or terrorists, could not come up with a nuclear, a bomb.
So, that's gonna… and I think, also, there are many, many other things that our labs are already doing that are, that are, that promote life instead of destruction.
I think that would be… I would compare it, myself, to any, you know, in the industrial revolution, the computer revolution… all the….
when they've been these huge, you know, macro transitions in our world, there is, I don't, I know that there will be some people, no doubt, individuals, well it might be hard and not easy to make the transition.
Look, I like, I'm, you know, I look, I'm from the Bay area.
Look at the toll takers and now everything is automated.
You just drive right through.
So, I'm sure those toll takers maybe had early retirement, but they also, there were jobs created when you had to put in the new fast track systems and all that.
So, I think that, I think it's very possible and furthermore, I think this is so necessary, disarmament is so necessary, that if there are sacrifices and there may be some, and I would, you know, I understand that, but there would be important sacrifices for the sake of humanity, because we're on a path right now that's insane.
MEGAN: As you note in your pastoral letter and this is a quote: “In recent years, Pope Francis has led the church in a dramatic shift away from supporting nuclear weapons and deterrence, to denouncing them as immoral, calling for their complete abolition.” And in 2017, Pope Francis publicly declared that nuclear deterrence is morally unacceptable.
I need to ask you, given the revelations of widespread sexual abuse in the church, which also failed to address these abuses for years, how challenging is it to take a moral stance such as this letter does and ensure that people will receive it in the spirit that you intend?
ARCHBISHOP: Yes, that's true, Megan.
I acknowledge that.
I think that sexual abuse scandal has been a terrible, terrible blight in the Catholic Church.
And, it's not just the Catholic Church, of course, but it certainly hit the Catholic Church very hard and it's something that… and I think it does very much weaken our moral voice.
There's no doubt about it.
I don't think, however, though that that means that we should be silent.
I think we still need to speak up and still hope that people will respond.
I think that some will point to that.
They'll say, “Well, I'm not going to listen to them.
I mean, they couldn't get their house in order, you know, with the abuse scandal.
So, what do they know?” That would be of course not a logical argument.
That's not a reason to dispute, you know, what we're putting out in the letter.
But, I think some people will say that and that's unfortunate.
And I regret that.
I do think that since 2002, especially with our Dallas meeting of the Bishops in Dallas, you know, that the Catholic, that's something to be looked at, what the church has done since then.
In the last 20 years and to form safe environment programs and to, we've spent millions of dollars with the John Jay college of law and the criminal law and to do a cause and effect studies and to look at, you know, what, how did this happen in the church?
How did this abuse take place?
So, I think the church has done quite a bit.
Again, there'll be many people that, you know, will say, “Oh that was wonderful.
We respect what you've done.” Others will say, “Well, big deal, you know.” They're not going to be too inclined to pat us on the back.
But, I do think that we've done a lot and frankly, if you look at the statistics and look at the, you know, the number of abuses taking place since these programs, it's low.
So, I think there's evidence that the church has worked hard to really do the best we can and to rectify those terrible, terrible sins.
And, secondly, I think that the document speaks for itself, the logic, you know, of the importance of nuclear disarmament hopefully will speak for itself.
But, you do raise a good, important… I'm glad you raised it, because it needs to be said.
MEGAN: Do you, how do you feel about how the letter has been received so far?
I guess, in light of that reality, do you think that the dynamic we just talked about has impacted that at all?
ARCHBISHOP: I haven't heard that, no.
I did, I think I did hear one or two people in passing, you know, say something like that it's very, you know, kind of in passing, but not, nothing… the response I've gotten mainly has been very positive, actually.
I do think that I'm probably hearing from the choir, you know.
I'm, people that would be, you know, agree and I think that's, you know, but I am, I'm hoping eventually to go up to Los Alamos and speak.
We have a group up there, Catholic scientists and I'd like to speak to them.
And I've talked to the pastor up there, Father John Daniel and that Immaculate Heart of Mary Parish in Los Alamos.
And so, I'd like to, because, again, you know, and I think there was kind of a sense, “Well, do you really want to go up to Los Alamos right now?” You know, maybe better stay away for a while, but I, you know, I'm not, I wouldn't go up there to, you know, to debate.
I would go up there to learn and to convert.
My whole point of this is to start a conversation about it, to hear what people have to say and that's the only way we're going to get to this goal, because there may be some people who bring up very valid objections that I need to hear and I need to learn from.
And so, we need to talk about those and to see what, you know, what those would be and given those objections how can we take them and how can we, you know, still come to this end of nuclear disarmament.
So, I'm not, I don't want to, you know, start by, you know, Pope Francis, I think famously said, “Yes, you know, the Bishops of the church are teachers, but a good teacher has to listen first.” So, my hope would be to listen to people and what they have to say and I hope then they would in turn listen to me or to us and see how we can make progress in this.
MEGAN: It's a bit less confrontational than the tactics some have taken to speak out against nuclear weapons from the church in the past.
I’m thinking of Dorothy Day.
I'm thinking of the nun you mentioned in your pastoral letter… ARCHBISHOP: And Father Louis Vitale, you know, they had a more… it was not a, you know, well it was, they broke the law.
I mean, that's, and that's clearly what they wanted to do.
They wanted to make a statement and that was, you know, and there's a room for protest, I think, within reason.
I have my own opinions on that, but I do think there's a room for that and there's a room for prophetic voices and to get people's attention.
And, there's always going to be a judgment call, how best to do that and if you're making more friends than enemies, you know, that's the judgment call.
But, I do, I do it, I admire people who feel strongly on these issues, but I believe that the best way to do it is to continue to try to dialogue and get to our elected representatives, and, you know, we presented this pastoral letter to President Biden and his people in the West Wing and hope that it gets to him and we're going to do the same with our elected officials here in New Mexico.
MEGAN: Your letter is also a call to non-violence, which goes beyond nuclear weapons.
You invoke Martin Luther King, who says Jesus calls on us to love our enemies.
In some ways this is far more challenging a call than seeking nuclear disarmament.
How realistic is that?
ARCHBISHOP: Well, that's, you know, again and that's a good question, Megan.
And it's, of course it's a very American question, you know.
We are very utilitarian in the United States and practical and, yes, it is, but I believe you’ve got to put the cookie jar up high, you know.
I think that it's, I think it is realistic.
I think, though, that again I'll have to speak in my own terms, as a person of faith, and in the Catholic Faith, I believe that the most persuasive argents are made, you know, in humility and are made in in peaceful ways.
And that the best approach is not to use power, but to use the way of the cross, you know.
For us, Jesus said those who live by the sword will die by the sword and so, I know that it does sound very naïve, you know, to live in peace, you know.
And, but I firmly believe that that, you know, planting those seeds will produce great fruit in the future.
I also believe that it's going to take a long time.
I don't, you know, human nature being what it is, that flight or fight instinct that we have in us and then, even now, we see it's so exacerbated with the polarization.
And in our country and the world and our church, even the Catholic Church, you know.
So, there's a lot of, it's hard for people to sit down and really listen and really, you know ,peacefully and to solve their problems peacefully, but I believe you have to start someplace.
And I do believe we have to embrace the fact that Jesus proclaimed a gospel of peace.
He was very clear on that, you know, that he and he died for, I mean, he, you know, when he was in front of Pontius Pilate, he didn't call down the legions of angels, you know, to wipe them out.
He just, you know, went to his death in the way of the cross in a very vulnerable way, but I think we see a lot of examples where that vulnerability is very powerful and where it can, you know, the pen is mightier than the sword, they say.
Let's hope so.
MEGAN: And you say in your pastoral letter that and you've been saying in our conversation, you want to start a statewide dialogue around these issues.
How do you see these proceeding?
What will they look like?
ARCHBISHOP: Well, I think, you know, one example I gave already would be if I go up to, you know, Los Alamos, but that's just me.
I would like to see our parishes for example and they're in their peace and justice commissions and committees, you know, maybe take this up as a topic.
And, I'd like to see us, you know, writing to our elected officials to, you know, express our concern about this issue.
I think, you know, people can certainly, there's a lot written about it.
People can educate themselves about the matter, instead of just accepting what we hear, but to really go into it and invest, investigate it and read about it.
There's, we put in the letters a lot of practical things that people can do and able to kind of in, in further the conversation, I think that the more we think about it, pray about it, read about it, then we'll be able to kind of converse with others and to really talk about it.
I think our elected officials, you know, that's a very important conversation, I think, because they have the power and the ability and as our elected officials to serve us and to serve this cause.
And, you know, if they really see that people are serious about it, I think they'll respond.
I mean, let's face it, they want to be reelected it would appear, from my experience, that elected officials like to be reelected.
And they seem to make decisions on that and whenever we go to talk at the Capitol, in DC, or here in New Mexico, at the Roundhouse, I hear that all the time.
“Well, Archbishop, this is an election year, you know.
Let's talk, we'll talk, do this later.” So, I'm discovering now that just about every year is an election year for somebody.
So, I think that if we can convince them, you know, and I've talked to them and they say, “Well, you need to let us know,” I mean, I remember even talking to Speaker Pelosi years ago on immigration and she was talking about, “Well, you got to get the people to, right, we need to get those, our elected officials need to hear from the people.” And if they're getting 10 letters on your side and 10,000 letters on the other side, guess who's gonna where they're going to lean towards.
So, I think that's a very important way to do it as well, but I think it's the personal commitment and frankly, I think part of what we're suggesting by an action item, that this is not an easy topic.
I mean, who wants to think about nuclear annihilation, you know?
Who wants to think about, even now with Ukraine and Russia, I mean, I don't know about you, but I, as I listen to NPR in the morning, you know, I get, I sometimes, especially my teeth, I'm going, “Oh brother, this is getting serious.” you know.
I hope that you know there's no missteps.
I mean, I remember, I remember reading fail safe when I was a kid you know and that was, I remember being scared reading that book, you know.
And I know, historically, if that, if that Russian Admiral had, he was one of the three that had the, launching of the nuclear… He didn't… Ii don't know what I'd like to find out what happened to him, but Ii mean, you know, that was a close call.
We've had several close calls and the, and the, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was a close call.
I mean, I've talked to people and one fellow, it was in that, known those ships, you know… He said they had, they were loaded for bear.
They were ready to go you know.
So, anyway… MEGAN: You do have a list of some of those close calls in your pastoral letter.
I don't know if people know just how many close calls we've had over the decades.
ARCHBISHOP: Right here in Albuquerque, a bomb was dropped.
Luckily it didn't fire because of the, it was really, what I… my research… it was a switch.
It was a little on-off switch, a little low voltage switch that didn't fire properly.
The other things did go and then it didn't and that didn't explode.
But yeah, it's, then again you know Murphy's Law, I mean, you can live with murphy's law if you're going to maybe stub your toe or you know something like that, but with nuclear weapons, murphy's law makes me nervous.
MEGAN: How can people be involved in these dialogues?
You mentioned some of the parishes social justice committees, but I think you want to engage beyond even Catholics?
You want to engage everyone, right?
ARCHBISHOP: I think Pax Christie for example is a group, Catholic group that's been around for 50 years almost and they've been doing a lot of work in this regard.
A lot, a lot….
I'm discovering, you know, writing this piece, pastor, from a pastor's point of view, but I'm an old steep learning curve.
I'm learning, because I've heard from a lot of people and all kinds of groups, you know, nuke watch here, New Mexico and all kinds of groups and all kinds of groups that are working on this.
So, I think by, you know, investigating, going online, investigating all these groups and seeing what they have to say, supporting them, you know, financially… these are all ways of helping to further this cause, I think, and showing our concern.
But, you want to have dialogue, so you might, you want people to be in here who may not might not be in support of these groups, right?
You want to be talking about working in the industry or other issues, exactly.
I think that's very important, because, you know, if you just talk to people agree with you, you don't get very far.
We've gotta… and that's why I said earlier, we've got to really talk to people.
I think it's more productive in a way, you know, once we've done our homework, to talk to people who do disagree and to find out why and to see, “Well, are they right,” you know?
If they are, then we need to change our view, you know, maybe.
But, I don't believe that's true.
I think, you know, but I think that we need to engage that conversation and the truth will set you free.
And, I think we mustn't be afraid of the truth and we want to, you know, if someone says something that's an objection, we need to listen to that and there may, there may be some very valid… and, of course, a lot of this too, is, it's temporal, you know.
It seems to me, you know, in other words people may give objections, we'll say, “Okay, I can see where that's true today,” you know.
For example, today, February 9th is probably not a good day to talk about, you know, what the United States is going to do to reduce our nuclear armaments, you know.
Right now we've got to get this Ukraine crisis, you know, de-escalate that and we have other things to tend to, but I think we need to say in the long run, you know, and to open this up and really see what's possible and not look at it as, you know, all these peaceniks they're just a pain in the neck, you know.
They're preventing us from moving forward.
Another thing that I think I have to say and I, you know, it's follow the money.
There is a lot of money in the nuclear armament industry.
I remember getting sick to my stomach when we at our first, you know, time we went out in Iraq and I got a fact in those days factors were more popular and advising me to buy stock in this nuclear arm and that in this armament, you know, they make guns.
And ,I thought, isn't that awful, you know.
You know, to be honest, weapons, weaponry, the United States is one of the largest suppliers of weapons in the world, you know, and there's a lot of money.
And so, there's going to be a lot of objections to looking at nuclear disarmament and a lot of objections to living peaceably, you know.
So, we have to learn, I guess, for people to make money out of peace instead of waging war.
MEGAN: Well, Archbishop Wester, I appreciate you taking time to talk with us.
ARCHBISHOP: Well, Thank you, Megan.
It's been an honor really and a joy to… I've heard your voice so much over the years, it's nice to see you your face.
So, thank you very much.
Appreciate you.

- News and Public Affairs

Top journalists deliver compelling original analysis of the hour's headlines.

- News and Public Affairs

FRONTLINE is investigative journalism that questions, explains and changes our world.












Support for PBS provided by:
New Mexico In Focus is a local public television program presented by NMPBS