Armenia, Fairness and Balance, Calling Congress
Ken A. Bode
June 26, 2006
Armenian Genocide Redux
Comments continue to drift in about the PBS program on the Armenian genocide.
Joe Thomas, CEO and President of J.R. Thomas Associates, Inc., Acworth, Georgia, objected to one of the "promotional pieces" saying that even the Holocaust was not the greatest incidence of mass murder in history. Thomas says:
"I believe the loss of life experienced by Africans as a result of the "middle passage", the "slave reconditioning" camps in the Caribbean and plantation existence in North, Central and South America was much greater. Some at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture have estimated that of the 12-15 million slaves that arrived in the Americas an equal amount were lost in the process of capture, transport, reconditioning and slavery.
"Unfortunately, this kind of oversight of the murder and torture associated with slavery is quite common. This time I decided to write."
Michael Getler, the ombudsman of PBS, objected to a portion of my posting in which I quoted the show's producer Andrew Goldberg as saying that Getler had chosen the Turkish side in his review of the program on the PBS website.
Mr. Getler also said:
"I am very disturbed by your phrase, "Given Mr. Getler's doubts about whether genocide occurred. . ." I did not voice doubts. I reported on them. Everything in the column that raises doubt is factual reporting about who is raising doubts and what they say. In those portions of the column where I gave my view it was to say that this is not a balanced issue, that the weight of evidence is on the Armenian side and that the documentary seemed persuasive to an open-minded viewer (that's me)."
I am happy to have Mr. Getler state clearly, as I thought he did not in his original posting, his opinion that the events in Turkey, did indeed deserve to be considered as genocide. Anyway, I think that is what he is saying.
Another viewer who identifies himself as Hold Water, writing from holdwater@yahoo.com, had a decidedly negative view of the documentary, the panel discussion that followed it, along with my assessment of both programs.
Moderator Scott Simon, says Hold Water, handled his duty "in a highly partisan fashion." Simon "smugly went in with a hermetically sealed mind." PBS "was aware they were getting mixed up in a hotly controversial topic, and decided to offer a half-hearted attempt at equal time." Adding: "You should be ashamed for backing such hateful propaganda, and allowing yourselves to be turned into propagandists, betraying your duties as representatives of our nation's Public Broadcasting."
As for my own posting, Hold Water says, (Bode) has allowed himself to be hopelessly hoodwinked in concluding "this was an excellent documentary, well supported with historical fact and expert witnesses." He charges that both PBS and Bode "have defamed a great nation, and have contributed to further hatred and prejudice against Turkish people, already constantly maligned by the wealth and obsession of certain hateful ethnic groups."
Hold Water insists that PBS produce a corrective documentary on the same subject, one not laced with one-sided propaganda, ignorance and prejudice.
On To Other Matters
Questions and objections about fairness and balance constitute a fairly steady flow of comments from viewers of PBS and listeners to NPR.
By telephone message over the past few weeks NPR was criticized for steady "Bush Bashing," and for having no one in the programs who defends Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Daniel Schorr comes in for his usual drubbing, "a socialist, at least" says one listener. On the other hand a subscriber says that the Administration's idea of giving away $100 to each taxpayer to offset the cost of rising gasoline prices is "moronic," and wonders why no one has said so on NPR. Telephone callers are not identified to the ombudsman by name.
On the ombudsman's website, among others, I heard from Bill Herder of Boonville, MO:
"I am tired of listening to 100% liberal views on PBS. We need a 50%-50% balance. Us listeners are intelligent enough to make up our own minds. We do not need to be spoon-fed opinions of others."
Again from the website came this from Scott Ehlers at scott_ehlers@tmail.com:
"I wanted to write because since I was old enough to watch TV, whenever I watched anything on PBS, I could feel the bias and automatically turned it off. I mean, even at a young age, I could tell I was being spoon-fed someone's agenda. I don't know what has been the reason for the change, but now I feel the shows are way more balanced and present fair opinions and cover events from a more even perspective. Whatever it is, please keep it up. Thank you."
By "Snail Mail" which is the slowest way to reach the CPB Ombudsman:
Judith K. Kolb of Apache Junction, Arizona, wrote a scathing letter criticizing the interview with Vice President Cheney on the Newshour in February.
"I am greatly disturbed by the direction the Newshour with Jim Lehrer seems to be moving. . . The interview with VP Cheney was nothing more than a disguised platform allowing this troubled administration to promote, virtually unchallenged, their PR campaign to manipulate, intimidate and mislead the public about almost every issue/problem/dissent/question being discussed by people today. This was blatant damage control, campaign rhetoric, politic spin and deliberate diversion from the news of the day. This so-called interview was not news or an unbiased in-depth discussion, but public relations/salesmanship in an effort to influence public opinion favorably toward administration policies and the Republican Party.
"I resent and strongly object to my tax dollars being used in such a blatant and exclusive partisan manner. In the future, I hope the Newshour returns to the format that I respect."
Daniel Levinson of Lambertville, NJ made a presentation to the CPB Board of Directors meeting on September 21, 2004. In his allotted three minutes, Mr. Levinson criticized ". . .not only NPR's anti-Israel broadcasting, but also NPR and CPB's institutionalized and systematic methodology of sandbagging, stonewalling, illusiveness, evasiveness and circumvention in dealing with my substantiated complaints."
Levinson's letter concluded: "I therefore request to present my case and supporting evidence to the attention of the Ombudsman. I am prepared to travel to Washington to make my case."
Sorry, Mr. Levinson, your appearance at the CPB Board pre-dated the creation of the Ombudsmen's position. I do not work in Washington and am not able to make personal appointments with viewers and listeners, nor is it in the purview of the Ombudsman to make such appointments with CPB executives, as others have requested.
Not The Best Way To Reach the CPB Ombudsman
Mr. Harvey Bally of Springfield, IL had a complaint about PBS, so he called the office of his congressman, John M. Shimkus of the 19th District of Illinois. Mr. Balley, according to the notes from the congressman's district office, is upset at PBS for its "unbalanced coverage on a local news show regarding taxes."
The form sent to me by Congressman Shimkus' office is a Privacy Act Release, a consent for release of personal records by executive agencies. Included on this form is Mr. Bally's Social Security number. Apparently this information was requested by the congressman's office. It should never have been forwarded to CPB.
My advice to Mr. Balley of Springfield and anyone else who feels the need to complain about NPR, PBS or CPB by calling your member of Congress:
Don't give out your Social Security number.