PBS Follows Through On Commitment to Air Balanced Program
Ken A. Bode
November 27, 2006
That was the headline on the column written by commentator and talk show host Glenn Sacks. Mr. Sacks was a leader in denouncing the PBS broadcast, Breaking the Silence: The Children's Story broadcast systemwide in October 2005. The program was a documentary about the treatment of abused children in divorce courts offered by Connecticut Public Television and underwritten by the Mary Kay Ash Foundation.
"The film was extremely one-sided, and presented a harmful and inaccurate view of divorce and child custody cases," says Mr. Sacks. He helped mobilize groups representing fathers to produce thousands of letters and calls to PBS along with many postings on the CPB Ombudsman's website.
In my initial review of the program, I said the following: "My own conclusion is that there is no hint of balance in Breaking the Silence. The father's point of view is ignored as are new strategies for lessening the damage to children in custody battles." Michael Getler, the ombudsman for PBS, shared my conclusions that the programs lacked fairness and balance.
At PBS the program was placed under official review, and last December it was announced that PBS would commission an hour-long documentary for the purpose of further examining the complex and important issues raised in Breaking the Silence. Twin Cities Public Television was tapped to produce the second film, and they engaged experienced PBS broadcaster David Iverson as producer, writer and host. Jerry Richmond, head of programming for Twin Cities says that PBS did not prescribe a point of view. "PBS only told us to do another program on the subject. They did not say to do it in response to Breaking the Silence."
The resulting program, Kids & Divorce: For Better or Worse, reflects the experience and skills of David Iverson, and also showcases his ability to produce a fair and objective treatment of the problems of child custody cases, a part of the law where the issues have become enmeshed in gender politics. Iverson's approach was simply to say, "How can we improve the odds of kids doing well in divorce? The central question is what can make things better for kids? We'll try to figure it out."
All in all the hour-long production chugs along in a steady, deliberate manner, as if in a permanent second gear. Panels of psychological, legal and custody experts are assembled with Mr. Iverson leading a series of discussions, using his low-key, Mr. Rogers manner to good advantage.
Keeping to the central question of what best serves the kids, Iverson examines the legal system -- Does it make it better or worse? -- along with various shared custody arrangements. If the film has a point of view it is that children want and need both parents and that two-parent involvement after a divorce is important. An interesting point is that the notion of joint custody is becoming a political issue at the state level. The film briefly examines moves toward shared parenting laws in Massachusetts and Iowa.
There were a few criticisms of Kids & Divorce, but most respondents agreed with Mr. Sacks. PBS spent a considerable amount of money on the film and made an honest and effective effort to be balanced. As Sacks put it, "Last fall on PBS dads were portrayed as evil, scheming abusers. This week dads were portrayed as an important and valued part of their children's lives."
What lessons are to be learned from this experience with Breaking the Silence and Kids & Divorce? Perhaps the overriding one is that before accepting programming for the PBS schedule, someone needs to make a more thorough check on the motives of sponsors. Breaking the Silence was underwritten by a grant from the Mary Kay Ash Foundation, an organization devoted to the laudable goal of stopping violence against women, especially abusive relationships. The mission of the organization seemingly drove the original production in the direction of concluding that family courts are routinely awarding child custody to abusive fathers.
I am not suggesting that rigid guidelines be adopted which preclude advocacy organizations or foundations from funding public affairs programming on PBS or NPR. But somewhere there must be a responsibility to check the editorial thrust of the production against the mission of the sponsors and to assure that the standards of fairness and balance are not sacrificed to political agendas.
Jerry Richmond of Twin Cities Public TV checked the carriage reports for Breaking the Silence and Kids & Divorce and found them nearly equal at 77 and 78 percent. That's more good news. Kudos to PBS for making good on its promise and for trusting a solid production team to do the job with no strings attached.