Ombudsman's Mailbag and Notebook
Ken A. Bode
March 1, 2010
Two comments about All Things Considered
Rape on College Campuses
Kudos to Joseph Shapiro the lead reporter in a two-part series about rape on college campuses. Shapiro was given more than seven minutes for his reports on All Things Considered (February 25 & 26), with a follow-up conversation on the subject with Scott Simon on Weekend Edition (February 27).
It was framed as a national story reported in a local context. The reports described the plight of a rape victim at the University of Indiana, a freshman who was assaulted in her room by another resident in her same dormitory. It described the ineffectiveness of campus judicial procedures in handling cases of sexual assault, not just at I.U. but at most campuses around the country. Shapiro and his team worked in collaboration with the Center for Public Integrity and brought in the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. They also described a campus-wide educational effort at the University of New Hampshire to educate the entire university community about this problem.
This series struck a special chord with your Ombudsman because my class on documentary television did similar research a few years ago. The students reported on sexual assault at four Midwestern colleges: Two were in Indiana (DePauw University, the University of Indiana) and two in Ohio (Antioch College and Dennison University). The students interviewed victims, accused perpetrators, administrators, campus police and college judicial authorities, along with prosecutors and judges from the counties where the colleges were located. The documentary was titled He Said/She Said, and revealed the same ineffectiveness by authorities in dealing with rape on college campuses as that found by Joseph Shapiro and his team.
Rape and sexual assault on college campuses are among the least reported crimes. Victims are embarrassed and frightened; alcohol almost always is involved (which muddies the waters); colleges do their best to keep rape and sexual assault off the list of crime statistics they must report to the federal government. Oftentimes (as with Shapiro's reporting) college officials will even refuse to be interviewed, citing privacy considerations for the victims. It is a legitimate concern, but it also is one more means by which university authorities keep their heads in the sand on this issue.
Death of an historian
NPR invited criticism for the way progressive historian Howard Zinn was eulogized on All Things Considered. The policy for selecting its eulogists is to seek balanced assessments of figures considered to be controversial. Thus, after Julian Bond and Noam Chomsky offered the expected positive assessments of Zinn's life work, the program turned to a conservative commentator for balance. David Horowitz rang listeners' bells with these words:
"There is nothing in Howard Zinn's intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect . . . Zinn represents a fringe mentality which has unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he certainly did alter the consciousness of millions of young people for the worst."
A French philosopher, whose name escapes me at the moment, was the first to say regarding the death of an avowed enemy: "When God puts his hands on a man, I take mine off." David Horowitz obviously never encountered that lesson.
There is probably some wisdom in the NPR policy of balanced eulogizing. Howard Zinn's views were controversial, but the cranky, dismissive tone of David Horowitz was jarring and inappropriate. All Things Considered should have taken the time to seek balance from a less harsh and gratuitous critic.
From the Ombudsman's website and telephone comments
One thing that is constant with public broadcasting critics is their certainty about the varying inherent biases in radio and television programming. Yes, you will find some grammatical and spelling errors in the submission that follow, but I present them as they arrived. Some examples:
From Tennessee:
"It seems to me that our tax dollars for public broadcasting is going for a far left, if not communistic or at least a socialist agenda. Much of the funding for the 'independent' film makers as you say comes from organizations such as The Tides Foundation backed and supported by George Soros (a known socialist), the Rockefellow Foundation (globalists), and other far left Progressive sources. Public broadcasting is not balanced in my opinion and therefore since my tax dollars are going toward what seems to me to be a push for either world government or at the very least a socialist United States where free enterprise cannot survive and redistribution of wealth seems to be the goal, I cannot and will not support you with any private funds, watch any of your programming and will do all in my power to inform the world of what I perceive to be the true agenda here. Your goals will fail."
From Georgia:
"I was watching 'Arthur' with my young grandson when I noticed a poster in a classroom scene that portrayed the United Nations logo. WHY?? Why was it not an American flag poster or picture? Americans fund this program and it is an insult to Americans to see you inculcating young children's minds with anything less then patriotic posters regardless of diversity. This is AMERICA not the U.N.!!!!! I will not allow my grandson to see this program again and have advised his parents of subtle indoctrination by that show. Shame on you!!!
Some viewers take a personal interest in how their money is spent by various public affairs programs.
From New York:
"I am so angry. I contribute to PBS every year—in five figures. I'm one of the top, if not the top individual contributers to my local station. I'M DONE. NOT MORE MONEY. I'm tired of contributing to Charlie Rose's travel budget. He doesn't need to go to Davos on my contribution to interview Larry Summers. He can go to Washington, DC. What you're doing is dishonest and deceptive. I'm angry and from now on I will not contribute a dime. And I will do my best with my friends to convince them to move their money as well. And don't tell me that CPB has nothing to do with it. If you don't, pass it to the people who do, please. They need to hear the public anger. You've created your own Enron."
Sometimes I hear from viewers who leave me in need of more information.
From New Hampshire:
"I am disgusted with Sesame Street having an admitted adulterer and accused rapist on the show. My family and friends are offended by his presence on a family show. We are discussing boycotting all of the sponsors!" (I sent back an e-mail inquiring whom the offending presence might be.)
PBS announcement that Bill Moyers Journal and NOW are going soon
Recurring in both telephone and website comments to the Ombudsman is genuine dismay about the PBS announcement that Bill Moyers will retire in April and the program NOW with David Brancaccio will be terminated at the same time.
Clearly, PBS has a strong Friday night schedule, anchored by these two programs, and they attract a durable and loyal audience. Several commented that age 75, Bill Moyers has earned his right to retire if that is his choice. Others, like this viewer from Washington state, suggest he is being forced out.
From Seattle:
"I have just heard that PBS is canceling Bill Moyers Journal and NOW. These are the only shows on the air with any ring of authenticity! This news is dismaying, disheartening and depressing. Maybe Moyers has stepped on too many toes? This is just ludicrous! It shows an ignorance of reality outside the Beltway. We need truth-tellers—they're in short supply. It is critical to get details correct these days. I am very upset about these cancellations and I'm waiting to hear a good reason why."
From St. Petersburg:
"The idea of dropping Moyers and NOW I find absolutely ASTOUNDING. Two of the best programs on the air—and what are you going to replace them with?"
What will replace them? That is a good question, and on February 2, PBS cleared things up somewhat with a press release summarized below.
On Friday, May 7, at 8:30 p.m., following Washington Week in Review with Gwen Ifill on most stations, PBS will premier a new, "cross-media current affairs magazine" Need to Know. This will be an integrated broadcast and online current affairs project, created and produced by WNET.ORG in New York.
As you will see from the quotes below, critical details about Need to Know will be forthcoming sometime in the future. For the time being, this is what we know:
Paula Kerger, President and CEO of PBS:
"Through persistent, strategic innovation during the past three years, PBS has been transforming itself, taking public media content beyond the television screen and making it available on multiple platforms, including the Internet and mobile devices. Need To Know is the latest step in this ongoing evolution. Need to Know will take the top stories and put them into context, offering a deeper understanding of the issues of our times"
John Boland, PBS Chief Content Officer:
"The goal of the initiative is to make all of our news and public affairs content more user-friendly and pertinent to the way people use media now. That means updating what we offer on television, but also connecting and coordinating everything we do both online and on-air to give the public easier access to the full array of what PBS offers. This responds not only to the digital multi-platform media environment of the 21st century, but also to the crisis in journalism."
Stephen Segaller, Vice President for Content at WNET.ORG and Executive in Charge of Need To Know:
"Need To Know will compliment PBS NEWSHOUR's daily news coverage and FRONTLINE's long-lead format with an end-of-week exploration of what we suggest smart, busy people 'need to know.' In the past five years, the world of content has changed dramatically. We're inundated with content and information—but what's important? We believe this new online-to-broadcast approach—in its philosophy and its uniquely contemporary production method—will bring new immediacy and engagement to public affairs programming on PBS. And it will bring new faces, new voices and new audiences to a revered media institution."
You'll be forgiven if the promise of "uniquely contemporary production methods" raises a fear of the gimmickry that has invaded the on-set reporting of CNN on election nights and other cable outlets. Also, "what we suggest smart busy people need to know" raises concerns about "McNews" or consumer tips. I hope it's neither. The audience for NOW and Bill Moyers Journal is steady and plainly interested in seeing in-depth reporting on serious issues. With its present Friday night schedule, PBS has proven there is an appetite for good journalism.
So far, no indication of who the new faces and new voices might be. Need To Know will be a one-hour broadcast with content drawn from the week's online story development. There will be beat teams and the broadcast will feature documentary-style field reports, both domestic and international along with short features and studio interviews.
To the questions about who and what will replace Bill Moyers and NOW, that's what we know for now.
More to come.
