March 17, 2006
PBS Ambudsman
By Michael Getler
On Monday evening, April 17, many PBS-affiliated television stations across the country — including nine of the top 10 TV markets — will air an hour-long documentary on "The Armenian Genocide" produced by the independent, New York-based filmmaker Andrew Goldberg.
[...]
Nevertheless, despite that recognition, PBS also went ahead and commissioned Oregon Public Broadcasting to produce a 25-minute panel discussion — which is already taped and scheduled to air immediately after the documentary — that includes two scholars who support the view implicit in the film's title, and two who question, among other things, the accuracy and use of the label "genocide." The panel discussion is called "The Armenian Genocide: Exploring the Issues." It is moderated by National Public Radio correspondent Scott Simon.
The New York Times quoted Lea Sloan, PBS's vice president for media relations, as saying the network "acknowledges and accepts that there was a genocide." But it ordered the panel discussion, she told the Times, to explore more deeply the question of why the Turkish government and its supporters continue to reject the genocide label. [...]
[...]
Turkey is also perhaps this country's most important ally in the Muslim world, although its parliament, when the chips were down three years ago, did not allow the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division to use its ports to get to Iraq in time for the invasion. (That action, and the Pentagon's failure to secure Turkish agreement beforehand, remains, in my view, one of the bigger blunders of the war's planning.)
[...]
In my role here as ombudsman, I've made it a rule to come at issues that are raised by viewers, and as a viewer. I don't write about programs until after they have aired. I watch them as you would. So in this case, I have not yet seen either the documentary or the panel, although both have been recorded for some time now. And with few exceptions, the people raising a fuss — and they are on both sides of this "genocide" issue — haven't seen the actual programs either. The battle is really over whether the panel should be aired at all.
Yet I decided to write about it, in this preliminary stage, because the circumstances surrounding this matter, the decision-making by PBS and affiliated stations, the issues being raised and the pressures being applied by interest groups strike me as concerning free speech and the responsibilities that go with that freedom.
[...]
[...] what follows is a list of questions I submitted to top PBS officials and their answers. In some cases the answers are slightly abbreviated, with permission.
Q — One assumes that a documentary by a skilled producer will produce the fullest exploration and informed judgment on an issue, that it would be PBS's statement on this long-running, hot-button issue. So why, exactly, did PBS feel the need to do a panel? What was the reasoning behind it?That assumption is faulty. No one-hour documentary, no matter how skillfully produced, can be said to represent the fullest exploration of such a topic. This is why PBS's editorial standards have long included the goal to seek a diversity of perspectives on controversial subjects in the national schedule over time. In this case, we judged THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE to be a credible documentary on a significant and little-covered event. We worked with the producer through his final editing to ensure that the program met our standards. We, through Oregon Public Broadcasting, vetted its content with a historian and journalist unconnected with the show. While we were satisfied that it was fair and accurate, because the fact of genocide is still contested in terms the documentary could only mention in brief, we commissioned a panel discussion that could explore the issues in greater nuance and detail.
Q — Whose idea was it to have a panel; what was the process that led to this decision, who was involved in the decision and who made the decision?There was immediate consensus among the Senior Programming Team that a follow up panel was a good idea. The decision to commission the additional program was made as Andrew Goldberg was finishing the program and as we were in contact with him requesting script revisions. The acceptance of the documentary and the decision to do a follow up was essentially one process. The follow-up program had a carefully articulated goal — not to provide a platform for those interests who deny the genocide, but to explore how serious historians do their work, and how they can look at events and evidence and reach such different conclusions. PBS's chief programmers, John Wilson and Jacoba Atlas, are responsible for the ultimate decision in this case.
Q — Did politics enter into the decision, or pressure from the Turks or from anywhere inside or outside PBS? Did it intrude in any way? Turkey is obviously an important ally, is trying to enter the European Union, is a Muslim country.No, the documentary was completed and PBS had commissioned the follow-up long before we were contacted by anyone about the program. We obviously knew of the international controversy surrounding the subject and the attention being focused on Turkey's position and internal laws, and the fact that the U.S. stance on the use of the term "genocide" differs from that of many other nations. It is true that this larger present day status of the issues that stem from the history presented in the documentary provided a compelling rationale in our minds for providing the public with more information on the subject.
Q — How common is it for PBS to schedule, in advance, a panel to air immediately after a program? Perhaps you could tell me some other instances and when they took place.There have been several examples in recent years. The P.O.V. presentation of "Two Towns of Jasper" (about the dragging death of a black man in a predominantly white town) was followed by a Ted Koppel-anchored town meeting, which allowed the further exploration of differing and passionate viewpoints engendered by the killing. Each evening's presentation of AVOIDING ARMAGEDDON (a series we ran over four nights) that looked at the dangers of nuclear proliferation) was followed up by a panel discussion led by Frank Sesno allowing the airing of viewpoints not emphasized in the films. TRADE SECRETS, a Bill Moyers investigation of the chemical industry's knowledge of threats to public and workplace safety, was followed up by a discussion with an industry spokesman.
Q — Jacoba Atlas has been widely quoted as saying that this is "settled history." By having a panel, does this not suggest that PBS is leaving room for doubt?That a question is generally considered "settled" does not mean that it does not warrant discussion. The fact is there are individuals, organizations and countries (including the United States) that do not see the Armenian Genocide as settled. The panel discussion recognizes that fact and provides, in our opinion, information that should be useful to the public understanding of the issue.
Q — Who funded the documentary and the panel?The documentary was fully funded from outside sources — individuals, foundations and corporations. A list is provided at the end of this document. They are credited on screen per our normal disclosure requirements. As is the case with all PBS underwriters, none of these had access to program materials or influence over the production. PBS (the National Programming Service budget) funded the panel.
Q — Several news articles have reported, according to Colgate professor Peter Balakian, who was also an adviser on the documentary, that PBS threatened to pull the documentary if he and another genocide scholar declined to participate in the panel discussion. True?This is absolutely not true. If Balakian declined, we would have sought out other historians to speak as experts in Armenian history.
Q — Officials at WNET in New York say they made the decision not to air the panel because after reviewing it they felt it made no new points beyond the documentary. What was the PBS assessment of the panel that went into your decision to distribute it? Did PBS consider it to be a worthwhile, substantive addition to the documentary — and if so, in what aspect — or was it automatically linked to the documentary and a commitment to distribute it included in the original programming decision however it came out?We do feel the panel is a worthwhile addition to the documentary — if only because it provided the rare, perhaps unprecedented, occasion for experts holding differing views to be in the same room, let alone a TV studio, participating in a discussion about such sensitively held convictions. Scott Simon did a wonderful job of keeping the discussion on track and asking tough questions of all panelists. And the panelists did provide significant detail beyond that mentioned in the documentary in support of their perspectives.
Neither the documentary nor the panel program was designated for common carriage. We respect local stations' decisions to carry both, or one, or neither.
[...]
[...] the documentary, that the Armenians don't seem to object to going in, is funded partly by the Armenians. Then the panel, which they clearly don't want, is funded by PBS. So one could argue, as PBS does, that the public is best served by the combination. But if the documentary does indeed explore the other side, and the panel doesn't add anything, as WNET suggests, that would raise anew questions about why the panel was felt to be necessary. My instincts, without having seen anything, are with PBS's desire to have the fullest airing possible of this historic event. But let's wait and see.
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears
here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.
