-
Letters to Jeff Clarke, President of KQED 3/4/04
RE: SUMMARY OF 2-20-04 MEETING & MISC.
March 7, 2004
Jeff Clarke, President
KQED
2601 Mariposa Street
San Francisco, CA 94110 Hi Jeff,
Many thanks for meeting with us in order to solve KQED's reluctance to air films that depict the Palestinians' side of the conflict with Israel. Your expressed desire to work with us to achieve our mutual goals of providing the people of Northern California with media that inform, educate and entertain is greatly appreciated.
In order to have a meaningful dialogue that will lead to immediate results, it is imperative that we be honest and forthright with our exchange of information.
If you have had time to review some of the most important exchange of information between us and various KQED staff members, you will see that the documentary, "Palestine Is Still The Issue" (PISTI) was undermined prior to its arrival at KQED in June of 2003 and for many months thereafter. In other words, KQED employees have demonstrated extreme prejudice and bias against this film. From our perspective, it is important that you clearly understand some of our grievances regarding the absence of professional programming. Following are some of the problems we encountered:
1. On June 26, 2003, John Boland left a message for me stating that "My understanding, and this is second hand, is that PBS looked at "Palestine Is Still The Issue" as possibly a documentary they would acquire and then make available to KQED and all the other public television stations in the United States. They chose not to because they, along with, I guess, others felt that the documentary was totally out of balance and one-sided and felt that it did not represent, you know, an objective view of the situation there. That's totally second hand. I have no idea if that's the case and I have no idea if KQED will feel that way." The fact is that PBS never received the film or had any record of it whatsoever and therefore did not make such a statement. I know as I was given this information by Reed Walsh, special assistant to John Wilson, Sr. V.P. at PBS.
2. On June 30, 2003, I wrote to Mr. Boland and asked him to advise who the person(s) was at PBS. No answer was given. On February 5, 2004, after the KQED board meeting, I asked Mr. Boland who at PBS gave him such information. In total contradiction to his answer on June 26, 2003, he stated that he had spoken to three journalists whose reputation he respected and they did not care for Pilger or the film. In the past, I had made written requests for this information, which was never given. I continue to have a problem with the latest answer in that if KQED were not considering the film and had not yet received it by 6-26-03, why would Mr. Boland be speaking with unnamed journalists prior to or at that time? Did Mr. Boland talk with anyone on or before 6/26/03?
Did John Boland lie? Did his sources lie? If the story were not a total fabrication by Mr. Boland, who were these unreliable sources? Are these "journalists" the "journalism colleagues whose opinions we respect?" (Boland's letter of 10-23-03). Although we have asked for answers, none have been forthcoming. Please do us all a favor, and provide a credible answer with names. Working together on a foundation built of lies and deception is not going to work.
3. On July 25, 2003, The Jewish Bulletin published an article with the headline "KQED doesn't plan to air documentary that's anti-Israel." According to Dan Pine, the reporter for this story, he was misled by Anne Wintroub, Director of Media Relations and spokesperson for KQED. Additionally, she did not tell Dan that KQED had the film and that it was being reviewed. In retrospect, if your programming department already knew that they were not going to approve the film, then that becomes yet another story. There seem to be two different stories about the exchange of information between Dan Pine and Ms. Wintroub. I spoke with Mr. Pine of the Jewish Bulletin regarding his article and the discussion he had with Ms. Wintroub. He was emphatic in stating that Ms. Wintroub did not mention that KQED had an "ongoing review of the documentary and that we [KQED] had not reached a decision about whether or not to air it." He stated that she implied that KQED did not have the documentary for review nor had anyone seen it at KQED.
Mr. Pine stated that he spoke to Ms. Wintroub on or about the 20th of July at which time she should have known that KQED did, in fact, on June 27th have the standard home VHS documentary accompanied by a film of a follow-up discussion, an interview with John Pilger and printed material relating to the approval process with the ITC, et al. On July 1st KQED received a "screening" copy which officially began the review process. It seems that a more appropriate, accurate and professional statement would have been that "there is an ongoing review and a decision is pending" — only ten words that convey the facts. Please explain why Ms. Wintroub would mislead the Jewish Bulletin.
4. On 9-2-03, in a conversation with Scott Dwyer (Program Director) I asked if he had made a decision about whether or not he had approved John Pilger's documentary. His response was "No. We are looking for what else is out there." I reminded him that the community's request was specifically for "Palestine Is Still The Issue" and nothing else.
Although Mr. Dwyer was originally charged with making the decision without outside assistance, he stated that he sought the advice of independent journalists with whom KQED is associated. These "journalists" gave the film a negative rating and also stated that they did not like Pilger's work! Mr. Dwyer would not divulge their names or how many there were.
When I reminded him of the many awards that Mr. Pilger and his films had won, he demeaned and belittled them as though they were of little consequence. He also dismissed the many precedents for airing this film that have been set by other television stations around the world. He even dismissed the fact that the film had an 83% approval rating when shown in England and that the film underwent a thorough review by the UK's "Independent Television Commission."
Mr. Dwyer stated that Mr. Pilger had "manipulated" the documentary. When I questioned him about what he meant by "manipulation" he didn't, couldn't and wouldn't answer. I took it upon myself to remind him that the documentary was about Palestine.
Mr. Dwyer asked me if Mr. Pilger had said anything on camera that was pro-Israeli. Although the question was irrelevant, I believed it to be interesting, gave it some thought, and stated that I did not recall if Mr. Pilger had said anything that was pro-Israeli. I then asked Mr. Dwyer if he could recall if Mr. Pilger had said anything that was pro-Palestinian. His response was that he could not recall anything said by Mr. Pilger that was pro-Palestinian.
Probing further to mask his blatant bias and prejudice, Mr. Dwyer asked what was shown that dealt with damage and/or injury to Israelis. I recalled two scenes: One scene dealt with an Israeli father who had lost his 14 year old daughter to a suicide bomber with the explanation that Israel's policy was ultimately responsible for her death; the other dealt with the bombing of an Israeli bus which resulted in casualties and which was condemned by Mr. Pilger. Strangely enough, Mr. Dwyer could not remember this scene.
Here we go again with handpicked, unnamed "journalists" who support Scott's desire to censor the film. Once again, no names given... no names, no trust. In poker, it's called a stacked deck. John Pilger is in a league that Scott does not understand. Mr. Pilger is one of the most "decorated" journalists in the business. Please see the awards section in this letter.
5. On October 3rd and 8th, 2003, Patricia Evans, the KQED liaison for the Community Advisory Panel (CAP), agreed to immediately pass along written information and the documentary to the CAP chair, Pat Connally, and members of the Panel. I followed up with a phone call to Patricia on 10-8-03 and left a message asking her to return my call and confirm whether she received and distributed the items. Later the same day I only heard from Margaret Berry who left a message stating that the items would be withheld from the members of the CAP until after a decision was made by KQED about whether or not to air the documentary, "Palestine Is Still The Issue."
Although the film and the documentation were withheld by KQED, the CAP Chair, Pat Connally was able to view the documentary and subsequently wrote a letter to you asking that it be aired on KQED.
On October 23, 2003, you and John Boland notified us that "Palestine Is Still The Issue" would not be aired. It was not until November 13, three weeks after the decision, when you informed the CAP members that KQED had censored the film even though thousands of members of the community had voted in favor of it while very few were opposed. As you know, several members of the CAP were unhappy with the fact that KQED chose to withhold the information instead of engaging them in the process prior to making the decision.
At our meeting on 2-20-04, I gave you a letter from Debra Watkins, a CAP member, wherein she expressed her concerns about KQED's secretive and calculating methods that were employed as a means of "keeping CAP completely in the dark." Debra also suggested "that KQED schedule a special meeting of the CAP so that we can collectively view the video and have a healthy discussion about whether or not KQED should reverse its decision not to show Palestine." I would hope that you will grant this request and let them, as an advisory panel for the community, give you their advice.
Between Scott Dwyer and John Boland, at least 5 outside, hand-picked journalists, were asked their opinion; at least another 5 to ten employees and an unknown number of non-employees were also asked their opinion. Curiously, not only were the CAP members not asked for their opinion, they were avoided and information about the community's desire to see the film was withheld! In that the group may have been tainted by spoon feeding them only one side of the story, I agree with Debra that they should now have the opportunity to have access to all of the information. As part of that process, Alison, Basil and I request that we be allowed to present our side of the issue to the members of the CAP. We recognize the bias and prejudice within KQED and therefore feel that it is your responsibility to allow our voices to be heard — as in a democratic process. Please advise if you agree to this.
The following may be relevant:
"The Communications Act of the FCC details the duties of a Community Advisory Board: The board shall be permitted to review the programming goals established by the station, the service provided by the station, and the significant policy decisions rendered by the station. The board shall advise the governing body of the station with respect to whether the programming and other policies of such station are meeting the specialized educational and cultural needs of the communities served by the station, and may make such recommendations as it considers appropriate to meet such needs. Therefore, unlike commercial broadcasters, public television licensees are bound by statute, Commission rules, and CPB policy to serve the public interest needs of their communities as an integral component of their educational mission."
6. In the last several years, KQED has aired many documentaries about the Holocaust of the Jews yet cringes when asked to air a documentary about the Holocaust of the Palestinians. (Just for the record, those who are following this issue are now referring to it as a Holocaust of the Palestinians and this includes survivors of the Holocaust of the Jews.) What the Nazis did to the Jews was wrong and that is clearly shown in the holocaust films. What Israel is doing to the Palestinians is wrong and that is clearly shown in "Palestine Is Still The Issue." The Holocaust of the Palestinians is new information that the viewers have a right to see and know. Thus far, Mr. Boland has been unable to provide a credible reason for not airing it. To most, the reason is clear — to prevent the truth about Israel's war crimes from reaching the American people and to appease a small number of influential individuals and groups. This question still begs an answer as do all of our concerns. May we please have one.
7. Among the many reasons this film has gained worldwide acceptance is that, in addition to its numerous awards, the award-winning journalist and filmmaker, John Pilger, has been recognized on frequent occasions for his preeminence as a journalist, author and documentarian.
8. If you have gotten this far, you must realize that John Pilger has garnered a remarkable number of awards for his work, worldwide respect and recognition as a truly gifted journalist, author and documentarian. It is an absolute insult for John Boland or anyone else in your organization to allege that Mr. Pilger engages in "tabloid journalism" with an approach that is "more inflammatory than informative" and that "his editorial choices reflect an activist's agenda rather than a reporter's effort to tell a complex story." Name calling, deception, the use of undisclosed "journalists," the manipulation and withholding of information from the Community Advisory Panel and planting false information with the Jewish Bulletin removes all semblance of professionalism and integrity at KQED. Is the truth that difficult for you and your staff to allow?
Please compile an in-house comparison of the qualifications and awards of John Pilger and those, if any, of Scott Dwyer, John Boland and their mystery, guest journalists. We have presented Mr. Pilger's; may we now have the same for Mr. Dwyer, Mr. Boland and the journalists?
In other words, when there is no transparency in the process and you refuse to divulge the names of the questionable journalists, one is left with an extreme case of distrust. I think it only fair that you allow us to submit conclusions of journalists "whose opinions we respect in the realm of international coverage and the Middle East" in order for KQED to present itself as having done due diligence with regard to its responsibility of serving the community with honest, unbiased and balanced programming practices. We have already presented proof to you that KQED's programming coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is heavily weighted (90%) in favor of Israel. That alone is a record of extreme bias.
In a recent communication with Mr. Pilger, he recalls that KQED has aired some of his films over the past several years. He also recalls that WNET-TV in New York and possibly KQED showed "Cambodia: the Betrayal" in 1990 for which he won an Emmy. Please determine which films of his have been aired on KQED and advise.
9. On October 23, 2003 and again on November 24, 2003, Mr. Boland offered films (other than PISTI) with the comment, "we have found other content, covering the same issues that better meets KQED's mission to best serve our audiences." One of these films was "Between the Lines" by Amira Hass and the other was "Primetime War II." Unlike "Palestine Is Still The Issue" which was written and presented by John Pilger, an Australian, the two films aired by KQED were produced and directed by an Israeli company about Israelis and did not cover the "same issues." At our meeting with you on 2-20-04, I recall that you agreed with me that these films did not qualify as substitutes for PISTI and that Mr. Boland's statement was not meant to be interpreted as such. If my recall is flawed, please advise.
Not only do these two films not cover the "same issues" they are not in the same class as PISTI and they certainly do not inform and educate KQED's audiences about the conflict. "Between the Lines" is a film about the trials and tribulations of Amira Hass, who is an Israeli journalist, and her mother. Approximately 70% of the movie is devoted to Amira and her mother. Reference to the holocaust of the Jews is used throughout the film by Ms. Hass and her mother. (To keep things in proper perspective, the Jews do not have an exclusive on pain and suffering — approximately 49,000,000 people were killed in World War II and of that number, 20,000,000 were Russian; 10,000,000 were Chinese; 6,500,000 were German; and 4,000,000 were Jewish. Virtually all suffered horrible deaths.) Approximately 25% of the film contains meetings with Palestinians, other innocuous scenes and a segment where the Palestinians are without electricity. "Primetime War II" also is in the same whitewashed category. After viewing these films, one would think that the Palestinians were only suffering minor inconveniences. By claiming that these films cover the "same issues" as "PISTI" is an outright lie and yet another ploy to misinform your viewing audience.
10. In our meeting with you on 2-20-04, Basil Ayish presented his research regarding KQED's coverage of the conflict between Israel and Palestine over the last year. Approximately 90% of the films shown by KQED were about identifying with Israel while only 10% were about identifying with Palestine. Once again KQED has lost its balance and failed to adhere to its mission to inform and educate. If these figures are wrong, please provide detailed information in order to correct our findings. It is time that KQED act in good faith and "balance the books." We ask that you provide us with access to KQED's public records in order that we may further our research regarding this matter.
11. Not long ago, the documentary, "PISTI" was aired on WNED TV which is a PBS member and whose director of programming is Ron Santora, who was director of programming at KQED some ten years ago.
Mr. Santora, by himself — unlike the folks at KQED – decided to air "PISTI" within 2 weeks of receiving and screening it. Another 30 days and it was broadcast and will be aired again this summer. Other PBS stations are planning to air it as well. Compare this professional approach to the comical involvement of virtually everyone at KQED and still no answer for 5 months!
WNED's documented reasons for airing the film follow:
"Following a thorough three-month investigation, ITC (Independent Television Commission) rejected complaints against it and praised the films' journalistic integrity. The ITC referred to the "care and thoroughness with which the film was researched" and the "comprehensiveness and authority" of the film's sources."
"Part of our mission is to educate — and that means presenting all sides so our viewers have sufficient information to make up their own minds about important issues facing our world. Not every documentary or news program we air presents a self–contained, thoroughly balanced view of each issue. However, we trust that over time all sides are presented.
You may be interested to know that we've also heard from many viewers who were grateful to have this documentary available on WNED. These viewers were not primarily Palestinians, but citizens who feel that up until this time the U.S. media has primarily presented just one side of this controversial issue."
Please explain why the interpretation of the standard PBS Mission Statement by WNED clearly allows the broadcast of PISTI while KQED's interpretation does not. The wording appears to be identical. A clear and concise answer would be appreciated in order to support why KQED has elected to censor the film. WNED has provided a clear and concise reason why it should be aired!
12. After the board meeting on 2-5-04, Alison Weir, Basil Ayish and I had a lengthy conversation with John Boland which covered many of the issues that concerned us. One comment that John made was that broadcasting PISTI was not totally out of the question. Please clarify.
13. At our meeting with you on 2-20-04, you were extremely optimistic about the possibility of getting POV to acquire PISTI at which time KQED would broadcast it. What you failed to tell us was that approximately 1,400 submissions are made to POV for only 12 openings and that this year is already closed. You should have known how difficult this process is as a contact that I have in the film industry told me in less than a minute how remote our chances were. If this information is incorrect, please advise; if not, why would you leave us with the impression that the film would be aired by KQED. Very confusing! It gets more confusing... if KQED would air PISTI as a POV offering, why wouldn't KQED broadcast it without the involvement of POV?! Again, please provide answers.
14. KQED, under your leadership, has literally shut out the community it is supposed to serve. You censored any and all timely information that the CAP should have had and you did not take into account over 3,000 calls and emails that you received that were in favor of having PISTI shown. To set the record straight, Mr. Boland stated that "KQED heard from 350 to 400 people in the community over a period of months." My records indicate that over 3,000 people contacted KQED with phone calls, emails and letters. Persons at KQED who were contacted included you, John Boland, Scott Dwyer, DeAnne Hamilton, Patricia Evans, James Canales, Margaret Berry, Anne Wintraub and others.
Mr. Boland wrote on July 15, 2003: "We appreciate hearing about the interest and concerns of KQED viewers and listeners here in Northern California as well as the communications we have received from people from other parts of the country and the world." Mr. Boland further stated that the vast majority of the contacts were in favor of airing the film. Back to the numbers. The fact that news of this event traveled around the world, one might assume that at least 100,000 people were made aware of KQED's reluctance to air PISTI. If a miniscule number of 3% called and/or wrote, the resulting number would be 3,000 contacts. If only 10% contacted KQED, the resulting number would be 10,000.
A further indication of the interest in this film has been demonstrated by the distribution of over 700 original copies of PISTI in the last several months. It is anticipated that we will reach over 1,000 by May of this year. This success has been a "word of mouth" phenomenon. Hunger for truthful information about the conflict should be a sign to you that the community has spoken again and this time with their pocket book. A professor at one of the universities has shown it to over 600 students. Other schools in the Bay Area and elsewhere in the U.S. have also shown it to their students. If it serves as an educational tool in educational institutions, why has KQED elected to censor it from a largely adult audience?
KQED is now on record as having discriminated against a large segment of its viewing audience by concealing the truth about the conflict and by failing to present to its viewing audience an equal number of films of substance. Owing to KQED's imbalance of coverage, the Palestinians, other Arabs and the Muslim community have been demonized while the Israelis have been portrayed as the victims. Because KQED has not conveyed the truth about the conflict to their general viewing audience, such omission is equivalent to the worst form of censorship. Is it possible that KQED is guilty of bigotry?
15. At our meeting with you on 2-20-04 I said that I was sympathetic to the pressure you were under to keep quality documentaries such as PISTI off the air and you responded that you were not under any pressure whatsoever. I would truly like to believe you but that's like asking us to believe in the tooth fairy.
Can you name one politician who has been openly critical of Israel or it's Holocaust of the Palestinians and remained in office? You have in your possession proof in the form of media studies done by Alison Weir of "If Americans Knew" and actual copies of newspapers from me that are clearly pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian. My offer of a $250.00 reward still stands if you can present newspaper coverage that is similarly pro-Palestinian. Facts were given to you at this same meeting that showed KQED aired films that were 90% favorable to Israel and only 10% that were somewhat favorable to Palestine. The facts are indisputable and this is why I have trouble when you suggest that your programming decisions at KQED are neutral and not subject to special interest, pro-Israeli individuals and groups. Please explain this imbalance.
Once again, I ask that you review all of the information that we have provided over the life of our involvement with KQED and advise within the next two weeks if you disagree with us and if so, precisely what the disagreement and/or correction is. In that KQED has failed miserably in its duty as a "public" television station, we will seek redress in the court of public opinion and venues of authority. More than anything else, it would serve the community well if KQED would begin anew a positive approach toward airing the very popular and widely acclaimed documentary "Palestine Is Still The Issue." I am sure it will not be nearly as controversial as "The Passion of the Christ" which informed educated, entertained and made people think. Thank you for your continued interest in working with us.
I would hope that we can schedule another discussion with you before the next board meeting.
Best regards,
Fred ShepherdSUBJECT: FOLLOW UP TO OUR MEETING OF 2-2-03
Date: 3-5-04
To:
Dear Jeff,
It was good meeting with you to discuss our concerns and the ways we can work together in achieving KQED's mission. Thank you for the time you spent with us, and for your thoughtful suggestions. It is our observation that KQED TV has severe shortcomings in two areas: the decision-making and communication process in responding to community requests and the tremendous gap between programming which helps viewers understand the Israeli/Zionist/Jewish experience and the Palestinian experience.
We are glad to hear that community suggestions for specific programs or films will be reviewed and addressed quickly and thoroughly from now on. Timely decisions on when a proposed program will be scheduled or providing specific details (unlike what was given regarding PISTI) why it is being denied will go a long way toward giving the community a sense of healthy participation in what they get to view on their public station. We look forward to your review of the films you asked that we suggest.
We remain guarded, however, and share with many others the sense that rejecting Palestine Is Still The Issue because KQED management and consultants objected to presenter John Pilger's "style" is unacceptable given the tremendous community desire for KQED to air the film, the importance of the message and the tremendous history of awards Pilger has received. KQED viewers deserve to make their own judgments about the film rather than have it silenced because the station management decided its audience would not be receptive to the messenger's "style" and needed protection from it. We reiterate that it is precisely because of Pilger's "style" that KQED's audience might learn something new about one of the most pressing issues of our time, thus fulfilling part of KQED's mission.
With regard to other broadcast avenues, you had commented that the film might be appropriate for a POV segment or that WNED might have put the film into the PBS system with the implication that KQED would then show it. Is that right? If so, why must KQED's viewers wait given that POV has only 12 slots for 1,400 or so submissions and that KQED can acquire the film just as easily as WNED did on its own?
While you may believe that KQED tries, over time, to present a balance of views to the Palestine/Israel debate a quick review of 12 months of KQED programming demonstrates an abysmal record. From March 2003 through February 2004 I counted 19 programs listed in Fine Tuning which help KQED viewers appreciate the Israeli/Zionist/Jewish experience and only 2 which do the same for the Palestinian narrative. We trust you are sincere in considering our program suggestions and want to redress this information imbalance. With that in mind, we would like to propose two films, in addition to PISTI, which will contribute to KQED's mission to "inform and educate": People and the Land by Tom Hayes and Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land by the Media Education Foundation. We have other suggestions but want to get your response to these two first.
We are eagerly awaiting your response to the questions posed here, to your comments regarding the film suggestions we have made, and to continuing the dialogue about how to help KQED fulfill its mission with respect to presenting a balanced view of the Palestine/Israel conflict.
Sincerely,
Basil Ayish
Alison Weir
Fred Shepherd
-
Get involved! Join our network of sponsors and spread the word.
Subscribe for our mailing list
The information you submit is kept private
and confidential.