| May 6, 2004
From: Fred Shepherd
To: KQED Board of Directors
Hello,
My name is Fred Shepherd and before I speak about my concerns, I wish
to thank President Clarke for working with the community in an effort
to begin the process of providing more balanced coverage of the conflict
between Israel and Palestine. Unlike the flawed and biased process that
permeated KQED’s programming department and the Media Relations Department
during the review of “Palestine Is Still The Issue,” the approval by
KQED of the documentary “Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land” was
accomplished professionally and expeditiously.
My comments and questions address KQED’s process of serving community
interests, not special interests. A credible explanation not to air
“Palestine Is Still The Issue” is owed to the many thousands of community
members who have requested that it be aired. An alternative and more
amenable solution would be to simply broadcast “Palestine Is Still The
Issue” sometime after “Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land.”
Following are my letter to Mr. Clarke and relevant information that
also includes the questions for which we are seeking credible answers
by 6-15-04.
=======================================================
March 7, 2004
Jeff Clarke, President
KQED
San Francisco
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.
QUESTIONS:
What did Mr. Boland know before 6-26-03 and when
did he know it? Where did Mr. Boland get this biased and prejudiced
“second hand” information and how and why would he have it before
receiving the film on 7-1-03? If, as this “second hand” information
evolved into information from journalists, why have their names been
kept secret? Why would Mr. Boland only seek opinions from journalists
who are biased? Was this for the purpose of making a programming decision
that is shielded by not revealing the names of the journalists turned
programmers?
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?
SAME QUESTIONS AS IN #1 ABOVE:
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.
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
Mr. Boland stated in his letter of 7-1-03 that the “programming department
just received a screening copy of the film today (July 1) and they will
review the content.” Sometime between 7-15-03 and 7-20-03, Ms. Wintroub
met with Dan Pine of the Jewish Bulletin who quoted Ms. Wintraub as
saying . . “the station never had any plans to broadcast the special
(Palestine Is Still The Issue), and still has none.” This interview
occurred within 3 weeks of KQED receiving the film for review and 3
months prior to the time we received notification from Mr. Boland that
KQED would not air Palestine Is Still The Issue. Why did Ms. Wintraub,
Manager of Media Relations and spokesperson for KQED, go public with
KQED’s programming business during its review process? Did Ms. Wintraub
already know PISTI was rejected by KQED’s programming department? If
Ms.. Wintraub did not know, why would she mislead the reporter? Was
it Ms. Wintraub’s intent to bring in outside pressure against the film?
Is this the way KQED does business or did this film get special attention?
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.
QUESTIONS: As KQED’s Program Director with many years of experience,
why would Mr. Dwyer consult with others who happened to be biased journalists
who stated that they did not like Pilger’s work? Why didn’t Mr. Dwyer
seek out unbiased journalists? Is it a practice of KQED’s programming
department to consult with outside sources? In order to remove lingering
doubt about the existence of bias and prejudice within KQED toward issues
that affect the Palestinians, I ask that Mr. Dwyer document specific
reasons for declining to air Palestine Is Still The Issue and include
with the other answers we are seeking.
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! Although 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.”
QUESTIONS: Why was information about the community’s interest in having
KQED air PISTI withheld from the Community Advisory Panel until after
KQED decided not to air PISTI? Is KQED in compliance with the communications
act of the FCC? Where does it state in the FCC guidelines that the Community
Advisory Panel shall not 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 not make such recommendations as it considers
appropriate to meet such needs?
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. 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.” 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.
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 numerous occasions
for his preeminence as a journalist, author and documentarian. Such
awards include:
CURRENT AWARDS
2003 The Sophie Prize – 2003. Mr. Pilger is the first journalist to
be named the winner of one of the most distinguished prizes awarded.
John Pilger, says the President of the Sophie Foundation in Oslo, Elin
Ene, “has, in his documentaries, articles and books and through his
integrity, thoroughness and courage, strengthened democracy and human
dignity. He has managed to engage the public – morally and politically
- for the protection of the powerless.”
2003 The Grand Prix Leonardo Award – 2003. This award was for his journalistic
activity in defense of human rights.
2003 TheChicago International Television Awards – “The Hugos.” Certificate
of Merit for a “News Documentary.”
2003 The Orange British Academy Film Awards - has nominated “Palestine
Is Still The Issue” under their “current affairs” category.
2003 The EMMA Awards – 2003. Mr. Pilger won the “Media Personality
Of The Year” award. This is Britain’s largest multicultural awards event.
The awards were set up as an independent political initiative without
any hidden commercial agendas or direct influence with any active pressure
group. The judges cited, most notably, “Palestine Is Still The Issue”
and commented that John Pilger “goes the extra mile to bring us the
alternative truth.” Mr. Pilger, speaking from Afghanistan, said: “The
value of this award is that it is the result of a nationwide vote among
Britain’s multicultural community.”
2003 British Journalist of the Year. Mr. Pilger has won this award
two times. Only one other journalist has won the award twice..
October 2003. The Vermont International Film Festival - named “Palestine
Is Still The Issue” the best in the War and Peace Category.
PREVIOUS AWARDS & AWARDS PENDING
1966 Descriptive Writer of the Year
1967 Reporter of the Year
1967 Journalist of the Year
1970 International Reporter of the Year
1974 News Reporter of the Year
1977 Campaigning Journalist of the Year
1979 Journalist of the Year
1979-80 UN Media Peace Prize, Australia
1980-81 UN Media Peace Prize, Gold Medal, Australia
1979 TV Times Readers’ Award
1985 The Secret Country – The First Australians Fight Back
John Pilger and Alan Lowery uncover the story of a remarkable people
- the Aborigines - with a unique 40,000-year past. Won a Red Ribbon
(second prize) in the Anthropology category of the American Film Festival,
New York, 1986.
1988 The Last Dream: Heroes Unsung; Secrets; Other People’s Wars
In these three films, John Pilger and Alan Lowery return to Australia
to celebrate the country's bicentenary, interviewing an extraordinary
range of Australians, whose views are a long way from those of the treasured
stereotypes. 'Heroes Unsung' won a Gold Plaque (third prize) in the
'Documentary-syndication category' of the Chicago International Film
Festival in 1988.
1990 The George Foster Peabody Award, USA
1990 Reporters San Frontiers Award, France
1990 Cambodia The Betrayal
An examination of the continued secret support given by Western governments
to the Khmer Rouge. Won a Blue Ribbon (first prize) in the 'International
Issues: Asia category' of the American Film & Video Festival, Illinois,
1991; International Emmy Award for Best Documentary, New York, 1991;
Pilger received the Richard Dimbleby Award for factual reporting at
the 1990 BAFTA Awards.
1992 War by Other Means
John Pilger and David Munro examine the policy of First World banks
agreeing loans with Third World countries, who are then unable to meet
the cripling interest charges. Won Geneva International TV Award at
the North-South Media Encounters event, Geneva, 1993;Gold Medal in the
'Best Documentary Production category' of the International Television
Movie Festival, Mount Freedom, New Jersey 1993; Gold Award in the 'Political/International
Issues category' at WorldFest-Houston (Houston International Film &
Video Festival), 1993; Silver Hugo Award in the 'Documentary - Social/Political
category' of the 29th Chicago International Film Festival, 1993.
DATE UNKNOWN: Frontline - In Search Of Truth In Wartime
1993 Cambodia: Return to Year Zero
BAFTA and Emmy award-winning film-makers John Pilger and David Munro
discover startling new evidence that the deadly Pol Pot regime is on
the brink of returning to power. Won a Certificate of Honourable Mention
at the 1993 Chris Awards, Worthington, Ohio, USA (Columbus International
Film & Video Festival
1994 Death of a Nation: The Timor Conspiracy (updated in 1999)
The exposure of another terrible human tragedy to which governments
turned a blind eye, East Timor - a tiny country off the northern tip
of Australia - is ruled by bloodshed and fear. More than 200,000 people
were wiped out by neighbouring Indonesia. Since East Timor's liberation
in 1999, this film's contribution has been recognised worldwide. Won
the Gold Award in the 'Political/International Issues category' (Film
& Video Production division) at Worldfest-Houston, 1994; Certificate
for Creative Excellence (third place) in the category of 'Documentary,
Current Events, Special Events', at the U.S. Film & Video Festival
in Chicago, 1994; Silver Plaque for 'Social/Political Documentary (National)
category' at the Chicago International Film Festival, 1994; Audience
Award for Best Documentary at the International Documentary Festival
of Amsterdam, 1994; Certificate of Merit in the category of 'Documentary
- Disputed Lands', Golden Gate Awards, San Francisco, 1995.
1994 Flying the Flag, Arming the World
John Pilger and David Munro look behind the political rhetoric and
discover the world of international arms dealing. Won a Bronze Apple
in the category of 'Domestic and International Concerns', National Educational
Film & Video Festival, Oakland, California, 1995; Certificate of
Honourable Mention in the 'International Relations' category, The Chris
Awards (Columbus International Film Festival), Worthington, Ohio, 1995.
1995 Vietnam: The Last Battle
On 30 April 1975, longest war this century in Vietnam came to a close.
This film attempts to rescue Vietnam's past from media oblivion and
describes its last battle against the forces of globalization. Won the
the Chris Statuette (the highest award given to film or video productions
in each of the nine production divisions) for the 'Social Issues division'
of the Chris Awards, Columbus International Film Festival, Worthington,
Ohio, 1995; Silver Medal in the 'National/International Affairs category'
of the New York Film & TV Festival, 1996; Gold Special Jury Award
in the 'Film & Video Production division' of Worldfest-Charleston,
Charleston, USA, 1995; Gold Apple (Best of Category award) in the 'International
Social Issues category', National Educational Media Network Awards,
Oakland, California, 1996; Silver Screen Award (second place) in the
category of 'Politics, Government, Citizenship, World Relations, Civics',
U.S.. International Film & Video Festival, Chicago, USA, 1996.
1996 Inside Burma: Land of Fear (updated 1998)
BAFTA and Emmy award-winning film-makers John Pilger and David Munro
fo undercover in one of the world's most isolated, and extraordinary
countries, Burma, which Amnesty International calls 'a prison without
bars'. They discover slave labour preparing for tourism and foreign
investment. International Actual Award for Risk Journalism, Barcelona,
Spain, 1996; Bronze Plaque in the category of 'Social Issues - International
Relations', The Chris Awards, Ohio, 1996; Gold Special Jury Award, 'Film
& Video Production division', WorldFest-Charleston, 1996; Award
for Best Factual Programme, RTS Midland Centre Awards, Birmingham, 1996;
Gold Apple in the category 'Politics: Social organisations in other
lands', National Educational Media Network Film & Video Competition
at The 1997 NEMN Apple Awards, Oakland, California, 1997; the updated
version won a Gold Special Jury Award in the 'Film & Video Production
division', WorldFest-Houston, 1999.
1997 Breaking the Mirror - The Murdoch Effect
The British public were told that the new information technology, heralded
by The Sun's move to Wapping, would bring a greater variety of newspapers
and a more diverse media. But it produced a contracted press controlled
by ever fewer proprietors. John Pilger describes the downfall of his
old paper and the all-pervasive influence of Rupert Murdoch.
1998 South Africa: Apartheid did not Die
John Pilger was banned from South Africa for his reporting during the
apartheid era. On his return thirty years later with Alan Lowery, he
describes the extraordinary generosity of a liberated people, but asks
who are the true beneficiaries of a democracy - the black majority or
the white minority? Won the Gold Award in the category of 'Film &
Video Production: Political/International Issues', Worldfest-Flagstaff,
1998; Certificate for Creative Excellence (third place), U.S. International
Film & Video Festival, Elmhurst, Illinois, 1999.
1999 Welcome to Australia
With the run-up to the Sydney Olympics, John Pilger and Alan Lowery
take a look at what's behind the curtain of hype and glamour. Australia's
Aborigines are still exculded, impoverished and mistreated - while their
part in the brilliant history of Australia's sports successes goes virtually
unrecognized. Won the Gold Medal in the 'National/International Affairs
category' of the 1999 New York Festivals TV Programming & Promotion
competition, 2000; Gold Award in the Television Documentary & Information
Programmes: 'Political/International Issues category' of WorldFest-Flagstaff,
1999
2000 Paying The Price: Killing the Children of Iraq
John Pilger and Alan Lowery travel to Iraq with Denis Halliday, a former
assistant secretary-general of the United Nations who resigned over
what he called the "immoral policy" of economic sanctions.
There they find a suffering nation held hostage to the compliance of
a dictator, Saddam Hussein, over whom they have no control.
2001 The Monismanien Prize (Sweden)
2001 The New Rulers Of The World
John Pilger explores the impact of globalisation, taking Indonesia
as his prime example, a country that the World Bank described as a "model
pupil" until its 'globalised' economy collapsed in 1998. Under
scrutiny are the increasingly powerful multinationals and the institutions
that back them, notably the IMF and The World Bank.
More on John Pilger: John Pilger is a renowned journalist and documentary
film-maker. A war correspondent and ZNet Commentator, his writings have
appeared in numerous magazines, and newspapers such as the Daily Mirror,
the Guardian, the Independent, New Statesman, the New York Times, the
Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and other newspapers and periodicals
around the world. His books include Heroes (2001) Hidden Agendas (1998)
and Distant Voices (1994).
QUESTIONS:
After reviewing the awards and worldwide acclaim for John Pilger’s
documentaries and especially “Palestine Is Still The Issue” what reasons
can KQED’s programming department provide to justify their decision
not to air PISTI? In terms of the approval process, How is PISTI different
than “Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land?”
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 clandestine
“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?!
A comparison of qualifications and awards bestowed upon John Pilger
and those, if any, of Scott Dwyer, John Boland and their mystery, guest
journalists should be of record. We have presented Mr. Pilger’s; may
we now have the same for Mr. Dwyer and Mr. Boland?
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.
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.
question: Please determine which films of mr. Pilger’s have been aired
on KQED and advise? Please provide answers to comments in each of the
above paragraphs.
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.
QUESTION:
Mr. Clarke has since clarified that the two films offered by Mr. Boland
and Mr. Dwyer did not “cover the same ground” as PISTI based on your
knowledge of the films and our analyses. In the future, why should we
feel that KQED’s existing programming department will leave its bias
at home? Will KQED begin to recognize that Jews were not the only humans
who suffered horrible deaths in WWII and begin broadcasting an equal
number of films and commentary covering all other countries that lost
their people?
10. In our meeting with you on 2-20-04, Basil Ayish presented you with
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.”
QUESTION: What action and/or program will KQED-TV implement in order
to provide balanced coverage of this conflict? How will KQED-TV monitor
the programming department’s “fair and balanced” coverage of issues
and events in the future?
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.”
QUESTION: 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, Basil, I and Alison Weir 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.
QUESTION: What did John mean when he said “that broadcasting “Palestine
Is Still The Issue” was not totally out of the question?
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?! THIS CONCERN HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY
MR.. CLARKE.
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 in his letter
of 2-20-04, that “KQED heard from 350 to 400 people in the community
over a period of months.” As early as 7-25-03, Ms. wintraub was quoted
IN THE JEWISH BULLETIN as saying that kqed had “RECEIVED HUNDREDS OF
CALLS, LETTERS AND E-MAILS IN RECENT DAYS. 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. AT LAST COUNT, OUR WEB SITE HAS RECEIVED WELL
IN EXCESS OF 100,000 HITS.
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.
QUESTION: Where did John get his 350 to 400 numbers as of February
2004 if Ms. Wintraub had received 100’s by July 25, 2003 or within 3
weeks of KQED receiving the film?
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
me 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 that are
clearly pro Israeli and anti Palestinian. My offer of a $250.00 reward
still stands if you can present comparable newspaper coverage. 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.
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.
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.
QUESTION:
Any comments or answers are welcome.
|