March 7, 2004

Jeff Clarke, President

KQED

2601 Mariposa Street

San Francisco, CA 94110

RE:      SUMMARY OF 2-20-04 MEETING & MISC.

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 20^th of July at which time she should have known that KQED did, in fact, on June 27^th 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 1^st 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 3^rd and 8^th, 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.  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               The Chicago 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 to 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).

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 Shepherd