None

 

9-27-03

From: Basil Ayish

September 27, 2003 Several advocates of keeping KQED true to its mission addressed the board meeting on Wednesday, after which there was a rally and showing of "Palestine Is Still The Issue" outside. There were only a few people who showed up for the rally but I do believe their activities complemented the message we delivered inside. Naturally, more participants would have been better. Our job is not done, yet. John Boland has recently sent letters to some of you continuing to suggest that PISTI still is under consideration in one paragraph, and in another mentioning a possible combination of programs, but without material that would be "dated". The kicker is that he is talking about doing this NEXT YEAR! That should insure PISTI would be "dated". If you have not gotten a response to your letters from KQED yet, you might send a note and ask what is taking so long to make a decision.

For now, I thought I would share my statement to the board with you. It lays out John Boland's duplicitous statements and rejection of public input despite all the thoughtful and sincere letters urging KQED to air PISTI.

Regards,

Basil Ayish

---

Subject: Board Meeting Comments

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:49:25 -0700

From: Jeff Clarke, President & CEO

To: Mr. Ayish,

I want you to know that our Board of Directors and I heard your concerns about KQED-TV, Channel 9 programming decisions last week and I will be addressing them within KQED.

I do not know what the final decision will be regarding John Pilger's documentary, Palestine Is Still The Issue. Our content folks will make a decision regarding that particular program after a thorough review has been completed. I have asked them to do so in a timely manner.

Thank you for taking time to come to the KQED Board meeting and present your concerns about programming decisions within our organization.

Cordially,

Jeff Clarke

President and CEO

KQED Inc.

KQED Board Meeting, February 5, 2004

Fred Shepherd, Basil Ayish, and Alison Weir attended this meeting, to discuss underreporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and media bias within KQED

Fred Shepherd's Statement to the Board

February 5, 2004

From: Fred Shepherd

To: KQED Board of Directors

My name is Fred Shepherd and I am here to talk about KQED’s Mission and Community involvement.

First I wish to address the “we don’t discuss programming issues at board meetings” rule.

During my discourse, I am going to do my best to comply with the “do not talk about programming” rule.

I would hope that at the end of our talks, someone from KQED could give us a reasonable explanation as to why you will not accept input from the community about the most important aspect of your business – which I believe is “programming.”

I understand television “programming” to be accomplished by one or more professional programmers. By definition, a professional programmer is one who is without bias and prejudice; is not affected by influential minority groups; understands the needs of the community and adheres to the stated mission of the organization. Such professional programmer must have the ability and authority to thoroughly analyze a film and make a timely decision whether or not to air it.

Because none of these qualities was exhibited by KQED’s programmers in the recent review of “Palestine Is Still The Issue” you and we are dealing with political issues and extreme bias and prejudice within KQED’s management. The issue then is the corruption of the programming department which has not been addressed by management but certainly should be an issue with the Board of Directors. You are ultimately responsible for the course of KQED.

Programming is not the issue.. The issue is the fact that the people in your programming department are in violation of KQED’s mission statement. You have a management problem that ultimately affects the viewing audience by depriving them of quality programming that one would expect from a PBS Member.

KQED’s Mission Statement clearly states that its primary mission is to “provide the people of Northern California with consistently high-quality, noncommercial media that “inform, educate and entertain” and which deliver “content that makes people think, feel and explore new ideas.”

In order to fulfill its mission, KQED has an obligation to educate and inform about subjects that are of interest to diverse cultures throughout the Bay Area and beyond.

More than any other issue, an unusually high degree of public interest in the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been clearly demonstrated by more television, newspaper and Internet coverage, talk shows, debates and conversations than any other issue and for good reason . . . what is happening there has global repercussions as witnessed in the United States on 9/11 and elsewhere throughout the world.

If there is one issue that should have fair and balanced coverage everywhere – including KQED - it is the holocaust of the Palestinians. KQED’s mission should not be to withhold information about Israel’s war crimes.

If this were 1940, would you decline to air a documentary about the plight of the Jews in Nazi Germany?

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. Thus far, Mr. Boland has been unable to provide a credible answer. The reason is clear – to prevent the truth about Israel’s war crimes from reaching the American people and to appease a minority of influential people.

Not long ago, the documentary, “Palestine Is Still The Issue” 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 over ten years ago.

Mr. Santora, on his own, decided to air “Palestine Is Still The Issue” within 2 weeks of receiving and screening it. Another 30 days and it was being 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 reason for airing the film follows: “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.”

Following is a clear indication of bias and prejudice in KQED’s programming department:

1. On June 26, 2003, Mr. Boland (Executive VP and Chief Content Manager) stated the following: “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 trouble with his statement is that PBS confirmed that they never received the film for review nor did they have any knowledge of its existence. Mr. Boland has refused to reveal the source of the “second hand” information. It seems that somewhere within KQED there was bias and prejudice before the film was delivered for their review. We are still waiting for answers. This was the first sign of internal negative bias and prejudice, and an absence of objective programming criteria.

2. On July 25, 2003, the San Francisco based “Jewish Bulletin” published an article headlined “KQED doesn’t plan to air documentary that’s anti-Israel.” Again, KQED had its fingerprints on this one. According to Dan Pine, the Bulletin staff reporter, Anne Wintroub (a KQED spokesperson) withheld the fact that KQED had the film and was evaluating it to determine whether or not it was to be aired. This was the second sign of internal negative bias and prejudice, and an absence of objective programming criteria.

3. 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

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.

This was the third sign of ongoing internal negative bias and prejudice and an absence of objective programming criteria.

4. For reasons that are still unfathomable, I learned that the members of KQED’s “Community Advisory Panel” had not been informed of the many requests for airing the film that were coming from the very communities that are represented by the members of the Panel! After having conversations with Patricia Evans (KQED’s coordinator of the CAP), she agreed to pass along the documentary and all of the correspondence that I had developed. After she received the information, I received a call from Ms. Berry who was advised to tell me that this information would not be given to the members of the Panel until their next meeting which was scheduled for November 13, 2003. KQED’s explanation for withholding the material was that the “Community Advisory Panel” was not empowered to provide “Community Advisories” for KQED and therefore did not have a “need to know” during the decision making process. After a thorough reading of the CAP’s Mission Statement it seemed clear that they did have a right and responsibility to be involved. This is simply a sign of skulduggery and withholding information.

5. KQED has a program entitled “Independent Initiative” whose Mission Statement indicates that the Pilger documentary would be a perfect candidate for being shown on KQED-TV. Hopefully the folks at KQED are aware of this program.

We have done our homework by providing numerous reasons that support the broadcast of this documentary. KQED has yet to provide a valid reason for not broadcasting it. We have asked many important questions. KQED will not answer.

For over six months, we have had to deal with unctuous responses and stonewalling from Mr. Boland, Mr. Dwyer and now Mr. Clarke. Although we have asked Mr. Clarke for a meeting, answers and comments, his only response has been to state that “Our ‘content folks’ will make a decision regarding that particular program after a thorough review has been completed.” In other words, the same “content folks” mentioned in items # 1 and 3 are going to make the decision! The foxes are still guarding the chicken coop. This is like allowing Enron, WorldCom and other corporate bandits to audit themselves.

As most of you can appreciate, this is not just about the documentary, “Palestine Is Still The Issue.” This is about freedom of access to information and KQED-TV has thus far demonstrated its resistance to cooperate with the community it “should” serve.

I ask that you do what is right for the community and KQED and broadcast “Palestine Is Still The Issue.”

Thank you.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

KQED Board Meeting, May 6, 2004

Following, in alphabetical order, are the names and statements from members of the community who spoke at the KQED Board of Directors Meeting on 5/6/04

 

Basil Ayish 's Statement to the Board

May 6, 2004

Dear Board Members,

Thank you for making time for me to address you today. As you must know by now, I am passionate about the role KQED can play in helping us understand the world we live in. Once again, I am here in front of you to ask you to get involved in resolving what is fundamentally a management issue that manifests itself in what we get to see on KQED TV. As a result of my last presentation to you, I, along with two other community members were invited to discuss our concerns directly with Jeff Clarke. That meeting was a welcome one, and, I think productive. As a result of that meeting, we presented two films which, in addition to the community requested Palestine Is Still The Issue, would help viewers understand the underrepresented Palestinian experience of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The approximately one month it took to get a response was a relief from the 6 months it took to hear that PISTI was rejected because of management problems with the filmmaker’s style and agenda.

One of the films proposed for consideration, Tom Hayes’ People and the Land, was rejected ostensibly because it was too old to be accurate. This PBS funded film never saw the light of day here when it first came out in 1997. Why? While much has changed for Palestinians since that time, all to the worst, the content is as valid today as it was then. To highlight the decision against People and the Land, another film, Between the Lines, about Israeli journalist Amira Haas, was aired this year ostensibly as a result of community interest in learning about the Palestinian experience. That film starts in 1999, only two years after People and the Land came out. Interestingly, one of the reasons management gave against showing PISTI was that they wanted something more current. It seems to me there is a pattern. Films about the Palestinian experience can’t keep up with the times and therefore are not shown?

On a bright note, Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land was reviewed and acquired for airing. This film discusses the filters that news about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict goes through and will help audiences to become critical consumers of the news. Ironically, this 1.5 hour film is scheduled to be shown at 10:30 p.m., a time when most viewers are unlikely to watch much of the program. Compared to a review of KQED TV programming from March 2003 through May 2004 which shows 26 programs that helping us to understand the Israeli narrative vs 3 that do the same for the Palestinian narrative, it is easy to conclude that scheduling preferences are not accidental. Explanations by management that KQED provides information through a variety of formats, tv, radio, internet, are meant to deflect criticism about bias or selectivity. The person who is relying on KQED TV for information is not simultaneously listening to KQED radio nor surfing the KQED web site. Each format must be judged on its own. There can be no compensation in one format for shortcomings in another.

I would like you, members of the board, to address the following questions:

1) What protections are in place to ensure that personal management bias for or against a particular issue are not reflected in what we get to see;

2) A good example of community input and participation has been the widespread interest in PISTI. What role can you play to ensure that someone’s spurious reasons against accommodating community interest are not allowed to prevail?

3) Where is the community supposed to bring grievances about management decisions?

Sincerely,

Basil Ayish

Video For Peace

1751 Grove St.

San Francisco, CA 94117

videoforpeace@yahoo.com

Paul Larudee 's Statement to the Board

From: Paul Larudee, International Solidarity Movement

To: KQED Board of Directors and Jeff Clarke, President

Date: May 6, 2004

I think we all know that day before yesterday, Disney Corporation decided not to let Miramar films distribute Michael Moore's new film, Farenheit 9/11. OK, that's the corporate world. We didn't really expect free speech in the free market, did we? However, I would like to think that Moore's film might have a better chance in the public media like KQED. Is that just wishful thinking or do the public media actually air views that don't mirror the corporate media?

The record is not encouraging. When was the last time the Lehrer News Hour interviewed the Afghan resistance? What about the Iraqi resistance? What about Jean-Bertrand Aristide (who, by the way, is quite available in Jamaica)? Instead, we hear sanitized analysts from the government or corporate-funded think tanks, speculating on what is going on in the minds of these people rather than going directly to the people who happen to own these minds. The boldest thing out of public television is Bill Moyers' NOW, and even he is walking a tightrope.

There is an almost exact analog to Michael Moore in public television. He is Tom Hayes, who produced a film called People and the Land. He was financed by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but his film was shown on only one PBS station that I know of, and that station was not KQED. Why was it not shown? Because he dared to show a side of the Israeli-Palestinian power struggle that was highly unflattering to Israel. There are certain viewpoints that must be suppressed.

OK, that was seven years ago, but now there's another film, John Pilger's Palestine is Still the Issue. This is not a question of programming; it's about process and accountability. There are a lot of very persistent people who have been trying for a long time to learn why KQED has so far refused to show this film. Until now, they have not received a single credible response to any of their questions. They have proposed sitting down and going through the film frame by frame, if necessary, to discuss every objection, but they are being given short shrift..

KQED claims to want public involvement. Well, you have plenty of public involvement on this issue, and the public is being told, "Thank you for voicing your opinion. Now we'll make our decision and we'll tell you as much or as little as we care to about how we make up our minds."

I'm sorry, but that's not accountability. And we won't have accountability until the concerns of all the community are fully reflected in KQED's decision making. What that means in this case is that either KQED will show Palestine is Still the Issue, or we will find out why not.

Thank you.

Paul Larudee

Paul Larudee 's Follow-up Statement to the Board

5-23-04

From: Paul Larudee, International Solidarity Movement

To: James Canales, Chairman of the Board and Jeff Clarke, President

Dear James and Jeff,

I wish to report my concern with improper procedure at the KQED Board meeting of 5/6/2004. Upon completion of the statements by the public, the two of you commented on some of the statements, and in effect responded to them.

There are limitations upon public comment, three minutes per person, prior scheduling of each comment, with an agenda deadline, all strictly enforced. Is there a similar provision for your responses? Are you entitled to make any response at all? Doesn't a response in fact give you the last word at the meeting without any limitations on how long you may talk and without prior placement on the agenda for your response? Doesn't your response in effect turn the public comments into a discussion? The public may be quite happy to engage in a discussion, but only if both sides are permitted to respond to the comments of the other. Otherwise, the public should be permitted its comment period without KQED officers having the last word.

I look forward to your response.

Paul Larudee

Fred Shepherd's Statement to the Board

 

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.