From: Marc Sapir,

To: Deanne Hamilton, INTERNET:DHamilton@KQED.org

CC: Raul Ramirez , INTERNET: Rramirez@kqed.org

Date: 4/2/03 7:33 AM

RE: Thanks etc.

To: DeAnne Hamilton, Vice President and TV Station Manager, KQED

April 1, 2003

Dear DeAnne,

I want to thank you, as well as John Boland, Don Durheim and Raul Ramirez for meeting with Jeff Perlstein and myself yesterday at KQED. I appreciate your willingness to listen to our concerns, which not only represent our concerns as leaders of Media Alliance and Retro Poll but those of many tens of thousands of people in the Bay Area, including the individuals planning to demonstrate at KQED next Tuesday, April 9.

There were issues raised that could not be pursued in depth in the time we were there. I would like to address two of these here. You will recall that I began with a question from Retro Poll's first national poll last September: "Is there evidence that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda?" (this was our poll question, though I also threw in the 9/11 connection at the meeting yesterday). Of the four KQED managers, two felt it was inappropriate to answer because you were there representing KQED, not yourselves, one of you said no evidence of these connections, and the fourth said there was no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11 but some evidence of an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Although we proceeded to spend 90 minutes interacting together after that I must say that that first interchange was sufficient to clarify the problem that we face with the role of the mass media in the U.S.

There is no evidence of a connection between either Al Qaeda or 9/11 to the Iraqi regime our nation is at war with. There was even a CIA report, suppressed by the Administration, concluding there is no evidence. Most other intelligence experts and governments around the world also came to this conclusion and still hold it. This is not a matter of ideology, of conservative or liberal, left or right, or even of opinion. It is a matter of fact. Retro Poll (retropoll.org) put up a number of links to articles that defend this conclusion attached to that question. Since September, no new evidence to challenge our understanding has appeared, yet more than half the public now have this fact wrong. And where do Americans get their facts from? That is the heart of the matter.

There has been a vast array of repetitive allegations on this issue backed up with forgeries and confabulations right up to open lies by the President of the U.S. himself to defeat the overall truth of the matter. The media appears unable to fully grasp the import of this because there has already been in place a media culture tending to emphasize those facts that tend to support and justify those in power or with authority. The transition from emphasizing particular facts for particular reasons to creating facts for the same goals, seems to have gone by almost unnoticed. This isn't a totally new phenomenon in history of course, but it should be cause for a daily hair pulling and a muckraking Lincoln Stephans scream of alarm. It is not.

The reason Retro Poll used this question on Iraq is the same reason I began our discussion with it. The fabrication of the story is such a clear case of using the media to create the appearance of

facts-construction of a virtual reality, a marketing strategy, a reality TV world-to support policies not in the interest of this nation, its people, or other nations and peoples leading to the desecration of life, of cultures, of peoples, of nation states.

That key people in authority making roles at KQED feel ambivalent enough to decline to answer a factual question (the options included yes, no or don't know) which is at the heart of the rationale for and public opinion of the war, speaks, I believe, to the increasing possibility of world war and fascism in the U.S. People at all levels of society become afraid that truth will get us into trouble, particularly when those in power require that we believe and speak falsehoods. You will surely

remember that in my introduction I began by saying that I believe that the issue of the peace movement's concerns about programming content is fundamentally an issue about ethics and risk taking in an environment structured to have people conform to system norms. I reiterate that

point. I believe from your openness to us that you want to make KQED TV a better station, more responsive to public concerns. I believe, however, that the limits of your effectiveness in doing that will not be governed by your lack of ability, or even resources, but by political considerations

beyond your control, by pragmatism.

The second matter is that I have had two pointed criticisms from you about our not having our facts straight which I should respond to. The leaflet for the demonstration which led to 3 arrests for civil

disobedience in early March, demanded that KQED stop carrying promotionals for Lockheed Martin and other major military contractors. You have said that, to your knowledge, there are no such ads or major funding from Lockheed Martin on KQED-TV. I have taken you at your word and I apologized for the error in the leaflet. However, the reality is that Lockheed Martin is a major sponsor on KQED radio. And corporate sponsors do impact KQED programming. Although you can not be held personally responsible for what radio does, our protests are not against you

personally. Our demand about this particularly onerous advertising is still valid and important. We think that such ads are backing war making at a time when the U.S. "military-industrial complex" (to quote Dwight Eisenhower) is a vast powerful money making apparatus that both fuels and feeds off of offensive and aggressive war making policy.

You made a similar critique when I paraphrased a September 2002 FAIR study showing that the weekday hosts and anchors on KQED were overwhelmingly white (90%) males (70%). You and Raul Ramirez reported the hiring of several people of color and you asked that we do a better job

checking facts. If you have added significant numbers of people of color hosts since the FAIR survey I applaud your achievements in this regard. This is an important area of concern for many people in the Bay area. If you believe that FAIR was wrong with their September, 2002 data I'd like to have your take on that. We would be most pleased to have your HR people re-calculate the current percentages of weekday hosts by ethnicity. We'll be sure that FAIR gets that info; and we will update any information you give us in public forums.

Finally, as I said, I will make a copy of the audio tape of our meeting if you wish. If you do not request it, I will save myself the trouble. Again thanks for being open to us. I hope that the

conversation can continue.

Sincerely,

Marc Sapir

PS. This is not a private letter.

From: Marc Sapir,

To: Deanne Hamilton, INTERNET:DHamilton@KQED.org

Raul Ramirez , INTERNET: Rramirez@kqed.org

Date: 4/8/03 6:18 PM

RE: specific requests

DeAnne Hamilton, Vice President KQED and Manager TV

Raul Ramirez, News Director KQED Radio

April 8, 2003

Dear Deanne and Raul,

As you know we held a demonstration outside KQED today to continue to manifest our concerns that the station is not representing the war, its origins, purposes and effects in a truthful way. Most negative comments that I hear center around Neil Conan and Jim Lehrer who are considered to

be in competition for best apologist for the U.S. government with their never ending stream of Beltway and right wing experts and military geniuses that they parade before the audience. In stark contrast, today I saw a report from the International Red Cross about a truckload of children's and

women's body parts that has literally sickened and incapacitated Iraqi doctors in a small village that the U.S. bombed and bombed because there was resistance---not too likely for that to make it to the airways I suppose. It is easier to quote the Iraqi defense ministry; they can be assumed to be lying.

We have focused our KQED concerns on some very specific requests as promised at the time of the meeting with myself and Jeff Perlstein. These requests are capsulated in a goldenrod colored leaflet we distributed at the demonstration. In case you did not receive it I am attaching it to this e-mail. These are just straightforward proposals of experts that should be used regularly on KQED and high quality documentaries that deserve to be aired.

On the topic of experts, I call your attention to today's Chronicle war section which sort of has the feel of a celebration of "victory" at war. In an article about an impeachment (of Bush) effort that is certain to fail, the writer makes a point of destroying Ramsey Clark's credibility to whatever extent possible. This rings familiar. Ramsey Clark ought to be added to our list of experts on the UN and International Law on the leaflet. He can join people like Scott Ritter who has likewise sustained

serious personal attacks on his credibility and loyalty in recent months, despite the impeccability of his credentials. Dennis Halliday, former under Secretary General of the U.N. hasn't quite gotten the same level of attention but he gets it too, like Sean Penn etc. It would seem that all the government and their media flacks have to do is cast a few accusatory and guilt by association stones at some of the more credible and creditable dissident experts and the media does the rest: black lists them or write them off as kooks who can't be used.

In any case, we are giving you plenty to work with and would appreciate

your consideration of these suggestions and a reply. Thanks.

Marc Sapir

From: Marc Sapir,

To: Deanne Hamilton, INTERNET:DHamilton@KQED.org

CC: Raul Ramirez , INTERNET: Rramirez@kqed.org

Date: 4/19/103 3:37 PM

RE: request follow up

Dear DeAnne,

The committee which I at times represent in communications with you met earlier this week and asked that I prepare this e-mail. We appreciate your accepting our suggestions for screening 10 named documentaries and our request that you regularly use over 50 named individuals as experts in various fields from the UN to US Intelligence to Civil Rights. It is now about 10 days since you acknowledged that you were passing those ideas on to various managers at KQED for discussion.

The Committee would like to add the names of Joel Beinin, As'ad Abu-Khalil and Rashad Kaladi, all well known experts on the Middle East. The Committee also points out the omission of the first name of David McMichaels, a former intelligence officer, and the incorrect substitution of the word "inciteful" where the intent was "insightful" in an earlier leaflet.

We are now asking that you comit to screening at least one of the following 3 documentaries (from the previous list) on KQED TV in the near future: 1) Palestine is still the issue (the 2003 updated version) 2) Jenin, Jenin (also I believe a 2003 release) or 3) Hidden secrets of Desert Storm, which

is not recently released. Our preference would be John Pilger's documentary on Palestine. We are requesting that you give us a response and commitment of a specific broadcast date, and time by Wednesday, April 30. We will hold off planning our next demonstration at KQED pending your

response.

Thanks for keeping an open mind.

Marc Sapir

for the Network against Disinformation

From: John Boland, INTERNET:JBoland@KQED.org

To: "'MSapir@compuserve.com'", MSapir

CC: Patricia Evans, INTERNET:PEvans@KQED.org, Raul Ramirez, INTERNET: Ramirez@KQED.org, Richard Winefield, INTERNET:RWinefield@KQED.org, Jo Anne Wallace, NTERNET: JWallace@KQED.org, DeAnne Hamilton, INTERNET:DHamilton@KQED.org

Date: 4/30/103 5:48 PM

RE: Message from Internet

TO: Marc Sapir, Network against Disinformation

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us March 31 and for your follow up correspondence (and flyers from your groups' demonstration). We appreciate your interest in KQED and your recommendations have been shared among the editorial and programming management staff of KQED's media.

We encourage and welcome feedback, criticism and suggestions from individuals and groups from among the communities we serve in Northern California. All comments and recommendations receive full consideration as we plan and implement content development and program schedules.

While we are pleased to receive your groups' recommendations, we believe it is in the best interests of our viewers, listeners and web site users to maintain KQED's editorial independence. It would be inappropriate to allow any individual or organized group to dictate programming decisions. Therefore, while we will, as noted, give your suggestions due consideration, we will not commit to broadcasting particular programs designated by any organization within a specific timeframe.

We hope you will continue using KQED's media, supporting public broadcasting, and responding when you are so moved.

Thank you again for your time and interest.

John L. Boland

From: Marc Sapir [mailto:MSapir@compuserve.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:06 PM

To: John Boland; Deanne Hamilton; Raul Ramirez

Subject: New Request to KQED Management

Dear key management folks at KQED,

I am writing at the request of the Network against Disinformation (NaD). Over a month ago NaD received an e-mail from John Boland declining, as KQED director of content, to screen films or use various experts in diverse fields that we had previously recommended to you. Mr. Boland did not

categorically rule out using some of these resources in the future but stated that KQED intends to assure its editorial independence and will resist pressure from particular interest groups.

(Would that KQED were in a position to resist pressure from major private and corporate funders who are, after all, non-public interest groups with agendas sometimes antagonistic to the public's interests. We would be most excited to hear once in a while that KQED refused a major underwriting grant because of concerns for the same editorial integrity. Moreover, we think that our suggestions were quite broad and responsible and did not reflect an effort to compromise KQED's integrity).

In any case, following Mr. Boland's letter we screened John Pilger's, "Palestine is still the issue" a recent documentary by an internationally known journalist, in front of KQED as a protest of your refusal to show it. We are aware of the irony of CAMERA's, an organization that supports

Israeli colonialist policies, launching a boycott of NPR under circumstances where most of the truly fine middle eastern reporters and commentators (Pilger, Robert Fisk, Amira Haas, George Monbiot, Uri Avnery, David Grossman to name a few and include 3 Israelis) rarely get the time of day on U.S. media, including NPR and KQED.

We have now previewed another film that is being censored in the U.S. called "Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Terror", which came to light through Amy Goodman's program Democracy Now on Pacifica Radio within the last 2 weeks. We would urge that KQED seriously consider screening this film which reveals the apparent complicity of U.S. forces and the command structure in a massacre of historic significance in Afghanistan.

Based upon Mr. Boland's letter, we believe it unlikely that you will agree to our suggestion, so we are planning to again effect a film screening in front of KQED on June 20th in the evening. Certainly all KQED staff, and yourselves, as well as listener/viewers are invited. We would appreciate your announcing this event on the air to be sure that your audience understands that NaD is not affiliated with KQED and its actions should not be construed to be endorsed by KQED.

Finally, we do appreciate your efforts to provide some diversity of viewpoints and perspectives on some issues of importance. Speaking only for myself, there are KQED TV programs which are of interest to me and which I do view. (for example, Frontline World's report on fair trade coffee). But KQED remains trapped within the culture of dominance by money. The often biased presentation of current events is skewed in support of that dominant paradigm. And as such the diversity you present is not adequate. KQED thus provides a more erudite, but not sufficiently challenging alternative to the lies that government and corporate media use to permeate our daily lives. We all --the public audience of the Bay Area--need KQED to take the side of the public, and we think, in that

respect, that NaD's requests are really the opposite of Mr. Boland's suggestion that we are a special interest group with a narrow agenda.

Sincerely,

Marc Sapir

for the Network vs Disinformation

From: John Boland, INTERNET:JBoland@KQED.org

To: "'Marc Sapir'", MSapir

CC: Richard Winefield, INTERNET:RWinefield@KQED.org, Patricia Evans, iNTERNET: PEvans@KQED.org, Jo Anne Wallace, INTERNET:JWallace@KQED.org, Raul Ramirez, INTERNET:RRamirez@KQED.org, DeAnne Hamilton, INTERNET:DHamilton@KQED.org

Date: 6/16/103 9:51 AM

RE: RE: New Request to KQED Management

TO: Marc Sapir

Network vs. Disinformation

Thank you for writing earlier this month. While we declined, in the interest of editorial independence, to provide a "guarantee" that KQED will broadcast the particular programs or particular spokespeople requested by your group, we very much appreciate receiving suggestions from our viewers and listeners, and we give them all serious consideration. We followed up

on your specific suggestion that we consider the documentary "Palestine Is Still the Issue" for broadcast on KQED and learned that the program is not available to us because U.S. broadcast rights have not been granted to PBS stations.

Your contention that KQED is under some kind of pressure from corporate or private funders is simply not borne out by the facts. KQED is supported by a great diversity of funders of which corporations account for just 17% and major donors only 6%. The largest part of KQED's support - nearly half - comes in the form of modest membership contributions from more than 200,000

generous citizens of Northern California. Like any reputable media organization, we maintain a clear separation between the fundraising and programming functions at KQED. Programming decisions are made by qualified, independent professionals whose only goal is to provide the best possible public media service for the community.

Thank you for your suggestion regarding "Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Terror." We will inquire to determine if broadcast rights are available to KQED and, if so, our programming team will screen the film and determine if it should be included in our schedule. As a viewer of KQED, you know that in addition to regular series (like Frontline World, POV, etc.), KQED regularly airs the work of independent producers. In fact, we broadcast more than 340 independent films last year, far surpassing any other public television station in the nation. We do not shy away from provocative work or controversial voices, but we do seek fairness, accuracy and journalistic integrity in all the content we present.

Each month, more than 5 million Northern California residents watch KQED Public Television, listen to KQED Public Radio, visit kqed.org, and utilize the services of KQED Education Network. We exist to inform, educate and entertain with high quality, noncommercial media, and we take that mission very seriously. We welcome your continuing interest and suggestions.

John Boland

Chief Content Officer

From: INTERNET:clarea@msn.com, INTERNET:clarea@msn.com

To: MSapir

CC: "Saletska, Natalie", INTERNET:NSaletska@DLTEntertainment.com

Date: 6/18/103 1:47 PM

RE: FW: Palestine Is Still the Issue

KQED answer isn't actually correct! This John Pilger documentary is currently available to PBS stations through the distribution company DLT Entertainment. I have copied this email to DLT Entertainment who will follow up with KQED.

Thank you for your interest.

Regards,

Clare Alter

VP US Sales, Carlton International, 11145 NW 1st Place, Coral Springs, FL 33071

Message from Scott Dwyer on 6-25-03:

Hi Fred this is Scott Dwyer returning your call from KQED and I . . . regarding the Palestine program, I was finally able to track down the distributor for that film and they are going to be sending me a copy of that program so I can actually take a look at it and then we can . . . so we will go from there, and I'm . . . they're hoping . . . they don't even have a copy of it in the United States yet.

I don't know how WorldLink (Television) got it, but . . . they're (the distributor) getting one and I should have a copy of it by next week to take a look at.

NOTE: "PALESTINE IS STILL THE ISSUE" TAPE AND OTHER INFORMATION HAND DELIVERED TO SCOTT DWYER ON 6-27-03

June 27, 2003

From: Fred Shepherd

RE: Documentary: Palestine Is Still The Issue

Dear Mr. Dwyer:

Thank you for taking your time to review the enclosed tapes. The tape with the written information includes the introduction to the tape, the interview with John Pilger and the follow-up discussion.

There could not be a more appropriate time to show "Palestine Is Still The Issue." In that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is considered to be at the core of global unrest, now more than ever, Americans should be informed of both the problems and the solutions.

As you may know, there are literally millions of us who are deeply concerned with the control of both commercial and public media. Although I am encouraged that WorldLink TV has the courage to air "Palestine Is Still The Issue" and other significant films, I am troubled that they are alone in a sea of muzzled media entities. My hope is that you will be unbiased in your assessment of this film and will allow it to be seen on KQED.

There is a significant amount of information about the film and its success. This film is not without controversy. More than any other documentary, it has been reviewed by many and found to be without bias. The most significant finding was by the "Independent Television Commission" in England. I have enclosed various reports ' pro and con ' regarding this film.

Please call if you have any questions or concerns.

PS: Additional web sites for reference:

www2.itv.com/johnpilger/letter.html

www.pilger.carlton.com/print/127663

www.medialens.org/alerts/030116_Pilger_Film_Vindicated.html (Must use upper case for P,F & V)

www.media.guardian.co.uk/israel/story/0,11876, 872510, 000.com

Message from John Boland on 6-26-03:

Hi Mr. Shepherd, this is John Boland from KQED returning your call and thanks for calling about "Palestine Is Still The Issue." I just wanted to let you know that we're looking into that but KQED in fact has not chosen not to run it. We haven't made that choice. In fact we did not have the option of making that choice because we did not, up until the past week, have the legal right to even consider running it. That particular documentary was not available to public television stations and we had inquired about it previously and the rights had not been released. It's kind of complicated but we can't carry a documentary on our air unless we have acquired the rights to do so. Sometimes that costs significant amounts of money. We don't know what costs will be yet in the case of "Palestine Is Still The Issue."

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. However, we have learned that now the producer has released the documentary for distribution to Public Television stations in the United States through a distribution organization called DLT. This has happened so recently that DLT does not even yet have a copy of the documentary but they are getting it this week they are going to send a copy to KQED's programming department next week and then our programmers will take a look at it and I am going to defer to them on that decision since the head of our TV station, DeAnne Hamilton and our Director of Programming, Scott Dwyer, are the people responsible for editorial decisions on KQED television. I am going to let them have the opportunity to review the documentary and determine whether they think its something that we should put on the air. If they decide to do so, certainly we'll be putting it in the listings and things like that and people will know about it.

As you probably know the television listings are done quite a bit ahead of time so probably the soonest that the documentary would be on the air in order to allow people time to know its coming would be sometime this fall because the listings close out a bit ahead of time. But a long story short, that's the status of "Palestine Is Still The Issue." We're still looking at it and we will consider it for air.

June 30, 2003

From: Fred Shepherd

RE: Documentary: Palestine Is Still The Issue

Dear Mr. Boland:

Thank you for your comments about John Pilger's documentary, "Palestine Is Still The Issue."

Although this film has been broadcast multiple times in the United States (by WorldLink TV), Britain (by ITV ' the biggest commercial television network in the UK), Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, South America, and parts of Asia, few Americans have had the opportunity to see it because of the limited coverage by WorldLink TV. KQED and other public television stations throughout the US are now able to acquire this film and broadcast it to their viewing audience.

This film had an 83% approval rating when shown in the UK and it was thoroughly reviewed and approved by the Independent Television Commission.

In your message, you stated that PBS had considered acquiring "Palestine is Still The Issue" and that they chose not to because they, along with others, felt that the documentary was totally out of balance and one-sided and that it did not represent an objective view of the situation there. You also stated that this information was "second-hand." Was the second-hand comment from someone who works at PBS and if so, who? I would very much like to resolve why anyone would criticize a film that is gaining in popularity and which the ITC, viewers and television stations worldwide have overwhelmingly approved. When I contacted PBS in Alexandria, Reed Walsh at John Wilson's office stated that there was no record of the film being received or reviewed.

I would hope that such negative comments will not contaminate the approval process.

Thank you for your consideration.

Fred Shepherd

July 1, 2003

From: John Boland, KQED

RE: "PALESTINE IS STILL THE ISSUE" Documentary

Dear Mr.. Shepherd:

Thank you for your letter.

I regret if my mention of what I had "heard through the grapevine" about Palestine is Still the Issue caused any undue concern on your part. KQED will be influenced by our editorial evaluation of the documentary not by anything we might have heard prior to viewing the film.

Also, I hope that you and others interested in this matter understand that KQED has not "refused" to air the documentary, as the situation has been characterized in many emails and phone messages I have received. KQED airs more than 350 independent films every year -- more than any other public broadcaster in the U.S. -- and many of these documentaries deal with provocative subjects and controversial issues. Palestine Is Still the Issue was not available to KQED until very recently because of restricted broadcast rights.

Our programming dept. just received a screening copy of the film today (July 1) and they will review the content. We will let you know when we have a decision about whether or not to broadcast Palestine Is Still the Issue and, if so, when.

Again, thank you for writing and for your continuing interest in KQED.

John Boland

July 7, 2003

From: Fred Shepherd

RE: "Palestine Is Still The Issue" documentary

Dear Mr. Boland:

Thanks again for getting back to me in a timely manner.

As you mentioned in your recent letter, KQED is a premier PBS station owing to its unique programming which educates and enlightens. Precisely because of your record of showing more independent films than any other US broadcaster and not shying away from provocative subjects or controversial issues, KQED's sophisticated audience expects and welcomes your station taking the lead.

When I embarked on this journey, I was unaware if your programming department even knew of the existence of this film. The explanation regarding the "refusal" comments may lie in the fact that after I sent a few emails to friends about the documentary being shown on WorldLink TV, I began receiving an overwhelming number of phone calls and emails from friends and strangers. Many of the callers are members of KQED and were very concerned, as they do not have access to Direct TV, Dish Network or cable. Virtually all of the calls and emails pertained to if KQED had or had not aired the film and/or if they were planning to. Questions also arose regarding the public's recourse if the documentary were rejected. My response was simply that I was not aware of what KQED's position was, pro or con and that they should contact the programming department at KQED.

I understand the importance of editorial evaluation and having established precedents. As noted in my letter of 6-30-03, there is ample precedent that supports this film. You may know that WorldLink TV has aired the documentary numerous times this year due to its popularity. More recently, the World Affairs Council of San Francisco showed the film as well as numerous schools throughout the Bay Area. One college showed the film to roughly 300 students. Supporting verification of precedents, approval and fairness of this documentary was delivered to Mr. Dwyer on 6-27-03 that you may have already reviewed.

Once again, your attention to these concerns is appreciated.

cc: Scott Dwyer

July 15, 2003

From: Fred Shepherd

RE: "Palestine Is Still The Issue" documentary

Dear Mr. Boland:

I would like you to know that I have received many positive and constructive calls, emails and letters about broadcasting "Palestine Is Still The Issue" on KQED in the fall. I would hope that you have experienced a similar response.

From 7-19 through 7-22-03 I have been invited to attend a conference in Washington D.C. that will address many of the concerns regarding the Middle East. As you can imagine, one of the major concerns of the participants is and has been the absence of the media's integrity regarding the core issues that are afflicting peace between Israel and Palestine.

When I meet with the conferees, I would hope to deliver the good news that KQED has elected to air this documentary in the fall and in prime time. To further this effort, please advise at your earliest convenience when we may expect an answer.

Thank you for your cooperation.

July 15, 2003

From: John Boland

RE: "PALESTINE IS STILL THE ISSUE" Documentary

Dear Mr. Shepherd:

We have received many constructive and intelligent calls and emails, both positive and negative, regarding Palestine Is Still the Issue. 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. We are taking everyone's comments into consideration, but, of course, the decision regarding the airing of any program is be based on the evaluation of our professional editorial and programming personnel.

We will contact you and others when we have reached a decision, but, due to summer travel schedules and some special projects currently underway in TV programming, we will not have an answer in time for your July 19-22 conference.

Thank you again for your continuing interest.

John Boland

July 15, 2003

To: John Boland & Scott Dwyer, KQED

RE: PIT BULL OPPOSITION TO "PALESTINE IS STILL THE ISSUE"

Greetings John and Scott,

I can see that you are caught in a withering cross fire! The attached message was emailed to me and from what I understand, this type of orchestrated and targeted response is a textbook method that the JCRC and JDL use to silence the media and make or break our "democratically" elected politicians. I hope it doesn't intimidate you. We can criticize the hell out of our own country, but simply telling and depicting the truth about negative aspects of Israel seem to be a capital offense.

My email to friends and other contacts simply encouraged contact with KQED to broadcast - not to hide - a documentary that is appropriate, educational and enlightening. There were no "talking points." Trying to hide the truth is reminiscent of fascism. The KQED audience is intelligent, sophisticated and certainly able to separate fact from fiction. As adults, I think we deserve to see it on your station and can surely deal with it.

Thank you.

Fred Shepherd

Subj:

 Re: Public Participation at Board Meetings

Date: 07/22/2003

To: MBerry@KQED.org

Dear Margaret,

Thank you for taking your time to provide procedural matters. In our conversation, you had mentioned that it would be a good idea to contact one or more "community advisory panels." Would you be kind enough to provide contact names and phone numbers or email addresses? Your cooperation is appreciated.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

Subj:

 RE: Public Participation at Board Meetings

Date:

 07/22/2003 2:04:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: MBerry@KQED.org

To: Altencon@aol.com

Sent from the Internet (Details)

Dear Mr. Shepherd,

The Community Advisory Panel is staffed by Patricia Evans (pevans@kqed.org). She can be reached at 415-553-2216. The Community Advisory Panel is not a committee of the Board, but is a group made up of representatives from the community who provide outreach assistance and general feedback from the community to KQED.

Thank you again for your interest in KQED.

Sincerely,

Margaret Berry

July 24, 2003

From: John Boland, KQED

To: Fred Shepherd

RE: PIT BULL OPPOSITION TO "PALESTINE IS STILL THE ISSUE"

Thank you for contacting us. We appreciate your comments and have taken them

into consideration in our decision making process.

The U.S. public broadcast rights that would allow KQED to consider airing the documentary Palestine is Still the Issue just became available earlier this month. We have received many emails, letters and calls both pro and con. While we appreciate the comments from members of the community on all sides of this highly charged issue, we will leave the decision about scheduling the documentary to the professional programming and editorial

personnel at KQED Public Television.

The program is currently under review and we will advise you and all the others who have contacted us as soon as a decision is reached.

Thank you again for being in touch.

John Boland

Chief Content Officer

August 4, 2003

From: Fred Shepherd

RE: KQED BIAS & PREJUDICE?

Dear Mr. Boland:

Years ago I learned that when Abraham Lincoln got really mad about something he waited 24 yours before responding. Although I have waited over 24 hours to communicate with you, I am still quite angry. On page 23 of the "Jewish Bulletin" dated July 25, 2003, there is an article with the headline, "KQED doesn't plan to air documentary that's anti-Israel." This headline was the result of information not given to the Jewish Bulletin by "Anne Wintroub, a KQED spokeswoman." In addition to the inaccuracies in the article, Ms. Wintroub was quoted as saying that "the station never had any plans to broadcast the special, and still has none." I am truly appalled at the lack of professionalism demonstrated by Ms. Wintroub and what appears to be her zealous desire to undermine the broadcasting of "Palestine Is Still The Issue." If you do not have a copy of this article, I will be happy to fax one to you.

It is abundantly clear that the "Jewish Bulletin" has intentionally challenged and intimidated KQED and its staff by stating that "KQED doesn't plan to air documentary that's anti-Israel." If KQED succumbs to this or similar pressure tactics, God help us. Although this film has been shown on WorldLink TV twelve times and in local schools, churches and many other countries, private and public television stations are demonstrating that, in fact, the news media is being controlled through fear and intimidation.

This is the second of three attacks of the film that I am aware of during KQED's review process. In your message of June 30, 2003, you stated that PBS had considered acquiring "Palestine Is Still The Issue" and that they chose not to because they, along with others, felt that the documentary was totally out of balance and one-sided and that it did not represent an objective view of the situation there. You also stated that this information was "secondhand." Regardless of the source, this wording tainted the film and your internal review process. My response at the time was that "I would very much like to resolve why anyone would criticize a film that is gaining in popularity and which the ITC, viewers and television stations worldwide have overwhelmingly approved. When I contacted PBS in Alexandria, Virginia, Reed Walsh, at John Wilson's office, stated that there was no record of the film being received or reviewed." The source of the derogatory comments remains a mystery!

Third attack: There was an orchestrated effort by Steve Berley of the JCRC to stop KQED from airing the documentary. Mr. Berley provided "Talking points" with a note to "Rewrite these in your own words. Do not simply cut and paste." He then follows with more instructions and at least 12 talking points followed by more instructions. Mr. Berley wishes to suppress a very popular documentary that has survived more scrutiny and reviews than many other films of its genre. The talking points listed in Mr. Berley's email are without merit, misleading and incendiary. If the emails and comments followed his script, you may have noticed that not one of his "talking points" withstands close inspection. Example: In his "talking point" number 3, he states "Pilger made this "documentary" while in the employment of Carlton Television. Michael Green, Carlton's Chairman, strongly criticized this piece as "factually incorrect, historically incorrect," and a "tragedy for Israel so far as accuracy is concerned." Mr. Berley failed to mention that Mr. Green had approved the film until he was pressured to condemn it by the "Honest Reporting" organization which is based in New York. Although Mr. Green was coerced to condemn the film, he was overruled by his own staff which then approved the film. The film was also approved by the UK's Independent Television Commission and when it was broadcast there was an 83% approval rating. Please refer to the documentation that I delivered to Scott Dwyer for additional information. If you wish to review Mr. Berley's email with the instructions and talking points, I will send it to you.

The information that I have provided to you and Mr. Dwyer provides ample precedent for allowing this documentary to be aired on KQED. You have also cited precedents with your statement that "KQED airs more than 350 independent films every year - more than any other public broadcaster in the US - and many of these documentaries deal with provocative and controversial issues." So why is this film causing such trepidation? This should be a no-brainer! It is incumbent upon KQED to air this documentary as an expression of free speech and freedom of access to information while trusting its viewing audience to make intelligent assessments of your programming decisions.

Thank you once again for your consideration.

Cc: Scott Dwyer, Program Director

Jeff Clarke, President & CEO

James Canales, Jr., Chairman of the Board

August 6, 2003

From: John Boland

RE: KQED BIAS & PREJUDICE?

Dear Mr.. Shepherd:

I am writing in response to your letter (below). We regret that you are angry.

First, the article about KQED that appeared on page 23 of the July 25, 2003 issue of the Jewish Bulletin was not, as you know from our correspondence, entirely accurate. We have expressed KQED's dissatisfaction and concern to the editor. While it is technically correct to state that KQED "never had scheduled" or "never had any plans to broadcast" Palestine Is Still the Issue, the story in the Jewish Bulletin omits the fact that KQED is currently reviewing the documentary and has not made a decision about airing it.

Anne Wintroub is KQED's Director of Media Relations. She spoke factually and comprehensively as a KQED spokesperson and the reporter failed to include in his story her statement about KQED's ongoing review of the documentary and that we had not reached a decision about whether or not to air it. Your allegations about Ms. Wintroub are unfounded, inaccurate, and inappropriate.

I do not know on what basis you find it "abundantly clear" that the Jewish Bulletin's article has "challenged and intimidated KQED and its staff." KQED deals with controversy on a daily basis and we work with a very vocal and concerned community and local media who regularly scrutinize KQED's activities. We are open, responsive, and engaged with the communities we serve, but we do not allow this institution to be intimidated or pressured into any programming decision. We make those decisions on the basis of professional evaluation of the content, KQED's mission and core values, and journalistic standards. If we feel any pressure, it is to be responsible and professional in all our decisions.

We duly note your very strong desire that KQED broadcast Palestine Is Still the Issue. We have had correspondence from a number of people on both sides of the issue regarding this particular documentary, and you and others have provided additional supporting information. We appreciate the interest, but I can assure you that this controversy is not causing "trepidation" at KQED.

As I have stated in earlier correspondence, Palestine Is Still the Issue is undergoing an editorial review and evaluation at KQED and we will notify you and all who have written to us when we make a decision about whether or not to schedule it for broadcast.

Thank you for your continuing interest. We regret that the article in the Jewish Bulletin caused you such distress.

John Boland

August 8, 2003

From: Fred Shepherd

RE: KQED, JEWISH BULLETIN, DOCUMENTARY

Dear Mr. Boland:

Thank you for contacting the editor of the Jewish Bulletin and your comments.

Something is wrong with this picture. There seem to be two different stories about the exchange of information between Dan Pine and Ms. Wintroub. Just after noon yesterday 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, in your words, 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 also informed me that the headline for this article, "KQED doesn't plan to air documentary that's anti-Israel" was created by someone in the editorial department who seems to have been confused or misled by the article or was simply catering to another strategy. Whatever the case, an explanation is in order and hopefully will be forthcoming. Owing to the fact that the headline is untrue and the article is woefully incomplete and misleading, the Jewish Bulletin should retract the article and publish a clarification.

You may recall that on 6/26, you stated very clearly and factually that, in fact, KQED was looking at airing the documentary but "had not chosen not to run it" and you closed with saying that we're still looking at it and we will consider it for air." Your statement was appropriate then and would have been appropriate for Ms. Wintroub when she spoke to Mr. Pine. 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. Furthermore, the above statement that you made is "factual and comprehensive" information that Ms. Wintroub should have given to Mr. Pine. Had Ms. Wintroub spoken to Mr. Pine in April or May of this year, her published statements may have been accurate. Of what relevance is the following which was presumably provided by Ms. Wintroub: "the local PBS outlet never had scheduled 'Palestine Is Still The Issue' and the stations never had any plans to broadcast the special, and still has none"? 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.

The headline was either an honest mistake based upon misleading information or simply yellow journalism. My statement about it being "abundantly clear" that it was meant to intimidate KQED and its staff was valid prior to my discussion with Mr. Pine and, unless the Jewish Bulletin publishes a correcting article, it will remain valid.

Based upon the headline, the content of the article and my discussion with Dan Pine, my "allegations" were not unfounded, inaccurate or inappropriate.

What originally started as a simple request by me and many others to air a very popular and appropriate documentary has been met with negative comments from "PBS and others" (secondhand sources); an inaccurate and misleading article in the Jewish Bulletin; and an orchestrated and scripted attack from the Jewish Community Relations Council.

I hope to speak with Mr. Pine as soon as he is available to clarify some other matters and ascertain that what he said yesterday is still valid today.

Thank you once again for your cooperation.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

Cc: Scott Dwyer, Program Director

Jeff Clarke, President & CEO

James Canales, Jr., Chairman of the Board

DeAnne Hamilton, Vice President & Station Manager

Anne Wintroub, Director of Media Relations

P. Evans, R. Ramirez, J. Wallace

August 15, 2003

From: Fred Shepherd

RE: JEWISH BULLETIN ' RETRACTION REQUEST

Dear Mr. Boland:

The following is a copy of my letter to Mr. Weingarten regarding the July 23rd article in the Jewish Bulletin. Please join with me in asking for a retraction and a reprint.

Thank you.

August 15, 2003

Sherwood L. Weingarten

Managing Editor

Jewish Bulletin

225 Bush Street, Suite 1480

San Francisco, CA 94104-4281

RE: REQUEST FOR RETRACTION & REPRINT

Dear Mr. Weingarten:

You may recall that on 8/11 we discussed the errors in the article published 7-25-03 in the "Jewish Bulletin" with the headline "KQED doesn't plan to air documentary that's anti-Israel" as well as the content of the article. Even though you refused to print a retraction and a reprint, I ask that you reconsider.

At that time, I brought to your attention that there were two errors in the headline. The first error was "KQED doesn't plan to air the documentary". As I mentioned at the time, the documentary was in the hands of KQED for review and that a determination whether or not to air the film was pending. You may verify this information by contacting Mr. John Boland, Executive Vice President & Chief Content Officer of KQED at 415-553-2820. The second error in the headline was that it was "anti-Israel". The documentary is anything but anti-Israel. Although criticism of Israel's policies is suppressed and rarely seen in the US news media, you will find criticisms of America's policies every day, 24/7. Such criticisms are expressions of disagreement and do not mean that the authors are anti-American. Alleging that one is anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic when there is disagreement with Israel's policies is moronic, nonsensical, offensive, meaningless and insulting. If you would simply have an open mind and take the time to view "Palestine Is Still The Issue", you will see that it clearly demonstrates the need for an honest solution to a conflict that continues to fester and feed global terrorism.

Absent from the article itself was the correct information that KQED is reviewing the documentary and a decision is pending. Reports in the article regarding the status of the documentary were inaccurate and misleading. To determine how this happened, you may wish to discuss the matter with Dan Pine, the author of the article.

Please advise whether or not you plan to correct the errors. Thank you for your consideration.

Cc: John Boland, KQED

August 19, 2003

From: Fred Shepherd

RE: KQED, JEWISH BULLETIN, DOCUMENTARY

Dear Mr. Boland:

As you may recall, I submitted considerable documentation regarding precedents for airing "Palestine Is Still The Issue" and noted that this documentary has been broadcast on commercial and public television stations throughout the world but not in the US, with the exception of WorldLink TV.

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:

1. 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."

2. The Grand Prix Leonardo Award - 2003. This award was for his journalistic activity in defense of human rights.

3. The 2003 Chicago International Television Awards - "The Hugos." Certificate of Merit for a "News Documentary."

4. The Orange British Academy Film Awards - 2003 has nominated "Palestine Is Still The Issue" under their "current affairs" category.

5. 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."

6. British Journalist Of The Year. Mr. Pilger has won this award two times. Only one other journalist has won the award twice.

In order to begin casting a more positive light on "Palestine Is Still The Issue," I would hope that you are as anxious as I am to resolve how the Jewish Bulletin could publish an article with numerous inaccuracies and with a headline that was blatantly false. As you know, I spoke with Mr. Weingarten on 8/11 to discuss the errors and request a retraction and reprint of the article. To date, he has declined. After speaking with Mr. Weingarten, I then called Dan Pine, the reporter, on 8/11 in order to confirm once again the information that Ms. Wintroub gave him and that he gave to me. Regarding the headline, how would you characterize Mr. Weingarten's motivation? Have you, or do you intend to, request that the Jewish Bulletin print a retraction and reprint? Anything that you can do to dispel the notion that KQED harbor's a bias against the film would be greatly appreciated.

In your letter of 8/6, you stated that "the reporter failed to include in his story her statement about KQED's ongoing review of the documentary and that we [KQED] had not reached a decision about whether or not to air it." Mr. Pine originally stated that Ms. Wintroub did not tell him that KQED had an "ongoing review" or "that we [KQED] had not reached a decision about whether or not to air it." In my second conversation with Mr. Pine on 8/11, he stated quite clearly and confidently that he had reviewed his notes with Ms. Wintroub after their original discussion and such notes did not include any mention of an "ongoing review" or "a decision whether or not to air it." He further verified that what was printed was what he was told and nothing more. There were no other words used by Ms. Wintroub to indicate the actual status of the documentary. Even without this verification, from where would Mr. Pine get such contradictory information? Also, he was left with the impression that KQED did not even have the documentary for review. If you have any new information regarding this matter, please advise.

Although you and I may be butting heads over the public's request to air the documentary, I would hope that you would not deprive the vast majority of viewers from seeing this meritorious film simply because a special interest minority does not want it seen.

In your letter of 8/6, you stated that KQED does not allow itself to be intimidated or pressured into any programming decision. If that is the case, why haven't you authorized the film for broadcast on KQED? The film has won and will continue to win prestigious awards. The creator of the documentary, John Pilger has and will continue to win prestigious awards for this work and others throughout the world. The film is being shown in other parts of the world where it is not subjected to pressure and intimidation. WorldLink TV has demonstrated its courage by airing the film twelve (12) times.

Thank you once again for your cooperation.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

Executive Director

Cc: Scott Dwyer, Program Director

Jeff Clarke, President & CEO

James Canales, Jr., Chairman of the Board

DeAnne Hamilton, Vice President and Station Manager

Anne Wintroub, Director of Media Relations

P. Evans, R. Ramirez, J. Wallace

September 1, 2003

From: Fred Shepherd

RE: JOHN PILGER & PALESTINE IS STILL THE ISSUE

Dear Mr. Boland:

Following is additional qualifying information that should have been included in my letter of August 19, 2003. Thank you.

JOHN PILGER - PREVIOUS AWARDS & AWARDS PENDING

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 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 crippling 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.

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 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 for 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 excluded, impoverished and mistreated - while their part in the brilliant histtory 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 New Rulers Of The World

John Pilger explores the impact of globalization, taking Indonesia as his prime example, a country that the World Bank described as a "model pupil" until its 'globalized' economy collapsed in 1998. Under scrutiny are the increasingly powerful multinationals and the institutions that back them, notably the IMF and The World Bank.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

Cc: Scott Dwyer, Program Director

Jeff Clarke, President & CEO

James Canales, Jr. Chairman of the Board

DeAnne Hamilton, Vice President and Station Manager

P. Evans, R. Ramirez, J. Wallace

September 4, 2003

John Boland

KQED

2601 Mariposa Street

San Francisco, CA 94110

RE: PREJUDICE IS STILL THE ISSUE

Dear Mr. Boland:

I recently found information from the Media Access Project, a 30 year old nonprofit tax exempt public interest law firm, which promotes the public's First Amendment right to hear and be heard on the electronic media of today and tomorrow. In the words of the Supreme Court:

"It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail . . . It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas which is crucial here."

As you may know, I spoke to Scott Dwyer on 9/2/03 regarding the status of whether or not he had approved John Pilger's documentary, "Palestine Is Still The Issue." Mr. Dwyer's response was, "No. We are looking for what else is out there." He clarified "what else" as meaning other documentaries. No specifics were given as to subject matter, etc. of the "other documentaries." As you may recall, the many calls, emails and letters you received were specifically requesting KQED to air "Palestine Is Still The Issue" and not any other documentary.

At this point, I asked why he had not approved the documentary that so many of your viewing public and donors requested. The following relates to some of his responses and our discussion.

1. Mr. Dwyer stated that the film was shown to "independent journalists with whom KQED is associated" who did not particularly care for Mr. Pilger or his documentaries. These anonymous journalists gave the film a negative rating. When I brought to his attention that asking those who have a prejudice to judge a film does not serve the best interests of the viewing public, he corrected his statement to say that the journalists were neutral about John Pilger and his work. In an attempt to sort out whether or not the journalists were prejudice, I asked to have their names and how many there were. Mr. Dwyer elected to keep their identities and number a secret. Mr. Dwyer also rejected having neutral journalists review the film.

Although Mr. Dwyer has a list of the many awards that John Pilger and his films have received, he dismissed and belittled them suggesting that they were of no consequence. He also dismissed the many precedents for airing this film set by other television stations around the world.

Mr. Dwyer also stated that Mr. Pilger "manipulated" the documentary. When I questioned exactly what he meant by manipulation, no answer was given. I reminded him that the film was a documentary about Palestine, the Palestinians and not about Israel and the Israelis. In other words, the fact that Israel is the antagonist is an essential part of the documentary. When a documentary is made, one does not whitewash that which is true and an integral part of the story. Somehow, the review process has been entangled in irrelevancy.

During our conversation, Mr. Dwyer asked if Mr. Pilger had said anything on camera that was pro-Israeli. I thought that to be a good question, gave it some thought and stated that I did not recall that he 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. Mr. Dwyer stated that he could not recall anything said by Mr. Pilger that was pro-Palestinian. I almost question which documentary he has been reviewing.

5. Mr. Dwyer asked me 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 and his 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.

In summary, it appears that the decision will be one based on politics and not programming. My perception is based upon comments from you/second-hand sources on June 26 that "the documentary was totally out of balance and one-sided and felt that it did not represent an objective view of the situation there; Scott Dwyer's comments as noted above and the information given to the Jewish Bulletin by Ms. Wintroub.

In the final analysis, we, citizens of the United States, made a simple request to have KQED air a film by an award-winning journalist and filmmaker. Now, there is a foreign country, Israel, and its supporters who may have the power to prevent the citizens of America from viewing this very popular film.

If I you find that I have inaccurately conveyed information regarding these matters, please advise as I always welcome your comments. Thank you.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

Cc: Scott Dwyer, Program Director

Jeff Clarke, President & CEO

James Canales, Jr., Chairman of the Board

DeAnne Hamilton, Vice President and Station Manager

P. Evans, R. Ramirez, J. Wallace

Subj: Re: Community Advisory Panel

Date: 10/03/2003 12:16:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: Altencon

To: PEvans@KQED.org

Hi Patricia,

Thanks for getting back to me with the information.

My contact information is below.

I will forward the documentation about our communication with KQED. As part of the record, you and members of the panel will see a sampling of emails from members of the community who have expressed a strong desire to see the film. Unlike the "Jewish Community Relations Council" that is attempting to stop "Palestine Is Still The Issue" from being shown, the proponents appeals were numerous and not scripted from "talking points." Although many hundreds called and emailed, I was only able to capture a few of the emails that are included in the KQED story.

Please forward this note to Patrick Connolly, the CAP Chair, and advise him that I am also able to provide the documentary in VHS format for all of the members to see.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

Subj: DOCS RE KQED & DOCUMENTARY

Date: 10/08/2003 11:34:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time

From: Altencon

To: pevans@kqed.org

File: PAL KQED MAST 4 CLARKE.doc (432128 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 2 minutes

Patricia Evans, Coordinator

Community Advisory Panel

KQED - TV

Hi Patricia,

As per your instructions, I have attached the documentation regarding our Community effort to have KQED air "Palestine Is Still The Issue." It was my understanding that you will forward this information to Mr. Patrick Connolly and others on the CAP to keep them informed about what the Bay Area community has been trying to accomplish with KQED.

Please forward this immediately and ask Mr. Connolly to contact me at his earliest convenience as Mr. Clarke is attempting to produce a decision very soon.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

Subj: RE: DOCS RE KQED & DOCUMENTARY

Date: 10/08/2003 1:55:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: PEvans@KQED.org

To: Altencon@aol.com

Sent from the Internet (Details)

Hello Fred,

Re: your phone message today -- please forward copies of your VHS tape to me if you wish to get them to CAP members. I will make sure they all know that tapes of the program are available should they wish to view it.

Thank you,

Patricia

Subj: Re: DOCS RE KQED & DOCUMENTARY

Date: 10/08/2003 1:59:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: Altencon

To: PEvans@KQED.org

Hi Patricia,

Thank you and the tape will go out today or tomorrow. NOTE: TAPE SENT 10-8-03 for delivery on 10-9-03.

Additionally, please distribute the 60 + pages regarding our community effort with KQED. This may be more important than the film.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

Message from Margaret Berry on 10-8-03, 4PM

Hi Mr. Shepherd it's Margaret berry from KQED and I just wanted to get back in touch with you. I know you have been talking with Patricia Evans on getting some materials to the Community Advisory Panel and what we are going to do is . . . at the Community Advisory Panel's next meeting, we are going to provide all your materials and offer them a briefing session on the issue and we also in the very near future hope to have a decision on the decision as to what will happen regarding the broadcast of the program so we're going to get all that material out to the Community Advisory Panel. I think they have a meeting, I think it's early next month, so that will be out and in the meantime be advised that we should have a programming decision soon. Ok. Thank you and have a good evening.

NOTES REGARDING THE ABOVE MESSAGE:

When I spoke to Patricia Evans on 10-8-03, she advised that the film and our entreaty would be given to all members of the Community Advisory Panel within a few days. Patricia Evans received the entreaty on 10-8-03 and the film on 10-9-03. Although I had left a message for Ms. Evans to return my call, the above call from Ms. Berry is what I received.

Subj: PALESTINE IS STILL THE ISSUE

Date: 10/04/2003 4:10:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: Altencon

To: jclarke@kqed.org

RE: PALESTINE IS STILL THE ISSUE

Dear Mr. Clarke:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. Ayish regarding his concerns about KQED-TV. If you don't mind, please copy me on all future correspondence with anyone regarding these outstanding issues.

I am currently piecing together important information for your review and hope to have it to you by this Monday or Tuesday. In that you will be addressing various concerns with your staff, please allow sufficient time to thoroughly review the documentation that Marc Sapir and I have been able to compile over the last several months. You will see in this documentation that we have presented many reasons for airing the film while your programming staff has been unable to offer a single reason for not airing it. We have asked questions and not gotten answers or have gotten answers that are evasive and unsubstantiated. Mr. Dwyer engaged the services of "secret/unnamed & biased" journalists to review the film and validate his existing bias and prejudice. Erroneous and misleading information was given to the Jewish Bulletin. Many precedents have been established for the airing of this film throughout the world. John Pilger has received acclaim and numerous awards in the United States and many foreign countries for his work. If you find errors or mistakes in any of the documentation that I have sent and will continue to send, please provide corrections and comments that you feel are warranted.

The only opposition to having this film aired is coming from a minority of people at KQED and the Jewish Community Relations Council. Although I was able to capture only a small portion of the favorable emails sent to KQED, our "Community Advisory Panel" has demonstrated its strong desire to see this film. Unlike the opposition, the favorable emails were not scripted nor developed from "talking points."

KQED's mission and its "Independent Initiative" purport to welcome documentaries such as "Palestine Is Still The Issue." Example: "The Initiative is a response to the demand of the public for new film . . . and to KQED's commitment to provide exciting, compelling programming." You must admit, this film is exciting and compelling and it hasn't even been aired by KQED!

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the recent KQED Board Meeting as I was out of the country. As you may know, Marc Sapir of Network against Disinformation contacted KQED several months prior to June of this year and requested that various films including "Palestine Is Still The Issue" be aired. It is my understanding that his requests were met with firm resistance.

When I first contacted KQED in late June, 2003, to request the airing of "Palestine Is Still The Issue," I did not know Mr. Sapir nor was I aware of his groups' various activities. To give you an idea of its popularity, over 500 original copies of "Palestine Is Still The Issue" have been distributed throughout the Bay Area, other towns in California and in other states since 2/03. There continues to be a strong demand for this documentary and for it to be shown on KQED.

If your decision is to broadcast the documentary at prime time, it will be a fair one and we can all walk away happy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

October 7, 2003

Jeff Clarke, President and CEO

KQED Television

2601 Mariposa Avenue

San Francisco, CA

RE: SEEKING A RESOLUTION "Palestine Is Still The Issue!"

Dear Mr. Clarke:

Thank you for taking a leadership role in a process that has been informative, educational and entertaining. Generally speaking, we are somewhat optimistic that, after weighing the tremendous enthusiasm shown by many hundreds of your viewing audience and evaluating the documentation that we have presented, you will understand and agree with our entreaty. There is however one very major concern that stems from your decision to allow those who have demonstrated extreme bias and prejudice against the film to make a decision.

Not only do we want to work with you to resolve any outstanding issues, we hope to work with KQED in refining the information that we have developed during this nearly 7-month exchange of information. Many communities across the United States have asked for our guidance when communicating with their local public television stations. With your help, I am sure that we will be able to provide a "How To" handbook that will open many doors to cooperation between the public and public television. As in all endeavors when dealing with the public, transparency is always the best business practice. One only needs to read the paper or watch the news on TV to know that bright lights and transparency illuminate all that is good as well as bad, or as one would say, evil.

Owing to the fact that maintaining the integrity and reputation of KQED is uppermost in your mind, the 60+ pages of information that are being provided may help you understand the basis for our concerns. Although some of the following points have already been covered, this brief summary may help.

Prior to KQED's receipt of Mr. Pilger's documentary, "Palestine Is Still The Issue," Mr. Boland, on 6-26-03 left a message about all the "second-hand" information that those at "PBS and others" made very negative comments about the film. In other words, the film was not welcome prior to arriving at KQED. Not what most of us would consider an objective and transparent review process. Obviously this documentary had been discussed well in advance of his message. I would hope that you will give us credible answers about what is really happening at KQED behind closed doors. PBS has no record of ever receiving the film! There is more detail about this in the documentation that has been sent to you. As you can appreciate, KQED's "independent, professional programming" credibility was trashed at an early stage.

Second was the incident with the Jewish Bulletin being fed erroneous and misleading information. As noted in the accompanying documentation, I had two conversations with Dan Pine, a staff reporter who confirmed this. KQED refused to demand a retraction of the article or provide a credible answer and or explanation. Are you aware of this and if so have you probed the incident? Of the people I have dealt with thus far, Dan Pine has been the most honest of anyone.

Third and equally disturbing was my conversation with Scott Dwyer on 9-2-03. An outline of that conversation is also provided in the documentation. Who are the "independent journalists with whom KQED is associated?" Why would Scott even consider bringing in "journalists" to assist with his personal responsibility to make objective programming decisions? Scott made it perfectly clear that these journalists did not like Pilger's work! Why must their names be kept secret and were you aware of Scott's methodology? In that programming is the heartbeat of KQED, I would hope that you will be able to provide answers. Please refer to my letter to J. Boland and dated 9-4-03 that details my conversation with Mr. Dwyer as there is more to this problem.

As you may know, "Palestine Is Still The Issue" has been shown on WorldLink TV multiple times and in many other countries. It is an approved, proven, popular and widely acclaimed film by one of the most recognized filmmakers in the world. Please refer to the awards section in the documentation. Just recently, Mr. Pilger won the prestigious Chris Award (Best of Category) at the 51st Columbus International Film & Video Festival and will be screened at the Vermont International Film Festival. Additionally, the film is "Highly Recommended" by the Educational Media Reviews Online.

5. Under KQED's Independent Initiative program that was launched in 1999, this documentary would more than qualify.

To add insult to injury, Mr. Boland, in his letter of 9/21/03 states that "Palestine Is Still The Issue" "is still under consideration for broadcast early in 2004." He then goes on to state that "among our key concerns are finding films that are . . . not dated'."

Prior to arriving at a decision we would like to meet with you and anyone from your staff to discuss our position which supports a positive response. We do represent a significant number of people in the community and feel strongly that you should meet with us.

Thank you for your consideration.

Fred Shepherd

Subj:COMMUNITY INPUT - "Palestine Is Still The Issue"

Date: 10/08/2003 1:28:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: Altencon

To: mberry@kqed.org For J. Canales

File: PAL KQED MAST 4 CLARKE.doc (482304 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 3 minutes

October 8, 2003

James Canales

Chairman of the Board

KQED

Dear Mr. Canales:

RE: Community Request to Air "Palestine Is Still The Issue"

As chairman of the board of KQED, we felt that you should be apprised of the community's many requests to have the documentary, "Palestine Is Still The Issue" aired this year on KQED. As you will see, there is ample, documented support for airing this film.

Contained in the attached documentation are many emails from your viewing audience; awards and precedents that pre-qualify this film for public television; correspondence between community members and programming staff as well as other miscellaneous information. KQED's mission statement and its "Independent Initiative" are also supportive.

We are very concerned with the methodology employed by the programming department in the review and selection process of this particular film. If, after reviewing this documentation, you find that our concerns are unfounded please provide details in order for us to have a better understanding.

Your consideration is greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

10-10-03

Jeff Clarke, President & CEO, KQED

Dear Mr. Clarke:

For many years, my wife and I have been members of KQED and provided your organization with financial support. When KQED asked for help, we participated. We and many hundreds of your members and viewing audience are now asking KQED for answers to valid and appropriate questions that have been presented to you and others. There are many serious issues that have been brought to management's attention that remain unanswered.

As you may know, I sent a copy of the documentary and the history of our entreaty to Patricia Evans who was going to distribute it to members of the CAP. I called Patricia and left a message about whether or not she had received the material and distributed it. Ms. Evans did not return my call but I did hear from Margaret Berry.

Ms. Berry advised me that the material would not be distributed to the members of CAP at this time. She further advised that our material may be presented to the members at a meeting to be held on November 13, 2003, and that a decision about whether or not to air "Palestine Is Still The Issue" would be made soon. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounded as though the decision about whether or not to air the film would be made prior to management's meeting with CAP members on November 13, 2003. Why is this information being withheld from the CAP members?

From my understanding of the Community Advisory Panel's "Mission Statement" the members are obliged and should have been involved, from the outset, in the disquisition that is before KQED's management and programming department.

Following is the Community Advisory Panel's Mission Statement to which I am referring:

The board of Directors of KQED, Inc. ("KQED") has determined that it is in the best interest of KQED to establish a Community Advisory Panel (CAP) broadly representative of the communities served by KQED. The purpose of the CAP shall be to ascertain and advise the Board of Directors of KQED's effectiveness in meeting the specialized educational and cultural needs of the communities it serves. The CAP shall also participate in community relations' activities in conjunction with the Board of Directors. Said ascertainment, advice and community relations may be accomplished by reviewing programming goals and services provided by KQED and organizing and participating in various activities such as forums, speaker bureaus, committee assignments, and other activities.

While watching KQED's Frontline feature, "Truth, War, and Consequences" last night, I noticed numerous similarities between it and "Palestine Is Still The Issue." Although the fact that Americans were seen as occupiers of Iraq, killers of innocent civilians, etc., why was this film allowed and not Mr. Pilger's? Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but the significant difference appears to be that where criticism of the United States of America is allowed on TV, newspapers, magazines, etc., any hint of criticism of Israel and/or its policies by depiction or otherwise is absolutely forbidden!

Thank you for your time and we look forward to hearing from you and/or meeting with you.

Fred Shepherd

Subj: Upcoming programs

Date: 10/10/2003 3:31:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: JBoland@KQED.org

To: JBoland@KQED.org, bayish@yahoo.com, MSapir@compuserve.com, giobon@sbcglobal.net, ediec29@vbbn.com, alisonweir@yahoo.com, Altencon@aol.com

CC: MBerry@KQED.org, JClarke@KQED.org, jcanales@irvine.org, DHamilton@KQED.org, JWallace@KQED.org, RWinefield@KQED.org, PEvans@KQED.org

Sent from the Internet (Details)

Two upcoming KQED programs that may be of interest:

* Commonwealth Club, KQED Public Radio, Fri, October 10, 2003 -- 8:00pm

The speaker is Hafez Al-Mirazi, Washington Bureau Chief for AlJazeera. \

* World Affairs Council, KQED Public Radio, Mon, October 27, 2003 -- 8:00pm

The speaker is Dr. Nabil Shaath, Foreign Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, Political Advisor to Chairman Arafat.

Subj: Fwd: Upcoming program

Date: 10/10/2003 7:30:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: Altencon

To: jboland@kqed.org

CC: mberry@kqed.org, jcanales@irvine.org, jclarke@kqed.org, sdwyer@kqed.org, pevans@kqed.org, dhamilton@kqed.org, pres@kqed.org, jwallace@kqed.org, rwinefield@kqed.org, bayish@yahoo.com, Altencon, contact@ifamericansknew.org, msapir@compuserve.com,

October 10, 2003

Dear Mr. Boland:

Please advise why you think these programs would be of interest.

You have given us information that we have not asked for and not given us information that we have asked for! If you and your associates do not intend to answer our questions, simply state that you will not answer our questions and we will simply not ask that you answer our questions.

I would hope, as being a representative of an organization that may take pride in its communication skills, you or someone at KQED could respond to this and previous questions. If you are going to stonewall us, take pride in it and just say so.

In a conversation with Patricia Evans today, she clarified that the VHS tape of "Palestine Is Still The Issue" and the documentation that I had sent to her will not be given to the members of the "Community Advisory Panel" until their meeting on November 13, 2003. Although it was my understanding that the information would be given to the members within days of receipt, Ms. Evans now states that 11/13/03 will be the date. Fortunately I take notes. . . just an old habit.

Thank you and I look forward to better communication in the future.

Best regards,

Fred Shepherd

Executive Director

Subj: WHOSE INTEREST IS BEING SERVED?

Date: 10/19/2003 9:40:43 PM Pacific Standard Time

From:Altencon

To:jclarke@kqed.org, pres@kqed.org

CC:bayish@yahoo.com, jboland@kqed.org, contact@ifamericansknew.org, info@norcalism.com, mberry@kqed.org, jcanales@irvine.org, sdwyer@kqed.org, pevans@kqed.org, dhamilton@kqed.org, dave@kucinich.us, sarahsfreemail@yahoo.com, editor@coastalpost.com, msapir@compuserve.com, FSFKS, alisonweir@yahoo.com, hbartesch@pcninc.com, bbreithaupt@marinij.com,

October 19, 2003

Jeff Clarke, President and CEO

KQED-TV

RE: WHOSE INTEREST IS BEING SERVED?

Dear Mr. Clarke:

On October 17, 2003, I received a letter from Mr. Canales, Jr., Chairman of the Board, in which he stated that "we delegate individual programming decisions to the management of KQED." By management, did he mean you? As President and CEO of KQED, I would hope that you will accept that responsibility instead of passing the buck back to those who already have demonstrated extreme bias and prejudice toward the film. Their answer may have been determined before the film arrived for screening at KQED this past June!

If you have reviewed the information that we have provided, a "YES" decision to airing the film is the equitable choice and it would be responsive to your viewing audience. As you have seen in the documentation that we have sent to you and others, there is overwhelming proof that supports the integrity of this film and its qualifications. You may recall that the documentary "Palestine Is Still The Issue" had an 83% approval rating when shown in England. If you elect to prevent this documentary from being shown by KQED, I would hope that you will provide ample justification for such a decision.

Whose Interest is Being Served?

1. Is it the majority of the Bay Area community? Let's hope so! Thousands of residents in the Bay Area who are KQED members and viewers have requested the airing of "Palestine Is Still The Issue." The community has spoken. Is KQED listening? Let's hope so.

2. Is it just one person? Let's hope not. Is it Scott Dwyer, Program Director, whose bias and prejudice have been demonstrated, and has, through his statements, indicated that he will block the broadcast of "Palestine Is Still The Issue?" Let's hope not.

3. Is it two or three people? Let's hope not. Would two of them be John Boland and DeAnne Hamilton?

4. Is it the 6 to 22 major contributors to KQED? Let's hope not. Information from KQED's 2002 annual report: In the year 2002, 48% of KQED's revenue came from contributions and membership fees. For