RADAR ALERT: Inspector General Should Investigate PBS

[RADAR]

RADAR ALERT: It's Time for the Inspector General to Investigate What Went Wrong at PBS

On December 2nd, the Public Broadcasting Service Ombudsman Michael Getler issued his report on Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories (http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman). Getler criticized the program, saying:

• "there was no recognition of opposing views on this program."
  
• "I thought this particular program had almost no balance, and went too far, turning it, at least in my mind, into more of an advocacy, or point-of-view, presentation."
  
• "the totality of the presentation came across as quite tilted"
  

This criticism came hard on the heels of the report by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Ombudsman, Ken Bode (http://www.cpb.org/ombudsmen/051129bode.html). Bode described the program as "slanted", said "there is no hint of balance in Breaking the Silence", and concluded that "Breaking the Silence needs to be reviewed for accuracy, fairness, and balance."

PBS and their affiliates have systems in place to assure adherence to the PBS Editorial Standards and Practices. Given the unanimity of both the PBS and the CPB ombudsmen on how seriously flawed this program was, it's clear that this program represents a massive system failure.

So RADAR is requesting that CPB's Inspector General, Ken Konz, conduct an investigation of Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories and make specific recommendations for how to make sure a system failure like this one doesn't happen again. A copy of the letter to Inspector General Konz can be read at http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADAR_letterToCPB_InspectorGeneral.pdf.

Please call or fax CPB's Inspector General with the message:

"Both the PBS and the CPB ombudsmen have stated that Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories lacked any balance and ignored the existence of any alternative views. The CPB ombudsman called for Breaking the Silence to be reviewed for accuracy, fairness, and balance. Please conduct such a review and recommend changes to guarantee that future programs comply with the US Congressional mandate to assure 'strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.'"

Here's the contact information:

Ken Konz, CPB Inspector General
Telephone:    1-202-879-9600
Fax:    1-202-879-9700

Don't put it off. Call today!

---
Date of RADAR Release: December 11, 2005

R.A.D.A.R. -- Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting -- is a network of concerned men and women working to assure that the problem of domestic violence is treated in a balanced and effective manner: http://www.mediaradar.org.

[jotty]

"there was no recognition of opposing views on this program."


 And your point is what? Should a documentary about pedophiles present the pedophiles view? Or how about a rapists views? Maybe a killers views. What would they say? Something like yup, I did rape, kill, what ever but don't you know, talk about it, ok? It makes us pedophiles look bad.

"I thought this particular program had almost no balance, and went too far, turning it, at least in my mind, into more of an advocacy, or point-of-view, presentation."

see above and what do you feel the documentary was advocating? I don't get that.  Would you rather see documentaries that are void of any point of vew? They would certainly be easier to make since that idea connotes they'd be made up of non-sequitir ramblings.

"the totality of the presentation came across as quite tilted"

I would imagine so in that it was telling the story from the female perspective.  Actually though to be tilted the documen tary would have had to claim to be about violnce against men also. It did not do that, therefore, no deception, no tilting. Besides even if it was a joint documentary it would still have been tilted because the fact - and it is in cement - is that mans violence far exceeds womans.

Tell me, are all of those solders fighting in the middle east women in male drag? If women are not more violent then men why aren't more of them solders?


"...program represents a massive system failure."

I would submit that the failure is that some men refuse to confront and bring to an end mens violence against women. There are mens groups who do actually support women. I think they are fantastic. I wish you guys thought so too.

This trend of trying to silence abuse victims does not bode well for the future of humanity. I do hope it stops.

[jotty]

"there was no recognition of opposing views on this program."


 And your point is what? Should a documentary about pedophiles present the pedophiles view? Or how about a rapists views? Maybe a killers views. What would they say? Something like yup, I did rape, kill, what ever but don't you know, talk about it, ok? It makes us pedophiles look bad.

"I thought this particular program had almost no balance, and went too far, turning it, at least in my mind, into more of an advocacy, or point-of-view, presentation."

see above and what do you feel the documentary was advocating? I don't get that.  Would you rather see documentaries that are void of any point of vew? They would certainly be easier to make since that idea connotes they'd be made up of non-sequitir ramblings.

"the totality of the presentation came across as quite tilted"

I would imagine so in that it was telling the story from the female perspective.  Actually though to be tilted the documen tary would have had to claim to be about violnce against men also. It did not do that, therefore, no deception, no tilting. Besides even if it was a joint documentary it would still have been tilted because the fact - and it is in cement - is that mans violence far exceeds womans.

Tell me, are all of those solders fighting in the middle east women in male drag? If women are not more violent then men why aren't more of them solders?


"...program represents a massive system failure."

I would submit that the failure is that some men refuse to confront and bring to an end mens violence against women. There are mens groups who do actually support women. I think they are fantastic. I wish you guys thought so too.

This trend of trying to silence abuse victims does not bode well for the future of humanity. I do hope it stops.

[dr e]

Jotty - The PBS ombudsman was one of the ones that claimed this program was lacking in balance.  It has taken quite a bit of criticism from numerous sources.

I would imagine so in that it was telling the story from the female perspective. Actually though to be tilted the documen tary would have had to claim to be about violnce against men also. It did not do that, therefore, no deception, no tilting. Besides even if it was a joint documentary it would still have been tilted because the fact - and it is in cement - is that mans violence far exceeds womans.

Now I am curious why it would be tilted if it talked about violence against men?

BTW can you tell me how old you are?  Thanks.

[tricycle]

And your point is what? Should a documentary about pedophiles present the pedophiles view? Or how about a rapists views? Maybe a killers views. What would they say? Something like yup, I did rape, kill, what ever but don't you know, talk about it, ok? It makes us pedophiles look bad.

Actually I think they should, in presenting a documentary then BOTH sides should be aired.

I watched a doco on sex offenders once, as well as having the victims tell their stories the offenders were allowed to tell theirs as well.
It was quite facinating to watch, they filmed a group session of the offenders - faces blurred out - and some of the stories the guys told were interesting [disturbing too of course, but I found it very informative]

If the person who was raped or beaten tells their story why shouldn't the person who raped or beat them get to tell their story?
Seems only fair to me.

[Fidelbogen]

Jotty: You are completely ofuscating the issue here. The question is very simply whether the PBS documentary was TRUTHFUL... or whether it was not. Critics have made a strong case that the program told some serious whoppers -- that it spread lies, in other words. THAT is the level of discourse that needs to be addressed on this thread. Were those people LYING....or were they not? Try to stay in focus.

And while you're about it, perhaps you would care to exonerate (on general principles) the practice of spreading prejudicial false information...? I'm sure it would be an intriguing excercise in moral sophistry.