Documentary filmmaker claims PBS shows bias

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Canadian novelist and veteran documentary filmmaker Martyn Burke is not someone you'd expect to get into an ugly ideological spitting match with the folks who run PBS.

Burke, who lives and works in the heart of the Hollywood creative community, considers himself neither conservative nor liberal. But "Islam vs. Islamists," the documentary he made about how moderate Muslims are being silenced and intimidated by Islamist extremists, will not be part of "America at a Crossroads," PBS's new 11-part, six-night series about post-9/11 America that begins Sunday night at 9.

Executives at WETA in Washington, D.C., the public station overseeing the series for PBS, say the documentary was cut from the "Crossroads" lineup because it wasn't completed in time and because it was "alarmist" and not objective. PBS says it may run it at a later date.

Burke, however, says his documentary, made with $700,000 in Corporation for Public Broadcasting money, was interfered with and then dropped because he refused to fire his two co-producers, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev, who run the Center for Security Policy think tank.

Burke says he is telling his side of the story because "of a long litany of unbelievably unprofessional things" that have happened and because PBS series producers violated "the basic tenets of journalism." I talked to Burke by telephone on Thursday, April 12, from his home in Santa Monica, Calif.:

Q: Is this what you get for taking $700,000 from the taxpayers to make a documentary?

A: Probably. I think I'm paying for my sins of working on the public purse right now. But, no, we took this on because we just wanted to ask one simple question after 9/11: Where are the moderate Muslims and why aren't they speaking out? We took this for a very serious purpose. We thought it was a question that needed answering and the answer we found was that the moderate Muslims have been generally intimidated, in many cases, through coercion, ostracism or sometimes outright fear of physical violence. That is what we wanted to show.

Q: That's what "Islam vs. Islamists" is about?

A: Yes. We portrayed a number of moderate Muslims in Denmark, in France, in Canada and in the United States -- the U.S. being one community in Flint, Mich., and one in Phoenix. We chose moderate Muslims. We hired a team of journalists, some of the best we could get our hands on, who are reporters from major newspapers in France, Denmark and Toronto. We had a Pulitzer Prize nominee and a woman profiled in The New York Times for the excellence of her team. We were just about making a documentary on this topic but we found ourselves enmeshed in politics unlike I have never seen before.

Q: A lot of people don't realize that documentaries are not meant to be balanced and neutral -- they always have a point of view. So what is the slant or agenda of "Islam vs. Islamists"?

A: One of the absolutely growing elements of hysteria from WETA within PBS was that we have a point of view. We said, "Of course we have a point of view." Our point of view -- based on the research, based on the reporting and the discussions with all these world-class reporters that we had engaged on this topic -- was that there is a large community of moderates within the Muslim world who are afraid to speak up and we're showing why. It's because of the attacks of the Islamists.

What PBS/WETA attacked us on was they wanted us, in our opinion, to become virtually apologists for the Islamists, those who are the fundamentalists in this world.

Basically, the attitude of this one small group -- and again I have to say within WETA -- was that the Muslims we were portraying as the moderates were in some way, in their view, not true Muslims because they were Westernized; they believed in democracy, which by the way the Islamists do not and will openly say that.

But they (the group within WETA) felt that the Islamists ... somehow represented a truer strain of Islam. We said that is not the case as we have found it. And it became a sort of battle, with them saying to us, "Well, you control this. It is your film, but" -- and it was a huge, capital-letter "But" -- "if you do not do what we want, we will throw you out of the series."

Q: What did they want?

A: They wanted to portray the Islamists in a way that would represent them as being the truer strain of Islam, the truer representatives of Islam. And we said they represent a very virulent, aggressive form of Islam, that is one strain, but the moderates within Islam -- and there are millions of them -- have an equally valid voice within Islam. They did not want that balance.

Q: You don't consider the critiques of your film from the PBS/WETA people -- that you had written an "alarmist" or unfair film -- to be constructive criticism but censorship, is that true?

A: Yeah. What started happening was that we received these increasingly almost hysterical critiques from WETA. ... They demanded that I fire my two partners (Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev), who had brought me into this film, because my partners were conservatives.

I made the point that I had done a documentary about the Blacklist Era in Hollywood, about the Hollywood Ten, and about the liberals and leftists who were blacklisted in those days, and I was not about to be party to a blacklist from the other side. I didn't care whether it was liberal or conservative, I was not about to blacklist or fire anybody because of their political beliefs.

I was asked a question I never thought I'd hear in America -- "Don't you check into the politics of the people you work with?" My answer was, "No. I do not. I check into their journalistic integrity. I check into their pursuit of the truth as they understand it -- a truth that can stand up to criticism and scrutiny."

That's what I check into. I don't check into "Are you a Democrat? Are you a Republican? Are you a liberal or are you a conservative?" That to me is absolutely abhorrent to a free pursuit of journalism in this country.

Q: One of the WETA execs said your film was dealt with in a "fair and professional manner." Do you agree?

A: No. I have worked for networks all over the world. I have worked in France, Britain, Canada and the United States. This was the most unprofessional dealing I have ever had and the most politically biased. In some ways, it's just raw politics taking precedence over journalism. It's that simple.

http://www.canadianembassy.org/pressclips/article.asp?intID=39616

[quade 3]

The report would itself, perhaps a bit more credibility if the reporter had interviewed and quoted somebody at PBS.

As it is, it's only showing one side of a story about, essentially, somebody that got fired. Instead, he "quoted" a single word, out of context in one paragraph unattributed to anyone except "Executives at WETA in Washington, D.C." That could be anyone from the President to some schmoe in accounting.

How "fair" is that?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

As it is, it's only showing one side of a story about, essentially, somebody that got fired.

How "fair" is that?

Hey tis good enough propaganda for PRAVDA-FOX.. since their newspeak of FAIR and Balanced means toeing the party line...if you aint with em U must be a leftieCommie Terrorist... agin em.
Its only BAD bias when its left of the Ultra Right

Real fair and balanced in the mainstream middle is seen as leftie bias.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

As it is, it's only showing one side of a story about, essentially, somebody that got fired.

How "fair" is that?

Hey tis good enough propaganda for PRAVDA-FOX.. since their newspeak of FAIR and Balanced means toeing the party line...if you aint with em U must be a leftieCommie Terrorist... agin em.
Its only BAD bias when its left of the Ultra Right

Real fair and balanced in the mainstream middle is seen as leftie bias.

What does Fox have to do with this? I found the story on the Canadian Embassy website.

Quade,
It was an interview. They tend to be one-sided.

[quade 3]

Quote

It was an interview. They tend to be one-sided.

Fine, but then don't come to the conclusion that this somehow proves bias at PBS.

Here's the original headline of the article;
"Documentary filmmaker claims PBS shows bias (interview)"

Do you see how that differs a bit from the thread subject line YOU gave it?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[idrankwhat 0]

It appears that there were 21 films that were fully commissioned out of over 400 proposals.
11 of those 21 made the cut.

[kallend 1,644]

Of course it's biased - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's governing board is chaired by a GOP member, appointed by Bush, and the majority of its board are GOP too, all appointed by Bush for six year terms.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

all appointed by Bush for six year terms.

We need to get rid of the appointees across the board...

Elect them all.. including federal judgeships.. and Persecuting attorneys.. Remove politics from ALL of these kinds of Boss Tweed kind of political corruptionand incompetence... like Brownie who did so well for us at FEMA

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Of course it's biased - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's governing board is chaired by a GOP member, appointed by Bush, and the majority of its board are GOP too, all appointed by Bush for six year terms.

Not quite.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Of course it's biased - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's governing board is chaired by a GOP member, appointed by Bush, and the majority of its board are GOP too, all appointed by Bush for six year terms.

my hippie parents have claimed a right wing bias at PBS for decades due to the primary funding sources.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course it's biased - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's governing board is chaired by a GOP member, appointed by Bush, and the majority of its board are GOP too, all appointed by Bush for six year terms.

my hippie parents have claimed a right wing bias at PBS for decades due to the primary funding sources.

The CPB funds about 10% of NPR's budget.

[sundevil777 94]

I say that we should get rid of all taxpayer funding for PBS and NPR. They already have commercials, they are just slightly different than the traditional commercial, but they still are commercials.

It is because of the taxpayer funding that people are rightly pissed off more so than the bias of other networks.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 94]

What I think is important is not whether the interview comments were fair, but whether the moderate muslims are in fact intimidated into silence by extremists.

Does anyone think that is not the case?

I think it incredibly important to get that message out to the general public, but instead the PBS people seemed to have caved to the intimidation themselves. To want the extremists portrayed as a truer strain of Islam is such bullshit.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Of course it's biased - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's governing board is chaired by a GOP member, appointed by Bush, and the majority of its board are GOP too, all appointed by Bush for six year terms.

Not quite.

Hyperbole for the purpose of sarcasm?

Over 50% of the board members are GOP, including the chair. The previous chair was also GOP. 100% of them are Bush appointees.


The current chairman is Cheryl Halpern. "Nearly all of Mrs. Halpern's $319,250 in political contributions have been to Republicans, according to Washington-based PoliticalMoneyLine.com, which tracks donations," the Washington Times reports. "Recipients have included President Bush's presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004, and Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi and Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana, both Republicans. Mr. Lott and Mr. Burns sit on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which approves all CPB nominations. Mrs. Halpern, who lives in Livingston, N.J., has described herself in campaign filings as an investor, private investigator, a homemaker and as self-employed."

The Vice Chair is Gay Gaines: Long active in Republican Party affairs, Gaines is a trustee of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, and a board member and president of the Palm Beach Republican Club.

Bell, Puig and Boskin are all GOP.

HARDLY a set-up for liberal bias.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course it's biased - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's governing board is chaired by a GOP member, appointed by Bush, and the majority of its board are GOP too, all appointed by Bush for six year terms.

Not quite.

Hyperbole for the purpose of sarcasm?

Talk about beating a dead horse.

Quote

Over 50% of the board members are GOP, including the chair.

You are right.. I incorrectly counted four of the eight as Republicans. You've clearly shown it's five of the eight.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Hyperbole for the purpose of sarcasm?

You certainly should know all about that.

Quote

HARDLY a set-up for liberal bias.

I can agree with you there, I think they are simply giving in to the fear of retribution from extremists, which ironically is what the film is about.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DSE 3]

I'd agree. Having a film that has been airing on PBS for the past month (Lost Landscapes, scored it, didn't produce it) I'd tend to suggest it's about the content, not a liberal nor conservative bias.
There is a significant amount of dialog that takes place between a producer/director and PBS during the process of producing the film. There is simply no way, no way at all, that the director can get even close to a point of being completed on a film for PBS, where he's not aware of concerns in advance. Since PBS funds it, they have very rigid guidelines about content.
BTW, the film that we've had on the air this past month would mak most conservatives bunghole shrink. It's got a lot about how big business has killed the landscape of America with pesticides, poor farming practices...nothing conservative friendly in this project. but it aired. And was reviewed several times in advance during the production and editing processes by PBS, which is very standard. They have the most stringent broadcast submission rules of any network I've ever worked with, but they're also exceptionally professional and thorough.
In other words, I'm not buying the story, but do agree that giving into extremists is a potential cause for their position.

[NCclimber 0]

If your film leans the same way as the people at PBS, why is there any reason to think you'd be challenged on ideological issues? There's not a lot of criticism when you're preaching to the choir.

Did the people at WETA have direct control over your film?

What in the film "would mak most conservatives bunghole shrink"? Is it overt propaganda? Or do you think that most conservatives are have an aversion to fair, objective stories?

[DSE 3]

Quote

If your film leans the same way as the people at PBS, why is there any reason to think you'd be challenged on ideological issues? There's not a lot of criticism when you're preaching to the choir.

I didn't say the film "leans in the same way as the people at PBS." It doesn't matter much what gets said, their words will be turned by the twisted to fit an agenda. I recall you and I went down that road once before.
Go watch the film. You'll be a better person for it.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Go watch the film. You'll be a better person for it.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

[DSE 3]

Quote

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Was there some cause for you to take the above comment as a negative suggestion?
It's a movie.
The content is uplifting, evocative, thought-provoking, political, and incredibly cinematic.
Using subject matter relevant to all life everywhere, the film points out certain changes in the world, some environmental, others evolutionary, and still yet others that are a combination.

I would submit *anyone* who sees the film would be more introspective if they're capable of rational thought. That can be said about most any PBS project. Most rational Americans know PBS has no political bias/agenda outside of bringing fair, balanced content to viewers.

If you perceive my comment as negative, then don't watch the film. Or do.
Whatever.
Enjoy.

[NCclimber 0]

Sorry about that. Based on past interactions and your claim that the film would make most conservatives bungholes shrink, I took it as a backhanded compliment.

All in all, I think PBS is very even handed. The programming is top notch. The topic of this thread is about the PBS people at WETA, who I don't consider representative of all PBS stations.

While I think PBS is fair, objective and worthy of praise, NPR seems quite biased.

[DSE 3]

Gotcha.
Comment about shrinking conservative bungholes=permission to twist words.

WETA=isn't representative of PBS (Actually that's fairly inaccurate).

Just to put this in a slightly different perspective;
Starting tonight on PBS, a film called "The Mormons" will begin airing. The filmmaker wanted the film to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Mormon history.
Ooops....LDS church is a major contributor to neo conservative groups, and given that they are the third largest media corporation in the world, they were able to get the film toned down so as to not offend Mormons.
Comment from Chris Vanocur, lifetime Utah resident and political reporter (paraphrased) "this isn't fair, nor unbiased, as it doesn't explore the past history deeply enough to comment on the current history." Mitt Romney, presidential hopeful, is featured for approximately 3 mins in the four hour film.
PBS withholds portions of funding until the film comes into line with certain parameters of governance that are more or less within balanced guidelines. Each regional "representative" of PBS will control whatever they will control, within boundaries.