5 Comments

Great op-ed piece in the Post. And you nail PBS when you write that: “PBS is operating here in the manner of similar institutions in the former Soviet Union and in modern Iran — financing artists and then withholding distribution of their work when it is not deemed ideologically ‘correct.’ ”

One caveat. At the very end of the article you deem the above behavior to be “reactionary.” Not in today’s power equation. In today’s world the silencing of the politically incorrect is almost exclusively progressive behavior.

Actually, ricpic, I chose that word very carefully. There is nothing a “progressive” likes less than to be called a reactionary. And indeed, this kind of liberalism is, in essence, reactionary in the old sense.

Congratulations, Roger.

I am glad your efforts to expose this censorship is being distributed through a different channel.

A little sunlight can change a lot sometimes.

something else PBS did (after showing the doc “Death of a Princess”):

What did the gutless royal family start to do almost as soon as the “petro-dollars” started to flow (late-’70s)? Immediately, big money went to the hate-mongering imams to fund madrassas throughout the Moslem world. Why would they do this? To “buy peace” from the intolerant Wahhabists who objected to the all-too-apparent decadence around Riyadh. Friends shouldn’t let friends sow hatred. Shouldn’t someone from the United States of America have leaned on the Saudis to stop this? In fact, U.S. corporations helped to cover up this abomination!

In the early 1980, PBS broadcast a three-part series on Saudi Arabia that was funded entirely by three corporations that had substantial business ties with the Kingdom. In addition to paying for the production costs, Ford Motor Company, the Harris Corporation and Morgan Guaranty Trust Company paid a Madison Avenue advertising company to promote the series and to send a thick, glossy “study guide” to over 16,000 social studies teachers in the U.S. This effort is noteworthy not so much for the potential impact on U.S. voters but for the increased comfort level it afforded the Saudi royal family; they could see that a mostly-positive portrayal of their society was on a national broadcast (it meant a lot more in those days) in the U.S. Addressing the content issue directly, PBS head of programming Barry Chase, said that “I was sympathetic to it having to be sympathetic – you don’t get access [to some of these countries] unless you’re perceived to be sympathetic”.

In the program, fundamentalist leaders were referred to as “neo-conservatives” and there was no mention of the madrassas. When a reporter asked Ford’s spokesman about his company’s sponsorship, he admitted that part of the reasoning was to improve ties with Middle East governments. At the time, Ford was on the Arab boycott list because of its dealings with Israel, according to Bob Brewin of the Soho News.

One interesting side note to this story is related to a call which Chase made to a Steven Emerson, a critic of the Saudi series’ producer. When asked about any problems he might have with the sources of funding, Emerson replied “I don’t have anything on this lady.” In context, this meant that there were no ties to Arab-American groups; corporate support, it appears, was unproblematic. Grassroots pressure forced several PBS stations to run a “disclaimer” at the start of each of the series’ programs, that described the special Saudi series as “first person journalism.” It is unclear what the everyday viewer is supposed to make of this explanation of the program’s provenance.

Congratulations on the further mainstreaming of this alternative and somewhat revolutionary media venture. This is more significant I think than the interview questioning outside the US Senate by the powerline blog folks. Long may you run.