(NOTE: Please see the update to this alert here)
The PBS Nova broadcast “Rise of the Drones” was sponsored by drone manufacturer Lockheed Martin–a clear violation of PBS‘s underwriting guidelines.
As Kevin Gosztola reported (FireDogLake, 1/24/13), the January 23 broadcast was a mostly upbeat look at surveillance and weaponized drones. “Discover the cutting edge technologies that are propelling us toward a new chapter in aviation history,” PBS urged, promising to reveal “the amazing technologies that make drones so powerful.”
Some of that technology, unbeknownst to viewers, was created by the company described as giving Nova “additional funding” at the beginning of the broadcast. Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor with $46 billion in 2011 sales, is a manufacturer of drones used in warfare and intelligence, including the Desert Hawk, the Falcon, the Stalker and the Tracer. In December 2012, Lockheed bought AME Unmanned Air Systems, maker of the Fury drone (New Times, 12/19/12).
Nova‘s history of unmanned flight technology included comments from Abe Karem, dubbed the “father of the Predator” drone. His current company, FireDogLake‘s Gosztola noted, has a business relationship with Lockheed Martin.
The show did not entirely skirt the controversies over drones. A section of the broadcast dealt with drone pilots firing on targets in countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan. Viewers, though, are told that drone pilots have distinct advantage over conventional pilots. One drone operator talks about how, after a strike, a drone can “stick around for another few hours to watch what happens afterwards.” A more critical look at drone wars might have mentioned these are the same circumstances under which U.S. drones have attacked rescue workers and funeral processions (Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 6/4/12).
The show does not ignore the question of civilian deaths–though it says “the facts are hard to come by” and that “there are not fully reliable counts of civilian deaths.” Nova does mention that some estimates are that 30 percent of those killed are civilians, and talks about one attack that killed 23 civilians in Pakistan.
But, in keeping with the generally upbeat tone, Nova tells viewers that technology will help turn things around. “Drones can strike with pinpoint precision,” the programs explains, “but their visual sensors are limited in ways that can lead pilots to make mistakes.” Not to worry, though; “engineers are working to create new sensors that can see more in greater detail than ever before.”
The program’s sponsorship tie to the drone industry were never mentioned–though there were opportunities to disclose that relationship. In addition to Lockheed Martin’s connection to one of the interview subjects, the show discussed a U.S. drone that was captured by Iran–without mentioning that it was manufactured by Nova‘s underwriter. And when Nova discusses the drones of the future, it’s talking about the kind of miniature drones Lockheed Martin is developing to provide “constant surveillance capabilities” (TPM IdeaLab, 7/4/12).
Though the broadcast included an underwriting announcement at the beginning (“Additional funding from Lockheed Martin: Inspiring tomorrow’s engineers and technologists”), that credit was removed from the webcast, and the company is not credited on the Nova website for the episode.
So can a corporation really provide “additional funding” for public TV journalism that discusses its own interests? PBS rules would seem to say no. The network has three tests that “are applied to every proposed funding arrangement in order to determine its acceptability”:
* Editorial Control Test: Has the underwriter exercised editorial control? Could it?
* Perception Test: Might the public perceive that the underwriter has exercised editorial control?
* Commercialism Test: Might the public conclude the program is on PBS principally because it promotes the underwriter’s products, services or other business interests?
On the perception test, PBS explains:
When there exists a clear and direct connection between the interests or products or services of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program, the proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable regardless of the funder’s actual compliance with the editorial control provisions of this policy.
On commercialism:
The policy is intended to prohibit any funding arrangement where the primary emphasis of the program is on products or services that are identical or similar to those of the underwriter.
It is difficult to see how PBS could argue that the Nova special does not violate these rules. And PBS wants you the believe they take such matters seriously:
Should a significant number of reasonable viewers conclude that PBS has sold its professionalism and independence to its program funders, whether or not their conclusions are justified, then the entire program service of public television will be suspect and the goal of serving the public will be unachievable.
If PBS really believe these words, why did they allow the Lockheed-funded “Rise of the Drones” to air?
ACTION:
Ask PBS ombud Michael Getler to investigate whether Nova’s “Rise of the Drones” violates PBS underwriting guidelines.
CONTACT:
PBS Ombud
Michael Getler
ombudsman@pbs.org
Phone: 703 739 5290
Dear Mr. Getler,
It appears that the recently-aired program “Rise of the Drones” clearly violates PBS underwriting guidelines. It is a matter of urgent importance that you investigate whether or not that is the case.
Sincerely,
Chris Pastorella
Boston, MA
You could call it putting their money
Where their mouthpiece is
Dear Mr. Getler,
I was very pleased watching the in-depth reporting on Frontline’s “The Untouchables” regarding the Wall Street banking scandal and the vigor with which fraud was pursued (or NOT pursued). It’s what makes me proud to support PBS year after year.
However, I am very deeply concerned about the recent NOVA program, “Rise of the Drones,” which was partially underwritten by Lockheed Martin, a drone manufacturer. It has come to my attention that while an “additional funding” notice was included at the beginning of the broadcast program, there was no mention made during the body of the broadcast, and no mention – at all – in the web version, of the presentation.
I believe this constitutes a serious violation of PBS network’s three underwriting funding acceptability tests. The broadcast, I believe, violated the commercialism, editorial control, and perception tests.
I am among thousands of other concerned viewers who would appreciate your looking into whether this violated PBS’s guidelines.
Thank you, and regards,
Kevin Leja
I’m a PBS financial supporter and regular viewer of NOVA. NOVA is a show about science and technology –making drones an appropriate and timely topic. The program primarily covered the technical aspects of unmanned aircraft while briefly touching on some of the legal and moral concerns (which are better left to programs like Frontline). I did not consider the underwriter’s connection to be a conflict of interest. These companies have sponsored NOVA for years. The smart kids who are inspired by shows like NOVA go on to get really great jobs doing amazing things –not flipping burgers or complaining about how unfair life is because they can’t find a job with their philosophy degree.
Drones are a necessary and useful invention. Whether they are good or bad all depends upon how we decide to use them. I’ve heard people complain that drones result in collateral deaths. They do. But does anyone seriously think that boots-on-the-ground warfare doesn’t have collateral consequences too? War is a nasty business. From my perspective I’d rather fight it with the least risk to our own troops and in a way which is cost-effective to the taxpayers.
Dear Michael Getler,
I understand you recent show Rise Of The Drones was sponsored by drone manufacturer Lockheed Martin? What gives?
Isn’t this a violation of you underwriting rules?
I guess PBS should probably change its underwriting standards so it can bring us more cool info-mercials like Nova’s “Rise of the Drones”. Maybe PBS could even get “additional funding” from some of Lockheed-Martin’s competitors!
Charles Rudolph
Albuquerque, NM
Dear Mr. PBS Ombud:
I have a question for PBS. Do you really think Nova’s “Rise of theDrones” is not in violation of PBS underwriting guidelines?
If PBS sincerely believes this program, which is underwritten by a major Drone manufacturer, cannot reasonbly be construed as quite likely biased because of this, then I believe real investigative journalism by PBS is impossible and not worthy of support.
I think the report is more an infomercial (with a few limp criticisms of the product) than a news report.
Burnis Tuck
Fresno
Dear Michael Getler:
I believe an investigation should be conducted on Nova’s “Rise of the Drones” as it violates PBS underwriting guidelines. As I read through the Funding Standards and Practices I noticed there were clear violations of both the “Perception Test” and the “Commercialism Test”. Those three tests, which were specifically conducted to determine the acceptability of every proposed funding arrangement, have been completely ignored! I have posted below several passages taken directly from PBS’s Website along with their respective links:
“In general, the perception test will be applied most vigorously to current affairs programs and programs that address controversial issues. In these cases, when there exists a clear and direct connection between the interests or products or services of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program, the proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable regardless of the funder’s actual compliance with the editorial control provisions of this policy.”
http://www.pbs.org/producers/guidelines/principles_iib.html
“Commercialism Test: Might the public conclude the program is on PBS principally because it promotes the underwriter’s products, services or other business interests?”
“In applying this test, PBS will carefully analyze the relationship of the funder and its business interests to the subject matter of the program. Earlier versions of these guidelines provided that when a clear and direct commercial connection existed between the interests, products or services of a corporation and the subject of a program, the proposed funding arrangement would be deemed unacceptable. In more recent years, however, the application of this principle has been limited to only those proposed funding arrangements that are blatantly commercial or self-congratulatory.”
“…public television’s selection of programs and the content of those programs is responsive solely to the perceived needs of the public which it serves — not to the commercial interests of corporations or other entities who may fund public television programs.”
“Thus, the policy is intended to prohibit any funding arrangement where the primary emphasis of the program is on products or services that are identical or similar to those of the underwriter.”
“Finally, producers are cautioned to scrupulously avoid “product placement” arrangements, i.e., the deliberate or gratuitous appearance in the program of an underwriter’s product or service in a way that draws attention to or features that product or service in any way whatsoever.”
http://www.pbs.org/producers/guidelines/principles_iic.html
Sincerely,
Melissa Escobar
lysa613@yahoo.com
Outrageous! Nova’s “Rise of the Drones” sponsored by drone manufacturer Lockheed Martin and oil and gas billionaire David H. Koch’s climate-change denying Foundation for [sic] Science?? What next, Nova’s “Revenge of the Cigarettes,” sponsored by Lorillard and The Tobacco Institute?
Not only do these sponsorships violate your “perception” and commercialism” tests for program funders, but the resulting program mixes fact with commercial messages and the false assurances of an unscrupulous used-car salesmen.
“Rise of the Drones” leaves unsaid the central truth that drones can’t identify individuals. Drone strikes rely on unvetted local informants who are paid to provide target information, and “families and rival groups use locator chips to have their enemies targeted and to settle personal vendettas” according to a 2012 study by the Columbia Law School. Ditto for foreign governments and military officials.
The program minimizes the horrific deaths of thousands of men, women and children, and ignores the finding of a 2012 joint study by Stanford and NYU law schools (Living Under Drones) that only two
percent of those killed are “high-level targets.” Neither does it mention that people attending weddings and funerals, and even young children gathering dung for fuel, have been intentionally targeted and their deaths ghoulishly justified.
The United Nations says the drone attacks violate international law and human rights, the Stanford study says they “terrorize” entire populations, and the New York Times reports they have become “the recruiting tool of choice for militants.” Many informed and thoughtful people say the drone attacks are counterproductive, that blow-back is inevitable and Americans are less safe because of them.
Nova’s “Rise of the Drones” fails to mention any of this. Why? Obviously to satisfy your funders.
Shame!
One must also consider what is omitted or censored off PBS due to sponsors. Remember in 1983 ” Alcohol as Fuel” , a PBS filmed 10-part series documenting David Blume’s work, that PBS pulled after airing it in San Francisco only? By the 4th instalment the station’s oil sponsors put the pressure on. PBS never released it further. http://www.permaculture.com/node/237
It¡¦s actually a nice and helpful piece of information. I¡¦m glad that you just shared this useful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.