FAIR has a new Action Alert (7/12/10) out about PBS airing a completely uncritical three-hour documentary about Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz–paid for by corporations with close ties to Shultz. You can leave copies of your messages to PBS, or comments on the alert, in the comment thread of this post.
In airing the George Schultz documentary “Turmoil and Triumph,” PBS is ignoring a blatant conflict of interest between the producers of the documentary and the subject of it.
The producers of this documentary are the Stephen Bechtel Fund and Charles Schwab. George Schultz has sat on the board of both corporations, and was president of Bechtel Corporation from 1975 to 1982.
The documentary offers only praise for Schultz, with no criticism whatsoever. This is an egregious instance of corporate fluff, bought and paid for by the very corporations that Schultz worked for. For example, it makes no mention of the fact that Schultz was one of the major cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq. This omission by itself is a gross distortion of history.
However, it gets worse. Bechtel profited enormously from the invasion of Iraq through no-bid contracts. It is dumbfounding that this documentary makes no mention of such an obvious conflict of interest.
To the extent that PBS airs such arrant nonsense, it brings the entire concept of public television into disgrace. The content of public television must never be bought and paid for to serve the interests of private corporations, especially when it does so by omitting or distorting the truth.
PBS should be ashamed.
There was a time when we used to look and listen to what PBS brought us on the air. Now we know that whatever we hear and see is whitewashing of administrations, corporate influence in all you bring us and 3 hour spectaculars about a man who should go down in infamy.
It is small wonder that contributions from listeners are down, funding from corporations is up and demise of TV news broadcasts is going the way of the buggy whip and print media because you cannot be trusted.
Dorli Rainey
I have no interest in watching a 3-hour special about George Shultz who supposedly thought we should go to war in Iraq because of WMD. After all the people who have died and been injured, the expense to this nation, while corporations like KBR and Bechtel made hundreds of millions in profits, and then you want to air a special SPONSORED by Bechtel which just glows about George Shultz? May have to change from PBS to Corporate Broadcasting System. There are fewer broadcast sources that I trust anymore. We now have NATO troops dying in Afghanistan – supposed to make Americans less concerned about the danger and death over there when they call them NATO troops.
Michael Getler,
I recently read about an upcoming PBS documentary on (tribute to) Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Schulz. Seriously? A three hour, three day corporate sponsored lovefest to George Schulz? Holy Cow! Instead of a fully justified criminal and ethical investigation into this disgusting, lying corporate weasel – we get a memorial celebration for God’s sake!
I am SO glad that I have stopped contributing to PBS, CPTV, NPR.
Dear Mr Getler–am writing to express my disapointment that PBS is airing such a politically slanted documentary on George Schulz “Turmoil & Triumph”, that was funded and produced by corporations with distinct ties to subject of film. How can PBS justify such an uncritical reframing of history, when there was plenty of criticism both during and after his term as Secretary of State.
I am requesting that you investigate the relationship between the subject of this “documentary” and the funders of Turmoil & Triumph, as I believe it represents a blatant conflict of interest, which accordingly should be refused as biased, unethical, and contrary to PBS’s purported “professional standards”.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter,
Why does a documentary need to be critical? I saw nothing in your so called “Alert” to suggest that the documentary contained factual inaccurracies. I found the promo on the News Hour tonight highly informative and interesting. My understanding is the documentary is to cover the period of the Regan adminstration not the Bush II administration. You guys and (by the comments found here) your clientele sound like a branch of MoveOn.org. Nothing but negative vibes and the suggestion that unless youre telling the story that nobody else has a valid alternate view
I’d have to say PBS has 1000% more credibility than this site!
Intersting that Mr. Jibberwocky lacks the integrity to write his/her opinions under a proper name, gutless wonder.
I know you guys are hard up for cash, but George Schultz as exemplar of anything, forget the right wing funder and conflicts of interest, how could you? Years ago I worked at WGBH in Boston and the handwriting on the wall was already coming in to focus â┚¬“ a documentary critical of the oil industry that was already in the can was cancelled because they were courting Mobil for Masterpiece Theatre. Then the labor series that was dumped because, â┚¬Ã…“I’m shocked, shocked,â┚¬Ã‚ there was union support. So, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
However, even though those seem like minor transgressions compared to the beatification of George Schultz â┚¬“ I have an even better idea for you. How about serializing Glenn Beck’s novel or doing a docudrama about the Rapture? You haven’t really tapped the market yet.
To whom it may concern,
I am very disapointed with George Schultz doc that aired tonight. I am disappointed that a critical eye didn’t find anything negative to say about the man. I don’t demand negativity per say, but find it curious that a man who we know had his hands in so much negative issues wasn’t portrayed that way.
After googling this, I see lots of similar criticism. I ask you, who funded this doc? Why did you choose to air it?
From a long time viewer,
Thank you,
Tom Ivy
Three hours without a single note of criticism ! I got my degree at the U of Chicago, where Shultz was known as the most stodgy and unapproachable high priest of conservative orthodoxy. I later worked in the federal government, where Shultz was again the shrinking ego who brooked no criticism or questions about his rigid Cold War strategy. When it came to the Iran Contra hearings before the Congress he was pitiable. He had invented the tactic of “Plausible Deniability”. He saw no reason to tell the Congress why he had personally flouted legislation imposing limits on the duplicity that had long been anticipated from the State Dept. Yet he was still depicted on your maxi-series, by Kissinger and others, as a shrewd and honest statesman. What a travesty.
Dear Mr. [Michael] Getler [PBS Ombudsman] re: PBS & George Shultz,
It’s always a near thing to run three hours on a person who lived both a public and a private life. A reputation is also always a near thing. If it’s never tested, why have one, yet if pushed too far, it bends and then it’s as good as gone. PBS had a reputation, perhaps not one that ever could be demonstrated on a daily basis in real life, but nonetheless a reputation, for understanding the nuance of walking the line between full coverage of a story, and full coverage of part of a story.
This connects in some way with the parallel notion of conflict of interest, and the appearance of such a conflict. You depend on corporate sponsors in significant measure for your budget, and to some degree there arises from time to time the need to sing for your supper. It would seem that such a thing manifested with regard to your paean to the well-connected and very busy Mr. Shultz. It’s true that many of his associates and beneficiaries have heaped laud on him, and so what’s the harm in another leaf on his laurel branch? Except that I had hoped, as many had hoped, that PBS might resist the Siren call to sing undiluted praises without end for Mr. Shultz in your “Turmoil and Triumph.” The flotsam and jetsam on the seas would make it seem that the call could not be resisted. It’s a pity, really.
I suppose the good news is that it’s possibly only a yearning for influence and the flattery of the powerful that won the day. And what’s the use if not the value of a reputation, anyhow? Can’t spend it anywhere. No doubt I cavil over minor matters. But I can’t help but feel let down. PBS, running puff pieces. Once you had people like Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio. Well, your reputation had a good run while it lasted.
Sincerely,
David
To: Michael Getler
I was shocked to hear that the 3 hour tribute to George Schultz airing on PBS was funded by Bechtel and Charles Schwab, two corporations that he worked for. I thought PBS’s standards wouldn’t permit airing programs with such a blatant relationship between the subject and its sponsors. And aren’t you the watchdog for this sort of conflict?
Please investigate this matter. PBS is one of the last broadcast entities I feel I can trust, and I find this very disturbing.
Thank you.
Ashleigh Evans
Dear PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler,
I have just learned that PBS is airing a 3-hour “documentary” about George Shultz, called Turmoil and Triumph, funded by corporations with which he has close ties. The “documentary” reportedly has only glowingly positive coverage of Mr. Shultz, in spite of the fact that (in my opinion) there is plenty to criticize. I myself was arrested at the State Department during Mr. Shultz’s tenure as Secretary of State, to protest US expenditures of $1 million a day in “aid” to the El Salvador regime which was bombing and killing thousands of its own people. Is Mr. Shultz’s role in that slaughter mentioned in the “documentary”? That is only one example of his highly questionable behavior which deserves mention in any “fair and balanced” coverage of his life.
I urge you to investigate the relationship between the subject and funders of Turmoil and Triumph.
An excellent book I read over 20 years ago..” friends in mig h places” , the story of The Bechtel Corp. Reagan’s Sec of S ta te pf State and Sec of Defense were both on Bechtel Bd of Directors. ..When Reagan picked GHW Bush as his VP That’s when our troubles started latere 41 was bent on getting his Son in the Whitehouse .. The man W made his Ambassador to Great Britain, and was inheritor of Oil Fortune [ Exxon ] and whom his father cal led ” MY dear friend ” is the reason big Oil money infected our Rep C ongress..and is the main issue today. The Democrats mus t oafter the Pro BP , BIG OIL nuts…like a BARTON .BOEHNER .McConnellC …. and never let up.
Dear Mr. Getler,
Is it too much to ask that when you air a 3-hour long program that you demand all sides of the story, good and/or bad. I realize I’ve only seen part one but for some of us who remember the Reagan years with the Iran/Contra scandal and the part that Schultz played in promoting and approving an illegal war in Iraq while on the Bechtel board, it seems to me that you did not exercise your responsibility to your viewers.
Be up front with your viewers. Let us see who is paying for the program and whether there is a conflict of interest in leaving all the “bad” parts out. PBS has a history of refusing to air certain programs because you deemed them to be biased at the time. You failed on this series big time. Do you not think that a conflict of interest exists between the producers and the subject matter? I can tell you that it does.
You viewers look to you for fair and balanced. From what I’ve seen these past few years, you don’t follow the guidelines you once believed in. Too bad.
Edyth Koch
Seattle, WA
I sent the following to the PBS Ombud and a similar letter to the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer.
Dear PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler,
I question the wisdom and merit in showing the uncritical documentary of George Schultz and his time in the Reagan Administration, titled Turmoil and Triumph. The film has an unacknowledged conflict of interest between George Schulz and the corporations funding the film, Bechtel Corporation and Charles Schwab. Schulz served on the Board of Directors of both of these corporations. Not only is there a seeming conflict of interest but the documentary seems to lack any critical views of the subject as highlighted by reviewers in the New York Times and even the conservative Wall Street Journal. Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ wrote (7/9/10) that the speakers in the film are “an exceptionally enthusiastic lot even by the prevailing standards for testimonials of this sort.”
I would ask that you investigate the seeming conflict of interest between the corporate funders of the film and its subject. I would also like you to look into the role played in this by the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer, who has been uncritically promoting the film. The PBS Newshour showed a portion of the film followed by an interview with George Schulz which was anything but critical. Never was it mentioned that there is a controversy over the potential conflict of interest involved in the production of the documentary. Following the interview, it was mentioned that there was a book that went along with the film and the times of the films showing was restated. It sounded more like the anchors of the Newshour were assisting in the promotion of the film and George Schulz’ desired place in history. I had to wonder if they had a conflict of interest too.
Sincerely,
Babette Grunow
2132 N. 33rd St.
Milwaukee WI 53208
414-447-8369
Dear Mr. Getler –
FAIR, the organization for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting recently reported that Free to Choose Media’s documentary on George Schultz was overwhelmingly positive to the controversial figure — He was, after all, as you well remember, Reagan’s Secretary of State during both the invasion of Grenada and Iran-Contra.
Now having people say nice things about you is no bad thing (Goodness knows I like it. Let’s try it out — “That’s a very nice tie you’re wearing today. No, seriously.” — See? Wasn’t that fun?), but according to FAIR, Free to Choose Media’s documentary was funded by the Stephen Bechtel Fund and Charles Schwab, both organizations that have had Schultz on their board of directors. In fact, Schulz was even president of Schwab before becoming Reagan’s Secretary of State. (Imagine if my family owned the company that made your tie. Sort of takes the bloom off the lilly, doesn’t it?)
By comparison, PBS has a history of rejecting documentaries for such suggested collusion between funding sources and subjects: Lost Eden (for labor funding), Out at Work eventually broadcast as part of HBO’s esteemed America Undercover series (for funding by a labor union and a Lesbian advocacy group), and even the Academy Award Winner Defending Our Lives (for support from groups that advocate for battered women).
Now, I know that, as part of our country’s ongoing Culture War, politically conservative elements in the media and in the government have been attacking PBS about programming that favors social and political issues close to the left. (Indeed, it was that very pressure that led to the creation of your position.) But I hope that PBS’s response has not been to relax its standards for conservative friendly shows. Please look into this situation.
Thank you.
Michael
I wondered a bit at the wording when the announcement hit my mailbox Sunday night about the upcoming broadcast about the early years of George Schultz. To me Schultz is a controversial figure and the tone of the item sounded strange.
Now I am informed that it is actually a puff piece paid for by those who choose to burnish Schultz’s image. Maybe it should more accurately be billed as an Infomercial. Is PBS now so broke that it now auctions air time off to the highest bidder? Will PBS morph into a vehicle for the propaganda needs of our mega-corporations? If it does, it will be a great loss to your loyal viewers. And I for one will no longer be watching.
Dear Mr. Getler,
I am concerned about the double standard carried by PBS when making decisions concerning which documentaries should be aired, and which are too conflicted in their interests. There is a big difference between labor unions and social organizations on the one hand, and multi-national corporations on the other. Yours is a PUBLIC broadcasting system, not a PRIVATE broadcasting system. The public interest should be treated differently than any private interest.
Everyone has a different point of view, but some users of the public airwaves want to present a scene that obstructs certain areas and emphasizes others for propaganda purposes. A three-hour-long documentary that does nothing but celebrate the life of an individual is not a documentary, but a propaganda film, unless of course it was done by that person’s family. The fact that the Schultz film was funded by a corporation which profits from military adventures should have been enough to suspect an ulterior motive. The trend toward more corporate propaganda on PBS matches the trend toward corporate control of everything, including the political process. PBS used to be a bastion against that trend, whose walls now are apparently so porous as to keep out only the weakest of those trying to get in.
If, as it seems, PBS is being forced to become a station for propaganda, at least it should propagandize for everyone who has an axe to grind and the money to fund the grinder. After all, Fox News gets to use the word “News” in its title without sanction, so PBS should get to use the word “public” in its title even if it eventually becomes not public at all.
Sincerely,
Gregory Kruse
Morrison, IL
Dear Mr. Getler,
That PBS has accepted for broadcast the corporate-funded (Bechtel, Charles Schwab) and conflict of interest-laden new series, Turmoil and Triumph — an uncritical biography of former Reagan White House Secretary of State, George Shultz — could well be viewed by future commentators as a contributing watershed in PBS programming history — perhaps one from which there was no turning back.
This sorry state of affairs (the funding of documentary biographies by former corporate employers), I believe, is the inevitable outcome of PBS’s (albeit government-imposed) market-model of fund sourcing. The capacity to maintain previous funding levels from individual Americans in what is likely to be an era of long-term relative U.S. economic decline is a dubious prospect at best, unrealistic at its fundament â┚¬Ã‚¦perhaps even a fait accompli. The airing of Turmoil and Triumph, therefore, may well represent but a preview of PBS’s programming future, consequent to its ineluctably increasing reliance on corporate patronage.
The solution? There is only one, as I can see it. That is for Congress to restore PBS’s tax-based funding to pre-Reagan era levels so that PBS may wean itself off of the corporate influence-peddling upon which it has become regrettably dependent. Returned to its former stature as a medium devoted to the people (that is to say, an informed citizenry and other non-economic interests), PBS’s programming decisions can once again be executed devoid of the financial conflicts of interest that Turmoil and Triumph so blatantly exhibits.
Ultimately, the responsibility is with the American people to prevail upon their Congressional representatives to restore adequate funding to PBS, and, should they balk (as they surely will), to install a new generation of legislators who comprehend the folly of our current obsession with the (misconstrued) “marketplace” as panacea.
Sincerely,
Noah Belikoff
Richmond, CA
To the PBS Ombudsman
I regret that I missed the documentary on George Schultz aired last night (7/12/10). I only learned of it this morning through an email announcement from the media watch group FAIR. The Reagan era is a very interesting period of our history, but just as interesting as the period itself is the subsequent popularizing of its players and its monumental crimes. Due of the spectacular pairing of gross misconduct and glorification, the manner in which the corporate news (traditionally not PBS) spins the Reagan era brings a magnifying glass effect to the apparatus of propaganda in the US. I certainly missed an important opportunity, though perhaps spared myself the discomfort, to see the first episode of a George Schultz whitewash on PBS, if that is what it turns out to be. I will be certain to catch the next episode, and encourage my children to watch it as well. As a father to four educated young adults, I still feel the tug to broaden their exposure, and assist them in sharpening their critique of American corporate news/propaganda. It will be a loss, perhaps, to include PBS in the organs of disinformation, but with every loss there is a gain. Better to walk in the light of an informed criticism then the stumble in the darkness of false witness. If FAIR’s criticism of your airing of a one-sided industry piece on George Schultz turns out to be misguided, I will be sure to send you a congratulations, and thanks, for your visionary scheduling. I have great appreciation, and continued high expectations for PBS programming. Please forward my regards to the programming directors.
Sincerely,
Kevin Magee
To Michael Getler, Ombudsman, PBS:
While one can admire George P. Schultz for some of his efforts over the years, such as attempting to reduce tensions with the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s, his part in creating the â┚¬Ã…“Bush Doctrine,â┚¬Ã‚ which resulted in the U.S. reniging on its obligations under the ABM treaty and the Kyoto Protocol and espousing â┚¬Ã…“pre-emptiveâ┚¬Ã‚ wars in Iraq and Afganistan exposes him, sadly, as a career-long puppet of defense contractors, major oil companies and other corporate interests.
Rather than being venerated on PBS, Schultz should be tried for crimes against humanity along with George W. Bush and many of his advisors, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.
American foreign policy should never have fallen into the hands of such relentless self-promoters, who, since the Nixon Administration, have used their politican influence for personal financial gain rather than for the public good. To see them venerated by PBS is truly appalling.
You are no longer an independent media outlet, and you no longer deserve support from individual subscribers.
Roger Bloyce
Sent to PBS Ombudsman:
It is really disgusting to have PBS present a 3 hour hagiography on George Schultz,
Reagan’s Secretary of State, who participated in the many crimes commited by that regime, and not have any dissenting views. The program was funded by Bechtel, for whom Schultz served as president, and Charles Schwab, which he served on their board of directors. This certainly would have been considered a conflict of interest by previous PBS programmers, who have refused to air programs with even a remote
connection by producers to labor funding. It seems corporate funding is just fine!
This only serves to further erode your credibility as an unbiased voice in a sea of
corporate swill. You seem to have become addicted to corporate dollars and
your viewers are increasingly becoming aware of this. It’s about time! You have
tarnished the PBS brand for the last 15 years, presenting mostly right wingers in
your news broadcasts. Now that Bill Moyers is gone, so is PBS. Sad.
Hello Michael Getler,
While looking at an online TV guide I noticed that many of the broadcast digital stations label items on their schedule as “Paid Programming” in compliance with some sort of FCC regulation, I presume. Isn’t PBS in violation of some broadcast standard by failing to label “Triumph and Turmoil” as such?
Now that PBS has degenerated into being a corporate shill for military adventurism, I would find an open admission of this as the minimum public service required of a broadcasting corporation that advertises itself as serving the public interest.
Glenn Fritz,
Triumph and Turmoil – despicable. I suppose you were hoping that no one would notice how it was funded?
Dear Mr Getler,
Thank you for the great programs on the life of George Schultz. Truly educational.
Before seeing them, I looked to Jesus, Da Vinci, Gandhi, Einstein, and Jim Thorpe as models. Now I know, because of PBS, that they are all second rate next to St. George.
Roy Tuckman
Los Angeles
Dear Mr. Getler,
I won’t restate in detail what has already been said so well in so many of the posted comments.
I happened on to a portion of Schultz Part 3. This has to be one of the most disgusting, rancid moments in the entire history of PBS. How could this programming be allowed to appear in the guise of a legitimate documentary? Even had there been some explanation, some balancing commentary as a followup it would not have been enough to excuse the presentation of this biased unethical propaganda, so unbalanced as to be without historical value.
I am furious that PBS whose mission is to inform us, in a sense to offer honest alternatives to
this very kind of programming, would aggressively promote this series in addition to the ultimate
evil of broadcasting it. My total anger makes it difficult for me to continue on in the language of civil discourse. What a travesty.
Readers here ought to find this article quite interesting —
“Elite Control or Community Governance of Public Service Media: Which Will it Be?”
by Scott Sanders
We must first understand that the U.S. public media system has been purposefully and severely handicapped by the professional culture of journalism, and by corporate and government powers, and philanthropies, from the beginning. Only with this knowledge can we discover that the primary solution to this problem is not simply more money and technology for public media but rather the direct, democratic, community control of public media. Only with this knowledge can we take action to create a public media system that enables marginalized groups to speak to themselves and to wider audiences…
article continues here at Media-ocracy.com– http://bit.ly/dCaN4O
George:
Believe me; your best friend will NEVER tell you!
You really do need a good haircut; (eg: the neck at the back is way to long….you now look like a “rebel”, George, ….it’s time to find yourself a good (older) woman, (ie: of the sixties; ), she’ll undobtedly insist upon you buying yourself a new suit and getting a trendy hair CUT!!!
Start liven’ guy; you’re still HERE; ), (eg: I’d suggest a hosting of Saturday Night Live…..you neexd to hire your own New York representive to take it from there Geoge; ), (ie: We are obviously talking BIG (Public) money here; )!
Go for it George; why wait, (eg: ……..for….What? ; ), (ie: gad, there’s MONEY out there; ) !
Hi, i just believed i’d publish and let you know your blogs layout is definitely messed up around the K-Melonbrowser. Anyhow keep up the excellent get the job done.
I know I constantly hold returning back again to your weblog site. Great written content. A lot of thanks for submitting.