Two documentaries raise the political ire of PBS viewers
One of the toughest questions to answer these days is “What is objectivity?” Few agree on a definition. And two films shown on PBS air turned the debate into a political firestorm.
For more than a month, hundreds of PBS viewers and others have filled the PBS Public Editor’s inbox with full-throated complaints and commentary about two recently aired documentaries: Voices From the Frontline: China’s War on Poverty,aired in May on PBS of Southern California; and Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, which aired nationwide in June across the PBS system.
The films drew sharp criticism for being biased. Many viewers said the films violated PBS’ rules against content that is blatantly slanted or is produced or financed bytaries and came away agreeing with many viewers that one of the films, Voices From the Frontline: China’s War on Poverty, went a step too far; it appears to have given the co-production role to China Global Television Network, the nation’s principal and government-run broadcaster. In my opinion, the filmmaker downplayed CGTN’s co-producer role with an unobtrusive mention near the end of the credit roll.
The Thomas film, on the other hand, is a tilted portrait of the Supreme Court justice. But in my view, this one does not violate PBS standards.
The film, by veteran producer and director Michael Pack, certainly has a point of view. And while it does discuss controversies that have marked Thomas’ nomination in 1991 and his quiet tenure in the court since, the documentary is focused on the justice’s interesting personal story. It is not a biased political statement, even if Pack is well-known for his conservative politics, a background that led him to his new role as chief of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees the Voice of America.
I know my conclusions here won’t satisfy everyone who’s lodged complaints about the films and has lobbed barbs my way via social media. But before you ignite the torches and dust off the pitchforks, allow me to explain why I arrived at these two positions. Let me describe the factors — some clear and some nuanced — that I examined through the lens of a grumpy old journalist with a keen eye for bias and propaganda.
And, dear viewers and readers, please know that your figurative banging on pots and pans is being heard at PBS.
Subjective Objectivity
To set the stage for this discussion, we need to talk first about objectivity, which is what most of the complaints say is lacking in the documentaries. Objectivity, generally, also guides PBS public affairs programming.
But there is a fundamental flaw in the concept of objectivity as it has been sold for decades by mainstream U.S. media — news organizations in particular: Objectivity has never really existed. There is no news broadcast or newspaper that’s ever been able to hold audiences while it dryly delivers an argument for — and then and an argument of equal space against — a subject or issue.
In a long Twitter thread this week, the nonpareil media critic Tom Rosenstiel put a definitive thought on the modern journalist’s impossible search for objectivity:
“ … Passionate independent inquiry does not mean mindlessly giving both sides equal treatment, thinking there are just two sides to a story, or using balance as an excuse for not doing the work of finding the truth… ”
And perhaps a more holistic view of what objectivity should mean for audiences comes in a new Facebook post by celebrated reporter and journalism professor Mort Rosenblum, who’s spent decades chasing truth on most of the world’s continents, first as Associated Press foreign correspondent and then as International Herald-Tribune editor:
“ ... it is possible to strive for objectivity. Of course, (it’s also) technically impossible. We're all human. But it is an essential goal: Reporters can look at observable facts within a larger context and guide readers toward conclusions to help them form conclusions about the world as it is. Personal biases, such as they can be set aside, play no part.”
What I am saying here is that our goal as journalists — apart from news analysts clearly identified as such — is to weigh available facts and evidence in order to glean demonstrable truths, which should then be delivered in as transparent and fair a fashion as possible.
I am also also saying the simple solution that so many viewers say they want — cold, “just the facts” programming — is impossible. Even if objectivity was coded into a computer algorithm, to correct for human bias, the automated report would still be skewed, as it will always be a human and subjective decision to gather, examine and select what facts are fed to the algorithm.
And often, it would be near meaningless. How many times have you seen a story saying that the Trump administration has “rolled back” environmental protections? Such a story has been given meaning by reporters who understand the language of the arcane — and copious — canon of recorded regulatory procedures. None of those are titled “We are rolling back protections for Americans.” Instead, they’re heavy with dry, seemingly innocuous verbiage like “revising lists of chemicals,” citing code sections and Appendix A, B, and so on. News consumers rely on reporters to clearly explain inscrutable government communiques devoid of context.
Standards and practices
OK, all that said, it is critical here to tell PBS viewers that strict standards of objectivity and fairness do not directly apply to documentaries aired by the system or by its member stations.
Yes, PBS public affairs content must be accurate, free of purposeful lies, and hold to varying degrees of fairness and objectivity.
Here’s what the most-recent iteration of the the system’s Standards and Practices rule book says:
“ … Content distributed by PBS should reflect the highest standards of quality, demonstrate a rigorous commitment to editorial integrity unencumbered by commercial imperatives, and further society’s fundamental interest in informed civil discourse.
The hallmark of PBS content is editorial integrity. PBS, member stations, and producers must always endeavor to shield the editorial process from political pressure or improper influence from content funders in order to maintain the highest level of trust.”
And the system’s mission statement ends with this promise, which was a part of its initial charter in 1967: PBS will produce “content that adheres to ‘objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.’”
But a full reading of the standards and practices includes the statement that PBS will be home to diverse voices, to content that takes risks and “courageously explores subjects with honesty and candor.”
The documentary difference
By their nature, the most effective documentaries come with a point of view. Documentary filmmakers have historically not been considered journalists — although in the past decade or so the lines between the storytelling disciplines have blurred. Documentarians are more and more reliant on journalistic standards and journalists increasingly look to long-form broadcast as an outlet for their reporting.
Most PBS documentaries, if they probe current events and political issues (like those on Frontline) faithfully strive for fair representation and examination of facts.
But there are other, vibrant voices from the documentary world that depend on PBS to reach mass audiences. Their public affairs work is aired on programs like Independent Lens and the aptly named P.O.V. — literally Point Of View. These documentaries do take positions, and PBS has presented a variety of points of view. That’s what the P in PBS means — the public, with its myriad opinions.
Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words is in this category. The 90-minute film is as deep an examination of the thoughts and writings of the Supreme Court’s only African American judge as anything yet published.
Filmmaker Michael Pack declined to speak to us about his film. That’s, perhaps, understandable as he is now a bit out of reach, having taken the reins of the U.S. government’s media complex and the VOA, after a long congressional debate over his nomination by President Donald J. Trump.
But the film’s executive producer, Gina Cappo Pack, did respond to us with a single statement about the film:
“There have been quite a few films and books that forcefully present different views about Justice Thomas. A film title that reads, ‘Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,’ is just that. We were pleased that PBS fully understood what this film was about, and aired it nationally in prime time, so its diverse audience could hear Justice Thomas's views directly from him.”
I believe that succinctly describes the intended message of the film. It was not designed to be a broadcast debate over Thomas’ performance on the bench.
In the end, I believe the film is a fascinating piece of public art that deserves to be broadcast on PBS.
But I would further argue that a robust argument is needed to air out the value of Thomas’ thoughts and writings. The film almost begs to be talked about.
I’ve recommended to PBS leadership that such forums are warranted to support the documentaries we can predict will be controversial. Guidance on such forums could be similar to the supporting material PBS often sends out to member stations when programmers foresee that a show’s episode will stir debate, much like PBS KIDS did to support parents and educators ahead of the same-sex wedding episode on the illustrated Arthur show.
Discussions and forums should be aired or at least presented online, and in a timely fashion. It’s an effective way of amplifying engagement, as speakers in these forums will likely reflect arguments pitched from the multiple viewpoints of our big and diverse audience.
I know that’s not enough for those who insist “the other side” of the Thomas story must be equally aired:
“I write to express my dismay at your airing such a one-sided, essentially political rehabilitation, even beatification, piece on Clarence Thomas. It is an embarrassment of bias, and to allow it on PBS without a countervailing narrative does gross injustice to others who have suffered as a result of Thomas's behavior and decisions, not least of whom is Anita Hill. The least you could do now is air the Anita Hill documentary "Anita", inasmuch as Created Equal is a political puff piece. Who the heck made the decision that this was OK?”—David L. Meyers, Baltimore, Md.
A credit too far
No such public forum was, or is, necessary for the China and poverty documentary, which only aired on Southern California public television in the greater Los Angeles region, and on two local stations in the U.S. West. The film was slated for national distribution through PBS’ digital channels, but a review by public television executives led to a decision to pull the documentary from the digital rotation. With good reason.
Voices From the Frontline: China’s War on Poverty drew criticism from all over the political spectrum. Or, maybe we should say from indeterminant places relative to the straight line between right and left to which we have become so accustomed in today’s ideological debates.
The criticisms from viewers were sharp. China currently is a political flashpoint, and since fairness and balance in programming is the subject of this column, it might be reasonable to cast the film in terms of foreign policy, which more often hews to one side or the other of political party lines. But it is difficult to infer anything about the political beliefs of the viewer who wrote in to say:
“You should be ashamed. You broadcast a propaganda puff piece on how well China’s dictator has ‘lifted people out of poverty’ and seem to overlook all the other people — Christians, [Uighurs], etc. — who are being summarily persecuted and killed for their faith. Are you so afraid of being ‘86ed’ by China for telling the truth and NOT buying into their propaganda?” – David Agee, Dayton, Ohio.
Uighurs are members of a Turkic people who reside mainly in China’s Xinjiang region. Many, it’s been widely reported, have been incarcerated in “re-education” camps, and as a community have been subjected to extensive electronic surveillance by the government.
The conservative news media in particular have made China a cause célèbre, including Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who took special notice of the PBS Southern California documentary, mislabeling it as PBS-made and criticized it loudly. He inspired a national, conservative outcry. He in turn had cited a story in conservative publication “The Daily Caller” that was critical of the documentary.
So, does the anger emanating from noted conservatives balance out the fact that many other people were angered by the Clarence Thomas documentary, which had the Supreme Court conservative basking in soft light?
No.
It doesn’t matter how many liberals versus how many conservatives a broadcaster angers with a given program. Ultimately, most of the people who contacted the PBS Public Editor’s office about the China documentary wanted disclosure (of who was behind the production) or a chance to say that they didn’t think PBS should have aired the film at all. Both are fair expectations. A decided minority of people praised PBS for showing the China documentary.
And, we can’t really get an accurate count of which side we are disappointing or pleasing the most. It is tempting to draw inferences about viewers who reacted negatively to a film that airbrushed the conservative Justice, but unless the viewer specifically states their political affiliation (almost none do), it simply is not a given. And what matters most anyway, is standards.
PBS SoCal pulled the documentary after its initial airing. The documentary “passed our PBS SoCal editorial standards as a presentation station/co-producer and adhered to FCC guidelines before its PBS SoCal airdate of 5/11,” president of PBS SoCal Andrew Russell, said on May 27: “After examining the film on Monday of this week, it did not meet PBS corporate guidelines and thus, PBS decided to pull the show from its streaming services on the PBS App and PBS Passport.”
PBS corporate headquarters did not issue a statement because the documentary was produced by an outside party and distributed solely by PBS SoCal. The system’s member stations exercise autonomy — most of the local shows uploaded to the system-wide digital queue are not vetted by PBS’ national leadership. Still, PBS corporate retains responsibility for general adherence to news and programming standards.
“As we always advocate for full disclosure in our productions, we made sure to include the recognition of the association with CGTN in all of our press materials, and included in the show’s credits,” Russell added.
CGTN stands for China Global Television Network, which formerly was known as CCTV, the Beijing-based Chinese state media behemoth, and is owned by state-controlled China Central Television.
The documentary’s producer, Peter Getzels, responded by email to questions about the controversy including ones about cooperating with Chinese officials. It should be noted that for a filmmaker to be allowed to shoot in the interior of the People’s Republic of China, the production team must work with Chinese media personnel at all times during the filming.
Getzels noted the change in political climate. “As you know, China’s Challenges (his previous two documentaries about the country, each five hours long) was a success with minimal complaint. If there were complaints, we don’t remember hearing any. What changed with ‘Poverty’ during the production cycle was the zeitgeist, media and public perceptions, both in the United States and in China. The times changed; we did not. Our objective remained constant: to understand China’s system and way of thinking, with inside access, to explore how it works in what I had hoped would be a cinematic tour de force.”
But perceptions do matter. Sometimes they are flawed and sometimes they are on the nose. Others beg clarity – often, that’s not the fault of the person dispensing their opinion. Maybe their lack of clarity is due to a lack of information. One viewer, who asked not to be named, wrote:
“It has come to my attention that this lauded documentary allowed ‘unprecedented access’ was actually produced by the government of China under the auspices of the ministry of propaganda. I don’t necessarily object to PBS showing the documentary, but you have the responsibility to inform your viewers that this is Chinese propaganda! Especially since the U.S. taxpayer funds PBS. Please do better.” –Name withheld upon request
While it may not be technically correct to say that the government of China was the producer, we understand the viewer’s objection. CGTN was credited, at the end of the credit roll, as the co-producer.
As for the part of PBS standards that deals with the financing of programs, the Public Editor’s office was unable to obtain funding information about the documentary. Although a spokesman for PBS SoCal said he was attempting to gather that information at our request, he noted that doing so can sometimes take a few months.
Better content labeling
A clear take away from the China debate is new policy that is likely to come from PBS. System executives are developing a way to label local programs so audiences can clearly see where they’re coming from. For sure, PBS itself won’t be looking to manipulate local content.
The change is a good step. In today’s media marketplace Internet access makes local content available to almost anyone, almost anywhere.
Local autonomy is important to PBS. It is part of what makes PBS different from anything on the broadcast spectrum. It is a content platform, not a network.
But these days technology allows audiences to see all PBS affiliates as a single entity. What’s shown by one member station can be conflated as belonging to the entire system. That being the case, greater care is indeed needed to make sure the content of the PBS community, writ large, stays well behind the ethical lines.
---
PBS researcher Daniel J. Macy contributed to this report.
