Right Wing Nut House

In the past, I have voiced my support for the Public Broadcasting System and its continued funding from taxpayers because I believe that there are dozens of excellent productions that otherwise would not be broadcast even in this age of cable and satellite saturation. Science, nature, drama, and music shows of a consistently high quality has been the hallmark of PBS since its inception and most if not all of those productions would never see air time without taxpayers footing the bill.

And while cable outlets like Bravo, Ovation, Discovery Channels, and The History Channel now offer similar programming options to the consumer, the fact is the PBS productions have over the years proved to be a cut or two above the best that those channels have to offer. With several outstanding exceptions, there simply isn’t enough original programming on those outlets. (A current exception is The Discovery Channel’s “Planet Earth” which should surely be considered among the best nature series ever photographed.)

Can any science program shown on cable outlets compare with the consistently high standards of excellence exhibited by PBS’s Nova? Or productions of opera and symphony from Live at the Met? There is no doubt cable channels have their moments. But PBS has offered extremely high quality arts and science entertainment since its birth. And I have been more than willing to support their efforts in this regard in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Where PBS fails miserably is in airing shows with political content. This includes many productions that purport to be “history” as well as shows that examine issues facing the country today. And while there is excellence exhibited in these areas as well - The American Experience comes to mind as a show of quality and intelligence - most, if not all political programming on the network is of such an obvious bias that for conservatives, it becomes nearly unwatchable.

Therefore, it was not surprising to read about the problems a producer of a documentary has had with PBS affiliate WETA of Washington D.C. in getting his piece about moderate Muslims being reviled and threatened by extremists on the air. For the politically correct, multicultural warriors at WETA, terms like “Islamafascist” and “terrorist” are considered “unfair.”

The question is…unfair to whom?

The producer of a tax-financed documentary on Islamic extremism claims his film has been dropped for political reasons from a television series that airs next week on more than 300 PBS stations nationwide.

Key portions of the documentary focus on Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of Phoenix and his American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a non-profit organization of Muslim Americans who advocate patriotism, constitutional democracy and a separation of church and state.

Martyn Burke says that the Public Broadcasting Service and project managers at station WETA in Washington, D.C., excluded his documentary, Islam vs. Islamists, from the series America at a Crossroads after he refused to fire two co-producers affiliated with a conservative think tank.

“I was ordered to fire my two partners (who brought me into this project) on political grounds,” Burke said in a complaint letter to PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supplied funds for the films.

Burke wrote that his documentary depicts the plight of moderate Muslims who are silenced by Islamic extremists, adding, “Now it appears to be PBS and CPB who are silencing them.”

First, it should be said that the series America at the Crossroads looks like a typically earnest PBS effort to educate the public. The problem can be seen in these actions taken by project overseers to blatantly interfere in the production and their attempt to change the intent and point of view of the show’s producer:

Before filming began last year, Burke says, (WETA’s exec. producer Jeff)Bieber asked him, “Don’t you check into the politics of the people you work with?”

Bieber said PBS was concerned that the Center for Security Policy is an advocacy group, so its leaders could not produce an objective picture. Because of that, he suggested that Gaffney be demoted to adviser.

Burke, who did not honor the recommendation, says that funding was delayed and WETA began to interfere with his film until it was “expelled” from Crossroads.

Among Burke’s examples of tampering:

• A WETA manager pressed to eliminate a key perspective of the film: The claim that Muslim radicals are pushing to establish “parallel societies” in America and Europe governed by Shariah law rather than sectarian courts.

• After grants were issued, Crossroads managers commissioned a new film that overlapped with Islam vs. Islamists and competed for the same interview subjects.

• WETA appointed an advisory board that includes Aminah Beverly McCloud, director of World Islamic Studies at DePaul University. In an “unparalleled breach of ethics,” Burke says, McCloud took rough-cut segments of the film and showed them to Nation of Islam officials, who are a subject of the documentary. They threatened to sue.

“This utterly undermines any journalistic independence,” Burke wrote in an e-mail to WETA officials.

Beyond the question of whether it is appropriate to penalize a documentarian for the politics of his producers, one might ask why it matters in this case. The left wing bias of many PBS producers has never been a problem for WETA in the past - including William Cran who wrote and directed the premier segment for the series Jihad: The Men and Ideas Behind Al Qaeda as well as participating in numerous other projects for Frontline and other PBS specials.

Cran’s documentary on Christianity done for Frontline - From Jesus to Christ, the First Christians - outraged conservative Christians not only for its content but because he used liberal theologians as his only commentators. Similarly, Cran gathered as many critics of the oil industry as was possible back in the early 90’s and made Extreme Oil, a three part hit piece so one sided in its content that most oil industry groups refused to participate.

In fairness, Cran has also made several first class documentaries including one on Aids and an entertaining and fascinating look at the English language in America. But regardless of his talent, would Mr. Beiber question Cran’s politics in the making of his Jihad piece? Evidently not.

And an executive producer trying to alter content - especially content central to the thesis of the documentary? In a word, outrageous. It is apparent that Beiber and his friends at WETA don’t read the newspaper very often. If he had, he would have discovered that Muslim extremists in Europe have been trying for years to do exactly as Burke is trying to show; establish a “separateness” from European society (sometimes with the active encouragement of European governments) in order to live under Shariah law rather than the law of the land they live in. Numerous examples abound that evidence this fact. Trying to silence this point of view is inexplicable and indefensible.

Beiber’s criticism that the documentary is “unfair” can mean only one thing; the piece is unfair to Muslim extremists. Another documentary in the series, also on moderates in Islam apparently takes care of that. Here’s a blurb from the press release touting the show “Faith Without Fear:”

But is debate possible in Islam? That question brings Manji to Spain, where different religions, cultures and ideas flourished under Muslim civilization. It happened because of “ijtihad,” Islam’s own tradition of independent thinking. She shows the art, architecture and achievements that Muslims could once claim. In so doing, Manji finally encounters the Islam that she can love. Far from being a relic of the past, ijtihad is key to curbing atrocities committed today in the name of Islam. Manji introduces us to two Spanish Muslims who represent the humanity that ijtihad can restore to Islam, and the cruelty that Muslims will suffer at the hands of other Muslims if ijithad remains buried.

Throughout this high-stakes journey, Manji challenges herself to change. Wondering if her heart is blocked to the beauty of Islam, she invites one of her fiercest Muslim critics to break bread — and what she takes away aren’t crumbs. Yet Manji’s greatest epiphany comes from her pious mother. They don’t see eye to eye. But her mom’s dignified response in a moment of humiliation teaches Manji that Muslims can, in fact, have faith without fear. Islam allows it, if only Muslims will too.

One would think that a series that purports to show our country at “a crossroads” would want an unvarnished, PC-free perspective of exactly who the enemy is and what their intentions toward us (and anyone who opposes them) might be. Instead, in the interest of “fairness,” we are treated to the milquetoast perspective that gives equal weight and consideration to a point of view very much at odds with our values. This is not a question of fairness as much as it is a point of view that is lost due to the stifling conformity of a liberal world view that holds sway at PBS and its dominant affiliates.

This is where public TV fails the public; their rank bias stifles opposing viewpoints. They do it in the name of “fairness” or their version of “accuracy.” But it is obvious that the dead hand of conformity overlays so much of their political programming that any point of view that deviates from established liberal norms has enormous problems in making it past the gatekeepers at the “Big Three” who produce almost all public TV political content; WNET, WETA, and WGBH Boston.

This bias was fully on display in 1999 when it was discovered that those three stations along with dozens of others routinely swapped mailing lists with the Democratic National Committee. (Some PBS outlets also swapped lists with the GOP). It wasn’t so much the shocking ethical lapse on the part of the various stations that made this such a revealing episode but rather the open acknowledgement that the stations were much more likely to mine donors to public television from a list of liberal contributors. If that doesn’t show an awareness of bias on the part of PBS affiliates, nothing does.

In a futile attempt to change this culture at PBS, President Bush nominated Kenneth Tomlinson for Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that is responsible for PBS who immediately sought to broaden the base of PA programming at the network by bringing shows with a more diverse perspective. The outrage from liberal board members as well as liberal activists who see PBS as their own private media preserve was immediate and vicious. And they went absolutely ballistic when Tomlinson wanted to force PBS to live up to its charter by holding off the signing of the annual contract between CPB and PBS until the stations promised to live up to the “objectivity and balance” language in the PBS charter. Until that time, PBS stations only had to promise to employ “journalistic standards” to PA programming.

You can see where liberals would be outraged.

In the end, Tomlinson was outgunned and outvoted. Eventually, he was forced out for misusing his email account for personal business. But it is illustrative of the liberal mindset that permeates the CPB and PBS from top to bottom.

It is not clear at this point if Burke’s documentary will ever be shown on PBS. There has been so much double-talk from the network about this project that it’s anyone’s guess whether the American people will ever have a chance to see the truth about radical Islam and the Muslim moderates who bravely speak out against them. But if PBS were smart, they’d find room to show this documentary, if only to try and dispell the notion that they are nothing more than liberal hacks who can’t stand airing opposing viewpoints.

For that reason alone, Islam vs. Islamists will be must see TV if it ever airs.

UPDATE

Hugh Hewitt highlights the censorship angle:

This is the real deal: state suppression of ideas with which the authorities disagree on ideological/political grounds. Where’s the ACLU? Where’s the left? Where’s the Bush Adminstration?

I don’t know if the film is any good, but I strongly suspect that the government censors are forcing it down the memory hole because it is powerful and persuasive, not the opposite.