November 1989, Page 22, 23

Media

"Days of Rage" A Case Study

By C. Patrick Quinlan

Yesterday's news is light-years away on TV or in the daily paper, but there are events which benefit from a few weeks of reflection and examination. "Days of Rage," the Public Broadcasting System program of Sept. 6, is a case in point, an example of how pressure groups with numbers, organization, and contributions can decide what we see on television.

"Days of Rage," for the benefit of those who did not see it, is a 90-minute documentary of the intifada. Jo Franklin-Trout, the producer and narrator, acknowledged that her purpose was to present the Palestinian side of a bloody story with over 500 killed and tens of thousands wounded or jailed. She made her point and underscored it by focusing on Palestinian protesters and victims, and by interviewing only selected Israelis: religious extremists on one end of the political spectrum and "peaceniks" on the other.

PBS, although supported in part by taxpayers money, has usually, in my opinion, been less susceptible to outside pressures than commercial broadcasting. In the case of "Days of Rage," however, public broadcasting's "lead station" in New York, which has a very large Jewish audience, caved in to pressure from its viewers and contributors. How? Let me count the ways: 1) Ms. Franklin-Trout's documentary was "surrounded and smothered" (a Wall Street Journalcomment) by introductory comment, two Israeli-oriented films, and a 40-minute long panel discussion. 2) "Smothered" means that a 90-minute film became a two-and-a-half-hour program, which is a whole lot more on one subject than even studious PBS viewers will stick out. 3) The panel of commentators was not only loaded on one side but also chosen to give an appearance of balance. On one end a Jewish-American and on the other end an Arab-American. Then a Jerusalem Post correspondent who, to his credit, represented journalistic ethics as well as his home country. Two to one in favor of Israel over the Palestinians. One reasonable neutral: Richard Murphy, 35 years a diplomat, an Arabic-language speaker, and seven years Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East. But then the joker, Alan Keyes, who held prestigious titles as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizational Affairs and Deputy Ambassador in the US Mission to the United Nations. Keyes was the key, forgive me, to the PBS deception. His titles do not reveal that few in those positions have any major decision power of influence on our Middle East policies. Nor did PBS reveal that Keyes had no academic or other experience in the Middle East. Nor that his pro-Israel positions have been well-known for years. Nor that he was an unsuccessful candidate for senator in the 1988 primary election in Maryland, a state with an unusually large number of Jewish votes, and almost certainly is planning other forays into politics in the same area.

The panel of commentators was not only loaded on one side but also chosen to give an appearance of balance.

Our local PBS station in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, KCTA-Channel 2, responded frankly and honestly to my questions. "Yes, it was necessary for KCTA to air the additional material surrounding 'Days of Rage.' We are not allowed to edit PBS-distributed programming." And, "The panel was intentionally loaded toward the Israeli point of view. . . the panel was never represented as being 'balanced.'"

Was KCTA courageous in carrying the "smothered and surrounded" program? No, but give our station credit for sacrificing listenership for public service. Fewer people watched KCTA for those two and a half hours. Was KCTA honest in responding to my questions? Astonishingly so.

Does this mean that Minnesota media are immune to advertisers or lobby pressures? Twin Cities Reader fired a writer some years ago because a prominent advertiser objected to the writer's comments on Israel. KCTA was not tested this time because the PBS lead station in New York caved in first.

Now back to a basic question: must public or commercial television provide a "balance" in every documentary? I think the answer is another question. Do we get a balancing response every time we see Alaskan oil split? A Polish trade union demonstration? British excesses in combatting Irish Republican Army terrorism? No, we do not, because television, like print journalism, shows documentaries as essays and editorials, and television like other media represents freedom of speech. Or should.

C. Patrick Quinlan, a retired career foreign service officer who was US Chief of Mission in Oman, lives in Minnesota where he teaches and writes on foreign affairs.