UPDATED - ColdType

Kurds. At that time, in the Bush years, the neocons
were demanding more “balance” at PBS.
Local programmers took a mechanistic
approach to that problem. We were shocked
when we found our human rights program
rejected because we didn’t have a personal
response from Saddam to the charges leveled
against him. Have you ever seen a documentary
on the holocaust rejected because the Nazis didn’t
have the right to respond?
Later, our series Rights and Wrongs, was
rejected by PBS not because the journalism was
inadequate but because the subject was considered
superfluous. “Human rights, we were told,
“is an insufficient organizing principle for a television
series.” Unlike gardening or home repair!
We finally did get our series on many local PBS
stations where it ran for four years. But once our
funders experienced “fatigue,” the run ended.
No network has since aired regularly scheduled
programming about human rights.
60 Minutes on Iraq
DID any of you see 60 Minutes last night? It
opened with a strong piece about juicy no-bid
contracts to politically-connected corporations
for the reconstruction of Iraq. It represented
compelling investigative journalism showing
how Dick Cheney used his connections to build
the Halliburton company, which is now being
rewarded with a contract paying $50,000 a day
for a five-man fire fighting team. The third segment
of show featured Mike Wallace in Syria
where he interviews the foreign minister. He
asks him why he thinks the U.S. invaded Iraq.
The guy suggests that it has a lot to do with
those post-war contracts, which were given out
SO, THIS IS VICTORY
225
before the war began. Mike looks askance.
Clearly, he had not seen the first segment of his
own show. The Syrian may have been conspiratorial
but so was 60 Minutes. Where there’s
smoke . . .
White House correspondents
cheer Bush
AS for media coverage of the war, it was distressing
to see so many at the White House correspondents
dinner cheer President Bush’s
defense of the war. His presence there is supposedly
a sign of respect for the office, not compliance
with his policies. The New York Times
described the dinner as a tepid affair. There was
nary a word of dissent. The outgoing president
of the Correspondents Association said some
members had suggested the Dixie Chicks or
Harry Belafonte as the entertainers. “Can you
believe that?” he asked his colleagues. “You can’t
make this stuff up.” After watching the dinner, I
couldn’t make that up either. Disgraceful, except
for the award to Dana Milbank of the Washington
Post for challenging presidential claims on a
regular basis while the rest of the crowd sleeps
on.
The Observer yesterday reported on how the
owners of virulent pro-war media outlets are
gloating over the outcome of the war. Yet, their
sales are going down. Peter Preston writes: “So,
who really won the war? Conrad Black doesn’t
seem to have many doubts. ‘We [that’s his Daily
Telegraph ] have obviously surpassed our competition
– and even bear favorable comparison
with the New York Times ,’ he tells his staff.
“But the loudest cock-a-doodle-doos surely
belong to Lord Black’s most ferocious competi-