PBS Agrees to Commission New Documentary

[Brent]

PBS Agrees to Commission New Documentary
December 20, 2005

 
As you know, our sole demand from the beginning of our PBS campaign has been to have PBS "provide fatherhood and shared parenting advocates a meaningful opportunity to present our side of the issues raised in Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories."

PBS has just notified us that they will "commission an hour-long documentary" for the purpose of further examining the "complex and important issues" raised in the film and by our campaign. PBS says that "plans call for the documentary to be produced and broadcast in Spring 2006" and that the "hour-long treatment of the subject will allow ample opportunity" for those of differing views to "have their perspectives shared, challenged and debated."

We commend PBS for understanding our concerns and taking action to address the situation.

Thanks to the over 10,000 of you wrote or called PBS to protest, and thanks to Fathers and Families,  the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, Help Stop PAS Inc., and the other groups which worked on this campaign.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com
HisSide.com

[CustodyIQ]

Kudos to PBS too.  They likely had no idea what crock was being peddled until the complaints started rolling in.

[MYSONSDAD]

Better hold off on the victory dance for the moment...

Hello ,

The message below is coming to you from ANCPR http://ancpr.org

Links for changing your subscription information (name and state, as well as your email address), along with a link for unsubscribing from the list are at the bottom of this message.

If you have Family Law issues, you need the ANCPR Winning Family Law Strategies Handbook .  It is available for immediate download when you sign up for ANCPR Membership.  You can do it right now. Click here.


PBS Whitewashes Flawed Documentary
Posted in News by ANCPR on the December 21st, 2005 Edit This
Received this from RADAR (contact info below):
RADAR ALERT:

PBS Whitewashes Flawed Documentary

After a month-long review, the Public Broadcasting Service has disappointed thousands of viewers and given its stamp of approval to Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories.

According to the PBS statement, "The producers approached the topic with the open mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists. Their research was extensive and supports the conclusions drawn in the program." The entire PBS statement is shown at the end of this Alert.
(more...)

0 Comments
MND NewsLog: Federal Child Support Enforcement Cuts Will Hurt Bureaucrats, not Children
Posted in News by ANCPR on the December 20th, 2005 Edit This
MND NewsLog: Federal Child Support Enforcement Cuts Will Hurt Bureaucrats, not Children

News and Commentary

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Federal Child Support Enforcement Cuts Will Hurt Bureaucrats, not Children
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks

Democrats, women's advocates, the National Governors Association, and child support enforcement officials are sounding the alarm over proposed cuts in the federal funds that subsidize states' child support enforcement efforts. The cuts, which recently passed the House, will reduce federal reimbursement from 66% of the states' costs to 50% over five years.
(more...)

2 Comments
INFANT DISCOVERED IN BARN, CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES LAUNCH PROBE
Posted in News by ANCPR on the December 20th, 2005 Edit This
Received this from
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
President
Equal Justice Foundation http://www.ejfi.org/
A True Story,

INFANT DISCOVERED IN BARN, CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES LAUNCH PROBE

Nazareth Carpenter Being Held On Charges Involving Underage Mother

BETHLEHEM, JUDEA - Authorities were today alerted by a concerned citizen who
noticed a family living in a barn. Upon arrival, Family Protective Service
personnel, accompanied by police, took into protective care an infant
child, who had been wrapped in strips of cloth and placed in a feeding
trough by his 14-year old mother, Mary of Nazareth.

During the confrontation, a man identified as Joseph, also of Nazareth,
attempted to stop the social workers. Joseph, aided by several local
shepherds and some unidentified foreigners, tried to forestall efforts to
take the child, but were restrained by the police.
(more...)

2 Comments




--
To unsubscribe from this list visit this link

To update your preferences visit this link

[CustodyIQ]

I'm just looking at the "half full" perspective for the moment.

That PBS responded and agreed to the primary demand of the complainants (i.e., a more balanced follow-up for the other side of the story) is a pretty big deal.

Regardless of how PBS packages it to save face, that's pretty irrelevant.  Nobody is going to read the press release except for the campaign leaders and its primary opponents.

It's pretty common in social activism that when activists largely succeed in their demands, they get upset that the target didn't profusely apologize and repent.  I don't particularly agree with that sentiment.  If campaign demands are met, then I don't care how the target spins its rationale for doing it.

So, I'll save my judgment until after seeing the new documentary.  I'm curious to see how well they do it, because they know that falling short of the mark will create a backlash again.

[determined]

If I understand you both correctly, perhaps the conclusion one would draw is to:

1.  Wait and see - remain vigilant,

2.  Be prepared to assist in the production of a more balanced presentation,

3.  Be prepared to correct again a flawed documentary if such is foisted off again, and

4.  lobby for the institution of corrective actions such as sanctions against the prior producers, removal of PBS' tax-exempt status for blatant partisan politicking with taxpayer funding, and libel charges where appropriate.

[CustodyIQ]

>If I understand you both correctly, perhaps the conclusion
>one would draw is to:
>
>1.  Wait and see - remain vigilant,

Sure

>2.  Be prepared to assist in the production of a more balanced
>presentation,

And pray for one too.

>3.  Be prepared to correct again a flawed documentary if such
>is foisted off again, and

Of course.

>4.  lobby for the institution of corrective actions such as
>sanctions against the prior producers, removal of PBS'
>tax-exempt status for blatant partisan politicking with
>taxpayer funding, and libel charges where appropriate.

Sanctions against the producers on what grounds?!  Are you suggesting that every producer of a PBS show creates a work that's free from bias, conjecture, assumptions, and inaccurate conclusions?  Of course not.

Removal of PBS tax-exempt status on what grounds?!  Many nonprofit advocacy groups are biased in their positions (e.g., NOW, animal rights groups, environmental groups, etc).

Libel charges?  You may mean slander.  Sure, that's a reasonable pursuit for any individual person or entity that suffered harm from the show.  I wasn't specifically mentioned, so I can't.  But the ex-spouses of some of the featured "abused" mothers can pursue it, if the statements made were untrue.

The way to influence PBS is to demonstrate an ability to have a negative impact on their funding, a large chunk of it being from private donations.

If a campaign creates enough bad press, then PBS loses some of its goodwill that it has worked hard to create over the decades.

That's the only thing campaigners need to know.  

Target that area, and PBS will listen, and that's why this has been such an awesome campaign led by Glenn Sacks and others.

[determined]

Sanctions are warranted not against the producer, but PBS.  PBS is heavily funded by taxpayer money and posts on their website their editorial standards and policy ( http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_standards.html ) which demand "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature" (IAW the Public Broadcasting Act -47 U.S.C. § 396 et seq.)  As these standards are obligated by law so as to receive the funding, sanctions or even removal of funding may be warranted in cases of egregious disregard for these standards (as evidenced by both the PBS ombudsman's report and the two CPB ombudsman's reports (http://www.cpb.org/ombudsmen/051129bode.html  and http://www.cpb.org/ombudsmen/051219bode.html ).

As Carey Roberts pointed out on his website, the problem with Breaking the Silence is not just flawed and unethical journalism. Ken Bode (CPB Ombudsman) was even more concerned by the manner in which the program "has been a launching pad for a very partisan effort to drive public policy and the law." He was concerned about the manner in which the Mother's Research and Reference Center [ //www.mrrc.info ] was in cahoots with PBS insiders and got advance copies of the program.  Then the MRRC organized demonstrations and private screenings of the documentary for state legislators, judges, and local activists. The idea was to convince them to pass laws to make it almost impossible for dads to get even shared custody of their kids after divorce.  Furthermore, the PBS affiliate KAKM, promised they would provide free publicity for the activists. According to the local organizer, "The local PBS station has said they will help us advertise and promote our event because we will then in turn promote viewing of their screening date on 10/20." (Fox News columnist Wendy McEloy [ //www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177893,00.html ], Although limited advocacy of positions is clearly allow for tax-exempt organizations, 501(c)(3) clearly prohibits such political activity.

When an aired broadcast is also published with partial transcripts and the comments are posted on numerous web-sites, I think either libel or slander could be invoked.  More specifically, Dr. Scott Loeliger, the Northern California physician who without any basis was portrayed as a batterer and abuser on PBS's anti-father documentary Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories, has written a demand letter to PBS in which he seeks a retraction and an apology.  He has indicated that he felt he was "defamed" by PBS.

PBS has already lost a great deal of good will, and is perfectly happy with that as evidenced by all of the smug responses they sent us as shown in earlier threads on this same subject.  We cannot change the minds of such opinionated and partisan individuals, but we can reduce their ability to cause further damage and mischief.  The natural way to do so is to follow the money (both taxpayer funds and donor funds).  The donor funds have so far been more responsive to our concerns, but the taxpayer funds need to be addressed as well.