Hey all,

Attached is a copy of a letter I wrote to the producers of the

PBS News Hour program after watching 20 minutes of unbelievably

vacuous coverage of the protests at the Democrat's convention in L.A.

The program was broadcast Thursday 8/17/00. You can get a look at it

by going to their web site at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

If you saw the program and feel inclined to send your comments to the

producers, email them at: newshour@pbs.org

While I know our letters will probably have little effect on the

corporate sponsored, corporate slanted and spun coverage we now have

come to expect from PBS, at least it feels good to let loose on the overpaid,

career media meisters whose pay checks comes from those "good folks" at

Exxon-Mobil and Archer Daniels Midland.

--

Scott Harris

executive producer, "Between The Lines"

WPKN Radio 89.5 FM

Bridgeport, CT

email: sharris@snet.net

"Between the Lines," WPKN 89.5 FM's weekly radio news magazine can be

heard on the internet at: http://www.btlonline.org

__________________________________________________________



Dear NewsHour producers,

I tuned into your program this evening and was momentarily excited by

the prospect of a feature segment on the protests targeting both the

democratic and republican conventions this summer.

It was soon clear that the 20 minutes your producers devoted to this

topic would do little to inform your viewers of who was in the streets

and why they were there.

In the initial moments of the segment your reporter Jeffrey Kaye of

KCET, Los Angeles narrated over video images of the protests, discussing

a few of the issues and groups participating in demonstrations around

the Staples Convention hall in L.A.. Although he paid plenty of

attention to police/ activist tension - very little time was given to

any of the demonstrators speaking to the more important question: Why

were they there? Only 3 demonstrators got their 20 second sound bites:

1) An organizer of the D2K network; 2) an anarchist and 3) a teacher/

union member saying he supported the Democrats and Al Gore.

The next 3-4 minutes presented Ray Suarez interviewing Rep. Bobby Rush,

Dem. of Chicago (a former black panther) on the convention floor, who

criticized the protesters for not having one easily digestible message

"like we did in the 1960's - opposing the Vietnam War and support for

Civil Rights." Mr. Rush admitted that he did not know what these

activists were protesting about, but he offered advise. He said, make

your message simple and don't expect "pop-up" protests to have any

resonance with the American people without first organizing in the

community, educating people about your issues.

The final 12 - 14 minutes of the segment consisted of a roundtable

discussion with the Newshour's regular commentators. Those around the

table summarized the important role protests played in social change

during the 1960's. Unfortunately these commentators demonstrated not the

slightest bit of knowledge about the short history of this current

movement for global social justice. Without exception your panelists

were dismissive of the future effectiveness of this new movement - not

even noting, ironically, that this new burst of political activism was

only 8 months old.

Your producer's mystifying decision not to include any representatives

of those organizing the protests on the program resulted in a

superficial exercise which not only left out critical information about

what's going on in the streets but also served to perpetuate a distorted

picture of who is on the streets and why.

People watching your program hoping for a more in-depth view on this

topic than is usually provided by the corporate media were certainly as

disappointed as I.

Corporate power, economic globalization and the concurrent erosion of

democracy are among the major set of issues that is driving disparate

social movements together into multi-issue coalitions. I can only

speculate that this strident anti corporate message may have been an

uncomfortable topic to examine in any depth given that the Newshour is

dependent on some of the world's largest trans-national corporations for

their annual funding.

Because of the Newshour's stark omission from the program of any

movement representatives, your viewers are probably unaware of the

important new coalitions that have been developing since last winter's

major demonstrations in Seattle against the policies of the World Trade

Organization. Environmentalists, labor, students against sweat shops,

human rights advocates and activists working against police brutality

and for abolition of the death penalty have been organizing and planning

together to challenge the post-cold war triumphalism of corporate

domination, not just here in the U.S., but all around the world.

I hope when the Newshour decides to again examine this growing social

justice movement, your producers will have the common sense to include

in the discussion activists within the movement...that is if its ok with

your friends at Archer Daniels Midland, Travelers Insurance and Salomon

Smith Barney.

--

Scott Harris

Public Affairs Director

WPKN Radio 89.5 FM

Bridgeport, CT

email: sharris@snet.net

Disappointing but not unexpected as PBS now stands for

PRIVATIZED Broadcasting System

In my daily media critique page (see URL at bottom):

"The worst of today was PBS's News Hour coverage. Not because of any blatantly obvious anti-protester, pro-police (and framing their coverage around this friction and non-existant war they want to create) slant, but because of their critiques. They accomplished this full fledged attack with a rigged interview with Bobby Russ (former member of the Blank Panthers and now a politician) and their "round table" of enlightened, well-off, middle-aged white experts. What they generally said was: there are too many "causes," there isn't enough organization and hierarchy, they aren't helping the politicians to absorb their interests, and they aren't the anti-Vietnam War/civil-rights movement. One panelist (in a "round table" discussion) even said their protests were luxury concerns...his proof was the animal rights activists!

Addressing the first listed, the problem here is they're comparing now to another time with different frictions and "causes" (although the foundation of these problems...what causes them in the first place, is the same). We don't have a Vietnam War now, so don't denounce us for not emulating that movement. The racial tensions are different (although same at the core), so don't condemn us for not being the same as that movement. There has always been many different problems, it's just now we've been able to connect them. Had the extreme racial tensions not been there, and the US's involvement in the Vietnam War been only as a peace maker or nothing at all, it is possible no real "movement" would have ever arose. It wasn't as if those involved were so much more advanced and more dedicated, it's just the situations are much different and different factors exist now that didn't then. So, does it really make sense to compare us to something else? Perhaps they should compare us to the late 1960s "movement" in Paris! We're not on the verge of revolution like they were, so we're obviously a failure and should mimick everything they did and why they were doing it! I suppose they don't understand "movements"/social revolts, etc. are NEVER exactly the same and there is no reason for them to be. Conditions always change. People learn from the past. We're not here to recreate some situation from over 30 years ago.

The problem with hierarchy and greater organization...perhaps they forgot COINTELPRO? The FBI was able to quickly destroy the hierarchal focal points of those movements very quickly. We recognize that was a failure, they seem to have selective memory. These movements are also increasingly anarchist(ic), and by having central, hierarchal organizations and commanding people to focus on very specific and few issues cannot work with this movement, and I'm quite sure it is for the better. Their problem is they can't co-opt a huge attack on power and capitalism. They can EASILY co-opt reversing blatant racism and ending a war that was questionable to the public and a huge failure right-off. They can EASILY (but against the overall will of the parties and corporations) get "soft money" out of politics and that is the only issue they seem to be able to recognize when talking about these protests. It's the only one they're willing to acknowledge at least, the others often would call for an end to their jobs (as "expert" analysts of ruling politicians), positions of power, and the way they interpret the world...the absolute true reality that currently is. They can only see things in a way that they (or the politicians they promote in one way or another) can adopt and absorb them into the existing framework of the order. They can't really absorb the problems with police brutality well because it questions the existence of the police and their increasingly military-like presence. The police are always recognized as the heroes and maintainers of this Perfect Order. Seeing them as being more of harmful institution than heroic is the complete opposite of what they are perceived and publicly portrayed as (through the corporate media and rehtoric from politicians). Of course there are isolated, extreme incidents in which the mainstream media focuses on a particular police department or the few cops in question...but that is the extent of it.

And this goes on and on. Wait, Mr. Environment is connected to oil companies?!?! Impossible! So, we'll just ignore all of those exactly identical signs pointing this out and pretend we can't read, or the signs never existed!

They also kept talking about "violence" (now) versus "non-violence" (then). There was much more "violence" then. I suppose the foundation of their perceptions rely on hippie stereotypes. That everyone then was a super-pacifist. No political struggles involved violent conflict. There were no riots! The protesters NEVER fought back with the police. The entire "movement" managed to endure brutal police attacks without reacting!!! "I wasn't there, but I KNOW!" "But these people...some of them throw plastic bottles at heavily armed cops! Some even dressed in black cloth with masks on!!! Plus they <unsubstantiated police claim here>!!! The horror!"

It is just funny they were seriously discussing this. What the hell do they know? They aren't even famaliar with why the people are protesting (since they spend so much time superficially-"analyzing" politicians I suppose and because they likely get their views of reality from the same mainstream news sources the rest of America does), yet they're trying to tell us we're not doing it right and apparently they know what's best (which is to mimick "The 60s" exactly apparently). When did they become experts in methods to progress social and political movements? When has ANYONE been an expert? No one has the answer to this puzzle obviously, and they must certainly don't."

I saw PBS's slant on the protesting tonight, I thought it sucked. The negative picture they painted of protesters seemed delibrite. The way they dragged on about the sixties and all of the differences. The way they described protesters as transparent and lacking focus. The way they complained that protesters lacked heart and true commitment.

I especially was disgusted by them complaining that there were too many issues. In the sixties they had anti-war, civil rights and womens rights. Three. Today we basically have economic injustices, human & animal rights (humans are animals too) and enviromental injustices. Three.

There lack of supposed lack of knowledge of protesters causes seemed to be a delibrate attemt to get people disinterested in what protesters are saying and numb them to police violence.

Besides that though, The DNC was just as plastic and phony as the RNC. One big plastic peoplethon.

All major media in this country is privately, corporately owned. It is in their interests of profit to make us all look like we are dumb, too unfocused, or just college student liberals on a weekend trip to a protest. That de-legitamizes this movement against global capitalism, and the corporations in control of the media make every attempt to do so.


That is why we need public ownership and control of all mass media. Only then will the people be truly represented in the media

Good article re PBS's failures re protest coverage... can't believe they didn't interview organizers. How disappointing. Of the coverage on the other networks I saw - none in depth - only one correspondent/analyst/talking head said he had read the press releases from the protesting groups. All the other comments were basically that they didn't know what the protests were about, and they kindof said this with pride as if, why should we! This specific panel included Chris Matthews, he was one who said he just didn't know. One other person said yes, he knew and when someone said, well, what is it then, he said something like, "well, you know, rage against the machine and all that".. Brilliant, right?