Several weeks ago, I was sitting at the computer catching up on late work at 3am listening to the TV in the background. When I heard the topic of the PBS re-run was "Michigan Feminist History" and the University of Michigan was a co-sponsore, I began to pay attention. As the show unfolded, a comment was made without any backing whatsoever that the previous Republican Governor, John Engler, "rolled back women's rights", and the sitting Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm had restored them.

It hung there in the air for a moment.

I was shocked. And I'm not typically one to be overly critical of PBS (though I see no reason for taxpayer money to it) and enjoy much of what they air, this bothered me. Both PBS, and this sponsor, have some obligation to the public not to use public money to further one side's political interests. This was blatant, and there was no evidence or reasoning to back up even an argument for it. It was just plain political.

So I sent an email to the station during the middle of the show. And I received a response. Rather than repeat all the analysis, I'm reposting the email, the response, and my final response, which I think nicely capture the exchange. The upshot is that the "substantiation" of this statement by the film's producers - that Engler "rolled back" civil rights for women - was hinged on the laying off of one employee in a sub-department of Michigan's civil rights infrastructure related to the monitoring of Title IX, and that Granholm allegedly restored that single job upon which the rights of Michigan women so-hinged (set aside that rights are better enforced by private litigation than government monitoring and tinkering). When we've reached a point in civil rights where such rights depend on the existence of government employees, we've identified what the motivation behind the movement really is.

It's classical liberalism's desire to expand government. What better way to do so than to create whole classes of jobs like multicultural officer and diversity guru that can not be removed.

In another recent previous post, I noted how the Mayor of Toledo, Ohio, got himself into hot water by firing an affirmative action officer and changing the status of the office. Here, Governor Engler "rolled back" the entirety of women's civil rights through the elimination of a single mid-level job.

The diversity industry takes every government job it entrenches seriously, no matter how inefficient or what the budget constraints, as this Zarko Research exclusive will show below the fold.

Follow up:

To preface, the station does deserve credit for treating the concern seriously:

From: Chetly Zarko
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007
To: PBS general email
Subject: Bias in Passing the Torch

Dear Producer and programming editor:

I'm watching PBS 56 right now - a replay of the show "Passing the Torch", a show about Michigan feminist movement history.

I was dismayed when, about 15-20 minutes into the show, a broad swath statement was made that exhibited such bias I felt compelled to write to you (having a computer near the TV). The statement was that Engler rolled back women's and educational rights and that Granholm was restoring them. It was isolated in context - and there was no evidence, specific examples of how that was true, or reasoning to back the point. It came from nowhere. Now, it may or may not be a defendable statement, but such a gratuitous statement without any standard of support behind, is simply not proper form for a public TV station show. And the political element of that statement is not merely historical - it represents an endorsement of sitting political office-holders and a broad attack against her opponents. While I would naturally expect a program on feminist history to present a narrow slice of history - the inclusion of unsubtantiated modern political attacks is inappropriate.

Has PBS become a public access station that anyone can broadcast political pieces to? How do I get an hour (I'll get you the video) to express my pet views? As former Director of Media Relations for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, I ran into this type of bias regularly. But public TV sells itself as unbiased and fair - and it uses taxpayer money.

Perhaps you could explain what your programming decision-making process is?

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

RESPONSE FROM BILL VAN HORN (Note an intervening exchange is edited because it merely refers to time needed to investigate)

From: VanHorn, Bill
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007
To: Chetly Zarko
Subject: Passing the Torch

Dear Mr. Zarko,

Thank you again for bringing to our attention your concern with Passing the Torch. Management from several departments reviewed the concern and asked for further information from the film’s producer, Carol King.

Ms. King offered substantiation behind the statement made in the film that Governor Engler rolled back TITLE IX education rights in contrast to Governor Granholm. She wrote:

Thank you for passing on Mr. Zarkos' comments. We stand by our statement that much of the gains in educational opportunities for women and girls (in relation to our film’s discussion about the Project on Equal Education Right’s (PEER) work to implement Title IX) "were rolled back while John Engler was Governor." There are a number of instances where women’s rights suffered during his administration. In relation to Title IX, the abolition of the Office of Sex Equity in Education was viewed as a major setback. That office was important to educational equity because it was responsible for providing technical assistance for compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Governor Granholm's support for women's rights can be seen in her record on issues of concern to women. Even in tough economic times, she made sure someone was in a position to monitor compliance with Title IX. That said, more still needs to be done.

It should also be noted that this reference was an approximately 15-second statement in a 57’ minute program and that in a one-hour show on the history of anything, there is necessarily a limit to how much detail can be included to back up all the statements that are made.

However, our review team also recognizes that from your point of view, the dropping in of a political judgment – comparing the sitting governor to her immediate predecessor – without then stating in the film the substantiation behind the statement, made you feel that the film was not meeting the standards of public television, but was rather more in line with say-what-you-want “public access” TV.

We believe you both have valid points. There is substantiation to what was said, and ideally it should have been in the program.

What we take from this for future analysis of programs is the need to have an even more sensitive “antenna” go up in our minds as we review programs when things get “political.” We are satisfied that the statement made is substantiated by fact, and in the political realm, it is best to share substantiation with viewers where possible.

Thank you for taking the time to bring your concerns to us. Viewer feedback helps us continuously evaluate what we do at public television.

Sincerely,
Bill Van Horn
Audience Services Coordinator / Membercard Plus Liason
WTVS Channel 56 / WRCJ Radio 90.9 FM

ZR FINAL RESPONSE TO VAN HORN

Mr. Van Horn:

Feel free, again, to disseminate these comments. For the record, I respect that you have treated my concern seriously and fairly, and given it thought.

It is unfathomable to me that this statement is hinged on such trivia as whether a particular administration hired or didn't hire a particular employee in an office of an entire bureacracy. I expected more. A statement like "rolled back" requires more substantiation than pointing to a mere single ambiguous event, let alone such an apparently insignificant one that might be related to budgetary efficiency more than any civil rights issue. The defense of Granholm's record is hinged apparently on exactly the opposite - a rehiring of one person. One person makes a roll back?

And if the civil rights movement hinges on the employment of a particular single bureaucrat, that itself is a defining moment.

As you note, the substantiation (it is not "fact" as you labelled it, it is "substantiated" by an argument analyzing a fact to result in an opinion) however weak it is, wasn't in the program, so asking the creators for it after-the-fact is more-than-academic. It's unfair to the average viewer and the nature of the medium. You are right to accept that it should have been in the program.

But the program was far more deeply flawed than the single point I focused on.

Yes, this was a 15 second statement in a 57 minute program. But, as I noted in my first email, I was generally distraught by the lack of balance of many other statements. The quote I complained about was a tipping point for me. It was egregious - it was worth limiting my focus to, both for the sake of my time and your response. I could analyze the remainder of the program and identify other issues, but there is a limit given the value of my time. As I said in the original email, I understand that in an hour program there are editing constraints, and that a program that chooses a topic on Michigan feminist history is necessarily going to have a limited range of discussion. That is natural. But in a program on say, affirmative action (which is a different subject than this, but overlaps), of which I'm an expert, I'd expect some discussion of the fact that a Republican administration, Richard Nixon's, was the greatest impetus to the modern type of preferential programs that have become so politically-charged. I'd expect discussion of Gerald Ford's endorsement of U-Michigan style programs in Grutter, or Reagan's opposition to such programs. Indeed, in the hyper-specific discussion context only of Michigan feminist history, a discussion of the affirmative action lawsuits, the interaction of race and gender preferences, and interviews with Barbara Grutter and Jennifer Gratz would seem like obvious choices for inclusion, though that conflict between race and gender groups is something the political left would prefer not to explore. And neither Gratz or Grutter are declared members of either party, though they'd typically be assigned to be against the modern feminist movement even as a large constituency of others would label them as the real feminists.

Globally, this program was nothing more than a 57-minute ad for Michigan Democratic candidates that happen to be women. There is indeed a Republican (and libertarian) brand of feminism, or even, forbid the thought, the possibility of interviewing Republican women who might oppose feminism or might have played crucial roles in the history of opposing it. I was stunned this episode made no effort to achieve that type of balance. When re-electable politicians are put into an episode, PBS in particular, as a government-funded entity, and in general under the fairness doctrine, has an obligation to ensure its programmers introduce some political balance. Instead, prominent time was given to Senator Stabenow and Governor Granholm without balance.

I respect that you walk a tight line between addressing this type of concern and censorship. I certainly don't want to impede anyone's ability to air their views or even the ability to present programs that may purposely contain one-side of the debate, but let's label them properly and give the other side equal time. But given the sponsors of this show include other government agencies (University of Michigan) and well-heeled corporate interests and their pockets are infinitely deeper than my own, I feel at the disadvantage here. Ultimately, I know my complaint will have little impact, but perhaps even the small impact is worth it.

(Parts have been edited for brevity)

Truly,
Chetly Zarko