It’s Unfair to Say PBS Choices Are Timid

No doubt, devoted public television viewers were perplexed when they read, in this space, an article by Mark Mori charging PBS with censorship (“ ‘All Our Voices’ ” on Public TV Must Include Dissenting Ones,” Calendar, Feb. 1).

Mori claims that the rejection by PBS of his film “Building Bombs” reflects a pattern of refusal to air worthy documentaries due to the influence of corporate underwriters or “special-interest groups.” A shocking revelation, if it were true or even supportable. It is neither.

The basic premise that PBS is timid in its choices immediately flunks the reality test. Public television has become a vital outlet to filmmakers like Mori precisely because we have a singular reputation for taking risks on important, bold and cutting-edge films. I have invested much of my time and energy defending their value publicly against attacks by legislators, journalists and activists--a fact that gives a particularly ironic twist to comments like Mori’s.

In the past three years alone, independent film producers have been involved in more than 500 documentary programs on PBS, the vast majority of which would never have reached the viewing public on any commercial television outlet. The films were chosen from among hundreds of projects that are submitted for consideration by PBS every year, among them nominees and winners of dozens of regional and national awards.

Each submission is evaluated on its own merits, and must comply with PBS programming standards and guidelines. The guidelines are designed to ensure quality and editorial integrity, and protect programs against influence by interested third parties.

Many interesting and affecting films have nevertheless run afoul of these guidelines--for example, the Oscar winner “Deadly Deception,” which focuses on General Electric’s role in nuclear weapons production. The film was funded by the organization INFACT, whose efforts include a boycott of GE. INFACT had editorial input and is featured prominently.

The worthiness of this film to win an Oscar, which honors artistic merit, is not an issue, nor is its persuasiveness or impact. But the piece does not hold up against guidelines designed to ensure it is an objective, accurate and fair piece of journalism. It is no more acceptable to PBS than would be a film about INFACT funded and produced by GE.

Other films, like Mori’s, are rejected for reasons related to overall quality, balance or other issues. Producers and their supporters often disagree with PBS decisions. Ultimately, that type of debate is healthy for the process.

But there is a cavernous difference between a conflict of opinion and a pattern of deliberate censorship. Failure to acknowledge the distinction is an insult to those in public television who devote their energies to creating forums for independent filmmakers; much worse, it threatens to harm the very system these critics profess to support.

For 25 years, PBS and the filmmaking community have been powerful partners in creating an informed public. No one, two or three films should be considered a litmus test for the performance of public television. No interest groups or individuals--on the right, left or center--have the right to enforce their personal guidelines for “politically correct” programming on the American public. Those who try may call our reaction censorship; we call it responsible public service.