![Pakistan Cyber Force [Official]](http://feeds.feedburner.com/PakistanCyberForce.2.gif)
- Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates
- Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates
PBS
ombud Michael Getler (1/31/13) responded to FAIR activists who wrote to him
about the recent Nova special on drones (1/23/13) that was underwritten by
Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor and drone manufacturer.
FAIR
(Action Alert, 1/28/13) pointed out that this connection violates PBS‘s
guidelines concerning sponsorship and conflicts of interest.
Getler
agreed, explaining that “the Lockheed funding does present a perception and
commercial test problem for PBS. My feeling is that this particular program
would have been much better off without Lockheed support.”
There
was a further lack of disclosure. Getler noted that he
saw
no mention of Lockheed when I watched the program online or when I looked at
the Nova website. And there was never any mention of Lockheed in the body of
the program, even though that huge defense company is heavily involved in drone
development, which I didn’t know and I’m sure vast numbers of online
viewers–unless they are in the Air Force or CIA–also probably did not know.
That
lack of disclosure left Getler feeling “deceived by Nova“–though he noted that
“Lockheed Martin was clearly identified on screen” as a funder in the broadcast
version of the program.
Getler
concluded by writing, “I think Nova handled this situation poorly and did not
comply with the spirit, at least, of the guidelines when it came to being
upfront with viewers.”
Nova
thought otherwise. Its statement began:
WGBH
fully adheres to PBS funding guidelines and takes our public trust
responsibility very seriously. With regard to Nova “Rise of the Drones,”
Lockheed Martin’s sponsorship of Nova is not a violation of the PBSunderwriting
guidelines.
Nova’s
defense is that Lockheed “had no editorial involvement in the program.” But as
the PBS guidelines make abundantly clear, this is not a defense at all. The
fact that a funder’s interests exist is a problem–not just whether the funder
interfered in the editorial content of the program:
When
there exists a clear and direct connection between the interests or products or
services of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program, the
proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable regardless of the funder’s actual
compliance with the editorial control provisions of this policy.
Since
it is indisputable that Lockheed manufacturers drones, the guidelines as
written say this is “unacceptable.” Since Nova does not believe the
underwriting guidelines mean what they say mean, the real issue here is whether
PBS itself believes in its rules. As FAIR has pointed out (Press Release,
4/3/02 ), PBS has historically found certain funding arrangements
problematic–when the funder is a labor union, or a producer of a film about
domestic violence is the leader of a battered women’s support group. Major
corporate funders, though, get a pass.
Nova
also argues that including a guest who has a business relationship to the
funder “has no relevance to the story.” But basic journalistic ethics–for any
medium, not just public television–tell you that such disclosures are
important.
Nova
seemed to prefer that viewers not know Lockheed’s connection to the subject of
the program at all. The program’s response to the FAIR alert did mention that
they “will include Lockheed Martin in the list of funders on the Nova website
for full transparency.”
FAIR
thanks the hundreds of activists who wrote to PBS, and to ombud Michael Getler
for writing a thoughtful response.
