|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
PBS officials cave in to Bush administration over childrens
program
By David Walsh
4 February 2005
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
The most recent capitulation by officials at the federally
funded Public Broadcasting System to pressure from the Bush administration
and the religious right is particularly disgraceful.
PBS decided last week not to distribute an episode of Postcards
From Buster, a childrens program with animated and
live-action characters, to its 349 stations because the show included
lesbian couples. The cancellation was announced the same day that
PBS received a bullying letter from newly installed federal Education
Secretary Margaret Spellings, whose department partly funds Buster,
denouncing the program.
According to Angelica Brisk, the director of the Sugartime!
episode, this is the first time in the history of WGBH, the Boston
affiliate that produces the program, that PBS has rejected one
of its programs for distribution.
WGBH decided to air the episode February 2. Twenty-four other
PBS affiliates, including WNET in New York, KCTS in Seattle and
KVIE in Sacramento, plan to run the program. Detroits WTVS
announced that it would not broadcast the episode, along with
PBS stations in Utah, Maryland and elsewhere. WGBH has rented
time on a satellite, which it will use to feed the program to
any affiliate that chooses to air it.
Each week on Postcards From Buster, an animated
rabbit, Buster, and his animated father visit actual people who
introduce him to different locales and cultures around the US.
The program, as Brigid Sullivan, WGBHs vice president of
childrens programming, told the Washington Post,
has visited Mormons in Utah, the Hmong in Wisconsin, the
Gullah culture in South Carolina, Orthodox Jewish families, a
Pentecostal Christian familywe are trying to do a broad
reach and we are trying to do it without judgment.
In the 40 episodes, Sullivan pointed out, We have tried
to reach across as many cultures, as many religions, as many family
structures as we can. We gave it our best-faith effort. We have
received hate mail for doing [an episode] about a Muslim girl.
Weve also received mail from Muslims saying thank you.
In the Sugartime! episode, Buster visits a [maple]
sugar house and dairy farm in northern Vermont. He encounters
families in which the parents are both women. Vermont recognizes
civil unions between individuals of the same sex.
WGBH, in its statement on the program, notes that The parents
lives are included only as a backdrop to the kids lives;
the focus is on Busters visits to a sugar house and a dairy
farm. Remarked Peggy Charren, a WGBH board member, You
learn about maple syrup and how it gets made. You learn about
cows and where milk comes from. There is so little detail about
the lesbian parents.
It was too much, however, for the religious bigots who make
up the thousand and one organizations dedicated to the supposed
defense of family and defense of traditional
values, including James Dobsons Focus on the Family,
the Traditional Values Coalition, the American Family Association
and the like. They sprang into action against this new attempt
to normalize the homosexual lifestyle. As one television
critic remarked, To them, showing and telling about lesbian
families is the same as promoting.
And the fundamentalist ultra-right has powerful allies in the
Bush administration. On only her second day on the job, January
25, Education Secretary Spellingsa longtime Bush crony and
his senior domestic policy adviser for the past four yearsfired
off her letter to Pat Mitchell, president and chief executive
officers of PBS. Spellings expressed her strong and very
serious concerns about Sugartime!, which would
feature throughout the show families headed by gay couples.
Spellings went on threateningly to note that two years
ago the Senate Appropriations Committee raised questions about
the accountability of funds appropriated for Ready-To-Learn programs.
She continued, Many parents would not want their young children
exposed to the life-styles portrayed in this episode. Congress
and the Departments purpose in funding this programming
certainly was not to introduce this kind of subject matter to
children, particularly through the powerful and intimate medium
of television.
The Education Secretary demanded that (1) if PBS aired the
episode it had to remove the Department of Educations seal
and any other indication that the latter approved of the program;
(2) PBS had to notify member stations about the contents of the
program and review it before deciding whether to air it; (3) PBS
should strongly consider refunding to the Department
of Education funds that were used for the episode.
It should be noted in passing that in the case of Armstrong
Williams, a right-wing journalist paid by the Department of Educationin
apparent violation of the lawto promote the Bush administrations
agenda, the department has not asked for its $250,000 back.
PBS officials claim that they had been agonizing over the Sugartime!
issue for weeks, and had decided not to send the episode to its
stations a couple of hours before we received the letter
from the secretary of education, according to programming
chief John Wilson. Whether this is true or not, PBSs claim
that its decision had nothing to do with the impending attack
from the Bush administration is nonsense. In an uncharacteristically
candid comment, the Washington Posts Lisa de Moraes
noted that the claim sounds great if you were born yesterday;
otherwise, not so much.
In a press release, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
argued that PBS chief operating officer Wayne Godwin and spokesperson
Lea Sloan provided contradictory reasons for their act of self-censorship.
Godwin said the episode brought up an issue that was best
left for parents and children to address together at a time and
manner of their own choosing, while Sloan said it was sensitive
in todays political climate (Associated Press,
1/27/05). Godwin also pointed out that some children wouldnt
have a parent with them to put it in context (Washington
Post, 1/27/05), but at the same time indicated that it was
precisely the context that parents and media coverage gave the
episode that created the problem: The concern really was
that theres a point where background becomes foreground.
No matter if the parents were intended to be background, with
this specific item in this particular program they might simply
be foreground because of press attention to it and parental attention
to it (New York Times, 1/27/05).
Godwin went on to claim the episode conflicted with PBSs
purpose: The presence of a couple headed by two mothers
would not be appropriate curricular purpose that PBS should provide.
FAIR points out that one element of public televisions
mandate, as set out in the 1967 Carnegie Commission Report, is
to provide a voice for groups in the community that may
otherwise be unheard, to serve as a forum for controversy
and debate, and to broadcast programs that help us
see America whole, in all its diversity.
Dr. Michael Brody, a Washington-based child psychiatrist who
is chairman of the television and media committee of the American
Academy of Child Psychiatry, told the Baltimore Sun, The
very idea of this series [Buster] was to show diversity.
The idea of this program wasnt to go against the religious
right, or to make the liberal left feel good. The idea was to
help out children by presenting the diversity of families and
to make kids who werent in traditional families
not feel so different.
The Department of Education grant that funds Buster
specifies: Diversity will be incorporated into the fabric
of the series to help children understand and respect differences
and learn to live in a multicultural society.
One of the Vermont mothers in the program, Karen Pike, a 42-year-old
photojournalist, called the attack on the program by Spellings
disgusting. Pike is featured in the episode with her
partner, Gillian Pieper, and their three children. The show is
trying to show that kids are kids and that there are many
kinds of families, said Pike.
Referring to Spellings letter, she commented, Im
actually aghast at the hatred stemming from such an important
person in our government. ... Her first official act was to denounce
my family, and to denounce PBS for putting on a program that shows
my family as loving, moral and committed.
She told a reporter: I cant believe PBS would back
down to this. I understand they get public funding, but they should
be the one station we feel confident in, in knowing that what
we see there represents our whole country.
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |