July 13, 2007
"We interrupt this program to bring you . . . a political message." That line wasn't actually broadcast on PBS this week, but that's what several viewers thought happened while they were watching the July 9 airing of the "History Detectives" series. And they have a point.
I've said several times in these columns over the past 18 months or so that there is always something new to discover about how things happen on public television. Today's lesson is how to shoot yourself in the foot — at least in the minds of a fair number of viewers — by injecting something debatable, political and seemingly irrelevant into a program that people seem to enjoy because it is different, imaginative and not political.
"History Detectives" is a co-production of Lion Television and Oregon Public Broadcasting. It is now in its fifth season on PBS, with about a dozen programs a year, each with three different segments. The program appears to be very popular, with about four million weekly viewers, according to PBS. It devotes itself "to exploring the complexities of historical mysteries, searching out the facts, myths and conundrums that connect local folklore, family legends and interesting objects." About 75 percent of the stories investigated are contributed by viewers, and a four-person team experienced in historical investigations tracks down the clues and facts. In my view, the concept for the program is among the most creative and imaginative on public television.
I recall only a few occasions during my time here when I would get a critical e-mail or two from a viewer taking issue with the way something was presented. But a portion of the July 9 show produced a heavy flow of critical mail. The opening segment of the program, by "detective" Elyse Luray, focused on a vintage, post-Civil War photograph showing about 20 older white soldiers in uniform standing shoulder-to-shoulder with two uniformed black soldiers. As the program pointed out, in Reconstruction-era America, such associations were frequently taboo. So what brought them together for this picture? Detective Luray went to work. The bond, it turned out, was the Grand Army of the Republic, a fraternal order organized for war veterans. So far, so good.
But then immediately following this, another member of the "History Detectives" quartet, Wes Cowan, an anthropologist and owner of an auction company that specializes in historical Americana, delivered a brief commentary that started off talking about the historical battle for veterans' benefits. But he ended up talking about Sen. John F. Kerry's role in 1971, when, as a young Naval officer, he was a leader of those veterans who turned against the Vietnam War, and how, in 2004, a group known as the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and funded by a wealthy Republican campaign donor smeared Kerry's military record and possibly cost him the election."
This comment provoked the letters posted below. Following the viewer letters is a response from Christopher Bryson, executive producer with Lion Television, on behalf of the producers of "History Detectives." Then come some observations from me.
~snip. See LINK above for letters from irate viewers. ~snip
The Producers Respond
The following letter is from Christopher Bryson, executive producer with Lion Television, on behalf of the producers of "History Detectives."
In the interstitial following our story about a photograph of Civil War veterans we sought to take a broader look at the history of veterans' involvement in American politics. We wanted to include but not limit ourselves to discussion of how those groups have fought for veterans' rights. (The story preceding the interstitial was itself anchored to a political mystery, how and why a photograph of mostly white Grand Army of the Republic veterans included two African Americans in an era when segregation was in full force.)
To not have included mention in our interstitial of the involvement of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 election, we felt, ran the risk of ignoring the role of veterans and veterans groups in significant recent history.
In stating that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "smeared Kerry's military record" we carefully and believe accurately summarized and characterized a great deal of objective reporting by established media organizations, respected media watchdog groups, and an official Pentagon investigation, regarding whether Kerry had accurately represented his war record, and whether his service medals were justified.
We wrote our interstitial based on reporting by, amongst others, the Washington Post, the Center for Media and Democracy, the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, historian Douglas Brinkley ("Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War"), and the Navy Inspector General.
The record is clear. As a young man John Kerry did what the men in our Civil War story did, he went to war for his country, and in his case was awarded medals for his bravery. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was organized in advance of the 2004 election and funded by operatives with close ties to the political machine seeking the re-election of President George W. Bush. The media campaign by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which attacked Senator Kerry's military record was reported and judged to have been a successful political effort to undermine Kerry's deserved and honorable credentials as a decorated veteran. In this regard it can accurately and fairly be described as a smear. (At the time Senator John McCain judged the group's attacks "dishonest and dishonorable.")
A take-no-prisoner's strategy is now common in American politics, practiced by Democrats and Republicans alike. We want our show to be entertaining and to be enjoyed by viewers. We seek to illustrate how history is relevant today; how the present is connected to the past. And we favor neither Republican nor Democrat. But our show is about American history, and is therefore of necessity sometimes dealing with some of the most incendiary and conflicted episodes of our past. We believe fair-minded media organizations including the History Detectives television show can best serve the public by describing that political history accurately.
My Observations
When I say, as I did at the top of this column, that these viewers have a point, I mean that, in my view, this comment of Cowan's, and the way it was presented, seemed to me to come out of nowhere, be irrelevant to the segment viewers had just watched, and jumped out as sort of a gratuitous political shot that seemed to distract from what is almost always an entertaining program removed from this kind of thing.
Also, the Swift Boat assault on Kerry in the '04 presidential campaign was a long-running and very controversial battle, not given to one-liners. And, as some viewers put it, there are lots of reasons why Kerry lost. There are undoubtedly large numbers of people who would agree with the characterization of the Swift Boat campaign as a smear on Kerry — who was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and Silver Star while serving in Vietnam — while many others see it differently.
In the end, the Navy's Inspector General said that "our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed" and that "the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so" and that "Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved."
Years earlier, during Kerry's Senate re-election campaign in 1996, when controversy also arose regarding the Silver Star, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), who was Under Secretary of the Navy at the time, said, "We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one . . . I'd stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition." Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, who was commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Vietnam at the time and who signed the Silver Star citation, said, "It is a disgrace to the United States Navy that there's any inference that the (medal) process was anything other than totally honest."
Having followed this over the years, I felt, personally, that the evidence supported Kerry's record, citations and performance in battle. But the issue here for me is the appropriateness, or rather the lack of it, of Cowan's commentary.