Tweet
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/
LETTERS
On the `The Armenian Genocide' and Follow-up Panel
I read with great interest your story about the panel discussion to
follow the documentary about the Armenian Genocide. The problem is one
of finding and reporting the truth. If you put on some crackpot
historian from the midwest who doesn't know the truth, but who wants
to be on TV, then you are doing the nation and the Armenians who were
stripped of their land and belongings and then marched to their death
a great injustice. Documents have been found that have proven the
Turkish government ordered these atrocities. Knowing this,it is
irresponsible for PBS to pass off ignorant people as authorities of
the subject. There are those who deny the Jewish Holocaust including
the present Iranian government, but because of our own GIs accounts of
the death campswe know that it happened. To give liars and fools a
podium on national television is a big mistake and great care should
be taken that the documented truth not be lost to them. The only
reasons the US has not officially recognizedthe genocide is the
political repercussions that it would cause with Turkey, not because
they don't think it happened.
Lawrence Darpinian, Modesto, CA
I have just read your column entitled `Coming Soon to Viewers Like
You: The Armenian Genocide.' Thank you very much for the detailed
discussionof the issue and your concerns. I certainly believe that PBS
is doing a great service by exploring issues that others do not,
whether I like the topic or not.
However, given the intensity and the importance of the debate, I
believe that PBS should provide the American public with a more
balanced view on the Armenian issue. As far as I understand from your
description, `The Armenian Genocide' documentary seems to be heavily
influenced by the political and economic strength of the Armenian
community in the U.S.
I will not spend much time to describe how disappointed I am to see
that PBS fails to incorporate the views of the Turkish side to this
discussion. In particular, by accepting `The Armenian Genocide' title,
which seems to assume that the issue has already been settled, PBS
fails to provide the American public with deeper insights regarding
this highly contested issue. Moreover, the very fact that the
Armenians do not want the airing of the follow-up panel should alert
PBS regarding the importance of having this panel discussion. In order
to protect `the public's trust in the editorial integrity of PBS
content and the process by which it is produced and distributed,' PBS
should ` shield the creative and editorial processes from political
pressure or improper influence from funders or other sources,' as
stated in its own Editorial Standards.
Washington, DC
Is it actually a coincidence that you have published the `Ombudsman's
Mailbag' every month except March? My guess is that, to save PBS from
further embarrassment about the shameful act of giving voice to
Turkish Historians' denial of the Armenian Genocide in a panel
discussion that accompanied a recent documentary dealing with the
subject, you conveniently neglected to publishour opinions. Sure, you
wrote some pithy response alluding to our comments, but you should let
our opinions be read.
Ty Smith, Sacramento, CA
The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming amount of the funding
and support for this documentary is from the Armenian community. This
should bea huge red flag as to how balanced this `documentary'
is. Consider that at the same time, the much briefer panel discussion
(which allows the dissenting opinions of two respected scholars)
received an onslaught of Armenian protest, and this despite still
incorporating the Armenian point of view. I find it difficult to
believe then, as New York's WNET suggests, that the documentary is
unbiased and complete in its analysis. True, we all have yet to see
either program. ut I ask you - even if the panel merely repeats the
claimsof the documentary, why not air it anyway? The answer is likely
that two members of the panel disputed the documentary's claims. And
by not airing this discussion, WNET and certain other PBS stations
have likely censored themselves to please the lobby of the well funded
and organized American Armenian community.
Toronto, Canada
I am quite pleased to see that the PBS has recognized the importance
of bringing to light one of the most important events of the 20th
Century. However, I am equally distressed at your lack of regard for
the hundreds of thousands of Assyrians and Greeks who perished in the
same Genocide. Proportionally,the Genocide of 1915 or the Seyfo (as
Assyrians call it) brought greater calamity to the Assyrians (also
called Chaldeans and Syriacs) in the Ottoman Empire.
It must be noted that two out of every three Assyrian living in what
is now called Iran, Turkey, and Iraq perished directly as the result
of this Genocide. It would be a great injustice if only the names of
one of the three equally important Christian communities in the
Ottoman Empire is noted in your reviews and television programming.
Wilfred Bet-Alkhas, Washington, DC
To me the use of the word Genocide is correctly associated with the
Nurenberg trials. It was the findings and judgment of a court similar
to any other judgment passed by a court after hearing the charges and
defense offered by recognized officers of that court using evidence to
support the positions of the parties. To imply that a country is
guilty of genocide without a proper trail is clearly a
`politicalization' of justice.
Chris C., Scio, OR
It was a pleasure to read your fairly balanced comment on the
documentary and the follow up. Thanks for trying to understand the
issue with your own reasoning rather than depending on the others' and
more importantlysupporting the freedom of speech for everyone no
matter if it is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or something else.
Duru A., Boston, MA
In case of Armenian genocide, PBS feels that a historically settled
matter needs panel discussion after a related documentary has been
aired. However, documentaries such as FRONTLINE that deal with events
of greater controversy require no follow-up debate. PBS's argument is
bogus.
Jack Yaghoubian, Sherman Oaks, CA
The decision to have a panel discussion is not a bad idea. I wish that
rather than including total deniers, you would have considered
moderate Turks who are objective and willing to review the
issue. Bringing a panel of deniers only fuels the argument that the
State Department's influence on`Free Media' remains as strong as ever.
Vatche' Nazarethian
Your column, while providing interesting background information,
completely misses the point that thousands of Armenians have made to
your station. You are giving airtime to people who deny a genocide
which, as you have shown and agree, is accepted to have taken
place. You would never, ever have a couple of Neo-Nazis sitting on a
panel with Holocaust scholars arguing that therewas no Holocaust. You
are giving them legitimacy whether you intend to or not.
You are giving them a chance, in a few minutes of airtime to make
allegations that would require scholarly texts to rebut, something
nobody could hope to accomplish during an on-the-air panel. Freedom of
speech is the right of a person to say something. Justin McCarthy has
the right to say what he likes, but when you put him on PBS, you have
instantly given him something he does not deserve: credibility.
Raffi Kojian, Orange, CA
One wonders how far outside the norms of scholarly discourse people
need to drift before organizations such as PBS stop using the excuse
that it is necessary to broadcast every opinion, no matter how
contrary to reality it may run. Would PBS give air time to people who
deny the Holocaust? Would it give air time to people who deny Darwin's
Theory of Evolution? Would it giveair time to people who think that
humans never walked on the moon? Would it invite a panel discussion by
people who think that Elvis Presley is still alive? Isit really
necessary to broadcast a lie to counter every truth?
Bruce Boghosian, Lexington, MA
By calling the program `Armenian Genocide' are not the program-makers
becoming the judge and also the jury? Why not let the historians
decide after they study all the archives. Armenians killed many
innocent Turks in Erzurum while the Turkish army was fighting with the
enemy (WWI). The so-called documentary has been financed by
Armenians. How could it be unbiased and impartial?
Does it mean whoever has the money can change the history? This
program should not even be aired on PBS.
Minneapolis, MN
I will be watching the `Armenian Genocide' documentary withgreat
interest.
I am very proud of PBS for showing the documentary and allowing many
of its members to see, maybe even for the first time, the horrific
events of the genocide and it's tragic aftermath. I am however very
disappointed about the decision to allow the `discussion panel' to
follow the documentary. For me personally, all this does is
demoralizes and de-humanizes, all those who lost their lives and
suffered unspeakable horrors. It's a disgrace to their memories and a
great dishonor to its descendants.
San Francisco, CA
A Summing Up What follows are excerpts from a lengthy letter from
David Saltzman, Counsel of the Assembly of Turkish American
Associations. His initial reference to PBS policy refers to
widely-quoted remarks in the press in recent weeks from PBS officials
that the network believes the genocide `is settled history' and
`acknowledges and accepts that there was a genocide.'
Our concern is that PBS' publicly stated policy supporting the
genocide thesis prevents PBS affiliates from making an objective
assessment whether to broadcast the post-film discussion, which, at
least in part, challenges the genocide thesis ...
Few episodes in history are more controversial than the historical
treatment of the suffering brought on by the dissolution of the
Ottoman Empire, an event which saw the birth of more than 20 new
states. Many of these states include as central elements of their
national lore some form of heroic struggle to wrest themselves free
from `The Terrible Turk.' This lore,in many cases has bred lingering
anti-Turkish prejudice that applies not just to the Turkish state, but
to all who are ethnically Turkish ...
>From the Turkish American perspective, the oft-told stories of
suffering during the late Ottoman Empire tend to extricate and isolate
the Armenian experience from the complex circumstances of the day. One
is thus given the impression Armenians were all good and Turks were
all bad and that Armenians suffered alone ...
PBS, by establishing an official position on a matter of historic
controversy, provides cover to PBS affiliates who bow to pressure
brought on by government officials and panic-stricken proponents of
the genocide thesis.
WNET/WLIW
(in New York) are not alone. Already PBS affiliates in Los Angeles,
Boston, Orange County, CA, Miami, FL, Fresno, CA, and Mountain Lakes,
NY have determined not to air the post-film discussion. Thus, two of
the three largest PBS markets will not see the discussion. Orange
County, Boston, and Miami are also among the largest 20
U.S. metropolitan areas served by PBS ...
We remind PBS that no person, living or dead, or any foreign state or
sovereign body has been tried for the crime of genocide stemming from
the Armenian allegation of genocide despite the opportunities to do so
that continue even today. Yet the accusation of the crime of genocide
permeates all presentations favoring the genocide thesis ...
Turkey unequivocally denies the genocide allegation made against it in
such films, statements, and legislative resolutions. Whether the facts
of the Armenian tragedy in eastern Anatolia during World War I
constitute genocideas defined by the Genocide Convention is a matter
that experts have yet to debate in the arena deemed competent by the
treaty itself - the International Court of Justice ('ICJ') at The
Hague. Any future such adjudication will be poisoned by the one-sided
treatment of the issue by quasi-governmental bodies such as CPB and
PBS.
What follows are excerpts from a letter from Peter Balakian, a
professor of the humanities at Colgate University, who was an advisor
on the documentary and appears in the panel discussion that follows.
The fact remains that PBS would not run a fair and rich documentary
about the Armenian Genocide - one that included nearly a dozen
Turkish voices - without running what many in genocide studies
consider to be an unethical privileging of denial.
This is not a free speech issue as much of the scholarly community has
made clear. The deniers are free in this country to express themselves
without fear of prosecution or harm but this does not guarantee them
the right to elite forums. The leading authority on Holocaust and
genocide denial, Professor Deborah Lipstadt, has written:
`Denial of genocide whether that of the Turks against the Armenians,
or the Nazis against the Jews is not an act of historical
reinterpretation. Rather, the deniers sow confusion by appearing to be
engaged in a genuine scholarly effort. The abundance of documents and
testimonies that confirm the genocide are dismissed as contrived,
coerced, or forgeries and falsehoods. The deniers aim at convincing
innocent third parties that there is another side of the story. Free
speech does not guarantee the deniers the right to be treated as the
other side of a legitimate debate, when there is no credible other
side; nor does it guarantee the deniers space in the classroom or
curriculum, or in any other forum.'
Like many others, I fear that PBS resorted to the post-show panel as a
kind of fire insurance because of the negative experience it had with
Turkish government harassment in 1988 after airing an Armenian
Genocide documentary, as you note in your column. While this was no
doubt an uncomfortable experience, many institutions and organization
around the world in recent years have ceased paying attention to
Turkish harassment, and many of us hoped that PBS would not feel that
sense of intimidation this time, with this particular documentary.
Lastly, I find (PBS's co-chief programming executive) Ms. Atlas'
explanation for the post-show program a bit disingenuous. She claims
that its goal was not to provide a `platform for those who deny the
genocide,' but to `explore how serious historians do their work and
look at evidence.' However, by inviting two professional deniers (who
have worked closely with the Turkish government) on a PBS program, a
large platform was indeed provided for the repulsive lies that
constitute denial. And, in the twenty-five minutes we had, there was
not even a remote possibility that the show could explore how
historians work. As fine a job as (panel moderator) Scott Simon did
hosting it, the post-show could not help but be more than a staged
`bake-off,' and sadly, a forum that abused the reality and memory of
one of the major human rights crimes of our time.
Having made these points, I still applaud PBS for putting on `The
Armenian Genocide,' which is a landmark documentary. And, I appreciate
your thoughtful wrestling with this issue.
Posted by Michael Getler on April 14, 2006 at 1:48 PM
LETTERS
On the `The Armenian Genocide' and Follow-up Panel
I read with great interest your story about the panel discussion to
follow the documentary about the Armenian Genocide. The problem is one
of finding and reporting the truth. If you put on some crackpot
historian from the midwest who doesn't know the truth, but who wants
to be on TV, then you are doing the nation and the Armenians who were
stripped of their land and belongings and then marched to their death
a great injustice. Documents have been found that have proven the
Turkish government ordered these atrocities. Knowing this,it is
irresponsible for PBS to pass off ignorant people as authorities of
the subject. There are those who deny the Jewish Holocaust including
the present Iranian government, but because of our own GIs accounts of
the death campswe know that it happened. To give liars and fools a
podium on national television is a big mistake and great care should
be taken that the documented truth not be lost to them. The only
reasons the US has not officially recognizedthe genocide is the
political repercussions that it would cause with Turkey, not because
they don't think it happened.
Lawrence Darpinian, Modesto, CA
I have just read your column entitled `Coming Soon to Viewers Like
You: The Armenian Genocide.' Thank you very much for the detailed
discussionof the issue and your concerns. I certainly believe that PBS
is doing a great service by exploring issues that others do not,
whether I like the topic or not.
However, given the intensity and the importance of the debate, I
believe that PBS should provide the American public with a more
balanced view on the Armenian issue. As far as I understand from your
description, `The Armenian Genocide' documentary seems to be heavily
influenced by the political and economic strength of the Armenian
community in the U.S.
I will not spend much time to describe how disappointed I am to see
that PBS fails to incorporate the views of the Turkish side to this
discussion. In particular, by accepting `The Armenian Genocide' title,
which seems to assume that the issue has already been settled, PBS
fails to provide the American public with deeper insights regarding
this highly contested issue. Moreover, the very fact that the
Armenians do not want the airing of the follow-up panel should alert
PBS regarding the importance of having this panel discussion. In order
to protect `the public's trust in the editorial integrity of PBS
content and the process by which it is produced and distributed,' PBS
should ` shield the creative and editorial processes from political
pressure or improper influence from funders or other sources,' as
stated in its own Editorial Standards.
Washington, DC
Is it actually a coincidence that you have published the `Ombudsman's
Mailbag' every month except March? My guess is that, to save PBS from
further embarrassment about the shameful act of giving voice to
Turkish Historians' denial of the Armenian Genocide in a panel
discussion that accompanied a recent documentary dealing with the
subject, you conveniently neglected to publishour opinions. Sure, you
wrote some pithy response alluding to our comments, but you should let
our opinions be read.
Ty Smith, Sacramento, CA
The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming amount of the funding
and support for this documentary is from the Armenian community. This
should bea huge red flag as to how balanced this `documentary'
is. Consider that at the same time, the much briefer panel discussion
(which allows the dissenting opinions of two respected scholars)
received an onslaught of Armenian protest, and this despite still
incorporating the Armenian point of view. I find it difficult to
believe then, as New York's WNET suggests, that the documentary is
unbiased and complete in its analysis. True, we all have yet to see
either program. ut I ask you - even if the panel merely repeats the
claimsof the documentary, why not air it anyway? The answer is likely
that two members of the panel disputed the documentary's claims. And
by not airing this discussion, WNET and certain other PBS stations
have likely censored themselves to please the lobby of the well funded
and organized American Armenian community.
Toronto, Canada
I am quite pleased to see that the PBS has recognized the importance
of bringing to light one of the most important events of the 20th
Century. However, I am equally distressed at your lack of regard for
the hundreds of thousands of Assyrians and Greeks who perished in the
same Genocide. Proportionally,the Genocide of 1915 or the Seyfo (as
Assyrians call it) brought greater calamity to the Assyrians (also
called Chaldeans and Syriacs) in the Ottoman Empire.
It must be noted that two out of every three Assyrian living in what
is now called Iran, Turkey, and Iraq perished directly as the result
of this Genocide. It would be a great injustice if only the names of
one of the three equally important Christian communities in the
Ottoman Empire is noted in your reviews and television programming.
Wilfred Bet-Alkhas, Washington, DC
To me the use of the word Genocide is correctly associated with the
Nurenberg trials. It was the findings and judgment of a court similar
to any other judgment passed by a court after hearing the charges and
defense offered by recognized officers of that court using evidence to
support the positions of the parties. To imply that a country is
guilty of genocide without a proper trail is clearly a
`politicalization' of justice.
Chris C., Scio, OR
It was a pleasure to read your fairly balanced comment on the
documentary and the follow up. Thanks for trying to understand the
issue with your own reasoning rather than depending on the others' and
more importantlysupporting the freedom of speech for everyone no
matter if it is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or something else.
Duru A., Boston, MA
In case of Armenian genocide, PBS feels that a historically settled
matter needs panel discussion after a related documentary has been
aired. However, documentaries such as FRONTLINE that deal with events
of greater controversy require no follow-up debate. PBS's argument is
bogus.
Jack Yaghoubian, Sherman Oaks, CA
The decision to have a panel discussion is not a bad idea. I wish that
rather than including total deniers, you would have considered
moderate Turks who are objective and willing to review the
issue. Bringing a panel of deniers only fuels the argument that the
State Department's influence on`Free Media' remains as strong as ever.
Vatche' Nazarethian
Your column, while providing interesting background information,
completely misses the point that thousands of Armenians have made to
your station. You are giving airtime to people who deny a genocide
which, as you have shown and agree, is accepted to have taken
place. You would never, ever have a couple of Neo-Nazis sitting on a
panel with Holocaust scholars arguing that therewas no Holocaust. You
are giving them legitimacy whether you intend to or not.
You are giving them a chance, in a few minutes of airtime to make
allegations that would require scholarly texts to rebut, something
nobody could hope to accomplish during an on-the-air panel. Freedom of
speech is the right of a person to say something. Justin McCarthy has
the right to say what he likes, but when you put him on PBS, you have
instantly given him something he does not deserve: credibility.
Raffi Kojian, Orange, CA
One wonders how far outside the norms of scholarly discourse people
need to drift before organizations such as PBS stop using the excuse
that it is necessary to broadcast every opinion, no matter how
contrary to reality it may run. Would PBS give air time to people who
deny the Holocaust? Would it give air time to people who deny Darwin's
Theory of Evolution? Would it giveair time to people who think that
humans never walked on the moon? Would it invite a panel discussion by
people who think that Elvis Presley is still alive? Isit really
necessary to broadcast a lie to counter every truth?
Bruce Boghosian, Lexington, MA
By calling the program `Armenian Genocide' are not the program-makers
becoming the judge and also the jury? Why not let the historians
decide after they study all the archives. Armenians killed many
innocent Turks in Erzurum while the Turkish army was fighting with the
enemy (WWI). The so-called documentary has been financed by
Armenians. How could it be unbiased and impartial?
Does it mean whoever has the money can change the history? This
program should not even be aired on PBS.
Minneapolis, MN
I will be watching the `Armenian Genocide' documentary withgreat
interest.
I am very proud of PBS for showing the documentary and allowing many
of its members to see, maybe even for the first time, the horrific
events of the genocide and it's tragic aftermath. I am however very
disappointed about the decision to allow the `discussion panel' to
follow the documentary. For me personally, all this does is
demoralizes and de-humanizes, all those who lost their lives and
suffered unspeakable horrors. It's a disgrace to their memories and a
great dishonor to its descendants.
San Francisco, CA
A Summing Up What follows are excerpts from a lengthy letter from
David Saltzman, Counsel of the Assembly of Turkish American
Associations. His initial reference to PBS policy refers to
widely-quoted remarks in the press in recent weeks from PBS officials
that the network believes the genocide `is settled history' and
`acknowledges and accepts that there was a genocide.'
Our concern is that PBS' publicly stated policy supporting the
genocide thesis prevents PBS affiliates from making an objective
assessment whether to broadcast the post-film discussion, which, at
least in part, challenges the genocide thesis ...
Few episodes in history are more controversial than the historical
treatment of the suffering brought on by the dissolution of the
Ottoman Empire, an event which saw the birth of more than 20 new
states. Many of these states include as central elements of their
national lore some form of heroic struggle to wrest themselves free
from `The Terrible Turk.' This lore,in many cases has bred lingering
anti-Turkish prejudice that applies not just to the Turkish state, but
to all who are ethnically Turkish ...
>From the Turkish American perspective, the oft-told stories of
suffering during the late Ottoman Empire tend to extricate and isolate
the Armenian experience from the complex circumstances of the day. One
is thus given the impression Armenians were all good and Turks were
all bad and that Armenians suffered alone ...
PBS, by establishing an official position on a matter of historic
controversy, provides cover to PBS affiliates who bow to pressure
brought on by government officials and panic-stricken proponents of
the genocide thesis.
WNET/WLIW
(in New York) are not alone. Already PBS affiliates in Los Angeles,
Boston, Orange County, CA, Miami, FL, Fresno, CA, and Mountain Lakes,
NY have determined not to air the post-film discussion. Thus, two of
the three largest PBS markets will not see the discussion. Orange
County, Boston, and Miami are also among the largest 20
U.S. metropolitan areas served by PBS ...
We remind PBS that no person, living or dead, or any foreign state or
sovereign body has been tried for the crime of genocide stemming from
the Armenian allegation of genocide despite the opportunities to do so
that continue even today. Yet the accusation of the crime of genocide
permeates all presentations favoring the genocide thesis ...
Turkey unequivocally denies the genocide allegation made against it in
such films, statements, and legislative resolutions. Whether the facts
of the Armenian tragedy in eastern Anatolia during World War I
constitute genocideas defined by the Genocide Convention is a matter
that experts have yet to debate in the arena deemed competent by the
treaty itself - the International Court of Justice ('ICJ') at The
Hague. Any future such adjudication will be poisoned by the one-sided
treatment of the issue by quasi-governmental bodies such as CPB and
PBS.
What follows are excerpts from a letter from Peter Balakian, a
professor of the humanities at Colgate University, who was an advisor
on the documentary and appears in the panel discussion that follows.
The fact remains that PBS would not run a fair and rich documentary
about the Armenian Genocide - one that included nearly a dozen
Turkish voices - without running what many in genocide studies
consider to be an unethical privileging of denial.
This is not a free speech issue as much of the scholarly community has
made clear. The deniers are free in this country to express themselves
without fear of prosecution or harm but this does not guarantee them
the right to elite forums. The leading authority on Holocaust and
genocide denial, Professor Deborah Lipstadt, has written:
`Denial of genocide whether that of the Turks against the Armenians,
or the Nazis against the Jews is not an act of historical
reinterpretation. Rather, the deniers sow confusion by appearing to be
engaged in a genuine scholarly effort. The abundance of documents and
testimonies that confirm the genocide are dismissed as contrived,
coerced, or forgeries and falsehoods. The deniers aim at convincing
innocent third parties that there is another side of the story. Free
speech does not guarantee the deniers the right to be treated as the
other side of a legitimate debate, when there is no credible other
side; nor does it guarantee the deniers space in the classroom or
curriculum, or in any other forum.'
Like many others, I fear that PBS resorted to the post-show panel as a
kind of fire insurance because of the negative experience it had with
Turkish government harassment in 1988 after airing an Armenian
Genocide documentary, as you note in your column. While this was no
doubt an uncomfortable experience, many institutions and organization
around the world in recent years have ceased paying attention to
Turkish harassment, and many of us hoped that PBS would not feel that
sense of intimidation this time, with this particular documentary.
Lastly, I find (PBS's co-chief programming executive) Ms. Atlas'
explanation for the post-show program a bit disingenuous. She claims
that its goal was not to provide a `platform for those who deny the
genocide,' but to `explore how serious historians do their work and
look at evidence.' However, by inviting two professional deniers (who
have worked closely with the Turkish government) on a PBS program, a
large platform was indeed provided for the repulsive lies that
constitute denial. And, in the twenty-five minutes we had, there was
not even a remote possibility that the show could explore how
historians work. As fine a job as (panel moderator) Scott Simon did
hosting it, the post-show could not help but be more than a staged
`bake-off,' and sadly, a forum that abused the reality and memory of
one of the major human rights crimes of our time.
Having made these points, I still applaud PBS for putting on `The
Armenian Genocide,' which is a landmark documentary. And, I appreciate
your thoughtful wrestling with this issue.
Posted by Michael Getler on April 14, 2006 at 1:48 PM