Standard-Speaker, PA
April 21 2006
PBS effort to bridge controversy creates more
Presented with programs on Armenian genocide, stations react
differently
Armenian refugees in Ottoman Turkey are shown in a picture featured
in the recent documentary “The Armenian Genocide.”
Public television’s attempt to illuminate a dark period of European
history is demonstrating that in the world of documentaries, few
topics are black and white.
`The Armenian Genocide’ began airing this week on dozens of PBS
stations, including nine in the nation’s top TV markets. Through
tattered photos, letters and celebrity voiceovers, the documentary
created by New York-based filmmaker Andrew Goldberg depicts a Turkish
campaign of expulsion, rape, and murder that led to the deaths of an
estimated 1.5 million ethnic Armenians between 1915 and 1920.
To the filmmaker and most historians, the documentary covers settled
history, although Turkey continues to deny that it committed what
many consider the first genocide of the 20th century.
PBS said it accepted Goldberg’s film based on the `recognition that
the overwhelming majority of historians have concluded that a
genocide took place.’ But to appease a small contingent of critics,
the network commissioned Oregon Public Broadcasting, a partner on the
film, to produce a panel discussion comprising two historians who
back the film’s premise and two who dispute it.
Three stations, three approaches
PBS affiliates, which make their own programming decisions, took
different approaches with the programs, in some cases creating even
more unhappiness on both sides.
One of the nation’s premier PBS stations, WGBH in Boston, aired
Goldberg’s film but declined to show the panel.
`We chose to air `The Armenian Genocide’ based on its merits and
because we felt it was balanced and presented both sides of the
story,’ said Lucy Sholley, the station’s director of media relations.
`We felt the documentary stood on its own.’
KCTS in Seattle aired the film and the panel discussion. Program
manager Eric Maki said in a statement that the station wanted to give
viewers as much information as possible to `make an informed
decision’ and `better understand the world around them.’
KCET in Los Angeles, home to about two-thirds of the country’s 1.5
million Armenian Americans, declined to show both programs. A
spokeswoman said the station is airing programs on Armenian issues
throughout April and had earlier decided to show a French documentary
called `Le Génocide Arménien.’
On Monday, the day the French film aired, Goldberg screened his
documentary at Hollywood’s Egyptian Theatre before an audience
estimated at 1,000.
`I didn’t want this story to not have a chance to be shown to the
Armenians in Los Angeles,’ he said. `It’s a story that many of them
had taken part in, through their involvement or just being connected
with it.’
Panel adds to controversy
The PBS decision to host a panel featuring genocide skeptics has
angered Armenian activists.
`We commend PBS for airing the Goldberg piece. It’s a good
opportunity to educate their viewers with regards to the Armenian
genocide. But we felt that the panel that followed it in some areas
was completely unnecessary,’ said Elizabeth Chouldjian, spokeswoman
for the Armenian National Committee of America. `It was misleading.
Essentially, it presented the issue of the genocide not as a fact,
but as a debate.’
Chouldjian’s organization and others waged a letter-writing campaign
that flooded PBS and congressional offices with requests that the
network drop the panel.
The network stood its ground, however, saying the program’s `intent
is to examine the question of how historians can come to such
radically divergent conclusions about these events. An important part
of the mission of public television is to engender responsible
discussion and illuminate complex issues.’
More to the story?
The Turkish government and some historians maintain that Armenians
who died during the violent last throes of the Ottoman Empire where
victims of a civil war, not genocide.
Goldberg’s film presents a slanted historical account, according to
some viewers who wrote into PBS stations and a scholar who
participated in the panel discussion.
`If you only take one side and report their deaths, it seems like
genocide. But of course it wasn’t that,’ said Justin McCarthy, a
professor of history at the University of Louisville.
McCarthy, who acknowledges holding a minority view, believes
Goldberg’s film takes a selective snapshot of history and fails to
address the deaths of many Turks at the hands of Armenian militants.
“It was an inhuman, bestial time,’ he said. `There were wide-scale,
mutual massacres across eastern and other areas of (the Ottoman
Empire) – a mutual-extermination kind of war.’
PBS said it accepted Goldberg’s film based on the `recognition that
the overwhelming majority of historians have concluded that a
genocide took place.’ But to appease a small contingent of critics,
the network commissioned Oregon Public Broadcasting, a partner on the
film, to produce a panel discussion comprising two historians who
back the film’s premise and two who dispute it.
Three stations, three approaches
PBS affiliates, which make their own programming decisions, took
different approaches with the programs, in some cases creating even
more unhappiness on both sides.
One of the nation’s premier PBS stations, WGBH in Boston, aired
Goldberg’s film but declined to show the panel.
`We chose to air `The Armenian Genocide’ based on its merits and
because we felt it was balanced and presented both sides of the
story,’ said Lucy Sholley, the station’s director of media relations.
`We felt the documentary stood on its own.’
KCTS in Seattle aired the film and the panel discussion. Program
manager Eric Maki said in a statement that the station wanted to give
viewers as much information as possible to `make an informed
decision’ and `better understand the world around them.’
KCET in Los Angeles, home to about two-thirds of the country’s 1.5
million Armenian Americans, declined to show both programs. A
spokeswoman said the station is airing programs on Armenian issues
throughout April and had earlier decided to show a French documentary
called `Le Génocide Arménien.’
On Monday, the day the French film aired, Goldberg screened his
documentary at Hollywood’s Egyptian Theatre before an audience
estimated at 1,000.
`I didn’t want this story to not have a chance to be shown to the
Armenians in Los Angeles,’ he said. `It’s a story that many of them
had taken part in, through their involvement or just being connected
with it.’
Panel adds to controversy
The PBS decision to host a panel featuring genocide skeptics has
angered Armenian activists.
`We commend PBS for airing the Goldberg piece. It’s a good
opportunity to educate their viewers with regards to the Armenian
genocide. But we felt that the panel that followed it in some areas
was completely unnecessary,’ said Elizabeth Chouldjian, spokeswoman
for the Armenian National Committee of America. `It was misleading.
Essentially, it presented the issue of the genocide not as a fact,
but as a debate.’
Chouldjian’s organization and others waged a letter-writing campaign
that flooded PBS and congressional offices with requests that the
network drop the panel.
The network stood its ground, however, saying the program’s `intent
is to examine the question of how historians can come to such
radically divergent conclusions about these events. An important part
of the mission of public television is to engender responsible
discussion and illuminate complex issues.’
More to the story?
The Turkish government and some historians maintain that Armenians
who died during the violent last throes of the Ottoman Empire where
victims of a civil war, not genocide.
Goldberg’s film presents a slanted historical account, according to
some viewers who wrote into PBS stations and a scholar who
participated in the panel discussion.
`If you only take one side and report their deaths, it seems like
genocide. But of course it wasn’t that,’ said Justin McCarthy, a
professor of history at the University of Louisville.
McCarthy, who acknowledges holding a minority view, believes
Goldberg’s film takes a selective snapshot of history and fails to
address the deaths of many Turks at the hands of Armenian militants.
“It was an inhuman, bestial time,’ he said. `There were wide-scale,
mutual massacres across eastern and other areas of (the Ottoman
Empire) – a mutual-extermination kind of war.’
But among the holdouts for Turkey today are the U.S. and U.K., which
have strong economic and military ties to the nation.
Under recent Republican and Democratic administrations, the U.S. has
avoided using the `G-word,’ instead calling the Armenian deaths a
`tragedy’ or `atrocity.’
As they come of age, a growing number of Armenian Americans are
demanding the government recognize their ancestors’ deaths as
genocide. Filmmakers and Grammy-nominated bands with Armenian roots,
such as System of a Down, have staged benefits calling attention to
the issue. The band and other activists are scheduled to meet with
members of Congress next week to again press their case.
Is change near? Another look at history casts doubt: Nearly every
year federal legislation is introduced. All of the measures have
either died in committees or languished in the Senate.
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive