"An example of unethical journalism that benefits extremist Muslims..."
By Kevin Mooney for CNSNews.com:
(CNSNews.com) - A conflict of interest involving the radical Nation of Islam and the Washington, D.C., affiliate of the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) is an example of unethical journalism that benefits extremist Muslims, according to a national security expert and a Hollywood filmmaker.Martyn Burke, director of documentary films at ABG Films, and Frank Gaffney, president of the conservative Center for Security Policy, produced a documentary for a PBS series - "America at a Crossroads" - that focused on Muslims in America, Europe, and Canada who speak out against Islamist extremists.
Their documentary, "Islam versus Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," was, after a protracted battle, rejected in April by WETA, the PBS affiliate in Washington, D.C.
The film is going to air on an Oregon PBS affiliate this month, and some other affiliates may run it as well. However, it is now known that PBS had an unedited version of the film reviewed by the radical Nation of Islam prior to PBS's decision to cancel the documentary.
The Nation of Islam (NOI) and its long-time leader Rev. Louis Farrakhan have a history of espousing racism and anti-Semitism. Farrakhan stepped down as NOI's leader in 2006 for health reasons.
PBS's decision to pass the film to NOI for review was a serious "breach of journalistic ethics," said Burke.
"Is there anyone who understands that no functioning journalist - or network, or publication can ever allow this kind of outrageous action?" Burke wrote in an e-mail to PBS officials.
"This utterly undermines any journalistic independence. ... It virtually hands the story to the subject and allows them to become an active party in shaping it. That is advertising, not journalism. Is that not obvious?" he added.
Yes, it is obvious.
Our freedoms were paid for with blood. It is being given away for NOTHING.
PBS does this all the time, doesn't it? Doesn't it let the drug and insurance companies review any possibly negative articles on the cost of medical care in this country? Wasn't Karl Rove allowed to review any so-called "documentary" about the Republican Party? Don't the Big Oil companies --- how many of those Seven Sisters are still alive, anyway, and still holding their American citizenship? -- review every program about energy and global warming?
You see, PBS partly relies on taxpayer funds, and on grants from foundations that, in turn, because of the tax system's treatment of 501(c)(3) groups, are indirectly but clearly taxpayer-funded as well. And it wouldn't be nice, would it, if PBS were to offend any group of taxpayers, such as the followers, in every sense, of Farrakhan, and it was right to let them review a possible trouble-making program.
So don't get your knickers in a twist. As has been pointed out above, it is merely standard practice at PBS.
Isn't it?
Since when is the Nation of Islam a censorship board?
Oh yeah...........muslims want to censor everything that might expose the awful, sickening, disgusting truth about islam.
Greetings:
"Journalistic ethics" long ago joined the ranks of oxymorons.
I'll believe their ethics when there are "journalistic malpractice" laws.
The journos have no problem proclaiming their professional status or their protected (First Amendment) staus) but they are not licensed and seem to be able to continue their mischief even after being caught in their more nefarious acts.
My current favorite example is Dan Rather's performance in Bill Moyers' "Selling the War" documentary.
"This utterly undermines any journalistic independence. ... It virtually hands the story to the subject and allows them to become an active party in shaping it. That is advertising, not journalism. Is that not obvious?" he added.
Yeah, tell that to the BBC, NY Times, Gaurdian, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, (and a million others that I missed).
lol @ topic...
...same lunatics who claimed that hurricane katrina was a honkey conspiracy.
Typical of PBS.
lol