Interview with Ruth of Ruth's Public Radio Report

Last week, during "1 Book, 10 Minutes (Danny Schechter, The Death of Media)" Ruth's report (from that weekend) was brought up. Due to the late hour, we didn't have time to get Ruth's response so we decided to interview her again this week.

We mentioned last week's Ruth's Public Radio Report in a book discussion and we wanted to touch on base on whether we acurately reflected your thoughts?

Ruth: Well, C.I. had to discuss it. (Laughing) C.I. got put on the spot which, honestly, surprised me since I had dictated it to Kat and she and I had discussed it at the time. Just to recap it, and C.I. can say stop at any point, and I'll change the subject but "The Pooper" was rubbing his hands together with glee over what he judged to be the sad state of affairs at Pacifica. The post, it was at a blog, bothered me. I was discussing it with C.I. because I was having a few problems with it, there's a whole historical background to Pacifica, and when I started quoting sections of it to C.I. the response was . . . intense.

You want to comment on that, C.I.?

C.I.: I think Ruth's capturing it very well.

Ruth: Well, I didn't know "The Pooper" or his history. I wondered why he seemed so down on Laura Flanders, for instance. So C.I. explained some of that and the more I went over this, it was obvious that I'd be working on it through the day it posted. C.I. said it first, I think, that this would probably have to be a dictated post and then suggested that I do it with Kat. I was angered by "The Pooper" but I didn't get how angry "The Pooper" made C.I. until I spoke to Kat. Kat was filling me in on background and at one point I said to her, "I would never have quoted 'The Pooper' to C.I. if I had known." And I wouldn't have. And C.I. was obviously bothered by what 'The Pooper' wrote but was still helpful and giving me feedback. There was a whole paragraph on this in the report originally but Kat and I both thought, "Oh cut it, so C.I. doesn't say it's too naval gazing or whatever." So I was surprised, when I read the book discussion, that C.I. was the one who ended up having to explain my argument. At one point, near the end of the Friday phone conversation, I had asked if this was bothering and if so should I write about something else. But C.I. said that it was important to address and that it came under my area so of course I should address it. I had wondered, especially after speaking to Kat, if C.I. would read it after it posted and obviously that did happen. C.I. summarized my position very well. And Betty did as well. If it's okay to jump to a point that Betty was making --

Go ahead.

Well, my children watched Sesame Street and back then it was breakthrough television to see children of all races. Cedric made the point as well, by the way. Today? What are they doing for children? Showing them that bunnies and bears, animated, can get along? There was the whole Buster flare up and that's where PBS should have stood up and said, "There's no sexual or suggestive content to the two women raising this child." They didn't. They buckled to right wing pressure. If they'd done that on race, where would be today?

Cedric here, that's a good point and I like the wording, "no sexual or suggestive content." All it was showing was two parents. The parents happened to be both women. I doubt most children, if they saw two parents of the same sex, children of that age, are wondering what goes on in bed. This was a children's show and it was supposed to represent the various lives of children across the country. Instead, by PBS' actions, they ended up denying a very real family.

Exactly. The whole point was to show the variety and then they ended up deciding, "Oh we won't show that variety." I think most parents should have taken offense, gay or straight, right wing or left wing, because when they deny a family, they're denying families. They're saying that what is easy to do, they'll do and nothing more. So today it was a same-sex family, tomorrow it could be an interracial family, some day it could be a straight family. This wasn't a case of "Is Will going to get a real kiss before Will & Grace goes off the air?" This wasn't exploring anything. It was noting a family and the reality of that family was two mommies. Public broadcasting is supposed to represent the public. Families like that do exist whether PBS wants to note it or not. The mandate under which they were created argues that this is exactly what they should be noting. At the time, I believe you did a feature on it?

Yes.

At the time, it irritated me that PBS bowed to pressure. But, on this topic, what I find myself thinking about is how PBS always bows to pressure when it comes to gays and lesbians. You see it over and over. Turning down a sequel to a successful mini-series, you name it. Now that's cowardly and it's shameful and it's not living up to their mandate.

So your argument was quit rescuing it?

Right. Quit rescuing PBS, quit rescusing NPR. Let them go a few rounds without the left sticking up for them. We have other battles that go beyond bad television. Rebecca was of this opinion during the last battle and I wish I'd thought it through then but my reaction was more emotional. But the issue is would we fight to save People Magazine? I'd fight to save The Nation or The Progressive. Would I fight to save a corporate waste of space like People Magazine? No. So why am I wasting my time on NPR and PBS? Especially since the last fight came on the heels of NOW being cut to a half hour and Tucker Carlson and The Wall St. Journal both being given shows.

The counter-argument is that if we, the country, loses PBS or NPR think how much worse off we'd be.

Well, Dona, I know that counter-argument and I've made it myself. Maybe at some point it had merit. But I kept making it long after it stopped having merit. Do you realize how little voice has been given to anti-war voices prior to Cindy Sheehan's Camp Casey? Or to war resistors? I couldn't find one program on that and then C.I. said Tavis Smiley had done one show including the topic. And where is The Tavis Smiley Show today? Not on NPR. It is their duty to provide those voices. They were happy to do so when Clinton was ordering the military engagements. Of course then the people "speaking out" were Republicans members of Congress. But they are supposed to air various beliefs and they're not doing it. They're not doing their job and haven't been for a long time. So we lose it. What have we lost? Nothing. As Betty pointed out Digital Television will mean that many families will no longer get so-called Public Television. So I say, stop fighting now.

If that happened, what do you think would follow?

I don't think the Republicans would actually kill PBS or NPR. I could be wrong and if I am, I still don't think it's a great loss. But if the left sat out the next battle, if the left didn't scream and holler in defense of NPR and PBS, I wonder if they might have to start taking us seriously? Might have to start factoring us into their programming decisions? There are serious issues worth fighting for today. I'm not seeing Brit-coms and right-wing programming as a serious issue the left needs to defend. Nor am I seeing right-leaning NPR's canned programming as anything the left should be fighting for. And what is the deal with the money there anyway? They have PBS shops now. Where's that money going? Where did the McDonalds millions go?
To pay Cokie Roberts and Ted Koppel for the gas bag commentaries? Terry Gross interviews Paul Bremer and does the worst interview a journalist could do. It was all easy questions and she seemed unfamiliar with Bremer's record before he went to Iraq. I don't see how the public is served by that nonsense. Or by her arts chats which may make her feel like a bohemian sprite but strike this listener as useless. Whether it's TV or radio, where is the public in their broadcasts? They're the "none that mattered" apparently.

A reference to when Cokie Roberts was asked if any members of Congress were objecting to the Afghanistan war and Cokie Roberts responded "none that matter."

Thank you, C.I. That's correct. "None that matter" said to Bob Edwards on NPR's Morning Edition. On public radio. That statement could be expressed by a guest but public radio has no business employing someone who makes such statements. It is especially supposed to give voice to views that would not be heard otherwise. That was the whole argument for its existance. That corporate media, due to the nature of advertising, had to shy away from some topics. Public radio and public television would be the place where a robust converstation could take place. That's not what has happened. I see no point in fighting for it. Maybe if they had to fight the next battle on their own they'd start living up to their mandate? Or maybe they'd realize that the left requires more airtime if they're expecting the left to stand up for them. I'm a grandmother. So looking at it as though it was a child, it makes no sense. You do not reward bad behavior but we, on the left, continue to do that. And all it does is allow PBS and NPR to take us even more for granted.

You spoke about "where is the public" earlier.

Right. Well, this is a point that's been made by many people so it's not original observations on my part, they have stock market shows. Where are the labor shows? They cover "business" but they're not very concerned with "work" or "workers." We've talked about their treatment of gays and lesbians already but where are the other minorities? And why is Jim Lehren still hosting the NewsHour? Has it been thirty years yet? There only daily news program and its hosted by a White male. Statistically, even if you forget ideology, they aren't being representative. Or how about Washington Week? What does it serve? We've got journalists not summarizing the week's events but giving their opinions on it. Trying to be cute and funny. Why not invite some experts on. Not politicians, but professors? Or how about a Washington Week with Granny D, Medea Benjamin and other activists giving their take on the week's events? That would offer voices that weren't being heard in the mainstream which is supposed to be the role of public broadcasting. There is no "public" on PBS or NPR. There are a lot of insiders and they offer the same talking points you can hear on ABC or CBS or NBC, so what's the point in defending that?

So what would you see the benefit of not defending PBS and NPR in the next go round?

They'd learn that we're not fighting for something that refuses to do what it's supposed to. We could all spend our time discussing and addressing something that really has relevance in our lives. I can remember hearing on PRI's The World, during the presidential campaign of 2004 that "both served." Senator John Kerry and Bully Boy "both served." Now I'm fighting for that?

The World?

It's a program carried by NPR stations. PRI is one of the distributers to NPR. This is a supposed news program. We're talking about Vietnam. I lived through it. No one who did would say that "serving" stateside in the National Guard was "serving." You did that to avoid getting drafted. But The World wanted to tell you that both served. On a news program. Today, the realities are obviously different. The National Guard does serve. But the realities in the sixties and early seventies were quite different. A news program should grasp that. A news program on public radio shouldn't be afraid to provide the context.

What changed the way you saw it? You were fully supportive of the last battle to save NPR and PBS?

I was. And it was a mistake on my part. I think it was realizing that, and I keep saying it my reports and it's not meant as an insult to Katrina vanden Heuvel whom my granddaughter Tracey loves, the outcome of the last battle appeared to be "Thank you for all your hard work, here's Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation." She got to be a guest. She should be a guest. The magazine she edits has a higher circulation than the guests from other public journals on NPR. But that's it? That's what we get? One guest, regardless of whom? Ms. vanden Heuvel is a strong voice but I hardly think she's strong enough to go up against a hundred or more centrist and right-wing voices that NPR features each month. I'm sure she could lead in a battle but let's not feed her to the wolves. It was just realizing one week, as I listened to NPR and Pacifica, that the battle had been fought and won and now NPR was going back to business as usual. Why did I bother to fight? And there's Pacifica. Being exposed to the variety of programs it offers factored in as well. I grew old with NPR and as it grew more and more corporate and more and more conservative, with no alternatives, I just accepted it as the way it had to be. It doesn't have to be that way. NPR chooses to be that way. So let centrists and right-wingers fight for it, they get the airtime on the network. We're about to enter the third year of the Iraq war and they've yet to host a debate on it. It's more embarrassing now since the majority of the public has turned against the war. But they should have been offering that debate, by their mandate they should have been offering it, long before that happened. That's a viewpoint that wasn't being expressed in the corporate media and they are supposed to exist to express those viewpoints. I'm sure I'm stealing from Amy Goodman, and probably from her fundraising on WBAI this past week, but there's no greater issue than war and peace. NPR silenced critics of the war. They still won't devote their time to a serious discussion of the war. I'm guessing Terry Gross is all booked up with Tribecca artists. Where's the dialogue on the war on NPR? Nowhere to be found. You can get a monologue, from various voices, about the war, endorsing it or regretting it but saying we have to stay over there. You just can't hear the voice of the public, the majority, saying it's time to stop the war. So I think about that and I think, "Next time they're on their own."

Closing thoughts?

Instead of wasting our time fighting to "save" PBS and NPR, what if we used that same energy to get the word out on Pacifica? Imagine the impact that would have. "The Pooper" was trashing Pacifica and holding NPR up as a model, including as a ratings model, he seems to have forgotten that ratings aren't supposed to be to public radio the god they are to corporate radio. Well NPR is a well known brand. This weekend, I was talking about an e-mail from a member in Texas. A friend dropped by his office while he was listening to KPFA's The Morning Show. And what happened? The friend calls later that day to say he can't find the program on the NPR website. In one day, someone who'd never heard of Pacifica before found out about it, heard it and then wanted to listen to it themselves. That all happened because one person was listening and one person was willing to get the word out. Think about the difference we could all make if we focused on something like that, something that really matters, instead of on ensuring that NPR and PBS will have the monies to hire more right-wing hosts and provide more airtime to right-wingers and centrists.