Fun_People Archive
31 May
Nightline Responds on One-Sided China Panel

Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2)
From: Peter Langston <psl>
Date: Wed, 31 May 100 15:15:32 -0700
To: Fun_People
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Nightline Responds on One-Sided China Panel

X-Lib-of-Cong-ISSN: 1098-7649  -=[ Fun_People ]=-
X-http://www.langston.com/psl-bin/Fun_People.cgi
From: FAIR-L <FAIR-L@FAIR.ORG>
                                 FAIR-L
                    Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
               Media analysis, critiques and news reports

ACTIVISM UPDATE:
Nightline Responds on One-Sided China Panel

May 31, 2000

On the eve of the congressional vote on permanent normal trading relations
(PNTR) with China, ABC's Nightline (5/23/00) featured a show on the subject
with three guests-- former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Senator Alan
Simpson and former ambassador to China Winston Lord-- all of whom were
Republicans who favored passage of the trade bill.

FAIR urged activists to ask Nightline for an explanation of why the show
was so one-sided. (See http://www.fair.org/activism/nightline-pntr.html .)
Commendably, Nightline senior producer Richard Harris responded promptly
to letter-writers with the email below. Yet his message raises more
questions than it answers, claiming, among other things, that the show
"never intended to have a debate" about PNTR:

*****
"A number of viewers questioned our coverage of the China Trade bill.  They
asked why we did not establish a debate between representatives of the two
sides of the issue.  It was our feeling by the time that we went on the air,
the vote was really not in doubt.

"Rather than repeat a series pro/con debates which had played out on
television broadcasts and on op-ed pages across the country, we decided to
take a different tack.  Why has China galvanized the Congress and White
House over many years to consistently approve most favored nation trade
status, while politicians across the spectrum  -- including Presidents --
have railed against human rights abuses in China?

"To discuss that question, we invited a former speaker of the House, a
former Senator who had to vote over many years on the question and a former
ambassador to China who helped Nixon open relations in 1972.  Yes, all three
favor PNTR.  But we never intended to have a debate on the pending
legislation.  Perhaps we should have made clear at the outset of the
broadcast that this would not be a conventional pro/con program.

"Over the years, NIGHTLINE has done many programs on human rights abuses in
China and interviewed dissidents. Judge us over time, not simply on whether
an individual program is balanced.

"We appreciate all your comments and take them in the spirit you wrote
them."

*****

The most obvious question raised by Harris' note is why Nightline declined
to cover what was arguably the year's most hotly contested congressional
vote until after the outcome "was really not in doubt." Does Nightline
really believe that issues should not be debated because one side looks
likely to win?  That would make sense only if one assumes that the winning
side is always right.

Harris urges viewers to "judge us over time, not simply on whether an
individual program is balanced," but Nightline very seldom deals with trade
issues. The May 23 broadcast was the first discussion that focused on trade
with China (or anywhere else) since May 1997, according to a search of the
Nexis database.

Nightline seems to have had no debate on China's trading status since 1991
(5/29/91), when the question was whether to extend most-favored nation
status. In this context, it's difficult to see the remarkably partisan May
23 broadcast as part of a larger balance.

It's also unclear why Nightline's feeling that PNTR would pass should have
foreclosed any balanced discussion of the bill's implications. Why is it
appropriate to discuss the question of "why has China galvanized the
Congress and White House over many years to consistently approve most
favored nation trade status" without including anyone who disagrees with
that policy?  Surely opponents would have a different perspective on the
question.

Furthermore, if Nightline "never intended to have a debate on the pending
legislation," where were ABC News viewers supposed to go for such a debate?
The other ABC News program that occasionally presents such discussions,
"This Week with Sam and Cokie," addressed the issue by interviewing PNTR
proponents Madeline Albright (5/21/00) and Senator Tom Daschle (5/7/00).
(It's worth noting that Disney, ABC's parent company, is highly invested
in trade with China and lobbied strongly for PNTR.)

Nightline's response to the increasingly contentious debate over
globalization has been, by and large, to ignore it. Even when Seattle and
Washington, D.C. were largely shut down by anti-globalization protests,
Nightline passed up the opportunity to explore the concerns of those who
question the benefits of "free trade."  (See
http://www.fair.org/activism/wto-nightline.html .)  In a response to FAIR's
action alert on the WTO, Nightline executive producer Tom Bettag suggested
that further discussion of trade issues would be forthcoming: "As for the
serious issues underlying the protests, Nightline has done many broadcasts
exploring them. It will do many more."

In fact, Nightline has done no shows that addressed globalization issues
since the Seattle protests-- until the May 23 broadcast with three PNTR
proponents. The program did, however, find time for 15 shows on Elian
Gonzalez.


If you'd like to express your views on Nightline's coverage of trade issues,
you can write to:

CONTACT:
Tom Bettag, Executive Producer
ABC-Nightline
1717 DeSales St NW
Washington, DC 20036
202-222-7000
mailto:Niteline@abc.com

                               ----------


Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented example of media bias or censorship. All messages to the 'FAIR-L'
list will be forwarded to the editor of the list.

Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any responses,
to us at: fair@fair.org .

Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences where it is
appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message out, so please
let others know about FAIR and this mailing list.

© 2000 Peter Langston