Reed Irvine - Editor
In early 1985 conservative Senator Jesse Helms (R- N.C.) and a group called Fairness in Media (FIM) announced a campaign to urge Americans to buy stock in the CBS television network for the purpose of exercising control over the network and ending its liberal bias. CBS's concern became alarm when it was revealed that broadcaster Ted Turner was thinking about joining forces with Senator Helms and the FIM campaign. It was reported that Turner had met with Senator Helms and key FIM members to discuss the joint effort.
Turner was perceived as a conservative, or at least someone sympathetic to the conservative cause. Turner had contributed to this impression by his patriotic speeches, including one in 1984 to the National Conservative Foundation (associated with the National Conservative Political Action Commit- tee) in which he said that the "greatest enemies" of the United States were "the three television net- works and the people who run them" because they were "constantly tearing down everything that has made this country great." Turner had also been critical of the networks' coverage of the Vietnam War, charging that it tended to be anti-American. He had complained there was too much sex and violence in the media.
It is now obvious that conservatives who backed or sympathized with Turner's attempted takeover of CBS were duped. Since the failure of his takeover attempt, Turner has made it clear that he is not a conservative, and had no intention of ending the network's liberal bias. In a recent interview, he indicated that his intention was to make CBS more liberal than it already is. Turner was asked by an interviewer for a United Nations radio program, "World Chronicle," about a television series he is now producing on the Soviet Union, a series he has described as being about the "good things" in that Communist state. "If you had been able to buy CBS," the interviewer asked, "would you (have changed) the programming to include this kind of thing?" Turner replied, "Absolutely. That was the main reason I wanted to buy CBS."
If Turner had succeeded in taking over CBS, he undoubtedly would have used the network to air the "Goodwill Games" that he sponsored with the Soviet Union in July 1986. As Americans were celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the Statue of Liberty, Turner was in Moscow opening this athletic competition by participating in a wreath laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The opening ceremonies featured Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev delivering a crude propaganda speech on the "peace initiatives" of the Soviet Union. The ceremonies also featured several thousand flag wavers who flashed scenes depicting everything from Communist hero Lenin to an American cruise missile with a big "X" over it. Although the games were supposed to generate "goodwill" among nations, Turner bowed to Soviet demands not to invite sports teams from South Africa, Israel and South Korea.
The ceremonies and the games themselves were broad- cast in this country by independent television stations, as well as Turner's WTBS, a so-called "superstation" that reaches 36 million homes by beaming its signal via satellite to cable systems. Even though he lost $25 million on the games, Turner has said that he is pre- pared to spend more than $70 million to produce them in 1990, when they are scheduled to take place in Seattle, Washington.
Turner's Pact with the Soviets
Whatever the reason or motivation, Turner is trans- forming his broadcasting empire into a mouthpiece for his pro-Soviet views. This includes not only WTBS, but Cable News Network (CNN), the 24 hour cable news service that reaches 35 million homes. Turner has signed a two-year agreement to ex- change news, sports and entertainment programming with Gosteleradio, the Soviet television and radio broadcasting organization. The Turner series on the "good things" about the Soviet Union is being produced jointly with this official Soviet entity. The agreement between Turner and the Soviets may even extend to news personnel. Turner has been quoted as saying that he would like to put a representative of Gosteleradio in the CNN news- room, so that the Soviet point of view could be presented immediately on world events. Turner has expressed the hope that a CNN representative would he allowed inside Gosteleradio.
CNN has already announced plans to tap Soviet television news feeds directly from a Soviet satellite, and incorporate the material in its own news reports. In exchange, the Soviets would be allowed to receive and use CNN for their own purposes. But the State Department has serious misgivings about the plan. In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, an agency also required to grant permission for the scheme, the State Department said that the go-ahead would be based on "a general assessment of our bi- lateral relations with the Soviet Union, including progress in obtaining reduction of Soviet jamming [of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty), and granting of appropriate reciprocal media access."
The State Department, of course, is expressing the legitimate fear that the agreement will be one-sided in favor of the Soviets. The Soviets are notorious in gaining access to our media, but keeping their media closed to us. The nature of Soviet "news" is also a subject of concern. Gosteleradio, like all other Soviet media, is owned by the state and its "news" is defined as that which serves the interests of the ruling Soviet Communist Party.
Turner is not content to air propaganda directly from the Soviet Union, or to jointly produce a documentary about the "good things" in that communist state. He has asked for Soviet input in producing other pro- grams. Georgi Arbatov, a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party, serves on the board of an organization Turner established called the Better World Society (BWS). Started with $500,000 in seed money from Turner, the BWS acts as a television production and distribution organization.
Arbatov is undoubtedly pleased with the BWS's "Arms Control Series," three programs on U.S.- Soviet relations, which aired on WTBS earlier this year.
The first program, "Women--For America, For the World," showed various women with liberal-left reputations expressing concern about the nuclear arms race. They included actress Joanne Woodward (the wife of actor Paul Newman), nuclear freeze backer Randall Forsberg, and Betty Bumpers (wife of Arkansas Senator Dale Bumpers) of a group called Peace Links. The program attacked "Star Wars," the media's name for the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative, without hinting that the Soviets are developing their own strategic defense. The program also attacked U.S. policy in El Salvador. As Forsberg was heard blasting U.S. military expenditures and defense contractors, film footage was shown of "U.S.-based Salvadoran government forces" roughing up a group of civilians.
The second program, "A Step Away From War," was produced by the Center for Defense Information, an organization based in Washington with well-known leftist sympathies. The film is narrated by actor Paul Newman, a member of its board. It features Ted Turner and other arms control "experts" endorsing the Soviet proposal for a nuclear test ban. The Administration position--that a test ban is unverifiable and unwise--is alluded to and rebutted.
Both of these programs concluded with viewers being urged to call a toll-free number to receive a BWS "action guide" on nuclear disarmament. The guide urges people to contact "organizations that can help you get involved in working to end the arms race." All of the organizations, needless to say, are positioned on the left side of the political spectrum.
The third program in the series is called, "The First Fifty Years: Reflections on U.S.-Soviet Relations." It has been described by Broadcasting magazine as "less controversial" than the other two programs. However, it is produced by Bill Jersey, who was also responsible for "Faces of War," a film attacking U.S. policy in Central America that was characterized by inaccuracies and distortions.
The BWS also distributes films concerned with the issues of population and environment. These films have aired on WTBS and CNN. The BWS is currently working with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to produce a 12-part television series on the world's environmental problems called "Only One Earth." The series is scheduled to air on CNN next Spring. The BBC, of course, was the co-producer of "The Africans," the public television series described as anti-Western and pro-Qaddafi. In Britain. the BBC has been receiving strong criticism from Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party for its alleged anti-American coverage of the U.S. bombing raid on Libya.
CNN, which advertises itself as the "world's most important network," has had a reputation for pro- viding both sides of controversial issues and treating the news in an "in-depth" manner. But Turner's use of CNN to air the BWS programs threatens that reputation. Some of CNN's news reporting has also become suspect. Questions are being raised about the reporting and influence of Stuart Loory, CNN's Moscow bureau chief from 1982 until a few months ago, when he was given the title of Senior Correspondent, with global responsibilities. Loory, who had served as Moscow correspondent of the N.Y. Herald Tribune in 1964-66, seems to have emerged from his tours of duty there with unusual views of the Soviet Union. In a February 3, 1986 letter to the Wall Street Journal, he attacked Irving Kristol for having labeled the Soviet Union "totalitarian" rather than "authoritarian." Loory defined totalitarianism as a philosophy which "denies not just the needs of the human spirit but the sanctity of human life." He said authoritarianism doesn't wantonly kill people.
Loory, who was writing from Moscow, conceded that Lenin and Stalin were totalitarian, but he argued that Nikita Khrushchev and those who followed him were not. Loory insisted that "today's Kremlin leaders are not wanton in the taking of human life." Incredibly, Loory ignored certain episodes in human history, including the ongoing Soviet campaign of genocide against the Afghan people. But even worse, he proceeded in his letter to accuse the governments of the United States, from Eisenhower to Reagan, of behaving similarly to the Soviet Union, saying these U.S. Administrations "have shown an ability to ignore needlessly the sanctity of human life when they thought it necessary."
Loory also objected to Kristol's claim that the Soviet regime is illegitimate. Loory insisted that even if a two-party or multi-party system developed in the Soviet Union, the Communists would win an election. He said, "Except for certain small pockets of resistance to the Communist regime, the people have been truly converted in the past 68 years. The people want a tremendous increase in living standards, more freedom and a better economy, but they think this system can provide them."
AIM chairman Reed Irvine responded to Loory in a letter that appeared in the Journal on February 13. Irvine said, "Mr. Loory is either an intelligent knave in the mode of Walter Duranty, who covered the Soviets in the pages of the New York Times in the 1920s and 1930s, or he is a gullible boob." As Moscow correspondent for the Times, Duranty helped the Soviets cover up the story of the artificial famine in 1932-33 that killed as many as 10 million Ukrainians. The Duranty comparison also occurred to Arnold Belchman, a scholar at the Hoover Institution, who said Loory's letter to the Journal constituted "one of the most shocking reports out of Moscow since the days of the infamous Walter Duranty." Beichman said Loory's comments about the Soviet Communists winning a truly free election showed contempt for the Soviet people and their suffering under communism.
During the opening of the Goodwill Games, Accuracy in Media received information about the arrest of a prominent Soviet dissident, Dr. Yuri Medvedkov, by the Soviet KGB. Sergei Batorrin, a spokes- man in New York for the Moscow Trust Group, the independent peace group in the Soviet Union, gave us the information in the hope that we could find out why CNN, and Loory in particular, were not reporting on the incident. He said the black-out was curious, in light of the fact that Loory had previously reported on Medvedkov's dissident activities. We contacted Bill Headline, the CNN bureau chief in Washington, who agreed that the arrest appeared to be a good news story. He said he would check it out. But nothing appeared.
Cliff Kincaid, AIM's director of Media Analysis, mentioned this cover-up in an article about Turner in the October 1986 Conservative Digest. Kincaid noted that Medvedkov "was arrested by the Communists on phony charges of disturbing the peace. The Communists didn't want him to make contact with any of the foreigners in Moscow for the games. Ted Turner issued no public protest, and Stuart Loory, the Moscow correspondent for Turner's Cable News Network, offered excuses as to why the arrest was not news- worthy."
Loory responded with a letter to the editor of Conservative Digest, Scott Stanley Jr., attempting to rebut Kineaid. The letter, along with Kincaid's response, will be published in an upcoming issue of the magazine. What is interesting about the ex- change is that Loory does not deny that he had information about the Medvedkov arrest. Yet he insists that it wasn't his responsibility to report the arrest because, during the duration of the games, he was working for the Turner Broadcasting Sys- tem, not CNN. Kineaid points out the obvious--that the Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) and CNN are interrelated (CNN is part of TBS) and that Loory could have done the story if he had wanted to. The story wasn't done, and Kincaid suspects it was because there was a deliberate effort not to offend the Soviets and disturb the "good will" that Turner was trying to generate toward the Kremlin.
Since his return to the United States after the Good- will Games, Loory has been narrating a 30-part series called "The Iron Curtain Rises," which has been airing on CNN's "international hour" (from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.E.S.T.). The reports by Loory, drawing upon his travels in Eastern Europe, are supposed to provide viewers with the truth about what's happening behind the Iron Curtain.
But Loory's reports on the situation in Communist Rumania were so flawed that David Funderburk, the U.S. Ambassador to Rumania from 1981-85, immediately called CNN and Loory to complain. His complaint resulted in an invitation to appear on CNN's international hour on November 6 to personally rebut Loory. Viewers saw Funderburk ex- pose and debunk the myths that Loory had tried to perpetuate about Rumania.
In one report on Rumania, which aired on October 29, Loory claimed that Rumanian president Nicolai Ceausescu "has cultivated the respect of his people and also their fear." However, the rest of this report was only devoted to how he has supposedly cultivated their respect. Loory said, "The respect comes, in large part, from the grandiose projects that he builds, giving the Rumanian people an outsized pride in their country .... The respect also comes from the fact that he stands up to the Kremlin leaders in Moscow. He criticizes them as much as the United States for the nuclear arms race. He does not allow Rumanian troops to take part in Warsaw Pact maneuvers. He does not allow Soviet troops to be stationed on Rumanian soil."
However, Funderburk, during his appearance on CNN, pleaded for Loory to "look beneath the surface." He said the Rumanian and Soviet governments have a policy of making it appear that Rumania is independent of the Soviet bloc, in order to get favored treatment by the West. "The reality," Funderburk said, "is that Rumania can't get out of the Warsaw Pact under present conditions and (it) cooperates very closely with the Soviets" in economic, intelligence and other matters. Funderburk noted that Soviet troops have, in fact, crossed Rumanian soil, that Rumania votes with the Soviet Union at the United Nations, and that evidence sup- plied by a Rumanian defector, Ion Mihai Pacepa, has implicated Rumania in a scheme to smuggle high-technology goods out of the West into the Soviet Union.
Loory refused to grant that the Ambassador had a point. Attempting to buttress his case that Rumania is independent, Loory said, "The reading that I have done, Mr. Ambassador, (is that) the Rumanians at one time did 73 percent of their trade with the Soviet Union. That was in the early 1960s. The latest figures available indicate that the trade is now down to 39 percent--the rest of the trade going with the Western world and the under-developed countries." Funderburk replied, "You left out the fact that over 50 per- cent of Rumania's trade is with.., the Warsaw pact countries and, of course, not with the Soviet Union itself." Moreover, he said the percentage of trade between the Soviet Union and Rumania had actually been increasing over the last several years.
Funderburk also accused Loory of whitewashing human rights abuses by the Ceausescu regime by claiming that Jews in Rumania are basically well- treated and allowed to emigrate. While acknowledging that Jews are better treated than other religious groups, Funderburk said that the Ceausescu regime carries out an anti-Semitic campaign in newspapers and magazines and that a major Jewish synagogue was demolished recently. As far as emigration is concerned, Funderburk told Loory, "What you didn't point out . . . is that every Jew who has been allowed to emigrate from Rumania has been paid for per capita by the Israeli government." In any case, Loory only focused on the Jews in Rumania, Funderburk added, and that's a community of 25,000 out of a population of 23 million. "What about the majority of orthodox Catholics (and) Protestants?" Funderburk asked. "They are persecuted severely."
Funderburk pointed out that the World Human Rights Guide, published by the prestigious Economist of Lon- don, had identified Rumania and the Soviet Union as among the five worst violators of human rights in the world today.
Ironically, on the very day that Loory's report on Ceausescu's alleged independence from the Soviets was being aired, Ted Turner was telling a luncheon sponsored by the Washington Metropolitan Cable Club that he hadn't heard "any criticism" of CNN, even from "the furthest members of the right." Turner also claimed that he had virtually no control over his news operations, even though the evidence cited in this report shows that his networks are being used to promote his pro-Soviet views. To make matters worse, when Cliff Kincaid of AIM tried to ask Turner about criticism of his operations, Turner loudly told Kincaid to "sit down" and initially refused to respond to his questions. Finally, when pressed on the cover-up of the Medvedkov arrest, Turner claimed he didn't know anything about it and, furthermore, refused to look into it. Asked about the Better World Society propaganda films, Turner flatly denied they were propaganda and said the producers had a right "to be heard." No one denies that right, but the question is, why is Ted Turner putting his broadcasting empire at their disposal?
Ted Turner has been a pioneer in cable television. He has provided needed competition for the broad- casting networks. The highest rated program on CNN, "Crossfire," continues to be an important outlet for debating conservative and liberal views on current events, and the CNN program, "Evans & Novak," featuring the conservative views of syndicated columnists Roland Evans and Robert Novak, is one of the only regular outlets for conservative journalists in broadcasting or cable. But the good that Turner has accomplished is now being endangered by his demonstrated desire to transform his networks into vehicles for pro-Soviet propaganda. We suggest that you write to Ted Turner and tell him how you feel about this. His address is Mr. Ted Turner, Turner Broadcasting System, 1050 Tech- wood Drive N.W., Atlanta, Georgia, 30318.
"Communism is fine with me. It's part of the fabric of life on this planet."
- Fortune, July 7, 1986
"... (We) have probably the worst Administration we've had in the history of this country."
"Aircraft carriers.., are so we can interfere in the affairs of Libya, Nicaragua and Grenada, and any- where else we want to go and throw' our military might around, because we're rich and we're strong and everybody else better be scared to death of us and bow the knee."
"We are raping the rest of the world economically to pay for this bloated military machine. We are a colonial power. We are exploiting the world economically." Speech to John Denver's Windstar Foundation. 1986
"When we bombed Tripoli (Libya) we killed innocent civilians so we were terrorists ourselves."
- Phil Donahue Show
"Down with nationalism. Up with internationalism."
- U.N. "World Chronicle" radio program, May 29, 1986
AIM REPORT is published twice monthly by Accuracy In Media, Inc., 1275 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, and is free to AIM members. Dues and contributions to AIM are tax deductible. The AIM Report is mailed 3rd class to those whose contribution is at least $15 a year and 1st class to those contributing $30 a year or more. Non-members subscriptions are $35 (1st class mail).
NOTES FROM THE EDITOR'S CUFF By Reed Irvine
IN THIS AIM REPORT WE DISCUSS THE TURNING OF TED TURNER, THE FOUNDER OF THE CABLE News Network (CNN), from a flag-waving patriot into a regurgitator of the pro-Soviet, anti-American line. The transformation appears to have been sudden. Less than two years ago, Turner was battling to take over CBS, lining up with Senator Helms. His standard speech for several years had included denunciations of the television networks for contributing to the weakening of America's defenses and our moral decay. I was among those who viewed Turner as an ally. I was bothered by the fact that in 1982, he had made a trip to Cuba, where he went hunting and fishing with Castro. He was reported to have been greatly impressed by Castro's having suspended the limit on the number of ducks he could shoot. There is a story that he told his associates after returning from Cuba that Castro was not a communist, that he just pretended to be one so he could collect a subsidy of $4 billion a year from the Soviets. Castro even agreed to do a promotional spot for CNN, which was then in its infancy.
I FELT THAT TED TURNER WAS NAIVE ABOUT COMMUNISM, AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT CASTRO and his Soviet paymasters reached the same conclusion. My guess is that they decided that Turner was a man whose cultivation might pay rich dividends. They also knew that Turner had an eye for the ladies, which would appeal to them as a possible opening. If the KGB and Castro's DGI did not make the most of the opportunity this seemed to present, I'd be very surprised. I have no idea what, if any, steps they took to win Turner over. Maybe his transformation in a year's time from a super-patriot to a mouther of what looks very much like the Soviet line was purely spontaneous. On the other hand, maybe it was no accident. This would bear careful investigation. Cliff Kincaid, AIM's director of media analysis, has tried unsuccessfully to get an interview with Turner to see if he could find out what happened.
TURNER, WHO HAS GIVEN A LONG INTERVIEW TO PLAYBOY MAGAZINE, HAS DECLINED TO BE interviewed by Cliff. He even tried to keep Cliff from asking a question from the floor at a recent luncheon in Washington where Turner spoke and took questions from the audience. After reminding Turner that the proceedings were being televised by C-SPAN, Cliff managed to ask two questions, and he handed him several others in writing. I'll be very surprised if Turner responds, but AIM plans to buy some stock of the Turner Broadcasting Co., and we will have a representative at his annual shareholders meeting. If you would be interested in joining us, I suggest that you buy a few shares. The stock is listed on the American Stock Exchange and currently is in the $15 range. One share will entitle you to attend the annual meetings and put questions to Mr. Turner yourself.
WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING RESOLUTIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE proxy materials that will be sent to the shareholders of CBS, General Electric and Capital Cities/ABC. (General Electric now owns NBC). The resolutions submitted to CBS and GE call for the appointment of an ombudsman to handle viewer complaints. We point out that the officials who are assigned to deal with our complaints routinely try to justify or excuse any errors that we point out. What is needed is someone who will carry out a serious investigation to see if the complaints are justified and will insist that the company rules that call for prompt correction of errors be honored. We believe that these resolutions will have to be included in the proxy material. If you own stock in these companies, please be on the lookout for them and give them your careful consideration.
WE ARE PLEASED TO REPORT THAT 158 PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS HAVE NOW AGREED TO air "Television's Vietnam: The Impact of Media." Here is the latest information on upcoming broadcast dates: HONOLULU, HAWAII - Chs. 10 & 11, 12/20 at 9 p.m.; SCRANTON, PA.- Ch. 44, 12/12 at 9 p.m.; UNIVERSITY PARK, PA.- Ch. 3, 12/28 at 11 p.m.; DALLAS, TEXAS - Ch. 13, 12/15 at 8 p.m.; ROANOKE, VA.- Chs.15/47/52, 12/30 at 10 p.m.; WISCONSIN, Chs. 28/38/31/20/36, 1/3/87 at 10:30 p.m. Two additional stations aired the program in October - EL PASO, TEXAS- Ch. 13, 10/26 at 10 p.m.; PLATTSBURGH, N.Y., Ch. 57, 10/16 at 10 p.m.
ONE OF OUR AIM MEMBERS SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE FILM AIRED FOUR TIMES THIS MONTH on San Antonio's Cable TV Channel 9. This is an excellent method of getting the program on the air, especially in areas where the PBS affiliate has not yet scheduled the film. If you can arrange to get the AIM film on your local or statewide cable system, please notify Debby Lambert at the AIM office. We will provide you the tape and generate some publicity for the broadcasts. Many cable systems are grateful to receive high-quality material like "Television's Vietnam."
WE SEEM TO HAVE UNNERVED PBS PRESIDENT BRUCE L. CHRISTENSEN AND HIS ASSOCIATES who run PBS. Our phenomenal success in getting public television stations to air "Television's Vietnam" after PBS rejected it has to be upsetting to them. It's a repudiation of the programming judgment of PBS by the member stations, and that ought to worry them. They are even more worried about the movement to investigate their programming policies and practices. We have been pressing for an investigation since they turned down our film for reasons that are highly suspect. Your letters to members of Congress have had an effect. Over fifty Congressmen have signed a letter supporting an investigation that would be carried out by scholars and funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). I would prefer an investigation by a Congressional committee, but the chances of getting that haven't been enhanced by the capture of control of the Senate by the Democrats. The proposed CPB study would merely look into the question of whether or not public television programs funded by federal money are objective and balanced, as the law requires. Even that seems to have PBS terrified. They fought hard to try to head it off, unsuccessfully so far.
AS PART OF THAT EFFORT, THEY ANNOUNCED ON OCTOBER 23 THAT THE PBS BOARD WOULD MAKE its own investigation of their programming policies and practices. Their press release said the purpose of the investigation would be to "affirm" that the system they have to assure that everything is done properly is working. Noting that it didn't say they were going to find out if it was working, it struck me that they were actually announcing in advance what they expected to find. Several reporters asked me for comments, and I said it looked like a whitewash, and that I didn't think much of self-investigations. I told a reporter for Broadcasting magazine that it was like the Nazi's making an investigation of Auschwitz, or, to put it less extremely, like John Dean investigating Watergate. That was printed, and Bruce Christensen sent me a letter of such exaggerated virulence that it was amusing. He claimed I had insulted every decent American. "Have you no decency? Have you no shame? Have you no sense of history?" he asked. I interpret this silly overreaction as a compliment. He evidently is furious with AIM, thinking we are responsible for his troubles with the investigation. I am having his letter framed and hung on my office wall next to the one from Ben Bradlee calling me "a miser- able, carping, retromingent vigilante."
IT HAS BEEN NECESSARY TO POSTPONE THE CONFERENCE WE ARE GOING TO HOLD TO DISCUSS public broadcasting. We have rescheduled it for January 22. Call or write for details. We will keep those who have already called or written informed.
YOU HAVE BEEN TERRIFIC IN RESPONDING TO MY LETTER IN THE LAST AIM REPORT ON UPGRADING your support for AIM. So many signed up as patrons ($100 or over) that we had to place a new order for the Valladares book. MANY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU WHO CAME THROUGH.