September 14th, 2007

‘History Detective’ defaces history

 by Gary Larson  
| View comments | Print This Post Print This Post

hstrydtctvs.jpgPBS' History Detectives succumbed to revisionist history with Wes Cowan's recent comments on the 2004 election. But this story has an unusual twist.

Bomb-tossing liberal Bill Moyers holds forth with impunity on the Public Broadasting Service, but the subsidized TV network hit a new low in bad taste in a July episode of its popular series, History Detectives.

Entertaining, a smidgen on the shaggy-dog side, the PBS program showcases four academic “detectives” traipsing around the country tracking down arcane histories of assorted relics.  It’s a fun program, a fast hour of delicious cotton candy for us history buffs.

It leads us down paths of little discoveries — a shard of bone, a piece of flag, some old cannon ball. Then a “detective” tells us what parts they played in history, if at all. The joy of watching is in the journey.

At the end of each segment, for no discernable reason, a “detective” offers his or her brief uptake, presumably on the subject at hand. Beware. Sometimes it swerves hard left, straight into latte liberal la la land. Revisionism never had it so good.

“Detective” C. Wesley (Wes) Cowan used his brief commentary in a July episode to rip the war.  Spewing the usual defeatist jeers (“a mistake,” etc.), Cowan delivers lines in the style of CBS-TV’s Andy Rooney: Cheap shots, drive-by editorializing, strictly partisan; no mature analysis. Hubris reigns; anyone who disagrees can go jump in the lake. 

(Producers call such brief commentaries “interstitials.” This was a new term to me. It means “an intervening space between parts.”)

At the end of his piece, Wes Cowan (in real life, not a forensic historian, rather a Cincinnati-based “auctioneer and appraiser”) launches into his partisan jabs. In spirit he is Bill Moyers all over again, skewing facts to suit a partisan purpose. Can bona fide historians appreciate such tawdry remaking of the past?  Reshaping history to fit a bias?

Cowan offers that if only his hero, Sen. John F. Kerry, had won the election, oh, what a wonderful world it would be. Fair enough.   Give him that. But what stopped us was his smug, fallacious take-down of the Swift Boat Vets and POWS for Truth — except Cowan did not mention the POWs.

If you did not catch Cowan’s sour-faced invective in Episode #503, you never will. His commentary has been snuffed out by his producers, something of a reverse Orwellian memory hole.

In the original, Cowan said the Swift Boats Vets “smeared Sen. Kerry‘s military record.” In this he emulates leftist ideologues, such as Moyers and other livid anti-war freaks of our times, invoking falsehoods to underscore their arguments.  ("Garbage in?")

Never had I written to a network, considering it futile.  But I did send an email to PBS, more or less to vent on Cowan’s far-out remarks.  Love your “Miss Marple,” I wrote, but Cowan is way over the top, dead wrong on the facts. Thus we’d not be renewing our membership, I wrote, petty as that might be (but not an idle threat), with the local PBS affiliate, which I copied on my blistering email.

For kicks I attached a hyperlink my article here in December ’04, titled “Swifties Sink USS John F. Kerry." It was one of those reflexive “take that!” jabs, a vain attempt to set the record straight.  Okay, I knew it was an arrow shot up into nowhere but, you know?, it makes one feels better.

Turns out others had written.  Legions, maybe. Even PBS’s ombudsman weighed in negatively. Two months later an email from History Detectives pops into our Inbox. Thinking it’s SPAM slipping through an underachieving filter, I nearly discard it. But it's a real response, sort of a form-letter reply to my complaint.  Did they "get it?"    

Here's what a History Detectives producer wrote, word-for-word, capitalization and bold facing as found in the original email:

Dear Mr. Larson,

Thank you for your interest in and feedback on HISTORY DETECTIVES.

Prompted by a number of viewer responses as well as feedback by PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler on July 13, 2007, we have revised the interstitial following the GAR Photograph story in HISTORY DETECTIVES Episode 503. Specifically, we’ve modified the reference to the Swift Boat Veterans and John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.

REPLACEMENT LINE: "THE GROUP QUESTIONED KERRY’S MILITARY RECORD, AND ACCORDING TO SOME ACCOUNTS, HELPED CONTRIBUTE TO HIS DEFEAT IN 2004."

INITIAL BROADCAST: "FUNDED BY A WEALTHY REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN DONOR, THE GROUP SMEARED KERRY’S MILITARY RECORD, AND POSSIBLY COST HIM THE ELECTION."

This episode was refed to stations on Tuesday, July 31; it is the only version that will be aired from here forward.

Thank you for your feedback and understanding.

Best regards,

Oregon Public Broadcasting
Co-Producer of HISTORY DETECTIVES
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives

Not total redemption, but a brave step. Would that the New York Times, Washington Post, and other liberal spin merchants, do the same — “refeed” news they misreport, getting the facts straight at last, or as straight as can be, given the gatekeepers’ uncritical liberal mind-sets. Wouldn’t that be refreshing? Don’t hold your breath.

Culture: Media



Larson is a former association executive and business magazine editor. He is not the cartoonist of the same name. Larson is a regular columnist at Intellectual Conservative.
outing@earthlink.net

Read more articles by Gary Larson

  1. I used to watch PBS exclusively, and the News Hour religiously. No longer. I have for some time observed that "PBS" stands for "Pure B.S."

    Comment by sedonaman | September 14, 2007

  2. I'm one of the legions who jumped on it. I was stunned that we actually had an effect - and tht they wrote us back. Here is what I wrote a the time: http://jimeo.blogspot.com/2007/07/this-is-email-i-just-sent-to-producers.html

    Comment by Jimeo722 | September 15, 2007

  3. I saw this episode when it first aired. I had only been watching the program a few times, but I noticed a decidedly left-leaning slant to the commentary at the end of each segment. I actually laughed out loud when the Swift Boat comment was made. It was so blatent and out of place. I now watch just to see how they are going to turn a story about a woman in Syracuse who owns an old sewing needle that she thinks was once used by Betsy Ross into a renunciation of George W. Bush and conservatives.

    I'm glad I've never given them any money. Well, voluntarily that is. I guess we all support them on some level with our tax dollars, like it or not.

    Comment by Titanole | September 15, 2007

  4. Good job. Wish I could say I had the same success when Daniel Schorr read a commentary on NPR about Haditha and Abu Ghraib. I wrote to wonder why he would single out those two anomalies, especially after subsequent investigation indicated they were not what was first charged. In fact, I wondered, why didn't Schorr — as a journalist — comment on such press lapses as photoshopped war photos, AP stringers passing off propaganda as news, or Beauchamp's fabulist pieces in the New Republic. Alas, I never heard if my letter was read or not, but I sort of doubt it. Schorr is their grand political guru, after all, and not one to admit bias. F

    Comment by F | September 15, 2007

  5. First time reader here. I came via Reynolds and enjoyed the link to your old Kerry article.

    Its really discouraging that you can't watch History programming nowadays without getting a dose lefty drivel. I've noticed more and more over the last few years that this is becoming the norm.

    It is also true with science programming and magazines. Scientific American has it really bad, running an anti-Bush editorial almost every issue. I finally canceled my subscription last year. My Discover magazine this month is a special "State of Science in America" report. Guess what the big problem is with science in America? Yep, George W. Bush.

    I watch history and science programming because I DON'T want to watch that drivel. If I wanted to watch that nonsense I'd tune to MSNBC. Likewise, if I want to read lefty screeds I'll subscribe to Mother Jones or The Nation. I subscribe to science magazines for science - not politics.

    These guys are missing their niche I think. I can't be the only one that wishes to enjoy into some non-political history and science programming and leave the political nonsense behind for a bit.

    Hopefully the market will correct this.

    Comment by DaveW | September 16, 2007

  6. The following bit of light treason was passed along in a puff piece in the latest Harvard Alumni magazine:

    “It makes sense to be moderate politically only if there are two sides willing to engage,” he says. “The right wing isn’t just taking over the country, it’s shanghaiing all our values. If there’s a Republican administration after the next election, I would join in efforts for some sort of secession. It’s not the same country anymore.”

    This comes from Howard Gardner, psychologist of multiple intelligence fame.

    http://www.harvardmagazine.com/2007/09/howard-gardner.html

    Comment by Mere Puffery | September 16, 2007

  7. From "Mere Puffery's" post:

    “The right wing isn’t just taking over the country, it’s shanghaiing all our values. …”

    Time once again to show the loony liberal (as Dr. Jackson so aptly calls them) for the demented one he is by listing the “values” he holds dear (in alphabetical order):

    Abortion
    Abolition of private property
    Abolition of tradition
    Adultery
    Affirmative Action
    "Alternative lifestyles"
    Anti-Americanism
    Anti-democracy
    Anti conservative speech
    Anti school-choice
    Anti-subsidiarity
    Appeasement of our enemies
    Assisted suicide
    Citizenship for known terrorists
    Death taxes
    Defiance of legitimate authority
    Distribution of condoms in K-12
    Diversity (except viewpoint)
    Euthanasia
    Female masturbation workshops in universities
    Fornication
    Glorification of debauchery
    Godless Marxism
    "Hate" crimes laws
    Hate for the Christian religion
    Hate for those of faith (except Islamics and Islamic bombers)
    Homosexual special rights
    Intolerance of the good
    Isolationism
    K-12 Indoctrination into Godless Marxism
    K-12 Indoctrination into homosexuality
    K-12 sex education
    Lack of moral clarity
    Moral equivalency
    Moral Relativism
    Multi-culturalism
    Nietzscheism
    Obliteration of God from the public square
    Parole of vicious criminals
    Pedophilia (except by Catholic priests and Republicans)
    Polylogism
    Pro-Europeanism
    Racial quotas
    Radical egalitarianism
    Redistribution of OTHER peoples’ money
    Revisionism
    Release of known terrorists
    Same-sex "marriage"
    Sodomy
    Speech codes
    The individual human will (will to power)
    Tolerance of evil
    Tolerance Über Alles
    UN one-world government
    Unlimited government
    Unlimited taxation
    "Victimless" crimes
    Voting rights for aliens (legal or otherwise)
    Voting rights for felons

    Of course, conservatives are “Nazis” for not wanting to finance the country’s descent into this darkness.
    One poster on another site wrote: "It is the liberals’ fascination with death and communism that is the prime mover of such dementia."

    Never saw it put any better.

    Comment by sedonaman | September 17, 2007

  8. Victims like you all wild bring about the unraveling of this great experiment, the United States of America.

    Pity.

    Comment by creepermclurker | September 19, 2007

  9. creepermclurker:

    According to your definition, just exactly what is "this great experiment, the United States of America"?

    Comment by sedonaman | September 19, 2007

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.