COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00007 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source;
∂AIL KQED Television↓ 1011 Bryant St.↓San Francisco, CA∞

Gentlemen:

	This is to put in writing a telephoned protest against your
July 5 %2Newsroom%1 treatment of threats by the New World
Liberation Front to bomb PG&E.  I spoke with a Mr. Kranz - apparently
the right person since my protest is about a news assignment.

My complaints are the following:

	1. Terrorists like NWLF are dependent on publicity, and you
are increasing the likelihood that they will kill more people by
your interview.
Like all war and crime, terrorism is often a boring and frustrating
activity, and people drop out from it even if not caught.  By presenting
their activity just as they want it presented, you gave their morale
a lift and helped them gain new recruits from among those who express
enthusiasm.

	2. You interviewed the terrorist spokeswoman respectfully,
even obsequiously, asking just the questions she apparently wanted
to be asked.  You refrained from asking any embarassing questions
like, "Aren't you, 'the above-ground spokeswoman" guilty of conspiracy
to attempt murder or of attempted extortion?" You in no way
questioned the morality of their actions, or, if you did, it was lost
in the general impression.  This was particularly shocking the day
after the ordeal of the hijack victims in Uganda ended.  There seemed
to be no concept that aggressive questioning or adversary journalism
has any application to interviewing terrorists.

	3. On the other hand, your reporter aggressively questioned
the rather inept PG&E spokesman, insinuating that PG&E was
guilty for not either meeting the demands or halting
operations or something.  You pressed him on whether PG&E
was taking special precautions.  You should know that whether
they are and what they might be should be kept secret.
In this line of questioning, you advanced the terrorist position
that the victim organization, rather than the terrorists, are
morally responsible for deaths, maiming, and destruction of
property.
You might have criticized the PG&E man for letting viewers get the
impression that PG&E ought to have surrendered to extortion
if only it were legally possible.

	I don't watch KQED often any more, but if this is the
way you handle terrorism,  then you bear part of the responsibility
for its continued prevalence.

	I don't know if the concept of "free speech statement"
applies to educational television.  If it does, consider
this a request (or demand if that has relevant technical meaning) to
criticize it on the air.  I would propose to play the videotape
of the ⊗Newsroom presentation, assuming you have one, and criticize your
respectful treatment of terrorism.  You might decide to defend it,
but you might also decide that some part of the criticism is
warranted.

.sgn