[Previous entry: "New virus: Sober.Y"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Come join!"]

11/23/2005 Archived Entry: ""PBS Film Controversy Continues""

My FOXNews /ifeminists column for this week, "PBS Film Controversy Continues," has been posted and circulated, and can be read in full by clicking on 'more' at the end of this paragraph. (An earlier column of mine on the same subject is here.)Once again, Cathy Young and I decided independently to address the same subject in our weekly columns; she's a columnist for and a bright light in the otherwise rather liberal print newspaper, Boston Globe. Once again, we emphasized different facts and aspects of the issue while arriving at the same conclusion. Indeed, my column quotes and links to Young's blog discussion of the emerging PBS scandal. Henceforth I will simply assume that whatever is on her blog -- which I recommend BTW -- probably reflects what may be in her columns soon! That vixen.

"PBS Film Controversy Continues"
by Wendy McElroy

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) documentary http://www.tatgelasseur.com/pages/bts.html "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories" portrayed Sadiya (Sadia) Alilire as a heroic mom, who was abused by her husband. Two http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174854,00.html controversial questions persist. Did producers ignore the extensive court records with which they were provided on Alilire's multiple abuse of her two daughters -- then aged 8 and 3? Is PBS demonstrating bias against fathers?

The http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/142005b.asp tension surrounding these questions is heightening.

On November 7th, Dr. Scott Loeliger http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-defamed-father.php (the accused father) wrote to Pat Mitchell, President and CEO of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) to "demand that you immediately cease and desist from rebroadcasting all programs and advertisements relating to 'Breaking the Silence." Loeliger's reason: "the numerous false and defamatory statements about me."

On November 11, PBS' Vice President of Communications Lea Sloan http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-pbs-response.pdf replied that the matter "is currently being reviewed by our legal department." PBS' Director of Corporate Communications Jan McNamara had confirmed earlier that the accuracy of "Breaking the Silence" was under an "official review"; PBS http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/pbs-pledges-111005.php stated, "We anticipate concluding our review in 30 days or less (as of November 8)."

Meanwhile newspaper columnist Glenn Sacks announced http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/ "Round Three" of a campaign to convince the publicly-funded PBS to air both sides of issues raised by "Breaking the Silence". According to Sacks, Round Two resulted in over 10,000 protest calls and emails from the "Sackson Hordes" to PBS. Round Three aims at the http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/goals/ Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees the funding of public television.

Sacks explained the campaign's goal, "We want PBS to provide fatherhood and shared parenting advocates a meaningful opportunity to present our side." So far PBS Houston has responded with an even-handed round-table discussion on its news analysis show, http://www.houstonpbs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=con_children_family_court The Connection.

The blogosphere is also buzzing. Liberal feminist Trish Wilson has posted http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2005/11/fathers_rights__1.html#more the contra-Loeliger accounts of both Alilire and her daughter Fatima, the child whom "Breaking the Silence" features. Both sides should be heard, and giving children a voice is particularly commendable.

But Wilson http://members.aol.com/asherah/breaking_the_silence.html contends that attacks on Alilire are based on "outdated court documents"; the charge is an odd one. If Alilire was, in fact, found liable for multiple counts of child abuse on August 19, 1998, then -- unless the court finding has been overturned -- it is neither outdated or up-to-date. The finding simply is, although additional information may provide some insight.

Perhaps in response to accusations, Sacks recently posted the formerly withheld smoking gun: http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-juvenile-court.pdf the judgment on Case No. 97-048856 of the Superior Court of California, County of Tulare, Juvenile Court.

(In linking to this document from http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2005/11/breaking-silence-sorting-out-facts.html her blog, Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young notes "If I'm not mistaken, the juvenile court judgment form?wasn't there yesterday." Young isn't mistaken. The posting war is accelerating.)

In that judgment, Fatima and her younger sister became dependents of the juvenile court under Section 300, subdivisions a, b, c & j of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The codes require a finding either of actual abuse (physical and emotional) and neglect, or of the risk of abuse and neglect. Alilire claims the court actually found that she "threw a shoe at Fatima" and "spanked her with a plastic coat hanger." She denies both charges.

There is an undeniable "he said/she said" aspect to the potential scandal that threatens the credibility of PBS. But the "he said/she said" scenario breaks down in the presence of documents that include far more than the Juvenile Court papers. It includes the rulings of two judges on separate occasions (http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-judge-phillips.php 1991 and http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-judge-king.php 2003); the http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-child-abuse.php report of a child abuse investigator for Tehama County; the http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-dv.pdf arrest of Alilire in 1989 for felony domestic violence against Loeliger; and, the http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-reidy.php custody evaluation conducted by a clinical psychologist for the Superior Court of Monterey County.

If Fatima's voice is to be heeded -- and I sincerely hope it is -- then her earlier accounts must also be taken seriously, especially since they were independently investigated and verified.

In the furor of accusations and counterclaims that may well occur, and soon, it is wise to state what I believe the controversy is not about.

It is not about whether Loeliger is a good father. I don't have information to make that judgment but I suspect both parties behaved badly toward Fatima at different points.

It is not about Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), upon which much attention has been focused. The Syndrome, by which custodial parents are said to systematically alienate children from non-custodial ones (overwhelmingly fathers), is heralded by shared custody advocates; it was targeted for debunking by "Breaking the Silence." I don't subscribe to PAS as a psychiatric category.

So what is the controversy about? Cathy Young got it right, "It looks to me like the PBS documentary has taken a very complicated and messy situation in which both parents are at fault (though the mother is the only one with a fairly clear record of physical violence), and transformed it into a melodrama about a villainous father and a wronged mother. And this melodrama is put into the service of a narrative that vilifies fathers, most explosively suggesting that the majority of fathers who seek custody of their children are abusers. And that's just wrong."

I believe the producers of "Breaking the Silence" made an egregious error in casting a physically abusive mother as a wronged heroine. "Breaking the Silence" may well contribute to misinformation on domestic violence and its impact upon children. And that is shameful.