“Guideposts in a time of change” working group

“Guideposts in a time of change” working group • Notes from 3rd, 2nd and 1st call and background materials • December 6, 2010 Editorial Integrity for Public Mediaa joint project of the Affinity Group Coalition and Station Resource Group

Contents

Revised Working group process and timeline Current activity • Attending: • Pat Aufderheide • Malcolm Brett • Jackie Jones • Marita Rivero • Wick Rowland • Jerry Wareham • Quentin Hope • Skip Hinton • Ted Krichels • Attending: • Pat Aufderheide • Malcolm Brett • Marita Rivero • Wick Rowland • Jerry Wareham • Quentin Hope • Skip Hinton • Tom Thomas • Byron Knight • Attending: • Pat Aufderheide • Dave Edwards • Jackie Jones • Marita Rivero • Wick Rowland • Jerry Wareham • Skip Hinton • Quentin Hope • Ted Krichels

Summary discussion points on 1st draft of principles(detailed notes follow) • Preface • These principles define the essential value of Public Media to U.S. society, the unique role they play within the global media environment, and the ways they ensure the editorial integrity of their work. • They are intended to provide the case for public and private support of Public Media, challenge Public Media organizations to earn that support, and safeguard the ability of Public Media to serve the public independently. • To these ends, the following four principles address the objectives of Public Media, the range of means by which it seeks to further these objectives, its working methods and practices, and the needed working relationships among it’s varied constituencies. • Objective • 1. The objective of Public Media is to support a strong public culture. • Public Media is dedicated to developing and supporting a strong public culture within the United States characterized by: • An informed and engaged public that enables a strong and effective democracy • Civil discourse and interaction among varying interests and perspectives leading to greater shared knowledge and understanding of differences, constructive problem-solving and sustained community building • Public access to the offerings of the arts, humanities and sciences, resources and opportunities for life-long education, and media for the expression of a diversity of voices, experiences and views. • Strong local communities that offer individual opportunity and a high quality of life. • In support of this objective, Public Media exist as a public service to ensure sustained media capabilities and capacity are available in local communities across the United State and their services are available to all residents of all ages at free or very affordable cost. • As a public service Public Media provides the necessary complement to available individual and commercial media focused on more private and profit-making objectives. 1. “Public Media” usage: address the singular/plural usage issues 2. “Public culture”: address definition of, hazards of using, alternatives for and/or viability of using a single term 3. Role in education and arts & culture: far greater prominence needed 4. Media capabilities and capacity: clarify as part of sustainability, not an objective per se

Summary discussion points on 1st draft of principles (continued)(detailed notes follow) • Means • 2. Public Media works to build a public culture through a variety of means, media and platforms suited to local communities. • Public Media pursue its objective through a range of means based on community interests, needs and opportunities. These include: • Producing original content • Acquiring, aggregating and curating content from diverse sources • Collaborating with others in the community on co-creating content • Convening community groups and forums for exchange, dialogue and interaction • Using a variety of forums, technologies and platforms to distribute content, convene groups and develop community • Developing organized and coordinated capacity and capability within the community to create and contribute to multiple forms of media, including providing facilities, technology and skills development. • Through these means Public Media works to provide the information, places, processes and tools that enable citizens to create and participate in a strong public culture. 5. Public forums and public spaces: obligation or option? need to be addressed one way or another 6. Viewpoints by Public Media, including editorializing and advocacy:needs to be addressed one way or another at the principle level (here and/or in Practices section)

Summary discussion points on 1st draft of principles (continued)(detailed notes follow) • Practices • 3. Public Media ensure the integrity of their work through established professional practices, transparency and accountability. • To be effective in achieving their prime objective, Public Media rely on a public reputation as widely trusted, reliable and community-grounded content sources and service providers. They build this reputation through practices that ensure the integrity of their work processes and products, including: • Operating within a system of defined professional values and ethics, stated standards of fairness, honesty, accuracy and quality control, and independent decision making processes. • Broadly engaging the community, seeking out informed and experienced parties, and incorporating multiple perspectives • Providing full transparency as to sources used, funding received, individual and organizational perspective held, and other factors of potential concern to users is assessing trustworthiness • Providing additional context, background and sources for those seeking more in-depth views • Being publicly accountable for the integrity of their content, processes and relationships or clearly stating the limits of such accountability when the content and action of other parties are involved. • Operating within the letter and spirit of applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and restrictions • Assuring that public and private funds are properly and effectively spent through sound fiscal and management policies and procedures. 7. Accountability: define meaning and means 8. “Independent”: reorient to integrity given emphasis on collaboration 9. FCC license holders: callout particular obligations and accountabilities (here and/or elsewhere)

11/30 call notes on 1st draft Summary discussion points on 1st draft of principles (continued)(detailed notes follow) • Constituency relationships • 4. Public Media rely on relationships of mutual respect, transparency and accountability with their various constituents. • Public Media works within a network of important constituents and relies on mutually productive relationships with these groups to be effective. While the nature of the working relationships vary by constituent, common themes of respect, transparency and accountability run throughout. • Users: • Share own perspectives and knowledge • Contribute informed content • Provide feedback, questions and criticism • Hold Public Media accountable to these principles • Content partners and providers: • Share-in Public Media’s objective of building a strong public culture • Respect and share Public Media’s work practices and standards • Be equally transparent and accountable • Other media organizations: • Respect Public Media’s operating principles • Be equally clear and transparent in defining own principles • Funders: • Share-in Public Media’s objective of building a strong public culture • Be transparent in interests and intents in providing funding • Respect Public Media’s methods and practices of integrity • Governing boards • Support Public Media’s objective of building a strong public culture • Be transparent in interests and intentions in setting directions and establishing boundaries • Legislators and regulators: • Safeguard Public Media’s methods and practices of integrity • Be clear and transparent about interests and intentions in establishing requirements and restrictions affecting Public Media 10. Constituency relationships overall: either sharpen (what in particular for each) or generalize (common points for all) 11. Governing boards: add role for upholding the public’s interest

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles • 1. “Public media” usage • Pat: The singular/plural thing is something we’ve spent a ton of time wrestling with here (at the CSM) and we have a very pragmatic solution. When we’re talking to public broadcasters or about public broadcasters we make public media singular just because you are and think of yourselves as entities all under that Public Broadcasting umbrella and you don’t want to be labeled just broadcasters now. I don’t have a solid intellectual justification for that. It’s very, very pragmatic. I agree that media is plural grammatically and that we also see that there are many forms of those kinds of expression that we’re doing. But as jargon the singular seems to work. • Wick: I’ll come back to the defense of using the plural form since I was the guy who introduced it last time. I think it is dangerous both intellectually and politically to use the word media in any way in a singular form. I think it’s been used against news and reporting and good cultural practice in the media. There’s a very, very clear history of that over this last 20 or 30 years and I don’t think we should be party to falling into that trap. • We in the so-called Public Broadcasting licensee elements of the public media are becoming more multiplatform everyday in various aspects. We’re all learning and becoming more sensitive to the different characteristics of those media platforms and the content forms that they reflect. We ought to continue to understand that diversity and endorse the notion of a plural. • Tom: I agree on the plural and I think part of the awkwardness is just that people are unaccustomed to seeing the construction of “public media are”. One notion that occurred to me is to use the formal structure of “public media are this or whatever” in the lead bolded statements but then elsewhere through the flow to use just the first person plural and say, “We this” and “we that.” I think it’s much more comfortable on the ear and eye. • I’m willing to be a little awkward on our bold-faced statements for the purpose of making the points that you and others have suggested of “there’s a lot of us under this tent.” But then just use ‘we’ throughout the subsequent narrative flow. It reads much better if you do that and all awkwardness of noun-verb agreement that still remains in the document falls away.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 2. “Public culture” • Jerry: I love the idea of public culture and I understand it personally. It’s a great thing but I am concerned that the word “public” is not the right way to go. Maybe we can find a way to express it more fully and I think we should explore alternatives. The only one I came up with quickly was American Culture. It’s also often referred to as civil society or something along those lines. • Malcolm: I understand why we use the phrase ‘Public culture’ and I think it makes sense as we understand it. But for external audiences, I don’t think it’s a useful phrase for us. I think it can be a distraction in that people may fix on it and use it as leverage against what some may see as elitist culture and the insulated vision that Public Broadcasting has to the world, which is not really the conversation we want to be having. So, I do have a little bit of problem with that particular phrase. • Wick: I’m not quite understanding what the concern about it is. Maybe I’ve come out of an environment in which it’s been used quite expansively and honorably over time. So, I guess I feel we need to explore that particularly since there isn’t an alternative on the table that I think is as comprehensive as it is. • Malcolm: I agree. I do not have a good suggestion and there may not be a better alternative. I think that as our critics look at our work, one of the things they can look at us and say is that we are not arbiters of the public culture. To me that’s a distraction and a potentially divisive conversation that takes us away from what we’re trying to accomplish here. Others may not feel that way, and that’s fine. I just thought I’d raise it because I think that it will not be heard in all quarters the way we intend it and the way we hear it. • Wick: I understand that concern about being demonized. This of course forces us back to this American reluctance to recognize merit in creative activity and communications. We all have, particularly people around this table, very high standards for production -- cultural arts, public affairs, news. We know quality when we see it and we’ve all built or are building institutions that support that. Yet we find ourselves on the defensive about doing that. • Somehow it’s un-American to say that there are standards and classes of quality and that we stand for some higher level of those. I hope we don’t get pushed back on our heels too much on that one, because the alternative ultimately is that we become like that which we stand in opposition to. We are down market -- everything for everybody -- without necessarily any sense of standards or the very principles that we’re trying to articulate in this document. That is a very difficult position for us to be in I think. • Malcolm: I couldn’t agree with you more about what it is we ought to be doing. That’s a great articulation of much of what we do and ought to be doing. So, I may be looking for a distinction without a difference and I don’t mean that we should back away from our standards and our principles. I also think it’s very dangerous to say that we are the arbiters of the public culture and we take that mantel on ourselves. That opens up an opportunity for a conversation that’s really not helpful in the context of this particular discussion.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 2. “Public culture” (continued) • Wick: That part of it I would agree with you, Malcolm, absolutely. I think we don’t want to put ourselves in some high priesthood position or something that can be interpreted as that. And, if we have language in there that does that, either explicitly or implicitly, then we should pay attention to it. I think the reason we got into this last time was around that discussion of associating ourselves with those activities in the community both locally and nationally that otherwise aren’t going to be supported by the marketplace, precisely because of its tendency to chase audience size first and foremost. • Jerry: I agree with Malcolm. I agree very strongly. Wick, you said it when you talked about this reluctant and anti-intellectual strain in this nation -- or its perception anyway. In fact, there couldn’t be anything more American than what we’re talking about with public culture. It is at the very heart of our citizenship that goes right back to the founding of the nation. The active informed, the active engaged citizenry in every aspect. My concern is the language and, as Malcolm indicated, the fact that the language will be either not be understood at all or worse, used against us. • Pat: If you wanted to figure out what’s a substitute for public culture, which is something we have certainly spent a ton of time doing over at our job, then you can also look to “civic culture”, which is what the Knight Foundation likes. They hate the word public, they think it sounds like government. So, they like to use the word ‘civic.’ If you were turn to OSI, they like to use the word “open” – “open society”. You could say “democratic culture”. • I can’t imagine you would not want to stake a claim to asserting that you support a shared culture in which people can address the issues that they think are important together in a civil way -- which is what would distinguish you from a host of private information services and cultural services of all kinds. It’s the one thing that would make your media services unique. And it’s why I keep arguing that you want to frame all of your cultural and educational services within that notion of creating a vital public or civic culture. That is where your unique value added is going to be in the long run. • Marita: No one says civic society or democratic society anymore. Is that wrong? • Pat: Well, we are a democratic society, but I think what you’re talking about is trying to create, to add to, to nurture a whole fabric of culture -- a set of habits and expectations and a body of shared knowledge and shared standards within which people act so that they can actually function democratically. So they grow up with enough education to do that, so they have enough shared points of reference. So they have enough confidence in the integrity of the information sources that they’re drawing on. And so they actually have spaces they can turn to, whether they’re virtual or real, where they will be safe and trusting to encounter each other in. These all are things that public broadcasters now do successfully. You don’t seem very good at naming that, though, or owning it. • Since 1980 it’s been deeply unfashionable to use the term like the ‘public interest’. Public service and public interest are two terms that sound deeply 1970s. So, the real question here is how do you change the framework on the pictures (the George Laycoff problem) not have that umbrella be labeled communist or elitist.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 2. “Public culture” (continued) • Additional commentary on the difficulties of finding the right language … • Wick: I think the difficulty is because we as a institution ourselves have not in-depth queried these concepts very much and embraced and developed them in any kind of sophisticated way. There’s been a lot of discussion about it in the Academy but that does not translate very well into applied public policy. • Pat: I’ve got to say, the Academy is also very good at bleating and hand-ringing. And, it’s a very elitist discussion in the Academy about why people can’t realize that they should be better. I’m definitely not making the case that the Academy’s been doing work that public broadcasters haven’t. • And I’m not arguing that you should try to adopt words that may be inflammatory to good people who want everybody to stand on their own two feet. And, I have to say that one of the chastening things about watching Obama’s first two years is seeing that some of the most obvious points that Obama has made about people needing to work together seem to have completely gone by people. • Wick: What I’m getting at Pat, is that without a framework of more popular discussion from Habermas to Dewey all the way to the contemporary iterations of all of that, it’s very difficult to have a conversation about this and we do live in somewhat different silos on these issues and it’s just ironic that Public Broadcasting, which is driven by so much of those principles and values, doesn’t have a very open discourse about it. • Pat: That is exactly where we’re at. We’re trying to figure out what terms will pass the smell test, so that we don’t get hammered by Fox -- and at the same time maintain true to a mission that is what we would not only like to do, but what is indubitably going to be the one reason why anybody should provide public funds for it. • Summary comments on seizing the ground … • Pat: Let me just say, because I’m not going to have to live with the consequences of any of this, that whatever you decide to do is fine. I’m just painfully aware of the reality that’s been articulated here. It’s the reality that we’ve been struggling with for the last six years. We can’t think of a way out of aggressively owning the concept somehow -- and being willing to stand up for it. • Wick: That’s what I was getting at last time. Perhaps, sometimes you just need a good offense and go after claiming the ground. And if there are invidious distinctions that have to be drawn with those who also claim parts of the ground, so be it. I think sometimes we’re getting far too shy, too reticence about taking on the monoliths that we are working in opposition to.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 3. Role in education, arts and culture • Jerry: Education needs to be really called out. It needs to be first among equals in terms of what we’re about and be much more prominent. Arts and culture also need to be much more prominent. By education, I mean formal and informal. And by arts and culture I mean high as well as popular. • Marita: That came up in our group before and we talked about it a bit and did decide to capture it as an example of the offerings (… for life-long education, blah-blah). We subordinated it bit deliberately. Part of it was that the strong focus on education is more public television than public radio because radio tends toward the lifelong learning or the informed citizenry side of education, rather than more formal children’s programming. We also imagined that we would use these for examples rather than targets because it allowed for flexibility. I don’t know if it sunk too far down or not, but that’s why it became a description of our support for a strong public culture. • I’m interested in the issues of diversity and acknowledging the new demographic framework in our country -- and the increased value we can have in developing a notion of what citizenship means. I’m trying to get to what we as licensees have to bring to that opportunity by being a strong player in mass media. Somewhere in there for me it does get down to creating a strong civic core and that’s where education, art, the culture, all those things, become a part of what contributes to that. That’s the lens I was looking at this through. • Jerry: I went back and reread the parts of that first discussion about defining education and arts and culture as subsets of the public culture. But again, as I read the draft I felt that those things were not coming out as clearly as I think they need to. • Wick: I want to be certain that Jerry’s concern about education is not forgotten. I think it’s the counterpoint to the public culture, the other side of the coin of the public culture discussion that we were having. It is an important concept to be highlighted, although it varies considerably across the face of the institution. • It’s important politically in the public television system that we do so because so many of our licensees are rooted in the formal instrumentalities of education. It isn’t just a continuing lifelong learning notion, so we have to be aware of that. • And, I think we all understand its political appeal inside the beltway. It will be an important safety bar for us to be adhering to. So, bringing it up a little bit more and maybe elaborating where we could would be useful. We can do that without necessarily discomforting those elements within public media for whom that more pedagogic form of education is not necessarily quite as important.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 3. Role in Education, arts and culture • Additional discussion on the relationship between education and cultural programming and “public culture”… • Quentin: It seems that we’ve had two conversations going here, one about public culture in the sense of the civic culture -- the dialogue, the robust public involvement -- which by definition is collective. We’ve also had a discussion about what public media does for individuals that is more content-focused, whether it’s educational programming or what is offered in terms of arts, humanities and human knowledge programming. We’re trying to cover both and its raises the question of whether public culture or some other phrase can cover both or whether we need to explicitly and separately talk about the fact that we’re serving both the collective interest, whether called the public interest or public culture interest, and individual interests. • Wick: It’s like many of these things. We straddle matters and have feet in both camps. I don’t know how we avoid addressing both of those dimensions because we are part of a collective public community enterprise. And much of what we said in the first quarter hour of this discussion was very good articulation of those purposes. Yet in many ways that does come down to the individual’s growth and development. So, what are we looking at? Are we looking at the forest? Or are we looking at the trees? • Jerry: It strikes me that whether they are services that people are accessing for any of the individual purposes you discussed or they’re contributing content and contributing to dialogue, it’s really the individual who’s being served and the result of the service is that the individuals can then interact with one another and strengthen society. So, I don’t think you can get away from either one of them. But, who are we serving? I think we’re serving the people. And, the people then come together and strengthen the society. • Pat: In general, I think that Public Broadcasting has done itself a disservice by segmenting functions, like kid’s programming, educational programming, and then the Brit-Coms, Antiques Roadshow and the other syndicated stuff. • The thing that unites the strongest programming for me is that you are contributing to people having a better, more well-informed conversation with each other about the things that are important in life, in their lives, and figuring out what constitutes a framework of reference and what kind of behaviors are appropriate. My argument about the kids was that there’s a lot of kid’s programming out there and a lot of it is designed purely to entertain kids, sometimes fantastically. But the shows that are on Public Television treat children like citizens of their world. The point of educational programming on Public Broadcasting is to help people to have agency in their world and to be the better, more useful participants in this democratic society. Over-archingly, there are goals here. • I actually don’t know how the Brit-coms function into that, but I don’t much care about those, because I think that all the commercial services are gobbling up that part of Pubic Broadcast service anyway. That’s not where you compete. • Malcolm: No, it’s not. It’s an ancillary thing and we can debate the Brit-coms or we can just look past them but, in fact, they do create some type of community that is context for some of our other work. I don’t mean to oversell that. But, there is something there. • Pat: And that’s a double-edged sword because I think that’s a community that’s very white, very old, very scared of any kind of controversy. I agree that it’s a community but I don’t know that that’s the one that’s going to carry you into the future.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 5. Public forums and public spaces • Tom: A question that has surfaced (in the other groups) is the notion of public media as public forum or public space. I’ve read through the draft a couple of times looking for how I would distill an answer from this document that would say, “So, is it the character and responsibility of public media to provide basically an open forum? Or is it the character of public media to provide a curated, edited, programmed service, that may be inclusive of many points of view and many publics, were ultimately the public media organization makes the final calls?” • Pat: We did not think that was either or. That’s where we were getting into a plurality of services. Right now, Public Broadcasters definitely do both of those things. They provide face-to-face public forums, they provide virtual comments sections, and some of them even provide wikis -- and then they also provide curated services. • Tom: The question that arises from time to time around the country is do they have the obligation to do all of those things? Or is it their choice? • Pat: Certainly the FCC license doesn’t require them to. But if they think it that is not going to be part of what people expect in the future, I just don’t see how that’s going be a winning strategy. • Tom: Exactly. That’s why I’m saying there needs to be something saying that we thought through this issue, as we did with accountability, and that there are some different dimensions of it from the formal to the informal, from the legal to the social. • We have to speak to what do we really mean when we take on the word public. There is an inherent tension, particularly between the responsibilities of licensed broadcasters who, at least in the use of their licensed spectrum, have a set of responsibilities at the end of the day for each and everything that is transmitted by them. The one and only exception to that in law is political messages from candidates for federal office. But, in every other respect, there’s an affirmative responsibility that broadcasters have to own or control that content. That is a natural tension with an expanding stance of the role of public media in providing an array of ways in which the public can collect and express itself, or themselves, in relatively unfiltered, unedited kinds of ways -- and that there’s a sense of valued service in providing such forums, convenings and so on. • We need to take head-on the notions of both what are the responsibilities and where’s the direction of service -- and which of those things are obligations and which need some more clarity. 4. Media capabilities and capacity Malcolm: In the “Objective” section we refer to Public media as existing “to ensure sustained media capabilities and capacity are available to communities”. I don’t think that’s “why we exist” but a component of our sustainability. We exist to assure that “the product or benefits of media capabilities and capacity” are available to communities – i.e. information, context, analysis, dialogue, etc.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 5. Public forums and public spaces (continued) • Wick: On something like the forum versus production bipolarity, it is both in the institution at large. The question is what is the responsibility of the individual licensee or entity. That reminds me of the old arguments about balance in programming. Is an individual program supposed to be perfectly reflective of all viewpoints around the issue or is the entity responsible for dealing with that over a period of time in a multiplicity of programs? Again, it comes down to the trees and the forest. Many forests are balanced or are in constant struggle among different species and types. If you look across the array of possibilities in public media, we can deal with these responsibilities and challenges in diverse ways. • Overall, the institution ought to reflect all of those sorts of elements. Whether or not it should be the same mixture and ratios in any one entity I think is probably doubtful. 6. Viewpoints by Public Media, including editorializing and advocacy Tom: Another unaddressed issue is the question of are public media entities civic, cultural or social actors with in effect views of their own -- or are they expected to be neutral platforms? It’s in things like the question of should non-commercial licensees or, more particularly, should CPB grantees be allowed to editorialize? The Supreme Court resolved that question on the side of ‘Yes, they should be.’ The fact that they receive federal support should not be any obstacle to them doing so -- it’s a matter of their own choice. Others would say, “Oh, this is so obvious”. They are actors in this by deciding if they will put this kind of music on and not that kind of music, do this performance and not that performance, and work with this school and not that school. These are all decisions. But there’s also a notion advanced by others that at the end of the day, it’s the “on the one hand and on the other hand”. If you put this school on you put that school on. It is the notion that the responsibility of the public media entity is to be fair and balanced, as they say, as opposed to having a point of view. (Extending the question to whether public media entities should be advocates) aligns with some of the issues that have surfaced in our funding and firewalls working group. There the question is, “are agendas necessarily a bad thing?”. What’s the appropriate posture of public media entities as they work with or are approached by either funders or editorial partners or just other working groups who do have a particular advocacy view? “We think child abuse is a bad thing. Don’t you? And we want to work with us to stamp that out.” That’s a pretty easy one. Most people tend to say ‘yes’ to it. But, as you move along a continuum, you get to things that some people consider are fairly worthy causes that others might not. So there are questions about accepting funding from entities who have such agendas for anything in a content area related to where those agendas may be. Similarly some are joining in editorial partnerships to create content with entities that may have such agendas.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 6. Viewpoints by Public Media, including editorializing and advocacy (continued) • Pat: This has been the question that we’ve been circling around. How do you get beyond objectivity? And, I think what we were saying is that we want standards for civil and productive public discourse around important issues. We provide the trusted space to make that happen, as well as creating the standards and providing you with information on which to be able to do that -- and giving you the cultural touch points to be able to do it. That’s not a claim of neutrality. That’s an active claim that you’re creating a space in which something specific can happen, which is public discourse. • Malcolm: Let’s use the child abuse case. I think there are certain universally or nearly universally held values that stations can legitimately stake out as having a position on, like “child abuse is bad.” When it comes to public policy related to child abuse, that’s a different conversation. We have to be able to make the distinction between values and public policy issues and if and how we ought to be position on one versus the other. • For example, everyone says “war is bad”. That doesn’t mean this war is bad. Do we take a position that we’re anti-war? It’s a different question than do we take a position that we’re anti-war in Afghanistan. One is a principle and one is a public policy issue. • Quentin: Would that be saying there is a values driven selection of issues to focus on -- war, child abuse, poverty, discrimination -- but the actual solutions would not be a point of advocacy or editorializing? • Wick: In some cases those values relate to your interpretation or definition of facts. One is pro environment, one is green, but there are elements of the society that simply do not believe global warming is a.) a phenomena, and b.) worth turning into a public policy issue. • Quentin: Just by broaching the topic your values and beliefs are driving the selection? • Tom: Precisely, this is what the BBC concluded when they did a fairly deep-dive exploring “is there a bias in our reporting?” Their conclusion was that once stories were selected for coverage the actual reporting and editorial treatment was very rigorous, very fair, highest standards, etc. But in the selection of stories to cover, in building the editorial agenda for the day, the week, or wherever, there was some sense of bias there. Certain kinds of stories tended to get reported more often and more prominently and others were more rarely assigned or developed. So, then, “Why is that?” they inquired, which is where I lost track of the thread. But, there is that central finding of a distinction between the high standard in execution once choices have been made about topics, subjects and issues versus “are we doing the best job that we can and should as a public service broadcaster in selecting?” • We ought to speak to what are our aspirations or our standards, our expectations of ourselves with regards to those kinds of things. I think Malcolm’s framing certainly of the distinction between public policy views and issues is a significant one. Then following from that, is how do we choose and select those issues to which we turn our attention?

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 6. Viewpoints by Public Media, including editorializing and advocacy (continued) • Jerry: We’ve made a stab at that through our listening project, in trying to actively engage the community to ascertain what those needs and issues are. While it’s imperfect as all things are imperfect, it does give us a listing of what the community says the important issues and values are for selection. I’m an advocate of bringing back old-fashioned ascertainment initiatives and making a commitment to engage the community in order to establish that agenda. • Marita: That’s the kind of lens I was talking about. I look at this through the changing American demographic diversity and is there a way of strengthening our intention to in fact reflect our community? Because that question about who picks the stories is not adequate moving forward. We cannot wind up with the same handful of stories and be editorially sound. So, that question right there, about really reflecting our community, I think has to be central to any discussion of editorial principle. Our intention here cannot be just routine, “we’re for diversity and plurality in the American system and blah-blah-blah”, because we’re at a critical juncture in which we in fact have to find ways to represent our full communities. 7. Accountability Pat: I was reading “accountability” thinking, “I wonder exactly what that means in this context?” And I realized I didn’t know. And I bet people here do. But I also realized if I were somebody who didn’t already agree with all of this and asked, “what exactly do you mean by that?”, I’m not sure I’d know the answer. Jerry: At the core of this there are certain formal aspects of the accountability that most of the people on this call are sensitive to as licensees. There’s the fact that a license itself is a non-commercial educational entity that has certain kinds of requirements. There are the terms of our CSGs from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which also require a kind of accountability. Deriving from both of those licensing and federal funding structures are things like governing boards who hold the licenses, who do share responsibilities for the public and therefore presumably hold managements to account. And then there are community advisory boards among many of our licensees, whether required or not, which also add another dimension to it. I suspect all of those formal aspects of it were in the back of the mind of this phrase and they’re certainly reasonable aspects for articulations of that question. (Another point on accountability) is that the largest source of support for Public Broadcasting is public subscription, donations. In that respect, like it or not, we’ve found ourselves in some form of market and so we are accountable to our viewers and listeners, to our audience. Pat: I don’t think that’s accountability. At the time they gave you the money they didn’t give it to you with an accountability requirement. They just gave it to you.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 7. Accountability (continued) • Jerry: The requirement is if we want the money next year, we better be doing a good job. • Pat: I just don’t think that’s accountability. I think that’s customer service. • Malcolm: I think one of the issues is that the accountability is a product of our commitment to articulating in advance not only our mission, but the ways in which we’re going to deliver on that mission. So, the accountability comes at the front end. It comes, in fact, before donations and before the federal investment and then circles back around -- people get to measure the degree to which we fulfill our stated intentions. • Pat: I’m not saying that’s not a wonderful thing. I’m just saying it’s different from accountability. • Jerry: Many of us put in a great deal of effort into documenting that accountability, documenting that service and reporting that to those funders. • Pat: I don’t want to make it sound like I’m disparaging that at all. I’m just saying that is the sign of a really strong relationship that you have. It’s a trust relationship and it’s really important but it’s different from accountability. Accountability is, “if I didn’t do exactly what I say then you have formal mechanisms by which you hold me accountable.” • Quentin: Pat, what you’re pressing on may go back more to the boards and the governance structures in the sense of classic accountability terms, where you begin by standing by your content and process relationships. But, it also means that you’ll accept challenges, you’ll respond effectively, and, if there is something wrong or weak or missing, you’ll admit that and you’ll take corrective action. And there being processes in place for doing all this. • Pat: I love that -- being publicly accountable through institutional processes such as boards and also through the transparency processes and the professional standards that we’ve already mentioned. That kind of accountability was to me folded into the professional values and ethics standards and transparency. • Jerry: Maybe there’s another word than accountability, but beyond the donor relationship we also operate in a marketplace of people simply using our service, whether they donate or not. We find ourselves daily making account to them for our programs and services and what we do. • Pat: I just don’t see why that’s different from any commercial media service. • Wick: It is both spiritually and morally more than a consumer relationship. We all have those email exchanges with people who hold our mission in front of us and say, “That program last night did not live up to that standard.” Or it did. In some classes they’re actually positive. That strikes right to the heart of us. It’s shared with our staffs; it’s shared with governing members. We think of that as part of the accountability process.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 7. Accountability (continued) • Jerry: It’s different than the commercial relationship because last time I looked NBC wasn’t asking for voluntarily contributions from millions of individual donors. It is a very different relationship. • Malcolm: Part of it has to do with the fact that we also hold ourselves accountable, which may not be as measurable but is part of the promise of public media. • Tom: Maybe a way that we could set this up is to parse out these distinctions that we’re making right here in this conversation in a hierarchical way. At the top of the accountability pyramid are very formal mechanisms of accountability that are legal and structural, that go to the governance of organizations, which are based in the communities we serve, that go to the fact that most of us in public media operate with licenses from a federal regulatory authority and most of us are funded through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That sets an array of standards as to what we do in association with that funding that we must certify every year. Those are all formal, legal, structural kinds of things. • Second, is an array of accountability relationships that we have with philanthropy, with state and local government, and others who provide very significant funding to what we do and where there is a pretty direct and often contractual relationship associated with that funding. • Then third, at the broadest level is an array of ways in which our organization promote a sense of accountability and responsiveness with those who use the service and many of whom donate to it. • The mechanisms are at different levels and have different aspects to them. We feel all of those dimensions of accountability but we also understand that there’s a very big difference between the top of the pyramid -- the directive from the board of trustees or board of regents or a letter that comes on FCC letterhead – and, at the other end, the angry supporter who says, ‘I’m canceling my subscription.’ But, we can say all of those things. None of it has to be taken away, but we can reflect that they are different. • Quentin: As you went through that, Tom, it makes me think that this is an even more important point because it is one of the more distinguishing characteristics of public media. Because of those layers and levels, that real system of accountability, public media is much stronger than most media. In other media, in many cases, accountability is ultimately to some private, individual or corporate interest and only indirectly to the public through the interests and concerns of advertisers and sponsors. Such media are responding to pressures, they do feel accountable that way, but it’s a different sort of accountability. • Wick: That’s a great point. We can actually turn this argument into a positive.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 8. “Independence” • Jerry: Because of the strong call for collaboration, I would much rather focus on editorial integrity, and the process that yields that integrity, as opposed as using words like independent judgment. It’s about integrity not independence -- though relative to my point about the FCC, licensees do have a special obligation to take exclusive responsibility for the content that is broadcast. 9. FCC license holders Jerry: We set out, and I certainly was among those who advocated, creating principals that could guide both broadcast and non-broadcast activity and could be adopted by public broadcasters and others in public media. Now that we look at this as a draft product, I am thinking that perhaps we may want to call out or acknowledge the unique responsibilities of those public media organizations who hold FCC licenses. That license brings with it particular obligations and responsibilities that those who are not FCC licensees do not have, at least in relationship with the operation of the stations. It’s also my understanding that it is the status as licensee from which we have derived or claimed some of our legal protections. So, that may be something that we want to incorporate here and acknowledge in some way. Marita: I too am always interested in calling out what we as FCC licensees particularly have to contribute. I don’t know if we caught that. I really like the idea that we try to think about that one more clearly. Pat: I’d love to know what that language is from the people who are concerned about the licensee requirements. I’m perfectly sensitive to the fact that that’s important, I just don’t know specifically what that is that we haven’t addressed. 11. Constituency relationships (overall) Pat: There used to be a real reason why the individual constituency relationships were broken out. But I was trying to think of what’s the most concise, efficient way to do this and I ran out of reasons why a lot of these wouldn’t really share the same language and not need to be broken out. Quentin: To that point, I had two reactions in preparing the draft. One was that it could be covered at a higher level in terms of the common themes and without the breakout. The other was that the problem is that the breakouts are not specific enough in terms of “in what areas” and “in what ways” are relationships of respect, transparency and accountability needed with each particular constituency. It’s in between right now. It’s not sharp enough to justify the breakout yet distinctions exist. The test would be whether it can be sharpened-up enough to justify the breakout. If we can’t do that, we can roll it up. Pat: I would love that. Then, you wouldn’t have to repeat the common shared things every time.

From 11/30 call discussion and advance emails Detailed discussion notes on 1st draft of principles (cont.) • 11. Governing board roles • Malcolm: In regard to Governing Boards, it may be helpful to state that one of governing boards’ responsibilities is to recognize and support the public’s interest in public media as a driving concept. This reaches back to the Wingspread values with a nod to fiduciary responsibility and “the public trust”.

Appendix

Notes from the 11/18 second call discussion Discussion areas for defining key points for the principles 3 Methods or Practices how integrity is ensured in realizing the intended outcomes of public media 1 2 Intended outcomes Means what public media seeks to achieve; its purpose for being how public media realizes its intended outcomes Constituents who is involved in realizing public medias outcomes and what working relationships are needed 4 Public Media’s distinctive value to society and role in the overall media environment 5 Added notes on usage of and alternatives to the term “public media” Note: The actual statement of the principles may or may not follow this structure. It is provided at this point only to help identify and explicate key points and concepts to include in the principles.

1. Intended Outcomes – discussion notes- what public media seeks to achieve; its purpose for being • “A vital public culture” as the umbrella outcome (objective) • Pat Aufderheide: I really love the stuff that is written here (though) there’s a lot of redundancy in the bullets. I think the big umbrella term is a vital public culture. • Part of (that culture) is people understanding themselves as people who have agency, who have a public presence, who have the right to participate in public decision making. Part of it is having expectations for how people should participate when they are trying to solve problems together and address important issues in their lives, which are like standards and practices. Part of it is having places, both physical and virtual, that are safe for them to be able to solve problems together. Part of it is having reliable information for them to do that. And part of that is having tools as expressions and expectations for those modes of expression so that they can contribute to that information.

11/18 call notes on initial framing 1. Intended Outcomes – discussion notes (continued)- what public media seeks to achieve; its purpose for being • “Public culture” as an essential alternative to the pure materialistic marketplace (a second pillar) • Wick Rowland: Over and above that, (“public culture”) also links us to other forms of public expression than those we think of as just simply the instrumentalities of television, radio, audio, visual content. It really ties into the question of the arts and cultural practices of all kinds. It really is code for something that sets itself up as an alternative to pure materialistic marketplace definitions of mass and popular culture. • We are linked, whether we deal with it consciously or not, with the agencies, the humanities, the arts, fine and performing, of all kinds. And there is a struggle in this society over the extent to which those institutions are valued and should be supported publicly or whether or not all of the forms of artistic expression should be simply reduced back to the marketplace and what people will pay for or what advertisers will pay for. So, it is fraught – I think happily, it should be – with those implications. • Pat Aufderheide: This is where this question of having a role as a member of the public is so important because the implicit contrast there is to your role as a consumer or as an individual. And the assumption, I think, that we’re all making is that public culture requires public support. • This kind of culture that’s basic to democratic practice doesn’t (just) happen. If the cultural fabric isn’t there within which people can act, then they don’t have the expectations that they can participate. • I see a lot of that problem in the Tea Party people who seem to believe that somebody was taking away their right to participate. I feel that what they’re saying is, “I see this as something that people used to do, but we haven’t been doing it lately.” And I think they’re wrong. I think it’s always a struggle to keep public culture alive. There was no golden age. • But you see the consequences in that kind of paranoid and embattled rhetoric when people don’t have the expectation that other people will listen to them, that their issues won’t be addressed. • Wick Rowland: I think we should be trying to establish a pillar based in public service orientation that is much bigger and stronger, that is more clearly defined as different from that huge pillar of the private enterprise and commercially supported system, knowing that there’s all kinds of leakage back and forth between the two, but looking to have something on our side of the equation that is much bigger and better supported than what we’ve ever had. • (The public value of the public pillar) is exactly the sorts of things that are on the right side of the ledger. Not just rhetorically, but in substance, you can point to how we do that. We just came off an election season in which we did 18 debates for federal offices, major statewide initiatives, and referendum. Nobody else in the private sector does that. It’s just one little example and licensee after licensee can give you all kinds of examples of how we can do that. We don’t do it as well as we’d like across the board because we don’t have the resources, but nonetheless, we know what to do, and when properly supported, we really make it happen. • So, I think it’s getting substance and giving real voice to those words, values and terms that we’re listing there on the right side.

11/18 call notes on initial framing 1. Intended Outcomes – discussion notes (continued)- what public media seeks to achieve; its purpose for being • Explicit reference to public media’s role in education and public service information • Jerry Wareham: I don’t disagree with anything that’s on the right-hand side but there may be an assumption that we, as a group, make about what is included under some of these titles that others may not make. It may need to be explicit. Words that appear on the side of the page from 1984 that don’t appear on the other side of the page (may need to be included), words like education and culture. • There is a role (in education) that we have played and it continues to be very important. Somehow, we need to come up with an outcome statement relating to education. Television in particular dedicates an enormous amount of its resource to educational programming for young children and to other educational programming, more “small-e” than “large-E” these days but with new technologies we can play a large-E role as well. • And then, there’s just plain old public service information that we provide and can provide, and maybe the only ones who will provide. • Pat Aufderheide: I think it would be very helpful if it were spelled out for people who say, “Well, you’re just going to throw out the kids and the educational part. You just talk about politics all the time.” And that’s why I like this term public culture because I think that public television’s children’s programming is actually distinctive in children’s programming in the sense that it treats children as citizens of their world. And it attempts to give them a framework for behaving well with others. • SpongeBob does that too but that is not really where SpongeBob lives. I would love to see these elements that do sell public broadcasting pretty easily to a public that doesn’t really like to think about politics (included) under that public culture umbrella. I think it will make it clear why and what kind of education public broadcasting is doing for kids -- and for adults with them. • Focusing on overall outcomes vs. headlining underlying elements • Marita Rivero: If we’re just focusing on the word education and culture, I go back and forth in my head about whether we miss something by not saying them or whether we’ve allowed ourselves to capture a larger set of content areas by leaving them off the second (left-hand) wording. I don’t know that I have an answer to that. I’m always afraid when we start getting too long. I’m wondering whether we could capture notions of culture and education without making them the lead line but use them more as examples of areas in which we have interest and obligations. • Pat Aufderheide: I love that, Marita, because that would also help people see this as beyond providing information and news to citizens. • Malcolm Brett: I think there’s an advantage in having some of this implicit because as you make things explicit you’re also creating a list of things that are off the list. • Wick Rowland: It will come down to how much we think some of those values that are implicit in what we’ve stated are, in fact, understood to be there. So, you can’t talk about an informed, strong, effective democracy without having a good educational system and process. So, we all know that, but if we don’t say it, are we missing something here that’s important? And it’s particularly important to many of our colleagues in various of our licensee structures across the system.

2. Means – discussion notes - how public media realizes its intended outcomes • Need to add “convening” • Malcolm Brett: I think this list is great but what’s missing this is the aggregation and curation of community organizations. You mentioned forums for exchange, dialog, and interaction, and that may include the notion of convening community, but that’s becoming more and more a programming strand for public radio and public television stations. • A concrete example of that would be a public broadcaster convening the local United Way, the local literacy center, and the local school district to jointly think about multiple ways to address K-12 education issues in that community. • Marita Rivero: I think even of our forum network, which has brought together large numbers of non-profits in Boston who now consider themselves a group because they’re recording and sending editorial content that we’re curating and assembling online. • Examples creating “organized capacity” • Wick Rowland: A very good example of that (organized) capacity to provide a forum and help facilitate the ability of other institutions to speak to and serve the community largely is the Minnesota Channel concept. There are examples all over the country. • Jerry Wareham: I’ll give you one that we’re working on now. In Ohio, we operate the Ohio Channel, which is all about citizenship, and history and culture of Ohio -- the Supreme Court, the legislature, those sorts of things -- in a 24/7 video feed that is a multicast channel but it is also streamed on the internet -- and there’s an internet portal or site to all kinds of resources. You can type in a bill number or a name of a legislator and call up the video of debate of that particular issue.

11/18 call notes on initial framing 2. Means – discussion notes (continued)- how public media realizes its intended outcomes • We’re working on a similar project now with the local consortium of higher education to develop a similar multiple media approach, an approach that would have a 24/7 video stream that could be on cable or via digital multicast and also streamed on the internet. It would include weekly television and radio programs that would be a portal through which we’d try to promote and engage anyone who is interested in continuing their education. It’s in response to the identified need in our region to increase the number of people who have bachelor’s degrees. And we have, in Northeastern Ohio, 600,000 who have some college, but no degree. • It’s a sort of a public service education “organized capacity” we convened with the consortium of higher education, the local colleges, and universities to try to get it organized. • Wick Rowland: Let me give a couple of other examples. One is our college in St. Louis which recently did a project on the whole mortgage crisis. The last bullet point talks about media, but that project went well beyond media to direct people to social services to help them on issues related to bankruptcy and foreclosure, to connect them to resources directly whether in person, by telephone or through print. • Recently in Wisconsin, we did a series on Vietnam veterans’ experiences. We had an event in which we brought veterans together in the community and provided a context for different kind of engagement of these veterans in their local community over three days. Much of this is subsidiary to the media component, but it’s much, much richer than the media component. And when you do these things, it fundamentally changes the nature of the decision making about what content is included in the broadcast and the online media because of the engagement piece. • Pat Aufderheide: I’m loving these examples. I’m inspired by them. So, I think this is exactly the kind of thing that people could aspire to be doing, given the framework that we’re providing. • Providing capacity even at the “utility” level and beyond the “programmatic” • Wick Rowland: There are some examples at an even more fundamental level of pipeline delivery. Tom Axtellspoke about some of the projects that Vegas PBS is engaged with in Nevada where they’ve got seven or eight counties that don’t have broadband capacity at all. • It’s hard for many of us in urban or eastern and upper Midwestern and west coast environments to understand this lack, but I’m embarrassed to say, we’re discovering much of it here, even in our little part of the Rocky Mountain west and the western slope of Colorado, where there are counties and populations that don’t have the fundamental wired or wireless capacities that the rest of us take for granted. It’s a real detriment to the schools and the non-profit institutions. • We’re finding several of our colleague institutions around the country working with both the public and private sector to overcome that. It’s a good example of organized capacity, right down at the ground level of the pipeline.

11/18 call notes on initial framing 2. Means – discussion notes (continued)- how public media realizes its intended outcomes • I think one of the interesting things about what Tom Axtell is doing is providing public service based on value of the utility that they bring the community as opposed to the value of programmatic content that they uniquely deliver. And so, the question about how we use our resources in ways that are more utility-like is an important conversation. In Las Vegas, they are using them for public service. So that umbrella is there, but the editorial questions are very, very different because they’re providing this utility to third parties. • New “audiences” through smaller scale engagement • Marita Rivero: Really engaging audiences that haven’t been so attached to us sometimes happens just because we’re doing much smaller projects. We have a live African American weekly discussion -- it’s whatever was in the news that day. And we tried what we are calling a viewing party. We’ve done this in bars. And we had one at GBH and over 100 people showed up. They watched the show and afterwards they just wouldn’t leave GBH. They wanted to keep talking. So, I think there are also some high-touch, small group opportunities that are emerging for us -- as well as the more “distant utility touch”, opportunities. And I think we’re filling in that full range.

3. Methods/Practices – discussion notes- how integrity is ensured in realizing the intended outcomes of public media • Dealing with the embedded concept of “objectivity” • Pat Aufderheide: I am in love with the transparency stuff and I think transparency is a vehicle to get to accountability. But I don’t know what we do about the question of articulating these ethical standards. I think that often, particularly in news, an expectation of “balance” or “objectivity” has been a rough stand-in for fairness, honesty, accuracy -- and I just don’t think that’s going to work in this environment.

11/18 call notes on initial framing 3. Methods/Practices – discussion notes (continued)- how integrity is ensured in realizing the intended outcomes of public media I would love to see (objectivity) gone because I think the goal here is to provide the most durable, reliable, and trusted platform -- not to ourselves claim that we are always going to act objectively. I’m not even sure if acting objectively should be a goal in many cases. Wick Rowland: This is going to be difficult -- probably one of the few places where we’re really going to go around and around. I certainly share Pat’s skepticism. We talked a bit about this last time. So much of the 20th century intellectual project has been to really attack that concept. It was kind of a late-19th, turn of the century model coming out of certain kinds of market and other forces that was convenient. And our whole journalistic enterprise bought into it. But every working journalist knows that it’s an impossible standard because of the subjective characteristics of one’s own personality, work and conditions. Yet, it is there. It’s a hoary concept just lying at the heart of the attacks on journalism -- “You’re not being objective.” One way to think about this is what do we want to arm our leaders with when they are in front of the house sub-committee on telecommunications justifying an increase in the CPB appropriation or defending NPR in a Juan Williams kind of situation, when they get asked the question, “Do you not believe in objectivity any longer?” What does Paula Kerger or Vivian Schiller say at that moment? What tools have we given them in this (document)? Pat Aufderheide: I think the problem is terrible because I think that Vivian Schiller absolutely believes that objectivity is her goal. And I haven’t made any headway with her at all. I had a discussion with her where I said, “I don’t even understand why you want to make that argument because you are implicitly making a much more important argument, which is that NPR every day selects out of the welter of meaningless and confusing information that comes at people, the stuff that they think is important for people to know for some reason. I wonder what that reason would be?” I don’t understand how journalists can say that objectivity is a value that has primacy when every single day, they stake their reputations on being discriminating understanders of what’s going on and selecting for you the stuff that you really should know. And they’re in no sense objective and shouldn’t be about staking that claim. Some things really are important to know. And we do have a set of values in this country that put some things above others. We don’t think that you should be completely objective about whether democracy is a good thing. Wick Rowland: The difficulty is that we just don’t have a good public discourse about the concept upon which to tag these words. Not only do we not have a good public discourse about it, but we’re conflicted about it and don’t have a common language to debate it, even within public broadcasting as Pat has ably demonstrated here. • Fairness and balance Marita Rivero: We used the language of “fairness and balance” a lot more when the Fairness Doctrine itself was in play – and that that is really how we approach our work, I think. Overall, we hope to give a fair and balanced view of opinions around issues of significant public focus. So, I’m wondering if that’s a direction we might go rather than the insuring objectivity.

11/18 call notes on initial framing 3. Methods/Practices – discussion notes (continued)- how integrity is ensured in realizing the intended outcomes of public media • Intentional exclusion of terms such as fairness and objectivity in 1984 Skip Hinton: I’ll add that if you do a word search the original statement, you won’t find fair, fairness, objective, or objectivity in it. That was intentional. Marita Rivero: And maybe we should just accept that and accede to its wisdom. • Trusted broker Pat Aufderheide: I love the idea that public broadcasting could serve a role that nobody else wants to serve in the media environment of being that trusted broker of information and of conversation about it so that there can be a safe place for genuine disagreement andalso good, safe attempts to solve the problems that people face -- whether it’s figuring out how to get remedial statistics so that you can do the graduate course you want to do or it’s figuring out how to have a decent discussion about zoning regulations. • Claiming the “public interest” for public media Wick Rowland: One of the approaches that we might take (to the objectivity question) goes back to something I was alluding to a while ago, but is reflected here again on this right-side of page seven -- the language of the “public interest”. What I’m hearing in the last set of comments is the thought that we need to explicitly claim some of the values that are understood, at large, to be there in broadcasting and telecommunications content services of all kinds. The commercial world has been allowed to pretend that they are serving them, to use the language, but really, for our purposes (we should) state that we are going to be the legitimate vessels of trust for being sure that those values come to fruition so that this really is the institution that has the fiduciary responsibility and takes it. I recommend reading the recent Steven Culls Op-Ed piece in the Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102904336.html) because it really, in effect, between the lines says, “Let’s just finish the charade at work here. Just completely finish deregulating the private enterprise. Don’t require them to serve the public interest because they don’t do it and it just confuses (things). But make that the burden of public broadcasting and then fund it adequately to do it.” That, cut to the chase, is his argument. That would be a huge public policy advance were there to be any real support for it. There are all kinds of problems associated with making it happen, but it really would change the game if that were the way we were arguing before Congress. Pat Aufderheide: It would be great. But one of the problems is that this group knows that working against that argument is the fact that many stations, particularly many television stations, are actually not performing the kind of role that you guys are doing such a great job of doing. And so, you’re basically arguing for support to hypothetically do something that there’s no evidence, that most of us want, many of us, I’m sorry, some of us don’t want to do.

11/18 call notes on initial framing 3. Methods/Practices – discussion notes (continued)- how integrity is ensured in realizing the intended outcomes of public media Wick Rowland: I understand, and there’s quiet agreement that we have to make sure our own house is in order in that regard. But at the macro level, the problem is that because every commercial television and radio station gets renewed by the FCC (when have they last denied anyone?), that means they must, ipso facto, be serving the public interest. And then, we all have an argument about that, but we don’t make it very explicit at the national level. So, what I’m looking at is the opportunity to use this project as a way of claiming, reclaiming for us, some of those core values that presumably the American people and Congress want. • A combination of transparency and standards required Quentin Hope: Out of all of this the one thing which does seem to be clear and addressable are the points around transparency. Jerry Wareham: It is, but to tag on to Pat’s comments, that’s something that public broadcasters and journalists will have to want to do. One of the things we’re fighting is the priesthood. Not just ours, but the whole industry’s answer to credibility and integrity has been, “Well, it’s because we’re totally independent, and we anoint people to be journalists, and they’re objective,” and that’s just what doesn’t cut it anymore. And so, what transparency means and how far we’re willing to go with that is a very important question. Quentin Hope: It’s really a combination of the two: you can’t just have full transparency and achieve the end that you have in mind because it still requires professional standards. Wick Rowland: Exactly. We’re finally cutting to something that I hadn’t been able to articulate as I was reading the materials and thinking about the last call. I think you put your finger on it. There are still some values and standards behind whatever funding sources you accept and, presumably, there are some that we do not accept support from even if we were transparent about them. Or maybe, if we were transparent about it, we’d be embarrassed. And so, that suggests that there are some values that are guiding that. It isn’t just a neutral process. Quentin Hope: Right, and at the level of the individual producer or journalist, it’s also basic standards such as you do verify facts as opposed to, “I’m transparent about the fact that I have no facts” -- if you want to be truly useful. Otherwise there’s a slippery slope of transparency being used an excuse or a justification to do whatever you want.

4. Constituency Relationships – discussion notes - who is involved in realizing public media’s outcomes and what working relationships are needed • Distinctions among “regulators” • Pat Aufderheide: The word gatekeepers may be more helpful than “regulators” in the sense that some of the entities we’re talking about are not formal regulators, and regulators are often associated with governments. • Quentin Hope: That would be good. We ought to break out whether it’s regulators or gatekeepers – and I think that governing boards are another distinct group.

11/18 call notes on initial framing 4. Constituency Relationships – discussion notes (continued) - who is involved in realizing public media’s outcomes and what working relationships are needed • Through-lines of transparency, accountability and respect across all relationships • Pat Aufderheide: I think we’re going to want through-lines through all of these pages -- and accountability and transparency seem to be really important. Those seem to be guiding concepts for how you want to structure these relationships with all these entities. • The other word that keeps coming to mind is respect, that you want users to respect each other and the mission, and you want the same thing of all the other organizations, too. That you want respect for the project, you want people to engage in it with a level of not nearly benefitting from it, but understanding what it is and participating in it. • Application to underwriters • Pat Aufderheide: And this whole discussion might really help with some of the discussion about underwriting -- when corporate funders are just doing ambush marketing and when are they finding a sympathetic cord with something that is important for them, something they themselves are about. Like Starbucks. Starbucks actually has some idealistic goals for what a good corporation is. Nokia, the same thing. They both have a strong sense of playing a civic role as well as making money.

11/18 call notes on initial framing 5. Added notes on usage of and alternatives to the term“public media” • Proper usage and conceptualization of the term “public media” and “public” Wick Rowland: I have one item that’s going to seem like a quibble at some level, but I’d be interested in other people’s thoughts on it: the words public media. Media to me is a plural, not singular. Radio is different from television. They’re different from newspapers, are different from magazines, are different from film. I know that in the age of convergence and interaction we’re working in multiple platforms, but I still think each platform has different expressive characteristics, grammars, and syntax, and skills associated with it. I sure would like to have the word public media in our documents used in a plural rather than a singular form. Maybe I’m swimming up against the stream here. Pat Aufderheide: Conceptually I’m totally on Wick’s side. The question to me is just how much do you want to drive people crazy because the other thing I like to do is to make sure that people understand the public as something that there could be lots of, like children can be a public in their school for issues that affect them in their school. People are so used to the term “the public” as an undifferentiated mass out there that trying to think about the public as a kind of social role that people play at times is really, really hard for them. And this issue of what are public media or what are public media behaviors, God forbid, could somebody who is not in the public broadcasting silo be doing public media is another heart stopping question for a lot of people. • Doing public media; not just being public media Pat Aufderheide: It’s been very distressing and sad for me to see what happened to the 3 D’s -- diversity, dialog, and digital. It’s just been watered down to, “What a nice idea. Maybe we could do that sometime.” The big question to me, both for the broadcasters and for people in their communities, is “Did you do public media today?” Not, “Are we public media? Or, “Do you like our public media?” But who’s doing public media today? And I would love to see “do” substituted for “are”. • Public service media Jerry Wareham: I’ll just go all the way because Wick actually used this term just a few minutes ago -- it’s”public service media”. That is a term that I think we ought to use much more frequently. And from listening to it, it could be public’s service media. Pat Aufderheide: The reason that we avoided the term public service media in all the work we’ve done (at the center) is two-fold. Although I agree that it really reminds people of missions, public service media is like the old European term and there’s been such a turning against the very, very, very old-fashioned and stodgy public service media of most of Europe that I tend to associate it with kind of a lumbering old elitist elephant.

11/18 call notes on initial framing 5. Added notes on usage of and alternatives to the term“public media” The other thing I worry about with public service media is the word “service” because it implies we will serve you. And I think this will be participatory, if done right, in the way that MCME, for instance, is constantly encouraging people to do. This is a participatory exercise in which we don’t “serve” the public that watches us. We are active organizers and promoters of public behavior, of the best public behavior. Jerry Wareham: To your first point, I would only suggest that the word public has also been turned against even more so in this country. Wick Rowland: I understand the gray, old lady implications of public service media in some contexts, but I think we could refresh that in the American environment. It’s interesting how it just hasn’t been used -- deliberately. It was the Public Broadcasting Act and then public television, public radio, and now, public media. The service word, I think, was probably left out for many of the reasons that you said, but it also may be part of that confusion over the public interest issue as well, too. If it had been adopted, it might’ve brought more attention to the need for the pillar to be bigger.

Notes from the 11/02 first call discussion Summary of 1st Call Discussion Further note on summary from 11/18 call: Jerry Wareham:While I agree that we had talked about being more explicit and self-defined about values and things, (there is still) this notion that we’re trying to create a framework here that establishes some legal protection for our enterprise to behave in a way that allows us to exercise our integrity. I would hope that as we go along, you could be even more explicit about that because I think that’s a very important point. And if we can sort of drive from that perspective, I think we’ll have a better and more clear discussion rather than debating issues like our perception of public perception.

Edited based on 1st call discussions 1st Call discussion notes:Objectives and output criteria Jerry Wareham: Throughout this process, you’ll find me being very cautionary about re-anything. We’re in a new world, and I’m very cautious in this process about us trying to carry forward old ideas into the new world without really getting into them. • Draft a statement of recommended principles (guidelines) on editorial integrity for public media, which: • reaffirms affirmsand builds a strong sense of trust and belief by users in the integrity of the content of public media • is clear, readily understood, meaningful and relevant to all readers • is broadly enough conceived to prove durable and sufficiently concrete to provide real guidance in case application sufficiently enough articulated to provide the reasoning needed for guidance in case application • is mindful of existing principles and the history of application and testing of those principles (e.g. court rulings) • focuses on common ground and reflects a consensus view while noting divergent views ------ • takes a “station” (local public media organization) focus and perspective • is “adoption ready” for endorsement and use by public media governing bodies • can be useful in defining and managing relationships with production partners and funders. • Document issues considered and the key insights and perspectives of the working group members, including divergent views where they exist. • Provide helpful background and support materials to provoke active thinking and support effective communications of the principles. Pat Aufderheide: I’m concerned about the “sufficiently concrete” and how we want to interpret that. We want to provide people with reasoning tools. What we don’t want to do is to provide people with concrete and specific advice that is situational, because it’s rigid and every situation is different. What happens when people get the thumbnails, the guidelines, the rules is that they become rule-bound and it limits them, whereas if you can provide the reasoning, they can take that to a wide variety of situations and work with the reasoning. Pat Aufderheide: A document of principles should stand separately from any examples. Those examples of real-life discussion of how to apply reasoning would exist elsewhere, for instance, on a related website where they would not become encrusted and they would be able to adapt to circumstances.

Notes from 1st call discussion Calibration on incoming perspectives • Q1. Using the 1984 Statement of Principles of Editorial Integrity in Public Broadcasting* as a reference point, what degree of change is needed in the principles guiding public media’s editorial integrity? * See appendix Dave Edwards: There have been so many changes in the media environment that – while the core bedrock principles remain – we have to be sensitive to the fact that we are operating in a much different environment than we used to. I come back to the Wingspread principles as the core, and I think everything builds from there. I’m not ready to throw those away. Jackie Jones: I actually think the principles are sound. I think the problem is the application of the principles. In drafting new principles, how do we beef up the accountability part, which to me is where the problem comes in. For example, the statement that the mission of public broadcasting is to “bring to Americans the highest accomplishments of our society and civilization” and all this rich diversity and blah, blah, blah, I think that should be a guiding principle. But can we check everything on the schedule against that standard? No, we can't. I think that’s the problem. A lot of these things are pretty visionary in terms of how they’re stated and I think they’re sound. I think where we have a real disconnect is the kind of material that we’re actually talking about. So, my question about a lot of this is: Are we trying to come up with language that justifies what we have or are we trying to actually establish guidelines that lead us into the future? Jerry Wareham: It’s necessary to make major revisions because of the many changes in the media environment but more so because of the language of the existing principles. (see Q2 response.) Pat Aufderheide: I don't think there’s anything wrong with the former principles for a mass media era, but I don't think they work now. Wick Rowland:I tend to see it somewhere in the middle. There are some verities, some core principles that I hope we would agree on in the conduct of public discourse that we’re responsible for. Marita Rivero: There are some core things – trustee of public service, our credibility, our editorial integrity – that are what we are certainly building into what we do and that defines us. There are other things though that have to do with the mass media question that I’m expecting we probably will talk about a bit more and might explicate differently (e.g. our ability to aggregate smaller audiences into still a mass). I feel the principles that are guiding us as we move into those worlds (multi-platforms, multi-channel, curation, aggregation) should remain our traditional and very strong ones.

Notes from 1st call discussion Calibration on incoming perspectives (Q2) • Q2. What do you see as the essential considerations or factors that must be addressed in drafting principles to guide public media’s editorial integrity.

Notes from 1st call discussion Calibration on incoming perspectives (Q2 continued)

Notes from 1st call discussion Calibration on incoming perspectives (Q3) • Q3. Is there one set of “principles” for editorial integrity or multiple sets? If multiple, what are the differentiating factors, e.g., commercial vs. noncommercial? content type? platform or format? distribution channel? • One set of principles that stand amid the complexity of the new media environment and define public media’s distinct role in the that environment • Dave Edwards: I don't think there should be more than one set. But I think there are different flavors of the way that will probably look. For example, just dealing with what NPR is focused on in the last couple of weeks, I think that illustrates the fact that the way journalists are even approaching their jobs these days has changed dramatically. I teach a class for a private women’s college in the area, and their feedback to me about the way journalists should behave is very different from the way I would’ve described when I was in J school 100 million years ago. • Jackie Jones: There should be one unifying set of principles. • Jerry Wareham: It is possible to have one overarching set of principles for editorial integrity but I think, as others have suggested, in application there has to be differentiation to accommodate the fact that we no longer talk and people listen. • Wick Rowland: Ideally, of course, you would like a common set. It’s easier to work with. It’s something you can come back to and where you’ve got a common language or at least the image thereof. When you get into multiple sets that might reflect different funding structures, or in the case of public media institutions, different licensing or ownership structures, then you’re going to start spreading it out quite broadly and I don't know where that ends. • Marita Rivero: I agree with Wick’s response. Simple and strong is best. • Skip Hinton: If there is not a single concise statement of principles – and maybe we should lead with principles of integrity before we add editorial – we’re going be hard-pressed to claim to be a distinct profession.

Initial mapping for discussion and development 1 Overlapping and self-defined roles 2 Influence of other’s principles 3 Firewalls or transparency and accountability Note: certain constituents have multiple roles and appear multiple places and consequently have relationships that are not captured in this mapping Constituency mapping Public: exiting audiences FCC IRS Licensees Public: underserved audiences Users CPB “Regulators” State Governments Government officials Set legal or institutional requirements and boundaries • Use content • Form expectations for integrity • Define basis of trust Institutional licensees NPO organizations & officials Funders • Provide funding • May set funding conditions • May have funding expectations Editorial Principles of Public Media Organizations Private industry organizations & officials • Have own “principles” • Shape pubic perception and expectations for “principles” Individuals • Provide content • Partner on production • May have own “principles” Other media organi-zations Commercial Corporations/ businesses Other noncommercial Foundations Content partners and providers Advocacy Governmental units NPOs Other public media organizations Individual “producers” (e.g., bloggers, freelancers) Individual users (UGC)

Notes from 1st call discussion Constituency map notes

Notes from 1st call discussion Constituency map notes (continued)

Initial and illustrative listing for discussion, development and focus Factors and forces at play assessment • What factors have emerged or changed since the 1984 principles? • Which factors truly matter in defining or redefining editorial principles? • Distribution and access expansion: • globalization of distribution • multiplication of platforms • reversal of “scarcity” • Increase in “alternatives” • ease of digital replication and sharing • “Instantaneous” publishing and dissemination: • 24/7 news cycles • editorial process compression/reduction • social media dissemination • advocacy network activation • Diversifying and divergent basis for “trust”: • Defined and declared principles of objectivity, impartiality and fairness • Personal professional standards and practices • Transparency and full disclosure • Community editing (wiki) • Personal referral (Facebook “like”) • Social network alignment • Belief system alignment • Rise of individual and collective media: • personal news and views publication • personal “re-publishing” of others content • user contributed content • crowd sourcing • “Deregulation” of media accountabilities • abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine • rise of largely unregulated media channels • Shifting perceptions and looser distinctions of traditional concepts and boundaries: • “attempted fairness” vs. “all news is biased” • “public service” vs. “insider politics” • “view from nowhere” vs. “where I’m coming from” • “reporting & analysis” vs. “personal expression and interpretation” • “user generated” vs. “professionally produced” content • “noncommercial” vs. “non-profit” vs. “intrusion free” • “Democratization” of content creation and distribution: • lower production costs across media • cheap distribution via the WWW • easy digital coping, editing and repackaging • proliferation of easy, affordable content creation and “publishing” applications • Rise/return of partisan and opinion-driven media: • defined and unified perspective • use of news as a platform for commentary • assertion of objectivity and accuracy • “sports-style” presentation • Drive for greater user engagement to reestablish franchise and firm value: • share of users’ time and attention • brand reputation and loyalty enhancement • call-to-action reach and effectiveness • financial return (higher CPM, funder appeal) • “Socialization” of content creation and distribution: • Development of social networking sites and applications • Interlinking of social media sites and applications • Changing local media roles and players: • Shifts in community roles of public broadcasters • Decline of local commercial media content • Rise of “citizen journalists” and “community journalism” enterprises • Focus on hyper-local focus by national players • Changing perceptions and expectations of “quality”: • Importance of “voice & tone” as well as content • Editorial process standards and rigor • Disruption of established business models: • Loss/diminution of market franchises • Displacement of “inefficient” advertising buys • Access positioning and restriction: • search engines, positioning (SEO) and filtering • differentiated ISP service levels • Fee for access and use services • Shifts in public media’s funding mix: • Decline of government support as % of total • Emphasis on “philanthropic” giving

Notes from 1st call discussion Factors and forces at play notes • Amid the shift “mass media” the need remains for “organized capacity” for providing a narrative Pat Aufderheide: This is no longer a mass media environment, these are local organizations that play a connecting and a networking role and a brokering role with significant media for public culture. There are many more relationships all grounded in the same fundamental goal. Wick Rowland:It’s fashionable and easy just to say, “Well, mass media is dead, period, move on.” I think that’s a big mistake. I would be careful not to overstate that. Yes, much of the existing structures are breaking down or transforming and so on, but I think we are going to have our feet in both worlds for a much longer period of time. Jerry Wareham: I don't think as a civilization we are giving up on the notion that we expect some people to tell us stories, to provide narratives, and to do so at some length and depth. The more you ask for that, the more you’re implying the need for organized capacity to do that, particularly in a complex audio/visual interactive world. The image sometimes is that we’re moving completely to a totally flat system of anybody and everybody as both the originator and the editor and the stories we tell are going to be those that work well on a PDA for about 90 seconds. But to say that that’s all there will be and everything else is dead – I think that’s a little premature. Wick Rowland: There’s a strong critique in the way we use those terms – “mass communication” and “mass media.” It’s the old kind of Marxist worry about mass society and being manipulated by forces of capital and ownership and so on. You can think of it in ways other than that though. It’s the notion that a few people maybe needed to do things for a larger number of people. You need a group of renaissance artists to create a sort of level of painting and representation that is of interest to, and speaks to, the culture of the larger population of the 15th and 16th Centuries. Sure, we can do all the questions as to the power and the ownership and control mechanisms and the role of the church – and God knows we could go on and on and on in that – but I think you get the point that we do empower artists and writers and musicians who have merit to do some things that speak to the rest of us and are resonant and so on. There is a mass communication characteristic to that somewhat irrespective to the power and ownership and funding structures. What I’m trying to get at is that you’re going to have some kind of organized content creation that aspires to some high level of expression.

Notes from 1st call discussion Factors and forces at play notes (continued) • Public trust is better based on transparency, accountability and defined practices versus stated and accepted “objectivity” Marita Rivero: Our former position (in a mass media environment) was as the sole voice, sole arbiter, sole trustworthy purveyor of news. It’s an important factor to people. They just don't trust one organization to give them everything. I think people might be more cynical. Anybody’s analysis is open to a bit of question rather than unquestioned use of content. In that circumstance, we’re not going to be the sole provider. Pat Aufderheide: This is where I’m stressing transparency, which I think has become terrifically important to people, especially to people who believe that a claim to objectivity is just bogus and uninteresting. What they would like to know are things like, “Is that your real name? Where are you coming from? Why are you saying this? What’s your interest in this?” Actually, it’s a fabulous opportunity for public broadcasting as you can really use the language of the public interest in a way that has been impermissible for 20 years. (It was corny. It was like, “Oh, well, we don't do that. We’re providing a service, helping your children, but we’re not gonna go all Carter on you.”) Marita Rivero: That takes me back to the earlier thing (about the language of the principles) where I think you can use the language but if there isn’t the transparency and there isn’t real accountability at the end of the day, you just replicate the same model you have with the same language. Jackie Jones: I agree. Dave Edwards: It makes sense. Wick Rowland: Now you’re kind of delving into one of the great sort of arguments of the philosophy and epistemology of the 20th Century which is the notion of multiple realities and perceptions. The entire journalistic cannon, the objectivity balance and partiality and so on is built on a very old technological and economic model that we know by definition is changing dramatically underneath our feet and all around us. Yet at the same time, while we can parse that out and critique it, what do we mean by objectivity? There still is something at the core here about a practice of journalism and a practice of doing news and conducting public discourse – the hues to some sense of proper values, ethics, fairness, trying to deal with all sides of issues in a self-conscious way. That then implicates the whole question of hierarchies, of merit and control, editorial oversight, and so on, which is threatening to be swept away. So, you can understand it intellectually as sort of almost a moot issue at one level, and then on the other hand, we still do have a leg or more in that kind of traditional concern about doing something at a relatively high standard of quality.

Notes from 1st call discussion Factors and forces at play notes (continued) • The grounding for public media’s principles must be clear and likely more self-defined and self-asserted than statutorily prescribed Ted Krichels : One of the issues for discussion is the notion of responsibilities being grounded in constitutional statutory law. (In 1984) we didn’t actually fully succeed as we know from history. Going forward, it’s not at all clear that that will be the case even to the degree which may be the case today, just given the different platforms and potentially less regulation around some of them. To me, that opens the question as to how much of our responsibility actually would be grounded there. Skip: Hinton: What we ended up coming up with (in 1984) was a realization that it was going to be hard to pin totally on a constitutional basis and we instead decided we had to stake the high ground on principles and integrity and then build down from that on a regulatory or administrative basis. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has upheld that reasoning several times. The conclusion we reached was that the first amendment was not fully relevant for us and rather than the communications act, we looked higher up to the commerce clause which was the constitutional justification for the communications act. So, we sought our constitutional protections not in the first amendment but in the constitution itself in that clause. That by its nature hinges to the license. That’s why I’ve been sitting in the back saying, “Guys, don't walk away from your license just yet. That’s the cornerstone of your relevance.” But that is exactly what we determined and is exactly the part of it that the Supreme Court has upheld on a couple of instances. We went in hoping to find a first amendment construct and we walked away with the realization that there was no getting around the fact that the first amendment is applicable to protection of individuals from government action. … Many times, when we say we’re working under the protection of the first amendment as journalists, we in fact are working under the protection of the commerce clause. Wick Rowland: I think the dilemma for us here – what this reveals is that there is in our water and in our culture a kind of freedom of expression, journalistic integrity assumption I think that we have. Skip is raising an important question about how it may be more tenuous than we realize, but I think it would really – if we just had this conversation in front of all the producers in the system, just now, locally and nationally, there’d be a hue and cry. Skip Hinton: That’s why it’s so important when we get into these things about it being public forum because the legal classification of a public forum ties into all this. Again, that’s why I think there seems to be a recognition that has been leading to this that the common acceptance of principles of integrity are a characterization of us as a profession. From that then individual organizations can build in policies and procedures that may vary but are at least consistent with the principles. Quentin Hope: To loop back, Ted, to where you started on the last conversation about responsibility. I’m taking from (this conversation) that the definition of responsibility now needs to be more self-asserted and self-adopted and not reliant on any statutory or other legal framework. It ought to stand on its own as assertion. Ted Krichels: Yes, I think I would agree with that statement. I still think this whole issue about where our protections are is very important, whether that’s a principal or not I’m not so clear. But I think we need to ground them. Yes, I would agree. I think we should do them because we believe in them. Pat Aufderheide:I think, again, this is a real opportunity to clearly identify public broadcasting as a great ally to citizens in all of their aspects of public life and not as a government agency or a government-assisted agency -- not because you are mandated to do this but because you have an affirmative and exciting and essential role to play in relationship to people in the area of their lives that is probably least well served, their public lives. Note: These are excerpts from a more detailed conversation at the end of the call than included further background on the legal standings and court rulings related to the 1984 Wingspread principles.

“Guideposts in a time of change” working group

“Guideposts in a time of change” working group

Presentation Transcript

CCTI: Guideposts for Transformation

Freight Assessment System FAS Working Group Update

Bluetooth SIG Coexistence Working Group

Climate Change and Assessment Working Group

Youth and Agriculture Working Group

Preparation for Break out working Group

WORKING GROUP ON HYDROLOGY RA - V

Tips for Working in Teams or Groups

Overview of Working Party 3/5 “ICT and climate change”

Working Groups on Course Project

Working Groups on Course Project

Reuse Working Group

Climate Change and Assessment Working Group June 2002

Climate Change and Assessment Working Group

Work Structure of AP (Aerodromes Panel)

Discussion of Abrupt Climate Change

DØ RAC Working Group Report

Working Group Reports Working Group 1

LIBER GdC Working Group for Education

IPCC Working Group III Summary For Policymakers: Mitigation of Climate Change

Climate and Global Change Working Group Report NOAA Climate Review September 15-17, 2003

DØ RAC Working Group Report