Don’t care about who is and who is not a Peabody winner? Don’t read this post! (But if you know any Ephs who have won a Peabody, please tell us in the comments. As far as I can tell, there is not a single Eph who can honestly claim to be a “Peabody winner.” Correct me if I am wrong!)

The Peabody Award is widely regarded as the highest honor in broadcasting, even more prestigious than an Emmy, especially for documentaries.

The George Foster Peabody Awards, more commonly referred to as the Peabody Awards, are annual international awards given for excellence in radio and television broadcasting. First awarded in 1941 for programs from the previous year, they are considered the oldest honors in electronic media.

…

The Peabody Awards are generally regarded as the most prestigious awards honoring distinction and achievement within the fields of broadcast journalism, documentary making, educational programming, children’s programming, and entertainment.

Wikipedia also offers a handy list of winners, but the primary source is the official site.

The National Association of Broadcasters formed a committee to establish a Pulitzer Prize for radio. One member of the committee, Lambdin Kay, was a long-time manager of WSB Radio in Atlanta. Nicknamed the Little Colonel, Kay became a champion of the awards program and made it his special project.

Basing his concept on the Pulitzer program administered at Columbia University, Kay approached John E. Drewry, dean of the Grady School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia, about sponsoring the project. By 1940 the awards plan had been endorsed by the NAB and the Board of Regents of the University of Georgia.

…

Today the George Foster Peabody Awards are often cited as the most prestigious awards in electronic media. Each year, from more than one thousand entries, the Peabody Board selects outstanding works exhibiting excellence, distinguished achievement, and meritorious service by radio and television networks, stations, cable television organizations, producing organizations, and individuals. Though there is no set number of awards, no more than 36 have ever been presented in a single year.

Clear enough. So, who can (honestly) say that she is a Peabody winner? Like any good sociologist, we need to look at some specific cases. Go here and search for “2004″. Consider:

Year: 2004

Title: Grant Tinker

Producing Organization(s): Personal Award

GRANT TINKER

“My own attitude … is that my job was simply to get my hands on the best creative people, help them in any way that they required, but not to try to legislate what they did or how they did it; just simply to get them into the tent and let them do their thing.” Grant Tinker, 1983 From radio to advertising to television networks, from studio head to network CEO, Grant Tinker has often been at the center of electronic media. As CEO of MTM Enterprises in the 1970s and CEO of NBC in the 1980s, he provided creative opportunities that led to some of television’s most exciting work - and workers. The writers and producers who honed their craft at MTM have gone on to create some of the greatest programs in television history. James Brooks, Allan Burns, Gary David Goldberg, Steven Bochco, Bruce Paltrow, Mark Tinker, Hugh Wilson, Joshua Brand, John Falsey - these and others cite Grant Tinker’s philosophy of creativity as a source of their own, and in turn, have afforded others the same creative freedom provided by Grant Tinker. That philosophy extended to shepherding the network schedule during his tenure as Chair and CEO of NBC. There, with Brandon Tartikoff, he made a last-place network the home of programs such as Cosby, Family Ties, Cheers, Night Court, and Hill Street Blues, the lineup often cited as, “the best night of television on television.” Grant Tinker has taken seriously the creative possibilities of entertainment on television. His place in the history of the medium is secure for his work stands as a touchstone by which others may measure true success. A Peabody Award goes to Grant Tinker for recognizing, protecting, and fostering creativity of the highest order.

Grant Tinker is a Peabody winner. That is obvious. But cases in which the award goes to a specific show or series are harder.

Year: 2004

Title: The Age of Wal-Mart: Inside America`s most Powerful Company

Producing Organization(s): CNBC

This exploration of one of the most familiar commercial icons in America - and increasingly in the world - is a deep examination of corporate culture. But Wal-Mart is not just any corporation nor is its culture. From the modest offices at the Bentonville, Arkansas, headquarters to its influence on the Chinese economy, from “the Wal-Mart Cheer” to the fleets of 18-wheelers, this company is as distinctive as it is controversial. CNBC’s documentary chronicles the amazing rise of this enterprise, describes its successes, and probes issues surrounding its increasingly common presence throughout the United States and its expansion into the world. This is the “store” that sells more DVDs, groceries, toys, diamonds, clothing, bicycles, toothpaste, and dog food than any retailer on Earth. It processes more film, grinds more lenses, consumes more energy, and develops more real estate than any other commercial entity. The Age of Wal-Mart presses executives to explain the huge number of lawsuits leveled against the company, including class-action suits by employees and suits brought by shoppers. The documentary gives voice to communities attempting to block the development of new stores as well as to those welcoming the giant company. Reporter David Faber never backs away from hard questions; neither does he practice “gotcha” interviewing. All involved are given their chance to explain actions, define values, and respond to other points of view. The thorough report was written by Faber, producer Lori Gordon and executive producer Glen Rochkind. Wendy Lehman served as coordinating producer, Angel Perez as director of photography, and Patrick Ahearn as editor. A Peabody Award is presented to The Age of Wal-Mart: Inside America’s Most Powerful Company for its revealing account of an institution that has altered commercial practice throughout the world.

In this case, the Peabody has gone to a specific show (as is the case with most Peabody’s), rather than to an individual. Besides the show, it is clear that CNBC, as an organization, can claim to have won a Peabody. It is also probably fair to say that all the individuals named in the citation can claim to be Peabody winners, especially if they make clear the full context. David Faber, Lori Gordon, Glen Rochkind, Glen Rochkind, Wendy Lehman, Angel Perez or Patrick Ahearn are Peabody winners. Assume that Wendy Lehman was a Williams graduate and the College decided to award her a Bicentennial Medal — just to use a hypothetical example — and claimed that she had “received the 2004 Peabody Award.” All of that would be truthful and proper. Now, it might be the case that Farber, Gordon and Rochkind had played much more important parts in creating the show, but if your name gets mentioned in the citation, no one would hassle you for claiming to be a Peabody winner.

But would the same apply to someone who had also worked on this specific show but who was not mentioned by name in the citation. Tough call! The Peabody Board is responsible for selecting the winners and writing the citation. Some people are included and some people are excluded. Imagine that you were, say, the lighting director or sound technician on The Age of Wal-Mart. The award citation does not mention you. But you worked hard on the show. All involved would credit you with with a significant contribution toward the success of the production. Are you a Peabody-winner?

I don’t think so. You can honestly claim to be the lighting director on a Peabody-winning documentary. But you, yourself, are not a Peabody winner because your name is not mentioned in the citation. This is, obviously, a close call. Reasonable people will differ.

But reasonable people will not differ about those not directly involved in the creation of the show. CNBC has won a Peabody. But a security guard or secretary employed at CNBC can not claim to be a Peabody winner. Nor can other producers, reporters at CNBC claim to be Peabody winners. If you did not have a significant role in the creation of the show that won, then you are not a winner. This applies especially to CNBC executives higher up the chain of command. If you gave the go ahead to spend money on the project, then you deserve credit for a smart decision, but to be a Peabody winner you need to be involved in the creation of the production. Writing a check is not enough.

Fortunately, this is not a tough distinction to make for the most important roles. Note that the application form specifies:

In the following six fields, enter the names of the principals, one per line. Include a complete list of credits with your support materials

Executive Producer(s):
Producer(s):
Director(s):
Writer(s):
Web Designer(s):
Photographer(s), Videographer(s),
Reporter(s), Actor(s):

Things are tough for the lighting director because there isn’t even a place to list her name on the application form. If CNBC can’t (easily) tell the Peabody Board her name, how are they ever going to be able to mention her in the citation? Fortunately, the same is not true for executive producers and a few select categories. There is a place to list the names of all the people in these roles who meaningfully contributed to the final product. One would hope that the Peabody Board would use the application form as a guideline in deciding who to mention and who to omit. I assume that they do and that organizations take care to list names properly when they apply.

Bored yet? Wait ’til I get started! Let’s look at one more winner from 2004.

Year: 2004

Title: Rwanda - Do Scares Ever Fade?

Producing Organization(s): Bill Brummel Productions for The History Channel

In 1994, the small African country of Rwanda was awash in blood. Extremists in the majority Hutu controlled government organized a systematic genocide of Rwanda’s minority Tutsi population. In just 100 days, more than 800,000 were murdered–an estimated seventy-five percent of Rwanda’s Tutsis. The atrocity was halted ten years ago, but for Rwandans, the ordeal does not yet have an ending. Today, the physical scars sustained by survivors are fading, but the emotional scars still remain. Rwanda - Do Scars Ever Fade?, narrated by Jeffrey Wright, is an in-depth journalistic report and historical examination of a terrible atrocity–but it is also much more. From the first day of pre-production, producers, including supervising producer William Povletich, coordinating producer Deborah Nelson, and production coordinator Amy Korngiebel, sought to set the program apart from others by putting a human face on the genocide. Shot on location over a period of five weeks by director of photography Richard Pendleton, producers documented harrowing personal stories of both Tutsi survivors and Hutu perpetrators. These stories offer a microcosm of the genocide, and the difficulties of balancing justice with reconciliation. Co-written by executive producer Bill Brummel and producer/editor Paul Freedman, this program documented a chapter of history almost impossible to comprehend. By allowing most of the story to unfold through the first person narratives of Rwandans who lived through the tragedy, Rwanda - Do Scars Ever Fade? presented viewers with an intimate look at one of mankind’s most tragic events, and is therefore deserving of a Peabody Award.

The “for The History Channel” phrasing is interesting. Other similar examples from the 2004 awards include:

• USA and Kwasukasukela South Africa
  South African Broadcast Corporation
• Wisconsin Public Radio
  Public Radio International
• Cort/Madden Productions in association with HBO Films
• An Endor Production in association with the BBC, BBC America
  Sesame Workshop
• Filmmakers Collaborative
  Blueberry Hill Productions for American Experience
  WGBH

It seems that these are all ways of making clear the relationships between the sponsoring organizations when more than one organization wins the award. (Ephs with media savvy are invited to chime in.) In the first two examples, the organizations share equal billing. They each, presumably, were significantly in involved in the creation of the show. The next two, with the “in association with” phrasing apply some collaboration. The last example, using just “for” — as in the award for the Rwanda - Do Scares Ever Fade? — seems to be the lowest level of involvement.

Now, the History Channel can still claim to have won a Peabody. It is cited by name. But the description is consistent with minimal work on the actual show. The History Channel certainly broadcast the show; it, presumably, paid for it. Yet it may have not had any other involvement.

And so, finally, we come to the question of whether or not Williams College should describe Margaret Kim ‘91 as a Peabody Award winner. Perhaps we can all agree that, if Kim had a significant role in the creation of the show — perhaps she helped write it, perhaps she scouted locations in Rwanda, perhaps she helped in the editing — then it is not unreasonable to describe her as having won a Peabody, even though she is not mentioned by name. She is, after all, listed as an “executive producer” on the show itself. (Yes, I bought the CD and checked.)

But it is quite possible that she had no meaningful role in the production of the show whatsoever. (Circumstantial evidence here.) (Again, media Ephs are welcome to comment.) As the person in charge of the Time Machine series at the History Channel, she may have done no more than written a check to Bill Brummel Productions (a regular producer of material for the History Channel). In fact, the show might have been completed before she even knew about it. More likely, the show was pitched to her as an idea, she liked it, authorized funding and then accepted the final product. Perhaps she made comments on the last few drafts. Perhaps she suggested major changes. Or maybe Bill Brummel just sent in a completed DVD and on-air it went.

But, after much Googling (relevant hits here and here), I can find no evidence that Margaret Kim played any role in the creative process which led to the production of Rwanda - Do Scares Ever Fade?. The reason that the Peabody Award mentions 7 other individuals by name (Jeffrey Wright, William Povletich, Deborah Nelson, Amy Korngiebel, Richard Pendleton, Bill Brummel and Paul Freedman) is because they created the show. Margaret Kim played no substantive role. If she had, her name would have been mentioned in the application and the Peabody Board would have cited her contributions.

But, you say, Williams College says that Margaret Kim ‘91 is a Peabody Award winner! Who am I to disagree? Well, the College also claims that Kim is an Emmy winner, a claim that, after some work, I demonstrated to be clearly false. I am 95% sure that the same is true here. (Contrary evidence and arguments welcome.)

Lesson: Don’t believe everything you read at www.williams.edu. Trust, but verify.