When one views the Burns' work for what it is, "history as popular
entertainment", then the shortcomings of "New York" and other
productions, seem less catastrophic. I agree with the support given
these efforts by PBS because it is an opportunity to engage a mass
audience in a historical perspective. And I believe that flowing from
that may be numerous cases of people seeking additional information from
their local library, and maybe some young people will use it as a
springboard into a career.

I would not quarrel with the assessment as to the historical veracity of
the product, and I do believe that it is important for professional
historians to discuss among themselves the quality of the work. It might
even be useful to share with the producers the findings. More
importantly, the findings can be useful case studies when training young
historians in the arduous demands of preparing and presenting valid
historical findings.

The suggested letter writing campaign would in my mind detract from the
more important activity of assembling a valid history of New York which
would comply with the important benchmarks of veracity, balance,
inclusion and perpective. All topics mentioned could be assembled in an
annotated bibliography, and where gaps exist, could be filled with works
commissioned for the purpose. Historians acting as historians rather
than as media critics or politicians makes a lot more sense to me.

History is doomed to be rewritten time and again through the lens of the
present. With succeeding generations of scholars leading the way, our
acuity is sharpened and our understanding increases. And perhaps Burns
has stimulated in all of us the recognition that much work needs to be
(and should be) done.
--

All the best,

Bill