Cal, I was very interested to hear your appraisal of the follow-ups to HARVEST OF SHAME. But I wonder if it's quite true that nothing has changed. I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but it was my understanding that conditions had improved markedly, though migrant workers still live in what most Americans would consider sub-standard conditions. But I thought things weren't quite so dire as they were in 1960. Do you have any more information on the subject? My students are always interested in this question after they see H of S (they are of the concerned but not personally inconvenienced type, too). Of course, if conditions have improved at all, I would be inclined to attribute that to the United Farm Workers rather than to Edward R. Murrow and company. One last point. I don't think it's quite right to suggest that media programming doesn't change anything. After all, why would we waste our breath condemning films and television that strike us as pernicious if we didn't think they had any effects? The mistake comes (in my opinion) in thinking that a single film or program will have a dramatic effect. I'm not the first to make the comparison, but the effect of the one-time Harvest of Shame broadcast was minimal; the effect of seeing TV coverage of the Vietnam war night after night was crucial in mobilizing public opinion and political support in the US. ___________________________________________________________ James Peterson University of Notre Dame [log in to unmask] (219)631-7160