Several weeks after The Oprah got all sorts of national attention for highlighting successful public charter schools as hopeful examples that things could be a hell of a lot better in public education (but never once mentioned that they were charter schools,) the Center for Education Reform's Jeanne Allen shines a spotlight on Bill Gates, KIPP's Mike Feinberg, and former NBA great and charter founder Kevin Johnson for appearing as guests and not once uttering the word "charter" themselves.

Jeanne's passionate essay points out the charter school movement's Achilles heel: mainly that many of its most high-profile supporters are absolute wimps when it comes down to controversy.

You really should read the whole thing, but here are some snippits:

We asked our good friends Mike Feinberg and Kevin Johnson, and both thought we should leave well enough alone.

Says Feinberg, KIPP founder, "That's a decision that the writers and the producers made. Putting on my charter advocacy hat, it would have been better if they mentioned that all three schools in the second half were charters. And at the same time, beggars can't be choosers. We should be happy that the three schools that were highlighted as solutions were charter schools."

Maybe, Mike, but how does one go from 20 percent to 100 percent knowledge of charters without acknowledging the primary reason that KIPP could be profiled? Imagine Coca-Cola advertising its lead product as a red can of sweet, carbonated soda that sells millions each month. This would have the effect of weakening the brand recognition, something which Coke spends hundreds of million of dollars to reinforce with every ad. An Oprah show is the equivalent of a multi-million dollar marketing campaign without ever once mentioning the product name.

There are individuals, like Mike, whom I have come to know and appreciate for their dedicated, focused approach and tireless efforts on behalf of their schools. Some of them run one charter school; most have grown more than one, and are branching out beyond their original state borders. Philanthropists throw money at them, and for good reason their schools excel, with kids who otherwise would perform poorly in a conventional environment.

But the fundamental tenet of any successful enterprise is good marketing. Marketing distinguishes products for the public. Many in education rarely connect social enterprises with good PR. They rely on the content of their product to speak for itself, which only in limited circumstances produces any lasting impact. Oprah provided a few select charter leaders an opportunity for mass marketing that could have had an unprecedented impact on the advancement of charter schools.

Kevin Johnson of Sacramento High appreciated the coverage regardless. "The fact that Oprah and her producers decided to do two shows highlighting public education was very good for all of us," Johnson told Chalk Talk. "All of the schools they highlighted were charter schools. It says a lot about the movement and what we were trying to do."

To some extent Johnson is right, but highlighting charters and failing to note the distinction was not accidental. Producers are careful to choose words and phrases and editors focus on what they want the public to hear. Considerations were clearly given on some level, though inquires we made were not answered. I asked a few friends who have produced or currently produce shows for major networks about this. All of them emphasized that words are intentional, and speculated that either the producers didn't think it mattered, or that there was some effort to exclude the term "charter schools" when traditional education pundits were consulted.

Whether or not the Oprah show overlooked a major reform effort deliberately or not is really not the issue, however. The real issue is why people whose positions are owing to the charter movement did not force the agenda during their interviews. Media savvy people like the Gates, Feinbergs and Johnsons of the world know that if you want someone to hear something, you have to repeat it over and over again. We're told that producers made some choices, but the question is, with or without their consent?

Jeanne calls the episode a tragedy that should never happen again.

Are you starting to see the light Charter Chuck?