Free Speech, Media, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

PBS: Why I Watch But Don’t Contribute: Part Deux

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

432px-PBS_1971_id.svgAbout a year ago I wrote a guest blog titled: PBS: Why I Watch But Don’t Contribute. In it I wrote about the history of PBS and of its’ seminal station WNET Channel 13 in New York. Through the years I’ve been privileged to watch some wonderful television on PBS from great plays to superb documentaries. Much of what PBS and channel 13 supplied to me was culture that was somewhat inaccessible from any other venue. What was so new and novel about the Public Television movement was that it was commercial free and so could greater explore subjects that were verboten in prime time commercial television. It also showed Americans the great programs being produced by the PBS analogue in Great Britain, the BBC. Far from being the “vast wasteland” of commercial TV described by JFK’s FCC head Newton Minnow, PBS showed what a wonderful medium television could be. At the core of this excellence was the fact that there were no sponsors to muzzle production values and dumb down the product.

Originally there was an organization called NET (National Education Television) which merged with New York’s Channel 13 in 1963. It had been operating under various names producing educational television programs that were distributed to various stations around the country. It had originally been funded via a grant from the Ford Foundation to produce educational programs. With the merger in 1963 the philosophy changed drastically in that the aim was to become America’s “Fourth TV Network”. When in 1966 the Ford Foundation began to withdraw funding the Federal Government stepped in.

“In 1966, NET’s viability came into question when the Ford Foundation decided to begin withdrawing financial support because of NET’s continual need for additional funding. In the meantime, the affiliated stations tried to keep the network alive by developing a reliable source of revenue.

The U.S. government intervened and created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967 to fund the network for the time being. However, the CPB’s intent was to create its own public broadcasting network. The CPB embarked on that course of action because many NET affiliates were alienated by the programming that network offered. These affiliates further felt that NET’s simultaneous production and distribution of programming constituted a conflict of interest.

PBS first began operations in 1969, with NET still producing several shows. However, NET’s refusal to stop airing the critically praised but controversial documentaries led to the decision of both Ford and the CPB to shut the network down. In early 1970, both threatened to cut their funding unless NET merged its operations with Newark, New Jersey public station WNDT-TV. (This did not, however, end the production and distribution of hard-hitting documentaries on public television, since PBS itself continues to distribute and CPB continues to help fund series including Frontline, POV and Independent Lens to this day.)

On Monday, October 5, 1970, the exact day that PBS began broadcasting, NET and WNDT-TV officially completed their merger. NET ceased to operate as a separate network from that point, although some NET-branded programming, such as NET Journal, was part of the PBS schedule for another couple of years before the identity was finally retired. WNDT’s call sign was changed to the present WNET shortly thereafter. Some shows that began on NET, such as Sesame Street, continue to air on PBS today.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Educational_Television

When the government took over the formerly independent WNET the changes were at first unnoticed. However, as is the nature of bureaucracy the independence of content and programming began to be subject to political needs and as a medium, the product became diminished into what can only be seen as TV, that while on occasion is daring and revolutionary, is purposed to support and glorify the corporate state and the elite that runs it. Occasionally, really courageous insightful programs will slip by and air. This though is happening less frequently as outside pressures force self censorship on producers. What follows are current examples of why this is true.

My summers are spent in the mountains of New York State. Last Monday night I watched PBS Channel 13 from “Antiques Roadshow” at 8:00pm thru an “American Masters” detailing the life of Mel Brooks. What I saw was a surprise to me since not only were there the usual corporate intros to each show, but now there was a five minute string of what you would call actual TV commercials, though more tastefully done than one would see on regular TV. Even where I live in Florida, the PBS stations do not show regular, between show commercials. Here they were on my beloved NY Channel 13. When I read a New Yorker article the next day on a brewing programming scandal I felt a follow up blog on PBS was needed.

The New Yorker article was titled: “A Word From our Sponsor” and subtitled: “Public Television’s attempt to placate David Koch” by Jane Mayer.

“Last fall, Alex Gibney, a documentary filmmaker who won an Academy Award in 2008 for an exposé of torture at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, completed a film called “Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream.” It was scheduled to air on PBS on November 12th. The movie had been produced independently, in part with support from the Gates Foundation. “Park Avenue” is a pointed exploration of the growing economic inequality in America and a meditation on the often self-justifying mind-set of “the one per cent.” As a narrative device, Gibney focuses on one of the most expensive apartment buildings in Manhattan—740 Park Avenue—portraying it as an emblem of concentrated wealth and contrasting the lives of its inhabitants with those of poor people living at the other end of Park Avenue, in the Bronx.   

Among the wealthiest residents of 740 Park is David Koch, the billionaire industrialist, who, with his brother Charles, owns Koch Industries, a huge energy-and-chemical conglomerate. The Koch brothers are known for their strongly conservative politics and for their efforts to finance a network of advocacy groups whose goal is to move the country to the right. David Koch is a major philanthropist, contributing to cultural and medical institutions that include Lincoln Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital. In the nineteen-eighties, he began expanding his charitable contributions to the media, donating twenty-three million dollars to public television over the years. In 1997, he began serving as a trustee of Boston’s public-broadcasting operation, WGBH, and in 2006 he joined the board of New York’s public-television outlet, WNET. Recent news reports have suggested that the Koch brothers are considering buying eight daily newspapers owned by the Tribune Company, one of the country’s largest media empires, raising concerns that its publications—which include the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times—might slant news coverage to serve the interests of their new owners, either through executive mandates or through self-censorship. Clarence Page, a liberal Tribune columnist, recently said that the Koch’s appeared intent on using a media company “as a vehicle for their political voice.”” http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

We have had many blogs and discussions of the Koch Brothers here at Jonathan Turley’s blog and funding of PBS has fallen to 12% of revenues and PBS, with its’ constituent stations, has been forced to rely heavily on the largesse of corporate donors and wealthy individuals. David Koch alone has been said to have contributed about one billion dollars alone to various PBS stations. We also know that PBS is courting corporate sponsors heavily:

PBS even has a website dedicated to Corporate Sponsorship: Corporate Sponsorship Web Site where you can see a list of corporate sponsorship http://www.sgptv.org/sponsors/browse. Among those sponsors are corporations well-known for their “public interest”: ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, Pfizer, Siemen’s, BP, Chubb, Merrill Lynch/Bank of America, Ameriquest, McDonald’s and so on. When at the beginning of each PBS program the ubiquitous last statement is intoned “and from viewers like you”, they really don’t mean “you” do they?

“Public broadcasting, which largely targets an affluent, well-educated audience of liberal and progressive bent, is a powerful tool for shaping perceptions and convincing people to continue working within the system rather than fully appraising the corruption that undergirds that system. A brutally candid investigation of our country’s institutions and political/cultural leaders as they actually function would make affluent liberals much more uncomfortable. They’d have to examine the corporate, legal and academic networks of which they are a contented part. And they’d be forced to see that when liberals get into power, all too many end up serving corporate interests in ways that differ from conservatives more in style and tone than in profound shifts of policy and governance.

Public broadcasting regularly pulls its punches—and has gotten steadily worse in recent years. You can blame attacks from the Right, which periodically threaten to eliminate government support of PBS and NPR. But, in fact, public broadcasting has always been, to some extent, an arm of the establishment.

By creating an aura of thoughtfulness, it has essentially lulled the public into complacency. By its very existence, it has convinced us that dissent is not only welcomed but has a vigorous presence in the American conversation. By having hard-core corporate operatives gently debate tepid reformers, it has given us the facade of open discussion and probing inquiries. Which is why those oil companies, banks, and foundations set up by the very rich are so happy to underwrite all that good taste”. http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/04/17/political-ads-destroy-public-broadcasting-uniqueness/

One of my contentions is that both political parties in the United States are controlled by elite corporate interests. Their material differences are of whether to use an “iron fist” to retain control, or to use a “velvet glove” covering that “iron fist”. Beyond the concept of party though is the propaganda that has created the mythology that we are a country ruled by its’ Constitution, its’ legal system and most importantly its people. Indeed, the Founding Fathers meant this to be in the government they produced in what we can glean from their intent expressed in writing. Washington warned of partisanship. Franklin mused on whether their descendants would be able to keep the power of the people. The founding document has within it an acceptance of slavery by necessity of compromise. The idea of women having any rights at all would have been deemed scandalous if proposed. The radicals among the revolutionary leaders like Samuel Adams were soon marginalized and in effect the government that resulted from our Constitution was led by the wealthiest and most successful men in the country. This has continued up to today, yet we remain a rather stable country, due to the fact that most citizens still believe we are a democracy and have the most “freedom” of any nation in the world. This is because our populace still believes in an “American Dream” that has been carefully sold to them via our media and educational system.

Shifting back to PBS, I think it is fair to say that PBS represents mass media aimed at the more affluent and more educated elements of the country. I choose those words carefully because all too often the assumption is made that the most affluent and most educated people in the country are the most wise and intelligent, which “ain’t necessarily so” as the song goes. This target audience of the affluent and educated is no less susceptible to propaganda and myth than are the “unwashed masses”. Possibly they are more so because their lot in life is easier and so they are more susceptible to the idea of “American Exceptionalism”. One can even say that the PBS audience represents “opinion leaders” because of their education and affluence. Indeed these “opinion leaders” find themselves paid more attention by our establishment punditry, than by the rest of the people with less affluence and less education. The rest of the people’s television needs are catered to by the broadcast networks and the cable channels, who have strayed from their original purposes. Take a look at the programming on the History Channel and National Geographic Channels for instance. In the reaction of the media to 9/11 we saw our country sold on two unnecessary wars and on the rapid deterioration of our Constitutional freedoms as exhibited by those that exclaimed “This changes everything!” in the aftermath of 9/11. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/15/this-changes-everything/

 People like the Koch Brothers and corporations like Exxon/Mobil, Dow Chemical and Pfizer have long recognized that their presence as PBS donors gives them some clout as to what is being shown on PBS. Their presence alone has a chilling effect, not only on the PBS Executives and the Executives of its constituent stations, but also affects the producers whose shows are shown on PBS. Again from the linked “New Yorker” article:

“In a recent phone interview, Neal Shapiro, the president of WNET, said that he grew concerned about the film, which he had not yet watched, after Ira Stoll, a conservative writer, lambasted it in the Post. On the Friday before the film’s Monday airdate, Stoll, whose Web site, Future of Capitalism, has frequently defended the Kochs, wrote, “If the station has any sense, it will use the time until then to reconsider its decision to air the program.” He added, “If it doesn’t, its trustees and donors, some of whom live on Park Avenue, may want to consider whether they want to continue supporting an institution that insults them so viciously.” The reviewer for the Times was more positive, writing, “There is plenty here to turn you into a Wall Street occupier,” and observing, “If you were still on the fence about whether to despise the superrich, this film will almost surely make a hater out of you.”

That Friday, Shapiro initially said, he called Koch at his office and told him that the Gibney film “was going to be controversial,” noting, “You’re going to be a big part of this thing.” Shapiro offered to show him the trailer, and added that he hoped to arrange “some sort of on-air roundtable discussion of it, to provide other points of view.” It could air immediately after the documentary. (Shapiro told me, “We did this after Ken Burns’s film on baseball, too. We like to have a local angle.”) Shapiro asked Koch, “Do you want to be involved?” He also offered Koch the opportunity to provide a written response, which the station could air after the show.

According to Shapiro, Koch, who rarely speaks in public, passed on the roundtable offer, saying, “I may just want to take it in and watch it, and form an opinion.” He agreed to think about contributing a written response.

Shapiro acknowledges that his call to Koch was unusual. Although many prominent New Yorkers are portrayed in “Park Avenue,” he said that he “only just called David Koch. He’s on our board. He’s the biggest main character. No one else, just David Koch. Because he’s a trustee. It’s a courtesy.” Shapiro, who joined WNET six years ago, from NBC News, added, “I can’t remember doing anything like this—I can’t remember another documentary centered around New York and key people in the city, and such controversial topics.”

PBS has standards for “editorial integrity,” and its guidelines state that “member stations are responsible for shielding the creative and editorial processes from political pressure or improper influence from funders or other sources.” A PBS spokesperson, when asked if it considered WNET’s actions appropriate, said, “WNET is in the best position to respond to this query,” noting that member stations are autonomous.”

So Ken Shapiro, a former NBC executive, who now heads up WNET Channel 13 in New York felt constrained to warn Mr. Koch about this upcoming show and to offer his own defense following the broadcast. The fact is that Mr. Koch sat on the stations Board of Directors and had contributed a lot of money to the station.

“In fact, according to a well-informed source, WNET was about to embark on an ambitious capital campaign, and before Gibney’s film aired Koch had been planning to make a very large gift. “It was going to be a seven-figure donation—maybe more,” the source said. Shapiro denies that Koch’s patronage was a motive for his phone call.”

So the ubiquitous “And donations from people like you” is in a category with the famous dictum on the Barn in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”: “Some animals are more equal than other animals”.

“Shortly before “Park Avenue” aired, Melissa Cohlmia, the chief spokesperson for Koch Industries, sent WNET a two-paragraph statement criticizing the film as “disappointing and divisive.” Cohlmia acknowledges, however, that neither she nor Koch had watched it. WNET aired the statement, unedited, immediately after the film. Cohlmia said that she based the critique on the trailer.”

So this film runs and its target immediately afterwards gets to air a statement disparaging it. I suppose one could see that as fair. However, now imagine yourself a producer of documentary films who has become aware of this and consequently become aware that powerful enemies are to be made by not pulling ones punches. How does this affect future film development?

“The weekend before “Park Avenue” aired, Gibney said, it was clear that “something weird had happened.” Shapiro called him at home. “He was very upset,” Gibney said. “They were thinking of pulling the program.” Gibney was told that the most pressing problem was Charles Schumer, the Democratic senator from New York. Schumer’s staff had called WNET, arguing that “Park Avenue” falsely accused the Senator of supporting tax loopholes for hedge-fund managers. Gibney double-checked his research and stood by his interpretation. Nevertheless, Shapiro told him that he planned to allow Schumer to add a response after the broadcast. But, Gibney noted, “Shapiro told me nothing about the Kochs.”

For those who think me merely a partisan defender of Democrats please note that I despise Chuck Schumer as a politician and he is possibly the most powerful Democratic Senator.  Chuck Schumer has been throughout his career a staunch defender of Corporatism and of Wall Street. He did support the “tax loopholes” mentioned and he has been supportive of the investment banking industry, while posing as a defender of the people. Another message is thus being sent to film producers.

“Shapiro said that, in the end, he was comfortable with the journalistic standards of “Park Avenue,” and noted that he’d heard many positive comments from viewers, as well as negative ones. (The broadcast received high ratings for a PBS documentary.) But he said he felt blindsided by the Independent Television Service—the small arm of public television that funds and distributes independent films—for not giving him sufficient advance warning of the documentary’s contents. ITVS, which is based in San Francisco and was founded some twenty years ago by independent filmmakers, prides itself on its resistance to outside pressure. Its mandate is to showcase opinionated filmmakers who “take creative risks, advance issues and represent points of view not usually seen on public or commercial television.” “Park Avenue” was part of its popular series “Independent Lens,” which is aired by dozens of PBS member stations.” http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

The “New Yorker” goes on in depth about the chilling effect caused to ITVS that specifically affected other productions after the airing of Gibney’s documentary and I urge you to read it to expand your background on this subject.

What I’ve tried to point out is how PBS and WNET, once bastions of independent reporting have through the incursion of corporate interests and the sponsorship of the super rich have turned away from their core values. Those values and the creation of these entities were dealt with in my first article on PBS: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/28/pbs-why-i-watch-but-dont-contribute/

I don’t/won’t contribute to PBS because to my mind while it sometimes offers excellent programming which I devour, in general even those good programs have been tainted by a need to gloss over the fact that there is an elite whose money controls and stifles our democratic and constitutional processes. One of the shows on PBS that I watch is “The American Experience”. Recently they did one on John D. Rockefeller. http://video.pbs.org/video/2311494786/ While there was some interesting history in it, much of it was also hagiography. One such example was the bitter coal strike by workers attempting to organize a union in Rockefeller’s Colorado Oil Fields. Its culmination was the “Ludlow Massacre” which resulted in about 25 deaths caused by Pinkerton and National Guard shooting at the striking miner’s camp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre While the film treated the terrible conditions the miners lived under accurately, it closed out the sequence with Rockefeller’s son talking the miner’s out of voting for a Union, by making promises that were never kept. When you produce a show that purportedly portrays history accurately and that show is made with a grant from Exxon/Mobil the successor to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, it seems pains are taken to not offend the corporate master.

Since I’m somewhat of a history buff, I find these changes made to revise what happened beyond annoying. This is but one of far too many examples of how corporate and elite interests has turned public television into a stealth tool for their propaganda. Because of this I can say without any guilt, I’ll watch their shows, but refuse to give them a dime.

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger.

77 thoughts on “PBS: Why I Watch But Don’t Contribute: Part Deux”

  3. Fact: The Koch brothers spent up to $400 million in the 2012 elections attempting to elect right-wing candidates to the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House and governorships. Those efforts will continue in the future.

    Fact: The Koch brothers have established or funded dozens of right-wing organizations dedicated to providing huge tax breaks to the rich and multi-national corporations, destroying trade unions and workers’ rights, privatizing Social Security and Medicare and making massive cuts to programs of vital importance to the middle class and working families. Those efforts will continue in the future.

    Fact: The Koch brothers, who have made their fortune in the fossil fuel industry, are strongly supporting a massive disinformation campaign to deny the reality of the planetary crisis of global warming. Those efforts will continue in the future.

    And now, the Koch brothers want to expand their power by taking over the Tribune Newspaper chain — the nation’s second largest newspaper publisher. The Tribune Company chain includes such newspapers as the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the Hartford Courant, the Orlando Sentinel, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Baltimore Sun, the Daily Press and The Morning Call — among other papers.

    We must not allow that to happen. Please join 65,000 other Americans in urging the Tribune Company not to sell their newspapers to the Koch brothers. Enough is enough! http://democracyforamerica.com/pages/768?t=bernie

    Bernie
    Senator Bernie Sanders

  4. http://www.thenation.com/article/163672/charles-koch-friedrich-hayek-use-social-security
    Charles Koch to Friedrich Hayek: Use Social Security!

    In a 1973 letter, the right-wing billionaire urged the libertarian philosopher to collect Social Security and to use Medicare coverage when visiting the United States.
    Yasha Levine and Mark Ames
    September 27, 2011 | This article appeared in the October 17, 2011 edition of The Nation.

    Read more:
    Charles Koch, billionaire patron of free-market libertarianism, privately championed the benefits of Social Security to Friedrich Hayek, the leading laissez-faire economist of the twentieth century. Koch even sent Hayek a government pamphlet to help him take advantage of America’s federal retirement insurance and healthcare programs.

    Read more:

    This extraordinary correspondence regarding Social Security began in early June 1973, weeks after Koch was appointed president of the Institute for Humane Studies. Along with his brothers, Koch inherited his father’s privately held oil company in 1967, becoming one of the richest men in America. He used this fortune to help turn the IHS, then based in Menlo Park, California, into one of the world’s foremost libertarian think tanks. Soon after taking over as president, Koch invited Hayek to serve as the institute’s “distinguished senior scholar” in preparation for its first conference on Austrian economics, to be held in June 1974.

    Read more: http://www.thenation.com/article/163672/charles-koch-friedrich-hayek-use-social-security#ixzz2UXBiUGsz

    (Keep in mind that ‘Charlie’ Koch …could have easily arranged for the medical attention out of his lunch money!)

  5. Thank you Nick. David, what you just said speaks for me, too. LOVE the comment about Mike voting with his eyeballs.

    I didn’t find it necessary to argue point by point because Mike’s theme was only to justify his freeloading. What finally got me to log in and comment was Mike’s nasty jab to David for contributing — and then Mike turned around and did it right back to me. On top of that, he then turns around and cries about personal attacks.

    Mike, I have blood in this game. My daughter works for a large-market PBS television station. There isn’t anything you’re going to say that will justify your position to me. Give it up. I consider you wrong, and I hate like hell the tactics you use when you’re cornered.

    For instance, I just don’t know enough to agree with you. Another of your tactics was telling Nick he was bickering. Very Tea Party, Mike. If somebody disagrees with you, then it’s bickering. But of course anybody who joins in the pile-on against PBS has a great point.

    http://www.pbs.org/about/leadership/board/

    Here’s the link for the list of current PBS board members. If you don’t like the current programming, let them know.

  7. the picture on the front page of the pdf is very impressive)
    ORIGINAL pdf LINK HERE:
    http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/04/pdf/koch_brothers.pdf
    The Koch Brothers
    What You Need to Know About the Financiers of the Radical Right
    Tony Carrk April 2011

    1 Introduction and summary
    3 Who are the Koch brothers and Koch Industries?
    8 Bankrolling the right wing
    12 Using Americans for Prosperity to “stimulate” the Tea Party
    14 Bankrolling and influencing the U.S. Congress
    17 Bankrolling state politicians
    19 The real Koch brothers’ philosophy
    25 What’s next?
    26 Endnotes
    27 About the author and acknowledgements
    Contents
    [NOTE THAT THE PDF COPY HERE DID NOT CARRY ALL MAPS, PHOTOS OR ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIALS GO TO LINK FOR THE ORIGINAL COMPLETE VERSION]

  8. David Hopsicker and Lindylou22, – I applaud you both. With four comments between you, in none of them did you offer a refutation of the points I was making and the quotes and links I supplied as backup, of which you probably read none. All you could muster were personal attacks upon me.

    MikeS.

    Not to belabor the point, but you most certainly invited personal comment by personalizing the subject of your post, making it not about PBS but about your reaction to PBS. Your “poor me” attempt to equate honest critcism with personal attacks are at best disingenuous.

    In addition, it seems that both LindlyLou22 and I have both in some ways agreed with you regarding the dangers of corporate sponsorship of media. You made an interesting and compelling case, Mike. I merely took issue with your decision to characterize your willing consumption of the corporate commercials contained within PBS programming as somehow a more principled action than those of us who choose to materially fund quality television with our contributions.

    The facts are that while PBS has compromised itself with proximity to the oligarchs, what it needs to better serve their original mission is more public involvement not less, and yes, more individual contributions not fewer. Want to stem the tide of corporate influence on PBS? Write a check. You already watch their corporate commercials, you have voted with your eyeballs, now get a little skin in the game.

    Should your drop in the bucket feelings persist, I suggest you make your giving less about yourself and more about the common good. Many drops in the bucket will eventually fill it.

    1. A dollar to a poor man is more valuable than a hundred to a rich person. We “vote” with our money on PBS and just like corporate invading the election system in unfair ways, Big money from Koch and leverage from corporate generally is doing the same to what is supposed to be public domain communications. To place that food dollar into the pot is significant and to hold it back in protest is even more significant when it is done openly and for protest against that hundred. I agree with Mike, it is only supporting the corporate influence to send in donations to a controlled and captured medium. Give us choice of programs specifically to place our donations and where to deny the dollar allocation: THAT would be a voice.
      As it is going now it is only reinforcing a bad trend to show support. I suggest that people call in on the fund raisers and tell them you refuse!
      Tell them you refuse to give because Koch TV is not your bag! Tell them when they allow us to specifically designate where our donations will go; specifically what broadcasts we support with our symbolic dollar, then we will sacrifice for arts sake and give up some food money. Otherwise it is just good money after bad.

      It is definitely an important idea to Call your members of Congress, and tell them to protect funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, so that it can pick back up its work to “enrich man’s spirit.”

      By the way, Mike…it ‘IS’ PERSONAL! And it should be! Anyone claiming it isn’t personal…just ain’t American!

    2. Lindy & David,

      You didn’t care to argue point by point because frankly you couldn’t. David even said he agreed with most of my analysis. LindyLou, of course you have skin in the game your daughter’s employment. Both of you believe that my purposes in writing this piece was to justify myself. It wasn’t, it was a means of informing people about what I think has happened to PBS, however, I used the device of my personal feelings as a means of capturing peoples attention, sorry you didn’t care for it but it certainly caught your attention. If I had just written a straight piece about PBS censorship would you have read it, or merely went ho hum?

      Now Davids original comment to me was acerbic, should I have not responded in kind? As for getting “skin in the game” by contributing, good luck with that, my point is that as long as those like you contribute things will continue down this monied road, but perhaps that is to your liking.

  9. “David, Some folks are heavily into guilt by association. I agree w/ what you said, and am proud I never guilt trip people.”

    Really Nick,

    Who might those “some folks” be? I thought you wanted and end to bickering?

  10. “As it was last year, so is it this year an incredibly convoluted reason to justify not supporting the many wonderful programs that are broadcast on PBS. If you are comfortable consuming the programming you seem to enjoy so much on PBS without contributing towards it’s presentation, that’s your choice.”

    DavidH.

    “Mr. Spindell, it takes a lot of words to make being a freeloader sound so principled. Your lengthy rationalization is an interesting read, even though it’s all dedicated to making you sound like a swell guy. But in the end you’re just another deadbeat.

    Lindylou22.

    “Let us hope that the author’s ill-conceived and unique brand of philanthropic nihilism spreads no further than his self congratulatory posts on this blog.

    I’m not sure what led him to believe that readers might be interested in his personal choices about charitable giving (not just once but TWICE!). but I am sure many will join me in admiring his prodigious mastery of the cut and paste. When can we expect more of these “Get Off My Lawn!” exposes?”

    DavidH.

    “it presupposes that money absolutely dictates principle and that the largest contributors are the only ones who matter to the leaders at PBS.”

    David Hopsicker and Lindylou22,

    I applaud you both. With four comments between you, in none of them did you offer a refutation of the points I was making and the quotes and links I supplied as backup, of which you probably read none. All you could muster were personal attacks upon me. It is a tribute to your critical thing, or lack of same, that you ingest everything you see on PBS with such equanimity. Were you to justify the machinations around the PBS refusal to air the film “Citizen Koch” because it would offend him, that would require a modicum thought and logic. The same would be required to refute the many links presented by Bruce E., but you chose instead to directly attack me. On this blog that is your prerogative since we respect freedom of expression, which I believe PBS does not, but perhaps that’s exactly what your looking for.

    Now on the other hand, I like to back up my contentions with documentation upon which the reader base their conclusions about my arguments validity. Bill Moyers has for decades been an American treasure. Twenty months after retiring from his PBS show Mr. Moyers has returned with a new show, with a lighter schedule due to his age. Curiously, PBS has decided not to air it, so it will be independently distributed.

    “Mr. Moyers said he was unsure why PBS, where he has spent most of his career since 1971, declined the show for its main schedule. Some public television executives, who would not publicly comment on a sensitive issue, said they believed that PBS did not want to realign itself with Mr. Moyers, a longtime target of some conservatives, as it was fighting to keep its federal financing.”

    The full NY Times story which goes into greater depth is linked here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/arts/television/bill-moyers-returns-to-tv-but-not-with-pbs.html?_r=0

    Bill Moyers and Michael Winship (another PBS long time stalwart wrote the following article and in their courtly manner were critical of the climate at PBS:

    “Most of both our careers have been in public television. Our affection and gratitude for it abideth, but we are not blind to the problems. Public broadcasting’s ever-tenuous funding places it in a perpetual dilemma and forces it into a delicate balancing act. PBS provides programming like Independent Lens and P.O.V. that may not garner the most viewers but helps fulfill its essential mission of public service — and, candidly, attracts grants from kindred spirits who believe in a robust mix of ideas and visions. But to lure a wider audience, it also airs what our neighborhood diner calls “lighter fare” — whether entertaining, upscale imports like Downton Abbey, home-grown, how-to programs like This Old House or (during pledge drives) nostalgic reruns of folk musicians, pop crooners, and financial and spiritual gurus — aimed at older viewers with, presumably, more disposable income.

    Add to this the constant political pressures, especially from conservative politicians ever eager to cut off its funding (Mitt Romney says he wants to see commercials on “Sesame Street”), plus the self-censorship that all too often results, and you get a tendency toward orthodoxy and an aversion to controversy.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/to-pbs-with-tough-love_b_1375682.html

    Now of course both articles linked treat the subject in more depth than I can quote here and judging from you personal attacks on me and not on the issues I’ve raised I doubt you’ll take the time to peruse them. Contributing to PBS sends them a clear message that you are satisfied with the status quo and that the control exercised over it by wealthy people like David Koch is fine with you. Indeed, if the current state of affairs at PBS meets your approval then I can understand your contributions which are in effect votes of confidence and support of these new “wealth sensitive” accommodations to principle.

  11. David and lindylou, You also see the emperor wears no clothes. Way to speak your mind.

  12. Well, Mike, there you go again. Are you going to claim that your aren’t telling me not to contribute?

    Many of us don’t share your cynicism, a fact you’ll have to learn to live with. PBS has millions of supporters, not 100,000. Your little illustration above is nonsense. Besides the phony numbers manipulation, it presupposes that money absolutely dictates principle and that the largest contributors are the only ones who matter to the leaders at PBS. I hope you don’t honestly believe that everybody associated with PBS has sold out their principles.

    We all cringed when congressional republicans threatened to cut off federal funding for PBS unless they had more influence on the programming. But your answer is for individual supporters to cut off funding for public broadcasting, thus making the financial elites all the more influential. I’m not ready to hand PBS over to them on their own silver platter.

    If you don’t want to contribute, then don’t. But don’t tell me you’re doing it out of principle until you turn the channel.

  13. Let us hope that the author’s ill-conceived and unique brand of philanthropic nihilism spreads no further than his self congratulatory posts on this blog.

    I’m not sure what led him to believe that readers might be interested in his personal choices about charitable giving (not just once but TWICE!). but I am sure many will join me in admiring his prodigious mastery of the cut and paste. When can we expect more of these “Get Off My Lawn!” exposes?

  14. “More power to you and your co-sponsors David Koch and Exxon/Mobil. If you noticed I didn’t once tell anyone else not to contribute, merely expressed my own reasons for not contributing. I referenced the “flaws” you mentioned and if they’re cool with you, than go right ahead and contribute as much as you can.”

    So, contributors to Public Broadcasting are aligning with the corporate interests?

    Mr. Spindell, it takes a lot of words to make being a freeloader sound so principled. Your lengthy rationalization is an interesting read, even though it’s all dedicated to making you sound like a swell guy. But in the end you’re just another deadbeat.

    I guess all of us little supporters should all just step aside and allow the Kochs full rein, or should I say full reign.

    1. lindylou22,

      Contribute all you want, but it’s not that your contribution will matter, it won’t. Koch contributed a $billion. If 100,000 people contribute $100 each that makes $10 million, $990 million less than Koch. He was on the board of directors and you got an overpriced tote bag.

  15. Pingback: PBS: Why I Watch But Don’t Contribute: Part Deux | City of Newark Delaware

  17. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/16538-the-corporate-dictatorship-of-pbs-and-npr
    The Corporate Dictatorship of PBS and NPR
    Wednesday, 22 May 2013 14:53 By The Daily Take, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed
    [selected excerpts: read all @ link]:

    The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 states that, “It is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes… it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to complement, assist, and support a national policy that will most effectively make public telecommunications services available to all citizens of the United States.”

    “This worked great for years.

    The Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio brought educational programming, and independent news and political analysis to millions of Americans.

    But, with the onset of “Reaganomics” 33 years ago, federal funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been slashed.

    As a result, public broadcasting institutions now rely more and more on corporate and billionaire cash to operate, which is probably why PBS and NPR now filter what they play on their airwaves, so that they don’t anger their wealthy backers.”

    when you donate $23 million dollars to public television, you get more than just a tote bag or a coffee mug – you get to dictate the on-air programming.

    This is the kind of influence and control that we see in mainstream media today too.

    Thanks to the giant transnational corporations that own them, mainstream media outlets tailor their programming to appease their corporate backers.

    We can’t do anything about the big corporations that own our so-called “mainstream” media, but Public Broadcasting is still, at least in part, both legally and morally a part of our commons.

    It’s time to take back our public airwaves, and cut-off the corporate and billionaire control over them, so that David Koch and his buddies don’t get to choose what you watch on TV.

    And the only way to do that is to fully fund public radio and television.

    Call your members of Congress, and tell them to protect funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, so that it can pick back up its work to “enrich man’s spirit.”

    (full credits):
    This article was first published on Truthout and any reprint or reproduction on any other website must acknowledge Truthout as the original site of publication

    The Corporate Dictatorship of PBS and NPR
    Wednesday, 22 May 2013 14:53
    By The Daily Take, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed

  18. Mike: I love when you reference your earlier articles; you might consider archiving it under one link and doing a “summary article” assessing the drifts in processing the channels you have opened!

    In the meantime, let’s collaborate;… Appropo to William F. Buckley’s impact on “freedom ideology” press Here’s some more data:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freeman
    “The Freeman is an American libertarian journal published by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).[1] It started as a digest sized monthly study journal; it currently appears 10 times per year and is a larger-sized magazine. FEE was founded in 1946 by Leonard E. Read, who served as its president until his death in 1983. The Foundation was established to present the principles of free markets, limited government, private property, the rule of law, and libertarian philosophy and to oppose government programs introduced during the 1930s under President Roosevelt’s New Deal.”
    The editors of The Freeman have included Henry Hazlitt, John Chamberlain, Suzanne La Follette, Paul L. Poirot, Brian Summers, Charles Hamilton, and John Robbins. Henry Hazlitt, an economist and journalist, had been one of FEE’s founders and his articles continued to appear regularly in The Freeman after its take-over by FEE. John Chamberlain became FEE’s regular book reviewer and his reviews appeared in The Freeman until his death in 1995. Leonard Read, FEE’s President, was also a regular contributor, as was FEE’s economic adviser, Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Other contributors in the 1950s included: Barbara Branden, James Burnham, Frank Chodorov, John Dos Passos, Max Eastman, John T. Flynn, F. A. Hayek, Frank Meyer, Raymond Moley, Roscoe Pound, Wilhelm Röpke, Murray Rothbard, Morrie Ryskind and George Sokolsky.[3]

    The Freeman is widely considered to be an important forerunner to the conservative publication National Review magazine, which was founded in 1955, and which from its inception included many of the same contributing editors.”
    [and}

    1. Bruce,

      As usual your comments add much to the thread. I wasn’t aware of the Freeman at all, much less its being a forerunner to the National Review. My initial awareness of the National Review came when I was about 12, when Buckley started appearing on the Sunday morning news discussion shows, which I watched with my father. The Thom Hartmann piece also nicely summarizes the situation, but I think it is a little too hopeful. Even with total government funding PBS would be subject to political pressure and the threat of diminished funds behind it. At base the problem is that producing programs for a television network and then putting them out there so a sufficient number of people could see them costs a fortune. That is why the Internet seems the brightest avenues for disseminating information and contrary viewpoints. how long of course before the Internet itself is shackled by widespread censorship?

      As for an archive of my blogs, or those of the other guest bloggers, all that is necessary is entering our names into the search function on the upper right and you get everything we’ve written.

  19. David, Some folks are heavily into guilt by association. I agree w/ what you said, and am proud I never guilt trip people. I was raised Catholic which is dripping w/ guilt. However, I was blessed neither of my parents were guilt trippers, a quality my kids appreciate in me.

  20. “I for one am grateful to those others, like me, that feel some small responsibility to further the ideals of Public Broadcasting because of it’s overall excellence and in spite of it’s flaws.”

    David Hopsicker,

    More power to you and your co-sponsors David Koch and Exxon/Mobil. If you noticed I didn’t once tell anyone else not to contribute, merely expressed my own reasons for not contributing. I referenced the “flaws” you mentioned and if they’re cool with you, than go right ahead and contribute as much as you can. By the way though can you make sure you give to “American Masters”, “Antiques Roadshow” and anything by Ken Burns, because they’re the shows I like the best.

Comments are closed.