You don't know the documentary is fair.
Given the history of the filmmakers and the fact that PBS' evaluation approved it, that's good evidence they would make it fair. It passed the PBS test for that.
If it was, which is highly unlikely, PBS has the choice to support and air it or not. And, regardless of the fairness of the documentary, the Kock brothers have the choice to support PBS or not.
Yes, they do. They don't have the moral right or the right under the PBS donor rules to use that support to gain leverage to influence PBS editorial policy.
Give, or don't give; do not give on condition of being able to censor.
No, they are not immune at all. PBS can air anything it likes. It might lose donors, but it still has a choice.
Yes, they are immune. PBS is only going to air a quality, fair documentary, and you said that such a documentary is impossible. So, they are immune from criticism.
Any attempt to tell the truth about them that is at all critical is according to you a 'hatchet job'. That's immunity from any criticism on PBS.
Since we've had to repeat this several times, let's make it extra clear for you.
What would that fair criticism on PBS be like? A quality documentary that you say is not possible to make. The effect of that claim is that they are immune from criticism.
I made no such claim. I am just a realist an understand a documentary made about them will use only the information that is favorable to the maker's ideal.
\
Yes, you did. You describe all criticism of the Kochs as 'liberal radio hosts kicking and screaming all day'. So there is no valid criticism of the Kochs, only 'hatchet jobs'.
Except, it isn't blackmail at all. PBS is not being blackmailed to not show the documentary. They have the choice to show whatever they deem appropriate for their network. They happen to choose things that won't upset the people who keep the lights on. That is good business.
That is the definition of financial blackmail.
Your argument is like saying that a boss telling his worker 'if you don't have sex with me, I'll slash your wages' is not financial blackmail because the worker has a choice.
What do you not understand about what financial blackmail is, that it is the use of money to pressure for a desired choice? Whether that choice is sex, censorship, or whatever?
Choosing "things that won't upset the people who keep the lights on", when that means cancelling a documentary critical of a donor, is corruption and financial blackmail.
It's wrong, and I think everyone here but you understands your extreme error on this.