Documentary on Koch brothers being made

[Craig234]

Craig feels that if funding is pulled after approved; it becomes censorship.

Allocation of limited resources will always pinch someone.

It depends on the reason. I think in this case it's clear the reason was the Kochs' desire to censore the story, not resources. Did you read the article I linked?

 

[Craig234]

My POV is that what some call fair & honest is subjective to their view point.

If you want to attack the documentary as not fair and honest, provide evidence.

PBS disagreed when they approved it.

Then w/ respect to funding; he who controls the gold sets the rules.
They have realized that they need to go outside the normal channels because there is suspicion of the documentary.

The only suspicion about the documentary is that would tell the truth about the Kochs, and the Kochs don't want the truth told.

He controls the gold is NOT SUPPOSED to set the rules for PBS editorial policy. They're supposed to keep the editorial decisions insulated from donor influence. They failed.

Truth is very subjective - same goes with documentaries. To many producers of documentaries have an axe to grind; calling something a documentaries can be very generous - like a thin sheet of plastic over the picture - yes the picture is covered but the intent of seeing it is still there.

So your point is that there is such a thing as a bad documentary.

Therefore, since there is such a thing, you claims THIS documentary is bad.

That's such atrocious logic it's not even fair to call it bad logic.

That's like saying that because someone has committed murder, YOU committed murder.

There is zero case any of the criticisms you raise have been shown to be problems with this documentary. You are just defending the Kochs by making up baseless attacks.

I repeat for the third? time - try listening and not saying the same thing - that those issues were addressed when the project was approved by PBS.

They did not show any of the things you claim without evidence in changing their approval.

You are making not only assumptions but asserting the attacks as fast about this.

That is blind partisanship on behalf of the Koch brothers.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It depends on the reason. I think in this case it's clear the reason was the Kochs' desire to censore the story, not resources. Did you read the article I linked?

I read the article and the NYT also.

It will be interesting to see how the documentary is presented.

Is it intended on being a hit piece or a story to let the viewer draw their own conclusions.

Example; I feel that many of the Oliver Stone and Michael Moore documentaries are that more in name only.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The only reason this is even being talked about is because the content was about the Koch brothers themselves. You don't see an article for every show that is turned down from PBS, because they are not censoring information.

The entire point is the reason why the show is being suppressed. Something that is hidden from public view because of its content, and specifically because that content will make someone feel "offended" or uncomfortable, is being censored.

 

[Craig234]

I read the article and the NYT also.

It will be interesting to see how the documentary is presented.

Is it intended on being a hit piece or a story to let the viewer draw their own conclusions.

Those are not the only two choices. There is NOTHING WRONG with a documentary that says "here is the information" with conclusions. A documentary on smoking being bad for you does not have to conclude with "you decide" in order to not be a hit piece. It can say "smoking is dangerous to health".

Example; I feel that many of the Oliver Stone and Michael Moore documentaries are that more in name only.

I agree with a lot of their politcs, most of them, but I share concerns over their films. It's a case of when people you agree with make some questionable arguments for your position.

I generally watch a Michael Moore documentary with a combination of 'great point' and 'that was misleading' or similar criticisms. That's unfortunate.

 

[bononos]

I don't see the Koch brothers as a large force for the right at all. They ranked 62nd in donations from 1989 to 2012.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/07/but-but-but-citizens-united.html

Of the 63 listed in the table in the link I provided, the overwhelming majority contributed left. In fact, the scales look to be tipped far in favor of the left.

I think these two filmmakers are borderline subversives and should probably be turned into the DHS. Attacking people who create jobs in this country just can't be in our best interests.

The list only figures donations to individual politicians.
Koch has been far more active elsewhere by contributing hundreds of millions to right wing network of think tanks and other political groups. Instead of feeding the fish they like, they are changing the water of the pond.

 

[Greenman]

You're misreperesnting what happened. This was not asking the Kochs to pay for this film. Rather it was using their donations for other shows to blackmail PBS to censor.

Imagine a gift to a hospital on the condition the hospital won't treat a person the donor doesn't like - or that they won't treat a race of people they don't like. That's inappropriate.

You also show a lack of honesty in equating any critical documentary to 'hatchet job'. Hatchet job is a term for lying, misleading attacks, not fair and accurate attacks.

Some people like to use the term for fair and honest attacks because they don't have any legitimate arguments to attack the film/book with. It's a poor man's argument.

It's at the bottom of the argument list, next to attacking a fair and honest book critical of something by saying 'the author just wants to sell books'.

Given the film hasn't been made, it's a bit early for you to claim how it's a 'hatchet job' instead of legitimate criticism and documentary.

If you can cite something from the early publicitity, from the authors' backgrounds, fine. If you'd like to state you think anything negative about the Kochs is false, say that.

That's in effect what you are saying - all that's known is that this is a documentary about the Kochs, is critical of them, and is good enough to have won PBS' initial backing. You object just to that - so you object to any information critical of the Kochs. Which is actually a good argument in favor of the need for this documentary, to counter that sort of bias and to inform people. The fact the Kochs use their money to censor PBS from supporting the truth about them reinforces the problem about them and the need for the film.

It doesn't matter how it's slanted. PBS wants to make a documentary about the Koch's, they don't want it made. They have the right to not want it made, they have the right to not support the organization that's going to make it, they have the right to stop giving money to a group of people that are doing something they don't like.
What they are doing is legal, appropriate, and logical. It's not censorship, it's not nefarious, it's not even a little bit iffy.

 

[Craig234]

It doesn't matter how it's slanted. PBS wants to make a documentary about the Koch's, they don't want it made. They have the right to not want it made, they have the right to not support the organization that's going to make it, they have the right to stop giving money to a group of people that are doing something they don't like.
What they are doing is legal, appropriate, and logical. It's not censorship, it's not nefarious, it's not even a little bit iffy.

That's a basically insane position. They wanted it made; and reversed that over the Kochs' opposition.

Legal? It violates the rules PBS has against donor influence on editorial policy. It's about the opposite of appropriate. Logical? to Machiavelli. Textbook censorship and nefarious.

 

[smackababy]

You keep using censorship and I feel it is wrong.

cen·sor·ship
/ˈsensərˌSHip/
Noun
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

They are not censoring anything. As I've stated, they are using their influence to not broadcast the documentary on PBS. That is not censorship. They are not blocking the documentary being made, or blocking certain unfavorable parts from being released. They have influence, through PBS's own faults, over what is broadcast on the station and have decided it is against their wishes.

Again, you are trying to demonize the Koch brothers in this particular situation because you dislike their political stance and influence. If a station (say MTV) was had greenlit a documentary on a political figure you agree with that would cast an unfavorable slant on them, and then a donor to that station raised concerns and MTV canned it, I doubt you'd be crying censorship. In fact, it probably wouldn't make the rounds of whatever news sources you get your info from.

 

[EagleKeeper]

That's a basically insane position. They wanted it made; and reversed that over the Kochs' opposition.

Legal? It violates the rules PBS has against donor influence on editorial policy. It's about the opposite of appropriate. Logical? to Machiavelli. Textbook censorship and nefarious.

Bitch about the PBS policies/rules/guidelines and get them changed if you desire

The Koch's have every right to decide where they want their donations put to use.

 

[Craig234]

Bitch about the PBS policies/rules/guidelines and get them changed if you desire

The Koch's have every right to decide where they want their donations put to use.

I don't want the rules changed, I want them followed.

The Kochs have no moral right to censor the truth about themselves with a bribe.

If that were the case, it's like saying that you have the right to use your money to pay for a hit man or to bribe a politician, which is still technically, barely illegal.

It's not quite a law, probably, but it's immoral.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I don't want the rules changed, I want them followed.

The Kochs have no moral right to censor the truth about themselves with a bribe.

If that were the case, it's like saying that you have the right to use your money to pay for a hit man or to bribe a politician, which is still technically, barely illegal.

It's not quite a law, probably, but it's immoral.

I am sure that PBS found a loophole that allows them to follow the rules.

If Soros or the Kennedy PR group complained about a "hit" piece that exposed the dirty laundry on the Kennedy family from prohibition onward; would it be OK for PBS to pull the support

 

[Bowfinger]

I am sure that PBS found a loophole that allows them to follow the rules.

If Soros or the Kennedy PR group complained about a "hit" piece that exposed the dirty laundry on the Kennedy family from prohibition onward; would it be OK for PBS to pull the support

No, of course not. PBS shouldn't be suppressing anything based on funding or other external pressures. The point is the Koch brothers are in effect using their wealth to censor content they don't like. Do you have any examples of Soros or any left-wing group doing the same? Craig is right, IMO. While the Kochs' actions are no doubt legal, they are clearly not moral. They deserve condemnation, as does PBS for selling out to them.

 

[Greenman]

I don't want the rules changed, I want them followed.

The Kochs have no moral right to censor the truth about themselves with a bribe.

If that were the case, it's like saying that you have the right to use your money to pay for a hit man or to bribe a politician, which is still technically, barely illegal.

It's not quite a law, probably, but it's immoral.

I guess we're done here. My stance is the Koch's are 100% within their rights to stop donating to an organization that's doing something they don't like.
Your stance appears to be that not giving away their own money is censorship, and you keep equating it to criminal activity. We can't discuss the issue because I can't fathom how not giving away money is equivalent to hiring a hit man.

 

[smackababy]

I guess we're done here. My stance is the Koch's are 100% within their rights to stop donating to an organization that's doing something they don't like.
Your stance appears to be that not giving away their own money is censorship, and you keep equating it to criminal activity. We can't discuss the issue because I can't fathom how not giving away money is equivalent to hiring a hit man.

Well, clearly a company that survives of donations must do everything in their "rules" to ensure the large, private donors are as pissed off as possible at their programming. Threatening to pull your donations because you don't want to support a network that shows slanted documentaries you don't agree with is obviously the equivalent of hiring a hit man to kill the makers and destroy all footage so the documentary never sees the light of day.


And let's be perfectly honest here, no documentary being made about the Koch brothers is going to be "fair and balanced." It will be politically charged, ignore things that don't line up with the makers intentions, and be a hit piece.

 

[Craig234]

I am sure that PBS found a loophole that allows them to follow the rules.

If Soros or the Kennedy PR group complained about a "hit" piece that exposed the dirty laundry on the Kennedy family from prohibition onward; would it be OK for PBS to pull the support

Why are you "sure" of that? What's your evidence the New Yorker article is wrong, that it wasn't a violation of the rules?

Do you have any other basis than it being 'your team' so you just make up the claim?

The same rules apply to the Kennedys.

One difference there - there's a history of attempts to make false, 'hit pieces' on the Kennedeys. There are legitimate reasons not to support that.

But I know some people can't see past 'my team' and 'enemy team', who cares about what's accurate. There's plenty of legitimate 'dirt' on the Kennedys appropriate to cover.

 

[Craig234]

Well, clearly a company that survives of donations must do everything in their "rules" to ensure the large, private donors are as pissed off as possible at their programming. Threatening to pull your donations because you don't want to support a network that shows slanted documentaries you don't agree with is obviously the equivalent of hiring a hit man to kill the makers and destroy all footage so the documentary never sees the light of day.


And let's be perfectly honest here, no documentary being made about the Koch brothers is going to be "fair and balanced." It will be politically charged, ignore things that don't line up with the makers intentions, and be a hit piece.

Right, the Koch's should immune to having the truth told about them, because it simply can't be. You should be in the news media, you clearly have great judtement.

 

[smackababy]

Right, the Koch's should immune to having the truth told about them, because it simply can't be. You should be in the news media, you clearly have great judtement.

No one is saying they should be immune. What is being said is, the Koch's have every right to take a stance on any programming they choose and PBS has every right to take that stance into consideration when it comes to their programming. The Koch's apparently donated a substantial amount of money to PBS (and good for them for doing that), and PBS, which is primarily funded through private donations, would like to stay in good standing with their donors.

The Koch's have done nothing to censor the documentary from what I've heard. They haven't used their legal team to silence it, nor have they strongarmed anyone about it. They just influenced a network they support into not funding it. The documentary can still be made "and have the truth told about them" (which won't be the entire truth, just the truths that line up with whatever slant the documentary has).

There is no censorship going on here.

 

[Craig234]

I guess we're done here. My stance is the Koch's are 100% within their rights to stop donating to an organization that's doing something they don't like.
Your stance appears to be that not giving away their own money is censorship, and you keep equating it to criminal activity. We can't discuss the issue because I can't fathom how not giving away money is equivalent to hiring a hit man.

They are 100% in their rights to stop donating. They are morally wrong to try to use their money to censor the truth being told about them. PBS is wrong to let them do that.

You can't fathom it? It's an abusive use of money.

Let's say you're a billionare.

There's a guy you don't like. So you offer his wife $10 million to divorce him.

You buy all the homes that come up for sale in his neighborhood and rent them for $1 to any people who agree to legally make him as miserable as possible.

You offer his employer $10 million to terminate him.

You offer the local news stations and paper big advertising revenue if they refuse to cover the story.

You take similar measures against his family members wherever they are.

Those are examples that money can be abused.

In this case, it couldn't be much more straightforward. PBS has an obligation to editorial integrity, and they have an obligation to not let donors blackmail that integrity. That's why they have rules prohibiting it - because it's a natural temptation for donors to want to abuse the power their money has to corrupt the editorial policies. To get nice things about people they like and nasty things about people they don't.

The correct answer is to follow the rules and not allow that. The wrong answer is to ignore the rules and allow that corruption, to have the truth censored for a price.

The public has help put them in that position by opposing more funding for them, making them rely on the donations - but that's not an exucse to accept corruption.

This is an age old issue with journalism when powerful interests want to suppress the truth. It's no different than any other time that conflict comes up.

 

[Craig234]

No one is saying they should be immune.

You just did. You said that it's simply impossible to ever make any documentary that tells the truth about the Kochs, so there can never be any documentary supported.

There is no such situation possible, according to you, that a legitimate and critical documentary deserving to be aired is made, and the Kochs use financial blackmail.

Your position is that they should be immune from the truth being told about them.

 

[smackababy]

You just did. You said that it's simply impossible to ever make any documentary that tells the truth about the Kochs, so there can never be any documentary supported.

There is no such situation possible, according to you, that a legitimate and critical documentary deserving to be aired is made, and the Kochs use financial blackmail.

Your position is that they should be immune from the truth being told about them.

That is not what I said in the least bit. A documentary on anything can be completely non biased, but that is highly unlikely. If you want to pretend filmmakers who want to make a documentary about the Koch brothers won't have an agenda (for or against), go ahead and live in the dark. I am not even suggesting it not be made; they should make it, if that is what they want.

I think it is rather funny you associate this with financial blackmail though. The Koch brothers choosing to support (or not support) a network based on the media the network shows is now financial blackmail? Come on, let's be real. Just because your liberal radio hosts kick and scream about the Koch brothers all day between their "guns are evil" rants, doesn't mean everyone else believes it.

 

[Craig234]

That is not what I said in the least bit. A documentary on anything can be completely non biased, but that is highly unlikely. If you want to pretend filmmakers who want to make a documentary about the Koch brothers won't have an agenda (for or against), go ahead and live in the dark. I am not even suggesting it not be made; they should make it, if that is what they want.

That is what you said.

So on the question, should PBS support and air a fair documentary critical of the Kochs:

And let's be perfectly honest here, no documentary being made about the Koch brothers is going to be "fair and balanced." It will be politically charged, ignore things that don't line up with the makers intentions, and be a hit piece.

You say such a documentary is impossible. So, they are immune to PBS airing any criticism.

I think it is rather funny you associate this with financial blackmail though. The Koch brothers choosing to support (or not support) a network based on the media the network shows is now financial blackmail? Come on, let's be real. Just because your liberal radio hosts kick and scream about the Koch brothers all day between their "guns are evil" rants, doesn't mean everyone else believes it.

Your post is irratoinally insulting. You need to improve the tone. Just because your savior Glenn Beck tells you... see, that's what you did. False and inappropriate.

You want to claim the Kochs are saints who have never done anything wrong, without actually having anything to back that up with evidence - showing why the film is needed.

Using large donations to gain influence over editorial policy is financial blackmail.

 

[smackababy]

So on the question, should PBS support and air a fair documentary critical of the Kochs:

You don't know the documentary is fair. 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.

You say such a documentary is impossible. So, they are immune to PBS airing any criticism.

No, they are not immune at all. PBS can air anything it likes. It might lose donors, but it still has a choice.

You want to claim the Kochs are saints who have never done anything wrong, without actually having anything to back that up with evidence - showing why the film is needed.

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.

Using large donations to gain influence over editorial policy is financial blackmail.

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.

 

[Craig234]

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.

 

[Greenman]

They are 100% in their rights to stop donating. They are morally wrong to try to use their money to censor the truth being told about them. PBS is wrong to let them do that.

You can't fathom it? It's an abusive use of money.

Let's say you're a billionare.

There's a guy you don't like. So you offer his wife $10 million to divorce him.

You buy all the homes that come up for sale in his neighborhood and rent them for $1 to any people who agree to legally make him as miserable as possible.

You offer his employer $10 million to terminate him.

You offer the local news stations and paper big advertising revenue if they refuse to cover the story.

You take similar measures against his family members wherever they are.

Those are examples that money can be abused.

In this case, it couldn't be much more straightforward. PBS has an obligation to editorial integrity, and they have an obligation to not let donors blackmail that integrity. That's why they have rules prohibiting it - because it's a natural temptation for donors to want to abuse the power their money has to corrupt the editorial policies. To get nice things about people they like and nasty things about people they don't.

The correct answer is to follow the rules and not allow that. The wrong answer is to ignore the rules and allow that corruption, to have the truth censored for a price.

The public has help put them in that position by opposing more funding for them, making them rely on the donations - but that's not an exucse to accept corruption.

This is an age old issue with journalism when powerful interests want to suppress the truth. It's no different than any other time that conflict comes up.

This is foolishness, hyperbole, and ignorance.