Documentary on Koch brothers being made

[Charles Kozierok]

This is foolishness, hyperbole, and ignorance.

Let's try this thought experiment instead.

Suppose one day it came out that Intel had decided to become a really big sponsor of AnandTech. At first this just meant Intel ads everywhere, far more than ever before. But then the editorial nature of the articles seemed to slant more and more towards Intel. Positive articles about Intel's competitors disappeared, and negative stories about the company were suppressed. Then Anand told the forum directors that he didn't want to see negative comments about Intel on the forums either -- such posts were to be deleted, and the ones who wrote them warned and then banned if they persisted.

Would this represent a form of censorship? IMO, yes. Would Anand have every right to do this if he wished? Again, IMO, yes.

But we all assume and hope he would not, because the value of AnandTech is based, at least in part, on Anand's ability to be a straight-shooter not corrupted by his revenue source. If he did as I described above nobody would say it wasn't his choice to make, but nobody here would view AT the same way ever again. And most of us would say that Intel bore at least some of the blame for what happened.

This doesn't happen with Anand because he knows his reputation for objectivity is important, and he doesn't put himself in a position of being beholden to a large contributor. PBS needs to do the same.

 

[Craig234]

This is foolishness, hyperbole, and ignorance.

And that is not an argument, it's name-calling - and false. That's all some seem to offer.

 

[Greenman]

Let's try this thought experiment instead.

Suppose one day it came out that Intel had decided to become a really big sponsor of AnandTech. At first this just meant Intel ads everywhere, far more than ever before. But then the editorial nature of the articles seemed to slant more and more towards Intel. Positive articles about Intel's competitors disappeared, and negative stories about the company were suppressed. Then Anand told the forum directors that he didn't want to see negative comments about Intel on the forums either -- such posts were to be deleted, and the ones who wrote them warned and then banned if they persisted.

Would this represent a form of censorship? IMO, yes. Would Anand have every right to do this if he wished? Again, IMO, yes.

But we all assume and hope he would not, because the value of AnandTech is based, at least in part, on Anand's ability to be a straight-shooter not corrupted by his revenue source. If he did as I described above nobody would say it wasn't his choice to make, but nobody here would view AT the same way ever again. And most of us would say that Intel bore at least some of the blame for what happened.

This doesn't happen with Anand because he knows his reputation for objectivity is important, and he doesn't put himself in a position of being beholden to a large contributor. PBS needs to do the same.

Go back through the history of the video forum, something a bit like this has happened with a shill paid by nvidia.

Back on topic. The issue I have with you're argument is very simple, there is no evidence that the brothers Koch have a history of manipulating PBS. They aren't trying to make it into a conservative propaganda outlet. They simply said "if you do this we stop giving you money". I've done exactly the same thing in the past with charity's that did things I disagreed with. There is no impropriety here. If the Kosh's were using the legal system, or threats of action to try and prevent the film from being made I'd have an entirely different opinion.

My issue with Craig is his comparing this to committing various felony's, and his apparent belief that one shouldn't be allowed to withdraw voluntary support from an organization that you no longer agree with.

 

[Craig234]

My issue with Craig is his comparing this to committing various felony's, and his apparent belief that one shouldn't be allowed to withdraw voluntary support from an organization that you no longer agree with.

Except the analogies specifically excluded the criminal issue and additional ones that are not crimes were added for just that reason - so not very honest of you.

You make 'no longer agree with' sound so noble and principled, when it's not.

'When PBS called for bringing back slavery, my principles did not allow me to donate more'.

Except that's not the case. It was 'they want to tell the truth about us and we want to offer a bribe to get them to censor that truth'.

Tell you what - how about I offer your wife money to leave you - nothing illegal there, and I'm simply not donating my money if she refuses. So nothing you mind, right?

 

[Greenman]

Except the analogies specifically excluded the criminal issue and additional ones that are not crimes were added for just that reason - so not very honest of you.

You make 'no longer agree with' sound so noble and principled, when it's not.

'When PBS called for bringing back slavery, my principles did not allow me to donate more'.

Except that's not the case. It was 'they want to tell the truth about us and we want to offer a bribe to get them to censor that truth'.

Tell you what - how about I offer your wife money to leave you - nothing illegal there, and I'm simply not donating my money if she refuses. So nothing you mind, right?

You don't understand the difference between positive and negative feedback, do you?

 

[Craig234]

You don't understand the difference between positive and negative feedback, do you?

I do.

You don't understand the idea of corrupt donor influence, do you?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Corruption is the excuse of the loser of something.

Positive action is the intent of a donor.

 

[Craig234]

Corruption is the excuse of the loser of something.

Positive action is the intent of a donor.

Sorry, but that's barely English.

So you're saying there's no such thing as corruption? That all donor influence is fine?

 

[Greenman]

So what is it you want Craig? Do you want the Kosh brothers to be forced to pay PBS? Or is it your desire to see them continue they're support even though they don't like what's being done with their money? Would that make them admirable and selfless in your eyes?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The issue I have with you're argument is very simple, there is no evidence that the brothers Koch have a history of manipulating PBS.

I don't see how something being wrong or not has anything to do with how often it is done. This action stands on its own merits, and furthermore, if they've tried to block one program because they don't like it, why couldn't they t block others based on the same reasoning?

I've done exactly the same thing in the past with charity's that did things I disagreed with. There is no impropriety here.

It's a matter of scale -- if you withdraw your support, the charity will not be unduly affected.

The issue boils down to this: adding conditions to a donation transforms it from a gift into a means of control. The Kochs are acting against what is considered good faith in the world of philanthropy by allowing themselves to become involved in editorial decision-making, and while they have every right to do so, others have every right to object to it.

 

[Craig234]

So what is it you want Craig? Do you want the Kosh brothers to be forced to pay PBS? Or is it your desire to see them continue they're support even though they don't like what's being done with their money? Would that make them admirable and selfless in your eyes?

First, what I want is primarily from PBS and the public, not the Kochs, on this. I'd like to see PBS follow their rules and proceed with the documentary, while the Kochs cancel their donations and that just adds one more act to tarnish their image as they deserve, and the citizens to better support PBS to be able to have funding while doing that.

The Kochs' role is secondary, but I'd like them to either donate unconditionally, or not at all.

I'll repeat, you are falsely misrepresenting this as some act of principle by them - as if they're withholding their donation on some great principle - when that's not the case.

It's crass censorship of their being exposed by the truth, and their attempting to buy off PBS to not tell the truth about them.

It's one thing if a donor stops donating for a valid reason, and another if they use their donation to try to gain undue influence and to corrupt the target of their donation.

 

[Craig234]

Greenman, we'll make a little analogy here.

Isn't it a parent's right to decide what to buy and not buy their children when it comes to 'luxury items'?

Of course it is - and that is generally viewed in the context of reasonable parents.

But let's say a racist parent tells their child, 'if you cut off all content with your black friend, I'll buy you a playstation'.

That's an example of pretty inappropropriate parenting. It's wrong, even if it falls within the normal rule of parental prerogative.

We could have several posts of you missing the point asking whether I'm demanding they should be forced to buy their child a playstation.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they should use appropriate factors to make the decision - not to use their power as parents to manipulate their child inappropriately.

And the Kochs as donors are badly behaved donors to condition their donations on the censorship blackmail not to tell the truth about them.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yet if the friend does not have the same values as the family; the family should have the right/obligation to ensure that their child obey their own values.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yet if the friend does not have the same values as the family; the family should have the right/obligation to ensure that their child obey their own values.

Utterly beside the point, which is the use of money as a means of control. (And in this case the 'values', as clearly stated, were racist in nature.)

 

[Craig234]

Yet if the friend does not have the same values as the family; the family should have the right/obligation to ensure that their child obey their own values.

There is a variance in different 'values'. That's not the issue here.

You seem to want to defend not letting your child have friends of other races as 'just another valid set of values', missing the point.

The point was how money can be inappropriately used to pressure and manipulate people against their wishes.

Say I offer your wife a million dollars to leave you. No problem right? I'm just spending.

The issue here is pure censorship to deny the people hearing the truth out of a purely selfish interest to prevent the public from knowing more about what they do.

That isn't some 'values' issue, like one family believes one thing is right another has a different opinion of what's right.

It seems that you don't think there's any such thing as inappropiate use of money.

 

[EagleKeeper]

There are multiple ways if getting the message out. PBS is one. Liberal media is another.
If PBS feels that the documentary may not be made by them for what ever reasons, tough.
PBS is looking st the big picture. One hit piece or multiple other shows. Looks like they decided on multiple shows.


Go ask Soros for the funding instead orcset up a web page. KochsHitPiece.com and ask fir donations

 

[Craig234]

There are multiple ways if getting the message out. PBS is one. Liberal media is another.
If PBS feels that the documentary may not be made by them for what ever reasons, tough.
PBS is looking st the big picture. One hit piece or multiple other shows. Looks like they decided on multiple shows.


Go ask Soros for the funding instead orcset up a web page. KochsHitPiece.com and ask fir donations

First, you continue to dishonestly claim this is somehow a dishonest documentary, again calling it a 'hit piece'.

You're trying to make that claim - without any justification - so that your argument defendng corrupt censorship sounds more respectable than it is.

Why, this isn't trying to supress the truth, it's simply not supporting a bunch of lies!

Except you are not being honest by making those baesless insinuations.

Second, 'use another outlet' is not a defense for wrong censorship at one outlet.

If it came out that evidence was brought to the New York Times about Obama breaking the law, and they buried the story in exchange for benefits from the administration, would you say 'who cares, take the story to another outlet, the New York Times did nothing wrong'? No, you wouldn't and shouldn't.

You don't offer any rational comments here - you just throw out right-wing talking buzzwords like 'George Soros!' as if that's an argument.

You claim PBS's decision to take the money for the benefits is justified. It clearly violates their obligation to the public, journalistic standards and their own rules.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You feel that PBS should provide the support for the "documentary" because it will expose the "truth".
I feel that the documentary will be a hit piece. For two reasons. Had there been thoughts of it being "neutral"; I suspect that there not be an uproar.
second; because you back it so much, I am suspicious of the producer's motives.


PBS has an obligation to it's audience - to provide as much programming as possible.
If supporting the documentary kills funding for 2 or 3 others; have they served the public?

IF there is an actual law/rule that PBS must follow that has been broken, please list it.

so, I have covered you three complaints;
Standards
Public obligation
Rules.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You feel that PBS should provide the support for the "documentary" because it will expose the "truth".
I feel that the documentary will be a hit piece.

It honestly doesn't matter what either of you think it will be. It's irrelevant to the core issue here.

PBS has an obligation to it's audience - to provide as much programming as possible.

Says who?

IF there is an actual law/rule that PBS must follow that has been broken, please list it.

And that's a red herring. Nobody said anything about laws being broken.

If that's your standard, then I guess all the right-wingers who whine endlessly about "media bias" have no basis for complaint -- after all, no laws are being broken, right?

 

[Craig234]

because you back it so much, I am suspicious of the producer's motives.

That's a false insult inappropriate for the forum.

We're done discussing if you think you have the right to make that kind of insult.

 

[smackababy]

That's a false insult inappropriate for the forum.

We're done discussing if you think you have the right to make that kind of insult.

Except it is not. Look how adamant you have been about this "exposing the truth" and your blind support. Unless you've seen it, you really can't comment on the content.

Now, if you think that after PBS making the decision (without the Koch's involvement except for them being donors according to the kickstarter page) won't have any effect on an unfinished documentary, you're very naive.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Except it is not.

Except it is. Eaglekeeper essentially said that the documentary can't be valid simply because Craig wanted to see it produced, which is both unfair and illogical.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You feel that PBS should provide the support for the "documentary" because it will expose the "truth".
I feel that the documentary will be a hit piece.

It honestly doesn't matter what either of you think it will be. It's irrelevant to the core issue here.

The issue here is that Kochs threatened to pull funding due to a documentary being made under PBS $$. PBS then agreed to not fund it. Why would the Kochs want the production to not go forward. because they felt it would not be a "fair" documentary. That is the issue: PBS stopping funding because of a major donor concerns.

PBS has an obligation to it's audience - to provide as much programming as possible.

Says who?
What is the purpose of PBS then.
Why are they having fund raisers?
Why during their fund raising efforts, they state the $$ are needed to support and develop new programming.

IF there is an actual law/rule that PBS must follow that has been broken, please list it.

And that's a red herring. Nobody said anything about laws being broken.

Note: I stated, law/rule. Craig was the one that stated that PBS broke their own rules

If that's your standard, then I guess all the right-wingers who whine endlessly about "media bias" have no basis for complaint -- after all, no laws are being broken, right??

All I was doing was pointing out the flaws in Craig's whining.

The media are allowed to generate what they desire; but then they and their readers should not complain when the shoe is on the other foot or funding does not exist to counteract biases.

We already know that ratings mean more than the truth; this is seen from both sides.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Except it is. Eaglekeeper essentially said that the documentary can't be valid simply because Craig wanted to see it produced, which is both unfair and illogical.

I never stated that the documentary was not valid.
I stated that I suspected that the documentary would be a hit piece.
The more Craig fights for something; the more liberal it must.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I never stated that the documentary was not valid.
I stated that I suspected that the documentary would be a hit piece.
The more Craig fights for something; the more liberal it must.

"Hit piece" implies that the documentary would be untruthful or unfair, as your own words confirm by direct contrast to "truth": "You feel that PBS should provide the support for the "documentary" because it will expose the "truth". I feel that the documentary will be a hit piece."

The only evidence you offer to support this allegation is that Craig wants to see the piece made, which is both ad hominem and fallacious.