Documentary on Koch brothers being made

[Craig234]

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.

Yes, it is - you have nothing relevant to say about that.

So let's take what you do say about the documentary.

Of course, none of us have seen the finished product that doesn't exist. So what information do we have to base any opinion on?

These are academy award winning documentarians, and PBS approved their documentary until the Koch brothers pressured them to reverse that decision.

That means this had passed the PBS process for being a fair project.

Now, let's note that no matter how fair the documentary is, if it has any criticism of the Kochs, some here will call those truths 'bias' and a 'hit piece'. So we won't agree.

But the logic you are advocating is that every unfinished documentary should be assumed to be a 'hit piece' and unworthy of funding.

You have no more reason to say this is a 'hit piece' that you would for any other film at this stage in the process.

There are remedies if it is. If the finished product comes out a 'hit piece', then PBS can say that and decline to air it. If it is and they air it, you can criticize PBS for that.

But what you're supporting here is simply assuming it's a 'hit piece' and supporting it not being funded as it otherwise would be based on nothing but the Kochs' interests.

And a critical documentary is not a 'hit piece' when criticism is warranted. If a film is done on Wall Street practices that led up to the 2008 crash, having some criticism is not a 'hit piece' necessarily. If a documentary is made about Jack Abramoff's activites that landed him in jail and is critical, that's not a 'hit piece' necessarily. Some things deserve to be critizied by a 'fair' documentary.

Often, the phrase 'hit piece' means 'you're telling the unplesant truth about my friend'. It's a false attack on the documentary.

There are no guarantees how this documentary will come out - but zero evidence of a 'hit piece'. It's attacked at this early stage for nothig but wanting to hide the truth.

The unlikely possibility it will be unfair is being argued as if it's a confirmed fact it will be to justify killing it before it's made.

The fact is, the Kochs have a significant political role in our society. A documentary about their activities is exactly what political documentaries are for.

The only basis for opposition to the documentary at this time is a purely partisan one defending censorship to hide the truth that might be bad for 'your side'.

 

[smackababy]

I don't know where you are getting your facts from, but the page FOR THE DOCUMENTARY says the Koch brothers did nothing to stop this. PBS took it upon themselves to not upset a donor.

"It turns out that David Koch is a donor to PBS flagship stations WNET and WGBH and on their board of trustees. And without lifting a finger or even taking out his checkbook, Koch was able to influence funding and programming decisions at public television. And our film was effectively censored."

There was no censorship. PBS decided it was against their best interests to fund this project. They did not stop this project from being funded.

And, if this was such an unbiased documentary, how did the not know David Koch was a large supporter of PBS affiliates? Sounds like, at the time, it didn't help whatever their cause was so they either ignored it or didn't bother looking for it.

 

[Craig234]

I don't know where you are getting your facts from, but the page FOR THE DOCUMENTARY says the Koch brothers did nothing to stop this. PBS took it upon themselves to not upset a donor.

"It turns out that David Koch is a donor to PBS flagship stations WNET and WGBH and on their board of trustees. And without lifting a finger or even taking out his checkbook, Koch was able to influence funding and programming decisions at public television. And our film was effectively censored."

There was no censorship. PBS decided it was against their best interests to fund this project. They did not stop this project from being funded.

And, if this was such an unbiased documentary, how did the not know David Koch was a large supporter of PBS affiliates? Sounds like, at the time, it didn't help whatever their cause was so they either ignored it or didn't bother looking for it.

It takes a very high level of blindness to quote the filmmaker saying "our film was effectively censored" to support the immediately following claim, "There was no censorship."

And if the word effectively seems like a loophole, let's look at their statement:

“People like the Kochs have worked for decades to undermine public funding for institutions like PBS,” Deal told the Center for Media and Democracy. “When public dollars dry up, private dollars come in to make up for the shortfall.”

And that private funding can conflict with PBS’ “public” mission and its editorial integrity. The PBS distributor “backed out of the partnership because they came to fear the reaction our film would provoke,” Deal and Lessin said in a statement. “David Koch, whose political activities are featured in the film, happens to be a public-television funder and a trustee of both [New York PBS member station] WNET and [Boston member station] WGBH. This wasn’t a failed negotiation or a divergence of visions; it was censorship, pure and simple.”

I think "it was censorship, pure and simple" is pretty clear about their views.

Now, I have placed the primary responsibility of this problem on PBS. Their guidelines require stations to insulate editorial policy from donor influence. They failed.

Now, exactly what happened by the Kochs here isn't the main issue. I linked the article discussing how they intervened in a previous documentary. The issue here was that PBS was clearly concerned with the donations from the Kochs and their desire to not have the documentary exposing things about them made and aired. The Kochs' interests were driving the pressure for censoring the documentary, whether they were more active in communicating that or not.

There's an old story about the King of England, unhappy with the Archbishop of Canterbury, asking rhetorically in front of some knights, who would rid him of the problem?

He didn't order anyone to do anything - but the message was understood and the knights went off and killed the archbishop.

The Kochs are at a point of power they don't have to pick up the phone and call the president of the PBS station and say 'we want the documentary killed'. He already understands their position and the pressure of their donations. It doesn't need to be said explicitly, after the history with the previous documentary. That doesn't change the issue of what happened.

As one person noted, why are the Kochs fighting against public funding for PBS and shifting its funding to big donors like themselves? Control.

Bottom line, they are creating pressure to not air a documentary about themselves for selfish reasons, and PBS has failed - with their reliance on the donations - to not censor.

 

[smackababy]

Again, you keep using that word (censor). I do not think it means what you think it means.

They did not censor anything. PBS pulled funding for content they did not want to be air on their network. Their reasoning for it, was they did not want to lose a donor. So, if you want to remove that power from PBS, then you better come up with a way for them to get funding for their networks. 61% of their funding comes from private donors.

I cannot find any guidelines that PBS have broken by not funding this project. You keep insinuating the Koch's pressured PBS somehow. They might have not even known about this documentary until it was reportedly censored by them. All indication is PBS made the decision on their own. The mention of the Koch's name is just an attempt to discredit them. It could have easily been "PBS backs out on documentary about private donors". But, that wouldn't have been a good headline, now would it?

Your story about the King of England is rather silly. The only reason his question would be considered rhetorical is because everyone who heard it knew who was going to solve the problem. None of that had anything to do with what happened in this situation.

And, as someone else asked, had this been a documentary about all the bad things the Kennedy's did, would you be in such a stink over it? And you're retort was rather telling before: "The Kennedy's have been known to have had fake documentaries made about them!" And I'm sure nobody on the internet ever told a lie about the Koch brothers right?

 

[Craig234]

Again, you keep using that word (censor). I do not think it means what you think it means.

They did not censor anything. PBS pulled funding for content they did not want to be air on their network. Their reasoning for it, was they did not want to lose a donor. So, if you want to remove that power from PBS, then you better come up with a way for them to get funding for their networks. 61% of their funding comes from private donors.

I cannot find any guidelines that PBS have broken by not funding this project. You keep insinuating the Koch's pressured PBS somehow. They might have not even known about this documentary until it was reportedly censored by them. All indication is PBS made the decision on their own. The mention of the Koch's name is just an attempt to discredit them. It could have easily been "PBS backs out on documentary about private donors". But, that wouldn't have been a good headline, now would it?

Your story about the King of England is rather silly. The only reason his question would be considered rhetorical is because everyone who heard it knew who was going to solve the problem. None of that had anything to do with what happened in this situation.

And, as someone else asked, had this been a documentary about all the bad things the Kennedy's did, would you be in such a stink over it? And you're retort was rather telling before: "The Kennedy's have been known to have had fake documentaries made about them!" And I'm sure nobody on the internet ever told a lie about the Koch brothers right?

You're not discussing this, you're ignoring the points being made.

Censor means exactly what I said it means. The act of censorship was done here by PBS; the Kochs' power and money were the pressures for them to do it.

You effectively make the point it was censored yourself - that as the Kochs have fought to shift PBS funding from public funding to big donors, they have gained power.

That PBS feels pressure to not air material the big donors don't like - the definition of censorship.

PBS guidelines require stations to insulate editorial policy from donor pressure. You admit that they made this editorial decision to reverse support because of donor concerns.

You don't understand the point of the King of England analogy - fine, I won't entertain your attempt to divert to the Kennedys.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Again, you keep using that word (censor). I do not think it means what you think it means.

What do you think it means? Because it seems to me that you (and some others) believe that if the government isn't doing it, it can't be censorship, and that's just not true.

 

[smackababy]

What do you think it means? Because it seems to me that you (and some others) believe that if the government isn't doing it, it can't be censorship, and that's just not true.

CENSOR: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

Nothing is being suppressed. They are just not being funded. Is every station that pulls funding for every show censoring them? PBS simply thought it would be in their best interest to not fund and show the documentary on their network. They, PBS or the Koch brothers, did nothing to suppress anything in this documentary or stop them from making it. They simply chose to not fund it with their network. Hardly a case of censorship.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

They are just not being funded.

They are not being funded specifically because of a desire to suppress something "objectionable". That is not comparable to a station or network pulling funding for something because of ratings, for example, and you know that.

 

[smackababy]

They are not being funded specifically because of a desire to suppress something "objectionable". That is not comparable to a station or network pulling funding for something because of ratings, for example, and you know that.

They are not funding it because it does not align with what they want on their network. If HBO had decided Game of Thrones wasn't a fit for their network, are they censoring George R R Martin or the creators of the show? Of course not. They are free to make the content and display it in other areas. How many shows, documentaries, books, songs, pieces of art are rejected every day by every content delivery system? Are they all censoring as well?

What about all the games that don't get Greenlit on Steam? Are all those developers being censored? Every Kickstarter that doesn't get funded?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

They are not funding it because it does not align with what they want on their network.

It actually aligns perfectly with what the network is about. They are not funding it because they don't want it seen.

What about all the games that don't get Greenlit on Steam? Are all those developers being censored? Every Kickstarter that doesn't get funded?

You apparently don't understand -- or don't want to recognize -- the difference between refusing to air something because of concern over fallout due to someone being offended (censorship) and not airing it because you don't think it's commercially viable (not censorship).

Censorship is about intent, so your analogies to unfunded Kickstarter projects and so forth are transparent nonsense.

 

[smackababy]

It actually aligns perfectly with what the network is about. They are not funding it because they don't want it seen.

No, they don't want it on their network. I am fairly certain PBS cares very little if anyone sees it. And that is the core of the issue. Neither PBS nor the Koch brothers have done anything to stop this documentary from being made or tried to force and changes, because you know very well if they had, the makers would have plastered it everywhere they could.

This is simply an issue of someone not wanting something being broadcast on their network. If I pitched a documentary about Fox News to Fox News and they agreed, but once I got further into the project, it turned out to be me using facts to paint Fox News in a very (albeit deserved) negative light and they cut the project, is that censorship?


Perhaps we just have very different ideas of how censorship pertains to things like media outlets.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is simply an issue of someone not wanting something being broadcast on their network. If I pitched a documentary about Fox News to Fox News and they agreed, but once I got further into the project, it turned out to be me using facts to paint Fox News in a very (albeit deserved) negative light and they cut the project, is that censorship?

Yes.

 

[fskimospy]

No, they don't want it on their network. I am fairly certain PBS cares very little if anyone sees it. And that is the core of the issue. Neither PBS nor the Koch brothers have done anything to stop this documentary from being made or tried to force and changes, because you know very well if they had, the makers would have plastered it everywhere they could.

This is simply an issue of someone not wanting something being broadcast on their network. If I pitched a documentary about Fox News to Fox News and they agreed, but once I got further into the project, it turned out to be me using facts to paint Fox News in a very (albeit deserved) negative light and they cut the project, is that censorship?

Perhaps we just have very different ideas of how censorship pertains to things like media outlets.

I'm really not sure how that would be anything other than censorship. The Koch brothers are under zero obligation to fund anything they don't want to, but removing funds/threatening to remove funds to prevent the production of a documentary they disagree with is absolutely censorship.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This is simply an issue of someone not wanting something being broadcast on their network. If I pitched a documentary about Fox News to Fox News and they agreed, but once I got further into the project, it turned out to be me using facts to paint Fox News in a very (albeit deserved) negative light and they cut the project, is that censorship?

Yes.

Yet there is no reason that they producers could not have approached another network that would be more receptive to the final product.

When one pitches an idea; they may not go into full detail at the time.
A second round of funding is called for; you present what progress that has been made to justify asking for more.

If the review is such that they do not want to continue funding; who's fault is that.
the people that mis-represented the final product; the fault that they did not clearly show what the final product was to be of those that wrote the first check?

We are hearing only one side of the story - the producers that PBS cut off.
What they pitched vs started to make may not be in the same vein.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yet there is no reason that they producers could not have approached another network that would be more receptive to the final product.

Irrelevant. Yes, they could have done that, but that doesn't change the fact that showing this film was censored based on content.

When one pitches an idea; they may not go into full detail at the time.
A second round of funding is called for; you present what progress that has been made to justify asking for more.

This is another red herring. The issue was not funding, it was content that was suppressed because it might have made a donor uncomfortable. That's censorship.

If the review is such that they do not want to continue funding; who's fault is that.

The people who abuse what is supposed to be a donation in order to exact control over a network, and the network foolish enough to allow itself to be put into that position. As I said.

the people that mis-represented the final product

Where's the evidence that anything was misrepresented? Or is that yet another red herring?

 

[Craig234]

No, they don't want it on their network.

The president of that station doesn't - why? Not for any valid reason, but our of concern that a big donor doesn't want the truth told. That's censorship.

I am fairly certain PBS cares very little if anyone sees it.

What kind of nonsense is that? On what basis do you say PBS cares very little if people see what they air, including this film when they approved it?

Can I play too? Wal-Mart cares very little if you buy their products. MGM movie studios care very little if anyone watches their movies. McDonalds cares little if their food is eaten.

And that is the core of the issue. Neither PBS nor the Koch brothers have done anything to stop this documentary from being made or tried to force and changes, because you know very well if they had, the makers would have plastered it everywhere they could.

You mean the way the filmmakers issued statements and are doing public interviews - where I heard about this - saying just that?

Reversing the decision to fund and aire the documentary IS 'doing anything' to stop the documentary from being made and aired.

You know, when Michael Moore made Farenheit 9/11, he couldn't find a studio to release it.

It wasn't a business issue - he had a record, there was an audience - it was politics and censorship. Sort of how MSNBC cancelled their #1 rated show for not supporting the war.

There was a stroke of luck that some librarians overheard what was happening, opposed the censorship, and had some connections that found him a studio to release it.

But the fact he eventually found a studio doesn't mean the ones who refused to release it for political reasons weren't censoring it.

The term censorship doesn't require universality.

Sometimes it's a case that seems universal, more when the government does it. 60 Minutes last night was airing a story about a Chinese man who under Mao was reading books that were banned on capitalism. The fact he got copies and read them didn't mean that Mao had not censored them - he had. If one US library in a Republican state refuses to carry an otherwise qualifying book because it has a liberal political message, the fact you can buy it on Amazon doesn't mean the library did not practice censorship.

The fact these filmmakers were able to get funding on kickstarter does not change the fact this station's president practiced censorship by cancelling funding to please a donor.

This is simply an issue of someone not wanting something being broadcast on their network.

Wrong. It's a case of someone not wanting to upset a donor about what's aired. And editorial policy is supposed to be protected from donor influence. This is censorship.

If I pitched a documentary about Fox News to Fox News and they agreed, but once I got further into the project, it turned out to be me using facts to paint Fox News in a very (albeit deserved) negative light and they cut the project, is that censorship?

For one thing, Fox News is not held to the same standard as PBS for doing things in the public interest. Fox News's slogan may be the lie 'fair and balanced', but it's well understood they have a political agenda and censor and put out propaganda all the time in service of their political agenda. This is is just pointing out a difference in your analogy. But yes, Fox News not airing a documentary about Fox News that's critical is technically censorship - but ranks pretty low on the list of their wrongs in that area.

I'd even guess that a documentary critical of PBS might have some additional problems getting aired on PBS over other films. A better analogy would be Fox not airing a documentary that's critical of a Republican because of their political agenda - maybe even this same film about the Kochs. And yes, that's 'censorship' in a sense, though with Fox you could argue telling the truth about Republicans is not in their business model, so not so much as PBS, who has an agenda to not be partisan in that way.

There are legitimate reason to not support a film, and there is the invalid reason of 'it might upset a donor'. This was an invalid reason and censorship.

Perhaps we just have very different ideas of how censorship pertains to things like media outlets.

Yes, you don't seem to have any idea what "donor influence" even is.

If a donor tells PBS "hey, I like Romney and don't like Obama, so I only want to see pro-Romney and anti-Obama shows", and PBS follows his instructions, you say 'no problem'.

You don't seem to understand what donor pressure is or why it's a a problem or why it's censorship and corrupt. You just think it's another valid reason for editorial policy.

If you don't understand the problems with donor influence on editorial policy, it'll be hard to discuss this or any sort of 'corruption over money' with you.

Do you understand what bribing a politician is? Or is that just a politician exercising his right to decide what position to take, and the reason doesn't matter?

 

[Craig234]

I'm really not sure how that would be anything other than censorship. The Koch brothers are under zero obligation to fund anything they don't want to, but removing funds/threatening to remove funds to prevent the production of a documentary they disagree with is absolutely censorship.

I'm thinking of donating $500 to support Anandtech, if they remove his posts disagreeing with me. That's not any sort of censorship by anyone when they do - I don't have to give.

 

[Greenman]

I'm thinking of donating $500 to support Anandtech, if they remove his posts disagreeing with me. That's not any sort of censorship by anyone when they do - I don't have to give.

I think you should give it a try, just to prove the point. Of course you run the risk that the other fella might have more money than you.

 

[Craig234]

I think you should give it a try, just to prove the point. Of course you run the risk that the other fella might have more money than you.

At least you didn't miss the point halfway.

Of course, that's the answer - documentarians should just bribe more than the Kochs can.

 

[Greenman]

At least you didn't miss the point halfway.

Of course, that's the answer - documentarians should just bribe more than the Kochs can.

I haven't missed a point yet in this thread, I just don't agree with yours. I can't agree with it because I'm not approaching the issue from an "evil Koch's" point of view. You've already established guilt, I haven't. I really don't know anything about them, so I don't know if they're good people or not, and I really don't care.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I haven't missed a point yet in this thread, I just don't agree with yours. I can't agree with it because I'm not approaching the issue from an "evil Koch's" point of view. You've already established guilt, I haven't. I really don't know anything about them, so I don't know if they're good people or not, and I really don't care.

Whether they are good people or not isn't the point. The point is crossing the line between giving a donation in good faith and giving a donation as a means of editorial control, and sorry to say, you've either missed or refused to acknowledge that point throughout the discussion.

 

[smackababy]

Whether they are good people or not isn't the point. The point is crossing the line between giving a donation in good faith and giving a donation as a means of editorial control, and sorry to say, you've either missed or refused to acknowledge that point throughout the discussion.

Except, you can't establish whether they are making a donation in good faith or editorial control. This is the first case, and it wasn't like David Koch heard about it and bought his way onto the board. He had been donating for awhile. Was it his intention to donate for years just in case a filmmaker would try and make a documentary about him and hope that PBS would think of their donors over some filmmaker? That seems highly unlikely. If you have any proof the Koch's are blocking any other media by having this position, we can entertain the idea it is about editorial control.

 

[Craig234]

Except, you can't establish whether they are making a donation in good faith or editorial control. This is the first case, and it wasn't like David Koch heard about it and bought his way onto the board. He had been donating for awhile. Was it his intention to donate for years just in case a filmmaker would try and make a documentary about him and hope that PBS would think of their donors over some filmmaker? That seems highly unlikely. If you have any proof the Koch's are blocking any other media by having this position, we can entertain the idea it is about editorial control.

The article I linked from the New Yorker seems to answer your high level of skepticism.

No, it wasn't the 'first case'. Not that it had to not be for this to be censorship - as censorship is only repeated acts - but this wasn't the first. You didn't read the article, eh?

But let's take the most restrictive scenario and say the Kochs did not directly make their wishes known this time.

The PBS station President was clearly acting under the pressure he felt about the threat to their funding, about what he thought they wanted editorially.

That was, as I said, an act of censorship by him.

And it is very much related to inappropriate donor influence - even in this case if they did not have to take action to get their editorial wishes to influence editorial policy.

The only reason the film's support by PBS was cancelled was the station President's concerns over the disapproval by the Kochs, with the likely effects on their support.

As I said already, the decades-long efforts by the Kochs to get PBS *de-funded* by the public, and shifting that funding to themselves, has only one motive that makes sense.

Destroying PBS as what is was created as, an independent media resource for the people, and transforming it into a media outlet beholden to their money and interests.

If they simply wanted to support PBS, they wouldn't have fought its public funding. A battle they have made good progress on - but where Republicans want to end all funding.

Nothing is needed to show censorship by PBS regarding showing other media outlets. What other media outlets are funding such a documentary about the Kochs? What other media outlets have this option for them to gain editorial influence by shifting the funding for the outlet to their own donations?

Your statement is like saying "Prove George Zimmerman committed a crime against Travon Martin by showing other examples of people he's killed". (Put aside the verdict for this).

Guilty or innocent, it doesn't involve any other people shot. If there were others, it might strengthen the case showing a pattern of behavior, but it's not needed.

How pre-meditated was the issue of their influence? It doesn't really matter to this case. The PBS official who exercised the censorship did it over concern over their opinion.

Now, I understand you have strong partisan motivation to try to argue every point here no matter how unreasonable and implausible. If this were OJ, you could be posting 'maybe it was self defense! Maybe he was secretly programmed by an evil force to commit the murder without knowing it! Maybe the government did it to test a new mind control device!'

Sorry, this is pretty simple. Perhaps the most powerful while little-known political activists in the country were the subject of a planned documentary. PBS found the subject and film one they were happy to approve for funding and air. The President of the station felt concern because of the Kochs' position then as a member of his board and a large pending donation that would be in jeopardy that he should not proceed with the film that was otherwise in their role to serve the public, and he cancelled the approval.

Noite we don't get access to all the communications. Remember that person who pretended to be a Koch calling Governor Scott Walker? The Kochs were reportedly the biggest donors to Walker's campaign, and Walker was more than happy to accept that call and BS about the Republica political agenda with them quite respectfully, getting their input about what he should do. The real call like that, we don't hear.

But we have plenty of information in this case to show the documentary inappropriately cancelled, censored, for concerns based on the Kochs' donor role.

 

[Craig234]

I haven't missed a point yet in this thread, I just don't agree with yours.

Yes, you have, and you did not respond to my question helping make the point clear.

Do you acknowledge the idea that there is anything wrong with bribing a politician, or do you just view that as the politician exercising their right to decide how to vote and the motive doesn't matter, and it's simply the Kochs if thye're the bribers, offering their money as they see fit and there's nothing wrong with that?

Because the ideas you are advocating here would say 'yes', you have no problem with bribery.

You're raising irrelevant tangets like 'but are the politician or the briber good people?'

I can't agree with it because I'm not approaching the issue from an "evil Koch's" point of view. You've already established guilt, I haven't. I really don't know anything about them, so I don't know if they're good people or not, and I really don't care.

I think the Kochs do a lit of evil, and that has nothing to do with this issue. It's the same issue if I really liked them and thought they do great things.

Of course, in that case, there'd be less need for and interest in a documentary informing the public about what they do. There aren't a lot of documentaries exposing Bill Gates, because it seems he uses his money for better things than the Kochs. So documentaries about Gates - the few there are - would tend to be about his charity work. The different nature of a documentary about the Kochs is based on their different actions, not politics.
It's their actions that create political opposition.

Yes, you're right, I've already established guilt about this being an act of inappropriate censorship by PBS. You haven't shown anything to contradict that.

You admit you know little about the Kochs - which is one more reason why this documentary is useful.

Except you don't seem to care what they do - raising a question like I asked, then on what basis would you object to bribery, if you do, when you seem to defend it on this?

 

[Greenman]

You keep equating this with criminal activity, but there is none. This has nothing to do with bribes. The Koch's gave money without restriction. They are 100% within there rights to end that voluntary support at any time for any reason, ANY REASON, or no reason at all. It's absolutely above board, it's unquestionably legal. The decision will stand up to any scrutiny. You don't like it because you don't like the Koch's, that makes it an emotional issue for you, which has no standing with me.

I can't be any more clear than that. We'll have to agree to disagree, because you can't produce an argument that will make me believe that the Koch's were in any way acting outside the realm of normal, acceptable, legal behavior. No one's rights were infringed, the movie can still be made, PBS is free to fund anything they want, and the Koch's have absolutely no legal or moral requirement to fund it.