Private Money Is Enough to Silence Public Television

[GoLeft TV]

America’s Public Broadcasting System, or PBS, is surrendering to private influence of the Billionaire industrialists, the Koch Brothers. “Citizen Koch,” a documentary that exposes the money driven politics that influenced the Wisconsin uprising, was rejected by PBS for fear of offending on of its key contributors, David Koch. The move by PBS was not the failed negotiation as they suggest it was, but a censorship, against their better judgment, to protect the hand that feeds them.

The Koch Brothers are infamously known for their strongly conservative politics and their efforts to finance a network of advocacy groups designed to push the country to the right. Their philanthropic contributions have expanded to control of the media over the years. According to Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, David, the younger Koch brother, has donated twenty-three million dollars to public television, and serves as a trustee on the boards of WGBH and WNET. Their influence on the media doesn’t just end with public television, news reports have suggested that the brothers are considering buying eight daily newspapers.

“Citizen Koch,’’ directed by Academy Award nominated filmmakers Carl Deal and Tia Lessin documents how the U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘Citizens United’ decision opened the door to dirty, money-driven, political campaigns backed by donors like the Kochs. It highlights their involvement in the election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in 2012 and how the Koch brothers came to his aid when the Wisconsin uprising broke out over his effort to limit collective bargaining.

The film was originally intended to appear as a part of “independent Lens” series nationwide on PBS stations until its funding was pulled after David Koch publicly offended by another PBS documentary that criticized billionaire industrialist.

See the full story at Ring of Fire.

[formercia]

1. David Koch calls it Philanthropy

What he is really buying is Peace of Mind.

[SpearthrowerOwl]

2. If you really want to censor public media..

all you have to do is use the false dichotomy of Democrat versus Republican (or even more generally "left" versus "right" - a forced false dichotomy that ignores the actual dichotomy of rich versus poor where powerful groups predictably benefit from policy whom's outcomes are fairly well understood before the policy ever hits the ground.) One very notable case is the struggle Bill Moyers has had to undergone virtually throughout his entire career at PBS. Indeed there certainly WILL be bias when this kind of excuse is used to allow contrivance by government (owned by corporations) over the public media pipelines. If individuals use their own discretion, this type of democratic output of information may be individually biased, but by preventing a large scale mass contrivance the net output of the media will certainly be more equitable.

Of course, the main way is simply to cut funding, but false dichotomies used to justify government coercion in what can or cannot be aired on public media offer the cover those in power need to do anything that should be so blatantly unpopular without some form of political cover story. Anytime the powerful take from the less powerful a cover story always has to be given: Indeed this is what makes an "expert" political thinker, the establishment needs these kind of cover stories to prevent public uprisings. I consider this the definition of politics.

[Addison]

3. Enough money is enough to buy anything

Everything is for sale, and there are very few of us who would not sell their souls for the right price.

[gopiscrap]

4. I call it fucked up!