Investigative Journalist David Sirota wrote a brilliant series of articles about PBS taking $3.5 million about pension reform from the foundation of billionaire JohnArnold, a former Enron trader. After stonewalling, PBS decided there was a perception of conflict of interest since Arnold has been a prominent figure in the public debate about public pensions. And PBS returned the money.
Here is an analysis of the imbroglio by Felix Salmon of Reuters. It is an open secret that PBS has become heavily dependent on corporate funding, as Salmon notes here:
“There’s a whole world of subtext in that phrase, “we thought we were following the guidelines” — a lot of which my former boss Jim Ledbetter teased out in his 1997 book Made Possible By…: The Death of Public Broadcasting in the United States. The big problem is that public broadcasting has become dependent on corporate financing — and has become very good at coming up with programming which represents corporate interests.” I was reminded of a conversation I had with a high-level executive of Maryland Public Broadcasting a year ago; she said to me, “We no longer can do investigative journalism, we go where we find corporate sponsors.”
Sirota’s original pieces were “The Wolf of Sesame Street” and “How PBS is Becoming The Plutocratic Broadcasting Service.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Are they still airing the corporate propaganda?
“It is an open secret that PBS has become heavily dependent on corporate funding….”
Well, in a way I feel for them – they’re in a predicament since so much federal funding has been pulled. Most people certainly don’t have deep pockets to reach into these days to chip in, so corporate funders are about their only way to stay alive. Hard position to be in. So much for “public” broadcasting. I’m old enough to remember a country that cared enough about educational and informative programming to pay for it. How I miss that country.
Along the same lines, I recently heard an announcement that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was donating a significant amount to National Public Radio for coverage of education topics.
“Similarly, the foundation’s Walsh was at pains to tell me that “LJAF is not funding the California ballot initiative. We are a 501(c)(3) private foundation. As such, we do not participate in political activities, make political contributions, or advocate for the passage or defeat of legislation.”
Love how circular this is. The response to the (implied) charge that they’re political activists (which of course they are- I don’t know how they plan to “reform” pensions w/out rewriting law) is that they’re a 501(c)(3), and thus CAN’T be political!
This would be a lot easier if all these foundations and wealthy people would just admit they’re lobbying for specific outcomes. I don’t know why we have to play this stupid game. They can keep the tax-exempt status, retain the legal definition, just stop hiding the ball. We can’t have a real debate when half the people involved in it are insisting they aren’t advocating for a specific position. Yes, they are. Hiding behind a section of the tax code and pointing to the rule doesn’t change the essential nature of what they’re doing.
The reason they don’t is because they don’t is because they KNOW there is no public support for their radical agenda. They spend millions and untold hours trying to persuade people that supporting or voting for policies that aren’t in their best interests are beneficial.
It is still a “one man, one vote” country. Each billionaire has the same vote as somebody who is on the verge of homelessness.
I know you are talking about the tax code and political advocacy, but you know that the whole scheme of the plutocrats is about gaming the tax code and buying off politicians to further enrich themselves. Their “foundations” shouldn’t be tax-exempt at all.
The corporate take over of PBS and NPR is bone chilling and appalling. But they still have great science, cultural and informational shows. PBS recently had an excellent documentary about the horrific effects of the Syrian blood bath on the children, utterly heart breaking. I guess you could describe it as a guilty pleasure. The excellent science shows are in part funded by the Koch brothers, geez.
Joe: The excellent science shows are in part funded by the Koch brothers, geez.
But I haven’t found a recent NOVA show on fracking or global warming.
They’ll frame this in media exactly as they framed the ed reform “debate”- greedy, self-interested pensioners versus saintly billionaire “reformers” who seek only to work for the common good.
Just replace “greedy public school teachers” in the ed reform debate with “greedy public pensioners” in the pension reform debate and you’re halfway home, politically. Add “union bosses” and it’s a recipe for success.
Because billionaires are never, ever self-interested, as we all know 🙂
Why, even to suggest such a thing means you’re in favor of The Status Quo!
“Because billionaires are never, ever self-interested, as we all know ”
Of course they are not self-interested!
That is for the little people, who’s self interest is wrecking this country, don’t you know?!
Reblogged this on Kmareka.com and commented:
Woo-hoo — another win for pushing back on 1% influence!
This explains why the GOP has been so adamant over the years to do away with public funding of PBS. If PBS received a block grant from the feds, then there would be no way to control what PBS investigated and reported—something traditional media news can’t avoid due to advertising from big sponsors.
This also explains why President Reagan vetoed the Fairness Doctrine so it wouldn’t become law and then the 1st Bush vetoed it again later when it looked like it might squeak through Congress and become law. This was the death of any chance of truth and honesty through the media.
It was only after the death of the Fairness Doctrine that Conservative Talk radio exploded filling the airwaves with cherry picked facts, misinformation and lies to fool voters.
The Fairness Doctrine was meant to insure the public received balanced opinions and reporting on the issues by allowing both sides to have their say through the same media that any story originated from. In now way was it a threat to freedom of expression but it made telling lies more difficult.
Reagan didn’t veto the Fairness Doctrine–it was outright done away with. The Fairness Doctrine was part of the FCC regulations from decades before. I knew the minute Reagan abandoned it, propaganda would soon take hold.
Why do Reagan lovers always defend him no matter what?
Los Angeles Times dated June 21, 1987
Headline: Reagan’s Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill
Lead paragraph:
WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation’s broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old “fairness doctrine,” the White House announced Saturday.
Link: http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine
Therefore, I ask, who’s spreading spin (positive be incorrect propaganda) about Reagan?
I’m glad there are still a few real journalists writing investigative pieces that are not paid for by someone holding their job over their heads. It’s so cynical, but I just don’t trust the news as an unbiased source anymore. The Supreme Court was wrong to say corporations are “people”. They’re greedy monsters eating up our democracy.
We all have coffee, tea, fast food money,PBS will take any donation no matter how small. Every few months they do big fundraising, little dollars add up,have our priorities in the right place. Public broadcasting is important, corporations want to keep us stupid, don’t buy a coffee and give to PBS, it wont kill you but without Charlie Rose, Bill Moyer wonderful programs we bring to reality what President Obama said to that art student “why would you major in a subject that you cant get a job in.” That’s right only the elite get to have the careers that they want and of course they deserve. We should be happy carrying their bags and live off of wishing.
Without PBS I had a chance to know that their was more to the world than my ten blocks. WE complain about public education and we act like we cant do anything, we can support PBS vs the cable station that showcased Mr. Duncan dribbling a basketball. His being involved in the All Star weekend displays never about education but about being a celebrity, education was an afterthought and under his administration it has been a nightmare,closing schools, insulting parents, teachers,honoring cheaters who get on the front page of Time.Every little step matters, lets give PBS the money they so desperately need to represent us.
I think they should be an example to us all… Let’s start by returning all of the Gates foundation money. Particularly the unions- Randi Weingarten (who I love) give back the money. It’s blood money.
The problem is now, how can I trust that PBS will do the right thing?
If Gates is giving money for education shows, I don’t want my money to go in the same pot. His will speak more.
It just occurred to me after reading this article. I don’t know why I did not think of this before. So much teacher bashing has been going on in the media. Even movies have been made – remember “Waiting for Superman.” This problem of “reform” and the people behind it needs to be exposed. So many people are not aware of what is really going on in this education movement. Why not have a 20/20 program? The point is, the people who truly care about education need to bombard the public about what is happening in education “reform” and the people behind it. They need to know how American education is being destroyed by people who have no knowledge or interest in what it really takes to educate children, especially our most vulnerable children in our most vulnerable communities. Like I tell my colleagues at work who complain about how they are being treated as teachers, WE KEEP TALKING AND COMPLAINING TO EACH OTHER, BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING WHERE IT TRULY MATTERS AND CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Let’s flood the public with what we know.
20/20 might not be interested because several years ago they did a public school, teacher bashing story. I remember because I ended up cursing out the host (calling him an idiot was tame in comparison to some of the insults I shot) as he kept bashing away on that flat screen. That particular host, John Stossel, isn’t with 20/20 any longer.
Stossel revealed he was a libertarian when he published, “Gimme a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media”, which was published in 2004. In 2009, Stossel joined News Corp’s Fox News Channel. No surprise there.
However, it’s worth trying (nothing ventured nothing gained) but at this point, it seems our only media is through Blogs and other internet forums.
Another option would be to start producing documentaries and showcasing them through the global indie film festival circuit starting with Sundance in Park City, Utah.
There is a documentary that I’ve been trying to find and in this one it’s mentioned just how unconnected most parents are. The host of this documentary ( I think I saw it in the 1980s) said that 80% of parents in America never set foot beyond the curb that divides the school from the street as they drop their kids off each day. The attitude of most American parents—it seems (as reported by this one documentary)–was once the child reached school age, the parent’s job was done and now it was up to the teachers to finish raising their children.
This number pretty much matched the turnout at parent conferences for the thirty years I taught. Twenty percent or less was the usual turnout. For instance, if my class load was 200, I might see about 30 parents mostly for the good students who were passing my class. Few parents of failing kids appeared and were often a challenge to read by phone.
If anyone who reads this knows about the documentary I’m talking about, please point me in the right direction. Not once did I disagree with the findings in that film.
More enclosure of the Common.
Reblogged this on 21st Century Theater.