I wish that everyone who sees the PBS program “School Inc.”–which airs nationally this month–knew who was funding this error-ridden attack on public education.
Please watch my 10-minute interview with New York City’s PBS affiliate, WNET, where I gave a concise response to this meretricious three-hour program. It airs locally, not nationally.
Public education today faces an existential crisis. Over the past two decades, the movement to transfer public money to private organizations has expanded rapidly. The George W. Bush administration first wrote into federal law the proposal that privately managed charter schools were a remedy for low-scoring public schools, even though no such evidence existed. The Obama administration provided hundreds of millions each year to charter schools, under the control of private boards. Now, the Trump administration, under the leadership of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, wants to expand privatization to include vouchers, virtual schools, cyberschools, homeschooling, and every other possible alternative to public education. DeVos has said that public education is a “dead end,” and that “government sucks.”
DeVos’s agenda finds a ready audience in the majority of states now controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Most states already have some form of voucher program that allow students to use public money to enroll in private and religious schools, even when their own state constitution prohibits it. The Republicans have skirted their own constitutions by asserting that the public money goes to the family, not the private or religious school. The longstanding tradition of separating church and state in K-12 education is crumbling. And Betsy DeVos can testify with a straight face that she will enforce federal law to “schools that receive federal funding,” because voucher schools allegedly do not receive the money, just the family that chooses religious schools.
Advocates of the privatization movement like DeVos claim that nonpublic schools will “save poor children from failing public schools,” but independent researchers have recently concurred that vouchers actually have had a negative effect on students in the District of Columbia, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio. Charters, at best, have a mixed record, and many are known for excluding children with disabilities and English language learners and for pushing out students who are troublesome.
This is a time when honest, nonpartisan reporting is needed to inform the American public.
But this month the Public Broadcasting System is broadcasting a “documentary” that tells a one-sided story, the story that Betsy DeVos herself would tell, based on the work of free-market advocate Andrew Coulson. Author of “Market Education,” Coulson narrates “School, Inc., “ a three-hour program, which airs this month nationwide in three weekly broadcasts on PBS.
Uninformed viewers who see this very slickly produced program will learn about the glories of unregulated schooling, for-profit schools, teachers selling their lessons to students on the Internet. They will learn about the “success” of the free market in schooling in Chile, Sweden, and New Orleans. They will hear about the miraculous charter schools across America, and how public school officials selfishly refuse to encourage the transfer of public funds to private institutions. They will see a glowing portrait of South Korea, where students compete to get the highest possible scores on a college entry test that will define the rest of their lives and where families gladly pay for afterschool tutoring programs and online lessons to boost test scores. They will hear that the free market is more innovative than public schools.
What they will not see or hear is the other side of the story. They will not hear scholars discuss the high levels of social segregation in Chile, nor will they learn that the students protesting the free-market schools in the streets are not all “Communists,” as Coulson suggests. They will not hear from scholars who blame Sweden’s choice system for the collapse of its international test scores. They will not see any reference to Finland, which far outperforms any other European nation on international tests yet has neither vouchers nor charter schools. They may not notice the absence of any students in wheelchairs or any other evidence of students with disabilities in the highly regarded KIPP charter schools. They will not learn that the acclaimed American Indian Model Charter Schools in Oakland does not enroll any American Indians, but has a student body that is 60% Asian American in a city where that group is 12.8% of the student population. Nor will they see any evidence of greater innovation in voucher schools or charter schools than in properly funded public schools.
Coulson has a nifty way of dismissing the fact that the free market system of schooling was imposed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet. He says that Hitler liked the Hollywood movie “It Happened One Night” (with Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable); should we stop showing or watching the movie? Is that a fair comparison? Pinochet was directly responsible for the free market system of schooling, including for-profit private schools. Hitler neither produced nor directed “It Happened One Night.” Thus does Coulson refer to criticism (like Sweden’s collapsing scores on international tests) and dismiss them as irrelevant.
I watched the documentary twice, preparing to be interviewed by Channel 13, and was repelled by the partisan nature of the presentation. I googled the funders and discovered that the lead funder is the Rose Mary and Jack Anderson Foundation, a very conservative foundation that is a major contributor to the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which advocates for vouchers. The Anderson Foundation is allied with Donors Trust, whose donors make contributions that cannot be traced to them. “Mother Jones” referred to this foundation as part of “the dark-money ATM of the conservative movement.” Other contributors to Donors Trust include the Koch brothers’ “Americans for Prosperity” and the Richard and Helen DeVos foundation.
The second major funder is the Prometheus Foundation. Its public filings with the IRS show that its largest grant ($2.5 million) went to the Ayn Rand Institute. The third listed funder of “School Inc.” is the Steve and Lana Hardy Foundation, which contributes to free-market libertarian think tanks.
In other words, this program is paid propaganda. It does not search for the truth. It does not present opposing points of view. It is an advertisement for the demolition of public education and for an unregulated free market in education. PBS might have aired a program that debates these issues, but “School Inc.” does not.
It is puzzling that PBS would accept millions of dollars for this lavish and one-sided production from a group of foundations with a singular devotion to the privatization of public services. The PBS decision to air this series is even stranger when you stop to consider that these kinds of anti-government political foundations are likely to advocate for the elimination of public funding for PBS. After all, in a free market of television, where there are so many choices available, why should the federal government pay for a television channel?

Diane I guess money really does talk. I cry for the PBS I dearly love.
LikeLike
Here’s an antidote of sorts to Schools, Inc.
It’s the “education” segment from Michael Moore’s documentary Where to Invade Next’. He visits Finland and studies their schools, interviewing parents, students, education officials, etc.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZbGlDMF7HQ
Highlights include:
— the response from parents and teachers when Moore talks about the U.S. corporate ed. reform’s policies — standardized testing; replacing art, music, P. E. with test prep; closing schools based and standardized testing, then turning them over to privately-managed “charter schools”
— a Finnish student who lived for a year as an exchange student in the United States, and his opinion of multiple-choice standardized tests;
It’s almost like the folks in Finland are doing THE EXACT OPPOSITE of everything that corporate ed reformers here advocate, yet they are No. 1 in the world in education.
Go figure.
LikeLike
I posted this above, but I hope everyone will contact Michael Getler the PBS Ombudsman and point out his extreme double standard when it comes to PBS airing “accurate” reports about charter schools.
Look at how he attacks this very mild report by John Merrow about Success Academy’s extraordinarily high suspension rates:
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/blogs/ombudsman/2015/10/26/a-high-stakes-schoolyard-fight/
When it comes to reporting about the transgressions of charter schools with powerful funders, Getler demands a standard of “give the other side time to lie on camera and attack a little boy as irredeemably violent or you are being unfair”. Getler doesn’t care whether Merrow’s facts are absolutely true. He just wants to make sure that Eva Moskowitz has a chance to try to mislead folks into thinking that they aren’t true by smearing a very young boy.
But when it comes to airing this pro-charter infomercial that attacks public schools with misleading information, Getler’s standard is: ” It is fine for billionaire funded programs to mislead and no need to hold them to any journalistic standards — I’m good with this piece of propaganda as long as the richest billionaires who support this are good.”
Tell him he is a hypocrite who is subverting good journalism in order to promote the Betsy DeVos agenda.
Demand he hold School Inc. to just a fraction of the journalistic standards he claimed that Merrow’s report had to meet.
Or tell him that he is COMPLICIT. And so is PBS.
LikeLike
^^Sorry, I meant this to be a new post. I am referring to something I posted below.
LikeLike
Diane Okay. there is something more here, however. How about a comparison, between public school and private school and their systematic treatment of such children as mentioned in this article. BIG DIFFERENCE. for the private schools, there goes the “all” in “all children.”
LikeLike
PBS has gone to the DARK SIDE. Must be billionaire $$$$$ at work.
LikeLike
Both PBS and NPR have gone to the dark side.
If they are going to act like Fox News (aka, corporate shills) they should not be getting a single dime of public money.
They want us to think they are “public broadcasting” when that is no longer true.
LikeLike
PBS & NPR are overseen by a private board stacked with business people.
LikeLike
It’s more than ironic that PUBLIC television is promoting a PRIVATIZATION of our public schools.
There are several options for viewers who would like to offer feedback or ask questions regarding PBS and its programs.
What is the address to write to PBS?
Public Broadcasting Service
2100 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
Have a question or comment about PBS?
Write our Audience Services department. (Please note that due to staffing limitations, we are unable to respond to inquiries that are addressed by help.pbs.org.)
Have a comment about the journalistic integrity of PBS on-air or online content?
Write the PBS Ombudsman, Michael Getler, who serves as an independent internal critic within PBS seeking to ensure that PBS upholds its own standards of editorial integrity.
LikeLike
I contacted PBS when Diane/Laura first identified the absurdity of PBS airing a film that shills for the idea of the privatization of America’s most important common good.
I referred the PBS representative to the Ravitch post, which I will do again, with the reference to today’s post. The representative I spoke with said she would review the matter and return my call before the end of the next day. No call. Finally, days later, she sent an e-mail with content that I would characterize as worthless. She listed the rich people who funded the airing and provided no contact info. for them. In an internet search, I couldn’t even find the existence of one of the funders.
LikeLike
Mercedes Schneider tracked down the IRS filings for me. The RoseMary and Jack Anderson Foundation can easily be googled.
All the funders are libertarian in funding .
LikeLike
dianeravitch On “libertarian.” The names of organizations and movements don’t mean much any more, considering how Orwellian things have become. But in Congress, the libertarian tag seems to be closely connected to the so-called “freedom caucus.” And from my present understanding of THAT group, “libertarian” and “freedom caucus” are code for transforming anything PUBLIC to: Here’s a set of bootstraps–DO-IT-YOURSELF. And BTW, “we’ll control everything (power grab) until you get your act together; so go back to your soap operas and reality TV.”
LikeLike
I wrote to about 15 PBS stations in various states, including to the station that I make yearly donations to. I heard back from one and it wasn’t the one that receives my money. I asked the stations to, in fairness, show Backpacks Full of Cash. If my station doesn’t- I won’t send money and I’ll encourage friends and family to leave the Plutocratic Broadcasting Station to the anti-democracy richest 0.1%.
LikeLike
I’m glad, Diane, that you’re involved in disputing this nonsense. Thank you again for all you do to bring reason to this discourse.
LikeLike
There will never be sufficient gratitude to acknowledge the nation’s debt to Ravitch. The Medals of Freedom that the Gates received, mock democracy. The award should be stripped from them.
The country’s exalted Medal of Freedom should be given to Ravitch. And, PBS should air the ceremony for both the Gates’ stripping and the Ravitch award.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Couldn’t agree more!
LikeLike
markstextterminal
You’ve got that right.
I do not know how one person can do so much and so quickly in this toxic environment. Having a remarkable command of facts and examples for comparisons/contrasts makes all of the difference. Add the apparent ease of mustering talking points on short notice.
PBS will always claim that it is not influenced by who funds the programs. And they will always refer to disgruntled viewers. There is no due diligence. No heads up about the interests of the funders. No effort to muster expertise before the programs air. Anyone who thinks funders do not control editorial and content should see what is left when you take away the “sponsored” content. I am glad that the opening remarks offered the unambigous language: This is propaganda. These are alt facts.
LikeLike
Didn’t PBS suppress a documentary about the Koch brothers a few years ago, and in the wake of that decision it came out that David Koch was sitting on the board of WGBH in Boston at the time? I’ve been disappointed in our public broadcasting services for some time, I’m sad to say.
You’re right, Laura: this stuff is scandalous.
LikeLike
PBS and NPR are no longer answerable to the public.
NPR even discontinued the comments on their site because too many people were pointing out their lies and omissions.
LikeLike
Thanks for fighting the good fight, Diane and exposing this propaganda piece/film for the con job and sham which it is. The host, Rafael Pi Roman, seemed to be very flustered and very uncomfortable with your comments. Too bad for him, I guess he has bought into all the empty slogans and toxic “given wisdoms” of the deform mob and the billionaire right wing/libertarian/Ayn Randian funders.
LikeLike
The host was just throwing out the edudeformer and privateer propaganda, insisting that those mantras (notice I didn’t say education innovations) were indeed real innovations when in fact they are education malpractices and to quote the eminent Aussie educator, Phil Cullen, they are “WOMBAT*”!
*Waste of Money, Brains and Time.
Onya, Diane!
LikeLike
It’s heartening how resilient public schools are, though, despite this huge lobby that exists to smear them.
Ed reformers would call it “status quo” or something derogatory but to me it’s a kind of toughness.
All these fancy people line up at microphones to attack them every day and yet they’re working every day, mostly ignoring the attacks and getting on with it.
One would think all these “concerned” lobbyists would offer them some genuine assistance at some point, but they never seem to.
I think we’re all familiar with the litany of complaints ed reformers have about public schools. Do they have anything to offer public schools other than eradicating them?
LikeLike
The charter promotion conference in DC is holding an event to decide what the “ideal” system of public schools will be.
No representatives or advocates for public schools were invited. When do you think they let 90% of schools, students and parents in on the Grand Plan?
Freaking ridiculous. The Best and Brightest are “designing” something or other with no input from the vast majority of people who will have to live with it.
LikeLike
I want public school parents, students and teachers to read Betsy DeVos’ gushing address to the charter school conference:
“Hello, and thank you Deborah for the kind introduction.
It’s great to be here with so many pioneers and champions who are fighting to give our nation’s families more quality options in their children’s education.
We each have a different story of how we got here. Here’s mine. …
Defenders of the status quo like to paint me as a “voucher-only proponent”, but the truth is I’ve long-supported public charter schools as a quality option for students. I worked with many others to get Michigan’s first charter legislation passed in 1993—the third state to do so. And my husband founded a charter high school in Michigan that focuses on aviation, educates kids in the STEM fields and prepares them to contribute in significant ways to our 21st century economy.”
Compare that to how she speaks about public schools – and start demanding that public employees start supporting your schools.
It’s okay that Betsy DeVos prefers charter schools and private schools over public schools. It is NOT okay that she has made it her mission to smear our schools in order to promote her agenda. Our kids go to these schools. Our neighbors work in them. We built them and we pay for them. They are not hers to use in this manner.
The claim that these folks are “agnostics” is ludicrous. It’s insulting to the public they supposedly serve. Whether she likes it or not she has a duty to serve kids in public schools. Not doing that is not a “choice” she can make.
These public employees have spent the last 6 months promoting the ed reform priorities of charter and private schools. It is time they added some value to the unfashionable public schools they all disdain. Demand it.
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/prepared-remarks-us-secretary-education-betsy-devos-national-alliance-public-charter-schools
LikeLike
Devos just lies. She claims that it’s only her opponents — “defenders of the status quo” — who “paint (her) as a ‘voucher only’ proponent.”
I defy her or anyone to produce one quote, or a link to a quote from someone in the pro-public school crowd who has ever said that.
The only folks who have claimed that she’s “voucher only”, or that she’s too friendly to vouchers are charter proponents, including many of the people in that room. This is an attempt to silence the voice of those charter folks in that audience who oppose vouchers … Why after all, they’re in league with those who oppose choice, when I, Betsy am on your side.
LikeLike
The US Dept of Education is still unable to come up with an example of a public school that works for any kid, anywhere in the country:
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/prepared-remarks-us-secretary-education-betsy-devos-national-alliance-public-charter-schools
This isn’t “science”. It’s publicly-funded propaganda. They’re all on your payroll. Are you happy with their performance regarding public schools? No? Then demand they do better.
Public schools won’t survive another 4 year attack launched from DC. They need advocates.
LikeLike
Chiara
I am getting to know your talking points by heart. Keep up the great work. You keep pointing out the “not there” in all of the talk and political posturing about education. The “not there” is the whole of public education and supporters–parents, teachers, and others who should be heard…including representatives of teachers in collective bargaining. Too many in teacher education and educational scholars are silent or complicit in the unfolding takeover of schools. That is to say nothing of treating all public goods, services and property as if it must be exploited for profit,,also people–human capital.
LikeLike
“Over the past two decades, the movement to transfer public money to private organizations has expanded rapidly.”
By ‘public money’ you of course mean money formerly held by private individuals.
Why should private companies not be given a chance after the disastrous showing by public ed over the last four decades? Three times the inflation-adjusted spending per student since 1970 with poorer results across the board.
LikeLike
BT,
Please read “Reign of Error” before commenting again.
LikeLike
“Three times the inflation-adjusted spending per student since 1970 with poorer results across the board.”
Please provide a citation for this statement. TIA, Duane
LikeLike
@B.T. Justice By your “reasoning” and false logic, I guess public schools are really private schools since they get money from private individuals.
Your premise, “…the disastrous showing by public ed over the last four decades..” is bogus, false, skewed and based on partial data not the whole picture.
According to the NAEP scores, public schools have steadily improved over the decades. The schools in the affluent and well funded suburbs often outperform the elite private schools and the highly rated foreign schools.
LikeLike
B.T. Justice Now THAT’s interesting. If you’re not a privatizer-troll, it’s what a troll would say–that–or an extremely misinformed person (have you read ANYTHING here?) I guess the “raise all boats” idea that is rooted in public education is dead to such thought?
But to your main point about how BAAAAAD public schools have been for so very long: The problems in education have virtually nothing to do with K-12 schools being public rather than private–and “public charters” is a joke I would laugh at if it weren’t so sad for being so obvious–such a comprehensive SCAM being perpetrated on the nation’s school children, not to mention parents and teachers.
So put your and Congresspeople’s time in reading actual research, and the money into its good implementation, instead of all-things-profiteering. I’m not going to waste any more time educating you, however. If you want to know the argument (why do I doubt that?) then read the prior posts here, or Diane’s books, or several other works cited here, for instance, “Dark Money.” And while you are at it, imagine what it would be like if all-things-public were to disappear. Good luck with that.
More than anything, I am alarmed with the ignorance that is out there and that is being weaponized as we speak.
LikeLike
“Why should private companies not be given a chance after the disastrous showing by public ed over the last four decades?”
They have been given a chance. The first charter laws were passed in the early 1990s. Milwaukee has had vouchers for at least 20 years. The results so far have been significantly worse than those dreaded public schools you’re so quick to put down.
And, by the same logic that all “public” money comes from private individuals, in fact, all private money comes from the government. No government = no economy. You might want to move to a place like Ethiopia to see how that works. Need help packing your bags?
LikeLike
I lived in the People’s Republic of Mozambique for two years. It is a socialist slum, that is turning back into jungle. The government runs the economy, in a socialist enterprise. Only private individuals can produce wealth. No country, and no government ever produced any wealth. Even Saudi Arabia, with its oil, and Nauru with its guano, has no wealth, until their resources are sold to private individuals.
LikeLike
I lived in the United States of America in the 1960s and 1970s when progressive tax rates and estate taxes meant that there was a solid middle class with a significant portion of Americans in labor unions.
I prefer that to the Russian style “democracy” that Charles and the Republicans prefer, where no one is responsible for any other citizen and the small number of oligarchs command all the wealth.
LikeLike
Yes, the taxes I pay are my hard-earned dollars and I expect public officials in charge of it to use it to serve the public not themselves. I expect and demand that they spend it ethically and in the public’s best interest. Now, B.T., please stop your nonsense.
LikeLike
B.T. Justice, would you by any chance care to grace us–and I understand this is a silly formality–with evidence to support your claims? I am skeptical of your claim on school spending; while I have no evidence to dispute it, you haven’t provided any to support it. I am not making any claims here–you are, so you are obliged to supply proof.
Got any?
LikeLike
Here we have one more example of libertarian delusional thinking.
LikeLike
You know where you’l find a positive mention of public schools on the US Department of Education website?
In the ed tech section. They promote public schools that spend a bundle on ed tech product. Other than that our kids and our schools have no value. We’re big institutional buyers of this industry they’re backing.
Is that acceptable to public school parents? Why? Why do we accept this ?
These people supposedly work for us. Can they show us any work that has added value to any public school anywhere?
LikeLike
Can the US Department of Ed explain why a charter schools conference gets so many high-ranking employees to conduct Q and A’s and they don’t even bother to show up at public school events?
If I’m a supporter of public schools do I need to somehow gain entrance to a charter/voucher event in order to ask a question about public schools?
Maybe they could clear 5 minutes from their packed schedules and show up for 90% of students in the United States. I’m unclear why certain schools and advocates get special access while other schools and advocates are either demeaned or ignored.
LikeLike
Jason Botel, who works for the US Department of Education, explained ESSA yesterday to the charter school lobby.
When do you think he’ll see fit to speak to the rest of us? ESSA affects every public school in the country. There aren’t any public school representatives at the charter school conference.
The US Department of Education is currently “reviewing” your child’s school’s ESSA framework and they don’t even bother to speak to your child’s school.
Instead they attend closed conferences for the schools they’re promoting.
LikeLike
Be honest in your reporting. School Inc is about the Obama/Duncan approach to education. You say this in your article but your misleading headline is likely the only thing people will read. There is a crisis in public education but it was ushered in and spearheaded by Arne Duncan. Pres Obama also hired a HUD secretary who was very public about his disdain for public housing and hence we have 100,000 fewer Section 8 certificates than we did when Pres Obama took office. If you are dishonest in your reporting more children will suffer. If we don’t know who the enemy is, how can we fight to protect our rights?
LikeLike
Frog,
Are you new to this blog?
I criticized Obama and Duncan when they were in power.
DeVos is following their footsteps but added vouchers.
LikeLike
Froginthepot and Diane: There is a noticeable similarity between ALL public issues–they are not necessarily linked to one party or another. They are FOUNDATIONAL to democracy itself (or republic, if you prefer); and so concern everyone, regardless of party.
Also, as Diane suggests, and as is obvious on this blog, she is an equal-opportunity critic of parties and their relationship to education.
LikeLike
You’re kidding, right? Obviously, you’ve never been here before.
Diane has long been critical of the Obama and Duncan approach.
And, by the way, Obama is no longer President and Duncan is no longer Education Secretary. Where is your criticism of Trump and DeVos? They’re in charge now.
And while we’re at it, take a look at what Trump’s secretary of HUD, Ben Carson, thinks about public housing and about the poor in general, for that matter.
Get back to us when you can also criticize what continues to go on, not just what went on in the past.
If you can’t or are unwilling to do that, then you’re not “froginthepot,” you’re “trollinthepot.”
LikeLike
All the PBS affiliates should air Diane’s rebuttal after showing the propaganda piece, School, Inc. PBS should be ashamed to show an error riddled, biased, flawed show and present it as “truth.” PBS has been bribed by the free market fiends and their fake documentary.
LikeLike
I also emailed the content ombudsman for PBS. http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback/
LikeLike
Thank you for the helpful link. I will write.
LikeLike
PBS’ “content ombudsman” for PBS is Michael Getler and he is a complete shill for the reform movement. When John Merrow did a a relatively mild piece that dared to mention that outrageously high suspension rates at Success Academy charter school — 25% of the kids in a K-2 school getting out of school suspensions — Getler attacked John Merrow! Getler chose to believe Eva Moskowitz’ claim that those 5 year olds were violent and that her practices were all about helping children over the factual reporting of Merrow.
Anyone who does write to him should point out his hypocrisy in attacking Merrow for what amounted to nothing (didn’t give Moskowitz lots of time to respond!) while giving his full support to the reporting of School Inc. whose errors and lies are significant more glaring than what he criticized Merrow for.
LikeLike
This infuriates me, I had hoped that this would let up, slow down. But with the appointment of DeVos we have no people who are public school graduates. So they do not support it, this is a revolting development.
LikeLike
Here are two “contact us” links to comment/complain about this misleading film and request/demand equal time:
http://www.wnet.org/about/contact/#FSContact1
http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/contact/
LikeLike
PBS is no longer public broadcasting. It is a corporation funded by other corporations, their CEOs, and their affiliated foundations. PBS airs little other than propaganda, and not progressive but free market, neo-liberal, neo-colonialist propaganda that supports the runaway wealth of the donor class and castigates the voice of the People. PBS claims its billionaire donors do not affect programming decisions, but the evidence to the contrary is conspicuous and overwhelming. As a public school teacher and progressive thinker, I have come to — gasp — side with libertarians and Trumpians who seek to prevent public funding from going to PBS. I love Big Bird, but I would rather let Big Bird die than see him locked away in a big bird cage, forced to sing for the 1% and their so-called innovations that supposedly make life better, but really make life degrading and difficult.
LikeLike
LeftCoastTeacher Now THAT’s “choice.”
LikeLike
There still are some excellent shows on PBS, it’s not all corporate propaganda. The News Hour, science shows, cultural shows, shows about animals are great. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. The ironic thing is that the outstanding science shows are funded by the Koch brothers (now I vomit). Anything that Ken Burns does is worth watching. There really are many worthwhile programs on PBS.
LikeLike
Bill Moyers said recently that PBS exists to pursue truth. I agree.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Joe, about the animal shows. I watched a great one about the history of cats the other day. I disagree about most of the rest of the programs, however. The Newhour ran a series about charter schools that was sponsored by Gates, for example. The Kochs have business related reasons for sponsoring those science and technology shows. Think STEM. Overall, the bath water is poisoned. Throw it out and save the baby.
LikeLike
Diane, put that sentence in the past tense and I will agree. When they almost lost their public, federal funding, however, they turned out of survivalism to the billionaire class to bail them out. PBS is fast approaching now, though, the level of ‘truthiness’ achieved by the History Channel. They need now to hit the brakes on accepting corporate sponsorships.
LikeLike
LCT,
A good fix would be to hire professional fact-checkers, like The New Yorker.
LikeLike
Joe You are right–many PBS shows are wonderful-to-spectacular. I think the key is whether they conflict or align, by happenstance or by intention, to the political agenda of those funding them. The educational issue that is on-board presently here provides a kind of crucible where that “key” turns and the room containing funders’ political intentions becomes well-lit. We’ll know for sure when/if there is no room, for whatever”plausible” reason, to give the counter-point.
We should ask Ken Burns to do something on Education in America.
LikeLike
Diane,
Yes.
LikeLike
Yes, LCT, the baby definitely went ah-ah and woo-woo in the bathwater when it comes to education. I guess black holes, galaxies, asteroids, comets and string theory are apolitical, so far, I hope.
LikeLike
(I’m reading Death By Black Hole right now. Great book! Neil DeGrasse Tyson is hilarious.) Gravity is the MOST political topic of all time, from Newton to today. But what I referred to was the push to narrow curricula (and society’s collective brain in general) toward STEM subjects that make more money for Big Oil. Guess what your phones and computers are made of. Some sciences might have the ideal of being pure and apolitical, but tech, biotech, and engineering do not.
LikeLike
Sesame Street was supported for many years by selling the licensing rights to the main characters. That included rights to reproduce the names and images of characters on clothes, toys, and reproductions of specific characters, especially the puppets.
Kermit the Frog is out there now shilling for an insurance company. I think PBS still airs some Sesame Street programs, but that happens several months after they have aired on a pay TV outlet.
LikeLike
Now Sesame Street is brought to you by the company that makes Tickle Me Elmo. Sesame Street used to be brought to you by the letter ‘R’, the letter ‘Q’, and the number ‘7’.
LikeLike
PBS and NPR should be forced to choose: public funding OR corporate funding. Not both.
Corporate and public funding are fundamentally incompatible.The claim that corporate funding does not affect the broadcasting is simply a lie.
And if they make the choice to go corporate, the should be forced to at fair market value for all the infrastructure that was built with public funds. That includes all the buildings and broadcast equipment now being used by PBS, NPR and their member stations.
LikeLike
Forced to pay fair market value
LikeLike
Where is the link where you can watch the programs? I think I saw the shows some time ago. Please post the link.
LikeLike
Charles, you will love the shows. I will posts links when available.
LikeLike
I believe I saw at least one episode back in April. (I am a former employee of a PBS station. I do not necessarily agree with all of their programming decisions, or their editorial policies)
LikeLike
Who funds it? I heard it was those nice, pro-american brothers from the TV commercials. I think their name was coached or coke. Might have been Koch.
LikeLike
This just came into my mailbox from Cashing in On Kids
“The Betsy DeVos view of education.” Longtime educator Diane Ravitch gives her take on a PBS documentary called School, Inc., which gives a “one-side story, the story that Betsy DeVos herself would tell.” Metro Focus
LikeLike
I just received in today’s mail a request for financial support from my local PBS station (KOCE Los Angeles), wrote the following on the request letter, and mailed it back: “PBS is airing paid-for propaganda against our public schools. Don’t EVER send me a request for support again. EVER!”
LikeLike
I am not surprised that PBS would do this. Same for NPR. Both have long ago gone corporate and very much NOT public. I have to admit to some amusement realizing that the same forces pushing this takeover also want to eliminate the baby which has now become their very own baby. On one hand they (such as the Kochs) are funneling huge amounts of money into “public” broadcasting and on their other hand they are tripping over their own ideology in trying to shut it down.
LikeLike
NPE: Do we have a call to action?
LikeLike
Since the charter reform movement is not transparent and does not show all its cards, it is hard to explain to people, friends and family, why they are not fair and not democratic and not, in the long term, in the best interests of students that need help. Part of their narrative is how bad and terrible public schools are – like an abuser calling his victim a whore.
LikeLike
The federal government (with taxpayer money) does NOT have to provide any television services. See this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/10/why-exactly-should-the-government-fund-pbs-and-npr/?utm_term=.72ab0a7c4ac7#comments
There is no constitutional mandate for the US Government to provide for television (The constitution was ratified in 1789, several centuries before television.
The Federal Communications Act of 1934 (also before television), mandates that a certain number of frequencies be set aside for public broadcasting. see
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/nature-of-educational-broadcasting
LikeLike
Charles,
There are many things that the U.S. government does that are not in the Constitution.
Where does it say anything about preserving and maintains national parks?
LikeLike
Diane, privatizing and selling off the national parks is no doubt next on their agenda. They’re already trying to do this to some of the national monuments.
LikeLike
The US Constitution does not specifically mention national parks. But, the federal government does have the specified authority to purchase land (and other things) for the common purpose. This authority can be found in the “Property Clause” (Article IV, Section 3).
see
https://www.nps.gov/training/essentials/html/law_policy_topic.html
The federal government can purchase land for military bases and forts. The federal government can purchase land for airports, and other such “common use” purposes.
LikeLike
What does the Constitution say about federal provision of social security or Medicare? I missed that one.
The Constitution does specifically say that the President can’t accept payments from foreign governments but Trump does that by making deals for his business and renting hotel rooms. It is called the emoluments clause. Do you think the Flunders anticipated that someone like Trump would be elected and Daily violate this specific clause?
LikeLike
The constitution does not specifically address neither social security nor medicare. But these programs have met constitutional muster. see
http://www.tenthamendment.net/home/social-security-payroll-tax-constitution.asp
also Helvering v. Davis 1937.
The federal government is empowered to “levy and collect taxes”, and to promote the general welfare.
LikeLike
Did the founders anticipate that a man like Trump would get elected? I have no way of knowing. But, The Constitution gives three eligibility requirements to be president: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen,” a term not defined in the Constitution.
Trump meets the qualifications. It is possible, that the founders would imagine, that men of wealth and property, would gravitate to public office.
LikeLike
Charles I happened to read your note this time where you say: “Trump meets the qualifications. It is possible, that the founders would imagine, that men of wealth and property, would gravitate to public office.”
FYI Jefferson wrote about the idea of the “talented tenth” that, with a good education, rose to the top in a democratic culture (small d). Wealth and property, though conditional in many regards then and now, have nothing to do with GENERATING talent and the good education that fosters it (and what Jefferson meant by “education”–see his famous letter to his nephew).
BUT, there is also the aptly-named Peter Principle . . . . On another score, I obviously need to better-train my delete button.
LikeLike