Valerie Strauss contacted PBS to ask why the public TV Network ran a one-sided three-hour documentary that lambastes public schools and celebrates vouchers, charters, and for-profit schools.
PBS gave its response.
It likes to air diverse views (clearly without fact-checking).
It pays no attention to where the money comes from, even it is dark money funneled through Donors Trust, which bundles contributions from the Koch brothers and DeVos foundations.
Since PBS welcomes diverse views, be sure to contact your local public television station and urge them to run my rebuttal, which aired on WNET, the NYC PBS station.
Since PBS likes diverse views, urge them to air “Backpack Full of Cash,” produced by award-winning Stone Lantern Films, who’s four-part series, “School,” was aired on PBS in 2000. “Backpack” demonstrates the vicious corporate assault on public schools and the harm done to children by the privatization movement.
Don’t agonize, organize.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
test
LikeLike
Love the photo, Duane. How are the fish biting?
LikeLike
Hopefully, will find out tomorrow as I’m heading down to the Current River in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways to help with the cleanup after the highest flood at the end of April, by ten feet, in recorded flood history. I’ll be a “barge” operator, using my canoe as a trash dumpster as we go along. It’ll be an eight mile float. I’ve floated that section around three dozen times, I know it well, but after flooding, you’ll never know what you’ll find as far as trees in the water and sometimes major channel changes. We’ll see!
Plus, it’ll give me an opportunity to scout the river before I take my niece and her two little ones, ages 4 & 8, camping and floating next month.
LikeLike
PBS has “high editorial standards” that ensure “that the creative and editorial processes behind the programs offered on PBS are shielded from political pressure or improper influence from funders or other sources.” Therein lies the problem, the same problem we have with the LA Times Editorial Board. The editors can claim they are not influenced by their acceptance of funds from Eli Broad. They may or may not be. (They are.) The editors are ALREADY wealthy privatization ideologues like Broad. They are like minded. Did they accept the funds with stipulations about how the funds are used? Probably not. Did Broad, though, give them the money because he knew they ALREADY favored privatization? Likely yes. My point is that the editors of the LA Times and PBS are full of it, no matter what may be their “editorial processes”.
LikeLike
Given the way PBS threw John Merrow under the bus they have a double standard. It is laughable that their ombudsman tore Merrow to shreds for nonsensical reasons while allowing an entire piece of propaganda to go unanswered.
Hypocrites and they should be called out for this.
LikeLike
Funny how Merrow had to leave PBS to really stop supporting (in public) charters and testing.
LikeLike
Just speaking as a newsroom veteran regarding the L.A. Times. The issue really isn’t whether Eli Broad’s money affects the editorial board’s positions — it’s the appearance that it affects the supposedly impartial news coverage.
The Times’ editorial board, like most newspaper editorial boards around the country, was gung-ho for education “reform” fads before any Eli Broad money was on the table.
(Most newspaper editorial boards, in my opinion, avidly support education “reform” fads even when they’re otherwise liberal. My observation is that they’re about the only sector that avidly supports “reform” snake oil without being paid off in one way or another to do so. I’m pretty sure it’s because the “reform” positions are promoted in such a sophisticated and enticing way, and the “reform” sector has hired so many unprincipled spokesfolks with Democratic Party credentials. “Reform” critics, sad to say, don’t have the PR/propaganda firepower. And editorial boards feel they have to make snap judgments on positions based on slapdash research and wrongly feel justified in doing it.)
LikeLike
Diane, do you know if someone has already started a letter campaign for this?
LikeLike
NPE Will start a campaign and provide addresses
LikeLike
Excellent, Diane. I am grateful for NPE. No matter what we do, it never seems to be enough to turn the tide. Yet we persist!
LikeLike
Any action should include a pledge to withdraw monetary support of PBS. I withdrew my support because of John Merrow’s one-sided reporting and inability to truthfully to consider the harmful effects of privatization.
LikeLike
Wasn’t it Diane Ravitch who said that petitions aren’t effective? How can writing letters be more effective? In much of the country, veteran teachers are forced out thus ending our careers and diluting the effectiveness of opposition to privatization. In the same way let PBS become the Privatization Broadcasting Service.
LikeLike
I have never understood the value of a petition on sites like change.org or MoveOn. I doubt they are read by their target.
On the other hand, if PBS gets 50,000 emails or letters, I think they will notice.
LikeLike
i used to work for a PBS station (engineering, not policy). PBS stations read their mail carefully, and take it seriously. They know that their viewer base, provides much of their funding. If you withdraw your financial support and contributions, the stations take this seriously too. If you are displeased with PBS programming, you should also write to PBS headquarters. They read their mail, too.
LikeLike
Yep, 80-percent (or more) of the funding that supports NPR and PBS does not come from the Federal government.
“PBS is funded indirectly by Congress through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB; which funds both PBS and National Public Radio). For fiscal year 2010, $281m out of CPB’s $422m appropriation went to public television, $210m to local stations and $71m to PBS directly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pub…). In 2010, PBS had revenues of around $570m (http://www.pbs.org/about/media/a…), meaning federal funding via CPB accounted for about 12% of PBS 2010 annual revenues.”
https://www.quora.com/What-portion-of-PBS-funding-comes-from-the-federal-government
LikeLike
in broadcast and advertising LETTERS COUNT Especially in advertising. Advertisers HATE to get letters complaining bitterly and loudly about the content of their messaging. Working in advertising for 30 years, the public has no idea how effective even one letter can be… if they get 1000’s…. 🙂
LikeLike
PBS has already received thousands of letters. Keep it up! Phone calls too!
LikeLike
You can comment to some PBS stations on line . I sent a comment into WNET NY 13
LikeLike
Can you please give us the email address where to send our letters? I know that I can find it but it makes it easier for those who would love to send letters but aren’t quite that savvy in finding where to send it.
Thank you
LikeLike
This whole “diverse views” farce is a very effective means of propaganda. If they really are concerned for simply “diverse views”, when are they going to run a show about flat earth theory? Or phrenology? Or astrology? In those cases, of course, the answer is that they’re not because they’re interested in truth, not “diversity”. Apparently when it comes to education (and many, many other politically charged issues), truth takes a backseat to “diversity”.
LikeLike
I’d also recommend “Starving the Beast,” a film on the defunding of higher education and the culprits behind this agenda.
LikeLike
3 plots against higher ed, that were initiated within the past 1-2 years
(1) New America’s “Starting from Scratch or a New Vision for Higher Ed.” The think tank is funded by Gates, Lumina and Google’s Eric Schmidt.
(2) Frontier Set, funded by Gates. The APLU and AASCU are buy-ins. The program includes 2 state higher ed systems and thirty-one colleges and universities, “Georgia will implement business models for collaborative course development and delivery.” The Gates-funded Hechinger’s Report published its slant in NYT (June 7, 2017).
(3) The Center for American Progress published its plan in Forbes, “It’s time for a Quality Alternative to College Accreditation” (student outcome measures). Sen. Rubio introduced similar legislation in March 2017.
LikeLike
And I would recommend “Heist who Stole The American Dream” Ties it into one neat package . This is an assault with a 45 year history. An assault on education and the media. (not to be too redundant. )
LikeLike
“Carpe Diem schools, which rely on computer-based lessons and some in-person instruction, began in 2006 and opened five additional schools in Texas, Ohio and Indiana about five years ago. This week, one of the schools in Indiana is closing. The management agency charged with implementing the expansion has been disbanded, leaving the four remaining spin-off schools to rethink their strategy. Some have ditched the cubicles and are giving teachers more autonomy to go off script, as they scramble to boost anemic enrollment”
Kids didn’t like the schools, despite that fact they were loaded up with tech.
“Students were often alone with a computer, headphones on, working on programs designed to offer custom-fit lessons that were neither too easy nor too hard. Teachers were there and available on the side for guidance and short, daily check-ins with students to discuss their performance. The student-to-teacher ratio was unusual: 226 students to five teachers and four teacher aides in 2012 at the Yuma school.”
Don’t make a huge public investment in this. Resist the high-pressure marketing campaign where everyone is pushing public schools to buy in.
http://hechingerreport.org/students-sat-cubicles-using-computers-wasnt-popular/
LikeLike
Putting aside for a moment the influence of money and donors, here is a good examination of the underlying failure of journalism to perform what was once considered the basics of due diligence, FACT CHECKING & VETTING OF SOURCES INTERESTS/IMPARTIALITY. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/nov/08/impartial-journalism-is-laudable-but-false-balance-is-dangerous
LikeLike
Thanks for that link. Bookmarked for future use.
LikeLike
When I was earning my BA in journalism in the early 1970s and years later teaching and advising a high school elective journalism class that also produced an international, national, regional and local award winning high school newspaper, I learned and taught that you do not write one-sided pieces (or produce one-sided documentaries) on any issue or subject. Every piece and every documentary must be balanced and show both sides of an issue, not just one side. It doesn’t count if later PBS runs another documentary showing the other side because the audience won’t be the same. Both sides must be provided equal space and time in the same piece or documentary. That is the only way to present balance so the audience gets all the facts at the same time.
Of course, when I was earning my BA, the United States still had the Fairness Doctrine so we had to be taught how to write a balanced piece with as little bias as possible.
It is obvious to me that when President Reagan and the 1st Bush assassinated the Fairness Doctrine under the guise of free speech, free speech to the far-right/Alt-right, GOP means the freedom to lie, spread misinformation and spout conspiracy theories without the messy burden of offering both sides to offer the people both views so they can think for themselves instead of being programmed to hate with only the one-sided alternative facts that they are fed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDI84b3P1Y
Watch the video and then explain how in the hell the Fairness Doctrine restricted free speech.
LikeLike
PBS still pretends to follow those standards IF the report is an unbiased one where both sides are shown but the truth actually makes the right wing privatizers look bad. Then, PBS insists the other side should always be allowed to spew lies to “defend” itself and present the alternative reality that the right wing believes must always to given equal weight.
But if the entire report is a propaganda piece by the right wing, PBS conveniently forgets it ever had any standards at all.
Complicit hypocrites. They should be ashamed.
LikeLike
The whole “balance” meme has been taken to an absurd extreme because it asumes that there are two sides to every issue.
But not every issue is merely about opinion.
NPR once aired the views of a woefully uninformed high school student who claimed global warming was a hoax, ostensibly to provide “balance”.
LikeLike
See also Intelligent Design.
LikeLike
Response from PBS to my inquiry:
Thank you for your recent email requesting that PBS air the documentary “Backpack Full of Cash.” We value viewer feedback and take it into consideration when making programming decisions. However, with regards to this particular film, PBS cannot air it because we do not currently have the rights.
Broad and balanced coverage of education across the entire programming schedule is a top priority for PBS and member stations. Other education-based programming that PBS has recently distributed includes the Spotlight Education week released last August, consisting of more than 10 hours of programming from Frontline, NOVA, POV and others.
In addition to our programming, PBS and member stations share a deep commitment to supporting America’s educators and schools. This includes offering thousands of high-quality classroom resources at no cost through PBS LearningMedia as well as recognition programs such as PBS Digital Innovators and station partnerships with local schools.
Again, thank you for contacting PBS. We hope this information has been helpful and that you continue to enjoy the content and service provided by PBS and your local member station.
Best regards,
Lucy
Audience Services
LikeLike
SMART response to the big money game: thanks for being part of the antidote!
LikeLike
Did Valerie Strauss ask PBS why they have a double standard?
Their own ombudsman was extremely critical that “the other side” was not presented when John Merrow did his report on the very high suspension rates of Kindergarten children in Success Academy charter schools:
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/blogs/ombudsman/2015/10/26/a-high-stakes-schoolyard-fight/
As you can see from his post, PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler was extraordinarily disturbed that John Merrow committed the journalistic sin of allowing an often-suspended young child to talk generally about what kinds of things are “infractions” without allowing Eva Moskowitz the chance to respond and explain that this child was a violent 6 year old who deserved every suspension she meted out.
It didn’t matter to Michael Getler that Merrow had truthfully reported that 20% of the children in a school of Kindergarten and first graders were suspended. It didn’t matter that every statement made by the child being interviewed was true. Getler was OUTRAGED that Eva Moskowitz was not given the chance to explain on camera that this young child offering a truthful fact about “infractions” had been a particularly awful and violent 6 year old, similar to ALL the 6 year olds she suspends. Getler INSISTED that the “other side” must be presented, even if the other side was to smear 20% of the 6 year old children in an entire charter school! They are all violent, says Moskowitz, and Getler is outraged that Merrow didn’t allow Moskowitz to smear a child on camera for daring to tell the truth.
Note about Michael Getler: Soon after his attack on Merrow for not allowing Moskowitz to make her completely misleading claims that every child she suspends is violent, a video was released showing how Success Academy’s model teacher — the one who is an example for all their teachers — treats 6 year olds in class. She humiliates them for not knowing the right answer, tears up their sheet, and PUNISHES them and sends them away from the class to sit alone and shamed. It was all caught on camera for the world to see.
Getler saw for himself exactly why Success Academy has a large number of at-risk children who supposedly “act out” at age 5 and 6. They are punished and shamed for not being academically good enough. If he had been a good man he would have offered an apology to Merrow but since he is complicit, he still insists that if Eva Moskowitz can’t insist that every 6 year old she suspends is violent, then PBS isn’t going a “fair and balanced” report.
And because he is complicit and a complete hypocrite, Getler doesn’t care one whit whether any program that attacks public schools is fair and balanced. Getler believes in the Donald Trump definition of “fair and balanced” — any criticism of the right wing agenda is false and must be attacked, but the right wing must be allowed to spew their lies without any need to present the other side.
He is complicit and so is PBS.
LikeLike
Just a note: When I very first got involved in public-school advocacy — we’re talking late ’90s — a right-wing public-school mom (a rare and usually belligerent breed here in San Francisco) gave me a video of a similar propaganda film that had run on PBS stations. It told of the “triumph” of “winning” the right to vouchers in Milwaukee — the old (maybe it was new then) “new civil rights” blah-blah. I was uninitiated, but I got what was going on. Before that I was advocating for stuff like functioning Xerox machines for the teachers, and I pretty rapidly evolved to education policy issues. Anyway, point is this was nearly 20 years ago and PBS was already running far-right propaganda and presenting it as a “documentary.” Just noting in case anyone thinks that’s a recent phenomenon. I haven’t looked to see if this is the same old propaganda film or a new version.
LikeLike
Check your local listings for “School Inc”
LikeLike
Cross posted at : https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Diane-Ravitch–ON-Schools-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Diane-Ravitch_Documentary_Education_Privatization-170614-868.html#comment663065 with this comment:
Diane Ravitch writes about the slick campaign for privatization, and at her site offers wonderful reports on how hour public education system is under assault.
Howard Ryan, writing in Monthly Review, analyzes the sources of support for corporate reform and privatization. Ryan writes:
https://monthlyreview.org/2017/04/01/who-is-behind-the-assault-on-public-schools/
Over the past three decades, public schools have been the target of a systematic assault and takeover by corporations and private foundations. The endeavor is called “school reform” by its advocates, while critics call it corporate school reform. Finnish educator Pasi Sahlberg has given it the vivid acronym GERM–the global education reform movement. Its basic features are familiar: high-stakes testing; standardized curricula; privatization; and deskilled, high-turnover faculty. In the United States, public schools have become increasingly segregated, destabilized, and defunded, with the hardest hit in low-income communities of color.”
“Nevertheless, while the political conflicts and social ramifications of the school reform phenomenon are well known, basic questions about the movement remain underexamined. Who really leads it? What are their aims and motives? After briefly taking up the statements of the reformers themselves, I will turn to the views of their progressive opponents, and offer a critique of three influential interpretations of the school reform movement.
A large body of research, however, challenges the merits of high-stakes testing and other elements of the corporate school reform package. It is also at least questionable whether the reformers really believe their own statements.”
The reformers’ interest in school improvement appears, in a number of ways, to be less than genuine, to mask a different agenda. They prescribe models for mass education that they do not consider suitable for their own children. They sponsor think tanks to produce “junk research” praising their models, while ignoring studies that contradict their models. They insist that full resourcing of schools is unimportant or unrealistic, and that “great teachers” will succeed regardless of school conditions, class size, or professional training.”
“Finally, I will present my own theory about this movement, its drivers, and its underlying aims.”
Diane says, that you will find it interesting to see how he weaves together the various strands of the corporate reform movement
LikeLike
“Pee BS”
“We like to air divergent views”
Like “Sure, the earth is flat!”
“Reality is what you choose!”
A tit for every tat
LikeLike
Jennifer Rankin Byrne, who “explained” why PBS is airing pure corporate funded propaganda, is head of “Corporate Communications” for PBS.
Ha ha ha ha!
At least that explains it.
LikeLike
I contacted them once before about “Backpack Full of Cash” and they answered, saying that they hadn’t been given the rights to show it. What can be done about that?
LikeLike
Critique of School Inc. Illustrates Why Airing It Is Right
https://www.cato.org/blog/only-airtime-we-agree
LikeLike
The Cato Institute supports which common goods…none?
The Cato Institute likes which oligarchs…all of them?
LikeLike