Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> THE DOCUMENTARY FILM "CITIZEN KOCH" ABOUT THE
UPRISING IN WISCONSIN OVER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND
THE RIGHT TO WORK LEGISLATION WAS PRODUCED,
SAY THE FILMMAKERS, WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD
HAVE A PATH TO AIR ON PUBLIC BROADCASTING AFFILIATES
AROUND THE COUNTRY. BUT THE NEW YORK PBS
AFFILIATE WNET COUNTED AMONG ITS BOARD MEMBERS ONE DAVID
KOCH. KOCH IS A NAME WELL-KNOWN IN
THE POLITICAL UNIVERSE. CONCERN BY THE STATION LED
IT TO CONTACT A PRODUCTION AGENCY -- THAT WOULD BE THE
INDEPENDENT TELEVISION SERVICE, OR ITVS AS WE SAY
HERE -- AND SAY IT WOULDN'T AIR THE FILM.
NOW, THE PRODUCERS SAY ITVS HAS SCUTTLED SUPPORT, AND
THE DOCUMENTARY IS LEFT WITHOUT THE PROMISE OF A
NATIONAL PBS AUDIENCE AS THE PRODUCTION IS NOT BEING
OFFERED TO PBS AFFILIATES LIKE OURS HERE AT NEW MEXICO
PBS. LAURA, KIND OF A LONG STORY,
BUT WAS THE BOARDS OF NEW YORK, AND MAYBE EVEN ITVS,
WERE THEY, IN ESSENCE, TOO DIFFERENTIAL TO A CERTAIN
TRUSTEE WHO WAS ABOUT TO WRITE A GIANT CHECK?
AND MONEY IS HARD TO COME BY THESE DAYS IN THE PBS WORLD,
AND OTHER PLACES, AS WELL. WAS THERE TOO MUCH OF A LEAN
HERE? WAS IT TOO DIFFERENTIAL IN
YOUR POINT OF VIEW? >> WELL, HE WAS ABOUT TO
POSSIBLY WRITE A CHECK, BUT HE HAD ALSO WRITTEN QUITE A
LOT OF CHECKS IN THE PAST FOR THIS, SO HE SAT ON THE
BOARD. I THINK -- YOU KNOW, I'M NOT
AS QUICK TO SAY "YES" OR "NO" ON THAT QUESTION ONLY
BECAUSE I THINK THIS ISSUE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHY
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE MORE PUBLIC SUPPORT OF PBS
STATIONS. AT THIS POINT, WE'RE SEEING
12% FEDERAL FUNDING OF PBS STATIONS.
IF WE DON'T INCREASE THAT AND IF IT CONTINUES TO
DECREASE, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SEE PRIVATE FUND
RAISING HAPPENING, AND IN THIS CASE THAT PARTICULAR
STATION HAD TO RELY ON PRIVATE DONATIONS.
NOW, IT'S HARD FOR ANY ORGANIZATION, AND I THINK WE
HAVE A LOT OF NONPROFITS HERE IN NEW MEXICO IN THIS
SITUATION, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANY NONPROFIT
TO FUNCTION WITHOUT SOME HIGH-DOLLAR DONORS.
WHEN YOU HAVE HIGH-DOLLAR DONORS ON YOUR BOARD AND
YOU'RE STARTING TO DO SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS THEM
POTENTIALLY, THAT IS ABOUT THEM, AS IN THIS CASE,
YOU'RE IN A HARD SPOT. YOU EITHER MAKE A DECISION
TO RUN WITH IT, OR YOU MAKE A DECISION NOT TO.
WHEN YOU DON'T, IT MEANS YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY DEFERRING
TO YOUR TRUSTEES. THAT, TO ME, PUTS INTO
QUESTION WHETHER THEY'RE AN ACTUAL INDEPENDENT REPORTER.
ARE THEY ACTUALLY ABLE TO FUNCTION AS AN INDEPENDENT
REPORTING AGENCY. AND I THINK THE BIGGER
QUESTION IS, IS ANY PBS STATION ABLE TO IF THEY'RE
NOT ABLE TO RELY ON ANOTHER SOURCE OF FUNDING, WHICH
USED TO BE FEDERAL FUNDING, WHERE IT WOULD BE A LOT MORE
INDEPENDENT. NOW THAT'S GOING TO BE A
CONSTANT PROBLEM, I THINK, AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT
OF EXAMPLES OF THAT. SO, DID THEY?
THEY PROBABLY DID RELY A LOT -- OR GIVE DEFERENCE TO
KOCH. SHOULD THEY HAVE I THINK IS
A DIFFERENT QUESTION AND A BIGGER ISSUE ABOUT FUNDING.
>> INTERESTING. I'M GLAD YOU TIED IT UP THAT
WAY. MARISA, IT'S INTERESTING
THAT SEPARATION. A LOT OF BOARDS, AS LAURA
MENTIONED, YOU PAY YOUR WAY IN.
YOU PAY YOUR WAY INTO THE BOARD.
OR, YOU'RE EXPECTED TO RAISE MONEY FOR THAT ORGANIZATION.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE THERE. SO, IS THAT SEPARATION OF
THE TALENT OF THE TRUSTEE OR THE BOARD MEMBER AND THEIR
ABILITY TO EITHER WRITE A CHECK OR RAISE MONEY
COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM EDITORIAL?
HAVE WE CROSSED A LINE HERE WHERE THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE
POSSIBLE ANYMORE, AS LAURA IS STARTING TO ALLUDE TO, OR
DID WNET JUST KIND OF MUDDY THE WATER ON THEIR OWN HERE?
>> I ABSOLUTELY THINK THAT WNET WENT TOO FAR IN AIRING
THE SORT OF LIKE, WE'RE VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THIS
DOCUMENTARY STATEMENT FROM KOCH AFTER "PARK AVENUE" WAS
AIRED. >> THAT WAS THE FIRST.
>> I THINK THE FILMMAKER LIKENED IT TO TACKING THE
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ONTO THE END OF A NEWS FEATURE
STORY. >> RIGHT.
FOR A QUICK SECOND, THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE "PARK AVENUE," EXPLAIN THAT, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT
THAT SECOND ONE, AS WELL. >> THERE WAS AN INITIAL
FILM THAT DID AIR ON WNET WHICH WAS CALLED "PARK
AVENUE," WHICH FOCUSED ON A VERY RITZY APARTMENT COMPLEX
IN MANHATTAN THAT CONTAINED PROBABLY SOME OF THE CITY'S
MOST WEALTHY PEOPLE, INCLUDING DAVID KOCH.
AND SOME OF WHAT WAS IN THAT DOCUMENTARY WAS CRITICAL OF
KOCH. SO THERE WAS INITIALLY SOME
DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER THEY WERE GOING TO AIR THIS.
THE PRESIDENT OF WNET CALLED DAVID KOCH, WHO WAS ON THEIR
BOARD, AND GAVE HIM A HEAD'S UP THAT IT WAS GOING TO
HAPPEN, AND THERE WAS A STATEMENT ISSUED BY KOCH,
YOU KNOW, SAYING THAT THEY WERE DISAPPOINTED WITH THE
FILM. SO THEY RAN THE FILM WITHOUT
CENSORING IT, BUT AT THE END THEY TACKED ON THIS LITTLE
STATEMENT, WHICH IS VERY UNUSUAL JOURNALISTICALLY TO
DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> AND CHUCK SCHUMER,
SENATOR SCHUMER, GOT A BIT IN THERE, AS WELL, AT THE
END. HE GOT TO SAY HIS BIT,
BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT HAPPY ABOUT HOW THEY PORTRAYED HIS
SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN PIECES OF LEGISLATION.
>> RIGHT. >> SO IT WAS NORMAL THAT
THEY LET THIS HAPPEN. WE'VE HEARD THAT IT IS
COMMON THAT PBS ALLOWS FOLKS TO COME IN AND MAKE A
STATEMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID HERE.
SO THIS WASN'T JUST DAVID KOCH.
I MEAN, CHUCK SCHUMER, WHO'S NO CONSERVATIVE JUGGERNAUT,
WAS GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY.
>> SURE, AND YOU MAY BE RIGHT ON WNET'S BEHALF, THEY
MAY DO THAT. I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF THE
REST OF PBS FOLLOWS THAT EXACT TRACK.
BUT THAT'S OKAY, GO AHEAD. >> SO THEN AFTER THIS FILM
AIRED, THERE WAS A SECOND FILM IN THE WORKS GOING
THROUGH ITVS, WHICH HANDLES THE FUNDING OF SOME OF THESE
DOCUMENTARIES AND DECIDES WHAT IT'S GOING TO PITCH TO
PBS -- THAT'S HOW I'M READING THE REPORT -- AND
THIS FILM WAS CALLED "CITIZEN KOCH," WHICH WAS A
LOT ABOUT THE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION AND MONIES
INFLUENCE IN POLITICS, AND SPOTLIGHTED KOCH AGAIN.
SO THIS FILM, THEY HAD AGREED TO FUND THE FILM,
ITVS DID, AND THEN AFTER ALL OF THIS HAPPENED ABOUT THE
"PARK AVENUE" FILM, THEY OPTED TO BACK OUT OF THE
PROJECT AFTER A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH.
SO THOSE FILMMAKERS ARE SAYING ESSENTIALLY THAT THEY
WERE CENSORED BECAUSE OF HOW THIS ALL WENT DOWN.
>> WHITNEY, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, AND THANK YOU
FOR THAT SUMMARY. THAT'S ACTUALLY QUITE WELL
DONE THERE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S OKAY TO DO A FILM
ABOUT A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT, A PUBLIC FIGURE,
THAT'S NO PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT TO BLACK OUT A GUY
THAT'S A DOORMAN COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW CHEAP KOCH IS --
IF YOU'RE GOING TO POKE THE BEAR, DON'T YOU THINK
THERE'S LIKE A -- >> OF ALL OF THE THINGS,
ALL OF THE SOCIETAL ISSUES THAT PBS COULD BE COVERING
ON, ALL THE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THIS
WORLD, WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYBODY EVER HAVE ANY
INTEREST IN FUNDING A PROJECT THAT TAKES A
PERSONAL SHOT, A PERSONAL SHOT -- I MEAN, THEY WERE IN
HIS APARTMENT, THEY WERE TALKING TO HIS BUTLER,
SOMEBODY WHO HAS DONE SO MUCH TO SUPPORT THE PROCESS
THAT HE IS DOING. HE'S GIVING MONEY TO PUBLIC
TELEVISION SO THAT THEY CAN GO OUT AND REPORT, AND THEN
THEY TURN AROUND AND FUND A FILM THAT'S NOTHING BUT
PERSONAL NASTY SHOTS IN HIS FREAKING APARTMENT.
I FOUND THE WHOLE THING VERY OFFENSIVE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE TELEVISION
STATION AND PBS, BUT IF THEY DID ANYTHING TO SHUT THE
PROJECT DOWN, I SAY MORE POWER TO THEM.
ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE -- LIKE YOU SAID, EVERYBODY
SHOULD GET INVOLVED AND FUND PUBLIC TV.
I FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.
IT'S ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T REACH IN AND GIVE TWO
OR THREE BUCKS TO A CANDIDATE, BUT THEN COMPLAIN
ABOUT THEIR CHOICE OF CANDIDATES.
YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE WHAT PBS DID ON THIS.
>> LET ME GET DAN IN HERE. GO AHEAD.
>> WELL, I GUESS I THINK WHAT'S INTERESTING IS WE'RE
REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE "CITIZEN KOCH" DEAL, BECAUSE
THE OTHER ONE, THE "PARK AVENUE" ONE AIRED.
HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE SAW "CITIZEN KOCH"?
HOW MANY PEOPLE? >> YOU MEAN, THE "PARK
AVENUE" ONE? >> NO, THE "CITIZEN KOCH"
ONE, HOW MANY SAW IT? >> NO ONE.
>> EXACTLY, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE,
AND YET WE'RE TAKING A STANCE.
WHAT IF THIS THING IS THE MOST HORRIFIC, LIE-FILLED
PROPAGANDA? WE DON'T KNOW.
SO THEY COULD BE SAYING -- >> IT'S BEEN ON THE FILM
FESTIVAL CIRCUIT, LIMITED AUDIENCE.
>> HAVE YOU SEEN IT? >> NONE OF THE FILM
FESTIVALS HERE HAVE SHOWN IT.
>> NONE OF US HAVE SEEN IT. SO I THINK THAT WE'RE
LEARNING, WITH THINGS THAT HAPPENED TODAY, WE PROBABLY
SHOULD NOT TAKE A STANCE ON THINGS WE REALLY DON'T KNOW
MUCH ABOUT, AND I DON'T THINK WE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT
THIS. >> DIDN'T KOCH, WHEN HE
RELEASED A STATEMENT -- HE HAD NOT EVEN SEEN IT
HIMSELF, AND RELEASED A STATEMENT, MR. KOCH.
>> AND HE PROBABLY DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN IT, SO TO
CALL IT A DOCUMENTARY TO ME IS JUST AN INCREDIBLE LIE
RIGHT THERE. >> I THINK THE TWISTING
THAT WE'RE DOING HERE, GENE -- WHAT I FIND
PROBLEMATIC IS THIS STORY IS NOT ABOUT SOME GUYS THAT
WENT OUT WITH A CAMERA AND ARE TRYING TO POKE AT THE
KOCH BROTHERS. THEY'RE TAKING A SIDE.
THIS IS A POLITICALLY INITIATIVE FILM THAT THEY'RE
MAKING HERE. THEY'RE CLEARLY CHOOSING A
SIDE IN THIS FIGHT. BECAUSE FOR AS MANY
CONSERVATIVE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT ARE GIVING MONEY, THERE
ARE UNION LEADERS GIVING MONEY.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE PORTRAYING WHAT FROM I
UNDERSTAND. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A
COMMENT, I THINK FOR THESE GUYS TO STAND UP AND SAY,
YOU'VE GIVEN US MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THESE GUYS, JUST
LIKE MICHAEL MOORE, GO FIND SOMEONE TO FUND IT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THESE GUYS.
I THINK THE REASON THAT THEY'RE CRYING IS BECAUSE
THEY CAN'T FIND ANYBODY ELSE TO STEP UP AND FUND IT.
>> THERE'S OTHER OPPORTUNITIES OUT THERE, AS
THEY SAY. I GOING TO HOLD YOU THERE
MARISA. I KNOW WE COULD GO ALL DAY
ON THIS ONE, IT'S A GOODIE. BUT WE'RE BACK IN A MOMENT
WITH OUR AMERICAN GRADUATE SERIES.