PBS IS BEING CRITICIZED FOR THE WAY ONE OF ITS THREE-PART SERIES
WAS FUNDED, AND IT'S IN REGARD TO SCHOOL PRIVATIZATION.
SO, THERE'S THIS SERIES THAT PBS PUTS OUT, CALLED SCHOOL INC.,
AND IT MOSTLY FOCUSES ON PRIVATIZING EDUCATION, AND
IT ALSO HAS A VERY ñ AND IT HAS A VERY POSITIVE TONE
TOWARDS PRIVATIZATION OF OUR SCHOOL SYSTEMS.
SO, AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE FUNDING FOR THIS SERIES ACTUALLY
FOUND SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION; APPARENTLY THE LATE
ANDREW COLSON, LONGTIME HEAD OF THE CATO INSTITUTE, WAS THE
DRIVING FORCE BEHIND SCHOOL INC.
AND IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CATO INSTITUTE, YOU KNOW
THAT IT IS A VERY LIBERTARIANISM INSTITUTION THAT IS IN FAVOR OF
PRIVATIZING EVERYTHING.
ALSO, KEEP IN MIND THAT THE FORMER US ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
EDUCATION, DIANE RAVITCH FOUND THAT THE FILM WAS FOUND ñ WAS
FUNDED BY A NUMBER OF ARCH CONSERVATIVE FOUNDATIONS WITH
TIES TO THE DARK MONEY ATM, DONORS TRUST, AND THE AYN RAND
INSTITUTE.
SO, THERE IS CONCERN THERE, BECAUSE WHILE PBS ARGUES THAT
THEY WANT TO REPRESENT ALL PEOPLE IN THE POLITICAL
SPECTRUM, DIFFERENT POLITICAL IDEAS, KEEP IN MIND THAT IF YOU
SEE A SERIES THAT ONLY REPRESENTS ONE SIDE OF THE
STORY, WHILE YOU CAN'T JUST ASSUME THAT EVERYONE IS GOING TO
GO OUT THERE IN SEARCH OF THE OTHER SIDE.
SO THEY COULD REALLY SWAY PEOPLE IN ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER, AND
SO THAT'S VERY PROBLEMATIC.
THE FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF EDUCATION SAID THAT THIS
PROGRAM IS "PAID PROPAGANDAÖ SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, IT
DOES NOT PRESENT OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW.
IT IS AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF PUBLIC
EDUCATION AND FOR NONREGULATED FREE MARKET IN EDUCATION.
PBS MIGHT'VE AIRED A PROGRAM THAT DEBATES THESE ISSUES, BUT
SCHOOL INC DOES NOT."
IF THIS WAS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT FOR PBS IT WOULD STILL BE
PROBLEMATIC, BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT THREE YEARS AGO, BACK IN
2014,
DAVID SIROTA LOOKED INTO ANOTHER SERIES THAT PBS WAS AIRING,
CALLED PENSION PERIL, AND HE ACTUALLY FOUND THAT PENSION
PERIL WAS FUNDED TO THE TUNE OF $3.5 MILLION BY JOHN ARNOLD.
HE IS A FORMER EXECUTIVE AT ENRON WHO IS VERY AGAINST
PENSIONS, SO THIS SERIES WAS VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF CUTTING
PENSIONS FOR PEOPLE LIKE TEACHERS, FIREFIGHTERS,
POLICE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO, BECAUSE OF DAVID SIROTA'S REPORTING, PBS DECIDED TO
RETURN THAT $3.5
MILLION TO JOHN ARNOLD, BUT THE DAMAGE HAD ALREADY BEEN
DONE, THEY HAD ALREADY AIRED THIS PENSION PERIL PEACE.
MY INSTINCT IS TO DEFEND PBS, BUT THAT IS AN OLD-SCHOOL
INSTINCT OF, YEAH, I MEAN ñ I DON'T MIND PBS ñ I DON'T LIKE
PEOPLE LOOKING AT WHERE THEY GET THEIR MONEY FROM, BECAUSE
CONSERVATIVES DOES TO CHARITIES, LIBERALS GIVE TO CHARITIES --
--
HE JUST GAVE $50,000 TO THE FREE AND OPEN, WHATEVER THE
JOURNALISM SOCIETY IS ñ I DID NOT INSPECT TO BE TALKING
ABOUT IT, SO EXPECT MY ñ FORGIVE MY GOOFINESS ON THAT.
WE KNOW HE DOESN'T CARE IF JOURNALISTS ARE FREE TO
PRACTICE THEIR TRADE, IN FACT WE KNOW THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO.
BUT IF IT TURNS OUT, AS DIANE RAVITCH SAYS, THAT IF IT'S
INCREDIBLE HE ONE-SIDED AND AIRING ON PBS, WHICH INSTANTLY
GIVES SOMETHING THE SWEET SMELL OF CREDIBILITY, THEN THAT
IS A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM.
I WOULDN'T JUST MERELY ñ IF IT WERE REASONABLY FAIR AND
BALANCED, IF THERE WERE ANOTHER SIDE TO IT, IF THERE WERE A LOOK
AT, YOU KNOW, AT THE CHARTER SCHOOLS THAT WORK, AND THE
MAJORITY OF THEM THAT DON'T REALLY WORK, OR ARE
SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER ANYWAY, YOU KNOW, AND WHAT WE CAN LEARN
FROM THE ONES THAT WORK, AND MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING
THAT CAN HAPPEN HERE.
JUST PROVIDING A BALANCED VIEW.
MY GUESS IS IF THEY ñ
IS IF THEY PAID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THAT THEY GOT THE
PROGRAM THEY WANTED, AND THAT'S GOT NO BUSINESS ON PBS.
YOU CAN PUT THAT ON THE INTERNET, OR AERATE ON FOX.
I WAS GOING TO LOOK INTO IT, BUT I WAS GOING TO WATCH THE
BACHELOR, AND I CAN ONLY HANDLE SO MUCH SHIT AT ONCE.
IT IS A THREE-PART SERIES, THEY HAD ENOUGH TIME TO BALANCE THE
PERSPECTIVE, AND IF THEY DIDN'T DO THAT, PBS IS RESPONSIBLE.
I ACTUALLY DID LOOK INTO IT, AND IT IS 100% ONE-SIDED.
AND PART OF THE REASON I LOOKED INTO IT WAS NOT ONLY BECAUSE WE
ARE COVERING THIS STORY, BUT ALSO BECAUSE PRIVATIZING
EDUCATION, AND TAKING PUBLIC MONEY, AND FUNNELING IT TO
PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS IN THE FORM OF VULTURES IS A HIDEOUS THING
TO DO, BECAUSE IT DEFINES PUBLIC SCHOOLS, IT PUTS PUBLIC MONEY,
TAXPAYER MONEY INTO PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE A LACK OF
OVERSIGHT, A LACK OF STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, IN SOME CASES
DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN TEACHING SCIENCE, AND FOCUS ON
CREATIONIST THEORIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND ALSO, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EDUCATION REMAINS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD SCHOOL, AND SO IF WE
PRIVATIZE EDUCATION COMPLETELY, I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE A
COMPLETE DISASTER FOR THOSE WHO ARE DISENFRANCHISED; FOR THOSE
WHO, YOU KNOW, MIGHT COME FROM AN UNDERPRIVILEGED BACKGROUND.
SOME I CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE A LOT, AND I LOOKED INTO IT AND
FOUND THAT IT WAS VERY PRO-PRIVATIZATION, AND OF COURSE
IT IS IF AN ORGANIZATION LIKE THE CATO INSTITUTE IS INVOLVED.
BY THE WAY, IN REGARDS TO DAVID SIROTA'S INVESTIGATION BACK IN
2013, THE WAY IT WENT DOWN WAS ALSO SHADY, BECAUSE PEOPLE FROM
PBS APPROACHED JOHN ARNOLD AND SAID, HEY WE ARE THINKING ABOUT
DOING THIS.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S HARD TO BE
IN THE MEDIA, AND IT IS HARD TO FIND THE FUNDING, AND HARD TO DO
THINGS AS ETHICALLY AS POSSIBLE SOMETIMES, WHEN YOU ARE ALSO
TRYING TO BALANCE THE BEST INTERESTS OF YOUR VIEWERS
WITH RAISING ENOUGH MONEY TO DO WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU ARE DISCREDITING YOURSELF IF YOU GO
OUT THERE LOOKING FOR MONEY FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE POLITICAL
AGENDAS, AND THEN PRODUCING PROPAGANDA PIECES THAT
APPEASE THESE INDIVIDUALS.
THE PROBLEM IS, WHAT WE LEARNED ON NOVEMBER 8,
PROPAGANDA IS INCREDIBLE HE EFFECTIVE.
WE THINK OF PROPAGANDA, WE THINK OF THE NAZIS IN THE 1940S, WE
THINK OF THE SOVIETS BEFORE THE FALL OF THE COLD WAR ñ FIRST OF
ALL, WE, IN THIS COUNTRY, HAVE HAD SOME OF THE BEST PROPAGANDA,
BECAUSE WE ARE GREATLY SMART AND CREATIVE, SO WE HAVE COME UP
WITH SOME OF THE BEST PROPAGANDA IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
SOME OF IT WAS USED FOR GOOD, IN TRYING TO WIN THE WAR, SORT OF,
BUT WE KNOW HOW TO MAKE PROPAGANDA FILMS, REALLY
EFFECTIVELY, AND WE ARE NOW STARTING TO SEE THE
INCREDIBLY EFFECTIVE USE OF PROPAGANDA, AND HOW I CAN
TRICK AND MISLEAD THE AMERICAN VOTER.
IT'S GENIUS TO GET SOMETHING ON PBS, BECAUSE THEN, FOR THE REST
OF TIME YOU GET TO SAY, WHY ARE YOU HITTING US UP ON SCHOOL INC?
IT WAS ON PBS.
RIGHT, AND I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE, BECAUSE PBS HAS THE
BENEFIT OF BEING THIS NEUTRAL NETWORK, WHERE ñ YOU KNOW, YOU
SHOW PBS IN SCHOOLS, SO WE GET THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT IN THAT
WAY; WHEREAS, IF IT WAS ON NETFLIX, YOU KIND OF KNOW
WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING FOR STUFF ON NETFLIX AND A LOT OF IT
CAN BE KIND OF CRAP.
EXACTLY.
PBS TAUGHT ME ENGLISH.
I WOULD WATCH PBS AS A LITTLE KID TO CATCH SESAME STREET,
AND THAT'S HOW I LEARNED ENGLISH, SO IT BREAKS MY
HEART TO SEE ALL OF THIS, AND HOPEFULLY THEY STRAIGHTEN
IT ALL OUT, BECAUSE IT'S UNACCEPTABLE TO DO
PROPAGANDA PIECES, ESPECIALLY WHEN SO MANY LIVES ARE AT
STAKE, AND, YOU KNOW, EDUCATION IS AT STAKE AS WELL.