RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Cole writes: "No wonder investigative journalism is an endangered species! Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films on the other hand is crowdsourced and can't be so easily deterred."

Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. (photo: unknown)
Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. (photo: unknown)

PBS and the Koch Brother Scandal

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

23 May 13


BS declined to show "Citizen Koch, a documentary about the Wisconsin public union issue, treating the influence of the dirty energy magnates who are destroying the world through climate change and funding climate change denial, among the various other nefarious things they do. This according to the New Yorker's Jane Mayer. It points to the dangers of declining public funding for institutions such as PBS in favor of corporate sponsorships and the donations of the rich. No wonder investigative journalism is an endangered species!

Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films on the other hand is crowdsourced and can't be so easily deterred:

Robert Greenwald's "Koch Brothers Exposed": your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+13 # indian weaver 2013-05-23 13:46
I think I'll finally bail on PBS and NPR. Once good news stations, Democracy Now is history as far as I'm concerned. Amy Goodman - time for her to go elsewhere to broadcast any truth.
+42 # moreover 2013-05-23 22:07
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" has no connection with NPR or PBS. You seem to confuse two totally different entities. Democracy Now, nor Amy, were even mentioned in the article.
+3 # NanFan 2013-05-24 11:38
Never mind. Seems all my YouTube is muted.
+57 # Candide 2013-05-23 22:57
Democracy Now! is on some PBS stations, but it is not a PBS or NPR program. It is precisely the kind of independently produced journalism that is not interested in bowing to fatcat bullies.
+8 # Rita Walpole Ague 2013-05-26 08:46
At the annual, national Free Press/Media Matters conference, held recently in Denver, I attended and briefly spoke at a panel led by Amy Goodman. I was soooo grateful to hear her and her co-panelists speak up and out so truthfully. 'Twas as if hope came alive, that good can and will overcome evil.

And, a couple of weeks later, Amy's excellent per usual reporting in the sentencing of clobbered, de facto conscientious objector, Kimberly Rivera, sentenced here in Colorado Springs, at a Forst Carson tribunal, to ten month incarceration, caused me to begin asking questions. Set up an appointment I did, to visit Kimberly at the county jail. And, thank God I made that visit with her (8-10 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, she was so upset she could barely speak when I asked how she was doing. Crying, she told me of lights on 24/7, disallowing her to sleep, and scarce, at times rotten (literally) food. Her severe stress, worried so about her four children and the scheduled to be born in jail baby she now carried, and dreadful conditions (24/7 lights are considered a form of torture in Guantanamo), caused my huge concern on her behalf. Promise her I did to speak up and out, and, with help of good press (Google: KRDO and KOAA, and pull up Kimberly Rivera press conference on each), she was moved into a cell where the light went out, then transferred to prison in CA.

Thanks, Amy Goodman!
+35 # wilkinsb 2013-05-23 23:03
Quoting indian weaver:
I think I'll finally bail on PBS and NPR. Once good news stations, Democracy Now is history as far as I'm concerned. Amy Goodman - time for her to go elsewhere to broadcast any truth.
Amy Goodman and Democracy Now have nothing to do with NPR or PBS.

Her programs are produced by a different network that does not interfere with her content
-30 # RMDC 2013-05-24 04:53
Amy Goodman used to be good, but then she began taking money from the same foundations as NPR. Now she is just about as bad as NPR. Money talks. She has learned to pick up the same propaganda vocabulary as NPR.

NPR is really aggressive in its efforts to control the non-profit sector of radio. They offer money to smaller non-profits, and then they demand membershp on the station's board. Then they demand programming changes.

Non-profits are desperate for money. When they take NPR or foundation money, their independence comes to an end. There's a lesson here for RSN.
+27 # JJS 2013-05-24 04:54
In my area Amy G. is broadcast on and participates within the Pacifica Radio affiliate WPFW. This is a community supported and funded station. It is a strange thing, though, that WPFW is now moving into a building and leasing equipment owned and/or controlled by CLEARCHANNEL. I wish RSN or some other investigative reporter would look into THAT strange story.
+30 # Merschrod 2013-05-24 04:57
Domo Now should stay with the NPR/PBS network, it gives coverage at least to those areas. There are Community Radio Stations carrying her, but that is a small, and important network, but not as large as NPR. We need to take back NPR/PBS local station by local station - suport the local ones.
-129 # Surflar 2013-05-23 19:59
It's a shame they are so far far let and not balanced programs even with public funding.
+28 # Rationalist 2013-05-23 21:42
Could you paraphrase that please?
+21 # jcdav 2013-05-24 06:19
Just exactly what are you attempting to say?
Please clarify --either you cannot spell or cannot type. Thanks in advance for your attention.
+25 # tbcrawford8 2013-05-24 11:25
Quoting Surflar:
It's a shame they are so far far let and not balanced programs even with public funding.

Do you watch a broad section of NPR and PBS programming? If you don't give it a try as you might learn something from Quest, Nova, the many cultural broadcasts, Globe Trekker...or do you prefer the commercials on the crime shows and the educative quiz shows? FYI: Frontline should be required watching of you want balanced news.
+4 # bingers 2013-05-26 16:18
Quoting Surflar:
It's a shame they are so far far let and not balanced programs even with public funding.

A statement this far from the truth can only be made by someone so stupid that they think Fax is fair and balanced. The biggest problem with NPR is that they've been forced to move right by Bushie appointies.

In America the right never respects truth and claim truth has a liberal bias.
+87 # Erdajean 2013-05-23 22:02
So even though "the government" (paid for by whom?) supplies only 12 percent of the PBS/NPR budget, and I guess those idiotic fund drives pay the rest, we STILL can't see anything the Kochs don't like?

When, pray tell, is enough going to be ENOUGH in this country?
+22 # RLF 2013-05-24 05:22
When there is mass starvation and people are working 20 hour days...and that is white collar.
+25 # 666 2013-05-24 06:12
when we all slaves on corporate plantations.. even that might not be enough given the greed of these sub-humans
+51 # wrodwell 2013-05-23 22:27
For years, David H. Koch has funded many PBS TV programs including science-based programming and documentaries. When it comes to PBS passing the buck it looks like it's reacting just like Koch and his ilk thought it would in such a crunch situation. What's money really for?
As long as the Super Rich continue to control just about everything through their great wealth and influence, such scenarios will continue to play out ad nauseum.
It's a real shame and a very ugly reality and is the direct result of the massive income divide between the Super Rich and millions of Americans who struggle to survive. No wonder contributions from the lumpen proletariat are dwindling; it's in direct correlation to their diminishing wages.
If a documentary about Koch's dirty politics is verboten, why not get Bill Moyers to do an INTERVIEW with the filmmaker of the Wisconsin public union issue documentary? Or, if that idea fails, maybe Mr. Moyers can discuss the issue, say with several lawyers who've successfully prosecuted Koch Industries in court for their plethora of illegal and nefarious activities.
Still, you'd think that an institution like PBS would stipulate to ALL donors from the get go, that contributions of any size would not entitle the donor(s) to any undo influence whatsoever.
Along with a continuing money stream, maybe PBS needs better lawyers, too.
+7 # MidwestTom 2013-05-24 10:06
I would add to the list: how about one on how the Bushes got their wealth; or how much do the Kennedys control and hoe they got, and why are they always treated lovingly by the press; or how did Obama's net worth increase by over $10 million during his first term as President.

We now have John Kerry, a Billionaire as Secretary of State, Obama just appointed a Pritzer, another Billionaire who own newspapers and hotels. Whether Democrat or Republican Billionaires all think all think alike. Big money bus a lot of influence in this country.
+8 # bingers 2013-05-26 16:25
Grandpa Bush committed treason. Grandpa Kennedy got his wealth as a bootlegger, John Kerry isn't a billionaire, but his immense wealth came from marrying an heir to the Heinz fortune through her former Republican Senator husband.
The Pritzkers earned their money legitimately, unlike the Bushes, Kochs and Kennedys, but the Kennedys, the Pritzkers and Kerrys have used their money to help the less fortunate, the Bushes and Kochs have used their money to damage the country.
+6 # tbcrawford8 2013-05-24 11:26
[quote name="wrodwell" ]For years, David H. Koch has funded many PBS TV ...

Can't help wondering where he edits NOVA? Ultimately, it Gges to show you, one gets what one pays for.
+25 # Billy Bob 2013-05-23 22:44
Since Uncle Ronnie Ray-gun began the train to destroy public broadcasting altogether, PBS has decided it can't sell enough tote bags to exist without getting the bulk of its funding from the spoiled-brat-lo oking Kock brothers.

PBS knows that if it pisses off the Kock brothers it will cease to exist.

That's why they call it "public" broadcasting. It's a sarcastic joke.
+2 # coberly 2013-05-23 23:11
No, they also have "corporate sponsors."

i gave up on Bill Moyers when he gave two hours of unrebutted time... not even any hard questions.. to Pete Peterson.

Then I noticed Moyers "only corporate sponsor" was Prudential.

not sure there was any actual sell-out. Moyers looked genuinely taken in by the Peterson schtick.
0 # tbcrawford8 2013-05-24 11:29
to Coberly: If you don't know who Pete Peterson is and what he endorses, how in the world are you going to respond intelligently? Ah, how the closed mind of the American public reflects a total collusion with the elite we decry in our babbling incoherence.
+8 # X Dane 2013-05-24 19:51
I have read about Pete Peterson, He SEEMS so smart and kind. He IS smart, but he is DETERMINED to get rid of Social Security.
He does it in very furtive ways so many people do not realize WHAT he is up to.
But that is his goal
+2 # bingers 2013-05-26 16:32
As conservatives go, Peterson is rel;atively sane, and allowing the other side to speak is not a bad thing when it helps you to understand them. He's far more rational than a Bill O'Reilly or a Mitt Romney.

And if you have more than a passing acquaintance with Bill Moyers you know that a sponsorship by Prudential is never going to have an effect on what he will say about them.
+17 # wwway 2013-05-23 23:25
The Koch brothers pay big bucks to academics to argue against global warming then on their PBS Nova sponsorship allows the opposite. They Speak out of both sides of their mouth. One side to the dumb and gullible population and the other side to intilligent people. Guess which side of the mouth is used most while the other side has to shut up?
+8 # MEBrowning 2013-05-24 00:12
"Public" broadcasting? What a crock.
+19 # tbcrawford8 2013-05-24 11:30
Sure beats Fox...
+28 # tomo 2013-05-24 00:24
It must surprise the Koch brothers to hear themselves vilified. Few people believe so strongly in the American Dream. They believe in strengthening the strong rather than the weak. They believe in busting the unions. For what do unions do but shore up the weak at the expense of the strong? They believe the land belongs to those who use it--a principle on which we fought and won the Mexican War. They believe in abolishing taxes. What do taxes do but transfer wealth from its rightful possessors, the wealthy, and give it to a bunch of losers? They believe a man can do whatever he wants on his own private property--and no government bureaucrat should be able to tell him otherwise. This is after all the land of the free and the home of the brave. Surely it's clear there are too many people around. What pollution does is sicken those too poor to live in decent neighborhoods, and lighten thereby the burden of undesirables upon the competent and successful. And why should our schools be crowded with the offspring of these undesirables? We often say we want to return to the good old days; we want to restore the American Dream. Well, that's just what David and Charles are trying to do. Think back to the golden days of Monticello. Those were the days when the rich ruled, minorities knew their place, and the only good Indian was a dead one.
+13 # WestWinds 2013-05-24 10:56
What a litany of disgusting arrogance; the only thing the Koch brothers have going for themselves.
+12 # JJS 2013-05-24 18:09
There are no suprises for the Kochs as they are in their own rarified world. The Kochs don't listen to or even hear anything "the peasants" have to say, for good or ill.

If only they would take to heart the words of Emma Lazarus:
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name,
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
+2 # bingers 2013-05-26 16:36
Don't forget, them nigras were only 3/5 of a person and those too lazy to be property holders and too sexually confused to be born male were never supposed to have a vote to make it harder for them to become trillionaires.
-9 # anarchteacher 2013-05-24 00:25
In the September 2012 issue of The Progressive, Michael Atkinson observes:

“The newest and most vociferous agitprop from Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films, Koch Brothers Exposed, takes bazooka-aim at the rightwing billionaire duo, Charles and David Koch. As a political documentary, Koch Brothers Exposed is a sign of the times: inexpensively made (many of the talking-heads interviews are recorded using Skype), digitally disseminated, and set to a high boil from the word go. This is state-of-the-cu lture, post-Michael Moore media activism for the twenty-first century.

“Their only principle on view is greed. Spending tens of thousands of dollars to alter a piece of legislation in ways that’ll net you millions is, after all, just good business. Die-hard libertarians, the Koch Brothers would seem to be content with society only if it were reduced to a dystopian wasteland, which they’d presumably rule over from an impenetrable castle in the clouds.”

Agitprop indeed. The faux “documentary” is classic disinformation to misdirect “progressives” away from the real plutocratic threat to their essential freedoms, economic security and livelihoods of their families.

The origins of that threat is briefly outlined in the three links below:
+13 # cherylpetro 2013-05-24 00:34
At least PBS still gets out their anti-Koch message! The Kochs can pay to have PBS get out a message that is against Koch beliefs. I find that super funny! Okay, maybe it isn't the "in your face" anti-Koch movie, but it is even more effective with the progressive news shows, documentaries; etc, on all of the time! The Koch movie is probably on YouTube and it IS on Hulu, or Crackle anyway. So, good trade off! Let the Kochs get zapped with their own bucks more often than just with an hour movie!!
+35 # maddave 2013-05-24 00:44
Look only at Social Security: ALL Social Security funds ($2.6 trillion) belong to WE THE PEOPLE. We pre-paid for our needs with tax-paid dollars, and all payments in excess of current needs were held in the U S Treasury, fully protected by the Full Faith and Credit of the USA!

But somewhere - maybe during Vietnam - SSAN premiums were rolled in with the general funds and looted to fund overseas wars. The resultant debt (owed to future retirees) was papered over . . . which was fine until the excess payments dried up and Congress had to come up with "real money" in order to meet its current obligations.
But SURPRISE: with two-plus unfunded wars; a losing war on drugs; the worlds largest prison-graft system; massive unemployment and a recession, there is no "real money" available. Our bankers and politicians continue to run up unsustainable deficits; our manufacturing base is gone; and we are a debtor nation awash in inflation (bought any food lately?).

So! Social Security ain't broke! The system is broke, and to pay its legal & moral obligations; fix long-neglected infrastructure (another bridge just collapsed tonight); fund our military, etc, Congress will have to tax hereditary fortunes & today's obscene executive benefits; end corporate welfare; and generally tighten the screws on the elite & ultra-privilege d, I.e., David, Charles & those of their ilk!

+7 # maddave 2013-05-24 11:59
Addendum to my basic piece, above:

And "THEY" all know that the very wealthy must pay more in support of the USA and its working classes, but before they dip into their personal (and mostly overseas) wealth - all made possible by WE THE PEOPLE - the oligarchs and plutocrats are going to try to shift both the blame and the burden of payment onto the backs of you and me; the thus far, mostly mute and vastly less affluent working middle class which is already in shambles.

Look out the window, Folks! The dreaded day on which all debts - not just SSAN - must be paid is fast coming upon us, and those who benefitted most - those who can best and most logically afford to pay the tabs which THEY ran up in search of profits and by looting the Treasury - are frantically trying to shelter and preserve their vast wealth at the expense of our small potatoes and our kids' education.
As deep South wags are liable to say in response to such absurdities:
"Yeah! And In a pigs touch-hole, too!
+2 # Salus Populi 2013-05-25 10:17
Quoting maddave:

But somewhere - maybe during Vietnam - SSAN premiums were rolled in with the general funds and looted to fund overseas wars. The resultant debt (owed to future retirees) was papered over . . .

What happened is that in 1983, under a similar trumped-up crisis [based on the idea that for the next three-quarters of a century the economy would grow at a slower pace than it did during the Great Depression, while the stock market would somehow flourish during that time], the Reagan administration, after first floating the idea of privatization, which caused an overwhelming outcry, pushed through an increase in the FICA tax rate that guaranteed that there would be surpluses at least until around now.

Congrist then began "borrowing" the funds and putting them in the general fund, leaving in their place not bonds and other financial instruments that could be traded and had real value, but instead a "special" form of IOU that could not be traded or sold, and therefore was essentially worthless.

This helped Bill Clinton come up with a "surplus," which Dubya then gave to the rich and his war profiteers, and that was that. We were and are robbed, in one of the biggest heists ever prior to the Banksters Gambling Relief Program of Bush, Obama, and the Fed.
0 # JJS 2013-05-27 08:02
For further reading on Social Security Budget history:
+7 # maverita 2013-05-24 00:44
ya'all do understand that the koch brothers fund numerous programs on pbs, particularly science programs such as nova and australia: the first four billion years? pArt of their p r campaign? or a way to apply just this sort of leverage when need be?
+12 # RMDC 2013-05-24 04:50
PBS and NPR have always been propaganda outlets. That's why they were created. They were created as outgrowths of the State Departments Information Agency and Voice of America which do propaganda outside the US. NPR and PBS do it inside the US. They do it in a way that appeals to the educated classes of americans so they appear to be different from FOX which aims at the uneducated. But the net result is the same.

The Koch Bros have been huge funders of PBS. They underwrite NOVA.

The News Hour is one of the worst so-called news programs. It hosts spokespersons for US foreign policy almost exclusively. It is only a publicity organ for the US regime.
+14 # tomo 2013-05-24 09:10
Much of what RMDC says about PBS seems to me on the mark. Jim Lehrer, for instance, brought to the NewsHours a version of balance that all but stripped the show of intellectual muscle. With NPR though I'd go a bit more slow. FORUM with Michael Krasny (SF Bay area) continues to be a civilizing center of intelligent discussion. Terri Gross is also exceptional. And even on PBS, we still get Bill Moyers.
+10 # tbcrawford8 2013-05-24 11:38
[quote name="RMDC"]PBS and NPR have always been propaganda outlets.

Despair not.!, at least you can listen to and watch the BBC...
+16 # Gogojoe 2013-05-24 07:41
A truly amazing item in this documentary is just how cheaply politicians sell their souls!
$20-40 grand...that's it!!
A mere spit in the ocean to the Koch brothers; and the politicians grovel and kowtow.
+5 # Texas Aggie 2013-05-24 08:01
PBS lost me when Bob Edwards was dumped.
+2 # Fraenkel.1 2013-05-24 08:16
out with the pitchforks.
+15 # natalierosen 2013-05-24 08:30
The MINUTE I saw Koch Brothers as a sponsor of much of PBS programming, I did two things: (a) ditched watching PBS except for the programming that does not have that name attached to it.

(b) Stopped IMMEDIATELY giving donations to PBS. They still hit you up for it but I will not budge unless and until I never see that rancid Koch Brothers name.

It probably matters not because their wealth tips the scales to such a large degree. I don't care if it does. I maintain my hard and fast rule ... NO contributions as long as I see the name Koch.

I of course urge all who loathe what they stand for will do the same.

It seems programs like Frontline and Bill Moyers do not fall into the swamp so I continue to watch them but nothing else.

It was like an arrow to my heart when I heard the pond scum bought PBS hook line and stinker. That does not bother me but what DOES bother me is PBS sold its soul literally to the devil!
+12 # bmiluski 2013-05-24 09:42
Did it ever occur to any of you people that rather then belly-aching about PBS's involvement you might let them know what you think and that you will no longer be a subscriber. Then send this article to all your friends and encourage them to do the same thing.
You know what they say..."Money talks."
+9 # natalierosen 2013-05-24 10:37
bmiluski, THAT is EXACTLY what I do! Also forward info on Greenwald's film. We can only do what we can do realizing the forces of gargantuan money are there. In this country money matters (but not as much as one would think!) Zinn's mantra and I believe change happens from the bottom up not the top down!
+8 # tbcrawford8 2013-05-24 11:45
"Money talks."

Great idea if those who complain actually donate.
+10 # MendoChuck 2013-05-24 11:11
Yes . . . What you say is true bmiluski.

But when I stopped being a member to Public Radio, TV etc., what do you think happened?

They just added more Oil producing corporations to their list of supporters. Money talks and when the 100 individual members pull out one large corporation steps in and another 900 individual members pull out. That one corporation takes the places of thousands of individual members.

PBS could care less.
+13 # mblockhart 2013-05-24 11:40
The strategy they are applying is this: Strip informational institutions of the funding they get from the public, which allows them to be independent and factual. Then substitute capitalist investment. Then use that as a hammer to make those institutions talk and teach the corporate line. The Koch brothers have done this with universities, public schools, think-tanks, and now they branch further into radio, television and newspapers. Withdrawing your donations these institutions get from the general public will make this problem worse not better. What they seek is fascism, pure and simple - government of, by and for the corporations.
+5 # natalierosen 2013-05-24 14:51
mblock, you have a point!
-1 # Quickmatch 2013-05-24 12:21
I believe people of immense wealth, like the Koch Brothers, have a right to that wealth, to spend it as they wish on homes and vacations.
I believe they should not (despite the Supreme Court’s decision) have a right to unrestrictedly influence the course of American politics; they have, in effect, many votes apiece due to the leverage of their wealth. I agree with this video in so far as it illustrates that point.
I think the video makes a number of salient points against the Koch’s political and social practices and the magnification of those practices by immense wealth. But while it feeds and warms my liberal feelings, I think the video is mainly a lashing out against the brothers and in a manner that does not embrace high production standards: in many scenes I could not distinguish which side the crowds were on; visual slides often moved too quickly for me to understand; the vignettes featuring people who suffer with the policies the Koch’s support seemed stilted; the program was short on data and long on criticism. Greenwald’s expose seemed too much like a Left-version of FOX. As an attack piece it is great, but as a decades-long viewer of PBS News Hour I can see that the Greenwald piece would be out of place in their balanced and high production valued program. YouTube and RSN are surely better venues.
+1 # bingers 2013-05-26 16:50
There are distinct differences between Fox and Greenwald. Fox has unlimited funds and a outright disregard for the truth which can be presented in a wholly professional way because of the money they have available.

Greenwald has the truth on his side, and while he may overstate his case, unlike with Fox, his points have truth to back them up. He also has to work with a miniscule budget, less for an entire movie than the average 30 second political ad.

My question is this, if the 5/9ths illegitimate SCOTUS believes wrongly that money is speech, rather than property, how do they justify scumbag pigs like the truth having millions of times more speech than a homeless person? Seems like even a five year old kid could blow their decision out of the water.
+7 # mjc 2013-05-24 12:38
One of the things that makes life interesting is viewing the newscasts of "commercial" like the local tv and CBS or ABC and then watching public television. And no broadcast group does conservation and wild animal segments better than public tv. We are all usually surprised when someone expresses an opinion on that media forum that is not liberal but it doesn't mean that the channel should just go out of business.
-7 # natalierosen 2013-05-24 14:52
Yeah it does! :)
0 # bingers 2013-05-26 16:54
Quoting natalierosen:
Yeah it does! :)

No it doesn't when the conservative view is pure untrue trash and the liberal version is the fact. Which is the case nearly, if not always, 100% of the time.

In the stupenduously rare case that the opposite is true, I'll support the conservative view.
+2 # womyn 2013-05-26 14:52
I cancelled my many years of generous donations to PBS and NPR long ago because of the direct influence corporations hold over them, like Archer,Daniels, Mindland, and disallowing informative documentaries on GMOs, etc.

PBS/NPR greatly participated in the propagandized run-up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. PBS/NPR both allowed the warmongers much time but limited the few guests who opposed these now proven illegal unnecessary wars!

I quit listening to NPR years ago. They are just a more elite version of CNN, FOX and all the rest. Same BS in different clothing.

We now support Democracy Now! and have since Amy Goodman began this show.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.