In his New York Times article ["The Documentary 'Citizen Koch' regains money," Aug. 12, 2013] reporter Brian Stelter informs us that " ITVS, an arm of public television that finances independent documentaries, had signaled interest in subsidizing and broadcasting a film about the influence of big-dollar donors on elections." It was to be called "Citizen Corp."
Fair enough. But suddenly the documentary focused not on "the influence of big-dollar donors on elections." Instead:
Last fall, the film was renamed “Citizen Koch,” a reference to Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are major supporters of conservative causes. Around the same time, ITVS (through its “Independent Lens” series) gave the premiere of a film called “Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream,” which was critical of David Koch and other rich New Yorkers. That film caused heartburn at WNET, the powerhouse PBS station in New York, where Mr. Koch was a benefactor and board member. By April, a few months after “Citizen Koch” had its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, the $150,000 expected from ITVS had evaporated.
The thrust of Stelter story now focused on the Koch brothers, a favorite target of liberals and their media microphones, and how their presumed influence made the money for the documentary dry up. And how good guy liberals rode to the rescue.
But just wait a minute. Perhaps I missed an earlier story, but how did the focus turn from what I assumed was "big-dollar donors" in general to the Koch brothers in particular? There are no liberal big dollar donors? George Soros, the big money financier of far-left causes is a figment of my imagination? Maybe, it was Soros or other "progressive" moneybags that originally shifted the focus onto the Koch brothers. Maybe Stelter should be examining the behind-the-scenes influence of Soros and like-minded deep-pocketed liberals.
But no. That would be too informative. That would be too fair and balanced. Somewhere in this story, Stelter should have at least made a passing reference to how the focus changed to a hated target of liberal extremists.
More evidence, as if any is needed, of the media's liberal bias, especially in the iconic New York Times. Don't they have any editors there?
Hat tip: Blithe Spirit