Care2: Koch Blocking Political Debate

By at Care2

The Koch brothersmust be getting worried.

After all, there’s the recent ruling out of the D.C. Circuit Court that paves the way for uncloaking the flood of secret money they’ve been pouring into our elections and into our policy. And they continue their attacks against filmmaker and journalist Robert Greenwald. Not only do the super-wealthy conservative funders refuse to publicly debate their policy positions, they are using their vast wealth to distort those positions to the public to make them more acceptable.

They’re doing it with environmental policy directly by funding misleading ads and giving massive campaign contributions to lawmakers like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) so as to keep any functional regulations at bay.

They’re doing it by funneling at least $1 million to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the group behind the horrific “stand your ground” laws, and the union-busting laws in places like Wisconsin and Ohio. And they’re doing it by propping up Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) who faces a recall election due entirely to his role as a Koch-funded puppet.

Unfortunately though the Kochs don’t believe in being candid or transparent with the citizens of this country, and that’s in large part because they are not interested in the democratic process per se, just what they can manipulate and extract from it.

Add your reaction Share

AlterNet: 6 Reasons the Koch Brothers Had a Very Bad Week

By Adele M. Stan at AlterNet


An FBI investigation, a new documentary, and a court overturned one of their pet politicians’ pet laws: here’s a look inside the Kochs’ worst week in a while.

April 2, 2012 | Were there a way for a few billion clams to wipe a week off the calendar, one imagines that Charles and David Koch, the multibillionaire principals of Koch Industries, would like to see the final week of March 2012 vaporized, at least in the public mind. For the Kochs, it was a week of bad news: a new documentary about their political activity and corporate negligence was making a splash — on the same day a story broke announcing an FBI investigation of two Wisconsin groups tied to Americans for Prosperity, the political ground organization they founded and fund. (Full disclosure: AlterNet is a supporter of the documentary, Koch Brothers Exposed, and I appear in the film.)

Things got even worse the next day, Friday, March 30, when the billionaire brothers learned that a federal court handed down a decision that may ultimately require certain non-profit groups, such as Americans for Prosperity, to reveal their full donor list, and the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, who wrote a devastating profile of the brothers last year, reported on the Kochs’ involvement in a barrage of anti-Obama ads sponsored by a tax-exempt non-profit called the American Energy Alliance, which may also now be required to reveal its donor list.

On the very same day, another federal court struck down portions of Wisconsin’s controversial law that stripped collective bargaining rights from most of the state’s public employees — a law championed by Americans for Prosperity, and rammed through the state legislature a year ago by the AFP-supported Gov. Scott Walker. Here, we take a closer look at the Kochs’ very bad week.

Read the six reasons here.

Add your reaction Share

MSNBC’s Martin Bashir: Robert Greenwald on ‘Koch Brothers Exposed’


Robert Greenwald discusses his latest investigative documentary, “Koch Brothers Exposed” with MSNBC’s Martin Bashir. Greenwald responds to the latest personal attack by the Koch’s and invites them to come on national TV to debate. Buy your copy today at kochbrothersexposed.com!

Add your reaction Share

AlterNet Radio: Robert Greenwald talks about James Murdoch’s resignation from News International


Robert Greenwald and Joshua Holland from AlterNet Radio Hour discuss the implications of James Murdoch’s resignation, the heir apparent of Rupert Murdoch’s empire. What does his move to NYC mean for Fox News?

To hear the rest of AlterNet’s Radio Hour, listen here.

 

Add your reaction Share

The GOP Foreign Policy Debate: Robert Greenwald and Ed Schultz Discuss (11/23/11)

By The Ed Schultz Show

Robert Greenwald and Ed Schultz review the Nov. 22 GOP debate, focusing on foreign policy. What is the outcome on War Costs?

Add your reaction Share

Occupy Wall Street: Robert Greenwald and Ed Schultz Discuss the Media Spin


OWS enters its third month on November 17 and continues to grow, build and inspire. However, certain media outlets, such as FOX, are painting a different picture of the Occupy protesters. Robert Greenwald and Ed Schultz discuss.


Add your reaction Share

How Fox News Changed the Face of Journalism

By Ellen McCarthy and Paul Farhi at The Washington Post

…Fox has become a very real force in America’s culture and politics. It has altered the national dialogue with its different sensibilities and given conservatives a platform. It has become the source of great equity or great evil, depending on your perspective…

For Robert Greenwald, the liberal director of a highly critical 2004 documentary on FNC called “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism,” the problem isn’t just what the network covers. “The biggest thing is the stories they won’t cover,” he said. “Over the years, anything that ran counter to the preferred conservative image would not be covered.” For example? “The consequences of the Iraq war.”

Click here for the full story.


Add your reaction Share

Robert Greenwald – CBC News interview on the News Corp Scandal


CBC invites Robert Greenwald to discuss the latest in the Rupert Murdoch/News Corp scandal.


Add your reaction Share

Does Accuracy Matter in Historical Drama?

By Alex Hudson at BBC News

A controversial mini-series about the Kennedys is now being screened in the UK. It has been criticised in the US over its historical accuracy, despite being labelled as fiction. So how much does accuracy matter in historical dramas?

From the day of John F Kennedy’s death, the story of his life has been played out on screen too many times to count. But in new television series The Kennedys, the former US president is presented in a different way from the great American hero he was often portrayed as in the past.

Based on his life but labelled as fiction, the series has been controversial. It was originally scheduled to run on the US channel History but was cancelled earlier this year. In a statement executives said such dramatic interpretation was not “the right fit” for the channel.

In the end the series was shown in the US on the digital cable station ReelzChannel and has just started on BBC Two.

‘Patronising’

So where do you draw the line drawn between fact, rumour and fiction in such dramatisations?

Critics have been very vocal about the series right from the start – even before filming began. Leftwing filmmaker Robert Greenwald told the New York Times it was a “political character assassination”.

He even made an 11-minute film calling for the programme to be banned. In it author Nigel Hamilton questions: “Why mix [personal affairs] in with serious history if you’re not going to treat the history seriously?”

The Kennedys is however trailed as fiction. Some supporters question whether anyone would watch a drama without any dramatisation.

The show’s producer Joel Surnow told the LA Times he believed the series would have been aired on the History Channel if it had been produced by the likes of Tom Hanks or Steven Spielberg. He said his personal politics – he is a donator to the Republican Party – affected views of the programme, but he “never had a political agenda”.

The New Yorker agreed that it didn’t come across this way, but had a “dramatic agenda” that was bound to offend some.

Some television critics argue such shows would be “pretty boring” if it kept entirely to history. Gareth McLean, writer-at-large of the Radio Times, says audiences are sophisticated enough to understand that some dramas are a mix of fact and fiction.

“Audiences aren’t stupid. I think it’s a little bit patronising to assume that the audience takes everything at face value. They can make up their own minds and if they want to find out more then they can do a bit of research around the subject.”

This is something echoed by Sue Deeks, the head of BBC programme acquisition.

 

Read more
Add your reaction Share

Glory Days: An American dynasty up close, in “The Kennedys.”

By The New Yorker

“The Kennedys,” an eight-episode miniseries that premières April 3rd, is being promoted by the channel airing it as “the most controversial TV-movie event of the year”—a phrase, you’ll notice, that doesn’t express pride in the quality of the show or speak to its degree of importance. It’s a fairly empty boast, but a useful one for ReelzChannel, where “The Kennedys” landed after being rejected, in January, by the History Channel, where the project originated. Acquiring a “controversial” show has given this widely available but little watched and ineptly named channel an identity—and a small superhero cape to go with it—that it never would have had if the History Channel (and then Showtime and a couple of other outlets) hadn’t declined to run the series. Reelz is half movie-industry fanzine—with programs devoted to movie trailers and top-ten car-chase scenes or Bond girls; a review show with Leonard Maltin; and a few actual movies—and half grab bag of chestnuts, some of them a little wormy at this point, such as “Cheers,” “Becker,” “3rd Rock from the Sun,” and “Ally McBeal.” And now along comes “The Kennedys,” cannonballing into the pool.

Objections to the series, which was developed by Joel Surnow, the bluntly conservative co-creator of “24,” started appearing more than a year ago, when several Kennedy historians and insiders protested its existence—before it actually did exist, or had even been cast. As reported in the Times, Theodore Sorensen, John F. Kennedy’s adviser and speechwriter, and the crusading filmmaker Robert Greenwald—whose documentaries shine a light on, for example, the ugliness of Rupert Murdoch, Wal-Mart, and the American contractors who capitalized on the war in Iraq—complained about the scripts-in-progress. Greenwald referred to the work as “political character assassination,” and Sorensen, on a Web site that Greenwald set up, called StopKennedySmears.com, argued that “this one-sided, right-wing script” suffers from “a vindictive, malicious approach.” Visitors to the site were encouraged to sign a petition stating, “Until The History Channel stops running politically motivated fiction as historical ‘fact,’ I will refuse to watch their programming.”

In the end, the History Channel executives gave up the project, releasing a statement that said, “After viewing the final product in its totality, we have concluded this dramatic interpretation is not a fit for the History brand.” Lest anyone fear that the channel had suddenly gone mad and was pretending to be something it isn’t—a straight-up history channel that doesn’t allow artistic license—they offered sugary reassurance: “We recognize historical fiction is an important medium for storytelling and commend all the hard work and passion that has gone into the making of the series.” Right: here’s a commendation for you, and don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Viewers who never worked for the Kennedys or wrote books about them (or for them: Sorensen helped out, shall we say, with John F. Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Profiles in Courage”) may not be experts, but “The Kennedys” doesn’t actually come across to the semi-knowledgeable, Kennedy-steeped American adult as having a political agenda. It has a dramatic agenda, and, in service of that, its creators—Stephen Kronish, who worked with Surnow on “24,” is his writing partner here—made certain choices that were bound to upset interested parties. Among those reportedly in that camp are Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver, who are said to have put pressure on the History Channel’s parent network, A&E, with which they share a web of personal and professional connections, to pull the plug on the show. I suspect that their objections amounted to matters of taste and style: snobbery about the compromises and fakery of docudramas (which I share), a desire not to dwell on the unsavory aspects of their family’s legacy (which I understand), and an intense irritation at not being able to control the narrative as it plays out in public (which anyone can understand). Surely there was also a desire to protect their remaining elders: the miniseries was developed at a time when the last of the parents and aunts and uncles were beginning to die—five of them have gone in the past six years. (Of that older generation only one Kennedy sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, and one spouse, Ethel Kennedy, are still alive.)

Read more
Add your reaction Share
← Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9    26  27  Next →

Free Video Subscription

Do Something

Volunteer at Brave New Films

A lot of people think, "I want to do something, but what can I do?" We have the answer: volunteer at Brave New Films!


Recent Activity