The Independent Television Service (ITVS) is a left-wing "independent" film-makers collective funded through our tax dollars (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to be exact). "Independent" isn’t really the right word. These filmmakers may be outside a corporate or studio system, but any glance of the ITVS grants shows there are no conservative filmmakers in America today making anti-Michael Moore films that celebrate capitalism or anti-abortion films or films against illegal immigration with government subsidies provided by ITVS.
ITVS lives up to its leftist values by adding political activism. It has a community-organizing emphasis. It shows its films not just on PBS stations, but also organizes free community showings in theaters. It also has hired organizers to "leverage" its leftist films to "build stronger connections" and spur on a more aggressive fight for "social justice."
This leads to often open partnerships with left-wing organizations. For example, a documentary about migrant workers called Los Trabajadores had a list of "national partners" in activism, including the AFL-CIO, the American Friends Service Committee, and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. On the ITVS website, filmmaker Heather Courtney was pleased that her film was a starting point for pro-illegal alien activism: "Many community-based day labor and immigrant rights groups are using Los Trabajadores to organize immigrant workers and as a general educational tool to help fight misconceptions. It’s also being used in high school and university classes."
ITVS grantees can be quite explicit about their partisan activism. Chris Christopher, co-producer of the Independent Lens documentary July ‘64 about race riots in Rochester, New York, proclaimed: "I love all the work that I do and feel fortunate that people offer me interesting work – primarily advising Democratic candidates and creating social messaging campaigns for not-for-profit organizations."
Many of the ITVS films are shown on PBS stations through the series Independent Lens. The ITVS website is currently promoting the Ralph Nader documentary An Unreasonable Man as one of its highlights for December 18. One of the filmmakers, Steve Skrovan – also a longtime scriptwriter for the CBS sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond and a blogger for The Huffington Post – lauded Nader as an amazing American leader: "There’s a penetrating intelligence and analysis that I think history is going to show. His diagnosis is correct. I think it’s a good time to reevaluate his message and really listen to it because it’s been consistent and it’s based on a lot of experience." Skrovan was blunt about his point of view: "We’ve been given a lot of credit for being balanced and fair-minded, and we appreciate that, but that was not actually our intent. We’re telling the story from Nader’s point of view. We’re clearly biased." Here are some other examples of films opposing Team Bush and his policies:
– "Counting on Democracy" (2002) was described as a tale of "race, political payback, voter fraud and justice deferred," charging that in the presidential race in Florida in 2000, 175,000 "people of color" were banned from voting or had their ballots thrown out. ITVS funded the Gore-should-have-won film, but PBS executives blanched from airing it nationwide just before the 2002 elections, as filmmakers hoped. Many PBS stations aired the film after the election. But, matching the usual ITVS pattern, this taxpayer-subsidized lament was shown at free screeenings in the summer and fall of 2002. In Florida, screenings were hosted in July by state Rep. Hank Harper, a Democrat from Palm Beach. In October, in Detroit a town hall meeting co-sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Raymond Murphy and the National Black Caucus of State Legislators included a showing of the film.
– "Rising Water: Global Warming and the Fate of the Pacific Islands" (2002) was hailed by the Philadelphia Inquirer: "It’s ironic that while the leading economic countries contribute the most pollution, the effects may be first felt by countries that pollute very little. This program looks at the effects of rising water levels, due to global warming, on Pacific islands. Some of the islands are losing valuable land, and in the future entire islands may disappear." In April of 2002, the film’s public screening occurred in Cincinnati, co-sponsored by the Cincinnati Film Society – and the Sierra Club. The ITVS website for the film links directly to the Sierra Club under the headline "What You Can Do."
– "En Route to Baghdad" (2005) chronicled the life of United Nations diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello, assassinated with a bomb in Baghdad by insurgents in 2003. But criticism of the American liberation of Iraq from the UN’s point of view dominated. "I think the doctrine of preemptive action died in Baghdad," proclaimed UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. French socialist and U.N. diplomat Bernard Kouchner declared: "In the face of extremism and terrorism, which for me has nothing to do with Islam, we can no longer rely solely on the image of the U.N. flag."
As much as the film lionized its protagonist, the bombing is almost hailed. "What I see now is like a post-modern victory for Sergio because now they recognize the whole process lacked legitimacy," claimed Ghassan Salame, a UN senior adviser on Iraq. Salame demanded a "new chapter where those who went into the war recognize their error, their huge mistake, and the huge mistakes they have done since the war has ended in disbanding the Army, and disbanding the police, and de-Baathification, and comparing Saddam to Hitler and Baghdad to Berlin, all this bulls–t that we heard since the war has ended." Notions of any conflict of interest with the U.N. or filmmaker Simone Duarte didn’t get in the way of ITVS support. Duarte, like Vieira de Mello, worked for the U.N. in East Timor. Her film won an award from the U.N. Correspondents Association and was shown at the United Nations Association film festival in Monterey, California.
– "The Cats of Mirikitani" (2006) followed Jimmy Mirikitani, an elderly homeless artist in New York City. Variety’s review explained what begins as a "straightforward" film "winds up as an indictment of U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans" during World War II, and filmmaker Linda Hattendorf makes parallels between Japanese-Americans and post-9/11 America, when "reports on racist attacks against Muslims in the U.S. raise frightening specters of his past."
– "Motherland Afghanistan" (2007) is a very personal film: filmmaker Sedika Mojadidi followed her doctor father around as he tried to deliver babies in harsh conditions in Afghanistan, beginning in a maternity ward named for Laura Bush. Even New York Times TV critic Virginia Heffernan found the show to be an exploitative attack on the Bush administration. One scene where a pregnant woman arrived with bruises on her neck was critiqued: "Having suffered seizures caused by preeclampsia, she was taken by her family to a mullah, who beat her to end them. Now she is unconscious, and her baby has died in utero. Dr. Mojadidi pushes her head around on the examining table to show the camera the blue marks on her throat. This seems exploitative."
Heffernan lamented: "We’re left thinking we had to look at this for our own good, that examining an unconscious woman’s private bruises doubles as -- what? A searching critique of the Bush administration’s effort at post-9/11 nation-building? This is an extremely bad-faith way to structure a polemic, and it leaves the viewer stuck with nothing but unease and, worse, a sense that the unease cannot be a product of the film. It must be her own fault."
This article is excerpted from the MRC Special Report No Fairness Doctrine for PBS.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Same bunch, same comment.
November 10, 2007 - 19:58 ET by sarcasmoThe bias here should be expected, but Jefferson's wisdom still applies: "[T]o compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”
The problem ISN'T a lack of taxpayer subsidies for "conservative filmmakers in America today making anti-Michael Moore films that celebrate capitalism or anti-abortion films or films against illegal immigration." Instead, the problem is ANY taxpayer subsidy of ANY of this crap, even the crap Tim Graham or I happen to agree-with & enjoy! It's a principle-thing, and nobody seems to get it.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sinful and tyrannical
November 10, 2007 - 20:40 ET by Tim GrahamI could live by those rules. This is the inherent problem with public broadcasting. The side that believes the government should fund everything succeeds in getting the government to fund them. The side that thinks the government does not belong in the documentary business doesn't apply for subsidies. What's left is unfairness and imbalance.
And is the first time Sarcasmo has used the word "sinful" in a comment?
Not at all!
November 10, 2007 - 20:51 ET by sarcasmoI've repeatedly quoted Jefferson on this kind of speech-issue, and that's one of my 10 faves. I especially resent forced speech I finance for the antitobacco fascists and for the tax and spend drugwar. In fact, I might even be a tobacco tax protestor because I don't want to finance such immoral speech espousing crappy "science." Just because I don't wish to force my own morality on others does not mean I don't believe that sin abounds in this world. Far from it.
The same "can't even morally apply" problem also hits fiscal conservatives & libertarians in the case of welfare for politicians (the PC term is "matching funds") too. It's assumed that public financing of elections would lead to less corruption, when in fact it would be for me the definition of a completely-corrupt state that has lost the right to exist.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Tim, great find and post...
November 10, 2007 - 21:01 ET by MrShyTim, great find and post... ITVS, yikes!! :p
And you're spot-on... and makes obvious sense: the left promotes and is an advocate for the nanny/more-funding state, not the right, and this is one clear example -- a control/filter of culture and the arts using grants like this.
"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)
Good quote
November 11, 2007 - 08:13 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls"[T]o compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”
Good quote, but you are preaching to the choir here (mostly). Please forward it to your representatives with a brief (I stress the brief) note asking to end government funding of PBS, NPR, etc. It hasn't worked for me so far, but since you are sarc, and are always right, maybe it will work for you.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Who (besides name-callers, I mean) says I'm always right???
November 11, 2007 - 08:19 ET by sarcasmoNot me, that's for sure. Anyway, I've spoken to my "representative" about the First Amendment and other issues, such as his LIE about 8 is enough and his attempt to sell one of the few free things left in DC, which is tours of the Whitehouse. I'll rant here instead, as long as Tim quasi-proposes subsidies for conservatives with my tax dollars the choir NEEDS TJ's quotes and my preachin', no??
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Well put and right on
November 11, 2007 - 12:58 ET by DaMavWell put and right on target!!
Could not agree more. I don't want some bureaucrat 'balancing' subsidies for news, movies, art, or anything at all like this. The government has no role to play in this kind of frivolous nonsense regardless of the political perspective of the end product. Find me any evidence whatsoever in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Federalist Papers that our founders embraced federally funded news.
Here's a suggestion
November 10, 2007 - 21:23 ET by pbthinkerI would like to suggest that Newsbusters and MRC, put together a documentary about bias in the media, including PBS. Actually apply for funding, for the project, and ask for it to be aired.
My guess is that it would not be allowed, for some reason, and you would have plenty of fodder for the next round of funding, from Congress, on this farce of independence.
Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.
Couldn't there, for once...
November 10, 2007 - 23:11 ET by sarcasmoBe a round of de-funding for this political crapola?? Look at it this way, would you and Tim like to pay higher taxes next year for an expensive special I'd produce about the pervasive nature of antilibertarian bias in the news media?? I didn't think so....
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
if it works for the libs...
November 10, 2007 - 21:31 ET by rx4music...why can't we find a way to make it work for the conservatives? Where is the conservative version of Soros?? I know that distributors and production houses are largely liberal, but, isn't about time to find a way to make it work for conservatives? What do we have to do to find a way to represent the other side of the story?
This is a story that needs to be told...
Injustice
November 11, 2007 - 08:06 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls. . . .spur on a more aggressive fight for "social justice."
Why is it whenever I hear about this so-called 'fight for social justice' it always seems to be the most extreme minority viewpoint that is being espoused? Sounds more like 'injustice' to me when someone wants to force minority rule on the majority.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
DFTT,
November 11, 2007 - 09:03 ET by Dave RSounds more like 'injustice' to me when someone wants to force minority rule on the majority.
That is what I call the Tyranny of the Minority. Sadly, it is an all too frequent phenomenon in this country.
ITVS
November 11, 2007 - 10:08 ET by Dave RThis is the kind of story that makes me livid to the point of irrationality. So much so that I want to go out front and kick the fire hydrant. Really hard.
I mean, where exactly does the Imperial Federal Government get off forcing me to fund this self-destructive drivel? And that is exactly what it is. Self-destructive. The left basically has manuevered us into funding the destruction of our very way of life, if not the destruction of our once-free nation.
If the ITVS claims to be truly independent, then lets stop raping the taxpayers to fund them, and see if they can make it on their own. I'm guessing they will fold faster than a two-sheet newspaper.
Our so-called "conservative" republican congress had twelve years to put an end to nonsense such as this, yet, when the time came for them to step up and actually stop this garbage, they caved like the spineless cowards they are.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!