The New Jersey Teachers' Union Responds to The Cartel Movie
or
How the Multi-Million Dollar NJ Teachers' Union Saw Through the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that is 'The Cartel' Movie, Outing Our Two-Person Production Team Driving Around in My Ten-Year-Old Saturn SL2
By Bob Bowdon
In case you haven't read it already, let me begin by summarizing the NJEA's response to my new feature-length documentary The Cartel:
- Ad hominem
- Ad hominem
- Ad hominem
Now let me cover the critiques they made of the content in the actual film:
(play 'crickets' sound effect)
That means they said nothing about the actual film; their only responses were in the form of personal attacks. That's all you really need to know. You may now read on if you've got some spare time to kill.
Initially, I wasn't going to respond to the Teachers' Union at all. I only knew about their press release because a friend sent it to me, but since no link appeared on their homepage or any other prominent place on their website, I didn't think anyone would even know it existed.
But then once I started to see the link appear on several different blogs, I realized it was time to set things straight.
Their "story" is here:
And their comedically titled "Research Paper" is here:
Let's start with the fact that I clearly identify myself in my film, as well as in this response. Meanwhile their "Attack the Messenger" press release, as well as the "Research Paper" are the products of mystery authors.
Is "Anonymous Research" some new academic trend that I missed? (I mean even the tobacco companies had the good manners to give us named authors of their bogus studies. Really guys? Not one name? How about just initials? No? Okay, fine.)
But the larger point -- isn't there at least a little irony in the fact that I'm being accused of hiding the identity of my supposed financial masters by someone who is... COMPLETELY HIDING HIS/HER OWN IDENTITY?? I mean really... this NJEA response didn't write itself, did it? (Did someone just find it somewhere?)
To use one of their terms, I don't think someone needs to be Highly Qualified at identifying irony to see that I'm being lectured to about transparency by "Mr. Whats-his-name."
But let's get down to it. First, they offer this:
It was made by first-time film-maker Bob Bowdon, who is best known as an on-camera reporter for the Onion News Network, or, as his own website describes him, “Reporter of comedic, fake news for the Onion News Network as the character Brian Scott.”
I do appreciate their suggestion that I am, indeed, well-known for my Onion work. (I'll be forwarding this part to The Onion producers to bolster my case for a higher fee.)
Maybe it's just me, but does this also imply that my Onion appearances impune my journalistic integrity because, the implication seems to go, comedic satire is inconsistent with substantive commentary or journalistic value. I'm not imagining this right?
I just can't believe that people who are exposed to high school kids could possibly be so out of touch. Do they even know what The Onion is? Have they ever heard of The Daily Show or Jon Stewart?
And what a coincidence, they accidentally leave out any mention of my six years as an Anchor/Reporter for Bloomberg Television, at least on this page. (It appears only for people willing to download the .pdf file.)
A coincidental oversight on the part of Mr./Ms. Anonymous, perhaps? What do you think?
Then they move on to funding:
The film was originally promoted by E3, the Newark-based organization behind the school voucher movement in New Jersey, but as the attached research paper indicates, the force behind “The Cartel” is the Los Angeles-based Moving Picture Institute, a renowned right-wing nonprofit organization that funds, produces, or promotes independent films that are devoted to “protecting and sustaining a free society.”
This is the part where I ask myself, "this is the best they can do?" Look, I can supply a couple of ex-girlfriends who'll do a much better job of trashing me, believe me.
The premise here, as well as in the ad hominem "Research Report," is that The Cartel is really the handiwork of these two shady groups, and they created it to serve their nefarious, underworld goals of "sustaining a free society." (To this author the notion of "freedom" is apparently an ugly thing, at least as I sit here reading it.)
The fact is for the first 2 years of this 2 1/2 year project, I had no outside financial support whatsoever. You can ask any number of my friends from whom I got free help during that time, not to mention casual acquaintances, professional colleagues and so on, to whom I begged.
MPI and E3 were the "force" behind The Cartel? Really? Are they prepared to explain exactly how they know that? Because the fact is, they just made it up.
I didn't receive a single penny until after every interview in the film was completed. Only then could I show a rough cut of my film to these groups that were mentioned, and prove the project was worthy of support.
Are you hearing me, Mr./Ms. Anonymous? I worked on this film for two years without any financial contributions from anyone, and completed exactly 100% of the interviews before any financial support from them arrived. Shall we hire an independent auditor to verify what I'm saying? Let's go. Let's throw down, Whomever You Are. I'll happily present my checking account records.
(We can add the auditor's fee to the list of other non-classroom related, non-teacher related places to which our education dollars disappear.)
Okay, back to their response. Once the Union "links" me to these diabolical, underworld groups of MPI & E3, I quickly become an afterthought in the so-called Research Report. Anyone who I ever had a Pepsi with is now considered part of the fiendish cabal.
Let's stop for another irony.
What about their funding? Does anyone ever ask about that? The fact is if a particular NJEA employee ever decides, "Hey, maybe teacher tenure isn't such a good idea" -- he/she can't say so. If one of them realizes, "Hey maybe some schools actually need structural reform, rather than just more money" -- he/she can't say that either, because that would be grounds for dismissal. The irony is that it's their free speech that's affected by funding, not mine.
I could've made any film I wanted -- about Katrina, Iraq veterans, Global warming, or even a pro-tenure, pro-teachers' union film. There were no constraints on what I could do or say, nor are there now.
But it's the old political game: if you're a corrupt politician, accuse the other guy of corruption. If you cheated on your wife, accuse the other guy of cheating on his wife. After the dust settles, no one will know who's worse, and your problem will have been minimized. The fact is, I am a completely independent commentator. I can say whatever I please, whenever I want, including right now.
They aren't and can't.
So what do they say? That *I'm* bought off.
Mr./Ms. Anonymous finishes the press release with this:
“The Cartel” includes footage of NJEA President Joyce Powell, who conducted an interview a year ago with a crew claiming it was doing an independent “documentary on public education in New Jersey,” with a focus on No Child Left Behind, the state school funding law, and charter schools. At no time did the crew identify its true agenda, nor who was funding its work.
I've been a journalist most of my adult life, and there was absolutely nothing improper done in the scheduling or execution of that interview.
The topics? We provided a long list of topics that we intended to discuss, and the interview covered every single one exactly as advertised. (Would they like to see the whole hour-long interview?)
Who was funding our work at the time? See above -- the funder at that time would have been correctly identified as "No One," and I'm ready to prove it.
And they lecture me on "true agenda"? (Here's where I'm inclined to hyperventilate.)
What about their true agenda of protecting the jobs of bad teachers at the expense of children's ability to read? What about their true agenda of opposing merit pay, so good teachers can't be rewarded, perpetuating the myth that all teachers are the same? What about their true agenda of opposing technologies like distance learning because they're afraid that excellent, high-tech teaching tools will hurt their case to demand more hiring?
How dare these people invoke the term "true agenda" in any other context than to come clean about their own true agendas -- some of which destroy real children's lives.
Now, I hate to actually bring up what's actually in the film amid this carnivorous, ad hominem dissection of the messenger, but indulge me. If I was so unfair in my treatment of Teachers' Union President Joyce Powell in The Cartel, can someone please tell me exactly what about her positions I misrepresented? That's the true standard of journalistic fairness.
So... Let's See... How Was Joyce Powell Misrepresented?
- Did we portray her as "For" tenure, when she's actually against it?
- Did we skillfully extract a tiny phrase out of context to change what she meant about something?
- Did we re-edit her words one-by-one, rearranging them to create a sentence she never actually said?
So once again: Can anyone tell me a single NJEA position that The Cartel misrepresents? Because if no one can... then excuse me, but this conversation is complete nonsense.
Quite simply, the attacks on me are a distraction from what's actually in the film. Realize that if the conversation switches to how well I defend my funding -- then we're not talking about things like teacher tenure, ghost salaries, six-figure janitors, or 29% of low-income education funds wasted, as reveled in a KPMG audit. If this all becomes about me, they've won.
Imagine -- a whole press release about a film, and not one mention of anything in the film, even though the NJEA Vice President actually attended the premiere. Was she even paying attention? (If not, we should dock her merit pay. Oh wait, I forgot....)
The fact is, they probably don't care how well I defend my funding, as long as we're not talking about schools. Like when a crazy relative starts ranting at Thanksgiving, the important thing is to change the subject.
P.S. And here's a good one.... I was nice enough to include the original links to their web page. Think they'll show a similar open source approach?
These paragons of transparency can't possibly be more secretive than a shady, underworld operative such as myself, can they?
So here's my challenge: Post my link in return for me posting yours; I double-dare you, Whatever Your Name is.
