Another Public Radio Employee Canned for 'Occupy' Activism

[jas2525]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...-public-radio-employee-canned-occupy-activism

Is NPR in-the-right?

Could you ever imagine Fox News severing ties with someone because they participated in a Tea Party event? LOL!

Of course, THAT'S the difference between legit news operations...and Fox News.

 

[FreddyE1977]

I personally feel that employees of NPR stations enjoy the same First Amendment rights
as everyone else, and if they choose to participate in political activities off the clock,
that is soley their own business. (allowing those biases to come into play with how they
cover a news story would be a different matter however).

The problem here is that NPR management is under some sort of illusion that they are going
to continue to receive Federal subsidies into the future. And they are going to do everything
in their power to avoid offending the powers that be in the House (which are currently Conservative
Republicans) so as not to endanger their prospective funding. So these folks keep getting tossed
under the bus.

Although my personal views align more with the House Republicans than with this employee,
what was done to her was not right.

And it is all moot anyhow. The country is basically broke, and if these guys think that they
are going to continue to get taxpayer subsidies forever, they are smoking something. And
throwing employees under the bus to curry political favor is not going to change that.

 

[Silkie]

The Occupy Wall Street protestors are in that top 1% in case you have not learned that from people among them.

That said, when people turn liberty into licentiousness, particularly if they do not exercise more circumspection when they have mortgage payments, car payments, credit cards, cell phone accounts, etc., then they frankly deserve whatever they trouble comes back on them for taking license with the lives, liberties, privacy and business of others for their own selfish ambition.

Then they have the nerve to tell us to think about it, as if it is all about them. I think not.

 

[KFodor]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...-public-radio-employee-canned-occupy-activism

Is NPR in-the-right?

Could you ever imagine Fox News severing ties with someone because they participated in a Tea Party event? LOL!

Of course, THAT'S the difference between legit news operations...and Fox News.

I've never seen any Fox employee (other than a news reporter/cameraman/producer) at a Tea Party rally.

That's the difference between Fox and NPR...

 

[Silkie]

Another difference is that one is private sector, the other is public sector. The private sector company made worldwide headlines for lapses in judgment and criminal conduct. Would that some smaller companies who negligently entrust their airwave business to known violators would also get rid of their personnel, who should have thought better of their conduct before whining about how they are entitled to make lots of money...on the back or good name of others who have nothing to do with them or their ilk.

 

[OldNumber7]

I personally feel that employees of NPR stations enjoy the same First Amendment rights
as everyone else, and if they choose to participate in political activities off the clock,
that is soley their own business. (allowing those biases to come into play with how they
cover a news story would be a different matter however).

In my experience, it is standard policy in most serious news organizations that people responsible for the content (reporters, editors, producers, anchors) aren't supposed to be politically active in public either on or OFF duty. This policy is usually spelled out clearly for all employees.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem here is that NPR management is under some sort of illusion that they are going
to continue to receive Federal subsidies into the future.

It's not an illusion. It was guaranteed under the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, and then further guaranteed by multiple House Appropriations Committee votes. The money has been promised. There is no illusion. Refusing to deliver it because of personal political agendas is not an option.

If people have a problem, there is a mechanism in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's charter. That's the proper course of action here.

At the same time, it is not proper for an employee to ignore the terms set out by their employer. If an employer posts a policy or code of ethics, it is the employees obligation to either follow them or find another place to work.

 

[Open Source]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...-public-radio-employee-canned-occupy-activism

Is NPR in-the-right?

Could you ever imagine Fox News severing ties with someone because they participated in a Tea Party event? LOL!

Of course, THAT'S the difference between legit news operations...and Fox News.

I've never seen any Fox employee (other than a news reporter/cameraman/producer) at a Tea Party rally.

That's the difference between Fox and NPR...

Hush you, no one needs you pointing out something so obvious when there is Fox bashing to be done!

 

[FreddyE1977]

It's not an illusion. It was guaranteed under the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, and then further guaranteed by multiple House Appropriations Committee votes. The money has been promised. There is no illusion. Refusing to deliver it because of personal political agendas is not an option.

Constitutionally speaking, the Congress which made that promise in 1967 has absolutely no authority to
bind our current or any future Congress to pay for it.

 

[TheBigA]

Constitutionally speaking, the Congress which made that promise in 1967 has absolutely no authority to
bind our current or any future Congress to pay for it.

Huh? You mean to tell me that any law Congress passes is only good as long as that Congress is in session?

Using that logic, the Consitution itself would need to be ratified every two years.

But your comment also ignores the fact that the House Appropriations Committee just approved CPB's funding through 2014.

 

[FreddyE1977]

But your comment also ignores the fact that the House Appropriations Committee just approved CPB's funding through 2014.

Thanks, I was not aware of that.

It will certainly cause some of my fellow conservatives to go ape----. Especially given the state of the Federal budget.
Since the Senate is Democratic I don't suppose anything will happen to the funding over there (unless it ends up being
deleted by the Budget Supercommittee). Funding radio and TV programming is a luxury we just can't afford anymore.

But on point, I am quite sure, Congress cannot bind a future Congress to any of it's decisions.
(or more precisely, they are free to repeal and/or refuse to continue funding anything this current
Congress does)

That includes cutting off this appropriation that was supposedly granted till 2014 at any time.

 

[Open Source]

But on point, I am quite sure, Congress cannot bind a future Congress to any of it's decisions.
(or more precisely, they are free to repeal and/or refuse to continue funding anything this current
Congress does)

That includes cutting off this appropriation that was supposedly granted till 2014 at any time.

But they were promised! I wonder if it was a pinky promise, and more importantly did Uncle Sam cross his fingers behind his back?

The whole "we deserve that money just because" argument is both childish and tiring.

 

[Silkie]

Yeah, they were promised. They'll love us in the morning too. ;D

 

[TheBigA]

Funding radio and TV programming is a luxury we just can't afford anymore.

Doesn't matter. It's mandated by law. Unless you change the law, CPB stays.

But on point, I am quite sure, Congress cannot bind a future Congress to any of it's decisions.

Show me where it says that. A law is a law. Once it passes, it's binding until it's repealed. They don't have enough votes to repeal the Public Broadcasting Act. It would need to be repealed in both House & Senate, and that won't happen.

 

[Open Source]

Show me where it says that. A law is a law. Once it passes, it's binding until it's repealed. They don't have enough votes to repeal the Public Broadcasting Act. It would need to be repealed in both House & Senate, and that won't happen.

Actually they could tack the funding withdrawal as an amendment onto any bill they want. That probably won't happen, but living off the public teat isn't non-comm radio's birthright.

 

[TheBigA]

Actually they could tack the funding withdrawal as an amendment onto any bill they want. That probably won't happen, but living off the public teat isn't non-comm radio's birthright.

Sure it is. Public broadcasting was born out of the need to provide news and information to the public that is free from the demands of the marketplace. With all the cutbacks in commercial radio, the non-coms are the only ones left providing news coverage to the community. Private radio companies have abdicated their responsibilities, and deregulation of the commercial band has forced the government to pick up the slack. Private companies could make government subsidies unnecessary. But they'd rather make profits for a fortunate few, and ignore their public service obligations.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

But on point, I am quite sure, Congress cannot bind a future Congress to any of it's decisions.
(or more precisely, they are free to repeal and/or refuse to continue funding anything this current
Congress does)

That includes cutting off this appropriation that was supposedly granted till 2014 at any time.

But they were promised! I wonder if it was a pinky promise, and more importantly did Uncle Sam cross his fingers behind his back?

The whole "we deserve that money just because" argument is both childish and tiring.

I've lost track of how many issues are all bogged down today in this country because this same argument comes up over and over again.

You can't kill Social Security. We were promised it would always be this way. Well, we can't afford for it to always be this way so we will change it!.

You can't control our guns. The founding fathers promised us the right to bear arms. Well, the founding fathers lived in a very agrarian, sparsly settle country. Of course we can change that part of the Constitution.

Sometimes Conservatives use the "you can't undo what congress did" concept. Sometimes Conservatives are standing in line to change what Congress did.

Sometimes Liberal use the "you can't undo what congress did" concept. Sometimes Liberals are standing in line to change what Congress did.

I would suggest it is a better use of our time and energy to work on issues of the day, come to an agreement that the various entities and stakeholders find acceptable, and then go through whatever motions are necessary to enforce what Congress did previously or find a legal way to overturn what Congress did previously. We who populate this discussion forum are not trained and experienced constitutional lawyers. Argue for what you think would be proper, workable, equitable do-able, and then let the experts define how we legally get it done.

The theory of the Conservatives, the "Free Market will always do things right" has proven it doesn't work in the areas where Public Radio has filled in the gap. If you convince enough voters and enough legilators that it is somehow immoral for tax dollars to be a part of broadcasting, and they come up with legislation to reverse what has been done, there are many of us who have this gut feeling that in the next 100 years commercial radio will not fill the vacuum that is left by killing Public Broadcasting. I suspect there are enough of us who feel that way.... that you are unlikely to get Congress to give the death sentence to Public Broadcasting.

If you have logical and valid thoughts on how the funding should be changed, knock yourself out. Sell the idea to us and to Congress. If you have logical and valid thoughts on how new and different (as in non-government) funding should be used, knock youerself out. Sell the new funding idea to us and to Congress.

 

[TheBigA]

The theory of the Conservatives, the "Free Market will always do things right" has proven it doesn't work in the areas where Public Radio has filled in the gap.

The easiest way to get rid of government funding is for private industry to step up to the plate and make public broadcasting unnecessary. But that's not been the trend over the last 40 years. In fact, the situation that existed in 1967 has just gotten worse. The point of view that's being expressed here is: 1) Get rid of government funding, and 2) get rid of regulations that require private industry to fill the gap. That guarantees that the public interest will not be served. You can't have both 1 and 2. That's irresponsible.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I had the good fortune a number of years ago of working with a man who was 15 years older than me. He was a colorful character and could express life's little challenges and quirks with some country boy humor. I tell people that this man taught me how to grow old gracefully. Unfortunately, he is gone now, so I am having to "wing it" on my own.

It seems to me that today's political rhetoric is being driven by a bunch of people in their 30s and 40s, and supported by people in their 50s who have not had anyone yet who can get through their cocoon to explain to them what life could be like for them 10, 20 and 30 years from now. They all want a tax law that fits people where THEY are right now. They want a regulatory system that fits them in what they are doing in business right now. After all, life will always for the next 200, 300 years be just like it is today.

Right now they see themselves out on the dance floor come Friday night partnering up with someone sexy and luscious. And they want radio that helps them relive that dream every day, as they drive, as they work at the desk. At this point in life they cannot conceive of the day when they might want to hear 3 or 4 experts gathered around a table discussing the tax ramifications for people nearing retirement, and people already in retirement dealing with a life savings battered by the economic conditions. So these "forever young" folks easily see much of what happens on Public Radio as useless garbage.

Many of these "forever young" have yet to come face to face with their own children as teenagers and emerging adults. They have yet to come face to face with recognizing that their children have been shaped and forged by "potty mouth" shock jocks on the radio.

Some morning you wake up and realize that the freedoms you have always wanted for yourself, are now the freedoms you children are enjoying and demanding and all of a sudden you are a bit pissed. For you it looked like fulfillment. For them you see it as corruption, distortion.

The genie is out of the bottle. 40 years ago the dream of public radio was just that.... a dream. Today we have watched as that dream grew up, matured, explored and became something beyond what the original supporters hoped for. And though a significant portion of the population hates the whole concept, they are going to find themselves in a very messy, nasty battle if they try to put the genie back in the bottle. The genie has grown bigger than the bottle it came out of so putting it back in just won't work.

If you have this view of public radio that I see, then you know that journalists must not want to participate in activism, must not be allowed to participate in activism.

The managers of NPR seem to know that you cannot put the genie back into the bottle.... but if you don't manage it right, you can KILL the genie. And there is nothing more nasty than living in a neighborhood where a dead genie is decomposing. ;D

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

If you convince enough voters and enough legilators that it is somehow immoral for tax dollars to be a part of broadcasting, and they come up with legislation to reverse what has been done, there are many of us who have this gut feeling that in the next 100 years commercial radio will not fill the vacuum that is left by killing Public Broadcasting.

[/quote] The argument to halt taxpayer-funding of public radio is not a challenge to a moral or an "immoral" imperative, but rather to a congressional budgeting reality. True, recent politically correct indiscretions by a couple of NPR status-quo keepers have served to marginalize it's own standing. Still, the ascertion that we can no longer afford to fund public radio stands on it's own merit.

By the same token, suspicion of the commercial radio community's future intentions is a fair argument, and a blight it has heaped upon itself, thanks to it's post-deregulation behavior. Commerical radio has largely abandoned it's once sacred oath to serve "as a public trustee". The predatory spectacle that federal regulation can be, commercial broadcasting today, albeit with some exceptions, markets a service inferior to the quality offered in it's pre-deregulation days.