Another Public Radio Employee Canned for 'Occupy' Activism

[Tom Wells]

It's not the government's business to be in broadcasting, regardless of whatever promises have been made.

The government is in broadcasting. The government regulates broadcasting. The government is responsible for the spectrum. Most of the spectrum is owned by the government. The government owns the Voice of America. The government owns Armed Forces Radio & TV. The government is in broadcasting. Lots of state governments and about a dozen city governments also own broadcasting. So regardless what you believe, it IS the government's business to be in broadcasting, and the opinions of a small extreme group won't change that. Get used to it.

Private industry needs to step up to the plate and do a better job of serving the public and taking care of its employees. It's not the 18th century any more.

Hate to break it to you, Big A, but it most certainly IS the 18th century.

The last day day I "had" (because the place was closed) off was somewhere back in May. I've "taken" three days off since then, but my employ is 365 days a year, twice a day, until I die, and there is no law that will ever impress my employer sufficiently to hire enough people tha I can have a day off. There is no such thing as a "scheduled" day off. There no such thing as a "schedule". Just be here every day.
There is no lunch and no break. If someone else takes a day off, I'm expected to play jet-lag for as many days as is neccessary to keep the place running.

The law was very specifically crafted to NOT permit those in my position to EVER be entitiled to a day off, ever.
I AM defined as a slave by Illinois law.

So there.

 

[listener-in]

"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen".

The government is not distinct from the citizens. It is the citizens, exercising their citizenship.

The #1 role of government is to protect the people. National security at the Federal level.

There's something in the constitution about the general welfare. The are scenarios (and we're living through one right now) we the people need to be protected from corporate power in the form of monopolies and oligopolies (see, for example telecommunications industry). I don't think even you would be too happy in an America where the Feds kept out of everything but "national security at the Federal level".

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Sorry, BigA, soapboxing about "ownership" by the fed's only serves to expose it's own violation of the spirit of the commerce clause.

Aren't you suggesting the current Congress violate the spirit of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967? Following the law means you follow ALL the laws, not just the ones you like. A law is the law and must be followed until that law is repealed.

If you'd like to challenge the existence of the FCC, be my guest. It was formed by Republicans Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge, who were doing the bidding of RCA's David Sarnoff.

BigA: What I am urging, not "suggesting", is REPEALING the Public Broadcasting Act. The federal government can no longer afford this expense. Then, after repeal, the "suggestion" of violating that law becomes a moot point.

 

[TheBigA]

BigA: What I am urging, not "suggesting", is REPEALING the Public Broadcasting Act. The federal government can no longer afford this expense. Then, after repeal, the "suggestion" of violating that law becomes a moot point.

To the best of my knowledge, that has not been brought up in Congress. That's where such an idea gets suggested, not on an internet message board. And no one has ever challenged the law on Constitutional grounds. Regarding the expense, the government of the United States CAN afford it. The idea that the greatest democracy in the world can't afford Sesame Street for its taxpayers is absolute stupidity when we pour billions into foreign aid. We are a great country, a very rich country, and I'm tired of hearing the budget deficite being used as an excuse to get rid of certain things that one political group doesn't like. We CAN afford it. And for over 40 years, through all kinds of budget problems, the Congress has continued funding. So come up with another excuse. The money isn't the problem. If people want to cut wasteful expenses, I have a huge list they can look at, starting with foreign aid.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

[/quote]

To the best of my knowledge, that has not been brought up in Congress. That's where such an idea gets suggested, not on an internet message board. And no one has ever challenged the law on Constitutional grounds. Regarding the expense, the government of the United States CAN afford it. The idea that the greatest democracy in the world can't afford Sesame Street for its taxpayers is absolute stupidity when we pour billions into foreign aid. We are a great country, a very rich country, and I'm tired of hearing the budget deficite being used as an excuse to get rid of certain things that one political group doesn't like. We CAN afford it. And for over 40 years, through all kinds of budget problems, the Congress has continued funding. So come up with another excuse. The money isn't the problem. If people want to cut wasteful expenses, I have a huge list they can look at, starting with foreign aid.
[/quote]
Don't kid yourself. Partisan staffers from all quarters, at all levels snoop around our posts. Doing so keeps them in the loop, sans the need to tip their hand that they're concerned about the power of their adversaries' views. As for the platitude about Sesame St, consider this: if a father of 4 is down to his last $10, does he spend it on a movie ticket or milk, bread and eggs? Runaway spenders in congress would choose the former. Sorry again BigA, money IS the problem!

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Partisan staffers from all quarters, at all levels snoop around our posts. Doing so keeps them in the loop, sans the need to tip their hand that they're concerned about the power of their adversaries' views. As for the platitude about Sesame St, consider this: if a father of 4 is down to his last $10, does he spend it on a movie ticket or milk, bread and eggs? Runaway spenders in congress would choose the former. Sorry again BigA, money IS the problem!

You intererested is discussing broadcasting, and the proper role of journalists within on society and our political mechanism? I don't know anything about "partisan staffers from all quarerss"... but I do have a number of years experience in how someone else snoops around our posts. That would be the Managing Board Editor who has some strong feelings about sticking to the subject of broadcasting in a topice about broadcasting. Topics that get as political as we have allowed this one to become usually end up being dumped into "Take it Outside". I consider it a personal failure on MY part if a conversation that I am part of gets pushed out into Electronic Hades.

As long as it remains in business and remains partially funded by public money, I am very pleased to see NPR being very, very demanding that staff people understand the policy the organization has established when it comes to not mixing journalism and partisan activity. I would be much happier if commercial broadcasters could find the coverage of news to be a more important part of their operations, and hopefully commercial broadcasters would enforce equally high standards for their journalists.

I understand that the government funding of part of NPR is a political subject of debate, but this forum is probably not the place to have a mental meltdown over the topic.

 

[TheBigA]

Partisan staffers from all quarters, at all levels snoop around our posts. Doing so keeps them in the loop, sans the need to tip their hand that they're concerned about the power of their adversaries' views.

Sounds like wishful thinking. Bottom line is no one has the votes to repeal the PBA of 67. It might get past the House, but not the Senate. So there will be no repeal. Get used to it.

 

[Silkie]

Nothing gets through the do nothing Senate.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Partisan staffers from all quarters, at all levels snoop around our posts. Doing so keeps them in the loop, sans the need to tip their hand that they're concerned about the power of their adversaries' views.

Sounds like wishful thinking. Bottom line is no one has the votes to repeal the PBA of 67. It might get past the House, but not the Senate. So there will be no repeal. Get used to it.

You're right about the prospects for appeal right now. And realistically, I also acknowledge that congress would likely not have the resolve for repeal, even given a Republican majority in the senate in 2013, should that happen. But the COWBOY is right too; this topic should be threaded on "Take It Outside". We've lost our focus. Thanks for the wake-up call, COWBOY!

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

I understand that the government funding of part of NPR is a political subject of debate, but this forum is probably not the place to have a mental meltdown over the topic.

Cowboy, you're right. As you wisely pointed out, this topic should get hammered on "Take It Outside". See my reply to BigA...

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I worked for a really great small town station owner a number of years ago. I had a reasonably short tenure as his News Director before moving into another slot in his operation which I thought was a move further up the business pyramid. He was not very keen on hiring J-school graduates so working under him became "my J-school equivalent". He demanded straight up-and-down reporting on all local issues.

It was another era. In this turbulent time where the public seems to assume EVERYBODY has a bias, if I were to go into a station and establish a news function, what would I have to do to establish the image in my community that our station was non-partisan.... establish the fact that we practiced old fashioned ethical journalism (well.... we pretended we were non-partisan at the very least.) What would I have to do to convince the community "this is who we really are."

If I were brought into NPR and it was my task to be an observer and go to the various managers and supervisors with suggestion on how we (1) actually maintain true neutrality (2) convince the public to believe what we claim about ourselves.... What would I be telling them to do? Would it be different than what they do now?

Assuming NPR really wants to be, intends to be non-partisan, is that possible? In your lifetime, could we ever convince you or prove to you that we had achieved that? What would it take?

Play the part of the consultant. What would be your recommendation?

 

[Open Source]

Sounds like wishful thinking. Bottom line is no one has the votes to repeal the PBA of 67. It might get past the House, but not the Senate. So there will be no repeal. Get used to it.

Well that solves it. Free money in perpetuity for all sorts of "journalists" that would get kicked out of a first year community college news writing class for ethics violations, just because you said so. No one should even bother trying to lobby their congressman to stop wasting money on biased broadcasting, because you say it's not biased.

Sooner or later enough people will get sick of this sort of stuff that the votes will show up in the Senate. The gravy train is slowly rolling to a stop, $15 trillion is a lot of weight to drag. Sure public broadcasting is a very small part of that $15 trillion, but it will be whole lot easier to cut than real entitlement programs. So expect to see the end of government subsidized radio within your lifetime. Get used to that.

 

[Open Source]

Assuming NPR really wants to be, intends to be non-partisan, is that possible? In your lifetime, could we ever convince you or prove to you that we had achieved that? What would it take?

They have no interest in being non-partisan, and their listeners are in on the joke. Every once in a while, they'll fire someone for blatantly and publicly flaunting bias, but for the most part their bias is of the soft sort. Snide remarks and fact omissions instead of yelling into a mic about how evil the other guys are. Story selection is much more effective for them than other sorts of slanted reporting.

Me, personally, it would be tough to convince me that any major news outlet has no biases whatsoever. The local station that covers just local stuff is biased against national news. The sports station that doesn't cover politics is biased against politics. Not all bias is related to political affiliation. A station serves an audience, and they choose the stories the audience wants to hear, and present them in a way that is interesting to the listener. One man's "bias" is another man's "service".

So, I'm all for NPR continuing it's reporting style. It works very well for them, and they produce excellent material. I just don't want to pay for it, nor should I be forced to.

 

[TheBigA]

Well that solves it. Free money in perpetuity for all sorts of "journalists" that would get kicked out of a first year community college news writing class for ethics violations, just because you said so. No one should even bother trying to lobby their congressman to stop wasting money on biased broadcasting, because you say it's not biased.

What are you talking about?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Me, personally, it would be tough to convince me that any major news outlet has no biases whatsoever.

That is NOT the issue we are wrestling with. You have biases. I have biases. Any news organization may have biases. (It is obvious that in this thread everyone has their own definition of what is a bias.) The issue we are wrestling with is: Do news organizations allow their biases to "color" the reporting or news, or do news organizations have the ability to give objective reports that have no bias.

Further: the bias we are discussing are the rhetoric biases.... the biases that slant a report to favor one rhetoric over another. If a news source has a bias that the language used in a report should not include foul language that a soccer mom would not want young children in the van to hear, that is not a rhetoric bias. If a new source has a bias that they want their presenters to be bright, cheerful, full of sunshine rather than dull, somber and bitter, that is a business choice, not a rhetoric distortion of the content.

I get the idea you are trying to blend all these elements into one alloy so you can claim your metal is superior to someone else's metal.

The discussion in this thread is somehow related to the "What does it prove... if anything" that an employee or contractor to Public Radio decided to express her personal bias by doing a task for some biased group, and NPR decided to pull the plug on their relationship with that employee/contractor.

What does the action by NPR prove... if anything? Does the fact the NBC or FOX or CBS as companies may have some biases (color of the toilet paper in the studio restrooms, for instance) in any way justify or mitigate what NPR did?

 

[Open Source]

What are you talking about?

I suppose my sarcasm wasn't clear. I was ridiculing the assumption that just because a bunch of politicians promised free money in perpetuity to a particular industry 40 years ago, that the industry is actually entitled to that money in perpetuity. It wouldn't be hard at all to cut that money off, and maybe it's time to do so. It's also perfectly proper for people who don't think that broadcasting should be subsidized to lobby their local representatives to change the law, just like it's proper for you to lobby him to continue funding. That's how things are supposed to work. If a law enacted turns out to be a bad law, we can change it. Wonderful thing, that Constitution.

 

[TheBigA]

I was ridiculing the assumption that just because a bunch of politicians promised free money in perpetuity to a particular industry 40 years ago, that the industry is actually entitled to that money in perpetuity.

It's not a promise. It's a law. Maybe you don't understand how laws work. Congress passes a law, and it lasts in perpetuity. We have laws on the books from the 19th century, and they still apply. You break a 150 year old law, and you are as guilty as if it's a new law. That's how the law works. So they are entitled to the money in perpetuity, unless the law is repealed.

It's also not "free money." It comes with lots of strings attached. But that's for another post.

 

[country24]

A law is a law unless and until it's repealed. It can be repealed any time both houses of Congress and the president choose to do so. Congress changes every two years and we get a different president every four to eight years.

 

[TheBigA]

A law is a law unless and until it's repealed. It can be repealed any time both houses of Congress and the president choose to do so. Congress changes every two years and we get a different president every four to eight years.

And yet most of the laws have stayed on the books since they passed. Including the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. It has never even been challenged. And there was a time when the Congress and the White House was run by Republicans. When your party wins the White House, you get to appoint the members of the Corporation For Public Broadcasting. When it was run by a Republican, no one ever complained about bias at NPR.