Wow.
But that wasn't my question. I was asking you to define "quality programming."
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
VOA To Do Propaganda?
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
Wow.
But that wasn't my question. I was asking you to define "quality programming."
F
FredLeonard
Guest
What Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote about porn, applies equally to crap: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." - Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184
That's great. Very instructional. This is why he gets paid the big bucks. You see how that decision has solved the porn problem.
What it comes down to is we all think what WE like is quality, and what everyone else likes is crap. Or what people we don't like is crap. Because typically, when I see people complaining about programming, it's usually attached to descriptions of certain people, most of whom need dental work and more exercise. That's not useful information.
The fact is that mass media, by definition, is built around the masses. As déclassé as that sounds, that's the reality. You walk into Wal Mart at any time of day, and that's our audience. Would we prefer to reach richer, nicer people? Sure. But there are fewer of them than the others. And they can afford to pay for personalized media. So this is what we do. If you can fix that problem, I'm ready to listen. Otherwise, you're just another mouth who wants what he wants. And in my world, there's no shortage of that.
Last edited:
I'm amused that you, who stated that a symphony orchestra does not benefit from a "visual medium" are trying to tell us that you know quality programs when you hear them.
I think, based on the evidence, that you think that your taste is better than most other people's taste. Therefore, anything you like is quality programming, and anything you do not like is, ergo, crap.
I had someone yesterday tell me that it's not just about hiring air talent, but hiring the RIGHT air talent. Great. Thanks for that. I'll be sure to put that in the job description, and see if it gets past the lawyers.
Because most of the people complaining have no idea what VOA even does? I know that's why I haven't said anything. I don't want to pull a Fred and just make stuff up.
Last edited:
Frankly, it matters not to me who thinks what, or what party lapel pins they wear. I have no intention of resetting my mentality to a Cold War retro attitude. Not this time, not this year, not ever again. We already went there, we won, it's done.
Last edited:
What she said, +1.
Once in a while, just make sure the people from YOUR GEOGRAPHY who represent you in Washington understand how you feel. There is something in the drinking water in Washington that can eventually bend and shape the mind if we don't send crib notes from home now and then.
This morning I sent my Congressman 'the crib note from Outer Mongolia'! (I know. The conventional saying would be 'a note from Hell'.... but that does not have enough dynamic range to express what I had to say this morning.)
Most people who throw around words like "propaganda" re: VOA have never listened to it. (It's only propaganda if you don't agree with it I suppose.)
The present the news and opinion from the perspective of the US government. So, do they give "equal time" to Vladmir Putin? Of course not.
The standards are actually very high. And the quality is impressive.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
From an earlier post, a dictionary definition:
Someone else attempted to rebut that definition with:
But even that one says "often" but it doesn't say "always".
Bottom line, VOA was always propaganda. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. It might also interest you to know that in the Roman Catholic Church, Propaganda Fide is the Department (Congregation) of the Holy See founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV with the double aim of spreading Christianity in the areas where the Christian message had still not arrived and of defending the patrimony of faith in those places where heresy had caused the genuineness of the faith to be questioned. Propaganda Fide was therefore, basically, the Congregation whose task it was to organize all the missionary activity of the Church. Through a provision of John Paul II (in order to better define its tasks), since 1988 the original Propaganda Fide has been called the "Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples". Now, if the Roman Catholic Church can use the term "propaganda" to refer to it's mission of spreading the faith, I don't think anyone can deny that something doesn't have to be a lie in order to be "propaganda".
As some famous radio personality once said, "Words have meanings".
In your opinion.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, their charter prevents them from advocating the government's doctrine. That's why this particular Congressman wants to change their charter. That would allow them to do propaganda. If they're already doing propaganda, there'd be no need for the Congressman to initiate legislation changing the VOA charter. Maybe you need to re-read the OP.
Last edited:
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Yes, an opinion strongly supported by facts. As for Congress needing to do something, since when does Congress only do what it needs to do? Some Congressman needs to put his name on a bill to look good for the voters back home, so he sponsors a meaningless bill. That's something Congress is extremely good at.
And that's not an opinion, that's a conclusion based on factual observations.
And another thing. I stand by MY opinions. I don't just automatically regurgitate the opinions of others.
Last edited:
But you have no facts. You have no observations. You've never heard VOA. You don't know anything about it.
Once again read the charter. Read the bill. If VOA was defying its charter, a watchdog organization would challenge them. Their own employees would object. The international community would howl. We have none of those things. In fact, VOA has the respect of the world.
Last edited:
But VOA does do the various sides to a story. If there is an issue between Putin (in representation of Russia) and the US, then the VOA story will report both perspectives of the issue in a "US representatives said bla bla bla, while officials in Moscow said bla bla bla".
Not only is that good, impartial journalism, but it is also the way for people in other countries to see what their leaders say vs. what other world leaders or authorities say.
I believe you could say that propaganda is one-sided, never even recognizing an opposing point of view. Good journalism takes into account different viewpoints and that is what VOA does in true compliance with its charter.
Yet at no time have you even said that you have listened to VOA.
When did you first listen to VOA? When was the last time? How many hours a week / month / year have you listened to VOA during that period? In what languages did you listen, and have you compared the content in various languages for consistency?
If you can't answer those questions, you are like the guy in a cabin in Idaho who says he saw a Sasquatch.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I have never known anyone in AFTRA who ever struck (or threatened to strike) over anything other than pay or working conditions issues. That includes those of us in AFTRA because we acted in videotaped productions and did free-lance voice-over work. I ran into a lot of DJs, TV booth announcers, newscasters, and other people who worked in radio and TV at auditions when I was working rather steadily in industrial training films and commercials. I never met a single one who would have done anything if given a news script to read that they didn't like. Most of them didn't much care what was on the script or teleprompter. They just knew how to sound and/or look good reading the scripts.
Being turned into a flack for the government against your will is a working conditions issue. It's covered by the contract, and it's stated clearly in the VOA charter.
So for a newscaster to do propaganda is a reason to strike.
Don't tell me, let me guess...Ryan Seacrest, right?
I thought it was Soupy Sales.
- Status