Re: [Swprograms] CPB meddling

["Scott Royall" <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You mean the facts you're interested in, rights?

-----Original Message-----
From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Figliozzi
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 5:38 PM
To: Shortwave programming discussion
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] CPB meddling

Hi David:

Well, to me, facts are not liberal or conservative.  If the facts lead 
one in a particular direction or to particular conclusions, I don't 
know how one can characterize that as anything but practical.  The 
trouble comes in when one sets aside the facts and follows a path that 
is pre-determined by a particular belief or orientation.  Some people 
see things only through their beliefs.  If the facts don't coincide 
with the beliefs, the facts are deemed not pertinent.  I have a problem 
with that whether the person doing so happens to have a liberal or 
conservative orientation to things.  It seems to me that one's beliefs 
should be informed--and even changed when need be--by the facts

No one has ever been able to demonstrate to me that NPR or PBS swings 
one way or the other.  It appears to me that--more than any other 
domestic media organization I can think of--public radio and television 
are devoted to getting the facts.  Recognizing, of course, that we are 
all a product of our experiences, this is always an imperfect exercise 
regardless. But I see a genuine attempt to get to the core of matters 
unimpeded by the overriding need to sell the soap...or the beer..or the 
party or whatever primary imperative drives the others.

If the facts don't comport with a particular preconception, some tend 
to denigrate and even demonize the source of those facts.  By doing so, 
they apparently hope to discredit the facts without having to actually 
deal with them in an intellectually honest manner.  Sadly, this 
technique works too well too often.  But for those who are honest, the 
facts remain until they themselves are disproven.  They don't change 
because someone doesn't like the person(s) who presented them.

Enough for now.  I hope I've been responsive to some extent.

John


On May 4, 2005, at 5:41 PM, David Goren wrote:

> Well John, it seems as if you were right, when it comes to backing up
> the charge that NPR is a hotbed of socialism, many critics fall silent.
>
> But hey, as a producer of public radio programming myself, I've got
> plenty of time on my hands living on the public dime. Even I can think
> of a reason that many people have the impression that NPR swings way to
> the left...many reporters, editor's etc. flow into NPR from the ranks
> of Pacifica Radio which is an unabashed lefty organization. Do you
> think it's possible for these people to leave their agendas behind once
> they join NPR?
>
> David
>
>
>
> On May 4, 2005, at 3:48 PM, John Figliozzi wrote:
>
>> Did you mean "does not have" instead of "has"?  Otherwise, your 
>> meaning
>> escapes me..
>>
>> On May 4, 2005, at 3:05 PM, Scott Royall wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> You may be stunned to read that everyone has the time and inclination
>>> to
>>> indulge in academic discussion. It may seem sad but it's true.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John
>>> Figliozzi
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 11:40 AM
>>> To: Shortwave programming discussion
>>> Subject: Re: [Swprograms] CPB meddling
>>>
>>> Well, let's keep this thread going.  Please give me concrete examples
>>> of the "left wing propaganda" and "leftist social agenda" of which 
>>> you
>>> speak.
>>>
>>> If you're going to make sweeping generalizations like this, you 
>>> should
>>> not be surprised if someone asks you to cite specifics.  My 
>>> experience
>>> with this sort of thing is that people usually can't back up
>>> statements
>>> like these and tend to ignore requests for clarification like this;
>>> but
>>> I'm counting on you surprising me.
>>>
>>> Cordially,
>>> John Figliozzi
>>>
>>> On May 2, 2005, at 5:47 AM, Dexter Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Richard, for the heads up on this issue.
>>>>
>>>> I also sent my two cents worth to CPB.  I praised them for their
>>>> apparent attempt to bring some editorial balance to the left-wing
>>>> propaganda of PBS and encouraged them to also rein in NPR's leftist
>>>> social agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for your help in making me aware of this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Dexter Alexander
>>>> Somerset, Kentucky
>>>>
>>>> Message: 8
>>>> Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 22:53:42 -0400
>>>> From: Richard Cuff <rdcuff@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Subject: [Swprograms] sorta OT: CPB meddling in PBS editorial policy
>>>> To: Shortwave programming discussion <swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Message-ID: <46f0ad50505011953af2030e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>>
>>>> See
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/arts/television/02public.html?
>>>> hp&ex=1115006400&en=449e1c9c1177152f&ei=5094&partner=homepage
>>>> or http://tinyurl.com/c78vm:
>>>>
>>>> Now the CPB, under Ken Tomlinson (where have I heard that name
>>>> before?) wants to influence PBS editorial policy the same way the 
>>>> IBB
>>>> has attacked the VOA.
>>>>
>>>> The implication that there is a correlation between editorial policy
>>>> and congressional funding support is troubling.
>>>>
>>>> The CPB has a web form for public comment available at
>>>> http://www.cpb.org/talktous/.  I sent them my two cents' worth; I
>>>> suggest others contact them if this development concerns you (or if
>>>> it
>>>> doesn't).
>>>>
>>>> Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA  USA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Swprograms mailing list
>>>> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
>>>> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit 
>>>> the
>>>> URL shown above.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Swprograms mailing list
>>> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
>>> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the
>>> URL
>>> shown above.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Swprograms mailing list
>>> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
>>> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the
>>> URL shown above.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Swprograms mailing list
>> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>>
>> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
>> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the
>> URL shown above.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  
> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the 
> URL shown above.
>

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL
shown above.



_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.