Re: [Swprograms] CPB meddling

[John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If you say so...

On May 5, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Scott Royall wrote:

> Already clarified my statement.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John 
> Figliozzi
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:39 PM
> To: Shortwave programming discussion
> Subject: Re: [Swprograms] CPB meddling
>
> You have this cryptic way of writing, Scott.  What on earth do you
> mean?  :-))
>
> On May 5, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Scott Royall wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.