Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 28 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Why doesn’t public radio want public input?
Published Sunday, February 7, 2010
I was a member of the now disbanded WOUB radio and TV “Community Advisory Council” (CAC) and attended the last four CAC meetings.
The first two meetings allowed time for members of the public to raise concerns. Those who spoke all expressed the wish that WOUB would carry the news program “Democracy Now!” At the last two meetings, no public input was allowed.
The next to last CAC meeting was held in May ‘08 in Ironton, as part of WOUB’s “Community Engagement Day.” The program, which lasted from noon into the evening, had no opportunity for give and take with the public.
At the last CAC meeting, in October ‘08, I raised concern about the lack of openness to community input. About a month later I received a letter from the WOUB director stating in part:
“If any council member’s sole agenda is limited to only one issue, especially an issue such as determining or selecting broadcast content—which is clearly outside of the defined role of council members—then he or she is most likely not performing functions that are in the best interest of the station. He or she should probably not be on the Council.”
I was puzzled, because the first two of eight listed responsibilities of the CAC were: “a. provide suggestions for local productions, selection of programming, and other center services; “b. examine past programming and services on an annual basis to provide continuing evaluation;”
Two months later, in February, 2009 I received notice that the CAC was being discontinued for budgetary reasons.
The Athens News ran a story “WOUB cited time/money issues in dissolving citizen panel” (1-13-2010) which states:
“. . . the board included members from around WOUB’s broadcast area, including Ironton, Marietta and Chillicothe, and . . . the station would reimburse travel expenses for members who had to drive long distances. ...”
At the meetings I attended, there were 10 or fewer council members in attendance and most of them were from the Athens area. I drove the farthest and did not ask for reimbursement.
The director has stated that WOUB is under no legal obligation to have an advisory council or for council meetings to accept public input. I would think the question is whether it is a good idea to invite public input.
It appears to me that the WOUB management is conflicted about public involvement in public broadcasting. They say they want our money, though not, I note, enough to accept a day sponsorship from a group of citizens who asked the station to wish Amy Goodman, host of “Democracy Now,” a “Happy Birthday” on the air.
I welcome communication about WOUB and/or “Democracy Now” at jmrrpress@gmail.com.
John M. Morgan
Beallsville
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like the director is a smart man. As "Air America" has shown, the public isn't interested in hearing from a bunch of fruitcake liberals.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 9, 2010 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John M. Morgan; I concur with your comments concerning Public Radio. I have noted a definite decline in programming. They need all the public input they can get. Censorship in any form is not the American way. My compliments to you for your interest and involvement.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I say that we get Rush and Hannity on that station for some balanced programing!!!
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I say that we get Rush and Hannity on that station for some balanced programing!!!
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah Mickakers... I really don't think that not wanting to put a far left-wing anti-war site on public radio (that is funded with taxpayers dollars) is censorship.
And if it is censorship, shouldn't we be concerned that there are no right-wing programs currently on public radio? Are the liberals censoring our public airwaves?
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 12, 2010 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I like how conservatives use "anti-war" like its a bad thing.....
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 12, 2010 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not any different than how liberals would say being "pro-war" is a bad thing...
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 13, 2010 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If Rush and Hannity hadn't already disqualified themselves from public radio, their comments this week about how these snowstorms mean global warming isn't really happening, that clinches it. Ignorance is a contagious disease, and public radio fights it daily. Apart from public radio, ignorance owns the airwaves at this point. All you smarty elites out there, with your show-offy READING, and your arrogant THINKING, and your annoying habit of trying to find out what's actually going on, support public radio - it's absolutely essential.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 13, 2010 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta, If that's your criteria for kicking people off public airwaves, then you wouldn't many liberals left. They are constantly blaming any heat wave on global warming... The poor polar bears are starving to death (a lie), the seas are going to raise 30' the ice in the Himalayas is going to be gone by 2050. All the ice in the artic will be gone in a year or two....
So so we have it straight, these are the rules you are following right?
If it gets warmer it's global warming's fault. if it gets colder it's global warming's fault.
If you get floods, it's global warming's fault, if you get a draught, it's global warming's fault.
Increased warming means higher temperatures and therefore less snow. But increased warming means more water vapor in the atmosphere leading to more precipitation. Therefore AGW can cause big blizzards. So too little snow or too much snow is an indication of global warming.
More warming can mean glaciers will shrink. But more precipitation means glaciers can grow. Therefore if glaciers are growing or shrinking it means global warming is happening.
More warming means more energy for hurricanes and therefore more and stronger hurricanes are in the future. But more warming also means more wind sheer which cuts off hurricanes and can mean fewer hurricanes. So more or fewer hurricanes is caused by global warming.
More water vapor means more clouds and more precipitation. More clouds and precipitation causes cooling which could lead to global cooling. So if it is warming or cooling, it is proof of global warming.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 13, 2010 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't keep track of the collective opinion of your tribe. I thought you'd decided, Okay, the earth is warming, but human beings have absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, the earth IS warming, so weather patterns are changing. The result is extreme weather - unusual amounts of snow, or no snow where there ought to be snow. Volatile storms (Heck of a job, Brownie) and intense rains. You're a fruitcake.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 13, 2010 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't keep track of the collective opinion of your tribe.
----------------
Actually, it's your tribe that says everything is global warming, not us.
We say that the Earth gets warmer in between each Ice Age. It's been warmer in past interglacial warming periods than it is now. There were no SUV's back then.
Water vapor IS the major contributor to the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is a minor contributor.
Why are you so anti-science Keta?
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 13, 2010 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
keta; I concur, Public Radio is essential not only for the News, Views and Opinions but more importantly for the diversified culture presented. The general public airways are sadly lacking in culture. They do not present an example worth admiration and respect. Open minded and unbiased reading and thinking are even more important and essential.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 13, 2010 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Open minded and unbiased reading and thinking are even more important and essential.
--------------------------------------------
You don't get that from a liberal news source like NPR mickaker.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 13, 2010 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wrong. Research shows that NPR listeners are the least misinformed people in the country. To you, "biased" means they don't spread the kind of misinformation you enjoy listening to.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 13, 2010 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wrong, lets check PEW:
Knowledgeable News Audiences
...the most informed audiences belong to the political magazines, Rush Limbaugh's radio show, the O'Reilly Factor, news magazines, and online news sources. Close behind are the regular audiences for NPR and the Daily Show. http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1...
I guess you aren't very knowledgable Keta... but of course there was another survey that showed that republicans were smarter than democrats... and we were happier.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 13, 2010 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Keta... this is going to hurt... you
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
...Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.(like we said before Keta, the Earth was warmer in the medivial warming period than it is now and.. there weren't any SUV's around)
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 14, 2010 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess you aren't very knowledgable keta
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you don't know what decade it is, Grandpa. Your Pew poll was from July 2006. Check the current stats: Daily Show/Colbert viewers are the most highly informed. And NPR beats Rush, CNN, and FOX "news" (only 35% of Fox viewers are in the "high knowledge " category - shocker!) To be fair, the entire poll is horrifying. Only 26% of ALL respondents knew that 60 votes are necessary to break a senate filibuster, and only 48% of Republicans knew Harry Reid leads the senate. Another shocker - undereducated minorities are the least informed of anyone. Huh. And those inner city schools are so fabulous, too. They could call this poll "Why Americans are So Easy to Snooker".
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 14, 2010 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta... are you talking about the April 2007 poll? The one that's 6 months later than my poll and you have the GALL to tell me to be in the same decade? http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/319....
And NPR beats Rush??? By 1 point which is hardly significant... and why so quiet on O'Reilly? Oh wait, his viewers got the same score as NPR did... that's why.
Now... onto the second poll 1/28/10 that you quote and had zero mention of NPR... I loved your statement on:
"... and only 48% of Republicans knew Harry Reid leads the senate. Another shocker - undereducated minorities are the least informed of anyone."
Why didn't you mention how many democrats know who their own senate leader is... 33%
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1478/politic...
And I noticed that you didn't mention one of the poll results... that republicans are smarter than democrats... even independents are smarter than democrats.
Democrats are the dumb group.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 15, 2010 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Smart or dumb isn't what was being measured. People don't know, for example, how many votes break a filibuster or who the current senate leader is because they're brilliant. They know that because they're news junkies. Only news junkies, or at least people who are interested in current events, watch the Daily Show, or listen to Limbaugh. Neither requires the ability to distinguish fact from opinion, or draw reasonable conclusions. The value of NPR is that it's so conscientious about not doing our thinking for us. The majority of Americans actually like their news pre-digested and slanted toward a particular point of view - they're too lazy to think. But NPR just keeps plugging away, making the assumption that we're smart enough to think for ourselves. Valiant.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 15, 2010 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Knowledge was what was being measured in that poll Keta, The bottom line is, democrats aren't that knowledgeable.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 15, 2010 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tea partyers on the other hand are very knowledgeable on what our government is doing... and they don't like it.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 15, 2010 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis; Your comments pertaining to "Knowledgeable News Audiences", "Republicans were smarter than Democrats", I find interesting. Keep in mind; Knowledge, Education and Smarts take a back seat to Wisdom. I detect a serious lack of Wisdom in both the Democratic and Republican Parties and also numerous articles posted on this forum. Also your comment "and we were happier" (I am assuming you are referring to Republicans), sometimes ignorance is bliss.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 15, 2010 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mickakers, I don't think "happiness is bliss" is the answer. It's more like the fact the republicans are self driven, have a goal, feel that they are in control over their lives. Democrats on the other hand sit back wanting the government to take care of them.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 15, 2010 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's hard to avoid the "R" word here. Over the last decade, Republicans completely destroyed Americans' faith in our government's ability to solve problems instead of creating them. During the last year, Republicans have remained firmly committed to seeing that no problems are solved, even voting against legislation that they themselves crafted and sponsored. That must be what you mean when you say they "have a goal". Yep, that's....retarded.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 16, 2010 at 5:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta, how did republicans thwart your agenda when you had a filibuster proof majority? And.... even the voters in Mass. showed what they thought about Obambi's heath care plan... Republicans... well, were with the mainstream of America in rejecting all the backroom deals, lobbyists written health care plan.
Don't blame us for your incompetence.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 16, 2010 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Most Americans think Republicans are stonewalling. We want a government that works the way it's supposed to. Requiring a supermajority that votes in unison isn't the way it's supposed to work.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 16, 2010 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Republicans...well, were with the mainstream of America in rejecting all the backroom deals, lobbyists written health care plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if there's anything Republicans can't stand, it's backroom deals and legislation written by lobbyists. Noesis, your blind allegiance and team spirit in the face of epic failure are....disturbing.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 16, 2010 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
your blind allegiance and team spirit in the face of epic failure are....disturbing.
-----------------
Pot calling the kettle black?
And I agree Keta, super-majority that votes in unison isn't the way it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be a compromise... something the democrats are unwilling to do. They just figured they could ram it down our throat.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)