-Caveat Lector-
>From http://www.chicagoreader.com/hottype/2002/021025_1.html
>>>This is the first part of the other one that had to do with the KKK. The linque I
>used
took me to page two and I didn't realise I had gone to the second page instead of the
first
which is where I had intended to go. So here you go. A<>E<>R <<<
For the week of October 25, 2002
By Michael Miner
Money and Morals: WBEZ Draws the Line
“I want to share with you an encounter I just had with WBEZ." So began the E-mail last
month from Chuck Hutchcraft, Chicago-area coordinator of the American Friends Service
Committee. "I wasn't asking for free time," he went on, "but was planning to spend
nearly
$2,000 for one of those brief blurbs that say 'Support for this WBEZ program . . . '"
What Hutchcraft called a blurb WBEZ calls an "underwriting announcement," and WBEZ has
its rules about how they're worded. Among other things, announcements cannot "contain
inducements to buy or calls to action," and cannot "contain language advocating
political,
religious or social causes."
The Friends, a Quaker organization, sent WBEZ a flyer it wanted turned into an
underwriting announcement. The flyer said: "Have we given up on peace? No we have not.
Candlelight vigil and forum. A community conversation on the need for a moral voice
against war." At the bottom of the flyer were the time and place of the forum.
Account executive Steve Adler massaged the flyer's language, and here's what he sent
back
to Hutchcraft: "Support for this WBEZ program is provided by the American Friends
Service
Committee, holding a community convention and forum exploring issues of morality and
war. This Sunday at 7 PM. Information at grassrootsvoices.org."
Well, the point of the forum wasn't to explore issues of war. It was to oppose war.
Hutchcraft says he got back to Adler with alternative language: "holding a community
forum
and peace vigil proclaiming a moral voice against war with Iraq." Again Adler said no.
He'd
checked with his bosses, says Hutchcraft, and "he was told he could not use the word
'peace,' 'candlelight,' or 'vigil' because it would compromise their neutrality. We
said
basically, 'We're a peace organization, and we can't be neutral about that.'"
So the Friends kept their money, and Hutchcraft fumed. "It is odd," he observed in his
E-
mail to me, "that while WBEZ wants to maintain the appearance of neutrality on the
questions of this country's ever-expanding theater of war, [it] will blindly accept
sponsorships such as the one we often hear on the station, 'Support for this WBEZ
program
is provided by ADM, supermarket to the world.'"
Does Chicago's public radio station value empty rhetoric above conviction? Adler
didn't want
to comment, but my sampling of opinion around the station suggests that people who work
there believe WBEZ's policy is dictated by federal law. That's not exactly true. The
1934
Communications Act (last revised in 1996) does flatly forbid public radio stations
from airing
advertising -- a message intended to "promote any service, facility, or product" -- of
a
profit-seeking concern. But when the advertiser is a not-for-profit such as the
Friends, the
stations have a lot of latitude. "The [Communications Act] does not prohibit
noncommercial
educational stations from airing announcements that promote its own activities, or
those of
other not-for-profit entities," a senior FCC attorney told a 1999 National Public Radio
conference.
"Law or no law," counters Torey Malatia, general manager of WBEZ, "I think it's
improper
to accept money to push for causes on a public station that's supposed to be offering
information to allow people to make up their own minds."
Underwriting, says Malatia, covers 18 percent of WBEZ's $12 million budget and as much
as
half the budget of some other public stations. "It's a source of revenue a lot of
stations
need to use. We need to use it. It's got to be watched very carefully."
Asked about that "supermarket to the world" announcement, Malatia makes two points. The
first is that the FCC -- and WBEZ -- allow "bona fide corporate slogans." Unlike
transient
campaign slogans, these watchwords are forever. "'LaSalle, the bank that works.'
That's a
corporate slogan," he explains. "But they might do something like 'Free checking and
more.' That's a campaign. We wouldn't allow that to be used."
Malatia's second point is this: "Just for the record, we haven't gotten a dime from
ADM.
That's all NPR." NPR sells announcements for the programs it distributes, and it
expects
stations like WBEZ to carry those announcements unaltered when the programs air. NPR's
standards, Malatia says, are looser than his own.
Consider this announcement: "Support for this program is provided by Microsoft, helping
business make the connections to quickly act, react, and succeed. Learn more about
software for the agile business at microsoft.com/ enterprise."
When this copy arrived a few weeks ago from NPR, WBEZ refused to let its announcers
read it. "The implied promise of success is very strong," says Malatia. "But worse is
'learn
more,' which is a direct call to action."
So many other public radio stations reacted the same way that NPR turned to its lawyers
for advice and then to the FCC. After hearing from the commission's staff, NPR declared
there was no problem. "I have received about a dozen e-mails focusing on the 'learn
more'
language, and I have read each of them carefully," executive vice president Ken Stern
asserted in an October 4 statement to public radio station managers and development
officers. The FCC staff, he explained, had "reinforced" NPR's conviction that what the
FCC
meant to prohibit was "calls for specific transactional behavior ('buy,' 'come down and
see'). This was never meant to be a prohibition against the use of verbs. While it is
understandable that many in public radio have read it differently, this has led to
awkward
grammatical formulations and the somewhat illogical belief that an implied verb is
somehow better than the expressed verb."
Stern's argument was that "learn more at" says exactly the same thing as the
traditional
"information available at" but less clumsily. He let the member stations know that NPR
didn't
expect to stand alone in its pro-verb boldness. "Inconsistency in the airing of any
credit
exposes NPR to charges of negligence and fraud in its dealings with its underwriters,"
he
warned. "If underwriters came to believe that NPR underwriting credits were not
carried in
the uniform matter that we have represented, this could have potentially serious
adverse
consequences for NPR and undermine our resources in a significant way to the detriment
of
everyone."
Perhaps it'll be of some solace to the American Friends Service Committee to learn that
WBEZ didn't budge. "Technically," Malatia allows, "it's a violation of the little law
between
the stations and NPR, because part of the operating agreement when you sign is that you
will carry and not edit NPR underwriting. But in our view it's superseded by the law
that
gives you the right to broadcast. People who hold the license have that right, and
nothing
can take it away."
And perhaps the Friends will be amused to learn that the company they keep -- other
prominent institutions whose messages were deemed unacceptable by public radio stations
-- doesn't end with Microsoft. Station KWMU in Saint Louis solicits "enhanced
underwriting," which Malatia scorns as an "industry euphemism" for spots that in
length and
language strive to come as close as legally possible to commercial advertising. He sees
these as perilous waters: "You're dealing with the commercial world. You're dealing
with
ad-agency time buyers, with people who buy commercial radio and TV. You're in their
world."
Five years ago KWMU heard from Michael Cuffley, who said that he admired All Things
Considered and believed that by helping to underwrite it he might attract a better
class of
people to the organization he ran. In its length and detail, the copy he submitted
makes an
excellent example of an enhanced message:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A<>E<>R
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; I don't believe everything I read or send
(but that doesn't stop me from considering it; obviously SOMEBODY thinks it's
important)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without
charge or
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of
information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth
shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
