Re: Important Follow-up Message

In a message dated 04/12/2002 12:52:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<<         You have already told us that the NPR support thing was a
 hoax--several times, and with glee.   Enough already. >>

I'm glad to have caught your attention.

One more point of attention: This list is B2K, not Behav-An! I had
not brought this issue up HERE until NOW.

<<         By the way, the NPR thing was relevant on the assumption,
certainly on my part, that by and large participants in this list are
socially caring people, and that this issue--if it were true--would be one
they would care about >>

OK, this means you can't say "enough already," since that would
deny me a right to reply.  Your implication is that anyone who might
object to your viewpoint is socially uncaring. How ungracious!

But, alas, instead of apologizing for making an arrogant assumption,
or for posting a political message (a hoax at that) you deem it
appropriate that one can make assumptions about what's
good for all, and then post political messages under the guise
that doing so expresses one's social caring.

To make it very clear, one might as well abuse these lists by
posting messages asking people to join and support the Republican
Party or the Democratic Party, or maybe even the Libertarian
Party.

What makes this tragedy into a farce, and thus all the more
unfortunate is that the political message used had been
a hoax!  You never bothered to check that out.  So, the whole
purpose of your message was to express support of what you
believe are agencies worthy of support by "socially caring" individuals.
You believe that your political values and ideals are worthy of
impinging upon others, while at the same time, with the
"enough already" comment followed by what you then wrote, that
objections to your beliefs are not worthy of expression.

Let's take stock a moment:

1. NPR, PBS, etc. all derive much of their support from large corporate
and foundation sponsors (if you listen to the ads from these
corporations and foundations preceding or following programs).

2. Both NPR and PBS, moreover, periodically hold "pledge weeks,"
where people can telephone in their financial support.  No one is
obliged to do so, but they can if they want.  By the way, you
don't have to wait for pledge week to do this.

3. If you had read the "Help NPR" message you may have been able
to figure out on your own that it had been a hoax (see the bit about
the Supreme Court backing up Congress).  Don't Americans know
anymore how their goverment is supposed to work?  The two
college students who created the hoax didn't.  Neither, apparently,
have the many people who read their hoax uncritically.

4. Online electronic petitions do not work.  Government pays ZERO
attention to them.  What's worse, this petition, to which you signed
your name, wasn't even a real petition!

5. From another point of view, inasmuch as NPR and PBS are both
government agencies, the thought occurs that they promote certain
propaganda that serves first to support whatever objectives and
agendas that those in government have, and second that they
support and further propaganda that is in furtherance of whatever
objectives and agendas that the corporations and foundations have.

While even I may agree with some of this propaganda, I am aware
that this propaganda may not be something that either the majority
of Americans would support if they knew about it, and that it may
not always be in their best interests.  The unique concerns of
the Carnegie Foundation or the John T. and Catherine M. MacArthur
Foundation etc. may not always (if ever, actually) be in the best
interests of the American people.  Likewise, what General Electric
supports may not always be in the best interests of the American
people.  Certainly, the transnational corporations that help fund
NPR and PBS have no compunction about shutting down plants
in the US and throwing out of work millions of Americans while shipping
jobs overseas.  But, how nice that a corporation that cuts thousands
of jobs donates to NPR and to PBS, eh?

On the other hand, by supporting NPR or PBS, to what extent
are the dogs called off from attacking corporate sponsors?
Ever think about that angle?  How much are GE plants not fined
for polluting or for safety violations provided they pay extortion?

Therefore, from my perspective, a truly socially conscious person
would want to stand back and examine what propaganda was
being promoted, and to what extent information presented as news
and as fact was in truth propaganda, and use that as a basis for
deciding whether to support materially whatever organization was
dispensing the propaganda.  To me, only a socially blind person
would never think about whether or not a news and information agency
issued and promoted propaganda in furtherance of certain
objectives and agendas.

But, alas, one ends up supporting NPR and PBS anyway, no
matter what, and no matter to what extent both news agencies
dispense propaganda, because on the one hand tax dollars do
support these entities, and also because one seldom has choices
with respect to patronizing the corporate sponsors as well. Each
time you buy a GE lightbulb, you support PBS, for instance.
So, go out and buy lots of lightbulbs!

  -- JE, proudly never having pledged once to support NPR or PBS.