[Kzyxtalk] discretion, the better part of cowardice

[Tim Gregory]

smp wrote:
'In case you don't remember, I asked for written permission from your manager
to repeat the exact language you used on this discussion group. I even copied
your manager. You didn't respond. And neither did your manager.
So I'll make you a deal. Since you're so brave. For next week's show, go ahead
and repeat that language. Then I'll call in. Okay?'

no deals, no special treatment for either of us. it's just a talk show. take it or
leave it.

i once wrote doug mck and urged that he not edit the string, as i'm urging you. you
want your 'followers' to understand you better? i think it has helped his writing
and interactions here...
---



Smp--Sorry you couldn't muster the gumption to follow through on your threat to call
in to my show this morning...was hoping to probe for remnants of your humanity.

May I suggest you change email setting to allow threads to continue unedited?
---



So Scott, you demanded that KZYX put their donor list up immediately on
the basis of a document that said the station didn’t have to comply
until 2018. I am sure that the staff are having a good laugh.

Further, you didn’t check to see what “donor list” refers to. I easily
found the FCC and Cornell law sites that said donors are entities who
pay to support the costs of airing specific programs and the list has to
record the time and date of the specific program supported. I then
checked a couple of law firm sites who advise radio stations of their
legal responsibilities, and they said the same thing but elaborated that
donors are, essentially, individual program underwriters who are not
reported on air. These donors consist of wealthy individuals,
foundations, trusts, and corporations who support specific issues or
wish to improve their image. To check this, I went to the KQED website
to find that their donors lists matched this description.

My presumption is that what you and Doug want are present and past
member’s names and contact information. It would be blatantly unethical
for the station to release this information. In this period of concern
about privacy, can you imagine the anger, potential law suits, and loss
of membership from angry members who are contacted, for whatever reason,
because the station released their private information? Also, according
to federal law, it is illegal for the station to release this
information unless the members have previously given permission, but
there is no requirement that this be done at all. To check these facts,
I looked at the membership list policy of several large public radio
stations and KQED only releases names of members that have given
permission. Further the releases are mediated by a third party who
handles the contact (mailing etc.) in a manner that the requesting
organization can’t get direct access to the list. The requesting agency
has to pay all expenses. Minnesota Public Radio, who have a large number
of specialty stations and transmitters, have a policy of not releasing
member information at all. You or Doug are not going to get this
information from the Station, but if there are a thousand dissatisfied
ex members out there it should be easy to find and organize them.

You say that you have been researching KZYX for three years, but in just
a few days of watching I have identified several errors that suggest
that you suffer from confirmation bias, which is the bane of all
information researchers. This information is very easy to find and you
don’t own up to your mistakes. Nobody should trust any of your analyses
and your juvenile insults are pitiful. SM



On 6/7/2016 5:55 PM, Scott Peterson wrote:
> Dear Mr./Ms. SM,
>
>
> Actually, I did read the document I linked. Here's a direct quote from
> the last paragraph on page 37:
>
>
> "As we proposed in the NPRM and as we required for television
> broadcasters in the Second Report
>
>
> and Order, we will require noncommercial radio broadcasters to include
> donor lists in their online
>
>
> public files."
>
>
> That's straight from the FCC and its individual commissioners. Who
> don't mind using their names.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Scott M. Peterson
>
>
> Mendocino
>
>
> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-4A1.pdf
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> You didn't actually read the document you linked and you have no idea
> what is required in a public inspection form. How embarrassing.
>
> This took me a little longer than usual (20 minutes) to find because the
> Gov documents site is down. SM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kzyxtalk mailing list
> Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk


_______________________________________________
Kzyxtalk mailing list
Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk




_______________________________________________
Kzyxtalk mailing list
Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk