[Peace-discuss] on underwriting WILL

[Lisa Chason]

Les Schulte from WILL called me soon after Sunday's meeting (sorry it's taken so long to write this up). He said he'd spoken with his colleagues and the following underwriting message would be acceptable:

 

Today's broadcast is made possible with support from AWARE, an organization
working for peace and justice through educational activities and projects.
Meeting times are Sundays from 5 to 6:30 pm, at the IMC, 218 West Main St.
in Urbana. 

 

As you'll notice, the only significant difference between this and the original message I submitted is that this one does not say what AWARE is an acronym for. Since the message mentions "peace" I assumed the problem was with "Anti-Racism" and asked him if that were so. No, he said, actually Anti-War is more the term that gives the name its political thrust [interesting, and not sure I believe it]. Then I told him that we had discussed the situation at Sunday's mtg. I told him many if not most of us are members of WILL and that our position is that WILL

1)which is so strapped for cash that it has had to cancel programs and, as meteorologist Ed Kieser said on the air last week, can't update it's forecasting software, and 

2) is a PUBLIC service station, and

3) does accept underwriting from, among others, ADM, GE, and now the McDonald's fortune. These corporations all have political agendas with powerful lobbyists working for their interests, and are far more influential than AWARE, 

 

that:

 

4) WILL should devise another category for underwriting by social organizations (Mr. Schulte's title is after all Corporate Support Director), including his example of the NRA, that want to make a financial contribution with underwriting statements of a non-promotional/non-incendiary nature.

 

Since his re-write came after our meeting, I told him I would send it out and see if people found it acceptable. So now please more feedback. Do you think it's OK to accept the re-write, purchase the underwriting spots and leave it here? Or should we draft a letter incorporating the above position and more and send it to them, thereby pushing for a change in policy before we consider further action [do note Chas. 'Mark' Bee's comment that taking this position could be a can of worms: "if WILL ever does actually start taking controversial underwriting, I wonder which side can afford more of it"]? Drafting such a letter and statement of our position will need to involve a working group.



Lisa

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20031113/50540705/attachment.html