Competing Narratives

hey folks injured workers with overdrawn bank accounts who had to fight to get their disabilityies recognized meanwhile dealing with a few foreclosure notices and telling their kids they have to start paying rent have FREEDOM OF CHOICE to make highly sophiticated actuarial decisions (also known as “casino gambling”) on their remaining days of life, future needs, and so on.  MANY will make money off this change, correctly predicting they’ll die before the funds administrator thinks so, so their lump sum will exceed what they would have gotten had they just continued to be paid each month as long as they live!  Isn’t that exciting?  the winners will laugh all the way to st. peter’s bank!  This dollar value is exactly equal by virture of mathenatics laws to the dollar value of the “losers” who took a risk and lost, but are content because they know it was their free choice.  These workers will end up losing their homes and unable to pay their bills but it’s morally okay because after all, they also love freedom of choice and the spirit of initiative which have made America great.  It’s also nice to see the DEMOCRATIC PARTY joining in this vision, as they are the friend of the working man, and without this gambling option, I mean without this opportunity to take a risk and get a reward, few of the 55 year olds permanently injured would ever have a chance to fulfill the American Dream of being Successful Business Entrepreneurs Who Create Jobs for All of Us Because We Incentivize Risk Taking.  It’s a more pure form of  capitalism, you see.  If we’ve learned anything from recent financial histoyr, ti’s that the average citizen si best able to judge for himself or herself the risks and rewards of complex financial choices such as teaser rate loans or ARMs or other things where we have increased choice and reward for risk, beneftting the entire society.  And too often folks criticize the Olympia Democrats for not having any “vision”!  Well this program to make injured workers Job Creators should dispel that critique, and pronto!!

It was interesting listening to KUOW’s The Conversation yesterday and listening to Ross Reynolds who very carefully narrowed the parameters of discussion around the firing of Cliff Mass.  Even though people were trying to give it context, he wanted the discussion to be strictly about whether someone should be fired for doing something outside his/her contract. 

In that narrow a context, sure.  But there’s a larger context here which KUOW tries to skirt.  One, Mass is not a weather guy.  He’s a science professor.  He works for the same university as they do and therefore, should be able to weigh in when he hears something about UW.  Two, how often did he really talk about anything beyond the weather and the science around it?  To this long-time listener, not much.  Three, they tried to say they talked about the so-called math wars but that really isn’t the issue. 

The issue is whether KUOW covers education – pre-K thru higher ed – with any real coherency.  I don’t think so (but I’m biased because I write about K-12 issues in Seattle).  Their ed reporter, Phyllis Fletcher, does a terrific job but in terms of discussion and getting it right, KUOW frequently gets local ed info wrong.   It would be great if KUOW had a 15-minute segment once a week with people in Seattle – like Cliff Mass – who know education.  The pundits on Friday mornings usually get it wrong and last Friday’s discussion about the firing of the Ingraham principal was no exception.  It’s okay if they want to theorize how that decision hurt or helped the Superintendent but they need to get the basic facts right and they didn’t. 

Also, interesting to hear was one listener who said the station is always asking for money and saying listeners ARE the station and she said no one even asked listener how they would feel if Cliff were gone.  It was a good point because of the emphasis that KUOW places on their listeners.  Do we matter or not? 

To your readers,

In case you’re interested, KUOW’s decision on Cliff Mass comes from management and station policy. Steve Scher’s action was simply in compliance with those.

The decision to end Cliff’s segment is completely in line with standard best practice both here at KUOW and in public radio in general.

Standard best practice is to book guests to speak on specific agreed upon topics. If they don’t want to confine themselves to the agreed upon topics, don’t book them. This is standard at KUOW and public radio in general, and for a very good reason. If we allowed all guests additional airtime beyond the agreed upon topic to advocate for causes of their choice, or to offer their personal opinions on whatever they choose, we would quickly lose credibility with our listeners.

Here is another way of saying it: KUOW’s editorial rules differentiate between those who may give opinions on our airwaves and those who may not. Hosts and reporters are not allowed to take sides on issues. Guests are expected to stay within the parameters defined for them by the host and producer. The purpose of this policy is to keep the conversation focused, fair and balanced.

As for Cliff, it was really his choice. He no longer wanted to stick to the weekend weather and the science behind it.

Sincerely,Guy NelsonKUOW News Director

I would like to tell you about the miracle of line breaks.

So why not give Cliff a general segment on science, then, in which he can also cover weather, but then at times cover other realms of science? It would be a win for everyone.

Or was he canned for political reasons, such as mouthing off in topic areas antithetical to the fringe conservative minority? Or because he stepped on toes at KUOW when a new producer came in? Mass has been incredibly forthright, as he reported himself:

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2011/05/no-more-weather-on-kuow-weekday.html

###

For over ten years I followed that route, first starting with Dave Beck, Marci Sillman, and Steve Scher and then later only Steve. Many of you seemed to enjoy the material and increasingly I heard from you over the phone and then emails (now several dozen a week). I also started talking about other topics. First, the need for a coastal radar–and the letters and efforts of many of you helped make that happen. But by the early 2000s I started talking about my concerns in education. I am just not a scientist, I am an educator as well–by now having instructed many thousands of students at all levels. I started seeing degradations in math skills and a few times a year I began talking about it and my concerns for the future of our nation.

Sometimes I talked about science education, such as issues with the Seattle Science Center (to their credit, after a discussion on air about it, Bryce Seidel, the director, invited me down to talk about my concerns. And I note that he was responsive in many ways to my concerns–such as the need to entrain more regional scientists in Science Center programs).

But things changed a few years ago. A new producer for Weekday was taken on–Katy Sewall–and on a program I remember well, I talked not only about the problem of declining math skills, but what I thought was the reason–the proliferation of discovery (“fuzzy”) math books and the poor instruction by the Schools of Education, including the UW.

A short while later Katy contacted me, telling me I was no longer allowed to talk about math and that Steve concurred. I asked why–she said there were several complaints from the UW Education folks and that it was against “journalistic ethics” to allow me talk about such issues. This went back and forth for a while and I asked to see both Steve and Katy to talk it out.

Their argument–that as a “regular” I was essentially part of KUOW news and thus I could not give my opinion without someone else providing the other side. I noted that I am hardly part of the KUOW news team, clearly indicated my opinions were my own, and they let other “regulars” give their opinions on all sorts of societal issues.

Case in point: Rick Steves. He is the travel guy who is on KUOW all the time. On virtually every recent KUOW visit, he talked about his “passion”–the legalization of pot. They didn’t seem to need the other side after he talked about that! So pushing pot legalization is ok, but pushing good math books is not. I just did not follow their logic. And why wasn’t my talking about math issues a problem for the previous decade? What had suddenly changed? Were they just giving in to internal UW pressure from the UW Ed School? Was is the fact the UW College of Education was a major contributor to KUOW? I just did not know.

###

Perhaps you should explain more clearly, Guy, because your take doesn’t seem to align with that of the professor.

Also: science is science. There is no ‘other’ side to refute accepted science. It’s not KUOW’s place to entertain people like flat earthers or other morons.

Speaking as someone who has both been a journalist and for a brief time an editor, I am baffled by Cliff Mass and his supporters. If you’re invited to KUOW to exclusively talk about whether, you can’t dictate the terms of your invitation, or claim “free speech” rights to stay on the show over the objections of the producers. You’re a GUEST.

Whether KUOW should give Mass a soapbox for his ed policy views is another matter. But after his behavior on this issue, including the implicit threat to involve the UW administration in trying to get his position reestablished (see point 1 in the Fizz this morning), I can’t say I fault KUOW for seeking other voices on education policy.

You may wish to read this. KUOW is being a bit two-faced and hypocritical about the matter, it may appear, or at the worst bowing to outside pressure from a major contributor who Mass offended.

whether/weather let’s call the whole thing off.

“listeners ARE the station” Let them know that during the next fund drive.

 For someone who studies civil rights, that’s a hellava position to take. But then again, there is a difference between civil rights and human rights. You don’t seem too informed on the latter.

Show me where KUOW’s news has steered away from ed policy issues.

 yes a typo sorry.

Godwin how is this a human rights issue?

Dear Guy Nelson:

My response to you and what you call your “best practices” is to turn the radio off, and to hang up on the pledge solicitor. I WANTED to hear Cliff’s views on education on KUOW, did that ever occur to you? 

Where did I ever say that? Curious deflection. Read what Cliff Mass wrote, or  scroll down here to this sample.

Of course there were “several complaints from the  UW Education folks.” Goldhaber and Stritikus, bought and paid for by Gates, couldn’t have Cliff debunking their whole fuzzy math agenda, could they?

Guy -

Obviously a large portion of listeners want Cliff to stay on and liked what he did. Are there any instances of listeners outside of major donors or UW employees expressing a dislike of Cliff or his off-topic opinion? If not, why would you and KUOW management not expand his scope to allow him to be a guest within the “Standard best practice,” “editorial rules,” “parameters” and “policy”? This surely would  maintain/build “credibility with [your] listeners” more effectively than using those policies to get rid of him.

It is clear that it was a management decision to get rid of him through rigidness instead of working within the rules to keep him on and the listeners informed.

Not a deflection. I’m saying that if KUOW is bowing to outside pressure, then surely it must be doing so to promote some kind of ideology, right? Show me the proof that it’s programming is skewed toward one side of ed-policy debates, and I’ll take the “outside pressure” argument seriously.

Cut the shit; life and politics are not that black and white. This is the apparent timeline.

Cliff Mass speaks ill of an agenda these UW folks push.
These UW folks bankroll KUOW.
Cliff Mass is no longer at KUOW.

If that’s not the case, then surely KUOW would be happy to say so to end all this silliness.

If it’s the fact that Cliff Mass was going “off script”, then surely KUOW effective immediately will terminate Rick Steves for the exact same offense?  

Hey Josh, Erica — how about following up on this based on the links and evidence provided above? Something stinks in Denmark. 

It would have been as easy as calling it “all things science” instead of “the weather.” See how easy that could have made it all fit within your “Standard best practice,” “editorial rules,” “parameters” and “policy?”

Thank you for making my point.

Anyone remember KCMU? First as tragedy, then as farce.

rather get information from the horses mouth than Joni Balter repeating 3rd hand hearsay from around the water cooler of the Seattle Times editorial board. I’ve heard enough ads for the “Public Insight Network” to think that KUOW would be excited for an insider perspective and source of facts we wouldn’t have been exposed to otherwise.

Damn you Disqus! The first part of my comment was that Cliff’s “firable offense” was discussing UW admissions policy, something he had direct knowledge of and was part of the Weekday segment he was bumped over to.

Dear Mr. Nelson.

I fear you are deluding yourself with happy talk.

“If we allowed all guests additional airtime beyond the agreed upon topic to advocate for causes of their choice, or to offer their personal opinions on whatever they choose, we would quickly lose credibility with our listeners.”That’s rubbish. KUOW loses credibility by stupid stunts such as firing Cliff Mass or by acting as if KUOW is a community station when in fact it has no transparency. As to “focused, fair and balanced,” while I am a liberal and _generally_ agree with the KOUW editorial stance, to be fair I don’t think that conservatives get a fair shake. Yes there are thoughtful, intelligent conservatives — and of various stripes. But they do not exist on KUOW, which represents the very Seattle corporate establishment liberal mindset.

Dear Mr. Nelson.

I fear you are deluding yourself with happy talk.

“If we allowed all guests additional airtime beyond the agreed upon topic to advocate for causes of their choice, or to offer their personal opinions on whatever they choose, we would quickly lose credibility with our listeners.”That’s rubbish. KUOW loses credibility by stupid stunts such as firing Cliff Mass or by acting as if KUOW is a community station when in fact it has no transparency. As to “focused, fair and balanced,” while I am a liberal and _generally_ agree with the KOUW editorial stance, to be fair I don’t think that conservatives get a fair shake. Yes there are thoughtful, intelligent conservatives — and of various stripes. But they do not exist on KUOW, which represents the very Seattle corporate establishment liberal mindset.

A university campus is one of the most no-holds-barred wrestling rings in our society and the UW is no exception.  Any particular constituency on campus which either has inordinate power due to a strong leadership or donations from an outside funder OR feels itself in a corner and wants to come out fighting is going to hit out at anyone who sticks their head up.  Mass stuck his head up.  That doesn’t make him completely blameless, nor does it make KUOW an ogre.  KUOW may say that it’s “your” station but it’s still a business, a UW business, and Mass was not a tenured professor on the show; he was simply a guest weather guy, albeit asked to do a more nuanced weather spot.   He’s now put them in a position where they would never ask him on the station again, and I’d bet that most other media organizations feel for KUOW. 
 
I really enjoyed his bits.  However, I can live without it.     

A university campus is one of the most no-holds-barred wrestling rings in our society and the UW is no exception.  Any particular constituency on campus which either has inordinate power due to a strong leadership or donations from an outside funder OR feels itself in a corner and wants to come out fighting is going to hit out at anyone who sticks their head up.  Mass stuck his head up.  That doesn’t make him completely blameless, nor does it make KUOW an ogre.  KUOW may say that it’s “your” station but it’s still a business, a UW business, and Mass was not a tenured professor on the show; he was simply a guest weather guy, albeit asked to do a more nuanced weather spot.   He’s now put them in a position where they would never ask him on the station again, and I’d bet that most other media organizations feel for KUOW. 
 
I really enjoyed his bits.  However, I can live without it.     

-KUOW gives Cliff multiple opportunities to retain his position if he talks only about weather and leaves ed policy to the news department. Warns that refusal to do so will result in his termination.

-Cliff, a concerned parent with no absolutely no background in studying k-12 ed policy, whose main claim to fame in k-12 debates comes from his local celebrity, tells KUOW that he will not abide by its rules

-KUOW follows through on its warning and lets Cliff go for not being willing to abide by its rules

-Cliff is SHOCKED to learn that KUOW was the source of his celebrity, and not the other way around, and feels the acute pain of the loss of his soapbox. He asks his fans to lobby KUOW by saying he has a right to “free speech” on public radio, and even threatens to try to get the UW to reinstate him. Looks bad in the process.

Yeah I look forward to seeing Amnesty International get on this right away.

The first thing spotted by Cliff Mass’ new coastal radar? Cliff Mass’ ego!

Seriously though: It is the prerogative of a radio station (tv station, web site etc.) to plan the format and content of its own programming. If a producer cannot do that, then what can he/she do? I enjoyed Cliff’s segments on atmospheric science, and I even agree with some of his points about education, but I really liked the separation that existed between his segment and the rest of Sher’s program. For me it was a nice break from “serious” issues and the program was better for it. Just because Cliff Mass is a fantastic scientist, it does not mean he gets to dictate the format of the show.

I also want to address Cliff Mass’ inappropriate Rick Steves comparison. Rick has a weekly travel show on KUOW. I listen to it often. He has never discussed pot legalization on his travel show, … because it’s a travel show! When he has been a guest on other programs he was asked explicitly to discuss the pot legalization issue. I bet KUOW would terminate his show if he kept discussing pot legalization on a show that’s supposed to discuss travel. So comparing Cliff Mass to Rick Steves is completely inappropriate, and a man of science like Cliff Mass knows better than to put forth such a comparison.

Thanks for reading.

So you can roll over, or you can show certain people the limits of their “inordinate power” you describe. If you really enjoyed his bits, you can make your contribution to KUOW contingent on their inclusion of viewpoints that you want to hear.

It’s funny how the left posters on this thread are throwing Mass under the bus and backing the employer. Maybe they smell a job opportunity for one of their own?

Sorry, Trevor, IMO you’re out to lunch on this one.

Guy,
   You are just not telling it the way it happening.   I had agreed years ago that I would not talk about education issues and never did.   Why are you repeating something that is simply NOT true?—That I no longer wanted to stick to weekend weather.   I talked to Steve yesterday–we both agree on what has happened and your version is simply not accurate…cliff

Guy,
   You are just not telling it the way it happening.   I had agreed years ago that I would not talk about education issues and never did.   Why are you repeating something that is simply NOT true?—That I no longer wanted to stick to weekend weather.   I talked to Steve yesterday–we both agree on what has happened and your version is simply not accurate…cliff

To your readers,
Certainly Cliff Mass is a popular and well respected voice and advocate for science.  But like everyone who appears on our airwaves he must comply with our editorial guidelines. No one is exempt, and if he admits he can’t do that for a small weather segment it doesn’t make sense for us to give him more airtime.
The Rick Steves example is a good one.  Rick has appeared as a guest on KUOW about once a year for the past five years.  As such, he can freely discuss many topics, under parameters set by the host and producer.  When Cliff appeared as a guest (most recently 12/09), he’s had the same opportunity.  But that’s different than appearing on a regular Friday weather segment.  Under those conditions, he functions journalistically, as we do – remaining informative and objective.  He can speak about science, but he’s not free to digress into any topic he feels like, especially policy issues that may be controversial or polarizing.
Cliff is a passionate advocate for certain causes and is well known to be involved in the lawsuit against Seattle schools over math textbooks.  If we decide to discuss that topic, for example, we would want to include differing viewpoints and opinions, not just comments tossed about randomly.  
Again, the point of these editorial rules is to keep the conversation focused, fair and balanced.
It’s true that some practices have changed at KUOW over the years.  Some types of comments and discussions that were once permitted are no longer so.  That’s simply an evolution of our editorial practices as station management continuously re-evaluates what we do.  We strive to produce solid radio journalism and refrain from providing an unchecked platform for any individuals or interest groups.
And let me state unequivocally that this decision is not political in any sense.  No one is being censored, no outside pressure came from the UW or anyone else.  We value listener input and will continue to explore ways to work with Cliff that meet our mutual needs and desires.
Sincerely,
Guy Nelson
KUOW News Director

He’s not talking about science (outside of the science of weather). He’s talking about science education. Just cause he’s a professor doesn’t make him an expert on education policy. And I for one do find it annoying when he goes off on a tangent unrelated to the weather and the science behind it. I know (from conversations I’ve had) that I am not the only one.

If Cliff wants to spout off about topics other than the weather and the science behind it, he’s got a hugely popular blog and soon a podcast where he can talk about whatever he wants and book whomever he wants to back up his postions. But if he wants to go on a station that’s got rules about how things are done, then he’s got to follow those rules.

He’s not talking about science (outside of the science of weather). He’s talking about science education. Just cause he’s a professor doesn’t make him an expert on education policy. And I for one do find it annoying when he goes off on a tangent unrelated to the weather and the science behind it. I know (from conversations I’ve had) that I am not the only one.

If Cliff wants to spout off about topics other than the weather and the science behind it, he’s got a hugely popular blog and soon a podcast where he can talk about whatever he wants and book whomever he wants to back up his postions. But if he wants to go on a station that’s got rules about how things are done, then he’s got to follow those rules.

Let’s flesh out this conspiracy theory a little bit.

One of the UW’s 5,000 faculty members, who have next to no power at the UW (the Faculty Senate is basically an advisory body, there are no faculty regents, and there is no faculty union), complains to KUOW, less than 10 percent of whose money comes from the UW, that Mass is not qualified to talk about K-12 ed policy (which is true).

KUOW, which really wants Mass to talk about education policy on its weather segment, hears that the Gates Foundation might have once provided funding to said professor, and so decides to buckle under the incredible pressure from a professor with essentially no power over KUOW.

Meanwhile no one can demonstrate that said pressure has had any impact on KUOW’s extensive coverage of education policy issues.

Are you kidding me? This makes no sense. I think people who don’t have much familiarity with the UW are assuming a bit too much about its homogeneity and its influence over KUOW. We can have a reasonable disagreement over whether KUOW producers made the right call. But the conspiracy language– has this become our default way of criticizing other people and mobilizing popular outrage to our aid? Otherwise, I don’t get the appeal of the Free Cliff Mass campaign.

The fact that Cliff Mass seems unable to differentiate between the programming that offers community forums on political topics and a regular guest spot with a designated topic disappoints me. I find his need to comment on the hot button topic of math education as inappropriate as I would if Nancy Pearl felt a need to state her position on abortion rights, or the Green Thumb Gang regularly weighed in on the controversy surrounding the Viaduct/Tunnel. To give regular programming time to an issue advocate is to take the “public” out of public radio and hand it to an on-air minority of one. 

Mass was not an employee.  He was an invited guest on the show.  It wasn’t a job, and Mass is not under a bus.  I don’t have “one of my own.”  Your comment is ridiculous. 

That’s why I suggested the title, ALL things science, which would obviously include science education. And of course being a professor of science doesn’t make him an expert, but it is nice perspective.

Surely your outrage is the same for Rick Steves going off on Marijuana, or is it not? Yes, Cliff broke “the rules” but to my point, the scope of his segment could have been changed so it would have been within the rules.

KUOW management shouldn’t act like helpless pawns of the rules that they must follow, they should admit that they are either A) helpless pawns to some donor or force at UW that forced them to rid the station of Cliff’s ‘craziness’ or B) they just didn’t like him and wanted to get rid of their own pawn, Cliff.

Guy or Steve or whoever else should just tell it like it is, they didn’t like him and his opinions and wanted to get rid of him or they were forced to by someone else.

Rules, policies, best practices, parameters….Guy and Steve, did you ever imagine this kind of explanation would ever come out of your mouth when you were college students?

Hey Guy, is duking it out in the comment section of blogs regarding programming and employee/management communications fall within the “Standard best practices,” “Rules,” “Guidelines,” “Pararmeters,” etc., etc., etc. at KUOW?

You left off that we still haven’t seen Steve Scher’s long form birth certificate. 

You left off that we still haven’t seen Steve Scher’s long form birth certificate. 

You left off that we still haven’t seen Steve Scher’s long form birth certificate. 

You left off that we still haven’t seen Steve Scher’s long form birth certificate. 

Just because  Bill Gates is a software billionaire, that doesn’t make HIM an expert on education policy, either. But nobody is denying HIM the opportunity to buy his way into the discourse, are they?

Meanwhile Cliff Mass, who, unlike Gates, WORKS at the UW, is muzzled from discussing education policy on KUOW, the public university’s public radio forum. And some of you don’t see anything wrong with this? What a sorry state of affairs.  

Dear Guy Nelson:

I’m sorry to tell you I consider your response to be typical of bureaucratic control freaks, and, sorry to say, somewhat less then credible. Cliff’s commentary on education has been an asset to KUOW, and by no means a liability. Did the Martin Floe episode at Ingraham teach you nothing? Nothing at all? 

That’s a false equivalency. Gates is not an education expert but he is able
to pay a lot of education experts to help him A) learn the issues and form
an opinion and B) fund change based on that opinion. Agree with his beliefs
or not, that is very different from buying his way into the debate. He is
acting as a spokesperson for his foundation which does do a lot of work in
the field of improving math and science education. The people working for
him on this subject are, in fact, experts on the subject. That does give
what he has to say on the subject more weight than a casual observer
concerned about education.

Mass, on the other hand, may or may not be an expert on math and science
education, but that is not the issue here. He was asked to be a regular
guest on Weekday, then went off topic during his regular segment, was told
to get back on and stay on topic during that segment and then did not. He
did not play by the rules. He lost his gig.

If you’re unhappy with the state of education coverage or conversation on
KUOW, that’s one thing. If you really liked Mass on KUOW, that’s something
else. But he was not there to talk about education. Maybe he should have
been during a different segment, but not during this one. I don’t see why
that does not compute for people.

Maybe it’s because of the word “public” in NPR? Public doesn’t mean any tom,
dick or harry can go on and say whatever he/she wants. It means it’s funded
by the public for the public good. Yes, you can try and change this
decision, (or anything else NPR does) because you help fund it. But it
doesn’t mean you’re right because you’re a member of the public and it
doesn’t mean Mass can talk about whatever subject becomes a bug in his craw
because he’s a member of the public. And it doesn’t make it censorship when
he’s told to stick to the topic at hand because doing so makes for better,
more consistent programming.

That’s a false equivalency. Gates is not an education expert but he is able
to pay a lot of education experts to help him A) learn the issues and form
an opinion and B) fund change based on that opinion. Agree with his beliefs
or not, that is very different from buying his way into the debate. He is
acting as a spokesperson for his foundation which does do a lot of work in
the field of improving math and science education. The people working for
him on this subject are, in fact, experts on the subject. That does give
what he has to say on the subject more weight than a casual observer
concerned about education.

Mass, on the other hand, may or may not be an expert on math and science
education, but that is not the issue here. He was asked to be a regular
guest on Weekday, then went off topic during his regular segment, was told
to get back on and stay on topic during that segment and then did not. He
did not play by the rules. He lost his gig.

If you’re unhappy with the state of education coverage or conversation on
KUOW, that’s one thing. If you really liked Mass on KUOW, that’s something
else. But he was not there to talk about education. Maybe he should have
been during a different segment, but not during this one. I don’t see why
that does not compute for people.

Maybe it’s because of the word “public” in NPR? Public doesn’t mean any tom,
dick or harry can go on and say whatever he/she wants. It means it’s funded
by the public for the public good. Yes, you can try and change this
decision, (or anything else NPR does) because you help fund it. But it
doesn’t mean you’re right because you’re a member of the public and it
doesn’t mean Mass can talk about whatever subject becomes a bug in his craw
because he’s a member of the public. And it doesn’t make it censorship when
he’s told to stick to the topic at hand because doing so makes for better,
more consistent programming.

 By this logic, no one should post comments at Publicola while they are at work.

I didn’t say they did.  I said they don’t cover them well.

But he’s a guest and not a regular?  It would seem there is a difference.  

Still haven’t answered why KUOW doesn’t make sure its Friday team gets it right on education issues.  It’s okay to have an opinion; it’s not okay to get facts wrong.  KUOW’s Friday pundits are consistently wrong on their K-12 facts.

Well obviously I don’t agree with a single thing you say, and I see no chance to reach any agreement on any part of it.
 

I think its cool that he responds directly to those concerned…he is getting the stations message out to the people most inflamed by the issue.  I think his argument is good and convincing, too.

I think its cool that he responds directly to those concerned…he is getting the stations message out to the people most inflamed by the issue.  I think his argument is good and convincing, too.

Personally, to me it sounds to be like an adult lecturing to a bunch of squabbling children.

Absolutely!

true…whooops!

true…whooops!

true…whooops!

Those of us reading the discussion from the sidelines and trying to make up our minds know that “disagree with everything” is never something that a rational, thinking person does, and take that into consideration when we’re working out who’s being more sensible.