Where's the Equality from the Voice of the Common Man
The free flow of debate on open-line back-talk and night-line is great - and our democracy needs it. The question is - what is responsible commentary?
"Derek" - the gutless caller - who appears on open-line every month or so for the purpose of smearing me. He makes comments that are not true - and that are harmful to my reputation. The last appearance seen "Derek" say that I was being paid by the Liberals. I am not - but that does not matter - the idea was floated. Did VOCM cut it? No
This morning Randy had a call from "line one" suggesting that George Murphy's classes at MUN were being paid for by the oil companies. The public service that Murphy provides is valuable and shames that of what is paid for by the province under the PUB. Did VOCM cut that - no!
It was not that long ago Jim Morgan made comments about Members of the HOA that were untrue. Linda Swain ran a public announcement apologizing for that - Jim Morgan did the same. The reason that was done is because the law says you must apologize on the media that the slanderous statements were made.
VOCM protected politicians from these statements but not the ordinary citizen.
SHAME ON YOU VOCM!
Remind us again who makes your programs - and who keeps the advertising dollars coming?
I sent an EMAIL to onair@vocm.com about this with no response.
And by the way which blog is it that Danny is talking about - that apparently called his giving to charity an act to gain support from the charity?
I asked Randy that as well - no response.
12 comments:
Sue,
As someone who has gained their public profile almost exclusively through VOCM and other open line shows, you surely must know that you (like any other public personna) have to take the trash with the treasure. You can't live in a glass house yourself and not expect any stones being tossed your way! Suck it up ma'am!
Suck up what and for what?
Gained a public profile for what purpose?
Hi Sue,
George Murphy is not a private figure and neither are you. I will cut very little when it comes to public figures...Really, a caller accused you of being paid by the Liberal's...You are able to defend yourself against such a charge... Same thing for George Murphy and,by the way, both of you did call the program and did defend yourselves against the paid mouth piece kind of accusation.
I'm accused of being in someones pocket just about every week. You do get used to it.
I have no doubt that you will be accused of being in someones pocket again and again as long as you keep challenging government policy and position.
Was there slander here? No,there was not. Just a question of motivation.
I would encourage you to keep challenging government's and keep utilizing the Open Lines to mount those challenges and ask tough questions.
Don't pick on us because something got on the air you didn't like. If we choose to live by the word we will surely die by the word.
I look forward to talking with you on the Radio soon...
I guess anonymous was talking about sucking up the complaints about other people's opinions of view.
"Public profile for what purpose?"
There's really no denying you have a public profile that comes from your having run as a candidate for a political party, worked for a political party and kept up a fairly regular history of calling call-in shows to talk about public issues.
Actually disagreeing with the position is fine - presenting another view is absolutely welcome. Claiming somebody is doing something because they are paid to do it is clearly wrong.
As for picking on VOCM - how? I'm just making a comment on a radio station which is very public.
If people are attacked personally for making comments on public policy issues and they are not being paid to do so - and by doing so are hurting their own ability to work with government or anybody doing business with government - why would they continue to do so. Do you have any idea how many times I have been asked by somebody to make a comment because they are afraid to have somebody hear them comment publicly?
Apparently their fear is warranted - pretty soon that will intimidate all independent views into silence.
Sue,
I have to disagree with you on this. I don't like anyone being accused of something without any evidence and in those cases it might be a good idea for the host to ask the caller where they got their information or how they know something. Cutting their words however is not a road I'd like to see anyone go down.
As a fellow "outspoken" person I have also been accused of being in bed with this group or that group but I personally don't care. I'd much rather put up with that sort of BS than to have a radio host go downt the road of deciding what goes on the air and what doesn't. Censorship is a slippery slope and someone like yourself, who speaks out all the time, should be very leary of asking media to "cut" anything.
On your other point, I'm glad you asked the question of which blogger had brought up Premier Williams donations. I've been blogging for quite some time and in my estimation there are really only about 5 or 6 in the province who have any kind of a following. I don't believe it was any of us who decided to rehash this foolish issue, so I'd love to know who it was.
I do not want everybody cut - I can live with a host challenging the statements made - else it would be foolish to continue participating.
I am not seeing the challenge. The basic questions such as who are you? Who do you work for? Where did you get that information?
I do not like censorship so in that we agree - but there must be some challenge.
If I have to call the program once a week to defend myself from comments made by an unknown individual there will be no time for public policy discussion.
Well, put Randy.
Hi Sue,
I agree with the others in that by calling in to these shows you have put yourself out there for cheers, criticism and unfortunately the garbage calls too. Whether you think so or not you are a high profile person in this province.
Personally I don't have time for the open line shows. My thoughts on it are what's the base of people who are calling in the morning or afternoon. Not people who work full time that's for sure. I think it's a skewed view of opinions (in my opinion! ha)! Lets have a 6 to 8 pm call in show for those of us who are working and go to bed early!
Having been cut myself on occasion and not even being given the courtesy of telling me or the audience why I was cut has to be the biggest insult and deflamation of character there is.
For one unless someone tells you you were cut you don't even know your character has been assaulted. So you can't even put up a defence.
My opinion is that if anyone is to be cut the moderator shopuld tell the speaker as a minimum he was cut and why and unless the topic is so controversial or slanderous that it can't be repeated the audience should also be informed why the person was cut so the speakers character isn't taken in vain.
I had a neice of mine tell me she thought I was swearing when they cut me. SAD. It's not much better than going to see a stand up comic and have him drown you out because he has a mike and your forced to swear. Kramer.
The audience immediately thinks you were swearing or saying something bad or untrue.
Personally i try and keep my comments and discussion to that which I can support by articles or other sources of research.
Yes the debate should be focused on factual information. What factual information can you provide on the fibre optic deal. I look forward to reading it.
Post a Comment