After Comcast pulled funding for summer programs at Reel Grrls following a May tweet by the organization questioning Comcast’s remarkably dubious hiring of former FCC Commissioner Meredith Baker (just months after Baker voted to approve the Comcast/NBC merger), Reel Grrls went out and raised the funds on their own. When Comcast backpedaled and offered the money back, Reel Grrls told them to keep it.
But the source of funding was not the only thing that changed for the organization’s summer programs. In light of their experience with a power-abusing big media company, Reel Grrls restructured the focus of their summer apprenticeship program to focus on media justice. Administrative Manager Teresa Mozur explained their decision in May:
In light of the events with Comcast last week, we’ve decided to change the focus of our summer apprenticeship program. Participants will now produce short films exploring media reform and media justice issues in partnership with Free Press and the Center for Media Justice. The program will include a trip to the Allied Media Conference in Detroit for all participants who are able to attend.
The public will have the chance to view the result of the summer’s work September 25 at Central Cinema. From Reel Grrls:
Seattle youth-media organization Reel Grrls is hosting a screening of their summer apprentice students’ videos at Central Cinema on Sunday, September 25th at 4pm. The videos produced by the apprentices specifically address media justice and reform issues in response to a public dispute with Comcast over funding of the program.
Since 2007 Comcast had served as the primary provider of funding for the Reel Grrls summer apprenticeship program. On May 13, 2011 funds were revoked because of a tweet posted by Reel Grrls with commentary on their recent hiring of former FCC Commissioner Baker. This year’s program was made possible because of donations made by over 600 individuals from around the country who raised nearly $25,000.
After the screening, during a Q&A session, students will discuss their videos as well as what they learned from the summer program.
What: Reel Grrls’ Summer Apprenticeship Screening
When: Sunday, September 25, at 4:00 PM
Where: Central Cinema
1411 21st Ave, Seattle WA 98122
Big bad media outlets trying to make a profit? The gals want $ to produce something no one really cares about or is willing to pay for.
“power-abusing big media company” Sounds like an opinion thrust into an article that is supposed to be about these ladies finding alternative funding after biting the hand that feeds them. REALLY Bashing the company that has your back then not understanding why they didn’t get the money? Shouldn’t you be reporting the facts instead of airing your feelings against and slandering a Company that employs thousands of people in the State of Washington?
If you can’t read the story and figure out the problem it’s remarking on, many of us feel sorry for you. (Hint: it’s about cozy relations between the laughably named “regulators” and the industries they rubber-stamp.)
Surely it isn’t slander to tell the truth right out in the open, is it? Did Meredith Baker move through the revolving door, or did she not? Did Comcast pull its funding, or did it not? Do organizations get to make decisions about the funders they’ll accept support from, or do they not? Defending Comcast at this juncture is just plain funny.
And let’s be clear: Ayn Rand’s flimsy political screeds that posed as novels, not to mention her “philosophy of objectivism,” are facile nonsense for naive high schoolers. If you need the rants of a philandering speed freak to support your political views, you’re not doing so hot.
Comcast said as much themselves when they apologized (after the story hit national news, of course):
“We are in the process of reaching out to ReelGrrls in Seattle and let them know the funding the organization has received from Comcast is not in jeopardy and we sincerely apologize for the unauthorized action of our employee,” Fitzmaurice said. “This is not the way Comcast behaves toward its nonprofit partners.”
I would say a big media company pulling funding from a youth media justice nonprofit organization (a cause they supposedly support) because that organization questioned what they saw as top-level corruption in said company is undeniably an abuse of power.
When they gave Reel Grrls funding, they didn’t say, “But only if you don’t get all ‘media justicy’ on us!” They funded an organization with a clear mission.
Comcast clearly has the right to pull funding if they don’t like what Reel Grrls says. And then Reel Grrls has the right to call them out about being abusive of that power.
And yes, this neighborhood news site is not ashamed of its open bias toward our neighborhood youth media organization…
“We are in the process of reaching out to ReelGrrls in Seattle and let them know the funding the organization has received from Comcast is not in jeopardy and we sincerely apologize for the unauthorized action of our employee,” Fitzmaurice said. “This is not the way Comcast behaves toward its nonprofit partners.”
the unauthorized action of our employee
Comcast did not pull the funding, a person within the company made a decision that was unauthorized.
Employee=ONE person not the company as a whole. An EMPLOYEE made a mistake, unfortunately, yes that does reflect poorly on the company, but to call them a “power-abusing big media company” is out of line. No, I do not work for Comcast, but, I get sick of seeing legitimate companies that provide jobs in our state being bashed based on the action on ONE PERSON. Do you stop going to Safeway’s because you had a bad experience with one checker? Do you then scream from the rooftops that they hate their customers because one checker may have been rude? NO, of course not.
Bottom line, I am all about free speech, but you should be cautious to not make open negative remarks about the company that sponsors you. Its just common sense.
If the girls have the right to make those comments, Comcast has the right to pull out. That is not an abuse of power. I certainly would not contribute to anyone who questioned my integrity. They would be cut off to find funding elsewhere.
” In light of their experience with a power-abusing big media company”
Let me see here, they want nay, *demand* this company give them free money so they can tell us how evil this company is? And now that this company has declined to fund such an enterprise it is even more evil?
The smartest thing thse “grrls” did was to go raise the funds elsewhere. You don’t get patronage from people you insult.
The one who writes the check, gets to call the tune. I don’t hand out $5 to someone who wishes to use it to tell the world what a **** I am and very few others feel like paying to have that done I would imagine.
I’ve no idea if you are right or wrong in yoir opinions but expecting people to fork over cash with no strings attached is naive.
How many of us want journalists and media outlets to be controlled and regulated by just cooperate interests. Public regulators are suppose to act in the best interest of the public, not a private cooperation. Exploring how to separate the public overseers from private interests is important. The primary responsibility of a CEO of a private cooperation is to keep investors and the other directors happy. Regulators’ responsibility is to the general public and public good. Those who accept that responsibility should not be allowed to take positions with the groups that they are suppose to oversee soon after they leave their public positions. Guarantees of no-conflict-of-interest may at times seem difficult, but is a worthy pursuit and is the best interest of our information systems.