I am as baffled by the USO's militant and obstreperous response to calls to boycott Michael Savage. Granted, PSA's generate no revenue, but I, for one, would be extremely dubious about having the USO associated with Savage, were it me.
The use of PSA's is a choice - and very often, the choice is made in terms of image. I know, as I've been employed in traditional media. There are MANY possible PSA's, only a few slots and one gives away the space to those who's agenda fits one's own.
Which of course opens the question of who is now in charge of the USO, and what their agendas may be. Considering the amount the USO relies upon the donation of time and effort by "liberal" hollywood types - like, for instance, Michael Moore and Margaret Cho - this is a suprising position for them to take.
But then, perhaps the USO has been taken over by neocons and their ilk, in view of "supporting the morale" of the troops in their struggle against "islamofacism."
Perhaps it ,might be profitable to look into just WHO is in charge at the USO - and how their vision might vary from the more traditionally understood Non-Partisan and apolitical nature of the organization.
The use of PSA's is a choice - and very often, the choice is made in terms of image. I know, as I've been employed in traditional media. There are MANY possible PSA's, only a few slots and one gives away the space to those who's agenda fits one's own.
Which of course opens the question of who is now in charge of the USO, and what their agendas may be. Considering the amount the USO relies upon the donation of time and effort by "liberal" hollywood types - like, for instance, Michael Moore and Margaret Cho - this is a suprising position for them to take.
But then, perhaps the USO has been taken over by neocons and their ilk, in view of "supporting the morale" of the troops in their struggle against "islamofacism."
Perhaps it ,might be profitable to look into just WHO is in charge at the USO - and how their vision might vary from the more traditionally understood Non-Partisan and apolitical nature of the organization.
 clipped from www.alternet.orga group who has segments run on the show is raising eyebrows by refusing to distance itself from Savage. The USO, a non-profit that does work for U.S. armed forces, wrote Brave New Films complaining about being targeted and even hinting at a lawsuit John Hanson, a spokesman for the USO, said the organization could ask for its PSAs to be taken off of Savage's program, and wouldn't. "Because then who is next?" he asked. "We provide no revenue for Michael Savage. We may improve his image. But we provide no revenue for him." "Considering the USO's role in the world," said Leighton Woodhouse, a spokesperson for Brave New Films, "we would have expected them to be the first to distance themselves from someone who is deliberately fanning the flames of hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims; we were sorely disappointed."
|
No comments:
Post a Comment