Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 16:30:12 -0400 (EDT)
[orig to ]
Hi Neal,
Thank you so much for your responsiveness. We will find out exactly when and on which station the item was heard, and let you know. And again, apologies for overreacting. It's just so shocking to be the target of such incredibly dirty behavior by the Bush campaign, and infuriating when the press falls for it. The lies aren't even interesting, they're just incontrovertibly false and devoid of imagination. Porn click-throughs! Yawn and yuck....
We'll let you know when we figure it out.
Best wishes,
Ray Thomas
http://rtmark.com/
Bringing IT to YOU.
On Fri, 21 May 1999, Neal Jackson wrote:
> Most people are confused by the situation, but NPR neither owns nor controls
> any radio stations. NPR is an independent 501(c)(3) corporation which
> produces and distributes news and cultural programming. The NPR programming
> you hear is purchased from us by independent public radio stations, who
> broadcast it. All public radio stations are free to broadcast their own, or
> buy another's or NPR's programming.
>
> The two Boston public radio stations both broadcast NPR programming, but
> both also develop and broadcast a lot of news programming that is not
> produced by NPR (more so than in most cities). In fact, I will bet you a
> beer that, because it was heard in Boston, it was produced by someone OTHER
> than NPR.
>
> In any event, if we did make a mistake, we want to know about it. We take
> the accuracy of our news VERY seriously. But so far no one has been able to
> find such a story in our recent newsmagazine programs (and that includes
> doing a computerized search in their transcripts on the relevant words). So
> I must again ask for the detailed information if you can find it.
>
> Neal A. Jackson
> Vice President for Legal Affairs
> National Public Radio, Inc.
> njackson@npr.org
> http:\www.npr.org
>
> "I prefer radio....it has better pictures..."
> Alistair Cooke
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTMARK Admin [mailto:admin@rtmark.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 3:24 PM
> To: Neal Jackson
> Subject: RE: Urgent: major errors in your story
>
>
> Hello Neal,
>
> Thank you very much for your response. And we apologize for blowing our
> top on it.
>
> It was definitely in Boston, but I haven't heard any other details. The
> fellow was quite certain it was the NPR station, but maybe it was local
> Boston programming. We're tracking that down, but if you have any way of
> doing so on your end, that would be hugely appreciated. This is a matter
> of grave concern to us.
>
> Thank you,
> Ray Thomas
>
> http://rtmark.com/
> Bringing IT to YOU.
>
> On Fri, 21 May 1999, Neal Jackson wrote:
>
> > Our New Media department has passed this on to this office.
> >
> > We have undertaken a preliminary search among recent NPR programming for a
> > news item like the one you refer to and have not found it.
> >
> > Thus, would you please ask your source where they heard this; specifically
> > station name and location, name of program and time of day?
> >
> > By way of information, we often find that listener complaints are with
> > respect to programming that does not originate with NPR. Therefore also
> > please ask your source whether they are sure that it was a news item
> > provided by National Public Radio, or whether it might have been from
> > another public radio news source, such as a local station's news
> > department, Public Radio International ("PRI)", Pacifica, BBC, or
> > another program that is not provided by NPR.
> >
> > Neal A. Jackson
> > Vice President for Legal Affairs
> > National Public Radio, Inc.
> > njackson@npr.org
> > http:\www.npr.org
> >
> > "I prefer radio....it has better pictures..."
> > Alistair Cooke
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Presidential Exploratory Committee [mailto:info@gwbush.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 11:19 AM
> > To: nprnews@npr.org
> > Subject: Urgent: major errors in your story
> >
> >
> > Yesterday morning, you broadcast a story about our site,
> http://gwbush.com/,
> > and stated that our site passed visitors directly through to porn sites.
> > (This was related to us by reliable sources.)
> >
> > If it is true your story stated this, you are dupes of the Bush campaign's
> > lawyer. The only pictures that "promote violence and degrade women" (his
> > phrase, as in http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/990519/bmo.phpl) are a Disel ad, at
> > http://gwbush.com/hatsoff.phpl . There are of course no links whatsoever
> > to any porn sites, unless www.Diesel.com is such a site. The Bush campaign
> > has attempted to promulgate this lie before, but this is their greatest
> > success at it. To trust the Bush campaign on this and not even ask us to
> > respond is shoddy journalism indeed, and reprehensible.
> >
> > If it is true your story stated this, Bush's campaign has now lied to the
> > press in an egregious way twice. The first lie was exposed in today's New
> > York Times article,
> > http://www.nytimes.com/techweb/TW_Bush_Campaign_Battles_Parody_Site.phpl ,
> > ninth paragraph. The current lie, that gwbush.com traffics in porn, will
> > equally backfire on the Bush campaign, and, unless you rectify it
> > immediately, on NPR as well.
> >
> > I admit we are relying on secondhand knowledge. Please provide us with a
> > link to the story in question, either in RealAudio or text transcript. If
> > we are wrong, please accept our apologies. If we are right, we must insist
> > on an immediate and full correction on the program in question.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Roy and Liz
> >
> > http://www.gwbush.com/
> > Your efforts redeemed
