You mean WFM? They are not a great ANYTHING, except perhaps corporate profit concentration machine. Like virtually ALL corporations, they have absolutely no ethical standards. By their own definition (of their motives), if they could maximize profits by selling us poisons, and get away with it, they would, just as many corporations have in the past. We, and YOU, should not idealize corporations!
Why does a company, which potentially does EXTREME harm to people and the environment, have to AGREE to sanctions? Are they not subject to the law, just like everyone else? Why does a company like Whole Foods, which we THINK to be socially responsible, make deals with such companies? I think I know why: it's because WFs is a COMPANY. And more than that, contrary to the image too many people hold dear, it's a CORPORATE company, whose ONLY REAL interest is in MAXIMIZING PROFITS.
That they have defended farmer's rights and the principals of pure and organic foods is just PR aimed at building a certain clientelle, NOT because any of those values were ever really heartfelt. CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE HEARTS!
The best, and really the ONLY way to influence a corporation to promote, protect and defend HUMAN values, is with our wallets and our feet. Knowing what I know now, I will play Whole Foods off against Von's and Ralphs and the other SoCal grocers that I MUST patronize, just to eat.
If we don't like what a company is doing, we MUST deny them our business, and even better, make a sign and stand out front of their stores and encourage others to do the same thing.
This deal with Monsanto is OBSCENE. ASKING Monsanto to compensate farmers for contaminating their crops won't work. Their whole strategy is to OWN EVERYBODY'S crops! I think that EVERY FARMER must SUE them to remove their artificial genes, or else pay MILLIONS per case. Their methods are egregious, and evil.
Are you really still taking comments on this, 5 years on?
I DO have something to say about this. I'm surprised I find so little on it in a Google search.
This has been bothering me for some time now. I would listen to repeated claims on my local station, KPCC (Pasadena, CA), that "we do not do advertising," and then within minutes, would hear something which sounded suspiciously, exactly like advertising, including company name repeated several times, products named and described, and described as "something listeners would find useful, attractive or desirable" or something like that, i.e. a sales pitch. In fact, it sounded just like any other advertising, except perhaps slightly more reserved, and in a cultivated radio voice.
I called the program manager at KPCC about this several times, and he was gracious, but finally excused what his station was doing because he said, the ads were NOT ads because "they did not include any call to action," i.e. did not actually ask that listeners come out and buy the product. Well, I've been watching, and since that time have discovered that MOST of what is certainly advertising does not make that call, either.
The whole point is, besides the annoyance factor of having a sales pitch in one's ear everywhere we go, is that Public Media are supposed to represent the public interest. When it accepts money for advertising, it becomes subject to pressure from advertisers, typically to air certain kinds of shows and analysts, and to not air others, and I firmly believe that that effect is being realized.
I'm a bit rusty, but I can say that while I hear interviews with representatives of corporate business, Corporatist government officials and representatives of the local Sheriff's office on a regular basis, I have much less often heard interviews with leftist political theorists (I never heard Michael Parenti, or Amy Goodman on KPCC!), representatives of unions and of the Working Classes, and advocates for, for example, the legalization of marijuana, which is a populist interest, and which the local Sheriff speaks out against on a regular basis.
And while there is a program call "Marketplace" on KPCC, I know of no programming which specifically treats the interests of the PEOPLE per se, i.e. the Working Classes, as opposed to those of the Corporate Classes and the relatively rich. This is NOT what I (used to) expect from PUBLIC radio! This is NOT what "public" radio was intended to do, and I believe that inroads by business interests is in large part to blame.
Then there is the issue of who is on the boards of trustees of these so-called "public" stations. They are almost exclusively, or in most cases, exclusively, corporate executives! How can Public Radio serve the needs of the community and the WORKING public, when it is run entirely by people who are primarily and even exclusively interested in corporate business and profits? That is a conflict of interest of the most extreme kind, which dictates what public radio is or can be.
I believe that Public Radio is, as a direct result of these factors, little more than a Red Herring for populist, Working Class interests, i.e. it makes most people think that the interests of working people are being served, as well as possible, when in fact they are NOT.
I totally reject the fluff and right-wing-masquerading-as-populist programming that Public Radio offers. What they call leftist is little farther left than the middle, and it does far better service to the right than it does to leftist concerns. I believe that so-called Public Radio is a big, slick LIE.
Try breaking your comment into paragraphs; it'll be easier to follow. Also, I'll bet you could eliminate half the word count without weakening your message if you tried.
Well, perhaps someone affiliated with these groups is watching...not 2 days after I pointed out the odd statement about WCFG on CSA's website, the "Contribute" page now reads, "Also, please consult your tax counselor accountant to determine whether your donation to CSA should be included in your federal or state lobbying disclosure reports." Coincidence? My theory is that whoever created the website for CSA must also be involved with WCFG and probably other front groups, and a small lapse in judgment whilst typing that little piece of info resulted in him/her transcribing the abbreviation of another group...why else would WCFG appear in that one little line, nowhere else on the site, and then when pointed out on a forum of a watchdog group, suddenly is "corrected" back to read CSA. Hopefully their doing that doesn't make your jobs of uncovering the snake den behind them any more difficult!
You mean WFM? They are not a great ANYTHING, except perhaps corporate profit concentration machine. Like virtually ALL corporations, they have absolutely no ethical standards. By their own definition (of their motives), if they could maximize profits by selling us poisons, and get away with it, they would, just as many corporations have in the past. We, and YOU, should not idealize corporations!
Why does a company, which potentially does EXTREME harm to people and the environment, have to AGREE to sanctions? Are they not subject to the law, just like everyone else? Why does a company like Whole Foods, which we THINK to be socially responsible, make deals with such companies? I think I know why: it's because WFs is a COMPANY. And more than that, contrary to the image too many people hold dear, it's a CORPORATE company, whose ONLY REAL interest is in MAXIMIZING PROFITS.
That they have defended farmer's rights and the principals of pure and organic foods is just PR aimed at building a certain clientelle, NOT because any of those values were ever really heartfelt. CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE HEARTS!
The best, and really the ONLY way to influence a corporation to promote, protect and defend HUMAN values, is with our wallets and our feet. Knowing what I know now, I will play Whole Foods off against Von's and Ralphs and the other SoCal grocers that I MUST patronize, just to eat.
If we don't like what a company is doing, we MUST deny them our business, and even better, make a sign and stand out front of their stores and encourage others to do the same thing.
This deal with Monsanto is OBSCENE. ASKING Monsanto to compensate farmers for contaminating their crops won't work. Their whole strategy is to OWN EVERYBODY'S crops! I think that EVERY FARMER must SUE them to remove their artificial genes, or else pay MILLIONS per case. Their methods are egregious, and evil.
Are you really still taking comments on this, 5 years on?
I DO have something to say about this. I'm surprised I find so little on it in a Google search.
This has been bothering me for some time now. I would listen to repeated claims on my local station, KPCC (Pasadena, CA), that "we do not do advertising," and then within minutes, would hear something which sounded suspiciously, exactly like advertising, including company name repeated several times, products named and described, and described as "something listeners would find useful, attractive or desirable" or something like that, i.e. a sales pitch. In fact, it sounded just like any other advertising, except perhaps slightly more reserved, and in a cultivated radio voice.
I called the program manager at KPCC about this several times, and he was gracious, but finally excused what his station was doing because he said, the ads were NOT ads because "they did not include any call to action," i.e. did not actually ask that listeners come out and buy the product. Well, I've been watching, and since that time have discovered that MOST of what is certainly advertising does not make that call, either.
The whole point is, besides the annoyance factor of having a sales pitch in one's ear everywhere we go, is that Public Media are supposed to represent the public interest. When it accepts money for advertising, it becomes subject to pressure from advertisers, typically to air certain kinds of shows and analysts, and to not air others, and I firmly believe that that effect is being realized.
I'm a bit rusty, but I can say that while I hear interviews with representatives of corporate business, Corporatist government officials and representatives of the local Sheriff's office on a regular basis, I have much less often heard interviews with leftist political theorists (I never heard Michael Parenti, or Amy Goodman on KPCC!), representatives of unions and of the Working Classes, and advocates for, for example, the legalization of marijuana, which is a populist interest, and which the local Sheriff speaks out against on a regular basis.
And while there is a program call "Marketplace" on KPCC, I know of no programming which specifically treats the interests of the PEOPLE per se, i.e. the Working Classes, as opposed to those of the Corporate Classes and the relatively rich. This is NOT what I (used to) expect from PUBLIC radio! This is NOT what "public" radio was intended to do, and I believe that inroads by business interests is in large part to blame.
Then there is the issue of who is on the boards of trustees of these so-called "public" stations. They are almost exclusively, or in most cases, exclusively, corporate executives! How can Public Radio serve the needs of the community and the WORKING public, when it is run entirely by people who are primarily and even exclusively interested in corporate business and profits? That is a conflict of interest of the most extreme kind, which dictates what public radio is or can be.
I believe that Public Radio is, as a direct result of these factors, little more than a Red Herring for populist, Working Class interests, i.e. it makes most people think that the interests of working people are being served, as well as possible, when in fact they are NOT.
I totally reject the fluff and right-wing-masquerading-as-populist programming that Public Radio offers. What they call leftist is little farther left than the middle, and it does far better service to the right than it does to leftist concerns. I believe that so-called Public Radio is a big, slick LIE.
Pages