"Given the fact that Comcast has been a major supporter of Reel Grrls for several years now, I am frankly shocked that your organization is slamming us on Twitter. This is not the first time either. I've seen at least one other negative Tweet about Comcast," wrote Steve Kipp, a Comcast vice president of communications, in an email released by the nonprofit. "I cannot in good conscience continue to provide you with funding—especially when there are so many other deserving nonprofits in town."
According to the Wall Street Journal, this is the message that the nonprofit Reel Grrls received from Comcast after a tweet that raised, in essence, an ethical question about the behavior of a FCC Commissioner who had voted affiratively on the Comcast/NBC merger and then went to work there as a senior lobbyist. Comcast later recanted and has assured Reel Grrls that their long-term project funding will not be cut.
While the "problem" is solved for the most part, the situation does raise some interesting policy and governance questions for the nonprofit. I wonder for instance, has the Reel Grrls board actually had a conversation about the parameters for organizational tweeting or use of other social media? And, one step further, does the board have a policy about taking positions that are not in the best interest of its funders? And finally, does the board have a policy about the consequence for its board or staff acting contrary to its policies?
Young older children, they all seem to see different shows. That alone may say something about how prime time television can effectively reach a mass audience.
Posted by: descriptive essay | May 27, 2011 at 05:55 PM
Everything in this world gives you some profit. Other way is inappropriate! How can you live with it??
Posted by: freelance writing jobs | August 29, 2011 at 12:25 PM