GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: New Hampshire station bans union's anti-privatization ad

• 2999
  

  The Republican rally for privatization does not stem from efficiency. Often privatization is more expensive. But privatization achieves the following:

  1) a reduction of federal employees, who are more likely to vote for the Democrats

  2) a reduction of union workers, who are more likely to vote for the Democrats

  3) Rewards for rich fats cats who will make contributions to the Republican Party.

  In other words, it's all about the greedy and power hungry seeking more wealth and power.

  Robert Watson Posted January 29, 2004 2:01 AM
• 2646
  

  It's obvious from the reasons given by the station that it has an "agenda."

  Anonymous Posted December 29, 2003 1:03 PM
• 2645
  

  Here is an interesting sidelight that I happen to know due to my proximity to Hollywood and film-makers. "Meet John Doe" specifically is no longer covered by copyright. The copyright on that film ran out several years ago and was never renewed.

  So, for this reason and others, I view the excuse that WMUR gave for not running the ad as specious. I find it impossible to believe that the station's lawyers could not easily find this information--I'm sure the people who made the ad knew it or they wouldn't have used those clips in particular.

  Anyway, just thought you should know that WMUR was resorting to lies and subterfuge to mask whatever its real reasons are for not accepting the ad.

  Anonymous Posted December 29, 2003 1:01 PM
• 2644
  

  There's a very simple solution: let the word out and tell all working people in New Hampshire not to tune into the TV station that pulled the plug. Or tell them to boycott all products advertised on that station.

  Anonymous Posted December 29, 2003 12:59 PM
• 2631
  

  The question in my mind is will WMUR take the same stance when it comes to the millions of dollars rolling in for election day ads that can be viewed as defamatory also? If you can't see the true political agenda for outsourcing then you have been hiding in your cubicle for too long. Get involved and see the truth! Anyone that thinks outsourcing is good for the nation is most likely on the list of employees that will not be effected by outsourcing.

  GovExec.com reader Posted December 23, 2003 3:49 PM
• 2624
  

  Forget it, 60 Minutes wouldn't use our story, and we were the first Dept. of Defense agency to be privatized, (by-the-way, WITHOUT being allowed to compete under A-76 rules or in any other manner, including the EEO process that is supposed to be in place for everyone who feels they have been discriminated against - our case was/is on the grounds of age discrimination AND retaliation, and is still being ignored after 4 years.)

  A Disgruntled Citizen

  GovExec.com reader Posted December 23, 2003 10:42 AM
• 2590
  

  As one who appeared in one of these ads, I can tell you with all due honesty that contracting out vital government services is bad for America. Compound this with the "flexibilities" of political appointees in awarding "non-competitive" bids and the system clearly presents the perception of a conflict of interest.

  If not mistaken, the Federal Aquisition Regulation specifically bars and perception of a conflict of interest, let alone an actual conflict from occuring. So either way, something is amiss.

  As our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers are serving in the armed forces we should be relying on federal employees to do the work they do best, take care of America's Service Men and Women and ensuring that once their service is done, we honor our promise in providing them with health care.

  Stand up America, once it's lost, it never can be regained. Freedom is what we started this country with, Corporate America and the political fever of patriotism wants to remove our freedoms. Let's not let them.

  Mark Gibson Posted December 21, 2003 7:22 PM
• 2586
  

  It's incredible that someone would question AFGE credibility, while denying a link between Halliburton (who gets noncompetetive government contracts), privitazation (which enriches political corporations who donate election funds) and competitive sourcing (where competition is used as a means to reward cronies).

  No connection? For one, they are all policies which ultimately make the rich richer.

  FYI, lots of people see a connection; that's why we're discussing it. Some would like to stop the discussion, particularly those who are profiting from these policies at taxpayer expense.

  Can anyone else think of a connection?

  GovExec.com reader Posted December 19, 2003 2:05 PM
• 2579
  

  In Washington, credibility is a marketable commodity and this TV ad, if properly presented in the article, demonstrates why AFGE has none. There is no connection between the Halliburton contracts, sole source contracts generally or privatization and competitive sourcing. AFGE knows there are no connections and everybody knows they know it. If AFGE would stop the temper tantrums and get focused, they might be able to contribute to a discussion of the real weaknesses of the Revised Circular A-76.

  GovExec.com reader Posted December 19, 2003 7:24 AM
• 2572
  

  WMUR must stand for WeMURder democracy. If people in New Hampshire are wise they will either boycott WMUR or boycott its biggest advertiser in protest. With Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, boycotting is about the only protest tool left to us, at least for now.

  Trudy Springer Posted December 18, 2003 3:48 PM
• 2558
  

  Thank you, WMUR. Along with Ted Koppel's recent nonsense on ABC regarding the "nonelectable" candidates, the story setting out your silly attempt at censorship has convinced the extended Ochoa family - in excess of 1,500 from Texas to California, along with some midwestern states - to boycott ABC. We have arrived at this decision through majority vote. Again, thanks. You tipped the balance.

  Jesus B. Ochoa Posted December 17, 2003 11:16 PM
• 2555
  

  How do you spell WMUR? C-O-W-A-R-D. Betcha they, too, are on the Republican dole. (no offense, Senator)

  GovExec.com reader Posted December 17, 2003 3:02 PM
• 2551
  

  Censorship lives!

  The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) brings up relevant and important issues that need to be aired and discussed.

  Perhaps we should forward our serious government issues to "60 Minutes" instead?

  GovExec.com reader Posted December 17, 2003 12:48 PM
• 2548
  

  So Mr. Bartlett of WMUR, an ABC affiliate based in Manchester, N.H., decided not to air the AFGE ad because, "....it is potentially defamatory..." eh? I wonder if just maybe, his station or more likely his station's masters at ABC, have an eye towards some government outsourcing contracts? Nahhh, that's just more wild conspiracy theory type stuff like the idea that there are no WMD in Iraq - just stay tuned cause we'll find 'em soon. By the way, vote for whomever gives you the most extra days off, just be sure it's with pay!

  GovExec.com reader Posted December 17, 2003 11:41 AM
• 2542
  

  So much for freedom of speech. We're no better than the country we just invaded.

  GovExec.com reader Posted December 17, 2003 7:55 AM