Saturday, May 08, 2004
5/8/04: Reaction to recent comments
WMUB General Manager Cleve Callison writes:
Recent Friday Feedback comments by WMUB graduate assistant Xu Zhonghua and a reaction from listener Richard Carlson have sparked several emails to WMUB, sampled below. Some took issue with Mr. Carlson's views; others took issue with WMUB's decision to air them, and call for an apology. We have printed some of the critical messages, principally those where it appears the writer actually heard the comments on the air. [MP3 files are available for Xu Zhonghua's commentary and Richard Carlson's response.]
For the record: we have greatly enjoyed working with Xu Zhongua and have learned much from him during his work here for the past two years. We have learned about China, and about how Americans think about it. In addition we have learned about our own society as well. He is a fine young citizen of the world. I believe that Americans who value freedom of expression and honest dialogue will welcome, as we do, the expression of his views, whether positive or negative, about the U.S. Mr. Carlson is likewise free to express his views. And just as he was critical of Xu Zhonghua, he should expect that others will be critical of him.
Is this a First Amendment issue? In my view, no, because the First Amendment does not guarantee that every viewpoint will be heard when the speaker demands. Indeed, the letter writers are correct that WMUB has a legal and moral obligation to exercise our own First Amendment editorial judgment in deciding whether to run any given listener comment, or how much of it to run. But it is very much a public service for us to provide a forum for the exchange, sometimes the vehement exchange, of differing views.
Despite threats of financial retaliation, I believe that we have a public service obligation to err on the side of open dialogue. So that argues for airing Mr. Carlson's views. As one of our letters below puts it, "only with the most serious reflection should we move to censor or sterilize communications among ourselves."
I also can't agree with those who suggest that the more strongly-worded of Mr. Carlson's comments should have been deleted. To do so might remove a context listeners need to evaluate his views.
Thank you. Feel free to disagree, and let us know, by writing to us.
Recent Friday Feedback comments by WMUB graduate assistant Xu Zhonghua and a reaction from listener Richard Carlson have sparked several emails to WMUB, sampled below. Some took issue with Mr. Carlson's views; others took issue with WMUB's decision to air them, and call for an apology. We have printed some of the critical messages, principally those where it appears the writer actually heard the comments on the air. [MP3 files are available for Xu Zhonghua's commentary and Richard Carlson's response.]
For the record: we have greatly enjoyed working with Xu Zhongua and have learned much from him during his work here for the past two years. We have learned about China, and about how Americans think about it. In addition we have learned about our own society as well. He is a fine young citizen of the world. I believe that Americans who value freedom of expression and honest dialogue will welcome, as we do, the expression of his views, whether positive or negative, about the U.S. Mr. Carlson is likewise free to express his views. And just as he was critical of Xu Zhonghua, he should expect that others will be critical of him.
Is this a First Amendment issue? In my view, no, because the First Amendment does not guarantee that every viewpoint will be heard when the speaker demands. Indeed, the letter writers are correct that WMUB has a legal and moral obligation to exercise our own First Amendment editorial judgment in deciding whether to run any given listener comment, or how much of it to run. But it is very much a public service for us to provide a forum for the exchange, sometimes the vehement exchange, of differing views.
Despite threats of financial retaliation, I believe that we have a public service obligation to err on the side of open dialogue. So that argues for airing Mr. Carlson's views. As one of our letters below puts it, "only with the most serious reflection should we move to censor or sterilize communications among ourselves."
I also can't agree with those who suggest that the more strongly-worded of Mr. Carlson's comments should have been deleted. To do so might remove a context listeners need to evaluate his views.
Thank you. Feel free to disagree, and let us know, by writing to us.
