Comcast-NBC Takes Heat over Funding Threat to Non-Profit

May 19, 2011 -

A controversial tweet from a non-profit supported by donations from Comcast has caused the company a bit of controversy over the last 24 hours and it all has to do with former FCC Comissioner Meredith Attwell Baker. In case you have forgotten, Meredith Attwell Baker approved the Comcast-NBC merger about four months ago and then - recently - took a job with the same company.

Reel Grrls is a summer camp for teenage girls in Seattle that offers courses on documentary film making, video production and film animation. The trouble began, as most trouble happens online these days - on Twitter. The official account for non-profit Reel Grrls tweeted its disdain for Baker joining Comcast-NBC as a lobbyist:

“OMG! @FCC Commissioner Baker voted 2 approve Comcast/NBC merger & is now lving FCC for A JOB AT COMCAST?!? http://su.pr/1trT4z #mediajustice”

This short sentence was enough to piss off an employee at Comcast-NBC employee, who threatened to pull its funding from the non-profit:

“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,” Steve Kipp, a Comcast Communications executive wrote in an email to Reel Grrls. “This is not the first time either,” Kipp wrote. “I've seen at least one other negative tweet about Comcast.”

The email turned out to be a bad idea. In a statement to the media, Reel Grrls claims said that it is not asking Comcast-NBC to restore any funding but does want the company to "consider whether it is appropriate to expect to be beyond reproach by any who choose to work with them."

Seeing the public response to the exchange changed Comcast-NBC's stance rapidly. The company issued a statement casting Kipps' comments in a bad light:

“We are in the process of reaching out to Reel Grrls in Seattle and let them know the funding the organization has received from Comcast is not in jeopardy,” said Sena Fitzmaurice, a spokeswoman for Comcast. “We sincerely apologize for the unauthorized action of our employee. This is not the way Comcast behaves toward its nonprofit partners."

Source: Politico

Posted in

Comments

Re: Comcast-NBC Takes Heat over Funding Threat to Non-Profit

...there's more to this story, from both sides.

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

Re: Comcast-NBC Takes Heat over Funding Threat to Non-Profit

Uh huh. Comcast wouldnt've cut their funding... ... ... Anyone else smell the distinct scent of horse manure?

 

 

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Comcast-NBC Takes Heat over Funding Threat to Non-Profit

I more smell incomplete reporting.

Re: Comcast-NBC Takes Heat over Funding Threat to Non-Profit

Most likely, but I still wouldn't put it past Comcast to attempt it.

 

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Comcast-NBC Takes Heat over Funding Threat to Non-Profit

Like the Byrds sang, "turn, turn, turn", or in this case, "spin, spin, spin." 

Re: Comcast-NBC Takes Heat over Funding Threat to Non-Profit

I love to see Comcast throw their own under the bus. What an idiot.

Re: Comcast-NBC Takes Heat over Funding Threat to Non-Profit

Nice job in making yourselves look like arseholes, Comcast. Go, big corporations, go!

Re: Comcast-NBC Takes Heat over Funding Threat to Non-Profit

Or more like, thanks a lot, Reel Grrls, for making nonprofits look like poor investments. Everyone in the nonprofit sector knows you should never talk smack about your sponsors. Comcast actually played the adult in this case by backtracking, apologizing when it shouldn't have, and promising to continue funding the organization. On the other hand, Reel Grrls just looks incredibly arrogant.

Re: Comcast-NBC Takes Heat over Funding Threat to Non-Profit

"Or more like, thanks a lot, Reel Grrls, for making nonprofits look like poor investments."

Huh?  In what conceivable way have they done that?

A member of one nonprofit criticized a sponsor.  To what conceivable rational human being would this translate as "Nonprofits are poor investments"?

"Comcast actually played the adult in this case by backtracking, apologizing when it shouldn't have, and promising to continue funding the organization. On the other hand, Reel Grrls just looks incredibly arrogant."

Why can't they both be wrong?  It's a bad idea to bite the hand that feeds you, but it's incredibly bad PR to threaten to cut funding from a nonprofit just because one of its members criticized you.  That's corporate bully stuff and exactly the kind of thing Comcast would be trying to AVOID right now if they, well, had any reason to care what people thought of them.

Course, given that there's no competition in the cable sector and they just breezed through a merger with the help of their newest employee, they don't really have any disincentive to acting like bullies.  They're not going to lose customers and they don't have to worry about government scrutiny.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sleaker@Technogeek - How do you call someone out that anonymously calls in a SWAT team, or sends threats to people?09/20/2014 - 7:04pm
Technogeek"It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so." I'd say you're certainly obligated to call them out when you see it happening.09/20/2014 - 5:17pm
SleakerNow if you disagree with anything in my last 2 posts then we obviously have a difference in world view, and wont come to any sort of agreement. I'm fine with that, maybe some people aren't?09/20/2014 - 5:09pm
SleakerIt also doesn't mean that just because a news outlet says that Gamers are the problem and you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem. It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so.09/20/2014 - 4:59pm
SleakerJust to re-iterate: People getting harassed is wrong. Just because someone is harassed by so called 'gamers' doesn't mean that all gamers are bad. nor does it mean that you need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers.09/20/2014 - 4:56pm
SleakerAnd furthermore just because someone doesn't 'crusade against the evil' that doesn't make them the problem. You can have discussion with those around you. There's a thing called sphere of influence.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
Sleaker@Conster - one person getting harassed is a 'problem' only so far as the harassee's are doing it. Just because a select few people choose to act like this doesn't make it widespread. Nor does it immediately make everyone responsible to put an end to it.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
james_fudgeno worries09/20/2014 - 4:15pm
TechnogeekI misread james' comment as "we can't have a debate without threatening" there at first. Actually wound up posting a shout about death threats and "kill yourself" not technically being the same thing before I realized.09/20/2014 - 3:59pm
james_fudgeDon't hit me *cowers behind Andrew*09/20/2014 - 3:20pm
ConsterYou take that back right now, james, or else. *shakes fist menacingly*09/20/2014 - 3:00pm
james_fudgeOur community is awesome. We can have a debate without threatening to kill each other.09/20/2014 - 2:50pm
Andrew EisenNo one's crossed a line but I just want to remind you all to keep discussions civil.09/20/2014 - 1:54pm
Craig R.tldr: I'm a gamer, and imo those who support GamerGate should feel free to take a flying leap off a cliff.09/20/2014 - 1:27pm
Craig R.Not only that, I'm pretty sure that if actual studies were done, you'd still deny them, Sleaker. After all, it's not what you'd want to hear to support your rose-colored view of GamerGate.09/20/2014 - 1:18pm
Craig R.There IS an issue. Nor do we need a study to show that if you deny it then you're part of the problem.09/20/2014 - 1:17pm
Sleakersimply oust people that do harass others.09/20/2014 - 11:34am
Sleaker@Conster - I can say the same thing if you think there's been more than a handful. Until there's an actual study on rates no one can claim to know how widespread the incidence of harassment is. Thus the best we can do is 'there might be an issue' and...09/20/2014 - 11:33am
ConsterSleaker: if you think there's only been "a handful of" incidents, you have your head stuck *somewhere* - I'm assuming it's sand.09/20/2014 - 5:38am
prh99Most of it's agitprop clickbait anyway.09/20/2014 - 5:27am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician