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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightIn case anyone is interested, there is a clause written into Section 10 of Windows 10's EULA that provides for a Class Action Waiver, and restricts the user to Binding Arbitration.07/29/2015 - 11:15am
TechnogeekNo, that folder is what gets used for the upgrade process. I already had the upgrade go through on my notebook.07/29/2015 - 10:35am
Andrew EisenMatt - And AGAIN, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published? How is it not accountable to its readership (which, AGAIN, is primarily game industry folk, not gamers)?07/29/2015 - 10:10am
james_fudgeThat's the clean install, for anyone asking07/29/2015 - 9:23am
TechnogeekAlso, it's the upgrade that's available for installation now. You might need to forcibly initiate the Windows Update process before it'll start downloading, though. (If there's a C:\$Windows.~BT folder on your computer, then you're in luck.)07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekAdmittedly there's more room to push for an advertiser boycott when you get into opinion content versus pure news, but keep in mind that reviews are opinion content as well.07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekMatts: There's a difference between "this person regularly says extremely terrible stuff" and "I don't like the phrasing used in this one specific editorial".07/29/2015 - 8:45am
MattsworknameWait, is that for the upgrade or the clean install only? cause I was gonna do the upgrade07/29/2015 - 8:32am
james_fudgehttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows1007/29/2015 - 8:30am
PHX Corp@Wilson, I'm still waiting for My upgrade notice aswell07/29/2015 - 7:57am
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician