Grantmakers should leave critical decisions to nonprofits:
I absolutely agree that philanthropists need to hold their grantees accountable and ensure that money is used in a fiscally sound way. However, accountability should not mean, "Here is my money and I want you to use this money to focus on this one project because that's all I'm interested in supporting." This approach is shortsighted and discounts the responsibilities and fundamental expertise of executive directors at nonprofits.
Nonprofit directors are typically passionate, caring and committed people determined to make a difference in their community. They are usually more knowledgeable about their issues than anyone else since they are the ones living and breathing their causes every day. Let's give them the credit they deserve and empower them to make critical issue-related decisions without interference from well-intentioned grantors.
Nonprofit directors are typically passionate, caring and committed people determined to make a difference in their community. They are usually more knowledgeable about their issues than anyone else since they are the ones living and breathing their causes every day. Let's give them the credit they deserve and empower them to make critical issue-related decisions without interference from well-intentioned grantors.
The following may or may not have local relevance; I know nothing. However, it is of local interest.
Also, am having second thoughts about the accusation - it does seem like Rashomon territory, where it's possible for the different players to have different views. (although according to the writer, others confirm that there's been pressure from above):
"Independent" editorials
Two newspaper owned by news conglomerate Media General recently published bizarre editorials where they scolded President Bush for his record but then fell short of endorsing Kerry.
And it is becoming pretty clear that the reason behind it was commands from corporate headquarters to not support Kerry.
The Winston-Salem Journal...published a bizarre non-endorsement of Kerry....The editorial takes Bush to task on a number of poor decisions and makes it clear that he should not be re-elected. But the Journal didn't take that extra step and endorse Kerry. They cited vague uncertainty about Kerry and then petered out in the end.
...
"Each newspaper is locally operated by the editorial team," [Media General spokesman] said. "It's a local decision in each case."
...
"Whereas our editorial decisions day to day are completely our own, there is - when it comes to presidential elections - we understand that Media General newspapers have a set of values and views and a philosophy that sort of determines who we choose to endorse," [editorial page editor] said.
...
here is a company - that is in the business of reporting the truth - lying (or perhaps not; see comment above)to a reporter. This is the same kind of activity that...papers are supposed to be exposing in other companies.
Journalism is the one solitary respectable profession which honors theft (when committed in the pecuniary interest of a journal) and admires the thief....However, these same journals combat despicable crimes quite valiantly - when committed in other quarters.
(It's relevant in illustrating that what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, from the newspaper's perspective.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.