The first requirement of real-world focused thought is . . . well, . . . focus on the real world.
So doing would assist in coming to the realization that this sort of romantic theorizing -- based on facts that aren't facts, on assumptions not grounded in fact -- is the precise opposite of thinking strategically.
One can of course debate what "many" means; but in the real world, unfortunately, there haven't (by any definition) been "many" mass-media (in particular, broadcast radio) "ethnic" startups; of the startups which have been attempted, outright death or death by absorption by others has been the rule; and, in any event, they have indeed been seriously funded because, regrettable as this may seem, big buck$ are very much needed.
The "commodities" referred to are indeed such, but for big-city-based radio they are, in fact, very expensive commodities; and, worse, to gloss over as if an afterthought the notion that one -- anyone, including Messrs. Gates or Turner -- can just willy-nilly "buy another frequency" is to substitute fantasy for strategy.
The entire annual budget in N.Y.C. for WBAI-FM is notably less than the salary for a network TV "anchor" (or, for that matter, a local network affiliate), yet, despite being comparatively successful at fund raising, that station has difficulty getting by. Further, WBAI really does depend at its core on backing by wealthy "angels"; and for the most part, fund raising by the station's quota of cult-like "alternative health" advocates far exceeds fund raising by other of its programming, especially its "ethnic" oriented programming.
But, yes - in N.Y.C. as elsewhere in a few places in this enormous country, there are catch-as-catch-can low output "pirate" stations, run for comparatively few $$$, but with a range limited to a few blocks or, at most, a few miles. These show that, theoretically, ItCanBeDone, on a shoe-string; but these also show that when tried, the FCC and those for whom it speaks -- most definitely *not* alternative much less independent not-for-profit radio -- will sue, and sue, and sue, and sue. Until these alternatives are no more, certainly no more in any meaningful audience-building sense. Meanwhile, the lets-put-on-a-show! mentality -- just "buy another frequency" -- disregards the fact (and, alas!, is a hard-ball fact) that it undoubtedly would cost from $40-million to $175-million (or more) to purchase a radio station in a large-city market.
(Indeed, this reality, the actual market value of a WBAI [or of a KPFA] illustrates the virtually total abandonment of even a veneer of serious fiduciary conduct by Pacifica's board; since the misdirected [intentionally directed?] memo concerning a $20-million possible sales price for WBAI, even if accepted as an alternative validly to contemplate, is a shocking indication of ignorance-based decision making by that putative oversight body.)
To be sure, the "Net" seems to be a coming Thing; and, absent a severe economic downturn, which unfortunately is not beyond the realm of also real world based contemplation, in several years the "streaming" audio/video capabilities of today will seem worse than rudimentary by comparison. But is it not likely that this eventuality itself is likely to be more a reflection of Big Buck$$ power/influence than the pockets of independence which now reflect aspects of the "Net"? (Cf., the rapidly on-going consolidation and any number of studies which indicate that despite quickly increasing real number volume/use, most "traffic" is devoted/directed to a rather small number of [increasingly consolidated] outlets, like AOL.) Anyway, to rely on a hped for growth of presently attenuated media outlets, net based or satellite based or just-buy-another-frequency based outlets,for independent thought/analysis and other cultural/political activity is, also however regrettably, on the extremes of naivete, not strategic thinking.
This side "thread" is concededly somewhat parochial in the context of other discussion on this List; but perhaps for this reason, it it does illustrate a need for strategic thinking. And as (obviously!) other contributions to this List underscore, repeatedly and often articulately, such thought requires a grounding in taking a hard look at realities, often very complex realityi. Yet an illustration of disregarding complexity, undoubtedly an inadvertent illustration, may be reflected in the exemplars of underwriting sources mentioned in connection with what the poster refers to as "ethnic electronic startups" -- namely, two very wealthy White men: One of the fascinating features of last week's debate on the competing approaches of U.S. economic/political relationships with Africa was the (complex) fact that, not just for reasons of show, of fronting, proponents of the law notably included Mr. Rangel, a co-investor (a/k/a "operator") with a number of very wealthy Black men including in their own mining for "opportunities" in/throughout sub-Sahara Africa especially. And articulate, and sensible, as he has been, Cong. Jackson could barely be heard in response.
No, one doesn't want to lose sight of the Big Picture, of strategy; and these asides about and triggered by the doings at KPFA admittedly are just that, asides. But arguably, especially for the comparatively disempowered (compare: Chevron had more than a little to do with last week's congrressional debate; as noted, the ability to recruit for the Pacifica Board a spokesperson like Ms. Beery and her access to Ms. Reno and Reno's use of power have more than a little to do with the KPFA/Pacifica woes), the genuinely important matters, as in one's own life so with respect to the broader body politic, may be the cummulation of trivia, not this-or-that traumatic shock. And one bit of that trivia is the many,MANY $-millions needed "to buy another frequency" then "start over" (with or without new or used "commodities").