DN

[LeoCasey at aol.com]

I have always had an impression of WBAI internal politics being incredibly 
hyperbolic and overwrought, almost like left splinters which decry the group 
they just split with as representing the bourgeoisie. Like Trotskyist groups 
that make divorces among party members a question of political principle, it 
seems that every personality conflict or inability of a person to handle a 
job at WBAI becomes blown up into a 'battle of political principle.' My very 
first impression of the current battle was here we go again, Utrice and her 
crowd condemning everybody who didn't agree with her as racist and sexist, 
Amy and her crowd condemning everybody who didn't agree with her as the class 
enemy. I was quite skeptical of it all, for whatever their role in internal 
WBAI politics, I thought they both produced good shows which, despite my 
disagreements with some of their particular stances, were intelligent and 
thought provoking. You don't find very much of that anywhere on the radio, 
and even on WBAI, I think that it is more the deviation than the norm. So, it 
was "here we go again,' broadly left folks cutting each other up while the 
folks with the real power make mincemeat of us all in Washington DC. I 
suppose if something thinks that left-liberal Democrats like Mary Frances 
Berry are the enemy, they are more inclined to believe that this is a real 
struggle going on, but those are not my politics, and I believe that any 
change that is going to come about in my lifetime in this country will have 
Mary Frances Berrys in the political coalition that makes them.

Now I have to admit that as time went on, Utrice appeared more and more heavy 
handed, and it did increasingly seem like she was/is unwilling to allow any 
dissent from her line. The Alton Maddox nationalist side of her is becoming 
more prominent. WBAI programming is increasingly haphazard, and the station 
is clearly consumed by this internal warfare. It also appears that the battle 
is now taking on a native born African-American vs. African-Caribbean 
immigrant complexion, which just compounds the general divisiveness of it 
all. The Major Owens incident, when Utrice stopped an on air interview with 
him, just made me conclude that whatever the original dynamic, she was just 
going over the line of what was permissible on a free speech radio station.

But Murdock made some telling points. The anti-Pacifica folks have gone on at 
length about how he was part of a union-busting law firm, and naturally that 
resonated with me. But he says, "Wait a minute, nobody holds Juan Gonzalez 
responsible for everything his employer, the New York Daily News, does; 
instead, we hold Juan responsible for what he does as an individual. 
Shouldn't I and other members of the Pacifica Board be entitled to the same 
consideration?" That makes sense to me, unless someone can show me that he 
has personal involvement in the union busting work of the firm. I am not 
prepared to take a position that people must work for ideologically pure 
employers; in my view, that would only ensure that people like Juan are not 
in a position to exercise the influence they do. [What has always impressed 
me about Juan is that he is not just a left journalist, which he is quite 
good at, but also a left organizer, as seen in his very important role in the 
_Daily News_ strike.] 

I also think that part of what makes this affair so messy is the way in which 
personnel issues have become so intertwined with the political direction of 
the station and the network. As a unionist, I insist that my employer takes 
the stance that Murdock did, that personnel matters are confidential, and 
that they should not be the subject of public discussion. I would go 
ballistic on an employer representative which violated the confidentiality 
and privacy of a fired or disciplined employee. It may be that this principle 
provides Pacifica and Utrice with cover, but it is an important principle 
that must be defended. It is a particularly important principle in the 
context of a radio station, where one side of a dispute, basically the 
employer, could use their access to put out a very partial story that the 
other side, the fired/disciplined employee, would have no opportunity to 
dispute. I think a dangerous line is crossed when these matters are made the 
subject of on air discussion. As hard as it may be to do, I think that there 
should be an attempt to separate discussion of the political direction of the 
station and network from particular personnel disputes.

I also think that Murdock made a good point about people reporting on 
themselves. I do believe in a concept of professional journalism, where the 
journalist makes the maximum, good faith effort to distinguish between what 
is actually taking place and what her/his views and commentary on that event 
are. I know all of the arguments, which are very close to the arguments about 
objectivity in social science and in teaching, on why it is impossible to 
create a boundary which has hermetically sealed reporting on the one side, 
and hermetically sealed commentary on the other side. But I find that the 
worst journalism, which is really not worth even reading, takes place in 
tabloids like the _New York Post_ where little or no attempt is made to 
separate the two. We also have the equivalent of left tabloid journalism, and 
that is not much better. Certainly if you are reporting on yourself in the 
midst of a huge, bitter controversy, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to 
obtain any separation of reporting and commentary. If the reporting was done 
by folks not directly involved in the dispute, it would be a whole lot easier 
for them to separate out what was purely personal and to avoid the loss of 
perspective that comes from being at the center of all of this craziness.

So I don't know if Murdock convinced me, but he did make some points with 
which I am inclined to agree.


> I just listened to a RealAudio version of the program, and I didn't think 
> Gonzalez was trounced at all. I thought he was pretty good, in fact, and 
> Murdock came off like some oily Clintonian talking, unbelievably, about 
> healing and dialogue. I was reminded of that old comment about Clinton - 
> from the president of the Arkansas AFL-CIO, I think - that he'd shake your 
> hand while pissing down your leg.
> 
> What was convincing about Murdock, Leo?
> 
> 

Leo Casey
United Federation of Teachers
260 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)

Power concedes nothing without a demand.
It never has, and it never will.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who 
want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and 
lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
-- Frederick Douglass --

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20010317/befa98c3/attachment.htm>