Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:50:17 -0800 From: Marc Cooper <mcooper at thenation.com>
For those who are interested (and believe me I understand if you are NOT).. Two of the key speakers scheduled to speak at the March 23 L.A. Anti-Pacifica Rally which was called to promote an economic boycott of the five sister stations have now withdrawn from the event. Local radio hip hop talkster Dominique Di Prima (daughter of beat writer Diane Di Prima) has withdrawn saying she was pressured and misled by event organizers and by Amy Goodman. And Ramona Ripston, head of the So. Cal ACLU has withdrawn saying she is not familiar enough with the issues and is also a supporter of Pacifica's KPFK in Los Angeles. Find both their revaling statements below:
STATEMENT FROM DOMINQUE DI PRIMA REGARDING MY DECISION NOT TO PARTICPATE IN FRIDAY'S PACIFICA CRISIS EVENT
Last month I was asked by Karen Pomer to participate in a forum on the corporatization of the media. It was presented to me as a panel discussion on the impact of mergers and corporate monopolies on free speech, the media and democracy. This is something I often talk about and have personally experienced in my broadcast career. I was told that Ramona Ripston of the ACLU would moderate. I agreed to participate.
Shortly thereafter, I got a call from my union (AFTRA). They told me that they were not supporting the Pacifica boycott and asked that I carefully consider my appearance on the panel - I replied that I had not been told that the discussion was a Pacifica meeting and I immediately contacted Karen with my concern. While I was busy playing phone tag with Ms. Pomer, I got several press releases and flyers that described the event as a Pacifica Crisis Meeting. I got another call from AFTRA saying they had resolved the situation and they were fine with me participating.
By that time I had concerns of my own, apart from the union. It came to my attention that Ms. Ripston had decided not to participate. I was also made aware that Ms. Ripston's participation was not confirmed when I was told it was and that her agreeing to join the panel may have been partly due to my presence on it as mine was by hers (I'm told that this is an old organizing trick but I find it unethical!). In addition, I felt very uncomfortable with the fact that I had been told I was participating in one kind of event, when in fact, it was really an entirely different one.
When I spoke with Ms. Pomer and later Amy Goodman I was reassured that this was not a Pacifica Crisis meeting, but that the situation at Pacifica was just one example of what we were discussing. The women kept insisting that I had been pressured by "Pacifica Management" to withdraw from the event, which is not true. I got calls from people on both sides of the issue; the majority were from people pressuring me to be involved. Both Pomer and Goodman were unable to hear me repeatedly tell them I would not do the event, and refused to respect my decision. And they were unable to grasp the reality that I am able to make my own decisions based on the facts and not on some big brother forcing my hand.
Perhaps that is why they felt it was necessary to call my mother at 8AM to pressure her to influence my decision. I found this final move to be disrespectful and underhanded. If the misrepresentation I experienced is any indication of their organizing methods it is no wonder that they have the problems that they do.
March 19, 2001 STATEMENT OF RAMONA RIPSTON RE: MARCH 23 FORUM
I regret any misunderstanding caused by my acceptance of and withdrawal
from the role of moderator of the March 23 panel discussion regarding Pacifica. As a long-time fan of Pacifica Radio and programs such as Amy Goodman's, I immediately accepted Jim Lafferty's invitation when he called me. I should not have done so without greater knowledge of the nature of the underlying controversy and the bitterness it has caused on both sides. Naively, I thought that by serving as moderator and maintaining a neutral position, I might help to improve the dialogue between two sides and further the prospects for a resolution that would be acceptable to the entire progressive community.
I quickly discovered that the role I envisioned for myself was not possible. Rather than helping to resolve any controversy, my agreement to be the moderator expanded and exacerbated it, and even threatened to make the organization for which I work an issue in the growing dispute. I, and my office, were besieged by angry calls, faxes, and e-mails from partisans of both sides. I was unwilling to attempt to express judgments on the merits because, frankly, I believed that I was not sufficiently informed regarding the facts; certainly my staff and some board members who were similarly subjected to inquiries and demands for support (sometimes hostile in tone) were ill-equipped to respond.
My decision to withdraw was based on the realization that my service in the role of moderator would not be in the interest of either side, and would not help improve the dialogue or resolve the controversy -- indeed, it could well have precisely the opposite effect. I was becoming part of the controversy. My mistake was in not inquiring into the matter in advance, before accepting Jim Lafferty's invitation.
Let me make it clear -- I am not averse to controversy, nor am I opposed to dedicated efforts to further progressive causes. That's what
I have dedicated my life to doing. Rather, when on rare occasions when I agree to serve in a neutral role, which is not my usual form of activity, I try to do so with an equal commitment to fairness and justice, and to ensuring that in the end the progressive causes in which
I believe will be advanced. Obviously, given the circumstances of the current dispute, the role I envisioned for myself could not be fulfilled, at least, not by me.
I still hope with all my heart that the differences will be resolved in
a manner acceptable to all concerned. I have the deepest respect for a number of people on both sides of this unfortunate and hurtful controversy. The survival of the type of broadcasting historically provided by Pacifica is essential to the progressive community. I continue to believe that I can best serve that community by remaining neutral in this dispute, at least for the present, and at least until I am better educated as to all of the facts. I wish that I could have served all parties, including the public, by being a neutral moderator on March 23. However, doing so would have required those on both sides to have accepted my neutrality and to have welcomed my participation in that role. I can assume that, on the basis of the messages my office received from partisans of both sides, such was not the case.
In closing, I do want to respond to some of the charges that have reached me.
I am a supporter of KPFK, both financially and politically. In the years I have been in Los Angeles, I have seen the station grow and prosper. The voices I hear cannot be heard anywhere else -- Amy Goodman, Jon Wiener, Marc Cooper, Joe Domanick, etc. I intend to continue that support.
Mark Schubb and Marc Cooper did not coerce me in any way in order to have me bow out. The charge that they summoned me into the office of KPFK and threatened that the ACLU would never have a voice on KPFK is ludicrous on its face. I believe Mark Schubb has been a successful station manager, and partly because he would never dream of doing such a thing.
Jim Lafferty did not deceive me in any way when he extended the invitation. I appreciate the confidence he displayed in me by offering me what he believed to be an opportunity to serve the progressive cause in which we both believe.
I hope beyond hope that this dispute is resolved quickly and fairly and that the progressives in Los Angeles and elsewhere will continue to have a network that provides us with the information that is so sorely missing throughout the rest of the communications industry.
I hope the evening is successful. If I was misled by any of the messages I received or appeared to be unfairly critical of people for things they did or didn't say, you and they have my apologies.