<HTML>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. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">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? Doug</BLOCKQUOTE> 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 -- </HTML>