Joe W: By your own account, you have been at the proverbial bar of Pacifica for 15 years, but have not been drinking very much at all (you wrote earlier that: "It would require immersing myself far more than I want to in station politics to sort it all out") as you have other things to do etc.
Doug wrote: "I haven't studied the situation closely? Like I said, I've only had 15 years to study it, which apparently isn't enough."
Joe W: By your own admission, you have not been doing much studying of the situation. The only way to have an informed sense of what is going on is to attend at least some meetings and keep abreast of governance issues.
Doug wrote: When we were in the Bay Area the other day, we spent a couple of hours talking things over with Sasha (whom I hold in the highest regard). What she said about the KPFA sitch certainly comported with what I've heard elsewhere. Saying she's young and doesn't have enough experience with KPFA's history isn't really very helpful, since that history is part of the problem.
Joe W: How can (the) history itself be part of the problem? History itself has no agency. A lot has happened in Pacificaland in the last decade and it is important to have an understanding of that history. It is a really compelling story about how Pacifica listeners and staff in al five station areas in collabration with the dozens of afilliates overcame a series of potentially fatal crises which began with an attempt by an unaccountable national board to sell Pacificas assets to commercial radio concerns and comcomitantly "professionalize" i.e. "tame" the unruly mob of radicals among Pacifica programmers.
Doug wrote: "While we were in Calif, I asked a bunch of people if they listened to the station - not one said yes. I've had very similiar experiences with WBAI - people who should be listening aren't. Why? The answers typically run like this: "Too amateurish." "Ranting." "Uninformative." "Conspiratorial." Etc.
Joe W: Clearly you were talking to the wrong kind of folks.
Doug wrote: "I think the whole model of electing local station boards is flawed. Few people can know the issues or the personnel to cast informed votes. And who constitutes the electorate? What about all the ex- and non-listeners who wouldn't tune to 94.1 or 99.5, much less cast a ballot? "Empowering the listeners" is empty claptrap. That's not the way to run a radio station, or a network of five stations. Pacifica needs more professionalism, not less."
Joe W: The idea of having elected local boards developed as a direct response to the attempt by an unaccoutable National Board to sell of the station. Pacifica radio was founded by a group of anarchists and there have been battles over governance issues since day one, however, no one ever imagined that Pacifica would become attractive to commercial radio concerns, especially since FM Radio until the late 1960s was a media backwater. What changed in the late 198Os is that some greedy people began to notice that Pacifica occupied prime real estate in radioland. It became clear that having a governance structure that was accountable to the listeners and that would have safeguards to prevent subterfuge of the kind attempted by the Mary Frances Berry gang was imperative. So the idea of having a democratic structure is critical and is a model that is adopted by many community radio stations. Even NPR affiliate KQED in San Francisco has an elected board.
The problematics regarding the efficacy of democracy is the same for a community radio station as for any democratic polity. There will always be problems with different levels of information and so forth, but you always have the remedy of elections and related activities designed to get information out to listeners. The electorate is comprised of listener-subscribers and voter participation is considerably high, certainly hihger than the local NRP affiliate KQED. Empowering the listeners is not empty claptrap. It has been a very real process that has resulted in significant and meaningful victories for the network and for the listeners. Pacficia needs less 'professionalism' thank you very much.
Doug wrote: "This whole manichean story of the "saviors" vs. the "corporate raiders" is badly in need of a rewrite too. Listenership is dwindling, and something needs to be done. And Pacifica's finances are extremely murky - no one really knows where the money's going. The share of WBAI's budget going to salaries has doubled in the last decade or so - who's being hired, how, for what, why? Who knows?"
Joe W: I think Sasha Lilley did a great job of rewriting the real (his)tory of savior and raiders and the piece I posted here is an excellent rebutall of same. WBAI has some really serious problems.
Doug wrote: Yeah, sure, complexity and interest are ubiquitous, but I feel like I can find out enough about most political issues to make informed judgments. That's just not possible with the Pacifica mess. And I've only been around WBAI for 15 years.
Joe W: Give it a try, its not any harder than trying to understand any other socio-political phenomena.
Joe W.