> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>>In the case of public radio, should the staff always get to decide what
>>goes on the air? If management is elected by the listenership, they may
>>better reflect those interests than the staff.
>
> There are a lot of complicated issues here. How do you define the
> listenership? Are there residency requirements? The kind of programming
> the station features will, to a large extent, determine the listenership.
> What if that programming is so weird and marginal that the listenership
> dwindles to a hardy band of weird, marginal survivors? Are they the
> constituency? What if the electorate is domianted by the oddballs who have
> nothing better to do with their lives? How can that listenership, however
> defined, understand who the candidates are, and what the issues are? The
> actual practice of current Pacifica governance, however it sounds on
> paper, is pretty screwed up.
Wouldn't neccessarily disagree in practice, but I was arguing the statement you quoted was not unreasonable.
I barely listen to WBAI because it is so marginal most of the time, so I understand your point.
But if the programming is so weird and marginal, are the workers the best ones to represent the public, when they have such a self-interest in not changing the status quo?
-- Nathan Newman