Berkeley KPFA Forum (and a little Oakland)
by Marianne Torres
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Berkeley KPFA forum, attended by 69 people, about 58 of them participating (the rest were observers, and that number included several KPFA programmers as well as TBK members). Again here, as in Oakland, Amina Hassan was the only management person who was present to speak with the group (others were there, but silent.) Ginny and Marci were both absent at both.

(see last paragraph for the zinger of the evening).

This group was, rather surprisingly, a bit quieter than those of Oakland and San Rafael. However, the issues that arose were the same issues that surfaced at all the other meetings. The only difference was, as reported earlier, the station had done a bit more work with the people they invited especially to support the station, although interestingly, the only place their presence was strongly felt was in the beginning of the "meeting", in what had become the usual objections to a tightly controlled process and set questions. Larry Schechtman proposed a general discussion period at the end, as had been proposed at Oakland. This discussion period happened in Berkeley, mainly, I think, because the tables took only 2-3 minutes for their report, as opposed to the 7 minutes Oakland groups were given (and took).

There were about 10 tables, each talking together to answer the questions (posted earlier) individually and as a group, with the same report to the group by a representative.

As in the other locations, Flashpoints was universally and loudly supported. Support for Jerry Brown (in general) was somewhat less than that expressed in Oakland, which seemed about 50-50. People did seem to see Brown/Bensky in terms of competition with Flashpoints. Democracy Now received strong support here, as in Oakland. Support for KPFA news was mixed in both places, both with appreciation of news not found elsewhere, but a lot of dissatisfaction with the sources used for the news - e.g. "don't depend solely on AP feeds", use progressive/radical sources for comment and analysis, etc. People also expressed desire for more community/local news. Mixed reviews for National news.

Tables reported desires to see Bill Mandel and Mama O'Shea returned to the air, as well as the cultural programming that was gutted in the changes
- return Native American, Latino, gay voices to the air, more knowledgable world music programmers, and give more time to labor. Many tables at both Oakland and Berkeley made specific statements supporting the Pacifica unions. At both places, people also expressed strong frustration that public affairs programming all took place during the day, and that people who worked regular day schedules were unable to hear any of it.

During the discussion that followed the reports, two people expressed their support for programming changes, and for a strong management hand (the hand that holds the letter . . . ?). Most called for more progressive programming, many were leery of management's choices and expressed distrust in the direction the station/Pacifica is moving, as well as the information management shares with listeners.

Amina answered some questions from the group - one particularly difficult exchange took place amidst a discussion about the lack of youth (and people of color) in all these focus groups, which, many believed, exemplified the lack of youth among KPFA's listening audience. A question arose about why public affairs had been removed from evening programming, and the answer was (paraphrasing) that Arbitron ratings showed younger audiences listened at night, and that the hope was, if they listen to KPFA music at night, they might become progressive. I KID YOU NOT. Music with no political content or context, - they expect kids to become political by osmosis. Wish that had worked with my kids!

Enough - someone else please fill in whatever I left out.

Marianne