The KPFA Listener Forums: Final report
Report prepared for KPFA by Tomas Moran
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
May be reproduced, only in its entirety, and only with this sentence intact.

Contents:
Introduction
Methodology
Data & Results
Observations
Findings
Interpretation
Recommendations
Conclusion
Appendices

Introduction

This report summarizes the findings from the six listener forums conducted early in 1997 around the San Francisco Bay Area. Approximately 300 KPFA listeners attended the forums. The forum format generated dissatisfaction with many of the attendees, but much useful information has resulted from them.

This first major effort in nearly two years to reach out to the community for the specific purpose of listening to the listeners could not be expected to be smooth or perfect. Anxieties about programming changes, as well as about the process used to make changes, have been high; KPFA listeners care deeply about the station, its history, and its future; and the national, state, and local scenes are loaded with evidence of conservative attacks on progressive institutions and values, as well as the erosion of many progressive gains. Political discourse has moved to the right as the mainstream debate fights the battles in the language of the conservatives. So it is natural that there be tension around any issue concerning an institution that is acknowledged to be one of the pillars of the progressive movements in the last half-century.

It was the format used for these forums that was not welcomed by many of the attendees. Given the length of time passed from the last opportunity for the listeners to meet face-to-face with management, a moderated discussion between listeners and management may have been a better format to address their concerns. Or one could argue that a moderated discussion should have taken place a while ago, followed by more structured forums, such as the format used this time. It is likely that any format used at this time would have generated criticism. However, it is unlikely that any other format could have generated as large an amount of useful information.

The focus at this point should be to use the experience of these forums wisely; to learn as much as can be learned from its results; and to make a commitment to improve the process and to establish permanent mechanisms for effective communication between listeners and KPFA.

The good news is that the forums yielded a lot of very valuable information. When analyzed properly, the key issues can be clearly heard. It is not difficult to separate the voice of the listeners from individual agendas.

I am addressing this report to the management of KPFA and its Advisory Board, as well as the management and Board of the Pacifica Foundation. You are all responsible for decisions that will point the direction of a wonderful institution with an invaluable product. The listener of KPFA (and Pacifica) is its customer and its sponsor.

The report includes several recommendations that address the key organizational weaknesses which are, in my opinion, at the root of a large number of the listener concerns. If implemented, these recommendations will create structural changes that will address these concerns without jeopardizing Pacifica.

Methodology

* Forum Format

Six forums were conducted around the Bay Area during a four-week period: Palo Alto (1/13), Walnut Creek (1/20), San Francisco (1/27), San Rafael (1/30), Oakland (2/3), and Berkeley (2/5). As agreed with KPFA management, the format sought only to get listener input. The forums were not intended to include question and answer periods between the listeners and management. A management representative made an opening statement in each forum, thanking the attendees and asking for input to help KPFA decide on upcoming potential programming changes. Management was then present for the rest of the forum to listen. Other KPFA staff was also invited to attend the forums and to hear the group reports.

Attendance was limited to 96 per forum, due to practical limitations of this format. Attendees were randomly assigned tables not exceeding eight (8) persons per table. The data was collected using two instruments: an individual sheet and a group sheet. Both sheets had identical sets of four open-ended questions (see Appendix H), used to elicit feedback in the areas of station strengths, station weaknesses, listener suggestions, and other comments. The instructions to each table were to spend 30-40 minutes completing their individual sheets and exchanging impressions with the other table members. At that time, a group report sheet was distributed to each table in which the group was to prepare a report that reflected a fair representation of the most important items which the group felt should be heard by management and by the other attendees. After 20-30 additional minutes to prepare the reports, each table was to send a "reporter" to give their report to the entire audience. Group reports were limited to 5-7 minutes each, depending on the time available at each forum. After the group reports were presented orally, both the group sheets and the individual sheets were collected for analysis.

All forums were scheduled to begin at 7pm. The goal was get the groups ready for their first task by 7:30pm. All forums ended promptly as scheduled at 9:30pm.

* Sign-up

Sign-up was agreed to be on a first-come, first-served basis, using the Station's voice mail system to register participants. After 96 persons registered for a forum, the message for that forum would be changed to a message directing potential participants to one of the other remaining forums. KPFA closed the registration to only two forums prior to the forum date: San Francisco and Berkeley. These forums' registration was closed when the registered participant count reached 80 instead of the agreed 96, because management decided to reserve 16 seats for potential responses from high donors who had received a special invitation letter. I was notified after the fact of management's decision. Because of the small numbers involved, and after seeing a sampling of responses from invited participants, I believe this change did not affect the results.

* Attendance

The forum attendance varied greatly. In all forums, there was a substantial number of no-shows. The table in Appendix F shows the sign-up totals at each forum, the attendance, and the number of completed individual responses collected, as well as the number of tables at each forum, and the number of group reports that were collected and tallied. Three tables decided not to prepare a group report, opting for a consolidation of individual reports. Because this alters the nature of the data, these tables' reports were not tallied, though their individual responses were counted. Additionally, I disqualified the group report from three tables because of other violations of the process (see Integrity of data and results, below). The data has been tallied with and without the three disqualified tables, and the results are virtually identical.

* Analysis methodology

Data was analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively from the written responses. In addition, my observations as a facilitator are also included in this report.

* Quantitative data

Following the six forums, comment categories were created using an affinity technique. Fifteen (15) group reports and fifty (50) individual reports were initially counted, creating categories liberally for new comments or remarks that were somewhat differently worded than those encountered before. Initially, 120 categories were identified. At that time, a stricter affinity technique was used to count the remaining twenty (20) group reports and approximately two-hundred (200) individual reports. An additional 36 categories were created in this latter stage. Appendix A contains a listing and brief explanation of each category. These categories were grouped thematically for presentation only.

Note that the counts reflect specific, written comments made on a response sheet.

* Qualitative data

Qualitative analysis looked for individual comments that, taken together, would give a sense of the individual feelings. I selected 32 individual responses from which I quote in Appendix I.

Some categories were probably undercounted on the written responses, because of significant frustration with the process. I have noted where I felt that the written counts did not adequately reflect concerns.

Many of my observations came from listening in on table discussions, observing table group dynamics, as well as informal conversations with attendees before and after the forums.

* Integrity of data and results

Management was concerned during the forums about the effect of the presence of TakeBackKPFA members who leafleted most of the forums. There was also concern about the bias that might have been introduced into the process by the content of the material that was distributed. KPFA management allowed the group to distribute the material before and after the forums, and to solicit attendees to join their mailing list.

Additionally, a member of TakeBackKPFA, who was observing in several forums, twice disregarded my request to abstain from interacting with the tables during the forum itself, even though he had assured me that he would remain a passive observer. These incidents also raised management's concerns about the validity of the data.

The readers of this report should be assured that the data summarized here is largely unaffected by these incidents.

Five steps have been taken to ensure that the results reflect largely individual opinion or group opinion as arrived by the table discussion process.

1) My personal observations of the discussion dynamics at each table were noted at the time of each forum. I compared these notes to the report submitted by each table. One table report was disqualified on this basis. This decision was substantiated by the fact that the table report matched nearly word-for-word the individual response of the reporter for that table.

2) I disqualified the table reports where there was inappropriate contact with an outside person. Two tables were disqualified on this basis.

3) Three tables which submitted reports that were merely compilations of individual reports were not tallied in the table report counts, although their individual reports were counted.

4) I monitored the individual reports for key phrases used in the TakeBackKPFA material and compared that total with counts that addressed the same category using substantially different language. (See Observations, below).

5) I monitored individual reports for cases where most comments matched TakeBackKPFA material and compared that total with reports which had comments that agreed with some issues but disagreed with other issues in the material. (See Observations, below).

In addition to these steps, I studied the patterns of responses from the Palo Alto forum carefully. Palo Alto was the first forum, and also one in which I was personally familiar with many of the attendees. Leafleting was much less organized at this first forum. There was also no disruption of the process, and the attendance was quite good. (See Observations, below).

Data & Results

Appendix B contains the total counts (table and individual) in each category. These are followed by the counts for each individual forum in Appendix C. The categories are grouped thematically, for ease of use.

* Analysis

I selected the top concerns, as defined by categories receiving 20 or more individual responses or receiving 10 or more table responses. Additionally, I listed the categories that had both positive and negative responses (labeled Controversial issues).
Appendix D includes three sheets:

* Emphasis of attendees

Appendix E shows the total counts within the thematic groups. This indicates what type of issues were most pressing for the attendees, in the sense of measuring the areas that were given most attention.

Observations

* Undercount of positive responses on some controversial issues

There was a perceptible tendency toward undercounting positive feedback on a few controversial issues, particularly when the negative statements on a particular category were derisive. The two main categories that were affected were Minds over Matter and The Visionary Activist (Caroline Casey). Several persons approached me after each forum expressing dismay that these shows were so severely criticized, and felt (self-)restricted from expressing their feelings about them. To a minor extent, this also happened with Music of the World.

* Influence of TakeBackKPFA

It would be a mistake to read the dissatisfaction of many listeners who attended the forums as the result of the leaflets and the efforts by TakeBackKPFA, or by any other individual. While some of the allegations in the leaflets may have triggered specific questions for some of the attendees, most of them appeared to be previously familiar with the material. My short conversations with a large number of attendees, as they arrived, made it obvious that the concerns expressed in the forum were largely the concerns they had before they arrived at the venues.

This is additionally validated by the data in two ways:

1) The language used by individuals in their responses varies greatly and is quite individualized (see Quotes, Appendix I). This is not generally the case with newly-learned concerns.

2) Individual reports that expressed concerns similar to those in the leaflets on some issues most often had opinions on other issues that disagreed with those in the leaflets. Again, individuals who have just learned new information but disagree with other issues in the new material tend to omit their newly-learned concerns, or to word these concerns as questions (this was the case in a handful of responses).

Finally, the Palo Alto forum provides further evidence of the validity of the data. This forum had little activity by TakeBackKPFA and the process was not disrupted. However, the category counts are quite similar, on the major issues, to the counts in other forums.

* Some ignorance of existing shows

Many individual comments appear to indicate that the attendee was not aware of an existing show. However, this may also indicate that the broadcast time of these shows was not accessible to the listener.

* Older audience

The attendees to the forums were largely older listeners, including many retirees. This raises the issue of outreach to youth, as well as issues to consider when designing more permanent community outreach tools.

* Good table interaction

Once the discussion got started, there was generally very good interaction at the tables. Only eight (8) tables (out of 49) had significant group dynamic problems. This is an excellent ratio, given that no assistance was provided to the groups. Discussion was generally quite democratic and intelligent. The only significant exception was discussed above (see " Undercount of positive responses on some controversial issues").

* Sophisticated understanding of station needs

The table discussions regarding national shows, the evening format, and the desire for local, community programming showed a sophisticated understanding of the issues facing Pacifica. In particular, many tables discussed the need to grow, to attract audiences beyond the "already converted", and to create a safe financial base for Pacifica and KPFA. At the same time, these discussions pointed out the need for increased communication between the listeners and the Station, for the formation of creative partnerships, and for the station management to trust the listeners' ability to understand these subtle issues.

Findings

* Station attributes

A progressive, left-oriented, radical station; independent of corporate financing and of other financial pressures that may result from receiving very large donations; giving "voice to the voiceless" and engaged in social justice issues, both as an educational resource and as a tool for organizing; diverse in its programming and its programmers; technically and operationally professional (good sound quality, easy access), but not polished to attract listeners by form alone; with room for community issues; covering the entire local geography ("beyond Berkeley"); involving its listener audience as a partner, including utilizing volunteer resources toward improving the station.

* Programming attributes

The attendees focused largely on Public Affairs programming. However, there was fairly positive response to music, arts, and literature when it was raised by individuals. There is also a small group of people that would prefer to do away with music altogether.

The attendees' concerns in the area of Public Affairs programming were: Need for public affairs in the evening hours, when working people can listen; retention of tough, investigative reporting; desire for more educational shows that can weave the current affairs and news in the context of a larger struggle; importance of expanding the sources of news, especially to include and emphasize analysis by progressive voices and organizations not usually heard in mainstream media.

Concerns regarding Arts and Literature were mainly about the absence of readings, as opposed to interviewing authors. Music feedback was very personal, generally focusing on the type of music the listener prefers. However, there was some general concern that too much music that can be heard elsewhere is being broadcast; that music should be "put in context"; and that local artists and serious musicians be interviewed and featured more often.

Some general programming concerns: relax "strip programming" in favor of making room for diverse community voices; repeat some of the excellent daytime shows late in the evening, or in a "best-of" slot in the weekend.

* Individual shows

Flashpoints received the greatest attention. It was mentioned positively in 53% of the counted individual responses and 62% of the table responses. This percentage is well beyond the highest numbers expected in open-ended question formats. Additionally, the categories "Keep Flashpoints" and "Investigative Reporting" (often worded as 'investigative reporting, such as Flashpoints') were also among the top 20 categories. A handful of negatives for Flashpoints were generally paired with negatives for Bernstein's style.

We the People was the most controversial category with a large count. The issues here are complex, with individual responses often containing both positive and negative remarks.

There were many who listed We the People/Brown in response to the 'deficiencies' question (#2), and others who criticized Brown for interrupting guests and for being rude to callers. A large number of these, however, acknowledged other positive aspects of the show -- such as good guests and good ideas -- and indicated their preference for fewer hours ("less Brown/share slot") or said that the show should not be expanded. Equally, many who listed We the People in the 'strengths' question (#1), also complained of Brown's interviewing style (most often "interrupting guests").

Democracy Now, ranked 5th in positive individual responses (4th in table responses), had remarkably no negative comments. It was also the show most mentioned in connection with repeating material in the evening, as well as in re-broadcasting the "best-of" on the weekend.

Mostly positive remarks for the Morning Show, Welch, and Maldari, with a few negatives for the style of the hosts. Some specific issues with the show include: overwhelming support for Bacon (Labor segment), with many urging for more time and/or a separate show dedicated to labor issues; largely positive response for both Stone and Parenti, with, again, some suggesting more time in separate slot; strong dissatisfaction with the half- hour news breaks, which are seen as repetitive and interrupting of possibly longer segments of higher quality (Bruney's delivery of the news was criticized, but he may be absorbing the frustration with the format); objection to a perceived increase in the number of authors promoting books on the Morning Show.

The KPFA Evening News was largely praised, though this was coupled with a sense that the quality of the broadcast has declined, particularly due to the narrowing of news sources and the repetition of segments from the Pacifica Network News. Along with urging the diversification of sources, there were comments urging KPFA to re-write the wire copy to avoid the use of mainstream phrases and point-of-view. The News was also mentioned in the "beyond Berkeley" category, reminding KPFA that the station reaches the larger Bay Area, and that many issues in this larger community should be covered.

* Old shows

The largest categories in this area were Mandel and Mama O'Shea. Though many wanted Mandel and O'Shea back on the air, some were mostly concerned with the issue of respect for these longtime volunteer programmers. Some suggested their inclusion on special shows, while others urged for a shared slot with other community programmers (evening time).

Several other special constituency shows were mentioned (Living on Indian Time, Fruit Punch), as well as other shows by people of color (Freedom Is a Constant Struggle). Many other listeners echoed similar sentiments without referring to an old show in particular, merely urging for more community access (see below, Access/Community Feel).

A large amount of the feedback on the Arts & Literature, as well as Music, also made reference to old shows as examples of better programming. In particular, morning readings, evening theater, and the old Morning Concert were cited as examples of what KPFA should strive for.

* Feedback on individual programmers

A few programmers were mentioned with specific negative remarks regarding their style or attitude. Bensky and Sokol were both criticized for being rude to callers or arrogant in their attitude. However, they were both also highly praised for their intelligence and their commentary. Bensky was mentioned several times as 'one of the most intelligent voices in the air'. Layna Berman (Health) had several negatives because of a perception that she is promoting her business excessively through the show. This concept of self-promotion also surfaced in a different context around Brown's future political aspirations.

* Controversial shows

There were strong negative sentiments on two weekly shows, Minds over Matter and The Visionary Activist. They were repeatedly cited as the prime example of shows not seen as 'in line with the mission of Pacifica'. The intensity of the response suggests that these shows were taking the brunt of other dissatisfaction, most likely with the process of making programming changes. A strong negative was also recorded on the "after 7:00pm" slot, Monday-Thursday.

In conversations after the forums, several attendees that disliked The Visionary Activist admitted not having heard the whole show, but expressed distrust in anything "cooky" or "New Age-ish". They also often remarked that such a show 'disempowers' people and discourages action, as opposed to 'real information' like Democracy Now or Flashpoints. A few times, a person who liked the show was also present during the conversation, and felt safer expressing it during these informal conversations. The supporters of the show see it as an 'empowering' show, and encouraging action. Indeed, there was a high correlation in the individual reports that liked for The Visionary Activist with strong support for hard-hitting investigative reporting, and shows like Flashpoints (see sample quote #29 in Appendix I). One woman wrote me a letter a few days after the forum, expressing her sadness at others' intolerance of shows that were highly motivating and empowering to her.

By contrast, there was hardly a reason given by those disliking Minds over Matter. This show may be receiving special attention because of the perceived lack of other evening community shows (see Access/Community Feel below).

The evening music format ("after 7:00pm") on Monday through Thursday received very negative marks. The issue here is more clearly the allocation of the evening hours, rather than the content of the programming (although most people admitted to being older and not interested in 'that' kind of music). There was a lot of discussion on the tables about this issue, with many asking whether this music programming was actually attracting younger listeners. While everyone agreed with the need to reach a younger audience, some pointed out that, regardless of the success of "the current strategy", the younger audience needed public affairs as part of their diet. Most agreed that a music-only evening format wastes precious hours when workers are home and does not address the mission of Pacifica with this potential younger audience. The few younger listeners that attended the forums echoed this feeling, but quite differently worded (see quote #6, Appendix I).

* Folio/information

There was substantial unhappiness with the limited information available in the current version of the Folio. Other common remarks requested information on the World Wide Web; more announcements on the previous day with details of upcoming shows; and a call-in line with a recorded message giving the rundown of the next day's guests.

* Access/ community feel

Many comments regarding access for under-represented groups are found in categories grouped under the theme "Other Shows" (see Appendix B). There are two issues: availability of air-time, and representation of special groups.

The "availability of air time" issue is related to the concern that the evening hours are devoted to a music-only format, and the weekends are currently largely music blocks. Another related concern is the perception that the increase in nationally-oriented shows, which occupy five hours per week each, will effectively take KPFA out of a role in the local community by reducing dramatically the air time available for local/community shows.

The "representation of special groups" issue mentioned several groups and topics: people of color, Native Americans, gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender, women-oriented programming, local grassroots activists, youth shows and children shows, etc. However, the appeal did not seem to be for disconnected, one-issue shows to be permanently dedicated to each of these groups. Rather, it was generally raised as a concern that there should be a process to allow these voices -- generally left out of mainstream media -- to have frequent access to the air at KPFA.

* Non-programming issues

By far the largest non-programming category was an appeal to consult the listeners. This was the second highest category overall, reflected in over 35% of the individual responses and in nearly 50% of the table reports. It reflected a strong sentiment that, without a consistent process for answering listener concerns and soliciting their feedback, coupled with a substantive process to incorporate this feedback into the station's decision-making processes, the station will fall short of its mission and its potential.

Many also criticized the process used in 1995 for program changes, which was perceived not to have included the listeners. While many commented privately to me that they were pleased that KPFA was holding these forums to improve the process, these comments were often paired with a sense of uncertainty as to the station's intention to use any feedback. These feelings were also captured in the category "Hope/trust this forum is genuine", with many comments appearing in the negative form (i.e., 'do not trust...').

Much of the dissatisfaction with the forum format reflected listener expectations that they would be able to ask questions of management. The lack of opportunities to do so over the last two years created strong hostility to any process that did not include direct communication with management. Many expressed the desire for other forums with a question/answer format, even if they were moderated. Many also urged management to have regularly scheduled on-air forums in which listeners concerns could be heard. Some expressed their dissatisfaction with the "gag-rule", though many of these seemed to emphasize a solution that would bring discussion on-air in pre-determined time slots, so as not to affect other programming. However, the sense seemed to be that, regardless of the format, both management and staff (including other programmers) should be able to express their opinions without fear of retaliation.

Another non-programming theme involved 'respect for programmers /staff', referring mostly to past perceived treatment of long-time volunteers and the need to apologize.

Questions about the union issue were raised in about 12% of the individual responses, but a larger number of individuals approached me before and after the forums to inquire about it. There are many serious questions among the listeners who hear about the labor dispute at WBAI and about the use of ACG in labor matters. The general sense from these listeners is that they need a clear explanation from Pacifica on this matter. The failure to discuss these issues, to explain and apologize to the listeners for the use of ACG if it was an inadvertent mistake, and to explain the subtleties of management position on the WBAI dispute are hurtful to all the listeners that approached me on the subject.

Another concern is the suspicion around 'becoming like NPR'. Some associated this with 'slick sound' or 'professional production'; others tied it with the tendency toward national programming; others with the appearance that more foundation money is being sought that may compromise KPFA/Pacifica's independence; yet others with the impression that KPFA is seeking to abandon the low-income donor in favor of wealthier individuals.

Finally, the issue of governance surfaced in a few individual responses and were echoed in a larger proportion of the table responses.

Interpretation

The listener concerns point to some key structural issues that go well beyond any short term programming changes that the station may be contemplating. Though there were some very specific input with regard to programs (see Observations, above), the patterns of responses are symptomatic of failures in communication structures.

The listeners also perceive a lack of clarity on the part of Pacifica and KPFA with regard to its direction and mission. This is understandable in light of the fact that Pacifica is re-thinking its mission and strategy as it approaches the 50-year mark. However, the listeners appear to feel left out of this process. The opportunity for input from the listeners was either not well communicated, or it was not adequate. More importantly, there was little communication with the listeners to inform them of the process, of its progress, and of the thoughts of the people on the Board who are legally empowered to make these strategic decisions.

When appropriate communication structures are inadequate, the result is a turbulence that manifests itself concretely in a variety of complaints, some of which may seem petty or trivial to management, as the uncertainty created by the lack of communication attempts to find anchoring points.

The symptoms in this case are clear and unambiguous when examined from the perspective of organizational theory. This anxiety should not be dismissed as the result of the influence of small, vocal groups.

I have identified the following key issues:

* Programming decisions
How they are made, what overriding philosophy/strategy guides them, how to improve the process

* Communication
How to enhance communications, both internal and external

* Feedback
Creating practical and effective mechanisms for feedback at various levels; creating procedures for incorporation of feedback into operations and into decision-making

* KPFA structure
Conceiving a dynamic structure that enables listener participation as appropriate, without jeopardizing Pacifica and KPFA; creating mechanisms for the evolution of such a structure

* Rebuilding trust
Engaging in behavior that re-builds and strengthens the trust of the listeners

* Data about programming
The station needs to provide data that is necessary to foster informed feedback from the listeners and is currently absent.

Recommendations

* Embark in aggressive community outreach for listener feedback to management and programmers
Action required by: KPFA Management

This is the best time to take the lessons learned from these forums and to create permanent and effective channels of communication with the listeners. The best strategy will include mechanisms to serve a variety of different communication needs -- some exclusively feedback from the listeners, some two-way communication, and some informational channels from the station to the listeners.

Some of the specific areas in need of a feedback channel are:

to programmers, about general show content or form;
to programmers, about specific matters of content or of programmer style;
to management and program council, about general programming matters;
to management, about non-programming concerns.

There are specific tools available to create these channels, including:

focus groups - small targeted or self-selected groups used to elicit very detailed feedback on fairly narrow subjects. These are mostly suited for feedback to individual programs, to programmers, to the content of programs, etc.

surveys - reaches large numbers of people for general questions. This is not a voting mechanism. Surveys should be well-designed, or their results will be largely wasteful, because there is no opportunity for clarification.

structured forums - similar to the format used for these forums, these are best to explore new areas before conducting focus groups, or as a preparation for a survey.

open forums -questions and answers with management. The use of a moderator can help keep a workable process, keep time, and urge focus in both the questions and the answers.

These channels can be tailored to the exact needs for each area, and can be designed to ensure fair listener representation and to prevent manipulation by a vocal minority.

Finally, the outreach should include a well-designed mechanism for tallying listener complaints & concerns (such as expressed by phone), and to communicate these to the appropriate persons and committees within the station in a prompt and fair manner.

* Train staff facilitators
Action required by: KPFA Management

Develop capabilities to facilitate the essential mechanisms for listener feedback. Two or three persons should receive training.

* Review format of on-air forums & Review use of the gag rule
Action required by: KPFA Management

There was substantial discussion about the need to open the air waves to some of the internal matters of the station. Many suggested a 10pm slot once a month, or another time that would not interfere with prime time programming, but would afford a venue for on-air discussion with the listeners who want to participate. This on-air forum should be a regularly scheduled event, rather than only when there are pending changes or other pressing matters.

Additionally, a subcommittee of the Local Advisory Board should study the matter of the gag rule, with the opportunity for listener input.

In the interim, perhaps a format that would allow programmers to participate in the on-air forum every other month (alternating with management) could provide an appropriate venue while keeping the regular programs focused on their primary purpose. Clearly, management would agree that there would be no retaliation on a programmer for speaking out in this format. At the same time, programmers wishing to schedule time on the on-air forums would agree to some basic rules, including, for example, the absence of personal attacks. A moderator can be used for these on-air forums if deemed necessary.

* Enhance internal communications
Action required by: KPFA Management

There is always room for improvement in the internal communications of any organization. As KPFA seeks to reach out for feedback, the quality of internal communications (management, programmers, staff, volunteers) should be increased in order to make the best use of feedback. If this does not occur, it is likely that the increase in outside input will result in largely negative internal tension.

To this effect, I recommend that KPFA seek training for management, programmers, staff, and volunteers in basic communication and feedback skills.

* Create mechanisms to help programmers evolve
Action required by: KPFA Management

As a consequence of increased external input, there will be the need for some programmers to evolve. It may be in the area of content, of presentation, of emphasis, or of personal attributes. KPFA management can help create an environment which facilitates this evolution, rather than one in which any negative feedback is seen as a potential for program cancellation. All successful organizations that use external input also create an environment in which it is possible for those receiving criticism to turn that feedback into growth.

* Create programming advisory task force
Action required by: Local Advisory Board

A task force should be created to generate local feedback regarding general programming policy. This task force would gather input from listeners, activists (individuals and organizations), and former listeners regarding broader questions of programming, such as:

The information gathered by this task force should be presented to the Local Advisory Board, to the Program Council and Program Director, and to the Pacifica National Board.

* Create task force to study and propose creative use of volunteer help
Action required by: Local Advisory Board

The Community Outreach Committee of the Local Advisory Board should convene a task force to study and propose a more creative use of KPFA listeners as volunteers. This action will also serve to increase the connections between the community and KPFA. For example, the potential use of local 'Friends of KPFA' groups to host regional forums or to act as a link between KPFA and local activist groups.

This task force should report to Local Advisory Board and KPFA management with recommended actions that can foster the use of volunteer help.

* Create Folio task force
Action required by: Local Advisory Board

A task force with staff, Local Advisory Board, and community representation should study a variety of options to seek a multi-pronged approach that addresses the concerns of the listeners regarding detailed program information. It is clear that there are many different needs across the listener community, and little reason for not meeting most of those needs. It should study a mix of low-tech and high-tech solutions, and make recommendations to management. This task force should set a target of three months for its work.

* Create task force to make evening format recommendations
Action required by: Local Advisory Board

The Local Advisory Board should create a task force to address long-term policy recommendations for the evening hours.

While input should be sought from all interested listeners, particular effort should be made to reach:

The goal of this task force should be to recommend guiding principles for the evening format to the Advisory Board and to the Management within six- eight months of its formation.

* Collect and publish regular statistics about programming
Action required by: KPFA Management

The availability of basic statistics about programming would greatly help both the listener community as well as KPFA management and its Program Council to look more critically at programming needs. Without these statistics, it is very difficult to have an intelligent discussion about programming needs, or to make effective programming decisions.

Basic measurements should be defined, regularly measured, and published which will enable management, as well as the listener, to make focused suggestions. These measures should include general characteristics of the station, as well as measures specific to programs.

For example, what percentage of air time is dedicated to public affairs? to music? has it changed? what is a breakdown of the types of segments aired in the Morning Show? are there more authors being interviewed? how many Flashpoints segments are dedicated to labor issues? how many Democracy Now shows deal with issues of people of color? how often are people of color used as guest hosts for those segments? what is the actual distribution of the affiliation of the persons interviewed in the Evening News?

While these may not be the correct items to measure, there are surely similar items that help define key features in a show, or of the station's total air time. This is not to say that one should manage by these numbers, but that the availability of these statistics will help both the internal and external discussions, by focusing the arguments.

Statistics such as these can be designed to be easily collected with minor overhead.

* Address listener questions
Action required by: Pacifica Management

Listeners have many questions that deserve attention and a clear answer from KPFA management and from Pacifica. In particular, there are two main subjects that should be addressed on the air, given the level of concern from the listeners:

-Describe the details of Pacifica's actions in the union dispute at WBAI. In particular, help the listeners understand Pacifica's position regarding the desired exclusion of volunteers from the Bargaining Unit. Explain if Pacifica is offering the volunteers a different kind of collective representation that would address those areas in which the volunteers have a legitimate interest. Explain Pacifica's version of the story about the hiring of ACG.

Most attendees that expressed this concern also felt that Pacifica should apologize to its listener-sponsors for the hiring of ACG, regardless of intention or lack of knowledge, with a simple statement recognizing that this mistake has caused great concern and hurt among its progressive community, and that Pacifica makes a commitment to avoid such an incident in the future.

-Describe Pacifica's direction regarding its commitment to programming that is forever independent of outside pressures. Explain to the listeners Pacifica's intentions regarding the future independence of its local stations to continue to meet the needs of their respective communities.

Conclusion

The feedback from these forums clearly identifies the issue of communication with the listener as the key. Effective sampling of listeners for the purpose of planning and enhancing programming will be difficult until a few basic channels of communication are put in place.

The recommendations in this report, if implemented, will move KPFA in the direction of a healthy, supportive relationship with the listeners.

If KPFA chooses to pursue these recommendations, here are some of the next steps to be taken:

I will be available to KPFA, the Local Advisory Board, Pacifica management, and the National Board to respond to questions about the report, or to clarify any part of my recommendations. Additionally, I will volunteer some time to help with training needs, if KPFA wants to use my services. Alternatively, there are surely many other listeners qualified to perform such training.

I hope KPFA will take this opportunity to understand the input of the listeners. A great deal of progress can be made by following up on this effort.

Appendices (Index)

A. Category Definitions

B. Total Counts (All Forums)

C. Counts for each individual Forum

* Palo Alto
* Walnut Creek
* San Francisco
* San Rafael
* Oakland
* Berkeley

D. Top categories

E. Total counts by thematic groups

F. Attendance table

G. Not used

H. Sample Individual Response Sheet

I Quotes from selected listeners

Appendix I

Quotes

Note: misspellings in the quotes are as written.

#1 -- Palo Alto
"What's behind the changes? Tell us, please! Do you want to attract younger listeners? Some of us might have ideas that consultants haven't thought of. Right now you are asking us as individuals what turns us off, etc. Why not tell us why you want to change the programming (e.g., to attract certain kinds of listeners) and then invite our ideas. Some of the people at my table have good ideas, e.g. [about] what their kids might like to listen to."

#2 -- Palo Alto
"Must marathon pitching be so strident? Organized listener input would be great. How can KALW do such a good job and not seem desperate for funds?"

#3 -- Palo Alto
Likes the 'news behind the news', thinks KPFA is much better than KQED, the other station she listens to.
"2. In spite of the above, I sometimes get OD'd on yet another horrific situation I feel I can do nothing about, which is not to say 'stop the programming'
3. ...Attract young listeners; instill them with left/progressive concerns (this room is an example of how we are not replacing ourselves)
4. I support this method of asking for listener feedback very very much more than the Saturday night massacre of 18-months ago. I would only add that you should also request such on the air... say once a month. If it is true that 18-months ago you fired all the old timers with little notice, not "Pacific". If it is true that you disallowed on penalty of being thrown off the air, discussion by programmers of the events 18 months ago, not "Pacific". Also, I was not thrilled by [management's] comments of 'tough, too bad' re people saying they would now leave KPFA out of their wills. Not Pacific. All of that being said, I do not think programming should be a function of democracy. The "demos" know nothing about how to attract & keep a left/niche audience; the what & when of accomplishing the goals. Do not pander to the masses, keep Pacifica's purpose in mind, both in programming and it how it's done...
Viva stuff like "trip to Italy with Kris". Also charitable remainder trust. Many of us are fortunate enough to have become comfortable and would like nothing better than to support it either now or in our wills. But don't pander to us with the programming -- we're the elite. Apologize for what you did 18 months ago."

#4 -- Palo Alto
Likes investigative reporting done with originality, perseverance, thoughtfulness and continuity, such as Flashpoints & Dennis Bernstein ("a model"). "[Bernstein] goes into the issues in depth. He investigates personally (his recent trips South to investigate burning of Black Churches); he stays with issues for years (Haiti, Iran-Contra, the drug connection)"; likes the news, 'the best, but deteriorating'"
Does not like "...hearing people on KPFA say they 'can't discuss' issues of KPFA governance (KPFA should be of, by, and for the grassroots community; its detailed financial records should be open)"
"Programming content is inseparable from issues of structure and governance. For example: 'professionalism' seems to mean LESS involvement by non-professional community members, and I valued this non- professional cast to KPFA."

#5 -- Walnut Creek
"How is the programming decided. Why can't KPFA employees discuss what's going on internally at KPFA. Why are Board Meetings not open? This is a community station. It is important that the community believe that the one station they support functions according to the ethics KPFA is supposed to support.
Dear KPFA programmers/Board/management
Personally, I am aware of how difficult it is to please everybody. For example, I love all the music that other people hate, so I am aware of the trials you face. But it is important that your listeners don't feel shut out. Perhaps a better balance point can be struck between the seeming closed door policy, and letting things fall apart under dissension. KPFA is seen by many as our last ditch grassroots airwaves link. As a listener, I would like to be part of the process of finding that balance point."

#6 -- San Francisco
"1. Julie Light, dynamiz talk shows (don't eliminate, fix "Flashpoints" with more varied guests and issues); funky music (try some acid, jazzy world beat grooves), with less talk.
2. More '60s hippies rambling on and on with no new information or analysis. Where's Farmi (sp) Chideya? Where's all the Yo! columnists?
3. Younger hosts with hipper perspectives. This forum is so in need of generational diversity. Ranting geriatric forums are not representative of what KPFA could be and should be. This forum is not representative.
4. KPFA must be able to bring in the MTV generation or it will die with the passing of the old "new-left". That means moving out the old guys & moving in some phresh perspectives."

#7 -- San Francisco
"It is outrageous if it's true that KPFA hired a union-busting firm to get rid of the union. KPFA has been the voice of the radical, activist perspective in the Bay Area, and it should go back to those roots. We will support you -- financially and with our activism -- if you do so."

#8 -- San Francisco
"Africa show is good. Cover to Cover is good, but not as good as old programming. I like the computer show. Philip and Chris, Chris is GREAT. Jennifer Stone, but she 's only 10-15 minutes. News is good, and I like the new health shows and I like the Green Room, except I liked it better when it was theater-focused and longer....
Go back to old arts programming. Glad you're having Larry Bensky show. The management has gained my distrust. I think the changes were bad and the way the changes were instituted was very mean-spirited and dictatorial."

#9 -- San Francisco
Suggests... "Consistency! Where is Jim Bennet -- he's the best jazz programmer in the country! Put him back on Sunday Afternoons & move one of the country/bluegrass programs to another time slot. De-emphasize talk shows. More labor programming. "Morning Readings", Literature. More Great Music And Literature.
Listen to the CBC on evenings 5:00-6:30pm sometime - in depth. You will hear long interviews that really explore a subject -- and always with a sense of humor."

#10 -- San Francisco
"These are not relevant questions. The very style of the meeting begs the question of structure, control, accountability, respect for KPFA listeners, and management style. You need to try another process, KPFA !!"

#11 -- San Rafael
Suggests...
"Try to merge your need to 'mainstream' for new listeners, subscr[ibers] or national syndicated programs with local listeners' programming desires !"

#12 -- San Rafael
Suggests...
"Invite Mama O'Shea back occasionally, as well as the other popular volunteers, i.e., Phil Elwood...
Larry [Bensky] is tough on call-in people. Pair him up with Mama O'Shea who is excellent and takes time to hear people out."

#13 -- San Rafael
"We need management that supports the creativity and process of programmers, that facilitates, rather than controls programming."

#14-- San Rafael
Likes "music diversity, good news programming (enjoys 4pm-7pm), wants more Jennifer Stone, thanks for spiritual voices."
Dislikes "discident [?dissonant?] music, complaining, Chewy Verella -- especially when he says uhuh when someone says something outrageous."
Suggests..."I wish Chris and Philip would be more respectful of each other; there needs to be some programming about family life. Like the Lyna Bermans.
More awareness of history, historical roots, of KPFA; please give Bill Mandel, Black Muslims, Hindu, Mama O'Shea a voice
Some repeatable format for listeners to communicate with the staff."

#15 -- San Rafael
Likes Democracy Now, Morning Show, FAIR, Jerry Brown, Kevin Danaher, Mama O'Shea.
Warns: "IMPORTANT: KPFA does not know how to talk to call-in people.... [KPFA needs] call-in shows with skilled moderator -- Krassney a good example, Sokel a bad example."
Concerned about management commercializing the nature of programming (concern for 'professionalism') and the station may go the way of Channel 9.

#16 -- San Rafael
Likes Morning Show, Flashpoints, Jerry Brown, Democracy Now, Robbi Osman and Larry Kelp. Says he learns things on KPFA about 5 years before the rest of the world figures it out, if they ever do. Hates Jerry's haranguing and Dennis' pitching; wants a mix of music and issues in the afternoon and evening; and he "votes for as much Larry Bensky as possible."

#17 -- San Rafael
Suggests...
"Surprise me!! - I don't hear much on KPFA that I find surprising. I think your programmers should abandon the models of commercial radio that you're hung up in, and go for spontaneity, joy, courage, outrageousness, the unexpected, KPFA as become even more boring than KQED. Ask Bonnie Simmons about the old KSAN."

#18 -- Oakland
Likes that
"There is diversity of issues, but the presenters are not very diverse (including race). For instance, issues involving the black community are often presented by K Welch, P Maldari, A Goodman, L Bensky, J Brown, D Bernstein, Mark Cooper, who are all white."

#19 -- Oakland
"Note: I'm scared about what is happening with KPFA. If you don't listen to your loyal listeners, beware. They/we are an active, organized, passionate bunch that could really poison the successes of this important community- based resource."

#20 -- Oakland
"It is not about Bensky -- it is about all the really truly open & honest shows that you have canceled."

#21 -- Oakland
Suggests..."Between 7pm-10pm put on grassroots groups. By putting these groups in later evening, you still have a "glossier" program during the day and the voices of the community in the later evening. Lots of minority views now aren't expressed on the airwaves."

#22 -- Oakland
Likes New Dimensions; says ditching Flashpoints (she's heard rumors) would be a terrible loss, "it's one of the best programs on KPFA."
"Larry Bensky should be excellent. He is an excellent talk show moderator except when callers disagree with his position he sometimes disparages them and cuts them off. That's no way to encourage listeners who may have other viewpoints."

#23 -- Oakland
"We need to reach out for more people of color as listeners and as programmers of local issues & poverty issues.
Also, want more democratic input for KPFA management decisions --not micro management, but good input."

#24 -- Oakland
Almost never listens to KPFA in the evening. Thinks that Bensky would not be a good choice as talk show host, and does not want more talk shows. But "let Larry Bensky produce documentaries. He could be a more radical version of Bill Moyers".

#25 -- Oakland
Likes investigative journalism, thinks Amy Goodman's show is incredible, July Light is 'very fine', Joe Franck 'pushes me out there', and enjoys Mind over Matter, Chuy, Chappoo, and Verna Avery Brown. Does not like Mary Berg's show, the music hour of Bill Sokol's show, the astrology show "(give me a break!)", or FAIR Mondays at 5pm (turns it off until 5:30pm). Wants "ability to follow the work of a particular person (for example Tom Bates)... How about a show that focuses on Oakland, in particular..."

#26 -- Berkeley
Does not want "talk that could be on NPR -- i.e., it is a somewhat bland, liberal to mainstream talk that does not provide me with a radical analysis of the world. Change not just the programming content, but also the process by which KPFA and the Pacifica National Board make decisions to one which is still pragmatic and efficient but also much more accountable to the community"

#27 -- Berkeley
Suggests..."Solicit more listener input. If things get to the point where the radio's policies are too far at odds with their mission statement, I will turn it off permanently"

#28 -- Berkeley
"1. Diversity in points of view -- issues raised that are ignored by the mass media (i.e., CIA involvement in crack smuggling on Flashpoints). Diversity in music -- from Back to bluegrass. I like the health show Tuesdays. I love Sundays!
2. Sometimes I'm not in the mood to be depressed by the truth re atrocities here and abroad; at those times, I put on my music tapes. Also, free-form music turns me off.
3. A weekly broadcast of discussions by KPFA staff which airs the process by which decisions are made, including input (call-in or opportunity to respond to questionnaires/surveys) from listeners -- to regain trust.
4. Larry instead of what?? I enjoy hearing Larry on Bill Sokol. That's sufficient for me. I miss Mama O'Shea. I really like so much of what is on. My worry is that KPFA will move to the right, dilute its strongest voices & become another NPR. I miss women's programming. I like Jerry Brown, but I don't want twice as much of him. I miss the old folio format listing specific programs. Where is gay/lesbian programming of yore? More local community programming. More youth programming that's thought- provoking (besides music). Free form music is boring to everyone I know."

#29 -- Berkeley
"I love Caroline Casey -- she's smart, funny, inspirational & very practically magical. Do not drop her. I like Flashpoints/Democracy Now. I like most of Brainstorm. I love Mary's Sunday morning music. I like bill Sokol. Dennis Bernstein is necessary. I like folk music on Sundays. I like Steve Kent. Suggests ...."Bring back, if you dare, Bill Mandel; more Parenti; more Jennifer Stone; more local original musicians -- we are missing Mandel's intelligence & perspective on former Soviet Union.
Likes Larry Bensky, liked Focus on women in music.
"I'd like more democratic process in programming -- Don't just go for larger audiences, stay progressive and pay careful attention to feedback. I know Berkeley is full of diverse and loud opinions. Get our opinions before changes -- real votes!
Keep programming as local as possible, I mean local programmers. More call-in programs; more classical music on weekends. A lot of people I know like New Dimensions & Caroline Casey!"

#30 -- Berkeley
"In the 'old' days, there were more programmers doing more variety...more of a scheduling 'headache'. But it allowed for more diversity. The only way to attempt to satisfy the community of listeners' desires!"

#31 -- Berkeley
"I'm unclear about what the Pacifica charter is, what is says about community input/participation in programming decisions, etc. I'm a long- time listener, and think Pacifica stations (and KPFA) provide a valuable source of alternative information and perspectives, and don't want to jeopardize this. However, I think KPFA (and Pacifica) may be in danger of losing the trust (and support) of many listeners if management, programmers, and volunteers can't find a way to communicate more effectively and fully with listeners about how programming decisions are made, and what can be made to make this process more open and participatory. Suggestion: Have listener participation and representation in process of selecting members of Community Advisory Board (e.g. an elected Board)"

#32 -- Berkeley
"I'd like to see all these issues dealt with in a long call-in program on the air that was well publicized. Management should be willing to talk about anything except hiring & firing issues.
I have no personal vendettas, but I feel so strongly about the new narrowness of the station that I cannot support it nor do I listen much any more. I used to listen probably 20 hours or more a week.... Please stop using Arbitron rating. They do not describe the needs of KPFA. How can we view KPFA as a market?"

-------end-------

Return to Document Archive Contents

Home
Alerts
News
Anatomy of a Heist
Audio Files
Legal Action
Meetings