One of the frequent complaints from subscribers (and former subscribers) about the "new" Pacifica is that what is said during fundraising efforts doesn't match the reality of the organization's current practices. Subscribers have been exhorted to support Pacifica stations on the basis that station [fill in the blank] is "your station" and beholden "only to you, the listener sponsor". However, these very same contributors are prevented from knowing how their money is being spent or what decisions are being contemplated in their supposed best interests by gag rules and threats of termination for anyone inside the organization who speaks publicly about internal matters without the approval of Pacifica Radio's management.

The result, as the facts of Pacifica management's controversial and questionable practices have begun to emerge, is a breach the of trust upon which the idea of listener-sponsorship is based.

Below is an example of the kind of fundraising appeal I have referred to above, sent by KPFK General Manager Mark Schubb.

An excerpt from a recent fundraising letter:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

April 21, 1998

Dear Friend,

Just two months ago, the U.S. was all set to bomb Iraq.

That's easy to forget, given the media sex orgy that followed, but think back to when the media was pounding one big war drum and goose-stepping to the Pentagon spin. "Finish the job... bomb Baghdad... take Saddam out."

It didn't happen. That unilateral U.S. military action was delayed because the White House still had one final task before war; they had to manufacture consent.

But they learned many Americans would not be fooled again.

Today, people know there's no such thing as a "smart" bomb or a "surgical" strike. They've heard about the untold numbers of civilian dead; the dying children in need of medicine and food; our own sick veterans being lied to about Gulf War Syndrome.

Pacifica Radio worked very hard to build this critical mass of understanding about the deeper issues of the Iraq war.

And two months ago, KPFK stood alone once again, the only L.A. station that dared to raise serious debate about Iraq. We aired voices that spanned the political spectrum, from conservative military strategists against bombing, to the "town meeting dissidents" who captured national attention. We questioned military assumptions and spoke to the opportunities for peace.

WHY? Because it's our mission. Pacifica Radio was built on the premise that only truly listener-sponsored public radio could have the freedom to speak for peace and to bridge understanding between nations and people.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

This appeal is misleading in its presentation of KPFK radio as a bastion of free speech and staunch advocacy against the bombing of Iraq. It is true that KPFK and other Pacifica stations presented programs which were an alternative to jingoistic sabre-rattling, but this made-for-public-consumption document is in stark contrast to an internal memo which appeared in KPFK's studios, just after the winter 1998 fund drive (when members of the public were no longer in the building.)

**********************************************
POLICY REMINDER TO ALL PROGRAMMERS AND DEEJAYS

There's a lot of excitement and tension surrounding Iraq and the possibility of war. In consultation with our attorney, he said that it is important to understand the following policy to avoid an FCC complaint:

FCC laws preclude on-air personnel from making any call to action. In other words, you are legally prohibited from instructing listeners to go or do a specific action.

In the likely event of U.S military actions against Iraq, take care in disseminating information. For example, you are allowed to give out information on various protests and actions, etc., but you cannot tell people to go to the protests or commit a particular act. Our most important role is to disseminate information in the most responsible manner. If you have any questions about this policy and how to implement it, please contact me in the Programming Office.

Thanks, [signed] Kathy Lo [KPFK progam director]

*****************************************
Such an alleged "law" would be a clear violation of the freedom of the press protected by the first amendment. Furthermore, every radio station in the U.S. would be in violation of this alleged law on a daily basis, as listeners are exhorted to any number of things, including the donation of funds. Non-commercial stations *are* prohibited from endorsing particular political candidates, and must, unlike commercial stations, give time for opposing candidates at the candidate's request.

What the above memo indicates is a shift in conception of who "air-personnel" are: from individuals speaking for themselves to designees speaking in a manner approved by the station's management. (Who approved the station's management?) Program producers who have rejected this sort of control have been removed. Strong opinions, and passionately expressed ideas are now considered "irresponsible." At KPFK, on-air personnel who might be prone to controversial expressions (controversial to whom is the question, really) are being kept on a short leash.

One such is Dr. Earl Ofari Hutchinson, an African-American author/scholar who has been involved on and off with KPFK since the 1970's. . Hutchinson is one of the few remaining expressly Afro-Centric commentators left on KPFK, and he is not on the militant end of the spectrum. He recently confided to a friend that he is personally supervised by program director Kathy Lo, who tells him what he may or may not say. When his friend inquired why he, a 60 year old scholar with decades of broadcast experience, would endure the humiliation of having his words determined by a twenty-something person with no knowledge in his field, and almost no experience as a broadcaster, he replied that these were the only circumstances under which he could gain access to the air. The point is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Earl Ofari Hutchinson's views, but that he is not given the autonomy to express them in an unfettered manner. He is in effect being infantilized, as are all persons under the jurisdiction of an authoritarian hierarchy such as been established at Pacifica by the current administration. Subscribers, by being denied to full knowledge and particiaption are also infantilized. If Pacifica is serious about moving people to social activism through broadcasting, it must at every level counter feelings of helplessness and mystification which prevents people from coming into their power, the real meaning of "adulthood."

This trend of taking the pointy edges off of speech is difficult for observers to document. Like the metaphor of the frog being boiled alive slowly, the leash on expression has been shortened by increments. Becaue the rest of the media is so unabashedly mouthpieces for Corporate America which has established its rightist views as the norm, Pacifica stations still seem like a breath of fresh air for those starving for something meaningful on the radio. Programs like "Democracy Now" are described as refutations of those who criticize the "mainstreaming" of Pacifica programming, but Democracy Now is actually an exception to the general trend, at least at KPFK. (Though similar complaints come from disgruntled listeners at other stations as well.)

Notably absent are commentators who reject certain fundamental concepts such as "working within the system," alternatives for social change not involving the ballot box, and rejection of the sanctity of private property or the state. It is permissible to criticize the actions of goverment it seems, but not the concept of government, and so forth. Often heard are discussions of the unequal distribution of social benefit, especially on the basis of gender and ethnicity, but increasingly absent are analyses which demonstrate that our current system needs such inequities to operate and cannot exist without exploitation and stratification.. Heard are discussions about the struggles for workers for a living wage, but not discussions about abolishing the wage sytem as inherently unjust. (Meanwhile, the very same radio network is engaged in a protracted assault against its own workers)

Such assertions are some examples of what would be considered "radical" ideas, and it is the expression of such ideas that play little to no role in the "new" Pacifica's concept of "responsible" broadcasting. And it's not that these ideas aren't relevant: a substantial portion, perhaps the majority, of the growing activist movements in areas as varied as environment, poverty, media, and anti-racist work engage these ideas as part of their philosophical groundwork and organizational structures.

At the time when social movements are rejecting hierarchichal organizational structures and attempting to practice direct democracy, Pacifica's management has been purposely remaking the organization into a top-down hierarchy, both in terms of its operation and its on-air voices. Such a corporate structure is innately rightist, as is its more subtle cousin, the cult of the "expert" or "professional."

One of the primary obstacles for those engaged in social movements is countering the general feeling of disempowerment which exists among the population as a whole. This hopelessness which becomes apathy arises from the condition that most people are in of not having the whole picture of what is occurring, a lack of complete information, and being discouraged from "generalism" by the economic system, which also leads to a fragmented perception of the world. People are encouraged to leave matters to the "experts," whether it be social policy or now, radio broadcasting.

One of the things which made Pacifica Radio a radical force for change in the past was the sharing and teaching of communication skills to members of the community, a concept expressly included in Pacifica's 1948 mission statement. The very structure which is now being imposed on the Pacifica organization violates this basic premise of the mission, paid lip service to in the fundraising letter above. The fundraising letter also refers to "manufacturing of consent" an premise frequently addressed by the radical scholar Noam Chomsky. Its use in the context of this letter seems cynical in the extreme.

At the core of Chomsky's thesis about manufacturing consent, is the premise that the "unwashed herd," the general population, must be trained and manipulated, by the manufacturers of consent (the media in the service of corporate/state elites), to form their opinions based on the pronouncements of "qualified experts" acting in their (unquestioned) best interests. The antidote for this manipulation of the public by a small, elite cadre is providing the people with the analytical skills to question authority and the concept of authority. Yet, from the instructions to control room personnel to hang up on callers who attempt to raise questions regarding Pacifica's internal matters, to disciplinary actions against programmers who attempt to organize community support for their program to prevent its cancellation, to censorship of views not approved by a management group with no mandate from the community to make such determinations (but they are "professionals" so that's OK), Pacifica is on every level walking in the opposite direction from the ideas articulated by Noam Chomsky, an anarchist. And it's not that the listeners don't like what Chomsky has to say; tapes of his speeches have consistently been in the top five most requested fund drive premiums at KPFK.

In the Pacifica's "Strategic 5-Year Plan" commissioned by the now departing executive director Pat Scott and crafted behind closed doors by a small carefully screened group, one of the articulated goals is to "establish lines of authority" and eliminate "anarchic" systems within the organization.

If Pacifica is to have any relevance for the future it must not eliminate anarchic systems, but instead develop them and learn how to make them work. Anarchic sytems require a high degree of communication skills, in both speaking and listening. Anarchic systems encourage individual creativity and initiative, but rely on a highly-developed sense of social responsibility. Anarchic systems require each person to deal with their ego problems to the extent that they can admit to mistakes and make change, and also be charitable toward those who have admitted mistakes and wish to work toward better solutions to problems. Anarchic systems acknowledge human nature and diversity, that to make a "rule" to arbitrarily fit everybody, results in a "rule" that fits almost nobody. Anarchic systems can only function if the participants view others as comrades instead of competitors for airtime and personal ego gratification, a serious problem in the history of Pacifics radio I am sorry to say, and the fatal weakness that allowed the takeover of Pacifica by a small but determined group.

The Scott administration has justified its actions in the name of expanding listenership, and thus, in theory, the impact of Pacifica on society. Some people out there bought this. It may be that listenership has expanded, but that in itself will not have much impact if listening doesn't result in action. Those who have studied the history of social movements have seen that in each case, a small but determined minority were the agents of change. Pacifica's impact will be greatest if it can really empower and activate those who do hear it. Ten hell raisers will always have a greater impact than 500 "consumers."

There is another important aspect of anarchic systems. Leadership is by example.