Pacifica's 5 Year Plan
Analysis by Maria Gilardin
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Date sent: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 22:56:17 -0800 (PST)

Here are my comments on Pacifica's new 5 year plan

The plan comes in two parts, a forword by Pacifica Development Director Dick Bunce and the strategy and goal section.

It seems to me that if you want to define your goals and purpose you need to first define what the historical context for your plans is. Next you have to very clear about who you want to reach and what programming you want to offer. This document gives no answer to the historical context, the intended audience or the kind of programming that is intended.

A dear friend of mine who studied the paper said it better and briefer than anybody: "It remains unclear what Pacifica plans to do and how they want to go about it. The paper fits perfectly the definition of 'nonsense' since with this text nothing can be proven, one way or the other." "The only thing that becomes clear is that the Pacifica leadership wants power and money."

Pacifica is defined almost entirely in relations to "electronic journalism" instead of in relation to nature, people, politics, culture, environment (that word is not mentioned at all). Pacifica has joined the playpen of those among the alternative media who like to reflect on the reflection of reality instead of studying and intervening in reality itself.

Programming, arguably the most important element in a group of radio stations, is hardly ever mentioned, and when it is, it is devoid of content or only associated with cash: page 11: "mission driven signature programming providing audience and revenue high points" Bingo!

The most shocking is the poverty of language, spiked with corporate jargon and empty rhetoric throughout the paper: Just in the first paragraph we find: "dynamic in opportunities" "investment in our franchise" "address improved methods of impacting political discourse". What muddled thinking is hiding behind those words? What obfuscation? Speaking here are the self proclaimed "leaders" of Pacifica, an organization founded by poets, and one that depends on clarity of language.

It is something of a cruel joke that these words are copyrighted to the "Pacifica Foundation, Inc." the "Inc." being another newly added adjunct to the name. Just like "Philip Morris Companies, Inc."? Are they really afraid that someone may want to steal these words? Or is this a shrewd move to make the text proprietary information, prevent the posting of this text so it won't come under public scrutiny. We'll see.

Sifting through the text: This is a move from federation to network to franchise. Franchise, I've never seen that word in the context of Pacifica, immediately thought of McDonalds, looked it up in the Columbia Encyclopedia: "a type of business in which a group or individual receives a license to conduct a commercial enterprise."

Page 2: Current commercial media are "undermining faith in the government" - a Don Hazen quote - so Pacifica wants to restore faith? How touching!

The "persistent presence of Pacifica's unwavering insistence on exercising the fullest possible First Amendment rights and responsibilities." (another linguistic monstrosity on page 6) containing a dual limitation. One can't get carried away with too much First Amendment, can one?

This Strategic Plan is so vague that it could apply to anything: a magazine, any number of social change non-profits. They should get their money back, it is just a boiler plate that a consultant sold to them.

The Strategic Plan has a strong centralist streak. National is in first place, absorbs much of the resources and most of the power, the stations have to operate within the perimeters of the national plan.

And Governance is not spelled out, it will be decided at the next secret meeting of the National Board when the finishing touches are being put on this Stalinist Dilbertland of make believe.

Maria Gilardin

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