NEVER MIND WHAT WE DO, LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY WE STAND FOR!:
Pacifica Radio On A Course of Collision between Creed And Practice
Philip Alade Ajofoyinbo

An earlier and abbreviated version of this essay made up my presentation at a symposium entitled "How Pacifica Radio Has Betrayed Peoples Of Color And Progressives." That event took place on May 18, 1996, at Faith United Methodist Church in Los Angeles. What editing I have done to the present version [as of June 26, 1996] has been to clarify or buttress the general thesis of the original presentation, not revise it.
Permission is granted for the duplication and distribution, free of charge, of unmodified copies of this document. All other rights are reserved by its author.


Although the flier announcing this event has been available for less than a month, I think I speak for many here when I say that the issues that bring us here have been brewing for a good deal longer. In my own case, awareness of, and therefore concern about, doings on the home front at Pacifica goes back a little over a year. I assure you that I've made up for lost time since then! My intimately-related apprehensions about aspects of the larger Progressive movement go back a few years befant to caution against recoiling from following analysis to wherever it can be shown persuasively to lead, even when such conclusions might be deemed far-fetched by those with a vested interest in a short-circuited, simplistic explanation of what is REALLy going on. Powers that be almost always offer, to those they wish to control, a roadmap of reality that leaves out strategic on- and off-ramps whose secrecy helps to preserve power. Even while Amy Goodman is fond of describing Pacifica as "the exception to the rulers", on the program with the ironic name of `Democracy Now!', that institution, under its current crop of self-conscious rulers, is no exception to the proposition I just stated. (By the way, don't get me wrong: I like Amy!) Also, as I have tried to say elsewhere, a society where most people seemingly cannot find the time to think for themselves is one in which participatory democracy cannot flourish.

I will proceed as follows, unless I run out of time and have to skip something: First, I will say a couple of things about who I am--things that are relevant to why I am so passionate in my concern about today's Pacifica. Second, I will state what I perceive to be the implications of the demeanor and/or behavior of the current Pacifica regime. Third, time permitting, I will suggest some of the sources of Pacifica's authoritarian stance in the attitudes of many in the contemporary Progressive movement. Finally, I will conclude by talking about what I have decided to do (which others may choose to do, upon reflection) to counter the prevailing mood among Pacifica leadership. I have written on, and made public pronouncements about, some of these matters-- in letters to and about Pacifica, as well as on facets of Progressivism in the 1990s which I find troubling. Those interested in reading more about my views are encouraged to take two of the letters, some copies of which I have here today.

A few of you know that I was born in the West African country of Nigeria, and spent my childhood and teen-age years there. (Aside: The African continent, minus some exceptional places, has come to be a constantly changing but perpetually in- business stage set for a theater of the tragically absurd. While it is true that some of the script-writers and producers have been outsiders doing their thing by remote control, it unfortunately also cannot be denied that there have been too many self-aggrandizing, so-called `leaders' volunteering to be members of the cast. Many lives lost and much avoidable misery have been the results of the `playing out' of the different acts and scenes there.) I have been in THIS country for twenty of the last twenty-two years, give or take about three months. That is long enough to absorb what is best about the story that (U.S.) Americans tell themselves about having a tradition of a democratic social order. Needless to say, it has also been long enough for me to understand how reality falls short of that story. To those for whom the response to any criticism of the social or political realities here, coming from an immigrant, is always the "love it or leave it" non sequitur, I have always wanted to say that it is PRECISELY immigrants who can often recognize most deeply what is precious about the promise, where ideals are concerned, of this country and who know the contrast between that promise and what obtains in their lands of birth. Such immigrants may be forgiven for screaming to keep native-born Americans from sinking deeper into their complacency regarding the preservation of the freedoms that are supposed to set this land apart from others, and do in some instances!

Now, before you think I have strayed too far from the topics of being from Nigeria and being vexed by Pacifica: Many of you know that that most tragic case of the contrast between enormous potential and missed opportunities has been in the grip of a notably severe repression for about three years now. I still weep regularly when I remember hearing the news of the hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his Ogoni colleagues. I will never forget an interview I heard Linda Wartheimer of NPR do with Mr. Saro-Wiwa in 1994 (I think). There was something about the quiet defiance of a genuine believer in freedom of thought that I heard in his voice, which will always stay with me.

Since I became involved in the struggle between Pacifica and its conscience, it has occurred to me that some of my friends and acquaintances might be wondering about my preoccupation with Pacifica and not with events in Nigeria. First, I have already made reference to my private grief concerning the latter situation. Second, I am too far removed from, and lack access to, day-by-day developments there to be an informed activist. (Of course, disinformation is a major objective of the straitjacketing of outlets of independent information and opinion that obtains in Nigeria.) Third, I understand enough about the intersection of the interests of transnational corporations and those of foreign governments to whom appeals for biting sanctions could be made, to know that such appeals are not likely to yield much in the near term. Finally, and most relevant on this occasion, it has seemed to me that, AT THIS TIME, a better expenditure of my energies and time would be in combating the erosion of democratic practice in the land where lip-service is still being paid to it and where I happen to live, and especially in an institution--Pacifica--that regularly touts its self-image as the place where independent thought and other things Progressive will make their last stand. (It HAS occurred to me that if I and others appear to be too harsh on the `Pacifica of practice', it is testimony to the fact that the `Pacifica of creed' has done too good a job over the years!)

As I have tried to come up with answers to this question, I end up with three umbrella ones: (1) It is about DUPLICITY, whether tactical or not; (2) it is about DISINFORMING of most listener-sponsors about their relationship to the institution and vice versa; and (3) since there IS still some resistance, in spite of the disinforming stance, it is about the ARROGANT, AUTOCRATIC DISPLAY OF RAW POWER. In my analysis, these last two aspects of the current dispensation at Pacifica conveniently reinforce one another in the so-called `dirty-laundry policy', which forbids any dissenting mention of station/network policy on the air. (Even if that policy has unjustifiably been on the books for some time, it is clearly now serving a menacing political function.) There are some more specific answers to the question of what it's all about--some of which there will be time for me to discuss--but I think a good case can be made that they all fall under one or more of these three main themes. Of the three, I will focus(42) on the duplicity that is all-too-apparent in the juggling of Pacifica's on- and off-air profiles. My choice of focus stems from my conviction that there has been, from the founding of Pacifica, an implicit, unwritten contract between it and the Progressive public that was to VOLUNTARILY support it financially and with donated time. That contract was based on a trust that Pacifica WILL BE about certain things and WON'T BE about others. When Pacifica management acts in a manner to call that trust into question regarding one issue or another, its continued tenability on other fronts is in serious jeopardy.

Duplicity, etc.


As it turned out, other speakers at the symposium provided much evidence for the manifestation of the other two themes.

I say `duplicity' above because I have had the impression for some time--with justification, I might add--that all is NOT as Pacifica management presents it to be to listener-sponsors or just plain listeners. If you have listened during fund-drives, or to politically-oriented regular programming, or you have attended KPFK Local Advisory Board meetings or that of the National Board here in L.A. (and others), you have heard the official explanations of what Pacifica is about these days. But closer examination reveals an alternative, equally plausible set of explanations.

To illustrate what I am getting at here, pretend for the next few minutes that you are looking at a table with two vertical columns: On the left side will be `official' explanations and on the right are the alternative ones. (Ouch! Political puns are unintended!) The list of pairs below is not meant to be exhaustive.

Official and Alternative Views

In addition to the implications of the mind-set and actions of current Pacifica management already hinted at above, I want to touch upon two others in this section.

First, it seems clear to me that the Pat Scott regime's agenda for The New Pacifica is predicated upon the presumption of `Faustian bargain' between listener-sponsors and the regime. (You may recall that Faust, or Faustus, was a learned doctor who, according to German legend, "sold his soul to the devil ... in exchange for youth, knowledge and magical powers" [Columbia- Viking Desk Encyclopedia, 3rd edition].) According to this analogy, one end of the "bargain" has listener-sponsors relinquishing the claim to meaningful accountability, where Pacifica Foundation and local station business is concerned, on the part of management. Also supposedly thrown in is the forfeiture of the right to timely knowledge of REAL aims and rationales of policies. Of course, one mustn't forget the expectation of regular infusions of cash and volunteer time. The `soul' that is sold here is the reality of a genuine, mutually- respecting partnership between the Foundation and the public.

In return, listeners are supposed to be able to count on the maintenance of an outwardly Progressive voice on shrinking public airwaves, dispensing some useful information--political and otherwise. And, let's not forget, LOTS of music and other programming with great sedative potential.

On another level, the amount of secrecy that the governor(s) of Pacifica indulge in leads one to suspect that there may have been some `selling of souls' to a higher devil or devils. Remember that it is part of the public `bargain' that it remains ignorant of those other transactions, if any.

I can best state my case against this Faustian bargain by repeating something I said at the memorial service for Michael Taylor, albeit with reference to the larger Progressive movement of which Pacifica is supposedly a part. IF WE, AS PROGRESSIVES, MUST CONSTRUCT OUR FORTIFICATIONS AGAINST THE RADICAL RIGHT WITH THE RUINS OF OUR PROGRESSIVE IDEALS, THOSE AGAINST WHOM THE DEFENSES WERE BUILT WILL HAVE NO NEED OF MOUNTING AN ASSAULT AGAINST THEM; THEY WILL ALREADY HAVE WON! (Michael Taylor was the outspoken Black radio journalist--of the Mummia Abu Jammal case fame--who left KPFK due to apparently irreconcilable differences with station management stemming from a remark made by a guest he interviewed. Efforts he subsequently made to pursue a micro-radio outlet for his community journalism got him involved with a person or persons who may have been responsible for his murder last April.)

My first answer to this question is implicit in what I said above about rejecting the Faustian bargain with The New Pacifica: I WILL NOT SUPPORT IT WHILE IT REMAINS ON ITS CURRENT COURSe! I stated this in my first letter of protest to Mark Schubb. I have limited means, and it matters greatly to me to what ends they go. In any case, it would appear that the political and financial number-crunching that must have been done at Pacifica by now Central has, no doubt, indicated that people with my "profile" are dispensable. However, even after my subscription runs out at the end of the year, I will reserve the right to speak out against The New Pacifica. After all, it has been pointed out, on PUBLIC AIRWAVES LICENSED TO PACIFICA (a crucial phrasing), that the broadcast radio spectrum does not cease to be PUBLIC merely because of FCC assignments to corporate media owners.

To those who would accuse me of recklessness in publicly talking about withholding support from KPFK/Pacifica, I will just say that it is time that the overly confident leaders of the institution (it's all one now, isn't it?) be forced to realize that they are even MORE responsible for any harm that may come to it as fallout from their arrogant actions.

Besides other responses to the current dispensation at Pacifica that are being considered, one that I think is very important is MAKING CONTACT WITH AVOWEDLY PROGRESSIVE INDIVIDUALS WHO COME ON THE AIR AS GUESTS, apparently unaware of what a mockery is being made, in practice, of the ideals Pacifica supposedly shares with them. I have done some of this, and will continue to do so. The irony is that it is as easy to inform outsiders about certain station/network matters as it has been to keep the listening public uninformed about same (which is the transparent utility of the "dirty-laundry policy", never mind what other fig-leaf justifications are advanced) Perhaps, `relay communications', of the shaming variety, will have some effect where there seems to be little or no interest in direct, in-house dialog.

Home | History: Pacifica | Press Clippings | Pacifica Against Its Workers | The CPB Complaint | Other Evidence | Community Responses | Follow The Money | Creating A New Paradigm | How You Can Help | Mailing List | Calendar | Micro Radio

Return to Document Archive Contents

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