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
OFFICIAL: `Pacifica is viscerally anti-corporate.'
ALTERNATIVE: Its Rhetoric certainly is. But, beyond
the fact that it shares with other nonprofits the legal
guise of a business corporation (a problem I have written
about elsewhere), Pacifica Foundation now walks and quacks
like a corporation. It certainly organizes itself like
one--the national Board is essentially self-selecting and
self-perpetuating and is answerable to no one but itself
and laws riddled with convenient escape clauses.
(Legally, corporation boards are ostensibly answerable to
their share-holders; it would appear, thus far, that
listener-sponsors of Pacifica ARE worse off on this
score!) BUT, OF COURSE, at fund-drive time, it assumes
its pose as being dependent upon and beholden to the
public. What happens when it can wean itself from the
public, financially? As they say, if it quacks like a
duck, then it probably IS a duck! (Pacifica may become,
in time, a duck that is, so to speak, `saved to death' by
its would-be rescuers at what I now like to call Pacifica
Central!)
OFFICIAL: `Pacifica's sympathies are with organized
labor; why, our airwaves are always open to the
perspective of workers, while the corporate ownership of
mainstream media makes them hostile to labor's interests.'
ALTERNATIVE: As more details of Pacifica
Foundation's labor relations strategies have come to
light, it has become increasingly clear that they more
resemble those of the least Progressive of for-profit
businesses than the pro-labor rhetoric regularly served up
on the air would lead one to expect. In fact, while I
have come to understand that duplicity characterizes other
aspects of Pacifica housekeeping, under the executive
directorship of one Pat Scott, it was its reverberation on
the labor front that triggered the founding of the
Pacifica Accountability Committee here in Los Angeles.
That group (I was not a founding member) served as MY
entry point into the quagmire of The New Pacifica. Others
much more conversant with the specific issues involved
have posted messages to the Take Back KPFA mailing list on
the Internet (hulda@coco.rop.edu). (KPFA-FM was the
original station in the Pacifica network.) These include
Jeffrey Blankfort (KPFA, Berkeley), R. Paul Martin and
Eddie Goldman (WBAI, New York), Herman Padilla (KPFK) and
Lyn Gerry (network-wide coverage). The last writer
deserves special mention because of her inspirational,
investigative report on the subject. It has been
suggested by many Pacifica dissidents that it is probable
that Pacifica Central's labor transgressions may turn out
to be what finally galvanizes listener-sponsors and
Pacifica's allies in the Progressive movement to take
another look at their beloved institution. Permit me to
wonder aloud about what the realization of that prediction
would indicate about our commitment to other ideals
routinely said to be dear to the hearts of Progressives.
For instance, what is one to make of--to mention just two
items--the deafening silence on matters at the heart of
this symposium (refer to the footnote on the title-page of
this essay) and shameful complacency in the face of the
stepped-up enforcement of the gag-rule a.k.a. the `dirty-
laundry policy?'
OFFICIAL: `Pacifica is perched above the
conventional political fray, and is dismissive of both
national parties; it HAS a dissenting vantage point.'
ALTERNATIVE: Much conventional political wisdom has
crept into analyses on Pacifica. Maybe Pacifica genuinely
believes it has more to fear from Republicans than from
Democrats; why not admit it? Anyhow, mainstreaming HAS
BEEN openly championed at KPFK Board meetings; why cling
to the `last bastion of alternative politics' mantle?
`All the "dissing" we do to listener-
sponsors and staff, we do because the CPB/the Right MAKE
us do it.'
ALTERNATIVE: I have been struck by how convenient a
fit there is between CPB pressure (ideologically inspired,
you understand?) and the authoritarianism and reactionary
managerial practices that now seem to come naturally to
our in-house rulers who are the "exception" to our other
rulers! A collection of interrogatories recently sent to
Pacifica by the San Francisco Bay are-based Take Back KPFA
group, as well as unrefuted charges of union-busting at
Pacifica stations in Los Angeles, Berkeley and New York,
support this thesis.
OFFICIAL: `Pacifica still sees the poor and the
down-trodden as its natural constituency; it values
Leftist political ideals over largess from those who have
the most to give it, financially; it is a long, long way
from becoming part of the NPR/PRI/PBS trend of
dissociation from the non-yuppie sectors of the society.'
ALTERNATIVE: I was at a KPFK Board meeting, earlier
this year, during which the "development" director, Flavia
Patenza, spoke (somewhat pornographically, I thought) of
the need to have someone tasked to "massage our big-donor
list." What will the big donors want (politically) as
part of their being "massaged?" By the way, Flavia is the
same woman who expressed her frustration, at another Board
meeting last year, at what she called "the poverty
consciousness" at KPFK. People who are poor are mostly
just poor; they don't just have POVERTY CONSCIOUSNESS!
Lest you think that this new `irritation with poverty' is
limited to Los Angeles, I have also read that KPFA (in
Berkeley) has evidenced the same condition. While it is
true that, as they say, money talks, I don't always want
to hear what it has to say! Even Pacifica quite often
suggests that it shares this sentiment. Let me be clear:
I don't deny that it takes money to run a radio station.
The question is, has a strategic choice already been made
in favor of fewer but larger chunks of money, as opposed
to many more, if smaller, ones?
OFFICIAL: `Like all good Progressives, we at
Pacifica are minorities-friendly; we HAVE transcended the
larger society's discomfort with "identity politics".'
ALTERNATIVE: Really, now? The second definition of
`progressive', in the American Heritage Dictionary does
speak of "PROCEEDING in steps; CONTINUING STEADILY by
increments (my emphasis)." In my view, what Progressives
need to be reminded of--only slightly less often than
mainstream American society--is that even the definition
above highlights MOVEMENT toward a destination, not
ARRIVAL AT IT AS AN ACCOMPLISHED FACT. And, oh yes, it is
true that Pacifica has made room for minorities over the
years, including the African-American woman who now sits
at its helm. In defense of what is best about what some
pundits on the Left now find fashionable to denigrate as
"identity politics", I would say that some identity
politics is unavoidable so long as there are more or less
distinct identities that have to come to terms with a
history of institutionalized, identity-based inequities.
However, when identity politics are put to Machiavellian
ends (become deviously manipulative),--as part of a
divide-and-conquer strategy, for instance--they should
become unacceptable. Responding, at a KPFK Advisory Board
meeting, to charges of a concerted persecution of African-
American programmers (all no longer welcome on the air),
who were calling attention to unacknowledged grievances,
Mark Schubb (station GM) stated that people of color still
comprised "22-1/2 percent" of the staff. What a
computational feat! I wonder what the target audience for
that figure was!
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.
