from Michael Popadopoulous, Jan 1997

I sent a copy of the earlier posts on the subject of FAIR/Jeff Cohen to Norman Solomon.

His private reply to me is given below (unsnipped) --

I asked him for express permission to cc. it to the freepacifica list; he authorized my doing so and also added a PS to what he had written. ------Michael P

*****

Norman Solomon wrote:

Michael: Thanks for your note a few days ago about FAIR and Pacifica, etc.

Speaking for myself, I've publicly criticized KPFA and Pacifica on a number of occasions -- at forums where Pacifica managers were present -- during this year. I also was quoted by the Oakland Tribune criticizing the decision to drop Mama O'Shea's program back in '94. When I've been critical of KPFA/Pacifica management at public forum events, I've tried to be honest about what I really believe: Pacifica should not be more rhetorical but it should be more radical -- challenging the injustices all around us, and using its resources more effectively to do so by devoting more of those resources to progressive programming. I also have urged a democratic process instead of the current corporate-style managerial process.

Speaking for FAIR on this subject isn't something I can do. FAIR has a formal decision-making process -- by staff members -- and I'm not a staff member. I believe a content analysis of the Pacifica Network News would be a good idea. I've never seen one. (The correspondence I've seen on that subject by Free KPFA people and allies has not been anything beyond anecdotal. I've never seen anything approaching an empirical study of Pacifica News sourcing. I'd be curious to see the results.) I've expresseed my opinions to a number of FAIR staff members about my view of Pacifica-related issues. I'll keep doing so.

More generally, I think that this is one of those instances where it's been a problem for people to dig in for a long battle and lose some perspective as the salvos keep flying. There's a lot to criticize in how KPFA and national Pacifica operate. But when I turn on KPFA at random during public affairs times, it's far from indistinguishable from NPR. By analogy: The Nation magazine deserves appreciable criticism but it isn't politically the same as the New York Times. Politically speaking, conflating all that is distasteful seems unwise. I think it's a mistake to attack with equal vehemence all institutions with which we disagree. Some are worse than others, and while we shouldn't hesitate to criticize any of them, some warrant a much greater expenditure of our limited resources than others. Anyway, those are some of my thoughts.

Norman

P.S. -- I think the matter of FAIR's requesting not to remain on the e-mail list has been misunderstood and blown way out of proportion. If a once-a-week concise bulletin or letter had gone out beyond an internal-communications list of "FreeKPFA/Pacifica" people, I don't think it would have ever become an issue. What ensued instead were daily, often more than daily, communications which are largely internal -- communications that I personally find way too voluminous as well as stuff I'm usually just not interested in reading, given time constraints. (I also find the tone often off-putting.) It's like reading inter/intra-office memos of a group you're not part of. "More is less" definitely applies. I'd suggest a sharp distinction between daily discussion/debate e-mail that's internal and what might be sent occasionally to a wider e-mail list. I know I'd rather be in the second category.


*******************************************************************