| MIMI ROSENBERG: |
I cannot proceed without saying, again our program is going to look at the issue of democracy today and social justice and where media fits into constructing that process |
| KEN NASH: | Democracy here and now? |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG |
Democracy here and now, but I would first like to say unequivocably that Sharan Harper, Bernard White, Eileen Sutton, Janice K Bryant, Sarene, Ursula, Rosalie .... |
| KEN NASH: |
The banned in a word |
| MIMI ROSENBERG: |
Well, yeah, we're going to talk a little bit about that kind of terminology and what it portends for us. But for all of you,
my sisters and brothers people who are creative, constructive,
and meaningful; who built and supported this station and who do
not have free access to it; and you, all of our listeners who
do not have free and easy access to this "community-based"
radio station. We want you back. We, as a labor program and as people who have been activists for decades, know that there must be revocation of the terminations, of the bar to access for all to this station, and there must be the implementation of a democratic process that surpasses what we had. We must be part of the construction of that and that any methodology that stands in the place of democracy portends nothing good. One cannot , in late night hours on holiday weekends , change locks , deny access, and deny dialogue to people and be pretenders to something constructive out of that methodology. . Actions do speak louder than words and the ends are never justified by a means that include lock-outs, or later blacklists, or includes terminations , bannings, which is a word that of course that I was first acquainted with in South Africa. And its most peculiar to hear it in the context of this radio station. We want our colleagues back and we want to be constructive and to reconstruct a process of participation because this station is a central connector for aggressive issues that, thus far, have not been heard anywhere else in the media.
|
|
KEN NASH |
I just wanted to say that the solution to the
problem here has to do with more democracy rather than less
democracy; it has to do with the staff and community groups being involved in decision making more than they were before. The democratic practices that we had before, to some extent, were deteriorating over a number of years but they were still in place. But right now all bets seem to be
off in terms and in positions of changes by management. And
also in terms of Pacifica coming in here and actually
making the decisions rather than WBAI being an autonomous station. I think what we have to do in terms of looking forward is not only to revive the mechanisms that we have but also to create some new ones and to include community and listener groups into that. And I think what we need is a stronger contract and better ways of resolving problems at WBAI in terms of self management and that's what is going to get us out of this crisis. And it is a crisis. |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG: |
And you know Ken and I have been the unpaid staff representatives to the Local Advisory Board which for some years has put us into proximity of observation of the national board members. I do know all of them personally and I do know their names and I do know their world views which are very much defined by the work that they do and the social commitments that they have and haven't made.
And, at some point it is
profoundly important to talk about what the individuals, the
key individuals ... And that are John Murdock -vice chair of the board), Ken Ford - |
| PETER FRANK: | : Thanks Mimi, glad to be with you |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG: |
And we also have Matthew Lazar.Matthew Lazar is the author of "Pacifica Radio: The rise of an alternative Network" and is a visiting Professor at Riverside in CA. And Matthew its a pleasure to have you as well. |
| MATTHEW LAZAR: | Greetings , hello everybody |
| MIMI ROSENBERG: |
These people are very spoiled Ken, because there in CA and of
course our engineer today, Anastasia, is recently from there
too, so they're very very arrogant in relationship to our weather |
| KEN NASH: |
Well I think that CA may have something to teach us Mimi so lets not get east coast chauvinistic. |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG: |
Ah, quite the contrary, I was very jealous and i think they
have a great deal to teach; us and I believe we're going to
have shortly live Karen Frillman, we're trying to reach her.
Karen is in less clement weather in up-state NY and Karen has
been the chair of the local advisory board at WBAI. She
helped locate the venue that we are presently in . She has been a producer on a number of stations and has been nominated for six grammy awards for her audio , radio, work . And with that we also may be joined by someone who will give us a little spiritual sustenance during these hard times and that is Father Lawrence Lucas, a long term activist in many communities. As a matter of fact, i think I see him trundling in, galoshes in hand as we speak. Father Lawrence Lucas has also been the chaplain at Riker's Island for some years and is involved in unions himself there. So with that why don't we begin with Mat Lazar. Mat, why don't we begin the process. We spoke about language earlier on. and one of the terms that has been used to indicate what can or can't be said offer the air-waves is a "gag" rule which would seem to prohibit discourse , or at least its been interpreted in some of the Pacifica stations as prohibiting any discourse on "internal affairs". Many of us think these are news items and discuss them but where does the terminology "gag rule" come from and why should we be concerned about both its implementation and its origin terminology wise? |
| MATTHEW LAZAR: | Well, what's interesting about the word 'gag-rule.' , is , you know, when Dan Coughlin was dismissed, terminated, fired, for airing that 37 second reader about the whole Pacifica tale last year ..... |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG: |
Matt, i don't want to take anything for granted. Not everyone
knows who Dan Coughlin is and not everyone knows what you're
referring to so you have to give this the full parameter of
information (EDITOR NOTE: technical difficulties cut the connection to the guests) While we're doing the reconnects there lets again welcome Father Lucas to our air-waves. |
| KEN NASH: | And he just saved us here |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG: |
Well that is his clergical role I dare say. Father Lucas, I
described you as you were coming in from the hinterlands of
Manhattan, as someone who has been active for decades in the
community and who has provided the movements with spiritual
sustenance and been intimately involved in Riker's island with
the incarcerated community there and so on and certainly been
a guest at WBAI and an activist certainly. I'm interested
in how you begin to understand the role of democracy and the
function of this media in the community of peoples you serve.
|
|
FATHER LUCAS |
Well first of all my understanding of democracy is its people's power and power to the people and that the people have a voice and a say in what concerns the people. Fundamentally, that's what I understand as democracy. I wasn't so sure where your second question. |
|
KEN NASH: |
Well lets talk about democracy, where we are and how we're
doing it. We've basically been talking about Pacifica radio and
WBAI and I know that you have been a listener and a contributor
for a number of years and I assume you've been concerned with
what's been going on here so why don't we get your
impressions about the current crisis. FL: Well its definitely a crisis and i think its an anti-democracy crisis you see, too often i hear people who are boiling this down to an internal conflict and that may be true, but that's like saying while the wolf is knocking at the door of the chicken coop you're advising the chickens to ignore the gang of chickens outside and lets take care of our far less important internal policies. For me this is a question of Pacifica's board. And when I look at that board, I see in terms of membership, a very drastic contraction in terms of what we say WBAI is supposed to represent. In fact, this morning I heard some things that were somewhat comical but I thought, not only comical but it was insulting the intelligence of the very intelligent audience that BAI has. For example, one individual who was mentioned on the Board (Pacifica) I heard the excuse that he was retired. And that was supposed to give the impression that being retired ... it's like's saying a police officer who for 20 years was on the police force, the day he retired the police mentality goes out of the window. And you know its ludicrous. But I see this not as primarily and I think (a lot of folks are making this mistake)not as a conflict between two people who I love and admire, Bernard and Utrice. i think this thing is far more important than any of the individuals. It is a question of is Pacifica going to change the fundamental philosophy and purpose and meaning of WBAI. And therefore anybody who collaborates in that I have to identify as the enemy of the people. |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG: |
Well we're going to try again. Thank you Father Lucas. I believe we have Matthew Lazar, Peter Frank, and we hope Karen Freeman back on the line. And Mathew we were beginning to have a discussion on the question of the gag rule because I think that the origin of that and its terminology as its used in Pacifica is not insignificant for structuring our discussion during the next 45 minutes. |
|
MATTHEW LAZAR:
|
Its interesting to note that as far back as I can tell the
origins of the word 'gag-rule' have their roots in the
controversy over slavery in the United states. In the 1830's,
the abolitionist movement took advantage of the fact that the
first amendment allows Americans to petition and redress
their grievances by submitting to Congress huge numbers of
petitions with hundreds of thousands of names demanding the
end of slavery in the district of Colombia. The pro- slavery
Representatives in the House of Representatives responded to
this with a series of technical manoeuvres which allowed them
to table or postpone discussing these petitions on the floor
of the House of Representatives. And this was referred to by
the abolitionists as the 'gag-rule'. The person who was the most vociferous in his opposition to the gag-rule was John Quincy Adams, former President of the United States, now a Congressman, and constantly went around the country in the 1840's , demanding the right to talk about these positions on the floor of the House of Representatives and kept on saying , over and over again, "am I gagged or not?" Finally he was able to rescind the gag rule on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1844. Now I don't think that the people who used the word 'gag rule', I don't know how the word got glombed from that to Pacifica. Obviously that anyone had that in mind when they used the gag rule, but it is an interesting historical parallel. |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG: |
Well language is not insignificant, but let's take off from their Matthew. The question of democracy, how do you build a more democratic context? What is the history of this organization and how has it begun to change? |
|
MATTHEW LAZAR: |
When Lewis Hill started this organization,... Well let's start
with WBAI. Lewis Hill was dead for three years when WBAI was
given to the Pacifica foundation by Louis Schweitzer in 1960.
I think that in the 60's and 1970's (and Peter Frank can also
talk about this, I think quite eloquently) you saw something
of a democratic revolution within media (not as democratic as
some of us would like but a democratic revolution within
media), which has its roots, I think, in the spirit of the
1960'sand in the student movement of the 1960's. I'd like to read a quote from something which I think some of your listeners are familiar with, which was the Port Huron statement of 1961 and which was the founding statement of Students for a Democratic Society and which I think very much informed the thinking of the activists who worked with Pacifica in the 1960's and 70's. Can I read that, its a short paragraph? |
| MIMI ROSENBERG: | Sure! |
|
KEN NASH: |
Far be it from us to prevent anybody from reading the Port Huron statement on WBAI, go ahead. (general appreciative laughter) |
|
MATTHEW LAZAR: |
And I quote from the introduction: "Some would have us believe that Americans feel contentment amidst prosperity but might it better be called a glaze above deeply felt anxieties about their role in the new world? And if these anxieties develop an indifference about human affairs do they not as well produce a yearning to believe that their is an alternative to the present Something can be done to change the circumstances in the school, the workplaces, the bureaucracies , the government. It is to this latter yearning, at once the spark and engine of change, that we direct our present appeal. The search for truly democratic alternatives to the present and a commitment to social experimentation with them is a worthy and fulfilling human enterprise, one which moves us and, we hope, others today" The search for truly democratic alternatives to the present..... The activists who sorta glomed themselves onto the Pacifica radio network in the 1960;s and 70's, really were moved, I think, and to a large extent from their experiences within the cold war university, to try and to democratize American life both on a micro and macro level, both on the highest level in terms of government, and in terms of daily life, in terms of the institutions with which we all interface. The Pacifica radio network became a more democratic organization during that period. It instituted more democratic procedures of advise and consent of local advisory boards. It did all of those things in order to meet that standard, and there is also at the same time the emergence of a community radio network across the United States, which was also informed by that kind of spirit. I think that what happens to the Pacifica Radio network to some extent during the 1980's and the 1990;s was that it became contained. What do I mean by that? I mean that while thousands of people were literally rushing into the Pacifica radio network to take advantage of this democratic experiment, the rest of the media universe began to clamp down on community accessible local-access air time. We all know the story (and Peter Frank can certainly take it from here) talking about the banning of micro radio in 1978, the abandonment of the Fairness doctrine (which was a doctrine that said that when someone of the powerful said something on the radio, you had the right to go on that radio station and talk back). The centralization of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Centralization of National Public Radio. We saw many public radio stations abandon their local volunteer air time and change their NPR stations to much more centralized, common-carrier kind of radio stations where you mostly got National Public Radio rather than local programming And finally, the coup de grace was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which basically has ratcheted up the price of radio stations because of its monopolistic law and has created a situation in which many radio stations, commercial especially, really can't afford, after they've been purchased by corporations or other groups, to provide local groups public affairs air time because of the amount of debt service they're carrying. All of these things have resulted in a radio network, a pacifica radio network in which there is really no where else to go for people who want and believe in publicly accessible local access air time. What I saw in the 1980's was community radio leaders, national board members on the Pacifica radio network, local advisory board members , and station staff, become weary while trying to manage this oasis and trying to keep it democratic. And I saw them loose faith. And in fact I have to tell you that I lost faith also. And i think it is in that context that the Pacifica foundation decided to become a self-appointing national board. And once it did, it began putting on the national board people who had very little relationship to the quote of the Port Huron statement which I just read to you. |
|
KEN NASH |
Peter if you could comment on what Matthew, with the centralization of the media, but also as it relates more specifically to trends within the Pacifica network during the last few years and the contrast perhaps between where Pacifica now and where it was back when you were the chair |
|
PETER FRANK |
: OK, well, this is a big question. I agree with Matthew in part, but I disagree with him in part also. Its certainly true that in the 60's and 70's people gravitated to Pacifica because people were activists and it was the one place where there was a pretty free outlet for social justice , peace and civil rights kind of views. But Pacifica was never a democratic kind of institution and I think its suffering now from a flaw that Lou Hill built into it, which is that its governance was always contained within. It was really dominated by staff in the very early days and its never had much of a structure that's been truly accountable to the various stake holders, internal and external to Pacifica. But I don't think that the issues that we're dealing with now has to do with weariness. I think it has to do with the loss of the distinction between what Lou Hill founded, which is listener sponsored alternative independent radio, and what the Carnegie corporation or the Carnegie Commission founded, which is so-called public radio, which is really government radio. There's been a pull, and I saw it when I was involved, that started in the early 80's or a little bit before, when Pacifica started taking money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting , which is federal money. There's been a pull from the world of public broadcasting to erase the difference -- both in terms of structure, culture, and content -- between listener sponsored radio (which is what Pacifica started out to be) and public radio (which is what we see on NPR and PBS). Its pretty clear that there's a strong internal influence coming from the world of public radio particularly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and also in subtler ways from National Public Radio, to pull Pacifica to the center. To essentially de-fang its independence and its kind of radicalness. It has had a series of people at the helm, Mary Frances Berry being the most highly visible recently, but the trend in the national leadership, across a broad variety of personalities, over certainty the last 15 years, has been the centrist kind of a trend. And -- if you look at things like the "Healthy Station Project" emanating from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- is part of a whole attempt to pull all of community radio and put community radio in what some people call a coat and tie other than the scruffy radicalism of listener sponsored radio. I think that if you really look and take the long view of what's really been going on over the last period of years, you'll see this as a long term trend. In the context of some of the litigation that's going on we've done a pretty fair [bit] of research into board minutes .... (technical break interrupts the sentence) |
|
PETER FRANK |
Its probably good I was interrupted. Just to summarize, there has been subtle but very consistent changes in the internal governance of Pacifica for the last 10 or 12 years. You go back and one sees changes -- taking away powers from the local board -- going back more than ten years . You see a trend (which violates Pacifica's by-laws) for decisions to be made by the executive committee of the board rather than the full board . That's been going on for a long period of time. And in the last few years, with the lock-out of KPFA and now the coup at WBAI, you see the whole trend coming much more to the surface. As I say, what I think you've really got is a fight between those forces that want to see independent alternative , listener sponsored radio, economically based on the listeners, and forces -- that are essentially governmental forces -- that are trying to pull it into the world of "Public Broadcasting". MR: Karen Frillman, we've attended a number of national board meetings. There's a paper that was authored by yourself, myself, Ralph Engleman and Petpsi Charles. And within that we tried to do a number of things. But one of the notions that's been put out is that there's this reticence of people to move beyond the philosophy and social activism of the 60's and reach out to broader audiences. Is that the underlying philosophy at this juncture or are there names that people should KEN NASHow and transformative processes that Pacifica is now falling prey to also that are really not about enlarging audiences but cancelling perhaps the present audience and taking on a different group of people who are more able financially to pay for a particular kind of programming. |
|
KAREN FRILLMAN |
Comments re poor phone connections deleted I think that there has been a very big push. I think that both of the other guests who have spoken are accurate. That there is a sense that Pacifica has actually been successful, and that we've arrived now on this media stage, and there's not too much left for people to really be involved with. And I think that we're at a point where we're analyzing audience; and the way that radio has worked best is to target an audience and attempt to program to that audience and that audience will faithfully come back. And I think the perception is that Pacifica has not achieved the numbers that it should achieve. And I mean I've gotten that sense very strongly from the national board and the people who are currently managing the stations that the pressure to bring the numbers up is enormous. I sat through a national programming meeting where there was no programming discussed. Only the arbitron numbers were discussed. And I think that, the instead of attempting to open up debate and do the very difficult democratic work (call it democratic, just call it hard work) of really engaging the communities that have been active within Pacifica and really kinda figuring out how long we're going to do this. We're moving towards the model that was accepted years ago in the commercial world, is now pretty much been accepted in the public world in the US , and unfortunately, Pacifica, which has been a different kind of model, we have not yet found a way, or we have not yet explored the way to say how we are going to accommodate all of these things and maintain our numbers or maybe even grow. |
|
PETER FRANK |
Can I ask Karen a question? You sort of say as a premise of what you said how we can work best. How do the people you're talking about or you define 'working best' in the Pacifica context? |
|
KAREN FRILLMAN |
KF: Well what I mean, in this paper that Mimi has introduced into the topic we suggested, and strongly urged, that Pacifica hold a program forum; that we do it at the local stations, we do it nationally. We begin to talk about how we can integrate a large number of program offerings into a program format without streaming all the programming. And I speak about working best by working through these programming issues because that's at the heart of the problem. There's only 24 hours in the day ... |
| PETER FRANK | I would wonder if we have programming issues or if we have governance issues? |
| KAREN FRILLMAN | Well I think the governance issues ... we have both. The power struggle is over the programming and what's going to be on the air. |
|
PETER FRANK |
Who would you want to make those decisions and how would these people be selected? KF:Well I think that as long as I've been involved in WBAI (and this is one of the reasons I think we're at this juncture at BAI ) is there's been what is called the 'Program Council' and it hasn't really functioned. I'm on the local advisory board. The local advisory board --our task is actually to advise the station, listen to its programming and to give it feedback as well as to feed in from the community so that station personnel and producers have an idea as to what's going on in a wide variety of communities. That has not been functioning. It has not worked... for a large number of reasons. People have not been interested in opening up that debate, and we haven't found a way, in New York to facilitate that |
| PETER FRANK | You know there's built into Pacifica structure a reason for that disinterest |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG |
MR: Well you know one of the things, i just want to take this a step further. I think actually there has been a finding of ways to open it but a reticence to do that. I contend that there has been an interest in firing the listener base, not per se the producers, although I think that ultimately that will come as well because there is a need. Its a consumeristic model that has been implemented in public radio and National Public radio by the guru of the philosophy that has taken hold there, and that is David Giovanoni. (And I should say that David Giovanoni has been hired as a consultant by the Pacifica National Board.) He has labelled the Pacifica stations as verging on irrelevance, a statement which was remarkably placed on the web site of Pacifica -- a rather self-destructive thing to do. |
| PETER FRANK | And Ken Ford used it in the New York Times |
| MIMI ROSENBERG | Absolutely, and Ken Ford, of course, is the Vice-chair of the national board |
| MATTHEW LAZAR | And what do you do with something that is irrelevant? You either throw it out or you sell it. |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG |
gives station ID and reintroduces guests Just to get back and frame the question, What is preventing -- I think the mechanism and the ideas have been put forward for how we can have a dialogue as we move forward into the new millennium towards the end of how to enhance our technology,how to increase our audience base, deal with our program culturally in a way that can increase and enhance audience ; how to set up governance that is more participatory democratic and safeguards what wee have spent forty years with BAI and 50 years with the Pacifica stations in CA et cetera, building up. I'm concerned about what is preventing us from doing that because Karen, certainly you and I did not witness at the national boards that we have gone to for some time now a willingness to look at our present base of listeners and our present programmers and figure out how we can enhance and move forward. It has been instead a constricting and, I believe , and the presentations have been made by our new national program director, Steven Yasko (who was formerly a marketer of the Diane Reeves show at National Public Radio) and the executive director of the national board, Bessie M Walsh. They seem to have affected and adopted the philosophy of David Giovanoni of the "Healthy Radio Station Project" which would throw out people who are on the Work Experience project , people who would throw out the sisters and brothers who are behind the walls, the impoverished , the voice of the voiceless. as Mumia Abu Jamal puts it . They would seem to want an upwardly mobile different group of listeners who can pay for the programming that they are personally desirous of . Father Lucas? |
|
FATHER LUCAS |
That brings me to two questions. When I hear the term 'relevant' I always have to ask, "relevant to whom?" I always have to Obviously, what is relevant to four cops pumping 41 shots at Amadou Diallo is not exactly what is relevant to the person being shot at. Again i think its extremely important that when we start talking about primary programming I think we're being somewhat naive because you cannot divorce programming from the power structure and its the power structure that is ultimately going to determine what the programming is. And if you have a power structure that is hell bent on ignoring the traditional audience here while trying to make a greater appeal to the same audience that corporate media makes an appeal to obviously there is going to be conflict. But to pretend that you could program "relevantly" depending on who you're programming to and in the face of a power structure that has something totally different in mind, is unrealistic. So from my point of view it is the power structure that one has to deal with primarily not exclusively because that is ultimately going to determine the programming. And that will depend again on what audience you're trying to be relevant to. |
| MATTHEW LAZAR | ML: And it depends on the role of the audience that'is liking that power structure. |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG |
Karen I do want to come back to you. Again people seem to have very little information --which is understandable since there hasn't been that many forums or written material that has acquainted our audience and listenership with the members of the national board -- how people wound up on the national board, what their world views are , what are the backgrounds they come out of . We need to put forth that information because its not a question of whether people are good natured or not and what their personalities are. It is a question of the institutions they spend their life working with. It makes a difference having a tenant advocate on the board versus a member of the home builders association who acts as their lobbyist in Washington DC which is precisely the work that is done by Ken Ford the Vice Chair of the National board. It makes a difference if someone is fighting for micro radio and somebody buys and sells media, which is precisely the work of Bertram Lee, one of the newest members of the national board. It makes a difference if you have somebody who is a labor union advocate and fights for the rights of people to associate and build labor democracy and progressive rank and file caucuses that assume control of their institutions versus somebody who works for one of the world's largest law firms, Epstein, Becker and Green, that specializes, by their own verbiage, in work that is involved in banking, financial services, security law, working with health maintenance organizations, working with managers, working with employers internationally who are fighting sexual discrimination law suits, who are fighting Americans with disability act claims, who are fighting unionization drives, who are indeed involved with in the very disputes that we have here. We are not dealing any longer with community based people who may be local accountants and stuff. We are dealing with people who come out of the highest levels -- which is Epstein, Becker (and Mr. Green in particular, a member of that law firm), the highest levels of government and entrepreneurial interests that have shored up this political system and John Murdock, who is deeply involved in governance and working with Epstein, Becker and Green to reform (or revise, shall we say) the by-laws of the Pacifica national foundation. These are very important things for folks to know. It makes a difference how they think about and what their interests are in the content ultimately of this station. It is not about reaching a broader audience, it is about reaching a different audience. I mean, Karen, do you see that? |
|
KAREN FRILLMAN |
Of course, I mean I think the shift that happened - we had local advisors, and of course what many people don't quite understand is that it was representatives from the local board who were involved in creating this by-law shift in 1999 which allowed for John Murdock and Bert Lee to be invited to join this board without any real response from the local advisory boards or from the local station . There's no question that the folks who are on there now feel like they've got to roll up their sleeves and fix Pacifica as opposed to a point in time where the National Board felt that they had to support the work of the stations. And that shift has very definitely happened. There's no discussion of what is the work of these stations, and how can we develop training for people who are coming into these stations or any of the small things that the national board could have done. There's absolutely been no discussion because none of them even know anything about radio. None of these members on the board even has a working knowledge of how a radio station operates. |
| PETER FRANK | Making the radio stations operate better as Pacifica stations is not the agenda |
|
KAREN FRILLMAN |
No its not, but I'm saying that their was a point in time when the people who were representative of the local board really didn't do a good enough job in creating that support and really creating a good back and forth structure. From my experience on the national we received very little if any help or support from the national. In the last six years, even before this take over occurred , we got very little input on anything from the national in terms of substantial technical support which is to my mind how the national should function toward the local. I don't know if that is your sense of it Peter when you were involved but we received very little technical support from the national. Now what we're receiving is the sense of , you know, "this is broken and, my god, we've got to fix it"; And the folks who are involved do not come from, I think few of them have ever spent any time in any of these radio stations. |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG |
Karen I do want to come back to you. Again people seem to have very little information --which is understandable since there hasn't been that many forums or written material that has acquainted our audience and listenership with the members of the national board -- how people wound up on the national board, what their world views are , what are the backgrounds they come out of . We need to put forth that information because its not a question of whether people are good natured or not and what their personalities are. It is a question of the institutions they spend their life working with. It makes a difference having a tenant advocate on the board versus a member of the home builders association who acts as their lobbyist in Washington DC which is precisely the work that is done by Ken Ford the Vice Chair of the National board. It makes a difference if someone is fighting for micro radio and somebody buys and sells media, which is precisely the work of Bertram Lee, one of the newest members of the national board. It makes a difference if you have somebody who is a labor union advocate and fights for the rights of people to associate and build labor democracy and progressive rank and file caucuses that assume control of their institutions versus somebody who works for one of the world's largest law firms, Epstein, Becker and Green, that specializes, by their own verbiage, in work that is involved in banking, financial services, security law, working with health maintenance organizations, working with managers, working with employers internationally who are fighting sexual discrimination law suits, who are fighting Americans with disability act claims, who are fighting unionization drives, who are indeed involved with in the very disputes that we have here. We are not dealing any longer with community based people who may be local accountants and stuff. We are dealing with people who come out of the highest levels -- which is Epstein, Becker (and Mr. Green in particular, a member of that law firm), the highest levels of government and entrepreneurial interests that have shored up this political system and John Murdock, who is deeply involved in governance and working with Epstein, Becker and Green to reform (or revise, shall we say) the by-laws of the Pacifica national foundation. These are very important things for folks to know. It makes a difference how they think about and what their interests are in the content ultimately of this station. It is not about reaching a broader audience, it is about reaching a different audience. I mean, Karen, do you see that? |
|
KAREN FRILLMAN |
Of course, I mean I think the shift that happened - we had local advisors, and of course what many people don't quite understand is that it was representatives from the local board who were involved in creating this by-law shift in 1999 which allowed for John Murdock and Bert Lee to be invited to join this board without any real response from the local advisory boards or from the local station . There's no question that the folks who are on there now feel like they've got to roll up their sleeves and fix Pacifica as opposed to a point in time where the National Board felt that they had to support the work of the stations. And that shift has very definitely happened. There's no discussion of what is the work of these stations, and how can we develop training for people who are coming into these stations or any of the small things that the national board could have done. There's absolutely been no discussion because none of them even know anything about radio. None of these members on the board even has a working knowledge of how a radio station operates. |
| PETER FRANK | Making the radio stations operate better as Pacifica stations is not the agenda |
|
KAREN FRILLMAN |
No its not, but I'm saying that their was a point in time when the people who were representative of the local board really didn't do a good enough job in creating that support and really creating a good back and forth structure. From my experience on the national we received very little if any help or support from the national. In the last six years, even before this take over occurred , we got very little input on anything from the national in terms of substantial technical support which is to my mind how the national should function toward the local. I don't know if that is your sense of it Peter when you were involved but we received very little technical support from the national. Now what we're receiving is the sense of , you know, "this is broken and, my god, we've got to fix it". And the folks who are involved do not come from, I think few of them have ever spent any time in any of these radio stations. ML: I disagree with you partly, I don't think its the role of the national board to give technical assistance to stations. And they say its broken but I don't believe its broken. I don't believe they think its broken. They think its wrong. They think its doing the wrong thing and they're trying to get it to do something different. And that's the fundamental thing that I think we have to focus on. |
|
KAREN FRILLMAN |
But there language has always been in talking with the representatives from New York , there was a tremendous sense that they couldn't create any change, this issue of the dismissal of our general manager.
I mean there's been a debate over the ability of the long time general manager here and her ability to actually promote and do the work at the station. There was great consternation and maybe I'm naive and it was all a manipulation but I think there was a tremendous sense of how do we do this. How do we pull out a key person and continue make sure that things are running correctly. I think that there was a sense that things were broken. I had those conversations with people on the national board that it wasn't working correctly. I may be wrong. |
| KEN NASH | Do you think that there has been a change in the focus of Pacifica vis-a-vis the autonomy of individuals stations. Is Pacifica really coming in here and doing things themselves. |
| KAREN FRILLMAN | Oh definitely ! |
|
KEN NASH |
I mean , you know it use to be that on an autonomous station Pacifica would appoint the head of the station. But now it seems as if Pacifica is everywhere. Bernard and Sharan were fired on Pacifica stationary not on WBAI stationary. It just seems to me that Pacifica is taking direct control and I just wanted to throw that out |
|
MATTHEW LAZAR |
ML: Let me assure you that people at KPFA very much experienced Pacifica as taking direct control when they hired a firm called IPFA international, which is run by former consultants to the Department of Defense and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to take over the KPFA radio station and expelled the staff. We experienced that as a very centralized way of dealing with things and i think that it was. I mean I don't think that there is any question of the fact that they see themselves as taking direct control of everything that happens in this organization to the extent that they possibly can. And they want to put more people like that on the national board. One of the people who was recently proposed to be on the national board is a gentleman named Louise Mitwell Mados. He's the head of the Texas partnership for competition which advocates further deregulation of the Telecommunications industry in Texas, and its an organization backed by ATT. He was recently arguing in an article that I read for further deregulation of the industry and i'd like to read a few paragraphs of his prose and you'd have a sense of someone who might be on the national board soon if i may. |
| KEN NASH | Go ahead. |
|
MATTHEW LAZAR |
Here's his prose: Each passing days brings news of technological advances that are changing the telecommunications landscape and the roles of traditional telephone companies are changing just as quickly. These developments hold a lot of promise for consumers who will soon have services available for them that will change the way they live and work. Think of a typical Friday night for many typical Texas families. A trip to the video store for a movie rental and a stop at the pizza parlor to pick up dinner. What if you could order the pizza through your television and download the movie of your choice from a selection of thousands in minutes. The best part is, the movie you want is always available. Texas should be a leader in this technological revolution but regulators must foster the proper environment. Texas must have a competitive market place with a level playing field that encourages companies to invest in this advanced technology. I think this kind of prose definitely fits in with theory that the object is to target a more affluent audience rather than a less affluent audience for Pacifica. And I don't know, I suppose you could joke about this and say one day you'll be able to order a pizza on Pacifica radio while listening to the Pacifica network news. or something like that. |
| PETER FRANK | Actually pretty soon the way things are going |
| MATTHEW LAZAR | Its pretty scary to think that people with this kind of mindset are going to sit on the national board |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG |
Well I think that one of the names that has been thrown out -- for example at the last national board meeting I attended at the Doubletree Hotel outside of Washington DC -- was a proposal for another board member, and that was Francisco Riciolo. Now Mr Riciolo is a vice president involved in Citicorp who is in charge of and involved with International banking for Citicorp in the Middle East and Africa. Now let's play with that . We want more resources brought in. We want people who outreach to different communities; who have all kinds of possibilities for technological and economic resources to d bring to this institution to enhance us. And we must expand our political and our philosophical horizons to include more people and become less myopic in our political understanding of the world. As we are labelled as throw-backs, as dinosaurs from the 60's. Whether we are from nationalist based communities, or whether we are from the old left or indeed the new left or the new punk, hip-hop community, those are not the people. We are entirely too self involved. Lets get with it! What is wrong with Mr. Wilmot, what is wrong with a Bertram Lee who buys and sells media; who at a clip talks about raising 500 million dollars ,and was part owner of the Denver Nuggets at one point. |
|
KAREN FRILLMAN |
Mimi can I just get one thing in and the reason I'm actually actively involved in fighting what's happening with Pacifica is that if they wanted to put that belief system out there in an overt way that would be one thing but they put Bert Lee on the board in a completely secretive manner without sending his resume out. Their are governance rules, as people have spoken about, their operation has so completely broken down. There has been no debate, there has been no conversation there's no direct discussion of these things or what they want to do. |
| PETER FRANK: | But Karen, there's very good reasons for that. Its not a matter of breaking down. They couldn't do what they want to do in the open. |
|
KAREN FRILLMAN |
I'm saying that what Pacifica has been about is people who want to speak about things and put things on the table and takes risks to do it, take risks to talk about topics that are considered dangerous. And its bad that and such an offence, its been so underhanded, there whole way of operating has been through a series of indiscretions. And now that's a part of what I find so demeaning about all of this, changing the locks, doing all this stuff secretly; its very damaging to this little light that has been shining for 50 years where we're saying let us attempt to put things on the table and talk things out. |
|
FATHER LUCAS: |
You know what happened reminded me so much of Richard Nixon and Leon Jawarsky. You know, the way that they took place at night, et cetera, et cetera, and you woke up and found folks missing or out of the picture. I think there is a glaring contradiction in the notion that they're trying to expand the audience and at the same time what they're really doing is the more affluent audience. Actually the more affluent are a minority so if you really want to expand. If 10% of the people in this country control 90% of the wealth it would seem to me if you wanted to expand the audience you would be looking toward that 90% rather than that 10%. So its a glaring contradiction even in their rhetoric that is being passed on. KEN NASH <announcement of the demo scheduled for Jan 6 |
|
MATTHEW LAZAR |
In 1949 Louis Hill went on the KPFA, it had just gone on the air, and he talked about the FBI and he said in 1949, not 1969, 1979 and not 1999; In 1949 he said, "The FBI is a contemptible institution and the whole country knows it.
When they come to your door refuse to cooperate. Say I for my part will not!" That's what Lou Hill told people on the radio in the worse year of the cold war. I have a very difficult time imaging that people who are oriented toward marketing surveys and such would countenance such programming at this time. |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG |
We should also be aware that there was a proposal at the national board meeting last held for a half a million dollars to go out to begin the process of doing focus studies and to bring additional consultants such as David Giovanoni from the "Healthy Station Project" that has helped shape the philosophy and programming content of NPR and Public Radio International, to our station, half a million dollars expanded toward the same. But people don't seem to be fully versed in the idea that the content of our programming will change by virtue of who sits on the national board or by virtue of the tactics that are being employed, which are now lockout, shutout tactics rather than more sunshine coming toward the debate, and yet bigger, and broader, and more structured dialogues we are constricting and have taken on an atmosphere that is based on a fear and thinly veiled intimidation really. Which is always what happens when someone changes locks etc. Why should we believe that there will be anything other than an enhancement of the programming content and the character and quality of the people who have come here over the years to do programming. |
| FATHER LUCAS |
And then to pretend that its simply an internal affair about moving around employees is absolutely nonsense. |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG |
But how are we to know we are told unequivocably that there is nothing that will change. This will be about the business of programming and progressive programming is well but enhanced. ML: Every time the government makes a coup they make the exact same statement. Every time a corporation is bought out by another corporation they make the exact same statement to the employees. I think we need to look at what they do, and what their sources are not get hung up on their use of rhetoric. |
| FATHER LUCAS: | You know it reminds me of the fox licking his chops at the chicken coop and someone saying "nothing will change, let the fox in, nothing will change, we're going to go on as we have been." |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG |
Karen we unfortunately are wrapping up. Would that we again would hold in the listener community, and with these air-waves, a comprehensive full teach-in where we do have these issues see the light of day. Where we look at who sits on the national board; where we look at the enhancement of democratic structures or the lack thereof within our various stations; where we look at the programming content and really begin to think about the evolution of a plan, the development of a plan that enhances the technology, betters the fund raising, etc. But agin, how are we to understand why is it inevitable when there are lock-outs and when we have a national board that we will not maintain the character of progressive radio that BAI has had as its hallmark for forty years. |
|
KAREN FRILLMAN |
I think we have to look at KPFA. I heard Matthew on the radio a week ago and I think that we have to learn lessons from what did happen at KPFA and the response. And it sounds like there are more people involved in every level, is that correct Matthew? It sounds like the station has been invigorated, would you agree? |
|
MATTHEW LAZAR |
KPFA now has a listener elected local advisory board, which is a unique first I believe in KPFA's history, and we have an entirely new generation of people involved in the life of the station that have been involved before. But my worse fear is that the Pacifica foundation will come and wipe that away. |
|
MIMI ROSENBERG |
Unfortunately, we've run overtime. (Additional closing comments deleted) |