Thank you for this Terry.
My favorite part is:
"If Pacifica's broadcast products were more professionally produced, they
would still have to compete for listener attention with the
professionally produced products of other broadcasters, but with a
consistent and improved quality they would compete at less of an
initial disadvantage."
Thanks for addressing that old bailiwick and putting it hopefully to rest.
We have to make some painful changes in traditional Pacifica broadcasting
or we will go out of business. What we are broadcasting now is not making
bank.
Kevin White
----- Original Message ----
From: Terry Goodman <tgoodman4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: freekpfk@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; PacificaRadiowaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:33:45 AM
Subject: [NewPacifica] Professionalizing Pacifica
[Subject was: KPFA's coverage of the Democratic Convention - why
everyone's been a]
On 26 Aug 2008, Jim DeMaegt wrote:
> Actually there is a considerable number of Pacifica "activists" that
> believe that Pacifica should be a corporate news station
Actually, there are none.
> and that the only real problem with Pacifica is that is it not "professional"
> enough
Failure to meet professional standards is only one of several real and
persistent problems within Pacifica, but several of these other
problems would reduce in significance if professional management
standards in the implementation of policies and procedures were met.
> and that it is not the topics that are covered or the messages that
> Pacifica puts out that is the problem with Pacifica but only that the
> quality of the coverage of those topics and messages that is the problem.
Failue to program consistent with the Pacifica Mission is another
persistent problem within Pacifica, a problem also addressable through
the consistent application of well-designed policies and procedures in
a professional manner.
> So if Pacifica became as "professional" as say CBS or NBC and covered the same
> topics and delivered the same messages that CBS and NBC then the problems
> of Pacifica would be solved.
Pacifica meeting or exceeding professional broadcast standards does
not mean parroting the content of other broadcasters. If Pacifica
were more professional than CBS and NBC, the various problems of those
broadcasters would not then be solved by them parroting Pacifica's
content, so there's no logic in postulating the reverse. If
Pacifica's broadcast products were more professionally produced, they
would still have to compete for listener attention with the
professionally produced products of other broadcasters, but with a
consistent and improved quality they would compete at less of an
initial disadvantage.
With specific reference to news content, which is only a portion of
the educational broadcasting service that Pacifica stations should
provide, the Mission itself articulates core standards of professional
journalism that should be applied and too frequently are not, either
by Pacifica or by its competitors.
> And in order to become such a "professional" media outlet the influence
> of ordinary (and "unqualified" ) listener-sponsors and listeners, in general,
> would have to be severely reduced
In general, the influence of ordinary listener-sponsors is limited to
donating or not donating funds. Although re-establishing professional
broadcast standards might require more donated funds, achieving
professional standards in business operations would improve fiscal
efficiency and reduce waste, thereby reducing funding requirements in
some operational areas. The listener-sponsors and listeners who choose
to become involved and so become more than "ordinary" would still be
able to volunteer and participate in governance, operations, and
programming if professional standards became the norm throughout
Pacifica -- but their donated work would be expected to meet these
higher standards. In programming, this would mean increasing the
average number of hours in pre-broadcast production represented by
each hour of scheduled broadcasting. In governance, this would mean
increasing the number of hours in committee work represented by each
hour of board deliberation. In both programming and governance, it
would mean more training and reduced utilization of substandard work
product.
> and the staff and officers and Board members of Pacifica
> would have to chosen according to their "professional" status.
There are no professional requirements for board membership. Elected
board members are expected, however, to be responsible and exercise
good judgement in evaluating candidates for various management
positions. Candidates with poor professional qualifications usually
don't apply for management positions, but some Pacifica managers will
hire staff to perform work for which they are not well-qualified.
Only occasionally does the performance of an individual hired or
promoted in this manner meet the professional standards of the
position soon enough (if ever) to adequately compensate for the
additional risk and expense of the training period.
Elected board members are also expected to be responsible and exercise
good judgement in evaluating candidates for membership on their
advisory committees. Many Pacifica boards have abandoned this
responsibility and failed to meet this expectation.
> I am not sure just who would do the choosing of such "professional"
> staff, officers and Board members of the new and Saved Pacifica if
> the "unqualified" listener-sponsors no longer had the power to select
> them.
Listener-sponsors have never had the power to select staff, which is a
management function. Listener-sponsors now elect local delegates who
(with staff delegates) elect Foundation Directors who hire an
Executive Director who hires the national staff and who hires the unit
managers who hire unit staff. Before governance democratization,
listener-sponsors did not elect delegates to elect Directors.
> I think that it
> is implied that some of the Pacifica "activists" would do that selecting -
Only Jim appears to have such thoughts, but one person is greater than
the zero persons that Jim considers to constitute "a considerable
number," so I suppose it then follows that "more than a considerable
number" think that Pacifica activists should select staff, officers,
and board members. Pacifica activists can volunteer to serve on
management search committees in some station areas, but their
participation is at the discretion of the LSB and final selections are
by existing managers or ED. Even if we re-define Pacifica "activists"
to be all those who vote in delegate elections, there is a bylaws
basis onlty for the participation of these voters in the selection of
those delegates who chose station representative Directors and who
serve on the local boards. Management hires staff and who selects
officers depends on the officer position.
> the very, very "professional" and very "qualified" wannabe be great ones of
> the Pacifica "activists" that is - probably some of the "owners" and
> Banners and Censors who control the discussions on the Pacifica related
> listserv
> might badly desire to have their "ownership" powers and Banning and
> Censoring powers extended
Pacifica listserv owners don't "control the discussion" because almost
all contributors on almost all such lists are unmoderated -- i.e.,
their messages are posted without review by the list owners. List
owners sometimes limit the noise on their lists by placing persistent
rule violators under temporary moderation. On some lists, spam is
identified and filtered automatically, such as by diverting posts from
non-members or rejecting messages with too many recipients.
> to selecting the oh so very "professional" staff
> and officers and Board members of the new and Second Salvation Pacifica
> that some are fighting to establish.
Pacifica board members can fight for professional standards and
encourage penalties for unprofessional conduct, but most of the work
of re-professionalizin g Pacifica's operations will be at the
discretion of unit managers. The Pacifica Radio Archives unit and the
National Office unit already meet most professional standards for
their day-to-day activities and experienced broadcast professionals
have been hired as Pacifica Executive Director, as National Program
Coordinator, and as KPFK General Manager, to name a few.
> Jim "But remember the 'Second Salvation' also means the Apocalypse and
> the end of Pacifica." D.
Professional standards are not incompatible with the Pacifica Mission.
More rigorous attention to work and product quality should improve the
Foundation's ability to identify and accomplish its goals. Time will
tell if standards throughout Pacifica, including standards of business
operations and standards of broadcast quality, eventually improve as a
result of recent hires.
--Terry Goodman