On Wed Aug 27, 2008, Kevin White wrote: >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. Put that way, it's one-third wrong and misses an important point. Yes, what we are broadcasting now is not making bank. No other conclusion is consistent with several stations' monthly balance sheets and Pacifica's independently audited annual financial reports for the past several years. Yes, we have to make some painful changes soon or we will continue a business decline until major assets are lost. But the needed changes are not in what I would call "traditional Pacifica broadcasting," because the declining tradition of the past twenty-five years is not the tradition of the past fifty, a reality stark to long-time listeners which is too little understood by Pacifica's relative newcomers. Pacifica's real tradition in broadcasting is to make innovative use of the most modern equipment and techniques to facilitate the production of thought-provoking examinations of controversial contemporary issues using a careful mix of journalistic reporting or narration, interview actualities, music and dramatic readings, all under the general direction and control of unpaid volunteer producers with the technical and artistic assistance of paid broadcast professionals -- productions which meet or exceed all radio broadcast industry quality standards, productions which regularly draw press notices and win for Pacifica and the producers prestigious broadcast industry awards -- productions which demonstrate to the listener-sponsors of the Foundation that their contributions are well-spent, which draw new listeners, which encourage new subscribers, and which assist Pacifica in being awarded some of the grants that it applies for and loses. The Pacifica Radio Archives include productions such as WBAI's "In One Ear and Out the Other" and KPFK's "Jim Morrison: Artist in Hell," which not only still meet high broadcast standards and are Mission-serving, but also train any listening radio producers or potential producers in the technical basics of the craft of broadcast production and demonstrate how to use these skills and techniques to award-winng effect. PRA always maintains one or more experienced and talented staff producers who know the craft and can recognize quality. Its "From the Vault" series should be required listening for any Pacifica producer who has aspirations to go network. Otherwise, Pacifica's future as an actual broadcasting network, a function we no longer serve with competence and reliability, may eventually depend upon immigrants from Great Britain who are Pacifica fans from catching the series on a BBC station -- full circle from early-day KPFA's utilization of personnel with BBC broadcasting experience and BBC standards of professional quality -- which they promulgated within the organization in its infancy and youth through advocacy, through policy, and through personal example. Pacifica is not making bank because, as has been said, "we suck." We suck because of the sorts of broadcasting that we too-often do, not because of the sorts of broadcasting that we previously excelled at. In service to narrow concepts of "identity" politics, "community broadcasting," and "democracy," we have strayed from the Mission of Pacifica and from its legacy of broadcast quality. We imagine that we are serving women and communities of color by maintaining a certain ethnic and gender ratio among managers, paid staff and governance and by scheduling some approximately correct mix of on-air talent to play music or host call-in shows. This purely cosmetic approach to justice does not accomplish the work of the Mission to educate about injustice. It does not devote resources to well-researched examinations of the social problems relevant to women and people of color or to everyone, comprehensive and provocative examinations which might provide listeners with information useful towards them actually addressing these problems as citizens or as citizen-activists in a productive manner. Pacifica has lost revenue because it has lost listeners. It has lost listeners in part because it is not currently perceived by a large audience as adequately serving their needs. Serving the Pacifica Mission well means maintaining a broadcasting model that allows its programming to have a significant cultural effect, if not in the numbers of listeners then in their character and cultural importance. This means broadcasting that can impact opinion leaders in the arts, sciences, and humanities, which means programs that experts and opinion leaders might listen to or participate in, which means programs that don't insult their intelligence, their knowledge, or their sense of fair play. Pacifica's salvation is to be found in adherance to the Pacifica Mission Statement. Any other approach is sacrificing the Mission for a non-Mission objective. Except where it sustains itself through music programming, it is Pacifica's straying from the Mission and failing to meet high quality standards, not its adherance to the Mission and occasionally exceeding high quality standards, that is the significant portion of current programming models that have failed to remain self-supporting. It is Pacifica's lowering of quality standards in service to other priorities such as "serving the progressive community" that has resulted in smaller audience numbers and fewer broadcasting awards. Continuing in this direction is not sustainable as a business strategy, as declining bank balances clearly demonstrate. Pacifica's intended audience should be the informed and engaged world citizen, the seeker of enlightenment, the skeptical but open-minded human eager for new knowledge and new experiences, the person prepared for a paradigm shift in their perceptions if that is what improved understanding of truth and improved appreciation of beauty requires. Pacifica's best programming should bring listeners to a needed basic level of awareness if they aren't there yet, gently at first but forcefully and passionately at peak moments. Except for the popular programming offered simply to draw new listeners and potential converts to its stations, for which there must always be some space, when listeners are not moved by Pacifica's original programming then we have not made a significant public impact, our license to broadcast has been utilized in neglect of the public interest and necessiity, and the Pacifica Mission and Foundation Purposes as eloquently and comprehensively expressed in Pacifica's Articles of Incorporation and repeated in its bylaws has not been well-served. Individuals with widely differing opinions about what Pacifica should be were participants in the democratization struggle that resulted in new bylaws and a new governance structure, but the Articles of Incorporation were not changed in this process. Our agreement with the People of the State of California given in exchange for the rights and privileges of charter as a public benefit corporation as well as our representations to the Federal Communications Commission justifying the award and periodic renewal of our broadcast licenses requires due diligence in pursuing our stated purposes, not some personal progressive version of those purposes. It is dedication to the clear purposes of the Foundation, not to an identity, a constituency, or a political ideology that should be primary among Pacifica's paid managers and staff and broadly shared among Pacifica's volunteers and listener-sponsors. It is dedication to the clear purposes of the Foundation as written and dedication to the Foundation's survival and progress in fulfilling those purposes that must be primary among Foundation Directors when serving in that capacity for them to serve in good faith rather than in a manner essentially adverse to the Foundation's interests. Yes, painful changes are ahead. If they are changes that will ultimately improve Pacifica's Mission performance, then they should be welcomed as an opportunity for progress, even though the changes are made under financial duress and may injure some careers and endanger some important assets. If the changes do not encourage better performance, then any temporary contraction of Pacifica's operations will become permanent and the tragic waste of listener donations will persist. Empty pockets is a signal that Pacifica cannot ignore. Now that this state has finally arrived as predicted, I hope that we interpret this signal rationally and apply the lessons to be learned with good business sense and with careful attention to all available audience and contributor data, including data on the potential audience not listening and on the potential supporters not contributing. Reality must be faced. The blinders must come off. Practices damaging to the Foundation and its purposes must be rejected, corrected, or suppressed. Policies that benefit the Foundation and its Mission must be identified, established, communicated, and applied. Failure is a bad choice among the available options -- a choice perhaps unwittingly made by some managers, staff, and governance members in previous years through ignorance, incompetence, political expediency, an irrational refusal to face facts, and a disturbing tendency to play to various public constituencies or manuever to solidify internal support and position protection rather than paying proper attention to competently performing the important duties assigned. --Terry Goodman