Okay, that's a good point. The shows were are lot more mission-driven and
intellectually stimulating at that. I should have said the shows of the last 20
years...
However, I do believe that days of the lazy call in shows are numbered. Some
shows have 10 minutes of content and then they "open up the phone lines..."
I think Pacifica invented this form of radio. And I think we should retire it
too. Or use it sparingly.
Wouldn't it be better to have hour long shows with an hour of content?
K
----- Original Message ----
From: Terry Goodman <tgoodman4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: cuitlacoche1@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; PacificaRadiowaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:10:42 AM
Subject: [PacificaRadiowaves] Re: Re: Professionalizing Pacifica
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