I've enjoyed reading this thread at some point in time folks are going to get why Pacifica, got such a great archive and what went wrong in control over the content in programming. Could it be that the power of the people that own the air wave's was taken away, without fight from Pacifica, on the issue of who's responsibility is it to the FCC and US Government when there is a license broadcast engineer signed on to the station on air log that was also a buffer between the Pacifica, Foundation and the FCC and the US Government.>>Billy Ray Folks please go back and read the FCC rules and policy before 1987 and then tell me how Pacifica, could get more of the kind of archives it has today, No Way.>>Billy Ray To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: sgeras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:10:28 -0500Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [NewPacifica] Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] The Care & Feeding of Community Radio all understandable and reasonable; however, one of the problems I've seen at meetings particularly around the time of the xMAs coup, is that overinflated egos which seek gratitude and a following at least, at most "love", are producing radio which reflects the startstruck arrogance of success, a kind of "devil wears prada" attitude in the disguise of progressives. I postulate that the only way to break the love of status is by making radio a popular process....it is a tool which can and should be used by everyone. Of course there are people who are more adept and informed than others in the medium of radio but in a popular process, that knowledge is nothing more than somehing to be taught, to be passed on. We need more voices, not fewer professionals with careers to protect. I thought one of Lew Hill's stated articles of incorporation was encouraging the creativity of non-radio personalities. Popular processes are the most difficult to develop especially in a matrix of competition. Stephan Original Message ----- From: Kevin White To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 4:50 PM Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [NewPacifica] Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] The Care & Feeding of Community Radio Not students, professors. And yes, nationalize programming or see the demise of Pacifica. We need to follow the same paradigm that Amy Goodman has accomplished. This is survival. FM is a dying technology. And our programming is stale and pretty much unlistenable. Highly produced national progaming is the cure. I don't care for ideology. I want news that is backed up with facts. Cutting edge culture. And discourse returned. I hope you listened to the archive broadcast. If you compare Pacifica then and now the first thing you'll think of is we are pretty much doing poor radio that no one will care if its archived. K ----- Original Message ----From: stephan <sgeras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: Sunday, December 2, 2007 7:45:35 AMSubject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] The Care & Feeding of Community Radio Kevin, really, "nationalize programming" and "bring in university students with more intellectualism" ....yeah! institutionalize ideology! What the network needs to do is bring in facilitators, not demagogues, who can communicate basic tools, structures and fundamental "rules" to anyone truly interested in speaking out. Something similar to Freire I think. Collectivize! Ask yourself what the qualification, "education" and "intellectualism" mean and what do they lead to. And as well, is "promotion" really the goal of the network? Stephan ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin White To: PhelpsMediation@ aol.com ; wanzala@gmail. com ; bks@xxxxxxx ; fulcrumsofchange- bounces@lists. pacificana. org ; fulcrumsofchange@ pacificana. org ; newpacifica@ yahoogroups. com ; pacifica_now@ yahoogroups. com ; friends_of_kpft@ yahoogroups. com Cc: kpfapc@pacificana. org Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 3:28 PM Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] The Care & Feeding of Community Radio Richard, I agree with all your points here. I would like to add an additional point. The life-long Pacifica broadcasters (both the Pacifica-employed and the volunteers) have collectively been on the air far tooooo looooong. We are long past becoming stale. Also, we need to re-enlist from the local universities (I think I heard once that there was quite a nice one there in Berkeley) and bring intellectualism back to Pacifica. Even the programmers in Houston, who are trying extremely hard and working exceedingly long hours, do not have the basis in education require to properly promote the philosophy of the network. Too often KPFT airwaves are filled with amateur op-eds with no basis in evidence of fact. In a nutshell, we need to nationalize programming in the manner of a Hugo Chavez. Please bring on the revolution. Kevin White KPFT (yawn) Houston ----- Original Message ----From: "PhelpsMediation@ aol.com" <PhelpsMediation@ aol.com>To: cuitlacoche1@ yahoo.com; wanzala@gmail. com; bks@xxxxxxx; fulcrumsofchange- bounces@lists. pacificana. org; fulcrumsofchange@ pacificana. orgCc: kpfapc@pacificana. orgSent: Saturday, December 1, 2007 11:34:20 AMSubject: Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] The Care & Feeding of Community Radio In a message dated 12/1/2007 7:25:07 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, cuitlacoche1@ yahoo.com writes: The arguement that the naive within Pacifica often give is the opposing viewpoints have the commercial media on all channels proclaiming their doctrine (or the doctrine that we're all encouraged to believe). So, they argue, Pacifica doesn't need to broadcast opposing viewpoints. While I agree with this somewhat, I have heard enough of Bush and his followers and apologists, the obvious solution is to have people on together from different tendencies from the center-left to the left. There are many different groups and intellectuals with different analyses of what is going on and what to do about it. Green Party and Wellstone club discuss/debate organizing in the Demo. Party. DN! has had some good debates on Palestine etc. I could come up with many interesting and lively topics. Not to mention the taboo of taboos KPFA/Pacifica politics. I have challenged Bensky, Brian Edward-Tiekert, Mark Hernandez, Sarv, Con Hallinan, Sherry Gendelman or any representative of their tendency to debate the issues at KPFA and they all refuse. Why, I don't think they want the masses of listeners to know what they are doing and their real politics in action. They like to have their spin spread without any confrontation with reality. I think this makes bland radio. And further, doesn't do much for education or debate. Bland radio is why KPFA has lost 4-5K subscribers during the Bush regime? A time when we should have doubled our numbers. It was epitomized by the refusal to put our best news/public affairs program in prime time 7-8 a.m. and promote it to the masses of progressive people in the Bay Area, to educate and activate. If we had done that in 2003 I really believe that we could have 40K or more subscribers. Of course to keep them as they came in because of DN! we would have had to minimize the reading of AP wire on the evening news and reduce or eliminate those long audio clips from various generals about how to do Iraq better or different etc. In Houston, even on the "progressive shows" as well as the nearly unlistenable KPFT Local News, the level of education of the hosts is so poor we might as well not even broadcast them. Sounds like Peter Laufer. Richard Phelps Attorney/Mediator PhelpsMediation. com 405 14th St. Suite 508 Oakland, CA 94612 510 268-9919, Fax 268-0368 PhelpsMediation@ aol.com Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. _________________________________________________________________ Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_102007