Hi Nalini,
Lew Hill was more interested in philosophy than he was politics. He was a
follower of both Soren Kierkegaard and Gandhi. He loved intellectualism and
dialog. Due to his treatment as a conscientious objector, he is the first
person I've ever heard of that hated the Quakers for the slave-like way they
treated conscientious objectors in their labor camps.
Today we have no dialog on Pacifica stations. We like to preach to the choir.
And I think that this has made them very tedious and boring to listen to.
Casper Weinberger once had a show on Pacifica. We need that old controversy we
used to have. Also, times and technology are leaving FM radio behind, yet we
still insist on using the vehicle of the Fund Drive four and going on five
times a years. We are a network of college sophomore radicals and old men.
I was a follower of the TakeBackMovement, if only for the promise of better
radio. If I sound bitter it's because I've waited 8 years and if anything KPFT
has gotten worse since the settlement. When I turn it on in other people's car,
they invariably ask me to turn it off.
Now I'm putting my hopes into well-conceived, well-funded, fact-checked
national programming to save the network. Amateur radio, I feel, will not be
enough to save us. If Pacifica was once capable of creating the quality of
radio such as Democracy Now! then we can do it again, and even better.
The strengths of Amy Goodman are obvious, but to make a show even better we
need to look at what she doesn't do all that well. I love Amy, but we need to
look closely at her weaknesses if we want to improve.
1. Amy's voice is really nasty. Radio shouldn't grate on the nerves like finger
nails on a blackboard.
2. Amy only does interview journalism with extremely low production values.
There are other type of journalism that we leave untouched and production
values are not the path to perdition.
3. Amy is always, no matter how busy she is, the "Star of the Show." We need to
bring other talents and voices to our shows if we want to improve. Plus "Stars"
such as Larry Bensky, Dennis Bernstein, et al have not been all that good for
the network. They are working for their own egos and not for the general good
of the network as a whole.
4. We really need to bring intellectualism back to the airwaves; this is the
most important thing we as a network should be offering the country right now.
Not more sound bytes, one-sided dialog, preaching to the choir. We need
balanced stories that go into depth and cross boundaries. We could learn a few
things from NPR for example. Their continuing Katrina coverage puts Pacifica to
shame.
5. We need to stop running the network like a political party; we need to run
it like a business. We need to stop the cronyism, stop protecting our friends.
We need to be objective or we will lose this great resource.
I'm hoping the new PNB will be a lot more rational than the PNB of 2007. 2007
was Pacifica's darkest year. We have a new ED, we need a brand new legal
council. We need to do things in a whole new way.
Sincerely,
Kevin White
----- Original Message ----
From: "LasiewiczN@xxxxxxx" <LasiewiczN@xxxxxxx>
To: cuitlacoche1@xxxxxxxxx; PacificaRadiowaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:59:58 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [PacificaRadiowaves] Otie Speaks. What he sees is a network
in troub...
Hi Kevin:
I got a chuckle when I read that you think Otie (and others) may
be part of a new faction....the "Nalini faction." I wouldn't say
that this is a new faction, although it does appear to be growing in
size. However, let us not pretend that any of the other factions have, or
ever will, disappear.
I've just always called this faction "normal people."
Wherever Pacifica people grasp onto the network as thought it's a cult or
religion, or to be used as a propaganda tool of one group exclusively, that's
what we usually call "loons."
I named my document library the Lew Hill Project archives because I so
support and admire what Lew Hill had in mind for Pacifica
Foundation. But as Greg Guma explains in his blog, Lew Hill's
concept was under seige from very early on, it has been at risk for a long
time, and sometimes has been totally lost to competing interests by people
who were, in fact, a lot more politicized then he was, or people who felt that
this media organization was the last bastion for free speech in the
nation. I'm sure it sounds egotistical to say that I feel that the
"Nalini Faction" would be closer to the original idea of Pacifica as it was
first conceived. So let's not call it my faction. Like everyone
else, I have my own idea of what "the Mission" is and for one thing, it means
that reforming the organization or updating it's operations or
expansion ought to be accomplished without WAR, without terrorism, without
sniper attacks, without sabotage and "cleansing." Lew Hill wanted peace,
which is what he sought in the most drastic of personal acts. What I've
tried to show on this web site is how much the "Take Pacifica, It's Free
Campaign" was far more self-serving and unethical and warlike than
most of it's former foot soldiers and donors were led to believe.
Any organization is bound to change over time and the authority
to do so it always in the hands of the Trustees, which is always
changing. So I'm pragmatic and I don't feel that we must stay frozen
in the bylaws of 1946, but on the other hand, I do think that
professionalism and the guidance of truly accomplished individuals are two
FUNDAMENTAL components, which have been lost over time but that are
still necessary if the project is to ever grow and truly thrive.
Nalini
________________________________
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on
AOL Food.