Pacificana.Org - all things pacifican

The 13th annual Grassroots Radio Conference is happening later this month out in Portland, hosted by the good folks at KBOO. I won’t be able to attend, but GRCs are usually pretty fun - if you have a chance, check it out. The email below is from KBOO’s Ani Haines.
~Nathan

- - - - -

Registration for the GRC will be open on Thursday, July 24th, 2 - 8pm. We will have a reception /social gathering at the Native American Student and Community Center from 5 - 8 pm.

Breakfast & Registration will be ready at 8 AM, Friday, July 25th, with the Opening Plenary beginning at 9:30 am.

The conference ends Sunday, 1:30 pm, following the Closing Plenary on Sunday, July 27th.

Many, many more details forthcoming. I will post a list of workshops to this list tomorrow.

Further updates: The rooms that we blocked out at University Place (at a great price!) are going fast. Please reserve your room now if you want one! I am copying the information from our website to the bottom of this email for everyone’s convenience.

And finally, if you are planning to come to the conference, PLEASE REGISTER SOON!!! I am trying to get a good count for food, etc. If you register AFTER JULY 18th, YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MEALS! So don’t delay, register today! You’ll be glad you did and so will I.

The GRC 13 food planning crew has just asked me to ask you: If you are coming to the Grassroots Radio Conference, we ask you to bring your own re-usable water bottle and travel mug. We are trying to use very few disposables, in keeping with our commitment to the environment.

Thanks so much! We are very excited to host this conference, along with KPCN, Portland Center for Public Humanities at PSU, and the PSU Departments of English and Communications.

I look forward to seeing you in about 2.5 weeks!
ani

REVOLUTION REWIND: 1968 YEAR IN REVIEW
A three-hour documentary special

“Revolution Rewind” is a 40th Anniversary celebration of a year in which a radical wave crashed across the globe, changing the world and its people politically, socially, and culturally. Wars, marches, elections, assassinations, human rights, civil rights, women’s rights, the explosion of consciousness and creativity… And Pacifica Radio was there to capture it all.

Check back here for a link to the documentary program after July 10th. Or check with your local Pacifica station or affiliate for air time.

CONTENT BY HOUR:
Hour 1: Revolution Rewind: 1968 Year in Review, Part One consists of a broad overview of 1968, with audio selections ranging from Pacifica’s courageous and uncensored coverage of the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King, Jr., members of the Black Panther Party, Cesar Chavez, Robert Kennedy, the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Pete Seeger, Jesse Jackson, Muhammad Ali, Ayn Rand, and many more.

Hour 2: Revolution Rewind: 1968 Year in Review, Part Two showcases the powerful artistic contributions made within this year of turmoil: the sounds of Bob Dylan, Allen Ginsberg, Melina Mercouri, Sun Ra, Phil Ochs, Abbie Hoffman, James Baldwin, Langston Hughes, and others.

Hour 3: Revolution Rewind: 1968 Year in Review, Part Three features two very special guests who found themselves on the forefront of change in 1968 — independent journalist Connie Lawn and activist Tom Hayden join us in the studio 40 years after the fact, to share thoughts and analysis on the lasting importance and impression of 1968, the year of sounds that changed the world.

PRODUCTION STAFF:
Executive Producer: Pacifica Radio Archives and Brian DeShazor
Produced and Edited by Mark Torres
Written by Joanne Griffith
Hosts: Brian DeShazor, Joanne Griffith, Sonali Kolhatkar, Mark Maxwell, Margaret Prescod, Aura Bogado, and Mark Torres

Pacifica Radio will air a live three-hour broadcast from the Green Party Convention in Chicago on Sunday, July 13th as the convention comes to a close.

The convention coverage will air live on Pacifica’s five sister stations this Sunday — 12n-3pm EDT / 11am-2pm CDT / 9am-12n PDT. If you listen to a Pacifica affiliate station, check to see if they’ll be carrying the broadcast live or tape-delayed.

In this Presidential election year, huge issues face the United States: wars in the Middle East and saber-rattling with Iran; the danger of environmental collapse; and the economy in recession with no end in sight… Yet on many of the most important issues facing us, only modest differences exist between the two major parties.

However, over the weekend of July 13th, the Green Party will chart a different course at its annual convention in Chicago. Hosted by Davey D from KPFA’s Hard Knock Radio and produced by KPFK’s Christine Blosdale, Pacifica Radio will be on site to bring you live coverage on Sunday, July 13th. We’ll air speeches, stories and sounds from the Green Party convention, as well as terrific live interviews and analysis of the Greens in the current political landscape.

Pacifica’s Green Party coverage is the first in the network’s summer coverage of the national political conventions. The Democratic National Convention takes place in Denver at the end of August, and the Republicans will be in St. Paul at the beginning of September. We’ll have a crew on-site for both.

I’m reposting this from Ernesto Aguilar’s blog. I briefly met Sean on a staff call last week, and I look forward to working with him. Welcome aboard this crazy ship, Sean! ~N

Sean Heitkemper has been announced as the new general manager of KPFK in Los Angeles. Sonali Kolhatkar notes:

At only 36 years of age, Sean has more than 13 years of experience managing public radio stations. He is a native of Southern California, majored in political science at Cal State Long Beach, and worked at KKJZ, formerly KLON, in Long Beach. Sean was hired to run KPFK by Pacifica Executive Director Nicole Sawaya, who picked him from a set of finalists chosen by the Local Station Board.

Sean served in various capacities at KLON/KKJZ, including as a membership manager. Sean hosted a program at KKJZ and was the station manager until the spring of 2007.

Congrats to Sean and KPFK!

Before returning to Pacifica Radio’s business office in Berkeley, after weeks on the road visiting stations as I relocated across the country, a few more stops needed to be made. First, a briefing with some Los Angeles volunteers who explained the intricacies of Pacifica’s election process. The meet was arranged by Lydia Brazon, a national board member representing KPFK.

For some people elections are the heart of what has been achieved by the Save Pacifica movement – more than a hundred elected local board members for the five sister stations, chosen by Pacifica members through a complex form of proportion voting. Each listener-member, volunteer and staff member can support multiple candidates by ranking their choices. A computer program calculates the results, making it possible for various constituencies to be represented.

But the process takes months, what with determining eligibility, nominations, public forums and public service announcements designed to level the playing field, the mailing of more than 80,000 ballots and booklets with candidate appeals, and the tabulation and certification of each station’s results. According to the new bylaws, at least 10 percent of members must vote in each local election for the outcome to be valid, and it has been getting more difficult each year to legitimately achieve quorum.

Within a month I would have to select a National Election Supervisor to manage the entire process (In April 2006 I picked Les Radke, over the objections of some), someone who understood this unusual approach to elections and had enough patience to handle the inevitable complaints. That overseer would in turn recruit Local Election Supervisors for each station. It might also be necessary to contract with an outside firm specializing in this type of computer-based voting. The whole shebang would cost more than $200,000 (slightly less in 2006) and require the cooperation of managers and staff at every station. The latter certainly wasn’t assured. For many staff members the elections were a time-consuming nuisance and ended up producing boards that demanded far too much involvement in day-to-day decisions for their taste.

That evening I was the main speaker at a community meeting. After explaining how it happened that a Vermont editor had become the CEO of a radio network, I took questions for about two hours. People seemed surprised that I had a decent grasp of the myriad challenges. After that I drove downtown for a late-night talk with Dave Adelson, the new chair of the national board.

Dave was neurophysiologist, former chair of the KPFK board, and, during the Save Pacifica movement, lead plaintiff in a key lawsuit. He had supported Eva Georgia’s candidacy for ED, as he explained it mainly because she was tough and wouldn’t “take shit” from people. On the other hand, he advised me not to act too fast but rather to watch the dynamics before making any strong moves. His analysis centered on the notion that Pacifica had been “privatized” by people who thought of airtime as their personal real estate. The idea that the network was supposed to foster a civic community had been lost along the way. It would be difficult to change that, he believed. But he had a big idea.

Dave’s idea involved the growth of digital media and the Internet. Increasing numbers of people, especially the young, were already getting their media via devices like iPods. They didn’t see the point of making an appointment to hear a show when they could download it at their convenience. If Pacifica provided major online platforms for content – and encouraged people to use them as a viable alternative to terrestrial radio – it could foster a new form of civic media. Over time it wouldn’t matter as much who had the 8 a.m. time slot. An unlimited number of shows could be distributed. Listeners could even become their own program directors, assisted by Pacifica in setting up virtual channels.

But making all content, including existing shows, available online meant that questions of ownership and copyright had to be resolved. The stations owned any shows produced by staff members, and the CPB provided a blanket agreement that allowed non-commercial stations to air commercially-owned music. But most Pacifica shows weren’t produced by staff; they were created and hosted by individual volunteers and collectives. And music distributed digitally wasn’t covered by the CPB’s deal with the recording industry. As soon as possible Pacifica needed to work out an arrangement with its volunteers, resolving the ownership issue and winning support for licensing agreements that would allow the network to distribute hundreds of programs to a vast new and much younger audience.

It was a lot to absorb, and I didn’t completely get it the first time he tried to explain. Dave had a scientist’s fascination with subtle details and tended to rhapsodize about his vision of the future. But it was clear that he had a plan and had taken on a leadership role within the board to make something very specific happen. He too wanted to know if he could count on my support.

Part Twelve of Pacifica Radio: A Listening Tour

Next: Following the Money

“The day I graduated from high scool I was asked what I wanted to be and I said a clown… I was saying a great truth because I think there is a lot of the clown in me… to laugh at yourself is a great thing.”
~Henry Miller (1891-1980)

Henry Miller is best known for his novels Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn, as well his controversial reputation for writing about sexual experiences in explicit detail. But perhaps few would ever consider this great American author’s creativity to be rooted in humor… recently remastered recordings from deep within our vault may change that perception.

Here at Pacifica Radio Archives, we are fortunate to have numerous documentaries on Henry Miller, each with extensive interviews with and recordings of Miller speaking with friends and reading from his work. What emerges from this historic audio is a surprising portrait of an incredibly funny man with living in the company great friends, abound with tales of adventure and wild drunken nights. In the episode of From the Vault, we’ll get to Henry Miller on a very personal level through intimate conversations with the author himself.

In the second half of From the Vault, we turn to an interview with Henry Miller conducted in 1956 by Ben Grauer. The interview covers everything from Miller’s happiest memories to why he admired French prostitutes so much. Throughout the interview, we’ll also hear excerpts from a variety of Miller’s works. This is Henry Miller as true as can be!

From the Vault is proudly presented as part of the Pacifica Radio Archives Preservation and Access Project.

LISTEN to this episode.

Click here to purchase a copy of this program or learn more about and purchase copies of the historic archival recordings used within this episode. To purchase a CD copy of this program by phone, please call Pacifica Radio Archives at 800.735.0230 x 262.

Click here to send an email to From the Vault.

Last week, the FCC commenced its long anticipated proceeding to reexamine its sponsorship identification rules. This proceeding has been rumored for over six months, having appeared on an agenda for a Commission open meeting in December, only to be pulled from the agenda days before it was to have been voted on. The Commission has initiated this proceeding, to a great degree, at the urging of Commissioner Adelstein who has been vocal in his concerns that the broadcast and advertising industries, in adopting advertising techniques to respond to technological and marketplace changes, has been exposing the public to commercial messages without their knowledge.  One of the principal practices of concern to the Commission, though not the only one, is embedded advertising (as the Commission refers to product placement and product integration into the dialog and/or plot of a program). While many of the trade press reports have focused on embedded advertising, this proceeding is wide-ranging and important to the broadcast, cable and advertising industries. Comments on the proceeding will be due 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register, with replies 30 days later.   We have prepared an Advisory, summarizing the issues raised by the Commission in this proceeding, which can be found here.

According to trade press reports, this proceeding was initially planned as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would have proposed rules which, after public comment, could have been immediately adopted. After significant lobbying from the advertising community, the Notice was released in two parts. First, there is a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), asking a series of questions about the current state of advertising on broadcast and cable outlets, and asking how the Commission should amend its rules to deal with new advertising techniques. Second, the Commission’s announcement contains an NPRM with respect to certain specific items, including proposing to clarify the type of sponsorship identification necessary in television advertising, the extension of the sponsorship identification rules beyond local origination cablecasting to cable network programming, and clarification of the rules with respect to live-read radio commercials. The specifics of the NOI and the NPRM are set forth in our Advisory. 

Also of interest was the Commission's discussion of the background of the sponsorship identification rules.  In its discussion, the Commission raised a number of issues with common broadcast techniques and whether or not these were consistent with existing precedent - some of that precedent dating back 40 years.  For instance, the FCC cited a policy statement from the 1960s that stated that "teaser" announcements of a few seconds duration were impermissible if the sponsor was not clear from the teaser itself, even if the sponsor became clear in a later announcement in the same program.  The use of "cwickies" by the CW Network was identified as a potential area of concern by the FCC.

The Commission also questioned whether there was a need for sponsorship identifications in interview programs where there was consideration given to the program for the inclusion of broadcast material.  The FCC worried about "hidden commercials."  That discussion was most likely triggered by the concerns over Video News Releases ("VNRs") and by payments to spokesmen to plug government programs without disclosing that they had been paid (as in the Armstrong Williams program which was the subject of a fine about which we wrote here, and the recent controversy about ex-military officers who offered on-air opinions on the War on Terror without disclosing their financial connections to the Defense Department).  However, it would seemingly have a far greater impact.  In watching television programs in the last few days, I've been wondering how far the FCC's concern could go.  On virtually every talk program, from the late night programs like the Daily Show or the Leno or Letterman, to daytime TV programs like Oprah or the Today Show, one staple is the author who is plugging his or her book or the actor plugging his or her movie.  Could the provision of the guest on these programs for no payment by the TV show be construed as the receipt of valuable consideration by the book publishers or movie companies who are paying the costs of the promotional tour by the author or actor?  Watching another cable television talk program, I noted the presence of numerous coffee cups with a recognizable logo on the desk of the hosts.  Was that coffee paid for by the hosts, or was it provided by the coffee company just for the promotional value of having its cups appear on screen?  While FCC policy currently allows the provision of material used in a program at no charge if the material is not unnecessarily highlighted in the program (so the piano may be provided by Steinway and its logo may be seen when the focus is on the player's fingers, there is no tight focus on the logo nor is there a plug at the end of the concerto remarking on how amazing the piano was).  But would even the existing indirect plugs be permitted (without a sponsorship identification) if rules were adopted to address some of the concerns expressed by the FCC. 

The way that the advertising and broadcasting businesses work together could be profoundly affected by this proceeding.  Read our Advisory, read the FCC's Notice, and watch for the comment date.  Think about the concerns that should be addressed by the Commission before enacting any new rules in this area, and let them know of these concerns before any new rules are adopted. 

Each year, as fireworks celebrate the Declaration of Independence and people discuss how the United States began, the spotlight normally turns to “revolutionary” leaders and the “armed struggle” waged more than two centuries ago. But as usual, the real story is a bit different. The movement toward independence in the “new world” actually began a decade before the “shot heard round the world” and involved thousands of people. By the time things turned violent, substitute governments and firm alliances were operating in nine colonies.

Early colonial campaigns weren’t mere passive pleading. They were demands, backed by nonviolent actions that forced Britain to change its laws. Through economic boycott and the development of new government structures, John Dickinson wrote in 1767, colonists could pressure parliament by “withholding from Britain all the advantages they get from us.” One pamphlet circulating at the time urged colonists to “bid defiance to tyranny by exposing its impotence.”

Many colonists were already following this advice, refusing to comply with the new Stamp Act, a direct tax on all sorts of licenses, publications and legal papers, by resisting use of the stamps. According to Britain, the duty would be used to finance British troops “protecting” colonists from Indian “hostility” and French expansionism. Resistance began even before the Act was official. This grassroots movement, which essentially nullified the law, involved a massive refusal to import British goods and the beginning of economic self-sufficiency in North America.

The forms of political defiance and direct action included civil disobedience and, in some cases, threats aimed at stamp distributors. No one was killed, but the threats and scattered attacked on property were effective deterrents. By November all the stamp distributors resigned, while ports and newspapers remained open despite the absence of stamps. Debts to British merchants were left unpaid. The Rhode Island Assembly resolved that only colonists could tax colonists. In order to avoid mass prosecution of resisters, however, George Washington advised that colonial courts be closed.

Despite the absence of violence, the threat to British rule was obvious. Power was swiftly being diffused through many substitute governments. Town meetings took to passing laws that were more widely obeyed than British regulations. By early 1768 more than four million pounds was owed to Britain’s merchants, who pressured the King and parliament for action. The Stamp Act was repealed, but Britain simultaneously proclaimed that the right to tax the colonies still and would always exist. What couldn’t be defended on the ground was brandished on paper.

The Townshend Acts, a 1768 attempt by new British Prime Minister Charles Townshend to impose an external levy, met just as much resistance. The new Acts placed a tax on imported goods such as lead, paint, paper, glass, and tea. This time it wasn’t merchants who initiated the campaign but mechanics, artisans and workers. The main method was non-consumption, along with development of economic alternatives along self-sufficient lines. When goods weren’t bought and those on household shelves weren’t used, merchants were forced not to import the boycotted items. Within a year the Massachusetts legislature denounced the law, calling for united action, and Virginia voted for strict non-importation, notifying other colonies of its decision.

Non-importation put a squeeze on British merchants until the Acts died in 1770. But this time Britain was a bit more clever: All taxes - except the duty on tea – were repealed. Falling short of total victory the colonists became divided about the success of their campaign. In the confusion resistance disintegrated as Britain doggedly held onto its right to tax.

Despite the setback colonial fervor persisted in other resistance efforts. The Committees of Correspondence, established years earlier as underground governments, maintained a network for expressions of solidarity, protests, mutual aid, and new ideas. In 1773, Britain provided the catalyst to test these emerging organs of popular power.

The East India Company, an early international monopoly, was in financial trouble. To help the influential business, Britain’s parliament passed an Act controlling prices in order to give East India a colonial monopoly. The law manipulated the market so that even smuggled tea was more expensive. The Boston Tea Party was an early response; Bostonians in Indian garb dumped 342 chests of tea overboard. Britain responded by closing the Port of Boston and increasing repression.

The colonies mobilized, helped by their previous experiences with united action and Paul Revere’s rides to “give you all the news.” Many communities – New York, Philadelphia, Charlestown, Wilmington and Baltimore among them – pledged moral and economic support. Money, rice and sheep flooded into Massachusetts as Britain tried to undermine self-government.

Defying Britain, a Massachusetts Town Meeting resolved to cut off imports and exports, and called again for economic boycott. Revere rode to New York and Philadelphia with news of the Suffolk Resolves, soon adopted by the Continental Congress. All coercive laws were unconstitutional, the Congress had ruled, and are not to be obeyed. People were urged to form their own governments and deny taxes to the so-called “legal” governments in their regions.

Although the Resolves raised the possibility of war, the thrust remained nonviolent – boycott, tax resistance, non-importation (sometimes including slaves), and development of substitute local governments. The Continental Association, formed at the end of 1774, incorporated these approaches and added legal enforcement of “non-intercourse” along the lines used earlier in Virginia.

As this brief review suggests, the movement for US independence emerged from the grassroots, from people in neighborhoods and communities, colonists who made personal commitments and participated in hunger strikes, non-consumption and other heroic acts of resistance. It was an enormous and sustained struggle, one of many nonviolent campaigns that have profoundly influenced world history, although “official” accounts rarely give them recognition.

Civil resistance – also known as “nonviolent action” or “people power” – has proven effective, though not always successful on its own, in many colonial rebellions, struggles for labor, civil and women’s rights, campaigns to resist genocide and dictatorship, and other battles for independence and freedom. Indian nationalists used it in their struggle against British domination, various European countries used it to resist Nazi occupation, dissidents in Communist-ruled countries used it to increase freedom – and ultimately end dictatorships in Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

These movements weren’t passive or submissive, and most of the people involved weren’t pacifists, saints or natural leaders. They were ordinary people in extraordinary situations, using diverse methods – from protests and vigils to the creation of parallel or “de facto” governments – to challenge and ultimately overturn illegitimate authority. In the American colonies two centuries ago, people were well on their way to winning the War of Independence before the shooting even started. There are clearly lessons here for the domestic and global struggles we face today.

Happy Independence Day!

To learn more about recent nonviolent struggles and the potential of civil resistance, consult the work of Gene Sharp, founder of the Albert Einstein Institution, author of Waging Nonviolent Struggle and other books, and known as “the Machiavelli of nonviolence.”

In two recent FCC decisions, one dealing with a commercial operator and that other with a noncommercial licensee, the Commission's staff addressed the issue of how large an FCC fine could be imposed on a broadcaster without that fine being subject to reduction because of the licensee's inability to pay.  In the first case, a commercial station was fined for violations of the EAS rules.  As we've written before, EAS seems to be the most common violation found at broadcast stations by FCC inspectors.  However, what is most notable about this decision is not the violation, but the Commission's discussion of the penalty for that violation.  As in many cases, the licensee argued that, as it had experienced several years of financial losses, the amount of its fine should be reduced as the payment of that fine would impose a financial burden on it.  The FCC rejected the argument, finding that as the fine was less than 2% of the licensee's gross revenues, it was not excessive.  The Commission stated that, while profits and losses may be important in determining whether a licensee can pay a fine, in most cases, if the fine is less than 2% of gross revenues, it will not be considered excessive even if the licensee has not been making a profit as it it not a significant overall expense.  Therefore, the Commission refused to reduce the fine because of financial hardship argument.

In the noncommercial case, the applicant claimed that a fine that it was issued for not having any quarterly programs issues lists in it public file should have been reduced because that fine would significantly deplete the station's budget that had been allocated to it by the School District with which it was associated.  However, the licensee only provided the FCC with information concerning the budget allotted to the radio station, and it did not provide any financial information about finances of the licensee school district.  Without that information, the Commission stated that it could not determine that the fine was excessive, so it did not reduce the fine on the basis of financial hardship.  Clearly, the Commission is not anxious to reduce a fine based on the licensees financial inability to pay, so a licensee looking for such a reduction must carefully document its request showing that the fine would impose a financial hardship.

The McCarthy hearings, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Vietnam War; the voices of Dorothy Dandridge, Allen Ginsberg, Malcolm X, Margaret Mead, Alan Watts, Rachel Carson, Bertolt Brecht, Che Guevara, and countless others; rare musical performances from Coltrane to Dylan; documentaries, debates, poetry, drama, and historic moments – it’s all there in a climate-controlled Los Angeles vault.

After more than two decades on the air, Pacifica decided to begin formal preservation efforts in 1972. The idea was to save, transfer and distribute key broadcasts to schools, libraries, other radio stations, and to individuals who wanted to own a small piece of history. The decision was made to keep the library at KPFK in Los Angeles. In 1986, the National Federation of Community Broadcasters added its own archives to the collection, and by the end of the decade about 7,000 unique recordings had been restored. By the 1990s, however, the project had become enormous and the Board wasn’t devoting sufficient funds to keep rare material from deteriorating. Preservation is a costly, labor-intensive process and some tapes are so brittle that they disintegrate when handled.

The determination of PRA Director Brian DeShazor, along with the realization that both irreplaceable history and a potential income stream were being neglected, produced a change of priorities. The archives staff grew, grants were obtained, and the Board decided to devote at least two percent of the annual budget to preservation. Today many historians and scholars consider the Pacifica Radio Archives one of the most important audio collections in the world. With a line item budget of its own and status as a formal department, PRA is sometimes described as Pacifica's "sixth station."

Brian greeted me on the second floor of the KPFK building in North Hollywood the day after my first visit to the station. A precise, fair-skinned man with a deep passion for historic preservation, he was eager to explain the importance and urgency of PRA’s work. Even though Pacifica’s annual budget included more than $500,000 a year for preservation, it wasn’t enough, he said. In truth, it would take millions to rescue the thousands of tapes still sitting on long rows in the vault. Many hadn’t even been reviewed yet. And PRA’s job went far beyond that.

Once an audio jewel is identified, it must be digitally transferred and then duplicated. The archives also handle production of CDs sold as premiums during station fund drives, provide producers with access to relevant excerpts for their shows, give program directors material to enhance coverage of major events like Black History Month, make the collection – including more recent shows – available to affiliate stations for broadcast, and work with outside organizations that have nowhere else to turn for specific rare recordings.

PRA also has to raise a major portion of its budget, mainly by organizing an annual fundraising marathon broadcast on the sister stations. To supplement this income, it licenses material to publishers and the film industry, creates premium packages on specific themes, and encourages individual listeners to “adopt” tapes, which basically means underwriting the cost of restoration.

The Board didn’t seem sufficiently committed to what was, after all, a time-sensitive project, Brian felt. And station managers balked at giving up even one day of local programming for PRA’s annual on-air drive. This was the soul of Pacifica, its legacy on tape, he insisted, yet many “profoundly irreplaceable sonic documents” might still be lost unless preservation became a much higher priority. Like almost everyone I was meeting, he felt that he (and the archives) was unappreciated, and gently probed to see how committed I was to supporting the work.

Meeting with the seven person staff I was struck by the calm, upbeat atmosphere. In contrast to staff I’d encountered at some stations these people seemed to truly enjoy their jobs. Reinforcing that perception, there was little turnover or discussion of internal politics. On the other hand, they sounded detached, as if PRA was a separate organization, more like an audio library or museum than part of a national broadcasting operation.

How did they get along with the KPFK staff just downstairs? I asked. Brian flashed an ironic smile and said that contact with minimal. In fact, Eva Georgia, the station’s General Manager, rarely visited the second floor.

That was disappointing – but not a surprise. Each unit or station operated without much interest in what the others were doing. If anything, they viewed other parts of the organization as competitors for limited resources. Words like “fiefdoms” and “balkanization” were used frequently to describe the dynamic. Everyone wanted respect, but most people stressed the unresponsiveness and limitations of others rather than how they might collaborate.

Part Eleven of Pacifica Radio: A Listening Tour

Next: Electronic Democracy & Civic Media

The broadcast was unusual, the first time a Pacifica top manager has been able to address a national audience live – through all five sister stations – in many years. With station managers empowered to make programming decisions locally, simultaneous broadcast by Pacifica’s owned stations in New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Berkeley, and Washington, DC has been rare in recent years. The one-hour show, which included calls from listeners, gave Sawaya the chance to candidly discuss the organization’s accomplishments, potential, and difficulties. Although avoiding some hot topics – a 25 percent cut in funding for Free Speech Radio News (FSRN) and a financial crunch so serious that money for a national board meeting is hard to find, for example – she did acknowledge at one point that letters have gone out about possible staff cuts.

Looking at Pacifica as an ecosystem, she remarked that it’s “not sustainable,” but promised that “no asset will be sold.” The pledge is significant, since the rumor that the National Board was considering the sale of a station helped fuel large protests in the late 1990s. Although Pacifica is “not a movement,” she argued, it is “a public trust and should not be leveraged.”

On the other hand, Sawaya said, “I prefer a network” to a “low bar of entry.” Since Pacifica’s reorganization in 2002, it has become “so flat it’s concave,” she continued, and this has raised the question of “where does leadership belong?” Later, she joked that “in the lexicon of Pacifica, management is a dirty word.”

Despite financial pressures, Sawaya is determined to produce more national broadcasts. During the report, she pointed to coverage of Gay Pride events, hearings on torture covered via KPFA by Larry Bensky, and the recent Winter Soldiers hearings, which were ignored by most commercial media. Later in the summer, she noted, Pacifica will provide its own national coverage of the Democratic, Republican and Green Party conventions.

Looking further into the future, she spoke of a “generational hand off” linked to the shift toward digital distribution and the need to “connect the country together” through new programs such as an “environmental watch” show. In recent years, she noted, “our discourse has declined.” But she feels that the blogosphere provides a new model and pointed to Pacifica founder Lew Hill’s on-air roundtable discussions, noting that they didn’t become “a food fight” or “dumbed down.”

Her conclusion is that the organization needs to be “more inclusive, and not afraid.” However, she added, “I don’t have a vision. I’m just a worker trying to knit together the best programs.”

Sawaya fielded more than a dozen calls during the broadcast, with questions and comments on transparency, moving WBAI from its expensive Wall Street location, editorial priorities, tenure limits for producers, international coverage, and whether she feels emotional and embattled. Though she shrugged off the latter concern, saying “I’m just wired that way,” she admitted that the financial problems are serious and she’s anxious to provide “economies,” efficiency, and better service.

In response to the question about New York station WBAI’s location and budget troubles, she noted that moving the station, as well as WPFW – whose lease in Washington, DC runs out soon – raises the question of whether stations should focus on “bricks and mortar” or “scale it down.”

Sawaya – who served as flagship station KPFA’s General Manager briefly in the late 1990s before being abruptly dismissed – returned as Pacifica’s top executive last September. The vote was unanimous, but she was the only candidate interviewed in person. Although given a five-year contract, she unexpectedly resigned in early December – to widespread surprise and disappointment. In the three months that followed, however, she negotiated privately with the board and agreed to return in early March. The details of the negotiations are confidential, but one of her first public struggles was to assert more oversight of finances, including over Chief Financial Officer Lonnie Hicks and his staff. After a series of meetings the board basically backed her position.

That success was followed closely by the public admission that Pacifica is being forced to cut back on spending. As Sawaya searched for a way to pay for national programming, FSRN received word that funding for its daily half-hour international newscast would be cut by more than $13,500 a month – effective immediately. According to an FSRN press release, “The reduction represents about a 25% cut in income for the grassroots news collective. Since FSRN is barred from on-air fundraising, it must seek to offset the cut with income from affiliates, foundations and individuals.” As of late June, an on-line petition to the Pacifica National Board had been signed by almost 400 people. It says:

“Free Speech Radio News has long been a vital part of the global media justice movement that highlights the voices of marginalized communities most affected by social and economic policy changes. I understand that Pacifica is facing a budget crisis, but FSRN is indispensable to Pacifica's mission and I encourage sustained funding to ensure FSRN's survival.”

In June, the board also got word from CFO Hicks that “it will be tough” to come up with enough money for a meeting of the National Board in July and August, even if the usual spending is cut by more than 50 percent. “All stations have failed to meet drive goals,” Hicks stated, “some of the worst I’ve seen.” Pointing to mounting expenses and unexpected legal costs, he concluded, “We are working from payroll to payroll. Our reserves have been used up over the last couple of years.”

A Board committee was established to consider options, and subsequently recommended that the meeting be held anyway. The Board itself chose July 25-27 (an effort to rescind that decision failed) and instructed the committee and management to select one of three Washington, DC locations. The choices include Howard University or Gallaudet University (a school for the deaf and hard of hearing), both in Washington, or the National Labor College in nearby Silver Spring, Maryland.

At the end of the broadcast, Sawaya remained optimistic, pointing to the potential of launching “multiple streams” through the Internet and high definition radio (already in use at Houston station KPFT). When the last caller argued that Pacifica isn’t typical and operates in an “interactive” rather than a “one way” manner, she heartily agreed. “It’s a two-way street,” she replied.

The Bush regime has killed the constitutional links that made the US a republic, said Gore Vidal, renowned US historian, novelist and social critic in an interview with Tehran-based Press TV. President Bush has rid the country of the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus and the entire legacy of the Magna Carta in the name of “war on terror,” Vidal charged.

Press TV is the first Iranian international news network to broadcast in English on a round-the-clock basis. Speaking over the phone with Afshin Rattansi, Vidal also criticized the US House of Representatives for not impeaching President Bush for many high crimes, such as the disclosure of CIA agent Valerie Plame's covert status. But he praised Rep. Dennis Kuchinich for at least drawing up articles of impeachment against the president.

Vidal has long said the administration has both an explicit and covert expansionist agenda. Bush and his associates are magnets in the oil and gas industry, he says, and have had clear aims to control the oil of Central Asia – after gaining effective control of the oil of the Persian Gulf, a project that took a new twist with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991.

Regarding 9/11, Vidal has written the US intelligence community clearly warned that it was coming but the event provided political cover and a pretext for plans that the administration already had in place for invading Iraq – plans that can be traced to the waning days of the first Bush family presidency.

Here is a transcript of that June 28, 2008 interview:

Press TV: We hear that Michael Mukasey is going to become the latest of the President's Attorney-Generals to be subpoenaed, this time over his conversations with Bush and Cheney. Does this show that Congress is serious about calling the executive to account?

Gore Vidal: No, Congress has never been more cowardly, nor more corrupt. All Bush has do is to make sure certain amounts of money go in the direction of certain important congressmen and that's end of any serious investigation. After all, one of the bravest members of Congress is Dennis Kucinich, who brought the article of impeachment into the well of the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives must then try the president, and then after that it goes to the Senate for judgment. However, none of these things will happen because there's nobody there except for Mr. Kucinich, who has the courage to take on a sitting president who is kind of a Mafioso.

Press TV: How can it just be one person among so many hundreds of Congressmen who wants the impeachment of George W. Bush in these circumstances?

Vidal: Well it's because we no longer have a country. We don't have a republic any more. During the last 7 or 8 years of the Bush regime, they've got rid of the Bill of Rights, they've got rid of habeas corpus. They have got rid of one of the nicest gifts that England ever left us when they went away and we ceased to be colonies - the Magna Carta - from the 12th century. All of our law and due process of law is based on that. And the Bush people got rid of it. The president and little Mr. Gonzales, who for a few minutes was his Attorney General. They managed to get rid of all of the constitutional links that made us literally a republic.

Press TV: You have often written about the US's superpower status in terms of the history of previous superpowers. Do you think we're witnessing the end of US power, as some suggest. Will the White House be seen like Persepolis?

Vidal: Well it won't make such good ruins, no. It'll be more like the tomb of Cyrus nearby. They managed to destroy the United States. Why? Because they're oil and gas people and they're essentially criminals. I repeat that this is a criminal group that's seized control of the country through what looked like an ordinary election. But there's some very nice films and documentaries about what happened in the year 2000 when Albert Gore won the election for president and they saw to it that he couldn't serve. They got the Supreme Court – which is the Holy of Holies ordinarily in our system – to investigate and then accuse the thieves of being absolutely correct and the winners and Mr. Gore and the Democrats of being the cheaters.

It's the first law of Machiavelli, whatever your opponent's faults are, you pick his virtues and you deny he has them. That's what they did when Senator Kerry ran a few years ago for president. He's a famous hero from the Vietnam War. They said he was a coward and not a hero. That's how it's done. When you have a bunch of liars in charge of your government you can't expect to get much history out of that. But later on we'll dig and dig… and we will dig up Persepolis.

Press TV: Senator Obama talks about change but of course he has courting Wall Street as well as the Israeli lobby. Do you see any prospect of change with him as president?

Vidal: Not really. I don't doubt his good faith, just as I do not doubt the bad faith of Cheney and Bush. They are such dreadful people that we've never had in government before. They would never have risen unless they were buying elections as they did in Florida in 2000, as they did in the State of Ohio in 2004. These are two open thefts of the Presidency.

When I discovered that this did not interest the New York Times or Washington Post or any of the press of the country I realized our day was done. We are no longer a country, we are a framework for crooks to go in and steal money – knowing that they'll never be caught and they'll be admired for it. Americans always take everybody on his own evaluation. You say I'm a state and they say, "Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, he's a state, isn't that great." And you accuse the other people of your crimes before you commit them. It's an old trick which was known to Machiavelli who wrote about it in his handbook, The Prince.

Press TV: Finally, that issue which is exercising so many minds in the Middle East and beyond. You, yourself have written about so many Imperial wars of the United States. Do you think Bush and Cheney would risk another war in what Mohammad El Baradei of the IAEA calls a fireball?

Vidal: They are longing to but they have spent all of the money. They have got it in their own private companies like the Vice President and a company called Halliburton which is stealing more money and should be on trial sooner or later before Congress. But perhaps not, who knows? But it's well known in Washington, these people are leaking away the money of the country. Well, there's no more money. They are longing for a war with Iran. Iran is no more a harm to us than was Iraq or Afghanistan. They invented an enemy, they tell lies, lies, lies. The New York Times goes along with their lies, lies, lies. And they don't stop. When the public is lied to 30 times a day it's apt to believe the lies, is not it?