What other shows can Pacifica air that can be as successful as Democracy Now! I bet most people don't even pay attention to Pacifica outside of Democracy Now! I know that KPFK Los Angeles simulcasts the KPFA evening news at 6pm. But its not as big though and is aimed at a Bay Area audience though.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Pacifica disintegrating?
- Thread starter DavidEduardo
- Start date
@Freddy, it may be their facility, but the license may be revoked by the FCC if the use of the frequency is not in the public interest. I may not agree with the viewpoints broadcast by Pacifica, but I certainly don't begrudge them broadcasting it. However, with an increasingly crowded FM spectrum, should that section of spectrum be reserved for something so few listen to?
When was the last time that happened? I can't think of any. It would open a huge legal battle.
Do you really want to kill off stations "so few" listen to? Where are you going to draw the line between "so few" and "enough?" 2 share? 1 share? .5 share? .1 share?
And if you are going to be even-handed about this, you have to dump religious broadcasters, contemporary Christian, classical, jazz, acoustic, Salem ... as well as Pacifica.
Keep in mind that Pacifica got commercial FM licenses back when established broadcasters weren't interested, when the FCC was begging people to take FM licenses, when AM station owners who got FM licenses did nothing but simulcast. Love it or hate it, Pacifica put original and often innovative programming on FM back when the noncommercial band was preachers and educational stations were playing a hodge-podge of classical music, lectures by professors and farm reports.
Although Pacifica is not my cup of tea, Oscar is right. It has a right to it's piece of the spectrum. Just as it is right for any other station with a handful of listeners serving their niche has. There are many AM stations with tiny audiences, perhaps serving small ethic segments or special interest groups. The remove that right would be to dictate programming from a Federal level. Under the current scenario, a format survives by it's ability to produce revenue, even if from a sister station or other venture, in order to survive. In rare instances, a station has been programmed as a personal preference of the licensee, a hobby, if you will, yet that station has a small but loyal group of like minded individuals that are loyal listeners. As a side note, there are some Low Power FMs that certainly have fewer than 100 regular listeners.
Bad history. The FCC never begged anyone to take licenses. The truth is that FM hit a peak of over 1000 stations in 1950, but faded to around 700 by 1960. Many of the independent FMs had closed, and quite a few of the AM/FM combos had either closed the FM or started simulcasting.
Established broadcasters had been very interested in FM in the late 40's and into the early 50's. They built many, many FM sister stations, and all of them failed to generate revenue with independent formats.
Much of the issue with FM in the 50's had to do with the patent and personality battles with RCA. And the lack of AFC circuitry for receivers, making them notably unstable.
Commercial FMs tried all sorts of things, such as a significant group of stations doing "buscasting" through deals with local transit companies.
Pacifica simply applied for cancelled licenses or new ones. There were plenty to be had, and there were very low costs to get a basic FM licensed.
Talk about bad history. Yes, there were licenses to be had because few wanted them. Many established broadcasters did not bother applying and lived to regret it years later. Funny to claim broadcasters tried independent formats (a few did; most did not) and could not generate revenue and therefore resorted to simulcasting. When the FCC forced stations to do independent formats, all of a sudden they found they could generate revenue after all.
People buy content. They buy FM radios when there's something they want to hear. They buy what they want to hear, not the receiver. So what happened to those stations that tried independent formats early? Either bad programming, bad selling or both. Broadcasters always find excuses to draw attention from their own incompetence. Note that some FM stations not connected with AM stations did OK with formats such as classical and beautiful music. But AM was to FM as training wheels are to bicycles; you don't really learn to ride as long as the training wheels are there.
What does all this have to do with the current situation at Pacifica?
A huge number of broadcasters with AM stations got FM licenses in the period from 1946 to 1952, to the point that nearly half the AMs in the US had an FM. Most tried different independent formats, but as neither listenership nor revenues developed, some turned in their licenses and others resorted to simulcasting "just in case this thing is ever worth something".
Between the mid 50's and 1960, a third of all FM licenses were surrendered. Many more began simulcasting. Only in a few larger markets did we see any remaining independent FMs or FMs owned by an AM that were separately programmed still. I began my career at one of those combos with separate FM programming... back in 1959.
Oversimplification. The FCC did not force stations to do "separate" formats, just end fulltime simulcasting in markets of a specific size or more and where the AM was not a daytimer. There were waivers (such as WHOM) and there were even cases of the same programming running on the FM, just an hour or two later... a way to end simulcasting and comply with the rule.
The result was that AM station owners put on the air formats that were far removed from what was on their AM. Some of those formats worked, some did not. And the most successful was an updating of "good music" to "Beautiful Music", a mainstay FM format in the 60's that was updated to the late 60's by folks like Marlin Taylor and Jim Schulke.
There was good programming, but radios were very expensive and, as stated, drifted like mad. America's tastes were very homogenized at the time, and there was not really a need for additional formats. For example, in what was a top 10 market at the end of the 50's, Cleveland, there were 8 AM stations in the ratings... 2 r&b stations, three Top 40's and three MOR stations. Each had a bit of a different flavor, but you essentially had three formats in one of the top 10 markets in the US.
When FM was obligated to end full simulcasting, music was fragmenting. Top 40 was breaking into oldies, Top 40 and "chicken rock" which was the early term for AC. Talk was evolving from MOR at stations like KABC and WOR. Country became viable in more markets, as did other ethnic formats. So, suddenly the good AMs in a market could not cover all the bases, and FM had fuel for growth.
Very, very few in very, very large markets. And all became successful after 1960. Stations like WDVR in Philly, Sol's station in LA, and a number of partially listener supported (via a "guild" with a magazine, etc.) classicals like WCLV in Cleveland. Most of the independents did not begin to get any traction until the late 60's and very few before the FCC's action of 1/1/67 and the serendipitous fragmentation of music tastes.
This was not an "if you build it they will come" situation. It was a confluence in changing musical tastes, technical improvements in FM receivers (AFC), the end of the Armstrong patents and the general health of radio more than a decade after the "death of radio" was predicted after the Freeze was lifted in 1953.
As an early owner of about a dozen FM licenses (all granted in 1966) I was both a keen observer of what was going on with the band and what could be done formatically. Fortunately, I looked at Europe, where governments had built and promoted FM early one, resulting in far more FM radios being in the market. And I saw things such as the first independent FM Top 40 in Spain doing well in 1965 and thought that, given my market's high number of European radios with FMs, I could do it too.
Just a thought on the original post. If Pacifica has managed to get the tapes digitized, they have no need for the originals so they can dump them. You might have thought they would have De-gaussed them first in that case. Or it could be the tapes of the producer for one individual show.
To return back to the thread, my recollection is that each show on Pacifica is more like an individual fiefdom with each show trying to hang on to it's block of time.
To return back to the thread, my recollection is that each show on Pacifica is more like an individual fiefdom with each show trying to hang on to it's block of time.
The value is not the tape, but what's on them. If people can buy the content on Ebay, the content is no longer an asset.
I wouldn't call MSNBC a "rightwing" exercise although there is certainly plenty of hate speech there. CNN is "right wing??" Geebus...its obvious the mainstream media is heavily biased left with the exception of AM talk radio. Look at the demos there...it's dying from old age.
I cut my teeth at a community radio station although it was not a Pacifica affiliate. I fully support public access to the airwaves and that is what most of these stations offer. Some of the views expressed are not popular but don't these ideas still deserve a forum?
The problem many of these broadcasters have is the refusal to admit the role human psychology plays in all things, including radio. David keeps pointing out later how the programming is helter skelter...this does not sync with how people use radio. Its a habit! As habit forming as smoking!! Make it easy for people to listen for what they want and expect because most will just not exert the effort to search.
The importance of these alternative "community" stations is less now because of the internet. Anyone with a internet connection can theoretically reach almost 3.5 BILLION people. There is no broadcast signal I'm aware of that has that kind of reach. As computer penetration increases throughout the third world and connections get faster and faster the potential audience will grow much larger. Estimates are 6 BILLION peeps in another 20 years. That's almost everyone!!
Last edited:
That may be, but the FCC doesn't view AM & FM that way. Any time the broader media environment has been brought up, such as in radio ownership limits, they've dismissed it. In fact, the FCC and Congress continues to add alternative community stations to the FM band through LPFM.
Among the viewpoints offered in recent years on KPFK in Los Angeles was a Central American "news" program that included the presenter's encouragement and endorsement of the assassination of the current leaders of the Honduran government.
It makes you wonder if anyone manages and supervises the content, or whether the collective tails are wagging the dog.
Alex Jones, Donald Trump type conspiracies on KPFK? When was this and whose the host of that? I bet this is not at peak hours like when Democracy Now is on.
The basic premise of "free speech" radio is no one "manages and supervises content." And while people like to call Pacifica stations "left-wing," they are actually free speech. The viewpoint David thinks should be "supervised" was also held by that great advocate of free speech: The third president of the United States, author of the Declaration of Independence, author of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom and founder of the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson ("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.") Before anyone gets too hypocritical here, keep in mind the US government has conducted "hits" on foreign leaders and no one in the two major parties has spoken out against this.
As a rule of thumb, if the FCC views it that way, the view is probably wrong.
Big A said:
As a rule of thumb, if the FCC views it that way, the view is probably wrong.
Who's to say? They're just expressing their free speech. They only see the part of the media they regulate.
There is a definition of what is free speech and what is beyond that.
The great social thinker Benito Juárez said it best as "respect for the rights of others is peace" ("el respeto al derech ajeno es la paz").
In this North American context, we also have “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” which is interpreted as meaning It means that the freedom to exercise one's rights ends at the point at which the exercise of that right harms another. This is the fundamental basis of limitations on Free Speech in the US such as defamation/slander, "fighting words", and even, in some cases, obscenity. You can say whatever you want, so long as it does not cause actual harm.
(See detailed examination of the origin of this modern expression of a 19th Century series of statements at http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/ "
A station as liberal (in the non-political sense of the word) as KPFK still needs a person or a body of people to keep the herd from falling prey to predators or falling off a cliff. Otherwise, statements or suggestions such as I mentioned impinge upon the freedoms and rights of others and, instead of rule of law, we have anarchy.
Last edited:
Juarez started and led a revolution. He made speeches advocating the violent overthrow of his country's government. He did his own share of refreshing the tree of liberty. Sounds like he'd be in sympathy with the people on the radio show whom you denounce.
The corporate media has been willing to encourage and endorse the assassination of the leaders of the Iraqi government, the Iranian government, the Afghan government, the Islamic state..... I don't see you raising any objections to any of that.
The corporate media has been willing to encourage and endorse the assassination of the leaders of the Iraqi government, the Iranian government, the Afghan government, the Islamic state..... I don't see you raising any objections to any of that.
- Status