Pacifica disintegrating?

[DavidEduardo]

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.

Juárez was part of the movement that overthrew the Mexican Empire as imposed by Napoleon and which originated in the French, British and Spanish invasion of Veracruz over supposed debts. Essentially, he defended his country against an army of occupation.

Prior to that, he had worked, from exile, to demand the impeachment of López de Santa Anna by means of legal steps under the older Constitution. When his co-autored Plan de Ayutla was issued, López de Santa Anna resigned, making way for a new government without deviating from the rule of law.

He did not recommend the assassination of foreign officials legally elected in their own country.

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.

How would you know whether I did that or not?

As a matter of fact, I had all my radio stations seized at gunpoint years ago for voicing opposition to a military government which has promised a return to free elections. But I never recommended shooting the military dictators (even when they "disappeared" the editor of the newspaper I worked with on the opposition issue).

And this is not a political forum; politics may be occasionally entwined with the subject of radio, but not a subject of and by itself.

The case of the WPFK programming mentioned is different: it recommended killing of duly elected leaders and their duly named equivalent of our Cabinet simply because they disagreed with the party in power.

If one of the ultra-nut-case Tea Party loons recommended similar actions against our current government, there would be an outcry of considerable proportion and even the issuance of a warrant if the statements were considered to be a threat. In such a case, the boundaries of free speech would have been exceeded.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Guys keep thread back on Pacifica not politics. What else can Pacifica can do that attracts similar success to Democracy Now?

 

[Michael Rivers Kramer]

I'd love to see s frequency swap between KPCC and KPFK. A cash infusion from that sort of sale could help KPFK in the short term. The programming is pretty non-compelling...And this is coming from an ultra liberal.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Guys keep thread back on Pacifica not politics. What else can Pacifica can do that attracts similar success to Democracy Now?

This is one of those cases where politics and radio are inextricably combined. Going back to the heritage of the founders of Pacifica, which was based on the early peaceful resistance movement that is this very week the subject of a wide-release Hollywood movie, the organization has a very politicized social agenda.

So discussing the nature of dissent or resistance is a part of understanding Pacifica. "Pacifica" in Latin can mean "peace" or "peaceable" depending on the context. It's not a reference to the Pacific Ocean, despite having sprung up on a bay of that body of water.

The issue is when does resistance infringe on the rights of others and the context is whether Pacifica, the radio group, makes a distinction between proper and over-the-edge.

P.S. Under what standards do you consider "Democracy Now" a success on the Pacifica stations? It is listened to by nearly nobody.

 

[DavidEduardo]

I'd love to see s frequency swap between KPCC and KPFK. A cash infusion from that sort of sale could help KPFK in the short term. The programming is pretty non-compelling...And this is coming from an ultra liberal.

That is a very good idea. And one, unlike the hundreds of others presented here over the years, that Pacific might actually entertain.

 

[TheBigA]

That is a very good idea. And one, unlike the hundreds of others presented here over the years, that Pacific might actually entertain.

Not in an organization where anarchy rules.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Not in an organization where anarchy rules.

I think saving face is a fundamental part of anarchists who find that their theories are not working as well as planned.

 

[TheBigA]

I think saving face is a fundamental part of anarchists who find that their theories are not working as well as planned.

All well and good, but getting them to agree on something is against their nature.

 

[Oscar Madison]

Juárez was part of the movement that overthrew the Mexican Empire as imposed by Napoleon and which originated in the French, British and Spanish invasion of Veracruz over supposed debts. Essentially, he defended his country against an army of occupation.

Prior to that, he had worked, from exile, to demand the impeachment of López de Santa Anna by means of legal steps under the older Constitution. When his co-autored Plan de Ayutla was issued, López de Santa Anna resigned, making way for a new government without deviating from the rule of law.

He did not recommend the assassination of foreign officials legally elected in their own country.



How would you know whether I did that or not?

As a matter of fact, I had all my radio stations seized at gunpoint years ago for voicing opposition to a military government which has promised a return to free elections. But I never recommended shooting the military dictators (even when they "disappeared" the editor of the newspaper I worked with on the opposition issue).

And this is not a political forum; politics may be occasionally entwined with the subject of radio, but not a subject of and by itself.

The case of the WPFK programming mentioned is different: it recommended killing of duly elected leaders and their duly named equivalent of our Cabinet simply because they disagreed with the party in power.

If one of the ultra-nut-case Tea Party loons recommended similar actions against our current government, there would be an outcry of considerable proportion and even the issuance of a warrant if the statements were considered to be a threat. In such a case, the boundaries of free speech would have been exceeded.

People who try to overthrow governments always think they have a good reason. Probably that guy talking about Honduras has reasons he considers valid, too. Then again, people who want to stifle free speech always think they have good reason, too.

 

[Oscar Madison]

P.S. Under what standards do you consider "Democracy Now" a success on the Pacifica stations? It is listened to by nearly nobody.

"Democracy Now" is carried on public radio stations, public television stations, and various cable channels.

The corporate broadcasting mind-set does not apply to Pacifica. They are not in operation to maximize an audience in order to maximize advertising revenue. You all have decided that they must play your game and you get to make the rules.

PS: San Francisco "Bay" is not a bay; it's an estuary.

 

[TheBigA]

The corporate broadcasting mind-set does not apply to Pacifica. They are not in operation to maximize an audience in order to maximize advertising revenue.

That may be, but they still have costs and obligations, and apparently they're having trouble meeting them. That's a problem regardless of what rules they play by.

From what I've read, Pacifica owes money to Democracy Now.

 

[Oscar Madison]

That may be, but they still have costs and obligations, and apparently they're having trouble meeting them. That's a problem regardless of what rules they play by.

And unlike the so-called "NPR Member Stations," which once had trouble meeting their costs and obligations - as did NPR itself - Pacifica has not sold out and accepted advertising - whoops, I mean "enhanced underwriting" - from corporate sponsors. As with small circulation political journals and underground newspapers - and now websites and podcasts - Pacifica has influence by its ability to stir up shit, forcing establishment media to pay attention.

There also appears to be a double standard here. Pacifica is labeled "liberal" and criticized for having a small audience and not making money. Nobody knocks Breitbart, the National Standard, the National Review, and Alex Jones (among others) which also have small audiences and don't make money.

 

[TheBigA]

Pacifica has influence by its ability to stir up shit, forcing establishment media to pay attention.

If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound?

Name 3 things said on Pacifica in the last two months that later got picked up by the "establishment media." They may have the "ability" to influence, but they don't.

 

[TheBigA]

And unlike the so-called "NPR Member Stations," which once had trouble meeting their costs and obligations - as did NPR itself - Pacifica has not sold out and accepted advertising - whoops, I mean "enhanced underwriting" - from corporate sponsors.

Integrity is a wonderful thing to have, as long as you pay your bills. At some point, the money will run out, and they will have to come up with a funding source. A year ago, the discussion was finding a way to monetize their archive. As pointed out in the OP, some people within the organization have made that less of a possibility. Thus the name of this thread.

 

[Oscar Madison]

BigA keeps ignoring what doesn't fit his narrative - like the pipeline protest in North Dakota.

 

[TheBigA]

BigA keeps ignoring what doesn't fit his narrative - like the pipeline protest in North Dakota.

You seem to be confusing Pacifica, an organization that owns five radio stations, and Democracy Now, a radio show that airs on those five stations plus hundreds more.

Also, I asked for three examples. You could only come up with one.

 

[Oscar Madison]

You seem to be confusing Pacifica, an organization that owns five radio stations, and Democracy Now, a radio show that airs on those five stations plus hundreds more.

Also, I asked for three examples. You could only come up with one.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you make the rules here now. Since it's impossible to prove anything to someone with a closed mind, I don't choose to play your game.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you make the rules here now. Since it's impossible to prove anything to someone with a closed mind, I don't choose to play your game.

Why are you trying to prove something? There is no requirement on this board to respond to every post. Simply put me on ignore, and you won't feel compelled to prove something.

 

[b-turner]

Every organization has to have the money to operate. How they find and obtain that is up to them. The mindset that money doesn't matter has caused a good number of LPFM stations to go under. I know a few personally. One station that happily brought in about $200 a month took a lightning strike. Once silenced by the strike they could never raise the funds to get back on the air. The power company won't give you free electricity, nor will the tower company let you keep equipment on their tower without a fee being paid. There are some clever ways stations do that, from the participants of the station paying dues to non-broadcast sources of revenue all the way to traditional means such as listener donations, underwriting and grants.

I will point out, and I suspect this might be the case with Pacifica, most of the now deceased LPFMs suffered their fate starting with the board that oversees them. The lack of consensus started the downfall. Pacifica has jumped through hoops that seemed impossible time and time again.

Trying to get as many listening as possible is a good plan. Considering the ratio of donating listeners to non-donating means 90% of listeners won't give a dime. Underwriters buy mostly for the benefit they get whether that be goodwill or more customers. Most grants tend to do go where the giver can derive the greatest impact, build awareness and get the most goodwill. Pretty much, most things are stacked against the little guy. Even if a station chooses to ignore all of that, more listeners furthers your mission and some of those will financially support the cause. Naturally, programming content is not sacrificed because it is the product and without the product there is nothing.

I was involved with KCHU in Dallas in the 1970s. They centered on giving those without a voice on Dallas/Fort Worth radio an opportunity to be heard. They didn't survive. One day their equipment was repossessed. A group partly made up of some KCHU people became KNON, moving to a lesser signal, swapping with Criswell Institute, aka First Baptist of Dallas that had KCBI. Our KCHU plea was it took $10 an hour to stay on the air back then. They never reached that threshold. I haven't a clue how they stayed afloat as long as they did. The financials we were shown in staff meetings indicated they never could pay all their billing during their entire run.

 

[TheBigA]

I will point out, and I suspect this might be the case with Pacifica, most of the now deceased LPFMs suffered their fate starting with the board that oversees them. The lack of consensus started the downfall. Pacifica has jumped through hoops that seemed impossible time and time again.

Trying to get as many listening as possible is a good plan.

I agree, but that's where anarchy once again causes a problem. Normally, we think in terms of consensus or team building. That's not how anarchists think. They think in terms of individuality and the power of one. They're not building an audience, or attracting new followers or potential donors who could potentially help the whole organization. They're just thinking about each individual show. In an organization where money is tight, staffers are members of the union, getting paid the highest wages possible. That would never be done at a small LPFM, where they're mainly volunteers working for free. This is just one of the unique obstacles facing Pacifica.