Exchange between Mitchel Cohen and Chris Albertson

I hope this can be the first of many serious exchanges regarding WBAI past, present and future, and encourage you to join in by placing your comments at the bottom. All serious comments will be published.

Participants in this, our initial exchange are Mitchel Cohen, Chairman of WBAI's Local Station Board, and yours truly, a GM from the station's early years. Our discussions took place April 18-19, 2012 on Pacifica Radiowaves, which is operated by Nalini and is the only meaningful, dedicated Pacifica forum I know of. There is another, but its operator practices censorship, and then there is the infamous Blue Board, which is an odd mixture of good and ludicrous. Let's separate the wheat from the tare and swap thoughts and suggestions. —Chris Albertson

_______________________________________

Mitchel Cohen:

Actually, this idea that WBAI ever had a golden age is pretty nostalgic for something that never was.

There were great moments. We can point to 3 or 4 of them over 50 years. Not exactly station-defining, although I think it was more fun when NOBODY got paid and people participated (rather than "worked") at the station. Not saying we should or can return to that, either. I just don't care for romantacizing the mediocre programs that dominated much of WBAI's air time for decades. With notable exceptions, of course.

Chris Albertson:

I don't think there ever was a "golden age" for WBAI, but there certainly was time when a level of professionalism and program quality was maintained. It was a time that saw the station attract the attention of extraordinary people, some who had made it to the top of their profession and others who seemed bound to get there. 

I don't know what period you refer to when you say that "nobody got paid," adding that it was probably "more fun" and that people "participated rather than worked." I can tell you that when I was there, we had a salaried staff of 20-25 people, and I think we often had fun. I suppose that our switchboard operator, mailroom person, janitor, and bookkeeper probably saw it as "work," but even some of them were at WBAI because they believed in what we were doing, and wished to be a part of it. There were disagreements, a spat here and there, temper eruptions, etc., but there was also an overpowering spirit and pride.

The press called regularly to find out how we were doing, and they were quite generous when it came to giving us promotion. Our programming was not aimed at any particular ethnic group (as it is today), age group, or ideology, but there was one commonality of interest: intellect. Whether our programs focused on renaissance music rock, they had to be more than plain entertainment—the presenter usually was someone who had above average knowledge of the subject. Earlier today, I posted some clippings on my WBAI blog, including a review of a R&B program presented by Charles Hobson—the reviewer pointed out that this was not the kind of music one expected to hear on WBAI, but that it was treated intelligently and has a certain educational value. That's what we did. Today, WBAI has an awful lot of mundane disc jockey fare of the kind one can hear all over the dial. Similar examples can be pointed out in other areas of interest. Our film reviewer, Andrew Sarris, was one of the most highly respected critics around, our Music Director was John Corigliano, who went on to achieve high honors and great respect. The list is long and impressive. 

What does that list look like when we consider the current WBAI? Current host/producers are—with a few exceptions—a pathetic group of tenured, stagnated wannabes who have no conception at all of what Lew Hill started when KPFA first went on the air, nor do they seem to care. We have rehashed news thrown together by an egomaniacal ambulance chaser who wants the listeners to share his delusions, we have a numerologist/astrologer who blathers away and solicits private business, a couple of hosts who blindly believe the conspiracy loonies they interview, and several pseudo spiritualists and health dabblers who feign authority as they interview quacks like Trudeau and really come to the fore with their quackery during the increasingly frequent and fraudulent fund drives. These people include staffers like Tony Bates and Kathy Davis, who shamelessly pitch to give ill people false hope with phony "cures" and sell them products at prices that are multiples of those offered on web sites. They will lie and tell listeners that these things can only be has through WBAI—in fact, they will say anything that comes to their larcenous minds if they think it might result in a sale. The really telling and sad fact is that these pitches are made to preserve the pitcher's air time—there is hardly ever any mention of what it is that made Pacifica so significant. Yes, they will sometimes resort to a hysterical, Glenn Beck-type of pitch for "free speech", but it is only an emergency play used when the phones stop ringing.

Recently, Bates has started a routine of rebroadcasting fund-raising pitches, without making the listener aware of that fact, and with phones ringing—not always legitimately, I am told—on recording.

Mitchel, I know that you have voiced strong opposition to some of these fund-raising practices (although you share Bates' belief in the 9-11 conspiracies), but that is less commendable when you—as Local Board Chairman—do little or nothing more than complain. Where is the action? Where is the outrage manifested in deeds?

People of genuine integrity speak up as loudly and forcefully as they can and—if that has no effect—resign.

Finally, let me mention Berthold Reimers, the nominal General Manager of WBAI. This is a man in hiding, a man who goes out of his way to not communicate. He should be airing a weekly report to current and prospective listener-supporters. They boast of having raised a million dollars recently. I know that there are not many listeners left, but those who continue to support WBAI are owed an accounting. Where is the money? Why is inexpensive equipment routinely breaking down? Why do so few people even know that  there is a radio station called WBAI?

Mitchel, it seems to me that your knowledge of WBAI's past and current state is deplorably limited. Forget about an  alleged "golden age" and concentrate on what is happening and needs to be done TODAY!

Mitchel Cohen:

I agree with a substantial amount of what you wrote, but disagree with your obsessive dismissal of Robert Knight. Anyway, some comments interspersed:

  

CA: I don't think there ever was a "golden age" for WBAI, but there certainly was time when a level of professionalism and program quality was maintained. It was a time that saw the station attract the attention of extraordinary people, some who had made it to the top of their profession and others who seemed bound to get there.

MC: Yes, I hope you're not thinking of Judith Miller (NY Times liar-in-chief, who got her start at WBAI). She sure rose to the top, didn't she?

The station attracts some extraordinary people today, as well. And, I agree, too many unreined egos. One reason I like Tony Bates is that he is not intimidated by them. 

CA: I don't know what period you refer to when you say that "nobody got paid," adding that it was probably "more fun" and that people "participated rather than worked." I can tell you that when I was there, we had a salaried staff of 20-25 people, and I think we often had fun. I suppose that our switchboard operator, mailroom person, janitor, and bookkeeper probably saw it as "work," but even some of them were at WBAI because they believed in what we were doing, and wished to be a part of it. There were disagreements, a spat here and there, temper eruptions, etc., but there was also an overpowering spirit and pride.

MC: OK, I stand corrected. The total actual salaries + benefits of paid staff and management at WBAI today come to $1,542,261 or 45% of the total expenses.

What did they come to back when?

CA: The press called regularly to find out how we were doing, and they were quite generous when it came to giving us promotion. Our programming was not aimed at any particular ethnic group (as it is today), age group, or ideology, but there was one commonality of interest: intellect. Whether our programs focused on renaissance music rock, they had to be more than plain entertainment—the presenter usually was someone who had above average knowledge of the subject. Earlier today, I posted some clippings on my WBAI blog, including a review of a R&B program presented by Charles Hobson—the reviewer pointed out that this was not the kind of music one expected to hear on WBAI, but that it was treated intelligently and has a certain educational value. That's what we did. Today, WBAI has an awful lot of mundane disc jockey fare of the kind one can hear all over the dial.

MC: I agree in general, but some of the stuff is first-rate.

 
CA: Similar examples can be pointed out in other areas of interest. Our film reviewer, Andrew Sarris, was one of the most highly respected critics around,

MC: Yes he was, and I hated his reviews in the Village Voice. Just almost never agreed with him. Prairie Miller and Linda Zises have done some very good film reviews for WBAI. Some are actually posted (if you can find them) to the WBAI.org website, blogs that should be much more visible and made part of the new website when it is ready to go. They're working on it.

CA: our Music Director was John Corigliano, who went on to achieve high honors and great respect. The list is long and impressive. 

What does that list look like when we consider the current WBAI? Current host/producers are—with a few exceptions—a pathetic group of tenured, stagnated wannabes who have no conception at all of what Lew Hill started when KPFA first went on the air, nor do they seem to care.

MC: Yes, some are like that. Times have changed since Lew Hill's day, and I'm not sure that his conception -- given today's technology, in which most young people don't listen to radio at all -- should continue to be carved in stone.

CA: We have rehashed news thrown together by an egomaniacal ambulance chaser who wants the listeners to share his delusions,

MC: Here you refer to Robert Knight. I disagree with you, but such is life, and Robert is not part of the news department. (You also might find it surprising that you and he share some very important criticisms of the station. You should actually sit down and talk to him.) In reality, the News Department is headed by the excellent and professional Jose Santiago, with Andrea Sears as lead reporter, and sometimes Rebecca Myles. It is an absolutely first-rate team, but is short two full-time paid reporters. They're doing their best to train volunteers, but then the vols leave when they score decent jobs in the field, thanks to WBAI's training! Three years ago the LSB passed a motion, renewed a year later, to hire at least one additional full-time reporter and to upgrade, expand, and rebuild the station centered around the News Department, but that simply hasn't happened. There's simply no money.

CA:  we have a numerologist/astrologer who blathers away and solicits private business,

MC: Couldn't agree with you more. I challenged Tony Bates about this, and his answer was: "People like astrology." My response: "Some people like pornography too. Does that mean it should be on our airwaves?" But it didn't register.

CA: a couple of hosts who blindly believe the conspiracy loonies they interview,

MC: You might find it surprising but I agree that there should be much more INFORMED skepticism and debate on the air (there is NO debate whatsoever). What little skepticism there is is at best childish, uninformed and easily refuted. I'd LOVE to hear real debates over 9/11 conspiracy, for example. Yes, I personally believe that there should be real investigations into 9/11 and those involved should be brought up on criminal charges, but that doesn't mean I think those views -- and evidence -- should go unchallenged. Problem is, those at WBAI are incapable of seriously challenging any of them because they have not read the literature and cast generalizations all over the place (he says, generalizingly). 

CA: and several pseudo spiritualists and health dabblers who feign authority as they interview quacks like Trudeau and really come to the fore with their quackery during the increasingly frequent and fraudulent fund drives.

MC: Agreed. Trudeau should never have been on the air. Nor should Cass Ingram, who was brought on by the previous program director. This is not a new problem. There is a real lack of ability to intellectually discern hucksters from honest scientists. I'd proposed several shows, including Sheldon Krimsky (Tufts Univ.) who discussed the idea of a show on "Controversies in Science." But for some reason, it was never tried, and to make it worse, WBAI management never wrote back to Krimsky, let alone sat down with him about this. Extremely poor judgment. 

CA: These people include staffers like Tony Bates and Kathy Davis, who shamelessly pitch to give ill people false hope with phony "cures" and sell them products at prices that are multiples of those offered on web sites.

MC: And, I might add, available for FREE on the web. The dishonesty is truly immoral, in my view -- even when I like some of the items being pitched. NEVER say that "this" cures "that". It's disgusting, manipulating our aging listeners' fears and illnesses to sell snake oil.

By the way, Gary Null does not do that, and he is rightly critical of some of the premiums (and the claims made during pitching). 

I had a huge blow-out with Tony Bates about one of the 9/11-related premiums, because he went on the air pitching about how this exposes Israel. Hey, I'm an anti-Zionist, no fan of Israel. But if Tony would have known to ask, I would have told him that Israel was one of 8 countries that warned the U.S. about 9/11 ahead-of-time, and so he should have at least said THAT. But that type of nuanced context is missing from some people's brains, and when I told him all of this -- first in increasingly yelling emails, and then in person -- he again just could not hear it.

Problem is, lots of people can't hear OTHER things, they spread vicious rumors when they can't win on legit grounds, so it's a choice of which devil to deal with at any given moment.

CA: They will lie and tell listeners that these things can only be has through WBAI—in fact, they will say anything that comes to their larcenous minds if they think it might result in a sale.

MC: Yes, I think that's indeed the case. Although I don't believe that they're "larcenous", they're doing it to raise money for the station. Problem is, they should be developing a different model -- and frankly, so should the LSB.

Andrea Katz has sent out something like 170 grant proposals and letters of interest, and has gotten NO (zero) bites, far as I know. So THAT model is not one we can rely on. And the things proposed by Steve Brown and myself, they just can't understand those ideas even though they've been proven in different fields for decades. But because they're ignorant of all that, they dismiss it. Same as did the previous PD.

CA: The really telling and sad fact is that these pitches are made to preserve the pitcher's air time—there is hardly ever any mention of what it is that made Pacifica so significant. Yes, they will sometimes resort to a hysterical, Glenn Beck-type of pitch for "free speech", but it is only an emergency play used when the phones stop ringing.

MC: I don't understand what you're saying here.

CA: Recently, Bates has started a routine of rebroadcasting fund-raising pitches, without making the listener aware of that fact, and with phones ringing—not always legitimately, I am told—on recording.

MC: WBAI has done that phone-ringing thing for decades. Why not just get a recording of phones ringing -- like Letterman's window-breaking, or applause or laugh tracks? It's made to drum up excitement, and perhaps for some people it does. I just turn off the radio when I hear that. But then, I don't have the big bucks, either.

CA: Mitchel, I know that you have voiced strong opposition to some of these fund-raising practices (although you share Bates' belief in the 9-11 conspiracies),

MC: I don't know if I share Tony's belief, as there are discernments within nuances within contexts to be made, and I don't think that Tony has put the time in to reading all the books and going over the evidence. Yes, I believe that 9/11 needs a real, independent investigation, there are very many anomalies and things that just don't hold water in the U.S. government's official conspiracy story. Why not have real debates?

CA: but that is less commendable when you—as Local Board Chairman—do little or nothing more than complain. Where is the action? Where is the outrage manifested in deeds?

MC: You know, I agree with you. But that gets to what is the legal role of the Board. Some in my own faction privately complain that I'm overstepping my bounds already. I do talk to Berthold frequently; but he is surrounded by so much incompetence that he ends up doing 4 people's jobs in the course of a day. And then there's Pacifica itself. I took it upon myself to look for spaces to move the station to, around NYC. You'd think that everyone would be doing that, our lease runs out on December 31 of this year. Then what? So, working with a real estate person who is a member of WBAI and was doing this for free, I found one space that I thought would be very good for WBAI. You think they'd come down right away to look at it with me? Guess again. Without going into the virtues of the space itself, I finally ... finally! .... convinced Berthold to consider moving forward on spaces outside of Manhattan (some of the management team are stupidly dead-set on Manhattan). The space I found would have been 2x the space we now have at 1/4 the cost -- plus, we'd own it at the end! The real estate person was so convinced that we'd found a gem that he said that HE would front the money with no interest, if WBAI would commit to paying it back on a schedule over the years -- basically it would knock down our rent from $36K/month to $9K or less.

But the idiocy! The Exec Director of Pacifica scotched the idea, and ALL SUCH IDEAS, saying "We don't have the funds to even put a down payment." Oh, my god, these people are so out-of-touch with reality. So we've negotiated with the existing landlord for an extension, but at the same rent! You've got to be kidding me! In half-a-year the rent we're paying would cost more than what we would have had to lay out to purchase the building! Short-sighted isn't even the word for it. I begged, pleaded, to no avail.

So why should I, or any listener volunteer, even bother? 

As it turned out, the building I'd wanted -- and there are a number of others to look at, but WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BE LOOKING -- has already doubled in value in the 2 months, as I'd predicted. Aaaaaargh! Even if we bought it and flipped it, we would have been set for the next year.

There's one other story: The Programming Committee of the LSB last year submitted a proposal, approved overwhelmingly by the Committee, to establish a Program Council (or its equivalent -- call it what you want). The difference between this and the old one that hasn't existed for a few years would be that it would have reps from the listeners on it. Oh, what a storm. Janet Coleman and most of the staff members of the LSB went through the roof. They didn't want us peons -- listeners -- to be part of programming at the station. They teamed up with the other faction and defeated the motion. (I don't know what the rationale was for the other faction, just knee-jerk opposition at the time, I think.) So then, when the same folks had complaints about the programming during fund drives, I pointed out to them: "See, had you not voted against listener reps being part of the program council, we would have been able to block the use of the premiums you find so distasteful." 

My point: Yes, the PD should know better; but so should the entrenched staff. Which is the bigger problem? While sure, in the long run, BOTH have to change their attitudes, at any given moment with the current PD who stands up to the entrenched staff that really is the choice.

CA: People of genuine integrity speak up as loudly and forcefully as they can and—if that has no effect—resign.

MC: Believe me, I've thought of resigning. Came very close several times. But I think that would be a mistake, and a betrayal of the listeners who voted for me and the interests of a more intelligent, dedicated and sharper radio station. It still may come to that. But then my term runs out in December anyway.

I've also though of going to Court over certain things that I can't discuss here, but that are simply wretched, and illegal. For the immediate moment, I've decided to put that on hold. It still is an option.

CA: Finally, let me mention Berthold Reimers, the nominal General Manager of WBAI. This is a man in hiding, a man who goes out of his way to not communicate.

MC: This simply is not true. Berthold is extremely competent at what he was hired to do, which was to provide financial stability by any means necessary, and repair as much damage as he could from the previous managements. He would be fine, IF we had a program director who was more discerning and capable of developing and enacting a different model. But they really do spend 2/3rds of their time preparing and doing fundraising. It's a hopeless task, in my view. Sure, if I was GM I'd do things differently -- I'd have listeners volunteering in various ways in every capacity at the station. BUT I could never put in the kind of work, with the kind of actuarial competence, that Berthold puts in. Nor would I want to. Because he does not have an iPD working to implement a programming plan, and because there is no volunteers coordinator, and a very unaggressive (and here, that's a weakness) Public Affairs director (when it comes to keeping tabs on what's going on around the City and how to plug WBAI into them), Berthold is called upon to be visible to provide leadership in a way that he's not prepared to do.

CA: He should be airing a weekly report to current and prospective listener-supporters.

MC: Maybe. But if you hear Berthold's detailed reports at LSB meetings -- and what a difference, to actually get those reports! -- you'd realize, I think, that we wouldn't want him spending time preparing those on-air reports. What should or could happen is that we could record his reports to the LSB, and have someone edit them and put them on the air. That may or may not work. But he's definitely not hiding -- he just knows what his strengths are and his weaknesses, and the ton of work that needs to be done.

CA: They boast of having raised a million dollars recently. I know that there are not many listeners left, but those who continue to support WBAI are owed an accounting.

MC: The Board gets this accounting regularly. Transparency is one of the extremely positive things that Berthold has implemented. What do you want to know, I have some of those figures in front of me, and they're also online on both the Finance Committee and the LSB-Public listserves. Check'm out.

CA: Where is the money?

MC: It's accounted for .... and not enough.

CA: Why is inexpensive equipment routinely breaking down?

MC: Maybe because it's "inexpensive", as you say!

CA: Why do so few people even know that  there is a radio station called WBAI?

MC: Ah, now you're touching on something. Why did WBAI do a very good special on taxi cabs but not notify and involve the TaxiWorkers Alliance and unions? You want my glib answer? Because just because they do sometimes very good radio, they can't organize their way out of a paper bag. They're not trained in that aspect .... and that training should be mandatory to all programmers! We can start there. I've tried to get them to invite (and possibly hire, but not even ... )  professionals who know how to place things in media and publicize events. Duh. I remember when the previous management finally began broadcasting news in Spanish, but didn't send out press releases or take ads in Spanish-language newspapers and TV stations, so no one knew about it. On that level, the incompetence continues.

CA: Mitchel, it seems to me that your knowledge of WBAI's past and current state is deplorably limited.

MC: I'll grant you that when it comes to the past. Not the current. I think I know pretty much what's going on. Chris, you are not aware of the things going on behind the scenes.

CA: Forget about an  alleged "golden age" and concentrate on what is happening and needs to be done TODAY!

MC: Agreed. That's what I'm doing. But I need help!

Here is my follow-up:

CA: Thank you for taking the time to respond. and for doing so with such forthrightness. I realize that you are in a difficult situation and (to invoke Clinton) I feel your frustration. Your response is illuminating and worrisome, because it points out how deep the problem is. I am not at all surprised to hear that it isn't just local—as you may have noticed, I see Arlene Engelhardt as one of the problems. Your response suggests that I was right.

One major problem, as I see it, is the product: what goes out on WBAI's air. The station has a very bad reputation among many who know of its existence. Inevitably, anyone approached for help to solve a major problem—such as finding a new location—will need to know if the effort and money is worth it. In other words, they will take a good look at the product (i.e. program output) and, right now, it simply cannot stand scrutiny. I feel for the program producer/hosts whose work is good to excellent, because they—like the listeners—are victims of the neglect and lack of good judgement that results in so much inferior programming. Before one goes out there and asks for support, one has to make WBAI worthy of it. It is not enough to recite the lofty principles of old as if they were still being followed.

To answer some of your questions:

What did they [salaries] come to back when?

I'll look for the salary list that I have somewhere around here. I was paid $12,000 a year as Manager. Nobody was getting rich, but the checks covered normal expenses and left something in the pocket. 

Times have changed since Lew Hill's day, and I'm not sure that his conception -- given today's technology, in which most young people don't listen to radio at all -- should continue to be carved in stone.

Not a question, but I agree that WBAI has to move with the times. The programs should reflect the present and look ahead while not ignoring the past, and today's technological advances have certainly changed how audiences are reached and who is there, so that is an essential factor to consider. WBAI has not kept up with the digital era (look at the pathetic site, which is old-fashioned, outdated, and unimaginative) Professional sounding audio/video equipment has never been cheaper.

You mention that you had a blow-out with Tony Bates re his taking an anti-Israeli stance during a fund-raising pitch. I find serious fault with his taking any side at all, because he represents the station on the managerial level. I feel the same way about Robert Knight's constant attacks on Barack Obama. He is as bad in that respect as I am when it comes to critiquing him, but I am not on the air. Actually, Knight is on a crusade of sorts, he forces his disdain for the President into his interviews, gloats when someone else expresses disrespect for or disagreement with the Administration. It amounts to editorializing in the Fox News manner. WBAI should not shy away from airing criticism of any person or organization, but I believe it ought to provide the platform rather than make the judgement.

________________

April 20, 2012 4:28:57 AM EDT

Mitchel posted a correction at Pacifica Radiowaves. I insert his own words here so that they may be seen in their intended context, but Mitchel also attached lengthy articles that support or clarify his view on 9/11. To see these articles, please go to PacificaRadiowaves@yahoogroups.com

Here is Mitchel's correction:

Hi Chris,
One correction, for now:


At 09:34 AM 4/19/2012, Chris Albertson wrote:

You mention that you had a blow-out with Tony Bates re his taking an anti-Israeli stance during a fund-raising pitch.

My argument with Tony was not over his position on Israel per se -- I don't think he actually took a position on Israel. It was over statements he made while pitching "Core of Corruption" DVD as a premium, in which he failed to mention that Israel had warned the U.S. government about the pending attacks that occurred on 9/11, while at the same time implying that the presence of Israeli spies in the U.S. had something to do with the attacks. 

Whatever one thinks of Israel -- and, as I wrote, I am sharply critical of Israel's policies and even existence as a "Jewish state" -- Tony Bates' failure to present the whole story, which tends to exonerate Israel from the claims being made both by Tony and by the film he was pitching -- was dishonest, and I told him so.

Here's my letter (verbatim) to Tony Bates at the time (including the history outline at the end):

5/29/2010

Hi Tony,

I just heard, for the first time, your pitch with Jeff Brady for the 5-DVD set, "Core of Corruption".

As a 9-11 Truther myself, I take issue with several main facets of your presentation:

1) You say that it is not available on the internet. Even a cursory google search shows that "Core of Corruption" has been available for over a year on the internet.

It's available from the producer for $13 apiece (retail). It's cheaper elsewhere. (WBAI offers it for a $75 contribution.) 

The ethics of this practice are troubling. Why not say, "Order from WBAI to help spread the word, and we appreciate your contribution. You can also order directly from the producer for much less, at ....."  By this practice, WBAI is banking on the ignorance of the listener and reinforces that ignorance about what is available. 

Frankly, I doubt that the disclaimer would discourage many people from ordering through WBAI -- the honesty might even thrill people and inspire them to donate more! But regardless, I abhor the practice of intentionally not informing listeners about the availability of premiums elsewhere.2) You ask, How did Israel get pre-knowledge of 9-11? 

You report that Israel was spying ON THE U.S. but offer no proof at all.  

What Israel says it is doing is spying on Moslem extremists in the U.S., in much the same way that the Cuban 5 spied on right-wing Cuban extremists in the U.S. (The Cubans are ridiculously in prison for decades in the U.S.) -- you fail to report that, and wonder outright why Israel is spying on "us", its ally. Then you and Jeff Brady focus on the alleged fact that 60 Israelis were arrested in the aftermath [to 9/11], and you state that many of them worked for the Mossad or Israeli intelligence, as if what they were doing here is plotting 9/11 and not spying on Moslem extremists.

It is important to understand that MANY countries had actually WARNED the Bush administration of this pending attack, and that Israel was among them.(!!!) So whether or not Israel was responsible in whole or in part for the attacks, the fact that Israel WARNED the U.S. government beforehand about the pending attacks should at least have been mentioned. Fore-knowledge is not the same thing as complicity, especially when they used those intelligence reports to notify the U.S. about what they'd picked up.I write this because the fascists use the incomplete scenario that you've culled to go after "Jews"; incomplete reports help feed that climate, even though you were very clearly focusing on Israel per se as a political entity, not on Judaism. But, as I said, incomplete reports -- decontextualized reports -- feed the fascist climate. 

Why did you not say that Israel warned the U.S. before 9-11 of the pending attacks? What kind of a news report or honest opinion piece would leave that out? Not doing so allows to stand the unproved assumption that "Israel did it", without presenting any honest proof. 

- Mitchel

_______________

I said and you remarked that you did not understand my point: "The really telling and sad fact is that these pitches are made to preserve the pitcher's air time—there is hardly ever any mention of what it is that made Pacifica so significant. Yes, they will sometimes resort to a hysterical, Glenn Beck-type of pitch for "free speech", but it is only an emergency play used when the phones stop ringing."

By that, I mean that I think earmarked pitching during a fund-drive is wrong when the beneficiary is the pitcher. When we initiated the "marathon" approach, the aim was to raise money for WBAI and the concept of a listener-sponsored free-speech broadcasting station. Today, one can listen to pitch after pitch and not know what WBAI is supposed to represent. It is only when those phones stop ringing that some pitchers (Knight being prominent among them) mention the importance of the Pacifica concept—the problem is that much of what they tout as ideological reasons for the station deserving support no longer holds true.  The more desperate some of these hosts become when they see that their personal quota is not going to be met, the more frantic and, yes, Beckish their spiel becomes.

As for Berthold Reimers, I'll take your word for it that he works hard behind the scene, but the fact remains that he cannot be doing his job well when he allows Tony Bates to continue his record of poor judgement. Reimers is Bates' bos, is he not? He has had numerous reasons for justifiably firing Bates over the past couple of years, but he does not surface to do so. He also, as I said, has an obligation to keep the listener-sponsors informed of the station's status. He may have sorted out the premium mess, but he has failed to communicate and give even a vague impression that someone other than Tony Bates is at the helm.

Finally, please tell me if it would be okay to place my post and your excellent response on my WBAI blog. I think it would clear up many questions concerned WBAI listeners have.

Thanks, again, Mitchel.