This interview took place on Roy Tuckman's KPFK show, "Something's Happening," after midnight on Tuesday of this week. I think you will find it illuminating, at the very least. I removed the rather long, bombastic opening production (you will find it linked to in the red text at the bottom) and a very dreary musical interlude, but the interview and the calls are untouched.
This should bring comments and I look forward to reading them and adding my own.
Click on this line for a trip to the BlueBoard, where I posted the atrocious opening to Roy Tuckman's show.
I continue – now, more than ever – to be extremely favorably impressed by Ms Reese.
ReplyDeleteShe may yet save Pacifica from itself.
~ Indigo Pirate
Dig a little deeper, Indigo. She sounds like she is on the right track, but action speaks louder—listen to her carefully, paying special attention to what she isn't saying.
DeleteIt seems to me that anyone – anyone – in her position is profoundly constrained as to what they can say and what actions they take. The present structure and bylaws are madness incarnate, so far as I can see. In order to have permission to so much as sneeze it seems to be necessary to have numerous interminable meetings, and even then the most likely decision is to postpone a decision. Herding cats, the standard metaphor, doesn’t even begin to touch the dimensions of the problem.
DeleteThere’s very little that anyone in that position *can* say. The standard observation on politics one-oh-one, when novices complain that politicians never *say* anything is that as a rule they can’t. If you *say* anything, no matter what it is, you will lose more people than you will gain – and if you can’t get people behind you, you’re impotent, out of work, or both. People keep *saying* that they want leaders to make bold statements and take decisive action, but the reality is that they don’t.
She’s clear on the structural problems. For example, I’ve heard her only a few times, but twice I’ve heard her point to the elementary fact that you simply can’t have boards composed of twenty-four people. Once you get beyond a dozen at most you’re dysfunctional by definition as a working group. Yet that’s Pacifica’s structure. She’s made clear she wants to change that, but she can’t do it by executive fiat.
The entire history of Pacifica as I understand it has been that any time *anyone* attempts to take clear, sharp, definitve action there is a revolt that makes any such action literally impossible – resistance to any such action, whatever its form, whatever its particulars, is the one thing that (nearly) unifies all stakeholders.
Therefore, any attempt to bring about significant change *must* be done diplomatically, stealthfully, and by indirection and misdirection.
If you were in her position, with Pacifica as fucked up as it is, and with no financial resources to speak of, and very very limited executive authority, what would *you* do?
I know what I’d do (no I’m *certainly* not interested in the position [shudders]), and it would be along the lines of what she’s doing – at least what she’s doing (and not doing) so far as we can see in public.
What the hell the maneuvering is behind the scenes (and that’s what matters most), I have no clue. None.
So, do I think she’s a savior? No. Do I think she’s a saint? Nope. I do think, though (and it’s a judgement call, it may be wrong) that she’s sincere as to her statements of core intent.
Do I believe everything she’s saying and not saying as to particulars applicable to the moment, staff changes, structural changes, possible PSOAs or sales? Of course not.
If she hopes to accomplish anything she *has* to prevaricate, finesse, and just plain lie about those things. Any other approach and its back to civil war, insurrection, paralysis, and certain bankruptcy, probably for the entire network.
My perspective is that I don’t have to trust somebody in order to trust them – for me, that applies in her case.
That doesn’t mean I think the situation is salvageable.
The key, which she’s clear about, is that Pacifica is dysfunctional, profoundly so, and long has been. If she can’t change that, she’ll fail – and no one’s come close to doing that.
~ ‘Indigo’
I get your point, Indigo. I also think this is a hopelessly un-rescuable situation, so Reese—who is no dummy—must have something up her sleeve that we haven't thought of, otherwise, she would have thrown in the towel already. If she is on to something, we can be sure that the opportunists will react none too diplomatically. They could also be playing her—I just don't see an ending that reasonable people will accept, so I continue to believe that this is the end of the end, a nadir resulting from many years of gross ineptitude, factionalism, and clawing.
DeleteLike Wang, VisiCalc and Polaroid, Pacifica has left a mark, but died too soon.
The problem for me, here, is that we have very very little information as to her internal maneuverings with the board in all these closed sessions, and the board’s various inclinations. We only have brief glimpses after the fact as we did with the RFP for a PSOA for WBAI. It’s inevitable that there be such closed sessions where the truly important decisions evolve, develop, and may ultimately be taken, but they’re black holes for us. Nor do Iave any meaningful in-depth information on internal assessments of finances and projected market values for the frequencies.
DeleteThat’s quite an information gap.
With respect to WBAI my sense is the same as yours. I think it’s simply too far behind the curve. I’d lose it, probably PFW and PFT as well. Such a step would free her of the management and financial burdens of those stations, and raise cash with which to redefine Pacifica along the lines she seems to have in mind.
With the important caveat that this is pure speculation with a great deal of critical information unavailable, that’s what I’d do.
WBAI, I think we agree, is dead.
Ken Freedman seems solid from what we know and what we’ve seen. Why not let him have WBAI, perhaps via a PSOA bridge, then a buy out which would provide Pacifica with a few bucks. I suspect that’s do-able, and would probably result in some damn good radio.
Reese seems very clear in her priorities that what matters (and what’s been lacking) is *good radio*. I agree with her.
~ ‘Indigo’
So do I, Indigo.
DeleteDamn straight.
ReplyDeleteI find it odd that she really "fired " Andrew Phillips, when he expressed the same concern " the sound of radio", particularly WBAI. It makes me believe she may be just parroting what Andrew said and really doesn't understand what she is saying.
ReplyDeleteAlso she parrots so much of what everyone says we need to birng in YOUTH. Well much of YOUTH are broke from lack of finding work and college loans. Youth DO NOT have the money that senior citizens have. In fact go into the casinos all over the nation. You will mostly see SENIORS spending their pensions and disposable income. I suspect YOUTH has little disposable income. So harping on YOUTH to save Pacifica is a BIG myth that continues to get parroted. Seniors have Disposable income not YOUTH. Talk about the real global problems which appeal to Senior intelligence and your audience will return.
Also I think her saying she wants to give listeners what they want is problematic. Most of the country listens to FOX news . Travel to Florida or mid-west etc, Fox is playing everywhere. She contradicts herself constantly. She talks about the mission of Pacifica but then wants to give the audience what they want. The two don't always work in conjucntion.
I share your suspicions—when Reese expresses good, reasonable ideas, she is almost always echoing what a chorus of Pacifica's concerned critics have said repeatedly. You also rightly point to the odd inconsistency that had her dismissing Andrew, then doing a 180 and approving Hennelly's almost identical approach to fundraising. That sort of thing and the fact that she avoided mention of key pending decisions regarding WBAI raises my doubts.
DeleteHennelly is a fast, slick talker with a strong agenda, so I can see him doing a Svengali on her. This mess is a breeding ground for cynicism, isn't it?
Apropos Fox News, WBAI has been there for quite some time—I was not trying to be funny when I likened Robert Knight to Glenn Beck. He has become less theatrical as he works on getting his job back, but his alleged journalism is just as unethical and disingenuous as it was when he fantasized being a network anchorman.
There is simply too much inferior, agenda-driven amateur radio going on at WBAI for Summer Reese not to curb it—unless, of course, she is being insincere. I am inclined to believe that she is.
I listened to the whole clip and she comes across like a wolf in sheep's clothing or like a maneuvering shark. Based on my interviewing experience, I think that she is at her most genuine in the beginning, when she expresses joy at having become the head of Pacifica. She is most dishonest, when she talks about unity among the show hosts and about being together as one. She does not believe that. When asks about the internal politics among the staff she hides behind the mask of officialdom. From the way she talks, the politics are very important to her (WHAT politics she refers to, I am not sure), and cultural and public affairs programming are an after-thought to her. When you deal with oligarchies, like the Kremlin and Ottoman Empire you have ascending dynasties, and when Mr. Stalin goes to Moscow or Mr. Abbas goes to the Abbasid Baghdad, they bring with them their own people and they put them in key positions and take over the Empire, and when Miss Reese went Pacifica National, she brought over her faction from the KPFK with her. What Reese and the board of Pacifica directors did, was sack everyone at BAI and possibly other stations, and replace them with the shows and personnel from her native California, remember Andrew Phillips and Ian Masters at BAI. Reese claims that she did this to improve the programming and cut the operating costs at BAI. In fact, she gutted the BAI station and reduced it to a place holder for the broadcasting license. That MAY have been borne out of necessity, but we also have her actions at the DC station, when she upset the things by moving the station, yet again, and there was her unconvincing actions during the lawsuit, that went AGAINST the interests of the local station and of Pacifica, and did not impress the Judge. Finally, we have the argument from her, that she started broadcasting the quality content that they already have produced, so as to save money, but what she is doing in effect is that she is syndicating the her hoe California content over the Pacifica. If she was really acting in Pacifica's interests, she would have been syndicating the best content from all five stations, but her actions are self-serving, and she only promotes her own. Notice how she uses people. Her behavior was condescending towards Null, she USED him to raise money but did not bring him on board. like he expected, and she is still expecting to USE him again. Andrew Phillips may have resigned because of his ego, but also, because he was a contender who lost.
ReplyDeleteThe next interesting question is WHO is Summer Reese. When someone has a career in business, political activism, or politics, they usually leave a trail of publications, public appearances, interviews, educational institutions that they have attended and other participation in public life. Not so with Summer Reese. She says that she is not a lawyer, the way Gary Null says that he is not a doctor, and yet she keeps carrying on as if she is a legal professional. Sounds familiar? Her association with a civil rights lawyer, who did pro-bono work and handled Sirhan-Sirhan’s legal case gives her one cred to involvement in activism, but as what? Did she handle the lawyer’s affairs after his death because they were sleeping together? She was his paralegal? A fellow activist? There is no public record of her activism, we do not even know her date and place of birth! Then she gets involved as a business associate with another lawyer, who is a tax scammer, who attracts the extremists from among the tea party and the right wing lunatic fringe crowd. At least involvement is echoed by her during this interview, when she talks of finding common ground with a bunch of “Minute Men” during a political demonstration in their dislike of Congress and elected officials. I came across Minute Men once, to me, they opted to make money as realtors and stock brokers over military service, their patriotic duty, and later on took up para-militarism and I found a bunch of them in California, a bunch of suburbanites mounted on horse-back, Western dusters and cowboy hats on their heads, AK-47 assault rifles in their hands, looking for Mexicans crossing illegally into the U.S. Then Reese claims to have been home-schooled by her mother and to have followed the stock market since she was 14, and they lived in New York. What is Summer Reese’s real name, anybody knows? What was the reason that she was home-schooled? When Reese spoke of he left wing during the interview, she spoke as if she did not considered herself part of it.
ReplyDeleteShe spoke of the diversity at Pacifica, with the tired cliché of people liking rock music, jazz, and classical, and that she likes them all, but she spoke it as if it makes no difference to her, and therein lies the key. I think that Summer Reese is involved in Pacifica, because for her it is a career and economic opportunity. Reese has had a meteoric rise to the top. She spent two years on the local station board, four more years on the Pacifica National Board, three of which she was the in charge. What is the source of her moxxie? Who was supporting her and who was pulling her upwards? Nobody has this fast a rise without a hook. Who or what was hers? And finally, being a single mom, as she claims, how did she support herself financially while she was volunteering herself full time on the local board?
Reese admitted during the interview, that Pacifica has “100’s of affiliates”, whom Pacifica consults by helping them get public funding from Corporation for Public Broadcasting and who provide Pacifica with a revenue stream. Unless this is Reese’s business model, as of yet unattained, why did Pacifica gut the BAI and other stations with all that revenue pouring in from the hundreds of affiliates? And why is Reese running Pacifica as if it is a for profit entity. If Reese sees Pacifica as a for-profit corporation, then it makes sense to kill off the unproductive radio stations, if all you care for, is cash flow, by same token, if you cared about the journalism and culture, you would use the revenue stream that Pacifica is getting, to boost the five Pacifica stations, which are not operating to generate profit. In fact, since Pacifica has not opened their books, it is quite possible that that there is no revenue stream for Pacifica from the hundreds of affiliates, and this is just a part of Reese’s strategy to make Pacifica into a money making enterprise.
ReplyDeleteNote, however, her power grabbing strategy: She appointed a “compliance officer” to each of the five stations, ostensibly to make them eligible for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds. She trashes the stations as economically unviable and in trouble, and keeps reminding us of the extremely regulated broadcasting environment, which only SHE has the expertise to navigate. When a new CEO takes over a company, they usually present his or her biography, history of their professional experience, and their CV, where are Reese’s credentials for the public to review? Reese presents an image of a knowing professional with a plan for success, which she used to advance her position in Pacifica, but I don’t think that there is any revenue flow as of yet, since they couldn’t even pay severance to BAI employees, only about 200 thousand dollars, that she mentioned.
Then we have the troubling plan that Reese has, of creating the Pacifica Internet Radio. Again, what Null and Masterson are already doing, except, of course, Reese has plans to improve on the idea, a grand design for a humongous internet channel that will let users choose and play their own content, a version of Gary Nulls Progressive Radio Network on steroids, that Reese hopes will be a valuable asset to internet marketers and advertisers. The problem with that approach is that you can have a anybody with an electronic rig recording broadcasts and conducting talk shows from their own bedroom, the way Gary Null and others do it. Broadcasting over the internet cuts down on the overhead expenses, but it also destroys newsrooms and replaces news reporting with editorializing. This means the death of journalism, the way national syndication of newspapers meant the death of news departments in small town USA. Summer Reese is merely following a trend, and is as corrupt, if not more, as the rest of them. The interesting question is how much of it is her initiative as opposed to the Pacifica’s national board’s collective actions.
Thank you BB, you have given us much food for thought. What you lay on the table makes sense to me in a discomfiting way. Like Indigo and TPM, I firmly believe that its Game Over for Pacifica—certainly for WBAI. Elvis left the house a very long time ago.
DeleteFrom the way she talks, the politics are very important to her (WHAT politics she refers to, I am not sure), and cultural and public affairs programming are an after-thought to her"
ReplyDeletePublic affairs programming refers to programs that discuss local and national politics.
"When you deal with oligarchies, like the Kremlin and Ottoman Empire you have ascending dynasties, and when Mr. Stalin goes to Moscow or Mr. Abbas goes to the Abbasid Baghdad, they bring with them their own people and they put them in key positions and take over the Empire"
You think Pacifica is the Ottoman Empire and the ED of Pacifica is like Stalin? What kind of ridiculous hyperbole is this for a nonprofit organization?
"What Reese and the board of Pacifica directors did, was sack everyone at BAI and possibly other stations, and replace them with the shows and personnel from her native California"
For ten years, WBAI has not had enough income coming in every month to pay for both its transmitter rental at the Empire State Building and it's then $100,000 a month payroll. It paid one or the other and asked for subsidies to cover the rest. What entitles you to permanent subsidies from the other 4 stations? Ms. Reese deserves enormous credit for having the courage to do what obviously needed to be done - and as an interim. The crime is that it took so long and didn't happen six years ago when the severance could have been paid promptly, which would have been the much more honorable way to treat the employees.
"That MAY have been borne out of necessity, but we also have her actions at the DC station, when she upset the things by moving the station, yet again"
The DC station was evicted from its building because the building was being demolished by the landlord and rebuilt as a hotel property.
"And there was her unconvincing actions during the lawsuit, that went AGAINST the interests of the local station and of Pacifica, and did not impress the Judge"
The lawsuit in DC is likely about to be dismissed.
"But what she is doing in effect is that she is syndicating the her hoe California content over the Pacifica. If she was really acting in Pacifica's interests, she would have been syndicating the best content from all five stations"
Obviously you don't understand Pacifica internal politics at all. Mitch Jeserich at KPFA is on the other faction, not Summer's faction and yet his show is now syndicated at all 5 stations. That's because it's a good show. She's actually doing the opposite of what you claim and syndicating based on merit and production quality, not internal politics.
"The next interesting question is WHO is Summer Reese. She says that she is not a lawyer, the way Gary Null says that he is not a doctor, and yet she keeps carrying on as if she is a legal professional"
She's been a certified paralegal for over 15 years.
"Did she handle the lawyer’s affairs after his death because they were sleeping together?
She handled the case because she was the paralegal working on it after the attorney's death. Why would you make accusations about who is sleeping with whom out of thin air?
"We do not even know her date and place of birth! "
Los Angeles. I believe it's in June or July of 1972.Can I please have your exact date of birth, Booser Bear?
"Then she gets involved as a business associate with another lawyer"
Paralegals do that. They work with lawyers.
"Then Reese claims to have been home-schooled by her mother .What was the reason that she was home-schooled?"
ReplyDeleteHer mother is named Geneva Reese and she's attended PNB meetings in the past to babysit Summer's kid while the board met. She home-schooled her daughter and she's always said so, Here's a legal filing in a police brutality suit in LA in 2011 the mother is party to. You have to use your real name and not an alias in any legal filing. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2011cv09790/518122
"She spoke of the diversity at Pacifica, with the tired cliché of people liking rock music, jazz, and classical, and that she likes them all, but she spoke it as if it makes no difference to her"
You would advocate for a battle to the death between classical, rock and jazz for space on the Pacifica stations? That sounds a little too much like the mess we currently have. Most normal people would say they can appreciate all 3.
"Reese has had a meteoric rise to the top"
Nobody volunteers full-time on the local or national boards. When Reese started working full-time for Pacifica as the interim executive director, she drew a salary. Before that, she didn't work for Pacifica. Board members are not employees.
"Reese admitted during the interview, that Pacifica has “100’s of affiliates”, whom Pacifica consults by helping them get public funding from Corporation for Public Broadcasting and who provide Pacifica with a revenue stream."
Pacifica has had an affiliates program since the 80's. The number of affiliates is about 180-200 as it goes up and down. They are community, college and low-power stations across the country and it's a great thing for them to be able to access all the Pacifica programs that are uploaded to the Audioport system that Pacifica built and maintains. Why would you begrudge small stations the ability to access the Pacifica Archives and play From The Vault or Flashpoints or Letters and Politics or Sojourner Truth or whatever appeals to them? Pacifica doesn't consult with anybody to get them CPB funding. They get CPB funding if they qualify for it.
"Unless this is Reese’s business model, as of yet unattained, why did Pacifica gut the BAI and other stations with all that revenue pouring in from the hundreds of affiliates?"
"All that revenue from the affiliates program" is $300,000 a year. WBAI's *transmitter* costs $658,000 a year and its former payroll was $1.2 million a year.
If Reese sees Pacifica as a for-profit corporation, then it makes sense to kill off the unproductive radio stations, if all you care for, is cash flow, by same token, if you cared about the journalism and culture, you would use the revenue stream that Pacifica is getting, to boost the five Pacifica stations, which are not operating to generate profit"
That's what Pacifica did for 10 years. That is why WBAI owes on paper $3.3 million dollars in unpaid shared services.
"In fact, since Pacifica has not opened their books, it is quite possible that that there is no revenue stream for Pacifica from the hundreds of affiliates, and this is just a part of Reese’s strategy to make Pacifica into a money making enterprise"
Pacifica cannot be a money-losing enterprise. There are no money trees growing from the sky and every bank account has been looted to pay for money-losing unproductive stations. The 2012 audit is posted on the website. Read it. http://pacifica.org/finance_reports_2012.php
"Note, however, her power grabbing strategy: She appointed a “compliance officer” to each of the five stations, ostensibly to make them eligible for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds"
ReplyDeletePacifica stations have received CPB funds for more than thirty years. Why wouldn't she try to keep what few grants the Pacifica stations get?
"She trashes the stations as economically unviable and in trouble, and keeps reminding us of the extremely regulated broadcasting environment, which only SHE has the expertise to navigate".
The stations are economically unviable. Every single one of them posted an operating deficit in 2012. Broadcasting is a regulated environment. She has navigated the regulatory environment well as Pacifica has been through a CPB audit (now resolved), an IRS audit (passed with flying colors), an FTC complaint (dismissed without merit) and a FTB revocation (now remanded). That's a lot in a year and a half and it indicates a high level of professional skill.
.
"Then we have the troubling plan that Reese has, of creating the Pacifica Internet Radio. a grand design for a humongous internet channel that will let users choose and play their own content, The problem with that approach is that you can have a anybody with an electronic rig recording broadcasts and conducting talk shows from their own bedroom"
If you really think the changing nature of journalism and media delivery is all about Pacifica, then I feel sorry for you. Every media outlet has had to create Internet content delivery and move into mixed media to survive and you'd have less financial troubles if anyone in Pacifica had had a clue how to transition. Reese not pandering to the Pacifica luddites who are so terrified of change that they'll kill anyone who tries to modernize anything and then whine because nobody funds them, is one of her best traits and long overdue in a Pacifica ED.
"What you lay on the table makes sense to me in a discomfiting way"
That's not to your credit, Chris.
You're probably right, I should have said that SOME of what he laid on the table was discomfiting. Worrisome to me, because so much of it sounds plausible, especially given Pacifica's history of attracting and holding on to people who either come with devious goals or are incompetent. I still see Summer Reese as not being entirely exempt from either categorization, but she is probably more accurately described as the latter. Mind you, she may be excellent in other areas, but I think her handling of the present situation proves that broadcasting and management are not among them.
DeleteYou laud Reese for the "enormous courage" it took to dismiss 19 salaried WBAI employees, but bold moves can also be generated by ignorance. I have to wonder why she did not give more thought to her selection. Few would protest the firing of self-absorbed hosts like Robert Knight and Esther Armah, and Kathy Davis was but a high-priced joke and (helix water/homeless angels) embarrassment, but eliminating the entire news department was simply idiotic and—like keeping Haskins and letting Sidney Smith go, contrary to what was best for WBAI. There was no courage involved in that decision, just ineptitude. As for money saved, think of the still outstanding severance pay, what that debt has done to morale an image, and the legal ramifications that very likely are around the corner.
You are obviously someone who has inside information and/or does his/her homework, so I appreciate the time you took to set things straight—at least as you see it. Helpful and necessary as that is, what I find missing in some of your responses to BB is analysis of Ms. Reese's action. I think she made far too many ill-considered decisions and left too many essential things undone. Remember when she reopened WBAI's door to Tony Blake?
An extremely effective presentation – thank you.
Delete'Indigo Pirate'
Anon,
ReplyDeleteWhen I was asking about politics, I wasn’t talking about radio programming, I was talking about Summer Reese, HER personal politics and her personal interest in the factional politics at Pacifica. That’s what she was talking about during the interview, and like most other ambitious players, she apparently has little belief in any particular ideology, it’s getting to the top, that counts.
I find it amazing, that an alleged progressive, like you, would be so ground in profit making and have no concept of operating in public interest. Community Radio is not supposed to be turning a profit, or paying for itself. It is SUPPOSED to be subsidized by the foundation that runs it. It is not the responsibility of the listener to pay for community radio, because then, the radio will only serve the community that can afford it, and that is what you get with mainstream media. If the Pacifica Foundation was competent at its mission, then it would have been able to fully fund all of its components. I don’t expect you to understand how it works, since the Pacifica National Board itself does not get that part of the equation, but it was doable, had the professionals ran the foundation or at least had the wherewithal to hire professional strategy consultants.
But the situation with Pacifica is a lot worse than mere ignorance. BAI WAS the flagship station of the Pacifica network in terms of the cultural diversity in broadcasting. It was damaged and eventually destroyed by managers from other parts of the network. Ask yourself, why is it that WBAI listeners have to subsidize the Democracy Now! While the affiliates were airing DN! Free of charge, and how on earth would the BAI management sign such a horrible contract to carry the DN!, costing BAI on the order of the reparations that Germany paid after losing WWI. Of greater importance is the question of how the DN! That was built up using the facilities and resources of the BAI was allowed to separate and become the flagship program of the Pacifica network. This is the subject that not even Gary Null will discuss! It was the dominance and interventionism of the Pacifica National Board that took the prize from the subordinate radio station, with the self-admitted help from Andrew Phillips, a staff member at KPFK or KPFA, and funding from the Ford foundation. What business was it of his, and why wasn’t BAI’s reaction adequate when they had their best show ripped off?
If you look at all five stations, BAI unlike the other affiliates, had the longest history biggest pool of talent, and the most diverse programming. Reese shutting down BAI and making it wholly dependent on Pacifica programming secured the radio frequency for itself and was a lot like a coup de grace from a competitor after years of dominance and mismanagement.
Add to that Reese’s antagonistic actions that helped undermine the strength of the Washington’s Pacifica station. Whether the lawsuit will be thrown out of the Court or not, it is part of the pattern.
It is very nice that you mentioned Mitch Jeseritch’s excellent show, letters in politics. Isn’t his show from California, syndicated by Pacifica? And how about Sojourner Truth, Background Briefing, and Christine Blosdale? They too, are from California and syndicated by Pacifica. Anything playing on BAI compliments of Reese that has not been syndicated out of California? What about those stations in Houston and DC? They have nothing worthy of BAI listeners or do we have a West Coast invasion here? To add insult to injury, there WAS one great show that was syndicated out of New York, Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now!, which was promptly taken out of the BAI’s hands and was used to suck money out of it. You know, it could have been the show, that kept the BAI afloat. Is it not colonialism in action? How about that?
With regards to Reese, she is a certified paralegal, that is true. Paralegals work with lawyers. Also true. She worked with a civil rights lawyer, who did pro bono work and handled Srhan Sirhan’s case. That is fine and goes some way towards establishing her credibility. Then we have Reese working with a legal con artist, who sold a scam to people who were trying to avoid paying taxes. Was she merely a paralegal or did she profit from this more than just her basic hourly salary? Then we have Reese claiming that she helped an artist secure a two million dollar judgment! Now we have Reese, acting like a lawyer without a portfolio, much like that certain other nutritionist is acting like a doctor without an MD. From Reese’s own self-description we read that she has written prose, worked as an accountant, helped produce some musical or theater production, in other words, like most happening folks in California, she has been promoting herself and acting as an entrepreneur, because as we all know if you want to make it happen, you got to make it happen in California. It is not surprising, that she fell in with Blosdale and Null, similar self-starters, whose entrepreneurial success depends on self-promotion. I can even accept and understand, that she got involved in Pacifica for an economic opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI can accept that, except that Summer Reese wields power too eagerly, acts like hatchet man, and is patronizing to the Pacifica audience. When you are truly in charge of something as an executive, you are responsible for everything that happens and for everything that doesn’t happen. If the Pacifica Foundation had influence over the five Pacifica radio stations, that the Pacifica National Board is ultimately responsible for these stations not growing in terms of their audience and programming, Pacifica is also responsible for these same radio stations declining and becoming economically unviable, and also Pacifica is responsible for itself not being able to financially support these stations. The fact that neither Reese, nor anybody else in Pacifica has acknowledge their own complicity in the radio stations’ downfall, nor had they expressed any remorse, regret or accepted any responsibility for the financial straits that Pacifica is in. Pacifica may have passed the audits with flying colors, but the Pacifica foundation is far, far from transparent. There is more transparency at most large business corporations than in Pacifica. For example, we do not know the board members voting track records or their performance in helping to run the foundation. We do not know their work qualifications or salaries. Furthermore, since Pacifica is community radio and since its listeners support it directly by buying its overpriced premiums, Pacifica owes more to its listeners than a business corporation to its shareholders. Since most of Pacifica’s audience, at least thinks itself politically active and since internal politics play such a large role in shaping Pacifica, internal politics should be freely discussed, if Pacifica is to be answerable to its listeners. Instead Pacifica tries to intimidate and gag its broadcasters, to keep them from discussing publicly what occurs inside the stations. Pacifica holds an abominable labor relations record and makes various shows compete for prime time slots by seeing who can raise more money. Isn’t it ironic that a “progressive” and supposedly a “left wing” organization acts like a bully and sweat shop owner? Competition brings out the best in products and worst in people, apparently its national board is not aware of that little fact.
The thing that Pacifica tries to hide is its corruption. Nulls ability to raise money for Pacifica, bought his influence with Pacifica. I am pretty sure, that that there was financial corruption involved with the DN! Contract that BAI signed and that high ranking members of the Pacifica management are very well compensated. Also, I think that because of Pacifica’s hunger for funding and cronyism, economic opportunists get on board, who do not share Pacifica audience’s political beliefs and have little in common with their listeners. If everything ever gets publicizes, that will be the Pacifica’s dirty little secret. As to Reese, she forms a Fringe Marketing triumvirate with Null and Blosdale, but unlike Null, she has a strategy for the Pacifica foundation, which made her break with Null, because he became a liability. I am not sure if the Reese’s strategy is all her own or is shared by the board members. I don’t know if Reese is really acting out of necessity to save Pacifica, or if she is after personal enrichment, she and others. Anonymous claims that Pacifica does not consult its affiliates for profit, however, during her broadcast, Reese specifically mentions consulting the affiliates with regards to CPB funding and she mentioned it in the same breath as the revenue stream to Pacifica from its affiliates. To me it sounds like Reese has a plan that hasn’t been implemented yet. Anonymous shrugs off the newly minted CPB compliance officer as a good sense practice, and it is true, but the question is, why hasn’t there been a CPB compliance officer before and why weren’t the individual radio stations allowed to nominate their own? To give an example, children being hit by automobiles is terrible. We can remedy this situation by posting crossing guards near schools, but if all of the crossing guards are my soldiers, I have taken a decent step towards controlling your town.
ReplyDeleteWhat seems to be happening is that Reese is streamlining the Pacifica radio network much in the same way that Mergers and Acquisitions bankers streamline mid-size businesses that they take over. The butcher the organization, make it unviable in order to drive its stock up, then sell it to Wall Street, pocket the money, and leave behind the ruined business company. Anonymous thinks that going virtual into the internet broadcasting is a good move that will save Pacifica money. Anonymous is either naïve or he is thinking inside the box. The difference between a real business, or a radio station versus an internet company, is that one is REAL and has real assets and value, while the internet phantom is valued in terms of the advertising revenue and e-commerce that it brings to those who will pay to get in touch with those who click on the internet. Radio Station had real infrastructure: The studios, the broadcasting facilities, the newsrooms, their buildings, the broadcasting frequencies. For whatever reasons, totally beyond me, Pacifica has squandered those resources, never even bothering to purchase their own radio station real estate, which would have brought equity. Fact, every Mc Donald’s franchise sits on the land that is owned by the McDonald’s corporation, and that land is in strategic location, where the value of that land exceeds the value of the restaurant itself. Pacifica not only did not develop their radio stations, but Reese is now destroying Pacifica’s infrastructure so as to pursue what appears to be Reese’s new vision for a profitable Pacifica, that may or may not involve marketing schemes and that may or may not have been caused by economic necessity. That Reese is not sharing her vision with the audience is the evidence of her disingenuousness.
Finally, let us revisit that ridiculous hyperbole involving Kremlin, the Ottoman Empire, and Pacifica. When a new man became the secretary general in Kremlin, he brought his trusted people from his parent local communist party organization and placed them in key positions, generally ruling in favor of the region that he came from. So does Reese with her KPFK, having become the ED of Pacifica, similar to Ataturk, who let the Ottoman Empire atrophy and wither away so that he could favor a single province that would later become the modern state that we now know as Turkey. Not unlike Reese, who will keep the KPFK as the Pacifica’s flagship station that will produce content that will be broadcast over what is left of the other four station. Maybe it’s just me, but we would do well to remember Santayana’s admonition about those ignorant of history being doomed to repeat it, even on the miniature scale of the Pacifica foundation.
ReplyDeleteI will simply note that I find BB's analysis and comments to be absurd, hyperbolic, paranoid, and naive, from first to last.
DeleteI know of no useful way to address such ‘thoughts’ – doubtless this reflects limitations on my part.
~ ‘indigopirate’
Duly, noted, Indigo, but I beg to differ:
ReplyDeleteAre you aware that during the darkest 1990's the Soros Foundation funded entire regional library systems in the post-Soviet Russian collapse?
Why should Pacifica listeners pay more for their radio then listeners of CBC, BBC, NPR and Al Jazeera?
How many grant proposal writers has Pacifica hired to secure funding for its operations?
Being a multi-million dollar non-profit foundation, has Pacifica ever hired the services of major strategy consultants, such as Mc Kinsey and Co, do develop better and more sustainable funding/growth model for Pacifica?
Being that an average BAI listener-supporter is 67 years of age and is a pensioner, in what way is it NAIVE to demand the same standards of accountability and transparency that the Corporate America holds itself to with regards to its investors?
Are you aware, that in today's business environment, the sales contacts of a marketing person and the scientific work of a researcher are the property of their employer? You can't just pick up and go work for the competition, without risking getting successfully sued, criminally prosecuted, or driven out of the professional field, how is it, that BAI not only did not fight for its intellectual property rights, but also awarded DN! a contract that eventually made it a holder of 50% of BAI's famous debt?
How is it that nobody discusses how this came about?
Whose idea was it to make the BAI listeners supporters pay for Democracy Now, while the other affiliates get it free of charge? To me, at least, this insults the BAI audience. College kids can't pay for Democracy Now! and the retired people can?
Starting after Summer Reese had become an Interim Director of the Pacifica, can you tell me how many shows were syndicated over the five stations out of NY, DC and Houston as opposed to shows from California?
Finally, Summer Reese stated that she spent two years at the local station board, followed by four years on Pacifica's national board. This is a meteoric rise to the top, given the board size, 24 people, its dysfunctionality, its factionalism, and its litigiousness. Talent and hard work are not enough to break through something like that. This kind of magic does not happen without the outside influence or pull from above.