Saturday, February 15, 2014

More BlueBoard censorship

This morning, I made three attempts to post a response to R. Paul Martin's BlueBoard, but he has apparently added me to his growing list of the banished, a list that includes active Pacifica and WBAI board members, along with anyone who dares to criticize his despotic mismanagement of that old forum.

Include the names of outcasts like Michel Cohen, Carolyn Birden, Cerene Roberts in a post and it is re-routed to the generalissimo's screen for "approval." It may eventually make it through, but then it is usually outdated. If you misspell these names, they will make it, but then you have given the despot a foaming at the mouth hissy fit. Isn't free speech wonderful? Isn't it amazing that people who purport to be supporters of Lew Hill's concept so completely miss the point?

Anyway, my post doesn't really warrant repeating here, except as an example of how ludicrous the little guy has become.

Here's the innocuous response I attempted to post on the BlueBoard. It has to do with today's WBAI piece in the NY Times:

And here is a brief e-mail note I sent to R. Paul Martin when I realized that my post is in his banishment bin:

Re: Frivolous censorship

R. Paul, you will find two or three posts entered by me today. Please do not publish them as I have had my fill of your idiotic censorship.

Chris Albertson

I will have more to say about this on my own blog, where free speech is practiced 24-7.


  1. With respect:

    Chris, why don’t you pitch an Op Ed piece to the Times?

    While your apparent frustration with the shallow coverage to date is understandable, I’m sure you appreciate that it’s a very minor news item that, for example, WBAI has sacked yet another program director as it and the Pacifica ship of ‘progressive’ programming sinks ever lower in the water.

    You have the bona fides, the cornerstone experience of the place, and the knowledge of the long unfolding collapse both to write such a piece, and to have a chance of their running it.

    If not as an Op Ed per se, then in one of their blogs.

    You’re in a position to lay out the significance of the demise of WBAI and of Pacifica, whereas a reporter who has to scramble to put something together only has the time, realistically, to make a few phone calls.

    So, with respect, please consider it.

    ~ indigopirate

    1. Thank you, Indigo, I will consider it.

      As for the recent coverage of Hennessy's firing, I agree that it is in and of itself insignificant—he was a minor figure in a cameo role, but his dismissal might have served as a loose stone with which to launch the avalanche. I do think the overall situation warrants serrious investigation.

    2. I agree that the overall arc of the original ideals and its final collapse is well worth a piece of solid reportage given the history of WBAI/Pacifica and its symbolism as reflective of the left, free speech, social change, and the age cohort of the 1960s as it moved onward through time.

      If you want to reach out, only to provide perspective and background, two loci come immediately to mind:

      1) Ben Sisario is the Times reporter of both the recent short piece on Hennelly’s firing as well as last summer’s piece Democracy May Prove the Death of WBAI

      His email is available here:

      2) Also, there have been a number of questions raised with respect to the handling of monies, a component of which, it would seem, is the whole Null-and-other scam artist infomercial question. The Washington Post did some serious investigative reportage this past fall with respect to nonprofits, Inside the Hidden World of Thefts, Scams, and Phantom Purchases at the Nation’s Nonprofits. If you’d like to contact the reporters who did that work, they can be contacted from the link provided on the piece

      Entirely your call, of course, but it seems to me you’re in an advantageous position with respect to credibility on all this horror as a once-worthily-founded ideal has been compromised, degraded, and simply whored out to various stakeholders at the expense of its foundational ideals and the public it was intended to serve.

      ~ indigopirate

  2. Your role in life is to hear and obeySunday, February 16, 2014

  3. Well so far your claim Chris has some validity.

    I added another post which mentioned Mr. Cohen that never seen the day of light.

    Are these individuals banned or being protected?

    I highly doubt R Paul is siding with them, but the motive as to why is baffling.

    1. R. Paul does not make public a list of the people he has banned, nor do even the banned know what got them on that list. Taking over the BlueBoard appears to have triggered a need he has to engage in power play. Pathetic.

      Forum members are not aware of these banishments until they actually post the names and find that their message has to be approved by the moderator (i.e. R. Paul). Censorship being anathema to Pacifica, his justification, when questioned, is that he is protecting the banished from verbal attacks that they (due to his censorship) cannot rebut.

      Apart from the detestable aspect of stifling individual free speech, this practice also adversely affects the forum membership in general. R.Paul obviously does not have a grasp on Pacifica's principles, even after all these years.

      I don't know if you have heard his show, but it is painfully amateurish and beside any point that I can think of. Indigo seems to like it, but I can't begin to figure out why.

  4. Contact Hennelly, its simple as that.

    As of now Hennelly's firing is a fight to not involve others or any group where in their minds might threaten their hold on the station. Its a standoff in their imagined reality. pseudo-progressive preemptive strike.

  5. R. Paul Martin exposes his shriveled weenie and shitstained leaky asshole again.
    The reason he gives for the ever-growing number of banned members and listeners of WBAI is to 'protect' them from those others on the Blueboard who have not (yet) lost their posting privileges-- but this fallacy has again been debunked. Case in point, the attack on Mitch Cohen by Stephen G. was a comment that was delayed for hours and officially 'approved' by the goderator and then left up on the board after several other comments in the same thread were removed, including your (Chris's) post.

    Mitch Cohen is still not allowed to post in defense of himself, but anyone who meets with the master's approval is free to trash him all they want with impunity. You dared to post a comment explaining the situation and shortly thereafter were banned yourself. The sycophants are out in full force for fear they may be next on the chopping block. On topic, well thought out posts which are relevant to the discussion are routinely deleted while the racist posts, personal attacks and troll posts are left to stand, if not actively encouraged. It's exactly the opposite of what a serious moderator is there to do. How did a discussion board which was created for the free exchange of ideas for the community become hijacked for the personal interests of one person? This is precisely the kind of attitude causing WBAI to self-destruct and become the laughingstock of the industry.

    We stopped coming to meetings long ago after a brief but very unpleasant altercation with R. Paul Martin. I stopped contributing out of concern about his access to my and my family's personal and financial information. This is a very angry and vindictive man who will hold a grudge against you for life if he feels you have crossed him or slighted him in any way and he'll never stop seeking his revenge. His behavior is childish and unprofessional and he doesn't care about the consequences of his actions as long as he can get his own way.

    1. Lots of people feel that way about R. Paul Martin - the list of people is very long. He was a selective union leader who sided with Management most if not all of the time. During the Christmas Coup of 2000-2001, he was seen with Utrice Leid in her office, clinking glasses and picking out producers for targeted actions against them. He cannot be trusted with anything - he is a dangerous and vengeful man!

  6. I'm afraid you're right in your assessment of R. Paul. I used to think that he was devoted to WBAI, but his devotion is to himself and I guess he realizes that there is nothing for him beyond WBAI. A sad little man on his self-made platform shoes.

  7. Calling Mr. Cohen out is hardly an attack. Actual confrontations with Cohen on the BB were indeed attacks, and done so with precision. I would never do so knowing he wasn't able to venture the board. Is R Paul the only moderator?

    1. R. Paul volunteered to inherit the board—he is the BlueBoard and it has become he.