Talking with Ruth

Ruth's Report is a feature that runs at The Common Ills. It's gone by several names and it's undergone several changes as well. Brady wrote a funny e-mail that we all enjoyed (including Ruth) and we thought it and other topics needed addressing.

Ruth, just to set it up for anyone late to the party, talk about the various titles of your report.

Ruth: Well, it started out with me reading The Common Ills and wanting to contribute in some way. C.I. had tackled NPR using the husband of one of Dick Cheney's staffers to critique the John Kerry 2004 campaign without ever telling listeners that the "critic" was married to a woman who worked for Cheney. I'm not a big TV watcher but I do listen to the radio. Later on, a comment was made that NPR gets away with a great deal, which I agreed with, and I thought I could make that my niche, the way Isaiah has the comics and Kat the music. So I started with Ruth's Morning Edition Report where I covered the show and it noted sexism, inaccuracies and more. I learned about Pacifica via The Common Ills. I had no idea there was an alternative to NPR. And it became Ruth's Public Radio Report. Now it is just Ruth's Report and that is partly due to the fact that I may cover the print edition of Extra! or something else.

Community member Brady e-mailed you and C.I. about the report and made a very comparison. He compared you to Geena Davis in The Long Kiss Goodnight.

Ruth: He even quoted the Samuel L. Jackson line about how Ms. Davis' character had changed as the movie went along. I thought that was very funny. He was funny and he was correct. I have changed a great deal while I've been doing the report. I personally feel stronger. Early on, in my reports, NPR and PBS were under attack. They are always under attack and a number of us always rush in to defend them. I was that way before I started the report and once I started the report. Rebecca disagreed with the comments I was making in the report at that time. We disagreed with each other on that. But there were no hard feelings. Rebecca's attitude was, "What are we saving? What are we wasting all of our time and energy on?" That's correct, right, Rebecca?

Rebecca: Good summary.

Ruth: And my own attitude was, "What would the world be without NPR and PBS?" Was it perfect? No. Was it great? No. Was it even good? No. But imagine how much worse the landscape would be without it. That is where I came from then.

And now?

Ruth: Rebecca and I are in total agreement. If PBS and NPR can't save themselves, let them die. We're supposed to take part in this time consuming, never ending battle to save something that does very little, that distorts a great deal, that is no different than cable TV? The problem go beyond it not being left. It is titled right. There are real battles to fight. Saving NPR and PBS is time consuming and something right-wingers and centrists, the audiences served, can work on but it is not something I care to work on any longer.

When you and C.I. spoke on the phone Saturday afternoon, you brought up another movie?

Ruth: Yes, I felt like another Geena Davis movie captured where I was. In Thelma & Louise, Ms. Davis is trapped in a bad situation and Susan Sarandon tells her, "You get what you settle for." That is where I was at when the report started. My husband had passed away. I went through a very long and very serious depression. We got together in the early sixties while we were both in college, we had a large family. I lost someone very important to me and a big part of who I was. My children were worried, my grandchildren were worried. Treva, my best friend from college, was worried. There were weeks I did not leave the house and, when I would venture out, all it would take was something like a checker at the grocery store saying something such as, "We haven't seen you or your husband in awhile. How are you doing?" That is all it would take to send me back to the house determined not to leave it. All of my grandchildren were helpful. But Tracey is persistent and not afraid to get tough. She would tell me, "Grandma, you have to do this" or "Grandma, you have to do that." It might be attending one of their school events or something else. One of the things was, "Grandma, you have to read The Common Ills." I really did not know much about the computer. My husband would play around on it and I knew a few things because he showed me. I had a few sites bookmarked but I did not even know how to log on to the web. If I was on, it would usually be because he was on would say, "Ruth, you need to come over here." So I would sit there and bumble around. Tracey and her father gave me a crash course, Tracey made The Common Ills my home page. I was taking baby steps and then my grandson Jayson announced, during a Sunday dinner, that he was gay. That was the wake up call.

In what way?

Ruth: Jayson needed support. There was not time to wallow or feel sorry for myself. Life was going on. My grandson did a very brave thing and there were some people who were going to openly hate him because of who he was. He did not need or deserve a part time grandmother. He needed someone who was going to be there for him. This actually works with the quote from Thelma & Louise: "You get what you settle for." He should not have to settle for anything. I also think that is the approach I take in the reports today. I am an old woman. I have seen too many things play out. My grandchildren should not have to tamper down dreams and settle for something. They should dream big and go for it. I am thinking of the apologists for the lack of real Congressional action on Iraq, the ones who sneered that people needed to be "realistic." I am realistic. My grandchildren, every one's grandchildren, should not be content with a world that they "settle" for. They should demand fairness, equality and real, not symbolic, action. What is the line in the Carly Simon song?

"Let all the dreamers wake the nation," from "Let the River Run."

Ruth: Thank you. The young people should be dreaming big. The country is in a huge mess and "settling" for symbolism is not going to fix anything. Dream big and work towards that. Ignore the party operatives who tell you to shut up and be happy with nothing. Ignore the party apologists who want to discuss "reality." Reality is an illegal war is going on. Reality is that the people have turned against it. Reality is that Democrats gave Bully Boy the power for the illegal war. Reality is that Congress needs to be responsive to the people. Reality is that the country belongs to the people and not elected officials who are in office to serve the people, not the other way around.

A Party Hack's cry baby defense of Congress really bothered you.

Ruth: Yes, he did. I started picturing what might come down the line for gays and lesbians or immigrants. Something that accomplished nothing but we were told to applaud because it was the best that could be done. I say "no" to that and do not find that person "realistic." I find him to be an apologist for Congress and someone who, while self-presenting as a populist, really does not respect the power of the people. To use one past example that effects my grandchildren, Bill Clinton was president and put into place Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He was president and that was not what he promised the people. He did not have to water it down. He did that because it was easy. The reality was that he was the president, he was commander-in-chief of the military and they had to follow his orders. He could have done more but went with what was easy and then, in an interview given before he left office, wanted to talk about how the policy was not working out. It was never going to work out. The policy before was that gays and lesbians were not fit to serve. What he implemented endorsed that. They could serve, if they were silent. If they were open and honest, they were not fit. That is what Don't Ask, Don't Tell really endorses. Treva laughs that, considering his own personal history with regards to sex, Don't Ask, Don't Tell might be a good policy. But what is right for him only further stigmatized gays and lesbians. The silence was nothing more than "passing" -- if you could stay silent and, in effect, pass for straight, you could serve. As a Jewish woman, I find the idea of "passing" offensive in and of itself. But it was damaging and something that, in real time, was hailed as "realistic." It was not realistic. Reality was he could have implemented anything he wanted to and he chose to take the easiest path. Can you imagine how that will play out on immigration? If we, as we will be urged to, accept the "realistic" answer, can you imagine how immigrants will get sold out by Congress? So I am not writing a report that settles.

How does that play out in the reports?

Ruth: I am comfortable calling out anyone. If I had not been doing the listeners' report, I would have addressed that a stipulation is not a plea bargain. I would have also addressed that Sarah Olson did not refuse to testify. She even, in an interview after the stipulation which freed her from testifying in the court-martial of Lt. Ehren Watada, stated she would not say what she would have done. The hype that surrounded her as someone who refused to testify was inaccurate. Her statements were often vague and inconsistent so it is easy to understand how some people could be confused. But she took no stand. I also do not see the blogger as a hero after he posts the footage on his website. The 'logic' that he did not turn it over and merely posted it, that is cowardice. He gave them what they wanted and is not a journalistic hero. His excuses that he was prepared much earlier to do that but the prosecution would not agree to it are hollow. Are you protecting a source or not? That is how journalistic heroism is measured in that regard. I do not blame him for wanting to get out of jail but I will not hail him as hero. Or Ms. Olson who was, if she refused to testify, something she never said she would do, facing a few months in jail, if she did not testify, whining, in an interview, that Ehren was "manipulative" and that unnamed friends of hers, always good to hide behind the unnamed when you want to trash, felt he was not defending her. Ehren Watada was facing years in prison. Ehren's job was not to defend Sarah Olson. His job was to defend himself. Now Ms. Olson could not defend herself because she could not take a stand. She wanted the whole world to defend her while she refused to take a stand. Little princess wanting and waiting to be rescued. If she had been my grandchild, that illusion would have been shelved before she entered grade school. So I did and do find her pretty, is the word kids use, "scummy"? I found her scummy. That, in an interview when she is in the clear, she wants to offer that Ehren did not do enough for her, while hiding it behind unnamed, is just an indication of how truly weak the woman is. A reporter expecting someone on trial to trash their own defense to save a reporter? I do not think that would even play as a movie. Ms. Olson is pathetic. I always think back to that interview when one of her audio reports just happens to feature someone trashing Lt. Watada. Just by chance? Not likely. She made her opinion very clear for anyone paying attention. Maybe she thought Ehren was supposed to be 'realistic' and grasp that she is the center of the universe and any defense he offered had to put her first and foremost because what are six or so years in prison as long as Ms. Olson is spared taking a stand that might have resulted in three to six months in jail? I am not surprised by all the men who rushed to her defense and do not even blame them. When a woman plays helpless victim, for some men, it can be a heady rush to step up to the plate and defend the "little lady."

So today?

Ruth: I love Andrea Lewis but I will call out a mistake by her as easily as I will by anyone else. Leigh Ann Caldwell has done some wonderful reporting but she blew it on the Congressional measures. She was not the only one. I think it matters more coming from her because she is the D.C. reporter/expert. Someone e-mailed to say that Leigh Ann Caldwell was not a Pacifica reporter, that she was a Free Speech Radio News reporter. No, that is her title, but that is not reality. If you listen to any Pacifica station, you will come across her brought on to the program as an in house D.C. expert. Whether it is Wake Up Call or The Morning Show or something else. Her reach goes far beyond the reports she files for Free Speech Radio News. Usually, that is a good thing. In this instance, it was not. I had two e-mails, last month, about poor Sasha Lilley. I do not hate Sasha Lilley. Is she doing her job? No. As the co-host of a program that has ignored Iraq, and they have, she is not doing her job. As someone high up at KPFA, she is not doing her job. When, in the listeners' report, replying to a caller, she states that KPFA's news staff pushed the webpage of activism events, she is not doing her job. The reality is that KPFA news staff pushed MoveOn.org, repeatedly. Ms. Lilley needs to visit the archives and she will grasp why listeners are upset. It will not be a happy visit for her because it will demonstrate that she did not know what she was talking about when, in the listeners' report, she maintained the KPFA activism page was pushed by news staff. Having put out a falsehood, unintentionally, in my opinion, she needs to correct that on the next listeners' report and she needs to have some answer as to why the news staff did not push the webpage KPFA created, the one they were instructed to push? I am sure Ms. Lilley is a wonderful person who can light up a room and delight everyone that knows her. That is not the subject or focus of my report. Is Ms. Lilly doing her job? As a co-host of a show that ignores Iraq, no. As the interim program director telling listeners that a page of events was pushed when it was not, no. That may not be pretty or pleasing, but that is reality. I am too old and the country is in too much trouble to hand out lolly pops and empty praise.

This is Kat, which Ruth will know but so readers will know who asked this question, what did you think of the scorn heaped on Larry Bensky by some callers in the last two listeners' report?

Ruth: Like you, I am a fan of Larry Benksy's work. So I did not think it was warranted. For those who missed it, there was at least one caller in March's listeners' report and at least two in April's expressing their glee that Mr. Bensky was retiring. In terms of the callers, I wish they had a real issue to address. If Mr. Bensky has been the thorn in your side and he is retiring, I think your problem has been solved. In terms of taking the calls, I was actually glad they took them. So much of the report plays out so safe. If listeners have a problem, they should be able to express it. I do not think KPFA should censor it. I do wish the callers had a self-censor button or even a moment of, "Is this the most pressing issue to me?" Again, he is leaving the station so I really do not understand the need to try to make him an issue. I did wonder, having heard of a caller who did not get on the air who was going to ask the obvious: Where is KPFA's program that focuses on Iraq?, I did wonder if it was a bit easier to decide to take calls about Mr. Bensky or another personality as opposed to addressing a serious fault of the station's?

Ruth, the thing you have noted twice in your reports on the listeners' reports is the airing of them. That is obviously very important to you and could you address that?

Ruth: The report KPFA does is a report to the listeners. KPFA airs 24 hours a week, 7 days a week. While I know it plays pretty much 24-7 at C.I.'s house, I am aware, and so is C.I., that not every KPFA listener can or chooses to listen at all hours. I do object to the fact that the listeners report airs in the middle of the work week, in the middle of work day. I imagine there are many listeners who are at work and unable to listen during work hours or, if they are able to listen, unable to call in if they wanted to. It is not as though you call in, the phone rings, and you are told, "You are on the air!" There is lengthy waiting process. What is the boss going to be thinking as you wait 15 or more minutes to make a comment, on the phone, about KPFA? I do not believe it serves the listeners. I believe it serves the listeners who can listen and call in during the day and I would assume that is small sub-section of the total KPFA audience. I think the report should travel around the listening schedule. I think it should grab a weekend day every now and then, a late night, an evening air during the week at other times. How are you getting input from your listeners if you are seeking out the mid-day listener, report after report? They are not getting the input from a variety of listeners because they do not make the report available to all airwaves listeners. It is probably nice to do a noon report. No one has to get up early, no one has to stay late. No one has to give up weekend time. But the reality is KPFA airs seven days a week, 24 hours a day. They need to serve all the listeners and not just those that listen at noon on a weekday. I believe most business that operate like that vary the meetings, I think KPFA should vary the scheduling of their reports. Either that or change the name of the listeners' report to "The Mid-Week, Mid-Day Listeners' Report."

C.I. here, I know what your response to this will be but I want to toss it out there because it is what the official response would be to that criticism --

Ruth: That "we have a contact form online and we have a listener phone line"?

Right.

Ruth: My response is "So?" Despite Ms. Lilley recommending both in March and stating that they would address issues arising from those, and they call it "e-mail" and not contact form but it is not e-mail. It is as non-personal as complaining to Proctor & Gamble; however, P&G does respond to your complaints. But the listener line and the contact form are meaningless if the issues listeners express there are never addressed in the listeners' report. It is not difficult to say, "___ called in and wanted to share . . ." or "___ called the listener line to express . . ." But they did not do that this month even after recommending it last month.

Kat again, I agreed that far too much time was spent on the "joke" in the listener's report this month and thought it made the entire report look like amateur hour.

Ruth: That was my thought as well. A "cute" moment played on KPFA. Were listeners really thinking KPFA had been taken over by right-wing Christians? If they were, they had to only listen a bit longer or come back at any point after and they knew that was not the case. If someone said, "Oh no! I am never listening to KPFA again! It's been taken over!" I seriously doubt that they were listening to listeners' report. It ate up time. They giggled and it was "cute" but it was not professional. By the time I was hearing, "It's important to laugh," I felt like I was sitting in a second grade classroom and not listening to supposed adults addressing issues with a public radio station. Yes, it is important to laugh. It is also important to brush after every meal, to eat your vegetables, to wash your hands . . . Hopefully, the next listeners' report will not waste everyone's time imparting lessons we all learned in childhood.

Any final thoughts?

Ruth: When I noted that if C.I. is noting problems with KPFA, it means the community is in an uproar over something, a number of e-mails came in on that wondering if that was hard to get into the report? The report is my space. The only time I hear any feedback on it that is negative, from C.I., is along the lines of, "Ruth, you didn't need to say that." "That" is always something nice about C.I. That was not a criticism of C.I. but I do not think C.I. would care if it was. The thing that always makes C.I. uncomfortable is when I am praising something C.I. did.
To return to Brady's e-mail, which I laughed with and enjoyed, the same could be said of C.I. Look at the early days of the site and look at it now. It is actually reflective of the community as a whole. We are, collectively, tired of people refusing to step up. We are tired of people being "cute" when they should be addressing reality. We are very tired of some in independent media offering the equivalent of escapism and not addressing reality.

Thank you, Ruth. For the interviews and the reports.

Ruth: My pleasure.