Betty: As Jim noted, Ruth's on vacation, she's in Japan. Ann filled in for her all last week. In reverse order, she wrote "Closing thoughts," "The lynching," "Barack may be post-racial; however, our society is not" and "Ruth's off in Japan." Ann, I want to toss some of your words back at you because they'll take us into so-called 'independent' media. This is you from "The lynching" about the attacks on Senator Roland Burris, the only Black senator in the US Senate:
And take a moment to notice how the White woman who always wants to act like she's down with the Black community, Amy Goodman, has repeatedly joined in on the attacks against Senator Burris. She's no friend to the Black community. She's another toy radical who will never give up her own seat at the front of the bus for anyone of color.
My first post this week led to some comments at work about how "sweet" it was. My post last night? I couldn't get to my desk forever this morning.
The Black community? We're with Senator Burris. We know a lynching when we see one.
Betty (Con't): I've checked with my family in Georgia and that captures the mood there. I see it here, in California to a lesser degree, but it exists. My question is how can 'independent' media be so out of it?
Ann: Well, and I think you know the answer, who controls it? The White woman I'm talking about, for example, is Amy Goodman. The toy radical. Happy to join in on the attacks on Senator Burris.
Elaine: I'm going to jump in just to back this up for a second. Barack Obama became president. He was elected to the US Senate in November of 2004. His move to the White House opened up his senate seat. The then-governor, Rod Blagojevich, had to appoint someone. Questions swirled around like they did Barack's personal banker Tony Rezko. Blagojevich would be impeached at the end of January. But in November and December, he was screening for Barack's replacement. The state legislature was making noise about removing him but did nothing during that time. He was accused in the press, via the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, of attempting to award the US Senate seat to the highest bidder. Tapes of US House Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. are allegedly incriminating. After all of this was out in the press, the legislature still wouldn't impeach him. Blagojevich continued looking for the person to appoint to the Senate and eventually named Roland Burris, who was an attorney and had a long resume of public service -- both in office and out. I didn't mean to go on so long but if I can continue just a few seconds more.
Jim: No, go ahead. There will be people who don't know this story. Burris was named and Barack immediately insulted him publicly -- Barack was in Hawaii at the time. It did not play well with the African-American community which forced Barack to publicly back down. Dick Durbin, the other US Sentator from Illinois, and Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, began making noises that Senator Burris would not be seated due to the Blagojevich scandal. Blagojevich has not been found guilty of anything at this point, by the way. Elaine?
Elaine: And Roland Burris has never been charged with anything. Disclosure, after Burris was named and after the threats not to seat him came along, C.I. and I were asked by friends to advocate for the seating of Burris which we did. Ava joined us in that effort. That was an online effort using our own personal contacts in Congress. The three of us? None of us have ever met Roland Burris. Ava and C.I. have nodded to him but didn't even pause for an introduction following a hearing of committee he sits on. They have nothing against Senator Burris but they wanted to continue to be able to say, "We don't know him. We've never spoken to him." The efforts to seat him were not efforts Burris was a part of. Let me toss that to Betty because she's spoken eloquently on this topic.
Betty: Well they made him jump through hoops. It was humilating. He was named to the senate, he was not charged with any crimes and they were saying they weren't going to seat him. He had to meet with Dick Durbin and Harry Reid to prove he was fit. This was ridiculous and it looked so awful on the news because it just reminded us, Black people, of all the times we've been barred, of all the places we couldn't sit. And here was a many charged with nothing and the Senate was refusing to seat him. He's an older man, he's seventy something --
C.I.: He'll be seventy-two in August.
Betty: Thank you. And it was just so sad. He maintained so much dignity as they made him jump through hoops that none of us can ever recall a White appointee to the Senate having to jump through. It was very sad and, as always in moments like this, we could look to leadership from US House Rep Maxine Waters who never backs down and never lets them silence her. She spoke up for him and, thankfully, she wasn't alone. My biggest surprise was Senator Dianne Feinstein and I will always give her a benefit of the doubt in the future because of her speaking out and saying Senator Burris had to be seated. But it was so horrible to see this older man put through all these humiliations. He didn't crumble and that's because his generation had to go through all that and a lot more. And my grandparents thought those days were over. They thought they'd seen those days die off. Not racism, mind you, but this public spectacle where you could make a Black person jump through hoops, where you could basically say, "Sing 'Mammy' for me, boy,' in public, and get away with it.
Elaine: And Betty's speaks very well on this topic every time. She always finds a way to get just to the heart of it.
Jim: She does and Elaine's voice was quivering. I'm going to take a second here to let everyone take a deep breath. I don't know how the words will read but the audio version that we'll be our contribution to Hilda's Audio Mix will really bowl you over. Betty spoke very movingly. Okay, Elaine?
Elaine: Thank you, I needed that moment. Okay, so as Betty says, he has to jump through hoops and he does and he finally gets seated. And that should have been the end of it but it's never been the end of it. Last week was another of the: "He's guilty!" Of what? As Steve Chapman, no fan of Burris, explains in "Listening to Burris," Chicago Tribune, the wiretap shows Burris didn't purchase the seat. His business was going under. He's telling that to the governor's brother. Now the charge was that Burris may have bought the seat. That was the charge. And people, like Amy Goodman, lied when the wiretap surfaced and stated it proved it. It proved no such thing. To the contrary, it proves that Burris not only couldn't afford to buy the seat -- something he'd stated publicly months ago -- but that he had explained that to the governor's brother. Here's the thing, and then I'll let Betty get back to Ann, this whole things reminding me of the witch hunt on Bill Clinton. Whitewater's a crime! A crime! We need to investigate! Well they get to do that. They find nothing, no crime. So they go after Bill Clinton on sex. We need to all remember that the accusation thrown around in the press was that Burris must have bought the seat. That's the accusation. If they can prove that, they have a proof of a crime. Anything else they want to go for? Too damn bad. He's stated they should have asked better questions, his inquistors, and he's right. He answered the questions put before him. The crime would be buying the seat. Prove that or leave him alone.
Ann: Which is exactly right. And I just want to ask a question that I and a few other members have. This is for C.I. Here and at The Common Ills, you've always worded it very carefully that you were helping to have Senator Burris seated and that you didn't know him and didn't advocate for him to be appointed. A few of us are also thinking you wouldn't have advocated for him to be appointed and that it's due to the age.
C.I.: That is correct. I would never have advocated for anyone his age to be appointed. Here, at Third, we've already come out about how some people, some senators, are too old. Now if they had fair fights, real electoral challenges, that would be one thing. But they don't and they get in for life and stay there for life. Because of that position, already expressed here months ago and before Burris became appointed, I would never have supported him being appointed. For the age issue alone. And by "supported," I mean, if I'd been asked -- which I wasn't -- I would have said someone else. I honestly would have said Bobby Rush, who I know and who is in the US House. Who is not a lot younger but is under 65 currently. And if it had been an open seat that had been to the public to vote and they'd voted Burris senator, that's great. The people had the choice and they made it, end of story. But with an appointment and with the Senate already having too many over 70 members, I wouldn't have said, "Hey, Roland Burris, appoint Roland Burris."
Ann: But you supported him being seated because he was appointed.
C.I.: Right. I had no problem helping on that. He was named, he was appointed. As Elaine's pointed out, the state legislature could have removed Blagojevich in December before the appointment. They chose not to. The governor wasn't laying low. He was very clear that he was appointing someone. Once he appointed Roland Burris, Burris was the senator. It was a legal appointment and that's what the state court's found. And there was no reason for Reid and Durbin to try to deny to seat him.
Ann: That's what a number of us thought by reading the way you worded that, especially back in January.
C.I.: Right. We published, here, we published "A gold watch for Robert Byrd?" December 14th.
Jim: And our feeling, because we did discuss this when the Burris nomination was made, was, "Another over seventy?" But we didn't then say, "Oh, no, he's not going to be seated! We will stop this!" He'd been appointed, he was the legal senator. And it was dismaying to watch people trying to prevent him from being seated.
Ann: And it was dismaying. I was dabbing my eyes while Betty was speaking earlier because she really does capture and Betty's a young woman but she's such an old soul. What she said earlier, I heard that from the men and women in my office and in my building last week, the men and women who were in their sixties and older. It's not uncommon, the feeling, for any age group but the refusal to seat Senator Burris really did hurt Black men and women approaching retirement and beyond. They saw it as segregation and discrimination in public, supported publicly all over again.
Betty: And do you think if Juan Gonzalez, for example, was Leroy Taylor, a Black man from Harlem but Juan's age, that Democracy Now! would have pulled that crap last week?
Ann: Absolutely not. A black man or woman of that age being part of the program would have prevented that from happening. Amy took speculation and made it 'fact.' It was embarrassing. But so was the segment on the Latina nominee to the Supreme Court. They go to a break and they're playing Billie Holiday's "God Bless The Child." Billie was a black woman, it was a blues song, identified with Black people and it's a song that's part of our Black history. I'm failing to understand why Goodman's using it as a song to nominate a Latina to the Court. Unless it's that all of us people with colored skin look the same to Miss Amy.
Betty: Right on.
Jim: Ann, you're really disappointed in our so-called 'independent' media. Do you want to talk about that?
Ann: Well it goes beyond Senator Burris and the fact that they will not defend him from this lynching. It also includes the refusal to cover Iraq. It also includes the refusal to cover the War Crimes trial which took place in Kentucky. 'Oh, we can't afford to go to Iraq and it's not safe!' Your little White ass can't make it to Kentucky? It's all such propaganda. They're all in service of the White House at this point and I can't stand to listen to Pacifica or read those 'left' magazines or websites. I thought they spent the last eight years drilling I.F. Stone's 'governments lie' into our heads? I thought they told us that the press job was to challenge, question and hold the feet of the powerful to the fire? But that's all gone in case you missed it.
Jim: It is sorry and it's cheaply made, cheap product. It's disgusting. No bravery and no talent. We have a time limit on this and then we have to rejoin everyone else so I'm just going to take the issue of independent media and toss to C.I. and encourage Elaine to as well and encourage Betty and Ann to jump anytime they want. First up, Elaine told me about a conversation the two of you had last week where you were just completely fed up with independent media and how it wastes all of our time. Give me one example.
C.I.: One example? Okay. This is a faux 'left' argument that eats up way too much time and everyone's heard from one 'left' outlet or another in the last three years: 'The media isn't left! The media isn't left! You have a study saying journalists are? Well your study's wrong! The media isn't left!' And then after this goes back and forth for a whole week or more, suddenly the party line comes down of: 'Well the reporters may lean left but they don't control the presses. The publishers are conservative.'
Jim: Okay. I have heard that repeatedly in the last five years. And it does play out like that and it's usually CounterSpin, well after the topic's played out that briefly mentions that the publishers are conservative. Your point?
C.I.: They mention it. They move on. They don't back it up and they refuse to immediately go there. Ben Bagidkian is a media critic -- and a member of the MSM at one point -- that can get cited some every now and then in media discussions on CounterSpin or Democracy Now! or in The Nation. In 1972, his book The Effete Conspiracy And Other Crimes By The Press makes the point that the publishers are more conservative. And he doesn't just make the point, he backs it up with concrete examples. Such as the Du Pont chain of papers in Delaware, stating the papers were independent, but the Du Ponts would not allow any Democrat to be endorsed and would not allow anything less than flattering copy for all Republican nominees. He proves it by going to editorial decisions and by an editor quitting over this very issue. Why are we unaware of that? Why don't we know about it?
Elaine: That's a solid example, but the one Jim really wanted was the cursing.
C.I.: Oh, okay. Sorry. WBAI wastes our time over and over with "We put on George Carlin 7 words you can't say on the air." Who the hell cares? Truly. Who the hell cares? What the hell does that have to do with anything? That advances what? We're smarter now how? 'Well it was a Supreme Court case.' Who the hell cares? It's dirty words. In the early seventies, WBAI broadcast a prison riot live. That's the power of the press. The general manager at the time, 1972, was Edwin Goodman. And he was hauled before a court and told to produce the tapes. This was in the old days so there was no going to the website and streaming the episodes you missed. The government wanted the tapes. This was the Tombs prison. And Goodman refused to turn them over. He was sent to jail for standing for press freedom. He only was in jail for one night, the next day, a higher judge ordered him released. But this was a brave moment. This was one of those moments that WBAI can point to with pride and we don't hear about that. They can't shut up with their gossip about George Carlin and the f-word but something that actually matters, actual news, they don't bother to stress that or to make the case for WBAI being historically important. When they do stress historical importance -- usually in pledge drives -- it's 'Oh, we interviewed . . .' toss out some well known name. Who the hell cares? Everyone's interviewed today and their dog. Your claim to fame isn't that you interviewed some historical celebrity, your claim to fame is that you broadcast the uprising at Tombs prison. That's news.
Jim: It is news and I've never heard of it. Elaine had told me about you offering that as an example and, she's right, I did want you to bring it in here. But you say that's 1972 and I looked up Carlin's broadcast which is 1973. Before we moved out here, the Bay Area, I listened to WBAI all the time. When we were in New York, I listened to it constantly. And I heard about Carlin over and over and over and over. I never heard about the Tomb prison uprising. The prison is news, the dirty words are for an E! True Hollywood Story.
Ann: You said the Bay Area and I want to go on record stating Betty, here, got me interested in KPFA and, specifically, Andrea Lewis. I started listening online because of Betty's remarks here. And then she left and I tried to keep listening. She's back now but not at The Morning Show and I can't take that show. It's Good Morning America. [The Morning Show is "It's".] Who needs it?
C.I.: I agree with you completely. I think all the KPFA hosts should be forced to do shows on location, on the street, for a full week to get back in touch with the people. Now Bonnie Faulkner wouldn't have a problem with that because some of her shows are that. She records events and plays those later on the show. But these other people?
Jim: Don't stop, I'm sensing an explosion.
C.I.: I'm remembering a Morning Show guest who was a nutritionist and I'm remembering her making an idiot out of herself and the host not fixing the program. Well, the question asked by the host went, how about sneaking vegetables for kids into their diets via pizzas? 'There is nothing worse for kids than pizza,' declared the nutritionist. Really? Really? Cause I can think of a million things worse than pizza for children such as being molested, such as being abused. But if we want to stick to food issues, it is certainly worse for kids to starve. It is certainly worse for kids to get no vegetables at all. This little elitist attitude does not play well and when it pops up the host needs to hold it in check. There is this huge strand of "I'm so much better than everyone" running through KPFA today. Let's take public transportation. I'm thinking of another KPFA program, in the last three years, where the host stated they tried to take public transportation and the guest ripped that apart with "Do you know how much pollution that creates?" I, me, I know that it creates a lot less pollution than everyone being in their own car. I know that we'd all be better off if a lot more people used public transportation. But that's not good enough for little mister I-ride-my-bike everywhere. Well guess what you elitist snob, there are people who will not be able to ride bikes. For some it will be due to age, due to health conditions, due to physical conditions. And who the hell are you to make them feel bad not to mention anyone thinking of riding public transportation? I'm damn sick of this elitist attitude. I'm sick of these people, these people who have never dealt with a hungry child, these people who have never stopped to think what life might be like for someone without full mobility or missing a limb. I am sick of them. KPFA makes a big damn deal that their events are accessible to everyone. Is it too damn much to expect that their programming be accessible to everyone? These guests need to be challenged on air and the way they respond should determine whether they get asked back. If they immediately say, "You're right. If we're talking about a kid who refuses to eat vegetables and you can sneak in some in a pizza, go for it." If they do that, bring them back on. If they don't, they don't belong on the air. Elaine, take over because I'm going to start cursing if I continue.
Elaine: Well we discussed this on the phone and there are two main points here. 1) KPFA wants money from listeners. They don't deserve if they act like they think they're better than their listeners. That's just nonsense. You're supposed to be on air for them. You're not supposed to be on air to glorify yourself. 2) KPFA, like many on the left, think the answer is awakening the working class. So why do they work so hard to insult the working class. They're as bad as the US Socialist Worker which seems to think they will awaken the working class via publishing the equivalent of a slam book to the working class. There is no stereotype about the working class that you couldn't easily find presented as fact by the US Socialist Worker in the last nine months. If you want to reach out and expand your audience, you don't have to change your positions, but you do have to lose the I'm-so-much-better-and-smarter-than-you attitude.
Ann: I have to jump in on that. The attacks on Sarah Palin were and are -- because they continue -- disgusting. It was elitist and it was savage and you better grasp, White people who do that, it also has a racial component when it's read by someone who's Black.
Jim: Expand on that.
Ann: Okay, last week it was time to trash Sarah Palin again and you could find it on all the blogs because a Latina had been nominated for the Court and apparently her supporters on the left couldn't build a case around her so they resorted to insulting Sarah Palin. At one site, I read repeated comments about how Palin had to go to multiple colleges to get a degree where the Latina -- I don't know her name, sorry, I'm not following it -- had graduated from Ivy League colleges. Well what do you think, Silly White Elitists, a Black person thinks when they read that? I can tell you what this one thought, "Imagine what they'd say about me." I didn't vote for Sarah Palin and I would never vote for Sarah Palin. But when you tell me her college story, I don't hear reason to ridicule her. I hear a story about a woman who wanted a college degree and who kept at it until she got it. I hear, honestly, the story of my mother, the first person in our family who had a degree. I hear her story. She had to sacrifice including dropping out because she started a family. She returned to college as soon as she could, community college, yes, a source of great laughter for White Elitists. And she got her Associates and then she got her bachelors three years later. Not two because she had to work and she had kids. And it was a state school, not a private institution. I'm really proud of my mother and when these little White snobs rip apart Sarah Palin's college history, they better grasp that many Black families across the country have someone in their family, whom they love, who had to work hard like Sarah Palin did to get that degree. And we don't ridicule them. And when I read that kind of ridicule of Sarah Palin, I feel like, "Yeah, and they'd laugh at my mother too." Again, I didn't vote her, I wouldn't vote for her. But she showed real determination and getting a degree and I applaud her for it. I also applaud her for starting with humble beginnings -- something many Black people can relate to -- and going on to become a mayor and then a governor and, yes, the vice presidential nominee for a political party. What a wonderful story and I can be happy for her that she's gone so far without ever wanting to vote for her or without a need to hate her. And I want to add one more thing. I always love reading Third and think everyone does a great job but I want to single out Ava and C.I.'s coverage of the presidential race which did not resort to distortions or sexism or any of the things so prevalent everywhere else. Instead, we were encouraged by them to be thrilled that Hillary had gotten so many votes in the primary, that Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente were a ticket and that Sarah Palin was on the v.p. slot of the Republican ticket. While everywhere else online the goal seemed to be preaching fear, Ava and C.I. regularly took time to encourage us to celebrate what four strong women accomplished in one of the most sexist years in recent memory.
Betty: Amen.
Jim: And Ann, if it helps, what you're saying is said repeatedly in e-mails to this site. And I agree with you 100%. Okay, "Vietnam and Iraq" went up Monday and "I Hate The War" went up Thursday and, C.I., in both you are talking about what we're talking about here, you are talking about the knowledge we should have but don't. And I'm sensing that was a pattern all week long. Correct?
C.I.: Correct. It is becoming very frustrating to hear and read garbage. And I'm really not in the mood. I'm thinking of people who want to whine that PBS, for example, actually the CPB, the board of PBS, used to fund their projects, their documentaries, and air them and now all the sudden, why, goodness, there's censorship! Some trace it to the 80s, I believe Danny Schechter traces it to the 80s. And I'm just sick, sick, sick of that s**t. I'm sick of people being lied to either because people speaking and writing don't know the history or don't care to impart it.
Jim: Okay. Impart. PBS and censorship.
C.I.: Okay, let's go with The Banks and the Poor, a documentary --
Jim: Stop. I recognize the title and am googling. Binging? Not yet. But I'm googling and I've got it. Bill Moyers spoke of it -- and I know he didn't say what needed to be said -- but here's him speaking on it and the Nixon White House as broadcast by Democracy Now! in 2005:
The White House had been so outraged over a documentary called "The Banks and the Poor" about discrimination, about rich financial institutions against the poor, that PBS was driven to adopt new guidelines. That didn’t satisfy Nixon, and when public television hired two NBC reporters, the radicals Robert McNeil and Sander Vanocur to co-anchor some new broadcast, it was, for Nixon, the last straw. According to White House memos at the time, he was determined, (quote), "to get the left wing commentators who are cutting us up off public television at once; indeed, yesterday, if possible." Sound familiar?
Jim (Con't): Not good enough?
C.I.: No, that's exactly the bulls**t that I'm talking about. The bulls**t I'm not in the mood for. Bill Moyers is falsifing through his false teeth. What a liar. The Banks and the Poor upset Nixon? Maybe so, but did it upset the banks? That's the story and that's what Bill Moyers didn't have the guts to tell people. 1970's The Banks and the Poor was raised in the House Banking and Currency Committee, called out by the chair -- give me a second while I try to remember names, Wright Patman. Wright Patman was the chair. And why did he call out that documentary? He called it out because PBS decided to 'preview' it. To whom? To the bankers. Before it ever aired, PBS went to the bankers and set up a special screening. Patman declared during a hearing that the title of the show "indicates that there were at least two sides presented in the film, and it is surprising that only one side -- the banks -- was invited to these special previews." Long before Nixon could be offended by the program, PBS had already sold out and that doesn't fit with the little lies Bill wants to tell, so he leaves that out. Truth be told, the White House wasn't that upset with the documentary. Why should they be? They were upset about Sander. Read Bill Moyers again but just on Sander.
Jim: "That didn’t satisfy Nixon, and when public television hired two NBC reporters, the radicals Robert McNeil and Sander Vanocur to co-anchor some new broadcast, it was, for Nixon, the last straw."
C.I.: What the hell was Bill smoking? Robert MacNeil was not an 'enemy' of the White House. There were many on Nixon's hit list, many reporters, MacNeil wasn't one of them which is why MacNeil was able to interview him. Sander and MacNeil didn't do a program together. Now the Nixon White House hit the roof on Sander being hired by PBS. That was public and it was ugly. But Robert MacNeil? No. And Robert didn't leave NBC to join PBS. He'd already left NBC -- and gone to the BBC. And co-anchoring a broadcast? What broadcast? Mac --
Jim: Is it "MacNeil" or "McNeil" because the Democracy Now! transcript says "McNeil" and you're clearly saying "Mac" and not "Mc"?
C.I.: It's Robert M-a-c-N-e-i-l. But Robert joined PBS and began hosting Washington Week in Review which is now Washington Week. That whole statement is just full of inaccuracies. And the story with The Banks and the Poor isn't some Nixon response, the story there is that PBS was already selling out, PBS was already taking documentaries and allowing powerful subjects to see them first and listening to their input and making changes and, if I could stay with this a moment more?
Jim: Go for it.
C.I.: PBS was a coward. And Bill Moyers wants to make Nixon the star of this story. The filmmakers thought they could win an Emmy for their documentary and they asked PBS to submit it for the nominating process. PBS said no. PBS said it was too controversial. And let's talk reality about PBS. It started in 1967 and it wasn't supposed to be a fourth network, it was supposed to be an alternative. By 1972, its problems -- the ones that persist today -- were already well known. Among others, James Aronson called PBS out in Deadline For The Media in 1972. He noted it it was controlled by the Ford Foundation and Mobil Oil because it took so much money from both and foundation money, not just corporate money, foundation money. He quotes Arthur L. Singer, who'd been part of the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television which basically drew up the blueprint for PBS, stating the Ford Foundation dominated PBS. And because we don't know our real history, we don't know that these problems that a bunch of distractors posing as 'radicals' and 'leaders' tell us we can fix and tell us are new problems but are in fact systematic problems that have long been called out. Within a year of broadcasting all of the problems of PBS today were already evident. And people need to know that not only because they have a right to know but also because they can't address a problem if they think it's only recently emerged. As for Nixon's responding to that 1970 documentary? Clay T. Whitehhead appears to be what Bill Moyers is responding too, an infamous speech where Whitehead argues that the broadcast networks already provide news and public affairs programming so PBS should do other things. Check the date on that speech and then explain to me how that's a 'rapid response' or even a response to the 1970 documentary. It's become PBS lore that Whitehead's speech was about that documentary but that's not real apparent by the date of the speech and that was one documentary out of many that the White House would have frowned upon -- to put it mildly. It's not history that Moyers is imparting, it's an oversimplification that lets all alleged independent actors off the hook in order to crucify Nixon. Now I hate Nixon and I doubt Bill Moyers would use "hate" to describe his feelings for Nixon. But as much as I hate Nixon, I'm fully aware that the cowardice on the part of PBS is a big part of the story and it's one that Bill Moyers repeatedly leaves out.
Betty: I want us to pull this into a WBAI or a KPFA. I mean in terms of what can be done. I liked the idea about remotes for KPFA. It would be good for them to be forced to encounter real people and not their insulated small circle. So what else?
C.I.: Well Elaine made a point on the phone that I'd forgotten about.
Elaine: For example, back in the 70s, WBAI was able to do a lot of things. They would do, for example, hilarious sketches. Now they still do some humor but the sketches I'm talking about would be humorous re-enactments of the Congressional record with the effect that we were able to laugh and we learned a little about what the Congress was up to. They don't offer that now. They don't offer a lot that they used to. Back then, though, they had a DC station that actually produced news content which was so strong the others would broadcast it. Those days are gone. I would like to see WBAI get out of the studios. I remember Janet Coleman co-hosting the WBAI coverage of the debate between Chris Hitchens and George Galloway over Iraq some time ago and there was an additional level of energy to the broadcast just because they were out of the studio. And of course, I think they can do a better job of imparting history.
C.I.: Yeah. KPFA? They do need to get out among the people. KPFA has gotten very bad about coming off elitist. Everyone on air is pretty much guilty of it. They need to get out among the people and they need to remember that people listen. They're not just yammering away with no one listening. They also need to remember that people listen from all over the country and all over the world as a result of streaming online. Every time they take a pot shot at a location, e-mails come in to The Common Ills complaining about it. Complaining that they just got insulted. I don't think KPFA grasps how many people they insult daily and they better grasp that they're listened to beyond the Bay Area. Betty, you know what I'm talking about because they're always trashing KPFA at your job.
Betty: Right. They think it is elitist. They think it's smug and looks down on them. And of course they would, for all the reasons noted. I think they're right and, for my job, the person most often pointed to is Aimee Allison who comes off not as the co-host of a program but as someone always determined that a guest know she's not like whomever the guest is criticizing. She is so insecure on air but so secure in her bigotry and it's the only word for it, "bigotry." I think the schedule needs to be revamped and, no, that doesn't mean air Democracy Now! twice, once in the evening, once at night. It should only be aired once. The way WBAI only airs it once a day.
C.I.: Well KPFK, LA station, has a better overnight lineup which is a variety of discussions, speeches, interviews, all cut up and edited together to create a strong mix of information. KPFA needs to lose their overnight music shows. No one's listening. If I am home when those are on, I don't listen. If I'm home and wanting to hear the radio, I'll boot up the computer and stream KPFK instead of just turning on the radio for KPFA. That's how bad the overnight schedule is. In terms of The Morning Show, I'd like a show where the hosts were serious. I'd like a show where it wasn't let's-be-silly. I'd like a little professionalism on air and I'm not hearing it. I'd like better choices for guests and topics. And I'd toss out the food and other soft issues because KPFA's problem has not been in recent years that's it's not soft enough, it's problem has been that's it is overly soft, too many features, too much gossip, not enough news, not enough reality.
Betty: I wanted to like Aimee Allison on air. I don't. I think she's a complete failure. Why do you think she's so bad on air?
C.I.: She'd improve tremendously if she'd stop treating guests like their holy seers and started acting like she belongs on the show and she's an equal. She needs to drop the wide-eyed stance. She also needs to learn to ask some hard questions of the guest. Andrea Lewis would laugh on air and she has a wonderful laugh. But Andrea wasn't afraid of the tough questions or afraid to get serious. And she acted like an adult woman -- she still does but I'm referring to when she was co-host of The Morning Show. Aimee Allison should have been the emerging KPFA star. She had it all on her bio but she has so far refused to pull it off. She's a Green who cheerleads Barack. Golly, I seem to recall the Green Party giving Barry O failing grades on his first 100 days. As a Green, she should be leading the criticism of Barack at KPFA. When she doesn't, it looks even worse than some of Kris Welch's embarrassing statements because Aimee is known as a Green, she ran as a Green. The bulk of the audience would not be shocked by Aimee leveling Green Party criticism at Barack. They might not all agree but they would appreciate another viewpoint which is what Pacifica was supposed to do, to present a variety of viewpoints. It gave that mission up long ago.
Ann: Jim, you haven't offered any thoughts on changing the line up or schedule?
Jim: Thanks for asking. I agree with C.I.'s points and Betty's. I find Elaine's comments about what WBAI used to do interesting. I think there's enough fluff and enough feature articles on KPFA. I don't think they need food segments on The Morning Show. I don't think they need Mitch's crap on The Morning Show. Instead of funding that Brother Mitch Falls To His Knee and Sucks Off Barack For A Half-Hour segment, they should have someone using that thirty minutes each day to report on Congress. That's much more important than Mitch's fawning over Barack. Mitch should pack it in at this point. I'd be embarrassed to be him. He's made himself a joke. And we'll wind down because the timer on my watch went off some time ago. This was a rush transcript. Comments can be sent to thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com.