KPFT Notes

Independent New York metro radio station, WBAI Pacifica Radio, is searching for a Director of Development to be responsible and accountable for planning, implementing and managing all fundraising efforts in order to achieve the contributed income goals of the station. S/he provides leadership and strategic direction to efforts to secure annual fund gifts, government and foundation grants, and special event underwriting, as well as additional funding for endowment and capital projects. S/he represents the radio station to the community in the cultivation of prospects and donors.

The ideal candidate will combine a strong interest in radio broadcasting with five to seven years successful experience in a senior development position with a not-for profit organization. S/he will have a consistent track record of success in generating at least $4 million in contributed income annually from individuals and foundations. S/he will have successful experience in the design and implementation of annual fund and major gift campaigns, endowment campaigns, planning giving programs, and special project fundraising efforts. S/he will have successful experience in securing government grants.

The Director of Development designs a comprehensive program to achieve the station’s long-term and short-term objectives. This includes setting goals, strategies and timelines; writing proposals and case statements; producing campaign materials; and implementing effective programs for donor cultivation, donor recognition and stewardship. S/he implements effective policies and procedures for prospect research, maintenance of donor records and processing of gifts.

The Director of Development is a member of the senior management team and reports to the General Manager and provides staff support to the fundraising committee of the local station board.

The successful candidate will have excellent communication and interpersonal skills, and will be able to work effectively with Board, staff, producers, community leaders and volunteers. S/he will be able to speak and write persuasively about the mission, programs and contributed needs of WBAI Pacifica Radio. S/he will have superb planning, organizational, and supervisory skills.

The ideal candidate will be an enthusiastic fundraiser with a deep respect for philanthropy. S/he will have personal integrity and ethical standards. S/he will be flexible, adaptable and energetic.

Compensation

Compensation, including benefits, is competitive and commensurate with experience and qualifications.

Applications

Please submit a cover letter that describes qualifications and specific interest in WBAI Pacifica Radio. Include a resume, salary history or requirements and the names of at least three references. All applications will be treated as confidential and references will not be contacted without the applicant’s agreement. The deadline for submissions is June 11th. No phone calls please.

WBAI

120 Wall Street 10tth Floor

New York, New York, 10005

June 1 begins the first day of record for KPFT volunteers to be considered as voters and candidates for Pacifica elections later this year. Our bylaws outline a threshold of 30 hours of volunteerism in a three-month period to be qualified to vote in Pacifica’s staff elections. However, volunteers must log their volunteer hours in appropriate logbooks and have current contact information, including address, on file with Volunteer Coordinator Eddie Garcia. Our period of record is June 1 through September 1.

Our Program Council meets next Thursday, June 7, at 7 p.m. at L’Alliance Francaise, 427 Lovett. The Program Council is tasked with issues related to programming, and recently voted to consider a number of issues, including a new program process and a program evaluation process.

KPFT’s third annual Summer Youth Program kicks off Thursday of this week. This year’s program will be held two days per week, on Thursdays and Fridays, due to our space restrictions. The program is into its third year as a tool to support young people learning about radio, and gaining media skills. We have about half a dozen students participating, but welcome others who might be interested. If you are or know a young person between the ages of 12 and 20, there will be a program orientation this Thursday morning at 10 a.m. at KPFT studios, 419 Lovett Blvd. Please review our website, kpft.org, for complete information. You are also welcome to email me at pd@kpft.org if you have questions.

In programming news:

KPFT will air Asian Pacific American Heritage Month programming Tuesday-Thursday of this week during Open Journal. Tomorrow, we feature a program called “The Hula Lesson,” which explores hula as an expression of a traditional culture, social issues and history, and attempts to carry on the tradition in a multicultural world. On Wednesday, KPFT will feature a recording from the Pacifica Radio Archives. “We Were There” explores the diverse voices of feminist activists in the Los Angeles women’s movement, of the 1960s and 1970s, including Miya Iwataki of the Asian Women’s Movement), as well as Black and Chicana organizers. Thursday will feature a local production. Tune in at noon for this special programming.

On June 1, KPFT will air a national 2-hour special “The War on Immigrants” hosted by WBAI’s Deepa Fernandes and KPFK’s Sonali Kolhatkar. The broadcast will analyze the new Senate immigration bill set to be voted on by the upper house, present challenging interviews with lawmakers, and look at global dynamics that lead to migration and Europe’s own crackdown on immigration. The program will also host debates on the best way to move forward with a fair and just policy in dealing with immigration. Stay tuned for broadcast times later this week.

On Sunday, June 10th, KPFT’s Said Fattouh of Arab Voices co-hosts a national special for the 40th anniversary of Israel’s invasion of Palestine. KPFT will be represented on this broadcast as well by Julia Nasser and Maurice Roberts

And finally on Thursday, June 28th – Sunday, July 1st, KPFT will air programming from the United States Social Forum, being held in Atlanta, Georgia. This will include a daily one-hour English-language production each evening of the four days of the Forum; and a 30-minute Spanish-language production each evening. Sunday’s broadcast will be a sum-up of the whole event. The social forum model was created to provide an open platform to discuss alternatives to the economic plans created by multi-national corporations and the governments at the World Economic Forum. The programming schedule from the United States Social Forum will soon be announced.

Funding Bush’s War: Life and Death, not Texas Hold’em
Robert L. Borosage

President Bush forced Democrats to “fold,” the press reports. He vetoed the Iraq funding bill that set a deadline for getting U.S. troops out of the war. The Republican minority blocked any effort to overturn the veto. Now Congress is about to vote on a funding bill the president will accept, one that doesn’t offer a path out of the mess. Bush wins, the Republicans exult, the Democrats “flinch.”

But this isn’t poker. This is life and death. The president insists on escalating the catastrophic occupation of Iraq. He scorned the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission that offered a way out. He scorns the American people who voted in 2006 to bring the debacle to an end. He scorned the majority of both houses of Congress that voted to start bringing the troops home on a date certain. He sustains an occupation opposed by a majority of Americans, a majority of Iraqis and a majority of the Congress.

He is aided and abetted in this folly by the Republican minority in Congress, which votes en masse to sustain his vetoes and continue the war. They murmur their concerns, clear their throats, profile their independence, but with rare exceptions, they vote en bloc to support the president’s ruinous course.

He is aided and abetted in this folly by a minority of Democrats who are afraid to take on the president, fearful of being blamed for undermining the troops, and frightened about being held responsible for bringing the occupation to an end. They, in turn, are misled by the political consultants and the national security “experts” on the Democratic side who have been wrong from the start. They advised Democrats to vote for the war to look strong. They advised Democrats to support the president to look tough. When the folly became apparent, they advised Democrats to avoid being blamed for ending the war. At the beginning of the 2006 election, they advised that Democrats focus on the lack of body armor and the mistreatment of veterans, and stay away from the debate about the war. Now they warn Democrats to keep this “Bush’s war” and not get blamed for ending it. Their expert credentials have somehow survived their consistent inanity.

The Congress will now vote on a funding bill for Iraq that offers no change of course. Every legislator open to reason, concerned for the troops, worried about this nation’s real security, or accountable to the voters will vote against this bill.

Those who vote for it are voting to enable a rogue president. They are sacrificing the nation’s security and the lives of many young soldiers to stand with George Bush.

This vote will be registered. In every state and district of the country, voters will know where their legislator stands. There are no dodges, no excuses. Vote to sustain the rogue president’s ruinous course or vote against. This is a question of life and death, not of partisan politics or Beltway political poker. Every legislator is free to vote his or her conscience. Each should be held accountable.

Funding Bush’s War: Life and Death, not Texas Hold’em
Robert L. Borosage

President Bush forced Democrats to “fold,” the press reports. He vetoed the Iraq funding bill that set a deadline for getting U.S. troops out of the war. The Republican minority blocked any effort to overturn the veto. Now Congress is about to vote on a funding bill the president will accept, one that doesn’t offer a path out of the mess. Bush wins, the Republicans exult, the Democrats “flinch.”

But this isn’t poker. This is life and death. The president insists on escalating the catastrophic occupation of Iraq. He scorned the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission that offered a way out. He scorns the American people who voted in 2006 to bring the debacle to an end. He scorned the majority of both houses of Congress that voted to start bringing the troops home on a date certain. He sustains an occupation opposed by a majority of Americans, a majority of Iraqis and a majority of the Congress.

He is aided and abetted in this folly by the Republican minority in Congress, which votes en masse to sustain his vetoes and continue the war. They murmur their concerns, clear their throats, profile their independence, but with rare exceptions, they vote en bloc to support the president’s ruinous course.

He is aided and abetted in this folly by a minority of Democrats who are afraid to take on the president, fearful of being blamed for undermining the troops, and frightened about being held responsible for bringing the occupation to an end. They, in turn, are misled by the political consultants and the national security “experts” on the Democratic side who have been wrong from the start. They advised Democrats to vote for the war to look strong. They advised Democrats to support the president to look tough. When the folly became apparent, they advised Democrats to avoid being blamed for ending the war. At the beginning of the 2006 election, they advised that Democrats focus on the lack of body armor and the mistreatment of veterans, and stay away from the debate about the war. Now they warn Democrats to keep this “Bush’s war” and not get blamed for ending it. Their expert credentials have somehow survived their consistent inanity.

The Congress will now vote on a funding bill for Iraq that offers no change of course. Every legislator open to reason, concerned for the troops, worried about this nation’s real security, or accountable to the voters will vote against this bill.

Those who vote for it are voting to enable a rogue president. They are sacrificing the nation’s security and the lives of many young soldiers to stand with George Bush.

This vote will be registered. In every state and district of the country, voters will know where their legislator stands. There are no dodges, no excuses. Vote to sustain the rogue president’s ruinous course or vote against. This is a question of life and death, not of partisan politics or Beltway political poker. Every legislator is free to vote his or her conscience. Each should be held accountable.

I am simultaneously glad and sad to announce to you that our Development Director Donna Platt has decided to leave KPFT effective June 15.

We are happy for Donna as she furthers her career path in the non-profit arena by accepting the position of Executive Director at Citizen’s Environmental Coalition of Houston.

We appreciate the nearly six years of dedication to Pacifica from Donna and look forward to great things developing at CEC under her directorship. We also look excitedly toward the possibilities of increased collaboration with this like-minded organization.

We are grateful to Donna for the full month notice and will immediately begin the process of transition in this important position.

Peace,
Duane Bradley
KPFT General Manager

At KPFK, Ian Masters amps up the debate
Unpaid yet undaunted, the radio host vets issues from multiple points of view

By Sean Mitchell, Special to The Los Angeles Times
May 13, 2007

ON a Sunday morning like any other, when so many Southern Californians are sleeping in or heading to the beach, Ian Masters, Australian expatriate, former BBC journalist, Hollywood dropout and indefatigable student of American foreign policy, has arrived at his post behind a live microphone in the political free-fire zone of KPFK-FM (90.7) on Cahuenga Boulevard.

Looking a bit bleary-eyed, Masters nevertheless has an air of authority about him. Dressed in a smart sports coat and pressed jeans, with a healthy shag of white hair and overseas accent, he reminds you of a former road manager for the Rolling Stones. “I didn’t get much sleep last night, my girlfriend was up sick,” he tells me moments before the clock in the studio reads 11 a.m. straight up, and he bends into the microphone to introduce today’s edition of “Background Briefing,” his brainy show about current events and geopolitics that he has been doing for 26 years.

ADVERTISEMENT
Like many programmers in public radio, Masters gets no money — zero — for all the hours that go into producing a program that is considerably more ambitious and frequently more illuminating than such Sunday morning television fare as NBC’s “Meet the Press” and ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

Though he doesn’t earn a salary for “Background Briefing” and “Live From the Left Coast,” the name given to a second hour he got as a consolation prize in 2002 for surviving one of the purges that occasionally sweep through left-leaning Pacifica affiliate KPFK, the two shows earn a good amount of money for the station in donations. “In the last pledge drive, Ian raised $10,600 an hour,” says KPFK senior producer Alan Minsky, “which was substantially higher than any other show — and he’s not in a prime radio slot.”

On this day, Masters will interview ex-CIA officer Graeme Fuller to talk about the possibility of a U.S. military strike against Iran; he will talk to constitutional law professor Dawn Johnsen of Indiana University about the U.S. attorney firings and then to Rocky Anderson, the mayor of Salt Lake City, who has called for the impeachment of President Bush. In the second hour he will phone “old friend” Gloria Steinem to talk about the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama rivalry and then interview Jeremy Scahill, the author of “Blackwater,” about the 100,000 American private contractors operating in Iraq.

He will cross this expanse of intellectual and political terrain armed with smart questions drawn from a store of knowledge and reasoned opinion that he does not hesitate to share. His interviews tend to be more conversational and more probing than most — a rare mix that eschews the kind of formal objectivity familiar to American broadcast journalism without lapsing into pure advocacy or rant. With his clear, understated voice set at an unwavering pitch, Masters seems to be pushing ever onward toward the heart of the matter.

“You try not to bring baggage to the story,” he says. “You try to be an advocate for the truth, not an ideology. Ideology has been the death of the American right and self-righteousness the death of the left.” It’s not just his accent that reveals that Masters grew up in a very different political culture. “Politics is more of a contact sport in Australia and England,” he notes.

“He has the ability to ask questions and provide a point of view that inspires people to go deeper into subjects,” says Andrew Davis, the Hollywood director of “The Fugitive” and “Collateral Damage” and a longtime friend who has used Masters as a consultant. “He sees linkages that other people don’t see.”

Often out in front of the herd, Masters was among the first to interview former diplomat and WMD-debunking emissary Joseph C. Wilson IV about the problematic case made by the administration to go to war. Well before Scooter Libby went on trial for perjury in the outing of Wilson’s CIA agent wife, Valerie Plame, Masters interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism at the CIA, who told him he believed the forged letters implicating the African nation Niger in uranium sales to Iraq (and mysteriously acquired by an Italian intelligence agency) originated not in Niger or Italy but in the U.S.

Sometimes the program contains so much bracing information from political insiders, scholars and authors about the deceits and policy failures of government leaders, it is hard to listen and not despair.

“It is a dilemma,” Masters says, “but you can’t be Pollyanna. I think people fighting the good fight are inspiring. At the end of the day, it’s all about trying to empower citizenship. I’ve spent some time in Washington, and I’ll tell you there isn’t much to expect from the people on the Hill. The lobbyists are in control. Until the people get back into it, nothing is going to change.”

Documentary as springboard

THE seeds of the program were sown in 1978, when Masters, then a film editor, was enlisted by cinematographer Haskell Wexler to help make the anti-nukes documentary “War Without Winners,” produced by a group of retired generals and admirals. The TV documentary was a response to “The Price of Peace and Freedom,” a 30-minute Pentagon-friendly film made by the hawkish Committee on the Present Danger, a group that included Paul Wolfowitz and George H.W. Bush.

To gather material, Masters went on an extensive fact-finding tour of Washington, D.C., and the Pentagon to find a justification for the U.S. to amass more nuclear weapons. If he was going to make an advocacy film, he wanted to know the arguments on the other side.

The experience left him with “all this knowledge and nowhere to go,” he says, until he got a call from someone at KPFK with the offer of a Sunday morning show. “Reagan was coming on,” Masters remembers. “And there was a genuine concern that we were moving toward Armageddon.”

The contacts he had made in government, the military and the intelligence agencies were the start of his compiling what he calls a great Rolodex, but those same official sources have made him an object of suspicion among some KPFK supporters who have accused him of being a government apologist and CIA stooge.

The fact that he is a white male, says one station insider, does not help Masters win support internally at multicultural KPFK — or at the Pacifica network, which does not distribute the program to the other four Pacifica stations.

Masters — who is 63, has been married twice, to an English and an American actress, and has a 22-year-old daughter — recently graduated from UCLA. While he has missed out on getting rich like many of his peers, he has kept interesting company along the way, sharing flats in London with Monty Python’s Eric Idle and Australian director Bruce Beresford, and working alongside Jonathan Miller and Lindsay Anderson at the BBC. He got to know Mick Jagger while working as an editor for Tony Richardson on the 1970 movie “Ned Kelly.”

He grew up in Byron Bay, a small town on the eastern coast of Australia. His father was a schoolteacher and his mother the respected novelist Olga Masters. He has five siblings, all of whom ended up in some form of professional media. Two sisters and a brother work in Australian television, one brother is a sportswriter in Australia and another is a film director in England.

After attending the University of Sydney, he won a scholarship to film school in Paris during the New Wave but didn’t stay long. “It was a waste of time, very academic.” He quit and started shooting film for news agencies, including the BBC, where he became an editor.

He moved to Los Angeles in the early ’70s, met Wexler and got work editing documentaries, including “The Secret Life of Plants.” He tried his hand at screenwriting and wrote one feature for 20th Century Fox, an adaptation of the Robert Ludlum espionage thriller “The Osterman Weekend” (1983), the last film directed by Sam Peckinpah. “That was a very unpleasant experience,” he says.

Masters muses that he could have been a contender as a screenwriter, earning the financial security that has eluded him. “If I had stayed with the [expletive] system, but I wasn’t A-list.”

He says he does not regret not having multiple homes and multiple Mercedes common to many of the people in the business who are his friends. “What I’d like to do is get paid for what I do,” he says.

“We all know he’s always in money trouble,” says Wexler. “He lives very frugally.” When he is not preparing for the program, Masters gives lectures, moderates panels and develops movie projects. He also wants to become an American citizen after more than three decades living as a legal resident alien. “I want to vote,” he says.

By the time Rocky Anderson is on the line and on the air, Masters’ producer, Louis Vandenberg, is sweating bullets — or at least sweating. The thermostat in the studio is not working, and it is unseasonably warm inside KPFK. “This is the support we get for being the fund drive leader,” Vandenberg says with a bite. The producer, who works during the week as an administrator at UC Riverside, sits in front of a computer screen flashing images of news Web pages he is monitoring while trying to get a good phone line for Steinem.

Masters, on the other side of the glass, finishes up with Anderson, who has explained the history of impeachment in Britain and how the concept of “high crimes,” meaning “political crimes,” found its way across the ocean. It was intended, the mayor says, as a remedy for precisely the kind of behavior exhibited by President Bush in starting an illegal war of aggression, but such an abuse of power has been permitted by a “cowardly” Congress.

“They have enabled this president through their cowardice, I agree with you entirely,” Masters says, in one of those moments that makes it clear this is not “Washington Week in Review.” When the phone line is patched, Masters asks Steinem if she is aware that Hillary Clinton asked Al Gore, yet a potential presidential candidate, if he was in favor of a carbon tax?

Steinem says she was not aware of this and then says, “Ian, you always notice things and bring them to our attention.”

“Gore said, ‘Yes,’ ” Masters says, without skipping a beat. “I wonder if Hillary might be more afraid of Gore than Obama?”

It was something to think about, as usual.

KMUD-FM, KMUE-FM and KLAI-FM has an exciting opportunity for a creative, experienced and innovative Program Director. This special person will be working at a dynamic, alternative, established community radio station (20 year Anniversary !) that’s driven by a mission of public service. The Program Director will maintain RCR station identity and will be responsible for the daily broadcasts; selecting, planning & scheduling programs; evaluate new and existing programming; coordinate activities between news, public affairs and programming department; conduct Programmers Selection Review Committee and help develop ideas for RCR. The PD must have knowledge of transmission, broadcasting, switching, control and operations of a radio station. Essential to the job: active listening, time management, good judgment & decision making as well as thinking creatively and having a good sense of humor. For a complete job description, go to www.kmud.org – click “about us” and scroll to Employment opportunities. Deadline for applications is June 12, 2007. This is a full time (32 hr) exempt position with benefits. Salary is commensurate to experience. Please email a cover letter and resume to bstarr@kmud.org or mail to General Manager, KMUD, PO Box 135, Redway, CA, 95560. RCR is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer.

The Board of Directors of the Pacifica Foundation has asked that I release a statement about my intention to leave the position of Executive Director by April 2008 or earlier. Let me begin by saying that I fully support the PNB’s recent decision to initiate a search for a new ED and to promptly complete that process, although it is difficult to predict precisely how long that will take.

In the meantime, it is my intention to continue working for Pacifica until a new Executive Director has been chosen and, on a mutually agreeable basis, to help that person acclimate to the job. Most senior staff prefer not to have an interim Executive Director, a position with which I agree.

When I applied for the position almost two years ago, some friends described it as “undo-able” or “the dream job from Hell.” It hasn’t been that rough, but I can’t say there have been no problems. In a recent evaluation of my performance, some members of the Pacifica National Board chided me for failing to deal effectively enough with the organization’s tendency toward factionalism. Others said I wasn’t diplomatic or decisive enough, and that I could be more sensitive to race and sex dynamics within the organization.

Actually, that evaluation – which involved survey forms circulated to more than 140 people, but completed by less than 60 – revealed that a clear majority of those motivated to respond felt I had done a fairly good job. At its April in-person meeting, the Board itself voted by a two-to-one margin to retain me; some people even thought I deserved a raise.

However, I made it clear when applying for the job in 2005 that I wasn’t planning to remain for more than three years at most. Some of the reasons are personal. But it’s also a fact that the average term of a Pacifica ED for the last 12 years has been slightly over two years, and all of them departed under less than ideal circumstances. Mindful that I was the first ED in recent history — if ever – who didn’t have a significant history with Pacifica, I also felt that I could serve best as a transitory leader, helping to clarify issues, and to begin a process of reconciliation and reorganization without focusing of the consolidation of power.

How have things worked out? In general, communication within the network is more regular and systematic than it was in 2005. I have also encouraged uniform and fair employment practices, have cultivated a culture of cooperation, financial transparency, and effective management that respects the contributions of staff and volunteers and the interests of listeners, and have begun to reassert Pacifica’s role as a relevant and popular voice for political change and social transformation. These were some of the objectives I set, and I believe that, to some extent, they have been achieved.

Let me be more specific. In programming, I pushed for the development of new national programs, including the daily Spanish Language newscast “Informativo Pacifica,” and a weekly series on the 2006 congressional elections, “Informed Dissent,” that included more than 50 segment producers from more than 15 states. In addition, Pacifica now has a more open and inclusive process for national specials review and approval, and a programming calendar. As a result, specials have been airing more regularly, including coverage of May Day, Hurricane Katrina, election 2006, key congressional hearings, the Media Reform Conference, International Women’s Day, and much more.

At the urging of the Board, I developed and wrote editorials for broadcast on net neutrality, the undermining of habeas corpus, the Iraq War, and other issues reflecting Pacifica’s commitment to peace and social justice. In addition, I have actively supported the effort to rapidly expand Pacifica’s digital distribution of content using the Creative Commons family of licenses. Meanwhile, the staff is developing a new program evaluation process that should open up grids at various stations.

Much of my effort has been focused on improving the organization’s management and ability to promptly respond to challenges. To that end, I led the process of selecting a general counsel to handle the Foundation’s business. Although Pacifica receives excellent legal advice on FCC matters, it lacked a general counsel for several years; now we are more prepared to respond to legal issues, and to resist pressures for expensive legal settlements.

In addition, we established a functioning management group. It has met at least twice monthly for more than a year, includes almost 20 of the top managers and national staff, and makes substantive decisions. I facilitated the negotiations concerning a contract with Free Speech Radio News, leading to an agreement that begins to resolve a long-standing dispute. And I supervised and promoted the development of new administrative policies concerning issues like confidentiality, expense approval, management reporting, harassment, and profanity, obscenity and indecency.

Since early 2006, significant new hires have included General Managers at KPFA in Berkeley and WBAI in New York, as well as Pacifica’s Network Programming Coordinator and National Technical Director. These decisions have brought new talent and energy into the Pacifica leadership. In Fall 2006, we held a two-day retreat with managers, national staff, and PNB members to improve lines of communication; assess the structure and functioning of the national organization; and provide a forum for discussion of communication, accountability, lines of authority, and decision-making. More recently, a programming retreat for managers was held in April 2007, leading to new initiatives and proposals.

The role of Executive Director also requires attention to promotion, finances, and outreach. New promotional pitches have raised almost $1 million via direct mail, while I have projected a new vision for Pacifica in public talks. Pacifica’s finances are stable, although long-term sustainability and changes in listenership remain concerns. With the guidance of Pacifica’s Affiliates Program Coordinator, I’ve supported the Radio for People campaign, an effort to promote applications for new non-commercial license applications. Pacifica is beginning to receive public and financial recognition for this important effort.

Obviously, none of this could be accomplished without the help of a strong and competent staff. Despite any differences we have, I have benefited greatly from their willingness to cooperate and look past old disputes. Pacifica’s General Managers and Program Directors are frequently under attack by disaffected listeners and local Board factions, yet they manage to remain focused and committed. Members of the national staff suffer from a shortage of resources, yet still manage to keep the quality and reputation of Pacifica at the center of their attention. I have been increasingly impressed with the dedication of this team. But I am concerned about an undercurrent of governance-management conflict that continues to threaten the organization’s health.

No single person can solve Pacifica’s problems; they ultimately have roots in its long and tumultuous history and will take years to work out. In the meantime, my hope has been to raise standards and make modest improvements, while avoiding paralysis and encouraging a process of long-term re-evaluation and change. Some people have urged me to “clean house” and impose a strong central leadership model on the network. Others have feared that I would do precisely that. In truth, I have tried to raise some fundamental questions – for example, the question of whether Pacifica’s current governance structure is sustainable or even wise — while simultaneously avoiding actions that would produce debilitating resistance.

For the coming months, my main objective is to help make the transition to a new Executive Director as smooth as possible in order to further Pacifica’s successful future development. Regardless of any rumors circulating, I want to make it clear that, as I understand it, this change is being handled by mutual agreement, and I hope to work for and with the foundation while the national board pursues its process.

I offer my sincere thanks to the Pacifica community, and look forward to hearing many more years of groundbreaking community radio.

Greg Guma, Executive Director

*MEXICO CITY, May 4 (IPS) – A year ago, the Mexican government and political parties caved in to pressure from powerful media consortia Televisa and TV Azteca, and passed a law that favoured the two broadcasting giants, to the detriment of aims to democratise the media. *

Now, however, it appears that the law may be on its way to being revoked.

On Thursday night, a Mexican Supreme Court justice circulated a draft decision, as a working document, to his colleagues, the government and legislators.

The document says that several articles of the Federal Law on Radio and Television violate the constitution and principles of equity, competition, and democratisation of the broadcasting spectrum.

“What the Court is saying is beyond our expectations, because many of us thought that it wouldn’t dare go so far against the powers that be,” the non-governmental World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)’s representative in Mexico, Aleida Calleja, told IPS.

The law was passed in March 2006, in the heat of political campaigns leading up to the presidential elections in July, and under open pressure from the country’s two big broadcasting networks.

Televisa and TV Azteca earn millions of dollars in profits from the campaign spots they air.

“What the Court decides will determine whether power in Mexico is in the hands of the state’s institutions or in those of the powers that be, so I foresee that the television networks and certain radio broadcasting companies will bring a great deal of pressure to bear on the Supreme Court,” Calleja said.

In Mexico, seven out of 10 viewers watch Televisa channels, while two out of 10 watch TV Azteca programmes. Thirteen commercial groups own virtually all the radio stations.

The 11 Supreme Court justices will deliberate until May 24 on the complaint brought a year ago by a group of lawmakers alleging that the broadcasting law is unconstitutional, before handing down their verdict. The deliberations will be televised on a public channel.

The draft decision that was circulated was prepared by Justice Sergio Aguirre, one of the most conservative Supreme Court magistrates. It advocates annulling the privileges the law grants to the handful of companies that control radio and television in Mexico.

Legislators admit that part of the current law was written by the broadcasting giants themselves. It allows companies that already own radio and television stations to offer additional digital channels and operate telecommunications services without having to bid for concessions and without paying the state an extra cent.

It also leaves it to the discretion of government authorities to grant or withhold new concessions for using the radio frequency spectrum, and stipulates regulations that ensure that when concessions are put out to tender, whoever makes the highest bid must win.

Senator Santiago Creel of the governing National Action Party (PAN), who was interior minister in the administration of former President Vicente Fox (2000-2006), admitted that the broadcasting law was approved under pressure from Televisa and TV Azteca, who took advantage, he said, of their position as platforms for disseminating campaign ads.

Several legislators belonging to the conservative PAN, the leftwing Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) said they were pleased with the draft decision document and agreed that the broadcasting law should be amended.

“I am cautiously optimistic that the ‘Televisiva law’ (as it is referred to by its opponents) will be repealed, but we must wait and see,” said PRD congressman Carlos Navarrete.

“The Supreme Court is standing up to some powerful entrenched interests in this case,” he said.

The controversial law was approved without opposition by the chamber of deputies in December 2005. All the parties, including the PRD, passed it on the nod in a session that lasted less than seven minutes.

Later it also made it through the senate, although some dissenting voices were raised and divisions arose between party benches.

Observers, spokespersons for cultural and community radio and television stations, some civil servants and even the United Nations have all called on Congress to repeal or modify the law, but to no avail.

Fox cultivated close ties with Televisa and TV Azteca and was seldom criticised by the two networks when in office. He had the opportunity to veto the law, but did not do so.

The Mexico Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights asked lawmakers at one point not to approve the law, and to remember that Mexico has signed several international agreements that promote “democratic” access to the radio frequency spectrum by all social sectors.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights also spoke out, saying that the law limits freedom of expression in Mexico.

Adding to the criticism, Mexico’s Federal Competition Commission (CFC) said that the law does not ensure effective service provision, nor does it avoid, in assigning the radio frequency spectrum, the issue of control of the bandwidth being concentrated in a few hands.

The independent Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) also rejected the law, because it awards politicians complete discretion to buy advertising space in the media, paid for by taxpayers’ money.

But the opposition was futile. The day before the law was passed, Televisiva and TV Azteca broadcast editorial programmes during their nightly newscasts, defending the law and complaining they had been criticised maliciously by forces representing murky interests.

While the draft law was being debated in Congress, the two big networks provided no coverage of any arguments against the law.

In contrast, many radio stations opened up the debate in this country of over 104 million people, and the state-funded cultural television channels and radio stations broadcast harsh criticism of the “Televisa law”.

But it is the two main networks that have a virtual monopoly on the Mexican television audience, and therefore the money from commercial sponsorship.

According to several studies, Televisa receives 60 percent of the total advertising budget in Mexico, operates 225 television channels, and is managed by the Azc�rraga family. TV Azteca, meanwhile, has 42 channels and is run by the Salinas family.

Televisa sells its programmes and has partners and trades its stock all over Latin America and the United States. It is the largest television consortium in the Spanish-speaking world.

“We will accept the word of those legislators who are arguing against the law, and the judges who plan to repeal it. We’ll see how far they get against the powers that be,” said AMARC’s Calleja. (END/2007)

Pacifica’s National Programming Coordinator Nathan Moore is headed to Houston during drive, and is hosting a week of open office hours and workshops for you.

Nathan will arrive on Sunday evening (May 13) and depart late Friday afternoon
(May 18). He will be available Mon-Fri, 11a.m.-1 p.m. and 7-8 p.m. to talk to anybody who wants to stop by and talk. He notes, “I’m particularly interested in talking with programmers who are interested in talking about Pacifica or national programming.”

On Monday, starting at 6 p.m., Nathan hosts an Interviewing Skills workshop, which he recommends for both music and public-affairs programmers who could use some interview tips. On Tuesday and Thursday, starting at 6 p.m., Nathan will host two national programming workshops, which are all about the process for getting involved with national programming, including the mechanics and expectations of such. And on Wednesday at 6, Nathan hosts a Community Media Ethics workshop.