Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1995/Radio.Resistor.s.Bulleti1.html
Content
| | | | --- | --- | | Red Rock Eater Digest | Most Recent Article: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 |
Radio Resistor's Bulletin #13
``` [This issue of RRB is about 80K long but it's pretty interesting. I particularly recommend the work of a historian of telecommunications politics, Bob McChesney, who has an article reprinted in this issue.]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 09:37:39 -0800 (PST)
From: "Frank Haulgren - R.R. Bulletin"
RADIO RESISTOR'S BULLETIN Issue #13, Winter 1996
Frank Haulgren, Editor haulgren@well.com
PO Box 3038 Bellingham, WA 98227-3038
Copyright 1996 Copy and redistribute freely, but please give credit tothis issue of the Bulletin and each author when excerpting.
---
"There are virtually no 'public airwaves' and the new communications bill... will seek to eliminate by money, power and control, local programming and allow the vertical and horizontal joint ventures and conglomerates to rule all airwaves, programming, production and distribution of information.... This is censorship by controlling all the avenues from creation to distribution." Chris Lunn, Victory Review, October, 1995
---
RADIO RESISTOR'S BULLETIN Issue #13 Contents:
EXCELLENT RADIO! Community embraces mocro station. By David Ciaffardini In Grover Beach, California, a micro broadcaster believs that "...A forthright, above-board, non-confrontational approach..." to unlicensed micro-power broadcasting can, "demonstrate community enhancing benefits," and rally support that any non-commercail station would envy. And appears to be right.
Back Talk: Letters to the Bulletin
Airwave Anarchy ------- "Listen or Die!" A history of Radio Death. By Geert Lovink An excerpt from Lovink's history of Amsterdam's short lived and exciting punk station Radio Dood.
Anarchist Order and Democratic Tyranny. By John Whiting Some thoughts on whether or not democracy at the radio station is really what hard-core community broadcasters want.
Telecon! By Robert McChesney U.S. Communication law is examined. McChesney provides insights into the what's wrong with the current laws and why the next generation of legislation won't likely be any better. (Originally apeared in July 10, 1995 issue of "In These Times")
Loyola Conference held: "Building Community Through Radio". By Craig Kois A quick glance at the recently held 25th anniversary Loyola Radio Conference in Chicago. A more indepth look to come I hope!
Publication Notes: Reviews of:
* "Listen or Die" A History of Radio Death. ** "Don't Touch that Dial: ...", "Reason", October 1995
Radio Briefs:
Slashing budgets in Ontario Waterloo crisis approaches resolution Free Radio Berkeley case drags on Pacifica Radio investigated by CPB* RadioNATION also --- news from Colombia and Hungary, JAM-FM takes the air, CBC shortwave service to be cut in March.
INFOBOX How to get or stay in-touch with individuals and groups mentioned in this issue.
* *
RADIO RESISTOR'S BULLETIN Issue # 13, Winter 1996
- - - - - -
Excellent Radio! Community embraces micro station.
By David Ciaffardini
Excellent Radio 88.9 FM has been broadcasting throughout a five- city area every day for six months without a license from the Federal Communication Commission. But don't refer to the station as "pirate radio." Although romantic notions may be attached to the pirate term, Excellent Radio personnel consider it derogato- ry and counter to their broadcasting mission. The volunteers who keep Excellent Radio on the air don't consider themselves rebels of the airwaves, have never operated in a clandestine manner and have no interest in using the airwaves to rape, pillage or rob. They ask that their station be identified simply as a non-commercial micro-power radio station that offers a valuable, positive service to the community it operates in. Indeed, people living along California's Central Coast welcome Excellent Radio broadcasts into their homes. Women and children smile and wave when they stroll by the station's storefront broadcast studio or step inside to pick up free book- marks and bumper stickers displaying the station's splashy 88.9 FM logo. Station visitors would be disappointed if they expected to find station volunteers preaching anarchy on the airwaves and waving a black flag emblazoned with a skull and cross bones. Although stiff-lipped federal authorities may consider the station's operators to be scofflaws, the station's happy, con- structive approach to liberating the airwaves has earned it in- credible support from local politicians, bureaucrats, business owners and a legion of listeners from all walks of life who are among the station's more than 50,000 potential listeners. City government officials not only tolerate the unlicensed station, they applaud its efforts, going so far as buying city equipment which allows the station to broadcast city council meetings and other public hearings live from city hall on a regular basis. The homeless, poor and disenfranchised also celebrate the station's efforts, realizing it offers them a public voice while they are ignored by other media outlets. The high-visibility and community support achieved by Excel- lent Radio may be unique among micro-power broadcasters. Excel- lent Radio founders say they've developed the station to be a paradigm for people in other cities to emulate if they desire a pragmatic, inexpensive and entertaining device to piece together fragmented communities and prepare and inspire citizen participa- tion to create solutions to individual and collective problems. Since March 1995 Excellent Radio has been broadcasting at least nine hours a day every day for six months from a highly visible storefront along the main thoroughfare in Grover Beach, California. The station broadcasts from a small space in the building provided by Charley Goodman, a local retailer who, in 1992, set aside a portion of his store space to house the Excel- lent Center for Art and Culture, a not-for-profit cultural center and art gallery. According to Goodman, a pioneering micro-power radio station was a natural extension of the culturally enriching work begun earlier at the center. The station began as part of a community art project entitled "Father of Lies v. Mother of In- vention (necessity)--humanity@risk," a multi-media exhibit that explored and commented on the tendency of mass media to distort truth thereby fostering a desperate need for grass roots efforts to provide accurate information and empower people to solve their own problems. The Excellent Radio broadcasting studio takes up an 8 x 10 foot space, just enough room for a few tables and chairs, an au- dio mixing board, and various home audio components, plus a wall full of posters and bulletins. The transmitter, purchased in kit form from Free Radio Berkeley and the Radio Shack power pack that energizes it are easily over-looked, together being about the size of a loaf of bread and placed inconspicuously in a corner underneath a table. A black coaxial cable exits through a small hole in the wall, leading to a roof-top 20-foot mast that sports a small, second hand antenna scavenged from commercial radio dis- cards. It has not been necessary to sound proof the studio. The small amount of ambient noise that spills into the microphones is considered an asset rather than a problem as it increases the grass-root, street-level broad-casting atmosphere desired. A similar set up could be put in nearly any store without interfer- ing with business activity in other parts of the building. The station's doors remain unlocked from noon to five p.m. every day and listeners are invited to visit the station to wit- ness the inner-workings of the station. Visitors' ideas, news, views and announce-ments are welcome and Excellent Radio provides several ways for them to be shared over the airwaves. Visitors may speak over the microphone during visits, they can call in by phone and talk over the air, or one of the on-air hosts can read aloud written announcements received by mail, or over the station's fax line. The station has a Macintosh computer able to accept E-mail and other forms of on-line information that can be down-loaded by on-air hosts and shared with listeners. Every Sa- turday, listeners of any age are invited to stop by for free, im- promptu broadcasting lessons with the opportunity to spin records and compact discs and talk live on the microphone -- no experi- ence necessary. Excellent Radio currently broadcasts about 70 hours per week, with the broadcast day beginning at noon on weekdays and 9 a.m. on weekends. Most days broadcasting lasts until 10 PM, some shows go later. About three quarters of the programming is devot- ed to music, featuring a wide range of free-form and specialty music programs including shows devoted to rock, reggae, blues, jazz, R&B, world musics, along with free-form music programs that are in theory open to any kind of music imaginable, but are al- ways supposed to remain a distinct alternative from music pro- grams offered by any of the 20 licensed commercial and non- commercial stations in the region. The remaining portion of the broadcast days are devoted to community affairs programming. Weekdays from 6 to 8 p.m. the sta- tion broadcasts live in-studio community forums featuring local experts and concerned citizens discussing various local issues. Using a Gentner Microtel telephone interface (about $250) the station can take phone calls and patch them over the air, allow- ing listeners to take an active part in the discussions. Faxed input is also welcomed. Excellent Radio encourages a "salon" type equality in the studio, creating an atmosphere where everyone's opinions are given equal respect despite differences in participant's education, wealth, or ethnic background. Topics of discussion featured on the community affairs shows have included veterans affairs, nutrition, local environ- mental problems, public education, voter registration, health care, juvenile delinquency, and the rights of skateboarders. Un- like syndicated talk shows, station personnel try to down-play or avoid partisanship, scapegoating, fear-mongering, and casting blame. Instead, they try to focus discussion toward establishing positive solutions to community problems by promoting compassion, understanding and consensus among people with opposing viewpoints and varying backgrounds. To fill out the community affairs programming when there has not been time to set up a live program, the station broadcasts prerecorded programs from various sources including David Barsamian's outstanding Alternative Radio series, the Making Con- tact series, and tapes from She Who Remembers. The station also draws program-ming from many sources that other stations overlook or ignore such as the public library where all kinds of spoken word audio cassettes are available to borrow and broadcast. A video cassette player patched into the mixing board facilitates broadcasting audio portions of video documentaries and lectures, many of which can be entertaining, informative and effective as radio broadcasts. At least twice a month the station broadcasts city council meetings patched in live over the phone lines from city hall. Plans are being made to broadcast other local government public hearings. The station also provides live broadcasts of monthly poetry readings and acoustic music concerts that take place in the cultural center. Various nationally known musicians have also been interviewed live on the station. Excellent Radio volunteers consider themselves freedom ad- vocates, helping liberate the airwaves for everyone in America by planting seeds they hope will grow into legally sanctioned micro-power community broadcasting. They believe that a forthright, above-board, non-confrontational, positive, broad- casting approach is a healthy route to follow demonstrating micro-power radio's community enhancing benefits. This way they hope to legitimatize micro-power broadcasting in the minds of government regulators and the pubic in general. They believe they're helping pave the way for changes in government regula- tions that will allow the birth of thousands of non-commercial micro-power stations throughout the United States. Goodman and other station volunteers say they have deep ad- miration and gratitude for the courageous efforts of Springfield, Illinois, micro-power broadcaster M'Banna Kantako, whose unyield- ing efforts in the face of FCC threats they credit as vital in- spiration for their own work. However, unlike M'Banna Kantako, the volunteers at Excellent Radio are not opposed, in theory, to licensing procedures for micro-power broadcasters, as long as licensing fees are inexpensive and the requirements don't res- trict program content and are designed to allow as many broadcas- ters access to the airwaves as technically possible. Goodman and others at the station believe that a simplified, streamlined licensing system, similar to registering motor vehicles and licensing drivers, is acceptable and preferable to advocating ab- solute anarchy on the airwaves. Excellent Radio volunteers also credit their survival and success to the pioneering work of Stephen Dunifer's Free Radio Berkeley and his legal defense provided by the National Lawyers Guild mounted in response to a civil suit brought by the FCC. When a Federal Court Judge ruling in the case in January 1995 re- fused to grant a preliminary injunction to the FCC, thereby preventing, at least temporarily, the government agency from shutting down Free Radio Berkeley, it signaled to Goodman and others that it was time to create Excellent Radio. Subsequently, in April, the FCC sent a letter to Goodman warning him that operating an unlicensed station could subject him to penalties of a year in jail and a $100,000 fine. On the station's behalf, Na- tional Lawyers Guild attorney Alan Korn replied, officially re- questing a waiver from current FCC regulations until a procedure allowing the licensing of micro-power (under 100 watts) stations is established. The letter explains that operators of Excellent Radio do not wish to intentionally violate FCC regulations, but that current rules prevent them from legitimately communicating through micro-power broadcasting. Granting such a waiver, Korn states, would be in the public interest, particularly in light of the strong support the station's broadcasts have received. The letter states that Excellent Radio operators have no objection to the FCC monitoring its broadcasts to ensure the station doesn't in- terfere with other stations. The letter also states the station is willing to accept FCC rules providing for "some form of au- thorized, secondary non-interference basis for broadcasting with advance notice to the FCC." The letter goes on to state that the station's operators "like most citizens, simply cannot comply with the Commission's present licensing scheme which requires a minimum of tens of thousands of dollars to purchase, license and operate a mega-watt commercial or 'educational' broadcast sta- tion." Excellent Radio bases its request for a waiver, in part, on the station's strong community support. This support did not spring miraculously from a vacuum as soon as the radio station began broadcasting. It grew from many years of community involve- ment by key figures involved with the station's launch. Goodman's operating the not-for-profit Excellent Center for Art and Culture for three and a half years, providing a venue for dozens of non- profit art and cultural exhibitions and programs, created a sub- stantial track record of community involvement and support, earn- ing himself and others involved respect and praise from community members grateful for the cultural enrichment their work has pro- vided their community. In addition, Goodman and several of the station's volunteer programmers and behind-the-scenes personnel have lengthy track records working on air and behind the scenes at various licensed commercial and non-commercial radio stations in the region. As far as gaining community support and listenership, more important than any name recognition that Excellent Radio volunteers offer, is the positive, persistent, and unpretentious direction the station has followed. The station has been on the air every day and constant attention has been given to maintain the best possible signal from limited equipment. It has been vi- tal for the station to have access to a trained and experienced radio engineer to help build and adjust the radio transmitter kit, maintain and adjust the mixing board and antenna, and in other ways tune the system to assure the station gets the best possible signal without interfering with other broadcasters in the area. At this state of micro-power broadcasting history, it is im- portant to demonstrate to the public that micro-power stations can be run responsibly without interfering with other operations. In most cases it's crucial that would-be broadcasters have the help of a trained broadcasting engineer, even if it means having to pay for the service, according to Goodman. Having a good en- gineer around to help maintain a clear, consistent and non- interfering signal pleases listeners and creates valuable peace of mind, especially when there arises a need to justify a station's beneficial and benign existence to government authori- ties. Which brings up the matter of finances. Although a main point of promoting micro-power broadcasting is to allow people on the airwaves who otherwise could not afford it under current FCC regulations, Goodman said it is important to realize that any form of broadcasting will cost some money and that having a bit more money than one might originally plan for will make things go smoother and promote greater success. He recommends holding com- munity garage sales and getting cash for re-cyclables as ways of rounding up extra micro-power broadcasting funds. Having extra money for promotional items such as bumper stickers and flyers helps establish a micro-power station as a viable, substantial part of the community with as much legitimacy as licensed radio stations. Having a little money to buy electronic processing dev- ices to improve broadcasting quality, and to be able to buy extra microphones or a telephone interface (makes it easier to have talk shows) and be able to quickly repair or replace broken equipment without having to go off the air for extended periods of time, allows broadcasting consistency that will garner confi- dence and community support, making a station's unlicensed status virtually irrelevant as far as listeners are concerned. In the case of Excellent Radio, Grover Beach city officials, when questioned whether they should be working with a yet-to-be- licensed station, decided their involvement didn't pose the city any liability. The licensing issue is a procedural matter between the FCC and the station and of no concern to the city, according to the Grover Beach city manager. When the matter was referred to the city attorney, he issued an opinion, stating that to deny Excellent Radio the opportunity to broadcast city council meetings and other public hearings might put the city in viola- tion of the Brown Act, California's open meeting law. The bottom line is that the vast majority of citizens are naturally inclined to support micro-power broadcasting efforts, unless the broadcaster in question is completely antagonistic to the community without allowing divergent viewpoints to be aired. About the only opponents of micro-power broadcasting are the own- ers and managers of licensed radio stations who fear that proli- feration of micro-power radio will depress the market value of their broadcasting franchises. Otherwise, virtually everyone in every community, including politicians, bureaucrats and law en- forcement officers, prefer to have more radio stations available for them to tune into. And because micro-power radio allows peo- ple greater access to the microphone side of the broadcasting equation, it is an intriguingly attractive concept to local poli- ticians eager to engage the ear of their constituencies. Excellent Radio has found it easy to charm even the rare in- dividual inclined to dislike the station's music programming or viewpoints it airs. To win these critics over, according to Good- man, all one needs do is offer them a modicum of respect, and ei- ther offer them an opportunity to go on the air and share their viewpoint or offer them information and advice on how to set up their own micro-power station so they can pursue their own unique broadcasting vision. Any antagonism quickly evaporates as they realize that only a micro-power broadcaster would offer them such a benevolent and practical response. Goodman and others at Excellent Radio 88.9 FM say they real- ize their approach to micro-power broadcasting may not be ap- propriate or desirable to everyone who intends to broadcast without an FCC license, but they believe their approach is a model worth considering for all those who want to establish a long-standing, community supported station that will win over people's hearts and minds and pave the way for a new era of com- munication history -- a future when micro-power broadcasting is not only welcomed by the citizens of this country, but is unques- tionably supported and protected by the laws of federal, state and local governments.
For more information contact Excellent Radio 88.9 FM, 1101 Grand Ave., Grover Beach, CA 93433, U.S.A.; phone: 805-481-7577;fax: 805-473-9577;E-mail: exlntctr@aol.com
David Ciaffardini is a free-lance writer and editor whose articles have appeared in The Los Angeles Times, Penthouse, Whole Earth Review, Maximum Rock 'n' Roll, Wire and dozens of other periodicals. He was the editor of Sound Choice magazine and is a member of the Audio Evolution Network, an international organization dedicated to the positive evolution of music, radio and related matters. He may be contacted by mail at: P.O. Box 989, Oceano, CA 93445, U.S.A.
BACK TALK: Letters to the Bulletin PO Box 3038 Bellingham, WA 98227
---
"In anticipation of major declines in federal financial support for public broad- casting and after consultation with the system, CPB has created a Public Radio Futures Fund. Its purpose is to identify and fund projects that will increase public radio's annual nonfederal sup- port by $60 to $100 million, realize new operating efficiencies through consolidations, mergers, joint operating agreements, and other partnerships, and create a stronger, better programming service to listeners." -- from the survey mailed by CPB Future Fund chief to producers
---
CPB Radio Program Fund Washington, DC
RE: Future Fund Survey (see boxed quote below)
cc: Steve Behrens, Editor, Current * Frank Haulgren, Editor, Radio Resistor's Bulletin Board of Directors, Assoc. of Independents in Radio
I may be cutting my throat here or at least slashing my wrists, but with all due respect your survey is a disaster. And I refuse to participate in the obvious capitulation of "Public Radio" to the forces in Congress and elsewhere who want to hang all the diseases of society on the back of non-commercial broadcasting. Most of the items in your survey - collaborations, coops, more underwriting, whatever - are important and necessary activi- ties; things we should have been doing in the past and now. But the end result of all the proposed downsizing and mergers and au- tomation will be the same in radio that it was in this country's manufacturing industry: huge unemployment, diminished uniqueness of product, and ultimately the loss of our greatest asset: jour- nalistic and creative credibility in the minds of listeners/viewers. As an independent, I'm biased, you can be assured of that. My thinking is: bring back SPDF and stop making all of us compete for five hundred thousand or million dollar grants designed to "build audiences" and save the system. We want to create in- teresting and enriching programs that program directors will air because there is institutional incentive to do so. Right now, the process rewards seamlessness and conformity only. Perhaps the actions of Congress couldn't have come at a better time for the "system:" CPB seems just to have been waiting to find insurmountable justification to streamline public radio. It's telling, I think, that these changes are coming at the very same time Congress amends the Communications Act in a way that favors conglomerates and monopolies. Recently, I noticed a number of station managers were upset that money is being taken away from Community Service Grants (Current 7/31/95) to launch the Future Fund; in an ironic twist of fate, perhaps independent producers and station GM's and PD's could forge a collaborative effort to resist the smoothing out of commercial-free, government supported broadcasting. We may not have federal support much longer. But in my hum- ble opinion we're giving in much too soon. What's worse, it looks like the holders of our purse-strings have been anticipat- ing all of this and couldn't be happier. As Professor Robert McChesney of the University of Wisconsin-Madison points out, cor- porate attacks on democratic institutions such as the news media have been all too commonplace. But in his words, "...it is very much in the public interest for the non-profit, non-commercial media to be expanding instead." We've got to do better!
Respectfully, David Goodman, CATS 22 Audio Productions Independent Broadcast Information Service "The All Night Kosher Deli Radio Show" E-mail: deli @ wmbr.mit.edu - - - - - - - -
EDITOR:
We understand that station KUOW, our local National Public Radio station, has canceled Sandy Bradley's Potluck show for the 1995-1996 season. Calls to the station are referred to a recording which credits KUOW alone for all eleven years of the show, thanks the program's volunteer workers and live audiences, and pointedly fails to mention the creator and moving spirit of the program, Sandy Bradley herself. That ends any sort of locally produced live music program- ming on the station, abandoning us to so-called news and informa- tion, the station's euphemism for talk radio and prepackaged shows centrally controlled from Washington, DC. In doing so, they have knocked the public out of public ra- dio, as far as creativity goes. It is easily observed that there is no diversity in format or editorial opinion of this remotely controlled medium. Management elites in the station rigidly con- trol programming content, leaving the public playing a passive role of listeners and bill payers only. This is a perversion of the mission of public radio, which was to encourage broadcasting of points of view and artistic productions unavailable on the commercial networks. If KUOW cannot improve its position, beyond its attempt to become part of yet another slick network, it is time to find new management which will restore some diversity of opinion and yes, music, to public radio.
Very truly yours, Hank Bradley Seattle, WA - - - - - - - -
Dear R.R.B., I saw your #11, Summer '95, reviewed in Factsheet Five, #57.... It is the federal cover for the real rulers that is antiso- cial. Talk radio is, or can be, an inherently social medium. The high-tech version of the talking drum in so-called primitive societies.
Tom Chapman San Rafael, CA
---
Editor's Notes:
* For his trouble David Goodman never did hear a peep
from either the CPB or Current -- the unofficial "organ" of the CPB and its major affiliate stations.
* After much discussion with KUOW over creative control
of the long-running acoustic music program and other issues (station maintaining that the program was its property and Bradley a mere employee), Sandy Bradley's Potluck program has found a new home at KSER-FM, a community station in Everett, Washington. Potluck will be taped at Seattle's Museum of History and Industry on Saturday mornings and broadcast over KSER the same afternoon. The program will soon be available again via satellite feed. For more information about carrying the program, underwriting, etc., call 206-548-9622.
*
Airwave Anarchy: Much discussion these days centers around format, station structure, and how much input volunteers, paid staffers, and listeners should have into station policies of all kinds. All this can lead us to forget that radio is a medium of inherent spon- taneity and immediacy. The following two pieces seem to suggest that it is only in the hands of the naively optomistic that radical broadcasting can bloom -- and even then without much more of a life-cycle than that of a common fruitfly. But, of course, even the fruitfly has its place in the rotten scheme of things... Editor
"Listen or die!" An excerpt from: A history of Radio Death.
By Geert Lovink (translated by P. Bey la-B/Ziekend Zoeltjes)
Radio Dood ('Radio Death') was founded at the end of 1985, just before the dissolution of Amsterdam's squatters' and activists' move-ment of the 1980s. Dood thought of itself as a punks-only radio station, run by and directing itself at punk rockers. Things revolved around squats, bars and concert halls. The rela- tionship to 'the movements' political activists was an uneasy one to say the very least. Many of the squatters were probably never even aware of the existence of a Radio Dood during the one and a half years it did. The punks comprised a separate community within the movements' net-work, hardly touched upon by the bour- geois majority (and then mostly by way of conflicts). In 1985, there were several other free radios operating from squats. De Vrije Keijzer was an exclusive activists' info station. In the Staatslieden district there was the Staatsradio, militant as to both its music and its information. Apart from this, during the same year a coalition of various groups gave rise to Radio 100, which focused on independent labels, reggae, world music, indus- trial, and on sound collage shows such as Rabotnik and DFM. ... Bart: "I was 18 years old back then and a real punk rocker, the Mohican, studded jacket and all. One day I was standing in Boudisque, the record store, going through some hardcore albums, when a guy approached me, asking, 'You're into punk rock then? Feel like doing a show for our radio station?'. Perplexed, I bought myself f60- worth of records, went to the address he gave me and started a radio show. Never seen a microphone in my life, I've no idea what it sounded like, quite amateurish I'm sure. .." Before Radio Dood, Wolf did a punk show for Staatsradio. Wolf: "We just brought in our records and put them on the air. During those shows, I came to see the potentialities of radio. I thought there must be way more to it. I was looking for a wider dimension than that of the Vrije Keijser, a broader, overall pic- ture. Besides music and ideology, more experimentation was called for." Shortly after the station began broadcasting Vendex joined. Vendex: "Legend has it Radio Dood was founded by Hans Kok and Wolf. They did a show for Staatsradio, called Radio Dood. Ap- parently they moved to some secret location downtown, to start their own radio station with a transmitter they had just fin- ished. By the time I joined them they were broadcasting three days a week, which eventually became four." Yet, according to Wolf there was never much of a plan behind Dood. Wolf: "There was just this general discontent over the way things were being brought to attention. It was all too soft, too little. The whole situation of Amsterdam at the time held much more potential...." The function of radio had to be that of catalyst. The worse the better. It was time to let the general mood show. The final spark. Wolf: "I thought radio was much more effective than maga- zines. If you'll excuse my expression, people were more easily herded by radio, I mean in our own devious ways. That's what I was after. Some said it was perverted to incite others to act, to rouse them from their slumber...." Dood's motto was, "Listen Or Die". Wolf's general spirit, of deterring as many listeners as you can ( "We are punks, you all suck, fuck you.") found a response. The same attitude was also applied to (rival station) Radio 100. Bart: "Those guys had too much money to spend, too nice equipment, they were all headed for the public broadcasting ser- vices in Hilversum. Whenever we wanted to take the piss out of someone, it'd be Radio 100. They sucked, sad individuals doing sad radio." Vendex: 'We even did these radio plays, 'Behind the scenes with Radio 100', in which we exposed the appalling abuse there: the incredible amount of money they had, DJ's being forced to take to Valium 10 or they wouldn't fit into 100's general for- mat." With Dood, the end was always near.... Wolf: "At a certain point I let go of Dood. But the spirit was no longer there.... To me, Radio Dood was no free ride. I made plenty of sacrifices for it, was enlivened by it. The others were too easy-going, there wasn't enough sweat. ...(E)quipment got thrashed, people didn't show up at all or delayed. I was ap- palled with all the hash smoking going on. Radio Dood was never intended as some relaxed pot-heads' radio, trying to curb people's activities. We were a diverse crew: hard drug users, stone-heads, alcoholics, down to people who never even touched a cup of coffee. Despite the differences, there was much co- operation. Radio Dood formed a secret society, we belonged to- gether, as members of a silent organization. While everyone around us was keeping busy having a good time, we were making plans."
ANARCHIST ORDER And Democratic Tyranny
By John Whiting (Biographer of Pacifica founder Lew Hill)
Radio -- as practiced by Lew Hill -- was not democratic. In fact, it was in a very real sense more free than an institu- tionally demo-cratic structure would have allowed. Lew arrived in the Bay Area at a time when its dominant socio-aesthetic philosophy was profoundly anarchistic. In a 1966 BBC broadcast Kenneth Rexroth put it very succinctly:
"San Francisco was the one community in the United States which had a regional literature and art at variance with the prevail- ing pattern.... During the war, work camps for conscientious objectors were established throughout the mountains and forests of California. These boys came down to San Francisco on their leaves. They made contact with San Francisco writers and artists who had been active in the Red Thirties but who had become...anarchists and pacifists. During the war, meetings of pacifist and anarchist organizations continued to be well attend- ed. Immediately on the war's end a group of San Francisco writ- ers and artists began an Anarchist Circle.... From this group and from the artists' C.O. camp at Waldport, Oregon, came a large percentage of cultural activities in San Francisco which have lasted to the present time -- a radio station [emphasis mine], three little theaters, a succession of magazines, and a number of people who are considered the leading writers and artists of the community today."
The practical result of this was that the people who went on the air did not attempt to arrive at a consensus -- or an "im- age" as we say today, God help us -- but spoke out of their own minds, doing their own thing. If you were to look for a unifying principle in the remarkable transcriptions of early Pacifica programs which Eleanor McKinney assembled in "The Exacting Ear" (1966), you would find that it lay precisely in the ab- sence of a dogma. The one prerequisite of the period was that the broadcasters possess minds whose contents, however eccentric, were worth sharing. This anarchist foundation meant that the program directors and department heads, however strong their personal opinions, did not try impose them on the volunteer producers, or on each other. Whether rightly or wrongly, programs were accepted or rejected, not on the basis of their subject matter or their point of view, but solely according to the perceived competence and intelligence of the presenter. Radio prodigies such as Anthony Boucher and Phil Elwood were given carte blanche. Because of the shifting political pressures over the years, William Mandel was given more or less time, or even taken off the air completely at one station or another, completely at one station or another, but never because anyone of intelligence inside the stations had questioned his relevance or his expertise. From the middle 60s and rising to a crescendo in the 70s, KPFA's overriding problem became the accelerated demand for access. This arose from two causes: (1) the "economy of scarcity" of the 24-hour day and (2) the attempt, on the part of the staff, to maintain intellectual and aesthetic standards of excel- lence which were gradually being abandoned by the community it- self. Would-be programmers who were rejected on the grounds of competence claimed to have been the victims of prejudice, and ultimately brought suit against the station on those grounds. The irony of this whole chapter in KPFA's history is that the conflict took place not because KPFA was a closed society, but precisely because its stated principles and preoccupations made it wide open to invasion. (Any similar attempt to take over the Oakland Tribune, for instance, would have resembled a flea attacking an elephant.) Because it was the most open insti- tution in America's most open community, it became the first victim of the cultural fragmentation that was to destroy the temporary coherence the Left had enjoyed in its united opposi- tion to racial discrimination and the Vietnam War. The interne- cine battles among competing minorities at KPFA in the 70s, fresh in the minds of KPFA's administration, were later to determine its defensively hierarchical structures, both institutional and architectural. Today those who would restore the freedom and openness of KPFA in its early days would perhaps be well advised to pursue, not the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the anarchist free- dom of individual responsibility. I have already suggested that this resides more comfortably within the sprawling anti-structure of the Internet than in the monolithically controlled super- structure of the FCC. FM broadcasting today is no longer the brave new world that Lewis Hill set out to explore half a cen- tury ago. If he were here today, pursuing the same ends of peace, freedom and excellence, I suspect that he would start with a modem.
"... the market does not give the people what they want as much as it gives the people what they want within the range of what is most profitable to produce." McChesney
Telecon! U.S. Communications Law: Where we've been and where we're headed.
By Robert W. McChesney (Reprinted with permission from In These Times, July 10, 1995)
On June 15, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed a new telecom- munications bill that would deregulate the telephone, cable TV and broadcasting industries. The House is expected to pass a similar bill this summer, and the President has indicated that he will sign it. The new legislation addresses the digital revolution in com- munications technology -- which has blurred the distinctions between old industries such as telephone and cable, and led to the creation of entirely new industries like online computer ser- vices. Since this bill will shape what the New York Times calls "the $700 billion data highway," it may well be the most impor- tant piece of communications legislation since the Federal Com- munications Act of 1934, and it is probably one of the most im- portant laws passed by Congress in decades. You might think, therefore, that this legislation would have been carefully debated during lengthy hearings in which public interest groups were represented. But the brief hearings on the bill were dominated by business lobbyists, who actually wrote whole sections of the Senate measure behind the scenes. Organ- ized consumer groups -- who never challenged the corporate con- trol of communications, but merely wanted certain regulations re- tained --were shut out of the process entirely. As Brad Still- man, a representative for the Consumer Federation of America, put it, "If you look at this legislation, there is something for ab- solutely everybody -- except the consumer." Communications policy making has been largely impervious to public influence since the passage of the 1934 Federal Communica- tions Act, which ensured that private corporations would dominate American telecommunications. Supporters of the 1934 law insisted that the public interest could best be served by companies pri- marily interested in making a profit. But by relegating noncom- mercial broadcasters to the margins of the U.S. airwaves, the legislation of 1934 seriously distorted America's media and trag- ically affected the quality of our political culture. Today, however, spectacular new technologies hold the prom- ise of revitalizing communications in the United states. Perhaps the most dramatic development has been the rise of the Internet and online computer services. The Internet has permitted mass interactive communication and has given millions of users rela- tively cheap access to information at lightening speed. Undoubt- edly, much of the hype surrounding the information superhighway is just that -- hype. Nevertheless, a democratically designed communications network -- one that attempted to make a wide variety of information available to the largest number of ci- tizens -- could have an enormous and positive impact on politics, education and culture. A revitalized public debate concerning how best to establish a viable communi-cations system in the pub- lic interest is long overdue. If this is an issue unworthy of public participation, then one must wonder what the purpose of democracy is. But the debate in Congress over the future of telecommuni- cations policy has disregarded issues of democracy and fairness. Lawmakers have focused instead on gutting regulations that impede the profitability of companies seeking to develop new communica- tions technologies. And so, the current legislative process has been guided by the same assumptions that led to the disastrous Communications act of 1934: namely, that competition among cor- porations in the marketplace will provide the most efficient and democratic communications system. The tightening oligarchy of telecommunications companies that arose in the wake of the 1934 law shows how misguided that assumption was. And there is no reason to believe that a new law based on the same logic will by any more viable as a guide to opening up the digital frontier. As one former Microsoft execu- tive warned, "The information highway is too important to be left to the private companies." Our society must determine who will control the new technologies and for what purpose. Of course, in determining this question, we also dictate who will not control this technology and what purposes will not be privileged. Con- sider the history of the Communications Act of 1934 -- a case study in how the public interest can be sacrificed in badly managed debates over cynically conceived communications law.
The current communications revolution closely parallels that of the 1920's, when the emergence of radio broadcasting forced so- ciety to address the same political questions. Radio broadcast- ing was then radically new, and there was great confusion throughout the '20's concerning who should control this powerful new technology and for what purposes. Much of the impetus for radio broadcasting came first from early ham operators and then from non-profit and noncommercial groups that immediately grasped the public service potential of the new technology. It was only in the late '20s that capitalists began to sense that, by selling advertising and building national chains of stations, commercial radio could generate substantial profits. The capitalists moved quickly, however. In the wake of a 1926 Supreme Court ruling that revoked all broadcast licenses, Congress hastily drafted a bill creating a new regulatory authority known as the Federal Radio commission (the predecessor of today's Federal Radio commission). Through their immense power in Washington, D.C., the commercial broadcas- ters were able to dominate the federal Radio commission so that the scarce number of channels were turned over to them with no public and little Congressional deliberation. As the commercial networks began growing rapidly in the late '20s, a diverse broadcast reform movement attempted to establish a dominant role for the nonprofit and noncommercial sector in U.S. broadcasting. These opponents of commercialism -- including religious groups, labor unions, educational organizations and women's groups -- appealed to the public by tapping into the widespread disgust with the early advertisements on radio. "If (advertisers) are allowed to continue for another ten years," writer Upton Sinclair warned in 1931, "we shall have the most de- based and vulgarized people in the world." The reformers main- tained that if private interests controlled the medium, no amount of regulation or self-regulation could overcome the profit bias built into the system. commercial broadcasting, the reformers argued, would downplay controversial and provocative public af- fairs programming and emphasize whatever fare would sell the most products for advertisers. They looked to Canada and Britain for workable models of public-service broadcasting. But the reform movement disintegrated after the passage of the Communications Act of 1934, which established the FCC and remains the reigning statute for telecommunications in the United States. The radio lobby -- with a sophisticated public relations campaign and support from other news media -- won because it was able to keep most Americans ignorant or confused about communica- tions policy. In addition commercial broadcasters became a force that few politicians wished to antagonize; almost all of the congressional leaders who pushed for broadcast reform in 1931-32 were defeated in the 1932 elections, a lesson not lost on those who replaced them. With the defeat of the reformers, the indus- try argument that commercial broadcasting was inherently demo- cratic and American went unchallenged. In the case of television, congress and the FCC determined in the 1934 law and in later decisions that a few enormous cor- porations would control the medium for the purpose of maximizing profits. This decision put the development of television on a path far different from that followed in many European countries, where noncommercial broadcasters have been able to pursue in- terests beyond profit. the effects of this choice have been ruinous for public debate in America. Today, the idea that private, for-profit broadcasting is synonymous with democracy in an unexamined tenet of our political culture. Since 1934, the only politically acceptable criticism of U.S. broadcasting -- and more broadly, American telecommunica- tions -- has been to assert that it is uncompetitive and there- fore needs more aggressive regulation. Liberals have argued that a scarce number of channels mandate aggressive regulation -- not that capitalist basis of the industry is fundamentally flawed. This is a far cry from the criticism of the broadcast reformers of the 1930s. Now, with the current communications revolution vastly ex- panding the number of channels, the scarcity argument has lost its power. Liberals thus find themselves unable to challenge the deregulatory juggernaut. Contemporary public-service advocates would be wise to study the 1930's reformers to find a critique of commercial communication based not on the lack of competition, but on the very workings of the market, regardless of the amount of competition or the number of channels that technology may pro- vide. This is the only type of public-service criticism that can hold any water in the digital era. Because our society takes it for granted that private cor- porations rightfully dominate American communication, there has been little discussion questioning whether the information high- way should be turned over to for-profit companies. Consequently, the mainstream press -- accepting the primacy of corporate con- trol and the profit motive -- considers only which firms will dominate the communi-cations revolution, and which firms will fall by the wayside. The current range of legitimate debate is distressingly nar- row. It starts with the Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Larry Pressler, author of the Senate's deregulatory bill, who argues that profits are synonymous with public service. And it extends to Vice-President Al Gore, the proponent of 1993's tougher cable TV regulations, who accepts that there are some public interest con-cerns the marketplace cannot resolve, but insists that those con- cerns can be addressed only after the profitability of the dominant corporate sector has been assured. The Gore position can be dressed up to sound high and mighty, but the historical record is clear. If the needs of corporations are given primacy, the public interest will invariably be pushed to the margins. Politicians may favor one sector over another in the battle to cash in on the information superhighway, but they cannot op- pose the cashing-in process, except at the risk of their politi- cal careers. In the 1993-94 election cycle, political action committees linked to the telecommunications industry gave almost $7 million to politicians from both parties, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. The only grounds for political courage in this case would be if there were an in- formed and mobilized citizenry ready to do battle for alternative policies. Or course, citizens get their information from the corporate news media, which stands to benefit from the pending legislation. That is why telecommunications reform has been covered as a business story, not as a public policy story, and that is why the critical congressional hearings have passed vir- tually without public notice. In short, this is a debate res- tricted to those with serious financial stakes in the outcome. In place of this non-debate, we need to challenge the entire theory of market-ruled communications. Free enterprise advocates argue that the market provides the only truly democratic poli- cymaking mechanism because it rewards capitalists who "give the people what they want" and penalizes those who do not. But the market is not predicated upon the idea of one-person, one vote as in democratic theory, but rather it is predicated upon the role of one-dollar, one vote. The prosperous have many votes and the poor have none. And the market does not "give the people what they want" as much as it "gives the people what they want within the range of what is most profitable to produce." This is often a far narrower range than what people might enjoy choosing from. Thus, when Congress drafted broadcast legislation in the '30's, many Americans may have been willing to pay for an advertising-free system, but this choice was not profitable for the dominant commercial interests, so it was not offered on the marketplace. Is the current legislative situation therefore hopeless? Unfortunately, the immediate answer is an unequivocal yes Some public-interest advocates have made thoughtful arguments for non-commercial interests to prevail on the communications high- way. After all, it seems downright irrational to turn over con- trol of the society's central nervous system to a handful of transnational corporations guided strictly by profit. But this argument is now more marginal than ever. At the same time, the sheer magnitude of the possibilities brought on by the new technologies will allow nonprofit niches to survive and perhaps even prosper in the regime of corporate domi- nation. As long as the communications corporations continue to battle for control over the new markets, nonprofits may be able to exploit opportunities that will not exist once the industry has stabilized. In the late '20's and early '30's, for example -- before the radio networks had consolidate legal control over the airwaves -- civic groups were able to establish quite a bit of educational programming on the commercial stations. The net- works, sensitive to charges that they cared only for profit, hoped to convince lawmakers of their benevolence by giving away airtime. Of course, soon after the 1934 law was passed, the com- mercial stations slashed their educational programming. Perhaps today, as a TCI or Bell Atlantic attempts to convince America of its good intentions, some noncommercial group may be given free access to the information superhighway. Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that today's nonprofits will fare just as poorly as yesterday's educators once the digital frontier has been tamed. In some ways, the emergence of the new technologies could not have come at a more inopportune moment. In the 1930's an im- pressive array of civic organizations was willing to argue that it was inappropriate for communications media to be directed by the profit motive -- back then even blue-blood Republicans ques- tioned whether for-profit firms should dominate communications. Today, few Democrats would question the natural right of the private sector to dominate the information superhighway. We live in an era in which the very notion of public service has become discredited unless as a function of noblesse oblige. It thus should be no surprise that the private sector, with its immense resources, has seized the initiative and is commercializing cy- berspace at a spectacular rate -- effectively transforming it into a giant shopping mall. The contours of the emerging communications battle are still unclear, but most business observers expect a flurry of competi- tion followed by the establishment of a stable oligopoly dominat- ed by a handful of enormous firms. What is clear is that the communications highway will not be devoted to reducing inequality or misery in our society. In fact, without any policies to coun- teract the market, the new technologies will probably create a world of information haves and have-nots, thereby exacerbating our society's already considerable social and economic inequali- ty. Nowhere is the absurdity of a profit-driven society more clear than in the case of communications, where technologies with the capacity to liberate are being constrained by the need to generate profit for corporate masters. In this sense, the battle to create a nonprofit and noncommercial communications system will be -- and must be -- part and parcel of progressive efforts to create a more just society.
Robert W. McChesney teaches journalism at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His book "Telecommunications, Mass Media and Democracy: The battle for the Control of U.S. Broadcast- ing, 1928-1935," (Oxford, 1993) is now available in paperback.
Reprinted with permission. In These Times, July 10, 1995. SEE INFOBOX for ITT subscription information.
*
Loyola conference held: "Building Community Through Radio"
By Craig Kois, Loyola University-Chicago
The 25th Anniversary Loyola Radio Conference, titled "Building Community Through Radio", took place in mid November at Loyola University - Chicago. This year's conference balanced its usual focus on commercial broadcasting with an increased emphasis on community building through non-commercial forms of radio. The conference brought together high school and college broadcasters, as well as representatives from commercial, public and community radio stations and community activists. Radio's role was critiqued by three main speakers - Stephen Dunifer of Free Radio Berkeley, Alexander Cockburn of "The Na- tion", and Lynn Chadwick, President of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters. Dunifer participated as a speaker and panelist as well as conducting a hands-on workshop during which he assembled one of his low power transmitters and broadcast with it to the Loyola campus. He later set up the transmitter in the lobby area of the conference for additional "unsanctioned" broad- casts. He reported that shortly after the conference he was heading to Haiti and then to Chiapis to make his technology available to indigenous groups there. A particular highlight of the conference was the live per- formance of John Cage's "Imaginary Landscape #4" which featured twelve antique radios and 24 performers. This and a performance of Mauricio Kagel's "Rrrrr" were presented by Chicago's Experi- mental Sound Studios, a community-based, artist-cooperative audio production facility. A panel comprised of Dunifer, Lynn Chadwick and Loyola Law Professor Allan Shoenberger addressed the proposed Telecommunica- tion Act currently before Congress. All three agreed that there was little likelihood of its passage during the current session and that the media coverage of the act has been less than minimal. They all urged action by those concerned about the im- plications of the legislation. Two hands-on Internet sessions, one on funding resources and the other on Internet sources related to alternative media, were very well received. And in fact the Internet proved a useful tool for getting word out about the conference and making connec- tions with interested groups, including this publication. We plan much greater utilization of it in planning next year's conference. A day long rain on Friday and an overnight snow storm on Sa- turday morning prevented some of the panelists from getting to the conference. Those who did make it on Saturday seemed particu- larly happy with a panel which brought together a number of in- dependent labels and college radio people who spent the session exchanging information. And in fact most of the panels tended to be very interactive where brief presentations by the panelists were followed by much longer dialogues involving all present. Other panels dealt with: arts, news, talk, music, religious and sports programming; first amendment; programming syndication; political economy; issues of representation and diversity in the media; and micro and community radio. Some of the panelists: Frieda Werden of Austin's Women's International News Gathering Service; Darlene Gramigna of the Peace and Justice Radio Project of the American Friends Service Committee; Wayne Heimbach of La- bor Access; journalist and community activist Stan West; Nation- al Jesuit Conference Communications Director Tom Rochford; and local radio personalities Jay Marvin, Terri Hemmert, Aaron Free- man and Chris Heim. In a number of cases this conference was the first opportunity for some of these people to meet and interact at length. A number of the panels and presentations, including Dunifer's pirate broadcast, were videotaped for airing on Chicago Cable in January.
This was our first experience of planning this conference, and we learned much in the process which will be useful in plan- ning the 1996 edition. If you have ideas for panels, partici- pants, topics or any feedback please forward them to me at Loyola Radio Conference, Communication Department, Lake Shore Campus, Loyola University-Chicago, 6525 N. Sheridan Road, Chicago, Illinois, 60626, or by e-mail ckois@wpo.it.luc.edu.
*
PUBLICATION NOTES: -------- Publication Notes--------
LISTEN OR DIE! A History of Radio Death. By Geert Lovink. 1995 (Excerpted in this issue)
The history or Amsterdam's Radio Dood (Radio Death) is a fas- cinating glimpse into the not so distant past when the Euro-Punk ethic spawned an innovative and hard-core alternative to what the Dutch airwaves offered. Through interviews with the principals of Radio Dood, Lovink provides a glimpse into a world of seat of the pants radio with an attitude. Throughout its short and chaotic life the station had a vision -- rouse the slumbering city and call the young and disenfranchised to action. As with many such endeavors the station was largely driven by the personality of one person -- Wolf. And in the end his strong vision, his attitude, and the demands he brought to bear upon those involved with the station brought it down. But, this isn't a story I finished muttering, "too bad, too bad." Rather, it shows that there is a time and a place for bright light and vision to burst upon the scene, flame, and die. It doesn't matter that Radio Dood didn't last -- what matters is that for a brief time it shown. The full length version of "Listen or Die" is available from Geert Lovink. See Infobox.
"Reason", October, 1995, v27 (5) "Don't Touch that Dial: Free Radio Berkeley Takes on the FCC -- and official history. By Jesse Walker
The October issue of Reason -- a libertarian leaning publication devoted to individual rights -- carries an extensive article about Free Radio Berkeley, the growing micro move-ment and a look back at how radio may have governed itself if there had never been a Federal Radio Commission. Regarding FRB, it is interesting to note that the only offi- cial complaint filed against the station by another broadcaster comes from the "home office" of the Bay Area's KFOG -- in York , Pennsylvania! And, the letter is purely hypothetical. A good deal more interesting is Walker's look back at the 1920's and the "Breakdown of the Law" period during which President Hoover created the Federal Radio Commission. He points to work done by University of California economist Thomas Hazlett in a 1990 article called "The Rationality of U.S. Regula- tion of Broadcast Spectrum," and Robert McChesney's work to de- bunk the so-called official history of U.S. broadcasting and the myth of airwave chaos it is built upon. Definitely worth digging up at your local library.
*
RADIO BRIEFS. . .
CANADA
Slashing budgets in Ontario:
The recently elected Conservative govern-ment of Ontario is drastically cutting government funding in every sector of the provincial budget. One program strangely spared outright elimi- nation by the Torries was the Community Radio Ontario Program (CROP). Heidi Schaeffer of the CROP office says operating grants to Native and Francophone community stations are safe for now. While funding for special projects at English-language campus/community stations which was cut last summer is not likely to be reinstated, Shaffer said the CROP office will, however, have funding to do sector-building projects for English-language stations. Victoria Fenner, GM of Anglophone college/ community station CFMU in Hamilton says, "It's good to know we are still in the loop." As if anticipating the government's actions, students at McMaster University passed a $3 per student referendum in Oc- tober which will provide CFMU with $35,000 annually. One shocker contained in the budget announcement was that Ontario's NPR-style station, CJRT (mostly classical and jazz, a little dull but still a valuable non-commercial station), had all its government funding cut in one fell swoop. All $1.3 million of it gone with no warning. Adding salt to the bleeding budgetary gash, station staff found out about it at their 21st birthday party -- right in the middle of their fundraising. A large chunk of funding from the Ontario Arts Council for an independent downtown production studio and performance space has also fallen. The Friends of Hamilton-Wentworth Community Ra- dio, which spearheaded the project, says that inspite of the pro- vincial Culture Minister's attitude ("if corporate sponsorship is okay for the Blue Jays, it's okay for culture too") money will be and the studio will get built.
Info provided by Friends of Hamilton-Wentworth Community Radio
Waterloo crisis approaches resolution:
The turmoil reported at CKWR-FM in Waterloo, Ontario, in issue #12 seems to be reaching some sort of resolution but, "you know it don't come easy..." In October PeterTilkov, Board President of Canada's oldest English-language community radio station, denounced an impending membership meeting as "bogus" claiming any direction voted on by station members would not be recognized. The meeting, held on October 25, did, however, sucess-fully replace Tilkov and the standing board of directors. This complete reorganization of the board came as no surprise to either side. The situation at the station had become quite volatile since a laundry list of grievances forced programmers to "take-over" the station last Au- gust only to be confronted by police officers and an angry Tilkov (see issue 12). Prior to his ouster as board president, Tilkov was chal- lenged by station volunteers and reportedly admitted removing personally addressed mail about the meeting from member's mail boxes at the station. Kim Cowan, a force behind the challenge to Tilkov and the old board, was reinstated as a station member by the newly elected board members. Cowan had been ousted both as the board's VP and as a member of the station's volunteer staff by Tilkov months ago. Tilkov, while voted off the station's board, has been allowed to retain his membership status with CKWR. After some stonewalling, the outgoing board relinquished control of the station to the new board members and transitional meetings have been arranged. One of the first points of business will be to revisit the station's bylaws in order to prevent further crisis at the station. Newly elected board member Scott Jensen says that the board is preparing for a lot of hard work in the coming months, both to restore the volunteers' confidence in the board and heal wounds, and to restore a responsive and func- tional management structure.
Info. from the NCRA list serv (ncra-info@ ccn.cs.dal.ca) and other sources
* - - - - - -
U.S.
Free Radio Berkeley case drags on:
The battle with the FCC continues. Rather shortly the FCC will be submitting a motion for summary judgement on the request for a permanent injunction. This is due by the 2nd of December, then we have to respond by the 22nd of December and the FCC responds back by the 15th of January. Then we will back in court for a hearing on the motion for summary judgement. It is unlikely Federal Judge Claudia Wilken will grant this motion, she seems inclined toward giving us the opportunity for a trial on the merits and facts at issue in this case. The FCC is claiming that the District Court cannot rule on the consti- tutionality of its regulations and will most likely appeal her ruling if she does not grant their motion for summary judgement. This will add even more delay since, if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals does not reject it on its face, a case takes at least a year before it is heard by the 9th. If they reject it outright and send it back to the District Court it means that we most likely will not go to trial until the end of next year. Anyway, it continues. It is pretty clear that last thing the FCC wants is a trial before Claudia Wilken.
Stephen Dunifer, FRB (See Infobox)
* - - - - - -
Pacifica Radio investigated:
The October 9 issue of Current reports in an article entitled, "Gloves Off In Angry Dispute Between Pacifica and Critics", on the continuing head-butting between KPFA and the group FreeKPFA. The article noted that FreeKPFA called an October 4 press confer- ence in which the members charged Pacifica with violating CPB re- gulations requiring business matters to be discussed in open ses- sions. The Foundation Board had recently met in Houston. where 5 critics were ejected after former KPFA programmer Jeffrey Blank- fort tried to tape-record the session. According to the article, Terry Francke, of the California First Amendment Coalition, said in a letter to Pacifica that, "Any organization that depends on support of the 'enlightened and politically aware' should not risk being perceived as just anoth- er corporate entity (that is) as reflexively jealous of its in- formation control as any industrial enterprise." While Pacifica board members have said that the meeting was an Executive Session concerned with salary and personnel issues, this was not apparent from the meeting agenda. Blankenfort later reported to readers of the FreeKPFA list- serv that he and the reporter who wrote the October 4th article had been contacted by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) regarding an apparent investigation into violation of the CPB's open meetings requirement. When he told the CPB representative that FreeKPFA members were undecided about whether or not they intended to pursue the issue any further, he was told that "the cat is out of the bag," and that the CPB was obliged to make an inquiry in situations where tax payers' money is in- volved. The whole debate over the direction of Pacifica and its sta- tions continues to receive a good deal of media attention as well as generating ongoing discussion in various progressive and radio related internet discussion groups.
* - - - - - - -
Radio- NATION, Radio from the Left:
The Nation magazine is proud to announce the November 17 launch of "RadioNation", a weekly syndicated public radio show. Pro- duced in the studios of Pacifica's KPFK-FM in Los Angeles, where it has been airing since March '95, the program features on-air the provocative, iconoclastic voices found in our pages. Hosted by the magazine's contributing editor Marc Cooper, "RadioNation" broadcasts interviews and commentaries by Nation columnists, writers and editors. We hope the mix of lengthy, in-depth seg- ments with brief editorials will serve as a useful counterpoint to the corporate news and chatter --from Rush Limbaugh to Bob Grant-- found elsewhere on your dial. "RadioNation" is avail- able free on audiotape to stations interested in airing the pro- gram and, as of January 5, it will be available via the public radio satellite.
For information, please write to: RadioNation c/o the Nation, 72 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011.
* - - - - - - -
Elsewhere
Colombia:
This past September, the Colombian Ministry of Communications in- vited organizations to participate in the granting of some 1,000 new community radio licenses. This latest move is a product of the Colombian law on community broadcasting, issued in August of 1994, and a response to the country's growing community radio movement which began over 10 years ago. The new stations will broadcast on the FM band with up to 250 watts of power. They will be allowed to be on-air as many as 24 hours a day and broadcast up to 15 minutes of com-mercial ad- vertising per hour. Community radio frequencies must be operated by non-profit groups. Concessions will be granted for ten years, renewable for the same amount of time. The allocation of frequencies is free; whereas the only charge will be that requited by law for use of the frequency. This development represents an important achievement for both the Colombian community radio movement and the country's communi- cation policy.
Maria Victoria Polanco InteRadio, v.7 n.2 1995 (See InfoBox)
Hungary:
Hello, here is the News from Budapest. As the term began in the city's universi-ties, four new micro stations started to broadcast on the FM band. These are the first, legal micro-stations in Budapest: TILOS RADIO (98.00FM) which was originally a pirate station has been broad-casting legally every day since September first. Unfortunately, they have no English programs at this time. They broad-cast folk music (eastern European folk, Arab music etc.), much "acid", and a little alternative talk. TILOS calls its pro- gramming "multicultural", programming for minorities (from skin-heads to Gypsies). There is also FIKSZ RADIO broad-casting since October 9th from the Budapest Institute of Technology (Budapesti Muszaki Egyetem) and CIVIL RADIO the radio station of the people broad- casting their opinions etc. has also come on the air. Finally, there is a very micro-station, broad-casting from a secondary school, but I can't receive it. Since September RADIO M (at 100.3 FM), the city's radio sta- tion broadcasts the news of the "most popular Hungarian newspaper (as its ads claim!) Nepaszabadsag (People's Freedom), and music. Anyone interested in a tape of TILOS (or any of the other sta- tions) can contact me. I'll provide them with pleasure - but all is in Hungarian.
Henrik Hargitai E-mail: hiik@ludens.elte.hu TILOS Radio can be contacted directly by E-mail: tilos@freeside.elte.hu or regular post at: H-1922, P.O.BOX 150, Budapest , Hungary. - - -
* - - - -
MISC.
JAM-FM:
JAM FM has been up and running in central New York for eight weeks as of Nov. 1st. The response has been very favorable in a city that has no community or free form radio outlets. JAM has broadcast several hundred hours thus far with specials devoted to exposing the agendas of the Christain Right, an interview with a performer from Sarajevo touring with Bread and Puppet, the pro- ducer of Latino fusion in L.A. and an interview with King Missile (dog fly religion). JAM FM can be heard week-nights after 7 and frequently all day on weekends and holidays.
Contact JAM FM@aol.com
* - -
Breaking...:
On December 13, 1995, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation an- nounced that as of March 31, 1996, it will suspend operations of its shortwave service, Radio Canada International. The CBC was directed to take over funding of the 24 hour service, which has been on the air since 1945, in February of 1995. Prior to this the shortwave service had been a "distinct component" of the CBC and was funded by annual grants from the Canadian federal govern- ment. A press release from the recently organized Coalition to Save RCI indicates that the CBC and co-funder (the Canadian Foreign Affairs Ministry) claim, "they are no longer interested in financing RCI even though it costs each Canadian less than $0.75CAN per year." Like the overseas broadcast services of all of the indus- trialized nations, a significant portion of the services mandate has been to provide a voice for Canada throughout the world. However, since AM and FM reception vanishes once listeners are more than a few hundred kilometers from the heavily populated southern portion of the vast country, . many rural Canadians have come to depend on the SW broadcasts to keep them connected to the rest of their own nation. RCI boasts 10 million listeners only half of whom are hear- ing its broadcasts over-seas. Broadcasting in eight languages and spending a fraction of the money spent by the U.S., Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, France and other countries, the Cana- dian shortwave service has been one of the world's most respected broadcast entities.
For additional information contact the newly formed Coalition to Save Radio Canada International by e-mail at: rci@cam.org or by telephone at 514-495-9030. The Canadian federal government will have to approve the closure before March 31.
*
INFOBOX INFOBOX INFOBOX
IN THESE TIMES. $36.95 26times a year 2040 N. Milwaukee Ave., Chicago, IL 60647 1-800-827-0270 E-mail itt@igc.apc.org
Free Radio Berkeley: the leader of the micro rdio movement. 1442 A Walnut St., #406, Berkeley, CA 94709 E-mail frbspd@crl.com
"Listen or Die: A history of radio Death," by Geert Lovink Full lenght article available by e-mail: geert@xs4all,nl
InteRadio, Newsletter of the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters. 3575 St. Laurent, #704, Montreal, Quebec H2X 2T7 CANADA E-mail amarcho@web.apc.org
Excellent Radio 1101 Grand Ave., Grover Beach, CA 93433, USA Phone 805-481-7577 E-Mail exlntctr@aol.com
TILOS Radio, Hungary H-1922, P.O. Box 150, Budapest, Hungary E-mail: tilos@freeside.elte.hu
Radio Resistor's Bulletin PO Box 3038, Bellingham, WA, 98227-3038 E-mail: haulgren@well.com WWW http://www.rootsworld.com/rw/feature/rrb.html
Please help sustain the Bulletin. Articles, information, art- work and monetary support are needed. Printing, postage, and on-line time for each issue totals more than $200.00. Frank Haulgren, Editor - - - - - - - - -
Radio Resistor's Bulletin Issue #13, Winter 1996 Frank Haulgren, Editor
E-mail haulgren@well.com
The Bulletin is available by e-mail, from our WWW site, and in a paper edition. $5.00 annual sustaining contribution requested.
Back issues 5-12 are available electronically from the WWW site or the editor. Paper back issues are avaiable for $2.00 each from RRB, POB 3038, Bellingham, WA 98227-3038
Copyright 1996 ```
| | | --- | | ProcessTree Network TM For-pay Internet distributed processing. | | Advertising helps support hosting Red Rock Eater Digest @ The Commons. Advertisers are not associated with the list owner. If you have any comments about the advertising, please direct them to the Webmaster @ The Commons. |