THE GAG RULE - Doesn't somebody have to tell them?
 by Matthew Lasar

 

Dear Friends:

Over the last few days I've been getting calls from reporters over the firing of Dan Coughlin at the Pacifica Network News as a result of his airing a brief story about the recent one-day affiliate boycott of Pacifica. People want to know the history of this gag rule problem. Since it is the task of American journalism to quote people out of context, I'm a bit nervous about what's going to be dispersed over the next few days. This message explains what I think about the gag rule at Pacifica, and my sense of its potential implementation or non-implementation in the future.

I. Who Am I to Talk?

First of all, it should be noted that I am a frequent violator of the gag rule at Pacifica. Indeed, I still have fond recollections about violating the gag rule along with Pacifica Executive Director Lynn Chadwick on the April 16th, 1999 edition of *Democracy Now*. I asked her a question about whether she was going to hold negotiations with KPFA's staff, and she answered the query in detail. It was probably the first time in Pacifica history that the gag rule was broken on a national level.

Certain that my place in hell was now assured, I proceeded to disobey the gag rule with great gusto on KPFA's *Flashpoints*, the *Morning Show*, and during KPFA's coverage of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee hearings in Oakland, at which I was interviewed by the news department and testified before various politicians at the hearing. I have vague recollections of breaking the gag rule elsewhere, but frankly it's all starting to blur.

Since I've sinned so egregiously in this fashion so many times, it seems a bit late in the day for me to don my scholar hat and try to provide some perspective on the gag rule. But consistency hasn't restrained my actions thus far, and so I see no reason to be burdened by it at present.

II. Half a century of gagging . . . .

Basically, here's the dope about the gag rule. Most of the time in Pacifica history there has been a consensus that on-air discussion about the network's business should be restricted to short, controlled periods, usually known as "manager's reports," which frequently included guests. I got to be on one of these programs with Nicole Sawaya just before she got tanked by Lynn. I found it amusing that our Dr. Berry in one of her famous post-Sawaya/Bensky firing press conferences announced that this practice would be the policy from now on. She talked like she'd invented it or something.

More often than not, most Pacificans, whether they have been programmers, listeners, or managers, have agreed that endless discussion about internal stuff has detracted from Pacifica radio's main task: encouraging dialogue about the great questions of war and peace in a context of pleasurable sharing of culture. There has been a general sense that dirty-laundry talk, like eating tortilla chips, is somewhat addictive, and it's best not to mess with it at all (especially if the salsa is good). There has also been apprehension about letting programmers gripe about this or that relatively trivial matter, as did Alan Watts when he told his listeners to write KPFA's management urging them to buy him a new tape recorder. These sort of icky on-air practices ought to be avoided, at least many have thought so in the past, with good sense, I think.

Debate over this matter played itself out during the most famous controversy over the gag rule in Pacifica's early years: the firing of KPFK manager Paul Dallas in the late 1960s. Dallas had gotten into a highly publicized fight with two entrepreneurs over who would control the KPFK Renaissance Pleasure Faire. When the Faire fell apart in 1967, he allowed considerable on air talk about the debacle over KPFK's airwaves. Multi-hour panel discussions about the Renaissance that wasn't wafted throughout the greater Los Angeles area. Finally Lloyd Smith, who briefly served as President of Pacifica, sent a telex to North Hollywood telling everybody to shut up about the controversy. Dallas, who now was suffering from pneumonia, decided to treat his listeners to one more lengthy summation of the brouhaha. At the recommendation of the Local Advisory Board (LAB), he was fired (nota bene: the LAB was very closely dealt into the process. Hello? Lynn?).

As I recall from my research, this was not received well by some KPFKers, who organized something called "Friends of First Amendment-KPFK" and held demonstrations on Dallas' behalf. A great photograph of disgruntled KPFK folk holding picket signs can be seen in Dallas' hysterically funny vanity-press book *Dallas in Wonderland*, an accounting of his experiences with Pacifica. They look like a bunch of hung-over Beatles fans. Dallas never came back.

On June 22, 1974 the Pacifica National Board had a discussion about the gag rule. Here is what they said, according to page 6 of the minutes of that meeting:

"Bad-Mouthing on the Air: At KPFK it is tantamount to dismissal to go on the air and bad-mouth the station or personnel. Free speech does not mean you surrender your judgment about what is good radio. WBAI also has a firm policy about air attacks--the offender is subject to dismissal. But there are subtle ways to do it and it is sometimes difficult to enforce an absolute ban against attacks."

This is all I've ever been able to find in Pacifica's minutes (up to 1991) about the gag rule. Maybe I missed something. This quoted statement doesn't mention any national board resolution about the policy, just a review of how people were approaching the problem at the time. Please also note that this extract makes no mention of how the network's news departments ought to approach the matter of newsworthy Pacifica doings.

III. On the other hand . . .

Just because Pacifica has at various points had a gag rule doesn't mean that it has always stuck with it. From time to time the network has abandoned efforts to restrain on-air discussion about internal issues, and instead has let the feelings fly. Some examples:

1. In 1954 four enthusiastic pot smokers lit up and taped a KPFA panel discussion about the virtues of the drug. The cops seized the program after it had been aired. 21 members of the Local Advisory Board resigned in protest of the show (they felt it was one sided; being one-sided was once bad at Pacifica). Debate over the appropriateness of the program raged over KPFA's airwaves. Station manager Wallace Hamilton, Alan Watts, Anthony Boucher, Roy Kepler and others all put in their live two cents.

2. From 1963 to 1964 on-air debate at KPFA over how to deal with the government was common. Lewis Hill's old pacifist comrade Denny Wilcher and station manager Trevor Thomas debated whether Pacifica should respond to subpoenas from the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. I found this debate in the Pacifica archives. Elsa Knight Thompson let callers offer their live comments on the question. After a 1964 staff strike, provoked in part by the firing of Elsa Knight Thompson, various programmers read on-air statements about why they had or had not supported the staff walkout.

3. In addition, during this time KPFA's celebrated movie critic Pauline Kael offered a series of very provocative on-air criticisms of Pacifica. Trevor Thomas responded by reading over the airwaves the letters of subscribers who wished to respond to her statements. He had his own thoughts as well.

4. During the community radio strikes of the 1970s, live debate about the future of Pacifica over its stations was common. Mention of some of this exchange at WBAI is included in Jeff Land's excellent book *Active Radio*: Pacifica's Brash Experiment*, which I strongly recommend to all interested parties. As a WBAI listener, I remember some pretty heated live discussions in the 1970s. In truth, sometimes these exchanges got much too personal. I'm sure that some gag rule enthusiasts have such nastiness in mind when they adhere to their position.

IV: But why?

Why did Pacifica abandon the gag rule at these particular moments? Here is my sense of the two most common causes.

1. The network's leaders were weak. Intentionally or not, they had failed to do an adequate job of dealing in key supporting constituencies. They took precipitous actions without making sure that they had support in appropriate quarters. Now all hell broke loose. The matter would have to be processed over the air. The listeners knew that something really important was happening to the institution supported by their money. They wanted to hear about the problem. The organization's leadership usually grasped that attempting to suppress this discussion would only make matters worse.

To cite just one example, In the 1954 crisis, a whole new crowd had, at Lewis Hill's invitation, started working at KPFA. They had very different ideas about the station than did Hill, and felt that he didn't deal them effectively into the process. After a series of provocative bureaucratic blunders, Hill found himself out of a job at KPFA. The on-air discussion about the pot program took place while Hill and his supporters were fighting their way back into power. Only when most everybody had said what they had to say did Hill issue a general memorandum closing the doors on further exchange.

The community radio struggles of the 1970s played out in a similar fashion, as I'm sure some people reading this statement already know.

2. Pacifica's understanding of its mission was about to shift due to internal or external pressures. Nobody really knew exactly where the organization was going, and it was appropriate to deal as many parties into the process as possible. Airing all viewpoints about the dilemma--practical, political and philosophical--was obviously the most efficient and effective way of moving along to the next paradigm with the support of most people. The controversy over the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee is the most obvious example. The network was clearly at a turning point.

Anyone who does not know by now that Pacifica is presently at a turning point is on sedatives.

V: Life without the gag rule

At this juncture it makes sense for Pacifica to stop enforcing the gag rule for the foreseeable future. Nobody really takes it seriously, including its supporters. The other day Karoline Van Putten violated it on *Flashpoints* by making statements about her positions on various matters, all the while explaining why she supports the gag rule. KPFK manager Mark Shubb cheerfully broke it in a KPFA morning show debate with Robin Urevich, whom he had suspended from KPFK's newsroom. At the conclusion he thanked KPFA for allowing him to air his views. Perhaps these individuals subscribe to what I call the class privilege gag rule subclause: when managers or board members disclose dirty laundry on-air it is acceptable but when workers do the same it is grounds for firing. For the rest of us, the distinction is no longer credible.

Leaders cannot make rules for others if they do not honor their own. Here is a rule Pacifica ignored on March 31st, 1999, when it terminated the employment of KPFA station manager Nicole Sawaya. I quote from the minutes of the Pacifica National Board.

"MOTION: That the language contained in Section 10 - Firing of General Managers be approved as amended. Part C to read: Prior to the end of contract term, the Manager shall undergo a formal review by the station board and the Executive Director. Following such a review, the Executive Committee may vote not to renew the contract of the Manager. A vote by the Executive Committee not to renew or extend the contract shall terminate the employment contract. M/S/P Unanimous." (Pacifica National Board of Directors, Minutes, October 6-7, 1990, p. 24, from the Personnel Committee)

What formal review did Sawaya receive from KPFA's local advisory board? None, according to its principals. Pacifica board members have secretly plotted to sell stations, used armed guards to shut KPFA down without giving any credible explanation for why, and have spent a fortune on the debacle. Having delegitimized themselves in the eyes of thousands of Pacifica station subscribers, supporters and staff, our leaders cannot seriously expect any respect for their authority. This is the first requisite for effectively enforcing the gag rule, and it doesn't exist. Not surprisingly, firing Dan Coughlin for his 20 second reader has met with angry resistance from Pacifica national's key on-air staff: Goodman, Gonzalez and Verna Avery Brown. Even supporters of the firing cannot candidly or cogently explain why they don't want Coughlin back. I quote from an e-mail statement I received today, authored by four reporters.

"WE (80% OF THE STAFF AT PACIFICA NETWORK NEWS) HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS OVER THE EFFORT TO REINSTATE DAN COUGHLIN AS PRODUCER OF PNN. ALTHOUGH OUR REASONS ARE DIVERSE, THEY GO FAR BEYOND THE CONFLICT TAKING PLACE AT PACIFICA STATION KPFA IN BERKELEY. INTERFERENCE IN OUR INTERNAL AFFAIRS IS NOT WELCOME"

Perhaps I'm reading this statement incorrectly. Otherwise it appears that these individuals see Coughlin's firing on the basis of his airing of that story as an opportune excuse for dumping him for other "diverse" reasons. Furthermore, what is the operating definition of "interference" here? Apparently it doesn't obtain when Chadwick fires someone for airing a story she doesn't like, but kicks in when his friends, themselves Pacifica employees, try to get him his job back. The leaders and principals of this network are making fools of themselves in a vain attempt to enforce the gag rule or profit by it. Isn't it time that they stopped?

VI: Gag rule versus free speech

Many opponents of the gag rule refer to the "free speech" right of Pacificans to say what they want on Pacifica radio. Supporters of the rule cite the fact that racist speech is not allowed on Pacifica, hence other forms of expression may be legitimately modified as well. I prefer to see this problem not in terms of rights but in terms of mutual obligations.

We call-in listeners, guest commentators and regular staff have an obligation to this precious network. We are obliged to use our air-time to address the important questions facing the world and to fill the ether with "the best that has been said and known," as Matthew Arnold wrote over a century ago. We are supposed to be interesting, helpful, and fun. We do not have the right to engage in endless navel gazing and hashing and rehashing over internal matters. We just aren't as important as the issues on which we report.

But our leaders have obligations as well. They have the obligation to be forthright and candid about their plans, to say and do things that make sense, to remain formally as well as informally accountable to the people who make this network possible, especially the listeners. They are obliged to act like leaders, that is, to show the way and convince others to follow them. That is what real leaders do. They outline the vision and, equally important, they set the example.

If they don't do that, if instead they use fiat and secrecy as their preferred method of governance, we have another obligation. We become obliged to tell the listeners who pay for this network what is really going on, that stations may be sold, that beloved people may be fired, that the future may be very different from the present.

Doesn't somebody have to tell them? In the end, the gag rule only becomes an issue when it is the only rule Pacifica is willing to honor or enforce.

With great affection for you all (and that includes you).

Matthew Lasar

*.*

Matthew Lasar
171 Andover Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415-641-1152 lasarm@ncal.verio.com
415-826-6964

" . . . the music from all the radios whether bolero of Mexican or Italian tenor of spaghetti eaters or loud suddenly turned-up KPFA symphonies of Vivaldi harpsichord intellectuals performances boom blam the tremendous sound of it which I then came to hear all the summer wrapt in the arms of my love . . . "

--Jack Kerouac, *The Subterraneans* (1958)

Return to NB4KPFA FOLIO Home Page