LETTERS TO THE FOLIO

 

Luddites without Computers

Thanks for getting the Folio back to life. Hard copy is particularly important to Entrenched Luddites like new listeners and myself who whould include those who can’t afford computers.

Sincerely, Marcia Rautenstrauch, Oakland

_____________________________________

No Participation Problem with KPFA's Help

The degree of participation in elections in a non-coercive atmosphere depends on the participants having both a choice and the belief that the outcome will have some significance in their lives or to their interests which, in our "one-party, two-wing" system, they obviously do not. Should KPFA make a major ON-AIR effort to get listeners to vote and give adequate time to the elections and to the candidates, such as ON-AIR forums, etc., I believe there will be no problem in achieving a 40% return. I have capitalized ON AIR for the obvious reason: that is where the listeners will tune in to find out what's happening and to know, beyond a simple mailing, that the station thinks the election is important.

Jeff Blankfort, San Francisco

_____________________________________

Arbitron Alternatives

I was in a meeting after last year's election where David Binder, a progressive pollster, mentioned something that bears on what we are trying to do with KPFA. He mentioned a rating system called "the reliability rating" of various news organs. For example, the "reliability rating" of the Chronicle and Examiner was around 7-9%, while the Guardian was rated at about 40%. The "Reliability Rating" tries to determine the influence that a paper's political endorsement has on the voting decisions of its readers.

Because it tries to measure influence on political actions of readers, it may provide us with clues to measure the influence Pacifica could have on listeners.

Maybe somebody who is working on alternatives to Arbitrons would be interested in researching this tool of the pollsters. I can provide contact information if somebody wants to follow up.

Neil MacLean, San Francisco, neil@warmcove.com; 415 641-6299

_____________________________________

LAB Election Input

Thanks to David Green, Les and everyone who has worked so hard to hammer out a proposal over the past many months. I sat on the sidelines, despite David's urging that I participate in the process. Thus, I have also reserved any comments about elections for the LAB and the National Board until now, but I'd like my 2 cents heard at this 11th hour.

The details of proportional representation are not my concern. As Tomas Moran and others said, let it fly. We can fine tune later. But Larry's concern, and that of some listeners who called, about the 10% versus 2% listener vote requirement for a valid election is very important. Larry mis-phrased his question to Tomas: "Do you believe that 10% is a valid election?" Yes, responded Tomas. But the problem, and more important question behind Larry's skepticism is this: "Do you consider 10% (let alone 2%) a credible election in the current national struggle environment we are engaged in?" And the answer has to be "no".

The LAB may decide to set 10% as the minimum, and we can try to spin it as success if we get 11%. That may happen. But, given the effort of the Berry crowd to isolate KPFA and make it look like a dying left enclave, anything less than 30-40% in such an election will be successfully used in the national media (e.g. The Nation, etc.) against us. Moreover, the comments of Andrea Buffa are administrative, managerial comments, not consistent with our broader concepts of democracy. We harshly ridicule the existing 2 party system for its failure to consistently get more than 10-20% of the electorate out to vote. We have myriad explanations about how they demoralize and otherwise limit participation. We can not operate on a double standard. We claim the LAB election is important. We have to produce. Otherwise, I prefer to keep the process the way it is. If the vote were to be for a 2% minimum, I will oppose the election. At 10% I won't, but I will be worried. As Jeff Langford just wrote me, 40% can be achieved so long as the staff puts its full support into the effort on the air. Any big effort at KPFA must have full staff support and participation.

Let us not forget, folks, that 10,000 people marched in Berkeley last July. That is 40% of the sponsors. Even if half were not paid sponsors it is far more than 10%. If we can not get people with that degree of commitment and integrity into a simple voting process, the election's credibility will be severely strained. I speak not for myself, but for what the media and the National Board is going to do to us if we do not keep our integrity in an election.

Marc Sapir, Berkeley