Whose Radio? Our Radio!

by Liam Kirsher

 

When the Mobilization for Global Justice hit the streets of Washington, D.C., the week of April 16 it succeeded in shining the bright light of public scrutiny on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Thousands of committed, well-informed activists participated, and over 1000 were arrested in acts of civil disobedience. It was the kind of event that Pacifica should have been all over from start to finish. Local station WPFW, one of the Pacifica stations that has been subjected to Pacifica's "structural adjustment" program, carried virtually no programming about the April 16 protests. This appalling failure raises serious questions about the purpose -- and the consequences -- of Pacifica's plan for the network as a whole.

One aspect of the restructuring program is the curtailing of local news departments, and reliance on national programs like Pacifica Network News and Democracy Now! for news reporting. The restructured WPFW was unable to do any significant reporting on the April 16 protest, despite the fact that the event took place only blocks from the station. Hundreds of articulate activists were in town, providing an exceptional opportunity for the in-depth reporting missing in the corporate media, but WPFW could not manage so much as an interview. WPFW also missed an unprecedented opportunity for outreach to, and mobilization of, Washington's sizable African-American community in support of the April 16 protest.

While some WPFW staff are reported to be antagonistic to the Mobilization for Global Justice movement -- which may partially explain this failure -- the root causes lie in a structure that deliberately underfunds local news and overvalues Arbitron ratings. A week of activism culminated in a powerful challenge to the political status quo; but aside from Pacifica national programming, WPFW's vaunted burgeoning audience only heard the usual jazz.

Meanwhile, hundreds of media activists from across the nation were coming together to create the Independent Media Center. The IMC seeks to circumvent corporate media by creating and distributing alternative reporting on the wide range of issues represented in the movement against globalization. The IMC's success during the WTO protest in Seattle, and increased presence in D.C., made it a media story in its own right, and the IMC was deluged with access requests from local, national and international news organizations. Many of these requests were granted; but when Pacifica Network News made a similar request it was denied.

IMC members were aware of allegations of censorship at PNN, and of the strike by PNN stringers. The discussion of whether to cooperate with PNN revolved around whether it was a greater good to expose the IMC to PNN listeners, or to express solidarity with the strikers. In the end, the consensus of the IMC members was to honor the strike. At first glance it may seem a bit unfair that PNN was denied while CNN was permitted. Perhaps the disparity reflects a sense that public, as opposed to corporate, media must meet a higher standard. We expect bias and censorship in corporate media; but we demand openness in a public benefit organization like Pacifica.

There was another factor, though, that made a PNN story about the IMC problematic. The IMC is a response to media bias and censorship. Because allegations of censorship at PNN have not yet been adequately addressed, PNN is itself part of the story of media censorship. It seems extremely unlikely that PNN would include that fact in their story; or that Pacifica management would allow it to be aired if it did.

It is worth noting that a number of community members had fought valiantly for increased coverage at the WPFW LAB meeting prior to April 16th. However, they came away with very little. When I contacted WPFW to propose that they carry some of the stories that were being generated by the IMC audio team I was told that WPFW "might" be able to use portions of the IMC's 5-minute daily wrap-ups, and that they had a half hour on Monday -- after the protest -- that they needed to fill. This seemed like a particularly meager effort when compared with the eagerness of other community radio stations around the world (approximately 30 in Australia played the wrap-ups!). Subsequently, the IMC's denial of PNN made it difficult for WPFW, its offices just down the hall from PNN, to air any of the IMC material. But since WPFW was offering so little air time anyway, by that point it hardly seemed to matter.

Whatever the shortcomings of WPFW staff may have been in neglecting to cover the April 16 protests, what has been demonstrated is that there is no one in Pacifica management that either understands the importance of the protests or has the leadership required to mobilize an adequate response to them. The contrast with Pacifica's historic coverage of past political crises could not be more striking. Since the consequence of management's plan for Pacifica was a very real and unnecessary failure on April 16th, it does call into question their commitment to the non-violent direct action that has been so successful in Seattle and Washington, D.C. A Pacifica that is worthy of its dream will embrace that movement.