WPFW: Censorship Central?

By Sam Husseini

(554 Words)

____________________________________

 

In the aftermath of the inspirational meeting in Houston in March of 2001, WPFW in Washington, DC seems in many ways to be the weakest link in the chain in terms of activism and progressiveness in station programming. This is largely because of the extent of the censorship exercised at WPFW.

Still, a major victory in the Houston meeting was Rob Robinson (from the WPFW Local Advisory Board) - who along with Rabbi Aaron Kriegel (from KPFA LAB) is leading the directors suit against the current Pacifica leadership - being seated to another term. It was likely a combination of the direct political activism, the media attention in Houston, the lobbying of board members and of course the lawsuits that compelled the Pacifica "leadership" to put Robinson on for another term.

The other major accomplishment of the WPFW LAB (which I’m chair of) has been conducting a series of community needs assessment meetings, organized by LAB members Rob Content and Jabari Zakia. The station has refused to give on-air notification of regularly scheduled LAB meetings as well as of these community needs meetings. Still, by emailing to various lists, phoning into the station on-air (and uninvited) and putting up flyers around town, one meeting drew over 60 people. Listeners were asked to fill out a form about what they think of WPFW’s performance and spoke out the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of WPFW. The Independent Media Center taped these meetings and video clips will be available on the WPFW LAB’s web page, www.wpfw.net. The information gathered from these continuing meetings will be used by the LAB in its determination of how well WPFW meets its obligations to serve the communities of the Washington, DC area. So far a significant concern from listeners has been the lack of WPFW public affairs and news.

In the station itself, there are continuing indications that the programmers at WPFW operate largely in a state of fear. Around New Years, Fatima Siek, who had been a producer for a health show on WPFW, spoke out about the late of political programming on WPFW while visiting WBAI in New York. On her way out of the WBAI studios, Bessie Wash told Ms. Seik not to bother showing up again at WPFW. Also, undermining its frequently touted claim that it takes no corporate underwriting, WPFW has lately been playing old programs that credit Phillip Morris. During a Local Advisory Board meeting last year, Lou Hankins declined to provide the LAB with financial records.

Censorship continues to be rampant. Callers who raise questions about what is going on at Pacifica are quickly cut off. On March 16, as every other station in the network and beyond aired a "Democracy Now!" debate between Juan Gonzalez and John Murdock, WPFW the very station that Murdock was at censored the program. "Democracy Now!" actually played part of the audio from WPFW live and host Amy Goodman asked Murdock to see if he could stop the censorship. He didn’t seem inclined. Below is a wonderful letter I got from a caring listener a few days later. Hopefully, with more listeners becoming engaged and seeing the incredible potential of having a vibrant station true to Pacifica’s mission in the nations capitol, a substantial victory for progressive, democratic forces can be won.

____________________________________________________________

LETTER FROM MARIAMA ORANGE

(1709 Words)

Mariama Orange
Washington, D.C.

March 18, 2001

Bessie Wash, Executive Director
Pacifica Foundation
2390 Champlain St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Ms. Wash:

I am writing this letter as a formal complaint detailing a disturbing conversation I had this past Friday, March 16, 2001, from approximately 11:30am to approximately 11:35am Eastern Time, with Lou Hankins, current General Station Manager and Program Director of WPFW. I had called Mr. Hankins to express my disappointment with the fact that, at 9am that day, WPFW had played a rebroadcast of Amy Goodman speaking at Cal Tech on November 10, 2000, in place of the day's live nationally broadcast Democracy Now! show. I had listened to WPFW's rebroadcast until approximately 9:30am and then I was able to catch the last fifteen minutes of the nationally broadcast live Democracy Now! show by listening to streaming audio of the WBAI station through the Internet. I found the topic of Friday's actual Democracy Now! show to be of particular interest: a debate between Juan Gonzalez, former co-host of Democracy Now!, and John Murdock, Chair of the Governance Committee of the Pacifica Board of Directors, regarding the future direction of Pacifica and its constituents.

My comments to Mr. Hankins included the following:

1. I said that I would prefer to hear the actual Democracy Now! broadcast during the Democracy Now! time slot.

2. I asked if there were any particular reason why WPFW had chosen to do a rebroadcast at that particular time on that particular day.

3. I cited two other occasions when I had personally heard sections of the Democracy Now! show preempted: once on January 31, 2001, when Juan Gonzalez publicly resigned on-air (in fact the same rebroadcast of Amy Goodman at Cal Tech had replaced the live broadcast that day) and again on February 28, 2001, when Mumia Abu-Jamal's voice was played reporting on the lockout at WBAI.

4. I asked him why Amy Goodman's traditional sign-off from Democracy
Now! "...from the embattled studios of WBAI, from the studios of the Banned and the fired..." had been replaced by music on WPFW.

Mr. Hankins's comments to me included the following:

1. He asked me whether I liked the rebroadcast and if I liked the
rebroadcast then what was my complaint.

2. He said that many listeners had requested to hear the rebroadcast of Amy Goodman; that WPFW had played the rebroadcast at 9am because that was the Democracy Now! time slot; and that WPFW had chosen to play the rebroadcast that Friday because it had a large listening audience on Fridays. He also indicated that the rebroadcast had been planned some time before and implied that he was unaware of the content of that Friday's nationally broadcast Democracy Now! show.

3. He said that I had "misinformation" with regards to Democracy Now! being previously interrupted and that dates weren't important because the show had never been interrupted; the show had always been played.

He said the reason Amy Goodman's traditional sign-off was no longer aired on WPFW was due to a "programming decision."

At various points in our conversation, Mr. Hankins would address someone else that was presumably in his office without giving me the common courtesy of letting me know that his attention was elsewhere. I told him that if I was not directing my comments to the correct venue to please direct me otherwise. He said that if I had programming questions he was the person to talk to, but that I wasn't asking questions, I was making comments. He also said that if I had any complaints I could talk to someone at Pacifica's national office, but he hadn't heard a complaint yet.

I proceeded to ask Mr. Hankins who had made the programming decision not to air Ms. Goodman's sign-off; he indicated that he had. I asked him why he had made the decision; he rejoined by asking me if I was telling him to explain himself to me. I responded that as a listener-supporter I felt I had a right to know. I also indicated that I was sorry he could not adequately address my concerns. At that point, Mr. Hankins said something to the effect of not to be sorry because I was just doing my job of trying to agitate people who were trying to do a good job and that "the devil likes to work on Fridays." I said that I was simply trying to voice my concerns as a listener-supporter of WPFW. Mr. Hankins then proceeded to say that when I identify myself as a listener-supporter I talk as though I'm speaking for some large group of people when I was really speaking "for the devil agitating influence" of everyone else. As I began to read back his quote of "devil agitating influence" I was hung up on.

Later that same day, I was able to listen to the full national broadcast of Democracy Now! through the Internet and found that many of the same questions I had just asked Mr. Hankins had been addressed on the show. Mr. Hankins's comments, in addition to being less than helpful, were inconsonant with what was indicated on the show. Why couldn't Mr. Hankins have been straightforward and courteous instead of addressing me in a manner that was completely unprofessional and totally unbefitting of a General Manager of a radio station?

Why did Mr. Hankins feel he had the right to berate me and hang up on me? Why was I treated as a non-entity even after identifying myself as a listener-supporter? As a listener-supporter of WPFW, am I somehow not a member of the collective group referred to as "WPFW listener-supporters" because I am only one person? The very thought is preposterous and contradictory. Mr. Hankins gave me the distinct impression that he felt my opinion did not count and that, furthermore, because I dared ask open and direct questions, I somehow represented a fringe element undeserving of the listener-supporter title.

In the past two and a half years since I first became aware of the Pacifica Radio Network and its founding mission, I have paid approximately $1000 to Pacifica, WBAI, and WPFW collectively, approximately 60% of which went to WPFW alone. I do believe I have every right to be recognized, and respected, as a listener-supporter of WPFW. I refuse to continue to support a station that abuses listeners voicing valid concerns. This year, I recently made two pledges to WPFW: one for $125 and another for $89.30, totalling $214.30. I have always honored my pledges; however, I will not even consider sending in the money until at least one of the following actions has been taken:

§ I receive a formal letter of apology from Mr. Hankins for his rude, callous, and improper treatment

§ Mr. Hankins is removed from his current position(s) as General
Manager and Program Director of WPFW

Moreover, I feel it is a conflict of interest for Pacifica's national office to be located at the same address and telephone number as WPFW. I had to call the same main telephone number I had used to contact Mr. Hankins in order to get specifics on where to address my letter of complaint to Pacifica regarding WPFW. The WPFW receptionist, apparently doubling as a national Pacifica operator, tried to get detailed specifics on the WPFW complaint before giving me names and positions at the Pacifica national office. When the WPFW operator finally connected me to a Pacifica office, she said that she could transfer me but would not give me the direct extension.

After getting specifics on to whom and where to address my letter, I identified myself as a listener-supporter of the Pacifica Radio Network and requested the minutes from the last Pacifica National Board meeting that took place the weekend of March 2, 2001. The person to whom I was speaking responded that she wasn't sure if she could send the records to just anyone who called up, but she would find out and let me know. Again, I felt my importance as a listener-supporter was marginalized.

It is my understanding that 85% of Pacifica's funding comes from listener sponsorship yet, in spite of the fact that I am a listener-supporter, I was not even given the common respect due any human being. It is also my understanding that an additional 10% of Pacifica's funding comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Why isn't meeting, financial, and other pertinent information pursuant to Sections 396(k)(4), (5), (8), and (11) of the Communications Act of 1934 (requirements which CPB station grant recipients must comply with) readily available via Pacifica's web site? Why am I hearing of Pacifica stations' counter-facilitation of Local Advisory Board meetings when Section 396(k)(8) specifically states that a station "shall undertake good faith efforts to assure that...its advisory board meets at regular intervals"? Why aren't the names and positions of the current Pacifica National Board members, along with current Governing Board documents, readily accessible via Pacifica's web site (to date, the most recent documents I found were dated 1999)? And by the way, where does the remaining 5% of the funding for Pacifica, a purported listener-supported community radio network, come from?

As a listener-supported radio station, should not WPFW be held accountable to its listeners? What kind of community radio network lives off of the ignorance of its listeners? Should not a community radio network trust its listening constituents to make wise and informed decisions? How does a community radio network expect its listening constituents to make informed decisions if pertinent information regarding their radio network is not readily accessible and even intentionally withheld?

Quite frankly, I am befuddled, stunned, and deeply disappointed by the extremely poor treatment I have been given. I have opened a special bank account containing the sum of my most recent pledges to WPFW in the amount of $214.30 (please see attached copy of deposit receipt). If at any time I am listening to the station and I hear a cue where I would normally donate money, I will add money to the account. However, as previously stated, I will not consider releasing the funds until my concerns have been addressed.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Respectfully yours,
Mariama Orange

_______________________