|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Democracy Now, Inc.
Published in the Anderson Valley Advertiser (AVA)- Nov. 12, 2003
By Maureen Primerano
Paul DeRienzo’s article “The Legend Of Amy Goodman” (published
October 15 in The AVA) which detailed the unusual contract between Amy Goodman
and Pacifica, and the privatization of Democracy Now Productions, Inc.; raises
a number of significant points that have unfortunately fallen beneath the
radar of many listeners to Democracy Now.
This is not surprising considering the contract was “negotiated” and hastily signed in secrecy without knowledge or formal consent of a full Board. The Democracy Now five year contract which is arguably the most expensive contract in Pacifica’s 50 year history, allowed a major Pacifica asset whose development was paid for by Pacifica’s long time listeners and supporters, to be spun out into a private corporation, while still being heavily subsidized by the Foundation. Yet, nothing about this venture has been seriously discussed, or debated over the airwaves. Nor were the terms and conditions of the contract openly negotiated with a full Board. No transparency, no accountability.
Under this current agreement, as I understand, Pacifica is obligated to provide free access of its priceless donor and mailing lists that are updated twice annually, thereby allowing Democracy Now, Inc. to compete directly with the Foundation for the same pool of funds. While a disproportionate amount of the Foundation’s resources are being funneled off to one program, with one editorial slant, other producers such as Gary Null with his self-funded Natural Living program that has been broadcast from WBAI- NYC for the last 25 years, and has raised millions for the Pacifica network receives no such support; and has recently had its air-time at WBAI cut (which is clearly a violation), despite an overwhelming outcry from the listening audience. And what about the hundreds of other unpaid independent producers who are the life-blood of Pacifica- and who regularly create quality programming at their own expense?
How is Pacifica Foundation support determined? What are the criteria? Is it based on “star appeal” and popularity? Why such preferential treatment of one programmer to the detriment of other talented individuals? Where is due process, consistency, and fairness at WBAI and Pacifica? Why should Democracy Now, as a private entity, be reimbursed by the Foundation, while other programs like Natural Living, and other outstanding investigative programs are not?
Many donors unknowingly are pledging to support the Pacifica Foundation and their most valued programs, but a disproportionate amount of their hard earned money is being shunted off to what is essentially a private enterprise that purportedly does not bring in enough listener funding to support its costs, therefore draining the Foundation’s already unsteady operating budget.
Peter Franck, an intellectual property lawyer, and media activist who was
formerly President of the Pacifica Board of Directors during the 1970s and
1980s, analyzed the Democracy Now contract. (see documents
http://www.wbai.net/ipnb/ipnb_dn_mtg_request_spooner7-6-02.html)
Mr. Franck provided a balanced yet powerful condemnation of it by pointing
out a number of concerns regarding its one-sidedness in favor of Democracy
Now, Inc., the transfer of trademarks, archive ownership, its affiliate-station
access to name a few.
At the same time DN, Inc. has been seeking and accepting grants (directly or indirectly) from such sources as: George Soros Open Society Foundation, Glaser Foundation, Ford Foundation, Tides, and other so-called ‘liberal’ Foundations.
One of the claims often stated about taking Foundation funding is that there are “no strings attached.” This assertion does not stand up to scrutiny. When a person or group receives money from a Foundation this inevitably fosters an atmosphere of dependency, complacency and self-censorship among the recipients to ensure the grants continue to flow. As a consequence, a broad base becomes one perspective.
.How many people and relevant topics are systematically excluded due to the unspoken threat of losing funds? One need only recall the Free KPFA movement in the 1990s in which a number of media activists strongly opposed Foundation funding for the Pacifica network because of these and other potential problems like conflicts of interests (see: Free Pacifica Radio Archives: Jeffrey Blankfort, Pacifica Goes For The Gold, Oct. 1997, Bob Feldman, Liberal Establishment Foundations, “Alternative” Media And Pacifica Radio, Sept.1998) Is getting as many grants as possible to subsidize a media project the goal? Then, how do those Foundations obtain and distribute their money? And how does accepting corporate grant monies influence what issues the media chooses to investigate, and from what angle? What are the Foundations’ track record on anti-trust, labor, race, gender, age discrimination, environmental degradation, militarism, and so forth?
And is it ethical to accept funding from Foundations or organizations that are supporting and participating in the same oppressive activities that one is supposedly trying to expose? Where does one draw the line in terms of what is acceptable?
Much criticism is leveled at NPR- and the “corporate” media, but
at least NPR discloses who their funding sources are. Shouldn’t Democracy
Now, and other programs that receive Foundation funding be held to similar
standards and openly reveal all funding sources? ( see documents : Neil Clark,
New Statesman: Profile On Billionaire Trader -George Soros: Prophet Of An “Open
Society”: But Open To What? June 2,2003, Heather Coffin, Covert Action
Quarterly, George Soros: Imperial Wizard (Leading Figure On Council Of Foreign
Relations) Fall 2002, and Karen Talbot, Review On Neil Clark’s Profile
On George Soros: Center For Research On Globalization, July 4, 2003 ) Also
see Documents:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TAL307a.html
Also see: Jon Bekken: Community Radio At The Crossroads: Federal Policy And
The Professionalization Of A Grassroots Medium-( pages 29-46 )- Ed. Ron Sakolsky & Stephen
Dunifer, Seizing The Airwaves, AK Press, 1998
And: Joan Roelofs, Foundations And Public Policy: The Mask Of Pluralism, SUNY
Press, 2003.
Without question the DN
contract has caused quite a firestorm within the Pacifica network that will
have long-term ramifications for the Foundation, much of
which will continue to be painfully negative and far-reaching, if it is not
reconciled soon. The present interim Pacifica Board seems reluctant to correct
their mistake and has been advised by their attorney not to discuss the details
of this contract. This sad state of affairs makes it all the more important
that people who truly value Louis Hill’s principles and philosophy, and
the Pacifica Foundation itself are seated at the upcoming Board elections.
PS. There is speculation at WBAI in New York that Ms. Goodman has been lobbying
to get another prime time spot to air more DN, and increase her market share
and the network’s dependency. It is curious that at the same time a producer-
Robert Knight of Wake Up Call- has been arbitrarily dismissed from that time
slot.