<br>Anderson Valley has gotten swamped by yuppies as the wine industry exploded there over the last ten years. I live in Elk so perhaps I am somewhat protected by the coast... <div><br></div><div>Seriously though, I have not seen any evidence that these proverbial "yuppies" want more "canned" or NPR anyway. I will point to the success of KMUD and the creation of KMEC as examples. KMUD takes 425 members from our listening audience, and KMEC was created by a group of KZYX volunteers who were concerned back in 2004 when the station first began the transition from more "Community" radio to more "Public" radio. KZYX lost a lot of the Ukaih market at that time as well as many volunteers. I would argue this period in the stations history was a turning point.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Mary had witnessed Judi Bari and Beth Bosk ect. storm the station at the time Beth's show was cancelled. Her concern was (and is) that activists would take over the station unless a strong and sensible KZYX staff kept them at bay. Her fear is that activists will take control of the station and use it to promote their fringe belief systems while the vast majority of listeners, who are really just interested in getting their daily NPR, will be left out in the cold. It is my impression that John C., upon becoming GM, agreed with this interpretation and has since continued the trend. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Over the course of the last ten years there has also been a trend to concede more control over programming to staff and less to the board, volunteers and the membership. It has been argued that programming control is part of the day to day operations of the station and as such is the perview of the GM, not the board. I find it difficult to reconcile this philosophy with the Mission statement which distinctly states that the membership controls the stations "programming and operational philosophy" but it has become the stations policy nonetheless. The current board sees no conflict with the mission.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The result, in my opinion, has been a dramatic shift away from KZYX's function as a "community" radio station, which tends to attract fringe or activist elements, toward an emphasis on KZYX as a "public" radio station. At this point, the stations "community" aspect has been somewhat merged with the news department in order to make up for a lack of funding. Current public affairs programmers have been asked to focus on local issues and newer programs, such as Lambert's and Kisslinger's, have been produced with in this context.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I appreciate that staff feels the need to protect the station from minority groups that may try to take control of the station, and the need for more local news coverage, however it is my concern that in their efforts to do this, they have inadvertently stifled minority voices and sometimes confuse democratically minded programmers, members and volunteers seeking to have their voice included, with minority activists attempting to take control of the station and eliminate NPR.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This is my best explanation for the programming changes we have seen at KZYX for the last decade.</div><div><br></div><div>The survey thing is tricky. It has been my impression that without spending a lot of money, $10-20k, to get one done by professionals, the surveys are in accurate and hard to interpret. The phone call idea sounds good and may yield fruitful results, but in the end you have to make a gut call.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Personally, I would flip flop the stations current policy, emphasize the "community" aspect and spend less on the canned stuff. Increase diversity and reduce what many perceive as "blandness." My gut tells me this after reviewing past surveys, and after hearing so many people in my community say exactly what Diane is saying that I have to believe there is merit to it. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Doug</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>On Sunday, May 18, 2014, Diane Paget <<a href="mailto:dpaget@mcn.org">dpaget@mcn.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Doug,<br>
<br>
I would agree that changing demographics is only part of the story. Not<br>
sure where you live, but in Anderson Valley where I live, although there<br>
are young back to the landers too, we have been swamped by yuppies.<br>
<br>
If not demographics, why do you think that local public affairs<br>
programming is being replaced by syndicated programs and edgy<br>
programming replaced by bland? (if anyone doubts that statement, I'd<br>
suggest getting an archived Beth Bosk show -- if there are any -- and<br>
comparing it with Paul Lambert. And yes I know that Paul is much easier<br>
to work with than Beth, but sometimes we have to work with difficult<br>
people in order to have interesting radio).<br>
<br>
Diane<br>
<br>
<br>
doug mckenty wrote:<br>
> Ok,<br>
><br>
> A lot to get around to.<br>
><br>
> The construction of the PAC was interesting. One member elected by the<br>
> board, one by the programmers and one by the community advisory board.<br>
> These people were to get together with the program director and<br>
> choose three more according to a matrix of needs. The seven member<br>
> committee makes programming decisions by consensus, though<br>
> if consensus is not found the pd gets the last word. Any conflict<br>
> should be reviewed by the grievance process. I thought it was a good<br>
> start. My sense of the story is that it started off pretty strong but<br>
> the air went out of the tires when word came down after John C. became<br>
> general manager and the decision was made that the consensus of the<br>
> group was not binding, and the group was only advisory in nature.<br>
> That interpretation of the documentation won the day and, neutered of<br>
> any real power, the PAC because redundant because there was already a<br>
> CAB. That is the story as I have interpreted it from speaking<br>
> with people who were involved.<br>
><br>
> About the NPR question. Tim, will you please stop referring to people<br>
> who prefer news sources different from NPR as "NPR haters." As one of<br>
> them, this attitude feels caustic and I am afraid will only work to<br>
> continue to alienate the large percentage of Mendocino county<br>
> residents who feel as I do. Also, I want to know why many at the<br>
> station feel that someone is trying to eliminate NPR. Where is this<br>
> coming from? Paul Lambert accused me of the same thing, trying to<br>
> eliminate NPR. Where did he hear it? The only time I ever heard<br>
> anyone speak publicly about eliminating NPR was Annie Esposito at a<br>
> board meeting where she advocated eliminating NPR and keeping the news<br>
> department. She pointed to KMUD as a successful example. Please let<br>
> me know who these people are who have advocated for this other than<br>
> Annie, so I can let them know I think it would be a terrible idea.<br>
><br>
> Also, though I appreciate your research, could I ask you to take it<br>
> one step further and remove the programs that are musical in nature.<br>
> Will you compare the daily dose of locally produced public affairs<br>
> programs vs. the dose of NPR or other "canned" news sources. I don't<br>
> think the music programming is a much of an issue here as this<br>
> communities ability to hear locally produced programs about national<br>
> and international issues that give us an alternative perspective from<br>
> NPR.<br>
><br>
> One more thing about the demographics issue. I swear I have heard<br>
> this notion that our radio station can't be "hippie" because too many<br>
> "yuppies" have moved in, about ten times in the last two weeks. In<br>
> most instances there was the hint of sadness at the passing of an<br>
> age. I am forty one years old and my wife and I and all my friends<br>
> who did not grow up here moved here because we wanted to get back to<br>
> the land and we wanted to raise our children in one of the most<br>
> progressive communities in our country. I have not seen indications<br>
> of yuppie invasion in my community nor any indication that more canned<br>
> material or NPR has led to many large donations from these people.<br>
> Conversely, I do think a show about marajuanna might improve our<br>
> ability to find such donors. I for one hope that the old hippies will<br>
> not give up...<br>
><br>
> Wait, there is more. The PAC is not designed to satisfy everyone, it<br>
> is designed in part to create a public forum where critical<br>
> individuals can go to complain. This not only takes the onus off<br>
> staff, which would alleviate a lot of unnecessary stress, but provides<br>
> a venue where the complaint can be listened to in a transparent way.<br>
> I think having the program application review process become<br>
> transparent would eliminate a lot of the issues that come up. And<br>
> giving those critical of current policy the opportunity to apply for<br>
> the committee if they are passionate also gives them the hope that<br>
> if others agree, real change is possible. The function of the PAC is<br>
> to neutralize the negative energy of the complainer, not an effort to<br>
> please everyone. That is impossible. Though most Public radio<br>
> stations have no such committee and allow the program director<br>
> control, many Community radio stati> <mailto:<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'tbray@wildblue.net')">tbray@wildblue.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Diane,<br>
><br>
> As you note, the demographics have changed. And as a friend of<br>
> mine says, "It ain't Hippie Radio any more."<br>
><br>
> If Doug is correct and half the listeners are "hardcore NPR fans"<br>
> and half want more local shows, how can any process or committee<br>
> reconcile those opposing views?<br>
><br>
> How could a PAC be constituted in a way that satisfies everyone?<br>
> This is the question I have been unable to answer.<br>
><br>
> Tim<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 5/18/2014 3:36 PM, Diane Paget wrote:<br>
>> A lot of what Doug says in this post reflects my experience of the<br>
>> station since it first went on the air. I used to be a very active KZYX<br>
>> volunteer, hosted a month public affairs segment for a while, helped my<br>
>> kids host Rubber Biscuit, wrote and tallied the first two listener<br>
>> surveys, helped in pledge drives. Then my life got busy and I didn't<br>
>> have as much volunteer time. When that kind of time returned to my life,<br>
>> I went back to see if I could help the station out again and found the<br>
>> atmosphere much more defensive and less welcoming to volunteers. I'm<br>
>> still a member because I do listen sometimes and I wouldn't want to go<br>
>> back to what it was like before KZYX, but I listen a lot more to KPFA<br>
>> and give them more money because I like their programming better.<br>
>><br>
>> One of the things that has changed in the past 25 years is the<br>
>> demographics of KZYX's listeners. In 1990 a greater percentage of the<br>
>> station's members were people who moved here in the 70's and 80's as<br>
>> young hippies, back to the landers, political activists and mom and pop<br>
>> pot growers -- the kind of folks who like the homemade feel of locally<br>
>> produced community radio. As more baby boomers have retired or<br>
>> semi-retired here from urban areas and university towns, where they were<br>
>> accustomed to NPR type public radio stations, there is more acceptance<br>
>> of (and maybe even a preference for) syndicated shows. Unfortunately<br>
>> those folks who have moved here from the city in the past 15 years have<br>
>> lots more money to contribute to the station than those of us who have<br>
>> lived here since the 70s. So if you are running the station as a<br>
>> business or even if you are just trying to pay off a lot of debt, there<br>
>> is going to be a tendency to let the money speak. But the station<br>
>> started in debt and paid off that debt while providing lots more local<br>
>> (and edgy -- don't forget the Beth Bosk had a show for years)<br>
>> programming and half an hour of locally produced news.<br>
>><br>
>> A PAC might be able to address the problem of local vs. syndicated<br>
>> programming if it had the authority to make decisions and there was a<br>
>> mechanism in place to ensure that the members of the committee were<br>
>> representative of the membership of the station. The recently restarted<br>
>> Station Advisory Board members seem to have been hand picked by members<br>
>> of the Board and maybe the staff. If there isn't a fair, transparent<br>
>> process for selecting the members of the PAC, it could be just window<br>
>> dressing.<br>
>><br>
>> Doug, do you know if the FCC regs or the station By Laws say anything<br>
>> about one? What does the current board policy that created the<br>
>> Programming Advisory Committee say about how it will be selected and<br>
>> what its powers would be?<br>
>><br>
>> The PAC has come and gone over the years. It would be interesting to<br>
>> look at that history and see why it failed, when it did.<br>
>><br>
>> Diane<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Oak & Thorn <<a href="http://oakandthorn.wordpress.com" target="_blank">http://oakandthorn.wordpress.com</a>><br>
> Facebook: Oak and Thorn<br>
><br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Kzyxtalk mailing list<br>
> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org')">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Kzyxtalk mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org')">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk</a><br>
</blockquote></div>