Tim,<div><br></div><div>So this is saying that there are so few good ideas attached to competent people in Mendocino County that John and Mary go out into the community to find people they like? Who decided on the content of the programs? What programs have been created in this way? Are people with certain political beliefs marginalized as "part of the transom?" What political beliefs are presented by the "content creators?" Is the "transom" referring to program ideas brought by potential volunteers that are discarded? What does it mean to be "<font><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">independent of biased agenda or faction with a mission to be inclusive of a variety of views"? That sounds like a show hosted by someone without an opinion. Is that good radio? Where would you find an amateur volunteer willing to do a show like that? Why shouldn't "inclusive factions" have a program? I thought that was part of the point of community radio. </span></font></div>
<div><br></div><div>Do KMUD and KMEC have the same problem? What are their solutions? </div><div><br></div><div>Many questions...</div><div><br></div><div>This is interesting in light of the fact that I asked Mary if I could return to KZYX with a new interview show last Spring. After talking to Mary about it twice, and John about it once, I discovered that they were pretty busy and had a difficult time finding time to talk to me about it. I ended up producing the show at MendocinoTV. When I brought it up at my grievance hearing, they told me I should have filed an application. I brought up that no one gave me an application, to which I was told I should have done it online. </div>
<div><br></div><div>What's funny is, I didn't think the Thursday Morning Report was THAT bad....but I probably let an opinion slip out here and there.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks Tim. This helps me clarify some things.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Doug<br><br>On Tuesday, May 20, 2014, Tim Bray <<a href="mailto:tbray@wildblue.net">tbray@wildblue.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>OK, I provided the breakdown of
hours/week of various sorts of programming, and now some of you
are drawing conclusions and inferences that are not supported by
evidence. I'm a scientist and that sort of thing sets me off, and
it's partly my fault because I didn't provide enough information
with the numbers. So I will try to correct some of that. <br>
<br>
You can go look at a schedule from 2009 here:<br>
<b><a href="http://tinyurl.com/omohgm5" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/omohgm5</a><br>
</b>(This is the earliest schedule I can find And of course the
current schedule is on the KZYX Website.<b> <br>
</b><br>
From 2009 to 2014, NPR hours went from 28 to 32.5 per week. What
changed? They added a second hour of Fresh Air at 3:00 AM M-F,
replacing The Take Away (a syndicated but non-NPR show) M-F, BBC
on Sat, and part of Up in the Night on Sun; and Left, Right, and
Center on Sunday (this wasn't a drop-in replacement as there was a
lot of other changes to the schedule, and I haven't yet figured
out where that half-hour came from).<br>
<br>
Doug and others infer that John C deliberately chose to reduce
local public-affairs programming and substitute NPR or other
syndicated programs, and I don't think that is supported by any
evidence. Certainly John has said to me, on several occasions,
that he would love to have more locally-produced public affairs
programming. And why would he not? It is cheaper than buying
syndicated content. I don't think ease of use is really a big
consideration for John, that is Mary's concern.<br>
<br>
I don't think I am betraying any confidence if I share some things
John wrote to me a while back when I questioned him on this, and
perhaps it will help some people here understand his thinking a
little better. <br>
"We would prefer to put a good local program on over something we
pay for. But we won't put a bad program on in preference to
something of good
quality. ...
there aren't as many good quality local programs coming forward.
Almost
nothing worthwhile comes over the transom. Most of what is new
either
came from our recruiting or from someone who is a friend of a
current
programmer.
I wish we had a lot more locally-focused programming. But I want
it to
come from someone who wants to shed light, independent of biased
agenda or
faction with a mission to be inclusive of a variety of views. We
almost
never hear from someone who wants to do that.
"<br>
<br>
"<span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Our experience is that we are far more successful
finding what you could call "content creators" and talking
them into doing a show. What comes over the transom, even
when we do put it out there - which we have many times - just
doesn't hardly pan out. I would like to spend more time
working on developing programming. Man would I love for that
to be a day's main project. But the task load is huge here
and frankly, we burn an amazing amount of calories dealing
with some people..."</font></span><br>
<br>
<br>
I do agree with Doug about the need for more communication from
staff about programming decisions, and in fact had a conversation
with Mary and John on Sunday about exactly that. I suggested they
might alleviate some of the brouhaha by issuing a statement
presenting the basis and rationale for decision-making whenever a
programming change is made, especially when an existing program is
canceled. By not doing that, they are allowing everyone else to
make up stories and tell them often enough that people believe
they are true. <br>
<br>
I have no doubt that any survey would indicate people want more
local talk. Such surveys never ask what programs they would
cancel to make room. They also don't ask respondents to do any of
the work that is required to make it happen. If you ask people if
they would like more money, most will certainly say yes; but if
you ask them if they would take on a second job to earn more
money, you get different answers. <br>
<br>
Doug, you mischaracterize what I said about the failure of the
previous PAC. I think it was based on a flawed model that never
had a chance - the idea that you could find 7 people who could
reach consensus on programming decisions. So everything ends up
back on Mary and there's still no clearly understandable basis for
the decision. It's as if the Vice-President ruled whenever the
Senate couldn't reach consensus. (BTW, Belinda's last name is
Rawlins.)<br>
<br>
I do agree with you about the need for better communication to the
membership when programming decisions are made. It's something
I've been saying for some time as well. Mary is obviously
unwilling to do that, so perhaps a PAC is worth another try...<br>
<br>
Tim<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/20/2014 11:07 AM, doug mckenty wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">I concur with BC in that the syndicated NPR direction
was a " conservative" choice. It was the direction John C chose
after realizing the station was in such a bad way financially. BC
is also correct when he says the locally produced programs
are more time intensive to produce and requires dealing with radio
personality types, which presents a variety of unknown
factors,drama etc. I believe this is the reason we have seen
more NPR etc. over the last six years.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>To clarify. The PAC is a programmer advisory committee,
created by the board to make programming decisions by consensus.
The CAB is the community advisory board which is mandated by
the CPB in prefer for us to receive their funding. The CAB is
charged with gathering pertinent information from the community.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree with Tim that the failure of the original PAC was
largely due to its lack of "teeth." When it was developed under
GM Belinda Carlyle it was assumed that the committee would work
through the consensus of the group. After John C became manager
the interpretation of the language changed so that the
"consensus" was merely "advisory." One member of the PAC
described to me how "the air went out of the tire" for the group
when this decision was made. Why have an advisory PAC when the
station already has a CAB? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am not stuck on the current incarnation of the PAC. As Tim
suggested, perhaps a smaller committee would be more functional.
I have always felt the programming committee would work best if
at least some, if not most or all, were elected directly by the
membership. Could you imagine having this classic NPR argument
on air and a membership vote which directly determined how much
NPR we heard? Such elections, with results resulting in real
change, would undoubtably increase participation in the
elections and turn them into something the members would really
care about. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I do not wish to belittle the music programming or the effort
made but my major emphasis is on the public affairs programming
because this most directly relates to the radio stations ability
to facilitate political dialogue ensuring free speech to
minority groups. I think the concern, at least from my point of
view, is that minority groups are not fully represented and KZYX
is not entirely fulfilling this important aspect of its mission.
Also, it seems from survey evidence that people in our
community would like to hear more local talk. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't think the issue with having one person choosing
programming with no transparency requirements is not so much one
of trust as one of information. I think the members as well as
those applying for programs deserve a transparent process so we
see what program choices are available, and get to know
potential programmers as they learn more about what it takes to
be on the radio. Also, when a program idea is turned down, but
the potential volunteer does not know why and sees no formal
process utilized and has no recourse to a second opinion about
their program pitch, they tend to feel alienated. I think staff
should at least be required to write a formal communication
explaining why a program idea has been denied. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have spoken with two people recently who applied for shows
but were declined. Also, the impetus behind Kathrine Massay's
letter to the FCC was caused by the way her proposal for an art
history program was dismissed. I knew a guy who wanted to host
a variety show on KZYX. He had just retired here from Santa
Cruz where he had hosted an award winning variety show on Public
Access TV in the Bay Area. Mary did not like the idea. He
called me for years to see if anything had changed but even as a
board member I had to tell him there was nothing I could do.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>These people deserve some kind of a process, and if a program
idea is turned down, I think it would be good to give the
potential volunteer other avenues of volunteer service that may
eventually lead to a program. Bring them into the fold and see
if they might become better suited for a program in the future.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This whole issue has been my top priority for the station
since before my time on the board and is the reason why I have
always advocated fo</div></blockquote><div>-- <br>
<a href="http://oakandthorn.wordpress.com" target="_blank">Oak & Thorn</a><br>
Facebook: Oak and Thorn</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>