[Kzyxtalk] Kzyxtalk Digest, Vol 4, Issue 58

Thu May 22 17:24:42 PDT 2014

After all this I can barely comprehend why anybody would volunteer their
time for a program on KZYX. I've known a few, back in the day, and they
played music they loved, and discussed topics of concern and often produced
shows for many years. They were enrolled, I was enrolled, the station was
not a stick in the mud. I get more from the kzyxtalk list than the station!
Sorry state of affairs.

Kristina Almquist

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM, <kzyxtalk-request at lists.mcn.org> wrote:

> Send Kzyxtalk mailing list submissions to
>         kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         kzyxtalk-request at lists.mcn.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         kzyxtalk-owner at lists.mcn.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Kzyxtalk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May 22, 2014
>       (ann brown)
>    2. Re: from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May 22, 2014 (David)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:06:14 -0700
> From: ann brown <divinesight at icloud.com>
> Subject: Re: [Kzyxtalk] from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May
>         22, 2014
> To: kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> Message-ID: <E946AC94-8E9D-4184-9623-AFFA42BE83FE at icloud.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> This is the very definition of taking a molehill and turning it into a
> mountain full of blind moles.
>
> Just saying,
>
> Merriam Webster
>
>
> On May 22, 2014, at 11:58 AM, sako4 at comcast.net wrote:
>
> >
> > It would seem obvious KZYX is now trying to develop a policy designed to
> kick dissidents off the air...a list of forbidden off-air conduct or
> behaviours that would result in the cancellation of shows and the
> revocation of broadcasting privileges for the "guilty" broadcaster.
> >
> > What conduct, I wonder?
> >
> > Conviction of a felony crime? Imprisonment?  I can completely understand
> being kicked off the air for serious criminal behavior. But KZYX isn't
> talking about that.
> >
> > So, what other conduct gets a broadcaster in trouble, I wonder?
> >
> > Criticism of station management? Is that enough to get a broadcaster
> kicked off the air?
> >
> > How about other criticism? Criticism of the Board? Criticism of station
> policy? Criticism of another broadcaster?
> >
> > Hmm.
> >
> > What other conduct? Where does the slippery slope end?
> >
> > How about getting kicked off the air for holding controversial opinions?
> Holding certain political beliefs? Belonging to certain religions?
> Belonging to certain organizations deemed subversive by KZYX station
> management? Perhaps even making certain lifestyle choices unacceptable to
> station management?
> >
> > Sounds like McCarthyism all over again.
> >
> > Any policy in this area would almost almost certainly be actionable in
> court. A policy mandating or regulating off-air conduct would immediately
> have KZYX defending itself against claims of reprisals, double standards,
> and discrimination.
> >
> > If anyone thinks KZYX's legal bills for the renewal of the FCC licenses
> are too high now, I shudder to think what defending against such claims in
> court would cost in the future.  Station management would bankrupt the
> station by trying to mandate or regulate off-air behavior. Almost
> certainly, none of the above claims would be dismissed by a judge. The
> opportunity for making case law in a constitutional challenge at publicly
> funded radio station, like KZYX, would far too compelling. A judge's career
> is determined by published case law.
> >
> > Also, if anyone thinks the objections to the renewal of KZYX's two FCC
> licenses drew a spark of national attention, then creating a policy for
> required off-air conduct would almost certainly create a firestorm of
> controversy. I don't think many other public media stations would support
> an attempt by KZYX to mandate or regulate off-air behavior.
> >
> > Talk about unpopular!
> >
> > Does KZYX really seek further negative publicity?
> >
> > I can also see Congress getting involved, too. In  the1990s, Congress
> got involved at the NEA over what constituted freedom of speech issues.
> Congress then went way beyond getting involved.  In 1995-1997, Congress
> almost killed the NEA, along with the NEH and the CPB.
> >
> > Incidentally, there is some relevant case law from that time. The case
> filed by the "NEA Four" in 1993, with lead plaintiff Karen Finley, centered
> on subsection (d)(1) of 20 U.S.C. ? 954 which provides that the NEA
> Chairperson shall ensure that only excellence and merit are the criteria by
> which applications are judged. The court ruled in 524 U.S. 569 (1998), that
> Section 954(d)(1) is facially valid, as it neither inherently interferes
> with First Amendment rights nor violates constitutional vagueness
> principles.
> >
> > In other words, it can be inferred that only criteria by which
> publicly-funded broadcasters would be judged would be the same criteria
> that publicly-funded artists are judged...excellence and merit.
> >
> > That me state that again. If public dollars are involved, then only
> excellence and merit matter.
> >
> > Again, the courts have already decided this issue in the area of
> publicly funded art. No doubt the courts would jump at the chance for a
> test case in the area of publicly funded media.
> >
> > The NEA, NEH, and CPB all have interests that are aligned. For the same
> reason the NEA pushed back in the 1990s, I also don't think the CPB would
> sit still for a code of required off-air conduct. I don't think they would
> sit still for one minute..
> >
> > Then, there are the conservative groups who would be ready to pounce on
> us: Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Project for
> a New American Century, and others. They're always ready to pounce on
> public television and public radio at almost any opportunity. A code for
> required off-air conduct would be like waving a red flag at a bull. They
> couldn't resist it.
> >
> > But there's more. Even liberal groups would be concerned about the free
> speech issues implied in a code for required off-air conduct at a public
> radio station like KZYX.
> >
> > I was once married to a national reporter who was also a Carter Center
> Fellow. Yesterday, after following this thread about  off-air conduct on
> kzyxprogrammers at lists.mcn.org, I spoke with someone affiliated with the
> Carter Center. Together, we made a list of all the groups who would be
> aghast at a code of required off-air conduct. They include not just many
> liberal groups, but also libertarian groups, like the Annenberg Public
> Policy Center. I then asked another person who has been a guest on my show,
> and who is a prominent and highly-respected media person, to put a call
> into Annenberg to get a read on this dubious business of a code for
> required off-air conduct. I'll ask that person to poll a few other places,
> too.
> >
> > KZYX may be small, but our issues are big.
> >
> > From: "Tim Bray" <tbray at wildblue.net>
> > To: kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:04:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Kzyxtalk] from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May 22,
> 2014
> >
> > The KZYX programmer's listserve is buzzing, and it started off with a
> question about whether or not off-air actions should be considered when
> evaluating a programmer.  Some thoughtful commentary about the programmer's
> position ensued.
> >
> > But the real buzz is the pushback from programmers who are sick of
> Sacowicz and his bullshit.  He is getting roundly castigated by several
> programmers, and some others are expressing genuine concern for his mental
> state.
> >
> > Sacowicz is, as usual, responding with threats of legal action and heaps
> of self-aggrandizing rhetoric.
> >
> > The "criticizing station management" mantra is BS and a red herring.
>  Programmers question and criticize station management all the time, with
> no repercussions.  I can think of many who do it regularly and are treated
> with respect; I have done  it myself on several occasions, and undoubtedly
> will again.
> >
> > What Sacowicz is doing is beyond criticism.  Protesting the relicensing
> has demonstrably harmed the station and continues to do so.  It seems a
> clear violation of his duty as a Board member and he should be recalled -
> but that would require wasting even more time and money.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/22/2014 1:04 AM, sako4 at comcast.net wrote:
> > =============================
> >
> > THE KZYX LISTSERVE is buzzing with a discussion about tightening up the
> station?s Programmer Handbook as to how a programmer might lose his air
> time to include how he might lose it off-air. Off-air? Off-air. Which seems
> to mean criticizing station management in forums other than ?Free Speech
> Radio, Mendocino County? itself where, of course, discussion of the station
> is not allowed on-air. But off-air? That might be a little much even for
> Philo?s intrepid ?speakers of truth to power.?
> >
> > =============================
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Kzyxtalk mailing list
> > Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> > http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Kzyxtalk mailing list
> > Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> > http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/kzyxtalk/attachments/20140522/5d42bfc4/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:29:07 -0700
> From: "David" <uw at kzyx.org>
> Subject: Re: [Kzyxtalk] from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May
>         22, 2014
> To: <kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org>
> Message-ID: <78C4A85F3D5D4592A80E23E092202534 at Underwriting>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi John S.
>
> You've written a number of missives in the last 24 hours, but I have yet to
> receive a response to my email (yesterday's email, reprinted below)
> requesting that you schedule your "grievance" meeting. It would seem that
> once you move forward on presenting your case some of your complaints might
> disappear. . . .
>
> David
>
> David Steffen
> KZYX Business Development
> (707) 895-2324 office
> (707) 322-9895 cell
> (707) 895-2451 fax
>
>
>
> Good afternoon John.
>
>
>
> I read with some interest your latest letter to a local newspaper. In
> recent
> weeks I've resisted any public debate with you over the letter you received
> from me more than two weeks ago. It is my opinion that these matters are
> between a volunteer programmer and, in this case, the Business Development
> person . . . me. Since you first raised the possibility of filing a
> grievance, I've been encouraging you to do just that: file a grievance.
> I've
> also been upfront about the rationale for my May 5, 2014 notice to you, a
> rationale found within the Volunteer Handbook.
>
>
>
> Your justification for not reading the underwriting suggests that the
> timing
> of reading underwriting is at the programmer's discretion. In fact it is
> not. The handbook and other materials and presentations I've made to
> programmers make this rather clear. It was reaffirmed in the updated 2003
> handbook, which was and is the programmer's guide to requirements and
> responsibilities. (I might add I had nothing to do with writing the
> handbook
> as it predates me by five years.) Please note the following excerpts, with
> which you should already be familiar:
>
>
>
> "RIGHTS, REGULATIONS AND RULES
>
> This section presents summaries of the rights, rules and regulations at
> MCPB. Many of the points summarized here are addressed in more detail
> further on in this handbook. Programmers assume responsibility for
> complying
> with both MCPB and FCC rules and regulations. A PROGRAMMER WHO DELIBERATELY
> DOES NOT COMPLY IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES
> SET FORTH IN THIS HANDBOOK.
>
> REGULATIONS APPLYING TO PROGRAMMERS
>
> A programmer is expected to:
>
> 1. be proficient in the operation of all equipment that is routinely needed
> during his/her shift, 2. be informed of, and must follow all FCC rules and
> regulations, 3. read and understand the contents of this handbook.
>
> 4. participate in and abide by conflict resolution and grievance
> procedures,
> as outlined in this handbook.
>
> 5. read all underwriting announcements assigned to his/her program clearly
> and without ad-libs.
>
> 6. keep accurate logs of his/her shift time.
>
> 7. air station promos, PSAs and other announcements as requested."
>
> I hope you noticed the passage emphasized in the handbook: "A PROGRAMMER
> WHO
> DELIBERATELY DOES NOT COMPLY IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
> THE
> PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THIS HANDBOOK."
>
>
>
> On more than one occasion during 2014, you did not read the underwriting as
> scheduled. You're unhappy? Sorry about that but rules are rules. As for
> your
> drumbeat of a potential grievance filing, I've done nothing but encourage
> you to file for conflict resolution so we can both put this behind us. In
> fact, again referring to the handbook,
>
> "The first step of the conflict resolution procedure is to hold a
> discussion
> of the problem by the parties involved, clarifying points of disagreement
> and agreement, proposing solutions, and if possible, coming to a
> resolution."
>
>
>
> That seems straight-forward and, as indicated above, I have advocated for
> the established procedure for conflict resolution since the beginning. The
> handbook does not order or recommend that issues be litigated in the press
> or on listserves. You, however, have chosen to regularly misrepresent the
> disagreement on various listserves, and in the local press (as well as, I'm
> told, in at least one local vanity publication.)
>
>
>
> I have no interest in a public litigation of your grievance in competing
> emails or the press. And please resist the temptation to couch this in
> "free
> speech" terms. If you truly believe that you are an aggrieved party, then
> call for a meeting to find resolution. Until then I'm asking that you stop
> writing letters to editors, or op-ed pieces, or postings on the listserves.
> It's time to embrace and endorse the conflict resolution procedure you
> agreed to when you became a programmer. Meet face-to-face. It really is
> that
> simple.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> David Steffen
>
> KZYX Business Development
>
> (707) 895-2324 office
>
> (707) 322-9895 cell
>
> (707) 895-2451 fax
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: kzyxtalk-bounces at lists.mcn.org [mailto:
> kzyxtalk-bounces at lists.mcn.org]
> On Behalf Of sako4 at comcast.net
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:58 AM
> To: tbray at wildblue.net; kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> Subject: Re: [Kzyxtalk] from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May 22,
> 2014
>
>
>
> It would seem obvious KZYX is now trying to develop a policy designed to
> kick dissidents off the air...a list of forbidden off-air conduct or
> behaviours that would result in the cancellation of shows and the
> revocation
> of broadcasting privileges for the "guilty" broadcaster.
>
>
> What conduct, I wonder?
>
>
> Conviction of a felony crime? Imprisonment?  I can completely understand
> being kicked off the air for serious criminal behavior. But KZYX isn't
> talking about that.
>
>
> So, what other conduct gets a broadcaster in trouble, I wonder?
>
>
> Criticism of station management? Is that enough to get a broadcaster kicked
> off the air?
>
>
> How about other criticism? Criticism of the Board? Criticism of station
> policy? Criticism of another broadcaster?
>
>
> Hmm.
>
>
> What other conduct? Where does the slippery slope end?
>
>
> How about getting kicked off the air for holding controversial opinions?
> Holding certain political beliefs? Belonging to certain religions?
> Belonging
> to certain organizations deemed subversive by KZYX station management?
> Perhaps even making certain lifestyle choices unacceptable to station
> management?
>
>
> Sounds like McCarthyism all over again.
>
>
> Any policy in this area would almost almost certainly be actionable in
> court. A policy mandating or regulating off-air conduct would immediately
> have KZYX defending itself against claims of reprisals, double standards,
> and discrimination.
>
>
> If anyone thinks KZYX's legal bills for the renewal of the FCC licenses are
> too high now, I shudder to think what defending against such claims in
> court
> would cost in the future.  Station management would bankrupt the station by
> trying to mandate or regulate off-air behavior. Almost certainly, none of
> the above claims would be dismissed by a judge. The opportunity for making
> case law in a constitutional challenge at publicly funded radio station,
> like KZYX, would far too compelling. A judge's career is determined by
> published case law.
>
>
> Also, if anyone thinks the objections to the renewal of KZYX's two FCC
> licenses drew a spark of national attention, then creating a policy for
> required off-air conduct would almost certainly create a firestorm of
> controversy. I don't think many other public media stations would support
> an
> attempt by KZYX to mandate or regulate off-air behavior.
>
>
> Talk about unpopular!
>
>
> Does KZYX really seek further negative publicity?
>
>
> I can also see Congress getting involved, too. In  the1990s, Congress got
> involved at the NEA over what constituted freedom of speech issues.
> Congress
> then went way beyond getting involved.  In 1995-1997, Congress almost
> killed
> the NEA, along with the NEH and the CPB.
>
>
> Incidentally, there is some relevant case law from that time. The case
> filed
> by the "NEA Four" in 1993, with lead plaintiff Karen Finley, centered on
> subsection (d)(1) of 20 U.S.C. ? 954 which provides that the NEA
> Chairperson
> shall ensure that only excellence and merit are the criteria by which
> applications are judged. The court ruled in 524 U.S. 569 (1998), that
> Section 954(d)(1) is facially valid, as it neither inherently interferes
> with First Amendment rights nor violates constitutional vagueness
> principles.
>
>
> In other words, it can be inferred that only criteria by which
> publicly-funded broadcasters would be judged would be the same criteria
> that
> publicly-funded artists are judged...excellence and merit.
>
>
> That me state that again. If public dollars are involved, then only
> excellence and merit matter.
>
>
> Again, the courts have already decided this issue in the area of publicly
> funded art. No doubt the courts would jump at the chance for a test case in
> the area of publicly funded media.
>
>
> The NEA, NEH, and CPB all have interests that are aligned. For the same
> reason the NEA pushed back in the 1990s, I also don't think the CPB would
> sit still for a code of required off-air conduct. I don't think they would
> sit still for one minute..
>
>
> Then, there are the conservative groups who would be ready to pounce on us:
> Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Project for a
> New American Century, and others. They're always ready to pounce on public
> television and public radio at almost any opportunity. A code for required
> off-air conduct would be like waving a red flag at a bull. They couldn't
> resist it.
>
>
> But there's more. Even liberal groups would be concerned about the free
> speech issues implied in a code for required off-air conduct at a public
> radio station like KZYX.
>
>
> I was once married to a national reporter who was also a Carter Center
> Fellow. Yesterday, after following this thread about  off-air conduct on
> kzyxprogrammers at lists.mcn.org, I spoke with someone affiliated with the
> Carter Center. Together, we made a list of all the groups who would be
> aghast at a code of required off-air conduct. They include not just many
> liberal groups, but also libertarian groups, like the Annenberg Public
> Policy Center. I then asked another person who has been a guest on my show,
> and who is a prominent and highly-respected media person, to put a call
> into
> Annenberg to get a read on this dubious business of a code for required
> off-air conduct. I'll ask that person to poll a few other places, too.
>
>
> KZYX may be small, but our issues are big.
>
>   _____
>
> From: "Tim Bray" <tbray at wildblue.net>
> To: kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:04:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [Kzyxtalk] from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May 22,
> 2014
>
>
> The KZYX programmer's listserve is buzzing, and it started off with a
> question about whether or not off-air actions should be considered when
> evaluating a programmer.  Some thoughtful commentary about the programmer's
> position ensued.
>
> But the real buzz is the pushback from programmers who are sick of Sacowicz
> and his bullshit.  He is getting roundly castigated by several programmers,
> and some others are expressing genuine concern for his mental state.
>
> Sacowicz is, as usual, responding with threats of legal action and heaps of
> self-aggrandizing rhetoric.
>
> The "criticizing station management" mantra is BS and a red herring.
> Programmers question and criticize station management all the time, with no
> repercussions.  I can think of many who do it regularly and are treated
> with
> respect; I have done  it myself on several occasions, and undoubtedly will
> again.
>
> What Sacowicz is doing is beyond criticism.  Protesting the relicensing has
> demonstrably harmed the station and continues to do so.  It seems a clear
> violation of his duty as a Board member and he should be recalled - but
> that
> would require wasting even more time and money.
>
>
>
>
> On 5/22/2014 1:04 AM, sako4 at comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> =============================
>
> THE KZYX LISTSERVE is buzzing with a discussion about tightening up the
> station?s Programmer Handbook as to how a programmer might lose his air
> time
> to include how he might lose it off-air. Off-air? Off-air. Which seems to
> mean criticizing station management in forums other than ?Free Speech
> Radio,
> Mendocino County? itself where, of course, discussion of the station is not
> allowed on-air. But off-air? That might be a little much even for Philo?s
> intrepid ?speakers of truth to power.?
>
> =============================
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kzyxtalk mailing list
> Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk
>
>   _____
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4577 / Virus Database: 3950/7513 - Release Date: 05/17/14
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/kzyxtalk/attachments/20140522/b64f822f/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kzyxtalk mailing list
> Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk
>
>
> End of Kzyxtalk Digest, Vol 4, Issue 58
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/kzyxtalk/attachments/20140522/111ad9b7/attachment-0001.html 