<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">You know BC, I think you just nailed it! It is that simple…and subtle. May we evolve with that wisdom.<div><br><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On May 20, 2014, at 7:44 PM, BC <<a href="mailto:omni@mcn.org">omni@mcn.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Tim, I think your analysis is excellent, but being of a scientific
bent myself, it seems that the question is not simply the mix of
syndicated vs local. It is also not just the last 5 years. The
overall story is tied to the general state of the national media and
the need for local process to evolve our communities and spirits.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that the necessary changes in KZYX will be communal
and somewhat gradual (or epochal) and are dependent on our discovery
of community process that was perhaps more present 20 years ago at
the station and needs to be reinstated. These changes, in my mind,
will involve the local community in an ongoing dialogue towards a
truly evolved community. ~BC<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/20/2014 5:27 PM, Tim Bray wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:537BF300.20609@wildblue.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tinyurl.com/omohgm5">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 class="662531519-11022014"><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 cite="mid:CAKNFa+KY-gkFkNTtBvmJ+39hfEsktzD8hrinC2dxVwf3PoWhDw@mail.gmail.com" 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 for the PAC or any other form of transparency
in the program decision making process. I believe that the
lack of transparency in this area is the root cause of almost
all the conflict at KZYX over the last ten years, up to and
including the recent crisis. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The truth is nobody but staff knows how many and who has
applied for what kind of program for a long time. Staff tells
us it is hard to find good people who are qualified and
willing to volunteer the time. They are concerned about
producing "bad radio" and ensuring that the production value
of each program produced adheres to certain standards.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>These notions are entirely rational, considering
aforementioned demographic changes ect. but I have been
concerned that staff has set the quality bar too high and has
done so at the expense of content. I have felt that
interesting and diverse content should be prioritized over
production value (content is free, production value usually
costs money) but that runs the risk of sounding hoky and
unprofessional. For me PV vs. content is like the yin/yang of
audio production, we need to find the balance that works for
us. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks again for this discussion, your feedback is really
helping me clarify and express my ideas in a way that is
productive, though I really should get back to work.....</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Doug</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://oakandthorn.wordpress.com/">Oak & Thorn</a><br>
Facebook: Oak and Thorn</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Kzyxtalk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Kzyxtalk mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk<br></div><br></div></div></body></html>