 |
 |
Michael: For someone who takes pride in having driven people off this list, your concern about fair treatment rings hollow. Notice that I critiqued Cooper not you and that I noted that you and I agree that fate of Pacifica is important to the left. Nevertheless, the Cooper post has no place on the Science for the People list as far as I am concerned. I have taken up this irksome task of counting because I feel that you win hands down in terms of number of posts not relevant to the list. But to be fair I am keeping count. If balance concerns you, keep count of the others. We can watch the numbers grow together. Larry On 8/30/10 12:42 PM, "Michael Balter" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I'm happy if my post about Pacifica generates discussion, but I'm not sure > what the counting of my supposedly "irrelevant" posts accomplishes--especially > when they are being counted by someone who feels it is appropriate to respond > to them, and especially when the "irrelevant" posts of other list > members--need I name names?--have never been counted before. > > MB > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: >> All: >> >> I am going to begin counting Balterıs irrelevant posts to this list. In this >> case a forwarded email about Pacifica of a Marc Cooper opinion piece. >> >> In the post below, I also reduced Cooperıs email to its important parts, >> leaving out as much of the cutesy invective, self-promotion (Cooper was right >> about Pacifica all along), and pejorative statements as I could. One ends up >> with a much shorter statement with potentially useful content, if the content >> is correct, even if it is not new news. >> >> I agree with Balter that fate of Pacifica is important for the left, but what >> Cooper writes about Pacifica seldom helps for the reasons above. I cannot >> verify (or refute) the specific information Cooper reports, but at least most >> of what remains is refutable (or not) information (in the Karl Popper sense). >> >> And yes, the network needs lots of support. >> >> Larry >> >> Non science related Balter post number 1. >> >> Edited Cooper piece follows. What remains still portrays the precarious >> condition of Pacifica. >>> >>> Barnacle Radio <http://marccooper.com/barnacle-radio/> >>> via Marc Cooper <http://marccooper.com> by Marc Cooper on 8/29/10 >>> >>> >>> Alan Minsky, warned the staff and volunteers of impending economic >>> catastrophe and politely asked for volunteers to step forward to either >>> surrender or shorten their programs. He said he needed to introduce some >>> updated programming that hopefully would generate more revenue and audience >>> and he needed room in the schedule to do it. >>> >>> Kevin Roderick at LAObserved reports this email coming from Minsky: >>>> >>>> ³Unfortunately, following my e-mail of one month ago in which I asked KPFK >>>> programmers, for the good of the station, to offer to shorten the length of >>>> their show or to move to a web-based show or to end their shows, not a >>>> single programmer stepped forward and made such a sacrifice,² writes Alan >>>> Minsky. As a result, he warns that the hammer is about to fall: ³New voices >>>> need to be added to KPFKıs programming. In a weekıs time some very >>>> difficult decisions will be made by KPFK management.² >>> >>> Pacifica Radio is bleeding money and audience and its on air fundraising has >>> become not only incessant, but chock a block with truther conspiracies and >>> quack miracle medical cures. It is a bleeding sore of the Left and makes >>> you wonder about left-wing critics of The Media (why is the Left Media even >>> worse than the MSM?). (Note: Lots of reports around Pacifica about its >>> financial condition. I agree that many current premiums are awful.) >>> >>> Minskyıs memo is misleading as it refers to recent station growth from >>> 120,000 to 180,000 cumulative listeners per week. But the station had >>> 180,000 listeners twelve years ago and with a much weaker signal. What we >>> are talking about is total stagnation. The real way to measure listenership, >>> however, is by Average Quarter Hour followers people who tune in for at >>> least 5 mins during an average 15 minute period. Thatıs very close to the >>> number of people listening at any given moment. (Note: I have never seen >>> AQH reports for WBAI. The reports look potentially useful.) >>> >>> According to figures I just saw, KPFKıs latest AQH is down to an all-time >>> low of 1600 (in a signal area of 25 million people). (Source? Note: >>> selective comparison of numbers from selected years are not very >>> (scientifically) reliable. Permits comparing the highest with the lowest >>> which might just be temporary spikes in the statistics. Trends across the >>> time period carry more meaning.) Two points of comparison. KPFK bottomed >>> out at an AQH of 1800 in 1995 during a similar period of decay. During >>> Schubbıs management (1995-2002), he got those numbers to peak at about >>> 7500-8000.which means, in reality, KPFK has about 20% of the audience it >>> did a decade ago. By contrast, successful public radio stations like KPCC >>> can boast of an AQH 12-15 times bigger than KPFK while running, quite >>> literally, about one or two percent of the wattage of Pacifica and thereby >>> commanding a much smaller signal footprint. (Public Radio also cheerfully >>> runs corporate ads.) >>> >>> This is not just a problem at KPFK, but is rather a network-wide crisis. Of >>> the five Pacifica stations, two donıt even have recorded ratings because >>> they havenıt paid the bill of the rating service! At this moment, all five >>> positions of permanent station General Manager are open! >>> >>> There was one breach [in a supposed wall of left silence] a few weeks ago >>> when lefty economist Doug Henwood, still a progammer at Pacificaıs WBAI, >>> went public with his own report. Read it here. >>> <http://lbo-news.com/2010/08/10/the-state-of-wbai-dire/> > >