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

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.


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 <>
>>> via Marc Cooper <>  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
>>> 7500-8000Š.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.
>>> <>