Quantcast

Is There a Future for Pacifica? | The Nation

  •  

Is There a Future for Pacifica?

  • Decrease text size Increase text size

Now, as an outsider--and I am very much an outsider--one thing seems clear to me: Both sides have a point. The only black voices I hear on the radio are Colin Powell or teenage boys singing about "bitches" and "hoes." The voices of progressive blacks would today seem like something from a 1970 time capsule. Latinos or Asian-Americans? Forget it. NPR has become incredibly yuppified. However, when you look at the minutes of the latest Pacifica board meeting, and read demands that KPFK have more Islamic programming, more Spanish-language shows, more shows about immigration reform, more shows about Native peoples and so forth, you do wonder whether this automat-style programming would further segment, rather than bind together, progressive listeners. And how do you convince a potential new listener to KPFA, say, that its journalistic standards are superior to those of FOX News, when the station features a show called Visionary Activist hosted by an astrologist whose guests include "planets, gods and, on occasion, dead people"? (Go ahead, send the hate mail--but this is the kind of programming that the right and liberals cite to argue that progressives deserve no place at the table of national debate.)

About the Author

Susan J. Douglas
Susan J. Douglas is professor of communication studies at the University of Michigan.

Also by the Author

The TV anchor was taken aback. Unlike the other network news anchors or
the New York Times, he considered the disclosure that the Bush
Administration had granted a major contract to Halliburton for postwar
construction of oil wells in Iraq to be a scandalous lead story. He
noted that hearing the news "does make me feel like the government just
took a [bleep] on my chest." He then turned to his "senior" senior
correspondent, Stephen Colbert, and asked what he made of the
Halliburton deal. "Keeping in mind that Halliburton was a major
contributor to the Republican campaign and that Vice President Cheney is
its former CEO, this move by the government is extremely..." and then
Colbert paused. "Unpleasant?" offered the anchor, "nauseating?" Colbert
said that nothing quite captured it; what came closest was a German word
he translated to mean "to throw one's hands up in mute horror and in
this state of paralyzing dread to realize that those you need to trust
most have instead confirmed your darkest fears." But Colbert said even
that "seems a little namby-pamby in this context."

Welcome to The Daily Show on Comedy Central, the medically prescribed
antidote to CNN and Fox. Hosted by Jon Stewart since 1999, this parody
of the news is dedicated to expressing utter incredulity over what Team
Bush tries to get away with week in and week out. As of this spring, a
weekly compilation of the show airs on CNN International, which boasts
160 million viewers. The show has won kudos in Australia, Canada and
Britain, where one reporter wrote, "It is difficult to believe that they
have actually let him on air." Stewart's on-air persona is that of the
outraged individual who, comparing official pronouncements with his own
basic common sense, simply cannot believe what he--and all of us--are
expected to swallow. The approach of Stewart and his "reporters" is not
to attack Bush policies as ideologically problematic; instead, they
expose them as utterly absurd, as nonsense, deranged. When Rumsfeld
issued his warning to Syria and Iran that the United States would hold
them accountable if they interfered in any way in the invasion of Iraq,
Stewart asked in barely restrained mock horror, "Do you see what he just
did there? He's starting another war." Central to the show's
sensibilities, and to its success, is Stewart's insistence that the news
generated by Team Bush be treated on its own terms, not as news at all
but as fatuous PR, ludicrously out of touch with reality.

Because Stewart is a comic and not a politician, one would
expect that he would skewer Al Gore, were he President, with comparable
glee. He has, for example, blasted Tom Daschle's criticism of the war by
reminding viewers that Daschle voted for the war. Indeed, Stewart told
the London Guardian that the show is neither Democratic nor Republican
but simply seeks to represent the "politically disappointed." His
special target is spin: "We're out to stop that political trend of
repeating things again and again until people are forced to believe
them." Nonetheless, he has consistently opposed the war, even in his
more sober interviews with guests like the prowar comic and Saturday
Night Live alum Dennis Miller.

Unlike other late-night comedy shows, which safely go for cheap laughs
by dissing Saddam, The Daily Show has recaptured the pre-9/11
sensibilities that prevailed about Team Bush before the attacks encased
him in Teflon. The studio audience howls and applauds in delight at
Stewart's irreverence. Its core audience (73 percent) is the coveted
18-to-49 demographic. And here's some cheering news: More people (4
million) tune in to The Daily Show in a given week than watched Fox news
at the height of the war (3.3 million).

Stewart has a keen eye for Bush's hypocrisies. After Baghdad had fallen,
he showed excerpts of Bush's television address to the Iraqi people.
"You are a good and gifted people," the President intoned unctuously.
"You deserve better than tyranny and corruption and torture chambers."
Stewart, sticking out a cocked forefinger as if he were chucking a
toddler under the chin, cooed in a high voice, "Yes you do, yes you do,
you're a very good country, ga, ga, ga, goo goo."

As part of his assault on the triumph of right-wing PR, Stewart reserves
special derision for Fox News. After making fun of Iraqi state TV as a
mere government mouthpiece, Stewart asked, "Imagine a government that
has an entire TV station to lay out its agenda." He then aired Fox
footage, after which he appeared to be hypnotized, chanting, "Must
support war, tax cut good." In another show, he noted, "This war has
truly belonged to Fox. Not only did they start it...they managed to
offer fair and balanced coverage." We then saw Fox footage of a soldier
saying hi to his family and closing with, "You're watching Fox News."
Stewart couldn't believe it: "They've got soldiers doing station IDs!"
He then played a montage Fox aired of the "sights and sounds...of
operation Iraqi Freedom," which showed massive bombs exploding in
Baghdad accompanied by appallingly sentimental New Age piano music.
"That was real," Stewart confirmed in disbelief. "Sounds like our troops
have liberated a Yanni concert."

Yes, it is important to itemize, carefully and seriously, all the
reasons Team Bush is lethally dangerous to all except the upper echelons
of the Fortune 500. But The Daily Show reminds us that ridicule, scorn
and laughter may be some of the most effective weapons of all.

Globalization: Use this word in a sentence, especially as the cause of
something bad, and you will get knowing nods all around.

"Everything is up for re-examination, especially programming," asserts Cagan. "There are no sacred cows. It's not that we have an agenda, that there will no longer be a certain kind of programming. Everything is open for discussion." Coughlin has set up a "Mission Commission" to review and elicit input on programming and the programming process, which he acknowledges could be highly contentious. But like it or not, radio listeners today do rely, in part, on predictable schedules. Especially for news and public affairs programming, they want to know that they can find the same kind of news/talk show at the same time every day. The sort of listener Pacifica attracts seeks out surprise too, but this desire for some predictability in format would be foolish to ignore.

Finally, those on the board and at the stations must figure out how to stop the infighting and how to repair what many refer to as a toxic work environment. This means nothing less than cultivating an entirely new, more respectful, more restrained institutional culture marked by compromise, real power sharing and civility. Cagan, by all reports, has succeeded in creating, at the public board meetings, an environment that is respectful of people's differences and complaints, and one that is also focused on developing participatory processes that will produce effective new bylaws and more open personnel practices. But the firings of particular staff, the terminating of Pacifica Network News and the public declamations at the March meeting by some that the new board must prevent "antimission" people (those who allegedly have deviated from Pacifica's founding pacifist principles) from ever getting back on the air look like an effort to blinker one vision in favor of another.

Many on the old board behaved badly and stupidly, including refusing to listen to crucially important constituencies within the network. Is the interim board going to make the same mistakes? Is the new board simply picking off, one by one, those they feel were insufficiently critical of the old regime? "I can imagine why people might think there's a purge," Cagan acknowledged, "but the process this time is much different. Yes, people have been fired, but no one's been banned. And the numbers are wildly different. At WBAI under the old board, twenty-seven or twenty-eight people were fired or banned. We offered a buyout, which was totally voluntary, and only three people have been fired. Pacifica is changing, and we're opening up space at the five stations for new leadership to emerge." She insists that the board eliminated PNN not for ideological reasons but because the audit singled it out as especially costly and urged that it be abolished.

Don Rush begs to disagree. "Part of it is personal," he maintains, recalling the torrent of abusive voice mails and e-mails he got from dissidents who saw him as on the wrong side of the battle. "Once their side won, we would be the people who would go."

Questions about Pacifica's future management take on new urgency in this age of unprecedented media concentration and as the White House continues to tighten the jaws of news management. And the February 19 decisions by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which ordered Michael Powell's lapdog FCC to reconsider (read, eliminate) restrictions on the number of television stations the networks can own, and simply struck down rules preventing a company from owning a cable system and a broadcast station in a single market, make many of us anxious about Pacifica's ability to remain a powerful and important voice in the etheric wilderness.

There are five Pacifica stations and only fifty-one affiliates. Those of us out here stuck with Britney Spears and "Satellite Sisters" and no Pacifica station or affiliate, who see Bush, Ashcroft, Sharon and the top guys at Enron and Arthur Andersen (to name just a few) getting away with murder (often literally), are fed up with folks at Pacifica seeing each other as the enemy and smearing each other endlessly. Despite Cagan's commitment to participatory democracy (and her opposition to censorship), she, Coughlin and others may need to issue some tough, top-down edicts about name-calling and race-baiting in the workplace. If Pacifica can survive financially (and don't think the media sharks aren't circling around those stations, waiting patiently) many of us want Pacifica and its stations to reach some hard-nosed compromises that will carve out space for progressive programming for national audiences as well as programming with local interest and appeal. In terms of potential reach, Pacifica may be the largest progressive media outlet, but in terms of real influence, it has yet to fulfill its potential. Maybe if you're in Berkeley or LA, the biggest, most important battles over democracy are inside the walls of the Pacifica stations. But many of us would like those in Pacifica to walk away from the microscope and put on some binoculars. Look outward. That's where the really, really bad guys are, and they are getting scarier--and in more need of media outrage--each and every day.

  • Decrease text size Increase text size
Close