I think there are three important questions having to do with Pacifica. They don't really have much to do with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. And Marc, they don't really have to do with you or Mr. Schubb. These questions don't have much to do with anything any of you have done.
The first question has to do with the roots of this fight. It has to do with the conflict between those who want Pacifica to be very professional, and those who want a vibrant, community based radio station that fights against oppression and injustice. Just for the sake of having some simple titles, let's call these two opposing poles the "professionalists" and the "radicals." Both sides have good points to make, and somehow satisfying both sides is essential to the proper functioning of Pacifica.
So the first question is essentially a question of where, between these two poles, the radio station should tune itself. How do we set policy to meet the needs of both factions? If we let the "professionalists" set policy, we end up with a radio station that's bland and useless, stuck somewhere between NPR and the vast AM desert.
On the other hand, if we let the "radicals" make the all the rules, we end up with anarchy [Alex clarifies elsewhere that he, of course, means chaos, not Anarchism. -Hugh]. We'd have twenty to fifty programmers getting on each station every day and pointlessly blathering as they interfered with each other's messages and sounding totally clueless.
Where the members of this board [Goodlight discussion forum, not iPNB or LAB -Hugh] differ with you is on the range of valid territory between these two extremes of radicalism and professionalism. "Valid," in this case means useful or appealing. It's the territory in which the radio station can serve the left in an intelligent manner, sounding neither over controlled nor anarchic, and capable of drawing enough donations to remain in operation. Most of us who post on this message board, as well as the members of the new board and the LAB think the range of valid territory is pretty big. Personally, I think that Pacifica could "tune" itself to anywhere within the middle half of the range and still do plenty of good.
However, I get the idea that you have a very narrow view of the valid range. When I read your letters and listen to you discuss this on the radio, I get the feeling that you have an exact spot on this spectrum you'd like Pacifica to tune itself to, and that this is a really big emotional issue to you. Furthermore, you're mean about it. Your interview with David Fertig was as nasty a journalistic ambush as any I've ever seen. Your on air talks are ugly, mean and distorted. I'm not saying that the facts you quote are wrong, just that the way handle yourself and interpret those facts gives the impression that you're really ugly inside.
The second question relates to the first. How close can Pacifica get to either the radical or professional pole before those who believe in the other point of view can validly take an extreme action? With regard to the latest round of conflict between the radicals and the professionals, is it when the board refuses to seat members the majority doesn't like? Is it when the bylaws get broken? Is it when the station decides to stop consulting with the LABs? Is it when the board decides to become "self electing?" Is it when good, smart people get fired for trying to bring the problem out in the open so the listeners can discuss it? What if the network decides to "fire the audience?"
When I listen to or read your views on the subject, it seems like you've refused to consider these issues, or that you don't think they're worth discussing them at all. You simply haven't considered the question of whether Juan Gonzalez spent as many long, sleepless nights pondering these issues as you must have, or whether the people who make up the various LABs didn't understand the issues and the risks they were taking. You sound like the Red Queen - "Off with their heads." The impression I get is of a man who is desperate to be right, a guy who is so wedded to being right that this need distorts all judgement and sense. A guy who's as smart as you should be able to take a walk in Juan Gonzalez' shoes. Instead, you've dismissed him as a crank.
I just don't care which of you is right. I just don't give a fuck who gets the pat on the head from teacher. Pacifica is in the position it's in right now because too many people just like you decided that they were right, and that rightness justified any behavior, however ugly, nasty, or just plain mean it might be.
I don't care who's right. I want Amy in the morning and Marc at night, but I can't have that - may not have either of those options because you decided to take your ball and go home because the game isn't going your way.
Grow up. Stop whining. Stop worrying about whether you're right and start worrying about what kind of a contribution you can make.
So, Marc, that leads us the the last question. Will Pacifica survive? I haven't a clue about that one, but I do know that you've decided that Pacifica's survival isn't as important to you as being able to stand above the corpse of the one radio station worth listening to and holding up the trophy for being right.
I imagine you with in one of those heroic poses straight from a Stalinist painting meant to inspire the masses. In one lowered hand you've got a microphone, in the other raised hand you've got a report card from God declaring you utterly correct. You're standing on the dead, tortured, bound and gagged corpse of Lew Hill, and you're smiling.