[Imc-newsroom] Fwd: Decisions & Information

[Paul Riismandel]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I want you all to be privy to this e-mail 
I sent to the WEFT Associates e-mail list moments ago regarding the PC's 
decision to replace FSRN and Radio Nation with the Newshour.  I want to 
emphasize something I say below--I don't object to the Newshour being 
permanently placed in the schedule, and I don't necessarily object to where 
it was placed.  But I do strongly object to the lack of sufficient 
democratic process on the part of WEFT's Programming Committee.  Such 
process has shown itself to be vitally necessary at WEFT over the years.

Again, I'm happy to see the Newshour placed in the WEFT schedule, and have 
no wish to see it changed or removed.  But I think that the goodwill of 
WEFTies risks being compromised if they feel like decisions have been made 
without due consideration or notification.


>Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:52:14 -0500
>To: wefta at prairienet.org
>From: Paul Riismandel <p-riism at uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Decisions & Information
>
>To the WEFT Associates and Programming Committee:
>
>I just found out this morning that at last night's PC meeting the PC 
>decided to air the IMC Newshour in place of Free Speech Radio News and 
>Radio Nation on Mondays.  While I am happy to see the PC try to find a 
>permanent spot for the Newshour, I am also disappointed that it is at the 
>expense of FSRN.  But this is not my concern.
>
>What I am most concerned about is the fact that this decision was made 
>without any public notification of the scope of this question. I, for one, 
>never had the opportunity to argue for FSRN or to help find a compromise 
>solution.  Yes, the PC did publish an agenda more than a week ago that 
>listed the IMC Newshour as an item, but there was no notification to the 
>WEFT community that the PC would consider replacing FSRN and Radio 
>Nation.  I think this is inappropriate.
>
>The PC's logic for the decision--that having a local news program on-air 
>is important--I have no problem with.  What is a problem is that there was 
>no opportunity to offer other ideas, logics or approaches that might have 
>been able to find a middle ground.
>
>More than two years ago the PC did something similar in removing Democracy 
>Now, and those of us who were there can remember the tremendous debate and 
>difficulty this caused.  While I do not think the same political issues 
>are at play here, the principle is the same:  The PC has a responsibility 
>not to significantly alter the schedule without first notifying the 
>station of the issue and the plans to do so.  This was not done.
>
>Let me be clear:  As many of you know, I am one of the founding members of 
>the IMC.  I have no objection to WEFT placing the Newshour into a regular 
>space on the schedule whatsoever, and I applaud the PC's willingness to do 
>so.  What I object to is the station not being notified of the options for 
>placing the Newshour before the decision came to be made.  Were there 
>already a hole in the schedule, this objection would not be relevant.  But 
>given that a space had to be made for the program somehow--meaning some 
>other program had to be moved or removed from the schedule--then that 
>possibility must be publicized in advance.
>
>Let me be clear about one more thing: I am not accusing the PC of being 
>purposely clandestine, nor trying "to slip one by."  I don't believe that 
>is true at all.  I believe the PC to be operating in good faith, even if I 
>question this judgement.
>
>To the members of the PC: this is an important and exciting time in 
>grassroots media.  But please do not allow enthusiasm to override basic 
>democratic imperatives.  Decisions can be tabled for further publicity and 
>discussion, and this is NOT a bad idea.  The PC could have easily 
>authorized the IMC Newshour as a two-week replacement/pre-emption pending 
>further publicity and discussion at your next meeting, and the net effect 
>for next Monday would be the same.  As someone who worked with such 
>decisions for 4 tumultuous years as PC Chair, I want to encourage caution 
>and lean towards maximal disclosure, even when it doesn't seem like there 
>would be any debate.  I learned that the hard way.
>
>This may be the best decision, and the majority of WEFTies may agree with 
>it. That's fine, but the perception or even actuality of mass agreement 
>should not allow us to dismiss the possibility of informed and reasonable 
>dissent that should have its opportunity to be aired and 
>considered.  Changing existing programming is never a simple issue.   I am 
>not asking anything be done about this particular, nor am I trying to 
>spark needless controversy.  I do, however, think these things need to be 
>said and hope they will be considered for future decisions.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul