[Imc-radio] Re: [Imc] Radio group operating by consensus?

[Mike Lehman]

I gotta agree with Paul on this. I'm flying blind to a certain extent, 
since I didn't hear the broadcast in question and am only privy to what 
has back and forth on the lists.

I get the impression that Al would have done such a report in a 
different way. And that's all fine and good. I'm sure the IMC Radio 
resources are at his disposal if he wants to do so.

But the story was Ondine's. And because even people basically on the 
same side of the whole Palestine vs. Israel issue often find themselves 
in disagreement about exactly how to report on issues surrounding this 
conflict, I can't see the IMC taking some particular stance on it that 
would satisfy everyone involved with the IMC.

I really think the whole issue of consensus on the Radio group is one 
that wouldn't change the way things came out unless Al was himself 
involved with the group so that his input could be taken into account at 
the time. There are always things we would do differently if WE did them 
instead of someone else. None of our groups, although they all function 
somewhat differently in practice, actually establishes a "political 
line" as such, so I see no other way for Al to affect the outcome other 
than for him to get involved personally in helping make the news. That's 
the IMC way, but it can present some opportunities for misunderstanding 
about how we do the news, which seems to be the case here.

That said, Paul's point about the importance of having at least an 
occasional meeting to hash out things (and hopefully getting a spoke to 
Steering at least _some_ of the time, although that is an issue in 
itself) is important so that these things have a venue to come to. This 
is _not_ Cliff's responsibility, however. Cliff has held the meetings 
and given up in frustration since no one was attending at the agreed on 
time (and he may have still been having the meetings when this first 
came up and, if so, that is where Al should've started.) It is the 
responsibility of the _members_ of the Radio group to have some sort of 
regular meetings, even if this is only once a month.

That said, I don't want to fix what ain't broke. The shows are getting 
done, so the Radio group, on that point, has found something that works. 
Producing for a weekly Radio program has even more deadline pressure 
than for the public i and would be ill-served by some sort of review 
process before it goes on the air. I don't want anything we do to 
disrupt what seems to me to be effective work.

But there is this basic function of meeting occasionally that does need 
to be addressed so that when people, like Al did, have an issue to 
discuss, they can do so. These things shouldn't float endlessly in 
cyberspace where nothing gets resolved. I don't think it would or should 
  change anything in this case, except to provide an opportunity for reply.

I simply don't see us dictating to Ondine or any other responsible IMC 
reporter who works hard on a story to have it reviewed for having the 
right IMC "line," because there ain't no such critter. There isn't time 
in most cases to do so anyway.

One other thing is that, while I trust Clint's judgement implicitly in 
doing the work he is doing, I can see where a case could come up where 
he might recognize the subject would be problematic for an IMC radio 
program. It shouldn't fall solely on his shoulders if it ever happens to 
have to say no, which is another good reason to have regular 
opportunities for the Radio group to meet. Otherwise, the only thing 
that could be done is to throw it in the lap of Steering, which as Paul 
noted, we would prefer not to happen unless it can't be resolved at a 
lower level.
Mike Lehman


Paul Bengt Riismandel wrote:
> I am fine with having the discussion on Radio's lack of meetings at
> steering, but by and large the only thing I'd encourage would be for the
> Radio group to find a meeting day and time that everyone can agree to.
> So I'm not sure what there is to discuss.
> 
> It may be that weekly meetings are not practical for radio and so
> perhaps some other meeting schedule should be considered.  Perhaps twice
> a month, or even just once a month would be frequent enough.
> 
> I do think it's important for there to be a regular consensus group so
> that there is full consensus upon how the show is organized and done. It
> is fine for the radio group to consent to how it is currently run, as
> Clint has described it.  Radio is under no obligation to run itself the
> same way as the public I -- simply, it must consent to run how it wants
> to.  
> 
> This doesn't mean that I doubt that the radio group consented to the
> current arrangement, either.  Rather, it means that all consensus
> decisions must subject to testing at any time -- testing by discussion,
> debate, modification or new decisions.  The only way this can be
> accomplished is through regular meetings of the consensus group.
> 
> So, in the example of Al's concerns, I recognize that he does not easily
> have the opportunity to bring his concerns to the Radio Group and take
> part in discussing the group's methodology because it is not meeting at
> a regular time and place. If an when Radio schedules regular meetings,
> this is no longer a problem.
> 
> However, at this time I am quite unwilling to have steering scrutinize
> the decisions of Radio on this particular issue, or in general.
> Steering is not an oversight committee, and it is not a board of
> directors.  Any concern with the way any particular working group does
> its business must be pursued with that group first and primarily.  
> 
> Steering should only be a platform for such concerns only when and if
> all attempts at consensus within the working group have been exhausted,
> or if the IMC is otherwise believed to be in imminent danger.  
> 
> I hope that Radio will find a regular meeting time that can be adhered
> to. If it cannot, then, yes, it seems to me that Radio ceases to be a
> working group and then responsibility for the radio program falls to
> Clint under the supervision of Steering, for a lack of any other
> structure. Personally, I really think that would be a bad thing and
> would really hate to see that.
> 
> --Paul