[Imc-radio] Re: Response to Interview

[Al Kagan]

Thanks Paul.  Just to be clear, "we" is the membership of the IMC.  I 
would never suggest any kind of content committee or censorship. 
What I am suggesting is a general consensus about the purpose of the 
IMC and its radio group.  I am happy that there is a radio group, and 
that they decide what they want to do for the program.  Same for the 
Public i.

I appreciate your point about "collaborating" with the interviewee. 
That is exactly what I expected.

As for learning how to do the production, I can't see it in the near 
future.  I just took 3 days off work to catch up on my anti-war work 
and other commitments.  I just don't have any more time.  I support 
the IMC, among other reasons, so you folks will do radio.


At 12:26 PM -0600 3/26/03, Paul Kotheimer wrote:
>Howdy, neigbors:
>
>I enter the conversation at the point where Al Kagan expresses concern
>about the content of an interview he participated in, saying he presumed
>he'd be interviewed by a "progressive."  Clint makes the point that "IMC
>Radio News" is not necessarily "Progressive Radio News."
>
>Al answers: "This is the critical question. I imagine that most members
>think that the IMC's raison d'etre is to provide a progressive alternative
>to the mainstream.  In fact, I think it does serve that function almost
>all the time.  We need to have explicit agreement on the IMC's purpose."
>
>My two cents at this point is: "Who's 'WE'?" 
>
>When I gather audio and edit it into a radio news item, I think of myself,
>for the most part, as acting solo--and I wouldn't have it any other way.
>In fact, to be more specific, if the Urbana IMC told me it was going to be
>some OTHER way (i.e., that some Content Committee was in charge of what
>radio I could or couldn't produce), then ALL my contributions of gear and
>expertise to the organization would cease IMMEDIATELY because THEN (from
>my perspective) the organization would have undermined its mission.
>
>To get back to the process of radio production, though, which is where I'd
>like to make my point--it is the case that at the moment I am conducting
>an interview, I am to a certain extent COLLABORATING with the interviewee.
>However, when I DON'T invite the interviewee to edit the tape of the
>interview, I think  of myself NOT as excluding their potential input,
>but rather as doing MY job as a radio producer.
>
>My point is that, generally speaking, the interviewee has the most power
>over content before and during the interview.  That's when an interviewee
>had best make no compromises about saying what she or he wants.  It seems
>to me that the problems in this case stem from exactly THAT part of the
>process.
>
>Now, if, as an interviewee, the broadcast results misrepresent your words
>or leave you dissatisfied, you have the option of rebuttal--i.e., you are
>invited to become an independent producer of CONTENT!  SO:  If you want
>power over the content of a piece of radio production AFTER the interview
>is concluded, YOU need to be something other than an interviewee.  That's
>just the mechanincs of the process.
>
>I sincerely look forward to hearing Al Kagan, IMC Radio Producer, on WEFT
>some Monday evening soon; and (of course) I am available by appointment
>for audio trainings as well as all manner of audio-related tweaking and
>geeking.
>
>Autonomy+Solidarity=>Freedom
>paulkotheimer:)
>***********************************************
>THE HAND-MADE RECORD LABEL
>www.handmaderecords.com
>
>703 East Illinois Street
>Urbana, IL 61801
>217 344 2062  phone (no fax)


-- 


Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu