wbai.net Pacifica/WBAI history   events   links   archive   bylaws etc
PNB   LSB   elections   contact info   opinion   search

Is wbai.net biased?
4-28-03


Yes, wbai.net is biased in favor of greater fairness, transparency and wider involvement at WBAI and Pacifica. All are welcome to respond on this issue.
Wbai.net responds below Shiela Hamanaka's email.
- Roger M, wbai.net editor,


[Responses are now posted lower on the page - 5/3/03]

------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: sheilahamanaka <sheilahamanaka@earthlink.net>
To: <webmaster@wbai.net>
Cc: dan coughlin <danc@igc.org>; Leslie <leslie@lafn.org>; pac diversity <Pacifica_Diversity@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:27 PM
Subject: biased postings on wbai.net re bylaws

TO: Roger Manning, webmaster, WBAI.NET
Dear Roger,
Your website

"This website, wbai.net, is not officially a part of Pacifica or WBAI. It has been established by WBAI/Pacifica listeners as a resource for everyone. "

which is supposedly a "resource for everyone" is repeatedly only posting select emails representing one side in the affirmative action debate - Carol Spooner's and Gregory Wonderwheel's.

why aren't you posting the other sides?

How can I or other members of the Pacifica Diversity language committee submit items to be posted on the bylaws revision page? Can we get equal space?

I believe you should inform readers that your website represents only one point of view in the bylaws debate, because despite the disclaimer, it appears to be, AND IS USED AS, a repository of "official" documents, amongst which you have sandwiched material by one political faction in the Pacifica community.

RSVP
Sheila Hamanaka
Co-chair, Rockland Friends of WBAI
East Asia Radio Collective. WBAI
Unity Caucus, WBAI

****************************************************

wbai.net response:

Sheila,

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns. They are certainly legitimate. As your email is a letter to the editor of the wbai.net, I am posting it on the site and on the lists along with my response and invite others to comment on these topics as well.

Wbai.net is not my website. It belongs to the Coalition for a democratic Pacifica, NY. I am not a member of CdPNY. I volunteered to work on their site in January 2001 because, at that time, they were the only people in the NYC free-Pacifica movement pointing to the importance of the lawsuits, the bylaws and having elections. While most others were being WBAI-centric, they were aware of the other stations and the importance of Pacifica as a network. Initially, CdPNY was a little dismayed with my including material on wbai.net from people that they strongly disagreed with, but they quickly saw the value in this approach and have trusted me to edit their site every since. At that time the website contained around 50 pages, now it has over 1000.

It seems that you don't spend all that much time on the site.
Wbai.net does not present "only one point of view in the bylaws debate." While I and CdPNY disagree strongly with the proposals and conduct of the "Unity Caucus"/WBAI LAB, No other website contains as much material from the "Unity Caucus"/WBAI LAB as wbai.net. Governance proposals from ALL the various "factions" have always been posted. EVERY single proposal and resolution that the "Unity Caucus"/WBAI LAB that I could get a hold of has been posted on the "governance proposals" page and elsewhere and initially linked to from the homepage. The point of view of the UC/LAB is presented in those documents and the postings that debate them are needed for balance. ALL the documents from the bylaws diversity committee have and will be posted, including any minority reports.

What generally doesn't get posted is manipulative, truth twisting, occasionally race baiting material that basically amounts to bad information. Exclusion of such material would explain why certain people or factions may seem to be under-represented on the site. Occasionally such things do need to be exposed and are published with a response. There is a ton of material produced from all sides of the various issues that does not make it to the site, though I archive much of it on my hard drive.

Wbai.net's (and CdPNY's ) aim is to promote greater fairness, transparency and wider involvement at WBAI and Pacifica, partially through democratic process. These are things vital to Pacifica's survival and growth. Actions and conduct of the "Unity Caucus"/WBAI LAB show that they do not promote these things. The key people from this group were against elections at WBAI before the lawsuits settlement mandated them. The various constituency/inclusion models they have produced since have designs that would serve to undermine fair and effective elections. What some may construe as biased positions on wbai.net are in actuality a reporting on unfair and undemocratic activity within the Pacifica community.

Despite all this, I, for one, have not written off the Unity Caucus"/WBAI LAB as others have. I know that these are all good people and that the majority, at least in the UC, are well intentioned and sincere.

Please spend more time on the site.
You'll find postings/opinions from the UC faction including yourself, though admittedly they are harder to find. There should be postings from Mimi Rosenberg and Bob Lederer, the key architects of the "Unity Caucus"/WBAI LAB output, but aside from proposals and resolutions, they very rarely publish. The only personal response on these issues that I've even seen Bob put out was immediately posted.
(http://www.wbai.net/bylaws_revise/br_constit_lederer11-20-02.html)
In 2001 Mimi made her argument in support of appointed LAB seats and it was posted:
(http://www.wbai.net/lab/lab_mimi7-29-01.html)

When I wrote and posted an editorial (http://www.wbai.net/bylaws_revise/bylaws_revise_editorial_LAB_vote11-9-02.html) on the site last fall, there was an invitation at the top of the page for response. The editorial was also posted on all the lists.There was NOT ONE response from the UC or LAB.
When I was in debate with Anthony Mackall over the policy of the invitation only "Unity Caucus" meetings, I published a whole page of discussion. (http://www.wbai.net/eow/eow_consit_discussion7-23-02.html)
Response is constantly invited thoughout the site and there are extensive links to the online discussion lists. There would be a link to the "Unity Caucus" website if there was one.

The recent item by Carol Spooner regarding the diversity bylaw issue is posed as a question: "Has the NYC 'Unity Caucus' hijacked Pacifica? " It is a serious question that must be asked. On the page is the string including Leslie Radford's post which is in disagreement with Carol. If you want to send me a response to Carol's post, I will add it to the page.

If wbai.net has become "a repository of 'official' documents" it is because the site has been doing what Pacifica/WBAI has failed to do; make the strongest effort possible to inform the Pacifica community on Pacifica/WBAI issues. (pacifica.org, and more recently wbai.org, are now much closer to doing this) It is an un-official website. Perhaps that is why it is easier for wbai.net to post so much information; because the insiders have no power to block the flow here. In any case, wbai.net is under no obligation. It IS a site for everyone though, including those who disagree with much of the content. At this time, these are people that are mostly in, or connected to people in, positions of power and influence at WBAI/Pacifica. You are free to start you're own website. Wbai.net will link to it. Meanwhile, as I've pointed out, wbai.net has and will publish all the proposals and resolutions of the factions to which you belong.

I've always considered you to be someone who tries to do their homework.
It seems that you've fallen short in this case.

Roger M - editor, wbai.net


RESPONSES posted on:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica
http://goodlight.net/wbai

------------

patty heffley
wbai.net is an arm of CdPNY..
Mon Apr 28 20:40:38 2003


wbai.net is the listener's network
hence- .net

wbai.net owes nothing to sheila hamanaka a new 
member of the program council slipped in by the 
wbai lab at an illegal meeting where the agenda 
wasn't posted or announced, a proud member of the 
unity caucus who has been holding up the bylaws since 
september, and a shoved in member of the diversity 
committee who promotes illegal bylaws that will get us sued. 

since CdPNY is dedicated to listener empowerment and the 
health of pacifica it would not be prudent to post such 
swill that will get us sued and that none of us 
in CdPNY aggrees with.

you can yell at roger all you like, he has principle and 
will not bend. nor will i. 

get your own website. 

as we said to Bessie Wash and Daly Temchine of Epstein 
Becker and Green: Sue Us.

so sheila, sue me.

ha ha ha ha ha 


patty heffley
wbai.net
serving the listeners since 1996 

----------------------------------------------

margie manners and wbai.net has been providing a service.. Mon Apr 28 21:44:17 2003 for free since 1996. wbai.net often is the only site that has any of the governance information on it. and that is because it is important to us. roger is the webmaster and not a member of CdPNY but happens to agree with many of the same things including passing the bylaws and choice voting. the site speaks for itself and need not be "fair" according to sheila hamanaka. if fair is what we are looking for sheila will cease being a member of the program council and the diversity committee. and i am not holding my breath. and she always signs everything "peace" like mose er lee kronick what are you gonna do? margie manners

----------------------------------------------

From: A. Gregory Wonderwheel Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 11:24 pm Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? Roger Manning wrote to Sheila Hamanaka: "If you want to send me a response to Carol's post, I will add it to the page." and "What generally doesn't get posted is manipulative, truth twisting, occasionally race baiting material that basically amounts to bad information." Is it possible for Sheila to write anything that would not include calling people racists or otherwise would not include material that would be manipulative and truth twisting? Curious minds wait to know. Greogry Wonderwheel

----------------------------------------------

From: Rafael Renteria Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 12:42 am Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? Thus is so laughable. Manning posts nothing but the EC [referring to the former Freiends of WBAI elections committee] line, and never has.

----------------------------------------------

From: patty Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:31 am Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: Is wbai.net biased? obviously you don't spend much time on wbai.net either. all proposals are up there. where else are they? nowhere. you can buy a website name for about $10 and someone in all those constituencies must have web space for the asking and then the unitycaucus/wbailab can post till the cows come home. i'm sure lederer would post the website address on wbai.org as he is the editor. free speech means that you are free to get your own website and post what you want and no one can stop you. it isn't about making someone post stuff they don't like. everyone including you has an opinion. don't trash roger, he's a mammal. patty >Thus is so laughable. > >Manning posts nothing but the EC line, and never has. > >

----------------------------------------------

From: Stephen M Brown Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:08 am Subject: Re: [WBAIBylaws] Is wbai.net biased? Roger -- I thought your response to Sheila was dignified and thorough. I am just butting in to thank you for the enormous amount of time and effort you have put into Wbai.net. Without it, the movement to rescue Pacifica would have been blind, deaf, and dumb. And perhaps even dead. Steve Stephen M. Brown sbrown13@n...

----------------------------------------------

From: Roger M Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:11 am Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? Raphael, I used to post you all the time: http://wbai.net/eow/eow_rafael_race5-1-01.html http://wbai.net/eow/eow_listenr_emprmnt7-2-01.html http://wbai.net//eow/eow_constit_renteria6-9-02.html Now, I almost never to read your blather. What happened to you? Roger

----------------------------------------------

From: Rafael Renteria Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:23 pm Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? These three examples make my point that Roger never posts anything outside the EC Line. The items he lists are well within the parameters of the EC Line. Essays and observations Roger doesn't agree with are "blather," no matter how well constructed, and will never see the light of day at WBAI.net. I first understood this a year ago when I submitted a 17 page paper to Roger on the Pacifica Mission that dealt with the history of the struggle, diversity, the interpretation of the Mission and programming policy. Whatever else it was, it wasn't "blather," just something Roger didn't, apparently, agree with. Rafael

----------------------------------------------

From: Rafael Renteria Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:48 pm Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? Liz, My impressions are based on a couple of things, and it is possible my point was overdrawn, although I think its basically correct. During the whole debate around the persecution of Eva Georgia, Roger posted attacks on Eva, attacks on my paper defending Eva, and never posted anything from the other side or my paper. This spoke to me of a profound bias. In my view, and to the extent that I have bothered to check, in recent months Roger has also failed to post any argument on the website that supports diversity provisions. If you read his own reply to me, he reduced my postings on these matters to "blather" as a justification for ignoring them. Wehn I wrote him over a year ago asking him to psot my in deth analysis of the Mission, diversity and programming policy, he ignored me. That 17 page analysis was hardly "blather." It was a rigorous analysis. So, yes, my point may have been overdrawn. I don't examine the website in detail. But my point also remains, and it is not a dishonest one. Rafael --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, liz_mclellan wrote: > That is unforgivably FALSE, Rafeal. > > I have not wanted to believe that you are a lier Rafeal. I'm a bit of > a pollyanna I suppose - I really do try and try again to believe that > peope are doing what they think is best - to the best of the abiilty > and are basically at political odds in a difficult space-- but are > basically honest. I have had that bleeife or need chewed up and > spittin out at Pacifica - I'm over it now - Over Pacifica. > > I REALLY have tried and tried again to sift through your loads and > loads of posts for the good stuff and ignore the attacks on you as a > person. > > But now, I -have to see =that they come from experience of other > people - who have expereince your manipulation and lies - and cannot > move back to a place of trust with you - and therefore take you > on "every chance they get" > > Because you cause willfull damage. > > It's plain as day to me now. > > You have crossed the line. > > You have obviously not spent much time there. > > feh.

----------------------------------------------

From: Roger M Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:51 pm Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? Rafael wrote: > These three examples make my point that Roger never posts anything > outside the EC Line. The items he lists are well within the parameters > of the EC Line. [quoted passages below from my earlier post] Raphael, What part of "EVERY single proposal and resolution that the "Unity Caucus"/WBAI LAB that I could get a hold of has been posted on the 'governance proposals' page and elsewhere and initially linked to from the homepage. " did you not bother to absorb? This material is well outside the EC [elections cabal] line. I post tons of material that I disagree with, primarily because it needs to be exposed. Elsewise, I still have your 17 page piece from last year was just looking it over again. While it obviously offers much of value, it clearly falls into the category of "manipulative, truth twisting, occasionally race baiting material that basically amounts to bad information." In it's lengthy lack of straight forwardness it does strike me as blather. I repeatedly attempted to get though it in order to decide whether to post it or not, but never could. Wbai.net is not obliged to be a mouthpiece for such things. You should set up a site for your formidable body of material. Wbai.net will gladly link to it. Roger, wbai.net

----------------------------------------------

From: Rafael Renteria Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:11 pm Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? Roger; Let's call it draw. Obviously you can technically demonstrate that my position is wrong. At the same time, your own words demonstrate your political biases, and those biases clearly determine what you post to BAI.net. Rafael

----------------------------------------------

From: cmcb007 Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:21 pm Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? Whoops, here we go again: "At the same time, your own words demonstrate your political biases, > and those biases clearly determine what you post to BAI.net." Dizzy from going in circles, anyone? See especially # 22 and #34 on this site: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ Carolyn

----------------------------------------------

From: Heidi Chesney Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 8:04 pm Subject: Re: wbai.net is not biased - but maybe it should be. Roger - I want to join others in voicing out loud much appreciation from the bottom of my heart - all of the time and energy you've donated and contributed for the sake of transparency/clarity/accuracy - a reliable source of information - that even Pacifica's web pages fall short on - for everyone's benefit. Please do not for a moment - allow the unity circus players club and their associates (who have been willfully holding this process hostage) to guilt trip you on something they ought to be doing for themselves- you don't owe them or any of us a thing - yet you took it upon yourself to do this important work. it is we who owe you a great deal more than just a word of thanks and appreciation.. . and just a small expression of gratitude and respect. Thank you again, ~Heidi

----------------------------------------------

From: Roger M Date: Thu May 1, 2003 2:36 am Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? Raphael, In a sense, by your apparent defintion, everyone is biased. A draw it is. Like anyone, I do have opinions and tend to agree with certain expressed points of view. I do the best I can in making information available to people. Wbai.net does emphasize certain points of view on various issues, but never without posting the proposals from all sides. It's the best that your're going to get in any such situation. Wbai.net is not strictly a library. It is there to promote democracy at Pacifica just as Pacifica promotes "Peace and Justice." and skips over war. There are likely persons that could do better than I. Let them build a website and then I can rest my weary eyes. Roger M, wbai.net

----------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 05:09:53 -0000 From: Cliff Barney Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "Roger M" wrote: > You should set up a site for your > formidable body of material. Wbai.net will gladly link to it. > > Roger, wbai.net > > the idea of a whole website of nothing but rafael paralyzes my imagination. what a concept! cliff

----------------------------------------------

From: R. Paul Martin Date: Thu May 1, 2003 8:15 am Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Is wbai.net biased? Roger M wrote: > > .... > Wbai.net is not my website. It belongs to the > Coalition for a democratic Pacifica, NY. > I am not a member of CdPNY. I volunteered to work on > their site in January 2001 > because, at that time, they were the only people in > the NYC free-Pacifica movement > pointing to the importance of the lawsuits, the bylaws > and having elections. Well, maybe the only listener group. I had the first Web site that addressed the Pacifica and WBAI troubles, starting in 1996. My "Pacifica Theft page" is not that up to date right now because I've had some other things going on, and I can't get to these bylaws meetings, so I just link to you, after I inject a little opinion. I'll probably be getting it fully up to date over the next week or so. I documented the hijacking of 1999, and I've been tracking the current attempts to do the same thing. I think I'm the only Pacifica producer with a Web page of this sort. > .... > What generally doesn't get posted is manipulative, > truth twisting, occasionally race baiting material > that basically amounts to bad information. Exclusion > of such material would explain > why certain people or factions may seem to be > under-represented on the site. Oh yeah, that faction. -- http://www.glib.com/

----------------------------------------------

From: Rafael Renteria Date: Thu May 1, 2003 2:59 am Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? Roger, a draw it is. Please post my reply to Gail Blasie, just sent to the NewPacifica list, to WBAI.net. Rafael

----------------------------------------------

From: Roger M Date: Thu May 1, 2003 3:43 pm Subject: Re: wbai.net biased?/diversity legality Raphael, I tend to agree with you and the NYC "Unity caucus" that the potential illegality (which I feel is real, thought not that much of a threat - but then what do I know [about] our enemies?) is not the main issue with regard to proposed diversity bylaws language. The main issue is the bullshit of appointed seats and clogging Pacifica/the stations with overly large boards, unnecesary process and smoke and mirrors. The viewers of wbai.net need to know the pros and cons regarding the legality and risks or lack of risks of affirmative action type bylaws policy. When(if) the Pacifica diversity committee comes through I will publish the results. Meanwhile folks can follow the discussion on these lists and elsewhere. Meanwhile, this dialog should be on the radio. What the heck, we have 5 big radio stations. Roger, wbai.net

----------------------------------------------

From: Roger M Date: Thu May 1, 2003 2:59 pm Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? Props to "Pacifica Theft page." Linked to you too R.Paul. Love the picture you sent for your program page on wbai.org. The Pacifica Theft page and CdPNY, serving the Pacifica communtiy since 1996... From the ass-end of Broome St, Roger M, wbai.net

----------------------------------------------

From: Terry Goodman Date: Thu May 1, 2003 2:39 pm Subject: Re: Re: Is wbai.net biased? > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:51:38 -0000 > From: "Roger M" <snip> >Elsewise, I still have your 17 page piece from last year was just >looking >it over again. While it obviously offers much of value, it clearly >falls into the category of "manipulative, truth twisting, >occasionally race baiting material that basically amounts to >bad information." <snip> Perhaps prepending such an editorial disclaimer signed by you would be sufficient to allow the document to be posted, so that wbai.net visitors, adequately warned, could then find the "much of value" and judge the rest for themselves. Perhaps wider access to the document would prompt some replies, rebuttals, or corrections (for parallel posting) that could correct the distortions while salvaging the best parts of the analysis. --Terry

----------------------------------------------

From: Roger M rogermanning995@y... Date: Thu May 1, 2003 3:12 pm Subject: Re: Is wbai.net biased? Terry wrote: > Perhaps prepending such an editorial disclaimer signed by you would be > sufficient to allow the document to be posted, so that wbai.net > visitors, adequately warned, could then find the "much of value" and > judge the rest for themselves. Yes, absolutely. That's the an approach I often take. No insult intended here, but in this case I didn't feel it was worth the effort, that it would substantially benefit the Pacifica community. Let someone who believes in the importance of the document put in the considerable time and effort invalid [typo - meant "involved"]in properly publishing such an item. Thanks, Roger M, wbai.net


top of page | home