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
|
