From: Starchild <realreform@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Following up regarding ideological diversity on KALW
Date: April 30, 2024 at 4:22:57 PM PDT
To: James Kass <james.kass@kalw.org>
Cc: Ben Trefny <ben@kalw.org>, Peter <petermc@sonic.net>, Starchild <realreform@earthlink.net>
James,
Thank you for this more substantive response. Obviously we don’t see eye-to-eye, but frankly acknowledging different points of view is always a good starting point, yes? If you don’t currently acknowledge there is a lack of viewpoint diversity at KALW however, perhaps you can tell me what evidence would convince you that this is a problem? I believe Ben has acknowledged the relative lack of viewpoint diversity, even if he may put less importance on it than I and others do (Ben, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).
My use of the term "sub-optimal" wasn’t in reference to a community advisory board process potentially failing to address the issues I’ve raised in "the way I want them addressed”, but rather raising the concern that if it did not involve meaningful interaction/dialogue between KALW staffers and members of the public, but just the latter giving input without there being real transparency around how that information is taken and addressed “internally” (to use the corporate-speak term), then it would be sub-optimal. So I don’t think your characterization of what I wrote was entirely accurate.
With regard to Uri Berliner, I notice you say that his essay and opinions “ran” in major news outlets. This past-tense verb does suggest to me that there has been some kind of cancellation. I know many see it that way. I think Peter (copied on this email) can affirm that it was discussed in that light among members of our SF Debate group as a potential debate topic in a series of debates involving the “cancellation" of various public figures.
But whatever you want to call how Uri has been treated, what I was getting at is the fact that one of the few non-leftists at NPR definitely does see a problem, and has been at odds with management over it. While I agree that whistleblowing often, maybe even usually, refers to exposing illegal practices, that clearly isn’t the only use of this term. And to some extent I do see NPR’s left-bias as hidden, since it’s not openly acknowledged by the network. It seems to be something they don’t want their employees talking about. Hidden in plain sight, as it were. For these reasons, I don’t believe the terms I used were inaccurate or unwarranted.
But again, I respect that you may have different views, and I’m ready and willing to hear your perspective. I think it would be good to have a friendly, open, honest, sit-down conversation, or series of conversations between KALW staff and listeners who perceive a problem around lack of ideological or viewpoint diversity at the station, to share and to hear each other’s thoughts and perspectives on the matter. Do you agree?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
On Apr 30, 2024, at 2:45 PM, James Kass <james.kass@kalw.org <mailto:james.kass@kalw.org>> wrote:
Starchild,
Critiquing a process before even engaging with or knowing the process is not usually a sign of best faith participation in said process, nor is saying that if the process doesn’t specifically address issues you’ve brought up (you five steps) in the way you want them addressed, then it would be sub-optimal and indicative of what you perceive to be wrong in many institutions.
Beyond that, continuing to point to your five steps, the first of which is “Acknowledging that there is a problem” is not the best way to start a conversation, especially since your remaining steps demand that people agree with the first. It’s similar to your using the language of “cancellation” and “whistleblower” when it comes to Uri Berliner as fact, when some would argue that it’s tough to say someone has been canceled when their essay and opinions ran in major news outlets across the country, and that whistleblowing usually refers to the exposing of hidden and often illegal practices, not out-in-the-open calls for working in a specific kind of way that some disagree with.
Regardless, we will welcome your application to the community advisory board when the application is made public if you decide it is something you feel would be worth your while.
Wishing you all of the best and as always, thanks for being a loyal listener to KALW (and KQED).
James
check my calendar <https://calendly.com/james-m-kass>
415.902.5637
kalw.org <https://www.kalw.org/>
<https://www.kalw.org/>
<PastedGraphic-9.tiff>
On Apr 30, 2024, at 1:51 PM, Starchild <realreform@earthlink.net <mailto:realreform@earthlink.net>> wrote:
Hi Ben,
Forwarding you this because I still had your email address listed incorrectly in the header on first sending, and it bounced!
As I mentioned to James, I hope to hear from you and others at the station regarding the five steps I suggested previously in this thread.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
On Apr 30, 2024, at 1:46 PM, Starchild <realreform@earthlink.net <mailto:realreform@earthlink.net>> wrote:
Thanks, James. Please send me the details on the Community Advisory Board and how to participate when you have them. I hope the “application” process is not overly formal or non-transparent, but seeks to connect with community members on more of a level playing field.
In any case however, I would consider applying or serving on such a body to be a complement to, rather than a substitute for, ongoing discussion and dialogue with yourself and/or other individuals at KQED about the station’s role. Specifically I’m interested in hearing thoughts and feedback from KQED folks on the five steps I suggested below. If a body were created in which participants were “siloed” apart from meaningful interactions with others at KQED, and just periodically submitted feedback into a “black box”, this would definitely be sub-optimal (but unfortunately typical of how institutions sometimes try to give the impression of reforming, without actually doing so).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
On Apr 22, 2024, at 10:51 AM, James Kass <james.kass@kalw.org <mailto:james.kass@kalw.org>> wrote:
Hi Starchild,
Nice to hear from you. As I think I mentioned previously, we will have a call out to community members to join our Community Advisory Board in the coming months, and we welcome applications from listeners like you.
All best,
James
check my calendar <https://calendly.com/james-m-kass>
415.902.5637
kalw.org <https://www.kalw.org/>
<https://www.kalw.org/>
<PastedGraphic-9.tiff>
On Apr 19, 2024, at 8:26 PM, Starchild <realreform@earthlink.net <mailto:realreform@earthlink.net>> wrote:
Hi James,
Just following up, as it's been a couple months since my message to you (below), but I don’t believe I’ve received any reply. In the meantime, the “cancellation" by NPR of longtime journalist/employee Uri Berliner in response to his emergence as a whistleblower at the network around this issue has become a big national story. I hope that this may help convince you that it is a serious issue that outlets including KALW should address.
I hope you are doing well, and look forward to continuing the dialogue and to further KALW public events at 220 Montgomery Street, etc. I would also welcome hearing from others at the station, so please share this correspondence with your colleagues and invite them to get in touch. Am copying Ben, who I’ve also spoken with about the need for more viewpoint diversity, in case my emails aren't reaching you for some reason.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
On Feb 14, 2024, at 8:58 PM, Starchild <realreform@earthlink.net <mailto:realreform@earthlink.net>> wrote:
Hi James,
Thanks for your reply. You raise a good point about possible legal issues with asking staff about their political views. Perhaps you can consult KQED’s legal counsel on suggestions for how you can seek to improve ideological diversity at the station without stumbling into any legal pitfalls? But there are other important steps that can be taken other than attempting to document political biases among staff, for instance:
1) Acknowledging that there is a problem (the vital first step!)
2) Raising awareness about the problem among staff, discussing what can be done to address it
3) Doing outreach to non-leftist groups, encouraging their members to apply for open positions at KQED (this should certainly include outreach to find people to serve on the citizens advisory board)
4) Bringing in non-leftist experts to conduct sensitivity and awareness training sessions (like you may already do for other issues like sexual harassment)
5) Asking non-leftist groups to review specific programs, point out where and how they are biased and to recommend changes; share the results on the air with listeners
What do you think of each of these steps or measures?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
On Feb 14, 2024, at 3:30 PM, James Kass <james.kass@kalw.org <mailto:james.kass@kalw.org>> wrote:
Hi Starchild (and Peter),
Thanks for the note and the followup from our conversation.
It’s always good to hear from people about their perspectives on KALW. I think overall I’m quite proud of what the station stands for, though we’re always looking to be better. We will soon be relaunching a citizens advisory board, and if you’re interested in applying when we open that opportunity, we’ll be happy to see it.
As a note, while we don’t hire on these bases, we certainly do care about the race, gender and sexual orientation of people who produce news, as we think it’s important that a local station like KALW reflects the demographics of the community it serves, and we certainly would not do an audit of the political views of staff nor hire based on anyone’s political views, as I’m sure that would violate a number of state and federal employment laws.
I’m glad to be in dialogue and thank you for your years of being a part of the KALW community.
James
kalw.org <https://www.kalw.org/>
<https://www.kalw.org/>
<PastedGraphic-9.tiff>
On Feb 5, 2024, at 5:56 PM, Starchild <realreform@earthlink.net <mailto:realreform@earthlink.net>> wrote:
Hi James,
We met at the future of KALW event at 220 Montgomery Street a week ago Saturday (Jan. 27). You asked me to email you with my concerns about bias at the station. I'm copying another listener who was present on the Zoom call and raised a point about the need to have guests with different points of view.
One area of concern is ideological diversity in the newsroom. I don’t care about the race, gender, or sexual orientation of the people who produce and report the news, but I do care about what these people believe, because it’s widely accepted in journalism that truly objective reporting is impossible, and people always bring their subjective points of view. So if, say, everyone on staff at KALW is a Democrat, or subscribes to some variety of left-leaning point of view, this is inevitably going to impact the station’s broadcast content.
Has KALW ever done any kind of audit of staff views? If not I would encourage that this be done, and the results shared with listeners. If it turns out that the range of views represented among staff do not fully represent the spectrum of views in the community, efforts ought to be made to correct this in future hiring. As I mentioned to you when we spoke, I think any media outlet presenting itself as a straightforward purveyor of news without an agenda owes this to the public, but especially an outlet receiving taxpayer funding, as NPR stations do. I understand such funding is a small portion of the station’s budget (how much taxpayer funding does KALW receive each year by the way?) but it is the principle that matters, more than the amount. Please let me know.
On another topic, I have an outreach idea for the station to engage with the community and potentially reach a new audience. That is to utilize the city-owned “pediments” or news racks that now mostly sit empty. With this state of affairs, I’m afraid they will eventually be removed, and this vehicle to communicate with the public lost to the free press. My idea is for KALW to utilize spaces in these racks in a new and innovative way involving interactive technology – e.g. with passers-by being able to push buttons to access various KALW content that would play on speakers installed in the boxes. Some kind of actual interactive infrastructure, a la the exhibits at the Exploratorium, would be my preference, rather than something that just relies on people using their phones. We’re already all too dependent on our phones, and at the mercy of their makers, platforms (Apple and Google) and the various apps installed on them.
Finally, I’d like to reiterate my interest in serving on some kind of listener advisory committee to give input and feedback to KALW, in order to work toward addressing ideological bias at the station (conscious or otherwise). Again, I’d be happy to sit down with anyone from the station and listen to some broadcast content to point out to them instances where I notice left-leaning bias. Especially anyone who is inclined to deny the existence of such bias. They may be genuinely unaware of how some content comes across to people with differing points of view.
As I noted, it’s not my intent to give offense in raising these issues, and I hope you do not take any. I sensed some defensiveness when we spoke in person. But just as it’s common on the left to believe that all of us have some degree of racist thinking ("These are all things that [are] in our minds. It’s in everyone’s minds, whether you endorse them or not.” – The psychology of racial profiling in policing | KALW), and therefore that acknowledging this can be done without admitting any personal misconduct or ill intent, I think something similar is true with regard to political bias. In other words, that my input and that of others on this issue should be taken as constructive criticism, not a reason for defensiveness, but an opportunity to acknowledge unconscious bias, and strive to be more aware of it and do better in representing the range of political perspectives in the community the station serves.
Please let me know your thoughts and what ideas you have for how we can move forward with this.
Namaste,
((( starchild )))