What is the KPFK culture and who is "racist"?

{Technical glitches cannot be corrected for blog  of March 4, so here it is updated. An Addendum has also been added.   see ****}

KPFK continues to be relevant - when the radio station we sponsor and pay for provides educational or diverse entertainment - that is respectful and informative. Instead of slanting into one-sided views and inviting prejudiced programmers to represent KPFK on-air.

Some claim that each media site has it's own 'culture' and viewpoints and cannot be as unbiased nor Fair - even as they like to claim so, repeatedly.   

The unstated alliances, even when claimed as  'not commercial', are barely different than what others business do daily - while at Pacifica stations such trades/ transactions are claimed  as only being "non-commercial" while their actions are different than the claims...    so to define what these people who represent Our KPFK do in the name of being wholly-unpaid-by-ordinary-businesses and promoters is questionable. 

They pretend to be  not-commercial - but that would then be to not do any trades, or any $$ transactions in or out - such as not buy merchandise and re-sell them as "premiums".  

When putting on KPFK-sponsored external event - from which some money is paid for tickets or gotten from ticket sales - is also akin to be a commercial activity, as it would be if sponsored by any other business. 

"Non-profit" does not mean "non-commercial", regardless of such repeated false advertising done on air there. It seems to be another one of those "how you interpret words" games.
 
Alliances and trades are still often apparent when the representatives of Our Radio Station say do not accept "sponsors"  - those who pay 'funds' for short-words-that -identifies-the-funder announcements.   But these same KPFK representatives also  do frequently announce their related products & events  - done by guests and programmers. Which then is often sounding much more like promotional programs than 'just for education and information' purposes.  

Though those are the identified Mission purposes of the business of this radio.

Alliances could be honestly called " fair and unbiased" - but only if the organization then does not chose to continually promote it's main one- version of what some staff there prefer - as in a chosen political view and slant, or in siding with a special political-office-seeker, and in presenting constricted 'news' and 'views' of their preference instead of more  varied sides than their chosen-  emphasizing - putting out their preferences over any others. 

In other words, there are such distinct sidings and slantings and prejudices and discrediting of all others that no one doubts that the 'educational' aspect has turned into promotional and political acting. 

                         ((((- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ))))

So looking at what is "culture"  ? And is how that concept is often a word misused or slung around like a bag of coal or sticks:

culture- as defined: Merriam Webster Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture  =     "enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training 

b :  acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills

"a :  the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations 

"b :  the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also :  the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time = examples: <popular culture> ,<southern culture>
 
"c :  the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization 

"d :  the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic "             

.... vs. the slang & common personal-shifting versions of how this word  "culture" is often used.

                          ((((- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ))))

Then another word  relevant to how KPFK is growing and declaiming everyone 'else'  - but those who do the accusing and attacking people with inflammatory words - is: saying 'They are "racists !" said on-air both directly, and in many variations, indirectly.

“racism" [also defined at Merriam Webster Dictionary]   =  

 

"poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race " + 

 

"the belief that some races of people are better than others.”

This definition does not limit 'racism'  - and it's racists - as only being of one skin or hair color or shade, or of a particular culture nor ethnicity.  It is most often and very often used at KPFK as a negative, offensive definition of those who are lighter-toned in skin coloring, or assumed to be "white". But not those darker, most often those calling themselves "black" or "people of color". Against all those labeled "rich" comparatively. Against anyone competing for the on-air-access and cash too.   [see  ****addendum below about what words have been lately labeled as "racists" by KPFK programmers / staff that can only be written or uttered by some, but not by all. "

The Decider of Who is being How, or What -- is then the same one claiming to BE The Authority -  even while often using that created elevated-status to Define everyone :  as in, "I Know !".   To thus always also be "Right !"   Then they often use the popular  "r" word to attack and blame them-'others'. 

So now the accuser has validated their own claims - with that accusation  they made :  of being "discriminated against"  & also being "unfairly" being made thus a "victim ".  Blamed then it is because of those "racists". And this is often even set-up to stage future Righteous revenge acts.

'Racists' are commonly understood to be "bad".  And those who claim to Know just who Is and who is Not so -  to then use that description for their own benefits. But it is rarely clear who are 'Racists' and who are Not so.  Or Less so.     

Or who it is and when does anyone have any Authority to so define, for everyone else, and to make claims over others. 

Media gives voice to anyone who claims themselves as authority or claims who is victim and who is not, as if 'reporting' or presenting any radio program affirms that expertise, to define, not just describe 1 anecdote, 1 story, 1 place in 1 time, etc. This is also noted in all the usual emphases using common attention-grabbing icons   i.e. babies,  women's nude & sexualized bodies,  and cute animals, or bloody violence. These all  regular themes to easily capture attention and create headlines.  

Race is not in itself a headline-catcher unless there is an accusation of 'racism' or someone being a 'racist'. Recently there has been more 'news' and protests about this topic, which has made the accusation more prominent and malicious as well.

So the common-stories-told about racism may involve more than what is the overlaid storyline or videoed protests also. 

There are those who loudly claim that all "others" only are the Racists -  while they then neglect and ignore their own biases and beliefs. They also do contain those - conveniently unstated, but still secretly held and implied - conveniently selected beliefs and assumptions. But the claim is that it is not they who have some 'racism' or such thoughts and behaviors, no,no... it is only 'others' who do so.

So  can any group claim to lay the 'bad'-racial accusation and slur on to any other group  ? Or only select groups ? - And do those who claim others are 'racist' also immediately assume that this does not include them ? Never ? Ever ?   Even for benefits and status-reaching ? Is this never possible to admit ?  Why ?

Even when skin or hair shadings are not clearly in one or an-'other' group bound, nor are they full indications from which race or ethnic/ nationality that accuser has emerged. Many of obvious mixed-races-tribes can claim to be 'white' enough. 'indian' enough, 'asian' enough, 'black enough. As they chose.  So, who is what and from whom and where is not always so easy to see,  nor to define, even with a polite inquiry.  

Many Prefer to Self-Identify with one race or group, and deny any heritages of other ones perhaps visible. Probably for some good reasons - but not all truthfully nor fully revealed. By choice. 

Anyone's heritage --the one[s] that each person uniquely carries in their body, in their genes, in their blood and in some body-history is not always known, nor openly admitted either.  What each one appears to be may be very different or 'other' than what is claimed or chosen as one's race or grouping. Conveniently so.  Why not chose to label oneself as preferred, and not be 'seen' as  more they may contain - being of more groups within that beautiful body ?

**** Addendum added: 

 Noted in national magazine for all races and classes "The New Yorker" recently included words uttered by those non-white-Academy not-Awarded who cleverly & comically worded their own  Black Awards : [some is quoted here]  =

"There were 13 categories and nominees ...Contenders for Best Helpful White Person ... accepted the award, a golden statue of a pimp "on behalf of all white people."...   .Five Reparation Awards were given, for being "just black enough to still be castable,...  a highlight reel of menacing film villains, Best Bad Muh Fucks cut out ,...[ a person] presenting the award, threw up his hands:   "Man,this is ghetto as hell."...."     

Why are these are words only allowed  to some people and  to any others these are immediately used as search-lit bombs to then attack any-others of a different color, culture, class, race or group ?

Who is the intimidating authority who sets up what can be said and when and where ? 

Why is it 'racially correct' to limit speech to only 'one's own similars in one's own group ?  

How isolating and separating are groups  now more-and-more demanding to give privileges and word-allowances to only 'their own'  "  And only laugh at some but not the others' sarcastic 'jokes' ? How lopsided and biased and selectively elitist have we become, as also heard by commentators on KPFK various times.      [end of addendum] 

             
                               ((((- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ))))

the dead include an unbiased, un-racist, and honest radio station in L.A. including KPFK.

gone. done. maybe never was but is not so  now. sadly remembered as being better. gone. 

  ((((- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ))))

 

Then there is a surprising announcement heard on the radio.... no, not on KPFK but on NPR, National Public Radio -- the radio  stations that KPFK staff & programmers continue to compare  badly - in order to claim KPFK's superiority [said it is because NPR accepts 'sponsorships' from 'commercial' organizations and businesses.]   But here is a good story, to be heard from the NPR website or read in their text:

“government lies !”  was brazenly admitted by Congressman Issa , a Republican from CA.

see:  http://www.npr.org/2016/03/03/469005657/rep-issa-criticizes-fbi-s-strategy-to-get-into-terrorist-s-iphone  for story. 

"David Greene talks to Rep. Darrell Issa about his perspective on encryption...."

And so there is a surprise !   To assume that kind of blurting comes out directly to an NPR liberal / progressive 'reporter -- the one who is obviously trying to insist & pressure the government-man to agree with the FBI version -- instead  of stating his own knowledge or opinion.  

It was about the iPhone being interfered and asked for encryption ulocking -- which is equivalent to being sold-out to FBI intrusions -  now, and for more future requests. Apparently unstated is that there have been at least '17 requests' by FBI for iPhone breaking codes before now.

This is a surprising and good story = refreshingly honest, for a change.

A government official is being more unbiased and direct than the media reporter -  who thinks he is merely questioning  - but is instead of pressuring,  with own biased demands - for the answer He Wants to hear!  

And if such gems are heard on those nearby NPR radio stations  - tho called disreputable by KPFK staffers - then they at NPR instead - are presenting something to be lauded and applauded !  

Or did any news person on KPFK do a similar interview with this US Government Congressman ? [ who is a Republican - since that is often considered the enemy at Pacifica].  

Doubt anyone at liberal-progressive-radical Left media would do so? Of course not. Biases are unstated but heard.


(c) 2016    btt