--- Begin Message ---
---------------------------------------------------------------
To Steve Rendall, Norman Solomon and all
From: Kellia Ramares
Date: April 7, 2002
Re: Some questions and comments from one of the programmers who
has brought
Ruppert to KPFA's airwaves of late
Steve Rendall said:
>>Norman Solomon has never called for the silencing of
> > Ruppert as some earlier posts here have stated.
On March 7, 2002, Norman Solomon wrote:
"My own opinion is that KPFA should not be offering Ruppert's
materials as
pledge premiums, nor should KPFA be airing carts promoting his
lectures."
Clearly Solomon's opinion is that KPFA should not be offering
Ruppert's
speech or alerting the listeners to when he is lecturing in the
Bay
Area. I call that censorship. What do you call it?
While Solomon states that this is his opinion--and he is entitled
to express
his opinion--I don't think he would be expressing his opinion in
a letter to
KPFA senior staffer and editorial board member Philip Maldari if
he didn't
hope KPFA management would adopt his views. The programmers
choose the
premiums they wish to offer. If I were to again have a show next
fund drive
and I were to choose Ruppert's video as a premium, would Norman
want the
station management to tell me "no"? Sounds like he would, and
that's calling
for censorship to me.
Solomon continues, "Since KPFA has already given Ruppert a lot of
air time
with nary a word of challenge on the air, there should first be
appreciable
time devoted to hearing from debunking voices in order to call it
even."
This is at minimum a call for a moratorium on Ruppert appearances
on
KPFA. Temporary censorship, if you will.
Outside of occasional debates between candidates for office,
since when does
KPFA adhere to any kind of equal time rule? Public affairs
programmers are
free to adopt specific editorial slants, rather than employing
the "A said, B
said" formula expected in the news room. I would think that you
acknowledge
this kind of editorial independence in public affairs. After
all, we don't
hear either of you saying that Barbara Lubin has been on KPFA a
lot, and
there should first be appreciable time devoted to hearing from
Jewish
settlers before she's on KPFA again. Of course, you side with the
Palestinians, as do I. So what we have here is the principle of
"What
displeases Rendall and Solomon must be subjected to an "equal
time" policy.
That of which they approves can air ad infinitum unmolested."
As to the amount of time Ruppert has been on KPFA lately:
By my calculations, Ruppert was on for about 106 minutes between
Oct 12th and
February 25th. Breaking down as follows: (times approx.) 20 mins.
Oct 12, 20
mins.. (rerun of the 12th) on Oct 26, 5 mins. of script and
actuality on
January 1st, rerun on January 2nd, 10 minutes on Flashpoints, not
about 9-11,
on February 15th, and about 46 mins. of his lecture on Feb. 25th,
during the
fundraiser. Excerpting speeches is common practice at KPFA during
fund drive
time.
Have I missed something on KFPA involving Ruppert in that time
frame, or is
this your definition of "a lot?" If we are going to go back and
add up all
the time Ruppert has been on the air at all in KPFA history,
would that come
anywhere near the time both of you have had on KPFA?
After you define "a lot," how about defining "appreciable"? How
much time do
you want on the air to "debunk" Ruppert in order to "call it
even" as Solomon
writes?
And if it means so much to you, why haven't the two of you used
"CounterSpin"
to state your views? We aired the speech on February 25th. It's a
month since
Solomon faxed his letter. On March 7, 2002, Norman Solomon wrote:
"For
progressive media and progressive movements, this kind of stuff
is
potentially very destructive." Surely if it's so potentially
destructive, you
could have rearranged your programming to rebut Ruppert. He's on
the Net, he
speaks in other parts of the country. He's appeared on WBAI and
KPFK. He's
national enough to be a fit topic for your syndicated show.
Rendall writes:
>>Just look how Ruppert handles a simple matter of fact:
> > He states below that he is not being permitted to face
> > his detractors. They will not debate him openly. Then
> > he names Norman Solomon as one of his primary
> > detractors. One might logically conclude then that
> > Norman would refuse any debate with Ruppert, right?
> >
> > Wrong, it's a fact that Norman debated Ruppert for an
> > hour on KPFK.
Wrong. The fact is that KPFK interim GM Steven Starr announced to
Ruppert and
host Eben Ray that Solomon was going to "debate" Ruppert. He did
this ten
minutes before the start of Eben's show, when she had booked
Ruppert for a
one-hour solo interview. And we didn't just hear this from
Ruppert. Bonnie
was recently in LA and she spoke with Eben. Thus, an encounter
that appeared
on the surface to be a debate was in fact an ambush. A debate
should be a
meeting, time and place of which are agreed to in advance by both
parties and
not foisted upon one of the parties by someone else. That would
be hardly
"open and unbiased" is it? I will not speculate as to whether you
colluded
with Starr to set up this ambush or whether Starr used you,
Ruppert and Ray
for reasons of his own; I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
> > Need more proof that Ruppert's not always a reliable
> > or accurate correspondent?
Hell yes! And, BTW, suppose, for argument's sake "Ruppert not
always a
reliable or accurate correspondent"? Are you suggesting that he
must be held
to a standard of absolute perfection? Can you meet that standard?
Are you
ALWAYS reliable or accurate? This very message shows you are not.
> > Go to Ruppert's web site and check out his citations
> > and conclusions. But make sure you go to the original
> > sources he cites and see what they really say...don't
> > depend on what he _says_ they say.
As opposed to how we should depend on what you and Solomon say
about
Ruppert?
>> In some significant
> > cases the documents do not match up with Ruppert's
> > claims.
Are you speaking about factual misquotations or is it just that
you put
a different spin on things than he does, a-pun
intended--COUNTERSPIN?
And why don't you cite us something yourself? The two of you are
great at
making claims about Ruppert without being specific. We have other
things to
do besides spending hours searching for what you regard as
"significant". I
might as well ask you to go to a library and find a book that's
significant
to me. You are leveraging your reputation in the community to
commit
character assassination against Ruppert, knowing it is highly
unlikely anyone
will call you on it. If this is so "significant" to you, cite
chapter and
verse. Don't expect us to chase your phantoms.
>>Are these guys with their unchallenged and unreliable
> > stories bad for Pacifica and it's stations?
What exactly does "unchallenged" mean? That others haven't asked
the
questions YOU would ask? So what? When we had our one live
interview with
Ruppert, on October 12th. (It's on my web site in Real Audio at
http:/www.rise4news.net/GNB.htm) I asked the skeptical question
that I had.
(So much for your, "nary a word of challenge on the air,"
Norman.) Why don't
YOU invite him to appear on CounterSpin and ask your own
questions yourself?
Why must other journalists be the water carriers for YOUR issues?
What does "unreliable" mean? That you don't agree with his
interpretation of
the facts?
BTW, anyone with a high speed internet connection who wants to
see Ruppert
field questions from skeptics should go to:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/118760.php
> > To put it bluntly: If we want vital Pacifica news and
> > public affairs shows like Democracy Now! to have ZERO
> > impact on the national political discussion, then by
> > all means let's program them next to shows that spout
> > misrepresentations and stretch facts to fit tales of
> > intrigue. These shows may well discredit Pacifica's
¢ > more reliable shows.
¢
Again, with specific regard to Ruppert-what misrepresentations
and what
stretching of facts?
Assuming for argument's sake that some Pacifica shows are "more
reliable"
than others, are you suggesting that Pacifica's listeners are too
gullible to
decide for themselves which ones are which? Are you hinting that
maybe
Democracy Now! is not so outstanding as to be discernably
"reliable" in the
context of the whole programming schedule?
Or are you suggesting that the listeners can't detect that
different shows
espouse different editorial positions? e.g. your "reliable"
structural
analysis vs. "tales of intrigue"? (Is there no intrigue in the
world? BTW,
who says those two approaches are mutually exclusive? Did Al Gore
lose the
presidency because of the antiquated institution called the
electoral
college, which allows someone who did not win the popular vote to
end up in
the Oval Office, YES! (Give or take 5 U.S. Supreme Court
Justices). Or did he
lose because Jeb & Kathy, et al. disenfranchised thousands of
black voters in
Florida? YES! Dismiss the latter as conspiracy theory if you
will, but that
they did it and how they did it has been proven by Greg Palast
and is
published in his book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", which
I have
recently reviewed favorably for "The Progressive" magazine. No
disenfranchisement and Gore wins Florida and the Electoral
College is moot.
Don't discount the operation of human agency on institutions).
Steve, you just wrote: "These shows may well discredit Pacifica's
more
reliable shows." And Norman, in your letter you wrote. "Many
listeners will
be understandably put off and as a result some are likely to
question the
station's overall credibility."
Since the two of you place such an emphasis on challenging claims
you don't
agree with, I turn the tables on you.:
WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS TO DOCUMENT THESE CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS?
I am the co-producer of Guns & Butter: The Economics of Politics,
the show on
which Ruppert has appeared most on KPFA since October.
Irregularly produced
as it is, the show has garnered a following. That following
pledged over $17K
when we ran a 46 minute excerpt of Ruppert's lecture. Statistics
provided to
me by the subscriptions department indicated that this show is
now the third
highest earning single public affairs hour since 1994, which was
the earliest
date on the list of the Top 25 single PA hours I was given. We
were on a par
with the best that Democracy Now! and Flashpoints have done. We
ran slightly
ahead of the same day's Democracy Now!
I suggest that the fact that we put up numbers comparable to
Amy's means that
the listeners are capable of appreciating Democracy Now! and Mike
Ruppert
simultaneously. So where's this discrediting of shows like
Democracy Now!
that you suggest? Our numbers were so high because 86 % of the
callers
ordered Ruppert's 138 minute video, which means THEY WANTED TO
LEARN MORE!
Our listeners are not sheep!
BTW, I got those figures by examining the pledge cards the next
day.
Additionally, Bonnie and I were told by phone room volunteers
that people
called to order the video all day. Bonnie and I went out for a
late dinner,
came back to the phone room and witnessed three calls for the
video between
9:20 and 9:30 p.m. OVER SEVEN HOURS AFTER WE LEFT THE AIR! (Calls
coming in
that late are not part of our official tally, so you know the
video raised
even more money for KPFA than we are officially credited with).
Where are YOUR figures to back up your claims of harm to
Pacifica? How many
people can you document who phoned in to say they would WITHHOLD
pledges if
Ruppert is on our air?
Are you going to dismiss the pro-Ruppert (or at least
open-minded-to-Ruppert)
listeners? Who the hell are you to do so? And if you are going
to write off
GNB's constituency, why not go all the way?
Norman, you stated that KPFA should not offer Ruppert's materials
as pledge
premiums. If you think his video is so detrimental to KPFA, why
didn't you go
all the way and ask the station to repudiate our series and
refund the
pledges? Hmm? Or do you think that KPFA should use the rubric
"free speech
radio" to collect money from listeners while it blocks the
content the
listeners are interested in, but that you and Steve don't approve
of?
Bottom line: who appointed you two the arbiters of what is good
for Pacifica?
And especially at a time when Pacifica is supposed to be
democratizing?
Espouse your opposing views to be sure, but what is credible must
ultimately
rest with the listeners. Otherwise, we have a slippery slope.
KPFA airs
astrologer Caroline Casey. Some people believe in astrology,
others think it
is hooey. KPFA programs Herbal Highway. Some people depend on
herbs to
maintain their health, others claim that medicinal herbs are
untested,
unproven and recent reports show some of them might
be harmful. KPFA airs a gospel music show. For some people that
music is an
important part of their religion. Other listeners believe
religion is the
opiate of the masses. No station can be all things to all people.
So then it
comes down to how do you decide what to offer. I say you can
either have true
"listener-sponsored, free speech community radio" or you can have
"Rendall
tested, Solomon approved" orthodox Left radio filtered by some
self-appointed
gatekeepers of "progressive" political correctness.
And, Norman, political correctness IS an issue with you. In your
letter, you
wrote: "Does Ruppert include some interesting and solid
information in his
mish-mash? Sure. But such information is available from a lot of
researchers
who are, in contrast, progressive."
I will not take the time to dispute with you whether or not
Ruppert is
progressive. It's irrelevant to the facts of the case. The
failure of the
military to immediately scramble fighters when they knew there
were 4
hijacked jumbo jets in the air, for example, has nothing to do
with Ruppert's
political label. But are you suggesting that I should get my
"interesting and
solid information" only from the sources you deem politically
correct?
Wouldn't that make me a propaganda tool for a political movement
rather than
a journalist who searches for the truth wherever it may be? And
why aren't
you calling on "progressives" to take Ruppert's interesting and
solid
information and run with it? Instead you say later on in your
letter: "A key
question remains: Aren't the well-documented crimes of the U.S.
government
and huge corporations enough to merit our ongoing outrage,
focused attention
and activism?"
Leaving aside the issue of what is "well-documented"-I believe
Ruppert's case
is very well-documented, and the video would prove that-this
statement
clearly indicates that there are certain issues you think
activists should
pursue. And you are welcome to try to persuade people to walk
that path. But
you are going beyond that here, I think. You don't want KPFA to
let people
know that there might be another focus for their activism. But
there is. I
think World War III began on Sept. 11th. It's a war Cheney has
said may not
end in our lifetimes. I think the story of who triggered that
war, or, for
you structuralists, how that war was triggered, is the most
important story
of our time. Don't agree? You go your way, and I'll go mine.
Steve said:
>>Should these folks be banished? Of course not. Should
> > they be given shows to tell their unreliable
> > stories, comfortable in the knowledge that their
> > claims will never face challenge? I sure don't think
> > so.
They shouldn't be banished, but they shouldn't have their own
shows. In other
words, controlled access according to the dictates of Steve the
gatekeeper?
Again, who the hell are you?
I will answer my own question. Steve, you are one of the hosts of
CounterSpin, a weekly, half-hour, pretaped show. How does one
challenge that
program's claims on air, if one wishes? Likewise you, Norman,
have lots of
access to KPFA's airwaves. I remember when you published the
Habits of Highly
Deceptive Media and were on Morning Show, Living Room, and
Flashpoints. I
don't recall any challenges then. All those appearances were more
like..
well, like infomercials for your wares and claims.
Norman, you say:
>>>Ruppert wrote: "I have not only been denied
> > > free-speech access to public airwaves [KPFA Radio] but I
have been
> > > deprived of a most basic right in any democracy, the right
to
>>>confront and
>> > challenge accusers who do not have the courage to engage in
an
open and
> > > unbiased debate."
> > >
> > > But Ruppert did not mention that he had already
> > > been heard previously and extensively on KPFA, without
> > > challenge.
Norman, you omit the context. Ruppert is speaking about the
specifics of
the situation that on April 3 he was to have appeared as part of
a panel
discussion hosted by Sue Supriano and was reluctantly disinvited
by Sue, on
the advice of the show's Executive Producer, Weyland Southon, who
didn't feel
he knew enough about the controversy to deal with it. This came
after Lisa
Rothman stressed to Sue that Ruppert had become controversial to
the
editorial board in the wake of your letter.
>You also say:
>The note that Ruppert refers to as "an accurate warning" of the
>September 11 attacks was nothing of the kind, as a look at the
actual
>scribblings makes clear. It's quite a fantastic leap to extract
>an "accurate warning" from those ambiguous rambling snippets of
words
>and phrases.
Your characterizations of the Vreeland matter, which is the only
matter of
substance which you are even willing to touch, is full of the
"selective
vacuum approach" of which you accuse Ruppert. I will supply a
..jpg of the
Vreeland memo and a copy of the
recently released interview between Vreeland and Ruppert to
whomever requests
one by email, including you, Norman. In fact, I will supply
everything that
FTW has published on Vreeland if people want it. (Folks can then
copy it for
their non-computer friends). What Ruppert is saying about
Vreeland is
checking out. If you think "It's quite a fantastic leap to
extract an
"accurate warning" from those ambiguous rambling snippets of
words and
phrases," tell us what YOU think they signify. You are great at
being
dismissive, Norman, but I don't see YOU coming up with
alternative
explanations.
(Ruppert and Vreeland are scheduled to appear on Jeff Rense's
Internet radio
show for three hours beginning at 7 p.m. Pacific on Weds. April
17th. Check
www.rense.com for more information on how to access this
program).
>(By the way, while Ruppert's letter identifies me as "Norman
Solomon of
FAIR," I don't speak for the organization; I'm a
>FAIR "associate" and not on its staff.)
If, by this comment, you are again trying to suggest that Ruppert
is
inaccurate, you are making a distinction without a difference,
Norman. Around
KPFA we call you Norman Solomon of FAIR. I am not paid staff, but
don't you
consider me Kellia Ramares of KPFA? You are an associate. Your
weekly column
appears on their web site. One can assume that you want to see
FAIR prosper
and spread its views, correct? And perhaps that is why you did
not come out
of the woodwork until February, when Guns & Butter ran excerpts
of Ruppert's
lecture in a time slot that PRE-EMPTED CounterSpin, which is
produced by FAIR
and sometimes hosted by Steve Rendall. This even though Guns &
Butter had
Ruppert on in October and then reran the interview two weeks
later. Smells
like a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one.
But your hit
piece on Ruppert didn't disclose that. Nor did it mention that
you are a
contributor to a new book on 9-11. I received an invitation to a
book release
party at City Lights in San Francisco on March 24th, with you as
the featured
speaker. Might that be a reason why you don't want to see
Ruppert's video
offered as a pledge premium? Can't stand the competition? Is it
unPC for a
"progressive" to compete in the "marketplace of ideas?"
No one said you speak for FAIR, but I assume that you adhere to
and advocate
the principles that organization avows. But perhaps I assume too
much. On
FAIR's web site, there is a document called FAIR's Media Activism
Kit. That
kit has a
section called "Detect Bias." That section has an entry, which I
excerpt
here:
"Is the language loaded?
When media adopt loaded terminology, they help shape public
opinion."
The kit recommends that activists: "Demonstrate how the language
chosen
gives people an inaccurate impression of the issue, program or
community.
In just two and a half pages, you used the following loaded words
and
phrases: "selective vacuum cleaner approach", "de facto
infomercials for his
wares and claims", "mish-mash", "fast-and-loose machinations",
"temporary
'sizzle'", "flashy claims", "de facto infomercial time to do his
thing, "
"there should first be appreciable time devoted to hearing from
debunking
voices", " this kind of stuff", and you loaded the word
successful by putting
in it quotes.
And here are you at your most loaded. In your letter of March
7th, you wrote:
"When I went to Ruppert's web site a week ago, I clicked onto his
listing of
web sites he recommends as sources of information. One of the
sites was
listed with a quotation from
Ruppert declaring it to be, in his opinion, the best site one the
web for
information. And what site was that? The Drudge Report."
Since the left holds Matt Drudge in disrepute, you figured all
you had to do
was invoke the name of his web site to discredit Ruppert. The
Drudge Report,
'nuff said. Your inaccurate statement could have left some people
with the
impression that Ruppert reads the Drudge Report for its editorial
content. I
think that was your intent.
Why didn't you provide the EXACT QUOTE? It is:
"For those who learn by checking all sources and comparing who
doesn't say
what.
My favorite news site on the web. It leads to
almost
everything."
--Mike Ruppert
Here is what Ruppert himself said about this issue in a statement
Guns &
Butter is including in a multi-author rebuttal package which you
will soon
receive via the National Radio Project.
"Solomon's arguments included the fact that one of the web sites
I recommend
is that of Matt Drudge. Dishonestly, Solomon did not mention that
I do not
recommend or endorse Drudge for his editorial position. The
reason that I
recommend the site is
because, from the home page, Drudge maintains links to about 100
of the
world's largest press web sites, including that of The Nation. As
one
continually immersed in research I find it a convenient place to
go and read
stories from all over the world and just use the "Back" button to
go to
another site."
Also Norman, you never mentioned that Ruppert's list of links
also include
Peter Dale Scott, Brian Willson, and WBAI. Is that sucking sound
I hear that
of your own selective vacuum cleaner?
You wrote a hit piece, Norman. A conclusory, self-serving hit
piece, pure and
simple. And Steven, you are abetting the character assassination
of Mike
Ruppert. Pacifica is in a state of great change and you two are
interested in
making sure that it remains a mouthpiece for you and your brand
of
progressivism and political analysis in a
manner that could fairly be described as "monopolistic." Norman,
a friend of
mine said that you're on KPFA so much that he half expects that
when he opens
the fridge at the station that you will be in there staring back
at him.
Equal time? Ruppert is going to have to be on KPFA a helluva lot
more to
"call it even" vis-a-vis you.
You say:
"Ruppert wrote that I had written a "secretive internal memo".
There was
nothing "secretive" about the three-page letter dated March 7
that I sent to
a KPFA staff member, with the prior understanding that it would
be xeroxed
and shared with people who work at KPFA; which is what happened.
With the prior understanding between you and him--that wouldn't
be any kind
of conspiracy would it? --that it would be xeroxed. While it did
not contain
any requests for confidentiality, neither did it contain any
statement that
it should be xeroxed and shared.
I agree with Ruppert. It was "secretive." It was just a secret
that you
wanted to become public. I consider it "secretive" because you
did not
address it to Bonnie and me. Of course, why would you? We are
just the
programmers primarily responsible for putting Ruppert on the air
of late.
Not "secretive? You know who I am. We actually exchanged email on
February
28th, which is between the time GNB aired Ruppert's lecture and
the time you
wrote the letter. You did not utter a word about your issues.
And the result
of your actions has been "secretive" discussions by the KPFA
editorial board
about the future of Ruppert on the air at KFPA, discussions to
which neither
Bonnie, nor I nor Sue Supriano have been invited. Discussions
that were
enough to prompt Lisa Rothman to say things to Sue that made her
fear for the
future of her air time if she went ahead with having Ruppert on
her show.
Why didn't you address this letter to Bonnie and me? If you
wanted to ensure
distribution, you could have addressed us and cc'd Maldari. Or
addressed
Maldari and cc'd us. But you didn't even do that, leaving us to
learn about
your issues second hand. How can we think anything but that you
want drive
Ruppert off the air and undermine Bonnie and me entirely, and
that you got a
jump on your plans by starting the process behind our backs with
a letter we
would not get unless and until Maldari, or someone else, chose to
share it
with us?
BTW, why Maldari?
Bonnie, Sue and I have much more familiarity with Ruppert and his
case than
you do. We have attended his entire live presentation, Sue and I
have seen
the entire 138 minute video. KPFA News reporter Ed Rippy has all
seen the
live and videotaped presentations. Bonnie has heard your "debate"
on KPFK,
and Sue may have as well by now. Bonnie, Sue, Ed and I we
continue to
correspond with him periodically and we continue to follow the
story.
Starting with being "intrigued" in October, Bonnie and I evolved
to the
position that Ruppert is right by February. His case makes sense
to us, as it
does to Ed and Sue, which is why we aired the lecture excerpt
during the
fundraiser. And day by day the evidence mounts in Ruppert's
favor. Anyone
with an open mind should keep an eye on www.copvcia.com.
Steve, Norman, and whoever else is reading this: If you think it
is possible
for the $30 Billion+ funded intelligence apparatus of the
planet's superpower
to be completely blindsided by a sophisticated attack from
terrorists who had
been created, trained, armed and funded by the US for decades to
engage in
proxy wars with the now defunct Soviet Union, well, that's your
opinion. If
you think that this current election-stealing regime wouldn't go
so far as to
allow an attack on our own soil and civilians in order to garner
public
support for the current war, that, too, is your opinion.
(Read Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard: American
Primacy and it's
Geostrategic Imperatives, before you set those opinions in
stone.) We differ.
And I want to say "So what?"
But I can't say that because you are trying to established
yourselves as the
arbiters of KPFA's credibility and progressive values. You are
NOT. The
listeners are. And we've got some listeners who are VERY
interested hearing
in what Ruppert has to say about 9-11 and its aftermath. KPFA
should give the
listeners the opportunity to hear him, even in "unchallenged"
recorded
lecture form, just as they have heard friends of yours, such as
Noam Chomsky.
KPFA is listener-sponsored, free speech, community radio.
Get yourselves out of our way.
Kellia Ramares
--- End Message ---
