Web site of the Friends of KOOP .|. Save KOOP Radio home

Censorship & Stifling Communication
by Michael Bluejay

Despite the fact that KOOP is supposed to be a cooperative based on member involvement and a free exchange of opinion, the Board of Trustees has worked hard to stifle involvement and ensure that no other opinions besides their own are presented. Here are some examples.

Apparently, the trustees think otherwise. At the August 18th board meeting, board president Teresa Taylor told me to remove the link to the Friends site. I said that since that constituted censorship, such an act would have to be approved by the board as a whole, not just her. The board did not discuss the issue, and then after the meeting, Teresa told me again to remove the link. I repeated that that kind of decision would have to be made by the board. Teresa grew furious and asked, "Are you REFUSING?!" I said yes, I was, until the board approved the decision.

The board finally took up the issue at its 10/25 meeting. They decided to order me to remove the link to this site, and to revoke my membership in KOOP if I did not do so within two days.

I've removed the link from KOOP's site to this site. But I'm not happy that the board is so eager to stifle discussion and to kick members out of KOOP for daring to provide access to contrary opinions. Teresa speaks very eloquently in meetings about allowing "all the different parts of the station" to have a voice in building the station, and in fact this summer she stalled the board's acceptance of our mediation offer with the excuse that she wasn't convinced that all parts of the station had a voice in the process. But in reality, it seems that the only voice that she wants represented is her own. She (along with other trustees) won't even tolerate a LINK to a site containing differing opinions by large numbers of volunteer members. So much for KOOP being a "voice for the voiceless".

Below is the correspondence between Teresa and myself.

At our board meeting last Monday, we passed a resolution stating that you need to remove the link between the KO.OP and the "friend's" web site. You also need to remove KO.OP's name and logo (if present) from the "friend's" web site. Failure to do so within two days will result in loss of membership privileges.

Teresa,

As per your directive, I have removed the link to the Friends of KOOP site from the KOOP website. As I told you months ago, I was only waiting for that decision to remove the link to be made by the board (rather than just by you alone). You certainly didn't have to threaten to revoke my membership. I am disappointed that you decided it was necessary to resort to bullying tactics.

But I'm most disappointed by the fact that the board is so eager to stifle the free flow of ideas. Co-ops are supposed to ENCOURAGE communication, discussion, dialogue, and, yes, even criticism and disagreement. Doesn't our mission statement say that we operate "with a high level of participation and accountability"? If we restrict discussion, do we not become the thing we profess to hate the most?

By the way, so far as I can remember, this is the only time you have ever communicated with me regarding the KOOP website, besides your earlier demand for me to remove the link to Friends of KOOP. Considering that I have spent a considerable amount of volunteer time and effort into the website over the last couple of years, and considering that I voluntarily posted your "Notes from the Trustees" letter to the website (manually re-typing it since you would not provide me with an electronic copy or any other board positioning)... it's not like I'm seeking *praise* or anything, but do you think you might see your way clear to ever offer me any sort of thank-you for my efforts?

I hope you will reconsider your decision.

Sincerely,

Michael Bluejay
KOOP Internet Coordinator
http://www.koop.org

P.S. As for KOOP's logo, the logo has never, ever, ever appeared on the Friends of KOOP site.

Don't forget that our resolution also stated that you are to remove KO.OP's name and logo (if present) from the "friend's" web site. The problem with the link and the use of the name and logo is that it appears that the "friend's" web site has the official sanction of the station. There are people who believe they are being lied about and slandered on the "friend's" web site, and we need to avoid the impression that this is an official station web page. [emphasis added; note that Taylor fails to mention any specific instances of "slander"]

You are correct in the points you make about your efforts on the official KO.OP Web site. Thank you for your efforts over the last two years and for posting my statement in "Notes from the Trustees" even though I did not forward the softcopy.

I find your manner towards me in this e-mail to be more civil than you have ever been towards me in person. Interesting, huh?

In the future, I want the KO.OP web site to be a collaborative rather than an individual effort. I think we should think of our web resources in the same way we think of our airtime -- i.e,. it's a medium for creative production as well as job-related training, possible grant writing and underwriting, etc. I want each collective and possibly every single show to have its own page off the main KO.OP page. These pages can have program-related material, downloads, printed interviews with bands, news interviews, etc.

I also think the electronic communications committee (which still is not staffed) should maintain the web site. This committee can also train people to do HTML, and look for grants based on the job-related training that the committee can do. The committee format increases participation and provides an avenue for many different groups in the station to have direct creative input as well as policy-setting input to our web page.

The electronic communications committee should also actively solicit material from collectives and programmers. In this way, KO.OP can promote it's programming even for those shows where the programmer doesn't give a flip about Web production.

You wrote:

>Don't forget that our resolution also stated that you are to remove KO.OP's

>name and logo (if present)

>from the "friend's" web site. The problem with the link and the use of the

>name and logo is that it appears

>that the "friend's" web site has the official sanction of the station.

>There are people who believe they are being

>lied about and slandered on the "friend's" web site, and we need to avoid

>the impression that this is an

>official station web page.

As I stated to you in my email, "As for KOOP's logo, the logo has never, ever, ever appeared on the Friends of KOOP site."

As for people mistakenly believing that the board approves of a website which calls for their removal, I have a hard time believing our members are that clueless. In any event, now that you have specifically identified a reason for your demand (rather than just presenting the demand), I've added a comment in bold at the top of the main Friends of KOOP page that states, "This site is not approved of or endorsed by KO.OP Radio." I've also linked back to the KOOP site by underlining "KO.OP Radio" in that sentence. (This is in addition to the link back to the KOOP site which has appeared prominently on every page of the Friends of KOOP site since its inception.)

As for using "KO.OP's name", what exactly do you mean? Surely you're not suggesting that we may not even *refer* to KOOP? Are we supposed to say things like, "We encourage everyone to vote in the Community Board election at _____ Radio. Unfortunately, as per the board's directive, we can't tell you exactly which station we're talking about."? I'd appreciate some clarification here on exactly what you mean, using specific examples of name use on the site which you find inappropriate, and alternate wording which is acceptable to you.

As for the "lies and slander" on the Friends site, you didn't list even one example of supposed lies and slander. In fact, nobody has ever contacted me to dispute any of the specific content on the Friends site. On the other hand, you have allowed your husband and your supporters to repeatedly slander me and my Friends over email and on KOOP's airwaves with impunity (e.g., that I never dare go to the East side, that Ricardo was trying to get skinhead programs onto KOOP, that Friends of KOOP is a for-profit moneymaking scheme, that part of the Friends agenda is to change KOOP's mission statement, that we want to eliminate Spanish-language programming, that we're an anonymous organization, etc.). I realize that charges of slander are serious, and that's why the Friends site meticulously documents our claims, rather than just expecting people to take our word for it.

Finally, I still disagree strongly that you and the board should be in the business of trying to censor or otherwise hush up opinions contrary to your own, a point to which you did not respond. I also feel that it was inappropriate for you to threaten to kick me out of KOOP when you made your censorship demand. I feel that this is grossly uncooperative, to put it mildly.

>You are correct in the points you make about your efforts on the official

>KO.OP Web site. Thank you for your efforts over

>the last two years and for posting my statement in "Notes from the

>Trustees" even though I did not forward

>the softcopy.

I gladly accept your appreciation. :)

>I find your manner towards me in this e-mail to be more civil than you have

>ever been towards me in person.

>Interesting, huh?

Well, I'm afraid I'd have to say that I thought the same about you. In fact, I believe that I've been much more civil with you than you've been with me. The last time I remember us speaking was a couple of months ago after a board meeting, in which you very aggressively and angrily demanded that I remove the link to the Friends site, persisting even when I repeatedly said that I thought censorship would have to be decided by the whole board, not just you. I'm not able to describe your manner toward me as "civil". (There is a witness to this exchange.) Nevertheless, I value the fact that we now appear to be able to have a public exchange without apparent hostility, even if we disagree.

>In the future, I want the KO.OP web site to be a collaborative rather than

>an individual effort. I think we should think of

>our web resources in the same way we think of our airtime -- i.e,. it's a

>medium for creative production as well as

>job-related training, possible grant writing and underwriting, etc. I want

>each collective and possibly every single show

>to have its own page off the main KO.OP page. These pages can have

>program-related material, downloads, printed

>interviews with bands, news interviews, etc.

If you've read the posts I've made to our email list and heard my pleas at station meetings (most recently the one last night) over the last couple of years, you've seen that I've repeatedly begged people for content and updates to existing information. I've asked collective members more than once in writing to provide me with information about their collectives so I can put it on the website, and some have promised to, but nobody has ever done so. I started a web page for the Programming Committee, but only because they posted some content to our email list which I was able to grab (not because they were conciously trying to make sure that that info got onto the site). The board of trustees, as you know, has refused to post minutes and agendas of board meetings to our email list, so you've tied my hands there about being able to provide that information on the website.

>I also think the electronic communications committee (which still is not

>staffed) should maintain the web site. This committee

>can also train people to do HTML, and look for grants based on the

>job-related training that the committee can do.

>The committee format increases participation and provides an avenue for

>many different groups in the station to have

>direct creative input as well as policy-setting input to our web page.

That's a great idea, but it will only work if people actually get involved. People have volunteered periodically to help provide content for the website, but nobody has ever followed through, so I've been doing it all myself. Paul Odekirk was charged with setting up a committee, and I told him I would make time to attend committee meetings, but he never set any up. Of course, he only petitioned the board to set up the committee in the first place because he was angry that I politely asked him to stop violating the posting guidelines for the email list.

I would like to thank Gerald Thomason, who has provided me updates to small bits of outdated info on the site, and I should mention that the N/PA collective made their own page, which I gladly linked to.

Finally, it is difficult for me to work on building our Internet offerings when board members call our Internet providers and threaten them with legal action. (This was done because some board members didn't like the link to the Friends site.) I've had to waste time repairing damaged relationships with our business partners rather than working on planned improvements.

I appreciate your diplomatic reply, but so long as you and the board try to limit dialogue, threaten to kick members out of KOOP, and make legal threats against our business partners, I cannot feel that this is the best kind of leadership for the station.

Save KOOP Radio home