Correspondence: Darrell Udelhoven ( June 23, 2005 )

Broadcasting Reform—I am with You 100%. I’m looking forward to viewing your program on Free Speech TV. I am linking to your pages.

Correspondence: Ray Bliss ( February 14, 2005 )

Mr. Starr, I am among the many millions of citizens who feel that we are being deprived of factual information that we need to counter the propaganda we are exposed to every day by PBS and the corporate media. I urge you to engage in public fund raising to establish an independent network!!!! …The despicable foreign policies of the Bush Adm. are more dangerous to the survival of the planet than the aims of the Third Reich and it’s time for these policies to be scrutinized in a public forum so the terrible consequences of these policies can be discussed. Thanks for your efforts!

Correspondence: Nancy Searcy ( February 13, 2005 )

I was so happy to see you had a web site. I watched a program on FSTV which is where I’ve been going to ferret out the truth. I have always counted on PBS but have come to realize it has compromised itself and it makes me very sad…Thank you for addressing this huge problem.

Correspondence: Tim Meidrotheast, Peoria , IL ( January 17, 2005 )

 Sir, what is the most effective way to complain about PBS’s recent programming choices such as the conservative Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot shows at the expense of programs like ‘Now’ and other investigate journalism on PBS? Regards.

Jerry Starr replies:

Tim,
I would suggest two things: (1) write a letter to Pat Mitchell, PBS President, and copy it to Kathleen Cox, CPB Board Chair; and (2) Fix it up for publication in your local paper. If you are up to stronger and more sustained action concerning your local station (which is not required to carry either program and could give you more progressive shows if it wished), check out our web site—www.cipbonloine.org—and consider forming a local CIPB chapter. At the least, read the Activist’s Training Manual on the home page of our web site.

Good luck,

Jerry Starr

Correspondence: Kenny Waters, Phoenix Arizona ( January 1, 2005 )

You are my new hero! PBS & NPR are the best of a sorry bunch, in fact head and heels better in terms of quality programming offered, but I have long thought public broadcasting in America should break its reliance upon meager Congressional handouts and truly spread its wings…along the lines of a BBC or better. Some things in life are simply true and factual…and require NO need for an opposing ‘balanced’ countering viewpoint. I was mesmerized by your 12/02/04 speech on the future of public broadcasting I stumbled across on CSPAN. So much so I’ve printed it out and will highlight the daylights out of it, keeping it close. Thank you for such a mind-blowing articulation.

Correspondence: Bill Werner, Producer/Director,

Milwaukee Public Television ( August 11, 2003 )

Good work. Your analysis is right on target. Vigorous debate and comment is what we need. Sadly, Public Broadcasting is continually frightened by threats of interests who wave the ‘balance’ flag.

Correspondence: Jennifer Bosveld (April 20, 2004)

Jerry, it's possible you saved my life tonight. 

You know that when you're doing good work you never know what that might be affecting.  The short story? 

March 18 my soul mate- husband, Rev. Jim Bosveld, died at age 56 and this has been horrible for me and for the social justice community.  Please would you read his obituary on my main page of my web site at www.puddinghouse.com? 

His was a 2 hour memorial service with 250 people attending.  Filling 1st UU Church Columbus.  Service was Saturday April 3.  This evening is the first time I've tried to listen to the tape of it and I swear that nearly killed me.  Just playing the 4 pre-service songs that were our shared personal sacred anthems I started crying so hard I couldn't breathe--at last I barely forced a breath out of myself to let one back in.  At that second (I didn't know the sound man played that music twice and hearing that on the tape stopped me from that deepest sobbing--I was surprised, that's all. 

I was so surprised that for some reason I got up, still sobbing, went to my computer, while that music played through again, and YOUR EMAIL was the first I saw.  It zapped me back into yesterday and my awareness that I'm not merely going to survive, survival is not good enough.  As I've been planning since Jim died, I will only thrive.  Getting back into the stream of social and economic justice issues is part of that thriving.  Your keynote yesterday was exactly what I'd been looking for to get caught up on issues regarding the media monopoly and now you've let me and others even POST it, knowing that the more it is posted the better off the country will be.  Some ONE other right person might read it and become new energy that makes all the difference.  There is so much more I'm aware of that makes my coming to the little media conference so important but I'm too exhausted to try to analyze it.

So, for now, I'll just say
Thank you for being you
Thank you for showing up
thank you for being part of the solution
thank you for saying yes to me
thank you
thank you

Jennifer Bosveld
Pudding House Publications
www.puddinghouse.com

Correspondence: John Thompson (November 9, 2002)

Dear Mr. Starr,

It has been a long time since I've heard from you and the CIPB. So I am hoping for some news. The disastrous election of last Tuesday probably augers ill for our cause, so I suppose we can only do what my brother said he was going to do after the last presidential election: just seethe! After this one maybe he will be fulminating! Lets hope for better leadership.

I'm still pushing on the Maine Public Radio system to try some ways to reduce or eliminate the little commercials they call underwriting announcements. They seem unwilling to try a small scale experiment. The president of the board says they cannot survive without them, which is no doubt true so long as they don't try. One problem for me is that half of the adds come from Washington delivered by a particular toxic sounding voice and, I am told, cannot be deleted so long as the program is used. So even if I am successful with the locally generated adds, the others will remain. The people in Washington are completely unresponsive.

I hope things are going well for you.

Kindest Regards,

John Thomson

Correspondence: John Franson (July 10, 2002)

Hello, I was thrilled to find out about CIPB through Working Assets, as I had thought of starting such an organization myself. I have a couple of questions about CIPB's Proposal for a Public Broadcasting Trust.

First, does it, or does it not, end federal funding of public broadcasting? The first paragraph states: "[The trust] would take [the public broadcasting service] off the federal dole." Yet, the funding section says: "At present the U.S. enjoys a $1 to $2 trillion budget surplus. Just one to two percent of the surplus ($20 billion), invested at five percent interest, would provide $1 billion a year to fund public broadcasting programming in perpetuity." A number of federal taxes are also mentioned. How is this taking public broadcasting off the federal dole? Don't get me wrong, I think public broadcasting should be federally funded. I also think there should be separate broadcast TV network that's funded solely through the community and foundations, without any government or corporate funding- like a TV equivalent to that of Pacifica. But that's another topic.

Second, I question the idea of taxing corporations rather than individuals. This seems to be the preferred tactic of most leftist groups. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge flaming leftist; however, I wonder what the affects of higher corporate taxes are. What is more likely to result: that executives take salary cuts? or that workers are laid off? The latter seems more likely to me. If, on the other hand, executive salary caps were simultaneously mandated, this idea might be better. But it seems like the easier and better solution would be to raise taxes on rich individuals to fund the PBT.

Reply by Executive Director Jerold Starr:

Dear John,

I am sorry to take so long in responding to your question, but there has been illness in my family, including me.

First, constructing public broadcasting as a public trust (like Little League Baseball, American Red Cross, U.S. Olympic Committee) means an established endowment and/or source(s) of reliable funds independent of annual Congressional appropriations (and the political scrutiny that goes with it).

Obviously, the surplus has been squandered. However, had it been invested in a public broadcasting trust, no further Congressional appropriations would have been necessary. The interest on the endowment would have provided sufficient annual revenue. Some preferred this alternative because they felt that taxing corporations could have been achieved only by relieving them of all public interest obligations. Most of us felt they have too little of those already.

We prefer to see the "taxes" as really use fees on public resources utilized for private profit. Your point about how media corporations would make up for the increasing cost of doing business and whether it would cost some workers' jobs is a good one, but one over which we have no information or control. Use fees (taxes) are charged to cattle grazers, cable operators, oil drillers, even highway drivers, and the matter of such consequences for their workers never seems to have been raised- at least to my knowledge.

The full proposal can be found near the bottom of the homepage.

Thank you for your interest,

Jerry Starr
CIPB Executive Director

Hi all,

Here's a letter I enclosed in the pledge envelope from WAMU, my local, commercialized public radio station.

Dear WAMU,

I have enjoyed volunteering at the station during pledge week.

However, when the amount of commercial advertising reached a certain level, I could no longer think of WAMU as a non-commercial station. Non-commerciality is a principle that is abandoned when commercials of whatever duration, frequency or source are included as part of the broadcast. And when a commercial sponsor is allowed to interrupt programs, pitch their business, repeat their phone number and air their copyrighted slogan, any pretense of non-commerciality becomes not only unseemly but unethical.

When you abandon the interruption and misgivings these advertisements cause, and return to some defensible sponsorship policy, I will delight in resuming both volunteer and financial support of the otherwise commendable public service public radio provides, and of which WAMU can again be proud.

Best wishes,
David Birch

Correspondence: Sharon Luster (June 17, 2002)

Dear Mr. Starr:

Thank you for talking with me on the telephone today about the CIPB training manual. As I mentioned, a group of concerned, former supporters of WYSO-FM radio in yellow Springs has organized to convince the station to serve its diverse, local community rather than follow the national trend of becoming an NPR clone. Our current station manager came to WYSO from KOPN-FM in Columbia, Missouri, where a change similar to what is happening a WYSO was attempted. KOPN listeners were able to prevent that and are still able to call their station "community radio."

Keep WYSO Local has been active for a few months, initially reacting to recent drastic cuts in locally hosted programming. Our web site, www.keepwysolocal.org, details some of our activities. We counted the station's recent fundraiser with an "alternate fund drive" which collected pledges totaling $34,000 being withheld until local programs are reinstated. We have been successful with press coverage so far, but still need to engage an even broader constituency. It is apparent from meetings with station management and Antioch University staff (the license) that this will be a long-term campaign. We are now focused on forming a campaign strategy and are gathering resources that will help us do that effectively.

Enclosed is a money order for $15 for the basic membership level. Please send the training manual to my address above. Thank you for the hard work you have done on your campaign that can now help others in similar situations.

Sincerely,

Sharon Luster

Correspondence: Patrick Hensley, Jersey City, NJ (October 8, 2001)

Dear Dr. Starr:

I enjoyed your article "Needed: An Independent Public Broadcasting Service" featured on the Tom Paine web site(www.tompaine.com). Over the past decade, I've closely followed the media consolidation issue as covered by the alternative press and I agree completely with your view that a truly independent public broadcasting system is badly needed and long overdue. I look forward to receiving membership information for CIPB, thank you.

Correspondence: Richard Hendin, West Bloomfield, MI
(September 10, 2001)

Dear Dr. Starr:

I discovered you quite by accident through the Tom Paine web site. It is important that you continue your excellent work. Here in Detroit, we have a situation in which the station manager believes strongly in commercials.

He has little taste and does not broadcast opera or theatre when it is available. The current series on theatre on Sunday evenings is not seen on Channel 56. Instead we get programs on rock, gurus on how to live longer, and "experts" on all sorts of problems.

I have also been aghast at all of the sales going on when my grandson watches Sesame Street whose standards have declined markedly over the years.

Again, thanks for your endeavors.

Correspondence: Carol Burns, Olympia, WA (September 4, 2001)

Dear Dr. Starr:

I am a member of your organization and have your video and publications. Recently, I was the executor of my father's estate. He had named KCTS-9 in Seattle in his will. For your information, I am sending you a copy of the letter I sent them:

Dear KCTS-9,

I am enclosing a check for $4,000 which is bequest from my father, Bartlett Burns. It would please us greatly if this money could be used to acquire the type of independent documentaries that are least likely to get corporate underwriting. The organization Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting has provided information about four programs which have been turned down by PBS. They are "Building The House They Lived In", "Falun Gong's Challenge To China", "Good Kurds, Bad Kurds: No Friends But The Mountains" and "Last "Graduation: The Rise and Fall Of The College Programs in Prison". I hope this $4,000 will help KCTS-9 broadcast these programs.

In their thank you note, they indicated that my wishes were being referred to their programming department. You are welcome to reference this if it's useful to you in contacting KCTS about these programs along the lines of "One of our members recently sent you $4,000 indicating that it might be used for acquiring rights, if you decide to broadcast any of these programs."

Now, I would like to know how I can purchase any of these documentaries for a public showing here in Olympia, WA at which I would also lead a discussion of the problems with PBS (which I understand quite well.) I am part of an organization which has a monthly video gathering. I can't organize a CIPB Chapter and I don't want to do a full scale tour. I just want to propose these videos as selections for our gathering. The group votes on proposed videos and then collects money to purchase them.

I would also love to be able to place any of them on our local public access channel, but I would imagine that as long as there is still an effort to get them accepted by PBS affiliates, that the producers won't give permission for cable cast.

My video viewing organization always asks if we might have permission to place the purchased videos on our public access channel. Again and again I receive an answer that the producer wishes they could give us permission, but have to hold their programs back because the PBS stations want first rights. That's another frustration of the system, that these producers struggle so hard and may ultimately fail to get their program on PBS, and in the meantime the program doesn't get seen.

Correspondence: Peter Miller (January 27, 2001)

I just heard an NPR report on the World Trade Organization's decision to meet in Qatar. Unfortunately, it was a typical NPR "there is no alternative" promotion spot for the WTO.

I encourage everyone to look at the Citizens for an Independent Public Broadcasting, and consider making donations there. See www.cipbonline.org It's difficult to reward NPR for giving us longer versions of commercial news, with commercial news biases. CIPB is working to restore the "public" to public broadcasting.

About this WTO story specifically, the reporter told us that riots disrupted the last meeting, without mentioning the responsibility of the police for the problems. The reporter told us that the world needs the WTO, even citing the South African government's support for it, and presenting the argument that we have either WTO-style globalization (good) or no trade at all (bad).

Aside from those problems, the reporter did NOT mention that free speech is prohibited in Qatar. How could a responsible reporter neglect to mention that free speech is prohibited in the nation where the world's most powerful political body is about to meet?

Correspondence: Richard Dechert, St. Paul, MN

As a staffer for nearly 10 years at Jack Willis' previous post, Twin Cities Public Television [formerly KTCA], and as a Minnesota media activist for many years, I hope that CIPB will not continue to treat PBS and its station affiliates as a moribund monolith...if CIPB is going to be maximally effective in reforming American public broadcasting, one strategy it must employ is to identify and elevate those local "models of reform" upon which viable national models can be erected.

Correspondence: Cody Ausler, Little Rock, AR

Community Radio and Television was established to give a voice to the voiceless, a face to the faceless; and to allow community members to be part of the broadcast spectrum, to interact with one another over the air and to share concerns in a way that leads to more involvement by more people. Radio and Television done this way is democratic, in the true sense of the word: of, by, and for, the people.

I am really excited about us being selected as the 1st Chapter...and what that actually means to us and to the citizens of Arkansas. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us in educating our communities to the mission of public broadcasting.

Communication is essential to Democracy.