Deconstructing Myths About WBAI: PRIOR TO THE COUP THE STATION WASN'T LOSING LISTENERSHIP

All,
I am a mechanical engineer by profession and a reporter at WBAI Radio for 6 years.
I helped free the station and the network from the corporate coupsters in 2000-2002, only to see it taken over again in 2009. The new Pacifica iED is a 30 year member
of the church of scientology. WBAI new iGM is an executive from Xerox. Steve Brown, Gary Null's former business partner, is a direct marketing millionaire.
To me dishonesty and hypocrisy is what is wrong with the press and Indymedia should know better.
The 10-year trend as shown in the graph has a positive slope and appears to represent a statistically significant trend (trust me, I am a licensed professional engineer
and I know how to use statistical analysis).
To use partial data to bring erroneous conclusions and help propagandized a lie is damnable and to falsely report is tantamount to bias journalism.
This Mr. Tarleton should be asked to issue a retraction for misleading the public.
Reporters and journalists have a code of ethics which Mr. Tarleton clearly has violated.
In doing so he has helped undermine one of the most prestigious radio station in this country.
Indymedia must repudiate this person.
I hope that Indymedia readers will join the Take Back WBAI movement.
FAN
siddharta5 [at] yahoo.com

I'll wrote a longer critique when I have had a good night's sleep and tended to some important things, but for now I'll just point out that I tried to explain my graph to Lisa, in person after a Programming Committee meeting and she just could not grasp what I was saying.

Precision in thinking or speaking is is not her strong suit (histrionic displays are).

Even the way she signs her name here makes it seem like she is THE listener representative OF the LSB. No such thing: she is ONE of the members of the LSB representing listeners (i.e. not representing the LSB, which voted to include my report in the Minutes).

[Incidentally, Tony reviewed my graph and discussed it with me just before that LSB meeting and had to agree it showed what I said it showed, and was collegial enough to say he’d reserve a place for me in the training sessions an Arbitron rep was going to provide the staff. I’m sorry to see him mixed up with the take-back crew, but at least he has not been fired and has another Pacifica/WBAI job which may be more fruitful for all involved.]

Earlier in the committee meeting, she had given me a copy of Tony Riddle's report with a graph which to be charitable I would call "amateurish" (otherwise I would have to say it was contrived to deceive and mislead). Much of the difference Lisa sees between my graph and his is due to an INCREDIBLE mis-representation, in that he OMITS half the data! He shows only Fall and Spring data, none of the Summer or Winter data!

[He also does a classic non-no in graph construction: he has a TWO-YEAR GAP in his data, between Spring 2001 and Fall 2003, but spaces his data points as if there is nothing missing.]

Also, unlike my trend line, which was mathematically calculated to show a trend transcending momentary zigs and zags (non-systematic or "random" sample variability) he "eyeballs" a line across two conveniently located high readings.

As I tried to explain to Lisa, the function across the time-span Tony looked at would probably be a non-monotonic CURVILINEAR function, rising from lower values in the earliest years he looked at to a peak 5 or 6 years ago, but instead of continuing to rise (or even to plateau), declining towards lower values. Essentially, declining during the years of Bernard White's reign as Program Director.

These were the same years that we lost MEMBERS at the rate of about 1000 per year. This cannot be blamed on any real or imaginary Arbitron sampling bias.

As for the Purple People Eaters --oops! Portable People Meters -- I believe Nathan Moore specifically excluded them from his analysis, using (as I did) data based entirely on the diary method.

At the programming committee meeting, I discussed ways of evaluating the subsequent shift from diary to PPM, which of course also went right past Lisa. I'll comment on the methodological problem of comparing diary and PPM data some other time.

But before beddy-bye time, let me point out the typical JUC ploy of claiming all of us independents are controlled by Big Bad Steve Brown, and their demonizing him as a way of demonizing all of us by "association". For a more fact-based critique of governance and management changes and WBAI's extremely serious situation, take a look at http://takeFORWARDwbai.org !

And for some insight into what is REALLY at the heart of JUC campaign to take back “their” station, see: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/20/18611770.php

I just now spotted this from "engineer" Fred Nguyen:

"...The 10-year trend as shown in the graph has a positive slope and appears to represent a statistically significant trend (trust me, I am a licensed professional engineer and I know how to use statistical analysis). To use partial data to bring erroneous conclusions and help propagandized a lie is damnable..."

The LINE that Tony eyeballed has a positive slope -- that's what he wanted it to show.

It "appears" to represent a statistically significant trend? "APPEARS" to? Surely an "engineer" would calculate it.

Fred "knows how" to "use" statistical analysis? Yeah, maybe if someone shows him WHAT NUMBERS TO USE. Did somebody tell him to "use" the PARTIAL DATA that Tony so deceptively presented? Did "engineer" Fred even NOTICE that Tony's graph was missing data points?

In her piece claiming bias by Indymedia reporter John Tarleton, it's interesting to see what Lisa Davis, a member of the Local Station board and the Take Back WBAI movement, finds important in the Arbitron data included in Tarleton's story about the Pacifica station, which broadcasts at 99.5 FM.

"While audience numbers fluctuate," Tarleton wrote, "the number of people who listen to WBAI once a week has declined from an average of 240,000 in the fall of 2003 to 180,000 in the spring of 2008, according to Arbitron ratings compiled by pacificana.org."

The evidence of bias, Davis claims, is not that these figures are wrong, but that Tarleton doesn't mention that the 180,000 listeners per week last year is more than the number of weekly listeners in 1998.

WBAI's strong signal in the middle of the FM dial gives the station of potential audience of about 20 million at any hour of the day or night. If even 1% of that audience tuned in for just 15 minutes in the course of a week, the Arbitron ratings Tarleton discusses would be 200,000. Last year, WBAI didn't even manage to attract that 1%, but board member Davis doesn't see that as a problem to be solved, or even an opportunity for improvement.

Because the 2008 number is higher than the number listening eleven years ago, she suggests that pointing out that the station lost 25% of its listeners in just five years beginning in 2003 is evidence of bias. Davis really does want to take WBAI back. I think the station will fare better if it's managed by those who want to take WBAI forward.

You call yourself the chair of the Local Station Board and you put this out??????

You are showing graphs about what people pledged, which measures the amount of people who gave money to the station! IT DOES NOT MEASURE LISTENERSHIP! The article I wrote and the information Riddle presented was from the diary system of Arbitron, which measures LISTERNERSHIP. The number of pledges DOES NOT MEASURE LISTENERSHIP! Arbitron doesn't measure the number of people that pledged money to the station. Arbitron measures listenership (and I'll be the first to say, that system is known for being unfairly biased against communities of color -- so I don't even like referring to them).

Stop being deceiptful Mitch! Stop always trying to pull a fast one over on people! You very well know this! But you can't tell the truth about ANYTHING!

I know you don't think anything of people that can't afford to pledge anything to the station. You don't think they should count for anything. Your frivolous lawsuit seeks to disenfranchise all of those who voted who had recieved waiver memberships in 2007. And your clique on the Board sabotaged the waivers process this year.

People who want to konw the truth need to visit: http://www.justiceunity.org or http://www.takebackwbai.org

casual observation of donations is that when people's retirements funds decrease (worse economy since what the 1930's?), unemployment rises, donations decrease. not fully aware of the ins and outs, those graphs don't say anything towards the issue that in all likelyhood, the listnership has increased.

This one is going to be sooo easy and so much fun for me. I laughed so hard when I read this, because LeFever has given me a gift and I thank him for it.

Firstly, I always find it very amusing and quite revealing when someone resorts to name calling when the weaknesses and shallowness of their arguments are exposed. One can easily assume that based on LeFever's totally illogical and fanciful reasoning, especially after reading his nonsensical retort to my article, that in his futile attempts to mischaracterize me, he is probably using the exact same words that his mother or father or teachers or all of them, used on him. And I'm sure that this contributed to what appears to be an extreme lack of esteem on his part.

LeFever's implication that Riddle doesn't know how to chart a graph is utterly ridiculous. Charting a graph is not rocket science! (Well in LeFever's case it probably is). If information is showing that in the spring of 1998 that the cume for a given station was 150,000 and that in the spring of 1999 it was 155,000 and that in the spring of 2002 it was 200,000, etc, that means that there is an increase in the cume – at least in the Spring. And if you are giving an overall assessment, you don't need to show every quarter. Riddle was more than fair by showing spring and fall. Not showing winter and summer is not going to change the fact that from the Spring of 1998 to the Spring of 2008 there was a gradual overall increase in listeners. As LeFever clearly proves, it doesn't take a scientist to be able to figure that out.

Furthermore, I MUST THANK HIM for his comment about Nathan Moore (the former National Program Coordinator), although it really calls into question his acumen. And quite frankly it makes him look REALLY ridiculous on two fronts.

LeFever writes: "As for the Purple People Eaters --oops! Portable People Meters -- I believe Nathan Moore specifically excluded them from his analysis, using (as I did) data based entirely on the diary method."

Nathan DID USE the PPM in his report. This system came out in 2008. The Attorney General in NJ and in NY sued Arbitron for using the PPM because it was so flawed and so unfair to people of color. Moore PRAISED the ppm system in his report. The questions begs to be asked, what would possess LeFever to talk about a report that he clearly did not read?

But the fact that LeFever went there provides me with the opportunity to show that Moore also shows that aside for the run up to the war, listenership for WBAI had been showing a slow but steady increase!. Which was my point and Riddle's point!

Moore showed this based on ANNUAL data. On page two of his report he shows that the yearly cume for WBAI in 2000 was 200900; in 2001 - 201500; in 2003 - 255200; in 2004 - 263800; in 2005 - 216300; in 2006 - 201400; in 2007 – 215800. This clearly follows the pattern that Riddle illuminates in his report.

In 2008, the year for which Moore used the Portable People Meter he says the cume dropped to 135,000. But the cume for all of the stations that catered to listeners of color dropped tremendously under the PPM system, which is why the AG for NJ and NY sued Arbitron for using that system. The PPM system proved to be a fiasco. All of the information from Riddle's chart was taken from Arbitron's older diary system. And there have even been complaints for the longest time about the unfairness of the Arbitron's Diary system.

There is one other point that I can't resist bringing up. And that's LeFever's non point about my signing my name as Listerner Representative of the WBAI Local Station Board. LeFever writes:

"Even the way she signs her name here makes it seem like she is THE listener representative OF the LSB. No such thing: she is ONE of the members of the LSB representing listeners (i.e. not representing the LSB, which voted to include my report in the Minutes)".

I AM a listener representative of the WBAI Local Board. If I simply referred to myself as member of the WBAI LSB Board would this have caused so much confusion for LeFever that he would have thought that I was implying I'm THE only member on the Board? LeFever comes to those meetings and knows that I know that there are 18 listener representatives on the Board. How on earth could he think that I was implying that I was the only one?

I'm also Lisa Davis, citizen of the United States. Gee, is he going to now accuse me of trying to say that I'm the only citizen or the only person in the US????

LeFever should learn from all of this that he should never try to call anyone else stupid again. I don't believe anyone should do that. My parents and my life taught me to never do that. It is my sincere hope that my encounters with LeFever (and I will do everything possible to keep them at a minimum) will contribute to helping him learn that lesson as well.

Oh, Lisa is proud of herself for "catching" this: "...The article I wrote and the information Riddle presented was from the diary system of Arbitron, which measures LISTERNERSHIP. The number of pledges DOES NOT MEASURE LISTENERSHIP! Arbitron doesn't measure the number of people that pledged money to the station. Arbitron measures listenership..."

Maybe she is teachable, however. I notice she dropped the PurplePeopleEater nonsense and acknowledged that the data I presented (and Tony MISrepresented) was obtained with the DIARY reports it used for so many years.

True, Arbitron does not measure pledges, but if you want to play the game of Arbitron being biased, the Pledge data provides a useful VALIDATION of Arbitron data. As you can see from what I presented at http://www.takeforwardwbai.org/downwardtrend.html , the decline in pledge numbers during the Bernard/JUC reign parallels the decline in listeners rather neatly.

[Aside: I wonder if the JUC "engineer" knows the difference between reliability and validity...]

Maybe I should comment on this: "...I'll be the first to say, that system is known for being unfairly biased against communities of color -- so I don't even like referring to them..."

Believed by some to be "unfairly biased" is not the same as being "known" to be biased. It is in Arbitron's interest to provide useful information for people investing advertising dollars, and if it misses a significant portion of any market niche it is unfair to those who are trying to SELL things to those listeners.

However, it is irrelevant whether there is an ABSOLUTE error (e.g. estimating the number of listeners as only half the true number), if one is interested in RELATIVE values. In other words, so long as the sampling error is CONSISTENTLY 50% off (here is one example of high reliability but low validity), it can still be useful for identifying TRENDS.

In other words, if Arbitron says 10,000 people listened in 2004 and only 5,000 listened in 2008, we can see that we lost listeners even if the true numbers were 100,000 in 2004 and 50,000 in 2008.

Bytheway: didn't Jamie or somebody straighten you out on those "6,000,000" downloads the first time you put out that screw-ball number? A couple of years ago, during the previous LSB election? [The one in which the election supervisor did not let us correct the on-air claim of a couple of JUC candidates that membership was INCREASING and we had "28,000" members? i.e. nearly TWICE the member we actually had.]

Where's the membership/pledge data BEFORE 2004?? Remember, in 2003-2004 because of Iraq invasion people turned to WBAI. 2005, "war fatigue" -- Well-known story about WBAI.

Also, are other radio stations doing well these days? NO! More internet, less other media.

Cohen&LeFever&Ross post all day all night. Lying is easy. Spammers post the most.

...when exactly do you think the "worse economy since what the 1930's" began? 2005? 2006? 2007?

As for this nonsense: "...those graphs don't say anything towards the issue that in all likelyhood, the listnership has increased", obviously you have not been paying attention.

Lisa Davis wrote: I also spoke with Tarleton about how the ACE camp, who support the coup, chose to ignore the statistics about the WBAI online programming archive. In 2006 the data showed that there were over 6,000,000 downloads of programming files for that year. As of 2009, the data is showing that there have been over 8,000,000 program files downloaded for the year. I will be the first to profess that this is not an exact science and that my understanding of this data is limited. But none the less, it is an indicator that there is a huge amount of activity going on with the programming that needs to be studied and examined closely. What’s more, the data shows that WBAI’s programming archive is getting hits from over 80 countries. However, those who want to portray WBAI’s programming as a failure completely ignore these stats. And it is very revealing that Tarleton chose not to mention that I said any of this in his article.

It’s somewhat disarming that Davis admits that “my understanding of this data is limited,” suggesting that while she may not have all the details right, one should give her the benefit of the doubt and conclude she’s making an honest attempt to draw our attention to significant downloads of WBAI programming that mitigates any loss in the broadcast audience for the station. But Davis floated much of this same information years ago—and was publicly corrected. So what looked like a possible honest misunderstanding of confusing information in 2007 looks more like a willful distortion of the facts in 2009.

It’s significant that Davis’ claim that there were more than 6,000,000 downloads of “programming files” in 2006 and already 8,000,000 in 2009 is not sourced, making it difficult to verify her data. What’s more significant is that she does not define “programming files,” leaving the impression that 6 million WBAI shows were downloaded in 2006.

When Davis made this claim about 2006 downloads in 2007, an examination of the statistics from BAI’s archives page revealed that what she described as downloads of programming files was actually any activity at all on the server that hosted WBAI’s archives. Just clicking a link to move from one page to another on the web sit would generate a report of a file transferred. It’s not easy to tell from the data she was working with how many programs were actually downloaded, but it was likely much less than one tenth of what Davis thought it was. All this was discussed at the time Davis made her report, and at least one member of the LSB explained it to her personally.

That hasn’t stopped Davis from repeating the misinformation, although it perhaps motivated her to throw up the fig leaf of “my understanding of this data is limited.” It’s telling that her admission that she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about doesn’t convince her to refrain from making bogus claims about the number of people downloading BAI programs from the archives. But at this point—years after she began this discussion—one might reasonably ask her: if you realize this area needs to be “studied and examined closely,” why haven’t you done so in the last two years?

If you’re on the board of a listener-sponsored radio station that’s experiencing a “huge amount” of activity around internet downloads, isn’t it incumbent on you to develop at least a minimal understand of that activity? If you’re on the board of a listener-sponsored radio station that’s spent more on operations than it’s raised in donations every year since the turn of the century, and you believe that 8 million programs were downloaded from the station’s archives in less than a year, wouldn’t you be motivated to figure out if that activity might create the opportunity to develop a serious revenue stream? Isn’t it possible that the station could average a 10 cent donation for each program downloaded—that would be more than $1,000,000 a year, if Davis’ figures are correct. Show me the money!

Either Davis doesn’t really believe the figures she’s spinning, or she’s not motivated in harnessing the “huge activity” she’s reporting to ameliorate the dire financial situation at WBAI. Neither alternative reflects well on her or the Take Back crowd she represents.

Lisa finally woke up to the fact that if she wants people to know she has published this MAGNIFICENT "deconstruction" thesis, she has to tell them herself -- no one thinks her opinion is so important that they should devote their own time and effort to publicize it for her.

However, in instead of asking, "gee! why didn't I think of this? why didn't I post this to listener forums?" she BLAMES OTHER PEOPLE for not doing P.R. work for her!

Here's what she was actually careless and clueless enough to post where people could read it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Didn't This Make the Bleeping Board? *LINK*
Posted By: Lisa V. Davis (pool-70-111-7-212.nwrk.east.verizon.net)
Date: Thursday, 23 July 2009, at 5:55 a.m.

I'm shocked! You all usually post articles written in Indy Media. Why Didn't you Post this article that I wrote? HUH? LeFever and Cohen and Farrell certainly responded to it.

Oh I get it, its because this article tells the truth, and many people on this board have an aversion to such a thing.

*LINK* DECONSTRUCTING MYTHS ABOUT WBAI: Prior to the Coup WBAI Was Not Losing Listeners http://www.indybay.org/comment.php?top_id=18611895
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I urge people to read the responses that her message to listenerforums ("bleeping blueboard") provoked:
http://www.listenerforums.net/cgi-bin/issues2/issues2config.pl?noframes;read=149474

When you're prompted to enter username, enter "poster", and for password use "enternow", so you can read the long series of comments which follow.

I gotta tell ya -- it's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish the difference between the mindless dribble and propaganda of LeFever, Farrell, Ross and Cohen.

I don't even know the last time that Farrell attended any kind of an LSB meeting or a committee meeting at WBAI. But that never stopped him from speaking when he doesn't know what he is talking about. I guess nothing embarrasses some people.

Regarding the information about the online programming downloads that I talked about in 2007, I stand 100% behind what I said. There were over 6,000,000 requests for WBAI programming files in 2007! And currently there are over 8,000,000 requests for programming files!

Farrell is delusional by implying that I don't know what I'm talking about.

He writes: When Davis made this claim about 2006 downloads in 2007, an examination of the statistics from BAI’s archives page revealed that what she described as downloads of programming files was actually any activity at all on the server that hosted WBAI’s archives. Just clicking a link to move from one page to another on the web sit would generate a report of a file transferred. It’s not easy to tell from the data she was working with how many programs were actually downloaded, but it was likely much less than one tenth of what Davis thought it was. All this was discussed at the time Davis made her report, and at least one member of the LSB explained it to her personally."

My reply to this nonsense is that what an examination of the statistics from BAI's archives page reveals is that Farrell doesn't know the what the HELL he's talking about and doesn't mind publicly embarrassing himself. It is so obvious that he HAS NEVER EVER seen the information pertaining to the online archive. Quite frankly, I find it foolish for people to write about something when they don't know what they're talking about.

What Farrel doesn't even realize is that what he's referring to is "hits" Hits represent the total number of requests made to the server, which registers any kind of activity on the server, including a 404 error page. More importantly, not all hits will result in information being sent back to the user, such as pages that are cached in the browser.


A file on the other hand, represents actual data being transferred back to the user. And it is so obvious Farrell has never even reviewed this data because if he had, he would know that usage data for the online archive separates hits from files. They have a column showing "hits" and a column showing "files. The column for the hits is always larger than the column for the files. In 2007 the column for the files read 6,558,943. The column for the "hits" read 9,333,919. Hence, the reason I said there were over 6,000,000 requests for programming files! OBVIOUSLY I CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT HITS MEANT ANY KIND OF ACTIVITY ON THE SERVER AND DID NOT USE THAT FIGURE.

The figure in the files column is clearly the more important of the two.

Moreover, the usage data gives a break down, with links to the files/programs that were requested. The only files that this program counts are mp3 files or xml podcast feeds. These are files that are directly connected to the programs! Do I need to break that down for Chris and Co?

Farrell then goes on to write: "If you’re on the board of a listener-sponsored radio station that’s experiencing a “huge amount” of activity around internet downloads, isn’t it incumbent on you to develop at least a minimal understand of that activity?" Yes, on this point I agree with him. It is obvious that I do believe that it is incumbent upon a person who sits on the board of a listener-sponsored station to develop a minimal understanding of this activity.

Conversely, its obvious that he believes that if you're just a water carrier for the propaganda of the majority klan on the Board who doesn't even show his face at any meetings and whose only purpose is to parrot what they tell him, then you don't need to know a damned thing about anything.

Another very important thing that the statistics for the online archive shows is that anyone of the coupsters challenging my arguments better research their subject thoroughly, better know what the hell they're talking about, better do some fact checking and rechecking, better do some more research, better practice their argument, and then better practice having their arguments ripped to shreds, and then better do some soul searching before they challenge what I put forward.

Are you saying that a "program file" is the same as a "radio program"? And therefore the figure you cite means that people downloaded 6,000,000 RADIO PROGRAMS?

Gee, one can't even post a graph -- a GRAPH! -- to this site -- the only thing I posted to this thread! -- without receiving the full throttle of Lisa Davis' denunciations.

How DARE you post a GRAPH to this website? Don't you know there's absolutely no relationship between the amount received in donations and the number of listeners? What are you, Ku Klux Klan, you racist dog! ... That sort of thing.

I guess her point here, aside from belittling anyone who disagrees with her -- is to try to show that WBAI has NOT lost listeners over the last 5 years, that its total listenership is actually UP, and that therefore the Indy board members' criticisms of management are based on an incorrect reading of the numbers. That is the gist of all the verbiage here. Too bad Lisa is wrong.

Back in 2007, the Justice and Unity sect, of which Lisa Davis is a member, trumpeted their accomplishments all over the internet. They wrote: "Justice & Unity and it's allies have raised thousands of dollars for WBAI, including the funds for the online audio archives, which have had 6 million downloads in a year from 72 countries."

Lisa Davis repeated this claim over the air, saying that there were "six million programs downloaded this year."

She didn't say how she and the JUC, all by their lonesome, raised "the funds for the online audio archives." Hmmmm.

I can't blame Lisa for being confused about the data. Every time one clicks on the WBAI.org home page, dozens of files open automatically -- image files, .jpg files, text files, etc. These are all included in the total. Then one needs to click on one of the links to the archives -- there are several confusing choices to be made, and more than one click is often needed (each click, remember, pulling up dozens of files). And then one clicks through various shows to find the right one (as they were often mislabeled). And then one OPENS an audio file -- let's treat that the same as "downloaded," it's probably what Lisa meant. So in getting to an archived program, before even clicking on it, one has already called up scores of files, possibly hundreds of files. And then one hits "renew", or "go back one page" and all of that is doubled and tripled, as all of those files are called up again.

So the Six Million "downloads" are not actual downloads; they are not programs listened to. They are the total number of files that were "called up" in the course of a year. Again, if one clicks on the home page, checks out one or two different pages, hits the "go back" arrow to return to the home page, you've already called up (not "downloaded") hundreds of files, all in a few seconds. And that happens every time one goes to wbai.org.

So let's say that you visit wbai.org for 15 seconds, and click a couple of times to scan the latest motions posted to the LSB page (which is actually a separate URL linked to wbai.org, and which DOES track individual (unique) visits). And, for arguments' sake, let's say that causes 300 files to be opened. ... Okay, let's be conservative and say it's just 100 files. The 6 million "hits" are now down to 60,000 "visits" to the website in the course of a year. (It's actually much less, if we use the more accurate, larger figure). We KNOW that those deeply connected to Pacifica -- maybe 100 people or so -- make at least one visit to the website per week, or 50 visits each in the course of the year. So that's 5,000 visits, conservatively, for us WBAI freeks. In addition, the computers at WBAI automatically open onto the website whenever one wants to use the computer. So, doing all the subtraction, we're down to, say, 50,000 total visits per year to the website.

The question is, what percentage of the 50,000 or so visits to the website end up listening to -- to say nothing of "downloading" -- an archived program? My guess would be perhaps 1 in five -- the rest are checking out the information on the home page, downloading candidate material, or some other text. Admittedly this is just a guess. So let's say that ALL 50,000 listen to an archived program. That would be a little more than 4,000 per month. That would be our maximum boundary. In reality, it is more like 850 per month -- not including me, you, or others intimately related to WBAI -- you know, those "6 million downloads in a year from 72 countries."

Of course, all this could be known for sure by asking the technicians to give us accurate figures for each show that's "clicked on" to listen to or to download. My bet is that it will be around 850 per month. The very highest it would be, from these figures, would be 4,200 per month -- very unlikely, but not quite outside the range of possibility.

And so, 6 million hits (not downloads of programs) turns into say 1,000 programs listened to over the internet or downloaded, per month.

How is any of this relevant to the argument here? Well, one could extrapolate the relative figures for the increase or decrease in listenership judging from whether the number of programs listened to or downloaded on line increases or decreases. Yes, there are many variables -- just as there are in devising insurance statistics. Some have computers, others don't, listening habits change, nothing is static, etc. Still, statisticians with no ax to grind can develop pretty good algorithms for looking at overall trends. And WBAI's listenership has, unfortunately, declined since Gary Null (like it or not) was fired in autumn of 2004, no matter what criteria you're looking at to measure it.

Finally, an argument over measurable criteria is one thing. But for Lisa Davis to explode all over those who challenge her statements by calling them (us!) members of the Klan is simply outrageous. She wrote: "you're just a water carrier for the propaganda of the majority klan on the Board who doesn't even show his face at any meetings." Get it? Majority klan. Won't show his face. What a disgusting way to argue! To quote one person, above, "I always find it very amusing and quite revealing when someone resorts to name calling when the weaknesses and shallowness of their arguments are exposed.” Exactly. Except, I don't find it amusing.

Mitchel Cohen
Chair, WBAI Local Station Board

Pacifica Financial Crisis: Who is Responsible?
by Richard Phelps, former KPFA LSB Chair
Thursday May 14th, 2009 11:30 AM

For several years a collusion on the Pacifica National Board (PNB) allowed WBAI to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars a year with no oversight from the PNB. This put the entire Foundation at risk of bankruptcy. Who was part of the collusion and why did they do it? Read on to find out.

Recently WBAI management did not pay their rent for four months and received a Three Day Notice to pay or be subject to eviction. This was not promptly communicated to the financial or executive management of Pacifica. WBAI has been losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for several years and currently owes Pacifica over $1,000,000.00 in back central services contributions.

Each station contributes 20% of its listener-generated revenue to run the Foundation. When one station isn’t making its contribution the results are that the Foundation is short on money or the other stations have to pay more. This several year problem at WBAI and the current economic downturn has caused serious financial problems for Pacifica. The current Pacifica National Board (PNB), elected in January, gives hope for the survival of Pacifica.

Why didn’t Pacifica correct this problem early on? There was collusion among some PNB members from various stations to allow WBAI to do what they wanted to do with no oversight or accountability to the Bylaws or the listener/subscribers. The major players in this collusion were from KPFA, WBAI and WPFW, with a vote or two from KPFK and KPFT and the affiliate Reps on the PNB.

The Local Station Board (LSB) majorities at KPFA and WBAI generally elected three PNB members that supported this collusion and WPFW, until recently, often sent four. There are 22 members of the PNB, four from each station and two Affiliate Representatives. An LSB majority can elect three of the four PNB members for their station. With ten votes from KPFA, WBAI and WPFW it only takes three votes from the ten from the other two stations and affiliate reps to have a majority to control the PNB and continue this collusion. Until this last January the Colluders had the majority for several years.

Who are the Colluders and why did they do this? Local tyrannical majorities wanted to run their stations without regard to the Bylaws and with no oversight from the Foundation. At KPFA the “KPFAForward” (2004) and “Concerned Listener” (CL) (2006 & 2007) slates represented the same management/staff faction and generally endorsed majorities that sent three PNB members who consistently voted to protect and continue the collusion. This group included William Walker, Sarv Randhawa, Rosalinda Palacios, Mary Berg, Sherry Gendelman, Bonnie Simmons and Andrea Turner. They consistently vote/voted with the Justice & Unity majority from WBAI and the WPFW majority. They generally sit together at the PNB meetings and are regularly seen privately caucusing together at lunch and before and after meetings sometimes, with GM Lemlem Rijio when in Berkeley.

Prior to this year’s PNB, Bob Lederer was the Justice & Unity leader on the PNB. I have attended many PNB meetings and listened to most of the others on line. During those meetings if KPFA Colluder PNB members were not sure how to vote they often passed if Bob Lederer hadn’t voted or passed. When he voted they would follow. If you don’t believe me go to the archives of the meetings and listen. Rosalinda Palacios (2006) was especially consistent with following Lederer’s votes.

Whenever there was a move to correct the problems at WBAI the KPFA Colluders always voted with the others to protect the LSB majority at WBAI. Patty Heffley, the minority PNB Rep from WBAI, made a motion to have the PNB order the WBAI LSB to do a performance review of the general manager (GM) and the program director. The Bylaws require these to be done annually. At WBAI they had never been done, despite complaints from the LSB minority. The PNB Colluder majority refused to order the WBAI LSB to follow the Bylaws. Many others complained about WBAI being out of control and losing money and the Colluder PNB majority did NOTHING as the red ink continued to flow.

At KPFA the CL slate and the Rijio/Lilley management work together to make sure they maintain a majority on the LSB to elect three PNB members from their group. One of their methods was to have no election information on the air when the ballots went out and at the same time the CL sent a slate mailer. After the first time this happened I wrote a motion on the PNB Election Committee requiring election information to be on the air during the election. It passed out of the election committee by a 10-2 vote. The Colluder majority on the PNB voted it down. When they finally ran some candidate information they ran 22 candidate statements in a row, always with Sherry Gendelman first! At the April 2009 PNB meeting in Berkeley the new non-Colluder PNB majority passed a motion requiring broad election coverage on the air.

The Colluder majority was consistently against transparency. The Bylaws and California law allow Directors, PNB members, the “absolute right” to inspect all documents and facilities at any reasonable time. For years the Colluders fought to stop or hinder Directors’ Inspections. When inspections were finally allowed due to potential lawsuits it was discovered that $65,000 worth of equipment had been sent to a WBAI former GM’s father’s house and was not accounted for. As recently as 2008 a Director was ordered out of WBAI in the middle of a lawful inspection without any justification. Who gave the order? Dan Siegel, interim Executive Director, hired by the Colluder majority.

So when you hear Brian Edwards-Tiekert, Sherry Gendelman, Bonnie Simmons, Conn or Matthew Hallinan, Warren Mar or any of the CL allies complain about KPFA money going to shore up WBAI, they and their allies are responsible for this crisis for trading fiscal responsibility for their power to ignore the Bylaws, transparency and accountability.

To save Pacifica we must vote out the CL Colluders in the next election so they will not be able to send three Colluders to the PNB to ignore the Bylaws and progressive principles in favor of uncontrolled tyranny of the local majorities. KPFA is a Commons that belong to all of us and it must be protected and preserved above the CL/Rijio group’s desire for unrestrained and unaccountable power.

Richard Phelps, former Chair, KPFA LSB, 35 year listener/subscriber and former AM & FM Radio Announcer

The last post has nothing to do with this argument, furthermore it's just a copy/paste of a tract . Please don't spam discussions.

Mr LeFever what reasons led you to use a 5 year parameter instead of a longer time period ?

I think Lisa Davis deserves a little more respect , argue the point not the person. The same goes for Mr Nguyen ; insulting his qualification isn't going to win you the argument. Progressive didn't mean "without manners." Last I heard.

A Simple Question by G.F: "...Mr LeFever what reasons led you to use a 5 year parameter instead of a longer time period ?"

One reason was simply the availability of data. More importantly, however, the question which has most relevance to WBAI's current operations is best answered by what has happened during the period of management by the current regime.

I don't think it is meaningful to say "we have more listeners now than we did 10 years ago" even if -- I emphasize "IF" -- it is true. [Riddle's graph and his "analysis" are both absurd and fail to meet the most elementary methodological requirements.] A lot of things have changed in the past 10 years, including listening-range population and demographics, as well as management and programming.

Just eye-balling the 10-year data (but more carefully and with more sophistication than Riddle eye-balled it), it seems to me that the linear component of any change from 1998 to 2008 is likely to be non-significant (both in the statistical sense of it being uncertain whether we can infer a change from the samples obtained, and in the real-world practical sense of being trivial). It seems more likely that a non-monotonic curvilinear function would account for the variation across the 10 years: i.e. getting better, but then getting worse.

"G.F." says: "...I think Lisa Davis deserves a little more respect , argue the point not the person. The same goes for Mr Nguyen..."

Apparently you have little experience with Lisa or Fred. Neither is capable of acknowledging they were wrong -- about this or about ANYTHING they have ever said. I tried to explain sample variability and trends face-to-face with her, and repeated the effort online (here and a couple of other places where she "deconstructed the myth"). Her response essentially is "yes it is!" every time I explain why it is not. Nguyen offers ONLY his presumed "qualifications" as a basis for saying "yes it is", making his "qualifications" suspect.

Think of it. Lisa says (in this thread or another) that reading a graph is not "rocket science" or "perhaps it is for LeFever", with no shame at citing her "authority" for eyeballing a flawed graph as superior to that of someone who has TAUGHT statistics (at NYU) and Experimental Psychology (Hunter College).

[Indeed, it is "Dr." LeFever, not "Mr." LeFever; not that credentials automatically mean correct judgment, but what one has to do to obtain them -- from a reputable university like NYU rather than a diploma-mill that "doctored" Gary Null -- does require considerably more study of such things than Lisa or Tony has done.]

Dr LeFever wrote : "More importantly, however, the question which has most relevance to WBAI's current operations is best answered by what has happened during the period of management by the current regime." Perhaps , but then there is no contrast with other periods that would illustrate a definitive break with historical audience trends regarding WBAI .Are you not tailoring the data to your hypothesis? Also how do you define the "current regime" ?

In any case I can't see how it is morally or statistically feasible to rely on Arbitron data to back up radical changes at WBAI that result in improper staff removals , refusal to talk to staff unions or on-air gag rules. Is there not a great deal of criticism of the Arbitron system within the radio industry , let alone progressive circles ?

Furthermore to say that "We can renege upon contract's and terminate people because the radio stations Arbitron data is bad," has nothing to do with the core mission of WBAI. In fact quite the opposite.

Finally , justifying insulting behavior because you believe yourself to be factually correct is a fairly weak argument.

Dr LeFever wrote : "More importantly, however, the question which has most relevance to WBAI's current operations is best answered by what has happened during the period of management by the current regime."

G.F.: "Perhaps , but then there is no contrast with other periods that would illustrate a definitive break with historical audience trends regarding WBAI..."

There is a contrast inasmuch as Tony (parroted by Lisa) claims there has been an upward trend across 10 years, and that this trend continues. The data clearly show that during the past 6 years any such trend has been reversed.

How many times do I have to repeat and emphasize this? He eyeballs INCOMPLETE DATA and claims that after a "burnout" following the peak performance of the "war years" an upward trend resumes, but analysis of COMPLETE data for this "post-war" period show a DECLINE. How can THIS be explained away by saying I should have looked at the whole 10-year period?

G.F.: "...Are you not tailoring the data to your hypothesis?..."

No, I am looking at the data that are relevant to the question "what has been the trend in listening since Bernard became Program Director"?

G.F.: "... Also how do you define the 'current regime'?"

Well, it is no longer "current", but it is the regime that WAS in charge from the time of the return of "the fired and banned" until just a few weeks ago.

G.F.: "...In any case I can't see how it is morally or statistically feasible to rely on Arbitron data to back up radical changes at WBAI that result in improper staff removals , refusal to talk to staff unions or on-air gag rules..."

Whew! What a lot of misinformation and innuendo packed into one long sentence! "Morally"? I guess we have different definitions of "morality". "Statistically"? I guess we have different understandings of "statistics. My understanding is based on professional training and experience. I don't know what yours is based on. Obviously Tony's understanding is based on very little, and Lisa is just parroting what Tony has said.

Please name ONE staff removal that was "improper".

Please name ONE staff union that management has refused to talk to.

Please specify what you understand to be "gag rules"

I'll be glad to discuss each specific you manage to come up with.

G.F. "... Is there not a great deal of criticism of the Arbitron system within the radio industry , let alone progressive circles ?..."

There is indeed "criticism", but when one examines the "criticism" closely its validity becomes uncertain. However, TONY chose to used Arbitron data to advance his own fallacious "analysis" of listener trends -- should I refrain from presenting contrary data from the same domain?

I do more than that, bytheway: I present data which is independent of Arbitron data but which serves to validate the supposedly "unreliable" Arbitron data. [see the final section of a re-post I append, beginning with "Moreover, there are other ways to look at the downward trend that COMPLETE Arbitron data shows..."]

G.F. "...Furthermore to say that 'We can renege upon contract's and terminate people because the radio stations Arbitron data is bad,' has nothing to do with the core mission of WBAI. In fact quite the opposite..."

Pleas cite ONE "contract" which was "reneged upon". Those who were dismissed (or transferred, in the case of Tony Riddle) were dismissed for reasons that do not require Arbitron data for justification.

G.F. "...Finally , justifying insulting behavior because you believe yourself to be factually correct is a fairly weak argument..."

It is not intended as an "argument". It is intended to express my contempt for people who do not hesitate to lie and/or to blather on about things they know nothing about.

HERE IS SOME MORE INSULTING LANGUAGE, ADDRESSED TO A FULL-TIME JUC PROPAGANDIST (posted at Pacificana.org):
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUC's combination of incompetence and malevolence

I have belatedly found this crude hatchet job posted by JUC's Minister of Disinformation over two months ago.

It illustrates well the combination of incompetence and malevolence that has characterized WBAI's performance during the reign of Program Director Bernard White and his mutual-protection society, "Justice & Unity".

For example, this wind-up toy (who is obviously on auto-pilot transcribing Bob Lederer's agitprop piece) apparently does not realize that his lie is found out within 10 or 20 seconds by anybody with wit to LOOK AT THE GRAPH(S) and the will to do so. He foolishly says "...The data for summer 2004 probably was so high the graph would have looked ridiculous revealing that 2003-4 was an anomalous period..."

I invite more diligent readers to take a moment now and LOOK at the graphs (both for CUME and for AQH): obviously I have included the summer 2004 data point, and because Dr. LeFever [sic: Ph.D., Experimental Psychology, NYU], having taught statistics, is wise enough to choose appropriate parameters for his graphs, so neither graph looks "ridiculous".

Indeed, I even COMMENT on the problem of dealing with the 2004 data: "...The slope shown for cume is with the unusually high Summer 2004 score omitted, so the decline is not an artifact of starting from an unusually high data point. The deliberate omission of an "outlier" is fairly common. I have calculated both ways, with and without the Summer 2004 cume data, and the difference between the results is trivial). I retained all the 2004 AQH samples because none departed markedly from the general trend line..."

Riley piously intones: "...This kind of data crimping is unacceptable."

Rather ironic coming from a "videographer" who routinely "crimps" videos of LSB meetings to show JUC in the best possible light and to misrepresent what JUC does to obstruct transaction of business!

But even more relevant to the specific case of misrepresentation of trends in Arbitron statistics, he asserts: "...Conveniently for the plotter of the data, all the known data is not used to generate this graph. For example the 8 years prior to 2003 are omitted. When you factor that data in, information that has previously been made public, the overall trend line is up, not down..."

Presumably he alludes to the unfortunate graphic exercise promulgated by ex-GM Tony Riddle on Oct. 2, 2008.

Talk about "crimping" data! To begin with, he omits summer and winter data, constructing his graph entirely on the basis of spring and fall data.

Moreover, he omits more than two years of data (missing between spring 2001 and fall 2003) with NO indication of a break on the X-axis. If there IS an upward trend between 1998 and 2008, the effect will be to exagerate the visual impression.

I say "IF" there is an upward trend, because during the years in which our graphs overlap, his omitting half the data manages to create an impression of an upward trend (from 2005 to 2008) WHICH IS CONTRADICTED WHEN COMPLETE DATA ARE USED.

What else? Well, instead of CALCULATING trend lines [I explain the need for this in the notes to my graphs], he "eyeballs" the data and draws a line CONVENIENTLY between two isolated data points that catch his eye.

I have taken a preliminary look at the trend from 1998 onwards (I would not make a serious formal analysis without those missing data points), and if one accepts the data that Tony shows, there was a small upward trend from 1998 to 2001 which IF CONTINUED would have projected a CUME in 2008 far above what the CUME actually was.

Indeed, not only did Bernard's operation fail to retain even a portion of those new listeners during the war years, it failed to continue the less spectacular but fairly consistent growth in listeners WBAI had before he took over.

One can discuss the relevance of looking at a 10-year trend and accept or reject such an approach on various grounds. Given the many changes in our signal area and society as a whole since 1998, I would argue that its utility is limited. It makes more sense, I think to focus on trends during the "Bernard era". Let me emphasize, however, that even for THIS period, during which our graphs overlap, Tony's data representation and "analysis" are absurdly flawed.

Moreover, there are other ways to look at the downward trend that COMPLETE Arbitron data shows (yes, a downward trend, NOT a rebound or upward trend) since 2005. Besides the evidence of COMPLETE listening data [take another look at my two graphs and see how they differ from Tony's EVEN for those years], there is the evidence of data which can reasonably be expected to have at least SOME positive correlation with numbers of listeners:

[1] number of members (losing nearly 1000 per year during this period, although at least two JUC candidates for the LSB in 2007 got away with saying membership was growing and we had "28,000" members when in fact we had scarcely more than 1/2 that many).

[2] number of pledges [look at decline in AQH and decline in number of pledges side by side at http://www.takeforwardwbai.org/downwardtrend.html (note especially DECLINE between 2006 and 2008)]

[3] actual dollars DONATED (not just "pledged") per day during these years [Financial Report, PNB meeting July 2009 (if no one heard it, that's not surprising considering how hard Bob Lederer and other JUC mobsters tried to disrupt the meeting and how LOUD their efforts were -- as well as how physically obstructive and disruptive) -- I'll come back and post a link to the relevant graph.]

I missed this telling passage from a JUC agit-prop parrot: "...Conveniently for the plotter of the data, all the known data is not used to generate this graph. For example the 8 years prior to 2003 are omitted. When you factor that data in, information that has previously been made public, the overall trend line is up, not down..." [John Riley, at pacificana.org]

EIGHT years prior to 2003? Did people neglect to tell John that Tony's graph went back only to 1998. not to 1995? Maybe the same people who neglected to tell him that my graph(s) DID include 2004 -- ALL of 2004, not just those portions Tony chose to include!

I haven't checked it myself, but I've been told that even the "positive" [upward] trend Tony purports to see from 1998 onward becomes negative [downward] if one starts a year earlier, i.e. in 1997.

Dr LeFever wrote : "It is not intended as an "argument". It is intended to express my contempt for people who do not hesitate to lie and/or to blather on about things they know nothing about."

In other words a fairly weak attempt to smear your opponents point of view.Where did I justify Mr Riddle's use of Arbitron over yours ? ( Too long in the trenches perhaps ?) That you are a "professional" (your own words) does not make the actions of you and your cohorts any less wrong.Neither does being verbose and confrontational.

Regarding firings and banning follow the link >> http://www.facebook.com/pages/takebackwbaiorg/89438391508#/note.php?note_id=209610730261

What happened to the reply I posted here last night?

What missing reply, Frank? Why don't you try re-posting it.