California Attorney General Launches Investigation Into Pacifica Foundation

[mvcg66b3r]

The Attorney Generals Office of the State of California has launched an audit of the Pacifica Foundation over failures to comply with California law governing nonprofit foundations.


Read more at: http://radioinsight.com/blog/headli...nches-investigation-into-pacifica-foundation/

 

[Avid Listener]

And this relates to national Public Radio/Non Commercial how?

Perhaps if you're just going to launch thread after thread you might take the time to write an opening post that actually explains why the thread you're launching is appropriate for the forum you're launching it in. Frankly, if you're too lazy to actually write a launch post, I see no reason why anyone should want to follow your links.

 

[TheBigA]

And this relates to national Public Radio/Non Commercial how?

Ummm...Pacifica owns five non-commercial publicly supported radio stations around the country, including two in California.

 

[Avid Listener]

Ummm...Pacifica owns five non-commercial publicly supported radio stations around the country, including two in California.

And the reason why the person launching this thread couldn't take the time and effort to include that information in the launch post is...?

 

[K.M. Richards]

And this relates to national Public Radio/Non Commercial how?

Ummm...Pacifica owns five non-commercial publicly supported radio stations around the country, including two in California.

And the reason why the person launching this thread couldn't take the time and effort to include that information in the launch post is...?

Because 99% of the people who post in the Public Radio/Non-Commercial forum already know who Pacifica is?

 

[Ravens]

Because 99% of the people who post in the Public Radio/Non-Commercial forum already know who Pacifica is?

And posting entire articles is against board rules (or at least it was at the old place...)

Getting back to the topic, I'm surprised Pacifica hasn't been investigated before.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm surprised Pacifica hasn't been investigated before.

It usually takes something out of the ordinary for a non-profit to attract an audit...but there have been several stories this past year that could have drawn attention to their situation.

 

[davideduardo]

Because 99% of the people who post in the Public Radio/Non-Commercial forum already know who Pacifica is?

Not to mention a significant percentage of the residents of New York City, Washington, D.C, Houston, LA and San Francisco.

 

[Avid Listener]

And posting entire articles is against board rules (or at least it was at the old place...)

But writing a few sentences of explanation is not against any rules. However, it is courteous and demonstrates that the person launching the thread is going to a little bit of effort.

 

[davideduardo]

And the reason why the person launching this thread couldn't take the time and effort to include that information in the launch post is...?

I am amazed... no, astounded... that you, who have something negative, snarky or mean to say about nearly every post does not know about what is really the first multi-market activist non-commercial group in the US.

 

[Avid Listener]

I am amazed... no, astounded... that you, who have something negative, snarky or mean to say about nearly every post does not know about what is really the first multi-market activist non-commercial group in the US.

I didn't say I didn't know who Pacifica was. I asked why the person launching the thread couldn't be bothered to put some effort into it.

 

[Avid Listener]

I'm also amazed at how many people described Pacifica without mentioning how liberal and left-leaning it was.

In a court of law, one swears a triple oath. One swears to tell the truth (meaning no lies or falsehoods), the whole truth, (meaning omitting no pertinent details), and nothing but the truth (meaning no conjecture or opinion). Seems everyone who attempted to describe Pacifica would have been in violation of the courtroom oath, had this been a court and they were sworn to honesty. But it isn't and they aren't, so it's merely an observation.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm also amazed at how many people described Pacifica without mentioning how liberal and left-leaning it was.

What are you talking about? Where in this thread has ANYONE described Pacifica? Most of the posts are from you criticizing the OP!

The other question is: Who cares? Their political POV is irrelevant to the topic. If they deserve investigating, it will be fair regardless of their politics. That's what we expect.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm also amazed at how many people described Pacifica without mentioning how liberal and left-leaning it was.

As K.M. Richards mentioned, anyone in radio (and most people in the Pacifica markets that include close to 20% of the US population) knows and has known this for going on 65 years.

In a court of law, one swears a triple oath. One swears to tell the truth (meaning no lies or falsehoods), the whole truth, (meaning omitting no pertinent details), and nothing but the truth (meaning no conjecture or opinion). Seems everyone who attempted to describe Pacifica would have been in violation of the courtroom oath, had this been a court and they were sworn to honesty. But it isn't and they aren't, so it's merely an observation.

Pacifica is a non-commercial public radio broadcaster. That fact is a matter of record and has been since before FM became broadly relevant.

 

[davideduardo]

I didn't say I didn't know who Pacifica was. I asked why the person launching the thread couldn't be bothered to put some effort into it.

I believe the original poster correctly assumed that anyone interested in reading the linked article would know precisely and exactly what Pacifica is and what it stands for. And I would also believe that the OP knew that essentially everyone looking at the Public Radio / Non Commercial Radio section would be aware of what Pacifica does.

Trying to do a "100 words or less" on what Pacifica is would be a challenge greater than that of making a skyscraper out of quicksilver.

 

[landtuna]

I am amazed... no, astounded... that you, who have something negative, snarky or mean to say about nearly every post does not know about what is really the first multi-market activist non-commercial group in the US.

Perhaps the only way to convince posters who have nothing of substance to say, on any subject, should be ignored officially by those who do contribute. I too have found Avid Listener to be nothing but a troll in the official meaning of the word as it pertains to Internet posts and find nothing of value in his constant arguing and complaining. As a result, I have placed him on 'ignore'.

 

[davideduardo]

I didn't say I didn't know who Pacifica was.

You did not say that. True... I agree you did not.

But your question about what an article link about Pacifica had to do with the Non-Commercial / Public Radio section blatantly reveals that you had no idea what Pacifica was or you would not have asked such a dumb question.

A "Fair Use" extract from Wikipedia (all of which I can independently verify from my own library) says:

"Pacifica Radio is an American network of five independently operated, non-commercial, listener-supported radio stations known for its progressive/liberapolitical orientation. Launched in 1949 with service in Berkeley, California, it claims to be the world's oldest listener-funded radio network.

It is also a program service supplying over 100 affiliated stations with various programs, primarily news and public affairs.The first public radio network in the United States, it is operated by the Pacifica Foundation, a non-profit corporation with national headquarters adjoining station KPFA in Berkeley. "

 

[Avid Listener]

What are you talking about? Where in this thread has ANYONE described Pacifica? Most of the posts are from you criticizing the OP!

The other question is: Who cares? Their political POV is irrelevant to the topic. If they deserve investigating, it will be fair regardless of their politics. That's what we expect.

It is relevant within the context of reporting the whole truth. The fact that in this day and age, in this political climate, a liberal media enterprise is being investigated is big news. It is an important detail.

Ummm...Pacifica owns five non-commercial publicly supported radio stations around the country, including two in California.

You had a chance for full disclosure, and chose not to.

Because 99% of the people who post in the Public Radio/Non-Commercial forum already know who Pacifica is?

Richard was just snarky, but could have mentioned something.

I am amazed... no, astounded... that you, who have something negative, snarky or mean to say about nearly every post does not know about what is really the first multi-market activist non-commercial group in the US.

Eduardo got it totally wrong, accusing me of something I didn't do, and left out the salient point about the group.

Pacifica is a non-commercial public radio broadcaster. That fact is a matter of record and has been since before FM became broadly relevant.

Again with the truth, but not the whole truth.

Trying to do a "100 words or less" on what Pacifica is would be a challenge greater than that of making a skyscraper out of quicksilver.

And yet you posted from Wikipedia, and managed to copy their statement that did just that:

You did not say that. True... I agree you did not.

But your question about what an article link about Pacifica had to do with the Non-Commercial / Public Radio section blatantly reveals that you had no idea what Pacifica was or you would not have asked such a dumb question.

A "Fair Use" extract from Wikipedia (all of which I can independently verify from my own library) says:

"Pacifica Radio is an American network of five independently operated, non-commercial, listener-supported radio stations known for its progressive/liberapolitical orientation. Launched in 1949 with service in Berkeley, California, it claims to be the world's oldest listener-funded radio network.

It is also a program service supplying over 100 affiliated stations with various programs, primarily news and public affairs.The first public radio network in the United States, it is operated by the Pacifica Foundation, a non-profit corporation with national headquarters adjoining station KPFA in Berkeley. "

Your conclusion that I asked why mvcg66b3r didn't include the pertinent details ignores the fact that mvcg66b3r never includes pertinent details in his never-ending series of "here's a link" hit-and-run thread launches.

 

[Avid Listener]

To the point of the thread, it is unusual for any attorney general to ever go after any media outlet. That's what makes the fact that the California Attorney General is going after Pacifica news. It's a "man bites dog" sort of event. The fact that it is the Attorney General of California, and the fact that Pacifica is an extremely left-wing media enterprise compounds the interest of the story.

To those deluded souls who think that state Attorneys General do not decide which cases to pursue and which to ignore based on political ramifications, sorry folks. You're deluded. If Pacifica is being investigated, that signals that either their actions are so egregious that not even one of their political allies can ignore them or that there is some major internal conflicts within the ranks of liberal politicians. To look at this as nothing more than a simple story about a radio company that is a little shoddy at bookkeeping is to deny reality.

 

[TheBigA]

You had a chance for full disclosure, and chose not to.

Huh? "Full disclosure?" I was simply answering your very simple question with a simple, one sentence answer. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition!

Your response shows your lack of knowledge about this story. This investigation has nothing to do with their politics, and nothing to do with anything they broadcast. So no, it's irrelevant to this story, and if justice is blind, as it's supposed to be, it will not be a part of the investigation. If you were being investigated for the same thing, you'd expect nothing less, and if someone started prying into your politics, you'd be pretty angry.