California Attorney General Launches Investigation Into Pacifica Foundation

[Avid Listener]

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.

As I said, "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."

Did you read this story about Pacifica, Left-Wing Darling Pacifica Radio Is Sliding Into the Abyss?

Are you aware that Democracy Now! is regarded by Hilary Clinton as a "hostile" media source? Do you know which liberal candidate Democracy Now! is supporting for the 2016 Democrat Party nomination? And by "support" I mean having the news slanted in a particular direction?

If you don't know those things, how can you claim to know that this is just "blind justice"?

 

[TheBigA]

If you don't know those things, how can you claim to know that this is just "blind justice"?

How can you say that I don't know about those things? Do YOU read any of those articles BEFORE you asked your question in Post #2?

Look, had you known anything about Pacifica, you wouldn't have asked the question the way you did. I answered it. That obviously was my mistake.

 

[davideduardo]

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.

That type of post is actually very interesting, as it provides links to non-broadcast media sites that have content that might not reach the broadcast sites for several days. Anyone interested in Pacifica certainly had enough information to know if they wanted to click the link... or not.

 

[davideduardo]

As I said, "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."

In California, one of the bluest of the blue states, Pacifica is not an organization that might arouse animosities at the Attorney General's office. It's just a "Berkeley liberal" entity that is a bit more liberal than the state government as a whole.

To think that an entity of the California government would single out Pacifica due to politial views is disingenuous and shows a lack of awareness of the overall political tone of the state.

 

[davideduardo]

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

I posted the rather simplistic description of Pacifica because it was painfully (perhaps "laughably") obvious that you were unaware of what Pacifica was and what their history as a pubcaster was.

Instead of a simple, "I did not know that. Thanks." I got a rebuttal for simply providing some context. Jeesh.

 

[TheBigA]

By the way, as I suspected, this inquiry was initiated by former Pacifica staffers, not by the AG himself:

"In response to a March 2014 complaint from 8 former board members who served on the Pacifica National Board between 2008 and 2013, the Registry of Charitable Trusts, the division of the California AG that supervises California nonprofit organizations, has launched a comprehensive audit of Pacifica Radio’s accounting and compliance functions."

 

[Ravens]

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.

50 years of operation without any viable means of support wasn't enough?

 

[TheBigA]

50 years of operation without any viable means of support wasn't enough?

That's no cause for investigation.

I can tell you that at one time, they had a huge endowment. But they pissed it away in the last ten years.

 

[Avid Listener]

That type of post is actually very interesting, as it provides links to non-broadcast media sites that have content that might not reach the broadcast sites for several days. Anyone interested in Pacifica certainly had enough information to know if they wanted to click the link... or not.

Right. It was to a blog entry on RadioInsight. The entire article was three whole paragraphs. Maybe you don't consider RadioInsight a non-broadcast media site. If you do, you're alone in that regard.

Instead of a simple, "I did not know that. Thanks." I got a rebuttal for simply providing some context. Jeesh.

Had I said, "I did not know that", I would have been lying.

By the way, as I suspected, this inquiry was initiated by former Pacifica staffers, not by the AG himself:

"In response to a March 2014 complaint from 8 former board members who served on the Pacifica National Board between 2008 and 2013, the Registry of Charitable Trusts, the division of the California AG that supervises California nonprofit organizations, has launched a comprehensive audit of Pacifica Radio’s accounting and compliance functions."

Attorneys General receive huge numbers of complaints, often from disgruntled ex-employees. They still have to sift through all of them and decide which ones are worth pursuing, and which ones aren't. Besides, if the Clinton camp wanted Pacifica discredited or shut down, do you think they would have any difficulty finding some disgruntled ex-employees to put their names on a complaint?

Are you really that naive, or are you just pretending to be some sort of wide-eyed rube?

 

[TheBigA]

Are you really that naive, or are you just pretending to be some sort of wide-eyed rube?

Do you actually have any facts on this story, or do you just like to create your own fiction?

I answered your question, and now you're attacking me. Next time, I'll let you sit in your own ignorance, which is where you prefer to reside anyway.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Instead of a simple, "I did not know that. Thanks." I got a rebuttal for simply providing some context. Jeesh.

Had I said, "I did not know that", I would have been lying.

Oh, then you posted your complaint about the way this thread began for no good reason. Why am I not surprised?

Wait ... there was a reason ... to hear yourself whine again. I swear, you go looking for nits to pick.

 

[davideduardo]

Besides, if the Clinton camp wanted Pacifica discredited or shut down, do you think they would have any difficulty finding some disgruntled ex-employees to put their names on a complaint?

The Clinton camp is smart enough to realize that tilting the Pacifica windmill is not productive. They are rated near the absolute bottom in all of their markets and lost all ability to influence opinions decades ago.

Besides, any publicity might actually generate some donations for Pacifica. As it is, they are very close to creating their own self-destruction machine.

 

[Avid Listener]

Do you actually have any facts on this story, or do you just like to create your own fiction?

How your Pollyanna act of always assuming that things are as they appear on the surface, and that everything the government does is strictly by the book and above board any different from my realistic cynicism? Do you have any facts that prove everything is exactly as some obscure blog article says it is?

 

[davideduardo]

How your Pollyanna act of always assuming that things are as they appear on the surface, and that everything the government does is strictly by the book and above board any different from my realistic cynicism? Do you have any facts that prove everything is exactly as some obscure blog article says it is?

In this particular case, there is no reason to suspect that the investigation of Pacifica's compliance with the requirements California imposes on non-profit entities is motivated by anything other than the allegations of improper practices by a group of former Pacifica staffers and directors.

In general, allegations of tax fraud in CA are investigated by the Franchise Tax Board. It may be as simple as a request for documents or a full audit.

As I said before, Pacifica does not have enough listeners for anyone to care about what they put on the air or to waste the time trying to muzzle their programming.

But when you have an organization where, recently, one Pacifica manager who was fired camped out in their offices for some time, you have all the signs of lack of control and procedures.

 

[TheBigA]

Do you have any facts that prove everything is exactly as some obscure blog article says it is?

What are you talking about?

 

[Ravens]

That's no cause for investigation.

I can tell you that at one time, they had a huge endowment. But they pissed it away in the last ten years.

Not a bit surprised. Typical of the mentality.

 

[JeffM]

Not a bit surprised. Typical of the mentality.

You mean the kind that wastes $200 billion trying to create a real-life "Star Wars" defense system that could never actually work?

 

[BOZ Profit]

You mean the kind that wastes $200 billion trying to create a real-life "Star Wars" defense system that could never actually work?

This is not on topic. It is a discussion for elsewhere. Keep the topic related to radio. Yes politics has a hand in radio, through: legislation, the FCC, special interest & lobbying, political announcements, former politicians with radio shows, radio show hosts that become politicians, the topic of politics on the radio, etc...

THIS post has NOTHING to do with any of it. Any posts addressing the post quoted will be deleted.

 

[Ravens]

This is what happens when you run a radio station or network as an advocacy platform and not as a business. Pacifica didn't care about how many listeners they had or how much money they could bring in. It was a vanity project for a bunch of people too radical to work anywhere else. Now that any nutjob can just make a podcast, they're even less relevant.

 

[FredLeonard]

This is what happens when you run a radio station or network as an advocacy platform and not as a business. Pacifica didn't care about how many listeners they had or how much money they could bring in. It was a vanity project for a bunch of people too radical to work anywhere else. Now that any nutjob can just make a podcast, they're even less relevant.

You mean like Salem? Like Family Radio or EWTN Radio? Like a lot of right-wing talk stations.

Double standard at work: Somebody programs left, it's advocacy. Somebody programs right, it's business.