portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting portland metro

alternative media

Open letter to KBOO

I believe that KBOO morning talk show hosts have been in their time slots for too long and that we need more change in one of the more visible and vital community communication resources we have.
Dear Arthur and Marc,

I am a former board member ('98-'00?) who is deeply concerned about programmer stagnation at KBOO. I bring this issue to the station and board's attention from time to time. I believe the problem is endemic throughout all of our programming but I am most concerned about morning talk radio.

KBOO's Programming Charter says: KBOO news/public affairs programming shall place an emphasis on providing a forum for unpopular, controversial, or neglected perspectives on important local, national and international issues, reflecting KBOO's values of peace, justice, democracy, human rights, multiculturalism, environmentalism, freedom of expression, and social change.

I believe 4 of the 5 hosts on the morning talk strip have had their shows for at least 12-15 years! Joann Bowman is the newest and I believe she's been on over 5 years now. How does decade long tenure help us emphasize neglected perspectives? I used to listen regularly to KBOO but am so bored with the current hosts that I almost immediately turn the station. I attribute this to decades of listening to their opinions. It is time for some change, no matter how good or strong they are. New stars will rise and KBOO must provide those openings and opportunities.

I am a Green and think I'd make a decent host. I never even get started on that path because it seems like a pipedream that I would actually get through all the training and then get meaningful airtime. Opportunities at KBOO are extremely limited with little turnover. It seems like such a challenge I don't even start.

There are many ways to foster change but I think the Board and station should adopt a clear policy that morning talk show hosts can serve a maximum of 5 years. This would mean that at least one spot would open up annually for new talent, new voices and new perspectives.

I am particularly concerned about the morning talk strip because of the influential nature of the programming. Those hosts wield considerable power and influence within our progressive community and the time slot and influence should be treated as a shared resource. The hosts not only get to opine for 90 minutes, they also select the guests, topics and general direction and theme of the show.

The hosts do not own their timeslots but often act as if they do (Taking vacations and using guests hosts to fill in for their time away rather than turning the time back over to the station). The hosts have used their influence to become Board members at one time or another and with none currently on the BOD, I think it would be a great time to create a clear policy around this specific programming niche and time slot.

I hope you will bring this to the full board's attention for consideration. I was concerned about this issue when I was on the board but we had other more urgent matters and a number of hosts on the board.

Frame this issue as one about principle: KBOO should serve diverse and neglected perspectives and communities which is incompatible with decades long tenure in the morning talk radio time slots.

Sincerely yours,

Brian C. Setzler, CPA
Candidate, MBA in Sustainable Business

P.S. Posted on Indymedia
god, you are so right 26.Nov.2006 21:23

I have lived in Portland for 17 years

I came to Portland when I was 21. KBOO, in particular the news and public affairs programs were extremely influential to my progressive education. The morning shows have been exactly the same since then, with the addition of Joann...

I have not listened to KBOO regularly for the past 5 years. Because of the reasons you stated. I am glad you wrote this letter, and I pray it dislodges some of the inertia at the station.... especially the news and public affairs programing. Why can't any of these folks give up their spots?

I mean this as gently as possible, but at least one of these folks has become more and more senile and cannot track during her interviews. God, that hurt to write..

title of comment 27.Nov.2006 07:19

author of comment

Because I have been a listner of KBOO for only 6 years, the a.m. talk shows don't seem THAT stagnant to me....but they are getting there. I've enjoyed Joe Uris/Abe Proctor, Alan and Joann, and Positively Revolting in the past and made efforts to listen. Now I'm down to catching Joe and PR in bits and pieces. It would be refreshing to hear some new programs, perhaps making some of the long-standing ones every other week.

But it's important to remember that these talk show hosts are VOLUNTEERS, and that most of the work (yes, work) is done voluntarily. My hats are off to them for arranging the topics and guests weekly.

To author of comment 27.Nov.2006 08:01

Brian Setzler

I appreciate your comment about the hosts volunteerism and we can't forget that almost everyone at KBOO is a volunteer. It is my belief that it would be easy to find new volunteers if KBOO offered opportunities. The five hosts/cohosts are not unique.

I used to live in a community and the people who volunteered the most would often complain about how much work they did to keep everything running. We had 40-55 people at anyone time and typically a handful would do the 50% of the work. What we eventually learned is that when they back off and do less, others would step up and do more. While 5 people did 50% of the work and everything got done, what was the motivation for the other folks to do more? It was all getting done!

I believe KBOO is the same way. When the morning programmers step aside, their will be a number of top-notch, dedicated, bright and articulate hosts who will take their spots. Our community is diverse and robust. That needs to be reflected on our community radio station.

But are there others to step up? 27.Nov.2006 08:53

occasional KBOO listener

I agree that KBOO could use a dash of freshness, but I don't know much about how things work over there. Are there really lots of volunteers ready to step up and do a decent job while breathing from fresh life into those shows? A lot of the stuff that alienates from KBOO is what sounds like inexperience to me. I have heard news regurgitated from wire stories that makes KBOO sound like KATU news or worse. I have heard some sloppy technical stuff. I have also grown a little tired of some of the voices on the air, especially Joe Uris--he should move over to Air America or something more mainstream. But my question is this: have other people been trying to move into those spaces, and been rejected? Or are those hard-working volunteers there because no one else will commit to the time required to do quality work?

You go Setzler! 27.Nov.2006 09:27


I have a great deal of admiration for KBOO having listened to them for the 17 years I've been in Portland. However, I have also been critical of their stagnant programming and some of the hosts. I've like most of the hosts, though I have expressed constructive criticism over lack of professionalism and some disagreements with Joe's mainstream views. I also felt they had way too much emphasis on cheesy Tejano music that seemed to dominate the afternoon hours. I don't know if that has changed as I have not listened as frequently in the past 2 years. KBOO does need some sprucing up and increase their competence level. One jazz host could not pronounce the name of a very well known jazz classic "Concierto de Aranjuez" and just threw off his mispronunciation as ..."whatever". Palease, get with the program. I still have the highest respect for KBOO, but they seem to be losing ground, especially with news reporting.

KLCC 27.Nov.2006 09:46


Same thing with KLCC Eugene. Same hosts during the day for way too long playing the same drivel catering to their donation base of old fuddy-duddys and hippy burn-outs. Don Hinds has been managing the station for way too long. Money talks though and unless you can donate substantial money to the station your voice won't be heard.

Access to the Media 27.Nov.2006 10:04

Jim Lockhart ealeye@PhilosopherSeed.org

I can really appreciate what Brian and those commenting are saying.

This is not a criticism of any of the excellent work being done by the current range of morning talk show hosts. Their typical selection of subject matter and guests highlight many issues important to the community.
Perhaps one can make a good case that, due to longevity, much of the programming in question is becoming stale and repetitive. This is a debate between those loyal regular listeners and those who no longer listen due to the stated lack of fresh energy.

But, to me, this is not the issue.

The issue is access to the media, not content.

To be a truly Community Media, the community must have access to that media. Of course there will be limitations and regulations, but entrenched programmers, whether or not stagnant, do not provide ample opportunity for the various elements of the community to find and exercise their voice.

There is enormous room for compromise here. I would think that rotating timeslots of some kind could be implemented, whereby programmers operate for a six month period, say, and then have an opportunity to return after 2 or three other people have had their chance.
This would both maximize access and hopefully, through good natured and friendly competition, encourage creativity.

Personally, I think that KBOO has everything to gain by discouraging this calcification of programmer timeslots. In Public Access television, a producer has their time slot for two full seasons, 6 months, and then can be bumped from that slot, if someone wants to do so. This rarely happens, as most people respect the work, time and effort other producers have invested building up an audience for that time period.
The situation at Public Access is, in many ways much different that at KBOO, but there are similarities, and we can perhpas learn from them. The organizing of Access television has over the years learned much from the structure of KBOO and other community media operations.

There is always going to be the debate as to is of greater importance: fresh faces or established audiences. And, usually the best solution is a compromise which offers a little of both.

I'm not proposing this solution as the ONLY one, but simply throw it out there as one of many possible compromises. Democracy only works when all voices are heard. Likewise, one cannot claim to be the voice of the community when access to that media has ossified, prohibiting a fresh flow of programmers.

I agree 27.Nov.2006 10:55

jason mountain

When I first came to portland, I was really excited to find KBOO, and I almost immediatly became a contributing member, and even volunteered for awhile. However, now I don't even listen. KBOO just feels like a personal club for a bunch of crusty activists trying to relive thier glory days. I don't find it interesting, relevant, or very informative.

I would also like to address KBOO's music coverage--Portland has a vibrant amazing scene of new creative music, and every time I turn on KBOO, the music is jazz, folk, celtic...whatever, from about 40 years ago. It's not hard to find that stuff in the library, and anyone who wants to hear it can. Why can't KBOO try to help the local music community and promote something that is going on today? It seems like most KBOO music shows are just little kingdoms for folks living in the past trying to get people to dig the record collection they assembled in college in the '70's. I wish I could turn on KBOO and find out what is happening in our community now--not what happened in NY or Dublin when the DJ was cool.

I share your opinion. KBOO has lost my support. 27.Nov.2006 15:03


Brian, I completely agree with your assessment. I've written letters, contacted the station, and blogged about this in the past, but that didn't work, so I switched to KPOJ on my morning commute and decided to vote with my wallet. Everybody who is unhappy with the stagnant and sometimes arrogant state of tenure in all of the choice programming times should do the same thing and stop supporting the station's fund raising drives until it gets back to being a more representative community format.

VOLUNTEER??? First of all, is it really volunteerism for the sake of the community when you personally derive perks associated with your broadcasting position? That's sort of like listening to old money punks bitch about the "work" they have to do when they get appointed to civic committees or ambassadorships. It's like anybody who's done college radio or journalism or whatever. You're investing time, but for the people with the high listener timeslots, their time on KBOO is rewarded with a claim to fame. Having personally witnessed some of the morning talk hosts work a party with their KBOO status proudly boasted to anyone unfortunate enough to have to endure it, I seriously doubt that they regard the time invested in their show as a major sacrifice in their lives. For proof, just compare the turnover rate for all other volunteers versus those in the choice timeslots at KBOO. They like being there and they so hypocritically protect the mini-celebrity status their tenure at KBOO has given them. So let's not kid each other.

The bottom line is that these days, anybody who supports KBOO supports a clique of people who have locked up all the best shows and times and administrative spots at the station. Deep down, they think of themselves as mini celebrities and above the hard work that KBOO requires and has such a high turnover in. Well guess what? Despite all the hours of tape you have of yourselves, you haven't got the big call from a commercial station. Why is that? You're really not good enough to cut it at that level. You're also boring the crap out most listeners with your tired tirades and preventing the station from achieving its potential as a beacon of community airwaves. Please take your hypocritcal and arrogant self-absorption someplace else so fresh perspectives can be heard.

Brian, it took major balls to post this, so I solute you for doing what was right. I doubt it will change anything.

ANGEL ranks the KBOO morning talk (best to worst, one to five respectively):

1: Joe and Abe Show
2: Locus Focus
3: Jo Ann Bowmann
4: Positively Revolting
5: More Talk Radio

You can throw the #4 and #5 shows on the crap pile immediately.

Limits of the Community Radio / Community Media Tactic 27.Nov.2006 15:34


I love radio and I think KBOO is probably one of the best Community Radio stations in the US... no question. But, the way we organize and the goals of our tactics shape the type our flexibility and access. The community radio tactic, especially FM only, whether for legal or pirate broadcasts, runs up against several limits; these limits exacerbated depending on their organization style.

First, part of the mission of community media/radio is generally to reflect the EXISITNG community. This differs greatly from having a mission to create a NEW community. The limit of this, speaking as a professional business process engineer, can take a community that's broken and make it broken LOUDER. You might also think of this as the difference between fighting the city council and creating an intentional community outside of town.

If you have a community of people that just want to hear themselves or are selfish in that way, you end up with a bunch of people hearing themselves LOUDER and clinging desperately to their own voices. If you create a NEW community of people whose culture is to specifically NOT hear their own voices, but to encourage OTHERS voices I think you create the culture that we all want. Mutual Aid in a time of crisis of voicelessness. This observation about EXISTING versus NEW community has many many reprocussions.

One of these reprocussions, I've hinted at already; and this goes straight to the point about changing up time slots or being pre-empted by media events such as 'days of action' or other things. When the tactic creates a culture where DJ's/hosts are told that they are there to hear themselves; to just do their show and do some work around the studio; that's going to create entrenchment and selfishness. If however, the tactic is changed to create a culture whereby DJ's/hosts have the mission of getting OTHER's voices on the air, you will create a community of DJ's/Hosts that are GLAD to give up their time slot if they think there's a chance of some new voices getting out there; they will feel they have completed their mission IF and ONLY IF they can stop talking because others can talk now.

I did four years as a college DJ and have been working in community and indy radio/media for about four more. I have observed that when this culture is played out over time, what you get is a scenario like this: A new person comes into the station wanting to hear themselves only; They get into a position of power, sometimes by doing a LOT of work for the station, in order to keep their slot; They then create a clique with others who also want to keep time slots to themselves; Now there is a group of like minded people; Perhaps the first person helps the other into power; At some point recruiting people who have this similar viewpoint becomes the norm; The effect is that now you have an entire organization of people who feel its fine to keep a slot when they go in (because that's their received culture), then compete to get a slot and hold it, find that they can't compete effectively, get bitter, and then leave.

It's a slippery slope. I can't emphasize enough how much more effective and hopeful it is to create a NEW community based not on selfishness; but on selflessness. Not on hearing your own voice, but on enabling others to have a voice as the primary mission of the tactic. You might call it liberating.

Second, the internal organization of community media in general creates pretty hard limits to access and flexibility. By organizing hierarchically you are already creating power relationships that will limit change on a daily basis. Hierarchy encourages both greed for power and other's feelings of submission. There's no need to go on too much about how hierarchy stalemates flexibility and change, in our modern era, most of us accept that now as a truism. Organizing in a flat, non-hierarchical, pure consensus based approach has many advantages, many challenges, and few dis-advantages from the standpoint of flexibility and access.

The issue of process is also a big one impinging on access and flexibility. Having an organization that requires a lot of red-tape and hurdles in the way of getting someone's voice on the air hits a limit very quickly. Some people benefit from having hurdles to jump; some do not. Reducing process and procedure to an absolute minimum also encourages flexibility and access to those unfamiliar with process or unable to overcome the power relationships caused by knowledge and effectiveness with process. Think of this like what it means to be a lawyer in the complicated and long processes of law. In most organizations or tactics that rely on process primarily as an operational machine, you create a sort of culture of lawyers/politicians who can effectively keep out those that can't meet the burden of process or can use the process to get what they want against those not so lawyerly.

Thirdly, it takes resources to keep most any kind of broadcast of any size going. When money is involved you have just created large barriers to flexibility. The fact that, like it or not, KBOO needs to do fundraising and underwriting ARE WITHOUT A DOUBT going to place limits on the types of programming that they can do. It boils down not to what the EXISTING community at large wants to hear, but what the EXISTING, PAYING community wants to hear. I would guess that if in an open poll, the people who generally give money voted not to change the existing line up and the people who typically DO NOT give money felt that change was necessary, even if the no-givers were in greater numbers, the votes of the money-givers would win. This is the unfortunate reality of building the existence or non-existence of some form of media around the availability of LARGE amounts of money that cannot be raised from it's NEW community or the community within itself. How big is too big? When it can't support itself from the inside.

Fourth, when dealing with FM, mainly because of the costs involved for both large and small groups, there is typically only 24 hours of programming available per day. For successful stations this creates a resource limit. Competition for the "best" slots is inevitable. Most community media, because of the money issue and some tunnel vision, see no way out. One facet of all the limitations of the community radio/media tactics is that they are aging tactics. Many new technologies, not the least of which is the internet, enables almost unlimited resources for broadcasting.

Overcoming these limits is as simple as seeing your way out of the box that FM puts you in. Moving to internet based broadcast is very feasible, very effective, and leads to as many channels you can possibly want, all having as many of the "best" time slots you want. The problem for adoption is typically that internet broadcast seems to be the red-headed stepchild of FM; but, this should certainly not be true.

There is, first of all, a misconception about the footprint of FM versus internet broadcast. FM broadcast has been around a while and is well understood. The footprint of FM covers a comparatively wide local footprint compared to internet based broadcast. Most everyone has access to FM by using a standard radio tuner. FM broadcast, is typically not available at all outside of hyper-local, or potentially local-regional area.

However, what is commonly not understood, as that by its very nature, internet broadcast has a huge non-local footprint. In fact, with popular internet broadcast based stations, their national and international footprint makes them have a larger total footprint / listenership then FM based. It is, of course, an open question whether the focus should be on the local community and that which is of relevance here or the kind of information/entertainment that is relevent far beyond here. I don't find that this needs to be a polarized this OR that question. We can simply create more access for people on the internet locally (having many additional benefits beyond media) and create a larger local footprint for the internet based broadcast.

Other technologies including Digital Radio and Satellite might also be viable; but, they suffer comparably much more from the money problem to keep them fueled than do internet based broadcasts.

In closing, I just want to note that the community radio / media tactic has been with us a long time now. Perhaps, in some form, since the dawn of radio/tv; but, certainly since the 60's. It has merited our affection in what it has accomplished, but in the climate of repression of voice at the levels we face today, its limits are showing and its effectiveness in this new era of expectations and need for action, slowed to a near standstill. I want to also point out that a few revolutionary changes from within an organization or tactic created a long ago, which borrow from the new tactics of today seems to be the most viable option for the continued relevance of these tactics today and into the future.

It requires great courage and greater patience to change a long standing organization or tactic in a revolutionary fashion. I don't envy those that try it. However, if that change is not made, those inside the organization or tactic must see out on their peripheral vision the very likely possibility that people will just lose faith in it and start something new. The media they are a changin'.

Salaud 27.Nov.2006 16:40

Brian Setzler

Thank you for the analysis. You bring up some excellent points including some of the advantages of internet broadcasting which others have mentioned as well.

One key advantage KBOO offers however is a common station for our progressive Portland community. While I'm sure I can find progressive and radical voices on the internet, how many of my neighbors, friends and community are listening to the same thing?

When I used to be an avid KBOO listener, I often had discussion with fellow activists around shows, topics and lectures that we heard on KBOO. I thoroughly enjoyed those talks but they don't happen much anymore. I find myself listening to Air America these days as much as KBOO even though I have a love for the BOO that Air America could never match. Air America is corporate, pro-Democrat and national. But I'm so bored with KBOO I often switch back and forth between the two.

When TV consisted of 3 or 4 stations, America was much more unified in many ways. It wasn't unusual for a national dialogue to occur Monday morning about what had been on 60 Minutes Sunday night. KBOO could be that way for Portland but it needs to be bold, fresh and outstanding. I don't think it is there these days. So how do we get it back?

FYI, I am a monthly contributor at KBOO.

Yes, time for a change 27.Nov.2006 22:37

for sure

The first to give up her seat needs to be Barbara Bernstein. She has such an attitude--"I know everything, I'm too experienced and too smart for you, if you don't see it my way, you're a dumb fuck, you're irritating me, and I'm cutting you off now."

The music shows during the day are mostly boring. And what's with all day Sunday and all afternoon programming for Hispanics? How come no such huge blocks of programming for Asians, Middle Easterners, Europeans, or Africans?

A couple of things ... 28.Nov.2006 01:22


Mr. Setzler, I sincerely urge you to reconsider acquiring the programming training that will enable you to create the kind of programming you feel is needed. The other thing is kinda off-topic but not totally: Did the Greens support Ballot Measure 45? Thanks


Beyond the Monopole: There are Alternatives 28.Nov.2006 11:23


Brian Setzler said: "One key advantage KBOO offers however is a common station for our progressive Portland community. While I'm sure I can find progressive and radical voices on the internet, how many of my neighbors, friends and community are listening to the same thing? "

A few points additionally that need to be made here:

First, it does not follow that there needs to be only ONE station for progressive and radical voices in the Portland community. I think that sort of one size fits all or singularity thinking leads to the same thing that we have we corporate radio / media. In essence, we need exactly to have more than one station that serves progressive voices to truly represent the diversity among those voices and to have more capacity to get information and entertainment out there...ie.. get other voices out there when slots fill up.

Second, there already exist those alternatives in Portland. Portland Indymedia Radio has been broadcasting 24x7 for almost 4 years with both live shows from its professional quality studio on a regular basis, as well as being a primary source for live coverage of important large media events and days of action, as well as rebroadcasting content from around the indymedia radio network worldwide. There also have been and still are pirate radio broadcasts on FM in the area. Some of those collectives are ramping up.

Third, if there is a critique of KBOO that people trying to get into it have, especially so far as slots are concerned, why not try one of the alternatives? It doesn't make any more sense to beat on the doors of KBOO than it does to beat on the doors of your local congressperson's door if they aren't hearing it. Vote with your feet. Take a different route and get your voice actually heard. Then, if you still care what KBOO thinks after that, maybe they will be listening by that point if enough people seek alternatives and are successful.

Lastly, in response to: "While I'm sure I can find progressive and radical voices on the internet, how many of my neighbors, friends and community are listening to the same thing? " this raises an obvious chicken and the egg problem doesn't it? Your friends and neighbors may not be all listening to your favorite internet broadcast radio station today because they may be unaware of it or it doesn't have the types of content they want. But, they can't become aware of it unless you start making content on it.

It makes no sense not to participate in something that few people know about, because you have to participate for more people to know about it. See what I mean? There was once a day when not many listened to KBOO, even with the locally bound advantage of FM, would it have made sense not to participate? No. If everyone felt that way then they never would grow and no one would know about it. There are stations on the dial today in Portland, as I alluded to before, which not many know about that have progressive voices.

To sum up, we need diversity in media not a monopole. There already exist alternatives in portland to KBOO. Use them if you have a critique and get satisfaction or the complaints start to ring hollow. Your friends and neighbors will listen to and become more aware of the alternatives when you start participating in them and telling them about the alternatives.

Meaure 45 note 28.Nov.2006 14:47

Brian Setzler

Greens do not support term limits so we opposed Measure 45. While we do support rotating leadership, people should have the option to pick their representative, including long serving elected officials.

Changes we'd like to see in our electoral system to increase turnover and reduce the power of incumbency would be public financing of campaigns, proportional representation, a better informed electorate, free media for qualified candidates, to name a few.

Diversity 28.Nov.2006 18:04

Brian Setzler


I agree we need diversity but that doesn't change the situation at KBOO. None of the other options are convenient. I have KBOO in my car, on my home stereo and on my clock radio by my bed. The alternatives you mentioned are not available where I would use them. I realize I can play a role 'pulling' them through the system but I put my energy other places. I support alternative publications and media but don't have the time or interest in figuring out internet radio. Maybe you could conduct classes or show me when and where to tune?

I still believe KBOO is important and needs to address the issue of stagnation, access and vision. Our community owns an incredibly valuable resource. I'm not ready to abandon it.

some of the callers.. 28.Nov.2006 23:51


..to the talk shows on KBOO need to be shut down. I've only listened to the shows a few dozen times but there is one individual in particular who drives me away from KBOO for weeks each time I hear his bizarre rants. (He likes to talk about the christian GOD and MAN etc.)

I understand that KBOO is all about airing different opinions and giving everyone a voice..but its gotten out of control. Listening to the hosts get overran by the same moron who says the same thing day after day gets old very quickly and I can't see how anyone, especially the hosts, could tolerate this situation, much less think that what's going on is somehow giving a voice to the community. I, for one, would call in occasionally to chat but I don't want my voice to be associated in any way with some of the nutjobs that KBOO lets on the air.

Maybe its just me, but I doubt it. Here are some suggestions:

1. Limit the number of times a person can call in per day, or per week. Or, at the very least, per show!

2. Give the hosts absolute discretion to shut down a caller who is rambling, or talking over the hosts, or talking about something that has nothing to do with the topic, or repeating the same thing he said on the show yesterday (and the day before)

3. Filter out the obvious cheese bags before they are ever let on the air. Yes, this will be very hard to do fairly, but it could be pretty simple: "What do you have to say? No, I'm sorry, that has absolutely nothing to do with this program. Thanks, bye."

I also agree generally that new shows and hosts would be nice every once in a while, although I think most of the current hosts are fairly interesting and overall do a great job.

Anyway, KBOO is awesome overall and I hope people don't get discouraged by this discussion.

Stalemate 29.Nov.2006 10:52


Brian Setzler said: "I agree we need diversity but that doesn't change the situation at KBOO." If you read my response carefully you will see that I pointed out that having and using other options WILL change the situation at KBOO. People sometimes don't start responding and creating internal change until something outside them starts taking away their sauce. If people started really switching channels from KBOO (or any other station), KBOO would be forced to respond. I can't make that any more plain.

"None of the other options are convenient." - Perhaps folks are Familiar with this famous album Give me Convenience or Give Me Death. Nothing more needs to be said there.

"I have KBOO in my car, on my home stereo and on my clock radio by my bed. The alternatives you mentioned are not available where I would use them." That's not true at all. I listen to internet based radio in my car, on my home stereo and, if I had one, my clock radio. The only difference is that in the car, I have to listen to the station time-shifted, not live. I do that by use of this ultra-high-tech device called an iPod. All the other places I can listen live.

"Maybe you could conduct classes or show me when and where to tune?" - Take a look at the Portland Indymedia Radio page as just one example. There are MANY MANY progressive radio stations out there besides this one. It's Here . You could just hit the BIG freakin' RADIO button on the left part of any page on this site.

"I still believe KBOO is important and needs to address the issue of stagnation, access and vision. Our community owns an incredibly valuable resource. I'm not ready to abandon it." Your beliefs are well founded. But, I think the methods to achieve the goals are all wrong. Just doing nothing or asking nicely or beating down the door probably will have no effect. Putting them on notice with your feet probably will. Sometimes when we don't abandon it, we sink with it. But, it is an open question how often this sometimes occurs and which is the better part of valor.

Kudos to KBOO 30.Nov.2006 08:34


This comment mirrors my sentiment;

also agree generally that new shows and hosts would be nice every once in a while, although I think most of the current hosts are fairly interesting and overall do a great job.

Anyway, KBOO is awesome overall and I hope people don't get discouraged by this discussion.

I don't believe is throwing out all shows just because they have been around for too long. I have my preferences, just like anyone else. If a show becomes stagnant, or the host(s) not contributing relevant material, then it may be time for re-shuffling. I've read the comments above about some shows. My views vary slightly. I like Barbara Bernstein's show mainly because she has a sound knowledge base. Her "pleasant quotient" is low and she reminds me of a nasty teacher many years ago, but she is a valuable asset if you can get past her schtick. I don't see a problem with showcasing both contamporary independent music and classic R&B/soul/rock/jazz/blues/old school hip hop from earlier eras, both of which get short shrifted from mains stream radio. We should honor those who have a good sense of history as well as the younger Indy crowd. Us older folk do not necessarily fall into the "aging hippy" stereotype, or whatever that is supposed to mean. Some of us nicely straddle and respect all eras.