portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

alternative media | media criticism


In September KBOO membership voted by wide margins in favor of the Keep KBOO KBOO candidates who promised to halt the corporatization of the station and to Thom Hartmann from displacing hours of local programing. Less than a month after the elections they're already reneging...
In September KBOO membership voted by wide margins in favor of the Keep KBOO KBOO candidates who promised to halt the corporatization of the station and to Thom Hartmann from displacing hours of local programing. Instead the new board has hired union buster Stole Rives and plans to have Thom on the air after all. WTF?

KBOO has hired Stole Rives corporate lawyer and UNION BUSTER:

From the minutes of the KBOO Board August 26, 2013 meeting
"20 Emergency/New Business (10 min)
20.1 Approve recommendation for a labor attorney to review the labor contract.
Jeff: Stoel Rives - choose a lower priced attorney to represent us. Victor $500.00 vs
$200.00. Clarifying terms of engagement.
Motion: Accept Stole Rives as our legal counsel at $200.00/hour.
5-2-2 Motion Passed."

KBOO once before hired a firm experienced in dealing with unions: Bullard Law. Bullard's website boasts of the firm's expertise in "union avoidance" and its "strategies to maintain a union-free workplace [and] minimization of union activity." This of course caused outrage among KBOO employees and listeners and a change.org petition, aimed at the KBOO board gathered 266 signatures. It demanded that KBOO drop Bullard Law, which is "antithetical to the values of KBOO." So now we need to ask, is Stoel Rives in line with the values of KBOO?

These are the kinds of headlines the KBOO board wants to see?


Portland's Stoel Rives represents Shell Oil against Greenpeace protests in the Arctic.

 link to www.oregonlive.com

Thom Hartmann: KBOO members said NO many times:


"BlueOregon Action: Hands Off KBOO!
Chris Lowe

BlueOregon Action has launched a petition to bring Thom Hartmann's radio show to KBOO Community Radio. How this decision was reached is unclear to me, and it raises process issues about BlueOregon Action. BlueOregon Action should withdraw the petition, at very least until it can be fully debated. I personally believe it should be abandoned.

The action is ill-thought out, has not been adequately discussed, and poses a serious threat to KBOO as a progressive community resource."

"Grace Marian
Thank you for this article, Chris. It gives important information that was left out by Blue Oregon Action. Nothing against Thom Hartmann, but he isn't a good fit for KBOO--too commercial and too mainstream, which go against KBOO's programming charter. "

"Michael Hagmeier Follow Top Commenter Portland State University
#1. Thom Hartmann's program is a commersical show, and not a good fit for KBOO. They can't air "all 15 hours," because a substantial chunk of that time is commercials.

#2. Because of the need to edit out the commercials, Hartmann's show can't air live, which diminishes the value of a call-in show.

#3. Hartmann's show is a national show that would likely displace local programming, particularly if he requires the entire show to air every day (assuming that the editing out of commercials is feasible.) A one-hour edited version to replace the repeat of Democracy Now! might be okay, but Hartmann's show is several steps down from Amy Goodman, in my opinion.

#4. Hartmann's show is already available on the internet. Perhaps there's a need to make it clearer to users how to access the show, but internet access is now nearly as widespread as radio access.
Reply 2 Like Follow Post July 17 at 10:50am"

"Steve Nassar Ye Olde Phart at Slackers of Orygun Personified
Why is there not a petition for NOT having Hartmann on KBOO? WTF!

More Paying Members have NOT signed than have signed.

Let me repeat this:

More Paying Members have NOT signed than have signed.

Personally, I think a Survey offering to BAN Hartmann would garner many more signatures than this one.

WTF. Over?
Reply 2 Like July 16 at 5:23am"

Who os this current board so eager to shove Thom Hartmann down the throats of KBOO members who have unequivocally stated they DO NOT WANT HARTMANN?

This board is MORE arrogant and out of touch than Lynn Fitch and her so called attempts to "professionalize" the station. Fitch was just an employee doing a job. This board is OUT OF CONTROL.


Hey!!! 08.Oct.2013 19:42

former volunteer/member

This is like When PGE spent millions to defeat the Trojan referendum, "won" and then shut it down
Funny (but not)

NO TO THOM!!! 09.Oct.2013 11:19

older wiser


We said NO back in July:


YES!!! to what Chris Lowe said 12.Jul.2013 18:46
old one link

Excellent take on what's going on at KBOO and the travesty it would be for Thom Hartmann to have 15 hours a week on our radio station. I can't think of a worse decision that would not only take up precious airtime, but would send the wrong signal to the very people KBOO has tried over the decades to encourage: prisoners, veterans, the un-housed, youth, women, communities of color, and the list goes on & on.

I heartedly endorse what Chris says here and hope that a majority of KBOO listeners do as well.

Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez are KBOO folk's kindred spirits, we need more like them.

On the other hand, there should be NO air time given to Hartmann- he has plenty of other outlets for his views!

Keep it local & keep KBOO diverse! NO to any backwards steps! NO to Hartmann!!

How can this be an issue NOW?

NO NO NO NO to THOM and his corporate radio schtick!!!!!

Utterly confused 09.Oct.2013 17:55

Voted against Thom Hartmann on KBOO

I voted NO on Thom Hartmann. For some reason, I thought that the "no" votes were in the majority when the voting took place.

Now I look at the survey results:

and I see that more people voted "yes" than "no."

Well, even though I voted "no" and I've been turning off KBOO at 4:00 p.m. when the Thom Hartmann show comes on, I will defer to the wishes of the majority, who apparently voted "yes."

What I don't understand is why I am reading on indymedia that the "no" vote had won and that it is the fault of the Board and the Interim Program Manager (???) that Thom Hartmann is now on....

What is the true story? If the majority of the voters had indeed voted "no," then the Board and the Interim Program Manager (???) have no right to impose Thom Hartmann on listeners. If the majority of the voters had indeed voted "yes," then the listeners have spoken and "yes" it is.