San Francisco Bay View Editor Mary Ratcliff on KPFA Women's Magazine

I like the part where Ms. Ratcliff claims KPFA has become exclusionary, and then mentions the apprenticeship as being open to women and people of color...yeah, no one is excluded under those parameters.

Here's an SF Bayview post from an Anglo whom, like Tracy Rosenberg, would never dream of using a logical fallacy. Responding to a comment about unpaid staff at KPFA, Mr. Bernstein forgets that he gets a paycheck for the work he does. The comments are of interest.

http://sfbayview.com/2010/clowns-and-conspiracy-nuts-an-open-letter-to-michael-krasny-kqed-forum-host/

Has Women's Magazine ever covered this?
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-08-10/bay-area/17255949_1_pacifica-foundation-pacifica-network-berkeley-s-kpfa

get a grip, hater.

women and people of color have historically been, and currently largely find themselves, excluded from access to funded media. THAT is what Mary is talking about and you know it. are you truly worried that whitey white man is being excluded from the apprenticeship program (or even KPFA) or are you just making arguments for arguments' sake because Mary somehow offended some unrelated cow you hold sacred? seems like the latter, unless you're just one of those people who run around decrying affirmative action and screaming about "reverse discrimination"

as for the rest, just take a deep breath, put your arrows back in your quiver for a minute or two, and reeee-lax. you obviously need it

"are you truly worried that whitey white man is being excluded from the apprenticeship program..." Not whitey white man per se, but rather white youth whom would benefit more from the experience of working collaboratively in a racially-heterogeneous setting. Rather atavistic to think that white skin is sine qua non to success, and then turn around and support removing Aimee Allison under the aegis of class warfare.

I am unsure how my post is tatamount to 'decrying affirmative action' if Ms. Ratcliff merely spoke with less words regarding her intent. It would seem you are engaging in a hasty bit of posturing.

I can't blame Women's Magazine for not covering the issues between Dennis Bernstein and Noelle Hanrahan (journalist whom brings us recordings from Mumia Abu-Jamal); it would be bad tactics to defame a potent ally. The unpaid broadcasters know who butters their bread.

Since you feel compelled to provide context for Ms. Ratcliff's statement, I'll take this opportunity to opine that Mr. Bensky was speaking to unpaid staff's penchant for subjective journalism. And you know it.

I do like how the opposition is so beholden to subjectivity to an extent that calling people haters, liars, scum and the lot is upheld as axiomatic. Charming, really.

@'ukexika': "I'll take this opportunity to opine that Mr. Bensky was speaking to unpaid staff's penchant for subjective journalism."

Yes, unpaid staff -- or the portion of it working on news and public affairs -- trying to find out and talk about what is actually happening in the world, and maybe even showing an emotional reaction to it, vs. staff being paid (out of our subscriptions and donations) to read wire service copy out loud and treat government and ruling-class propaganda as credible.