Letters to the Editor

I know for a fact that your writer wasn't interested in writing about any of the above, because I personally supplied all of the above information and much more during a phone conversation that lasted almost an hour. But gee, who wants to read all that good news? That's not how a budding Bob Woodward gets ahead, now is it?

Much better to devote almost the whole article to personal-level sniping from ex-employees, to whom, readers should consider, the station's General Manager (the supposed bad guy in all this, even though he wasn't the one who hired most of them in the first place), was too classy to respond in kind.

The fact that Chuck refused to say anything bad about any of them or their work -- even though he already sensed that a hit piece was coming (as he told me at the time) -- is a far better measure of the man than anything in your article.

Oh, and never mind his singular attempt to create a new model upon which socially-responsible broadcasting can be attempted. I guess that's not nearly as important to focus on as personal attacks from unnamed sources who allegedly worked with Chuck for brief periods many years ago and have nothing to do with RadioForChange.com whatsoever.

And as to the many producers and operations people behind the scenes at the station who enjoy their work (whose names I will happily supply if you're ever interested)? For the purposes of your smear job, they apparently don't even exist.

What remarkable hypocrisy: an independent commercial media outlet (you) attacks another independent commercial media outlet (us) -- for *being* an independent commercial media outlet.

What's your big point? That commercial radio is commercial radio? *This just in!*

Look, just so you realize how silly your article is: one could easily spend an afternoon tracking down a few dozen former Westword staffers; perhaps they might likewise vent about what it's like to work for you guys. One could also attack the credibility of your Borg-like out-of-town parent company, and with vastly more ammunition. And as to advertisers, one could sure as hell have a field day running down the backgrounds of the get-laid phone services Westword advertises every single week. I'm sure Mistress Sonja or whoever's paying your rent this month is clean as a whistle. But would that serve any useful purpose? Not really.

Matter of fact, tempting as the idea is, I do not currently intend to waste a minute of airtime pointing out the intensely amusing lunacy of your publication's current editorial position. I accept and trust that you guys are doing the best you can. Honestly, I do. It would be nice to receive the same courtesy.

Until then, this letter of response to your unwarranted and unnecessary attack, if printed -- and I assume you will realize on reflection that this entire letter deserves to be printed -- should be sufficient to clarify matters.

My time in front of the public (and KWAB's, I'm sure all involved would agree) is better served by going after the bigshots who truly damage our politics, environment, and culture -- not by taking cheap shots at other little guys who are presumably doing the best they can to get much-needed information into the public debate.

Your time, Westword, might best be served similarly.

At some point, perhaps you'll realize we're on the same team. Or at least we damn well should be.
Bob Harris, morning host
RadioForChange.com

Michael Roberts responds: Harris uses a claim of errors regarding his Web site address and book title to back up his suppositions. However, the address was accurate (the "www" portion was removed in the editing process because of redundancy) and so was the title (although the word "and" should have been italicized). Elsewhere, Harris engages in similar tactics (including an unsubstantiated, McCarthy-like attack on my character) as a means to divert attention from charges levied by former KWAB employees -- the vast majority of which he doesn't dispute. In the end, he seems to believe that because the station is well-intended, nothing negative should be reported about it. That may be his definition of good journalism, but it's not mine.

Why spy? In regard to the city's plan to account for its employees' activity -- via satellite surveillance -- while they're presumably working (Off Limits, May 25), it is more than likely that the city will create bigger problems than it resolves. Instead of effectively dealing with "loafers" by further empowering them, giving them a greater sense of esteem, control, flexibility and skills so as to cope better with their more-than-likely monotonous and perceived-as-low-status jobs, the city has chosen intimidation as a result of the public pressure by a news organization. The city should reconsider its tactic.
Jonathan M. Dietz
Denver

Pan overboard! Just wanted to write a letter about the homeless and "aggressive panhandling," and I'm speaking from experience, because I've been homeless for the last ten years all over the United States, and the homeless is a nationwide problem. People think giving homeless people 50 cents when approached is helping, but just think how many people give them a half-dollar. These kind of people can make anywhere from $100 a day to $300 in eight hours, depending on their location. If you truly want to help someone, don't give cash. Buy McDonald's gift certificates; that way you know it's being used for food. But I don't see why people are hungry; there are a lot of places that give meals or will give food. Or if you have a yard, have them work for money.