February 26 2003

KMEL is offensive

Thank you for the cover story "How Clear Channel Wrecked KMEL" [1/29/03]. As a longtime KMEL listener, I've heard the station change from the KMEL that launched Tupac and other local artists to a corporate mouthpiece that plays the same seven songs all day. We want a station that uplifts our communities in the Bay and takes risks with music made by our local artists. KMEL should listen to its listeners – we're dissatisfied and we want local control of the airwaves back.

Also, as the mother of a nine-year-old who loves hip-hop (as do I), I am appalled at the content in the music selections played by KMEL. Graphic sexual, drug, alcohol, and hatred-toward-women messages fill KMEL airwaves constantly.

There are much better hip-hop artists who are not getting played by KMEL. There are much better songs that are not given airtime.

Nyeema Brown Oakland

Create our own media

After reading the article by Jeff Chang regarding KMEL, Clear Channel Communications, and the political and economic machine they have created, I was bombarded by so many people who asked me the same question: "What will it take for KMEL and Clear Channel to support and give proper exposure to the local artists who need and deserve it?" The answer is simple: Create an outlet of exposure that can't be defined or countered with money or surface fame. In other words, we have to create for ourselves a system of being showcased that is free and that goes deeper into our culture than just our music.

At KPFA, I host a local artist hip-hop show called "The Friday Nite Vibe" with Davey D. On the program, I showcase all elements of the artist's portfolio. I play their music and give them their interview, but I also give them an on-air honest critique, take on-air fan critiques, and before they leave I give them the contact info for other radio shows, video shows, concert promoters, and other local independent and grassroots figures in the Bay Area that can help them. And I do it for free.

This movement by myself and others has been applied to the local artist renaissance over the past several months and has created a presence that has KMEL frantically trying to "keep it real" by playing mixes of outdated Bay Area classics that have nothing to do with where we are as a community today in 2003. In a nutshell, what I do is give you the authentic version of our culture in the bay and they give you the watered down version that earned them a name 10 years ago.

What is KMEL going to do? Stop playing music? They don't play our music in the first place. Ruin our name on the streets? We are the streets. Make us lose the game? Take my word for it: The real Bay Area artist knows that game very well and is not interested in playing it anymore.

T-K.A.S.H. Oakland

Ammiano had no conflict

All of this hand-wringing over whether Sup. Tom Ammiano had a conflict of interest in voting to support the settlement of Robert Haaland's lawsuit against the city is a bit much ["The Ex's Hit Man Strikes Again," 2/5/03]. The San Francisco city attorney is charged by the City Charter with advising supervisors on whether such conflicts exist. In addition, that same charter and the rules of order of the Board of Supervisors require each and every supervisor present during a meeting to vote on issues unless excused by their colleagues because of a conflict of interest.

The city attorney clearly and publicly advised Ammiano that he had no conflict of interest in deciding whether to settle the case brought by Haaland against the city. Having received such advice, Ammiano was obligated to carry out the duty of his office and vote yes or no on whether to settle the suit. In voting for settlement, Ammiano followed the advice of the deputy city attorney handling the case, the advice of City Attorney Herrera, and the recommendation of a unanimous Police Commission. He was joined in his vote to settle by seven of his colleagues including Supervisor Dufty, who no one could claim is an ally of Haaland. The facts of the case overwhelmingly suggested that settlement would save the city a significant amount of money and that a large jury award for the plaintiff was likely if the case were litigated.

The story in this case is not that Ammiano did not recuse himself. Nor is it that Ammiano followed the clear and convincing advice offered by so many who had reviewed the case carefully and recommended settlement. The real story here is that Supervisors Newsom, Hall, and Gonzalez rejected that clear advice and made an immoral choice: to force a victim of police abuse to undertake the continuing emotional and financial toll required to fight for police accountability in court.

Seth Ubogy
San Francisco

For the record