(1) On the narrow question of ratings. As Tavis Smiley himself said, the show itself was put in a lousy time — Sunday afternoon, right around the time when its most likely audience (churchgoing blacks and Latinos) would be in church unable to listen to the show. Many suspect, for good reason, that the show may have been placed there by WBEZ to die, and falling ratings can be used as a rationalization for killing the show.

(2) Journalism and redundancy. Malatia here is making a false distinction. Journalism (or at least the better side of journalism) is itself _inherently_ a matter of advocacy — fourth estate as a check on power, digging up stuff that people want hidden, that sort of thing. Is Watergate advocacy journalism? The Pentagon Papers? Wikileaks?

(3) Contradictions. You don’t “contributions to facilitating an inclusive public discourse in our communities”, by cancelling a show that’s all about facilitating an inclusive public discourse in our communities, especially where the 99% don’t get anywhere near 99% of airtime (and on public radio no less).

(4) Foisting “inclusiveness” to avoid class warfare. WBEZ is afraid of getting its hands dirty, and that’s understandable. Considering the precarious financial position of public media, where WBEZ and public radio generally have to appeal to the 1% (or at the very to listeners with expendable income for 20% to 60% of their annual budget), the longstanding relative spinelessness of public media (with a small number of exceptions) is well known and well understood. It’s understandable, but it’s _not_ inexcusable. I’m sorry, but this is war — the 1% versus the 99%, where populations suffer in the U.S. and worldwide under the heel of institutions who, as we’ve seen with Hurricane Sandy and climate change, are putting the very fate of humanity/civilization at risk. Trying to sidestep this fact it by heralding the banner of “inclusiveness in journalism” and “universal participation” is avoiding the necessary obligations to help the most needy among us and the systemic reasons behind that fact.

(5) Ignoring public input. “The community itself determines the specifics of our work” Hilarious. Groups I’ve been a part of, and plenty of folks besides, have spent years urging public media institutions like WBEZ to carry Democracy Now!, to no avail. (If WBEZ were to syndicate “This Is Hell” instead, that could work as a suitable alternative.) I remember calling Torey Malatia on his private office line in 2005 about WBEZ carrying “Democracy Now!” and his main reason for not doing so was that the show was “so advocacy” (gosh, where have I heard that line?).

(6) Saving face. Given the blowback that Malatia has faced in Chicago and in the larger public media community over the Smiley/West controversy, this very op-ed could be construed as an attempt to save face amidst growing levels of criticism. The very fact that an op-ed like this is necessary says something: A level of critical mass has been reached. The dam has evidently sprung a leak.