This is part two of the memoir of my four-year tour of duty as
a radio talk show host for AM1300 (KAZN).
At the beginning, I did not think much about the salary ($10
per hour), as I was looking for a place to spread the words as my pro bono
effort. People do different things. Some donate money; I wanted to donate my
time to spread worthy words.
However, the issue of the station paying talk show hosts $10
per hour before the microphone is an issue worth further exploring. For me, my
law practice supports (or mandates) my pro bono work. That could not be said to
several tens of people working for the station. Certainly, there is one other
lawyer that I know working as a talk show host at $10 an hour. Another lawyer,
according to the programming director, have been paying the station to have his
own “talk show,” which has been presented without any hint of being a
commercial. I did think the station’s lack of notice is problematic, but that was
not my business.
Among other hosts, there were retired people, supported by
their retirement pay. However, I thought that it was unfair to them that the
station paid so little money for their effort that supported the advertisements.
I have seen many hosts, spending hours recording the interviews, and hours to
cut out the hesitations and repetitions to produce a one-hour show. (I didn’t
cut even the recorded shows for the reason of spontaneity.) On top of that, I routinely
heard content control by the station. The station has had a black list, but
would not publish it. So, it asked the hosts to get approval for their guests.
The station also forbid hosts to interview anyone who might
be otherwise willing to advertise their content at the station. The influence
from the advertising department was especially strong, as we often saw posters
in the broadcast room of forbidding this-and-that. When I was leaving, the
focus was on the movie industry – anyone related to movie industry was not
allowed to be interviewed, because it would hurt the advertising revenue (so
said openly in the notice).
I talked to the programming director about my position, and
was allowed to invite gusts without the approval process. I stayed above this
mess.
What I feel truly bad about are the young people, who have
their careers ahead of them, but somehow, they choose to work for the station,
and have themselves convinced that they could not do any better and allow the station
to wear them out. Young people who looked normal when I entered station were
already looking beyond their years when I was fired. I guess that if anyone deal
with an unreasonable management for four years, this would happen.
Beyond the employees, there is this question: What kind of
ideas and spirit this heavily exploited group of people would spread to the
Chinese community? Fighting for their rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
Still, as things go, there are many smart people working for
the station at rock bottom pay. They could have made more in the fast food
chains, which would undoubtedly quickly promote them to be managers. So, why
are they stay there?
After some digging, I found out that the station has a kind
of unspoken rule. That logic goes like is: The station will give hosts fame.
Then it is up for the host to figure out a way to turn that into cash. Many
people did well financially, as sale reps, real-state agents, or small business
owners. So, the funny thing is that the station has a business model, which is exploiting
the employees by paying them minimum wage or not at all; then, each individual has
his or her own separate business model, which would turn their supposed fame
into cash somehow. Of course, as all business models go, some would succeed,
but others would fail.
Interestingly, when my programming content started to
promote the listener’s awareness of the situations, such as when I pointed out
the fallacy of the China Inc.’s structural problem, and predicted the down fall
of the Chinese stock market, the program became controversial, and the station
management got calls. When I criticize the Chinese government for persecuting
hundreds of lawyers who dared to represent the people who refused to yield to
the government abuse, massive amount of negative calls came in. People left
messages after my recording, threatening the safety of my children. It is
obvious that was the product of the Chinese government’s operation in the U.S.
to shut down any voice against China .
When that happened, other employees asked me to stop
criticizing and focus on using the opportunity to subtly advertise my business,
rather than say things that offend people, which would not help my business.
But for me, as I have told the management, I took the opportunity to point out certain
things, not to produce a warm-and-fuzzy program as a roundabout way to
advertise my own business. If I want more clients, there are other more direct
and cost-effective ways to do advertising.
For the station, there were still more people, who were from
China or Taiwan ,
with broadcasting background. They wanted to continue their broadcasting
experience. So they chose to work for the station, at the abusive salary or for
free.
There is a saying going around in the station that good
people won’t last long. That reflects the fact that the station has the
monopolistic power, and have no trouble finding people, willing to earn minimum
wage to give their own business models a kick start with their supposed fame as
a talk show host. As a monopoly, bad quality programming does not hurt the
profitability of the station as much as honest pay to the employees. So, when
the station needed new hosts, it would advertise free of charge, by squeezing
the programming time, and had no trouble getting as many hosts as they wanted.
The station’s management philosophy is that, if you want fame, you’d better
produce a good quality program. After the station fired me, it took the management
only one week to find an accountant to replace me.
So far, KAZN is the only so-called “Chinese” establishment (with
Chinese owners and Chinese employees, doing Chinese business) for which I have
ever worked as an employee. The station’s management philosophy astonished me,
but before they fired me, the management was typically nice to me. They don’t
interfere with my content. In return, I don’t take on any of their issues.
As days turned to months, and months years. And as I started
to listen to the station’s other programs, I began to get a feeling of the
system. Simply stated, when people were treated this way, their programs were
negatively impacted. But of course, for the management, as long as you get the
time passed without people calling the station to complain, they are happy,
because much of the management is also paid at the exploitative rate. To the
listeners, the hosts have a shiny image, supposedly, but in the station, they
are exploited, undoubtedly. It hurt the programming, but nobody cared.
Of course, when I discussed this issue with some friends in
the station, they had plenty of excuses. The most popular was that their
specialty was Chinese. Their English was poor. They could not find a regular jobs
anywhere else, so they had no other choice but to take the exploitation as an
opportunity. With that thought, they didn’t like my disturbances of their
business model, i.e., getting their fame from their programs and then cashing
it out somewhere else.
When I explained to them that it did not have to be this
way, as they could form unions. They immediately looked at me in a way that I
was going to destroy their lives. Of course, I shut up right then and there.
That is probably also the reason that many people working in the station
avoided me.
For many, there were legends who made it big in real-estate or
some other business with their radio fame. But for me, I think that those
people could do a better job making money with a business model without the
radio show, which is probably more of a distraction than a help. Good services,
more than the radio fame, would get them business much more effectively in a
small closed community.
In discussing business models, my own business model is
probably worth mentioning. Seeing the Chinese people needed competent legal
services, I initially planned to quickly expand my business to a 10-lawyer and
20-paralegal firm. However, as my practice started, and after I knew how the
world here turned, I realized that a large firm would face heavy marketing pressure.
I probably would have to offer outcome guarantees like others. Of course, outcome
guarantee is theoretically impossible, not to mention its practicality. Outcome
guarantees are explained as promising to return all fees if the case fails. But
those are two starkly different things. It is fascinating that many prospective
clients would think that kind of fee arrangement is preferable to the simpler model
of money for services. It is somewhat parallel to the radio station management
philosophy, and reflects the tremendous distrust, which people brought here from
a place where the legal system is nothing more than a mechanism for the
government to suppress people.
Recognizing the problem, I quickly changed my plan and
settled down with a small firm. In fact, my modified plan works well for me.
Straight talking certainly drives some prospective clients away. The funny
thing is that some of the clients would come back and tell us: So-and-so
guaranteed. Why are they so confident? Of course, pointing out the obvious,
i.e., the theoretically impossibility for a lawyer to be sure of the outcome,
will be probably taken as an insult. So, I refrain myself from commenting.
I don’t remember how many times I was told, with straight
faces, that there is no good lawyer in the Chinese community or the world.
Every lawyer is a liar. To those people, I don’t normally refrain myself and
would tell them to check their method of finding a lawyer. At the same time, I
would invite them to think this question: With all bad lawyers, is it possible
for the U.S. to
become a more-or-less reasonable society?
In the end, my program has solid fans. Likewise, my practice
has solid fans. The problem is that the number is too few (at least in my
opinion), and in the process, I convert even fewer. Maybe we do need to wait
for the next generation to change the basic ways of thinking.
Once, a business lawyer asked me whether it was advisable to
buy advertising time from the radio station. I told him no. He didn’t believe
me and bought advertisement time anyway, and quickly terminated the contract
after he admitted to me that I was completely right. Only then, he believed me
that I did not take the job to advertise my business.
Now, back to the station employees, through the management
process, the station collected a bunch of smart people, who, for some reason,
dislike learning (at least English). First of all, they didn’t look at their
three-year-old children and ask: Why could they speak perfect English? In
addition, many of them, when setting up their own business models, did not
bother to actually assess the marginal effect of the radio fame to their
business. I think that, to many businesses, such as mine, the marginal effect
(i.e., the net business generated by doing the radio show, minus the business hurt
by their time and energy producing the radio show) is by no means certainly
positive.
But for the employees who chose to stay with the station,
they got convinced by one another, that they (many of them are college language
majors) could not learn enough English to get a job in the main-stream
companies, and must take the exploitation by the station. They have likewise
never read about marketing and advertisement theories and refused to hear
anything about them. When the station collected a critical mass of these
people, the mass would take whatever abuse that the station management cared to
hand down.
The radio program gave me a sense of the medieval society and
taught me why people, so poor, could build such grandiose churches. The culture
of the station is clear: everybody be quiet and stay on their own business
model, by taking the advantage of the radio station’s fame, which, to me, is
nothing more than simple vanity. Let the station have their motives; and let us
have ours. The funniest part of that theory is that the middle management of
the station, such as the programming director, who was my boss before he fired
me by forwarding an email from the station manager, is living the same life. The
programming director has his own daily hour-long talk show. Also, he has to
manage all the hosts. To make money, he has to go out during the weekends, to
some business establishment, such as a restaurant, and broadcast live to get
people to eat there. In addition, the station organizes tours. The
advertisement is that they would be touring with the famous hosts of the
station.
I never know that human vanity could be this powerful. I
guess that is a reflection of the ELD (English Language Development) students
that my children are complaining so much about. These children, freshly from China ,
compete among themselves about the price of everything, their cloths, their
toys, the car of their parents, etc. The local kids do not have common language
with them because they think those things are vain. That probably explains my
difference with the employees of the radio station – the overwhelming power of vanity,
plus intellectual laziness.
Now, out of the radio station, just like my kids talking
about those Chinese kids in elementary school and middle school, dying their
blond and wearing weird cloths, I feel sorry even to think about them, as the
station took advantage of this group of smart people, their vanity and their
intellectual laziness, and the resulting weakness.
That’s why when I speak to them about things such as unionizing,
they clearly wished that I had not been there, disturbing their peaceful (although
sorry to me) life. They don’t want people to point out to them the fact that they
actually know but try very hard to avoid, i.e., their lives are actually
pathetic. They want to think that they are glorious radio talk show hosts.
(... to be continued)
First published on June
15, 2016
Contact information:
Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng
Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/
Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese:
http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng
For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and
business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call
626-279-7200.
No comments:
Post a Comment