See the Honolulu Advertiser article at:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2002/Dec/22/ln/ln08a.html

and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin at:

http://starbulletin.com/2002/12/22/news/story6.html>http://starbulletin.com/2002/12/22/news/story6.html

It was disturbing to me that reporters of both articles failed to note the discrimination inherent in the venue for this disagreement: two-Democrat candidates debating on Olelo public television.

This debate was made possible by a string of Olelo By-law and Policy infractions never allowed by Olelo for non-connected members of the public (or Republicans, apparently).

This quote from Bob Rees in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin really sums it up: "All we're doing is taking advantage of public-access television, and every candidate out there is perfectly free to do that." He sure is "taking advantage," but the other candidates do not have the right connections to be so "perfectly free."

Let me list the most obvious areas of discrimination:

Normally the studio is not open to the public before 9:30 in the morning and administrative staff is not expected before 8:30. However, for this program Olelo opened the facility at 8 o'clock.

Producers/Presenters are required to submit program tapes at least four business days in advance of the premiere cablecast date. This one was scheduled to be aired a half a business day after submission.

From the Advertiser: "Rees, who hosts the Island Issues program on Olelo, said he gave up his regular time slot so that yesterday's debate could air."

The time slot is not his to give up, but Olelo's to schedule. According to Olelo's policy this sort of substitution of a special in a series slot is not permitted. But they knowingly allowed it here. In addition, the time slot is allocated to the Olelo-sponsored Counterpoint (not Island Issues, the canceled K5 program), described by Olelo as "provid(ing) countervailing voices to the conventional wisdom and mainstream commentary." And how does that fit with (from the Star-Bulletin) " Rees ... said he decided to invite just the top three Democratic candidates to participate ..." Seems like Olelo and Rees are trying to have it both ways.

Olelo's Policies dictates: "'Olelo staff will not serve as crew members on ... productions." If this production had the same crew as other Rees shows, you will find a handful of Olelo staff participating. Fair to others not as connected?

According to Olelo's Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation it will, "develop and enforce such rules and policies that will ensure equitable access to these channels ..." In addition, Olelo's Bylaws state: "the Corporation, through its officers or Directors, shall not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office ..." At this point it should be fairly obvious that neither was the case here.

Both reporters have missed the underlying story here ... that Olelo has practiced favoritism (the other face of discrimination) by allowing this program, blatantly violating federal code as well as its own contractual obligations with the state.

A little investigation on their parts would have revealed that this is just the latest in a more than decade-long pattern. Since Olelo is supported by cable subscribers on Oahu through a tax added to their monthly bills, Olelo's history of questionable management of its multi-million dollar budget and its discrimination against those not "properly" affiliated should be of great concern.

Olelo's mandate is to facilitate individual voices of the community, not just those of their choosing.

Wendy Arbeit is a resident of Honolulu and can be reached via email at mailto:arbeit@hi.net

Media Mania...