January 6th, Project U Radio @ The Literary Underground

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION: Relationships and Writers: Have you ever dated a writer/poet? It has been said in some articles that the arrangement is doomed from the start, while others say that when it fits, it is a unique experience that serves to further both people's creative endeavors...This Friday, we open up the phone lines to singles and couples alike, in order to find out which is more prevalent: the disastrous affair, or the inspirational union? Call in to speak on: 805 856 2808 Friday 7PM WEST 8PM MT 9PM CST 10PM EST.

Hosted by Frankie Metro, Lynn Alexander, and Paul Corman-Roberts.

You can call in or send a comment to be read if you want to chime in anonymously. You can also leave a comment here with your name if you can't call in. All welcome, uncensored, unscripted, unhinged.

 

January 13: Tainted Dayton Show And Raffle

Brian Fugett (pictured below) is becoming a man this month at a private party but none of us are invited so we will express our disgust while we try to raise some money for Project U Radio with a raffle of awesome prizes. These prizes are so awesome that we can't even post about them here. As a teaser, however, we will say that we just might have a basket of laundry for you to try to win and sniff from Phyllis Miller herself. We're talking ripe compression stockings, straight from the Hi Rise! Five bucks, via paypal, and you get a chance to win. All proceeds go to Project U Radio operating expenses, nothing fishy. Just trying to toss some money in the Literary Underground kitty.

In this segment, we will dis-honor Mr. Brian Fugett with some roasting and ribbing as we celebrate his 40th with some well deserved abuse. The call in number is (805) 856-2808. This is the link to the show page where you can listen through your phone if you have cheap-ass internet, listen online, listen to the archive, or call in to say something. *here*.

Here is your chance to holler about hamsters, poetry grenades, aerosol cheese, porn-a-rama, and Karl Koweski.

Karl Koweski, here is your chance to holler about Gordon Lightfoot.

Gordon Lightfoot, here is your chance to holler about being Canadian.

And Canadians? You can holler about having Leopold. Eh?

Leopold can't holler because he will be too busy.

Plus, he's kinda locked in an old refrigerator. Because he's a raffle prize.

January 20, 2012, Segment 5, Project U Radio

Segment 5: January 20, 2012.  ”Editorial Discretion”. Editors, would you publish work with content that you think is personally objectionable (i.e. racism) if you thought it was an otherwise good piece? How do you feel about a blanket policy about certain kinds of content, such as “We don’t publish anything that includes sexist elements”. Do you make distinctions as far as language, character, etc. and have you had this issue come up when selecting work for a zine, website, journal, or project? Do you find the line of subjective interpretation to be difficult? Have you rejected work that you thought was well written because it contained something that you thought to be offensive or thought might offend readers? Beyond offensive, but perhaps hurtful or harmful?

If you want to start at the beginning, check out the archives *here* for our Censorship show, December 2, 2011, where we discussed movements like The Citizens For Decent Literature whose aim was to suppress literature that organizers felt was "objectionable". Inspired by this and being a fan of free speech, Literary Underground's Michele McDannold started a printed publication by the same name and soon after, a website to showcase poetry online. Brief editor of the website content, Michael Goscinski, was invited on to talk about censorship and a lengthy conversation ensued.

My distinction on the difference between censorship and editorial discretion is simple- one involves the systemic suppression of free speech through an authority either by their own undertaking or under pressure by a group that has lobbied for suppression. The other involves the discretion of a content producer and their right to have standards with respect to content. If I have a magazine, I have the right to decide that I don't want any content that involves clowns. (to use my example from the show) We are looking at my right as an owner and producer to discretion, which I believe to be important. But censorship would involve the government telling producers that they cannot publish content that involves clowns. This distinction takes away editorial discretion with a blanket rule across the board, presumably (they say) for societal or other benefit. This is an external, imposed control meant to assert one group's moral or religious view onto another group by limiting clown content. ......