Upstream. A Mohawk Valley Blogzine.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Albany Eye & I Publius

Although Albany Eye makes a strong but not entirely convincing case for Alan Chartock’s 41% raise in 2005, I wish Albany Eye would cast its unflinching gaze on Chartock’s blog. Particularly disturbing is Chartock’s entry for March 6, titled Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, in which he seems to want to curb the First Amendment rights of bloggers and other internet users.


  • i've heard Chartock mention the Albany Eye blog on the air before, and neither Albany Eye or Chartock's blog allow comments. Not that Chartock doesn't have enough on his plate with his own blog, column, radio station, teaching position, etc., but is it possible that the Albany Eye is Alan?

    Just a kooky theory.


    By Blogger York Staters, at 10:26 AM  

  • Chartock's and Albany Eye's writing styles are too far apart for them to be the same person. However, it is obvious from Albany Eye's own blogger profile that he works for the media. I think it is also obvious that he either works for an Albany radio or television station, so from that point of view your theory is not kooky.
    Once we figure out the station he works for, I don't think it will be too hard to figure out exactly who he is.

    By Blogger Dan Weaver, at 1:21 PM  

  • perhaps it is Chartock's right hand man, Dave Galletly!

    By Blogger York Staters, at 3:37 PM  

  • The ever-fawning press coverage by Albany Eye, and by the Albany and Berkshire press of Alan Chartock and what the radio station boss insists on calling the 'WAMC Northeast Public Radio Network' always manages to avoid dealing with the underlying ethical problem plaguing WAMC-FM: that the paid listener/membership is not given the legal right to meet annually to vote in corporate-style elections for those who would serve on the WAMC board of trustees; for those who would serve as corporate officers; for the amount of salaries to be paid to those corporate officers; and for any other business that fittingly would come before a similar public group at an annual corporate shareholders' meeting.

    Until WAMC's listener/members are given this simple yet basic right -- a right that is guaranteed at publicly-owned corporations -- then Mr. Chartock and his hand-picked 'rubber-stamp' board of trustees rightfully deserve whatever bashing and drubbing they get from critics -- and for the simple and obvious reason that Chartock and Company lack legitimacy.

    Mr. Chartock rants ad nauseam about the Republicans 'stealing' the White House in 2000 and 2004, yet here is a guy that in 25 years of near-totalitarian control at so-called 'public' broadcaster WAMC has never once had the guts to stand for election before 'his' station's own paid membership. Even if you could ignore the obvious personal hypocrisy of the man, what kind of legitimacy is that? Who annointed this guy king of a public broadcaster?

    And please don't counter with the stale (and phony) argument that "listeners already vote with their pledge dollars". That's rubbish. It sidesteps the real issue and is used solely to keep Mr. Chartock and his cronies in control. Just because listeners send in money to support the local NPR station or a particular favored program they want to keep on-the-air does not automatically translate into fealty to the same management year after year. This is especially so as information surfaces as to just how listener dollars actually get spent, and about questionable (and even illegal) shenanigans that have occurred under the 'leadership' of Mr. Chartock.

    If Mr. Chartock and his merry little board are ever to be taken seriously, let them stand annually for election before the paid members as happens at a growing number of other publicly-supported broadcasters. If they are doing a bang-up job then they should have no problem winning fair election, and Mr. Chartock will undoubtedly be voted rich compensation by the folks who actually pay the bills.

    By Anonymous The WAMC Pirates; Glenn M. Heller, editor, at 4:08 PM  

  • Oh and by the way, please feel free to visit the WAMC Northeast Pirate Network Web site at and also the WAMC Pirates' Blog at


    By Anonymous The WAMC Pirates, Glenn M. Heller, editor, at 4:20 PM  

  • The clues I have uncovered point to Albany Eye working for commercial radio or television, not public, and most likely commercial television.

    By Blogger Dan Weaver, at 5:39 AM  

  • Reading between the lines of his earlier posts, I suspect our mystery man is currently engaged in television production.
    Now, that may seem a long-shot to you because what production guy have you ever known who's tuned-in to the scope of events The Eye covers?
    Yet, I submit, our man is, in fact, a production guy.
    He is different.
    He has broadcasting so prevalent in his blood that he intuitively knows the ropes. He has a broad understanding of the broadcast medium; he acknowledges its "profit motive" and he struggles with the morality of working for a company owning a "license to steal."
    Yes, he is a rare individual. He "observes" and comments on pertinent matters and I enjoy his postings.
    It does seem, though, that he is a bit soft on Chartock and I can easily agree with york staters' hypothesis that Albany Eye may be Chartock.
    Oh, Mighty Alan...Only Ye knows who thou art. Please reveal whether thou art Albany Eye or not.
    And, if thou art not, who might Albany Eye be?

    OK Albany Eye, now that you feel stroked, give us some meaningful clues to your identity.
    You are blown away by my guess that you're in production. Right?
    So, reward us with some clues.

    By Anonymous Lake George Guy, at 12:13 AM  

  • Lake George Guy & Natalie, Albany Eye is definitely soft on WAMC & Chartock. He has commented on WAMC 23 times and on Chartock 12 times and all have been positive. Nevertheless, I don't think he works for them.

    Lake George Guy, I think you are on the right track with the idea that he works in television production. That's my guess also.

    Besides the mystery of his Eye-dentity, the other mystery is since he has been blogging since 2004, why are there no archives prior to March 2005. Does blogger only archive for twelve months maximum? I seem to remember blogs with archives going back several years.

    By Blogger Dan Weaver, at 8:39 PM  

  • I, Pubis?!??

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home