The Free Press Action Network has announced that it’s members will blog tomorrow’s Congressional Hearing on Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Services in the Digital TV Age. Here are the details below from the website:

“On Tuesday, Jan. 29, the Free Press Action Network will hold a live-blogging session during the congressional hearing on Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) services in the digital TV age. Activists and community leaders will be discussing the hearing as it unfolds.

What: Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Hearing
When: Tuesday, Jan. 29 at 1:00 p.m

Leading the conversation are expert media activists including Lauren-Glenn Davitian, Executive Director, CCTV; Michael Eisenmenger, saveaccess.org; and Sean McLaughlin, Executive Director, Access Humboldt”

Connect to the Audio Webcast tomorrow during the hearing and join the conversation at The Free Press Action Network.

For his graduate audio production course at Emerson College, my fellow grad student and CCTV colleague John Donovan (above) sat down with staff and members at Cambridge Community Television to find out “why community media still matters” in a YouTube age.

In this 11-minute podcast, John first spoke with members of the staff who told him that “access to professional production equipment” and “affordable training” are among two of the many benefits of belonging to an access center. Susan Fleischmann, Executive Director at CCTV told John that community media is

“about being apart of a community and it’s about engaging with other people that are interested in the same kinds of things they’re interested in and that’s something that a YouTube or an Internet-based form of dissemination can’t touch.”

John next turned to CCTV members to get their response to the question. Jacques, the “Haitian Firefly” told John that CCTV creates a “sense of family” and a “supportive” environment. Jacques likened his weekly visits to CCTV to “a family reunion.”

Another member, Angel Aiguier told John that being at CCTV is “like being at home.” She said that she gets more video production done at CCTV than she does at home, even though she has the equipment at home needed to produce video for the web. Angel said that when she works at home she feels that she’s “missing something.”

Susan also told John that while community does exist online, the advantage of being involved with a public access center like CCTV is that it can broaden members’ sense of community.

CCTV staffer, Shaun Clarke told John that coming to CCTV while in high school allowed him to learn a lot about Cambridge that he wouldn’t have otherwise.

In his conclusion, John reports

“When asked why community media centers still matter in the YouTube age, other CCTV staff members and producers mentioned the persistence of the digital divide and the generation gap that keeps the poor and those unfamiliar with computers of the Internet from being able or willing to go online. Some highlighted CCTV’s proactive efforts to reach out to those whose voices would otherwise never get heard.”

To listen to John’s complete podcast, visit Why Community Media Still Matters in the YouTube Age.

As I’ve noted, I’m becoming increasingly interested in the role of the community media center in the practice of community media. Two arguments in particular have forced this interest. One is the claim that YouTube eliminates the need for public access television in the digital age and the second, from Dan Gillmor, sounds quite similar.

But as seen in the response to Dan’s post from ACM Chair, Mike Wassenaar

“GoogleVideo, YouTube, and other internet distribution vehicles don’t do that in my community. They provide a valuable distribution (and collaboration) medium, but they can’t replace a CMC.

Community Media Centers can increase educational training and build creative and economic value. Multiply out the value across U-S communities to look at the hidden benefit of access television, and don’t just concentrate on the channels and distribution.”

My involvement with the Board at Cambridge Community Television has focused on my participation with other community members at the access center there. It is the center that helps to enable meaningful connections and opportunities to communicate with others across both virtual and physical spaces. My participation on the website and my face-to-face meetings with others combine to create new opportunities to participate and build community in meaningful ways. But that’s only my experience.

Therefore, the study I have proposed seeks to investigate the importance of the community media center through the experiences of volunteer producers involved in both virtual and physical community media practice. In addition, I’m interested in learning from those who are not involved in the community center and instead only use participatory web spaces (blogs, podcasts, wikis, etc.) to produce “citizen media” relevant to members of their local physical community. In doing so, I hope to (1) get a better sense of how each participant understands their community through their practice and (2) how their “sense of community” is built across, and independent of, each space.

Quite simply, the purpose of this study is to question the idea that the community media center is no longer needed because of the existence of online participatory platforms. In learning directly from participants involved in both spaces, I hope to provide a more thorough analysis of the community media center’s role in the practice of community media, while building on previous studies in this area.

In a recent blog post (via Clippings for PEG Access Television), Alan Moore highlights an article on “Citizen-produced” programs on cable access TV in Chofu, Tokyo. Because, as he writes, “it echoed with the theory that people embrace what they create.”

The post is interesting to me because of the connection Moore makes between examples of networked media (via YouTube, Current TV, etc.) and cable access television. In referring to the community-strengthening aspects of cable access TV, he includes a quote from the original article

The channel is now playing a part in bringing people together who didn’t know each other before. In one case, citizens who were producing programs began to take a greater interest in community issues and eventually got involved in cleaning up a local lake.

In the same post, Moore talks about what makes strong communities “Part of the answer is accountability and collective sense of responsibility.” And that “Being part of something, being part of its creation, is also the process of engagement.”

I wrote an essay, titled “Community Media in Transition: Exploring the Digital Culture within PEG Access Television.” It is an overview of my research and methods used for this project to date. My hope is that it will serve to help focus my work moving forward.

From the introduction:

In August 2006, following the Alliance for Community Media Conference, “Connecting Communities” at Boston’s Park Plaza Hotel, I launched a personal research blog, titled “Community Media in Transition: PEG Access TV and the Internet” to continue the conversation online. As I wrote about the project, I hoped “to explore the role of technology, public policy, and the Internet and its relationship to public, educational, and government access television.” Much to my surprise, I soon found myself at an exciting intersection of two worlds colliding without much of a roadmap to navigate the changes ahead. Through my professional and volunteer lives I realized I was in a unique position to help share the stories of those facing this intersection of cable access television and a complex new medium, called the social web.

This essay is about my process and discovery during this time. It is a document of the steps I have taken, up to this point, to investigate a thirty-year old practice by community media activists now facing a world uprooted by technology, politics and a global market economy. In it, I will present an overview of (1) the methods used, (2) the community observed, (3) the technologies being implemented, (4) the persistent themes and challenges, and (5) the potential paths of study moving forward.

Read more.

I recently discovered these three geographically-focused UK websites (above) through my thesis adviser’s del.icio.us feed. They are UpMyStreet, AreYouLocal, and MyNeighborhoods. They were interesting to me because of their location-based orientation within a global communications medium (the web), combined with their use of social software.

I was trying to imagine a version of this site where PEG Access TV centers and the communities they served were the focus. A social website that used online media to share geographically-based community stories. The purpose being not only to connect and empower physical communities, but to highlight and share stories being produced across cable access TV centers using the web.

Placeblogger is an example of a website that aggregates “hyperlocal” citizen media sites. Indymedia, “a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage,” might be a closer example of location-based (and non-commercial) community media groups working together online for civic storytelling and engagement.

I’m sure there are more examples to consider, but again, what would a version of these UK sites above look like if PEG Access TV centers were the focus? What purpose might a tool like this serve for access centers and the communities they serve?

The time seems right for PEG Access TV to harness its many years of experience in community-focused video production and to serve as a non-commercial alternative to YouTube and other commercial video sharing sites. Many access centers are doing it on an individual level, but what about on a larger scale?

Mapping Access, PEGSpace and the ACM website are all examples that perhaps come closest to this vision. Maybe a site that combined all three?

The Community Media Review’s Summer 2007 Issue, “Community Media and Social Change” is out. It is an appropriate follow-up to the last issue on “Community Media 2.0″ (see earlier post):

“Public Access media tools are just a means, not an end goal. Whether we use television access channels or new digital platforms, we should strive to advance media justice and social change. For public access to be real, it must provide access specifically to those communities that are traditionally disenfranchised and underrepresented.”

Manhattan Neighborhood Network’s Betty Yu is the issue’s guest editor. She is a community outreach and media specialist at MNN, where she “provides media making tools and resources to community-based organizations through video production training and a community media grants program” (p. 5).

The issue features many voices from the Media Justice movement including, Malkia A. Cyril (Youth Media Council), Jeff Pearlstein (Media Alliance), Jonathan Lawson (Reclaim The Media), and more.

My fellow grad student at Emerson College, Brittany Shoot wrote an excellent article with MNN’s Ivettza Sanchez, titled, “Videoblogging as Citizen Media: From Public Access to a Participatory Web” in the Issue’s third section, “Expanding Community Media Center Capacity to Advance Media Justice” (p. 32). In it, the authors provide examples of PEG Access TV centers that have embraced Internet tools to empower their communities. On Lowell Telecommunications Corporation, an PEG Access center known for its innovative work utilizing new technology, they write

“In a factory town like Lowell, home to diverse populations of Latin Americans, Cambodians, and many African descendents, LTC provides a new way for historically disenfranchised groups to share their stories, amplify their voices, and communicate more freely.” (p. 34)

In the same article, the authors respond to claims of those who argue that YouTube “eliminates the need for public access television.”

“In no way does videoblogging pose a threat to community media, or intend to replace existing structures; rather, online video distribution has become, for many, a supplement to this important community media resource.” (p. 34)

They also address issues of Intellectual Property and recommend alternative Internet platforms to the more Mainstream New Media outlets.

“Instead of allowing a larger media conglomerate or clearinghouse to hold some of the intellectual property rights over their work (which YouTube’s user agreement states), videobloggers tend to use video hosting sites like blip.tv (blip.tv), the Internet Archive (archive.org), or even their own web hosting space.thing unimaginable two years ago. While local access television provided a means to reach local audiences, the potential for global exposure pushes people toward content production as never before.” (p. 34)

For those working inside and outside of PEG Access TV interested in understanding how and why “Web 2.0″ tools can make a positive impact in their community, the Summer 2007 Issue of CMR is chock-full of case studies and examples from experts in the field. But regardless of whatever “new media” technologies may come along, Betty Yu reminds the reader in “The Last Word”,

“CMCs are no longer just cable-access TV organizations; they have become multimedia hubs. Our centers must be open to using new digital platforms and tools in the service of media justice, making these tools accessible to everyone, especially members of hard-hit communities. It’s also critical to protect and expand the physical spaces where people come together, face-to-face. In our centers people learn from each other, acquire skills, engage in collective decision-making, and envision how media can be used to advance our common dreams, goals and issues.” (p. 46)

CCTV recently received a grant from the Institute of Interactive Journalism for a project to “embed” citizen journalists in communities across Cambridge. Here’s the deal:

“Five segments, one from each of the city’s zip codes, will be produced each month, highlighting news and events from across the city. Segments from each neighborhood will be edited into one 30-minute program that will be cablecast on CCTV’s Channel 9, streamed live on CCTV’s web site, and made available for on-demand viewing and download. Segments will also be incorporated into CCTV’s web-based Cambridge Media Map.”

I’ve created a page on the wiki to explore the relationship between citizen journalism projects like this one happening at CCTV and citizen journalists writing for Placeblogs. I’m looking forward to diving into this topic more fully for my thesis. An entire chapter could easily be devoted to the subject. Here are some of the questions I’ve put together so far:

• What are the differences between citizen journalism initiatives in PEG access TV, like CCTV’s Neighbor to Neighbor project, and Placeblogs?

• What are the issues/advantages/challenges confronting citizen journalists working at PEG access centers v. citizen journalists writing for placeblogs?

• How can ongoing citizen journalism projects at PEG access centers gain greater visibility and acceptance from the broader online citizen journalism community?

If you are a placeblogger, a citizen journalist at a PEG access center, or someone who is interested in these topics and would like to contribute to this collaborative graduate thesis project, please visit the wiki to add your thoughts or share your comments here on this blog.