Governing.com, “The Resource for States and Localities” published an article this week, entitled “Unscripted Ending” written by Josh Goodman. It caught my eye for a number of reasons. One for this Related Links caption (above). And another for the article’s interesting conclusion:

“Can Internet video match public TV as a venue for independent voices? Gordon Bloyer thinks so. Since he moved his local access show to YouTube, Bloyer has begun getting hits not just from Indiana, but from all over the world — although, tellingly, his focus has shifted from local politics to national politics. But Barbara Popovic, executive director of CAN-TV, a public access station in Chicago, isn’t so sure. If the Internet were an adequate replacement for TV, she says, you’d see big media companies giving up their cable channels. It’s no wonder why they haven’t, Popovic says. ‘This is prime real estate.’”

Read the article online at Governing.com. Thanks to Clippings for PEG Access Television for the link.

As readers of this blog know, I’ve been tracking some of the online narratives surrounding public access television production in an age when YouTube and other video sharing websites have grown in popularity. This week, thanks again to Clippings for PEG Access Television, I found another article at AJC.com particularly troubling in the lack of context it provides on the topic.

In the article, “Fulton County investing in public-use studio” D.L.Bennett begins

In an age when anyone with a hand-held video camera, editing software and a computer can produce clips for the Internet, Fulton County has decided to invest $175,000 to create a public-use TV studio.

This single sentence sets-up the debate and frames the entire article.

Whether intentional or not, the author seems to position “anyone” with the tools, skills and knowledge to produce and upload video to the web against Fulton County’s decision to invest in a public access studio. This sentence and the rest of the article fail to address a few other relevant issues.

First, the article assumes that “anyone” producing video for the web is creating media that are relevant to others in their local community. The article would have been more accurate if it took the time to provide specific examples of people creating web video about and for their local community.

Second, the article fails to mention how public access centers can teach people how to create well-produced video for the web, as well as for their local cable channels. In addition, the article does not address how some public access centers have incorporated online video sharing into their access center’s websites. Rather, it appears to position the web against public access TV.

Third, the article fails to mention how public access centers strengthen local communities. Rather than individuals who sit at home uploading video to YouTube, public access producers often work with, and rely upon, others in their community to help them shoot, edit and produce their videos. This process of public access production builds community through a cooperation with others. It is during this process that others can learn more about themselves, the places they live, and others in their community.

Fourth, and most important, the article fails to address the issue that not everyone has access to these tools. Public access centers provide people with access to media education (e.g., production and literacy) with a particular focus on their local community.

The article also includes the following quote, “Public access was conceived as a community soapbox. That has largely migrated to the Internet.” Not surprisingly the quote is from the cable company, Comcast (as the article mentions).

The issue here is really not about the Internet v. Public Access TV. It’s not about one v. the other. It’s about the tools – whatever they are now and whatever they may be in the future – that help people communicate about issues important to them and their local community.

“Public access supporters argue that Web video isn’t really as democratic as it appears. Sure, anyone can do it — anyone with enough money for a video camera, high-speed Internet access and the right software. The truly democratic media is public access, they say, where the entire community can use camera and studio facilities for free.

Public access is also local, aimed at a specific community, while most Web video is not.”

“[Lauren-Glenn] Davitian is often asked whether public-access television is still relevant in the age of YouTube. Her reply: These are both the best of times, and the worst, for community media advocates.

On the one hand, people are more technologically savvy, interested in creating their own programs and have access to inexpensive and easy-to-use video equipment. And, there are more avenues than ever for showcasing citizen-produced programs, both on publicly operated cable channels and the Internet.

At the same time, she points out, ‘Free speech is more than just shouting out into the wilderness . . . Just because you can post something on YouTube doesn’t mean you have free speech.’ In that sense, the mission of CCTV’s Center for Media and Democracy is as relevant as ever: People still need to learn how to think critically about the media they consume. And, they need to know which tools are the most effective at reaching a targeted audience and mobilizing people to action.”

Thanks to Rob McCausland (Director of Information and Organizing Services for the Alliance for Community Media), and his incredibly resourceful Clippings for PEG Access TV, I can subscribe to an RSS feed of daily news on issues related to community television from around the world.

These daily updates have played a large part in the research for this project. I’ve also been able to learn a lot about many of the dedicated community media workers who help to raise awareness about the importance of local media and why they matter for their communities.

In yesterday’s Clippings, there is a link to an interview with Capital Community Television’s Executive Director, Alan Bushong in Salem, Oregon’s StatesmansJournal.com. In it he addresses two questions that have become integral to this study:

Why do PEG Access TV & Community Media Centers matter?

How have PEG Access TV & Community Media Centers changed with the rise of YouTube and other social network platforms?

In the article, The Statesman Journal’s Chris Hagan asks, “Why is it important to have a station like this in a community?” Bushong responds (with emphasis added)

“I think there are a couple of reasons. First I think it’s nice to have a commercial-free alternative for viewers. I think the second big advantage is that it is local; it’s people that you know. I still believe in the importance of the geographical community, my neighborhood. I know there are cyber-communities. I have a lot of friends I communicate with by e-mail, but it’s still our neighbors that take care of our cats when we go on vacation. We still shop at the grocery store a mile away. So I think it speaks to the importance of the community. And finally I think it’s so important to give voice to those who have had little opportunity to speak to any size of audience. Even with the Internet, where people have that opportunity, I think they need to use as many media as possible. They should use the Statesman, they should use local radio, they should use our channels, the Internet. I just think that opportunity of voice is very important for the viability of a community. Our society should not be defined by New York, Chicago and L.A. We should be as important.”

So to my first question, Bushong says here that PEG Access TV provides:

A commercial-free alternative for viewers

It is local; it’s people that you know

Giving voice to those who have had little opportunity to speak to any size of audience

Now this isn’t news to folks who work in access. But for those who don’t, I think it’s important to re-emphasis his point that the “opportunity of voice is very important for the viability of a community” even when we may not agree with those who are speaking. It’s this “opportunity of voice” that provides opportunities for location-based civic engagement and community empowerment in a way that goes beyond letters to the editor or Op-Eds published in a local newspaper or other online communication platforms. As Bushong says, his community “should use the Statesman, they should use local radio, they should use our channels, the Internet.”

Next, Hagan asks “How has CCTV changed through the rise of YouTube, MySpace and other Web sites?”

“The Internet is real easy to use, which is great. So one of the ways we’ve changed is that we’ve become easier to use, and we’ll continue to work to become easier to use. But for some people, communicating on the Internet is really what they want to do, and I think people ought to go with what’s right for them. So I think some people that might have come in 15 years ago, had we been further along in our development, are not coming in and using the Internet. We’re also working to use the Internet more, and you’ll see over the next year we’re trying to make it easier for people to stream programs and to use promotion between the internet and CCTV. YouTube is still a fairly short venue, and we place no limits. YouTube … the parallel for me seems to be the length of a popular song. It’s about three to four minutes. I think we’ll see YouTube also change, and I think it will become important for groups like us to provide Internet access because YouTube is now not only starting to sell commercials but we’ll also see big changes because of the copyright issues surrounding it. The shorter answer is that I think people should take advantage of every opportunity.”

Here, Bushong not only compares YouTube to a three to four minute pop song, but addresses larger issues related to the commercialization of the web, as well as intellectual property concerns. Many access centers are using YouTube and other web video tools (e.g., blip.tv, Google Video, etc.) to publish and embed video on their website. The Community Media Center web platform can then serve as both an online non-commercial alternative for local community voices, while helping to educate producers about copyright issues.

I spoke with Mara Altman of the Village Voice today. She’s doing a piece on “public access television and it’s relevancy in the age of YouTube”. She found me through my blog post, “YouTube = Public Access?“. We talked a bit about my graduate thesis project and some of the questions I’m looking for answers to (including the questions above) with the help from folks in access.

I told her that YouTube can be viewed as complimentary to, but should not viewed as a replacement for, Public Access TV. I said that you can’t find YouTube centers across the country that provide opportunities (found at most Public Access TV centers) for people to gain the necessary skills, tools, and knowledge to create and share stories through media about stuff happening in their communities. I said that while some cable subscribers may not like the programming on their public access channels, it should be considered within the context of local Educational and Government content, as well. PEG provides one of the few forums left on TV where people can find local news and information that is both relevant to their community and created by the public, not by commercial outlets.

I also told her about some of the innovative things happening in public access TV, including geotagging/geovlogging projects like Zip Docs at CCTV and Map Iowa City at PATV. I mentioned that while many access centers are realizing that they need to get up to speed with new Internet distribution technologies, the Alliance for Community Media has a new website using WordPress for its content management system.

We also talked a bit about how current state and federal legislation threatens funding for public access TV and local control of our public-rights-of-way (not to mention the issue of redlining). I asked her if she’d heard about saveaccess.org (which she had) and said if she wants to find people who oppose PEG TV, all she needs to do is pick up the phone and call any one of the many astroturf groups (see “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing” Common Cause Report PDF) that are popping up across the country.

She was very nice and helpful in recommending the folks at Bronxnet to speak to for my thesis project. I look forward to learning more about them and their access center.

I don’t know when her story for the Village Voice will come out, but I look forward to reading it to see what others had to say on this topic.