Tony Shawcross of Denver Open Media was recently awarded $380,000 by the Knight News Challenge to develop new “Tools for Public Access TV“:

“This project will enable public access TV stations and community technology centers to use common tools to create web sites that enable the transfer of video between the web site and the TV station. Together, public access TV and community technology centers can engage disadvantaged communities in new media platforms. While there are thousands of public access stations and community technology centers country-wide that provide media education and equipment, they don’t share a tool-set enabling them to become part of a collective, user-driven, online media network.”

Read more at newschallenge.org.

On my way into work this morning, I noticed an article in the Boston Metro entitled, “Pol eye YouTube for city life.” In it, Greg St. Martin talks about how Boston City Councilor, Rob Consalvo is interested in using YouTube to “broadcast” PSA’s to reach younger audiences. Martin adds,

“Consalvo said the city could use the new Boston Neighborhood News (BNN) studio to film the announcements, which he envisions spanning topics such as education, voting and summer jobs.”

This would be an excellent use of a community media center to provide residents with locally relevant information using web video platforms such as YouTube. The access center could also share the content on its website, while inviting community members to be involved in the production process.

It might also encourage residents to work with the city to create a more democratic communication process through their involvement on such a project. In any case, it’s an interesting model that access centers might consider particularly in working with local non-government and non-commercial organizations.

Read the article online at MetroBostonNews.com

At last week’s FCC hearing at Harvard Law School, the issue of network neutrality once again took center stage. As the Internet giant Google describes the issue

“Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet.”

Therefore, proponents of network neutrality believe that Internet service providers should not be in the business of deciding what content users get to view and what applications they get to use. To read more about Net Neutrality (from the advocates’ perspective) visit The Open Internet Coalition and Save The Internet.com.

As many advocates of public access television are already aware, the Internet is essential to their work in cable television. Not only is the Internet a vital platform for accessing the programming and organizational information of community media centers, it is also becoming the next generation distribution platform for local and diverse voices in community media production.

More importantly, I would add that community media advocates should look beyond using the Internet as simply a new video distribution platform to be used in combination with public, educational and government access channels. It should be considered as a platform for community communications to augment the physical interactions of people collaborating within community media centers.

For example, at Cambridge Community Television (where I work) several community groups are using our Drupal-based groups to collaborate online in between face-to-face meetings. These Internet tools can enhance community connections through enabling extended interest- and learning-based opportunities.

If Internet service providers gave preference to commercial websites over non-commercial websites, such as those operated by community media centers, this action would be in direct violation of the principles of network neutrality. Principles that former FCC chairman Michael Powell described in the following:

“(1) Freedom to Access Content: Consumers should have access to their choice of legal content;

(2) Freedom to Use Applications: Consumers should be able to run applications of their choice;

(3) Freedom to Attach Personal Devices: Consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to the connection in their homes; and

(4) Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information: Consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans.”

The issue of community control over local communications has been an essential concern for community media advocates over the past thirty years, as noted in Linda K. Fuller’s important work on Community Television in the United States and in other sources. The issue of network neutrality is just another stage in this political process. As Fuller writes

As individuals and community groups begin to consider television not just passively but also as an outlet for their artistic and/or informational interests, they need to develop a whole new mind-set toward media in general and television in particular. Next, they must actively participate in media policymaking and stop defering to policies in place, theoretically, to protect their interests. What is being presented here is a control issue, and until we personally and professionally consider the implications of where we want the locus of control, we are no where. (191)

In 2007, the Funding Exchange Media Justice Fund published a journal, entitled “Imagining the (Un)thinkable” which as the website explains:

“This collection of essays pushes the boundaries of current research on media policy and provides critical information on the potential power of the internet, radio, and community-access TV to enhance social justice movements. Written from perspectives of people of color, low-income people, women and other marginalized communities, the report offers useful tools and strategies for media justice advocates.”

In their chapter on “Owning the Airwaves through Community-Access TV,” authors Lyell Davies and Betty Yu write about how community access TV centers can support social justice organizations through “effective outreach and assistance” to ensure that marginalized communities, such as “LGBTQ, low-income, immigrant, youth, differently-abled, or communities of color,” are not excluded from the “first-come-first-serve” model of community access television.

Through this process, community access TV centers - as “community media centers” - can help connect social justice organizations to the “media multi-purposing” possibilities that Internet distribution tools, like blogs and podcasts, provide in helping them reach “multiple audiences in multiple ways” about their work in the community:

“To meet the needs of this expanding communications arena, community-access TV centers need to reinvent themselves as ‘community media centers’ and provide services supporting the varied media platforms now in use. This may mean engaging in conventional cable-access TV production, but it may also mean assisting in the production of a short video for web vlogging or in the creation of an interactive website . . .

Also, local community-access TV centers have a role to play in building a ‘physical’ community; while the Internet has led to the creation of new ‘virtual’ communities, the kind of intimate networks fostered by local TV making and viewing—and the presence of a ‘bricks-and-mortar’ meeting center like an access TV station—are still central to many political struggles, community empowerment efforts, and campaigns for social justice.”

To download the full report, visit the Funding Exchange Media Justice Fund.

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.

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.

In a brief online exchange, following a recent Philly Independent Media Center article, entitled “Public Access TV in Philadelphia is Finally Here,” one commenter inquires about the relevance of public access in a digital age. The commenter brings up two relevant issues: (1) the growing popularity of internet video production, publishing and distribution platforms and (2) the fact that not everyone subscribes to cable television.

I won’t attempt to respond directly to these comments, but I did choose to highlight them as a way to continue to catalog these and similar conversations taking place at this intersection of public access TV and the Internet.

From Ken Picard’s article, entitled “Does Public-Access TV Still Matter in the YouTube Age?” in Seven Days, Vermont’s Alternative Weekly:

“[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.”

I finally watched my DVD copy of “Opening Access” (photo above) produced by Denver Open Media. It’s an excellent overview of the possibilities that the Internet and user-driven media technologies provide towards revolutionizing Public Access TV. The DVD begins by situating Public Access TV in opposition to corporate television and other commercial media. It highlights the fact that large corporations sell viewers to advertisers in return for profit. Therefore, corporate media are biased in their tendency to cater to audiences in wealthier communities that have the money to spend on advertisers’ products. As a result, we have a commercial media landscape that largely fails to address public and social needs.

As an alternative, the DVD’s narrator and DOM Executive Director, Tony Shawcross says that Public Access TV is

* Inclusive
* A Free Speech Conduit
* Training
* Equipment Access
* Cablecast opportunities

Often for free or very low-cost.

Therefore, Public Access TV is an “alternative avenue that is not vulnerable to the inherent biases and restrictions of the corporate model.” But unfortunately,

“Support seems to be falling. Today it is a series of small, disconnected, and under-funded organizations. There is an opportunity to transform public access into something a more viable more powerful tool.”

Shawcross explains that “media distribution is moving to the Internet” and that the “many to many” internet model for distribution is the main use of the internet today.

Therefore, in order for Public Access TV to take full advantage of this new distribution technology:

1. All content must be made digitally
2. Creative Commons (public access TV content is noncommercial and CC allows us to get the word out)
3. Everything needs to be web-accessible
4. Rating and categorization. We need to let viewers watch, rate, tag and categorize content on the web.
5. Closing the digital divide

The DVD’s next section goes on to explain the model of Denver Open Media, which “flipped the switch” on this revoluntary new model in 2006. Shawcross explains that DOM is modeled after smaller companies like Wikipedia. A company with 5 staff members, but is more popular than Brittanica. DOM gets out of the way, so that the members can get involved.

In the video, DOM’s Station Director, Ann Theis says that DOM’s model fosters community because “community members are going to come in here and really have to rely on one another. They are going to have to help each other. And that in itself will just foster a greater sense of community and ownership.”

Brian Hiatt, deveropenmedia.org’s Web Developer talks about how DOM wants “the producers to be driving the station and hopefully through that model” people will “really feel that they own the station.” He also talks about how the website offers more traditional services, including equipment reservations and the opportunity to sign up for classes. They also hope to give producers the ability to upload content from home.

Most importantly, DOM is focusing on creating an open source model that other Public Access TV organizations can use. Shawcross talks about the significance of this system, in terms of connecting public access centers and the producers’ media through this system.

Mia McKenzie, DOM’s Education Director, talks about the fact that people with very little money are usually not heard from because they don’t have any way to produce their own media. DOM provides opportunities for people can get access “through very little cost and get the training and the tools to “be able to have a voice in media.” She goes on to say,

“We want everyone in the community to have a voice in media, but we want it to be as eloquent a voice as possible. So we train people to make the most high quality video they can make.”

The video explains that “public access fills the basic human need to communicate and to engage in one’s community in a way that isn’t limited by the financial profitability of your message.” It allows freedom and individual control. “The user driven approach will allow communities to mold TV into an institution that fulfills public and social needs.”

To watch the video or order a DVD copy, visit DenverOpenMedia.org. The DVD is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license.

QuickTime Video

The Alliance for Community Media’s 2006 Boston conference website continues to be an excellent resource for this project. Thanks to Ryanne and Jay’s interviews from the conference, there a number of videos available for download in learning more about this intersection of cable access TV and the web.

The video above, features a short conversation with Kari Peterson and Scott Alumbaugh discussing the opportunities and challenges of this new community media space and how PEGSpace can help ease the transition.