Public Access -- that's that place where the real big left-handed white guys with beards and glasses make those weird television shows about big left-handed white guys with beards and glasses, right?
Well, maybe. As one of them (a big, left-handed white guy with a beard and glasses) I can tell you that, without a doubt, there is a need for programming about the lives and hard times of these poor folk. There is no place other than public access television where you might learn about this particular group of people. In fact, if not for public access television, you might not think about this group of people at all!
You might not want to think about this group of people anyway, but one of the really magical things about public access television is that there are shows for you to consider that you will not see anywhere else. The point of public access television is to give voice to all those people who don't have access to the most powerful medium available to us in this society.
I believe that there is very good reason to give access to the disenfranchised -- in fact, the philosophical basis for this has its roots right in the beginning of broadcasting in the United States. Furthermore, I believe that public access to the media (ultimately, not just the medium of television, but to all media) is essential to a strong democracy. Finally, I will argue that public access to media is the last hope for a public voice and public input into how local community should look and act and relate to the people who live in it. Public access is quickly becoming the only place for any public dialogue into a number of issues of importance shaping the lives of the people and determining the look of the communities they live in.
I know this is a tall order for that place where all those weird left-handed white guys make those weird programs, but we've set up a society where we, the people, have no access to the commercial media, and, in fact, are terribly disserved by the commercial media. This is what makes public access all the more important.
Let's go back to the roots of public access. To understand those roots, we have to go back to the roots of broadcasting in the United States. The Communications Act of 1934 established the Federal Communications Commission. Radio broadcasting had been around for many years by 1934, but people had just begun to figure out that there was a commercial use for radio -- that money could be made. Up until this time, radio stations had been operated mostly by community-minded groups interested in public service. The FCC, set up partly as a response to critics and reformers opposed to the commercial aspects of radio, was very aware that these radio operators were using what everyone considered to be the "public" airwaves -- airwaves owned by the citizens of the United States and not by the radio operators. The FCC came up with the notion of commercial broadcasters being "caretakers" of the public airwaves, supposedly operating "in the public interest and for the common good".
Jump ahead to the late 1960's. The FCC now regulates television as well as radio. There has been continuing debate over broadcasting and how it should work and what it should do (remember Newton Minnow and the "vast wasteland" comment?), but the notion of broadcasters being caretakers and operating in the public interest and for the common good informs the FCC decisions about television as well as radio. The FCC's equal time clause and fairness doctrine are understood to apply to television as well as radio. People now understand the power of the medium of television to shape the public discussion and opinion (JFK is thought to have won the election in 1960 because he was able to make television work for him so much more effectively than Richard Nixon). People are aware of how much power there is in those airwaves, and some people are dissatisfied with the way that power is used.
In 1968 Sony introduced a portapack, a 20 pound video recorder connected to a camera by a wire umbilical. It was black and white, open reel, and editing was done by physically cutting the videotape and splicing it together with adhesive tape. Crude by today's standards, it was extremely significant because it brought the power of video tape and therefore television, to the ordinary person.
In 1969, Antioch College initiated its Community Media Department. This was significant because people were now obviously thinking in terms of a "community" media, and it was academically sanctioned, which gave it credibility. A year or so later George Stoney co-founded the Alternate Media Center at New York University to "promote the use of Cable Technology by local, nonprofessional communicators".
So we see that in the late '60's and early '70's the concept of public access to the airwaves was gaining more and more credence and academic acceptance at least, and technology was helping by putting "guerrilla" television into the reach of the individual. This was a time of political turmoil and questioning of assumptions in the population at large, as well, so the intellectual and political climate was such that the idea of public access to the airwaves was not only acceptable to many but very important to some.
In 1971 something happened to give the idea of access to the media a huge push. The Business Executives' Move for Vietnam Peace, a group formed to oppose the war in Vietnam, tried to buy time on several commercial radio stations to present their arguments against the war. They were turned down. The radio stations said that they were not in the business of selling time to discuss controversial issues. The FCC agreed with the radio stations. Clearly, the commercial radio stations (remember them? We left them back in 1934 happily broadcasting in the public interest and for the public good) were able to say that anything that didn't relate to their primary function (that of selling advertising and making money) was not in the public interest and common good. The public interest and common good, of course, was equated to the station owners making money. Any discussion of issues interfered with that and was therefore not in the public interest and for the common good.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed that opinion as a violation of First Amendment rights, but the argument about who owned the airwaves and what use should be made of them was once again in the forefront.
Meanwhile, cable television was steadily growing throughout the country. The technology had been around since the 1930's but used for other purposes than cabling people's homes. Community Antenna Television (CATV), as it was then called, slowly reached more and more subscriber households.
The FCC has been regulating cable transmission, by default, since as early as 1966. In the FCC's 1972 Cable Television Report and Order, the top 100 television markets with more than 3,500 subscribers were mandated to originate community programming. If people still had no access to broadcast media, at least cable access was accepted and available.
So we have seen, briefly, how the public has given up their right to the airwaves in the United States and allowed them to become the exclusive property of the corporations that operate the broadcasting companies. However, there are strong philosophical and political arguments for public access to airwaves. The people have begun to demand their rights and demand access to the powerful media of the day, and for the most part that means cable access.
Four of public access' most important strengths are (no surprise) four areas that the commercial media ignore completely. They are:
1. Freedom of speech -- access ensures that a wide diversity of ideas can be presented and discussed. One of the most important strengths of access is that it is the place where those left-handed white guys can put on those weird shows. Those shows are not always popular, nor are they necessarily "right". But it is important that they have their chance, and that they have a spot in the marketplace of ideas.2. Media Literacy -- access helps teach people and groups two main things. First, most access centers train people in the tools of access. That is, video cameras and editing controllers, graphics computers, lights and so on for television access, tape recorders and microphones for radio access, computers for internet access, and so on. The other important aspect of media literacy is critical thinking skills. Access teaches you to think about where the show you are watching or listening to is coming from, the way the maker put it together, and what her/his purposes might have been. It teaches you that you should not just blindly believe anything you've seen on TV or in print. (Do you believe everything that I am telling you? Good!)
3. Community Development -- access is the place for discussions about local issues that the commercial media ignores. This strengthens the community in that there is the potential for much more input on local issues and ideas, and much more potential for dissemination of those ideas than without access. In Traverse City, we have seen arguments for and against the Eighth Street widening proposals, the Hartman Bridge bypass plan, and many other issues.
It is interesting to note, here, that there are fewer and fewer places for public discourse on local issues in today's world. Media in this country is owned by corporations, and free speech means they are free to pursue the issues of importance to them (not you!). Malls are owned, so Freedom of Speech does not pertain there--you will get ejected if you try to set up your soapbox and engage in any sort of public discourse. You even have to get a permit to set up your soapbox in a public park. Public access is one of the last places to go to try to get your ideas out and heard.
4. Public Service -- the commercial media pay lip service to the notion of public service, but I've noticed that none of them play any shows by big left-handed white guys with beards and glasses. In fact, public access television is the place you can get informative, educational and cultural programming not available anywhere else on television.
To those of you who wonder why you should care about the programming provided by big left handed white guys, the answer is that you shouldn't care, per se. But you should care about the freedom and ability of people like that (and people like you) to put those shows on the air.
As Robert McChesney says in Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy (33):
Democracy requires that there be an effective system of political communication, broadly construed, that informs and engages the citizenry, drawing people meaningfully into the polity. This becomes especially important as societies grow larger and more complex, but has been true for all societies dedicated toward self-government. While democracies by definition must respect individual freedoms, these freedoms can only be exercised in a meaningful sense when the citizenry is informed, engaged, and participating. Moreover, without this, political debate can scarcely address the central issues of power and resource allocation that must be at the heart of public deliberation in a democracy.
Everyone knows the power of the communications media. In nondemocratic societies, the communications systems are controlled by those in power to maintain that power. Control of the means of communications is integral to the control of political and economic power. This should be an issue of utmost importance in the United States, where virtually all communications is controlled by less than ten corporations. In the United States we have given up any access to the means of communication and because we think that corporate control of media is inherently democratic and benevolent, it is not even a part of the political discussion.
Because access is access to communications, and communications and the dissemination of information is power, public access is important. Because it can be a force for public discussion of issues of concern to local people, it is important. Because it is a force for building community, and it encourages dialogues between people and groups that might not otherwise talk, it is important. It should be taken seriously by everyone.