ALLIANCE LEADERSHIP AWARDS
I will post a list of the winners in an updated blog entry.
HOMETOWN VIDEO FESTIVAL
The honors paid to community producers seemed a bit rushed with the pre-packaged awards video, and cafeteria-style handouts of awards. There are so many different categories, and so many awards to be given that it seems impossible that an access center such as ours isn't being recognized more often. Frankly, the level of some of our volunteer work should easily outshine some of the programs which received honors at this year's festival.
PANEL DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY MEDIA: FIXING WHAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA BROKE
Moderator: Dan Kennedy, Northeastern University
Panelists:
Kevin Howley, Media Studies, Depauw University
Sascha Meinrath, Free Press
Felicia Sullivan, Media, Information and Technology, UMass Lowell
This turned out to be one of the most interesting panel discussions I've seen at an Alliance conference. Being held in Fanueil Hall, where the first rumblings of rebellion were echoed in our country, the conversations focused on how our current system of media consumption in this country has created a loop of complacency, apathy and disconnection among our communities.
The items marked with a "*" were issues I was concerned about, and will address at the end of this blog entry.
Dan Kennedy began the evening by making the following points:
*Conservatives have sometimes been more active at realizing the potential of access centers than liberals.
The internet is seen by some as "the new public access television".
Television requires more individual effort than newer, internet-based communications technology.
Access centers should be re-purposed for internet-centered access operations.
Radio, television and cable should all serve the public interest.
*There has been a trend in media conglomerate break-up among certain print-oriented operations.
Kevin Howley then presented his concerns:
*He is ambivalent about media culture.
New technologies are being pressed into the service of style over substance.
*The growth of civic journalism suggests a crisis in mainstream journalism today.
Political discourse and communication have been reduced to consumer spectacles.
The result of that is widespread apathy.
But this type of media culture is not inevitable, and is also subject to change.
Modern journalism seems devoid of any relevant context.
Modern journalism is event-driven.
Access programming is issue-driven.
Sascha Meinrath continued with his introduction:
There are three missing elements in commercial media - Diversity, Disagreement, and Debate.
Modern media organizations have evolved away from their community-centered roots into a broadcast model concerned with delivering a crafted content message to a mass of passive consumers.
New technological infrastructure is being moved away from peer-to-peer interactive models to a "cell-phone" model which requires all messages to be handled by a third-party translator.
These things have resulted in high prices and low customer service.
Current regulatory thought is moving away from the idea of Net Neutrality.
There is an atmosphere of artificial scarcity being promulgated by media and cable companies. There is a massive amount of dark fiber left unused in our country, and is being left vacant in order to increase demand and drive prices higher.
Media content is vapid and contributes to an atmosphere of forced ignorance in our communities.
*Discourse is lacking, which will lead to a fear of disagreement and debate.
Felicia Sullivan concluded introductory comments by basically celebrating the achievements of access centers in the past in their efforts to promote diversity and open communications within their communities.
Here were my concerns, addressed in order:
*Conservatives have sometimes been more active at realizing the potential of access centers than liberals.
Why in the world is this being treated as a "concern"? I think this is perhaps the most telling point about the creation of an "access media culture" which seems to be rooted in liberal activism, rather than true progressive thought. If a conservative has an issue or idea - that issue MUST be treated with the same legitimacy, celebration and care that is given to the voice of any other citizen. We cannot afford to play ideological favorites when it comes to program content. To even suggest such a thing is to start down a very, very slippery slope. Unfortunately, it was a suggestion I've heard more than once at this particular conference.
*There has been a trend in media conglomerate break-up among certain print-oriented operations.
While this is certainly backed up by fact, I think it's a reach to say this is a positive thing for community media. I would suggest this is merely the price the print media is paying for the rise of internet-based communications alternatives. Those who refused to be early-adopters of an on-line format were caught with their pants down, and circulations plummeted. Even those who did happen to smell the coffee are fighting a constant battle with new sources of on-line competition. This so-called "trend" may be nothing more than the natural reaction of a business which is no longer as profitable as it had been in the past. It's hardly evidence of a new "trend" toward increasing local ownership of media. Witness the continued mergers and acquisitions in broadcasting for evidence that conglomeration continues to be path most media outlets are following.
*He is ambivalent about media culture.
Well, I'm pretty ambivalent about access media culture. Especially since most of it seems to be geared toward pandering to liberal activists. The simple fact of the matter is media will do whatever media must do to survive in a business environment. The lack of strong government regulation is what has turned most media into what it is today. There is no "fairness doctrine" in place any longer, outside of requiring media outlets to charge the lowest rate to any political candidate (but only during certain times of the year). There is no public-service requirement for licensing from the FCC any longer. There is no requirement for any station to grant a person equal time to respond to something they heard on the radio, or watched on TV.
I think that laying all the blame for this at the feet of the media culture is a mistake. It's time to realize the problem rests with a lack of education, and a trend toward apathy that simply cannot be pinned on the media. The problem runs deeper, as do the implications.
*The growth of civic journalism suggests a crisis in mainstream journalism today.
I think this is a very dangerous "post hoc" argument, but one which is very seductive. The growth of civic journalism may very well be the result of people beginning to realize they can now possess the tools for creating content which were before only available to businesses or individuals that could afford their enormous cost. To suggest that this growth is representative of some sort of "crisis" in mainstream journalism strikes me as a bit irresponsible, and more than a bit derogatory to the masses of hard-working journalists who do an excellent job each and every day. Statements like this one will not make many friends among those embattled journalists who are already struggling under the perception that they're members of a "liberal media elite". If anyting, such statements merely reinforce the belief that access activists are nothing more than loud, crybaby crackpots.
*Discourse is lacking, which will lead to a fear of disagreement and debate.
The only reason I marked this as an item of concern, is that I see it as evidence that there is a disconnect happening between "access culture" and the real world we live in. After all, isn't one of the primary reasons for a lack of minority programming from the black community in Salina because of the fear of some perceived reprisal for telling their stories? I've heard that from more than just one volunteer. If that's the case, then this problem is one that may very well be a "skeleton-in-the-closet" for our community...and something worthy of investigation.
In addition I find it odd to hear this message coming from a panel which is focusing on the purely negative aspects of current "media culture".
Seeing as I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut most days, tonight was no exception. I challenged the panel's vilification of "media culture" by asking it to defend the evolution of a liberally-biased "access culture". I also asked for their thoughts on Public Television, seemingly a sacred cow since no one mentioned it once during their presentations.
If franchise fees are dropping, and the lack of funds becoming more of a concern to access centers across the nation, doesn't anyone see the potential conflict which could arise between Public Television stations, and Public-access television stations?
Anyone who beautifies public radio or television over more mainstream media offerings may be in for a rude surprise. Public television has grown accustomed to the regular struggle to generate revenue and become more self-sufficient...access facilities have not. That could be the beginnings of a struggle which may very well leave the public in the losing corner.
Sometimes it feels like I'm taking crazy pills...
I will post a list of the winners in an updated blog entry.
HOMETOWN VIDEO FESTIVAL
The honors paid to community producers seemed a bit rushed with the pre-packaged awards video, and cafeteria-style handouts of awards. There are so many different categories, and so many awards to be given that it seems impossible that an access center such as ours isn't being recognized more often. Frankly, the level of some of our volunteer work should easily outshine some of the programs which received honors at this year's festival.
PANEL DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY MEDIA: FIXING WHAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA BROKE
Moderator: Dan Kennedy, Northeastern University
Panelists:
Kevin Howley, Media Studies, Depauw University
Sascha Meinrath, Free Press
Felicia Sullivan, Media, Information and Technology, UMass Lowell
This turned out to be one of the most interesting panel discussions I've seen at an Alliance conference. Being held in Fanueil Hall, where the first rumblings of rebellion were echoed in our country, the conversations focused on how our current system of media consumption in this country has created a loop of complacency, apathy and disconnection among our communities.
The items marked with a "*" were issues I was concerned about, and will address at the end of this blog entry.
Dan Kennedy began the evening by making the following points:
*Conservatives have sometimes been more active at realizing the potential of access centers than liberals.
The internet is seen by some as "the new public access television".
Television requires more individual effort than newer, internet-based communications technology.
Access centers should be re-purposed for internet-centered access operations.
Radio, television and cable should all serve the public interest.
*There has been a trend in media conglomerate break-up among certain print-oriented operations.
Kevin Howley then presented his concerns:
*He is ambivalent about media culture.
New technologies are being pressed into the service of style over substance.
*The growth of civic journalism suggests a crisis in mainstream journalism today.
Political discourse and communication have been reduced to consumer spectacles.
The result of that is widespread apathy.
But this type of media culture is not inevitable, and is also subject to change.
Modern journalism seems devoid of any relevant context.
Modern journalism is event-driven.
Access programming is issue-driven.
Sascha Meinrath continued with his introduction:
There are three missing elements in commercial media - Diversity, Disagreement, and Debate.
Modern media organizations have evolved away from their community-centered roots into a broadcast model concerned with delivering a crafted content message to a mass of passive consumers.
New technological infrastructure is being moved away from peer-to-peer interactive models to a "cell-phone" model which requires all messages to be handled by a third-party translator.
These things have resulted in high prices and low customer service.
Current regulatory thought is moving away from the idea of Net Neutrality.
There is an atmosphere of artificial scarcity being promulgated by media and cable companies. There is a massive amount of dark fiber left unused in our country, and is being left vacant in order to increase demand and drive prices higher.
Media content is vapid and contributes to an atmosphere of forced ignorance in our communities.
*Discourse is lacking, which will lead to a fear of disagreement and debate.
Felicia Sullivan concluded introductory comments by basically celebrating the achievements of access centers in the past in their efforts to promote diversity and open communications within their communities.
Here were my concerns, addressed in order:
*Conservatives have sometimes been more active at realizing the potential of access centers than liberals.
Why in the world is this being treated as a "concern"? I think this is perhaps the most telling point about the creation of an "access media culture" which seems to be rooted in liberal activism, rather than true progressive thought. If a conservative has an issue or idea - that issue MUST be treated with the same legitimacy, celebration and care that is given to the voice of any other citizen. We cannot afford to play ideological favorites when it comes to program content. To even suggest such a thing is to start down a very, very slippery slope. Unfortunately, it was a suggestion I've heard more than once at this particular conference.
*There has been a trend in media conglomerate break-up among certain print-oriented operations.
While this is certainly backed up by fact, I think it's a reach to say this is a positive thing for community media. I would suggest this is merely the price the print media is paying for the rise of internet-based communications alternatives. Those who refused to be early-adopters of an on-line format were caught with their pants down, and circulations plummeted. Even those who did happen to smell the coffee are fighting a constant battle with new sources of on-line competition. This so-called "trend" may be nothing more than the natural reaction of a business which is no longer as profitable as it had been in the past. It's hardly evidence of a new "trend" toward increasing local ownership of media. Witness the continued mergers and acquisitions in broadcasting for evidence that conglomeration continues to be path most media outlets are following.
*He is ambivalent about media culture.
Well, I'm pretty ambivalent about access media culture. Especially since most of it seems to be geared toward pandering to liberal activists. The simple fact of the matter is media will do whatever media must do to survive in a business environment. The lack of strong government regulation is what has turned most media into what it is today. There is no "fairness doctrine" in place any longer, outside of requiring media outlets to charge the lowest rate to any political candidate (but only during certain times of the year). There is no public-service requirement for licensing from the FCC any longer. There is no requirement for any station to grant a person equal time to respond to something they heard on the radio, or watched on TV.
I think that laying all the blame for this at the feet of the media culture is a mistake. It's time to realize the problem rests with a lack of education, and a trend toward apathy that simply cannot be pinned on the media. The problem runs deeper, as do the implications.
*The growth of civic journalism suggests a crisis in mainstream journalism today.
I think this is a very dangerous "post hoc" argument, but one which is very seductive. The growth of civic journalism may very well be the result of people beginning to realize they can now possess the tools for creating content which were before only available to businesses or individuals that could afford their enormous cost. To suggest that this growth is representative of some sort of "crisis" in mainstream journalism strikes me as a bit irresponsible, and more than a bit derogatory to the masses of hard-working journalists who do an excellent job each and every day. Statements like this one will not make many friends among those embattled journalists who are already struggling under the perception that they're members of a "liberal media elite". If anyting, such statements merely reinforce the belief that access activists are nothing more than loud, crybaby crackpots.
*Discourse is lacking, which will lead to a fear of disagreement and debate.
The only reason I marked this as an item of concern, is that I see it as evidence that there is a disconnect happening between "access culture" and the real world we live in. After all, isn't one of the primary reasons for a lack of minority programming from the black community in Salina because of the fear of some perceived reprisal for telling their stories? I've heard that from more than just one volunteer. If that's the case, then this problem is one that may very well be a "skeleton-in-the-closet" for our community...and something worthy of investigation.
In addition I find it odd to hear this message coming from a panel which is focusing on the purely negative aspects of current "media culture".
Seeing as I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut most days, tonight was no exception. I challenged the panel's vilification of "media culture" by asking it to defend the evolution of a liberally-biased "access culture". I also asked for their thoughts on Public Television, seemingly a sacred cow since no one mentioned it once during their presentations.
If franchise fees are dropping, and the lack of funds becoming more of a concern to access centers across the nation, doesn't anyone see the potential conflict which could arise between Public Television stations, and Public-access television stations?
Anyone who beautifies public radio or television over more mainstream media offerings may be in for a rude surprise. Public television has grown accustomed to the regular struggle to generate revenue and become more self-sufficient...access facilities have not. That could be the beginnings of a struggle which may very well leave the public in the losing corner.
Sometimes it feels like I'm taking crazy pills...
posted by Paul Green at 8:25 PM
3 Comments:
Paul, I wrote a longer post, then lost it.
BUT the gist was this: I think I can see why some there are concerned about the overwhelming amount of conservative comment on Access, although I would say it is more often religious, rather than just conservative.
However, this is even more a frustration, from my p.o.v., in the larger media, commercial radio/TV and other, and it's often a reflection of big money, often enshrined in conservative think tanks as well as in broadcast organizations.
I would hope that this would be less of a problem in non-commercial community media outlets, but we can't deny that conservative comment is there, as well.
That said, I heartily agree that we should not be in the business of filtering the content on community access media.
We should, however, be pushing for more in-depth discussion, for media that informs without propagandizing (realizing the propaganda can be in the eye of the beholder).
At any rate, thanks, Paul, for your updates on the plenaries and open forums!
David N.
What's the big deal about propoganda? All medium is propoganda at some level, whether conscious or unconscious. The key with an Access center is not that the center promotes diverse viewpoints or opinions, it's that the center fosters a culture that expects and values the promotion of diverse viewpoints and opinions by community members. This is what I see the value of Access as. It is inevitable that some politics creep into it (especially when it is governmentally funded), but as a whole, Access should only really care about ideological content if content from a certain point of view is overpowering the other content on the airwaves.
And what is the solution to that? No, it's not to try to make it difficult for the megaphone wielding groups to overwhelm the space. Nice guess, though. It's to foster the involvment of other volunteers, and not just those who would present an opposing point of view. About the last thing that I want Access to be is just a political shouting match.
Rather, from my point of view, Access needs to be about providing a place for people to engage other community members. That may be through interaction with other volunteers. That may be through political viewpoints expressed in a program. That may be through presentation of local events, like high school football. It may be through artistic endeavours. However it manifests itself, this is what I see as the real mission of Access, fostering community engagement.
Thanks for your comments, Russ. I think I should try to clarify. Although I think the right/left division is an important thing to analyze both nationally and locally, we do have to take a close look at local issues and discuss how they are affected by state/national trends. There can be no better example in my mind than our facing the loss of almost half our budget because of a state/national muscle flexing that seems beyond our control. Local solutions seem best, but often the most difficult.
I heartily agree with your very articulate statement about fostering community engagement. As you say in your last ΒΆ, this can take many forms.
My personal bias is that sports has its place in that arena, as many are interested in it, and it raises themes of self-reliance and personal fitness, not to mention competition.
However, we must encourage volunteers and staff to use the simple presentation of events as a starting point, sports or otherwise, to encourage discussion of events that impact us all.
This is by nature political. But not in a negative way. As you say, all mediums contain propaganda at some level, whether conscious or unconscious. When people talk about things that are significant to them, they will have a slant that comes from their own experience and understanding of the issues.
I'm simply advocating programming that allows more dialogue about those issues--and as you say, fosters community engagement.
This seems like the common ground we on the board should start from. And you've stated it very well.
David
Post a Comment
<< Home