WORKSHOP SESSION TWO
PEG in a Shifting Media Landscape
I decided, on the urging of several people I met here at the conference, to attend this second session of the Emerging Media track, rather than the storytelling track I'd considered earlier. I'm glad I did. The conversation was very lively, and in the brief time I have to update this blog, there's no way I can truly do it justice.
The premise of the workshop is as follows:
New technologies are creating new challenges and opening up new opportunities for
community media. Production and distribution resources are now in the hands of many in our communities. At the same time, the telecommunications industry is changing rapidly, causing community media entities to rethink their roles.
Moderator:?Felicia Sullivan, UMass, Lowell
Speakers:
Hans Klein, Georgia Tech
Susie Lindsay, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School
Michael Eisenmenger, Manhattan Neighborhood Network?Fred Johnson, The Community Media and Technology Program.
Felicia asked the questions, and I've noted just the briefest outlines of replies from the panelists. I was typing hunched over on a conference chair, so please forgive any typos...I'll get them cleaned up in the near future.
1. What kind of skills and resources will we need in the future?
Hans - how does new technology contribute to the relationship between a station manager and his governmental authority?
Any technology which makes the relationship stronger should be embraced.
Michael - Access Centers need full-time IT staff. Investigate PEGspace. A development person is crucial to help with fundraising.
Susie - There is not much choice beyond moving to an internet-centered environment.
Fred - it is urgent to begin moving staff, board and volunteers toward communicating in an electronic environment. Use blogs, e-mail lists, etc. Google ÂRichard FloridaÂ. Access in a state of irrevocable change.
Michael - Map the community.Findnd out needs and allocate resources according to them, build partnerships, and work to build on services that other non-profits offer without duplicating them.
2. What are the roles an access center should fill in a changing digital landscape?
Hans - understand the new media. Educate and train the public how to use the new digital resources in their lives. Investigate how to bring disparate media producers together to form a geographic community.
Susie - the local community media channel should be used as a bullhorn, while the internet carries the majority of individual messages and media. Become a moderator and help build the digital community within a community.
Fred - become a facilitator and trainer, begin to leverage more community communications tools. Investigate economic development money available as a media employer in the community.
3. What do new technologies mean for the audience, and how do they affect what we think about the audience and viewers.
Hans - There is a current difficulty in connecting with the audience. The problem with "appointment viewing" is that not every program is effective at reaching its audience because of a lack of awareness about when and where to find the program. Internet-based communications are not isolated in time, that information can be accessed by any viewer at any time.
Susie - the audience can become part of the production process. viewers are able to progressively interact with the producers of the program. open source radio. simple call-in shows.
Michael - internet models can be very expensive propositions for hardware, software, and staff.
Fred - does not like the term PEG Access. live television is still one of the most important resources an access center has to offer its constituency. live radio should be another important component.
4. How does the attrition of localism to globalism contribute to our future?
Hans - it's a matter of choice. Some technology forces you to be local, while others make it an option.
Fred - if there are people in your community, they probably have already developed their own on-line digital communities.
Michael - offer video conferencing with other countries from your facilities.
5. What do new tools mean for the tradition of protecting the first amendment?
Hans - the most interesting form of free speech is "speaking truth to power". This needs to be encouraged at a very fundamental level for everyone in a community.
Hans - there is a trend to flatten out the organizational model from a top-down hierarchy to a flat voluntary model.
Paul Green's Question from the Crowd:
Can an access organization afford to ignore becoming adopters of emerging technologies? Is television slowly becoming less relevant to our constituencies? Can an access organization afford to focus its resources on a television-based model of communications?
Fred - future access trainees should be required to develop and create a project before getting trained in order to avoid wasted training and vanity tv. (There was some significant discussion and dissension about this particular comment)
Susie - look at what community media was set up to achieve. Television is no longer the primary tool used for communication at the community level.
Hans - these are the questions which are being considered, nationwide...and the answers are not yet clear.
Fred - wants to keep the high-resolution space. Performance standards need to be established so communication can become more effective between groups and individuals.
Michael - everything is cheaper now than in the past. Access centers should be training centers. Centers should invest in people, rather than equipment.
The overall feeling from the panelists was this:
Both the perceptions of access facilities, and the reality of their missions are not necessarily converging for the benefit of their communities. That is to say more simply...access centers need to embrace, adopt, and more importantly begin training their members how to exploit new technologies in order to communicate and build community. I have several pages of notes about this track, and I'll update this post as soon as possible.
PEG in a Shifting Media Landscape
I decided, on the urging of several people I met here at the conference, to attend this second session of the Emerging Media track, rather than the storytelling track I'd considered earlier. I'm glad I did. The conversation was very lively, and in the brief time I have to update this blog, there's no way I can truly do it justice.
The premise of the workshop is as follows:
New technologies are creating new challenges and opening up new opportunities for
community media. Production and distribution resources are now in the hands of many in our communities. At the same time, the telecommunications industry is changing rapidly, causing community media entities to rethink their roles.
Moderator:?Felicia Sullivan, UMass, Lowell
Speakers:
Hans Klein, Georgia Tech
Susie Lindsay, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School
Michael Eisenmenger, Manhattan Neighborhood Network?Fred Johnson, The Community Media and Technology Program.
Felicia asked the questions, and I've noted just the briefest outlines of replies from the panelists. I was typing hunched over on a conference chair, so please forgive any typos...I'll get them cleaned up in the near future.
1. What kind of skills and resources will we need in the future?
Hans - how does new technology contribute to the relationship between a station manager and his governmental authority?
Any technology which makes the relationship stronger should be embraced.
Michael - Access Centers need full-time IT staff. Investigate PEGspace. A development person is crucial to help with fundraising.
Susie - There is not much choice beyond moving to an internet-centered environment.
Fred - it is urgent to begin moving staff, board and volunteers toward communicating in an electronic environment. Use blogs, e-mail lists, etc. Google ÂRichard FloridaÂ. Access in a state of irrevocable change.
Michael - Map the community.Findnd out needs and allocate resources according to them, build partnerships, and work to build on services that other non-profits offer without duplicating them.
2. What are the roles an access center should fill in a changing digital landscape?
Hans - understand the new media. Educate and train the public how to use the new digital resources in their lives. Investigate how to bring disparate media producers together to form a geographic community.
Susie - the local community media channel should be used as a bullhorn, while the internet carries the majority of individual messages and media. Become a moderator and help build the digital community within a community.
Fred - become a facilitator and trainer, begin to leverage more community communications tools. Investigate economic development money available as a media employer in the community.
3. What do new technologies mean for the audience, and how do they affect what we think about the audience and viewers.
Hans - There is a current difficulty in connecting with the audience. The problem with "appointment viewing" is that not every program is effective at reaching its audience because of a lack of awareness about when and where to find the program. Internet-based communications are not isolated in time, that information can be accessed by any viewer at any time.
Susie - the audience can become part of the production process. viewers are able to progressively interact with the producers of the program. open source radio. simple call-in shows.
Michael - internet models can be very expensive propositions for hardware, software, and staff.
Fred - does not like the term PEG Access. live television is still one of the most important resources an access center has to offer its constituency. live radio should be another important component.
4. How does the attrition of localism to globalism contribute to our future?
Hans - it's a matter of choice. Some technology forces you to be local, while others make it an option.
Fred - if there are people in your community, they probably have already developed their own on-line digital communities.
Michael - offer video conferencing with other countries from your facilities.
5. What do new tools mean for the tradition of protecting the first amendment?
Hans - the most interesting form of free speech is "speaking truth to power". This needs to be encouraged at a very fundamental level for everyone in a community.
Hans - there is a trend to flatten out the organizational model from a top-down hierarchy to a flat voluntary model.
Paul Green's Question from the Crowd:
Can an access organization afford to ignore becoming adopters of emerging technologies? Is television slowly becoming less relevant to our constituencies? Can an access organization afford to focus its resources on a television-based model of communications?
Fred - future access trainees should be required to develop and create a project before getting trained in order to avoid wasted training and vanity tv. (There was some significant discussion and dissension about this particular comment)
Susie - look at what community media was set up to achieve. Television is no longer the primary tool used for communication at the community level.
Hans - these are the questions which are being considered, nationwide...and the answers are not yet clear.
Fred - wants to keep the high-resolution space. Performance standards need to be established so communication can become more effective between groups and individuals.
Michael - everything is cheaper now than in the past. Access centers should be training centers. Centers should invest in people, rather than equipment.
The overall feeling from the panelists was this:
Both the perceptions of access facilities, and the reality of their missions are not necessarily converging for the benefit of their communities. That is to say more simply...access centers need to embrace, adopt, and more importantly begin training their members how to exploit new technologies in order to communicate and build community. I have several pages of notes about this track, and I'll update this post as soon as possible.
posted by Paul Green at 1:09 PM
5 Comments:
Dave H. here. I came away from last year's conference with basically this feeling. We cannot just do TV and expect that we will survive 10 or 15 years down the road. Of paramount importance is convincing the city that franchise fees should be used for "community media" purposes, not just for TV. Next is raising money, becuase who knows, franchise fees and access channels could be a thing of the past sooner than anyone might think. Third is getting the pulse of the community to see how they would use new media, and tailor our efforts accordingly. Eventually I see a community access center that does not have a space on "TV," but has an increasingly important presence on the Internet. Maybe it will be 20 years before we truly reach that scenario, but I think we need to see the writing on the wall and embrace the new technologies now.
I simply cannot agree with you more. What I find troubling is that the cable operators have already established a precedent for removing "information services" from the franchise equation.
This makes it doubly difficult to fund, but doubly as important to convince our city leaders of its vital importance.
I do not in any way feel that your concern about franchise fees and access channels is in any way misplaced. But the wheels of the national organization grind slowly...and cable tv franchises seem to be the sacred cows which keep many of these organizations from thinking outside the box when it comes to serving their communities.
This is how I see it:
Access currently gets 40% of the franchise fee, and the city gets 60%. What does the city do with that 60%? It puts it into the general fund, and gets used for various things like fixing potholes, paying police, etc. So if the city can use those funds for anything it wants, why on earth shouldn't Access use those funds for anything it wants? Now, such funds should be used in conjunction with our mission, but you see my point: our mission should be more than just TV now. For the city to say we can only use those funds to do TV is arbitrary and perhaps even exhibits a double standard. I don't think the cable company would have a dog in the fight - they have to pay the franchise fee whether or not there is an access center in existence, and they cannot restrict how the city spends that money.
The other concern here, which perhaps I did not make clear, is that I think the telcos will keep pounding away legislatively and at the regulatory level until IPTV is declared not subject to franchise fees, and PEG channels are no longer required to be carried on video systems. That might take 15-20 years, but once that happens, community media is on its own, and the Internet plays a *huge* role in getting grassroots messages out. The concept of an organization/website being a "trusted guide" to citizen content, and being a resource center for those with messages to distribute, will be highly important in maintaining legitimacy and, indeed, the very survival of organizations like Access.
That's why it's so important to embrace these new technologies, not as a substitute, but as a complement to the current television operation which has served Salina well for the past 13 years. Hopefully the city will be forward-thinking enough to agree.
Paul - could you elaborate some more on Fred Johnson's comments to your question? I'm not quite following what the 'High-Resolution' space would be. I understand it in a technical context, but I'm wondering if it's a metaphorical construct for something else? I'm also interested in what the discussion following his fist response was.
As much of a proponent of the internet as a content medium as I am, I can't help but think that entirely abandoning a broadcast/cablecast method of content delivery is also misguided.
I don't share the general enthusiam for IPTV, just because of bandwidth concerns. Right now, your cable provider shoves all of the channels down your neighborhood pipe. It's a relatively low-bandwidth, low-interactivity type of connection. With content-on-demand, which is what most people are expecting out of IPTV, your bandwidth usage soars - probably exponentially. I haven't read any tech specs on IPTV, so I may be way off, but I would not expect it to take off too rapidly.
Susie seems to be a huge internet partisan. I can see many of her points, but I think that many of the young, hip, internet dependent coastal populations in America don't understand the differing rate of technology adoption by the average citizen here in midwestern America.
Also, I feel that on some levels the idea of a community gate-keeper on the internet requires first-mover advantage. I worry that Access has lost that advantage, between the 'traditional' media outlets in our community, and sites like youTube in the video distribution area. Having said that, if Access can foster a higher level of dialog and production values than the cesspool that is YouTube, I think we'll be doing well.
Russ -
Fred Johnson is very centered on keeping access as a cable-centric medium. He doesn't want the emphasis shifted from a cable television model to an internet-based model. The "high-resolution" comment comes from the fact that broadcast and cable channels are each allowed to use a 6 MHz bandwidth in which to transmit their audio/video signals. That bandwidth provides enough space for the extreme clarity of picture, and the associated transmission of audio and color information with broadcast television. The bigger the pipe, the more information you can send.
I can see where one would take his comment to be a metaphorical statement about access television, but unfortunately that would be taking that comment out of context.
My point of view, and that of others in the emerging media track, was that instead of a narrow fixation on access as that cable-centered medium, we should begin to rapidly diversify and begin teaching our volunteers on a massive scale how to use internet-based technologies to supplement their existing television work.
Quite frankly, there are some volunteers who might find it easier and more convenient to use those IP-centered technologies than those offered by our current access model. Neither I, nor anyone else at the conference, suggested we should abandon our television approach - but rather start offering services, training, and events that cater to those who would rather participate in a community media mission that includes technology that is both appropriate and interesting to them.
Why exclude people who enjoy blogging, video-blogging or podcasting from our membership? Simply because they don't use the same medium doesn't mean they don't share the same ideals and goals of communication and free speech.
Practically all of the new electronic producers who presented at the conference remarked at how they never even thought of Access as a place for them, until their local centers began reaching out and inviting them to become part of a wider community of media makers.
As far as IPTV is concerned, I can't see its ultra-rapid deployment occurring inside the next five years or so. Bandwidth and server capacity need to grow in order to satisfy wide-scale demand.
But that WILL happen. Whether it's with the current IPTV scheme, or another developing technology is uncertain. But when telcos start picking away at regulatory authority, you can pretty much depend on the fact they have SOMETHING that's in the wings, waiting for test-marketing and deployment.
Another interesting point raised during the give and take with the audience was the redefinition of "community". By providing tools, training and support, we make it possible for our volunteers to not only reach out and touch audiences outside our cable market - but we allow them to network socially with other access producers, as well.
The dividends paid through the investment in training alone promise some pretty interesting things.
Post a Comment
<< Home