I love NPR. Adore it. That is the true godsend of my day job. I realized that I can happily carry on in the most mundane tasks if I have a steady stream of public talk radio in my ear. Where normally I would have gotten my daily dose of current events from skimming the metro on the T on the way to work each morning, now I get more streamlined information virtually all day long on a myriad of subjects: politics, history, science, opinion, the arts, anything I want.
All public media outlets like NPR and PBS are extremely, inexpressibly valuable to our cultural welfare. On a national level, there is virtually no qualitative difference between these and commercial stations (I mean in terms of production value - I prefer the content of public media). I only wish that local public stations were...how to put this sensitively...better. But of course that defeats the purpose of being public, doesn't it?
Not necessarily. The problem inherent in public access stations is that, when you let anyone do anything they want, the quality of programming goes so far down hill that no one watches the channel. Community or Public Access is amazing in theory, but usually fizzles in practice. I'm not suggesting that we restrict people or programs, no no no. That is what I love about public access. I think every municipality should have an open TV station, just like a library. Media technology is at the heart of mass information in this society, and we need to keep up, teach people how to be active participants, or at least literate viewers. No one really acknowledges how important that is.
A few years ago I was a production intern at Somerville Community Access. They were pretty happening as far as that sort of thing goes. I loved Critical Focus, which, despite understandably low production value, was always smart and earnest and engaging. I just wish I could take moments and shows like that, including shows which are really fully about the community, and grow them to occupy a larger time slot. Because the truth is, you turn on most local access TV and it's a near incomprehensible mumble of people who simply don't know how to use the medium. So no one ends up watching even the good stuff.
I've got no clear answers to how to fix this, and it's probably arguable that we should leave well enough alone. I certainly don't think we should restrict member's abilities to air programs based on quality; that defeats the very foundation of membership. However, I suspect that everyone who cares enough to submit programming would also care enough to make it good, so the problem of quality could be solved in a more grassroots manner. I think people ought to be trained better, and I think youth-produced programs should be more integral. I think people should really pro-actively pursue a means of filling up what is literally dead time (by which I mean the endless rotary of lime-green announcements with elevator music), with real, quality, intelligent, provocative television.
Here we have, in our hands, the golden means by which media can be produced without FCC interference, corporate control, commercial obligations, and large special interest agendas disconnected from the needs and concerns of real people in the community. Here we have the perfect outlet for real interaction, real education, unbiased (or totally biased) interpretations, free education, and just about the most unrestricted speech you can put on the screen. SCAT let any member or resident bring in programming and it would get aired. You could show virtually anything, and that is amazing. Why aren't more people taking advantage?
It also concerns me because pressures are mounting on these little stations. As far as I know, institutions like NPR and PBS are safe for the time being. But local programming, which in my mind is theoretically more awesome than national broadcasting, is feeling the weight of big conglomerate cable providers who no longer have to compete and thus no longer see the need to fund such trivial pursuits.
Even your local news affiliate is almost certainly controlled by New Corp., which not only owns a strikingly large share of global media, but is controlled by a strikingly small number of people. And lets just say Rupert isn't exactly a paragon of journalistic integrity. So if people don't start recognizing this, don't start truly engaging with the blessing that is public media, then they won't even notice when it's taken away from them.
I guess that's just what I'm worried about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Thank you, Grace, for your thoughtful writing on community media. I am the Executive Director of SCAT and it is nice to hear that you are still involved in media.
Some programs on public access have such a narrow audience that they may seem irrelevant, but that is actually a strength. You can't find them anywhere else. People put a lot of time and energy into making their shows, and they reach an audience that is especially tuned into their content, whether it is off-beat comedy, religious services, or non-English cultural shows. Other shows on public access are ultra-local community events and issues, which also are not found anywhere else. They are a way of fostering community conversations.
We are used to thinking that without a big audience a show is not worthwhile, and although I would like our channel to be widely viewed, I also respect the right of any resident to put out what they create regardless of the size of its appeal.
Post a Comment