Colin Rhinesmith

There was (the beginning of) an excellent discussion today on the future of public access TV at the Beyond Broadcast conference @ MIT. During one of the afternoon working groups, Dan Gillmor (Center for Citizen Media/Berkman Center) and Jason Crow (Cambridge Community Television) lead the conversation to “discuss the nature and future of public access in a broadband age.”

Danielle took excellent notes which are available on the Beyond Broadcast wiki. Here are some of the highlights (from Danielle):

“What is the goal? What do we want PEG access to look like? What should it do in the Internet age? How can we get there?

1. Follow Denver Open Media’s 6 point plan (all digital content, web-accessible, rating & categorization, licensing, bandwidth, close digital divide (access) )

2. Conquer the current lack of communication and organization as a nationwide movement

3. Do development and fundraising [online community media, project management, $$$]

4. Training and media education

—create a media toolkit for Public Access (based on Worcester model)”

On the wiki, you can also find a list of participants and a link to the original proposition from Dan Gillmor - “phasing out public access TV and replace it with something more attuned to the digital age”.

While it was great to be there with Dan and many folks from the PEG community (who are doing some innovative things with new technologies), I think there was definitely a missed opportunity for the group to come together and find common ground with which to move PEG forward in a digital age.

I would have liked to see more ideas upon which possibly a PEG Internet model could be established. Meaning, what might it look like? Where might its funding sources come from (if not from cable providers)? How might PEG Internet Centers differ from PEG TV Centers? What would this all really look like, feel like, and smell like?

Perhaps this was just the beginning of a much larger conversation, but I look forward to hearing more from folks both within and outside access who are taking a much broader look at opportunities for PEG access to not only exist, but connect, collaborate and participate in an Internet age.

Thanks to Dan for sparking the conversation and to the rest of the group for their contributions. I look forward to participating in further discussions on this topic.

Share This

My response (below) to the following question:

Is it possible for network encounters to exist outside of markets? Or is all networked activity commodified? Describe how you understand the influence of the market and consumer culture in the global Internet.

I understand the influence of the market and consumer culture in the global Internet from seeing the ways that individuals are using - and seeing the need - for the net outside these arenas.

I am very fortunate to be able to work at a research center where much of its mission is devoted to imagining non-market (as well as market) spaces where individuals can participate in informed debate on the Internet. Much of my thinking about these issues has been largely influenced by the many visionary thinkers (including Benkler) who have come there to share their work envisioning spaces where informed debate, and what Benkler describes as the “synthesis of public opinion,” can occur on the web.

This is why I am really interested and excited about the potential for a Public, Educational, and Governmental Access TV (cable access) model to exist on the Internet - where individuals in local communities can have access to “freedom of expression, media education, localism (enhancing local communications) and public service” (Fuller, 1994) opportunities using this “new” medium. It’s more important now than ever to consider these models as we are seeing the increasing commercialism in and consolidation of our digital environment.

Unfortunately, cable and telephone companies see the PEG TV model as a thorn in their sides, to say the least. They don’t want to be held accountable to local interests and local concerns. A corporation’s goal is profit maximization. We know this. And this has been helpful in many ways to provide individuals with incentives to create and innovate on the web.

Not all networked activity is commodified. However, I think the influence of the market and consumer culture will make it increasingly difficult for a PEG Internet and other non-market spaces to continue in the long-term on the web. We saw this with radio, with TV, with cable, and now the Internet. Wherever most people spend their time, the market will follow.

But, at least for now, the power of the web lies in its ability to give individuals - with access to the tools, skills, and knowledge - the ability to create, discuss, debate, and mobilize around common interests and common dreams.

Share This

We’ve got a del.icio.us feed set-up for our Digital Media Studies course this semester. The feed is del.icio.us/tag/vm663. It’s been a great resource outside of class that has provided greater context for our readings and in-class discussions. It’s also fun to see what other students in the class are reading and finding online.

Share This

It seems to me that a worthwhile project would be to start an oral history project for people who have worked in public access TV. A public online forum where access workers and producers can share stories about their experiences in cable access TV and the communities they served. A behind the scenes look at the people and places involved for archival purposes on the web and to share stories with others working in community media around the world.

I think this would be important for several reasons. Most importantly, it would be a great resource if we find ourselves without cable access TV in the future.

Share This

Haven’t been blogging here much lately, but I have been blogging over on my Emerson blog on their Learning Portals site. Using the blog has been a great way to share reading responses to class materials and to connect with and learn from other students, faculty, and staff at the College.

Below is a cross post of my most recent response to two of our readings for class, Bruno LaTour’s “The Sociology of a Door” and the intro to Henry Jenkins Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.

Question: How does LaTour’s concept of deskilling explain what Jenkin’s calls “convergence culture”? In other words, does convergence require a reduction of skills? If not, how has convergence reframed the common user experience of media?

Jenkins mentions the word “skills” 6 times in the introduction to his book, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, in reference to the new skills that people will gain, or will have to gain, in a convergence culture. He explains that new consumer/participants in a culture of convergence (or rather, in his words, those who gain “a fuller mastery over the conceptual skills that consumers have developed in response to media convergence”) will be able to better navigate the changes that convergence culture is having on “work, education, and politics.”

If in a convergence culture people will be, as Jenkins explains, “encouraged to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content” then where/among whom might the deskilling be occurring in this new culture?

What I would call Traditional Media Producers (TMPs) - particularly newspaper and broadcast journalists and their editors, publishers and owners - are being deskilled by those participating in this convergence culture. TMPs are having to learn how to “read back” to the audience - as is the case with newspaper reporters who increasingly get their information from bloggers or TV producers responding to fan-fiction audiences. TMPs are the ones struggling to keep up with the changes in technology (and how people are using technology) and to find new business models in order to best respond to their intended (and unintended) audiences.

TMPs are losing control over their audience as a result of convergence culture. Jenkins writes “More and more, industry leaders are returning to convergence as a way of making sense of a moment of disorienting change.”

My fear in the deskilling of TMPs, such as newspaper or broadcast journalists, is that, in the hopes for survival in a convergence culture, they will be forced to compromise their integrity and standards. For example, the Center for Citizen Media, is looking for people to help them create learning modules for citizen journalists, including “1) thoroughness, 2) accuracy, 3) fairness, 4) transparency and 5) independence.” Modules such as these would not be necessary non-TMPs already had a grasp of these concepts. My concern is that traditional journalists will realize that if non-TMPs are not held as accountable on the basis of thoroughness, accuracy, fairness, transparency and independence than TMPs themselves will not hold their own work to the same level of scrutiny.

Jenkins writes that “the skills we acquire through play may have implications for how we learn, work, participate in the political process, and connect with other people around the world.”

My hope is that TMPs and non-TMPs alike will find a balance, learn to listen, collaborate with, and trust one another in a convergence culture where navigating the terrain between thoroughness, accuracy, fairness, transparency and independence in information production and distribution is more important than ever before.

Share This