And we can take it further… these can integrate with a new approach to community development and function as active centers of community mapping. The content we are producing is often a distilled map or conveys the community capacity for self-mapping. We need better mechanisms for sharing our maps.

1) Non-market, not business, value other than the profit motive, civic society.

2) The suckers, the chumps, the mass resource to be exploited.

Think of the saying “There is a difference between the public interest [#1] and what interests the public [#2]“. You can hear the sense-shift there.

Much of the New Media rhetoric is actually meaning #2, but is engineered to sound like meaning #1, and this can be very confusing.

One real example: In Saint Paul, a community of 280,000 people, our center does video training and low-cost (or no-cost) equipment loans to the entire community (it’s sort of a like a library…are we to get rid of them as well?).

The commercial value of the equipment loans alone is over $1m a year in my community. That doesn’t include the $ value of training, and other services to non-profits and community groups (this includes multiple types of production and distribution, including dvd, web, cable and broadcast).

GoogleVideo, YouTube, and other internet distribution vehicles don’t do that in my community. They provide a valuable distribution (and collaboration) medium, but they can’t replace a CMC.

Community Media Centers can increase educational training and build creative and economic value. Multiply out the value across U-S communities to look at the hidden benefit of access television, and don’t just concentrate on the channels and distribution.

One other note: I’ve been training citizen journalists for 15 years in the community radio and television movements. It’s kind of funny to hear people talk about training the public to do journalism as a new thing.

Keep in mind that PEG, like LPFM can be the most local of local media – narrowcasting to a small segment of the community, often in their own language. It can also follow broadcast models and there are many examples of national news and information programs that originate from PEG (Democracy Now, Gay USA, etc). In terms of diversity, more hours of PEG TV are produced by minority communities than by all the commercial networks – combined. So, if we want to talk seriously about the need for localism and diversity in media production – how could we ever consider eliminating PEG?

The problem with PEG is that it is only an option for cities to negotiate for – not a mandate. As a result PEG is uneven around the country in terms of penetration, models of operations, number of channels and facility capacity. In the best case scenarios, PEG is a vibrant and essential part of the local community, serving many functions, from town meetings to varied course offerings – including in new technologies. Worst case scenarios are cities with only channels run by the cable companies themselves – and who make it as difficult as possible for members of the public to participate. This explains why there are such differing perceptions of PEG.

Rather than dumping PEG as Dan suggests, our efforts should be directed toward leveraging and strengthening these resources. Many PEG centers have been allied with the CTC movement since the beginning – as well as public libraries. There’s no shortage of the types of innovations Dan is looking for – in many cities what he proposes is already happening and members of the public are web-casting and cable-casting their videos

Also, there really is no conflict between online video and existing models for PEG, in fact for those of us working in PEG – we see opportunities, not competition. And many finding success online, credit PEG with helping them get there (see: http://www.waxingamerica.com/2007/02/chad_vader_crea.html).

Michael

This is not a bloggers v. television producers, Internet v. cable, analog v. digital discussion. We have the same endgame in mind (the endgame being an informed and engaged society).

I prefer an empathetic stance – we, the alternative press – must stick together (sound the trumpets, I hear a “divided house” speech coming on).

So you’ll see endless proposals of the form: “Let’s give Big Corporate Media this sweetheart deal, because It’s A New Era and THE INTERNET”.

Because that will get echo by media interests, and the opposite … won’t.

Second time – it’s not about any particular person. It’s a systems effect.

On a practical matter, how do you propose in phasing out franchise television? On a state or federal policy level? That’s no better than what the cable corporations are lobbying for.

Cable Access Television has, over the past 30 years, been one of the most amazing examples of grassroots politics and localism. Maybe this is because small-town city councilors like seeing themselves on TV, but the fact that thousands of small towns and cities have independently negotiated for what they believe best serves their community is fantastic. To now proclaim that they can’t determine what is in their community’s best interest does them a great disservice.

If we believe that access to new media technologies is important, it should be our role to help *evolve* those stations and media centers that agree and try to *persuade* those that don’t.