The End of Public Access a Tragic Loss To Civil Society
It would be a tragic loss to civil society to lose Public, educational and governmental (”PEG”) access programming on cable systems. [“Unscripted Ending”] . The programming will never have network production values, nor should it, to remain accessible and affordable, yet it is rich in local content typically overlooked by slick news channels who thrive on tragedies and advertising. After the Cable lobby buffaloed Congress to effectively end rate and channel regulation in the l984, PEG access is left as the one way to have value returned out of cable’s monopoly rates; where it is a rugged outpost of vigorous public speech. Yes programs can be wild and crazy. Those who want pabulum can get hundreds of channels of it in the vast wasteland.
So long as most people get their news on TV, Internet sites are a poor substitute for PEG access. Contrary to the implication of the article, switching from local to state franchising does not preclude requirement of local PEG channels and services. Vermont switched in the 1970s and has over 20 vigorous local access operations authorized by State statute and overseen under Public Service Board Regulation.
The real agenda of Cable operators is not better regulation. Most neither like nor understand PEG access. The prefer an outdated model to buy programming and cram it down the wire. Most have vivid records of hostility to access requirements and lousy treatment of PEG operations. Beware any monopolist who whines about a “level playing field”– That’s a game the public will not win.
Samuel Press
Burlington VT 05401
The author was the Vermont Public Advocate in the 1980s and represented several local PEG channels.
on July 28th, 2008 at 3:28 am
I have been very active as a public access volunteer for several years. I am a media creative by trade and when I try to bring my skill set to public access television I am constantly shot down and discouraged from making a quality program in a variety of ways.
After all even though it is public access, it is still entertainment and it is still competing for market share. The fact that PAT is in trouble is proof that not enough attention was paid to quality production. The people that actually make a living in PAT only do as much as they have too in order to get by and keep their jobs.
Not only are there cheap, no quality and cheaper even less quality productions to contend with, there is also the problem of having to deal with employees within the public access system that by all accounts seem to be gate keepers for the left. I think this may be evident from the fact that people such Amy Goodman with Democracy Now get over a million dollars a year in grants and she still gets to qualify for free public access television and against the rules sells advertising for money, in other words she has paid sponsors which should disqualify her for public access television. That’s very much like something the Zionist owners of main stream television would encourage. I am not convinced that public access television is for the fair use of all people.
It appears as if public access tele is a scam that if there for a few folks to hustle for an easy job without having to worry much about quality or performance.
The sad thing is that the people do need a way to speak up. But there will have to be more emphasis put on quality if this is to ever succeed.
In short public access television has done this to it’s self. It has been consistent in lousy quality through and through. No one wants to watch the public access channels… simply because they are not good to watch. That’s the simple truth. If they were worth watching people would be demanding them.
The taste of public access is sour in the majority of people’s mind. The people that work for public access unfortunately think they are doing a great job. These folks are good folks but they are like most others and they only do what they have too.
The age old question here is, “who gives first?” Does the provider = tax or bill payer give money first? Or does the public access system put out quality first to prove ther worth then expect the money?
No one can be serious when they turn to a channel and see lousy music being played or a boring talk show by people that have neither talent or personality, or a day full of church events. None with any real quality of any kind. The standards are too low in public access television. The sound is usually horrible, as is the picture quality and there are no set designs encouraged to speak of. Wardrobes are not encouraged. The list goes on and on.