All pages of this site copyright John W. Higgins 1994. Permission is granted to use these materials for non-commercial, educational purposes, with proper citation.

For a text version of Chapter 1. Not yet available.

CHAPTER I

OVERVIEW

The Visions of Public Access

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, two emerging technologies were viewed as having the potential to solve a variety of societal inequities in North American societies. Portable video equipment and large channel capacity cable television were promoted by a variety of disparate social groups in the United States as providing a "voice for the voiceless"--an electronic First Amendment, of sorts. These ideas arose, in part, from experiments with film, video, and social change in Canada.⁽¹⁾

The U.S. visionaries believed that the inequities caused by monopoly-dominated broadcasting might be partially corrected by the establishment of video centers accessible by the public, with related channels on cable television. "Public access," or "community television," was to provide the structure necessary for video training, as well as a distribution system for community-produced programs.

Public access was to help address some of the social problems of the period, many of which stemmed in part from a fundamental distrust of centralized social institutions and a widespread belief that people were unable to make a difference in the society. Community television was perceived as an alternative that addressed the monopoly-dominated, profit-driven mainstream media's stranglehold on the electronic exchange of ideas. Public access was to encourage a grassroots "diversity of ideas," where citizens would express their First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, and the republic would benefit from the open exchange of views.⁽²⁾

This vision of a "diversity of ideas" also involved other utopian visions--in particular, that of individual and group empowerment. In this vision, empowerment meant becoming aware of one's self, others, and society, and, after one had a "voice," actively working to influence society.⁽³⁾

This empowerment was to take place, in part, through training in video production. Learning to create television programs would demystify the media as individuals became aware of media structure and influence. Participating in the production of television programs would lead to a "media literacy" as individuals learned how to "read" media codes.⁽⁴⁾

These production and interpretation skills would not only allow persons to become more discriminating viewers, but would also allow them to actively speak out in the media--exercising their First Amendment liberties, and contributing to an electronic "marketplace of ideas."

These visions of diversity and empowerment through participation in public access cable television were shared by practitioners, academics, and others engaged in discussions of public access. They are visions widely accepted today. However, they are not uncontested. Critiques of the diversity and the empowerment dimensions of the community television philosophy are briefly explored below; some of these critiques are addressed more fully in this study.

Critiques of the Diversity Vision

The diversity vision of public access is questioned primarily on two grounds: (1) it rests on fallacious and naive traditional liberal democratic assumptions; and (2) it privileges the quantity of expression over the quality of ideas.⁽⁵⁾

Liberal Democratic Assumptions
One problem with the diversity vision is that it rests on the dubious ability of an electronic "marketplace of ideas" to correct societal inequities. The vision is based on liberal democratic ideology and focuses on pluralist assumptions regarding the nature of truth and structures by which truth will emerge, the dichotomy of the individual against society, and the nature of power.

A critique of pluralist assumptions--particularly those underlying the freedom of speech guarantees of the First Amendment--argues that there is no one objective "truth," and that even the emergence of multiple "truths" is not necessarily facilitated by the conflict implied within the "clash of ideas." Rather, cooperative structures may expedite a collective discovery and/or construction of "truth."

A related critique addresses liberal democratic assumptions that pit the individual against the collective; these overlook the dialectical nature of the individual and the societal grouping of which he or she is a part.

A final critique of the liberal democratic tradition is that, contrary to naive pluralist ideology regarding the nature of power, power operates covertly, is unequally distributed within society, and does not always work for the common good. As such, a diversity of ideas and/or "personal expression" will do little to address basic societal inequities.

Freedom of Speech and Public Access
Other critiques of the diversity vision connect traditional liberal democratic discussions of freedom of speech issues directly with public access. One assessment argues that the diversity vision's traditional focus on community television as a vehicle for personal expression perpetuates a pluralist myth of individualism mentioned above.

Another critique, originating from within the pluralist framework, says that public access's emphasis on individual expression privileges the quantity of ideas in any context, rather than the quality of ideas raised while discussing public issues, both political and cultural. The critique argues that a diversity of voices does not necessarily equate a diversity of ideas.

Critiques of the Diversity Vision and This Study
The critiques described above--liberal democratic assumptions and freedom of speech and public access--are addressed in this study insofar as they relate to the structural critiques of the empowerment vision discussed below.

There are five grounds for challenging the empowerment vision of public access: (1) there is little attention paid to definitions and discussions of terms; (2) a causal relationship is implied among media literacy, demystification, and empowerment; (3) the assumptions are untested; (4) there is little attention paid to the procedure by which the vision is to be implemented; and (5) on a macro level, the vision does not address the structural changes necessary to correct societal inequities.⁽⁶⁾

Only a few of these critiques have been selected for inclusion in this study, as discussed below.

Unexplicated Definitions
The public access empowerment vision lacks a depth of discussion as to the definition of terms such as "empowerment," "media literacy," and "media demystification." In addition, there is little discussion of the constituent elements of these terms.⁽⁷⁾ This problem will be addressed more fully later in this chapter, as well as in chapter 2.

Causal Relationship
The public access vision of empowerment implies a mechanistic, causal model of the effects of video training. In this model, video training leads to media literacy that leads to media demystification that results in empowerment. This model is similar to dated models of communication that suppose media effects; such models do not take into account the context and intent of the persons on the "receiving" end of video training. There very well may be connections between video training, media literacy, media demystification, and empowerment; however, the richness of the interaction between these and other elements speaks to a more interesting and complex exchange than that provided by an effects model.⁽⁸⁾

The connections between media literacy, media demystification, and empowerment are the focus of this study and will be explored in depth throughout this project.

Untested Assumptions
Given this causal model, a related drawback to the vision of correcting societal inequities through video training and public access is that the assumptions of empowerment through media literacy and media demystification remain untested. Despite more than two decades during which public access cable television has existed in the United States, extensive research has revealed no studies that have investigated the question of empowerment through video training.⁽⁹⁾

This study directly addresses this lack of empirical research, from the perspective of the community producer.

Unexplicated Procedures
Further, there seems to be no real concern given to implementation: critics suggest that for a link to exist between video training and empowerment, it must be forged consciously by the trainer and/or trainee. A discussion of the methods that may encourage empowerment to take place are notably absent from the public access discourse. While this important issue must be addressed at some point by researchers operating within this field, an investigation into the specific procedures by which empowerment may be encouraged is beyond the focus of this dissertation.

Absence of Structural Focus
Another critique of the empowerment vision is that, while the correction of societal inequities requires structural changes, the solution through video production training is too technology-driven. This raises serious ideological issues that question the utility of public access and other institutions that are seen to provide only a superficial approach to needed structural change. This discussion is related to the critique of pluralist assumptions mentioned above, and is addressed more fully in chapter 2.

General Focus of This Study

The diversity and empowerment visions of community television are intertwined. For this study, the goals of a diversity of views for personal expression and democratic progress are conceptualized within the larger framework of empowerment, which includes personal enrichment, social awareness, and social activism.

The focus of this study is on the empowerment vision of public access. In particular, the study tests the empowerment vision as it relates to the experiences of community producers.

The critiques of the empowerment vision outlined above suggest the following procedures: (1) define empowerment as it might be approached through media literacy and demystification; (2) test for evidence that public access training leads to media literacy, and that this literacy results in media demystification and some level of empowerment; and (3) test for evidence of structural change. As discussed later in this chapter, for the purposes of this study, structural change is considered the highest level of empowerment.

The procedures outlined above have defined the general focus of this study. Chapters 1 and 2 investigate and define the key terms "media literacy," "media demystification," and "empowerment." Chapter 3 describes and outlines the methodology utilized in the test for empowerment. Chapters 4 and 5 provide quantitative and qualitative analyses of data, probing the connections between media literacy, demystification, and empowerment. Finally, chapter 6 presents conclusions and a summary of the test for empowerment addressed by this study.

Importance of the Study: An Initial Statement

Despite over two decades of widespread activity by public access volunteers and community producers, channel managers, policy lobbyists, city administrators, and cable operators, little formal research has addressed the questions and concerns of this active practice. The public access movement operates within a framework of public telecommunications policy on the national and local levels, and is often called upon to provide evidence that public access does provide benefits for citizens--including empowerment and the correction of some societal inequities. This study will help define and determine the validity of some of these claims of public access.

In addition, the view of technology as a panacea for social ills, which permeates aspects of the public access movement, is prevalent today in forecasts related to the National Information Infrastructure (NII), commonly called the "information superhighway." Yesterday's liberating technologies were video and cable television; today's emancipatory technologies are to be the computer and data networks. This study's investigation into the claims of the empowering nature of yesterday's technologies will shed light on the potential of those of tomorrow.⁽¹⁰⁾

This study will also contribute to discussions of media literacy and its relative value in promoting critical viewing, thinking, and action; of the applicability of critical pedagogy theories to adults within a lifelong learning situation; and of First Amendment discussions regarding the manner in which diversity is framed in everyday life.

Within media education and critical pedagogy, this study will forward empirical data to what heretofore have been theories supported primarily by anecdotal evidence.

Informing the Vision
In review, the public access "literature" makes the following assertions relevant to this study:⁽¹¹⁾

1. Public access participation allows for the acquisition of media literacy skills, which help to "demystify" the workings of the media.

2. These skills allow the participants to empower themselves through critical awareness and critical action; action includes the exercise of freedom of speech guarantees.

This dissertation will focus on the implementation of a utopian vision of empowerment within public access. As noted previously, public access does not fully explicate its notion of empowerment, nor does the movement advance a theoretic or procedure by which the ideal of empowerment might be achieved through video production.

However, these aspects are addressed by scholars within the domains of media education and critical pedagogy. Each will be reviewed in turn, in this chapter, only insofar as they serve the research purpose of this dissertation. In the next chapter, each of these areas of literature will be reviewed on its own terms, and in some detail.

Fleshing out the Vision of Empowerment Through Video
Two areas of concern arise in making the public access empowerment vision more overt: (1) What is empowerment? and (2) What are the foci of empowerment related to visual literacy and media demystification? The first question is directed primarily by scholars operating within the literature of critical pedagogy, a branch of educational reform that emphasizes the emancipatory aspects of education and lifelong learning. The second question is directed by authors within the literature of media education.⁽¹²⁾

Empowerment. One of the difficulties found in the public access, critical pedagogy, and media education literatures used in this study is that what constitutes empowerment stands very much in contest. Some literatures indicate that awareness, or cognition, is sufficient for empowerment. Others state that awareness alone is insufficient, and that there must be action that attempts to change the nature of the power relationships in society. Still others take a more intermediary position, suggesting that empowerment has to do with the individual's awareness that he or she can control and move his or her own life, as well as any evidence that the individual attempts to do so, in any arena.

While neither the media education nor the critical pedagogy literatures reviewed for this study directly address definitions of empowerment or consider its constituent elements, a view of empowerment does emerge from work in both fields.

Clearly, it is the critical pedagogy literature that provides the most help in defining and pinpointing what will be defined as empowerment in this dissertation.⁽¹³⁾ However, even within this literature there exists enormous contest. The debate essentially revolves around the issue of where empowerment begins or ends, and addresses whether empowerment can involve merely awareness or must proceed to personal life action or to societal action as well. All sources agree that empowerment involves some kind of cognitive action, although this is sometimes described as self-awareness, or reflection.⁽¹⁴⁾

The work of Paulo Freire forms a foundation for literature in the critical pedagogy field. Freire's primary concern was to help oppressed peoples achieve "praxis"--a critical awareness he defines as based on self-reflection and linked with action to transform the social world. Many contemporary critical pedagogists, while basing their work on Freire, seem to have allowed the stringent criterion of societal action to recede from their purview. Instead, these authors tend to emphasize only the critical awareness aspect of empowerment; awareness may or may not then translate into some sort of personal or social action.⁽¹⁵⁾

However, these critical pedagogists are closer to Freire's concept of critical awareness. Freire's critical awareness is not merely cognition, nor is it limited to learning for learning's sake. Instead, critical awareness is reflection on one's place in societal arrangements, with a distinction between the action of reflection and the action of cognition.

This study will utilize both constructions of awareness: that of mere cognition, and the more complex reflection. The former is directed primarily by the media education literature discussed below; the latter is guided primarily by Freire as well as other critical pedagogists such as Giroux and McLaren.

Freire's concept of action is considered primarily within the societal realm, and not directly focused on action in the personal arena; however, the aspect of self-reflectivity does imply some personal orientation--toward oneself and toward others. In contrast, the action required by the less stringent critical pedagogists is primarily within the realm of awareness, requiring little or no action within the personal or societal arenas.

A portion of the dissimilarity between the approaches to critical pedagogy issues may be related to context. Freire's emphasis was on adult learners outside the education system, while the majority of contemporary authors in critical pedagogy are working primarily within the context of university and secondary school education.

Further complicating the discussion of empowerment as it regards this study, critical pedagogy does not consider empowerment within the context of media production. However, the media education literature does specifically connect critical pedagogical concepts with video and audio production.

Foci of Video Empowerment. Many of the ideas within the media education literature are related to traditional education reform movements--areas related to critical pedagogy, but absent the emancipatory aspects advanced by critical pedagogists. Traditional media education tends to avoid the discussions of power, ideology, and representation found in the more contemporary critical media education. This emerging critical media education draws from critical pedaoggy, but its connection is with the less stringent of the contemporary critical pedagogists. Both schools of media education tend to be oriented toward institutional education.⁽¹⁶⁾

The selected literature within traditional and critical media education tends toward a view of empowerment that is narrower than most found within critical pedagogy. Media education tends to consider empowerment primarily as awareness, and awareness almost exclusively as cognition. The literature assumes that cognition is empowerment, and is facilitated by media production, which can then lead to personal and/or societal action. Within the literature, the domain of focus for empowerment is often truncated in terms of pertaining solely to media and media structure, impact, production techniques, and the symbolic logic underpinning production canon.

Regarding these concerns, the media education literature--both traditional and critical--is enormously rich in detailing the foci of attention for empowerment within a production context. In particular, media education helps delineate the constituent elements of media literacy and media demystification related to this rather narrow consideration of empowerment.⁽¹⁷⁾

The media education literature shares a measure of the public access vision of a technological utopia, defines a more narrow concept of empowerment as cognition (and sometimes reflection) than that found in the critical pedagogy literature, and addresses teaching and training methods by which media production might lead to empowerment.

The traditional media education literature, particularly in its initial stages in the 1960s and 1970s, is inclined to be more atheoretical than theoretical when approaching media literacy and media demystification. Traditional media education tends toward lists of component items that might constitute media encoding or decoding skills; there are relatively few works that take a conceptual organizing focus and try to organize these lists to higher levels of abstraction.⁽¹⁸⁾

It is the emergent critical media education literature that provides self-reflectiveness and more sophisticated analyses.⁽¹⁹⁾ Taken as a whole, media education tends to be a tumultuous body of literature; it is a literature in flux.

For the purposes of this study, both approaches to media education provide ingredients by which the public access vision of empowerment through media literacy and media demystification might be evaluated. The overall media education literature provides dimensions of attention that are important to consider for a test of the public access vision.

In particular, the media education literature emphasizes (1) the elements of video production canon, including the techniques by which programs are constructed; (2) the symbolic logic of that canon, including values implemented when the canon is used, and media impact; (3) media organization, including the structure and operation of media organizations on both a macro (e.g., network television) and a micro (e.g., production team) level; and (4) social, political, and economic spheres and their interrelationships with the mass media.

Accordingly, the media education literature attends to the cognitive aspects of media literacy and media demystification as well as to the production aspects of empowerment, which takes these awarenesses procedurally into production.

The Road Map
The above discussion frames the literatures of public access, critical pedagogy, and media education as they relate to the public access vision of empowerment. The public access movement shares with media education and critical pedagogy claims to empowerment through, among other things, video training. Together, these three fields make it possible to flesh out the vision of public access and subsequently evaluate the implementation of this vision.

Within this context, the public access literature provides a broad vision of empowerment through media production training. In so doing, the literature might be viewed as providing destination points on a larger "road map." The vision road map is characterized by the following formula:

media literacy ---> media demystification = empowerment (awareness of self, others, and society; action to change relationships in these areas)

The media education literature provides elements that direct the implementation of the public access vision. Thus, the literature provides specific directions to connecting the points on the public access "map."

The critical pedagogy literature provides depth to concepts raised by both the public access and media education literatures. It also provides an indication of the method of inquiry to pursue. Accordingly, critical pedagogy contributes a rationale behind the map itself, a refinement of the directions connecting the points on the map, and the key--or rule book--required to read the map. The methodological aspects of this rule book will be considered in chapter 3.

For the purposes of this study, the "map" to be utilized is a chart consisting of the related dimensions of empowerment and foci within a video production context.

The Video Empowerment Chart

The intersection of the relevant elements of the media education and critical pedagogy literatures as discussed above results in the video empowerment chart, which provides a grid for organizing these literatures (see Figure 1).

In addition, this chart provides a framework from which to evaluate data collected during this study in order to qualify as a test of empowerment, as discussed in chapter 3.

The chart lays out the spheres of empowerment and the ingredients of cognition, reflection, and action within these realms. It also lays out the dimensions of attention that will allow a test of the public access vision, and thus becomes a guiding focus for this dissertation.

The Empowerment Domain
On the chart, the horizontal axis addresses the areas within which empowerment takes place, as directed by the critical pedagogy and media education literatures. These include the production, personal, and societal spheres.

Production is related to the construction of video programs. It is a narrow category, focusing on discussion of programs or program genres.

Personal relates to one's own life or to relationships with one's close "others," or more distant "others"--including persons on the production crew, workmates, etc.

Societal refers to power arrangements of the societal sphere, but outside the production and personal spheres. This includes social and media systems--beyond the narrow "production" category.

"Power relationships" refers to a critical definition of power, which includes challenging/ questioning social and media systems. The societal domain is closest to the Freirean concepts of reflection and action.

The horizontal axis provides the domains of empowerment as extrapolated from the critical pedagogy literature: personal and societal spheres. The media education literature directs the inclusion of the realm of production when investigating empowerment within a video production context.

The Areas of Focus
The vertical axis of the chart provides the foci of attention through video production within which empowerment may take place. As indicated by the media education literature, these foci include the canon of production; media organization; nonmedia institutional relationships; and others. The critical pedagogy literature directs the inclusion of the focus of self and self life.

Canon of Production includes the creation of on-screen materials: traditional or alternative rules regarding production, audio, lighting, camera angles and movement, visual composition, scripting, budgeting, acting, juxtaposition of images, graphics, special effects, technical reception, equipment, and other production elements.

The canon also encompasses the codes through which meaning is conveyed symbolically within the televisual medium. Included are the values represented in the production canon, as well as possible effects of these represented values expressed as media impact on audiences. This area of focus includes alternatives to the production canon, as well as the canon values.

Included as well are program genres and topics, program diversity, and the criteria by which to evaluate programs.

Media Organization encompasses the structure and ownership of media organizations, program distribution systems, and the organizational structure of the production group. This encompasses alternative structure, ownership, distribution, and production group organizational alternatives.

Specifically, this area of focus encompasses media policies of public access or mainstream media in general, including interior politics and policies within the public access facility and exterior politics of the public access facility with the cable operator. Also included are the division of labor within the production team and the scheduling of members of the production group.

Nonmedia Institutional Relationships refers to social, political, and economic systems and/or institutions. This includes the impact of these systems and institutions on the media (i.e., advertising, program content, etc.), as well as the influence of the media on these systems and institutions (society). This category embraces alternatives to traditional relationships.

Specifically, this area of focus encompasses national and local politics, including relationships between the public access facility and the city, as well as between the city and the cable operator. This is a larger sphere than media organziation, and includes values related to the First Amendment and freedom of speech guarantees.

Others refers to persons outside the immediate personal life of the community producer. While focusing particularly on the audience for the producer's program, this area also includes the crew involved in the production, persons appearing in the programs, and workmates.

This area also refers to the image others have of the producer and the general sense of the "community" outside the producer's immediate personal life.

Self and Self Life focuses on one's personal world, as well as the roles close others--such as friends and family members--play in that world. This encompasses the image one has of one's self and close others; and own media image.

This area includes utilization of access for specifically personal goals.

As directed by the media education literature, the focus of canon of production is related primarily to elements of media literacy, which focuses on the ability to break on-screen productions into component elements, evaluate them, and thereby disrupt the "seamless," "natural" sense of television programs.

The foci of media organization and nonmedia institutional relationships are associated primarily with elements of media demystification, which focuses on the ability to recognize and evaluate the complex systems and relationships involved in the creation and distribution of media products, and their connection with broader societal issues.

The foci of others, and self and self life are based on the media education and critical pedagogy literatures. The former focus emphasizes a general "other," primarily in the role of audience; the latter focus is associated with one's self and close others, including one's personal context and media image.

Cognition/Reflection and Action
The intersection of the horizontal axis of the domain of empowerment, and the vertical axis of the areas of focus provides the 15 internal cells illustrated in the video empowerment chart in Figure 1. Each cell is separated into two subcells, allowing for the distinction between awareness as cognition and/or reflection (C/R), and action (A) within the empowerment domain as directed by the critical pedagogy and media education literatures.

Cognition/Reflection refers to simple awareness in a given area of focus within the particular empowerment domain; this awareness may also include (but not necessarily) self-reflection.

Action addresses specific behavior that implements the area of focus within the particular empowerment domain (past or present).

Thus, within each realm of production, personal, and societal, empowerment manifests itself as cognition/reflection and/or action. For the purposes of this study, cognition/reflection and action refer to awarenesses and/or actions that are results of access participation.

Figure 2 defines and synopsizes the elements of the video empowerment chart and illustrates the manner in which the chart will interact with the study data. The figure includes definitional terms related to the empowerment domains and areas of focus; cells and subcells resulting from the intersection of the empowerment domain and the areas of focus are also defined.

The Video Empowerment Charts: Summary
The spheres, elements, and foci of empowerment as approached through media literacy and media demystification are delineated in Figures 1 and 2. These components are derived from the literatures of media education and critical pedagogy.

Like the "road map" of the public access vision, the chart requires a key to provide the interpretive context and methodology for application. Such a key is furnished by the critical pedagogy literature and is discussed in chapter 3.

Based on the above, this dissertation is a qualitative study, testing the public access vision of empowerment as it pertains to the community producer by applying the criteria described in the video empowerment chart. This chart is informed by contributions from the public access, critical pedagogy, and media education literatures.

This study investigates the assumption that empowerment, as defined by the chart, is possible through video production training. The site of focus is an applied setting outside the context of institutional education: the public access arena. The conduct of the study is set forth in chapter 3.

Specifically, the purpose of this study is to test the public access vision of empowerment as explicated in the video empowerment chart: to see (1) if producers of public access programs have an awareness of the media's structure and operation, including a sense of the codes of television; (2) if this awareness of media's structure, operation, and codes assists producers in defining a sense of self, others, and society; (3) if producers take action to implement these awarenesses; and (4) if producers identify and change relationships, particularly within the societal realm.

Thus, this dissertation becomes a test of the implementation of the public access vision. It is the assumption of this study that a test of this implementation provides a method of testing the viability of the vision itself.

1. The emergence of public access is reviewed in greater detail in chapter 2. The discussion here is based in particular on the historical overviews provided by Engelman (1990), Fuller (1994), and Gillespie (1975), with contributions from Bednarczyk (1986), and Huie (1987).

2. The electronic soapbox nature of public access is discussed more fully in chapter 2. The discussion here derives primarily from C. Anderson (1975), Engleman (1990), Fuller (1994), Hollowell (1983), Johnson and Gerlach (1977), Meyerson (1985), Pool (1973), Rice (1983), and the Sloan Commission (1971).

3. The concept of empowerment within the public access domain is addressed more fully in capter 2. The discussion here is drawn primarily from C. Anderson (1975), Bednarczyk (1986), Engelman (1990), Fuller (1994), Gillespie (1975), Rutherford-Crest (1990), Shamberg and Raindance (1971), Walden (1991), and Willener, Milliard, and Ganty (1972).

4. The public access concept parallels that of the public library, where materials are housed that are shared by all members of the population. It is worth noting that the public library traditionally houses materials related to print literacy; libraries of late have expanded their collections to include other media. Public access, with its focus on media literacy, continues and expands the tradition of the public library.

Many public access facilities across the United States are located within public libraries; one example is provided by the Allen County Television Center, a part of the Allen County Public Library in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

5. These critiques are merely outlined here; they are described more fully in chapter 2.

Critical perspectives on freedom of speech and underlying tenets of liberal democratic ideology draw primarily from Good (1989), Lukes (1974), Marcuse (1965/1983, 1968/1983), and Streeter (1990).

Discussions regarding public access and its relationship to First Amendment ideals derive particularly from Aufderheide (1992) and Devine (1990). (A modified version of Devine's 1990 work appeared in CTR 14.2 [June/July 1991]: 8-11).

Critical perspectives regarding pluralist assumptions within community television draw primarily from Bibby, Denford, and Cross (1979), the Council for the Development of Community Media (1983), and Mattelart and Piemme (1980).

6. These critiques are based primarily on Bibby, Denford, and Cross (1979), Council for the Development of Community Media (1983), Garnham (1990), Mattelart and Piemme (1980), Slack (1984), Willener, Milliard, and Ganty (1972), and Williams (1974). I have added my own concern regarding the lack of definition of terms and the implied causal relationship.

7. This is changing somewhat. The January/February 1994 issue of the Community Media Review (formerly Community Television Review) was dedicated to discussions of media literacy. The Alliance for Community Media (ACM, formerly National Federation of Local Cable Programmers) has recently begun promoting the teaching of media literacy as an important function of public access facilities. The name changes reflect metamorphosis and increasing reflectivity within the CTV movement.

8. It is notable that the traditional media education field is also based on an effects model. Media education was seen as a way of "inoculating" viewers against the presumed effects of media, particularly television. This is discussed further in chapter 2.

9. Ancillary aspects of some studies have involved public access volunteer producers; these include the demographic backgrounds of producers (Enos 1979); the reasons volunteers produce programs (White 1988); the use of public access by social movements (Krinsky 1990); producers' intents toward the channel structure, programs, and audience (Hardenbergh 1985); and producer motivations, particularly what producers learned about themselves through public access participation (Fuller 1984).

Related studies include Morrow's (1984) analysis of the ability of public access to change power relationships in the U.S. system.

10. In November/December of 1993, the Alliance for Community Media published an edition of the Community Television Review (since renamed the Community Media Review) entitled "The Community Television Worker's Handbook to Cyberspace." The issue reflects a commitment by the movement to ensure grassroots access to telecommunications technology.

11. I use the term "literature" loosely. There is by no means a cohesive body of research regarding public access. The term here refers to the extensive review conducted for this study of writings by authors working in academia, government agencies, nonprofit foundations, social activist groups, radical video cooperatives, the arts, and the cable industry. This "literature" is reviewed indepth in chapter 2.

12. When using the term "literature" throughout this study, I am referring to my selected review of the literatures of critical pedagogy and media education. I am not referring to all of the very extensive works within the entire fields of critical pedagogy and media education.

13. While educational reform consists of several branches of thought, critical pedagogy refers to scholars focusing on the liberatory aspects of education, and including an analysis of power. There are also several strains of critical movements within critical pedagogy, such as work in feminist pedagogy by Ellsworth (1992) and Gore (1992). I have focused on critical pedagogists most influential on my topic area; major theorists here include Freire (1970a, 1970b, 1973, 1985, 1993), Giroux (1981, 1988, 1992), and Mclaren (1986, 1988, 1989).

14. For examples of literature that focuses primarily on awareness as cognition, see Halloran and Jones (1984), and Neuman (1991). For examples of literature that posits awareness as cognition and self-reflection, see works by Giroux; see also McLaren. For a more stringent definition of awareness linked with action, see Freire's works.

15. Giroux is a primary source for this review of contemporary critical pedagogy, as is McLaren. These are considered to be the major spokespersons for this viewpoint.

16. However, this emphasis is shifting, as is that of critical pedagogy, away from an institutional perspective and toward a broader interpretation of pedagogy and media education. This is further discussed in chapter 2.

17. For illustration, see Duncan (1988); Halloran and Jones (1984), Masterman (1980), Ontario Ministry of Education (1989), and Schamber (1991).

18. A notable exception is provided by Halloran and Jones (1984).

19. Critical works by Sholle and Denski (1993, 1994) have attempted to organize traditional and critical approaches to media education; they also provide a conceptual focus for a media-related pedagogy.

Return to the starting page. "Tracing the Vision."
Return to the full Cover Pages and Table of Contents. "Tracing the Vision."