Higgins, John W. 1994. "Tracing the Vision: A Study of Community Volunteer Producers, Public Access Cable Television, and Empowerment." Dissertation. Ohio State U. Ann Arbor: UMI. 9517017. Notes appear at the bottom of this chapter.

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 2. Not yet available.

CHAPTER II

Overview

As outlined in chapter 1, this study investigates the public access vision of empowerment through video training. This chapter will detail the specifics of the vision of empowerment through selected literatures, critiques of this vision, and pluralist assumptions of diversity related to the empowerment vision.

This study is informed primarily by three streams of literature: (1) public access, or community television, (2) critical pedagogy, and (3) media education. Ancillary to these is literature from within First Amendment theory.

First, the community television literature particularly focuses on public access cable television in the United States. Assumptions of empowerment from media literacy, media demystification, and video production arise from this literature base, as do assumptions of diversity.

Second, theoretic discussions of empowerment arise from the critical pedagogy literature--an area that presumes empowerment ensues from lifelong learning that is connected to a greater awareness of society's workings. Critical pedagogy also brings to this study theories of pedagogy that will better inform methods that may encourage empowerment and development of media literacy. Finally, the literature informs the nature of the methodology to be used for this investigation, as discussed in chapter 3.

Third, the media education literature directs the specifics by which empowerment within a video production context might be exhibited. This area traditionally focuses on an understanding of media operations primarily by decoding media practices. For the purposes of this study, particular emphasis will be placed on literature that concentrates on video and audio production as a means of understanding media codes through emphasis on encoding programs, as well as critical perspectives that argue against the separation of encoding/decoding functions.

The related public access ideal of diversity directs that, in addition to these primary bases of literature, the study draw upon scholars of the First Amendment. These First Amendment scholars will provide a framework to examine the pluralist ideals associated with freedom of speech guarantees within the empowerment vision.

Thus, this chapter provides an historical background to the practice of public access cable television; an analysis and critique of the utopian promise underlying community television; an investigation of media literacy, demystification, and critical awareness/critical action as they arise from the access literature; an examination of the major themes of critical pedagogy; a discussion of predominant issues within media education; and an analysis and critique of the liberal democratic assumptions underlying the empowerment vision.

Background

Overview

In the United States, the production and transmission of mainstream television programs to mass audiences is highly centralized. Over-the-air broadcast television consists of five major commercial and public networks: NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, and PBS; these networks reach American homes through affiliated local broadcast stations.

These local stations, and their national broadcast network programs, are picked up by local cable systems and retransmitted to cable television subscribers. Cable television also offer subscribers a host of other national programming through cable networks such as ESPN, MTV, CNN, and C-Span.

All of these program providers--commercial and public, broadcast or cablecast--share commonalities: a professional code that favors "slick" production values; an emphasis on style, often at the expense of meaningful content; a conceptualization of the audience as "mass"; and a vertical communication model that is transmission-reception in nature, where programs are produced and distributed by professionals at the top and received by audiences (or often, "consumers") at the bottom.

In many localities, municipalities require that cable systems also provide an alternative program source that attempts to challenge many of the above assumptions of "professional" program providers: public access, or community television. A discussion of the evolution of these channels follows.

In the United States, municipalities and local cable television companies negotiate contracts, or franchises, that permit the cable company to operate a virtual monopoly on cable service within a given jurisdiction. The franchises exist in part because the cable television wires utilize the public right-of-way within the municipalities. These procedures are allowed by federal law, as are policies established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the governmental agency regulating telecommunications in the United States.

The franchise agreement often requires that the local cable system pay to the municipality a percentage of revenues from subscriber fees. The cable operator often agrees to other conditions, such as wiring all schools for cable television at no cost or providing city government offices with two-way interactive video and data networks for in-house communication.

Many municipalities require an additional service: channels set aside on the local cable television system for use by the general public. These public access channels are based on the concept that the public has a First Amendment right of access to the electronic media. Equipment is made available for the public to produce their own programs, to be cablecast at little or no charge. This allows the public an electronic soapbox of sorts to serve a geographic area wired for cable television. Today, nearly 2,000 communities in the United States possess cable access channels. Dedicated for use by the public, or set aside for government or education, these channels produce over 15,000 hours of original programming each week (Ingraham 1991).

Funding for the access facilities equipment comes primarily from the local cable television system operator; the funds are usually channeled through the city government.

Roots in Social Change Experiments

Contemporary U.S. public access television is generally recognized to have its roots in the National Film Board of Canada's "Challenge for Change" program in the late 1960s (Bednarczyk 1986; Buske 1986; Engelman 1990; Fuller 1994; Gillespie 1975; Huie 1987; Stoney 1986, 1989). This Canadian project began as part of a governmental interagency "war on poverty." Film and portable video, considered communication tools by which communities could organize and mobilize themselves, were utilized as catalysts for social change (Gillespie 1975; Hopkins et al. 1973; Mitchell 1974; Rosen and Herman 1977; and Spiller [1983]).

U.S. public access was also influenced by social and media activists, video artists, and the "counterculture" of the late 1960s and early 1970s (Arlen, qtd. in Bednarczyk 1986, 24; Buske 1986; Engelman 1990; Gillespie 1975). These activists were excited by the potential uses of lightweight, portable video equipment that became available in the United States in the late 1960s, and the possibilities of alternative program distribution via the emerging technology of cable television. The United States' history of independent, alternative video--for the purposes of social activism and video as an art form--have been traced by Armstrong (1981); Boddy (1990); Boyle (1989; 1990); Davis and Simmons (1977); Mellencamp (1988); Price (1977); Schneider and Korot (1976); and Youngblood (1970). In particular, Guerrilla Television, by Michael Shamberg and the Raindance media collective (1971), is considered to embody the philosophy of the video movement of this period (Boddy 1990; Boyle 1989; Engelman 1990; Gillespie 1975).

Downing (1990) notes that contemporary alternative media movements continue a tradition of radical political activity he traces from the mid-18th century. Among these is the community radio movement, which has been active in the United States since the late 1940s and is a precursor to the community television movement.⁽¹⁾

This historical summary serves to contextualize contemporary concepts of public access to the electronic media. Groups active today in the public access movement--such as the video collective Paper Tiger Television, or the Alliance for Community Media (ACM)⁽²⁾

--continue in the tradition of the alternative media movement. The sources mentioned above detail a rich history of active resistance to the domination of the mainstream broadcast television outlets, and the beginnings of what has become an established alternative distribution system--primarily through cable television. The philosophies behind today's public access movement continue the ideals of the Challenge for Change program and the early social/media activists.⁽³⁾

In particular, the concept that video can be used in such a manner as to empower people and communities is directly tied to these movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This belief continues to permeate contemporary public access philosophy. An analysis of this concept of empowerment as it is said to occur both through the acquisition of media literacy skills through media education and the demystification of the media forms the basis of this study.

Institutionalized Community Television in the United States

Community television in the United States has been institutionalized primarily through the ACM. As an organizing and lobbying force and an information source, ACM has been at the center of public access activities since its inception in 1976 as the National Federation of Local Cable Programmers (NFLCP).

The ACM grew out of local programming experiments at local cable systems in the United States in the early 1970s. These projects were initiated by longtime access advocate George Stoney at New York University's Alternate Media Center. Stoney had been involved in the National Film Board of Canada's Challenge for Change program.

These experiments in local cable access were aided in 1972 when the FCC mandated that cable systems carry public, educational, and governmental access channels. The U.S. Supreme Court declared these access requirements unconstitutional on a federal level in 1979. However, local communities were allowed to require the channels to be provided by the local cable system, and by the late 1970s the concept of public access to cable television channels had been successfully established across the United States (Engelman 1990; Fuller 1994; Janes 1987). During discussion of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Congress commended the First Amendment ideals behind public access and allowed local communities to continue to request the channels when regulating cable systems.⁽⁴⁾

Review of the Literature: Public Access

The writings from various arenas addressing public access can hardly be termed a "literature," since this assumes a coherent body of work. Rather, the term here refers to the review of the works written by authors operating in various (and often overlapping) fields: academics, government agencies, nonprofit foundations, think tanks, social activist groups, radical video collectives, community television practitioners, and the cable television industry.

The public access literature will be reviewed according to its application toward the vision of empowerment or the related ideal of diversity. The empowerment vision is explored first; the ideals of diversity are discussed later in this chapter.

For this study, the public access literature has been separated into two categories: those of practitioner (those using the medium: participants in community television, members of video collectives, video artists, etc.) and nonpractitioner (those not using the medium: academics, persons engaged in policy studies, etc.). This separation is intended to contrast the self-image and philosophies held by those working within the community television movement with the analysis provided by those outside public access.

This distinction between practitioner and nonpractitioner is more relevant to the early days of community television, when practitioners provided more action, and nonpractitioners, who were involved with public access on an ancillary basis, contributed more reflection. As the public access movement has matured, it has adopted a more critical stance and has begun to question many of its basic precepts.⁽⁵⁾

The Utopian Promise of Public Access

An unlikely coalition of groups from business, academics, government, and social activist organizations joined forces in the late 1960s and early 1970s to promote cable television and public access (Schmidt 1976; Streeter 1987). Streeter notes that these groups shared a sense of the utopian promise of the new technology of portable video linked with the emerging distribution system of cable television. This shared vision allowed normally disparate groups to ignore their differences and work toward a common future:

Cable . . . had the potential to rehumanize a dehumanized society, to eliminate the existing bureaucratic restrictions of government regulation common to the industrial world, and to empower the currently powerless public. (1987, 181)

The utopian aspects of the video and access movement are discussed within the community television literature by practitioners and nonpractitioners alike, including Armstrong (1981); Berrigan (1979); Braderman (1991); Council for the Development of Community Media (1983); Kalba (1977); Mellencamp (1988); and Price and Wicklein (1972). The utopian vision and language of the late 1960s and early 1970s are exemplified particularly by Willener, Milliard, and Ganty when describing video experiments in Europe in Videology and Utopia: Explorations in a New Medium:

We shall . . . try to abstract from our videological praxis the basic conceptual, schematic, and sociological framework that this field seems to us to need, at the same time revealing, through the articulation of the process, the potential for transformation that can be liberated by video. (1972, 113)

They further state that "at a given moment video becomes the medium for achieving liberation from subjection to TV; it ends by encompassing TV in a combined praxis that is wider and more complex" (132). "If we assert that a potential for emancipation exists in a particular video praxis, it is because it is increasingly possible to verify it" (138).

These ideals related to the liberatory potential of video were revolutionary within the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s that focused on the enslaving aspects of the technology. Smith acclaims the radical "video visionaries" of this period who adopted video technology instead of rejecting it--thereby risking the wrath of others in the counterculture--so that they might create "a voice for the voiceless" (1981, 26).

The language within current public access literature still reflects the utopian vision of "empowering the disenfranchised" ("Alternative Views" 1989). The movement still expresses the belief that "an important transition is felt to be made when citizens become shapers (not merely consumers) of messages. A critical media awareness is generated" (Stoney 1989, 283).

The above are presented as reflections of the broad utopian promise of video and public access cable. This study focuses on one aspect of this utopian promise: the vision of empowerment. Before addressing this vision specifically, the broader utopian promise deserves further scrutiny.

Critique of the Utopian Promise

Given that the purpose of this dissertation is to investigate whether or not empowerment through media literacy and demystification takes place within the public access experience, it is appropriate to place the utopian promise of access in perspective.

Devine summarizes the progressive critique of public access as focusing on "amateurish," "unprofessional" programming; limited distribution to small audiences; and a naive belief in the inherent liberating aspects of video and public access cable (1992b, 6-7). It is this last argument that is heard most often during discussions of empowerment through public access technical training. The movement's focus on the intrinsic emancipatory facets of video reveals its foundations in technological utopianism.

Slack notes that what she terms the "alternative technology movement" is closely tied to the counterculture of the late 1960s and

focuses on the integral relationship between technologies and social organization, structure, and values. A critique of technologies necessarily involves a critique of the society that uses them.

The critique remains inadequate, however, due to the movement's fascination with technology, a fascination that tends to cloud the ability to comprehend the full range of complexity operative in the relationship between technology and society. This fascination is an only thinly veiled commitment to the equation of technological growth and social progress. (1984, 38)

Williams posits a "symptomatic technology" position, where "television, like any other technology, becomes available as an element or a medium in a process of change that is in any case occurring or about to occur" (1974, 13). "If television had not been invented, this argument runs, we would still be manipulated or mindlessly entertained, but in some other way and perhaps less powerfully" (12). The weakness with this position, he notes, is that it separates technology from society, rather than seeing technology as the result of the intention of certain interests within the society.

A failure on the part of technological utopians to look beyond the immediate technology to the societal structures within which that technology operates is at the heart of Williams's and Slack's critiques. This view is shared by Bibby, Denford, and Cross (1979); Council for the Development of Community Media (1983); Garnham (1990); Mattelart and Mattelart (1982); Mattelart and Piemme (1980); and Willener, Milliard, and Ganty (1972). Enzensberger reflects the general opinion when he asserts:

Anyone who expects to be emancipated by technological hardware, or by a system of hardware however structured, is the victim of an obscure belief in progress. Anyone who imagines that freedom for the media will be established if only everyone is busy transmitting and receiving is the dupe of a liberalism which, decked out in contemporary colors, merely peddles the faded concepts of a preordained harmony of social interests. (1970/1988, 34)

According to these critiques of the utopian promise of community television and technology, without the broader perspective of technology within societal structures, the "symptomatic technology" or the "alternative technology" movement is easily co-opted by contributing "to the health of just that system of corporate domination that it initially reacted against" (Slack 1984, 36). Garnham asserts that the "myths of video"--including claims of demystification, democratization, and a "process" rather than "product" orientation--are propagated by dominant economic and social forces attempting to market consumer video equipment (1990, 68).⁽⁶⁾

Blau applies the critique of technological utopianism directly to the public access movement:

We should thus be deeply skeptical about any claims that access is inherently democratizing. Such claims are made through the narcotic haze of technological utopianism that was widespread at the time when access first appeared in cable franchises. (1992b, 23)

Utopian dreams of liberation through technology are not unique to the alternative video movement. Barnouw notes similar utopian visions in the introduction of other media technologies:

It should be remembered that every step in modern media history--telephone, phonograph, motion picture, radio, television, satellite--stirred similar euphoric predictions. All were expected to usher in an age of enlightenment. All were seen as fulfilling the promise of democracy. Possible benefits were always easier to envisage than misuses and corruptions, and still are. (1978, 176)⁽⁷⁾

This critique of technological utopianism allows us to place the romantic vision of the public access movement in a larger theoretical context. Within this framework it is conceivable that some of the long-standing canons of the movement might not yield the results community television advocates claim. A summary of some of these tenets, as they relate to this study, follows.

Public Access Assumptions of Empowerment

Public access cable television in the United States operates under the assumption that positive results will accompany both the watching and the making of public access television programs. This dissertation will focus on the process of making programs, which the access literature asserts empowers the access producer or groups of volunteers working collectively.

In particular, the literature has been categorized in this study to reflect three aspects of this empowerment: (1) acquisition of media literacy skills, related to a (2) demystification of the media, and aiding in the process of (3) critical awareness/critical action (consciousness-raising). The related issues of pluralist assumptions regarding freedom of speech aspects of empowerment will be dealt with separately later in this chapter.

Acquisition of Media Literacy Skills. The public access literature posits that, as the producer/viewer becomes more aware of the manipulation and juxtaposition of images for intended effect, the producer/viewer is better able to decode the subtle framings of the media toward an issue. Rather than viewing television as a slice of reality, programs are seen as perspectives reflecting the values and objectives of producers and associated institutions. In this manner, the seemingly "seamless" nature of the television reality is shattered.

Access practitioners discussing media literacy from this perspective include Forbes and Layng (1978); Hobbs (1994); Institute of Lifetime Learning (1986); Johnson (1986; 1990); Koning (1986); Oringel and Buske (1986); and Stein (1991). Related discussions of media and visual literacy and their relationship to community video are provided by C. Anderson (1975); Church (1987); Freebairn (1977); Lemisch (1986); Mattelart and Mattelart (1982); Mattelart and Piemme (1980); Willener, Milliard, and Ganty (1972); and Youngblood (1970). Johnson illustrates the practitioner perspective:

In today's information environment, media literacy is essential to the critical thinking of a well-educated individual. Media literacy is only possible if a person knows how to create, as well as watch, audio-visual communication. Cable is the only institution that provides the opportunity to create that communication in a non-discriminatory way. By giving people an opportunity to actively make television, cable access fosters the kind of media literacy necessary to living and thinking critically in a media-saturated environment. (1986, 35)

Until recently, academics did not connect media literacy with public access in the United States to a significant degree. However, Mattelart and Piemme (1980) note the ideological implications of training in image "grammar" during community video experiments in Europe in the 1970s. In a discussion of the use of decentralized, portable television in Mozambique in the 1970s, Mattelart and Mattelart (1982) note the potential of using the equipment to promote training in "image literacy." The authors posit that such training seeks to "teach the population the language of the image" (78) and must consider the community context in which such training occurs.

The January/February 1994 issue of the ACM publication, the Community Media Review, reflects a recent surge of interest in media literacy as a teaching goal for public access facilities. The movement is examining practices and exploring key concepts within the notion of media literacy, such as those provided by Hobbs (1994) and Johnson (1994). At the same time, the edition also reflects utopian ideals related to community television and media literacy:

In this country, our ability to exercise power--personally and politically--is inexorably linked to our experiences with media, particularly television. Media literacy--the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and produce communication in a variety of forms--is all about power. The power that comes from understanding who controls media systems and why. The power that comes from learning how media messages are put together. The power that comes from taking media tools into our own hands to communicate, to create meaning, and to counter the corporate culture with its insistence on endless consumption.

Media literacy is fundamental to the survival of democracy in the information age. Without media literacy, it is unlikely that we will fully exercise our power to envision alternatives, re-build our sense of community, organize politically or reclaim our civic life. In this issue of CMR we explore the promise--and the challenges--of working toward a media literate society, and we consider the important role of community media centers and practitioners have in carrying this work forward. (Manly and Reidy 1994, 3; emphasis in original)

The passage above demonstrates how media literacy-- which had been seen as a desirable side effect of video training--is now emerging as a highly touted educational goal of public access. Indeed, it is being constructed as vital to the survival of democracy itself, thus reinforcing the need to investigate the pluralist assumptions of diversity (discussed later in this chapter).

Demystification of the Media's Operation. Within the public access literature, media literacy and demystification are seen as two nearly inseparable outcomes of technical training: literacy leads to demystifying the workings of the media in the mind of the producer/viewer. Closer scrutiny of the concept reveals that this demystification takes place on two levels: the level of representation through images, and the structural and functional level.

The critique of community television in Great Britain in the 1970s provided by Bibby, Denford, and Cross summarizes primarily the representational demystification tenets of the access movement:

Some of the original objectives of [community access channels], to demystify television and transform passive consumption into active involvement in the media, are valid. Gaining skills in the use of a medium gives users a means of communicating their views and a language in which they can analyse their position in the world. Using a medium yourself can make you more critical of other representations made in that medium; and as television is a predominant medium in our society, increasing awareness of how it functions, and how its messages are constructed, can be a progressive aim. The critical question is how this is achieved. (1979, 54)

Representational demystification, as illustrated above, will be conceptualized within discussions of media literacy, with its attention primarily to images and their interpretation.

This study will focus on demystification as it refers to discussions regarding the structures and functions of the media. The manifesto of the contemporary radical video collective Paper Tiger Television in New York is illustrative of the connection made by practitioners between community television and structural demystification:

Paper Tiger Television is a public access TV show. It looks at the communications industry via the media in all of their forms.

The power of mass culture rests on the trust of the public. This legitimacy is a paper tiger.

Investigation into the corporate structures of the media and critical analysis of their content is one way to demystify the information industry.

Developing a critical consciousness about the communications industry is a necessary first step towards democratic control of information resources. (qtd. in Jenik 1991, 9)

According to the public access literature, as producers/viewers become aware of the content, structure, and operations of the media, they see television as a communications tool in the hands of individuals and groups with specific economic, cultural, and political interests. Thus, demystification allows the world presented by the media to be seen as a construction by vested interests, and not necessarily "reality" itself.

This perspective is widely reflected in the practitioner literature, as demonstrated by Bednarczyk (1986); Blau (1992a); Forbes and Layng (1978); Gever (1982); Gossage (1974); Hénaut and Klein (1969); Institute of Lifelong Learning (1986); Jenik (1991); Low (1974); Marsh (1974); National Cable Television Association (1984); Shamberg (1971); Stuart (1988); and United Cable Television (1981).

A wider context for the discussion of demystification is provided by C. Anderson (1975); Berrigan (1977); Bibby, Denford, and Cross (1979); Church (1987); Engelman (1990); Halleck (1984); Hollowell (1983); Hopkins et al. (1973); Johnson and Gerlach (1977); McLane (1987); Spiller ([1983]); Stoney (1989); and Willener, Milliard, and Ganty (1972).

However, the demystification of television, while seen as a generally desirable effect of video training within community television, is not necessarily a given. In their ideological analysis, Bibby, Denford, and Cross question the purpose behind the demystification of television and conclude that the community television facilities in Great Britain did not help community producers understand the medium completely, because the management held a superficial, apolitical view toward the video medium. In fact, they concluded, "local television may . . . merely mystify further, by encouraging an interest in trivial issues and an unhealthy local chauvanism [sic]" (1979, 53).

Garnham (1990) believes that video actually reinforces the mystifying aspects of television, as amateur producers unsuccessfully attempt to reproduce the broadcast production conventions and styles.⁽⁸⁾

Willener, Milliard, and Ganty also question the demystification aspects of community television, noting that demystification can lead to remystification if the media is seen as only having power from popular support. Instead, the media should not be underestimated; it has a structural power that goes beyond a mere popular belief in its strength (1972, 134).

Overall, the public access literature recognizes the educational value and critical potential of training in the operation of video equipment within a community television setting. Critical perspectives argue that it is not sufficient to merely demystifying buttons and equipment, but that training must connect to a greater examination of the power structure of the media and the social implications of this structure.

Critical Awareness/Critical Action (Consciousness-Raising). The public access literature maintains that recognizing that the media presents a "representation" of the world can lead to critical awareness and critical action. This perspective also sees public access as enabling the disenfranchised to organize, to work as a group, and to think critically--identifying societal relationships and flexing their collective muscle for social change. Practitioners discussing the uses of media for empowerment include "Alternative Views" (1989); Bednarczyk (1986); Buske (1986); Forbes and Layng (1978); Hénaut and Klein (1969); Johnson (1986); Kucharski (1990, 1991); Low (1974); Mitchell (1974); National Cable Television Association ([1984]); Rutherford-Crest (1990); Shamberg (1971); Stuart (1988); and Walden (1991).

The following also offer discussions of the emancipatory aspects of video: C. Anderson (1975); Armstrong (1981); Berrigan (1977, 1979); Church (1987); Davitian (1987); Engelman (1990); Freebairn (1977); Gillespie (1975); Hopkins et al. (1973); Kellner (1979); Mellencamp (1988); Price and Wicklein (1972); Rosen and Herman (1977); Sloan Commission (1971); Smith (1981); Spiller ([1983]); Steiner (1973); Stoney (1989); Willener, Milliard, and Ganty (1972); and Youngblood (1970).

The early community television literature illustrates the concept of a liberating video tied to social action:

Community video will be subversive to any group, bureaucracy, or individual which feels threatened by a coalescing of grassroots consciousness. Because not only does decentralized TV serve as an early warning system, it puts people in touch with one another about common grievances. (Shamberg and Raindance 1971, 57)

Another view of community television, which ties individual and group empowerment to control of one's representations of self and of worldview through video, is reflected by Spiro as quoted in Roar! The Paper Tiger Guide to Media Activism:

I'm a camcorder commando, you'll see there lots of them around here today. These people who are running around with camcorders are people who are taking control of their own images, and hopefully getting them to places where other people can see them.

TV is being held captive. It is our mission to liberate it.

We're taking control of our TV sets and taking control of our lives. . . . We will represent the issues that television is hiding from the American public. We are America's angriest home videos. (Paper Tiger Television Collective 1991, 57)

The connection between community television and traditional liberal democratic ideals--one of the basic tenets of public access--is recognized within the academic literature by Engelman:

Community TV represented an attempt to break with mainstream forms of both commercial and public television by permitting broad participation in the most pervasive mass medium of contemporary American culture. "Access" became the rallying cry for a new conception of television as a tool of empowerment, as a means for fostering a more responsive government and a more democratic culture. (1990, 1)

In his overview of the origins of public access, Engelman alludes to the pluralist ideals of "participation" and "responsive government" that are at the heart of public access. The assumptions buttressing these ideals are examined later in this chapter.

While terms such as "empowerment," "critical awareness," and "critical action" are frequently used in the public access literature that addresses these concerns, there is little agreement regarding their definitions.

This literature implies that there is a need to consciously link critical awareness, however defined, and some sort of social action. The literature reflects the belief that, although such a critical connection may occur spontaneously as a by-product of video training, the linkage is more often successful if it is a result of a concerted effort on the part of those involved in the creation of community television programs. Writings in public access indicate that the critical realization that the media presents a "representation" of the world, rather than a "natural" world, opens a space where alternative visions of reality can be created and displayed through television, and then acted upon in one's own life.

This study focuses on the public access literature's assumptions that empowerment is related to media literacy and to demystification of the media. The questions of critical awareness (consciousness-raising) and critical action will be explored as they relate to the heightened individual and social awareness that allegedly follows acquisition of media literacy skills and the subsequent demystification of the media.

While the public access literature is ambiguous regarding the concepts of empowerment and praxis, and the manner in which they are exhibited within a video training context, these concerns are addressed more fully by the literatures of critical pedagogy and media education, and are detailed below.

Review of the Literature: Critical Pedagogy

Elements of Critical Pedagogy

Critical pedagogy posits that all learning and teaching is ideological in nature, within both form and content, and expresses the goal of an education geared toward human liberation. Such a pedagogy is based on identifying oppressive forces within society, beginning at the level at which they impact an individual's life. Once these ideologies are exposed, the individual and the collectivity are presumed to be better able to position themselves subjectively within society and move to change the power relationships within society.

McLaren describes critical pedagogy as related to critical theory, "dedicated to the emancipatory imperatives of self-empowerment and social transformation" (1989, 163; emphasis in original). Critical pedagogy stems primarily from the works of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1970a, 1970b, 1973, 1985) and Shor and Freire (1987); significant contributions have been provided by Apple (1982, 1986); Giroux (1981, 1988, 1992); McLaren (1988, 1989); and Giroux and McLaren (1989).

Critical pedagogy does not directly explicate any one comprehensive theory of empowerment; quite the contrary, a number of competing concepts of empowerment emerge from interpretations of the literature.

Freire and Empowerment

One view of empowerment is discerned from Freire, whose theories arise from adult literacy work with impoverished groups in Latin America. To Freire, education and literacy are ongoing processes through which people become aware of their own self-worth and their ability to transform their social reality--a process Freire calls "conscientization," or consciousness-raising. McLaren describes Freire's theoretic: "Becoming literate is not just a cognitive process of decoding signs, but of living one's own life in relation to others. Literacy becomes empowerment" (1989, 196; emphasis deleted).

Liberation is achieved through "praxis," defined as "man's activity of action and reflection . . . it is transformation of the world" (Freire 1970b, 119). While Freire does not use the term "empowerment" explicitly, in his advancement of a critical pedagogy he seems to be assuming that empowerment is related to liberation and praxis, and thus includes his model of (1) critical awareness, and (2) critical action.

Freire's critical awareness goes beyond mere cognition of "facts." Critical awareness involves an element of personal reflection that incorporates understanding how the individual positions himself or herself in relation to these "facts"; personal transformation is implied. Freire states, "There is not this dichotomy between consciousness and the world. . . . `consciousness' is not something, some empty space within people. Consciousness is intentionality towards the world" (qtd. in Davis 1981, 58; emphasis in original). Critical awareness is more than a thinking process; it involves all manner by which we "know" the world, including "intuition, feelings, dreams, and desires" (Freire 1993, 105).

Critical action involves moving from critical awareness to action that entails changing the power relationships within society. Giroux comments:

What is at stake in Freire's theory of liberation is that people should be able to generate their own meanings and frame of reference and be able to develop their self-determining powers through their ability to perform a critical reading of reality so that they can act on that reality. (1981, 130)⁽⁹⁾

Critiques of Freire address his seeming assumptions of a hierarchy of consciousness, involving "cognitively superior individual[s]" (Schipani 1984, 21). Berger sees conscientization as elitist, involving "missionaries" engaged in the "conversion" process of "cognitive imperialism" (1974, 117-118).

These critiques, by focusing on the cognitive elements of conscientization, misinterpret Freire. Freire states that the oppressed cannot be liberated through any actions of others that do not include their own reflection and action, since the oppressed would be treated as objects, thereby defeating the process of conscientization.

Freire's focus is on critical awareness that emphasizes subjective positioning through reflection, in part on cognitive elements. He also insists that critical action moves in tandem with reflection to change the power relationships within society. These delineations seem to separate Freire from the more contemporary critical pedagogists, as discussed below.

Contemporary Critical Pedagogists and Empowerment

Contemporary critical pedagogists, such as Giroux and McLaren, describe a pedagogy that is primarily centered on critical awareness, where the aspects of self-awareness or reflection are emphasized over action.

When these theorists do discuss critical action, it is with a practical emphasis on action within one's personal life; critical action within society seems to be approached merely as a theoretical desirability. For example, McLaren writes: "The major objective of critical pedagogy is to empower students to intervene in their own self-formation and to transform the oppressive feature of the wider society that make such an intervention necessary" (1988, xi).

McLaren seems to call for both societal and personal action, but in fact only implements societal transformation as a theoretic concept, not as an active practice. His call for action is illustrated above; the evidence that it is not an active practice is embodied throughout his early work.

The emphasis by contemporary critical pedagogists on awareness rather than societal action may be due to the fact that these theorists are working primarily from within the framework of institutional education rather than Freire's lifelong learning situation. From their perspective, the praxis and societal transformation of critical action might well begin within the classroom.

However, the position of these critical pedagogists regarding societal action is in flux. Their concept of pedagogy is expanding beyond its application primarily to institutional education, and there is discernible movement toward Freire's definition of critical action.

For example, in a recent work, Border Crossings, Giroux articulates a more integrated theory of pedagogy within societal action:

Contemporary forms of critical educational theory with their narrowed vision and truncated view of the possibilities opened by new theoretical perspectives have kept the field too insular. It needs to make new connections, take up new paradigms, and open up different spaces with new allies in order to work simultaneously on changing the schools and wider social order. . . . [T]here is an increasing attempt by various cultural workers to engage pedagogical practice as a form of cultural politics. (1992, 2)

In describing a broader application of pedagogy, Giroux continues:

It means comprehending pedagogy as a configuration of textual, verbal, and visual practices that seek to engage the processes through which people understand themselves and the ways in which they engage others and their environment. (1992, 3)

It is in this expansion beyond the classroom walls that critical pedagogy intersects with the media education literatures, as described below.⁽¹⁰⁾

This evolution beyond institutional education also more closely approximates Freire's action/reflection model, the foundational model of critical pedagogy that has been strayed from in its translation to the classroom of the mass education system.

Empowerment: A Summary of Critical Pedagogy

Although there are contrasting opinions related to definitions of empowerment within critical pedagogy, there are also areas of general agreement within the literature. Empowerment appears to be related to an awareness of self and, through extension, of others and society in relation to the self. The literature equates empowerment with personal transformation, upheaval, liberation, and emancipation--an awakening, or "conscientization." The literature suggests that empowerment does not necessarily require direct social action based on this personal awakening, but some sort of activism is implied and is desirable.

It is the above definition of empowerment that guides this study.

Review of the Literature: Media Education

Overview

Media education is a rather chaotic body of literature that traces some roots to educational reform movements and others to contemporary critical pedagogy, and which is also grounded in institutional education. Aside from the work of Halloran and Jones (1984) and Sholle and Denski (1993), few attempts have been made to organize this extensive literature.

For this study, the primary theoretical discussion of empowerment is provided by the critical pedagogy literature; media education serves to direct the foci of attention for empowerment within a video production context, as provided in the video empowerment chart (Figure 1) in chapter 1.

The primary contribution of this area is in delineating the component elements of a media literacy, as well as practical approaches to production training. In particular, the literature provides discussions regarding (1) the canon of production, including the symbolic logic behind these codes; (2) organization of media groups on macro and micro levels; and (3) relationships between media organizations and societal organizations and institutions.

These elements are significant because they are to help the learner attain the primary goal of media education: "lifting the veil" of television. By this is meant that the ostensibly "seamless," "natural" quality of programs is exposed, and viewers are aware that programs are constructions that reflect the values and perspective of a producer, with related institutional affiliations. While competing schools of thought within media education may disagree about the reasons such a "lifting of the veil" is necessary--one school perceives this as a way to inoculate viewers against supposed media effects, another views this as a way to conscientize and liberate viewers--they nonetheless agree on this primary goal of the field.

Although Halloran and Jones (1984) outline various approaches to media education below, this study will focus on two fundamental divisions within the field: the traditional and the critical approaches. Traditional media education parallels traditional education reform movements; the traditional media education model contains the assumption of media effects. Critical approaches to media education coincide with critical pedagogy; critical media education questions basic power relationships within institutions and society and explicates goals of emancipation and social change.

Early media education is dominated by the traditional approach, but it does contain some elements of a critical perspective. Early media education shares with the public access literature an atheoretical tendency toward questions of empowerment, media literacy, and media demystification; these literatures also share assumptions of a technological utopia. These similarities are not surprising; both public access and media education emerged within the social context of the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is as though the societal concerns of that era regarding mass media effects were addressed within institutional education by media education; within an applied setting, the concerns were managed by the establishment of public access cable television facilities.

However, the field is currently undergoing flux, as growing influences both outside (primarily critical pedagogy) and inside the media education field merge to call for a more sharply defined "critical media education." This relatively recent shift is discussed later in this chapter.

Major Approaches

One of the few arrangements of the media education literature has been undertaken by Halloran and Jones in a report to UNESCO in 1984. The authors note the influence of mass communication research on media education and present four categories into which they classify the divergent global approaches to media education: the inoculation approach, the critical viewer approach, the community media approach, and the images and consciousness approach. The classifications serve primarily to identify national trends in media education.

The inoculation approach sees the need for protection against what is considered to be the harmful effects of the mass media and mass culture.

The critical viewer approach posits that, after viewers come to understand the codes of television through acquisition of a "visual literacy," they will be able to control the influence of the media by seeing through its attempts at manipulation.

The community media approach assumes that communications is a community-based form of praxis where groups involve themselves in a creative process that leads to effecting change in the community. At the core of the community media approach is a critique of capitalism, and the objective in media education is to foster an awareness of social class.

The images and consciousness approach is oriented toward raising the consciousness of individuals; an emphasis is placed on demystifying the "naturalism" of the media by recognizing media products as constructions.

Halloran and Jones propose a "critical eclectic" (48) approach to media education that combines many of the features of the taxonomies described above. Such an approach would require

an adequate knowledge of the media as social institutions and communication as a social process, both operating in conjunction with other institutions and processes within the wider social systems. . . . [S]uch a research approach is the sine qua non for an understanding of media operations and the communication process, and a fortiori the essential base for media education. (1984, 165; emphasis in original)

This analysis of media education by Halloran and Jones provides a framework on which to analyze the differences in approaches to media literacy and to see how these perspectives are reflected in the public access literature.

The categorizations within media education utilized in this study--traditional and critical--are reflected in the analysis provided by Halloran and Jones. The traditional perspective is represented by the inoculation and critical viewer categories, while an early critical perspective is reflected in the community media and the images and consciousness approaches. The critical eclectic perspective resembles the newly defined critical media education approach described later in this chapter.

Although all five of these positions are reflected to some degree within public access philosophy, it is the critical viewer perspective that is particularly valuable to this study. This position provides lists of component elements of media literacy that are employed in the areas of focus within the empowerment chart (Figure 2) in chapter 1; these are discussed below. The beliefs associated with the critical viewer category also most closely correspond with those of the public access movement. This perspective is identified predominantly with media education in the United States by Halloran and Jones.

Elements of Critical Viewing and Media Literacy

The Critical Viewer. As mentioned above, the areas of focus within the video empowerment chart in chapter 1 are directed, in part, by aspects of the traditional approach to critical viewing skills reflected in the critical viewer approach.

Halloran and Jones connect this perspective in the United States to the emergence of the concept of media literacy. It was during the mid-1970s that media literacy was adopted by "official" sources; Halloran and Jones cite the U.S. Office of Education's support for curriculum targeting "critical television viewing skills" (1984, 104). During this time period the Ford Foundation, the Markle Foundation, and the National Science Foundation recommended the following elements for classes in media literacy:

Production conventions, analysis of media appeals, the character and role of non-verbal clues, the overview of the history and structure of the broadcasting industry, the economic basis for television, analysis of typical formats for entertainment programming, major concerns about negative effects of programming, analysis of the values portrayed in television content, standards for criticism of television content and, if possible, some direct experience with television equipment. (qtd. in Halloran and Jones 1984, 104)

In the late 1970s a UNESCO conference expanded the view of media education to include adult education and lifelong education as well as formal education in primary and secondary schools (Morsy 1984, 8).

The constituent elements of media literacy agreed upon within the traditional literature have not changed significantly in two decades. For example, Schamber notes that visual literacy involves the ability "to read and interpret visual symbols and syntax, to write or compose visual messages, and to evaluate the impact of visual communication" (1991, 17; emphasis in original). Notice that the emphasis remains on the acquisition of skills.

Halloran's and Jones's framework by which they organize the early work in media education is useful when examining Susan Neuman's historical overview of research on children and television (1991). The assumptions underlying the critical viewer approach are much in evidence throughout the research Neuman reviews.

Media Literacy. Neuman traces the research concerning television and children, and identifies the emergence of media literacy and critical viewing skills within the curriculum of schools in the United States. She reports that the 1970s introduced television research that began to focus not only on the content of television but also on its form--the visual symbol system used and the medium's possible impact on cognitive processing. Research in this area led to an interest in the "language" and grammar of television; eventually this research emerged in school curricula as critical viewing skills, to combat the assumed harmful effects of television. Neuman describes these critical viewing skills as

conceived with two major goals in mind: One was to demystify television by exposing children to the technology of the medium. The other focused on visual literacy skills and the syntax and grammar of television. Like other media, television was thought to be a form of literacy that needed to be formally taught before it could be intelligibly understood. (1991, 114-115)

Neuman states that the major impetus for critical viewing projects in the schools faded in the early 1980s, due to problems with scheduling, evaluation, and resource allocation. Neuman adds that these projects were not successful, in part because they attempted "to change the basic nature of viewing as a leisure activity" (1991, 119).⁽¹¹⁾

Neuman contributes additional documentation of the constituent elements traditionally expected to be found within a media literacy context. In addition, given her analysis of the failure of critical viewing projects, the community television setting should prove to be an interesting position from which to analyze media literacy skills and media demystification. Community television volunteer producers have themselves changed the nature of their relationship with television, since they have chosen to become involved in the process of creating video programs.

This context of lifelong learning, where people have voluntarily changed the traditional dynamic of the television process, is a marked difference from a classroom setting with a captive audience. Thus, while the traditional media education literature is helpful to this dissertation by identifying elements of media literacy related to empowerment within public access, its roots in institutional education limits its effective application to the lifelong learning setting. While this limitation is shared to a lesser extent by critical media education, this school is conceptualizing a broader vision of media literacy beyond the institutional context, as discussed below.

Critical Media Education

While there is a certain unanimity of purpose within media education regarding the importance of breaking the "seamless," "natural" nature of television programs, more recent critics argue against the acceptance of the normative interpretation of "media demystification" and "visual literacy" that is prevalent in much of the literature described above. In calling for a "critical media education," these voices echo Halloran's and Jones's call for a critical eclectic approach to media education.

Duncan (1988) identifies the standard components of media education as including critical thinking skills and visual literacy skills. He also discusses the importance of values education, Freirean empowerment strategies, and alternatives to the mainstream media.

Masterman (1980, 1989) notes that practical work in the media is an important part of any media education curriculum, as is the cultivation of a critical analysis of media products. Masterman (1980) also recognizes that the development of media education beyond institutional education might best take place through the emergence of media centers. The roles Masterman outlines for such centers have long been accepted by many community television facilities in the United States. More recently, the connection between media literacy education and public access has been widely touted by the movement as a whole.

David Buckingham (1989, 1991) questions the basic assumptions of television's negative effects that underlie the mainstream media education theoretic and notes the dearth of studies that might support the claims of media education proponents. Buckingham points out:

The theory of television literacy which emerges here is thus fundamentally asocial. Its basic premise is that television literacy is a matter of individual "skills" or cognitive processes which may be identified without regard to the social contexts in which they are exercised, or the meanings which they are used to produce. (1989, 21)

While criticizing some of the unrealistic radical agenda he views within the media education movement, Buckingham agrees that

reflection and self-evaluation would appear to be crucial aspects of learning in media education. It is through reflection that students will be able to make their implicit "spontaneous" knowledge about the media explicit, and then . . . to reformulate it in terms of broader "scientific" concepts. (1991, 8)

Sholle and Denski also criticize the early forms of media literacy and, by extension, critical viewing skills as

constructed on a model of the media acting as a creator of messages that imposed meaning on the audience. . . . These approaches are limited by their reliance on a theory of the media-audience link as one of activity-passivity. . . . These approaches face the further limitation imposed by liberal undertheorizations of `critical thinking' in which all politics are removed from the concept of "critical," reducing it to the level of the banal and unproblematic discussion of "cognitive thinking skills." (1993, 302-303)

Particularly relevant to this study is the proposal by Sholle and Denski that a "critical media literacy" should grow beyond the classroom and enter into new relationships with people involved in various new technologies--including public access--and community action organizations using these technologies (1993, 317; 1994, 131).

Critical media education contributes particularly to this study by redirecting attention to the context and process by which literacy, demystification, and empowerment are achieved. Rather than focusing on the simple acquisition of skills, critical media educators address a complex interplay of individual awareness and action linked to a broader social framework.

These authors also allude to pluralist assumptions of power that form the basis for much of the traditional media education literature and, by extension, the public access vision of empowerment through media literacy and demystification. It is at this point that the related access ideals of diversity of views and the First Amendment intersect with the empowerment vision; the liberal democratic assumptions underlying freedom of speech guarantees are explored later in this chapter.

Connections: Media Education and Critical Pedagogy

The area of critical media pedagogy--the blend of critical pedagogy and critical media education emerging today--is particularly significant to this study, given its particular heading toward the lifelong learning of media.

Critical media pedagogy has been forged by scholars such as Duncan (1988); Giroux and McLaren (1992); Masterman (1989); and Sholle and Denski (1993; 1994). Feminist perspectives on critical media pedagogy are provided by Luke (1994).⁽¹²⁾

The forging of critical pedagogy with critical media education is typified by Giroux and McLaren:

Pedagogy occurs wherever knowledge is produced, wherever culture is given the possibility of translating experience and constructing truths, even if such appear unrelentingly redundant, superficial, and commonsensical. . . .

A critical pedagogy of representation recognizes that we inhabit a photocentric, aural, and televisual culture in which the proliferation of photographic and electronically produced images and sounds serves as a form of media catechism--a perpetual pedagogy--through which individuals ritually encode and evaluate the engagements they make in the various discursive contexts of everyday life. (1992, xxiii-xxiv)

The emerging critical media pedagogy champions a pedagogy that not only addresses that which ought to be addressed by media education but also informs the manner in which learning about the media is transferred in an experiential setting.

Critical media pedagogy moves away from applying media education strictly in the institutional context of school-age children and toward the application within lifelong learning. This manifests itself in two ways: (1) by bringing the life of the learner into the context of the media education, as was traditionally mandated by Freire's approach to critical pedagogy; and (2) by extending media education to people who are not in the classroom.

Thus, critical media pedagogy allows for a transfer of the media literacy concepts to the broader context of community television producers with which this study is concerned.

Connections: Media Education and Empowerment

The conflict within critical pedagogy regarding empowerment is reflected in media education. Here, too, differing visions of what constitutes empowerment compete for attention. However, with recent exceptions, assumptions of empowerment tend toward a rather constricted view of critical awareness as mere cognition, with a cursory recognition of some aspects of self-reflection.

Cognition is addressed from within the media production perspective: awareness of media codes, media organization, and relationships between media and societal organizations and institutions.

Media education shares with contemporary critical pedagogy a lack of any but a theoretical emphasis on critical action within the personal or societal realm. However, this is changing as the critical media pedagogy described above moves toward a conception of critical pedagogy that goes beyond institutional walls.

Connections: Media Education and Public Access

The previously described historical context from which public access and media education emerged directed similar approaches to media literacy and demystification within the differing arenas. It can be presumed that the concerns for media literacy and demystification within public access--as within media education--reflect the greater concerns of the society with the assumed effects of television and with methods by which to blunt this impact.

Recent critical approaches and interpretations of media education contest many of these assumptions of media effects. However, the media education chronology indicates that the foundational ingredients of media literacy and demystification remain intact. Thus, the constituent elements of empowerment within the video production context of public access remain constant throughout the media education literature; these elements constitute the areas of focus within the video empowerment chart.

Having reviewed public access literature related to the utopian promise of video and the more specific vision of empowerment--the literatures of critical pedagogy and media education--we will now turn to another aspect of the empowerment vision: the ideal of the diversity of ideas.

Freedom of Speech and the Ideal of Diversity

During discussions of public access, media literacy and demystification, and empowerment, several allusions have been made to underlying assumptions associated with liberal democratic philosophical thought. These assumptions are most pronounced in writings addressing the public access ideal of diversity.

Diversity of ideas is a fundamental tenet of public access, which states that the movement provides citizens the opportunity to utilize electronic media in the exercise of their First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech. This public access canon of political participation is conceptualized for this study within the broader framework of the vision of empowerment, where persons become more critically aware of themselves, others, and society and possibly take action to change power relationships in these spheres.

To provide a context, the diversity tenet will be addressed here by exploring traditional and critical interpretations of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression;⁽¹³⁾

these interpretations will then be linked to coinciding viewpoints from within public access.

Traditional Interpretations of Freedom of Speech

Traditional interpretations of the First Amendment focus on the doctrine's emergence from philosophical movements,⁽¹⁴⁾

concentrating on the ideals of

enlightenment faith in the corrective of reasoned debate, and the attainability of rational, consensual truth; the scientific perfectibility of human beings and human institutions, especially through democratic rule; the necessity of an informed and tolerant populace to the functioning of a democracy; [and] the rise, with the Industrial Revolution, of the economic value of mass literacy. (Ruggles 1994, 141-142)⁽¹⁵⁾

Based on these Enlightenment ideals, traditional liberal democratic justifications of freedom of speech rights have centered on (1) the necessity of open discussion as part of a process that furthers the discovery of truth; (2) the necessity of an informed citizenry to participate in the decision-making processes of a democratic society; (3) the necessity of open discussion to affect peaceful social change and avoid violent upheaval; and (4) freedom of expression as a necessary component of individual human development (Ruggles 1994, 14-16; Emerson 1970, 6-7).⁽¹⁶⁾

First Amendment scholars disagree on the relative importance of the justifications described above. However, the majority place emphasis on the concept of freedom of expression as a social rather than individual need.⁽¹⁷⁾

Meiklejohn states:

The principle of the freedom of speech springs from the necessities of the program of self-government. It is not a Law of Nature or of Reason in the abstract. It is a deduction from the basic American agreement that public issues shall be decided by universal suffrage. (1948, 27)

Lippmann argues:

So, if this is the best that can be said for liberty of opinion, that a man must tolerate his opponents because everyone has a "right" to say what he pleases, then we shall find that liberty of opinion is a luxury, safe only in pleasant times when men can be tolerant because they are not deeply and vitally concerned.

Yet actually . . . there is a much stronger foundation for the great constitutional right of freedom of speech. . . . [W]e must protect the right of our opponents to speak because we must hear what they have to say. . . . [F]reedom of discussion improves our own opinions. (1939, 186)

In these views, freedom of speech and the tolerance of differing ideas associated with it are not ends in themselves but rather means of reaching a higher goal: truth.

Traditional interpretations of freedom of speech are mirrored in regulations and legislation guiding the U.S. electronic media, including those regarding public access cable television. These linkages will be reviewed next.

Public Access: The "Electronic Soapbox"

Some legal theorists from within the traditional perspective, such as Barron (1973), have interpreted the First Amendment as implying a public right of access to the media. Schmidt argues that the concept of the "marketplace of ideas" has deteriorated, given the monopoly concentration of ownership of media outlets. Thus, he contends, the First Amendment's prohibition of government interference with free speech and free press does not go far enough to ensure the desired diversity of ideas; access provisions to media provide "an affirmative dimension to the First Amendment, whereby the constitutional mandate would be used to force open the marketplace of ideas" (1976, 38).⁽¹⁸⁾

Traditional interpretations of the First Amendment have been reflected in FCC regulations, congressional legislation, and judicial decisions regarding the electronic media, as exemplified by the U.S. Supreme Court's Red Lion decision:

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. . . . "[S]peech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression, it is the essence of self-government." . . . It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. (Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. 1969, 390)⁽¹⁹⁾

Traditional liberal democratic interpretations of freedom of speech are reflected within the basic tenets of public access television. Proponents of community television have spoken passionately of the "electronic soapbox" nature of public access; since its inception, the medium's role as a guarantor of "an electronic First Amendment" right of freedom of speech through the media has been touted regularly. This view of access is exemplified by the following:

Deep historic roots give [access] its strength. It is the fundamental belief of the democratic approach to society that each individual has worth, has an equal right with all others to voice his or her opinion on public matters, and has an equal right to hear the expressions of all other fellow citizens.

Access to the means of communication both as "writers" and "readers" is fundamental to our First Amendment tradition. Until the advent of access to cable, exercise of such rights on television, the most powerful and pervasive means of communication in our society, was severely limited. (Rice 1983, 70)

Similar perspectives are reflected in Anderson (1975); Engelman (1990); Fuller (1994); Hollowell (1983); Johnson (1986); Johnson and Gerlach (1977); Meyerson (1985); Pool (1973); Rice (1983); and the Sloan Commission (1971).⁽²⁰⁾

The view of public access as a bastion of First Amendment rights was noted by Congress during discussion of the 1984 Cable Act:

the purposes of access regulations serve a most significant and compelling governmental interest--promotion of the basic underlying values of the First Amendment itself. . . .

Public access channels are often the video equivalent of the speaker's soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet. They provide groups and individuals who generally have not had access to the electronic media with the opportunity to become sources of information in the electronic marketplace of ideas. (U.S. 1984. 30, 34)⁽²¹⁾

Although the basic tenets of public access reflect traditional approaches to the First Amendment, the access canon is being questioned from within the movement by a growing number of critical analyses. These critiques mirror challenges by critical scholars of traditional perspectives on free speech doctrine; these arguments are explored below.

Critical Interpretations

Critical scholars have questioned basic tenets upon which the liberal democratic tradition is founded.⁽²²⁾

Particular attention has been directed to (1) the nature of truth and the structure through which it emerges, (2) the attributes of power, and (3) the characteristics of the individual's relationship with the collective.

Many critiques question Enlightenment assumptions that a single, definable, objective "Truth" exists and that this truth can be known by human beings. Beyond this issue of truth is also a question of process: assumptions that truth is best revealed through a dialectic clash within the "marketplace of ideas."

Schauer reflects the skepticism of contemporary First Amendment scholars in his discussion of the "naive faith of the Enlightenment" that truth prevails over falsehood when the two compete in the "marketplace of ideas" (134). He notes:

Put quite starkly, truth does not always win out. . . . The inherent power of truth and reason was one of the faiths of the Enlightenment, but more contemporary psychological and sociological insights have confirmed the judgment of history that truth is often the loser in its battle with falsity. (1985, 142)⁽²³⁾

Dervin, Osborne, et al. provide a structural argument related to traditional liberal democratic ideals of free speech. They argue that a widespread belief in the dialectic emergence of truth privileges conflict models of communication that are challenged by contemporary thought in fields such as feminist scholarship (1993, 6).

Conflict models are at the heart of pluralist assumptions of the nature of power. Power (when it is acknowledged) is traditionally envisaged as having the following characteristics: observable in the form of conflict, operating within public view, shared equally by individuals, and working for the common good. Critiques of such pluralist precepts, such as those provided by Lukes (1974) and Good (1989), describe a process where power more often works covertly for specialized interests and is inequitably distributed within society. Dominant groups wield social power in part by institutional structure and their ability to manipulate the attitudes and perceptions of subordinate groups, leading to the latter's noncritical acceptance of their societal roles.⁽²⁴⁾

Marcuse (1965/1983) questions liberal democratic assumptions of power and the ideology of tolerance. He concludes that suppressive power wielded by dominant forces within a society effectively limits the possibility of the exchange of ideas. Tolerance, he believes, appears as

a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. . . . [W]hat is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression. (1965/1983, 316)

In Marcuse's view, the ideology of tolerance within the pluralist tradition serves to protect and strengthen the dominant societal forces, thereby perpetuating inequality and discrimination through the conservation of the status quo (1968/1983, 341). Tolerance, he argues, is repressive.

In addition to questions of truth and the nature of power, liberal democratic assumptions of individualism are also challenged by critical scholars. Streeter notes that Liberalism assumes a dichotomy of individuals set against society, from which emerges "the familiar tenets of Liberalism, such as the belief that freedom of speech and individualism act as key mechanisms of resistance to social domination" (1990, 48).

Streeter (1990) and Dervin and Clark (1993) argue that this dichotomy is false; individuals and society cannot be divorced from one another. The individual and the collective depend upon each other for identity and growth. The societal structure is internalized within the individual, making fallacious the axiom and goal of Liberal thought: "the radical autonomy of the individual from the social" (Streeter 1990, 48).

The critical project, as it relates to this study's focus on issues related to freedom of speech, questions liberal democratic assumptions of truth, the structure through which truth emerges, the nature of power, and the individual/collective dichotomy. In their analyses, critical scholars espouse a more authentic democratic society, rooted in a fully developed understanding of the nature of human beings and the social formations they construct. This is exemplified by Ruggles:

I wish to conclude, then, by pointing beyond the critique of liberal rights to a cautiously hopeful historical vista. . . . [T]he notion of freedom of expression has not only the repressive meanings we have explored but also a transformative potential, transcending liberal ideology. . . . I believe that "free speech" is a necessary element of effective practical reason, authentic democracy and consensual justice, even though these may be incompatible with the stability and growth of the capitalist market system. (1994, 163-164; emphasis in original)

It is from within this framework of cautious optimism--but still primarily within liberal ideology--that a limited critical analysis of public access emerges.

Public Access: Critiques from Within the Movement

Critical perspectives of the public access vision of empowerment and related community television assumptions in general were addressed previously in this chapter and in chapter 1; these critiques generally come from outside the alternative video arena.⁽²⁵⁾ Within the movement, most analyses of public access as a means of promoting democratic communications draw from relatively traditional interpretations of the First Amendment.⁽²⁶⁾ It is such interpretations that Good (1989), based on Lukes (1974), labels as "apologetically integrative." While they may appear to critique pluralist ideology, Good identifies such arguments as "actually qualified criticisms that ultimately form an ironic articulation of apology for a `common good' view of power" (1989, 52; emphasis in original).

The criticisms from within public access represent positive steps to move beyond naive assumptions of democracy and power, toward a more integrated view of access within a complex societal framework. Nonetheless, they continue to reflect traditional conceptualizations of freedom of speech issues. For example, the aforementioned discussion of the First Amendment, which visualizes free speech as a means of promoting public discourse rather than as a vehicle for personal expression, is reflected in this statement by the former chair of the NFLCP:

Our experience of public access to cable over the past two decades suggests that access may have nothing to do with democracy--nothing, that is, until the people who provide and use access connect the two. We can no longer simply assume that access to media tools and channels is enough. . . .

[I]f we take seriously this link between the right to speak with and hear from others and the daily practice of democracy, then we ought to organize our access tools to foster a kind of participation that enables people to take part in the decisions affecting their community. In this sense, simply talking a lot means little. (Blau 1992b, 22)

This challenge to the established public access assumption--that many voices equal diversity--reflects Lippmann's and Meiklejohn's arguments described previously in this chapter. Until recently, such a challenge was also nearly heretical within public access circles.

Public access has tended to promote the idea of freedom of individual expression rather than the quality of ideas heard within the structure of public debate on public issues (Devine 1990, 1992a, 1992b; Aufderheide 1992). Devine further describes access as a site of cultural activism: where traditional power relationships are challenged and where human agency is cultivated as people are allowed to come to voice. This, Devine asserts, is empowering (1992b, 22-23).

Here, then, is the intersection of discussions related to public access, freedom of speech, and empowerment. Devine has referred to elements of empowerment as they have been defined within this study: awareness and action. The manner in which public access allows persons to speak within the context of the public discussion of issues relates to both traditional interpretations of the necessity of public discourse and to critical interpretations of power.

Within this context, media demystification and media literacy become tools for challenging the way things are, not merely devices that allow persons to function as good consumers of some commodified version of "information."

Gaventa argues that the very act of participation on the part of people that were previously passive challenges the status quo. In his study of power relationships within an Appalachian valley, Gaventa draws from Lukes and Freire when he notes the following:

Combined with opportunities for reflection, the new participation of the previously quiescent should carry with it the development of political consciousness, leading to action upon more far-reaching demands. The simple breaking of patterns of non-participation will be a threat to the powerful. (1980, 209)

Following Gaventa's logic, the very act of participation at access facilities by volunteer producers challenges the authority of the traditional media structure--who produces and who receives media messages.

Thus, despite the contested ideological assumptions upon which the public access vision of empowerment is founded, traditional and critical perspectives of public access television recognize the transformative potential of participation within a production context--for individuals, groups, and, possibly, society.

Summary of the Literature Review

This study is directed by the literatures of public access, critical pedagogy, and media education. Selected reviews of freedom of speech issues fill out areas related to diversity within the empowerment vision.

The public access literature provides the context for this study: societal concerns related to a monopoly dominated broadcasting system led to the establishment of community television centers. Assumptions of empowerment based on media literacy and demystification, and related to ideals of diversity and freedom of speech, formed the basis for this action; these suppositions are not without contest.

Questions of empowerment are addressed by the critical pedagogy literature. This body of work indicates a debate over what constitutes awareness and action within empowerment: Is critical awareness cognition alone, or is it cognition and self-reflection? Is critical action any action implementing cognition/self-reflection, or is it action that leads to societal change?

This study will test for these elements of empowerment within the experience of public access volunteer producers. Specifically, this study asks if there is any evidence of any outcomes resultant from public access training and participation. If so, is there any evidence of structural change related to these outcomes?

In addition, critical pedagogy provides for the application of the theoretic of education to the lifelong learning setting and directs an approach to methodology for this study. This methodology is discussed in chapter 3.

The media education literature focuses on the elements of empowerment within the context of video production. Thus, it attempts to answer the question "What is empowerment in this specific context?" and give insight into the specific awareness and specific action that might be labeled as media literacy and media demystification. The literature provides the constituent elements necessary for media literacy and demystification.

Literature related to freedom of speech issues has addressed the basic ideological assumptions upon which public access was founded; theorists argue about the possibility of addressing the inequities in society without a sophisticated conceptualization of power, the individual, and the nature of "truth." These discussions call into question the possibility of video training that allows for empowerment on the level of societal change.

In this study, the theoretic of a lifelong learning process is translated into the public access facility, where persons from a community are trained in the operations of video and audio equipment. Their reasons for approaching the facility and equipment are varied. Based on the literatures, this dissertation will investigate the assumptions of public access: that an awareness of self, others, and society--that is related to personal and/or societal action--emerges as the community producer learns and exercises technical skills.

1. Community radio shares many of the ideals of public access television; however, there are significant differences between the two regarding structure, operations, funding, and ideology. These differences are not insurmountable; for example, the Grand Rapids Community Media Center (GRCMC) in Michigan operates a community radio station as well as a public access cable television channel, an interactive educational access channel, a community film and video archives, and a computer FreeNet with access to the Internet.

Further discussion of U.S. community radio is provided by Downing (1984). Armstrong (1981) and Barlow (1988) also include information regarding the coordinating organization, the National Federation of Community Broadcasters. In particular, Lorenzo Milam (1975) is considered the "Johnny Appleseed" of U.S. community radio; his Sex and Broadcasting is a classic in community radio circles.

Discussion of international community radio is provided by Downing (1984) and Lewis (1984; 1993). Girard (1992) also includes information regarding the organization, the World Federation of Community-Oriented Radio Broadcasters (known by its French acronym, AMARC).

2. The ACM was formerly called the National Federation of Local Cable Programmers (NFLCP). The name was changed in 1992. With a few exceptions, I will refer to both as the ACM.

3. While the focus of this study is on public access within the United States, other experiences with community television inform this study. In addition to the Canadian experiences cited above, other international uses of alternative video are discussed by Berrigan (1977), Dowmunt (1993), and Lewis (1993). Thede and Ambrosi (1991) also include information regarding Videazimut, an international organization focusing on community video.

Bibby, Denford, and Cross (1979); the Council for the Development of Community Media (1983); Mattelart and Mattelart (1982); and Mattelart and Piemme (1980) provide critiques of community television ideals based on experiences outside the United States. These ideals are shared by access advocates within the United States and are directly applicable to this study.

4. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, which revised the 1984 Act, addresses some aspects of public access. However, the 1992 Act primarily targets rates for cable television service.

S.2195, "The National Public Telecommunications Infrastructure Act of 1994," was recently introduced in the Senate. The bill contains provisions for channel space and funding that extends the notion of public access to all telecommunications networks.

5. Indeed, since work began on this study in 1991, a noticeable shift has occurred within the public access movement. Annual national conferences have begun to include the presentation of philosophical and theoretical "white papers"; the pages of ACM's Community Media Review have reflected a similar transformation. Within the movement, a strong self-reflective perspective has emerged, questioning long-held tenets of CTV ideology.

6. For a response to Garnham's critique of video, see Devine (1992b).

7. Barnouw's observation also applies to computers and the rhetoric surrounding the utopian promise of the National Information Infrastructure (NII), or "information superhighway." For an outline of the NII initiative, see Huth and Gould (1993).

8. Garnham also states that "The great advantage of the `process' defence of video from the point of view of its advocates is that it cannot be tested" (1990, 67). I disagree; I believe this dissertation represents such a test.

9. This perspective of an actor-centered pedagogy will also influence the methodological direction of this study, as noted in chapter 3.

10. In fact, Giroux and McLaren (1992) have become involved recently in the application of critical pedagogy to media education.

11. The relationship between "television as a leisure activity" and media education is addressed by Sholle and Denski (1994).

12. See also the Journal of Communication Inquiry 18.2 (Summer 1994), with its focus on critical media pedagogy.

13. Good (1989), drawing from Lukes (1974), classifies pluralist assumptions about power within communication studies into 3 categories: the "thoroughly integrative view" (Lukes's "one dimensional view"), the "apologetically integrative view" (Lukes's "two dimensional view"), and the "critical view" (Lukes's "three dimensional view"). For the purposes of this discussion, I am utilizing the term "traditional" to include the first two categories within Good's taxonomy.

For applications of Lukes to public access, see Devine (1992b).

14. Sources for traditional interpretations of freedom of speech are provided by Emerson (1970); Haiman (1966); Lippmann (1939); Logue (1972); Meiklejohn (1948); Mill (1859/1993); Ruggles (1994); Schauer (1985); and Stevens (1982).

15. Streeter (1990) discusses how these Enlightenment assumptions are reflected within the U.S. legal system. Good (1989) would classify these within the "thoroughly integrative view" of power and communication.

16. I note similarities between this view of freedom of expression as an important element of the development of the individual, and a portion of the empowerment definition in use through this study: becoming aware of oneself. However, the empowerment definition is based on a critical (self-reflective) awareness, rather than a nebulous concept of individual need.

17. These would follow Good's (1989) classification of the "apologetically integrative view" of power within communication. This would also include others, such as Caristi (1992), who argues that the greatest aspect of the freedom of speech provisions is that of personal expression, because it includes all other aspects and also allows for human self-realization. Caristi uses this as a base from which to argue for public access to the broadcast media.

Barron (1973) also argues for imposing requirements of access on the media, but from the standpoint of freedom of speech to promote a wider diversity of viewpoints within a democracy.

18. Caristi (1992) argues that self-fulfillment is the greatest overreaching benefit of Freedom of Speech, and that the government should make available access channels within the broadcast spectrum to extend the opportunity for self-expression.

19. A key phrase of Red Lion was the observation that "It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount" (Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC 1969, 390). It is worth noting that the Red Lion case was decided in the same social climate of the late 1960s, when public access cable television was emerging as an alternative to mainstream monopoly broadcasting. The tone of the judicial, legislative, and regulatory climate has changed dramatically in recent years; today, the media's role as an electronic public sphere is deemphasized in favor of its function as a consumer marketplace.

For further discussion of Red Lion and contrary judicial decisions regarding the public's right to access of the media, see Caristi (1992). For further discussion of public access cable television and the public sphere, see Aufderheide (1992) and Devine (1992a).

20. These interpretations are within Good's (1989) "Thoroughly Integrative view."

21. This language did not make its way into the 1984 Cable Act. For further reference, consult the 1984 Cable Act (Pub. L. 98-549).

The Cable Television Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-385), a major revision of the 1984 Cable Act, shifted the responsibility for cable access programming to the cable operators. This provision was successfully challenged in court by the ACM; the FCC is now appealing the decision.

22. Sources for critical perspectives on freedom of speech and underlying pluralist assumptions include Dervin (1993); Flory (1987); Good (1989); Lukes (1974); Marcuse (1965/1983, 1968/1983); Ruggles (1994); Schauer (1985); and Streeter (1990).

23. Note that Schauer is arguing from within the traditional perspective; his approach follows Good's (1989) "apologetically integrative view."

24. This last argument is related to Gramsci's (1973) discussion of hegemony.

25. In particular, see Bibby, Denford, and Cross (1979); Council for the Development of Community Media (1983); Garnham (1990); and Mattelart and Piemme (1980).

26. Exceptions are provided by Devine and Aufderheide, who do raise critical themes within their works.