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 5, part A. Not yet available.
CHAPTER V
INDUCTIVE DATA ANALYSIS
As stated previously, the focus of this dissertation is to test the implementation and viability of the public access vision of empowerment through media demystification and media literacy that is said to result from video production practice.
Specifically, the purpose of this study is to test the public access vision of empowerment as explicated in the video empowerment chart (Figure 1): to see (1) if producers of public access programs have an awareness of the media's structure and operation, including a sense of the codes of television; (2) if this awareness of the media's structure, operation, and codes assists producers in defining a sense of self, others, and society; (3) if producers take action to implement these awarenesses; and (4) if producers identify and change relationships, particularly within the societal realm.
Chapter 4 focused on a deductive analysis of the study data; this chapter will move beyond that
chapter's focus on the amount of talk and will concentrate inductively on the experiences of the
producers participating in this study. This chapter will use the deductive sensitizing concepts
discussed in chapter 3 and will integrate the findings discovered through the quantitative
overview of the data presented in chapter 4.
Summary of Deductive Findings
By utilizing the video empowerment chart, chapter 4 employed the vision road map framework discussed in chapter 3. The results of the coding were presented in a quantitative manner to gain a perspective of the amount of talk judged to be taking place within the confines of the video empowerment chart.
As stated in chapter 4, the results of the deductive analysis are as follows:
1. Media literacy is an outcome of the public access experience for all the producers taking part
in this study. Media demystification is an outcome for many, but not all.
2. A new awareness of self is an outcome of the public access experience for some of the
respondents; most also experience a new awareness of others. There is far less societal-related
awareness, although there is some.
3. For the producers in this study, awareness in the form of cognition and/or reflection occurs
more often than action. This is particularly the case within the societal realm.
4. Producers in this study operate more within the area of production than the personal realm; they operate within the societal realm least of all.
These deductive results will be addressed within the inductive analysis of this chapter.
PRESENTATION OF QUALITATIVE RESULTS
As discussed in chapter 3, the inductive analysis used in this chapter employs the framework of the life path, as informed primarily by Sense-Making. Guided by the sensitizing concepts of media literacy, media demystification, and empowerment, the following six themes have been identified as particularly relevant to this study:
1. Media Savvy: An awareness and utilization of production codes, equipment, and
organizational structures. The ability to evaluate programs and come to conclusions regarding
the content and technical aspects of programs.
2. It's Personal: The casting of access experiences in personal terms; these internal linkings may
be intellectual, emotional, etc.
3. Tolerance: An understanding and/or acceptance of the differences of others--personal or
ideological.
4. Community: The sense of belonging to a cohesive group of individuals, usually with a
common purpose.
5. Making a Difference: The sense that an individual's/group's actions are important, and that
change at the societal level can be affected.
6. Alternative Visions of Access: Visions of public access expressed by producers were not
necessarily related to the vision of public access informing this study.
The discussion of these themes below is organized according to the public access vision framework discussed in chapters 1 and 3, which guided the organization of the quantitative analysis in chapter 4:
media literacy ---> media demystification = empowerment (awareness of self, others, and society; action to change relationships in these areas)
Accordingly, the order in which themes will be discussed throughout the remainder of this chapter is the same as that in which they are listed above.
The discussion will draw from the individual interviews coded and analyzed in chapter 4;
responses from the group interviews will also be included.(1)
1. Media Savvy
The data indicate that a major learning outcome for all producers in this study is a highly refined sense of media savvy, defined as an awareness and utilization of production codes, equipment, and organizational structures. Media savvy also refers to the ability to evaluate programs and come to conclusions regarding the content and technical aspects of programs.
Media savvy is related to the sensitizing concepts of media literacy and media demystification presented by the media education literature and discussed in chapters 1 and 2. The deductive analysis in chapter 4 concluded that media literacy was an outcome of the access experience for all of the producers in this study; media demystification was an outcome for many, but not all. This section will focus on an inductive analysis of the rich interaction operating within the broader theme of media savvy.
Within media savvy there are four major organizing subthemes, which reflect the variety of aspects in which respondents referred to media:
Program media savvy: refers to the programs viewed on or created for television
Technical media savvy: refers to the technical aspects used to create programs on television
Symbolic media savvy: refers to the symbolic codes used within television programs
System media savvy: refers to the structures of the media industry and related non-media organizations
The subthemes of program, technical, and symbolic media savvy have similarities to the media education goal of media literacy: assisting viewers to evaluate the content and intent of television programs, and the meanings found within these programs.
System media savvy parallels the media education goal of media demystification: making apparent the workings of the media as a system by itself and within society.
The discussion of media savvy concludes with a look at the struggles against media savvy.
Program Media Savvy
Program media savvy focuses on program content; it refers to (1) awareness and action by producers regarding various types of programs; (2) awareness and action by producers regarding the availability or unavailability of program types across the entire media spectrum; and (3) awareness and action by producers regarding an ability to evaluate the content and/or (un)availability of these programs. Program media savvy relates to a lower level of media literacy as presented by the media education literature and reflected in the video empowerment chart. Program media savvy is centered primarily in the chart row of the canon of production, but also includes a few elements of the row of media organization.
The data indicate that most respondents expressed an awareness of the various types of programs found on the mainstream media and public access television. Informants also evaluated the content and (un)availability of diverse programming at the mainstream and public access levels. Meredith and Daniel provide examples of program media savvy:
Meredith: ... I would conclude that although we think that we have a lot of variety on TV and a lot of choices, when you really look at it all that variety, so-called variety and choices pretty much is the same thing just in different packages ... (b4P1a)
[But] that some of the monotony that they might see on other channels is not the whole universe.... (b4P4a)
Daniel indicates a cognitive and self-reflective awareness of media programs:
Daniel: ... Every time we turn around we put a TV in front of us. Sometimes we look at it without a lot of these blinders on. We don't know what exactly is going on behind the scenes and I've always been one that wants to know what's happening. When things are produced, how does it all get together? Why is it we're watching certain shows and not other shows and this is constantly what we're seeing. And I think a better understanding of what video is about and what it does and the production ideas make it easier to understand why we're seeing all these sitcoms every night when we go home, that are driving us nuts. And how the talk shows are coming in so heavy. I think we -- I can better understand some of them, the philosophy behind them now. But I've done some of this where I've helped with some of these talk shows or sitcom type productions, learn a little bit more of what the real value is of some of this TV. (b6P8a)
In the instances cited above, Daniel and Meredith are describing program-related facets of the mainstream media and public access. They exemplify a common perspective among the producers: that the mainstream media fails to provide a variety of programs and information, and that public access offers an array of widely diverse, often controversial programs.
Daniel and Meredith exemplify how program media savvy is primarily cognitive; Daniel shows how, at times, it is reflective. For the most part, however, program media savvy is not action-oriented. Those times when there is implementation within program media savvy also relate primarily to other subthemes within media savvy, or relate predominantly to other themes altogether.
Thea provides such an example. She describes how she purposely includes elements in her programs because they are not included in mainstream television:
Thea: In some ways yeah, I'd say that when I looked at television and I saw that some things weren't being answered or looked at there I tried to incorporate things that -- put that into my productions ... (b3P4a)
Although Thea provides an example of program media savvy related to action, she is not only
indicating an implementation of awareness, she is doing so with a desire to fill a gap left by
mainstream programs. As such, Thea's action is an attempt to address power relationships within
the television industry, related more to the theme of making a difference discussed later in this
chapter. Thea is also describing her attempt to address these power relationships within her
program, related to a technical construction of her program, and fitting within technical media
savvy, addressed below.
Technical Media Savvy
Technical media savvy refers to the ability to identify and/or integrate the manner in which programs are constructed: processes, equipment, etc. Respondents also are able to evaluate and/or integrate the techniques and processes involved in the construction of television programs.
A technical awareness of program construction and implementation of this awareness is prevalent throughout the data.(2) Technical media savvy most closely parallels the higher-level concepts of media literacy as defined within the media education literature discussed in chapters 1 and 2.
As discussed in chapter 4, the data support the notion that media literacy is a major learning outcome on the part of the producers in this study. Accordingly, among the media savvy subthemes, technical media savvy is most closely associated with the amount of talk within the most dynamic of the chart cell intersections described in chapter 4: the row of the canon of production and the column of the production domain.
The profusion of talk within this aspect may be explained in part by the fact that, as producers and crew members, the respondents are constantly engaged in an effort to improve their productions as well as their contributions to other shows, and therefore are continually evaluating the technical elements within programs with which they are associated. Denise provides such an example:
Denise: I don't think anything about my show held me back. I saw a lot of things that I didn't want, like criticism, like I felt my mic[rophone] showed and dumb things but I don't see anything of my show holding me back. I really don't. (b7P5a)
Meredith provides another example of evaluation as she discusses ways she might have improved a program:
Meredith: ... It could be better casting. Maybe I used the wrong person. The lighting could have been better or maybe the whole scene could have been shot in a different location. The blocking could have been different or the audio -- sometimes there is a slight problem with the audio, that has nothing to do with the fact that it is on a low-powered station or coming cross through that facility. Sometimes it has to do with the things going on right at the production point. So sometimes the audio could be improved. Audio I find is the most challenging bit concerning putting something really of high quality on the air. (b1P4a)
Various aspects within technical media savvy emerge through the data, and are explored in turn below:
Technical media savvy as seams-shattering: refers to the ability to deconstruct television
programs
Technical media savvy as routine: refers to the internalization of the technical process by
producers
Technical media savvy as survival skill: refers to the internalization of the technical process as
vital within a production context
Technical Media Savvy as Seams-Shattering. The discussion in chapter 2 defines media literacy as the ability to "read" and "write" the audio/video production and symbolic codes of television and the ability to evaluate programs. The goal of this literacy is, in part, to allow viewers to recognize that television programs are constructions of reality and not reality itself. This is accomplished by teaching "readers" how to deconstruct television programs to their component elements, and to construct programs as the "writers" with their own goals and objectives in mind.
The deconstruction of television programs is the essence of media literacy; "technical media savvy as seams-shattering" is related to this element of media literacy.
The media education literature discussed in chapter 2 posits that the "reality" presented by mainstream television seems "natural." This facade of normalcy is said to require enormous effort to construct on the part of program producers; programs are often judged to be more successful the more natural a program appears. Media education and public access assert that when people begin to produce their own programs, they see at once the effort required to create this "seamless" world, because they often are attempting to create similarly "seamless" realities.(3)
These new video "writers" are said to have their "reading" of television changed forever because they are now able to deconstruct programs and analyze the techniques that are used to create the "naturalness" of television.
The data support these media education concepts. All the producers interviewed for this study began to look at television in a different light after their access training; in effect, they developed an ability to deconstruct, or "shatter the seams" of, the television reality.
Thea, an access dropout, provides an example of seams-shattering. In her case, shattering the seams of television has helped her develop an "eye" for media; she also acts on this awareness in certain circumstances:
Thea: ... I think a lot of my influences came within my first year of public access and it was when I was taking -- when I was starting to work on other people's productions and seeing what they were doing in the studio and seeing the different camera angles and movements and working in the control room.
I started getting interested in watching TV and seeing how they did things, watching camera angles, watching edits, that sort of thing. How smooth it went, how choppy, you know.
Talk shows on ACTV, I would compare them with talk shows on regular television and things like that, or even when I went to the regular movie theaters. I still do this. I'll get up and if they don't have it focused on both sides of the screen I'll immediately go to the front office and ask them to focus it because it will drive me crazy, and I've never done that before.
I guess it helped me develop an eye even if it is not as professional as those people who work in television. It just helped me appreciate it and develop an eye for some things. (B3)
Noreen, a mid-timer,(4) also exemplifies seams-shattering. For her, this includes the realization that television programs are approached with set schedules and goals; she also integrates this realization in the construction of her own programs:
Noreen: ... To do a show you have to look at things in different terms. ... [Y]ou have to look at setting times. You have to look at both being clear in your goal, on stating what your TV show wants to accomplish and I look at it like being you're good speakers that you say at the beginning what you're gonna say, then you say it and then you wrap up by telling people what they just heard. And that when you do my kind of shows is you really enforce it. You give a phone number, you give an address, you give reference material. But if you're gonna educate someone on a topic then you have to do it a whole different way or a whole bunch of different ways. (B6)
In her description of "looking at things in different terms," Noreen is deconstructing the seemingly "natural" aspects of a video program by identifying some of the separate tasks and goals involved in program construction. Her experience coincides with the goals of media literacy within media education; these emphasize helping viewers identify video programs not as "seamless" reflections of reality, but as representations of a particular producer's perspective, following specific objectives.
Tom, the long timer quoted previously in chapter 3, also illustrates seams-shattering. Like Noreen, he recognizes that programs have predetermined goals, and he integrates these goals into his program (b4P7a).
Thea, Noreen, and Tom all indicate an awareness that television programs are made, not born. This deconstructs the seemingly natural television program, breaking the program into component elements available for critique.
For Noreen and Tom, an essential first step is to decide on the goals and objectives of the program. This helps them concentrate on the program's other elements. Alfred exemplifies the process involved in seams-shattering deconstruction through the very process of constructing a program. In Alfred's case, he now organizes his production by proceeding one step at a time:
Alfred: ... It made me realize I need to formulate a new plan for doing it, which I did. So now I'm doing things a different way....
[M]y new plan is to take one step per time out. Every time I go to do something I just do one thing. So like today I'll do my profiles, my introductions, my voice-overs, anything I had to do that way. Tomorrow I'll do my insert editing. The next day I'll do my graphics and I'll have my whole show done in a step program or a step method of trying to get it done....
[That way], I don't have to worry about messing nothing else up. If I got it all down -- if I got those parts down right I don't have to worry about messing anything else up. I take the time to do those things one thing at the time. I can concentrate on them and get them done better, to get them done a whole lot better. I even learned how to work with that Amiga [computer] a little better. I know that I used it and made some mistakes in that use, but I was able to finish my program that gave me the headache in the first place.... (b2P4a)
As an aspect of the technical media savvy subtheme, seams-shattering contributes to an understanding of the quantitative weight given to the media literacy areas of the video empowerment chart discussed in chapter 4. Although the producers talked at length about matters judged to be cognition, most talk judged as action took place within media literacy. Overall, media literacy was the most talked-about area across the chart.
Seams-shattering helps show why--it is here that all the elements of empowerment are manifest: cognition, reflection, and action. Producers learn to deconstruct television programs as they work on the construction of programs. They then reflect on this awareness as it relates to their own performance and/or program. They then consciously apply what they have learned to their next program. In so doing, they are acting on awarenesses related to both the construction and the deconstruction of television programs.
The actions within seams-shattering occasionally extend into societal action. Earlier in this chapter, Thea described her attempts to include elements in her productions that were not being looked at on mainstream television (b3P4a). Tom also uses his program to addresses societal issues (b4P1a). Both Thea and Tom exemplify the action within the technical media savvy subtheme of seams-shattering; each is attempting to address inequities in society through his or her program.
The cases of Noreen, Tom, and Alfred demonstrate an awareness of the approaches necessary to produce a program. Not only are they aware of these approaches, but they have reflected on the procedures with respect to their own programs. They then integrated these procedures into their own production processes. Thus they have exemplified the manner by which cognition, reflection, and action are involved in seams-shattering deconstruction through the very process of constructing a program.
Seams-shattering contains an added dimension--"can't turn it off," defined as an inability by producers to stop deconstructing video programs. The data indicate that a few producers find it difficult to "turn off" the seams-shattering mindset. Daniel, a long-time producer, talks about going to the movies and laughing at the visible "seams"; in his case, it sometimes interferes with enjoying the film.
Daniel: There are a lot of times it would be nice just to be able to watch a movie for the fun of watching the movie. I find myself a lot times drifting off and doing the same thing, not consciously listening to or watching it and just go mechanically through the ideas of what went through the process that particular piece of video or film. The Nightmare Before Christmas -- I watched that and then I sat there and I thought more technically how the guy got the people to move than I was the story content. It's [laughing] and then you want to go back in and pay $5 to watch the movie again. It may not be all that bad for the guy at the ticket booth. Sometimes you come out of a movie you say "Man that was great. They really worked those puppets good." "What was the story about?" "Oh, oh" [laughing]. (b3P3a)
Charlie, a relative newcomer, also has difficulty "turning off" the seams-shattering; in her case, she finds herself looking at the world as material for inclusion in her next video production.
Charlie: I think it all relates to my life because my life is so ingrained in it now.... I'm always thinking in terms of when we're out and we see something and it's like "Oh, I should videotape that and put it on the program schedule," or "That'd be a nice background for this video," or whatever. I'm always thinking more in terms of what I see around me and how I could best to use it with the public access station. (b5P7a)
"Can't turn it off" points to the impact of the seams-shattering skills on the daily lives of some of
the producers. Additional investigation of the personal impacts of the access experience is
presented later in this chapter.
Technical Media Savvy as Routine. The data indicate that the day-to-day skills and perceptions involved in creating video programs are internalized by all producers--to the point that they become second nature. All producers consistently referred matter-of-factly to production terms, techniques, and equipment throughout their interviews; this is a trait commonly found among professional video specialists.
While seams-shattering involves the foregrounding of the general processes by which a program is constructed, the technical as routine refers to the backgrounding of the more detailed rote processes of program production, and the theories underlying these processes. Both seams-shattering and technical media savvy as routine are evidenced by all producers.
Thea provides an example of the routinization of the technical: here she describes an incident during work on her first program in public access:
Thea: He [the volunteer editor] wanted a more literal interpretation of the song than what I had in my film footage and what I wanted and [laughing] during this hour of editing I don't think we even got passed the black burst because he wouldn't put down what I wanted on for editing. He said that doesn't make sense in that point. You can't show a garden when they're singing about a car and you can't do this when they're singing about that and you need more literal interpretation because people will be confused and I had an artist background -- I'm a visual artist, and we had a habit of not doing things as literal as sometimes other people would like. But I mean I wasn't here to be literal [laughing].... (B2)
While Thea does make reference to the production process, her statement includes an assumption of an involved technical concept in editing ("black burst"), as well as an understanding of traditional editing practices. These more detailed technical concepts and practices remain in the background.
Foregrounding of the technical occurred primarily when producers were discussing challenging production situations; the foregrounding revealed even deeper assumptions regarding technical theory and procedures. These are discussed below.
The process of constructing a program seems much like learning the skills of riding a bicycle or driving a car: once grasped, they become as natural as breathing--and reflected upon about as often. The skill involves cognitive and action elements that are simply performed. In the same manner, the specific technical elements of producing a program become foregrounded only when necessary--for example, when facing a challenge such as learning how to use a new piece of equipment or a new technique.
This common acceptance of the production process is implied throughout the interviews as respondents casually refer to production situations related to preproduction planning, shooting the program, and postproduction preparation of the program for cablecasting.
The acceptance of the technical as routine is not surprising, given the experience of these participants. Respondents in this study have completed one or more of the technical training workshops and have participated in the creation of video programs. Those informants who produce series programs have accepted a responsibility to submit programs on a regular basis--often weekly or monthly. Given this wealth of production experience, it is understandable that the video codes, conventions, processes, and equipment--as well as the actions necessary to utilize them--are information and skills that have become second nature to the respondents and are taken for granted by them.
The data indicate no real differences between long-term and more recent producers in the acceptance of the technical as routine. Both short-term and long-term producers usually discuss the technical aspects of a production only when it refers to a time they were challenged, or awakened to another way of approaching equipment or a technique.
Tom is indicative of how the technical has become deeply internalized among most producers, particularly those who have been producing for a number of years. He has been producing a show for years; his talk is much less about the specific technical manner in which he puts together a program, and much more reflective about the content of the programs, or the reasons he creates the programs--which are usually to address societal problems he perceives.
Tom: ... some people who were not churched ... might see somebody in the choirs that they know and they might desire to maybe change their lives and become a church member or sing in the choir. This is basically what I believe that these type of things are for. It's for the unchurched because we definitely need a revival in the land. And in Columbus there's a lot of things going on now and if it doesn't change soon we're gonna be in some problems, serious problems.
I mean when you have children walking up just hitting people in the face for no reason and laughing about it, that's a problem. That is a serious problem. And then nobody doing anything about it. And I've watched programs on television where 17-year-olds say they can get away with whatever they want to get away with and nobody does anything about it until they're 18. TICO is full, you know.
And that's the reason why I like a lot of little programs that I do on A Nice Day. I'll go out and just shoot the children in their settings in what they're doing and how they're doing it and put it on. I shoot them playing their sandlot football games or sandlot basketball games, and let them know about ACTV and they get a chance to see it. And I get a word in edgewise now and then about the Lord [laughing]. (b4P1a)
However, when discussing a time period when the access facility was experiencing frustrating equipment breakdowns, Tom was more focused on the technical:
Tom: ... But still, you still want everything to work right. You don't want to go down there and have a guest and the Chyron don't work. In other words you can't put any lower thirds of the guests' names or you can't put your post-credits on after the program, and you have to wait till the next time you come down there because the Chyron wasn't working or either -- I mean just you can only use one camera because the cords wasn't fixed. It was sent out and nobody brought them back.... (b2P6a)
Tom is demonstrating his integration of the technical through the use of jargon commonly used by professionals in the video field: "Chyron," "lower thirds," and "post-credits" are shorthand references to equipment, program elements, and production processes. His foregrounding of the technical relates to a time when he was challenged by equipment malfunctions; even at this time, he is assuming a large amount of technical theory and practice.
Noreen, a mid-timer, has worked on a number of shows; she repeatedly made casual references to lighting, audio, camera, switching, and editing decisions throughout her interview. These references require a theoretical and practical knowledge of the equipment and process involved. Even when Noreen specifically describes a technical process, she is still working from a base awareness of technical theory. Here she describes the complicated processes involved while trying to save a technically flawed program:
Noreen: I hated everything. I hated the idea especially that people just said why don't you dub what you have onto another tape. But we already had dubbed it from the tape we originally recorded on to this copy. Oh no, no we couldn't even use 8 mm. That was it too. At that time I taped it on 8 mm but they didn't have the high 8 equipment. So then we had to dub it onto half-inch and then had to do the half-inch to three-quarter so you already went down three generations and then if I would have taken that show and dubbed it again it would have gone to five and from half-inch to three-quarter looked really -- was beginning to look really bad. So I could just take what I had and dubbed it over. If I did the whole show over I would have to go from my high 8 to the three-quarter. But my friend and I are really good at labeling things and after we dubbed it onto the half-inch we wrote down all the times of all the events we wanted on the half-inch tapes. So what we would have to do is go back to our high 8, play it all, mark it all what we wanted, be able to find it and then go back... You would have to start the whole project over. You couldn't just dub it. (b2P5a)
While Noreen's talk involves procedures and equipment, it is the assumed knowledge that is of interest here. She is demonstrating an extremely sophisticated understanding of deeply complex technical theories of video synchronizing signals, signal loss after multiple generation dubs, signal reproduction capabilities of differing videotape equipment, and compatibility of differing videotape formats.
Charlie, a short-timer, has turned in dozens of programs since her first one in 1992. More than any other producer, she focused on technical details while describing her experiences. As with Noreen, Charlie reveals many deeper assumptions of technical theory and practice even when she is foregrounding the technical. Here she describes solutions she found to some problems experienced during a production:
Charlie: ... In being the TD [technical director] you really need to be able to focus on several thing at once, especially if you're involving the TD in doing the Amiga operations too, because the Amiga operations for my show are there again a little bit more involved and difficult than your basic show. Just because I am more computer-oriented so I've made it a little bit more in what my capabilities and stuff are. So this one particular show, everything was going wrong and I was in running the camera and I found that I was trying to TD from sitting on the floor in the studio with a camera in my hand [laughing] and it just kind of came to a head where we said well you finish up this -- because we do the show in two halves, one band in one half and another band in the second half. And it is like well, we just get through this first half and then I'll go in and TD the second half and put him on camera and it was kind of -- It was really a revelation that it happened because then at that point I kind of switched thinking around and after being the TD for the second half I realized at that point that maybe I do want to be the TD instead of just the camera operator. Because that way I have more control, even more control over doing everything. And not only that, but I get to run all the cameras (laughing). I just tell them oh well zoom it this way or zoom it that way so it is kind of like I am running more than one camera at once only with my voice instead of my hands.... (B3)
Charlie is exhibiting an awareness and implementation of several assumed technical aspects of the production beyond the obvious she describes. She takes for granted the functions and operation of the Amiga graphics computer, the video switcher and video processing equipment in the control room, and the studio cameras, as well as the job responsibilities of the position of the technical director (TD).
Thea, Tom, Noreen, and Charlie demonstrate the assumptions of technical media savvy as routine on the part of all producers in this study. It is obvious that the producers are aware of and utilize basic production techniques as a matter of course.
The data indicate that the producers foreground that which they accept as second nature when working through specific technical challenges. Trent also provides an example of how aspects of the technical are taken for granted, and the circumstances under which this aspect is foregrounded.
Trent came to public access with years of previous professional video experience. He focused most of his interview on aspects outside the technical, with occasional references to technical production that indicated an acceptance of technical elements as routine. However, at one point Trent became very focused on the technical. He was describing how he learned a new way of shooting a production while working on someone else's program:
Trent: ... the more I got myself behind the camera to shoot in one way, to shoot in another and then say wait a minute, if I focus here I can defocus this out and concentrate, or while I'm starting in a defocused way and coming in to focus I zoom even closer in on the project and wow, that's interesting, how to do that. Well, let me try this and the next thing I know I found myself who was in denial -- I started in the process not knowing I was starting in the process or coming out of the denial because then I just started working. Do this, do that. Try this, try that. And constantly hearing no, that's not it. No. Let's do it again.
And in that denial there was frustration and slowly as I kept working then the frustration started going away and then the denial just melted totally away. Because then I found myself in the process, in the work. And I was able to lose myself and get with the work.
It is a great -- I don't know what other photographers or videographers or cinematographers -- they get from looking into that eye, that lens, being able to look in and being able to confine, know what you want in your world and what you don't want. What you're able to do as far as distorting imagery and taking it out of focus and in focus are -- being able to make sure that the lighting is appropriate. The highlights of the whole aspect. It made me have more respect for the art, for taking it to higher heights for stretching.
They say that in theatre that an actor needs to get on and stretch into the part. Well, that comes with every aspect of life and I saw it in trying ... this is what I'm gonna film right here. This is what I have in my camera. This is what I'm viewing right now. It is in the viewfinder. I got it. This looks great. Wait a minute. I can tell just by glancing over at the monitor that the color is wrong in this angle. Let me enhance this a little bit. Let me take this down a little bit. Let me do this. And OK, the composition is right but what about the resolution. Do we have it -- oh yeah, that works, that works and in finding myself talking more about the process, the color, the angle, the -- I hope I'm making sense [laughing]. (b3P5a)
Trent, while discussing technical elements, reveals deeper assumptions of the nature of camera operation, technical components of the picture, aesthetic considerations, and the processes involved in studio shooting.
Trent also provides insight to the circumstances under which a foregrounding of the technical takes place. Trent's discussion of the technical coincides with a new technique that challenged his old way of looking at the world of video production; at such a time the technical was foregrounded.
Thea, Tom, Charlie, Noreen, and Trent all provide examples of how the technical elements
involved in video production are accepted as routine by producers, and the circumstances under
which they foreground that internalized knowledge.
Technical Media Savvy as Survival Skill. While not directly indicated in the interviews, an analysis of the data presented above within technical media savvy suggests that the aspects of seams-shattering and the technical as routine may not be merely "nice" by-products of video training. Instead, these aspects actually may be important survival skills for producers within the access setting.
These aspects reveal a balancing act between foregrounding and backgrounding technical thought as appropriate. Seams-shattering involves a foregrounding of the technical; the technical as routine entails backgrounding the technical under standard production circumstances. The balance between the two seems to determine the successful outcome of the production; survival as a producer or crew member depends on this delicate balance between thought and habit.
The information and skills of seams-shattering seem to be necessary under certain circumstances for the successful completion of a program for cablecasting. For example, these can help break the seemingly overwhelming, immense task of producing a television program into manageable steps; evidence of this is provided above by Noreen (B6), Tom (b4P7a), and Alfred (b2P4a).
In addition, given the rapid pace with which productions often take place (particularly in a studio production) and the time constraints involved with equipment scheduling and usage, internalizing the technical skills also seems to be necessary--at appropriate moments--for successful program completion.
Daniel is the only producer who articulates specifically how acceptance of technical media savvy as routine might facilitate program production:
Daniel: ... Being systematic, we learned very quickly how mechanically to do things.... and we developed a point where we didn't have to think we've got to punch this button, this button, this button. We just said do it and it did it mechanically. These are very good things systematically to be able to get into your head. Just like walking, you don't have to tell which foot to put first. We've learned some of these things and these were the things that we're learning in the studio. How do you just go from nothing to a program on the air. You could start it up and you wouldn't even have to think. You just -- your hands would do it. (b1P4a)
Based on an analysis of the interview data, it seems as though the internalization and utilization
of the production codes and skills without thought--as appropriate--become a matter of survival
for the respondents; too much thought about the process at the wrong time seems to lead to error.
Survival--either personal in the form of performance, or professional in the form of program
completion--depends on the delicate balance between the appropriate foregrounding of seams-shattering and the backgrounding of the technical as routine.
Symbolic Media Savvy
Symbolic media savvy reflects a conscious level of articulating and interpreting the symbolic codes used within the construction of video programs. Symbolic media savvy manifests a reflexive analysis of the reason codes are employed, their significance, and how they are to be interpreted. While many or even all of the respondents may operate at this level, the data indicate that only a few express awareness and/or interpretation and/or evaluation of these symbolic codes, and even these responses are not directly attributable to the informant's experiences with public access television.
Denise provides such an example when discussing the desirability of works by independent film and video makers on a separate television channel:
Denise: Well, I would like to see stuff like that myself because then it would give you more than just a general or generic view of life. Right now when you watch TV you've kind of a generic way -- if you have -- what they present on TV now is what people wish it was like for them.... They create a -- just like with the cars, you'll be sexy if you drive this car. They create this image of what everybody wishes their life would be through the television right now when it's really not like that. That's how they sell stuff. If you do this, if you wear this perfume -- this is the type of family like even with Thirtysomething when I watched that puke. It almost had a way of this is how couples act, and that's not how couples act, everybody's got a different situation. (b3P4a)
Denise is describing the symbolic imagery associated with the video programs--the mainstream meanings that are represented by the video images, such as "you'll be sexy if you drive this car," and "this is how couples act." These readings are consistent with symbolic media savvy, as is the passage below, where Thea describes the symbolic content and impact of mainstream television programs:
Thea: I don't have much appreciation for television because -- unless it's another station and not one of the mainstream stations -- because I think television continually tells people that they're not intelligent enough and it doesn't cause them to think as much as it should and it influences too many people into one way of thinking and I think that's bad. It limits us. (b3P1a)
One difficulty with analyzing symbolic media savvy is that it is not possible to determine from
the data whether the respondents' readings of the symbolic codes of television result from
experiences with public access or whether these beliefs and observations were held prior to
public access participation. However, the data does indicate that this access participation
certainly has not challenged, and may have reinforced, these beliefs.
System Media Savvy
System media savvy refers to the ability to identify, evaluate, and/or integrate internal and external organizational structures and policies related to the media. System media savvy parallels the concept of media demystification, and is related to the vision road map framework by its association with the rows of media organization and non-media institutional relationships in the video empowerment chart.
As discussed in chapter 4, the data support the notion that media demystification is an outcome of the access experience for most--but not all--of the producers participating in this study. These findings also indicate that media demystification is primarily cognitive in nature, rather than action-oriented.
Chapter 2 discussed similarities and contrasts between media literacy and media demystification. While media literacy focuses on representation through images, media demystification concentrates on "reading" the structures and functions of the media in order to understand that television programs are constructed by individuals and groups with specific economic, cultural, and political interests.
There are five aspects of system media savvy that are explored below:
Routine division of labor: an internalization of the traditional division of labor associated with
the production team on the part of producers
ACTV policies: responses related to the management and operation of the ACTV access
facility
Public access in general: responses commenting on the nature and significance of the concept
of public access;
Public access versus mainstream media: comments that compare public access television with
the traditional, mainstream commercial media
Cable/Government/Access relationships: comments related to the connections between cable
company, city government, and public access facility
These five aspects reflect the increasingly outward orientation of producers to systems and their
impacts: from the immediate experience within the production crew, to connection to ACTV
policies, to a connection with public access in general, to comparing access with mainstream
television, to recognizing the interplay involving access, the cable company, and the city
government.
System Media Savvy and Routine Division of Labor. System media savvy and routine division of labor is similar to the assumptions of the technical as routine found within technical media savvy. All respondents indicated an awareness of the structure of the production group (the crew) and an implementation of this structure; however, this was rarely overtly stated. Rather it was considered common knowledge throughout the interviews. Thea provides an example of the routine division of labor:
Thea: ... I liked doing the camera work and that was my most comfortable and best area. And the staff person of ACTV felt good at directing and being in front of the camera and talking, so that was his area. And the other guy just went with him and did some funny things, pulled people from the background in. So it was like we had one person bringing people in, interacting with them. We had a person directing and talking and then you had the person doing the camera work. So it was the best of all areas.... (b1P4a)
As mentioned during the discussion of technical media savvy as routine, this is akin to riding a bicycle: once a structure has been learned and utilized, it is accessed as a part of the everyday materials of producing a television program.
Daniel also provides an example of the system as routine; in this instance he refers to working on a complex program with a large crew:
Daniel: ... I think there were about four other people working in the control room at that time and we always had at least three cameramen. So it was a big crew and trying to make sure that everyone was ready to go and knew what button to push at the right time was very frustrating at times [laughing]. It kind of pushed the envelope of the challenge. Amazingly enough though we got through them all. (b1P3a)
... I've had a lot of shows over there. The person comes in, has no idea what's gonna happen that day. You sit down. You have no idea who is sitting to your left or your right and how to describe what you're gonna do, how you're gonna do it, what commands you're gonna give. It's difficult on a person you've never been with before. It got us to the point where before each show we'd sit down and we talked to each other. We knew if we had a new person. We knew how to approach that person, how to explain what we were gonna do and who was gonna do what. That was very systematic. As an electrical engineer you've got to be very systematic on certain things. It is sort of a learning process that you have to get into. (b1P4a)
While providing an example of system media savvy as routine, Daniel also sheds a bit of light on
the necessity for the division of labor within the production group: the structure aids an
integration of individuals into a smoothly functioning unit. This implies a "survival" facet of the
system as routine that is similar to the previously discussed technical media savvy as survival
skill; it is merely noted here. More germane to this study is the connection of the experience
within the production group and its relevance to a sense of a community, collective action and
the ability to make a difference in the world. These associations will be explored later in this
chapter.
System Media Savvy and ACTV Policies. This aspect of system media savvy refers to comments by producers regarding the policies of ACTV. It is discussed broadly below; it is also involves a particular dimension--ACTV policies and participation--which involves comments regarding the level of participation appropriate for community producers within the public access structure.
It comes as no surprise that all respondents are very aware of ACTV policies related to the use of equipment and facilities.(5) As producers involved in reserving facilities and equipment, and as crew members participating in their use, they encounter ACTV policies each time they enter the facility.
The only notable source of conflict throughout media savvy occurs in the aspect related to system media savvy and ACTV policies. Comments regarding ACTV policies are routinely expressed by the producers as problems with the policies, and usually a solution is proposed:
Tom: ... it [studio policy] used to be first come, first served, whoever wants it, and that to me is more public access. Now I understand you got to have some type of format about what's going on. See, I made a suggestion one time that if the slot was open, regardless of whether you had your maximum allowed in that month, I just go back there and say if this slot is open and nobody wants it, anybody should be able to walk in and say first come, first serve, let me have it. And I keep saying it over and over and I hate to keep repeating myself but I have a problem with that. If nobody is there and I walk in off the street and I want to do my program and nobody is in the studio and nobody is using it, the budget didn't say that slot is supposed to be rested. The budget says that slot is supposed to be used.... (b8P5a)
Tom is referring to ACTV guidelines governing the scheduling and use of the production studio, policies about which complaints are frequently voiced. Charlie also expresses dissatisfaction with the amount of available studio time and the facility's hours of operation:
Charlie: ... I'm kind of wishing that there was more evening and weekend times that were available to people without necessarily having a series, because most of the series have taken up a lot of the evening and weekend times and especially in two-hour blocks. (b9P5a)
... Having more evening and weekend times especially [would help]. I mean a lot of things, a lot of people can get together on Sundays to do stuff, and they are closed on Sunday. They close at 9:30 on Saturday.... [T]hey'd be better off being closed during the week one day so that they could be open on a time that was more accessible to the public since they are for the public. (b9P6a)
As indicated by Tom and Charlie, producers usually have suggestions addressing the policy
problems they experience. The policy discussions above are related to a deeper issue discussed
below: the level of participation allowed producers within the access management structure.
ACTV Policies and Participation. This dimension of system media savvy as ACTV policies addresses references by a few producers of a desire to be included in policy-making activities. While only two producers made reference to this desire, it is significant in that it addresses a question posed within the scholarly literature of alternative media: What level of participation by community producers is appropriate? This discussion is notably lacking from the practitioner literature of public access reviewed for this study.
The debate involves a continuum of participation. At a lower level, participation is limited to the production of programs; at a higher level, participation includes inclusion in the formulation of policy, decision making, and planning (Berrigan 1979).(6) Public access traditionally positions producers on the lower side of the participation continuum, with little input into management-level decisions.(7)
The lack of discussion by practitioners within public access circles regarding the appropriate level of participation within public access facilities inevitably leads to conflict. The issue does not seem to be perceived by the participants involved in either management, the producers, or the ACTV Board. As a result, the issue is not resolved and continually emerges as a power struggle between individuals.(8)
Trent provides an example of the issues involved. In this instance he refers to a producers' organization that became involved in a discussion of resource allocation for all Columbus access channels (public, city, and educational):
Trent: ... I was the chairman of the Producers Advisory Committee for public access, and there was a problem with studio space, studio time, trying to get a bigger facility, trying to get other things and bringing together the community of producers from the city who wanted change. They were trying -- they were tired of looking at these certain bylaws and rules and things that were conditioning or trying to really hold us back from producing what we wanted.
So there was a show called "PAC" and PAC is the acronym for Producers Advisory Committee and in doing this we -- myself and a few others who were on the board for the Producers Advisory, on the committee -- we were trying to present something that we would take to City Hall to the Council meeting to help push the consolidation idea that was presented some 4, 5 years ago. There was an idea that all the cable stations of -- Columbus Cable Broadcasting that would be the Public Access Channel, the Educable Channel and the Government Channel -- that we could consolidate all three and put them under the same umbrella and get a bigger space, get better equipment and just the monies and everything would help out. Just bringing all the monies together and just being able to have an owned kind of studio, station and it would have these different entities all under one.
The producers -- we came up with our own proposal. We came up with our own -- the taping of the show. We presented it not only to the consolidation committee -- the people who were on the boards of each entity who came together to create the idea -- we not only came to them as producers and saying this is what we think it is, we were commended on our proposal. We were the only ones who turned in any kind of feasible, something that would possibly work, blueprints and all and even the locations of buildings where we could go and all that. We did the work. We did all the footwork, did a lot of work and what happened is the process did not happen. They did not consolidate because the powers up there that be producers, uh the Public, the Educable, and the Government Channel, each one wanted to have the ultimate control over the whole station. (B5)
Trent is describing involvement by producers in resource allocation and organizational structure, described by Berrigan (1979) as a higher level of participation than is considered typical within public access facilities. Tom also refers to participation by producers in the management structure of the access facility:
Tom: ... that was a time when they were considering shutting down access TV because we had a multitude of problems then: A new building, monies and everything else. A lot of producers were getting leery of what was going on and they had a lot of effort and time tied up in their programs and not receiving any money for them but just recognition and what you and all of that. And then to put up with some of the rhetoric [laughing] and red tape and all the other stuff, trying to get a program done too. It was a headache and it became more or less a job than something that you enjoy.
But you wanted to stick through it because you had already suffered that long to get the position where you was and it is hard to jump ship when you've worked so hard to get something established and then they try to rock the boat in a lot of different ways. Because a lot of people on the Board they didn't understand public access and they really didn't care because most of them don't even have cable anyway.... (b2P3a)
... then this three or four month lapse of bad equipment and everything. It makes you wonder what's going on or why can't we do better or let's do better. And basically a lot of it had to do with not allowing the producers to be a part of a lot of the stuff and it was mainly all staff, and the producers are the ones who put on the programs. And we mainly had most of the knowledge of hands-on equipment ... (b2P5a)
Both Trent and Tom became involved in ACTV structural and policy issues when the number of equipment breakdowns at the facility became problematic. As producers frequently using the equipment, they felt their input was not being considered by the access facility managers, so they took steps to correct the problem.
This move to correct structural problems within the access facility--which are also associated
with city government relationships--is related to an exploration of the theme of "making a
difference." That discussion later in this chapter investigates awarenesses and actions that
address power relationships within the societal realm.
System Media Savvy and Public Access in General. This refers to responses commenting on the nature and significance of the concept of public access. All of the producers expressed an awareness about the nature of public access. These were usually, but not exclusively, addressed within the context of interview questions related to personal and institutional visions of public access. Charlie provides an example of how producers referred to public access; she describes how she began to see public access as more than just "being on TV," but as really making a difference in people's lives. In her case it occurred when she was working on a program involving a couple discussing their son's death.
Charlie: ... that was a big revelation to me when that happened that I really looked at public access as being a lot more important than just a bunch of neighbors and friends wanting to go down and be on TV and talk about things that really did do more for the public as a whole. (B3)
Charlie's comment is typical of producer responses related to the nature of public access. Further
exploration of producer notions of public access is more appropriately continued within
discussions of alternative visions of public access found later in this chapter.
System Media Savvy as Public Access Versus Mainstream Media. System media savvy as public access versus mainstream media refers to comments that compare public access television with the mainstream media, often commercial broadcast television networks. The data show that a few producers see access as allowing them to compete with the mainstream media. These producers compared access programs with the programs created by the mainstream media. For example, Noreen recognized that people in public access produce programs on topics not handled by mainstream media; she mentioned that the "little people" are the ones that create programs "not usually covered by the big stations" (b3P5a). One example she provides is a program she produced on the issue of homelessness when the local newspaper had no stories on the subject (B3).
Noreen: ... The Columbus Dispatch had nothing or very little about the homeless and I did a whole half-hour show on a rally the homeless had at the statehouse.... (B3)
Thea's comments during the earlier discussion of program media savvy indicate how she incorporates elements into her productions that mainstream television doesn't include (b3P4a), making a distinction in her mind between public access and mainstream media. Tom provides a general comment on public access and the mainstream media; here he addresses the ability of people "off the street" to compete with people in the mainstream media:
Tom: ... So it [public access] kind of cuts the big-shots down a little bit to let them know that, hey you ain't the only ones that can do it. (B10)
The comments above indicate an awareness of the differences between the mainstream media
and public access television as media systems; all media are not lumped together in the eyes of
these producers. By their public access participation, respondents are able to see and act upon
differences in the media systems. As such, the producers are indicating their ability to recognize
and act upon perceived relationships that are based on power, as discussed in chapter 2. These
relationships are further discussed within the theme of "making a difference," later in this
chapter.
System Media Savvy and Cable/Government/Access Relationships. System media savvy and cable/government/ access relationships refers to the connections among the cable company, city government, and the public access facility. A few respondents expressed an awareness of the relationships among these entities; some also took some action in this area. Noreen provides an example of an awareness of these complex interconnections; here she recognizes that public access is dependent on large corporations--including the local cable company:
Noreen: ... realizing that you're up against such big corporations and they have all the money, and how important it is to be nice to them and be nice to Warner Cable because they're gonna be negotiating with Columbus or Franklin County in that the money from ACTV will be coming from that contract. So we are still dependent on big companies.... we don't have the money and they do. And the people with money usually win.... then the little people will never get their shows on. If Warner cuts its budget and we can't have a studio open full-time then the community won't be able to make as many shows as it wants to.... they [the little people] are the ones that will do things that aren't usually covered by the big stations. (b3P5a)
Noreen is expressing awareness of a complex relationship involving the franchise agreement--a contract negotiated between the city government and the cable company--that sets out the provisions for funding of the access facilities.
Meredith provides another example of system media savvy and cable/government/access relationships; in her case, she describes the realization that ACTV producers were helped by their access experience when they sat down in discussions with city officials:
Meredith: ... we had people at [Channel] 21 who had been working there for years who were because of their experiences at 21 more informed and were able to empower other people, inform other people. And I would see this at the meetings where we were sitting down face-to-face with people directly related to the city government and other governmental bodies and to see that how 21 producers were just that much far ahead because of their connections with 21. Whereas before or without that connection they perhaps would not be as equipped to handle themselves as well as they did at these meetings in terms of informing people of what's going on. What I mean what's going on -- I mean in all sorts of areas, not just with cable, with things happening in government that relate to us, people in cable, access as well as some of the broader channels, the commercial channels People were quite informed because of their dealings with the kind of programs they do, the kind of people that they have to come in contact with in order to get their programs done. I've met some pretty interesting and valuable people through 21 because of this. (B7)
Note that, in addition to describing her perceptions of the value of public access for learning to
deal with government officials, Meredith also seems to relate a situation similar to the earlier
discussion of participation. There, Trent and Tom described situations that were based on
producer survival: the equipment was breaking down, and they were addressing the situation.
Here Meredith says, "the kind of people that they [producers] have to come in contact with in
order to get their programs done." It seems that awareness or participation in access-related
governance and institutions is adopted primarily because it relates to survival: the program must
be completed.(9) This implies that access participation may involve an expanding process from
the program outward to more complex relationships involving government and other institutions
and organizations. This notion of access as a process is addressed later in this study.
Summary: System Media Savvy
The data above indicate a rather sophisticated awareness of the intricacies of relationships within
various media systems and among media and other institutions. These awarenesses are often
translated into action addressing these awarenesses on the part of the respondents in this study.
System media savvy is a reflection of the sensitizing concept of media demystification, where the
complex relationships within media and between other institutions are made more clear.
Struggles Against Media Savvy
As discussed in chapter 3, an examination of instances of struggle that contradict a theme help investigate dimensions within a theme (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Strauss and Corbin 1990; Dervin 1983).
No instances of struggles against the theme of media savvy were found in the data. Almost all the producers cited frustrations with broken equipment and personal struggles to learn the process of production; many cited annoyances with ACTV policies. As noted above, there is a struggle within ACTV regarding the appropriate level of participation for producers. However, these are judged to constitute particular difficulties within the various aspects of media savvy rather than a challenge to media savvy itself.
A few comments by Tom come closest to representing a struggle against the theme of media savvy. He resists information involving the theory behind the technical aspects of equipment operation:
Tom: It [on-the job training] makes sense to me because a lot of the technical part I couldn't tell you nothing about it. But I could take you down there and do your program [laughing], see. I could take you down there and do your program. But you ask me some things, some technical things and I'll just say yes, yes, yes, and that'll be about the end of it, because that's not -- that wouldn't be important to me. But I could show you -- you could tell me a technical part and go down there and you wouldn't be able to do it, but I could show you what to do because I've had the on-the-job training. And there's a lot of people that come in there who have a lot of the technical knowledge but they can't do it until they get their on-the-job training part too, see, and it is like any other job, the same thing. You know, you go to school and learn about Sigmund Freud and all the rest of them and never use them [laughing], ... and do what? [laughing] And you become a cashier [laughing].... (b6P8a)
While resisting certain aspects of technical theory, Tom is not fighting against having media savvy--learning to "read" or "write" television programs. Indeed, his comments throughout this chapter have indicated a sophisticated ability to shatter the seams of television's "reality" and to internalize complex technical theory, and an interest in both. His struggle seems more with pedagogical issues, regarding the amount and type of information necessary for competency and the manner in which it is taught.
Within this pedagogical arena, Tom supports the training process as it exists at ACTV and seems to be expressing irritation with traditional, institutional methods of teaching and learning:
Tom: ... [S]ometimes they say well you have to know the technical part. You have to go to school and learn all this first and then you learn how to do this thing. Well, OJT is just the opposite sometimes. You learn the hands-on part and then you start learning the technical part. That to me is helpful because it reaches the level of people who really can't read and do the things that you know. (b6P8a)
Tom is basically arguing for a "practice, then theory" pedagogical approach; he is not contesting elements of media savvy itself.
While an analysis of training methods and pedagogical practices as they occur outside institutional education is relevant to this study, they are considered ancillary to the primary research questions of this dissertation. Future explorations of this topic will undoubtedly yield rich findings related to appropriate pedagogical practices in the experiential setting.
The rather pristine nature of the theme of media savvy makes it immediately suspect within a
critical framework. However, it is possible that the relationship of the theme to the basic nature
of activity involved in video production accounts for its lack of contradiction or challenge.
Those who would challenge the media savvy that develops from video production may leave
early in the training process; this indicates an area rife with possibilities for future research.
Conclusions: Media Savvy
The association of the media savvy subthemes of program, technical, symbolic, and system with the elements of media literacy indicates a major finding of this study: that respondents are able to evaluate program content, intent, technical elements, and the symbolic meanings found within television programs; they also are able to utilize many of these elements regularly in the program-production process.
The data within the theme of media savvy supports and enhances the media education literature related to media literacy and media demystification. The findings in this area support the claims of media education, that video training leads to the ability to deconstruct the "reality" of television.
The findings also support the critical media education assertions that the "reading" and "writing" of media are very much connected skills, and not disconnected entities (Sholle and Denski 1993).
As outlined at the start of this chapter, media literacy and media demystification constitute the first steps in the access vision road map:
media literacy ---> media demystification = empowerment (awareness of self, others, and society; action to change relationships in these areas)
Media savvy has addressed the initial points of the map. The discussion continues with an
exploration of the personal connections producers make with their access experience.
2. It's Personal
The data indicate that most producers in this study cast their access experiences in terms of how it relates to their personal lives; these internal linkings may be intellectual, emotional, etc. As noted in chapter 4, some of the respondents do experience a new awareness of self and others as a result of their access experience.
"It's personal" closely parallels elements found within the personal domain on the video empowerment chart. As discussed in chapter 4, this column is ranked second among the empowerment domains in amount of talk on the part of the respondents (2.2, Table 1).
Within "it's personal" are three major organizing subthemes, reflecting the manner in which respondents referred to the personal framing of the access experience:
Learned about self: refers to an understanding or appreciation of one's self
Learned about others: refers to an understanding or appreciation of others as they relate to one's
self
Life enrichment: refers to a broadening of the quality of one's life on intellectual, emotional, informational, social, or other grounds not related to learning about self or others.
Each of these is explored in turn below.
Learned About Self
"Learned about self" refers to an understanding or appreciation of aspects of one's self. The data indicate that many respondents became aware of previously unknown personal qualities, or became more accepting of themselves.
These findings parallel those reported elsewhere. Fuller (1984) describes learning experiences by producers that include aspects of self and others similar to some of those found in this study.(10)
Within the empowerment chart, learned about self is most closely related to the intersection of the row of self and self life and the column of personal. This point reflected the second greatest percentage of respondents with a heavy emphasis in talk judged as cognition (55.6%, Table 8; illustrated in Figure 19). This intersection point also consistently reflected a great deal of talk overall (cognition + action), talk about cognition, and talk about action (Tables 1 through 9).
Aspects of learned about self discussed below include the following:
Self-esteem: refers to an increase in positive self-image
Acceptance of self: refers to an ability to accept aspects of one's personality or character
Self-Esteem. The recognition of self-esteem, described as an increase in positive self-image, is common among the data. Thea's response is typical of the connection made by many producer:
Thea: ... It made you feel good. It helped your self-esteem and it made you feel like you created something worthwhile. (B3)
... I think it helps to know that people, some people have come up to me and said, when they find out that I'm the person who did this video.... Oh yeah, I saw your video. That just does something to me, like Wow, it makes you feel good. It helps your self-esteem, helps you get motivated and want to go out there and do another project. (G4, Access Visions)(11)
For Denise, completion of her first program after two years of work was related to her view of herself:
Denise: ... I got confidence in myself, a lot more than I've had in the last two years. (b7P4a)
Tom also refers to self-esteem; in his case it is also related to his view of other people:
Tom: ... [W]ell it was something revealed inside of me to give me a more positive look at myself, more of a positive look at the neighborhood, a positive look at other people. I believe that this helped me strengthen myself. Irregardless, television is a powerful thing, you know, and it helped me to be a stronger person, I believe.... (b1P4a)
Alfred describes self-esteem in the form of prestige. In contrast to Tom, Alfred's comment is directed more at how others perceive him:
Alfred: It's [producing a program] made a difference for me in the sense that people are looking at me differently. They are looking at me as a production person as opposed to a street person, as opposed to a basic layman. They're seeing me on-screen. They're seeing my name on-screen. They're seeing my work on screen. And it's given me a bit of prestige. That is pretty good for me.... (B4)
Self-esteem seems to be related in part to the completion of a creative work and the acquisition of technical skills not previously attained. Charlie's response is typical of the types of responses producers gave, particularly when working with technical equipment. In Charlie's case, she realized she can accomplish things she hadn't tried before.
Charlie: ... it [the experience] made me open up to realizing that I could do more, that maybe I was selling myself a little short for what I could do and that I did have the capabilities to do more even though I hadn't even tried it before. It just kind of happened and yes I did have those abilities too. (b2P7a)
The data indicate that the positive self-esteem described above often is not automatic; it is often
acquired after overcoming difficulties that erode self-esteem (Alfred b2P1a; Denise B1, b1P4a).
Acceptance of Self. As part of the process of learning about themselves, some respondents described a period of coming to terms with parts of themselves. Charlie mentioned that her experiences with her show enabled her to be more accepting of herself and her differences from others:
Charlie: It [the experience with the show] makes me maybe accept myself a little bit more in that even though that it might jaded, that I'm putting a lot of my time and work into doing something that's not financially rewarding. But that it is very emotionally rewarding for me because it is something I enjoy doing.
... I just accept myself for what I am doing, for what I want to do and if you know these people, family, friends, whatever think I am nuts for doing it well then they have to live their life the way that they want to do it but I can live my life the way that I want to and I really enjoy doing it.... (b5P4a)
Charlie is describing an acceptance of aspects of her personality that result in a greater awareness of her self. For her, this awareness is based on recognizing the differences that separate her from friends and family.
For Trent, a former addict, the awareness of self is related to his recognition that working on a show about crack cocaine was difficult because of his addiction to the drug:
Trent: ... It was hard to do the show because of the fact that I had to go back into those areas. I
had to look deep into myself. I had to look at myself and I had to go through the process of
looking at an overwhelming desire, a temptation. Trying not to walk that side of the street which
she called walking on the wild side. I had to try to stay in my creative mind and my creative
mode and stay on the right side.... (b9P1a)
Learned About Others
"Learned about others" refers to an understanding or appreciation of others as they relate to one's self. The data suggest that a new awareness of others is an outcome for most of the producers in this study. Within the empowerment chart, learned about others is most closely related to the intersection of the row of others and column of personal. This point reflected the greatest percentage of respondents with a heavy emphasis in talk judged as cognition (66.7%, Table 8; illustrated in Figure 19).
Noreen illustrates the influences that working with others within the public access setting offer the producers. In her case, she learned a great deal from working with African-American women:
Noreen: ... [It was] helpful just listening to them and listening to their concepts and their different ways of looking at things in that when I deal with the African-American culture of course I have stereotypes but they were talking about things that were even different than things I had thought that weren't stereotype things that I had gone past and they were talking about a whole different level. And I think that whole different level needed to be on ACTV. That really needed to be there. That just being able to experience that part of it was really rewarding.... Being able to hear it and have the opportunity to have women talk like that openly. Just -- it doesn't usually happen when you get with African-American women they usually talk your language, instead they were talking their language and I was the one that was just there to sit on the side.... It was just interesting. I just really appreciated that opportunity to learn what they had to offer. (b6P4a)
Daniel spoke extensively about how his perceptions of others were changed while working on programs. Here he discusses how his perceptions of African-Americans were altered:
Daniel: Just to better understand them [African-Americans] and understand where they're coming from. I've always had the impression they're living in all these dirty, rat-infested places because they don't give a damn. Well, they aren't really that rat-infested and a lot of them they are not dirty. It kind of opened my eyes in a lot of things that I always assumed.... Again, they become people again.... (b10P4a)
The biggest thing was just ... my ignorance of the [African-American] community as to what they did and they were just areas of community in town that white folks never went into. And that's about what I thought of it at the time. It's a very, very good group of people. They are very sincere and I found myself questioning why I thought that way about them in the first place. (b10P5a)
Daniel also describes a different perception of homosexuals after working on a gay-oriented show:
Daniel: ... probably at that time ... I would have not have had anyone that I could talk to about situations involving gays. They were probably all faggots and lesbians, not people. And one of our bad things in this world it seems to be we want to label people and not necessarily because they deserve it but just because they're different. It has opened up a lot of the inside. To them there is no big deal on it. We are the ones making the issue, more than they are. If we can't handle it then it's gonna get worse....
[If you see gays as people] you can treat them better. You understand them. You don't necessarily believe their same ideas but you understand how they're doing it. And when you come up against someone now that you know is anti whatever -- if you know something about it you can step in and say "Well you know that really isn't right. That is not completely true." Try to keep the walls from being built. Maybe not so much tear them down but keep the walls from being built as quickly as they have been.... (b9P4a)
Noreen and Daniel provide examples of the manner by which producers relate their access
experiences to an awareness of others.
Life Enrichment
"Life enrichment" refers to a broadening of the quality of one's life on intellectual, emotional, informational, social, or other grounds not related to learning about self or others. Aspects discussed below include the following:
Intellectual life enrichment: refers to a sense of intellectual stimulation--learning and growing--on the part of the producers
Therapeutic life enrichment: refers to the psychological benefits producers connect with access
participation
Career-related life enrichment: refers to the work opportunities producers obtain from access
training
Social life enrichment: refers to benefits in the producers' social lives
Intellectual Life Enrichment. Intellectual life enrichment refers to a sense of stimulation in the area of learning as evidenced in the data. While intellectual life enrichment can be detected in the earlier discussion of media literacy, only Pierre, a high school teacher, overtly described the process of learning and its effect on him. Pierre's comments are included here because they provide a link between the institutional approach to media education found within the literature, and the experiential learning situation found within Freire's critical pedagogy.
In this instance, Pierre, a dropout producer, casts his experience in terms of the thrill of learning and teaching:
Pierre: ... Having the chance to take what you produce and showing it cablecast was just a real exciting event. For me personally, it was that experience of seeing a new way or different way of teaching or learning, interacting. Because there were times when I was first there, I was a learner, and I was asking people a lot of questions, but there's an interesting moment when people start asking me questions.
And I say, OK, I've got some information I can share with them; and suddenly it's -- those lines are blurred. It's not here's your desk and you're on this side and a teacher; on this side you're a student -- it's like we're all learning, we're all teaching each other.
And there'll be times when I'm in a suite and working on some things and want to do something, but can't; so I grab someone out in the hall and bring them in, and in 5 minutes they teach me something, and then they're off doing their thing and I'm back to what I'm doing.
... [I]t was a wonderful experience. Getting the knowledge, getting the information that you needed at the time, when you needed it. They were ready for it and you wanted to get it, and now's the time to get it. (G4, Significant Experience)
Here, Pierre is providing actual evidence of the moment often described only theoretically by critical pedagogists: the time at which the lines blur between student and teacher. A key element to this positive experience seems to be that people were able to get information they needed at the time they needed it. This experience may provide guidance to pedagogists attempting to construct situations that may result in a blurring of the line between student and teacher.
This data also reinforces Sense-Making theory, which argues that people seek helps (which may
come in the form of information) at the times they sense gaps in their lives; they construe the
information as helpful to their lives at that particular moment. Pierre has vividly described such
an incident.
Therapeutic Life Enrichment. Therapeutic life enrichment refers to the psychological benefits producers connect with access participation. A few producers specifically mentioned these benefits as a result of their access participation.
Thea provides one such example. She recognized that producing a program was therapeutic. In her case, it helped her work through the loss of family members:
Thea: ... Public access as a whole was a very therapeutic process for me. It was something like a -- somewhat of a catharsis for me at the time when I was really into it. It was shortly after I lost four members of my family in a year and I moved out of the town I came from and just needed to get away and do something totally different and I needed to throw myself into something and I hadn't done anything artistic or creative for about two and a half years and there I was and I needed some kind of vision or something and my regular forms of creativity were not functioning at that point, like painting and drawing and stained glass, that sort of stuff.... (B4)
I would say it was a form of catharsis for me in dealing with parts of my life and the grief that I went through of my family, grieving over them, and it was a tribute to them and to people that were important in my life.... (b4P4a)
Daniel uses public access like therapy--to unwind at the end of the work day:
Daniel: Well, to them a lot of these shows are the most important thing that they do in their life, and to me working down at the access is a point of relaxation. It's a way of trying to unwind the mind after a busy day. At the office I'm basically sitting down, thinking and writing. Here I can be down and moving equipment around, resetting lights. I could be running audio. I can do things with my hands. So to me that's almost like my therapy.... (b5P5a)
In both examples, Thea and Daniel have referred to life-enriching aspects of their access
experience: it helps them cope with their lives outside the access facility.
Career-Related Life Enrichment. Career-related life enrichment refers to the work opportunities producers obtain from access training. A few producers view public access as a means to a media-related career. Meredith uses public access as a way to get a future job scriptwriting:
Meredith: ... [S]ometimes I've had this kind of a pipe dream that my TV show was on the air and some high-flying exec either from the east or west coast or even better yet outside of this country, perhaps Europe, flies through. They're in their hotel room, can't find anything on TV, turns on [Channel] 21, sees my program and makes inquiries as to who this person is and the next thing I know there's a contract to start story development for a new TV series. So that's kind of been a thought. (b10P6a)
Throughout his interview, Alfred repeatedly stated that he uses public access to sharpen his video skills in order to forge a career in movies:
Alfred: ... [Y]ou know I'm using my show on the public access station and I'm using my involvement with the public access station to sharpen my skills for video production so that I can get ready to make movies. My main goal is to get to the point where I can make movies. I'm walking across the United States and I'm at the Mississippi River. I'm on the east side of the Mississippi River and if I can get up and get going out there to Melrose Avenue by way of what I'm doing, taking this one step at the time.
It will be the goal that I've been wanting to reach for a long time. So when I feel like I'm good enough by way of working with the public access station to get my show and other people's shows and everything and going out there and give that my best shot and then further down the line you'll be seeing and hearing my work. (E1)
Bill is the promotion director for a local radio station. He attributes his ability to get a media job in part to his participation in public access:
Bill: It was almost selfish for me because I had a reason for doing it, to gain experience, to get a job, to get ahead in my major.... (G4, First Involvement)
It gave me the opportunity to put on my resume numerous things that no class or internship would ever begin to do....
It helped me, and that was probably was at first in the back of mind and what came out before we even got on the air, was that I was going to be able to use this as a stepping-stone as the experience for getting a job. (G4, Significant Experience)
The use of the public access facilities for career advancement described above connects with the
theme of alternative visions of public access discussed later in this chapter.
Social Life Enrichment. Social life enrichment refers to the benefits in the social lives and leisure time of the producers as a result of their access participation. While few respondents address this aspect directly, the group and individual interviews give rise to the sense that perhaps public access provides a social club of sorts.
Denise is one producer who directly addresses how public access enhances her social life:
Denise: Okay I ... feel like cable access has given me in a sense like a social life. I like the people at cable access. I really do. I mean I prefer to go to cable access than go out on the town. I met people. We've had pizza together. I've met some of the bands there. I like cable access and of course I've run into some things that are not so great but I've run into more good than bad.... So I like it. I really, really like cable access. (b6P3a)
Charlie does not specifically address the "club" aspect of public access, but she does note how her work at public access tends to dominate her leisure hours:
Charlie: The program, it really has become my life. It's how I define I guess what I enjoy doing. People call and say "Let's go out to dinner" or whatever and I'm like well I have to go down to ACTV and work on something and I have people that want to do stuff with me and I'm like well I have to go do this and I have to go do that and I have to go do this and it's -- they sometimes don't understand. They think maybe that when I say oh I have to do this, I have to do that, that I have to do it and I'm like well I don't really have to do it you know [laughing] that I want to do it. I enjoy doing it because it's -- that's where I realize that I enjoy doing the video stuff. That this has become -- it's become what I -- the visions that I look for. Just like when I'm out -- like I said, I'm out driving around or whatever, that I see different things and think in terms of how can I use these different things. You know, I wish I had a camera here. I wish I had a camera there and stuff. That I'm the videographer now. I'm not Charlie the musician anymore. I'm not Charlie the computer operator. Now I'm the videographer, the producer that pulls all this together for everybody. (b10P7a)
Here, Charlie not only exemplifies the manner by which one's social life might be enriched by access participation, she also provides a glimpse at how her self-image is also connected to her access experience. In addition, while "others" are not referred to directly, the context of Charlie's interview is oriented toward a community she perceives to be involved with the production of her program. This relates the theme of "it's personal" to a discussion of community later in this chapter, and touches the edges of the dialectic between the individual and the collective discussed by Streeter (1990) and Dervin and Clark (1993) in chapter 2. This dialectical relationship is addressed more fully later in this chapter.
Tom offers a possible explanation for the social life enrichment aspect of public access participation. He explains how the process of making video programs becomes a part of a producer's life. In his case, Tom uses his program as a stepping stone to relate to people:
Tom: ... television to me, especially when you ... produce your own program is that the program itself ... becomes one of your favorite toys, you know, just something to do. You know what I'm saying? It becomes something that you want to -- that you do sit a lot of your life around. Because especially if you're obligated once a week like I am you look for things to do to be on your program. So it becomes a -- it's actually a part of your life and you have to sometimes separate that from your actual life, because it is public access. To me, like I don't do it for glory. I do it for the Lord and I don't expect anything from it. So I therefore, it becomes a part of my life but it's not all my life. And you can get hung into that. I've seen some people get hung into it that it becomes all their life. So I use it for a stepping-stone to relate to people.... (b2P7a)
While Tom's description helps to identify how public access participation may enrich the social lives of its participants, it also shows how some producers find it difficult to separate their personal lives from their lives as access producers, in part because of their commitment to provide access programs on a regular basis.
This may be related to survival issues; that is, the social life enrichment aspect of the public access experience may provide a necessary brainstorming for program ideas, or reinforcing of the value of access program creation. The concept of survival has been explored previously within "technical media savvy as survival skill," "system as routine," and "system media savvy." It is indicative of the relationships between these themes and that of "it's personal."
The data indicate that survival is intensely personal; they reflects the desire of the individual to
maintain himself or herself at current levels, and implies a desire to expand beyond existing
boundaries. Survival will continue to emerge within the discussions throughout this chapter.
Conclusions: It's Personal
The discussion above details how producers in this study have framed their access experience within the context of their own personal lives. These connections include improved self-images, altered impressions of people other than themselves, and a sense of an improvement of the general quality of life.(12)
The discussion above also introduces survival as a recurring concept that establishes a relationship between the theme of "it's personal" and other themes within this chapter.
As discussed at the start of this chapter, an awareness of self is the first aspect of empowerment explored within the organizing framework provided by the access vision road map:
media literacy ---> media demystification = empowerment (awareness of self, others, and society; action to change relationships in these areas)
"It's personal" has explored this initial element of empowerment as awareness of self. The discussion continues with an analysis of one aspect of the connections that producers make with others.
1. For clarity in their written form, the respondents' vocalized pauses (e.g., "umm," "you know") have been deleted from the data presented in this chapter.
2. While investigating the technical subtheme, particular attention was focused on any possible "stacking" of the topic by the protocol design. Within the protocol, respondents were asked for only one incident that might be construed as technical: a time when they looked at television "differently" (protocol question B3).
3. The synopsis of media education draws from the historical perspectives provided by Sholle and Denski (1993, 1994) and Halloran and Jones (1984). The discussion of public access perspectives on media literacy is provided primarily by Hobbs (1994) and Stein (1991). These are discussed in depth in chapter 2.
4. "Short-timer," "long-timer," "mid-timer," and "dropout" refer to the length or condition of access experience associated with the respondent categories discussed in chapter 3.
5. References to ACTV policies and procedures were not included in coding within the media demystification row of media organization, as reported during the quantitative presentation of data in chapter 4.
6. Berrigan here is representative of a robust area of scholarship concerned with participatory communication within the mass media, usually considered within the context of international and intranational development.
7. Activist producers at ACTV have organized a Producer's Advisory Committee (PAC), which attempts to speak for producers' interests. The PAC has struggled to be included on the ACTV Board of Trustees; there is a history of conflict between individuals involved in leadership roles of PAC, ACTV management, and the ACTV Board. As of this writing (October 1994), the chair of the PAC holds a nonvoting seat on the ACTV Board.
8. My analysis of this situation is based on eight years of personal observation of the situation at ACTV. Over the years I have spoken with ACTV staff, board members, and producers.
9. This idea connects with a previous discussion of survival in "Technical Media Savvy as Routine" and "System as Routine."
10. Fuller's study did not focus on an awareness of self and others on the part of producers. Fuller merely reported the producer responses related to "things they learned" as a result of their public access participation.
Ancillary aspects of other studies related to this discussion, but not directly germane to this study, include the demographic backgrounds of producers (Enos 1979), the reasons volunteers produce programs (White 1988), and producers' intents toward the channel structure, programs, and audience (Hardenbergh 1985).
11. In this and other citations, "G1" refers to group interview 1. "Access Visions" refers to the discussion of the vision of public access during this group interview.
12. The framing of access experiences by respondents in personal terms raises the question of whether this is due, in part, to the interview protocol. Based on Sense-Making, the individual protocol specifically asked producers to draw connections between their access experience and their personal lives (probe question 7a). However, only three instances drawn from the data in this discussion of "it's personal" have come from protocol probe question 7a.
Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that Sense-Making does favor the personal perspective of the respondent, allowing the reader to "see the world" from the point of view of the respondent. There is an explicit distinction between this singular perspective among the many perspectives necessary to "circle reality" and pluralist conceptions of "individualism." Sense-Making is discussed in greater detail in chapter 3; the dialectic between the individual and the collective is discussed more fully in chapter 2, and will also be explored later in this chapter.