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 B. Not yet available.

The data indicate that many producers in this study are aware of personal and ideological differences between themselves and others inside and outside the access facility. These differences are framed within a discussion of tolerance, defined as an understanding and/or acceptance of the differences of others on the part of the participants, where the differences are either ideological or personal in nature. The discussion of tolerance by the producers involves the following constructions:

Tolerance of ideas: refers to ideological differences between individuals and/or groups

Tolerance of personalities: refers to personality differences, usually framed in the negative, between individuals

Tolerance and the First Amendment: refers to connections between the data and analyses of the First Amendment (discussed in chapter 2)

These are discussed below.

As discussed in chapter 4, the data indicate that a new awareness of others is an outcome of the public access experience for most of the study participants. The row of "others" reflected the greatest amount of heavy emphasis by respondents of any of the areas of focus in the video empowerment chart (88.9%, Table 7; 77.8%, Table 8). The greatest emphasis by respondents across the entire empowerment chart was judged to be talk related to the row of "others" as it intersected the personal domain (66.7%, Table 8).

These references to others took many forms: members of the viewing audience, workmates, crewmates, and distant "others." The producers' talk related to tolerance focuses primarily on those persons using the ACTV facility to create programs. There is a good deal of discord--both internal and external--involved in the discussion of tolerance; respondents are identifying and enduring ideologies and personalities in conflict with their own. Discussions later in this chapter address more harmonious constructions of others by the respondents.

Tolerance of Ideas

The public access facility is the site of a decided struggle between competing ideological camps. While the ideological differences between these groups are sometimes enormous, the people involved depend on one another for what seem to be two reasons: (1) to reinforce their own rights of freedom of expression, and (2) to provide crew members for each other's productions.

If the ideological differences are not too great, persons from differing perspectives can work together without difficulty. In these cases, the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech is enough to allow an acceptance of the other's "right" to express himself or herself. However, if the differences are overwhelming, producers have devised various methods with which to distance themselves from the offending ideals, even though the ideals themselves may be endured.

Tolerance of ideas includes discussions of the following:

Conflicting ideologies: refers to the various ideological "camps" within the public access facility

Freedom of expression: refers to the individual "right" to expression, which overrides a personal struggle with opposing ideologies

Exceptions to First Amendment dogma: refers to an exception to the expression of the First Amendment as a constant positive

The mechanisms of tolerance: refers to the methods created by producers to allow themselves to live comfortably next to opposing ideologies

Maintaining the distance: refers to the manners by which producers distance themselves from offending ideals

Conflicting Ideologies Within Tolerance of Ideas. The variety of groups with differing ideological perspectives is exemplified by Thea, who provides a description of the tone of the access facility on a busy night:

Thea: Well, public access is to me a representation of as many different aspects of people and their life as possible and I think a moment of that would be when I was taking an Amiga class and I was sitting there and it was Tuesday night and I was sitting there at the computer, the teacher -- and it was one-on-one because nobody else was in that class.

So I was in euphoria sitting there and during this two and a half hours we saw the religious group come out and the American atheists come in, intermingling in the lobby and the American atheists hanging out their cards that say 1-800 dial-an-atheist and all that stuff and upsetting the religious people, but it was something different.

And then an individual, two people in the edit suites doing their videos and then the next thing that came in were the psychics and prepare Paragon Promise and that was fun because it was just like a carnival environment to me, a carnival atmosphere because you had all this diversity going on and all this energy and people talking and intermingling, forced to intermingle in this small room and that was the main runway there and just listening to that and I thought that was the epitome of public access.

I thought that was really cool. I thought it was really nice. I mean it was totally entertaining and that's the whole point of it. So Sid and I just sat there during our class doing our thing and then looking up and listening to what people were doing and watching and then going back to what we were doing. (B6)

... it doesn't matter if you're extremely conservative or extremely off-the-wall, you can fit in here at ACTV.... (b6P6a)

Here, Thea makes reference to the diverse groups utilizing the access facility in close proximity to each other. Her emphasis is on the wide variety of seemingly oppositional groups that intermingle within the facility.

While Thea's observation is oriented toward the entertainment value of watching the variety of groups parade through the facility, Noreen's description of the varying ideological camps provides an insight into the very real differences between the factions within ACTV:

Noreen: Well ... there's two groups. There's the religious right down there and there's people like me down there and then there's the ministers who don't necessarily like women and you get all these different groups of people....

... [T]hen you get people there who wanted to do the Klan show I think last year or the year before and you get people in there and when I mentioned that when you are a camera person you are like a fly on the wall and I see two ministers talking to each other and they are saying that women shouldn't be ministers. That women shouldn't be here and women shouldn't be here.... (b8P3a)

Both Thea and Noreen provide insights to the potential for conflict that emerge as competing groups interact within the public access facility.⁽¹⁾ The methods for dealing with the ideological tensions varied; they are discussed in detail below.

Freedom of Expression Within Tolerance of Ideas. The data indicate that the dogma of freedom of expression allows producers to endure ideological differences that otherwise might be personally intolerable.⁽²⁾ Noreen describes the internal conflict sometimes caused by the encounter between personal values and the right of another person to create his or her own program:

Noreen: Well, I have to admit I had a tinge of censorship. When ACTV is making the -- they have the I don't know what you call it. It's a strange show, a strange sexual show and I had like my tinge -- I was watching them tape it and I've been in the studio twice and even taping it it's like oh my god I can't believe they're doing this. Can't believe they're doing it during the day and everything like that. But then I said oh you have to put up with it to show it late [laughing]. (B8)

... It's stupid you know but it's like they should be able to do that. But even when I caught it on TV one night it was like no I can't watch this, this is too stupid. Not that it was, it didn't do anything explicit. It was just stupid. I don't know. I'm sorry I keep saying stupid but I don't know how to describe it [laughing]. It was strange. (b8P2a)

Note how Noreen's internal conflict is resolved in part by resorting to the "right" of individual expression: "they should be able to do that." A reference to this right of expression is a method producers often use to cope with ideals that conflict with their own. Another example is provided by Tom:

Tom: ... like I said, I don't agree with everything that they do and they probably don't agree with everything I do. Like I said, that's what makes public access to me. We don't agree on everything but we are allowed to put forth our rights to say what we have the privilege of doing through public access. I believe, like I said, this is -- the last soapbox that we have is public access.... (b7P3a)

While referring to the right of expression, Tom also provides insight into why producers might tolerate differing belief systems: they, too, will be allowed to exercise their own right of expression:

Tom: I've had a couple of Lutheran churches on and they have a program called Churches Together and they come together and do a thing. I don't agree with it all the time and I don't agree with everything they're doing. So what I don't agree with I don't put on television [laughing]. See, it's that simple. I'm the producer. (b4P3a)

As a producer, Tom is exercising his right of expression, which includes silencing others within the framework of his program. However, the context of his interview explains that these others are able to exercise their own rights by speaking through their own program.

Other producers were not so forthcoming in explaining how their programs might provide them the opportunity to express their own points of view. Tom does capture a sense of the delicate interlacing of "my rights" and "your rights" at play within the public access facility. The mechanisms by which this subtle dance between seemingly conflicting rights are negotiated is explored later in this section.

Exception to First Amendment Dogma. Daniel provides an exception to the First Amendment dogma:

Daniel: I know a lot of people talk about that First Amendment. I don't. I don't want to see that as necessarily the public access point. It is, but I never think of it as First Amendment rights....

You know it's your privilege. For some reason everyone tries to make it you know required things. Because we've got a Constitution we're allowed to do this and push that issue. So much of the time I wish we could just sit back and not be pressured by somebody's alleged rights that we're supposed to have. Is that the only thing -- a lot of the Constitution talks about some of these things. It's my own thoughts but you know I'm not sure why the Constitution says we're allowed to have the KKK come down and put up crosses. You know I get into things like that. It's supposed to be religious freedoms but yet, I think what the hell is this [laughing]. Of course I don't understand the KKK either. I've never thought that particular way so I don't understand it. So, I've never had my rights restricted so I guess it's hard to understand the people that feel that they have been. (b7P8a)

The Mechanisms of Ideological Tolerance. The mechanisms of ideological tolerance refers to the reasons and methods that allow producers to negotiate the ideological differences they encounter at the public access facility. The data indicate that the following account for the reasons and methods that respondents are able to coexist with differing ideas:

The ACTV volunteer system as rationale: refers to the institutional practice that encourages ACTV participants to work on one another's programs

Crew avoidance: refers to the technique of avoiding working on crews of programs that are ideologically grating

Other mechanisms: refers to additional techniques devised to tolerate opposing ideologies

The tolerance of differing ideas is not necessarily related to altruistic motives on the part of the producers, but may be linked to the particular needs on the part of the respondents. The data indicate that there seem to be two reasons for the acceptance by producers of differing ideas: (1) it provides a protection for their rights as well, as Tom suggests above; and (2) the producers need one another because of the group nature of video production and the ACTV volunteer system.

The ACTV Volunteer System as a Rationale for Ideological Tolerance. The ACTV volunteer system seems to be a major driving force behind the producers' acceptance of mildly conflicting ideologies. Through this system producers can gain "credit" for reduced rates on equipment and facilities rentals by working on programs other than their own. Tom explains how the system works:

Tom: ... The man that has African Mystiques, I don't agree with him on every subject, on every thing, and he doesn't agree with me. But we are able to work together because we have a volunteer system and in that volunteer system when I volunteer on his program I get volunteer hours and I'm able to take out equipment and do certain things without [paying out money] on everything ... and the volunteer system works great for me because I don't have the capital to ... maintain the program in a certain status quo. (b7P2a)

Note that Tom here seems to be referring to relatively minor disagreements. The methods by which serious differences are negotiated are explored below.

Crew Avoidance as a Mechanism of Ideological Tolerance. The data strongly indicate that the respondents acting as crew work only on those programs with which they are ideological compatible. The producers avoid working with producers with whom they have serious ideological differences. Leo provides an example of this technique:

Leo: I mean there are people there who I totally do not agree with, their philosophies. I agree they are allowed to have their philosophies and they can do whatever they want, and I did a couple of their shows and I -- they're OK, they're not hurting anyone. It's their business and not mine -- I just might choose not to volunteer for [them] again, and then there were others who I'd volunteer for again. (G1, First Involvement)

Here Leo partially resolves his conflict within the framework of personal freedoms. He also suggests the manner by which he personally reconciles the ideological conflict: removing himself from the offending production.

This technique of not working as crew on programs with which one is ideologically at odds is very common throughout the data. Noreen also describes such a method:

Noreen: ... it's like well then I don't want to work on your TV show. It's different things like that and I consciously have said I'm not working on any more religious TV shows just because of that. And even when white men do a TV show it's very anti-woman and I won't work on their shows either. So I won't censor them. I just personally won't work on a show where they don't respect me as a person. So I have no idea what their vision is and they probably see this vision except for allowing women. I don't know how they see it, how they interpret it. (b8P3a)

As with Leo, Noreen comes to terms with serious ideological differences by refusing to work on offending productions. In this process, the "offender" has a "right" to freedom of expression, as described through the traditional pluralist assumptions, and the producer has the "right" to not get involved in the offending production.

Donna is a long-term religious producer; she explains the reasoning behind the tolerance of differing ideals in contrast to the manner in which they exercise the distancing:

Donna: ... I agree in the First Amendment right, even though I do not agree with much of the programming that goes on ACTV; and we have refused to take part in volunteering for those things that we're strongly opposed to. There was a time when the staff there felt they could put a little pressure that we would have to partake in those things. We stood ground, and they had no ground because we were not paid staff. But even so, even with the drawbacks ... of the sanctions of the many different lifestyles and many different opinions, etc., I still believe very strongly in the First Amendment. I believe it's a forum that's opened up not just for those who are in the high spots and those in the broadcast networks; it's a forum that God has opened up the door as far as I'm concerned with people, and the people of the community, that maybe will never get heard.... I'm glad for public access. (G1, Access Visions)

Each producer seems to have established his or her own standards for working or not working on programs. Tom is the most vocal of the producers in explicating his standards:

Tom: ... [N]ow this is my criteria for working on a program. Quite naturally, like I said, they can't be contradicted to my religious belief but I have helped people in other beliefs. I have showed them some things but I have not worked on their programs. I've helped them with the technical problems. They ask me. I won't refuse people. I don't care about -- if you ask me a question and I have the knowledge I'll show you if you ask me and I'm there. But most of the time I work on a program it's a learning experience for me about what's going on or what's in that person's mind or head or what they're about. Because I don't agree with everything [laughing]. (b7P2a)

Some producers disagree with the technique of crew avoidance described above; their belief in the First Amendment was the basis for working on programs that were antithetical to their personal beliefs. Pierre provides such an example:

Pierre: ... There was a program on, and there was somebody who was from the Right to Life organization; and when this person showed up, one of the people on the production staff got up and left. Now, it's saying something to the effect, well, I don't believe what this person is saying. And I thought, there is a real hypocrisy here. This is public access. We're there to guarantee that we have this First Amendment of access, and yet now we're being real choosey about which programs we're going to work on because we don't agree on what it is that's being said on it. I thought from the point of view of being on a production crew and working with each other, and helping each other, I thought of Voltaire. He said I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the last your right to say it.

I thought that was kind of an interesting double-take on the whole concept of First Amendment free speech. (G4, Access Visions)

Daniel's perspective is similar:

Daniel: ... There were certain types of shows that I got involved with at odd times that were not enjoyable. A lot of times I would do a ... show because someone needed a crew to be working on it, not necessarily because I enjoyed that philosophy or way of life or idea that they were trying to promote. (B2)

Other Mechanisms of Tolerance. While not discussed by other respondents, one producer noted two interesting techniques he utilized that allowed him to work as crew on programs he found ideologically objectionable:

Divorcing: refers to the process of removing oneself from the production content

Masking: refers to the process of hiding one's own ideological beliefs

Both divorcing and masking allowed Daniel to intellectually or emotionally withdraw from the productions on which he was working. Here he describes divorcing:

Daniel: It was helpful to work on the idea of not listening much to the show and trying to divorce yourself from what was actually being said.

... Well, there were times you got uptight listening to what some of the comments were about. A lot of the philosophies were very different on the show. You don't want to try to let your philosophies influence how the outcome of the show was. You very easily could go to an uncomplimentary shot. If he leans forward and all you see is the back of his head, that's not the shot you want to take. So often you want to do that anyway [laughing]. But you have to be able to divorce yourself from a lot of these. It was very often through practice that we were doing it. (b2P4a)

Daniel also finds it necessary to "mask" his beliefs at times in order to get along with people on a particular program:

Daniel: ... maybe you have to learn to not listen to what's going on, only look at what you're seeing. Kind of put blinders on, and those are difficult at times. You get some of these abortion rights shows. People get so upset about them. You know I've seen cameramen walk out of studios before. Some of the religious shows, Jehovah Artful Moments you know they are very fundamentalist and you weren't allowed on the crew unless you believed that way [laughing]. So you had to let them believe that you were somewhat believing and then you can't put a false image up at times. Those are very difficult [for me] to get into. (B2)

Daniel's techniques of divorcing and masking are interesting in that they provide yet another perspective on the manners by which producers negotiate the ideological differences they encounter at the public access facility.

Tolerance of Personalities

The data suggest that producers identify a distinct separation of beliefs from personal traits, and that ideological differences are handled differently than personal differences. Tom provides a glimpse at how the ideological and nonideological are separated in the minds of many producers:

Tom: ... And when they [volunteers] come on I just try to share with them, and now there are certain shows or programs that I won't work on. Anything that's contrary to Christ, I'm not gonna work on it. I mean it's just that everybody knows that and I've helped a man put his starter up. He was a program -- his program was not with Christ but I helped him put his starter on. I ain't gonna help him with his program though [laughing]. But his choke broke down and I helped him with his starter [laughing]. Crawled right up under it and helped him with it, but I'm not gonna help him with his program. (B6)

Tom is indicating a separation of the personal from the ideological common to the data. However, while Tom refers to assisting personally someone with whom he disagrees ideologically, most respondents note personality differences in the negative--when the differences involve conflicting personality traits.

The discussion of tolerance of personalities involves two aspects:

Tolerating difficult personalities: refers to some obnoxious personalities found at the public access facility

Mechanisms of personality tolerance: refers to the techniques adopted by respondents that allow them to coexist with difficult personalities

Tolerating Difficult Personalities. While differences in beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, there is no such dogma related to accepting personality differences, particularly annoying personality traits of producers that make life more difficult for the crew members.

The result is that most respondents did not seem to feel the necessity of tolerating the egos or work habits of individuals they considered difficult. Daniel expresses the problem rather succinctly:

Daniel: ... You find a few of the people down there to be very much of a pain. I guess that's the easiest way to say that. (b5P5a)

Elliot describes the same situation. In his case, he addresses the problems with ego-driven individuals, while accepting their right to be involved in public access:

Elliot: ... There are some people involved in ACTV, and I have to be a little tolerant because it's a public access, and I guess it's their right to be involved, but they have some gigantic egos; and I'm not talking about a particular ... but a group of people. One of them spent a great deal of time in a meeting telling us how most of us were not proficient enough, and I have never seen a guy who can goof up a studio as badly as he can. (G1, Significant Access Experience)

Note that Elliot is defending the right of difficult individuals to be involved in public access, not their right to annoy others with their personalities.

Thea describes the problem of difficult individuals from the point of view of a crew member. She addresses a common problem referred to by most respondents: ego-driven, unorganized producers who waste the time of their crews:

Thea: ... I can think of a lot of times there was wasted energy. When I helped volunteer on some programs and the producer wouldn't show with his guests and you're standing there and you had taken all this time to set up the program and get things ready. And you know, nothing sends me to the edge faster than telling me that this time was wasted.

So when some producers are prima donnas or on an ego trip and I think that OK, let's face it. When you do your own TV program or any program, and we are all guilty of this, this is like a narcissist thing. It feeds this ego and some people it's just -- they turn into a monster and their ego goes over the edge and you swear they're a movie star. They treat other people like peons and you are there to serve them and they have temper tantrums and they yell and that's not the way that environment is supposed to be set up, or they mistreat staff and yell at the staff in front of the other producers. That's not an environment conducive to being creative and helping out people.... (B5)

Denise describes the problem of difficult individuals from the point of view of a producer counting on individuals to show up for their crew assignments:

Denise: I have learned one thing, and I really did not realize it until I went to cable access. There are people that will tell you they will do something and have no intentions of doing it, have no intentions or if they do do it they'll take their good time and you are -- there are people that do not give their word and you're thinking as a new producer this person is gonna show up and help me or this person is -- we're gonna do this or that together and they have no intentions but you're too naive to know that they're not telling the truth.

You're expecting somebody to show up to help you with your studio time because maybe you're the one that's the talent that's in front of the camera and you're expecting them to show up to be your camera person and they don't show up or you show up and you've asked the crew to come and they just don't show up. Because remember it is all volunteer. You're not paying them. So if they don't show up you can't blow your stack or anything at them because they are doing you a favor. So it's hard because people -- and then people commit themselves "Oh yes I want to work with you on your show. I love this idea" blah, blah, blah, and you never see them again, and that's the story of cable access. (b1P5a)

Daniel describes the depths to which personality clashes can descend. For him, the arguments regarding studio policy seem politically based, and are frustrating:

Daniel: ... I get a little frustrated and I tend to get burned out a little bit on some of these things when it is all political motivation more than you know ... I just don't like the political fights. They got -- one time they got into name-calling. It was she was a Jew bitch and he was some faggot. I don't -- you know they were just calling names like this and I -- hell, I don't need that. That doesn't help you relax, you know. It gets tensions and then she wanted to go to the cable commission to see if she could get rid of the people on staff, you know, and who said what. You know she called up one time and wanted to know what the exact conversation was about me and the one guy that came in and said "It's 9:00. You have to get off the air now." She took all these notes and took down the notes of what everyone else had said and compared them and was gonna form a formal complaint and all this stuff. Hell, that's you know -- start the show 10 minutes earlier, you know [laughing]. She won't do that [laughing]. So it is very political oriented.... (b8P1a)

The respondents all agree that such conflicts take the fun out of the entire access experience. The methods by which these instances are dealt with is described below.

Mechanisms of Personality Tolerance. The data indicate that, although respondents may disagree about the desirability of participating on programs with which they have ideological differences, most respondents seemed to set personal parameters in order to cope with difficult producers. Thea's solution of avoidance is similar to the technique of avoidance used to resolve the problem of conflicting beliefs:

Thea: ... I got turned off a little bit. I mean I'd go down there every couple of months, but it was the egos down there and people fighting and bickering over small things. It kind of got to me. I couldn't stand why people were being so narcissistic and having temper tantrums; I thought that was so unprofessional that you were all artists working there and were under the same roof, and we should respect each other. People literally screaming and stomping their feet -- and I thought this is ridiculous, you know, to be in that environment. They just need guidelines for people on how to behave, and I'm a behavior manager, and I work with people ... it's on a different level, and that turns me off so many times; so I go down there in strange hours when nobody's there and shut myself in a room, but that's the thing that turned me off. (G4, Burned Out)

Noreen has also found her own solution to the problem of producers who waste her time: she sets a time limit for her crew participation and leaves at the end of that time:

Noreen: ... But when I am not the technical director I try to ignore them because I will just tell people that I have to leave after two hours. I have another commitment. I'm gonna leave, and if you're not done I'm leaving. So in the beginning I would stay. If it took them another half hour I'd stay another half hour, but now I say no, I have made a two-hour commitment, if you're not done I'm leaving. I'm sorry but I'm not telling you you can't stay. I just can't stay. And so that's been making me feel better. (b12P5a)

Tolerance and the First Amendment

The discussion above indicates that almost all of the producers in this study construct tolerance within the traditional framework of the First Amendment, as discussed in chapter 2. One perspective within this framework views freedom of expression as an ends in itself, necessary for human self-fulfillment, rather than as a means to achieve a quality of ideas within the "marketplace of ideas" (Emerson 1970; Ruggles 1994).⁽³⁾ The constant reference to freedom of expression as an individual "right" is indicative of this construction on the part of the producers.

Some scholars within the traditional perspective argue that the freedom of speech mandate is less to ensure the development of the individual and more to guarantee that truth will emerge from the social discourse (Meiklejohn 1948; Lippmann 1939). As discussed in chapter 2, only recently have access proponents followed Meiklejohn and Lippmann in calling for the quality of ideas for the social good over quantity of ideas for individual self-expression.⁽⁴⁾ There is little evidence that indicates the respondents in this study viewed public access within Emerson's (1970) framework of a long-range social good that might include a restriction of short-term individual advantage (10).

Conclusions: Tolerance

The discussion above indicates that, while tolerance of opposing ideas because of freedom of speech guarantees may be portrayed in a positive light by producers, the practice of allowing others to voice their ideas and opinions actually involves a great deal of inner and outer turmoil on the part of the respondents. This conflict is handled through a complex set of practices, often involving disassociation.

The data indicate that the ACTV volunteer system is important in promoting contact among access participants, necessitating the development of a high degree of tolerance of conflicting ideas by producers.

While a degree of tolerance may be extended to ideological differences, personalities are not protected by the First Amendment. The respondents do not view offending personalities from the perspective of rights of expression; acceptance and endurance of difficult personalities is much lower than that accorded to ideological differences.

The data indicate that respondents are constructing freedom of speech as an individual right rather than as a social good. Thus, they are favoring a view of the First Amendment that sees human expression as an end in itself, rather than a means to a greater goal of public discourse.

Throughout this chapter, we have been following the map provided by the public access vision and summarized in the following formula:

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

The discussion of tolerance has focused on a relatively discordant aspect of others in evidence throughout the data, where respondents identified and endured ideologies and personalities in conflict with their own. More harmonious constructions of others by producers also are in evidence throughout the data; these are discussed below.

4. Community

While the tolerance described above defines a perspective of others primarily from a conflict orientation, the theme of community refers to a sense of belonging to a cohesive group of individuals, usually with a common sense of purpose. The data suggest that a sense of community is a common outcome of the public access experience on the part of the producers.

Community involves a perception of others from the perspective of the producer, and the individual in relationship to these others. As such, it entails areas of the empowerment chart addressed during the previous discussion of tolerance. In that section it was noted that a greater percentage of respondents placed heavy emphasis in the row of "others" than any of the areas of focus (Tables 7 and 8). In addition, the greatest emphasis by respondents across the entire empowerment chart was judged to be talk related to others as the row intersects the column of the personal domain (66.7%, Table 8).

The references to others described in the discussion of community considers producer relationships with crewmates, access participants, and viewers. These are addressed below in the following subthemes:

Community within the production crew: refers to the sense of camaraderie and fellowship with the people working together on the production

Community within public access: refers to the sense of camaraderie and fellowship with other people inside ACTV

Community with viewers: refers to a bond with the viewers of the public access program or programs

"Community": An Overview

Contemporary use of the term "community" is problematic. Williams (1976) notes that community is defined most often as an attribute (e.g., a sense of common identity) rather than as an object (e.g., a strictly delineated geographic area). As an attribute, "community" is a "warmly persuasive word," always used favorably (76). Like "motherhood" and "apple pie," it evokes warm, pleasant feelings.

Such is the use of the term within the data. Producers referred to "community" as an attribute more often than as a geographic area. Within each of the subthemes of community within the production crew, community within public access, and community with the audience, producers reinforce Williams's (1976) notion that "community" is not used in the negative. To the respondents, a "community" evokes warm, nurturing, pleasant, uplifting feelings. To the producers, although people may disagree within the community, there is no argument or conflict.

Bart provides an example of this usage of community. In this instance he is referring to the sense of community within the ACTV community:

Bart: ... it hit me at the pyramid awards --there was such a diversity of people there. And they are all coming together; and everyone's nice to everyone. And I don't know, it seems like a pseudo-utopia because you have the religious programming, atheists -- totally opposite views, but everyone's always nice to one another and courteous. It seems like a little community in itself where no one's critical of one another. They'll say what they think, but everyone respects others' opinions.... that's how I see it -- some community where you can be yourself and no one's going to disrespect you even if they totally disagree with you. (F3, Access Vision)

Bart exemplifies the use of the term "community" by the respondents in this study. His usage of "pseudo-utopia" to describe the situation implies a warm place where people may disagree but where courtesy dictates that no overt conflict take place. It is this construction of community that is generally at play within discussions of community and the production crew, the access facility, and the viewers.

Community Within the Production Crew

Community within the production crew refers to a sense of camaraderie and fellowship among the people working together on a production. Thea, a dropout, describes such a situation as she relays her positive experience working as a part of a good production team:

Thea: ... I thought it was a help that the staff went along and this other intern went along because the three of us hitting off each other ... it created a nice circle of -- I don't know how you'd put it but -- it was just we were building off each other and it was a great experience....

... We balanced each other out. We were a good mix....

... It makes you want to search out other people more in public access that have things to offer, to work together with. (b1P4a)

Thea's description above fits the definition used to define "community" among a production crew: a sense of bonding and fellowship. The experience left her with the desire to work with other people at ACTV.

Pierre, also a dropout producer, provides a more specific example of how the sense of community operates within the production group:

Pierre: Now, more specifically, I worked down there for almost two years before I produced my own program; and it was at that time I began to pool all the different people that I had been working for those two years, and have them working with me on production, and that was really exciting to see how people come together and put their talents and see this whole thing go from concept to cablecast. That was a real high, being able to put that whole thing together.

... You cannot do video very easily by yourself. You really need a group of people to work together. The best situations are when people have certain strengths, and you find out what they are, and you put them where they do the best. People who are really interested in audio, you put them on sound. People who can do some scriptwriting, you get them to do that; and you find out all these different talents, and you marshall those talents into a program. That was exciting, because everyone was committed. Everyone was interested in their part of this whole work really well. (F4, Significant Experience)

Pierre seems to be referring to a sense of synchronicity that appears to result from a well-integrated production team that is "clicking" together.⁽⁵⁾ The sense of community exemplified by Thea and Pierre above is supported by Trent, a recovering addict. In this case, Trent describes how the crew's support helped him during an intense inner struggle against his addiction while they were working on an antidrug program on crack cocaine:

Trent: I was surrounded by people who knew my struggle with the disease, the addiction, of this addiction [to crack cocaine]. What they very much knew [was] that I played a major element as far as an important role involved in helping the process of getting this piece done because I knew the exact ramifications that an addict goes through. That I would have brought at that time, I did bring, a reality, an experience, of experience, that would give authenticity to the piece.

... [being surrounded by these people] was helpful to me personally, on a spiritual level.... (b9P4a)

The warm sense of community that is represented above by Pierre, Thea, and Trent stands in sharp contrast to the conflicts described above in the discussion of tolerance. The data indicate that a crew composed of people of similar political interests may be better able to sustain a sense of community than a crew composed of politically dissimilar persons. Noreen explains the importance of having people of similar political views working together on a production:

Noreen: ... a lot of people who felt the same way I did were working on the show so as soon as you say well I don't know maybe you shouldn't do this like three other people would say what do you mean you're not gonna do this? So having like-minded people work on your show is really good.... Because they give you the moral support that you need when you might be sticking your neck out a little or a lot. (b7P4a)

Noreen's comment suggests that the sense of community may be linked to the cohesiveness of a group that is moving toward a common goal. In Noreen's case it involves creating programs that contain an element of social activism. This relates to the discussion of "making a difference" later in this chapter.

Community Within Public Access

Community within public access refers to the sense of camaraderie and fellowship among the people using the facilities of ACTV. In the previous discussion of tolerance, Thea described the "carnival" she observed one night at ACTV as various groups moved in and out of the facility (B6). Bart has previously described the sense of community he felt at an awards presentation, where factions within ACTV mixed pleasantly (F3, Access Vision).

Roslyn, a dropout producer, also describes moments at ACTV when groups occasionally at odds were working together:

Roslyn: ... I think anything we did outside the studio ... brought the volunteers together. You became a cohesive group. The staff -- together; you became friends that way. It wasn't them versus us; it wasn't that division -- everyone worked together and we had fun doing it.

I think the result is the programs we got were very good programs because once you got back to the studio, everyone worked on them there, too, in the editing classes. It became real community TV as far as I was concerned. It wasn't everyone having their own little agenda. Sometimes down there, that tends to happen -- well this is mine -- etc.

I sometimes don't think there's much community in community TV in Columbus. That's why I remember all those experiences when we were away from the studio and were very visible.... (F4, Significant Experience)

Here Roslyn indicates that conflict among individuals or groups snuffs out a sense of community, a notion that was introduced during the previous discussion of tolerance. Roslyn's comment also suggests that as the factions within ACTV move out to the broader community, they may see themselves not as representatives of a particular program reflecting a particular ideological perspective, but as representatives of public access itself. At such a time, the tenets of public access may prove stronger than the canon of individual or group ideologies. George reinforces such an interpretation:

George: ... When you take it to the community level, I think it's great when you find other people doing not the same thing, but going in the same direction with the same medium, it's empowering to have the same people with the same view, trying to release that critical eye on society, on ourselves, on the community as a whole.... (F3, Access Visions)

In such an instance, it would seem that the "like-minded people" of which Noreen spoke (b7P4a) have broadened from the crew to include those using the access facility and supporting the access creed.

Community With Viewers

Community with viewers refers to the sense of camaraderie and fellowship among the creators and viewers of public access programs. Discussion of community with viewers involves three subthemes, explored below:

The personal audience: refers to the producers' perception of the viewers as active individuals participating in the creation of programs

Consideration of audience: refers to the attention paid by producers to viewers of their programs

Assumption of large audience: refers to the belief on the part of producers that a large number of people are viewing their programs

The Personal Audience. The personal audience refers to the producers' perception of the viewers as active individuals who are participating in the creation of programs. The data indicate that most of the producers in this study perceive the viewers of their access programs to be highly selective individuals who are actively engaged in their television viewing and who often make themselves known to the producers.

This contrasts with traditional research related to television viewers, which has often conceptualized the audience as an amorphous, passive "mass," rather than as individuals actively selecting and making sense of television programs (Ang 1990). The "personal audience" suggested by the data is the essence of the subtheme of community with viewers.

Producers rely on the interaction with viewers for encouragement. At times, the producer will manipulate elements of a program specifically to motivate viewers to respond. Alfred provides an example of this in which he purposely makes mistakes in his show so his viewers will respond to his programs:

Alfred: ... I would like for my audience to respond to me because my -- you can see my credits, the way I have them set up. I didn't put edges on them and it's like you don't have to look real hard but it is kind of faint. So I figured if they look hard enough they can see who did it and they can write in or call me and tell me [laughing], You need to do this. You need to make it so you can see it. You know I'm hoping to get that response. Every time it was an experiment and you know I like to think that I'm getting better every time. See, I couldn't even do computer graphics at first so I was satisfied in getting these up. They should be showing in a couple of weeks. I should know something anytime. (b2P4a)

Here is the essence of the "community audience": a very personalized construction of audience as part of a community, where the individuals making up the collective audience are expected to respond to the program. This creates a synergic loop, and the feedback from his audience then motivates Alfred to work harder on his program:

Alfred: It [audience response] makes me work harder. It makes me strive to do better, give them something else to talk about. (b12P4a)

... It helps knowing that when people are responsive to what I'm trying to do that I can get that positive feedback, and it makes me keep going with it. I don't drop the idea. When I think that is not working I'll drop it. It has been working so far since February I believe. and I haven't let it go yet. (b9P4a)

Charlie also seeks feedback from her viewers. She deliberately puts creative video behind the program schedule to attract the attention of viewers:

Charlie: ... I thought well, maybe this might make them stop and in stopping to see what's happening behind it, then they are at the same time they're gonna hear these bands and this music and that while they're watching this other visual stuff they're gonna see these words scrolling up too and they're gonna start looking at that and then they'll start seeing these other programs and all, well that's "Clintonville Confidential" on Tuesday at 2. Maybe ... it's all gonna work together and help all the people and their shows too. That it is all related. And it has happened. I have seen it happen. I thought it might happen but it really did (b6P4a).

The producers' construction of the audience as part of a creating/viewing community seems to be centered around the producer as creator of the program. The producer invites viewers to participate, and when they do the producer works harder and goes further to evoke a response.

Throughout his interview, Alfred repeatedly stated, "I have created audiences" (B6). His comments suggest this loop, which centers around the energy he puts into the creation of his program, and which is strengthened by contributions from his audience.

Alfred: ... [public access] gave me the power to know that I can create audiences and you know I've been recognized by the audiences I have created out of it, with the show that I made up. And before that happened I was a different person. So now I'm a producer. I've got that show. I got people that want to see more of the show. So that's the impact it has made for me. (B9)

Charlie is at the center of a loop of her own creation. In her case, her program involves a community composed of local nightclubs, bands, music stores, music critics, and music aficionados:

Charlie: So we've pulled the whole community together with the bars that are playing -- that the bands are playing at. Some of their record agents. I have one of the local music stores that also supports the local music and a couple of the different [shops] -- like a guitar shop and an audio-visual shop to help underwrite the program. So at the same time, this is the whole community all working together to put this, to bring this about. You know, even though I am the producer and I am getting all the credit, I couldn't do it without all of them and so they're all, they're all working and they're all supporting it. And they didn't even know whether or not I could do it [laughing]. (B10)

Based on the examples provided by Charlie and Alfred, the personal nature of the viewing community seems to originate from a creative sharing between the producer and the rest of the creating and viewing community. The audience is personal because they are known to the producer and participates in the creation of the program. Hence, the program does become an interactive community production. In addition, the producer receives the knowledge and self-esteem that come from the understanding that he or she "created the audience" along with the program.

Consideration of Audience. Consideration of audience refers to the attention paid by producers to viewers of their programs, whether or not they construct the viewers of their programs as personal.

In a study by Fuller (1984), producers indicated they did not often consider their viewing audience when creating their programs (155).⁽⁶⁾ This is decidedly not the case with the respondents in this study. Respondents often described the viewers of access programs as the primary reason the producers were creating programs. Meredith provides one such example:

Meredith: ... I would like people to see the good work that I've put into my production. I'm not out there to produce just for myself. (b1P5a)

Tom also exemplifies the manner in which most producers consider the audience for their programs:

Tom: Well when you do a program you always want to think that you're not doing it just for yourself. You feel like that's what it is for. That's what public access is for, I believe. It is for the community.... But a lot of times, yeah, you expect for your program to have some type of impact on the community. (B10)

Note that Tom also includes the expectation of an impact on the viewing audience in his consideration of viewers. This is a connection with the theme of "making a difference" that will be examined in detail later in this chapter.

Noreen also provides an example of the attention paid to viewers by the respondents. In her case she recognizes that part of the show is making something people want to watch:

Noreen: ... Part of the show is not just getting the information across, it is making it that people want to watch it, and to do that you have to do things with timing, with interest and all these kind of things. And I think I can do that better.

... it would make a more interesting show that people would want to watch, and my goal is always to have a show that people will watch and learn from.

... [then] they'll get new information and will make them think. Get those grassroots people off the couch into the street [laughing]. (b4P6a)

Note that Noreen, like Tom, also expects her program to have an impact on viewers. Noreen hopes to motivate her audience to engage in social action, a goal considered more fully later in this chapter.

Noreen and Tom, as well as Charlie and Alfred, exemplify the kinds of audience considerations producers make while constructing their programs.

Assumption of Large Audience. Assumption of large audience refers to the belief on the part of producers that a large number of people are viewing their programs. It is clear from the data that the respondents believe there is a large number of viewers watching their programs. The producers base this assumption primarily on the amount of feedback and recognition received from the viewers, often citing instances of being recognized by strangers on the street after appearing on their public access program. The following examples are typical of the strong reactions to a suggestion that perhaps few people watched the public access channel; these are drawn from the group interviews:

Leo: I don't know that then many people will admit to watching. I live in Dublin with a lot of yuppies, engineers, etc. It's amazing the number of people that once the ice is broken and you talk about "Clinton Confidential," and people will say, "Oh yeah, I saw that." Once it's broken, people will admit to watching some of these things.... (F1, Access Vision)

Anthony: ... [P]eople watch it, which I've always known since the beginning; even when people make certain statements that no one watches public access -- that's wrong. (F2, Significant Experience)

Paul: ... [P]eople definitely watch it. I learned that when I started as a new pastor of this little church. There was about 80 of us on Sunday mornings, 40 of whom were 15 and younger, and they all had seen the cable show. They all knew this guy'd been on TV, even the ones that hadn't had heard it from the ones that had. It definitely does get watched and it does have an impact. (F2, Access Vision)

Thea: ... People do watch public access. I thought that maybe it wasn't true; that maybe no one watched public access, but -- It's the strangest thing. I don't show myself in front of the camera; I show other people, but I've had people who've been in my videos stopped on the street. I took my car in once to get fixed, and one of my videos was called new distributor cap, and the mechanic said will you love me if I fix your car, which is like -- one of the choruses in the song, so he recognized my name. So I'm really amazed that some people -- it is watched! (F4, Access Vision)

Bill: [W]ell, mainstream masses--no they don't [watch public access], but I was on my show and had a bank teller recognize me, and people on campus.... when my show was on, they always had my show tuned in in our newsroom, so I knew people watch. (F4, Access Vision)

These comments point to a serious shortcoming in an analysis of public access channels: there is little data available that addresses the viewership of the channels.⁽⁷⁾ As a result, anecdotal evidence such as that provided above is the primary manner in which the viewership of public access programming is judged.⁽⁸⁾

The data presented during this discussion of community with viewers describe a relationship with the viewers of public access that is personal in nature--based on recognition within a community of interests.

Conclusions: Community

The discussion of community has supported Williams's (1976) notion that the term "community" is always used in the positive and usually refers to an attribute rather than an object. The warm construction of "other" in this discussion contrasts the more discordant perspective reflected in the analysis of tolerance.

In the warm glow of community, respondents looked favorably upon associations within the production crew, the access facility, and the viewing audience. The data indicated that producers have a personal relationship with viewers, and that these viewers are considered participants in the creation of access programs. The producers consider the number of viewers for these programs to be rather large.

Chapters 1 and 2 discussed the pluralist tenets underlying public access and the First Amendment. One of these precepts is the myth of individualism, in which the individual constantly struggles against the collective for survival. Dervin and Clark (1993) and Streeter (1990) argue that this is a false dichotomy--that both the individual and the collective depend upon each other for identity and growth, and that the two are inseparable.⁽⁹⁾

The data support this idea that such a dichotomy is false. The relationships among and within the themes of "media savvy," "it's personal," "tolerance," and "community" suggest that a dialectical relationship exists between individuals and the collective. The nature of this relationship appears to be as follows:

As individuals come together to create a program, they become integrated into a production crew, involving discussions of the division of labor within the theme of media savvy. Within this group, individuals learn about themselves and others, as described in the theme "it's personal." A result of the coming together of somewhat like-minded individuals for the purpose of creation seems to be that many producers move beyond their personal worlds to a bonding with others that is often uplifting in nature, as described above in the discussion of community.

When this bonding is thwarted, individuals seem to pull back to differing degrees from the collective grouping, as is evidenced from the earlier discussion of tolerance. An encounter with opposing ideological beliefs seems to impede the development of the fullest sense of community, but does not necessarily cause individuals to disassociate themselves entirely from the group. This seems due, in part, to the sanctuary offered the individual by the First Amendment dogma. However, personality conflicts often do cause individuals to pull back and disassociate themselves from the collective grouping.

The sense of community is often related to a sense of accomplishment on the part of the production team, frequently associated with a program that in some way affects people or society. This involves a changing of societal relationships, which follows the final step in the empowerment formula:

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

Action to change relationships related to society is the subject of the next theme: "making a difference."

5. Making a Difference

Making a difference refers to the sense that an individual's and/or group's actions are important; that change at the societal level can be effected. Making a difference also refers to actions taken to change relationships at the societal level.

Other themes have addressed issues of personal change (particularly media savvy and "it's personal") and the dynamics of change within the group context (particularly tolerance and community). Making a difference is related to the sensitizing concept of societal change, as directed by the critical pedagogy represented by Paulo Freire. As discussed in chapters 1 and 2, Freirean pedagogy considers the highest level of empowerment to be action that addresses power relationships in society, based on self-reflection. These aspects of Freirean empowerment are represented by the column of the societal domain on the empowerment chart.

The quantitative analysis in chapter 4 concludes that the least amount of talk by respondents falls within the societal domain of empowerment (1.9, Table 1; 1.5, Table 2; 0.4, Table 3). There is judged to be appreciably less talk of action than cognition within the societal domain at every point of the empowerment chart (Tables 2 and 3, 5 and 6, 8 and 9). Most dramatic is the comparison of percentage of respondents with a heavy amount of talk related to action (0.0%, Table 9) with the percentage related to cognition (77.8) across the entire societal domain.

While it would appear from the quantitative analysis that little action judged as societal change is taking place, that which does occur is interesting and meaningful. The data suggest that Freirean empowerment may focus unrealistically on societal change as a goal, rather than on societal change as a process that begins with individual and collective transformation. This will be discussed below through the following aspects of making a difference:

Making a difference at the societal level: refers to actions by producers to directly address inequities at the societal level

The process of social change: refers to access participation as a part of a continuum on which social change is facilitated

Making a Difference at the Societal Level

Making a difference at the societal level refers to actions taken by producers to directly address inequities at the societal level. Within the societal domain, the area containing the greatest amount of talk judged as action is within the row of media (0.6, Table 3; 55.6%, Table 6). Not surprisingly, this action generally takes the form of programs designed by the respondents with a specific impact in mind. Examples of this have been presented during earlier discussions in this chapter. They include the following:

Noreen created a program on the homeless when the local newspaper had no stories about homelessness (B3).

Tom produces a program with the stated purpose of addressing problems in society (b4P1a).

Thea addresses questions in her programs that are ignored by the mainstream media (b3P4a).

Trent created a program with the express purpose of influencing city government to restructure the three access channels (B5).

The programs mentioned above are similar in that they indicate a desire on the part of the producer to address perceived inequities in society. Noreen, a self-described activist, exemplifies the impact producers generally hope their programs will have on their viewers. In her case, programs are designed to get the viewers to the phones:

Noreen: ... then you know that they have responded -- that they are not just sitting on the couch watching and waiting for the next commercial. When I do shows, when I do my own shows, I usually have people call. Like they'll call the breast, the cancer society. They'll call the legislator. They'll call this person or that person. I never have them call me because I'm putting the show together for some other issue.... (b10P4a)

At first glance, the relatively few instances of overt attempts to address inequities in society might indicate that the empowerment vision of public access is not viable at its highest level: that of social change. However, such a rigid application of the definition of empowerment would miss the complex subtleties at play within the data.

The data indicate that social change may not be rooted solely in awarenesses and actions that address societal inequities, as Freire outlines. Instead, there appears to be a dialectical relationship between the individual and collective that suggests that a process orientation toward social change may be more helpful in understanding the nature of such change. This is explored below.

The Process of Social Change

The process of social change refers to access participation as a part of a continuum through which social change is facilitated. While some of the respondents' comments may have been judged as talk related to action to change societal relations, this does not imply the producers necessarily portray themselves as working for social change. In fact, at least one producer insisted her access participation was not based on any vision of societal change:

Roslyn: I don't know if anyone's really that deep into it, like really change, but I see ACTV as more of an entertainment. I don't see anyone trying to change the world. (F4, Access Vision)

This notion was contested by at least one other producer. Paul believes that the lack of focus on overt social change did not necessarily rule out the possibility that societal change was taking place:

Paul: ... Even if you aren't consciously changing things by their participation, they [public access producers] change the world. Just by their choosing to put that message on the air, and that message going out, people are going to change things -- no I don't agree with that -- or I guess I do, and tell friends -- it's like throwing a pebble in the pond.

Every story is a pebble -- and you can't even judge where those waves go. Simply the fact that those stories were told -- and without access TV they would not have been -- the world's been changed by what's been said. It's like any other criticism -- to a degree -- how much, how watched is it, how much do people learn? How much is the world changed?... (F2, Access Vision)

Paul's comment follows Gaventa's argument (1980) that all actions that break a state of passivity and quiescence are a challenge to the status quo (209).⁽¹⁰⁾ Drawing from this logic, their very participation in public access places access participants in a position in which they challenge the authority of the traditional media structure--who produces, and who receives, media messages.

While this is a broader definition of empowerment than that used in this study, it does conceptualize access participation within a process orientation. Participation in public access may provide a step toward the potential for social change. Gaventa (1980) describes this process when he states that

Because they have the potential to serve as a catalyst in this dynamic process, many community action or community education programmes [sic] may be more significant for social change than they at first appear. (209)

Such would seem to be the case with participation within public access. Discussions earlier in this chapter have referred to a process by which producers seem to move outward from the self to others and to society. Many of the respondents began their work with access television with very specific individual purposes in mind. After they began their involvement, they became aware of a broader framework of access within society in which their participation was significant. For example, Charlie, who produces a music program, began to see public access as really making a difference in people's lives.

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)

... I think it might have given me maybe a little bit more meaning to what I was doing down there. That it was beyond just having fun, just coming down to have fun to record the bands and put my show together. That it was a little bit more beyond that. (b3P7a)

... it really blew me away [laughing]. It was one of those times you know. I think it really made a difference in my life -- showing me that the importance of public access was a lot more than what I thought. (B4)

Meredith also exemplifies the movement from the personal to the broader framework that the data indicate is characteristic of the access experience. She recognizes the necessity of being informed of public issues:

Meredith: ... I learned at that time that up to that point I had pretty much -- was happy to be with [Channel] 21 but had taken it for granted. That it's not enough to go down there and bring in your tapes that you had just shot on location and start editing and submit them, that that's not enough. You have to really read a lot, be informed, read the newspapers because there are things out there that can threaten public access.

... This is helpful to me because now that I know I am also aware that I know about it. If I know about it I can do something about it.

... Well, that then leads me to find ways that I can empower myself and other people, and if we're empowered we can make public access even stronger and better, and if it's stronger and better then that means that our society is that much richer. (b7P4a)

Notice the survival element involved in Meredith's comments. She is describing the necessity of being informed in order to protect what she considers an important outlet: public access cable television. This notion of survival has been identified within all the themes discussed in this chapter: media savvy, "it's personal," tolerance, community, and now "making a difference."

Charlie and Meredith exemplify the potential for social change offered by public access. If Charlie's and Meredith's expanded awarenesses regarding the role of public access and its potential to change lives is viewed strictly from the Freirean perspective, there is little evidence of the highest level of empowerment: action to change power relationships in society.

However, if societal change is conceptualized as a process, as suggested by Gaventa (1970), the expanded awarenesses described by Charlie and Meredith begin to take on added significance. Their reflections become part of a continuum of societal change that begins at a personal level. Here is a connection with the personal described earlier in this chapter and which is supported by Sense-Making theory.⁽¹¹⁾

The connection between the personal and the societal is indicated by Daniel, who describes the impacts of his access participation on society in personal terms:

Daniel: ... I guess I'd have to have difficulties saying that I've seen impacts on society in general. Unless I consider the impact that it's had on me, my feelings of society. See, it has opened a lot of doors. It got me in a lot of places I normally would not have gone, and done a lot of things I normally wouldn't do. It opened a few eyes of mine. I don't know how society is affected by what I do other than I make up society eventually or enough of us do.

... I don't know that I have made that much change in the community or the Columbus area or the society in general, other than maybe have changed some of my outlooks on the community and I guess as a whole we're all part of that society so what changes I make may not be great. But it does have some bearing on how I interface in with the rest of society which I would hope would have an impact....

... public access as far as I'm concerned has changed me which is part of society in what small little way I've got then that does change society to a point. There is a lot more of them than me [laughing].... (B12).

Daniel states repeatedly that his impact on society stems from the impact on himself, as a part of society. His comment directs attention again to the argument that the individual and the collective are not separate, but are interconnected (Dervin and Clark 1993; Streeter 1990).

Trent conspicuously describes his participation within access as part of larger process of social change:

Trent: ... everything is a process, everything is continuous, everything has its own expression, and in that vehicle of expression which is continuously moving, there comes out a public expression that we can put on the table and look at, and break it down, and dissect it and diagnose it, and give it back out to society and say, "Hey, here we are. This is us." And hope that people would look at the pros and cons of it, and learn from it, and be able to elevate, and go to a higher level. A higher life, a higher form of life. That would make this society better as a whole. (b12P1a)

The comments of Paul, Meredith, Charlie, Daniel, and Trent presented above reinforce the concept that societal change involves the individual and the collective simultaneously in a dynamic process.

Conclusions: Making a Difference

The discussion of making a difference has addressed instances of talk judged to reflect an attempt by producers to change power relations in society. There are a limited number of these episodes, as evidenced by the quantitative analysis in chapter 4. Utilizing the strictest Freirean test of empowerment--that of social change--access would seem to fail in its ability to effect change within the societal realm.

However, the data suggest that the process of change is immensely complex, involving individual and group transformations that may affect society. This discussion supports the notion that individuals and collectivities operate within a dialectical relationship, rather than in isolation from each other (Dervin and Clark 1993; Streeter 1990). The discussion advances a process perspective toward social change and examines public access in light of its potential to further change in power relationships.

The discussion of making a difference reinforces a notion introduced earlier in this chapter: that producers in this study exhibit a movement outward from the personal sphere to people they know within public access, and then to those with whom they are unfamiliar. As their personal worlds expand, the broader society in which they live is affected. This does not put an undue emphasis on the liberal democratic ideology of individualism. Rather it eliminates the false dichotomy between conceptions of the individual and the collectivity, and instead posits a dynamic process of interaction between the individual and the collectivity.

This does not contradict Freire; it merely redirects attention away from the goal of societal change and toward the process by which this change takes place. Freire does not specifically address the necessity of action within the personal realm, although he alludes to it in his latest work (1993). However, self-reflectivity does imply at least a modest amount of a personal orientation--toward oneself and others.

The discussion in chapters 1 and 2 noted that public access cable television was created at a time when individuals and/or groups were seen to have little or no effect on institutions or society as a whole--particularly the institutions of the mass media. Public access was seen as a means of providing citizens with an electronic "voice" and encouraging citizens to participate in the workings of the society. The data indicate that access does encourage an expanded view of the world, as well as an active role in shaping that world.

The work of this chapter thus far has been to analyze the access vision of empowerment, utilizing the formula below:

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

By investigating societal change through the discussion of making a difference, we have completed an analysis of the access vision of empowerment. This is the vision as stated by academics, access practitioners, industry executives, government officials, and social critics. The final section of this chapter investigates respondent visions of empowerment that fall slightly outside the "official" vision.

6. Alternative Visions of Access

Alternative visions of access refers to visions of public access expressed by producers that were not necessarily related to the institutional vision of public access informing this study. The themes discussed previously were directed by the sensitizing concepts of media literacy, media demystification, and empowerment. Alternative visions of access explores respondents' perspectives that fall outside the traditional goals of public access.

During the group and individual interviews, respondents were asked to talk about times when they noted that the established public access vision of empowerment was or was not working well. The individual interviewees also were asked to voice their personal visions of public access.⁽¹²⁾ The responses from these portions of the individual interviews have been considered along with the entirety of a producer's talk throughout the in-depth interview. The results are snapshots of personal visions of public access television, as extrapolated from the talk of each of the nine individual interviewees. These personal visions are as follows:

Charlie sees access as bringing people together, thereby emphasizing a sense of community.

Noreen's vision emphasizes that access allows the "little people" to speak, resulting in a diversity of people and ideas in the media.

Tom pictures access as allowing people off the street to get involved with television; he believes access should be in the hands of the public.

Thea emphasizes a picture of access that allows a representation of as many different aspects of people as possible.

For Denise, access presents a different perspective of the world than mainstream television, allowing her to see how other people think.

Meredith sees access as a way to exercise her free speech rights; she uses it to get her messages out to people after numerous rejection letters from media organizations.

Daniel's vision of access is working with people, helping others overcome their fear of the equipment, and in the process coming to a new understanding of people from different walks of life.

For Trent, the access vision is a greater awareness of the processes and change associated with life and social change.

For Alfred, access provides an inexpensive opportunity to obtain technical training and develop a career as a producer.

In general, these personal visions were judged to be encompassed within the framework of the access vision of empowerment, and have been included within the themes discussed throughout this chapter.

However, one of these personal visions stands apart from the traditional perspective provided by the access vision of empowerment and warrants particular attention in this section. The vision involves the following theme, which will be discussed below:

The economic frontier: refers to a vision of access as a springboard for opportunity, usually involving an advancement in a career, or an entrepreneurial venture

The Economic Frontier

The economic frontier refers to a vision of public access as a springboard for personal opportunity. This usually involves advancement in a career, or an entrepreneurial venture. Tom exemplifies a sense of the frontier aspects of public access:

Tom: ... It's the frontier again. The man has a chance to start from ground level and if he really and truly wants to go forth with it -- if he was commercial, being a commercialism and the commercial part, if he really and truly wants to put a good program together he could put a program together and maybe get it on CBS, ABC.... It all depends on what you do with it or what you want to do with it or where you want to take it.... (b1P1a)

Tom is explicating the sense of access as the frontier, where the opportunities for personal advancement are determined only by the access participant. As determined from the data, this advancement takes two forms:

The economic frontier as career opportunity: refers to the use of access to overcome societal barriers related to the development of a career

The economic frontier as entrepreneurial opportunity: refers to the use of access to overcome economic barriers

The Economic Frontier as Career. The economic frontier as career opportunity refers to the use of access to overcome societal barriers related to the development of a career. This aspect was addressed earlier in this chapter when it was noted that some participants use access as a means to a media-related career ("it's personal"). That discussion focused on career opportunities as they related to life enrichment (Meredith b10P6a; Alfred E1; Bill G4, Significant Experience). Here, the focus is related more to the manner by which respondents see access as a means of furthering their career interests, and overcoming societal barriers in the process.

Alfred is the sole example of the economic frontier as career opportunity; his interview is rife with references that suggest he is using access to overcome economic and social barriers:

Alfred: ... outside of public access it would be pretty difficult for a guy of my economical background to be able to function in this capacity as a producer.... Any other time you have to have -- loan some money or some great friend or Daddy Warbucks-type person to keep you going.

... [T]hrough them a regular person can do on-hands training ... and it don't necessarily have to cost him a lot of money.... (B6)

Alfred's "on-hands training" allows him to gain experience that he could not otherwise afford. It allows him to sharpen his production skills and establish a career for himself as a video producer. The context of Alfred's entire interview suggests he is using public access to bridge the societal obstacles he has encountered. Here he describes how his success as a movie producer would be received by his family and friends:

Alfred ... It would be a great accomplishment for myself, for family members, friends, people who know me to see where I've come from to where I've gone. It's like the kid who's an athlete. Who everybody is seeing training while he was growing up. They'd see him going down the street and he has always got his football in his hand. He is always running, doing his training after he come home from practice and he's still practicing. And then one day he gets to the Superbowl and he always wanted to do that. So he has like reached that plateau. Or better yet, the athlete who makes it to the Olympics and reaches that goal. So in that sense I'm just trying to reach that goal. (b9P6a)

In his interview Alfred was not specific about his background. When asked if he saw connections between his life and the ideas he had been discussing, Alfred almost always replied in the affirmative, but declined to comment further.

While other producers have mentioned the career-enhancing aspects of their public access involvement ("it's personal"), Alfred is the only producer to suggest access may be used as a career opportunity that is related to societal inequities. The singular instance described above also sheds light on an additional aspect of the theme of the frontier: that of entrepreneurial opportunities.

The Economic Frontier as Entrepreneurial Opportunity. The economic frontier as entrepreneurial opportunity refers to the use of access to overcome economic barriers and generate income through entrepreneurial ventures. This may take the form of self-promotion, hiring out one's services to another producer for a fee, or using access equipment to create a commercially oriented program. These latter two practices are prohibited by ACTV policies; access philosophy states that the access facilities exist for citizens to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech and are not to be used for commercial gain. Producers may not charge one another for the use of their services, and all use of access equipment is to be used for the production of noncommercial programs used on the public access channel.⁽¹³⁾

The practices of hiring out services or producing commercial programs are not specifically mentioned by any of the respondents. However, the issue is suggested by the data. Note this comment by Alfred, which follows his discussion above regarding on-hands training:⁽¹⁴⁾

Alfred: ... if you've done any research on the prices that telecommunications companies charge for what they do as far as producing things for people you have some idea the money I'm talking about. A small guy like me just can't afford it, but I could have better afford to go to a public access facility, pay their fees, use their equipment and get the same work done. (B6)

While Alfred does not say he uses public access for commercial production, his comments suggest an interpretation of community television that is beyond the traditional vision of access as an electronic guarantor of free speech rights.

The vision of access as entrepreneurial opportunity includes the use of video equipment for commercial purposes and for self-promotion. Robert and Donald provide examples of the latter: Robert's program is a version of his book, which he sells for a living (F2, Introduction), while Donald uses his program to promote the people he represents in his talent agency. The television appearance of some of his clients has led to recording contracts (F3, First Involvement).⁽¹⁵⁾

The conflict between access channel as promoter of public discourse and the use of the channel for private gain through entrepreneurial ventures is growing (Stoney 1992). The discussion above provides a context within which to frame the contest.

Conclusions: Alternative Visions

The discussion above has highlighted the personal visions of the individual interview participants and suggests the inclusion of these perspectives within the broader public access vision of empowerment. In particular, one viewpoint has been explored: that of the economic frontier.

The economic frontier as career opportunity and the economic frontier as entrepreneurial opportunity have been discussed here because they indicate an alternative vision of public access--one that raises an interesting dilemma within the vision of empowerment. Public access was intended to address societal injustices; the institution was intended to provide a grassroots forum for speech not dominated by a commercial system. Facilities and channels were set aside to provide the public the means by which to participate in the workings of the democracy. However, the structure of public access limits this participation to speech; some of the great inequities within society--those of economic opportunity and class--are not addressed within the current framework of public access.

The alternative vision of public access as the economic frontier of individual opportunity indicates that some producers have managed to utilize public access to address the question of economic opportunity. While the vision of the economic frontier is not widely voiced by respondents in this study, it is worth noting that the producers who did mention the quasi-entrepreneurial activities described above are members of a historically disadvantaged ethnic minority. The placement of value on access as site of economic opportunity stands in contrast to the traditional access vision of empowerment.

It is also worth noting that "participation" is again at issue here, as it was during the discussion of system media savvy and ACTV policies. That discussion addressed the appropriate level of participation by producers within the public access structure. The framing of participation within the context of the economic frontier involves an examination of the "appropriate societal inequities" that are to be addressed by public access.

Summary of the Inductive Data Analysis

This chapter has focused on an inductive analysis through an examination of patterns within the data, organized as themes. These discussions have included the quantitative findings presented in chapter 4.

Six themes were explored. Five of these themes--media savvy, "it's personal," tolerance, community, and making a difference--were directed by the sensitizing concepts within the public access vision. The formula for this vision has been stated as:

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

The final theme, alternative visions, originated from a focus on the emphasis placed by respondents during the in-depth interviews.

The findings of the inductive analysis of this chapter are summarized below:

All respondents are able to recognize and evaluate program content, intent, and the technical elements found within television programs. To a lesser degree, respondents utilize many of these elements regularly in the program-production process. Some respondents are able to recognize and evaluate the symbolic meanings within television programs. Most respondents are able to recognize and evaluate the structure of media organizations and systems, as well as connections with larger social systems.

The findings support the claims of media education related to media literacy and demystification, and critical pedagogy's claims of the dialectic between the "reading" and "writing" of media literacy skills. The findings also suggest learning situations that may promote conscious reflection upon media skills.

Most respondents have framed their access experience within the context of their personal lives. Respondents report a more positive self-image and less of a tendency toward stereotypic impressions of others, and they feel their lives have generally been enriched by their access experience.

The findings support Sense-Making's perspective that individuals seek help when they sense gaps in their lives and construe the information as helpful to their lives at that moment. The findings also contribute to an understanding of situations that may cultivate the learning goals of critical pedagogy.

Survival plays an important role in motivating producers within the areas of production, personal, and societal participation.

Producers construct a view of themselves and others partly within the framework of a sense of "community." The communities include the production group, the access facility, and the viewers of access programs. A stronger sense of community is experienced within groups sharing a common purpose.

Producers construct a view of themselves and others partly within a framework of tolerance. Respondents develop tactics to overcome deep ideological and personal divisions within the access facility. Personal divisions are more likely than ideological divisions to cause producers to withdraw from access participation.

The ACTV volunteer system is a major force in motivating producers to work together, as is the nature of the production process itself.

Producers construct freedom of speech as an individual right rather than a social good.

Producers have constructed a notion of audience that is personal and active rather than faceless and passive. Most producers consider their viewing audiences as they construct access programs, and producers believe that the size of the viewing audience for access programs is underestimated. An interactive community exists among producers and the viewers of their programs.

A few producers directly address the power relationships in society through their programs or through their participation within public access. For others, societal change is approached from within the framework of personal transformation.

Societal change within the access facility involves a dialectical relationship between the individual and the collective; a transformation on the personal level affects the collectivity.

Public access participation encourages a process by which producers move outward from the self to others and to society--including government and other institutions and organizations. Access encourages an expanded view of the world, as well as an active role in shaping that world.

A dialectical relationship exists between individual crew members/producers and the collective crew/access facility/broader society. Positive experiences with the collectivity result in a bonding, a "community"; negative experiences cause producers to withdraw from the collectivity. The most likely cause of withdrawal from the group is a negative encounter with a difficult personality; ideological differences are offered sanctuary by First Amendment dogma.

Some respondents hold an expanded view of the appropriate level of participation by producers within the structure of access management and policy formation.

Access provides the opportunity to address some economic barriers and generate income through entrepreneurial ventures. Such opportunities are not encouraged by current access structure and policies.

These findings, as well as the results of the deductive analysis from chapter 4, will be discussed further in chapter 6.

1. These tensions between groups were in evidence at the group interview with long-time producers. Unknown to me, the group contained individuals representing many of the factions at ACTV. As he looked around the table at the individuals taking part, one producer asked, "This isn't a debate, is it?" The reason for the question became evident at the conclusion of the session: a few individuals became involved in what seemed to be long-standing, heated arguments about politics, religion, the arts, and the nature of human existence.

By using the Sense-Making procedure of making "rounds" (discussed in chapter 3), producers were able to recognize similarities of thought related to the First Amendment and public access, rather than emphasize their ideological differences. A common statement reported back to me after the group interview was, "It's amazing--I never had a clue [so and so] believed in the First Amendment!"

2. This is only tangentially related to a study reporting that one major reason producers are involved in public access in Austin, Texas, is for "personal expression" (White 1988).

3. This is in keeping with Good's "thoroughly integrative view" of pluralist assumptions of power (1989), which is drawn from Lukes's "one-dimensional view" of power (1974), as discussed in chapter 2.

4. These include Aufderheide (1992), Blau (1992b), and Devine (1990, 1992a, 1992b).

5. Pierre's comment is related also to the discussion of tolerance earlier in this chapter. Tolerance is based, in part, on pragmatism: people need each other to produce a program.

6. A related study by Hardenberg (1985) investigated audience and producer motivations at four public access channels in Connecticut. Some of her findings are loosely related, but not directly germane to this study.

7. Fuller (1994) details several studies of public access channels over the past two decades, indicating viewership levels from 3% to 45%. Fuller concludes by noting that survey research involving community television should emphasize trends in national viewership (15). The ACM reports that a study of 78 cable television markets revealed viewership levels from 31% to 40% for various types of access programming ("Alliance" 1994).

8. It is important to note that a focus on the levels of public access viewership shifts attention away from the process orientation of access as an electronic First Amendment, and toward traditional concepts of mass media that emphasize media product and the size of the viewing audience. As Devine (1990) argues, public access is not about television or programming, but deals with speech, communication, and interaction (17-18).

That said, the producers in this study believe their message is distributed to a large audience, and they would prefer to see the size of that audience increase.

9. As discussed in chapters 1 and 2, critical challenges to the canon of individualism also focus on pluralist assumptions that power is shared equally within society, and that the individual, not the collective, is the fundamental unit of social organization.

10. Gaventa draws from Freire; both authors are discussed more fully in chapter 2.

11. As noted in chapter 3, the protocol for individual interviews used in this study questioned respondents about the impact their participation in access had on their lives, their community, their city, and society as a whole.

12. Discussion of these aspects of the individual and group protocols is found in chapter 3. Participants were asked to respond to statements related to the empowerment vision of public access; these statements are found in the group and individual protocols in Appendices A and B.

13. The use of public access channels for economic gain is discussed by Stoney (1992), who warns of the growing number of access programs that are "semi-commercial and self-promotional in nature, . . . having little concern for the larger community" (5). It was for these programs that "leased access" channels were intended--channels set aside by cable operators for entrepreneurial ventures. Stoney recommends strategies to keep access facilities focused on their promise of promoting public discourse in a democratic society.

14. Throughout his interview Alfred consistently referred to his use of access as a means of improving his personal and economic situation. He is the only producer to provide specific references to the issues discussed in this section. It is primarily Alfred who has stimulated my thoughts on access and its relationship to an economic vision of empowerment through career advancement and entrepreneurial practice.

15. Throughout my long involvement with community television, I have heard references by both access managers and community volunteers to the use of access facilities for commercial purposes. Understandably, it is not loudly discussed by those engaged in the practice. While the instances mentioned here fall within the public access guidelines, they are discouraged by access facilities as not in keeping with the "real" purpose of public access: to promote empowerment within the parameters provided by the First Amendment.