Was a single chip camera, plastic plant & rickety chair ever adequate public access?
The next time you run into someone who lives in a cave, take a minute to stop and ask them if they’re aware of the rapidly evolving technological landscape changing the way people communicate all over the world. Chances are, the cave dweller will feel insulted and ask you just what the hell you think drove them to take up residence in a cave in the first place. With very few exceptions, you can’t live in the western world today and not be affected in some way by the accessibility and relative affordability (relative affordability and the ever-present digital divide to be explored in later posts) of modern tools for communication. Whether it be your new laptop, Flip camera, mp3 recorder, or smartphone, you’re likely speaking your mind in ways unimaginable a decade ago.
What this means for your local community media center…
There is little doubt that the aforementioned rapidly evolving technological landscape has been extremely fruitful for community media centers everywhere. Yet, unfortunately it has also transformed itself into a proven battleground for many. The truth of it boils down to one issue, the structure in which most community media organizations are funded. From the dawn of public access television, community media centers or “Access Management Organizations”, or “AMO’s”, in large part have negotiated with their local cable providers for the portion of their budget set aside by capital funding. This money is in effect to be spent on equipment and facilities rather than day to day operations. To some folks closer to the big telcos, the realization that digital video production equipment has become cheaper and more accessible to the average consumer, has lead them to suggest that the level of capital funding awarded to AMO’s should reflect this and therefore reduced significantly. It is also not uncommon for folks close to the cable providers to assert that AMO’s are mismanaging their funds through expenditures on tools more closely related to web video rather than cablecast.
There are dozens of problems with these assertions and because this is merely a blog post I will try to focus in on just a couple of them.
First and foremost, to suggest that capital funding to community media centers should be reduced because the overall cost of production equipment is dropping, is to assume community media organizations collectively reached their maximum potential at some point fifteen or more years ago, when the relative cost of purchasing and maintaining equipment was considerably greater. This is to say that the highest standards in technical quality of content have already been reached, as well as the saturation point for community participation. This simply isn’t true.
Anyone who has spent time in their local community center recently will likely have noticed their studio is busier than ever because people are participating more than ever. In addition, their public access tv stations are showing new content of greater technical quality more and more frequently. Essentially, in the midst of the YouTube era, when many people can now afford to buy the necessary tools to produce and distribute digital video content on their own, community media centers are finding themselves more active and relevant than ever before. This is because they now do so much more, and have a greater positive impact on their communities with capital budgets relatively similar in size to those 15 years ago.
Truth be told, one could argue that the level of funding we’ve required cable operators to provide through franchise fees has been subpar all along and now we’re finally getting a glimpse of the real potential in community media.
It’s about time!
Well said. I find the assertion that funds spent on web video are being mismanaged to be particularly unreasonable, considering that’s an area the telcos themselves are investing heavily in. Talk about double standards.
Thanks Jackie! It is altogether unfortunate when AMO’s are criticized for using web video to the benefit of their local communities. We are noticing that much of the debate is rooted in $$ and stems from equipment purchased (Playout servers, TriCaster switchers etc.) that are standard tools of the trade, that now include web streaming features. This has led some close to cable providers to suggest that AMO’s are spending X amount of dollars to stream their content an activity is not directly related to cable television and therefore a mismanagement of funds.