December 2004

Serving the Candidate Class - How Public Access TV pre-lobbies your public policy makers

CTPA members,

This past election season it appears `Olelo and Ho`ike may have violated their mission by producing programs for a special class of public user. The class of individuals receiving this special service were members of the public that were running for political office. While any members of the public, including incumbents and candidates running for public office, has a right to use Ho`ike and `Olelo facilities on a “first come first served non-discriminatory basis,” I believe both Ho`ike and `Olelo are unfairly granting special and favorable consideration to a class of the public, specifically candidates for public office. This granting of special consideration is discriminatory to members of the public not in this class. These special considerations include; design of program forum and format, use of studio time, use of production personnel, providing on-air personnel, use of broadcast time for repeated airings of the candidates messages, and in the case of Ho`ike access to airtime on the Government channel (which is denied to all other public users).

This past election season it appears `Olelo and Ho`ike may have violated their mission by producing programs for a special class of public user. The class of individuals receiving this special service were members of the public that were running for political office. While any members of the public, including incumbents and candidates running for public office, has a right to use Ho`ike and `Olelo facilities on a “first come non-discriminatory basis.” CTPA believes both Ho`ike and `Olelo are unfairly granting special and favorable consideration to a class of the public, specifically candidates for public office. This granting of special consideration is discriminatory to members of the public not in this class. These special considerations include; design of program forum and format, use of studio time, use of production personnel, providing on-air personnel, use of broadcast time for repeated airings of the candidates messages, and the unwarranted preemption of other public users programs. In the case of Ho`ike, this special select candidate class was granted repeated broadcast times on the Government channel (which is denied to all other public users).

Is it appropriate for a PEG board to spend public monies lobbying a candidate class of user while denying such facilitated services to others?

Is this gift of special consideration a form of lobbying of those who will hold political office? I believe it is. Is such lobbying an inappropriate use of public resources? I believe it is. Is this gift of special consideration to a select class of user, denied to undifferentiated members of the public, not a form of discrimination? I believe it is. Did any candidate who participated in these specially orchestrated PEG productions report it as an in-kind contributions to the State Campaign Spending Commission? I do not know. Did the incumbent candidates report these specially orchestrated PEG productions as “gifts over $200” from “a source that has interests in state policy” to the Hawaii State Ethics Commission as required by state law? I do not know.

I reject the arguments by some that since “all” candidates were offered this special consideration it cannot be perceived as a lobbying effort by Ho`ike or Olelo, and need not be reported as gifts nor in-kind campaign contributions by candidates to the campaign spending or ethics commissions. I reject this argument because although it is not “partisan lobbying”, it is a “pre-partisan lobbying effort” to curry favor from a specially facilitated and select “candidate class” of user with prior full knowledge that some of these users will make public policy affecting PEG entities.

It matters not that these “gifts and in-kind contributions” were offered equally to all candidates, because all those fortunate enough to be elected to public office will have been effectively lobbied by Ho`ike and `Olelo. Conversely all public users who are not a member of this select user class, are being denied access while this candidate class is being differentially serviced using public money. Is this discrimination and favoritism plain on it's face. I believe it is. Should these expenditures of public monies be reported by Ho`ike and `Olelo to the IRS? I believe they should. Should these gifts and in-kind contributions not be reported to the appropriate state commissions by candidates? I believe they should.

Is it appropriate for a PEG board to spend public monies lobbying a candidate class of user while denying such facilitated services to others? I do not believe so.

Ed Coll

The Skyriver Process (1969) - Tim Kennedy

The Skyriver project took the concept of cross screening films shot and edited by professional cinematographers to the next logical level if the goal was to mobilize the competencies of individual community members so they could become active participants in transforming there cmmunity. First Skyriver used Snowden's cross screening of film techniques. Second Skyriver by using videotape instead of film put editorial control of the message into the hands of the subject by allowing the subject to review, omit, or include content. Third Skyriver trained and put video production into the hands of community members. This final step allowed complete editorial control over the message by the message maker.

The Fogo Process (1967) - Don Snowden

Most conventional historians of public access trace it roots to the Fogo Islands in 1967. In 1994 Wendy Quarry wrote her masters thesis called "The Fogo Process: An Experiment in Participatory Communication." Quarry describes the process;

"The Fogo Process: How it Worked The Fogo Process is a process using media technology as a tool in participatory community development. It evolved out of a series of events that took place on Fogo Island (an island off the northeast coast of Newfoundland, Canada) in 1967. Two years earlier Donald Snowden, then Director of the Extension Department at Memorial University of Newfoundland, read the Economic Council of Canada’s "Report on Poverty in Canada." Enraged because he felt the report dealt with poverty using purely urban values, Snowden got the idea to produce a series of films to present how the people of Newfoundland felt about poverty and other issues. He wanted to show that poverty did not have to mean economic deprivation. It could also mean isolation and the inability to access information and communication media, as well as the lack of organization. Teaming up with film maker, Colin Low, Snowden took Low to about four or five different areas in Newfoundland for potential filming. In the end, Fogo Island was chosen as the best potential place to initiate what was later to become known as the "Fogo Process."

In 1967 there were less than 5,000 people living on Fogo island. However, they lived in ten separate settlements with not much communication between each. The island represented the type of isolation and lack of information or organization that Snowden wanted to show as alternate indicators of poverty in the province. Fogo island was also going through an economic slump. Having been dependent on the fishing industry for 300 years, the inshore fishery had been dropping, forcing 60% of the men to go on welfare. This brought about the possibility of resettlement (the government had decided that outport communities not able to make a living through fishing any longer were to be relocated to areas of Newfoundland that were more economically viable). The islanders, however, did not want to move. But with minimal communication between members of communities, poor organization, lack of local government in most communities, lack of unions or producer cooperatives, and altogether lack of confidence, the picture seemed dismal.

Snowden believed the islanders could form a cooperative and become organized so that they could preserve their way of life. He took Colin Low to the island and introduced him to Fred Earle, a Memorial University extension worker. Together, Earle and Low went to a meeting of the Fogo Island Improvement Committee. They introduced the concept of filming on the island which was agreed upon by the committee. It was to be a project that used film to assist communities in coming to terms with some of their problems. It was intended to help the people realize that they had problems in common and to move towards building cooperation and development.

The community members interviewed clearly identified a number of island issues: the inability to organize, the need for communication, the resentment felt towards the idea of resettlement, and the anger that the government seemed to be making decisions about their future with no community consultation process. Low decided to show the films to the people of Fogo and thirty-five separate screenings were held with the total number of viewers reaching 3,000. This became an important part of the process. It was realized that people were not comfortable discussing issues with each other face-to-face. Instead, they were quite comfortable explaining their individual views on film and having those opinions played back to other community members. By viewing the films, the islanders started to realize that all the communities were experiencing the same problems; they became more aware of these problems and what needed to be done to solve them.

There was controversy back at the university about what the political consequences for the institution would be because of the blatant criticisms of the government that occurred in the films. After some discussion, it was decided that the Premier and his cabinet should view the films. This was phenomenal since it allowed fishermen to talk to cabinet ministers. It was also successful: the Minister of Fisheries, Aiden Maloney, asked to be able to respond to the commentaries. The government point-of-view was filmed through him and shown back to the communities. This brought about a two-way flow of knowledge between community members and decision makers. From this point things began to happen on their own. The films simply helped contribute to an island-wide sense of community and assisted people in looking for alternatives to resettlement.

It is not known for certain what would have happened on Fogo had the filming never been done. What is certain is that "the fishermen formed an island-wide producer’s cooperative which handled and processed large catches, enabling them to keep the profits on their island. Unemployment of able-bodied men disappeared, and government directed their efforts into helping people to stay. Films did not do these things: people did them. There is little doubt, however, that film created an awareness and self confidence that was needed for people advocated development to occur" (Snowden, 1983). The Fogo project became an internationally acclaimed prototype using media to promote dialogue and social change and was later used by various communities around the world."

Source: Quarry, Wendy. The Fogo Process: An Experiment in Participatory Communication. University of Guelph thesis, 1994.--http://www.uoguelph.ca/~snowden/fogo.htm

How was Public Access born?

Public Access was born out of a series of what William Foote Whyte calls a social inventions. White is the father of a field of sociology know as Participatory Action Research or PAR. These social inventions were by two community outreach workers, one from Canada and the other from Alaska. Both worked with remote rural communities in an attempt to find ways to address problems faced by these remote communities. The Canadian was Donald Snowden, then Director of the Extension Department at Memorial University of Newfoundland who used the cross screenings of 16mm film as a tool in participatory community development. The Alaskan was Tim Kennedy a Volunteer in Service to America Volunteer (VISTA) who put portable video technology into the hands of community members as a tool in participatory community development. These two social inventions of cross screenings, and placing message content creation directly into the hands of individual community members proved highly successful in allowing the community to build itself.

What is Public Access Television?

The originators of public access television believed that communication tools, television production equipment to be specific , put in the hands of individual members of the public would facilitate the free flow of ideas to solve problems faced by the community. Critical to this concept was the realization that information typically flowed through communication networks, television to be specific , in only one direction, from government and corporations to the communities. (blue is redundant and unnecessary, remove one or the other)

Putting television production tools in the hands of community members , and providing access to a television channel to broadcast resulting production to the community , somewhat mitigated the one way flow of information . It was the radically democratic notion that members of the community might be able to build their own community and solve their own problems through more effective channels of communication -- access to the medium of television being one of the most effective channels available. This empowering of individual members of the public to communicate with decision makers and other community members through the medium of television attempted to equalize the information flow. This new information flow would hopefully contribute to the diversity of ideas upon , which a viable democracy depends, and healthy communities are built.

Information and ideas of individual community members would now flow to government decision makers as well as to other community members. Implicit in this idea was embodied the concept of free speech . If individual speech was censored , the information flow would be censored as well , which in turn would re-establish the top down information flow hierarchy (from government and corporations down to members of the community). To prevent this from occurring , the mission of public access television was codified into the following quote;

The mission of public access television is to provide people access to the medium of television on a first come, first served non-discriminatory basis and without censorship.

In theory this meant that a member of the community would be provided training and access to TV production equipment to create a message and subsequently have access to a TV channel to air their message. Any and all speech was allowed as long as it was not illegal under obscenity and libel laws .

That's the theory , but there is many a slip between the cup and the lip when theory is put into practice , as we will soon see.

It should be noted here that the public access mission is a protective mission. The mission is to protect the underlying principle of mobilizing individual community members competencies to construct and distribute messages to others, allowing the free flow of ideas to build community. This "community built by community members" is a radical, participatory, and democratic, concept that ran counter to ; the entrenched interests of government , and commercial entities , and their experts that had traditionally played the role of third party "Father knows best" interventionists in the community building process.