Until recently, the centralization of media technologies in both public and private commercial systems has made large-scale production projects by marginalized political groups infeasible. Although cable television was once heralded as the technology that would rejuvenate democratic communication and diversity among electronic media, political groups have found little opportunity to utilize the medium apart from public access resources. Created by a combination of government mandate and grassroots lobbying aimed at local cable operators, access television has been the only space on cable where democratic speech has flourished. The experience of radical access television projects demonstrates the real possibilities for progressive speech on cable and provides an anchor for those who have been buoyed by the vague, utopian rhetoric currently enveloping computer network technology.
There is a dearth of studies on the use of television production by progressive political groups. Most critical research on television and social change has focused on political and organizational factors which condition either mainstream media coverage of social movements or the ability of political groups to influence media representations. Todd Gitlin's study of the effects of news reportage on the Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s, titled The Whole World is Watching, is an example of the former. Kathryn Montgomery's book Target: Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle over Entertainment Television, on the attempts of advocacy groups to challenge and transform television stereotypes, is an example of the latter. Academics and activists alike have overlooked the efforts of progressive organizations to utilize the television medium for the production and distribution of radical media. Groups who want to challenge existing power structures, empower diverse communities and classes, and enable communities of interest to speak to each other are faced with a lack of theoretical models and practical information regarding the use of television.
For the past twenty-five years public access cable television has offered activists in many countries the opportunity to utilize the television medium. Access television offers progressive groups training in video production; access to cameras, microphones and editing systems; and channel space on which to cablecast their programs without censorship by system operators. Access resources generally are available at little or no cost, open to everyone in the community, and programmed on a first-come, first-served basis. Although they are rarely included in market research of viewership ratings, limited surveys suggest that when access channels are well-organized and adequately funded, they enjoy significant viewership. From a theoretical standpoint, access television provides a public space that aims to facilitate democratic speech. The significance of this type of communicative space in democratic societies is stressed by philosophers like Jurgen Habermas, who speaks of the need for a public sphere outside the realm of both commerce and the state to aid in critical public opinion formation, and Benjamin Barber, who advocates the creation of institutions which foster strong democratic "talk." For Barber, only democratic talk can create public-minded citizens who are able to make reasoned political judgments and to imagine a common future for the common good. Access channels facilitate democratic speech by acting as public forums, much like the speaker's soapbox in the public park, where citizens can speak unencumbered by the commercial and editorial constraints that normally affect television and cable systems.
Access television has its roots in the participatory democracy movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The development of consumer video equipment and the accelerated diffusion of cable technology created the possibility for people to produce and distribute their own programming. Activists had compelling reasons to support the idea of access television. Some progressive groups, like the Students for a Democratic Society, found that not only did the mainstream media misrepresent their message and movement, but that media publicity could strain the organizational structure of the group itself. In addition, activists' opportunities to get their messages across in the mainstream media were severely limited by journalists' and producers' ability to frame issues within their own conventions, codes and contexts. Michael Shamberg, the author of the 1970s alternative media manifesto Guerrilla Television, summarized the view of many media activists in stating, "No alternate cultural vision is going to succeed in Media-America unless it has its own alternate information structures, not just alternate content pumped across the existing ones."
While access television has created new opportunities for alternative television production, its use by activists as a tool for progressive communication has been limited by its exclusively local orientation. Originally viewed as an antidote to the centralization of established media systems, access television was developed with an eye toward community participation at the local level. Access television generally provides access to a particular cable system in a particular city, and many access channels permit only residents within the geographical confines of the cable operator's service to become the producers or sponsors of access programming. Thus, access producers face great difficulties in distributing programming beyond their own cable systems. Arranging for the transport of tapes and publicity materials to hundreds of localized systems is beyond the resources of all but the most dedicated producers. One effect of this bias toward the local is that access television has become primarily a forum for the production of programs which treat local issues for local audiences.
While local political expression is an important element in democratic processes, an exclusive focus on the local is a handicap for media systems that want to support democratic social change. Willard Rowland asserts that American media reformers' belief in the superiority of the small community and the "town meeting" reflected an uncritical acceptance of a mythologized democratic past. Even if reformers were correct about this past, contemporary social change requires political action at the local, regional and national levels. While access television may allow a particular geographical community to come to know itself, it does nothing to link this community with other communities that share its concerns. It is especially ironic that in a medium whose strength lies in its ability to document geographically distant and dispersed people, places and events, progressive programming opportunities should be structured to serve only the immediate community.
Over the last ten years, media activists in the United States have begun building on the resources provided by access television to create national production and distribution structures for progressive programming. While the impact of these projects on mainstream political and social discourse has been small thus far, their experiences do suggest some of the opportunities that new technologies and the existing access television infrastructure hold for radical media. The remainder of this essay describes three radical media projects that have utilized access television as a vehicle for progressive voices and social change. These projects provide models for linking progressive activists and producers at a national level and for theorizing the uses of access television in progressive politics.
The Deep Dish Television Network (DDTV) was the first radical media project to utilize access television on an ongoing basis as a national resource for progressive programming. Established in 1985 by access producers from the Paper Tiger Television collective, DDTV's goals were to produce and distribute programming that would provide an alternative to the conservative fare found on mainstream TV and allow grassroots activists to articulate their own viewpoints on current issues. The first series compiled work from hundreds of local producers into a magazine-style format and included programs on issues such as racism, housing, and the farm crisis. To overcome the administrative and logistical difficulties of mailing tapes to a large number of access centers, Deep Dish took advantage of satellite technology's distributive efficiencies, much as commercial program services had. Supported by government and foundation grant money, the group rented time on a private communications satellite for about $800 per hour and alerted access centers that they could downlink the programs for free using a standard satellite-receiving dish. Over 250 access centers responded by programming Deep Dish, many of them repeating the series numerous times. The success of this initial trial of an access satellite network led Deep Dish TV to spin off from Paper Tiger Television in order to develop a permanent satellite programming service for access television.
While a small staff at a national office in New York City organizes satellite transmissions, publicity and fundraising, production of shows remains decentralized to access producers around the country. DDTV's strategy for making the network as open as possible to contributors involves soliciting ideas for series themes and subtopics from Deep Dish producers and viewers, selecting show coordinators from different regions of the country, and editing segments from independently produced videos into a final series. Over the years Deep Dish has produced series on environmental issues, civil liberties and the arts, international video production, and the global struggles of indigenous peoples, among others. Although Deep Dish has acknowledged the need to develop a more stable funding mechanism, the project's chief source of financial support continues to come from grants and has not been sufficiently large to permit DDTV to develop into a full-time network.
The latest Deep Dish series, "Sick & Tired of Being Sick & Tired," marked a change in strategy for the network. DDTV decided to produce a series in response to national health care policy debates. Rather than poll independent producers, staff members surveyed close to 100 grassroots health care organizations and activist groups to determine the subtopics for the series. Shows were developed around the local and national agendas of these groups in order to align the series more closely with the concerns of health care activists, expand the Deep Dish audience to incorporate new political communities and produce programs with a continuing educational and organizational use-value for the health care movement. The series was programmed to coincide with congressional debates on health care in the hope of adding new voices to the debate and influencing the policy outcome. While Deep Dish intends to continue this strategy, new program production has been stalled by recent cutbacks in grants to the project.
Nevertheless, Deep Dish has laid the groundwork for a national infrastructure for progressive programming. Since 1985, DDTV has compiled an extensive list of local producers wanting to contribute segments and lobby for the inclusion of Deep Dish on local access schedules; the introduction of the portable video camcorder has led to a surge in the number of active, usually amateur producers chronicling political activities in their area. Deep Dish also has built an extensive list of access programmers sympathetic to the aims of the network, well-prepared to receive regular transmissions from satellites, and ready to use publicity materials prepared by the network to promote viewership. In addition, an audience has been built, particularly an audience of politically engaged and active viewers.
The significance of having an infrastructure like Deep Dish in place became apparent to many activists during the Persian Gulf War. Building on the network Deep Dish TV had established, the Gulf Crisis TV Project (GCTV) forged new links between alternative video producers and progressive organizations and brought anti-war programming to American audiences. As the American military build-up in the Persian Gulf grew, several Paper Tiger members formed the Gulf Crisis TV Project. Using the Deep Dish producer list and contacts with anti-war groups, GCTV put out a call for tapes in early November of 1990 and by early December had received more than 120 tapes. While mainstream U.S. media quietly acquiesced to governmental restrictions and complacently reported on military actions, GCTV telecast programs that covered anti-war activities, provided historical and political analysis, and presented entertainment pieces critical of Bush Administration policies. Between January and April of 1991, GCTV presented two series of ten half hour programs on public access and public television channels throughout the U.S., as well as distributing the programs internationally.
GCTV and anti-war groups cooperated on an ad hoc basis. GCTV producers spoke to representatives of the two national anti-war groups, describing the opportunities extant on public access and public television. Anti-war groups recommended interview subjects to GCTV producers and encouraged their members to alert local television programmers to the existence of the project; the national GCTV office referred local activists to producers in their area who could provide video coverage of important anti-war protests and send the material to GCTV. GCTV urged local producers and groups to create "wraparound" shows that could precede or follow telecasts of GCTV on public access, a technique borrowed from Deep Dish. Wraparounds were produced in several dozen cities.
The project promoted itself as "an unprecedented national organizing effort which has brought together community groups and media makers in a movement to prevent war," but coordination of activities was limited by the lack of time and resources, and the somewhat divergent media strategies of activists and producers. GCTV was limited itself in how much time and energy it could devote to coordinating with movement groups. One GCTV program was produced with the involvement of the War Resistors League, another was produced by Veterans for Peace. However, most GCTV programs were compiled under severe deadlines from footage received from many sources, and GCTV producers did not consult with other groups regarding the final selection of content of the series. GCTV producers believed the programs should reflect the diversity of perspectives within the anti-war movement, and prized their independence from all singular institutional viewpoints. Despite the lack of close coordination on specific policy positions, local activists played important roles as sources of information and, in some cities, effective lobbyists for placement of GCTV on public access schedules. GCTV, in turn, provided more direct access to electronic media than progressive groups usually enjoyed, supported movement activities by telecasting dates of upcoming events and telephone numbers and addresses of anti-war groups, and spurred greater interactions between the movement and local video producers.
Both national anti-war groups devised strategies to get their messages across through mainstream media but had not given much thought to alternative television before being approached by GCTV. While anti-war groups learned to value GCTV, national activist media strategies depended upon mainstream media. Activists hoped to persuade as many people as possible to oppose the war; they believed that only by educating and motivating many millions of people to speak out against the war could they affect governmental actions and stop or limit the war. Furthermore, they were largely unaware of the possibilities new technology created for the distribution of progressive programming. Given the mainstream media blackout of anti-war perspectives within a few days of the beginning of the war, national organizers wish they had paid more attention to GCTV. As a Coordinator from one of the national groups stated, "We were blown out of the water by the mainstream media...We were not strong enough to use that opening that [GCTV] created for us...Some real opportunities were lost."
The first GCTV series was distributed to access channels via Deep Dish TV. Mailings to programmers emphasized that GCTV was working in cooperation with hundreds of anti-war groups nationwide, so an audience existed for the programming. GCTV benefited from its link to Deep Dish; by 1990, DDTV was a familiar organization within the access community and was well-regarded by many programmers. GCTV also obtained the cooperation of a public television station to sponsor a feed on the PBS satellite. GCTV producers believed that getting onto public television schedules would greatly increase their audience and draw more press attention. About forty public stations programmed at least part of the first series in January, 1991, just before or at the beginning of American air attacks. The first series ran in most major cities and was made available to about 40 percent of American households through PBS screenings. Deep Dish claimed that 300 public access channels also ran the series, though the number is hard to verify.
Once the war started, GCTV began production on a second series, focusing on anti-Arab racism, dissent within the military and abroad, and the long-term effects of the governmental preferences for military spending over domestic needs. The second GCTV series was programmed again on public access channels, but lost its sponsoring PBS station and was shut out almost completely from public television schedules. In part to circumvent broadcast distribution problems, GCTV distributed over 2,000 videocassette copies of the two series to groups and individuals; the shows were also available to several million home dish owners. The series was picked up by cable and public systems in several countries, and provided the first major anti-war programming televised in Great Britain.
1995 saw the start up of a new progressive program service, Free Speech TV (FSTV), which utilizes many of the producer and programmer contacts forged by Deep Dish. Based in Boulder, Colorado, FSTV provides blocks of progressive programming to public and leased access stations free of charge. FSTV mails videotapes to approximately 50 access channels in 44 cities and reaches over 4 million cable subscribers. Like DDTV, FSTV carries independently produced work which treats political, cultural and social issues; hopes to develop into a full-time, national satellite network; and supports itself largely through grants. FSTV's strategies for building a program service, however, differ from that of Deep Dish in several significant respects. Whereas Deep Dish draws on work submitted by a large pool of grassroots producers and offers a different series every season, FSTV programs a number of on-going series which are each produced by different activist groups. FSTV's first season included regular series produced by Greenpeace, Globalvision, the New York-based lesbian production collective Dyke TV, and the military watchdog group the Center for Defense Information.
FSTV focuses on providing a distribution outlet for progressive organizations and a steady quantity of programming for viewers. Their goal is to establish a national and consistent presence for alternative voices that have been shut out of the mainstream media. FSTV also hopes to channel its audience into a World Wide Web site which can be used as a forum for political organization. The Web site will offer additional information on issues addressed by FSTV programming and will link citizens with activist organizations. FSTV hopes that public access cable television and the Web site will function as complementary outlets for the expression and organization of progressive politics.
The last two decades have seen the rise of the consumer camcorder, videocassettes, satellite transmission and public access channels. Political groups are only now becoming aware of the possibilities opened by these diffusions of technology. Close, ongoing collaborations between producers and activists are rare. Because progressive organizations rarely put their scant resources toward media production, producer-activist collaborations on a national scale tend to be ad hoc; producers remain the catalysts and final purveyors of programming. Nonetheless, projects like DDTV, GCTV and FSTV are contributing to a new awareness of alternative television within progressive communities and demonstrating the range of communication possible outside of mainstream media structures.
The strength of public access cable television lies in its relative freedom from the political, economic and editorial constraints faced by mainstream television and cable systems. It is important for activists to focus on the creation of public forums on all media which have public functions and uses, to ensure that new technologies provide opportunities for the presentation of perspectives from socially and politically marginalized groups. As long the owners and operators of cable television and other technology industries have editorial control over the content of what is carried on their systems, alternative political voices are vulnerable and run the risk of being arbitrarily excluded. Such was the fate of The 90s Channel, the only progressive program service on leased access cable television, which in 1995 was forced off Tele-Communications Inc.'s (TCI) cable system by inordinate rate hikes. Although leased access is governmentally mandated to provide access at reasonable rates to third parties on a non-discriminatory basis, the government does not specify what constitutes reasonable rates; cable operators have taken advantage of weak regulatory enforcement to discriminate among program services as they wish.
If activists want to ensure a space for progressive communication on new and established technologies, they need to advocate the reservation of public spaces on all technological communications systems. These spaces must be federally mandated and enforced. Cable and other systems operators should be required to set aside a small percentage of their profits for the maintenance and upkeep of these spaces and for a national program fund which would help offset the costs of program production. Political philosophy and practical experience suggest that these types of spaces are essential to the democratic process. Public access to production and distribution resources in the information sphere hold out the possibility for more direct and substantive communication about public affairs by progressive groups than is ever likely to be provided by mainstream media's practices and structures.