Development of Public Access Television

by Myrtice Dobler

Public Access Television had a hard and long fight to get where it is today, however as a general public there seem to be very few people who know what those who set up public access went through and why. The initial idea of non-profit television was to create a place for educators to produce shows, eventually developing into a community voice and forum, a place where Americans could give a counter point of view to those on air (Gibson). Public access is a resource that few communities have, and few community members utilize. I will take a brief look at the very early development of Public Access, what its initial purposes were and focus in on the events that lead up to the Communications act of 1984 and some of the aftermath. With public access as such an underused resource, seeing where it came from and what the initial vision was will perhaps help it to give new purpose.

Before we go too far, there is a note that must be made. There is a difference between Public Access Television and Public Broadcasting System (PBS). While both are nonprofit stations and do come from very similar beginnings the strongest difference lies in that Public Access really got its start when cable was introduced in the 1970s, allowing areas to produce their own shows as well as be able to receive stations from farther away(Barlow). PBS came from National Education Television, NET (Articles of Incorporation) which is based mostly in the very beginning of Television, all this to say that when Public Access is discussed, it is not to be confused with PBS.

The truest beginning was in the 1930s with discussions about what television was to be used for (Barnouw 73-75). With many statements about how it could be used to improve education, not simply provide entertainment. Statements such as those came from educators indicating the already commercialized television and demanding 25% to be reallocated as non profit. They created an amendment, it stipulated the channels be allocated, but those organizing saw it was too expensive to put programming on without advertisements. They added to the amendment that they be allowed to sell advertisement only to cover costs. This amendment was shot down in the Communications act of 1934. It was the beginning of a long struggle.

In 1948 the fight was renewed. This time with more backing they were able to get their foot in the door. This was all due to the freeze of the channels which paused licensing, and gave Commissioner Hennock a chance to push the idea through (Barnouw). Ultimately it was thought that there would be nothing to lose if the channels were reserved, since either way they, the FCC would look good, providing opportunity, and if the channels were used, leading the way. There were still many problems to face, such as how to finance the channels and who would run them. At this point in time all that mattered was the ball had got rolling.

After the channels were reserved some were used and some lay dormant. The Ford Foundation took the job of funding channels and nurturing the rise of public television (Engelman 134). Several Universities also took control of channels. The channels still had problems of funding, schools found them beneficial but the audiences were small and the programming was often no more than a few hours. The fight continued with the Ford Foundation and Fred Friendly being instrumental in the development of non-profit stations, such as CPB and PBS. These channels had a win in 1967 when the Public Broadcasting Act hailed them as a national institution. This however was television produced about the people, it was non-profit, and things had been started. However television still had yet to be made by the people, for the people.

While there were many people in America working to develop Public Television there was success right across the border where one of the later founding fathers of American Public Access was working, George Stoney. He became a guest director in a Canadian video project called “Challenge for Change” it was a documentary project aimed at alleviating the poverty. Ultimately the Government was being critiqued by its people. The Camera was pointed at groups, allowing them to show and discuss what was wrong in their community. Cameramen were sent into communities all around Canada, and documented the people’s lives and problems. The initial attempts were poorly done, a family that was documented was a poor family and when the video came out they were not given prior notice and the children were mocked in school and the family was ridiculed in their society (Engelman). However the program learned from its initial mistakes and as it progressed it was a useful for the communities as well as the government.

One of the most noted of the series was the project done on Fogo Island. Where they departed from the tried and true kind of documentary making and utilized a more discussion based technique (Engelman 227) the films created were by the people. The community members chose topics and sites, stories would only be told with their permission, those on camera were allowed to see what they had said, and re-do it if they so desired. It took the license of filmmaking away from the cameramen, who were becoming facilitators, and gave it to the people in front of the camera. The Government was able to get a better idea of what the island needed, and community discussion developed and conflicts decreased. Fogo Island was a perfect example of what was needed in a democracy, where the people had a voice.

In America a different movement was happening. Alongside the development of PBS and CPB was an underground video movement that later developed into what was part of public access. This came out of the generation who had grown up with TV (Boyle). Familiar with what was commonly seen, they created a counter culture, in many ways rebelling against the mainstream media. Experimental Television began and people such as Nam June Paik took the stage. Other youths armed with the Sony Portapaks were encouraged to explore television. They created small groups and filmed the world around them, using their cameras as a mode of cultural and social change. This idea is what the initial notion of public access based itself on; if you had a camera you could change the world. Groups or people would be given cameras and tape, and go out making documentaries about the streets in the 60s. Some film makers would give the cameras to people burnt out on LSD (p 7) telling them to express themselves, and allow the cameras to be turned on themselves. These videos, called ‘street tapes’ were focused on the material right in front of the makers, people tripping on drugs, bums, winos, wanders, the freedom of the sixties was embodied. The advent of tape and video changed who was allowed to make films, it began the move from professionals to anyone, and smaller handheld cameras changed the way that the subject often felt about the film, they were able to see what was being said immediately.  This was called the Video Underground.

In 1969 the movement went from underground to an art exhibition in a posh gallery in Manhattan, the first exhibition solely showing video (Boyle 9-10). This was called “TV as a Creative Medium.” The show attracted public attention as well as news coverage. This event also brought together many of the video makers for the first time. Many also began to see the value of what they were doing. Some of groups developed into what would later be the five to drive Public Access Television to where it is as well as the main people who initially put programming on public access.

In 1970 George Stoney returned to The United States. Then in 1971 he founded Alternate Media Center. His plan was to give the public the ability to participate in television. At this time the groups from the Underground Video, most notably Raindance, People’s Video Theatre, John Reilly’s Global Village (Olson) had run into trouble, they were all working to get the same grants for their own projects, consisting of wanting to build studios, gain access to more equipment, or create a video bus that would travel around making documentary. With a flood of requests, many of the grants were given to individual projects (Boyle 28). Leaving the groups with the main problem of funding, they wanted stations and access. One of the main pieces of advice in the network the groups had created, was to hold on and wait, as the technology advanced they were sure that something would make everything possible.

Their patience was not in vain. While they were left debating and wondering what to do George Stoney was working with Red Burns, who had helped him develop Alternate Media Center (Engelman). They obtained grant money and created a plan, becoming the focal point of the development of Public Access Television. They worked to develop access centers and sent interns to train people on how to use the equipment. Along with helping the communities they worked locally joining the struggle over cable franchising in New York. They also moved into a national level trying to get federal requirements for public access. The turning point came through cable. Due to the different set up of cable channels, using wires to transmit the image rather than waves which had a tendency to interfere with each other, they were not only able to provide broadcasting to viewers, they were also able to create content. This increased the number of channels. The large corporations, such as CBS, NBC, and ABC were concerned that the addition of Cable would change how television worked and end up with a loss of viewers. They joined together in their stand against Cable.

As Cable spread the FCC decided that there was a need to review regulations, starting in the 1960s, things were looking bad for Cable Television, the major TV networks were against them, as well as many film makers in Hollywood, the only group who seemed to be for it was public access. In the Nixon administration the FCC found that the proposal for cable was adequate but problems remained. The main one was how to define something that was a hybrid of what they were prepared for. There was also the question of charging for what was previously free, however in Virginia a full-time public access station was running, and cable channels pointed to that as their contribution and public service. These public access stations gave cable legitimacy. It was helpful that the need of community television and cable coincided and the development of Alternate Media Center coming in toward the end to help facilitate. The groups from the Underground Video were ready to expand their work.

Initial plans for the access stations were strained. Many of the meetings were done in secret (Engelman) and Cable Television wanted to lease non-profit channels for a minor fee, which representatives of the community television opposed, pointing out that the only way it would really be public access was to have free use of the channels which would be noncommercial. Two companies signed the agreement (Olson) and July 1971 programming began in Manhattan. Now that the channels were established they needed programming. At this time Theadora Sklover became majorly involved, she established Open Channel and worked to provide the means for groups to produce shows. She also recognized the challenges in front of public access, she knew that people had to be shown they could be on TV, it wasn’t just something to be viewed but to participate in.

The plan was to show citizens and groups how to use cameras and develop diversity. Sklover’s Open Channel had an extensive range, from Boy Scouts to Black Militants, from Museums to Choirs (Engelman). It wasn’t just Open Channel, each group did what it was good at. Alternate Media Center aided the public in communicating with the government covering protests and talking to community members, John Reilly’s Global Village which had been one of the first groups to show the underground work (Boyle), focused more on documentaries (Engelman). The other two went into nontraditional reporting, which was something that TVTV a group which often worked with PBS and other corporations has been described as doing (Boyle 109). It is reminiscent of the underground in that the cameras are the videotape portapaks allowing the reporters to get into smaller spaces than others, as well as move more quickly. It was noted by Boyle that due to the smaller cameras TVTV was able to get a more intimate view of people, and the reporters and videographers were able to be more involved in their productions. This was a style that was slowly adopted by other networks but originating in underground and public access television.

After a year the FCC had a review of how the New York public access stations had worked (Engelman), coming up with favorable answers they then mandated that “all cable systems in the top 100 markets to reserve three noncommercial ‘access’ channels (Engelman 253)” This set aside the channels that we are familiar with today, public, educational, and government (PEG channels). Once again Alternate Media Center stepped up to help facilitate the spread of the PEG channels, they sent people to train in the new areas, booklets to help direct them, and created an apprenticeship program. That program later turned into National Federation of Local Cable Programmers, which today is Alliance for Community Media. This organization was necessary to help public access television face the struggles that came in the late 70s and early 80s, when the cable companies started trying to change the game.

While the access stations were developing, and before they faced the problems leading to the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, the programming developed was important. There was Alternate View (Engleman), which allowed community members to voice opinions and discuss the topics of the day. Inside Labor, based in Atlanta Georgia, gave an inside look into the labor issues, looking at the bus strikes, and other issues. Other documentaries were being introduced; people who had no way previously to tell their stories were given a medium. This was very reminiscent of what was seen in Canada, where community issues were brought to the attention of the government. On some channels it wasn’t restricted to groups of people or even communities, in a show called Video Mailbox people were able to sit in front of a camera and tell their stories, some were striking, one that’s noted is about two people arrested for attempting to disarm a nuclear missile, and their arrest.

However it was not simply restricted to the documentary or community stories. There were artists such as Andy Warhol on TV with his show Fashion (Spigel) based on the NYC Manhattan public access channel. The show began with an introduction by Warhol starting with the click of a camera. His first episode was a makeover, where two girls who would show before and after pictures. Eventually he moved into a more unusual content in his programming, he would show people in drag, and show drag performances cutting in interviews of fashion designers. While the program was not something seen on regular TV it was something that video artists had been doing since the 60s, however perhaps not as boldly as Warhol. The program only lasted a year, and there may not have been other programs quite like his, but public access not only provided a platform for activists but also artists.

During this time Television was still progressing, Cable looking to improve their image, as well as the need for people to buy their service, developed shows like Home Box Office (HBO) and Nickelodeon, as well as the sport channels (ESPN) giving more of what the community liked entertainment. This changed the game for Cable. They had began where it only could offer several public access stations to show its legitimacy, however by finding desirable ways to use the excess channels gave them a leg up. Cable companies no longer needed the work of public access stations to get the good will of the community, and to reserve its spot as a valuable asset to television.

Even though many of the access stations had done what they had been told they had to do, create product. There was more trouble ahead. While the public access stations and cable had aided each other in their infancy, cable was well on track and for saw a commercial boom, however public access was still highly dependent on cable. However Cable was anxious to shake the burden of public access. In 1979 there was a court case, FCC vs. Midwest Video Corporation, in which it was decided that the FCC did not have the ability to mandate the reservation of the non-profit channels. All that the public access stations could do was scramble to get backing from the state and local level. Immediately the cable channels put in for legislation to prevent even this. It was only through a quick alliance of religious, consumer and community organizations that it was stopped. The cable companies again tried to slip it in a piece of legislation, The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, once again the community members held them off.

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 was to help give a framework to what the cable companies were required to do (Engelman), it tells that the franchiser may require public access stations, and may also require that they provide “services, facilities, or equipment for the use of PEG channels” (FCC). The cable channels cannot control programming on the PEG channels. However this only gives the franchiser the ability to require public access stations, meaning that the franchiser may decide not to. Today these channels are generally connected to schools and Universities, as well as government offices. Some of the channels that survived after 1984 were due to the foresight of the local planners as well as the understanding of the communities.

While a harsh blow had been dealt to the public access channels there were still some exceptional programs going on this included Deep Dish, which produced such shows as Paper Tiger TV, during the 80s. While many of the other programming was not necessarily cutting edge Paper Tiger TV gave an amusing and strange collection of analysis on the world, beginning with a breakdown of the New York Times, where they examine not only the content, but also the amount of pages, the weight and how the sections were split up (zouraspm). The Program had simple backgrounds, looking like a painted set, some shows used chroma key techniques, while others video layovers. The production it keeps from the slick studios and clean cuts, with a handmade style it allows the focus to be on the topics discussed. After shows like Paper Tiger TV public access television became what we are more accustomed to today.

Public access television fought its way through the beginning of TV. They were able to create a case in higher courts and make a point that there was a need not only for Educational Television but also public. In the 1960s and 70s there was a lot to be said and perhaps more importantly seen, things that the commercial media would ignore or look away from, this was where public television found its niche. There were social changes that needed to take place, and needed to be brought to the attention of people in communities. Public access has been a place for people to discuss what they feel is wrong in the world today as well as share beliefs, whether religious or political. It later became a medium for more experimental editorial shows such as Paper Tiger TV.

The most striking thought behind public television is the voice of the people, in a true democracy there is open discussion between the government and the people. Public access was able to provide that discussion. People were able to speak up and show their arguments. Even though the medium of discussion has often been in danger, it has survived and with it has come the great leaders. When problems arise the public is able to discuss what should be done and organize actions. Television was able to become a way to do that. It is important for the public to realize what is accessible to them. There is always some change to be fighting for. The initial idea of underground video was that if you had a camera you could change the world, but they found they needed a place for the world to watch, that is where public access television came in.

Bibliography

Articles of Incorporation of Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Policy Base. Jan 14, 2000. Retrieved May 4, 2011. Web.

Barnouw, Erik. Tube of Plenty: The Evolution of American Television. New York: Oxford University Press. 1990

Boyle, Deirdre. “From Portapak to Camcorder: A brief history of Guerrilla Television”. Journal of Film and Video. Spring- Summer 1992 Pages 67-79.

Boyle, Deirdre. Subject to Change: Guerilla television revisited. New York: Oxford University Press. 1997.

Engelman, Ralph. Public Radio and Television in America: A political history. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

FCC. Cable Television Fact Sheet: Public Educational and Governmental Access Channels. Federal Communication Commission. FCC.org. May 1998. Retrieved May 7, 2011

Gibson, George H. Public Broadcasting: The role of the Federal Government, 1912-76. New York: Praeger Publishers. 1977.

Kellner, Douglas. Public Access Television. UCLA. Retrieved May 7, 2011. http://gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/publicaccesstv.pdf

McGillQueens Uploaded on Feb 19, 2010 “Challenge for Change: Activist Documentary at the National Film Board of Canada — book trailer”. YouTube. Retrieved May 7, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythLjeAiPnc

MediaBurnArchive. Uploaded on Feb 15, 2007 “Media Burn by Ant Farm:  Car Crash”.

Olson, William D.S. The History of Public Television Eau Clair Community Television, 2000. Retrieved May 7, 2011. Web

Zouraspm uploaded on Aug 29, 2009. “Paper Tiger TV excerpts Herb Schiller Reads the NYT” YouTube. Retrieved May 8, 2011. Web http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MqIYJf13Hw