June 1, 2005
Alyce Myatt, Consultant
Center for Digital Democracy
amyatt@nyc.rr.com
Overview
The Panel
Working Groups
Next Steps and Recommendations
Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
— George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
We are a nation whereby the overwhelming majority gets its information from television and radio. The media shapes our opinions about ourselves and others; it informs our actions and inactions. A diverse and independent media is vital to the well being of any democratic society. As technology prompts the evolution of the media landscape, it is imperative that we assess its specific impact on our public media.
Unlike efforts in some other countries, the United States has lacked an open, deliberative process to determine our public media needs and how to meet them effectively. On May 3, 2005, the Center for Digital Democracy convened a participatory caucus to begin a series of dialogues to address this issue. The caucus was held at the Ninth Street Independent Film Center in San Francisco, California.
The aim was to begin outlining what public media should be in the United States and how we, the independent media community, can help make it so. Scheduled to coincide with INPUT, the annual International Public Television conference for independent producers and television professionals, this particular meeting was the first of what is to be a series of meetings designed to engage the independent media community, media activists, public and private institutions, elected officials, and the public at-large in developing strategies and tactics to ensure a vibrant public media ecology.
The three-hour caucus was attended by over 70 individuals representing a broad cross-section of the field of independent media, including television and radio producers; film, video and radio distributors (broadcast, cable, satellite, festival, and educational markets); independent media membership organizations; foundation and government funders; private donors; members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s Minority Consortia; media librarians and archivists; educators; media activists; and a representative of the United Kingdom’s Office of Communications.
The caucus began with brief overviews of public media from the perspective of four panelists followed by a question and answer segment. The group then broke into smaller working groups facilitated by the panelists to outline needs and identify strategies and tactics. Finally, reconvened as a whole, the small groups reported-out their key points. This document consolidates that information and outlines specific action steps and recommendations for moving forward.
What this document is…
The information described below is by no means definitive. It offers facts and opinions, suggested strategies, recommendations, and opportunities for further exploration. The report-outs from the working groups are ideas-in-formation requiring research, documentation, and discussion before any implementation can be considered. The frequent use of the term “we” generally applies to members of the field of independent media, although the term, on occasion, refers to “we as a society.”
While primarily a record of the caucus, this document does offer a degree of context and analysis from the author and works to provide a framework for engaging the field of independent media around the issue of public media.
What this document is not…
This is not a strategy document, although there are many seeds of ideas that can be formulated into strategies for establishing a well-governed, sustainable, and accountable U.S. public media sector that serves the needs of our nation.
Moderated by consultant Alyce Myatt (bio at the end of this section), the caucus began with presentations by individuals representing four unique perspectives:
Jeff Chester
Jeff Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), a nonprofit organization devoted to ensuring that the digital media serve the public interest. A former journalist and filmmaker, his work has appeared in many publications, on radio and TV.
In the 1980s, Jeff led the national campaign that prompted the creation by Congress of the Independent Television Service (ITVS) for PBS. In 1990, he co-founded the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression, which focused on protecting artists' rights. The following year he created Ralph Nader's Teledemocracy Project on cable TV reform. In 1992, he co-founded and served as executive director (until 2000) of the Center for Media Education, a leading force on such issues as Internet privacy, media ownership, and children's TV. At CME he led the successful campaign at the Federal Trade Commission to impose conditions on the merger of AOL and Time Warner. He also co-directed the campaigns that led to stronger rules by the FCC on children’s educational TV, and to the passage of the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
Under Jeff’s leadership, CDD co-led the two-year campaign against proposals by the media industries and FCC Chairman Powell to eliminate critical ownership safeguards. His work helped generate unprecedented public support opposing the Big Media lobby. He has also campaigned to maintain the Internet’s open and non-discriminatory architecture, through work in the press, Congress, and in the courts.
In 1996, Newsweek Magazine named him one of the Internet's fifty most influential people. He established CDD in 2001 with the support of a Stern Family Foundation "Public Interest Pioneer" award.
Chester holds an MSW in community mental health from UC Berkeley. He is currently finishing a book for The New Press on the digital media and the public interest.
As a member of the panel, Jeff provided a historical overview of the activism efforts by individuals and organizations that resulted in the creation of ITVS and the Minority Consortia.
Martha Wallner
Martha Wallner has been a practitioner in the non-commercial media sector for many years, working as a producer, programmer, administrator, consultant, and advocate. As the former advocacy director of AIVF (Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers), she organized to win public interest provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and to defend public broadcasting and arts funding from Congressional attack. She co-founded and for 7 years coordinated the Deep Dish TV Satellite Network and has worked with many other media organizations including Paper Tiger TV, The National Radio Project, and Berkeley Community Media. As an active member of Media Alliance, she’s worked on a number of different media policy issues and is currently completing a master’s degree at the Film and Media Studies Program, CUNY.
Martha presented an update on current media advocacy and reform activities and gave a brief overview of public media spaces beyond those represented by the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio such as public, educational and government (PEG) access cable channels.
Brewster Kahle
Brewster Kahle, Digital Librarian, Director and Co-Founder, The Internet Archive. Since the mid-1980s, Brewster has focused on developing transformational technologies for information discovery and digital libraries. In 1989 Brewster invented the Internet’s first publishing system, WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) system, and in 1989, founded WAIS Inc., a pioneering electronic publishing company that was sold to America Online in 1995. In 1996, Brewster founded the Internet Archive, the largest publicly accessible, privately funded digital archive in the world. At the same time, he co-founded Alexa Internet in April 1996, which was sold to Amazon.com in 1999. Alexa's services are bundled into more than 80% of Web browsers.
Brewster earned a B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1982. As a student, he studied artificial intelligence with Marvin Minsky and W. Daniel Hillis. In 1983, Brewster helped start Thinking Machines, a parallel supercomputer maker, serving there as lead engineer for six years. He is profiled in Digerati: Encounters with the Cyber Elite (HardWired, 1996). He was selected as a member of the Upside 100 in 1997, Micro Times 100 in 1996 and 1997, and Computer Week 100 in 1995.
Brewster provided a vision of the future of media distribution by describing the activities of the Internet Archive. His briefing was supplemented by Rick Prelinger, founder of the Prelinger Archives and an archivist, writer and filmmaker. Rick described how he has increased revenues from his archives since making them widely available for fair use through the Internet Archives.
John J. Valadez
John J. Valadez is an award-winning director who has been producing documentaries for national broadcast for the past ten years. His films have been exhibited theatrically, on television in the United States, Canada and Europe, and at major international film festivals and cultural institutions including: the Berlin Film Festival, Cinema Du Reel, The Bombay International Film Festival, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), The Museum of Fine Arts Boston, the High Museum of Art Atlanta, Lincoln Center and the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C.
Born and raised in Seattle, Washington, John is the son and grandson of Mexican-American field workers from Washington's Yakima Valley. Before going to film school in New York City, John traveled across the United States, Asia, and the Middle East. He taught photography for a year at a small rural village school in central India and worked for the Indian government on a reforestation project in the state of Madhya Pradesh.
John directed the critically acclaimed film Passin? It On, about a former leader of the Black Panther Party who was falsely imprisoned for nearly twenty years. It aired nationally on the PBS series POV. He went on to direct the first hour of the PBS documentary series Making Peace. He directed The Divide, which is the first hour of the nationally broadcast public television series Matters of Race, and he produced for the new PBS series Visiones: Latino Arts and Culture. John was a writer, director, and producer of the nationally broadcast PBS special Beyond Brown: Pursuing the Promise. John’s most recent documentary, High Stakes: The Battle to Save Our Schools, aired on CNN as an episode of "CNN Presents." He is currently directing two forthcoming public television documentaries: The Head of Joaquin Murrieta and The Last Conquistador.
John provided his perspective as a filmmaker attempting to navigate the changing landscape. He also described an initiative of the National Association of Latino Independent Producers to assess the role of people of color within the PBS system.
Alyce Myatt
Alyce Myatt is a multimedia consultant providing analysis and strategic planning services for independent media organizations and the philanthropic community. Chief among her clients are the Center for Digital Democracy, a media policy organization and Free Speech TV, a 24-hour progressive television network; other recent clients include MediaWorks, a media funder network, OneWorld TV, Emerson College, TVE Brasil, the Heinz Endowments, Roundtable Media, and the Annie E. Casey and Skillman Foundations.
Prior to her return to consulting, she was Vice President of Programming for the Public Broadcasting Service. Her responsibilities included project development and oversight of independent film, PBS Kids, and the Ready To Learn initiative. Previous to re-joining PBS, Ms. Myatt was program officer for media at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation where she administered their grant-making for documentary film and television, community outreach related to media, community-based media arts centers, and public radio. Preceding her work at the Foundation she was president of her own consulting firm, providing program development services, strategic planning, and brand management to a variety of clients in television, radio, and multimedia. Clients included Rainbow Media, Blackside Inc., EchoStar, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., the Independent Television Service (ITVS), Sunbow, Scholastic, Simon & Schuster, WGBH, WNET, and WNYC Radio. Ms. Myatt was creative consultant for Sesame Workshop’s cable venture and was previously director of Children's Programming for the Public Broadcasting Service. Her production credits include the Smithsonian Institution, Nickelodeon, and ABC's "20/20."
Alyce Myatt serves as a board director or advisor to Auburn Media at the Center for Multi-faith Education, the Center for Rural Strategies, the Center for Social Media at American University, the Emerson College Alumni Association, mediarights.org, the National Alliance of Media Arts and Culture and Witness.
Alyce served as moderator of the caucus and is the author of this report.
The panel presentations were followed by the formation of five working groups under the themes of:
How do we create an infrastructure that ensures the ease of use among producers, distributors, and users of public media; an infrastructure that supports television, radio, the Internet, and other platforms such as gaming, telephony, pod-casting,and whatever other communication platform comes into being?
PBS and NPR are often perceived as the sole components of our public media infrastructure, receiving the bulk of attention and financing. There are, however, additional structures that have or are gaining a significant role in our society and should, therefore be fostered, maintained, and kept robust. The full public media infrastructure comprises multiple platforms, networks, institutions, and individuals. It spans television, radio, the Internet and, increasingly, it is wireless. It is local, national and, with the web, global.
The current infrastructure includes the over-the-air broadcasts of PBS and NPR and their local stations; community media in the form of public, educational and government (PEG) access cable channels; C-Span; direct broadcast satellite channels such as Free Speech TV and Link TV; the radio networks Pacifica, AIROS, and Radio Bilingue; Internet-based outlets such as Indymedia, the Internet Archive, and AlterNet; and the burgeoning infrastructures of Low-Power FM and municipal wireless.
Additionally, there are Internet-only networks in evolution that are aggregating and adapting media originally designed for television and radio. Their aim is to distribute to the public through broadband technology. Examples are undergroundfilm.org and the Open Media Network.
Critical infrastructure issues are threefold: the quality of the content that feeds into the public media infrastructure, access to and ease of use of the infrastructure, and the financial and mechanical health of the structural underpinnings, the plumbing, as we transition to a totally digital environment.
At this moment in history the media infrastructure is a moving target. It would be wise to consider and incorporate a variety of technologies, high and low, to be able to effectively and efficiently go from the creation of content to the consumption of it by the end user.
The public media infrastructure, however, is not simply a matter of platforms – bricks and mortar spaces are very much a part of it. These include television and radio stations as well as community-based media arts and communication technology centers.
The infrastructure is also composed of people. Three primary stakeholders with their associated issues have been identified: producers, distributors, and users.
Producers require consistent funding sources to support the creation of their content. In addition to foundation, government and limited license fees offered by the public media sector, producers and their membership organizations must explore new financing models. These should include revenues derived from educational markets (curriculum development in addition to the sale of the finished product), 2nd and 3rd broadcast windows on competing networks, increased exposure through the Internet and DVD sales, and pitches to non-traditional funders who would value the utilization of the finished product because it supports their interests.
Membership organizations representing producers should take an active role in advancing legislation to secure consistent, unencumbered government support for independent producers supplying the public media sector.
Licensing procedures, including fair use, need clarification. The field of independent media makers should work towards creating guidelines, standards and, if necessary, legislation to ensure that elements needed for creating new works (including music, images, and other limited portions of previously created work) are available for fair use.
It’s imperative that the independent creative community get out in front of the digital transition and take full advantage of the additional channel capacity that will be available.
Distributors who continue to work under conventional paradigms are functioning as roadblocks and are running the risk of elimination. They, too, need to carefully examine the landscape and reinvigorate their portion of the public media sector.
New business models to generate sustainable revenues, including those that incorporate a web component, must be established. This involves a significant change in the perceived value of the Internet and must be accompanied by an aggressive pursuit of market share. The decreasing cost of bandwidth, the refinement of BitTorrent, the advent of content distribution by the telcos, and the growth of media subscription services are all new opportunities for exploitation by distributors.
We need new ideas and we need to create new forms of grassroots distribution. There are 350,000 book clubs in this country. Why can’t there be more audio/video clubs, a cine club movement? (filmconnection.org is an example.) We should promote the grassroots use of independent media – screenings and discussions in small groups, church groups, libraries, social and economic justice organizations related to how they can get involved in issues highlighted by the films. In service of distribution, civic engagement and community outreach activities can be better utilized to reach broader and underserved audiences. Mediamakers should accompany the screening of their work whenever possible.
Technology now allows us to send media to multiple publics, even simultaneously. We should create a high-tech consortium of distributors (e.g., the independent booksellers) and integrate all of our distribution schemes. Proven successes can be found, such as the Public Radio Exchange and documentaries that have been selling straight to the consumer through print, online, and on-air advertisements. We could effectively elevate the profile of public media with critiques posted on MoveOn.org, AlterNet, and through other media outlets. Distribution should fully exploit multiple technologies and develop greater efficiencies for content flow across the media field, not just distribution to the end user.
There are a rainbow of possibilities within the current PBS system that include West Link, NETA, and other program services delivered directly through satellite uplink that bypasses the central broadcasting system. There’s an overstock of programming: programs that have aired nationally only once or twice and quality programs that have had limited local or no release. Free Speech TV, Link TV, Deep Dish, and community access stations could work with PBS stations and negotiate air time.
Political pressure and fear of marginalization must be overcome. The so-called “digital divide” should not inhibit progress in exploring new distribution strategies including unconventional syndication and licensing approaches.
We need to be more open and strategic with each other across the field. We should do better at sharing databases of progressive organizations and the enlightened public sector.
Future stakeholders should be identified and alliances formed. This includes elements of our society that have a vested interest in what a thriving public media sector can offer but have yet to be a part of the discussion.
It is critical that media be available when, where, how the audience wants it. Video-on-Demand programs are becoming more-widely available, personal video recorders (PVRs) like TIVO allow you to watch any program whenever, and a number of programs, like Frontline, are streamed on the web and available in their entirety for free.
The system of delivery has a direct correlation to audience size and can determine the ultimate impact of a particular work.
The “portability” of media is increasingly gaining in importance, whether pod-casts, DVDs, or video downloads to a PC or to a wireless cell phone.
Community members are rapidly becoming media makers. The public media sector can empower this effort by providing training and resource information.
As the world becomes more and more media saturated, finding quality media that is of interest and/or serves a particular need becomes more and more of a challenge. Therefore, the aggregation of content by “trusted sources” and strategic marketing and promotion becomes critical.
How do we financially sustain the infrastructure we put into place? What new models of financing do we need to explore? Should we incorporate multiple models of financing? Should we employ a tax system such as that in the United Kingdom? Can we count on a portion of spectrum sales? Do we institute advertisements in public media?
The current PBS system, with its station membership model, was established during the Nixon era. While a small portion of PBS’s funding comes from the federal government, its primary source of revenue is based on fundraising by the local station. They, in turn, pay fees to national PBS for programming and other services. The studio resources at the local level are under-utilized and generally not open to the public. There is limited interaction with independent community and limited engagement with average television viewers. How does PBS overcome the need to attract wealthy donors vs. meeting its mission to serve all? This requires finding the right strategy, language, and program mix for a more diverse audience that can then be transformed into members.
Financially sustainable public media models exist in the United States and other parts of the world and it may be beneficial for us to examine and adapt them for use more widely. These include models of collaboration on the local level and national government initiatives.
The public media system in the United Kingdom (BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five, S4C and the Community Channel) has served its country well, with BBC Worldwide and BBC America extending their reach far beyond their borders. For decades they have provided PBS and other countries with programs and have sold programs and formats to United States commercial broadcasters. They are undergoing a comprehensive review to determine how they will best fulfill their public service mission as they transition to the digital environment. We in the United States should consider studying their review process and adapting several key components to implement a similar review in this country.
Unlike public media in the United Kingdom, until now all public media in the United States has been, ostensibly, non-commercial. This model warrants close examination and, perhaps, revision. Is it possible to have a combination of commercial and non-commercial public media and serve the public interest, maintaining credibility and integrity? In addition to the United Kingdom system, it may serve us well to examine and inventory financial models of other viable public broadcasting systems around the world.
Additional new revenue streams for independent public media could be found with cable operators, including video-on-demand; distribution deals with telcos (the phone companies are rapidly signing-up content producers); and by levying a tax on commercial broadcasters. We must take advantage of the changing market. Whatever systems are developed, however, must have the flexibility to adapt, to mutate, to embrace the larger changes in the infrastructure as they occur.
A key component to sustainability is developing a system that supports creativity. Creativity can be monetized, through license fees, to support the human, technological, and bricks and mortar infrastructure required for a sustainable public media future. Creativity, however, needs to be nourished through exposure to other creative works. In addition to traditional distribution outlets, this creativity exchange can come from new models of distribution such as BitTorrent, microcinemas, a robust public access system, and pod-casts.
There must be a coordinated effort to amplify the issue of sustainability of public media through alliances with traditional public broadcasters, Low-Power FM stations, public access, and other members of the public media sector. There must be more cross pollination between advocates, media reformers, media justice activists and the content creators and distributors.
What standards need to be put into place and how do we maintain accountability? Are there governance systems that we can employ to ensure transparency? What type of governance structure will offer true diversity?
Good governance is fundamental. We are witnessing an encroachment of the federal government into the editorial decision-making of the public broadcasting systems of PBS and NPR. In the current climate money equals policy. The struggle for resources (financing and distribution) often clouds the ability to insist on standards and accountability. We should preserve PBS, but we must also make it accountable. How do we band together to do so?
What would a public media governance structure look like? What can we learn from PEG access as a model in terms of governance? What international models of governance can we review so we don't have to reinvent them? A system of governance for the entire public media sector needs to be developed and adhered to. It must be based on a transparent set of standards and a system of accountability. It must offer true generational, cultural, class, gender, and ethnic diversity.
Who owns public media? Who are the stakeholders in public media? We have to be smart about who has power and influence that might want public media to succeed; people who believe that “If those guys fail, who’s going to be left to tell the truth?” for example, pension funds and underwriters have a vested interest in the truth in order to effectively conduct their businesses. They could become allies. Collectively, the independent media community serves millions, and those millions of people are crucial to what we want to accomplish. How do we unleash that power? Is there a "big tent" where we can all work together to create a transparent, well governed, financially sustainable, public media sector?
What should public media provide society that can’t or won’t be provided by private media? Private media should be held to higher standards than they are currently being held and they must be compelled to meet public interest obligations, but are there particular roles for public media in news, information, public affairs, education, arts and culture, and entertainment?
Public media should be universally accessible and have an unyielding commitment to the public good. This includes mechanisms for informing the public about local, national, and international affairs; the unencumbered ability to investigate and report on uses and abuses of power – devoid of special interests; and a dedication to education, using the broadest and most complete definition, for both children and adults. Public media should be participatory and advance civic engagement. It should present the full spectrum of society, showcasing the arts and culture, history, and the sciences. Public media should be entertaining and fun.
Public media should be representative of local and national populations and offer multiple perspectives. It must be authentic and perceived as such. Public media should respect its audience, viewing them as citizens not consumers.
How we, as a society, use public media in the new media landscape requires study. The process of discovery should be self-determining by the public – locally and nationally.
Historically, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Public Broadcasting Service, and National Public Radio were known for programmatic and technological innovation. New, successful formats were developed by public broadcasting and adapted by commercial programmers. Public broadcasting’s commitment to education created distance learning and spearheaded the spectrum analysis process that led to HDTV. Unfortunately, that leadership position has eroded over time. Public media can, once again, serve as a driving force to advance the entire media landscape for content and technology. One explicit role for Public Media could be to foster creative innovation – to take creative risks that the private sector can’t afford but would adopt, and pay for, if proven successful.
How do we form stronger alliances among the media activists and the content creators and distributors, among policymakers and the general public, among individuals, institutions, corporations, and elected officials? How can we use the creative skills of each community to forward an agenda so critical to all?
Inside and outside strategies must be developed and employed. An example of creating an inside/outside strategy is represented by the current situation of CPB, PBS, and NPR. The independent media field must call for federal hearings to examine the condition of those institutions and insist upon de-politicalization, better standards, and greater and more direct accountability to the public. But at the same time, it is imperative that we harvest years of work building alternatives. We must keep strengthening the alternatives as cracks in the traditional public broadcasting system appear.
Those of us who are actively engaged in media advocacy and reform must reach out to media makers and distributors and provide them with information. While independent film and video makers have the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers and the National Alliance of Media Arts and Culture and the radio producers have Association of Independents in Radio, they are not actively and consistently engaged in media advocacy. We must ask ourselves: “What constituencies am I a part of?” We need to inventory the groups in our circle, e.g., Low-Power FM, Public Access cable, Minority Consortia, independent producers, funders, community radio, Action Coalition for Media Education (ACME), etc.
Funders should see themselves as a critical constituency in furthering the full public media ecology: through their grantmaking, through education within their affinity groups, e.g., Grantmakers in Film and Electronic Media, Grantmakers in the Arts, and the Communications Network, and by educating their grantees and encouraging them to become engaged in the movement to make public media more responsive and reflective of their needs.
Rural parts of the country must be re-engaged as well as urban areas. A central place for information on media activism (the Internet) should be created along with tools to reach non-net users. We must look at grassroots constituencies we’re already working with – start local, or in a particular community (e.g., youth, immigrants, or women).
The independent media field needs to frame media issues for viewers and producers, creating different frames for different constituencies. What’s an individual’s entry point? Do they see themselves as a media consumer? Are they engaged in the digital literacy movement? Are they interested in the preservation of a language group? Are they concerned with their neighborhood? If you’re a media producer, is funding the important issue for you or access to distribution? Everyone has different points from where they can enter the dialogue on public media and how it can best serve their needs. Currently, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with mainstream media. While it’s like herding cats, we must keep articulating our entry-point messaging: “Why public media is important to you…” – we must tell people. And we must reinforce the idea that the public can contribute to finding solutions – increasingly there are spaces for non-professional media makers and “citizen journalists”; their voices can be heard.
Entry points of activism must be found and then strategic communications employed to maintain momentum. For example, information can be posted and linked to websites across the public media sector. We can create media to specifically engage targeted constituencies in public media issues. We can better utilize and cross-promote with the print and online press. We can repurpose our media across media platforms: Democracy Now! is an example of successful cross-media distribution: it’s heard on radio, it’s aired on Link TV and Free Speech TV, its broadcast on public access and public television stations, and it’s streamed on the web.
The Free Press is planning to hold public hearings around the future of PBS. They are very important. They should be nationally broadcast (as should all FCC Hearings – a media “c-span” could be created) and the Free Press should actively engage media makers and distributors in their hearing process.
Why build a movement? Many will say that PBS and NPR are the best we have, but we know they could and should be much better. This can happen if there are more choices – healthy competition within the public media sphere. PBS should be protected, but we must diversify and stabilize the funding for a broader and more vibrant public media landscape.
What should public media be in the United States and how do we make it so?