From: Sandra Maliga (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Feb 13 2007 - 09:53:19 PST
If Youtube doesn't make cable access irrelevant then I'm a monkey's
uncle. Get everyone a computer and DSL.
--Sandy
On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:24 AM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2007, at 3:49 PM, 40 Frames wrote:
>
>
>>
>> More money won't fix the problem for Access, as the current issues
>> have to
>> do with mis-management of resources. More money would make the
>> problem
>> worse.
>
> This seems like a rather perverse argument. In Chicago cable
> operators have deliberately withheld contributions they were
> required to make to access, more or less with impunity. Obviously
> having less money than you are supposed to have makes any
> management of resources problematic.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am saying that cable TV channels are not the best means for
>> delivering
>> content given that the people who use access facilities do not
>> themselves
>> subscribe to cable TV. They have decided its not worth the money to
>> subscribe to cable, depsite the fact that they produce content for
>> cable.
>>
>
> This is a remarkable claim and I'd really like to see some data to
> support it. In my experience, there are various levels of cable
> service (and dish services), and in Chicago, again, it seems that
> almost everyone has at least "basic cable" which includes the
> access and city government channels. Is the situation really
> different in Portland OR where 40 Frames is located?
>
>> I caution you from assuming too much about what people from the
>> community
>> want to produce. In many cases, it's "commercial" content that
>> they are
>> interested in producing. They want to promote their friends
>> products and
>> services, or their own business interests. Commercial is not so
>> abstract
>> in this regard. People want to make a living, and they will often
>> view
>> access as a low-cost means of promoting the services they provide or
>> products they produce.
>
> Again, this seems like a skewed way of looking at things. Access
> does provide very low cost training and access to equipment and
> skills. It's not ideal or very imaginative in many cases--the two
> people sitting in chairs talking seems like the norm. But I've
> seen things on Chicago Access which wouldn't be shown elsewhere,
> and some of it is very interesting, even if in a kitschy and
> perverse way. Yes, a gal explaining for half an hour why high
> colonics are good for you. Yes, someone demonstrating strict vegan
> cooking. Yes, a jovial old guy discussing the week in local motor
> sports (surrounded by skimpy dressed "babes" who don't match the
> expected standards for female presenters in the convention and
> exposition industry). And a show about local labor issues.
> Political discussions from people outside of the two party system,
> etc. etc. The PBS station has a weekly program. "Image Union,"
> that shows artist based work. But there's no restriction on people
> making up their own programming for access.
>
>>
>> Locally, there is a cable commission that gives large grants to
>> the arts
>> community, so I'm not interested in seeing the franchise fee go
>> away. But
>> I also don't want to overstate the benefits of public access.
>> Access has a
>> lot of problems which it needs to overcome.
>
> But then, who would be the agent for change? Is there some kind of
> restriction on people getting involved in cable access in
> Portland? Is it just question of who shows up? Or are you saying
> that somehow access should just change because you don't like its
> current format and protocols?
>
> CHUCK KLEINHANS
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.