The term ‘media organization’ means “a person or entity engaged in disseminating information to the general public through a newspaper, magazine, other publication, radio, television, cable television, or other media of mass communication.” (2 USCS § 1602). Media institutions can also be seen as being involved in the production, exchange and reproduction of meaning.
Therefore, the nonprofit Wallingford Public Access Association, Inc. is a media organization. As a media organization, we are influenced differently by affluence, consumption patterns and social class. Although our primary distribution medium is TV, we are not classified as ‘mass media’ for several reasons, predominantly because citizens control the content and distribution is physically limited to hyper-local territories by cable providers. Citizens, unlike journalists, are autonomous. Media professionals in a media organization are constrained by profitability. All producers are to an extent vulnerable to commercial pressures. The codes of practice are designed to prevent unacceptable standards of production or irresponsible behavior.
The Court held that while communities were not free to arbitrarily restrict communication of ideas or information, no such protection was afforded to
“commercial advertising.”
We had a goal to make this TV station more inclusive, timely and relevant while still being whatever walks in the door. 2015 was all of that and more. If you have yet to watch here is some of what you might find, locally produced.
Emotion … flows freely when it comes from a real place, real experiences.
This summer we attempted to focus on making Documentaries; in particular, the story of Community Access in Wallingford. There was some 30 years, a few conflicts, some literal community building and questions about archival content ownership.
My expectations:
The discussion would be specifically about Guerrillafilm-making as a form of independent film-making characterized by low budgets, skeleton crews, and simple props using whatever is available. The panel’s focus, however, was documentaries. Some insights apply to both.
Finding the Story: You never know what story you are going to get so choose a topic that has meaning to you (and a potential group of viewers with similar interests). The story evolves (let it, and ‘serendipity’ work, for you).
Story Stages: The Plan. The Shoot. The Edit (Take out what does not move the story forward. Avoid “Lather, Rinse, REPEAT”). The Yellow Pad Screening (1st cut showing; feedback). The Documentary.
Your subjects will give you what they got (authentic voice); if they feel respected, have time to become familiar with the camera, experience an interview which is more like a conversation and understand you will not let them look bad (unless badness is what the story is about.) The same insights we share #WPAA-TV about Citizen Media Making.
Style: Consider a hybrid format: apply narrative techniques to frame the story and do not chain yourself to ‘Fair & Balanced’ unless authenticity, integrity and reliability are part of your purpose.
The Production: Schedule, Budget, Crew The schedule needs to be known by everyone and have realistic timelines. If you can not pay the crew, budget & schedule for feeding them. Anticipate some hiccups and diversions but reinforce the arrival time of all crew members. Know the crew and if everyone is new to each other be sure that introductions include some reference to skills but clearly establishes project roles. Encourage everyone to pitch in. Remember: it is best to invest time to “get it right” during the shoot unless the fix is simple in post (trust camera guy with edit experience when deciding) and audio is the least fixable/might as well be impossible element to fix. Embrace natural light.
Production Admin: Mitigate risks & leverage for marketing Subject Releases: These should be simple and captured both in writing and on film; such that subjects identify themselves and acknowledge they are being filmed for the specific project. Contracts: Plain Language. Insurance: Errors and Omissions (big risks, then budget this) Fair Use: Any copyrighted content sampled without permission Must be to “Illustrate a Point” To be clear: Music for the soundtrack in not illustrative. Funding through crowd-sourcing (30 days max):
Fund in stages
Your supporters need to give thru crowd-funding to get momentum going. You need more than these supporters which is why you promote.
Heavily promote engagement the 1st 14 hours.
Never start crowd-funding on a weekend. Always a Tuesday or mid week launch. This process is to the minute (plan to be awake and engaged in the last few hours).
Be sure supporter perks and donation levels cover the cost to you for the perk AND help finance the project.
Video promotion: Keep quality high. It creates expectation for the film.
Expect content to be pirated so safeguard your story; carefully share before the Trailer is released.
You want the Trailer Shared so make that easy to do.
Remember: Crowd-sourcing has costs: Build them into your budget. It is 1099 taxable income.
Distribution:If more than an act of love or a student project.
YouTube and Vimeo are last resort distributions.
Know what your distribution goals are in the planning and budget stages.
Consider your local Community TV Station for your Yellow Pad or Final Release. Some stations like ours do not require 1st play for films with festival submission plans. If you make such a plan you can use Community TV equipment for free: Here we loan with a credit card release DSLRs, light kits, Gopros, Movi 5, Zoom H5N and more.
NHdocs came together in 2014 when four filmmakers from New Haven gathered together for the first time . . . in Missoula, Montana. This is year three. Same locations and timelines in process for year four.
Early advocates of Community Media enthusiastically believed that exposure to stories in conversation could create a more informed and connected community. The effort required was tremendous in order to produce stories three four decades ago. Good stories still require a concerted effort to research and produce. What has changed? Initially the expectation of quality was in the conversation itself not the media in which it was captured and shared.
Community Media has modestly evolved over the past three four decades within the context of the concurrent and gargantuan evolution of both media and technology. Its birth (1968-70) and solidification within the media landscape (ACM turns 40) after the golden age of TV (1950-60) following the Golden Age of Radio (1930-40), focused on the medium of TV with some footholds remaining in radio. In the 1980’s, public Internet began to emerge changing the media landscape and the potential for sharing information in a variety of mediums. It changed from ‘pull’ to ‘push’ technology with the introduction of apps and social media. After the year 2000, technology not only continued to evolve, obsolescence sped up, and tools in the hands of citizens expanded exponentially.
Where we are now has been labeled techno-info chaos. Many Community Media organizations are struggling for both technological currency and relevancy. To add to the challenges of an extensive landscape change, Community Media has not been devoid of self-righteous infighting. Nor has it been absent of the elevation of personal dreams over vision for all by those empowered to oversee community assets that are to represent local voices, welcome diversity and be commercial-free.
Sustainability is the struggle, but let us not forget that the early advocates wished to empower all to communicate with the tools of the day in order to make a difference by connecting their community and humanizing the ‘other’ through enabling underserved voices to be heard. This means that we are more than TV. But other things are changing and the community memory of advocates is a wee small voice in the techno-info chaos unless you choose to use Community Media to connect your community.
Footnote: When I see a hint of the original vision realized, it brings me to tears.
To be More Than TV and a Destination Station is a moonshot that requires ongoing strategic self-examination and empowerment which is invoked with the hashtag #PowerfulWILDFree. Personal power can be leveraged in the public interest; but where does this power come from. In part, it is in shared experiences and the serendipity of crossing our own abyss as we reach for the moon.
“What can we gain by sailing to the moon if we are not able to cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves? This is the most important of all voyages of discovery, and without it, all the rest are not only useless, but disastrous…” ~~ Thomas Merton
New community media creators often begin in a somewhat all-knowing place about the content to be produced; however, those that invest time in creation (curating related media, making editing decisions) often are surprised by the self-discovery that accompanies the journey like one’s bias for symmetry, flourishes, simplicity, color, willingness to accommodate or compromise or accept divergent points of view. Every media making decision can inform what we understand about our topic and ourselves and open both up to transformation.
As WPAA-TV ventures into more tech-support of community media creation with the contributor-producer model, there are some regrets that this connecting with self-exploration in media making is a loss. While the model explored in CommUnity Conversations is engaging more community members in the sharing of stories and the creation of media in the public interest the Contributors still need to be prepared to find their authentic voice, recognize the stories that moved them and tap the courage to speak honestly. With each new conversation, we improve the process technically; but more importantly, we have moments of human connection that tap into Broken Dreams and give those of us in the trenches the courage of Drag Queens and Astronauts to reach a new destination where difference and determination are comrades for good.
Technology to Connect Us as a Community: Informing, Listening, Discovering
The primary skill associated with human connectivity is listening to understand but most of us listen to reply. Even tools to help us center ourselves have become leveraged for capital gain like Mindfulness for Productivity.
Our moonshot programs: Team Hercules, Destination Station, ROAR1st and CommUnity Conversations are all connected to the question “How can we reach for the moon if we do not understand ourselves?” The answer lies in connecting through story. So what stories are not being told OR heard that could make a difference in Wallingford? Wallingford has numerous and large community forums on social media and a handful of committed community TV producers yet it is very possible that we are not connecting as a community.
WPAA-TV’s mission to empower people to communicate by providing tools and support must not forgo the bedrock of communication: creating a new understanding.
What are the reasonable needs of a community of 45,000 in central CT for access to a means to create, distribute, or merely view media in the public interest? The presumption of those legislatively enabling community media programs or establishing transparency guidelines has been:
Reasonable need is determined based on dialogue between citizen advocates and providers, vendors and production entities with an expectation of consensus of understanding about resources, responsibilities and outcomes that is often memorialized in contracts.
At the April 19th town government budget hearing ‘incompletely’ informed members of the Wallingford Town Council suggested that constituents have a reasonable expectation of “pull” access to content about government inclusive of on-line access for viewing Town Government Meetings. There is evidence that the community is evolving and potentially, as many people as watch on TV may be interested in on-line access to meeting content. As community media is narrow-casting not broadcasting, reasonable can be determined by the regularity of a few not a high quantity of views.
I would suggest that this public hearing was not dialoguing with a probability of consensus.
The Mayor’s response and related commentary evoke Déjà vu and an expectation that current outcomes would again be subject to the whims of the puppeteer who siloed Public, Education, and Government (PEG) Access in Wallingford in 1993. In fact, this long-standing Mayor chose to demean Community Access which had nothing to do with the current budget discussion. He appeared to conjure up old grudges over parodies created by residents that made him and a few others in places of privilege, uncomfortable. That personal discomfort with Free Speech began the domino effect that makes PEG here different from all other CT communities.
The Mayor is correct about the cost. Supporting infrastructure for online video viewing and management has costs: 1) infrastructure equipment, 2) server capacity [how much, how long], and 3) maintenance (typically ongoing staff time). He is not correct that these costs would adversely impact the 2017 budget; in fact, there might be cost savings.
Currently, WGTV staff creates a DVD of every meeting for a town resident in response to an FOI complaint and lack of access to online meeting content. This process for this one DVD actually takes more time and resources than # 3 maintenance costs would; obviously serving more than one individual in the process. DVD making could be suspended for this individual or others because the system already owned enables files to be downloaded.
Since the Mayor invoked WPAA-TV into this discussion and reasonable need has been established WPAA-TV will provide access to the Unofficial on-line meeting site until such time as ‘Official’ maintenance and management ensues.
Why? Because on June 4 2008 PURA Docket #08-04-09 affirmed that WPAA remains the community access provider for the Town of Wallingford. And in subsequent dockets, WPAA’s unique responsibilities to ensure reasonable access to community media most notably Docket #99-10-05 affirms this role incorporated in WPAA-TV policy by reference shown below Policy Footnote #3.
In conclusion: the purpose of producing content is for its consumption by as many persons as are interested. TV is now distributed and consumed in a variety of ways. This public hearing conversation further establishes a reasonable need for on-line access to meetings recorded as Government TV thereby making them Government Access TV and the means are already available at no additional cost to taxpayers.
We are a society of insulated subcultures. The role of money & media in elections helps establish why alternative media is needed. How do you find trusted sources of news? Do you follow one silo of opinions/editorials/commentary? Are you old enough to remember how radio or TV 1st influenced you, your ideas and opinions? Where does your influence come from now? Are you open to broader understanding?
Are you interested in helping create a broader understanding? Is it because you have seen the benefits of diverse ideas brought to bare to solve a problem or leverage an opportunity?
You can contribute in Conversation
When you bring more than passion to an idea and have a willingness to listen and collaborate you may find the following to be true:
What is Free Speech? Is it a prayer, picture, song, rap, poem, story, tweet, blog, flag, bumper-sticker, money, or video even one captured via smartphone? Is it what a politician says to followers, a preacher to those in the pews, a conversation at dinner, a lesson in a classroom, a made for TV movie? Is the message and method of delivery, analogous, or interdependent?
Is it saying whatever comes top of mind: What a bully, robber, abuser says to a victim. Or is it intentional speech? Is Parrhesia (truth-telling), as explored by French philosopher Michel Foucault, focusing on the truthteller rather than the content, important to the discourse on truth in the modern world?
Speech, Press, Assembly, petition and Religion … with INTENTION all in 1
In the beginning, our discourse was person to person, face to face or in a letter. The printing press modified speech making by both expanding the audience and creating powers inherent to those in control of the tools. Speech to more than one always came with controls: the ability to assemble people in a community with proximity or the filters of commitment, understanding or bias in the transporting of a message by word of mouth.
In the digital age, Free Speech is morphing once again, creating more challenging times for those of us committed to the ideals underpinning this freedom and the belief that the absence of speech to counter radical views is dangerous for all; that beyond a constitutional right speaking freely embodies the concept of speaking truthfully & boldly with both obligations and risks.
“once we give up on the right to offend in the name of ‘tolerance’ or ‘respect’, we constrain our ability to challenge those in power, and therefore to challenge injustice.” British author Kenan Malik argued in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre
