Manhattan neighborhood network: Community access television and the public sphere in the 1990s

Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 119-138

  Howley, Kevin ^a  

^a DEPAUW UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61149658441     PISSN: 01439685     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01439680500065402     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. For an excellent discussion of the motivations behind the establishment of the Public Broadcasting Service, see Ralph Engelman, Public Radio and Television in America: a political history (London, 1996)
2. Cable television has its origins as a repeater service for broadcast signals in areas with poor reception. One of the first such systems, commonly referred to as Community Antenna Television (CATV), was established in Lansford, PA, in 1949. See Sydney W Head and Christopher H. Sterling, Broadcasting in America: a survey of electronic media, 5th edn (Boston, 1987), p. 104
3. This phrase is generally attributed to Ithiel de Sola Pool and Herbert E. Alexander, Politics of a Wired Nation, in Ithiel de Sola Pool (ed.), Talking Back: citizen feedback and cable technology (Cambridge, MA, 1973), p. 123
4. Engelman suggests that given the city's vibrant commercial and alternative media environment, Manhattan was 'a logical locale for a major experiment in public access. The outcome promised to influence FCC deliberations on whether or not to require cable companies to set aside public access television'. Engelman, Public Radio and Television in America, pp. 246-247
5. Most histories of public access television in the United States acknowledge Dale City, VA, as the site of the nation's first public access television effort. Cable TV, Inc. provided a channel and some modest facilities to the Dale City Junior Chamber of Commerce. The channel was operational from December 1968 until early 1970. See Gilbert Gillespie, Public Access Cable Television in the United States and Canada (New York, 1975), pp. 35-36
6. Much of this discussion is drawn from an excellent history of the guerrilla video movement in this country. See Deirdre Boyle, Subject to Change: guerrilla television revisited (New York, 1997)
7. Raindance's application called for the creation of a Center for De-Centralized Television; Global Village sought a Resource Center; the VideoFreex, reflecting their restless spirit perhaps, suggested the creation of a Media Bus; while the People's Video Theater wanted an outlet for what they called community video journalism. Rather than give one of the collective's a substantial amount of cash, NYSCA's solution was to provide each of these groups with modest dollar amounts. See Boyle, Subject to Change, p. 28
8. Alternative Media Center brochure, quoted in Ralph Engelman, The Origins of Public Access Cable Television, 1966-1972, Journalism Monographs, 123 (1990), p. 18
9. Engelman, The Origins of Public Access Cable Television, p. 19
10. Well-intentioned as this approach was, these media professionals instilled novice producers with the same technical and editorial biases that characterize commercial television. As a result, innovative and non-traditional modes of television production were not encouraged. Instead, many access programs attempted to emulate broadcast form and content. The tensions between imitating dominant media practices and using the medium in an alternative or non-traditional fashion continue to plague community television in Manhattan and elsewhere. For a thoughtful discussion of the subtle ideological implications of television training in the community television environment, see John Higgins, Night of the Broadcast Clones: the politics of video training, Community Television Review, 14, 3 (1991), pp. 9-12
11. Some of these groups have worked with one of the city's two PBS affiliates, WNYC. Others, most notably the DCTV, have aired programs on local and national commercial broadcast television. Projects originating from these groups include a substantial amount of experimental and artistic work. However, groups like the Chinatown History Project, for example, produce videotapes, slide shows and radio programs documenting the rich cultural history of New York City's Chinatown. See Abigail Norman, Caryn Rogoff and Diana Agosta, Public Access Video Resources (New York, 1987)
12. Jamie Bufalino, Remote Possibilities, Time Out New York, 45 (1996), pp. 6-15
13. Bufalino, Remote Possibilities, p. 6
14. Todd Gitlin uses this term to describe the process by which subversive and resistant forms and practices are absorbed into the dominant culture. In time, these forms are appropriated by the culture industries and rearticulated to support the very same cultural values and ideologies these forms once challenged. See for example, Todd Gitlin, Primetime Ideology: the hegemonic process in television entertainment, in Horace Newcomb (ed.), Television: the critical view, 5th edn (New York, 1994)
15. ACT UP is a political action group formed in 1987 in response to the AIDS epidemic. 'ACT UP is a diverse, non-partisan group of individuals united in anger and committed to direct action to end the AIDS crisis. We advise and inform. We demonstrate. We are not silent', http://www.actupny.org
16. DIVA-TV homepage: http://www.actupny.org/diva/DIVA-TV.html