Pittsfield Community Television Operating Rules and Procedures
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
From Wayne's World to Yours: How to Succeed with Community Access Television
From Wayne’s World to Yours: How to Succeed with Community Access Television by Martin Cohn Many equate community television with the broadcast of local government meetings. However, community access channels, or CAT for short, fill a unique niche in the media landscape, providing communities with the opportunity to create programs of local interest. First, some history Public-access television came about with the rise of cable television in the late 1970s. In exchange for the rights to lay cable wires on public land, cable companies were required to donate a portion of their revenue to provide facilities and airtime to allow public comment. These agreements are negotiated on a municipality by-municipality basis. The idea was to give voice to ordinary citizens who otherwise wouldn’t have access to any media outlets. The Cable Franchise Policy and Communications Act of 1984 prohibited cable operators from exercising any editorial control over public-access channels. Community access TV became famous for its eccentric personalities and bizarre shows. This was the basis for the hit 1992 film, Wayne’s World. However, it has also been a venue for serious political and philosophical discussion, a place to find the recorded minutes of local town meetings or school board discussions, as well as a springboard for citizen journalism. Access systems have proliferated and access programming is now being cablecast regularly. How Community Access TV is structured Cable systems make available three different narrowcasting and specialty channels. These channels, often referred to as PEG, represent public, education, and government access use. Public access was construed to mean that the cable company should make available equipment and air time so that literally anybody could make noncommercial use of the access channel, and say and do anything they wished on a first-come, first-served basis, subject only to obscenity and libel laws. -
Preliminary Position Paper on the TV Consultation Submission
27 June 2014 John Traversy Secretary General CRTC Ottawa, ON K1A 0N2 Dear Mr. Secretary General, Re: Let’s Talk TV, Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2014‐190 (Ottawa, 24 April 2014) The Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC) is a non‐profit and non‐ partisan organization established to undertake research and policy analysis about communications, including broadcasting. The Forum supports a strong Canadian broadcasting system that serves the public’s interests. We are pleased to participate in the process initiated by Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2014‐190, as the outcome of this proceeding will set the course for Canadian television for the next decade or more. Our comments on the issues raised in the Commission’s notice are attached. We look forward to the opportunity of reviewing other comments submitted in this proceeding, and respectfully request the opportunity to appear before the Commission at its 8 September 2014 public hearing in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely yours, Monica L. Auer, M.A., LL.M. [email protected] Executive Director Canadian television in 2025: For the few, or for the many? Let’s Talk TV: A conversation with Canadians about the future of television, Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2013‐563 (Ottawa, 24 October 2013) Comments of the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications 27 June 2014 Contents Volume 1 Executive Summary I Introduction: Canadian television choices in 2025 1 A In a time of plenty, why limit choice through regulation? 1 B Canada’s regulatory framework for television must strengthen Canadian choices 4 C Procedural fairness issues 7 1 Clear notice should have been given about ethnic broadcasting policy review 7 2 Lack of timely and well‐designed research on public record puts the public at a disadvantage 8 D Outline of the Forum’s submission 14 II Why plan for 2025? Because Canada is changing. -
Indonesia Media and Telecoms Landscape Guide November 2012
1 Indonesia Media and Telecoms Landscape Guide November 2012 2 Index Introduction…………………………………………………………….……….3 Media overview……………………………………………………………….16 Media groups………………………………………………………………….30 Radio overview………………………………………………………………..39 Radio networks………………………………………………….…………….44 Television overview……………………………………………….…………..66 Television networks…………………………………………………………...74 Print overview………………………………………………………………….98 Newspapers…………………………………………………………………..103 Magazines…………………………………………………………………….121 Online media………………………………………………………………….124 News weBsites………………………………………………………………..128 Traditional and informal channels of communication……………………..131 Media resources………………………………………………………………133 Telecoms overview…………………………………………………………...141 Telecoms companies…………………………………………………………145 3 Introduction Indonesia is the largest and most populous country in Southeast Asia. It has become an economic and political powerhouse in the region, with a growing international profile. This chain of more than 6,000 inhabited islands had an estimated population of 242 million people in 2011, according to the World Bank. More than half the population lives on the island of Java, where the capital Jakarta is situated. This large island of 140 million people is one of the most densely populated places on earth. The overthrow of President Suharto in 1998 ended six decades of authoritarian rule. It ushered in a new era of democracy, freedom of speech and economic prosperity. The local media has blossomed in this environment. Over 1,500 private radio stations and more than -
And Governmental (PEG) Access Channels
7 Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Access Channels In December 1968, Dale cIty, VIrgInIa, launched what would be America’s first community access cable channel, DCTV.1 Broadcasting for one hour every Tuesday night, the station aired such programs as Ex Cons Tell It Like It Is, in which inmates of the nearby prison were interviewed; The Fire, an interview with the local fire chief after a devastat- ing fire; a Fourth of July parade and carnival; and local sporting events such as Little League baseball, Little League football, and a soapbox derby.2 Around the same time, George Stoney, considered the “father” of public access television, was in Canada, working on a program called Challenge for Change. He filmed low-income citizens talking about their lives and then showed the films to local communities and government officials to raise awareness.3 Impressed by the quality and im- pact of this first effort, Stoney returned to New York, where he helped found the Alternate Media Center at New York University.4 Funded by local cable companies and the National Endowment for the Arts, the center trained “public access interns” from around the country and then sent them back to establish local community media access centers in their own neighborhoods.5 As more cable companies began to seek local franchises to create infrastructure in a community, many local franchising authorities (LFAs)—most often local governments—began to require cable operators to set aside public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access channels.6 Today, about 75 percent of franchises charge cable operators franchise fees, some of which may be allocated to support one or more of the three types of PEG operations at the LFA’s discretion. -
A Scoping Study Final Technical Report
Community Television for the poor – A Scoping Study Final Technical Report “the one to watch – literally?” FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Contract Number R8351 Research Team S Batchelor (Gamos) N Scott (Gamos) G Eastwick (Gamos) Project Team C Armstrong (LINK Centre, Wits University, Johannesburg) R Otsyina (DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES LIMITED Tanzania) O Sakyi Dawson (University of Ghana) L Figueroa de Pacheco (ARCA) M Webb (Big World) D Rushton (Institute of Local Television UK) Funded by: Department for International Development (DFID) No 1 Palace Street London SW1E 5HE, UK Gamos Ltd Crown House 231 Kings Road Reading RG1 4LS UK This research can be found at www.tv4d.org Research Team www.gamos.org S Batchelor (Gamos) N Scott (Gamos) G Eastwick (Gamos) Project Team C Armstrong (LINK Centre, Wits University, Johannesburg) http://link.wits.ac.za/ R Otsyina (DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES LIMITED Tanzania) O Sakyi Dawson (University of Ghana) L Figueroa de Pacheco (ARCA) www.arca-associates.org M Webb (Big World) www.big-world.org D Rushton (Institute of Local Television UK) This document is an output from a project funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the DFID. Copyright 2005 1. Executive Summary The Purpose of the research was to explore the opportunities presented by digital convergence for locally produced and broadcast integrated television & radio for development education, development communication strategies and local content capture -
Access Television and Grassroots Political Communication in the United States Laura Stein, Ph.D
Access Television and Grassroots Political Communication in the United States Laura Stein, Ph.D. Radio-Television-Film Department University of Texas at Austin CMA 6.118 Austin, TX 78712 Published in: Stein, L. (2001). Access Television and Grassroots Political Communication in the United States. In J. Downing (with Ford, T.V., Gill, G. and Stein, L.), Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements. California: Sage Publications, pp. 299-324. Running Head: ACCESS TELEVISION AND POLITICAL COMMUNICATION Access Television & Political Communication 2 Access Television and Grassroots Political Communication in the United States Public access television began in North America in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a radical experiment in democratic communication. Access television supporters hoped to break the lock which commercial interests held on the television medium by bringing non-profit, grassroots political and cultural programming directly to people's living rooms. By securing inexpensive access to production resources and facilities, such as cameras, microphones, studios, and editing equipment, ordinary citizens would be able to construct their own televisual messages and to bypass the framing devices of professional, corporate media.1 Distribution would be accomplished by cablecasting programs on a first-come, first-served basis over local cable systems. Supporters envisioned access television as a public space where, liberated from the economic and editorial constraints of commercial television production, citizens could air their views over the most powerful and pervasive communications medium of the era. With twenty-five years of access television practice behind us and calls for access to yet another new technology -- the computer network -- before us, the question should be asked: Is access television an effective tool for democratic communication? One way to gauge the democratic potential of access television is to examine the strategic use of this resource by radical media projects.