Using the Internet to avoid other democratic obligations/opportunities
A few years ago cities argued unsuccessfully at the Minnesota state legislature that the legal requirements for them to publish notices (they pay for the space) in local newspapers should be lifted because such notices could be put on a city website.
This story about a failed effort to get a public access cable channel going in a Florida town is worth noting:
Public access TV kept off the air | The Gainesville Sun | Gainesville, Fla.
“Several commissioners said they believe the growth of the Internet – particularly sites such as YouTube.com that allow people to post homemade movies – eliminates the need for public access television.”
This kind of thinking scares me. In this case, the local government already has their own cable channel that they control so it is easy to suggest citizens use something less equitable and powerful for sharing video in a local context. The Internet does allow you to reach a global audience with your video, but nothing I have seen allows you to easily find locally relevant video much less gain easy access to local people from a producers perspective. Finally, the Internet still isn’t on most people’s televisions for couch-based channel surfing serendipity.
Oh, in a related matter I think HDTV public broadcasters should be required to establish “best of” over the air public access sub-channels within their newer digital capacity. It is time to liberate the public access concept from the wires.
Steven Clift
P.S. For the scoop on public access cable and proposed telecommunication legislation in the U.S. see: www.alliancecm.org
April 18th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
July 13th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Steven – I don’t understand what you’re getting at with your comment about the Minnesota cities story. I participated in trying to make that particular argument. Our argument was that spending thousands of dollars each year on public notices in the back of the newspaper is not an effective way of communicating with our citizens. We find that bvery few people come to our public hearings because they saw a public notice in the newspaper. The argument was not about keeping information from citizens. It was about spending public money more wisely.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:29 am
It would be useful to know how much cities really spend on this and what they would do with those resources to meet that mission. What does Eden Praire spend each year? How about local governments around the state?
The problem is that most cities do not have strong online information “dissemination” systems nor the reach of newspapers. It would be quite easy to bury notices online on a government website in a much less visable way than in print. This requirement is based on a democratic principle of public disclosure, although I am sure the newspapers fought this because they want to keep the revenue.
I am interested however in changing the Minnesota open meeting law to require public notice of meetings online via a central state-wide online public meeting announcement/notices system with notification alert options. Each government unit would be able to also “skin” the content as if it were on their site. Perhaps then the requirement for newspaper publishing could be lifted or altered.
Steve
July 24th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Good points about how the internet can be used to diminish govts responsibility to secure access to the public sphere / public debate.
There isn’t enough discussion among more traditional advocates for public access and public radio and new media activists and bloggers. They can easily get pitted against each other or find themselves working at cross purposes without more strategic discussions and coordination.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Public Access pitted against You Tube in Florida
Steven Clift linked me to an article in the Gainesville Sun out of Florida on a community’s failed attempts to get a public access channel on their local TV. The paper reported that Alachua County commissioners in June joined the
August 29th, 2006 at 2:23 am