The notion that community groups with a few camcorders, radio mikes and web sites would effectively challenge the moguls of corporate trans-global media is absurd. The very notion of this sort of comparison is inconsistent with the goals and practice of most community media.

In the community media world, there is a different operational framework of production: to begin with, the relationship between makers and watchers is not at all the same. In fact, the term 'watchers' is not descriptive of that relationship. 'Users' or 'user/participants' is perhaps more appropriate. Community media is often part of a larger process of community activities which can include environmental organising, alternative health care, community self-defence, labour union mobilisation and/or hundreds of other civic and creative projects. Video, radio and computer/web activities are integrated into the structure of this activity.

Access to Television

Although video made by community groups is most often shown in closed circuit exhibition, and usually not produced specifically for TV transmission, the obvious benefits from program exchange and diffusion have made the issue of television access a focus for many groups. The search for channel space and co-operative television administrations has become a challenge to local and state broadcasters.

Public access cable is an attempt to create a public sphere within a cable infrastructure which was initiated in the USA in the late sixties. Many regularly scheduled television programs are made for local networks, some of which have been running for over ten years. The subjects can range from astrology, call-in shows to discussions of spousal abuse. In the United States, the numbers of public channels and extent of equipment and facilities available are negotiated by the cable corporation and the local governments in the process of franchising. This process can be quite complex and can take several years to finalise. The structures resulting from the negotiations, known as 'access' or 'PEG' (public, educational and governmental) channels have created an informal network of non-commercial makers and viewers in several thousand cities and towns in the United States. Two experiments that have utilised the resources of the public access arena are Paper Tiger Television and the Deep Dish Network.

Paper Tiger

Paper Tiger is a weekly program that critiques the media. It has been shown every week on Manhattan Cable for over sixteen years. In 1991 it began a series of programs hosted by communication professor Herbert I. Schiller, who provided a commentary on how the New York Times influences the cultural and political climate of the United States, and indeed the world. Since that time, almost three hundred programs have been produced by the collective. The format proudly proclaims the series to be "cheap TV". The set consists of a hand-painted back-drop and a simple kitchen chair. The titles are scribbled on hand cards, or drawn out on brown wrapping paper. There is no attempt to hide the process of actually making the program. Paper Tiger's hand-made programs contrast with the seamlessness of network glitz. The idea is to show how programs are made, to lift the veils of technocracy and glamour and to reveal the bias and deception often at work in main stream media. The end titles (home-made, of course) proclaim the program's cheapness by announcing its actual budget: often under $200.

The Paper Tiger Collective is a rag-tag mixture of media makers and technicians, communications students and professors, artists and workers. From its inception, the idea has been to create a model that would favour content over style. The content is a weekly commentary on the media. Increasingly this sort of critique, or for that matter any appearance by intellectuals and researchers, is absent from commercial television in the US. Except for the 'scientists' in a few 'gee whiz' science shows, or the tweedy historians in documentaries, intellectual thought is not considered viable fare for commercial television. Consolidation of media companies has meant that almost all television entities, from program providers to station owners, are connected through parent corporations seeking to maximise audiences.

Deep Dish Satellite Network

In 1986, the Paper Tiger Collective organised a series of programs to be distributed via satellite in the US. to create the Deep Dish Network. This title is indicative of the effort to provide nutritious and profound programming. In the US. access to commercial satellites is open to those who can pay for the transponder rental and the up-link costs. The idea was to rent a transponder which could be received by public access channels throughout the country. Programs would be compilations from independent and community programs, organised around specific issues and beamed (up-linked) to satellite on a weekly basis. Local channels would receive the programs, tape them and put them on their local channel. The first series was highly successful and Deep Dish became its own organisation, with its own office and board of directors.

Deep Dish is a model of how satellite technology can create networks of interest. By organising the programming around issues from many different geographical sources, the network re-connects often scattered and isolated movements. By identifying producers and groups from around the country, Deep Dish uses video to create community, to bring people together who might not know about each other.

Global Movement for Community Media

Community media is often treated as historically insignificant but many groups are actively building an authentic 'public sphere' in their communities and deserve serious consideration not only in academic study, but in public service funding and infrastructure assistance. These organisations also deserve to be considered as legitimate providers of important global information, on the forefront of useful experiments in communication development. Community media and Grassroots pioneers need to be accorded recognition in the official discussions of global telecommunications at fora such as the ITU (The international Telecommunication Union) and UNESCO.

UNESCO could assist in facilitating the process of global exchange between community media organisations. In addition, non-governmental organisations who have community media as their focus would be useful members of the ITU which is currently made up of governments and industry. There is currently no official representation at the ITU for non-commercial, educational grass roots media. The ITU and the World Trade Organisation regulate the international movement of information, mostly answering to the interest of the industry and the most powerful governments, although the structure of the ITU was originally one country, one vote.

The global communication industry is officially regulated by the ITU in terms of assignment of orbits and spectrum. The deployment of the vast stream of entertainment and advertising requires the use of the public airwaves and public orbital space for dissemination. These paths are resources that belong to all the world's people. Regulation of these spaces could include a mandate to ensure that there is a public 'pay back' for this use of the global resources. Fees for use could provide resources for education and development. A fund could be set up to create facilities and initiate training for local media creation.

Participatory Communication = Participatory Democracy

Communication technology can be used to facilitate participatory democracy and an active citizenry. The development of computer and low cost video technology has vast potential for real popular participation and decentralisation which can foster cultural diversity and humanitarian values. International organisations can assist in ensuring that these technologies have a positive and constructive role in the lives of the world's people.

DeeDee Halleck [dhalleck@weber.ucsd.edu]