THE ELECTRONIC COMMONS Jefferson, Gramsci & the Electronic Commons by Mark Surman (msurman@io.org) ************************************ 2. THOMAS JEFFERSON GETS WIRED Thomas Jefferson sits at the centre of the American democratic myth. He is an icon of individualism, free speech for the common people, education and democratic rights. He is the "...most conspicuous of American apostles of democracy." His name conjures up a time in American history when the townsfolk gathered in town halls and in the commons to debate issues, and when the media was a "public sphere" filled with small, partisan newspapers. [SIDEBAR -- This idea comes from communications theorist Jurgen Habermas who argued that a "democratic public sphere" existed in the 18th and 19th centuries when small partisan presses and other minor institutions created the possibility of debate. Habermas claimed that the state and corporate media had destroyed the democratic public sphere by the beginning of the 20th century. (Kellner 1990, pp. 13 -14.)] In short, he represents all of the myths of America that started to sputter and zig-zag during the late 1960's. Offering itself up as an electronic commons in an age of weakening democratic myths, community access television was perfectly timed. Hippies and liberals alike argued that community access television could rekindle Jeffersonian democracy by providing a central soapbox (the commons) and media opportunities devoid of corporate control (the public sphere). Books, speeches and big-time magazine articles all trumpeted the coming of this democratic new age. In the introduction to his book, Video Power, Chuck Anderson describes this vision in all of its passion: "In a democratic society, active dialogue is held to be the ideal approach to problem solving. There was once a time when a broad representation of the community was able to get together in a town hall and hold this kind of dialogue." Anderson argued that such dialogue had been eliminated by the growth of cities, the power of experts and corporate media. He also argued that community TV could bring us back to that Jeffersonian Shangri-La: "By using the television set that is in everyone's living room as a forum for community self expression, we may be able to realize the democratic dialogue." >From this Jeffersonian vision the community access channel as electronic commons was born. Channels were opened up across North America to be used by everyone, free of charge on a first-come, first served basis. In many cases, access facilities included production equipment as well as a channel on which to air finished programs. Community members were free to say anything they wanted as long as it was not commercial, libelous or obscene. This Jeffersonian television was especially suited to America, as it was rooted in American myths. In 1972, the FCC mandated that cable operators in the 100 largest markets provide channels for "public access". In addition, the legal thinking of the time was that the First Amendment guaranteed a "...general public right of access to the media." But it was not just the legal and policy mood of America in the early seventies that kept the Jeffersonian vision of community television running _ this idea had resonated on a much deeper level. As one activist TV producer from New York has said, "...the gospel of access had spread quickly throughout the country." Despite the elimination of the FCC's access mandate in 1979, the number of open access channels grew in the US throughout the 1980's and the gospel continued to spread. Most American community channels continue to be run on an open access, first-come, first-served basis. Although it never became the rule in Canada, the vision of a Jeffersonian electronic commons made many border crossings during the 1970's. In its 1977 community channel handbook, The New Communicators, the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) said that "...cable technology makes it possible for people to have access to television as a citizen right." And this was not just talk. Many early Canadian community channels experimented with the open access, electronic commons model. In a 1973 article from the Challenge for Change Newsletter, Calgary community programming manager Wendy O'Flaherty explained that her policy "...was to permit and encourage unrestricted access to the channel by the public. No screening of users was practised, with the exception of screening out people with commercial purposes, groups with other resources available to them (schools), and avoiding duplication and overuse by evangelical religious groups." This sort of experiment with the electronic commons only made brief stays on Canadian soil. The problem that emerged with both American and Canadian experiments in totally open access channels was that they often did not create the great gardens of democracy that had been prophesied. It became obvious that simply opening up channels and providing equipment was almost as ineffective at creating social change as the laissez faire approach of the technological utopians. The people who showed up to use the community channels were often not the people the original access advocates had expected. As one example, O'Flaherty's open access channel in Calgary was used by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, local ego-trippers, the Aquarium Club and right wing evangelists. O'Flaherty also points out that "...virtually no use was made of the cable facilities by social action groups, social agencies, Challenge for Change, or other people interested in social change." Many American access channels still tend to be dominated by conservative groups and ego-trippers, with little representation from the real margins of society. These circumstances point to a key flaw in the electronic commons approach to community television _ it does not address media literacy, burnout in volunteer organizations, or the psychological relationship between social institutions (of which the access channel is one) and marginalized communities. American community channels faced an additional challenge _ cable operators were often reluctant to provide the funding needed to keep the electronic commons well maintained. There are dozens of stories about American cable companies reneging on access contracts, moving away from the open access model or shutting down access channels altogether. In Buffalo, New York _ where there is a thriving group of activist video makers using community TV _ there has been a broad range of difficulties associated with getting and maintaining the access channel. Until 1984, the access channel was controlled by a cable company that favoured censorship and made no connection between "access" and "free speech". Buffalo city council put control of the channel in the hands of the community in 1984, but it was a number of years before an organization with proper access guidelines and policies was given control of the channel and production facilities. Even though Buffalonians are now guaranteed access to their community channel, there continues to be conflict over First Amendment rights between the access channel board and a pro-censorship city council. Although other problems exist, Canadian community channels do not have problems with funding or local politicians, as the CRTC both universally mandates the terms of community channel operation and requires all cable companies with over 3000 subscribers to contribute at least five percent of their revenue to the community channel. Despite the problem of underuse by social change groups and the difficulty of maintaining funding in the US, the community channel as electronic commons is not a vision that should be discarded. American channels that run on this model still offer something unique _ a total guarantee of access to video distribution. Although this is not enough in itself, it does provide a good foundation from which to build new approaches to activist television. Before we look at these approaches, we should see how the Gramscian activist project style of community TV developed in Canada as an alternative to the problems of the open access model. ************************************************** For a complete version of this paper -- including pictures, sidebar commentary and a full bibliography -- contact Mark Surman (msurman@io.org) This paper is COPYRIGHT MARK SURMAN (1994). Permission is granted to duplicate, print or repost this paper as long as it is done on a non-commercial (ie. keep it free)and as long as the whole paper is kept intact. **************************************************