ADVOCACY FOR INDEPENDENT TV I'm sure the Congressman has come to the conclusion that the public enjoys watching people being ridiculed or operated on, being preached at by fundamentalist preachers, or as an alternative, watches conspiracy theorist talk shows on cable access or pretentious and unimaginative stuff on PBS. I have evenings when I'd just like to watch something a little good and I spend an hour or so clicking that remote in a fruitless quest. I genuinely want to like television. And every so often I see something really good. I will never forget seeing the Life and Times of Harvey Milk on public television -- completely by accident. If Congressman Doggett has not seen the documentary, I strongly recommend it not only as an example of fine independent filmmaking but also as an example of a film that come from a community (in this case the San Francisco gay community) that was deeply committed to social change. The Right has called for censorship to correct the problem - and I agree we do have a problem in the content seen on television. Eliminate the bad language and maybe even some of the violence and maybe a few of the commercials replaced by psa's but certainly eliminate any mention of the ugly realities of modern American life and what's left -- the cultural world according to Lynn Cheney or William Bennett? Pat Buchanan? The response of the left has been in part to analyze, and to criticize the conglomeration of corporate interest that extends into the public sector with a vengeance. We fight a defensive battle against the more and more commercial and homogenized view of American life on television. This I think is correct, but I don't think scholarly papers will make for great American public television. What will? What can the Congressman support that will make a difference in the viewing lives of his constituents? 1. Do everything he can to hang on to what we've got - even though we criticize it a lot. By that I mean CPB, PBS, our local cable channel. 2. Try to regulate commercial television and cable systems so that they provide non-commercial space in the form of psa's, news and public affairs programs, children's programs. Go back to the old cable access requirement for cable franchises. Make sure that all these new channels attached to PBS provide space for independent work as well as other PBS stations. In 1998, I put together an 8-hour series of independent work (mine and other Appalshop filmmakers) about rural issues and culture. Over a hundred PBS stations in 34 states aired at least some of the programs - most aired all. 3. Fund national and state arts and humanities councils and programs like ITVS and POV that provide money and air space to independents. 4. Understand that at least some of "diversity" is connected to locality, community, and region as well as race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual preference. For example, in Kentucky, the statewide PBS realized that there was little or no representation of the eastern Appalachian part of the State on its station and that there were some very important state legislators that were concerned. Not only did they open space to independents, they created a fund for independent production funded by the state legislature that puts at least $200,000 a year directly into the hands of independent Kentucky based producers. Ever wonder why so many of the programs on the national PBS series, POV, come from Kentucky? Wouldn't it be great if Texas stations also made a similar commitment to lobby state government on behalf of Texas independents? 5. Do everything possible to redefine public television (and art in general) as a part of people's lives and not just for the elite. Probably the first step in that is to be honest about class and make sure working class people are actually represented on public television. Another is to fund work that speaks to issues that affect every day life in this country. Related to that idea, I'd like to give the Congressman a copy of my documentary Fast Food Women -- which was on PBS and the Learning Channel awhile back. It became part of Hilary Clinton's efforts to address health insurance for the working poor. And it's the kind of documentary, I continue to have great difficulty finding the funding to produce or the air-space to broadcast. Anne Lewis Independent Filmmaker Lecturer, UT Austin
On AIVF Media Advocacy Day - Oct. 1, 2003 1. Support funding for independents on public television Because we need to protect and fight for every small piece of public space we have left. There's not much left! This administration will try to get rid of every thing that's public except the police and military -- explicitly stated in funding policies and actions. The administration is a destroyer of freedom of speech, enforced by claims that telling the truth is an attack on patriotism, and deliberately limits artistic and intellectual expression since it doesn't create commercial profit. The resulting lack of representation of working people, the poor, minorities, and women as well as the rural heartland of the country is truly destabilizing. It will lead to greater inequality and resulting violence. 2. Regulate the airways to preserve the public interest Well we've successfully fought a battle against the FCC. But that's coming at the end of a disaster of a decade for independent media makers and the American public. Just look at the news. It's hard to find any. I saw more realistic war footage than I've seen in months as part of "the Blues." Of course that was the Vietnam War in a cultural program. There's got to be a way to have the airways somewhat regulated so that diversity is respected and the needs of the public are honored. So please support increased Congressional oversight of the airways to promote the grassroots, racial and class diversity, and an independent, non-commercial viewpoint. We already have plenty which represents the right and the interests of corporations. 3. Support intellectual property legislation that balances copyright incentives and public domain protections Sure we all want some protection of our intellectual property, but not as a way to limit public access to material that should be in the public domain. Copyright should expire after 50 years except when renewed by the author. Who are we protecting anyway with the new copyright law? My guess is mainly large companies that ripped off artists to begin with. 4. A foot note The 2003 Appalshop independent series "Headwaters: Real Stories from Rural America" which I produce, is receiving more than 50% coverage nationwide. There continues to be interest in independent work that represents other than corporate interest. Here's a viewer comment from a Texas viewer: "Feminists are so rarely acknowledged for our accomplishments on behalf of women I cried when you did. Thank you so much for validating 30 years of my life's work."
|