��ƷSM����ӰƬ

Intro: 

Openness of the political process and the ability for free people to govern themselves are necessary requisites in a democratic society (Zassoursky 2002:427). In order for people to govern themselves they must have access to information and the ability to “participate in public debate, elections, and political activity” (Kellner2003:1). One of the most important vehicles for this information and empowerment is the media and freedom of the press.

The United States Constitution separates power between judiciary, executive and legislative branches to help ensure the balance of powers between political institutions. In France, after the French revolution, the media were conceived as the “Fourth Estate” to provide “checks and balances against corruption and excessive state power” (Kellner 2003:1). Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are recognized by the United Nations as human rights – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 states “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” accessed November 2012).

The amenity potential, or private benefits of control, arising from media outlet ownership is extremely high. Beyond the financial benefits realized by media owners, some benefits include fame and influence. These benefits are different in media ownership than ownership in most other industries – the influence of a newspaper owner in a community is much different than the influence the owner of the automotive repair shop has in that same community (Djankov et al. 2001:3). This influence is different because the owner of the newspaper controls the information that the community receives. This is the same for radio, television and other types of media.

Baudrillard (1981) suggests that an undemocratic speech-without-response situation becomes widespread in the event of media consolidation. Further, the ideas and voices that are transgressive or subversive will never get “on the air” without being negated, neutralized and eviscerated of their meaning (173). This is both a product of the homogenization of media content and of the rule of hegemony, which excludes subversive voices that are not in line with hegemonic ideology in the United States. Kellner (2003) corroborates Baudrillard’s theory suggesting that corporate media “promote their own interests and agendas” by utilizing their “powerful instruments of communication to advance their own corporate interests and those of politicians and policies that they favor” (2). This leads to the loss of the media’s democratic function; a loss of the ability to debate issues of social and political importance and to act as a check against corruption, questionable policies and excessive corporate and government power.

Kellner (2003) agrees that the corporate media no longer serve their democratic purpose, arguing that the corporate media have surrendered their responsibilities to serve the public. The corporate media have become arms of conservative and corporate interests (3). The forum for democratic debate is no longer in the corporate media. A democratic, free press should have an adversarial relationship to the state in the service of public interest (Zassoursky 2002:427). While some community media outlets, and even some commercial outlets, occasionally fulfill this duty, it is rare. This has resulted in an alternative media that has been increasing since the 1960s.

In the alternative television movement we see that the artists and activists of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s were able to not only capitalize on emerging technologies, such as Sony’s Portapak, but were also able to cultivate a sense of community around the alternative production of content. Though the aims of these activists and artists were not all the same, with some privileging process over product or vice-versa, what we see in them is a new potential for human expression and public capacity for media production in the latter half of the twentieth century. What is interesting to point out is the fact that many of the outlets for these alternative visions were, in fact, created initially by the capitalist corporations against which these activists were resisting.

What follows is a brief thirty year history of the alternative television movement. In it you will find important information about many of the crucial events and actors, but my intent is to point these out in an effort to revitalize hope that the general citizenry has had in the past, and does have, the capacity to produce media that is independent and valuable. In the information age, perhaps the internet and YouTube are the new public access cable networks. Whatever the case, this history outlines important resistances to the culture industry.

by Tyler Rollins