Community Video Report (Winter 1974)

Winter, 1974. Volume one, Number three A publication of the Washington Community Video Center Cable television action plan begun by D.C.City Council D.C. City Councilwoman Antoinette Ford, who heads the Committee on Economic Development and Manpower which has jurisdiction over cable television matters, has launched a program of public education, research, and planning that she hopes will result in a cable ordinance by the end of the summer. The program, which was announced January 25, includes the following features: —The formation of a Community Education Cable TV Task Force that will plan and execute a campaign of education about the issues of cable TV to community groups and the general public; —The establishment of a Technical/ Legal/Business Advisory Task Force that would aid the Council in preparing materials for inclusion in an ordinance, and “to respond to issues that come from the community during the educational process’’; —Public hearings—perhaps de-centralized throughout the city—that would attempt to draw a _ broader public _ inyolyement in this decision than has been ~ehewease in the past: —Creation of an ordinance following the first three phases. The Education Task Force has already been appointed and includes most of the community video and cable groups that have been in touch’ with her since she was appointed to chair the committee dealing with cable. _No appointments have been made to the Technical/Legal/Business Advisory Task Force, although Ms. Ford said that private Ledbetter has been in touch with her and will be a member. Other members could include ‘experts like economists, communications lawyers, and, perhaps those interested in haying a franchise here.”’ Hearings for summer Ms. Ford hopes that the Education Task Force, which is already planning its work, will accomplish its goal of reaching many more citizens within the District by late spring-early summer, so that the Council Committee can go to public hearings by summer. Drafting of an ordinance* will follow. Although the timetable she outlined coincides precisely with the upcoming referendum on home rule in the District and the subsequent November elections, Ms. Ford insists that cable should not become a political issue. “It would be unwise to look at this issue for political purposes, or to try to time it to come before home rule or the elections.” Ms. Ford, a Republican and a relative political unknown in the District, is known to be interested in eampaigning for one of the .st-larce seats on the Corneil. Atierition ponerated by this issue would certainiyioet harm her. The Community Education Task Force is temporarily chaired by Curt White, an attorney who heads the Coalition for an Equitable Share of Cable Systems, the city’s primary black cable action group. Other members include representatives from CAFAM III, Project Accountability. Washington Community Video Center—all grassroots video projects—the Anacostia town project, Cable Communications Kesource Center (a national group working for minority-owned franchises), Center for Human Development (a local government group), Office of Minority Business Opportunity, GW University Community Legal Clinic, and the Adams-Morgan Organization Cable TV Committee. The Education Task Force has been assured by Ms. Ford that a budget for developing materials, media exposure, a. videotape presentation, and a “traveling roadshow’ about cable TV, among other items, is reasonable for the Council to assist in funding. Once the Education Task Force has begun its program, the Legal/Technical/ Business panel will be appointed and begin D.C. video coalition set forhome rule tapes By Grady Watts Four video groups working in different neighborhoods in Washington during the last] several years have formed a coalition for purposes of undertaking joint projects that are city-wide in scope. During the past, it has been difficult for video people to unite on more than an ad hoc basis, but the D.C. Video Coalition may change that. The imminent referendum on the federal home rule legislation recently passed by Congress was the issue that brought together CAFAM III (working in Shaw), Project Accountability (in Anacostia), Washington Community Video Center (Adams-Morgan & central NW), and the Anacostia Neighborhood Museum. Recognizing that an urgent public education task was a priority if D.C. citizens were to make aninformed votein May on this crucial local issue the video groums deeided to band together todiscuss a nationwide project with representatives of the city government. DCVC contracted with the D.C. BiCentennial Commission to produce videotapes on the home rule bill, primarily by taping a seminar on the bill held by the D.C. City Council for community leaders. Four tapes have been edited trom the day-long session and will be distributed by DCVC member groups, as well as throught the D.C. Public Library. communications consultant Theodore Neighborhood Museum, Ft. Lincoln new functioning, says Ms. Ford. |continued, see COALITION, p. 7] Theory and practice of community video By Nick DeMartino “Power is no longer measured in land, labor or capital, but by access to information and the means to disseminate it. As long as the most powerful tools (not weapons) are in the hands of those who would hoard them, no alternative cultural vision can succeed. Unless we design and implement alternative information sturctures which transcend and reconfigure the existing ones, other alternative systems and life styles will be no more than products of the existing process. Radical Software, Vol. 1 #3 “Alternative information structures” have sprung up throughout America at an ever-accelerating pace, and, while, most share some basic assumptions, the goals, methods, and results will differ widely according to the time, place, and institutional arrangements and access to audiences they display. The Washington Community Video Center (WCVC) opened about a year ago as a community-wide media action and training center within the Adams-Morgan neighborhood, the city of Washington, the D.C.-Baltimore metro area. Unlike video access centers in communities with cable television installed, WCVC is not primarily an equipment pool or an open access facility. Although we have been operating as a collective, our work doesn’t really much resemble the videofreaky, alternative culture production collectives of the early days of video. We are independent from any institutional control, although we often work with or for such organizations. Neither are we a school in the traditional sense, nor a video theatre, although the project has elements of all of the above. Like most groups the WCVC has access to only a limited amount of resources—equipment, staff, operating expenses, and time. Furthermore, as I discuss below, we have access to audiences only when we create the methods to reach them ourselves. Thus, our priorities have developed out of a scarcity of resources and access in our particular time and place. Our primary goals are to develop programs that awaken or catalyze people into (1) seeing that media can be used to help them; and (2) to understand the best way to accomplish these goals with media; (3) to learn the necessary techniques; and (4) to undertake projects that will draw more people into the process. Our work is based on a theory which says that video and other alternative uses of media must complete a whole communications process in order to be effective, in order to achieve goals. Video must be a complete system, not just ina theoretical sense, but as a practical reality. Communications is, by definition, a two-way process, requiring stimulus and response, as Gene Youngblood has pointed out. Technologies like TV, film, newspapers, etc, which we ordinarily consider as ‘“communications” systems, are, in fact, only one-way distribution systems for information in one form or another. They do not allow for any response, or, as it is usually called in video—feedback. It is imperative to incorporate participation and feedback into any kind of video project, and that means thinking through the entire communications loop from inception of the idea through production and distribution to an audience, the method of feedback, and the effect of the whole project. If you do that, you may discoyer two very general kinds of videotape categories. We have called them ‘‘process”” ard “product” video. Process Video Much has been written about the video process, the unique capability of this medium for instantaneous playback, thus instant feedback and involvement. Certainly for the average person, the idea of “‘seeing yourself on TV” is the most exotic and exciting aspect of video, and it is the experience which underlies both the tremendous fascination and enormous fear that various people have when being introduced to videotape. To look at yourself and others live or on tape is a startting and powerful experience—sometimes positive, often negative. We’ve found as a rule that kids generally love it, older people more often fear it, that the majority in between have mixed feelings, and that everyone is curious about it. “Process video” focuses upon-and explores the potential of the video experience in its many shapes and forms. The primary object is the interaction between the person or group and the machine. The value of process video is almost exclusively to the participants, although tapes from “‘process’’ events can be interesting and worthwhile. ‘‘Process’’ video always takes into account that the presence of the machine alters the experience. We have done many process videotapes. In July th: WCVC opened a Video Theatre. We advertised in the Daily Rag: ‘Neighborhood Television: Free!! Every Tuesday [continued on p. 8|