Philadelphia Community Access Coalition
				Home | About | Join | Act | Contact | Search | News | Calendar

MR. BRAND: My name is Keith Brand and I'm an adjunct professor of communications at Ursinus College. I'm also a radio broadcaster in Philadelphia and a member of the Philadelphia Community Access Coalition.

You had asked earlier what you thought some of the reasons were that after 15 years, we still have no public access television here in the City of Philadelphia. Let me only point so far as to say that we invited members of the Administration, the Mayor's office, the Public Policy Commissioner to be here at these very important hearings. And as you can look around, we were informed that they were told that they were not to participate in these hearings.

Also a little anecdote. My own radio station that I work at, I had scheduled an interview with them on public access cable television. The interview was cancelled after I was told that they were afraid of offending Comcast Corporation and some of the money that they may be able to get from that very large corporation.

So I think those are two of the forces that are here at work today trying to prevent public access from happening here in Philadelphia.

COUNCILMAN ORTIZ: Comcast came before Council and said that they are pro-public access.

MR. BRAND: I'm sure they have.

COUNCILMAN ORTIZ: And that they are putting forward the money as per the contract.

MR. BRAND: (Nods.)

COUNCILMAN ORTIZ: So I don't understand why they would be offending Comcast when Comcast is saying that there's no problem with fulfilling the pledge that they made to the City in 1983.

MR. BRAND: I would say I have no -- I can't understand why an interview about the subject of public access cable television would so offend my own radio station that they would have to cancel it.

But before I do my presentation, I would just like to direct your attention to a video that we have, if that's ready. We have a video presentation. We understand that a while ago you saw -- some Councilmembers some of what is termed the "objectionable programming" on public access. We have a brief video that I think more clearly represents the kinds of programming that you will see on public access cable television stations around the country.

And that will be followed by a presentation by Tom Cronin, the President of AFSME District Council 47.

Is that presentation ready? Maybe we could probably just hit "play." I think that that's actually probably queued up.

(Councilman Rizzo attempts to play above-mentioned video.)

MR. BRAND: Thank you, Councilman Rizzo.

(Video not shown due to mechanical difficulties.)

MR. BRAND: Okay, maybe we can get this working at a later time during the hearings.

COUNCILMAN COHEN: Yes. We'll see.

MR. BRAND: All right. Then I'm just going to go ahead with my presentation now.

COUNCILMAN COHEN: Please do.

MR. BRAND: Imagine that you've invited a guest into your home. This guest will act as a babysitter, provide you with the latest national and local news, let you know about new products that you might be interested in purchasing, keep you abreast of the latest trends, and can entertain you for hours on end. And all of these wonderful services, you don't have to pay a penny for.

If this sounds too good to be true, you're probably right. But for the past 30 years, this guest has been a prominent member of most of our homes. It's accorded a place of honor in our living rooms, and we engage in a discussion of popular culture with it for three to four hours every day. In the 1960s, television became a de facto member of most of our households, and we were all too willing to invite it in, warming ourselves in the glow of its constantly flickering images.

Since that time, television has come to rival many of our major institutions in its ability to transmit values, attitudes, and beliefs to the people that watch it. And yet, we bestow this power willingly, not fully understanding that it can shape tastes, set the agenda for news, and deliver information on a mass scale inconceivable just a few short decades ago. And for this awesome ability to inform and entertain, it is beholden to no one -- but its shareholders and advertisers.

Fully understanding television's power to transmit images of our culture to a mass audience, communities around the country began reserving cable channels for their own use. Public access cable television was started in the '60s as a way to give television back to the people. It's a simple idea. In exchange for being granted a monopoly, cable companies were reserved channels for local use.

Anybody with an idea can be given tools, training, technology to deliver their program to all the people within the cable channels' reach. No one tell you your idea's too trivial to produce. If you're willing to make it, cable access will take it.

I've been involved in this struggle to bring cable access to Philadelphia since 1990. At first, my purpose was purely academic. What was apparent was the technology issue coupled with a peculiar public policy problem. I must admit it seemed then and still seems a quintessentially Philadelphia problem that we are unable to move ahead on an issue that could be resolved so easily.

We haven't come before you today to claim that instituting public access cable television will solve the City's problems. It won't by itself provide the technological infrastructure that will allow all of the people to have access to these wonderful new communications technologies. But in studying the medium inn in city after city, dealing with the same social, political, and racial problems that plague Philadelphia, public access cable television has significantly contributed to the public good. Access to the unrestricted flow of information and the ability to craft messages for the public is an empowering tool to build an educated populace and a vital democracy.

Public access cable television has the potential to act in synergy with all of our great cultural, social, and public-health institutions here in the City of Philadelphia. Each of these groups relies on educating the public in some way to achieve their goals. And you have here, in the medium of television, the greatest potential for the dissemination of information since the invention of a free public education. The walls of ignorance still dwarf of walls of knowledge.

I urge you not to listen to the nay-sayers who will try to convince you that these programs are worthless or destructive. I urge you not to listen to the Mayor who says he's trying to protect us from public access cable television. Thank you very much, Mr. Rendell, but the people of the City of Philadelphia have the ultimate power to decide if they object to the ideas brought forth on these channels.

Just like on every other cable television that inhabits our 80-channel universe, if you don't like what you see, turn it off.

(Applause.)

MR. BRAND: I can't promises that public access might not offend you. What I can assure you is that this argument is much ado about nothing. A number of our presentations on this panel will talk more at length about what is called "objectionable programming."

As Bunnie Riedel said a little bit earlier, the total percentage of objectionable programming in major cities around the country is less that 1 percent, and responsible public access systems has managed to create a dialogue about controversial issues by creative programming. Please don't use this as excuse to stifle one of the most interesting communications media invented in the last 30 years. City government does not have to protect us from our own ideas.

Let us move forward with the vision of a city participating in a major communications technology. Let us finally start laying the foundation of a technological infrastructure that can benefit all the children for years to come. Let us finally start implementing a solution to the scarcity of information that is available on many issues here in the city.

Public access cable television is a relatively inexpensive fix that has the ability to work in concert with many of our more established institutions that are striving to solve these problems. Ultimately, City Councilmembers, it is your responsibility to make this happen.

COUNCILMAN COHEN: Thank you.

(Applause.)

COUNCILMAN COHEN: Speaking on behalf of at least some Councilmembers, we wish that it were so. It would have happened a long time ago if City Council could have done it. The fact of the matter is that we operate in a climate where we have a strong mayoral form of government, and what we need to do is, at this stage, is to reach whoever is the executive officer of the City.

There's about to be a change in six months. We're going to be having a campaign for the next four and a half months to determine the next mayor of the city. I hope that many of your talents are in the direction of influencing the content of that campaign, particularly with respect to public access. I think every campaign meeting ought to have people prepared to speak up on behalf public access.

You are really the experts beyond anything any of us could do in reaching people. Because if you can reach people during this campaign, you have the hopes of having a mayor who will understand that public access is not an enemy to be feared, but a tool to accomplish the kind of public service Philadelphians expect of their mayors. And so we're saying to you that your particular talents have to also be devoted to reaching the broadest possible group to exercise the kind of political influence that voters have.

Everybody can vote. There are going to be two major candidates; there may be others for the office of mayor. It's very important that this campaign for the mayor and for the election of City Councilmembers, as well, you know, concentrate heavily on this question, which I think is very important.

And I think we've got to find out whether or not the cable channels and the regular TV stations are obstacles. I'm not so sure. I know Mr. Richette said earlier that there need be no loss of income, but I think that maybe people are concerned -- business people who own these channels of communication may be very concerned about potential loss of income. Or they want total control of what news gets out to the people.

Public access, as I understand it, means there's going to be an unfettered expression of points of view, and there may be groups concerned.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Mr. Cohen, you're filibustering. We need to get on here.

COUNCILMAN COHEN: All right, all right. The next member of the panel. Go ahead, sir.

Previous (LOUIS MESSIAH)

Index of All Testifiers

Next (ANTHONY RIDDLE)