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

MR. RICHETTE: Thank you. My name is Lawrence Richette. I'm a reporter, independent media maker, and an activist.

First let me thank City Council for offering all of us here a chance to comment on the issue of public access in front of you today.

There's a couple of aspects of this problem, and I'm going to start with the political one since we're in a political body.

COUNCILMAN COHEN: You have to hold the microphone close to you.

MR. RICHETTE: The most important videotape shot in the past decade in American was not made by commercial television. It was the videotape on a camcorder of Rodney King being beaten by the Los Angeles Police Department. That videotape of Rodney King shot, as I said, by a private citizen, who then had to go shop it around to the local news departments of Los Angeles.

And it almost did not make it onto local Los Angeles TV, all right? That's a videotape that changed history of Los Angeles definitely, and it possibly changed the history of this country. And it almost did not make it onto television, all right? If he had not had the possibility of public access, that videotape would not exist in anybody's mind except for the person made it, so we would not know a very important fact.

One of the aspects of being a journalist in this country, which I've encountered now, being a professional reporter for many years, is what A.J. Liebling (ph.) said -- that freedom of the press is guaranteed to those who own one. And that is true about reporters, that is true about newspapers; that is not true about television and public access television. Because everybody in this room, whether we know it or not, owns those airwaves, all right? It is a public trust. We gave the cable companies those airwaves, which belong to us, in exchange for this contract, this franchise contract, which provided for public access TV.

They did not create those airwaves, all right? Those airwaves were the property of the citizens of this city. And I think we should remember that in analyzing this situation. It's not a situation in which they owe us something, all right? It's a situation in which we gave them a very, very profitable, lucrative set of channels, bandwidths. And the political problem is, how do we get the to honor their side of the obligation? But we own those airwaves, that's a political problem.

The cultural situation in Philadelphia is, as we all know, it's enjoying a bit of a cultural rebirth with the Avenue of the Arts, we have large-scale institutions going up like the new orchestra building, the ballet, the Wilma Theater. They're all getting new homes and new visibility. But as somebody who works in the arts every day, I don't believe that large-scale construction projects are going to create a vibrant cultural scene in Philadelphia. At the same time, artists that I know in every ethnic group are struggling harder than they ever have to reach the public in Philadelphia.

Now, it's the nature of the arts and culture that a lot of people will try and fail and a few will succeed. That's just the nature of the arts. But if we offer young artists from the Black, Asian, Hispanic, gay communities the chance to go on public access TV and give them the opportunity to go ton on the airwaves, which they own as they own, as I said, that change the odds against success in the cultural scene in Philadelphia.

Right now, today, there could be a young black girl who's a singer at the High School of the Performing Arts on Broad Street, and she literally has no chance to reach any audience that's larger than her friends and her family and, I guess, her classmates.

Now, she could be a dancer, she could be the next Tracy Chapman, she could be the next Cecily Tyson, but you and I would never know because the way the cultural scene in Philadelphia is structured right now, it favors large-scale institutions that cater to very conservative audiences, employing very well-known artists, okay? Public access could change that equation dramatically and overnight. The face of culture in Philadelphia, in my opinion, is too often the fact of white, middle-class, straight, established artists whose work doesn't challenge anybody.

If we can enforce the public access ordinance, we could make a hundred flowers bloom in this cultural scene. And today, we're often too choosing between varieties of the same hothouse plant -- whether its the opera, the ballet, or even the Wilma Theater, it's pretty much the same kind of cultural fare.

Public access will encourage diversity, pluralism, and will also give young people and minority artists who have an especially difficult road of breaking into the arts, it will give them a chance to develop their artistry in front of the entire public of the City of Philadelphia. I don't think you can underestimate that. If we are serious in this city about encouraging young people and minorities and culture rather than just giving lip service to diversity -- which this administration all too often does, merely give lip service -- then public access is not just a legal requirement under the ordinance, but it's a moral imperative, just like education's a moral imperative in this city.

The other aspect of this issue I wanted to stress, 'cause nobody else seems to be stressing it as much, is the technological aspect. The revolution in video is happening so fast that every week, there is a new development, all right? The technology has become cheaper and easier and more flexible to use than ever before. In fact, some people think that the future of movies lies on digital video, which is then transferred onto film. But that just shows you how very versatile video has become.

Now, TV has the unique capability of reaching thousands of Philadelphians at a very low cost, which is not true of any other medium except, perhaps, radio. And this is unfortunate, because the cable companies and the TV stations know that they have this power.

And, Councilman Cohen, you were asking what forces are blocking this. It's really quite simple. As Professor Herman said, it's a matter of competition; and secondly, it's a matter of profit. The commercial stations, including the cable outlets, are making enormous profits out of the situation as it is. They must be, understandably, reluctant to change the equation and factor in public access as a possible threat to their province. It's really quite simple. They have that power to reach thousands of people in Philadelphia.

Now, the profit motive is an acceptable motive because the public access ordinance was designed to counterbalance the profit motive with some public service requirement, okay? Nobody has to lose any profits in the real world, if you implement public access.

All that would happen would be that they would provide a separate channel, the content of which they would not control on their cable providers -- whether it's Comcast, or if there's any left after Comcast did this latest merger, whoever's actually providing the cable services. So nobody would actually lose profits that's the point here. We're not talking about taking money away from any of these corporations.

But what I want to stress is that because the technology is so cheap, there are, for example, at the University of the Arts, which I'm very familiar with 'cause it's in my neighborhood, there are students who are constantly on the street making video projects, all right? The cost of those video projects is less than three months' subscription to Comcast Television, all right? And what they're producing is broadcast-quality video, which could go on public access tomorrow, all right?

So if the technology is becoming that cheap, and every year it's becoming cheaper and more flexible, we are talking about giving access to very, very large audiences, potentially to young Philadelphians who could produce commercial- quality TV and perhaps very high artistic quality, I would hope, at the same time, with almost no money being invested by them, and it would be very easy to get it on the air.

So as far as the content that's being provided, it is not question of pornography, it is not a question of hate speech. Those are all diversionary issues. I suggest that if you want to see the sort of stuff that is on public access TV, you look at the videotapes that this lady has provided you with. Again, we're talking about a very, very small fraction of objectionable content. The rest of it is probably less objectionable than what I see on cable TV every night myself.

I think that public access, at this point, is an idea whose time has come. I hope it's not an idea whose time has passed in Philadelphia because it would be a shame and a sin to deny public access to the people of this city when almost anybody with a camcorder can produce broadcast-quality television. I mean, we're in an extraordinary situation.

COUNCILMAN COHEN: Mr. Richette, I'm going to ask you to bring yourself to a conclusion.

MR. RICHETTE: Oh, I'm coming to it.

Technologically, we're talking about the fact that what did not exist in 1983, the widespread ability to make broadcast-quality television. And I think this issue is going to test our commitment to the arts and culture. If we want to send message to artists in Philadelphia that their work matters, then we have to enforce the public access ordinance. Public access guarantees that culture in Philadelphia is about art; it's not about real-estate development.

Thank you.

COUNCILMAN COHEN: Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Councilmembers, and I in particular want to thank Councilmembers Ortiz, Cohen --

COUNCILMAN COHEN: Please first identify yourself for the record.

Previous (PROFESSOR EDWARD HERMAN)

Index of All Testifiers

Next (LOUIS MESSIAH)