"Occupy Wall St." is a spontaneous uprising of citizens. It is both a protest against corruption, poverty, homelessness, and greed as well as a call for citizens to come together to build a better world. For many, this is a '100 percent movement' that recognizes we are all in this time of change together and no one can be excluded from a respectful contribution to the conversation of democracy.
Emphasizing that the 'Occupy' gatherings are an attempt to reclaim citizen participation in our democracy, the Los Angeles City council passed a resolution that, "...the 'Occupy' demonstrations are a rapidly growing movement with the shared goal of urging U.S. citizens to peaceably assemble and occupy public space in order to create a shared dialogue by which to address the problems and generate solutions..." Former president Bill Clinton commented: "The Occupy Wall Street crowd basically is saying, '...There's something wrong with this country. This is not working for me. So I think it can be a good positive debate."
How can citizens express their frustrations, disappointments, and anger, as well as a sense of promise and untapped potential? Virtually all of the issues facing our democracy issues are fundamentally communication issues. Not surprisingly, at the foundation of much unrest and frustration is the inability of citizens to communicate, both with one another and with our elected leaders.
Power in a democracy is the power to communicate and mass communication in the United States and most of the world is dominated by one medium -- television. To put the power of television in perspective, the average person in the United States watches roughly 4 hours per day. Importantly, the amount of TV viewing time is not declining with the growth in Internet use. Surveys show that most people still get most of their news about the world from a single source -- television.
To emphasize the current role of television is not to diminish the critical role of the Internet. These are synergistic, not competing technologies. Television has a broad reach but tends to be shallow whereas the Internet has penetrating depth but its reach tends to be narrow. Importantly, the 'new media' of the Internet is serving a vital role in organizing people so they can occupy the 'old media' of television and the airwaves. Combined, they offer a powerhouse of communication that is transforming the conversation for our future.
Given it's immense power, what is the responsibility of the broadcast media that use our public airwaves for communication that serves the public interest? The answer is: unequivocal. If there is ever a conflict between the private interest of broadcasting companies and the public interest of communities they serve, it is always the public interest that prevails if the public will stand up for itself.
There is no shortage of issues and concerns but there is a shortage in the "public space" being given to those concerns by the broadcast media. When it comes to the media upon which we citizens most rely for our news about the world -- broadcast television -- we are entertainment rich and knowledge poor. This is no longer a matter of "taste." The future of our civilization depends upon employing the mainstream media -- our primary public space -- to cultivate an informed and engaged public. It is now our responsibility as citizens in the communications era to stand up for the conversation of democracy, including those we disagree with.
Here is where the rubber hits the road. It is vital for citizens to have the confidence of understanding that we literally and legally own the airwaves at the 'local level.' The 'local level' means, roughly, the media footprint of major, local broadcasters -- the 'reach' of the broadcast TV signal for stations like ABC, CBS, NBC, that uses the public's airwaves. Even if the programming of broadcasters is distributed on cable -- because they also use the airwaves -- they still have a strict legal responsibility to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" before their own corporate interests. However, because local organizations have not existed before to effectively represent the communication needs of the overall metropolitan community, by default, broadcasters have been able to say that they understand the needs of the community best.
Nonetheless, I cannot say too strongly: TV stations are not the enemy -- public apathy is! The laws are entirely in favor of the public interest. What is required is that the public claim it's ownership of the airwaves and organize itself in a way that transcends special interests.
If respected and diverse organizations come together with a trans-partisan spirit representing different sectors of the larger community, we can 'take back' the airwaves that are legally already ours. We can build upon more than two centuries of experience with democracy and bring the modern version of the New England Town Hall meeting into our contemporary world. Instead of engaging a few hundred people, with modern technologies, we can engage millions of persons. The potential to radically awaken and uplevel the conversation of democracy is stunning. If one community can engage in authentic dialogue, find its voice and become a clear example of what is possible for other communities in finding their unique voice, then we could have a swift blossoming of "Electronic Town Meetings" in communities across the country.
Key to success is a simple social invention: Each major community could create an independent, "Community Voice Organization" that is strictly non-partisan and non-profit, and has only two jobs: first, to listen to the community and understand the most pressing issues of concern and, second, to place those before the community in "Electronic Town Meetings" and other forums that foster mature civic dialogue, consensus-building, and opportunities for community feedback to persons in positions of power.
Creating large-scale Electronic Town Meetings on broadcast television sounds like an impossibility to many people. Often I hear people say, 'well, this is a fine idea but...,' and a series of objections ensue to explain why this is completely idealistic and could never happen. Then I describe how it has already been done. In the 1980s, I co-founded a trans-partisan "community voice" organization in the San Francisco Bay Area called "Bay Voice." In 1987 we put an interactive Electronic Town Meeting on the air in prime-time, working with the local ABC television station, that was seen by over 300,000 persons. Six votes were taken from a pre-selected, random sample of Bay Area citizens. By the end of the hour, the sentiments of the Bay Area public were quite clear and the Electronic Town Meeting demonstrated the ability of a metropolitan community to have a meaningful dialogue. Roughly a quarter of a century ago, our non-partisan organization demonstrated that we could achieve an entirely new level of citizen dialogue and engagement, and this was before the advent of personal computers. Now, with the Internet to provide sophisticated feedback, the technology to support powerful ETMs is abundantly present.
With shared conviction regarding the need for a new era of public dialogue, we can come together as communities and walk into the broadcast TV stations as proud citizen-owners of the airwaves who have come to work out a new path for communication that truly serves the public interest at this time of profound transition. The airwaves are already ours. To "occupy the airwaves" is simply to occupy a home that we already own. Let's step inside and get busy -- building conversations for a future of sustainable prosperity.
Duane Elgin is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and non-partisan media activist. Previous blogs on media themes include, "Take Back the Airwaves," "The Last Taboo on Television," and "Can Television Help Awaken a Healthy World?" His website is: http://www.DuaneElgin.com
Follow Duane Elgin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DuaneElgin
Of course the movement is only a couple of months old, so the communication channels are in their infancy, but the great thing is that they are NOT propaganda. They are open to anyone wanting to express their opinion and talk to the remote audience as well as get real time feedback.
The media which supports this democratic experiment should get involved and support these sponsor-free, people's channels propping up all over the world. Get down and dirty with us! We are the 99% (and we even aired interviews and debates with the 1% that came down for debate, without insults, without hate/fear).
We became confused about what truth was when we allowed advertisments to mislead us.
They use my airwaves to assault my mind. Advertisers should manditorrly pay for alternate advertising to allow a counter argument to their propaganda.
Our local station is a Fox affiliate which I refuse to watch.
I'm not sure when being rude and attacking people instead of their information became "truth-telling." It's as though some people have rabies and few of us want to mix it up with them.
Clear Channel spends all that time spreading lies and hatred toward anyone or organization the "conservative" Republican establishment fears.
Why do you think the "conservatives", the Republicans and the teabaggers are against the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality? They know the only way they maintain control is by radio,tv and internet (Drudge) propaganda.
I agree but it's not going to happen. The Republicans realize their real strength is in radio and they have convinced intelligent individuals that there is no need for the Fairness Doctrine. Funny just before or just after President Obama got elected all Rush Limbaugh was talking about was the Fairness Doctrine. Believe me they know exactly where the bread gets buttered. You can get far right wing crazy hate radio in practically every single City and State in the nation. Loud and clear.
1. Enroll Diverse Community Leaders—Begin with a small, manageable group of community leaders in key sectors that are in alignment with this initiative to get it anchored. Continue to bring in a rich diversity of other organizations to build a strong and inclusive coalition (business/labor; rich/poor; ethnic groups; developers and environmentalists; educators, etc.). This coalition needs to authentically represent the scope and diversity of the community.
2. Establish a Non-Profit Organization—A non-partisan and non-profit organization has two, primary tasks: first, to listen to the concerns of the community, and second, to act as a catalyst to mobilize conversations in the commons. Obtain funding from community foundations, corporations, and individuals.
3. Formal Media Meetings—With the organization and coalition in place, meet with the key broadcast television stations whose media imprint matches the scope of the region; get their support and participation as good corporate citizens. Also, major newspapers and other media.
4. Expand Networking and Partnerships—Build working relationships with local, grass-roots organizations that can host face-to-face conversations so that metropolitan scale dialogue is matched by vigorous conversations at the grass-roots level.
5. Opening Electronic Town Meeting —The first conversation could validate the public’s desire to have a voice in the electronic commons. The community could affirm that a “community voice” is something that is wanted by the public.
I agree with the poster, there needs to be more support infrastructure to help people pull this off in their community (more than just an outline attached to this article, for example) and an interactive web site would be ideal. What do you think?
I also agree that Occupy's use of Livestream, which I just saw and chatted on, is moving us in that direction via the internet. A combo of TV + Livestream for an ETM might be one way to go. I really think this ETM idea needs its own site and discussion boards, and Livestream so people can start playing with it, to get practice and ideas.
I think the "friendly community take-over" of the airways would be very helpful, and greatly needed, given all the vapid programming.
I call KRON4 newsroom several times a week to suggest more substantive stories, sources, or questions, and they are often quite receptive.
Back to why I googled your take on OWS: I have been profoundly influenced by your book, Voluntary Simplicity, for 3 decades. I called you once and had such a wonderful, encouraging talk with you about sustainable architecture. I have gone on to apply your VS concepts and "paths to the future" framework in another subject, transit planning, and have developed some concepts for VS-style, bottom-up approaches for transit. (Working on a project for my major at Sonoma State.)
Voluntary Simplicity, it seems, is the advocacy and practice of a gradual, bottom-up approach to social and ecological lifestyle change.
During my peace movement involvement this past decade, I soon got disillusioned with protests b/c I came to realize they are the opposite of VS. They seek top-down solutions: trying to get those at the top of our beauracracies to create top-down change. Protests reinforce power, by giving ours away, by demanding an elite few create sweeping, rapid change. It really doesn't work, even if the elites want to do so. Obama's green jobs is a recent example of how his hopes of using the presidency to create sweeping change resulted in much wasteful, ineffective spending, which wouldn't have occurred if those projects had been bottom-up local initiatives. When the feds (or anyone) pours huge sums into projects, it's a recipe for inefficiency, waste and corruption.
We need regulations from Congress to reverse this take over. And that won't happen as it is against their pocket books. So that leaves us to protect the internet freedoms with every breath we have!!
The other bottom line for me is that the airwaves are a public commons owned by all of us and are to be used primarily to serve the public interest, and only secondarily the private interest of broadcast corporations.
Then they also don't go on liberal shows so both sides broadcast in vacuums most of the time. We should see Limbaugh vs Maddow live on TV every night vetting each others facts and claims.
This way the viewer can make up their own mind without missing key information.
Since TV's inception, it has been a medium for selling products. The most popular shows carry the highest ad rates on both the national and local level, and that pays the bills. That's how a TV station survive.
Typically, a station will use most of their bandwidth, the space in the airwaves where the station broadcasts from, for their main channel so HD can be used. The bandwidth that is not used by the main channel can also be used for more programming. Those "side channels" are giving TV stations options that were not possible before.
Side channels may have a variety of choices for the veiwer. It's really up to the station how many side channels there are, and what is ran on them. Some stations pay a service that provides music videos 24/7, an all news channel, old reruns like TV Land, old movies, or even kids cartoons like Qubo on the ION network. There are even foreign language stations that lease the side channel from the main station out in L.A. from what I have read.
Those same side channels can easily provide a block of a schedule for community interest and civil government programming, and in many locations that is already happening. It is just a matter of working with a local station that would be interested in providing that service.
The one area where I disagree about facts is with your assertion that, "Since TV's inception, it has been a medium for selling products." That is not the case if you will go back and review of the legislation and the hearings for the communications act of 1934 (and its updated version in 1996). Since the earliest days, broadcasters have recognized they are unique corporate entities and have agreed that they would seek "to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity" of the communities in which they operate. It is now time to serve the "public interest" and increasingly, the "public necessity" and launch a new level of dialogue about our common future.
Also, turning off the TV is to abandon the very tool that most people around the world use to get most of their news. You are proposing exactly what current broadcasters want: Have concerned citizens turn the TV off as a civic vehicle and leave it as an entertainment machine to attract eyeballs to advertisers. It's time to take back our airwaves for purposes of respectful and mature dialogue about our collective future.