Social Change and Community Television

Two of my personal capacities are "media use" and "community development". As these are separate capacities for me, they can be used in combination or separately depending on the circumstances. When I originally came to Brandon, to be Regional Programming Director, it was because the company had a vision which combined both these dimensions, and allowed me to use both capacities in my work.

This mix of media and community development in the Cable Company's vision has been both the blessing and the bane of its existence. On the one hand, the community development flavor of the original vision for the Co-operative played a great part in winning the highly competitive struggle to obtain the original licenses for supplying cable to the region. The beginning of the company twenty-five years ago coincided with the heating up of the social and demographic changes in the region. Over that period of time, many towns of the area have lost between 30 and 50% of their population(9), and the farm economy which drives the region economically has encountered great challenges. The vision of providing the organizational and technical capacity to the region for it to "speak together" through community television rang true for those caught up in that time of rapid social change.

The mix of media and community development philosophy in the co-op's original vision arose also from the residual interest in community participation which emerged in the 1930's and 1960's, and remained strong in many people's priorities in the Westman Region. Components of thought like "grassroots participation", "self-help", "pioneering philosophy", "co-operative ownership", "community values", and so on, were very strong in the Westman region, as the increasing impact of urbanization was being felt in every quarter. It was unclear at that time just which technologies and processes would prove to be the most useful to the region's citizens in their struggle to define, articulate, and support its own set of values over the ensuing decades. When the vision of a cable operation, co-operatively owned and operated by the residents of the region, and for the benefit of the region, was presented as a viable option, it was selected by the region as holding some very real potential as a useful facility in the upcoming time of change. One of the attractions of a co-operative structure was the potential for its citizen-owners to make whatever structural adaptations might be necessary during the time of change, rather than being limited to whatever was decided by some outside private interests. Community control over community resources was seen as diminishing rapidly, and this vision was one of he few at the time being sold to the community as moving in the opposite direction.

For many people, a commitment to a vision of a mix of community development and community television remains strong. However, the mix of these two elements, which happen to be combined in this instance in the original vision, but which does not necessarily have to be combined, has a problematic side as well. I recognize the problem because for me, the two capacities of media use and community development are independent of each other, and can be of use both in combination and separately as the situation requires. There are many times when one or other of my two capacities are best used independently of each other, just as there are times when neither of them are appropriate to a situation. In my case, there are times when one of my other three capacities, (chasing information, making tools, and "pushing people out of ditches") are more appropriate capacities to be brought to the fore in a situation than either of the other two (using media and doing community development work).

The term which was coined in community television circles for the blend of media use and community development was "community animation", and he person(s) who did this work were called "community animators". [For an excellent overview of this era of community develpment and community television in its larger "Developmental Communications" context, see Waisbord's Article on the Internet (10) ]. Of course, many people who actually did the job of "community animation" in community television stations, had no idea of just what the "community development" side of the task was, so went about their business recruiting volunteers to do local programming, and thinking that somehow that was what was meant by the larger term. However, for those of us who knew what community development meant, and saw the possibilities in Community Television for furthering the objectives inherent in community development philosophy, the term "community animation" held a great deal of very exciting potential. It is important to remember that even back in the early days of community television, there always were people who held the limited view of the community animation label, and those who held the wider view, and that both types of people worked side by side in the industry.

The problem with the joint definition of Community Television as an activity which encompasses a blend of media production and community development is that when the overall socio-economic situation changes, which it has done over the past twenty years, the baby is liable to be thrown out with the bath water.

Apedaile and Fullerton, in their article about the massive social and institutional restructuring taking place on the prairies owing to depopulation, urbanization, globalization, and so on, make an interesting comment. They note that all "entitlements" are created by a society over time, and therefore come under pressure whenever there is a change in the larger society's social or economic arrangements.(1) That doesn't mean that any particular entitlement has to be jettisoned, but rather, that all social entitlements are up for re-evaluation, and a decision made as to which ones are to be chosen for current funding, because they now hold the greatest value in the minds of the current population in the current situation. In other words, when money is tight, something has to give. What Apedaile presses for is a bit more intentionally on the part of the community in its selection of new priorities for funding and support whenever one of these times of choice emerges. It seems that in the rural areas such times of choosing new priorities for support and financing seem to be emerging with increasing rapidity.

One of the ways that organizations in our society have handled this need for re-appraisal of priorities has been what is popularly termed "downloading". The trouble with this is that it is usually done unilaterally, without the input or consent of the persons onto whom the tasks and responsibilities are downloaded, (usually with none of the resources with which to fulfil the task, but all of the expectations of performance). In the case of the co-op structure of ownership, it was just this need for input and reflection by the community which provided the impetus for selecting the co-op structure in the first place. It was felt at the time that having a co-op structure of ownership in our region would provide the maximum amount of flexibility and potential for input and self-determination on the part of the region in the communication sector over the upcoming decades of what was then perceived as being a time of rapid change. Had the license gone to the co-op's main competitor, CKX-TV, the initial service might have been equal or better, but as the situation changed in the years ahead, the community felt there would be far less opportunity for input into those changes under a private ownership arrangement than under a co-operative structure.

I believe the decision to select a co-operative structure was a wise one in terms of having community input over the years. CKX-TV, under the pressures of changes to the industry has consolidated its operations out of the region and now runs the station here as a satellite, just as CKY-TV in Winnipeg is now mostly an empty shell of a building, and run as a remotely automated satellite out of Toronto. It is not just that the co-op structure gives its members a chance to have input as to which "entitlement" it wishes to fund at each change point. It is more that the co-op with its wide base of membership, has its input through its board structure and their lines of accountability back to the membership. It has to take into account the needs and priorities of the residents in the region. Residents in the region want to participate in the overall selection of which social "entitlements" they wish to support and fund, and which 'downloading' or 'offloading' of responsibilities will take place, to whom and when. In so vital an area of community life as the communication facilities, regional input into such decisions is critical to community health. A co-op structure provides the potential for such input.

When I worked in the company the situation was very different. Once a license was obtained it was, as one CEO put it, "like getting a license to print money". He went on to say that he had moved on to another job because there was no challenge to it. "Any problems that arise could be fixed in twenty-five minutes and a calculator. It is like being an electronic paperboy. You wire people up and collect the money. It is almost impossible to wreck it up."(8) My biggest challenge in the job did not arise from the problems of outside competition. My challenge arose from the squandering of the excess revenues through excessive spending in general, and in the programming department in particular. I had to go around and tell the rural towns that "no you can't have a CBC-style studio in Napinka" (as promised), and to try to encourage them to make more appropriate use of the funds they did have, as they could get far more bang for their buck with a little planning.

Shortly after my departure from the company, huge changes emerged in the communication industry:

The philosophy of Community Television ,as an 'entitlement" came under pressure across the continent in general, and in this region in particular. The reconfiguration of resources is still in flux, but in general, the main resources provided by the company to community members and organizations (including Churches) are:

What has gone is the mandate to do community development work through the department. The broader definition of "community animator" is gone, and the title is no longer used, even for the narrower definition. I think , under the circumstances, that the change is for the better. It puts the responsibility for community development on the shoulders of local and regional residents and groups, as it is for any other area of interest. It leaves the company free to concentrate its efforts on the provision of the facilities and training, in order to support the programming activities of the community.

What this means for the local churches is that the way is wide open for them to do their ministry through this facility if they wish. This section of my web site is designed to articulate some of the possibilities that exist for ministry which local churches may not have thought of. As I have noted elsewhere, ministry and community development have a great deal of overlap. If creatively handled, the churches could make an important contribution to the life of their community and their membership by picking up the community development / community animation tasks no longer being picked up by the local cable company. Support for doing so is very much available, even though the company is no longer able to include the doing of such community development activity in its mandate.