{"id":5600,"title":"Media Independents Push for Access","kind":"biblio","url":"https://www.videohistoryproject.org/media-independents-push-access","version":"5ccb6bd239ffd6b1197884213fd757a6dbda78858a3d930d317931b4147ff420","modified":"2026-09-13T21:52:04.4408739+00:00","credits":[{"role":"Author","name":"Marita Sturken"}],"authorKeys":["Sturken, Marita"],"subjects":["Texts by Author"],"metadata":[{"label":"Publication","value":"Afterimage","url":null},{"label":"Publisher","value":"Visual Studies Workshop","url":null},{"label":"Date","value":"April 1980","url":null},{"label":"Place","value":"Rochester, New York","url":null},{"label":"Volume","value":"7","url":null},{"label":"Issue","value":"9","url":null},{"label":"ETC archive","value":"ETC0859","url":null}],"citations":{"page":"\u0022Media Independents Push for Access.\u0022 Video History Project, Experimental Television Center, 2026. https://www.videohistoryproject.org/media-independents-push-access.","publication":"Marita Sturken. Media Independents Push for Access. Afterimage. Visual Studies Workshop. April 1980.","risUrl":"https://www.videohistoryproject.org/citation/5600.ris"},"links":[{"label":"Scanned document","url":"https://archive.org/details/ETC0859","relationship":"linked document; contents not retrieved","contentType":"application/pdf"}],"sections":[{"name":"body","source":"VHP record body","generated":false,"characters":22438},{"name":"summary","source":"existing VHP generated summary","generated":true,"characters":809}],"content":{"section":"body","source":"VHP record body","generated":false,"text":"\u0022Independent\u0022 is a term which is often misused. In the independent video and film community, while there is always controversy over who is and who isn\u0027t, \u0022independent\u0022 can essentially be defined by one factor: editorial control. The independents are those who choose to control the distribution and production of their works despite the monopolization of film exhibition by the commercial film industry, and despite corporate control of public television. Recent events suggest that many independent producers are no longer willing to rely on a few state and federal funding organizations to provide paltry budgets for their existence, or to be paid a fraction of the going rate to have the \u0022privilege\u0022 of showing their works on public television. With the reorganization of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) by Congress, and the formation of some promising organizations which are now looking beyond public funding to the prospect of obtaining substantial corporate funding and of beginning to lobby effectively in Washington, the political situation of the independent community has drastically changed over the past few years, and especially over the past few months. \u0022We want Congress to hear a cry of support,\u0022 says Bob Haller, director of Anthology Film Archives in New York. \u0022We want them to acknowledge that, given that the media is one of the most important factors of our community, if independents do not receive support, the public will crumble.\u0022 Crumble or not, it seems likely that the public is going to hear from the independent film and video community, if it hasn\u0027t already. HOW PUBLIC IS PUBLIC TV? Certainly, one factor in this growth in independent political strength is what Richard Goldstein of the Village Voice has called \u0022the city\u0027s most effective artist lobby,\u0022 the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers (AIVF). AIVF is the only organization which represents nonallied, independent video and film producers and directors. It is also the only such organization which has been able to exercise effective political clout in Washington. Says Goldstein, \u0022AIVF effectively lobbies against the alliance between big oil and big culture that dominates public television. It prods the Carnegie Commission and pushes Congress toward a greater emphasis on community control.\u0022 The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is now being reorganized (with consultation from AIVF) with a proposed network of three broadcast signals, the establishment of a Program Fund, and the creation of a five year plan as major aspects of the organization. The Carnegie Commission report, published last year as A Public Trust, was sharply critical of public TV, and has had a substantial influence on CPB\u0027s reorganization plans. What does the Carnegie report and the reorganization of CPB really mean for independents? The question is still unanswered, but two things are definite: there will be significantly the new division of CPB which will deal solely with the selection and funding of programming, under the guidance of the CPB board. Freedman has taken the design of policy concerning independent producers into his own hands after several months of debate and discussion with representatives from the independent community, One key factor in this policy will be the percentage of the program fund which will be set aside for independents. When Congress mandated that a \u0022substantial\u0022 proportion of funds be used for independent productions, that was interpreted by independents to mean 50%, but is likely to mean less to CPB. The discussion over the reorganization of CPB\u0027s independent policy has involved much debate over definitions. In early December AIVF made a presentation before the CPB board on the behalf of independent producers. The speakers included Alan Jacobs, executive director of AIVF, and independents Fern McBride, Steve Wax, and Bob Van Lierop. The AIVF committee was presented with a revised proposal draft drawn up by the CPB staff for CPB board approval. \u0022This draft had theoretically been revised through consultation with independent producers,\u0022 Jacobs wrote in The Independent, AIVF\u0027s newsletter. \u0022Yet we were unable to find that input reflected in a paper which we, at least, were seeing for the first time. As presented in the draft, the definition of independent producers is so broad as to jeopardize the gains and promise of Congress\u0027s three-year funding bill.\u0022 With the possibility that a \u0022Qualified Producer\u0027s List\u0022 will be set up as a reference to determine independent funding, definitions become important. AIVF would like to see \u0022independents\u0022 defined as \u0022those persons who are not regularly employed by any corporation, network, institution, or agency which determines the form or the content of the materials which he or she produces.\u0022 AIVF would also like to see funding go directly to independents rather than being filtered through individual PBS stations. \u0022The availability of increased government funding for independents is not going to change the stations\u0027 programming bias,\u0022 Jacobs wrote. \u0022Putting money in their hands would be equivalent to putting independents on the staff. We would be enlisted to produce more \u0027mainstream\u0027 programming and would find considerably less support for self-initiated work.\u0022 Other important aspects of AIVF\u0027s proposal to CPB are the use of peer-review panels for all independent proposals; the establishment of a community advisory committee \u0022whose task would be to make recommendations as to the funding priorities of the various program areas\u0022; the compilation of a \u0022comprehensive mailing list,\u0022 to be regularly updated and published, consisting of a national constituency of independent producers who would also nominate candidates for the panels; a substantial effort to build promotional support for independent programming; an improved solicitation process; increased involvement of minorities in decision-making; and finally, that CPB recognize that \u0022editorial control is of paramount importance if artists are to be a respected ingredient in the future of CPB.\u0022 At WNET-Channel 13, New York\u0027s public TV station, two important elements of the policy are being put to the test: the peer-review panel and editorial control. The independent video and filmmaking community has joined forces with gay, black, and Hispanic community organizations to protest the rejection by WHET of four panel-chosen films for that station\u0027s \u0022Independent Focus\u0022 series. These organizations have formed the Coalition To Make Public Television Public, which consists of: AIVF, National Gay Task Force, Puerto Rican Institute for Media Advocacy, Women Make Movies, Third World Newsreel, Asian Cine Vision, Center For Documentary Media, Black Producers Association, National Association of Lesbian and Gay Filmmakers, March On Washington Committee for Lesbian and Gay Rights, Independent Feature Project, Alternative Cinema Conference, and the Film Fund. \u0022Independent Focus\u0022 was established three years ago as a showcase for independent films not made specifically for television. This season an impressive peer-review panel selected the program, which included some of the most innovative work ever seen on public TV. The panel, which was assembled by producer Marc Weiss, consisted of Eric Breitbard, associate director of the Film Forum; Vicky Gholson, an independent producer and a member of the Carnegie Commission; Barbara Kopple, producer/director of Harlan County USA; AI Levin, Channel 13\u0027s public affairs producer and documentary filmmaker; Julio Paton, a community project director; Greta Schiller, an independent producer; and William Sloan, head film librarian of the I New York Public Library. Liz Oliver, then manager of acquisitions for WHET (and now manager of independent acquisitions) vetoed four of the 28 films selected, without consulting the panel. The decision to axe the four films, Oliver told the panel, \u0022is not related to content.\u0022 She added that \u0022it was never the intent to place the programming of the series at the absolute discretion of the panel.\u0022 According to Bill Sloan, \u0022Channel 13 can handle radical content but not when it\u0027s wedded to radical style.\u0022 The coalition found that Oliver\u0027s answers \u0022did not address editorial policy or station broadcast criteria but gave only personal objections.\u0022 The four films rejected are certainly examples of films incorporating radical styles. Finally Got the News is a documentary by Stew Bird about Marxist attempts to organize black workers; Robert Van Lierop\u0027s 0 Povo Organizado is a militant black film set in Mozambique; Jan Oxenberg\u0027s A Comedy in Six Unnatural Acts is an exploration of cliched images of lesbian women; and The Chicago Maternity Story, by Kartemquin Films, concerns the quality of health care available to poor women. According to the filmmakers, Oliver had discussed changing this last film \u0022in order to make it acceptable for WNET,\u0022 before she rejected it. The Coalition and panel members met with Jay Iselin, the president of WNET, on Feb. 11, and presented their demands: that the four films be aired in prime time, that WNET establish an office of ombudsperson to act as an intermediary between the independent and minority communities and Channel 13, that WHET open its books to public scrutiny, that they implement the recommendations of the Minority Task Force (a CPB-commissioned consulting committee) in hiring more members of minorities, that they give the Coalition air time to present its views, and that they give the Coalition a chance to present its case at their next board meeting in March. These rather predictable demands were met by predictable responses: that, in Iselin\u0027s words, \u0022if we give you an hour everyone else will want one\u0022; that meeting the demands would reduce Channel 13 to the status of a common carrier (an indiscriminate relayer of information); that money is tight; and that Channel 13 had developed the peer panel on its own initiative. The Coalition was not stopped by these responses. They organized a demonstration outside of WNET\u0027s \u0022Gala of Stars\u0022 at Lincoln Center on Feb. 24. The protest, while hampered by police, who moved it across the street, included some of the most respected producers and directors of past WNET programs, including Jack Willis, former program director for 13, and a three-time Emmy winner; Crane Davis, former producer and host of the former 13 production The 51st State; and George Stoney, a New York University professor and independent filmmaker. These actions by the Coalition produced a great deal of discussion in the New York press on how Channel 13\u0027s money is spent just as the station launched its annual pledge week and membership drive. \u0022This year, the management of WNET-13 will privately decide how to spend approximately $20-million in public funds,\u0022 says the Coalition. \u0022There is no requirement that they disclose how this money is actually spent. Instead the public is offered the assurance that 80 cents of every budget dollar goes to programming and related costs . . . A recent internal document from the station indicated that less than 25 cents of each public discretionary (not committed to specific use) dollar is spent on direct costs of program production and acquisition. By comparison, almost 30 cents of each dollar is spent in an effort to raise even more money,\u0022 through Pledge Week and other fundraising efforts. WNET\u0027s \u0022fiscal artistry,\u0022 Crane Davis told the Soho Weekly News, \u0022ends up with dollars donated by corporations calling the programming shots, while public funds are used to pay the nuts and bolts costs of operating Channel 13.\u0022 But what of the films which are being shown in the \u0022Independent Focus\u0022 series? They are certainly not typical public TV fare, and do not deserve to be overshadowed by the controversy. Charles Burnett\u0027s Killer of Sheep, a narrative cinema-verite film about a black community in Los Angeles; Larry Adelman\u0027s indictment of multi-national corporations, Controlling Interests; and Jod","offset":0,"nextOffset":12000,"totalCharacters":22438,"complete":false},"rightsUrl":"https://www.videohistoryproject.org/terms-service"}