Public Access Television Producers As
Storytellers and Folklorists
Cable Public Access Television has undergone many changes over its thirtyyear existence. From U.S. Congress legislation in 1968 (known as the “community
soapbox”), written to stem the dominance of the national networks, to Manzi and
Brugnoli’s description of a “bizarro universe” inhabited by hair-brained politicos,
pseudo psychics, and other loons who 30 years ago would have probably held
court in a local bus terminal (32), cable access television has led a struggling and
controversial existence. In fact, cable access television has incorporated these two
descriptions into its development. The medium has served as a stage for various
(and sometimes obscure) ideas as well as provided a haven for a number of “crazies
who get attention through the use of government-purchased TV cameras” (Yoder
7-8).
Overall,cable access television has matured in many positive and negative
ways. This process has largely taken place due to the many “crazies” -volunteers
who devote their time and energy to access TV. Between the years of 1995 and
1998 I conducted an ethnographic study of cable access television producers in
Fort Wayne, Indiana. Using the Allen County Public Library Cable Public Access
Center, my study examined cable access television producer motivations, genre
usage in their programming, and audience considerations used in television
programs’content and design (9-10). Although live, call-in interactive, and
informational-style studio programs were the fastest growing program format used
by producers, my study determined that genre served little, if any, purpose for
access producers in their program designs. Additionally, my research determined
that ego-gratification and program entertainment values were the main motivators
of access producers. Finally, access producers rarely considered content, themes,
and presentation methods in relation to audience needs.
During this study I discovered that access producers have httle awareness of
genre use. For the most part, they didn’t even know what “genre” meant!
Additionally, I found their program content directly related to their personal issues
and professional experiences. Finally, I found that access producers rarely consider
their audiences’ needs while developing their programs.
While not addressed in my original Fort Wayne study, I uncovered interesting
insights and revelations based on access producers’ perceptions about themselves.
The application of folklore and storytelling characteristics to the world of
community access television storytellers proved to be an interesting topic. I also
found indications that these producers are part of a storytelling community with its