This week I read 4 short sections from the textbook Understanding Community Media. “Examining the Successes and Struggles of New Zealand’s Maori TV” examines a TV channel set up by the national government, as part of their state-run broadcast network, to serve as a voice for the indigenous people of New Zealand and promote better representations of their culture and people. “Dalitbahujan Women’s Autonomous Video” is an anthropological study of how a video collective in rural India worked as an effective organizing tool for a network of farmer’s cooperatives by creating an alternative distribution network for their videos about important issues, preserving traditional farming practices, and the operations of the Co-ops. “A Participatory Model of Video Making: The Case of Colectivo Perfil Urbano” is about a group formed as an arm of the Popular Urban Movement in Mexico to facilitate education and exchange among members of the movement and other groups. “Community Radio and Video, Social Activism, and Neoliberal Public Policy in Chile During the Transition to Democracy” studies the community media movements which formed in opposition to the Pinochet dictatorship and how those groupings largely disintegrated after the transition to democracy due to neoliberal policy making which heavily favored media created by major corporations.

Between these four articles, I got a look at the international sphere of community TV and video, especially in the third world. I learned that in most other countries there really isn’t public access TV in the American sense. While getting content on television is sometimes viable, in many countries, media makers need to create their own systems of distribution. This is primarily accomplished through a connection to a larger people’s movement or organization. Indeed such a connection gives life to community TV and video, shaping the message and purpose, and providing a regular audience. Such connections allow for access to some funding in absence of government programs. Particularly in the case of Chile, one can see how as the democracy movement fell apart and splintered into those for and against neoliberalism, the community media movements also suffered. As Chile became more like a “first” world country and people gained access to cable TV (unlike India or Mexico where very few have cable and many don’t have their own TV set) and international media, community media had trouble competing. Because the government refused to fund public access TV and actively made policies against community media of any sort, producers just couldn’t produce.

Bresnahan, Rosalind. “Community Radio and Video, Social Activism, and Neoliberal Public Policy in Chile During the Transition to Democracy.” Understanding Community Media. Ed. Kevin Howley. Los Angeles: Sage, 2010. 161-170. Print.

Magallanes-Blanco, Claudia. “A Participatory Model of Video Making: The Case of Colectivo Perfil Urbano.” Understanding Community Media. Ed. Kevin Howley. Los Angeles: Sage, 2010. 286-296. Print.

Mookerjea, Sourayan. “Dalitbahujan Women’s Autonomous Video.” Understanding Community Media. Ed. Kevin Howley. Los Angeles: Sage, 2010. 200-210. Print.

Rahoi-Gilchrest, Rita L. “Examining the Successes and Struggles of New Zealand’s Maori TV.” Understanding Community Media. Ed. Kevin Howley. Los Angeles: Sage, 2010. 161-170. Print.