On the one hand, Paul and BHT do have a point that the conference, at least to me and with those with whom I spoke about the conference, seemed to have an inordinate amount of preaching from on high and vague generalities that frankly don't seem all that helpful. I imagine that for the overwhelming majority of people attending the conference, they already know that the media sucks and that we don't need to hear it, or hear it over and over. What we need to do is to discuss strategies and tactics on what we have to do to improve things. And to have a structure that helps facilitate that.

On the other hand, other conferences which are far more radical and participatory in their orientation -- like the Chicago Social Forum and the Allied Media Conference, operate along the same lines. You have one or more people serve as hosts of "received wisdom" who pontificate to attendees, and whose participation solely consists of questions. Speech, then Q & A. I suspect even the Z Media Institute which I'll attend next month will be similar to this, though I'll reserve judgment on this count until the conference ends.

Then again, it's not to say that is necessarily bad. On occasion, you want someone with more experience or knowledge of the topic to speechify to people who don't have that knowledge and who are willing to listen and learn. But then again there are times when those in the room who have serious levels of knowledge about a topic don't get to share what they know, and everyone else in the session loses out as a result. Heck, I received three compliments over the course of the weekend for questions I asked during sessions I attended.

I'm wondering also if it's a matter of size. In some of the sessions, you have upwards of a thousand people attending a plenary session. This doesn't lend to very much outside of lengthy speeches, and no way for everyone involved to be able to participate in Q & A.

What I'd also like to know is: What was the criteria by which Free Press chose the people to speak on a given topic. Now, there are instances in which the decision is easy (e.g., George Lakoff on framing). But there are others in which the choice is a shot-in-the-dark at best, someone badly discredited (e.g., the Chicago Media Watch fiasco) at worst.

I have an idea. The workshops on Sunday were probably the most useful part of the conference; the conference should have more of those throughout the conference. Plus, for sessions themed to a given topic (e.g., copyright reform, radio) the structure should be far more loose. Instead of speechifying and Q & A, conference organizers might want to have a modified caucus, where people can openly and freely discuss with others on the same topic, instead of the sermonizing model commonly used.

[The panelists] talked of their successes, and it was so funny, because sitting through the opening of this panel, the first couple of minutes is just listing off the panelists achievements and I felt that it was so unnecessary. This is a personal opinion, but it isnt how much a person has done in their life that makes me beleive them or think that they are good people, it is how accessible and open they are with that knowledge they hold. I saw none of the panelists anywhere but on the panel. That is a continuation of this overall system of beleif that we do not hold in ourselves, each and every one of us, the ability to be successful (in whatever permeation you shoose to define success). The elitism that reflects reinforces in my mind the idea that there are people better than me and why cant us allies all be on a level playing field, why cant we share with each other in a human way?

I went to several panels then where I could look around the room and see people who I know had at least as much experience, wisdom and expertise on the subject as hand as the folks on the panel in front (and above) us. Too many times I saw panelists reaching to answer questions that they really didn't have a good answer for, where the question could probably have been better answered by more than one person in the audience.

I found this frustrating and expressed as much in my evaluation form at the end of the conference.

Unfortunately, I had this feeling again at the 2005 NCMR, especially in the 2006 Telecomm Act session.

I do think it's valid to say that in some cases some of the panelists have very valuable information and experiences that are not widely known or otherwise shared. It is useful for them to share it with us. However, the simple Q&A after several serial presentations is not really sufficient to create dialogue and move us forward.

I think sessions would be so much more enjoyable and productive if panelists really acted more like facilitators, bringing in information and ideas and then catylizing discussion. I realize that it's a practical problem for sessions with larger audiences, but I also think it's something that can be solved with creativity or just having smaller sessions.

Unforunately, we're still sitting and listening to "experts" tell us what works and what we should do, and I'm not sure that counts as really sharing.

There are to issues which stick out to me. First the media reform movement has organized itself as a small professional cadre in suits which comes to it's annual conferences to preach the reforming the FCC gospel. Their stated goals include building a social movement to push forward media reform. To build a movement you need organizing and struggles in which people can participate. Sure, inspiring speeches and leaders can be a major part of it. By my mom's account, the Bill Moyers' speech was truly inspiring. But we also need space to talk. ...

The other major issue was the media reform NGO's looking at independent and indymedia activists as outlets for their message. They are locked out of the corporate media they are trying to reform, so they see the radical / participatory / grassroots / alternative medias as a place to get their message out. While we find the issues that the ngo's are talking about to be compelling, and do cover their work, that's not our job.

Click here for a download link, or you can subscribe to the mediageek podcast feed and listen every week. It's medialicious.]]> http://www.mediageek.org/btm/archives/2005/05/mediageek_radio.html http://www.mediageek.org/btm/archives/2005/05/mediageek_radio.html Announcements Mon, 16 May 2005 23:38:54 -0600 Saturday night St. Louis IMCistas organized an impromptu media center in the conference lobby area outside the ballroom where the keynote festivities were going on. Almost a dozen laptops with Wi-Fi were brought together so that conference participants could air their views and frustrations on the St. Louis IMC website.

Frustration over many things -- from the lack of involvement with the local black community and press to the apparent use of the Independent Media caucus to rally journalists to spread the word of Free Press' and Media Access Project's campaigns, and Free Press' refusal to allow a media center to be set up in the first place -- had been building for two days. This indy press room provided some release valve for these frustrations, while also communicating them outside the walls of the Milennium Hotel.

Handbill fliers were made explaining Indymedia and pointing people to the media center and were handed out as conference attendees exited the keynote. I helped cut up fliers and handed out a bunch, and was brought back down to earth with the reminder that still even at this media reform conference a lot of people really don't know what Indymedia is and how it works.

Unfortunately, the Wi-Fi went down before the Keynote ended and bulk of the attendees entered the lobby. At first there was some wondering if the spiking of the wi-fi was retaliation for organizing the expression of dissent. But moments later Phlegm came running out of the ballroom saying that the network was down everywhere and that they'd lost the ability to do the live stream. So, instead it was just part and parcel of the overall crappy net access that had plagued the conference from the start.

Comments about the conference have filled the St. Louis IMC newswire, and they've been posted in response to a feature recounting the first day of the conference.

I'm a little burnt after 6 days of media reform / consolidation conferencing, but will try to gather my thoughts and post them here and at my blog. I hope some of my fellow BeTheMedia bloggers will do the same.

I will say right now that I feel less energized than I did after the 2003 conference, even though I think I was more exhausted after the one in 2003. I'm glad I went, and attending has forced me to think harder about the tension between the media reform movement and Indymedia and other movements that focus on more fundamental and systematic change.]]> http://www.mediageek.org/btm/archives/2005/05/commenting_on_a.html http://www.mediageek.org/btm/archives/2005/05/commenting_on_a.html Commentary on NCMR Mon, 16 May 2005 11:21:09 -0600 A slow Saturday morning and afternoon turned into a whirlwind of activity very quickly for the rest of the weekend. I'm still trying to mentally digest it all, but am gagging despite considerable rest. I'll probably post more thoughts on what happened, piecemeal, as specfic memories and posts occur to me.

On the Chicago Media Action front, we had a very successful workshop along with GRIID and Grade the News. Plus, thanks to everyone involved with the book The Future of Media who mentioned CMA twice in the book. (Hey, guys! If you're interested in us writing a chapter or two for your next book, get in touch with me!)

I'll post some specific suggestions about conference logistics and suggestions for conference improvement, which I'll also direct to Free Press, as thoughts come to me and when I get time to breathe.

Props to a number of excellent projects, including Independent World Television, The NewStandard, and MediaChannel.

And damn, I didn' get to visit the Gateway Arch.

The ballroom was full and Al Franken was crankin', introducing Bob McChesney as I found a seat. Perhaps responding to subtle undercurrents of gripes about marginalization by the conference's focus on policy and reform, McChesney called for all of us concerned about media to work together. "It's the way we go forward," he said. Pointing the finger at corporations for corrupting our media, Bob called the idea that media reform is just a left wing movement "bogus". The only way they could win on this issue is by labeling people working on media issues "wacky liberals." But in fact, issues like local ownership, government propaganda, censorship, and "children's brains marinating in advertising" are important to conservatives too, he said.

Introduction, Lauren Coletta, Common Cause,

Creating Media and Demcracy Coalition, working towards a media democracy bill of right. A Consensus document, a set of tools to guide work with congress, fighting against further consolidation, cross-ownership.

We've spent a lot of time talking about this document, and last Monday we held an event at the press club where we had 22 journalists from around the country and consumer groups like Consumers Union and other groups like the UCC and the leadership coaltion for civil rights. They're talking about doing these sessions in San Francisco, Los Angeles and points in between.

She wants various stakeholders in the movement share their perspective on how a media system that serves their needs might look like. And she would like to hear from us on what that system ought to look like.

They're taking notes to capture our ideas, and are interested in other organizations joining in.

NCMR suckiness/concerns included: lack of any focus on Indymedia & access to answers to questions people had about Indymedia; banging of heads between Indymedia & Free Press -- because Indymedia is subversive and Free Press is reform-oriented; expectations that conference would be different (than the last NCMR in Madison) because local media _were_ contacted; lack of an open media lab; framing of actionable items (in caucuses) as "how can you amplify Free Press' message"; closing of registration, cost of registration & attending, and general feeling of inaccessibility; the non-democracy of caucuses; lack of discussion about how capitalism is intertwined with the issues of the NCMR; and the lack of centering of media justice issues at the conference.

Actionable items include creating an IMC at next year's NCMR; creating an intervention at this year's NCMR; a possible intervention during the rest of the conference.

• Changing Words has reports up about Day One and Day Two of the conference.

  He wrote about Day Two, "The areas of interest here are across the board. Cable access, low-power FM radio stations, peer-to-peer file sharing, media ownership, FCC regulations, newspaper ownership and on and on."

  Note to Changing Words: The first conference was in Madison, Wisconsin, November 2003.

• The Democracy Cell Project blog reported from the conference, reporting on presentations by Naomi Klein, Bob McChesney, Amy Goodman, and other conference happenings.

  The writer concluded, "The one message I take away from today's sessions is that there is so much more happening in the world -- and specifically Iraq -- that we're not being told. This is nothing new to many people here at the DCP, but it was amazing and enlightening to hear in a public venue from notable people/jounalists/reporters who have been there and have seen what's happening, only to return to the US and find out how they're being silenced by corporate media."

• Jim Gilliam co-producer of Outfoxed, wrote about "filming the News Hounds for a follow-up to the Outfoxed behind the scenes."
• Majority Report at Air America briefly mentioned the McChesney and Nichols presentations.

More blogging about the NCMR can be found in this Technorati search.

Though the room was pretty quiet yesterday, as most of the attendees were getting settled into the opening of the conference, traffic is up significantly today. About a third of the tables are staffed currently, with this number gradually increasing in anticipation of the Media Democracy Showcase. This Showcase is a two hour block of time this evening during the dinner period in which conference attendees are encouraged to visit all of the participating organizations. In other words, it's a chance for on the ground media groups - working on creating independent media, media literacy, media justice, and media policy, among other efforts, to share their work with media activists.

So, hello to Buzzflash readers. Please send us an email with any comments about what you're reading, and share this site with your friends.

I'm glad I showed up to the Globalizing session, it exceeded my expectations. However, I shouldn't be surprised since it was one of the International media reform sessions at the 2003 NCMR that I also learned the most from.

In this year's version the global south and non-Western perspective is much more emphasized. This is vital information for us in the US, given how little we get in the mainstream media about the rest of the world, especially places where we're not fighting wars.

I knew that there was some state repression of community radio in Brazil, but I did not know the frightening extent, nor that the government is stepping up efforts, not ratcheting down, even though a left-leaning government is in power.

Myoungjoon Kim from Korea gave the most rousing talk outlining the amazing media access and reform victories they've had there, and how they are aligned with Korea's more militant labor movement. He emphasized clear long-term goals and charting progress towards those goals, along with the unification of media reform with other movements.

This last point was also emphasized by Joćo Brant from Intervozes, Brazil, who also emphasized framing the movement and goals.

It's funny, but I don't recall such clear calls to framing and goal setting in any other talks, which perhaps fleshes out some of the differences between American activism and movements elsewhere in the world. It seems like the media reform movement in the US is not quite unified around particular and well-defined goals, understandable given how multivariate the constituencies are, even if the movement is largely left-leaning and/or liberal.

Read on to get more specifics from my session notes: