Scholars have recognized how new information and communication technologies (ICTs) have reduced and transformed barriers to producing and circulating community-based media. Yet community media projects tend to apply these technologies within established communities whose histories have been shaped by broader socio-spatial factors. This article draws from critical geography and studies of technology and infrastructure to reconceptualize the problem of media accessibility. Rather than programs for addressing disparities in technology or training, community media projects would benefit from recognizing how significantly their media production activities rely on local communication infrastructures and a collective sense of home. This article uses a case study of public access television in San Francisco to demonstrate how cable and telecommunications policy, urban redevelopment, and community-based media groups co-constitutively determine a scale of political extensibility by providing broader access to decision-making arenas beyond local TV programming.
Ball-RokeachSandra J.KimYong-ChanMateiSorin. 2001. “Storytelling Neighborhood: Paths to Belonging in Diverse Urban Environments.” Communication Research28 (4): 392–48.
BoyleDeirdra. 1997. Subject to Change: Guerrilla Television Revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
BurgessJeanGreenJoshua. 2009. YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Malden: Polity Press.
15.
BurnsJerry. 1973a. “Cable TV Freeze in SF Rejected.” San Francisco Chronicle, April11, 3.
16.
BurnsJerry. 1973b. “Gonzales Urges Cable Changes.” San Francisco Chronicle, January24, 2.
17.
BurnsLawrence D.1980. Transportation, Temporal, and Spatial Components of Accessibility. Lexington: Lexington Books.
18.
CarollJane. 1980. “Home Data System Survives a Scare.” SF Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, June8, 14C.
19.
ChappleKaren. 2005. “Building Institutions from the Region Up: Regional Workforce Development Collaboratives in California.” Working Paper 2005-01, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley.
ConeRuss. 1973. “Desperate Fight over CATV.” SF Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, July22, 4.
22.
EngelBonnieHillFred. 1975. “Cable and the Community: A Report on the State and Potential Telecommunications in San Francisco.” September30. Report to the Board of Supervisors, San Francisco Cable Television Task Force, San Francisco.
23.
EngelmanRalph. 1996. Public Radio and Television in America: A Political History. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
24.
EvensonLaura. 1997. “Media for the Masses –Nonprofit Lets Anyone Learn Film Techniques.” San Francisco Chronicle, April4, 1997, A28.
25.
FerreiraJason M.2011. “Within the Soul of a Human Rainbow: Los Siete, Black Panthers, and Third Worldism in San Francisco.” In Ten Years that Shook the City: San Francisco, 1968-1978, edited by CarlssonChrisElliotLisa Ruth, 30–47. San Francisco: City Lights Foundation Books.
KotlowskiDean J.2003. “Alcatraz, Wounded Knee, and Beyond: The Nixon and Ford Administrations Respond to Native American Protest.” Pacific Historical Review72 (2): 201–27.
39.
LarkinBarry. 2013. “The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure.” Annual Review of Anthropology42: 327–43.
Management Resources. 1997. “Public, Education and Government Access in San Francisco: A Summary Analysis of the Status of PEG Access in the City and County of San Francisco.” Prepared by the City and County of San Francisco Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, San Francisco, September.
43.
MarchessaultJanine. 1995. “Reflections on the Dispossessed: Video and the ‘Challenge for Change’ Experiment.” Screen36 (2): 131–46.
MungerKevinPhillipsJoseph. 2019. “A Supply and Demand Framework for YouTube Politics.” PrePrint, October1. https://osf.io/73jys/.
48.
OlsenAksel Kargård. 2004. Boom, Bust, and Land Use Planning in San Francisco: Re-making the City between Entropy and Contingency. København: Geografisk Institut, University of Copenhagen.
PalmRisaPredAllen. 1978. “The Status of American Women: A Time-geographic View.” In An Invitation to Geography, 2nd ed., edited by LanegranDavid A.RisaPalm, 99–109. New York: McGraw-Hill.
RhinesmithColin. 2016. “Community Media Infrastructure as Civic Engagement.” In Civic Media: Technology, Design, Practice, edited by GordonEricMihailidisPaul, 481–500. Cambridge: MIT Press.
53.
RobertsonPhillip. 1994. “Best Foods Site Seen as UC Lab.” New Mission News, January, 6.
SchradieJen. 2019. The Revolution that Wasn’t: How Digital Activism Favors Conservatives. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
58.
ShieldsRob. 1991. Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. New York: Routledge.
59.
StreeterThomas. 1987. “The Cable Fable Revisited: Discourse Policy and the Making of Cable Television.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication4:174–200.
60.
StreeterThomas. 1996. Selling the Air: A Critique of the Policy of Broadcasting in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61.
StreeterThomas. 1997. “Blue Skies and Strange Bedfellows: The Discourse of Cable Television.” In The Revolution Wasn’t Televised: Sixties Television and Social Conflict, edited by SpigelLynnCurtinMartin, 221–44. New York: Routledge.
62.
“Supervisor’s Extend Cable TV Pact.”1980. San Francisco Chronicle, November11, 2.
63.
VonderauPeter. 2016. “The Video Bubble: Multichannel Networks and the Transformation of YouTube.” Convergence22 (4): 361–75.
64.
WirtFrederick M.1974. Power in the City: Decision Making in San Francisco. Berkeley: University of California Press.
