1. ASIAN AMERICAN MEDIA IN COMMUNITIES
Week 6: CAAM and the Televisual Public Sphere

2. Topics:
NAATA (National Asian American Telecommunications Association) ‘ CAAM (Center for Asian American Media)
PBS (Public Broadcasting Services) and CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting)
Public sphere, televisual public sphere, counterpublic sphere

3. PBS
PBS was founded by Hartford N. Gunn Jr. It began operations on October 5, 1970
Took over many of the functions of its predecessor, National Educational Television (NET), which later merged with Newark, New Jersey station WNDT to form WNET.  In 1973 it merged with Educational Television Stations.
Not a network but a program distributor that provides television content and related services to its member stations

4. CPB
CPB was created on November 7, 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
CPB originally collaborated with NET, and created PBS and NPR in 1970
The CPB provides some funding for the PBS, NPR, and, to a lesser extent, for other broadcasters that are independent of those organizations. It recently started funding web-based projects

5. Public Television & Asian American Media
The 1980s represent the decade of institutionalization of Asian American independent media.
Minority consortia formed in late 1970s, in response to the report A Formula for Change (1978) by the Task Force on Minorities in Public Broadcasting
National Latino Communications Consortium, Native American Public Television, National Black Programming Consortium, and NAATA formed the minority consortia

6. “The purpose of these consortia was to direct minority films toward public television and to create more funding opportunities for minority filmmakers.” (p. 41)
NAATA was formed in 1981, after a three-day conference in Berkeley, CA
Public Telecommunications Act of 1988 endowed ITVS and the Minority Consortia with increased funding to support independent films

7. “I argue that though PBS has provided a necessary and welcome support matrix for Asian American independent media, its structural demands as a televisual public sphere has obligated Asian American media to uphold the problematic and limiting values of “injury” and ressentiment, thereby subjecting filmmakers to a proscribed, problematic, ideological agenda. As a structure, the public sphere offers specific capabilities as well as limitations that have directly shaped Asian American film and video as a genre.”
(pp )

8. NAATA has changed Asian American film and video in several important ways (p. 41):

9. NAATA has changed Asian American film and video in several important ways (p. 41):
It affects the way national audiences perceive Asian American identity by determining which films—based on subject matter, genre, and style—air on national PBS.

10. NAATA has changed Asian American film and video in several important ways (p. 41):
It affects the way national audiences perceive Asian American identity by determining which films—based on subject matter, genre, and style—air on national PBS.
It became the gatekeeper of Asian American film and video beginning in the 1980s

11. NAATA has changed Asian American film and video in several important ways (p. 41):
It affects the way national audiences perceive Asian American identity by determining which films—based on subject matter, genre, and style—air on national PBS.
It became the gatekeeper of Asian American film and video beginning in the 1980s
Expanded from education distribution service (Cross Currents) to a full-service media organization in 1991

12. “NAATA Presents”

13. “NAATA Presents”
Media Fund established in 1990, amount $20,000-50,000; recipients are contractually obligated to appear in SFIAAFF + first four years of domestic broadcast rights

14. “NAATA Presents”
Media Fund established in 1990, amount $20,000-50,000; recipients are contractually obligated to appear in SFIAAFF + first four years of domestic broadcast rights
“…public funding from the Minority Consortia carries with it a risk that an Asian American–identified film may not get enough attention—critical, popular, or otherwise—to register with the American public.” (p. 43)

15. Public Television as Public Sphere:

16. Public Television as Public Sphere:
What is a public sphere?

17. “[It is] the space in which citizens deliberate about their common affairs, hence, an institutionalized arena of discursive interaction. This arena is conceptually distinct from the state; it is a site for the production and circulation of discourses that can in principle be critical of the state. The public sphere in Habermas’s sense is also conceptually distinct from the official economy; it is not an arena of market relations but rather one of discursive relations, a theater for debating and deliberating rather than for buying and selling. Thus, this concept of the public sphere permits us to keep in view the distinctions between state apparatuses, economic markets, and democratic associations.” (p. 44)

18. “[It is] the space in which citizens deliberate about their common affairs, hence, an institutionalized arena of discursive interaction. This arena is conceptually distinct from the state; it is a site for the production and circulation of discourses that can in principle be critical of the state. The public sphere in Habermas’s sense is also conceptually distinct from the official economy; it is not an arena of market relations but rather one of discursive relations, a theater for debating and deliberating rather than for buying and selling. Thus, this concept of the public sphere permits us to keep in view the distinctions between state apparatuses, economic markets, and democratic associations.” (p. 44)

19. A concept of Jürgen Habermas, a German sociologist and philosopher, best known for this theory and that of communicative rationality.

20. A concept of Jürgen Habermas, a German sociologist and philosopher, best known for this theory and that of communicative rationality.
Habermas’s concept of the public sphere arose from salon culture in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries

21. Public Television as Public Sphere:
What is a public sphere?

22. What is a public sphere? What is a televisual public sphere?
Public Television as Public Sphere:
What is a public sphere?
What is a televisual public sphere?

23. Public television as public sphere:

24. Public television as public sphere:
as a democratic space for the equal representation of all the citizenry’s voices;

25. Public television as public sphere:
as a democratic space for the equal representation of all the citizenry’s voices;
as “a theater” for the noncommercial representation of these ideas;

26. Public television as public sphere:
as a democratic space for the equal representation of all the citizenry’s voices;
as “a theater” for the noncommercial representation of these ideas;
It is, like other public spheres, a utopian idea

27. “Because of the actual fragmentation of society by race, class, and gender, the idea of a sphere of free and equal parity for a unified public could not be realized fully as the ideal answer for democratic communication. In this way, PBS, with its utopian ideals of a televisual public sphere that would represent a pluralistic society’s voices in all of its “diversity,” would not live up to its name.” (p. 44)

28. What is a public sphere? What is a televisual public sphere?
Public Television as Public Sphere:
What is a public sphere?
What is a televisual public sphere?

29. Public Television as Public Sphere:
What is a public sphere?
What is a televisual public sphere?
POV as “an ideal example of a televisual public sphere” (p. 45)

30. Public Television as Public Sphere:
What is a public sphere?
What is a televisual public sphere?
POV as “an ideal example of a televisual public sphere” (p. 45)
What is a counterpublic sphere?

31. Public Television as Public Sphere:
What is a public sphere?
What is a televisual public sphere?
POV as “an ideal example of a televisual public sphere” (p. 45)
What is a counterpublic sphere?
NAATA’s film festival – San Francisco Asian American International Film Festival (SFAAIFF) as an example of a counterpublic to POV/PBS’s utopian public sphere

32. “NAATA’s festival is counterdiscursive because it is an alternative to the ‘dominant social order’ that is presented by the uniform public sphere of PBS.

33. It is a festival that, on the one hand, has its roots in the local specificity of San Francisco independent film communities

34. on the other, has connections to other local hubs of Asian American film and video activity, such as Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago.

35. Not only are other points of view expressed at SFIAAFF, but other modes such as fictional narrative feature films and experimental films broaden the concept of the genre.

36. Furthermore, the festival attempts to bring together “Asian American film” and films from East and South Asia and Asian diasporas in Canada and the United Kingdom.

37. “NAATA’s festival is counterdiscursive because it is an alternative to the ‘dominant social order’ that is presented by the uniform public sphere of PBS. It is a festival that, on the one hand, has its roots in the local specificity of San Francisco independent film communities and, on the other, has connections to other local hubs of Asian American film and video activity, such as Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. Not only are other points of view expressed at SFIAAFF, but other modes such as fictional narrative feature films and experimental films broaden the concept of the genre. Furthermore, the festival attempts to bring together “Asian American film” and films from East and South Asia and Asian diasporas in Canada and the United Kingdom.” (p )

38. Comparative Analysis: POV / SFAAIFF
Divide into two groups – students working at VC should analyze POV
Examine the programming of the current POV series and the 2016 SFAAIFF using their respective web sites
Use concrete examples to relate these media programs to Okada’s discussion of public sphere, televisual public sphere, and counterpublic sphere

39. Does her argument apply to the current programming from these media presenter / exhibitors? Are there elements from these programs that challenge or expand on her analysis?
Prepare a presentation (15-20 mins) for class: present your findings and be able to facilitate a brief discussion around them