I served as a consultant to the city during the process of restoring the program after city officials placed the public access channel on a two-year hiatus following the withdrawal of funding from the nonprofit that had operated it for decades. Public access TV going dark was particularly personal for me: I built and operated Atlanta’s program, then among the largest in the nation, in 1980, and later helped establish People TV to manage the channel after I left as director.
Designing a forward-looking, full-scale public access broadcast model today is far more complex than it was four decades ago. The challenge is to honor the democratic purpose of public access while adapting to a radically altered media environment — one shaped by the Internet, social media, smartphones and the collapse of traditional local journalism. The regulatory and economic framework that once sustained public access through cable franchise fees has eroded in an era of cord-cutting. In this new reality, public access will survive only where local governments recognize it as a civic asset and act as active partners rather than passive funders or heavy-handed regulators.
One of my first recommendations was that the city convene a blue-ribbon advisory committee. That group brought together voices from education, local government, the private sector and — most importantly — youth-serving organizations. Some of the most compelling ideas for reinvention came from those working directly with young people, who are too often excluded from mainstream media decision-making. The committee’s final report, submitted in December 2024 and leading to the re-establishment last year of a limited public access channel, reflects this perspective with its substantial focus on youth engagement and workforce development.
Equally important was the recognition that funding alone does not guarantee public accountability. Alongside its financial commitment, the city approved the creation of a community media oversight board charged with monitoring performance, addressing public concerns and holding annual public hearings. This kind of governance structure, representative of a city’s demographic and economic diversity, should be a baseline requirement for public access systems nationwide.
Perhaps the most consequential decision involved selecting the program’s operator. The committee examined multiple models, including public schools, libraries, nonprofit organizations, minority-serving institutions, and community and technical colleges. Each option had merits. I strongly supported the community and technical college model. When I launched Atlanta’s original program, the most influential example I studied was operated by Austin Community College in Texas. These institutions are deeply embedded in their communities, have long traditions of working with underserved populations, maintain strong partnerships with public schools, and possess the administrative and technical capacity required to operate a modern media enterprise. I was gratified that the city chose Atlanta Technical College to operate the new program. At some point in the future, city officials, the community and the oversight board will be in a position to evaluate how this model is working and make any prudent adjustments if needed.
Leadership, however, remains decisive. No governance structure or institutional host can compensate for weak leadership. The city’s final agreement appropriately requires the hiring of an experienced public access executive director with demonstrated expertise. The right leader must be able to bridge diverse communities, inspire participation and frame grassroots storytelling as a form of civic power rather than a niche hobby.
Experience also offers a cautionary lesson. Public access television cannot be allowed to drift into capture by a small group of legacy producers or alumni. Its legitimacy depends on openness, renewal and constant outreach. Public access must belong to those who are participating now — especially young people, who will determine where the medium goes in the future. Sustained recruitment of youth, seniors, people with disabilities and community-based organizations must be intentional and ongoing.
Local governments must also resist the temptation to treat public access as a grant-funded afterthought. It is a public trust. Public access provides a form of civic engagement that far exceeds the tokenism of two-minute public comment periods at public meetings. It offers a continuous, accessible platform for citizens to challenge power, document lived experience and build shared community identity.
At a time when public broadcasting is being defunded, local newsrooms are disappearing and dissent is increasingly constrained in public life, public access television may represent one of the last remaining platforms for unfiltered democratic speech. Atlanta’s decision to reinvest in this medium is not merely a local policy choice — it is a national reminder: If democracy depends on who gets to speak and be heard, then public access is not a luxury; it is a noble community asset worth fighting for and protecting.
Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.
Related Articles
