Public Access Television
113
for folklore formation and sharing is merely delineated by traditional ideas of history.
In addition to its basis in tradition and application to the current needs of the group
and its “audience,” Degh recognizes that folklore criteria formed through new
media is socially-relevant (35). In any electronic medium, the folklore of the
identified group will simply appeal to a larger population and to more diverse
social groups.
Audience Relationships
In my original study, I determined that access producers made programming
decisions without audience considerations in mind. Rarely do they consider audience
needs or concerns when constructing any element of their programs. However,
access producers do instill novelty and contemporary television narrative standards
into their programs that, in turn, increase audience size and popularity. The
apphcation of narrative standards in access television by these producers is important
in understanding how new folklore genres are created. How producers use access
to promote audience consumption (viewership) and maintain, reconstruct, create,
and transform traditional folklore practices is important.
Public access producers effectively tell stories to two separate audiences. One
comprises “traditional” viewers — cable television subscribers who tune into the
public access cable channel. Much like those described by McQuail (80), these
audiences exist in the here and now and are delineated by the cultural dimensions
of time, space, and social miUeu within which folklore appears. The second audience
is composed of fellow access producers who share, either directly or indirectly,
many common and identifiable media experiences.
These audiences can be further described as “esoteric groups” (Djupedal 61),
who possess a specialized knowledge of particular cultures within a community.
The cultures, in this case, are comprised of access producers. Due to their communal,
social and cultural experiences, access producers understand the “local” aspect of
the cable audience. They believe their audiences are demographically similar, have
had similar life experiences, and understand producers’ intentions. Producers beHeve
audience members are just like themselves, so why assume otherwise? Thus
producers may deliberately ignore audience needs and write for themselves on the
assumption that what would interest them would interest their audience (Gans 51).
Rather than considering audience needs in genre or format applications, access
producers have constructed ideals that represent their audiences, and use those as
guides for the messages and stories that are cablecast. Although my original study
found few direct connections, access producers felt a sense of comradery. Primarily,
these sentiments resulted from viewing other producers’ works on the access channel
and recounting anecdotes about each other with colleagues and access channel
volunteers.