So – no more live public BROADCAST of House Sessions. Only the web enabled will be able to follow along (are you LISTENING, Savoy?). Only the computer savvy will be able to get live access. Only those who can AFFORD web access will be able to participate (there is a reason this was on PUBLIC television!).
Will we have libraries stay open until midnight to allow access to budget sessions and other nefarious dealings after 10 pm, since libraries are the panacea offered whenever information is restricted to web access only?
It is interesting that the House will ‘try’ to work with local government access channels – especially now that the Net Neutrality bill may have them ELIMINATED!
Yes, the transmission HAS become ‘erratic’ as more and more decisions hae been made behind closed doors, with votes only being held as show trials. Think this will be a help or hinderance?
but have they been televising the sessions recently?
I actually thought they already had made the decision to no longer broadcast sessions. Offering webcasting is an important addition. I agree it should not be the only outlet for the broadcasts, but it will make the sessions much more accessible to more people. It took way too long for it to happen.
<
p>
The more important question raised by this issue of how to broadcast legislative sessions, however, is whether more meetings of the legislature or its committees should be open to the public. I have been told by people who have been around longer than I have that there used to ba a lot less closed sessions and meetings. If most meetings are closed, how the formal sessions are broadcast may be meaningless in terms of opening up the process to the public.
<
p>
More like: one step forward, one step back.
<
p>
There’s no reason to not do both. For one thing, its much easier to capture video on television than on computer, if only due to bad software and cost.
<
p>
I’m glad they’re looking for ways to cut cost. At the same time, I don’t have cable television and therefore can’t watch my town’s legislative or committee sessions. Furthermore, of all entities for the state to be paying $300,000 to, WGBH is one I’d prefer they keep on forking the loot toward.
Maybe a baby step forward, but about three steps back. Most people in the state with a TV can get the current “Gavel to Gavel” broadcasts – even many of those that don’t have cable. Further, I’d wager that almost everyone who’ll be able to get the new webcasts can also get the current TV coverage. So a webcast creates access for very, very few who didn’t already have it, and removes it for many, since webcasts are useless if you don’t have a reliable broadband connection (and even then they’re iffy, as those of us who enjoyed watching the green, inverted SJC justices in the recent oral arguments can attest).
I’m sorry but $300,000 for TWO years is chump change in a $22 billion budget. Web casting is virtually cost free – can we get Sal a YouTube account?
<
p>
No, what is sinister here is the ‘move along, nothing to see here’ attitude towrds formal sessions. Yes, all decisions are being made behind those big glass doors stencilled Legislators Only that lead to Rm. 348 et al – is that a GOOD thing? I never thought I’d miss George Kevarian – but at least matters were debated in public and on the floor.
<
p>
I can’t help wondering why this is happening now – to provide a smooth, dissent free face to Deval and the public? To facilitate even more back door decisions?
<
p>
It’s worth noting that Sal diMasi’s first act as Speaker was to ban Republicans from the rostrum. Finneran had allowed a GOP representative there, to at least hear what was going on, even if they couldn’t out-vote him.
A very interesting woman has been using her digital camera to record committee hearings. She then makes the recording available to anyone who wants them – but can only cover so many. In fact, some chairman let her in, some did not. My son owns a digi cameral, and recorded some with her.
<
p>
In fact, there were once multiple cameras recording the entire chamber – and many hearings. I do see this as a decline in openness and would like it addressed by the transition team and, in fact, returned to functionality. The cameras were allowed to break, one by one, and not replaced. Yet members will continue to have their closed circuit access? What cameras are supplying that?
<
p>
It was under the last 4 Republican governors that the system of public broadcasting of the deliberations [were their once actual deliberations, not just arm twisting off to the side?} were broadcast…and the sytem simply died from neglect.
<
p>
Yes, there is less openness all the time. I was following an issue where a Commission was appointed. The first meeting was only “publicly posted” on the 4th floor by the Senate men’s bathroom [but fortunately a friendly staffer alerted me] and the next five…posted no better but still those interested managed to keep informed by making quiet friends.
Much as I’d like to blame them, I think it likely (though I’m not certain) that it’s not their fault. I’m guessing that the cameras in legislative hearing rooms, and the rest of the decaying system you describe, are under the control of the legislature. Anyone certain of who’s got jurisdiction?
<
p>
Yeah, I wrote that.
<
p>
P.S. You lost my ‘v’ somewhere.
I agree that the legislature should not stop televising the sessions, but the webcasts may be more convenient if they are downloadable at any time, like the SJC arguments. I think you can watch the SJC arguments live or download them at a more convenient time. It also would be useful if committee hearings were viewable, either on TV and/or by webcast.
i asume we will see it on one of the many unused stations on cable (you know, the low number ones that are reserved for local cable – usually more than one below channel 20 besides the access channel)
<
p>
and we will get more. More committee hearings etc. and perhaps informal sessions.
the wrong direction. Cable access is more of a utility like phone access nowadays. High speed internet is still a luxury for a lot of people. The state cable systems should provide this free of charge–as a minimal cost of doing business in the state.
And it’s really done at cost. The more I think about this, the worse it seems. It’s so easy to tinker with a webcast being generated by House Information Systems – a ‘glitch’ that ‘misses’ certain remarks and so on – as opposed to a live broadcast of what is actually happening.
<
p>
And the real killer is – they will STILL be videotaping! It will just run on closed circuit for members only, so they can hang around their offices during debates instead of be down on the Floor listening to anybody.
I have an internet connection but no cable.
<
p>
Also, many people have satellite TV instead of cable. Do those providers have local access channels?
It shouldn’t be a big deal to have both internet and cable feeds. Internet only on the whole seems more exclusionary to me.
I didn’t know the WGBH arrangements. In principle however it is done it should be done. Exactly as you say I’m sure a webcast is vulnerable. This is a step in the wrong direction. My instinct is that it is more important with one party in charge to have broad public exposure of House process.