This is from an anonymous source who wants the missive published.
Medford Information Central does not take a position on this response to our media outlet either way, it's a reader's opinion.
_________________________________
Received August 5, 2018
Joe,
That form is absolutely amazing! It says in plain, ordinary, understandable english (sic) what most of the Medford form probably says in legalese, but who other than a lawyer would know what the Medford one means. I can see only one thing that could be changed, and that something gives the member-producer more leeway, not less.This form is geared for a non-profit corp, wich(sic) is who/what should be in charge of TV3; NOT the city of Medford.
Even in the old Dave Skerry days (my era), through various court challenges, it was established that the members of TV3 were NOT members of the non-profit MCC. So while the employees and intern staff (the only actual members of the non-profit) were under the non-profit restrictions; the producer/members were not under them, for they were members of the public access station rather than members of MCC (who ran the non-profit station). This is why it was a major violation of the P&P rules for the producer to portray themselves as a member of MCC/TV3. They were to refer to their status as being an independent producer who had a program on TV3. Most members didn't fully understand this fine distinction, which was for their benefit, because it was in the P&P in legalese rather than Ordinary English. This is why this new advisory board should NOT "forget the past" and is a perfect example of their being doomed to repeat the past mistakes by ignoring the past. (bold added by editor to get the point to the advisory board)
The cable companies themselves state in their agreements with the Cities & Towns state that they allow them the FREE USE of the channel for NON COMMERCIAL PURPOSES ONLY. The difference in stating it this way rather than to say the member cannot do anything a non-profit can't do, comes during election time. As you well know, when the access station staff produce a candidates night, they must give each candidate equal time, equal circumstances etc. They cannot feature or favor any one candidate. All their political programs must be fair and balanced. ,The member/producer is NOT under this obligation. They CAN favor one candidate; they CAN say they think the opposing candaite (sic) for Mayor, for example, is a no-good liar etc. We need to get this clearly established that the member can say these things. And we need to establish it NOW, well before next year's City Elections. Otherwise Mayor Steph will censor and stop all who wish to speak out against her. Even a candidate for office may make their own show on why they and they alone are the right person for the job.
I remember this point of public access members being allowed to have this political call to action right, to be the talk of that year's Alliance For Community Media convention. Prior to that, the members couldn't do this, but Free Speech won out over censorship. Of course many stations still chose to deny the members their freedoms to do this, while others weren't yet formed when this ruling hit, and "somehow" when they did form, they "accidentally" got the old rules. Yeah right! They knew what they were doing, they were censoring.
I am so glad you put this on your blog, Joe. Maybe you can add my comments on your blog as well. Let's see the cable advisory board try to escape their duty this time! They NEED to adopt this type of form giving the membership their rights to unencumbered, unmoderated, uncontrolled free speech!.
