Meta_one Member Username: Meta_one
Post Number: 8 Registered: 06-2008
| Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:22 am: | |
Check out this article's awesome vision for transforming Detroit through community media infrastructure: http://www.wiretapmag.org/race /44000/ The article opens a dialogue about how community media can help transform Detroit and other "dying cities" throughout the world. |
Dj_tom_t Member Username: Dj_tom_t
Post Number: 11 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:42 am: | |
what a fantastic article! this is the kind of thing this region needs to start focusing on. empowering creative individuals to push that creativity to its max. good stuff. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2213 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:48 am: | |
It's too early for this to be an April Fool's prank, so are they really serious? These folks are envisioning a media-based economy for Detroit that is based on nothing but taxpayer dollars:
quote:We need broadband and wireless infrastructure... President Obama has promised to build broadband infrastructure and increase the speeds of existing cables. Detroit needs to maximize the benefits of federal grants and subsidies..... The actual construction of the Internet -- laying fiber optic cables and building wireless mesh networks -- will also create jobs. To maximize the long-term benefit of broadband infrastructure on our local economy, we have to prioritize community ownership of that infrastructure so the knowledge and jobs stay local. Relying on Comcast or Verizon to build our communication networks means profits and decision-making power will stay concentrated in those companies' hands. Community and municipal ownership is the way to go.... The challenge facing Detroit is to not just be a launching pad, but to become a place where artists can stay and thrive..... Seattle is confronting that challenge with its "Seattle City of Music" campaign, which puts municipal funds into the local music economy.... As Detroit celebrates the Motown Records 50th anniversary this year, we should be honoring its legacy by exploring models like these at the grassroots and governmental level. For example, with help from the tax incentive program, local filmmaker Rola Nashef is expanding her award-winning short film...... A media-based economy is the right solution for Detroit because we need more than jobs and a tax-base to revive our city. How can it be the right solution on which to base a local economy if it requires municipal ownership and tax dollars to sustain it? |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3760 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:51 am: | |
Speaking of media in Detroit, CNN aired a nice segment Tuesday about the movie industry moving into Michigan. They showed a lot of favorable shots of the city during the segment. It was the best PR I've seen about the city since the Super Bowl, and it was free. |
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313
Post Number: 777 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 2:01 pm: | |
I'm curious how The High School for The Performing Arts are doing in New York, Los Angeles, and Minnesota. <313> |
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313
Post Number: 778 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 2:02 pm: | |
Sorry- That was The "Recording" Arts-- <313> |
Meta_one Member Username: Meta_one
Post Number: 9 Registered: 06-2008
| Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 7:42 pm: | |
Mikeg- maybe this media economy vision will ultimately save tax dollars by giving kids in the city an opportunity to explore their creative potential. Remind me, how much more is our state spending on incarceration than it is on education? Of course these programs proposed in the article will require large public and private investment, but we urgently need to radically shift our priorities and invest in new creative solutions if we are ever going to start transcending the crises we face. |
Detmsp Member Username: Detmsp
Post Number: 69 Registered: 08-2008
| Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 7:55 pm: | |
Here's the CNN segment Iheartthed was referring to: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid eo/showbiz/2009/02/10/am.coste llo.hollywood.michigan.cnn?ire f=videosearch |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 951 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 8:36 pm: | |
There is quite a difference between improving the media sector of the economy and creating a media-based economy. The former involves doing what every city in the country is doing; the latter involves a great deal of delusion. |
Cooper Member Username: Cooper
Post Number: 51 Registered: 02-2008
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 3:41 am: | |
quote:How can it be the right solution on which to base a local economy if it requires municipal ownership and tax dollars to sustain it? Most people don't seem to mind municipal ownership of roads and bridges. That's just government doing its job -- providing infrastructure for businesses to operate. Technology/media infrastructure could be seen in the same light. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2215 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 10:59 am: | |
quote:Most people don't seem to mind municipal ownership of roads and bridges. That's just government doing its job -- providing infrastructure for businesses to operate. Technology/media infrastructure could be seen in the same light. The article states that the expensive technology/media infrastructure will have to be paid for by the Federal taxpayers and then operated municipally with the implication that it will be subsidized if necessary by the local taxpayers. There was absolutely no mention made as to how revenue will be created that will flow to the "creatives" who are providing the content on which this new economy will depend. Instead, the article tells us that revenue will have to flow from sources like "municipal funds into the local music economy" and "the tax incentive program". This suggests that your comparison of this proposed "technology/media" economy and infrastructure to "roads and bridges" is flawed. As you state, with roads and bridges, that is a good example of government providing/maintaining infrastructure for businesses to operate, which is to say, the businesses are independently using the infrastructure to create their own revenue stream which generates payrolls, taxes and profits. This article is proposing that that government provide both the technology/media infrastructure and the revenue stream to the content providers. No matter on what it is based, our local economy has to rely on some minimum level of private economic activity in order for it to be sustainable. Over the past couple of years, the private media sector of our economy has found it increasingly difficult to generate revenue using their Internet-based business models. It will be similarly difficult for those in the music/media arts to earn a living from an improved technology/media infrastructure without receiving some government subsidies. To suggest that an entire local economy could grow and sustain itself in this fashion is nothing but wishful thinking. As Retroit wrote, "There is quite a difference between improving the media sector of the economy and creating a media-based economy". |
Det_ard Member Username: Det_ard
Post Number: 9 Registered: 02-2009
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 12:30 pm: | |
quote: Meta_one Member Username: Meta_one Post Number: 8 Registered: 06-2008 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:22 am: Edit PostDelete Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Check out this article's awesome vision for transforming Detroit through community media infrastructure: http://www.wiretapmag.org/race /44000/ The article opens a dialogue about how community media can help transform Detroit and other "dying cities" throughout the world. Top of pageBottom of page Dj_tom_t Member Username: Dj_tom_t Post Number: 11 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:42 am: Edit PostDelete Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) what a fantastic article! this is the kind of thing this region needs to start focusing on. empowering creative individuals to push that creativity to its max. good stuff. Seriously? This article is 99% fluffy marshmallow happy talk. Just another in a long string of unrealistic, uneducated "visions" that don't amount to a warm bucket of spit. If I'm wrong I'll eat my hat when Detroit is "totally transformed by creative media ..." |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2217 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 12:51 pm: | |
|
Big_baby_jebus Member Username: Big_baby_jebus
Post Number: 65 Registered: 09-2008
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 2:03 pm: | |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ Seriously sometimes you whinny know it all's make me sick. Someone actually starts to bring an industry into Michigan, which I work in, and all you got is bit@hing and moaning about how un-realistic it is. Yeah, bite me you ignorant pessimist. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2219 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 2:17 pm: | |
No need to name-call, but since that seems to be your preferred way of communicating, you're the one who is ignorant if you think that the local economy can be energized and supported by an "industry" that admittedly will need "municipal funds" and a "tax incentive program" to remunerate its workers. |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 956 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 2:17 pm: | |
Oh yeah, well I work for the National Widget Company and I want Detroit to become a Widget-based economy, and, damn it, the taxpayers of this country better fund it! |
Hyena Member Username: Hyena
Post Number: 1 Registered: 02-2009
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 4:19 pm: | |
Most of the things mentioned in this article are already well-underway. Millions of dollars are already entering the economy through the film industry. Foundations and large institutions are already preparing to build community broadband infrastructure. So the question is not "will these things happen" but "how will they happen"? Do we resign ourselves to whatever forms of development state tax incentive programs or well-meaning foundations or profit-scheming corporations want to throw at us? Or do we have a right to think critically and creatively of how we, as people living in Detroit, can actually shape the way development happens? That's what this article is about. Also, this article is not advocating for a "media-based economy" as the only kind of economy in Michigan. It is arguing that community media infrastructure can support a diverse range of economic initiatives (including urban agriculture, small businesses, etc.). And for all the haters -- please do explain all of the "educated" substantial, vision-less plans for reviving Michigan's economy that you are working so hard to advance? |
Gsgeorge Member Username: Gsgeorge
Post Number: 718 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 5:11 pm: | |
Welcome Hyena, and bravo on your first post, well-said. God knows the auto industry isn't going to help us, and I'm not hearing any other bright ideas from you naysayers. As someone who works in media-related industries (film & photography) I welcome any help provided, government or otherwise. But the good thing about this type of industry is that it is also home-grown, from creative communities, entrepreneurial persons, and creative local companies. We may be in a slump, but people still love to escape reality through music & film. That's why the film industry was one of the few to weather the Great Depression relatively unharmed. Michigan can benefit greatly by supplementing its economy with media-based industries. |
Det_ard Member Username: Det_ard
Post Number: 10 Registered: 02-2009
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 6:13 pm: | |
Do we really need "community media infrastructure"? How about you just call and get broadband installed instead? If you can't afford $50/month you're not going to be transforming Detroit's economy any time soon. Will a more participatory approach to laying fiber optic cables really do squat? Will teaching HS kids using hiphop and videos really change the generally miserable levels of competence in Detroit HS grads and dropouts? Is a social justice approach more beneficial than focusing on the basics of education? If you media guys can get a company up and running that will employ a bunch of Detroiters, thank you. If you can just keep yourself employed, good job. I'm not criticizing your entrepreneurial efforts, and certainly not your successes. I am calling BS on the notion that this media-based economy is something special that will do great things for Detroit. That strikes me as the "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" fallacy. It's myopic and a bit vain. You think your industry is going to be the savior. Others outside the industry are skeptical, especially given the tone and content of the article linked above. There will be no silver bullet approach or industry to revive Detroit. If it comes back, it'll be because we have smart, educated people, a non-dysfunctional culture, and a business environment that's a lot less screwed up than at present. |
Hyena Member Username: Hyena
Post Number: 2 Registered: 02-2009
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 7:15 pm: | |
To be such a Comcast loyalist you have to have miserably low expectations and a limited imagination for what your experience of the Internet can be. Does anyone actually love their Comcast service? Most people I know in this city feel held hostage by the monopoly of At&t and Comcast, who compete for overpriced, unreliable service. The reason why we have so few options when it comes to telecommunications is because the industry has been so thoroughly privatized and de-regulated. This study explains the failures of this approach in-depth: (http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac /lpress/draft/policygeneral.do c But here's a synopsis for those who aren't interested in all the charts: "The current strategy of privatization with hope for competition under independent regulation has failed in many developed and developing nations. In the US, regulators have been unable to create competition and our infrastructure has suffered. The large broadband incumbents have benefited from public subsidy, have failed to live up to commitments, and have used their power to defeat attempts to create competition The US has little fiber in the access network today, but will have fiber to all urban and many rural homes and buildings in the long run. The question is not whether we are going to deploy new infrastructure; the question is "who will own it?" We should evaluate decentralized alternatives to near-total ownership by the incumbents. Local governments, cooperatives, small ISPs, and home and building owners might own parts of our next generation infrastructure. This evaluation can be fast and cheap -- NSF proved that when they bootstrapped the Internet. We need immediate economic stimulus, but that can come from tax cuts and investment in many sectors as well as broadband. We will be living with the fiber and high-speed wireless infrastructure we build today for many decades. We will also be living with its owners." |
Det_ard Member Username: Det_ard
Post Number: 12 Registered: 02-2009
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 8:54 pm: | |
I love Comcast about as much as I love Northwest, which is not at all. However, both provide a service I want at a price that I don't have a problem with paying. Sure, I'd rather pay $25/month and I'm always up for more competition. Maybe I'd save $200/year in your dream scenario. Maybe not. Sometimes things are most efficiently provided through a monopoly or oligopoly. Maybe long-range wireless technology will cease to be vaporware and leave Comcast and AT&T with hundreds of billions of dollars in obsolete stranded assets. Frankly I don't really think it matters much what happens with broadband, relative to the economic future of Detroit. My position is that it isn't very important and those who think it is are so deep in their little niche of the economy that they can't see reality. Sorry. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2220 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 9:38 pm: | |
Hyena, welcome to the forum. However, labeling those who may have a dissenting point of view as "haters" strikes me as an immature response, however, considering the level of discourse typically found on this forum, you ought to fit in just fine. The future belong to those who can find a niche in the local economy by providing a service or product that they can convince others to willingly purchase and in the process draw in enough revenue to more than cover their expenses. If you cannot cover your expenses and make a profit without relying on a subsidy from a taxpayer funded entity, your contributions may be valid and worthwhile to society but they do nothing to sustain and expand the local economy. As for your comment about "We will be living with the fiber and high-speed wireless infrastructure we build today for many decades.", I'm sure somebody said the same thing when the cable TV companies installed all of that RG-59 coax less than 20 years before the introduction of fiber-optic and wireless transmission. |