Los Angeles CA Political powerhouse Stanley Sheinbaum, former Regent of the University of California (appointed by Gov. Gerry Brown) and former President of the Los Angeles Police Commission has jumped into the fight to save public access cable channels and studios in Los Angeles. Appearing in a Full Disclosure Network® Video News Blog (ten minutes) Mr. Sheinbaum describes why he wrote a letter appealing to Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. to intervene.
In this exclusive interview with the Full Disclosure host Leslie Dutton, Sheinbaum talks about the importance of having public access cable operations in Los Angeles. As a long time benefactor of the ACLU Foundation and close associate of Ramona Ripston, of the ACLU of Southern California, Sheinbaum says that “public access is important to keep an arm on government.”
In an urgent letter to California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. , Mr. Sheinbaum appeals to him to seek emergency injunctive relief to stop Time Warner Cable from shutting down the 14 public access studios and channels in Los Angeles on December 31, 2008 until such time as the City has made arrangements to replace the facilities.
Letters from other organizations who have appealed to the Attorney General along with Stanley Sheinbaum are:
BREAKING NEWS: On December 17, 2008 Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick released the Audit Report on the two City-run government cable channels. In that report she calls for “more diverse programming and reducing costs and enhancing revenues.” Read the Audit Report that is certain to cause concern among independent public access producers, who may be required to pay fees to have their programs appear on public access channels should the City take over the operations after December 31, 2008.
Comments to date: 6. This is page 1 of 1.
John W Los Angeles
Posted: 11:43 am [PST] on January 20 2009
No one is objecting to your right to be heard. Ms. Dutton, while your cause may be a noble one, most cable access shows are far from it-- as I'm sure you would admit. I would likely agree with your "common good" argument if you could support it with some kind of hard data. Who is watching? How many people? 5? 50? How do you know? I'm paying a tax on my bill and what am I getting for my money? All I see is bad look-at-me TV. Public Access would be better served, more effective, and reach more people on the internet than by one-off neighborhood channels that reach a tiny fraction of a single community in which they air. Why not put the cable tax dollars there? Isn't your ultimate goal to actually reach your audience? At least on the web, you could certainly prove you were.
leslie dutton Los Angeles
Posted: 07:42 pm [PST] on January 17 2009
This issue of public access to cable channels that are a public asset, is one that brings together political perspectives from across the board. From left to right, we all agree upon the basic right of the public to be heard, for the common good. We wonder who are you that would oppose our coming together? Why not reveal who those are that would prefer to silence the public?
John W Los Angeles
Posted: 04:32 pm [PST] on January 17 2009
Readers also beware of those that see conspiracies and “agendas” every time some disagrees with their opinion.
Gertrude Smithers Los Angeles
Posted: 04:35 pm [PST] on January 16 2009
Readers Beware of postings from lobbyists and politicos affilitated with Time Warner and Fabien Nunez. They have an agenda
John W Los Angeles
Posted: 03:38 pm [PST] on January 16 2009
Robert: You assume incorrectly anyone actually watches or cares about Public Access. The only ones marching to save it are the producers who make the content (or their close friends), not the viewers who watch it. Without an audience, Public Access has little impact on city council.
Robert Los Angeles
Posted: 07:44 pm [PST] on December 21 2008
Leslie "nailed" home her point when she said that the LA City Council is allowing the Public Access Channels to dwindle down and disappear, because Public Access is critical of City governmental policies on occassion. So the Council retaliates by allowing Public Access to fizzle out! Talk about getting paid for not doing your job. The City Council reasons that, the more uninformed the public is, the greater the chances that Council members will get re-elected. This must stop. Saving Public Access means that Council members will actually have to perform well in serving the public if they want to keep their jobs. It would help if the Council passes Jamiel's Law, or at least give their lines of reason why we should give sanctuary to illegal alien gang members. And their lines of reasoning should be known on the Public Access channels, if we can figure out a way to save this important First Amendment right.
Walter Moore for Mayor of LA, March, 2009.