TV3: Moving Beyond the He Said, She Said
– Allison Goldsberry, former TV3 Board member
While fighting, personal attacks, smear campaigns, and anonymous blogs might be fun for some, they distract from the real issue: what should be done with TV3?
A report released after one year of research by City Solicitor Mark Rumley concludes that TV3’s Board of Directors has not reflected the diversity of the community for several years, nor has it respected free speech or provided for participation in a fully inclusive manner. The report also found the station’s financial information to be in complete disarray, and recommends an audit be conducted to find out if TV3 has been responsible and accountable with Comcast ratepayers’ money, which funds the station.
Other report highlights include the Board president knowingly filing a false report to the state of Board members that contained people that weren’t actually on the Board, the station manager pocketing $10,000 of $16,000 she raised while making movies with the station’s equipment, and Board members regularly receiving compensation for a variety of tasks.
Several members of TV3’s current Board, including its president, Frank Pilleri, responded to the report by making fun of it and personally attacking the City Solicitor on TV3 over the weekend. The show making fun of the report was not approved by the Board and did not have the support of all of the Board members.
It’s unbelievable to me that these Board members can shrug off the report in such an arrogant and immature way- the report sticks to the facts and steers clear of personalities, no easy feat given the soap opera that has surrounded the station for the past two years.
I served as an advisor to the Board and as a Board member in 2006 because I believed that, working together, the Board could move the station forward and highlight the positives- the new station and equipment, new members, new programming, and a new and enthusiastic station manager.
I left the Board in December 2006 out of frustration with the current leadership. I still think TV3 can move forward by focusing on what’s positive and by getting more people in the community involved, but this can’t happen until a completely new Board is elected or appointed to move the station in the right direction- a direction that’s inclusive, respects free speech, and is accountable to its community.
Mayor Michael McGlynn is expected to make announcement regarding TV3 on Friday- hopefully he will take a bold stance and call for the audit and performance evaluation hearing his City Solicitor has recommended.
Read City Solicitor Rumley’s full report on TV3
Â
What do you think should happen with TV3? Click here to comment.
I am intnerested to see the show produced by TV3 Board Members. Did anyone tape it?
I wonder if they can post to Youtube or a similar service.
I’m confused by the diversity section of the report. It claims to address the question of whether public access television reflects the diversity of this community, but at not point is there any discussion of whether the programming is in fact diverse. The board clearly isn’t diverse, but is the programming? If someone asked whether the letters page of the Boston Globe reflected the diversity of the community, I’d want to know about the diversity of the letters. The city solicitor just looked at who was overseeing things (or not) at TV3.
Michael, there is much information available out there. Feel free to write me off list for links. The diversity problem at TV 3 goes a lot deeper. They have a plethora of religious programming which is certainly “diverse”, however, that programming is imported for the most part. Also, compare TV 3’s program guide with surrounding communities. The majority of the shows are produced by members of the board, ex-members of the board, or are imported. Medford residents who, ostensibly, are the ones who should be making Medford programming, go to other facilities where there IS diversity and no harassment. “Diverse” programming that is imported to make the station look good is a problem because they are utilizing Medford ratepayers’ cablespace to air non-Medford or Board member programming. No Public Access station has to have diverse programming, if 100 residents all did wrestling shows, they have that right.
TV 3 Medford pushes Medford residents away. All you have to do is turn on your TV, tune in to Channel 3 and roll some tape. You’ll be horrified at how little Medford programming there is. I’m all for Public Domain movies, but not when the host of the show gets paid and is a board member of the TV station, as the report clearly points out.
In response to Michael’s post above, I think Rumley mentions (and the board (rightfully) insists) that TV3 programming is wholly dependent upon the citizen members. I extrapolated that given that the Board actively discourages/denigrates full participation, the resultant programming is therefore not as diverse as it could — or should — be.
Our public access television could reflect Medford’s diversity through who makes the programs, who appears on the programs, and who watches the programs. My concern is that Rumley doesn’t answer any of those questions (while claiming that he does).
I realize that there are numerous people who’ve tried to become involved in running TV3 by joining the board, and whether the board is entrenched or diverse or undemocratic is clearly a related issue. But Joe, you’re the only person who I’ve heard of who has been denied airtime. And it is incredibly hypocritical for you to complain about TV3 airing non-Medford programming when you air your programs on numerous other towns’ public access stations. Who are the Medford residents who are submitting shows and not getting them aired? Who are the Medford residents who are being denied the right to use TV3 facilities to make programming? And is it just a few people who are in a personal feud with the board like Joe, or is the board blocking certain demographics?
I want to be clear that I’m not condoning the various alleged misdeeds of the TV3 board. But if we can’t get clear answers to the diversity question now, how will we know whether the next board is doing better or not?
Michael, a few things:
1)The MedfordMass group on Yahoo demands last names for a specific reason – usually a person with one name throws unsubstantiated charges. The small TV 3 board is known for doing this.
2)My show airs in cities and towns where people want to see it. All shows are sponsored (or I am a legitimate member) – however the TV 3 imported programming is usually of a “religious” nature. Steve Marra has sponsored these shows (the Living Rock) while a couple of other shows may have legitimate sponsors, however, the plethora of religious programming is disturbing…and suspicious. If we had an equal display of wrestling & other sports/religious/literary, and general access that Medford citizens might enjoy, it wouldn’t be a problem.
The problem is there are many complaints about too much religious programming – imported programming – on TV 3.
3)There are many people who have not been aired on TV 3. I have a letter Frank Pilleri sent to Mary Fiorello which will be presented to the evaluator; I know of two disabled people along with Mary’s late husband and others that haven’t been aired. And let us not forget Paul Donato’s show pulled by board member Art DeLuca.
Again, if you had a mailing address and a last name your posting would carry more weight. Without those elements it is highly suspicious.
Glad to clarify.
The current tyrants, oh excuse me board members need TO GO HOME FOREVER.let’s get them out of there.
20 years is long enough for a dictatorship and corruption