Rethinking Assumptions, Applying Values:
  A Look at the Communications Environment in Cambridge, Massachusetts

We say it often:  Quantity and quality are not the same.  But in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the former can be easily confused for the latter.  The street corners have numerous newspaper dispensers:  The Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Boston Metro, Boston Phoenix, Cambridge Chronicle, Cambridge Tab, etc.  They contribute to the impression that Cambridge is well-covered, or at least that its citizenry is well-informed.  So do Web sites such as the Cambridge Civic Journal and the city's site.  Cambridge Community Television, CCTV, has an impressive-looking studio in Central Square.  Comcast Cable offers hundreds of channels to Cambridge viewers.  With all of that media, and a diverse, well-educated populace, it's hard to imagine a city better prepared and eager for news and community.  Yet, as this class, "Democratic Engagement and Communications Policy," has shown, something is missing in Cambridge's communications environment.  That something embodies concerns that extend far beyond Cambridge's city limits, concerns about the quality of the information overload and the ability of citizens to communicate with each other about issues that affect them.  In this paper I will describe the changes in my thinking about the depth of influence a communications environment has on the level of civic engagement among the inhabitants of a geopolitical space.  I will also look at how that influence might be channeled into improving communications in Cambridge, and setting an example for other places to follow.

Faced with the appearance of a robust media environment, it takes a leap of logic to see the deficiencies.  But they are there, and as a new resident and open-minded student I began to notice them more and more.  When I wanted to buy furniture, I had to go to the phone book because I could find few local ads in newspapers or other media.  The public radio stations are based in Boston, commercial stations are based everywhere in the area but Cambridge, and cable television operates with an even more distant, nationalized model.  When I bought a copy of the Cambridge Chronicle to see if I might want to subscribe, it seemed thin, both in content and quality.  When I wanted to learn about the November 4 city elections, I had to go online, and even there I found only cursory information on the Chronicle's Web site.  When I want to see live music, I have to look in the Boston Phoenix, and I have the sense that there is more happening in Cambridge than that paper lets on.  Choosing a restaurant means wading through greater Boston listings, online or offline, to extract a handful of Cambridge reviews. 

So the principles upon which Cambridge's current communications environment are built appear to be… Boston's.  The Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Boston Phoenix:  These are respected publications, and even Cambridge community leaders say that when the Globe covers something in Cambridge, it generally does it well, just not consistently. [1]   Most of the radio stations heard in Cambridge serve the greater Boston area.  Same with local television.  Our class' media logging project showed that the top-ranked media in each category, The Boston Globe, WBZ radio, and WHDH-TV -- all of which are owned by companies that also own media in other markets -- provided minimal to no coverage of Cambridge, even in the weeks leading up to the November elections. 

Even the Cambridge Chronicle, which claims to serve Cambridge exclusively, takes advantage of the economies of scale of a much larger operation, the Boston Herald, which owns the Tab as well.[2]  The Chronicle's circulation, according to editor Michele Babineau, is only 6000 (up from 5335 in May, 2003, according to the Community Publication Advertising Source from the Standards Rates and Data Service).  The city's population is just over 100,000 people.  The Chronicle does not have offices in Cambridge.  At a recent conference, Babineau blamed the low circulation on Cambridge citizens' lack of interest in local affairs.[3]  That's the kind of statement that can only be refuted by a well-informed, historically aware populace.  Longtime residents Robert Winters, who edits, writes, and manages the Cambridge Civic Journal, and Robert Simha, MIT's Chief Planning Officer for 40 years, say the Chronicle used to be a good paper, and that it used to have a much higher circulation.  Some say the Chronicle's decline began with its sale by William Dole to Fidelity Investments in 1991.  Dole had managed the Cambridge Chronicle and 5 or 6 other papers for more than 40 years, taking over from his father, who had purchased the paper in the 1930s.[4]  Fidelity owned over 100 community newspapers at the time of the purchase.  It sold the entire group, which together formed the Community Newspaper Company, to Herald Media, owner of the Boston Herald, in 2001.[5]   

What all this indicates to me is that Cambridge used to have better, more locally focused media, at least in some categories.  Now it just has too much.  Cambridge's story is not being told, as Professor Mark Lloyd would put it.  But that critique is not an obvious one:  Cambridge basks in the light of two world-renowned universities, is home to many bright minds, gives refuge to immigrants from all over the world, and is, according to Simha, one of the wealthiest cities in the country.  It even has media that claim to serve Cambridge.  So it can be hard to see the void through all of the noise.  It's even harder to understand why that void might exist, and what can be done about it.    

One of the greatest shifts in my thinking has taken place regarding my view of government.  Lloyd has pointed out that many people think about transacting with the government, not participating in it.  While he was referring to the shared citizen experiences of paying car registration fees, parking tickets, and getting permits for a variety of activities, the government-as-corporation metaphor has taken over in other ways.  For example, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made his billions in private-sector pursuits, and in his campaign for city office he touted his experience as a businessman, not a politician.  During the early days of his presidency, George W. Bush was frequently characterized as a good manager who runs his cabinet like a board of directors. 

Thinking of a government as a corporation can be problematic.  If we think that way, then we are stopped, or we stop ourselves, from asking for social improvements the benefits of which are unquantifiable against economic costs.  The metaphor leads to a dichotomized image of a lean, mean corporate machine against a government of bloat and little action.  That image obscures reality, particularly in communications, where media companies get subsidized by the government on the principle that they are "serving" their communities.  For example, FCC licenses are free, and advertising is tax-deductible in most cases.  The current system of networks and affiliates is in part based on a rule that all broadcasters must serve a local, not a national market.  Contrary to their reputations, corporations are not always anti-regulation:  The FCC-managed spectrum exists because commercial stations in the 1920s were concerned about interference from both one-way and two-way broadcasters and asked the government to step in.

There are many reasons for Cambridge's current media landscape, but it is clear that when commercial interests and economic concerns are prioritized over civic ideals and needs, the result is a lack of real information and the appearance of an apathetic citizenry.  Entertainment becomes a higher priority than information, and profit becomes more important than quality of life.  Once those priorities are established, they are hard to change, because paths of communication between citizens, or citizens and their government, are muted by a system that keeps people too busy and leaves them longing for simple entertainment, not civic or democratic engagement, in their spare time.  It also becomes harder to effect change in other areas, such as housing and education, two issues that Cambridge community leaders interviewed by the MIT Community Lab say are very important to them.[6]  Rent control was on the ballot this past November, but how many people knew in advance?  Informing oneself by reading the description on the ballot is not terribly useful, and it precludes informed debate that might encourage others to go to the polls as well.  When local communication is strengthened, democracy is strengthened.  The question is how to turn back the tide of non-Cambridge media overload, and give Cambridge residents -- and encourage them to create -- a media that is still entertaining and relaxing, but also more about their own city.    

I was surprised when a resident in the audience at the MIT Communication Forum conference asked whether Cambridge has enough news to sustain a regular newspaper.[7]  Even as a newcomer with her head buried in books, I can see that this city has a lot going on.  Daily news aside, the social issues alone merit far more attention than they currently get.  Cambridge has often been in demographic transition and, according to Bob Simha, the latest includes the arrival of young professionals into low-income neighborhoods, empty nesters rebuilding on old lots and raising property values, and immigrants who continue to come from all over the world.  Affordable housing is a major concern.  One community leader noted at a recent meeting that it is 'scary not to be able to live in the city you grew up in.'  The quality of public education also appears high on the lists of community leaders interviewed by the MIT Community Lab in the summer of 2003.[8]

Those interviews and subsequent community meetings start to paint a picture of the values of this city.  Some community leaders say there are plenty of people willing to become more involved, but many are busy and need to be met at least half way.  They say that making information about city events more accessible, such as providing Webcasts of meetings, would go a long way.  This city values civic participation, even if it's not currently as strong as it could be.  Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis informed me of another Cambridge core value that I hadn't known about, even though I voted in November.  Since 1941, Cambridge has elected city officials using a system called proportional representation.[9]  The idea, according to the city Web site, was to "guarantee majority rule and at the same time give minority groups representation in proportion to their actual strength."[10]  In practical terms, when one votes, how they rank their selections makes a difference in how their vote gets counted.  In my view, that information should have been posted everywhere in the days leading up to the election.  At the very least, I should have encountered it when the ballot was handed to me. 

So the values are there, but the information is not.  How does media fit into this picture?  It helps to again refer to the MIT Community Lab report: 

Perhaps one of the most interesting results off the questionnaire [administered in summer, 2003] was the repeated opinion that local media in Cambridge was not only poor, but severely inadequate in serving the needs of any person or group in the city.   While many leaders recognized the effect of poor media as a major issue, there were few actions that leaders could recall as having effectively addressed this problem…  More disturbing, however, was the widespread acceptance that receiving irrelevant, inaccurate, incomplete or outdated information from local media sources would continue to be the norm.[11]

Many community leaders seem to agree that Cambridge's normative values are not being supported by its media.  It is striking, however, that even these activists, who spend so much time trying to change the world around them, failed to see the importance of media's role in the issues they address or, if they did, felt powerless to change it.  

While I have shared that feeling of disempowerment, I have learned that governments do have the power to shape media and communications, especially when prodded by their electorates.  On a national level, the government could make the FCC a far stronger group by giving it the expert staff and resources to adequately enforce rules such as ownership limits.  Local governments also have some options for shaping the media.  The city of Cambridge has a contract with Comcast, one that is renewed every 10 years.  The relationship between the two has been tense due to poor service, misleading promotions, and high prices.  The fundamental problem with the relationship is one of leverage:  Cambridge has little, since Comcast owns the lion's share of the fiber optic cable that provides television and high-speed Internet service to residents and also between certain government and education institutions in the city.  Any contract dispute could result in a fiber shutoff to the city.  The city's leverage has also been undermined by the state.  When Cambridge's City Manager denied the request by AT&T Broadband (which had purchased MediaOne) to transfer its license to AT&T Comcast in 2002, the denial was overruled by the Cable Television Division of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy.[12]

But the city's hands are not completely tied.  Although Comcast's contract isn't again up for renewal until 2010, the contract does not prevent the city from awarding a cable franchise to a second licensee.[13]  Who might that second licensee be?  Before venturing an answer, I'd like to first examine my own values and how they might be best incorporated into a plan for a changing media environment.

Democratic participation is important but, before that, I believe that we must strive for pride of place.  What I mean by that is looking at the daily ways in which people interact with the cityspace, and finding ways to infuse that space with civic ideals.  The voice of the city and its citizens should reach newcomers and old-timers.  That voice, or that presence, can show others that Cambridge is a place with history, vitality, and a future.  Think of walking down the street, driving, or taking public transportation.  A resident can pass through in his or her own private bubble, unaware of much between departure point and destination(s).  Or he or she can actually feel the city's presence while moving through.  A person might be more inclined to stop in parks, restaurants, and cafes, or browse through local stores.  He or she might drive less and walk more, talking to people along the way, or stopping to read bulletin boards of upcoming community events and classified ads posted in prominent locations.  If the city reminds its residents of its existence in ways other than parking fees and property taxes, residents might feel even better about where they live.  They might care about it more.  They might want to know more about the city's history, its sacred places, its people, and its issues, which might lead them to demand better information and communication.  People might talk about Cambridge news the way they talk about celebrity scandals or national politics.  A city presence can lead to real democratic engagement, one that feels like less of a duty and more of a desire.  I have seen excellent examples of city voice in Paris and Lyon, France.  Electronic billboards, metro notices, and festivals were among the many ways that I, as a tourist, could immediately feel that I was in a place that is proud of itself.  It's hard to know just how much of that translates into civic engagement, but it's worth finding out.

Much of our class discussion has looked at how a city-run or city-owned cable operation might improve the overall communications environment in the city.  I think it can go a long way towards promoting pride of place and democratic engagement.  Let's say the city were to build its own, state-of-the-art fiber infrastructure, one that could provide high-speed Internet, cable television, and possibly voice when that technology matures.  I'm inclined to encourage the city to rent that fiber out to other companies, rather than take on the financial and public relations risks of running its own telecommunications services.  Building the infrastructure would add redundancy to the system that currently depends on Comcast.  It would also enable the city to demand more of its lessees.  That includes better rates and customer service.  It might also mean assessing a fee, one that could not be passed on to the customer, to fund things like a community (not city government) Web site, electronic bulletin boards, media technology training for citizens, information kiosks in different neighborhoods, and a small staff of community leaders to coordinate it all.  Demands might also include improved transmission and promotion of CCTV programming (which Comcast does not do well), and the lending of studios and equipment for the broadcast and Webcast of community events like candidate debates.

If the city were to establish such a system, the implications for business, health and safety, education, and civic empowerment could be great.  The city could install electronic bulletin boards on T platforms and at bus stops.  These bulletin boards could transmit news, notices, reminders, and trivia by the city and by various community groups.  They could also be immediate sources of information during an emergency.  The city could use funds from the leasing of the fiber lines to improve its own Web site and provide money to community groups to improve theirs.  The city could provide information modules of city news that any community group could post on its own site.  Funds could also go to the building, management, and promotion of a neighborhood discussion group, where people can discuss social issues, participate in online polls, and post comments on the performance of different businesses and government agencies.  Local businesses could advertise on community sites, electronic bulletin boards, and in information kiosks throughout the city.  Those kiosks could also have maps and other information for both tourists and residents.  A city that runs its own telecommunications infrastructure might also choose to bring free wireless access to public spaces.       

Cambridge could also use a such an infrastructure to help bridge the growing digital divide.  It could require leasing companies to provide classes in schools and community centers on how Internet technology works and how it can be accessed.  Libraries and schools could provide greater Internet access through the city system.  Free wireless Internet access in public locations might help some residents, who would save on expensive monthly bills for a home high-speed connection.

The idea behind all of these suggestions is to make the city present in people's minds without asking them to work too hard for it.  It is also to provide accessible ways for citizens to communicate with each other.  As Robert Putnam writes in his book, Bowling Alone, "A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital."[14]  Keith Hampton said at the MIT Communication Forum conference that his studies of wired communities showed that a significant number of people who participated in an online discussion group with their neighbors met offline at some point.[15]  When citizens get to know their neighbors, they start to talk about the city and the city's issues.  When political discourse becomes more commonplace, so can political action.  That compels city government to be more responsive, so that, for example, the next time someone proposes bringing wireless access to an entire neighborhood, the city manager might have to consider it more seriously.  An empowered citizenry, one that communicates among itself, can also enhance consumer power which, as Paul Schlaver, executive director of the Cambridge Consumer Council says, is seriously lacking right now.

Clearly, telecommunications is only one part of the overall communications environment.  Improving that will not improve everything.  But as Mark Lloyd notes, getting people to talk meaningfully about media and civic communication, and by extension many other community issues, is almost as important as anything that might result.  That is a particularly formidable task for a city as great as it already is.  But Cambridge exists in a competitive world.  It needs to anticipate and address changes in technology and demographics in order to remain an attractive place to live and to do business.  By doing so, it can be a role model for other communities also seeking to improve their communications environments, their levels of democratic engagement, and their quality of life.  Recent news stories indicate that an increasing number of cities and towns are considering building and/or managing their own Advanced Fiber Networks (AFNs) for a number of reasons, including dissatisfaction with the coverage and service of private telecommunications providers.  Implicit is the notion that these services should be accessible to as many people as possible, not just those who can afford it and are fortunate to live in an area that is currently serviced.  

The past semester has asked me to locate assumptions I didn't know I had regarding communications and government, reexamine those assumptions, and base a communications vision on the foundation of those new assumptions.  I think of myself as someone who sees beyond a current situation to other possibilities, but in the realm of mass media I could only see that something was wrong.  I could not see how the existing communications environment might be changed, and I realize now that my lack of vision arose in part from my own sense of civic disempowerment.  While a paradigm shift takes more than a semester, it is well on its way.  May the endeavor be so smooth for all the residents of this city.  The more I get to know it, the more I see the potential for even greater social cohesion and civic engagement in Cambridge.     

Rekha Murthy
Cambridge, Massachusetts
December, 2003