Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, April 4, 1994 TAG: 9404040109
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Chicago Tribune
DATELINE: CHICAGO LENGTH: Long
It didn't mean he wasn't interested in the issues. Or that he couldn't make his rather pointed opinions known to its members.
Straus just picked up the telephone and told the board - then in the middle of its meeting, being televised live from the Village Hall on the cable access channel in Deerfield, a northern suburb of Chicago - exactly how he felt.
And they, in turn, offered a response, which Straus heard from his television set.
"I wasn't about to schlep up to City Hall and wait for my turn to talk while these guys bantered on," said Straus, 37, who works with electronics manufacturers. "This way, I could let them know I'm interested without having to leave the comfort of my couch."
That seemingly simple exchange may signal the leading edge of a technological revolution in democracy - not to mention a whole new standing for couch potatoes everywhere.
The age of electronic democracy is already here, of course, with the talk-show campaign waged by presidential contender Ross Perot and with the electronic town hall meetings that are becoming staples not only of presidential politics, but also of state and local campaigns.
But now the confluence of two video trends - interactivity and televised board meetings - may give viewers a new kind of access to government proceedings-in-progress, one that never requires them to leave home.
It works in much the same way Oprah or Phil Donahue converse with their at-home audiences. A telephone number is flashed on the screen as the session is broadcast, encouraging viewers to call in.
An operator answers the calls and patches them through to the meeting chambers, where they are heard over a loudspeaker. The meeting participants then respond to the caller over the television set.
Is this the future of democracy - a web of interactive television meetings between elected representatives and their horizontal constituents? Cable industry experts believe the concept has potential in an era when leisure time is considered a premium and when other forms of interactive technology will allow viewers to bank, shop for goods and services, and sign up for college courses via their television sets.
"Interactive television will be a major part of the future of television," said Mitch Bland of Post-Newsweek Cable Co. "Why shouldn't democracy be a part of that?"
Proponents say the approach can revive public participation in the government process at a time when many people are becoming increasingly busy and isolated.
Said Deerfield administrative assistant Gerald Smith: "It's an additional point of access to government. People can participate in the democratic process from their bedrooms."
They also believe it can make those public entities more accountable by opening them to those who can't or won't take advantage of traditional forms of access, such as older people reluctant to leave home after dark or young working parents who want to spend time with their children in the evening rather than sit through a three-hour meeting.
But critics question just how much of an audience public access television will draw and whether it is a good idea to take seriously the comments of an unseen, often unidentified caller who may have missed parts of the meeting in favor of "Who's the Boss?" reruns.
Some politicians cringe at the prospect of longer meetings, backed-up switchboards and the potential for what one political science expert calls "public filibustering."
And there's concern that cable subscribers might have a minor advantage over their non-cable counterparts - leading to what Feddersen describes tongue-in-cheek as "an overrepresentation of the bedridden population, those who have seen the movie of the week and all the reruns, and are now tuned into their local Village Board meeting."
Critics also fear that too much technology could overrun the government process.
And of course, it can be costly. The equipment can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, in addition to the cost of hiring people to operate it - an expense many cash-strapped municipalities can't afford. In Mount Prospect, for example, there have been proposals to eliminate the cable television division and use the money elsewhere.
In the end, the debate over interactive cable may come down to this: Will all this technical gadgetry really attract the kind of quality participation from residents that will make a profound difference in the quality of government?
One indication is the recent cable board meeting in Deerfield, where most of the callers were well-versed in the financial and technical aspects of cable television.
Then there was Michael Chester, 8, who put this pressing question to the board: Would it be possible to get the Sega game channel in Deerfield? Please? They said no, but Michael was still impressed.
"This is neat," he said afterward. "I've never called anybody on TV before."
by CNB