TV, Boon or Bane? Participation and a Televised Town Meeting

Abstract

As a public participation tool, television has been particularly vexing for planners who see promise in its ability to reach large audiences, but have issues with its expense and love of “sound-bites”. In 2009, a regional planning organization in the middle of the USA put the power of television to the test with a live televised town meeting. This study evaluates the event's effectiveness using democratic principles. The program was successful at reaching huge numbers in a short time period, at being inspiring, at increasing political efficacy, and at creating networks. It fell short, however, where the medium of television is inherently undemocratic (in the timing and scheduling of the show and engagement, in expense, and in reinforcing passivity). Comparing the strengths and weaknesses of television reveals that planners can use television to its best participatory advantage when they focus on collaborative participation and when they have realistic expectations.

Keywords:

• Public participation
• collaborative planning
• information and communication technologies
• networks
• television

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Stacey Swearingen White, Bruce B. Frey, and the anonymous reviewers, for their helpful advice. Also, thank you to MARC, KCPT, and all the “Imagine KC” participants for their assistance. Lastly, the evaluation of the “Imagine KC” process was made possible through a grant from the US Department of Transportation through the Federal Highway Administration under cooperative agreement No. DTFH61-07-H-00035.

Notes

1. A grant from the US Department of Transportation through the Federal Highway Administration was awarded to the Mid-America Regional Council for the project entitled “Imagine KC – An Innovative Approach to Citizen Engagement” in 2007. The grant included an evaluation component which was completed by the author.

2. Television ratings report viewership in terms of numbers of households. In order to get an estimate of the actual number of viewers, the number of households reported for the 22 April event (10,600) was multiplied by a household size of 1.5 which is smaller than the average household size for the Kansas City MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area (2.53) (US Census Bureau, 2007). Using 1.5 instead of 2.53 was to provide more of a conservative estimate. 8,000 households viewed the 26 April rebroadcast.

3. The total of 980 = 77 participants at the kickoff event+78 participants at community workshops+174 participants in “Conversation-in-a-Box”+30 comments “One KC Voice”+238 participants in the April 22 event audiences+298 online survey+73 respondents to the April 22 phone bank survey+12 participants in the April 22 event chat rooms.

4. These survey items are based on those recommended by Morrell (2003). The coefficient alpha (a test of internal reliability) for the pre-event index on internal political efficacy was 0.83 and for the post-event index was 0.75. A coefficient alpha of 0.8 indicates good reliability for the measure.