Radio: Gifts of Sound
By Frieda Werden,
(Published in Il Dono/The Gift: A Feminist Analysis, a special
edition in English of the Athanor Journal, published by Meltemi
Press in Italy.)
I've been a community radio practitioner for more than thirty years, and
during that time have observed several kinds of controversy erupting within
the field. In this paper, I will examine radio and especially community
radio in terms of gift economy concepts, and explore the hypothesis that
much of the conflict that emerges within community radio can be seen as
a conflict between a nurturing gift model and a hierarchical or patriarchal-exchange
model.
"In order to reject patriarchal thinking, we must be able to distinguish
between it and something else, an alternative." -- Genevieve Vaughan
in For-Giving: A Feminist Criticism of Exchange (1997:18)
First, how is community radio different from other kinds of radio broadcasting?
In actual practice, the definition of community radio is somewhat inconsistently
applied, and can overlap with other categories such as public radio, state
radio, and association radio[1], and even commercial radio. However, in
December 2003, the Civil Society initiative of the World Summit on the
Information Society divided mass media into three sectors that it said
need to be recognized: commercial media, public service media, and community
media. [2] Each of these sectors can be described in terms of a gift analysis.
Commercial radio is a radio station (or network) set up as a business.
Its owners sell advertising to raise revenue, and a money bottom line
is usually the prime driver. It's often said of these stations that in
business terms the product is the audience, which is sold to the advertiser
for a profit, and that the content of the station is simply a means to
attract the audience so that the audience's attention can be sold. Station
rankings are determined by surveying selected people from the potential
audience to find out what percentage of "market share" each station has
captured, in terms of gender-and-age and economic groupings. For example,
males 18-34 living in families making more than $100,000 a year would
be a pretty desirable demographic, because it's relatively easy to get
them to spend money on advertised goods. It's also fairly certain that
you can attract a sizeable amount of them with the right bait. The preference
for a male demographic tends to skew broadcasting content towards lowest
common denominator fodder for males, such as sports, smart-ass commentary
(and on television, sex and violence).
In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) formerly
interpreted the Communications Act of 1937 to mitigate the commercial
nature of broadcast media and require that it give something of value
to the public.
The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees,"
and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion
of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance.
The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively
seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that
addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration
during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine. [3]
Congress passed a law in 1987 to try to restore the Fairness Doctrine
by writing into law what had formerly been only administrative regulations
of the FCC. However, President Reagan vetoed the bill, and other attempts
have failed. Other obligations of commercial broadcasters that have been
dissolved since the 1980s in the US include obligations to air news and
public service programming, to give a right of reply against attack[4],
and "to offer 'equal opportunity' to all legally qualified political candidates
for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to
use the station." [5] This final requirement was suspended for 60 days
by the FCC, shortly before the 2000 election, and resulted in, for example,
some Belo Corporation TV stations reportedly refusing to air Democratic
Presidential Candidate Al Gore's ads.[6] The suspension of the equal time
rule was supposedly in anticipation of a court ruling striking down the
rule on grounds that it violated broadcasters' right of free speech; however,
as of the present writing the courts have not definitively ruled on this
matter.[7]
The rhetoric of the broadcast regulation that emerged in the US from the
1937 Broadcasting Act turned upon the issue of scarcity. Because broadcasting
spectrum was a scarce resource and was interpreted as belonging to the
public, this supposedly justified putting requirements on broadcasters
to meet community needs. In 1980, broadcasters were required to make an
annual survey of 19 categories of potential community needs and show how
they responded to this with programming; by 2000, they were only required
to keep a public file of any community issues and programs on them. Within
this time frame, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 changed the rules
to permit the same owners to have almost unlimited numbers of radio stations.
"Family owned" radio stations that might have some human ties to the local
community have virtually disappeared, swallowed up and chased out by a
very limited number of fiercely competitive conglomerates. [8]
The commonly stated rationale for permitting these ownership changes is
that with the availability of more kinds of media outlets (for example,
cable TV and radio, satellite radio, and netcasting), there is no longer
a scarcity of media outlets. However, since 1994, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has conducted auctions of licenses for electromagnetic
spectrum. These auctions are open to any eligible company or individual
that submits an application and upfront payment, and is found to be a
qualified bidder by the Commission.[9]
In effect, by permitting a few of the largest cash- and credit-rich companies
free reign in enclosing the commons, government is colluding in an artificially
enhanced scarcity of broadcasting spectrum. In the words of former Clinton-appointed
FCC Chairman Bill Kennard:
Of course, spectrum has always been in short supply. But never in history
have we seen more intense demands on the spectrum resource. We are in
danger of suffering a "spectrum drought" in our country. [10]
In the words of Bebe Facundus, who was forced by economics to sell the
commercial women's radio station she had created in Louisiana, "Only 3
entities own everything [i.e., all the commercial radio stations] in the
city of Baton Rouge, and that's happening throughout the country."[11]
These conglomerate owners could buy up the most powerful stations with
the best reception and greatest audience reach; they could undersell her
in advertising, using economies of scale, until they drove her out of
business, and they (and the casinos) could hog and drive up the price
of billboards used for radio promotion. Facundus tried to make her station
both attractive and useful to women in her community an example of how
a commercial station that is locally owned can cross over category and
be oriented towards meeting needs. Facundus put a large amount of her
own money into the station; but she was unable or unwilling to absorb
a big financial loss as the conditions in the community changed. She also
says about her experience that she had a problem with male investors,
whom she had to buy out because "if men come in with any money they think
they own everything."[12]
The loss of local ownership and local accountability is now recognized
by the public in the US, and has generated such a backlash against the
FCC that in October 2003 the federal regulatory body created a "Localism
Task Force":
"I created the Localism Task Force to evaluate how broadcasters are
serving their local communities. Broadcasters must serve the public interest,
and the Commission has consistently interpreted this to require broadcast
licensees to air programming that is responsive to the interests and needs
of their communities." -- Chairman Michael K. Powell [13]
A North Carolina TV station's web site contained this reporting about
the hearing in Charlotte, which was attended by Chairman Powell and other
commissioners:
Powell, one of three Republicans on the commission who backed the new
rules, has said he believes the issue of how broadcasters serve their
local community should be addressed separately from the ownership rules.
But he could not stop speakers from bringing up the ownership dispute
at the Charlotte hearing.
"To try to talk about localism without discussing media ownership is avoiding
the issue," said Tift Merritt, a singer-songwriter from Raleigh who told
the FCC members she was unable to get her songs on her local radio station.
Her comment drew applause from the packed hearing. [14]
In contrast to 1960, when "Payola" (companies paying to get their records
played on radio stations) was a crime, today in the US: "Listeners may
not realize it, but radio today is largely bought by the record companies.
Most rock and Top 40 stations get paid to play the songs they spin by
the companies that manufacture the records." [15] This affects not only
local artists and the local audiences who would like to hear songs on
the radio that reflect local culture, but they also shut out smaller and
independent record-labels. (If you travel, you may have noticed that the
music on airlines is sometimes all from a single recording company, too,
e.g., Sony Music.)
Several extreme failures by conglomerate radio stations to meet local
need were widely publicized and became one of the main reasons for the
FCC localism hearings. For example:
In January 2002, a train carrying 10,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia
derailed in the town of Minot, causing a spill and a toxic cloud. Authorities
attempted to warn the residents of Minot to stay indoors and to avoid
the spill. But when the authorities called six of the seven radio stations
in Minot to issue the warning, no one answered the phones. As it turned
out, Clear Channel owned all six of the stations and none of the station's
personnel were available at the time.[16]
And then there was the report, also from the North Carolina, that the
Bob & Madison Morning Show on WDCG-FM had included a lot of hate talk
directed at cyclists, including discussion of how much fun it was to run
cyclists off the road. Cycling organizations' protests got the station
to promise to run road safety announcements, but these public service
announcements were reportedly also parodied and derided by the morning
show hosts.[17]
So-called shock radio with hate elements, including sexism, has become
standard fare for many commercial radio stations across the US, especially
in the most widely listened-to time slots. Howard Stern, a shock jock
syndicated by a CBS subsidiary, got away with advocating rape, among other
things. [18] According to FAIR (the New York-based NGO Fairness and Accuracy
in Reporting), hate radio is political. [19] This assessment would seem
to be borne out by the fact that Stern's show was cancelled from all the
stations of the vast Clear Channel network in February 2004. While CNN
reported that this was because Stern violated the FCC's new decency standards,[20]
Stern himself was widely quoted as saying that it was because "I dared
to speak out against the Bush administration and say that the religious
agenda of George W. Bush concerning stem cell research and gay marriage
is wrong."[21]
Hate radio for political purposes is far more widespread than just in
the US, of course. According to Radio Netherlands, "Hate radio killed
more than 800,000 people in the
last decade." They maintain regularly updated listing of examples of both
Hate Radio and Peace Radio stations.[22] Among the examples of hate radio
they list:
Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) is the most recent and
widely reported symbol of "hate radio" throughout the world. Its broadcasts,
disseminating hate propaganda and inciting to murder Tutsis and opponents
to the regime, began on 8 July 1993, and greatly contributed to the 1994
genocide of hundreds of thousands.
The hate radio station in Rwanda was succeeded in 1994 by two peace radio
stations, Radio Agatashya ("the swallow that brings hope" in Kinyarwanda)
and Radio Amahoro ("Radio Peace"). Apparently both these stations were
short-lived. Radio Netherlands describes the funding crisis of Radio Agatashya
thus:
It was originally set up by UNESCO and Reporters Sans Frontieres in August
1994, but was taken over by the Swiss-based Fondation Hirondelle (Swallow
Foundation) from August 1995. In June 1994 it was pledged a US$20,000
grant by UNESCO, which it never received, and turned down a French government
gift of 250,000 French francs owing to the French military involvement
in Rwanda. It was funded by the UNHCR, European Union and the Swiss government.
. . . The radio has been off the air since 27 October 1996, mainly d[u]e
to a funding shortage.
In 2000, I attended the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women
and met a UN delegate from Rwanda, who told me that she was interested
in getting a women's radio station started in Rwanda because that would
be a good way to promote peace. In 1997 an organization called Health
Unlimited organized a team of Rwandans to produce a women's radio soap
opera and a 15-minute women's radio magazine program that were aired twice
a week on Radio Rwanda, starting in 1999 and apparently continuing to
the present time.[23] Another radio station for peace is Radio UNAMSIL,
established in Sierra Leone by Sheila Dallas, to promote the UN's peacekeeping
mission. The story of this successful effort is told by Dallas in radio
program #28-03 "Peace Radio in Sierra Leone" from the Women's International
News Gathering Service.[24]
The association between women's radio and peace has a flip side in that
shock radio, also described as "aggressive reality" radio, finds more
of its listenership among males. [25] Not surprisingly, it is also understood
to be a tool of a religio-Republican hierarchical ideology that has been
struggling hard against feminism and environmentalism in the US. Patrick
Burkart analyzed this phenomenon in an essay in the collectively-published
magazine Bad Subjects: Education for Everyday Life: [26]
Using Clinton's election in 1992 as a basis for a backlash, talk show
programs directed momentum-building campaigns of mass fax-and-phone call
petitions to national politicians, especially in response to changing
federal policies towards abortion restrictions, discrimination against
gays and lesbians, and strengthening national educational standards.
Burkart makes reference to earlier studies of Nazi radio, as well as to
the methodology of contemporary right-wing talk radio, which is absolutist
and builds a false sense of consensus:
On the market, talk radio is inherently conservative because disagreement
and dissent are programmed out of talk radio shows de facto, by reaching
only those audiences with lifestyles that support consumption of this
entertainment technology.
Groups ranging from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in New York,[27]
to the Coalition Against Hate Radio in Portland, Oregon[28], among others,
recommend liberals to mount campaigns that include calling in to hate
radio programs. However, Burkart explains in his article that the shock
radio programs today use technologies such as pre-screening callers and
using a delay to allow editing calls even on live radio, in order to build
up a picture of monolithic public opinion supporting the hosts' fascistic
pronouncements.
As Genevieve Vaughan writes in For-Giving:
An environment is created in which some ideas fit together and thrive
because they are validated as permissible and respectable, while their
alternatives are discredited. The so-called 'free market' of ideas, like
the economic free market, often promotes the benefit of a (genetically
superior?) few while appearing to be good for everyone. . . . Systems
of ideas which have been taught us as the truth back up the political
and economic systems of which they are a part.(1997:19)
Burkart's analysis of right-wing radio is corroborative of that insight:
Shock radio is a technocratic forum, portraying its ideological perspectiveŠdelivering
daily, oracular, absolutist insights. Rush Limbaugh reminds his audience
regularly that he is the only voice of the truth in 'the media'.
Commercialism also has a role in less "mainstream" hate radio, whose purveyors
simply buy time from commercial operators that exercise no control over
the content. This, for example, appears on the web site of famous Nazi
sympathizer Ernst Zundel:
With only a limited budget, anyone can buy airtime on hundreds of AM or
shortwave stations throughout America. Almost everyone listens to the
radio! Ernst Zundel urges his listeners to join the 'Freedom Evolution'
towards Truth and Justice, by participating in this bold new venture in
mass communication.[29]
Zundel is presently fighting deportation from Canada to Germany, where
he would face criminal charges of "inciting hate."[30]
Public Service Radio is a second category of media that the 2003 Civil
Society initiative of the World Summit on the Information Society says
must be recognized. Public service radio could mean many things, [31]
but you can get an idea of the generally accepted range by looking at
the membership of the European Broadcasting Union. Its members are "radio
and television companies, most of which are government-owned public service
broadcasters or privately owned stations with public missions." Support
and control relationships between public service broadcasters and governments
vary. Stations and networks may be owned by the government like Radio
Mozambique.[32] They may be owned by a foundation partly controlled by
the government, like Swedish national radio.[33] They may be owned by
a state-initiated private company, funded by a dedicated tax and with
nominal government control, like the BBC.
In the case of National Public Radio in the US, you have a non-profit corporation indirectly funded by a line in the government budget, with the money laundered first through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (a bipartisan politically directed body) and then through a network of member stations that are also listener-, donor-, and business-funded. Looking at these structures, you can infer that public service radio is intended to be for the public benefit, but not "by the people." In many cases, the government makes show of an arms-length relationship, but I think it is fair to say that these entities are expected to promote stability in the present system and cannot afford to be radical. It is a fact, however, that in the current climate of capitalist globalization even maintaining the status quo can become radical by default.
Remember that radio itself is only about 100 years old. In 1894, Marconi
"made a bell ring using radio waves." In 1902 there was a "public demonstration
of radio." Not til 1906 were the first radio set advertised and the first
music broadcast on radio. Radio transmitters interfering with each other
soon became an obvious problem. The first US law to regulate broadcasters
was passed in 1912.[34] This was, incidentally, the year the Titanic sank,
a ship that had a radio but couldn't reach anyone with it. The nearest
ship did not have a 24-hour radio operator. It was also the period of
the First World War, and governments could certainly see the building
power of radio for war, not only at home but also in their colonies.
New Zealand passed the first law to require government licensing of radio,
in 1903, [35] while it was still a British colony.[36] Private broadcasting
was introduced there in 1923, but in 1936 the 22 private broadcasters
were nationalized to create a state broadcasting monopoly. In 1947, New
Zealand became one of many colonies that gained full independence from
Britain. Like other former British colonies (and most of the rest of the
world) it retained monopoly broadcasting and looked to the BBC for ideas.
However, the BBC's programming was supported by government-levied licensing fees for radio receivers, and New Zealand was too small a country to make much money that way; hence, they took advertising, with its attendant pressure to make programs attractive to wealthy businesses. They also bought the majority of their programs from BBC [ In 1983, a UNESCO study showed that Britain had 85% local programming on TV and New Zealand had only 25% ].
In the mid-1980s, a New Zealand Royal Commission "advocated a strong public
service system with limits on advertising levels and a local programme
quota." But instead, national broadcasting was made into a state-owned
enterprise that was supposed to return a profit to the government. Bids
for programs the government wanted produced were let out for bidding to
private companies. One big project the government funded was the medical
soap opera Shortland Street, "NZOA's major prime-time vehicle for representing
a changing national culture." Shortland Street is a wonderful example
of how government funded programs can be politically shifted. Watched
by 700,000 Kiwis every weeknight, the show has been top-ranked drama in
the country ever since its debut. But as its web site describes, it has
changed:
When Shortland Street began in 1992, 'privatisation' and 'business practice'
were the buzzwords of a health system reinventing itself. The direction
of healthcare seemed to lie in the private accident and emergency clinics
springing up around the country. The forward-looking clinic Shortland
Street A&E Medical was the way of the future.
Ten years later, faced with a decline in the demand for specialist private
clinicservices, Shortland Street has become a public hospital, funded
by a district health board, and managed by a DHB-appointed CEO. Reflecting
the heath services most in demand in the fictional suburb of Ferndale,
it provides a 24-hour accident and emergency service, community services
(including GPs and preventative health care programmes), and elective
surgery facilities. [37]
The program had been initiated by the right-wing National Party during
the Labour Party interregnum of 1990-99, with the obvious political aim
of normalizing privatized healthcare. Perhaps unfortunately for the Labour
Party when it returned, it wasn't as simple to turn around broadcasting
policy as it was to change content. In 1991, New Zealand under the National
Party had dropped all restrictions on transnational ownership of broadcasting,
and the results had been disappointing to some:
Although the introduction of competition has significantly increased the
number of television services available within New Zealand, there is heated
debate as to whether it has extended the range of programming on offer.
Critics of the reforms point to the cultural costs of the minimal restrictions
on commercial operators, the intensified competition for ratings points,
Šthe absence of any quota to protect local programming, to NZOA's inability
to compel stations to show the programmes it has funded in favourable
slots; and to the marked increase in advertising time which gives more
space to commercial speech and less to other voices.[38]
The National Party had not only deregulated New Zealand's broadcasting
sector, it had made a gift of it to the corporations and corporate-controlled
states through GATS (the General Agreement on Trade and Services, an internationally
negotiated trade pact.
New Zealand deregulated its broadcasting sector and listed it as a covered
service under the GATS. It is thus constrained from reintroducing content
quotas, despite a change in government and a clear public will to re-regulate
the sector.[39]
Most other countries have similar points of struggle to New Zealand's.
There are governments that still maintain broadcasting monopolies, but
far fewer now, even in Africa and Asia. Zimbabwe remains one of the few
governments that maintain total monopoly over broadcasting. Recently a
high-ranking minister there cancelled the popular national anti-AIDS TV
soap opera Mopane Junction, because funding had come from the Centers
for Disease Control in the United States.[40]
Canada is a country that still has a major government-funded public service
broadcaster. Through a combination of budget cuts and exponential growth
of its competition, the CBC has lost ground in the ratings, but is still
the major opinion-testing ground of the nation, and clearly courts more
diversity of opinions than the US commercial talk radio referenced in
the beginning of this article. Canada also has stiff requirements for
Canadian Content (CanCon) in the music played on its radio outlets; and
the province of Quebec has additional quotas for playing songs that include
at least some French. (This can be contrasted with the Canadian film industry.
The government still puts substantial, if shrinking, amounts of money
into subsidizing Canadian filmmaking through the Film Board of Canada;
however, as movie theatre ownership is overtaken by American-based chains
drawing on American-based major distributors, Canadians often bemoan the
fact that it's very hard to find places to view Canadian films outside
of festivals.)
With so much shared border and so much shared language between Canada
and the economically and culturally aggressive US, the results of dropping
Canadian cultural quotas and subsidies would be instantly noticeable and
highly unpopular. Canada was one of the countries that brought the 2003
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) to a halt in the fall of 2003,
largely over the issue of protection of cultural diversity. In July of
2001, Canada proposed this phrase to be part of the preamble of the FTAA:
. . . countries must maintain the ability to preserve, develop and implement
their cultural policies for the purpose of strengthening cultural diversity,
given the essential role that cultural goods and services play in the
identity and diversity of society and the lives of individuals. . . (FTAA.tci/w/04)[41]
Other countries share Canada's concerns. The UNESCO Executive Committee
recommended in 2003 that a Convention on Cultural Diversity be developed
as a legally-binding international instrument, citing:
* There is a growing awareness that aspects of globalization are leading
to cultural homogenization and increasing the difficulties for local and
diverse cultural production.
* Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements make the situation worse
by limiting the ability of nations to support their own artists, cultural
producers and institutions. Trade in "products and services" of the "entertainment
industry" is big business, accounting for an increasing share of the trade
balance of several countries.
* "Exempting" culture from trade rules has been ineffective in preserving
cultural sovereignty. WTO rules have been applied to cultural activities
by trade panels. Cultural policies are increasingly made to conform to
trade commitments. Developing nations cannot promote their own indigenous
artists and cultural producers even when they have the capacity to implement
appropriate policies.
Sweden provides a tidy example of public service radio at the service
of national policy.[42] The current guidelines for Sweden's public service
broadcasting were vetted by a committee appointed by the government that
included members of all the parties in the Riksdag (Parliament). What
they accepted includes this definition:
In general terms the task of public service radio and TV can be described
as giving everyone access to a balanced and independent selection of high
quality programmes with no commercial advertising. Among other things
this means that the broadcasts shall reach people throughout the country
and that the broadcasts shall be so composed that it ranges from programmes
of general interest to the more specialised, at the same time as the citizens
are given new and unexpected choices of programmes and genres. The broadcasts
shall be characterised by the fundamental democratic principles by which
the state is governed and shall meet the requirements of impartiality,
objectivity and independence of both state and private interests, and
of political, economic and other spheres of authority. All programmes
shall be of high quality. Another important aspect is that the broadcasts
shall reflect the country as a whole and that programmes therefore shall
be produced in different parts of Sweden.
One may note within the description above a number of phrases that are
typically used for keeping station and programming decision-making within
establishment boundaries, such as "of high quality," and "objectivity."[43]
"Diversity," explicitly mentioned elsewhere in the guidelines, is largely
described in terms of geography and alternative languages. But we also
see, later in the same document, indicators that Sweden intends public
service broadcasting should be something of a counterweight to private
media consolidation:
Public service radio and television enjoy high status and will become
increasingly important when there is greater competition. The Government
proposes that the fundamental principles for public service broadcasting
shall continue to apply and considers that there is broad agreement on
having well-established public service radio and television companies
in Sweden in the future. Vigorous public service radio and television
can provide a strong balancing force in a media landscape that otherwise
risks being dominated by a few actors.
In early 2004, there's been conflict in the UK around the independence
of the BBC from government control. I had imagined when I began researching
this that BBC was a government entity that had been granted independence
by sufferance, but when I looked into its history, I found that it was
actually a private-public partnership from its inception in 1922:
Though it was the Post Office that had initiated the meeting, it was the
six main manufacturers of radio equipment (the Marconi Company, Metropolitan-Vickers,
the Western Electric Company, the Radio Communication Company, the General
Electric Company, and the British Thompson-Houstan Company) who were asked
to form a committee to prepare the plan for broadcasting in Britain.
The formation of the BBC involved companies making a capital investment
for setting up transmitting stations that would reach all of Britain,
thus creating a demand for radio receivers. The "new BBC was to undertake
to sell only British-made sets, to pay to the Company 10 per cent of the
net wholesale selling price of all broadcast receiving apparatus." BBC
was also forbidden to accept money for carrying any message or music,
except with written permission from the Postmaster. In 1927, Parliament
joined the troika with the Postmaster-General and the corporate governors,
and was nominally given "ultimate control" of the BBC; but basically "broadcasting
had become a monopoly, financed by licensing fees on radio receivers,
and administered by an independent public corporation." [44]
One of the stumbling blocks BBC had to get around when it began was opposition
by the British newspaper industry. Initially the industry won a rule saying
that the BBC would have to buy and pay for its news from existing print
news services. Before long, of course, it outstripped these other sources
-- it still pays rather well, but has its own relationship with correspondents.
Recently the conflict between BBC and newspapers has heated up again,
though, and the crux of the matter is related to gift-giving.
In August 2003, a headline appeared reading "Dyke to Open Up BBC Archive."
Greg Dyke, Director General of the BBC, had announced that
. . . everyone would in future be able to download BBC radio and TV programmes
from the internet. The service, the BBC Creative Archive, would be free
and available to everyone, as long as they were not intending to use the
material for commercial purposes. . .
"The BBC probably has the best television library in the world," said
Mr Dyke, who was speaking at the Edinburgh TV Festival. . . . "I believe
that we are about to move into a second phase of the digital revolution,
a phase which will be more about public than private value; about free,
not pay services; about inclusivity, not exclusion. . . . it will be about
how public money can be combined with new digital technologies to transform
everyone's lives."[45]
Dyke's announcement of free content fell in the middle of a spate of decisions
by other UK news agencies that they were going to start charging for content
on the internet. An analysis appeared on the University of Southern California's
Online Journalism Review:
The BBC has the most popular British news Web site by far, with 16 to
20 million unique users per month. But it has pockets £2 billion ($3.32
billion) deep, filled with taxpayers' money. While it does not run advertising,
most commercial newspapers believe that the BBC makes it harder to compete
and survive because it poaches potential readers and subscribers.
The BBC response is to claim the public service defense. "We believe that
the news we provide is a valuable service for the UK's license fee payers,"
said Pete Clifton, the newly appointed editor for BBC News Online. "It
delivers to them, on an increasingly important platform, a rich source
of BBC News content which they may have missed elsewhere. This content,
paid for by them, covers news from local to international, and we feel
it is right to make this available on the Web."
Newspapers are eagerly awaiting the British government's online review,
which will report on the market impact of BBC's Web business next year.
Many in the industry want curbs placed on the BBC Online; they hope the
online review will make recommendations to that effect.
All of the United Kingdom's bigger online news operations are focused
now on growing profits -- and doing that is naturally more difficult in
a marketplace where one of your competitors is deeply subsidized and giving
away top product for free.[46]
This controversy reflects a very deep conflict in societies around the
world between models of socially provided goods and services that are
collectively supported for all, and individual payment on the barrelhead
for everything (even essentials of life like water). In the case of public
service radio in the UK, "free" access to information and entertainment
was made possible by over-the-air broadcasting to all who have the receivers,
and those who bought the receivers paid for this information through dedicated
taxes. Now public access to what is essentially collective wealth is being
vastly extended by the BBC's opening its archives to all who have sufficient
internet tool access, and this is considered an attack by those who need
a condition of scarcity to help them make money on selling information.
It is important that the resemblance between the issue of information
access and water access is not merely coincidental.
Both are the subject of extremely heated trade negotiations, legislative activity, regulatory interpretations, and court fights all over the world, brought by a corporate sector that seeks to privatize valuable resources in both the material and the information commons. New laws formed in these arenas are extending copyrights, so that the products of creativity are not coming out into the public domain. They are newly criminalizing the copying of "intellectual property" even for individual use, research, or critical analysis. They are giving broadcasters and distributors new ownership rights over material that they did not create. And they are extending enforcement jurisdiction not only to those who actually copy or share protected intellectual property, but to those whose services or equipment designs are used in these newly illegal activities.
That means internet service providers and engineers being held liable
for what might be done by others. ISPs in some places are being subpoenaed
to provide the names of their users who might potentially be sharing music
files, for example, and coerced to provide this information under penalty
of law. [47] As pointed out by attorney Robin Gross of the organization
IP Justice, these new laws and trade regimes contravene an international
human right, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 19.The Right to Communicate. Everyone has the right to freedom
of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
This brings us then to the final section of this article, and a discussion
of community radio. Community radio is the form most clearly concerned
not only with people's ability to seek and receive information through
media, but also with our ability to "impart information and ideas" to
one another. As Genevieve Vaughan has pointed out in For-Giving: "'Co-muni-cation'
is giving gifts (from the Latin munus -- gift) together. It is how we
form 'co-muni-ty.'"(1997:25-26)
Even more than for commercial or public service radio, the parameters
of community radio can be hard to define.
Some stations are owned by not-for-profit groups or by cooperatives whose
members are the listeners themselves. Others are owned by students, universities,
municipalities, churches or trade unions. There are stations financed
by donations from listeners, by international development agencies, by
advertising and by governments. ---"Waves for Freedom." Report on the
Sixth World Conference of Community Radio Broadcasters. Dakar, Senegal,
January 23-39, 1995[48]
The World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC [Association
Mondiale des Radiodiffuseurs Communautaires]), based in Montreal, promotes
mutual support among community radios around the world. They organized
the Dakar conference of community broadcasters referenced above, as well
as seven others since 1983. AMARC has members that are licensed and members
that broadcast illegally; members that are free-standing stations, members
that do community radio in the permitted niches of state broadcasters,
and members that share frequencies with stations that may have incompatible
aims to their own. If you go to the AMARC web site -- www.amarc.org --
and click on "What is Community Radio?" you'll find instead of one definition
a series of quotes submitted by members in different regions. For example,
from Latin America, where community radio stations are numerous and are
often strongly linked to anti-oligarchical struggles:
Radio stations that bear this name do not fit the logic of money or advertising.Their
purpose is different, their best efforts are put at the disposal of civil
society. Of course this service is highly political: it is a question
of influencing public opinion, denying conformity, creating consensus,
broadening democracy. The purpose -- whence the name -- is to build community
life. "Manual urgente para Radialistas Apasionados." Jose Ignacio Lopez
Vigil. 1997
In Latin America, there are approximately one thousand radio stations
that can be considered community, educational, grassroots or civic radio
stations. They are characterized by their political objectives of social
change, their search for a fair system that takes into account human rights,
and makes power accessible to the masses and open to their participation.
"Gestion de la radio comunitaria y ciudadana." Claudia Villamayor y Ernesto
Lamas. AMARC y Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. 1998
From Canada, where community radio is obligated by government to promote
diversity and Canadian culture:
The tone of each community radio station is well modulated in the image
of its listeners. The important thing is to seek out differences.
Community radio is an element of closeness, a bridge, a step toward the
other, not to make the other like us, but to have him become what he is.
It is not a question of having more, but of being, that is the real mission
of community radio stations in Canada. Isn't the most meaningful definition
of culture the act of making people aware of the greatness they possess?
Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada, ARC. Canada.
From France:
Free, independent, lay radio stations that are linked to human rights
and concerned about the environment. They are many and pluralistic. refuse
mercantile communication. They scrupulously respect the code of ethics
of journalists and work to disseminate culture by giving artists broader
expression within their listening audiences. They have association status,
democratic operation and financing consistent with the fact that they
are non-profit organizations. They are solidary toward each other and
constitute work communities that make it possible for each member to fulfill
its mission to the utmost.
Charte de la Confederation Nationale des Radios Libres, CNRL. France.
From the Philippines, where radio was very powerful in mobilizing People
Power that overthrew the Marcos dictatorship:
Stations collectively operated by the community people. Stations dedicated
to development, education and people empowerment. Stations which adhere
to the principles of democracy and participation.
TAMBULI - Communication Project. Philippines
From India, where virtually all broadcasting has long been controlled
by All-India Radio, which is both the national broadcaster and the regulator,
and has occasionally doled out bits of airtime to community broadcasters
under a tight rein:
community radio programming is designed by the community, to improve social
conditions and the quality of its cultural life. The community itself
decides what its priorities and needs are in terms of information provision.
VOICES. India.
From Africa:
The historical philosophy of community radio is to use this medium as
the voice of the voiceless, the mouthpiece of oppressed people (be it
on racial, gender, or class grounds) and generally as a tool for development.
"What is Community Radio? A resource guide." AMARC Africa and Panos Southern
Africa. 1998
A far-reaching example of community radio organizing originated in Africa
was started by women, during the period when government-controlled radio
was the rule across the continent. In 1988, the Zimbabwe chapter of the
Federation of African Media Women (FAMW) resolved to get more rural women's
participation into broadcasting, and came up with the idea for radio listening
clubs. [49] These professional women communicators contacted women in
rural villages, asked them to listen to the radio as a group, and then
recorded the rural women's comments and questions. Next the journalists
took the rural women's questions to public officials and asked them to
respond.[50] Programs combining these elements were aired on Zimbabwe
Radio 4; the rural women listened to the programs, again responded, and
the series went on in this vein. Eventually, having observed how little
it took to make the recordings, the rural women asked to be given their
own recording equipment, and told the professional journalists they were
no longer needed during the discussions.[51]
Radio listening clubs spread first to other countries in the Southern
Africa Development Community (SADC) region, and then to other parts of
the world. It became a model for other feminist and community media projects
in film, video, and still photography. And it's been copied by governmental
and non-governmental development agencies seeking to accelerate social
change. In the PhD dissertation Media and the Empowerment of Communities
for Social Change, Chido Matewa writes of radio listening clubs: grassroots
participation is what sets this project design apart and distinguishes
it from other rural radio which is in line with the agenda setting theory
of McCombs and Shaw, i.e. that the media agenda (MA) leads to the people's
agenda (PA): MA>>>>PA. [italics in original].[52] [I can't resist commenting
that the "MA leads to PA " formula might be phrased in a more feminist
manner: "MA leads PA."]
According to Matewa, radio listening club membership declines when radio
sets become more available in villages, so expansion has been in ever
more remote areas. Another problem may be that the association of radio
listening clubs with state radio, and the adaptation of the radio listening
club model to the aims of development agencies change the experience from
participatory to didactic, and reduces its value as a gift. One gets a
hint of local contempt for such coercion in a speech delivered by Kate
Azuka Omunegha at the World Forum on Communication Rights:
One thing that seems to be glaring in Nigerian media is the near absence
of women as newsmakers. One possible reason for this is the new news value,
which privileges prominence, who is involved. Closely related to this
again is the idea that Nigerian media seem to work with what we call the
ideology of developmental communication. The media are seen as the mouthpiece
of the government.[53]
As more governments have opened up space for independent broadcasters,
though, some community radio stations have been created that incorporate
values from radio listening clubs and also consciously draw on the values
taught by Brazilian popular educationist Paolo Freire, values such as
starting with people's own lived experience, concientizacion (a word that
is very popular in Latin America, but whose closest common North American
equivalent is "consciousness raising"), and emphasis on dialogue that
involves respect and working together. [54]
There are community radios in Africa consciously promoting those values.
The one I visited, Radio Ada, was first set up to serve the coastal fishing
community of Ada; but because they could uniquely fill a need for local,
participatory radio programming in the Dangme language, they ended up
serving the entire region of about 500,000 Dangme-speaking people, half
of whom are not literate. The station's mission as reported on the web
site of their funder, UNESCO, is "to support the development aspirations
and objectives of the Dangme people, give a voice to the voiceless, sustain
the growth of Dangme culture, and encourage, promote and contribute to
informed dialogue and reflective action."[55]
I visited Radio Ada in 2003, in the company of the coordinator of the
Ghana Community Radio Network, and was fascinated by a description of
how they work on reflective action in the public sphere. First, I was
told, they ask the people what their problems are, then whose responsibility
it is to deal with the problems. Then they go to those responsible, often
public officials, and ask what they have done to meet their commitments
around the problem. Then they give everybody time to think and work on
the problem. This groundwork is done before beginning any recording, so
no one is shamed on air before they've had a chance to improve their practice.
I was told that this was normal procedure for all four stations in the
Ghana Community Radio Network. [56]
A traditional underpinning for this kind of relationship to authorities
was stated by Ntombi, a Zimbabwean woman active in rural community publishing:
What is democracy? What is governance? . . . You get the meaning of governance
from the old people in the village, and they will tell you "governance
in our times was a servant of the people, to do what the people want you
to do, and once they don't approve of what you are . . . When you govern
people you are not their master, you have to be their servant and respect
. . . being a governor in our time was being the people's slave, and it
could go like the dew.[57]
Another African station that grew directly out of the radio listening
club movement was Radio Mama, the women's station in Kampala, Uganda,
regrettably shut down by the Ugandan government on January 8, 2004 (reportedly
for not having paid its license fees).[58] According to an interview I
conducted in 2002, Radio Mama had been assigned a broadcasting frequency
that could not be picked up on car radios, a staggering handicap for developing
an audience.
The issue of who is the audience, in other words, who is the recipient
of the gift of radio, is a crucial one for community stations. To be community
stations in the sense of "giving gifts together," the audience and the
operators of the station should be interrelated categories.
Radio Ada co-founder and Deputy Director Wilna Quarmyne clearly subscribes
to this view.
She is originally from the Philippines, where she was also involved in
the community radio and popular education movements. She writes that the
approach to training in the station's activities was originally developed
in 1997 for and at Radio Ada, the first full-fledged community radio station
in Ghana. The approach is continually being enriched and has succeeded
in enabling a group of volunteers with no previous training or experience
in broadcasting to operate a full-scale, 17-hour-a-day service entirely
on their own. Some of the volunteers have grown into trainers. The approach
has also been extended with positive outcomes to other member stations
of the Ghana Community Radio Network, as well as to a prospective community
radio station in Ethiopia.[59]
In some stations, the radio audience may be virtually coterminous with
the presenters. The legendary Margaretta D'Arcy is an AMARC member who
runs Radio Pirate Women in Galway, Ireland a pirate (unlicensed) station
that operates during periodic Women's Radio Festivals, using a transmitter
small enough to fit in a purse. When a reporter asked D'Arcy how many
listeners the station had, she stated that listeners were completely unimportant
that what is important is that the women talk on the radio, they listen
to each other, get all fired up, and then they go out in the street and
they demonstrate!
Larger and more permanent community stations usually have doors open for
volunteers but also have some kind of long term paid staff for facilities
management, and may also have staff setting programming policies. To maximize
the gift-giving potential of community radio, leadership should ideally
be nurturing and give-way[60] to the needs of the organization, promote
horizontal giving, and promote "abundance through the cessation of waste."[61]
However, most stations also exist in a context of patriarchal hierarchicalism
that can be insidious. In the United States, for instance, the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting gives money to noncommercial radio stations that
meet certain criteria, which in recent years have included having not
less than five full-time paid staff members. This can provide an opening
for stratification, and be in conflict with the kinds of values that often
emerge from collective activity, where paid positions are often part-time
or rotating jobs that help subsidize people of small financial means who
are also volunteers. Professional aspirations of staff to earn higher
salaries without moving on can lead to cutting in other areas;[62] and
staff desires to minimize conflicts and hassles and streamline decision-making
for themselves can lead to imposition of rules and loss of flexibility.
Allowing breaking of rules so as to be flexible for some people and not
others is then a likely source of cronyism and dissatisfaction.
Another entree for hierarchicalism is provided by the "ownership structures"
of many noncommercial stations. In order to qualify for noncommercial
frequencies, receive public funds, and offer tax-deductible status to
donors, stations generally have to have boards of directors. In the US,
only one state, Wisconsin, even permits nonprofit organizations to have
a cooperative structure, and even those have to have boards of directors.
[63] Directors have the legal liability for the station, the rights to
change its bylaws and approve its budget, and are in effect treated by
the law as the owners of the station. (And as volunteers have sometimes
found when they tried to go to court against boards of directors, "ownership
is nine-tenths of the law.") A famous recent struggle within the five-station
Pacifica network turned in part on directors' decisions to change the
board from elected to self-selected, and a suggestion that they would
change the bylaws to allow board members to make a profit from activities
performed for the station. In both staff and board hierarchies, you can
see a potential for imposition of one-many structures, where the one or
ones who are staff or board substitute and take over from the many who
are volunteers or listeners (or both).
This pattern can be found not only in community radio, but in many kinds
of nonprofit organizations. A corollary of such a development is that
volunteer contributions are devalued and raising and spending money takes
over as the dominant activity of the organization. In the case of US community
radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting promoted such substitution
by changing the way it awarded public funds. Where formerly stations'
"match" for public funds they received could include volunteer hours assigned
value in monetary terms, this was changed so that stations had to raise
actual dollars to match the federal dollars they might be given. [64]
This discounting of volunteers' gifts of their labour and denial of economic
means to support that work seems related to the following statement in
For-Giving:
Free giftgiving to needs -- what in mothering we would call nurturing
or caring work -- is often not counted and may remain invisible in our
society or seem uninformative because it is qualitatively rather than
quantitatively based.(1997:24).
Many community stations run on very little funding, but even they have
financial needs, for equipment, for electricity, for materials, and usually
for at least some paid staff that can spend the concentrated time to coordinate
volunteers and keep things running smoothly. Whether the funds come from
NGOs, foundations, the government, or business advertiser/underwriters,
they often come with some kind of mandate, pressure or temptation to modify
or abandon a social change agenda. Even listener donations can tempt community
radios to play to the richer elements of society. One of the most frequently
heard debates within listener-supported radio is whether the value of
the program should be measured by how much money is donated to the station
when that program is on the air, and whether shows that don't raise enough
money should be dropped, even if they serve a disadvantaged audience.
A related conflict is whether the value of a station can be measured by
the number of its listeners. Commercial radio stations use commercial
measuring services to come up with audience "ratings." The sample of people
asked to give data on their listening habits is supposedly randomly selected
from fixed demographic categories (e.g., males 18-34). Standings in the
Arbitron ratings are used to rank stations in terms of "market share"
both geographically and demographically, and these figures in turn are
used by stations to set advertising rates. That is the process by which
the invisible product of human attention to radio is made visible and
sold.[65] Similar methods of audience measurement have been adopted by
National Public Radio in the US. Their audience surveys include asking
whether their listeners use or buy long lists of products, but have little
(usually nothing) about the listeners' social change activities. Starting
in the 1980s, a well-publicized goal of their audience research department
was to "double the NPR audience," and the announced plan for doubling
the audience was to have stations program so that the same people would
keep listening longer. This led to a conscious effort to program more
for the well-off white male, the same demographic that commercial radio
found most desirable. While some editions of The NPR Audience noted that
older women are actually more generous and consistent listener-donors,
they were considered a shrinking part of the audience, and of course they
were less attractive to underwriters. (Underwriting is a form of quasi-advertising
that NPR, PBS, and most US public radio and television stations now pursue
heavily.)
Within US community radio, two divergent streams of thought emerged around
the question of audience. One faction believed and promoted the concept
that pursuing similar strategies to NPR's would be good for community
radio and give it more listeners, more money, and greater stability. Their
approach was to change stations so that there would be more paid programmers
and hosts, a more consistent sound, and more mainstream kinds of music
and information. This was similar to the usual public radio formula, and
often included airing offerings from the major public radio syndicators,
NPR and Public Radio International. Programs most likely to be cut included
women's programs and other kinds of programs run by collectives or groups,
the reason given usually being that shared responsibilities and changing
hosts led to inconsistent air-sound. The other community radio faction,
however, developed a very different self-identity, rejecting some of the
advice that was being promoted to them through the collaborative efforts
of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters and the Corporation
for Public Broadcasters. In 1996, breakaway stations from NFCB created
a new annual conference, the Grassroots Radio Conference, "as a reaction
against the homogenization of commercialization of public radio."[66]
The founders of the GRC, Marty Durlin of KGNU in Boulder, Colorado, and
Cathy Melio of WERU in Maine, wrote an article explaining their movement.
I excerpt here from a version found on the web:
What is grassroots radio?
You can recognize a grassroots community station anywhere in the country.
There is a freshness you'll not hear elsewhere due largely to the variety
of voices and connections the station has with its community . . . Local
programming is the backbone of community radio, [but] another element
that connects grassroots stations are the independently-produced national
programs many of us broadcast, including Alternative Radio . . . WINGS
(Women's International News Gathering Service), National Native News,
and Making Contact.
These national programs connect the grassroots stations, while our local
programs ground us in our own communities . ..Sometimes the performances
of inexperienced programmers are rough . . . [but] those new voices become
competent and creative broadcasters before our very ears . . . It is insulting
the intelligence of people to think that they can not accept or appreciate
variety of programming . . . We believe in expanding the audience for
the variety, not reducing the variety to expand the audience . . . Important
principles to maintaining a community involved grassroots station are:
participatory governance, with active committees involved in decision-making,
community and volunteer involvement in all major decisions, openness on
the air (no gag orders!), elected volunteer representatives serving on
the board of directors, open access to the airwaves, active recruitment
and ongoing training of volunteers, commitment to diversity, consideration
of those under-served by other broadcast media, and diverse programming.
. .[67]
The GRC has done much to strengthen the self-identity and resolve of community
radio in the US, and its model has had a strong impact. Throughout the
eight years of GRC conferences, it has also provided a national venue
for the struggles of volunteers and listeners to reclaim the five-station
Pacifica network from its runaway board. Many of the GRC stations were
affiliates of the syndicated programming distributed by the Pacifica network,
and organized among themselves to support striking Pacifica news reporters
and withhold affiliation fees in support of the struggle. After the volunteer-listener
victory and re-organization of Pacifica, GRC co-founder Marty Durlin was
overwhelmingly elected to chair the reclaimed board of the Pacifica Foundation,
in March 2004.
In 2002, at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, Brazilian
popular education activist Moema Viezzer took me to visit a special community
radio station. It had been set up with city government support for the
use of the youth at the conference. They were broadcasting primarily via
loudspeaker to the youth camping area, and to a landless-persons' camping
area nearby. The studio was a large log building with a packed earth floor,
and inside were rows of computers, and a complete broadcasting studio.
Over the microphone was a sign, which Moema Viezzer translated it for
me: "A microphone is not a piss pot."
What did this mean?, I wondered. Finally, this occurred to me: radio is
gift-giving, and gift-giving is transitive.[68] When you speak into a
microphone, you don't do it to relieve yourself. You do it to reach people
with something that will meet their needs.
Frieda Werden is the co-founder and producer of WINGS: Women's International
News Gathering Service; the Spoken Word Coordinator of CJSF-FM, Vancouver;
and a board member of AMARC and the International Association of Women
in Radio and TV.
References
Genevieve Vaughan (1997) For-Giving: A Feminist Criticism of Exchange,
Plain View Press, Austin, Texas.
Footnotes
[1] Notably, Meridien FM in Tema, Ghana.
[2] http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/229.htm accessed January 25,
2004
[3] http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm
accessed March 5, 2004
[4] "Corollaries to the fairness doctrine -- the 'personal attack' and
'political editorializing' rules-- were thrown out in October 2000 by
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Press/topic.aspx?topic=press_broadcasting,
accessed March 5, 2004
[5] http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm
accessed March 5, 2004
[6] WINGS #4-01 Revenge on Big Media: Dallas's cat-killers. Radio program
produced by Mary O' Grady for Women's International News Gathering Service
and released in 2001.
[7] "Section 315 of the Communications Act -- the section that imposes
an equal time requirement for all broadcasts featuring candidates -- may
itself be unconstitutional." Michael C. Dorf, on web site http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/findlaw.analysis.dorf.arnold/,
accessed March 5, 2004
[8] http://www.listenerchoice.com/essays/BroadcastingShift.html accessed
March 5, 2004.
[9] http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/ accessed March 5, 2004.
[10] http://www.ncs.gov/N5_HP/Customer_Service/XAffairs/SpeechService/SS00-056.htm
accessed March 5, 2004. I am using the US as my primary example because
I am most familiar with the process there, and because the process of
enclosing the commons there is very stark. However, as will be discussed
in the section on government radio, there is more than one way to ensure
control through scarcity.
[11] Interview notes by Frieda Werden, on web site http://www.womensradiofund.org/femradio.htm
accessed March 5, 2004
[12] Werden, Frieda, "A Woman's Local Commercial FM Station," on web site
http://www.womensradiofund.org/batrogue.htm accessed March 5, 2004
[13] http://www.fcc.gov/localism/ accessed March 5, 2004 Chairman Michael
Powell is the son of the US Secretary of State Colin Powell. To see what
is the "community" of media owners in the US (and transnationally) today,
see the web page "Who Controls the Media?" maintained by the National
Organization for Women, as part of their campaign against lifting media
ownership restrictions:
http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html
[14] "FCC Localism Hearing Draws Large, Vocal Crowd" on web site http://www.wral.com/news/2574901/detail.html
POSTED: 9:52 p.m. EDT October 22, 2003, UPDATED: 10:18 p.m. EDT October
22, 2003.
[15] Eric Boehlert in "Pay for Play," http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html
[16] "#17 Clear Channel Monopoly Draws Criticism," on web site
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/17.html summarizes
coverage by Jeff Perlstein from September 2002.
[17] http://www.mediageek.org/archives/002169.html , posting dated October
23, 2003.
[18] Jennifer Pozner, "I'd Take Them Out with Sex: Journalists trivialize
Howard Stern's advocacy of rape as 'Insensitivity'" in Extra, July/August
1999. Found on web site: http://www.fair.org/extra/9907/stern.html
[19] See collection of back articles from FAIR on http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/talk-radio.html
[20] http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/News/02/25/stern.suspension/, dated
Feb. 26 2004. NB: These new "decency standards" are also quite political,
a reversal of the entire trend toward deregulation of media content pleasing
to the fundamentalist sector of the US political right.
[21] "Stern Feels Bush-Whacked, End is Near," dated March 3, 2004, on
web site
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=20252
[I can't resist mentioning here that in my research for discussion of
the rationale for shock radio's popularity, I found web sites selling
term papers on this topic for $9.95 a page!]
[22] http://www.rnw.nl/realradio/dossiers/html/hateintro.html , viewed
March 6, 2004; page last updated February 10, 2004.
[23] http://www.comminit.com/pdsradiodrama/sld-9388.html, Case Study 9:
Rwanda - Urunana (Hand in Hand)
[24] http://www.wings.org/2003.html
[25] Heidi Dietrich, "Polite market: Area not known for shock radio,"
in Puget Sound Business Journal, October 17, 2003 Print Edition, archived
on the web at http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/10/20/story3.html
accessed March 6, 2004
[26] Patrick Burkart, "Radio Shock: Talk Radio Propaganda," in Bad Subjects,
Issue # 23, December 1995
archived on the web at http://www.eserver.org/bs/23/burkart.html accessed
March 6, 2004
[27] "Challenging Hate Radio: A Guide for Activists" on the web page http://www.fair.org/activism/hate-radio.html:
"Call in to the show. Call the on-air line during the show and try to
challenge the racism, sexism or homophobia calmly and directly. It often
doesn't take much to demonstrate the absurdity of bigoted arguments. If
several people call in, it can change the entire show. "
[28] "Groups Demand End to 'Hate Radio' "by John C. postedWednesday, Apr.
24, 2002 at 7:23 PM on the web page http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/04/124735_comment.php
[29] http://www.zundelsite.org/english/catalog/audio_catalog.html accessed
March 10, 2004
[30] Greg Bonnell, "Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel to remain in jail pending
immigration hearing," Tuesday April 1, 2003, in CNews Law and Order, archived
on web page http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2003/03/31/55093-cp.html accessed
March 10, 2000.
[31] In the US, the term "public service radio" is sometimes applied to
emergency radio communications used by police and fire departments, and
"public radio" is used for the noncommercial broadcast stations..
[32] http://www.tvradioworld.com/region3/moz/ accessed March 12, 2004
[33] Christina Ruhnbro, private e-mail, March 15, 2004
[34] "Radio Broadcasting History" timeline, archived on web page
http://senior.billings.k12.mt.us/otrannex/history/radio.htm accessed March
6 2004.
[35] "A Brief History of Regulation of Radiocommunications in New Zealand
1903 2003" on the web page http://www.med.govt.nz/rsm/publications/pibs/radiohistory/footnotes.html#fn09
accessed March 6, 2004
[36] "Timeline: New Zealand" at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1138430.stm
accessed March 6, 2004.
[37] From the Shortland Street web site, FAQ http://shortlandstreet.nzoom.com/faq/
accessed March 11, 2004
[38] http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/N/htmlN/newzealand/newzealand.htm
accessed March 6, 2004
[39] "Advancing Cultural Diversity Globally: The Role of Civil Society
Movements, on web page
http://w ww.incd.net/Conf2003/INCD_papers2003_Convention.htm, accessed
March 10, 2004
[40] Musi Khumalo, private communication February 2004.
[41] FTAA Trade Negotiations Committee Canada, Paper on Cultural Diversity
in the FTAA Negotiations," September 23, 2003, on http://www.ftaa-alca.org/TNC/tnw195_e.asp,
accessed March 10, 2004
[42] Ministry of Culture, Sweden, "Public Service Radio and Television
2005" accessed March 11, 2004
[43] See, for an example of such discussion, Noam Chomsky's book Objectivity
and Liberal Scholarship, which discusses objectivity as an ideological
mask for championing mainstream self-interest against mass movements for
change.
[44] "The Unofficial Guide to the BBC" on web site http://www.vaxxine.com/master-control/BBC/chapters/Bbc_form.html
accessed March 11, 2004
[45] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3177479.stm
accessed March 12, 2004
[46] Daithí Ó hAnluain, "Free Content Becoming Thing of the Past for UK's
Online Newspaper Sites," in Online Journal Review, posted Feb 13, 2004.
Web site http://www.ojr.org/ojr/business/1067472919.php
accessed March 12, 2004
[47] Robin Gross, speech at the Community Media panel on Intellectual
Property Rights, World Summit on the Information Society, 11 December
2003. Recorded by Frieda Werden, and forthcoming as an audio program in
WINGS: Women's International News Gathering Service.
[48] "What is COMMUNITY RADIO?" on www.amarc.org/amarc/ang accessed March
16, 2004
[49]Chido E. F. Matewa, Media and the Empowerment of Communities for Social
Change (PhD dissertation 2002), "Chapter Five: Participatory and development
communication in Zimbabwe"
archived on the web at http://www.comminit.com/idmatewa/sld-6133.html
accessed March 15, 2004.
[50] Note that CEDAW -- the United Nations Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, requires that all signatory
states provide mechanisms for the participation of rural women in public
decision-making. Zimbabwe finally ratified CEDAW in 1991.
[51] Elizabeth Karonga in radio program "WINGS #44-00 Media for Women's
Development" produced by Frieda Werden.
[52] Matewa, op.cit.
[53] Omunegha, "Women, Poverty and the Media," speech at the World Forum
on Communication Rights, Geneva Switzerland, December 11, 2003, recorded
by Frieda Werden and aired in Voix San Frontieres, AMARC audio feed, March
21, 2004.
[54] http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-freir.htm accessed March 22, 2004
[55] "Ghana: Radio Ada Goes on the Air," on web page http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6721e/x6721e30.htm
accessed March 14, 2004
[56] N.B.: "We are not using the violent methods of the system but are
looking for other ways to change it from within." -- Genevieve Vaughan,
For-Giving, p. 23
[57] Interview by Elizabeth Robinson, recorded at the African Village
exhibit at the World Summit on the Information Society, December 10-12,
2003; aired in AMARC, Voix sans frontiers, March 21, 2004.
[58]"MAMA FM Closes, on web site http://radio.oneworld.net/article/view/73528/1/
accessed March 15, 2004
[59] Wilna Quarmyne, "A 'Kente' Approach to Community Radio Training:
Weaving Training into the Community Empowerment Process, " February 2001,
on web page
http://www.comminit.com/africa/st2004/sld-1467.html accessed March 22,
2004
[60] For-Giving, p. 96
[61] For-Giving, p. 98
[62] Lyn Gerry, "KPFK Programmers Ordered to Mainstream Content; Advocacy
Journalism is 'Out,'" dated May 26, 1998, on the web page http://www.radio4all.org/fp/mainstream.htm
accessed March 16, 2004
[63] Norm Stockwell, General Manager, WORT-FM, Madison, Wisconsin, small
group discussion, July 22, 2000.
[64] Anonymous, [Pacifica] PROGRAM DIRECTOR MEETING (PART II) ALBUQUERQUE,
NEW MEXICO FEBRUARY 28, 1995 on web site http://www.radio4all.org/fp/pdmeet1.html;
[65] I should mention here that community broadcasters, including both
FIRE (Feminist International Radio Endeavour/Radio Internacional Feminista,
based in Costa Rica) and the great community station Bush Radio in Cape
Town, South Africa, are coming up with new and appropriate ways of not
only measuring but valuing their audiences.
[66] http://www.kgnu.org/grassroots6/ accessed March 22, 2004
[67] Marty Durlin and Cathy Melio, "The Grassroots Radio Movement in the
US," found on the web page http://www.morelater.com/kaos/forum/messages/43.html
accessed March 16, 2004
[68] Vaughan in For-Giving, p. 36. See also, p. 24: [G]iving to needs
creates bonds between givers and receivers. Recognizing someone's need
and acting to satisfy it, convinces the giver of the existence of the
other, while receiving something from someone else that satisfies a need
proves the existence of the other to the receiver.
