User:Countrymike/Masters Thesis/Literature Review

Peter Lewis in an essay entitled Radio Theory and Community Radio proposes that the “study of community radio, by definition a marginilized form, might thus be doubly disadvantaged ...” (Lewis, 2002). He is referring to the general lack of scholarly research on radio in general and the lack of a robust “radio theory”, all of which is further compounded by even less scholarly output devoted to community radio. If this is the case, then researching community radio in New Zealand might truly be described as either wandering into a complete wasteland, or, on a more positive note, with the excitement of entering uncharted waters. It is with the latter metaphor that I will attempt to fill my sails in this endeavor, but it will be a journey that will require much extrapolation from international approaches towards community radio before sailing into New Zealand waters. Internationally the lack of attention to community media is beginning to be remedied in the works of Nick Jankowski, Ole Prehn, Peter Lewis, Clemencia Rodriguez, and more recently Ellie Rennie and Kevin Howley although such work does not necessarily refer directly to “community media” and may instead use terms like “alternative” media, “radical” media, and “citizens” media (Rennie, 2006).

Before starting it will be important to review the multiplicity of definitions of community radio, while at the same time recognizing that a totalizing definition will never be arrived at. The diversity of interpretations of “community” and the views on how “radio” or “media” (referring mostly to television, journalism, and the internet) might serve, and be served, by a community focus are part and parcel of this field and may reveal how the study of community radio may do much towards increasing and deepening our understanding of both concepts.

The most obvious yet contentious term to begin to unpack in “community radio” is just what is “community”. Viewed in the terms of media studies the “community” in “community media” is often defined in a negative relation to global or even nationalized forms of media. With the almost universal deregulation of media markets in Western capitalist societies, including New Zealand as has been previously stated, and the rise of neo-liberalism as the predominant form of organizing such societies most media forms have adopted a market and efficiency driven approach, with an increased emphasis on market research and audience maximization. This has resulted in media programming and content oriented towards the societal or even global level rather than the community level (Carpentier, 2003). Community, in terms of “community media”, is therefore often defined in relation to providing broadcast content that global or national forms of media cannot often entertain due to the pressures of commercialization. This common aspect of the definition of community media can tend though to privilege the often “alternative” tendencies of such media and highlights how the production, distribution, and organization of alternative media differs from that of professional media.

Putting aside though for a moment the attention to “alternative” aspects of much “community media” discourse it may be useful to instead review the “community/society” distinction in greater depth. “Community” in “community media” often refers to both the group from which the producers of content are derived as well as the consumers of the media product, and in fact the term “community” in this light is suggestive of the producer being somewhat indistinguishable from the consumer or audience. This is contrasted from the abstracted notion of either a “public” in terms of a Public Service broadcaster or in the distinct producer/consumer dichotomy that is characteristic of much commercial production of media products. In the latter, “society” is perceived in terms of a somewhat homogenous market towards which messages are transmitted and messages are thus tailored for the society in which they are to be consumed; these messages may be of a commercial or public service nature but the distinction between the values and profession of the producer and the needs of the consumer remain for the most part seperate.1 The ways in which media are distributed may also be used to highlight this contrast between “community” and “society”. Distribution to a “community” by definition suggests a smaller subset of a the larger nationality (“society”), or market. The narrow distribution of much community media impacts the forms such media might take and sets it apart from content that is tailored to appeal to either a mass or “societal” level or to global marketplaces. Localization versus globalization though is an increasingly significant issue in regards to community media projects and practices in light of digitization as we shall see, and is impacting the nature of radio in particular. Perhaps for the first time in the history of radio have so many broadcasters been able to use the medium to reach global audiences thereby facilitating the possibilities of highly localized and community created content available on the global distribution platform of the internet.

Ellie Rennie in one of the most recent full scale treatments of the subject of community media broaches the question of community versus society in greater depth than most by elaborating on the distinctively political resonances that discussions of “community” imply. Such discussions have been at the forefront of the development of community media whose origins lay in the development of a democratic response to corporate ownership and control over media production. Most authors agree that community media is media that allows for access and participation and that it includes a wide range of activities and outcomes from micropresses, to Low Power FM broadcasters, to access television stations. More recently certain manifestations of online communities could also be inluded in this broad definition of community media and have again expanded the definition of community beyond geographic or cultural similarities to embrace virtual communities whose participants communicate in online spaces. Access and participation are concepts that stem from the democratic realignment that community media activists were originally proposing. (Possible discussion of UNESCO and NWICO here?) Rennie argues that it is a “politics of community ... deeply rooted in democracy's intellectual traditions” that is manifest in the development of community organizations and community media, and that such organisations may in fact suggest alternative forms of governance often at odds with the dominant systems. Community media functions in the realm of civil society and as such may be contrasted against hegemonic forms of political discourse. It in this civil arena that Rennie suggests that community organizations may in fact “challenge us to reassess the way in which liberal democracy itself is managed” (Rennie, 2006. 16).

Communities are complex entities that are constantly being redefined in light of political, social, and technological shifts. Returning though to the strong association of community media with 'alternative' viewpoints, production values, and non-heirarchical governance structures Rennie argues that while the alternative approach may provide some insight into what community media does (or attempts to do) differently than mainstream media it can also prove to be problematic by focusing the discussions on only one aspect of community media (Rennie, p24. 2006) - that which is often associated with the mythical origins of community media (and in particular community radio) in terms of activist, idealist, and counterhegemonic principles. Rennie sees community media as acting solidly in the “community sphere” and as such finds it appropriate to review the definitions of community media in terms of a political discourse that focuses on investigating the “limits of liberalism by exploring the value of communities and how community benefits may be enhanced.” (Rennie, p25. 2006).

Communitarianism is a political theory that opposes any exalted forms of individualism or liberalism while advocating for phenomena such as civil society. Communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance the individuals rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and suggests that autonomous selves are shaped by the culture and values of the community and not in an appeal to a liberal argument dependent solely on a “state of nature”. The liberal view is that 'citizenship is the capacity for each person to form, revise and rationally pursue his/her definition of the good' (Mouffe, 1992), but communitarians object to this on the grounds that it privileges self-interest rather than a "natural" desire to join with others to pursue common action towards a common good, and it does not allow for the notion that community might play a large part in constituting the identity of individuals. Communitarians then believe in the revival of a civic republican view of politics that puts an emphasis on the notion of a public good, prior to the individuals desires and interests. For communitarians civil society then becomes an active domain where individuals through their associations, allegiances and self-organising groups and networks exist and function seperately from the immediate influences of the state or the market but are, as is argued by civil society theorist John Keane, understood as part of the political process. It is in the realm of civil society that much community media organisations and groups may be seen to be participating.

Rennie is careful not to repeat accounts that mistakenly view civil society as completely distinct and removed from the market; arguments that establish a dichotomy whereby nonprofit alliances are “good” while the market is “bad”. She acknowledges the existence of a mutual dependency between the two and her approach is rather to examine the tensions that arise between community media and market participation, particularly the anti-commercialism that is associated with community media and how this may actually work towards further marginalizing the nonprofit sector while reinforcing the power of the commercial sector (Rennie, p34-35). She suggests a “third approach” to the problem whereby nonprofit motives and relationships between community based organisations are seen as “legitimate participants in governance” and suggests that the nonprofit sector be identified as a alternative model to a bureaucratically organized power base that is highly influenced by private economic actors (Rennie, p35).

Rennie's association of community media with civil society allows her to frame the discourse of such media in a way that differentiates it from the attention payed to the more radical and progressive aspects of programming and production that are often associated with community media. While she suggests that while such studies are important they may cause us to overlook the more mundane aspects of community media which I will suggest more closely reflect the realities of community radio within the New Zealand context at least. Mundanity as such does not mean that community media are by any means necessarily passive players in the political or policy contexts in which they exist. The states role in defining legislative frameworks around broadcasting policy and standards, and spectrum management in the case of radio and tv, all impact on how media may be implemented at a community level yet often continue to ignore the needs of local manifestations of media for more national or public interests that may return greater political (and economic) credit but be highly susceptible to powerful economic players as has been earlier mentioned. But, as Rennie suggests, in a rapidly changing communications arena community media may be functioning as an effective and alternative means of information distribution that has largely gone unrecognized as well as establishing new models of governance, sustainability, and participation that are contributing to a rethinking of the relationship between communities and the state.

Rennie considers the suggestion that third way political theories might constitute a more adequate framework in which to investigate the contemporary relationship of community media organizations that are acting within a civil society context yet still dependent upon the policies of the state. Referencing the work of British sociologist Anthony Giddens, Rennie points out the centralized placement of community within third way theories. The third way assumptions according to Giddens that are of interest to the discussion of community media may be summarized as:

An unhindered market economy is at odds with social justice but also the realisation that we exist within global system that is no longer applicable to old school socialism. That governments should be more centralist, developing more of an activist role between markets and social issues.
 * The state should not dominate markets or civil society but still needs to regulate both;
 * The formation of a social contracts that link rights to responsibilities.
 * That governments should invest in skills rather subsidizing the inadequacies of markets;
 * That there must be a connection between social and economic policy.
 * That full employment is achievable by adapting to technological change rather than propping up ailing industries. (Rennie, p.38)

While Giddens' third way suggests a stronger role for community organizations within a civil society context critics have pointed out that it constitutes a difficult path for actual policy formulation and that the communitarianism present in the theory has had minimal real influence on the existing operations of political parties who continue to resist relinquishing control to local authorities and governance structures.

Regardless though of whether policy makers carve out spaces or allocate sufficient public funding to develop community media organizations, their presence in many communities suggests that there remains a continued will to establish their creation. By locating community media as part of civil society Rennie argues that we may begin to view such media as a means to complement existing systems rather than strictly as a means to counter or overcome them. For Rennie this theoretical framework is useful in “... understanding what community broadcasting is seen to achieve – what compromises are reached between government and citizens, what corrections to existing structures – and how it attempts to reshape communication. The tensions, contradictions, and possibilities of civil society can help explain how and why community media performs, and is treated in a particular way.” (Rennie, p.41).

Community media have traditionally proven to be difficult ground for media scholars; perceived of as either the small child jumping up and down and waving its hand for attention, or the chink through which an annoying light streams into the darkened auditorium. It has for the most part sat quietly outside of the accepted and canonized subjects of media studies. As the product of a broadcasting era media studies has been mostly concerned with “mass society and issues of mass communication, mass persuasion and the formation and control of public opinion” (Merrin, 2008).