To Serve the Community: Two Complimentary Media Approaches

(1)

To Serve the Community:

Two Complimentary Media Approaches

Tyson Paris-Hansen

(2)

INTRODUCTION

Public service broadcasting (PSB) and alternative media have a similar aim to serve their communities. These organizations claim to be able to empower users (Rodriguez, Fissures in the Mediascape 3), build community (see “About GRCMC”), and strengthen national culture and identity (Syvertsen 157). However, public service broadcasters (PSBs) are typically large-scale media organizations that transmit to a national audience, whereas alternative media organizations are often small-scale, serving a more narrow conception of community. For example, The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a PSB that is large enough to be recognized internationally. On the other hand, it is unlikely that most people have heard of The Northwest Voice, an online journalism site produced by and for the community of Bakersfield, California (Anderson 55). Both the BBC and The Northwest Voice link to their communities, however their they must do this in different ways because they are situated within vastly different-sized communities and they have to accommodate different expectations.

In this thesis, I would like to investigate how PSBs and alternative media organizations approach their mission to serve community. This comparison is pertinent because they both have pressure to prove they provide public value in order to sustain their operations, for example as a means to attract donor funding or to successfully defend policies which grant them regulatory privileges.

Additionally, this investigation is relevant because there are few scholarly debates which situate PSBs and alternative media in the same camp, as entities with comparable aims and problems. One reason for this is because alternative media are hard to define, a ‘sector

characterized by heterogeneity, multiple modes of genre, address, and a plethora of production models’ (Kid and Rodriguez 8). For this reason, scholars who concentrate on small-scale media often spend most of their time comparing a wide range of examples of alternative media in order to demarcate the field (Couldry, “Section 1” 24) or to understand which projects succeed and why (Kid and Rodriguez 8). On the other hand, scholars who focus on PSB and mainstream media have tended to ignore alternative media because ‘it appeared to be a specialist pursuit’ (Couldry, “Section 1” 24) perhaps because their audience sizes are typically small.

In order to highlight their similarities and differences, I will situate PSBs and alternative media within cultural studies debates. These debates will function as an heuristic device and demonstrate that their are different ways to conceptualize the link between community and

(5)

media. This framework also illustrates a tension that exists between PSBs and alternative media due to their different and sometimes competing strategies to serve community.

My research on PSBs does not include research outside of Europe or the U.K. therefore whatever conclusions I draw may not be applicable to other contexts. Additionally, the term ‘alternative media’, as mentioned above, is a highly contested term and it is not one of my aims to further contribute to ongoing discussions about what constitutes alternative media. To make it general, within this paper alternative media are simply media tied to a comparatively smaller-scale community than PSB, and media which encourage their community members to become participants. The term ‘alternative media’ is criticized mainly because it undermines ‘their ability to resist the alienating power of mainstream media’ (Bailey, Cammaerts and Carpentier 26). In other words, one should consider the possibility that ‘alternative media’ can be far reaching and more influential than mainstream media.

As a final note on alternative media, it is outside the scope of this paper to research examples of alternative media that could be considered ‘extreme rightist alternative

media’ (Downing, “Audiences and Readers of Alternative Media” 626), for example neo-nazi websites that are growing in popularity in Germany (Downey and Fenton 198), or the Islamic State’s use of social media. These forms of media use certainly fit some definitions of alternative media and they would be a good subject to focus on in future research because of their

apparent efficiency at recruiting support or building community (Gaub 117), however I believe their inclusion in this paper would have made my portrait of alternative media too complex. Though proponents of racist or religiously extreme media may see themselves as ‘serving community’, in this paper alternative media are media that aim to ‘make our societies better places to live’ (Rodriguez, “Knowledges in Dialogue” 133), through inclusion rather than discrimination.

‘Community’ is another term with many different interpretations. Within this paper, I use Newby’s definition of community because it is simple and neutral. Community can be a

‘geographic locality, a local social system, and a sense of identity’ (Hollander Stappers and Jankowski 26). ‘Sense of identity’ refers to communities comprising people connected by shared interests or practices and who may or may not interact face-to-face. This can also be called a community of interest or community of practice.

In chapter one, I give an overview of culturalism and structuralism, two common perspectives within cultural studies that perceive media’s link to community differently. I use

(6)

these two perspectives to stage future discussions about the differences between PSB and alternative media principles.

In chapter two, I summarize key discussions within PSB and alternative media and show how their different emphases can be situated within the cultural studies debates. The purpose is to ground the more abstract discussion of chapter one within an historical and social context. Ultimately, this describes PSBs’ and alternative media organizations’ different guiding principles and their criticisms.

Do their different approaches have merit, or any effect at all? In chapter three, I move to an even more practical level and show different strategies that PSBs and alternative media implement to build and bind communities. This discussion suggests two ideas, first is that there are examples of PSBs and alternative media living up to their guiding principles and affecting communities. Second, the discussion highlights that PSBs and alternative media have contrasting strengths and weaknesses, which help explain criticism against both.

Most recent criticism against PSB and alternative media relates to new affordances offered by internet that these media do not provide. In chapter four, I will compare PSB,

alternative media, and popular online platforms to show how they each provide different models of user involvement. What I find is that, online platforms emphasize individualism over

community which results in a particular form of involvement that is different than that offered by PSB and alternative media. This difference undermines arguments that popular online platforms can replace PSB and alternative media.

Together these chapters show why, and how, PSBs and alternative media connect to communities, however, these chapters also underscore the tension between the two which leads to them sometimes working against each other.

In the conclusion, I support arguments that PSBs and alternative media organizations should form partnerships. I ground this argument based on the idea that PSB and alternative media have the same goal to provide public value along with complementary (rather than contradicting) approaches. By forming partnerships, they can help each other more effectively legitimate their claims of serving community.

(7)

CHAPTER ONE

CONCEPTUALIZING CULTURE: WHAT ROLE DO MEDIA PLAY?

In this chapter, I intend to present two debates within cultural studies in order to map a terrain for how the link between communities and media has been thought. While there are many theories within cultural studies to explain society and how it functions, Stuart Hall describes a useful framework that revolves around two dominant paradigms, culturalism and structuralism. Neither paradigm is all encompassing, but they represent two vastly different ways of conceptualizing society and will serve as a heuristic device to aid later discussions about conceptualizing the link between media and community.

Culturalism: Emphasizing Human Agency in the Creation of Culture

Culturalism emphasizes the actions of individuals in the creation of culture. One of the major proponents of this perspective was Raymond Williams, who argued that culture can refer to the day-to-day social habits of ordinary people, ‘a particular way of life, which expresses certain meanings and values not only in art and learning but also in institutions and ordinary behaviour’ (Williams, “The Analysis of Culture” 32). Earlier definitions of culture, such as the ‘“culture and civilization” tradition’ (Storey 18) limited culture to mean primarily historically

significant works of art, however Williams proposed that culture is all social practices, regardless of how minor or unimportant some actions may seem.

Within Williams’ perspective, thoughts and behavior are seemingly combined into the category of social practice: ‘our way of seeing things is literally our way of living, the process of communication is in fact the process of community’ (Williams quoted by Hall 59). Practically anything influenced by people counts as a social practice and all practices influence each other and determine the culture. In this way, culture is actively created by people who share every-day circumstances because they will consciously choose particular routines and together develop patterns which define their thoughts, behaviors, and end up being reflected in their institutions. Therefore, it is Williams’ case that society is shaped by people’s actions. In reality, people do not consciously decide every detail of society together, but unlike some perspectives, culturalism

(8)

develops a theory that recognizes the active choices through which ‘men and women make history’ (Hall 63).

Human relationships and people’s subjective experience have major impacts on the shape of culture. In order to understand the collection of social practices and how they create a unified way-of-life, Williams argues that cultural researchers should try to understand the common experience of people: ‘the actual experience through which these were lived’ (“The Analysis of Culture” 36). For Williams, and culturalism in general, understanding a peoples’ lived experience is the key to understanding their culture. Culture ‘is, ultimately, where and how people experience their conditions of life, define them and respond to them’ (Hall 63; [my italics]). Williams believed that a culture’s lived experience was held together by a ‘structure of feeling.’

The structure of feeling is basically the core values that emerge from a culture’s patterned behavior and conscious organization. ‘[I]t is as firm and definite as “structure” suggests, yet it operates in the most delicate and least tangible parts of our activity’ (Williams, “The Analysis of Culture” 36). The ‘structure’ may be felt differently by individuals within a culture, however there are always similarities on which ‘communication depends’ (37). The structure of feeling can also make life’s challenges bearable, it is the meaning one uses to tolerate certain tensions in a particular society (Storey 46), therefore it functions as ‘a discursive structure that is a cross between a collective cultural unconscious and an ideology’ (45). In this way, the structure of feeling is a sort of shared resource that allows people to understand each other and help people manage the contradictions of their practices.

Being born within a certain ‘unconscious’ and ‘ideological’ structure of feeling implies one’s passive reception of tradition and culture. This seems to work against the notion that people create their own practices. However according to Williams, a structure of feeling is not absorbed or learned, rather people refashion it to suit their ever changing lived experiences. He uses the generation gap as evidence of this:

[T]he new generation responds in its own ways to the unique world it is inheriting, taking up many continuities, that can be traced, and reproducing many aspects of the organization, which can be separately described, yet feeling its whole life in certain ways differently, and shaping its creative response into a new structure of feeling. (Williams, “The Analysis of Culture” 37)

(9)

People inherit certain material and social circumstances, but they also make use of those circumstances to meet changing demands and their changing desires. What unifies their understanding of their world is the shared structure of feeling generated by their practices.

To summarize the culturalist perspective, culture is seen as the sum of all shared social practices among a particular group of people. Social practices can include thoughts and

behaviors which are not wholly determined by context, but are influenced by people’s intentions and subjective experience as well. Therefore, culture is actively produced by people. Lastly, the lived experience of culture can be reduced to a singular underlying organization, the structure of feeling. This structure is a resource that allows for mutual understanding among the group.

If ‘culture’ is the sum of all social practices and practically any human act contributes to a social practice, then media must be a crucial element in culture. Like all practices, it will reflect and shape the lived experience of the culture. Additionally, media as a primarily a communication technology will influence culture because for culturalists, ‘the process of communication is in fact the process of community’ (Williams quoted by Hall 59).

On the one hand media express or reflect the culture’s structure of feeling. For example, Williams notes that early films had themes and aesthetics that reflected the new experiences of city life: ‘an extraordinary number of apparently unrelated and often swiftly moving

images’ (Williams, “Film and Cultural Tradition” 23). Film can record anything stagnantly, yet the stories and the aesthetics were anything but ‘inert,’ something Williams attributes to ‘common interest… in an altered social world’ (23). People were living significantly differently than before and cinema content mirrored their experience. In this way, the media reflect culture.

Beliefs that are regularly expressed by media describe the mindset of the time and how people deal with life, rather than shape it, in other words ‘people are not reducible to the

commodities they consume’ (Storey 48). For this reason, what people do with media is perhaps more important than an analysis of the media itself. Additionally, media are a shared resource through which people interact. For example, political discussions surrounding the regulation of broadcast television have described it as ‘the central medium for public debate and dialogue in an increasingly fragmented modern society’ (White Papers noted by Syvertsen 171). Media can bring members of the same community together who are otherwise separated by space and help them communicate different ideas, ‘the offering, reception and comparison of new meanings, leading to tensions and achievements of growth and change’ (Williams quoted by Hall 59).

(10)

To recapitulate, within a culturalist perspective media can be seen as one active social practice among many that constitute a community. Media reflect the actions of the people and function as a shared resource that can be actively used by people.

Structuralism: Emphasizing an External Structure Guiding Culture

Whereas culturalism practically ignores the distinction between thoughts and behavior, seeing them as united within social practice, structuralists believe there is a mediating structure between them which shapes culture (Hall 65). The unifying structure that determines how people think and what people do is a system of pre-established meanings, mental categories, and symbols. People have little control over the system of meanings, therefore ‘[t]he

“structuralist” interventions have been largely articulated around the concept of “ideology”’ (Hall 64). The actions of the group are determined by their unconscious and externally created set of meanings. For structuralists, all experience and action cascades from the pre-established system of meanings and therefore, the culture is a mental framework.

Stuart Hall credits Levi-Strauss with establishing the foundations of structuralist theory which were based on ‘the ways in which language itself … operated’ (Hall 65). Language is a powerful symbolic system because it is necessary to communicate, yet ‘[b]y providing us with a conceptual map … the language we speak plays a significant role in shaping what constitutes for us the reality of the material world’ (Storey 112). From a structuralist perspective, experience is shaped by personal thoughts which are shaped by external symbolic systems. These

systems, such as language, do not ‘arise from or in experience: rather, experience was their “effect”’ (Hall 66). For example, language is learned, it is not inspired by experience. Therefore, any seemingly active choices are illusory because people do not objectively understand their experience outside of this imposed symbolic system. For this reason a person is ‘“spoken by” the categories of culture in which he/she thought, rather than “speaking them”’ (Hall 66).

Whereas culturalism understands ‘culture’ as internal to a group and analyzes their lived experience, structuralism understands culture as external from people’s actions, and analyzes the structure’s set of pre-established meanings. The meaning of a symbol, (or its signified), can be malleable, subjective, and changing, yet the symbol themselves (or signifiers) must be shared in order to communicate and be apart of a culture. Every symbol can carry a host of different meanings and associations, also known as the ‘polysemy’ of signs (Storey 119) therefore, people’s understandings of the same symbol may differ. In this way, some

(11)

structuralists accord a degree of agency to people in how they promote particular meanings of symbols. However, it is also possible that what seems to be a conscious manipulation of the system is still determined by the system’s (culture’s) boundaries and what has been put in place before.

Theorists, like Levi-Strauss do not claim the system of meanings determines an exact society, rather different arrangements within the system produce different effects (Hall 65). While people must share the same vocabulary, it is the polysemy of signs and their multiplicity of possible interpretations that causes people to contest the uses of the symbolic system. Therefore, within the structuralist perspective, culture is not shared seamlessly.

To summarize the structuralist perspective, culture is seen as the system of shared symbols and sometimes contested meanings. Nobody intentionally designed the system of symbols, therefore people do not play an active role shaping culture. Rather people must first absorb an already-existing culture (structure) in order to understand their experience. For this reason, a culture determines experience rather than people’s experience determining the culture. Lastly, meanings and symbols can be reinforced and contested due to the ‘polysemic nature of signs’ (Storey 119), therefore culture is a multiplicity of intersecting and competing interpretations.

If culture is a system of meanings, then media play an integral role in the maintenance and circulation of these meanings. Media must carry pre-defined symbols otherwise no

communication would be possible. At the same time, by activating the cultural codes, media potentially add to them. In Mythologies, Roland Barthes analyzes a magazine cover of a ‘black soldier saluting the French flag’ as an ‘attempt to produce a positive image of French

imperialism’ (Storey 120-121). The arrangement of these symbols may have meant nothing to an American audience, their association only produced a particular connotation for those who understood the French symbolic system. Because meaning ‘both draws from the cultural

[system] and at the same time adds to it’ (121), it may have been an attempt by the government to steer public opinion by manipulating symbols.

Media also socialize people into a certain way of seeing the world, therefore media can determine experience and behavior. For example, many groups claim that aggressive aesthetics and lyrics in music can cause violent behavior (see Phillipov). In the debates about regulating broadcast television, tv was also recognized as a ‘a powerful agent of socialization, and it is necessary to protect the public against undesirable effects’ (White Papers noted by Syvertsen

(12)

171). These are concerns that people may be reducible to the media they consume, the opposite of a culturalist perspective.

The influence of media is largely unconscious because the signs and the meanings that they present are often portrayed as normal and natural. For example, self-help guru Dr. Phil promotes the idea that women should take charge as the caretakers of the family (Ouellette and Wilson 555). This depiction of family is easy to digest because it is encouraged regularly in a post-welfare society where governments want citizens to be self-sufficient (553). The particular depiction of family is framed by an underlying code that remains nearly invisible even though it ‘structures meanings and values of the text’ (Thwaites, Davis, and Mules 85).

To recapitulate, from the structuralist perspective, media are the circulators of meaning for the community and also a site where meanings can be contested or reframed.

The Debate as an Heuristic Device

There is a strong tension between how culturalism and structuralism conceptualize the link between media and community. Within culturalism, media reflect the social practices of a group, therefore communities can be said to shape media. Within structuralism, media circulate a community’s pre-established meanings, therefore media can be said to shape community and also be a site where people within communities push back against dominant meanings.

The ‘debate’ between culturalism and structuralism is an ideal heuristic device to help understand discussions surrounding various forms of community-oriented media, namely public service broadcasting (PSB) and alternative media. As I will discuss in chapter two, culturalism highlights active social practices and individual agency which resonates well with the

participatory aspects of alternative media. Structuralism highlights the circulation and

contestation of meanings which resonates well with PSB’s aim to make content accessible and represent diverse views.

(13)

CHAPTER TWO

PSB, ALTERNATIVE MEDIA AND COMMUNITY: CONCRETE EMBODIMENTS

OF CULTURAL STUDIES’ DISCUSSIONS

In this chapter, I will show how the abstract questions about media’s link to community are embodied in concrete debates. First, I will illustrate how long-standing debates surrounding public service broadcasting (PSB) have historically promoted the importance of circulating relevant cultural symbols and conceived of a less active user — a very structuralist conception of media and community. Moving from the large to the small-scale media, I will show how debates within alternative media encourage participation and situate the user as more active — a very culturalist conception of media and community. As I hope to show, the widely different conceptions of user roles implies different conceptions of media’s link to community.

My scale of user activity and how I underscore different conceptions of users is based on Nico Carpentier’s distinctions between access, interactivity, and participation. Access, relates to the ability to receive services and in some cases provide one-way feedback to them (28). Interactivity relates to an ongoing exchange, either between people or users and technology (29). Participation means a certain level of equality among those who interact, which allows both parties to influence decision making (29). Existing on a spectrum from stronger to weaker forms, participation offers the most engagement among users because of shared responsibility (26). It is founded on interactivity and access. Without either, participation cannot exist.

Public Service Broadcasting: A Large-Scale Perspective on Media and

Community

Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) can be considered a large-scale form of community media that caters to national or regional audiences. Though PSB was once the only option for audiences in Europe, due to state-imposed regulations, nowadays, they are in a position where they compete with commercial companies. Usually, the success of PSB programming remains competitive with commercial media because governments instate advantages (through funding or broadcasting rights) which help to promote PSB popularity. Due to the current environment,

(14)

most public service broadcasters (PSBs) are in a position where they aim to balance various goals such as providing for the common good, uniting national communities, and at the same time catering to specific tastes. A major requirement to achieve such goals is to attract a large audience share. These sometimes competing aims can be tied to PSB’s founding principles and different understandings of media’s link to society.

In the following section I will chart the founding principles and context of early PSB through the history of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Then I will highlight the debates that have evolved about how the early aims should be implemented in changing

environments as well as criticisms of those founding principles. The goal is to show that different discussions often conceive of PSB’s link to community within a structuralist framework.

Founding Principles: The Influence of the Reithian Ethos

Many of PSB’s founding principles, established nearly 100 years ago, are still active today, however throughout different periods there have been different inflections and emphasis placed on them. The first head of BBC, John Reith, would embrace the notion that PSB should operate in the public’s best interest and he turned the institution into a major cultural force in Britain and the world. Reith emphasized several key PSB principles which have become known as the ‘Reithian ethos’ (Nicholas 325) and embodied within the BBC ‘public service remit to inform, educate and to entertain the nation’ (Nicholas 325).

Though the Reithian ethos has several agendas, its particular emphasis was on education. The motivation to educate the nation grew out of elitist conceptions of culture because the content of education and entertainment programs that Reith promoted was meant to protect against the perceived negative influences of popular culture (Nicholas 325). This perspective presumes that people are determined by the media content they use. Much like one’s diet, if the content is healthy, the user will prosper, if content is unhealthy, the user will dwindle. It can be inferred that BBC management believed the radio medium would actively shape a passive national community based on their implementation of educational strategies. No matter how benevolent the intent, the actual operation was paternalistic and is exemplified in a quote by Reith that, ‘few [listeners] know what they want, and very few know what they

need’ (Reith quoted by Nicholas 325).

Though these ideas were connected with earlier conceptions of culture, it fits within a structuralist paradigm because the circulation of meanings was believed to be a major influence

(15)

on society and users were situated passively. While Reith ensured access to the medium by setting up transmitters nationwide, there was little means for audiences to give feedback. In light of Carpentier’s definition that access includes ‘the opportunity for people to have their voices heard (in providing feedback)’ (28), then this is a limited form of access, the least active conception of a user. Though access to moments of national importance was an improvement relative to previous eras, the infrastructure for access was more limited than it had to be. Nearly immediately after Reith retired in 1938, the organization started to incorporate more audience feedback in order to develop more popular programming during the oncoming war (Nicholas 326).

In any case, Nicholas says that the Reithian ethos has a lasting legacy for not only BBC, but PSB around the world. When Reith retired the general sentiment was that within Britain ‘[b]roadcasting has become an equalizing and unifying factor in national life’ (Jennings and Gill quoted by Nicholas 326). The BBC and its success became a beacon for many governments around the globe when they established their own PSB model (see Head) and therefore the Reithian ethos along with it’s structuralist tone echo throughout numerous PSB institutions. The most common PSB obligations include: universal coverage and public access to the medium, a diversity of programming and accommodation of minority interests, the dissemination impartial information, and ‘the obligation to protect and strengthen national culture and

identity’ (Syvertsen 157).

Diverse Representation: The Concept of the ‘The Magic Square’

PSB viewed as guard against popular culture was present well into the 80s and 90s, although described differently, primarily linked to globalization and transnational communication corporations. While ‘popular culture’ used to be seen as capable of dumbing down society (Storey 24), in this era many viewed ‘mainstream media’ to be capable of homogenizing cultures, restricting diversity of information and cultural expression (see Garnham, “The Mass Media…” 256; Hoffmann-Riem 65). This is a different conception of harm which is founded on democratic principles and the need for accurate, relevant, and comprehensive information that globalization would arguably undermine.

Though the result may be similar, in that PSB was supposed to protect against popular culture, the new framing situates PSB more in the public’s interest as citizens who need to be informed, rather than classes who need to become ‘cultured’. On the one hand PSB was a

(16)

‘cultural good’ (Hoffmann-Riem 61) broadcasting a culture’s particularities and binding communities through a selection of culturally meaningful content. More commonly however, PSB was seen as a political resource for citizens which could provide a diversity of views and impartial information necessary for democracy (Hoffmann-Riem 61). These principles have been described within the policy of the ‘magic square’.

The ‘magic square’ characterizes four equal qualities necessary for PSB content: diverse genres, diverse perspectives, diverse people and groups, and lastly diverse geography

(Hoffmann-Riem 61). Genre respects a public’s need for entertainment, information and education, originally embodied in the Reithian ethos. Varied perspectives, groups, and

geography provide the public information that includes local, national, and global issues relevant to culture and politics. The magic square repositions PSB as the public’s resource for national cohesion (culturally and politically) which is a far cry different from the era when PSB was a paternalistic educator. Opinions, tastes, and needs of all the nation’s people had to be accounted for and represented in the media, not only what was considered ‘healthy’ content.

The principles of the magic square invoke PSB as a guardian of democratic ideals (Jacka 179). The emphasis on universality and access to a diversity of impartial information situates PSB as a public forum through which a nation can discuss political issues, though ‘discuss’ implies more agency than PSB actually allowed. ‘Although all parts of the community need not voice their opinions, the communication content of interest to these groups must be represented’ (Hoffmann-Riem 61). People therefore do not directly discuss their opinions in this mediated public sphere, rather PSB offered a public forum for listening to a full range of

discussions.

This task has been considered ‘indispensible for the functioning of democracy’ (58). Listening theoretically fosters political participation by ensuring issues are understood

comprehensively. The challenge is that PSB only achieves this political aim if the entire public is represented and actively listening to the programming, which is why PSBs attempt to maintain large audiences.

Alongside political necessity, ‘broadcast programs are to be dealt with as primarily cultural goods, important for the self-development and orientation of the people’ (Hoffmann-Riem 61). It is argued, that by circulating a culture’s symbols, PSB safeguards national identities (Dhoest 56; Nicholas 323). Another related perspective is that national unity is a ‘discursive construction’ (Dhoest 56) and therefore PSB should offer appropriate cultural discourses on which viewers can reflect, and by confirming or rejecting such discourses viewers can

(17)

self-identify with an ‘imagined’ national community (56-57). In either case, PSB can tailor content to national audiences and thus safeguards against the reliance on foreign imports which usually ignore regional idiosyncrasies and symbols (Hoffmann-Riem 65). This satisfies the remit to ‘strengthen national culture and identity’ (Syvertsen 157) and further places PSB as transmitter of locally understood meanings.

Whether politically or culturally oriented, the logic of the magic square policy can be situated within a structuralist frameworks. It is argued that PSBs are better able to circulate culturally relevant content whereas a commercial broadcast market favoring programs with mass or international appeal would collapse the diversity of view points and reduce the representation of people (Garnham, “The Broadcast Market…” 13; Hoffmann-Riem 64). Once again, supporters of PSB within this framework see media as a resource that citizens must be able access. This is justified because the community is primarily understood as a collection of voters (the traditional ‘citizen’). Media reception, as opposed to direct participation, is

emphasized here because information access is enough to engage citizens.

Criticisms Against PSB Institutions: ‘Democracy as Defeat’

Starting in the 70s and continuing through the present, technological and political shifts have strained PSB’s claim to monopoly status which was legitimized by its ability to create a national public sphere and relevant cultural content. From the expansion of the broadcasting spectrum and development of the internet medium, there has been an exponential growth of the volume of content and means to access it.

Politically, it is now difficult to argue for PSB privileges at the expense of commercial alternatives because ‘the private media have fulfilled a great number of the aims seen as unique to PSB’ (Jacka 180). Especially when it comes to representation and diversity of views (which underpins the magic square principle), it seems that internet, cable, and satellite can offer more diverse content than a single PSB could provide. However, some suggest that more quantity of content does not equal more qualitative diversity. This fuels arguments defending PSB from apparently superficial choices offered in the commercial market (Hoffmann-Riem 61; Garnham, “A Response to Elizabeth Jacka’s ‘Democracy as Defeat’” 199). In any case, those who want to protect PSB status at the expense of potentially more diverse choices available in a commercial market are accused of viewing ‘democracy as defeat’ (Jacka).

(18)

While the proponents noted before claim that PSB is an indispensable resource for democracy they have been criticized for their outdated understanding of it (Jacka 183). Opponents say PSB is antidemocratic because it still operates with the elitist tendencies to discipline the tastes of the “popular classes” (Jacka 185) or more generally it privileges certain content as more important than others, which ‘are based on traditional taste and cultural hierarchies that may no longer be viable’ (Syvertsen 163).

Expanding on the work of John Hartley, Elizabeth Jacka says democracy should relate to one’s freedom to choose their media, ‘a system in which there are no universal visions of the “common good”’ (Jacka 183). Jacka supports a radical democracy, where personal choice, difference, and taste are equally political to voting (183). The argument follows that PSB content should lose its claim to state privileges because it is merely a commodity (Nicholas 327) in the media market and ‘consumers are the only relevant arbiters of taste’ (Syvertsen 164; [my italics]).

Here, the citizen is imagined differently than previous perspectives which emphasize political participation in a public sphere and ‘[presupposes] a substantive “common

good”’ (Jacka 183). Rather, for this newly defined citizen, their individual expression and active choices are their defining characteristic. Many have described this emergent citizen as a ‘sovereign consumer’ or a ‘citizen-consumer’ (see Bennett 279; Garnham, “The Broadcasting Market…” 12; Jacka 187; Lunt 4). For the sovereign consumer a new concept of democracy emerges, one that is not tied to the state-granted rights, but rather tied to the individual’s personal power to shape symbols. John Hartley calls it DIY citizenship (do-it-yourself citizenship).

It is based on difference rather than [group] identity and consists in the “practice of putting together an identity from the available choices, patterns and opportunities on offer in the semiosphere and the mediasphere. (Hartley quoted by Jacka 185)

This conception of democracy seems apolitical, which it may be, if viewed from more traditional conceptions. Rather than traditional rights, Hartley believed the power to shape symbols ‘leads to a “truly sovereign community”’ (Hartley quoted by Jacka 186) because people become self-driven rather than being passive ‘spectators who vote’ (Walzer quoted by Jacka 182). Additionally, the attack on popular culture is unjustified because it can be politically powerful by bringing diverse communities together through shared interests. Popular TV

(19)

teaches ‘cultural citizenship…. “promoting among [audiences] a sense of common identity…. cultural neighbourliness”’ (Hartley quoted by Jacka 186). The content produced by PSB should no longer be viewed as a cultural service, but one choice among many, and its users are no longer ‘passive’ citizens, but active consumers. Media are merely an inspiration that fuels people’s personal values, therefore it is unfair to impose taxation or other obligations on consumers who may reject PSB values. Though user-generated content is recognized for its empowering potential as well, choice is usually emphasized in these arguments (Bennett 279).

This radical approach to democracy and media consumption is more of a blend between culturalism, structuralism, and other perspectives. This more recent perspective perceives culture as ‘the production, circulation, and consumption of meanings’ (Storey 86), which has structuralist tones. On the one hand, people are seen as active contributors to culture and politics based on individual and collective choices and how they use their media (48), which is very culturalist as well. Sovereign consumers are savvy media users who mix and mash symbolic systems to fit their needs. On the other they assimilate meanings as consumers, but through different combinations and preferences they form their own personal expressions and identities. Therefore, ‘people make popular culture from the repertoire of commodities supplied by the culture industries’ (88).

These proponents call for a greater degree of agency which could be associated with Carpentier’s definition of interactivity because the relationship between consumers and the culture industries is one of dialogue and negotiation. Interactivity here means ‘the interaction between audience and content, which relates to the selection and interpretation of content’ (29) and it supposes more user agency than ‘access’. The community is understood as a ‘community of interest’ rather than a national community, therefore the greater the diversity and availability of content and media, the more symbolic options with which consumers can interact and around which they can gather. Social meanings are erected together ‘by actors interacting on the basis of shared interests, purposes and values, or common knowledge’ (29).

Throughout the last hundred years, differing inflections have given PSB’s narrow remit ‘to inform, educate, and entertain’ several different concrete and sometimes opposing strategies. What was once managed as a civilizing force, has since been viewed as public forum, a cultural reflection, but also criticized as anti-democratic. What is consistent however, is that due to technical limitations or specific philosophies, discussions among PSB have traditionally

(20)

regarded media users as recipients. Many goals focus on providing users access rather than including them directly in the production process.

In general, users of PSB have less agency to be engaged. These results have some common similarities with structuralists understandings of society and media. Society is founded on shared symbols and people have little power to shape meaning. Access to the symbols binds communities, and representation of diverse views may satisfy minority groups’ needs to contest the dominant meanings of cultural symbols. Therefore, the circulation of culturally relevant and diverse information has dominated output on PSB rather than individual expression — or as Hoffmann-Riem said in 1987, ‘The public service philosophy of broadcasting … is oriented toward the accessibility of pluralistic information for citizens and society rather than the freedom of expression of communicators’ (60-61). There would be little need to offer more user input because it could only echo (and at a lower quality) the same symbols circulated by the professionals within PSB.

Alternative Media: A Small-Scale Perspective on Media and Community

‘Alternative media’, sometimes called ‘community media’, are usually considered small-scale forms of media because they are often linked to smaller locales than national or global media and ‘the intended audience is narrower’ (Hollander, Stappers, and Jankowski 23). The sustainability of many small-scale media operations is tenuous because they often have to compete against comparatively well-funded PSBs and commercial media (Bailey, Cammaerts and Carpentier 25). Participation is at the heart of many alternative media projects and people are often motivated for different reasons, sometimes political, other times personal. The

foregrounding of community participation on a small scale results in more diverse media models and has created a seemingly endless amount of variation among alternative media projects (Kidd and Rodriguez 8).

In the previous section, I focused on large-scale community media and how different conceptions of media’s link to community produced different arguments and operations, yet mostly PSB situated users passively. Small-scale media have prioritized ‘production practices that underlie “alternative media”’ rather than ‘study their audiences’ (Couldry, “Section 1” 25-26), or in other words, they focus on users as producers rather than recipients. In the field of

(21)

reception, has fostered a better understanding and implementation of ‘participation’ (a discussion that is only now becoming central to PSB).

In the following sections on alternative media, I will chart the history of thought related to media participation and inclusivity. Second, I will document several dominant themes in

alternative media discussions related to politics and participation. Third, I will document common criticisms of alternative media principles. I will conclude by showing that these discussions conceptualize alternative media’s link to community within a culturalist framework.

Communication as a Two-Way Process: Early Thought on Communication Through Media

There are several 20th century thinkers who did not directly write about alternative media, but their emphasis on two-way communication in relation to technology and society remain relevant to understanding media participation. As far back as the the 1920s Bertolt Brecht envisioned the possibility of radio to be a two-way rather than one-way instrument.

The increasing concentration of mechanical means and the increasingly specialized training--tendencies that should be accelerated--call for a kind of resistance by the listener, and for his mobilization and redrafting as a producer. (Brecht)

Brecht believed radio listeners would feel more engaged if they could contribute to radio programming and the technical practice would ‘be an aid to discipline, which is the basis of freedom’ (Brecht). While radio could be two-way, Brecht believed it was in the interests of the state to avoid such experiments because of the ‘revolutionary’ potential. However, Brecht’s argument represents early thought about the potential for broadcasting to be inclusive and participatory.

Writing in the 1960s Antonio Pasquali believed that society relied on co-created and shared knowledge which appears ‘only where there are forms of communication’ (6; [my italics]). He criticized mass media for being unable to accommodate user feedback and therefore unable to produce co-knowledge.

All that remains is, on the one hand, someone who makes himself heard, without having to hear … and, on the other, someone who must hear without being heard

(22)

… and this is not as a result of voluntary renunciation, but because his possibilities have been renounced for him’ (Pasquali 11).

For Pasquali, mass media, which would include traditional PSB, imposes ideas which users cannot hope to influence. He says this produces a situation of ‘communicational atrophy’ and is a sign of ‘cultural underdevelopment’ (6).

Similar to Pasquali, Paulo Freire emphasized the importance of ‘dialogue’ in education. For Freire, education and knowledge is a process of co-creation where every party influences the understanding of reality. However, educational institutions and politics in general impose conversations and meanings which ‘often overlooks the concrete, existential, present situation of real people’ (47). The power over reality resides in dialogue as ‘a horizontal relationship’, ‘which is not the privilege of an elite, but the birthright of all’ (46).

These thinkers underscored that two-way communication should be participatory, or at least an interactive exchange between two poles. Additionally, they imagined the technological feasibility of such a project. These are greater conceptions of user involvement than mere access. Their emphasis on social processes and the potential power of individuals also sync well with culturalist conceptions of community. Much like Brecht, Pasquali and Freire,

culturalism also sees communication more as an active practice, than determined by the symbols people use. As will be shown later, practitioners and theorists in the field of alternative media often share this emphasis on active communication and individual agency.

Though, I have not seen these thinkers cited in community media research, with the exception being Freire (Bailey, Cammaerts and Carpentier 12), their ideas about two-way communication and user participation may have been percolating in society when international coalitions took up questions about media inequality in the 1970s.

Recognizing Communication Rights: Discussions on the NWICO

During the 1960s and 70s, people from third world countries began to express their discontent about global media concentration because it created extreme imbalances in the flow of information (Milan, “Three Decades of Contention” 26). These international and local

disparities were seen as a threat because ‘[t]he constant consumption of foreign values and cultural forms would eventually erode local cultures, undermine national identities, and limit the advancement of national communication industries’ (Rodriguez, Fissures in the Mediascape 6).

(23)

These countries called for a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) (Milan, “Three Decades of Contention” 26).

Members of an international think tank, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), began debating the NWICO in the 70s. It lead them to publish Many Voices, One World (commonly referred to as the MacBride Report) which was the first time an international body ‘represented the right to communicate as a fundamental human right’ (Bailey, Cammaerts and Carpentier 13), rather than merely the right to be informed.

The MacBride report established a more robust concept of user involvement where ‘the individual becomes and active partner and not a mere object of communication’ (MacBride 166). Additionally the MacBride report acknowledged the value of ‘“alternative communication”. which operates horizontally instead of vertically and enables individuals to assume an active role in the communication process’ (MacBride 113). These acknowledgments parallel Carpentier’s

definition that participation entails varying degrees of equality in decision making processes and the power for people to co-decide, and co-manage. While PSB valued access to information (Hoffmann-Riem 60), these debates emphasized the importance of participation.

It quickly became apparent that the top-down approach to developing a new

communication order did not work because it became ‘a matter of “high politics”’ (Milan, “Three Decades of Contention" 29) and did little to democratize communication among

non-professional groups (28). However, much like the Reithian ethos’ continuing influence,

UNESCO’s debates and the MacBride report created a foundation of principles that emerging social actors would rally behind and helped propel a ‘strategic shift, in which civil society took the leading role in developing alternative media projects and models of communications’ (Kidd and Rodriguez 4).

Emphasizing Politics and Participation: Alternative Media’s link to Social Change

Politics is a common theme of alternative media research and terminology often

privileges the explicitly political motivations of alternative media possibly because producers are activists that ‘inhereted the values and tactics … by all kinds of social movements’ (Milan, “Three Decades of Contention” 35). However, the political is not an clear subject to define. In discussions about alternative media, some consider politics solely in the realm of collective action, others consider politics in the realm of individual experience.

(24)

The political orientation of these different media may be best understood in descending order of political emphasis. On the more explicitly political end, John Downing (considered a leading scholar in the field (Anderson 49)) was one of the first to write extensively about the subject, what he called ‘radical alternative media’ (Atton 21). In the 80s he argued that ‘this media must inherently contest established blocs of political power with a view towards wider social emancipation’ (Anderson 49) and his categorizations of media revolved around ‘the extent that they explicitly shape political consciousness through collective endeavor’ (Atton 21). Chris Atton has criticized this demarcation because it concentrates too much on social movements and overlooks alternative media that ‘accommodate themselves rather more cosily with mass media and mass consumption’ (21) including ‘artistic production’ (21) that have political impacts, but are not directly confrontational.

More recently, Clemencia Rodriguez developed the term ‘citizens’ media’ which, like Downing’s term, is also founded on social emancipation, but it is not as narrow in its definition of politics nor strict in its tie to social movements. Building on theories of radical democracy,

Rodriguez situates politics in everyday life (Fissures in the Mediascape 21) and symbolism as a site of political struggle (20). According to Rodriguez, practically any effort to produce local media can be political because it allows the community to reproduce and refashion its own symbols rather than have symbols imposed on them from outside institutions. ‘[S]ome new types of struggle must be seen as resistances to the growing uniformity of social life, a

uniformity that is the result of the kind of mass culture imposed by the media’ (Mouffe quoted by Rodriguez, Fissures in the Mediascape 20). For Rodriguez, ‘citizens’ media come in all

shapes’ (Fissures in the Mediascape 64) therefore commercially or state-funded media can still be ‘citizens’ media’ within the right socio-political context. ‘Citizens’ media’ is a more inclusive term than Downing’s ‘radical alternative media’, but it still emphasizes collective action and group interests (20).

Some alternative media researchers have severed ties with social movements and collective action. Chris Atton produced his own framework of radical media which is so flexible that in some cases media can be apolitical, yet still radical, because its process of production is innovative or different from mainstream practices. For example, some media may have radically new production processes, like using photocopiers to quickly and cheaply produce miniature comics called ‘zines’, even if their content is banal (23). In this context, producers of zines are positioned as ‘alternative’ or ‘radical’ publishers in relation to mainstream publishers.

(25)

Additionally, the social change associated with radical media does not have to be tied directly to collective social emancipation.

The change that is looked for need not be structural on a national or supra-national level; it may be local, even individual: for Duncombe even the personal act of becoming a zine editor is a social transformation…. If the personal may be political, the personal may be of social consequence. (Atton 18)

Atton’s framework allows him to include more ‘mundane’ productions that will ‘tend to be

overlooked by academics who insist on or look for resistance and infraction in everyday cultural production’ (73; [my italics]). For Atton, political intentions are not necessarily required to have political consequences.

Going further, Chris Anderson supports a framework disconnected from the previous notions of change and innovation. Anderson believes that the mere existence of a small-scale media project could be a form of political power (depending on the context) regardless of its processes, and messages. ‘Alternative media can then be seen as “media production that challenges, at least implicitly, actual concentrations of media power, whatever form those concentrations take in different locations”’ (Couldry and Curran quoted by Anderson 50; [my italics]). Depending on the situation, practically any media form could fit into this categorization, including the trivial, the derivative, and even media forms that do not necessarily empower its users, but exist autonomously from mainstream media. There does not have to be political intent, or anything outstanding about alternative media from Anderson’s perspective, being alternative is enough.

Authors, that use social or collective movements as their frame of reference often see small-scale media as a practice of resistance and power whereas those that stray from traditional politics include media that functions more as a creative outlet for individuals and communities. The strongly political perspectives can be aligned with new social movements (NSMs) which differ from earlier labor movements because participants are more interested in cultural and symbolic issues, ‘more closely linked to their identity than to broad economic grievances or class conflicts’ (Lievrouw 50). NSMs raise ‘cultural challenges to the dominant language, to the codes that organize information and shape social practices’ (Melucci quoted by Lievrouw 42). Additionally, they are grounded in everyday practices: ‘participants in new social movements also tend to “practice what they preach” in their everyday lifestyles, as a sign or

(26)

message to the rest of society’ (Keane and Mier quoted by Lievrouw 53). Lastly, movements respect the personal expressions of individuals on which they can ‘construct a collective (if localized) identity (Lievrouw 49).

Within the strictly political realm, small-scale media’s link to a community is that of a tool of resistance to symbolic systems, a platform to mobilize communities and action, and a venue of direct expression rather than mere representation. The creation of change through everyday lifestyle, and the importance of individual subjectivities for collective betterment is reminiscent of Hartley’s DIY citizenship and directly relates to culturalism. Within this framework, the individual is believed to have significant agency to create cultural change. However, researchers within alternative media highlight more active behavior than Hartley. While Hartley concentrates on the ability to choose symbols ‘on offer’ from the culture industries (which I suggested relates to Carpentier’s notion of interactivity), alternative media researchers focus on actively intervening through media production. Active intervention is a higher degrees of involvement, which

Carpentier would say relates more to participation.

Atton and Anderson cast a wider net to include the seemingly apolitical and mundane examples into their research. Atton says even personal media projects can be tied to politics in the sense that ‘marginality is becoming universal’ (de Certeau quoted by Atton 73) therefore any expression is ‘political empowerment’ of a marginalized community. Anderson says the trivial can be political, part of the ‘quotidian politics of making do’ (Secor quoted by Anderson 61). Some of the media that fits within these definitions would not be easily tied to NSMs because they have no political or cultural intent other than the satisfaction of the producer. However, the inclusivity of non-professionals to seek out their own satisfaction or make a difference on a small scale still entails a certain degree of participation. Therefore, no matter the intensity of political motivations, within alternative media, the link between media and community can be situated within a culturalist frame.

Criticisms to Alternative Media: Neglecting Audience

As shown before, the primary goal of many alternative media proponents is to foster participatory practices which inevitably revolve around production practices. As a result,

audience reception is often ignored, meaning alternative media groups do not know ‘who indeed was watching, reading or listening to alternative media, and how much did this

(27)

examples of alternative media from an audience perspective (see Rodriguez, Fissures in the Mediascape chapter two) in many other cases, few are watching, reading or listening because the content is unappealing.

The lack of audience research within the field of alternative media often relates to financial limitations of organizations, however in other cases producers may not care who is watching or how to appeal to them. John Downing says that sometimes producers aim ‘just to sustain a distinctive orthodoxy and therefore not to engage with casual bystanders or

opponents’ (“Audiences of Alternative Media” 627). In another article, Downing gives an example of marxists newspapers in Britain during the 70s, which were unpleasant to read because ‘[m]uch of human life was swept aside’ (“Conceptualising Social Movement Media” 106). What made matters worse was the awful quality of writing which would not appeal to anybody other than ‘convinced activists, somehow able to munch their wooden prose’ (106).

Nick Couldry writes about an online alternative media project focusing on ‘poverty and social isolation’ (“Alternative Media and Voice” 48), where the participants ‘often carried a vision of the importance of their reporting for community building’ (48). Despite their self-perceived importance, the site was a failure because ‘their reports could go unread by many, except for themselves and those who run the platform’ (48). The reality is that alternative media ‘struggle in a wider cultural landscape saturated with ever-changing media contents’ (48) and often the public is uninterested in alternative media’s potentially radical messages, as shown by Downing.

The problem with alternative media is that people may claim to serve community, but in reality some producers only want to serve their own interests.Simon Order asked alternative radio producers about what motivated them to volunteer. He found that many volunteered because they found participation personally satisfying (396). ‘Participation … viewed in this light, can be considered significantly more of a personal narcissistic activity, rather than of altruistic benefit to the community’ (397). Undervaluing the interests of the audience may undermine attempts for some community stations to attract ‘support and funding’ (397). For example, if personal expression is the only service alternative media groups provide, then they may be ‘an unnecessary platform for self-expression, as it is now available in abundance on the

Internet’ (Waldman quoted by Ali 72).

The degree to which particular alternative media projects attract an audience is a loose measure of how much they respect access. Access in this sense means the ability to

understand the content. If content does not resonate with people’s daily lives, it might as well be in a different language and therefore it is less accessible. While most alternative media aims to

(28)

foster participation, others can be criticized for unintentionally undermining access (by producing awful content), ultimately discounting their claims of inclusivity. However, in some ways, a lack of popularity or low accessibility defends alternative media principles. Alternative media that becomes popular risks losing independence, by becoming ‘[dependent] toward the community’ (Bailey, Cammaerts and Carpentier 32), or by being coopted by mainstream media (Rodriguez, Fissures in the Mediascape 161). In other words, popularity may lead to different forms of audience neglect, such as ‘losing one’s ability to articulate the local’ (Rodriguez, Fissures in the Mediascape 155).

Since the 70s, alternative media discussions and research have conceived of a more active audience. Whether media is used as a tool of resistance, or a tool of self-satisfaction, it is part of a social practice that can shape communities (Atton 60), and personal identities (Rodriguez, Fissures in the Mediascape 18). This process resonates with theories of culturalism because it emphasizes a social practice, the importance of personal expression, and the ability for people to change culture.

PSB and Alternative Media Tensions

My framework has several limitations that are most apparent when referencing concrete media debates. First, not all debates can be as cleanly isolated as either structuralist or

culturalist. As seen in arguments surrounding DIY citizenship or citizens’ media, the circulation of symbols and active choices by users are equally important. Second, certain debates can be understood more fully by acknowledging the economic aspects to the arguments, such as how commercial imperatives can determine content, rather than public choice or established symbolic systems. However, my concentration on the debate between culturalism and structuralism is useful to highlight that tensions have always been present in how large and small-scale media link to community.

PSB discussions often emphasize accessibility and users as recipients. Alternative media often champion user participation. These different approaches embody the tensions between structuralism and culturalism presented in the first chapter. PSBs focus on circulating messages, a relatively structuralist view of media. This emphasis opens them up to critics who claim they do not foster enough participation, a relatively culturalist critique. The reverse is true

(29)

for alternative media proponents who see media as a social practice and are criticized for their poor ability to circulate messages.

At the same time, alternative media and PSB have interrelated histories and goals. Their goals intersect in that proponents of alternative media often champion its importance using similar concepts as those in discussions about PSB. Both are seen as crucial for the functioning of democracy by giving relevant information to a particular region or culture (Kidd and Rodriguez 14; Napoli, “The Localism Principle…” 381; “Tilling The Vast Wasteland” 1037). PSB and

alternative media are seen as a resource to resist homogenization or cultural domination enacted through mainstream media (Kidd and Rodriguez 8; Larrea 86; Ramsey 1195-1196). Alternative media are also seen a process through which participants can reshape their collective identity (Rodriguez, Fissures in the Mediascape 20) similar to Hartley’s notion of controlling the semiosphere.

This outline recognizes the wider role of media in society, sometimes as a product to be accessed, other times as a process in which to participate. In chapter three, I will examine how these different conceptions of media, community, and users manifest as different instrumental strategies that work to attract users and bind communities.

(30)

CHAPTER THREE

INSTRUMENTAL STRATEGIES TO CONSTITUTE AUDIENCES AND BUILD

BONDS: WHERE PSB AND ALTERNATIVE MEDIA EXCELL

In the last chapter, I showed how debates about media’s link to communities manifest themselves in media discussions. I looked at community media from different scales and isolated some key themes within each of their respective discourses. Debates surrounding large-scale public service broadcasting (PSB) emphasize representation and reception which take place at the level of content. Discourses surrounding small-scale alternative media emphasize two-way communication, participation and action which generally take place at the level of production.

In this chapter, I intend to show how media companies (large and small) use

instrumental strategies at the level of content to constitute audiences. Additionally, there are instrumental strategies at the level of production that have a similar effect of building community. ‘Instrumental’ here means that the strategies can be shown to be intentional and therefore, they could hypothetically be reproduced in different contexts. The points I would like to make are that PSB and alternative media can support community building, yet many media organizations emphasize either content or production strategies at the expense of the other.

I will use case studies of various PBSs and alternative media that highlight intentional strategies to attract, and bind users. The chapter will be organized starting with instrumental strategies at the level of content then moving to the level of production. The emphasis within these sections is on building community, either as an audience or as active participants. To highlight media producers’ intentions to deepen community bonds, I will focus on instrumental strategies that blur the boundaries between content and production. This list of instrumental strategies is nowhere near exhaustive, but it provides concrete examples of how media can link to community by sharing symbols and developing practices.

I will conclude the chapter by explaining why many PSBs privilege content at the

expense of inclusive participation and why many alternative media groups privilege participation at the expense of content.

(31)

Content and Reception: Several Instrumental Strategies to Constitute

Audiences

At the level of content, producers approach users as recipients. Attracting users to content in the first place is a huge undertaking that I will not investigate, however once people are present as an audience, there are strategies that can keep them engaged. Here I will examine the power of familiar subjects, apolitical or politically neutral programming, and fixed scheduling.

The Familiar: Highlighting Locally Relevant Symbols

One quality of community media (PSB or alternative media) that appeals to users is the presentation of familiar places, people and subjects. Clemencia Rodriguez recounts the

experience of someone seeing their own kitchen on a television: ‘“I never realized my kitchen could be so beautiful!” The solidified perception of her kitchen was now shaken by the

perspective allowed her by the video camera’ (Rodriguez, Fissures in the Mediascape 2). Though it won’t always take place on such an intimate level, it is powerful to see recognizable people and objects through a mediated form. Along with the enjoyment of seeing the familiar, the practical relevance of seeing local subjects may also explain why ‘audiences prefer the local programmes over the imported’ (Larrea 91), i.e. local programming has the potential to better fit one’s lived experience (Hoffmann-Reim 66). Producing content with recognizable elements is an instrumental strategy that can be approached by producers from various angles, such as

highlighting local landmarks, local cultural symbols, and local history.

It should be noted that highlighting familiar landmarks, culture and history is a strategy and not an unintentional by-product of local production (though in some cases it can be). Locally produced media can totally ignore such local representations of familiar subjects (Napoli, “The Localism Principle…” 381), which shows first, that the local dimension is not a given, and second, that it can (and perhaps should) be purposefully implemented by those who want to attract local audiences.

Rodriguez says aboriginal television producers in Australia often focus on natural landmarks and landscapes, which are recognizable to their audiences. ‘Thus, what for

nonaboriginal audiences may be nothing more than tedious, empty shots, can make aborigines weep in front of the television screen’ (Rodriguez, Fissures in the Mediascape 50). These

To Serve the Community: Two Complimentary Media Approaches