Community	
  Broadcasting:	
  Publics,	
  Participants	
  and	
  Policies	
  
	
  
	
  
Media	
  Theory	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Publics	
  
Perhaps	
  because	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  is	
  a	
  relatively	
  new	
  concept,	
  with	
  identifiable	
  
structures	
  beginning	
  only	
  in	
  the	
  latter	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  twentieth	
  century,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  limited	
  amount	
  
of	
  theory	
  and	
  applied	
  research	
  on	
  the	
  subject	
  (O'Connor	
  2004).	
  In	
  fact,	
  a	
  casual	
  survey	
  of	
  some	
  
media	
  studies	
  texts	
  would	
  be	
  hard	
  pressed	
  to	
  even	
  find	
  a	
  mention	
  of	
  community	
  media	
  
(Demers	
  2005),	
  much	
  less	
  a	
  substantial	
  investigation	
  of	
  the	
  phenomenon.	
  Nevertheless,	
  the	
  
body	
  of	
  scientific	
  knowledge	
  regarding	
  to	
  community	
  media	
  is	
  growing.	
  Established	
  media	
  
theorists	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  new	
  scholars	
  are	
  taking	
  up	
  the	
  challenge	
  and	
  offering	
  their	
  contributions	
  to	
  
the	
  field	
  (Gordon	
  2009).	
  Though	
  currently	
  limited,	
  some	
  academic	
  institutions	
  are	
  establishing	
  
community	
  media	
  courses,	
  curricula,	
  and	
  in	
  some	
  cases	
  bachelor	
  and	
  master	
  degrees	
  of	
  study	
  
in	
  the	
  field.1
	
  Doctoral	
  and	
  post-­‐doctoral	
  research	
  investigating	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  is	
  also	
  
adding	
  valuable	
  content	
  to	
  the	
  body	
  of	
  work	
  (Scifo	
  2012,	
  Doliwa	
  2015,	
  Peters	
  2015).	
  In	
  
addition,	
  a	
  UNESCO	
  Chair	
  for	
  Community	
  Media	
  has	
  been	
  established.2
	
  These	
  rising	
  experts	
  
bring	
  enthusiasm	
  and	
  fresh	
  new	
  perspectives	
  to	
  both	
  academic	
  and	
  advocacy	
  initiatives,	
  and	
  in	
  
the	
  process	
  inform	
  the	
  discussions	
  central	
  to	
  the	
  sector.	
  
	
  
Community	
  media	
  are	
  often	
  described	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  their	
  attributes	
  and/or	
  functions,	
  for	
  
example	
  Melville	
  (2007,	
  16)	
  describes	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  as	
  being	
  “sustained	
  by	
  the	
  
principles	
  of	
  access	
  and	
  participation,	
  volunteerism,	
  diversity,	
  independence	
  and	
  localism”.	
  
Numerous	
  scholars	
  have	
  explored	
  the	
  multifaceted	
  link	
  to	
  social	
  movements	
  as	
  an	
  important	
  
attribute	
  of	
  community	
  media	
  (Bob	
  2005,	
  Juris	
  2008,	
  Bimber	
  2015).	
  On	
  community	
  radio,	
  
Pavarala	
  and	
  Malik	
  (2007,	
  17)	
  assert:	
  “A	
  community	
  radio	
  or	
  television	
  station	
  may	
  represent	
  a	
  
social	
  group,	
  or	
  any	
  combination	
  of	
  groups,	
  so	
  long	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  'of,	
  by	
  and	
  for'	
  its	
  constituent	
  
groups”.	
  South	
  African	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  pioneer	
  Zane	
  Ibrahim	
  from	
  Bush	
  Radio	
  in	
  Cape	
  
Town	
  described	
  the	
  phenomenon	
  of	
  community	
  radio	
  as:	
  '90%	
  community	
  and	
  10%	
  radio'	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1
See the program details of University of Lincoln MA Community Radio at:
http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/home/course/mhmacrs/.
2
The UNESCO Chair in Community Media is here: http://uccommedia.in/about-us/vinodpavarala/.
(Korbel	
  and	
  Fogg	
  2005,	
  12).	
  His	
  iconic	
  remark	
  reinforces	
  the	
  fundamental	
  and	
  perhaps	
  most	
  
important	
  aspect	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting:	
  the	
  inextricable	
  link	
  to	
  community.	
  Carpentier,	
  
Lie	
  and	
  Servaes	
  (2003)	
  suggest	
  that	
  community	
  media	
  is	
  at	
  once	
  both	
  specific	
  and	
  diverse,	
  and	
  
these	
  seemingly	
  incongruous	
  attributes	
  contribute	
  to	
  its	
  conceptual	
  elusiveness.	
  In	
  addressing	
  
that	
  elusiveness,	
  they	
  categorize	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  environments	
  and	
  organizations	
  
according	
  to	
  a	
  matrix	
  of	
  theoretical	
  approaches,	
  and	
  their	
  work	
  has	
  enabled	
  subsequent	
  
researchers	
  to	
  examine	
  community	
  media	
  within	
  a	
  participatory	
  context.	
  
	
  
In	
  their	
  multi-­‐theoretical	
  approach,	
  Carpentier,	
  et	
  al	
  present	
  a	
  matrix	
  of	
  motivations	
  (see	
  Figure	
  
11)	
  that	
  reflects	
  firstly	
  the	
  source	
  of	
  identity	
  for	
  the	
  broadcaster,	
  and	
  secondly	
  the	
  relational	
  
dynamic	
  between	
  the	
  public	
  sphere	
  and	
  civil	
  society.	
  In	
  serving	
  a	
  community,	
  the	
  essentialist	
  
symbiotic	
  relationship	
  between	
  community	
  and	
  community	
  broadcaster	
  is	
  credited	
  with	
  
validating	
  the	
  legitimacy	
  of	
  the	
  medium,	
  and	
  empowers	
  community	
  members	
  to	
  participate.	
  
Community	
  broadcasting	
  in	
  this	
  frame	
  can	
  strengthen	
  the	
  identity	
  of	
  multiple	
  constituent	
  
groups	
  and	
  facilitate	
  their	
  agency	
  for	
  effecting	
  social	
  change.	
  The	
  relationist	
  orientation	
  of	
  
alternative	
  broadcasting,	
  compared	
  to	
  the	
  mainstream,	
  positions	
  community	
  broadcasters	
  as	
  
independent	
  and	
  local,	
  with	
  alternative	
  output	
  and	
  funding	
  sources.	
  With	
  these	
  attributes,	
  
community	
  broadcasters	
  supplement	
  mainstream	
  media	
  content,	
  contest	
  preconceived	
  
popular	
  representations,	
  and	
  resist	
  dominant	
  paradigms	
  (ibid).	
  
Media centered Society centered
Autonomous identity of
Community Media
(Essentialist)
Serving the community Part of civil society
Identity of Community Media
in relation to other identities
(Relationist)
Alternative to the mainstream Rhizome
Figure 11: Community Media Typologies (Carpentier, Lie and Servaes 2003)
Where	
  alternative	
  media	
  structures	
  exist	
  as	
  a	
  component	
  of	
  civil	
  society,	
  they	
  both	
  reflect	
  and	
  
promote	
  their	
  community	
  values	
  internally	
  as	
  an	
  organization,	
  and	
  externally	
  into	
  the	
  societal	
  
realm.	
  Further	
  identifying	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  with	
  civil	
  society,	
  the	
  Irish	
  community	
  
media	
  activist	
  Jack	
  Byrne	
  (2006,	
  34)	
  suggests:	
  “Democratic	
  media	
  can	
  develop	
  a	
  specific	
  
strategy	
  to	
  become	
  the	
  voice	
  of	
  this	
  emerging	
  civil	
  society,	
  enlarging	
  this	
  network	
  tendency	
  and	
  
linking	
  non-­‐profit	
  organizations	
  for	
  greater	
  awareness	
  and	
  strength”.	
  	
  
	
  
Frances	
  Berrigan	
  (1979,	
  14)	
  defines	
  community	
  media	
  as:	
  “Adaptations	
  of	
  media	
  for	
  use	
  by	
  the	
  
community	
  for	
  whatever	
  purpose	
  the	
  community	
  decides”.	
  Kevin	
  Howley	
  (2010,	
  7)	
  states	
  
“While	
  dominant	
  media	
  tend	
  to	
  conceal	
  the	
  interconnected	
  and	
  mutually	
  dependent	
  character	
  
of	
  social	
  relations,	
  community	
  media	
  work	
  to	
  reveal	
  this	
  fundamental	
  aspect	
  of	
  human	
  
communities”.	
  Media	
  scholars	
  have	
  built	
  upon	
  the	
  descriptions	
  of	
  community	
  to	
  examine	
  the	
  
corresponding	
  ethos	
  of	
  community	
  media,	
  but	
  may	
  understate	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  individuals	
  in	
  
deliberative	
  democracy	
  and	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  the	
  sector.	
  (Carpentier	
  2003)	
  suggests	
  that	
  
communities	
  are	
  indeed	
  made	
  up	
  of	
  individuals	
  and	
  their	
  agency,	
  which	
  grow	
  like	
  crystals	
  to	
  
form	
  a	
  bottom-­‐up	
  structure	
  of	
  groups	
  and	
  organizations	
  in	
  opposition	
  to	
  the	
  traditional	
  forces	
  
that	
  dominate	
  commercial	
  and	
  public	
  service	
  mass	
  media	
  in	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  today.	
  	
  
	
  
This	
  rhizome	
  effect	
  describes	
  the	
  society-­‐centered	
  role	
  of	
  community	
  media	
  as	
  a	
  connecting	
  
hub	
  combining	
  social	
  groups	
  and	
  interests,	
  both	
  internally	
  and	
  externally.	
  Community	
  media	
  
and	
  the	
  communities	
  they	
  serve	
  utilize	
  civil	
  society	
  as	
  the	
  site	
  of	
  their	
  sociopolitical	
  activities,	
  
firmly	
  situated	
  between	
  the	
  government	
  and	
  commercial	
  sectors	
  in	
  the	
  standard	
  western	
  
democratic	
  model.	
  Through	
  their	
  participation	
  in	
  civil	
  society,	
  individuals	
  and	
  groups	
  exercise	
  
their	
  human	
  rights	
  of	
  free	
  expression,	
  assembling	
  in	
  public	
  spaces,	
  and	
  communicating	
  through	
  
mass	
  media	
  platforms.	
  This	
  phenomenon	
  is	
  exemplified	
  by	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  a	
  local	
  community	
  
broadcaster	
  to	
  link	
  participants	
  to	
  other	
  sectors	
  and	
  institutions,	
  and	
  is	
  especially	
  valuable	
  to	
  
promote	
  the	
  communication,	
  cooperation	
  and	
  collaboration	
  that	
  facilitate	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  
effective	
  policies	
  and	
  environments	
  for	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  (Carpentier,	
  Lie	
  and	
  Servaes	
  
2003).	
  
While	
  Harcup	
  (2005,	
  361)	
  suggests	
  that	
  “definitions	
  of	
  alternative	
  media	
  are	
  not	
  fixed	
  or	
  
universally	
  accepted”,	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  is	
  often	
  defined	
  in	
  opposition	
  to	
  the	
  
philosophies	
  and	
  functions	
  of	
  mainstream	
  media	
  that	
  comprise	
  the	
  first	
  two	
  sectors	
  of	
  
broadcasting.	
  Those	
  functions	
  include	
  propagating	
  mainstream	
  political	
  views,	
  mainstream	
  
culture,	
  and	
  mainstream	
  values	
  (Elghul-­‐Bebawi	
  2009).	
  Public	
  service	
  media	
  are	
  often	
  too	
  closely	
  
controlled	
  by	
  political	
  interests,	
  and	
  commercial	
  media	
  carry	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
  profit,	
  leading	
  
scholars	
  such	
  as	
  Hollander	
  and	
  Strappers	
  (1992)	
  to	
  suggest	
  that	
  dominant	
  media	
  have	
  
compromised	
  their	
  legitimacy	
  as	
  genuine	
  components	
  of	
  a	
  true	
  public	
  sphere,	
  whereas	
  
community	
  broadcasters	
  are	
  free	
  from	
  such	
  constraints.	
  Commercial	
  and	
  public	
  service	
  
broadcasters	
  offer	
  content	
  comprised	
  of	
  dominant	
  representations	
  designed	
  to	
  attract	
  and	
  
serve	
  large	
  homogeneous	
  audiences	
  that	
  serve	
  the	
  interests	
  of	
  commercial	
  corporations,	
  state	
  
government,	
  and	
  power	
  elites	
  (Taghizadeh	
  2012).	
  Many	
  commercial	
  operators	
  do	
  exist	
  in	
  the	
  
smaller,	
  local	
  spaces	
  of	
  terrestrial	
  broadcasting,	
  however	
  the	
  consolidation	
  of	
  commercial	
  
broadcasting	
  continues	
  unabated,	
  as	
  smaller	
  operators	
  are	
  co-­‐opted	
  by	
  larger	
  groups	
  seeking	
  
economies	
  of	
  scale	
  (Wright	
  2013,	
  Barnett	
  2010).	
  A	
  similar	
  trend	
  also	
  exists	
  in	
  the	
  public	
  service	
  
sector,	
  as	
  shrinking	
  government	
  budgets	
  and	
  competing	
  technologies	
  put	
  stress	
  on	
  public	
  
service	
  broadcasters	
  to	
  reduce	
  expenses	
  by	
  cutting	
  local	
  services	
  (Humphreys	
  2012).	
  	
  
	
  
Some	
  scholars	
  see	
  community	
  broadcasting,	
  juxtaposed	
  against	
  commercial	
  and	
  public	
  service	
  
models,	
  as	
  a	
  more	
  appropriate	
  public	
  sphere.	
  Fairchild	
  (2001:93)	
  notes	
  "the	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  
power	
  relations	
  formed	
  between	
  an	
  institution	
  and	
  its	
  constituency	
  are	
  what	
  distinguishes	
  
community	
  radio	
  most	
  clearly	
  from	
  public	
  and	
  commercial	
  broadcasting",	
  and	
  Lewis	
  and	
  Booth	
  
(1989)	
  position	
  community	
  radio	
  versus	
  mainstream	
  commercial	
  and	
  public	
  service	
  as	
  "an	
  open	
  
or	
  implied	
  criticism	
  of	
  mainstream	
  radio	
  in	
  either	
  of	
  its	
  two	
  models"	
  (9).	
  The	
  degradation	
  of	
  
Habermas'	
  public	
  sphere	
  by	
  these	
  dominant	
  media	
  results	
  in	
  what	
  Hardt	
  (2001,	
  43)	
  describes	
  as:	
  
"a	
  flat,	
  shallow	
  mass	
  production	
  of	
  symbols,	
  denying	
  the	
  individual	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  real	
  depth	
  and	
  
understanding	
  of	
  life".	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Herman	
  and	
  McChesney	
  (1998)	
  see	
  mainstream	
  media	
  as	
  becoming	
  even	
  more	
  national	
  and	
  
homogenous	
  in	
  content,	
  while	
  becoming	
  less	
  diverse	
  and	
  less	
  responsive	
  to	
  the	
  needs	
  and	
  
interests	
  of	
  local	
  communities.	
  The	
  rise	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  on	
  local	
  FM	
  radio	
  and	
  cable	
  
television	
  since	
  the	
  1990s	
  has	
  subsequently	
  created	
  viable	
  alternative	
  broadcasting	
  in	
  societies	
  
across	
  the	
  world	
  (Rennie	
  2006,	
  Downing	
  2011).	
  In	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  the	
  Low	
  Power	
  FM	
  (LPFM)	
  
role	
  in	
  providing	
  alternative	
  output	
  was	
  revealed	
  in	
  a	
  2015	
  report	
  from	
  the	
  media	
  regulator	
  
Federal	
  Communications	
  Commission	
  (FCC).	
  The	
  commission	
  noted	
  the	
  important	
  diversity	
  of	
  
output	
  exhibited	
  by	
  the	
  LPFMs	
  in	
  comparison	
  to	
  commercial	
  radios,	
  with	
  32%	
  of	
  LPFM	
  formats	
  
reported	
  as	
  "miscellaneous",	
  compared	
  to	
  1%	
  of	
  their	
  commercial	
  FM	
  counterparts.3
	
  
In	
  his	
  study	
  “Empowering	
  Radio:	
  Good	
  Practices	
  in	
  Development	
  and	
  Operation	
  of	
  Community	
  
Radio	
  in	
  Five	
  Nations”	
  the	
  community	
  radio	
  researcher	
  and	
  advocate	
  Bruce	
  Girard	
  (2007)	
  of	
  
Fondacion	
  Comunica	
  authored	
  a	
  comprehensive	
  account	
  of	
  community	
  radio	
  in	
  five	
  nations	
  
across	
  both	
  Latin	
  America	
  and	
  Europe,	
  positioning	
  the	
  sector	
  in	
  larger	
  societal	
  socio-­‐political	
  
contexts.	
  Based	
  on	
  available	
  information	
  without	
  any	
  new	
  empirical	
  research,	
  Mr.	
  Girard	
  made	
  
note	
  of	
  the	
  dearth	
  of	
  new	
  research	
  carried	
  out	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  sphere.	
  The	
  
report	
  provides	
  a	
  good	
  foundation	
  for	
  comparative	
  analyses	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  policy,	
  
sustainability,	
  and	
  social/cultural	
  representations	
  by	
  community	
  radio	
  and	
  its	
  participants.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
3
The US FCC report on LPFM is here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/lpfm-economic-study-and-report-congress.
Participants	
  
So	
  what	
  are	
  the	
  expectations,	
  roles,	
  rights	
  and	
  responsibilities	
  of	
  participants	
  as	
  they	
  actively	
  
participate	
  in	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  organizations?	
  As	
  is	
  the	
  case	
  with	
  many	
  concepts	
  
related	
  to	
  community	
  broadcasting,	
  the	
  notion/s	
  of	
  access	
  and	
  participation	
  is	
  at	
  once	
  complex	
  
and	
  multifaceted,	
  overlapping	
  in	
  its	
  components	
  and	
  explanations.	
  For	
  the	
  purposes	
  of	
  this	
  
text,	
  the	
  term	
  “participation”	
  relates	
  not	
  to	
  receiving	
  or	
  consuming	
  media	
  output,	
  but	
  rather	
  
the	
  participation	
  in	
  the	
  production	
  and	
  delivery	
  of	
  content.	
  Access	
  for	
  an	
  individual	
  or	
  group	
  of	
  
individuals	
  with	
  a	
  common	
  free	
  speech	
  agenda	
  in	
  today's	
  world	
  often	
  involves	
  having	
  access	
  to	
  
mass	
  media	
  structures,	
  which	
  can	
  include	
  the	
  microphone,	
  camera	
  and	
  transmission	
  facilities	
  of	
  
a	
  community	
  broadcaster.	
  The	
  legitimacy	
  of	
  participation	
  in	
  media	
  is	
  a	
  right	
  and	
  responsibility	
  
of	
  citizens	
  in	
  pluralistic	
  democratic	
  societies	
  (Rodriguez	
  2001),	
  and	
  because	
  community	
  media	
  
are	
  highly	
  democratic	
  in	
  philosophy	
  and	
  structure,	
  they	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  as	
  legitimate	
  and	
  
productive	
  contributors	
  to	
  a	
  public	
  sphere	
  of	
  participation	
  and	
  discourse	
  (Melody	
  1990,	
  
Devereux	
  2007).	
  Participation	
  in	
  the	
  democratic	
  public	
  sphere	
  depends	
  on	
  the	
  right	
  to	
  
communicate	
  for	
  actors	
  of	
  all	
  types	
  by	
  accessing	
  media	
  platforms	
  for	
  their	
  individual	
  and	
  
community	
  productions	
  (Fisher	
  and	
  Harms	
  1982).	
  Carpentier	
  (2011,	
  179)	
  describes	
  
participation	
  in	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  as	
  “the	
  articulation	
  of	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  ordinary	
  people	
  
–	
  for	
  instance	
  as	
  an	
  active,	
  relevant	
  social	
  group	
  with	
  valuable	
  opinions	
  and	
  knowledges,	
  or	
  as	
  a	
  
passive	
  mass	
  –	
  contributes	
  to	
  (pre)structuring	
  the	
  positions	
  people	
  can	
  take	
  in	
  society,	
  and	
  may	
  
enable	
  or	
  limit	
  their	
  role	
  in	
  participatory	
  processes”.	
  Melucci	
  (1989,	
  174)	
  suggests	
  that	
  
participation	
  has	
  a	
  double	
  meaning:	
  “It	
  means	
  both	
  taking	
  part,	
  that	
  is,	
  acting	
  so	
  as	
  to	
  promote	
  
the	
  interests	
  and	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  an	
  actor	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  belonging	
  to	
  a	
  system,	
  identifying	
  with	
  the	
  
‘general	
  interests’	
  of	
  the	
  community.”	
  	
  
	
  
Access	
  is	
  a	
  bedrock	
  component	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  paradigm	
  according	
  to	
  Berrigan	
  
(1979,	
  8):	
  “Community	
  media	
  are	
  media	
  to	
  which	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  have	
  access	
  for	
  
information,	
  education,	
  and	
  entertainment	
  when	
  they	
  want	
  it.	
  They	
  are	
  the	
  means	
  of	
  
expression	
  of	
  the	
  community,	
  rather	
  than	
  for	
  the	
  community”.	
  Access-­‐driven	
  participants	
  in	
  
this	
  alternative	
  public	
  sphere	
  seek,	
  first	
  and	
  foremost,	
  the	
  right	
  to	
  communicate,	
  and	
  with	
  that	
  
they	
  expect	
  the	
  freedom	
  to	
  produce	
  content	
  they	
  so	
  choose.	
  Peter	
  Lewis	
  (1993,	
  12)	
  suggests	
  
“Access	
  is	
  the	
  processes	
  that	
  permit	
  users	
  to	
  provide	
  relatively	
  open	
  and	
  unedited	
  input	
  to	
  the	
  
mass	
  media”..	
  James	
  Curran	
  (1998,	
  196)	
  speaks	
  of	
  a	
  movement	
  for	
  changing	
  priorities	
  in	
  the	
  
broadcasting	
  paradigm	
  “which	
  is	
  intent	
  upon	
  extending	
  social	
  access	
  and	
  expanding	
  the	
  range	
  
of	
  voices	
  and	
  views	
  on	
  air”.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Ultimately,	
  access	
  is	
  an	
  important	
  function	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting,	
  but	
  as	
  is	
  the	
  case	
  in	
  
many	
  mixed-­‐model	
  broadcasting	
  environments	
  and	
  organizations,	
  it	
  is	
  symbiotically	
  related	
  to	
  
other	
  functions	
  and	
  phenomena.	
  The	
  access	
  seekers	
  may	
  be	
  exercising	
  their	
  democratic	
  right	
  
and	
  duty	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  civil	
  society,	
  but	
  access	
  by	
  definition	
  does	
  not	
  require	
  such	
  an	
  
identity;	
  it	
  only	
  presumes	
  that	
  a	
  person	
  or	
  group	
  of	
  producers	
  utilizes	
  the	
  media	
  form	
  in	
  some	
  
manner	
  (Higgins	
  2007).	
  	
  
	
  
Communities	
  constituted	
  of	
  ethnically	
  diverse	
  citizens	
  are	
  historically	
  active	
  in	
  developing	
  
alternative	
  media	
  forms,	
  and	
  are	
  often	
  tasked	
  by	
  mandates	
  from	
  policy	
  guidelines	
  to	
  
ameliorate	
  institutionalized	
  lack	
  of	
  ethnic	
  diversity	
  in	
  society	
  (Downing	
  and	
  Husband	
  2005).	
  
Citing	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  community	
  radio	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  Kingdom,	
  Guy	
  Starkey	
  (2011,	
  14)	
  asserts:	
  
“Local	
  media	
  (including	
  local	
  radio)	
  can	
  reflect	
  and	
  encourage	
  cultural	
  diversity	
  within	
  small	
  and	
  
large	
  populations.”.	
  For	
  example,	
  in	
  the	
  UK	
  more	
  than	
  30	
  licensed	
  community	
  radios	
  are	
  owned	
  
and	
  operated	
  by	
  ethnic	
  community	
  groups,	
  and	
  hundreds	
  more	
  broadcast	
  some	
  ethnic	
  
programming.4
	
  Mainstream	
  media	
  tend	
  to	
  under	
  represent	
  and/or	
  erroneously	
  represent	
  
ethnic	
  and	
  minority	
  groups,	
  marginalizing	
  them	
  in	
  comparison	
  to	
  more	
  popular	
  notions	
  of	
  their	
  
role	
  in	
  society,	
  whereas	
  alternative	
  media	
  can	
  do	
  the	
  opposite	
  by	
  illuminating	
  and	
  educating	
  
minority	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  majority	
  population	
  audiences	
  (Matsaganis,	
  Katz	
  and	
  Ball-­‐	
  Rokeach	
  2011).	
  
“Multiethnic”	
  and	
  “non-­‐discriminatory”	
  are	
  terms	
  that	
  exhibit	
  the	
  philosophy	
  of	
  diversity	
  in	
  the	
  
personnel	
  makeup	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  organizations	
  (Mitchell	
  2011).	
  Underserved	
  
minority	
  groups	
  in	
  such	
  organizations	
  have	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  develop	
  their	
  social	
  and	
  political	
  
capacities	
  through	
  participation	
  as	
  producers,	
  managers,	
  and	
  even	
  owners	
  (Borger	
  and	
  Bellardi	
  
2010).	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Policy	
  	
  
Media	
  policy	
  is	
  rooted	
  in	
  the	
  social,	
  economic	
  and	
  political	
  governance	
  of	
  the	
  society	
  in	
  which	
  it	
  
is	
  situated	
  (Golding	
  and	
  Murdoch	
  1991),	
  and	
  the	
  articulation	
  of	
  cultural	
  policy	
  in	
  many	
  western	
  
democracies	
  is	
  often	
  influenced	
  by	
  the	
  policies	
  enabling	
  pluralism	
  in	
  media	
  (Ellmeier	
  and	
  
Ratzenbock	
  2001).	
  Community	
  broadcasters	
  rely	
  upon	
  policy	
  and	
  regulation	
  to	
  facilitate	
  the	
  
successful	
  operation	
  of	
  radio	
  and	
  television	
  platforms	
  through	
  which	
  they	
  access	
  the	
  public	
  
sphere,	
  and	
  scholars	
  have	
  argued	
  that	
  the	
  regulatory	
  environment	
  can	
  have	
  a	
  profound	
  effect	
  
on	
  the	
  behavior	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  participants	
  and	
  their	
  organizations	
  (Rennie	
  2006,	
  
Howley	
  2010,	
  Buckley	
  2008,	
  Gosztonyi	
  2013).	
  The	
  Council	
  of	
  Europe5
	
  	
  has	
  recognized	
  the	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
5
See the Council of Europe recommendation 173 (2005) on regional media:
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=866605&Site=COE, and recommendation Rec (2007)2 of the COE
Committee of Ministers: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1089699.
importance	
  of	
  policy	
  to	
  third	
  sector	
  media	
  by	
  proclaiming	
  “Member	
  states	
  should	
  encourage	
  
the	
  development	
  of	
  other	
  media	
  capable	
  of	
  making	
  a	
  contribution	
  to	
  pluralism	
  and	
  diversity	
  
and	
  providing	
  a	
  space	
  for	
  dialogue.	
  These	
  media	
  could,	
  for	
  example,	
  take	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  
community,	
  local,	
  minority	
  or	
  social	
  media”.	
  Buckley	
  (2008,	
  3)	
  argues	
  that	
  policy	
  considerations	
  
for	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  should	
  be	
  "fair,	
  open,	
  transparent,	
  and	
  clearly	
  defined	
  by	
  law,	
  with	
  
criteria	
  developed	
  in	
  consultation	
  with	
  civil	
  society".	
  
	
  
The	
  policy	
  development	
  process	
  is	
  also	
  informed	
  and	
  influenced	
  by	
  actors	
  in	
  government,	
  
business	
  and	
  civil	
  society	
  (Powell	
  2013)	
  in	
  what	
  Hogwood	
  and	
  Gunn	
  (1984,	
  24)	
  understand	
  as	
  a	
  
"process	
  involving	
  many	
  sub-­‐processes"	
  of	
  discussion	
  and	
  debate.	
  These	
  processes	
  could	
  be	
  
seen	
  as	
  the	
  actualization	
  of	
  an	
  idea,	
  facilitated	
  by	
  the	
  system	
  of	
  policy	
  development.	
  Harold	
  
Lasswell	
  (1971,	
  28)	
  identified	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  distinct	
  stages	
  of	
  policy	
  creation:	
  
	
  
1.	
  Agenda	
  
2.	
  Policy	
  Formulation	
  
3.	
  Decision-­‐Making	
  
4.	
  Implementation	
  
5.	
  Evaluation	
  
	
  
In	
  democratic	
  societies,	
  the	
  policy	
  development	
  process	
  ostensibly	
  takes	
  place	
  in	
  a	
  complex	
  
system	
  of	
  public-­‐private	
  interaction	
  of	
  actors	
  and	
  institutions	
  cooperating	
  to	
  achieve	
  policies	
  
deemed	
  equitable	
  to	
  all	
  sectors	
  (Kingdon	
  1984).	
  However,	
  tensions	
  among	
  these	
  informants	
  
can	
  lead	
  to	
  conflict	
  and	
  policy	
  destabilization,	
  and	
  increase	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  public	
  intervention	
  in	
  
defense	
  of	
  a	
  democratic	
  public	
  sphere	
  (Mansell	
  and	
  Raboy	
  2011).	
  Coyer	
  and	
  Hintz	
  (2010,	
  275)	
  
observe	
  that:	
  "Community	
  media	
  advocates	
  are	
  emerging	
  as	
  significant	
  actors	
  in	
  media	
  reform	
  
movements	
  and	
  efforts	
  to	
  orient	
  policy	
  environments	
  towards	
  more	
  democratic	
  normative	
  and	
  
legal	
  frameworks".	
  
	
  
	
  
The	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  efficacy	
  of	
  media	
  and	
  the	
  media	
  policy	
  that	
  governs	
  them	
  serves	
  
to	
  define	
  and	
  categorize	
  nations	
  and	
  their	
  community	
  media	
  environments	
  (Price-­‐Davies	
  and	
  
Tacchi	
  2001).	
  Regulation	
  is	
  a	
  key	
  dimension	
  of	
  the	
  overall	
  construction	
  of	
  any	
  media	
  
environment,	
  and	
  a	
  model	
  from	
  which	
  to	
  compare	
  systems.	
  In	
  their	
  comparative	
  media	
  
systems	
  analysis,	
  Hallin	
  and	
  Mancini	
  (2004)	
  argue	
  that	
  media	
  governance	
  and	
  regulation	
  are	
  a	
  
product	
  of	
  the	
  larger	
  political	
  paradigm	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  situated.	
  The	
  authors	
  created	
  a	
  
composite	
  of	
  variables	
  essential	
  to	
  understanding	
  Western	
  media	
  systems	
  in	
  the	
  frame	
  of	
  three	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
models	
  that	
  reflect	
  the	
  socio-­‐political	
  environment	
  that	
  media	
  operate	
  in,	
  and	
  the	
  subsequent	
  
forms	
  of	
  media	
  organisms	
  which	
  evolve	
  within	
  those	
  environments.	
  The	
  three	
  environments	
  
are	
  
	
  
1.	
  Mediterranean	
  Polarized	
  Pluralist:	
  minimal	
  civil	
  society	
  -­‐	
  government	
  cooperation,	
  
dysfunctional	
  media	
  legislation	
  and	
  regulation,	
  over-­‐commercialization,	
  and	
  restricted	
  access	
  to	
  
the	
  broadcasting	
  public	
  sphere	
  for	
  alternative	
  media	
  (Spain,	
  Italy,	
  Greece)	
  
	
  
2.	
  North	
  Atlantic	
  Liberal:	
  minimal	
  civil	
  society	
  -­‐	
  government	
  cooperation,	
  powerful	
  commercial	
  
sector,	
  functional	
  public	
  service	
  sector,	
  functional	
  media	
  legislation	
  and	
  regulation,	
  limited	
  
access	
  to	
  broadcasting	
  public	
  sphere	
  for	
  alternative	
  media	
  (USA,	
  UK,	
  Ireland)	
  
	
  
3.	
  North	
  Central	
  European	
  Democratic	
  Corporatist:	
  extensive	
  civil	
  society	
  -­‐	
  government	
  
cooperation,	
  functional	
  media	
  legislation	
  and	
  regulation,	
  limited	
  commercialization,	
  strong	
  
public	
  service	
  sector,	
  extensive	
  access	
  to	
  broadcast	
  public	
  sphere	
  for	
  alternative	
  media	
  
(Denmark,	
  Netherlands,	
  Germany)	
  
	
  
Hallin	
  and	
  Mancini's	
  original	
  work	
  has	
  generated	
  scholarly	
  debates,	
  some	
  raised	
  by	
  the	
  authors	
  
in	
  a	
  subsequent	
  text,	
  related	
  to	
  assumptions	
  about	
  the	
  universality	
  of	
  the	
  models	
  (Hallin	
  and	
  
Mancini	
  2012),	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  consideration	
  for	
  cultural	
  influences	
  Jakubowicz	
  (2010),	
  and	
  the	
  
authors	
  predictions	
  on	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  globalization	
  in	
  transforming	
  media	
  systems	
  Hardy	
  (2008).	
  
Other	
  scholars	
  have	
  built	
  upon	
  the	
  Hallin	
  and	
  Mancini	
  composite	
  to	
  produce	
  subsequent	
  
research.	
  Dobek-­‐Ostrowska	
  et	
  al	
  (2010)	
  published	
  their	
  edited	
  volume	
  of	
  media	
  systems	
  in	
  
Central	
  and	
  Eastern	
  Europe,	
  while	
  Blum	
  (2005),	
  and	
  Curran	
  et	
  al	
  (2009)	
  conducted	
  studies	
  that	
  
further	
  explored	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  media	
  and	
  political	
  environments.	
  	
  
	
  
In	
  an	
  initiative	
  to	
  assess	
  media	
  policy,	
  The	
  European	
  Commission6
	
  financed	
  a	
  2009	
  research	
  
project	
  identifying	
  indicators	
  of	
  media	
  pluralism	
  in	
  member	
  states	
  that	
  created	
  a	
  media	
  
pluralism	
  monitoring	
  tool	
  for	
  identifying	
  threats	
  based	
  on	
  legal,	
  economic	
  and/or	
  socio-­‐cultural	
  
consideration.	
  The	
  contributors	
  included	
  several	
  recognized	
  community	
  media	
  experts	
  such	
  as	
  
Josef	
  Trappel	
  of	
  Austria	
  and	
  the	
  late	
  Karol	
  Jakubowicz	
  of	
  Poland	
  who	
  created	
  legal,	
  socio-­‐
demographic	
  and	
  economic	
  indicators	
  of	
  media	
  pluralism	
  in	
  a	
  model	
  as	
  evidence	
  for	
  evaluating	
  
media	
  policy.	
  The	
  authors	
  beta	
  tested	
  the	
  model	
  in	
  group	
  interviews	
  with	
  media	
  trade	
  
associations	
  before	
  assessing	
  it	
  themselves	
  as	
  evaluators.	
  The	
  project	
  then	
  deployed	
  a	
  Likert	
  
scale-­‐based	
  survey	
  of	
  stakeholders	
  to	
  evaluate	
  the	
  usefulness	
  of	
  the	
  monitoring	
  tool	
  (Trappel	
  
and	
  Maniglio	
  2009).	
  Though	
  primarily	
  focused	
  on	
  policy	
  issues,	
  it	
  did	
  not	
  initially	
  make	
  any	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
6
The EU Media Pluralism Monitor is still active and can be seen here: http://monitor.cmpf.eui.eu/results-2014/.
policy	
  recommendations,	
  but	
  co-­‐author	
  Peggy	
  Valcke	
  (2009,	
  149)	
  noted:	
  “It	
  recognizes	
  that	
  all	
  
types	
  of	
  media	
  –	
  public	
  service,	
  commercial	
  and	
  community	
  media	
  –	
  play	
  important	
  roles	
  in	
  
creating	
  pluralism	
  and	
  that	
  a	
  wide	
  range	
  of	
  media	
  types	
  and	
  channels/titles	
  are	
  important	
  for	
  
providing	
  pluralism”	
  The	
  Centre	
  for	
  Media	
  Pluralism	
  and	
  Media	
  Freedom	
  project	
  continues	
  to	
  
inform	
  European	
  policy	
  debates,	
  as	
  evidenced	
  by	
  a	
  presentation	
  of	
  the	
  Media	
  Pluralism	
  
Monitor7
	
  results	
  for	
  the	
  Czech	
  Republic	
  by	
  the	
  scholar	
  Vaclav	
  Stetka	
  to	
  a	
  meeting	
  of	
  a	
  Czech	
  
parliamentary	
  committee	
  in	
  2016.	
  
	
  
While	
  neither	
  the	
  Hallin	
  and	
  Mancini	
  nor	
  the	
  Media	
  Pluralism	
  Monitor	
  models	
  directly	
  address	
  
community	
  broadcasting	
  in	
  their	
  research,	
  other	
  scholars	
  have.	
  Price-­‐Davies	
  and	
  Tacchi	
  (2001)	
  
examined	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  efficacy	
  of	
  community	
  media	
  and	
  the	
  policy	
  that	
  
governs	
  it	
  in	
  their	
  study	
  of	
  Australia,	
  Canada,	
  Ireland,	
  Holland	
  and	
  South	
  Africa.	
  In	
  a	
  report	
  
similar	
  to	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  Hallin	
  and	
  Mancini,	
  community	
  media	
  scholars	
  Coyer	
  and	
  Hintz	
  (2010)	
  
also	
  constructed	
  a	
  theoretical	
  modeling	
  framework	
  for	
  measuring	
  the	
  environments	
  for	
  
community	
  broadcasting.	
  The	
  researchers	
  identified	
  two	
  factors	
  for	
  their	
  model:	
  supportive	
  
policies	
  (from	
  which	
  well-­‐established	
  sectors	
  result)	
  and	
  state	
  financial	
  support	
  (from	
  which	
  
sustainable	
  organizations	
  result).	
  They	
  state	
  that	
  across	
  Europe,	
  community	
  radio	
  stations	
  fall	
  
roughly	
  under	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  four	
  following	
  frames:	
  
	
  
-­‐   well-­‐established	
  sectors	
  with	
  supportive	
  policies,	
  sustainable	
  models	
  that	
  include	
  strong	
  
state	
  financial	
  support	
  (France,	
  Netherlands);	
  	
  
-­‐   well-­‐established	
  sectors	
  with	
  supportive	
  policies,	
  but	
  minimal	
  state	
  financial	
  support	
  
(United	
  Kingdom,	
  Ireland,	
  Hungary);	
  	
  
-­‐   medium-­‐developed	
  sectors	
  with	
  some	
  supportive	
  policies	
  but	
  no	
  state	
  financing	
  (Italy,	
  
Spain,	
  Sweden);	
  	
  
-­‐   under-­‐or	
  undeveloped	
  sectors	
  where	
  there	
  are	
  limited	
  or	
  non-­‐supportive	
  policies	
  and	
  
funding	
  (Czech	
  Republic,	
  Croatia,	
  Slovakia,	
  Greece).	
  
	
  
	
  
A	
  research	
  study	
  by	
  Johnson	
  and	
  Menichelli	
  (2007)	
  combined	
  academic	
  theory	
  with	
  empirical	
  
research	
  to	
  present	
  a	
  snapshot	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  environment	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  
States.	
  The	
  study	
  titled	
  “What's	
  Going	
  On	
  in	
  Community	
  Media”	
  was	
  a	
  collaboration	
  between	
  
the	
  University	
  of	
  Massachusetts	
  and	
  the	
  Benton	
  Foundation.	
  Arising	
  from	
  an	
  initial	
  project	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
7
More information about the Media Pluralism Monitor 2015 stakeholders meeting - Czech Republic is available
here: http://cmpf.eui.eu/News/All/160105MPM15CzechMeeting.aspx.
examining	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  in	
  community	
  health	
  projects,	
  it	
  produced	
  a	
  
report	
  on	
  community	
  media	
  practices,	
  primarily	
  focused	
  on	
  issues	
  related	
  to	
  sustainability	
  and	
  
adoption	
  of	
  new	
  technologies.	
  The	
  authors	
  conducted	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  small	
  group	
  semi-­‐structured	
  
discussions	
  and	
  individual	
  interviews	
  with	
  a	
  selection	
  of	
  community	
  media	
  participants	
  across	
  
the	
  US.	
  The	
  study	
  also	
  addressed	
  questions	
  of	
  community	
  media	
  identity	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  
public	
  service	
  and	
  commercial	
  models,	
  community	
  participation,	
  and	
  the	
  engagement	
  of	
  
various	
  marginalized	
  groups.	
  The	
  research	
  report	
  presented	
  an	
  overview	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  
broadcasting	
  paradigm	
  in	
  the	
  USA,	
  profiling	
  42	
  broadcasting	
  organizations	
  and	
  28	
  aggregating	
  
organizations	
  that	
  support	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting.	
  The	
  authors	
  
concluded	
  that	
  improved	
  cooperation	
  among	
  government	
  and	
  civil	
  society	
  in	
  policy	
  
development	
  was	
  needed,	
  and	
  they	
  noted	
  that:	
  "policies	
  and	
  regulations	
  that	
  exist	
  for	
  
community	
  media	
  represent	
  hard-­‐won	
  political	
  victories,	
  but	
  they	
  do	
  not	
  address	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  
community	
  media	
  in	
  a	
  holistic	
  way."	
  (ibid,	
  26).	
  	
  
Another	
  valuable	
  tool	
  for	
  referencing	
  and	
  examining	
  media	
  policies	
  is	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  Global	
  
Media	
  Policy	
  Group	
  (GMPG)	
  –	
  a	
  subgroup	
  of	
  media	
  scholars	
  organized	
  within	
  the	
  International	
  
Association	
  for	
  Media	
  and	
  Communication	
  Research	
  (IAMCR)	
  (Cola	
  2013).	
  The	
  section	
  on	
  
community	
  broadcasting	
  policy	
  contains	
  a	
  substantial	
  array	
  of	
  institutions	
  and	
  actors	
  from	
  
around	
  the	
  world.	
  It	
  facilitates	
  the	
  research	
  of	
  processes	
  and	
  actors	
  in	
  the	
  development	
  and	
  
implementation	
  of	
  media	
  policy	
  using	
  an	
  online	
  tool	
  for	
  mapping	
  media	
  policy	
  around	
  the	
  
world,	
  including	
  a	
  database,	
  website	
  and	
  interactive	
  archive	
  tool	
  for	
  accessing	
  and	
  researching	
  
media	
  policy.	
  The	
  GMPG8
	
  text	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  tool:	
  “serves	
  to	
  identify	
  actors,	
  processes,	
  
outcomes	
  and	
  resources;	
  foster	
  access	
  to	
  relevant	
  information;	
  build	
  and	
  share	
  new	
  and	
  
existing	
  knowledge;	
  and	
  enhance	
  actors'	
  capacities	
  to	
  intervene	
  in	
  policy	
  setting.”	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Barnett,	
  S.	
  (2010).	
  "What's	
  Wrong	
  with	
  Media	
  Monopolies?	
  A	
  Lesson	
  from	
  History	
  and	
  a	
  New	
  
Approach	
  to	
  Media	
  Ownership	
  Policy".	
  In	
  R.	
  Mansell	
  and	
  B.	
  Cammaerts	
  (eds.).	
  MEDIA@LSE	
  
Working	
  Papers.	
  No.	
  18.	
  
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/mediaWorkingPapers/pdf/EWP18.pdf	
  Accessed	
  
2.2.2016	
  
	
  
Bimber,	
  B.	
  et	
  al.	
  (2005).	
  “Reconceptualizing	
  Collective	
  Action	
  in	
  the	
  Contemporary	
  Media	
  
Environment”.	
  Communication	
  Theory	
  15(4),	
  pp.	
  365-­‐388.	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
8
The Global Media Policy mapping Tool can be viewed here: http://www.globalmediapolicy.net/.
	
  
Blum,	
  R.	
  (2005).	
  “Bausteine	
  zu	
  Einer	
  Theorie	
  der	
  Mediensysteme”.	
  Medienwissenschaft	
  
Schweiz,	
  2,	
  5-­‐11.	
  
	
  
Bob,	
  C.	
  (2005).	
  The	
  Marketing	
  of	
  Rebellion:	
  Insurgents,	
  Media,	
  and	
  International	
  Activism.	
  
Cambridge,	
  UK:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Buckley,	
  S.	
  (2008).	
  “Community	
  Broadcasting:	
  Good	
  Practice	
  in	
  Policy,	
  Law	
  and	
  Regulation”.	
  
UNESCO.	
  
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/WPFD2009/pdf/wpfd2008_steve+
buckley+community+media+-­‐+maputo+wpfd.pdf	
  Accessed	
  3.2.2016	
  
	
  
Buckley,	
  S.	
  (2010).	
  “Third	
  Pillar	
  of	
  Media	
  Pluralism:	
  Community	
  Broadcasting	
  in	
  the	
  UK	
  and	
  
Europe”.	
  London	
  School	
  of	
  Economics.	
  
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/events/MeCCSA/pdf/papers/SteveBuckley.pdf	
  Accessed	
  
18.1.2016	
  
	
  
Coyer,	
  K.	
  and	
  A.	
  Hintz.	
  (2010).	
  “Developing	
  the	
  Third	
  Sector:	
  Community	
  Media	
  Policies	
  in	
  
Europe”.	
  In	
  B.	
  Klimkiewicz.	
  (ed.).	
  Media	
  Freedom	
  and	
  Pluralism.	
  Budapest:	
  Central	
  European	
  
University	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Curran,	
  J.	
  (1998).	
  "Crisis	
  of	
  Public	
  Communication:	
  A	
  Reappraisal."	
  In	
  T.	
  Liebes	
  and	
  J.	
  Curran	
  
(Eds.),	
  Media,	
  Ritual	
  and	
  Identity.	
  London:	
  Routledge.	
  
	
  
Curran,	
  J.,	
  et	
  al.	
  (2009).	
  “Media	
  System,	
  Public	
  Knowledge	
  and	
  Democracy:	
  A	
  Comparative	
  
Study”.	
  European	
  Journal	
  of	
  Communication,	
  24(5),	
  5-­‐26	
  
	
  
Dobek-­‐Ostrowska,	
  B.,	
  et	
  al.	
  (2010).	
  Comparative	
  Media	
  Systems.	
  European	
  and	
  Global	
  
Perspective.	
  Budapest:	
  CEU	
  Press	
  
	
  
Downing,	
  J.	
  (ed.)	
  (2011).	
  Encyclopedia	
  of	
  Social	
  Movement	
  Media.	
  London:	
  Sage.	
  
	
  
Dunbar-­‐Hester,	
  C.	
  (2014).	
  Low	
  Power	
  to	
  the	
  People:	
  Pirates,	
  Protest,	
  and	
  Politics	
  in	
  FM	
  Radio	
  
Activism.	
  Cambridge,	
  MA.:	
  MIT	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Ellmeier,	
  A.	
  and	
  V.	
  Ratzenbock.	
  (2001).	
  “Council	
  of	
  Europe	
  Transversal	
  Study	
  of	
  Cultural	
  Policy	
  
and	
  Cultural	
  Diversity:	
  National	
  Report	
  for	
  Austria”.	
  
https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/culture/Completed/Diversity/CCCULT_2001_2_EN.
PDF	
  Accessed	
  31.1.2016	
  
	
  
	
  
Foucault,	
  M.	
  (1980).	
  Power/Knowledge:	
  Selected	
  Interviews	
  and	
  Other	
  Writings,	
  1972-­‐1977.	
  C.	
  
Gordon.	
  (ed.).	
  New	
  York:	
  Pantheon.	
  
	
  
Golding,	
  P.	
  and	
  G.	
  Murdoch.	
  (1991).	
  "Culture,	
  Communication	
  and	
  Political	
  Economy".	
  In	
  J.	
  
Curran	
  and	
  M.	
  Gurevitch	
  (eds.).	
  Mass	
  Media	
  and	
  Society.	
  New	
  York:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Gosztonyi,	
  G.	
  (2013).	
  “Alternative	
  Media:	
  Aspects	
  of	
  the	
  Legal	
  Regulation	
  of	
  Community	
  
Media”.	
  	
  PhD	
  Thesis	
  at	
  Eotvos	
  Lorand	
  University	
  Faculty	
  of	
  Law	
  and	
  Political	
  Science.	
  Budapest,	
  
Hungary.	
  
	
  
Hallin,	
  D.,	
  and	
  P.	
  Mancini.	
  (2012).	
  “Introduction”.	
  In	
  D.	
  C.	
  Hallin	
  &	
  P.	
  Mancini	
  (Eds.),	
  Comparing	
  
Media	
  Systems	
  Beyond	
  the	
  Western	
  World	
  (pp.	
  1–7).	
  Cambridge:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press	
  
	
  
Hardy,	
  J.	
  (2008).	
  Western	
  Media	
  Systems.	
  London:	
  Routledge.	
  
	
  
Hogwood,	
  B.,	
  and	
  L.	
  Gunn.	
  (1984).	
  Policy	
  Analysis	
  for	
  the	
  Real	
  World.	
  Oxford:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  
Press.	
  
	
  
Howley,	
  K.	
  (2010).	
  Understanding	
  Community	
  Media.	
  London:	
  Sage	
  Publications.	
  
	
  
Jakubowicz,	
  K.	
  (2010).	
  “Media	
  Systems	
  Research:	
  An	
  Overview”.	
  In	
  B.	
  Dobek-­‐Ostrowska,	
  M.	
  
Glowacki,	
  K.	
  Jakubowicz,	
  &	
  M.	
  Sükösd	
  (eds.),	
  Comparative	
  Media	
  Systems.	
  European	
  and	
  Global	
  
Perspective	
  (pp.	
  1–21).	
  Budapest:	
  CEU	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Juris,	
  J.	
  S.	
  (2008).	
  Networking	
  Futures:	
  The	
  Movements	
  Against	
  Corporate	
  Globalization.	
  
Durham,	
  NC.:	
  Duke	
  University	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Kingdon,	
  J.	
  (1984).	
  Agendas,	
  Alternatives	
  and	
  Public	
  Policies.	
  New	
  York:	
  HarperCollins	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Melody,	
  W.	
  (1990).	
  “Communication	
  Policy	
  in	
  the	
  Global	
  Information	
  Economy:	
  Whither	
  the	
  
Public	
  Interest?”.	
  M.	
  Ferguson	
  (ed.).	
  Public	
  Communication:	
  The	
  New	
  
Imperatives.	
  London:	
  Sage	
  Publications,	
  pp.	
  16–39.	
  
	
  
Melucci,	
  A.	
  (1989).	
  Nomads	
  of	
  the	
  Present.	
  Social	
  Movements	
  and	
  Individual	
  Needs	
  in	
  
Contemporary	
  Society.	
  Philadelphia:	
  Temple	
  University	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Price-­‐Davies,	
  E.,	
  and	
  J.	
  Tacchi	
  (2001).	
  Community	
  Radio	
  in	
  a	
  Global	
  Context:	
  An	
  Overview	
  of	
  
Community	
  Radio	
  in	
  Australia,	
  Canada,	
  France,	
  Holland,	
  Ireland	
  and	
  South	
  Africa.	
  Sheffield,	
  UK.:	
  
Community	
  Media	
  Association.	
  
	
  
Prometheus	
  Radio	
  Project.	
  (2010).	
  “Obama	
  Signs	
  into	
  Law	
  the	
  Local	
  Community	
  Radio	
  Act:	
  FCC	
  
Chairman	
  Pledges	
  Swift	
  Action	
  to	
  Open	
  the	
  Dial”.	
  
http://www.prometheusradio.org/content/obama-­‐signs-­‐law-­‐local-­‐community-­‐radio-­‐act-­‐fcc-­‐
chairman-­‐pledges-­‐“swift-­‐action-­‐open-­‐dial”	
  Accessed	
  21.1.2016	
  
	
  
Rennie,	
  E.	
  (2006).	
  Community	
  Media:	
  A	
  Global	
  Introduction.	
  Oxford,	
  UK.:	
  Rowman	
  &	
  Littlefield.	
  
	
  
Steen,	
  T.	
  (2015).	
  “40	
  years’	
  history	
  of	
  Ethnic	
  Community	
  Broadcasting”.	
  NEMBCA.	
  
http://www.nembc.org.au/wp-­‐content/uploads/2015/06/NEMBC-­‐EB-­‐Spring-­‐2015.pdf	
  Accessed	
  
21.1.2016	
  
	
  	
  	
  
Wright,	
  K.	
  (2013).	
  “Media	
  Consolidation	
  Threatens	
  our	
  Democracy”.	
  Rogue	
  Valley	
  Community	
  
Press.	
  http://rvcommunitypress.com/2013/04/media-­‐consolidation-­‐threatens-­‐our-­‐democracy/	
  
Accessed	
  2.2.2016