tranquileye free media papers

Introduction by Susan Forde, Michael Meadows, and Kerrie Foxwell to issue 10 (February 2005) of the journal Transformations called Media Communities: Local Voices, focusing on community and independent media.

From the introduction: It is being recognised internationally that in the face of globalisation, what needs protecting is ‘cultural diversity' rather than ‘cultural exception' and it is community broadcasting that has a particularly important role to play in this process (Dabbous-Sensenig 42). The community media sector worldwide is diverse and expanding, yet manages to maintain special links with its varied communities—described by some as a ‘participatory relationship' (Girard Passion 13). The empowering possibilities of local media have been canvassed and acknowledged globally in the past 10 years but virtually all this work has focussed on production rather than reception (Atton; Downing; Molnar and Meadows; Rodriguez).

By Kevin Howley. Transformations (ISSN 1444-377), Issue No. 10 (February 2005) — Media Communities: Local Voices. http://transformations.cqu.edu.au/journal/journal.shtml

Abstract: This paper places a discussion of community radio in the context of ongoing debates surrounding 'globalization.'At first blush, this may seem an odd tack to take given community radio's theoretical relevance to and practical application in local settings. Indeed, community radio is generally defined in terms of its service to populations within discrete geographic locations (Price-Davies & Tacchi 50-51). Yet, as media scholar David Hendy reminds us, radio, an ostensibly local medium, is very much a global phenomenon inasmuch as radio technology is ubiquitous, the medium is pervasive in industrialised and developing societies alike, and the industry is increasingly transnational in its scale and scope.

As essay by Tim McLaughlin on the 1990s campus radio crisis.

In April 1992, a referendum was held to decide if Ryerson's CKLN should continue to receive student funding. The referendum was the result of a petition signed by 131 students "who complained that most of Ryerson's 12,000 students don't listen to the music" (Globe and Mail, 31 March 1992). The petition was started by engineering student Bruce Avery who claimed that "They (CKLN) use our money to play stuff that a very select number of students listen to, like calypso and ska. Not a lot of students are into that" [Eyeopener, 20 Mar 91]. CKLN, however, sees the referendum as a reaction to its programming policies: "This situation facing CKLN is only one instance of the conservative backlash against progressively student-supported groups on campuses across Canada, and the backlash against all progressive communications both nationally and globally" [CKLN Program Guide, Jul-Sep 91.] On Dec. 19th, CBC's Prime Time correspondent Sue Gardner, listed stations that were feeling pressure similar to CKLN; among them were CJSR (Edmonton), CJAM (Windsor), and CHSR (Fredericton). CHRW (London) may also be added to this list. Mario Circelli, station manager for CHRW, comments:

If we start walking the path of CKLN in Toronto, we're dead. CKLN is almost dead. The students at CKLN are going to put out a referendum; they don't want their money going there any more. Advertisers don't want to advertise on that radio station any more. How do they expect to pay their bills? How do they expect to have equipment? [Personal communication.]

Alternative stations across Canada are under pressure to justify their position in the mediascape. In response to this pressure many have changed their program content and mode of operation. These changes are significant enough to mark a break from what has been formerly understood as alternative radio. This shift is best understood in relation to four primary models for radio broadcast.

Lisa Monk, Masters Thesis, Communications Studies, Concordia University, 1997.

Abstract: The first part of this study examines the academic and official (CRTC) discourse regarding the regulation of radio broadcasting in Canada from the 1920s to the present. It examines the limits of earlier historical frames through which radio broadcasting policy has been explored. It introduces Foucault's mode1 of study and frame of analysis termed governmentality. The second part is an ethnographic examination of specific policy, programming and operations of campus-community radio station CKUT-FM (Montréal), and, as a related object, the policies and interventions of the National Campus-Community Radio Association (NCRA). It provides a critique of campus-comunity radio itself, and of the complex term, community. The third part is a detailed exploration of governmentality. This term refers to the process of thinking about, and practising government. One of its main components is the study of power relations. Conclusions are formulated in terms of future research and policy intervention in the area of FM radio regulation.