TY - JOUR
AU - Guo,, Lei
AB - Abstract Most alternative media research has examined media content and the production process, largely ignoring another important component: the audiences of alternative media. To narrow this gap, this study investigates audience participation in one alternative media outlet: community radio. Case studies were conducted on 2 U.S. community radio stations through participatory ethnography, in-depth interviews, and a listener survey. Results suggest that community radio continues to be relevant in this digital era. While people lose faith in mainstream media and become increasingly suspicious of online content, they still consider community radio the most trustworthy. The study also demonstrates the limitations of audience participation in community radio, and the difficulties this medium faces in adopting new technologies and adapting to this digital world. In November 2012, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced the implementation of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, which marks the largest expansion of community radio stations in U.S. history. The act responds to the decade-long movement in which many civilian groups advocate that community radio—an “old-fashioned” yet accessible alternative medium—still plays a significant role in fostering the expression of diverse voices and citizen participation in this digital era. Despite successful advocacy efforts in the policy-making arena, concerns of who listens to community radio and to what extent listeners participate in community broadcasting remain understudied (Conti, 2011). This leads to the main question this study seeks to answer: It is true that community radio allows us to tell our stories (Barlow, 1988; Cammaerts, 2009), but to whom? In fact, audience studies are rare in the research field of alternative media in general (Atkinson & Dougherty, 2006; Boyle & Schmierbach, 2009). To define the term, “alternative media” provide content that “express alternative vision to hegemonic policies, priorities and perspectives” (Downing, 2001, p. v). From the perspective of production process, alternative media are “media production[s] that challenge, at least implicitly, actual concentration of media power” (Couldry & Curran, 2003, p. 7). Such media contest traditional media power not only by providing alternative frames through which to understand social realities—a content approach—but also by enabling ordinary citizens to directly access and participate in media productions, thus empowering them to define themselves rather than be defined by others such as mainstream media. While both alternative content and the production process can be highlighted in a media project, many alternative media practices are oriented toward one or the other. For heuristic purposes, I propose that alternative media can be conceptualized into two main categories: content-oriented and participation-oriented. The majority of empirical alternative media research has examined either content or the media production process, leaving audience engagement—a crucial dimension of communication—understudied (Downing, 2003). This gap exists in part because, according to the two aforementioned definitions, reaching a large audience does not factor into considerations of alternative media's impact. Rather, a primary goal for content-oriented alternative media, especially media of social movements, is to articulate and circulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, needs, and objectives (Fraser, 1990; Stein, 2009). When it comes to participation-oriented alternative media, the participants' empowering and transformative experiences stand alone as a form of resistance to hegemonic power structure. In other words, alternative content or the production process is considered as the objective of such media practices. Indeed, both theoretical approaches are key to the conceptualization of alternative media. However, in this article, I further argue that “audience” is another important factor to evaluate in the impact of alternative media. To clarify, the use of the term “audience” here does not refer to audience commodity, and it is not my intention to evaluate audience in terms of the effectiveness or efficiency of communication (McLuskie, 2010). Rather, I contend that audience interaction and participation should be considered normative goals of alternative media. Fraser's (1990) notion of the “alternative public sphere” provides a helpful theoretical framework to conceptualize audience interaction and participation in alternative media. According to Fraser, even if one single, comprehensive Habermasian public sphere exists and even if this public sphere is entirely public and open in its ideal form, it still excludes those who cannot participate to the fullest extent due to their different social backgrounds and lack of access to social and cultural capital. Therefore, a media project that operates as a Habermasian public sphere will inevitably prevent some audience members from interacting and participating in its forums and venues. As such, Fraser suggests, “in most cases it would be more appropriate to unbracket inequalities in the senses of explicitly thematizing them” (p. 118). In this regard, alternative media represent a nexus of multiple alternative public spheres that explicitly prioritize each identity or interest group's voices and needs. In these alternative spaces, anyone in that “alternative public” can access and participate. That is, people not only receive information, but also feel comfortable to speak out as active participants, or even become producers themselves. Indeed, alternative media scholars began to deconstruct the boundary between producers and audiences from the very beginning of the research field—even earlier than the emergence of the Internet. Challenging the notion that professional journalists and editors are the sole determiners of the social reality, alternative media producers and audiences are, in theory, truly intertwined to the point that they collectively construct the truth (e.g., Atton, 2004; Couldry & Curran, 2003; Downing, 2001). Based on these theorizations, I posit that audience members should be involved in alternative media in at least two ways. For content-oriented alternative media, a constant exchange between producers and audiences over the media content and viewpoints should be valued. For participation-oriented media, anyone in a particular “alternative public” should be encouraged to participate in the media production process. When community media such as community radio and community-access television serve as alternative public spheres, audience participation both in terms of content and the production process should contribute to the creation and maintenance of “community.” John Dewey and Harold Innis are helpful here to theorize community building and communication. Against the backdrop of the early 19th century in the United States, Dewey argued that the forces of industry and market, as well as the growth of long-distance communication, led to the eclipse of the public life (Dewey & Rogers, 2012). In trying to restore the public, Dewey pointed to the development of communities based on associational relationships at the local level. Harold Innis further posited that such a community formation should be rooted in the oral tradition, one of public discourse in which “people [are] struggling to articulate views, to outer their inner thoughts” (Carey, 1999, p. 102). To Innis, speech and discussion are vital counterbalances to the printing press, which resulted in a monopoly of knowledge and a culture of private reading (Carey, 1981). Turning back to this age of digital revolution and globalization, these arguments appear to be even more relevant in considering the role of community media. Living in an increasingly fragmented and individualized mediascape, researchers and media activists have argued for the importance of media localism to invigorate a politically and culturally involved community life (e.g., Dolber, 2011). The value of localism was also inscribed in the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (Dunbar-Hester, 2014). Such a “community” is rooted in a specific geographic locale, which may also cultivate subcommunities based on shared interests and identities. In light of the trend of global mobility and the development of new communication technologies, interest- and identity-based communities are grounded in their immediate territorial and cultural realities, but can also transcend these local conditions, a phenomenon termed as translocalism (Calabrese, 2001). To summarize, there are at least three types of local and translocal communities: geographic-, interest-, and identity-based communities. Indeed, the meaning of any “community” is never predetermined and will never be fixed. Different communities may also overlap. It is in this sense that community media intervene and provide a communication platform for citizens to build their communities by participating as audience members, volunteers, and producers, and to articulate and rearticulate the meaning of different communities through dialogues with each other. Citizens participate by contributing content and viewpoints, thus creating shared meanings; in turn, the process of participation itself is a form of community building. Ultimately, community is “a process, a relationship” (Rennie, 2006, p. 40). At its core, community media facilitate such processes and relationships. When it comes to the actual practice of community media, how have community media producers conceived community and audience participation? Who uses community media and to what extent do audience members participate in community media? How and to what degree do new communication technologies contribute to audience interaction and participation? In order to address these questions, this study evaluates listener participation in the U.S. community radio sector, focusing on audience interaction with the media content and the degree of audience participation in the production process. Specifically, the analysis is based on the investigation of two community radio stations in Texas: KOOP and KPFT. Findings of this research are based on 5 years of ethnographic fieldwork, 70 in-depth interviews with community radio broadcasters and listeners, a web-based listener survey, and secondary analysis of other relevant data. To my knowledge, this is one of the first studies to extensively examine listener involvement in community radio from the perspectives of both programmers and listeners. Overall, the following case studies show that community radio continues to be relevant in this digital era. The unique medium embodies a special message that still appeals to a group of listeners. I also describe the limitations of audience interaction and participation in community radio practices, in particular its “mainstream” listener and participant profile, as well as the two stations' opportunities for and difficulties with using new digital technologies to better interact with their listeners. This study aims to narrow the gap of audience research in community radio in particular and alternative media in general. It also provides insights that could have important practical implications for community radio broadcasters. I will first provide an overview of the history and current status quo of community radios in the United States, including KOOP and KPFT, and then move to the analysis. The past and present of U.S. community radio Corporate and state power gained control over radio broadcasting during the 1920s and 1930s. In response, an opposition movement by civic and nonprofit groups emerged to seize back the airwaves for the public (McChesney, 1990, 1993). The FCC decided in 1941 to reserve part of the radio spectrum for community and other noncommercial broadcasters. In 1949 Lewis Hill, a pacifist and journalist, took this opportunity to launch Pacifica Radio (KPFA) in Berkeley, California, generally considered one of the first community radio stations in the United States. As a noncommercial, listener-sponsored “free speech radio,” Pacifica pioneered the “alternative” ethos in the radio sector, providing content of “a well produced mix of news and in depth public affairs” that was and is unlikely to be heard in the corporate mainstream media (KPFA,n.d.; Lasar, 2006). Following the tradition of Pacifica, four more similar radio stations affiliated nationwide, and comprise the Pacifica Foundation Radio network. The Houston-based KPFT radio station is one of the five stations in the network. Boasting a 70-year record, community radio enriches the U.S. communication system by broadcasting content ignored or underrepresented in mainstream media and by facilitating public access and participation in media production (Barlow, 1988; Cammaerts, 2009). Today, there are about 200 self-claimed community radio stations across the country (Category: Community radio stations in the United States,n.d.). They range from low-power radio stations with signals covering three to five miles to full-power stations reaching audiences as wide as some commercial radio stations. This study examines listener participation in two differently sized community radio stations. KOOP broadcasts at an effective radiated power of 3,000 Watts, which has an estimated 15-mile reach. The larger-scaled KPFT broadcasts at the full power of 100,000 Watts, covering the entire Houston-Galveston region. KOOP (91.7FM) is a community radio station located in Austin, the capital of Texas and one of the fastest-growing cities in the United States with a population of approximately 850,000 people (Egan, 2013). Known as an “oasis” from the rest of the states' political and cultural conservatism, Austin values eclectic, liberal lifestyles, and is friendly to diverse subcultures and communities outside the mainstream (Salzman, 2013). However, it also remains a highly segregated city with sectors of minority, low-income communities living in the once-restricted neighborhoods (Balli, 2013). As liberal and progressive as Austin is perceived to be, the city did not boast its own community radio station until KOOP was established in 1994. The station aims “to provide high quality, innovative, and diverse community-oriented programming to Austin with an emphasis on those communities that are ignored or underserved by mainstream media” (KOOP,n.d.). Currently, KOOP airs over 70 locally produced programs. In 1970, KPFT (90.1FM) began broadcasting as a “people-powered, free speech radio” in Houston. Over the past few decades, Houston has experienced a significant social change from a “redneck white city down in Texas” to the fourth largest metropolitan, multicultural city in the United States (Kaminski, 2013). According to the 2010 census, the Houston metropolitan area is in fact the most racially/ethnically diverse large metropolitan area in the United States (Emerson, Bratter, Howell, Jeanty, & Cline,n.d.). However, Houston is also among the most ethnically and economically segregated of cities (Tolson, 2012). As the only liberal, progressive radio station in this large conservative city, KPFT has been the target of a number of politically motivated attacks. It is the first and only radio station in the United States that has been bombed off the air. At present, KPFT airs nearly 80 programs, including national news programs such as Democracy Now! and locally produced news and music shows. Both KOOP and KPFT operate as nonprofit organizations and are predominantly run by volunteers. The majority of both stations' revenue comes from listener contributions through multiple membership drives a year. Research methods This analysis employs a case study approach (Yin, 2003). I selected four cases of community radio programs in each category—content- or participation-oriented—from both KOOP and KPFT. These programs are all based in a local geographic community: Austin or Houston. These cases also represent a variety of interest and identity communities. Content-oriented programs: 1. KOOP-People United. The hour-long weekly radio program features news, interviews, and lectures on a variety of social justice topics. The program addresses “the concerns of a diverse, interdependent people opposed to oppression in all its various forms and committed to the struggle for social justice.” 2. KOOP-Rag Radio. The history of Rag Radio can be traced back to Austin's 1960s underground newspaper The Rag (1966–1977), one of the first, longest lasting, and most influential 1960s underground papers in the United States. In 2005, about 75 people who were involved in the original newspaper came from all over the world to attend an Austin reunion. That resulted in a renewed alliance among many of The Rag's former staff members and readers. Many of them were retired and returned to politics after the reunion. They initially communicated through an e-mail listserve, which then became The Rag Blog, an independent progressive Internet newsmagazine. Thorne Dreyer, the founding editor of The Rag, also founded its legacy The Rag Blog, and then launched Rag Radio in 2009. The hour-long radio program features in-depth interviews and discussions, aiming to provide “cutting edge alternative journalism, politics, and culture in the spirit of the 60's underground press.” 3. KPFT-KPFT News. It is a half-hour daily news program that provides “local news in a global context.” 4. KPFT-Progressive Forum. The weekly news and public affairs program covers issues from a progressive perspective and features interviews and speeches by local and international activists, scholars, and writers. Participation-oriented programs: 5. KOOP-OutCast. This LGBT (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) radio program in Austin is “by, for and about the LGBT community of Austin and elsewhere.” The program's mission is to “provide a resource for LGBT Austin, building community through a weekly forum for the exchange of information and ideas.” In each show, three or four guests from different LGBT communities are invited to participate in the live broadcast to discuss their interests and causes. 6. KOOP-Chop Suey: The first Asian-oriented radio program at KOOP features East Asian and Asian American music, culture, news, and events. In addition to presenting music and culture, Chop Suey is organized to give voices to ordinary people from the local Asian community. The program includes hosts and producers from different ethnic backgrounds and occasionally features guests who are leaders and members from local Asian groups and organizations. 7. KPFT-Open Journal. This daily program aims to provide opportunities for ordinary people in the Houston community to participate in radio production. In the first half hour of the program, “Community Conversation,” anyone can call the studio and discuss whatever they wish. 8. The second half hour, “Community Spotlight,” is a segment where any individual can apply and become a host to discuss issues important to him or her. To investigate the cultural context and programmer-listener dynamics at each station and in individual programs, I used a combination of research techniques including participatory ethnography, in-depth interview, web-based survey, and secondary data analysis. During a 5-year time period (2009–2014), I spent at least 4 hours a week on participant observation and volunteer work with KOOP. In January 2014, I also visited KPFT when the station was in the middle of its winter membership drive. To learn about listener involvement from the perspectives of community radio broadcasters, I conducted 23 semistructured in-depth interviews with the two stations' directors, volunteer leaders, and former and current programmers of the eight radio programs. Findings from the listeners' perspectives are drawn from the combination of in-depth interview and web-based survey. To recruit participants, I first announced the survey and interview invitation on each program's live broadcast as a guest speaker.1 In the following weeks' broadcasts, the programmers reminded their listeners of the research project. They also sent reminders to the programs' e-mail lists, social networking sites, and other communication channels. Additionally, I used a “snowball” method (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002) to ask recruits to invite other potential listeners to participate in the online survey and in-depth interview. A total of 131 listeners responded to the web-based survey; 47 of them were further interviewed. Finally, I analyzed all of the available materials that might provide additional evidence for audience participation in community radio such as the programs' blogs, their social networking sites, and the two stations' general listener surveys conducted in recent years. Who still cares about community radio? One important research question this study attempts to answer is who still listens to and participates in community radio, a seemingly outdated media outlet, in this new media environment of information overload. I will briefly outline the available audience statistics of each station and then discuss how listeners participate in community radio broadcasting. One of KOOP's own surveys sheds some light on its listenership. In 2011, a web-based survey was sent out to the station's e-mail list of about 3,000 listeners. I compared the survey results with the 2010 City of Austin demographic profile (U.S. Census, 2010). The data indicate that KOOP attracts more male (57%) than female listeners. The majority of its listeners are middle aged, predominantly White (87%), and better educated than the general population. With a bigger budget than KOOP, KPFT subscribes to a radio rating service. According to the most recent data (Nielsen Company, 2012), KPFT reached an average weekly listenership of over 135,000 in 2012, which accounted for less than 1% of the entire radio audience in the Houston-Galveston market. KPFT listeners tend to be older adults—nearly half of the listener population is over 55 years old. Additionally, KPFT listeners are typically White, middle class, and well educated.2 In October 2013, the Corporation for Public Radio informed KPFT that it would lose part of its funding due to the declines in its minority listenership (Carr, 2013). It appears that well-educated White men dominate the regular audience of both KOOP and KPFT. While both stations strive to serve diverse, underrepresented communities and create mutual understanding, it is ironic to find that the “mainstream” community members represent the majority of its listenership. Members with a relatively higher socioeconomic status from different communities are also the ones who participate in individual program productions. In the case studies analyzed, community participation remains limited in various degrees. Chop Suey started with the mission to enable members from different Asian communities in Austin to participate as media makers. However, it turns out that the program has only a small number of programmers and participants, and most are college students from a local prestigious university. OutCast is better at involving the local LGBT community by routinely featuring three or more guest speakers from the community in each show. Although the two programmers sincerely wish to include diverse community members as well as their allies in their show, the only LGBT radio program in town, they end up having guests who are primarily White, well-educated, gay men—just like the two programmers. Community Conversation, a 100% public-accessible open forum for local Houstonians, perhaps provides the best example. KPFT's general manager, Duane Bradley, and its programming director, Ernesto Aguilar, created Community Conversation, a call-in program in which anyone can call the studio and have their voice heard on air; Bradley and Aguilar take turns serving as the facilitator. Bradley and Aguilar envisioned Community Conversation as an ideal platform to foster civic expression and participation at the local level (Interview, January 2014). In an interview Bradley described this program as “a place for people to vent themselves to me and Ernesto to change the world around.” In practice, local Houstonians call to give their opinions on diverse subjects such as local government policies and news they hear elsewhere, and to share information about upcoming community events. However, the number of people who choose to join the “community conversation” is rather small. In order to encourage community participation, Bradley has changed his strategy over the years from just waiting for the first person to call in to preparing some discussion topics to start with. Still, it is not unusual for only one or two people to call in and participate during the entire half hour. Bradley confessed: [A] challenge for me is to just not get depressed and feel like it's a complete waste of time when you end up spending the first 15 minutes basically just talking and there is no one calling, or when the first three calls are the same three people everyday. It's like, “Really? Why do we even have a radio station in that case? Why don't the three of you just come over and we sit around and have a talk.” (Interview, January 2014). In addition to Bradley's concern about the limited scope of the “Community Conversation,” some listeners tire of the program when they hear the same regular callers calling the station all the time. David3 criticized, “I get a little annoyed ‘cause the same people call in over and over again.’ I mean those three people” (Interview, February 2014). To compound the problem, “the three people” are very similar demographically. According to Bradley and the listeners interviewed, they believe the callers to be White, male, middle aged, and well educated. In the survey, 14 people reported they called and participated in Community Conversation. All of these 14 participants are White. Eleven of them are male; 10 are 55–64 years old; and 11 received at least a bachelor's degree. It is safe to say that the idea of a “community conversation” is only partially realized. Given these examples, it is important to reconsider the raison d'être of the “alternative public sphere” (Fraser, 1990). While the “alternative public sphere” is built to “unbracket” certain inequalities, some others remain “bracketed,” as these case studies reveal. It is possible that the “alternative public sphere” could also discourage participation by those who feel less articulate and less equipped to share their viewpoints. Content-oriented community radio programs face a different concern, which is that some mainly attract an audience seeking content and viewpoints with which they already agree. Five interviewed listeners literally used the phrase “preaching to the choir.” Whether the programmers are willing to communicate with the “nonchoir” or not, they end up engaging in dialogues within a circle of similar-minded people. Consider the example of Rag Radio, a public affairs show with roots in the 1960s underground press. Although the program does facilitate a dynamic dialogue between producers and listeners as well as among listeners, it hardly reaches people outside of its constituency: the “60s desert audience,” a term coined by its chief producer Thorne Dreyer. In practice, Dreyer communicates with his listeners through personal conversation, phone calls, e-mails, and even Facebook (Interview, September 2013). Listeners may also contribute to the online magazine The Rag Blog, especially when they have a longer comment about a certain topic or argument discussed on the radio. Although the forum is open and an ongoing dialogue has been established, the group that uses the forum is usually those who already align with the program's left-leaning, progressive politics. Ruth is a typical Rag Radio listener. She began listening when the program first started because she and the programmer belong to the same progressive community. Ruth emphasized, “Thorne doesn't preach to the choir,” and then she confessed, “I am biased because I am the choir” (Interview, October 2013). Tracey Schulz, a coproducer of Rag Radio, remarked that the program is almost like a “time capsule” that brings people back to the 1960s, and thus it mainly attracts people who already share a sense of that era's activist culture (Interview, October 2013). Of the 27 people who responded to the survey of Rag Radio, 24 are White, 22 are over 55 years old, and half of them have a graduate degree. Twenty participants indicated they identify with liberal or radical/progressive politics. Indeed, these dedicated listeners and supporters to a large extent preserve the tradition of the 1960s underground culture and politics. An open and ongoing conversation is undoubtedly important even among a group of similar-minded people. But the questions are: How can a show stimulate a dialogue that intellectually challenges what the programmers and listeners already believe? How can the program and its ideas be made relevant to the wider society? Clearly, the discursive boundary of “community” in the case of Rag Radio is not so much subject to constant renegotiation and rearticulation. In fact, the programmers and many others in the Rag family are aware of the danger of them being disconnected from the community at large. In addition to opening up space for more ideas to diversify the program's content, Dreyer is working with his colleagues to try to reach a wider, younger audience beyond its predetermined community. “I think we have to overcome the tendency to talk with ourselves and to talk to people just like us,” said Dreyer (Interview, September 2013). Community radio is the message Most interviewed listeners expressed that community radio programs offer the unique content and experience that is demanded in the current mediascape. Listeners of content-oriented programs said they like being exposed to a broad spectrum of subject matters and appreciate the depth of the content. As Kevin said, “When I listen to [Progressive Forum], I know that I'm listening to people who are experts on the subject” (Interview, February 2014). Luken, a social science graduate student, finds the discussions on Rag Radio “intellectually inclined.” To him, the program presents much more meaningful analyses of social issues than many commercial media, which often feature “a Democratic talking head and…a Republican talking head in every show that go back and forth” (Interview, October 2013). Unlike programmers of content-oriented programs, those of participation-oriented shows suggest that their goal is to “share” and to “tell a story.” The people who talk in such programs are not necessarily experts on the given subject matter, nor are their viewpoints always established or insightful. Considering themselves members in the community, these programmers seek to create a “conversation” with their listeners. Stephen Rice, host of OutCast, described: Even though they (listeners) don't have a microphone in front of them, we have a kinda conversation…almost like [in] somebody's living room. We are just sitting there talking about things, brainstorming ideas, and bringing new things to people. (Interview, September 2013) According to the interviews with listeners, they do enjoy when the hosts express themselves on certain topics. They are drawn to the personal side of the stories from ordinary people. Such participation-oriented community programs are particularly well received by those who are not “members” of the targeted communities. The radio programs open windows for listeners to “eavesdrop” on the worlds beyond their everyday experiences. For example, Barry is not an LGBT person but he uses OutCast as a source of information because he enjoys listening to the hosts—two gay men—talking about LGBT-related news and events. Barry explained, “When Stephen talked about gay marriage, he would be like ‘here is news, which is very important because it affects all of us.’ They have a personal interest in it. Somehow it makes the news more interesting to listen to” (Interview, October 2013). Likewise, George, a Chop Suey listener, had no personal connection with Asia prior to his experience with the program. He finds it “fascinating” to just listen to “young folks who are from the other side of the world” play the music they enjoy and talk about their stories on the radio (Interview, February 2014). Journalism studies indicate that “human interest” is one of the well-received news frames (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000), so it is not surprising that a similar presentation serves community radio well. What distinguishes community radio from other media is the perceived friendly and more intimate relationship between the programmers and listeners. Because of such a relationship, listeners, including those who are not members of the served communities, are more likely to identify and sympathize with the programmers and contributors. Rather than staging the “exotic other” (Lalvani, 1995), participation-oriented community radio illustrates the potential to establish a livelier conversation that may transcend community and social boundaries. Indeed, community radio as a unique medium embeds itself in the message (McLuhan, 1964) that is still cherished in this digital age. While the emerging mediascape offers a large number of media outlets, some people still choose community radio because they trust the medium. Community radio listeners are convinced that, here, there are no external layers that interject commercial broadcasting. No supervisors, editors, or advertisers intervene between those speaking on the radio and those listening. Wallace, who listens to KPFT News regularly, commented: Any time I listen to mainstream news these days I almost have a feeling inside that whatever this guy is saying, he's lying. I don't feel that [way] about KPFT because I know that though I don't know the people, I understand they are there to bring it to you straight. They are being genuine with me. (Interview, February 2014) This finding is in line with the results of the 2013 KOOP station-wide listener survey. Of the 152 survey respondents, 57% reported that KOOP programmers are best described as “honest,” and 43% used the word “trusted.” In the context where 60% of Americans had little or no trust in mainstream media (Morales, 2012), people rely on community radio for information and perspectives because the medium is considered “sincere” and “trustworthy.” Many participants prefer community radio to other online media outlets for the same reason: They believe they can hear real people from their local community. Some described the information and stories on the Internet as hypocritical, indifferent, and opinionated, which makes community radio even more precious in this transforming mediascape. Thomas, a KPFT volunteer, commented on the difference between KPFT and media outlets on the Internet: “I think it's the touch. You can experience it. If you want to do a show, you can do it. If you find something online, you might not be able to interact with them, [but you can] go down [and] check out the studio” (Interview, January 2014). In fact, Thomas often goes to the KPFT radio station to talk with the programmers and other volunteers. Thomas's experience speaks to the strength of community radio in developing associational relationships and fostering community life at the local level. The “message” of community radio also includes fostering a democratic culture of dissent. To many of the older KPFT listeners who experienced the early, golden years of the station, KPFT represents an irreplaceable part of their lives. They feel proud that KPFT is the only radio station in the country that was bombed off the air for making space for controversial ideas. Frank is the only KPFT participant in this research who falls in the 18–24 age group. Given that community radio skews toward an older population, he said, “I kinda feel the duty to listen to KPFT because they (the older listeners) are gonna [pass away] relatively soon” (Interview, February 2014). For Frank, listening to and participating in KPFT is a special ritual that continues a cherished democratic tradition. Although radio (a specific media form) might be outdated, the meaning of community radio remains valuable to many community radio broadcasters and listeners. Some even expressed the sentiment that community radio deserves a spot in this digital era without having to consider its listenership and community participation. However, it is important to note that the gesture toward democracy can be reduced to tokenism at times. For example, KOOPers celebrate Chop Suey, the station's first-ever Asian program, and the local Asian community leaders are thrilled about having their community's voice on the city's radio dial. To many supporters of the show, the very fact that the program exists is a mission accomplished. However, the reality is that the program hardly reaches the local Asian community beyond a small group of college students. Larissa Chu, a former Chop Suey programmer, herself rarely listens to the program after she moved out of town and left the team. But she still emphasized the program's significance: It's like PBS. When people hear, “Oh no, the government is gonna stop funding PBS. But why? They have all the awesome educational shows.” That's pretty much what community radio is. It's not the pop culture we are having now. It's just a bunch of people who care about community, and the show they are doing. They care about it. And they really genuinely love it. (Interview, February 2014) Such an idealistic mindset can be potentially problematic. Just as Downing (2003) worries, a few community radio programs start ostensibly to allow “other voices,” but turn out only to express the voices of “a bunch of” individuals. Technology changes, people not so much The last research question asked whether new communication technologies could help community radio better reach and interact with listeners. It appears that both KOOP and KPFT provide streaming services for people to listen to its shows live on the Internet. Some programs also take advantage of social media and other new communication channels. As Rag Radio and Outcast demonstrate, the use of new media tools allows the community radio programmers to interact with their listeners in more ways and reach people beyond their geographically local communities. Rag Radio broadcasts online through KOOP's online streaming service and archives its shows on the Internet. As mentioned earlier, Rag Radio listeners express their viewpoints about issues discussed during the program in a variety of ways: e-mail, blog, and Facebook. New communication technologies are important to Rag Radio because it has followers all over the world, who had been staff members and readers of the original newspaper The Rag. In addition, Rag Radio, which is partially sponsored by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, has more resources than the average community radio program to target a global audience. The program covers both local and international issues, and when the programmers focus on topics specific to Austin, they “try to present [them] in a way that's interesting to people in other places because [they] do think [of themselves as] having a national and international audience,” said Dreyer (Interview, September 2013). Rag Radio has an e-mail list—nationally and internationally—of about 7,000 people. Dreyer's observation about Rag Radio's wide audience is supported by the survey results. More than one third of the survey respondents reported that they live outside of Austin. Roy was involved in the original Rag in the 1960s and now lives in Germany. He said that listening to Rag Radio not only brings him back to the 1960s progressive community, but also provides a way for him to hear a “hometown radio station” (Interview, October 2013). Roy's experience is evidence that community radio can create collective membership across great distances. OutCast provides another example of a technology-enabled translocal program. The OutCast programmers, both in their thirties, are adept at and use all kinds of new technologies to communicate with their listeners, including an active Facebook page, a Twitter account, a YouTube channel, and a website. In particular, with more than 1,500 followers, OutCast's Facebook page helps the programmers better understand their audience or, at least, their supporters. Most interestingly, the followers send in messages from all over the world. Rice remarked: We've got fans all over the world even in places people are not okay with homosexuals like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, [and] Afghanistan. To me, these people are very brave to find our page…People that live in really small towns like Oklahoma, Iowa, Mississippi, Georgia, [and] Alabama, who don't have the luxury to be able to live their lives out as a LGBT person, they have to live in the closet…And this is a way for them to have some kinda connection to the greater LGBT community. (Interview, September 2013) Indeed, not all of these people are regular listeners of OutCast; the survey results show that the core listeners of the program are still those who live in the Austin area. Even so, the local-based community program to some extent has created a virtual global community of LGBT members and supporters through Facebook and other digital communication tools. On the other hand, for community programmers who lack resources and technological expertise, new technologies have hardly changed the way broadcasters communicate with their listeners. Consider the example of Progressive Forum, a show with a history of several decades. At the time of research, no one on the team knew or was available to build and maintain a social networking site or a blog. Therefore, the station's membership drive remains the only active channel for the programmers to interact with their listeners. In fact, this is a major reason why Wally James, chief producer of the program, declined a listener survey for the program (E-mail, February 2014). Although James and the other coproducers all suggest they are open to comments and critiques from listeners, real-life challenges prevent them from offering sustained ways for interaction. Regardless of their technological expertise and resources, most agree that community radio broadcasters must adapt to this new digital world. More than half of interview participants concurred that digital communication tools are essential for community radio, a “dying art,” to stay alive and grow in the Internet age. Notably, a substantial portion of audiences now listen to community radio programs online. Nearly half of the KOOP survey participants (47%) reported that they listen to community radio through online streaming services or podcasts. About 39% of the 429 listeners in a 2013 KPFT station-wide survey said they mainly listened from computer or mobile devices. Given the reality that the community radio audience is aging, bringing community radio online becomes especially important in attracting the younger generation. Luken, a Rag Radio listener in his thirties, even avoids the word “radio” when he introduces the program to his friends. Instead, he describes Rag Radio as “a cool place that you can get a bunch of podcasts to listen to whatever you want” (Interview, October 2014). Similarly, Mingmei, in her twenties, prefers Chop Suey's YouTube channel to its FM broadcast simply because radio is no longer a part of her media diet ( Interview, October 2013). Bradley, the general manager of KPFT, also acknowledged that community radio broadcasters are faced with “a challenge, to adapt or die” (Interview, Janurary 2014). Still, some community radio programmers at the two stations are less motivated to adopt new communication tools. Elsa, an active KPFT volunteer, worries that some “older programmers” at the station feel hesitant about or even resistant to moving to the new communication environment (Interview, February 2014). Preference for the earlier status quo—community broadcasting without much listener feedback—is also well illustrated by a young volunteer's observation about KPFT News. Harry commented, “everyone treated it as a revolution thing” when the program launched its Facebook page in August 2011 (Interview, February 2014). As the results reveal, a digital divide, accompanied by a generational or an economic gap, is a common concern for community radio broadcasters at the two stations. But, after all, the very rationale of community radio is to provide a cheap, accessible medium for members from the underserved communities, including the elderly—a listener group overrepresented in both stations—to use and participate. According to the Pew Research Center, age is a main factor tied to the digital divide: 44% of those over age 65, and 17% of those 50–64 do not go online, versus 8% of those 30–49 who do not and only 2% of those 19–29 (Caumont, 2013). While most agree that digitalization is the inevitable future for community radio, it is also important to note that community radio—an accessible medium—supplies communication resources for people who have not yet embraced a digital life. Alternative media: An audience-based approach While previous alternative media research has mainly focused on the exploration of content or the media production process, in this study, I have proposed a different approach to conceptualize alternative media by suggesting that audience interaction and participation should be considered as normative goals of alternative media. To be clear, I do not mean to argue that alternative media practitioners should try to reach as many audience members as possible. Rather, I contend that alternative media should serve as alternative public spheres (Fraser, 1990) to facilitate active conversations between producers and audience and empower audience members by encouraging their own participation in the media production process. Empirically, this study examined community radio listeners, shedding light on the “link” between community radio and community members based on eight unique programs from two community radio stations in Texas. Given the recent FCC decision that ushered in a new wave of community radio stations in the United States, this study's important and timely investigation determined who listens to and participates in this digital era's seemingly “outdated” media outlet. Overall, the results show that community radio encourages civic expression and participation at the local level, which is in line with some recent research (e.g., Dolber, 2011) and the FCC decision that promotes media localism. However, I have also demonstrated that such expression and participation is limited in various ways. Perhaps the most surprising finding is the limits of the “mainstream” audience and participant profile, which comprises well-educated White men. This is contrary to what scholars would expect about the audience of alternative media; Fraser's notion of the “alternative public sphere” is not yet fully translated into reality. The finding also speaks to the overall civic health index in Texas, a state where minority groups such as Latinos/Hispanics and immigrants are significantly less likely to participate in civic activities (Lawrence et al., 2013). In this regard, it is a bit disheartening to report that the two community radio stations barely challenge the status quo. This study also presents one of the first attempts to examine the use of new communication technologies in community radio. The research shows that for tech-savvy community radio programmers and listeners with resources, new communication tools do provide more options for audience participation at the local as well as global level. However, for those on the other end of the digital divide, new communication technologies have hardly changed the way programmers and listeners interact. I do not wish to unilaterally advocate that every community radio project should use digital tools to reach a global audience. Instead, I posit that community radio provides a starting point to stimulate local community participation, and new communication technologies may enhance the associational relationships among community members, especially the younger generation. To conclude, this research demonstrated that community radio continues to be relevant in this digital era. While people are losing faith in mainstream media and becoming increasingly suspicious of online content, they consider community radio as the most trustworthy. Theoretically, this study contributes to the literature by conceptualizing the importance of understanding audience interaction and participation in alternative media research. In practice, the findings are especially relevant to U.S. community radio broadcasters. Based on these case studies, I recommend that community radio practitioners should allocate more attention and resources to reaching more diverse audiences and facilitating audience interaction and participation. This should ensure that these community media can deliver genuine and inclusive forms of democratic participation. This research is limited in its scope and methodology. Based on case studies from two community radio stations in Texas, the findings are not generalizable to the entire U.S. community radio sector. Future research should consider conducting case studies of community radio programs in other socioeconomic contexts, and scholars could use more extensive quantitative research methods to understand the broader picture of community radio, in the United States and abroad. Scholars should also consider examining audience interaction and participation in other types of alternative media aside from community radio. Acknowledgment Lei Guo is an assistant professor at the College of Communication in Boston University. She received her Ph.D. degree in journalism from the University of Texas at Austin. Notes 1 " Wally James—chief producer of Progressive Forum—declined the listener survey request. Therefore, the researcher conducted in-depth interviews instead. 2 " The programming director and the general manager provided the information based on their memories about the most recent radio rating data. 3 " For the purpose of this study, an “alias” name was chosen for each of the interviewed listeners. References Atkinson , J. D. , & Dougherty , D. S. ( 2006 ). Alternative media and social justice movements: The development of a resistance performance paradigm of audience analysis . Western Journal of Communication , 70 ( 1 ), 64 – 88 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Atton , C. ( 2004 ). An alternative Internet: Radical media, politics and creativity . Edinburgh, Scotland : Edinburgh University Press . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Balli , C. ( 2013 , February). What nobody says about Austin. Texas Monthly. Retrieved from http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/what-nobody-says-about- austin/page/0/1 Barlow , W. ( 1988 ). Community radio in the US: The struggle for a democratic medium . Media, Culture & Society , 10 ( 1 ), 81 – 105 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Boyle , M. P. , & Schmierbach , M. ( 2009 ). Media use and protest: The role of mainstream and alternative media use in predicting traditional and protest participation . Communication Quarterly , 57 ( 1 ), 1 – 17 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Calabrese , A. ( 2001 ). Why localism? Communication technology and the shifting scale of political community . In G. J. Shepherd & E. W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), Communication and community (pp. 251 – 270 ). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Cammaerts , B. ( 2009 ). Community radio in the west: A legacy of struggle for survival in a state and capitalist controlled media environment . International Communication Gazette , 71 ( 8 ), 635 – 654 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Carey , J. ( 1981 ). Culture, geography, and communications: The work of Harold Innis in an American context . In W. Melody, L. Salter, & P. Heyer (Eds.), Culture, communication and dependency: The tradition of H.A. Innis (pp. 73 – 91 ). Norwood, NJ : Ablex . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Carey , J. ( 1999 ). Innis “in” Chicago: Hope as the sire of discovery . In C. R. Acland & W. J. Buxton (Eds.), Harold Innis in the new century: Reflections and refractions (pp. 81 – 104 ). Montreal, Canada : McGill-Queen's University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Carr , D . ( 2013 , October 3). CPB letter to KPFT. Retrieved from http://www.savekpfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CPBKPFTOct32013.pdf Category: Community radio stations in the United States . (n.d). Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Community_radio_stations_in_the_United_States Caumont , A . ( 2013 , November 8). Who's not online? 5 factors tied to the digital divide. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/08/whos-not-online-5-factors-tied-to-the-digital-divide/ Conti , C. ( 2011 ). “Is anybody listening?” Questioning the local bond between LPFM programmers and their audience . Journal of Communication Inquiry , 35 ( 1 ), 20 – 36 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Couldry , N. , & Curran , J. ( 2003 ). Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world . Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Dewey , J. , & Rogers , M. L. ( 2012 ). The public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry . University Park, PA : Penn State University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Dolber , B. ( 2011 ). From socialism to “sentiment”: Toward a political economy of communities, counterpublics, and their media through Jewish working class history . Communication Theory , 21 ( 1 ), 90 – 109 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Downing , J. ( 2001 ). Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movements . Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Downing , J. ( 2003 ). Audiences and readers of alternative media: The absent lure of the virtually unknown . Media, Culture & Society , 25 ( 5 ), 625 – 645 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Dunbar-Hester , C. ( 2014 ). Low power to the people: Pirates, protest, and politics in FM radio activism . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Egan , J. ( 2013 , May). Austin is the 11th largest U.S. city, according to latest Census Bureau estimate. Culture Map Austin. Retrieved from http://austin.culturemap.com/news/city-life/05-23-13-austin-11th-largest-us-city/ Emerson , M. O. , Bratter , J., Howell , J., Jeanty , P. W., & Cline , M. (n.d). Houston region grows more racially/ethnically diverse, with small declines in segregation . Kinder Institute for Urban Research & Hobby Center for the Study of Texas . Retrieved from http://kinder.rice.edu/uploadedFiles/Urban_Research_Center/Media/Houston%20Region%20Grows%20More%20Ethnically%20Diverse%202-13.pdf Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Fraser , N. ( 1990 ). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy . Social Text , 25 ( 26 ), 56 – 80 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Kaminski , M . ( 2013 , May 20). Annise Parker: The modern American boomtown. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323744604578472873183655916 KOOP (n.d). About KOOP. Retrieved from http://www.koop.org/pages.category.9/about-koop.html KPFA (n.d). KPFA's mission. kpfa.org. Retrieved from https://www.kpfa.org/mission Lalvani , S. ( 1995 ). Consuming the exotic other . Critical Studies in Media Communication , 12 ( 3 ), 263 – 286 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Lasar , M. ( 2006 ). Uneasy listening: Pacifica Radio's civil war . Cambridge, UK : Black Apollo Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Lawrence , R. G. , Wise , D., & Einsohn , E. ( 2013 ). Texas civic health index. The Annette Strauss Institute for Civic Life. Retrieved from http://moody.utexas.edu/sites/communication.utexas.edu/files/attachments/strauss/13-00395%20NCC%20CHI%20TX%20FINAL_web.pdf Lindlof , T. R. , & Taylor , B. C. ( 2002 ). Qualitative communication research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC McChesney , R. W. ( 1990 ). The battle for the US airwaves, 1928–1935 . Journal of Communication , 40 ( 4 ), 29 – 57 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat McChesney , R. W. ( 1993 ). Telecommunications, mass media and democracy . New York, NY : Oxford University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC McLuhan , M. ( 1964 ). Understanding media: The extensions of man . New York, NY : Signet . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC McLuskie , E. ( 2010 ). Resituating the audience concept of communication: Lessons from the audience-commodity critique . In L. Foreman-Wernet & B. Dervin (Eds.), Audiences and the arts: Communication perspectives (pp. 151 – 172 ). Cresskill, NJ : Hampton Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Morales , L . ( 2012 , September 21). U.S. distrust in media hits new high. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx Nielsen Company . ( 2012 ). Houston_AQH_Cume ratings, 2012, Persons 12+, Monday-Sunday 6a-midnight. Rennie , E. ( 2006 ). Community media: A global introduction . Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Salzman , M . ( 2013 , June). Austin envy. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/mariansalzman/2013/06/03/austin-envy/ Semetko , H. A. , & Valkenburg , P. M. ( 2000 ). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news . Journal of Communication , 50 ( 2 ), 93 – 109 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Stein , L. ( 2009 ). Social movement web use in theory and practice: A content analysis of US movement websites . New Media & Society , 11 ( 5 ), 749 – 771 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Tolson , M. ( 2012 , August 1). Segregation by income in Houston is among the starkest in U.S. Chron. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Study-More-here-living-in-areas-with-similar-3755755.php U.S. Census . ( 2010 ). 2010 demographic profile data. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk Yin , R. K. ( 2003 ). Case study research: Design and methods . Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC © 2015 International Communication Association
TI - Exploring the Link Between Community Radio and the Community: A Study of Audience Participation in Alternative Media Practices
JF - Communication Culture and Critique
DO - 10.1111/cccr.12141
DA - 2017-03-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/exploring-the-link-between-community-radio-and-the-community-a-study-ZH4JQscG90
SP - 112
VL - 10
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -