1	
  
Community	
  Broadcasting:	
  Publics,	
  Participants	
  and	
  Policies	
  
	
  
By	
  Henry	
  Loeser	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Introduction	
  
	
  
Overview	
  
Community	
  broadcasting	
  is	
  an	
  established	
  worldwide	
  phenomenon,	
  with	
  thousands	
  of	
  
terrestrial	
  radios	
  and	
  television	
  channels	
  operating	
  alongside	
  their	
  commercial	
  and	
  public	
  
service	
  counterparts	
  across	
  the	
  world.	
  Association	
  Mondiale	
  des	
  Radiodiffuseurs	
  
Communautaires	
  (AMARC),	
  an	
  international	
  trade	
  association	
  of	
  community	
  radios,	
  claims	
  
nearly	
  4,000	
  members	
  from	
  110	
  countries.1
	
  Europe	
  is	
  an	
  especially	
  robust	
  environment	
  for	
  
community	
  broadcasting,	
  where	
  more	
  than	
  20	
  European	
  Union	
  (EU)	
  states	
  have	
  some	
  form	
  of	
  
community	
  radio	
  or	
  television.	
  Community	
  Media	
  Forum	
  Europe	
  (CMFE),	
  estimated	
  in	
  a	
  survey	
  
of	
  media	
  regulators	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  more	
  than	
  2,000	
  terrestrial	
  community	
  radios,	
  and	
  500	
  
community	
  televisions	
  currently	
  broadcasting	
  in	
  Europe.2
	
  The	
  rich	
  history	
  and	
  multi-­‐faceted	
  
development	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  form	
  the	
  background	
  for	
  this	
  examination	
  of	
  the	
  
phenomenon.	
  
	
  
Nicholas	
  Jankowski	
  (2002,	
  6)	
  describes	
  community	
  media	
  as:	
  “a	
  diverse	
  range	
  of	
  mediated	
  
forms	
  of	
  communication:	
  print	
  media	
  such	
  as	
  newspapers	
  and	
  magazines,	
  electronic	
  media	
  
such	
  as	
  radio	
  and	
  television,	
  and	
  electronic	
  initiatives	
  (…)”.	
  Arne	
  Hintz	
  (2016)	
  lists	
  numerous	
  
forms	
  included	
  in	
  research	
  by	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  International	
  Association	
  for	
  Media	
  and	
  
Communication	
  Research	
  (IAMCR)	
  Community	
  Communication	
  Section3
	
  including	
  "community,	
  
alternative,	
  radical,	
  social,	
  citizen,	
  citizens',	
  activist,	
  grassroots,	
  DIY,	
  civic,	
  participatory,	
  social	
  
movement-­‐oriented,	
  development-­‐oriented,	
  and	
  civil	
  society-­‐based	
  media".	
  While	
  community	
  
media	
  is	
  a	
  term	
  often	
  used	
  in	
  describing	
  broadcasters,	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  important	
  distinction	
  
between	
  broadcasters	
  and	
  other	
  community	
  media	
  forms	
  such	
  as	
  community	
  theatre,	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1
For more information on this claim, see About AMARC at: http://www.amarc.org/?q=node/5.
2
To view the report and methodology, see CMFE Community Media Mapping Project at: http://cmfe.eu/?p=864.
3
The IAMCR Community Communication Section can be referenced here: http://iamcr.org/leicester2016/cfp_coc.
	
   2	
  
community	
  press,	
  community	
  film,	
  and/or	
  community	
  telecentres4
.	
  Community	
  broadcasting	
  
shares	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  same	
  philosophies	
  and	
  attributes	
  of	
  other	
  community	
  media	
  forms,	
  but	
  is	
  a	
  
unique	
  linear	
  audio-­‐visual	
  broadcast	
  service	
  using	
  electronic	
  technology	
  to	
  deliver	
  programs	
  for	
  
mass	
  audiences	
  to	
  consume	
  via	
  receiving	
  devices.	
  Community	
  broadcasting	
  in	
  this	
  volume	
  
describes	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  entities	
  located	
  in	
  democracies,	
  generally	
  beginning	
  in	
  the	
  
postwar	
  era	
  of	
  the	
  1940s	
  up	
  to	
  the	
  present.	
  The	
  discussion	
  generally	
  describes	
  those	
  
community	
  broadcasters	
  that	
  are	
  either	
  illegally	
  operating	
  as	
  so-­‐called	
  “pirates”,	
  or	
  legally	
  
authorized	
  and	
  licensed	
  entities,	
  who	
  typically	
  deliver	
  their	
  output	
  on	
  terrestrial	
  frequencies	
  
and/or	
  wired	
  cable	
  delivery	
  systems.	
  	
  
	
  
Definitions	
  of	
  community	
  media	
  can	
  be	
  as	
  varied	
  as	
  the	
  many	
  scholars,	
  advocates	
  and	
  
practitioners	
  that	
  offer	
  them.	
  Jankowski	
  (2002,	
  7)	
  offers	
  a	
  list	
  of	
  the	
  main	
  characteristics	
  of	
  
community	
  media:	
  
	
  
1.	
  objectives:	
  to	
  provide	
  news	
  and	
  information	
  relevant	
  to	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  community	
  members,	
  
to	
  engage	
  these	
  members	
  in	
  public	
  communication	
  via	
  the	
  community	
  medium;	
  to	
  empower	
  
the	
  politically	
  disenfranchised;	
  
2.	
  ownership	
  and	
  control:	
  often	
  shared	
  by	
  community	
  residents,	
  local	
  government	
  and	
  
community-­‐based	
  organizations;	
  
3.	
  	
  content:	
  locally	
  oriented	
  and	
  produced;	
  
-­‐	
  media	
  production:	
  involving	
  non-­‐professionals	
  and	
  volunteers;	
  
4.	
  audience:	
  predominantly	
  located	
  within	
  a	
  relatively	
  small,	
  clearly	
  defined	
  geographic	
  region,	
  
although	
  some	
  community	
  networks	
  attract	
  large	
  and	
  physically	
  dispersed	
  audience;	
  
5.	
  financing:	
  essentially	
  non-­‐commercial,	
  the	
  overall	
  budget	
  may	
  involve	
  corporate	
  sponsorship,	
  
advertising,	
  and	
  government	
  subsidies.	
  	
  
	
  
Apart	
  from	
  the	
  attributes	
  generally	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  phenomenon,	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  its	
  location	
  
in	
  society	
  is	
  also	
  important.	
  Howley	
  (2010,	
  2)	
  asserts	
  that	
  community	
  media:	
  “assumes	
  many	
  
forms	
  and	
  takes	
  on	
  different	
  meanings	
  depending	
  on	
  the	
  felt	
  need	
  of	
  the	
  community,	
  and	
  the	
  
resources	
  and	
  opportunities	
  available	
  to	
  local	
  populations	
  at	
  a	
  particular	
  time	
  and	
  place.”	
  
Varying	
  philosophies	
  and	
  concepts	
  also	
  serve	
  to	
  illuminate	
  the	
  raison	
  d’étre	
  for	
  community	
  
media.	
  Barry	
  Melville	
  (2007)	
  of	
  the	
  Community	
  Broadcasting	
  Association	
  of	
  Australia	
  (CBA)	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
4
ICT (information and communication technologies) telecentres provide an open space for communities to access
and deploy various technologies such as computers and telecommunication networks. You can see more here:
http://www.telecentre.org/.
	
   3	
  
describes	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  as	
  being	
  “sustained	
  by	
  the	
  principles	
  of	
  access	
  and	
  
participation,	
  volunteerism,	
  diversity,	
  independence	
  and	
  localism”.	
  In	
  supporting	
  and	
  
promoting	
  community	
  media,	
  advocates	
  and	
  practitioners	
  abide	
  by	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  principles	
  encoded	
  
in	
  the	
  articles	
  and	
  publications	
  of	
  their	
  trade	
  associations.	
  The	
  AMARC	
  Community	
  Radio	
  
Impact	
  Assessment	
  (2007,	
  63)	
  states:	
  “Community	
  radio	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  run	
  for	
  profit,	
  but	
  for	
  
social	
  gain	
  and	
  community	
  benefit;	
  it	
  should	
  by	
  owned	
  by	
  and	
  accountable	
  to	
  the	
  community	
  it	
  
seeks	
  to	
  serve,	
  and	
  it	
  should	
  provide	
  for	
  participation	
  by	
  the	
  community	
  in	
  program	
  making	
  and	
  
in	
  management.”	
  
	
  
Government	
  institutions	
  offer	
  interventions	
  that	
  can	
  influence	
  the	
  decisions	
  of	
  legislators	
  and	
  
regulators	
  in	
  policy	
  making,	
  and	
  also	
  provide	
  guidance	
  for	
  the	
  sector.	
  Peter	
  Lewis	
  (2008,	
  13)	
  
cites	
  the	
  Council	
  of	
  Europe	
  (COE)	
  list	
  of	
  “shared	
  interests	
  and	
  common	
  principles”	
  of	
  
community	
  media,	
  compiled	
  from	
  submissions	
  of	
  participants	
  at	
  the	
  2005	
  COE	
  Ministerial	
  
Conference	
  in	
  Kiev,	
  Ukraine:	
  
	
  
1.	
  freedom	
  of	
  speech	
  and	
  media	
  plurality	
  
2.	
  public	
  and	
  gender	
  access	
  
3.	
  cultural	
  diversity	
  
4.	
  not-­‐for-­‐profit	
  
5.	
  self-­‐determination	
  
6.	
  transparency	
  
7.	
  promotion	
  of	
  media	
  literacy	
  
	
  
For	
  scholars,	
  theoretical	
  perspectives	
  of	
  community	
  media	
  approach	
  the	
  subject	
  from	
  varying	
  
contexts,	
  attributes,	
  definitions	
  and	
  typologies,	
  contributing	
  to	
  understanding	
  the	
  
phenomenon.	
  Still,	
  there	
  is	
  much	
  to	
  learn	
  about	
  the	
  publics,	
  participants	
  and	
  policies	
  of	
  
community	
  broadcasting.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Publics	
  
Much	
  like	
  their	
  media	
  counterparts,	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  organizations	
  are	
  typically	
  
composed	
  of	
  departments	
  responsible	
  for	
  carrying	
  out	
  basic	
  line	
  functions	
  such	
  as	
  
programming,	
  technics,	
  marketing,	
  and	
  revenue	
  development,	
  with	
  support	
  and	
  leadership	
  
from	
  the	
  administration	
  and	
  management	
  functions.	
  Though	
  community	
  broadcast	
  
organizations	
  are	
  known	
  for	
  a	
  commitment	
  to	
  democratic	
  principles,	
  these	
  organizations	
  
commonly	
  are	
  formed	
  with	
  a	
  hierarchical	
  structure,	
  overseen	
  by	
  an	
  elected	
  board	
  of	
  directors.	
  
The	
  board	
  members	
  are	
  typically	
  volunteers,	
  who	
  may	
  be	
  external	
  cooperators,	
  or	
  hold	
  regular	
  
positions	
  within	
  the	
  organization,	
  whether	
  paid	
  or	
  unpaid.	
  The	
  board	
  represents	
  the	
  owners	
  of	
  
	
   4	
  
the	
  legal	
  entity	
  and/or	
  license	
  holder	
  of	
  the	
  medium	
  and	
  has	
  autonomous	
  fiduciary	
  
responsibility	
  for	
  its	
  successful	
  operation,	
  primarily	
  through	
  approving	
  strategies,	
  plans,	
  and	
  
budgets	
  prepared	
  by	
  management.	
  Here	
  it’s	
  important	
  to	
  note	
  the	
  distinction	
  between	
  free-­‐
standing	
  “independent”	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  organizations	
  that	
  are	
  owned	
  and	
  operated	
  
by	
  the	
  license	
  holder,	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  cable-­‐access	
  and	
  government-­‐owned	
  open	
  channel	
  
models,	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  aforementioned	
  legal,	
  fiduciary	
  and	
  management	
  control	
  of	
  their	
  
operation	
  rests	
  with	
  the	
  commercial	
  cable	
  system	
  owner	
  or	
  the	
  government.	
  	
  
	
  
Community	
  Radio	
  
The	
  current	
  paradigm	
  of	
  community	
  radio	
  features	
  a	
  galaxy	
  of	
  remarkably	
  similar,	
  yet	
  disparate	
  
forms	
  of	
  radio	
  stations	
  around	
  the	
  globe,	
  often	
  identifiable	
  by	
  their	
  respective	
  commitments	
  to	
  
various	
  ideals	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting,	
  but	
  more	
  basically	
  by	
  their	
  technical	
  and	
  
organizational	
  configuration.	
  The	
  term	
  radio	
  in	
  this	
  context	
  generally	
  refers	
  to	
  the	
  traditional	
  
mass	
  medium	
  of	
  audio	
  production	
  and	
  terrestrial	
  broadcast	
  distribution	
  currently	
  found	
  on	
  the	
  
FM	
  dial.	
  That's	
  the	
  starting	
  point	
  for	
  a	
  wide-­‐ranging	
  discussion	
  of	
  what	
  radio	
  is	
  now,	
  what	
  it	
  was	
  
in	
  the	
  past,	
  and	
  what	
  it	
  will	
  be	
  in	
  the	
  future.	
  Physically,	
  a	
  typical	
  local	
  FM	
  community	
  radio	
  
requires	
  a	
  simple	
  studio	
  for	
  production,	
  a	
  link	
  to	
  a	
  transmitter	
  mounted	
  on	
  a	
  mast,	
  and	
  the	
  
requisite	
  office	
  space	
  to	
  manage	
  the	
  enterprise.	
  These	
  terrestrial	
  linear	
  audio	
  broadcasting	
  
stations	
  typically	
  (but	
  not	
  exclusively)	
  transmit	
  on	
  the	
  FM	
  band	
  between	
  87	
  –	
  109	
  MHz,	
  and	
  are	
  
received	
  by	
  FM	
  radio	
  receivers	
  in	
  homes,	
  offices	
  and	
  autos,	
  the	
  same	
  as	
  for	
  commercial	
  and	
  
public	
  service	
  radios.	
  Depending	
  on	
  transmitter	
  power	
  and	
  height	
  of	
  the	
  antenna	
  above	
  
surrounding	
  terrain,	
  standard	
  FM	
  signal	
  coverage	
  areas	
  range	
  upwards	
  of	
  100	
  kilometers	
  in	
  
diameter,	
  making	
  it	
  ideal	
  for	
  local	
  broadcasting	
  to	
  cities	
  and	
  towns,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  limited	
  rural	
  
areas.	
  Low	
  Power	
  FM	
  (LPFM)	
  utilizes	
  the	
  same	
  technology	
  as	
  other	
  FM	
  configurations,	
  but	
  with	
  
substantially	
  less	
  transmitting	
  power	
  designed	
  to	
  serve	
  a	
  much	
  smaller	
  broadcast	
  signal	
  
footprint	
  (typically	
  less	
  than	
  10	
  kilometers	
  in	
  diameter).	
  For	
  regulators,	
  LPFM	
  offers	
  a	
  solution	
  
to	
  the	
  problem	
  of	
  over-­‐allocation	
  of	
  FM	
  frequencies	
  because	
  LPFM	
  signals	
  are	
  able	
  to	
  fit	
  
between	
  and	
  within	
  the	
  geographic	
  and	
  bandwidth	
  footprints	
  of	
  standard	
  FM	
  broadcasts,	
  
without	
  causing	
  interference.	
  Whether	
  communities	
  are	
  identified	
  as	
  a	
  small	
  neighborhood	
  (or	
  
even	
  a	
  small	
  group	
  within	
  a	
  neighborhood),	
  or	
  as	
  an	
  entire	
  city,	
  either	
  standard	
  FM	
  or	
  LPFM	
  can	
  
be	
  configured	
  to	
  best	
  serve	
  the	
  constituents.	
  
	
  
The	
  barrier	
  to	
  entry	
  for	
  technological	
  considerations	
  in	
  radio	
  is	
  quite	
  low,	
  which	
  has	
  greatly	
  
contributed	
  to	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  community	
  radio	
  worldwide.	
  The	
  equipment	
  to	
  produce	
  and	
  
transmit	
  audio	
  output	
  on	
  FM	
  frequencies	
  is	
  simple	
  to	
  use	
  and	
  cheap	
  to	
  buy,	
  as	
  are	
  the	
  receivers	
  
used	
  by	
  listeners	
  to	
  capture	
  the	
  transmitted	
  signal.	
  Deployment	
  of	
  simple	
  antennae	
  mounted	
  
on	
  a	
  mast	
  means	
  community	
  radios	
  can	
  be	
  located	
  in	
  a	
  myriad	
  of	
  locations,	
  and	
  are	
  especially	
  
suited	
  for	
  urban	
  environments	
  comprised	
  of	
  diverse	
  communities.	
  In	
  Austria	
  for	
  example,	
  the	
  
	
   5	
  
FM	
  spectrum	
  is	
  managed	
  to	
  provide	
  specifically-­‐designed	
  broadcasting	
  footprints	
  that	
  match	
  
the	
  communities	
  they	
  serve.	
  Most	
  radios	
  are	
  “city-­‐wide”,	
  standard	
  FM	
  broadcasts	
  covering	
  a	
  
whole	
  city	
  and	
  the	
  communities	
  within	
  it.	
  Radio	
  Orange	
  in	
  Vienna	
  has	
  an	
  FM	
  signal	
  covering	
  
most	
  of	
  the	
  metropolitan	
  area	
  with	
  more	
  than	
  1	
  million	
  potential	
  listeners.	
  In	
  the	
  USA	
  and	
  
Hungary,	
  LPFM	
  systems	
  are	
  deployed	
  to	
  cover	
  only	
  a	
  small	
  portion	
  of	
  a	
  city	
  or	
  town,	
  such	
  as	
  
KALY-­‐FM	
  radio	
  in	
  Minneapolis,	
  Minnesota	
  (see	
  Figure	
  1)	
  which	
  serves	
  the	
  neighborhoods	
  
containing	
  large	
  numbers	
  of	
  residents	
  in	
  the	
  Somali-­‐American	
  community	
  (Prometheus	
  2015),	
  
and	
  Civil	
  Radio	
  in	
  Budapest,	
  Hungary	
  serving	
  the	
  neighborhoods	
  of	
  Buda	
  west	
  of	
  the	
  Danube	
  
River.	
  
	
  
	
  
Figure	
  1:	
  Broadcasters	
  at	
  KALY-­‐FM	
  in	
  Minneapolis,	
  Minnesota	
  USA	
  
	
  
Community	
  Television	
  
The	
  current	
  paradigm	
  of	
  community	
  television	
  can	
  be	
  viewed	
  on	
  the	
  whole	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  
two	
  distinctly	
  differing	
  operational	
  models	
  each	
  having	
  their	
  own	
  separate	
  identities.	
  First,	
  the	
  
“access”	
  model	
  of	
  cable-­‐access	
  TV	
  and	
  European	
  open-­‐channel	
  TV,	
  and	
  second,	
  the	
  
“independent”	
  model	
  of	
  free-­‐standing	
  owner-­‐operated	
  TV	
  stations.	
  These	
  typologies	
  then	
  serve	
  
to	
  frame	
  development	
  of	
  the	
  form	
  with	
  regards	
  to	
  programming,	
  policy,	
  funding,	
  sustainability,	
  
and	
  impact	
  in	
  the	
  respective	
  societies	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  operate.	
  
	
  
As	
  their	
  names	
  imply,	
  the	
  access	
  TV	
  models	
  offer	
  access	
  for	
  people	
  to	
  the	
  facilities	
  for	
  
production,	
  the	
  training	
  necessary	
  to	
  obtain	
  the	
  skills	
  for	
  production,	
  and	
  the	
  delivery	
  of	
  their	
  
programming	
  output.	
  In	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  the	
  cable-­‐access	
  Public	
  Educational	
  Government	
  (PEG)	
  
model	
  that	
  originated	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  and	
  Canada,	
  the	
  local	
  commercial	
  cable	
  operators,	
  
	
   6	
  
as	
  a	
  condition	
  of	
  their	
  exclusive	
  distribution	
  franchise	
  contract	
  with	
  the	
  city	
  or	
  county,	
  are	
  
required	
  to	
  provide	
  for	
  access	
  to	
  erstwhile	
  content	
  producers	
  from	
  within	
  the	
  cable	
  system	
  
coverage	
  area.	
  The	
  PEG	
  moniker	
  refers	
  to	
  a	
  hybrid	
  combination	
  of	
  previously	
  separate	
  channels	
  
on	
  disparate	
  platforms	
  for	
  standard	
  public	
  access	
  to	
  individuals	
  and	
  groups,	
  educational	
  
services	
  delivered	
  over	
  broadcast	
  media,	
  and	
  local	
  government	
  output	
  of	
  information	
  and	
  
coverage	
  of	
  government	
  activities.	
  The	
  inclusion	
  of	
  this	
  access	
  requirement	
  became	
  almost	
  
standardized	
  in	
  cable	
  systems	
  contracts	
  in	
  the	
  build-­‐up	
  of	
  the	
  cable	
  TV	
  paradigm	
  in	
  the	
  USA	
  and	
  
Canada	
  (Linder	
  1999).	
  The	
  funding	
  mechanism	
  for	
  this	
  cable	
  access	
  PEG	
  model	
  is	
  typically	
  
included	
  as	
  a	
  provision	
  in	
  the	
  cable	
  system	
  operator	
  agreement	
  with	
  the	
  local	
  government	
  and	
  
can	
  be	
  a	
  fixed	
  annual	
  fee	
  or	
  an	
  amount	
  based	
  on	
  a	
  formula	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  
subscribers	
  and	
  revenue	
  for	
  the	
  commercial	
  cable	
  operator.	
  
	
  
The	
  European	
  open-­‐channel	
  version	
  of	
  access	
  television	
  offers	
  the	
  same	
  opportunities	
  for	
  
access,	
  training,	
  production	
  and	
  delivery	
  as	
  the	
  cable	
  access	
  model,	
  with	
  one	
  very	
  important	
  
difference.	
  Open	
  channels	
  are	
  typically	
  owned	
  and	
  operated	
  directly	
  by	
  the	
  media	
  regulatory	
  
agency	
  with	
  jurisdiction	
  over	
  the	
  distribution	
  area.	
  The	
  media	
  regulator	
  constructs	
  and	
  
operates	
  the	
  production	
  facilities	
  and,	
  where	
  feasible,	
  also	
  the	
  delivery	
  systems,	
  either	
  
terrestrial	
  or	
  cable.	
  In	
  other	
  cases,	
  the	
  regulator	
  will	
  reserve	
  channels	
  on	
  local	
  commercially-­‐
owned	
  cable	
  systems	
  for	
  their	
  open	
  channels.	
  The	
  media	
  regulator	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  open	
  channels	
  
takes	
  full	
  responsibility	
  for	
  funding	
  all	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  open	
  channel	
  operations,	
  typically	
  
contained	
  in	
  an	
  annual	
  budget	
  allocation.	
  The	
  open	
  channel	
  models	
  of	
  ownership	
  and	
  control	
  
apply	
  to	
  both	
  radios	
  and	
  televisions	
  primarily	
  in	
  portions	
  of	
  Germany	
  and	
  Scandinavia.	
  
	
  
The	
  independent	
  model	
  of	
  community	
  television	
  is	
  distinctly	
  different	
  from	
  the	
  access	
  model	
  in	
  
that	
  they	
  are	
  owned,	
  operated,	
  and	
  licensed	
  independent	
  of	
  commercial	
  cable	
  systems	
  
operators,	
  local	
  governments	
  or	
  media	
  regulators.	
  Independent	
  TV	
  stations	
  are	
  typically	
  
founded	
  by	
  individuals	
  and/or	
  community	
  groups	
  for	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  same	
  reasons	
  as	
  their	
  access	
  
counterparts,	
  but	
  in	
  these	
  cases	
  they	
  are	
  able,	
  due	
  to	
  favorable	
  circumstances	
  in	
  their	
  societal	
  
environment,	
  to	
  establish	
  free-­‐standing	
  community	
  media	
  organizations	
  with	
  direct	
  access	
  to	
  
available	
  terrestrial	
  broadcasting	
  frequencies	
  and	
  cable	
  channels.	
  These	
  broadcasters	
  typically	
  
own	
  and	
  operate	
  their	
  own	
  facilities	
  for	
  production	
  and	
  training,	
  then	
  rely	
  on	
  the	
  external	
  
operators,	
  such	
  as	
  commercial	
  cable	
  operators	
  and/or	
  commercial	
  terrestrial	
  
tower/transmission	
  operators	
  for	
  distribution	
  of	
  their	
  output.	
  Access	
  to	
  these	
  external	
  
distribution	
  systems	
  is	
  typically	
  mandated	
  as	
  a	
  provision	
  of	
  their	
  licensing	
  agreements	
  with	
  the	
  
government	
  media	
  regulatory	
  agencies,	
  and/or	
  local	
  governments’	
  agreements	
  with	
  
commercial	
  cable	
  systems	
  operators.	
  	
  
	
  
	
   7	
  
Jankowski	
  (1998)	
  in	
  his	
  examination	
  of	
  community	
  television	
  delineates	
  between	
  the	
  pure	
  
access	
  model	
  philosophy,	
  and	
  the	
  more	
  community-­‐oriented	
  independent	
  model.	
  In	
  some	
  
states	
  (for	
  example	
  Australia,	
  Denmark,	
  Norway,	
  Switzerland	
  and	
  Austria),	
  these	
  independent	
  
channels,	
  while	
  not	
  owned	
  or	
  operated	
  by	
  units	
  of	
  government,	
  are	
  funded	
  primarily	
  from	
  the	
  
local	
  city	
  governments	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  operate,	
  bolstered	
  by	
  additional	
  funds	
  from	
  
regional/national	
  government	
  funds	
  supporting	
  arts	
  and	
  culture.	
  Where	
  government	
  funding	
  is	
  
not	
  typical,	
  these	
  televisions	
  (like	
  their	
  radio	
  counterparts)	
  must	
  rely	
  on	
  sponsorships,	
  
advertising	
  (where	
  permitted),	
  donations	
  from	
  supporters,	
  and	
  project-­‐based	
  funding	
  grants	
  for	
  
their	
  financial	
  sustainability.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Figure	
  2:	
  Broadcasters	
  at	
  OKTO	
  TV	
  in	
  Vienna,	
  Austria	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Participants	
  
For	
  participants,	
  community	
  media	
  can	
  be	
  understood	
  simply	
  as	
  a	
  space	
  where	
  they	
  are	
  able	
  to	
  
express	
  themselves	
  to	
  their	
  community,	
  or	
  as	
  complex	
  as	
  a	
  method	
  of	
  response	
  to	
  issues	
  of	
  the	
  
larger	
  world	
  around	
  them.	
  Carpentier	
  (2011,	
  355)	
  notes:	
  “Participation	
  occurs	
  (or	
  can	
  occur)	
  in	
  
a	
  variety	
  of	
  social	
  realms,	
  which	
  generate	
  a	
  multitude	
  of	
  interconnections	
  of	
  discursive	
  and	
  
material	
  practices.”	
  In	
  a	
  typical	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  organization,	
  the	
  main	
  source	
  of	
  labor	
  
is	
  volunteer	
  participants,	
  mostly	
  part-­‐time	
  workers	
  in	
  their	
  free	
  time	
  apart	
  from	
  personal	
  and	
  
professional	
  commitments	
  elsewhere.	
  These	
  participants	
  are	
  primarily	
  producers	
  of	
  programs,	
  
but	
  they	
  also	
  can	
  fulfill	
  unpaid	
  duties	
  in	
  the	
  other	
  functions	
  of	
  the	
  organization,	
  as	
  their	
  skills	
  
	
   8	
  
and	
  experience	
  warrant.	
  Volunteers	
  are	
  the	
  engine	
  that	
  powers	
  the	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  
phenomenon,	
  and	
  without	
  them	
  the	
  model	
  would	
  be	
  fundamentally	
  changed	
  and	
  likely	
  
unsustainable.	
  	
  
	
  
Beginning	
  with	
  perhaps	
  the	
  simple	
  goals	
  of	
  access	
  and	
  participation	
  in	
  media	
  spheres,	
  the	
  
motivations	
  and	
  interests	
  of	
  these	
  participants	
  can	
  also	
  include	
  individual	
  development,	
  
community	
  development,	
  promotion	
  of	
  local	
  arts	
  &	
  culture,	
  political	
  ideology,	
  alternativism	
  to	
  
mainstream	
  channels,	
  and	
  promotion	
  of	
  their	
  group	
  identity,	
  just	
  to	
  name	
  a	
  few.	
  The	
  views	
  of	
  
the	
  participants	
  generally	
  construct	
  the	
  philosophy	
  of	
  the	
  independent	
  community	
  
broadcasting	
  organizations,	
  and	
  in	
  some	
  cases,	
  also	
  the	
  policy	
  that	
  governs	
  them.	
  In	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  
cable-­‐access	
  and	
  open	
  channels,	
  participants	
  may	
  have	
  similar	
  interests	
  and	
  motivations,	
  but	
  
the	
  owners	
  and	
  managers	
  are	
  merely	
  service	
  providers,	
  albeit	
  with	
  a	
  directive	
  to	
  fulfill	
  many	
  of	
  
the	
  aforementioned	
  objectives,	
  but	
  not	
  necessarily	
  connected	
  philosophically	
  to	
  the	
  
participants	
  and	
  their	
  communities.	
  
	
  
Regardless	
  of	
  why	
  they	
  come,	
  volunteers	
  remain	
  the	
  driving	
  force	
  of	
  the	
  sector.	
  OFCOM	
  (2015)	
  
reports	
  that	
  in	
  the	
  UK	
  in	
  2014,	
  more	
  than	
  20,000	
  volunteers	
  worked	
  a	
  total	
  of	
  more	
  than	
  2.5	
  
million	
  hours	
  participating	
  at	
  230	
  local	
  community	
  radios.	
  This	
  computes	
  to	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  87	
  
volunteers	
  per	
  channel	
  working	
  10	
  hours	
  per	
  month.5
	
  Large	
  organizational	
  examples	
  from	
  the	
  
enclosed	
  case	
  studies	
  include	
  TV	
  OKTO	
  in	
  Vienna,	
  Austria,	
  that	
  claims	
  more	
  than	
  500	
  volunteer	
  
participants	
  and	
  100	
  programming	
  groups	
  (OKTO	
  2015),	
  and	
  student	
  Radio	
  R	
  in	
  Brno,	
  Czech	
  
Republic,	
  which	
  reports	
  more	
  than	
  150	
  active	
  volunteers	
  (Radio	
  R	
  2015).	
  Small	
  examples	
  of	
  
community	
  broadcasters	
  include	
  Radio	
  Ypsilon	
  in	
  Hollabrunn,	
  Austria,	
  and	
  Radio	
  Bomba	
  in	
  
Plzen,	
  Czech	
  Republic,	
  each	
  estimated	
  to	
  have	
  fewer	
  than	
  30	
  volunteer	
  participants.	
  	
  
	
  
Audiences	
  
The	
  burdens	
  carried	
  by	
  commercial	
  and	
  public	
  service	
  broadcasters	
  mentioned	
  above	
  are	
  
symbiotically	
  dependent	
  on	
  attracting	
  and	
  maintaining	
  large	
  audiences	
  to	
  their	
  output.	
  
Commercial	
  broadcasters	
  cannot	
  survive	
  in	
  a	
  competitive	
  marketplace	
  without	
  substantial	
  
audience	
  figures	
  they	
  can	
  offer	
  to	
  prospective	
  advertisers,	
  and	
  public	
  service	
  operators	
  will	
  face	
  
substantial	
  questioning	
  of	
  their	
  efficacy	
  if	
  they	
  fail	
  to	
  deliver	
  large	
  audiences	
  from	
  every	
  corner	
  
of	
  their	
  country.	
  Community	
  broadcasters	
  typically	
  have	
  a	
  much	
  smaller	
  remit,	
  mandated	
  only	
  
to	
  reach	
  the	
  communities	
  they	
  serve.	
  These	
  third-­‐sector	
  broadcasters,	
  whether	
  large	
  or	
  small,	
  
radio	
  or	
  television,	
  are	
  programmed	
  mostly	
  by	
  amateur	
  volunteer	
  participants,	
  and	
  simply	
  not	
  
held	
  to	
  the	
  audience	
  delivery	
  expectations	
  of	
  their	
  professional	
  counterparts.	
  Furthermore,	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
5
OFCOM conducts an annual survey by requiring each licensed media organization to produce a standardized report
of their operation.
	
   9	
  
because	
  the	
  ethos	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  begins	
  with	
  the	
  philosophies	
  of	
  access	
  and	
  
participation,	
  community	
  broadcasters	
  are	
  often	
  judged	
  not	
  by	
  the	
  audience	
  they	
  deliver,	
  but	
  
the	
  level	
  of	
  participation	
  by	
  their	
  community	
  members.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Programs	
  
Free	
  from	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
  profit	
  that	
  commercial	
  media	
  must	
  provide,	
  or	
  the	
  constraints	
  of	
  
serving	
  governments	
  like	
  public	
  service	
  media,	
  programs	
  on	
  community	
  broadcast	
  channels	
  can	
  
be	
  as	
  varied	
  as	
  the	
  people	
  who	
  produce	
  them.	
  Following	
  the	
  general	
  categories	
  of	
  information,	
  
opinion	
  and	
  entertainment,	
  programs	
  then	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  to	
  serve	
  the	
  interests	
  and	
  fulfill	
  the	
  
motivations	
  of	
  the	
  volunteer	
  producers.	
  From	
  political	
  ideology	
  to	
  gardening,	
  the	
  range	
  of	
  
program	
  subjects	
  and	
  ways	
  to	
  present	
  them	
  is	
  limited	
  often	
  only	
  by	
  the	
  producers’	
  
imaginations.	
  This	
  variety	
  of	
  outputs	
  also	
  fulfills	
  key	
  elements	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  media	
  
philosophy,	
  including	
  access	
  and	
  participation,	
  freedom	
  of	
  expression,	
  diversity,	
  and	
  media	
  
pluralism.	
  Similar	
  to	
  the	
  dynamic	
  of	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  why	
  volunteers	
  participate	
  and	
  
the	
  characteristics	
  of	
  their	
  media	
  organizations,	
  this	
  same	
  dynamic	
  is	
  common	
  between	
  the	
  
characteristics	
  of	
  the	
  broadcasting	
  organization	
  and	
  the	
  programs	
  it	
  transmits.	
  Some	
  
independent	
  broadcasters	
  have	
  a	
  singular	
  philosophy	
  promoting	
  their	
  specific	
  cultural	
  
representation	
  or	
  political	
  ideology,	
  while	
  many	
  others	
  are	
  a	
  mixed-­‐model	
  of	
  encouraging	
  a	
  
diverse	
  array	
  of	
  programs	
  from	
  many	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  it	
  serves.	
  Similar	
  to	
  this	
  latter	
  
model,	
  most	
  cable-­‐access	
  and	
  open	
  channels	
  are	
  committed	
  to	
  a	
  pure	
  access	
  philosophy,	
  
simply	
  providing	
  the	
  facilities	
  for	
  transmitting	
  whatever	
  participants	
  produce,	
  with	
  limited	
  
curation.	
  
	
  
Policies	
  
While	
  the	
  ethos	
  of	
  free	
  expression,	
  the	
  human	
  right	
  to	
  communicate,	
  and	
  diversity	
  of	
  program	
  
content	
  are	
  the	
  bedrock	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  philosophy,	
  content	
  produced	
  by	
  
participants	
  and	
  transmitted	
  by	
  community	
  broadcasters	
  is	
  not	
  without	
  constraint.	
  
Governments,	
  as	
  stewards	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  communications	
  and	
  broadcast	
  infrastructure,	
  have	
  a	
  
responsibility	
  to	
  adhere	
  to	
  the	
  mandate	
  of	
  responsibilities	
  given	
  them	
  by	
  the	
  citizens	
  of	
  their	
  
nations.	
  Those	
  responsibilities	
  are	
  encoded	
  in	
  the	
  law,	
  managed	
  through	
  the	
  rules	
  and	
  
regulations	
  enforced	
  by	
  media	
  regulators,	
  and	
  apply	
  to	
  all	
  users	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  terrestrial	
  
airwaves	
  and	
  cable	
  systems	
  rights-­‐of-­‐way.	
  Community	
  broadcasters	
  as	
  license	
  holders	
  are	
  
subject	
  to	
  penalty	
  from	
  media	
  regulators	
  just	
  as	
  their	
  commercial	
  and	
  public	
  service	
  
counterparts	
  for	
  violations	
  of	
  policies	
  regarding	
  pornographic	
  content,	
  hate	
  speech,	
  slander,	
  
and	
  incitement.	
  Codes	
  of	
  practice	
  and	
  organizational	
  ethics	
  also	
  preclude	
  many	
  types	
  of	
  
content,	
  including	
  certain	
  forms	
  of	
  advertising,	
  religion,	
  and	
  even	
  politics.	
  In	
  discussing	
  the	
  
separate	
  but	
  interconnected	
  roles	
  of	
  community	
  radio	
  and	
  television,	
  the	
  policy	
  and	
  regulatory	
  
requirements	
  for	
  electronic	
  broadcasting	
  places	
  them	
  in	
  relative	
  competition	
  with	
  commercial	
  
	
   10	
  
and	
  public	
  service	
  broadcasters	
  for	
  finite	
  delivery	
  capacities,	
  and	
  plays	
  a	
  major	
  role	
  in	
  their	
  
development	
  (or	
  lack	
  thereof).	
  This	
  “third	
  sector”	
  context	
  of	
  comparison	
  to	
  commercial	
  and	
  
public	
  service	
  broadcasting,	
  and	
  how	
  it	
  affects	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  is	
  
perhaps	
  the	
  most	
  common	
  frame	
  for	
  examining	
  and	
  understanding	
  the	
  phenomenon	
  
(McChesney	
  2004),	
  and	
  challenges	
  policy	
  makers	
  to	
  serve	
  the	
  interests	
  of	
  communities	
  as	
  well	
  
as	
  commercial	
  and	
  state	
  interests	
  (Girard	
  1992).	
  	
  
	
  
Funding	
  
Funding	
  is	
  a	
  key	
  element	
  to	
  the	
  success	
  and	
  sustainability	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasters,	
  and	
  one	
  
of	
  the	
  most	
  difficult	
  challenges.	
  The	
  social,	
  economic	
  and	
  political	
  environments	
  in	
  which	
  
community	
  broadcasters	
  operate	
  greatly	
  influences	
  funding	
  opportunities	
  and	
  strategies,	
  as	
  
does	
  the	
  policy	
  that	
  governs	
  them.	
  Independently	
  owned	
  and	
  operated	
  broadcasting	
  
organizations	
  commonly	
  aspire	
  to	
  maintain	
  a	
  mix	
  of	
  revenue	
  sources,	
  including	
  one	
  or	
  more	
  of	
  
the	
  following:	
  annual	
  government	
  funds,	
  government	
  project-­‐based	
  and	
  fee-­‐for-­‐service	
  funds,	
  
community	
  donations,	
  memberships,	
  sponsorships,	
  advertising,	
  special	
  promotional	
  initiatives,	
  
and	
  more.	
  Government	
  funding	
  schemes	
  are	
  usually	
  competition-­‐based	
  by	
  the	
  respective	
  
media	
  regulator,	
  who	
  disburses	
  the	
  allotted	
  funds	
  based	
  on	
  an	
  assessment	
  of	
  annual	
  
broadcasters’	
  proposals	
  for	
  performance.	
  Funding	
  levels	
  can	
  range	
  from	
  adequate	
  (Austria,	
  
South	
  Africa,	
  France,	
  Ireland,	
  Australia),	
  to	
  inadequate	
  (UK,	
  USA),	
  to	
  virtually	
  non-­‐existent	
  (Italy,	
  
Spain,	
  Central/Eastern	
  Europe,	
  most	
  of	
  Latin	
  America,	
  Africa,	
  Asia).	
  In	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  cable-­‐access	
  
and	
  open	
  channel	
  models,	
  funding	
  is	
  commonly	
  not	
  an	
  issue	
  for	
  communities,	
  because	
  they	
  do	
  
not	
  own	
  or	
  operate	
  the	
  media,	
  which	
  are	
  funded	
  by	
  the	
  respective	
  owners	
  of	
  the	
  channel	
  as	
  a	
  
service	
  for	
  the	
  community	
  users.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
   11	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Carpentier,	
  N.	
  (2011).	
  Media	
  and	
  Participation:	
  A	
  Site	
  of	
  Ideological-­‐Democratic	
  Struggle.	
  
Bristol,	
  UK:	
  Intellect.	
  
	
  
Hintz,	
  A.	
  (2016).	
  Correspondence	
  8.2.2016.	
  
	
  
Howley,	
  K.	
  (2010).	
  Understanding	
  Community	
  Media.	
  London:	
  Sage	
  Publications.	
  
	
  
Jankowski,	
  N.	
  (2002).	
  “The	
  Conceptual	
  Contours	
  of	
  Community	
  Radio”.	
  In	
  N.	
  Jankowski	
  and	
  O	
  
Preen.	
  (eds.).	
  Community	
  Media	
  in	
  the	
  Information	
  Age:	
  Perspectives	
  and	
  Prospects.	
  Cresskill,	
  
NJ:	
  Hampton	
  Press.	
  Pp.	
  3-­‐16.	
  
	
  
Jankowski,	
  N.	
  (1999).	
  “The	
  Netherlands:	
  Regional	
  Television	
  Comes	
  of	
  Age”.	
  Proximity	
  
Television	
  and	
  the	
  Information	
  Society	
  in	
  Europe.	
  M.	
  de	
  Moraga	
  (ed.).	
  London,	
  UK.:	
  Libbey.	
  
	
  
Lewis,	
  P.	
  (2008).	
  “Report	
  on	
  Promoting	
  Social	
  Cohesion:	
  The	
  Role	
  of	
  Community	
  Media”.	
  
Strasbourg:	
  Council	
  of	
  Europe.	
  http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/doc/H-­‐
Inf%282008%29013_en.pdf	
  Accessed	
  21.12.2015	
  
	
  
Lindner,	
  L.	
  (1999).	
  Public	
  Access	
  Television:	
  America’s	
  Electronic	
  Soapbox.	
  Westport,	
  CT.:	
  
Greenwood	
  Publishing.	
  
	
  
Melville,	
  B.	
  (2007)	
  “Taking	
  Community	
  Media	
  to	
  the	
  Next	
  Level”.	
  Editorial.	
  Community	
  
Broadcasting	
  Association	
  of	
  Australia.	
  https://www.cbaa.org.au/article/editorial-­‐taking-­‐
community-­‐media-­‐next-­‐level	
  Accessed	
  17.12.2015	
  
	
  
OFCOM	
  (2015).	
  “Ten	
  Years	
  of	
  Community	
  Radio	
  in	
  the	
  UK”.	
  Report.	
  
http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/ten-­‐years-­‐of-­‐community-­‐radio-­‐in-­‐the-­‐uk/	
  
	
  Accessed	
  18.12.2015	
  
	
  
TV	
  OKTO.	
  (2015).	
  “OKTO	
  Lesen	
  FAQ”.	
  http://www.okto.tv/lesen/faq	
  
Accessed	
  18.12.2015	
  
	
  
	
   12	
  
Prometheus	
  Radio.	
  (2015).	
  “Somali	
  Community	
  Gets	
  on	
  the	
  Air	
  with	
  KALY	
  in	
  Minneapolis”.	
  
http://www.prometheusradio.org/somali-­‐community-­‐gets-­‐air-­‐kaly-­‐minneapolis	
  Accessed	
  
14.12.2015	
  
	
  
Radio	
  R.	
  (2015).	
  “O	
  Nas”.	
  http://www.radio-­‐r.cz/o-­‐nas/	
  
Accessed	
  18.12.2015