Kevin Howley on Radio

8/4/2019 Kevin Howley on Radio

1/20

Social Movement Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, October 2004

Remaking Public Service Broadcasting: lessons

from Allston-Brighton Free Radio

Kevin HowleyPulliam Center for Contemporary Media, DePauw University, 609 S. Locust Street,

Greencastle, IN 46135, USA

The role of communication in social movement theory is well observed.

Considerably less attention has been given to the question of whether or not

media reform efforts constitute social movements in and of themselves. In an

effort to consider the efficacy of media reform initiatives and to evaluate their

relevance to social movement studies, this essay examines the evolution of a

so-called free radio station in the city of Boston, Massachusetts, USA. The

essay situates a discussion of free radio in relation to the unprecedented

consolidation of commercial radio and the attendant diminution of public

service broadcasting in the USA. The lessons learned from Allston-Brighton Free

Radio help to illuminate the local and particular dynamics of a global move-

ment for communicative democracy.

Keywords: Communicative democracy, community radio, public service broad-

casting, social movements, media activism, regulatory policy.

Introduction

In recent years, the relationship between media and social movements has attracted

considerable attention among academics and activists alike. For scholars inclined toward

interdisciplinary study, communication and media studies have taken an increasingly

prominent role in understanding the social, cultural and political dimensions of move-

ments (Gamson and Wolfsfeld 1993). Work of this sort fruitfully explores the dynamics

of interpersonal, organizational and mass communication in socio-political movements

(Herbst 1994); considers the rhetorical and discursive strategies of movement leaders

(Morris and Browne 2001); and investigates the complex and contradictory role mass

media play in reporting and publicizing social movements (Gitlin 1980).

Conversely, activists and organizers seeking more effective ways of communicating

with different constituenciesmovement participants, business leaders, elected officials,

journalists and editors, as well as the general publicturn to media researchers, politicalscientists and cultural theorists for insight and inspiration. For instance, the Media

Research and Action Project (MRAP) works with community groups, political activists

ISSN 1474-2837 print/ISSN 1474-2829 online/04/020221-20 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/1474283042000266137


2/20

222 Social Movement Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2

and others on the finer points of media relations. Using frame analysis, MRAP coaches

these groups on ways to avoid being ignored, trivialized or perhaps even demonized by

the press (Ryan et al. 2001). As Laura Stein observers, The relationship between these

two endeavors is symbiotic. Activism draws on theory to inform its action and critical

scholarship asks questions intended to redefine what is conceivable in the realm of action(1999: 5).

While this realization fuels work that seeks to understand why, how, and to what end

popular movements appropriate communication technologies; it also begs a fundamental

question: does the struggle to democratize the mass media constitute a social movement

in its own right? That is to say, although social movement studies often examine the role

communication and mass media play in mobilizing, legitimating and publicizing various

socio-political movementsfrom feminism and environmentalism, to the antiwar and

civil rights movementsit is less clear whether or not we can speak of a coherent and

cohesive media democratization movement (Hackett and Adam 1999).

This essay proceeds with the assumption that such a movement is well underway. Insaying this, I am drawing upon my own experience as a media activist and an academic

as well as recent scholarship that supports this assertion.1 For example, in their excellent

volume Our Media, Not Theirs Robert McChesney and John Nichols observe:

Ordinary Americans have recognized that it is no longer enough to complain about the media.

Thousands of our fellow citizens have already begun to organize to change the media system. The

growth of this media reform movement is one of the striking developments of the past decade;

though understandably, it has passed beneath the corporate news media radar. (2002: 38)

On this last point, one might add that, with relatively few exceptions, movement studies

and media studies alike have failed to recognize an emerging media democratization

movement. One notable exception on this score is John Downing. In his seminal text on

oppositional movements and alternative media, Downing (1984) calls our attention to the

proliferation of self-managed media organizations: small-scale media outlets predicated

on opening up the channels of communication to wider publics and dedicated to

participatory self-governance.

In subsequent work, Downing et al. (2001) not only provide a more nuanced definition

of what they describe as radical alternative media but also suggest that, despite theirvaried manifestations, these media share two important features that are especially

germane to this discussion. First, radical alternative media express opposition vertically

from subordinate quarters directly at the power structure and against its behavior and,

second, that these organizations build support, solidarity, and networking laterally

against policies or even against the very survival of the power structure (2001: xi). As

we shall see, microradio or so-called free radio neatly encapsulates the twin aspirations

of alternative media that Downing observes.

Following on from Downings work, Chris Atton underscores the significance of

alternative media production to social movements and suggests that radically democraticnotions of participation are essential for building and sustaining a movements coherence

and contribute greatly to the production of knowledge within new social movements

(2001: 80). Attons emphasis on the organization of cultural production associated with


3/20

Howley: Remaking Public Service Broadcasting 223

alternative media is especially relevant to our understanding of popular movements to

democratize media systems. Likewise, Clemencia Rodriguezs (2001) examination of what

she describes as citizens media alerts us to the non-hierarchical and collective nature of

alternative media production. Equally important, for our purposes here, Rodriguezs

comparative analysis succinctly captures the global dimensions of an emerging mediademocratization movement.

The following case study draws upon this important new work in movement studies. 2

Throughout, I suggest that the emergence of free radio constitutes a media reform

movement that seeks to reclaim the airwaves in the public interest and to reassert a

public service ethos that has all but disappeared from US broadcasting. A brief discussion

of microradio provides a context to consider the contours of this struggle for media

democracy. Following this, I describe the diminution of US public service broadcasting

before moving on to the case study proper.

The Microradio Movement

In a press release dated 2 March 2001, Allston-Brighton Free Radio (A-B Free), a low

power, community-based radio station in Boston, Massachusetts, invited National Public

Radio (NPR) personality Christopher Lydon to join its volunteer news team. Until

recently, Lydon was the host of The Connection, a nationally syndicated call-in program

produced at WBUR-FM, one of three NPR affiliates serving the greater Boston area.3 In

mid-February, Lydon and his staff were locked out of the station in the wake of a bitter

contract dispute over broadcast syndication rights (Johnson 2001). A-B Frees pressrelease indicated that despite his stated opposition to the free radio movement, Lydon is

welcome to produce the same sort of erudite public affairs programming for Allston-

Brighton Free Radio that made The Connection a staple for thousands of listeners in

Boston, and across the USA. The press release concludes: members of the station are

confident that Lydons recent experience with public radio and any reality-testing he does

with commercial radio will help to change his attitude towards the importance of

community radio (CMC 2001). Lydon did not accept, let alone respond to, A-B Frees

invitation.

Chris Lydon is not alone in his disdain for free radio: a socio-cultural movement of

global proportions (Soley 1999). Throughout the 1990sas hundreds of unlicensed, lowpower stations across the USA took to the airwaves in a spontaneous expression of

popular discontent with contemporary radioindustry representatives pressured the

Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to shut down so-called pirate stations

(Hornblower 1998). In some instances, FCC agents, in the company of heavily armed

federal marshals and local law enforcement officials, broke into private residences and

held unarmed civilians at gunpoint while they confiscated radio production and trans-

mission gear (Cockburn 1997; Nesbitt 1998). Despite these strong-arm tactics, however,

hundreds of free radio stations continued to operate in open defiance of the FCC as a

form of electronic civil disobedience (Ferguson 1998; Sakolsky and Dunifer 1998). By theend of the decade, the FCC was confronted with a growing enforcement crisis. In this

politically charged atmosphere, the FCC took up a comprehensive review of its twenty-

one-year ban on low power FM broadcasting.


4/20


Briefly returning to Downings observation regarding radical alternative medias

oppositional stance toward power structures, here we can detect the efficacy of

media reform movements to challenge and change communication policy. On

28 January 1999 the FCC issued a formal proposal (NPRM 99-25) seeking public

comment on a new radio service: Low Power FM (LPFM). Specifically, the newscheme proposed the creation of two classes of LPFM stations with maximum power

levels of 100 and 1,000 watts, respectively. In addition, the FCC sought comment on a

third class of so-called microwatt stations operating between 1 and 10 watts (FCC

1999). A locally oriented, non-commercial service, LPFM was envisioned as a modest

attempt to promote broadcast diversity in an era of unprecedented media consolidation

and control. Then FCC chairman William Kennard characterized LPFM as an important

step toward returning the public airwaves to local communities to use as they see fit, and

to meet each communitys distinctive needs and desires (McConnell 1999). As media

activists, labor, educational, religious and civic groups across the country rallied in

support of the FCCs directive, the powerful broadcast lobby sought to kill the LPFM

initiative.

Not surprisingly, the commercial broadcast sector, working through its influential

lobbying group, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), led a public relations

campaign against LPFM.4 According to the NAB, low power and microwatt broadcast

signals cause objectionable interference to broadcast signals on adjacent frequencies,

threaten the roll out of new digital services, and even compromise the integrity of air

traffic control signals (NAB 1998). Subsequent FCC engineering studies repudiated these

accusations as false and misleading (FCC 2000). And yet, despite the NABs spurious

arguments, National Public Radio, a self-proclaimed champion of broadcast diversity

and journalistic integrity, consistently sided with commercial broadcasters (Wildman

2001). Behind the scenes, NPRs official response to the FCCs plans echoed the rhetoric

deployed by commercial broadcast industry (NPR 2000). Whats more, when NPR broke

its radio silence on the LPFM debate, news reports invariably reinforced and legitimated

the NABs dubious claims regarding the new service. In doing so, NPR played a decisive

role in undermining the FCCs LPFM directive.

In December 2000, the intense lobbying efforts by both the NAB and NPR paid off.

Despite the fact that the FCC approved the new service and began accepting license

applications, a so-called Broadcasting Preservation bill was attached as a rider to theOmnibus Budget Act of 2000. Orwellian in design, as well as intent, the Radio

Broadcasting Preservation Act effectively neutralizes the LPFM initiative, making it

exceedingly difficult for all but the most remote rural communities to establish a local,

non-profit radio station. By passing this legislation, the US Congress broke precedent

and questioned the findings of the FCCs engineering studies. In essence, Congress

usurped the agencys authority to regulate the nations airwaves. As a result, literally

thousands of LPFM applications will, in all likelihood, be rejected on the grounds

of objectionable interference with established commercial and public radio stations

(Sakolsky 2001). In short, a popular movement to wrest a modicum of control awayfrom the broadcast oligopoly was defeated by entrenched media interests, ultimately

compromising the future viability of community-oriented, public service broadcasting in

the USA.5


5/20


The Corporatization of Public Broadcasting

More troubling is the realization that NPRs animosity toward community-oriented radio

is endemic to the entire public broadcasting system. Indeed, despite widespread popular

support for the FCCs initiative, not to mention the enormous public relations campaignwaged against the new service, the debate over LPFM was a non-issue on public

television. In this regard, then, public televisions vaunted in-depth coverage of important

policy debates failed to materialize. Worse, yet, when the subject of low power

community radio was mentioned, public broadcasters could scarcely contain their

contempt. For example, when Allston-Brighton Free Radios overture to Chris Lydon was

mentioned on Greater Boston, a local public affairs program aired on WGBH-TV

Bostons Public Broadcasting System (PBS) affiliate and a major production center for the

entire public television systemthe shows host, Emily Rooney, responded with charac-

teristic arrogance, Oh, are they still on the air?

Taken in isolation, this incident is little more than an irritant to proponents of freeradio in and around Boston. When placed in the larger context of the corporatization of

public service broadcasting, however, this attitude underscores a profound crisis facing

public service media in the USA and, indeed, around the world (Tracey 1998). Initially

conceived as an alternative outlet for news, information and entertainment programming,

and meant to serve as well as reflect Americas rich social, cultural and political diversity,

public broadcasting in the USA has all but abandoned its public service mission.

Increasingly, public broadcasters aim to compete with their commercial counterparts for

corporate sponsorship and market share (Hoynes 1999). As a result, public broadcasting

has come to resemble the safe and predictable formulas associated with commercialmedia.

Whats more, the once vibrant community radio sector has succumbed to a lethal

combination of marketplace pressures and misguided federal regulations. For the past

several years, the Pacifica Radio Network, arguably the model of community broadcast-

ing in the USA, has been embroiled in a struggle to maintain its editorial independence

and progressive identity (Carney 2001). Long-time producers and on-air hosts have been

locked out, and in some cases fired, for publicly discussing their opposition to the Pacifica

Board of Trustees plans to sell the network to the highest bidder. In the meantime, the

professionalization of smaller community radio stations around the country proceeds

unchecked; the result of ill-conceived federal guidelines and funding schemes whichpreclude community control, ownership, and participation in radio broadcasting (Bekken

1998; Walker 1997).

The evisceration of locally oriented, public service broadcasting in the USA is the result

of several factors. First and foremost is the legacy of an inadequate funding mechanism

for public radio and television dating back to the formation of the Corporation for Public

Broadcasting (CPB) in 1967 (Engelman 1996). Second, pressure from political conserva-

tives to reduce federal appropriations for public service broadcasting reached new heights

throughout the 1980s. This, in turn, led to public broadcastings increasing dependency

on foundation and corporate sponsorship (Hoynes 1994). Most recently, the wholesaleapplication of free-market ideology to communications policyas codified in the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 and as evident in successive waves of media mergers

and acquisitionsfurther undermines the principle of localism that is the cornerstone of


6/20


US broadcast regulation (McChesney 1999). As a result of the deregulatory fervor of the

past two decades, local radio stations are owned and operated by absentee owners who

are neither accountable, nor responsive, to the local community.

At the same time, public radio programming increasingly reflects a narrow range of

interests; largely the interests of corporate underwriters and the upscale listenership thesesponsors seek to address (Ledbetter 1998; Solomon 2000). Investment firms, IT compa-

nies, wealth management consultants, and business-to-business services are among the

more prominent corporate underwriters in public broadcasting today. More critically,

financial updates, market analysis, and upscale lifestyle reports have come to dominate

public broadcastings news and information programming. In short, the public in public

radio is narrowly defined by educational achievement and socio-economic status.

The balance of this discussion explores the significance of grassroots media organiza-

tions in an ever more corporatized media culture. Specifically, I argue that A-B Free, the

first of its kind public access AM radio station in the USA, is a model for community-

oriented, participatory communication in the twenty-first century.6 Despite the stations

diminutive transmission power and limited coverage area, A-B Free, and its parent

organization, the Citizens Media Corps (CMC), provides an invaluable public service to

the residents of Allston-Brighton. More than this, A-B Free illuminates the importance of

a critically informed media practice that treats audiences as participants and promotes an

active, informed, and engaged citizenry. In this regard, then, the lessons learned from

Allston-Brighton Free Radio may help inform what Robert Hackett (2000) characterizes

as an increasingly global project: a movement for communicative democracy.

This essay proceeds with a brief description of the Boston radio market, placing special

emphasis on the erosion of locally oriented news, current affairs, and public serviceprogramming in a city long associated with public broadcasting. Following this, I trace

the history of A-B Free Radio, from its origins as a pirate FM station, through its

current incarnation as a milliwatt AM outlet. Here, I highlight A-B Free Radios

commitment to the ideals of public service broadcasting and the stations emphasis on

broadcasting as a social practice. I then examine the forces and conditions that enable as

well as constrain A-B Frees participatory potential and, more generally, the CMCs

media activism. In doing so, I want to suggest how A-B Frees experience might inform

ongoing efforts to reclaim the airwaves for local communities and thereby remake public

service broadcasting.

Boston Public

An economic, educational, and cultural center, Boston is the eighth largest radio market

in the USA (Arbitron 2001). Like other markets, Boston radio has undergone profound

changes in recent years. These changes, most notably the consolidation of holdings

within and between media industries, are the direct result of reductions in ownership

limits and the elimination of cross-ownership restrictions enacted under the Telecommu-

nications Act of 1996 (Boehlert 2001). Thus, while a handful of radio stations, such asWBCS-FM (Adult Contemporary), WFNX-FM (Alternative Rock), WJIB-AM (Easy

Listening), and WUNR-AM (Ethnic) remain in the hands of local, independent operators,

a majority of Boston stations are owned by media conglomerates.


7/20


For instance, Greater Media, Inc., based in New Brunswick, NJ, owns WBOS-FM

(Adult Alternative), WTKK-FM (Talk), WKLB-FM (Country), WROR-FM (Classic

Hits), and WMJX-FM (Adult Contemporary). The San Antonio, Texas-based Clear

Channel Communications, Inc. owns WJMN-FM (CHR), WKXO-AM (Spanish),

WXKS-AM (Nostalgia), and WXKS-FM (CHR). And, through its holdings with theInfinity Broadcasting Corporation, CBS/Viacom owns WODS-FM (Oldies), WYLX-FM

(Classic Rock), WBCN-FM (Modern Rock), and WBZ-AM (News). Together, both

Clear Channel and CBS account for well over 50 percent of the advertising revenue

generated by radio in the Boston market (Boston Radio Watch 1999). Moreover, many

of these stations have affiliate relations with national networks and program syndicators

including ABC, Westwood One, Infinity, and CBS. In short, local radio in Boston is, by

and large, owned and operated by national media conglomerates: organizations whose

primary objective is capital accumulation, not public service.

Given this state of affairs, Boston is fortunate to be served by a number of non-com-

mercial radio stations. For the most part, these stations are affiliated with the citys manyeducational institutions. WERS-FM, for example, is a student-run station out of Emerson

College. Likewise, WHRB-FM at Harvard University, WFMO-FM at Tufts University,

and WZBC-FM at Boston College are all staffed by student volunteers and owned and

operated by private, non-profit organizations. While these stations do indeed provide a

welcome respite to the corporate consolidation of commercial radio, the primary

demographic for student-run stations is college students and recent graduates. As a result,

music and cultural programming reflects the tastes of younger, well-educated listeners.

Programming of the sort found on college radio rarely appeals to more general audiences.

On the other hand, WUMB-FM at the University of Massachusetts/Boston, makeslimited use of student interns, relying instead on a salaried staff. Whereas student-run

radio typically provides a measure of community involvement in program production,

WUMB programmers are paid professionals. Moreover, much of WUMBs evening and

weekend programming, including a handful of information and public affairs programs

such as The Infinite Mind and Power Point, is obtained either through National Public

Radio and Public Radio International (PRI). For the most part, however, college- and

university-based stations eschew in-depth news and local public affairs programming.

More typically, these stations air brief hourly news inserts from national satellite services

or produce in-house news reports of the rip and read variety.

One notable exception to this is WMBR, broadcasting from the campus of theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Although its schedule is dedicated primar-

ily to music programming, WMBR airs a mix of independently produced news programs

including WINGS, a magazine show produced by the Womens International News

Gathering Service, and Free Speech Radio, a nightly newscast produced by striking

Pacifica network reporters. Equally important, WMBR supports a number of long-run-

ning, locally produced public affairs programs such as Black Perspectives, Radio With a

View, Gender Talk, and No Censorship Radio. In this regard, WMBR is something of

an anomaly in Bostons non-commercial sector. An all-volunteer organization that airs a

lively mix of news, information, and cultural programming, WMBR operates very muchin the spirit of community radio championed by the likes of Lew Hill and Lorenzo

Milamtwo pivotal figures in the development of the US community radio sector

(Barlow 1988).


8/20


Despite its adventurous programming and commitment to community service, how-

ever, in terms of signal strength and audience reach, WMBR is no match for the public

radio stations serving the Boston market. The citys premiere non-commercial stations

are the aforementioned WBUR and WGBH. Not unlike University of Massachusetts/

Bostons NPR affiliate, WUMB, WGBHs broadcast day is dominated by music andcultural programming. Whereas WUMB bills itself as a folk music station, WGBH has

a more traditional public radio format. Aside from airing NPR staples such as Morning

Edition, All Things Considered, PRIs Marketplace, and The World, a co-production of

WGBH, the BBC, and PRI, WGBHs broadcast day is split between classical music in the

daytime and jazz at night. Weekend programming seldom strays very far from this

format. Aside from syndicated music programs, WGHB airs A Prairie Home Companion

and This American Life, two of public radios most popular and identifiable programs.

In terms of station format and program content, then, WGBH is a quintessential public

radio station.

The financial shortcomings and declining audience numbers associated with thistraditional approach to public radio led WBUR general manager Jane Christo to focus

her energies on news and information programming. Since taking charge of WBUR in the

late 1970s, Christo has transformed a modest 4,000-watt station on the campus of Boston

University into a major production center for public radio throughout New England and,

increasingly, around the country (Kennedy 2001). While most public radio stations

experimented with different musical formats in their efforts to increase listenership and

attract corporate underwriting, Christo built WBUR into the first 24 news and infor-

mation station in the US public radio sector. Christo augmented nationally and interna-

tionally syndicated programming with local news and public affairs shows, like theaforementioned The Connection.

Launched in 1994, The Connection was initially conceived as a locally oriented,

current affairs program. With the hiring of former Boston Globe columnist and public

television personality Chris Lydon, The Connection consolidated its ties to the local

community. Program topics centered on subjects relevant to area residents: city politics,

arts, commerce, housing, and education. Over time, however, Christo sought to make

The Connection a program with much broader appeal. While the shows format

remained the samelisteners were still invited to join Lydons conversation with authors,

politicians, academics and policy analystsprograms increasingly focused on national

issues such as presidential politics, the rise and fall of the dot.com industry, internationaltrade agreements, and the proposed national missile defense system.

Although these topics do indeed resonate with Boston listeners, The Connection

invariably lost much of its local orientation. This same trend is evident in the evolution

of two more locally produced programs, namely WBURs Here and Now and sister

station WRNIs One Union Station, both of which were rolled out for national

syndication in 2002. This strategy is consistent with Christos overall objective to make

WBUR a leading program syndicator for public radio. Furthermore, WBURs local news

staff, the largest in the citys radio market, devotes most of its energies to coverage of

news stories for broadcast over NPRs Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Asa result, WBURs formidable production resources are increasingly directed toward the

development of nationally syndicated material, further contributing to the decline of local

news and public affairs programming on Boston area radio.


9/20


The irony in all of this is hard to miss. Some of the most ardent proponents of public

broadcastingincluding leading members of the Carnegie Commission, the august body

that established the framework for public service broadcasting in the USAwere

affiliated with Boston-area educational institutions, think tanks, and philanthropic

organizations associated with the eastern establishment (Englemen 1996). Created inresponse to what was widely perceived as the failure of commercial broadcasters to meet

their public service obligations, public radio and television was promoted as a means to

offset the alienating and disenfranchising effects of a privatized media environment.

Public service broadcasting, broadly conceived, enables communities to utilize the

airwaves, a public resource, as a vehicle for self-expression and as a forum to discuss

matters of local import and significance. These local voices would then be shared with

a national audience in a celebration of Americas rich cultural diversity and in an effort

to encourage informed debate and deliberation over matters of national concern

(Carnegie Commission 1967, 1979). Over time, however, public television and, to an even

greater extent, public radio, became highly centralized production and distribution

services not unlike commercial networks. The localism that the Carnegie Commission

saw as the foundation of public broadcasting in this country never materialized. And, as

we have seen, locally oriented, pubic service broadcasting in the greater Boston area is

virtually non-existent today. With this in mind, then, we turn our attention to A-B Frees

effort to remake radio as a medium that celebrates local cultural diversity and facilitates

community communication.

Profiteers, Pirates, and the Public Interest

On 28 July 1997, the Boston City Council passed a resolution praising Radio Free Allston

(RFA), the predecessor of A-B Free, for its service to the community. An unlicensed, and

therefore illegal station operating at a modest 20 watts of power, RFA nonetheless

garnered the support of local elected officials; many of whom were frequent guests on

RFAs public affairs programs. Likewise, area business and civic organizations, such as

the Allston Business Association, the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corpor-

ation, the Allston-Brighton Historical Society, and both the Brazilian and Irish Immi-

gration Centers embraced this dynamic new community resource.

Within the first few months of operation, RFA was a hit with a significant and growingcross-section of radio listeners throughout Allston-Brighton. Here, we can detect the twin

aspects of alternative media and social movements observed by Downing. That is to say,

RFAs commitment to non-commercial, locally oriented radio coupled with the broad-

based popular support for the stations efforts are a clear expression of widespread

dissatisfaction with radio in and around Boston. Moreover, by operating without a

broadcast license, RFA openly challenged a regulatory regime that increasingly favors

entrenched commercial interests over the public interest.

Indeed, in its declaration of support for RFA and its request to obtain non-profit

statusthereby making the station eligible for grants and tax-deductible donationsthecity council noted that RFA serves the Allston-Brighton community in ways that

commercial and public broadcasting do not (Boston City Council 1997). Unmoved by the

city councils ringing endorsement of RFA and seemingly unimpressed with the stations


10/20


unwavering commitment to public service broadcasting, the FCC shut down RFA. On 28

October 1997, two FCC field agents entered the station and directed Steve Provizer,

RFAs founder and station manager, to cease broadcasting. Rather than expose the

stations board of directors and volunteers to criminal charges, and run the risk of having

the stations equipment confiscated, Provizer pulled the plug on RFA.During its abbreviated, but productive eight-month existence, RFA re-ignited local

interest in radio. Like hundreds of unlicensed stations operating across the USA at the

time, RFA did not broadcast in a clandestine fashion, as pirate stations had done in the

past. For strategic reasons, RFA operated out in the open, boldly defiant of the FCCs

ban on low power broadcasting. RFAs objective was two-fold: first, to increase public

awareness of radios potential to enhance community-wide communication; and, second,

to generate popular support for a local, non-commercial station dedicated to serving the

Allston-Brighton neighborhood. To this end, RFA employed deceptively simple tactics

designed to make radio, the invisible medium (Lewis and Booth 1990) tangible for area

residents. Most notably, RFA originated its broadcasts from Herrells Renaissance Cafe,a popular ice cream parlor located in the heart of Allston at the corner of Brighton and

Harvard Avenues. Station manager Stephen Provizer recalls:

We would go in there everyday, push three tables together and pile our audio equipment on it.

Then we would put our transmitter in the pastry display window, run the cable over the potted

palm and up to the roof where our antenna was. It was the optimum visibility that you could want

for a station like this. And that was the way that we got a lot of programs.

In this decidedly grassroots fashion, then, RFA vividly demonstrated the viability ofcommunity broadcasting. In addition to producing public affairs programming that was

at once relevant and responsive to the unique social and political needs of Allston-

Brighton residents, RFA aired music, entertainment and information programming that

reflected the communitys rich cultural diversity.

For instance, foreign-language programming encouraged recent immigrants to learn

about, and participate in, local civic affairs. Conversely, news and cultural programming

in Spanish, Portuguese, and Haitian Creole helped immigrants to build a sense of

community in an alien, sometimes hostile, environment. Whats more, RFAs eclectic

music programming embraced local artists and promoted independently produced ma-

terial that commercial and public broadcasters typically avoid. Finally, financiallystrapped community organizations publicized their events and activities over the airwaves

of RFA, free of charge. In this way, RFA challenged public perceptions of what radio is

and how it might operate in a densely populated and ethnically diverse urban com-

munity.

Equally important, by originating its broadcasts in full view of the community and

inviting local residents to make their own radio, RFA forcefully reasserted broadcasting

as a social practice: a way of bringing a community together, so that the community

might speak to itself, in its own distinctive idioms, and to celebrate and explore its

creative potential. Seth Albaum, A-B Frees event coordinator, recalls the enthusiasm forradio generated by those early broadcasts at Herrells, in particular the enormous

popularity of a Latino hip hop show produced by a local resident, fondly known as El

Sin: He had young people from the neighborhood lining up behind the microphones to


11/20


take their turns at free style rap and the line would go out the door, longer than the ice

cream line. All of which underscores the significance of collaborative, non-hierarchical

and participatory communication of the sort Rodriquez refers to as citizens media in

sustaining a vibrant local culture and engendering a robust and inclusive public sphere.

Still, the effort involved in setting up and tearing down even a rudimentary broadcastfacility in a crowded business establishment proved to be an enormous logistical

challenge. Moreover, the stations airtime was limited to Herrells hours of operation,

further constraining RFAs program output. With this in mind, RFA moved its operation

a few blocks away, to the 88 Room, a local art gallery. In this new setting, RFA

consolidated its resources, coordinated its growing volunteer base, and began broadcast-

ing a full schedule of news, talk, music and cultural programming. By the time the FCC

shut down RFA, the station had earned a reputation for innovative programming and

community service that enthralled listeners in Allston-Brighton and the neighboring areas

of Cambridge and Brookline.

The one formal complaint lodged against RFA came from commercial radio stationWROR. Broadcasting at 105.7 FM, WROR claimed RFAs signal at 106.1 FM caused

objectionable interference with its transmission. Based on RFAs transmission power and

engineering specifications, this seems unlikely. Steve Provizer suspects that a third party

operating in Bostons Back Bay neighborhood was the more likely source of interference.

However, because RFA was the most visible pirate operation in the city, the FCC likely

targeted the station to send a message to other unlicensed broadcasters. Provizer believes

that WRORs complaint was less a technical matter than part of the NABs effort to

pressure the FCC to step up its enforcement efforts in light of the growing popularity of

the free radio movement:

There was no justifiable reason to blow the whistle on us from an engineering standpoint. It was

done strictly for political reasons. Radio Free Allston was like a large boat, slow moving but

large, and it had a large wake. A lot of stations followed behind us after we started. And several

stations started up here in Boston. By the same token, when we closed down, they all closed down.

Provizers point is well taken. From a technical perspective, the broadcast spectrum can

accommodate LPFM signals, even on the overcrowded FM band in major urban centers.

Indeed, by virtue of their presence and sheer numbers on the nations airwaves,

microbroadcasters demonstrate the fallacy behind the NABs and NPRs technicalarguments against LPFM. As further evidence of LPFMs technical viability, Chris

Fairchild (1998) observes that the Canadian broadcast authority (CRTC) has for years

accommodated a variety of users, including national public service broadcasters, local

commercial operators, and a vibrant campus/community radio sector. Indeed, Canadian

success in this regard is all the more remarkable when one factors is the sheer volume

of American broadcast material that the CRTC must account for in its spectrum

management activities.

The relative dearth of non-commercial, community-oriented radio in the USA, there-

fore, is less a matter of technical quality and engineering standards and more a matterof regulatory policy. All of which suggests that the rise of the free radio movement in the

USA and elsewhere is best understood as a cultural response to the tension arising from

two opposing regulatory philosophies: broadcast systems based on private ownership and


12/20


motivated by capital accumulation versus public systems predicated on promoting an

active, informed and engaged citizenry. Media historian Michael Tracey puts it this way:

Here then are two models between which the audience-as-citizen is being asked to choose: policy

guided by the hand of public regulation, employing public values, serving the public interest;and policy as the ad hoc result of a myriad individual choices with the collective good and interest

in effect being what the public, using economic judgments, say they are. (1998: 11)

As evident by the meteoric rise of the free radio movement, and the historic levels of

public comment received by the FCC in support of the LPFM initiative, the American

people have chosen to reassert broadcastings fundamental role, and its basic responsi-

bility, to operate in the public interest. Indeed, the emergence of RFA, and hundreds of

unlicensed, low power stations like it, indicates a profound dissatisfaction with the

contemporary state of radio broadcasting, and of communications policy more generally.

In words and deeds, the American people have made a choice regarding broadcast

regulation; a choice based on the realization that, despite the seductive rhetoric of

free-market competition and consumer choice, commercial interests are not necessarily

consistent, nor compatible, with the public interest. So deeply felt is this conviction that

the organizers and supporters of RFA did not abandon their efforts. Rather than

succumb to the pressure and intimidation of government regulators, acting at the behest

of commercial interests, Steve Provizer and the volunteers of RFA regrouped and

embarked on an even more ambitious public education campaign to promote public

service broadcasting by, for, and about the residents of Allston-Brighton.

Lessons Learned

Throughout the winter and spring of 1998, members of the now defunct RFA established

a non-profit media production and education organization: Allston-Brighton Media, Inc.

By the fall, the collective changed its name to the Citizens Media Corps (CMC) and

began to organize throughout the city of Boston. In addition to exploring legal means to

reconstitute RFA, the CMC held public demonstrations on radio production, offered free

media literacy workshops to local community groups, and hosted information seminars

on the local implications of national communication policy. In the process, the CMCarticulated a new vision of public service broadcasting, one that suggests the value of a

critically informed, participatory model of community communication. From a theoreti-

cal perspective, then, the CMCs community organizing efforts underscore the constitu-

tive role that participatory communication and, more generally, cultural production play

in social movements. Equally important, for grassroots media activists the CMCs

approach offers valuable lessons in the struggle to remake public media into a more

inclusive and relevant community-oriented service.

On the weekend of 45 October 1998, CMC volunteers joined hundreds of micro-

broadcasters in a march on the FCCs main offices in Washington, DC to demand an endto the agencys ban on low power broadcasting. Taking up the rallying cry of the

Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)direct action gets the goodsLPFM enthusi-

asts reasoned that the only way to get the issue of community radio to the top of the


13/20


FCCs agenda was by seizing the airwaves. Throughout the weekend, microbroadcasters

took to the air, as well as the streets, with their call for democratizing the nations

airwaves. Likening their efforts to the social and political struggles of the late 1950s and

1960s, these radio activists perceived their efforts as a form of electronic civil dis-

obedience designed to challenge and ultimately change the law of the land (Howley2000). Culminating over a decade of grassroots resistance to the FCCs ban on low power

FM, the rally was a watershed moment for microbroadcasting inasmuch as it helped

convince FCC chairman William Kennard and others of the growing political influence

of the free radio movement (Ruggiero 1998). Within a matter of months, the FCCs

LPFM proposal was unveiled to the delight of free radio advocates and the stunned

disbelief of commercial and public broadcasters.

The CMCs efforts before and after the Washington rally indicate the importance of

education and grassroots organizing in effecting change in public policy. In the weeks

leading up to the national demonstration, the CMC held a public meeting at Allston-

Brightons Jackson-Mann School to alert the local community of the upcoming rally. Inaddition to generating financial support for the CMCs participation in the demon-

stration, these meetings kept the promise of community-oriented radio alive in the hearts

and minds of local residents. Following the rally, and the FCCs subsequent notice of

proposed rule making concerning the legalization of low power FM broadcasting, the

CMC sponsored a major public event to update Allston-Brighton residents on the

proposed regulatory changes.

The main objective of that 19 February 1999 meeting was to solidify local support for

the CMC in anticipation of its bid for an LPFM license. To that end, the CMC enlisted

the help of two pirate broadcasters from outside the greater Boston area: Pete Tridishof Radio Mutiny in Philadelphia and Amanda Huron from the Mount Pleasant Broad-

casting Club in Washington, DC. The two free radio activists are founding members of

the Prometheus Radio Project, a non-profit group, which, with the help of financial

support from the Ford Foundation, works with local communities across the country to

establish low power stations (Manekin 2001). Based on the technical, legal, administrat-

ive, and logistical advice they received from representatives of the Prometheus Radio

Project, Allston-Brighton residents helped craft the CMCs formal statement to the FCC

regarding low power FM. In doing so, local residents played a modest, but nonetheless

important, role in shaping the future service. Equally important, the meeting served as a

forum for community members to construct the station from the ground up. That is tosay, in submitting its statement to the FCC, the CMC was providing a blueprint for the

reconstituted RFA: a blueprint that was designed, in large part, by the stations listeners,

participants, and financial supporters. This commitment to public service and the

considerable efforts made at community outreach were crucial for maintaining popular

support for Allston-Brightons community radio project.

Throughout 1999, the CMC continued to monitor the progress of the FCCs LPFM

proposal, and the mounting opposition it received from commercial and public broad-

casters. In the absence of news updates on FCC deliberations in the major media outlets,

the CMC kept local residents apprised of the situation through op-ed pieces, occasionalreports in alternative weeklies like the Boston Phoenix and The Allston-Brighton Tab,

and through its own Website. In addition, the CMC began to expand its focus to other

areas of communication policy. For instance, on 25 August 1999 the CMC co-sponsored


14/20


a meeting with the Washington, DC-based activist group People for Better Television

(PBTV). Specifically, this meeting offered area residents a primer on digital television.

Among the issues covered were the $70 billion spectrum giveaway and the need for the

FCC to provide more substantive protections for the public interest in a digital media

environment. The meeting helped generate local support for public hearings to determinehow broadcasters might compensate local communities for their use of the digital

spectrum. Furthermore, at its annual meeting on 14 October 1999 the CMCs agenda

expanded once more, this time to promote the establishment of the Alternative Media

Network (AMNET). AMNET is designed to coordinate the efforts of alternative media

outlets and help community groups, social service agencies, and local progressives get

news of their work out to wider publics. To that end, the CMC has partnered with the

aforementioned WMBR and Boston Neighborhood Network News, the citys public

access television newscast, to publicize community events and political action campaigns.

In addition, CMC offers free workshops on creating effective public relations campaigns

and helps non-profit groups establish contact with various media outlets throughoutgreater Boston.

Thus, the CMCs media activism vividly demonstrates several theoretical points

alluded to above. That is to say, by forging strategic alliances with likeminded media

reformers, the CMCs participating members support Attons contention that cultural

production and, more specifically, the collective production and distribution of knowl-

edge lends coherence to and helps sustain social movements. And, as Rodriquez suggests,

the collective, participatory and non-hierarchical character of this activity is vital to the

growth and development of a robust and expansive public sphere. As we shall see, by

mounting a broad-based media literacy initiative featuring policy analysis, direct actioncampaigns, and media production training, the CMC constructed a network of media

reformers working collectively to reclaim the airwaves and, more broadly, to enhance

communicative democracy within and between Bostons diverse communities.

In the midst of all of this activity, however, the CMCs energies were focused primarily

on reconstituting RFA. This long, difficult and ongoing process underscores the import-

ance of creative, pragmatic, and flexible approaches to community-oriented broadcasting

in an unfavorable regulatory climate. In December 1999, the CMC announced its decision

to go legitimate and begin operating legally, as a Part 15 AM station. Because it

operates at low power levels, akin to garage door openers or electric shavers, Part 15

transmissions are not subject to the FCCs licensing requirements and procedures.Broadcasting at 100 milliwatts, or one-tenth of a watt, at 1580 AM, the renamed

Allston-Brighton Free Radio (A-B Free) would pick up where RFA left off. Following

another public meeting, this time to enlist programmers, set up training sessions for

community producers, and brainstorm ideas to publicize community radios return, A-B

Free signed on the airwaves on 11 March 2000.

At first blush, a milliwatt AM station might seem to be an exercise in futility. With its

diminutive transmission power and limited coverage area, A-B Free is nothing if not a

challenge to tune in. Whereas RFAs signal reached almost six miles in some directions,

A-B Free has an effective radiating power of a scant 1.5 miles. As a result, whole sectionsof Brighton are unable to pick up the stations transmission. Complicating matters

further, A-B Free subsequently moved its broadcast signal to 1670, ostensibly to take

advantage of the recently extended AM band. Although this move helps establish a


15/20


non-commercial presence in this portion of the band, only receivers made within the last

several years are capable of picking up these signals.

And yet, despite the stations reduced transmission power, community outreach efforts

indicate that groups and individuals are keen to produce programming on A-B Free.

Immigrant groups, in particular, continue to make extensive use of the station. Can-tonese, Portuguese, and Eritrean are some of the languages heard over the airwaves of

A-B Free these days. Likewise, area non-profits, youth groups, and retirees produce

programs such as Pets & Their People, Radical Youth, and Boston Seniors Count. All of

which suggests that despite the stations technical limitations, populations whose views

and perspectives are either absent from, or marginalized by, major media outlets are

eager to use broadcast media any way they can.

Aside from providing a valuable community service in the short term, however, the

establishment of an AM station also served a long-term strategic objective. The CMC

reasoned that a successful AM operation would put A-B Free in an excellent position to

apply for an LPFM license, should the FCC approve the new service. With evidence that

A-B Free did in fact promote broadcast diversity and serve the local, public interest, the

FCC might look favorably on A-B Frees LPFM license application. However, as the

broadcast industry lobbied Congress to turn back the FCCs initiative, it became clear

that major urban centers, like Boston, would not be awarded any LPFM licenses.

As the prospects for such a license dimmed, A-B Free looked to other alternatives that

might extend its reach throughout the local community. Like other stations eager to

deploy digital technologies, A-B Free streams its broadcast signal over the World Wide

Web. Ever mindful that many potential listeners do not have computers, let alone

Internet access, A-B Free conducts experiments whereby the stations Webcast isre-transmitted over the air, via translators, to selected areas that are unable to pick

up the original broadcast signal. Wireless links between transmission points have

likewise been explored. However, the costs involved in these technical solutions are

prohibitive.

Still, A-B Free manages to produce and distribute programming for wider audiences

without the hi-tech assist. By special arrangement with Bill Bittner, the owner/operator

of a Cambridge-based radio station, a handful of A-B Frees public affairs programs are

rebroadcast every Saturday night on WJIB (740 AM). Conversely, A-B Free retransmits

the Boston Chinese Radio Show, a program produced entirely in Cantonese, that

originates from WJDA (1300 AM) in Quincy, MA. Equally important, A-B Free enjoys

a mutually beneficial relationship with the news department at WMBR (88.1 FM). These

arrangements permit A-B Free reporters to work alongside their colleagues at WMBR,

share resources, and get their feature reports broadcast to wider publics. Thus, by

exploiting synergies within and between media outlets and technologies, A-B Free

expands its listenership and enhances its program offerings. In sum, operating with

limited resources and under a hostile regulatory regime, A-B Free nonetheless provides a

vitally important public service to the residents of Allston-Brighton.

Conclusion

A-B Frees evolution is a remarkable story of perseverance and determination. It is a story


16/20


of technological possibilities confronting contradictory public policy, and of democratic

ideals clashing with economic imperatives. More than this, it is a story that speaks

eloquently to the woeful state of contemporary radio in the USA. Indeed, A-B Frees

history reveals how inadequate and sadly irrelevant the medium of radio has become to

the civic life of local communities. This situation is all the more troubling given radiosubiquity, its relative low cost, and ease of useall of which make radio an ideal medium

for community communication.

Fortunately, A-B Frees story also suggests a renaissance for this once forgotten

medium (Media Studies Journal 1993). From its origins as a pirate FM operation, to

its current incarnation as a milliwatt AM station, A-B Free articulates a vision of public

service broadcasting that reasserts broadcastings role in community building and

maintenance: a vision shared by thousands of community radio advocates around the

world.

In its earliest incarnation, radio was perceived as a means to create a sense of national

community in an increasingly complex and divisive society (Douglas 1986). At the locallevel, the community radio movement of the 1970s, itself an outgrowth of Pacifica radios

earlier success with community-oriented broadcasting, and more recently the free radio

movement of the 1990s, likewise articulate the community-building potential of the

medium (Dunifer 1998). In the Allston-Brighton neighborhood of Boston, radio is helping

to build a sense of community in one of the citys most diverse and densely populated

neighborhoods. Through radio, the community is coming together to wage a difficult

struggle: a battle against the hubris of entrenched media interests, a fight to reclaim the

public airwaves.

A-B Frees efforts have important implications not only for popular struggles todemocratize the media but also for social movement studies as well. As was noted at the

outset, communication and mass media play a pivotal role in social movements. In his

reassessment of the media strategies and the New Left, Chad Raphael argues:

Social movements must use the mass media, and not simply to communicate their goals. Organizers

also need the media to mobilize support from citizens, to demonstrate the movements power and

win recognition from its adversaries and government, and to broaden the scope of conflicts in

hopes of drawing in potential partners or mediators. (2000: 131)

Raphaels objective here is to encourage activists and organizers, as well as the scholarswho study and support their efforts, to re-evaluate the critical and decisive role mass

media might play in promoting progressive movements. As we have seen, the microradio

movement in general and A-B Free in particular demonstrate an impressive facility for

dealing with the press and managing media perceptions. Equally important, A-B Frees

experience confirms the theoretical positions outlined at the outset of this discussion. As

Chris Atton and others have observed, participatory communication of the sort engen-

dered by A-B Free and likeminded media access projects contribute to the production of

knowledge in social movements and are essential to forging a collective sense of support

and solidarity within movements.Media scholar Robert Hackett puts an even finer point on it when he suggests that

social movements are to a considerable extent communication phenomena (2000: 61).

This contention is consistent with the position taken by Armand Mauss (1975) and others


17/20


who argue that social problems do not exist in objective reality, but rather originate in

public opinion:

No social condition, however deplorable or intolerable it may seem to social scientists or social

critics, is inherently problematic. It is made a problem by the entrepreneurship of various interest

groups, which succeed in winning over important segments of public opinion to the support of a

social movement aimed at changing that condition. (Mauss 1975: xvi)

From this perspective, then, social problems are best understood as social movements.

Thus, the microradio movement, for example, articulates popular concerns over media

concentration and the deleterious effects that media deregulation, the diminution of

public service broadcasting, and hyper-commercialization have on democratic processes.

This social problem, a crisis of democratic communication, arises out of popularstruggles to reform existing media systems and to create more egalitarian forms of

communication at the local, national and international levels.

Viewed in this light, media reform movements vividly demonstrate the centrality of

communication to social movements generally. Indeed, these efforts underscore the

relationship between communication, socio-political movements, and democratic princi-

ples. As Laura Stein puts it, Our ability to define, debate, publicize and ultimately

resolve social problems and conflicts depends first and foremost on communication

processes (1999: 5). Given that popular struggles to democratize the media take public

communication as their focus, movement studies might fruitfully investigate these reform

efforts for clues to understanding the communicative dynamics at work in other socialmovements. More critically, if movement studies constitutes an interventionist enterprise,

one which seeks not only to understand and evaluate popular movements, but also to

encourage and facilitate progressive projects, then media reform efforts of the sort

described above ought to be at the top of the research agenda.

Notes

1 Since 1984, I have been involved with various community media organizations in New York City and, more

recently, in Bloomington, Indiana. During my time on faculty at Northeastern University in Boston,

Massachusetts (19972001) I had occasion to work with Steve Provizer and A-B Free on a number of

projects.

2 Data for this study are based upon participant observation of A-B Free. Specifically, the comments of Steve

Provizer and Seth Album included herein are taken from the 5 June 2001 broadcast of A-B Frees weekly

public affairs program The Allston-Curmudgeon. During the broadcast, I spoke at length with Provizer and

Album about the stations origins, its day-to-day operations, and its future viability as a medium for

community communication.

3 The other NPR affiliates are WGBH and WUMB. All three stations draw heavily on program syndication

services including NPR, PRI and the BBC. In addition, both WBUR and WUMB retransmit their broadcasts

beyond Boston. For example, WUMB operates translators on both the AM and FM band to increase their

reach to Cape Cod. WBUR likewise retransmits its signal on the Cape and as far south as Providence,

Rhode Island, on WRNI. For its part, WGBH operates at 100,000 watts, effectively serving the greater

Boston area. Still, WGBH rebroadcasts much of its programming over WCAI and WNAN, serving the Cape

and Nantucket Islands, respectively.


18/20


4 For LPFM advocates, the NABs efforts were nothing less than a misinformation campaign. See the NABs

(anti) Low Power FM Kit collected by Radio 4 All, a coalition of microwatt radio activists, at

http://www.beatworld.com/NAB/NABindex.html

5 As this manuscript was being prepared for publication, LPFM advocates have mounted a successful

challenge to the terms of the Broadcast Preservation bill, thus making it somewhat easier for would-be

community broadcasters to take to the airwaves in more densely populated urban centers across thecountry.

6 The phrase public access is used here with some qualification. Like public access television in the USA, AB

Free is open to individuals and groups who live and work in the Allston-Brighton neighborhood of Boston.

However, unlike public access television, which typically accepts programs on a first come, first served

basis, A-B Free prioritizes news, information and public affairs over music and entertainment programming.

References

Arbitron (2001) Market Ranks and Survey Schedule, Online, http://www.arbitron.com (15 May 2001).

Atton, C. (2001) Alternative Media, London: Sage.Barlow, W. (1988) Community Radio in the US: The Struggle for a Democratic Medium, Media, Culture and

Society, 10(1): 81105.

Bekken, J. (1998) Community Radio at the Crossroads: Federal Policy and the Professionalization of a

Grassroots Movement, in R. Sakolsky and S. Dunifer (eds) Seizing the Airwaves: A Free Radio Handbook,

San Francisco: AK Press, pp. 2946.

Boehlert, E. (2001) One Big Happy Channel? The Telecommunications Reform Act Handed over Control of

the Radio Airwaves to a Chosen Few. Will TV be Next?, Salon.com, Online, http://www.salon.com/tech/

feature/ (28 June 2001), 2001/06/28/telecom dereg/index.html

Boston City Council (1997) Resolution of Peggy Davis-Mullen, 28 July, Boston, MA.

Boston Radio Watch (1999) Boston Radios Cash Play-consolidation Helps Local Stations Rack Up Advertising

$$$, Online, http://commons.somewhere.com/bostonrw/1999/Boston.Radio.Watch.11-29.html (15 May2001).

Carnegie Commission on Educational Television (1967) Public Television: A Program for Action, New York:

Bantam.

Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting (1979) A Public Trust, New York: Bantam.

Carney, S. (2001) Around the Dial: Turmoil Continues to Rock Pacifica Stations, Los Angeles Times 9

February 2001.

Citizens Media Corps (CMC) (2001) Christopher Lydon Invited to Join A-B Free Radio 2 March 2001.

Cockburn, A. (1997) Free Radio, Crazy Cops and Broken Windows, The Nation 15 December.

Douglas, S. (1986) Amateur Operators and American Broadcasting: Shaping the Future of Radio, in J. Corn

(ed.) Imagining Tomorrow: History, Technology, and the American Future, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

pp. 3557.Downing, J. (1984) Radical Media: The Political Organization of Alternative Communication, Boston: South

End Press.

Downing, J., Ford, T. V, Gil, G. and Stein, L. (2001) Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social

Movements, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dunifer, S. (1998) Refabricating Community: An Interview with Charlie Goodman (Excellent Radio), in R.

Sakolsky and S. Dunifer (eds) Seizing the Airwaves: A Free Radio Handbook, San Francisco: AK Press,

pp. 1516.

Engelman, R. (1996) Public Radio and Television in America: A Political History, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fairchild, C. (1998) The Canadian Alternative: A Brief History of Unlicensed and Low Power Radio, in R.

Sakolsky and S. Dunifer (eds) Seizing the Airwaves: A Free Radio Handbook, San Francisco: AK Press,

pp. 4757.

Federal Communication Commission (FCC) (1999) FCC Proposes Licensed Low Power FM Radio; Seeks

Comment on Engineering, Service Rules for New System (MM Docket 99-25), Online, http://www.fcc.gov/

Bureaus/Mass Media/News Releases/1999/nrmm9003.txt (3 February 1999).


19/20


Federal Communication Commission (FCC) (2000) Statement of Dale Hatfield, Chief, Office of Engineering and

Technology, and Roy Stewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau concerning low power FM engineering issues,

Online, http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering Technology/News Releases/2000/nret0005.html (27

March 2000).

Ferguson, S. (1998) Rebel Radio, The Village Voice 19 May 1998.

Gamson, W. A. and Wolfsfeld, G. (1993) Movements and Media as Interacting Systems, Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political & Social Science, 528: 11426.

Gitlin, T. (1980) The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media and the Making and Unmaking of the New Left,

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hackett, R. (2000) Taking Back the Media: Notes on the Potential for a Communicative Democracy

Movement, Studies in Political Economy, 63: 6186.

Hackett, R. and Adam, M. (1999) Is Media Democratization a Social Movement?, Peace Review, 11(1):

12531.

Herbst, S. (1994) Politics at the Margin: Historical Studies of Public Expression Outside the Mainstream,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hornblower, M. (1998) Radio Free America, Time 20 April 1998.

Howley, K. (2000) Radiocracy Rulz!: Microradio as Electronic Activism, International Journal of CulturalStudies, 3(2): 25667.

Hoynes, W. (1994) Public Television for Sale: Media, the Market, and the Public Sphere, Boulder: Westview

Press.

Hoynes, W. (1999) The Cost of Survival: Political Discourse and the New PBS , Online, http://

fair.org.reports.pbs-study-1999.html (28 January 1999).

Johnson, D. (2001) Celebrity: Lydon Statement Makes Waves in WBUR Dispute, Boston Herald 24 February

2001.

Kennedy, D. (2001) Bobos in Radioland: The Power of WBUR, Boston Phoenix 27 April 2001.

Ledbetter, J. (1998) Made Possible By: The Death of Public Broadcasting in the US , London: Verso.

Lewis, P. and Booth, J. (1990) The Invisible Medium: Public, Commercial and Community Radio, Washington,

DC: Howard University Press.

Manekin, M. (2001) Low Power to the People, The Valley Advocate 17 May 2001.

Mauss, A. L. (1975) Social Problems as Social Movements, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.

McChesney, R. (1999) Foreword, in G. Ruggiero, Microradio & Democracy, New York: Seven Stories Press.

McChesney, R. and Nichols, J. (2002) Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle against Corporate

Media, New York: Seven Stories Press.

McConnell, B. (1999) FCC Tunes Microradio, Broadcasting & Cable 25 January 1999.

Media Studies Journal (1993) Radio: The Forgotten Medium, 7(3).

Morris III, C. E. and Browne, S. E. (eds) (2001) Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest, State College, PA:

Strata Publishing.

National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) (1998) Radio Board of Directors Resolution on LPFM, Online,

http://www.radio4all.org/NAB/index.html (1 October 1999).

National Public Radio (NPR) (2000) NPR Files Petition for Reconsideration and Motion for Stay of FCCs

Low Power FM Rules, Online, http://www.nprnet.com/petition.html (25 March 2000).

Nesbitt, J. (1998) FCC Goes after Radio Pirates with a Vengeance, The Times-Picayune 12 July 1998.

Raphael, C. (2000) Rethinking Media and Movements, Radical History Review, 78: 1307.

Rodriguez, C. (2001) Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study of Citizens Media, Cresskill:

Hampton Press.

Ruggiero, G. (1998) FCC Will Present Low-power FM in December, Kennard Says, New York Free Media

Alliance Microradio Documents, Online, http://artcon.rutgers.edu/papertiger/nyfma/ str/Mrkennard.html

(19 November 1999).

Ryan, C. K., Carragee, M. and Meinhofer, W. (2001) Framing, the News Media, and Collective Action

Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 45(1): 17582.

Sakolsky, R. (2001) The LPFM Fiasco: Micropower Radio and the FCCs Low Power Trojan Horse, Lip

Magazine Online, Online, http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featsakolsky 77 p.html (28 January 2001).

Sakolsky, R. and Dunifer, S. (eds) (1998) Seizing the Airwaves: A Free Radio Handbook, San Francisco: AK

Press.


20/20


Soley, L. (1999) Free Radio: Electronic Civil Disobedience, Boulder: Westview Press.

Solomon, N. (2000) Deja vu at NPR, The Humanist, 60(3): 3.

Stein, L. (1999) Media and Democratic Action: Introduction, Peace Review, 11(1): 58.

Tracey, M. (1998) The Decline and Fall of Public Broadcasting, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walker, J. (1997) With Friends like These: Why Community Radio Does Not Need the Corporation for Public

Broadcasting, Cato Policy Analysis No. 277, Online, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-277.html (20 Octo-ber 1999).

Wildman. S. (2001) Mixed SignalNPR Sells Out, The New Republic 12 February 2001.

The Author

Kevin Howley (PhD, Indiana University, 1998) is Assistant Professor of CommunicationStudies at DePauw University. His research interests include critical-cultural analysis ofcommunity media, political economy of media industries, cultural politics, media history,and emerging technologies. His work has appeared in Television and New Media,Journal of Film and Video, International Journal of Cultural Studies, and Ecumene. Hisforthcoming book Community Media: People, Places and Communication Technologiesis being published by Cambridge University Press.