CHAPTER 1

Social Solidarity and Constituency Relationships in Community Radio

Charles Fairchild

The Central Ambiguity power has been defined by a specific brand of of Community Radio “economic fundamentalism” called neoliberal- ism (Kelsey, 1995). One primary consequence of Community radio stations are, by their very neoliberalism has been the socializiation of cost nature, compelled to deal with numerous institu- and risk and the privatization profit and power tions of governance, be they arms of the state or (Chomsky, 2000, pp. 188–189). The mechanisms the market. Given its marginality to mainstream used to turn over public assets for private profit politics and economics, this “third sector” of have had varied and dramatic impacts. Yet, while broadcasting often faces crises that are both the the logics of neoliberal governance are pristine, intended and unintended consequences of larger they have long had consequences that are para- systems of power. These can only be successfully doxically unintended and yet perfectly in keeping navigated if the character of the relationships with their animating intent (Pollin, 2003). between community radio stations and the main Many community radio stations in Australia actors in the governing infrastructure of the have been forced to face down crises caused by state, the public sphere, and civil society are thor- strict adherence to neoliberal ideology by the oughly understood. For decades, the ideology state and corporations. They have done so by clar- governing most areas of political and economic ifying the major issue lurking behind these crises:

Author’s Notes: This is a significantly altered version of an article that appeared in Southern Review (Adelaide, Australia) in 2006. This research work for this article was made possible by the Sesquicentennial Research Fund at the University of Sydney. I conducted research at five radio stations: 2SER and FBi in Sydney, and 2XX, ArtSound FM, and 1WayFM in Canberra in January 2004, September 2005, and from August to November 2007. I am very grateful for the support and participation of the staff and volunteers of each radio station.

23 24—— PART I I THEORETICAL ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES

Why do we need community radio? Is it merely a 2002, pp. 161–162). Most forms of community safety valve for dissent or a form of general pub- media must inevitably make deals with their par- lic expression? Does it mimic the function of a ticipants based on some form of social solidarity public sphere but without the binding influence if they are to have any hope of survival. Crafting of publicly formed opinion on power? Is it a pres- and maintaining the constituency relationships sure point whose power is limited but can occa- that make this solidarity possible is what I call the sionally be brought to bear in a consequential “problem of the public.” way? Or is it a lever that ordinary people can use This article is based on fieldwork in Canberra to empower themselves? The precise character of and Sydney from 2004 to 2005. While the evidence community radio’s social functions are the cen- offered here comes from the study of the relation- tral ambiguity of the form. Given its multifarious ship between community radio and local music nature, making any crisp and brittle distinctions scenes in Australia, the arguments I have drawn between these social functions is neither neces- from this evidence are more widely applicable. sary nor useful. Whether we call it “radical,”“alter- The radio stations I’ve studied create a space for native,” or “citizen’s” media, community radio is local cultural production that is substantially out- all of these, sometimes simultaneously (Atton, side the mainstream. The practices and experi- 2002; Downing, 2001; Rodriguez, 2003). But these ences of this sphere’s participants consistently descriptors have stark limits, only describing ideal demonstrate values that contrast dramatically functions, not actual ones. Each is heavily depen- with the supposedly dominant values of Australian dent on constantly evolving social contexts in society. However, this cultural sphere can only which the very meaning of terms such as alterna- exist if these institutions can successfully negotiate tive, radical, and citizenship are being constantly and maintain an officially recognized role in a redefined. Instead, to answer these questions, we larger system of economic and cultural power that have to understand how the social organization of is fundamentally contrary to their interests. The the kinds of cultural production facilitated by practices participants use to respond to these con- community radio stations is shaped by ways in trary forces help define and clarify the practical which participants at these radio stations make limits of their efforts. Any understanding of the sense out of their practices and experiences. If we roles community radio plays in fostering local cul- can understand these processes of making mean- tural production has to take into account both the ing in relation to the contexts in which they exist, formal and informal relations between radio sta- contexts that can often be unfriendly, then we can tions and larger institutions of governance, public understand how to make this often-misunderstood or private, ideological or material. media sphere stronger and more resilient. My primary goal here is to re-imagine com- munity radio as the means through which ordi- Social Networks nary people organize themselves by creating a Created Through series of what I call “constituency relationships.” Constituency Relationships Community media organizations are unusually complex ways of constructing “social solidarity,” To understand how community radio is “embed- a uniquely democratic form of social organiza- ded” (see Bromell, 2001) in the world, we have to tion that is largely the consequence of a series of understand what distinguishes this form of cultural acts of mutual choice. “Social solidarity” is a par- production from the multitude of other forms of ticular way of organizing people through the cultural production that surround and contextual- mutual construction of a series of broadly recog- ize it. This is not as easy as one might think, in large nizable worldviews to both produce and main- part because the form is so intimidating in its diver- tain a series of lived social relationships (Calhoun, sity. As many can attest, community radio stations Chapter 1
Social Solidarity and Constituency Relationships in Community Radio—— 25 are as varied as the localities that produce and sus- radio that can help define its often ambiguous tain them (see Girard, 1992). As a result, much social functions. First, community radio is scholarship on the form gets caught between the unavoidably part of civil society. It exists through necessary goal of showing how specific practices are the kinds of voluntary participation in commu- drawn from equally specific contexts and the nity institutions that define this often misunder- demonstrable need for a general explanation of the stood social arena. Community radio stations are form’s social importance and sustainability. Recent exactly the type of institutions that define the work on Australian community radio is broad and contours of civil society. They are self-governing, often comprehensive (Forde, Meadows, & Foxwell, nonstate actors that exist as non-profit-seeking 2002; Marcato, 2005; Spurgeon & McCarthy, 2005; expressions of the mutual and collaborative van Vuuren, 2002). Yet almost all of this work seeks intent of ordinary people to effect social change to find the cure for what ails the sector without through discursive means (Deakin, 2001, pp. 4–10). much agreement on what that sector actually is. This alone is enough to make it an “alternative” Conversely, a recent spate of work on alternative expression of citizenship and, given recent attacks media more generally have proceeded precisely by on the institutions of civil society in Australia, on trying to forge specific definitions of the term occasion even a “radical” one (Maddison, Denniss, (Atton, 2002, pp. 28–30; Downing, 2001, pp. 69–72; & Hamilton, 2004). Rodriguez, 2003, p. 190). While these works have Second, community radio exists to create social produced valuable conceptual frameworks, I am networks through means that are not market based. not convinced that community media can or Access is not based on one’s ability to pay for it, should be defined in normative terms. Normative either directly, as a fee-paying subscriber whose definitions of community media run the risk of money guarantees access, or indirectly as the specif- imagining institutions founded on exclusions based ically conjured and desirable demographic object on political affiliation, ideology, geography, or spe- sold to advertisers. The value placed on community cific models of what counts as citizenship and civic radio’s participants and audiences is not based on a participation. Instead, focusing on the type, charac- commercial contract but on a civil one. Despite the ter, and quality of the relationships organizations fact that the civil character of community radio has have with their various publics can help us to craft often proved far more controversial than one might a clearer understanding of the character of com- expect, it is not simply a matter of ideological con- munity media. Community radio stations in par- venience; it is a matter of definition (El-Guhl, 2005; ticular often succeed very well when they act as Fairchild, 2001, pp. 106–114). Importantly, this is what Liora Salter presciently called a“fulcrum,”bal- not a determination internal to these organizations. anced, perhaps precariously, between the multiple For example, in Australia, the extent to which com- interests, issues, participants, listeners, and publics munity radio can reproduce the values of commer- they exist to animate. No one is implicitly excluded, cial radio is severely hampered, not just by as the boundaries of community or participation ideological objections from those who govern the are not cordoned off in advance. Instead, bound- community media sector but also by the practical aries are established only as a consequence of the measures taken by regulators and commercial actual practices of specific participants in particular media to make sure the sector doesn’t compete with institutions. These boundaries cannot be estab- them too successfully (Farouque, 2002b). While lished by fiat but must evolve through practice some community stations are more defined by (Fairchild, 2001, pp. 98–106; Salter, 1980, p. 114). market relationships than others, it is doubtful that Community radio is a stubborn medium that these values will ever be allowed to constitute the does not lend itself to easy description or pre- social basis of the sector, as the Australian scription. So I want to build on existing studies by Broadcasting Authority (ABA) has repeatedly ruled focusing on the irreducible aspects of community against licensing community radio aspirants that 26—— PART I I THEORETICAL ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES appear to be profit-making enterprises (Javes, 2003; media, surely this question is most relevant to Marcato, 2005). This is one of the few paradoxes of community radio. The character of the relation- neoliberalism from which community radio can ships formed within this particular type of civil claim some measure of benefit, if only for the rare institution are not formed by audiences or listen- burst of regulatory clarity it provides. ers, but by participants, defined by relationships in Finally, community radio is distinct not only which all listeners are assumed to be potential con- because of the type and character of the social net- tributors. In the broadest and most literal terms, works it helps create or facilitate but also because of we are talking about political participants, or more the ways in which these networks are constructed. exactly, constituents. Constituency relationships Community radio stations do not exist simply as are defined by a mutual recognition of the rights of sets of ideals or regulations or even as unique and constituents to participate in formal institutions, dynamic relationships between organizations and institutions that are statutorily required to recog- their participants, mediated and linked by particu- nize the agency of their participants in mutually lar kinds of content produced in particular ways. agreed on ways. Commercial and even many pub- They exist as a series of overlapping social networks lic institutions are simply not held to the same based on the material, literal connections, and rela- standard. They are free from having to recognize tionships embodied in a range of creative cultural the agency of the public in terms of operations and practices shaped and governed both by regulations programming and are rarely subjected to the inter- and the larger dynamics of power in which they ventions of the public in forums they do not con- exist. These networks stretch well beyond the sta- trol or dominate (see Fairchild, 1999). tions themselves, shaped by a wide variety of insti- Australians have been increasingly constituted tutions of governance, formal and informal, as consumers with choices, not citizens with rights. practical and ideological, actual and conceptual. As They are economic units, not political participants, I have argued elsewhere, community radio stations living in a consumer society, not a civil one. The are constituted by a constantly evolving range of relationships through which community radio is affiliations that defines the contours and limits of constituted stand in plain contrast with these dom- the expressive practices that go on air. As such, the inant values expressed by most institutions of the lived experience of these institutions is unalterably state and the private sector. I have found this to be multidimensional. They look different to every- true even of the most politically conservative or body who comes into contact with them. They market-oriented stations I’ve studied. In fact, this is reflect the experience of those who populate them the only unifying principle I’ve found in my but cannot be conflated with those experiences. research to link the participants at the five stations They exist as actual places through which lived where I’ve carried out fieldwork. Each station is experience is funneled and produced, embodied run by people who seem to have little in common in a wide range of creative cultural practices with those at other radio stations, except for the (Fairchild, 2005, pp. 308–309; see also Carpentier, character and quality of the social networks in Lie, & Servaes, 2003; van Vuuren, 2002). which they participate and the practices that define But we still have to make a qualitative leap from their participation. In the normal course of events, ideals to reality by asking the kinds of research people from the stations I’ve studied don’t even so questions that can help us trace the lines of prac- much as compare notes with those at other sta- tice and experience that lead people to participate tions, much less work together. Yet, regardless of in this distinct branch of civil society. If we invert their specific goals, ideological proclivities, and the the widely held notion in media studies that audi- programming that results, each station I’ve ences are constructed by media institutions, we can observed survives on the back of a remarkable then ask to what extent are these institutions con- amount of often passionate, mostly unrecom- structed by their constituents? Of all forms of pensed, voluntary work undertaken in a context in Chapter 1
Social Solidarity and Constituency Relationships in Community Radio—— 27 which such work has a history of being treated at fact, most presenters I interviewed did not simply best with patronizing neglect if not outright hos- walk into a radio station and apply to present tility. What I will do with the balance of this work their own program. Instead, most had been is to give two brief, illustrative examples of the approached by someone at the station for an depredations of neoliberalism on two community interview or advice. Originally interested in seek- radio stations and how both used their ability to ing publicity and support for other activities, construct and maintain constituency relationships most gradually increased their involvement in the to survive. radio station as a means to that end. This kind of relationship reflects a more widespread dynamic in these stations, a dynamic defined both by for- The Constant mal monetary agreements and, just as often, by Work of Survival informal barter relationships. Importantly, these relationships are the central way of inciting the When doing my research, I am routinely con- varied forms of public participation in these fronted with the glaring contrasts of values organizations on which their existence depends. between the ways in which community radio sta- It is these defining aspects of public participation tions work in relation to the larger forces that sur- in community radio that tie these stations and round them. The nonmarket dynamics of the their constituencies together. social networks through which these stations are These relationships have distinct dynamics in constituted contrast dramatically with the larger each city in which I’ve done research and each political and economic contexts in which these radio station at which I’ve conducted fieldwork. networks exist. These contrasting sets of social One such station is 2XX, one of Australia’s oldest facts clearly demonstrate the points at which these community radio stations. Located in Canberra, social networks bump up against the limits of the contextual dynamic in which this station their material expression. The people I have been operates is defined by the fact that the city is, in talking with in Sydney and Canberra exhibit sev- essence, both a large regional centre and some- eral important similarities. They work long hours thing of a company town, being the seat of the mostly without pay to produce their radio shows; federal government. The life of the city is defined they labor endlessly to help open and publicize by the unusually high socioeconomic status of its new venues for musicians; they do much of the residents, provided by their reliance on the heavy lifting required to make their radio stations steadying economic influence of a generally work without much in the way of obvious mater- expanding federal government bureaucracy. The ial benefit. Community radio stations are not music scene in Canberra is defined by a small formed from isolated atoms of cultural produc- number of formal, high-profile venues and a tion but are often pivotal centers of gravity for the larger number of smaller, less formal ones. At the actual and potential productive activity of numer- time I was doing research, only community radio ous and particular groups of people and organiza- stations allowed local musicians to sell their CDs tions to come together and strengthen the through their offices or have their music played networks that enable them to produce their music on their broadcasts. Also, given the transience or their radio programs, to spread information, inherent in Canberran social life, the pull of and to organize activities that often have no other Sydney, just a few hours down the road, is partic- form of public expression and acknowledgment. ularly strong on young ambitious musicians. This The vast majority of people I spoke with told means that Canberra’s community radio stations me they became involved in community radio tend to be very solicitous of local musicians of through previous social and political affiliations whatever stripe, offering an extensive and public that existed independently of the radio station. In commitment of airtime to locally produced 28—— PART I I THEORETICAL ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES music. This odd fact often has interesting conse- hard to see, obscured as they sometimes are by quences. For example, after watching several particularities of the kinds of programming that interviews on a few weekday afternoon slots, I had result from these relationships. This fact is often the opportunity to speak to some of the musi- most evident during a crisis. cians, few of whom appeared to have any inten- The contemporary Australian public sphere tion of making the work they had just presented plays host to numerous circumstances that can on air commercially available. Making music was cripple a community institution, especially one simply one more interesting thing they did, but that depends on such complex networks of they were not necessarily going on the radio in the mutuality for survival. Two specific threats to hopes of brisker sales of what was usually a nonex- 2XX and FBi came from the push to privatize a istent commercial product. One particular by- broad range of public infrastructure and the product of this circumstance is that several local introduction of so-called market values into the music programs were dominated by conversations public sector. Each effort has had significant con- simply about the personal meaning of the wide sequences for community radio in Australia, array of local music on offer, as opposed to the all- consequences that were not planned and have too-familiar tales of the life of a working musician. only recently been publicly acknowledged. The situation for music presenters in Sydney is, In 2004, 2XX found itself teetering on the brink not surprisingly, quite different. FBi radio is a of insolvency and dissolution, a situation brought prominent organization within the city’s large and on by an arrangement uniquely exploited in the diverse collection of music cultures. It is inun- Australian Capital Territory (ACT). 2XX had dated with local music and rarely has trouble in accumulated substantial debts to an organization filling the programming time devoted to local called Broadcast Australia, a private entity and music. The question for FBi is the comparatively subsidiary of Macquarie Bank, one of the world’s luxurious question of how to shape and use that richest purveyors of formerly public infrastruc- programming time for the greatest mutual benefit ture. 2XX was taken off air and not allowed to of the station and local musicians. This means that broadcast until they could demonstrate that the this station implements far more formal, specific, debts would be paid. Macquarie had acquired a and strategic procedures for dealing with a wider monopoly on broadcast transmissions in the ACT range of musician inquiries as well as more devel- when it bought the assets of NTL Australia from a oped policies detailing exactly which kinds of local struggling U.S. company in 2002 (Hughes, 2002). music to promote than their counterparts in Broadcast Australia (BA), the entity through Canberra. While the context and circumstance of which Macquarie managed its monopoly, began to Sydney community radio stations inevitably charge all radio stations in the ACT the same sub- shapes the type and character of the relationships stantial fee to use the Black Mountain Broadcast it has with musicians, these relationships often Tower, the only radio tower capable of reaching have a similar dynamic to those found in any substantial portion of the local population. Canberra. Similar forms of informal barter and There are few other places a radio station could go formal commercial exchange exist at stations in to send out a comparable signal, hemmed in as both cities, distinguished primarily by their speci- they are by the extensive regulatory system sur- ficity in Sydney and their generality in Canberra. rounding placement and use of broadcast towers. The manner in which the social relationships that Macquarie had knowingly bought what econo- animate each of the stations I have studied are mists euphemistically call a practical monopoly. constructed differ markedly due to the context in BA’s strengths included a predictable revenue base, which the participants work. However, there are potential for high revenue growth, predictable underlying similarities that define the dynamics of operating costs, costs that are largely fixed (none of these relationships that can often be surprisingly which Macquarie incurred when Black Mountain Chapter 1
Social Solidarity and Constituency Relationships in Community Radio—— 29

Tower was built). In fact, at the time of purchase offered. Realizing this, the spurned applicant gath- almost all the forecast revenue was “locked in with ered together supporters and made a mass appli- long term contracts” with several public broad- cation of memberships to FBi in a transparent bid casting organizations. This is a textbook operation to stack the membership, elect a new board, and in the annals of privatization: The risks and costs take over the license. An extensive, expensive, and of constructing the facility were socialized and the precedent-setting court action ensued, which FBi profits and power that resulted were privatized eventually won (Molitorisz, 2003). However, the (Hughes, 2002; Macquarie Bank, n.d.). The public case significantly taxed the financial and opera- sector built the transmission tower, assumed all tional foundations of the fledgling organization, the associated costs, serving the public good by setting back the launch of the station significantly; providing comparatively equitable access to a the delay even “raised concerns the station would common resource. When the government sold the never get off the ground” (Javes, 2003). tower, the resulting situation saw community This fight was unusual in large part because it groups across the territory sending their dona- was an indirect consequence of the “marketiza- tions to 2XX, the only station that gives these tion” of the public sector. The length and intensity groups a public voice, to a bank whose record- of this battle was exacerbated by the fact that the breaking profits have come largely from squeezing spurned applicant had no other options to gain a every last cent out of what used to be important license. Their proposed service was not necessarily pieces of public infrastructure. projected to be a huge revenue-generating opera- Privatization has had many unanticipated con- tion. Commercial radio licenses in Australia are sequences that have been every bit as consequen- extremely valuable commodities, with metropoli- tial as the aforementioned example. One of these tan properties often fetching over one hundred has been the institution of market-values tests in million dollars on the open market. This has the the public sector (Spurgeon & McCarthy, 2005). effect of pricing out almost all applicants who Simply confining ourselves to the bureaucracy don’t already have significant investment capital at that deals with broadcast regulation, the institu- the time of application, regardless of the potential tion of market-values tests means that all deci- value of their future services. In essence, the licens- sions made by the public sector have to be ing process has been privatized, with market val- analyzed for their potential harm or benefit to the ues trumping any public goods test in the Australian economy. With the advent of a regime licensing process. As a result, even those applying of “self-regulation” for broadcasters and the auc- for noncommercial licenses are finding it that tioning off of commercial radio services through much harder to make their claims to the ostensi- the de facto purchase of frequencies, important bly public airwaves stick. These claims are increas- changes have been made to the ways in which ingly being tested in unexpected ways with radio is regulated and, more importantly, the ways demonstrable effects on community broadcasters, in which broadcast policy is crafted and imple- forcing them to defend their claims to “free” spec- mented (Farouque, 2002a). When FBi applied for trum access beyond the formal terrain of licensing its license in the late 1990s, they won a license that procedures. covered the entire Sydney region. The fight for this In both cases, the existential crises faced by the license was a difficult contest against numerous stations were overcome through a variety of means, other aspirants that lasted nearly a decade. One of all of which were based on the existing relationships these aspirants, adjudged by the ABA to be a barely each had with a variety of social networks to which disguised commercial operation, took its failure each was bound in relationships of mutual benefit. very badly (ABA, 2001; Davies, 2001). Given the In each case, individuals and organizations con- shape of the Sydney radio market, it was unlikely tributed the means for survival. Staff at 2XX noted that any further community licenses would be with satisfaction and gratitude that, after a series of 30—— PART I I THEORETICAL ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES urgent appeals for support went out through an immense variety of interests within the same Canberra, they were inundated with offers of sup- cultural space, a space at odds with almost all the port, helping them to raise over $10,000 in a matter larger systems of which it is a part. Community of days (“An Antidote on Air,” 2004; “Community radio exists in a sphere in which the difficulties Radio Back on Air,” 2004). FBi, which had not yet encountered in trying to construct a community begun to broadcast when facing the legal challenge organization based on openness and participa- to their membership, was still able to survive tion are not simply organizational distractions through similar means, including donated services but are their animating purpose. A broad and and extensive volunteer efforts to maintain the sub- contradictory set of social facts define the range scriber base and sponsorship relationships in the of practices for most of these radio stations and unusually long run-up to their official launch. Both sustain them on the very thin and volatile mar- stations used a clever mix of social organizing, gins of a public culture that is constantly evolv- solicitation of donations, expanding sponsorship ing through rules and forces larger than all of us. arrangements, and fully exploiting the few market Many of the community radio stations I have mechanisms open to each organization. Each sta- studied in Canada, the United States, and tion triangulated between political organizing, vol- Australia face similar problems. The kind of cul- unteer support, and commercial solicitation tural production on which they base their exis- through the unique array of relationships that con- tence becomes more and more necessary even as stituted each organization. the conditions needed to produce it become harder to maintain. It should not be surprising that neoliberalism, a thoroughgoing ideology Conclusion whose practitioners declare themselves uniquely able to explain and remedy all social ills, has What we might call the problem of democracy severe consequences even for those who, by their rests in the freedom it needs to breath in the actions if not their sentiments, so completely mundane and ordinary acts it often takes to exer- reject their prescriptions. cise those freedoms, freedoms that grow out of the contradictions, contests, and negotiations that exist between the world in which we live and References the world we imagine. Community radio exists because of these kinds of contests and contradic- An antidote on air. (2004). Communicado. Canberra, tions, as the deal community radio stations make Australia: ACT Office of Multicultural Affairs. with their constituents is essentially a protracted Atton, C. (2002). Alternative media. London: Sage. sort of public negotiation. The public participa- Australian Broadcasting Authority. (2001). Report of tion and organizational openness on which com- the Australian Broadcasting Authority on the allo- munity radio is founded inevitably bring a cation of three community radio broadcasting tenuous hold on the future. They must recognize licences to serve the Sydney licence area. Sydney, their audiences not just as consumers or listeners New South Wales, Australia: Author. but as political constituents who exist within Bromell, N. (2001). Music, experience, history. American Quarterly, 53(1), 165–177. complex webs of power. In order to survive, these Calhoun, C. (2002) Imagining solidarity: Cosmo- stations must balance themselves carefully within politanism, constitutional patriotism and the the full range of their constituents and recognize public sphere. Public Culture, 14(1), 147–171. them as the people who give them purpose. Carpentier, N., Lie, R., & Servaes, J. (2003). I’ve found in a wide variety of circumstances Community media: Muting the democratic that community radio stations most often accept media discourse? Continuum: Journal of Media & the inherent tensions produced by the housing of Cultural Studies, 17(1), 51–68. Chapter 1
Social Solidarity and Constituency Relationships in Community Radio—— 31

Chomsky, N. (2000). Rogue states: The rule of force in Retrieved February 15, 2006, from www.smh.com world affairs. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. .au/articles/2002/06/13/ 1023864303438.html Community radio back on air. (2004, May 11). Javes, S. (2003). Better late than never. Sydney Canberra Times, p. 6. Morning Herald Online. Retrieved February 24, Davies, A. (2001, April 20). ABA likely to find wild FM 2006, from www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/11/ selling itself short of a licence. Sydney Morning 1055220640167.html Herald, p. 29. Kelsey, J. (1995). Economic fundamentalism: The New Deakin, N. (2001). In search of civil society. Basingstoke, Zealand experiment. A world model for structural UK: Palgrave. adjustment? London: Pluto Press. Downing, J. (2001). Radical media: Rebellious commu- Macquarie Bank. (n.d.). Broadcast Australia. Retrieved nication and social movements. Thousand Oaks, September 19, 2005, from www.macquarie.com CA: Sage. .au/au/mcg/assets/broadcast.htm El-Guhl, S. (2005). A balancing act: Entrepreneurship Maddison, S., Denniss, R., & Hamilton, C. (2004). in community radio. 3CMedia: A Journal of Silencing dissent: Non-government organizations Community, Citizen’s and Third Sector Media, and Australian democracy (Discussion paper 65). 1(1), 37–49. Canberra, Australia: Australia Institute. Fairchild, C. (1999). Deterritorializing radio: Marcato, P. (2005). Different values for changing Deregulation and the continuing triumph of the times? The Melbourne 2001 community radio corporatist perspective. Media, Culture & Society, licence grants. 3CMedia: A Journal of Community, 21(4), 549–562. Citizen’s and Third Sector Media, 1(1), 50–57. Fairchild, C. (2001). Community radio and public cul- Molitorisz, S. (2003). Licence to thrill. CBOnline. ture, being an examination of media access and Retrieved February 21, 2006, from www.cbonline equity in the nations of North America. Cresskill, .org.au NJ: Hampton Press. Pollin, R. (2003). Contours of descent: U.S. economic Fairchild, C. (2005). The currency of collusion: The fractures and the landscape of global austerity. New circulation and embrace of the ethic of authentic- York: Verso. ity in mediated musical communities. Journal of Rodriguez, C. (2003). The bishop and his star: Citizen’s Popular Music Studies, 17(3), 301–323. communication in southern Chile. In N. Couldry Farouque, F. (2002a, May 21). ABA snarls at commu- & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power: nity radio. The Age (Green Guide), p. 6. Alternative media in a networked world (pp.177–194). Farouque, F. (2002b, May 16). Community radio calls Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. for ratings. The Age (Green Guide), p. 4. Salter, L. (1980). Two directions on a one-way street: Forde, S., Meadows, M., & Foxwell, K. (2002). Culture, Old and new approaches in media analysis in two commitment, community: The Australian commu- decades. Studies in Communication, 1, 85–117. nity radio sector. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Spurgeon, C., & McCarthy, J. (2005). Mobilising the Griffith University. community radio audience. 3CMedia: A Journal Girard, B. (Ed.). (1992). A passion for radio: Radio of Community, Citizen’s and Third Sector Media, waves and community. Montreal, Quebec, 1(1), 1–12. Canada: Black Rose Books. van Vuuren, K. (2002). Beyond the studio: A case study Hughes, A. (2002). Macquarie gets set for $350 million of community radio and social capital. Media broadcast float. Sydney Morning Herald Online. International Australia, 103, 94–108.