Music on PBS: a History of Music Programming at a Community Radio Station

Home , 3CR Melbourne, 3KND, 3MBS, 3RRR, 3ZZZ, 4ZZZ

Music on PBS: A History of Music Programming at a Community Radio Station

Rochelle Lade (BArts Monash, MArts RMIT)

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

January 2021

Abstract

This historical case study explores the programs broadcast by Melbourne community radio station PBS from 1979 to 2019 and the way programming decisions were made. PBS has always been an unplaylisted, specialist music station. Decisions about what music is played are made by individual program announcers according to their own tastes, not through algorithms or by applying audience research, music sales rankings or other formal quantitative methods. These decisions are also shaped by the station’s status as a licenced community radio broadcaster. This licence category requires community access and participation in the station’s operations. Data was gathered from archives, in‐depth interviews and a quantitative analysis of programs broadcast over the four decades since PBS was founded in 1976. Based on a Bourdieusian approach to the field, a range of cultural intermediaries are identified. These are people who made and influenced programming decisions, including announcers, program managers, station managers, Board members and the programming committee. Being progressive requires change. This research has found an inherent tension between the station’s values of cooperative decision‐making and the broadcasting of progressive music. Knowledge in the fields of community radio and music is advanced by exploring how cultural intermediaries at PBS made decisions to realise eth station’s goals of community access and participation.

Acknowledgements

To my supervisors, Jock Given and Ellie Rennie, and in the early phase of this research Aneta Podkalicka, I am extremely grateful to have been given your knowledge, wisdom and support. You seemed to know when to push and when to hold back. Now, at the end, I have my health, my sanity and a thesis. I thank my review panel, Diana Bossio, Cesar Albarran‐Torres and Julie Kimber, for their valuable advice and encouragement. And thank you, Niki Frantzeskaki, for letting me stay in the same building, surrounded by people I knew, when structures changed at Swinburne. This project would not exist without the support of the PBS Board, Adrian Basso and Mara Williams. I hope what we have produced will serve PBS and Melbourne’s music community for a long time to come. As usual, the PBS community was exceptional in answering my calls for help. To those I interviewed, I thank you for your time and candour. For your assistance during the research phase, thank you to: Laura Cameron, Jennifer Crowley, Moira Drew, Alan Fitzpatrick, Michelle Gearon, Garry Havrillay, Sam Johnstone, Owen McKern, Adrian Ockerby, Ashley O’Halloran, Bill Runting, Nic Scurry and Patrick Wain. I was fortunate to have, and at times rely heavily on, the support of fellow PhD students and friends: Viktoria Adler, Alexandra Dane, Keren Greenberg, Indigo Holcombe‐James, Ben Morgan and Melissa Pineda Pinto. I am also grateful for the support and assistance I received from the wider radio community: Danny Chifley, Maryanne Doyle, Juliet Fox, Shane Homan, John Tebbutt and Chris Wilson. I acknowledge my personal support crew for their enduring care. Thank you to my mentor Justin Wibrow and treasured friends Dominic Autelitano (special thanks for reading the very first draft), Laura Kool, Tal Levitas and Daniele Noel. And to my parents, Janne and Geoff Lade, and my brother, Steven, thank you for instilling the value of education and setting the bar of achievement. Finally, to the wonderful boys in my life. Izo Lourival, thank you for your constant support, excellent cooking and ability to take the load. I look forward to the next phase of our lives together, using our newly gained degrees for good. Raffy, my little mate, thank you for being my constant companion.

iii

Declaration

This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award to the candidate of any other degree or diploma.

To the best of the candidate’s knowledge, this thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text of the examinable outcome.

Accredited professional editor Mary‐Jo O’Rourke AE provided copyediting and proofreading services according to the national university‐endorsed ‘Guidelines for editing research theses’ (Institute of Professional Editors, 2019).

Rochelle Lade January 2021

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... iii

Declaration ...... iv

List of Figures ...... x

List of Tables ...... xii

Abbreviations ...... xv

Introduction ...... 1

Theoretical Framework ...... 3 Methodology ...... 4 Significance ...... 5 Chapter Outline ...... 7

1. Literature Review ...... 11

1.1 Introduction ...... 11 1.2 Theoretical Framework ...... 12 1.2.1 Cultural capital and cultural intermediaries...... 12 1.2.2 Subcultural capital and subcultural intermediaries ...... 15 1.2.3 Volunteer, subcultural intermediaries at PBS ...... 21

1.3 Community media ...... 25 1.3.1 Australian community media ...... 31 1.3.2 Community radio and local music ...... 38

1.4 Programming music radio ...... 43 1.4.1 Playlisted music programming ...... 44 1.4.2 Unplaylisted music programming ...... 48 1.4.3 Study of broadcast content ...... 53

Conclusions ...... 59

2. Methodology ...... 60

2.1 Introduction ...... 60 2.1.1 Case study ...... 60 2.1.2 Insider researcher ...... 62

2.2 Archives ...... 65 2.2.1 Programming grids...... 70 2.2.2 Data entry ...... 70 2.2.3 Classifying music ...... 72

2.3 Oral history interviews ...... 83 2.3.1 Recruitment ...... 85 2.3.2 Interviews ...... 87

3. 1970s: “Clearly dissimilar” ...... 89

3.1 Introduction ...... 89 3.1.1 Alternative to what? ...... 90 3.1.2 Licensing community radio ...... 93 3.1.3 Licensing Melbourne’s community stations ...... 97

3.2 Programming policies, procedures and people ...... 102 3.2.1 Doing things differently ...... 104

3.3 Test transmissions ...... 107 Conclusions ...... 113

4. 1980s: “these guys were fringe dags” ...... 116

4.1 Introduction ...... 116 4.1.1 Progress amid constraints ...... 117 4.1.2 PBS and community radio sector growth ...... 120 4.1.3 Competition ...... 123

4.2 Programming policies, procedures and people ...... 124 4.2.1 Becoming an announcer ...... 133 4.2.2 Beginning 24-hour broadcasting ...... 137 4.2.3 1989 Major Programming Review ...... 140

4.3 Broadcast output ...... 151 4.3.1 Announcer diversity and effect on broadcast output ...... 161

4.3.2 Establishing an identity through live music broadcasts ...... 172

Conclusions ...... 179

5. 1990s: “The sound of underground Melbourne” ...... 182

5.1 Introduction ...... 182 5.1.1 PBS’ position within a growing community sector ...... 183 5.1.2 Introduction of the Broadcasting Services Act ...... 185 5.1.3 Finances resulted in three different station managers across the decade 189

5.2 Programming policies, processes and people ...... 196 5.2.1 Growing pains and the PPC ...... 205 5.2.2 Aligning the grid for greater listener retention ...... 208

5.3 Broadcast output ...... 216 5.3.1 Negotiating subcultures: Rock Indie and Electronic & Hip Hop ...... 220

Conclusions ...... 231

6. 2000s: “This station’s problems were programming, because from programming everything flowed” ...... 234

6.1 Introduction ...... 234 6.1.1 Digital development affects the sector...... 235 6.1.2 A new station manager and a new home ...... 236

6.2 Programming policies, processes and people ...... 240 6.2.1 Employing a program manager ...... 245 6.2.2 2005/06 programming strategy ...... 249 6.2.3 Programming breakfast (6:00–9:00am) ...... 263 6.2.4 The aftermath ...... 267

6.3 Broadcast output in the 2000s ...... 277 6.3.1 The place of Jazz ...... 282

Conclusions ...... 286

7. 2010s: “if you take the P out, all we’re left with is BS” ...... 289

7.1 Introduction ...... 289 7.1.1 New broadcasting technologies: digital radio, internet and streaming services ...... 290

vii

7.1.2 Re-valuation of under-represented music ...... 296

7.2 Programming policies, processes and people ...... 299 7.2.1 Risks of resting a program ...... 304 7.2.2 At a popular radio station, announcers compete for airtime ...... 306 7.2.3 Resting Spoken Word ...... 312

7.3 Broadcast output in the 2010s ...... 318 7.3.1 Increasing announcer diversity ...... 323 7.3.2 What cost stability? ...... 331

Conclusions ...... 334

8. Conclusion...... 337

8.1 Introduction ...... 337 8.2 How did an unplaylisted radio station make programming decisions? ...... 338 8.2.1 Which programs did PBS broadcast? ...... 338 8.2.2 How did PBS make programming decisions? ...... 344

8.3 Implications for theory and research ...... 346 8.4 Limitations and recommendations for future research ...... 348 Conclusions ...... 350

Reference List ...... 353

Primary Sources ...... 353 Secondary Sources ...... 359

Appendix A...... 379

Community radio stations in metropolitan Melbourne ...... 379

Appendix B...... 380

List of interview participants ...... 380

Appendix C ...... 381

List of interview questions ...... 381

Appendix D ...... 382

Tier 1 percentages of broadcast output, 1979–2019 ...... 382

viii

Appendix E ...... 383

Ethics Approval and Compliance ...... 383 Approval ...... 383 Compliance ...... 384

List of Figures

Figure 1: Program information examples used in schedules, 1983 ...... 74 Figure 2: Example of a program grid ...... 75 Figure 3: Summary of PBS organisational structure, 1982–1989 ...... 133 Figure 4: Tier 2 categories with change of more than 30 hours per week after 1989 programming review ...... 148 Figure 5: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 1989–1995 ...... 150 Figure 6: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 1980s ...... 152 Figure 7: Distribution of Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs by time of day, 1986 ...... 156 Figure 8: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 6:00am–7:00pm, 1980s ...... 158 Figure 9: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 7:00pm–6:00am, 1980s ...... 159 Figure 10: Tier 1, comparison of percentages of broadcast hours, weekends and weekdays, 1980s ...... 160 Figure 11: Percentage of programs, gender of announcers, 1980s ...... 162 Figure 12: Percentages of programs, gender of announcers, yearly comparison, 1980- 1989 ...... 164 Figure 13: Number of programs advertising broadcast of Australian, Melbourne & New Zealand music, 1980s–2010s ...... 177 Figure 14: Programming structure, 1990s ...... 199 Figure 15: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 1996–1999 ...... 215 Figure 16: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 1990s ...... 217 Figure 17: Comparison of broadcast hours, use of terms independent, alternative and mainstream in Rock Indie programs, 1980s–2010s ...... 223 Figure 18: Percentage of broadcast hours, time of day, Electronic & Hip Hop programs, 1990s ...... 227 Figure 19: The rise and fall of Tier 2 category, Techno, by broadcast hours, 1979-2019 229 Figure 20: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, weekdays (6:00am–7:00pm), 2000s 253 Figure 21: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, weekends (6:00am–7:00pm), 2000s . 255 Figure 22: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, weekends (7:00pm–6:00am), 2000s 258 Figure 23: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, weekdays (7:00pm–6:00am), 2000s 259

Figure 24: Program Planning Group (PPG), April 2007 ...... 272 Figure 25: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 2000s ...... 278 Figure 26: Number of Electronic & Hip Hop programs, 2000s ...... 280 Figure 27: Number of Contemporary Mix programs, 2000s ...... 280 Figure 28: Broadcast hours of Jazz programs, day or night and weekend or weekday, 1979–2019 ...... 284 Figure 29: Program Planning Group structure, 2010s ...... 300 Figure 30: Spoken Word programs by percentage of broadcast hours, 1979-2011 ...... 315 Figure 31: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 2010s ...... 320 Figure 32: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 6:00am–7:00pm, 2010s ...... 322 Figure 33: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 7:00pm–6:00am, 2010s ...... 323 Figure 34: Comparison of gender of announcer (by percentage of airtime), 2000s and 2010s ...... 327 Figure 35: Comparison of the gender of announcer for new programs, 2000s and 2010s ...... 328 Figure 36: Percentage of airtime, gender of announcer by day of week, 6:00am–7:00pm, 2000s ...... 328 Figure 37: Percentage of airtime, gender of announcer by day of week, 6:00am–7:00pm, 2010s ...... 329 Figure 38: Percentage of airtime by Tier 1 category gender of announcer, 1979–2019 ... 330

List of Tables

Table 1: Data collected from programming grids ...... 72 Table 2: Time of day allocation ...... 72 Table 3: Programming schedule and grid sources by year ...... 73 Table 4: Description of tiers used for data analysis ...... 76 Table 5: Classification systems used by other organisations ...... 77 Table 6: Evolution of program categories at PBS, 1988-2017 ...... 78 Table 7: Comparison of Tier 1 and PBS categories ...... 80 Table 8: Tier 2 styles ...... 82 Table 9: Tier 4 non-musical information ...... 83 Table 10: Proposed PBS programme schedule, November 1978 ...... 112 Table 11: On-air schedule, 1980–1986 ...... 127 Table 12: On-air schedule, 1986–1987 ...... 128 Table 13: Comparison of PBS music categories, 1982 and 1987 ...... 132 Table 14: Tier 2 descriptions for programs on Mondays in February, 1988, 1989 and 1990 ...... 146 Table 15: Tier 2 descriptions for programs on Saturdays in February, 1988, 1989 and 1990 ...... 146 Table 16: Comparison of number of programs per week, 1988 and 1989 ...... 147 Table 17: Rock Indie drive programs, early 1980s ...... 153 Table 18: Percentage of broadcast hours for Contemporary Mix programs by time of day, 1980s ...... 153 Table 19: Long-running Blues & Roots programs beginning in the 1980s ...... 154 Table 20: Comparison of Tier 2 Top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Funk & Soul, 1980s– 2010s ...... 154 Table 21: Comparison of Tier 2 Top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Hard 'n' Heavy, 1980s– 2010s ...... 155 Table 22: Programs hosted by women, featuring music by women, 1979–2019 ...... 166 Table 23: Tier 3 music categories, Student Access Breakfast Show, 1981-1989 ...... 168

xii

Table 24: Programs advertising or known to broadcast Indigenous Australian music, 1979-2019 ...... 169 Table 25: Live music programs, 1980s–2010s...... 175 Table 26: Top 5 most broadcast hours ‘Australian music’ programs per decade, 1980s– 2010s ...... 178 Table 27: Growth of community radio sector by decade, 1970–2019 ...... 188 Table 28: Music categories, 1997 ...... 203 Table 29: Summary of programming-related recommendations from 3PBS Staff Report, 1997 ...... 209 Table 30: 6-monthly grid review process, 1998 ...... 211 Table 31: Grid with 85 program timeslots, 1996 ...... 213 Table 32: New grid with 77 program timeslots, effective June 1997 ...... 214 Table 33: Percentage of Hard 'n' Heavy programs broadcast day or night, weekday or weekend, 1980s–2010s ...... 218 Table 34: Hard 'n' Heavy programs in morning shift, 1990s ...... 218 Table 35: Comparison of Tier 2 Top 10 styles by broadcast hours, World, 1980s-2010s 219 Table 36: Long-running World programs starting in the late 1980s and 1990s ...... 219 Table 37: Comparison of Tier 2 top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Rock Indie, 1980s–2010s ...... 224 Table 38: Rock Indie programs with ‘Pop’ in Tier 3 description, 1980s and 1990s ...... 225 Table 39: Rock Indie programs with ‘Pop’ in Tier 3 description, 2000s and 2010s ...... 225 Table 40: Long-running Electronic & Hip Hop programs beginning in late 1980s – early 1990s ...... 228 Table 41: Comparison of Electronic & Hip Hop Tier 2 styles, 1980s–2010s...... 228 Table 42: Programs which broadcast Techno music, 1979-2019 ...... 230 Table 43: Programming structure, 2001 ...... 242 Table 44: Comparison of programs with Tier 3 descriptions 3:00–5:00pm, 2004 and 2005 ...... 251 Table 45: Program grid, 2005–2019 ...... 252 Table 46: Comparison of Tier 2, Fridays in February, 2004 and 2005 ...... 254 Table 47: Tier 2 categories, weekends: 2005–2009 ...... 256

xiii

Table 48: Summary of programming process changes and clarifications post-BSCP review, 2007 ...... 275 Table 49: Listening audience to weekday breakfast 2006 to 2007 (McNair Survey) ..... 276 Table 50: Change in percentages of broadcast hours, 2000–2009 ...... 279 Table 51: Contemporary Mix programs ending on or before 2005 ...... 281 Table 52: Blues & Roots programs 2:00am-6:00am, weekdays in 2009 ...... 281 Table 53: Comparison of Tier 2 top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Blues & Roots, 1980s– 2010s ...... 282 Table 54: Comparison of Tier 2 top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Jazz, 1980s–2010s.... 283 Table 55: Jazz programs during the resurgence, 1997–2005 ...... 285 Table 56: Comparison of Jazz broadcast hours by decade, 1980s–2010s ...... 286 Table 57: Type of music broadcast on Melbourne's digital-only stations ...... 293 Table 58: Comparison of program categories, 2009 and 2010 ...... 303 Table 59: Announcers on-air for 20 years or more ...... 310 Table 60: Longest running Funk & Soul programs ...... 311 Table 61: Comparison of Tier 2 top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Spoken Word, 1980s– 2010s ...... 313 Table 62: Spoken Word programs >300 hours on-air ...... 313 Table 63: Funk & Soul programs with female announcers and more than 10 hours on- air, 1979-2019 ...... 330 Table 64: Longest running programs, 20 years or more ...... 331

xiv

Abbreviations

ABA Australian Broadcasting Authority ABC Australian Broadcasting Commission (until 1983); Australian Broadcasting Corporation (post-1983) ABCB Australian Broadcasting Control Board ABT Australian Broadcasting Tribunal ACMA Australian Communications and Media Authority AMRAP Australian Music Radio Airplay Project B&T Act Broadcasting and Television Act BBC British Broadcasting Corporation BSA Broadcasting Services Act BSCP Board Sub-Committee on Programming CAP Collingwood Arts Precinct CBAA Community Broadcasting Association of Australia (formerly PBAA) CCCS Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies’ DMG DMG Radio Australia NFSA National Film and Sound Archive OB group Outside Broadcast group PAB PBS Association of Broadcasters PAG Programming Advisory Group PBAA Public Broadcasting Association of Australia (later CBAA) PBF Public Broadcasting Foundation PBS Progressive Broadcasting Service PC Programming Committee POW Prince of Wales hotel PPC Programming and Production Committee PPG Program Planning Group PRC Program Review Committee PRT Program Reviews Team RMIT Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

SBS Special Broadcasting Service SKA-TV St Kilda Access Television SLAM Save Live Australia’s Music

xvi

Introduction

‘AN ODE TO PBS’ .... commercial radio just a spit away but who could be bothered wasting a spit... Plastic cronies DJ's, computers, deep voices, real in, real hip REAL HEAVY, Maaannn Other FM Phew Sister station lost its touch it's on a running road chasing itself it's so concerned about being hip English scene, N.M.E., New York GOD, GOD, GOD... . MHz Look 'ere Mods, trendies, hipsters, jazzists, rastas, funksters, punks, skins, skas and beat kids... Who else will play your request? When you FEEL like ringing in? Make it happen for future tomorrows forever PBS

– The Black-Hooded Phantom1

Broadcasting under-represented music from Melbourne, Australia since 1979, PBS’ listeners can hear different styles of music and different kinds of announcers to anything else on the airwaves. Twenty-five years after this ode was written, in the mid-2000s, I started listening to PBS. I tuned in to PBS because I heard music I couldn’t hear anywhere else, music for the “mods, trendies, hipsters, jazzists, rastas”. Unlike the high-rotation songs I heard on commercial radio and even public youth station Triple J, announcers had so much music to play that I rarely heard the same track twice. I loved the music education PBS was giving me. With some spare time on my hands, but only a modest music collection and little desire to be an announcer, I started volunteering as a receptionist at PBS in 2013. I spent most of my two years volunteering on Thursday afternoons, while a mélange of three funk and soul and blues and roots programs were broadcasting. My shift

1 The Black-Hooded Phantom, ‘An Ode to PBS,’ Waves, October 1982, p. 2. 1

started at 2:00pm, so covered the second half of the gravelly tones of Miss Goldie hosting Boss Action, playing only 45” funk and soul records. Then, 3:00–5:00pm, I heard Country music on Acid Country, which was (and still is) hosted by PBS’ longest serving announcer, David Heard. Finally, I’d wait to see how close to 5:00pm Ruari Curran would rush into the studio to host his Rock Indie drive show, Fang It. A more popular program among Holden Commodore drivers and tradies you could not find. There are a few reasons this research has happened. During my time as a reception volunteer, I saw an advertisement on PBS’ volunteer blog page seeking someone to write a history of the station. As the station was approaching its 40th anniversary and with very little research conducted about it, I saw this as an opportunity to explore how the station worked and even why I had found myself volunteering there. Initially, I imagined a general history of the station. As I began reading about community radio, and the only existing research about PBS,2 I found programming an understudied area in relation to community radio. This gap in the literature was an opportunity to contribute to PBS’ largely untold story. When I began reading the station’s self-published Waves magazine, I realised how integral both music and programs were to PBS’ identity. Coming to this research with degrees in history, politics and arts management, I found these areas of study created a nexus in my thinking. I knew PBS was unplaylisted, meaning announcers were free to choose the music they played during their programs, but how did PBS decide which programs would be broadcast? When? Who would host them? And what had PBS broadcast before I started listening, to create the station I knew and loved? The research question I have sought to answer is:

1) How did an unplaylisted radio station make programming decisions?

To answer this question, I needed to ask two more questions:

2 J. Crowley, Live, Loud and Let Loose: The Early Years of Live Recording Broadcasts for Public Access Station 3PBS-FM, Honours thesis, Melbourne, La Trobe University, 2008. 2

a) Which programs did PBS broadcast? b) How did PBS make programming decisions?

To assist in my interpretation of data and to answer these questions, I used the theoretical framework of subcultural intermediaries, which I introduce in the next section.

Theoretical Framework

Bourdieu’s conception of cultural intermediaries3 is useful for interpreting how programming decisions were made and the outcome of these decisions. According to Bourdieu, there are people who act as mediators between the production and consumption of cultural goods. The cultural mediator uses factors such as their own expertise, knowledge and taste to shape their decisions. Being chosen by a cultural intermediary imbues that cultural product with value. At a radio station, cultural mediators work between music (production) and the listener (consumption) by deciding what to broadcast. In PBS’ case, its cultural intermediaries used their expertise, knowledge and taste to broadcast music what they thought was subcultural. This is because subcultures exist as an alternative to the mainstream.4 They work in small-scale environments and require structures through which to exist, structures that bring together like-minded individuals. Subcultural intermediaries typified my understanding of PBS’ announcers: experts in their field, with local knowledge and connections to their music scene. As Moore pointed out, when something becomes too well known or popular, it can no longer be considered subcultural.5 If PBS maintained its position in relation to the mainstream by broadcasting new and under- represented musical styles, it would retain its subcultural capital. This case study of PBS offers insight into the emerging field of volunteer subcultural intermediaries. Working in a not-for-profit organisation, PBS’ subcultural

3 P. Bourdieu, Distinction, trans. R. Nice, Oxon, Routledge, 1984. 4 D. Hebdidge, Subculture: The Meaning of Style, London, Routledge, 1979. 5 R. Moore, ‘Alternative to What? Subcultural Capital and the Commercialization of a Music Scene’, Deviant Behavior, vol. 26, no 3, 2005. 3

intermediaries are removed from the profit motive which typically motivates mediators in other sectors, particularly commercial media. In addition, as Podkalicka and Meese argued, these intermediaries are involved in a circular, rather than linear, process of cultural production where value is created through both primary and secondary, social markets.6 Through its secondary, social market PBS has contributed to re-valuing under-represented music styles: from the outsider connotations of alternative music prevalent in the 1980s, to the celebration of PBS and Melbourne’s diverse music scene in the 2010s. I identify seven volunteer, subcultural intermediary roles at PBS over the past 40 years: station managers, program managers, Board members, programming committee members, category coordinators, program planning group members and announcers. I also identify an eighth cultural intermediary: PBS the organisation. Documenting how these volunteer, subcultural intermediaries made programming decisions extends our knowledge about their experience and role in cultural production.

Methodology

This research is a case study. It is about one community radio station, PBS, and it adds to a larger body of research about other community radio stations. However, I am one of few researchers who have set out to find how a community radio station made programming decisions. As Atton explained, community radio stations are typically studied for their “questions of media power, social relations, authority and expertise” rather than their broadcast output.7 Often the process of people participating in the production of content has seemed “remarkable enough for that content to be put in the shade”.8 I have brought PBS’ broadcast content into the sun, seeking to understand this content through its creation and its outcomes.

6 A. Podkalicka and J. Meese, ‘‘Twin Transformations’: The Salvation Army’s Charity Shops and the Recreating of Material and Social Value’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 15, no. 6, 2012. 7 C. Atton, ‘Introduction: Problems and Positions in Alternative and Community Media’ in C. Atton (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media, NY, Routledge, 2015, p. 8. 8 Atton, ‘Introduction: Problems and Positions’, p. 8. 4

I used three methods to capture qualitative and quantitative data to assess the station’s broadcast output over time. The first method was archival research. I visited PBS to access the station’s small and incomplete collection of archival material including station magazines, Board papers, strategy proposals and advertising material. My use of information from internal documents like Board papers was endorsed by PBS management. The second method I used was quantitative content analysis of 40 years of programming at PBS. I consulted original programming information published by the station and found programming data in station magazines, handouts and newspapers, and online. I have developed a tiered categorisation system to analyse the data based on the types of music broadcast. The 4-tier scheme used for classifying music/programs is explained at 2.2.3 Classifying music (pp. 72-83), including Tier 1 (pp. 76-81), Tier 2 (pp. 81-83), Tier 3 (p. 83) and Tier 4 (p. 83). My third and final method, which I undertook upon completion of the first two, was oral history interviews. I interviewed 20 people recruited on the basis of their subcultural intermediary role(s) and decade of involvement (see Chapter 2, Methodology). Towards the end of each interview, I showed the interviewee some of my programming data analysis, seeking to know if they considered what I had found to be accurate. Often this spurred further reflection and information about events they had otherwise forgotten.

Significance

There are a number of significant outcomes from this study. First, there is no other substantial history of PBS. PBS has long been acknowledged as a key contributor to Melbourne’s music scene; however, this contribution has not been systematically qualified or quantified. This study investigates PBS’ place within Melbourne’s music scene and community radio sector over the last 40 years. Second is the substantial emphasis of this thesis on programming. This is unusual in community radio because the production alone is usually considered

remarkable enough that few have ventured further to study the content produced.9 Programming at this radio station reveals how subcultures are maintained. It also shows how non-mainstream content is generated and sustained, and what happens when it is deemed no longer relevant. As PBS is an unplaylisted radio station, I have explored an alternative way of programming to that of the dominant playlisted method. Third, I have used quantitative analysis of programming, which is unusual for radio station history, not just community radio. My collation of PBS’ broadcast output, which accounts for every hour of the station’s broadcast history, is likely the most comprehensive database of program information for any Australian community radio station. Fourth, this quantitative analysis has enabled me to measure change in the ideas of ‘under-represented’ and ‘progressive’ music. I have done this by combining an understanding of global and local music trends with percentages of broadcast hours on PBS. Analysis of which program categories rose, which declined and when they were broadcast all provided clues as to the progressive nature of these musical styles and how PBS responded to them. Fifth, I have analysed what an unplaylisted radio station has done. An unplaylisted radio station asks individual program announcers to decide which music they play according to their own tastes, not through algorithms or by applying audience research, music sales rankings or other formal quantitative methods. Studying the unplaylisted method has become particularly significant, as the most common contemporary options for listening to music, with most commercial radio stations and music streaming services, use algorithms to determine broadcast output. Sixth, I have completed all of this analysis within the context of cultural intermediary theory. I have interpreted Board members, station managers, programming committee members, category coordinators, program planning group members, announcers and the organisation PBS itself as cultural intermediaries. Documentation and analysis of these intermediaries and their programming decisions

9 Atton, ‘Introduction: Problems and Positions’. 6

have added another account to the scholarship of how cultural intermediaries operated within a specific cultural organisation. Seventh and finally, I have especially focused on a potentially distinctive form of cultural intermediary: the volunteer, subcultural intermediary. PBS volunteers have been highly involved in making or influencing programming decisions for the last 40 years. These decisions were made within the context of subcultures and what it has meant to broadcast progressive music. I have found that programming decisions were made by these intermediaries within decentralised or centralised structures. Decentralised decision-making structures prioritised the democratic values of the station, but resulted in less change to broadcast output. Centralised structures resulted in more change to broadcast output, but these decisions were made by fewer people. Documenting these volunteer’s programming decisions, and the consequences of these decisions, has revealed how this subtype of cultural intermediary have behaved in their position between production and consumption.

Chapter Outline

This thesis is divided into eight chapters. In chapter 1 Literature Review, my discussion draws upon modern definitions of cultural intermediaries and incorporates the notion of subcultures to explain differences in PBS intermediaries. I discuss community media literature, its definitions, existing research about the Australian sector and the study of broadcast content. In chapter 2 Methodology, I explain the case study and mixed methods used to investigate PBS’ programming history. Two of my three research methods, archival analysis and oral history interviews, are well established methods for historical research. This chapter explains my programming data collection method and the novel tiered system I created for analysing programming data. Chapters 3 to 7 account for PBS’ five decades of operation. I have ordered the chapters chronologically because of the historical nature of this thesis, to break up a large amount of data into more manageable periods and identify themes in each chapter. Each of these chapters introduces the decade in the first section, with an

overview of internal and external events which affected the station’s operation. Then, in the second section of each chapter, I document programming decision-making structures with subsections about subcultural intermediaries and/or programming decisions. In the third section, I use programming data to describe the station’s broadcast output during the decade, including data about specific programs and their announcers. In chapter 3, 1970s, I focus on how and why community media in Australia began, documenting the impact of the new Labor government in 1972 through to the first official licence hearing in 1978. Within this environment, I describe how PBS’ founders came together and how the station gained one of three community radio station licences offered at the hearing. This chapter focuses on the alternative that these community radio stations were designed to create and how PBS defined itself as progressive through its cooperative structure and broadcasting of progressive music. I explore the station’s first decade of official broadcasting, the 1980s, in chapter 4 and explain how and where this community radio station found and built its community. I document a series of programming processes, adapted to the needs of a growing station, and argue these changes contributed to the station’s unpredictable broadcast output. I describe how, at the end of the decade, the station’s programming decision-makers were prompted to undertake a review of their broadcast output in order to define progressive music. My analysis suggests this review allowed PBS to renegotiate its position within Melbourne’s subcultural music scene through its broadcast output. I discuss a lack of diversity among announcers, specifically women and Indigenous Australians, noting the consistency of these issues with representation of minorities in the Australian media. In chapter 5, 1990s, the community media sector as a whole experienced changes to its operations through the implementation of the Broadcasting Services Act. These changes occurred when alternative music became popular, commercial music festivals came to Australia, and electronic and hip hop music was booming in underground music venues and on community radio stations. I explain how the Act, along with changes in global music trends, threatened PBS’ alternative values while

also causing a level of commercialisation and professionalisation which attracted more listeners and improved the quality of broadcast output. In chapter 6, 2000s, I outline the different experiences of those involved in comprehensive and strategic changes to programming that were implemented by the program manager in 2005. I use qualitative programming data to assess the impact on broadcast output. I explain the Board’s reviews of programming processes in the aftermath of these changes, which sought to strengthen the station’s democratic, cooperative ideals. In chapter 7, 2010s, I discuss the increasing recognition of PBS’ contributions to Melbourne’s music scene and community broadcast sector within a context of technological and social change. Technology increased the ways listeners could access the station, via digital radio and internet platforms. It also challenged the original reason for the community sector in Australia: now anyone can start a radio station online, and digital stations have significantly increased music listening options, providing almost unlimited opportunities for access and participation. However, these new platforms had little effect on programming at PBS, with programming data showing the most stable decade to date. Similarly, a lack of progress significantly increasing the number of women announcers or those from diverse backgrounds suggests more proactive measures need to be taken to increase on-air diversity. I discuss the effect of the station’s position as a leading subcultural intermediary on programming practices and ask: what effect did stability have on being progressive? In chapter 8, Conclusion, I bring together the five decades of PBS’ operation to identify the station’s ‘sound’ through its broadcast output. I recap its longest running programs and announcers, and note changes and consistencies in the station’s eleven music categories. The station’s sound is also a result of its programming decisions. I argue there has been a longstanding tension between centralised and decentralised programming decision-making and describe the impact of this tension on broadcast output. Finally, this research suggests PBS’ progressive ethos has largely been confined to music programs. Despite efforts to increase numbers, there has been little change in the percentage of female announcers. If another major programming review is to occur, it should address the who of PBS’ broadcast output, as well as the

what and when. Implications of the findings for community media and cultural intermediary studies are also explained.

1. Literature Review 1.1 Introduction

This literature review is divided into three parts. I draw from a diverse array of scholarly work to write this history, tracing the development of theories and practices before and during the timeframe of this thesis. First, I explore PBS’ broadcast output and the people responsible for making programming decisions, through the theoretical framework of volunteer, subcultural intermediaries. In subsection 1.2.1, I begin with an explanation of cultural intermediary theory and how it has been updated to address contemporary conditions. In subsection 1.2.2, I extend the notion of cultural intermediaries with subcultural theory to explain why PBS can be seen as a subcultural organisation. With this organisation that exists to operate as an alternative to the mainstream, I explore how these two terms have been defined and used, particularly in relation to music. In subsection 1.2.3, I explain the importance of considering PBS’ subcultural intermediaries in their not-for-profit context. I identify and explain the eight volunteer, subcultural intermediaries that have been present at PBS over the last 40 years. The third section of this literature review defines relevant terms used to describe media within the third sector. From this discussion, I conclude that community media is the most relevant term to describe PBS because of the context within which it operates. I narrow my focus in subsection 1.3.1 to identify existing literature about Australia’s community media sector. I summarise research into the sector having broadly undergone three stages as the sector has evolved. Tracing this evolution parallels PBS’ own experience, from establishment to development and finally to studies of practice and evaluation. The research presented here sits within the third stage. In 1.3.2 I find that, although PBS’ contribution to Melbourne’s music scenes has long been acknowledged, this has most often been in combination with Melbourne’s other community radio stations. In the fourth subsection I explore the evolution of two programming methods: playlisted music programming and unplaylisted music programming. Both types indicate where cultural intermediaries are placed within the radio station and

knowing the differences between these methods provides insight into the effect on listeners, musicians and the wider community. Finally, in 1.4.3, I discuss research that has analysed broadcast output. These studies demonstrate the validity of this research method, its strengths and weaknesses, and identify internal and external factors that motivated changes to programming and/or content.

1.2 Theoretical Framework

1.2.1 Cultural capital and cultural intermediaries

Cultural intermediary theory was conceptualised by Pierre Bourdieu following a survey he conducted for the French government in the 1960s about taste, class and cultural consumption in their changing, class-based society.1 In post–Second World War France, lower classes were breaking into areas previously considered only available to the bourgeoisie, creating a new class of petit-bourgeoisie. Bourdieu investigated whether these changes to class structures and methods of cultural consumption were challenging, or reinforcing, established notions of high and low taste. For Bourdieu, “art and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or not, to fulfil a social function of legitimating social difference”.2 Members of the petit-bourgeoisie occupying new positions within the cultural workforce were identified as new cultural intermediaries, who could be found in: All the occupations involving presentation and representation (sales, marketing, advertising, public relations, fashion, decoration and so forth) and in all the institutions providing symbolic goods and services … (radio and TV producers and presenters).3

In other words, they were located between the production and consumption of cultural goods. These new cultural intermediaries legitimised and bestowed value on a cultural good by indicating their preference for it or their taste in it. Through their

1 Bourdieu. 2 Bourdieu, p. xxx. 3 Bourdieu, p. 359. 12

selections of cultural products, cultural intermediaries influenced the value of cultural goods, making the “not-yet-legitimate” more desirable.4 Aspects of Bourdieu’s cultural intermediary theory have been criticised for misrepresenting both past events and modern contexts. McFall argued Bourdieu’s cultural intermediaries were in fact not ‘new’, identifying them as part of the advertising industry since the early 1900s.5 For Nixon and du Gay, it is important to separate the apparent increase in the number of cultural intermediaries (which may not have been as large as Bourdieu thought) with the growth in their “salience and influence” to understand what Bourdieu meant by ‘new’ cultural intermediaries.6 In line with these arguments, I do not use the term ‘new’ when referring to cultural intermediaries. In contemporary contexts, Bourdieu’s definition of cultural intermediaries becomes very broad. Nixon and du Gay labelled his definition an “inclusive, if not quite catchall, category”, particularly now when, with considerable growth in Bourdieu’s cultural intermediary occupations, almost anyone could be classified a cultural intermediary.7 Smith Maguire and Matthews offered a more focused way to identify cultural intermediaries dependent upon their professional status, where consideration of “expert orientation and market context” is required.8 This means a cultural intermediary can only be considered such if they can claim “professional expertise in taste and value” within their field.9 Studying how cultural intermediaries work on a small scale can help to explain the activities of those operating in large-scale, mass production as well.10 Smith Maguire and Matthews argued for the study of cultural intermediaries in the media, suggesting that in this field understanding how their practices and processes form

4 Bourdieu, p. 324. 5 L. McFall, ‘What About the Old Cultural Intermediaries? An Historical Review of Advertising Producers’, Cultural Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, 2002. 6 S. Nixon and P. du Gay, ‘Who Needs Cultural Intermediaries?’, Cultural Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, 2002, p. 497. 7 Nixon and du Gay, p. 496. 8 J. Smith Maguire and J. Matthews, ‘Introduction: Thinking with Cultural Intermediaries’ in J. Smith Maguire and J. Matthews (eds.), The Cultural Intermediaries Reader, London, SAGE, 2014, p. 2. 9 J. Smith Maguire and J. Matthews, ‘Are We All Cultural Intermediaries Now? An Introduction to Cultural Intermediaries in Context’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 15, no. 5, 2012, p. 552. 10 D. Hesmondhalgh, ‘Bourdieu, the Media and Cultural Production’, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 28, no. 2. 13

and add value to cultural goods is “underdeveloped”.11 In his overview of cultural intermediaries in popular music, Fairchild called for more research about those cultural intermediaries who do not operate in the mainstream because such research had rarely been done.12 Similar to Atton’s argument for the study of community media, Fairchild argued such study would also “give a better understanding of mainstream intermediation”.13 This research responds to these calls. Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of capital is also useful to this thesis because capital provides a concept through which the social and cultural worlds are given value. Capital is a person’s accumulated prestige, cultivated through knowledge, and can take various forms such as cultural, educational and economic capital. Capital works through influence. The higher a person’s perceived social, economic and/or cultural capital, the more power they have to influence others. A person’s capital typically corresponds with the class from which they came. That is, the higher the class, the more money they have and the better the school they went to, the greater the educational capital they possess. Influence is used to imbue a cultural product with desirability, therefore making it of value and worth consuming. In his study of workers at a bookstore in Britain, Wright found the perceived cultural authority of some staff was something to take advantage of, as it attracted customers.14 Moreover, these staff, who could otherwise gain much better remunerated employment, were happy to forego substantial financial reward (economic capital) for the boost to their symbolic and cultural capital that working in a bookshop could provide.15 Possessing cultural capital was valuable to the store owner, the staff and the consumers. Negus’ work on cultural intermediaries in the recording industry contributes to my identification of cultural intermediaries at PBS. For Negus, the cultural intermediary works “in-between creative artists and consumers”. He emphasised

11 J. Smith Maguire and J. Matthews, ‘Cultural Intermediaries and the Media’, Sociology Compass, vol. 4, no. 7, 2010, p. 405 and p. 414. 12 C. Fairchild, ‘Popular Music’, in Smith Maguire and Matthews (eds), The Cultural Intermediaries Reader, p. 133. 13 Fairchild, ‘Popular Music’, p. 133. 14 D. Wright, ‘Mediating Production and Consumption: Cultural Capital and “Cultural Workers”’, The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 56, no. 1, 2005, p. 119. 15 D. Wright, p. 116. 14

conceiving of workers as “continually engaged in forming a point of connection or articulation between production and consumption”.16 Moreover, Negus used mediation within the context of the popular music record industry, arguing the ‘product’ (music) is part of a much broader system of influences: I am using the idea of mediation to stress that human experiences are grounded in cultural activities which are understood and given meaning through particular languages and symbol systems. These are, in turn, constituted within particular social circumstances and subject to different types of political regulation.17

Negus acknowledged Bourdieu’s work does not extend to analysis of artistic and literary production, emphasising it has been empirical research such as his own about the UK music industry which has led to the development of a more modern definition of cultural intermediaries.18 I have identified PBS’ programming decision-makers not only as cultural intermediaries, in their role between production and consumption, but more specifically as subcultural intermediaries. I use this definition because of the subcultural environment within which PBS operates and its deliberate attempts to offer an alternative to the mainstream, or that which is widely popular. These terms are explored in the next section.

1.2.2 Subcultural capital and subcultural intermediaries

I define PBS’ programming decision-makers as subcultural intermediaries because they operate within a subcultural organisation, using their expertise to make programming decisions that deem some cultural products to be especially valuable. These products – particular musical genres, subgenres, artists and tracks – are what these intermediaries choose to broadcast to their listeners.

16 K. Negus, ‘The Work of Cultural Intermediaries and the Enduring Distance Between Production and Consumption’, Cultural Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, 2002, p. 503. 17 K. Negus, Popular Music in Theory, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1996, p. 3. 18 Negus, ‘The Work of Cultural Intermediaries’, p. 503. 15

Understanding how subcultures work requires a short exploration of subcultural theory’s three distinct stages of conceptualisation since its post–Second World War inception. Of most relevance to this research are the second and third stages, when subcultural theory had moved beyond the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) focus on British youth subcultures. In the first phase of subcultural theory’s conceptualisation during the 1970s, Hebdidge, as part of CCCS, wrote that youth subcultures were a result of class divides, where subordinate-class youth formed groups to challenge the dominant system of values. Subcultures were a form of resistance by the subordinate to those in power. This was represented through style. Clothing, mannerisms and other outward expressions of difference were subcultural youth’s deliberate effort to distinguish themselves from the mainstream.19 Punk music became a primary musical style associated with this trend. In the 1980s and 1990s, the second wave of subcultural conceptualisation, the study of music and subcultures increased. These have often been studied together because of their common origins, or homology. Through their interdependence, music and subcultures are seen to have a “symbolic fit”.20 For Stahl, this ‘fit’ can be expressed through behavioural consistency among members of that subculture, for example their “attachment to various material practices (record buying, clothes wearing, scooter buying)”.21 Shuker observed subcultural musical tastes were more influenced by ‘tribes’ and a ‘scene’ than by the “dichotomizing of ‘mainstream’ and ‘alternative’ music or subcultural associations”.22 Moreover, these ‘tribes’ and ‘scenes’ relied on people within organisations. Thornton’s influential study of the British rave dance music scene in the late 1980s and early 1990s also researched this relationship. Her rationale for the study of music and subcultures identified shared values of taste, authenticity and alternatives: Music is perceived as authentic when it rings true or feels real, when it has credibility and comes across as genuine. In an age of endless representations and global mediation, the experience of musical authenticity is perceived as a cure both for alienation (because it offers feelings of community) and dissimulation (because it

19 Hebdidge. 20 G. Stahl, ‘Still “Winning Space?”: Updating Subcultural Theory’, Invisible Culture, vol. 2, 1999. 21 Stahl. 22 R. Shuker, Understanding Popular Music Culture, Florence, Taylor and Francis, 2012, p. 178. 16

extends a sense of the really ‘real’). As such, it is valued as a balm for media fatigue and as an antidote to commercial hype [emphasis in original].23

Williams argued that post-subculturalists (like Thornton) define subcultures by “consumption rather than resistance” [emphasis in original].24 Thornton suggested commercially oriented club owners were responsible for constructing and cultivating audiences (and creating subcultures) through their methods of promoting club events.25 She argued that subcultures are created through and by organisational structures deliberately segregating anyone who does not conform.26 Thornton’s study contributed two more enduring themes to subcultural theory: authenticity and belonging. The research found that people were drawn to the British rave scene because of shared taste: “club cultures are taste cultures” [emphasis in original].27 Subcultures gather and stick together through an agreement about what is authentic and legitimate.28 Thornton explained how this occurs: The stereotype of the poseur is crucial to insiders’ defense of subcultural capital. When media and commercial culture threaten the subcultural capital of insiders by introducing their style and music to the rest of society, the ability to distinguish between originators and imitators serves to validate one’s claims to autonomy and authenticity.29

Cultural capital needs to appear “innate or mysteriously acquired”,30 a form of knowledge possessed without being learned.31 Subcultural capital too must be seen to have been acquired not “through the mainstream media or other outlets of the culture industry”.32 Unlike cultural capital, because subcultural capital defines itself as not able to be learnt in school, it can cross class backgrounds. 33 And, by definition,

23 S. Thornton, Club Cultures, Cambridge, UK, Polity Press, 1995, p. 26. 24 J. Williams, Subcultural Theory: Traditions and Concepts, Cambridge, UK, Polity Press, 2011, p. 98. 25 Thornton, p. 24. 26 Thornton, p. 162. 27 Thornton, p. 3. 28 Thornton, p. 3. 29 Moore, p. 245. 30 Moore, p. 233. 31 Bourdieu, p. 330. 32 Thornton, p. 11–12. 33 Thornton, p. 13. 17

subcultural capital can only belong to a minority because of its scarceness.34 For a person to be high in subcultural capital, they need to be considered legitimate, a credible authority or expert in their field. Being alternative to the mainstream is still an integral element of subcultural theory. To understand what is mainstream, we must also understand the alternative that subcultures offer. In her early 1990s study of subcultural identity in music cultures, Kruse defined alternative in the context of the products or services musicians, record stores, radio stations and independent labels offered; these were all alternative because they were unique.35 For Kruse, alternative status is inextricably linked with taste where shared taste in, and knowledge of, musical influences and current bands form subcultural identity and allow a person to identify themselves as belonging with others in their subculture. Hesmondhalgh agreed, arguing these areas of restricted production could also be considered subcultures because of their distance from mainstream culture.36 PBS, which stands for Progressive Broadcasting Service, expressed its subcultural status with the use of the term progressive. In the 1970s, when PBS chose its call sign, progressive had evolved to connote innovation, often in the face of the establishment.37 More recently, progressive has been adopted within politics to describe left-leaning policies which advocate for change or reform in society.38 As discussed in chapters 3 to 7, PBS’ definition of progressive varies for individuals involved with the station and over time. A consistent theme in PBS’ case is the use of progressive almost as an interchangeable term for alternative, not shying away from any left-leaning connotations. Another way to understand the formation of subcultures is through exploring the ways they are disbanded, when authenticity, independence and small scale are lost because the trend, musical style or whatever else which made up the subculture ‘goes mainstream’. Authenticity can be lost through commercial co-option. Going

34 Moore, p. 233. 35 H. Kruse, ‘Subcultural Identity in Alternative Music Culture’, Popular Music, vol. 12, no. 1, 1993, p. 35. 36 Hesmondhalgh, ‘Bourdieu, the Media’, p. 217. 37 N. Yang, ‘Then and Now: What Does it Mean to be Progressive?’, MPR News, 13 February 2016, www.mprnews.org/story/2016/02/12/what-does-progressive-mean, (accessed 5 August 2019). 38 Yang. 18

mainstream happens usually because advertisers try to take advantage of something deemed ‘hip’ or underground to sell products; authenticity in “youthful expressions of alienation and rebellion can be valuable commodities” to the culture industry.39 A significant example of this is the co-option of alternative music in the 1990s. As Moore explained, alternative music was co-opted to sell commodities (like beer) rather than the music itself: Ironically, ‘alternative’ was used as a buzz-word to try to convince young people they were being sold something other than hype and packaged goods.40

Moore found that in this process of being stripped of its authenticity, the subculture eventually becomes unprofitable.41 Those who identified with it are alienated “because they no longer own or control the culture they have produced and their expressions of rebellion are now consumed by the ‘mainstream’ audience they define themselves against.”42 In other words, a musical style can be considered alternative as long as it is controlled by its musical community and members of that community are known to each other on a more personal level than mass media consumers. Post-1990s conceptualisations of subcultural theory are less concerned with the position of subcultures in opposition to the mainstream, rather focusing on the interactions which occur within subcultural scenes. Wouters, for example, defined subcultures as cultural practices that simply “deviate from mainstream culture.”43 Social interactions created by subcultural organisations were the topic of Parker et al.’s 2018 study. Megabooth, a subcultural intermediary because of its interaction with independent, small-scale and niche gamers,44 acts as a gatekeeper and tastemaker by selecting the independent gamers who feature on its stall at large gaming conventions attended by potential customers (gamers) and distributors. But for Parker et al.,

39 Moore, p. 231. 40 Moore, p. 239. 41 Moore, p. 250. 42 Moore, p. 233. 43 S. Wouters, ‘The Influence of Happenings on the Performative Display of Subcultures: Insights into the Beat, Mod, Provo and Hipster Movements’ in Dhoest, et al. (eds), The Borders of Subculture: Resistance and the Mainstream, London, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015, p. 55. 44 F. Parker and J. Whitson, ‘Megabooth: The Cultural Intermediation of Indie Games’, New Media & Society, vol. 20, no. 5, 2018. 19

Megabooth’s “behind the scenes logistical and brokerage activities” are at least as important because they mediate expectations, emotions, identity and community.45 In other words, studying how these selections are made, the criteria they are based on and how they affect game-makers may provide the most valuable insights into the ways subcultures operate. Moreover, studying such mediations can contribute to an understanding of how audience is constructed and captured.46 Subcultural theory has also progressed beyond the study of youth. Woo’s study of the nerd-gaming subculture included many participants who, while possibly young when they joined the scene, had since aged but remained part of the subculture.47 Woo argued for a simpler understanding of subcultures, refocusing on the reason subcultures exist: to enable social interactions between those who share similar tastes in what their subculture represents, be that music, fashion or forms of entertainment.48 As this last wave of research has shown, subcultural theory research is exploring decision-making processes within subcultural organisations. These organisations are consistently reviewing their position as part of a subculture to avoid becoming too popular, like alternative music’s co-option in the 1990s, or to avoid representing things that are represented by mainstream interests. To be successful, organisations must remain in this subcultural arena, trading their expertise for capital. This thesis investigates how programming decisions were made by the various subcultural intermediaries at PBS to ensure the station remained a subcultural organisation. It shows how focusing on this role, as a champion of the alternative primarily through its broadcast output, enabled the station to increase its subcultural capital and secure its financial viability. One of the reasons PBS was able to do this was because the majority of its subcultural intermediaries were volunteers, a category of intermediary which I explain in the next section.

45 Parker and Whitson, p. 1968. 46 Parker and Whitson, p. 1968. 47 B. Woo, ‘Alpha Nerds: Cultural Intermediaries in a Subcultural Scene’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 15, no. 5, 2012. 48 Woo. 20

1.2.3 Volunteer, subcultural intermediaries at PBS

Volunteers, people who willingly give up their time to be involved at PBS, are integral to the station’s operation. Community radio stations rely on volunteers because of their legislated position as being not-for-profit organisations for community use.49 The 2001 licence hearing for four new community broadcasters in Melbourne stated: “applicants provide for the participation of their communities in the operation and programming of the proposed services”.50 This thesis explores an emerging category of subcultural intermediary; the volunteer, subcultural intermediary. This type of intermediary operates without any of the direct economic motives that influence paid cultural intermediaries. They are part of a circular process of consumption, rather than linear. If cultural intermediaries make it “possible to scrutinize the links between economic and cultural practices within the sphere of commercial”51 then the roles played by volunteer intermediaries in non-commercial cultural organisations require special attention. Podkalicka and Meese’s research on cultural intermediaries in the not-for- profit Salvation Army found that volunteers working in opportunity shops, where donated goods are sold to fund the organisation’s work, mediate “broader sociocultural values, not just those particular to their commercial function”.52 This broader social aspect is a “secondary market where value-creation activity can occur”,53 disrupting the previously conceptualised linear process of production and consumption for the cultural intermediary. Incorporating the social aspect into understanding cultural intermediaries at community organisations led the authors to suggest revisioning cultural intermediaries as part of a circular process of consumption, rather than a connection point in a linear process. At PBS, this same value creation is evident in two areas. First, value-creation occurs at the traditional, primary “nexus of production and consumption” in the selection of programs,

49 Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), s. 15, (a),(b) 50 Australian Broadcasting Authority, Allocation of Four Community Radio Broadcasting Licences for Melbourne, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001, p. 19. 51 Nixon and du Gay, p. 498. 52 Podkalicka and Meese, p. 730. 53 Podkalicka and Meese, p. 732. 21

announcers and music broadcast.54 In the secondary market, social and cultural aspects of the station contribute to value-creation. For example, just as Salvos Stores have contributed to the re-valuing of second hand goods, at PBS broadcast of under- represented styles has contributed to re-value under-represented music as part of Melbourne’s music scene. With this theory of a volunteer, subcultural intermediary in mind, I turn to defining the roles present at PBS over the past 40 years. This thesis identifies eight subcultural intermediaries; PBS (the station), station manager, program manager, Board members, programming committee members, category coordinators, program planning group members and announcers. In the following paragraphs, I use existing literature to identify and understand PBS’ subcultural intermediaries and their responsibilities. First, PBS the organisation is a subcultural intermediary. Regarding a radio station as a cultural intermediary is not new. Thornton called radio stations “essential mediators amongst the participants in subcultures”.55 For example, BBC Radio 1 was found to have helped shape public taste through the music it broadcast.56 In the 1990s, to counter discussions about its ability to provide an alternative to the music heard on commercial stations, Radio 1 changed its programming to introduce new music to listeners in daytime programs which had larger audiences (it had previously limited such music to evenings). Through its broadcast of musical styles like garage rock and Britpop, previously alternative bands like Oasis and Blur became mainstream; Radio 1 had done what Smith Maguire and Mathews described as “actively engaged in constructing … new canons of good taste”.57 British commercial radio “tentatively” followed, resulting in greater musical choice and a “reconstruct[ion] of the British musical identity.58 Percival supports this position, arguing for the influence of radio stations like Radio 1 on popular culture. For

54 Podkalicka and Meese, p. 732. 55 Thornton p. 151. 56 S. Frith, The Sociology of Rock, London, Constable and Company Ltd, 1978, p. 19; D. Hendy, ‘Pop Music Radio in the Public Service: BBC Radio 1 and New Music in the 1990s’, Music, Culture & Society, vol. 22, no. 6, 2000, p. 755. 57 Smith Maguire and Matthews, ‘Are We All Cultural Intermediaries Now?’, p. 559. 58 Hendy, p. 760. 22

Percival, radio stations hold the dominant position in their relationship with record labels, existing as a “mediator, as a cultural product and as a cultural producer”.59 Molloy and Larner’s recognition of the many people involved with the production and consumption of culture and cultural goods60 informs my definition of six of the seven remaining subcultural intermediaries in this study: the station manager, program manager, Board members, programming committee members, program planning group and category coordinators. With so many roles being classified as cultural intermediaries, this can mean “there is no clear boundary”61 and almost anyone can be considered a cultural intermediary. But in the music industry, a narrow focus on defining a cultural intermediary excludes other occupations “crucial” to cultural production.62 For Negus, senior managers and other corporate types, “the suits,” are also worthy of consideration because people in these roles also offer their expertise and, moreover, stability in otherwise high-turnover industries.63 The expertise and stability that these cultural intermediaries offer result in the ‘nitty- gritty’ of running a viable business.64 Negus’ empirical research also examined record- industry intermediaries, who closely resemble intermediaries at PBS. As Negus explains, the three most telling characteristics of these intermediaries are: ) Work and leisure/production and consumption - attending concerts and clubs and listening to, viewing and assessing a wide range of music products at 'home' and during their 'leisure' hours while simultaneously producing them at 'work' ) Personal taste and professional judgement - many people have been recruited by the music industry because of their taste in and collections of music; the personal preferences of music industry workers inform the amount of time, energy and commitment devoted to particular acts and can be an important influence on who gets a recording contract ) Artist, administrator and audience - these distinctions are very clear cut in the filter-flow model and production of culture perspective, yet are constantly blurred in the day-to-day worlds of the music business. They can be observed in the movement of key taste makers and consumers (such as DJs and fanzine writers) into the industry and the way that singers,

59 J. M. Percival, ‘Music Radio and the Record Industry: Songs, Sounds, and Power’, Popular Music and Society, vol. 34, no. 4, 2011, p. 470. 60 M. Molloy and W. Larner, ‘Who Needs Cultural Intermediaries Indeed? Gendered Networks in the Designer Fashion Industry’, Journal of Cultural Economy, vol. 3, no. 3, 2010. 61 Molloy and Larner, p. 371. 62 Negus, ‘The Work of Cultural Intermediaries’, p. 508. 63 Negus, ‘The Work of Cultural Intermediaries’, pp. 505–506. 64 Negus, ‘The Work of Cultural Intermediaries’, p. 506. 23

musicians, disc jockeys and managers are often working simultaneously as employees of recording companies.65

The eighth and final subcultural intermediary at PBS, and the role listeners are most exposed and connected to, is the radio program announcer. Crisell argued that the announcer is important because the primary code of radio is linguistic: “words are required to contextualize all the other codes [such as music]”.66 The announcer’s words act to invest the music they play with meaning. Because voice is such a powerful expression of personality, announcers “can impose a unifying and congenial presence on the most miscellaneous of magazine or record programmes".67 In his research on the role of radio announcers playing unsigned artists on the radio, Musgrave argued announcers occupy “a deeply symbolic role giving artists credible eminence or cultural capital”.68 Their role enables not only distribution of creative works, but also the ability to distinguish the ones worth hearing within a hyper-competitive market.69 For Janssen and Verboord, the DJ can be considered a kind of critic, an expert in their field, playing “a crucial role in the establishment and survival of artistic reputations”.70 Attention from a cultural intermediary signals worthiness; the band is worth listening to.71 Commercial stations in Australia during the 1950 and 1960s used to launch new bands thanks to cultural intermediary announcers, people who were highly influential in determining an artist’s career path. In Nimmervoll’s comparison of the rock music scene in Melbourne and Sydney during these decades, commercial radio announcer Stan Rofe is described as one of the most influential announcers.72 Nimmervoll credited Rofe’s support of Melbourne musicians, and his temporary ban on Sydney artists on the radio, as the reason for Melbourne stealing “Sydney’s crown as the

65 Negus, Popular Music in Theory, p. 63. 66 A. Crisell, Understanding Radio, London, Methven, 1986, p. 57. 67 Crisell, p. 46. 68 G. Musgrave, ‘Collaborating to Compete: The Role of Cultural Intermediaries in Hypercompetition’, International Journal of Music Business Research, 2017, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 43. 69 Musgrave, p. 44. 70 S. Janssen and M. Verboord, ‘Cultural Mediators and Gatekeepers’ in J.D. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences, 2nd edn, Oxford, Elsevier, 2015. 71 Musgrave, p. 57. 72 E. Nimmervoll, ‘A Tale of Two Cities’, in M. Young and J. Jenkins (eds.), Rock Reader: Underneath the Riffs, Melbourne, VIC, Wilkinson Publishing, 2008, p. 9. 24

‘capital’ of Australian music” by the mid-1960s.73 Announcers like Rofe became less common at commercial stations as programming moved away from record sales towards audience research to determine what to broadcast.74 Beginning as a theory to explain the relevance and importance of the new petit-bourgeoise working in creative fields in France after the Second World War, in this review I have followed one strand of cultural intermediary theory to the point of volunteer, subcultural intermediaries. Consistent in the literature is the value of taste and the desirability their selections create. For subcultural intermediaries, belonging and authenticity are most important to determining whether their selections should be trusted, reflected in their ability to gather just enough of the right people. In the most recent iteration of the theory, I discussed volunteer intermediaries as part of a circular process of consumption, rather than linear. Finally, I brought together literature about who can be considered a cultural intermediary to identify those at PBS. In the next section, I explain the development of community media and terms used to describe them, the state of the sector in Australia and the effect of community radio stations on local music scenes.

1.3 Community media

Community media licences in Australia are allocated to ensure a diverse range of ideas, opinions and experiences on the airwaves. The diverse interests community broadcasters are licensed to represent are realised through both the participants involved in the media-making process and the listeners they attract. The ideal of public access and participation in the media-making process is not new, but was not realised in state-sanctioned forms until the 1960s. In the 1930s Brecht wrote about the ideal of two-way communication that radio, a new technology then, could provide. He signalled its potential to enable citizens to participate in the media-making process:

73 Nimmervoll, p. 10. 74 G. Turner, ‘Who Killed the Radio Star? The Death of Teen Radio in Australia’ in T. Bennett et al. (eds.), Rock and Popular Music: Politics, Policies, Institutions, London, Routledge, 1993. 25

radio is one-sided when it should be two-. It is purely an apparatus for distribution, for mere sharing out. So here is a positive suggestion: change this apparatus over from distribution to communication … On this business radio should step out of the supply business and organize its listeners as suppliers.75

Writing in the 1970s, Enzensberger also advocated for citizen access and participation, comparing the dominant and most common forms of media ownership with the opportunities that a decentralised, citizen-led media could create.76 For Enzensberger, all media – writing, filming, or broadcasting – is manipulated by those who create it; because such manipulation is unavoidable, everyone should be able to become a “manipulator”.77 Positive outcomes of such empowerment would include emancipation of the media, causing greater political awareness, a mobilisation of the masses and collective ownership and production of decentralised media content.78 This emancipation of the media about which Brecht and Enzensberger theorised was a way for the citizen to access and participate in the media-making process. Without such participation, a democratic and just society would be severely challenged by a media run for commercial gain or government interests. In Australia, momentum for community access to and participation in broadcasting had been growing since the 1960s. Bipartisan support came from governments in the 1960s and 1970s in response to growing advocacy by radio groups who wanted a new, citizen-led broadcast sector. Australia’s community media sector has existed since the 1970s and operates as the ‘third sector’ to commercial and government broadcasters. Since 5UV in Adelaide, South Australia was licenced as the first community radio station in 1972, Australia’s community media sector has grown to the point where the number of community licences (362) exceeds that of

75 B. Brecht, ‘The Radio as an Apparatus of Communication’, 1932 in J. Willett (ed. and trans.), Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, London, Eyre Methuen, 1964, p. 52. 55 H.M. Enzensberger, ‘Constituents of a Theory of the Media’ in H.M. Enzensberger, The Consciousness Industry: On Literature, Politics and the Media, trans. Stuart Hood, NY, Seabury Press, 1974, p. 104. 77 Enzensberger, p. 104. 78 Enzensberger, p. 113. 26

commercial licences (261).79 More information about each decade of evolution of Australia’s community media sector is provided at the starts of chapters 3 to 7. The official call sign for every radio station in Australia begins with a number which corresponds to the state from which they broadcast; for example, all Victorian radio stations begin with 3. I have chosen to refer to PBS without the 3 because the station has not referred to itself in this way since the 1990s. The Australian community media landscape is also extremely varied80 with stations holding licences requiring them to broadcast based on geographical area or special interest. Foxwell’s overview in 2012 of Melbourne’s 23 community radio broadcasters characterised the city’s radio spectrum as “a diverse and eclectic mix of cultures, music, politics, ideas, interests and places.”81 The most recent national community radio survey conducted in 2019 shows the sector also attracts a substantial proportion of radio audiences; of the 84% of Melbournians aged over 15 who listen to the radio each week, 30% tune into community radio stations (almost 5.9 million people).82 In Melbourne, PBS is located alongside many community stations, some broadcasting citywide, others serving sub-metro areas. A list of Melbourne’s community radio stations with full broadcast licences as of May 2019 is included in Appendix A. We have three types of broadcasters in Australia: government, commercial and community. Until 1992, the third broadcasting sector was known as the public sector. This was confusing given the national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), was also known as the public broadcaster (primarily because it was funded by the public, for the public). Public was originally used to suggest it was people, not government or commercial stations, who were in control of this new media.83 The government renamed this sector “community” in 1992 “to highlight the

79 Australian Communications Media Authority, Register of Radiocommunications Licences [website], https://web.acma.gov.au/rrl/browse_licences.cat_listing (accessed 11 November 2019). 80 E. Rennie, Community Media: A Global Introduction, Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006, pp. 127–128. 81 K. Foxwell, ‘Community Radio in an Australian City: The Melbourne Experience’, The Radio Journal – International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, vol. 10, no. 2, 2012, p. 171. 82 McNair Yellow Squares, ‘Community Radio National Listener Survey’, Community Broadcasting Associtation of Australia, 2018, www.cbaa.org.au/sites/default/files/media/NLS%20Fact%20Sheet%20- %20Australia%20-%202019.pdf (accessed 8 August 2019). 83 T. Barr, Reflections of Reality: The Media in Australia, Adelaide, Rigby, 1977, p. 141. 27

emphasis on these types of services being community-based, that is, provided to meet the needs of a local community, or of a particular sector of the community”.84 In the 1970s and 1980s chapters, I refer to PBS as a public/community radio station to acknowledge the sector was initially positioned as part of the public sector, and to avoid confusion between government public and community public radio stations. I use the term community to describe the sector for two reasons. First, it is the term the Australian government has used to refer to Australia’s third sector since 1992. Second, community acknowledges the sector’s reliance on its community to operate; “public radio is based on volunteerism.”85 Volunteerism is a feature of associationism, otherwise known as the third sector or community sector. Scholars disagree about the most appropriate term to use to describe these media. For some, changing the term to community signified the “unifying factor in public radio” because “It is this notion of ‘community’ which links public stations across their great variety, and which is central to an understanding of music programming on public radio”.86 For others, community is too broad in its inclusion, concealing more than it reveals; community is “stronger in what [it] exclude[s]— mainstream media—than in what [it] signif[ies]”.87 As these media have been officially referred to as both ‘public’ and ‘community’ media in Australia, both of these terms appear in this thesis in comments from interviewees and articles written prior to 1992. The reader should keep in mind the different connotations ascribed by different writers. Restricted access to existing forms of expression is a unifying factor contributing to the development of community media around the world.88 These media include “radio, television, video, popular theatre, print and more recently, the internet”.89 Although established for similar reasons, these media are referred to using

84 Broadcasting Services Bill Explanatory Memorandum, Senate, 4 June 1992, 3599, (Bob Collins) 85 G. Swanton, ‘Public Broadcasting: A Critical Comment’, Social Alternatives, vol. 4, no. 4, 1985, p. 62. 86 J. Potts, ‘Music on Public Radio’, Media Information Australia, no. 64, 1992, p. 17. 87 J. Downing, Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements, CA, SAGE Publications, 2001, p. 40. 88 P. Thomas, ‘Alternative Communications: Problems and Prospects’, Media Asia, vol. 20, no. 2, 1993, pp. 63–65. 89 S. Forde, K. Foxwell and M. Meadows, Culture, Commitment, Community: The Australian Community Radio Sector, Brisbane, QLD, Griffith University, 2002, p. 9. 28

different terms, usually dependent on the political and social environment in which they operate and the kind of alternative they offer to dominant media structures. Community, alternative, radical, citizens’ and public are all terms used. In some way, each of these terms could be applied to PBS. However, the term I have used to refer to these media throughout this thesis, and to describe PBS, is community media. Community can be defined in many ways. Lewis and Booth stated a community can be understood in relation to a range of different dimensions: “geographically, by interest group, culture, language or ethnicity”.90 Rennie favoured the “more general”91 definition offered by the International Association for Media and Communication Research that defines community media as media which “originates, circulates and resonates from the sphere of civil society”.92 Both definitions emphasise the joining together of individuals with something in common to form communities outside of the mainstream media. Mainstream and alternative are terms I use throughout this thesis. There is a debate as to whether they should be considered juxtaposing. Alternative media concentrates on the alternative such media provides to mainstream content through its methods of creation, production and distribution. For Couldry and Curran, what the media organisation represents is most important; an alternative media must challenge “at least implicitly, actual concentrations of media power”.93 Hackett and Carroll take a similar view, emphasising the alternative these media offer "counteract[s] the democratic deficit by circulating counter information which helps build counterhegemonic definitions of reality and subaltern counterpublics”.94 Atton pointed out the content community media create is only one element of the “processes and relations that form around alternative media production”.95 Instead, Atton preferred to define alternative media “as much by their capacity to generate

90 P. Lewis and J. Booth, The Invisible Medium: Public, Commercial and Community Radio, London, Macmillan Education, 1989, p. 9. 91 Rennie, Community Media, p. 4. 92 International Association for Media and Communication Research, Community Communication and Alternative Media Section [website], https://iamcr.org/s-wg/section/cam (accessed 8 August 2019). 93 N. Couldry and J. Curran, The Paradox of Media Power, UK, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003, p. 7. 94 R. Hackett and W. Carroll, Remaking Media: The Struggle to Democratize Public Communication, NY, Routledge, 2006, p. 58. 95 Atton, p. 11. 29

non-standard, often infractory, methods of creation, production and distribution as … by their content".96 Disadvantages in using the term alternative alone lie in how it downplays notions of community cohesiveness and public action. Again, for Downing, just as with community, alternative is “almost oxymoronic” because at some point everything “is alternative to something else”.97 For Rodriguez, alternative is too restrictive because it creates “binary thinking: mainstream media and their alternative, that is, alternative media” which prevents us from seeing disrupted “streams of power relationships … in the everyday lives of alternative media participants”.98 The term Downing offered is radical alternative media, which can be negative or constructive (i.e. racist, fascist or socialist, progressive), representing religious or ethnic minorities, typically small scale and underfunded. 99 The unifying factor for these media is that they always “break somebody's rules, although rarely all of them in every respect”.100 Rennie agreed, adding that radical alternative media is a better term because it focuses on theories of counterhegemony, counter-public spheres and new social movement theory, “rather than as simply oppositional”.101 For Forde, Molnar and Meadows, alternative does not capture the variance in roles that the sector plays in the local context. Instead, they borrowed from Rodriguez, who first used the term citizens’ media, which she argued does not focus solely on the opposition that alternative implies, rather considering all these notions of dissent, alternative and community.102 Rodriguez explained that citizens’ media implies collective action by citizens who are “actively intervening and transforming the established mediascape”, empowering the community to challenge existing social codes, relations and identities.103 Forde et al. suggested citizen’s media was a better way to represent these media because of the associated notions of “citizenship and

96 Atton, p. 11. 97 Downing, Radical Media, p. ix. 98 C. Rodriguez, Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study of Citizens’ Media, NJ, Hampton Press, 2001, p. 20. 99 Downing, Radical Media, p. xi. 100 Downing, Radical Media, p. xi. 101 Rennie, Community Media, p. 19. 102 Rodriguez. 103 Rodriguez, p. 20. 30

democracy in the broadcasting process”.104 All these definitions attempt to negotiate their position in relation to power. For Elghul-Bebawi, the most important aspect of community media was how it contested media power.105 In summary, citizens’ media negotiate through democratic and non-democratic forces to contribute to the “swelling of the democratic”;106 alternative media aim to challenge dominant commercial and government interests by providing a different way of doing things; and community media aim to empower those who choose to participate in the media- making process as either volunteers or listeners.

1.3.1 Australian community media

Studying community media organisations can “reveal the structuredness of media discourse and show how the world might be represented differently by different media actors”.107 Analysis of community radio programming can show how these media manage their alternative status and how individual programs and announcers “enable the creation of alternative publics, which in turn facilitate articulation of shared experiences and strategies for negotiating the specificities of marginalised subjectivities”.108 Community media have been increasingly seen as “a significant and growing force”109 in the Australian media landscape because of their positive place in community culture.110 I found Australian community media studies has undergone three stages of research, each extending for about 20 years. I explain these three stages and how these studies have contributed to current community media research. I begin with literature from the 1960s and 1970s which analysed how community

104 Forde, Foxwell and Meadows, p. 19. 105 S. Elghul-Bebawi, ‘The Relationship Between Mainstream and Alternative Media: A Blurring of the Edges?’, in J. Gordon (ed.), Notions of Community: A Collection of Community Media Debates and Dilemmas, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2008, p. 29. 106 Rodriguez, p. 20. 107 Atton, ‘Introduction: Problems and Positions’, p. 2. 108 K. Moylan., The Cultural Work of Community Radio, London, Rowman & Littlefield, 2019, (pre- published text from author due to COVID-19), p. 8 of Conclusion. 109 Meadows et al., ‘Making Spaces: Community Media and the Formation of the Democratic Public Sphere in Australia’ in C. Rodruigez, D. Kidd and L. Stein (eds.), Making our Media: Global Initiatives Toward a Democratic Public Sphere, NJ, Hampton Press, 2010, p. 165. 110 Meadows et al., ‘Making Spaces’, p. 178. 31

media could add to the existing media landscape through its different operational model to those of commercial and government media organisations. Where possible, I focus on literature about programming on Australia’s community media stations. Barr’s research into this emerging sector in 1975 used the programming philosophy at Sydney’s fine music (classical and jazz) station 2MBS to explore what these media would do differently. 2MBS-FM was Australia’s first stereo FM station. Programming was done by a committee of volunteers111 who adhered to a programming policy “based on the belief that ‘a community and its radio station need not be separated by a management hierarchy or dominated by the tyranny of ratings’”.112 The result was a plethora of music not heard on commercial stations, “some twenty-six categories, which include medieval and renaissance music, vocal/choral, solo instrumental” and many more.113 When the first community broadcasting licences were offered in 1974, the ABC was also granted two licences to expand into new fields. Double J would cater to the youth audience in Sydney and 3ZZ to ethnic audiences in Melbourne. Joan Dugdale, a member of ABC staff involved with the establishment of 3ZZ, wrote a history of the short-lived radio station published in 1979, two years after its demise. 3ZZ was established as a “community access” station where all announcers were volunteers.114 The community wanted control over programming, but the ABC resisted because it was legally liable if any of the content put to air breached broadcast laws.115 Who was in control of the station was “never firmly grasped” because of concerns, on both sides, about the risks of one being in control more than the other.116 Dugdale argued 3ZZ was ultimately doomed by these power struggles; when the Liberal Party was elected in 1975, a united front could not be formed to save the station.117 How 3ZZ was programmed illustrates tensions, and ramifications, of using one categorisation system over another. Programmers had to decide whether to group programs by language or ethnicity and how many hours each ‘category’ would be

111 Barr, p. 166. 112 ‘2MBS Information Brochure’ cited in Barr, p. 166. 113 Barr, p. 166. 114 J. Dugdale, Radio Power: A History of 3ZZ Access Radio, Melbourne, VIC, Hyland House, 1979. 115 Dugdale, pp. 7–8. 116 Dugdale, p. 7. 117 Dugdale, p. 189. 32

allocated. Initially, each of the seven nights was allocated to languages based on applications received and projections to come.118 Each language group had its own programming committee which decided what types of programs would be broadcast within the category. Deciding when each group had airtime was contentious, eventually decided by allocating half-hour units to language groupings based on census data.119 Eric Michaels’ study of the impact of the media on Australian Aboriginal communities was a clarion call for its potential. Written at a time when a “media invasion” of white, capitalist ideals was soon to take place in remote Australia due to the introduction of satellite television, Michaels argued for the establishment of community television as part of a policy to promote Aboriginal self-determination.120 With a community television station, Michaels argued Aboriginal people would have a better chance of retaining and promoting their own culture.121 The localness and participatory nature of the medium would enable these communities to tell their own stories to their own people. Other publications in the 1980s and 1990s concentrated on reviewing community radio’s development in the 10–15 years since its inception. Scholars were most concerned with whether these stations had added to the existing media landscape, how they operated and how they could continue to operate in what were found to be financially difficult circumstances. In 1992, just as the Broadcasting Act was being introduced and the economy was coming out of recession, Irma Whitford identified a number of factors affecting the sector, many of which remain relevant.122 These factors included constant financial concerns, aged equipment, a lack of audience research which made it difficult to know if the community was truly being served, management issues which affected the responsiveness of programming decisions and maintaining an alternative to the commercial sector while earning

118 Dugdale, p. 31. 119 Dugdale, p. 204. 120 E. Michaels, The Aboriginal Invention of Television in Central Australia, 1982–1986, Canberra, ACT, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1986. 121 Michaels. 122 I. Whitford, ‘Public Radio: The Promise and the Performance’, Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media & Culture, vol. 6, no. 1, 1992, wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/6.1/Whitford.html (accessed 13 August 2019). 33

income from advertising. On a more positive note, the community sector had established itself as a fertile training ground, featuring excellent programming which “gives time to explore specialist music genres” and “promotes Australian music and markets the music of new artists”.123 In 1995, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) commissioned a survey of Australians on the eastern seaboard to find who was listening to the radio, what they were listening to and why. Listening to the Listeners marked the first time community radio listener data had been collected on such a scale, as community radio stations were not included in weekly radio ratings; these were conducted by the commercial sector and government stations ABC and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), but were considered too expensive for community stations.124 The survey results showed a sector struggling to establish credibility among those who did not already listen. A very low proportion of respondents reported listening to community radio, only 3% in metro areas and 6% in non-metro areas.125 Most respondents were familiar with community radio but had a negative association with the amateur nature of the medium, likening it to a place “where people just went in and played their own records”.126 A notable limitation of the study was the absence of questions to those who did listen to community radio about why they tuned in. In the 2000s and 2010s, the third phase of research largely attempted to measure the reach and value of community media, and challenged assumptions about just who the sector should serve with its principles of access and participation. The first major survey of the Australian community radio sector alone occurred in the early 2000s. Commissioned by the sector, Forde, Foxwell and Meadow’s study Culture, Commitment, Community: The Australian Community Radio Sector used interviews and surveys with community radio station managers, general radio station volunteers and news and current affair volunteers, as well as focus groups with volunteers in Sydney and Melbourne.127 These scholars came to similar although more detailed

123 Whitford. 124 P. Thornley, Broadcasting Policy in Australia: Political Influences and the Federal Government’s Role in the Establishment and Development of Public/Community Broadcasting in Australia – A History 1939 to 1992, PhD thesis, University of Newcastle, 1999, p. 25. 125 Nugent et al., Listening to the Listeners, Sydney, Australian Broadcasting Authority, 1995, p. 61. 126 Nugent et al., p. 9. 127 Forde, Foxwell and Meadows, p. 2. 34

conclusions than the ABT’s 1995 report, partly because they asked people who did listen, why? Principally, they found community radio to fulfil “a broad but largely unacknowledged role in the Australian mediascape, particularly as a source of local content”.128 The amateur sound of community stations again featured in respondents’ opinions. Negative connotations persisted, but positive aspects were also mentioned. Respondents said they enjoyed listening because they could identify with the announcers: “audience members regularly refer to stations and their announcers as ‘family’, ‘friends’, or like listening to a mate’”.129 Listeners enjoyed hearing local content and music they could not hear elsewhere. In 2003, Downing noted research in the field was scarce, particularly given the relative popularity of community media.130 Since this statement, published literature about the community media sector and organisations has greatly increased. Meadows et al. suggest this is due to two interrelated factors: globalisation and general public dissatisfaction with the content and structure of mainstream media.131 Studies exploring how stations balanced the demands of up-to-date technology and operational conditions with the sector’s commitment to access and participation revealed common themes across the sector. Barlow’s study of three community radio stations found three commercial factors regularly influencing decisions: professionalisation, popularisation and commercialisation.132 Forde et al. also identified these factors in their research, labelling them the “creep of commercialism”.133 They concluded their prevalence was due to the limited funding options available to community radio stations. Order examined the ‘creep of commercialism’ in three Western Australian community radio stations, which chose to alter their programming to attract more listeners and meet sponsors’ demands.134

128 Forde, Foxwell and Meadows, p. 3. 129 Meadows et al., Community Media Matters: An Audience Study of the Australian Community Broadcasting Sector, QLD, Griffith University, 2007, p. 28. 130 J. Downing, ‘Audiences and Readers of Alternative Media: The Absent Lure of the Virutally Unknown’, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 25, no. 5, 2003, p. 625. 131 Meadows et al., Community Media Matters, p. 5. 132 D. Barlow, ‘Conceptions of Access and Participation in Australian Community Radio Stations’ in N. Jankowski and O. Prehn, Community Media in the Information Age, NJ, Hampton Press, 2002, p. 158. 133 Forde, Foxwell and Meadows, pp. 98–99. 134 S. Order, ‘Australian Community Radio: Funding Challenges and Dilemmas’, 3CMedia, no. 8, 2016, p. 63. 35

Moreover, commercial imperatives raised the perceived value of meeting sponsors’ needs over those of community participation and representation. This created “a dilemma for the sector where the ideals of community participation may be sacrificed”.135 There have been a number of suggestions about how to assess the value of community radio stations. In the early 2000s Molnar and Meadows analysed the place of indigenous media organisations in three countries, arguing for the alternative these media offer to typically marginalised and under-represented communities.136 The authors argued for the value of smaller technologies, like video and radio, to empower communities to tell their own stories in their own voices. Media owned and controlled by indigenous peoples can subvert dominant, Western representations of the oft-presented homogeneity of indigenous cultures: “the strategic use of media by Indigenous [sic] communities presents the opportunity for counter-hegemonic processes to operate, challenging dominant ideas and assumptions about society by displacing them”.137 In the mid-2000s, van Vuuren applied a similar logic to all “access” media, not just indigenous, arguing community radio stations are a collectively owned public asset and can be understood as commons regimes because of their focus on management and control.138 The value of community radio stations is in how they educate their participants in community development functions and, to best serve their community, exclusion needs to occur.139 Management and control of these often conflict-ridden processes of exclusion are “indicative of a community radio station’s contribution to democracy”.140 Further, for van Vuuren, assessing the value of a station through its broadcast content draws unfair comparisons with mainstream media, which use paid and experienced staff to produce their on-air content. In such comparisons, community media will always be deemed less valuable.

135 Order, ‘Australian Community Radio’, p. 63. 136 H. Molnar and M. Meadows, Songlines to Satellites: Indigenous Communication in Australia, the South Pacific and Canada, Annandale, NSW, Pluto Press, 2001. 137 Molnar and Meadows, p. 199. 138 K. van Vuuren, ‘Community Broadcasting and the Enclosure of the Public Sphere’, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 28, no. 3, 2006, p. 381. 139 van Vuuren, ‘Community Broadcasting’, p. 381. 140 van Vuuren, ‘Community Broadcasting’, p. 381. 36

In the 2010s, Simon Order developed a five-lens theoretical framework to test the existence and corresponding value of representation and participation, access, diversity, the alternative offered and independence in community radio organisations.141 Using this framework in practice, Order, like van Vuuren, found the value of community radio stations to be more about the personal benefits or satisfaction derived from participation than in any benefit gained by the listening audience.142 Rennie, Berkeley and Murphet suggested when users interacted with community media online, that is media with open, democratic principles, such interactions could be promoted or even labelled as an ethical choice, a valuable difference to commercial options.143 Finally, Dreher argued the concepts of ‘social’, ‘participation’ and political ‘listening’ are concepts which should be used to demonstrate the social impact of community media.144 Social media often claim to deliver these benefits however, in a similar vein to Rennie, Berkeley and Murphet, Dreher argued community media’s underlying democratic principles of access and participation are what enables real social impact. While this thesis does not attempt to assess the value of PBS, it does interrogate how programming decisions were made. In doing so, I explore the challenges involved in running a community organisation and how these challenges have changed, or remained the same, since the 1970s. The cumulative story of PBS and how it has continued to interact with, and support, music scenes, demonstrates its impact and effect on Melbourne’s music scenes.

141 S. Order, Community Radio in Western Australia: Notions of Value, PhD thesis, Perth, Murdoch University, 2013. 142 S. Order, ‘The Altruism of Community Radio’, Asia Pacific Media Educator, vol. 23, no. 2, 2013. 143 E. Rennie, L. Berkeley and B. Murphet, ‘Community Media and Ethical Choice’, 3CMedia, no. 6, 2010. 144 T. Dreher, ‘Social/Participation/Listening: Keywords for the Social Impact of Community Media, Communication Research and Practice, vol. 3, no. 1, 2017, p. 14 37

1.3.2 Community radio and local music

This section discusses the contributions the community radio sector has made to Australia’s cultural landscape, particularly its music scenes. This connection is essential to understanding how PBS, a specialist music station, has continued to attract volunteers, and sponsors, well into its 40th year on-air. While this thesis does not set out to measure PBS’ contribution to Melbourne’s music scene, it is inextricably linked to Melbourne’s music scene. From discussions about what PBS meant to its volunteers to how it was the first station to broadcast a band or style of music on Melbourne’s – sometimes the world’s – airwaves, the status and support of Melbourne’s various music scenes are important reference points throughout this thesis. Like many community radio stations, PBS is unplaylisted. This means announcers choose the music they broadcast.145 Music-loving announcers have “unparalleled freedom” to present programs specific to their music tastes.146 Without playlists to bind broadcast decisions, Australian community radio stations broadcast “specialist and diverse music formats not provided by any other broadcasting services”.147 Such diversity is required of community radio stations from the government and their peak body, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia (CBAA). Since first published in 1992, all CBAA Codes of Conduct state community broadcasters will “Present programs which contribute to expanding the variety of viewpoints broadcast in Australia and enhance the diversity of programming choices available to the general public”.148 Programming can promote community dialogue and aurally support progressive social change movements.149

145 J. Potts, ‘Heritage Rock: Pop Music on Australian Radio’, in P. Hayward (ed.), Pop Punk and Postmodernism: Popular Music and Australian Culture from the 1960s to the 1990s, North Sydney, NSW, Allen & Unwin, 1992, pp. 62–63. 146 Potts, ‘Music on Public Radio’, p. 20. 147 Meadows et al., ‘The Power and the Passion: A Study of Australian Community Broadcasting audiences 2004–2007’, Global Media Journal (Australian Edition), vol. 1, no. 1, 2007, www.hca.westernsydney.edu.au/gmjau/archive/iss1_2007/pdf/HC_FINAL_Michael%20Meadows.pdf (accessed 12 June 2019), p. 9. 148 Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, 1995, Community Broadcasting Code of Practice, via personal email (received 17 September 2018). 149 W. Barlow, ‘Community Radio in the US: The Struggle for a Democratic Medium’, Media, Culture and Society, vol. 10, 1988, p. 101. 38

In contrast to commercial radio, rather than a consumer relationship, the music choices the community radio announcers makes create civil and democratic relationships with the listener.150 Community radio stations are not-for-profit and not typically funded by government. This means they don’t have to cater to the widest possible audience, like commercial stations, and shouldn’t have to be “politically mindful in their output” like the ABC.151 Another factor affecting community radio’s strong support of Australian music is music quotas. Quotas for Australian music content on radio were first implemented by the government to address concerns about US and UK dominance of the airwaves and ensuring a voice for Australian orchestras.152 Beginning in 1942 at 2%, this quota was raised repeatedly, reaching 20% by 1976, based on the argument “that an emerging local music industry could not compete with international production increased in scope and sophistication”.153 Calculated on a tiered system for stations with different broadcast outputs (e.g. ethnic radio stations have a lower quota), in 2019 ‘Category A’ commercial and community radio stations must broadcast not less than 25% Australian music.154,155 Many community radio stations choose to set higher quotas than these. For example, the quota for Australian/New Zealand artists at 4ZZZ in Brisbane is 40%156 and 3CR in Melbourne plays at least 55% Australian music.157 At Triple R, also from Melbourne, all broadcasters are encouraged “to aim for a minimum

150 C. Fairchild., ‘When a Place Becomes a Community: Music, Radio and the Reach of Social Aesthetics’, Transforming Cultures eJournal, vol. 4, no. 1, April 2009 https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/TfC, pp. 82–93. 151 J. Gordon, ‘Community Radio, Funding and Ethics’ in J. Gordon (ed.), Notions of Community: A Collection of Community Media Debates and Dilemmas, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2008, p. 75. 152 S. Homan, ‘Local Priorities, Industry Realities: The Music Quota as Cultural Exceptionalism’, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 34, no. 8, 2012, p. 1043. 153 Homan, ‘Local Priorities’, p. 1043. 154 Commercial Radio Australia, ‘Commercial Radio Code of Practice’, 2018, http://commercialradio.com.au/CR/media/CommercialRadio/Commercial-Radio-Code-of-Practice.pdf (accessed 12 December 2019), p. 8. 155 Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, Codes of Practice – Code 5: Australian Music, CBAA, 2019, www.cbaa.org.au/resource/codes-practice-%E2%80%93-code-5-australian-music (accessed 12 December 2019). 156 4ZZZ, ‘4ZZZ Station Policy’, v 1.5, http://jeff.4zzz.org.au/sites/default/files/media/4ZZZ%20Station%20Policy%201.5.pdf (accessed 13 December 2019), p. 12. 157 3CR, Who We Are [website], 2019, www.3cr.org.au/whoweare (accessed 13 December 2019). 39

of 25% Australian music content”, which many exceed;158 with four music programs in 2019 dedicated to Australian artists, the total is usually more than 30%.159 Community radio stations are “crucial” to a heathy live music scene160 and as “mediators between musicians and the wider society”.161 Luckman argued reinforcement of community can occur through broadcast output because what goes to air is an expression of a community’s sound, culture and power.162 For Fairchild, when community radio announcers play local music in line with the unique identity of their station, they make “local music scenes more open and accessible… through making meaning by creating open and potentially democratic relationships and social aesthetics”.163 For Warne, community radio stations contribute to the local music scene by broadcasting more live-to-air performances of unrecorded local bands, as well as giving greater airplay to albums that are not widely available.164 Thompson explained how the community radio station typically fits in the cycle of a new band’s development and contribution to developing music scenes: A common road to success has been for a new band to gain initial notice by playing in the corner pub and then producing a CD, which gets airplay on the local community station. From there it might be picked up by the Triple J network, and if there is a swell of popular interest, eventually gain exposure on commercial radio.165

Community radio’s contributions to fostering diverse music scenes have long been acknowledged. Hutchison’s account of a decade of Australian music from 1980 to 1990 draws on interviews with musicians who were active in the Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne music scenes. Hutchison explained that while "the range of music

158 B. Hornsby, ‘Re: Australian music quota?’ [email to R. Lade], 16 December 2019. 159 Hornsby. 160 C. Walker, History is Made at Night: Live Music in Australia, Strawberry Hills, NSW, Currency Press, 2012, p. 28. 161 C. Fairchild, ‘The Grinding Gears of a Neo-Liberal State: Community Radio and the Local Cultural Production’, Southern Review, vol. 38, no. 2, 2006, p. 64. 162 S. Luckman, ‘Introduction to Part 2’, in G. Boustein and M. Peters, Sonic Synergies: Music, Technology, Community, Identity, England, Ashgate, 2008, p. 65. 163 C. Fairchild, Music, Radio and the Public Sphere: The Aesthetics of Democracy, Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p. 164. 164 S. Warne, ‘Beyond the Echoes: A Look at Public Radio and Popular Music’ in M. Breen (ed.), Missing in Action: Australian Popular Music in Perspective, VIC, Verbal Graphics, 1987, p. 171. 165 M. Thompson, ‘Some Issues for Community Radio at the Turn of the Century’, Media International Australia (incorporating Culture & Policy), vol. 91, no. 1, 1999, p. 25. 40

being produced in Australia by 1981 was extraordinary”166 this range was rarely heard on commercial radio. Community radio stations were the ones broadcasting music that the ‘mainstream’ wouldn’t.167 Potts said hip hop, thrash, dance, punk, metal, rap, house, hip hop – anything other than heritage rock or other mainstream fare – were only heard “in outer suburbs of cities, in nightclubs or on public [community] radio”.168 Douglas and Geeves argued Double J and the various 1970s community radio stations brought about the maturing of rock music in Australia.169 Mitchell said community radio stations such as “2SER, 3PBS, 3RRR and 4ZZZ” were important to the promotion of hip hop music in general and “for artists organising their own gigs and tours”.170 Hutchison, too, credited Triple R, PBS and 3CR as the community radio stations responsible for assisting developing bands to access airplay “in the all-too- crucial formative years”.171 According to Walker, Melbourne was the “peak rock city” because of its three “vibrant public radio stations”172 Triple R, PBS and 3CR. While considered an integral part of Melbourne’s music scene, there has been very little research conducted about PBS – unlike three other similar stations, 3CR and Triple R in Melbourne and 4ZZZ in Brisbane. 3CR and Triple R have both been the subject of published histories and, in the case of Triple R, a 12-week exhibition at the State Library of Victoria.173 The history of Brisbane’s music scene is the main focus of Pig City, but 4ZZZ features prominently as the central meeting place for evolving Brisbane music communities.174 One of 4ZZZ’s listeners and lead singer of the rock band Custard, David McCormack, said of the station, founded in 1975; “everything I learnt about Brisbane music was from

166 T. Hutchison, Your Name’s on the Door: 10 Years of Australian Music, Sydney, ABC Enterprises, 1992, p. 29. 167 Hutchison, p. 3 and p. 37. 168 Potts, ‘Heritage Rock’, p. 62. 169 L. Douglas and R. Geeves, ‘Music, Counter-culture and the Vietnam Era’, in P. Hayward (ed.), From Pop to Punk to Postmodernism: Popular Music and Australian Culture from the 1960s to the 1990s, North Sydney, NSW, Allen and Unwin, 1992, p. 109. 170 T. Mitchell, ‘The DIY Habitus of Australian Hip Hop’, Media International Australia (incorporating Culture & Policy), vol. 123, 2007, p. 112. 171 Hutchison, p. 184. 172 Walker, p. 28. 173 J. Fox (ed.), Radical Radio: Celebrating 40 years of 3CR, Melbourne, VIC, 3CR Community Radio, 2016; M. Phillips, Radio City: The First 30 Years of RRR, Melbourne, VIC, Vulgar Press, 2006. 174 A. Stafford, Pig City, University of Queensland Press, 2004. 41

4ZZZ, because there was no other way to hear it, unless you were already in the scene or you had an older brother who knew what records to listen to”.175 Other than this thesis, there are only two pieces of published research solely about PBS. Jennifer Crowley’s Honours thesis Live, Loud and Let Loose: The Early Years of Live Recording Broadcasts for Public Access Station PBS-FM176 documents the formation and first years of PBS. According to Crowley, PBS struggled financially for many years. Of Melbourne’s three new community radio stations licenced in , MT (now Triple R), MBS and PBS, PBS was “the more susceptible to failure”.177 Unlike Triple R’s educational institution backers and MBS’ fine music group support, PBS did not have a predetermined audience or institutional support and was largely staffed by -something volunteers with little money of their own.178 Crowley argued the way PBS expressed its “politics” was through the music it broadcast.179 PBS’ live-to-air broadcasts, especially, exposed under-represented music cultures to new audiences. The station created “a subculture with the ability to provide exposure for those deemed minorities by a wider social structure”.180 PBS assisted independent musicians to play music to an audience, regardless of aspirations for commercial success or “just a sense of making music for music’s sake”.181 More recently, John Tebbutt researched the station’s live broadcasting from its first home at the Prince of Wales hotel, from 1980 to 1984.182 The article provides a detailed account of these formative years, with particular attention on the volunteer audio technicians and their essential role in getting the live music on air. Tebbutt argued these volunteer technicians were an integral part of the formation of PBS’ community and identity which, in turn, helped establish the station’s place in Melbourne’s community radio and music scenes.

175 Stafford, p. 239. 176 Crowley. 177 Crowley, p. 28. 178 Crowley, p. 28. 179 Crowley, p. 3. 180 Crowley, p. 40. 181 Crowley, p. 56. 182 J. Tebbutt, “Hidden Technicians: Music and Radio-making at 3-PBS in the Prince of Wales”, Media International Australia, vol. 176, no. 1, 2020. 42

In 2019 PBS compiled an autobiographical photo book to commemorate its 40- year anniversary.183 Intended as a visual walk down memory lane, the book demonstrates the many ways the station has been part of the community. Some of the data collected for this thesis has been used in the book.

1.4 Programming music radio

This section draws on research about music programming to describe the evolution of playlisted and unplaylisted methods, and the impact of these methods on the types of music broadcast. Listening to music on the radio is a common pastime because, as Crisell described, radio is a non-demanding mode of communication where the listener can “slip into and out of its content”.184 Pluskota added radio is a “nearly perfect companion” because of its mobility and accessibility, provision of information, entertainment, company or simply background noise.185 Music is integral to radio programming, particularly commercial FM radio.186 Meadows et al. suggested public dissatisfaction with commercial radio’s broadcast output can explain the growing interest in, and research about, community media.187 The process of deciding what to broadcast is known as programming. Kaplan argued programming is an area of radio broadcasting that has not received “sufficient theoretical attention”188 although he used the non-Western term “editing” rather than programming to describe this process. The term editing better reflects the broader process of putting together all the different elements in, for example, an hour of broadcasting.189 Editing also favours the process of constructing a program from the perspective of the announcer or program manager responsible for determining the

183 N. Scurry and M. Gearon (eds.), ‘40 Years of PBS Radio: Progressive Broadcasting Service’, Fitzroy, VIC, PBS 106.7FM, 2019. 184 Crisell, p. 208. 185 J. Pluskota, ‘The Perfect Technology: Radio and Mobility’, Journal of Radio & Audio Media, vol. 22, no. 2, 2015, p. 335. 186 J. Berland, ‘Radio Space and Industrial Time: Music Formats, Local Narratives and Technological Mediation’, Popular Music, vol. 9, no. 2, 1990, p. 181. 187 Meadows, et al., Community Media Matters, p. 5. 188 D. Kaplan, ‘Programming and Editing as Alternative Logics of Music Radio Production’, International Journal of Communication, vol. 7, 2013, p. 773. 189 Kaplan. 43

program’s content. In this thesis I define programming in the same way Kaplan defined editing because of its emphasis on process. Browne’s documentation of the breadth of programming available on community radio stations categorised content into two groups.190 Informational programming includes talk back and interviews, where entertainment mainly features pre-recorded music.191 Although PBS has the occasional interview during a program with a musician, its programming is otherwise solely entertainment, namely music. Rubin argued music-based programming was a “rich and largely untapped” field of community radio research, particularly for its position as an alternative to mainstream stations.192

1.4.1 Playlisted music programming

Playlisted radio began in America in the 1950s, in response to the rise in popularity of television. Omaha radio station announcer Todd Storz found music and news were the two programming features where radio maintained an advantage over television, so he decided to use “record store sales and jukebox playlist returns” to develop his list of the top 40 popular songs.193 Popular songs would be broadcast at any time of day, creating a station sound that was predictable and popular. The Top 40 method evolved to the point where programmers used a combination of monitoring music sales and predictions to form their playlists.194 Top 40 and its followers changed radio and music by challenging the autonomy of the radio announcer,195 homogenising and delocalising music. DJs changed from active to passive, simply required to adopt the personality of the

190 D. Browne, ‘What is ‘Community’ in Community Radio? A Consideration of the Meaning, Nature and Importance of a Concept’, in J. Gordon (ed.), Community Radio in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2012. 191 Browne, ‘What is ‘Community’ in Community Radio?’, pp. 156-157. 192 N. Rubin, ‘Music Based Community Radio as Alternative Media’, in J. Gordon (ed.), Community Radio in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2012, p. 199. 193 C. Wilson, ‘Youth, Radio and Australian Popular Music Policy’, Perfect Beat, vol. 14, no. 2, 2014, p. 104. 194 C. Wilson, Frequently Modulating: Australian Radio’s Relationship with Youth, PhD Thesis, Melbourne, Swinburne University of Technology, 2015, p. 86. 195 S. Homan, ‘Classic Hits in a Digital Era: Music Radio and the Australian Music Industry’, Media International Australia (incorporating Culture & Policy), vol. 1, no. 123, 2007, p. 99. 44

station.196 Consequently, the position of commercial radio DJs as cultural intermediary is now rarely defined by their ability to introduce listeners to new or diverse music. Only those DJs who are more prominent, or with an acknowledged place in the music industry, retain the ability to air songs that may challenge the ‘station sound’.197 The first ten years of FM commercial radio in Australia were “phenomenonally successful” because of its programming.198 Beginning in 1980, the commercial FM broadcast sector was also unique with an “unprecedentedly comprehensive centralization of ownership and control” where almost all metropolitan markets were controlled by one of two corporations – Hoyts Media and Austereo.199 In the 1980s these two companies syndicated nationally, meaning that their advertising and programming followed the same format around Australia, resulting in a restricted amount and style of music broadcast to the majority of listeners. Later, in the mid- 1990s after changes to the Broadcasting Services Act to deregulate ownership of media companies (discussed further below), Hoyts Media’s network Triple M was acquired by Village Roadshow, which then merged with rival Austereo.200 As the 1980s progressed, many commercial stations adopted the view that people’s taste for new music declines as they age.201 According to Wilson, the demise of Top 40 corresponded with a further drop in new music played on the airwaves. Commercial programmers could no longer rely on records sales to determine what was popular music among baby boomers in the 1980s because by this time most record buyers were aged under 25 years.202 The baby boomers, the initial audience Top 40 targeted, were growing up. Commercial radio stations responded by changing their programming methods to continue appealing to this lucrative market, relying on two elements of

196 A. Huber, ‘Top 40 in Australia: Popular Music and the Mainstream’ in S. Homan and T. Mitchell (eds.), Sounds of Then, Sounds of Now: Popular Music in Australia, Tasmania, ACYS Publishing, 2008, p. 276. 197 Homan, ‘Classic Hits in a Digital Era’, p. 99. 198 Turner, p. 143. 199 Turner, p. 143. 200 B. Griffen-Foley, Changing Stations: The Story of Australian Commercial Radio, Sydney, UNSW Press, 2009, p. 99. 201 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, p. 87. 202 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, p. 87. 45

Top 40 programming: popularity and familiarity.203 Callout research, where snippets of current songs would be played over the phone to interviewees to get their opinion, was used to determine which music to add to the playlist. The effect was stark. While new tracks may have been added to playlists, this method “discriminated against new artists and new types of music”.204 Most commercial stations adopted a playlist comprised of past hits with only some new songs, typically popular Australian rock.205 Collingwood lists five music formats in Melbourne and Sydney markets at the end of the 1990s: Hits and Memories, Adult Contemporary, Hot Adult Contemporary, Contemporary Hits Radio and Easy Listening.206 Since the 1990s, Australia’s broadcast landscape has diversified and expanded. The Broadcasting Services Act of 1992 reduced ownership restrictions for commercial stations and encouraged a “market-oriented approach to broadcasting … premised on the idea of a transition from media scarcity to media abundance”.207 A flurry of new owners entered the market in the 1990s and some stations once rivals were purchased by the same owners and merged (Village Roadshow and Austereo).208 The Act also introduced narrowcast licences, which authorised services limited in some way, for example by audience, location, duration or appeal.209 Griffen-Foley suggested this new category “arguably enabled commercial broadcasters to withdraw even further from special-interest programming”,210 resulting in a commercial sector still more focused on broadcasting popular music. Radio sounded the same because the same ‘acceptable’ songs were broadcast on every commercial station. Turner commented that although people in the industry were aware conservative, duplicated programming was becoming a problem, no one was “prepared to be the first to break the mould, change to a more adventurous format, and risk taking a bath in the ratings”.211 Wilson identified DMG’s Nova FM, launched

203 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, p. 86. 204 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, p. 88. 205 Potts, ‘Heritage Rock’, p. 61. 206 P. Collingwood, ‘Commercial Radio 1999: New Networks, New Technologies’, Media International Australia (incorporating Culture & Policy), no. 91, 1999, p. 18. 207 Griffen-Foley, p. 98. 208 Griffen-Foley, p. 99. 209 Griffen-Foley, p. 99. 210 Griffen-Foley, p. 99. 211 Turner, p. 144. 46

in Sydney in 2001, as the first commercial station to try a more adventurous format. As discussed later in this chapter, I identify the first few years of EON FM’s broadcast to the Melbourne area in the early 1980s as the most concerted challenge to PBS’ music-focused programming due to their similar music selection philosophies. DMG adopted new ways of advertising, new announcers and a new approach to the selection and repetition of music,212 playing new music, mixed genres and songs that had not been through rigorous market research.213 Nova’s impact would be largely felt within youth broadcasting circles. By the 2000s, internet radio, podcasting and digital radio were all new competitors for Australian listeners. Internet radio stations did not require a licence, so new competitors could enter the market for the cost of bandwidth. In 2005 the ABC, Austereo, 2GB and Nova all started podcasting at least some of their broadcast content, which was popularly received by audiences.214 In 2009, digital radio was rolled out which enabled FM and AM stations to broadcast equal-quality sound using a more reliable signal. In 2013, income from digital music sales (54.7%) overtook traditional physical media sales like CDs and DVDs (45.3%).215 Just as people have gained increasing amounts of cultural recommendations from machines, data and algorithms, so have commercial radio stations.216 Playlist information is now gathered from a mix of industry trends, audience surveys, consultants and streaming data. While internet streaming services have created more options for how we choose to listen to music, they have further narrowed the music we hear on commercial stations. Algorithms used in streaming services are programmed to select similar tunes. One commentator described the result for commercial radio playlists as “terribly tedious tunes”.217 Such technological innovation

212 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, pp. 238–240. 213 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, p. 240. 214 Griffen-Foley, p. 112. 215 Australian Recording Industry Association, Aria Wholesale Figures 2013, 2014, www.aria.com.au/pages/documents/MediaRelease-2013ARIAWholesaleFigures_000.pdf (accessed 1 January 2020). 216 D. Powers, ‘Lost in the Shuffle: Technology, History and the Idea of Musical Randomness’, Critical Studies in Media Communication, vol. 31, no. 3, 2014, p. 261. 217 J. McCann, ‘Why You Probably Hate Every Radio Station at the Moment’, news.com.au, 17 October 2016, www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/radio/why-you-probably-hate-every-radio-station-at-the- moment/news-story/80eb08304839e87afdd09d4a017cc204, (accessed 2 October 2018). 47

reinforces commercial radio as not, and probably never to be, an advocate for diverse music. Despite these advances in technologies, radio is still the most listened-to audio platform. Data gathered in February and March 2019 showed 83% of Australians had listened to an AM/FM/DAB+ station in the last week compared with 34% of people who had listened to Spotify.218 The same survey found 15% of Australians listened weekly to podcasts.219

1.4.2 Unplaylisted music programming

The earliest iteration of unplaylisted radio as “free-form” programming was created in 1967 in America as a response to Top 40’s “rigid structures” and as a representation of a cultural and political reaction against the mass-consumerism that Top 40 was seen to promote.220 Free-form DJs could select their own music, often from a variety of genres and, when broadcasting, effectively curated the songs by “arranging items on the basis of musical elements (such as tempo or key), lyrical themes, or some other attribute”.221 DJs were able to talk at length about the music they played, “showing a deep appreciation for its cultural, social and political significance, engaged in general political commentary and promoted a broad range of counter-cultural youth events and activities”.222 Free-form was adopted by a growing number of commercial FM licence holders and college radio stations in America, introducing people to listening to music on the stereo FM band. Free-form radio was a popular way for listeners to hear music and led to the development of a range of new popular music formats that underpinned substantial growth in the number of stations, listeners and revenue.223 Free-form’s key elements of announcer choice and appreciation for music have been combined with block programming as a common format used by community

218 Infinite Dial Australia, The Infinite Dial 2019 Australia [website], 2019, www.radioalive.com.au/Research-Insights/Other-Research-Insights/Infinite-Dial/Infinite-Dial- Australia-2019-(1), (accessed 7 June 2019). 219 Infinite Dial Australia. 220 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, p. 63. 221 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, p. 64. 222 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, p. 64. 223 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, p. 67. 48

radio stations.224 Potts described block programming as a “pluralistic” type of programming which entails segmentation of music “into specialist units, so that individual programs will specialise in one musical style”.225 Block programming emphasises a listener’s special interests, as they must tune in at specific times to hear their preferred type of music.226 A disadvantage of block programming is that “uninterested listeners are locked out of programming for substantial lengths of time”.227 Nevertheless, the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) found having “specific programs on at particular times”228 was considered one of the main strengths of community radio by its listeners. Another disdvantage of block programming is that it can prevent stations from achieving “flow” 229 for their listeners. Programs of a completely different style of music can abut, such as a jazz program followed by a heavy metal program. It is less common for a listener to enjoy both styles of music and, even if they do, the mood created by each can be conflicting, which can lead to listeners switching off. Ruth, Spangardt and Schramm investigated the relationship between flow and listener engagement, finding that inducing flow is the right way to get listeners to enjoy the programming and stay tuned to the radio station.230 According to Potts, one way several community radio stations have modified block programming is to incorporate principles of strip programming. Commercial and many government stations typically employ strip programming, where shorter segments will be heard at the same time each day of the week.231 Community stations can incorporate this practice into their broadcast schedules, for example having a regular breakfast program, while retaining block programming for the remainder of the day. For Potts, incorporating strip programming signals a move away from

224 Potts, ‘Music on Public Radio’. 225 Potts, ‘Music on Public Radio’, p. 20. 226 Potts, ‘Music on Public Radio’, p. 20. 227 Potts, ‘Music on Public Radio’, p. 20. 228 B. Johns, ‘The Community Broadcasting Revolution’, ABA Update – Newsletter of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, January 1995, p. 9. 229 M. Csikszentmihalyi, Flow, NY, Harper and Row, 1990. 230 N. Ruth, B. Spangardt and H. Schramm, ‘Alternative Music Playlists on the Radio: Flow Experience and the Appraisal During the Reception of Music Radio Programs’, Musicae Scientiae, vol. 21, no. 1, 2017, p. 92. 231 Potts, ‘Music on Public Radio’, p. 20. 49

specialist programming, attempting to “organise music types into a regular schedule, while avoiding the blanket homogeneity of most commercial stations”.232 Lucy’s study into radio station management compared management styles at commercial and community stations to predict broadcast output. Describing these as “non-accident” and “accident” styles of management respectively, Lucy explained at commercial stations nothing is left to chance to ensure predictable broadcast output.233 At community stations, broadcast output should be unpredictable, reflecting “a desire for change that roughly corresponds to audience demand and tolerance”.234 The tension in programming at community radio stations is the process of limiting risky broadcast agendas to ensure broadcast content does not put the station at risk of losing its licence.235 According to Lucy, programming processes at community radio stations require: negotiation and coordination … between and among the different interest blocs (which might be political or, in the case of specialist music interests, simply passionate), as well as the licence holder/s (universities, local councils, community groups, etc.), sponsors, and concerned citizens. At the heart of managerial problems in the public sector, of course, is each station's dependence on a pool of volunteer enthusiasts, many of whom are specialists and each of whom is subject to burn-out; so the pool is always in flux, and so is program continuity.236

The research documented so far has contrasted playlisted commercial stations and unplaylisted community stations. Hellman and Vikko studied the use of playlists by both public and commercial stations in Finland, where public broadcasters operate on a similar basis to Australia, are expected to broadcast content or manners of presentation different from those of commercial stations.237 Hellman and Vikko

232 Potts, ‘Music on Public Radio’, p. 20. 233 N. Lucy, ‘Radio Management: Sectors, Structures, Styles’, Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media and Culture, vol. 6, no. 1, 1992, wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/6.1/Lucy.html, (accessed 12 November 2019). 234 Lucy. 235 Lucy. 236 Lucy. 237 H. Hellman and A. Vilkko, ‘Public Service Hit Radio? Playlists and Product Differentiation in the Competition for Listeners’, Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, vol. 15, no. 1, 2017, p. 28. 50

compared the songs played 6:00am–6:00pm during one week in 2004 with the same in 2014 (substituting a different radio station in the second dataset). After coding each song into various categories including genre, date of release and origin (domestic/international), analysis of the number of times these songs were repeated revealed it was not the playlist itself which resulted in the standardisation of music. Rather, Hellman and Vikko concluded, in the case of the public radio station, playlisting “can be used as a tool for differentiation”.238 This study is important because it demonstrated that playlisting can still allow for the realisation of public service goals in broadcast output. It is more about the type of organisation doing the playlisting that determines the impact on broadcast output diversity and style. Melbourne’s other public/community radio stations have developed their own programming structures although, over time, most have incorporated committees to make or ratify decisions. In Radio City, Phillips’ account of the first 30 years of Triple R, the station started with on-staff producers and a program coordinator in 1978.239 After most of the staff were fired in 1981 due to funding cuts,240 programming decisions were made by the then station manager241 and the volunteers/musical coordinator.242 A programming advisory committee was also established in 1981 “with representatives from staff, institutions, volunteers and subscribers to approve any programming or format changes”.243 In 1984, Stephen Walker took over as the volunteers/musical coordinator at a time when “control of programming had been abdicated by the station management and devolved to the volunteers”.244 In his opinion, “there was no room for Triple R to be run as a co-op if it was to survive and thrive on its programming”.245 To better manage the relationship between staff and volunteers, a programming disputes committee was established in 1988 “to improve transparency on how decisions were made to retain or stop certain shows, with a

238 Hellman and Vilkko, p. 40. 239 Phillips, p. 44. 240 Phillips, pp. 89–91. 241 Phillips, p. 110. 242 Phillips, p. 128. 243 Phillips, p. 90. 244 Phillips, p. 129. 245 Phillips, p. 130. 51

range of clear processes and protocols”.246 In the 1980s, the volunteers/musical coordinator became known as the program manager, then changed again in the 2010s to the programming and content manager. By 2019, the program advisory committee and disputes committee appear to have merged to form the Programming Advisory Group (PAG); members included the programming and content manager, station manager, music coordinator, volunteers representative, Board representative and a minimum of two, but up to four, participants seconded by resolution of the existing members. The PAG was responsible for “ratifying and advising on the on-air decisions of the Programming & Content Manager” and its decisions are independent of the Board.247 At 3CR, a fulltime, paid program coordinator convenes the programming subcommittee. According to Juliet Fox, Project Coordinator at 3CR, there are approximately six people on the subcommittee, made up of staff representatives, volunteer announcers and committee of management representatives, who meet monthly “to consider new program proposals, programming changes, special programming, etc.” Recommendations are made to the committee of management, which is elected annually and has the final say.248 There is one other progressive music community radio station in Australia. 3D radio, originally known as 5MMM, coincidentally began broadcasting to metropolitan Adelaide on 21 December 1979, the same date as PBS.249 An article about the station’s programming from the late 1990s explained 3D was unplaylisted but required its announcers to broadcast 40% Australian music, 20% locally released and 10% unsigned demo tapes.250 3D programmed “‘general music’ during prime listening hours” and specialist alternative music programs like blues, dance, jazz, metal, experimental and spoken word in other timeslots.251 General music programs might feature “a dash of metal, a pinch of indie pop, a slather of punk, and dollops of dance

246 Phillips, p. 194–195. 247 Hornsby. 248 J. Fox, ‘Programming at 3CR’, [email to R. Lade], 19 December 2019. 249 3D Radio, History [website], www.threedradio.com/about/history (accessed 20 February 2020). 250 P. Bagust, ‘Poor FM: A Decade in Adelaide Progressive Community Radio’ in Gerry Bloustein (ed.), Musical Visions: Selected Conference Proceedings from 6th National Australian/New Zealand IASPM and Inaugural Arnhem Land Performance Conference, Wakefield Press, South Australia, 1999, p. 3. 251 Bagust, p. 3. 52

and grunge – or tracks from any number of other rock genres that have sprung up over the years”.252 In 2019, 4ZZZ in Brisbane also used a committee as part of its programming structure. The Program Reviews Team (PRT) consists of at least five members (at least one of whom should be a current announcer), elected each year and responsible for reviewing “the on-air sound and tone of 4ZZZ” to ensure it is always high-quality, competent and relevant.253 The PRT reports to the programming coordinator and station manager. Based on feedback from the PRT, the paid programming coordinator produces a roster for each announcing block, which is approved by the station manager before being submitted to the Board for approval. The station programs using a combination of strip and block programming, with time periods on weekends and weekdays specified for specialist or generalist programs.254 Programming can have a significant effect on listener loyalty and financial donations. Kingma and McClelland studied the factors which influence people’s charitable contributions to public radio stations in America, using censored regression analysis of listening time, donation and household income variables to test whether listening influenced the level of charity.255 The authors found programming which encourages longer listening times – more use of the radio station – increases loyalty among listeners. This behaviour was characterised as impure altruism; “donors, in addition to the benefit derived from the public good, receive personal satisfaction from making a charitable contribution.”256 Programming can encourage more loyal and generous listeners.

1.4.3 Study of broadcast content

Where other community media studies have focused on the opportunities for volunteers to participate in the media-making process, this research builds on

252 Bagust, p. 3. 253 ‘4ZZZ Station Policy’, p. 7 254 ‘4ZZZ Station Policy’, p. 8. 255 B. Kingma and R. McClelland, ‘Public Radio Stations are Really, Really Not Public Goods: Charitable Contributions and Impure Altruism’, Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics, vol. 66, no. 1, 1995. 256 Kingma and McClelland, p. 66. 53

Sandoval and Fuchs’ argument that community media’s value does not end with participation. Rather, it should continue to an assessment of the value of content produced, particularly content which “questions dominative social relations”.257 For Sandoval and Fuchs, content is a better way of assessing the impact of community media organisations, or “alternative media” as they called it, because of its critical nature in relation to existing dominant structures, whether of a left or right political persuasion. The majority of works about the broadcast output of radio and television stations are in reference books, which provide little or no analysis of content.258 Broadcast regulators, on the other hand, have often used quantitative measures to report on broadcast content. Such data is useful to find whether stations are meeting legislative requirements, to describe the types of broadcast output reaching listeners and to compare output by factors such as location or type of broadcaster. For example, the ABT has used such techniques from its formation in 1977, as documented in annual reports.259 Quantitative data from listener surveys was used in Listening to the Listeners: Radio Research, conducted by the ABA “to obtain an Australia-wide representative measure of demand by potential consumers for new services”.260 This report was used to inform the 2000s community licence hearings. Quantitative study of broadcast content is not common among Australian scholars. In Appendix C of Griffen-Foley’s history of commercial radio in Australia is an indicative program guide from one day in late August for four of Sydney’s commercial stations: 2UW in 1938, 2UE in 1958 and 1988, 2GB in 1968 and 2DayFM in 2008.261 The guide is separated into hourly blocks from 4am to 12am. Programs within each block are listed; for example, 7.00–8.00am on 2UW in 1938: 7.05 News; 7.15 A military band; 7.30 George Edwards Production; 7.45 Light Music.262 The broadcast

257 M. Sandoval and C. Fuchs, ‘Towards a Critical Theory of Alternative Media’, Telematics and Informatics, vol. 27, 2010, p. 147. 258 C. Sterling, ‘Assessing the Record: A Century of Historical Research’ in D.G. Godfrey (ed.), Methods of Historical Analysis in Electronic Media, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006, p. 366. 259 see Australian Broadcasting Control Board & Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Annual Report 1977- 78, part v, Types of Radio Programs, https://apo.org.au/node/62990 (accessed 12 November 2019), pp. 38–49. 260 Nugent et al. 261 Griffen-Foley, pp. 433–436. 262 Griffen-Foley, p. 433. 54

content of only some of these programs is discussed at length in the chapters of the book, leading to discussions which demonstrate how knowing who hosted these programs, and the content they broadcast, form part of wider cultural and societal progress. Overseas, Gaynor and O’Brien studied democratic participation in program production at four Irish community radio stations to assess the perception of these stations as “conduits of social change, emancipation and transformation”.263 They wanted to find out, through the creation and broadcast of news programs, whether these community radio stations provided an alternative platform for community participation which resulted in social change. Using qualitative data gathered from interviews with staff and volunteers at each station, they found change did not occur and all four stations were better at acting “for rather than with communities”.264 The study demonstrated these community radio stations were not the conduits of change they were intended to be and were therefore not as alternative to commercial media as intended.265 In the UK, Hendy used quantitative analysis to explore BBC Radio 1’s role in shaping popular musical taste, because some considered the broadcast of popular music inappropriate on the public broadcaster. Hendy compared the playlists of Radio 1 with the charts from 1995 to 1998 using 20 records chosen at random to test Radio 1’s claim of playing “new music first”.266 This analysis led Hendy to argue that Radio 1 did change the British popular music scene in the mid-1990s, but this occurred within wider British music industry trends where more styles of music were considered ‘mainstream’. Hendy credited new programming strategies with securing the station’s success. From 1995, more specialist music was incorporated into playlists broadcast during mainstream, daytime shows which had larger audiences. In the evening, rather than the abrupt change of years past, the station’s broadcast output gradually incorporated specialist music over two to three hours, hoping to keep

263 A. O’Brien and N. Gaynor, ‘Voice of the People? Objectives Versus Outcomes for Community Radio in Ireland’, Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, vol. 10, no. 2, 2012, p. 146. 264 O’Brien and Gaynor, p. 149. 265 O’Brien and Gaynor, p. 157. 266 Hendy, p. 751. 55

listeners tuning in for longer with popular tracks while also introducing new and different music.267 Kittross and Sterling used quantitative data in their history of American commercial broadcasting 1927–1999. This data included “number of stations on the air, network affiliations, annual revenue figures, radio and television programs by day-part [time of day broken into shifts, i.e. 6:00am to 9:00am: breakfast] and genre, and audience reach and market penetration”.268 Data was gathered from one week in one month of each year, because it was intended only to be “indicative of that “season’s” programming”.269 This data added context to the historical account of the development of broadcasting and showed the impact of new media. Data was not analysed to suggest trends in programming or other conclusions which can be drawn from broadcast output. Neickarz270 conducted a comparative case study of three American public radio stations primarily to assess the impact of commercial pressures on programming strategies. Using a similar research question to this thesis, “what is the programming strategy and philosophy at public stations and how does it impact programming content?”, Neickarz used a combination of interviews, observation and listening to each station to understand their broadcast output. Analysis of this data revealed a slow but perceptible move towards commercial programming methods. Neickarz noted a uniform change from “freeform and diverse” programming methods in the 1970s which focused on unique or challenging programming (i.e. block programming) to programming more consistently across weekdays (i.e. strip programming).271 These changes were made to increase the amount of time spent listening (TSL), which in

267 Hendy, p. 755. 268 R.K. Avery, ‘Quantitative Methods in Broadcast History’ in D.G. Godfrey (ed.), Methods of Historical Analysis in Electronic Media, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006, p. 176. 269 J.M Kitross and C.H. Sterling, Stay Tuned: A History of American Broadcasting, 3rd edn, Mahwah, NJ, Taylor and Francis, 2002, p. 843. 270 P. Nieckarz Jr, 'The Business of Public Radio: The Growing Commercial Presence within Local National Public Radio', Journal of Radio Studies, vol. 9, 2002. 271 Nieckarz Jr, ‘The Business of Public Radio’, pp. 222–223. 56

turn increased financial viability: TSL “generally converts into both membership and underwriting dollars”.272 Mollgaard provided detailed descriptions of programming on New Zealand’s twelve community radio stations, known as Community Access Radio, as part of a report about whether these stations were meeting their programming requirements under section 36 (1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.273 Drawing on interviews, self- reporting, data from the stations and other projects and listener and audience research274, Mollgaard addressed how each station did, or did not, deliver the required programming, as well as describing programming broadcast in addition to these obligations. Mollgaard concluded programming at Access stations needed to include more diverse voices, specifically Māori and female, that some were more successful than others at meeting their programming requirements under the Act. Further, digital technologies were expanding options for content production and delivery.275 Two studies about Chinese television broadcasting provide useful examples of the advantages of investigating both internal and external factors in programming decision-making using quantitative methods.276 Using the more common sampling method of broadcast output, Wang and Chang randomly selected four consecutive weeks of programming per year for 20 years of programs on three Chinese TV stations. Unsurprisingly, the authors found in the 1970s, most television programs were made in China. During the 1980s as China began economic reforms to enable trade with other countries, the number of countries from where programs were sourced increased. There was a dip in American programming in 1990, which the

272 P. Nieckarz Jr, Public Radio’s Bootstraps: An Examination of the Fundraising Techniques of Three Local NPR Stations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society, Atlanta, GA, 5 April 2001, as referenced in Nieckarz Jr, 'The Business of Public Radio’, p. 223. 273 M. Mollgaard, ‘Access Community Radio in New Zealand’, Wellington, New Zealand, 2018, https://d3r9t6niqlb7tz.cloudfront.net/media/documents/2018- 10_Mollgaard_Access_Radio_Review_2018_FINAL_for_publishing.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020). 274 Mollgaard, ‘Access Community Radio’, p. 74. 275 Mollgaard, ‘Access Community Radio’, pp. 12–13. 276 J. Hong, The Internationalization of Television in China: The Evolution of Ideology, Society, and Media Since the Reform, CT, Praeger, 1998; L. Pu ‘A Longitudinal Study of the Foreign TV Programming Pattern of China Chongqing TV, 1981–2010’, Intercultural Communication Studies, vol. XXII, no. 3, 2013; J. Wang and T. Chang, ‘From Class Ideologue to State Manager: TV Programming and Foreign Imports in China, 1970–1990’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 40, no. 2, 1996. 57

authors suggested could be due to government intervention following the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, which the Chinese government accused the US of instigating.277 Hong’s study of Chinese television from 1958 to 1996, which used a combination of methods very similar to this thesis (historical/comparative analysis, quantitative content analysis and field research involving observations, archival research and in-depth interviews), focused on the role of internal factors in deciding broadcast content. Using these methods, Hong’s conclusions extended those of Wang and Chang, highlighting the importance of political or internal factors in deciding broadcast content.278 The internationalisation of television in China was largely caused by the Chinese government viewing television as an important way for “educating, entertaining, and mobilizing the public, though both the education and the entertainment must be kept in accordance with the Party’s political and ideological guidelines”.279 While such a conclusion about an authoritarian communist regime like China should not be surprising, Hong’s research was the first time such internal factors had been examined. Hong pointed out why this study is important; where the more frequently studied external factors such as “foreign media’s marketing efforts, technological innovations, the contradiction between high demand for programming and financial constraints and low production capacity, and the audience’s preference for quality programs” did influence the internationalisation of television in China,280 without the internal factors of newly adopted government policies towards television, such changes would not have occurred or at the very least “the degree of changes would be much less substantial”.281 Not only does Hong’s study show this methodology is sound, it also shows the importance of taking a number of factors into consideration when attempting to find programming influences.

277 Wang and Chang. 278 Hong, p. 136. 279 Hong, p. 134. 280 Hong, p. 136. 281 Hong, p. 136. 58

Conclusions

In this literature review, I have placed my research about how an unplaylisted radio station makes programming decisions within its scholarly context. By narrowing the theoretical framework of this thesis to the volunteer, subcultural intermediary, I have focused on the specific attributes and challenges of those who were mostly volunteers making programming decisions within a subcultural organisation. Review of the literature about community media and its place within the Australian context has demonstrated an existing understanding of the contributions community radio stations have made to local music scenes. This review has highlighted a PBS-sized gap within the literature about Australian community radio stations and their value, demonstrated by examples of other community radio station histories. Finally, my explanation of playlisted and unplaylisted music programming shows how these two methods have affected the diversity of local music scenes. Reviewing other quantitative studies confirms the value of studying broadcast output to reveal and confirm internal and external factors affecting programming decisions. In the next chapter, I describe the methodology and methods I have used to find and analyse PBS’ programming decision-makers and broadcast output.

2. Methodology 2.1 Introduction

This study documents the programming history of a Melbourne-based specialist music community radio station. It adds to our understanding of how Australian community radio stations have operated since their inception in the 1970s, addresses the lack of quantitative data about community radio station programming, provides a qualitative account of how these programming decisions were made and shows how a community station has interpreted its goal of broadcasting diverse music over time. This chapter is broken into sections explaining my three sources of data: archives, programming grids and interviews. Each section discusses the methods used for the different data sources, and their strengths and weaknesses. The remainder of this introduction provides a methodological explanation of case studies and mixed methods research, and the implications of my position as an insider researcher.

2.1.1 Case study

This project is a case study, using similar methods to other Australian community radio station histories that cover at least three decades of a station’s operation. The case study approach is especially suited to the investigation of community radio stations, according to van Vuuren, “because it can account for the diverse experiences that take place in local contexts”.1 Yin suggested a case study should be appreciated for the in-depth study of a single phenomenon: “case studies, like experiments, are generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes”.2 Gerring suggested case study research should be defined by its ability to be placed within a larger context; the case study should be defined by how it defines cases – as “an intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of

1 K. van Vuuren, ‘The Trouble with Community Radio Research, or, How Methodological Setbacks Can Inform Theoretical Development’, 3CMedia, vol. 2, 2006, p. 3. 2 R.K. Yin, Case Study Research Design and Methods, CA, SAGE Publications, 2009, p. 15. 60

(similar) units”.3 Gerring argued case studies, historical or otherwise, have been misunderstood largely because of this role as a comparative tool.4 The case study has been considered an invalid research method because it is not possible to generalise from a single case; however, Gerring argued this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of a case study and how comparison should occur. For Kirsch, the effectiveness of a case study relies on “its culturally rooted narrative structure—the rhetorical stance—as it does on the evidence presented”.5 The information I select to write about, the narrative I construct from the stories I have been told, as well as my own biases and inherent differences to other writers will also affect the outcome of the case study. Existing case studies of two Melbourne community radio stations, 3CR and Triple R, and one Brisbane community radio station, 4ZZZ, provide examples of different ways this narrative has been constructed, documenting their station’s history with varying foci. Covering the longest time of 4ZZZ’s operation, Pig City used interviews and archival material to chronicle the development of the station within the wider context of Brisbane as a music city.6,7 Anderson used interviews and archival data to analyse the role of information-based programming8 and later the effect of institutionalisation on 4ZZZ as a social movement.9 Radio City used archives and interviews to explain internal political matters at Triple R.10 3CR’s Radical Radio also used archives and interviews to document internal information like programs and announcers, and the impact of mainly political external events, appropriate for a politically activist station. Radical Radio covers programs, timeslots, announcers and content; however, there is no

3 J. Gerring, ‘What is a Case Study and What is it Good For?’, American Political Science Review, vol. 98, no. 2, 2004, p. 324. 4 Gerring, pp. 341–342. 5 G. Kirsch, ‘Methodological Pluralism: Epistemological Issues’, in G. Kirsch and P. Sullivan (eds.), Methods and Methodology in Composition Research, Carbondale, Southern Illinois UP, 1992, p. 251. 6 Stafford. 7 There are two other histories covering 4ZZZ’s first fifteen, and then, twenty five years, and a recent article assessing the impact of the station: L. Holman, 4ZZZ: A History and Evaluation of a Public Broadcaster, Honours thesis, Brisbane, QLD, Griffith University, 1989; A. Knight, ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again: The 25th Anniversary of Radical Radio in Queensland’, 2000, http://radicaltimes.info/PDF/radicalRadio25.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020). 8 H. Anderson, ‘Agitate Educate Organise. The Roles of Information-based Programming on 4ZzZ’, 3CMedia, no. 1, 2005. 9 H. Anderson, ‘The Institutionalization of Community Radio as a Social Movement Organization: 4ZZZ as a Radical Case Study’, Journal of Radio & Audio Media, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017. 10 Phillips. 61

overarching analysis of this data.11 None of these community radio histories uses quantitative program data.

2.1.2 Insider researcher

Another similarity among these community radio station case studies is the author’s involvement with the station prior to undertaking research. Like these authors, I was involved with PBS before starting my research. Indeed, it was because I volunteered with PBS that I became aware of the need for research about the station. I am an example of Breen’s insider researcher, someone studying a group to which they belong.12 Bonner and Tollhurst listed three main advantages to being an insider researcher: first, prior and therefore more comprehensive knowledge of the organisation’s culture; second, the ability to naturally interact with the group and achieve greater intimacy with participants, which encourages truth telling and the ability to assess its reliability;13 third, insider research is suited to exploring process, rather than just outcome.14 Breen noted disadvantages associated with each of these factors: losing objectivity, particularly by using existing knowledge to make assumptions about a situation, and applying too much “sameness” to the treatment and interpretation of subjects.15 Aware of these risks and due to the historical nature of my research, I took the role described by Adler and Adler as a “peripheral researcher”.16 Already part of the PBS community, during the research process I conducted archival research onsite to maintain and build recognition with existing and new people from when I was a volunteer.17 However, as a historical study, these relationships were about securing

11 Fox, Radical Radio. 12 L. Breen, ‘The Researcher “In the Middle”: Negotiating the Insider/Outsider Dichotomy’, The Australian Community Psychologist, vol. 19, no. 1, 2007, p. 163. 13 A. Bonner and G. Tollhurst, ‘Insider-Outsider Perspectives of Participant Observation’, Nurse Researcher, vol. 9, no. 4, 2002, pp. 8–9. 14 Bonner and Tollhurst, p. 9. 15 Breen, p. 164. 16 P. Adler and P. Adler, Membership Roles in Field Research, CA, SAGE Publications, 1987, p. 36. 17 Adler and Adler, p. 36. 62

access to data and people. I did not employ formal, ethnographic observation of current staff and volunteers at PBS. Aware that insider researchers risk losing objectivity through their close connections to the subject, I stopped volunteering and deliberately limited my work at the station to research tasks only. In addition to helping provide the necessary detachment to interpret data,18 I also did this to reduce the perception of being an advocate for the station,19 only able to see positive aspects of the station’s past. Maintaining distance also encouraged those with a less positive relationship with the station or its members to be willing to be interviewed, and to be honest in those interviews. In the analysis of archival and interview data, my peripheral researcher position proved mostly advantageous. With full access to available organisational documentation, I could investigate various angles about PBS and its history until I decided upon the focus of the research. My prior knowledge of the station’s culture also allowed me to interpret documents more quickly.20 After programming data was collected and analysed, I engaged in what Adler and Adler called “research exchange”21 by presenting preliminary results to the station manager. The ethics approval for this research includes the review of material by PBS’ station manager (or his delegate) prior to publication to confirm that internal sources not typically available to the public can be published and to confirm the validity of my data and analysis. My role as the researcher conducting interviews using the oral history method brought with it a number of responsibilities. Frisch explained the relationship between the researcher and narrator as “a shared authority” where collaboration is required to produce an oral history: in the nature of oral and public history, we are not the sole interpreters. Rather, the interpretive and meaning-making process is in fact shared by definition – it is

18 Adler and Adler, p. 36. 19 Bonner and Tollhurst. 20 Bonner and Tollhurst. 21 Adler and Adler, p. 40. 63

inherent in the dialogic nature of an interview, and in how audiences receive and respond to exhibitions and public history interchanges in general.22

For Yin, as the main instrument of data collection in qualitative research the interviewer holds a powerful position in all forms of qualitative research23 and "researchers cannot in the final analysis avoid their own research lenses in rendering reality".24 To do so would bias the results of the research such that the reader did not have all information available to them. Oral historians have evolved their practice to require discussion of the role of the researcher/interviewer and their influence on the process of interviewing, a process called reflexivity.25 Waddington defined reflexivity as: the process of critical self reflection … [where] the researcher is required to consider the various ways that the character of the data may have been affected by such factors as the sensitivity of the research issues, their own individual identity and the quality of interaction between themselves and their respondents.26

In practical terms, Yow used reflexivity to explain a situation where she realised how her expectations of the narrator had influenced the interview: “I had unrealistic expectations of the narrator: I wanted him to think out loud along the lines I was thinking. He did not say what I thought was important – he said what in his view was important”.27 Expectations that may be caused by similarities or differences between the interviewer and interviewee in gender, age, class and cultural background all contribute to the powerful position the researcher holds in the interview process. Noting Yow’s experience, I approached each interview open to how the interviewee was engaging with the process. For those who wanted to talk with little guidance, I only prompted with questions when they went very far off track or

22 M. Frisch, ‘From A Shared Authority to the Digital Kitchen, and Back’, in B. Adair, B. Filene and L. Koloski, Letting Go?: Sharing Historical Authority in a User-Generated World, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, 2011, p. 127. 23 Yin, p. 13. 24 Yin, p. 12. 25 V. Yow, ‘“Do I Like Them Too Much?”: Effects of the Oral History Interview on the Interviewer and Vice-Versa’, The Oral History Review, vol. 24, 1997. 26 D. Waddington, ‘Participant Observation’, in G. Symon and C. Cassell, Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, London, SAGE Publications, 2004, p. 178. 27 Yow, p. 10. 64

ran out of things to say. For those more comfortable with the question-and-answer format, I adhered mostly to my prepared questions, with some deviation to explore comments I wanted to know more about. Bias is an inescapable part of research, as it can be found in both the researcher themselves and the subject of the research. In the introduction to this thesis I acknowledged and explained my connection to PBS, which is a potential source of bias. In this chapter, I explain how with a triangulation of methods, I have attempted to counter my biases on multiple fronts. This thesis uses mixed methods research, a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, to pragmatically address the “multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions, and standpoints” innate in the pursuit of knowledge.28 Combining qualitative and quantitative methods to triangulate data can result in more robust research as the inherent biases in both methods will be “canceled out”, resulting in a “convergence upon the truth about some social phenomenon”.29 A disadvantage of triangulation is its replicability, particularly when qualitative methods are used.30 While this is difficult to overcome, replicability in quantitative methods has been addressed with a detailed explanation of the programming data collection process later in this chapter. A poorly focused research question results in all the data becoming negatively skewed, contributing to inaccurate results. I have attempted to address this weakness by regularly revisiting and challenging my research question. Consequently, the research question I began with has been refined, resulting in more accurate and useful findings.

2.2 Archives

The history I have been able to obtain about PBS from its archive was limited by the very archive itself. Community organisations like PBS often have limited collections of

28 R. Johnson, A. Onwuegbuzie and L. Turner, ‘Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 1, no. 2, 2007, p. 113. 29 N. Denzin, The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, New Brunswick, Aldine Transaction, 1978, p. 14. 30 T. Jick, ‘Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 609–610. 65

their own stories. In some cases, this is a deliberate attempt to withhold information from the public.31 However, in PBS’ case it was more because of poor record-keeping, particularly before computers, a lack of room to keep archival material and a lack of appreciation among some of the value of retaining such documents. Burton’s observation – “The history of the archive is a history of loss”32 – is particularly relevant to PBS’ situation. Overzealous management and volunteers were partly responsible; they dumped such documents at various times, including during one of the many relocations of the office and studios around Melbourne. For all the factors that led to its current state, PBS’ archival collection is like all archival collections, which “as a whole constrain the types of histories made possible and impossible through them”.33 Archives are records created or received by a person as, for or about an organisation which merit preservation because of their enduring value.34 This value can be found in the evidence or information they contain about the “functions, responsibilities, actions or transactions of the creator or about the life and times in which the creator conducted his or her affairs and the society in which he or she lived and worked”.35 In addition to Board papers and the Waves and Easey magazine collections, when this research began, the PBS ‘archives’ were a potluck mix of documents from various times and with various levels of ‘value’. Just as Gaillet described, my experience reading through PBS’ archives was both enlightening and very frustrating; “for the most part, archival research is somewhat tedious, involves following trails that fork, branch, or dissipate and rarely involves holy grail discoveries”.36 My holy grail discoveries were nil, but Board papers did provide the only consistent timeline of events. To document how I accessed the archives, I use Connors’ explanation of the history researcher’s process. Connors’ theory comprises three parts: present

31 M.T. King, ‘Working With/In the Archives’, in S. Gunn and L. Faire (eds.), Research Methods for History, Edinburgh University Press, 2011, p. 15. 32 A. Burton, ‘Thinking Beyond the Boundaries: Empire, Feminism and the Domains of History’, Social History, vol. 26, no. 1, 2001, p. 66. 33 King, p. 17. 34 King, p. 3. 35 King, p. 3. 36 L. L. Gaillet, ‘Archival Survival: Navigating Historical Research’, A. Ramsey et al. (eds.), Working in the Archives: Practical Research Methods for Rhetoric and Composition, Carbondale, Southern Illinois UP, 2010, p. 29. 66

awareness, archival retrieval and realisation of prejudice.37 Present awareness takes place through assessment of the archives available, the historian using external criticism to determine the sources they will use. Then, once the archives have been retrieved, internal criticism takes place when the historian looks for biases in the archives or, more importantly, corroboration of claims.38 Finally, realisation of prejudice takes place when materials are synthesised to produce connections and insights.39 External criticism, the choices historians make in the sources they will read, requires knowing which sources are available in the first place.40 During the ethics process, assisted by my insider status, I obtained approval to access all archived internal documents relevant to the internal operations of the station. This included Board papers and minutes, annual reports, various marketing and publicity strategies, and audience research. The ethical implications of such access to confidential documents were a factor I needed to manage as an insider researcher. In accordance with my ethics clearance, any use of information from these internal documents in the thesis required consent from the station manager, on a case-by-case basis. I provided the thesis to the station manager for review prior to submission. Also, I had access to the publicly available documents retained by PBS. Of most significance were Waves magazines. Much of my initial research focused on in- depth reading of these magazines. The first edition was published in 1977, almost three years before official broadcasting began. It evolved from station meeting minutes, initially created to meet cooperative organisational structure regulations. It was distributed to paid-up members or could be purchased for a small fee (55 cents for the first edition). Waves was designed to maintain connections: PBS is about music. But it's also about communication. Communicating ideas and information about music and programmes, live bands, recording whatever you like. One of the ways of doing this is through Waves. For those who can't get to meeting or

37 R.J. Connors, ‘Dreams and Play: Historical Method and Methodology” in G. Kirsch and P. Sullivan (eds.), Methods and Methodology of Composition Research, Carbondale, Southern Illinois UP, 1992, p. 15. 38 Connors, p. 26. 39 Connors, p. 28. 40 Connors, p. 25. 67

are having trouble in getting a say, Waves provides an excellent forum for getting across ideas, asking information, giving information, keeping other subscribers up to

date with things that certain of you may specialise in.41

Six years later, in 1985, the Board still valued Waves as “a means of communication with our subscribers and, as a valuable resource by which we can promote the aims and objects of the Cooperative to a wider audience”.42 When facing significant financial pressure, the Board decided not to “scale the magazine down, paring it to basic programme notes” but instead to upgrade it, increasing the print run and distribution, and charging for the magazine for the first time (although it remained free to subscribers).43 Trawling though Waves to the end of the 1980s, its short-lived replacement Static and then its resurrection as Easey in the 2000s, the importance of the programming grid became clear. While not so much the “flash of recognition”44 of finding something crucial because of its scarcity (this programming information appears in every magazine) it was a “flash” of understanding that these programming schedules and grids revealed to me an important part of PBS’ history. The programming grid’s importance was clear in all magazines. In Waves it occupied multiple pages in every edition and in Static and Easey it had the middle, double- page, colour spread to attach to a wall. Also, many of the articles about the station’s operations, particularly in Waves, were concerned with the processes of program selection and broadcasting. The second part of Connors’ theory about archival research is what he called “internal criticism”.45 This is where a comparative analysis of the sources begins, requiring examination of language, bias, glosses and corruption.46 The most important part of this analysis is the “search for corroborative support of claims made by sources”; evidence is stronger when visible in a number of sources.47 For me, this

41 C. Kardachi, ‘Waves’, Waves, August 1979, p. 3. 42 I. Stanistreet and M. Glover, ‘State of the Station’, Waves, June/July 1985, p. 3. 43 Stanistreet and Glover, p. 3. 44 King, p. 20. 45 Connors, p. 26. 46 Connors, p. 26. 47 Connors, p. 26. 68

internal criticism began when I accessed the previously mentioned internal documents – Board papers, marketing and business plans. I sought information about anything related to programming, but also general information about factors which affected the station’s finances, policy, technological developments and other major events.48 I now had an internal resource against which publicly published documents could be compared. As Rowlinson explained, studying an organisation only through company documentation can privilege the experience of managers, failing to capture everyday experiences of volunteers and staff and the associated meanings.49 While organisational documents for external audiences can be biased in presenting only what the executives want the public to know, other information gathered in the research process can reveal different elements of the organisation.50 A historian can cause discomfort by contradicting the past as remembered by an organisation’s members.51 Internal documents such as meeting minutes should be treated differently, as “they are the outcome of a political process”.52 They are valuable because they have not “been collected, or concocted, for the benefit of the researcher, unlike stories … and reconstructed memories elicited in interviews”.53 Connors’ final phase is the synthesis of materials.54 This occurs once sources have been gathered and compared, and considered for the questions they answer and raise. For Connors, this phase is typified by the development of sub-hypotheses, which spur investigation of smaller leads that might eventually provide the answers to the main hypothesis. In my research process, these leads took numerous forms. I formed sub-hypotheses about the influence of subcultural intermediaries as the station evolved and the impact of broader music trends on PBS’ aspiring announcers. These led to my conclusion that the ways an unplaylisted radio station makes

48 Connors, p. 33. 49 M. Rowlinson, ‘Historical Analysis of Company Documents’, in G. Symon and C. Cassell (eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, London, SAGE Publications, 2004, p. 328. 50 Rowlinson, p. 321. 51 Rowlinson, p. 326. 52 Rowlinson, p. 325. 53 Rowlinson, p. 325. 54 Connors, p. 28. 69

programming decisions are influenced by many factors and change over time. Further explanation and synthesis of PBS data are presented in the following chapters.

2.2.1 Programming grids

2.2.2 Data entry

The largest piece of original research for this thesis was the creation of a quantitative dataset documenting all programs broadcast since the first hour of official broadcasting, 4:30pm on 21 December 1979, to 12:00pm on 31 December 2019. Programs are the unit of measurement and analysis for two main reasons. First, PBS’ mission emphasises programs, rather than individual broadcasters or “personalities”, as the heart of the station: “In PBS the content of the programmes is bigger than the announcer”.55 Although on a larger scale, Percival has shown how one specialist music program can influence the local production of popular music.56 Second, programs offer a particularly reliable data source because of their constant presence on-air, even though there have been changes to descriptions about the types of music broadcast. Although programs are the unit of measurement, I have captured and analysed information about the announcers of these programs, including gender and length of time on-air. I did not attempt to analyse individual songs/tracks played, in part because this information was not consistently available across decades and certainly not enough to account for every broadcast hour since 1979. Collating and analysing musicians and song information over the past 40 years, a method used for two one- week time periods in Hellman and Vikko’s study, would have enhanced this study through an extra level of detail.57 But the aim of Hellman and Vikko’s research was not the same as in this thesis. They used song-by-song analysis to compare the structure of playlists of commercial and public (government-owned) stations, finding public stations were able to use the playlist, a method that standardises the output of

55 ‘Switches On?’, Waves, January 1980, p. 5. 56 J. M. Percival, ‘Scottish Indie Music and BBC Radio’s Beat Patrol (1995-2000)’, Popular Music History, vol. 4, no. 1, 2009. 57 Hellman and Vilkko. 70

music, to differentiate themselves from commercial broadcasters. Their analysis highlighted how programming decisions reflected the philosophy of the station as a whole, not the different factors and people who might influence such decisions. Fairchild argued community radio announcers create communities, imagined and material, through their highly considered and often meticulous programming decisions.58 While his research also provides an accurate description of how many of PBS’ announcers program their shows, the research questions my study addresses are about decision-making processes of multiple cultural intermediaries, not just of the announcer. I was able to get a sense of the ‘flavour’ of the music broadcast by PBS’ announcers using two different methods. Existing verbatim descriptions of programs (Tier 3 – discussed later in this section) were consistent and detailed and, in the 1980s, often included several of the bands to be broadcast. Other information about musical styles which enhanced understanding of PBS programs and the integral role of bands and musicians in the station’s broadcast output was obtained in interviews. My data accounts for every hour of programming since PBS officially began broadcasting. Two test broadcasts conducted before official broadcasting started are discussed in chapter 3. They are not included in my dataset because they were technical tests, not programmed radio.59 The dataset captures every program broadcast until midnight on 31 December 2019, the sample finishing at the end of a calendar year, making 40 years of data. I entered data into the statistical software SPSS, chosen due to its ability to weight and merge data and to produce a detailed level of analysis with a large dataset. Results generated in SPSS were exported to Microsoft Excel, as I found its graphing functions easier to use. Information types collected from the schedules and grids are shown in Table 1.

58 Fairchild., ‘When a Place Becomes a Community’. 59 Board meeting minutes, 27 November 1979, PBS. 71

Table 1: Data collected from programming grids

Variable Description Date DD/MM/YYYY Time of day See Table 2 Length of program Hours Name of program Copied from published description Program description Copied from published description Gender of announcer Male, Female, Both, Unknown

Gender of announcer was categorised based on given name as Male or Female, or Both where there was at least one announcer of each gender. When there was doubt about the gender of an announcer, I asked past PBS announcers to verify this via an interactive spreadsheet of missing program information. When past announcers were unable to verify the gender of an announcer, ‘Unknown’ was entered. I acknowledge these descriptions comply with an incorrect view of gender as a binary definition. This is a limitation of the study. Additional variables not contained in the schedules or grids were created to assist with analysis of data. Time of day was standardised to start each day with the breakfast program or whatever was the first program after 6:00am. Industry-standard timeframes used for ratings surveys were used, known as day parts, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Time of day allocation

Hours Weekday/ weekend shift 6:00am–9:00am Breakfast 9:00am–12:00pm Morning 12:00pm–4:00pm Afternoon 4:00pm–7:00pm Drive 7:00pm–12:00pm Evening 12:00pm–6:00am Insomnia

2.2.3 Classifying music

I have coded the verbatim descriptions completed by announcers at the time into 11 ‘categories’ that closely, but not completely, follow the categories that PBS itself now

uses. Table 3 summarises the sources of verbatim descriptions found in programming schedules and grids, their respective years and the method of data entry.

Table 3: Programming schedule and grid sources by year

Years Source Format Frequency of Data entry publication 1977*–1988 Waves magazine Schedule Monthly to 1984 Daily Bimonthly to 1988 Daily 1989 Static magazine Grid 3 monthly Weekly Green Guide Schedule Weekly Daily 1990–1998 Private collections Grid N/A Weekly Board papers Grid N/A Weekly 1999–2002 Archived PBS Grid 6 monthly Weekly website 2002–2019 Easey magazine Grid 4 monthly Weekly *Waves magazine published from 1977, but programming information not collected until first official broadcast (December 1979).

The frequency of the raw data varies, either because of how often it was published or because some copies of grids could not be located. I have entered the most accurate record available, as indicated in the ‘Frequency of publication’ column. To calculate actual hours broadcast week-by-week where weekly schedules were not available, I assumed identical weekly schedules from available data closest to the missing timeframe. The differences between schedules and grids lie in their format and detail. Schedules were published monthly or bimonthly. They were detailed, containing information about bands to be broadcast and sometimes a story. Data entry for schedules was hour by hour. In schedules, program announcers could describe the music they planned to broadcast in as little or as much detail as they wished. Because most announcers entered a lot of detail, I needed to make very few assumptions about data obtained from schedules. Figure 1 provides an example of these differing descriptive methods in 1983. On the left is the typical, less descriptive style compared with the rare, highly descriptive style on the right.60

60 ‘Program Schedule (Pullout)’, Waves, December/January 1983. 73

Typical, less descriptive program information Less common, highly descriptive program information

Figure 1: Program information examples used in schedules, 1983

Grids are a more visual representation, showing the day of the week on the x axis and the time of day on the y axis. They provide basic information about the program: name of program and its announcer, and a brief description of the music played, and can apply for 3–6 months. Figure 2 is an example of a grid from 2008/09.61

61 ‘Grid: November 2008 to February 2009’, PBS. 74

Figure 1: Example of a program grid

There were 1260 programs across the 40 years. While some results can be gained from the raw data, I developed a four-tiered system to assist with analysis at different levels of aggregation. This uses varying levels of detail to describe the music broadcast on a program. Table 4 summarises the system and the rules for each tier.

Table 4: Description of tiers used for data analysis

Tier No. of Data type Description Rules categories Tier 1 11 Category Overarching categories, mostly A program can only have reflecting PBS’ system one Tier 1 category Tier 2 131 Genre Musical ‘genres’ broadcast by No limit on Tier 2 genre program descriptions per program Tier 3 1260 Verbatim Verbatim descriptions from grids Descriptions may change description and schedules over time; Tier 2 coding changes accordingly Tier 4 25 Non-genre Extra information not directly A program can have up to information relevant to genre descriptions i.e. two categories “independent” or “live to air”

I was unable to identify the musical style broadcast for 12 of the 1260 programs, less than 1% of programs.

Tier 1 A classification system acts as “a set of boxes (metaphorical or literal) into which things can be put to do some kind of work”.62 The “boxes” here are Tier 1 categories and the “things” are genres of music broadcast within a program. Grouping programs into a Tier 1 category allowed me to compare these with other Tier 1 categories to find trends in the data. To create Tier 1 categories, I researched a number of modern classification systems used by other research sources, music industry bodies, music streaming services and PBS. This thesis is not an analysis of genre or the evolution of genres. In selecting my list of Tier 1 categories, my main interest was to capture the main musical styles broadcast on PBS. Table 5 lists the surveyed sources and categories they use to classify music.

62 G. Bowker and S. Leigh Star, Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1999, p. 10. 76

Table 5: Classification systems used by other organisations

For research purposes Music industry bodies Music streaming services PBS Google music1 Wikipedia2 musicmap3 AMRAP4 The Age Music Victoria allmusic6 Discogs7 Rateyour pbsfm.org.au9 Genre Awards (2016)5 music.com8 Alternative/ Indie African (Heavy) Metal Blues/Roots Aboriginal Avant‐garde Blues Ambient Blues & Roots Blues Arabic music Blue Note: Blues Charts Blues Blues Brass & Military Blues Breakfast Country Asian Blue Note: Gospel & Pioneers Christian Country Children's Children's Classical Electronic & Hip Hop Hip Hip/Rap Avant‐garde Blue Note: Jazz Classical Electronic Classical Classical Comedy Funk & Soul Holiday Blues Country Country Experimental or Avant Garde Comedy/Spoken Electronic Dance Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Caribbean Downtempo / Ambient Electronic Folk/Roots Country Folk, World & Country Darkwave Jazz Pop Classical EDM / Dance: Breakbeat Ethnic Multicultural Global or Reggae Easy Listening Funk/Soul Electronic Rock Indie R&B/Soul Comedy EDM / Dance: Drum 'N' Bass / Jungle Exclusive Recordings Heavy Electronic Hip Hop Experimental Various Reggae Country EDM / Dance: Hardcore (Techno) Folk Hip Hop Folk Jazz Field Recordings World Rock Easy Listening EDM / Dance: House Funk Jazz Holiday Latin Folk Electronic EDM / Dance: Techno Hip Hop Soul, Funk, R'n'B or Gospel International Non‐Music Hip Hop Folk EDM / Dance: Trance Indigenous Jazz Industrial Hip Hop Jamaican (Music) / Reggae Jazz Latin Jazz Jazz Pop (Music) Metal New Age Metal Latin Rap / Hip‐Hop Music Pop Pop/Rock Musical Theatre & Entertainment Pop Rhythm 'N' Blues (R&B) Reggae R&B New Age R&B and soul Rock: Alternative / Indie (Rock) Rock Rap Plunderphonics Rock Rock: Contemporary (Rock) World Reggae Pop Other Rock: Golden Age Religious Psychedelia Rock: Hardcore (Punk) Stage & Screen Punk Rock: Punk (Rock) / (New) Wave Vocal R&B Rock: Rock 'N' Roll (R'n'r) Regional Music Industrial & Gothic Rock Singer/Songwriter Ska Sounds and Effects Spaghetti Western Spoken Word Visual Kei

63 Google Research, Music Timeline [website], http://research.google.com/bigpicture/music (accessed 21 November 2017). 64 Wikipedia Foundation, List of Music Styles [website], https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_styles (accessed 21 November 2017). 65 Kwinten Crauwels, Super‐genres [website], https://musicmap.info (accessed 21 November 2017). 66 AMRAP AirIt, Advanced Search [website], https://airit.org.au/search.php (accessed 21 November 2017). 67 State Government of Victoria, Recipients of The Age Music Victoria Awards 2016 Announced [website], https://creative.vic.gov.au/news‐ archive/2016/grecipients‐of‐the‐age‐music‐victoria‐awards‐2016‐announced (accessed 21 November 2017). 68 RhythmOne, Genres [website], www.allmusic.com/genres (accessed 21 November 2017). 69 ZinkMedia, Homepage [website], www.discogs.com/search (accessed 21 November 2017). 70 Sonemic, Genre [website], https://rateyourmusic.com/rgenre (accessed 21 November 2017). 71 PBS, PBS Programs; By Category [website] www.pbsfm.org.au/programlist/category (accessed 21 November 2017). 77

Similarities exist in some of the more-well known categories; for example, Blues appeared in all lists. There was greater deviation in longer lists that viewed subgenres differently. Lists used for research purposes and by music industry bodies tended to be smaller and most like PBS’ list (except for Wikipedia), while music streaming services lists were more diverse, including some categories not found in other lists. A notable difference in the final Tier 1 list is the categorisation of World and Funk & Soul as separate categories. At PBS Reggae is now part of World, but in most other lists it appears separately, even in small lists. Funk & Soul is usually classified as part of Blues & Roots (as it was in 2008), but it is a separate Tier 1 category because it has been a big part of PBS’ broadcast output over the decades. Waves magazines extensively discuss category selection at PBS over the years because it was a topic of much tension. This is mainly because lovers of particular musical styles wanted to ensure their music was represented. As the organisation grew, both in volunteers and airtime, categories evolved. Table 6 provides a sample list from each decade showing the evolution of PBS’ categorisation system.

Table 6: Evolution of program categories at PBS, 1988-2017

1988 1998 2008 2017 (20 categories) (10 categories) (9 categories) (10 categories) 60s Soul Breakfast Arts Blues & Roots Alternative film and Electronic Cross Genre Breakfast theatre guide Ambient Hardcore Electronica and Electronic & Hip Hop Hip Hop Australian Music Indie Hardcore Funk & Soul Big Bands Insomnia Indie/Rock Hard 'n' Heavy Blues R&B Jazz Jazz Jazz Comedy Roots Roots, Blues, Funk Rock Indie & Soul Contemporary Soul Soul & Dance Worldwide Various Country Spoken Word World Drama World wide Gig Guide & Community Service Announcements Heavy Rock Midnight – 2am New Music

New Releases Punk Reggae Sixties Music Student Access The Electronic Influence

There are significantly more categories in 1988 than any other decade because of the way PBS organised its programs. During most of the 1980s, any number of people could host a program but the same type of music would always be heard during the same timeslot, for example, 2:00pm on a Thursday. Accordingly, the categories in the 1988 list are a montage of descriptions of timeslots, musical styles and programs, and represent the higher number of people involved with daily programming decisions. Each of these 20 categories had one coordinator who was responsible for “allocation of programmes, training of panel operators, legal education of announcers, studio rules, liaison with record companies, providing programme notes for the media, monthly meeting of music category supervisors (compulsory)”.72 The station has consistently reviewed its categories to fit the music they represent. The final Tier 1 list used for this project most closely resembles PBS’ 2017 categories, as seen in Table 7. The blue cell indicates the category was evident in the data.

72 L. Traynor, ‘The New Deal’, Waves, October 1981, p. 2. 79

Table 7: Comparison of Tier 1 and PBS categories

PBS Categories Tier 1 (2017) Breakfast Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard ‘n’ Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Unknown Various World

I will briefly explain some of these categories. In comparison with PBS’ categories, my addition of Contemporary Mix and Unknown categories was to account for large amounts of data, particularly in the 1990s. ‘Unknown’ programs were those where data was missing; the majority of missing data was from the 2:00am–6:00am “graveyard” or “insomnia” timeslot. Most of these Unknown programs were from the 1990s because, although the station was on-air, grids did not include this timeslot. ‘Contemporary Mix’ programs are those which featured a variety of music contemporary at the time, although many were biased towards Rock Indie styles. Again, these programs were most common in the 1990s when the station attempted to broaden the styles of music broadcast during breakfast and drive shifts. Due to this preference for time-of-day scheduling, almost 50% of Contemporary Mix programming was in the breakfast shift. ‘Various’ programs were also cross-genre; however, these programs broadcast all eras of music, not just contemporary styles. There was not the same bias towards Rock Indie in Various programs. ‘Spoken Word’ programs were an important part of the schedule until their demise in the early 2010s, so I chose not to exclude this category from my Tier 1 list. A program can be allocated to only one Tier 1 category. PBS has always allowed announcers to choose their own music category. As described previously, my Tier 1

categories are very similar to the categories PBS has used. When I knew which category an announcer had chosen for their program, I allocated consistently. Where I did not know which PBS category a program belonged to, I allocated based on their name and Tier 3 verbatim description. For example, the program Soul Patrol featured in Figure 1 was categorised into the Tier 1 Funk & Soul category. Programs with no title or containing elements of more than one Tier 1 category were allocated according to the dominant ‘atmosphere’ or ‘feel’ in their Tier 3 descriptions. Tier 1 categories were more accurate for programs on-air in the 1980s because those were typically single-genre programs. From the 1990s, programs were more likely to contain more musical styles, making their Tier 1 category less representative of the breadth of music played. Tier 2 was devised to remedy this situation. Its 131 music genres, when used in combination with Tier 1 data, construct a more accurate account of musical styles broadcast on programs which featured more than one style.

Tier 2 Tier 2 explains which musical styles make up each Tier 1 category, providing greater depth of information about the specialist music PBS most often broadcast. Tier 2 most accurately captures music trends. Tier 2 is also where cross-category Tier 1 programs are most accurately reported, because a program can have multiple Tier 2 descriptions. For example, a program that played Jazz and Blues would have alternating Tier 2 descriptions of Jazz and Blues in the cells for the length of the program. This data-entry process enabled consistency in allocation and balanced my time constraints with data accuracy. To create the Tier 2 genres, a combination of each program’s Tier 3 verbatim description and Tier 1 category was used. Common terms from each were identified to create and allocate Tier 2 styles. I distinguished styles applicable specifically to Jazz and World categories differently to assist the final analysis. This is why there are styles such as Electronic and Jazz – Electronic. All Tier 2 styles can be seen in Table 8.

Table 8: Tier 2 styles

Acid Jazz Current Free Jazz Jazz Blues Punk Symphonic Affairs Rock Acoustic Dance Funk Jazz Folk Punk - Synth Hardcore Ambient Dance - Garage Jazz Funk Punk Rock Techno Industrial Arts Dancehall German Rock Jazz Fusion Punk Thrash Thrash Metal Avant Garde Death Metal Gig Guides Jazz Rock Rap Trance Beats Disco Gospel Latin Reggae Trivia Big Bands Doo Wop Grunge Latin Jazz Rhythm & Unknown Blues Bizarre Doom Hard Rock Movie Rock Various Soundtracks Bluegrass Drama Hardcore Music & Rock – Western Comedy Alternative Swing Blues Drum n Bass Heavy Metal Music Rock – Glam Words genealogy Blues Rock Dub Heavy Rock New Metal Rock – Goth World Bollywood Early Rhythm Hip Hop New Wave Rock – Stoner World - & Blues Acoustic Books Early Rock & House Noise Rock & Roll World – Roll African Breaks Electric Rock Industrial Northern Soul Rockabilly World – Dance Cabaret Electronic Instrumental Nostalgia Rocksteady World – Eastern European Cajun Electronic – Jazz Swing Pop Roots World – Dark Electronic Calypso Electronic – Jazz Soul Pop Rock Show tunes World – Folk Downtempo Carolina Emo Jazz Post Punk Ska World – Beach Music Indigenous Comedy Experimental Jazz – Be Bop Progressive Soul World – Jazz Metal Country Extreme Metal Jazz – Progressive Southern Rock World – Electronic Rock Rhythm & Blues Country Blues Film Jazz – Psychedelia Surf World – Roots Experimental Country Rock Folk Jazz – Psychedelic Swamp Rock World – Soul & Roll Improvised Rock

Tier 3 Tier 3 is the verbatim description of programs drawn from programming schedules and grids. While the data produced 1260 Tier 3 categories, there were only 1216 programs because some programs had more than one description during their years on-air. In the early 1980s, it was the norm for announcers simply to list bands or albums they were going to play. By the mid-1980s, descriptions were more often limited to musical style or mood descriptions. These ranged from, for example, “Blues” or “Salsa Jazz” to “dark and horror influenced electronica”. Descriptions such as these have continued to the present day, with an emphasis on shorter descriptions in the 2010s.

Tier 4 Tier 4 caters for non-music information. Not all programs listed such extra information, but those that did included terms such as independent, Australian, songs by women, etc. Such information captures non-musical-style based programs and narrows the scope of other programs based on musical styles. Tier 4 categories were created by collating common terms in Tier 3 descriptions. A program can have up to two of the descriptions in the list of Tier 4 categories, shown in Table 9. Two descriptions was enough to capture Tier 4 information.

Table 9: Tier 4 non-musical information

60s Australian Gig Guides Live to tape Pre-1980 Contemporary Albums Australian Women Guitarists Mainstream UK Alternative Australian Independent Melbourne US ANZAC Charts Live & Pre- New Vinyl recorded Releases Asian Contemporary Live to air NZ Women

2.3 Oral history interviews

Oral history interviews prioritise the stories of everyday experience from everyday people who are accessible to others because of their ordinariness and relatability. Darian-Smith and Hamilton explained oral history has become the most frequently

used method for exploration of historical individual experience, because audiences are able to “connect and identify with the memories presented”.73 Portelli said to undertake historical work without using oral sources is “incomplete by definition”.74 Just as if a researcher were to exclude archived documents, excluding available oral sources would fail to take into account all resources from the event or organisation being investigated. Frisch explained the strength of oral history lies in its ability to discover multiple relationships between the past and present, encouraging the interviewee to “interpret their lives and the world around them".75 Portelli’s explanation of oral history highlighted understanding “cultural forms and processes”, that is, the social contexts in which the interviewee has lived, as the key to interpreting how the interviewee “express[es] their sense of themselves in history”.76 Young agreed, arguing oral history offers a shift from what happened to the effect of what happened. This means cultural context becomes more important, “rather than attempting to scientifically isolate [events] from context".77 The unreliability of memory is considered a strength of oral histories, rather than a weakness. Portelli contended history can have multiple truths to its participants and historical facts are as much what a person believes happened as what really happened.78 Thomson concurred: “the ‘distortions’ of memory could be a resource as much as a problem".79 The question to ask is not ‘has this person remembered this event correctly?’ but ‘what does their memory suggest about the narrator and their experience?’ The way they remember an event may not be factually true, but their interpretation leads to finding meaning.80

73 K. Darian Smith and P. Hamilton, ‘Memory and History in Twenty-first Century Australia: A Survey of the Field’, Memory Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, 2013, p. 377. 74 A. Portelli, The Death of Luigi Trastulli, and Other Stories: Form, and Meaning in Oral History, State University of New York Press, 1990, p. 55. 75 M. Frisch, A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History, State of New York Press, 1990, p. 188. 76 Portelli, p. ix. 77 A. Young, ‘Oral History as Emergent Paradigm’, The Oral History Association of Australia Journal, vol. 28, 2006, p. 5. 78 Portelli, p. 50. 79 A. Thomson, ANZAC Memories: Living with the Legend, Clayton, Monash University Publishing, 2013, p. 330. 80 Portelli, p. 2. 84

Oral history’s quest to know “less about events than about their meaning” [emphasis in original] relies upon the relationship between events, memory and identity.81 Thomson explained events form identity and our identities shape remembering: “memories are ‘significant pasts’ that we compose to make a more comfortable sense of our life over time, and in which past and current identities are brought more into line”.82 Young said memories are truly personal: "individuals cannot share another's memory any more than they can share another's cortex", but a collection of memories can be used to identify a collective memory and a collective identity.83 The memory that oral history promotes is a collective memory consisting of a “many-sided” truth compiled from varied perspectives.84 Hamilton explained collective memory as “the making of a group memory so that it becomes an expression of identity, and accepted by that group as the ‘truth’ of experience”.85 Hamilton also explained that collective memory can be fluid or fixed; “collective memory can be set in stone as an unquestioned myth or it can be continually renegotiated across time in accordance with external circumstance and generational shifts".86 Through their stories and reflection on the significance of an event in the past and to their present, the interviewee and the interviewer attempt to investigate memory for truth, inconsistencies and what has not been said.

2.3.1 Recruitment

The research was best served by a combination of people who had been involved with the station for a long time, as well as people who had been involved during only one decade. The final list of desired interviewees was constructed based on archival research and conversations with the station manager and volunteer manager. Several

81 Portelli, p. 50. 82 Thomson, p. 13. 83 J. Young, The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meanings, New Haven, Yale University, 1993, p. xi. 84 Young, ‘Oral History as Emergent Paradigm’, p. 3. 85 P. Hamilton, ‘Sale of the Century? Memory and Historical Consciousness in Australia’, in S. Radstone and K. Hodgkin (eds.), Contested Pasts, Oxon, Taylor and Francis, 2003, p. 142. 86 Hamilton, p. 142. 85

demographic factors were also considered. As a historical study, as a consequence of time, most of the interviewees were over 40 years of age. For the 2010s, I purposively recruited younger participants so half of interviewees from this decade were under 40. I interviewed 20 people for this research, selecting interviewees from all categories of cultural intermediaries (station managers, program managers, Board members, programming committee members, program planning group members, category coordinators, announcers) and from all decades of official broadcasting (1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s). I deliberately targeted respondents who had multiple roles at PBS and could speak knowledgeably about these. I had met six of the 20 interviewees before approaching them for an interview. See Appendix B for the full list of interviewees. I interviewed a 50% split of male and female interviewees for Board members, programming committee members and announcers. Gender diversity was sought throughout the interviews, which required some effort in an organisation historically dominated by men. There have been only one female program manager and station manager; unfortunately, neither agreed to be interviewed. Community radio stations are generally diverse places. Moylan argued this diversity encompasses all lived human experience and identity that makes up a society: ethnicity, gender, sexual, political, economic and social.87 A limitation of this study was data about the diversity of PBS’ participants. I did not foreground cultural diversity because data sources, as described in section 2.2 Archives, contained no information about the diversity of participants beyond what could be guessed from names. To collate such data for 40 years of announcers would have been almost impossible, and too time consuming to track down all announcers to check. Attempting to mitigate the risk of failing to identity important people in PBS’ programming past, I also incorporated a modified snowball recruitment technique. At the end of each interview, I asked if the interviewee thought there was anyone else I should interview. From this question, two names repeatedly appeared that I had not already identified as desired interviewees. One of these declined to be interviewed, while the other agreed.

87 K. Moylan, Broadcasting Diversity, Chicago, Intellect, 2013. 86

2.3.2 Interviews

Downing said that because community media engages with listeners on a more profound level than commercial media, the questions asked of those involved with community media “need to be infinitely more complex”.88 Downing also said that investigating emotion is “crucial” in qualitative community media research because emotion is constantly present when engaging with community media.89 I prepared a range of questions, those specific to roles and responsibilities, and then more open questions probing experience and opinion. Specific questions also sought information about programming processes, particularly in relation to interviewees’ cultural intermediary role. The more open questions sought interviewees’ opinions and experiences about their time at PBS, in the context of their cultural intermediary role. See Appendix C for the list of questions. Interviews were semi-structured, with questions tailored to the decade and events with which the interviewee was most involved. I asked questions about their role(s), how they would describe PBS, its music programming processes, audience, finances, technology and the role of the announcer, and for their personal reflections on their involvement with the station. Probing questions were used during all interviews, tailored to the conversation. Eighteen of the 20 interviews were conducted in a recording studio at PBS. (Of the other two, one was conducted via email at the interviewee’s request. The other was conducted in the interviewee’s home, also at their request.) This was done for two reasons. First, PBS was familiar territory to most interviewees and therefore not considered daunting, as it could have been for someone not experienced with broadcasting. Second, where the interviewee agreed, the interview is being provided to the National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA) and studio use resulted in high- quality recordings for researchers and members of the public to access. Sixteen of the 20 interviewees agreed to this, a most positive step in ensuring some of PBS’ stories are available to researchers and the public onsite and online.

88 Downing, ‘Audiences and Readers of Alternative Media’, p. 638. 89 Downing, ‘Audiences and Readers of Alternative Media’, p. 638. 87

In the next chapter, I explain how the community radio sector was established in Australia and, through the licence hearings, position PBS within the sector. I discuss why PBS chose to become a cooperative organisation and how this affected programming. I also use the station’s test transmissions and earliest programming grids to demonstrate the station’s on-air identify prior to the start of official broadcasting.

3. 1970s: “Clearly dissimilar”1

– Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, 1979

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I discuss the events which led to the creation of the public/community media radio broadcasting sector in Australia. Known as public broadcasters until 1992, these new stations were to be “clearly dissimilar”2 to existing government and commercial stations, realised through their broadcast output, organisation and management. These stations were known as the public stations before changing to community stations in 1992, therefore I refer to these stations as public/community in this and the following 1980s chapter. I draw on the first official licence hearings in 1978 to place PBS within the public/community sector. I then investigate PBS’ test broadcasts and the findings of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) to assess how PBS decided to be different before it began official broadcasting in December 1979. For the remainder of this first section, I explain how public/community radio and PBS came to be, the existing media landscape and the public/community radio licence hearings where PBS was granted its category ‘S’ licence. The ABT’s reasons for granting PBS’ licence illustrate its priorities for public/community radio and the alternative to existing media it offered. This discussion shows PBS was granted its licence because of its intended broadcast output and programming procedures. Although the station was able to explain its programming philosophy and define under-represented music to the Tribunal’s satisfaction, the remaining sections in this chapter show these matters were discussed many times leading up to and after the hearing. These debates were not resolved by the time official broadcasting began and would contribute to erratic programming in the 1980s.

1 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Public Broadcasting: Report on Inquiries into the Grant of Licences for Public Broadcasting Stations, Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service, 1979, p. 7. 2 ABT, Public Broadcasting, p. 7. 89

In the second section, I document the discussions PBS’ founders had about programming practices which were eventually determined by the programming unit. PBS’ founders wanted a process that would honour the station’s cooperative, not-for- profit structure and result in broadcasting diverse, under-represented music. How the programming unit would achieve this was a matter of debate. In the third section, data from the station’s first test transmission and a proposed programming grid illustrate how PBS was communicating its pre-official- broadcast identity to its listeners and members. Discourse about how to define progressive music was consistent and endured through the first decade of operation and beyond. I argue debates during this time about how the station would program in a cooperative manner resulted in largely consistent broadcast output for the 40 years that followed.

3.1.1 Alternative to what?

The social, political and cultural landscape during the 1970s into which Australia’s new public/community radio stations were introduced was undergoing immense change. After the Second World War, Australia experienced a significant period of prosperity and entrenched conservative politics with the Liberal Party (conservative) in power from 1949 to 1972. Radio consisted of government and commercial stations. Government stations, operated by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), largely reflected the country’s conservative politics. Music on commercial radio was similarly conservative. Driven by a motive to maximise audiences, commercial stations were beholden to talkback or the Top 40 format imported from America.3 Bear explained commercial stations did not want their “relatively uncompetitive and thus highly profitable environment” to change.4 According to Bear, two factors led to public/community radio starting in Australia. First was grassroots advocacy from those not served by existing stations. Advocacy came from four groups who felt their interests were not represented: fine

3 Potts, ‘Heritage Rock’, p. 59. 4 A. Bear, ‘The Emergence of Public Broadcasting in Australia’, Australian Journal of Communication, vol. 4, 1983, p. 21. 90

music enthusiasts (classical and jazz); the many, mainly European, migrants who came to Australia after the Second World War; universities and colleges that wanted to use the airwaves for educational purposes; and political elements that argued for access to the airwaves as their democratic right.5 The second factor causing change was technology. Australia had considered broadcasting on the FM band for decades, but it was not formally recommended until an Australian Broadcasting Control Board (ABCB) inquiry in 1972.6 In 1974, the Independent Inquiry into Frequency Modulation Broadcasting (otherwise known as the McLean Inquiry) recommended FM broadcasting commence as soon as possible.7 As it offered stereo sound and less interference than the AM frequency, public/community and government stations began broadcasting on the FM band in 1974. Although the Green report (discussed further below) recommended granting access to the FM band to commercial and public/community stations,8 commercial stations were not officially granted access until 1980, with Melbourne’s first commercial FM station 3EON-FM starting broadcasting on 11 July 1980. In 1972, Australia broke away from a conservative government, electing the reformist Whitlam Labor Government which celebrated multiculturalism, introduced free university education and universal healthcare, and proposed opening up the media landscape, among other things. Although the previous government had been pressured from the late 1960s to review its broadcasting policy and create radio station licences for non-commercial and non-government applicants,9 the Whitlam Government was the first to grant public/community licences, in 1974. Prime Minister Whitlam was particularly interested in serving the youth of Australia, who he felt were being abandoned by commercial stations.10

5 Bear, pp. 22–23. 6 Frequency Modulation Broadcasting: Report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, June 1972, Melbourne. 7 F. McLean and C. Renwick, Report of the Independent Inquiry into Frequency Modulation Broadcasting, Independent Inquiry into Frequency Modulation Broadcasting, Sydney, March 1974. 8 F. Green, Australian Broadcasting: A Report on the Structure of the Australian Broadcasting System and Associated Matters, (Green Report), Postal and Telecommunications Department, Canberra, 1976, p. 4. 9 Thornley, p. 96. 10 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, p. 72. 91

In 1974, the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia (PBAA) was formed by a group of aspirant broadcasters who banded together to lobby for the introduction of a nationwide public broadcasting sector. Once established, the PBAA acted as the link between government and public/community broadcasters, ensuring the two remained separate.11 Eventually the PBAA assumed financial and administrative management of the sector.12 By now the ball was rolling and a relatively quick succession of events created Australia’s third broadcasting sector. Also in 1974, federal cabinet invited the ABC “to use existing standby transmitters in Sydney and Melbourne to experiment with new types of services”.13 Double J provided Sydney’s young people with a place to hear music by Australian bands, new music and music that was either banned or not broadcast on commercial radio.14 Early Double J announcers programmed “eclectically, playing ‘album rock’, Jazz and Blues”.15 Announcers “spoke at length between songs, in a relaxed, non- authoritative style”.16 Double J announcers were the epitome of the subcultural intermediary, connected and knowledgeable about the latest bands in Sydney’s underground music scene. The second of the ABC’s experimental stations was 3ZZ, a ‘community access’ station broadcasting to the Melbourne metropolitan area. As discussed in Chapter 1, 3ZZ provided ethnic community groups with access to broadcasting in a style similar to public/community radio but controlled by the ABC. The station ended in June 1977 when its services were deemed to be duplicating the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), which the then Fraser Liberal Government announced in 1977 would to cater to ethnic audiences.17 Victoria’s first public/community FM station also began following the same federal cabinet meeting. Cabinet invited the Music Broadcasting Societies of Victoria

11 J. Tebbutt, ‘Constructing Broadcasting for the Public’, in H. Wilson (ed.), Australian Communications and the Public Sphere, South Melbourne, VIC, Macmillan, 1989, p. 132. 12 Thornley, p. 221. 13 Barr, p. 144. 14 Potts, ‘Heritage Rock’, p. 65. 15 K. Albury, ‘Spaceship Triple J: Making the National Youth Network’, Media International Australia, vol. 91, no. 1, 1999, p. 55. 16 Albury, p. 55. 17 Thornley, p. 195. 92

and New South Wales to begin broadcasting using the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Fine music (classical and jazz) station 3MBS began broadcasting on 1 July 1975, its Sydney sister 2MBS beginning later that year.18 In January 1975, the ABCB advertised a restricted AM commercial licence for the Melbourne metropolitan area under the Broadcasting and Television (B&T) Act. 3CR beat ten other applicants to become Victoria’s second public/community radio station, first broadcasting on 3 July 1976.19

3.1.2 Licensing community radio

In August 1975, the Minister for Media, Moss Cass, announced he would grant 12 new public/community radio station licences across Australia, known as Cass’ Dozen. Due to the hostile senate, a recession-impacted budget and the speed at which the government sought to grant these licences, the new stations were to be licenced under the existing Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, on the FM band and as “experimental” stations.20 The Whitlam Government fell on 11 November 1975, before these licences could be officially issued. But the caretaker Fraser Coalition Government, later elected on 13 December 1975, continued to support public/community broadcasting and formally issued the first two of the licences promised to Cass’ Dozen to the applicants furthest advanced, 2MCE in Bathurst and 4ZZZ in Brisbane, while in caretaker mode in November 1975.21 All 12 of the licences were eventually issued by the end of 1976, to a combination of tertiary institutions, their student unions and community committees.22 In 1976, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Eric Robinson, ordered an inquiry into the structure of Australia’s broadcasting system, which was chaired by the Secretary of the Department, Fred Green. The Green Report recognised the profound effect the electronic media was having on people’s lives and that future developments of the media would be “more consciously directed to the achievement of social and cultural goals than it had been in the first fifty years [since its

18 Barr, p. 144. 19 Fox, Radical Radio, p. 7. 20 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, pp. 72–73. 21 Thornley, pp. 188–198. 22 Thornley, p. 185. 93

establishment in the 1920s]”.23 Public/community broadcasting was explained as “integral” to meeting the overall objectives of Australia’s media sector because of its ability to “encourage diversity in our broadcasting system, and allow for greater participation in broadcasting by individual special interest and minority groups”.24 The report stated: “The broad outline of the basic objectives for the three sectors of broadcasting in the foregoing emphasises that the effectiveness and value of a broadcasting system rests in its programming output”.25 It argued programming should foster an Australian national identity and cater to all Australians, from those with special interests and minority groups to the common interests of mass audiences.26 These new public/community stations would offer an alternative. Their programming would “fill many of the ‘gaps’ for which the national and commercial sectors are not well suited”.27 In the meantime, people interested in taking up one of these new public/community radio licences were gathering. PBS’ founders consisted of two main groups, the technically and musically minded, brought together with different interests but the same goal. The technically minded, although having a keen interest in music, revelled in the challenge of physically building a radio station from scratch – all the wires, transmitters, turntables, microphones. The musically minded sought abrasive and challenging music not otherwise broadcast due to the standardised, conservative practices of commercial stations.28 Felix Hoffman, a young RMIT graduate, travelled to Sydney in 1975, heard Double J and eagerly awaited its arrival on Melbourne’s airwaves. When it became apparent Double J was not going to broadcast to Melbourne listeners anytime soon,

Hoffman decided he needed to “do something about it”.29 In December 1976, he placed an advertisement in the Southern Cross newspaper advertising a meeting for

23 Green Report, p. 4. 24 Green Report, p. 35. 25 Green Report, p. 38. 26 Green Report, p. 38. 27 Green Report, p. 38. 28 Potts, ‘Heritage Rock’, p. 59. 29 F. Hoffman, [interviewed by John Roberts], October 1979, www.pbsfm.org.au/history (accessed 20 November 2016). 94

people interested in establishing a different outlet for alternative music in Melbourne, in which he described wanting to start a radio station: that would cater for progressive and contemporary music that left out the politics, left out religion and that left out the commercial aspects of radio that were there at the time ... the concept of PBS was a music station primarily.30

At the same time, Peter Jetson wanted to form a contemporary music FM station, which led him to hand out leaflets to peak-hour commuters in Melbourne’s CBD.31 In addition to his new recruits, Jetson “had valuable technical skills and knew about transmitter design”32 and was encouraged to join Hoffman. Technical skills were provided by John Maizels, who was recruited from his position as technical manager at 3ST, RMIT’s campus radio station, which “broadcast mainly to the café”.33 PBS’ first meeting was held on 2 December 1976 and attracted 50 people.34 Although they did not know it at the time, they would have just over one and a half years to develop their submission for Melbourne’s public/community radio licence hearings in 1978. Back in Canberra, changes were being made to broadcasting legislation. In 1977 the ABT, independent from but reporting to the government, replaced the ABCB, an agency within the government. These changes had been recommended by the Green Report, in the name of the fourth estate, to remove the media from the government’s direct influence.35 The ABT’s responsibilities were to administer, monitor and regulate media licences and broadcasts.36 Changes to the Wireless Telegraphy Act were made in response to another of the recommendations in the Green Report. To better accommodate public/community radio, the “present substantially outmoded provisions” of the Act were addressed in 1978 by Tony Staley, the new Minister for

30 F. Hoffman interview. 31 Scurry and Gearon, p. 13. 32 Scurry and Gearon, p. 13. 33 Egan, R., A Brief History of Student Radio at RMIT: The 70s [website], http://members.tripod.com/~ryan_hub/radio/70s.html (accessed 14 January 2020). 34 F. Hoffman interview. 35 Green Report, p. 72 and p. 157. 36 Green Report, p. 72 and pp. 158–159. 95

Post and Telecommunications.37 Staley laid out the plan for public/community radio in an address to parliament: We believe that the Australian broadcasting system should aim for diversity and quality as an overall objective and also to cater for and reflect the widest possible spectrum of information, opinions, values and interests in Australian society… More specifically, the Government takes the view that the various sectors which comprise the system should aim to develop programming objectives and functions expressly designed to avoid unnecessary and wasteful duplication of broadcasting facilities, resources and content.38

Staley issued the ‘Guidelines for the Planning of Public Broadcasting in Phase 1’, which removed the existing ‘experimental’ licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act to three ‘special purpose’ licence categories, C, S and E, under the B&T Act.39 Category ‘C’ Community licences were for community groups that targeted a defined community area, ‘E’ Education licences were to enable educational bodies to educate adult audiences and enrich their material and cultural lives, and ‘S’ Special Interest licences were for groups that targeted particular interests such as music, sport or religion.40 The Tribunal emphasised these new public radio stations “must be complementary and supplementary” to the pre-existing public (government) and commercial sectors.41 The Green Report had explained in 1976 the importance of establishing a sector that was alternative to existing radio stations. Tebbutt argued that through this directive, the “oppositional and alternative nature” of public/community radio stations was “compromised and subordinated to the dictates of the established media”.42 In other words, public/community radio stations were limited in their ability to be alternative by the alternative that already existed, rather than the ability to be progressive. Even if public/community broadcasters were

37 Green Report, p. 24. 38 T. Staley, Development of Public Broadcasting, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 5 April 1978. 39 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT), Public Broadcasting, p. 3. 40 ABT, p. 3. 41 ABT, p. 3. 42 Tebbutt, ‘Constructing Broadcasting’, p. 135. 96

limited in being “complementary and supplementary” to existing media, Warne argued they were a deliberate and “significant cultural, economic and political break with the media status quo”.43 Public/community stations were different because of their broadcast output; playing new releases by local and overseas bands “broke with the key assumptions underlying the programming policies of commercial and ABC stations.”44 Community radio, from its organisation to its output, offered a new and different way of doing things.

3.1.3 Licensing Melbourne’s community stations

As part of the new B&T Act, a total of three FM public/community radio licences were allocated for each capital city in Australia. The licence submission hearing took place on 15 and 16 August 1978. Criteria against which licence applicants were assessed included organisational structure, evidence for the organisation being able to broadcast for a “reasonable” amount of time each day, community involvement in station management and programming, and evidence of an audience for what the applicant wanted to broadcast.45 Most important was programming that was “clearly dissimilar” from the commercial sector, whose main interest was (and still is) to maximise audiences, and clearly different from the ABC and SBS.46 Programming was “central” in determining the different broadcast output that public/community broadcasters were required to provide.47 It made an aspirant station’s programming philosophy, and the successful implementation of new and different programs, essential to the granting or renewing of a broadcasting licence.48 The licence hearings for Melbourne’s stations were competitive. From eight applicants, the Tribunal granted a Category ‘E’ licence to 3RMT (now Triple R) and two Category ‘S’ licences to 3MBS and PBS.49 The five unsuccessful applicants were

43 Warne, p. 171. 44 Warne, p. 171. 45 Chapter 18 of Self-regulation for Broadcasters? July 1977 as quoted in ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 6. 46 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 7. 47 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 7. 48 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 7. 49 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 21. 97

deemed to have not met the terms of the ‘S’ licence category. Western Radio Broadcasters wanted to establish a radio station that would service only the western suburbs but with a signal that would reach all of the Melbourne metro area. The Tribunal deemed this “inconsistent” with the ‘S’ category, suggesting a ‘C’ licence would have been more appropriate.50 Laurence Joseph Lockie’s application was also inconsistent with the category ‘S’ licence, because of a lack of information about the type of programs his station would broadcast and how the community would participate. Further, the Tribunal concluded his proposal to “broadcast programs designed to attract maximum sponsorship” was “contrary to the spirit of public broadcasting”.51 Applications from the RMIT and Monash University student associations both failed because of a lack of information, challenging the viability of the stations.52 The final applicant, Melbourne Christian Radio was deemed to have not demonstrated wide representation of Christian groups in Melbourne and had insufficient support “from mainstream Churches”53 The ABT offered PBS a licence because its submission adequately demonstrated: - Evidence that a substantial need exists in the area for a special interest contemporary and progressive music station; - An open structure which facilitates participation in the management and operation of the station; - The applicant’s potential to establish a public broadcasting station; and - The provision of a program service designed to meet the needs of a defined interest group within the specification of a Category ‘S’ licence.54

The Tribunal complimented PBS’ application, noting the station made a “convincing case” for the “substantial need” for a radio station that would serve a “significant potential minority audience” through broadcasting contemporary and progressive music.55 The Tribunal acknowledged such music received “little or no air-

50 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 145. 51 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 145. 52 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 146. 53 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 146. 54 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 121. 55 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 145. 98

time” on existing government and commercial stations in the broadcast area.56 PBS had proved its organisational structure facilitated community participation in management and programming and it could establish (and maintain) a community radio station.57 The Tribunal noted PBS’ application suggested the station expected “to serve a significant potential minority audience” by programming “contemporary and progressive” music.58 The Tribunal was “particularly impressed” with PBS’ proposals for fostering Australian music and predicted this would enable PBS to make a “significant contribution to developing an ‘Australian look’ in radio broadcasting.”59 More detailed information about its daily schedule illustrates how the Tribunal understood PBS would be programmed. The application stated the Production Unit would be responsible for the “allocation of air-time and the screening of programs … overall production co-ordination and will provide a forum for ideas on the station’s program format and PBS policy”.60 Block programming, where one style of music is broadcast during one program with the following program often a completely different style of music, would feature distinctive musical styles including rock, jazz, blues and country and western.61 Programs would be produced on “thematic lines” and feature new album release segments and music specials.62 Music would be supplied by individual announcers and “the resources of PBS”.63 PBS began regular broadcasting at 4:30pm on 107.7 FM on 21 December 1979, catering for “special interest groups with a common interest in those types of music which may be defined as contemporary and progressive”.64 For the Public Licence Inquiry, PBS developed principles known as the PBS Promise of Performance, an idea recommended by the 1976 Green Report: It would be of some importance, particularly in the early years, that the ‘promise of performance’ for public stations should spell out very clearly the special public, the area of coverage and the type of program for which the licence has been granted. It

56 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 145. 57 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 121. 58 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 133. 59 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 145. 60 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 133. 61 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 133. 62 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 133. 63 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 133. 64 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 145. 99

would seem to be at least as important that promises in the area of programs be fulfilled as it is for the station to conform to the technical requirements of its licence.65

PBS was assessed against its Promise of Performance at Tribunal licence hearing renewals and these principles have guided its programming decision-making for the last 40 years. PBS’ Promise of Performance has been altered slightly over the years but remains very similar to that presented to the ABT during the 1978 licence application process: . to provide primarily music broadcasts of high quality and of a progressive nature; . to encourage musical education and innovation; . to establish a subscriber access radio station and thereby encourage audience contribution and participation in the station's operation, and in the production and presentation of programs; . to solicit and record public response to programs and presentation; and . to abide by the PBAA's Code of Ethics66

In the first edition of Waves after its licence was granted, PBS summarised the Tribunal’s findings by stating why it thought it would become “the best progressive music station in Melbourne”: . It is operated and controlled by members of the public – the very audience it seeks to serve; . It does not believe in ‘on-air advertising’ and ‘hyped’ announcing; . It seeks to present those music styles which are at present poorly-represented by the commercial and ABC stations; . It seeks a professional attitude towards the presentation of good, progressive music (even though the programmes are presented by ‘non-professionals’, that is, members of the public).67

65 Green Report, p. 75. 66 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 134. 67 Waves, June 1978, p. 4. 100

One of the ways PBS planned to foster Australian music was with quotas. The specifics of PBS’ quotas were not published in its application to the ABT, but did appear later in Waves: . Mandatory % [Australian]/% [local i.e. Melbourne bands] inclusion in all programmes and/or where a person is doing a series of programmes that out of every be a % Australian programme. . That the Production Group allocate specific time slots for % Australian music and that encouragement be given by the allocating of prime time slots for these programmes. (On current broadcasting time, hours per week, would be set aside for this purpose.) . As a separate and complementary recommendation to the above that the concept of: ‘If you could you should’ be introduced. e.g. if an individual was presenting a programme where Australian music was readily available and didn't detract from the feel of the programme then as much as possible should be included in the programme. For instance country, folk, variety, comedy etc. would easily fit this recommendation. Whereas early 's R&B Theme programmes, symphonic rock may find the going hard. . That preference be given, in competition timeslots, to those including the Australian Content requirements. . That an internal and external campaign encouraging Australian content be mounted in order to make people aware of its importance and to solicit assistance. . That every effort be made to build a healthy selection of material in the record library of Australian Content and including the soliciting of earlier material. . That a mandatory % content should be included in every programme unless a case can be made not to. The effect being that people will not leave Australian Content out because they didn't think about it and where it doesn't apply provision has been made for its omission.68

Although the station adhered to the “mandatory 20%” inclusion rate set by the ABT, discussed earlier in section 1.3.2, it also set its own targets for higher Australian

68 ‘Australian Content’, Waves, December 1979, p. 12. 101

music content quotas, a trend consistent across the next 40 years and similar to those of other music-focused public/community radio stations like Triple R and 4ZZZ.69 It took the station 16 months from licensing to begin official broadcasting because of difficulty in finding suitable, affordable studios and a transmission site. Halfway through 1979, PBS secured its first permanent broadcast premises at the Prince of Wales Hotel (POW) in St Kilda, an inner suburb of Melbourne, Victoria. As part of its licence, the station was allowed to broadcast from a temporary transmission site because that was cheaper than putting a transmitter on Mount Dandenong, a mountain range about 50 kilometres east of Melbourne’s CBD. In December 1979, PBS’ transmitter finally found this temporary home on top of the Royal Women’s Hospital in Carlton, another inner suburb of Melbourne.

3.2 Programming policies, procedures and people

At the point between production and consumption, cultural intermediaries at PBS used their expertise and taste in music to influence or determine broadcast output. The programming unit, Board, announcers and, of course, PBS the organisation were the only subcultural intermediaries during the 1970s, because the other roles did not yet exist (station manager, program manager, programming committee, category coordinators, program planning group). How these intermediaries made their decisions, and the factors that influenced them, are the focus of this section. Early in the 1970s, 4ZZZ decided to adopt a consensus model for decision- making and was “one aspect of alternative politics to which 4ZZZ was aligned, and an idealism to which it aspired”.70 Similarly, PBS’ founders established an organisational structure that prioritised a cooperative ethos to decision-making, becoming an incorporated cooperative on 3 August 1978. Incorporation, which was required for all broadcasting licensees, gives the organisation a legal personality independent of its individual members71 and allows it to “enter into agreements and contracts, sue or be

69 Homan, ‘Local Priorities, Industry Realities’, p. 1044. 70 Anderson, ‘The Institutionalization of Community Radio’, p. 260. 71 State Government of Victoria, Incorporated Association [website], www.business.vic.gov.au/setting- up-a-business/business-structure/incorporated-association (accessed 23 October 2018). 102

sued, raise and borrow money and buy property”.72 PBS chose to become a cooperative rather than an incorporated association or company limited by guarantee because it saw this as the most suitable form of incorporated association for the non- profit, democratic and volunteer-run organisation.73 Although uncommon,74 PBS decided on the cooperative structure to make the station “less bureaucratic and less susceptible to power struggles within the group”, the latter addressed by the ‘one person one vote’ rule inherent in such cooperatives.75 These can be seen as deliberate actions which “create the kinds of social solidarity that are supportive of the longevity of the organisation”.76 PBS was, and still is, required to have shareholders and a Board, which should have seven members. To be part of the cooperative, a prospective shareholder was required to purchase a minimum holding of “five shares [$10 each] with a maximum of 20% of the shares or nominal value of $10,000”.77 The $50 minimum holding remains in 2019, a wholly more affordable proposition in modern times. In 1981, the station reported 536 shares had been purchased, which, at a minimum of 5 shares per shareholder, equated to a maximum of 107 shareholders.78 In addition to shareholder fees, memberships were an opportunity for the station to raise much needed funds. Seeking financial support from listeners has been the most common way for community radio stations to raise money.79 Station memberships were available to anyone who wanted to financially support the station (typically listeners) and were mandatory for announcers. In 1979, station memberships valid for one year cost $20, or $15 concession (students and pensioners). The station had 403 members in 1979, “with an estimated potential subscriber [member] audience of 4,000 to 6,000 and a maximum anticipated listening audience

72 Fitzroy Legal Service Inc., Incorporated Associations [website], www.lawhandbook.org.au/2019_06_06_05_incorporated_associations/#_idTextAnchor2212 (accessed 6 August 2019). 73 M. McGuane, ‘Election Time Again’, Waves, August 1979, p. 4. 74 Fitzroy Legal Service Inc., Types of Community Organisations [website], www.lawhandbook.org.au/2019_06_06_03_types_of_community_organisations/ (accessed 6 August 2019). 75 McGuane, p. 4. 76 Fairchild, Music, Radio and the Public Sphere, p. 81. 77 Public Broadcasting Organisation: Equipment Grants Application, 23 October 1979, PBS. 78 R. Martin, ‘Notice of Annual General Meeting’, Waves, November 1981, p. 1. 79 W. Barlow, p. 101. 103

of 100,000”.80 Members could sign up at any time; however, in November 1980 the station held its first “Radiothon”.81 From 6:00pm on Friday 29 November to 10:00pm on Sunday 30 November, announcers encouraged listeners to become members. Radiothon has since turned into Radio Festival, where for two weeks towards the end of every financial year, listeners are encouraged to become a member in relation to their favourite program. Before official broadcasting began, anyone seeking to present a program on-air was required to be a member of the cooperative. Ken Fargher, who started volunteering with PBS in 1976 and was one of the station’s first Board members, recalled how the cooperative decision-making process sometimes worked in practice: One little story I always remember how – the group was young, the first meeting I recall going to … they were having a talk about what they were going to call the thing and all that [laughs]. And they had this committee meeting about biscuits and tea and how are they going to get the biscuits funded. I said for – forgive me, I said ‘for jingoes sake, here is five dollars for God's sake, go and buy some for Christ’s sake’ [laughs]. Hilarious! I mean, I couldn’t believe that we just wasted half the meeting talking about bloody biscuits [laughs]. But that's the way these kind of community operations go. And you always get – if you get a hundred people, eight of them will be really, really committed, um, active in the area. The others will go ‘ah, that's good’ and walk away, maybe give you some money. But I think, generally speaking, in those days, everybody that came was interested, or did something or had an idea. That's what it was for the first four years it was having ideas mainly as we didn’t have any radio station. It was just – what should, or could happen and eventually it did.82

3.2.1 Doing things differently

In keeping with the cooperative ethos, PBS’ founders did not want to limit how programming decisions were made by defaulting to established methods. Volunteer David Stubbs wrote in Waves about how PBS did not use the term unplaylisted to

80 Public Broadcasting Organisation: Equipment Grants application. 81 ‘The Mighty First Ever 3PBS-FM Fund Raising Radiothon’, Waves, November 1980, p. 3. 82 Ken Fargher interview, 21 November 2018. 104

describe its programming strategy; rather, the station sought to be as undefined as possible: Who can say what quality is, or who can prove that certain music is high quality? The whole concept is so subjective it defies definition. But in many areas there is a certain consensus, and if PBS allows people enough rein [sic], without losing control, an enormous range of taste can be catered for, all in the name of quality … with enough diversity in the programming, PBS can attract and hold the attention of a considerable audience, without trying to be everybody’s idea of the perfect radio station of all times. Because of this underlying concept of catering for diverse interests, PBS has never formulated a ‘Music Policy’. This does not mean that we do not know which music to play. It is simply so that we don’t, by implication, rule out any music not mentioned in the policy [emphasis in original].83

PBS did not want to “stifle creative attempts to generate new ideas”84 by making rules about which music should or should not be played. The public should provide enough people with the required expertise in music to present programs: all the creative energy comes from individuals and groups of subscribers. The organisation acts as a means of aid and review, but the actual programs come from you. The only expertise you really need to do a programme is the genuine desire to do one, and to do it well. PBS can help with technical aid and suggestions, but it is up to you to do the creative work.85

Taking a hands-off approach to programming, the Production Unit, granted its powers by the Board on 27 September 1977, was initially responsible for deciding who would be an announcer and their training, and scheduling test transmissions.86 However, as the station matured, the Production Unit would come to control all aspects of programming, like when programs were scheduled and who would host them, except for what an announcer played during their program. The Production Unit’s evolution to adopting more control over programming was considered

83 D. Stubbs, ‘Improve on Silence’, Waves, June 1979, p. 5. 84 Stubbs, pp. 5–6. 85 Stubbs, p. 5. 86 ‘Production Unit Policy’, Waves, October 1977. 105

necessary to the station’s success. Being a member of the Production Unit was the “highest regarded position” one could hold.87 In the late 1970s, the Production Unit developed two processes to encourage inexperienced announcers to apply for a program: a contact list and a training program. The Production Contact List was designed to “provide a service for people who have ideas, but not sure how to go about producing them”.88 An aspiring announcer would call a more experienced announcer on the list, who would be able to help them compose a program. The more formal training program was an early innovation of the station and part of its licence application.89 Training would teach aspiring announcers technical, programming and presenting skills for how to present a program that sounded like everyday people, not “loik Free Ecks Woy [i.e. 3XY pronounced with an Australian, commercial radio accent]”.90 3XY was a Top 40 commercial AM radio station broadcasting to the Melbourne region, a sound PBS did not want to emulate. Announcers, “where the actual programs come from”, were described as the people who would “make PBS a success”.91 PBS member Neville Gibb wrote of the music he wanted to hear, broadcast by “passionate” announcers: I want a station where I will hear serious rock music. I want a station where I will hear serious folk music, blues, jazz, etc. I want a station where the sole concern is the music. I want to hear a mixture of old and new presented by people who have a passionate interest in the music they are presenting.92

Gibb’s reference to “serious” musical styles and the expert, “passionate” announcer evokes the role of the cultural intermediary who, working in a subcultural context, must be an expert, a collector, an integral part of the community with which they identify.93

87 Allyson Griffith interview, 4 September 2018. 88 ‘Production Contact List’, Waves, November/December 1978. 89 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 132. 90 ‘Programmes for PBS Broadcasters’, Waves, November/December 1978. 91 Stubbs, p. 6. 92 N. Gibb, ‘Ratings: Commercial Radio and Music’, Waves, August 1979, p. 18. 93 Woo. 106

Various criteria were suggested for determining who would be an announcer. One was an assessment of the total contribution of the aspiring announcer to the station, with those who attended station meetings and completed other work favoured.94 This criterion was motivated by the need for more people to be involved with the laborious work of getting the station ready for broadcasting.95 By April 1979, six months until the first official broadcast, a policy about how to select announcers and programs had developed. “How much work a person does for the station” remained a criterion for program allocation, in addition to the skill of the announcer and how their proposed program would “complement and supplement” the music policy and station aims.96 Another suggestion was to use a ballot to allocate a proportion of weekly programs. It was argued this would recognise volunteers who were unable to contribute to the station except on-air.97 In the end it was the practical considerations of availability, familiarity to the group and the size of a person’s record collection which determined their ability to go on-air. The programming decisions described in this section are part of a decentralised programming structure which was adopted to prioritise the cooperative, democratic values of the station. Decentralised programming encouraged participation, which contributed to a feeling of ownership and connection with the station.

3.3 Test transmissions

Official broadcasting began on 21 December 1979. The main programming data collection for this project begins from then and is discussed in later chapters. This section discusses the content of two of the three test transmissions which occurred in July and September 1977. The third test transmission took place in-store at Instrol Hi- Fi on Lonsdale Street in Melbourne from 11:00am–9:00pm on 8 December 1978.98 The signal was on very low wattage (10–40watts), so was only able to be received by those

94 J. Maizels, ‘Amazing Grace’, Waves, October 1977. 95 J. Roberts, ‘Re: Allocation of Programmes’, Waves, August 1979, p. 6. 96 S. Davis and D. Blackwell, ‘Production Report’, Waves, August 1979, p. 6. 97 Roberts, ‘Re: Allocation of Programmes’, p. 6. 98 ‘In-store Demo. At Instrol Hi-Fi’, Waves, November/December 1978. 107

at the event. The broadcast “was not a tremendous success”99 due to only one person from the Technical Group turning up on time. No information is available about what was broadcast. Defining progressive and under-represented music at PBS was a contentious subject during this pre-broadcast period. With the station looking to its volunteer announcers to determine what was broadcast, debates about what PBS stood for were constant. Through the styles of music that were broadcast, we see how the station’s goals of broadcasting progressive and diverse music were interpreted by the station’s subcultural intermediaries. A letter drafted after PBS’ inaugural meeting in 1976 by organiser Felix Hoffman offers the first recorded definition of progressive music at PBS. Hoffman suggested the station be defined by its “outer limits”: The term ‘Progressive Music’ would include Jazz, Blues, Country and Country Western, Rock Folk and Swing. Or, perhaps it is better to describe ‘Progressive Music’ only by its outer limits. Although some individual items of ‘Classical’ or ‘Pop’ music would fit the definition, the broader categories most certainly would not do so.100

Describing the station’s intended broadcast output as progressive stuck and was incorporated into the station’s name, the Progressive Broadcasting Service. Minutes from the first station meeting in 1976 documented a short conversation about the name to use for the station’s bank account which seemed to evolve into a discussion about the station’s name: Should set up a bank account … name? Progressive Music Co-Op. Name should be general. Not suggestive. Should include F.M. in name … Contemporary F.M. … CFM. Assorted comment Let’s use progressive music for bank account pending further discussion at next meeting … consensus.101

99 ‘In-store Demo’. 100 F. Hoffman personal letter in Crowley, p. 13. 101 ‘The Minutes of the Very First PBS Meeting, Ever.’, Waves, December/January 1980/1981, p. 14. 108

The first agenda item for the next meeting was “name of the station”. 102 Ken Fargher recalled his suggestion was to call the station WOW: Rochelle: Why Progressive Broadcasting Service? Ken: Exactly! I have no idea. Well I suppose, I mean the music was progressive and it's a broadcasting service. I had no say in the name. I wanted to call it the WOW network (laughs). WOW, I thought that, WOW!103

Aside from these records, I found no other documentation about other names the station was considering. In the first edition of Waves, the station explained its definition of its intended broadcast output: Music has been in a constant state of flux over the past two decades. Progressive Music encompasses all styles of music together with the countless mutations and fusions that have occurred, are occurring right now, and those about to be born. This being the case, our definition must be open.104

Further, the article suggested a progressive radio station should “promote new and promicing [sic] styles of mert [sic]” and include non-music programming, defined as “arts and informational services”.105 By the end of 1977, one of the station’s volunteers, Mark Newstead, argued that as a serious music station PBS should acknowledge that styles of music evolve from one another and to exclude any could have important ramifications for a story an announcer may be trying to tell during their program.106 Newstead asked whether just because a track was played on commercial radio, did that mean it was “forever condemned from PBS airplay?”107 There was wide consensus on what PBS was not, “Top 40, MOR [Middle of the Road] or classical]”108, but this is where agreement ended. The “Serious Alternative”109 the station sought to provide caused participants to ask – alternative to what?

102 ‘The Minutes of the Very First PBS Meeting, Ever.’, p. 14. 103 K. Fargher interview. 104 ‘Progressive Broadcasting Service’, Waves, April 1977, p. 1. 105 ‘Progressive Broadcasting Service’, p. 1. 106 M. Newstead, ‘Great Policy Debate’, Waves, October 1977. 107 Newstead. 108 Newstead. 109 Newstead. 109

On 8 July, 1977 PBS conducted its first test transmission. Lasting 72 hours, the test took place from the bungalow of technically gifted volunteer, co-founder and chair of the Board John Maizels behind his Port Melbourne home. In addition to testing the technical aspects of broadcasting, this transmission also allowed the group to “try out our programming ideas, and then obtain a feel for our projected audience.”110 Not everything went smoothly during this test broadcast according to Ken Fargher, who was the first announcer on-air: I am about to go on and all of a sudden there is no signal! People are running around with soldering irons, all those gadget freaks. They’re going ‘What's wrong?’ I am sitting there and I’m sitting there going phht? [i.e. I don’t know] And after about an hour, they found out that the wire that was coming through the back door, the fly screen door was crimping the wire [laughs] and it was cutting off the signal. So I came back on the air and said ‘Thank you ladies and gentlemen, we have been listening to that famous Paul Simon tune ‘The Sounds Of Silence’ and away we went.111

Program notes published prior to this first test broadcast reveal several things about how the station planned to present itself to listeners. Almost all programs were two hours long and each program had a musical theme and a track-by-track playlist. Track listings suggest programs followed musical themes including funk, soul, rock, jazz, country, folk, blues, music theatre, rock and roll, progressive rock and comedy. A note for Monday’s programming, the final day of the three-day test broadcast, said announcers would have a “less restricted format”,112 encouraging more experimental music selections. Over 1000 phone calls were received during the three-day transmission, showing immediately an audience did exist for the music PBS broadcast. The second test transmission took place in September 1977 at the HiFi/Audio Show, a three-day trade and public event held at the Southern Cross Hotel in the CBD of Melbourne.113 PBS broadcast on low power to the event, which meant that only radios at the Southern Cross Hotel could receive the signal. Unlike the first

110 J. Maizels, ‘Once again: The Prez speaks out!!’, Waves, July 1977, p. 1. 111 K. Fargher interview. 112 ‘Introduction to Program Notes’, Waves, July 1977. 113 D. Green, ‘Hi Fi Show by Invitation’, Waves, August 1977. 110

transmission, there is no record of what was broadcast. Instead, a copy of the first official programming policy, which appeared in the October 1977 edition of Waves, explained how the Production Unit decided which 15 of the 22 proposed programs went to air. The Production Unit had two opposing considerations influencing who to program, both caused by the “lack of clean cut definition of what PBS (musically) stands for”.114 Unfortunately the archives do not further explain these opposing considerations, nor the reasons for the final programming decisions. The final programming data available from this period is a proposed program schedule, published in the November 1978 edition of Waves to obtain expressions of interest from prospective announcers. Interested announcers would nominate which program they wanted to present on a week-by-week basis and supply a full playlist for their proposed program, including track times, to ensure enough songs would be played in the slot.115 This program schedule provides the first formal indication of program categories, time of day and styles of music the station wanted to broadcast. These musical styles are shown in Table 10.

114 Newstead. 115 ‘Progressive Broadcasting Service: Programme Schedule’, Waves, November 1978, p. 4. 111

Table 10: Proposed PBS programme schedule, November 1978

Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Time Saturday Sunday 4.30pm Rhythm & Blues Folk Blues Country Rock Jazz Rock 0.00 Various Various

7.00pm Blues Rock Folk Rock New Releases Country & Jazz 4.00am Various Various Western

9.30pm Theme Specials New Wave Soul Non-Music 8.00am New Wave Blues 12.00pm Close Close Close Close 24-Hour 10.00am Reggae Non-Music Transmission

12.00am Jazz Rock & Roll 3.00pm Rhythm & Blues Folk 6.00pm Electronic Rock Jazz 9.00pm Symphonic Rock Country & Western 12.00pm 24-Hour Close Transmission

112

The proposed program schedule shows some preference towards grouping musical styles on days of the week. For example, Mondays catered to Blues styles, while Fridays featured Jazz and Spoken Word. The proposed schedule also shows preference for musical styles broadcast during different times of the day, although this is more obvious on weekends. For example, before 6:00pm on Saturday the station proposed a much more laid-back sound compared with Rock Indie styles later in the evening. Consistent with the block-programming method, this proposed grid does not show a consistency of broadcast output across days. For example, the drive shift on each weekday features a completely different style of music. There are only two Tier 1 categories which cannot be accounted for here: Hard ‘n’ Heavy and Electronic & Hip Hop. Some elements of this grid were consistent over the proceeding forty years. For example, I observed continued differentiation between weekend and weekday sound throughout the thesis, and discuss a programming policy implemented to reinforce this in chapter 6. Conversely, in chapter 5, I discuss how programming data indicated a more consistent sound for the drive shift, with Contemporary Mix and Rock Indie programs dominating. Finally, I discuss the evolution of the Hard ‘n’ Heavy and Electronic & Hip Hop categories in chapters 4 and 5 respectively.

Conclusions

In this chapter, I have explained how and why Australia’s public/community media sector was established and PBS awarded its licence. The government created the public/community sector to enable public access to and participation in the media- making process. By broadcasting what they wanted to hear, these stations were required to be “clearly dissimilar”116 and to address the gaps in radio content left by public/government and commercial stations. Initially, stations like PBS were part of the public (i.e. government) sector. As this new sector grew and established its alternative, it became clear a new third sector of non-profit and non-government

116 ABT, Public Broadcasting, p. 7. 113

organisations being created. From 1992, they would be known as community radio stations. PBS was one of Melbourne’s first public/community radio stations. The station was granted a category ‘S’ licence, which meant it would appeal to special interest listeners. For the ABT, PBS’ programming was one of the main reasons it was granted its licence. In its application, the station demonstrated the alternative it would offer and how it would involve the public in programming decisions. PBS decided to have a cooperative management structure and cooperative programming approach, thinking this the best way to do things differently and achieve the goal of broadcasting progressive music. I have suggested PBS’ cooperative structure prioritised its subcultural intermediaries from day one. At the same time, these intermediaries were part of a decentralised programming structure which sought open and democratic participation in programming decision-making. This validates the relevance of cultural intermediary theory to this thesis in interpreting how this unplaylisted radio station made programming decisions. Discussions around the test broadcasts established characteristics sought from these early announcers: expertise and connection to their musical style and scene. However, due to the size and scale of the test broadcasts, three interrelated factors were influential in determining who became an announcer: who was known to the group, who was available and who had enough of a record collection to put a program together. Being ‘less bureaucratic’ in making programming decisions affected broadcast output. Lack of clarity about what progressive music was and how it would be interpreted at PBS meant, in theory, the case could be made for almost any music category (outside of classical and mainstream pop) to be broadcast. Determining of these boundaries is a consistent theme throughout this thesis. I have identified the musical styles PBS considered under-represented and progressive from its test transmissions and a proposed program schedule. In the test transmissions, musical styles of Funk, Soul, Rock, Jazz, Country, Folk, Blues, Music Theatre, Rock & Roll, Progressive Rock and Comedy were all mentioned. The proposed program schedule featured an expanded range of musical styles, including

114

Rhythm & Blues, Folk, New Wave, Country, Jazz, Reggae, Symphonic Rock, Electronic Rock and Country & Western. Most of these musical styles were still being broadcast four decades later, except for Comedy and Music Theatre. In the next chapter, I will demonstrate how notions of community were ingrained in organisational and programming decisions during the station’s first ten years on-air.

115

4. 1980s: “these guys were fringe dags”1

- Cameron Paine, head of outside broadcast group

4.1 Introduction

This chapter investigates the first ten years of PBS official broadcasting. In the 1980s, PBS was a station of optimism and grim realities. While the cooperative structure meant a community of programming, technical and operational decision-makers were rapidly building, lack of money was a constant challenge. As a new organisation, the percentage of broadcast hours for each music category from year to year was extremely varied. Ian Stanistreet, who started as an announcer in 1980 and became PBS’ first Station Manager 1982–1988, explained: “you are looking at the early years of an organisation and you would expect that there would be degrees of change as it was trying to decide what it was on about”.2 As the decade progressed, the station adapted the progressive music it broadcast as aspiring announcers found the station, armed with their own musical interests. Finally, at the end of the decade PBS restructured the way each day was programmed, to obtain greater consistency of announcers, stability in breakfast and drive programs, and flow throughout the day. For the remainder of this first section, I explain the conflicting atmospheres of progress and constraints at PBS, the growth of the public/community sector and competition in the 1980s. In the second section of this chapter, I identify the subcultural intermediaries involved with making programming decisions, and the evolution of the processes and procedures around these roles. The Board, ultimately responsible for the station’s broadcast content and ongoing operation, directly took an involved position shortly after broadcasting began, responding to the realities of volunteer announcers, some of whom had very little broadcasting experience. The programming unit and its subgroups evolved and expanded over the decade, striving to remain democratic while increasing the number of people responsible for programming decisions.

1 Cameron Paine interview, 4 December 2018. 2 Ian Stanistreet interview, 10 December, 2018. 116

Finally, I discuss the role of announcer at PBS and the process of gaining airtime. Various approaches were initiated by the Board and Programming Unit to improve the quality of the station’s programs, eventually leading to a training program which became an important recruitment tool over the decades to come. The decade culminated in a divisive Major Programming Review where, spurred by an influential announcer, the station revisited what it meant to be progressive. In the third section of this chapter, I present results from programming data to describe the station’s sound in the 1980s. This data suggests before the Major Programming Review in 1988–89, the station concentrated on Rock Indie and Contemporary Mix styles, typically rock and some non-mainstream pop. In 1989, the station decreased its Funk & Soul, Jazz and Blues & Roots in favour of Contemporary Mix, Hard ‘n’ Heavy and Electronic & Hip Hop programming. The representation of different voices on the radio was increased by one program, the Student Access Breakfast Show, which not only broadcast a wide variety of musical styles, but also brought young voices and more female voices to the station. Finally, the role of live music in the formation of PBS’ identity and position in Melbourne’s music community is discussed.

4.1.1 Progress amid constraints

According to Ken Fargher, one of the station’s earliest volunteers, PBS in the early 1980s was a “very idealistic … very democratic place” with a young membership where being 35 seemed old.3 Roger Holdsworth, who began volunteering in 1982 and was still an active member in 2019, described the station as a place for agitators: early on in PBS days we had a sense that we were agitators both in terms of content, but also just agitators to get it going, we were – we owned it and we were proud – we’re still proud of it, but we were proud of the struggle.4

3 K. Fargher interview. 4 Roger Holdsworth interview, 6 December 2018. 117

No idea was too big, even though finances were “precarious”5 and most of the station’s ability to operate was based on the “passion and commitment”6 of the volunteers and their labour, as well as second-hand, donated or heavily discounted items. Ian Stanistreet explained the most important thing was to have the motivation to try: you could just think up an idea and pitch it and you had a pretty good chance that someone would think ‘oh yeah that’s okay, we could give that a go’. I am not just talking about programming – that was certainly wide open, but just in terms of trying to develop the organisation. You could – the possibilities were very open.7

Even from these very early days, a diverse community had found the station, brought together by the common “love of music and music that was under- represented on other forms of broadcasting”.8 Yet much of the decade was dominated by the station’s technical and financial struggles.9 The transmitter location it had fought so hard to get in the 1970s, although enabling official broadcasting to begin, ended up limiting broadcasting hours on weekdays. It was located on top of the Royal Women’s Hospital and staff at the neighbouring engineering department at Melbourne University found the radio waves interfered with their equipment and they made a formal complaint to the Department of Communication. Negotiations resulted in two restrictions on PBS’ broadcast. The station was unable to broadcast 9:00am–4:00pm on weekdays and transmission could not exceed 200 watts, limiting the area the signal could reach.10 Although the Board proposed in 1980 that PBS “will be broadcasting 24 hours a day from Mt Dandenong in June 1981”11 this did not occur until 1987, when the frequency was changed from 107.7FM to 106.7FM and a wider area of metropolitan Melbourne could be reached. The eight-year delay was caused by a lack of money required to erect a transmitter on Mount Dandenong, the location of all major

5 K. Fargher interview. 6 I. Stanistreet interview. 7 I. Stanistreet interview. 8 I. Stanistreet interview. 9 I. Stanistreet interview. 10 Crowley, p. 27. 11 Board minutes from 19 February 1980, PBS. 118

transmitters in Melbourne. This was eventually solved when PBS formed Public FM, a consortium with other local radio stations (3MBS, 3CR, 3ZZZ and PBS). For the other stations, having a transmitter on Mount Dandenong secured the location and extended their transmission range. The transmitter was erected in November 1987 and PBS began broadcasting from it soon after. 3MBS was the first public/community radio station in Melbourne to broadcast 24 hours a day from its first day of official broadcasting on 1 July 1975. At that time, it was more common for stations to broadcast less than 24 hours per day. Triple R took two years to begin 24-hour transmission, starting on 15 April 1978.12 3CR took three years, broadcasting 24 hours a day from 1979.13 Unused rooms at the POW Hotel in St Kilda, for which PBS paid a “peppercorn” (cheap) rent,14 were the station’s home until 1985. The POW proved an ideal location for a station with an interest in broadcasting live music but not much money. Soon after moving in, station members began running live music gigs in the Prince Band Room. Head of the Outside Broadcast (OB) group, Cameron Paine, recalled how PBS’ crafty volunteer technicians ran an “inexpensive cable” to the studios at the back of the hotel to broadcast gigs live to air.15 PBS helped transform the POW from a place with only one evening of live music, a gay cabaret on Sunday nights, to a place for live music many nights of the week. In the process, the station became a pioneer in live music broadcasting, revelling in its ability to introduce new music to audiences. In January 1982, PBS formally employed its first staff member, Ian Stanistreet, as Station Manager. Not all public/community radio stations employed staff and the introduction of a paid employee was something the Board considered necessary for providing “a valuable focal point and also allow for smoother administration of the station”.16 In his article about the democratising nature of public/community radio stations, David Griffiths predicted employment of staff at these stations “necessary,

12 Phillips, p. 45. 13 Fox, Radical Radio, p. 65. 14 K. Fargher interview. 15 C. Paine interview. 16 Production Co-ordinators, ‘The Future’, Waves, December/January 1981/1982, p. 2. 119

desirable and inevitable” although there are still public/community radio stations to this day without paid staff.17 Stanistreet was initially paid approximately $50 per week to cover his travel expenses to and from the station.18 According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this is equivalent to approximately $180 in today’s money.19 Stanistreet secured the position by promising the Board he would raise money for the station, which he did during the 1982 Radiothon, increasing the membership base by 150 from the 1300 members PBS already had.20 In addition to fundraising, Stanistreet was a consistent presence, ensuring announcers had some sense of the station’s responsibilities: a lot of it was administration, about being a point of central contact, being somebody who was on hand to answer questions and explain to people who might want to either support or be part of the station and how they could be involved.21

Stanistreet reported “the station manager did not make programming decisions”.22 Through sponsorships, he succeeded in raising enough money to fund his position, eventually earning enough to fund a second staff member six months later.

4.1.2 PBS and community radio sector growth

On the promise of a $15 million investment in the sector by the federal government, the PBAA formed the subsidiary body of the Public Broadcasting Foundation (PBF) in 1984 as a separate arm to administer and allocate government funding to the sector.23 A key priority of the PBF was to assist program production to improve the style and content of programming.24 The promised millions did not eventuate, so the PBAA had to find a new purpose for the PBF which eventually involved administering the money

17 D. Griffiths, ‘Democratising Radio: The Long Revolution’, Media Monograph III, Sydney and Melbourne, University of Sydney and the Alternative Radio Association, 1975. 18 I. Stanistreet interview. 19 See www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/consumer+price+index+inflation+calculator. 20 B. Hill, ‘3PBS –The Professionals’, The Age, 28 October 1982, p. 8. 21 I. Stanistreet interview. 22 I. Stanistreet interview. 23 Thornley, p. 311. 24 Tebbutt, ‘Constructing Broadcasting’, p. 141. 120

for Aboriginal and ethnic broadcasting that was previously provided by the government to SBS.25 The PBAA was also responsible for community television. Although the beginnings of this sector were evident in 1974, it took almost two decades for a full community television service to develop.26 Rennie argued the first “pirate” (unlicensed) Indigenous community television stations, which began in 1987 and were licenced under the 1992 Broadcasting Services Act, were a “significant development in the campaign for community television”.27 In October 1989, one of metropolitan Melbourne’s first aspirant community television broadcasters SKA-TV (St Kilda Access Television) and PBS made Australian history by conducting the first radio and television dual simulcast. In August 1984, PBS moved “to the more salubrious end of Fitzroy Street”,28 171 Fitzroy Street, St Kilda, where it stayed until 2001. In February 1988, Stanistreet left the station and PBS’ only female station manager to date, Mazz Knott, was hired. Knott brought “a long history of involvement with public broadcasting having spent 5 years in various roles”.29 Unfortunately, Knott did not agree to be interviewed for this research, but other interviewees commented on her active involvement with programming and said the popular This Week Live event (discussed later in this chapter) was her idea. Nat Muscat, a staff member and announcer at PBS from 1987– 1993, recalled Knott’s strong personality, crediting her commitment to PBS as a significant reason the station stayed on-air: Mazz was a pretty driven woman and very sharp. She was also quite explosive in many ways. And quite fearless. She really carried the station through those hard financial times.30

The station’s arguments in the 1970s about what it meant to be progressive continued in the 1980s; however, with programs to broadcast, the station settled its

25 Thornley, p. 312. 26 E. Rennie, The Future of Community Broadcasting: Civil Society and Communications Policy, PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 2003, pp. 19–20. 27 Rennie, The Future of Community Broadcasting, p. 20. 28 ‘A Brief History of Time’, Static Minus One, December 1989, p. 7. 29 M. Glover, ‘State of the Station’, Waves, February/March 1988. 30 Nat Muscat interview, 24 January 2019. 121

identity in practice through its broadcast content, rather than theory. The ideal of being a democratic cooperative, with decentralised programming, meant there were a lot of announcers who attended the programming meetings, which Ken Fargher felt took place “just about every week”31. Archives suggest these meeting were initially held three times per week, then fortnightly, finally settling on monthly. General concern among Board members about the quality of programs led to a series of programming reviews to assess the content of programs. Unlike commercial stations, PBS relies on volunteers for its programs. For Roger Holdsworth, this was the main factor influencing programming decisions regardless of decade: “the interests of people who want to present [rather than] people coming to the station and saying, ‘I’m a listener, I don’t want to present, but I really want to hear x, y or z’”.32 As PBS began broadcasting, it attracted new listeners and more people who wanted to present programs. Some of these aspirant announcers wanted to broadcast different musical styles to the jazz, folk, blues, rock and country & western styles that were already being broadcast. At the station’s 30th birthday party, John Maizels described the reaction of the station’s founders to a proposed new wave (similar to punk rock) program in the early 1980s: ‘We didn't know what “new wave” was’, he said. ‘And when we found out what it was, none of us liked it. And then we thought about the station's purpose: to play under- represented music. I remember we were really proud of ourselves saying “yes” to a show of music that none of us liked!’33

PBS was being progressive both in organisation and broadcast content. The station’s position as a broadcaster of new and under-represented music was established early on because the announcers were connected to their music scenes. The very early days of electronic and hip hop music are documented in program grids. Rap was first advertised to be broadcast during a Specials program on Tuesday 3 August 1982. According to Garry Havrillay, a volunteer at the station since 1980 and who remained involved in 2019, PBS was one of the first radio stations to

31 K. Fargher interview. 32 R. Holdsworth interview. 33 J. Maizels quoted in S. Francis, ‘30 years of PBS’, Easey, May 2009, p. 4. 122

broadcast hip hop in Australia.34 The first program to advertise hip hop was the Thursday afternoon drive program Alice Through the Underground on 16 October 1986.

4.1.3 Competition

PBS’ competition in the 1980s came mainly from commercial station EON FM, public/community station Triple R and the ABC’s Triple J (formerly Double J). The establishment of EON FM (now Triple M) in Melbourne in 1980, the first commercial FM radio station in Australia, was of particular concern. EON began broadcasting on 11 July 1980 with the philosophy of a “free-flowing, non-hit single format with lots of album tracks … We were arrogantly contemptuous of any song that became popular”, according to EON founding Program Director Lee Simon.35 Without a playlist or Top 40 songs but with commercial backers, EON FM appeared to be a strong competitor for PBS’ audience, as Brian Wise wrote in Waves: I must admit that when EON started up I was fairly worried about the effect it might have on PBS. I thought they would be able to achieve great things with the million dollar budget they boasted about.36

Fortunately for PBS, EON FM’s broadcast content did not appeal to enough people and commercial pressures forced it to change its programming to Top 40 by 1982. The change attracted more listeners to EON. It was sold in 1986 to Triple M Sydney, owned by Hoyts, for $37.5 million.37 Cross-town public/community radio broadcaster Triple R was considered both a friend and a threat to PBS. An article in Waves reported this rivalry, with anecdotal evidence suggesting listeners preferred PBS to Triple R because of its “greater breadth

34 Garry Havrillay interview, 24 January 2019. 35 L. Simon quoted in M. Lallo, ‘Triple M-emories’, The Age, 1 January 2009, www.theage.com.au/entertainment/triple-m-emories-20090101-ge7lmo.html (accessed 31 January 2019). 36 B. Wise, ‘The Bland Leading the Bland’, Waves, August 1981, p. 17. 37 A. Crawford, ‘It was 20 Years Ago Today’, The Age, 11 July 2000, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=anh&AN=SYD- 4YICKYZ8JJS13F7QP51I&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed 20 August 2019). 123

of music, less fashionable music or simply the humility of our announcers.”38 Cameron Paine (who now works for Triple R) recalled how some conspiratorially suggested that Triple R had somehow intervened with PBS’ transmitter to limit its broadcasting hours.39 However, the general relationship between these two stations, and 3CR, was harmonious. In Waves, PBS discussed Triple R’s and 3CR’s money problems, and encouraged people to donate or subscribe during their annual fundraisers. Later editions of Waves were produced as a collaboration among all three stations, featuring programming grids from each. During the 1988–89 programming review, some announcers moved from PBS to Triple R. Finally, the ABC’s Double J became Triple J when it began broadcasting nationally, arriving in Melbourne in 1989. The introduction of Triple J was said to pose little threat to the station, because “the majority of the musical styles represented on PBS are not broadcast on that network”.40 However, at least one music community radio station altered its programming due to Triple J’s national expansion; 4ZZZ in Brisbane started broadcasting “more abrasive” music to ensure it remained an alternative option.41 As Triple J began broadcasting to Melbourne late in the 1980s, I assess its impact on PBS in more detail in the next chapter.

4.2 Programming policies, procedures and people

Deliberately seeking to provide an alternative to existing media and with little financial resources, PBS was not highly regarded by many in the 1980s. Cameron Paine described PBS’ position within Melbourne’s music scene: community radio was definitely seen to be the daggy end of the broadcasting spectrum. Not only that, we played music that most people who are accustomed to listen to music on commercial radio media turn their nose up at. The sort of stuff that

38 M. Geyer, ‘Public Radio – A Nice Concept But We Didn’t Have a Place For It’, Waves, December/January 1984/1985, p. 4. 39 C. Paine interview. 40 L. Cazaly, et al., ‘The Next Progression’, Waves, December/January 1988/1989, p. 19. 41 Stafford, p. 255. 124

someone like Jessie I42 or Roger Holdsworth43 present today … or Stani, Stani Goma’s program.44 Those kinds of musics today are celebrated by a much, much broader community of people, all listen to with enthusiasm, if not people digging deep into them – they’re part – they’re not an affront to our ears. Reggae, what I’ll broadly characterise as African music – as absurd as that term – well no, let’s narrow it down – Malian music, but even that’s too broad. The PBS broadcaster putting that stuff to air cemented in people’s minds that these guys were fringe dags.45

Paine summarised a contrast in perceived value of PBS’ broadcast output which contributes to our understanding of cultural intermediaries as part of a cyclical process of value-creation. When PBS broadcast Reggae, African or Malian music in the 1980s it aided the station’s perception of being unfashionable. However, by the 2010s, partly due to PBS’ broadcast of these styles and commensurate uptake in subcultural status, such music is now celebrated. Paine continued:

And we were poor – we couldn’t pay for anything, whenever we picked up the phone it would be to ask if we could borrow something or whether we could do a contra deal or whatever. And when you came to our studios you sat on second-hand chairs that someone had got from an op shop and stuff like that. Which, to the handmade-maker kind of set, is something to celebrate, but back then it was kind of seen to be ‘you guys are not serious and we will not align ourselves, therefore, with someone who’s not serious, this is mickey mouse, this is people playing radio’. And so that meant that it took a long time for any of the productive crossover from people who actually knew what they were doing when they turn on a mic – knew how to address a microphone appropriately, knew what that meter was telling you as the person who’s driving the panel and how that translates into what the audience is hearing and perceiving. That knowledge was fumbled around because there was no one to deliver it.46

42 Host of Babylon Burning, a Reggae program (2008–present). 43 Host of Global Village, a World program (1989–present). 44 Host of Flight 106.7 to Africa (2006–present, although Goma presented another African music program, Africa #1, on PBS from 1992–2006). 45 C. Paine interview. 46 C. Paine interview. 125

Paine’s comments highlight the challenges of inexperienced volunteers playing unknown music and operating a radio station on little money. PBS was limited by its alternative nature, and because it was operating in an environment fundamentally contrary to its interests.47 Adding to the perception of PBS as “fringe dags” were the station’s transmitter issues. Airtime was at a premium for the first seven years of broadcasting (until 24- hour broadcasting began in 1987). The station was initially on-air for just 6.5 hours on weekdays and all day on weekends. In May 1980, the station extended its night-time broadcasting to 2:00am. The program schedule during most of the 1980s is reproduced in Table 11 below. The alternating blue and orange colours represent program timeslots and the white cells show when the station was off-air. The half- cells represent when programs started on the half-hour (e.g. 4:30pm).

47 Fairchild, Music, Radio and the Public Sphere, p. 81. 126

Table 11: On-air schedule, 1980–1986

Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 6:00am 7:00am 8:00am 9:00am 10:00am 11:00am 12:00pm 1:00pm 2:00pm 3:00pm 4:00pm 5:00pm 6:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm 9:00pm 10:00pm 11:00pm 12:00pm 1:00am 2:00am 3:00am 4:00am 5:00am

In April 1986, PBS introduced a weekday breakfast program 6:00am–9:00am, increasing daily on-air time to 12.5 hours, as shown in Table 12.

127

Table 12: On-air schedule, 1986–1987

These broadcast hours obviously limited the number of programs and therefore announcers on-air. However, particularly in the very early years, Cameron Paine explained the restricted broadcast hours were almost a blessing in disguise, considering the number of announcers suitable for presenting a program: “I think for the number of hours we were broadcasting and the number of people who had enough music to put together relatively interesting radio shows – they were in balance”.48 In other words, the volunteer, subcultural intermediaries PBS needed to become announcers were scarce. By the mid-1980s, limited broadcast hours were affecting the station’s ability to build its audience and revenue from subscribers. As Ian Stanistreet described, broadcasting 24 hours a day was “really, a pretty essential

48 C. Paine interview. 128

thing for a radio station to be there on the dial all the time.”49 Much of his efforts as Station Manager were raising the money required to move the transmitter to Mount Dandenong, which enabled this to happen. In theory, programming decisions in the 1980s were made by the Programming Unit (also known as the Programming Group) and its various subgroups, with strategic direction and monitoring from the Board. Leading up to official broadcasting, the Board had been more concerned with getting the station up and running. For the first eight months of broadcasting, people were “not conforming to relevant standards”.50 A comment in the November 1981 edition of Waves suggested programming for the first couple of years of broadcasting had been ad hoc, at best: Over the past months you might say that the programming system has been based on trust, hope and the odd bit of string.51

The Board felt it needed to step into programming matters for the sake of the station’s longevity: “while it is not the Board’s domain to control specific areas of on- air activity, the Board does express the view that such control is necessary”, seeking to improve the station’s on-air sound to meet the station’s goals.52 The Board’s more hands-on involvement in programming decisions was also a result of the station’s cooperative structure. Board meetings consisted of the six or seven Board members plus 15 to 20 other volunteers who would interject, ask questions and debate matters at hand.53 Board meetings were therefore also, in effect, station meetings where decisions were made as a collective. To have voting rights at these meetings, and to vote for Board members at the annual station meetings, individuals had to be PBS shareholders.54 A series of structural changes affected the Board and programming decision- making structures throughout the 1980s. In September 1980, a motion was passed to separate the Program Review Committee (PRC) from the Production Group. This

49 I. Stanistreet interview. 50 Board papers for 26 August 1980, PBS. 51 ‘The System’, Waves, November 1981, p. 2. 52 Board papers for 26 August 1980, PBS. 53 L. Davis quoted in Francis, p. 6. 54 See Chapter 3. 129

granted the PRC more autonomy and responsibility, emphasising the program ahead of broader production issues. The first official training guide for future programmers was compiled by program coordinators and published in Waves in November 1981.55 In the first two years of official broadcasting, the station had five program coordinators, reduced to three in 1982, plus one person from the Board as a liaison person. The PRC coordinators were responsible for: . Allocation of programmes . Training of panel operators . Legal education of announcers . Studio rules . Liaison with record companies . Providing programme notes for the media . Responsible for monthly meeting of music category supervisors (compulsory).56

Ken Fargher was a program coordinator in the early 1980s before he stopped volunteering with the station in 1983. He explained although program coordinators “had sole charge of arbitrary [programming] decisions”, programming decisions were still made democratically: Democratically you voted for them. ‘Freddie Smith is going to have a punk show, anybody object to that?’ ‘No, no, no’ And you voted in your coordinators anyway, who had sole charge of arbitrary decisions on these things but generally I mean if they weren’t doing their job you were roundly told.57

According to Roger Holdsworth, program coordinators were elected by shareholders at “large” station meetings of 50 or 60 people.58 Their term varied at different points in the 1980s, ranging from six monthly to yearly terms, often in an atmosphere of contest: it was always contested, because the Heavy Metal people thought the Jazz people were out to get rid of Heavy Metal and vice versa, and all of those sorts of paranoias were

55 ‘The System’, p. 2. 56 Traynor. 57 K. Fargher interview. 58 R. Holdsworth interview. 130

there. Slightly light-hearted, but still, like, ‘who is controlling the sound of the station?”59

Ian Stanistreet painted a similar picture of the lively nature of monthly station meetings: in those days, my memory was it was all fairly political and a lot of the negotiation … certainly was a hot topic at monthly station meetings, as to how many hours was allocated to a particular style of music and whether there should be change, not only in the hours allocated, although that was hard to shift quickly, but also about whether there should be other styles of music added to the broader regimen of music that was being represented at the time.60

Garry Havrillay described how station meetings and the Programming Committee were used by people to push their own musical interests: there were monthly station meetings and individuals would stand up and say ‘why are there more Blues programs than Heavy Rock programs?’ or ‘why has Jazz got a new program and we haven’t?’ And various people would even wrangle their way, or try to wrangle their way onto the Programming Committee to further their own interests rather than the best interests of the station.61

Program coordinators appointed music coordinators. There was one music coordinator per category of music. Only the host of a Big Band program, for example, could be the music coordinator for that category. Table 13 compares the categories that each had a music coordinator in 1982 and 1987.

59 R. Holdsworth interview. 60 I. Stanistreet interview. 61 G. Havrillay interview. 131

Table 13: Comparison of PBS music categories, 1982 and 1987

198262 198763 Australian/Extensions Australian Big Bands Big Bands Blues Blues Comedy Comedy Contemporary Jazz Contemporary Jazz, Jazz Rock/Crossover Country Contemporary Soul Drama Country/ Rock N Roll Feel the Night Drama Heavy Rock Heavy Rock Jazz/Rock Mainly Acoustic Library Shelf New Music/Midnight–2am New Releases/ 4:30–6:00pm New Releases New Wave Punk Non Music Reggae R & B Sixties music Reggae Student Access Rock ‘n’ Roll The Electronic Influence Soul 60s Soul Symphonic Rock Theme

By 1983, music category coordinators had taken over the responsibility for deciding who would present programs in their category each month, which was then presented to the PRC.64 Music category coordinators were also responsible for encouraging “monthly meetings within their category to generate enthusiasm, new ideas, pooling of resources etc.".65 Figure 3 shows PBS’ eventual organisational structure for the second half of the 1980s.

62 ‘Music Category Co-ordinators’, Waves, February 1982. 63 ‘3PBS-FM Contact List’, Waves, February/March 1987, p. 46. 64 ‘Summary of Meeting of Musical Category Co-ordinators’, Waves, March 1983. 65 ‘Summary of Meeting of Musical Category Co-ordinators’. 132

Production review Music coordinators Production unit committee (15-20 members) (3, then 5 members) Board

Station manager

Figure 3: Summary of PBS organisational structure, 1982–1989

These changes in music categories and music category coordinator responsibilities tell us three things. First, combining some categories attempted to manage competing bids for airtime and allowed for similar music styles to be managed by the one music category coordinator. Categories were also likely combined based on who was willing to be a music category coordinator, their networks and music taste. Second, giving more responsibility to music coordinators was consistent with the decentralised, cooperative nature of programming. Third, these findings reaffirm the role of music category coordinator as a subcultural intermediary at PBS.

4.2.1 Becoming an announcer

There were multiple ways a person could become an announcer in the 1980s. Some were sought out: Ken Fargher recruited announcers by actively seeking out “fans that were buffs of [a] kind of music”.66 Ian Stanistreet was similarly recruited by a friend of his sister, who happened to recognise his name from a record-purchasing scheme they had invented.67 Some accidentally became announcers, like Helen Jennings OAM, the station’s longest running female announcer. Jennings began on-air in 1986, co-hosted a program for a few months, then one evening her co-host couldn’t make it and Jennings had to announce and operate the panel for the first time live to air.68 For

66 K. Fargher interview. 67 I. Stanistreet interview. 68 Helen Jennings interview, 13 March 2019. 133

others, Ian Stanistreet recalled if they made it to a station meeting, they would be referred to speak with the music coordinator of the category in which they were most interested.69 Ken Fargher described how, in the very early days (pre-1983), when a new announcer arrived, he would simply ask others to make way: The people that would come and do shows, if they were good at it, and kept turning up they held onto the show. But it wasn't like you would say ‘Hey listen’. Ross Rhodes who used to do the blues show, I would say ‘Hey Ross it’s um, Gertrude McGillicutty is a pretty good presenter, do whatever ... two weeks? Give her a shot.’ It wasn’t – people weren’t precious about it either.70

Moreover, until 1989, programs did not have set announcers more than four weeks in advance, a decision the station made to emphasise the program as more important than the announcer71 and which meant it was easier to give new announcers a go on-air. Although the station was always on the lookout for announcers, the same requirement of musical expertise and knowledge was essential. Most importantly, PBS’ announcers respected music: The DJs revere the music in the true tradition of art, playing people they admire performing expressions they can relate through – that’s true of even the thrash and heavy metal DJs. That’s why there is none of the smug detached irony or cynicism in commentators’ voices on PBS.72

Knowledge of their chosen music form was formally identified by listeners as a desirable attribute in the PBS announcer early as 1984.73 However, as Ian Stanistreet recalled, gaining this expertise, and the music collection to back it up in the pre- internet age, was neither easy nor cheap: you have to remember that in the nineteen-eighties it was practically impossible [to become an expert]. You had to import records yourself, from wherever they came

69 I. Stanistreet interview. 70 K. Fargher interview. 71 ‘Switches On?’, p. 5. 72 A. Bock, ‘3PBS-FM Counters the Cultural Cringe’, The Age, 14 December 1989, p. 30. 73 J. Selvay, ‘3PBS-FM Subscriber Survey’, Saje Research, April 1984, Waves, August/September 1984. 134

from. Be it Africa, or the southern part of America or somewhere like that. Whereas these days you just Google it by genre and see what comes up.74

In its earliest years of operation, PBS announcers relied heavily on their own record collections for broadcast material. Cameron Paine said this was because of the lack of resources. Free records and cassette tapes were not supplied by record labels and the internet did not yet exist: all program content initially was what people brought with them into the building. And maybe after the first year, a couple of the record labels started paying attention – to glorify it with the word ‘servicing,’ which the industry uses today, would be a joke. It was really ‘people please, please, PLEASE can we have a copy of x, y, z?’75

For weekly programs, the announcer needed to compile a written version of the program they wished to present and send it to the appropriate category coordinator. This would include track and album titles, artists’ names and track times for their prospective program, all written on the programming page supplied in the Waves magazine. In the first half of the decade, prospective programs were presented at Production Unit meetings, where the committee would select the programs for the following month. Garry Havrillay described how he became an announcer in 1981: I started doing a program called The Symphonic Rock Show, which was a progressive rock show. There were several people who presented that program. So at that time people were putting in program submissions which were very detailed and there was a coordinator – Ross Thomas was the coordinator of that program and sort of the electronic music aspect of the station – so he would basically filter through and allocate ‘Okay, Garry, you do the second and fourth program in the month’ and somebody else would do the first and the third and so on. That’s how it went. And you would then basically propose something that you could publish in the subscriber magazine or whatever that people could look at in advance of the program. So you had to be fairly well prepared and at least have some idea of what you wanted to do, either a theme or a focus on an artist or whatever it was.76

74 I. Stanistreet interview. 75 C. Paine interview. 76 G. Havrillay interview. 135

PBS wanted its announcers to sound like normal people. The 1984 subscriber survey reported listeners appreciated the non-commercial sound PBS announcers offered. Respondents were “satisfied with the standard of presentation of announcers, basically because they prefer “personal, laid back or non-commercial” announcing styles.77 According to more recent community radio research from 2007, sounding like a “normal person” remains a positive attribute of community radio stations.78 The quality of programs broadcast on PBS in the 1980s was both very, very good and very, very poor. According to the same 1984 listener survey which identified the musical expertise of the PBS announcer as a desirable attribute, in general there were “more negative than positive comments” about announcers.79 The report went on to state “presenter knowledge appears to be considered both more important and at a higher standard than preparation”.80 Garry Havrillay provided some reasons for why PBS announcers sounded amateurish: There was a lot more amateurish presentation on-air, untrained voices. And I think people felt they had a right to be on-air regardless of their competence at presenting and articulating their ideas without a script [laughs]. So there were some really very, very ordinary presenters and untrained people who would make lots of panel operating mistakes – forget to turn the microphone off, leave the runout groove running under while they’re making their back announce and all this kind of stuff. So there was a lot less emphasis then on training courses and … pre-broadcast practising. We only had one studio in the early days, so it was very difficult for people to find time to practise. Even when we had two studios, a lot of the production was going on in the spare studio. So again it was difficult for people to get in there and actually practise off-air.81

In response to the recommendation for PBS to “introduce training programs or announcer support to help announcers sound as if they were better prepared; reduce the number of ‘ums & aahs’ and minor mishaps on air”82 various methods were

77 Selvay. 78 Meadows et al., Community Media Matters, p. 34. 79 Selvay. 80 Selvay. 81 G. Havrillay interview. 82 Selvay. 136

attempted to improve how announcers sounded on-air. Training opportunities included training sessions run at the station and later an outsourced program at Bob Taylor’s School where for $25 the aspiring announcer would receive five lessons in how to program a show and operate a desk.83 At least two training manuals were written throughout the decade which outlined the key features of how to present on PBS.84 However, most of my interviewees described a much less formal approach, including Ian Stanistreet, whose training lasted about three weeks: I was trained over a period of about three weeks and I was on-air about four weeks after I subscribed. Having sat through several buddy sessions, where the great skill I learnt was how to drop a stylus onto an LP whilst my hand was shaking so hard, and then learning about cueing a record … and then they let me loose! Amazing!85

The beginning of 24-hour broadcasting, and immediately after the 1989 programming review, seemed to be some of the easiest times to become an announcer. The station had airtime to fill and, as long as the aspirant announcer had enough of a music collection, they would most likely be able to have a go on-air. I describe beginning 24-hour broadcasting and the 1989 programming review in the next sub-sections.

4.2.2 Beginning 24-hour broadcasting

On 16 November 1987, PBS began broadcasting 24 hours a day on 106.7 FM, maintaining a simulcast on 107.7 FM for three weeks.86 The new transmitter on Mount Dandenong enabled PBS’ signal to reach the whole of metropolitan Melbourne. Ian Stanistreet, who finished as station manager the year prior, described the advantage of moving to 24-hour broadcasting and the opportunity to create more flow between programs:

83 ‘Production Report’, Board papers for 5 November 1980, PBS. 84 ‘Production Report’, Board papers for 5 November 1980, PBS; ‘Programme Co-ordinators report’, Board meeting minutes from 8 July 1982; G. Havrillay interview. 85 I. Stanistreet interview. 86 M. Glover, ‘State of the Station’, Waves, December/January 1987/1988. 137

So you could start to, with a hundred and sixty-eight hours a week, to program – you could look at grouping things in a more sensible fashion. So that you didn’t necessarily have styles of music butting up against one another which would cause massive audience shifts. You could think that a Country music program isn’t going to necessarily work well finishing, or being followed by or up against a Heavy Rock program. There were some obvious things that you were trying to avoid. You were trying to introduce people to different forms of music and the easiest way to think about that was how could you flow from one form of music one to a similar, but different form of music in order to maintain your audience across a day. So shifting to -hour continuous broadcasting gave us a better opportunity to do that.87

The transition to 24-hour broadcasting presented challenges for this young station, particularly in finding people who could broadcast in the ‘graveyard’ shift. Helen Jennings recalled: “when we first went twenty-four/seven back in nineteen eighty-seven it was such a novelty, but we sort of forgot that someone has to do the two til six”.88 Sometimes Cameron Paine – who was head of the OB group and did not want to be an announcer – would come into the station in the early hours and play records to make sure there was no dead air: ‘Cos I worked in the music industry, that meant that I was starting work in the afternoon at one or two o clock and finishing work, or coming home perhaps having been out for a bevvy, at one, two or maybe three o’clock in the morning. It used to offend me deeply that I would get home on the weekend and turn on PBS and there was nothing on-air. And so, while I have a fairly modest and eclectic record collection, there was more than one night – I had keys as one of the station techs and I lived literally walking distance from the studios. So yeah, the extent to which my broadcasting career existed was – and I would not utter a word – but I would make sure there was unbroken music until the breakfast presenter arrived … it just used to offend me that this licensed airtime that we had struggled so much [to get] – that there was no volunteer to go and present a program. And so while I wasn’t really presenting a program, I was making sure that anyone who tuned in didn’t think we’d failed to pay the rent this week.89

87 I. Stanistreet interview. 88 H. Jennings interview. 89 C. Paine interview. 138

Even when announcers could be found for the graveyard shift, this was no guarantee dead air would be avoided. Helen Jennings recalled one such announcer who was notorious for falling asleep on-air: three o’clock in the morning someone would always have to keep listening when this particular person was on-air because inevitably he’d be drunk or stoned and fall asleep and the vinyl would be going chonk de chonk de chonk de chonk, so someone with a key would come rushing in and wake him up and get the music happening again. Yeah, didn’t happen often but it happened.90

As discussed earlier, prior to official broadcasting the meaning of progressive and its implications for the station’s broadcast content were matters of much debate. PBS was granted a ‘S’ (Special Interest) radio licence because it would broadcast ‘under-represented’ music, that is, music not heard on other radio stations. During the decade, musical styles evolved, competition from new FM radio stations increased, new announcers found PBS and new musical styles made their way to Australia. FBi91 founder and Triple R announcer Peter Chellew, PBS’ fourth station manager 1997–2000 reflected on how during the 1980s the station needed to adapt to truly embody its ‘progressive’ ethos: if you look at the five or six categories of music that they put up on a licence that they needed to have a station to broadcast [rock, jazz, blues and country and western92], they’re kind of all dead, dead genres of music. And I think the key word is progressive, prog. Around that time, like if you’re a cool long-haired type, you’d be into prog music, prog jazz, prog rock, everything was prog, all the music tracks were like fifteen minutes long with lots of long solos… And so, the team that put together – I’m not putting them down – but put together PBS from a programming perspective at the start, were all from this kind of jazz, blues, folk kind of areas, and that’s fine, but what was happening internationally as far as music culture goes from that time onwards was punk. Punk was an explosion, it was a revolution. It was a revolution of the kids, young people in the urban environment and out of it came other movements like reggae, hip hop, other really important kind of – electronica, all started around that,

90 H. Jennings interview. 91 FBi is a youth, community radio broadcaster in Sydney which, after starting as a test broadcaster in 1995, was awarded a licence in 2003. 92 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 133. 139

out of that time. So as genres of music – all of a sudden the station had to find a place for the punk/rock genres.93

Chellew’s comments raise the concept of a broader cultural definition of progressive. Progressive music in the form of progressive jazz, rock and other styles developed from the counter-cultural hippie movements in the 1960s and 1970s.94 Willis likened progressive music to underground music, which was “not disseminated widely, and not represented in the current ‘top 20s’.”95 Progressive musics represented a deliberate departure from, even opposition to, the mainstream. PBS was founded on doing things differently, in organisational structure as well as music broadcasting. When the station was accused of no longer living up to those ideals by one of its own music experts, Mick Geyer, a movement began which would result in months of arguments about what PBS stood for, the departure of some longstanding announcers and Board members and, finally, widespread changes to the station’s sound.

4.2.3 1989 Major Programming Review

At the 6 July 1988 station meeting, Mick Geyer read his paper ‘Living up to the Moniker of Being a Progressive Radio Station’.96 Geyer was considered an expert in his field by many at PBS, in Melbourne’s music community and globally, a true cultural intermediary with an extraordinary amount of cultural capital. He was the Waves magazine editor and a PBS announcer. According to Lisa Palermo, who was involved with the station from 1988–2009 as an announcer, Board member and chair of the Programming Committee, Geyer was “a complete genius, and a musical icon for me and many others who knew him and worked with him at the time”.97 Volunteers Moira Drew, Lisa Palermo, Jenni Crowley, Garry Havrillay and Bill Runting produced and aired a four-part radio documentary about Geyer in 2006 to mark his untimely

93 Peter Chellew interview, 27 November 2018. 94 P. Willis, Profane Culture, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2014, p. 207. 95 Willis, p. 140. 96 M. Geyer, ‘Living Up to the Moniker of Being a Progressive Radio Station’, 1988, transcribed by Bill Runting, PBS. 97 Lisa Palermo interview, 22 January 2019. 140

death two years earlier.98 The documentary investigated Geyer’s musical mind and showed the extent of his influence on PBS and Melbourne’s music scene. In 2012, PBS introduced the annual Mick Geyer award, presented to a PBS volunteer “in recognition of an individual’s outstanding service to PBS and, through that, to the broader music community”.99 When Geyer spoke about music, people listened. In his paper, Geyer argued the station was failing to live up to its promise of progressive radio in the musical styles it broadcast (not keeping up with “musical movements themselves”), the uneven percentage of airtime given to each category (particularly after 24-hour broadcasting began) and the significant bias against announcers who were female, young or part of other minority groups.100 Geyer’s criticisms contribute to our understanding of the role community radio stations like PBS play in reflecting and contributing to the production of culture. Without these contributions, the station risks losing its way. Although PBS had very little money throughout the 1980s, Ian Stanistreet recalled station members were “quite adamant, we were not going to be influenced by the dollar”.101 Any influence of finances on programming decisions was widely dismissed by interviewees; however, some concession was granted to the necessity of considering peak listening times and the ability to convert these listeners to paid-up members and to sell airtime to sponsors. Geyer’s summation of the failings in the allocation of programs was particularly damning because he suggested financial considerations (the number of subscribers) influenced programming decisions, going against PBS’ non-commercial principles: The present manner of allocating programs to applicants appears to be biased in two particular ways, and here I refer to night and week-end programs because everybody already knows that Rock and Blues history predominates the day. The first manner of allocation is that you are already there, which of course has meant that if you don’t go away you can have it forever. The second manner is a new invocation which has justified several programs being extended and a couple being abandoned, and that is

98 The documentary can be found at https://www.pbsfm.org.au/mick-geyer-music-guru. 99 A. Basso, ‘GM Report (The Mick Geyer Award)’, Board papers for 24 September 2012. 100 Geyer, ‘Living Up to the Moniker’. 101 I. Stanistreet interview. 141

if you regularly gain subscribers you are rewarded with more time on-air. I think in commercial radio they call this thing the advertising dollar and it follows that if you gain the largest audience you win the ratings, you charge the most and everyone’s happy. It also follows that you take no chances once you’ve achieved the ‘right’ formula, that you’ve compromised anything you might call art or adventure or education or innovation let alone allowed access to the public. Etcetera. This allocation by ‘success’ is a nonsense and anti-music, and the former automatic allocation to long-standing programs can be like sustaining the dead and the horrors of horrors is the jobs-for-the-boys attitude which see announcers pass their shows to friends subverting the whole and very basic notion of Public Radio.102

In summary, Geyer suggested a review of the station’s programming practices and broadcast content, particularly targeting types of music considered innovative and worthy of broadcast. The Board responded to Geyer’s paper by appointing a Program Review Committee, of which Geyer was a member, to review “all aspects of the station’s programming and broadcasting”.103 Appointment of this committee suggests a small move away from the highly decentralised decision-making structure used to that point, established with the aim of bringing about change. Submissions were requested from “listeners, announcers, and all interest parties in addition to seeking the opinions of the incumbent program coordinators, all category coordinators, music industry sources as well as PBS's own management and marketing”.104 Lisa Palermo described the meetings held to debate proposed changes as: super controversial, but it’s like, people really cared, people gave a shit and everyone turned up to the meeting where this thing was going to be announced and discussed.105

During the time of the review, Waves magazine reported the Board “has undergone a drastic change of personnel and attitude”,106 suggesting the review had

102 Geyer, ‘Living up to the Moniker’. 103 Cazaly, et al., p. 17. 104 Cazaly, et al., p. 17. 105 L. Palermo interview. 106 Cazaly, et al., p. 17. 142

caused comprehensive change at the station. The Program Review Committee completed its work by the end of 1988 and its summary of the station’s programming was succinct: The hard, cold reality of PBS is that the station does not have enough listeners and subscribers to maintain it in relative comfort. The plight of the station's financial situation over the past year is evidence of a continuing concern in being able to broadcast at all. That a satisfaction with a single program is sufficient to gain an endorsement in the form of a subscription is high praise for that program, but reluctantly we acknowledge that the manner by which so many programs are formulated tend to alienate a greater amount of listeners than they attract.107

PBS’ focus on specialised programs was alienating audiences. Listeners had “too few opportunities” to find programs that appealed to them, resulting in very few people listening regularly throughout the week.108 Another problem was the “inability to change in order to accommodate the breadth of musical developments and those announcers that would prefer to present a greater variety of musical styles within a program”.109 The station’s “inability to accommodate change” meant that it was becoming “increasingly irrelevant” to contemporary music movements and sponsorship.110 The narrow focus of programs was limiting the listener and the aspiring announcer who wanted to play more than one style of music. A new programming format, the largest change in programming since official broadcasting had begun, was launched on 1 February 1989 and made four significant and long-lasting changes to the station’s sound. First, regular announcers were allocated to the shifts deemed most important to maintaining a sense of consistency for listeners: weekday breakfast, drive and evening programs. By the early 1990s, all programs would have allocated announcers. From this point onwards, programs typically ended when announcers left the station. However, in some cases programs have continued with new announcers, like the station’s longest running program, Jazz on Saturday (1983–present): when its first announcer, Marc Gunn, left in 1997, he was

107 Cazaly et al., p. 17. 108 Cazaly et al., p. 19. 109 Cazaly et al., p. 19. 110 Cazaly et al., p. 19. 143

replaced by Steve Robertson. Announcers became more important at PBS. When these volunteer, subcultural intermediaries become weekly announcers, their air-time is secured and ability to develop a relationship with the listener increases. Second, weekday breakfast and drive programs became cross-genre. This was the beginning of the station moving away from the “narrowcasting” it had previously prided itself on with programs that dealt “with each style, in greater depth and from different perspectives … satisfy[ing] the needs of those interested in a specific music style, rather than programming for mass taste".111 As Garry Havrillay described, programs would broadcast only one style of music: The thing about programs being very, very narrowly focused I think in our early years, because we wanted to be seen to be a specialist music station. So if your programs were not really specialising in anything in particular, then we thought ‘okay, that’s not really what we’re on about’. So there was a lot of pressure I think on people to not go outside the genre they were designated to play … I think this is why the station has come to this point now where we’ve gone past the critical mass point of the fingernails clinging on to the wall for survival, because we’ve learnt that our audience expects something a bit more interesting from us than just very, very narrowly focused single genre programs. And even throughout all that evolution … we’ve still held on to the original reasons for the founding of the station, which was to play under-represented music to serve an audience that is tired of the mainstream. And that’s really it.112

To appeal more to listeners, announcers in the breakfast and drive slots were encouraged to broadcast a wide range of non-offensive and broadly popular music. Purists would still be catered to in the more focused 7:00pm–12:00pm strip programming each weeknight. Lisa Palermo explained how this strategy was supposed to work: we could bring on more programs and have more specialist programs, but your strip [programming] … drive, and also breakfast, would be where PBS as a whole was

111 ‘1986… A Year of Achievement: Why Support PBS?’, Waves, October/November 1986, p. 24. 112 G. Havrillay interview. 144

represented, and ideally, because it represented all of the genres, it could bring people into the other shows, through cross-promotion.113

While in theory cross-genre shows would increase programs’ appeal, in reality most announcers simply did not have an adequate breadth of musical knowledge to present interesting cross-genre programs each week. Lisa Palermo described how this led to most cross-genre programs broadcasting mostly rock indie musical styles: So the theory is good; however, it’s very difficult to find announcers who know a lot about everything – there are some who can actually make all of the genres work in one program and really, it’s just a dog’s breakfast if you try and cover all the genres in one show, it’s not going to work. So you kind of have to go ‘alright, well it’s got to be something generalist, probably predominantly going to be contemporary rock’, but contemporary rock can take you to reggae, it can take you to soul, it can take you to blues, it can take you to jazz, you can do all of those things within that framework, and I would say that that was probably the idea of that programming at the time.114

Australia’s only other progressive music, community radio station 3D in Adelaide, had a policy of broadcasting ‘general’ music programs during prime listening hours. Although intended as general music programs, their announcers found it difficult to really run “the gamut of music styles” because this required “not only a wide appreciation of music, but also an ability to resist the temptation to play a preponderance of one’s own musical tastes”. General programs typically ended up heavily featuring the announcer’s preferred music style.115 As discussed later in this chapter, in PBS’ case general programs often leant towards rock indie styles. Part of the strategy behind these changes was to achieve more flow between programs. Tier 2 data (described in chapter 2) is useful to see whether the station achieved this, as this data provides more detail about the types of music broadcast during each program. Mondays show a clear change over 1988–1990. Tier 2 data shown in Table 14 and Table 15 illustrates even more clearly the changes in musical styles on Mondays and Saturdays. In these tables, Unknown accounts for situations

113 L. Palermo interview. 114 L. Palermo interview. 115 Bagust, p. 3. 145

where no information was provided about the style/s of music broadcast during the program.

Table 14: Tier 2 descriptions for programs on Mondays in February, 1988, 1989 and 1990

1988 1989 1990 Breakfast Ambient Various Rock Morning Rhythm & Blues Rock Reggae Reggae Afternoon World – African Various Gig Guides Jazz Comedy Comedy Punk Punk – Hardcore Rock Rock & Roll Drive New Wave Rock Rock Contemporary Mix Rock Rock Evening Contemporary Mix Jazz Jazz Blues Big Bands World World Rock Rock Rock Grunge Thrash Metal Thrash Metal Night Unknown Unknown Contemporary Mix Unknown

Table 15: Tier 2 descriptions for programs on Saturdays in February, 1988, 1989 and 1990

1988 1989 1990 Breakfast Jazz Jazz Jazz Morning Folk Jazz Jazz World Folk Afternoon Blues Blues Country Blues World – African Various Gospel Various Various World – African Drive Reggae Various World Rock Heavy Rock Rock Rock Evening Folk Rock Swamp Rock Contemporary Mix Latin Jazz Rock – Alternative Rock – Alternative Night Blues Rock Unknown Hip Hop Hip Hop Unknown

146

At least on these two days, the data suggests increased flow between programs was achieved. Data from other days of the week did not show the same level of flow between programs. This may indicate Mondays and Saturdays were the priority for improving flow from 1988–1990, or that flow was most successfully achieved on these days due to other factors, such as the availability of announcers. Third, the start and finish times for programs were changed. Over 9:00am– 11:00pm there were no programs longer than 90 minutes (many were only 60 minutes), which, it was argued, would allow for a greater variety of musical styles to be broadcast.116 The reduction in the length of each program meant an increase in the number of programs broadcast and therefore the number of people with the opportunity to broadcast. Table 16 compares the number of programs broadcast per week before and after the Review.

Table 16: Comparison of number of programs per week, 1988 and 1989

Mon–Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday Total programs per week 1988 10 (x4) 10 11 11 72 1989 16 (x4) 12 14 16 106

The Review resulted in 34 more programs on PBS each week than in 1988, 32% more airtime for announcers and musical styles to be broadcast. Fourth and finally, there were changes to the numbers of broadcast hours for (Tier 2) musical styles deemed progressive and not progressive by the station’s subcultural intermediaries. Figure 4 (a and b) shows those Tier 2 styles whose time on-air changed by more than 30 hours between 1988 and 1989, first those which increased, a) Progressive, then those which decreased, b) Not progressive.

116 Cazaly et al., p. 19. 147

a) Progressive 350

300

250

200

150

100

0 Arts Dance Hip Hop Rock - Thrash World World - Gig Guides Alternative Metal Electronic

1988 1989

b) Not progressive 140

120

100

0 Big Bands Blues Rock Drama Jazz Rock Nostalgia

1988 1989

Figure 4: Tier 2 categories with change of more than 30 hours per week after 1989 programming review

Of these Tier 2 styles, World and Nostalgia programs are particularly notable. In his initial paper, Geyer recommended the introduction of “‘ethnic’ music styles to compensate for the prevalence of music from English speaking countries”,117 thereby deeming this to be a progressive category of music. A host of World programs began in 1988 and 1989: Continental Drift, Global Village, Globetrotting, Music from a Round World, Radio Uganda and The Reggae Show. The station stopped broadcasting

117 Geyer, ‘Living up to the Moniker’. 148

Nostalgia styles, which included 1920–1940s Jazz and Big Bands. Several interviewees commented on the Big Band program that ran from 1980 to 1989, hosted by Maurice Nield on Sunday afternoons. Ken Fargher remembered even before the 1989 Major Programming Review the inclusion of Neild’s programme was contentious because of its non-progressive nature: I remember there being a big hoohah about – there was a guy named Maurice Nield, he used to host a Big Band type program … he was older than I was so – and he knew his stuff too. But there was this thing, ‘oh that’s a bit mainstream and a bit old fashioned’ and all that, and it was argued strongly that it’s under-represented music. You bite a bitter pill when you say under-represented music ‘cos it could have been bloody Turkish folk music, it didn't matter.118

Programming data further shows the impact of the 1989 programming review on the amount of broadcast hours per Tier 1 category. In Figure 5, we see the impact of the Review on broadcast output on the first five years of the 1990s.

118 K. Fargher interview. 149

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Unknown Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word World Various

Figure 5: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 1989–1995

Together, this data suggests a station-wide change, particularly in prime listening hours, away from the Blues and Jazz programs towards Contemporary Mix programs of varying hardness. The overall sound this data suggests the station adopted was one of the electronic, hip hop, dance and house styles that were flooding the parties and youth movement cultures and broadcast outside of the prime listening hours (i.e. 7:00pm–6:00am). Spoken Word expanded to include gig guides and arts reviews. The decreases in Blues Rock and Jazz Rock were less likely to be a deliberate reduction in broadcast hours, as these styles are still prominently broadcast on PBS. The 1989 Review changed the way PBS thought of itself. It shed the past of limited broadcasting, but did not shed the financial stress. Refreshing the programming kickstarted the station’s engagement with the massive rise in electronic and hip hop, enabled it to continue to serve loyal and wealthy jazz audiences, and cemented its position as a place particularly for Australian rock music.

150

4.3 Broadcast output

Programming across the 1980s was extremely varied. Radio critic Barry Hill wrote in 1982 that the diversity in PBS’ broadcast output set it apart from other stations on Melbourne’s airwaves: What I like about PBS is the way it had not been caught up with those ludicrous attempts to project a unique station identity – whether it be new wave after the fashion of RRR, or slinky mainstream; think FOX, PBS has been able to avoid all that by supplying music across the board, filling gaps with respect to Jazz, Rock and Folk without having to project itself at the expense of one or the other. To this extent although you could say it is the greenest station on-air, it is also the most mature. There it is, offering a studious range of programmes which invite the listener to exercise discrimination.119

PBS’ broadcast output was varied and, in line with Hill’s comments, did not have a dominant sound. Figure 6 shows the percentages of broadcast hours for the 1980s.

119 Hill, p. 8. 151

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Unknown Various World

Figure 6: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 1980s

Four trends are especially notable. First is the increases and subsequent decreases in Rock Indie and Contemporary Mix. In the 1980s, Rock Indie had overall the largest percentage of broadcast hours of any category (this remained for the next three decades), peaking at 29% in 1984. Another way of illustrating the importance of Rock Indie in the PBS schedule is the number of programs: 209 in the 1980s. This is the most of any category in one decade and almost double the number in the second- highest category, Blues & Roots, which had 109. Many of these 209 programs were short-lived, 148 of them on-air for one year or less. We also see the first inklings of strip programming at PBS, where “shorter segments are scheduled at the same time daily”120 and many of the Rock Indie programs scheduled during the 4:30–6:00pm drive shift. These Rock Indie drivetime programs, and their Tier 2 musical styles, are listed in Table 17.

120 Potts, ‘Music on Public Radio’, p. 20. 152

Table 17: Rock Indie drive programs, early 1980s

Program name Years on-air Tier 2 styles Australian Music Show 1980–1988 Rock, Various, Punk, New Wave, Heavy Rock Roadrunner 1980–1988 Various, Punk, Punk Thrash, Hardcore The Shape We’re In 1980–1984 Rock Rocky Roadshow 1982–1988 Rock & Roll Radio Pop 1980–1986 New Wave, Pop Rock, Rock & Roll, Punk Sunglasses After Dark 1984–present Punk, New Wave, Hardcore, Punk Rock, Punk Thrash, Garage

Across PBS’ entire history, the programs most often broadcast in drive shifts were Rock Indie, followed by Blues & Roots with Contemporary Mix a close third. As discussed in chapter 2, Contemporary Mix programs were mostly made up of Rock Indie styles, particularly in the 1980s. This is further supported by data in presented in Table 18, which shows a majority of Contemporary Mix programs broadcast in the drive and breakfast slots. This is when the station sought to appeal to a broad range of listeners with a sample of its daytime programming.

Table 18: Percentage of broadcast hours for Contemporary Mix programs by time of day, 1980s

Time of day Percentage of broadcast hours Drive 37% Breakfast 30% Evening 15% Night 11% Afternoon 4% Morning 3%

Second, Blues & Roots fell over 1980–1984 before making a comeback later in the decade, particularly after 1987. In 1985, when PBS proclaimed itself “Melbourne’s Number One Blues Station”121 because of the number of programs broadcast each week dedicated to Blues music, the category was only just starting to recover from its 1984 slump. Some of PBS’ most enduring Blues & Roots programs began in the 1980s, as listed in Table 19.

121 Ramblin’ Ross (Rhodes), ‘Blues’, Waves, April/May 1985, p. 20. 153

Table 19: Long-running Blues & Roots programs beginning in the 1980s

Program name Years on-air Tier 2 styles Mainly Acoustic 1980–1990 Acoustic, Bluegrass, Folk, Country, World, Jazz, Western Swing, Jazz Folk, Country Rock & Roll, Rockabilly, Blues Roadhouse Blues Show 1982–1992 Blues Blues Avalanche 1986–2004 Blues, Country Blues Something Else 1987–2004 Blues, Jazz, Gospel, Folk, Blues Rock, Rhythm & Blues Blues Cruise 1987–2003 Blues, Rhythm & Blues, Soul

Third, Jazz’s percentage of broadcast output gradually fell over the decade, reaching 7% in 1989 from a high of 20% in 1979 (then 13% in 1980, the first full year of broadcast data). Jazz was considered under-represented on other radio stations; for example, Jazz Rock program announcer David Zemdegs stated PBS was “the ONLY radio station in Australia that has regular weekly programmes of Jazz-Rock”.122 The most significant decline occurred after the station moved to 24-hour broadcasting and was cemented by the 1989 programming review, with most of the decline at this point due to the end of Big Band programs, as discussed earlier. Jazz continued to decline in the 1990s, although it could always be heard during prime listening times on weekends. I take a closer look at why this may have been the case later in the thesis, in section 6.3.1. Fourth, Funk & Soul and Hard ‘n’ Heavy rose from very low bases and remained low throughout the decade. Funk & Soul was not a separate category in the 1980s (this occurred in 2010), which would explain some of its low representation. Soul was consistently the most popular musical style on these programs.

Table 20 compares the broadcast hours for the top ten Tier 2 musical styles from Funk & Soul programs.

Table 20: Comparison of Tier 2 Top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Funk & Soul, 1980s–2010s

Tier 2 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Soul 1889 1950 1875 1827 Funk 400 870 1123 1016

122 D. Zemdegs, Waves, October 1982, p. 6. 154

Rhythm & Blues 81 129 178 1120 Northern Soul 0 0 80 512 Jazz 64 41 282 66 Rock & Roll 0 0 337 0 Hip Hop 0 0 148 181 Beats 0 8 148 0 Early Rhythm & Blues 0 0 0 111 Jazz Funk 0 0 22 0

Hard ‘n’ Heavy experienced a considerable peak in 1985/86 to 11% of broadcast hours, up from a low of 3% in 1982. Tier 2 data for this category also shows changes in the types of musical styles broadcast over the decades. A comparison of the number of broadcast hours for the top 10 Tier 2 styles for Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs is shown in Table 21.

Table 21: Comparison of Tier 2 Top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Hard 'n' Heavy, 1980s–2010s

Tier 2 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Heavy Metal 424 906 1238 1470 Heavy Rock 1775 1155 0 0 Hardcore 19 1651 558 140 Hard Rock 51 134 564 1612 Progressive Metal 2 86 1044 1042 Garage 10 32 692 1358 Punk - Hardcore 222 807 659 370 Punk 171 492 328 284 Rock 228 16 48 964 Industrial 48 555 480 46

For a relatively small category, Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs were evenly spread across the drive, evening and night shifts, although mostly limited to weekdays, as shown in Figure 7.

155

Drive - Weekday Evening - Weekday Night - Weekday Breakfast - Weekend Drive - Weekend Night - Weekend

Figure 7: Distribution of Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs by time of day, 1986

This data may be explained by the disproportionate number of announcers from this category in the Programming Unit. Roger Holdsworth recalled such debates about the number of Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs it was the Heavy Metal people that were constantly standing, and there were arguments about whether they were dominating the programming committee.123

In his report to the Board in 1992, (which I discuss in the next chapter) Garry Havrillay similarly noted, without naming names, how certain music categories became over-represented: Over the years it has not been difficult to notice particular musical lobby-groups applying pressure to the Program Committee (and individuals on the committee) for more airtime. Indeed individuals have transparently sought to become part of that committee to further their own musical interests, rather than to best further the station with a balanced and objective overall view of arts and music programming that listeners will appreciate.124

123 R. Holdsworth interview. 124 G. Havrillay, ‘3PBS: Dying to be Different’, January 1992, Garry Havrillay personal collection, p. 6. 156

Of the 14 Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs that began in 1985 or 1986, nine were on-air for one year or less. Of the remaining six, the Red Stink of Metal was the longest running program, ending 17 years later in 2003. There is a shift in percentages of broadcast hours among all categories in 1987, 1988 and 1989 caused by the move to 24-hour broadcasting and subsequent re- evaluation of the station’s sound. For example, looking at Figure 6, Lisa Palermo ascribed the rise in Various programs in 1987 to 24-hour broadcasting. When the station began broadcasting for longer, it increased from 50 to 94 programs per week. After I showed her the graph in Appendix D, Palermo noted not all of these new announcers had musical specialties: I see this twenty-four-hour that you’ve noted here, that’s where that ‘Various’ peaks, too, because that’s where it’s like ‘shit, now we’ve got to fill all these programs, let’s just bung all these different people on’ … when I first started broadcasting I was probably ‘Various’, like I was just Contemporary Indie kind of thing.125

Programming dependent on day parts – distinct times of the day when people are listening, such as 6:00am–9:00am for breakfast programming – is common practice among media outlets. Radio, and community radio more specifically, attracts the highest number of listeners over 6:00am–7:00pm.126 2018 data shows 12% of community radio listeners tuned in only on the weekend.127 I use timeframe and weekday/weekend analysis throughout this thesis to demonstrate that PBS has made programming decisions based on time of day and day of the week. When analysed by time of day, data from the peak listening time 6:00am–7:00pm shows a consistency of Contemporary Mix and Rock Indie programs in the top two percentages of broadcast hours across the decade, as seen in Figure 8.

125 L. Palermo interview. 126 McNair Yellow Squares, ‘Community Radio National Listener Survey 2018’. 127 McNair Yellow Squares, ‘Community Radio National Listener Survey 2018’. 157

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Unknown Various World

Figure 8: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 6:00am–7:00pm, 1980s

Blues & Roots and Jazz programs are also well represented in this data. Similarly, Rock Indie and Various programs are the top two categories for night programs (7:00pm–6:00am), as shown in Figure 9. An increase in Unknown programs from 1986 to 1989 is due to a lack of information about what the station usually broadcast in the insomnia shift (4:00–6:00am) and the 12:00–2:00am shift.

158

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Unknown Various World

Figure 9: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 7:00pm–6:00am, 1980s

Figure 9 and Figure 10 show that in the mid-1980s, Rock Indie made up almost 60% of PBS’ broadcast output, evenly spread during night and day. Tier 2 data shows some distinction between when types of Rock Indie music were heard, the most common styles heard during the day being Rock and Punk. At night, the most common styles were New Wave and Rock. Conversely, Electronic & Hip Hop programs were almost six times more likely to be heard in the 7:00pm–6:00am timeslots. Tier 2 Electronic & Hip Hop styles most likely to be heard at night were Experimental and Ambient. Although Figure 6 shows steady growth in Electronic & Hip Hop over the decade, the data in Figure 8 and Figure 9 show this growth is restricted primarily to the night-time shifts. Other differences in programming dependent upon time of day are much less apparent than in these examples, suggesting PBS did not consistently use time of day when making programming decisions in the 1980s, although this data is skewed due to PBS not broadcasting 9:00am–4:30pm for seven years of the decade.

159

Further analysing this data by day of the week reveals a trend in programming dependent upon weekend and weekday that endured for the next three decades. While Figure 10’s comparison of weekdays and weekends shows a high percentage of Rock Indie broadcast hours across the week, for other categories there is a much more pronounced difference.

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Weekdays Weekends

Contemporary Mix Rock Indie Unknown Blues & Roots Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Funk & Soul Various Electronic & Hip Hop World Spoken Word

Figure 10: Tier 1, comparison of percentages of broadcast hours, weekends and weekdays, 1980s

Blues & Roots, Jazz, Spoken Word, World and Electronic & Hip Hop were more likely to be heard on the weekends than weekdays. This data suggests PBS created a different sound on weekends compared with weekdays. The 1980s listener was exposed to a more Rock Indie, Contemporary Mix and Hard ‘n’ Heavy sound on weekdays, while weekends featured Jazz and Blues & Roots as well as Rock Indie, with more likelihood of hearing World and Spoken Word programs but less Contemporary Mix.

160

4.3.1 Announcer diversity and effect on broadcast output

As discussed in section 2.3.1, due to my data collection method, it was difficult to know the cultural background of announcers, for example, whether they were migrants or spoke English as a second language. Therefore this discussion of announcer diversity is limited to gender, youth and representation of Indigenous Australia. Announcers’ voices, as well as their music selections, influence the sound of all radio stations. A lack of female announcers, particularly during the day when the greatest amount of people are likely to be listening, is a well-documented element of British radio. The reasons for this were explored by Gill in the early 1990s, when she interviewed six male program managers from commercial radio stations.128 She identified a number of reasons for the lack of women on radio, ranging from lack of applications for positions or lack of presenting skills to a perception that listeners prefer men – partly due to the tone of women’s voices and a belief that men are better suited to present to a female audience.129 Michaels and Mitchell conducted similar research in the early 2010s, aiming to find out how women were making their way into radio.130 Their research looked at commercial and community stations, finding that many of Gill’s reasons still applied but that program managers were becoming proactive in recruiting women.131 Male voices completely dominated PBS’ programs in the 1980s. Figure 11 shows the breakdown of programs hosted by male or female announcers, programs hosted by both genders and programs where the gender of the announcer was unknown.

128 R. Gill, ‘Justifying Injustice: Broadcasters’ Accounts of Inequality in Radio’, in E. Burman and I. Parker (eds.), Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action, Milton, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. 129 Gill. 130 K. Michaels and C. Mitchell, ‘The Last Bastion: How Women Became Music Presenters in UK Radio’, in C. Mitchell (ed.), Women and Radio: Airing Differences, London, Routledge, 2000. 131 Michaels and Mitchell. 161

90% 82% 80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% 11% 10% 5% 2% 0%

Male Female Both Unknown

Figure 11: Percentage of programs, gender of announcers, 1980s

*Both is a program with at least one male and one female announcer.

PBS’ lack of female announcers was raised at various times during the early years. As early as 1977, the lack of women on-air was noted following the programming of the second test broadcast at the HiFi Show, which featured only one woman announcer of the 15 slots available.132 In 1980, perhaps tongue in cheek, women were referred to as “little ladies”.133 A slightly later article said, “There are Station issues facing us all, but women on the wireless is not one of them. The choice is entirely yours, ladies, and if you remain in a statistical minority, you can't possibly complain about that!”134 The proportion of female announcers was first raised in Board minutes in 1981, noting “effort to encourage female presenters” as an action item.135 In 1982, Roger Holdsworth wrote an article in Waves magazine providing statistics about the amount of female voices on-air, comparing the gender of announcers with the gender of subscribers: “Subscribers: Of the first 261 subscribers

132 A. Quirk, ‘Editorial Belch! Sex Problem at P.B.S.’, Waves, August 1977, p. 4. 133 V. Sundfors, ‘Editorial: Don’t Tell Me About the Labour Pains … show me the baby!’, Waves, February 1980, p. 3. 134 ‘Women in Station Uniform’, Waves, May 1980, p. 6. 135 ‘Production Group Report’, Board papers for 3 June 1981, PBS. 162

on the lists, 210 are male a (80%); 51 are female (20%).”136 When asked why he thought there were fewer women than men announcers on PBS, Garry Havrillay similarly commented on the ratio of male to female subscribers: I don’t really have an easy answer for that. But I’ve always said that if you balance the number of women and men on radio, you will also balance the number of listeners in terms of gender. And I think you can probably track that, it’s probably quantifiable and I would love to know if this is actually true. So if seventy per cent of presenters in the early eighties were men, then if you had audience data from that time then you would probably find the listening audience was also seventy per cent men. Because they are also music collector nerds, or not. And they have heard about the station, or they identify with whoever they are listening to. And now you come to today, where it is – the gender balance is sixty/forty or something. And I think once you get more women on-air, you will retain more women as listeners. Because they like to listen to other women and what they have to say, and who can blame them!137

By the end of the 1980s PBS had increased the representation of female announcers. Figure 12 shows the percentages of programs with all male announcers, all female announcers, programs with announcers of both genders and programs where the gender of the announcer(s) was unknown.

136 R. Holdsworth, ‘Who Listens to the Radio?’, Waves, July 1982, p. 8. 137 G. Havrillay interview. 163

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Male Female Both Unknown

Figure 12: Percentages of programs, gender of announcers, yearly comparison, 1980-1989

Beginning from an extremely low 3% of women on-air in its first full year of broadcasting, the station achieved its highest increase from one year to the next in 1984 to 1985 with an increase of 3.5%. By 1989, 13% of programs were hosted by women. The increase in Unknown announcer gender is due to the change from schedule to grid programming, as grids provide less information and often not about programs broadcast overnight (12:00pm–6:00am). On-air, at least one program broadcast anti-female sentiment. A comedy program (variously referred to in program schedules as Comedy and The Young and the Restless) followed Roger Holdsworth’s Student Access Breakfast Show on Sunday mornings. During the 1980s, each announcer was expected to volunteer the same amount of time at the station each week as the length of the program, which meant Holdsworth often stayed and answered the phones for the Comedy program, a task he would often not enjoy: The Comedy show used to follow me on Sunday mornings in St Kilda and I used to dread it, because several of the guys on the Comedy show had really sexist selections and sexist comments to air … I used to sit there and twitch every time the phone rang for the Comedy show: ‘I’m sorry … I’ll take that, I’ll write that down … yes’.138

138 R. Holdsworth interview. 164

Mazz Knott, described as a feminist and affectionately known as Mother Russia around the station,139 attempted to increase the number of women announcers in various ways, one of which was advocacy for International Women’s Day when all programs broadcast that day were hosted by women.140 Although the station ceased this practice in the 1990s and 2000s, it restarted in the 2010s and has also been adopted by other broadcasters. For example, in 2018 3CR and the ABC’s Radio National, Radio Melbourne and Classic FM141 had all female announcers for the 24 hours of International Women’s Day. The advent of women-only programs occurred in October 1982 with Women and their Music hosted by Catherine Johns: This category – long under-represented on any radio station in Melbourne (not to mention Australia!) – covered a broad spectrum of music styles ranging from blues to rock. Catherine’s commitment to women’s music should be seen as an incentive for other PBS announcers to raise the number of women artists currently being played on air.142

From January 1983, Women’s Music programs were allocated the 10:00am– 12:00pm shift on the second and fourth Saturdays of the month. These programs would “present music written and performed by women in styles ranging in style from blues to rock”.143 Women and their Music was the first of six such programs on PBS; a summary is provided in Table 22.

139 Hugo T. Armstrong interview, 15 March 2019. 140 G. Havrillay interview. 141 3CR, International Women’s Day [website], 2018, www.3cr.org.au/news/international-womens-day- broadcast-2018 (accessed 16 January 2020); ABC Online Services, Celebrating International Women’s Day [website], 2018, www.abc.net.au/classic/events/iwd-celebrating-female-composers (accessed 16 January 2020). 142 ‘Congrats Catherine’, Waves, December/January 1982, p. 1. 143 R. Giles, ‘The ‘All-New’ Programme Format’, Waves, December/January 1982. 165

Table 22: Programs hosted by women, featuring music by women, 1979–2019

Program name Tier 1 category Years on-air Women and their Music Various 1982–1986 She Devils on Waves Various 1987–1989 Call of the Siren Various 1989–1990 Calling the Tune Various 1990–1997 Girl Germs Rock Indie 2001–2002 Eclectic Ladyland Rock Indie 2014–2017

The percentage of female announcers gaining on-air experience was boosted in the 1990s with Calling the Tune (1990–1997), broadcast on Sunday afternoons from 5:00–6:30pm. This program was hosted by a rotating roster of women only and concentrated on playing music written and performed by women.144 Allyson Griffith, announcer, Board member and part of the OB group in the 1990s, recalled the pride she felt in the quality of Calling the Tune’s broadcast output: There was a strong contingent of women – the women’s category worked really well. Lots of genres were represented in our program. I am really proud of what we made. We would have the ladies’ gig guide – five minutes every evening promoting events for women. Calling the Tune was a ninety-minute programme on Sundays dedicated to women in music, a wide range of women involved at PBS presented the program. As women’s category coordinator, I rostered the show. Programming our women announcers into this hour on Sundays was fantastic, specific to this time – really wonderful – new voices that we’d trained as well as regular announcers that had ongoing shows.145

According to Griffith, one success of Calling the Tune was the women’s-only training program which supported it: boys would touch everything and fuck it up. With the women-only training – women are better at working out how the rhythm of machinery works. We did it in a subtle way. We reinforced that we are good at technology, able to work in the space effectively.146

144 L. Palermo interview. 145 A. Griffith interview. 146 A. Griffith interview. 166

Calling the Tune, and PBS’ 15-year run of broadcasting such programs, ended in 1997 as part of a station-wide initiative to get more women on-air. The initiative was based on the understanding that limiting a program to women-only content discouraged women from participating in standard programming where any music could be played.147 As Table 22 shows, there have been two such women-only programs since, although neither on-air for more than three years. From December 1981 to January 1989, the Student Access Breakfast Show broadcast on Sunday mornings provided an opportunity to hear young announcers and would often provide the only female voices heard on weekends. Rebecca Coyle and Roger Holdsworth began the program as a way to educate youth in broadcasting and to motivate them to stay at school; only students enrolled in school could be part of the program.148 The program’s announcers rotated weekly with Holdsworth “panel operat[ing] for them initially and gradually teach[ing] them live to air how to panel operate, and then move increasingly into the background”.149 Student Access was also progressive in its musical selections. Holdsworth describes how he “became very tolerant for anything from Madonna to Free Jazz and heavy metal over that period of time”.150 Table 23 lists the breadth of Tier 3 descriptions, which came from announcers’ own verbatim descriptions of what they were playing, used by the program over its eight years on-air.

147 ‘PBS Staff Report for Current PBS Programming Review’, Board papers for 1 April 1997, PBS. 148 R. Holdsworth interview. 149 R. Holdsworth interview. 150 R. Holdsworth interview. 167

Table 23: Tier 3 music categories, Student Access Breakfast Show, 1981-1989

60s Bands Disco Independent Australian Nu Music Reggae 60s Rock Electronic Japanese Pop Rock Rock 60s Soul Experimental Jazz Punk Rock & Roll Australian Funk & Soul Jazz Blues Punk Metal Ska Thrash Australian Rock Guitarists Jazz Rock Punk Rock Symphonic Rock Black Music Hard Rock Melbourne Music Punk Thrash Synth Blues Rock Hardcore Punk Metal R&B Techno British Heavy Metal Motown Radiothon Various - Contemporary Death Metal* Heavy Rock New Wave Rap* Women

As indicated by the asterisks, of these Tier 3 descriptions Student Access was the first program on PBS to advertise Death Metal (1988) and the second to advertise Rap (1984). Holdsworth recalled how the program brought young voices, their music and their enthusiasm to the airwaves: I remember a couple of the guys decided one day to bring in a long cardboard tube and put it on the microphone and stand three feet away and do all their announcing down the tube to see what it sounded like, so it was that experimental stuff … [it sounded] pretty weird. But that was – they wanted it to be weird.151

In the 1989 programming grid restructure, the Student Access Breakfast Show was moved from its Sunday morning position to Monday afternoons. After just four months, in June 1989 the program ended. Personal reasons meant Holdsworth was not involved with Student Access during 1989 and not having an adult to advocate for the program is the reason he offered for its demise: the Student Access Breakfast Show students, being students and having lesser power, lost out, so that got abolished, and they didn’t have the power to hold it and argue for it – that’s how I read it, anyway.152

The Student Access Breakfast Show is one of only two programs in PBS’ history that has deliberately focused on young announcers. From November 2004 to January

151 R. Holdsworth interview. 152 R. Holdsworth interview. 168

2006, Diploma of Broadcasting students from Holmesglen Institute of TAFE hosted What’s Going On?, a one-hour Spoken Word program dedicated to “gig guides covering the blues, roots, jazz and acoustic scenes, What’s Going On also caters for moviegoers with its regular film reviews”.153 Youth involvement in Melbourne media increased after 2000 when the Australian Broadcasting Authority (which replaced the ABT under the 1992 legislation) licensed SYNFM, a community radio station run by people aged 12 to 25.154 Indigenous Australian music has not been well represented over the years on PBS. Table 24 lists programs on PBS whose Tier 3 description includes Indigenous Australian music. Ironically, all of these programs appear in the Tier 1 World category.

Table 24: Programs advertising or known to broadcast Indigenous Australian music, 1979-2019

Program name Tier 3 description Years on-air Aboriginal Rock Australian Aboriginal Rock 1986–1987 Aboriginal Music Show Aboriginal 1987 (two programs only) Aboriginality Aboriginal 1990 Aboriginal Acoustic Aboriginal Acoustic 1993–1994 Big Mob Indigenous and Music 2000–2014 All Our Stories Music, Stories, Culture 2014–present

Poor inclusion of Indigenous Australians is common among Australian media organisations. Molnar and Meadows argue representation on the airwaves “has been as much of a struggle as winning back custodianship of the land, particularly for Indigenous peoples in Australia and Canada”.155 Bullimore’s 1999 discourse analysis of two of Australia’s major daily newspapers found “a considerable lack” of Indigenous voices, the primary reason was:

the institutionalised racism that still exists in Australia and continues to pervade all of our major cultural and political institutions… As a result of their privileged position,

153 PBS, Show Details: What’s Going On? [archived webpage], 2005, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20050703090659/http://www.pbsfm.org.au/Documents.asp?ID=1168&Titl e=What%27s+Going+On (accessed 5 April 2019). 154 For a review of SYN’s operations see Ellie Rennie, Life of SYN: A Story of the Digital Generation, Clayton, Monash University Publishing, 2011. 155 Molnar and Meadows, p. xiii. 169

[the white power elites] act as gatekeepers in relation to what race issues are deemed culturally and politically relevant and who should speak on behalf of Aborigines.156

At PBS, these gatekeepers include PBS’ program decision makers. For Havrillay, the category coordinator system contributed to the station’s lack of announcer diversity:

… again it comes back to: all the decisions being made have to be in the best interests of the Station. And by saying that I mean well ok “do we really need another retrospective Jazz show? Is that a good decision?” Rather than getting off your bum and going out into the community and finding somebody who is prepared to do an Aboriginal music show! Right? Because that is what we really need! We need something like that on air.157

When PBS has featured Indigenous Australian music programs, as listed in Table 24, all were hosted by non-Indigenous announcers. There is one exception, All Our Stories, which has had an Indigenous co-host, Troy Benjamin, a Mutti Mutti man from western New South Wales, since 2018. Jess Fairfax, a non-Indigenous Australian, took over hosting Big Mob in 2011. Fairfax explained her discomfort with the program’s title, and why she changed it to All Our Stories in 2014:

I did Big Mob for a few years, and then because it kind of had this identity of being Australian Indigenous music, I felt uncomfortable continuing to program that when it had never had an Indigenous presenter and it was going by a name Big Mob which, you know, implies that it’s Indigenous music, but it was more than that. It was much more representative of the many communities that make up who we are as a society, and so I felt uncomfortable, particularly not being Indigenous, continuing on under that name, and so that’s why it became All Our Stories, which just kind of freed it up, I guess and was more representative of what the show actually was. I just felt it wasn’t fair to keep going under Big Mob one, me not being Indigenous and then people thinking it as a voice for Indigenous Australia, and I just didn’t think that was quite

156 K. Bullimore, ‘Media Dreaming: Representation of Aboriginality in Modern Australian Media’, Asia Pacific Media Educator, vol. 6, 1999, p. 76. 157 G. Havrillay interview. 170

appropriate. So yeah, All Our Stories is kind of ‘All Our Stories’, and I think PBS does need a First Nations’ program, and we do have Troy Benjamin as one of our co-hosts, who’s a Mutti Mutti man and really active in the community and events and working with Aboriginal artists. And so he does bring a lot to the program in that respect, but I think the program grid definitely needs a dedicated spot for First Nations’ voices.

Fairfax’s comments echo Bullimore’s findings about newspapers, that in most cases when Indigenous Australians were given a voice, they:

were mostly outnumbered by the voices of elite actors … or were mediated by white voices that appear on behalf of, and instead of, Aboriginal voices… and were often accompanied by between three to five non-indigenous elite voices.158

Indigenous voices are heard on Indigenous community radio stations. The first Indigenous produced community radio programs went to air in 1972, on 5UV in Adelaide and Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Media Association in Queensland, on 4KIG FM.159 In 1980, the first Aboriginal owned and controlled radio station, Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association, began in Alice Springs, in the Northern Territory, with programs broadcast on 8CCC and 8HA.160 As discussed earlier, Michaels reported on the significance of television for Aboriginal self- representation in 1986.161 Molnar and Meadows argue much of the impetus and “spectacular emergence” of Indigenous broadcasting came from the poor representation of these communities in mainstream media: Indigenous people wanted their voices to be heard so they could combat stereotypes, address information gaps in non-Indigenous society and reinforce their own community cultures.162 As of December 2020, Australia has 78 fully licenced Indigenous community radio stations spread across all states and

158 Bullimore, p. 75. 159 First Nations Media Australia, Australian Indigenous Media Historical Timeline [website], https://firstnationsmedia.org.au/our-industry/australian-indigenous-media-historical-timeline (accessed 18 December 2020). 160 First Nations Media Australia. 161 Michaels. 162 Molnar and Meadows, p. xiii. 171

territories except Tasmania and ACT.163 Melbourne’s first and only Indigenous community radio station, 3KND, began broadcasting in 2003. Indigenous controlled media enterprises are vital but so too is increased Indigenous participation in other media enterprises and the production and presentation of media content. Increased media participation is essential “in informing Australians about the issues that affect Aboriginal Australians [and]… plays a central role in the construction of social discourse on what and who is seen to be Aboriginal.164 Increased participation is most pertinent to those organisations aspiring to be progressive.

4.3.2 Establishing an identity through live music broadcasts

Live-to-air broadcasts were an integral part of PBS’ on-air sound in the 1980s and were the subject of Jennifer Crowley’s honours thesis165 and Tebbutt’s recent research.166 Crowley provided a thorough review of the technical aspects, programs and personnel involved with live-to-air broadcasting. Tebbutt interviewed many of the technicians involved with these broadcasts. This section complements this work by summarising PBS’ motivation for live-to-air broadcasting, the main broadcast events and the positive response from the ABT. Live music broadcasts are an early example of PBS’ role in the cyclical process of value-creation. Community radio stations can be “pivotal centres of gravity” for the way they bring together groups of people who, in turn, create music, radio programs, spread information and “organize activities that often have no other form of public expression and acknowledgement”.167 These broadcasts built audiences, created communities, gave airtime to under-represented music styles and demonstrated a different way of doing things.

163 Australian Communications and Media Authority, ‘Community Radio Broadcasting Licences’, 2020, https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-12/ lic035_community_radio_broadcasting_licences.pdf (accessed 4 January 2021). 164 Bullimore, pp. 72-73. 165 Crowley. 166 Tebbutt, ‘Hidden Technicians’. 167 Fairchild, ‘Social Solidarity’, p.27. 172

As Tebbutt argued, essential to PBS’ live music broadcasts, was PBS’ Outside Broadcast (OB) group. Peter Chellew recalled the OB group as one of the station’s strengths in the 1980s and 1990s.168 In addition to regular programming, PBS staged a series of large events in the 1980s, which were recorded and/or broadcast live. The station’s first large broadcast for the OB group was the February 1980 Gala Opening Night at the POW. In August that year, The Big FM event was broadcast live from Dallas Brooks Hall, located just outside Melbourne’s CBD. Dallas Brooks Hall could seat up to 2,300 people and was a well-known venue for events like school speech nights, public meetings and lectures, and was “a major venue for musical evets, especially pop music in the 1970s, with many notable local and overseas acts performing there”.169 Although featuring an all-star line-up of well-known personalities, the event was a financial disaster. Ken Fargher, one of the organisers, said: “We just didn’t promote it properly. Perhaps one of the things that we thought might have been a problem is that we tried to appeal to everybody”.170 In October 1982, PBS hosted The Festival of Live Music over five days, featuring two groups live to air each night.171 Programs would regularly have bands play live to air, culminating in April 1988 with This Week Live when 50 local groups were broadcast either live to air or with live recordings during one week.172 As Tebbutt argued, PBS’ initial location at the POW was integral to the formation of its enduring identity and connection to Melbourne’s music scene.173 Cameron Paine explained the hotel’s influence: if we’d ended up in different premises, my gut feeling is that the look and feel of this station today would be vastly different, but the opportunity having that venue so close – and Sally Ann [PBS volunteer and announcer, now known as Sage Forrest] … had a go at promoting a local Indie band night in that room. I can’t remember how many shows she did … once a month or once a fortnight. But the deal for the bands was much the same as something that Peebs [PBS] trades off to this day, is that you come

168 P. Chellew interview. 169 Victorian Heritage Database Report, ‘Dallas Brooks Hall’, 2020, https://vhd.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/places/64293/download-report (accessed 16 January 2020). 170 K. Fargher interview 171 ‘A Brief History of Time’, p. 7. 172 ‘A Brief History of Time’, p. 9. 173 Tebbutt, ‘Hidden Technicians’. 173

and play for us, we’ll promote you and try to put an audience in the room. I don’t think there was a cover charge. That was the value proposition for the punter who might be experimenting with a band who they didn’t know anything about. That we’d record it for radio or put it live to air and the band would get a copy of that recording to use as a demo or whatever and that was gold back then … So access to – relatively simple access to live music meant that we would start developing a relationship with the Melbourne independent music scene.174

When the station moved to the Park Lake building at 171 Fitzroy Street in 1985, it lost its cheap and easy connection to the POW band room. Regular live music broadcasting then took two main forms. First was live broadcasts from Studio 2 in the Park Lake building, which was large enough “to accommodate small groups of performers”175 but “imposed a limit on what could be achieved”.176 One of the programs regularly broadcast from Studio 2 for an hour every Saturday afternoon was the Moovin’ and Groovin’ Hour. Compered by Elroy Flicker, band the Swinging Sidewalks and other musical guests would “rock, swing and stomp their way” through the program. According to Paine, this program represented “quintessential public broadcasting with ten or so people collaborating each week to produce an hour of fine radio”.177 Regular live or prerecorded live music programs on PBS are summarised in Table 25.

174 C. Paine interview. 175 C. Paine, ‘Ten Years Live From Studio 2’, Static Minus One, December 1989, p. 14. 176 C. Paine, ‘Re: Confirmation of Interview and Consent Forms’, [email to R. Lade], 5 December 2018. 177 Paine, ‘Ten Years Live From Studio 2’, p. 14. 174

Table 25: Live music programs, 1980s–2010s

Program On-air From the Library Shelf 1982–1989 Live at Stokers 1980–1981 Live Jazz Recordings 1989 Live Tracks 1980–1988 Mainly Acoustic 1980–1990 Moovin’ and Groovin’ Hour 1988–1992 One-C-One in Concert 1983–1987 PBS Live 1989–1999 Caught in the Act 1998–2002 Studio 5 Live 2002–2007 The Rack 2004–2005 Next Exit 2004–2008

Since 2008, live music is still heard on PBS but as part of regular programs. The exception is Drive Live, a week of live music programming, which I explain and discuss the evolution of next in this section. Second, from a relationship established with management at the Esplanade Hotel during live broadcasts (another pub/music venue in St Kilda commonly known as the Espy), a permanent connection from their Front Bar and Gershwin Room stages was funded by the hotel but fitted out and maintained by PBS volunteers (led by Paine).178 This connection linked to a control room at the hotel and the Park Lake studios.179 As Paine explained, the legacy of these live-to-air broadcasting initiatives remains today in PBS’ Studio 5 broadcasts, where bands perform on an ad hoc basis throughout the year, and Drive Live, where three bands perform during each drive program over one week in February.180 An initiative of Station Manager Mazz Knott was Live Music Week, first hosted in 1988. Although differently presented now, it was the start of a tradition that continues in the February Drive Live week. Garry Havrillay recalled: There were bands travelling up in this tiny lift with their amps and guitars at the Park Lake building in St Kilda. Studio One was the on-air studio at the time, Studio Two was where we put the bands in and Studio Three was where we did the mixing. So

178 C. Paine interview. 179 C. Paine interview. 180 C. Paine interview. 175

yeah, you had foldback wedges and everything in there. One band in, with basically no sound check, and then they were live on-air. Three bands in the space of a two- hour program kind of thing, and now we do it as Drive Live on a much smaller scale and it is done really well now. It’s fabulous.181

In its 1989 licence review, the ABT highlighted the “Unprecedented broadcast” of This Week Live: “3PBS’s initiative in programming format is commended by the Tribunal as an example of the excellence that can be obtained by public broadcasting”.182 At the end of PBS’ first decade on-air, Paine wrote: “With the possible exception of the ABC, 3PBS records and presents more live music than any other radio station in the country”.183 The station was “obsessed” with live music to “make under-represented music accessible to the broadest possible audience – with a particular emphasis on Australian content … By capturing the music as it happens, 3PBS ensures that some of this material gets a wider hearing”.184 The station’s obsession with live music, and programs that broadcast only Australian music, continued in the 1980s. As I explained in section 1.3.2, since 1942 Australia has used music quotas which require a certain percentage of radio stations’ broadcast output to be Australian music. PBS mandated 20% Australian music in its submission to the ABT in 1978. In 1982, “due to unacceptably low Australian content levels in PBS programming over recent months” the station increased this quota to 30% for the 12:00–4:00am and 4:00–8:00am shifts.185 As part of the same decision, drive-time programs 4:00–6:00pm shift were also warned the existing 20% Australian content quota was being enforced and announcers were asked to “please co- operate!”186 Figure 13 compares the numbers of broadcast hours which used the Tier 4 descriptive terms ‘Australian’, ‘Melbourne’ or ‘Australian and New Zealand’ to describe the music these programs broadcast over the station’s four decades.

181 G. Havrillay interview. 182 ‘A Brief History of Time’, p. 9. 183 Paine, ‘Ten Years Live From Studio 2’, p. 14. 184 Paine, ‘Ten Years Live From Studio 2’, p. 14. 185 ‘Australian Content’, Waves, September 1982. 186 ‘Australian Content’, Waves, September 1982. 176

0 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Various

Figure 13: Number of programs advertising broadcast of Australian, Melbourne & New Zealand music, 1980s–2010s

Contemporary Mix and Rock Indie categories used these terms most, plus a small but regular presence of Jazz programs. Of almost 150 programs using these Tier 4 terms, the majority broadcasting Australian music were in the 1980s. The five most enduring Australian programs by broadcast hours in each decade are listed in Table 26.

177

Table 26: Top 5 most broadcast hours ‘Australian music’ programs per decade, 1980s–2010s

Decade Years on-air Tier 1 Tier 3 1980s The Australian Music Show 1980–1988 Rock Indie Independent Australian The Shape We’re In 1980–1984 Rock Indie Independent Australian Advance Australia Where? 1982–1986 Contemporary Mix Independent Australian Australians Behind Dark 1983–1986 Rock Indie Independent Australian Glasses In the Echo Chamber 1988–1990 Contemporary Mix Independent Australian 1990s PBS Presents 1989–1996 Spoken Word A guide to PBS gigs Junkyard [1]* 1990–1995 Contemporary Mix Independent Australian Unsigned Artists 1990–2001 Contemporary Mix Demo Show Australian and New Zealand 1991–1997 Contemporary Mix New Releases Rock Total Exposure 1993–2000 Rock Indie Independent Australian 2000s Auscultation 2000–2003 Contemporary Mix New Australian releases No Frills 2001–2008 Contemporary Mix Unsigned artists Planet of Sound 2006–2008 Contemporary Mix Independent new releases Homebrew 2006–present Rock Indie Upbeat Aussie music Gondwana 2007–2010 Rock Indie Aussie and Kiwi Rock and Hip Hop 2010s Homebrew 2006–present Rock Indie Australian Everybody Moves 2007–2012 Rock Indie Oz Independent Rock Brass Monkey 2011–2012 Rock Indie Independent Australian Impressions 2011–present Jazz Local Jazz Club it to Death 2014–present Rock Indie Australian/New Zealand Indie & Punk * There have been two programs called Junkyard; this is the first.

PBS Presents was a weekly Spoken Word program which gave listeners a gig guide and played Australian music. Impressions was a Jazz program specialising in Australian jazz music. As this table shows, the use of the word ‘Australia’ was popular in the title of programs from the 1980s but not in the remaining decades. Instead, many of the 1990s–2010s programs used their Tier 3 descriptions to state their broadcasting of Australian music. This table shows PBS’ has consistently programmed independent, Australian music across all four decades. Of these longest running

178

programs, most were either Rock Indie or Contemporary Mix and most remained on- air for a number of years.

Conclusions

In this chapter, I have documented PBS’ first ten years of permanent broadcasting from 21 December 1979. In the 1980s, PBS was trying find its place. Low on money and as a public/community station, it was considered “fringe dags” who were striving to be taken seriously by the record industry and fellow broadcasters. The limitations of its transmitter did not help this perception. Being located on top of the Royal Women’s Hospital in inner Melbourne meant lower costs to construct and maintain the transmitter, but interference with hospital equipment dramatically limited broadcast hours. Seven years later, when it moved the transmitter to the top of Mount Dandenong in 1987, PBS was finally able to broadcast 24 hours per day. Its frequency changed from 107.7MHz to 106.7 MHz and its signal reached more of metropolitan Melbourne. 24-hour broadcasting started a new phase for PBS. With more hours to broadcast, it needed more announcers. Until this point, most announcers were male, as were most of those involved with running the station. Recruitment and training rarely conformed to set standards and most announcers were given airtime because they were friends with someone already at the station or simply were available. With the influx of new announcers in 1987, more young women also joined the station, slightly improving the percentage of female voices on-air. Many of these new announcers, male and female, had a passion for music and desire to be involved, but lacked expertise in specific musical styles, increasing the number of Various and Contemporary Mix programs. I discussed another aspect of diversity: the representation of Indigenous Australians and their music. Over the past 40 years, PBS, like most Australian media outlets, has had a limited number of programs which broadcast Indigenous music, and only one of these programs co-hosted by an Indigenous Australian since 2018.

179

Programming data showed considerable variation in the station’s broadcast output from year to year over the entire decade. This variation was most likely due to two factors: the young age of the station, which was also reflected in the similarly changing programming practices, and competition between musical styles for airtime. PBS’ broadcast output was dominated by Rock Indie and Contemporary Mix programs. These programs played new wave, punk and rock styles, and many only Australian music. The drive shift was dominated by Rock Indie, Hard ‘n’ Heavy and Contemporary Mix programs. Weekend days featured high proportions of Blues & Roots, Rock Indie, Spoken Word and Jazz programs (including the longest running program on PBS, Jazz on Saturday, 1983–present). In 1988, Mick Geyer, one of PBS’ leading subcultural intermediaries, called for an overhaul of programming. Geyer thought PBS had lost its way and programming decisions were being made based on friendships and financial benefits, rather than the program’s progressive nature. In my detailed analysis of the events leading up to and including the Major Programming Review, I found that programming was a small, and temporarily, move towards centralised decision-making. This occurred through the leadership of Geyer, and with the Program Review Committee, resulted in the most significant programming changes to that point. However, the station’s strong democratic programming values meant there was still a high level of passion and involvement from volunteers in debating these decisions, mostly concerning which musical styles should be deemed progressive. Big Band programs were removed altogether, while World music and Electronic and Hip Hop were recognised as the next big things. Finally, I have discussed the presence and relevance of live music to PBS’ early success. The station’s first location at the POW enabled it to be physically part of Melbourne’s music scene and the well-worn path of exposing new bands on community radio was realised at PBS from its earliest days.187 PBS positioned itself as an active participant in Melbourne’s live music scene with regular outside broadcasts. PBS broadcast live from the POW and the Espy, 1982’s Festival of Live Music and Live Music Week, which began in 1988 as part of Australia’s first public radio/television

187 Thompson, p. 25. 180

simulcast, also in 1988. When PBS moved to the Park Lake studios in 1985, it maintained its commitment to live music, most memorably with the Moovin’ n’ Groovin’ Hour, which broadcast live music every Saturday morning. PBS’ role as a leading broadcaster of Australian music was recognised and praised by the ABT at its 1989 licence renewal hearing. These broadcasts created communities, and began PBS part in a circular process of value-creation by building audiences and giving airtime to under-represented music styles. In the next chapter, I examine how commercialisation of the sector was realised at PBS after the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. I also consider the impacts of global music trends on programming and the station’s management of its subcultural status.

181

5. 1990s: “The sound of underground Melbourne”1

- Nat Muscat, staff member and announcer

5.1 Introduction

This chapter describes PBS’ teenage years, a time when the station was finding its place, seeking to differentiate itself in the expanding community broadcasting sector, trying to work out what it really was.2 Andrew Green, who was heavily involved with programming decisions in the 1990s, described this evolution: Administratively, PBS became more ‘organised’, more … ‘proper’ and businesslike. When I first joined, I think there used to be a sort of ghetto mentality among PBS personnel and in the way PBS projected itself and in the way it was perceived. I think that changed; it became less … marginalised.3

PBS’ operations needed to adjust to more commercial influences, a change rarely welcomed by anti-establishment volunteers but which resulted in more listeners and, particularly for Rock Indie musical styles, a different way of being progressive. Even though the station became less marginalised, it retained its subcultural position broadcasting “the sound of underground Melbourne”.4 In the remainder of this first section, I describe how PBS negotiated its position within a growing radio broadcast sector. I look at the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and its effect on PBS’ operations and the growth of community radio. Finally, I describe the three station managers during the decade and how they helped the station through its teenage years. In the second section, I describe the subcultural intermediaries at PBS during the 1990s and the ways they made programming decisions. The committee of program coordinators in charge of programming, known as the Production Unit and then as the Programming Review Committee in the 1980s, changed title and is

1 N. Muscat interview. 2 L. Palermo interview. 3 Andrew Green [not his real name; Andrew agreed to be interviewed via email on the condition of anonymity] interview (via email), February 2019. 4 N. Muscat interview. 182

referred to as the Programming and Production Committee (PPC) in this chapter. Programming structures and procedures are clearly set out in station documents. This research contributes to our knowledge of the practical work of volunteer, subcultural intermediaries. I identified immense pressure on volunteers making controversial programming decisions under these structures and procedures, which led to the introduction of a paid program manager in the 2000s. These pressures, and the employment of a paid program manager to manage some of these tasks, suggests there was a limit to the responsibilities PBS’ volunteer subcultural intermediaries were willing to undertake. When these responsibilities became difficult to manage, less programming decisions were made within an already decentralised decision- making process. In the third section, I analyse programming data to explain how the station sounded throughout the 1990s. In this decade, global music movements had a noticeable impact on broadcast output. Some ‘alternative’ or ‘independent’ rock musical styles went mainstream, and electronic and hip hop musical styles gained popularity through clubs, dance parties and other subcultural music scenes around Australia. I use programming data to analyse the different ways PBS responded to these changes. Finally, building on practices common in commercial radio and formally adopted in the 1989 Major Programming Review, I explore how the station developed its use of day parts and strip programming to appeal more to listeners.

5.1.1 PBS’ position within a growing community sector

During the 1990s, PBS took a more strategic position towards competitors such as Triple J and Triple R, actively seeking to avoid programming similar shows at the same time. The ABC’s youth radio station, Triple J, started its expansion to national broadcasting in 1989. Triple J was said to pose little threat to the station because “the majority of the musical styles represented on PBS are not broadcast on that network”.5 Contrary to PBS archival sources, Garry Havrillay, who was an announcer and category coordinator in the 1990s, stated Triple J was indeed considered a “threat”

5 Cazaly et al., p. 19. 183

by PBS.6 Albury’s description of the late-1980s Double J listener is similar to the types who listened to PBS and Triple R: “24-year-old inner-city male, tertiary educated, and wearing black”.7 Triple R and PBS “had the most to fear, and had spent months preparing for [Triple J’s] arrival”.8 Potts agreed community stations broadcasting alternative music were “justifiable” in their concerns, but argued Triple J was different to community radio. It was national and therefore could not “compete with the localising capacity of public stations, with their attention to specific communities”.9 Potts suggested Triple J and public radio stations should work together to take advantage of their individual strengths, ensuring their positions would be “complementary … outside the heritage."10 Potts’ theory about the power of local radio held fast. The local, band-breaking programming at Sydney’s Double J had been a great success, but it was not replicated in the national network. Programming changed from announcer-driven selections focused on Sydney’s music scene to “greater repetition and standardised playlists”.11 Triple J was never as successful in Melbourne as it was almost anywhere else in Australia because of Triple R and PBS.12 For Triple R, tuning in to Triple J was all the proof it needed “to be confident that Triple R had a superior product”.13 Furthermore, the announcer’s role as a subcultural intermediary declined at Triple J as it used a different method to program many of its shows. For example, listener polls were used to decide the nightly Net 50 program and annual Hottest 100 countdown (both variations on the Top 40 method),14 leaving unplaylisted Melbourne community stations their distinctiveness. Community radio stations responded to Triple J’s introduction in different ways. Brisbane’s 4ZZZ altered its programming to “more abrasive” music to ensure it

6 G. Havrillay interview. 7 Albury, p. 56. 8 Phillips, p. 214. 9 Potts, ‘Heritage Rock’, p. 67. 10 Potts, ‘Heritage Rock’, p. 67. 11 Homan, ‘Classic Hits’, p. 101. 12 Phillips, p. 217. 13 Phillips, p. 216. 14 Albury, p. 63. 184

remained an alternative option.15 PBS responded as Potts suggested, taking a more cooperative approach by, for example, not programming a Hip Hop program at the same time as that would be heard on Triple J or Triple R. Havrillay said, “I think just respecting each other’s turf in a way and being complementary rather than competitive has been really important to co-existing”.16 In a report to the Board in 1992, Havrillay said Triple J had adopted a popularity-driven playlist: The word in the industry is that there are regular ruthless meetings to decide which songs are put on the playlist. The ‘A-side’ single seems to prevail.17

Allyson Griffith, an announcer, Board member and part of the OB group in the 1990s, said that, during the 1990s, Triple J would listen to PBS to hear the latest under-represented music, “to know where the drivers were”.18

5.1.2 Introduction of the Broadcasting Services Act

After the establishment of community radio broadcasters and their governing bodies in the 1970s, the next major legislative reform occurred in 1992 when the Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) replaced the Broadcasting and Television Act. The purpose of the BSA was to “meet the changing nature of broadcasting that is occurring worldwide”,19 namely, changes in technology and the way people accessed and consumed media. The level of regulation for each sector of the media was based on its potential to influence community views.20 Acknowledging “specialised services serving narrower (‘niche’) markets are becoming more common”,21 regulation of the community radio sector was reduced. Australian music quotas became part of a self-regulatory code now monitored by community (CBAA) and commercial (Commercial Radio Australia)

15 Stafford, p. 255. 16 G. Havrillay interview. 17 Havrillay, p. 7. 18 A. Griffith interview 19 Broadcasting Services Bill 20 Broadcasting Services Bill 21 Broadcasting Services Bill 185

broadcaster associations.22 At the same time, the ABT was replaced by the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which in 1995 merged with the Australian Communications Authority to become the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which remains the regulatory body for media in Australia. By this time, the community broadcast sector comprised both radio and television stations. Comparatively, community television has had a much less successful place in Australian broadcasting than community radio stations even though it started at a similar time. This disparity shows how legislation has affected community television’s place as a third sector to commercial and government media in Australia. In 1974, community television began with the development of ten independent video-access centres and two resource centres designed to give people access to the equipment to make television programs.23 In the 1980s, coming out of the resource centres, two Aboriginal communities began pirate television stations in the remote Australian outback. These progressed to limited licences before becoming the first licensed community television stations after the BSA was introduced.24 In Melbourne, the first community television broadcasts occurred during the 1980s, including the SKA-TV/PBS simulcast mentioned in the previous chapter, although these were all only test transmissions. Community television stations began broadcasting on temporary open narrowcasting licences (as part of the “community television trial”) in Melbourne in 1994, followed by Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Lismore and Perth.25 In 1999, “the Minister revoked the use of the sixth channel in areas other than those holding existing broadcast licences due to digital television planning”, resulting in analogue community television stations “only in areas with an incumbent service or where spectrum was available to be allocated on an ad hoc basis”.26 Seeking to expand all broadcast sectors, the intent of the 1992 legislation was that “barriers to entry to the broadcasting service industry be minimised, and that

22 L. Gailey, ‘The Role of Music Quotas in Radio’, Music in Australia Knowledge Base, 2012, www.musicinaustralia.org.au/index.php/The_Role_of_Music_Quotas_in_Radio#Author (accessed 16 January 2020). 23 Rennie, ‘The Future of Community Broadcasting’, p. 19. 24 Rennie, ‘The Future of Community Broadcasting’, p. 20. 25 Rennie, ‘The Future of Community Broadcasting’, p. 22. 26 Rennie, ‘The Future of Community Broadcasting’, p. 22. 186

competition in the provision of such services be facilitated through the quicker introduction of extra services”.27 The Act reduced the regulation of community media by making changes to licence categories and sponsorship regulations. Licences were rationalised into one category, doing away with ‘C’ (Commercial), ‘E’ (Education) and ‘S’ (Specialist) categories. The new “Community” licence category emphasised the need for broadcasters to meet the needs of their community by contributing to a diverse broadcasting landscape. The single licence category and “merit-based process of allocation”28 made it easier for applicants to be approved, as long as they could show, just as in the 1970s, their station would be “in the interests of that community” and in the interests of “diversity of other broadcasting services (including national broadcasting services) available within that licence area”.29 In the case of sponsorship, loosening regulation meant community stations could diversify their funding sources, making them less reliant on subscriptions from members. Thompson argued these changes were implemented to make stations more self-reliant.30 Before the BSA, stations were limited to no more than four minutes of sponsorship announcements per hour and each announcement of no more than 40 words “restricted to the name and address of the business with no attempt to sell the product”.31 After the BSA, restrictions were limited to “sponsorship announcements” making clear they were paid for by a company and no more than four minutes per hour of these announcements.32 The changes made it easier for stations to raise money, but in doing so had the effect of commercialising operations. Following a submission made by the CBAA to the Productivity Commission’s Broadcasting Inquiry in 1999, time allocated for sponsorship announcements was raised from four to five minutes.33 After the Act was introduced, the ABA undertook a national spectrum review and planning process that Wilson described as “one of the most substantial and

27 Broadcasting Services Bill 28 Broadcasting Services Bill 29 Broadcasting Services Act 1992, s. 84.2.a-f 30 Thompson, p. 26. 31 Thornley, ‘Broadcasting Policy in Australia’, p. 345. 32 Broadcasting Services Act, s. 2, clause 9(1)(b) 33 Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, Review of Broadcasting Legislation: Submission to the Productivity Commission, 1999, p. 10. 187

complex ever undertaken by a national government”.34 The project, whose objective was to increase “the number and diversity of radio services available to Australians”, was eventually completed in December 2001 and resulted in “nearly one thousand new national, commercial, community and narrowcast services becoming available”.35 Part of this process was to allocate the remaining FM frequencies to community broadcast aspirants. The sector grew rapidly, with 154 new stations in the 1990s and a further 177 in the 2000s, as shown in Table 27.

Table 27: Growth of community radio sector by decade, 1970–2019

No. of Number added community each decade radio stations 1970 0 23 1980 23 56 1990 79 154 2000 233 177 2010 336 103 2019 357 21

Thompson predicted changes made by the BSA to sponsorship arrangements would have implications for programming at community stations, pushing “the stations away from the ideals of community access towards tighter commercial formats and a reliance on ratings”,36 factors other scholars would later identify and label “the creep of commercialism”.37 Further, Thompson warned the ability of stations to represent their communities would be compromised if seeking sponsorship dollars was so critical.38

34 Wilson, Frequently Modulating, p. 190. 35 Australian Broadcasting Authority, Making Waves: The Growth of Radio in Australia 1992-2001, Commonwealth of Australia, 2003, p. 2. 36 Thompson, p. 26. 37 D. Barlow; Forde, Foxwell and Meadows; Order, ‘Australian Community Radio’. 38 Thompson, p. 26. 188

5.1.3 Finances resulted in three different station managers across the decade

In the early 1990s PBS’ financial position was a constant threat to its existence. Helen Jennings, a volunteer since 1984 and an announcer since 1986, gave an example of how the station solved its financial problems: back then when we were sailing by the seat of our pants, we had to have that passion to keep going. You just had to keep going somehow. I remember Vince Peach, who’s still on-air and does Soul Time, he was on-air one day and our then station manager Mazz Knott – I think this was – she, in the afternoon, she came in and said ‘Vince, you’re going to have to get on-air and say a few things because we are in trouble. We’ve got an electricity bill that if it’s not paid by five o’clock, we’re off-air’. So Vince got on-air and did a little plug and within half an hour this kind gentlemen arrived with his cheque book. So we lived to see another day.39

The stress caused by the severe lack of money, along with the feeling of being unsupported by the Board, is evident in station manager Mazz Knott’s report to the Board in June 1992: For the last time I want to reiterate how critical our financial position is. Also for the last time I want the Board to realise the future of the station does not fall on my shoulders alone. We are in this together … We are in deep shit and I’m not sure I can pay the wages this week and I wasn’t sure I could last week … The staff, all three of us, are feeling the pressure and it won’t be long before we crumble. You must do something about this crisis we’re in, I’m sorry but attending meetings just isn’t enough.40

Eventually, as Havrillay explained, these financial pressures contributed to Knott’s departure: Mazz obviously had a really hard time trying to balance the books as well because the station was really struggling. Balancing all the forces and keeping the wolves from the door … eventually it got to her, she burnt out, which was a real shame.41

39 H. Jennings interview. 40 ‘Staff Report to Board Meeting’, Board papers for 22 June 1992, PBS. 41 G. Havrillay interview. 189

Financial pressures also caused PBS to stop publishing a station magazine, which negatively affected the station’s ability to regularly promote its programming, as outlined in Board papers: One of the major problems which is very apparent is that the public don't know which programmes are on when. Programme guides must be given out at all major events, posted to people who are interested in subscribing (not only after they subscribe), and distributed freely as frequently as possible to increase awareness.42

Cameron Reyntjes became PBS’ third station manager in March 1993.43 He thought his experience as general manager of commercial station 3XY got him the job:44 I’m pretty sure that they [the Board] were pretty keen to establish a good commercial framework underneath the station so that it could be less stressful to run, it would attract more positive volunteer activity and could do the music outreach that I think it was always wanting to do. It was certainly part of the general spirit of the place that it was proudly independent and fiercely so. To be independent like that means that you really rely on yourself very much too … The Sheriff [an officer who can ‘take action against people who do not comply with their debt-related court orders’45] arrived on the first day I was here, trying to take the broadcasting equipment. The Chairman had ‘mistakenly’ forgot to tell me that that might happen [laughs]. And I think it became very obvious to me why they had chosen me apart from any other applicants, and that is that I was the only one who had any commercial media experience. Other people had been in marketing and all that sort of stuff, but I had actually raised revenue … run divisions of radio stations that had their own cost centre. My skills were required immediately. I got in early the first day, I remember ringing the Chairman and I think he even knew the name of the Sheriff [laughs]. He said ‘Oh is it Charles or is it Roger?’ [sighs] I thought He’s a regular, they’re friends. So I locked the door every morning after that downstairs and made sure no one could get up, and away we went. 46

42 W. Fernandez, ‘3PBS Publicity Strategy’, Board papers for 7 December 1993, PBS. 43 Cameron Reyntjes interview, 14 May 2019. 44 C. Reyntjes interview. 45 State of Victoria, Sheriffs in Victoria [website], www.justice.vic.gov.au/justice-system/sheriffs-in- victoria (accessed 16 January 2020). 46 C. Reyntjes interview. 190

Many at the station feared Reyntjes would commercialise PBS.47 Consequently, he was not popular with those who were generally opposed to corporations, big business and all things mainstream, a common trait among community radio participants.48 Reyntjes was very aware of the ill will towards him, describing people’s reactions as “horrible because they were really nasty”.49 However, he pursued his strategy of focusing on the money that could now be raised from sponsorship: It wasn’t because the station was no good at making money or people didn’t want to do the work that was required. It was just that there was a lot of different places that we were looking for it in and we needed to concentrate our core capabilities – and that was we had sponsorship.50

With no station magazine to advertise content, programming continued “to be among the best kept media secrets in Melbourne”.51 Reyntjes responded by redesigning the grids, printing more and strategically distributing them to places where potential PBS listeners were likely to be found: We jazzed them up a bit too, and we printed them on high-gloss paper, silver paper, with red and black, and made them look really tasty. They used to hang – they used to be in bars and clubs and restaurants, and stuff like that. We distributed them, so we were printing about five thousand of them a month … so we went from sort of printing nothing, really, except for some fliers here and there, to being quite a prolific paper-waster, and that was good for the radio station for that short period of time. It was a big impact. People went, ‘Oh, PBS!’ and they either resubscribed or confirmed their love for Triple R or whatever they did. But it sort of polarised people back into what we were doing.

By the end of 1994, the station had doubled its revenue and tripled sponsorships.52 Some of this money was spent getting out into the community with festivals and concerts. Two of the most enduring events that began during this time

47 C. Reyntjes interview. 48 W. Barlow, p 101. 49 C. Reyntjes interview. 50 C. Reyntjes interview. 51 Havrillay, p. 3. 52 C. Reyntjes interview. 191

were the Anzac Day Anarchy and Cup Day Kaos events (both held on public holidays) where bands would perform at pubs the Evelyn and the Punters’ Club throughout the day, alternating the broadcast to listeners by venue at the end of each song. PBS’ reputation for live music gigs was enhanced by these events and the quality of volunteers in charge of the technical broadcast: When Cam[eron Paine] was out there [at the venue] and Bill [Runting] was back here [at the studio], I mean, it just put the other radio stations to shame. And they didn’t have any of the stuff they needed. So they were either borrowing it from the people they were working for and lending it to us ’cos they had it in the car. I’m not saying they were doing anything untoward. They’re not that sort of people. They were just always giving us their absolute best. It encouraged me because we then could do further – we could lean on them, hard, and we did.53

These events raised a significant amount of money for the station and increased its profile: it gave us some clout, elevated us to where I think we deserved to be. Roundabout there, in the pub scene, a partner, a level partner. Not someone they looked down on, ‘oh you know, let’s throw some money at PBS because we feel sorry for them’.54

In 1994, the station celebrated its 15th birthday. Reyntjes made this a marketing event. He organised a giveaway of $15,000 worth of CDs, all donated by record companies, and, coinciding with the birthday party, hosted a rebranding event. PBS changed from “Melbourne’s Progressive Radio Station” to “Real Radio”, which all announcers were to use on-air,55 updated the logo (including making it in colour), changed the livery from 3PBS to PBS and made bumper stickers.56 Andrew Green described the flagship relaunch on 1 June 1994 as a: corporate-style ‘PBS Relaunch’ event emcee’d by a (paid) professional spruiker, late- night commercial TV’s ‘But wait, there’s more!’ Tim-The-DenTel-Man, at a chartered function room on Fitzroy Street, St Kilda.57

53 C. Reyntjes interview. 54 C. Reyntjes interview. 55 Resolved in Board minutes from 9 September 1991, PBS. 56 A. Green interview; C. Reyntjes interview. 57 A. Green interview. 192

Reyntjes told a reporter at the relaunch event: “There’s no glory in being a best kept secret, there’s no point in putting on all the hard work if you are going to remain unknown”.58 The Board chose not to renew Reyntjes’ contract at the end of his third year in 1996 because of “something I’d said to someone”.59 Reyntjes had loved the role, describing it as “the single most important job I’ve had. It was rewarding beyond what I could ever put in words, it was just soul food”, and was disappointed to leave with projects incomplete.60 By the time Reyntjes left, the station was still in financial difficulty. There is no data to assess his impact on listener numbers. Reyntjes summarised his time at the station as when PBS: put pants on, I think we were wearing shorts before. I think we put pants on, we came of age in a way. The fifteenth birthday was us saying that we had and literally we’d gone through our teenage years. We’d gone through our adolescence and we were starting to become young people, I thought. We stood up. We stood up and we were noticed and we caused a bit of kerfuffle in the community where we hadn’t before.61

Reyntjes did not endear himself to many people at PBS. Looking back, Lisa Palermo, announcer and chair of the programming committee in the 1990s, felt his attempts to make the station more well-known were not as bad as they had seemed at the time: He came up with the ‘Real Radio’ thing, the slogan that we had for a long time, which I hated but other people really liked. In hindsight, it’s alright … ‘Real Radio’, that’s true. So maybe some of us didn’t have that kind of broader perspective about who we were in the greater world of media in Melbourne and Australia, and we had this really insular view of who we were and we thought ‘Real Radio’ was sort of naff.62

FBi founder and Triple R announcer Peter Chellew became PBS’ fourth station manager February 1997 – June 2000. FBi is a youth, community radio broadcaster in

58 ‘The Secret’s Out’, Herald Sun, 16 June 1994, p. 42. 59C. Reyntjes interview. 60 C. Reyntjes interview. 61 C. Reyntjes interview. 62 L. Palermo interview. 193

Sydney which, after starting as a test broadcaster in 1995, was awarded a licence in 2003. With many years’ experience in community radio behind the scenes and on-air, Chellew was considered much more in line with the station’s values than his predecessor. He wanted to achieve greater recognition for PBS because he thought, when he began, PBS was still “a little secret that was fantastic for people who loved music”.63 Chellew, the Board and the staff aimed to do this primarily by making the station easier to listen to: I was really, in a way, kind of ‘take no prisoners’, but just really striving for – to achieve the aims of the station and for it to become better and stronger and to get a sense that more people cared about it. At the time that I came, to be honest, it felt like a bit of a mess, it was a bit hodge-podge. For example, there were shows on-air, there were programs that would start at any old time of the day … we tried to build on the strengths of the station, which were obviously, people were very informed about the music they were presenting; high-quality programming with informative content by trusted announcers. And so making those shows easier for people to reach, promoting them, making sure that they were on an understandable grid.64

I analyse the implementation of such programming changes, including the use of new technologies such as the internet, in the following sections. PBS first created an internet presence during Reyntjes’ time. Hosted by Victoria University, the employer of one of the station’s Board members, the website was “designed to make people more aware of PBS’ existence” and featured a program grid.65 Predicting the uptake of the internet, the Board noted “in the long-term, we certainly need to get our own Web site and our own link to the Internet”.66 The site moved to Vicnet in 1997. On this server I was able to access the site circa 1997, where the “Introduction to PBS FM 106.7” page described the station as: a specialty public radio station committed to 'progressive' broadcasts in music, comedy, the arts and current affairs. Progressive describes under-represented forms which are innovative or historically significant. Our programming format focuses

63 P. Chellew interview. 64 P. Chellew interview. 65 M. Barker, Board minutes from 19 March 1996, PBS. 66 M. Barker, Board minutes from 19 March 1996, PBS. 194

these progressive forms into specialised shows, presented by experts drawn from our listening audience.67

In 1997, Chellew presented the Board with the first account of approximate listener numbers, based on Roy Morgan Research data. Although these were rough figures extrapolated from commercial radio data, they gave the station its first estimate of how many people were listening.68 There was no information about how these numbers were calculated beyond the table below. ‘Qume’, also known as ‘cume’, which is short for cumulative audience, is the “total number of different persons who tune to a radio station during the course of a daypart for at least five minutes”.69 Chellew outlined these numbers in his report to the Board:70

PBS's 'Qume' figure is approximately 160,000 listeners per week. (This is the calculation used by commercial radio.) - PBS's 'Real Listener' figure is 42,000 listeners per week:

‘Real Listeners’ Time of day Percentage of audience Qume 27,000 6am–9am 64.3 102,880 21,000 9am–12pm 50 80,000 20,000 12pm–4pm 47.6 95,200 25,000 4pm–7pm 59.5 95,200 25,000 7pm–12pm 59.5 95,2000

Listener age Level of listenership 0–14 Very low 14–17 Low 18–34 Bulk of listeners 35–50 [Not reported] 50+ Very low

Also in 1997, PBS embraced new technology with a simultaneous broadcast with the world’s oldest public radio station, CFRC-FM, based in Kingston, Canada.

67 PBS, Introduction to PBS FM 106.7 [website], 1997, https://web.archive.org/web/19970501001249/http://www.vicnet.net.au:80/~pbsfm/about_pbs/index.ht ml (accessed 15 September 2019). 68 Peter Chellew, ‘General Manager's Report’, Board papers for 8 April 1997, PBS. 69 The Nielsen Company, ‘Terminology and Definitions for the Nielsen Radio Diary Service’, 2013, www.arbitron.com/downloads/terms_brochure.pdf (accessed 18 February 2020). 70 Peter Chellew, ‘General Manager's Report’. 195

PBS graveyard program Lights R Green ran a simultaneous broadcast with CFRC-FM where both stations created “a virtual soundscape of beats, bass, samples, and ambient recordings taken from around each station’s town”.71 During the program “a rudimentary, real-time view” of the studios and announcers was broadcast over the internet using a digital camera. The event attracted PBS’ first international subscribers.72

5.2 Programming policies, processes and people

The Major Programming Review, implemented in February 1989, was PBS’ attempt to position itself for a decade of growth in the styles of music broadcast and the number of listeners. As foreshadowed in the previous chapter, the 1990s were a time when the station was trying to negotiate its alternative ideals with new commercial practices. Data suggests much more stable processes for the Programming Review Committee (PRC) in contrast to the multiple changes and confusing systems evident in 1980s data, as predicted by Whitford, who argued for “a more settled program agenda” as community radio stations matured.73 According to a report by Havrillay in January 1992, ‘3PBS: Dying to be different’, the Major Programming Review did not deliver enough change.74 Havrillay’s comments on programming decision-making processes and broadcast output anticipated the station’s struggles for much of the 1990s. Changes to make programming more democratic had not been effective: “I can say with some authority that it is easy for major proposals to be diluted or stifled due to the nature of such democratic process”.75 The station’s block-programming format meant it “still sounds somewhat like a collective of individual programmers and musical taste, rather than a coherent unit”, suggesting the flow the 1989 review had sought to achieve was

71 ‘PBS Goes Global in the Name of Groove’, Ripples, no. 1, 1997, PBS. 72 ‘PBS Goes Global in the Name of Groove’. 73 Whitford. 74 Havrillay. 75 Havrillay, p. 2. 196

limited.76 Finally, Havrillay summarised the dilemma the station faced with the evolution of subcultural musical styles: The evolution of musical trends over the years has meant that the commercially successful music styles of today, were not necessarily successful in the earlier days of PBS programming. For example, Techno-pop and House music used to be an innovation, until artists and record companies found the correct formulas for mass appeal and marketing. Suddenly, PBS decided it was necessary to stop featuring the newly successful commercial acts, as they became well represented on other stations. However you will find that these two examples of music styles are still represented on the station, but the emphasis has moved to the less-accessible fringes, featuring lesser known artists (e.g. Hard-core rap and Electronic-Industrial bands). Similarly, artists developing their music may suddenly be ‘discovered’ by Top- stations, after having years of good support of Public Radio (e.g. Midnight Oil). Consequently PBS airplay stops … There has always been internal pressure to maintain this ‘fringe’ policy.77

Havrillay highlights the problem when an under-represented music style was co- opted by the mainstream. At PBS, the result was to move to the “fringes”, broadcasting less accessible music from that style. Even if it was once very popular among PBS listeners, adherence to playing only alternative music removed this music from PBS’ broadcast output. I discuss PBS’ relationship to mainstream music further in section 5.3.1 of this chapter. Two sets of documents outline the Programming and Production Committee (PPC) structure and how programming decisions were made. The first of these is the 3PBS-FM Programming & Production Policy, which was ratified at a PPC meeting on 22 July 1991.78 Havrillay gave me a final version of the document from his private collection which was renamed the 3PBS-FM Programming Policy. He dated it to being in operation from around 1992.79 A date included in the document suggests the policy could have been implemented as part of the Major Programming Review in 1989.80

76 Havrillay, p. 3. 77 Havrillay, p. 5. 78 ‘3PBS-FM Programming & Production Policy Final Draft 22/07/91’, Board papers for 28 July 1991, PBS. 79 ‘3PBS-FM Programming Policy’, Garry Havrillay personal collection, circa 1992. 80 ‘3PBS-FM Programming Policy’. 197

Also in his possession was the Draft 3PBS-FM Programming Structure document, which he also dated to 1992.81 Both of these documents have the same formatting and use very similar language, suggesting they were developed at the same time and were used to inform each other, which is how I use these documents below. The second set of documents are the Statement of Announcers’ Rights, first mentioned in Board papers in 1994, and its successor, the Announcers Agreement, a very similar document from 1995–1996. My analysis shows these documents signal a maturing of the station where volunteers were informed about their rights and responsibilities, as well as establishing formal avenues for them to be held accountable for their actions.

The 3PBS-FM Programming Policy and 3PBS-FM Programming Structure The 3PBS-FM Programming Policy provides an overview of the station’s programming decision-making bodies and their responsibilities. It is most relevant to four of the five subcultural intermediaries present at the station in the 1990s: Board members, station manager, programming committee members and category coordinators. The fifth, announcers, were not typically involved at this level of programming, unless they held an additional position, such as category coordinator. This document formalises a programming hierarchy, including the station manager’s position in programming decisions, and addresses the responsibilities of category coordinators to their music category and the station. I draw on interviews to explain factors which influenced programming decisions made within the primary programming decision- making group, the PPC. Unlike the many processes in the 1980s, the 1990s 3PBS-FM Programming Policy clearly outlines the hierarchy of programming responsibilities. In doing so, it identifies the station’s subcultural intermediaries and their positions within this hierarchy:

81 ‘3PBS-FM Programming Structure’, Garry Havrillay personal collection, 1992. 198

Programming on PBS is the responsibility of the Board of Directors. The Board delegates this responsibility to a committee of Programme Coordinators and the Station Manager. The Programme Coordinators appoint the Category Coordinators.82

Strategic programming decisions in the 1990s were made by the Board. These were then fed to the PPC for implementation on the grid and disseminated by category coordinators to announcers. This organisational structure and the ways members were elected to positions are summarised in Figure 14.

Board (6) Elected by shareholders * 1 Board member also chaired PPC

Programming coordinators: Programming production committee 3 nominated by board, (5) 2 elected at station meeting 12 month terms, can be re-elected + station manager (1)

Nominated by PPC Category coordinators (>15)

Figure 14: Programming structure, 1990s

This structure shows a large number of people involved in programming decisions and provides clear directions about how decisions were made. The PPC was delegated responsibility for programming but still bound by Board decisions: “The powers of the Programming and Production Committee shall be subject to any restrictions imposed on it by Board or by this policy”.83 Membership of the PPC consisted of the Board’s appointee as chair, five program coordinators and the station manager, who was considered an equal member of the committee.84 Three of the five

82 ‘3PBS-FM Programming Policy’. 83 ‘3PBS-FM Programming Structure’. 84 ‘3PBS-FM Programming Structure’. 199

program coordinators (who were also announcers) were appointed by the Board, the remaining two elected by fellow announcers.85 This internal recruitment process was formalised in 1998, changing the Board’s responsibility to ratifying the election of all five members: The Board directed LP [Lisa Palermo] to update the Programming Committee Policy document to reflect that the Programming Committee be given the power to recommend new members and that such appointments be approved by the Board. The maximum Programming Committee size would stay at . Committee members would have a month maximum appointment however a member could be re- appointed with Board approval.86

But, similar to the 1980s, if an unexpected vacancy occurred, the nomination of a new program coordinator was often done informally: if we had someone who would leave, I can remember just internally kind of recruiting someone else, the process would be ‘well, who should we get to replace?’ ‘oh, blah blah would be really good because they’re a great broadcaster and they’ve got a really great idea of music and they’re smart and clever and articulate and all that sort of stuff’, so it was a sort of a – I suppose with the resources we had, we made it as – what’s the word I’m looking for? – democratic as possible, though I’m sure some people would have argued that it wasn’t but.87

Mazz Knott was the first station manager to become a member of the PPC, a standard that has continued since except for her successor, Reyntjes, who stated he did not get involved with programming: [Mazz] was fairly demonstrative – she was fairly strong with that sort of stuff, and liked to be very involved in who got on when ... I had enough enmity with people around here to then start telling people who could broadcast and who couldn’t. So when I say I got off the programming side of things, I never intended to have anything to do with the music. It was not up to me.88

85 ‘3PBS-FM Programming Structure’. 86 Board minutes from 4 September 1998, PBS. 87 L. Palermo interview. 88 C. Reyntjes interview. 200

Programming data confirms programming changes were limited during Reyntjes’ time. A business plan from 1994–1995 slated a program review but many of the innovations it suggested, including consolidation of repetitive programs, increasing the range of programs, strip programming and “quality” production values, were not actively introduced until the late 1990s.89 The Board-appointed chair of the PPC was responsible for organising and minuting the meetings. Although not considered a member of the PPC, the chair had voting rights.90 Lisa Palermo, PPC chair in the 1990s, described how programming decisions were made: I think that overall as a group, when I was part of that group, that it operated pretty well as a fairly democratic kind of group. I suppose there were enough of us that if anybody was particularly opinionated or whatever, they’d probably get shut down or worked around. Like, it was always a process of discussion, endless discussion, and if there was something that a Board member or the Board didn’t like, then we would hear about it from them and we would have to rework it, so it was really, like, it was quite a laborious democratic process, which is good, of course, because it was a group of volunteers doing it, so – and we were answerable to a lot of people – all the announcers and all of the stakeholders in the station we were answerable to.91

Palermo’s repeated description of the PPC as a democratic group indicates the ongoing importance of this decentralised programming structure to the group committee, and the station. PBS had long avoided making programming decisions based on financial factors like the number of members or sponsors a program attracted. According to Fairchild, community radio stations exist “to create social networks through means that are not market based… the value placed on community radio’s participants and audiences is not a commercial contract, it is a civil one”.92 Palermo, was adamant that making programming decisions based on financial factors remained anathema to PBS’ values:

89 Business Plan 1994–1995, PBS. 90 ‘3PBS-FM Programming Structure’. 91 L. Palermo interview. 92 Fairchild, Music, Radio and the Public Sphere, p. 82. 201

it was very important that we didn’t make our decisions based on the subscription numbers. We were really – like, it was about under-represented music, that was the key thing for us at the time, was to make sure that we were covering this idea of under-represented.93

However, Andrew Green said programming decisions at times “may have” been made in an effort to attract more subscribers”:94 Some programs were generally known to attract revenue via a high listener- subscription rate or a high sponsorship rate and these programs may have received special consideration when it came to allocation of timeslots.95

Ultimately, as Palermo described, programming decisions were made based on opinion: it was just our opinions, really, like, we were a group of people who – like, I suppose, as I describe myself as a young person and how I got into it, listened to a lot of music, had broad ideas, presented a reasonable show myself, I guess, so was able to kind of critique the other people. And it was really just what we thought, so we would all, the group of us would just get together and discuss what we thought was working and what we didn’t think was working, and then of course we’d have a broad idea of where we wanted to go, and that’s how we made the decisions, very personal.96

Programming decisions one level below the PPC were made by category coordinators, who were to support, monitor, provide feedback and generally communicate with both announcers and the PPC: Actively encourage excellence and innovation in broadcasting, within the Category and within the station generally, including  Providing support to individual announcers within the Category in the presentation of high quality programmes;  Monitoring and evaluating the content, standards and presentation of all programmes within the Category as often as possible;

93 L. Palermo interview. 94 A. Green interview. 95 A. Green interview. 96 L. Palermo interview. 202

 Keeping the Programming Committee and the relevant announcers up to date with any feedback, both positive and negative97

One category coordinator was assigned per category. By 1997 there were ten categories, listed in Table 28.

Table 28: Music categories, 1997

Music categories (1997) Electronic Hardcore Indie Insomnia Jazz Morning After [breakfast] Roots Soul and Dance Spoken Word Worldwide Music98

These categories were decided by the number of programs and therefore the amount of airtime each category coordinator was responsible for managing, while still maintaining separation between musical styles. An aspect of the station’s programming issues and a key factor in 1980s decision-making was the tribalism among music categories. As suggested in the previous chapter, tribalism resulted in a few categories and their programs gaining the best timeslots regardless of overall percentage of broadcast hours or what was best for the station’s overall sound. Attempting to address this, the 1990s Programming Policy instructed category coordinators to honour their allegiances to their music category and consider the good of the station: The responsibilities of category coordinators are confined to their specific areas of programming with the opportunity to contribute to broader programming issues as advisers to the program coordinators. Category coordinators are to represent the interests of their particular domain but should also recognise that the interests of the

97 ‘Responsibilities of PBS-FM Category Co-ordinators August 1998’, Board papers for 14 July 1998, PBS. 98 Board minutes from 9 September 1997, PBS. 203

station as a whole are paramount, and as such must be placed above the individual pursuits of a category or personality.99

This suggests the document’s creators were aware of many of the problems with programming in the 1980s. Perhaps the most significant of these was the lack of a document such as this to provide a clear hierarchy and process for programming decision-making. The next documents address the role of the remaining subcultural intermediary not covered by the 3PBS Programming Policy, the announcer.

Statement of Announcers’ Rights and Announcer Agreement The Statement of Announcers’ Rights and Announcer Agreement documents informed announcers of the station’s on-air expectations. The Statement of Announcers’ Rights appeared as a final draft in Board papers in 1994. Although dated 1995–1996, the contents of the Announcer Agreement are very similar to the Announcer responsibilities and Guidelines sections in the 3PBS-FM Programming Policy from 1991, suggesting similar practices were in place for most of the decade. These documents are most useful to determine the rights and responsibilities of the volunteer announcer. Volunteer announcers were afforded the “same rights as a paid employee of the station”, which included being informed of changes to station policy.100 Echoing the ideals of access and participation, announcers were able to make suggestions “as to the roles and functions of announcers and/or station policy” and had a formal grievance process and the rights to broadcast training and a safe work environment.101 The grievance process can restrict access to the airwaves and would have been used in a situation where the announcer broadcast either music or voiceovers that contravened the station’s or the Act’s guidelines. The policy states that in the case of “extreme or serious violation”, the Board, PPC, station manager or delegate could enact disciplinary proceedings against an announcer. Extreme circumstances were if the announcer risked PBS’ licence, perhaps

99 ‘3PBS-FM Programming Policy’. 100 ‘Statement of Announcers’ Rights’, Board papers for 13 October 1994, PBS. 101 ‘Statement of Announcers’ Rights’, Board papers for 13 October 1994, PBS. 204

by playing an offensive song or swearing excessively on-air. The announcer had the right to appeal the decision by writing to the Board. The announcer would remain until the grievance was resolved, which needed to occur within 14 days. If it could not be resolved in this time, another 14 days was allowed for a second arbiter to make a decision. In the 1980s, some announcers were suspended for not turning up for their program102 or broadcasting pirated recordings.103 In the 1990s, I did not find any examples of this.

5.2.1 Growing pains and the PPC

As the 1990s progressed, PBS attracted more people who wanted to host programs. With more demand for airtime, there was more pressure on those making programming decisions to ensure the best announcers were on-air. Criteria for determining who would be, or remain, an announcer in the 1990s were based on expertise and skills, and category coordinators were constantly monitoring programs: With the participation of the Category Co-ordinators there was ongoing monitoring of the programs within the respective Categories, via evaluation of tapes of the programs – all programs were ‘constantly under review’ by way of a quality control measure.104

Ultimately, getting and staying on-air depended on two factors: how a person sounded on-air and whether technically they were doing a good job, or whether there was heaps of dead air and they’d be saying ‘um’ and ‘ah’ all the time or things like that. But primarily it was about the music, the music that they were presenting, which of course was coming from them, as it is now. It’s really about the individual and what that individual puts on their playlist and brings in to play and what their taste is, it’s about that person’s taste.105

However, the 1995/96 Announcer guidelines suggest inappropriate on-air conversations were still an issue:

102 ‘Production Report’, Board minutes for 30 December 1980. 103 ‘Production Group Report’, Board minutes for 3 June 1981. 104 A. Green interview. 105 L. Palermo interview. 205

. If you have nothing meaningful to add to the announcement of material played, then say nothing. Reduce all personal bullshit (e.g. cheerios, in-jokes, gossip, last night’s hangover, reason for the late start, next announcer failing to arrive, etc.) to an absolute minimum.106

The PPC was responsible for removing programs. To keep up with music trends, manage poorly performing announcers and offer airtime to newcomers, some incumbent announcers needed to be removed from their programs. The experience of the volunteer subcultural intermediaries who made these decisions, and were the subject of them, provides an extra layer of understanding to cultural intermediary theory. In this situation, instead of being the people to create the connection between production and consumption, PPC members were asked to remove it. To be taken off-air was, and remains, a significant decision. Huntsberger explained community radio announcers often develop a sense of autonomy, so that the content on “‘my show,’ can exceed commitments to the larger organisation’s mission and goals”.107 Many announcers loved presenting their show each week and did not want to stop. Palermo recalled the pressure of these decisions: PBS then, and probably now, was always a very political place and I think it’s because of those passions, it’s because everybody takes it so personally, it’s because everybody gives their time, and so it means a lot to the individuals that are involved, and everyone takes it really, really, really seriously – which is funny, because when you go away for a little while, you kind of realise that there is more to life than the radio station, but I can understand why, when you’re in it, it’s really – it’s all that matters.108

Palermo explained how managing reactions could be very stressful: There we are making these decisions that are very contentious, very personal, everyone’s very passionate about what’s going on, each individual really, their program means the world to them, so as soon as you pick – you take one off or you move it around or you want to do stuff, then you become very open to criticism, and

106 ‘Announcer’s Agreement 1995/1996’, PBS. 107 M. Huntsberger, ‘’My Show is a Public Service’: How Values of Free Expression and Professionalism Influence Community Radio Organizations’, in J. Gordon (ed.), Community Radio in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2012, p. 232 108 L. Palermo interview. 206

so that’s a lot to ask of a group of volunteers, I think. And I think it’s okay when you’re a little organisation, like PBS was in the beginning, but going into the nineties it was really growing, and so that’s a really big ask for volunteers, and I think that’s the main thing, from my point of view anyway, that was difficult. To have people, like there was an announcer who was disgruntled, and he wrote a book – I don’t know that anybody read it, but he wrote a book, he was a Country announcer, and he mentioned me in his book, because I was, like – because I’d done a bad thing in removing his program, even though it wasn’t me, I didn’t make the decisions, the whole group made the decisions, and then of course decisions would be bounced to the Board, big decisions like taking people off-air and stuff, and yet still I’m the one that had to wear that. And I think that if you – if you’re paid to do a position like that, then fine, you take that responsibility, but if you’re not – I took the responsibility, and so did the people I worked with on the committee, but it becomes a thankless kind of task a little bit, and it’s challenging, and I think that it’s something that isn’t easy to take on, so – and I probably didn’t realise it at the time, you just, like, you just do it, and you really want to be involved and you want to make the programming great and all that stuff, but it’s tough. 109

Palermo’s comments suggest the level of responsibility PPC members, and particularly the chair of the PPC, had was too high for a volunteer position. Telling an announcer they could no longer host “my show” could be devastating, and cause retaliation. This pressure took its toll on Palermo: I just wish that I hadn’t been so bogged down in it, but I think that’s part of the culture a little bit too. Sometimes I talk to people now and they say ‘oh, it’s still the same, blah blah blah’ and I just think oh, I’m glad I don’t have to get bogged down in all that any more. But I think it’s a unique sort of thing that comes along with an organisation like this, I think it’s part of it, but it really is super-irritating. And it’s negative. And you can go into a bit of a negative spiral, and I think that’s why people leave over the years as well, it’s ’cause they just – that all just gets so tiring and so negative and toxic, and you go. So it’s a pity when that happens.110

109 L. Palermo interview. 110 L. Palermo interview. 207

Palermo’s description of the highs and lows of being PPC chair, a person held responsible for programming decisions by announcers, illustrates the enormous pressures some volunteers at PBS take on. Green’s comments highlight two matters discussed in this section, drawing attention to problems the station was having with decision-making by committee: There was a view that the Committee-based programming decision-making process was overly democratic, bogged down in process, hamstrung by trying to please all interests.111

First, even though the 3PBS-FM Programming Policy tried to formalise programming structures and remove siloed thinking, the system retained many of its weaknesses. Second, these “overly democratic” systems created so much pressure and stress that programming decisions were often not made. These weaknesses were articulated and some of them addressed in the late 1990s under new station manager Peter Chellew. I describe these in the next section.

5.2.2 Aligning the grid for greater listener retention

Following Chellew’s appointment in February 1997, a report about programming written by PBS staff (no staff names or roles are mentioned in the document) was presented to the Board in April 1997. It included a SWOT analysis which creates a point of comparison against similar observations made almost a decade earlier during the 1989 Major Programming Review. Programming weaknesses again include processes and the progressive nature of the station’s broadcast output: - Our current programming administration structure doesn’t favour change - There is a lack of opportunities for skilled ‘potential’ announcers - Too many shows play mainstream music - The station is generally not seeking out/exploring music enough (especially at an independent/cutting edge/‘underground’/new music) - In , our programming is generally no longer really innovative112

111 A. Green interview. 112 ‘PBS Staff Report’. 208

Notably, the report identified an opportunity for PBS to gain more listeners with the increased “interest in specialist/alternative forms of music from a mainstream audience”,113 a matter I discuss further in section 5.3.1. I did not find any discussion of the report among the PPC or the Board, but some of the objectives, strategies and actions proposed foreshadow programming changes implemented within months of its publication. These are summarised in Table 29.

Table 29: Summary of programming-related recommendations from 3PBS Staff Report, 1997114

Objective Strategy Actions Retain and Make it easier for listeners Plan grid considering listeners’ daily and attract more to use and understand our weekly ‘radio habits’/rhythms/routines/ listeners programming structure lifestyles – e.g. move Noise Kills to later timeslot Keep listeners from Continuity: develop more ‘flow’ ‘vertically switching off and horizontally’ Don’t follow shows with opposite styles Create new programmes Start a ‘PBS style’: music-based drive strip, and programming Monday to Friday initiatives Focus on music selected on a basis of ‘PBS presents’, the Drive stack, a broad-brush approach to what’s on this week and what’s new – across all genres Presentation characterised by enthusiasm, deep knowledge and love of music, and presented by our most skilled announcers (there are announcers in this shift already who do/could present this style of program) Maximise our Strive to maintain different Place an Indie/Australian music program ‘attractiveness’ program genres every day on Sundays to sponsors Review and Consider 3PBS’ place in the Conduct regular grid reviews – 6-monthly revamp the Melbourne radio landscape revise the structure of our administration of general review 3PBS’ policies of – programming direction of jock-style solo announcers Plan a special summit to consider broad our for each show programming issues programming

113 ‘PBS Staff Report’. 114 ‘PBS Staff Report’. 209

restriction of our promotion of announcers’ ‘personality’ review performance and direction of breakfast show

The six-monthly review process was swiftly implemented, resulting in the creation of the June 1997 grid. A description of this new grid was included in the station’s Ripples magazine, a one-page publication created in the 1990s and produced monthly for announcers. It contained mainly operational information like meeting dates, reminders for behaviour in studios and special guests on programs: The mornings will still have the mellow mix of under-represented music that no other Melbourne station offers. The afternoon shows early in the week follow a pattern of heavier music from to , and a Roots show follows for the next two hours. In the evening from to PBS FM will be bringing you a new strip of Indie and Rock based programs which will include new releases, interviews and tour gig information. Well experienced PBS announcers will be presenting these programmes. Late evenings and the weekends will not be changing too much. The to pm slots from Monday to Thursday will feature new jazz, unsigned artists and the arts and film programmes; with the to am slots featuring mainly techno/dance based programmes. Programmes are now, in general, two hours long, instead of ninety minutes.115

Documentation in Board papers from 1998 outlined the six-monthly grid review process, which is summarised in Table 30.

115 ‘Get with the Programme!’, Ripples, July 1997 in Board papers for 10 June 1997, PBS. 210

Table 30: 6-monthly grid review process, 1998116

Stage 1 Timetable Goals for the next grid, formal timetable for review process Stage 2 Identification of Aimed at supporting existing programs, improving ‘presentation, programs to be content, or associated issues’ reviewed Stage 3 Call for program Can be for programs within the existing timeslots or for new submissions programs outside the current format Stage 4 Consideration of ‘The Programming Committee will consider all submissions and programs and evaluations and make draft decisions about programme changes. decision-making These draft decisions and accompanying reasons will be tables with Category Co-Ordinators as a group and advice sought from them prior to final decisions being made.’ Final grid change proposal with reasons presented to the Board for ratification at least 4 weeks prior to the operation of the change Stage 5 Appeal process ‘Aggrieved announcers (either existing or proposing) may appeal to the Station Board, but only on the basis of arguing that station processes have not been adhered to.’ Stage 6 Public notification Publicised to subscribers and listeners at least 3 weeks prior to implementation

The document does not state when each new grid should be implemented, for example every January and June. This process clearly addresses the lack of programming decision-making I discussed in the previous section, a significant change from the monthly grid reviews in the 1980s and the ad hoc review processes in the early and mid-1990s. One year after this review process was implemented, Palermo wrote of its success to the Board: The station is relaxing into the idea of the six-monthly changes, this is a wonderful thing as people can see positive things happening and can feel that they have opportunities in the future.117

At the same time PBS introduced the six-monthly grid review process, the station implemented a number of other structural changes to the grid. Peter Chellew explained why he wanted to make listening more predictable by having program start and finish times consistent across the week:

116 ‘PBS-FM Programme Grid Review Process’, Board papers for 14 July 1998, PBS. 117 L. Palermo, ‘Programming Committee Report October 1998’, Board papers for 11 August 1998, PBS. 211

Ah, one of the things that we did in that first year with the program team – Programming Committee, was to kind of overhaul the structure of programming so that all the shows would start in the same band across the week, so that listeners could have some capability of knowing that the show’s about to start or there’s a change of program here. And you can understand why it got to that situation, it was ad hoc, and people might have a work commitment, ‘oh can I start half an hour later?’ ‘I can only do Wednesdays from three-fifteen to four-oh-five’ kind of thing – it was ridiculous actually. And so one of the things that we did was to overhaul programming in that sense of just making it more understandable so there was similar programming across the grid at a certain time of the day. For example, weekdays, mornings nine to twelve, whatever it would be, nine to eleven, and I mean that was about trying to be more understandable for an audience and helping to grow an audience and get a sense of – that PBS was really important and people really cared about it and that there were a decent number of people out there listening. And really at that time, we just did not have a sense of who was listening and who cared, you know? And … coming from Triple R and even FBi, you really get a sense that you’ve got tens and tens of thousands of people out there listening to every word and every song that’s broadcast, so, that was an important thing. And also just to position the station so that it would become more important in the lives of Melbourne’s own music and cultural community. And it is now, and I think we did achieve that and we did improve that.118

Chellew reflected that the grid lacked consistency due to leniency with announcers’ start times. Aligning the grid aimed to provide listeners with consistency and reliability, just like other stations, increasing listeners and PBS’ place within Melbourne’s music community. This realignment changed varying program times to a grid which almost resembles that of the 2010s. Table 31 and Table 32 show the grid before and after June 1997. The alternating blue and orange blocks represent program lengths, e.g. three hours 6:00–9:00am.

118 P. Chellew interview. 212

Table 31: Grid with 85 program timeslots, 1996

213

Table 32: New grid with 77 program timeslots, effective June 1997

This realignment reduced the number of programs from 85 to 77. Multi- announcer shows also officially ended. All programs with a specific music orientation (not breakfast or drive-time programs) were to have “no more than two regular announcers, or two sets of announcers (where approved), or alternating within one timeslot”.119 Although these were the most significant grid changes since the Major Programming Review ten years earlier, they did not appear to cause anywhere near the same level of contention. Analysis of programming data from 1996–1999, before and after the 1997 review, shows there was minimal change in the percentages of broadcast hours across most Tier 1 categories, as Figure 15 shows.

119 ‘Programming and Production Policy’, Board papers for 13 May 1997, PBS. 214

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 1996 1997 1998 1999

Electronic & Hip Hop Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Unknown Various World

Figure 15: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 1996–1999

The most significant changes here are the decrease in Unknown programs, because program grids from 1998 onwards included information about insomnia programs (2:00–6:00am), and the increase in Electronic & Hip Hop categories. This suggests the majority of insomnia programs were most likely Electronic & Hip Hop. Time-of-day analysis (6:00am–7:00pm, 7:00pm–6:00am) is similarly static. Day-of- the-week analysis suggests the greatest changes across this four-year period were programs moved to different days. Chellew recalled feedback from listeners was positive: ‘hey what’s up, PBS sounds really good!’ That was definitely the feeling that everyone got and that was a kick for everyone, from the staff to the announcers, ‘oh PBS is happening!’ You know, we actually created a bit of public awareness around – ‘I better give it a go!’ ‘I’ll flick across from Triple R’. We’re talking about the same audience,

215

which is music lovers for certain kinds of music. So yep, definitely at that time I think there was change and it was for the better.120

Not only did the changes appeal to existing listeners, they encouraged listeners from other stations to tune in.

5.3 Broadcast output

In the early 1990s, the results of changes implemented in February 1989 from the Major Programming Review were realised on-air. These changes included having more regular announcers, broader styles of music broadcast in each program and a more noticeable difference between the music broadcast during the day and specialist, one- hour programs in the evenings. Overall programming data from the 1990s is shown in Figure 16.

120 P. Chellew interview. 216

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Unknown World Various

Figure 16: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 1990s

There are three trends on which I comment from the data presented in Figure 16. First, Unknown data falls steeply towards the end of the decade. This is because programming grids began to regularly list insomnia programs, which is where the majority of unknown data was found, and because I could consistently access these grids once the internet site moved to being hosted by Vicnet in 1997. The second trend is an apparent increase in Hard ‘n’ Heavy and World programs, and a small increase in Funk & Soul programs. Hard ‘n’ Heavy maintained a high percentage of broadcast hours during the day until the late 1990s, when the trend began to hear this style of music at night. Table 33 compares the percentages of Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs broadcast during the day or at night and on weekdays or weekends during each decade.

217

Table 33: Percentage of Hard 'n' Heavy programs broadcast day or night, weekday or weekend, 1980s–2010s

Day Night Weekday Weekend 1980s 41% 69% 76% 24% 1990s 62% 38% 98% 2% 2000s 18% 81% 98% 2% 2010s 0% 100% 98% 2%

This data shows bias towards Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs at night except in the 1990s. It was the early 1990s when a series of four Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs were broadcast in the morning shift on weekdays, as listed in Table 34.

Table 34: Hard 'n' Heavy programs in morning shift, 1990s

Program name Day of week Years on-air Tier 2 styles (morning shift) Wake Up Wet Monday 1991–1995 Hardcore Rude Mechanical Wednesday 1997–2002 Techno, Industrial Switch On Thursday 1991–1997 Punk, Hardcore Annoy the Neighbours Thursday 1994–1996 Hardcore

Programming Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs during the day in the 1990s was an alternative approach to the other decades, and to what you might expect to hear on other radio stations. As Cameron Paine, head of the OB group in the 1980s, explained, Hard ‘n’ Heavy in the morning was a programming decision with merit for a station attempting to do things differently: there was an argument that I had some intellectual affection for which was that, rather than conforming to conventional media’s day parts, that we should actually challenge it – so we should actually have heavy metal or punk music at breakfast time.121

However, Adrian Basso, who began as station manager in 2007, reflected on the varying reactions to hearing Hardcore styles on Wake Up Wet at 9:00am on Mondays, a great way to start the week or a complete shock to the system:

121 C. Paine interview. 218

people often go ‘oh the good old days’ and I say ‘what when we were broke?’ [laughs] ‘Oh you know, when we had metal at eleven am in the morning’. ‘Yep, when we were broke!’ and probably when people weren’t listening then too.122

World programs began a gradual increase in percentage of broadcast hours after the 1989 Major Programming Review, increasing from 6% in the 1990s to 12% in 1999. The range of musical styles encompassed by the World category also expanded. Tier 2 data in Table 35 compares the styles of music played during World programs in the 1980s and 1990s.

Table 35: Comparison of Tier 2 Top 10 styles by broadcast hours, World, 1980s-2010s

Tier 2 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s World 215 1944 1254 1392 Reggae 1059 1094 856 1020 World – African 364 1102 1042 1276 Latin 10 808 1278 585 World – Acoustic 0 964 828 556 World – Dance 0 299 888 746 World – Folk 0 0 540 1042 World – Indigenous 18 78 832 504 World – Jazz 0 146 860 296 Dub 32 210 452 502

Further analysis shows that in the late 1980s and 1990s, some of the station’s longest running World programs began, as Table 36 shows.

Table 36: Long-running World programs starting in the late 1980s and 1990s

Program name Years on-air Tier 2 styles The Boite 1988–2004 World Continental Drift 1989–1999 Electronic, Ambient, Acoustic, Rock, Jazz, World Global Village 1990–present Acoustic Latin Connection 1993–2015 Latin Africa #1 1994–2006 African Planetary Chaos 1997–2008 Dance Border Crossings 1999–2012 Jazz

122 Adrian Basso interview, 6 February 2019. 219

The differences in Tier 2 styles presented in Table 35 and Table 36 are consistent with general debates about the use of the term ‘World’ to categorise music from non-Western countries. As Lena argued, World should be thought of as non- genred music.123 Originally the World music category was developed in 1987 as a marketing tool to expand the audience for African popular music.124 It encompasses a wide range of musical styles from many countries, the unifying factor being their creation or performance by those considered non-Western.125 Funk & Soul increased slightly, up by 2% over the decade, with 92.5% of programs broadcast during the day and an even split of 50% between weekdays and weekends. The third trend from Figure 16 is the modest change in percentages of broadcast hours for Blues & Roots, Contemporary Mix, Spoken Word and Jazz categories. Blues & Roots was very stable throughout the decade at a consistent 11% or 12%. The most change for the other categories occurred around 1997 and 1998 as part of the programming changes made during Chellew’s time as station manager. For example, Contemporary Mix peaked at 19% in 1997 and 1998. Spoken Word programs started their significant decline in 1997 when the station decided to remove Comedy programs. I discuss this decline, and eventual end, of Spoken Word programs in chapter 7. After their lowest period, Jazz programs began a slow increase in 1997, although throughout the decade they were a consistent presence during popular weekend programming. I discuss the place of Jazz further in the next chapter. Two categories I have not discussed here are Rock Indie and Electronic & Hip Hop. I explore this data further in the next section.

5.3.1 Negotiating subcultures: Rock Indie and Electronic & Hip Hop

Figure 16 shows a relatively steady percentage of broadcast hours for Rock Indie across the decade, whereas Electronic & Hip Hop increased from a low of 6% in 1992 to 22% in 1999. These two categories provide an interesting point of comparison.

123 J. Lena, Banding Together: How Communities Create Genres in Popular Music, Princeton UP, 2012, p. 21. 124 Lena, p. 21. 125 S. Frith, ‘The Discourse of World Music’ in G. Born and D. Hesmondhalgh (eds.), Western Music and Its Others, University of California Press, 2000, p. 305. 220

Hesmondhalgh observed that in the 1990s “the decentralizing impulse” of punk and alternative rock indie styles migrated to dance music.126 In other words, the alternative rock indie had once offered could now be found in electronic and hip hop styles. Just as punk had found its home on community radio stations in the 1980s, electronic and hip hop did so in the 1990s. In Australia, Gibson and Connell argued that much of these changes to independent and alternative music came with the commercial music festival scene.127 The Big Day Out, which began in Sydney in 1992 and expanded to Melbourne in 1993, was the Australian version of the American music festival Lollapalooza, which sought to commercialise the ‘coolness’ and desirability of alternative music scenes. The effect in Australia was a similar co-option of alternative music scenes.128 Alternative rock went mainstream, while electronic music became the new underground music of the 1990s. Remaining committed to broadcasting progressive music, PBS responded to the changing subcultural status of these categories in different ways. For Allyson Griffith, the station’s licence shaped her understanding of what it meant to be a broadcaster of progressive music in practical terms: The media licence was really important: we wore that specialist music label with a great amount of pride. If anyone from record labels came along that was commercial, it was no, no, no. I had Wendy Matthews on my show one day and wondered if she was too commercial. That’s what it meant to be progressive.129

In the Announcer Agreement, the definition of what it meant to not be progressive was explicit and it is the guideline which states: . You should not play current Top singles130

126 D. Hesmondhalgh, ‘Indie: The Institutional Politics and Aesthetics of a Popular Music Genre’, Cultural Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, 1999, p. 55. 127 C. Gibson and J. Connell, Music Festivals and Regional Development in Australia, 2011, Cornwall, UK, Ashgate, 2012. 128 Gibson and Connell. 129 A. Griffith interview. 130 ‘Announcer’s Agreement 1995/1996’. 221

Allowing pop songs on PBS was, as Havrillay described, the beginning of the end: “So if you go down the popularity path, you end up as a commercial radio station playing Top 40 music because that is the path you are headed in.”131 Similarly, Palermo explained the station’s “black and white” attitude to popular commercial music: I walked in here today [for the interview] and I heard Sade being played on the radio. Great song, it’s many years since that came out, it has a different meaning now than it did when it came out in the eighties and it was a pop hit, but, you know, in my time, nobody ever, ever, ever would have played something like Sade, because it was commercial, you know. So we were very much looking for – we were the ‘alternative’ voice, we were the alternative sound, it was very important. So that was the main criteria that everybody was very clear on. We didn’t have a problem with that, it was a very black-and-white decision to make – ‘you know what? You’re playing Sade, that’s not right, you can’t do that, you’re not right’.132

Rubin observed similar prohibitions on mainstream music at other music community radio stations.133 He argued such limitations on what could be broadcast cultivated a “sort of broad ‘ideological coherence’” that limited access only to announcers who wanted to play such music, maintaining the alternative option music community stations offered to commercial stations.134 As shown in the quotes above, and as I discussed earlier with the reaction to Cameron Reyntjes and the commercialisation he was seen to epitomise, PBS volunteers wanted the station to maintain its alternative to the mainstream. In the next section, I explore the station’s different approaches to programming rock indie and electronic and hip hop musical styles within the context of a changing subcultural music scene.

131 G. Havrillay interview. 132 L. Palermo interview. 133 Rubin, p. 212. 134 Rubin, p. 213. 222

Rock Indie According to Hesmondhalgh, by the mid-1990s the term indie had “lost much of its oppositional edge”, describing it as changing to “a set of sounds and an attitude, rather than an aesthetic and institutional position”.135 In theory, PBS as a broadcaster of under-represented music should have reduced the amount of independent and alternative rock programs because of their increasing presence in the mainstream. However, as seen in Figure 17, Tier 4 data reveals the use of ‘independent’, and ‘alternative’ to describe Rock Indie programs on PBS peaked in the 1990s.

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

Independent Alternative Mainstream

Figure 17: Comparison of broadcast hours, use of terms independent, alternative and mainstream in Rock Indie programs, 1980s–2010s

This data suggests PBS rode the popularity wave of alternative and independent music, advertising the broadcast of these types of music more in the 1990s than in any other decade. However as a powerful mediator in the production of culture, PBS broadcasting this music may be a large part of why it became popular.136 In taking advantage of this popularity, Reyntjes suggested announcers tried to stay ahead of the trend, but that became increasingly difficult:

135 Hesmondhalgh, ‘Indie: The Institutional Politics‘, p. 51–52. 136 Percival, ‘Music Radio’. 223

in a way, we want to play stuff that no one else is playing and we want to play stuff that’s interesting and we want to play stuff that can educate and have an outreach for that genre of music. Non-commercially, largely, but that’s – that became really hard as well, because in the nineties all the non-commercial stuff started to become commercial … We were the first guys to play – some of the dance music we were playing like CNC Music Factory, it just wasn’t played on … within a year it was mainstream. So we would often be the first place to play stuff.137

Taking a closer look at how the station managed the increase in popularity of Rock Indie styles, Tier 2 data in Table 37 compares the top 10 Tier 2 styles in the 1980s and 1990s by broadcast hours for Rock Indie programs.

Table 37: Comparison of Tier 2 top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Rock Indie, 1980s–2010s

1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Rock 2887 3241 2995 2607 Rock & Roll 894 0 932 3264 Rock – Alternative 65 2189 940 434 Various 596 24 348 2561 New Wave 2297 0 268 0 Punk 1107 315 290 664 Pop 29 1322 457 280 Pop Rock 590 567 156 0 Hip Hop 2 0 270 438 Symphonic Rock 683 0 0 0

This data shows a change in the types of music broadcast between the 1980s and 1990s. New Wave and Punk, musical styles integral to PBS’ 1980s sound, were replaced by Rock – Alternative and Pop styles. As Palermo and Havrillay recounted at the start of this section, playing pop music was not acceptable on PBS. Considering this aversion, the inclusion of Pop to describe some of these Rock Indie programs is surprising. However, as their Tier 3 descriptions in Table 38 show, almost all of these programs from the 1980s and 1990s used the term in combination with ‘independent’ to indicate alternative.

137 C. Reyntjes interview. 224

Table 38: Rock Indie programs with ‘Pop’ in Tier 3 description, 1980s and 1990s

Program name Years on-air Tier 3 description Radio Pop 1980–1986 Pop Rock Witch in the Colours 1985–1989 Pop Rock [among others] Like Endless Summer 1986–1987 Pop Rock Power Pop 1987–1988 Power Pop Packin' Death Show 1989–1990 US Indie Pop Still Thinking 1989–1990 Australian Pop Reasons to be Cheerful 1990–1996 Independent Pop and Rock Season's Pass 1990–1993 Indie Pop Method Air 1990–1997 British Indie Pop and Dance Kickstart 1993–1998 Independent Pop and Rock Fractured Bliss 1997–2001 US lo-fi/Scot Pop Brave New Waves 1993–1996 Indie Pop Sonic Eclipse 1997 Independent Pop and Rock Indisposable 1998–2001 Indie Pop

As this table shows, the consistent use of independent applies from the late 1980s, showing a desire (or need) to make this distinction in the 1990s. The terms pop or pop rock were used to describe only four more Rock Indie programs that started in the 2000s or 2010s.

Table 39: Rock Indie programs with ‘Pop’ in Tier 3 description, 2000s and 2010s

Program name Years on-air Tier 3 description Girl Germs 2001–2002 All girl Indie Pop Vegas Baby, Vegas 2004 Indie, Pop, Rock Enter the Dragon 2006–2015 Asian Pop Radio City 2008–2011, Rock, Pop, Roots* 2016–present *When Radio City restarted in 2016, the description had changed to Rock and Roots.

Electronic & Hip Hop Just like rock indie styles, much of the growth in electronic music occurred at music festivals; however, these festivals were much smaller and not funded by corporates. At underground raves and dance parties, the central person was the DJ, who, with the help of mind-altering substances, played music that could excite crowds into having the best night of their lives. DJs working at these raves were part of the first wave of

225

applicants in the late 1980s and early 1990s, seeking to present Electronic & Hip Hop programs on PBS. Harley and Murphie noted alternative and community radio stations broadcasting electronica were “tak[ing] up the slack” left by other stations. Most commercial radio stations simply refused to broadcast electronic music. At Triple J, internal tensions limited the broadcast of electronic music; “rock and ‘indie’ music listeners felt threatened” when more electronic music was played.138 Green mused: Perhaps it was the nature of public-access radio, it reflected what the public offered – i.e. what type of program submissions were received: at any given point in time there were then-popular genres which were particularly enthused-over at that point in time. Trends. It ebbed and flowed, sometimes with what seemed like suddenness at the time (e.g. the surge of electronic dance program submissions in the early nineties).139

Paine similarly debated whether PBS set or followed new music trends: “it’d be really tempting to suggest that PBS is a trendsetter … but I think no, it’s following the crowd”.140 Despite its popularity, Electronic & Hip Hop programs were frequently relegated to overnight slots until 1997: “it just kind of fitted a bit in there, and it was late-night stuff, and in – let’s call them ‘minor slots’”,141 as seen in Figure 18.

138 R. Harley and A. Murphie, ‘Australian Electronica, a Brief History’ in S. Homan and T. Mitchell (eds.), Sounds of Then, Sounds of Now: Popular music in Australia, Tasmania, ACYS Publishing, 2008, p. 102. 139 A. Green interview. 140 C. Paine interview. 141 P. Chellew interview. 226

5% 5%

Night

44% Evening Morning Drive

44% Afternoon

Figure 18: Percentage of broadcast hours, time of day, Electronic & Hip Hop programs, 1990s

From 1997, although Electronic & Hip Hop programs had the second highest percentage of broadcast hours, this data shows almost 90% were broadcast in the 7:00pm–6:00am ‘minor’ timeslots, during either evening (7:00pm–12:00am) or night (12:00am–6:00am) shifts. Fellow progressive music community radio station in Adelaide, 3D, had a similar experience in the 1990s balancing the new, alternative dance scene with a station culture entrenched in indie rock: There is little doubt that, for a large number of young people, dance music and dance culture represent the rebellious alternative. D comes from a rock background which is dismissed as passé by the rave scene. It does program a fair bit of dance music, but it does so as ‘specialist music’ (i.e. like jazz, blues, metal et cetera) rather than ‘general music’. Dance is not really part of the station culture. This unofficial policy may come back to haunt the station if it does not incorporate the dance scene into its makeup.142

Long‐running Electronic & Hip Hop programs (10 years and above) that began as part of the surge of electronic dance programs in the late 1980s and early 1990s are listed in Table 40.

142 Bagust, p. 7. 227

Table 40: Long-running Electronic & Hip Hop programs beginning in late 1980s – early 1990s

Program name Years on-air Tier 2 styles Interzone 1988–1998 Techno Hybrid 1990–2004 Ambient Into the Groovy 1990–2002 Pop, Dance (1990–1998) Dub (1998–2002) Gravity 1991–2003 Dance, Soul C.A.T. [Creative Alternative Techno] 1994–2011 Techno

Change within the Electronic & Hip Hop category between the 1980s and 1990s can be assessed using Tier 2 data. Table 41 compares the top 10 most broadcast Tier 2 styles across the 1980s–2010s.

Table 41: Comparison of Electronic & Hip Hop Tier 2 styles, 1980s–2010s

Tier 2 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Electronic 324 2209 3685 4414 Hip Hop 75 1621 2174 2593 Dance 252 1995 2439 1380 Techno 25 1442 1521 194 Experimental 645 418 360 1246 Beats 0 12 588 1277 Ambient 483 780 398 0 Soul 0 78 324 1226 Electronic – Downtempo 0 0 340 1122 Psychedelia 32 254 830 148

This data demonstrates general, significant increases in Electronic, Dance, Hip Hop, Dance and Techno styles. Of these Tier 2 musical styles, Techno is a particularly interesting example of PBS’ response to a subcultural musical style, as I show in the next section.

228

Techno An unnamed drive program, the Student Access Breakfast Show and This Island Earth were the first programs on PBS to advertise broadcasting techno music in 1986. Figure 19 shows Techno’s presence on PBS’ airwaves, particularly between 1994 and 1999. By 2012, it was no longer used to describe any program on the grid. Techno was big at PBS when the dance music scene was also at its strongest.143

600

500

400

300

200

100

Figure 19: The rise and fall of Tier 2 category, Techno, by broadcast hours, 1979-2019

A list of programs which regularly broadcast techno appears in Table 42. Almost all were Electronic & Hip Hop; two were Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs and the newest, Underground Love, was a Rock Indie program.

143 Harley and Murphie. 229

Table 42: Programs which broadcast Techno music, 1979-2019

Program name Years on-air Tier 1 category Tier 3 descriptions This Island Earth 1986 Electronic & Hip Hop Techno Interzone 1988–1998 Electronic & Hip Hop Techno, techno dance Rude Mechanical 1990–2002 Hard ‘n’ Heavy Technology inspired releases, avant garde to contemporary techno, industrial techno, eclectic and electric Mental F.M. 1991–1994 Electronic & Hip Hop Techno dance Intoxication 1991–1994 Electronic & Hip Hop Techno dance Tronic Voodoo 1993–1999 Hard ‘n’ Heavy Hardcore techno, techno Exorcism C.A.T. 1994–2011 Electronic & Hip Hop Techno, techno dance, electronic music buffet Cyberdada 1994–2002 Electronic & Hip Hop Experimental, tribal, trance, techno, electronic grooves True 1994–1999 Electronic & Hip Hop Techno dance, drum and bass Hallucination PBS Techno 1994 Electronic & Hip Hop Techno dance Filter 1999–2000 Electronic & Hip Hop Techno Bionik 2000–2004 Electronic & Hip Hop Techno, tech-house & occasionally some booty Underground Love 2019–present Rock Indie Underground & DIY … punk & garage to house & techno

Owen McKern, PBS program manager in the 2010s and avid community radio listener in the 1990s, provided an explanation for techno’s evolution at PBS: I often tell people, I remember long, long, long before I worked at PBS, PBS had a reputation as being a real techno station. Round my traps, people would say ‘yeah, PBS is the techno station’. Which is very, very interesting. If you ask some of our older volunteers here, they’ll talk about PBS has always been a punk station. But I do remember that period in the nineties where rave culture and that sort of thing was big, that PBS reflected that very, very strongly. I would think, and it’s purely my own understanding of the scene, that that kind of rave culture no longer really exists and I’m sure there’s still people who would really like to hear more of that on-air, and perhaps we don’t have enough, but it’s certainly not the scene that it was. And the fact that we have a lot less of that kind of music now than we did, say, twenty years ago,

230

well, that actually is kind of our charter to represent the community, communities shift and change. It’s inevitable.144

McKern’s comments support my argument that programming decisions at PBS were consistent with the station’s position as a subcultural intermediary. The rock indie and techno examples I have discussed are evidence of different approaches to managing popularity in subcultural musical styles. In the case of techno, PBS’ mission to broadcast under-represented music was realised in its peak of subcultural popularity. As this popularity waned, techno disappeared from the airwaves. On the other hand, rock indie went from a position of being under-represented to popular and somewhat mainstream, but remained on PBS through a progressive vision to seek out novel independent styles. Rock Indie has continued to grow in its percentage of broadcast hours, as discussed in the next two chapters.

Conclusions

In the 1990s, PBS had the highest number of station managers (three) in any one decade. I have explained these changes in station management and how each new manager interpreted their role. Mazz Knott resigned in 1992 after five years. The BSA was implemented in the same year, bringing significant changes to, and expansion of, the media landscape. The BSA commercialised PBS from the outside, requiring all stations, new and old, to become financially self-reliant. Inside PBS, some level of commercialisation was the only way the Board saw for the station to survive. Cameron Reyntjes’ appointment as station manager crystallised commercialisation fears among many of the station’s volunteers and PBS adopted some commercial practices in its marketing campaigns, popular music events and greater alignment of the grid. Reyntjes was succeeded by Peter Chellew, who was experienced in community radio and known to many at PBS. The formalisation and documentation of programming decision-making processes was a key reason for the improvement in the quality of PBS’ broadcast

144 Owen McKern interview, 18 October 2018. 231

output in this decade. These documents, and descriptions from interviewees, reaffirmed the value the station placed on its democratic, decentralised programming structure. For the first time, there were formal documents and processes for announcers’ behaviour on-air and in the studio. To ease the process of making changes to the grid, the PPC implemented six-monthly grid reviews in 1997, making programming changes more consistent and their timing more predictable. However, as Lisa Palermo recounted, making programming decisions remained very stressful, a significant burden for a volunteer. Programming data revealed the impact on categories after the implementation of the 1989 Major Programming Review. Electronic & Hip Hop and World categories grew the most. The growth in World programs is consistent with the broader creation of the category by marketing executives in 1987. Blues & Roots and Funk & Soul categories did not experience significant change in percentages of broadcast hours over the decade; however, the time of day they were broadcast started to trend towards 6:00am–7:00pm, instead of being spread across the day and night. PBS in the 1990s was, like many other alternative music scenes, dominated by rock indie and electronic and hip hop styles. Rock indie was big on PBS in the 1980s and stayed big in the 1990s, but Tier 2 and Tier 4 data showed programs moved away from playing the 1980s punk and new wave styles towards alternative rock and pop rock in the 1990s. This increase in Rock Indie programs, particularly with the use of terms like pop rock and alternative rock, could have added to the sense of commercialisation at the station. These concerns, and the desire to differentiate itself from the mainstream, explain the use of independent when describing these ‘pop’ programs. Although Electronic & Hip Hop was the big growth story of the decade, most of this growth occurred outside the most popular timeslots. For Electronic & Hip Hop programs, although they made up the second highest amount of broadcast output, almost 90% of these programs were on-air over 7:00pm–6:00am. Some of this night- time programming matched the nature of the movement: the music was played at nightclubs and parties, and on weekends. This programming was also a reflection of the newness and level of acceptance of these styles ‘relegated’ to overnight shifts. My

232

analysis of techno as a sub-genre within Electronic & Hip Hop has shown its rise and fall were especially concentrated in this decade. Its return to the airwaves in 2019 may suggest it is under-represented on other radio stations or is experiencing a small revival in subcultural music scenes. In the next chapter, I explore how the introduction of a paid program manager changed the structure of programming at PBS, challenging and then reinvigorating the station’s commitment to democratic, cooperative programming decision-making.

233

6. 2000s: “This station’s problems were programming, because from

programming everything flowed”1

- Roger Jones, station manager

6.1 Introduction

In 2002, PBS created the position of paid program manager to address many of the concerns raised in the 1990s about the stresses of programming decisions and the lack of programming changes. For the first time since the 1989 Major Programming Review, broadcast output underwent wholesale review in 2005. Unlike the 1989 review, the result was minimal changes in the overall shares of airtime occupied by major music categories, but significant changes in the timing of their broadcast across the weekly schedule. The 2005 review was controversial because of limited input from the PPC. This aggrieved the committee and some of the station’s longest serving announcers. Recommendations from two Board reviews into programming practices redefined and reinforced democratic principles in programming decision-making. In the remainder of this first section, I describe sector-wide developments that affected PBS’ broadcast output, primarily the federal government’s support for Australian music on community radio stations and the issues around digital radio. I introduce the new station manager appointed in July 2000 and his goals for PBS, including his immediate identification of programming as the station’s weakest point. In section 6.2, I use oral history interviews and archival data to demonstrate how and why programming decisions were made outside of the committee structure. Oral history data is particularly useful in this chapter because it offers multiple perspectives on these events. I describe the program manager role and its introduction in section 6.2.1, then I use programming data to assess changes made to the grid in 2005 (6.2.2) and breakfast programming (6.2.3). Finally, I explain reactions to these changes in 6.2.4.

1 Roger Jones interview, 18 March 2019. 234

The third section of this chapter looks more broadly at the station’s sound before and after the 2005 grid changes. Programming data shows trends established or cemented at that time largely continued to the end of the decade. One of the most significant trends was the timing of programs; for example, Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs were scheduled only at night on weekdays.

6.1.1 Digital development affects the sector

Digital technology was rapidly transforming the music business by removing the physical barriers which had restricted its discovery, delivery and reception. In 1998, following the introduction of legislation to allow parallel importing of music on CDs, the government announced a $10 million compensation package for the Australian music industry.2 $1.5 million of this money went to improving the distribution of Australian music to community radio stations by establishing the Australian Music Radio Airplay Project (AMRAP).3 Many announcers and stations did not have access to a broad range of new and local music in the late 1990s due to limited record libraries and interest from record companies.4 AMRAP commenced in 2000 and was still in operation in 2019, promoting the established system of exposure on community radio for Australian bands5 by providing a central resource for community radio stations. While the internet, Myspace and streaming services alleviated the problem of finding unsigned artists and new songs, AMRAP still acts as a free central point of distribution for new Australian music. To use AMRAP, any Australian musicians, record labels and artist representatives can apply to have up to three of their latest tracks uploaded to the website.6 AMRAP uses information from the application form to list the tracks by genre or music provider (typically the record label). Any Australian community radio

2 P. Mason, ‘Australian Community Broadcasting’, Music in Australia, 2007, www.musicinaustralia.org.au/index.php/Australian_Community_Broadcasting (accessed 6 June 2019). 3 Thompson, p. 25. 4 Thompson, p. 25. 5 Thompson, p. 25. 6 Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, AMRAP AirIT [website], https://airit.org.au (accessed 6 June 2019). 235

station music coordinator or program-maker (producer or announcer) can listen to these tracks and request to download them. The service is available only to community stations, so commercial stations and Triple J do not have access. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the federal government announced its policy for digital radio and television in 1998.7 In 2000, the Productivity Commission labelled the convergence of technology, broadcasting, telecommunications and the internet a “revolution” to media consumers and producers.8 The benefits of digital television led the report to recommend switching off analogue transmission by 2009. The same was not recommended for analogue radio because of the cost and minimal benefits; existing analogue radio stations were therefore required to simulcast on both analogue and digital stations.9 Arguing for community broadcasting’s “immense value … to Australian society”,10 in 2007 the Standing Committee on Communications recommended increasing government funding so community broadcasters could afford to transition to digital technologies.11 As discussed in the following chapter, this funding was secured in 2011.

6.1.2 A new station manager and a new home

Peter Chellew had resigned in June 2000 due to what he described as problems with certain members of the Board.12 In July 2000, Roger Jones began as the new station manager, remaining until December 2006. Unlike previous station managers, Jones had no experience in radio, music or the media and a very limited record collection: if they’d come to my place and looked at my record collection, I had the full set of Tom Jones. I think I had one CD of Chumbawumba for Christ’s sake … I became a born-again Christian to music over the next six years.13

7 R. Alston, ‘Digital Radio Services Available by 2001’ [media release], Parliament House, Canberra, March 1998. 8 Productivity Commission, Broadcasting, Melbourne, Productivity Commission, 2000, p. 5. 9 Productivity Commission, p. 18. 10 Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, ‘Terms of Reference’, Tuning in to Community Broadcasting, House of Representatives, Canberra, ACT, June 2007, p. 157. 11 Standing Committee, p. 157. 12 P. Chellew interview. 13 R. Jones interview. 236

Instead, Jones brought to the role 25 years of army service, a Master of Business Administration and project management experience with a large housing construction company. He applied because the small advert in the newspaper caught his attention: “Are you interested in running your own radio station?” Jones said the Board was looking for a logical, calm and strategic approach to addressing the station’s financial problems: I brought discipline to it … The station was panicking when I arrived. They couldn’t pay the bills. Telstra had sent several threats saying they’re going to disconnect, and of course telephone lines and the rest was our link to Mount Dandenong and backup and those sorts of things, so it was problematic, and there was a panic going on and I – in my mind, they were panicking over nothing. They had debt and they had problems, but they weren’t current problems, they were non-current problems. They were problems that needed to be sorted out in the next year, but there was time. And equally, I think there was a tendency amongst the station to be looking at all the negatives.14

The chair of the Board counselled Jones to conceal his differences to maximise his chances of fitting in, remembering the lessons of Cameron Reyntjes ten years earlier: Iian [Denham, chair of the Board] called me up and said ‘we’d like to offer you the job’. I said ‘great, I’ll take it’ and he said ‘right, I need to tell you…’, he said, ‘two things: one, don’t tell any of the staff you’re ex-army and two, don’t wear a suit’.15

Spending day and night at the station, Jones met all 170-odd announcers within his first three weeks in the role.16 His first major task was to move the station from its 25-year home in the Park Lake Building in St Kilda. The landlord wanted new tenants who could afford to pay more for the lease. Without the money to buy, Jones needed to find large, cheap commercial premises to rent. In 2001, PBS moved to 47 Easey Street in Collingwood, ‘north of the river’, and with the help of many volunteers

14 R. Jones interview. 15 R. Jones interview. 16 R. Jones interview. 237

completed what would normally be a half-million dollar task spending only $40,000.17 There has long been a north/south of the river divide in Melbourne where people from one side claim never to cross the Yarra River because there is nothing worth visiting on the other side.18 Moving a community organisation from its community of 30-odd years could have been a problem for the station: Did it [PBS] have its own other kind of more cultural sound? Yes, it did and I think being, it was a south-of-the-river station in those eras, and that was really important to the station that it was St Kilda based. And all through the eighties and nineties, St Kilda was the home of the music scene. It was where the musicians lived. Everyone moved down there. Later than that, I guess Fitzroy [north-of-the-river suburb] became the place, but St Kilda was the place. So it was St Kilda’s station, and I guess politically, its sound on-air politically reflected that, that it was part of the south of the river. Triple R was north of the river, PBS was south.19

The move was eased and caused by demographic change. During the 1990s, St Kilda had started to gentrify. Fitzroy and nearby suburbs Collingwood and Brunswick were attracting musicians and creative types who had once called St Kilda home. Even though Lisa Palermo, an announcer since 1988 and chair of the programming committee in the 1990s, did not consider PBS’ location important, a ‘north of the river’ location made sense: St Kilda in the beginning, in the seventies and then the eighties and even in the nineties, sure, St Kilda was a great place for it, St Kilda was very vibrant in terms of music. There were lots of venues, there were gigs, there was the Espy, there was the strong relationship we had with the Espy, and the live-to-airs and the gigs we would do there and all of that kind of stuff. But Melbourne’s changed and St Kilda’s changed, and even at the time that we moved here, that change was happening. The gigs were starting to drop off, the music culture was coming over to the north side. So in actual fact PBS, probably, if the physical location of the radio station was important, then it probably makes a lot of sense for PBS to be over north side in Collingwood.20

17 R. Jones interview. 18 See N. Craig, ‘A City Divided’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 February 2012, www.smh.com.au/entertainment/a-city-divided-20120202-1quub.html. 19 P. Chellew interview. 20 L. Palermo interview. 238

PBS began broadcasting from its new Collingwood studios at 47 Easey Street on 27 November 2001. In 2003, promotion of PBS’ programming increased when it recommenced publishing a magazine for the public, the first since the Static magazines in 1989. The first three editions were called Over Easy; since then, it has been called Easey and published twice a year. It features articles about announcers and their programs, musicians and music events happening around Melbourne and a centrefold programming grid. Programming information available on the website since the mid- 1990s was gaining more traffic due to regular updates of other information such as events the station was hosting or sponsoring, gig guides and albums of the week. For PBS’ 30th birthday in 2009, the promotional tag of “Home of Little-heard Music”21 was adopted. For some announcers like Helen Jennings who had been a volunteer with PBS since 1984, this sounded like an apology. Jennings’ description of her protest at the phrase demonstrates the widespread belief in the station’s mission to broadcast under-represented music and to do so unapologetically: Years ago we had some bright advertising executive decided that we needed rebranding and came up with this tag ‘little-heard music’ and I absolutely – and just about every single announcer – I can’t think of anyone who was happy with it. I actually said ‘I refuse to use that on-air’ … ‘Little-heard music’ – it was like we were apologising … And that’s the one thing about PBS, we don’t apologise for playing the music that we love.22

In its third decade of broadcasting, PBS’ original values of playing under-represented, alternative music remained.

21 ‘AGM Minutes’, 26 November 2008, PBS. 22 H. Jennings interview. 239

6.2 Programming policies, processes and people

In the 2000s, PBS significantly changed its programming structures and on-air sound. These changes were supported by the Board and implemented by the new station manager, Roger Jones, and program manager, Hugo T. Armstrong. In this section, I explore these new programming practices and the implications of these decisions. Once the station’s relocation was complete, Jones turned his attention to its financial position. Although my research partnership with PBS precludes me from publishing specific accounting information, the nature of the debt was long term and significant. Aside from managing ongoing debt by arranging payment plans for outstanding invoices, Jones considered the station’s programming its biggest problem: Programming. Pure and simple, pure and simple. This station’s problems were programming, because from programming everything flowed. You can’t talk about ‘well, we don’t have enough revenue’, ‘why don’t you have enough revenue?’, ‘because we don’t have enough subscribers or enough sponsors’, they’re the two main sources of revenue. ‘Why don’t you have enough sponsors?’, ‘well, because our audience figures are too small to attract big sponsors’. ‘Why don’t you have enough subscribers?’, ‘because we’ve milked our group of listeners’. Well, there’s your problem, you’ve got to grow your listenership. If you grow your listenership, sponsorship, subscription will follow.23

In 2000, during his first year, Jones sought to change the way the PPC and category coordinators were elected. In 2001, the station’s first Policy and Procedure Handbook was published, providing a definitive timeline for the changes in this decade. According to Jones, a lack of direction in strategy throughout the 1990s had resulted in the PPC making decisions based on individual announcers in individual timeslots, rather than taking a holistic view of the station’s broadcast output from the listener’s perspective: My view of the problems with the Programming Committee at the time was that they didn’t have clear direction about what was needed for the station, to progress the

23 R. Jones interview. 240

station. … Their main job, as they saw it, was to honour the licence of the station, which was to be a diverse music of under-represented styles. There was no consideration about listening audience, and most of the programming was basically identifying fill-ins for people who were leaving because they’d had enough or they’re moving interstate or they wanted a break or whatever else. In other words … the experimental industrial sounds show. I asked why that was on when it was on and the answer was, ‘that’s the only announcer we could find who was prepared to do that shift on a daytime’ … you ended up with this really disruptive, chaotic programming schedule that did nothing to hold an audience to the station … Although there was a structure, the decision-making process within the station was ad hoc, and it had been delegated and it was not being controlled by the Board.24

Here, Jones described how decentralised decision-making processes resulted in little change to the grid. Lack of direction from the Board, combined with the PPC’s reluctance to consider the whole grid or remove underperforming programs, made the station sound “chaotic”. Jones sought to increase the role of strategic planning and the number of people involved with programming decisions. He wanted “reform of the Programming Committee (PC) in relation to both its structures and operation”.25 While I was unable to find Jones’ original discussion paper in PBS’ archives, minutes from the Board meeting on 23 April 2001 provide some detail about the decisions taken: RJ [Roger Jones] proposed that the Programming Committee comprise the nominated Board member, the station music manager, to elected members. These member [sic] are to be elected by vote of the members of the Programming Planning Group, as previously discussed, less any PC members that are up for election vote. Any person is eligible for nomination who is a subscriber. Resolved as such. RJ [Roger Jones] proposed that the Category Coordinators be appointed at first instance by the Programming Committee, but if a majority of announcers in that category object in writing to that appointment then a new person shall be appointed. Same was resolved by the Board.26

24 R. Jones interview. 25 ‘Extraordinary Board Meeting minutes’, 23 April 2001, PBS. 26 ‘Extraordinary Board Meeting minutes’, 23 April 2001. 241

In the 1990s, three members of the PPC were nominated by the Board and two by fellow announcers at station meetings.27 Jones’ changes moved responsibility for electing PPC members wholly to a new group, the Program Planning Group (PPG). This meant instead of three groups responsible for programming decisions in the 1990s (see Figure 14), programming decision-makers expanded to four groups plus three subcommittees. The structure in 2001 and each group’s responsibilities are summarised in Table 43.

Table 43: Programming structure, 200128

Group Members Responsibilities Board Chair, Secretary, Treasurer and Corporate governance four members (Station Manager is not a member of the Board but attends meetings) Program Nominated Chair, Board (7), Meets ‘bi-annually in May and November to Planning Programming Committee (7), consider and establish program objectives for Group (PPG) Category Coordinators (10), the next 12 month period’ Station Manager Programming Music Manager and 5 subscribers Decide vacant programs to be filled, in line with committee PPG objectives (PC) Identify opportunities to place submissions of new types of programs Make adjustments to program timings to take into account PPG objectives and existing announcer ‘time change’ submissions (when an announcer asks to be moved to a different timeslot due to other commitments) Category 1 announcer per music category Coordinate fill-in announcers Coordinators (10) Act as liaison between announcer and PC Represent category, raise any issues with PC or Board (and see subcommittee groups) Subcommittees: Program at least one member of the PC Discipline announcers who have contravened Discipline and the relevant category PBS guidelines coordinator Program at least one member of the PC Review programs within category in accordance Review and the relevant category with PBS guidelines coordinator

27 ‘3PBS-FM Programming Structure’. 28 PBS 106.7 Station Policy and Procedure Handbook, June 2001, PBS. 242

Submission 2 members of the PC, the Review submissions (demos) from prospective Assessment relevant category coordinator announcers Group plus one (either from the same category or an outside specialist of that category, as chosen by the category coordinator)

Three aspects of Table 43 are notable. First, the three subcommittees formalised existing practices and shifted the responsibility for individual announcers back to category coordinators. Second, ‘Music Manager’ is a term I came across only a few times in my research, the first time being the in the late 1990s. It appears to have been a paid administrative position and did not have any real influence on programming decisions.29 The Program Manager, who was influential in programming decisions, replaced this role in 2002. I discuss this in the next subsection. Third, and perhaps most significant, was the attempt at further democratising and decentralising the process with multiple committees. For the first time, all musical categories were represented on the PPC. Garry Havrillay, a Board member in the 2000s, described how before, it was possible for all five members of the PPC to be from one music category: the Programming Committee of five members plus the station manager, they weren’t category coordinators necessarily. They might have had both roles, but they weren’t necessarily category coordinators. So you didn’t necessarily have representation or input of ideas from people across the whole musical spectrum of the station until that time that the seven category coordinators were asked to be on the Programming Committee itself. That was a good move obviously, to make that happen.30

Another attempt to further democratise programming was the entirely new PPG, introduced: by PBS’s Board in in response to criticisms that the long-standing voluntary Programming Committee was open to arbitrariness & favouritism. The membership of the PPG was Board & Category Representatives and its role was to generate high-level

29 A. Green interview. 30 G. Havrillay interview. 243

strategy or ‘blueprints’ regarding programming. Detailed programming decisions and communications were to be left to an operational role: this was initially the longstanding voluntary Programming Committee and, from , a paid Programs Manager.31

The aim of the PPG was strategic, to act “with the PBS mission in mind … to produce programming objectives for the next 12 months”.32 The range of people involved would better represent broader station and listener interests when setting these objectives, required to consider: - That there is a reasonable balance of programming across the PBS spectrum - Identify those particular types of program not currently represented or under represented on the PBS grid - Identify those particular types of program, which may be over represented on the PBS grid - That PBS meets any statutory requirement of programming (ie. Spoken word, Australian content, etc). - The number of programs that should be reserved for new or innovative submissions - The overall flow of the PBS grid both vertically by day and horizontally by time slot - The development of PBS web casting - Any other criteria, which might identify clearer planning decisions - Do any changes conflict with similar shows on other stations?33

The PPG’s decisions were published in two ways: an email was sent after each meeting to all PBS announcers and other active volunteers, and printed copies were posted throughout the station. Results were also presented to shareholders at the AGM.34 The PPC was responsible for the implementation of the PPG’s “strategic objectives” and had up to two reviews of the grid (i.e. one year) to achieve the

31 A. Hollo, ‘Board Paper #1: Program Planning & the PPG’, papers for meeting May 2006, PBS, pp. 4–5. 32 PBS 106.7 Station Policy and Procedure Handbook. 33 PBS 106.7 Station Policy and Procedure Handbook. 34 PBS 106.7 Station Policy and Procedure Handbook. 244

objectives.35 The PPC was also responsible for reviewing new program submissions. Submissions which helped achieve strategic objectives could be incorporated into the draft grid, along with reasons for the proposed changes, which would then be presented to the Board: The Board may, after considering the Programming Committee proposal, ask the Committee to reconsider any number of aspects. Once the Board is satisfied that full and fair consideration of the submissions has been carried out and that the Program Planning Group objectives have been met to the best of the Committee’s ability, the grid change will be ratified.36

All these steps were designed to invigorate the station with a renewed sense of democratic, cooperative programming where each category would have the opportunity to have input into programming decisions. This process was used for a few years; however, as discussed in the next section, by 2005 it had changed again.

6.2.1 Employing a program manager

As we saw in chapter 5, programming decision-making had become more stressful as the station grew in popularity. The next restructure to programming was the employment of a paid program manager. In Jones’ opinion, a PPC consisting of announcers with a vested interest in staying on-air were not able to make unbiased programming decisions. He needed someone who could create a more listener- friendly grid, the creation of which would require moving – or removing – programs that announcers themselves wanted to retain: the real problem was that it was a cultural issue, in a big way, and again this is quite unique, I can’t think of many other industries where this is such the case – the bulk of the volunteers are the announcers, that’s the hardcore group of them, but of course, there’s a sort of – when you start talking about programming, there’s a self-survival element to their part of a discussion. You’re not going to get an unbiased discussion about the pros and cons of programming. You’ll get people – it was quite common to

35 PBS 106.7 Station Policy and Procedure Handbook. 36 PBS 106.7 Station Policy and Procedure Handbook. 245

hear people say ‘oh yes, I think we should have more of that on or more of this on, but don’t touch my show’. Great, well – and that extended for years.37

The Board decided in 2002 the program manager would be:

responsible for carrying out the directives of the PPG as well as disciplinary and emergency programming issues. This person would control a super-structure similar in make-up to the existing Programming Committee with genre-appointed representatives/advisers.38

The PPC did not provide input into the decision to employ a program manager, the Board ratified the decision with “the idea … presented to the Programming Committee”39 the following day. The program manager needed to be part of the existing committee structure for the role to be accepted. Lisa Palermo, PPC chair when this decision was made, did not remember the introduction of a paid program manager as being contentious. It was widely accepted that the program manager at PBS would not be like the program manager at Triple R: it was also very much ‘we’re not like Triple R’, because Triple R had their very strong programming managers then – their Stephen Walkers and their James Youngs and those people that they had over there, almost equal to the station manager. So that was another thing about us – always trying to make a point of difference to that other station. And so we were like ‘no, we do it by committee and it’s voluntary and the people really believe in what they’re doing and they’re not paid for it and blah, blah, blah’. So I think that was possibly just a way of managing that role for the greater good of the community of the station, but I don’t remember it being met with any kind of resistance. Obviously it just happened, it just got adopted quickly and it was fine ... I think we had to have a paid programming person, there’s no other way to really make that work, and that person’s obviously still got their committee and the support to make the decisions, but then they become the face of programming.40

37 R. Jones interview. 38 ‘Extraordinary Board Meeting Minutes’, 28 October 2002, PBS. 39 ‘Extraordinary Board Meeting Minutes’, 28 October 2002. 40 L. Palermo interview. 246

The position proved difficult to fill successfully and four program managers were appointed in quick succession. All were involved in music and/or as announcers at PBS, which Jones hoped would enable “a comfortable fit with the announcers”.41 Huntsberger found when values of programme content and public service are debated by “knowledgeable, passionate and experienced people”, value conflicts can emerge.42 The first program manager, who had managed a successful local band, began work on a revamped program grid in late 2003 but failed to make any changes, leaving within his first year. The second program manager, who was from Sydney but well-known within the independent music scene, was appointed in early 2004 but never turned up for work. The third program manager, appointed in mid-2004, had been heavily involved with the station since the 1980s, including as an announcer, which made her well-known and highly regarded within PBS.43 Nonetheless, she did not implement a new grid. My requests to interview her were declined, so I rely on Jones’ assessment of the issues she faced. According to Jones, this third program manager sought to almost double the number of programs but hit trouble after extensive consultation with announcers and resigned soon after: it was only when she was getting to the point of now filling in the spots that she started getting kickback from announcers, because again she was threatening their show and their thing. So everyone was supportive until the point where it was affecting them.44

Hugo T. Armstrong began as PBS’ fourth program manager in February 2005. Jones had tried to employ him two years earlier but he was not available until he left his position as Director of the Queenscliff Music Festival.45 Armstrong had been an announcer at PBS since 1989 and a sales and promotions staff member at various times during the 1990s. These roles, and his experience programming the Queenscliff

41 R. Jones, ‘Notes for Interview on Programming at PBS-FM with Rochelle Lade’, 2019. 42 Huntsberger, ‘My Show is a Public Service’, p. 233. 43 R. Jones interview. 44 R. Jones interview. 45 R. Jones interview. 247

Music Festival, informed his approach and raised the standard expected for how the grid appealed to sponsors.46 Although the Major Programming Review in 1989 and the less dramatic grid changes in 1997 addressed some of the weaknesses of block programming, they did not achieve the level of flow between programs Jones and Armstrong sought. PBS was still too much of a ‘turn on, turn off’ station. Jones wanted people to listen to PBS for longer than just one program. There were a few reasons for this. First, the more people listened, the more valuable airtime was to sponsors. Armstrong found the station’s existing grid difficult to sell to potential sponsors: PBS does stand for the Progressive Broadcasting Service, but it was beyond progressive. It was – to try and market or promote or sell, having been in those positions, and say to a potential advertiser and they said ‘well, the day I turned on, the music was horrific, it was not what I'm even interested in’ and you'd say ‘well, hang on, you've got to turn on this day and at this one-and-a-half-hour period on a Tuesday, and then if you like that music turn back on a Thursday night for that one- and-a-half-hour period and if you miss that, the next show on will be absolutely abhorrent to you’. So the diversity was beyond diversity, it was extremely, extremely just shambolic, although it made sense within the station and clearly listeners who were able to follow the grid could, but where was the future in that?47

This was the first time the station’s programming had been explicitly tied to its potential to raise money through sponsorship announcements. Second, and in a similar vein, the more people used the station by listening for longer, the more likely they were to donate money.48 It was in the best financial interests of the station to encourage listeners to tune in more regularly and for longer: on pretty well my first day at the station in two thousand, I asked someone, ‘how do you do your programming here?’ and he said ‘oh, it’s like television, people tune in for individual shows’ and that didn’t seem right to me. I thought no, this is radio, they don’t tune in because it’s time for the six pm news.49

46 H. Armstrong interview. 47 H. Armstrong interview. 48 Kingma and McClelland. 49 R. Jones interview. 248

The challenge was to break this sense of ‘appointment radio’ and create a consistent, reliable sound to promote longer listening times and loyalty among listeners. As an unplaylisted radio station, PBS has an inherently uncontrolled sound because announcers have the freedom to choose their own music. The unpredictability of what will be broadcast from program to program is why many people enjoy listening to community radio stations. I discuss the programming strategy devised to meet the challenge of creating a more coherent sound at PBS in the next section.

6.2.2 2005/06 programming strategy

Jones had directed Armstrong to make changes that would: - Get listenership duration up from less than hours to longer periods - Get listeners into a daily routine of listening to PBS as opposed to once per week - To program to listener behaviour (e.g. shift youth music out of school hours) - To get announcers of every genre understanding the need to embrace and grow an audience.50

Armstrong abandoned the six-monthly grid reviews implemented in 1998, doing tri-yearly reviews to make more regular changes. In March 2005, within two and a half weeks of starting, his first grid change involved moving the timeslots of approximately 60 programs. Armstrong gradually made approximately 130 programming changes in 2005 and 2006, constantly reviewing the grid to achieve “harder music into the night [and] the more rootsy music and specialist music into the day”.51 As I demonstrate later in this section using programming data, Armstrong’s strategy concentrated less on changing which programs and more on when they were broadcast. This was the first time the station had undergone such widespread changes since the Major Programming Review in 1989. Not only did the grid change significantly, much more than in 1997, so did the way programming decisions were

50 Jones, ‘Notes for Interview’. 51 H. Armstrong interview. 249

made. Instead of working with the PPC to make recommendations, Armstrong and Jones went directly to the Board which approved the plan. The experience of PBS' short-lived program managers past, and advice from those at other community stations, guided Armstrong’s decision to centralise decision-making, and to act quickly and decisively: I talked with some colleagues at another public radio station, who'd been a former program manager there, and that person said to me ‘if you don't make the changes as soon as you get there, you never will. If you don't go in and really make wholesale change, the politics will kick in and you won't get it done’.52

The new grid retained almost all existing programs, but moved them into different timeslots. Armstrong described how the new strategy appealed to what the average PBS listener was likely to be doing during different parts of the day. Programming decisions were made vertically (from one shift to the next throughout the day), to achieve “flow” between programs, and horizontally, in line with the strip- programming method: So what I did was made a decision to break the grid up into some sections. And again this will not sound like brain surgery, but breakfast and drive, daytime programming ‘till midday, afternoon programming from midday, evening program, late-night program, insomnia or overnight and weekend programming. So to actually split it into some blocks. And go ‘well, let's get some flow’. So my mantra was flow programming. So there's a flow of music style, genre, tempo, edginess that will need to happen from six in the morning up until nine in the morning. Then there will be a natural shift … So let's have our whatever shows that will suit to be on at work or on in the car or whatever. And then as the afternoon picks up, so will the station. … We also tried to program in two directions. So flowing from the morning to the night, so as the clock ticks. but also then flow across … So if you like morning programs on PBS you'll find something on weekdays the same. The same afternoons, so what we saw was strip programming.53

52 H. Armstrong interview. 53 H. Armstrong interview. 250

Armstrong explained his programming strategy focused on flow. This flow was vertical and horizontal, seeking consistency throughout the day and at similar times across the week. This horizontal programming is also known as strip programming. Similar music, or the mood it creates, can be heard in the same timeslot each day of the week, for example in the breakfast or drive-time programs. It is a familiar programming philosophy used by community, government and commercial stations.54 An example of its implementation at PBS is shown in Table 44, which compares the afternoon shift (3:00–5:00pm) on weekdays before and after the grid change.

Table 44: Comparison of programs with Tier 3 descriptions 3:00–5:00pm, 2004 and 2005

Day 2004 2005 Makeshift Swahili 5ft High & Rising Monday Noisy underground rock Alt country Muscle Souls The Breakdown Tuesday Rock ‘n’ roll, funky rhythms & soul Deep funk & soul Bone Machine Soul Time Wednesday New Indie Soul Headwealth Acid Country Thursday Emo, punk, hardcore & more Country Shock Treatment Now Dig This Friday Emo, punk, hardcore & more Retropolitan rhythms

This table shows a change of musical styles in this timeslot, as well as the type of mood trying to be evoked. On weekdays, the largely rock indie sound, both light and heavy styles, in 2004 changed to more relaxed Country and Funk & Soul programs. The new grid starting in March 2005 adjusted program times to begin and end at the same time each day. Chellew had begun to make changes to standardise the grid in the late 1990s, but had not aligned program start and finish times to be consistent every day of the week: Monday–Thursday were different to Friday–Sunday (see

54 Potts, ‘Music on Public Radio’, p. 20. 251

Table 32). The new grid that was implemented in 2005, and which remained unchanged to 2019, is shown in Table 45. The blue and orange colours represent alternating programs, most of which were two hours long.

Table 45: Program grid, 2005–2019

Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun 6:00am 7:00am 8:00am 9:00am 10:00am 11:00am 12:00pm 1:00pm 2:00pm 3:00pm 4:00pm 5:00pm 6:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm 9:00pm 10:00pm 11:00pm 12:00am 1:00am 2:00am 3:00am 4:00am 5:00am

Armstrong’s programming strategy was formally recognised and implemented in the 2007 Policies Manual and remains largely the same in 2019: The PBS-FM program position is an ongoing process of creating bands of time within the week where loyal PBS listeners and members/subscribers can predictably listen to certain styles of music (i) During weekday daytimes, to reasonably ‘accessible’ broad-based music styles, (ii) On weekday evenings, to specialist ‘harder and or edgier’ broadcasts and (iii) On weekends, to otherwise under-represented music styles that attract large, loyal audiences.55

55 PBS Policy and Procedure Handbook, 2007, PBS. 252

In the next two subsections, I analyse programming data from the 2000s using the time of day (daytime and night-time), weekdays and weekends to illustrate the effects of the 2005 and 2006 programming changes on the station’s broadcast output.

Daytime (6:00am–7:00pm) Figure 20 shows a cluster of changes beginning in 2005, sending some categories on very different trajectories than in the first half of the decade.

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Unknown Various World

Figure 20: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, weekdays (6:00am–7:00pm), 2000s

This data shows Contemporary Mix experienced the biggest fall, dropping from 44% to 26% by the end of the decade in line with the desire for more specialist programs rather than a broad mix. World continued its growth from the 1990s, more than doubling its percentage of broadcast hours between 2000 (6%) and 2006 (15%). The preference for Blues & Roots programs during the day is also clear, doubling its

253

percentage of broadcast hours between 2002 (15%) and 2007 (30%). Hard ‘n’ Heavy’s fall is perhaps the most significant, dropping from 9% in 2000 to 0% in 2005. As Figure 23 shows, Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs were moved to weekday evenings (increasing from 18% in 2004 to 29% in 2009 during the evening timeslot) consistent with Armstrong’s vision of moving heavier sounding programs to evenings. After consistently being below 5% of broadcast hours in the 1980s and 1990s, Funk & Soul programs began their rise, doubling its percentage of broadcast hours between 2004 (5%) and 2010 (10%). Electronic & Hip Hop’s gains in this daytime timeslot, which began in the 1990s and reached 10% in 2003, fell to only 2% by 2009. Jazz briefly reached 13% in 2005, a return to 1980s levels, before settling back to between 7% and 9% for the rest of the decade. Rock Indie experienced mixed fortunes. From 12% on weekdays during the day in 2003, it decreased to 3% in 2005, the lowest percentage of its broadcast hours in the station’s history. I discuss the ramifications of this significant decrease in subsection 6.2.4. A backlash to this decrease saw Rock Indie programs resurrected to 15% in 2009. Using Tier 2 data, I have compared the difference in weekdays 6:00am–7:00pm before and after the 2005 grid changes. Comparing the programs only on Friday in 2004 and 2006 clearly demonstrates the differences in programming before and after the changes, as shown in Table 45.

Table 46: Comparison of Tier 2, Fridays in February, 2004 and 2005

2004 2006 Breakfast Contemporary Mix Contemporary Mix Morning Latin Latin Soul World – Dance Afternoon Garage Dance Drive Punk Funk Various Hip Hop Evening Jazz Fusion (World) Pop Blues Soul Techno World – Rhythm & Blues Night Techno Hip Hop Dance Dance

254

In 2004, there were great variations among programs on Fridays and no clear mood was set for the day’s listening with six Tier 1 categories represented. In 2006, programs had a similar feel, evoking an end-of-the-week, party atmosphere with four Tier 1 categories represented. And the “flow” Armstrong sought is also visible. Instead of Garage and Punk breaking up an otherwise Latin/Soul/Jazz sound in 2004, Friday programming in 2006 had a stronger sense of flow from Dance to Funk to Hip Hop. Similarly, analysis of weekend programming shown in Figure 21 shows fewer categories broadcast 6:00am–7:00pm from 2005. Programs are also from specialist music Tier 1 categories, not Contemporary Mix or Various. After 2005, only four Tier 1 category programs were broadcast on the weekend (Blues & Roots, Funk & Soul, Jazz and World).

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Funk & Soul Jazz Various World

Figure 21: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, weekends (6:00am–7:00pm), 2000s

As mentioned previously, 12% of community radio’s listeners tune in only on weekends, representing a specific audience and opportunity to attract listeners.56 Focusing on weekend programming was something Triple R had done in the early 1980s, rebuilding:

56 McNair Yellow Squares, ‘Community Radio National Listener Survey 2018’. 255

the station around weekends, showcasing the best and most popular programs on Saturdays and Sundays … The idea behind the weekend line-up was that unlike weekdays, listeners generally turned on the radio on Saturday morning and left it on all day and into Sunday.57

Although Armstrong had limited weekends to four categories during the day on weekends, the music played on these programs was diverse. Tier 2 data in Table 47 shows this wide range of musical styles (24) on weekend programs.

Table 47: Tier 2 categories, weekends: 2005–2009

Blues Gospel Rock Country Jazz Rockabilly Dancehall Jazz - Improvised Roots Dub Jazz Fusion Ska Early Rock & Roll Latin Soul Electronic Latin Jazz World – African Folk Reggae World – Eastern European Funk Rhythm & Blues World – Acoustic

The money these categories earnt may be another reason for their inclusion in prime broadcast hours. In earlier chapters, I described how the earning capacity of programs was not supposed to be relevant to when they were scheduled. According to Helen Jennings, the more popular and financially successful programs were given these prime weekend positions: I know it doesn’t always just come down to money, but there are some shows that are supported by other shows, financially. Which sort of makes sense. I don’t resent that at all, in fact I think that’s a great thing because that’s what we’re about. If the Blues & Roots and Jazz can keep – those categories have always been the big money spinners – and if they can support to be able to keep unrepresented music … [on-air]. It’s just a great thing, I think, that we support each other.58

57 Phillips, p. 110. 58 H. Jennings interview. 256

Jennings’ comments about the income Blues, Roots and Jazz music brings to PBS may explain Chellew’s recollection of discussions in the late 1990s. At that time, when the station was still financially struggling, some people asked whether PBS should limit the music it played to these styles: in some of the kind of pub discussions around that time, I do recall there were viewpoints like, ‘oh maybe PBS should just become like a jazz/roots station, like forget about all of this more contemporary stuff, let’s leave that to your Triple Rs’. I mean, that’s not me saying that, but people did say that, it was something that was on people’s lips around that time.59

I did not find formal discussion of this potential strategy at Board level and such strategic changes did not happen. However, the value of these programs may explain one of the most commonly reported outcomes from the 2005 grid changes. Monica Hanns, who was a staff member, announcer and member of the Board at various points in the 2000s and 2010s, said: I think, in my time, and if I was to go back to two thousand and eight when I first started as a staff member, there was … there was a perception at that time blues was over-represented during the daytime programming. I couldn’t really speak to whether that was true or not. I don’t know if there are actual statistics on that, but … I think there was definitely a perception somewhat internally and externally that that was the case.60

Programming data shows that perception was accurate. Overall, the percentage of broadcast hours for Blues & Roots programs did not increase significantly in the 2005 grid changes, but they were broadcast more often during peak listening times. The percentage of broadcast hours for Blues & Roots programs across the week increased from 14% in 2000 to 19% in 2009, but on weekdays across 6:00am–7:00pm it increased from 19% of broadcast hours in 2000 to 30% in 2007 before dropping back to 25% by 2009.

59 P. Chellew interview. 60 Monica Hanns interview, 31 October 2018. 257

Night-time (7:00pm–6:00am) Evening (7:00pm–12:00am) and night (12:00–6:00am) shifts on weekdays also experienced changes during 2005 to feature heavier styles. As in the 1990s, weekend nights in the 2000s were still dominated by Electronic & Hip Hop. From 2006 to 2008, Electronic & Hip Hop, Rock Indie and World programs made up between 71% and 78% of the total broadcast hours during this time (7:00pm–6:00am). Figure 22 shows Tier 1 data from programs on Saturday night/Sunday morning and Sunday night/Monday morning.

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Unknown Various World

Figure 22: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, weekends (7:00pm–6:00am), 2000s

The increase in Rock Indie programs after 2005 can be explained by programs that typically ran for one to two years in the 2:00–6:00am shift, the station’s main training shift. Some programs moved to daylight hours (e.g. Homebrew, Radio City), others ended (e.g. Rock Around the World, Hand Clappin’).

258

Weekday data for 7:00pm–6:00am reveals further change, as shown in Figure 23.

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Unknown Various World

Figure 23: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, weekdays (7:00pm–6:00am), 2000s

The most dramatic change is the increase in Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs from 18% to 34% in just one year (2004–2005), primarily at the expense of Jazz, which decreased from 10% in 2004 to 2% in 2005, and World, which dropped from 7% in 2004 to 2% in 2005. By 2010, just one World program remained on-air at night during the week, Mumbai Masala. For the first half of the decade, Electronic & Hip Hop continued its dominance from the 1990s overnight on weekdays, before being narrowly overtaken by Hard ‘n’ Heavy in 2005.

How to measure success? Money was not the only factor influencing programming decisions, but Armstrong and Jones did consider subsequent rises in sponsorship and subscriber numbers

259

demonstrated their success. Although specific data about increases in sponsorship dollars or member (program subscriber) numbers is confidential and not able to be published in this thesis, Jones provided a broad indication of the trend: When I joined PBS in July two thousand, we had about eighteen hundred subscribers. By two thousand and six, end of two thousand and six before I left, we were up to six thousand. Triple R was – about two thousand and four, they were about ten thousand subscribers. By two thousand and six, they were eight thousand subscribers. I don’t know for a fact, but I think we stole a lot of their subscribers, but we also created a whole bunch of new subscribers. I remember doing radio festivals and one of the boxes I’d get the – in the questionnaire, ‘have you ever been a subscriber to any community radio station before?’ A lot of people hadn’t been, so we were hitting new audiences and getting them excited about community radio.61

There was concern that programming decisions were being made based only on the potential revenue of a program. Armstrong explained financial implications of programming decisions were openly discussed, unlike in the 1990s when Palermo said the PPC’s decisions were made largely based on “just our opinions”62 (see section 5.2): It wasn't being programmed by numbers, it was being programmed by myself with a huge amount of collaboration, a massive amount of passion and my own career on the line … It's like I'd gone to the dark side of this knowledge, because no one wanted to talk about subscriber numbers before then. ‘You can't say that, you can't say that so and so only got’ and I’m saying there were shows that were only getting less than twenty subscribers per annum, so I'm talking fifteen and eighteen – I don't want to breach – but I'm saying – they were the poorer numbers. This isn’t at two in the morning, this is on a weekday. And there were other shows that were getting a couple of hundred subscribers per annum in the same timeslot … But it wasn’t being programmed solely by that, but it was obviously giving me a mandate to continue and also then giving the category coordinators actual information, rather than opinion.63

61 R. Jones interview. 62 L. Palermo interview. 63 H. Armstrong interview. 260

Armstrong was cognisant of subscriber numbers for programs, rescheduling less popular for more popular programs in proven, prime listening times. Programming based on subscribers and sponsors evolved into benchmarking. Programs were loosely set goals such as the standard of presentation64 and number of subscribers.65 Jones says he introduced the idea of benchmarking to the Board in 2002,66 although station archives do not contain an official benchmarking procedure or guidelines. Board papers from 2006 contain benchmark targets based on timeslot and day of the week.67 It is unclear how these benchmarks were set and if, or how, they influenced programming decisions. Roger Holdsworth’s recollection (he was the World Category Coordinator at the time) suggests benchmarking was discussed with announcers: I was playing around at one stage with talking about the nature of feedback to programmers based upon listener responses, by then talking about [time] bands and days, and saying, ‘could we actually specify that certain [time] bands had stronger listener support?’ – so we would come up with targets based on that, so the two programs side by side, in fact, may have quite different targets, because they would recognise that they were pitching to a wealthier area of the community. Like Jazz always pulled in more money [from members] … so maybe the targets for Jazz would be higher than, say, a Punk program next to it, but equally … people in a similar time band – maybe more people would listen to balance that. So the idea is that we would negotiate targets with each program, with a stress on the word ‘negotiate’, and that people would be asked to be explicit about those targets, and then we would review those targets and how people did at Radio Festivals [the annual station membership drive/fundraiser] – not on the basis of judging people, but rather to say ‘how do you feel about your target? Do you think it’s too low, is there something else you can do to’, so it’s sort of all that benchmarking-type thing, so we talked about benchmarking.68

64 R. Jones interview. 65 G. Havrillay interview. 66 ‘Extraordinary Board Meeting Minutes’, 28 October 2002. 67 R. Jones, ‘General Manager’s Report’, Board papers for 21 August 2006. 68 R. Holdsworth interview. 261

Jones and Armstrong also thought benchmarking helped raise the overall standard of presentation among broadcasters because it stirred competition between announcers. Within a competitive environment, announcers believed they needed to reach a certain standard to stay on-air. Jones says this belief was encouraged: With the benchmarking of announcers, it was things like quality of the use of the desk, listening back to your show with someone there with you, and again Lisa Palermo and there was a bunch of other instructors [trainers] that were there – we started doing a bit of benchmarking and we started doing in-house advanced training, as it were … it wasn’t enough to just say ‘oh, I got this guy into a show or this girl into a show’ and then leave them to it. Because it was a very competitive grid now, when Hugo [Armstrong] brought it in, it was a competitive grid, and people had a sense that if they didn’t perform, they were going to be out and another show would come in. Now the perception was far stronger than the reality – some shows did get moved on, but not a lot. But in a way Hugo and I were reasonably happy to leave the perception hovering there, because we needed people to pick up their socks and perform, and it had effect.69

This increase in the quality of the station’s broadcast output can also be considered professionalisation of the station. Smith Maguire found in her research on personal trainers that professionalisation served “as a mechanism for the cultivation of authority and the management of risk”70 in an industry that had, until that point, lacked regulation and standards. In a similar way, announcers at PBS benefited from the increased authority and legitimacy brought by professionalisation. For some announcers, the competitive environment implied by benchmarking did not fit with PBS’ values or mission to broadcast under-represented music. Havrillay described the feeling among some at the station: That whole idea really got up people’s noses and we thought it was horrible. And you have to just recognise some genres of music will not attract huge membership numbers, but it is important that we play it! So if you go down the popularity path, you end up as a commercial radio station playing Top Forty music because that is the

69 R. Jones interview. 70 J. Smith Maguire, ‘The Personal is Professional: Personal Trainers as a Case Study of Cultural Intermediaries’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, 2008, p. 213. 262

path you are headed in. If you are determined to play music that is crazy and wacky but interesting, people will still listen to it and love it. There is an audience for it, so you have to be respectful of that.71

In July 2008, the Board ended whatever benchmarking processes were in place by that time.72

6.2.3 Programming breakfast (6:00–9:00am)

Successive PBS station managers and programming committees have sought to make changes to breakfast programming since the 1990s. Breakfast is one of the most important times (along with drive) because it captures the daily commuter audience. People who work standard hours get out of the car around 9:00am and back into it about 5:00pm, typically listening to the same station. Further, if a station can get people listening at breakfast time, they are more likely to continue listening for the morning or even the rest of the day. In this subsection, I briefly document the various attempts since 1994 to achieve a more consistently popular breakfast program, culminating in the changes made by Jones, Armstrong and the Board in 2006. Breakfast programming began in 1986 when transmission times were extended on weekdays to allow broadcasting 6:00–9:00am (it began again at 4:00pm). Each day was hosted by a different announcer, who would bring their own musical tastes to their shift. As discussed in chapter 5, following the 1989 Major Programming Review breakfast and drive programs were to select non-offensive, broadly popular music from all styles broadcast on the station, to draw bigger audiences during these peak listening times and give a taste of musical styles on other programs. In 1994, the PPC “reiterated” the existing guidelines and implemented further guidelines to achieve a more consistent sound, concerned breakfast programs had deviated from the goal of broadcasting music from all the styles on PBS. Although each weekday breakfast program was hosted by a different person, all were called The Morning After to further

71 G. Havrillay interview. 72 Board papers for 30 June 2008, PBS. 263

unify the offering. Breakfast announcers were reminded what their program should, and should not, feature: . Primarily music based . Minimal Announcer intervention . No interviews, banter, news bulletins, etc. . Retain Gig and F&T guide carts . X-promotion: minimum per hour . Not ‘specialist’ programmes . ‘what’s on PBS today’ info… . Brief weather info; brief headlines info where significant (e.g. Public Transport strike) . Disposal of Film Review bulletins (Film Review Show in lieu – weekly…)73

Dominic Molumby, PPC chair, reported to the Board: “the diversity of material programmed leapt exponentially almost overnight, it seemed” after the extra guidelines were implemented in 1994.74 A year later, however, Molumby thought “that diversity has not, in all, been sustained”75 and the PPC decided to conduct a formal review of The Morning After. The report explained the program’s primary weakness: It is agreed all round that there is inconsistency from morning to morning in the degree to which the various daily presenters of T.M.A. [The Morning After] deliver a programme which actually matches the programme’s given description – namely that it should be a showcase of selections from the many diverse range of styles aired on PBS, with an emphasis on cross-promotion of those specialist shows.76

The report identified two reasons for the inconsistency between programs, announcer preparation and resources: [Firstly] the degree of diligence of the announcers themselves in preparing their programmes with the guidelines in mind, show per show. Secondly, there is the factor of resources/support for the announcers – e.g. paucity of material of certain styles in the drive stack, lack of information about specialist presenters’ individual shows, lack

73 ‘Programming and Production Committee Report for Directors’, Board papers for 5 April 1994, PBS. 74 D. Molumby, ‘RE: Programming Matters’, Board papers for 4 July 1995, PBS. 75 Molumby. 76 Molumby. 264

of cross-promotional carts, etc, which might provide appropriate cues for the programming of brackets of music.77

The PPC suggested quality and consistency across programs could be achieved by a “methodical campaign” to evaluate programs and/or making the breakfast category coordinator the program’s producer.78 A process of program evaluation took place over the following year. In 1996, the same issues remained. A further proposal suggested having one paid announcer on weekdays, with a volunteer co-host changing each day.79 In 1998 Lisa Palermo, as PPC chair, wrote: I know we have said this before but this time we are really serious. We recognise our breakfast programming has a big problem and we need to figure out how we can capitalise on it some more.80

Although these concerns had been expressed, no major changes were made to breakfast programming in the late 1990s. The Morning After still had essentially the same format 10 years later when Jones began his review. For him, the breakfast program was an integral part of the benchmarking process and crucial for the financial viability of the station. McNair listener survey results showed The Morning After was underperforming compared with other programs: For the first time in years we gained our first formal Melbourne Audience Survey (McNair) results in May showed that of a cumulative weekly (Mon to Fri) audiences of listeners to PBS FM of ,, , or % stated they listen between .am and .am. Considering the potential Melbourne wide radio audience at that prime time this compares poorly with the next immediate time block of am to Noon (%) and the second Drive period of the day, –.pm (%).81

Jones wanted The Morning After to lift the amount of income it was generating, its weekday continuity and how it flowed onto the following seven hours

77 Molumby. 78 Molumby. 79 C. Reyntjes, ‘Memo: Breakfast and Annie F’s replacement’, February 1996, PBS. 80 L. Palermo, ‘Programming Committee Report October 1998’, Board papers for 13 September 1998, PBS. 81 R. Jones, ‘PBSFM Breakfast Project’, Board papers for 21 August 2006, PBS. 265

of programming until drive-time.82 He proposed a 16-month trial “to assess the true potential of an alternative Breakfast Show to the existing programming”, which the

Board endorsed.83 In September 2006, PBS launched its new breakfast program, The Breakfast Spread. It was co-hosted by the same one male and one female announcer each weekday 6:00–9:00am. Lyndelle Wilkinson and Todd James were the first hosts. According to Hugo Armstrong, Program Manager and part of the selection panel, they were chosen because of their enthusiasm, interest in a broad range of musical styles and ability do the work required for 15 hours a week on-air.84 Wilkinson reflected: A few of us put our hand up for the roles, we tried out together in different mixes of different voices and different energies, and they also considered what kind of music we each brought to the table, so you couldn’t sort of both be the same. You both had to complement each other and through the auditions, I guess the panel of whomever had to approve it, at the time it was Hugo T. Armstrong as the Program Manager and Roger Jones as the Station Manager and the Directors on the Board, who all decided that Todd and I were the most suitable candidates for it. So yeah, we kicked off and had an incredible first few years. The idea was to build up membership numbers across the breakfast timeslot. We knew how successful the Breakfasters were over at Triple R, so we knew it could be done and I think we knew also that it was worth trying to bring in a new influx of members and bring in a consistency for Breakfast at PBS that they hadn’t tried before.85

Ramifications of the 2005 programming changes and breakfast programming decisions being made outside of the committee structure are discussed in the following section.

82 Jones, ‘PBSFM Breakfast Project’. 83 Jones, ‘PBSFM Breakfast Project’. 84 H. Armstrong interview. 85 Lyndelle Wilkinson interview, 7 November 2018. 266

6.2.4 The aftermath

The 2005/06 programming changes, to increase flow and appeal to listener behaviour, affected PBS and the community. Huntsberger observed similar programming changes contributed to tensions at other community radio stations. Conflict occurred between managers and announcers who had different values: From the management perspective, key concerns include efficient, fairness and sustainability. While producers [announcers] share these concerns, they express concern about issues of authority, respect and transparency, exhibiting … heightened scepticism and sensitivity86.

Moreover, conflict was most likely to occur between two types of people: longstanding volunteers, who valued free expression and were experienced with station management, and managers with skill and expertise who valued professionalism.87 This can also be summarised as conflict between centralised and decentralised decision-making structures. Claire Stuchbery has been an announcer, staff member, Rock Indie Category Coordinator and PPC chair in her almost 25 years with the station at various points over the 2000s and 2010s. At the time of the programming changes, in addition to her program No Frills, Stuchbery worked as sales manager. She experienced backlash from the wider music industry: there were immediate challenges to my day-to-day experience, because what happened is there was a big announcement, basically, of the shift. Some of the people who weren’t happy about the shift were quite vocal about it within the music community, and there were elements of the music community who kind of felt abandoned and that they’d been shifted to less accessible times. And there certainly was significant sponsorship fallout from it, but again, swings and roundabouts from the perspective of there were gains.88

86 Huntsberger, ‘My Show is a Public Service’, p. 233. 87 Huntsberger, ‘My Show is a Public Service’, p. 235. 88 Claire Stuchbery interview, 19 March 2019. 267

The “shift” Stuchbery referred to encompassed two elements of the 2005 programming changes. First, the speed at which the changes were made shocked listeners and those at the station: “I think it took probably two years to settle down”. Second was moving some programs to “less accessible” night-time shifts. For Stuchbery, corralling the heavier music made the most impact: While the changes in the mid-two thousands were seen as significant, they’re not statistically as crazy as the fallout would have suggested. … I think some people knew that at the time, it was like ‘those programs are still on’, but it was more about the shift in access to them and their access to what was viewed as prime-time audiences. So that has a perception around the way the station is received in the music community and by audiences as much as what shows are on air throughout the week overall.89

The impact was so great Stuchbery said: “I’m not sure that we’ve ever really been able to patch that up with some of the music genres”.90 Another issue was the different approach Armstrong brought to programming. He was more interested in what suited the listener than the announcer: So I did about a hundred and thirty moves of shows over the first two years, and I brought in triannual grid reviews, so three changes of the grid per annum [as opposed to the two grid change process implemented in the late s]. So it meant that we – and again this was hugely, as you can imagine, quite a difficult time – but the idea was to continue to say this is not the Public Broadcasting Station, this is the Progressive Broadcasting Station and if we're not being progressive in our programming, what are we? So again you're dealing with people's emotions, their livelihoods, the mix of their work–life balance, but at the end of the day I had to say to people ‘look, well, I know you might have to change your work hours or you might have to get someone to babysit your kid, but the station owns this airtime and it's offering this airtime to you and this is the slot that’s being offered in this grid’.91

These changes caused stress for the announcers and for Armstrong:

89 C. Stuchbery interview. 90 C. Stuchbery interview. 91 H. Armstrong interview. 268

So I just had to stick with it, I had to stick with it. But there was many, many, many nights where I literally went home here in Fitzroy where I was living and just curled up on a spare couch in the foetal position and just sleepless, just thinking this is really – it was very, very taxing. I'm not ‘woe is me’ but I'm saying it was coming from every direction within the station and whenever you thought you’d won, it would come from another direction.92

Roger Holdsworth had been an announcer of Global Village since 1988. Global Village switched timeslots on Sunday afternoons as part of the programming changes in 2005. He said the problem was the way the changes were made, rather than the changes themselves: Hugo and many people didn’t see eye to eye, and he says at the time that he was brought in with the specific charge of shaking up programming and radically restructuring it, but the end, when seen from the broadcasters’ point of view, was continual change and movement, and so, ‘this doesn’t work here, let’s shift it to another timeslot’…. [in] two thousand and five I [Global Village] was switched from a Sunday afternoon – ‘oh, it should be much better on a Sunday night, we’ll switch you to eighty-thirty on a Sunday night’ and I said ‘no, I’ve been broadcasting in this timeslot for a while, I’ve built an audience’ – I had something like two hundred members at that stage … ‘no, no, no, no, it’ll be better on a Sunday night’ and I said, ‘Oh, okay, alright. The flow of it – okay, your judgement’. Shifted it to Sunday night. Immediately a real sense of drop-off in terms of listening. Then … [I] was off for a while, just ill. While I was away, Hugo said, ‘oh well, it’s not working, we’ll shift it back to three o’clock on a Sunday afternoon’. So I said, in the message I sent through, ‘can you wait until I’m back?’ and ‘sure, no problems, no hurry, no hurry’. The next thing it’s shifted back while I’m away, so there was a whole lot of lack of faith, so I came back on-air and it was back to three o’clock. We go about another few months and Hugo says, ‘well, what we’re going to do is we’re going to alternate you and Stani [Goma, Africa # –; Flight . to Africa, –present]’. Stani followed me, alternate the two – ‘so Stani comes first and then you in the afternoon’. I said ‘why?’ but I couldn’t get an answer to that. ‘Because we think it will be better that way.’ And

92 H. Armstrong interview. 269

so at that point I said, ‘no, every time we shift we’re losing continuity of audience, nah, I won’t do it’ and they said, ‘well, you’re going to’ and I said ‘nah’ and didn’t.93

Holdsworth describes a series of changes, made with little explanation, to the time and day of his program. Frustrated with the continuing changes, how they were communicated and a reduction in listeners, Holdsworth stopped presenting Global Village in mid-2007.

PPG + PM programming changes review Conflict arising from the 2005/06 programming changes may also be explained by Browne’s identification of “successful” community radio stations: stations able to manage the relationship between staff and volunteers to achieve its goals.94 Five common features unified these successful stations: openness, multiple channels of communication, periodic reviews of performance that were inclusive, informal, not confidential and positive, and joint celebration and support of staff and volunteers’ contributions to the station.95 Browne argued these factors maintained a sense of “internal community” because they indicated a station’s desire to work with all its members. From the time Armstrong had begun his programming changes, he had been criticised for not consulting with the PPC or category coordinators. When he, Jones and the Board changed the breakfast program in 2006 again without consultation, tensions reached boiling point. Criticisms made by announcers, category coordinators and Board members led to a review of “the current system of the PPG + PM” programming changes.96 Board member Andrew Hollo conducted the review, presenting his results to the Board in May 2006. Hollo concluded the achievements of the programming changes made since 2005 were improvement of flow between programs and across the days, and reduction in the number of programs with very

93 R. Holdsworth interview. 94 Browne, p 164. 95 Browne, p 164-165. 96 A. Hollo, ‘Board Paper #1: Program Planning & the PPG’, Board papers, May 2006, PBS, pp. 4–5. 270

few subscribers.97 Criticisms included the new sound of the station and the change processes: - That ‘cutting edge’ or ‘progressive’ musical styles have been marginalized in the interests of ‘adult contemporary’ genres; - That the Programs Manager has operated with a personal vision and has excluded genuine consultation with the PBS community, for example, with Breakfast Programming; - That the PPG has become a ‘rubber stamp’ for specific programming decisions, rather than a robust forum for debate around programming strategy & direction.98

The review made two recommendations. The first was to “strengthen the PPG” by re-establishing it as a “think tank”. The PPG would meet twice each year to decide PBS’ programming vision and priorities, and to discuss specific programs requiring improvement, considering submissions from the: - Program Manager: His/her ‘snapshot’ of current programming and preferred vision - Station Manager: subscription and sponsorship data - Category Coordinators: evaluations of individual shows and the category overall99

Subscription and sponsorship data was acknowledged as an input to decision- making processes, where in the 1980s and 1990s this link had been strongly resisted. The new structure for the PPG, which could have up to 17 members, was implemented in 2006 and is shown in Figure 24.

97 Hollo, pp. 4–5. 98 Hollo, pp. 4–5. 99 Hollo, pp. 4–5. 271

Nominated Chairperson (board member)

Category The Board Coordinators (up to 7 members) (7 members)

Program Executive Station Manager (inc Program Manager)

Figure 24: Program Planning Group (PPG), April 2007

The review’s second recommendation was put forward by two other Board members. They recommended establishing a new programming decision-making group, the “Programming Executive”. This consisted of the program manager and two members of the 3PBS-FM community appointed by the Board; for example, one Board member and one category coordinator.100 The two Board-appointed members of the Program Executive were intended to dilute the influence of the program manager, providing “greater protection against PM’s [program manager’s] dominance of programming.”101 The program manager’s role was redefined as an administrative one: collecting and analysing data, administering grid changes and mentoring announcers.102 It is unclear whether the Programming Executive was to be an additional group within the structure outlined in Table 43 (p. 242). Although both recommendations were implemented, they were not enough. Announcers whose campaigning had contributed to this first review remained unhappy. A second review would change the programming process once again, as I discuss next.

100 Hollo, pp. 4–5. 101 Hollo, pp. 4–5. 102 Hollo, pp. 4–5. 272

Board Sub-Committee on Programming (BSCP) Havrillay was one of those who remained unhappy. He had been an announcer at PBS since 1980, leaving his program Continental Drift in 1999 due to personal commitments, and was elected to the Board at the 2006 AGM: I remember my first Board meeting was on my birthday. It was incredibly hostile because at the time – one of the reasons why I stood for election to the Board because at the time is that I thought the Board was completely dysfunctional. There were two factions: one that were Roger Jones supporters and one that wasn’t, that was basically trying to reason with him and the way he was managing the station. So that was one of the reasons why I stood for election to the Board to try and change that.103

In September 2006, Havrillay and fellow Board member Ross Giles were appointed to the newly established Board Sub-Committee on Programming (BSCP) to “review, clarify and propose new guidelines to which 3PBS arrives at major programming decisions”.104 Like the May 2006 review, the BSCP was established in response to “widespread concerns in the PBS community about how programming decisions were made and were perceived to be made”.105 These concerns had been expressed to the Board in a letter from PBS category coordinators and another letter from Roger Holdsworth, who criticised the process and decision to move Global Village in 2005.106 The category coordinators were concerned about the ad hoc consultation process for programming decisions: As category coordinators we understand that we are responsible for contributing to the creative input of the PBS Programme Grid. During this grid change [September ] effective consultation has occurred with some categories yet not with others. It seems that when changes that negatively impact on a category occurs, little consultation takes place, and usually just when a change is upon us.107

103 G. Havrillay interview. 104 R. Giles and G. Havrillay, ‘Board Sub-committee on Programming’, Board papers for 30 July 2007, PBS. 105 Giles and Havrillay. 106 Giles and Havrillay. 107 PBS Programming Coordinators, ‘Letter to Andrew Hollo dated 25 September 2006’, Board papers for 30 July 2007. 273

While the category coordinators acknowledged some of the changes to program times were “in the main”108 accepted by announcers, they said others, like the changes to Global Village, were poorly handled. The breakfast program was their main concern. This change “may have had input and consultation with the Board, but no official consultation from the PPG, and no effective process in place to handle the concerns of broadcasters who view this initiative as a troubling major cultural shift”.109 In the review’s report, the BSCP summarised the mood at the station: The loss of input into programming decisions, or at least the loss of opportunity to comment on them has caused divisions, not only between factions of varying musical interest, but between Management, the Board and the Announcer body.110

Such factionalism is common in community radio stations because of their decentralised, democratic power structures. Barlow argued it can lead to “infighting” which risks the stability and efficiency of the station.111 The BSCP said the decision to change breakfast programming was “a flagrant disregard of historical PBS procedures”.112 It made recommendations to democratise both the perception and reality of programming decision-making, so that “no individual or group of volunteers should have, or be seen to have, greater influence or favour over others”.113 Havrillay explained: the thing that changed was that there would be a Board representative. Because until that time, basically Board members could go in and observe the meetings and not really interact with them. So the checks and balances were basically to get that Board member to chair the PPG so that, yes, they could ensure and go back to the Board and say ‘okay, I’m satisfied this is fair process. That these are fair decisions that we are recommending to you as a Board for program changes. These decisions have been fair and well-considered, and nobody has hijacked the agenda’.114

108 PBS Programming Coordinators. 109 PBS Programming Coordinators. 110 Giles and Havrillay. 111 W. Barlow, p. 103. 112 Giles and Havrillay. 113 Giles and Havrillay. 114 G. Havrillay interview. 274

The BSCP’s recommendations clarified the responsibilities and interactions of those groups involved with programming, a summary of which is given in Table 48.

Table 48: Summary of programming process changes and clarifications post-BSCP review, 2007115

Group Programming role and responsibilities PPG ‘Strategic program planning and procedural review’ Conforms ‘to the terms of the Board program objectives’ Board Station policy Annual statement of programming ‘The Board should review program grids and approve them based on adherence to process’ Program Manager Operational, day-to-day program issues Program Executive Decisions about programs regarding program review or grid (in consultation with review category coordinators)

Roger Jones resigned from PBS in December 2006. His replacement, Adrian Basso, started in January 2007. Previously deputy station manager at Melbourne’s classical music community radio station 3MBS, Basso brought a background in music and finance to PBS at a time when it was still struggling financially. His priority was to rethink the way the station spent its money: Yeah and I remember when I first started here I’d go, ‘why are we doing that?’ I asked a lot of ‘why’. I probably – I know I annoyed the hell out of everyone, but we were kind of – the train was heading off a cliff and we had some crazy sort of operational things where, for instance … I had more people working on the magazine and the website than what we had working on sponsorship. It was like – let’s try and get some money in. And then once the money’s in, we can afford to do those other things.116

Armstrong resigned from his role as program manager in 2008, finishing in October that year. Despite the new decision-making process implemented after the BSCP’s review, many program changes made in 2005/06 remain a decade and a half later. The Breakfast Spread was still on-air in 2019. It had one male and one female host until

115 Giles and Havrillay. 116 A. Basso interview. 275

2019. In 2019 it was hosted by one male, Milo Eastwood. Table 49 shows the increase in listeners from 2006 to 2007. In 2006, Jones had negotiated with McNair Ingenuity, the radio survey company, to pay a heavily reduced price for listener survey data, the first time the station had managed to get such information from the industry’s peak listener surveyor.117 Comparing 2006 and 2007 listener numbers, Jones’ successor Basso found there was “more than 100% growth in audience numbers in the show’s eight months … markedly stronger than the overall station growth of 21%”.118

Table 49: Listening audience to weekday breakfast 2006 to 2007 (McNair Survey)119

Year Total weekly station audience Weekday breakfast total % of station total 2006 174,000 28,000 16 2007 211,000 57,000 27

The Breakfast Spread is the only PBS program where announcers are paid. Payment to the program’s first hosts began after the 16-month trial. Although it is a small amount more akin to a retainer than a wage, paying announcers was a “huge shift”120 for the station. However, as Jones and Armstrong argued, the program itself represented a big shift: before this, no one had been asked to present a program for three hours a day, five days a week. At the end of its trial in August 2007, Basso sought Board approval for a stipend for The Breakfast Spread announcers, which was granted. Basso argued the stipend was appropriate because of the impact on the announcers’ lives in hosting a program five days per week and the importance of retaining the right announcers who were able to make the program attractive to listeners.121 Station management continued to manage the breakfast program in 2019. Another change was Roger Holdsworth’s return to the airwaves. He had stopped presenting Global Village in mid-2007. In late 2008, Holdsworth and Global Village returned to the 5:00pm timeslot on Sunday: So, when I came back, obviously I’m back in the five o’clock slot, which is the one they tried to shift me to. So, my objection was on process, rather than the timeslot – in

117 R. Jones interview. 118 A. Basso and H. Armstrong, ‘PBS 106.7 FM Breakfast Report’, Board papers for 27 August 2007, PBS. 119 Basso and Armstrong. 120 H. Armstrong interview. 121 A. Basso and G. Seven, ‘Breakfast Report for the Board’, Board papers for 27 August 2007, PBS. 276

many ways I can stand back and say that I think the five o’clock timeslot has been a better timeslot for Global Village and if I hadn’t been shifted several times through that process, and the failure to give any rational reason, I might have acceded to it, but given the process, I dug my heels in.122

Garry Seven was Program Manager from January 2009 to December 2011. He continued the task of having “daytimes and weekends full of strong programming with a good horizontal flow” to build audience numbers.123 In 2011, Seven noted a change to evening programming: “this means that the focus will now be on also having a strong selection of programs and a good program flow in the evenings as well”.124 One of the changes Seven made to evening programming was the removal of the magazine-style programs 7:00–8:00pm on weeknights, which I discuss in chapter 7. Unfortunately, Seven declined to be interviewed for this research. Changes during his tenure are analysed in the following section as part of my review of the 10 years of broadcast output from 2000–2009.

6.3 Broadcast output in the 2000s

This section provides a brief overview of the station’s sound through the decade. It is brief because much of the station’s sound has already been described earlier in the chapter, when discussing programming before and after the 2005/06 changes. The overall data is still useful for gaining an overview of the station’s sound outside of these events. I especially analyse the Jazz category, which significantly increased its broadcast hours after they declined in the 1990s. Figure 25 shows less volatility across Tier 1 categories than previous decades.

122 R. Holdsworth interview. 123 G. Seven, ‘August Programming Review’, Board papers for 26 September 2011. 124 G. Seven, ‘August Programming Review’. 277

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Unknown Various World

Figure 25: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 2000s

After the tumultuous times of the mid-2000s, most categories experienced another small rise or fall in 2007/08, suggesting some minor adjustments following the review in 2006. A comparison of the start and end of the decade indicates changes in categories, with most changes being fairly small (<5%). I have summarised this comparison in Table 50.

278

Table 50: Change in percentages of broadcast hours, 2000–2009

Tier 1 category 2000 2009 Change Blues & Roots 14% 19% +5% Contemporary Mix 18% 11% −7% Electronic & Hip Hop 22% 15% −7% Funk & Soul 4% 7% +3% Hard 'n' Heavy 7% 10% +3% Jazz 7% 10% +3% Rock Indie 8% 13% +5% Spoken Word 1% 1% No change Unknown 3% 0% −3% Various 5% 4% −1% World 10% 12% +2%

Funk & Soul’s increase from 4% to 7% correlates with a rise in popularity of funk and soul music in Melbourne around the same time, aided by PBS starting its monthly Soul-a-Go-Go Funk and Soul night in March 2007. Hosted by PBS announcers, a night of funk and soul music was played on a Saturday night at the Laundry Bar, a two-storey venue in the neighbouring suburb of Fitzroy. Entry fees were charged, with a discount for PBS members. These events, which have since moved to other bars in the inner north, have become a staple of Melbourne’s club scene. The two categories where the percentages of broadcast hours declined significantly were Electronic & Hip Hop and Contemporary Mix. These declines are shown by the numbers of programs in Figure 26 and Figure 27, respectively.

279

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 26: Number of Electronic & Hip Hop programs, 2000s

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 27: Number of Contemporary Mix programs, 2000s

Contemporary Mix programs gradually declined over the decade, with the most significant drop of four programs occurring between 2007 (seven programs) and 2009 (three programs). Just over half of the Contemporary Mix programs which finished in the early 2000s had been on-air since the 1990s, as seen in Table 51.

280

Table 51: Contemporary Mix programs ending on or before 2005

Program Started Finished Total Exposure 1993 2000 Collision Drive 1998 2000 Sin City 1998 2000 Unsigned Artists 1990 2001 Caught in the Act 1998 2002 Asleep at the Wheel 2000 2002 Sunrise Surprise 2002 2003 Auscultation 2000 2003 Totally Wired 2000 2004

This data suggests a station-wide move away from this broad range of musical styles within one program towards specialist music programs. This occurred before the changes beginning in 2005. Although Blues & Roots declined during night hours as a result of the grid changes that started in 2005, by the end of the decade and during the time of Garry Seven as program manager, it increased its percentage of broadcast hours to 11%, the highest it was in the 2000s. Further analysis of these programs using Tier 2 data suggests the styles of music broadcast during these new programs were not at the harder end of the Blues & Roots spectrum, as shown in Table 52. Therefore, it is most likely these Blues & Roots programs were in the graveyard shift because they were new.

Table 52: Blues & Roots programs 2:00am-6:00am, weekdays in 2009

Program name Tier 2 Broadcast in 2009 Got the Blues Carolina Beach Music Mondays, 2:00am–6:00am Shaggin’ the Night Away Blues Tuesdays, 2:00am–6:00am Vittles and Grits Blues Wednesdays, 2:00am–6:00am

Further analysis using Tier 2 data shown in Table 53 shows the change in musical styles broadcast during these programs over the last 40 years.

281

Table 53: Comparison of Tier 2 top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Blues & Roots, 1980s–2010s

Tier 2 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Blues 1595 3443 4222 4908 Country 1539 1655 2418 2140 Roots 59 462 1775 1822 Rhythm & Blues 1033 1155 521 526 Gospel 323 352 1184 1043 Jazz 194 1039 870 72 Rockabilly 152 504 654 408 Carolina Beach Music 0 0 414 1044 Early Rhythm & Blues 191 6 456 708 Various 2 0 0 1187

6.3.1 The place of Jazz

As Helen Jennings mentioned earlier in this chapter, Jazz and Blues & Roots programs were long understood as the most profitable categories at PBS because their listeners were more likely to have the financial means to become members.125 Comments like these have also appeared in Board papers; for example, “the jazz category continues to hold the station up financially”.126 The lucrative nature of Jazz programs can be explained by the type of listeners they attract. In her study of the Wangaratta Jazz Festival, one of the places from which PBS regularly had outside broadcasts in the 1990s and 2000s, Curtis found Jazz’s connection with the upper middle to upper classes in Australia.127 A Jazz program has been broadcast during either the breakfast (6:00–9:00am) or morning shifts (9:00am–12:00pm) on Saturdays since 1983. Jazz on Saturday (1983– present) is the station’s longest running program, originally on-air 8:00–10:00am, in 2019 9:00–11:00am. On Sundays, various Jazz programs were broadcast in the afternoon from 1980 to 2009. Since then, Jazz has been broadcast on Sunday evenings. Unlike the long-running Jazz on Saturday, Sunday afternoons and evenings have seen many more individual programs, 42 over the decades. In the 1980s, the most common

125 H. Jennings interview. 126 B. Walsh, ‘Programme Services Coordinator Report to Board’, Board papers for 11 August 1998, PBS. 127 R.A. Curtis, ‘Australia’s Capital of Jazz? The (re)creation of Place, Music and Community at the Wangaratta Jazz Festival’, Australian Geographer, vol. 41, no. 1, 2010. 282

types of Jazz music on Sundays were Big Bands and Nostalgia, broadcast on Big Bands and Things and Big Band Scene. In the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s, Mainstream Jazz and Australian Jazz dominated. Jazz on Sunday (1981–1994), Dizzy Atmosphere (1993– present), The Pearls (1994–2009) and Impressions (2011–present) broadcast these styles most. Jazz programs were prominent in the 1980s and in 1985 one listener complained about how often it was broadcast: A funny thing happened to me when I tuned in to PBS the other day … Yet another Jazz happy hour! Surely PBS is supposed to represent under-represented styles of music, but Jazz is frequently promoted, not only on PBS but also on AK and the A.B.C. … Is PBS catapulting us into a new Jazz age of is it being taken over by a bunch of old geezers???? Get your act together PBS, NOW!!!128

Programming data shows the station took notice. The 1989 Major Programming Review reduced the number of Jazz programs from 27 to 14. From a consistent 12% in 1983–1985, its percentage of broadcast hours dipped to 4% in 1994, its lowest point in PBS’ history. Tier 2 styles also changed, with Big Bands and Jazz Rock completely removed from broadcasting, as shown in Table 54.

Table 54: Comparison of Tier 2 top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Jazz, 1980s–2010s

Tier 2 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Jazz 3451 2645 3792 4528 Jazz – Fusion 409 584 1555 650 Free Jazz 2 0 448 1034 Big Bands 901 0 0 0 Latin Jazz 44 27 310 394 Jazz – Rock 689 0 0 0 Jazz – Soul 38 0 0 626 Roots 0 297 330 0 Latin 5 0 40 508 Jazz – Electronic 2 0 463 0

128 E. Chatham-Hopkins and S. Cheevers, ‘Letters to the Editor’, Waves, April/May 1985, p. 2. 283

Jazz did, however, retain prime weekend daytime slots and partly revived its percentage of broadcast hours in the 2000s. Analysis of when Jazz was broadcast explains its revival in the 2000s, as well as confirming a four-decade-long trend of when these programs were broadcast. As shown in Figure 28, although Jazz programs were not as common in the 1990s, those that were on-air still retained the prime slot of weekends during the day.

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

Weekday Day Weekday Night Weekend Day Weekend Night

Figure 28: Broadcast hours of Jazz programs, day or night and weekend or weekday, 1979–2019

Jazz’s resurgence can be attributed to the extra daytime programs broadcast on weekdays. It began in 1997 and peaked in 2005 when Jazz programs made up 10% of broadcast hours (see Appendix D). Programs like Fiesta Jazz, Sugar and Under the Radar all changed timeslot from weekday nights to weekday days in 2004. Table 55 lists the Jazz programs on-air between 1997 and 2005.

284

Table 55: Jazz programs during the resurgence, 1997–2005

Program name Start Finish Tier 3 description Jazz Fusion 1981 1998 Jazz fusion Jazz on Saturday 1983 Present Mainstream Jazz Bitches Brew 1983 2009 Jazz fusion Experimental improvised New Jazz Review 1991 1998 Bop to avant garde Mainstream jazz Dizzy Atmosphere 1993 Present Jazz and improv Jazz and roots Wide-ranging jazz, early classics The Pearls 1994 2009 to modern gems Jazz, blues and improvised music Jazz and Americana Jazz and Blues Jazz and roots 1998 2001 Review Blues and Jazz Groovoire 1999 2004 Jazz Fiesta Jazz 2000 present Latin jazz and fusion Serious Fun 2001 2005 Jazz, blues and improvised music Chill Factor 2003 2005 Jazz Sugar 2004 2006 Jazz, jazz grooves, funk and soul Electronic jazz Under the Radar 2004 2008 Electric jazz The Planet Jazz 2004 2005 Jazz Noisy free jazz Ear of the Behearer 2005 present Free jazz

In the 2010s, some new Jazz programs ventured into less common styles like “subversive cabaret” (Glitter + Doom/The Piano Has Been Drinking, 2012–2016 (hosted by the same announcer, program changed name when timeslot changed)) and “exotic mid-century jazz” (Ports of Paradise, 2014–present). These programs moved from graveyard shifts into 7:00–8:00pm Tuesdays and 9:00–11:00am Fridays, respectively, bringing these less common styles to more accessible hours. Even though there has been significant variation in the percentage of broadcast hours from decade to decade, this data shows an enduring commitment to broadcasting Jazz. Table 56 shows the change in broadcast hours across the four decades.

285

Table 56: Comparison of Jazz broadcast hours by decade, 1980s–2010s

Decade 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Broadcast hours 6500 4086 7731 8542

Consistent scheduling of Jazz programs on weekends may have two explanations: the suitability of the musical style to weekend listening and the category’s proven financial rewards.

Conclusions

In this chapter, I have described a period of change which highlighted tensions in decision-making structures and outcomes. On one hand, a long-held culture of decentralised decision-making was strongly defended by longstanding volunteers. PBS did not want to be like Triple R, where one person was responsible for programming. However, decentralised programming had led to inertia in grid changes. Attempts by short-lived program managers at changing the grid were unsuccessful. On the other hand, centralised decision-making increased efficiency and made sure change happened, but often changes were neither universally liked nor accepted. PBS needed money and the new station manager, Roger Jones, believed all the station’s problems came down to programming. The Board approved the employment of a paid program manager to overcome programming inertia. In 2005, the Board endorsed Hugo Armstrong’s swift and significant changes to the whole grid and again to breakfast programming in 2006, which were made outside of the committee structure. After the changes were made, the number of listeners increased. The programming strategy Armstrong used in 2005 relied on assumed listener behaviour to determine when categories were broadcast. Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs were only heard at night on weekdays. On weekends during the day, broadcast categories were limited to four: Blues & Roots, Funk & Soul, Jazz and World. Seven of these programs on-air in 2005/06 were still on-air 15 years later in 2019. Further, as of 2019, Jazz on Saturday, Fiesta Jazz, Soul Groove ‘66 and Chant Down Babylon/Babylon Burning (same host, renamed in 2008) remained in the same timeslots on Saturdays

286

and The Gospel Show, Blue Juice, Flight 1067 to Africa in the same timeslots on Sundays. Even though the 2005/06 grid changes had been controversial because decisions were made with little consultation, in 2006, significant changes to breakfast programming were also made without consulting the PPC. Instead of a different host each day of the week, which had been in place since the 1980s, The Breakfast Spread would now be on every weekday 6:00–9:00am with the same two announcers. Recognising the importance of the breakfast shift to flow-on listening throughout the day, management took over this program. Just as with many of the grid changes, changes to breakfast were still in place as of 2019. The Major Programming Review was the last time programming changes had been made on such a scale. Both reviews sought to keep PBS progressive, but there are two main differences between these reviews. In 1989, the review changed which programs were broadcast and decisions were made in a cooperative manner. In 2005, the changes were more about when programs were broadcast, with the grid programmed to appeal to a certain kind of listener, and these changes were not made in a cooperative fashion. Two Board reviews were conducted and the tension between centralised and decentralised programming resurfaced. The first review acknowledged the strengths of the changes to the sound of the station and increased memberships, as well as its main weakness; these decisions were made without consultation. Proposed remedies were not enough. New Board members were elected at the next AGM on a platform of bringing the station back to its traditional decentralised programming decision- making structure. A second Board review added a Programming Executive to ensure the program manager made decisions in consultation with at least two other people. The 2000s also saw the resurgence of Jazz programs. Jazz had always been a good money-earner for the station and this programming review, which sought to increase the station’s finances, took advantage of this relationship. My analysis of when Jazz programs were broadcast over the last 40 years has shown consistent Jazz programming on weekends with programs like Jazz on Saturday and Dizzy

287

Atmosphere. New Jazz programs in the 2000s were predominantly scheduled during the prime listening times during the day on weekdays. In the next chapter, I describe how technological changes allowed the station to increase potential audiences and begin to actively address its under-representation of gender and culturally diverse announcers in the 2010s.

288

7. 2010s: “if you take the P out, all we’re left with is BS”1

- Garry Havrillay, announcer, category coordinator, Board member

7.1 Introduction

PBS celebrated its 40th birthday in 2019. As part of the celebrations, it was inducted into Music Victoria’s Hall of Fame in recognition of its “deep contribution … to the fabric of Victorian music and culture”.2 This decade brought growth in memberships, the ability to reach new audiences with digital radio and a third broadcast studio. On- air, the station was its most stable in history; if a program ended, it was most often replaced with another from the same Tier 1 category. This stability was also reflected in programming practices. However, reminiscent of the leadup to the 1989 Major Programming Review, by the end of the decade some were beginning to question the station’s progressive values. For the remainder of this first section, I focus on the technological changes during the decade, starting with digital radio, then turning to internet radio and streaming services. Finally, I discuss the increased recognition of the value of live music in Melbourne and its impact on PBS’ operations. In the second section, I draw on two documents that describe programming structures and practices. In the previous chapter, I briefly discussed the 2007 report Tuning into Broadcasting. This report recommended updating the Community Broadcasting Code of Practice, which required all community stations to develop a formal policies and procedures manual to improve station management.3 In 2008, and for the first time, PBS had a comprehensive policies and procedures document. I refer to updated versions of this document in this section. Another document I refer to, which has become an annual statement, is the Board’s Statement of Programming

1 G. Havrillay quoted in R. Holdsworth interview. 2 P. Donovan, Music Victoria Announce the 2019 Music Victoria Award Nominees and Hall of Fame Inductees + Public Voting Now Open! [website], Music Victoria Awards, www.musicvictoria.com.au/news/music-victoria-announce-the-2019-music-victoria-award-nominees- and-hall-of-fame-inductees-public-voting-now-open (accessed 28 October 2019). 3 Standing Committee, Tuning in to Community Broadcasting, p. 157. 289

Vision, first released in 2010. It informed many of PBS’ programming decisions during the decade. I explain its effect on the station’s subcultural intermediaries due to the growth in popularity. The station’s expectations of its announcers, and what happened when they were not met, are discussed in 7.2.2. Finally, this decade was the first time one of the eleven Tier 1 categories I have used to analyse programming data had no programs on-air. I discuss the demise of this Tier 1 category in PBS’ history in subsection 7.2.3. In the third section, programming data illustrates how programming decisions resulted in a planned sound suited to listeners’ desired activities during the day and week. There was less turnover of programs and the percentages of broadcast hours devoted to major categories of music were more consistent than in any other decade. Within this overall stability, the Board directed programming decisions to increase announcer diversity, supported by training programs targeted towards women and other under-represented groups. I assess the impact on broadcast output in 7.3.1. Finally, I explore the impact of stable broadcasting output on the progressive nature of PBS in 7.3.2.

7.1.1 New broadcasting technologies: digital radio, internet and streaming services

The federal government announced a plan for the introduction of digital radio services in 1998, at the same time as its plan for digital television.4 The television plan proceeded and services began in 2001, unlike the radio plan, which did not. It took until 2009 for the government to provide one-off assistance to community radio stations to set up their digital capacity. The introduction of digital and internet radio undermined the scarcity of distribution pathways between audio providers and audiences. Like FM was to AM radio, digital offered better quality sound and more stations. Removal of the constraints analogue transmission once offered meant the basic rationale for community radio changed. Community radio stations were no

4 Alston. 290

longer the only place to hear esoteric musical styles and they needed to find a new place in the crowded broadcast arena.5 PBS and eight other Melbourne community radio stations held a launch party at Federation Square in the centre of Melbourne to mark the start of their simulcast on analogue and digital channels on 14 April 2011. However, the sector needed money to maintain both. In early 2013, the CBAA lobbied the government for ongoing funding through the Commit to Community Radio project. The necessary funds were allocated in the federal government’s 2013/14 budget, securing the sector’s ability to be heard by those with digital receivers and to compete in the digital market long term. In May 2015, PBS added a third broadcast studio, which provided extra space for the station to “try all kinds of things”.6 The first was the Cross Pollinate program, a one-hour weekly program which features new announcers from culturally diverse and under-represented backgrounds. This was made in the new Studio 3 and transmitted only digitally. When first broadcast on 1 November 2016, it marked the first time PBS had diverged its broadcast output between its analogue FM and digital channels. The internet livestream remains with the analogue station. This digital only program is one example of the many positive possibilities Fox has argued digital technologies create for community radio’s aims of access and participation.7 Although a public broadcaster (similar to Australia’s ABC) and larger than PBS, the way Radio New Zealand changed their digital offerings over the decade demonstrates “changes in digital technologies and how contemporary media audiences use them”.8 In his earlier 2007 study, Mollgaard found most users were visiting Radio New Zealand’s website from overseas, and to access information they would have previously requested through traditional means.9 In 2019, RNZ, as they

5 S. Gunn Enli, ‘Redefining Public Service Broadcasting’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 14, no. 1, 2008, p. 106. 6 A. Basso, ‘Performance Review 2011–2012’, Report to the Board, 2012, PBS, p. 4. 7 J. Fox, ‘Commodified Communication: Digital Compatibility Challenges for Community Broadcasting’, 3CMedia, no. 9, 2019. 8 M. Mollgaard, ‘Radio New Zealand and the Internet: Radio and Convergence Through Ten Years of Transformation’, Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, vol. 17, no. 1, 2019, p. 110. 9 M. Mollgaard, ‘Radio New Zealand and the Internet’, Communication Journal of New Zealand, vol. 8, no. 1, 2007. 291

were then known, pushed a ‘multiplatform’ experience with users able to find extra content, not broadcast on the radio, on the two RNZ websites and in various other places, like YouTube and the Freeview Digital Television platform.10 This convergence almost doubled its website users and created a new online audience that did not previously exist.11 PBS is still one of a few community stations using their digital channels to broadcast content different to their analogue transmission. MBS, LightMelbourne and RPH use their digital channels for some, or all, different broadcast outputs to their analogue signals. At the end of 2019, no Melbourne community radio station was broadcasting internet-only content. 3CR, Triple R, SYN and 4ZZZ all simulcast; in other words, the same content is broadcast on both digital and analogue stations. For Ian Stanistreet, PBS’ first station manager and CEO of the Community Broadcasting Foundation since 2000, digital radio provides community radio stations with new possibilities to expand their broadcast output. He suggested a station like PBS, with lots of people wanting to create programs, could expand offerings on the digital channel to create opportunities for aspiring announcers: What occurs to me is that a station like PBS, which can broaden the range of music that it provides, and might feel under quite a lot of pressure in terms of allocating out its main FM service and balancing the various competitive interests involved in all that, could easily take the pressure off by expanding and providing a different service. And given that it is now seven years or so down the track [with digital radio], I would be interested to know what dialogue has gone on, on the programming side, as to whether that opportunity is being embraced or used in the way that it could be. Ultimately, though, I understand that it is a problem because if you develop two separate services and at some stage there is a rationalisation of the platforms … At the point of rationalisation of platforms, the station that has expanded its services has a huge dilemma. But that could be a very long time away and there is much that could be done if the issue lies at the heart of the station, which has always been a huge issue of a competition for airtime.12

10 Mollgaard, ‘Radio New Zealand and the Internet: Radio and Convergence’, p. 106. 11 Mollgaard, ‘Radio New Zealand and the Internet: Radio and Convergence’, p. 109. 12 I. Stanistreet interview. 292

Stanistreet suggested by diverging content between analogue and digital, PBS could significantly increase the number of programs it broadcast. More programs allow more people to be involved with content production, which increases participation. However, more programs will require more resources and, at some point (although maybe not for a while yet), analogue transmission will be switched off leaving two streams of programs but one broadcast channel. The popularity of digital radio has increased year on year. By early 2020 Melbourne had 37 stations broadcasting only on digital radio, in the music categories shown in Table 57:

Table 57: Type of music broadcast on Melbourne's digital-only stations13

Type of music broadcast Number of stations Alternative 3 Children 2 Chill/Easy Listening 4 Classic Hits/Rock 9 Country 2 International 5 News/Talk 2 Sport/Racing 5 Urban/Hip Hop 2 Other 3

The most popular digital radio station in 2019 was Coles Radio, which was broadcast in all Coles supermarkets but could also be listened to by anyone with a digital radio. Coles Radio had increased its listenership in 2019 by 26% since 2017. The music on Coles Radio is programmed (i.e. a playlist is created) by staff from Nova FM, a commercial radio station in Melbourne, with music that appeals to families.14 In a move towards traditional radio broadcasting, Coles Radio employed a live-to-air announcer (from Nova FM) in 2019, who broadcasts during the supermarket’s busiest

13 Digital Radio Plus, Listen Live [website], www.digitalradioplus.com.au/listen.aspx?region=Melbourne (accessed 23 January 2020). 14 B. Carmody, ‘How Coles Came to Dominate Digital-only Radio’, The Age, 14 August 2019, www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/how-coles-came-to-dominate-digital-only-radio- 20190814-p52gww.html (accessed 14 August 2019). 293

times15 and takes song requests.16 In an environment where Australia’s second largest supermarket chain also has the most popular digital-only radio station, the case study of an unplaylisted radio station becomes even more useful as an alternative to the dominant ways of doing things. Internet radio stations are ideal for niche operators who want to cater to specific audience tastes.17 Musgrave suggested the sheer number of niche radio stations available via the internet may prompt people to turn back to larger broadcasters in order to “mitigate this plethora of choice.”18 Instead, Musgrave found the cultural intermediary DJ became more important in their role of disseminating and distinguishing music worthy of broadcast.19 In 2019, 15% of Australians aged 10 and over listened to music via streaming services.20 Although “Spotify and streaming services” are something PBS is aware of and “keeping an eye on”, they haven’t “really had an impact yet” in the way PBS has made programming decisions.21 PBS began livestreaming its analogue transmission on the internet in 2007, allowing listeners anywhere in the world to tune in. In 2014, Board papers reported the impact of these new technologies on listener numbers: Live streaming and ROD [radio on demand] – live streaming hours is more than % of total hours listened. K unique listeners.22

As of August 2019, PBS listeners had increased nearly a third to over 42,000 unique listeners per month online, approximately 55–60% of these listening to the livestream.23 In 2010 PBS began archiving recorded programs on its website, making the full audio for a program available for up to six months after broadcast. In addition to the

15 Carmody. 16 Radioinfo, Coles Radio Features Live Show, 13 June 2017, https://radioinfo.com.au/news/coles-radio- features-live-show (accessed 15 October 2019). 17 Musgrave, p. 47. 18 Musgrave, p. 47. 19 Musgrave, p. 61. 20 Commercial Radio Australia, GfK Australian Share of Audio® 2019, www.radioalive.com.au/Research- Insights/Major-Research/Share-of-Audio/2019/Share-of-Audio-2019 (accessed 24 January 2020). 21 O. McKern interview. 22 ‘(Digital) Content Paper’, Board papers for 24 November 2014, PBS. 23 A. Basso, ‘RE: Program Applications and Online Listening’ [email to R. Lade], 14 August 2019. 294

extra content this created on the website, available to listen to on-demand, graveyard shift announcers broadcasting 2:00–6:00am also benefitted. Owen McKern, program manager in the 2010s, thought on-demand radio helped motivate these announcers: Doing a radio program between two and six o’clock in the morning for a little while actually is a lot of fun, but over a longer period of time it can be a little bit soul- destroying because you’re never sure just how many people might be listening. The fact that those programs are available now on demand does, I think, help motivate some of our late-night broadcasters who might be doing something a little bit niche to know well, even though there might only be x number of people listening at three forty-five am, my program tonight which I’m really proud of will be sitting online on PBS’ website for the next six months. And people who are interested in my particular niche area of music will, I hope the next day or two days later while they’re sitting at their desk at work, put their headphones on and listen back because of their favourite genre, which might not be accessible in its real-time location.24

Lyndelle Wilkinson, Rock Indie Category Coordinator since 2016 and member of the PPG in the 2010s, explained that graveyard shifts in Melbourne could be convenient listening times for overseas listeners, so moving programs out of the graveyard shift could reduce audiences for some announcers: at night time here when we’re doing our graveyard shows, it’s daytime in America. And I do know that a show like Shaggin’ the Night Away is one of the most successfully streamed programs ... The thing about being a successful program on PBS is often people go ‘oh, then you get out of graveyard, you get to go prime time’, but then he would lose his whole American audience and that would suck for him, that is his Californian sound [laughs] and he’d be like ‘oh, you just moved me to a timeslot where people probably aren’t listening’.25

Many announcers commented on the benefits of sites like Soundcloud and AirIt for accessing free music that would otherwise be difficult to find, or afford.26 Additionally, acquiring the large amount of music required to host a weekly program

24 O. McKern interview. 25 L. Wilkinson interview. 26 Jess Fairfax interview, 12 November 2018. 295

could be expensive, particularly for those who played vinyl. For Wilkinson, technology significantly changed the way she programmed her show, giving her access to new artists without the money to make and distribute music other than online: some people have the money to put a CD in your locker, some people have the money to press vinyl. Amazing. But some people don’t, so you gotta listen. So MPs [available on sites like Bandcamp and Soundcloud] are very exciting, like, I actually reckon that’s where I spend my most time.27

7.1.2 Re-valuation of under-represented music

As discussed in chapter 1, this thesis builds on Podkalicka and Meese’s argument that subcultural intermediaries are involved in a cyclical process of value-creation.28 Podkalicka and Meese’s case study of Salvation Army op-shops led them to argue for the integrated nature of cultural intermediaries:

Our example gestures towards as embedded, contextually reliant, and one which draws on and informs varied discourses, practices and networks of sociality, not only at the nexus of production and consumption in primary markets, but also in secondary markets where value-creation activity can occur

I have identified some points in this thesis when I have observed value-creation by subcultural intermediaries within these secondary markets. However, the most compelling example is best observed over time. In this subsection, I discuss how PBS has contributed to a re-valuation of under-represented and live music. Then, I describe how PBS replicated these methods in the 2010s. PBS has been a significant contributor the re-valuation of Melbourne’s live music scene over the last forty years. Back in 1986, the ABT reviewed radio’s influence on the development of Australia’s music industry, finding airplay on Australian radio significantly affected “record sales and attendances at live performances” and that it

27 L. Wilkinson interview. 28 Podkalicka and Meese. 296

was difficult for musicians to gain national or international recognition without it.29 In 1987, Warne argued community radio stations contributed to the music scenes by broadcasting more live-to-air performances of local bands and giving greater airplay to albums from unrecorded or not widely available bands.30 Live music was converted into economic impact for the first time in the 2010s with the Melbourne Live Music Census.31 In 2017, the Melbourne Live Music Census crowned Melbourne the live- music capital of the world by measuring and comparing the number of live music venues per capita.32 This highlighted the positive financial impact of live music and quantifiable value of the sector to the state’s economy. PBS actively supported and benefitted from the re-valuation of live and under- represented music in the 2010s. A year prior to the Live Music Census, in 2011, PBS actively supported the Save Live Australia’s Music (SLAM) rally. This helped reverse state government noise and security laws that would have closed the Tote, a Collingwood live-music institution located two blocks from PBS’ studios. In 2016, a national day of action promoting the value of community radio contributed to securing federal government funding to assist PBS and other community broadcasters to begin digital broadcasting. In contrast to previous relocations, in 2017, the station announced it would move to a new Arts Precinct in Collingwood (CAP) by 2020. The Precinct and PBS’ move to the Precinct are funded through State Government and philanthropic sources. PBS is fortunate to have “sufficiently affluent” listeners33; a large part of this philanthropy will come from its listeners and members.34 PBS further embedded its position as an influential subcultural intermediary by increasing community engagement. PBS first embedded itself in Melbourne’s music community with its live music broadcasts in the early 1980s. In the annual

29 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Australian Music on Radio, Sydney, Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, 1986, p. 8. 30 Warne, p. 171 31 D. Newton, Victorian Live Music Census 2012, Music Victoria, www.musicvictoria.com.au/assets/Documents/Victorian_Live_Music_Census_2012.pdf (accessed 28 October 2019); D. Newton and R. Coyle-Hayward, Melbourne Live Music Report Census, Music Victoria, 2017, www.musicvictoria.com.au/assets/2018/MLMC-2017-Report-compressed.pdf (accessed 28 October 2019). 32 Newton and Coyle-Hayward. 33 J. Gordon, ‘The Economic Tensions Faced by Community Radio Broadcasters’, in C. Atton, The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media, NY, Routledge, 2015, p. 250. 34 A. Basso, ‘Thesis Review Update’, [email to R. Lade], 13 July 2020. 297

update of its programming vision for 2010, PBS aimed to be more involved with, and responsive to, its community: . Leading Melbourne in under-represented and diverse music . Being more than just (digital) radio . Strengthening bonds with its community . Being more responsive to its supporters35

These community engagement goals were realised through three main avenues. First was PBS Presents: a “station endorsed event, gig, festival … a PBS ‘tick of approval’”.36 Second was music-themed nights at various music venues in Melbourne based on popular announcers and programs, such as the funk and soul dance party Soul a Go-Go. Third was Outside Broadcasts, which were either livestreamed or replayed on PBS soon after being played live. These goals enhanced PBS’ position within Melbourne’s music community. Monica Hanns, a staff member, announcer and now Board member at PBS, summarised the effect of this strategy on PBS’ long-term viability: we’ve got ourselves to a good place now where we are pretty [financially] sustainable. The community cares about us and they care enough to invest their money, whether that be through sponsorship, membership or donation.37

McKern described a similar sentiment among audience members at numerous Wangaratta Jazz and Blues Festivals he attended in the 2010s as evidence of the position the station holds within Melbourne’s (and Victoria’s) music community: I’ve had the great, beautiful, humbling experience a number of times of being at Wangaratta Jazz and Blues Festival where the Festival asks me to actually MC some of those concerts, and it’s incredibly humbling to first of all get up on stage and introduce myself, mention I’m the Program Manager at PBS, and there is applause through the audience at the mention of PBS … we’re three hundred km from

35 ‘Update to Statement of Programming Vision 2010’, Board papers for 26 September 2011, PBS. 36 PBS Policies & Procedures (v 4.0, 1 May 2018), PBS, p. 72. 37 M. Hanns interview. 298

Melbourne at a music festival. Yeah, it’s the traction we have in the community [Melbournians in Wangaratta for the festival].38

As a subcultural intermediary, PBS assisted in the re-valuation of live and under- represented music over a period of four decades. In a solely linear process, cultural intermediaries act solely at the point between production and consumption. In a cyclical process, change is achieved through contextually reliant influence.39 With its broadcast output, PBS re-valued this music within Melbourne’s music scene: PBS’ community was made up of music-makers and listeners, who, in turn, created or sought to hear more music like what they heard on PBS. The station’s ongoing focus on community engagement in the 2010s suggests this influence will continue, reinforcing the value of studying PBS’ broadcast output.

7.2 Programming policies, processes and people

The 2010s were a very stable time at PBS for programming, finances and personnel. Basso celebrated his 10th anniversary at PBS in 2017. Owen McKern started as program manager in early 2012, replacing Garry Seven. McKern had almost two decades of involvement in community radio, having presented a program at Triple R from 1998 to 2011, as well as working on staff at 3MBS first as the education coordinator and then program manager. Data shows programs remained largely the same and departing programs were most often replaced with another from the same category. PBS’ financial position was reported to be “incredibly stable”40 and “pretty comfortable”,41 although I have not been granted permission to publish financial records to support these statements. PBS’ cultural intermediaries in the 2010s occupied tightly defined roles governed by a comprehensive Policies and Procedures manual stating their responsibilities and limitations, and a clearly defined hierarchy of programming and

38 O. McKern interview. 39 Podkalicka and Meese. 40 O. McKern interview. 41 J. Fairfax interview. 299

other decision-making processes. Archival and interview data demonstrates programming was the most stable in the station’s history. In this first subsection, I briefly outline the responsibilities ascribed to each subcultural intermediary in the 2010s and how this changed over the decade. In the late 2000s, the Program Executive was removed from the station’s programming organisational structure. The Program Executive had been created after the first programming review in 2006 to prevent the program manager making decisions without consultation. It was removed in 2008 to “improve the process”.42 This left two bodies responsible for programming decisions in the 2010s; strategic matters were the responsibility of the Board, operational matters were covered by the PPG. There were fewer members on the PPG than in the 2000s (see Table 43). There were fewer category coordinators because of the reduction in music categories and the Board no longer sat on the PPG, as shown in Figure 29.

Board nominated representative (1) (Chair)

1 category coordinator per category (7), Station Manager Program Manager nominated by announcers (1) (1) in that category

Figure 29: Program Planning Group structure, 2010s

The station manager and the program manager are members of the PPG and attend Board meetings. Basso described his role on the PPG as “one of ten” with an agenda “to make sure the station is put first as much as possible”.43 McKern described

42 A. Basso, ‘RE: Update and Questions’, [email to R. Lade], 28 January 2020. 43 A. Basso interview. 300

his role as “fairly critical” to the operation of the PPG due to his intimate knowledge of what could, and does, go to air: Every PPG meeting, for example, I feed through data about general statistics about how we’re going on air [i.e. how the announcers sound] and will obviously give my impressions of any changes we’ve made at the previous meeting. I will table any new program proposals that I believe have merit, in fact, any program proposals will go forward. And then if discussions ensue about particular changes or whatever else, obviously because I’m here … a lot and it’s my job to listen to a lot more radio than any of the individual category coordinators, then often those conversations or questions will be directed at me.44

McKern describes a structure emphasising democratic, group decision making which is consistent with the dominant, decentralised programming structures at PBS over the past forty years. Democratic values of equality and accountability are reinforced through the clear description of roles and responsibilities. Where in previous decades the Board was actively involved in operational programming decisions, its main task in the 2010s was to set the strategic agenda for programming and monitor the decision-making process. This separation occurred when the PPG and Board structure discussed earlier in this section was implemented in the late 2000s. By 2017, the Board’s role in relation to programming was clearly stated in the organisation’s Policies and Procedures manual: The Board shall set the overarching programming policy through the Annual Statement of Programming and ensure all programming changes are consistent with that policy. The Board shall ensure that: a) Process has been followed; b) Programming reflects the ongoing objectives and vision of the Cooperative; and c) Programming positions the station to ensure firstly financial survival and then growth.45

44 O. McKern interview. 45 PBS Policies & Procedures, pp. 39–40. 301

The 2017 Policies and Procedures manual also clearly stated the PPG’s responsibilities were related directly to operational programming decisions and in line with the Board’s Annual Statement of Programming: In line with the Annual Statement of Programming, the PPG shall make recommendations [to the Board] about programming direction to cover: a. Balance of genres b. Type of programs c. Quality of programs d. Style of programs e. Innovation f. Any other matters deemed relevant by the PPG.46

All decisions, including whether to rest or change a program or announcer, are made “as much as possible through consensus. If needed, a vote may be held with all members of the PPG having equal voting rights and the PPG chairperson a casting vote”.47 The PPG is required to meet at least three time a year and may conduct up to three grid reviews per year, although these reviews “shall be as time distant from Radio Festival as possible”.48 Another change to programming structure in the 2010s was the redistribution of program categories. The Board was concerned existing categories had not been reviewed for a long time, resulting in a higher workload for category coordinators with more programs than for those categories with fewer programs.49 The categories before and after the recommendation to redistribute, as well as the number of programs in each, are shown in Table 58.

46 PBS Policies & Procedures, p. 41. 47 PBS Policies & Procedures, p. 42. 48 PBS Policies & Procedures, p. 41. 49 ‘Minutes’, Board meeting 30 November 2009, PBS. 302

Table 58: Comparison of program categories, 2009 and 2010

2009 2010 Blues Roots 16 Blues & Roots 17 Electronic Dance 11 Electronic & Hip Hop 11 Hard Heavy 7 Funk & Soul 7 Indie Rock 12 Hard ‘n’ Heavy 11 Insomnia 13 Indie & Rock 11 Jazz Fusion 6 Jazz 7 World Arts 12 World 13 Total: 77 Total: 77

In 2009, Funk & Soul programs were part of Blues Roots. In 2010, insomnia programs were spread between categories. Initially the PPG unanimously voted to maintain the existing number of categories,50 but eventually changed its mind, deciding to “recalibrate” for the following reasons: . To give Insomnia shows a better sense of involvement with the rest of the grid . To make it easier for the blues & roots category rep to manage the category as it will not have a much larger number of shows than the other categories . To make it easier for visitors to the PBS website to locate blues and roots and funk and soul shows as separate entities51

As discussed in previous chapters, category coordinators had often been accused of being tribal, or siloed, in their decision-making, seeking to make programming decisions that would benefit their category regardless of the effect on others. In the 2010s, the Board actively encouraged the PPG to make programming decisions that considered the whole station, not just what was best for their category.52 Wilkinson described this less siloed approach in practice: I’m just in one of, I think, seven or eight. Collectively [long pause], I guess we question the integrity of certain decisions being made or the way in which certain decisions are getting made in a broader sense of the station … So for the PPG to have seven people across all genres of music, all different ages, all different types of people having a voice

50 ‘PPG Category Review Meeting – Recommendations’, 1 March 2010, PBS. 51 G. Seven, ‘November Program Review and a PPG Recommendation’, Board papers for 26 July 2010, PBS. 52 A. Basso interview; L. Wilkinson interview. 303

about what their category could be bringing and then what contribution that makes to the greater sound of the station.53

Wilkinson’s description of how the PPG considered the station-wide sound, along with the other changes described in this section, indicate well-functioning, democratic programming. When the PPG decided to rest some programs from the grid in 2016, the accountability and transparency of programming decisions was challenged, as I discuss in the next section.

7.2.1 Risks of resting a program

Resting a program means it is taken off-air, although it may return in the future. In my interviews, PBS’ programming decision-makers were sensitive about the reasons programs were rested in the 2010s. Confidentiality is listed in the Policies and Procedures manual as one of the PPG’s responsibilities: “in order to promote open discussion and to protect the interest of PBS, its staff, Announcers and other volunteers”.54 In general terms, the decision to rest a program is based on several factors: crossover with existing programs, the desire to present content more representative of contemporary global movements55 or when an application for an under-represented musical style is received.56 Resting programs can elicit any number of responses from listeners. Helen Jennings, an announcer on PBS since 1988, was rested from the grid in 2001. She had requested a time change from her Wednesday 3:00–5:00pm timeslot due to work commitments, but suggested it must have been decided: ‘ah well, if she wants a time change, it might be an opportunity to rest it for a while’.57 Jennings was replaced by the Hard ‘n’ Heavy program Headwealth (2000–2007), then by the Rock Indie program Bone Machine (1997–2004) in 2002. Audience reaction prompted Jennings’ swift return on-air:

53 L. Wilkinson. 54 PBS Policies & Procedures, p. 42. 55 A. Basso, ‘General Manager Report – Content’, Board papers for 24 September 2012, PBS. 56 Basso, ‘General Manager Report’. 57 H. Jennings interview. 304

There were death threats. In fact – oh serious – when I was told, I said ‘oh come on’. They said ‘no, no, no’. They couldn’t get anyone to volunteer reception on the old time of Roots and Rhythm because people would ring up or abuse and come in, they used to come in, and that’s when we were at Fitzroy. And the then station manager, Roger Jones, said ‘We’ve got to do something quick to – we can’t stick you straight back on-air, but what we can do’ – I used to do guest spots with people so my presence was still here, I was still on-air, but then I picked up Roots and Rhythm again this time.58

Jennings and Roots of Rhythm returned in early 2003, 9:00–11:00am on Wednesdays, and was still on-air at this time in 2019. Claire Stuchbery, who has been an announcer, staff member, Rock Indie Category Coordinator and chair of the Programming Committee in her almost 25 years with the station, explained the risks in resting a program in the age of social media: I think partly that’s why people are very careful now, and arguably too careful, about making programming decisions, because there is this concern about social media backlash and reputational damage, and being able to be shown due process, like overt due process, even beyond what you might demonstrate in an employment situation. Volunteers and by nature of being volunteers means that they’re really passionate about what they’re doing, and that’s one of those things that’s good when it’s good, and can really backfire if you no longer want that person to be doing that thing that they’re really passionate about.59

In 2016, Ken Eavel’s Rock Indie program Go For Broke, which had been on-air since 2010, was rested, causing strong reactions from some announcers and listeners. The aggrieved announcers, from various categories, argued neither adequate assessment nor consultation had been conducted. The program has not been brought back on-air, but changes were made to programming practices. To address concerns about a lack of consultation, the Board improved the democratic functioning of the PPG. Until that point, category coordinators remained incumbent unless they

58 H. Jennings interview. 59 C. Stuchbery interview. 305

voluntarily stepped down or were challenged by another person within their category. From April 2017, category coordinators were to be elected by announcers in their category for two-year terms. Further, the Board clarified the description of category coordinators’ roles and responsibilities to ensure accountability for future decisions.60 These changes suggest a desire for more active, involved and accountable category coordinators to assist with programming decision-making and communication of these decisions back to their category announcers. As discussed in previous chapters, removing an announcer from their program can be difficult and stressful. Resting a program inevitably has consequences for remaining announcers, who can question why that decision was made and, naturally, whether their program might be next. Responding to unhappiness with the process used to rest programs in 2016, a small number of announcers at PBS established the PBS Association of Broadcasters (PAB). Its aims are: - To provide an effective formal conduit for announcers to express genuine concerns or ask questions about program-related matters - To communicate with the station with regard to matters of announcer welfare - To encourage the sharing of knowledge, skills and support within the announcer group.61

At the time of writing this thesis, the PAB had not developed further and, beyond the changes to category coordinator elections, had not otherwise influenced programming decisions.62

7.2.2 At a popular radio station, announcers compete for airtime

As PBS grew in popularity, the quality of its announcers also increased. Listeners expected PBS announcers to be the quintessential subcultural intermediaries: experts in their field, well-connected and able to communicate to their audience. In this

60 T. Lawley, ‘Unreal News – Special Edition – PPG Changes’ [Email to announcers], 20 April 2017, (accessed 2 June 2019). 61 PBS Association of Broadcasters, ‘Letter to PBS Announcers’, Board papers for 29 August 2016, PBS. 62 A. Basso interview. 306

subsection, I describe the various factors that affected both aspiring and longstanding announcers in the 2010s. In the 2010s, announcers were expected to have “high levels of music and presentation expertise”.63 Hanns described announcers as delivering “the very best of every genre”.64 McKern described the PBS announcer as a “tastemaker”, someone who could build trust in their audience to broadcast good music through curatorial taste: Programming decisions here are made according to a number of factors. So one is, and it is part of our licence, we need to represent our community of interest, our community of interest is music. So we obviously look for people who are intimately connected with a particular niche scene or area of music. We look for people who are active in that scene as a preference. It’s not definitive, so it can be just a pure collector, but typically we look for people who are active in their particular scene or community. In terms of new programs, we have a preference for things that perhaps we’re not covering as well as we could be. An example would be if we felt there was a resurgence in techno music in Melbourne or even globally and we’re not covering it as a specialist music station that aims to represent myriad music genres. We would probably be looking at, and prioritising, a proposal – an appropriate proposal for somebody in those areas. … And then there’s basic things. Obviously, can somebody actually work the equipment? How does somebody sound on-air? Are they engaging? Are they comfortable? Do they potentially have a little bit of X factor? Are they reliable? And that is often very much the questions that are asked of me, which is because I’m also very much across who’s doing fills? [The Program Manager determines who does fills.] Who’s turning up? Who’s politely persistent? And that’s a good thing in my world. … So some of those less kind of radio-specific things but more kind of management-type things are some of the things that I can feed in, that the PPG members might not otherwise have a sense for because they’ve really only heard somebody on-air, they don’t know if they’re also hardworking, diligent, reliable, all those sorts of things.65

McKern describes a process that prioritises selection of aspiring announcers who are established, engaging subcultural intermediaries. Enthusiastic and reliable aspiring

63 ‘Statement of Programming Vision 2010’, Board papers for 26 September 2011. 64 M. Hanns interview. 65 O. McKern interview. 307

announcers are prioritised for fills, giving them on-air experience which may lead to their own, regular program. There was an established process to become an announcer. The aspiring announcer must apply to do the announcer training course, a five-week training course held one evening per week, where students learnt things like how to operate the panel and program a show, and their legal responsibilities on-air. Students paid a fee for the course, a factor which could restrict access to those with a low-income,66 however the station did introduce free training with the Access Diversity Program, discussed later in this chapter. To pass the course, students were required to record a one-hour demo program which they could also use as their demo as part of their application to become an announcer. From there, a formal application could be made at any time and it was McKern’s job to review them. New announcers often started with one-off, fill-in spots on graveyard programs until they were given their own show. McKern explained aspiring announcers had a better chance of getting on-air if their demo tape covered music the station wanted to broadcast: There’s not a chronological queue, that if you’re the last person to be trained, you’re at the bottom of the queue … It’s really about what can you bring to the grid that we either don’t have yet or that we need.67

Wilkinson said she looked for “representation of all types of people needing to be part of the community fabric of a community radio station”.68 She would actively seek announcers who could represent an under-represented style of music: If there’s an opportunity for me to say there’s just not enough Rock and Indie, and everyone’s like ‘yeah, we need more rock people, do we know any rock people?’ then I’d sort of do a bit of a blast email out to people, going ‘right, who’s interested in doing this announcer course and who’s got a great rock collection?’ Just trying to find it in our community and draw that in and going ‘we need to make sure that we’re representing everybody here and using our network of people that we’re meeting over

66 Browne, p. 156. 67 O. McKern interview. 68 L. Wilkinson interview. 308

the years of being involved in a radio station’, that’s also contributing to where we get our information from.69

In a competitive environment, even if an application by a new announcer for a new program was successful, it would typically get a graveyard slot. Jennings explained this offered no guarantee they would make it to a prime-time position: “a lot of them end up in two to six and a lot of them don’t get out of two to six”.70 Balancing new and existing announcers is a constant challenge and PBS has several long-time announcers. Long term announcers “dependably provide stations with programmes year in and year out” but, in doing so, can prevent new announcers from gaining air time.71 They are ingrained in a circular process of value-creation by the length of time they have been on-air, through numerous social relationships formed over time and the music broadcast by bands as they have evolved their music making. Announcers who have been on-air for 20 years or more are listed in Table 59.

69 L. Wilkinson interview. 70 H. Jennings interview. 71 Browne, p. 167. 309

Table 59: Announcers on-air for 20 years or more

Announcer Program name(s) Category Years Start Finish on-air David Heard Mainly Acoustic, Blues & Roots 39 1979 Present Live at the C One C, Rockin’ Country, Sunday Country, Acid Country Phil MacDougall Roadrunner, Hard 'n' Heavy 34 1980 Present Sunglasses After Dark Roger Holdsworth Global Village, World 35 1983 Present Mainly Acoustic Vince Peach Soul Time Funk & Soul 33 1985 Present Helen Jennings Roots of Rhythm Blues & Roots 30 1988 Present Kev Lobotomy Shock Treatment Hard ‘n’ Heavy 29 1989 Present Len Davis Bitches Brew Jazz 27 1983 2009 Gerry Koster Dizzy Atmosphere Jazz 25 1993 Present Stani Goma Africa #1, World 24 1994 Present Flight 1067 to Africa Hugo T. Armstrong Now Dig This Blues & Roots 21 1990 2010 Mohair Slim Blue Juice Blues & Roots 20 1999 Present Peter Merrett Malt Shop Hop Blues & Roots 20 1999 Present Tony Irvine Irvine Jump Electronic & 20 1999 Present Hip Hop Gary Carson & Screaming Symphony Hard 'n' Heavy 20 1999 Present Peter Fundeis Dingo It’s a Gas Blues & Roots 20 1999 Present

Jennings, the longest serving female announcer on PBS and the only female in Table 59, described the competition to stay on-air: Never, ever take it for granted. I think a lot of long-time PBS announcers will probably tell you the same thing. It’s an absolute privilege to be here, because it is very competitive. We are very competitive – competing on the airwaves. So it’s a very competitive medium. There’s a lot of people waiting in the wings. Yeah, so I’ll never take it for granted, what we do, have the opportunity to play the music that I love. It’s great.72

72 H. Jennings interview. 310

Closer examination of the Funk & Soul category demonstrates how growth in popularity of this style of music, particularly since 2000, has affected its representation on PBS. Some of this growth can be attributed to the Soul a Go-Go dance parties PBS has hosted since 2007. Placement of Funk & Soul programs in the grid can also explain their popularity. Seven programs were on-air in a prime afternoon, drive or evening position (weekends and weekdays), except for Behind the Beat. Funk & Soul became a separate category at PBS in 2010, separated from Blues & Roots (see Table 58) due to its high profile and desire to provide its announcers with more support from their own dedicated category coordinator.73 Funk & Soul programs have been especially long-running, with the highest average years on-air (5.5 years) of any Tier 1 categories. The six longest running Funk & Soul programs are listed in Table 60.

Table 60: Longest running Funk & Soul programs

Program Started Finished Years on-air Gender of announcer Soul Time 1985 Present 34 Male Soul Funk Fusion 1983 1999 16 Male Soulgroove '66 2003 Present 16 Male The Breakdown 2004 Present 15 Male Soul Cruise 1987 1999 12 Male Boss Action 2008 Present 11 Female

McKern explained how these long-running and popular programs created barriers for aspiring announcers wishing to emulate these programs to get airtime: Sometimes … we’re a victim of our own success. So in my time here, particularly early on, not so much now but when I first started here, we still did have some exceptional and high-profile Soul & Funk shows, for example. So we would have a lot of people doing the training course because that’s what they listen to, that’s what they love, that’s what they want to do. And we would have a lot of proposals coming through that basically say, ‘hey, I loved Vince Peach’s Soul Time, I also have a bunch of soul records, I want to do a show just like it’. And quality people, reliable people, good broadcasters, but the reality is we cover that area of music really well.74

73 Seven, ‘November Program Review’. 74 O. McKern interview. 311

These comments reflect issues of access and participation experienced at most community radio stations. At PBS, with the added element of broadcasting progressive music, programmers must balance the experience and established networks of long-term announcers with the new music styles and enthusiasm aspiring announcers can offer.

7.2.3 Resting Spoken Word

The Board’s Statement of Programming Vision released in 2010 informed much of how the station made its programming decisions during the decade. Highlighting the aims of PBS programming, the statement emphasised the listener’s musical experience as the priority factor in programming decisions: PBS exists so that members and listeners can experience under-represented and diverse music. Therefore, programming at PBS aims to create bands of time within the week where PBS listeners and members can predictably listen to certain styles of music programs. The programs will flow into each other creating a synergy whereby the daily programming takes the listener on a musical journey. To achieve this, we will present a combination of mostly specialised shows along with some cross genre.75

Spoken Word was a victim of this focus on synergy, flow and musical journey. All Spoken Word programming ended in 2010, the first time a category broadcast since 1979 (based on my categorisation system) had ceased to exist on PBS. The decision-making process which led to the demise of Spoken Word programming demonstrates the relationship between the Board and the PPG, as well as the factors which were affecting programming decisions at the time. In this subsection, first I review the evolution of the Spoken Word category to contextualise its part of PBS’ broadcast output. Then I turn to the reasons for ending Spoken Word programming. The inclusion of Spoken Word programming was a contentious issue for much of PBS’ history. The station’s Promise of Performance was originally created as part of its licence application in 1978 (as discussed in chapter 3). Spoken Word was initially allowed to be broadcast because of wording in clause 1: “to provide primarily music

75 ‘Statement of Programming Vision 2010’, Board papers for 26 September 2011. 312

broadcasts” (my italics).76 Andrew Green, who was heavily involved with programming decisions in the 1990s and early 2000s explained how this did not adequately define the inclusion, or exclusion, of the term: ‘and spoken word’ clause suffix was sometimes contentious. One perspective posited that it was a caveat, that it was there to cover pre-recorded spoken word such as Comedy records, so that a Comedy program could be accommodated in what was an all-music station with a ‘Special [sic] Licence’ to present ‘Under-represented music’; others argued that ‘and spoken word’ sanctioned the inclusion of talk-based programmes, magazine format.77

Spoken Word at PBS consisted of a variety of Tier 2 genres over the last four decades, as shown in Table 61.

Table 61: Comparison of Tier 2 top 10 styles by broadcast hours, Spoken Word, 1980s–2010s

Tier 2 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Comedy 416 1550 13 0 Arts 98 512 522 35 Music & Comedy 1146 0 0 0 Drama 910 23 0 0 Current Affairs 10 874 0 0 Film 58 294 270 0 Gig Guides 29 539 0 0 Words 164 25 82 0 Trivia 0 154 0 0 Books 0 11 0 0

Table 62 lists the longest running Spoken Word programs, their Tier 2 descriptions and the years they were on-air.

Table 62: Spoken Word programs >300 hours on-air

Program name Tier 2 First Last Years on-air Wireless Playhouse Drama 1980 1989 10 Young and the Restless Music & Comedy 1980 1989 10 The Cheese Shop Comedy 1987 1992 6

76 ABT, ‘Public Broadcasting’, p. 134. 77 A. Green interview. 313

PBS Presents Gig Guides 1989 1996 8 Art and About Arts 1989 1997 9 Undercurrents Current Affairs 1990 1997 8 Let's Do Lunch Comedy 1990 1994 5 Animal House Comedy 1992 1996 5 The Comic Box Comedy 1994 2000 7 Back Row Film 1994 2004 11 Art Rave Today Arts 1997 2003 7 The Opening Arts 2003 2010 8

Of these programs, the only one not created by PBS was the Current Affairs program Undercurrents 5:30–6:00pm each weekday 1990–1997, a program produced by Public Radio News, a not-for-profit “community association dedicated to the development of a comprehensive, alternative news and current affairs service for public radio”. Public Radio News produced three programs which PBS broadcast via satellite: Undercurrents, for daily news and current affairs, Watching Brief, a program about “peace and environment”, and Dispatches, a program about “third world issues”.78 For PBS, after 1997, news was limited to bulletins during the breakfast program which, in recent years, were compiled by the announcers from online sources. Community stations producing their own news bulletins is uncommon.79 Spoken Word was well represented at PBS until the late 1990s, as shown in Figure 30.

78 Public Radio News, ‘What Value Do You Put on Independent News?’, Fitzroy, 1987, p.2. 79 Browne, p. 158. 314

10%

Figure 30: Spoken Word programs by percentage of broadcast hours, 1979-2011

The decline of Spoken Word programming began in 1997, due to a staff report which recommended the end of Current Affairs programs on PBS: “No music oriented spoken word programmes or current affairs (except comedy)”.80 People like listening to community radio for local information and news.81 News programs give a sense of ‘hyperlocal’ and removing such programs could decrease this feeling.82 The same staff report influenced programming decisions discussed in 5.2.2. Spoken Word programs took another hit after the annual Radio Festival fundraiser in 1998, when these programs reported poor subscriber numbers.83 Billy Walsh, the Programme Services Coordinator who acted as a conduit between announcers and management, reported: With the Spoken Word category both the ‘Back Row’ and ‘Art Rave Today’ received a total of and subscribers respectively. My view is that people are not listening to

these shows.84

This category decreased in percentage of broadcast hours from 5.2% in 1996 to 1.3% by the year 2000. Programming data in Figure 30 shows a gradual decline in

80 ‘PBS Staff Report’. 81 Forde, Meadows and Foxwell, p. 37. 82 H. Anderson, ‘The Digital Disruption of News and Current Affairs in the Community Broadcasting Sector: An Australian Perspective’, 3CMedia, no. 9, 2019. 83 Walsh, ‘Programme Services Coordinator Report’. 84 Walsh, ‘Programme Services Coordinator Report’. 315

Spoken Word during the 2000s. The category rallied slightly following the 2005 programming review when Armstrong introduced one-hour programs 7:00–8:00pm each weeknight. He described the intended “magazine style” programming featuring “talk, spoken-word feature material or comedy”85 in this timeslot: I did trial some little magazine shows of an evening of one hour … It was more like a little magazine article, so it might be someone who specialised in movie soundtracks or really high-end specialist guitar. So like an article you’d read nowadays online, it's a specialist article … I felt that they gave an opportunity for people. And you could see if the show had the potential to expand in, or maybe it was just a short-lived thing because it was a trend, or a niche, or something that was interesting.86

Spoken Word programs ceased on PBS as part of a PPG recommendation to the Board in June 2009. The PPG wanted to remove the one-hour magazine-style programs from the 7:00–8:00pm timeslot because these programs were no longer a focus of the station.87 In 2009, there was only one Spoken Word program still on-air, The Opening, a one-hour arts review program on Tuesday evenings 7:00–8:00pm. The category’s demise was spurred on by a lack of applications to present such magazine programs. Difficulty filling the one-hour slots resulted in specialist music programming being scheduled instead.88 Additionally, although acknowledging “show membership numbers are not the only measure of merit and are an imperfect quantification of listenership”,89 a graph of membership numbers showed a significant drop – up to two-thirds – in program members from drive to the evening shift. The PPG recommended merging the timeslot with drive-time, making a three- hour drive program 5:00–8:00pm to increase listener flow from drive into evening programs.90 Two statements in the 2010 Programming Vision were also used to justify moving towards music programs only, away from Spoken Word programming scheduled in these one-hour slots. One emphasised music diversity:

85 ‘PPG 1-hour Slot Recommendations’, Board papers for 30 August 2010, PBS. 86 H. Armstrong interview. 87 ‘PPG 1-hour Slot Recommendations’. 88 ‘PPG 1-hour Slot Recommendations’. 89 ‘PPG 1-hour Slot Recommendations’. 90 ‘PPG 1-hour Slot Recommendations’. 316

PBS will lead Melbourne in under-represented and diverse music [where] programs will flow into each other creating a synergy whereby the daily programming takes the listener on a musical journey [italics in original].91

More pointedly for the Spoken Word category, the other reinforced the aim for announcers to concentrate on music and musical expertise: ensure presenters have a demonstrated level of musical expertise that can be developed for the benefit of the audience and the station [italics in original].92

The Board did not accept the PPG’s recommendation, having two strategic concerns about removing the one-hour timeslot: participation and diversity. First, by extending the one-hour timeslot, five announcers would be removed from broadcasting. Second, the removal of five programs would reduce the diversity of broadcast output, which “may challenge PBS’s ability to meet its specialist programming needs”.93 The PPG revisited its recommendation to extend the drive shift (option 2 in the following list) and devised two additional options to resolve the matter: 1) leave as is; 2) extend drive to a three-hour program; or 3) change the two evening shifts to 90 minutes each (5:00–6:30pm and 6:30–8:00pm). The PPG voted to remain with the one-hour timeslot (7:00–8:00pm) but changed the type of programming prioritised for this hour from Spoken Word to “music only shows of a high standard”.94 The PPG argued this would address the “core of programming flow difficulties”,95 which it felt was the main reason programs in this timeslot had such an impact on later programs. According to Havrillay, member of the Board in the 2000s and 2010s, removing Spoken Word programming also enabled the station to brand itself as a music-only station: I think it has been actually good for the station, to be very clear about who we are and what we’re trying to do. Because as soon as you say, ‘we are mostly a music station,

91 ‘PPG 1-hour Slot Recommendations’. 92 ‘PPG 1-hour Slot Recommendations’. 93 ‘PPG 1-hour Slot Recommendations’. 94 ‘PPG 1-hour Slot Recommendations’. 95 ‘PPG 1-hour Slot Recommendations’. 317

but we do a bit of this and that’, people might scratch their heads and go ‘why? When Triple R does it [Spoken Word] so well or CR does it so well’. So I think again, it's about balancing your place in the media spectrum with other like-minded stations and the ABC and SBS and all that kind of stuff as well.96

In August 2010, PBS’ last Spoken Word program, The Opening, broadcast for the final time. The only remaining Spoken Word content after 2010 was the 15-minute arts review segment on Wednesdays during The Breakfast Spread and the gig guides provided by announcers during many music programs. However, the above data shows spoken word at PBS was seen from a Western perspective. In many non-Western cultures, spoken word is an integral part of musical and cultural expression. Viewed from this non-Western perspective, in 2019 there were two programs on PBS that featured Spoken Word content, All Our Stories and Fresh Produce. As explained in the methodology, I have used the same Tier 1 categories that the programs have self-identified. All Our Stories is categorised as a World music program, Fresh Produce an Electronic & Hip Hop program. Both programs broadcast music and a musical-cultural interpretation of Spoken Word. A redefinition of Spoken Word programming is required if this form of expression is to be recognised and broadcast on PBS in the future.

7.3 Broadcast output in the 2010s

In this section, I analyse results from PBS’ sound in the 2010s to suggest programming decisions were strongly guided by the Board’s 2010 Statement of Programming Vision:  musical styles during weekday daytimes suitable to a ‘broad based’ audience  musical styles that attract large, loyal audiences on weekends  ‘experimental’, ‘harder’ or ‘edgier’ broadcasts (attracting a more specialized audience) during evenings and night time  Weekday breakfast that provides continuity in presentation and style whilst attracting new listeners to the PBS grid and servicing existing listeners

96 G. Havrillay interview. 318

Within PBS programming, the station aims to maintain diversity between genres, remain attractive to listeners and non-mainstream announcers and reflect high levels of music and presentation expertise from announcers.97 [bold in original]

These goals were to be achieved with the use of “regular program assessments for all programs, ensuring fill-ins are compatible with both the genre and show and maintaining program grid stability wherever possible”.98 The station was positioning itself for stability in its broadcast output, a predictable sound for the listener regardless of whether the host or the program were new. PBS’ programming contributed to significant growth in membership of approximately 65% in the ten years to 2019.99 Programming data in this section shows a few key trends. Blues & Roots and Contemporary Mix were heard most during the day, while Electronic & Hip Hop and Hand ‘n’ Heavy were broadcast mainly at night. Rock Indie was broadcast throughout the day and night. Jazz programs, which I explored in depth in section 6.3.1, increased from 8% to 12%, almost all during daylight hours. Despite these changes, total percentages of broadcast hours data show a relatively consistent allocation of broadcast hours per category throughout the 2010s compared with previous decades, as shown in Figure 31.

97 ‘Statement of Programming Vision 2010’. 98 ‘Statement of Programming Vision 2010’. 99 A. Basso, ‘RE: Program applications and online listening’ [email to R. Lade], 15 August 2019. 319

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Various World

Figure 31: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 2010s

The most significant changes were the loss of Spoken Word programs in 2010 (as discussed earlier in this chapter), Rock Indie’s peak (17%) in 2015, the gradual rises of Jazz and Hard ‘n’ Heavy across the decade and Electronic & Hip Hop overtaking Blues & Roots in 2017 as the category with the highest percentage of broadcast hours. Even with such clear evidence that the Board’s goal of a stable grid was realised, interviewees found it difficult to describe the PBS sound in the 2010s. Many used similar terms to previous decades. PBS had a “unique Australian-ness”,100 was “quintessentially Melbourne”,101 “unrehearsed … but really engaging”.102 McKern and Wilkinson described the station by the kind of listeners its sound attracted:

100 C. Scott, ‘Matthew Frederick: The Breakfast Spread, 6am 9am Monday to Friday’, Easey, May 2009, p. 23. 101 O. McKern interview. 102 L. Wilkinson interview. 320

- I don’t think there is any singular marketing brand for PBS, but we’re very much your classic music nut, be that the slightly older nerdy collector or the young kind of misfit at school that just wants to listen to music all day every day.103

- From two to ninety [years old], it’s huge. That’s the cool thing about it. … you can never really assume who you’re talking to. PBS’ audience, I think, are invested in their music community. They love going out to gigs. They’re massive music nerds or they really appreciate learning stuff that they don’t necessarily know about. I think if you’re open to new stuff, this is definitely where you’d want to tune in, because as you would hear and see on the grid, it goes from genre to genre to genre across a day.104

Overwhelmingly, a lack of a definitive sound was considered a positive attribute of the station. The closest interviewees came to negatively describing a particular sound for PBS in the 2010s was when they suggested certain musical styles were over- represented. I left defining what over-represented meant to each interviewee. Most thought it meant a style of music with proportionally more airtime than other styles of music. Funk & Soul and Blues & Roots were most often mentioned. Funk & Soul was most likely to be heard during the day in the 2010s and, as discussed in subsection 7.2.2, had two very popular programs (Soulgroove ‘66 and Boss Action) on weekends. Blues & Roots was the clear and consistent leader in percentage of broadcast hours during the day, as shown in Figure 32.

103 O. McKern interview. 104 L. Wilkinson interview. 321

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Jazz Rock Indie Various World

Figure 32: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 6:00am–7:00pm, 2010s

Electronic & Hip Hop had the lowest percentage of broadcast hours during this time for almost all the 2010s. Listeners were about four times more likely to hear a Blues & Roots program than an Electronic & Hip Hop program during the prime listening period 6:00am–7:00pm, while 7:00pm–6:00am listeners were much more likely to hear Electronic & Hip Hop programs, as shown in Figure 33.

322

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Various World

Figure 33: Tier 1 percentages of broadcast hours, 7:00pm–6:00am, 2010s

Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs, which in the 2000s chapter were seen to have moved to night-time hours, continued to be broadcast during these hours in the 2010s. In fact, of the 14 Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs in the 2010s all were broadcast during 7:00pm– 6:00am.

7.3.1 Increasing announcer diversity

Australia’s media lacks diversity, which Luckman et al. argued was mainly due to homophily and the informal networks of contacts built on social capital which placed cultural intermediaries, deciding who goes on-air, in influential positions.105 Moylan

105 Luckman, S. et al., ‘‘The Devil is in the Level’: Understanding Inequality in Australia’s Film, TV and Radio Industries’, Media International Australia, vol. 176, no. 1, 2020, p. 5. 323

argued community radio should be diverse because such diversity maintains its alternative to the mainstream: community radio (ideologically and materially) facilitates communicative avenues for alternative articulations of marginalized and minority experiences which negotiate, counter and challenge normative discursive framings of race which often otherwise dominate mainstream media.106

Browne argued finding these new communities can be difficult, particularly in the case of new cultural groups, because participation in the media may not be something they are used to. Being on-air could be met with negative audience response and possibly resting from the grid.107 By the 2010s, PBS had not reached gender parity on-air, or a balance of announcers from culturally diverse backgrounds. In 2010, the Board expanded its Statement of Programming Vision to explicitly target the skills and diversity of aspiring announcers, stating for the first time it wanted to encourage more women.108 The three relevant principles were: 1. Ensure presenters have a demonstrated level of musical expertise that can be developed for the benefit of the audience and the station, 2. Encourage the participation of more women as announcers 3. Find a better way of giving aspirant announcers experience.109

In this subsection, I explain how each of these statements has affected the diversity of announcers on PBS and use programming data to quantify their effect on broadcast output. By seeking to increase the expert status of the announcer, the Board formalised the required standard of musical knowledge required. This can set an intimidating standard, particularly for those from already under-represented groups. Hanns

106 K. Moylan, ‘Accented Radio in Miami and New Orleans’ in G. Föllmer and A. Badenoch (eds.), Transnationalizing Radio Research: New Approaches to an Old Medium, Bielefeld, Transcript, 2018, https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/374505, p. 48. 107 Browne, p. 167. 108 ‘2010 Principles: Statement of Programming Vision 2010’, 26 September 2011, PBS. 109 ‘2010 Principles’. 324

described her experience starting a program in 2010, even after working on staff for two years: I was scared. To me, PBS had so many experts in their field and I did not feel like I was an expert. I was twenty-five when I started my show [Against the Tide (–, –present] so I was quite young and I probably don’t – would not consider myself an expert now. But to me it was a scary world of very confident people who knew their genres really well. And I felt that perhaps I wasn’t up to the task. I had a very big push to do my show from our Program Manager at the time [Garry Seven], who I think was extremely conscious of the gender bias on-air … And I mean that in a positive way, like to tell them, ‘you’re great!’ ‘You can do this!’ ‘Just go and do it.’ And I think that’s what I personally needed, was someone to push me … that push means that seven, eight years later, here I am and I’m still here doing this show.110

The second and third of the Board’s principles acknowledged the existing method may not have been the best way for aspiring announcers to gain experience.111 Although not a formalised pathway, announcers were generally expected to have completed the announcers course, filled in for other announcers and hosted their own show during graveyard for a few years before they, hopefully, could move into daylight hours. This process was intended to ensure tight control over who went on- air so announcers were properly trained and had the required experience and expertise. An unintended outcome might have been hindering aspiring announcers unable to comply, especially with graveyard shift scheduling, due to family, work or health factors. PBS’ programs produce and influence culture and programs hosted by people from marginalised communities promote diversity.112 Efforts to find announcers among female, gender non-conforming and otherwise under-represented groups were foreshadowed in the 2013 Programming Statement. This recommended the recruitment of female announcers and to “identify and engage with new music trends” and “key people in Melbourne’s niche and specialist music communities”.113

110 M. Hanns interview. 111 ‘2010 Principles’. 112 Percival; Moylan, ‘Accented Radio’. 113 Adrian Basso, ‘2013 Principles’, Board papers for 25 February 2013, PBS. 325

Two training programs were established to train announcers from diverse backgrounds. These programs were the Collaborative Radio Project and Access Diversity Program. Cross Pollinate, mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, is hosted by people from the Access Diversity Program, and is broadcast only on digital radio. There are small audiences listening on digital radio. Jess Fairfax, announcer in the 2010s, described Cross Pollinate as being “in the ghetto”.114 It can take a long time to establish the required sense of welcome community within the station, and connection with new communities, to regularly hear these new voices on-air.115 But, Fairfax explained, regardless of the number of access programs, these new announcers need airtime: We’ve run a lot of access programs, but it’s now just making room for those presenters that have come through those programs to be on the grid. It’s all very well, you can tick all your boxes and run all of these programs, but you need to make some shoves, and get different voices on air. I think it’s important.116

According to McKern, to date one announcer from the Access Diversity Program has regularly hosted a program – Shio Otani and her Jazz program Eternal Rhythm on Thursdays 11:00am–1:00pm. Another graduate, Hannah Donnelly, hosted a weekly segment on The Breakfast Spread but has since ceased this involvement. Two other graduates were offered programs but declined as the timeslots were late at night. PBS has used four other graduates as regular fill-in announcers.117 In the 2010s, the number of female announcers increased minimally. Overall, programs with only female announcers increased their share of airtime from 21.3% in the 2000s to 22.9% in the 2010s, as shown in Figure 34.

114 J. Fairfax interview. 115 Browne, p. 168. 116 J. Fairfax interview. 117 O. McKern, ‘RE: Program applications and online listening’ [email to R. Lade], 12 November 2019. 326

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Female Male Both Unknown

2000s 2010s

Figure 34: Comparison of gender of announcer (by percentage of airtime), 2000s and 2010s

The slight increase in female-only announcers is offset by the decrease in programs co-presented by male and female announcers. As Fairfax argued, a reason for this limited change, in an area expressed as a priority by the Board, was a lack of turnover in programs. This lack of turnover is a disadvantage of having many long-serving announcers. As shown in Figure 35, new programs that commenced in the 2010s were more likely to be hosted by women than they were in the 2000s, although more than half the new shows still had all-male announcers.

327

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2000s 2010s

Female Male Both Unknown

Figure 35: Comparison of the gender of announcer for new programs, 2000s and 2010s

A comparison between the 2000s and 2010s of the number of female announcers during peak listening times 6:00am–7:00pm, when community radio stations attract the highest number of listeners,118 is given in Figure 36 and Figure 37.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Female Male Both

Figure 36: Percentage of airtime, gender of announcer by day of week, 6:00am–7:00pm, 2000s

118 McNair Yellow Squares, ‘Community Radio National Listener Survey 2018’. 328

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Female Male Both

Figure 37: Percentage of airtime, gender of announcer by day of week, 6:00am–7:00pm, 2010s

In the 2010s, over 6:00am–7:00pm on Mondays and Tuesdays, there was more airtime with female announcers than male announcers. On Fridays and weekends, the situation was very different: for the 12% of community radio listeners who tuned in only at these times,119 the station’s sound was male-dominated. In the 2000s, Fridays featured 24% female-only programs: City Slang, Planetary Chaos, Latin Connection (changed to both male and female hosts in 2008, then only male from 2009), Headwealth, Slide Out Wide, Trans Europa Express and Right Up Your Alley. In the 2010s, Fridays featured only male voices except for the co-hosted breakfast program, which accounts for Both at 23% (until 2019, when The Breakfast Spread was hosted by one male announcer). On Saturday, the only female-hosted show was Emma Peel’s Funk & Soul program Switched On, broadcast in the afternoon shift (1:00–3:00pm), which began in 2009. Boss Action, hosted by Miss Goldie, started broadcasting on Sunday afternoons in 2009, but in 2013 was moved to Thursday afternoons. This returned daytime Sundays (6:00am–7:00pm) to all-male announcers. Targeting female announcers by music category is one option for increasing numbers. Overall, World and Rock Indie Tier 1 categories had the best representation

119 McNair Yellow Squares, ‘Community Radio National Listener Survey 2018’. 329

of women announcers over the past 40 years. Figure 38 shows Funk & Soul had the lowest percentage of programs hosted only by a woman (9%) (other than Unknown).

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Female Male Both Unknown

Figure 38: Percentage of airtime by Tier 1 category gender of announcer, 1979–2019

For Funk & Soul programs with more than 10 hours on-air over the last 40 years, only 3 of the 45 programs featured female announcers, as shown in Table 63.

Table 63: Funk & Soul programs with female announcers and more than 10 hours on-air, 1979-2019

Program Years on-air Boss Action 2008–present Right Up Your Alley 1998–2000 Gimme Some More 1995–1998* *1997–1998 this program had two announcers: one male, one female

This data suggests change is slow. PBS has made only modest progress towards equal representation of male and female voices in the 2010s, with some regression. The most recent attempts to increase the diversity of its announcers are consistent with Bryant and Pozdeev’s study of recruitment techniques for community radio announcers at a sub-metropolitan station in an Australian capital city. They argued change cannot be achieved without a targeted and strategic approach, and support

330

throughout the whole process from recruitment to regular announcing.120 PBS’ most recent training initiatives are a step in the right direction, but without target date parity and a low turnover in programs, gender parity could take many years.

7.3.2 What cost stability?

In this subsection, I discuss a view which slowly gathered momentum during the 2010s: was PBS still progressive? The stable grid, which I have documented in this chapter, caused some to question its consequences. Only three of the station’s longest running programs, on-air for 20 years or more, were no longer on air in 2019, as shown in Table 64.

Table 64: Longest running programs, 20 years or more

Program Tier 1 Start Finish Years on-air Jazz on Saturday* Jazz 1983 Present 36 Sunglasses After Dark Hard 'n' Heavy 1984 Present 35 Soul Time Funk & Soul 1985 Present 34 Roots of Rhythm Blues & Roots 1988 Present 31 Shock Treatment Hard 'n' Heavy 1989 Present 30 Global Village* World 1990 Present 29 Dizzy Atmosphere Jazz 1993 Present 26 Bitches Brew Jazz 1983 2009 26 Latin Connection* World 1993 2015 22 Screaming Symphony Hard 'n' Heavy 1999 Present 20 Blue Juice Blues & Roots 1999 Present 20 Malt Shop Hop Blues & Roots 1999 Present 20 It's a Gas Blues & Roots 1999 Present 20 Now Dig This Blues & Roots 1990 2010 20

The programs marked with an asterisk have had different announcers and Global Village was off-air for a short period. Regardless, the longevity of the same type of music for 20 years and more indicates a tradition of having long-running programs, as well as long-serving announcers.

120 P. Bryant and N. Pozdeev, ‘Build It and They Will Come: A Case Study of the Impacts of Governance on Programming Volunteer Recruitment within Community Media Organisations’, Third Sector Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 2014. 331

Has programming stability made PBS less progressive? Such risks were foreshadowed by Basso in the 2011/12 Annual Report: Bit by bit we’ve bedded down better processes that maximise engagement and minimise surprises. The danger, paradoxically, is that having taken the sting out of programming reviews, we may also struggle to keep our content fresh, innovative and relevant to our listeners.121

Four years later in 2016, PBS returned to describing its aim as promoting “progressive” broadcasting, perhaps unrelated to these concerns about keeping content “fresh, innovative and relevant”: During (whilst recognising the need for flexibility) the Board expects the following principles to inform the development and presentation of Program Grids: … Encourage innovative and progressive broadcasting.122

As this chapter has shown, the grid in the 2010s has been the most stable in PBS’ history. Ken Fargher, a station co-founder heavily involved until 1983 then returning as a volunteer in the 2010s, highlighted the risk of staying with longstanding programs: Pete [Merritt, announcer of Malt Shop Hop] probably has a whole swathe of people who have been listening to him for twenty-three years. What happens when Pete goes? Or those people who have been listening for twenty-three years pop off the twig? … They will go ‘we should have done something other than this’. What we are doing is great, it's fantastic, no doubt about it. But we need to keep peppering the steak, make it sizzle a little bit, rev up the show.123

Considering the station’s goal to broadcast under-represented music and the anti-establishment types who founded the station, Holdsworth summarised how these debates have gone in the past: In fact we’ve argued at various stages, slightly tongue-in-cheek, that if no-one wants to listen to something, we should program it ... we should become even more esoteric

121 Basso, ‘Performance Review 2011–2012’, p. 4. 122 Board minutes from 29 February 2016, PBS. 123 K. Fargher interview. 332

… So where is the balance between how many people are interested in something and how progressive or esoteric it should be? It’s an interesting question in the debate – there’s no answer to it.124

Holdsworth, present at the time, recounted Havrillay’s question at a station meeting in 2018 about the ramifications of PBS’ stability: Garry Havrillay … raised a question at the AGM the other day, which was about programming and whether, in fact, we’ve become too settled in our programming, and said the wonderful line that ‘if you take – are we no longer progressive – if you take the P out, all we’re left with is BS’.125

For Havrillay, the issue he was trying to raise at the meeting was the lack of decisions being made: I … have a problem with inertia and this is why I stood up at the last AGM and said ‘we need to be mindful of the fact that we are called a Progressive Broadcasting Service and we need to be progressive and we need to keep making progress rather than stagnating’. And plugging programming holes with easy fixes, rather than thinking about much more interesting radio.126

The decentralised programming structure defended and strengthened since the events of the 2005/06 programming review had resulted in the most stable grid to date. With the plethora of options listeners now have to access under-represented music, Claire Stuchbery reflected, did the station’s stable broadcast output represent what the listener wanted to hear?: are we being as experimental as we were in the eighties? Or was it just that the station was trying to find its feet there, and that we’ve now got a much better sense of what the audience does actually want? ... I’d be interested to see whether … the distribution of PBS’ airtime is representative of what’s happening in the broader music community … ideally we would be ahead of it, because the idea is that we’re a progressive music station … it shouldn’t be a hundred per cent representative of what’s going on right now. In an ideal world, PBS would be a step ahead, and we’d be drawing audiences to

124 R. Holdsworth interview. 125 R. Holdsworth interview. 126 G. Havrillay interview. 333

those events and to that music. So that’s what makes it really hard to make programming decisions based on existing audience behaviour, because we are trying to lead audiences and to be progressive and to introduce them to new things.127

History has shown us that every 10–15 years, PBS has reassessed its broadcast output, both times with the underlying motive of broadcasting progressive music. This historical precedence, and my interview data, would suggest the station is due for another review.

Conclusions

In this chapter, I have described how new technologies affected the sector by removing the previously limiting factors of broadcast spectrum, time and distance. PBS did not respond to these changes by altering its programming; data showed the 2010s grid as the most stable in the station’s history. In fact, PBS’ response to changes in technology was limited to its expansion into digital radio and online streaming. Announcers were more likely to use these new technologies to find new music online, which allowed them to find more new and obscure styles very cheaply or, in the case of AMRAP for example, for free. The station’s digital channel was used for one new program, Cross Pollinate, which provided a testing ground on digital radio for some new announcers from diverse backgrounds. I described how PBS contributed to the re-valuation of live and subcultural music in Melbourne, demonstrating how PBS has participated in a cyclical process of value-creation. Further adding to our understanding of the volunteer, cultural intermediary I have described how this affected both existing and aspiring announcers. Aspiring announcers, who were more likely to get airtime in early decades, were now required to meet certain criteria, limiting access and participation to ensure the station continued to serve its listeners.128 Those who sought to host a program similar to an existing one, regardless of their subcultural status, were unlikely to get on-air.

127 C. Stuchbery interview. 128 van Vuuren, ‘Community Broadcasting’. 334

I have also discussed the impact of resting programs on listeners and remaining announcers. This strategy is riskier in the age of social media than in earlier decades. These concerns were set out in my discussion of resting of Go For Broke, which helped motivate the campaign to start a union for PBS announcers. I described the way the station responded, by changing programming committee policy to elect category coordinators every two years. Programming decisions that were made occurred within a clear, decentralised organisational structure, starting with strategic Board decisions, which flowed to operational PPG decisions. Stable and popular programming, as well as tight management of finances, increased PBS’ financial stability and allowed it to pursue active involvement with Melbourne’s live-music scene, raising its profile among those involved in the scene. The demise of the Spoken Word category represented the first, and so far only, elimination of one of my Tier 1 program categories from PBS’s schedule. Removal of Spoken Word programs can be interpreted as an example of how, in the post- subcultural age, subcultures are defined by consumption rather than resistance.129 Removing Spoken Word programming enabled PBS to market itself as a music-only station, a clear distinction from its nearest competitors, Triple R and 3CR, which both had Spoken Word programs in their schedules. In the third section, I have used programming data to analyse the success of strategies to increase female and other under-represented groups as announcers. The Board sought to increase the diversity of voices on-air through targets and training programs, but data showed only nominally positive results. To date, change has been slow with modest progress towards equal representation on-air. Data from all decades showed representation varied across program categories. In the 2010s, female announcers increased on weekdays, but weekends were exceptionally poor. With the exceptions of Emma Peel’s Switched On and Miss Goldie’s Boss Action, the station had all-male announcers in the 2010s on weekends 6:00am–7:00pm. Furthermore, while Cross Pollinate gave new, diverse announcers the chance to gain on-air experience,

129 Williams, p. 98. 335

broadcasting only on the digital channel, which was less popular than analogue, reduced the number of people who heard these diverse voices. Finally, I have considered the negative impacts of a stable grid on being progressive. The consistent, reliable sound offered to listeners in the 2010s risked becoming stale, not keeping up with music trends and their level of popularity, and alienating listeners who did not like the existing grid: perhaps some of the “BS” Havrillay was eluding to when he asked what would become of PBS without the P (progressive)? Programming reviews in 1989 and 2005/06 were arguably key elements of PBS continuing to broadcast progressive music, and therefore how it has managed its position as a subcultural intermediary. Interview data has indicated another review may be imminent.

336

8. Conclusion

8.1 Introduction

This research set out to do two things: present a history of programming at one of Melbourne’s largest community radio stations, PBS, and discover how decisions about programming were made. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, this study aimed to understand PBS by exploring the processes it used to make decisions about programming and the resultant broadcast output. As a specialist music, community radio station, PBS was licenced to broadcast progressive, under-represented music not heard elsewhere. This study of programming at a specialist music station has demonstrated how and why PBS has become one of Australia’s most successful community radio stations. I used three methods to research PBS’ programming history: archives, programming data and in-depth interviews. Station magazines and Board papers proved to be the most useful of the archival documents to explain who was involved, the internal factors that influenced programming decisions and the programs that were broadcast. Although these materials were often incomplete, I used data from other sources to fill most of these gaps. This is the first time quantitative data has been collected accounting for every broadcast hour at a community radio station in Australia. It provides a measurable portrait of program outputs at PBS and the impact of programming decisions made by its cultural intermediaries. These were Board members, station managers, program managers, programming committee members, category coordinators, program planning group members, announcers and PBS itself. I conducted in-depth interviews with 20 of PBS’ cultural intermediaries; 16 of these interviews will be available to listen to at the National Film and Sound Archive after this thesis has been assessed. The remaining four interviewees did not grant permission for their interviews to be donated. I have sought to make PBS an integral part of telling its own story. PBS wholeheartedly supported this research, from access to internal documents and influential announcers to access to broadcast studios for conducting and recording

337

interviews. I have taken seriously my responsibility to recount these stories and perspectives accurately, while being aware there will always be different experiences, different recollections and different points of view of the past. To ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data, during the research and when the thesis was nearing completion, I presented data and then the thesis to management at PBS for their feedback. This thesis has been structured by decade. For each decade, I discussed the station’s operation within broader contexts, followed by in-depth analysis of the policies, processes and people involved with programming decisions, analysed broadcast output, then made concluding statements. In this chapter, I summarise my conclusions, explain the implications of these findings for theory and research, and discuss my project’s limitations and possible areas for future research.

8.2 How did an unplaylisted radio station make programming decisions?

To answer my main research question, I used two sub-questions to guide my research. These sub-questions form the structure of this section.

8.2.1 Which programs did PBS broadcast?

In this thesis, I have summarised structural changes to the grid. More programs meant more volunteers, more potential for different music styles and more people to manage. PBS started in 1979 with approximately 31 programs each week, most of which had a rotating roster of announcers. After the 1989 review, the number of weekly programs increased to 94. Since the mid-2000s, the station has reverted to mostly two-hour programs. In 2019, there were 80 programs, which included insomnia (2:00–6:00am) programs every second week, plus Cross Pollinate, which was broadcast only on digital radio.

338

According to PBS’ founders, the announcer was key to the station’s success.1 From the earliest days, PBS sought the quintessential cultural intermediary for this role: well-connected experts in their field. Disappointingly, and somewhat a reflection of societal norms, the majority of announcers were and, continue to be, male. Moreover, the diversity PBS has provided in its music broadcast output has not extended to other aspects, including announcer diversity. My discussion of Indigenous Australian music and announcers revealed poor representation across the decades, consistent with most Australian media outlets, except for Indigenous community radio stations. There have been 11 programs on air for 20 years or more: only three were no longer on-air at the end of 2019. Jazz on Saturday (various announcers, Jazz), Sunglasses After Dark (Phil MacDougall, Hard ‘n’ Heavy), Soul Time (Vince Peach, Soul), Roots of Rhythm (Helen Jennings, Blues & Roots) and Shock Treatment (Kev Lobotomy, Hard ‘n’ Heavy) have been on air the longest, all starting in the 1980s. Long-running programs provide a sense of continuity and loyalty for the listener and, if they are popular, an important revenue stream for the station. Long-running announcers have the cumulative airtime to delve into the far, progressive and under-broadcast corners of their music style. The longest serving announcers, all with 30 years or more on-air although sometimes hosting different programs, are David Heard (Blues & Roots), Phil MacDougall (Hard ‘n’ Heavy), Roger Holdsworth (World), Vince Peach (Funk & Soul), Helen Jennings (Blues & Roots) and Kev Lobotomy (Hard ‘n’ Heavy). These announcers have remained on-air most likely because of a combination of factors: the communities they have built, their consistent broadcasting of under-represented music and their ability to demonstrate such, enabling them to survive past programming reviews. However, long-running announcers occupy airtime in a way that potentially limits possibilities for new announcers and new music styles. As Jennings said, staying on-air is a competition between old and new announcers.2

1 Stubbs, p. 6. 2 H. Jennings interview. 339

Overall programming data describes PBS’ sound over the last 40 years. Next, I summarise my eleven Tier 1 categories, their consistencies and changes, to highlight the key findings from my research. I begin with the Tier 1 category with the highest cumulative percentage of broadcast hours over the past 40 years. Blues & Roots has had the highest percentage of broadcast hours (15.6%) since the beginning of official broadcasting. It grew most in the 1990s, a trend secured with the 2005/06 programming changes and maintained until 2019. PBS has always had many programs in this category and broadcast them in prime listening times: 73% during the day, 61% on weekdays and 39% on weekends. This consistent prime-time scheduling is a large part of why PBS has been considered a leader in the broadcast of Blues & Roots music. This perception was only increased after the 2005/06 programming changes, which further entrenched these programs in prime listening times, leading some to suggest this category had reached a point where it was over-represented. A close second were Contemporary Mix programs (14.4%), primarily due to the three hours of breakfast programming each weekday since 1987 and the many drive programs in the 1980s and 1990s. Contemporary Mix programs were typically made up of a mix of the various types of music heard on PBS, with a strong bias towards Rock Indie styles, again particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. Two factors contributed to the decline of these programs outside of breakfast. First, announcers became more specialised in their music tastes, knowledge and collections. Second, the station embraced specialist programming and evolving subcultural styles, and changed from multiple to single-genre programs that sought depth of knowledge, rather than breadth. The adjustments to the breakfast shift were a significant change to how it had been managed to that point. As discussed in subsection 6.2.3, breakfast had always been intended as a Contemporary Mix, cross-genre program, with a taste of all the different musical styles PBS had to offer. Before 2006, this mix occurred in a disjointed fashion across the week with five different hosts, each having their own take on music choices. In 2006, with the impetus for change, management took control of programming breakfast. The two (and since 2019, one) announcers on The Breakfast Spread were responsible for making their own music choices, but

340

management was responsible for managing the program, not the programming planning group. These were also the first (and only) announcers to be paid. Reshaping this slot was highly controversial at the time, but has become an accepted, and even celebrated, part of the station. Electronic & Hip Hop was the third highest category by overall percentage of broadcast hours (13.4%). In subsection 5.3.1, I explored the growth of this category in the 1990s and how PBS responded to its subcultural popularity. PBS scheduled many of these programs during the ‘party’ hours of Friday and Saturday nights and graveyard shifts (2:00am-6:00am). The Tier 2 category Techno is a clear example of how the station rapidly adopted this musical style, fulfilling its mandate of broadcasting progressive music. Being broadcast overnight was not a limitation; rather, PBS became known as “the techno station”3 during this period in Melbourne. While Electronic & Hip Hop programs continued to increase in the 2000s and 2010s, Techno again demonstrates PBS’ response to declining popularity in subcultural music scenes, rapidly removing all Techno programs by 2011. But perhaps there has been a small resurgence in underground music scenes, as Techno recently made a return to PBS in May 2019 as part of the Rock Indie program Underground Love. Fourth highest was Rock Indie (12.3%). It was the dominant sound on PBS in the 1980s and 1990s, and most of its programs were on during the day. For PBS to remain a cutting-edge broadcaster of this genre, it needed to constantly update its playlists to reflect the everchanging shift in rock indie musical styles. Tier 2 data showed announcers’ response to the co-option of independent and alternative rock in the 1990s, changing from rock, new wave and rock & roll in the 1980s to rock, alternative rock and punk in later decades. After its dominance in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly during the drive shift, in 2005 Rock Indie programs were almost entirely removed from daytime programming. The effect on the rock community was severe, with many abandoning the station. There is doubt as to whether the station has recovered these listeners or its reputation for supporting rock indie music. This is an example of how programming decisions can affect a large group of listeners and their music community.

3 O. McKern interview. 341

Fifth was Hard ‘n’ Heavy (9.4%). This category was also radically affected by the decision to move all its programs to 7:00pm–6:00am. However, unlike Rock Indie, this decision remained; all Hard ‘n’ Heavy programs were only broadcast within this timeframe until 2019. In the digital age, irrespective of program time, it is possible for people to hear their program via internet radio on demand. Such limited programming also affects the station’s ability to introduce new music styles, and perhaps attract new listeners, to those who do not tune in after 7:00pm. In sixth place was World (9%), which hints at its strong growth since its creation in the late 1980s and the popularity of its programs on PBS. Not only did World experience strong growth, 71% of its programs were broadcast during the day. This growth is likely mirrored by popularity in the category worldwide. It could also be attributed to globalisation. With more people travelling and easier access to different music styles, it has never been easier to find such non-Western music. Jazz came in seventh (8.3%) although, just like its flagship program Jazz on Saturday, almost half (46%) of its programs were broadcast during the day on weekends. I argued in subsection 6.3.1 this consistency in programming could be attributed to the financial advantages of this category. Listeners of Jazz music are typically wealthier and therefore able to afford to become members. Aside from benchmarking discussions in the mid-2000s, the money-earning capacity of Jazz programs was one of the few times financial considerations were acknowledged in relation to making programming decisions. The eighth highest was the Unknown category (5.9%), which was most present in the 1990s due to a lack of information programs in the graveyard shift. The internet meant grids were easier to publish and archive, and the Unknown category ended in 2005. Ninth was Various (4.8%), which was strongest in the 1980s. These types of programs were most evident in night-time shifts in the 1980s, when announcers would play a variety of music. Similar to Contemporary Mix programs, Various programs became less common in later decades as the station moved away from cross-genre programs.

342

Although a relatively small category, Funk & Soul made up 4.5% of broadcasting hours, ranking it tenth overall. This category doubled its percentage of broadcast hours from the 1990s (3%) to the 2010s (6%). As I discussed in subsection 7.2.2, the station targeted Funk & Soul for growth from the 2000s, increasing its presence in daytime programming on weekends and weekdays. As part of its commitment to growing the local music scene, as well as being an opportunity to raise money, the station created another avenue for this music to be regularly heard with the monthly Soul a Go-Go dance parties which started in 2007. Spoken Word showed the lowest overall number of broadcast hours over the last 40 years (2.4%). This is unsurprising considering this category has not been broadcast since 2010. In subsection 7.2.3, I described how Spoken Word had always been a contentious part of the grid despite the great variety in Spoken Word programs, ranging from Comedy to Current Affairs, Gig Guides and Arts Review programs. A lack of members caused the initial decline in this category in 1997, but the availability of information on the internet was most likely a large contributor. Removal of the last Spoken Word program, The Opening, from the grid in 2010 allowed the station to promote itself as a music-only station. Much of the station’s success, particularly in its early years, was due to its obsession with live music. The station incorporated live music into its programming in regular weekly shows which broadcast live to air, including Mainly Acoustic, Moovin’ and Groovin’ Hour and Studio 5 Live. Many of the station’s fundraising activities, also integral in its earlier years, revolved around live-music performance like Cup Day Kaos and Anzac Day Anarchy. The station has not had a dedicated live- music program since 2008, preferring instead to have live performances during programs year-round. The station has also incorporated live music in its yearly Drive Live week of live music, inviting listeners into the studios to watch the bands perform. These methods of incorporating live music into the schedule have reinforced PBS’ commitment to broadcasting live music and connecting with its local music community.

343

8.2.2 How did PBS make programming decisions?

Ever since the first meeting of like-minded individuals in December 1976, PBS has attracted passionate music lovers who ascribe to the goals of running a cooperative organisation dedicated to broadcasting under-represented music. People usually volunteer because they like who or what they are volunteering for, which perhaps makes them resistant to change. This conflicts with PBS’ goals of being progressive and broadcasting under-represented music, setting up the station’s core tension: being progressive requires change. In this thesis, I have identified numerous changes to PBS’ programming decision-making structures. Each iteration can be positioned on a scale between decentralised and centralised decision-making. Decentralised decision-making was highly regarded at PBS because of what it represented and promised: notions of political choice and maximum musical diversity. It maximised the number of cultural intermediaries involved in making programming decisions. On the other hand, centralised decision-making, with fewer cultural intermediaries, created and maintained a coherent sound that could be better ‘sold’ to audiences, members and sponsors. Being an unplaylisted radio station means that PBS decentralises music choices to its announcers. The breakfast program is the only exception, where announcers are guided towards the styles of music to broadcast, although announcers still decide what to play within those guidelines. Announcers are first and foremost responsible for keeping up with the changes in their music style and bringing under-represented music to their listeners. This is a defining feature of PBS compared with other sectors and compared with other community radio stations. PBS’ cooperative programming processes are particularly different to those of Triple R, which until the 1990s had a program manager making programming decisions. In more recent years, there have been more similarities between programming structures at PBS, Triple R and 3CR, each incorporating committees to make or ratify decisions. The announcer was always going to be the key to the station’s success. In the initial stages, announcers were often chosen by who was known to the group,

344

available and had enough of a record collection. From the time PBS started broadcasting 24 hours per day in November 1987, station processes to determine who would get on-air became more robust, likely caused by the increases in the numbers of programs to be filled and aspiring announcers. Tension between centralised and decentralised decision-making processes are obvious when comparing the station’s two major programming reviews: 1989 and 2005/06. These reviews were both led by one or two people who thought the station was not living up to its goal of broadcasting progressive music. In 1989, the review was championed by Mick Geyer, but almost everyone at the station participated in the fiery programming meetings. The grid changed, but perhaps not as much as Geyer originally planned. In 2005/06, PBS was at its most centralised with most of the programming decisions made by one cultural intermediary: the program manager, although with guidance and support from the station manager and the Board. The grid underwent significant change, creating a more saleable, coherent sound, but tension arose from the disregard of cooperative programming practices. Aside from these two major reviews, there are other examples of the interplay between centralised and decentralised decision-making. Preceding and succeeding the review in the mid-2000s, the decentralised process of two or three grid reviews each year saw the programming committee, program executive and Board, at times up to 17 people, as part of programming decisions. Change in the grid was correspondingly limited. The program manager was responsible for reviewing and recommending promising applicants and programs, but the programming planning group, which was responsible for making final decisions, made few grid changes in the 2010s. Most of these incremental changes came about in response to submissions from aspirant announcers. The station is currently in a position where a decade or more of relative stability has concentrated musical progress within the program; announcers have been the ones to bring changes to broadcast output through the music they select. History has shown PBS has conducted major programming reviews every 10 to 15 years, which may suggest the next review is overdue. PBS can incorporate lessons from its previous reviews with action on current issues to continue to serve its

345

purpose of broadcasting progressive and under-represented music. Based on issues uncovered in this thesis, should another major review occur, it would potentially benefit from addressing which and when programs are broadcast, the progressive nature of the music being broadcast, the role of digital radio and streaming, and the corralling of categories into certain times of the day. In addition, the next review could address who programs are hosted by, weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of long-running genres, programs and announcers, the disproportionate representation of male announcers on Fridays and the weekend, and how to better incorporate those coming through the Access Diversity Program. As with previous reviews, doing so would set PBS up for another decade or more of broadcasting under-represented and progressive music.

8.3 Implications for theory and research

This research has demonstrated how broadcast output can assist in the investigation and understanding of how a community radio station has made programming decisions. The data has demonstrated the interplay between internal and external factors which have influenced PBS’ programming decisions and has allowed comparison between the broadcast of new musical styles on PBS and their evolution in Australia’s, and Melbourne’s, music scenes. This data has also demonstrated how PBS has participated in the creation and maintenance of music subcultures in Melbourne. As discussed in chapter 1, a considerable amount of existing literature about community radio stations in Australia, particularly community radio stations that broadcast music, has argued for the significant positive impact these media have had on local music scenes. My research has explored PBS alone and connected the station’s broadcast output to Melbourne’s music scene. Live music has been championed in many forms and pursued by announcers in all music categories, creating opportunities for bands to perform to established audiences. In turn, audiences, regardless of their taste in music, have found live-music events they want to hear.

346

This thesis can aid PBS in future programming structures and decisions, and provides a central point of information about its past. For other unplaylisted radio stations, community radio stations and those interested in Melbourne’s music scene, this thesis contributes programming-specific information about PBS’ story of survival and how it has constantly reshaped and evolved to allow it to consistently contribute to Melbourne’s vibrant community broadcasting sector and music scenes. Analysis of PBS’ broadcast output can also inform other radio stations, community and commercial, about music programming methods and strategies. No other community radio station in Australia has such a comprehensive database of its broadcast output. From my simple four-tiered analysis of programming data, I have identified 131 styles of music used to describe programs over the past 40 years. Of these 131 descriptions, many are broad and could include any number of subcategories of musical styles. Just as Negus argued for empirical research adding to our understanding of cultural intermediaries beyond Bourdieu’s definition,4 this empirical research supports and adds to modern definitions of the term in two ways. First, this research supports reconceptualisation of Bourdieu’s limited definition of cultural intermediaries to extend beyond only those involved directly in the mediation between production and consumption (here, radio announcers). I have established PBS as an intermediary within music subcultures and showed how its programming decision-makers, its subcultural intermediaries, have successfully negotiated internal and external factors over the last 40 years to maintain the station’s subcultural status. Second, this research explores the category of the volunteer, subcultural intermediary. Volunteer, subcultural intermediaries suggest a reconceptualisation away from Bourdieu’s linear process, from production to consumption, towards something more like a cyclical process.5 PBS’ broadcast of under-represented music, combined with its position as a community radio station, has contributed to the re- valuation of alternative music styles and subcultures. This research supports Podkalicka and Meese’s argument that the volunteer cultural intermediary is part of a

4 Negus, ‘The Work of Cultural Intermediaries’, p. 503. 5 Podkalicka and Meese. 347

wider process of innovation and social change.6 Understanding the motivations and influences of volunteer cultural intermediaries is useful for exploring this role in other not-for-profit organisations. It could also serve as a comparison point for investigating social enterprises and social media organisations which seek to influence consumption without a traditional profit motive.7

8.4 Limitations and recommendations for future research

This thesis has investigated how programming decisions were made to the level of program; the next logical extension of this research would be to delve into how announcers make their programming decisions. Being part of their local music community, participating in local gigs as musicians and/or DJs, finding and broadcasting progressive music, all makes them highly regarded cultural intermediaries. Complementary and supplementary to the 40 years of programming data would be the collation of playlists for each program, which could be sourced from APRA and PBS’ website and webpage archives. Some announcers keep playlists from all their programs, which is another potential data source. Further analysis of the various ways announcers program would deepen the understanding of PBS’ broadcast output and enable quantitative assessment of how PBS has contributed to the exposure of under-represented music. Collection and comparison of my quantitative data with other data such as Australian music chart and music industry awards, festival ticket sales or any other amount of music-related data could help to track PBS’ role in the evolution of musical styles in Melbourne since 1979. As this is one of very few pieces of research about PBS, many other dimensions of the station are yet to be documented. One significant gap, and a limitation of this study, is analysis of the extent of diversity among PBS’ volunteers. A contemporary ethnographic study of the station’s volunteers may reveal they, rather than the music, are the most diverse element of the station. Not all people are cut out to be announcers, but at PBS almost everyone can find something to do to be involved.

6 Podkalicka and Meese. 7 i.e. see A. Podkalicka and E. Rennie, Using Media for Social Innovation, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2018. 348

Analysis of diversity among announcers and other station volunteers may contribute to our understanding of PBS’ ongoing survival. The volunteer cultural intermediary, and their different focus to the paid cultural intermediary, is also worthy of future research, not only within community radio stations but also not-for-profit organisations more broadly. In an era of social media where almost anyone can act as a cultural intermediary, investigating the motivations and outcomes of those who do so without sponsorship may have significant implications for how these media operate.

349

Conclusions

This research presents a historical case study of one unplaylisted community radio station and how it has made programming decisions over the last 40 years. I used archival research, programming data and in-depth interviews with 20 of PBS’ subcultural intermediaries to discover how the station made programming decisions and which programs it broadcast. Studying PBS’ programming decision-making processes and its broadcast output has revealed some significant findings. PBS made programming decisions by varying between centralised and decentralised programming structures. Being progressive requires change, but there has been an inherent tension at the station between its cooperative programming structures and its goal of broadcasting progressive music. I used Bourdieu’s cultural intermediary theory to focus on those who made decisions about what would be broadcast. In the station’s typical state of decentralised programming structures, when more of its cultural intermediaries were involved with making programming decisions, change was more incremental and often limited by who was a member of the programming committee or a category coordinator. On the other hand, in 1989 and 2005/06, the two periods when programming was more centralised, change to the station’s broadcast output occurred within a short time and affected which and when programs were broadcast, respectively. Particularly in 2005/06, many refused to accept how these changes had been made and fought to make such centralised programming unable to occur again. At an unplaylisted radio station, announcers are responsible for deciding what they broadcast, so deciding who will be an announcer is a large part of programming decisions. PBS evolved from a culture of friendship and availability as highly influential factors to getting on-air to more consistent processes for the recruitment, training and management of its announcers. This has resulted in an increase in cultural intermediary characteristics in all announcers: experts knowledgeable about and well-connected in their music communities. This research has found the majority of these announcers have been men. Despite discussions about increasing female announcers since the early 1980s, only modest progress has been made towards equal

350

representation. For example, in the 2010s one-third of programs were hosted by women only (22.9%) or co-hosted by a male and a female announcer (10.4%). Programming data tracked the evolution of programs and their musical styles at PBS over the last 40 years. In 1978, in its application for a broadcasting licence to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, PBS said it would broadcast rock, jazz, blues and country and western. All these original styles are still broadcast on PBS, with others like world and electronic and hip hop added or increasing significantly as global music styles evolved. Conversely, as subcultures changed, other music styles were removed. In some cases, like Big Bands in 1989, they were removed from the airwaves because they were deemed not to be progressive. In other cases, like Techno, its popularity in subcultural scenes declined in the 2000s and it was no longer broadcast after 2012. As the decades progressed, but cemented after the 2005/06 programming review, some of these styles could only be heard during particular times of the day or days of the week. The demise of the Spoken Word category in 2010, the only one of my Tier 1 categories removed from the grid so far, can be attributed to two factors: demand and competition. Very few people wanted to present such programs (the internet offering this information freely) and, by removing this category, PBS could promote itself as a music-only station. This thesis has implications for PBS, the study of community radio and cultural intermediary theory. For PBS, this detailed history of programming offers a comprehensive point of reference about its past, which may be useful to inform future programming decisions or provide evidence of the station’s contribution to Melbourne’s music scene. Community radio studies are furthered with the first substantial case study of PBS, with detailed information about how its internal processes and broadcast output have contributed to this success. Cultural intermediary theory is advanced by this case study’s analysis of a potential new category of intermediary, the volunteer, subcultural intermediary. Investigation of their interactions and programming decisions over the last 40 years offers real-world examples of mediation between the production and consumption of cultural goods within a specific context.

351

Avenues for future research lie in the comparison of data gathered for this research with existing, or new, datasets. Comparison of this data with a review of music venues and attendances could quantifiably assess PBS’ impact on Melbourne’s music scene. Programming data could be compared with a collation of similar data from other community and/or commercial stations to identify, for example, music trends or the evolution of new bands. Finally, further study of volunteer, subcultural intermediaries may confirm their position as a new type of cultural intermediary. In particular, analysis of the motivations and programming decisions of the announcer, using their own devised playlists and in-depth interviews, could reveal how these mediators operate within a not-for-profit organisation.

352

Reference List

Primary Sources ‘1986 … A Year of Achievement: Why Support PBS?’, Waves, October/November 1986, p. 24. ‘2010 Principles: Statement of Programming Vision 2010’, 26 September 2011, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘3PBS-FM Contact List’, Waves, February/March 1987, p. 46. ‘3PBS-FM Programming & Production Policy Final Draft 22/07/91’, Board papers for 28 July 1991, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘3PBS-FM Programming Policy’, Garry Havrillay personal collection, circa 1992. ‘3PBS-FM Programming Structure’, Garry Havrillay personal collection, 1992. 4ZZZ, ‘4ZZZ Station Policy’, v 1.5, [http://jeff.4zzz.org.au/sites/default/files/media/4ZZZ%20Station%20Policy%2 01.5.pdf] (accessed 13 December 2019). ‘A Brief History of Time’, Static Minus One, December 1989, p. 7. ‘AGM Minutes’, 26 November 2008, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Alston, R., ‘Digital Radio Services Available by 2001’ [media release], Parliament House, Canberra, March 1998. ‘Announcer’s Agreement 1995/1996’, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Public Broadcasting: Report on Inquiries into the Grant of Licences for Public Broadcasting Stations, Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service, 1979. ‘Australian Content’, Waves, December 1979, p. 12. Barker, M., ‘Board Minutes for 19 March 1996’, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Basso, A., ‘Performance Review 2011–2012’, Report to the Board, 2012, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Basso, A., ‘General Manager Report – Content’, Board papers for 24 September 2012, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Basso, A., ‘GM Report (the Mick Geyer Award)’, Board papers for 24 September 2012.

353

Basso, A., ‘2013 Principles’, Board papers for 25 February 2013, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Basso, A. and G. Seven, ‘Breakfast Report for the Board’, Board papers for 27 August 2007, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Basso, A. and H. Armstrong, ‘PBS 106.7 FM Breakfast Report’, Board papers for 27 August 2007, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Bock, A., ‘3PBS-FM Counters the Cultural Cringe’, The Age, 14 December 1989, p. 30. Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) Broadcasting Services Bill Explanatory Memorandum 1992 (Cth) Business Plan 1994–1995, 1994, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Cazaly, L. et al., ‘The Next Progression’, Waves, December/January 1988/1989, p. 19. Chatham-Hopkins, E. and S. Cheevers, ‘Letters to the Editor’, Waves, April/May 1985, p. 2. Chellew, P., ‘General Manager's Report’, Board papers for 8 April 1997, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Community Broadcasting Code of Practice, 1995, Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, via personal email (received 17 September 2018). ‘Congrats Catherine’, Waves, December/January 1982, p. 1. Davis, S. and D. Blackwell, ‘Production Report’, Waves, August 1979, p. 6. ‘(Digital) Content Paper’, Board papers for 24 November 2014, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘Extraordinary Board Meeting minutes’, 23 April 2001, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘Extraordinary Board Meeting Minutes’, 28 October 2002, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Fernandez, W., ‘3PBS Publicity Strategy’, Board papers for 7 December 1993, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Frequency Modulation Broadcasting: Report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, June 1972, Melbourne.

‘Get with the Programme!’, Ripples, July 1997 in Board papers for 10 June 1997, PBS. Geyer, M., ‘Public Radio – A Nice Concept But We Didn’t Have a Place For It’, Waves,

354

December/January 1984/1985, p. 4. Geyer, M., ‘Living Up to the Moniker of Being a Progressive Radio Station’, 1988, transcribed by Bill Runting, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Gibb, N., ‘Ratings: Commercial Radio and Music’, Waves, August 1979, p. 18. Giles, R., ‘The “All-New” Programme Format’, Waves, December/January 1982. Giles, R. and G. Havrillay, ‘Board Sub-committee on Programming’, Board papers for 30 July 2007, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Glover, M., ‘State of the Station’, Waves, December/January 1987/1988. Glover, M., ‘State of the Station’, Waves, February/March 1988. Green, D., ‘Hi Fi Show by Invitation’, Waves, August 1977. Green, F., Australian Broadcasting: A Report on the Structure of the Australian Broadcasting System and Associated Matters (Green Report), Postal and Telecommunications Department, Canberra, 1976. ‘Grid: November 2008 to February 2009’, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Havrillay, G., ‘3PBS: Dying to be Different’, January 1992, Garry Havrillay personal collection. Hoffman, F., [interviewed by John Roberts], 1979, www.pbsfm.org.au/history (accessed 20 November 2016). Holdsworth, R., ‘Who Listens to the Radio?’, Waves, July 1982, p. 8. Hollo, A., ‘Board Paper #1: Program Planning & the PPG’, Board papers, May 2006, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘In-store Demo. At Instrol Hi-Fi’, Waves, November/December 1978. ‘Introduction to Program Notes’, Waves, July 1977. Jones, R., ‘General Manager’s Report’, Board papers for 21 August 2006, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Jones, R., ‘PBSFM Breakfast Project’, Board papers for 21 August 2006, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Jones, R., ‘Notes for Interview on Programming at PBS-FM with Rochelle Lade’, 2019. Kardachi, C., ‘Waves’, Waves, August 1979, p. 3. Lawley, T., ‘Unreal News – Special Edition – PPG Changes’ [Email to announcers], 20 April 2017 (accessed 2 June 2019).

355

Maizels, J., ‘Once again: The Prez speaks out!!’, Waves, July 1977, p. 1. Maizels, J., ‘Amazing Grace’, Waves, October 1977. Martin, R., ‘Notice of Annual General Meeting’, Waves, November 1981, p. 1. McGuane, M., ‘Election Time Again’, Waves, August 1979, p. 4. McLean, F. and Renwick, C., Report of the Independent Inquiry into Frequency Modulation Broadcasting, Independent Inquiry into Frequency Modulation Broadcasting, Sydney, March 1974. ‘Minutes’, Board meeting 30 November 2009, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Molumby, D., ‘RE: Programming Matters’, Board papers for 4 July 1995, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘Music Category Co-ordinators’, Waves, February 1982. Newstead, M., ‘Great Policy Debate’, Waves, October 1977. Paine, C., ‘Ten Years Live From Studio 2’, Static Minus One, December 1989, p. 9. Palermo, L., ‘Programming Committee Report October 1998’, Board papers for 11 August 1998, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Palermo, L., ‘Programming Committee Report October 1998’, Board papers for 13 September 1998, Progressive Broadcasting Service. PBS 106.7 Station Policy and Procedure Handbook, June 2001, Progressive Broadcasting Service. PBS Association of Broadcasters, ‘Letter to PBS Announcers’, Board papers for 29 August 2016, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘PBS Goes Global in the Name of Groove’, Ripples, no. 1 ,1997, Progressive Broadcasting Service. PBS Policies & Procedures (v 4.0, 1 May 2018), Progressive Broadcasting Service. PBS Policy and Procedure Handbook, 2007, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘PBS Staff Report for Current PBS Programming Review’, Board papers for 1 April 1997, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘PBS-FM Programme Grid Review Process’, Board papers for 14 July 1998, Progressive Broadcasting Service. PBS Programming Coordinators, ‘Letter to Andrew Hollo dated 25 September 2006’, Board papers for 30 July 2007.

356

‘PPG 1-hour Slot Recommendations’, Board papers for 30 August 2010, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘PPG Category Review Meeting – Recommendations’, 1 March 2010, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘Production Contact List’, Waves, November/December 1978. Production Co-ordinators, ‘The Future’, Waves, December/January 1981/1982, p. 2. ‘Production Group Report’, Board papers for 3 June 1981, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘Production Report’, Board minutes for 30 December 1980. ‘Production Report’, Board papers for 5 November 1980, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘Production Unit Policy’, Waves, October 1977. ‘Program Schedule (Pullout)’, Waves, December/January 1983. ‘Programme Co-ordinators Report’, Board meeting minutes for 8 July 1982. ‘Programmes for PBS Broadcasters’, Waves, November/December 1978. ‘Programming and Production Committee Report for Directors’, Board papers for 5 April 1994, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘Programming and Production Policy’, Board papers for 13 May 1997, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘Progressive Broadcasting Service’, Waves, April 1977, p. 1. ‘Progressive Broadcasting Service: Programme Schedule’, Waves, November 1978, p. 4. Progressive Broadcasting Service, Board minutes from 27 November 1979. Progressive Broadcasting Service, Board minutes from 19 February 1980. Progressive Broadcasting Service, Board minutes from 26 August 1980. Progressive Broadcasting Service, Board minutes from 9 September 1991. Progressive Broadcasting Service, Board minutes from 9 September 1997. Progressive Broadcasting Service, Board minutes from 4 September 1998. Progressive Broadcasting Service, Board minutes from 29 February 2016. Progressive Broadcasting Service, Board papers for 30 June 2008. Progressive Broadcasting Service, Introduction to PBS FM 106.7 [website], 1997,

357

https://web.archive.org/web/19970501001249/http://www.vicnet.net.au:80/~ pbsfm/about_pbs/index.html (accessed 15 September 2019). Progressive Broadcasting Service, PBS Programs; By Category [website] 2017, www.pbsfm.org.au/programlist/category (accessed 21 November 2017). Progressive Broadcasting Service, Show Details: What’s Going On? [archived webpage], 2005, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20050703090659/http://www.pbsfm.org.au/Docu ments.asp?ID=1168&Title=What%27s+Going+On (accessed 5 April 2019). Public Broadcasting Organisation: Equipment Grants Application, 23 October 1979, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Public Radio News, ‘What Value Do You Put on Independent News?’, Fitzroy, 1987, p.2. Quirk, A., ‘Editorial Belch! Sex Problem at P.B.S.’, Waves, August 1977, p. 4. Ramblin’ Ross (Rhodes), ‘Blues’, Waves, April/May 1985, p. 20. ‘Responsibilities of PBS-FM Category Co-ordinators August 1998’, Board papers for 14 July 1998, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Reyntjes, C., ‘Memo: Breakfast and Annie F’s Replacement’, February 1996, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Roberts, J., ‘Re: Allocation of Programmes’, Waves, August 1979, p. 6. Scurry, N. and M. Gearon (eds.), 40 Years of PBS Radio: Progressive Broadcasting Service, Fitzroy, VIC, PBS 106.7FM, 2019. Selvay, J., ‘3PBS-FM Subscriber Survey’, Saje Research, April 1984, Waves, August/September 1984. Seven, G., ‘August Programming Review’, Board papers 26 September 2011. Seven, G., ‘November Program Review and a PPG Recommendation’, Board papers for 26 July 2010, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘Staff Report to Board Meeting’, Board papers for 22 June 1992, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Staley, T., Development of Public Broadcasting, Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 5 April 1978. Stanistreet, I. and Glover, M., ‘State of the Station’, Waves, June/July 1985, p. 3.

358

‘Statement of Announcer’s Rights’, Board papers for 13 October 1994, Progressive Broadcasting Service. ‘Statement of Programming Vision 2010’, Board papers for 26 September 2011. Stubbs, D., ‘Improve on Silence’, Waves, June 1979, p. 5. ‘Summary of Meeting of Musical Category Co-ordinators’, Waves, March 1983. Sundfors, V., ‘Editorial: Don’t Tell Me About the Labour Pains … show me the baby!’, Waves, February 1980, p. 3. ‘Switches On?’, Waves, January 1980, p. 5. The Black-Hooded Phantom, ‘An Ode to PBS,’ Waves, October 1982, p. 2. ‘The Mighty First Ever 3PBS-FM Fund Raising Radiothon’, Waves, November 1980, p. 3. ‘The Minutes of the Very First PBS Meeting, Ever’, Waves, December/January 1980/1981, p. 14. Traynor, L., ‘The New Deal’, Waves, October 1981, p. 2. ‘The System’, Waves, November 1981, p. 2. ‘Update to Statement of Programming Vision 2010’, Board papers for 26 September 2011, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Walsh, B., ‘Programme Services Coordinator Report to Board’, Board papers for 11 August 1998, Progressive Broadcasting Service. Waves, June 1978, p. 4. Wise, B., ‘The Bland Leading the Bland’, Waves, August 1981, p. 17. ‘Women in Station Uniform’, Waves, May 1980, p. 6. Zemdegs, D., Waves, October 1982, p. 6.

Secondary Sources 3CR, Who We Are [website], www.3cr.org.au/whoweare (accessed 13 December 2019). 3CR, International Women’s Day [website], 2018, www.3cr.org.au/news/international- womens-day-broadcast-2018 (accessed 16 January 2020). 3D Radio, History [website], www.threedradio.com/about/history (accessed 20 February 2020).

359

ABC Online Services, Celebrating International Women’s Day [website], 2018, www.abc.net.au/classic/events/iwd-celebrating-female-composers (accessed 16 January 2020). Adler, P. and P. Adler, Membership Roles in Field Research, CA, SAGE Publications, 1987. Albury, K., ‘Spaceship Triple J: Making the National Youth Network’, Media International Australia, vol. 91, no. 1, 1999, pp. 55–66. AMRAP AirIt, Advanced Search [website], 2017, https://airit.org.au/search.php (accessed 21 November 2017). Anderson, H., ‘Agitate Educate Organise. The Roles of Information-based Programming on 4ZzZ’, 3CMedia: Journal of Community, Citizen’s and Third Sector Media and Communication, no. 1, 2005. Anderson, H., ‘The Digital Disruption of News and Current Affairs in the Community Broadcasting Sector: An Australian Perspective’, 3CMedia: Journal of Community, Citizen’s and Third Sector Media and Communication, no. 9, 2019, pp. 19–30. Anderson, H., The Institutionalization of Community Radio as a Social Movement Organization: 4ZZZ as a Radical Case Study’, Journal of Radio & Audio Media, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, pp. 251–269. Atton, C., ‘Introduction: Problems and Positions in Alternative and Community Media’, in C. Atton (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media, NY, Routledge, 2015, pp. 1–18. Australian Broadcasting Authority, Allocation of Four Community Radio Broadcasting Licences for Melbourne, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001. Australian Broadcasting Authority, Making Waves: The Growth of Radio in Australia 1992–2001, Commonwealth of Australia, 2003. Australian Broadcasting Control Board & Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Annual Report 1977–78, part v, Types of Radio Programs, https://apo.org.au/node/62990 (accessed 12 November 2019). Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Australian Music on Radio, Sydney, Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, 1986.

360

Australian Communications and Media Authority, ‘Community Radio Broadcasting Licences’, 2019, www.acma.gov.au/-/media/Community- Broadcasting-and- Safeguards/Information/pdf/lic035_community_radio_broadcasting_licences- pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed 3 June 2019). Australian Communications and Media Authority, ‘Community Radio Broadcasting Licences’, 2020, https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-12/ lic035_community_radio_broadcasting_licences.pdf (accessed 4 January 2021). Australian Communications Media Authority, Register of Radiocommunications Licences [website], https://web.acma.gov.au/rrl/browse_licences.cat_listing (accessed 11 November 2019). Australian Recording Industry Association, Aria Wholesale Figures 2013, 2014, www.aria.com.au/pages/documents/MediaRelease- 2013ARIAWholesaleFigures_000.pdf (accessed 1 January 2020). Avery, R.K., ‘Quantitative Methods in Broadcast History’ in D.G. Godfrey (ed.), Methods of Historical Analysis in Electronic Media, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006, pp. 167–186. Bagust, P., ‘Poor FM: A Decade in Adelaide Progressive Community Radio’ in Gerry Bloustein (ed.), Musical Visions: Selected Conference Proceedings from 6th National Australian/New Zealand IASPM and Inaugural Arnhem Land Performance Conference, Wakefield Press, South Australia, 1999, pp. 1–7. Barlow, D., ‘Conceptions of Access and Participation in Australian Community Radio Stations’ in N. Jankowski and O. Prehn (eds.), Community Media in the Information Age, NJ, Hampton Press, 2002, pp. 141–164. Barlow, W., ‘Community Radio in the US: The Struggle for a Democratic Medium’, Media, Culture and Society, vol. 10, 1988, pp. 81–105. Barr, T., Reflections of Reality: The Media in Australia, Adelaide, SA, Rigby, 1977. Bear, A., ‘The Emergence of Public Broadcasting in Australia’, Australian Journal of Communication, vol. 4, 1983, pp. 21–28. Berland, J., ‘Radio Space and Industrial Time: Music Formats, Local Narratives and Technological Mediation’, Popular Music, vol. 9, no. 2, 1990, pp. 179–192.

361

Bonner, A. and G. Tollhurst, ‘Insider–Outsider Perspectives of Participant Observation’, Nurse Researcher, vol. 9, no. 4, 2002, pp. 7–19. Bourdieu, P., Distinction, trans. R. Nice, Oxon, Routledge, 1984. Bowker, G., and S. Leigh Star, Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1999. Brecht, B., ‘The Radio as an Apparatus of Communication’, 1932, in J. Willett (ed. and trans.), Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, London, Eyre Methuen, 1964, pp. 18–19. Breen, L., ‘The Researcher “In the Middle”: Negotiating the Insider/Outsider Dichotomy’, The Australian Community Psychologist, vol. 19, no. 1, 2007, pp. 163–174. Browne, D., ‘What is ‘Community’ in Community Radio? A Consideration of the Meaning, Nature and Importance of a Concept’, in J. Gordon (ed.), Community Radio in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2012, pp. 153–174. Bryant, P. and N. Pozdeev, ‘Build It and They Will Come: A Case Study of the Impacts of Governance on Programming Volunteer Recruitment within Community Media Organisations’, Third Sector Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 2014, pp. 141–162. Bullimore, K., ‘Media Dreaming: Representation of Aboriginality in Modern Australian Media’, Asia Pacific Media Educator, vol. 6, 1999, pp 72–81. Burton, A., ‘Thinking Beyond the Boundaries: Empire, Feminism and the Domains of History’, Social History, vol. 26, no. 1, 2001, pp. 60–71. Carmody, B., ‘How Coles Came to Dominate Digital-only Radio’, The Age, 14 August 2019, www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/how-coles- came-to-dominate-digital-only-radio-20190814-p52gww.html (accessed 14 August 2019). Collingwood, P., ‘Commercial Radio 1999: New Networks, New Technologies’, Media International Australia (incorporating Culture & Policy), no. 91, 1999, pp 11–21. Commercial Radio Australia, ‘Commercial Radio Code of Practice’, 2018, http://commercialradio.com.au/CR/media/CommercialRadio/Commercial- Radio-Code-of-Practice.pdf (accessed 12 December 2019). Commercial Radio Australia, GfK Australian Share of Audio® 2019 [website],

362

www.radioalive.com.au/Research-Insights/Major-Research/Share-of- Audio/2019/Share-of-Audio-2019 (accessed 24 January 2020). Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, AMRAP AirIT [website], https://airit.org.au (accessed 6 June 2019). Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, Codes of Practice – Code 5: Australian Music, CBAA, 2019, www.cbaa.org.au/resource/codes-practice- %E2%80%93-code-5-australian-music (accessed 12 December 2019). Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, Review of Broadcasting Legislation: Submission to the Productivity Commission, 1999. Connors, R.J., ‘Dreams and Play: Historical Method and Methodology’ in G. Kirsch and P. Sullivan (eds.), Methods and Methodology of Composition Research, Carbondale, Southern Illinois UP, 1992, pp. 15–36. Couldry, N. and J. Curran, The Paradox of Media Power, UK, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003. Crawford, A., ‘It was 20 Years Ago Today’, The Age, 11 July 2000, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=anh&AN=SYD- 4YICKYZ8JJS13F7QP51I&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed 20 August 2019). Crisell, A., Understanding Radio, London, Methven, 1986. Crowley, J., Live, Loud and Let Loose: The Early Years of Live Recording Broadcasts for Public Access Station 3PBS-FM, Honours thesis, Melbourne, La Trobe University, 2008. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Flow, NY, Harper and Row, 1990. Curtis, R.A., ‘Australia’s Capital of Jazz? The (Re)creation of Place, Music and Community at the Wangaratta Jazz Festival’, Australian Geographer, vol. 41, no. 1, 2010, pp. 101–116. Darian Smith, K. and P. Hamilton, ‘Memory and History in Twenty-first Century Australia: A Survey of the Field’, Memory Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, 2013, pp. 370– 383. Denzin, N., The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, New Brunswick, Aldine Transaction, 1978.

363

Digital Radio Plus, Listen Live [website], www.digitalradioplus.com.au/listen.aspx?region=Melbourne (accessed 23 January 2020). Donovan, P., Music Victoria Announce the 2019 Music Victoria Award Nominees and Hall of Fame Inductees + Public Voting Now Open! [website], Music Victoria Awards, 2019, www.musicvictoria.com.au/news/music-victoria-announce-the- 2019-music-victoria-award-nominees-and-hall-of-fame-inductees-public- voting-now-open (accessed 28 October 2019). Douglas, L. and R. Geeves, ‘Music, Counter-culture and the Vietnam Era’, in P. Hayward (ed.), From Pop to Punk to Postmodernism: Popular Music and Australian Culture from the 1960s to the 1990s, North Sydney, NSW, Allen and Unwin, 1992, pp. 101–112. Downing, J., ‘Audiences and Readers of Alternative Media: The Absent Lure of the Virtually Unknown’, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 25, no. 5, 2003, pp. 625–645. Downing, J., Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements, CA, SAGE Publications, 2001. Dreher, T., ‘Social/Participation/Listening: Keywords for the Social Impact of Community Media, Communication Research and Practice, vol. 3, no. 1, 2017, pp. 14–30. Dugdale, J., Radio Power: A History of 3ZZ Access Radio, Melbourne, VIC, Hyland House, 1979. Egan, R., A Brief History of Student Radio at RMIT: The 70s [website], http://members.tripod.com/~ryan_hub/radio/70s.html (accessed 14 January 2020). Elghul-Bebawi, S., ‘The Relationship Between Mainstream and Alternative Media: A Blurring of the Edges?’, in J. Gordon (ed.), Notions of Community: A Collection of Community Media Debates and Dilemmas, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2008, pp. 17– 32. Enzensberger, H.M., ‘Constituents of a Theory of the Media’, in H.M. Enzensberger, The Consciousness Industry: On Literature, Politics and the Media, trans. Stuart Hood, NY, Seabury Press, 1974, pp. 95–128.

364

Fairchild, C., ‘The Grinding Gears of a Neo-liberal State: Community Radio and the Local Cultural Production’, Southern Review, vol. 38, no. 2, 2006, pp. 61–76. Fairchild, C., Music, Radio and the Public Sphere: The Aesthetics of Democracy, Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Fairchild, C., ‘Popular Music’, in J. Smith Maguire and J. Matthews (eds.), The Cultural Intermediaries Reader, London, SAGE Publications, 2014, pp. 125–133. Fairchild, C., ‘When a Place Becomes a Community: Music, Radio and the Reach of Social Aesthetics’, Transforming Cultures eJournal, vol. 4, no. 1, April 2009 https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/TfC, pp. 82–93. First Nations Media Australia, Australian Indigenous Media Historical Timeline [website], https://firstnationsmedia.org.au/our-industry/australian- indigenous-media-historical-timeline (accessed 18 December 2020). Fitzroy Legal Service Inc., Incorporated Associations [website], 2017, www.lawhandbook.org.au/2019_06_06_05_incorporated_associations/#_idTex tAnchor2212 (accessed 6 August 2019). Fitzroy Legal Service Inc., Types of Community Organisations [website], 2017, www.lawhandbook.org.au/2019_06_06_03_types_of_community_organisations (accessed 6 August 2019). Forde, S., K. Foxwell and M. Meadows, Culture, Commitment, Community: The Australian Community Radio Sector, Brisbane, QLD, Griffith University, 2002. Fox, J., ‘Commodified Communication: Digital Compatibility Challenges for Community Broadcasting’, 3CMedia: Journal of Community, Citizen’s and Third Sector Media and Communication, no. 9, 2019, pp. 6–18. Fox, J. (ed.), Radical Radio: Celebrating 40 Years of 3CR, Melbourne, VIC, 3CR Community Radio, 2016. Foxwell, K., ‘Community Radio in an Australian City: The Melbourne Experience’, The Radio Journal – International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 161–172. Francis, S., ‘30 Years of PBS’, Easey, May 2009, p. 4. Frisch, M., A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History, State of New York Press, 1990.

365

Frisch, M., ‘From A Shared Authority to the Digital Kitchen, and Back’, in B. Adair, B. Filene and L. Koloski (eds.), Letting Go?: Sharing Historical Authority in a User- generated World, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, 2011, pp. 126–137. Frith, S., The Sociology of Rock, London, Constable and Company, 1978. Frith, S., ‘The Discourse of World Music’ in G. Born and D. Hesmondhalgh (eds.), Western Music and Its Others, University of California Press, 2000, pp. 305–322. Gailey, L., ‘The Role of Music Quotas in Radio’, Music in Australia Knowledge Base, 2012, www.musicinaustralia.org.au/index.php/The_Role_of_Music_Quotas_in_Radio #Author (accessed 16 January 2020). Gaillet, L. L., ‘Archival Survival: Navigating Historical Research’, in A. Ramsey et al. (eds.), Working in the Archives: Practical Research Methods for Rhetoric and Composition, Carbondale, Southern Illinois UP, 2010, pp. 28–39. Gerring, J., ‘What is a Case Study and What is it Good For?’, American Political Science Review, vol. 98, no. 2, 2004, pp. 341–354. Gibson, C. and J. Connell, Music Festivals and Regional Development in Australia, Cornwall, UK, Ashgate, 2012. Gill, R., ‘Justifying Injustice: Broadcasters’ Accounts of Inequality in Radio’, in E. Burman and I. Parker (eds.), Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action, Milton, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016, pp. 75–93. Google Research, Music Timeline [website], http://research.google.com/bigpicture/music (accessed 21 November 2017). Gordon, J., ‘Community Radio, Funding and Ethics’ in J. Gordon (ed.), Notions of Community: A Collection of Community Media Debates and Dilemmas, Oxford,

Peter Lang, 2008, pp.59–80. Gordon, J. ‘The Economic Tensions Faced by Community Radio Broadcasters’, in C. Atton, The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media,

NY, Routledge, 2015, pp. 247–257. Griffen-Foley, B., Changing Stations: The Story of Australian Commercial Radio, Sydney, UNSW Press, 2009.

366

Griffiths, D., Democratising Radio: The Long Revolution, Media Monograph III, Sydney and Melbourne, University of Sydney and Alternative Radio Association, 1975. Gunn Enli, S., ‘Redefining Public Service Broadcasting’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 14, no. 1, 2008, pp. 105–120. Hackett, R. and W. Carroll, Remaking Media: The Struggle to Democratize Public Communication, NY, Routledge, 2006. Hamilton, P., ‘Sale of the Century? Memory and Historical Consciousness in Australia’, in S. Radstone and K. Hodgkin (eds.), Contested Pasts, Oxon, Taylor and Francis, 2003, pp. 136–152. Harley, R., and A. Murphie, ‘Australian Electronica, a Brief History’ in S. Homan and T. Mitchell (eds.), Sounds of Then, Sounds of Now: Popular Music in Australia, Tasmania, ACYS Publishing, 2008, pp. 93–112. Hebdidge, D., Subculture: The Meaning of Style, London, Routledge, 1979. Hellman, H. and A. Vilkko, ‘Public Service Hit Radio? Playlists and Product Differentiation in the Competition for Listeners’, Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, vol. 15, no. 1, 2017, pp. 27–45. Hendy, D., ‘Pop Music Radio in the Public Service: BBC Radio 1 and New Music in the 1990s’, Music, Culture & Society, vol. 22, no. 6, 2000, pp. 743–761. Hesmondhalgh, D., ‘Indie: The Institutional Politics and Aesthetics of a Popular Music Genre’, Cultural Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, 1999, pp. 34–61. Hesmondhalgh, D., ‘Bourdieu, the Media and Cultural Production’, Media Culture and Society, vol. 28, no. 2, 2006, pp. 211–231. Hill, B., ‘3PBS – The Professionals’, The Age, 28 October 1982, p. 8. Holman, L., 4ZZZ: A History and Evaluation of a Public Broadcaster, Honours thesis, Brisbane, QLD, Griffith University, 1989. Homan, S., ‘Classic Hits in a Digital Era: Music Radio and the Australian Music Industry’, Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, vol. 1, no. 123, 2007, pp. 65–81. Homan, S., ‘Local Priorities, Industry Realities: The Music Quota as Cultural

367

Exceptionalism’, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 34, no. 8, 2012, pp. 1040–1051. Hong, J., The Internationalization of Television in China: The Evolution of Ideology, Society, and Media Since the Reform, CT, Praeger, 1998. Huber, A., ‘Top 40 in Australia: Popular Music and the Mainstream’ in S. Homan and T. Mitchell (eds.), Sounds of Then, Sounds of Now: Popular Music in Australia, Tasmania, ACYS Publishing, 2008. Huntsberger, M., ‘’My Show is a Public Service’: How Values of Free Expression and Professionalism Influence Community Radio Organizations’, in J. Gordon (ed.), Community Radio in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2012, pp. 221–242. Hutchison. T., Your Name’s on the Door: 10 Years of Australian Music, Sydney, NSW, ABC Enterprises, 1992. Infinite Dial Australia, The Infinite Dial 2019 Australia [website], 2019, www.radioalive.com.au/Research-Insights/Other-Research-Insights/Infinite- Dial/Infinite-Dial-Australia-2019-(1) (accessed 7 June 2019). International Association for Media and Communication Research, Community Communication and Alternative Media Section [website], https://iamcr.org/s- wg/section/cam (accessed 8 August 2019). Janssen, S. and M. Verboord, ‘Cultural Mediators and Gatekeepers’ in J.D. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences, 2nd edn, Oxford, Elsevier, 2015, pp. 440–446. Jick, T., ‘Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, 1979, pp. 602–611. Johns, B., ‘The Community Broadcasting Revolution’, ABA Update – Newsletter of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, January 1995. Johnson, R., A. Onwuegbuzie and L. Turner, ‘Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 1, no. 2, 2007, pp. 112–133. Kaplan, D., ‘Programming and Editing as Alternative Logics of Music Radio Production’, International Journal of Communication, vol. 7, 2013, pp. 759–779. King, M.T., ‘Working With/In the Archives’, in S. Gunn and L. Faire (eds.), Research Methods for History, Edinburgh University Press, 2011, pp. 13–29.

368

Kingma, B. and R. McClelland, ‘Public Radio Stations are Really, Really Not Public Goods: Charitable Contributions and Impure Altruism’, Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics, vol. 66, no. 1, 1995, pp. 65–76. Kirsch, G., ‘Methodological Pluralism: Epistemological Issues’, in G. Kirsch and P. Sullivan (eds.), Methods and Methodology in Composition Research, Carbondale, Southern Illinois UP, 1992, pp. 247–269. Kitross, J.M. and C.H. Sterling, Stay Tuned: A History of American Broadcasting, 3rd edn, Mahwah, NJ, Taylor and Francis, 2002. Knight, A., ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again: The 25th Anniversary of Radical Radio in Queensland’, 2000, http://radicaltimes.info/PDF/radicalRadio25.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020). Kruse, H., ‘Subcultural Identity in Alternative Music Culture’, Popular Music, vol. 12, no. 1, 1993, pp. 33–41. Kwinten Crauwels, Super-genres [website], https://musicmap.info (accessed 21 November 2017). Lallo, M., ‘Triple M-emories’, The Age, 1 January 2009, www.theage.com.au/entertainment/triple-m-emories-20090101-ge7lmo.html (accessed 31 January 2019). Lena, J., Banding Together: How Communities Create Genres in Popular Music, Princeton UP, 2012. Lewis, P. and J. Booth, The Invisible Medium: Public, Commercial and Community Radio, London, Macmillan Education, 1989. Luckman, S. ‘Introduction to Part 2’, in G. Boustein and M. Peters, Sonic Synergies: Music, Technology, Community, Identity, England, Ashgate, 2008, pp. 65–68. Luckman, S. et al., ‘‘The Devil is in the Level’: Understanding Inequality in Australia’s Film, TV and Radio Industries’, Media International Australia, vol. 176, no. 1., 2020, pp. 3–18. Lucy, N., ‘Radio Management: Sectors, Structures, Styles’, Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media and Culture, vol. 6, no. 1, 1992, wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/6.1/Lucy.html (accessed 12 November 2019).

369

Mason, P., ‘Australian Community Broadcasting’, Music in Australia, 2007, www.musicinaustralia.org.au/index.php/Australian_Community_Broadcasting (accessed 6 June 2019). McCann, J., ‘Why You Probably Hate Every Radio Station at the Moment’, news.com.au, 17 October 2016, www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/radio/why-you-probably-hate-every- radio-station-at-the-moment/news-story/80eb08304839e87afdd09d4a017cc204 (accessed 2 October 2018). McFall, L., ‘What About the Old Cultural Intermediaries? An Historical Review of Advertising Producers’, Cultural Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, 2002, pp. 532–552. McNair Yellow Squares, ‘Community Radio National Listener Survey 2018: Summary Report of Findings’, Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, 2018, www.cbaa.org.au/sites/default/files/media/McNair%20yellowSquares%20- %20NLS%20-%20Main%20Report%202018%20-%20FINAL-nopg13.pdf (accessed 20 August 2019). McNair Yellow Squares, ‘Community Radio National Listener Survey’, Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, 2019, www.cbaa.org.au/sites/default/files/media/NLS%20Fact%20Sheet%20- %20Australia%20-%202019.pdf (accessed 8 August 2019). Meadows et al., Community Media Matters: An Audience Study of the Australian Community Broadcasting Sector, QLD, Griffith University, 2007. Meadows et al., ‘The Power and the Passion: A Study of Australian Community Broadcasting Audiences 2004–2007’, Global Media Journal (Aust. edn), vol. 1, no. 1, 2007, www.hca.westernsydney.edu.au/gmjau/archive/iss1_2007/pdf/HC_FINAL_Mic hael%20Meadows.pdf (accessed 12 June 2019). Meadows et al., ‘Making Spaces: Community Media and the Formation of the Democratic Public Sphere in Australia’ in C. Rodruigez, D. Kidd and L. Stein (eds.), Making our Media: Global Initiatives Toward a Democratic Public Sphere, NJ, Hampton Press, 2010, pp. 163–182. Michaels, E., The Aboriginal Invention of Television in Central Australia, 1982–1986,

370

Canberra, ACT, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1986. Michaels, K. and C. Mitchell, ‘The Last Bastion: How Women Became Music Presenters in UK Radio’, in C. Mitchell (ed.), Women and Radio: Airing Differences, London, Routledge, 2000, pp. 238–249. Mitchell, T. ‘The DIY Habitus of Australian Hip Hop’, Media International Australia (incorporating Culture & Policy), vol. 123, 2007, pp. 109–122. Mollgaard, M., ‘Access Community Radio in New Zealand’, Wellington, New Zealand, 2018, https://d3r9t6niqlb7tz.cloudfront.net/media/documents/2018- 10_Mollgaard_Access_Radio_Review_2018_FINAL_for_publishing.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020). Mollgaard, M., ‘Radio New Zealand and the Internet’, Communication Journal of New Zealand, vol. 8, no. 1, 2007, pp. 63–75. Mollgaard, M., ‘Radio New Zealand and the Internet: Radio and Convergence Through Ten Years of Transformation’, Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, vol. 17, no. 1, 2019, pp. 99–112. Molloy, M. and W. Larner, ‘Who Needs Cultural Intermediaries Indeed? Gendered Networks in the Designer Fashion Industry’, Journal of Cultural Economy, vol. 3, no. 3, 2010, pp. 361–377. Molnar, H. and M. Meadows, Songlines to Satellites: Indigenous Communication in Australia, the South Pacific and Canada, Annandale, NSW, Pluto Press, 2001. Moore, R., ‘Alternative to What? Subcultural Capital and the Commercialization of a Music Scene’, Deviant Behavior, vol. 26, no. 3, 2005, pp. 229–252. Moylan, K., ‘Accented Radio in Miami and New Orleans’ in G. Föllmer and A. Badenoch (eds.), Transnationalizing Radio Research: New Approaches to an Old Medium, Bielefeld, Transcript, 2018, https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/374505, pp. 47–56. Moylan, K., Broadcasting Diversity, Chicago, Intellect, 2013. Moylan, K. The Cultural Work of Community Radio, London, Rowman & Littlefield, 2019.

371

Musgrave, G., ‘Collaborating to Compete: The Role of Cultural Intermediaries in Hypercompetition’, International Journal of Music Business Research, 2017, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 41–68. Negus, K., Popular Music in Theory, Cambridge, UK, Polity Press, 1996. Negus, K., ‘The Work of Cultural Intermediaries and the Enduring Distance Between Production and Consumption’, Cultural Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, 2002, pp. 501– 515. Newton, D., Victorian Live Music Census 2012, Music Victoria, 2012, www.musicvictoria.com.au/assets/Documents/Victorian_Live_Music_C ensus_2012.pdf (accessed 28 October 2019). Newton, D., and R. Coyle-Hayward, Melbourne Live Music Report Census, Music Victoria, 2017, www.musicvictoria.com.au/assets/2018/MLMC-2017-Report- compressed.pdf (accessed 28 October 2019). Nieckarz Jr, P., 'The Business of Public Radio: The Growing Commercial Presence Within Local National Public Radio', Journal of Radio Studies, vol. 9, 2002, pp. 209–226. Nimmervoll, E., ‘A Tale of Two Cities’, in M. Young and J. Jenkins (eds.), Rock Reader: Underneath the Riffs, Melbourne, VIC, Wilkinson Publishing, 2008, pp. 7–11. Nixon, S. and P. du Gay, ‘Who Needs Cultural Intermediaries?’, Cultural Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, 2002, pp. 495–500. Nugent et al., Listening to the Listeners, Sydney, Australian Broadcasting Authority, 1995. O’Brien, A. and N. Gaynor, ‘Voice of the People? Objectives Versus Outcomes for Community Radio in Ireland’, Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, vol. 10, no. 2, 2012, pp. 145–160. Order, S., Community Radio in Western Australia: Notions of Value, PhD thesis, Perth, Murdoch University, 2013. Order, S., ‘The Altruism of Community Radio’, Asia–Pacific Media Educator, vol. 23, no. 2, 2013, pp. 381–401. Order, S., ‘Australian Community Radio: Funding Challenges and Dilemmas’, 3CMedia, no. 8, 2016, pp. 61–76.

372

Parker, F. and J. Whitson, ‘Megabooth: The Cultural Intermediation of Indie Games’, New Media & Society, vol. 20, no. 5, 2018, pp. 1953–1972. Percival, J. M., ‘Music Radio and the Record Industry: Songs, Sounds, and Power’, Popular Music and Society, vol. 34, no. 4, 2011, pp. 455–473. Percival, J.M., ‘Scottish Indie Music and BBC Radio’s Beat Patrol (1995-2000)’, Popular Music History, vol. 4, no. 1, 2009, pp. 23–38. Phillips, M., Radio City: The First 30 Years of RRR, Melbourne, VIC, Vulgar Press, 2006. Pluskota, J., ‘The Perfect Technology: Radio and Mobility’, Journal of Radio & Audio Media, vol. 22, no. 2, 2015, pp. 325–336. Podkalicka, A. and J. Meese, ‘“Twin Transformations”: The Salvation Army’s Charity Shops and the Recreating of Material and Social Value’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 15, no. 6, 2012, pp. 721–735. Portelli, A., The Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories: Form and Meaning in Oral History, State University of New York Press, 1990. Potts, J. ‘Heritage Rock: Pop Music on Australian Radio’, in P. Hayward (ed.), Pop Punk and Postmodernism: Popular Music and Australian Culture from the 1960s to the 1990s, North Sydney, NSW, Allen & Unwin, 1992, pp. 55–67. Potts, J., ‘Music on Public Radio’, Media Information Australia, no. 64, 1992, p. 17–23. Powers, D., ‘Lost in the Shuffle: Technology, History and the Idea of Musical Randomness’, Critical Studies in Media Communication, vol. 31, no. 3, 2014, pp. 244–264. Productivity Commission, Broadcasting, Melbourne, Productivity Commission, 2000. Pu, L., ‘A Longitudinal Study of the Foreign TV Programming Pattern of China Chongqing TV, 1981–2010’, Intercultural Communication Studies, vol. XXII, no. 3, 2013, pp. 1–17. Radioinfo, Coles Radio Features Live Show [website], 13 June 2017, https://radioinfo.com.au/news/coles-radio-features-live-show (accessed 15 October 2019). Rennie, E., The Future of Community Broadcasting: Civil Society and Communications Policy, PhD thesis, Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology, 2003.

373

Rennie, E., Community Media: A Global Introduction, Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006. Rennie, E., L. Berkeley and B. Murphet, ‘Community Media and Ethical Choice’, 3CMedia, no. 6, 2010, pp. 11–25. RhythmOne, Genres [website], www.allmusic.com/genres (accessed 21 November 2017). Rodriguez, C., Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study of Citizens’ Media, NJ, Hampton Press, 2001. Rowlinson, M., ‘Historical Analysis of Company Documents’, in G. Symon and C. Cassell (eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, London, SAGE Publications, 2004, pp. 301–311. Rubin, N., ‘Music Based Community Radio as Alternative Media’, in J. Gordon (ed.), Community Radio in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2012, p. 199– 220. Ruth, N., B. Spangardt, and H. Schramm, ‘Alternative Music Playlists on the Radio: Flow Experience and the Appraisal During the Reception of Music Radio Programs’, Musicae Scientiae, vol. 21, no. 1, 2017, pp. 75–97. Sandoval, M. and C. Fuchs, ‘Towards a Critical Theory of Alternative Media’, Telematics and Informatics, vol. 27, 2010, pp. 141–150. Scott, C., ‘Matthew Frederick: The Breakfast Spread, 6am–9am Monday to Friday’, Easey, May 2009. Shuker, R., Understanding Popular Music Culture, Florence, Taylor and Francis, 2012. Smith Maguire, J., ‘The Personal is Professional: Personal Trainers as a Case Study of Cultural Intermediaries’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, 2008, pp. 211–229. Smith Maguire, J. and J. Matthews, ‘Cultural Intermediaries and the Media’, Sociology Compass, vol. 4, no. 7, 2010, pp. 405–416. Smith Maguire, J. and J. Matthews, ‘Are We All Cultural Intermediaries Now? An Introduction to Cultural Intermediaries in Context’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 15, no. 5, 2012, pp. 551–562. Smith Maguire, J. and J. Matthews, ‘Introduction: Thinking with Cultural

374

Intermediaries’, in J. Smith Maguire and J. Matthews (eds.), The Cultural Intermediaries Reader, London, SAGE Publications, 2014, pp. 1–12. Sonemic, Genre [website], https://rateyourmusic.com/rgenre (accessed 21 November 2017). Stafford, A., Pig City, University of Queensland Press, 2004. Stahl, G., ‘Still “Winning Space?”: Updating Subcultural Theory’, Invisible Culture, vol. 2, 1999, www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue2/stahl.htm (accessed 25 November 2019). Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, ‘Terms of Reference’, Tuning in to Community Broadcasting, House of Representatives, Canberra, ACT, June 2007. State Government of Victoria, Recipients of The Age Music Victoria Awards 2016 Announced [website], https://creative.vic.gov.au/news- archive/2016/grecipients-of-the-age-music-victoria-awards-2016-announced., (accessed 21 November 2017). State Government of Victoria, Incorporated Association [website], www.business.vic.gov.au/setting-up-a-business/business- structure/incorporated-association (accessed 23 October 2018). State of Victoria, Sheriffs in Victoria [website], 2019, www.justice.vic.gov.au/justice- system/sheriffs-in-victoria (accessed 16 January 2020). Sterling, C., ‘Assessing the Record: A Century of Historical Research’ in D.G. Godfrey (ed.), Methods of Historical Analysis in Electronic Media, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006, pp. 349–374. Swanton, G., ‘Public Broadcasting: A Critical Comment’, Social Alternatives, vol. 4, no. 4, 1985, pp. 62–64. Tebbutt, J., ‘Constructing Broadcasting for the Public’, in H. Wilson (ed.), Australian Communications and the Public Sphere, South Melbourne, VIC, Macmillan, 1989, pp. 128–146. Tebbutt, J., ‘Hidden Technicians: Music and Radio-making at 3-PBS in the Prince of Wales’, Media International Australia, vol. 176, no. 1, 2020, pp. 107–119. The Nielsen Company, ‘Terminology and Definitions for the Nielsen Radio Diary

375

Service’, 2013, www.arbitron.com/downloads/terms_brochure.pdf (accessed 18 February 2020). ‘The Secret’s Out’, Herald Sun, 16 June 1994, p. 42. Thomas, P., ‘Alternative Communications: Problems and Prospects’, Media Asia, vol. 20, no. 2, 1993, pp. 63-65. Thompson, M., ‘Some Issues for Community Radio at the Turn of the Century’, Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, vol. 91, no. 1, 1999, pp. 22–31. Thomson, A., ANZAC Memories: Living with the Legend, Clayton, Monash University Publishing, 2013. Thornley, P., Broadcasting Policy in Australia: Political Influences and the Federal Government’s Role in the Establishment and Development of Public/Community Broadcasting in Australia – A History 1939 to 1992, PhD thesis, University of Newcastle, 1999. Thornton, S., Club Cultures, Cambridge, UK, Polity Press, 1995. Turner, G., ‘Who Killed the Radio Star? The Death of Teen Radio in Australia’, in T. Bennett et al. (eds.), Rock and Popular Music: Politics, Policies, Institutions, London, Routledge, 1993, pp. 141–154. van Vuuren, K., ‘Community Broadcasting and the Enclosure of the Public Sphere’, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 28, no. 3, 2006, pp. 379–392. van Vuuren, K., ‘The Trouble with Community Radio Research, or How Methodological Setbacks Can Inform Theoretical Development’, 3CMedia, vol. 2, 2006, pp. 1–14. Victorian Heritage Database Report, ‘Dallas Brooks Hall’, 2020, https://vhd.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/places/64293/download-report (accessed 16 January 2020). Waddington, D., ‘Participant Observation’, in G. Symon and C. Cassell (eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, London, SAGE Publications, 2004, pp. 154–164. Walker, C., History is Made at Night: Live Music in Australia, Strawberry Hills, NSW, Currency Press, 2012.

376

Wang, J. and T. Chang, ‘From Class Ideologue to State Manager: TV Programming and Foreign Imports in China, 1970–1990’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 40, no. 2, 1996, pp. 196–207. Warne, S., ‘Beyond the Echoes: A Look at Public Radio and Popular Music’, in M. Breen (ed.), Missing in Action: Australian Popular Music in Perspective, VIC, Verbal Graphics, 1987, pp. 167–183. Whitford, I., ‘Public Radio: The Promise and the Performance’, Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media & Culture, vol. 6, no. 1, 1992, pp. 53–59, wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/6.1/Whitford.html (accessed 13 August 2019). Wikipedia Foundation, List of Music Styles [website], https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_styles (accessed 21 November 2017). Williams, J., Subcultural Theory: Traditions and Concepts, Cambridge, UK, Polity Press, 2011. Willis, P., Profane Culture, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2014. Wilson, C., ‘Youth, Radio and Australian Popular Music Policy’, Perfect Beat, vol. 14, no. 2, 2014, pp. 100–119. Wilson, C., Frequently Modulating: Australian Radio’s Relationship with Youth, PhD thesis, Melbourne, Swinburne University of Technology, 2015. Woo, B., ‘Alpha Nerds: Cultural Intermediaries in a Subcultural Scene’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 15, no. 5, 2012, pp. 659–676. Wouters, S., ‘The Influence of Happenings on the Performative Display of Subcultures: Insights into the Beat, Mod, Provo and Hipster Movements’ in Dhoest et al. (eds.), The Borders of Subculture: Resistance and the Mainstream, London, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015, pp. 55–69. Wright, D., ‘Mediating Production and Consumption: Cultural Capital and “Cultural Workers”’, The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 56, no. 1, 2005, pp. 105–121. Yang, N., ‘Then and Now: What Does It Mean to be Progressive?’, MPR News, 13 February 2016, www.mprnews.org/story/2016/02/12/what-does-progressive- mean (accessed 5 August 2019).

377

Yin, R.K., Case Study Research Design and Methods, CA, SAGE Publications, 2009. Young, A., ‘Oral History as Emergent Paradigm’, The Oral History Association of Australia Journal, vol. 28, 2006, pp. 1–6. Young, J., The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meanings, New Haven, Yale University, 1993. Yow, V., ‘“Do I Like Them Too Much?” Effects of the Oral History Interview on the Interviewer and Vice-versa’, The Oral History Review, vol. 24, 1997, pp. 55–79. ZinkMedia, Homepage [website], www.discogs.com/search (accessed 21 November 2017).

378

Appendix A Community radio stations in metropolitan Melbourne1

On-air ID Licensee name Community interest Joy 94.9 Joy Melbourne Inc. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex 3ECB Eastern Community Broadcasters Inc. General Geographic Area 2INR Inner North Eastern Community Radio General Geographic Area Inc. 3NOW North West Community Radio General Geographic Area Association Inc. 3ZZZ Ethnic Community Broadcasting Ethnic – General Association of Victoria 3MBS Music Broadcasting Society of Victoria Music – Fine music (Classical and Jazz) 3PBS Progressive Broadcasting Service Co op Music – Progressive Ltd 3RRR Triple R Broadcasters Ltd Educational 3KND First Australians Media Enterprises Indigenous Aboriginal Corporation Light FM Light Melbourne Inc. Religious – Christian 90.7 SYN FM Student Youth Network Inc. Youth and students 3CR Community Radio Federation Limited Community Access 3SER South Eastern Radio Association Inc. General geographic area 88.3 Southern FM Southern Community Broadcasters Inc. General geographic area 3WRB Western Radio Broadcasters Inc. General geographic area

1 Australian Communications and Media Authority, ‘Community Radio Broadcasting Licences’, 2019, www.acma.gov.au/-/media/Community-Broadcasting-and- Safeguards/Information/pdf/lic035_community_radio_broadcasting_licences-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed 3 June 2019). 379

Appendix B List of interview participants

Interviewee Interviewed Roles Years at PBS ** Hugo T. Armstrong 15 March 2019 Announcer, Program Manager, Staff 1989–2007 Adrian Basso 6 February 2019 Station Manager 2007–present Peter Chellew 27 November 2018 Announcer, Station Manager 1997–2000 Jess Fairfax 12 November 2018 Announcer, Board 2011–present Ken Fargher 21 November 2018 Announcer, Board 1976–1983, 2010s Andrew Green* February, 2019 Announcer, PPG 1990s–early 2000s Allyson Griffith 4 September 2018 Announcer, Board, Outside 1990–2002 Broadcast group Monica Hanns 31 October 2018 Announcer, Board, Staff 2008– present Garry Havrillay 24 January 2019 Announcer, Board, Category 1980–present Coordinator Roger Holdsworth 6 December 2018 Announcer, Category Coordinator 1982–present Helen Jennings, OAM 13 March 2019 Announcer 1984–present Roger Jones 18 March 2019 Station Manager 2000–2006 Owen McKern 18 October 2018 Program Manager 2012–present Nat Muscat 24 January 2019 Announcer, Staff 1987–1993 Cameron Paine 4 December 2018 Occasional Announcer, Outside 1976–1989 Broadcast group Lisa Palermo 22 January 2019 Announcer, Board (Chair of PPG), 1988–2009 Category Coordinator Cameron Reyntjes 14 May 2019 Station Manager 1993–1996 Ian Stanistreet 10 December 2018 Announcer, Station Manager 1980–1988 Claire Stuchbery 19 March 2019 Announcer, Board (Chair of PPG), 1996–present Category Coordinator, Staff Lyndelle Wilkinson 7 November 2018 Announcer, Category Coordinator 2004–present

* not real name. This participant agreed to be interviewed via email on condition of anonymity ** some interviewees had gaps in their years of participation with PBS; except in the case of Ken Fargher (a period of many years), these breaks are not documented here.

380

Appendix C List of interview questions

Topic # Questions 1 When were you [role] at PBS? 2 What were your responsibilities? Your role 3 Did you have other positions at PBS? What were they & when? 4 Why did you nominate for the role? 5 How would you describe PBS to someone from Melbourne? PBS 6 How would you describe PBS to someone not from Melbourne? 7 Do you think PBS has a “sound”? If so, what is it? 8 What is your role in relation to the programming committee? Music 9 What factors do you think influence programming decisions? Programming 10 Have there been times you think a genre has been over or under- represented on PBS? 11 How would you describe PBS' audience? 12 Based on PBS’ goals of broadcasting under-represented music, Audience who do you think should be listening? 13 What affect do you think PBS has had on Melbourne's music scene? 14 What can you tell me about PBS’ financial position during your time? Finances 15 Do you think PBS' financial position affected programming decisions? 16a How did 24 hour broadcasting affect programming? Technology 16b Have digital broadcasting and internet streaming affected programming? How? 17 Beyond presenting a program, what role do you think the Announcer announcer plays at PBS? 18 Why do you think more men than women are announcer? 19 What insights have you gained from the various roles you’ve had at PBS? 20 How has PBS changed in the time you’ve been involved? Reflections 21 Why is PBS important to you? 22 What is your favourite PBS memory? 23 What's the worst thing about PBS? 24 What's the best thing about PBS? 25 Who else do you think I should speak to about how PBS has made Final programming decisions? comments 26 Is there anything else you think I should know?

381

Appendix D Tier 1 percentages of broadcast output, 1979–2019

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Blues & Roots Contemporary Mix Electronic & Hip Hop Funk & Soul Hard 'n' Heavy Jazz Rock Indie Spoken Word Unknown Various World

382

Appendix E Ethics Approval and Compliance

Approval

383

Compliance

384