Communications Research in Action: Scholar-Activist Collaborations for a Democratic Public Sphere 9780823237500

Citation preview

Communications Research in Action

DONALD MCGANNON COMMUNICATION RESEARCH CENTER’S

EVERETT C. PARKER BOOK SERIES

This series seeks to publish research that can inform the work of policy makers, policy advocates, scholars, and students as they grapple with a rapidly changing communications environment and the variety of policy issues arising within it. The series employs a broadly defined notion of communications policy, in that it considers not only scholarship addressing specific policy issues and processes but also more broadly focused communications scholarship that has direct implications for policymaking. editorial board Patricia Aufderheide, American University Ellen Goodman, Rutgers University School of Law, Camden Allen Hammond, Santa Clara University School of Law Robert B. Horwitz, University of California at San Diego Robert W. McChesney, University of Illinois Jorge Schement, Rutgers University, New Brunswick

Edited by Philip M. Napoli and Minna Aslama

Communications Research in Action scholar-activist collaborations for a democratic public sphere

fordham university press . new york . 2011

Copyright 䉷 2011 Fordham University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher. Fordham University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Fordham University Press also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Communications research in action : scholar-activist collaborations for a democratic public sphere / edited by Philip M. Napoli and Minna Aslama. p. cm.— (Donald McGannon Communication Research Center’s Everett C. Parker book series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8232-3346-5 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-8232-3347-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-8232-3348-9 (ebook) 1. Communication policy. 2. Communication—Social aspects. 3. Mass media policy. I. Napoli, Philip M. II. Aslama, Minna. P95.8.C645 2011 302.23—dc22 2010033994 Printed in the United States of America 13 12 11 5 4 3 2 1 First edition

CONTENTS

Foreword Becky Lentz

ix

Acknowledgments

xv

Introduction Minna Aslama and Philip M. Napoli

1

explorations of movement actors: strategies, impacts, and needs

PART I:

1. 2. 3.

Digital Inclusion: Working Both Sides of the Equation Dorothy Kidd with Eloise Lee

11

Engaging in Scholar-Activist Communications in Canada Leslie Regan Shade

28

Toward a Taxonomy for Public Interest Communications Infrastructure Dharma Dailey and Alison Powell

45

media ownership: bridging research and regulation

PART II:

4.

Big Media, Little Kids: The Impact of Ownership Concentration on the Availability of Television Programming for Children Katharine E. Heintz and Christina Romano Glaubke

71

5.

Minority Commercial Radio Ownership: Assessing FCC Licensing and Consolidation Policies Catherine J.K. Sandoval

6.

88

Cross-Ownership, Markets, and Content on Local TV News Danilo Yanich

114

alternative and community media: discovering needs and opportunities

PART III:

7.

Measuring Community Radio’s Impact: Lessons on Collaboration Graciela Leo´n Orozco

8.

Youth Channel All-City: Mapping the Media Needs and Interests of Urban Youth Isabel Castellanos, Amy Bach, and Rachel Kulick

9.

157

Mobile Voices: Projecting the Voices of Immigrant Workers by Appropriating Mobile Phones for Popular Communication The VozMob Project

10.

139

177

Community Connect: A Network of Civic Spaces for Public Communication in North Dakota Lana F. Rakow and Diana Iulia Nastasia

197

communications infrastructure: rethinking rights

PART IV:

11.

Telecommunications Convergence and Consumer Rights in Brazil Estela Waksberg Guerrini, Diogo Moyses, and Daniela Batalha Trettel

12.

Citizen Political Enfranchisement and Information Access: Telecommunications Services in Rural and Remote Areas Richard S. Wolff

13.

257

Public FM Project: Supporting the Licensing of New Noncommercial FM Radio Stations for Student and Community Usage Todd Urick

vi

240

Open Access in Africa: The Case of Mauritius Russell Southwood, Abiodun Jagun, and Willie Currie

14.

221

contents

271

assessment: creating support for scholar-activist collaboration

PART V:

15. 16.

Cultures of Collaboration in Media Research Joe Karaganis

287

Engendering Scholar-Activist Collaborations: An Evaluator’s Perspective Catherine Borgman-Arboleda

313

Conclusion: Bridging Gaps, Crossing Boundaries Minna Aslama and Philip M. Napoli

333

List of Contributors

337

Index

347

contents

vii

This page intentionally left blank

FOREWORD

Communications Research in Action is a timely and important book for scholars, legal advocates, and community organizers interested in making a difference in communication and information policy (CIP) but not sure quite where to begin. CIP is a broad, interdisciplinary, and international arena of scholarship and practice that includes several overlapping policy sectors: broadcasting, telecommunications, the Internet, freedom of information, technology, and intellectual property. The work in this volume is also a gift to community organizers, policy advocates, and their funders who may have experienced the disappointment of calling, in vain, for help from the academic community. These contributions represent a series of welcome achievements in this regard. They bear witness to the fact that much scholarship is indeed a collaborative act (Barlow 2007). In these chapters, activists are not simply the objects of scholarly study, but equal partners in social change. Last and certainly not least, the book captures a very brief moment of five years where a vision of authentic collaboration was realized, at least in part. Those involved in the work represented here know that many of the projects were funded by a deliberative process nurtured and managed by an intermediary organization,1 the Social Science Research Council (SSRC). The SSRC should be congratulated for its efforts to recognize the value of partnering with civil society in its experiment to nurture ‘‘necessary knowledge.’’ Part of this experiment emerged from the Ford Foundation efforts between 2001 and 2007 to develop a new funding stream at the Foundation

ix

and within philanthropy for the CIP field. Commissioned studies and interviews (see Lentz 2009) revealed that for more than twenty-five years, powerful industry lobbying had all but dismantled many of the public interest protections that grants in the 1960s and 1970s had helped to secure.2 During the Reagan administration, for example, the FCC lengthened TV and radio license periods, eliminated numerous regulations related to children’s programming, ended mandates dictating the amount of news and public affairs programming required of broadcasters, and lifted obligations that had kept broadcasters’ program logs open for public scrutiny. In 1987, the FCC suspended the Fairness Doctrine, which had been established in 1949 to increase the diversity of ideas by requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on public issues. FCC decision making has also eroded progress achieved during the Civil Rights era that required radio and television broadcast stations to interview a diverse range of local leaders in order to ascertain the issues of interest to all segments of the community they were licensed to serve. In 2003, as part of its congressionally mandated quadrennial review process, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), despite widespread bipartisan congressional and public opposition, further relaxed ownership restrictions for media corporations. This opposition served as a watershed moment that catalyzed an advocacy infrastructure in the United States. Alongside the effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the media consolidation debates created a perfect storm that helped build internal Foundation support for media policy work.3 This support was bolstered by comparing the size of the policy obstacles to the limited number of resources available to the small ecology of underfunded institutions that had been fighting tirelessly to maintain the few remaining public interest safeguards. Civil society organizations were working on a range of policy issues that included privacy and surveillance, copyrights and patents, equitable deployment of broadband services, community radio, wireless communications, media industry consolidation, and radio frequency spectrum reform. However, until public interest and media reform advocates could find a common language and a shared cause,4 funding organizations believed that their efforts would continue to be disconnected, fragmented, and underfunded. Put simply, the field had no consensual definition of the public interest to unite its disparate efforts. Advocacy groups, for example, were having difficulty capturing press and public attention to build viable constituencies in support of the diverse set of issues that they were working on. Historically, nonexperts have had little voice in this field because the issues are so technical; policy discourse about broadband access, intellectual property rights, privacy law, and media x

becky lentz

concentration is monopolized by highly specialized legal and technical professionals focused primarily on what goes on in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, media policy and telecommunications decision making historically has not been resolved by voters, but by regulatory bodies populated disproportionately by industry representatives. The FCC is not an elected body. It does not answer to the public, but to Congress, so public opinion has not necessarily factored into its decision-making processes. The proceedings on media ownership provided ample evidence of this imbalance. Despite these challenges, civil society leaders and a handful of funding organizations determined it was a timely moment for philanthropic investment in the CIP field. The future of the Internet, television and radio broadcasting, personal computing, and telephony depended on it—their trajectories were being decided in Congress, and in other national, regional, state, and local forums with little demonstrable public input. Large media corporations with formidable lobbying capabilities greatly outnumbered the small cluster of public interest advocacy groups that were monitoring the effectiveness and accountability of policymakers. Indeed, it was a crucial moment to support public debate about the information and communications environment, so as to shift the then-dominant, narrow marketplace focus to embrace values such as public access, freedom of expression, media diversity, and transparency and accountability in decision making. In 2004, Ford Foundation leadership approved a grantmaking strategy to address several of these concerns. The strategy was titled Reclaiming the Public Interest in Electronic Media Policy and tried to strike new ground. It was organized not around a single issue such as freedom of expression, media ownership, privacy, or the digital divide, but around building a core set of sustainable institutions that could advocate effectively for an enabling CIP environment that addressed each of these issues for years to come. Over the long term, the approach sought to yield a cluster of research institutions to help define twenty-first-century policy frameworks for electronic media policy in the public interest, watchdog and advocacy groups that could safeguard these frameworks, and grassroots alliances and coalitions that could continue to build local and broad-based support for them. Nurturing the building or expansion of a set of strategically linked and sustainable research institutions, public interest advocacy organizations, and grassroots alliances and coalitions that could advance public interest values in electronic media policy making in the United States over the long term was supported by three short-term goals: strengthening public interest advocacy institutions, engaging with and nurturing the uniting of diverse constituencies, and building strategic knowledge that could bolster the arguments of civil society in CIP policy debates. foreword

xi

The SSRC eventually became a partner in addressing the latter goal. Indicators of progress included the emergence of a strategic knowledge base that could help advance widespread learning and information exchange in the sector; evidence of the use and exchange of that knowledge base among researchers, public interest advocacy groups, and grassroots activists across issue areas; a nationally recognized and diverse set of public intellectuals to champion the field’s case in a variety of forums; and a variety of histories that not only documented progress in the field, but also provided strategic guidance for broad-scale policy change. As Napoli’s (2009) ambitious literature review has documented, these histories have already begun to emerge— evidence of the CIP field’s viability as a site for investment and as a site of scholarly inquiry and engagement. The best of these works include contributions from activists themselves as co-creators of necessary knowledge for media democracy, reform, and justice. It is now 2010 and the public interest side of the CIP sector still boasts too few sustainable advocacy organizations, but at least several universities have begun to devote resources to building a knowledge infrastructure for the field. Fulltime faculty lines at several universities are nourishing a new generation of policy scholars and advocates. CIP continues to pose a particularly daunting set of questions to the research community. These policies affect the creation, processing, dissemination and use of information—and thus the processes at the heart of creating shared meaning among the members of a society. Many social, cultural, economic, political, and financial activities depend upon access to these important resources. Yet despite their societal importance, policymaking in this field remains a relatively obscure practice where participation in policy debates requires mastery of a particular brand of technical and economic discourse. This volume will contribute to engaging a wider discussion of the challenges of CIP research and advocacy. I thank the editors and my colleagues in this work, Philip Napoli and Minna Aslama, for taking leadership to further this important conversation. Unknowingly, the book also channels the spirit of a recently deceased mentor and friend: Ana Sisnett, a Panamanian and black lesbian community media and technology activist from Austin, Texas, whose words still guide me: ‘‘What is often said in our name frustrates me; I’m tired of being studied; we need to speak for ourselves.’’ A similar sentiment is echoed in Makani Themba-Nixon and Nan Rubin’s article in The Nation in 2003. Let the work continue, for there is clearly much to do. Becky Lentz McGill University, June 2010 xii

becky lentz

notes 1. For discussions of the role of intermediaries in grantmaking and institutional change, see Atlas and Brunner (2006), David (2007), LeRoux (2009), and Sturgis and Hoye (2005). 2. During the civil rights years, The Ford Foundation supported the Office of Communication (OC, Inc.) of the United Church of Christ for about ten years at approximately $100,000 per year. OC, Inc.’s work is documented in Kay Mills’ 2004 book, Changing Channels: The Civil Rights Case that Transformed Television. 3. The events of September 11, 2001, the Internet commerce downturn, malfeasance in the telecommunications sector (for example, WorldCom, the site of the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history at the time), and the war in Iraq increased Foundation awareness and concern about the media sector more generally. 4. Concepts that were beginning to take hold and unite constituencies at the time included media diversity, media reform, media justice, media democracy, communications rights, and information justice. Ford commissioned a study by Belden, Russonello, and Stewart (2006) about the various frames being used at the time by policy advocates.

references Atlas, Caron, and Helen Brunner. 2006. Serving Diverse Constituencies: Culturally Sensitive Intermediaries. Unpublished Working Paper commissioned by the Ford Foundation. Barlow, Andrew L., ed. 2007. Collaborations for Social Justice: Professionals, Publics, and Policy Change. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Belden, Russonello, & Stewart. 2006. Communicating About Communications: Media Leaders Discuss Their Work and Values. Unpublished Report prepared for the Ford Foundation. David, Tom. 2007. Partnering with Intermediaries. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Lentz, Becky. 2009. The Political Economy of ‘‘Field-Building’’ in the U.S. Media Reform and Justice Sector. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of the Association for Nonprofit and Social Economy Research (ANSER), Ottawa, Ontario (May 27–29). LeRoux, Kelly. 2009. The Effects of Descriptive Representation on Nonprofits’ Civic Intermediary Roles. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38 (5):741–760. Mills, Kay. 2004. Changing channels: The Civil Rights Case That Transformed Television. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. foreword

xiii

Napoli, Philip. M. 2009. Public Interest Media Advocacy and Activism as a Social Movement. Communication Yearbook 33:385–429. Sturgis, Chris, and J. D. Hoye. 2005. Rethinking the Role of Intermediaries in Strategic Grantmaking. Report for The Atlantic Philanthropies and MetisNet. Themba-Nixon, Makani, and Nan Rubin. 2003. Speaking for Ourselves: A Movement Led by People of Color Seeks Media Justice—Not Just Media Reform. The Nation (November 17).

xiv

becky lentz

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book and the book series of which it is the inaugural volume are dedicated to a pioneer of public interest media advocacy and activism, Dr. Everett C. Parker. In 1954, Dr. Parker founded the Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ, an organization that played a key role in the 1960s’ civil rights movement by addressing the portrayals of minorities on television, and by achieving a much more inclusive and influential role for the public interest community—and the public as a whole—in the media policymaking process. In the 1960s, Dr. Parker led a landmark effort to systematically monitor and analyze the broadcasts of southern television stations, and to use this research to challenge the broadcast license of one station (WLBT-TV in Jackson, Mississippi) on the grounds that the station was engaging in racist programming practices and therefore not serving the needs and interests of its community of license. These efforts led to a years-long battle that resulted in a historic court decision that granted members of the public legal standing in FCC proceedings. It is this legal standing for the public that paved the way for the growth and development of public interest media policy advocacy and activism in this country. In many ways, Dr. Parker’s work is the starting point for the integration of communications research with communications activism and advocacy that is at the core of this book and of the book series that this book inaugurates. All of us who work in this field owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Dr. Parker and his work. And this book is an example of how his work continues to inspire so many. xv

A number of other individuals and organizations also deserve thanks for contributing to, supporting, or in some other way making possible this volume. Fredric Nachbaur, director of Fordham University Press, deserves particular thanks for his enthusiasm for this project from the very start and for his support of the new book series that this volume kicks off. Graduate research assistants Taryn Bensky and Lindsay Kaufman provided valuable assistance with the copyediting and management of the final manuscript. And, of course, all of the contributors are due our thanks for producing such diverse, thought-provoking chapters, and, for the most part, producing them on deadline and at least near the desired page limit. Two contributors to this volume, Becky Lentz and Joe Karaganis, have played key roles in envisioning and implementing the program, which has produced such a wonderful and diverse array of collaborative work. We are deeply grateful to Becky and Joe for their ideas and commentary regarding the book both before and during the editing process. Philip M. Napoli would like to thank his wife, Anne, as always, for her patience and support as he threw himself into yet another project that had the potential to drag on interminably, and thus keep him from being particularly helpful around the house. He would also like to thank the Advisory Board of the Donald McGannon Communication Research Center at Fordham University, particularly Chair of the Advisory Board Nancy Busch, for their continued support of the Center’s activities. Everette Dennis, Chair of the Department of Communications and Media Management at Fordham’s Graduate School of Business, also deserves thanks for maintaining an environment that remains incredibly conducive to research— even research that often doesn’t fall within the traditional parameters of what one might expect from a business school faculty member. Minna Aslama would like to thank the Helsingin Sanomat Foundation for its generous support of her work. She is particularly grateful for the opportunity she was given to conduct research for the Foundation for its report on communication studies in the United States, where she encountered some of the key figures in engaged scholarship and found out about some exciting collaborative projects that had no parallel in Europe. Even more important, she received a writing grant from the Foundation that has enabled her to participate in editing this unique volume on collaborative research that will have relevance not only in the United States but internationally. In addition, she would like to express her gratitude to her colleagues at the Social Science Research Council for support and inspiration during her assignment as the Program Officer for the Necessary Knowledge Collaborative Grants Program (2008–09). Finally, she is greatly indebted to all the grantees of the Program for showing her the immense power and potential of collaboration. xvi

acknowledgments

Communications Research in Action

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

minna aslama and philip m. napoli

Research and praxis are great partners in theory. In the social sciences, normative concerns—such as conceptions of the means through which a functioning democracy is achieved—often guide research topics, questions, and conclusions. However, scholarly analyses seldom reach the relevant stakeholders outside the walls of academia. This is particularly the case in the field of media and communications research. The relationship between communications research and the media and communications industries, which used to be relatively strong and mutually enriching in the early days of the field (the 1930s and 1940s), has long since tapered off. The relationship between communications researchers and policy makers, with a few exceptions (such as in the areas of media effects and health communication) has been frustratingly weak. One bright spot in this seeming disconnect between research and praxis is the relationship between communications researchers and public interest and advocacy communities. The past decade has seen a notable increase in public interest–oriented civil society activism and advocacy around mediarelated change. By many accounts, these activities represent a distinctive, developing social movement (Napoli 2009). These public interest media advocacy and activism efforts have become a developing point of intersection between scholars and activists. Communications researchers’ interaction with—and contributions to the work of—the public interest and advocacy communities has historically been sporadic at best, with many analysts identifying a persistent scholaractivist divide that has limited the extent to which communications 1

researchers and advocates work collaboratively to solve pressing social problems. As Hoynes argues, ‘‘while social movement theorists, media researchers, and activists often share a broad set of questions—those that focus on the complex, two-way relationship between media and social movements— the work of scholars and activists remains largely in separate domains’’ (Hoynes 2005, 100). This divide has served to both suppress the visibility, relevance, and impact of the field of communications and to hinder the effectiveness of public interest and advocacy organizations, who are increasingly aware that rigorous research is essential to their success. In other words, engaged research by academic researchers in collaboration with movement actors has been sparse, and such collaborations have been subjected to relatively little analysis.1 The goal of this book is to both showcase examples of the recent surge in scholar-activist collaborations that has taken place in the media and communications sector, and to offer analyses of the dynamics, consequences, and challenges associated with such collaborations. We hope that this collection will help to demonstrate Hoynes’ argument that academic researchers have skills and ‘‘cultural authority’’ that can be very beneficial to movement actors seeking to affect institutional change. Academic researchers can help foster a stronger research culture and research skills within advocacy organizations that will continue to produce benefits long after individual collaborations are concluded. Scholars, in turn, gain unique research material, fresh perspectives on relevant research questions, as well as the opportunity to reach out to nonacademic audiences that really care about, and can reap tangible benefits from, the research being conducted. Scholars also can benefit from having their research questions and the underlying assumptions of their research informed by a much more realistic and experiential sense of the institutional dynamics, constraints, and opportunities surrounding their particular areas of inquiry. This collection also documents the broader effects of such collaborations. The contributions include discussions on the concrete impact of research on policymaking, public debates, community organizing, content production, and technology usage. The chapters address issues related to the design and implementation of scholar-activist collaborations, including the challenges and opportunities associated with integrating distinctive—and somewhat divergent—organizational cultures; the bridging of information gaps between the research and advocacy communities; and the ways in which we can develop and institutionalize sufficient incentives to promote continued scholar-activist collaborations. 2

minna aslama and philip m. napoli

Apart from the challenge of the perceived (and real) divisions between scholars and practitioners, the field of media activism and advocacy itself includes a vast array of agendas, approaches, and actors. The terms media justice and media reform are most commonly used, and have come to represent two distinctive, though frequently overlapping, components of the broader movement to improve the accessibility, diversity, and quality of our media and communications system (Napoli 2009). Although this burgeoning social movement may contain a diverse palette of outlooks and approaches to the public interest in media and communications, the chapters of this book reflect the unifying theme of collaborative research employed on behalf of achieving a more democratic public sphere. Since its original conceptualization by the German philosopher Ju¨rgen Habermas (1962/89) the term public sphere has been a focal point of scholarly debates ranging from the democratic theory of political science and the self-reflection of cultural critics to empirical studies in sociology and communications (Calhoun 1992; Garnham 2007). The notion has long ago left the strict Frankfurt School theory realm and is now often used somewhat generically to refer to the democratic goals and responsibilities of the media system and civic life (Dahlgren 2005). Normative ideals of a shared arena for mediated communication, dialogue, deliberation, and rational decision making among citizens have been manifested in the remits of national public broadcasting organizations in Europe and elsewhere. The rise of the borderless Internet and networked communities in the 1990s reinvigorated theory and research in this area. Many scholars have noted the potential of multisector, online public spheres, including forms of e-government (from information dissemination to e-voting), new forms of journalistic content (from online newspapers to blogs), and proto-political spheres (such as chat rooms where political themes are discussed) (Dahlgren 2009). An important component of such a networked public space is the growing advocacy and activist domain that creates new opportunities for organized political work and more informal civic activity (Dahlgren 2009). The networked public arena of the Internet fosters single-issue movements that cross conventional institutional and geographic boundaries of participation. Consequently, in recent years, much of the social scientific research that has examined the notion of the public sphere has focused on its relationship to social movements (Aslama and Erickson 2009). Reflecting the important linkage between theory, praxis, and the public sphere, Habermas (2006) has recently reminded scholars that they should embrace the Aristotelian mission of joining together (normative) theorizing and empirical research for better-functioning democratic societies. introduction

3

The research projects featured in this book are engaged in, and committed to, such work. These scholar-activist collaborations aim to contribute to a communications environment in which individual access to information is improved, in which the structure and functioning of our media systems are better oriented to the needs of our democracy, and in which the opportunities for individual self-expression are enhanced and more widely distributed. The specific subject areas addressed in this collection reflect many of today’s most pressing media and communications issues, including the persistent digital divide in access to communications technologies, concentration of ownership of media outlets, the use of new technologies to foster the growth and development of alternative and community media, and the impact and evolution of the field of public interest media advocacy and activism. The chapters feature a variety of methodological approaches to collaboration, from distinct divisions of labor between scholars and practitioners to participatory action research (PAR) involving joint activity at every stage of the research design and implementation. In some of the collaborations, the end goal involved producing outcomes along the lines of a traditional academic study, with specific hypotheses being developed and tested (Yanich; Heintz and Glaubke). In other cases, however, the goals and outcomes were very different, involving, for example, the development of databases or stakeholder feedback to facilitate strategic planning and outreach (Orozco; Urick), the formation or strengthening of individual communities (Castellanos et al.; Kidd and Lee; Rakow and Nastasia; The VozMob Project), the assessment of the information environment informing advocacy and policymaking (Dailey and Powell; Sandoval), or gathering and analyzing crucial information to enhance basic consumers’ and citizens’ rights (Waksberg Guerrini et al.; Wolff ). The diversity of the structure, goals, output, and effects of the collaborations reflected in this collection is, we believe, of particular importance, as it highlights the variety of ways in which scholars and advocates can engage in mutually beneficial partnerships. Finally, this book also provides some broader assessments of the state of affairs of collaborative work in the field of public interest media advocacy and activism, and of efforts to develop institutionalized support mechanisms for such collaborative work (Regan Shade; Borgman-Arboleda; Karaganis). The projects in this volume all emerged from an effort to provide support, infrastructure, and incentives for greater scholar-activist collaborations—specifically, the Social Science Research Council’s Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere program. Many universities and foundations are exploring new models for better institutionalizing engaged scholarship in general and scholar-activist collaborations in particular, and we hope that the concluding insights offered in respect to this particular program will be useful for future efforts in this vein. 4

minna aslama and philip m. napoli

This collection can be useful to readers on two levels. First, the specific research questions and topics addressed within this collection are of relevance to scholars, students, activists, policy makers, and mediamakers, and the new knowledge generated by these collaborations can enhance our understanding of topics ranging from community media to media ownership to the digital divide. Second, these exemplars of the process of scholaractivist collaboration—and the reflections contained within each chapter on the dynamics, challenges, and opportunities associated with engaging in this process—will be of interest to those scholars, students, activists, funders, and university administrators interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the wide range of opportunities for, and approaches to, such collaborative work as well as the benefits and challenges of engaging in, developing, and supporting such collaborations. The ultimate aim of this bi-level structure is to inform and inspire those who work towards a more democratic, mediated public sphere in theory and praxis—whether as scholars, activists, policy makers, or citizens.

note 1. For example, a search in the Communication Abstracts database on journals addressing communication theory, mass communication, and interpersonal communication (with over 64,000 records and 160 sources covered in September, 2009) results in only a dozen articles on collaborative or participatory research.

references Aslama, Minna, and Ingrid Erickson. 2009. Public Spheres, Networked Publics, Networked Public Spheres? Donald McGannon Research Center Working Paper, Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/ images/undergraduate/communications/public%20spheres,%20 networked%20publics,%20networked%20public%20spheres.pdf. Calhoun, Craig, ed. 1992. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dahlgren, Peter. 2005. Television, Public Spheres, and Civic Cultures. In A Companion to Television, ed. J. Wasko, 411–432. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ———. 2009. Media and Political Engagement. Citizens, Communication, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Garnham, Nicholas. 2007. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Global Media and Communication 3 (2):201–214. introduction

5

Habermas, Ju¨rgen. 1989/1962. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ———. 2006. Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory 16:411–426. Hoynes, William. 2005. Media Research and Media Activism. In Rhyming Hope and History. Activists, Academics, and Social Movement Scholarship, eds. David Croteau, William Hoynes, and Charlotte Ryan, 97– 114. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Napoli, Philip M. 2009. Public Interest Media Advocacy and Activism as a Social Movement. Communication Yearbook 33:385–429.

6

minna aslama and philip m. napoli

CHAPTER 1

Digital Inclusion Working Both Sides of the Equation dorothy kidd with eloise lee

This action research project examined efforts to enhance digital inclusion in San Antonio, a working-class immigrant neighborhood of East Oakland, California. Part of a longer-term collaboration between the researcher (Department of Media Studies at the University of San Francisco) and an advocacy organization (Media Alliance), it took place during the fall of 2008 and first half of 2009. The research encompassed the design, implementation, and evaluation of three interconnected initiatives: a media training program for women community leaders called Raising Our Voices (ROV); the planning of a local digital media production and distribution site; and municipal and national policy interventions regarding broadband communications. The study is the latest in a series of academic-activist research collaborations involving Media Alliance, a thirty-three-year-old regional media resource, training, and advocacy organization. The first study analyzed the role of Media Alliance in advocating for the participation of underserved communities in the planning and implementation of municipal broadband, and the resultant widening of the frame of digital inclusion in a campaign in San Francisco (Ganghadaran 2007). The second study incorporated the lessons from the San Francisco municipal broadband campaign in a citizens’ advocacy toolkit (Levy et al. 2007). The principal investigator, Dorothy Kidd, consulted on the two earlier studies. She has worked with Media Alliance for over ten years in many capacities, and now describes this approach as embedded research.1 Her own research agenda is focused on documenting the changing relations between mediascapes, movements concerning media change, and dominant and 11

counter-public spheres in the San Francisco Bay region. Most recently, she has compared the current movements to democratize broadband and the Internet with the citizens’ telecommunications movements of the progressive era; she has also documented earlier versions of ROV and their contribution to antipoverty counter-public spheres (Kidd and Barker-Plummer 2009). Building on this earlier body of research, the current study was based on two broad premises. First, efforts to democratize broadband communications (to provide universal service for all) needed to go beyond concepts of digital divide, or of the corporate and government-centered notions of digital inclusion (Gangadharan 2007). Although the provision of Internet access, computer training, and appropriate content for marginalized communities was necessary, Media Alliance argued that the vector of broadband development should be the development of communications capacity for marginalized communities themselves. Broadband planning for marginalized neighborhoods would then start from the community as producers of meaning for the public sphere, rather than as consumers of commercial content or of e-government information. Second, U.S. citizens’ efforts at media reform in general—and in municipal broadband campaigns in particular—had suffered, in part, from fragmentation and division among activists working to bolster the media representation of marginalized communities seeking economic and racial justice; computer and Internet technology designers and trainers; and government policy reformers. Action research, a participatory approach that expressly promotes social analysis and citizens’ action for democratic social change, was chosen as the most appropriate methodology. Action research is a form of participatory community-based research, based on generating knowledge for the ‘‘express purpose of taking action to promote social analysis and democratic social change’’ (Hearn et al. 2009, 46). This approach differs from some other social science research methodologies, in the ‘‘nature of the enquiry process, which is . . . an attempt to take action or provoke change or improvements of some kind (e.g., to design, implement or evaluate a new media application)’’ (49). Following from this approach, and consistent with her own skills, the principal investigator participated in all stages of the project, including planning, course design, workshop development and implementation, and evaluation. A methodological pluralism was adopted, employing a mix of methods, including informal in-person interviews, in-class discussions, written commentaries and evaluations, survey instruments, participant observation, and video/multimedia observation. This chapter reviews the origins of the project, the results, and the specific implications for communications policy and academic-activist research collaborations. 12

dorothy kidd with eloise lee

media alliance and the background to the project Begun by radical journalists in 1976, Media Alliance is one of the oldest membership-based media activist organizations in the United States. Its original goal was ‘‘system change from within the media field—reforming corporate journalism, through defending media workers’ rights, critiquing ‘bad’ journalism and celebrating the ‘good,’ and training aspiring journalists’’ (Hackett and Carroll 2006, 108). In the late 1990s, Media Alliance shifted in response to major changes in the local and national mediascapes. The commercial and public service media in the Bay Area, like most of the United States, had become increasingly conglomerated, with a much smaller professional work force and a marked shrinking of locally produced news and cultural programming, especially for historically marginalized communities (Kidd 2005; Barker-Plummer and Kidd 2009). A new media sector, directed by social justice organizations, was emerging, in addition to the alternative media sector.2 This development was partly in response to the ballooning ‘‘democratic deficit’’ (Hackett and Carroll 2006, 17); the growing awareness of the strategic value of communications for social change; and the greater availability of cheaper, easy-to-use digital production equipment and Internet distribution (Barker-Plummer and Kidd 2009). Media Alliance initiated movement in three different vectors. First, they offered more support to the growing alternative media sector. They coordinated, for example, a campaign to democratize the venerable Pacifica Radio station, KPFA-FM, demanding increased representation of youth and communities of color in programming and governance; and another campaign to democratize the local PBS television station, KQED. Second, in 1999, they started Raising Our Voices, a computer and media training program for antipoverty and housing activists to produce journalism for mainstream and alternative media, and to develop their own media platforms. Third, they took on a role as regional hub in the emerging national media reform movement, best exemplified by their mobilization of public support against the further deregulation of media ownership rules by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (Chester 2007). In 2003, Media Alliance saw a political opportunity closer to home in the pending municipal franchise agreement between the City of San Francisco and Comcast, the giant cable incumbent. Jeff Perlstein, the executive director at the time, argued that the local campaign could provide a public forum for addressing community concerns about the impact of big media corporations, for codifying mechanisms of accountability and for building long-haul efforts to win deep changes in the U.S. media system (Perlstein digital inclusion: working both sides of the equation

13

2004). In the ensuing campaign, Perlstein bridged two of the sectors within the media reform movement; he drew on the expertise of two Washingtonbased media lobby organizations, as well as Media Alliance’s growing relationships with civil rights and social justice organizations.

the premise: digital inclusion and the great divide Media Alliance and their allies argued that the inferior quality, slower transmission speeds, and greater expense of U.S. broadband, in comparison with most developed countries, was partly due to the failure of public policy. The national government’s deregulation of telecommunications had contributed to market concentration, in which a small number of giant telecommunications companies faced little pressure to lower their prices or upgrade their services, and especially to build digital services into ‘‘historically marginalized communities: low income neighborhoods, both urban and rural and . . . communities of color’’ (Levy et al. 2007, 4). The coalition’s demands included enhanced digital networking for community-based organizations and improved consumer equity in pricing and service quality across rich and poor neighborhoods (Kidd 2009). The cable franchise campaign suddenly ended in 2004, when the City of San Francisco shut down the public process. By then, Media Alliance had already begun work with a new coalition to pressure the municipality of San Francisco to provide universally accessible broadband communication. Their allies included the do-it-yourself (DIY) computer and Internet technology communities (free/open software geeks, builders of community wireless networks, and refurbished computers), alternative and social justice media producers, civil rights and labor organizations, and city supervisors. Media Alliance argued that the digital divide frame was inadequate. Instead, their approach combined ‘‘communication rights, media justice, and digital inclusion,’’ which they set out in the toolkit for their Internet4Everyone campaign: Many countries now consider the ability to share information and communicate on the Internet as part of the basic human right to communicate. In the United States, universal Internet access and usage has become an issue of equity and justice—media justice. Together, the right to communicate and the goal of media justice inform what we call digital inclusion. Digital inclusion means going beyond basic access to the Internet to ensure that everyone has the hardware, skills, resources, and technical support to make that access meaningful to daily life. It’s this meaningful engagement that allows us to shape the social, economic, and 14

dorothy kidd with eloise lee

political conditions we require for a just and democratic society (Levy et al. 2007, 3).

The toolkit explained how digital inclusion should guide policy. Priority would be given to programs directed to youth, seniors, disabled people, and low-income households without adequate Internet capacity, as well as to strengthening community capacity (via the provision of hardware, training, and media content) over the technical or proprietary details of design and deployment. Media Alliance underscored six key dimensions of digital inclusion: ‘‘universal, affordable, and robust access to the Internet; affordable computers and Internet connections; affordable and culturally appropriate training and technical support; multilingual and culturally appropriate local content; community-based production and Web portals; responsive and accountable ownership; and sustainability, or the financial health to ensure programs’ vitality and longevity’’ (4). Ultimately, the efforts to build a universally accessible public broadband system in San Francisco were short-lived. After the controversial awarding of the contract for municipal wireless to Google and Earthlink, the two companies withdrew in August 2007, due to a combination of technical and capital problems; and the City did not continue with a universal broadband plan. Media Alliance and their community advocate partners made some progress. They succeeded in incorporating public input into policy deliberations, especially from working class citizens of color; encouraged a pilot project in one of the most marginalized neighborhoods; and widened the frame of digital inclusion beyond the initial market- and governmentbased definitions (Gangadharan 2007). However, as Gangadharan points out, continuing public pressure, and the garnering of community-based resources would be needed to ensure that the City kept to their stated aim to operate from the more inclusive conception of digital inclusion.

digital inclusion in oakland Soon after, Media Alliance itself moved across the San Francisco Bay to Oakland. In February 2008, an entirely new programming staff—Tracy Rosenberg and Eloise Lee, who had not worked in the San Francisco campaigns—launched a new public initiative called the Oakland Digital Inclusion Summit (ODIS), sponsored with the Oakland Technology Exchange. The program director, Eloise Lee, drew from her community organizing background and deliberately cast a wide net among Oakland’s community organizations, regardless of their previous involvement in digital inclusion, or their social, cultural and political leverage.3 Media Alliance digital inclusion: working both sides of the equation

15

also brought together representatives of exemplary citizen-directed projects from across northern California, the United States and Europe. Thus, the Summit represented the three sectors already involved in Media Alliance’s digital inclusion work (alternative and media justice communicators, the DIY computer and Internet designers and advocates, and policy advocates), plus Oakland officials and a new group of locally based organizations primarily involved in community and cultural development and social change. The goals were to demystify the technical and policy dimensions of broadband communications, present best-case practices of municipal solutions, and facilitate knowledge exchange and cooperation. Accordingly, one plenary provided scenarios of best practices of digital inclusion from local communities around the world. Another discussed policy options, ranging from complete public ownership to public-private partnerships, and technical configurations from fiber optic to cable and wireless platforms. Finally, throughout the day, young leaders of community-based networks and cultural organizations showcased their combination of public service information and education with creative contemporary music and artistic forms. As Tracy Rosenberg, the executive director of Media Alliance told the authors in an unpublished interview: ‘‘Never before has a Wi-Fi conference featured performances and video contributions from six different local arts and cultural organizations.’’ The Summit re-introduced Media Alliance to communities in Oakland, helped forge relationships with organizations and groups, and planted seeds for continuing conversations around broadband policy and digital inclusion. For Eloise Lee, the program director, the Summit ‘‘helped me rethink and reframe digital inclusion—its limitations, linkages to other social justice issues, and ways to clarify and expand the terms through a communication rights and human rights framework. It helped me to make the language more accessible and less techie, and exclusionary. This required a lot of code shifting; the Summit process helped us begin to map out and suggest the intersection of issues and possible collaborations. It also put relationship building at the forefront of the organizing for the conference.’’ Although the City of Oakland supported and participated in the Summit, it soon became evident that they were not going to initiate any major programs. In light of this, and of the news that most other municipal wireless programs across the United States were floundering, Media Alliance shifted their tactics once again. They decided to design a local program, which would combine media training with a community mesh network, and also provide a working model for other centers. At the same time, they continued to work with other municipal advocates in California, and with national policy reformers through the Media Democracy Coalition, and the Media Justice Network. Two months later, they drew their allies together 16

dorothy kidd with eloise lee

in another public response to Comcast, during the FCC En Banc Hearing on Broadband Network Management, at Stanford University in Palo Alto. Media Alliance hired a bus to enable media justice organizations to speak at the Hearing and worked with the local cable access center and other alternative media to provide full coverage (Kidd 2009).

digital inclusion: both sides of the equation The follow-up study, ‘‘Digital Inclusion: Both Sides of the Equation,’’ was undertaken in the fall of 2008 and spring and summer of 2009. The goals were to enhance digital inclusion through technology training, media education, and policymaking; create community-based approaches to communication infrastructure building; and increase local involvement in media movement building. The final goal was to start a dialogue about broadband communications between historically underserved communities, media reformers, and national policy advocates. There were three interconnected sets of activities: ROV 3, a media training program; the planning of a community-generated and managed media hub; and the inclusion of community-originated knowledge in communications politics and policymaking. ROV 3 was housed off-site from Media Alliance, in a cooperatively managed community arts facility called Eastside Arts Alliance. Ten community leaders and participants, ranging in age from fourteen to sixty-two, were recruited from local community service and advocacy organizations. They attended a sixteen-workshop program, and went on to produce short media projects designed to address pressing public issues, such as violence, youthpolice relations, racial profiling, and the harassment of immigrants. In the spring, training continued on a project-by-project basis. In addition, a separate training program for high school students took place at Centro Legal. A follow-up series of workshops in San Antonio and the South of Market Area of San Francisco took place in the fall of 2009. The media center was designed and constructed at Eastside Arts Alliance. During the winter, a series of discussions were held about the communications priorities of the community with Media Alliance, ROV, Eastside Arts Alliance, community media allies, and other strategic partners. During the spring and summer, the organizers reached out to computer and Internet designers working in the Oakland area. With their support, planning continued to create a wireless enabled media hub; and a fund-raising plan was developed. The third set of activities revolved around media policymaking. Media Alliance had taken a leading role in coordinating the outreach, public education, briefing, and transportation of strategic allies to public forums regarding the future of the Internet and broadband communications. During digital inclusion: working both sides of the equation

17

the fall and winter of 2009, executive director Tracy Rosenberg coordinated the research, and wrote a white paper called ‘‘National Broadband Policy for the Twenty-First Century: Thoughts from the Grassroots’’ as part of the intervention of the Media Democracy Coalition with the new Obama government. Recommendations were largely drawn from the public comment session at the En Banc FCC Hearing on the Future of the Internet at Stanford University on April 17, 2008, the Oakland Town Hall Meeting on Municipal Wi-Fi on September 19, 2008, and the Internet for Everyone Los Angeles Town Hall meeting on December 6, 2008.

reflections on collaboration: action research For Eloise Lee, the program director of Media Alliance, ‘‘an action research approach enables you to engage directly as both a participant and researcher—and not be so far removed from the process of a project as it moves forward. The power relationship between the researcher and ‘the researched’ becomes less divisive. The researcher then becomes less of an observer, and more of a participant—a kind of participant who is invested in the project—not just because it is funded, but because it means something to them. Those involved in the project can feel the difference when a researcher is in it for the long haul, and not just the writing credit.’’ Action research attends to simultaneous layers of work to capture the nuances and subtleties and requires a kind of research that is sensitive to this complex process. Most importantly, action research humanizes the process and the people involved—it brings a face to issues raised as a project progresses. For the principal researcher, action research is a more dynamic approach as it allows for the continual integration of learning and research into further planning and action. The knowledge gained can be more quickly applied, to solve problems, help develop new initiatives, find new resources, and develop new plans. For example, the training program was continually modified to best meet the participant’s learning styles, previous experience, and time availability; and in addition, the needs of their organization’s campaigns. The action research approach proved especially suited to a project of social movement base building, in which change is seen as part of a longer process of working together with community organizations engaged in redressing the social, economic, and political inequities in their neighborhoods. However, action research requires much more footwork—a lot of ‘‘doing’’ and less hypothesizing or documenting in the traditional sense. It could be a valuable approach for future projects, testing out how to effectively address neighborhood-focused digital divide challenges, and shifting news and communication models. 18

dorothy kidd with eloise lee

reflection on collaboration: lessons for media change The lessons to be learned from this project result from three critical alignments: building in a neighborhood rich with social movement history, strategic partnerships, and community-controlled media justice production. building in a neighborhood rich with social movement history Media Alliance decided to build a model community-controlled media center in the San Antonio neighborhood because of its combination of communication inequities and potential for remedying them. San Antonio fits the profile of urban California communities underserved by digital communications (Kolko 2007, 14). It is one of the most ethnically diverse U.S. neighborhoods (African-American, Latino-American, and Asian-American), and a predominantly working class neighborhood. Communication challenges include low rates of household computer and broadband use due to affordability, lack of technological and networking capacity due to access and training, and no reliable, affordable computer centers. This all adds up to a reduced media production capacity, which negatively affects the vitality of the public spheres. However, the equation is not simply information inequality. San Antonio has a rich history of social justice movement organizing and cultural production, kept vibrant in a new set of counter public spheres. For example, the original Merritt College fostered key Black Panther leaders such as Huey Newton, who brought attention to the systemic racism and inequalities of poor housing, schooling, and employment. Although Merritt College was relocated, the Black Panther legacy inspired and is kept alive by the Eastside Arts Alliance (which housed ROV3). A third wave of strikes during the 1970s also focused on conflicts between police and youth from many different communities of color; as a result there was some token recognition of the multicultural nature of the neighborhood, noted by the renaming of the main corridor, 14th Avenue, as International Boulevard. More significantly, a network of nongovernmental community-based organizations stepped up to offer multilingual health, legal and advocacy services, and youth and culture programs. Today the neighborhood also supports a radical cultural practice of new and relevant art, music, and theater, often produced in response to community needs and perspectives. In early 2009, when Oscar Grant, a young African-American man, was killed by Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority (BART) police at the nearby Fruitvale stop, San Antonio residents were among those who produced a rich outpouring of creative work for a Media Alliance Web site project.4 digital inclusion: working both sides of the equation

19

strategic partnerships Selecting a neighborhood, which is a rich nexus of social justice activism and cultural production, was critical to the success of the project and to building sustainability. The second key ingredient was the building of strategic partnerships.5 Emphasizing social, political, and cultural relationships, over technical design and infrastructure, Eloise Lee spent considerable time fostering relations with the existing network of membership-based organizations in San Antonio, some of which she had met through the Oakland Digital Summit. ‘‘Having been on the other side of projects—as a participant in various training programs and having worked for multiple community organizations—I needed to trust the individuals and organizations I was partnering with, and for them to trust in me—especially because the idea of a local mesh network was new ground. Building trust was and is key.’’ She recruited leaders, predominantly women of color, from organizations with close relationships to poor, underserved people—particularly women, youth, elders, non-English speakers, people with disabilities, and poor people. These included Mujeres Unidas Y Activas (Women United and Active); Oakland Asian Cultural Center, Eastside Arts Alliance, Streetside Health Project, and Centro Legal de la Raza. Also critical was a conscious effort to partner with community media organizations such as Eastside Arts Alliance, Women of Color Resource Center (WCRC), First Voice (a training program for people of color and other marginalized groups at KPFA), and trainers and alumni from Media Alliance’s earlier ROV programs. First Voice delivered a set of workshops, which strengthened the ROV program and, in turn, provided more support for programming from people of color at KPFA-FM. The training was designed to meet the communications needs of these strategic partners, who also function as counter public spheres. Rather than designing training for individuals learning generic skills, the curriculum was based on developing learning contracts based on their organization’s public campaigns or outreach needs. The sessions were oriented to producing organization-specific media projects. In addition, as part of the wider goal of informing participants about media justice and media reform, there were presentations from national and international allies, including Free Press and the Coalition of Popular Communicators for Autonomy (COMPPAS), and a media training project for women and other indigenous community leaders in Central America. community-controlled media justice production Media Alliance’s decision to build a community media site in a neighborhood suffering from digital exclusion, but rich in counter public spheres, 20

dorothy kidd with eloise lee

was also based on a third realization. The demise of the legacy media model, and the development of the technological and production capacities of the Internet, have reduced the dependence of community and social movements on media gatekeepers. No longer is there the same need for community leaders to train in conventional journalism or strategic communications aimed at messaging within the mainstream media. Instead, the training was designed to provide community leaders with tactical communications skills so that they could better communicate with their own members, their allies, local government authorities, and the wider public sphere.

reflections on collaboration: policy implications The policy implications that come out of this collaboration involve changing the frame of digital inclusion; localism, counter-public spheres, and the strengthening of community; and communications rights. changing the frame of digital inclusion In her academic-activist collaboration with Media Alliance, Gangadharan described how the discourse of digital inclusion was widened beyond the exclusive focus on corporate and government frames, due to the political advocacy of Media Alliance and their allies in the City of San Francisco. Instead, the City began to give more planning attention to the needs of citizens—and especially those from communities historically marginalized—for digital infrastructure that better provided education, general know-how, and culturally appropriate content (Gangadharan 2007). This shift in direction follows a national and international trend. For example, based on a global review of social change projects relating to poverty, development, and information and communications technologies (ICTs), the Australian team of Hearn, Tacchi, Foth, and Lennie (2009) argue that policy debates have been much too focused on ‘‘markets, governance and regulation,’’ rather than ‘‘democratic participation, strengthening civil society and promotion of rights’’ (140). Instead, efforts need to be guided by considerations of effective use, freedom of expression, and culturally appropriate interfaces to produce and distribute local content. In addition, they note the need to mix old and new technologies and include ‘‘embedded and ongoing evaluation’’ (141). Strover, Chapman, and Waters (2004) assessed the implementation of information and computer access to underserved communities in Texas. They found that the digital divide is firmly installed in historical social, political, economic, and cultural divides, including class and institutionalized racism. They concluded that the sites with the greatest traffic, and digital inclusion: working both sides of the equation

21

which were the most effective in creating new community-oriented content, were ones where the communities were adequately prepared to provide training, make sites public and accessible, and provide ongoing support. These sites prioritized community-pull rather than technology-push efforts. This project confirmed these findings. Digital exclusion needs to be considered as one dimension of a wider analysis of economic, political, and social inequality and systemic exclusion. Efforts toward digital inclusion need to start from principles of democratic participation, strengthening of civil society, and promotion of rights, within all three layers of the digital communications system—technical infrastructure, media content, and ownership, control, and governance. Prioritizing community-pull efforts will, in turn, strengthen civil society’s participation in democratic public spheres. As Eloise Lee reiterates, ‘‘While affordable Internet access and technology training are key, it is also necessary to link the communications capacity enhanced by broadband and digital technologies with culturally relevant content creation on issues of local importance. The true benefits of the Internet and broadband deployment are seen when technology tools are used to build community power, with greater connections for people in neighborhoods working on the same issues, allowing them to be heard on crucial issues, and have an impact on public conversation and the legislative agenda.’’ localism, counter-public spheres, and the strengthening of community The project also reframed the meaning of localism, one of the recurring themes of media reform efforts throughout this decade. For example, Mark Cooper has argued that the concentration and consolidation of the corporate media has led to the shrinking of locally oriented, culturally diverse news and public affairs programming, especially coverage of news about ‘‘schools, localized government affairs, and other community-strengthening material that enables people to live more secure and educated lives’’ (Cooper 2004, 53). It is certainly true that geographic or spatial communities, such as San Antonio, receive little consistent media coverage from the corporate or public service media. A greater concern, however, should be the decline in news coverage of social communities of poor, working-class people of color (Barker-Plummer and Kidd 2009). Rather than remedying this problem via the strengthening of localism in national media ownership policy, or in campaigns directed at national corporate broadcasters, projects such as Raising Our Voices take another approach. They demonstrate the value of supporting the digital media production and distribution building of existing community-based 22

dorothy kidd with eloise lee

organizations that already play an important role in educating and facilitating conversation about important issues of public import. Building their digital communications capacity will, in turn, strengthen the participation of civil society in processes of deliberation and decision making. In addition, the project offers another way of thinking about both policy and infrastructure reform that prioritizes community building and sustainability. As Eloise Lee says, ‘‘the absence of a national or municipal governmental role in broadband communications means an opportunity to shape policy on a local level (as part of a communications rights platform)— through concrete, proof-of-concept projects. Creative partnerships among technology groups, community media makers and trainers, and community organizations that serve underserved communities could help to coordinate projects that address the media and communication needs of specific neighborhoods as opposed to vast geographic areas. This not only strengthens the bonds between organizations serving a single neighborhood; it has the potential to leverage existing resources while creating new ones. These projects must address how media and technology will improve capacity, build sustainable and nurturing communities, increase engagement by community members and organizations in political change, and provide jobs and new opportunities—in short, strengthen communities and community power.’’ communications rights The project has also begun to better operationalize another set of concepts—communications rights. Media Alliance, and other groups in the U.S. media justice network, use the concept to show the connection between twenty-first century campaigns regarding communications resources, representation and recognition, with those of the civil rights movements of the twentieth century. This year, Media Alliance has been considering the value of communications rights as a framework that bridges media advocacy with other social justice efforts. Co-chair, Jesse Clark, produced a special issue of the magazine Race, Poverty and the Environment on its praxis among social justice organizations in the Bay Area. Dorothy Kidd has started another research project to investigate the ways that communications organizations in the United States are using the framework, the first draft of which was presented at the communications rights–themed conference of the International Association for Media and Communication Research in Mexico City in July 2010. The intention is to use the research as the centerpiece of a local and national discussion.

further steps and research Media Alliance is now planning a community mesh network, 51Open, which will build out a physical architecture and, in the process, strengthen digital inclusion: working both sides of the equation

23

the social architecture of San Antonio (through focused education programs: media production, messaging, consumer rights, technology training, media justice and policy). The project aims to connect the dots between communications policy, content creation and training, community engagement, and technology/infrastructure, as part of closing the digital divide locally. It can provide a reference for other communities to create their own projects and to advocate for policies that support community building. The longer-term goal is to build a campaign with the City of Oakland to allow connection to an optical fiber network. At this point, 51Open members and training program participants will be able to advocate for fast, secure, and affordable broadband service in ways that make sense to them. The campaign could lead to other important discussions including governance of broadband as a public utility, net neutrality and content management protections, and the unyolking of Internet service providers (ISPs) from telephone companies that also own the infrastructure or spectrum. So, what may start as local and municipal policies could also impact federal broadband and communications policy.

conclusion Most communications research about the public sphere, including local and national reform efforts, has focused on the regulatory frameworks, rationales, and operations of the dominant corporate and state information and media systems. This short-term pilot project started from the perspective of civil society groups attempting to combine forces around redistributing digital communications resources. In addition, the greatest focus was on the participatory representation and content production side of the communications equation, supporting the media training of community leaders who operate within counter-public spheres. And although Media Alliance, the sponsoring organization, has moved closer to its initial goals of bridging activism between those producing media justice content (ICT designers and providers) and reformers, the time period and resources provided were far from sufficient to achieve much more than the initial planning for remedying communications inequities in San Antonio, east Oakland. Nevertheless, the project has already demonstrated four values of community-based action research: the early identification of emerging issues, access to sensitive information, new concepts and hypotheses, and credibility with constituencies needed for future impact (Brown et al. 2003, 85). Finally, these projects show the value of investment in this kind of continuous research funding. 24

dorothy kidd with eloise lee

notes Thanks to Tracy Rosenberg, Executive Director of Media Alliance, for her support of this project and her comments on an earlier draft. 1. Hearn et al., Action research and new media: Concepts, methods and cases (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2009), 41. I have participated in Media Alliance as a participatory observer as a volunteer, Board member, co-convenor of public conferences, hearings and meetings, advisor in policy interventions, and contributor to Mediafile. My research has documented Media Alliance’s contributions regarding, among others, the global Independent Media Center (IMC or indymedia) network and the FCC and media ownership. 2. The San Francisco Bay region has been an important incubator of alternative media, including the founding of KPFA-FM (the flagship of the Pacifica radio network), and among other community-oriented radio stations, the San Francisco Bay Guardian (one of the only independently owned weeklies in the United States), community access cable centers, and a plethora of independent Web-based news and cultural sites. 3. The organizations included: technical professionals and trainers (TechSoup, Community Technology Network, Oakland Technology Exchange West, ReliaTech); community technology centers (Eastmont, Oakland Technology Exchange); City representatives and working groups (City of Oakland staff, Mayor’s working group on digital inclusion); community media groups (First Voice Apprenticeship Program, Women of Color Resource Center’s Technology Empowerment Program, Poor News Network); cultural groups (Oakland Asian Cultural Center, Eastside Arts Alliance); direct service providers (Homeless Prenatal Center, Centro Legal De La Raza); and base-building organizations (East Bay Asian Youth Center, People Organized to Win Employment Rights). 4. ‘‘Oscar Grant Memorial Arts Project,’’ http://www.media-alliance .org/article.php?id⳱1636. 5. Thanks to Elizabeth Miller for her elaboration of this important element, part of the digital storytelling project, ‘‘Mapping Memories and Life Stories,’’ of Concordia University.

references Barker-Plummer, Bernadette, and Dorothy Kidd. 2009. Closings and Openings: Media Restructuring and the Public Sphere. In Community Media Reader, ed. K. Howley, 318–327). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Berger, Dan. 2009. Defining Democracy: Coalition Politics and the Struggle for Media Reform. International Journal of Communication 2:3–22. digital inclusion: working both sides of the equation

25

Brown, David L., Gabriele Bammer, Srilatha Batliwala, and Frances Kunreuther. 2003. Framing Practice-Research Engagement for Democratizing Knowledge. Action Research 1:81–102. Castells, Manuel. 2007. Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society. International Journal of Communication 1:238–266. Chester, Jeff. 2007. Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy. New York: New Press. Cooper, Mark. 2004. Media Ownership and Democracy in the Digital Information Age. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Internet & Society. Gangadharan, Seeta. 2007. What’s meant by digital inclusion? An interrogation of municipal broadband policy in the city of San Francisco. San Francisco: Media Alliance. Hackett, Robert, and William Carroll. 2006. Remaking Media: The Struggle to Democratize Public Communication. New York: Routledge. Hearn, Greg, Jo Tacchi, Marcus Foth, and June Lennie. 2009. Action Research and New Media: Concepts, Methods and Cases. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Kidd, Dorothy. 2009. Communications Rights: Creativity and Social Justice. Race, Poverty & the Environment, 16 (1):73–74. ———. 2009. Much more than a little byte: Citizens and broadband. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 5 (1–2):7–21. ———. 2005. The Angels of the Public Interest: US Media Reform. In Converging Media, Diverging Politics, Political Economy of Media in the United States and Canada, eds. D. Skinner, M. Gasher, and J. Compton, 201–221. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Kidd, Dorothy, and Bernadette Barker-Plummer. 2009. Neither Silent nor Invisible: Anti-poverty Communication in the San Francisco Bay. Development in Practice 19 (4–5):479–490. Kidd, Dorothy, Bernadette Barker-Plummer, and Clemencia Rodriguez. 2005. Media Democracy from the Ground Up: Mapping Communication Practices in the Counter Public Sphere. Report to Social Science Research Council. http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/mediademocracy-from-the-ground-up-mapping-communication-practicesin-the-counter-public-sphere/attachment. Kolko, Jed. 2007. Broadband for All? Gaps in California’s Broadband Adoption and Availability. California Economic Policy 3 (2). http:// www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cep/EP_707JKEP.pdf. Lee, Eloise. 2008. Digital Infrastructure: By the Community, for the Community. Race, Poverty & the Environment 15 (1). http://urbanhabitat .org/node/1823. Levy, Sydney, Jeff Perlstein, and Seeta Gangadharan. 2007. A Digital Inclusion Advocacy Tool Kit: Bridging the Digital Divide by Winning 26

dorothy kidd with eloise lee

Community Benefits in Municipal Broadband Projects. Oakland, CA: Media Alliance. Miller, E. 2009. International experiences in digital story-telling for social change. Paper Presented to OURMedia Conference, Medellı´n, Colombia. Perlstein, Jeff. 2004. Comcast Cable Grabs Bay Area Cities. http://www .media-alliance.org/article.php?story⳱20040218174602942&query ⳱Comcast. Reason, Peter, and Hilary Bradbury. 2005. Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human Aspiration. In Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, eds. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 1–14. London: Sage Publications. Snorton, C. Riley. 2009. New Beginnings: Racing Histories, Democracy and Media Reform. International Journal of Communication 2:23–41. Strover, Sharon, Gary Chapman, and Jody Waters. 2004. Beyond Community Networking and CTCs: Access, Development and Public Policy. Telecommunications Policy 28:465–485.

digital inclusion: working both sides of the equation

27

CHAPTER 2

Engaging in Scholar-Activist Communications in Canada leslie regan shade

I participated in the Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere (NKDPS) program as a member of the selection committee for the Collaborative Grants Program beginning in February 2008. My experiences working on various projects funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) sensitized me to the challenges and the opportunities of collaborative partnerships and the need to craft diverse modes of research dissemination to influence various policy outcomes for the public interest. I realized in the course of my work with NKDPS that our ability as Canadian academics to apply for and secure funding (albeit in a competitive peer-reviewed fashion) for social science and humanities research through SSHRC was something that many of us take for granted. That the research should demonstrate a policy angle and resonate outside of the academic ivory towers was also a surprise to many of the American colleagues I talked to. So it was with great enthusiasm that I joined the Collaborative Grants team and learned much about the contours of the media reform and justice communities in the United States, and the different structures of participation and policy issues the funded research sought to affect. This chapter reflects on my experiences in collaborative research in Canada, and examines two projects funded by SSHRC under their Initiative on the New Economy (INE) program. On the Identity Trail: Understanding the Importance and Impact of Anonymity and Authentication in a Networked Society and The Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and

28

Networking (CRACIN) were two large-scale collaborative projects focusing on the development, social use, and policy changes of information and communication technologies (ICTs). The broader objectives were to collaborate with various stakeholders, including academics, community organizations, public interest groups, and government in order to provide research that could affect policy for the public interest. This chapter first provides a brief overview of SSHRC and the INE program, and then examines the two projects from a review of program documents, research output, and an interview with the principal investigator of On the Identity Trail, Dr. Ian Kerr, and the community co-investigator for CRACIN, Ms. Marita Moll. (It should also be noted that I was an academic co-investigator on CRACIN.) Interviews with Kerr and Moll specifically addressed the policy changes of their projects. Analysis of these two projects seeks to examine the following questions: What are the challenges and opportunities of scholar-activist collaborations? What have been the policy implications of the research? And, how have the research projects been able to tangibly affect and shape policy?

about the sshrc ine project The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)/Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada was created in 1977 by an act of Parliament to serve as the major federal funding body for university-based research in the humanities and social sciences. Supporting both professors and graduate students (and through several of its programs community-based and other strategic partners), the SSHRC is governed by a Council that reports to Parliament through the Ministry of Industry. The Council consists of members of academia and the public and private sector. Senior university administrators participate as points of contact to relay information and news about the SSHRC’s research and ongoing programs. Their administration budget is $22 million. The SSHRC’s clients include over 19,000 full-time faculty members, 14,500 full-time PhD students, and 34,500 full-time MA students. Over 30 disciplines are supported by the SSHRC. In 2005–06, $292 million was awarded in grants, scholarships, and fellowships; 10,750 applications were received, with 3,790 successful awards. Standard research grants (faculty grants for single or small team applicants) have a typical success rate of 40 percent. Applications are assessed by approximately 420 volunteer adjudicators per year and 5,000 external assessors.1 The SSHRC has identified three major objectives in their strategic planning:

engaging in scholar-activist communications in canada

29

Quality—enhancing research support and training; Connection—enabling interdisciplinary linkages within the social sciences and humanities, to include engineering, natural sciences, the health disciplines, and among larger international research communities; and Impact—innovative training and dissemination for societal benefits. The SSHRC has an explicit focus on policy impact and dissemination of research to government and internationally, in particular asking, ‘‘What is the value to Canadians of public investments in research? How is research knowledge benefiting our society?’’2 In 2001, the SSHRC launched a five-year Initiative on the New Economy (INE) whose goals were ‘‘to help Canada adapt successfully to and benefit from the new economy’’ through research funding to ‘‘explore the social, cultural and economic dimensions of the global, knowledge-driven new economy.’’ Over $100 million was allocated over five years for several research streams: Outreach Grants, Standard Research Grants, and Collaborative Research Initiatives. Four research categories were created: General new economy issues: Understanding the social, cultural and environmental dimensions of the new economy; policy, regulatory and legal frameworks; values, identities, cultural diversity; and the importance of information and communication technologies in contribution to the new economy. Management and entrepreneurship: Changes to the business sector resulting from the transformation of the Canadian economy in the new economy era. Education: The role new technologies play in promoting learning and the delivery of education in the new economy. Lifelong learning: The importance of lifelong learning to national, local, and individual development in the context of the new economy.3

on the identity trail On the Identity Trail was a $4 million, four-year INE led by Principal Investigator Dr. Ian Kerr, Canada Research Chair in Law, Ethics and Technology at the University of Ottawa. Initiated in 2002, the project’s objectives included an examination of the rapidly developing nature of privacy, identity, and anonymity wrought by ubiquitous technologies and philosophical and regulatory responses to their everyday uses. Ubiquitous technologies were defined as the Internet (Web 2.0 applications, HTTP cookies, digital rights management systems, webcams), closed-circuit television systems (CCTV, 30

leslie regan shade

radio frequency identification tags/RFIDs, smart cards, identity cards, global satellite positioning systems, and biometric identifiers). Research questions included the following: How have these technologies affected our ability to conduct private, anonymous communication? What are the challenges in maintaining private, unidentified, or unauthenticated activities, especially in a security climate heightened by 9/11? How has the everyday mobilization of citizens been impacted by this political-economic regime? What are challenges for the fundamental human rights of privacy, autonomy, equality, security of the person, free speech, free movement, and free association? What technological architectures have been designed to inhibit—or subvert—personal or collective autonomy? How have notions of authentication and identification shifted, and how should policy respond? The project consisted of three streams: Stream 1: Nature and value of identity, anonymity and authentication. This stream involved an examination of the historical, philosophical, and psychological aspects of the nature and value of anonymity and identity. It provided a comparison of conceptual differences and the social value of anonymous and fully identified transactions. This stream drew from philosophical investigations in epistemology and ethics, and behavioral approaches in the social sciences that examine identification, everyday experiences of anonymity, and identifiability. Specific areas of inquiry included consumer perceptions of Web-based transactions, personal information flows on commercial Web sites, and children’s perceptions of their instant messaging. Stream 2: Constitutional and legal aspects of anonymity. This stream involved an examination of the legal and policy questions raised by anonymity and authentication in offline and online environments. In particular, this stream examined the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms relative to freedom of expression, association, and mobility. Does the Charter allow for anonymity in the development of new surveillance-based ICTs such as biometrics? In light of September 11 and a heightened security complex, should there be limitations on anonymous expression? How does anonymity apply to citizens living in totalitarian regimes? How should or can anonymous activity be protected? What should be the public interest imperatives in the design of privacy-enhancing and authentication technologies? Stream 3: Technologies that identify, anonymize and authenticate. This stream examined the challenges and policy implications of privacy-enhancing technologies. Information technologists and cryptographers addressed the development of wearable computing, applied cryptography, and secure electronic voting systems, and their marketability.4 engaging in scholar-activist communications in canada

31

The team was made up of twenty-three North American and European researchers. Research partners included philosophers, ethicists, feminists, cognitive scientists, lawyers, cryptographers, engineers, policy analysts, government policy makers, privacy experts, business leaders, blue chip companies, and successful start-ups in the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors. Private and public sector partners included organizations involved in privacy and civil liberties advocacy as public interest groups or government entities (Alberta Civil Liberties Association Research Centre, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, Electronic Privacy Information Center/EPIC, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and Privacy International), technology companies and technology research organizations (Bell University Labs, Entrust Technologies, IBM Canada Ltd., Microsoft, the Ontario Research Network in Electronic Commerce), government (the Department of Justice, Management Board Secretariat Ontario), and ethics organizations (Centre on Values and Ethics, the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Leadership in Ethics).5 On the Identity Trail had, as a central objective, the development of ‘‘an interdisciplinary dialogue that will generate research results of practical value to policy makers and the broader public.’’ Academic representation included the fields of the social sciences and humanities, law and policy, and the technology sector. Research results were intended to benefit corporations and international governmental bodies. Explicitly, the project targeted impacts ‘‘on the public and private sector, the individual as a consumer, and the individual as a citizen, affecting the way that we communicate and transact business with one another, our moral discourse, and our approach to law reform and social policy.’’6 policy impact In looking back over the project, Kerr and his colleagues were pleased at what they accomplished. A lot of what they did, according to Kerr, was organic. As part of the grant submission and midterm review process, one is expected to create milestones of research accomplishment. Kerr credits the SSHRC with ‘‘being flexible about allowing plans to change over time, and allowing reallocations of funding’’ for unanticipated research opportunities.7 Very often the nature of policy-relevant research necessitates reactive responses. Kerr cited several such instances where a legal or a policy issue that was not contemplated in the original drafting of the research proposal was acted upon. The research project was ‘‘fortunate and strategic’’ in capitalizing on some of the key policy drivers in the fields related to the project. 32

leslie regan shade

These included the five-year review of the PIPEDA privacy legislation, with several research members testifying before the Parliamentary Standing Committee with some discernable effect. Kerr’s written testimony concentrated on recommendations to amend PIPEDA to account for obtaining genuine consent generated by the contractual model.8 Two important legal precedents derived from the project. The first one involved an intervention surrounding copyright disputes around peer-topeer file sharing. Although experts in copyright and access to information had been involved in this debate, privacy experts with a particular focus on anonymity had not, to date, been involved in these debates. This issue arose when the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) decided to sue twenty-nine anonymous file-sharers for copyright infringement. One of the doctoral students on the project, Alex Cameron, became integrated into the team and argued convincingly at the trial of first instance and at the Federal Court of Appeal against representatives of the recording industry, who were trying to get the names of the people who had engaged in file sharing. In BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe 2004 FC 488, the Court refused to compel the disclosure of the names of the file-sharers, a decision that can be ‘‘read as a victory for privacy and an endorsement for preserving online anonymity unless there are strong reasons to justify compelling the disclosure of identity’’ (Kerr and Cameron 2006, 287). Because of the project, Cameron’s original doctoral research focus switched from purely copyright issues to that of the nexus between copyright and privacy, a fairly under-researched area (Cameron 2009). That litigation is an excellent example, Kerr argues, of the ‘‘reciprocity of real life policy conflict in the form of a legal case getting informed and resolved’’ through the project research and its resultant impact nourishing the further development of the project. Kerr’s written commentary on reasonable expectations of privacy and emergent technologies was cited with approval by the Supreme Court of Canada, ‘‘refurbishing its approach towards reasonable expectation of privacy,’’ yet another concrete policy impact. An important legal precedent was around the reasonable expectation of privacy; a recent Supreme Court of Canada case on the use of police sniffer dogs rendered a decision that said random searches using police sniffer dogs were unconstitutional under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CBC 2008). In R. v. A.M. (2008), Kerr and Jenna McGill, an LLB Law Candidate at the University of Ottawa, were cited as experts in the Supreme Court decision from a law review journal article they published (Kerr and McGill 2008). Given the rapid developments of ubiquitous technologies and their attendant privacy challenges, Kerr argues that we need to ‘‘find approaches to policy which are not in the usual tradition of legal analysis which looks engaging in scholar-activist communications in canada

33

back to see how previous cases were decided or to see what people intended when they made the legislation—what we need are forward-looking approaches that reach into the future, pull it back into the present and try to solve those issues now’’ (CBC News 2009). The project also developed workshops with many judges across the country on reasonable expectations of privacy and emerging technologies. An interdisciplinary approach shaped an instrument to test intuitions about reasonable expectations of privacy. Various scenarios were conceptualized around everyday uses and judges were asked to rate these cases in order to ascertain potential biases.

academic-activist and other strategic partnerships Kerr’s team worked with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC/ Ontario). The Commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, was a Project Collaborator. Kerr credits OPC Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart with seeing the value of academic research as intrinsic to furthering the policy dialogue and thus creating their Contributions Program to fund policy-relevant privacy research.9 Kerr also served as a judge in the OPC’s youth privacy video contest.10 canadian research alliance for community innovation and networking The Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (CRACIN) was a $1 million INE Research Alliance funded from 2003–07 whose broad goals were to examine community networks and Canadian Internet access/networking policy, particularly with respect to ensuring universal and equitable access. CRACIN concentrated on panCanadian case studies with research collaboration from community and government partners.11 A prime impetus for the project came from several academic-activists who had worked together since the mid-1990s to promote a public interest agenda for universal access to the Internet and who were concerned that, despite the significant investment in government-funded ICT programs to build approximately 10,000 community ICT initiatives, inadequate critical evaluation of the programs had been initiated. The Principal Investigator was Professor Andrew Clement, who in the mid-1990s started the Information Policy Research Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Information Studies.12 Michael Gurstein, (then at the New Jersey Institute 34

leslie regan shade

of Technology, Newark, NJ, and now at the Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training, Vancouver, BC), Marita Moll, a board member of Telecommunities Canada, and myself were coinvestigators. Some of CRACIN’s research questions included the following: What effect did these programs have on community networking practices? What policies or programs were appropriate as ICT infrastructure develops? How have Canadian federal programs (the ‘‘Connecting Canada’’ agenda) promoted the development, public accessibility and use of Internet services? What are the impacts and benefits of community ICT projects? Are community-based ICTs sustainable? What principles and policies should guide future investment in community-based ICTs? CRACIN’s goal was to conduct academic work that engaged community participants, policy makers, and the government through the lens of community informatics and via participatory action research. The research collaboration included over twenty Canadian and international academics, including many MA and PhD students; representatives from three major government departments; and eight community partners. Government partners included Canadian Heritage’s Strategic Research and Analysis Branch; Human Resources and Skills Development Canada’s Learning Policy Directorate; and Industry Canada’s Electronic Commerce Branch and Information Highway Applications Branch. Community partners representing rural, remote, and urban locales included Telecommunities Canada (a pan-Canadian umbrella organization for community networks); the Vancouver Community Network (Vancouver, BC); St. Christopher House (Toronto, ON); K-Net (First Nations community network founded in Northwestern Ontario); the Western Valley Development Agency (Annapolis Valley and Digby, Nova Scotia); The Alberta Library; Communautique (Montreal and Quebec), ˆIle Sans Fil (Montreal); Smart Labrador (Forteau, Newfoundland and Labrador); and Wireless Nomad Inc. (Toronto). Community networks are ICT systems designed to strengthen local, geographically based communities. They promote economic and social participation through enhanced informational resources and the provision of local information resources, enterprises, services, and culture. Community networks aim to provide equitable access to network services and contribute to community economic development. Community network systems in Canada date back to the 1970s with the creation of the first computer kiosk in Vancouver, based on Berkeley’s Community Memory system. Community networks flourished in the 1990s with the development of free-nets: by mid-decade thirty-five community networks served between 250,000 and 600,000 users, with the most prominent and sustainable community networks being the National Capital FreeNet (NCF) engaging in scholar-activist communications in canada

35

in Ottawa and the Vancouver Community Network. The NCF, established in 1992 as a noncommercial, co-operative, community project with the active participation of volunteers, Carleton University, and private industry, consisted of diverse community information provided by over 250 information providers that posted information on a multiplicity of topics—from health and social services to recreation and women’s issues. Free-nets offered e-mail addresses (this was before the commercial development of the Internet and the wide availability of Internet service providers), discussion forums, special interest groups, and a way to link online local concerns with on-the-ground activities. In Canada, the enthusiastic uptake of community networks served as a powerful vehicle for citizen-centered activism and a way of sustaining a semblance of community and reinforcing national identity. Community networking activists John Stevenson and Greg Searle of the Internet Public Interest Research Group emphasized this sentiment when they were cited by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in their final report on convergence in 1995: ‘‘Community networks create Canadian content provided by regular Canadians for Canadians’’ (CRTC, 1995). Community owned and controlled, community networks were also concerned with ensuring universal access to the network for free or with a very nominal cost to all members of the community. Schools, libraries, community information and recreational centers, and shopping malls often served as public access points. Telecommunities Canada (TC) was founded in 1994, with the mandate to lobby for charitable status for community nets, assist groups on local liability policies, and develop an on-line literacy program for the public (Moll and Shade 2001; Shade 1999; 2002). CRACIN looked at community networks through the lens of community informatics. As a relatively new interdisciplinary field of academic study, community informatics is concerned with the study of the enabling uses of ICTs for community social, economic, cultural, or political goals. Community informatics brings together the perspectives of many stakeholders— community activists and groups, policy makers, users/citizens, artists, and academics working across many disciplines, including communication studies, information studies, sociology, political science, urban studies, and geography. Gurstein writes that ‘‘what characterizes a community informatics approach to public computing is a commitment to universality of technologyenabled opportunities including to the disadvantaged; a recognition that the ‘lived physical community’ is at the very center of individual and family well-being—economic, political, and cultural; a belief that this can be enhanced through the judicious use of ICT; a sophisticated user-focused 36

leslie regan shade

understanding of information technology; and applied social leadership, entrepreneurship and creativity’’ (2007, 12). As the CRACIN project materialized, several research themes developed, with the final workshop in 2007 focused on the broad themes of community informatics theory; rural and remote broadband; community innovation related to participatory design, civic participation, social inclusion, and community wireless; community ICTs in the policy context; and libraries and community networking. Within these themes the following issues were also investigated: Community network sustainability, gender and youth perspectives, and community networks and immigrants.13 policy impact Government partners involved in CRACIN were very interested in research results that could shed light on specific issues that could better inform their development and refinement of programs and policies. For example, what might be the economic benefits of community broadband in rural communities? For policy makers accustomed to evidence-based policymaking reliant on quantitative measurements, the often-slow process of conducting participatory research within communities that favored qualitative indicators was at times frustrating. Said Moll, ‘‘Frankly, in retrospect, I would say that even if we had produced for them evidence-based data, quantitative data, the policy landscape was shifting in a way that it wasn’t going to be useful. That’s the trouble with policy—it can turn on its head—a particular policy can be dropped by a future government.’’14 CRACIN transpired when there were several major federal elections. The 2004 election resulted in a change from a majority to a minority Liberal government with Paul Martin as Prime Minister and the main opposition power the Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper. Canadians returned to the polls again in 2006 where Stephen Harper assumed the reigns as Prime Minister in a minority-led government; a mere nineteen months later, in 2008, another election resulted in Harper continuing on as Prime Minister of a minority-led Conservative government. The various shifts in government thus altered the flow of policy and program development, as programs withered and files changed personnel, and as the Conservative-led government pushed deregulatory measures in telecom development. These shifts in government impacted community partners as well, as they were keen to leverage CRACIN research ‘‘results’’ as proof of the need for the viability of their continued funding, and to also reach a wider public. There was hope on the part of community and government participants for CRACIN research to be useful; however, as Moll comments, ‘‘They tried, and we tried,’’ but it was ‘‘a shifting policy landscape at the time that was moving pretty fast and it was very unstable. And, as the framework was changing, engaging in scholar-activist communications in canada

37

we found it difficult to keep up with it—even the bureaucrats could not keep up.’’ This tension between top-down policymaking versus bottom-up policymaking was expressed by Gurstein when he argued that ‘‘the role of CI [community informatics] in relation to government policy is to provide a continuing pressure towards the development of policies and programs supportive of bottom up ICT development, implementation and use and to undertake research and evaluations, including developing models and strategies which counter the prevailing norms and directions’’ (Gurstein 2007, 59). Similar to Kerr’s project, CRACIN also found it needed to be reactive when timely policy developments arose. One such initiative was the creation of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel (TPRP), announced by the government in 2005 to conduct the first major public review of Canada’s telecommunications policy framework since 1993. TPRP’s objectives were to recommend policy changes that would ‘‘ensure that Canada has a strong, internationally competitive telecommunications industry, which delivers world-class affordable services and products for the economic and social benefit of all Canadians’’ (Telecommunications Policy Review Panel 2005, iii). The Panel was asked to consider three specific areas within the context of technological change, consumer demand, and market structure: regulation, access, and ICT adoption. A series of consultative processes designed to solicit input from stakeholders and the public at large were announced, and CRACIN participated in both stages of the process. Because the TPRP process was dominated by industry and government concerns over competitiveness, productivity, and deregulation, for the most part, public concerns were either ignored or brushed aside in TPRP’s policy discussions and their Final Report. Said Moll: ‘‘TPRP was a direct incision. We knew what we needed to say, we had already compiled some research that gave us the credibility to say those things.’’ The TPRP final report was released in March 2006 and called for bold steps to deregulate telecommunications industries and to maximize reliance on market forces in order to promote their growth and competitiveness. In their ‘‘ICT Adoption for Improved Community Development’’ chapter, CRACIN cited slight evidence that the Panel considered public interest concerns: The Panel believes a vibrant ICT private sector not only is important for creating opportunities throughout the economy, but also is an engine for building e-literacy and ICT technology skills at the community level. In addition, the Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking noted in its submission to the Panel that 38

leslie regan shade

community networks and other community-based organizations provide both technological and social infrastructures for ICT access, adoption, and use. Community networks also act as important sources of local economic development and innovation. Through training programs, for example, they help ensure that all Canadians, particularly those most at risk of being left behind, have the necessary skills to participate in the networked economy.15

the alt.telecom forum The participation of many community organizations, public interest groups, and academic researchers in the TPRP demonstrated the existence of a committed and informed telecommunications ‘‘counter-public’’ in Canada. Concerns were expressed about the continuance of the digital divide, foreign ownership, consumer rights, and media concentration. Longford and Shade (2007) argued that ‘‘While the TPRP public consultation process had the appearance of including and taking seriously the concerns of community and public interest groups, these were effectively marginalized both procedurally and substantively. In both substance and process, the proceedings of the TPRP reflected a preoccupation with the agenda and interests of key players in the telecommunications industry and an ideological commitment to deregulation on the part of industry and government alike. For the most part, however, these concerns were either ignored or brushed aside in the TPRP’s policy discussions and final report’’ (13). In order to bring forward citizen concerns around telecommunications for the public interest, CRACIN made a successful application to the SSHRC through their INE Public Outreach Program to conduct a Citizens’ Telecommunications Forum. The Alt.Telecom Policy Forum was held in Ottawa in October 2006. The agenda focused on issues related to municipal and community Wi-Fi initiatives, telecommunications and the public good, rethinking communications policy and regulation in Canada, ensuring inclusive digital opportunities, and net neutrality. Several recommendations emerged from the Forum. One was that reliance upon unregulated markets to ensure equitable and effective access to essential telecommunications infrastructure and services by all Canadians would be irresponsible and potentially damaging to Canadian society. Another was to maintain and strengthen, through adequate and stable longterm funding, government policies and programs to support ICT network access, adoption, and effective use by Canadians and Canadian communities. A recommendation was made to preserve Section 7 of the Telecommunications Act that protects and promotes Canadian sovereignty and identity. And, a recommendation was made to add a subsection to Recommendation 6-5 [of the TPRP report], to read: ‘‘(d) not withstanding any engaging in scholar-activist communications in canada

39

other provision in this paragraph, network operators shall not discriminate against content, applications, or services on broadband Internet services based on their source or ownership’’ (Longford et al. 2008). Although the Alt.Telecom Forum created some of the earliest public discussions on the efficacy of municipal and community Wi-Fi and raised the profile of the nascent policy issue of net neutrality, recommendations sent to then Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier resulted in a requisite letter of acknowledgment. Commented Moll, ‘‘If it had been five years earlier it might have made a difference . . . In the shifting policy landscape that we were in with this particular subject I don’t think we had much impact.’’ other strategic partnerships CRACIN engaged in participatory action research that engaged community partners as active agents in shaping the research agenda. Mostly qualitative, and broadly ethnographic, the case site studies included a research team consisting of an academic leader, a student, and community leader. Student involvement was a vital component of CRACIN, and indeed, approximately one-half of the total funding allocated to the project was, under SSHRC rules, designated for the training of graduate students. Students were assigned to each case site, with some students taking the lead on fieldwork at the various case sites. Students, thus, played a vital role as frontline workers within the community and with the community partners. This research included the pursuit of action (or change) and research (or understanding) at the same time, with iterative cycles of multiperspectival action and reflection, leading to improved practices. Building trust within the community took time, and often research results were slow to come to fruition or unanticipated. Emotional labor was thus a component of the PAR methodology. Moll emphasized a need in working with government partners to ‘‘really frame research and present it in a way that policy makers can use. They seemed to be really frustrated with us at times because we presented them with research and they couldn’t really use it in that form—they wanted it packaged in different ways, and we couldn’t really get how they wanted it packaged. It all got quite confusing at times because there was frustration on both sides.’’ For example, governments wanted ‘‘the deck’’—the PowerPoint presentation that could be printed out as a quick summary of the main issues, objectives, and recommendations. Academics used to arguing through obtuse theorizations learned to popularize their language to better match policy discourse. Despite these different orientations, these sorts of exercises had other benefits, Moll believes, such as collaborative learning across professions and fields, student acquisition of knowledge, and expanding the general literature around community communications. 40

leslie regan shade

When asked if it was beneficial for community members to work on such a large-scale project, Moll commented that TC got many things from the project, including participating in the Alt.Telecom forum, interacting with diverse researchers, and being able to reflect on ongoing projects in their area of expertise. Frustration occurred across many community groups about the allocation of grant funds as it was initially unclear what could be considered allowable expenses: ‘‘It was a little bit fuzzy at the beginning. I didn’t quite understand the financial flow of these kinds of grants.’’ Indeed, the SSHRC guidelines stipulated that community groups could not receive direct costs of staff-time for research contributions to the project, but expenses such as defraying costs to attend research workshops and conferences were allowable. Continued Moll: ‘‘I am sure there was some disappointment that there wasn’t more money flowing in their direction, because they’re desperate for time—they can’t give up their [staff] time; and they can’t justify this to their Boards.’’ There were ways that CRACIN compensated for this lack of direct funding; for example, in-house research at VCN and at K-Net aided them, and for some groups an affiliation with an academic research project gave them cachet which they could leverage for their own fund-raising.

conclusion On the Identity Trail and CRACIN are just two of many SSHRC INE projects that were funded in the last few years that provide tangible evidence of the importance of policy-relevant research. A few lessons can be learned from these projects. One is the need to be proactive and reactive at the same time, when policy opportunities present themselves. The ability to shape policy actively—or make a slight dent in policy proceedings—is a necessary and timely research intervention. This also necessitated packaging research results for different audiences in multiple and creative ways. Another is to be sensitive to the balance of power between academics and community/ activist partners. Although the collaboration often allowed some government partners to get research from the academics that they used to conduct in-house, for community groups this was often not the case. Challenges surrounding research design can be complicated, particularly related to the funding and infrastructure of research grants, which are biased towards academics rather than community partners. A recommendation is that the SSHRC, in designing future research collaborations involving community and activist groups, allow for organizations to be paid for the time they put into the project, which the TriCouncil policies so far do not allow.16 And, one last challenge, after the funding has been officially extinguished and all engaging in scholar-activist communications in canada

41

deliverables delivered, is to maintain the connections, energy, and commitment that these collaborative endeavors necessarily consume. Some of the recommendations I offer here for the Canadian context resonate with lessons learned from the Collaborative Grants Program. Both programs have as a goal the creation of a collaborative framework between academics and activist/community groups to bring forward research findings and recommendations to affect policy processes and build a more participatory public sphere. This is a laudable goal. But often the realities of what it means to labor in our organizations, whether the university or the grassroots group, are not understood by each other. Time and trust are key elements for research collaborations. So is reflection on achievements and failures (which should be recast in a more positive light, as ‘‘worst practices’’ can indeed shape future ‘‘best practices’’). We must, thus, remind ourselves: going beyond bridging to building a sustainable infrastructure of academicactivists is a necessary task for a democratic public sphere.

notes Many thanks to both Ian Kerr and Marita Moll for their graciousness in being interviewed. Thanks as well to SSHRC for their generous support of policy-relevant research in Canada. And, as well, thanks to the many fine folks I met through NKDPS—your energy and efforts are more than inspirational. 1. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. SSHRC Facts and Figures. 21 February, 2009. http://www.sshrc.ca/site/about-crsh/stats-statistiques/ facts-fait s-eng.aspx. 2. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Policies. 17 December, 2009. http://www.sshrc.ca/about-au_sujet/policies-politiques/indexeng.aspx. 3. See http://supernetusersforum.ca/node/150. 4. On the Identity Trail. 18 April, 2009. http://idtrail.org/. 5. On the Identity Trail: Partners. http://www.idtrail.org/content/view/ 216/43/. 6. On the Identity Trail: Project Overview. http://www.idtrail.org/ content/view/12/34/. 7. Personal interview with Kerr, August 20, 2009. All subsequent quotes from the same interview. 8. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) (2000) applies to the federally regulated private sector with respect to the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information, but only for the transaction of commercial activities. See Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c.5, updated 2006 at http://www .privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_e.asp. Kerr’s written testimony can be found at http://www.cippic.ca/documents/privacy/submissions/IanKerr-Oral.pdf. The 42

leslie regan shade

House of Commons Standing Review documents are at http://www2.parl .gc.ca/CommitteeBusiness/StudyActivityHome.aspx?Cmte⳱ETHI&Language ⳱E&Mode⳱1&Parl⳱39&Ses⳱1&Stac⳱1749674. 9. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. http://www.priv.gc .ca/resource/cp/p_index_e.cfm. 10. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: My Contest. http:// www.youthprivacy.ca/en/contest.html噛videos. 11. CRACIN: About the project. 21 May, 2009. http://www3.fis.utoronto .ca/iprp/cracin. 12. Now the Faculty of Information. See Information Policy Research Program site at http://iprp.ischool.utoronto.ca/ and the Universal Access work at http://www3.fis.utoronto.ca/iprp/ua/submissions.html. 13. CRACIN: Workshop 噛5 Presentations & Papers. http://www3.fis .utoronto.ca/iprp/cracin/publications/Workshop_5_index.htm. 14. Phone interview with Moll August 25, 2009. All subsequent quotes are from the same interview. 15. Telecommunications Policy Review Panel: Information and Communications Technology Policy. http://www.telecomreview.ca/eic/site/tprp-gecrt .nsf/eng/rx00061.html. 16. The Tri-Council consists of the three main funding bodies in Canada for academic research: SSHRC, NSERC (the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council) and the CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research).

references Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). 1995. Competition and Culture on Canada’s Information Highway: Managing the Realities of Transition. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/ HIGHWAY/HWY9505.HTM (accessed March 4, 2010). CBC Radio Online. The Current. 2009. Part 3: New privacy world. Interview with Ian Kerr by Nancy Wilson. April 17, 2009. http://www.cbc .ca/thecurrent/2009/200904/20090417.html (accessed March 4, 2010). CBC News. 2009. Anonymity is becoming a thing of the past, study says. April 8, 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/04/08/tech090408-anonymity-technology-laws.html (accessed March 4, 2010). ———. 2008. Random use of police sniffer dogs breaches charter: Top court. April 25, 2008. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/25/ school-search.html (accessed March 4, 2010). Cameron, Alex. 2009. Learning from data protection law at the nexus of copyright and privacy. In Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society, eds. I. Kerr, V. Steeves, and C. Lucock, 43–63. New York: Oxford University Press. engaging in scholar-activist communications in canada

43

Clement, Andrew, Michael Gurstein, Graham Longford, Robert Luke, Marita Moll, Leslie R. Shade, and Diane Dechief. 2004. The Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (CRACIN): A research partnership and agenda for community networking in Canada. Journal of Community Informatics 1 (1):7–20. http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/issue/view/10 (accessed March 3, 2010). Gurstein, Michael. 2007. What Is Community Informatics (and Why Does It Matter)? Milan: Polimetrica. Industry Canada. 1995. Connection, community, content: The challenge of the information highway: Final report of the Information Highway Advisory Council. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Kerr, Ian R., and A. Cameron. 2006. Nymity, P2P and ISPs: Lessons from BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe. In Privacy and technologies of identity: A cross-disciplinary conversation, eds. K. J. Strandburg and D. S. Raicu, 269–294. New York: Springer Verlag. Kerr, Ian R., and Jena McGill. 2007. Emanations, snoops dogs, and reasonable expectations of privacy. Criminal Law Quarterly 52 (3):392–432. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id⳱1302546 (accessed March 3, 2010). Longford, Graham, and Leslie R. Shade. 2007. Telecom Reform North of the 49th. Paper presented at the National Media Reform Conference Media Research Pre-Conference, Memphis, TN. Longford, Graham, Marita Moll, and Leslie R. Shade. 2008. From the ‘‘Right to Communicate’’ to ‘‘Consumer Right of Access’’: Telecom Policy Visions from 1970–2007. In For Sale to the Highest Bidder: Telecom Policy in Canada, eds. M. Moll and L. R. Shade, pp. 3–16. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Moll, Marita, and Leslie R. Shade. 2001. Community Networking in Canada: Do You Believe in Magic? In E-commerce vs. E-commons: Communications in the Public Interest, eds. M. Moll and L. R. Shade, 165–181. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. R. v. A.M. 2008. 1 S.C.R. 569, 2008 SCC 19. http://scc.lexum.umontreal .ca/en/2008/2008scc19/2008scc19.html (accessed March 3, 2010). Shade, Leslie R. 2002. Community Networking in Canada: A Status Report. Canadian Issues/The´mes canadiens, 42–47. ———. 1999. Roughing It in the Electronic Bush: Community Networking in Canada. Canadian Journal of Communication 24 (2):179–198. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 2007. Framing our direction. http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/ publications/framing _our_direction_e.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). Telecommunications Policy Review Panel. 2006. Final report. http://www .telecomreview.ca (accessed March 3, 2010). 44

leslie regan shade

CHAPTER 3

Toward a Taxonomy for Public Interest Communications Infrastructure dharma dailey and alison powell

Since 1998, Prometheus Radio Project has been the reluctant bearer of bad news. Week-in and week-out, people from all over the United States call or write them asking how they can start a radio station. Most of the time the request for information comes with a heart-felt account of how their community lacks venues for critical civic information and outlets vital for community building. Most of the time, Prometheus has to let them down gently. Under current broadcasting policy, new radio licenses will never be available to the vast majority of people in the United States—no matter how much they believe their community needs one. In 2003, Prometheus asked one of the authors of this study to investigate whether new technologies, such as those being used in the newest crop of community networks, might be shaped into systems with community benefits similar to those of community radio. Was there something new out there that was within the capacity of communities to create that would support re-localization of our media? Sure enough, as this author began to circulate among the developers and operators of the (then) new community wireless networks, she found many others orbiting these projects with hope in their eyes: A rural economic development agent searching for the sinuous brass tacks that pin rural revitalization to new communications infrastructure development; a social scientist looking for the missing link between job creation and broadband development; a technology cooperative hoping to create a new venue for local visual artists. There were people running digital divide programs who wanted to take terminal access out of technology centers and into local homes and businesses. There was an ethnographer trying 45

to understand why some of these networks were used so much more than others—and what people were using them for. There were lawyers and policy makers trying to figure out how to get stakeholders from different sectors to the table long enough to develop something useful. Whether for a neighborhood or a nation, building new infrastructure is no small task. Building new infrastructure that relies on new technologies and new business models for hypothetical applications is work for saints and martyrs (and a few kooks and crooks). Most discussion around broadband has focused on answering the giant information challenge of how to build these networks of the future. We set our eyes on what we saw as a more important but intimately related question: we wanted to know how to benefit from these networks. More specifically, what is the possible benefit of network technologies for sustainable, regional cultural and economic development? We explored this question by defining collaborative strategies for the people working on building them. This meant understanding what kind of data they used, how hard it was to get, how it was stored, and where collaboration would be most beneficial. Quotes drawn from our participants appear throughout this chapter as a means of illustrating our process and results.

broadband’s need-to-know information By definition, broadband service refers to a multipurpose network in which the bandwidth can be divided and shared among a broad set of actors. Each set of actors may have different aspirations for that ‘‘big fat pipe.’’ The knowledge one needs to design a network of value to a diverse set of actors spreads across many fields. We need to know something of the technology, something of the economic and social constraints that shape that technology, and something of the intended uses for the network. With all of that knowledge, we still may not know if or how the network has benefited a specific set of actors. It didn’t help us that the overriding assumption on the national scene was that broadband development lacks nuance: ‘‘Broadband is good, under any circumstances, anywhere. Why look under the hood?’’ We had no overarching framework to tell us when a network was doing ‘‘good’’ for those who used it—no formulas, no metrics, no standard methods of inquiry or even a standard set of questions. Each of us ponied up with our own yardstick. We couldn’t compare easily one project to the next, they were all so different. Meanwhile, policy cycles shifted so that broadband was once again a priority among decision makers, in response to a critical juncture of policy and technology described by McChesney (2007). 46

dharma dailey and alison powell

Although many of us were already collaborating to one degree or another, each time we met, the topic of better collaboration came up. This included formal meetings such as the CAIDA Commons Project meeting in 2006, the Community Wireless Information Research Project meeting of November 2007, the Rural Telecommunications Congress of 2007, the International Summit for Community Wireless Networks of 2007, the Pew Convening of June 2006, and the Broadband Census for America Conference in September 2008. As we watched new projects repeat the mistakes we’d seen their predecessors make, we wondered how we might be able to accelerate the rate of dissemination of what we were learning. We began to discuss how we could move toward an overarching framework that would allow proscriptive planning by a wider variety of stakeholders without having them invest in learning everything there is to know about communications infrastructure development. Could we make our own limited resources stretch farther by collaborating more intensely? And so, to answer this last question embedded within a question, we sought through the study described below to understand who the actors were who were gathering and disseminating knowledge on how communications infrastructure (broadband) affects communities. Our research project began as an effort to create a taxonomy of the data being gathered, analyzed, and stored by the public interest broadband community of practice. The core research team—including the authors of this article as well as (at various points) Michael Maranda of the Association for Community Networking, Amelia Bryne of Deep Tech, and Nathaniel James (now at OneWebDay)—were all part of this community of practice. The team also included community practitioners, journalists, policy analysts, lawyers, and other academics. The initial goal was to create a shared online data resource, so our research questions focused on analyzing the requirements for such a system: What kind of data on broadband projects were they collecting? How were they storing their information? Were they sharing their information and with whom, and how? To answer these questions we interviewed sixteen people in our community of practice, using the responses to create a taxonomy of broadband knowledge that we then distributed back to all the participants. Like most research projects, the significance of this project evolved over time. Our interviews revealed as much about the process of collaboration in public interest research work as they did about the ecology of broadband data. Getting and sharing better data was important to our community of practice because it helped to make more informed arguments about the social impact of broadband networks. At the same time, mapping the role of an information ecology among a set of collaborators with different information needs is potentially helpful in describing how other types of public taxonomy for public interest communications infrastructure

47

interest collaborations take place. Through our research we created collaborations on two levels, broadly across our community of practice and narrowly as authors of this chapter. Our interviews created a dialogue about data and a taxonomy that people could use in their work. Furthermore, writing this chapter has provided the opportunity to develop a level of trust in each other’s expertise as scholars and activists.

challenging the corporate-government information dichotomy Previous research on broadband policy decision making has focused on the relationship between government and corporate decision making, and the actions of researchers, community practitioners, and policy advocates. These actors are certainly important. Until recently, there was a lack of federal-level participation in the form of a national broadband strategy in the United States (Gross 2008; Picot 2007; Turner 2005) and contention over the appropriate roles for the public or private sector in network development and management (Baller 2005; Gillett 2006). In addition, broadband development had to deal with a set of legal rulings at the state level that have tended to work in favor of private sector broadband developers (Tapia 2006; 2007). In the face of these constraints, local broadband initiatives spanned a wide range of business models, uses of technologies, and public/private sector involvement (for example, see the projects cited in Mitchell 2008 and Vos 2007). Still, the corporate sector has set the agenda for most information about broadband development. Within the corporate sphere, each telecommunications industry player has substantive market data on its operations and that of its competitors. The FCC has historically collected telecommunications industry data on a voluntary basis—and this in scant amounts. Unfortunately, this information has not often been available for public interest review, and until recently, regulators were not required to collect or share data on broadband. The passage of the Broadband Data Improvement Act in 2008 mandates more broadband-related data collection and has set aside $15 billion for broadband mapping. These important steps toward evidence-based broadband policy were not in place when we began our study. As we write, the details of government mapping are being contentiously debated. It remains to be seen whether the information that will be collected through the new government mapping efforts will be widely useful to the many public interest actors who might benefit from such information. Our research is a unique contribution to the current debate for several reasons. First, we have looked beyond the dichotomy of government actors’ and incumbent telecommunication operators’ information needs. Current 48

dharma dailey and alison powell

research (Forlano 2009; Powell 2008; Cho 2006) suggests that civic engagement and social capital are as often the products of local networking initiatives as are technologies. Local projects often have high accountability if they are funded and managed by community members, and some evidence suggests that they can support digital inclusion and address the digital divide, and thus help to improve access to information (Oritz 2009). We hope to understand broadband-related information needs for people in a variety of public interest roles. Second, while much of the broadband mapping discussion has revolved around what data should or should not be collected, we consider not only what public interest broadband advocates need to know, but the whole ecology of their information needs, including how they use and share data, information, and knowledge, and some of the opportunities for supporting their work. who are the broadband advocates? Many past calls for collaboration centered around issues of how to distribute the knowledge that was produced by different advocates to all of the people who needed this information. This was connected with questions of how to promote collaboration between several different groups of advocates, all of whom had their own information needs. Career academics, for example, collect a lot of information but only disseminate it through written reports or similar limited distribution. Community practitioners use and apply information that they gather from trusted sources, not necessarily from reports. In addition, academic researchers may need reliable industry data to help build case studies, while advocacy organizations need to know about the comparative benefits of different types of networks with information in a form that can be used to target policy changes. As illustrated in Figure 3-1, the community of practice that participated in this project is slightly different than the one described in most previous work. We didn’t interview people employed directly in government or corporate sectors, but rather spoke with people whose responsibilities lay between research, advocacy, and local practice. Our contributors were chosen based on recommendations from their peers, and because of their involvement in one or more broadband development projects aimed at civic or cultural development. The common thread of these people is their interest in connecting broadband with local development. Measuring the success of this connection requires information that is much more detailed and granular than the information collected by corporate and government organizations. One of our objectives was to track what kinds of information were needed throughout the public interest broadband community that might taxonomy for public interest communications infrastructure

49

figure 3-1.

Public interest broadband community of interest

not be available through existing channels. You need different knowledge to increase local civic participation than you need to make broadband a return on investment or a means of generating shareholder value. Our contributors developed a list of need-to-know attributes of local networks. The contributors reviewed summaries of their contributions before the final list was returned to them and distributed among the wider community of local broadband researchers. This research strategy strengthened the ties between all of the actors involved in promoting public interest broadband, creating a fertile environment for future research that supports the sharing of knowledge and information. It has also attempted to influence policy related to information sharing and data handling for broadband data. ways of knowing Our project then became focused on a single question: What does a broad, engaged public need to know to maximize the social benefit of local broadband? To answer this question, we had to understand the ecology of this information (Nardi and O’Day 1996)—how people asked questions, what data they received, and what action resulted. We were concerned not just with the production of data, but how this information is shared and applied to create policies, reports, and other tools. As we discuss below, our research produced a list of information requirements that can potentially be used to 50

dharma dailey and alison powell

develop a research sharing tool specific to the public interest broadband community of practice, including corporate and government sectors. Such a tool, once developed, could help to overcome some of the challenges related to collaboration, and could more clearly demonstrate the unique role that community broadband projects play. Our investigation also yielded more broadly relevant information about knowledge sharing and ways of knowing in general, and the impact that this might have on collaboration. The outcomes of such collaborative research are often incommensurate with the results. The vehicles of research results are often the people who have been involved in them, rather than academic or white papers or data placed in a repository. We propose that in addition to developing additional need-to-know tools for knowledge sharing, public interest communications researchers should not overlook the importance of presence, participation, and relationships in creating and distributing knowledge. business requirements analysis for an engaged public When we began thinking about how to understand information flows and promote collaboration, we investigated requirements analysis. Instead of coming from the career academic on the team, this idea came from someone who had more practical experience as an advocate and community practitioner. Requirements analysis, a field unto itself, helped us to understand the social and organizational possibilities for collaboration as well as the technical options. Though we had many kinds of expertise to draw from within the research team, we actively reached beyond our own expertise to do this analysis. We sought advice, training, and texts from professional database developers and business analysts with experience in the creation of collaborative knowledge bases. There were three steps to our analysis. First we had to identify the beneficiaries/subjects of our analysis. That is, who was the community of interest that we would analyze for their information needs? Next we needed to understand each person’s information-seeking and information-using behaviors. Finally, we had to identify alignments and disconnects in the information needs, information uses, and information habits across the aggregate. Step 1: Whom Are We Serving? A typical business requirements analysis is conducted for an organization, usually a business. Our beneficiaries weren’t defined by organization. Unlike many communities of interest, our subjects weren’t all drawn from a single profession. They were journalists, lawyers, policy analysts working in think tanks, and people working in community networks and digital divide programs across North America. They were taxonomy for public interest communications infrastructure

51

junior and senior academics with disciplines and approaches, including ethnography, cultural anthropology, economics, public policy, sociology, and business. Everyone we interviewed was either directly involved or had direct, regular contact with local broadband initiatives. All of the interviewees were to one degree or another considered to be information resources, either by peers in their field or other actors involved in broadband initiatives. For example, for community practitioners, we specifically sought out community practitioners who served formally or informally as information resources to other community practitioners. In all, we interviewed twenty people from across North America from organizations such as Telecommunities Canada, CTCnet, the Association for Community Networking, the Institute for Local Self Reliance, and the New America Foundation. We interviewed one private practice lawyer and one journalist. The remaining cohort was academics from a range of disciplines who were studying local broadband projects. The academics included both junior and senior academics, and those associated with the largest recent research projects on the social impact of communications networks, including Canadian Research Alliance for Community Networking and Innovation (CRACIN) and Community Wireless Infrastructure Research Project (CWIRP). Many in this network were already collaborating when we started the project. The first round of interviewees was people who had expressed a desire for better collaboration on data collection and analysis related to broadband. These people recommended subsequent interviewees. All of our participants had a history of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing on local broadband networks—some as producers of information and others as conduits distributing information to where it would be most valuable. However, it would be a mistake to assume a distinction between producers and consumers of knowledge on broadband development. Our analysis shows that knowledge creation on this topic is more circular, iterative, and widely distributed across many actors. Step 2: Understanding Information Needs in Context Through interviews, we attempted to gain a complete picture of how each interviewee interacted with broadband-related information. These are the major themes that guided our data collection: Who is this person? Why does this person want to know about broadband deployment or policy? What role do they play in broadband development? What does this person need to know about broadband development? More specifically, if a collaborative database existed what would this person be putting into it; what would she be trying to get out of it? 52

dharma dailey and alison powell

How does this person find answers about broadband development? Do they use primary or secondary resources? Are there particular individuals this person relies upon? If so, who? Do they use news sources, journals, Web sites? Which ones? If this person carries out original research, how do they collect data? For analysis, what methods or tools does this person use for analysis of the data she collects? How does this person store data? How long does it take this person to get from asking a question to getting an answer? How does this person share knowledge on broadband? Does this person share data with anyone else now? If so, who? Does this person produce any knowledge products on this topic; does she produce reports, speak at conferences, make videos, or talk informally to people? Who is the intended audience for the knowledge-generated policy makers, peoplebuilding networks, industry, or peers? Step 3: Mapping the Path to Collaboration Getting a deep, honest picture of each individual actor’s information-related behaviors is the prelude to mapping out a path to collaboration. The next step was to cluster the information-seeking and -handling needs and behaviors of the community of interest into logical patterns. We needed to identify areas of possible alignment in information needs, work habits, resources, and obstacles. Where is collaboration happening already? Where can it be expanded? What are the obstacles to collaboration among these varied actors? When are people collecting and using the same kind of information but calling it by a different name? When is it against personal, professional, or institutional interest to share data? What are the most important attributes of networks for people to understand? What data are easy to get; what data are hard to get? Which data methods of inquiry are required to answer which questions? What questions most commonly need to be answered? What data are a public interest necessity? These questions were intended to help clarify the relationships between actors, but also the steps that would need to be taken, in the short and long term, to create a viable information-sharing system or architecture. What Do We Need to Create a Knowledge-sharing Infrastructure? Through our interviews, we identified a clear community of public interest actors who desired to have better evidence-based knowledge to inform broadband policy at the local, regional, and national levels. It is not surprising that academics, local network operators, community development experts, and communications policy analysts each collect, use, process, and disseminate information differently. Nor are we surprised that the information needs taxonomy for public interest communications infrastructure

53

of these ‘‘auxiliary’’ actors would vary from the more visible industry and government actors engaged in broadband development. But our goal wasn’t to describe our community of interest; it was to pragmatically move forward collaboration within the public interest broadband sector. In this sense, the only novel aspect of our research is that we applied requirements analysis to a community of practice instead of a single organization. While we did not answer all of the questions in the three phases of research, we did succeed in identifying some of the actors and processes that would help to shape collaboration tools, which is the ultimate goal of this research. We also highlighted some issues that, while they may appear banal at first, are deeply significant for advancing public interest communications work. Broadly, these issues concerned assumptions about the public interest value of broadband infrastructure, the ways that knowledge moves around the community of practice, and the constraints around establishing the very collaboration we hoped to inspire.

the results This section details the most significant results of the study, particularly in terms of the availability to stakeholders of research and information related to the public interest dimensions of broadband deployment and usage. the social impact of broadband development Public interest research on broadband development is an ironic victim of technologically determinist hype about broadband. For the most part, largescale scientific funding for broadband research in the United States has not considered the social impact of broadband technologies. Yet, many localities were pursuing broadband development because of its purported public benefits. Our interviewees expressed frustration at the lack of information that they needed to understand the public benefits of broadband, including critical social research. Creation and dissemination of such information is highly specialized, expensive, time consuming, highly collaborative, emergent, and labor intensive. The public interest aspects of broadband are challenging to uncover. Public benefits like job creation, improvements in literacy, improved health, public safety and civic participation are much more challenging to determine than other aspects of networks such as speed. Academic researchers we interviewed described a disparity between resources allocated to technology development of networks and resources allocated to determining the social impact of those networks. Emergent Public Goods? Many government broadband projects assume that connectivity is automatically a public good. Yet the public good aspects 54

dharma dailey and alison powell

of broadband are ill-defined. The emergent nature of assessment, monitoring, and evaluation of networks means that no two yardsticks for measuring are the same. This presents challenges for comparative analysis and sharing data. Community practitioners we interviewed complained that there was always something new that they needed to know about broadband networks, and that keeping up with knowledge could be a burden. For example, after building a network, one needs to consider the security of the network and upgrading options, which may not have been considered in the initial stages of planning. Making the case for broadband as a public good is an ever-expanding task. Invisible Infrastructures Another issue in defining broadband as a public good is that once broadband infrastructures are built they tend to become taken for granted—a phenomenon that Bowker and Star (1999) describe as ‘‘infrastructural inversion.’’ When they are less developed, infrastructures are more visible but less influential. It is only when they become invisible and taken for granted that they are most powerful. From a public interest perspective, the greatest benefit would thus come from having the public engaged at the point of infrastructure development. However, the knowledge required to mobilize this public is more difficult to disseminate when technologies are new. Indeed, many of the technical options for designing broadband networks are not yet familiar knowledge for actors such as local practitioners. Knowledge about how to implement these systems may be difficult to obtain for the actors we interviewed—and more likely to be consolidated among government and corporate actors. doing research Much of what public interest actors need to know about broadband development requires intensive research. Expensive and Time Consuming In particular, understanding the benefits or liabilities of particular technologies or technical products, determining the financial health of a project, and evaluating the usefulness and usability of networks all require a lot of footwork. Time and again, interviewees stated that repeated site visits and extensive personal contact yielded the most reliable, sensitive, and needed data. But these are also the most expensive and time-consuming methods of inquiry. This leads to the circulation of knowledge from relatively few ‘‘same old’’ case studies. The use of these time-consuming methods often means that it is hard to create useful knowledge in a timely way. Advocates often claim that they need information yesterday, yet researchers emphasize that the critical questions on the social impact of broadband development are time consuming taxonomy for public interest communications infrastructure

55

to answer. The time required to understand the social impact of an emerging infrastructure is particularly incompatible with the rapid rate of change of technical and social innovation. It’s not unusual for a particular development project to change course several times in the course of a research study. Linking up research cycles to the needs of practitioners deserves consideration. Researchers should consider shorter, iterative, and timely venues for sharing knowledge with practitioners during the course of research in this field. On the other hand, to truly measure key social benefits such as job creation, longer overall research cycles are needed. One senior researcher of a large collaborative research project stated: ‘‘participatory research takes way more time than you can envision. It creates tensions with the publishing cycles and government cycles.’’ Another senior researcher remarked, ‘‘It takes a really long time and a lot of energy to develop a research agenda with communities . . . and a reliance on junior academics can exacerbate timing dilemmas.’’ Personal Relationships Equal Trusted Sources Understanding broadband development requires familiarity with technological, financial, and organizational knowledge, and the ability to connect this knowledge together. Many interviewees stated that they chose people they trusted as data sources, meaning that interpersonal relationships were the means by which disparate forms of knowledge were brought together. Among our interviewees, getting access to these different knowledge bases was often a matter of locating a trusted individual with that knowledge. A policy analyst told us, ‘‘You must find someone to talk to. The greatest barrier is to establish trust. I try to find someone we both know in common such as a person running a system nearby.’’ Given how the advancement of projects depended on information gained through personal relationships, trust, and reliability of sources was a theme mentioned by almost every project participant. One participant noted: ‘‘In certain communities, research can be perceived as highly politicized. There are gatekeeping systems that you have to pass through. You need to build trust. Some communities worry that they will be studied without getting anything of value from the research in return. We needed to produce deliverables on the ground in the community; otherwise nobody would talk to us.’’ Conversely, participants felt that they needed to be perceived as trustworthy in order to access such knowledge: ‘‘I go way out of my way to help people out and they send me things I’m interested in. I cultivate personal relationships.’’ While the reliance on trusted sources kept the community of practice cohesive, it also led to difficulties obtaining information when certain individuals were not available.

56

dharma dailey and alison powell

disseminating knowledge Disseminating information about broadband to a wide public also became a challenge. Such dissemination requires translation to be relevant. Knowing who wants such information, where to find them, and how to reach them, often falls to specialists like professional policy analysts at think tanks, at for-profit organizations, or in government. These analysts, as well as professional academics, form a comparatively tight circle of knowledge sharing, reading each others’ written work. Outside of this circle sit most of the community-based practitioners that we spoke with, including technologists, community networking operators, and local actors interested in broadband for cultural or economic development. Trusted Individuals Getting appropriate information exchanged among these actors is essential for advancing broadband projects. But this information needs to be in a usable form—not necessarily an academic article. Even useful information may not reach its audience if it’s not carefully targeted. From the interviews with community practitioners about where they go for information on local broadband development, it is clear that there is a large disconnect between the modes of information sharing that academics and analysts use and the modes of information seeking that practitioners use. Community practitioners are most likely to go to a trusted individual for knowledge. This trusted source will likely be someone with whom they have an organizational tie or someone who is referred to them by a trusted individual. In other cases, knowledge-seekers develop relationships with broadband experts at conferences, workshops, or other face-to-face meetings. A community practitioner explained, ‘‘to understand the needs of a particular community technology center, I use in-person interaction.’’ Many academics also find personal connections the most direct route to knowledge of local broadband projects, ‘‘It’s most efficient for me to call people up and ask them what they think about things.’’ Therefore, publications are not necessarily as valuable as relationships, despite the highly technical nature of broadband research. The requirements of funding agencies, which may require publication, can undermine this form of knowledge sharing. Many university research budgets prioritize funds for academic conferences but offer little or no funding for sharing knowledge with a wider public. Attending nonacademic conferences for professional academics amounts to an unfunded mandate. Some academic researchers we spoke with thought it would harm their career if they wrote too many articles for nonacademic audiences. Yet, the practitioners we interviewed were unlikely to trust knowledge that came from an unknown

taxonomy for public interest communications infrastructure

57

source. Clearly, if academics don’t find a means of getting to know practitioners, the practical impact of research results is diminished. Storing and Analyzing Data Getting access to knowledge and information is only a first step. It also has to be stored and analyzed, or looked up when a decision is being made. Researchers with academic affiliations tended to be the most resourced for analysis. They used a range of analytical tools, including software for data analysis (such as SASS, SPSS, Nvivo), on data collected using a range of methodologies. However, the nonacademic analysts we spoke with were highly skilled in research methods, with training and experience in academic forms of inquiry, journalism, or law. They were less resourced for research than academics, but did read academic output. Least resourced were the community practitioners who had little time for research or analysis. In more than one case, those serving community-based projects said they could barely keep up with new information, much less organize it. One practitioner noted: ‘‘Our methods of handling information are pretty crude at this point, just bare basics. We have a directory of subject matter, files, and a list-serve. One person has to sift through all the information on a particular topic . . . If it’s a new issue there is not a lot of information. Then we have to rely on our board members. We e-mail or phone them. We don’t have a database. We haven’t set that up. Subject matter can be hard to find because labeling is inconsistent. We just have a server with files on it.’’ Journalists and policy analysts spend more time than academics writing accessible research on public broadband. But these documents may serve more as calling cards for more informal information sharing than primary information. Academics and analysts alike spent considerable time sharing information with practitioners informally through phone calls, e-mail, and face-to-face. As one policy analyst described a typical workday, ‘‘We spend much of our day on the phone.’’ The implications are clear. If academics and analysts want their work to be more widely useful to an expanded engaged public, they must spend time in person to become a trusted source for that engaged public. Making such a shift will require shifts in workflow and funding. Likewise, creating greater transparency about the impact of broadband deployment for governments requires innovation in the modes of presentation of relevant data. Making raw data public is only useful to those sectors of the public that have the capacity to analyze the data. Therefore, the usefulness of data is increased when it has been analyzed and presented in context for a given set of actors. Local actors, including local and regional policy makers, especially benefit from having knowledge readily accessible to them. 58

dharma dailey and alison powell

rethinking knowledge dissemination on broadband Many academic readers (including one of this article’s authors) initially assume that gathering and analyzing data is the most valuable part of information ecology. This focus ignores the role of knowledge dissemination. Our analysis shows that knowledge creation is more circular, iterative, and widely distributed across many stake holders. Scholar-activist collaborations, like the one we are writing about here, are one way of nourishing a better balance between production and dissemination of research results. One interviewee suggested that aggregate analysis of existing cases would be more valuable than conducting more research: ‘‘We need to leverage our individual efforts. We don’t have the resources to do all the documentation; we need to do such things as longitudinal analysis.’’ Getting the Data Isn’t the Only Part While some academics and analysts might stick up their noses at the pedestrian nature of our research, we believe that understanding the brass tacks of information flows on public interest topics is a practical step towards ensuring that knowledge created is knowledge used. Technology is making it ever more possible to share data, which, in turn, is prompting a wave of interest in new forms of collaboration—a wave that has yet to crest—but collaboration often gets more lip service than practice. Even when all actors involved in a project have a strong desire and interest in sharing data, their efforts can fail based on organizational obstacles that may seem mundane, such as the establishment of different standards for storing or processing data (Millerand and Bowker 2009). Millerand and Bowker highlight the fact that collaboration creates extra work, which may not be assigned or resourced. This work may appear to be banal or unimportant, such as rewriting information for different readers; but when no one is taking on the role of easing collaboration, it slows or stops. Our research also reveals the extent to which experts face institutional barriers to collaboration, even within a community of practice where they can obtain access to unique and meaningful data. In the case of professional academics, these constraints include pressure to publish as a single author and a climate that does not encourage researchers to play the role of a community activist or advocate. In addition, professional and ethical issues, such as protecting the anonymity of informants, nondisclosure agreements, and academic research review oversight, inform our experts’ concepts of what data are possible to share. Analysts and practitioners may also have resource constrains, with limited funding available to support collaborations that may not have clearly valuable outcomes for the organization or institution. taxonomy for public interest communications infrastructure

59

Despite these challenges, some professional academics reported that they found it generally possible to share data within the bounds of their professional considerations using tactics like publishing under creative commons licenses. In addition, many indicated that they share data reciprocally with other experts or community partners. Thus, overall, actors are often able to collaborate with each other and communities, even when they are not directly supported by their institutions, although there are still constraints in terms of providing information to the right collaborators in the right form. Minefields of Trust, Privacy, and Security The way that people, as opposed to documents, formed the primary source of information for our community has meant that many people working in public interest broadband spend time negotiating trust, privacy, and security when finding or using broadband information. One of our key findings was that individuals, not data repositories, were one of the most valuable data sources for community information. Most community partners and policy analysts used trusted individuals as data sources rather than documents. The social aspects of collaboration (whether trust is established) are as important as the technical aspects. An analyst said, ‘‘Ideally, I want to talk to the person who is running the network. A lot of times that person is pretty candid. If they see me as an ally, they will talk.’’ An academic said, ‘‘There are trust issues in getting data. This is sensitive information, especially within the current political environment. Communities want to fly under the radar without drawing attention to their ICT development. We’re aware of that tension. We want them to be test cases but may have to wait.’’ Another said, ‘‘It’s not possible to gain knowledge of community-level politics from the outside.’’ Therefore, research and analysis also depend on gaining insider status and being sensitive to potential privacy and security concerns. The resources required to build networks of trusted knowledge can lead to reliance on using the same sources again and again. Funding Collaborations Collaboration is a goal for many people working in public interest broadband, but the material constraints of funding and institutional support remain barriers. As one researcher explained, collaboration doesn’t happen automatically: ‘‘Everyone is talking about comparative research. Community networks share an agenda and some goals and commitments. They are well positioned for comparative research; but they would need embedded researchers in each project to make it work.’’ Financial resources make a big difference, especially to practitioners whose work may be erratically funded by short-term grants. The beneficiaries of funds can configure what part of the information ecology is being developed: academics are well resourced for data gathering and analysis, while think 60

dharma dailey and alison powell

tanks employing policy analysts may be better resourced for dissemination. Despite shared goals and values, the structure of collaboration must be carefully negotiated: ‘‘to share data with other researchers you need to have agreed upon understandings about how to plan the work. You need to do that together. There needs to be trust and reciprocity among the collaborators. The easiest and most secure way to do that is to seek joint funding, but have a clear understanding of the work scope of the project and clear work breakdowns for each collaborator.’’ Getting Good Information All the information seekers that we interviewed reported that attaining sensitive information—particularly financial, technical, or programmatic data, which could be viewed in a negative light— required intensive collaborative means to attain. Yet these are the very data that are most needed to understand the public benefit of these projects. Our interviewees had ample recommendations on how to clear the path to such data: First increase overall funding for social impact research: ‘‘There is far less funding overall to understand how these networks impact people than there is on the technology itself.’’ Leverage resources appropriately to create a healthy collaborative knowledge-sharing environment. This includes longer funding cycles for case studies: ‘‘Using participatory research methods, it takes six months just to get [studies] off the ground. Research cycles should be five years.’’ Case studies should be interdisciplinary. As one interviewee noted, ‘‘A multimethod approach is really important. I’m trying to describe something that’s emergent. You want as many methods as possible.’’ More frequent and informal knowledge sharing with community practitioners is also important. Part of research funding and research design should put knowledge into venues where people are looking for such knowledge. Instead of just creating a new Web site or hub for a project, it is important to consider what venues for sharing information already exist and how those venues are perceived by potential beneficiaries. Umbrella funding for large collaborations was described as the best way to step up more intensive knowledge sharing among academics. However, senior academics also stipulated that collaborative funding works best when each person’s responsibilities are clearly delineated and, when possible, independent. Seasoned academic researchers also saw flaws in funding the academic side of a partnership and not the community partners. Too often, when a community partner is unfunded, work slows or halts. The community partner is unlikely to be able to institutionalize the benefits of having a research partner. Collaborative funding programs like the Necessary Knowledge Program are a step in the right direction, but all partners, including funders, must also accept that collaborative research takes significantly more time and taxonomy for public interest communications infrastructure

61

different skills than noncollaborative research: ‘‘community networks don’t have the resources to incorporate research into their projects, even when it could be helpful to them.’’ In spite of the extra time and expense of collaborative research, the benefits of attaining entire categories of data that are otherwise unattainable as well as the benefit of much more profound knowledge-sharing with practitioners means that collaborative research needs to be taken seriously in academic departments: appropriate funds must be set aside to compensate community partners, as well as researchers. More profoundly, more research projects could be designed with the goal of nourishing collaborations. This is especially important given how many of our participants stated that trust was a major factor in sharing data. Maintaining privacy, security and trust in broadband research also requires effort and perhaps some standards of best practices for collaborative researchers. outcomes Our desired outcomes for this project were connected to the original pragmatic goals of the project: to establish requirements for necessary knowledge about public interest broadband with the eventual goal of building a knowledge-sharing tool. Other expected outcomes were academic publications like this book. As the process continues, we have begun to see the outcomes as part of a longer process of facilitating collaboration and data sharing across public interest sectors. The value of collecting information on work practices of advocates is still emergent—it will increase as new information is developed and shared. Some information is easier to find than others. As we move towards creating a collaborative infrastructure, we can focus on directing users to difficult-to-obtain, need-to-know information. The results of our collaboration do indicate that the process of understanding work practices and data gathering is important for understanding how public interest knowledge is produced. We identified social network analysis as a potentially useful tool to track and quantify relationships between people. For example, at the individual level, network analysis can identify actors who others in the network rely on for particular resources or others who may have too many demands on their time. Making that role explicit helps us see more precisely the value that an individual provides to the system, but also alerts us to the possibility that she or he is overloaded and, therefore, a potential bottleneck. Further, someone at a nodal position linking several social networks can offer enormous value, but that person’s potential temporary or permanent loss (career change, sabbaticals, and health and family issues) could place the whole network at risk. Understanding who plays these key roles and how to support them is an essential part of facilitating collaboration. 62

dharma dailey and alison powell

conclusion Because of the way our project developed, we have two levels of findings: those that address the stated goals of the project to produce requirements for a shared data resource on broadband, and those that address the nature of information and collaboration in public interest research. Our project developed a taxonomy of types of broadband data which categorizes the types of information public interest actors are gathering, analyzing, or seeking. This taxonomy could be the basis for a distributed data management tool that people across our community of practice could use. In addition, we identified some key elements in the information ecology of public interest research. For example, we noticed that policy analysts and professional academics share information using written documents, whereas community practitioners and journalists often use people as resources. Therefore, to get better information to this second group, researchers and information producers should consider delivering more of their results in-person. We also identified a large reliance on trusted sources as means of getting information. While creating trust is always the foundation of effective collaboration, too much reliance on a few trusted people could be problematic. In the process of writing this chapter we also discovered the relationship between trust and expertise: we had to trust one another to pursue directions that individually we might not have taken. This trust was predicated on the knowledge that each of us had complementary expertise that would require time and space to develop. In keeping with the theme of trust that emerged in this study, we emphasize the role of earned trust in our own collaboration. As veterans of several activist-scholar collaborations, we know the strength of our combined efforts can lead to the discovery and application of more grounded, more practical knowledge than neither activists nor scholars can achieve independently. But collaborations across fields are often undermined because team members are uncomfortable relying on individuals with a different set of competencies than their own. This discomfort is hard to avoid, but it can be worked through. Each member of our team, at one point, indicated a polite version of ‘‘I wouldn’t do it that way.’’ The way a team responds to such a statement determines both the quality of the work and the pleasantness of the experience. The greater the gap between our normative work cultures, the more we need to conform on our most professional and most congenial demeanor. We also need to be willing to take a step beyond our own ways of knowing and working. This project was an exploration in applying methodologies most often applied to organizations to the looser sphere of collaborative public interest research. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, what we discovered was that even in this taxonomy for public interest communications infrastructure

63

type of situation, where participants are joined by common goals and often play multiple roles, organizational strategies and structures must be put in place. In many cases, this implies one or more of the collaborators play a mediating, meta role. It also means thinking about how and where information is stored, who needs to know what, what kinds of things different actors actually know, and how to present data in ways that can inform a variety of stakeholders. Sharing knowledge informally within a social network may have the most impact, though one that’s hard to measure. An e-mail or phone call to a community practitioner will likely be more valuable to them than access to your paper online. Face-to-face encounters, such as site visits or attending a convening held by community practitioners, create the most profound knowledge-sharing opportunities between local broadband practitioners and researchers. It is important to consider not only the information needs of the possible beneficiaries of your work, but also how and when they use information. We also learned a great deal about the different kinds of information that is most valuable to all of the people involved in making the case for better public broadband. For example, we learned, through this project, that for many practitioners, research reports are not the vehicles of ideas. Instead, for many in the public interest broadband community, they are more like artifacts that represent specific phases in a project. When we interviewed practitioners about where they gained information, they were more likely to say that they spoke to an individual person. This suggests that in this and perhaps other communities of practice, people are the vehicles of ideas. Therefore, we focused on disseminating the results of this research, not only through distribution of written reports but also through presentations, conversations, and e-mails—or, as one collaborator calls it, ‘‘embodied research results.’’ We had many conversations about this work over several years and many miles. We attempted to think forward to plan how the attributes we collected could be used to get better information to stakeholders at an appropriate time and in an appropriate form. This initial project has created new insights about how communities of practice distribute and use different kinds of information, as well as describing what our community of practice knows, and how we might better manage that information—and the social relationships in which it’s embedded—to advance our shared policy goals. These results also apply to other advocacy and public interest collaborations. In all of these cases, relationships and information-sharing mechanisms need to be constructed to link multiple levels of stakeholders: for example, a small town wanting to build a community broadband network requires information from the state capitol and from Congress regarding the applicable laws that govern broadband deployment and the grants available to support such projects. 64

dharma dailey and alison powell

The community also needs information on the relative cost of different broadband delivery infrastructures and some insight on how, if at all, broadband would influence their community. This information would have to be reasonably up to date, well organized, and available to each such community in a straightforward way. The time is ripe to reflect on how knowledge, information, and collaboration function in the public interest. Public interest work depends on trust and interpersonal relationships. Social network analysis may help to reveal the structure of these relationships of trust, but are there physical systems that can be built to balance these issues of trust and organization? Hopefully, more collaborations will emerge that will help to address these questions and help to improve public interest communications by helping us to better understand and share what we need to know.

references Baller, Jim. 2005. Deceptive Myths About Municipal Ownership. Broadband Properties Magazine, May: 14–17. Bowker, Geoffrey, and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cho, Hanna. 2006. Explorations in Community and Civic Bandwidth: A Case Study in Community Wireless Networking. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ryerson University. Forlano, Laura. 2008. Anytime? Anywhere?: Reframing Debates around Community and Municipal Wireless Networking. Journal of Community Informatics 14 (2). http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/ article/view/438/401 (accessed March 5, 2010). Forlano, Laura, and Dharma Dailey. 2008. Community Wireless Networks as Situated Advocacy: Situated Technologies Pamphlet 3. New York: Architectural Leage of New York. Gillett, Sharon. 2006. Municipal Wireless Broadband: Hype or Harbinger? Southern California Law Review 79: 561–94. McChesney, Robert. 2007. Communication Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of Media. New York: New Press. Mitchell, Christopher. 2007. Burlington Telecom Case Study. In The Information Sector: Democratizing access to the airwaves and the wires. Minneapolis, MN: Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Nardi, Bonnie, and Vicki O’Day. 1996. Information Ecologies: Using Technoloy with Heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Oritz, Julio Angel, and Andrea Tapia. 2008. Keeping Promises: The Struggle to Narrow the Digital Divide with Municipal-Community Wireless Networks. Journal of Community Informatics 4 (1). http://cijournal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/436/400 (accessed March 4, 2010). taxonomy for public interest communications infrastructure

65

Powell, Alison. 2008. Co-Productions of Technology, Culture and Policy in North America’s Community Wireless Networking Movement. Unpublished PhD diss., Concordia University. Tapia, Andrea, Carleen Maitland, and Matt Stone. 2006. Making It Work for Municipalities: Building Municipal Wireless Networks. Government Information Quarterly 23 (3–4):359 –380. Tapia, Andrea, and Julio Angel Oritz. 2006. Municipal Responses to StateLevel Broadband Internet Policy. October, 2006. Paper presented at the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Arlington, VA. Vos, Esme. 2007. Muniwireless City Initiatives Directory. http://www .muniwireless.com/initiatives/city-initiatives (accessed July 19, 2009).

66

dharma dailey and alison powell

CHAPTER 4

Big Media, Little Kids The Impact of Ownership Concentration on the Availability of Television Programming for Children katharine e. heintz and christina romano glaubke Television has an extraordinarily powerful influence on children’s lives. Virtually all U.S. children watch television before their first exposure to formal education, and once they are in school children spend an average of three hours a day watching television (Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 2005). While there is significant concern about the harmful effects of television exposure on children, watching developmentally appropriate educational programming has been shown to play a constructive role in children’s cognitive development. Research has shown that viewing quality educational television programming can positively affect children’s school readiness and success (Wright et al. 2001; Zill 2001). Children benefit from having a range of diverse television programming options from which to choose. The greater the number of children’s programs or series offered in a market the more likely children from different age groups, with different interests and different learning styles, will be able to find programs that are appealing to them and meet their developmental needs. While some argue that cable and satellite television provide a plethora of choice, such programming is not available to almost one in five children in this country (Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 2005). Thus, the availability and diversity of programming for children on commercial broadcast stations is of significant concern.

policy background According to the Communications Act of 1934, broadcasters are required to act in the ‘‘public interest, convenience and necessity’’ in return for the free 71

use of the publicly owned airwaves. Recognizing the potential of television to support children’s educational development, both the U.S. Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have affirmed that children are a unique audience that merits special consideration and protection. In 1990, Congress passed the Children’s Television Act (CTA), which in part requires broadcast television stations, as a condition of licensing, to air educational/informational (E/I) programming that serves the distinct needs of children. However, many advocates who had helped ensure passage of the Act were disappointed in the implementation. For example, broadcasters aired as little as thirty minutes of E/I programs per week, and, under the guidelines, many networks reported shows such as The Jetsons and Leave It to Beaver as ‘‘educational.’’ Further, many programs were scheduled at times when few children were likely to be watching or were preempted due to sports programming (Center for Media Education 1997). To address these concerns, the FCC adopted more specific guidelines to quantify and clarify broadcasters’ obligations to children, including a standard for each station to air a minimum of three hours per week of E/I programming for children (FCC 1996). Thus, the programming provided for children, especially the quantity and quality of children’s educational programming, is one of only a handful of ways that citizens can measure broadcasters’ commitment to serve the public interest. In 2002, the FCC opened a rulemaking proceeding as part of its mandated, biennial (now quadrennial) review of broadcast media ownership rules. Among other things, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) indicated that the FCC would be considering whether or not to remove restrictions on the number of television stations one company is allowed to own in a single market. After holding one public hearing in Richmond, Virginia, and receiving hundreds of thousands of comments from citizens and groups opposed to such deregulation, the FCC, on June 2, 2003, voted 3-2 to relax the ownership limits and allow media companies to own a greater number of television stations both across the country and within local markets. While previous regulations restricted a single entity from owning more than one broadcast television station in a market, the new regulations opened the door for the formation of duopolies (two stations in the same market owned by the same parent company) and triopolies (three stations in the same market owned by the same parent company). However, in June 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded the new rules and ordered the FCC to better justify their rationale for the new ownership limits (Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC 2004). A Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was then issued by the FCC in July 2006 in order to solicit comments or evidence that would either justify loosening the rules or give reason to restrict the establishment of duopolies 72

katharine e. heintz and christina romano glaubke

and triopolies. Unlike four years earlier, the FCC specifically asked for evidence of how children are affected by media consolidation. In comments filed with the FCC, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) encouraged the FCC to allow duopolies in markets across the country, arguing that they are ‘‘necessary to preserve and enhance television broadcasters’ ability to serve their viewers and communities in markets of all sizes’’ (National Association of Broadcasters 2006, vi). The project described in this chapter was designed to test the NAB’s claim that duopolies are necessary for stations to serve the public interest and to help inform the FCC’s decision by providing evidence of the effect of duopolies and triopolies on the quantity of children’s programming.

advocacy background The goal of the Children & the Media Program at Children Now is to improve the messages that children receive from the media through public policy development, independent research and outreach to media industry leaders. The program commissions independent research that makes a unique contribution to the body of knowledge about the relationship between children and media, and examines these research findings in a collaborative dialogue with key media and policy leaders. In the absence of voluntary action on the part of the media industries, Children Now advocates for national policies that will ensure a positive and healthy media environment for all children. Children Now has been concerned about the impact of media consolidation on children’s programming since 2002, when the FCC opened a review proceeding to analyze its broadcast ownership rules. To date, efforts to inform and influence the FCC have included: organizing a coalition of advocates to advance children’s media policy issues; conducting two studies to examine the impact of media consolidation on children’s programming; submitting extensive comments to the FCC on media ownership and digital television; holding individual meetings with the five FCC Commissioners and testifying at FCC public hearings in Monterey, California (2004), Portland, Maine (2007) and Seattle, Washington (2007); and conducting extensive outreach on Capitol Hill. In order to inform the FCC’s rulemaking, Children Now, in 2003, conducted the first-ever study to examine the impact of media consolidation on children’s television programming. The report—Big Media, Little Kids— compared the children’s programming schedules in Los Angeles from 1998, when the market’s seven major commercial broadcast television stations were owned by seven different companies, to 2003, after consolidation reduced the number of owners to five. the impact of ownership concentration

73

The findings suggested that media consolidation had a serious negative impact on the availability and diversity of children’s programming. Overall, the study found that there were fewer children’s series and fewer broadcast hours in Los Angeles in 2003, compared to five years earlier. Most of the declines in children’s programming were found in stations that were part of duopolies. In addition, the study found that children’s programs were four times more likely to be repurposed, or aired on more than one channel or network, than in 1998. Most of the repurposing occurred between outlets that were owned by the same media companies. The findings left little doubt that media consolidation diminishes the availability and diversity of programs for children (Children Now 2003). Based on these findings, Children Now submitted comments to the FCC on the Commission’s proposed changes to media ownership regulations. In their comments, Children Now argued that the Commission has a public interest obligation to evaluate the consequences its decisions will have on the child audience, particularly in the areas of diversity, competition, and localism. They suggested that the findings of the study demonstrated that media consolidation diminishes source diversity for the child audience and recommended to the FCC that ownership rules remain in place to ensure sufficient original programming for children. They voiced concern that relaxation of the ownership rules will reduce competition, stifling innovation and increasing commercialism in children’s programming. As children are particularly vulnerable to the influences of commercialism, they argued that the Commission must consider the effects of consolidation on advertising aimed at children, as well as on the content of children’s programs. Furthermore, Children Now argued that the FCC must promote local programming to support children’s healthy development. Research indicates that media consolidation diminishes the amount of locally produced programming. Yet, locally produced news, public affairs, and educational programming enhance the education and civic engagement of children. Moreover, sufficient local news programming is essential to create adequate viewpoint diversity for adults about critical children’s issues. Finally, Children Now suggested that the Commission consider how changes to ownership rules will affect the children’s market in the impending digital convergence. America’s children are at risk of being ignored amidst unprecedented technological innovations and endless commercial opportunities. They urged the Commission to ensure that there is sufficient local programming available on digital television to meet children’s needs. Children Now, representing the Children’s Media Policy Coalition, was the only group to focus on the distinctive needs of children in the media ownership rulemaking. In the current industry-focused media environment, 74

katharine e. heintz and christina romano glaubke

Children Now provided an important and unique voice, reminding the FCC of their public interest obligations to America’s children. This voice did not go unheeded. When the FCC issued their rulemaking on June 2, 2003, they adopted one of Children Now’s recommendations and inserted the only public interest provision to protect educational programming for children. The provision prohibits companies that own multiple stations in one media market from re-airing the same educational programming across their stations and have it count towards their requirement under the Children’s Television Act (FCC 2003). When the FCC announced plans to re-examine parts of its 2002 rulemaking, Children Now decided to update the earlier study. With support from the SSRC and the Otto Haas Charitable Trust, Children Now partnered with Katharine Heintz to conduct Big Media, Little Kids 2. methodology Big Media, Little Kids 2 examined the children’s programming schedules for each of the commercial broadcast stations in eight markets in the United States for the first full week of March in 1998 and 2006. Markets were selected in order to provide a sampling from different geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) and a variety of different market sizes (ranging in size from Chicago, the third-largest U.S. market, to El Paso, the ninety-ninth–largest market). Of the eight markets included in the study, six had at least one pair of commonly owned stations, or duopolies; one market, Nashville, contained a triopoly; and one market, Atlanta, did not have any commonly owned stations. In all, seventy-two stations were included in this study, twenty-one of which were part of duopolies or triopolies in 2006. Although this is a case study and does not purport to be representative of all U.S. markets, the sample includes over one-quarter of all the broadcast TV station duopolies in the nation. In addition, we captured about onefifteenth of the nonduopolies in duopoly markets (duopolies are restricted to a subset of larger markets, so not all markets are free to allow duopoly ownership). The week in March was chosen to represent typical (nonsweeps, nonholiday, nonmajor sporting event) scheduling. In both years, early rounds of the NCAA basketball play-offs were held during the sample week, so it is likely that the timing of the children’s programs on CBS affiliate stations were impacted by the basketball schedule, although most of these stations aired a full complement of their children’s offerings. Children’s programs were defined as shows meeting at least one of the following criteria: the impact of ownership concentration

75

They were listed in TV Guide with a TV-Y or TV-Y7 rating. They were listed in TV Guide with an E/I designation. They were listed in a station’s Federal Communications Commission Children’s Television Programming Report (Form 398). Each program episode that met the selection criteria was included in the analysis. Repurposing information was collected by checking each market’s TV Guide for the appropriate week. Programs airing on more than one channel widely available in the markets (broadcast or cable) during the sample week were determined to be repurposed. All data were collected, coded, and analyzed by Heintz, co-author of this chapter. To ensure reliability, all of the programs for one market (Indianapolis, IN) were coded by one other trained coder. The percent of agreement between coders was calculated. All of the variables included in this analysis received a level of agreement of at least 95 percent. The data were analyzed to determine whether changes in the number of children’s programs, hours of children’s programs, available program hours, and amount of repurposing were significant. Using chi square tests, ANOVA, and t-tests, data were analyzed on a macro level to assess changes in programming across all markets and on a micro level to assess changes in programming within individual markets. All significant differences are identified in the results. results The number of unique television programs or series offered to children on commercial broadcast stations is a useful indicator of how well the broadcasters in a market are serving the public interest. In addition, since broadcasters are obliged to air a minimum of three hours of children’s E/I programs each week, and since some broadcasters schedule the same programs multiple times in one week, another valuable gauge is the number of hours of children’s programming that are broadcast. Therefore, the following analyses look at both the entire children’s program offerings and the E/I programs in terms of the number of children’s program hours broadcast per week and the number of children’s programs or series. Number of Children’s Programs Between 1998 and 2006, the total number of children’s programs available in the eight broadcast markets dropped by more than one third. In 1998, there were 786 programs available to children in the eight markets studied. By 2006, there were only 506, representing a 36 percent decline in the number of programs available to children. All of the markets studied showed decreases, with the rates of decline ranging from 23 percent in Nashville to 47 percent in El Paso. 76

katharine e. heintz and christina romano glaubke

Overall, there was just a slight decrease in the number of E/I programs available in the eight markets from 1998–2006. In 1998, 416 programs were identified by stations as E/I; in 2006, that number dropped just 2 percent to 406. While this small of a drop might seem laudable given the much larger decrease in total number of programs, it is important to remember that stations are mandated to air a minimum number of hours of E/I programming. Even providing the bare minimum three hours of E/I programming offers stations the opportunity to air six unique series; however, in 2006 the average number of E/I programs aired by stations in the sample was 5.6, indicating that program duplication was common. In fact, in 2006, stations averaged four hours of E/I programming weekly, but program duplication accounted for over 40 percent of that time. Overall, on average, duopoly stations reduced the number of children’s programs over five times as much as non-duopoly stations. From 1998 to 2006, on average, duopoly stations dropped over ten children’s programs (1998 average: 16.8; 2006 average: 6.6) whereas non-duopoly stations reduced the number of available programs by two (1998 average: 9.4; 2006 average: 7.1). Duopoly stations eliminated more than ten times as many children’s educational series as did non-duopoly stations. Program diversity was lacking in the E/I shows offered to children on all stations, but duopolies significantly reduced their E/I series more than did non-duopolies (22 percent compared to 2 percent). In 1998, stations that became part of duopolies aired approximately five E/I programs per week, while independently owned stations aired approximately six E/I programs each week. By 2006, duopoly stations aired four E/I series weekly, while non-duopoly stations still featured about six unique E/I series each week. Hours of Programming In 1998, children’s programming was available on weekday mornings and afternoons, and on weekends. By 2006, broadcasters in the eight markets were mostly airing programming for kids on Saturday mornings. Over the eight-year period, commercial broadcast stations substantially decreased the number of hours devoted to children’s programs each week; yet duopoly stations reduced these program hours considerably more than non-duopoly stations. From 1998 to 2006, the number of hours each week of children’s programming decreased by 55 percent. In 1998, there were 812 weekly hours devoted to children’s programming across the eight broadcast markets. By 2006, this number decreased dramatically to 366.5 hours per week. Decreases in program hours were identified in all eight markets. the impact of ownership concentration

77

25

1998

20

2006 15

10

5

0

I D Program hours

I

D Programs

I = Independent/Non-Duopoly stations

figure 4-1.

I D E/I Hours

I D E/I Programs

D = Duopoly stations

Average weekly programming changes 1998–2006

Duopoly stations reduced their hours of children’s programming over three times as much as non-duopoly stations. In 1998, before they became commonly owned, many stations aired close to twenty hours per week of children’s programming. Eight years later, after becoming part of duopolies, these stations reduced their hours of children’s programming by fourteen hours, amounting to an average of less than six hours per week. By comparison, non-duopoly stations reduced children’s programming by three and a half hours. Duopoly stations made significantly greater reductions to their educational program offerings than did non-duopoly stations. Across all eight markets, stations on average provided little more than the minimum three hours of educational programming required by the FCC. Although all stations averaged just four hours per week of E/I programs in 2006, duopoly stations decreased their weekly hours of educational programming by nearly two hours (a 32 percent decrease), two and a half times more than the forty-five minutes (18 percent decrease) cut from non-duopoly stations’ educational offerings. Duopolies in Individual Markets If the proponents of duopolies are correct that duopolies are ‘‘necessary to preserve and enhance television broadcasters’ ability to serve their viewers and communities in markets of all sizes’’ 78

katharine e. heintz and christina romano glaubke

(National Association of Broadcasters 2006, vi), we would expect to find that the decreases in children’s programming at duopoly stations would be less than the decreases at non-duopoly stations. However, that is not the pattern we found at all. To gain a better understanding of how the formation of duopolies affected children’s programming in individual markets, we conducted a market-by-market comparison of duopoly and non-duopoly stations’ changes in the hours of programming and number of series between 1998 and 2006 for the seven markets that have both types of stations. Contrary to broadcasters’ claims, there were no instances in which the duopoly stations had smaller decreases in their children’s programming than did non-duopoly stations (see Table 4-1). In every comparison, duopoly stations either reduced their children’s programming more or performed the same as non-duopoly stations. There were no instances in which duopoly stations performed better than nonduopoly stations. Four of the seven sample markets (El Paso, Indianapolis, Nashville, and Portland-Auburn) showed significant negative effects of duopolies. These results are especially striking in Nashville and PortlandAuburn, where duopoly stations decreased their children’s programming more than did non-duopoly stations in nearly every category. In three of the seven markets (Buffalo, Chicago, and Spokane), there were no significant

table 4-1 䡠 comparisons of decreases in children’s programming (1998/2006) Hours of Programming Market

All Shows

Educational Only

Number of Series All Shows

Educational Only

Buffalo Chicago El Paso

*

Indianapolis

***

Nashville

***

Portland-Auburn

**

*** **

***

*

**

*

***

*

Spokane All Markets

***

**

* p ⬍ .10, ** p ⬍ .05, *** p ⬍ .01 ⳱ Duopoly stations had significantly greater decreases in children’s programming than nonduopoly stations. ⳱ Differences between duopoly and non-duopoly stations were not statistically significant.

the impact of ownership concentration

79

differences in the performances of duopoly and non-duopoly stations. This finding directly contradicted the NAB’s claim that duopolies allow broadcasters to better serve the public interest. Current Levels of Programming The focus of this analysis so far has been on investigating broadcasters’ claim that the formation of duopoly stations allows owners to better serve their audiences by looking at the changes in children’s programming from 1998 to 2006. The analyses have made it clear that, where there are differences between duopoly and non-duopoly stations, it is the duopoly stations that have decreased their programming the most over time. But what about differences in the actual amount of children’s programming that is being offered on duopoly and non-duopoly stations? Does the duopoly ownership arrangement, as the NAB claims, enhance broadcasters’ ability to serve their communities? As Table 4-2 illustrates, in 1998, the stations that were to be drawn into duopolies were broadcasting much more children’s programming than were the stations that did not become duopolies. As our previous analyses have shown, the duopoly stations then suffered much larger decreases in children’s programming over the following eight years. Those cuts to children’s programming resulted in there being little difference between the children’s program offerings of duopoly and non-duopoly stations in 2006.

table 4-2 䡠 comparisons of children’s program offerings (1998/2006) 1998 Hours

Series

Market

All

E/I

All

Buffalo

**

*

**

E/I

2006 Hours All

E/I

*

Series All

E/I

*

**

Chicago El Paso

**

Indianapolis

***

Nashville

***

Portland-Auburn

**

** **

*

** *

**

***

**

Spokane All Markets

***

*

* p ⬍ .10, ** p ⬍ .05, *** p ⬍ .01 ⳱ Duopoly stations offered less children’s programming than did non-duopoly stations. ⳱ Duopoly stations offered more children’s programming than did non-duopoly stations. ⳱ Differences between duopoly and non-duopoly stations were not statistically significant.

80

katharine e. heintz and christina romano glaubke

After the severe cuts to children’s programming that resulted when highperforming stations became part of duopolies, there is virtually no difference in the children’s programming offerings of duopoly and non-duopoly stations in 2006. In 1998, ten of the twenty-eight individual market comparisons revealed that stations that would become part of duopolies had more children’s programming than the other stations in the same market. There were only two cases in which the soon-to-be duopoly stations broadcast less children’s programming than the other stations in the same market; in Chicago and Indianapolis, soon-to-be-duopoly stations broadcast fewer educational series than did the non-duopoly stations. By 2006, due to the sharp decreases in children’s programming on duopoly stations, the picture changed dramatically. Buffalo was the only market in which duopolies offered more children’s programming than non-duopoly stations. Duopolies were found to broadcast fewer children’s programs than the non-duopoly stations in two comparisons—the number of E/I series aired in El Paso and Portland-Auburn. Thus, by 2006 there was virtually no difference in the quantity of children’s programming aired on duopoly and non-duopoly stations. This finding, together with the previous results showing greater declines in children’s programming on duopoly stations, disproves the NAB’s claim that the formation of duopolies is necessary to preserve and enhance broadcasters’ abilities to serve their communities.

reflections on the collaborative experience Katharine: My relationship with Children Now began in the early 1990s and I have worked with a number of different heads of the Children and the Media Program in that time. I have primarily worked with them on content analysis projects where I lead a team of researchers in a close examination of entertainment media—television programs, movies, music videos, video games—but have also examined print news coverage of welfare reform. The ownership analysis described here is a unique type of study, and one that allowed for a new type of collaboration. One of the exciting things about collaborative research with the advocacy community is the clear sense, from the inception, of the real, tangible importance of the results. Whatever the outcome, it is understood from the beginning that the findings will be disseminated to organizations that can apply them in real-world contexts. For example, the content analysis projects I conducted were used as a springboard for discussions with media creators about the diversity represented in the mediated world where children spend so much of their time. Interesting, and often heated, discussions resulted from these meetings. Sometimes it felt like a battleground, but a the impact of ownership concentration

81

welcome change from most academic discussions where we are often ‘‘preaching to the choir.’’ What academic doesn’t already agree that investing in children is worth a reduction in profit? This is not to say that discussions were always fruitful, or even cordial, but they happened. And I’m quite sure that they wouldn’t have—or I wouldn’t have been a part of them—if it weren’t for the partnership developed between me and Children Now. I have no illusions that I would have sat at the table with heads of ABC Entertainment, Nickelodeon, or the WB Network to discuss the role of media in the lives of children if it had not been for this collaboration. After all, industry folks don’t pick up the Journal of Communication. The collaborative process is not without its challenges, however. One of the most challenging—and exciting—parts of the process is the research design. In my experience, the project idea has always come from Children Now, and it is my job to translate their practical issues and concerns into a workable project that fulfills the requirements of academic research. In our initial discussions, we lay out the primary issues and concerns that motivate the desire for this project and we talk about what the organization hopes to accomplish with the results. One important step in the collaboration process is to speak the same language. For example, if the advocates want to talk about the occurrence of a particular behavior—such as alcohol use, sexual behavior, or verbal aggression—it is possible to talk about the number and types of programs that contain this type of behavior, the amount of time devoted to this type of behavior, the number and types of characters who engage in the behavior—and I need to know whether to designate the unit of analysis as program, behavior, or character. So the research design process often involves a great deal of translation between us to make sure that I thoroughly understand the advocacy aims and goals and then translate those accurately into precise, quantifiable research concepts. Sometimes the translation of the advocates’ needs into a researchable design is not easy. It is not unusual for advocates to want to speak in abstractions, but content analysis research needs to be very specific. So one of the challenges in the initial research design is for the advocate and the academic to come to a very clear understanding of what is to be studied. Take, for example, the first project I did with Children Now, which occurred in the same year that then U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett released his Children’s Book of Virtues and ignited a national discussion of children’s morality and family values. Bennett chastised the media for ‘‘fraying our social fabric,’’ and suggested that our children have suffered from a culture that has ‘‘become increasingly coarse’’ (The Forerunner 2008). I was approached by Vicky Rideout from Children Now who was 82

katharine e. heintz and christina romano glaubke

interested in seeing what kinds of role models television presented to children. They were interested in an analysis of the values of the children on television. Interesting, yes. Exciting, yes. Unbelievably difficult, yes. You cannot ask television characters about their values, so how do you know what they value? With the content analysis method, all coding requires observation, but how do you observe a value? After lengthy discussions and mining of the literature, we finally decided that people display their values through their behaviors, and that how they spend their time indicates what they value. Although it was impossible to ask a TV character what he or she values, it was possible to identify if the character was shown in a particular setting and how the character behaved in the setting. For example, if a character was shown at home with family and was actively and willingly participating in the preparation of a family meal, we might argue that this indicates the character values his or her family. If the character is shown working hard in an employment situation, we can argue that this illustrates the character’s attitude toward work. In short, I was able to conduct a research project with precise academic integrity that also addressed the more abstract concern that Children Now wanted to address. Another challenge with the collaboration between academics and advocates is the time frame in which we both work. Academic research tends to be a relatively slow, time-consuming process with results that are expected to have some longevity; advocates, on the other hand, often address issues of current social or policy concern and need quick turnaround. Pretesting instruments, obtaining inter-coder reliability, and conducting lengthy literature searches require time that is often not available to advocates. Shortcuts have to be made that allow the project to be done in a timely fashion. With this project, we were working against the FCC’s deadline for the submission of comments. We were required to pare down the amount of information we gathered about the stations and programs in order to be able to get all the necessary data collected on time. As it was, we ran into a snag obtaining program schedules, which we assumed was going to be as simple as going online or visiting the public libraries in the chosen markets, to examine back issues of TV Guide. What we discovered was that publicly available back issues contained national not local schedules, so we had no way of knowing what the local stations programmed for children in 1998. Children Now ended up purchasing the information (another perk of the partnership, because most academics can’t afford to do so on their own) in order for the project to move forward. Once the research design is completed and the content collected, then we really work separately. Children Now works on strategy for the release of the report, and I conduct the research. This separation allows us both to the impact of ownership concentration

83

maintain the integrity of our positions. As an independent academic researcher, I conduct a rigorous content analysis; as advocates, they plan strategy. In the end, I write a report of all results, with an academic interpretation of the findings. They take those findings and fashion a report for distribution to identified parties. I have always been invited to read their reports and check for the accuracy of their interpretations, although I do not write the advocacy piece for them. The situation is mutually beneficial as I can stand behind the objective nature of the research findings, and Children Now can point to ways this evidence can be used in the service of children. I find this type of collaborative research to be very exciting, challenging, and so worthwhile. I am able to participate in nonacademic forums, but also publish this work in academic publications. And it is invaluable in the classroom. To be able to provide concrete examples of the usefulness and power of the research methods students grumble about is an enormously effective teaching tool. Christina: The goal of the Children & the Media Program at Children Now is to help create a healthy media environment for all children. To achieve this goal, we engage with media executives to encourage proactive, voluntary changes to industry practices; advocate for federal media policies that support and protect children; and conduct groundbreaking research that helps define the issues and identify the potential solutions. This three-pronged approach has proven very successful over the years and has resulted in Children Now securing many important victories for children, including the Children’s Television Act, the V-chip and television ratings system, the creation of more diverse children’s television programming, and digital television rules that protect children from excessive advertising and ensure access to educational programming in the digital age. Many of these successes would not have been possible without the research that we conducted in collaboration with leading children’s media researchers. Such partnerships are fairly unique to the field, but incredibly valuable to Children Now’s advocacy objectives. Working with academics lends credibility to our research, which might otherwise be dismissed as biased or unscientific. This credibility gives Children Now a strong foundation from which to approach industry executives, policy makers, or journalists about the problems we have identified and our recommendations for change. While other advocacy organizations do release research studies, they often are conducted by staff members in-house without much methodology or scientific process, and their findings usually are dismissed by the industry and policy makers. However, the target audiences for Children Now’s research seem to pay quite a bit of attention to the findings and to be willing 84

katharine e. heintz and christina romano glaubke

to engage in discussions about Children Now’s recommendations, in large part because the research has been conducted by respected academics in the field. The collaboration with academics, and the advocacy victories that have followed, have also elevated the stature of Children Now in the eyes of policy makers, industry executives, and journalists. Children Now is seen as a resource by those groups that we hope to influence with our advocacy work. Media creators seek Children Now’s advice on their program content; policy makers often ask for insight or recommendations on proposed policies and invite Children Now to testify at hearings on media topics; and journalists see us as one of the few go-to groups for stories on children’s media. Having that type of distinction is invaluable to an advocacy group like Children Now. Finally, research has allowed Children Now to frame some of the public debate in ways that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. For example, armed with the results of Children Now’s Big Media, Little Kids studies, many of the organizations, and even some of the FCC Commissioners who were trying to prevent further media consolidation, became interested in focusing their arguments more on the effects on children. The studies provided evidence that one group of people who are supposed to be protected by the FCC was not going to be served by deregulation. It therefore became very easy for others to use the need to protect children, rather than diversity of viewpoints, as one of the main reasons to maintain stricter ownership rules. As Katharine stated, the partnerships aren’t without challenges. Academics hold Children Now to very high scientific standards, which can often take the wind out of our advocacy sails. The research is never designed in order to prove an agenda and findings are never twisted to be more sensational or dramatic than the data indicate, something that can be hard to accept when you’re trying to fight for a cause. It can also be very difficult to temper the rhetoric in the research reports in order to maintain the scientific integrity of a study. For example, Children Now will never claim in a report that broadcasters are required to air only three hours each week of educational programming or that duopoly stations have miserably failed in their efforts to adequately serve their young audiences—things that we would often love to say. While we can save that language for our press releases, we simply cannot allow our research studies to be colored by our advocacy agenda. Despite these challenges, collaboration with academics is a vital component of Children Now’s advocacy strategy. The benefits of these partnerships cannot be understated. the impact of ownership concentration

85

conclusion Television broadcasters have argued to the FCC that the formation of duopolies is in the public interest as it enables broadcasters to better serve the communities in which they operate. If this is true, then we could expect that after a station becomes part of a duopoly the decreases in children’s programming on that station would be less than the decreases found on non-duopoly stations. We found the opposite to be the case. In fact, we found that the duopoly stations in our sample on average reduced the number of children’s programs over five times more than did non-duopoly stations and reduced their hours of children’s programming over three times more than did non-duopoly stations. Furthermore, we found that Nashville, the one market with a triopoly, showed the greatest differences in programming decreases between the commonly owned and single-owned stations. If the broadcasters’ claims are true, we could also expect that duopoly stations would offer more children’s programs and more hours of children’s programming than would non-duopoly stations. Instead, we found that the quantity of children’s programming on duopoly stations was, on the whole, statistically the same as that offered on non-duopoly stations. The formation of duopolies did not enhance broadcasters’ abilities to serve their child audiences. This study clearly demonstrates that the child audience is not better served by duopoly stations than non-duopoly stations. Contrary to the NAB’s claims, concentration of television station ownership within markets does not improve a station’s public service to the children in that market. Instead, this analysis suggests such concentration of ownership has a clear, negative impact on programming for children. In conclusion, Children Now asked that the FCC consider the impact that media consolidation would have on the youngest consumers of media and prioritize the developmental needs of children above the financial needs of media corporations. Children Now recommended that the FCC protect children’s interests by maintaining the existing media ownership rules and not allowing further media consolidation, specifically the formation of duopolies and triopolies. The study itself was met with great enthusiasm by both the advocacy community and some of the FCC commissioners. Children Now was asked to testify at two of the six FCC hearings to present our research and received national press coverage of the research. In December 2007, the FCC adopted the new media ownership rules which did not attempt to justify the deregulation proposed in their 2003 ruling as ordered by the court of appeals. Although restrictions on television/newspaper ownership were 86

katharine e. heintz and christina romano glaubke

lifted, national and local ownership limits were not. Though it was not credited to our research efforts, the end result was what Children Now was advocating for.

references Federal Communications Commission. 2003. Report and order and notice of proposed rulemaking. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ attachmatch/FCC-03-127A1.pdf (accessed March 4, 2010). The Forerunner. 2008. Remarks by William Bennett. April 2008. http:// www.forerunner.com/forerunner/ X0407_Remarks_by_William_B.html (accessed August 28, 2009). Glaubke, Christina R., and Patti Miller. 2003. Big media, little kids: Media consolidation and children’s television programming. Research report prepared for Children Now. National Association of Broadcasters. 2006. Media ownership comments. FCC Docket No. MB-06-121. October 23. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/ document/view?id⳱6518532946 (accessed June 9, 2010). Prometheus Radio Project vs. FCC. 2004. http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/ documents/opinions/2004/03-3388-062404.pdf (accessed May 12, 2010). Roberts, Donald F., Ulla G. Foehr, and Victoria Rideout. 2005. Generation M: Media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds. Research report for the Kaiser Family Foundation. Wright, John C., Aletha C. Huston, Ronda M. Scantlin, and Jennifer A. Kotler. 2001. The Early Window project: Sesame Street prepares children for school. In ‘‘G’’ is for ‘‘Growing’’: Thirty Years of Research on Sesame Street, eds. S. Fisch and R. Truglio, 97–114. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Zill, Nicholas. 2001. Does Sesame Street enhance school readiness? Evidence from a national survey of children. ‘‘G’’ is for ‘‘Growing’’: Thirty Years of Research on Sesame Street, eds. S. Fisch and R. Truglio, 115–130. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

the impact of ownership concentration

87

CHAPTER 5

Minority Commercial Radio Ownership Assessing FCC Licensing and Consolidation Policies catherine j.k. sandoval

This study examines more than 11,000 records from the Consolidated Database System (CDBS) at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as Internet sources on radio ownership and program formats in mid2009 to analyze the effect of FCC licensing and multiple ownership policies on minority ownership of commercial radio stations, program diversification, and service to the American public.1 This analysis is timely and important as the FCC prepares for its quadrennial review of broadcasting rules in 2010, mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [§202(h)]. Analyzing media ownership is critical because ‘‘[i]t is upon ownership that public policy places primarily reliance with respect to diversification of content, and that has proven to be significantly influential with respect to editorial comment and the presentation of news’’ (TV9 1994, 938). During an era marked by the expansion of the Internet, radio ownership merits study as a key source of news, public affairs, and entertainment programming. Arbitron, a service that tracks radio and other media trends, reported that in 2008 over 90 percent of all Americans over age 12 listened to the radio each week, exceeding the penetration of ‘‘television, magazines, newspapers or the Internet’’ (Arbitron 2009a, 2). While Internet use is increasing, not all households have Internet access or even a computer (Fox 2008; Kolko 2007). Pew reported that in 2008, 73 percent of all Americans went online, compared to 59 percent of African-Americans and 32 percent of Spanish-dominant Americans (Fox 2008). Internet access has been persistently lower for people without a high school degree or those with incomes under $30,000 (Fox 2008). Free radio programming through inexpensive 88

and readily available radios continues to shape public opinion, debate, and democracy in the digital age. This study analyzes data about media ownership diversity, a cornerstone of FCC policies to ensure that the broadcast spectrum serves the public interest (CBS. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm. 1973; FCC v. League of Women Voters 1984; National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. United States 1943). This report identifies minority commercial radio broadcasters, examines their corporate structures and the stations they control, illuminates the role of FCC licensing and consolidation policies on minority ownership entry, and confirms that minority radio owners contribute in huge numbers to program diversity. This study was launched through a grant from the Social Science Research Council as a foundational step for a project by Assistant Professor of Law Catherine Sandoval and Professor Allen Hammond, IV, both of Santa Clara University School of Law, in conjunction with the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC), to research minority radio ownership. The research team recognized that the first hurdle was identifying minority radio broadcasters. Thanks to the cooperation between MMTC and Free Press, the researchers received information on the radio stations Free Press identified in mid-2007 as minority owned for its report, ‘‘Off the Dial: Female and Minority Radio Ownership in the United States, How FCC Policy and Media Consolidation Diminished Diversity on the Public Airwaves, Review of Current Status and Comparative Statistical Analysis’’ (Turner 2007). Dr. Carolyn Byerly also provided information on the stations she identified as minority owned in her study, ‘‘Questioning Media Access, Analysis of FCC Women and Minority Ownership’’ (Byerly 2007). To identify current minority radio owners and examine issues and policies affecting minority ownership in the midst of the 2008–2009 economic downturn, Professor Sandoval extracted and analyzed FCC data and information on the Internet about the minority broadcasters’ identity, structure, station status, entry dates, markets, and formats. This report adds to the literature by studying the FCC’s Application database as a source and methodology for identifying broadcast trends. Close examination of the FCC’s Application database revealed the growing number of minority radio broadcasters, who have transferred their stations due to bankruptcy, liquidation, workouts with lenders, or whose stations are silent for financial reasons. This analysis revealed many problems with the FCC’s methods for collecting and reporting broadcaster information. The FCC datasets create barriers to analysis, particularly for longitudinal studies or efforts to analyze trends within or among large groups of broadcasters. The FCC databases are so cumbersome that the Commission itself does not rely on the agency’s minority commercial radio ownership

89

databases for rulemaking, turning instead to private sources that put that same data in a format more conducive to analysis (Napoli 2008; Napoli and Karaganis 2008). This practice conflicts with the FCC’s duties under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Data Quality Act (DQA) to ensure that rulemaking is based on reasoned and discernable analysis (Napoli and Karaganis 2008). According to the FCC’s CDBS records in mid-2009, 324 minority owners control 815 commercial radio stations. Of the 324 minority commercial radio owners, 53 percent (172) were awarded their first license among the radio station licenses they still control, prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1996 Act ended the restrictions on the number of stations a corporation could control nationally and dramatically raised the number of stations that could be under common control in a local market. Despite industry-wide consolidation, 61 percent (198) of minority commercial radio owners in mid-2009 control only one station. The predominance of single-station owners made it difficult to withstand the market’s sea change in the wake of the 1996 Act, which opened the floodgates of consolidation. A handful of minority owners were positioned for expansion after the 1996 Act, although they formed smaller station groups than the dominant broadcasters in the industry. In mid-2009, only fourteen minority broadcasters control ten or more commercial radio stations, while only three minority-owned companies control twenty-five or more stations. This research provides fresh evidence of the nexus between minority commercial radio ownership, diversity, and service in the public interest. Minority radio broadcasters overwhelmingly contribute to the diversity of American radio programming by airing minority-oriented formats: 72.5 percent (591) of the 815 minority-owned commercial radio stations air minority-oriented formats. If the twenty-four silent minority-owned stations are eliminated, 74.7 percent of the minority broadcasters offering programming in mid-2009 air minority-oriented programming. The FCC reported that in June 2009 it had licensed 4,789 AM radio stations, all of which were commercial, 6,460 commercial FM radio stations, and 3,106 educational or noncommercial FM radio stations (FCC 2009c). There were 11,249 commercial AM and FM stations in June 2009, and minorities controlled 7.2 percent (815) of those stations. The U.S. Census reported that in 2008, 104.6 million Americans were members of the racial or ethnic minority groups the FCC tracks, constituting 34 percent of the U.S. population, a level almost five times higher than their representation among owners of commercial broadcast radio stations (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2009).

90

catherine j.k. sandoval

minority-owned commercial radio stations in mid-2009 To determine the current levels of minority commercial radio ownership, Professor Sandoval reviewed over 11,000 FCC CDBS records, examining ownership reports (Form 323), applications in the separate CDBS Application files, and where necessary, CDBS Station Status reports. This study builds on the information from the 2007 studies by Free Press and Byerly on minority and female radio ownership (Byerly 2007; Turner 2007). To identify changes in licensee or station control, as well as additional stations that a licensee had acquired, Professor Sandoval reviewed all Form 323 ownership forms available between April and August 2009 for 776 minority radio broadcast stations identified in Turner’s study. To identify new minority broadcasters and additional stations acquired by incumbent minority broadcasters, Professor Sandoval analyzed all ownership forms filed between June 2006 and August 2009 signifying a transfer of control of a station license or construction permit, or the award of an original construction permit authorizing the building of a station. overview of findings This study reports on the status of operational stations, as opposed to construction permits. A station authorized by a construction permit may never be built due to the financing needed to locate space for a radio tower, antenna and equipment, conduct engineering studies, and hire personnel necessary to create an operational station. The financial challenges mount in the midst of an economic downturn when the sectors that have dominated radio revenue, retail, banking, automotive, and real estate are declining or advertising elsewhere. In 2008, advertisers, for the first time, spent more money on the Internet than on radio (Ruitenberg 2008). In 2008, Internet advertising revenue rose 10.6 percent to $23.4 billion while radio ad revenues fell 9 percent to $19.5 billion (Media Buyer Planner 2009). This study identified twenty-four unbuilt construction permits held by minority owners, some of whom obtained those permits in an FCC auction (see, for example, Miriam Media, New FM, Facility Identification No. 17093, Ownership Form and 301 Application). If built, those construction permits may become stations, but are not yet licensed to cover or serve an area. Those construction permits are not counted in the 815 minority-owned radio stations since they are not yet licensed radio stations, and some may never be built. For all full-power commercial radio stations Professor Sandoval identified as minority-controlled in 2009, she reviewed the FCC’s CDBS Application

minority commercial radio ownership

91

database filings on station transfers, acquisition dates, bankruptcies, requests for silent operation, and licenses to cover or provide service. To examine the contributions of minority commercial radio station owners to program diversity in 2009, Professor Sandoval searched the Web for format and station information for each of the 815 minority-controlled stations, examining the station’s Web site, where available, Ontheradio.com, and other Internet sources. Over 300 of the minority-owned stations identified in this study operated Web sites highlighting their programming and mission. Due to the challenges the FCC’s database erects to longitudinal analysis, this analysis reflects stations that minority owners still control today. The FCC did not ask for race, ethnicity, and gender data on the 323 ownership forms until 1998, making it very difficult to track minority radio transactions before that time. Archival research in the ownership and application databases, and of the paper records not included in the electronic databases—such as tax certificate transactions, comparative hearings, distress sales, and construction permits granted before 1998—would be necessary to identify other minority broadcasters who sold their radio stations before 2007. Their entry and exit into broadcasting merits further research beyond this study’s scope. The level of voting control required to identify a licensee as minorityowned is a threshold issue for this analysis. The FCC has no active definition of minority control since it currently operates no programs that take minority ownership into account. This study, as did Turner’s and Byerly’s studies (2007), defines 50 percent or greater control of the licensee’s votes as minority control.2 This definition excludes four companies that operate thirteen stations where minorities control 50 percent of the votes and a nonminority controls the remaining 50 percent,3 and one company where the minority president does not have majority voting control.4 Free Press’s analysis of the FCC Form 323s determined that in 2007 minorities controlled 776 full-power radio stations (Turner 2007). Turner also analyzed the BIA database of all radio licensees and identified ‘‘279 stations where the race/ethnicity of the owner could not be determined [and] estimated that minorities own 812 stations or 7.76 percent of all stations’’ (Turner 2007, 16). In contrast to the Free Press 2007 report, this study does not employ a statistical estimate of minority ownership for stations whose ownership could not be identified, and instead verified minority ownership through the FCC Form 323s and applications, Web searches, and experts in the field. The FCC’s new filing window for ownership applications opened in late 2009. The new filing requirements will reveal whether there are additional minority-owned broadcasters whose ownership cannot currently be confirmed due to the FCC’s filing exemption for sole 92

catherine j.k. sandoval

proprietors and single majority shareholders, and its lax enforcement of rules requiring complete and accurate filings. This report identified 324 distinct minority commercial radio station owners in mid-2009.5 Those owners control 815 full-power commercial radio stations.6 Of the 324 minority radio stations owners, 139 are Hispanic and 129 are African-American. Thirty-four Asian-Americans or Asian/Pacific Islanders control full-power commercial radio stations in 2009, as do fourteen Native Americans owners. Minority ownership of commercial radio stations remained flat during the past two years. There are 815 minority-owned commercial radio stations in 2009, compared to 812 stations Free Press identified in 2007, including Turner’s estimate of thirty-six minority-controlled stations whose ownership he could not verify. During that same time period, the number of commercial radio stations grew from 10,506 in 2007 to 11,249 in 2009. Minorities control 7.22 percent (815) of the commercial radio stations in 2009. The Davidson Media Group (DMG) transactions with SS Holdings (SSH) account for forty-three of the new minority-owned stations in 2009. The deal’s terms indicate that it may be a lender workout. Without the DMG deal with SSH, minorities would control 772 commercial radio stations in 2009. Two private equity groups, CapStreet II LP and Citigroup Venture Capital, controlled DMG, a company that was not minorityowned though it aired primarily Spanish and Gospel formats. In 2009 DMG was sold to SSH, whose managing member, Sanjay Sanghoee, a South-Asian-American, controls 100 percent of the votes of SSH. SSH paid $1,000 cash to acquire thirty-six of DMG’s stations, all of DMG’s stock, and assume $2,076,024 of DMG’s debt (Radio Business Report 2009). The equity partners who controlled DMG retain preferred stock in SSH, convertible into substantial voting rights. SSH now controls forty-three stations previously licensed to DMG. During a recession featuring tight credit and equity markets when few radio transactions were consummated, the SSH February 2009 deal for DMG’s radio assets is extraordinary. The low price SSH paid for DMG’s stock indicates that this deal is likely a workout with DMG’s creditors. The SSH DMG transaction is not a trust pending liquidation, and SSH has not announced a plan to sell all of the stations. The SSH deal structure contrasts with the 2009 transfer of twenty-five stations previously controlled by Hispanic-owned Border Media Company to a trust for its lenders, designed as a workout of Border Media’s debt and a mechanism to liquidate the company by selling the stations (KWOS FM, CDBS Application 2009). Since a minority controls 100 percent of the votes of SSH, those stations are included in this study as minority owned. Researchers analyzing minority ownership should monitor SSH’s sales and other transactions. minority commercial radio ownership

93

bankruptcies, liquidations, and lender workouts Between 2007 and August 2009, forty-two minority-owned radio stations were transferred to bankruptcy trustees, trusts established for the benefit of lenders as workouts, or to a trustee for a debtor-in-possession who may be able to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code or liquidate the trust’s assets under Chapter 7 (Bankruptcy, 11 U.S.C. §101(41), 1101, 2009). Hispanic-owned Universal Broadcasting filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sold its station in July 2009; Tama Broadcasting, an AfricanAmerican–controlled company, transferred nine stations to a bankruptcy receiver in 2009; On Top Communications, an African-American– controlled company, sold two stations as a Debtor-In-Possession in 2007; Ga-Mex, a Hispanic-owned company whose three other stations are silent for financial reasons, transferred one station to a trustee for a Debtor-InPossession in 2009; Denver Media, a Hispanic-owned company, transferred four stations as a Debtor-In-Possession and sold them in 2009; and Border Media transferred twenty-five stations in 2009 to a trust controlled by its lenders in settlement of its debts. These forty-two previously minority-controlled bankrupt stations are not included in the 815 minority-controlled stations in mid-2009. The FCC’s database makes it extraordinarily difficult to determine if these bankruptcies, lender workouts, and debtor-in-possession sales represent a high or typical number of transactions for minority-owned stations, let alone for all stations. The FCC collects and reports such transactions through its Form 316 in the Application database, a form that signifies a pro forma or involuntary transfer of control, such as a corporation’s transfer of a license to a commonly controlled Limited Liability Company. A longitudinal analysis of bankruptcy filings would require a researcher or policy maker to review all Form 316s filed within the relevant time period and search them one-by-one to determine whether transfers were made in connection with bankruptcy, liquidation, or a lender workout. This study recommends that the FCC establish a separate filing category for transfers to bankruptcy trustees, debtors-in-possession or trusts established as a lender workout, recognizing the extraordinary nature of such transactions. The current system creates huge barriers to scholarly, public, or FCC identification of broadcaster failures or distress, issues crucial to examining the status of broadcast ownership and the effect of FCC rules on the broadcast industry and the public it is licensed to serve. minority commercial radio broadcaster stations silent for financial reasons The FCC requires that stations that are silent (not broadcasting during hours in which they are authorized to operate) for more than thirty days 94

catherine j.k. sandoval

file a Special Temporary Authority (STA) request with the FCC to continue silent operation (47 C.F.R. 73.1740, 2008). The FCC form for silent operation requires the broadcaster to check one of three circles to indicate their reason for being silent: Technical, Financial, or Staffing. The licensee is also required to provide a narrative of reasons that merit the FCC’s approval of their silent operation. This requirement ensures that valuable spectrum is used in the public interest and that there are good reasons for temporary periods of nonoperation, such as a hurricane damaging a broadcast tower. Nonetheless, the FCC grants some STAs for reasons stated as unknown. To monitor trends among broadcasters who have gone dark, this study recommends that the FCC enforce its requirements that the licensee publicly state its reasons for silent operation. Eighteen minority-owned stations filed for silent operation for financial reasons in late 2008 or 2009. With the economy’s souring, the number of financial dark stations among minority-owned commercial radio broadcasters rose each year from 2007 to 2009. Several stations requesting FCC approval to go dark said the economy made operation impossible. Many of those stations had aired minority-oriented formats including Spanish formats, representing a loss of programming to the community. A total of twenty-four minority-owned stations are silent in mid-2009, the other six stations for technical reasons such as improving their signal or dealing with lease or tower issues. The CDBS database does not enable a search for stations silent for financial reasons, though the STA forms contain that information. A longitudinal analysis of silent operation trends or a comparison of minority and nonminority owners would require a continuous review of tens of thousands of records. This creates an analytical burden so high it defies attempts to meet the APA or DQA’s requirements for reasoned decision making. This study recommends that the FCC improve the search capability of the CDBS Application database, as well as its Ownership database. In response to critiques from scholars such as Byerly (2007) and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO 2008), in 2009 the FCC ordered its Media Bureau to improve the Form 323 ownership applications and that database’s functionality (FCC 2009a; FCC 2009b). Some of the most important trends in broadcasting are found through the Application database, which other studies of minority broadcasters and the FCC have not examined in detail. This report urges the FCC to improve the ability to search and analyze the Application database which houses information about silent stations, transfers of control including sales, and transfers to bankruptcy trustees or lender trusts. Increasing the Application database’s transparency will enable longitudinal, comparative analysis of the effect of FCC policy decisions on broadcasters, including minority-owned broadcasters. minority commercial radio ownership

95

the structure of minority radio ownership Among minority commercial radio owners in mid-2009, 61 percent, or 198, control only one station. Turner (2007) found that 67.8 percent of minority radio station owners in 2007 controlled one station. The needle has not moved much for the structure of minority ownership since the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) last reported in 2000 that most minority owners controlled a single station (NTIA 2000). Until mid-2009, the FCC exempted licenses controlled by sole proprietors or a single shareholder that owned 50 percent or more of the licensee’s voting stock from filing Form 323 ownership reports (FCC 2009; GAO 2008). In 2009, 73 percent (237) of the Form 323 reports filed for minority owners indicated that one minority person controlled 100 percent of the votes. This overwhelming margin of single-voter control substantiates the conclusion that the FCC’s rules exempted a large swath of owners. To better track the effect of FCC policies on ‘‘small, minority- or women-owned businesses,’’ the FCC eliminated this exemption in May, 2009 (FCC 2009, ‫ن‬12). The FCC made revised versions of Form 323 available for filing in late 2009. The new Form 323 and filing rules provide a better picture of singlestation owners throughout the industry. Improving the search tools to analyze the ownership and application databases will enhance this information’s value to the public. fcc licensing policies, multiple ownership rules, and minority broadcaster entry This study determined that minority radio ownership increased measurably between 1978 and 1995 when the FCC adopted several programs to spur the participation of new broadcasters, and the entry and growth of minority broadcasters. Of the 324 minority commercial radio owners in mid-2009, 172 (53 percent) were awarded their first license prior to the 1996 Act. Of the 815 minority commercial radio stations still held in mid-2009, 287 (35 percent) were obtained before the 1996 Act. Fewer new minority owners who still hold their licenses in mid-2009 entered the commercial radio field after 1996, as compared to those who entered between 1978 and 1995. Prior to 1978, only forty commercial radio stations were licensed to minorities (Ivy Group 2000, citing Krasnow and Fowlkes 1999). Until 1945, the FCC allocated licenses through noncompetitive proceedings that offered few opportunities for new entrants, including minorities. In Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC (1945), the Supreme Court held that the FCC was required to hold a comparative hearing to determine who should be awarded a broadcast license when there were mutually exclusive applications. The FCC’s 1965 Policy Statement on Comparative Hearings adopted 96

catherine j.k. sandoval

several factors that provided the applicant with an enhancement credit in the comparative hearing process, including diversification of control, integration of ownership into management, proposed program service, past broadcast record, efficient use of frequency, and character (FCC 1965). In 1974 the D.C. Circuit in TV9 v. FCC held that as part of the FCC’s mission to ensure that the broadcast spectrum serves the public interest, the FCC should take minority ownership into account. The D.C. Circuit stressed that other applicants’ proposals ‘‘to present views of such minority groups in their programming, although relevant, does not offset the fact that it is upon ownership that public policy places primary reliance with respect to diversification of content, and that has historically proven to be significantly influential with respect to editorial comment and the presentation of news’’ (TV9 1974, 938). After TV9 v FCC, the FCC in 1974 added the applicant’s race as a factor to be weighed in the comparative hearing process used until 1993 (FCC 1978; Bechtel v. FCC 1983). In 1978, the FCC recognized that despite its commitment to ownership diversity, minorities controlled only 1 percent of the 8,500 commercial radio and television stations then operating in the United States (FCC 1978). The FCC’s 1978 Minority Ownership Policy Statement recognized that ‘‘[a]cute under-representation of minorities among the owners of broadcast properties is troublesome in that it is the licensee who is ultimately responsible for identifying and serving the needs and interests of his audience’’ (2). The secondary market where incumbents sell their licenses has long been a significant source of station acquisition. The FCC’s 1978 Policy Statement recommended that the FCC’s Tax Certificate program be expanded to give private sellers an incentive to transfer their stations to minority owners, rather than trading their stations with incumbents in a tax-free exchange or selling to other buyers (FCC 1978).7 Between 1978 and 1995 the FCC granted 356 tax certificates—287 for radio, 40 for television and 30 for cable franchises—to promote minority broadcast and cable ownership (Ivy Group 2000).8 Tax certificates or the acquisition method (private sale, comparative hearing, auction, and so on) are not reflected in the CDBS database. Pursuant to the Minority Ownership Policy Statement, the FCC approved distress sales to a minority applicant to allow a failing broadcaster or one designated for a license revocation hearing to transfer its license to a minority-controlled company, instead of losing its license at an FCC revocation hearing or for failure to provide broadcast service. The FCC approved few distress sales, granting only forty-two between 1978 and 1994, so they were not a significant or reliable point of entry since (Media Access Project 1995). minority commercial radio ownership

97

While many minority broadcasters acquired their first license through the comparative hearing, tax certificate, and distress sale processes, the vast majority of FCC licenses allocated between 1970 until the adoption of auctions in 1993 were awarded by noncompetitive applications for construction permits for a new license (Baynes 2004; KPMG 2000). Comparative hearings distributed about 39 percent of FCC licenses between 1970 and 1993. During that time period, ‘‘2,437 licenses were awarded by comparative hearing,’’ while ‘‘6,178 licenses were awarded through singleton applications for construction permits or licenses where only one applicant qualified under the FCC’s rules applied’’ (Baynes 2004; KPMG 2000). While comparative hearings created opportunities for some new licensees to commence broadcast service, many more licenses were awarded through noncompetitive processes. Concurrent with the 1978 Minority Ownership Policy Statement, the FCC expanded the AM radio band (Ivy Group 2000). Twenty-four of the 324 minority radio owners in mid-2009 acquired their first station among those they still control today in 1978 or 1979 through the FCC’s AM Expanded Band Proceeding. Nine are still single station owners whose sole radio license is the Expanded Band station obtained in 1978 or 1979. More than thirty years later, 80 percent of those minority-controlled Expanded Band stations air minority-oriented formats. Radio One and Multicultural Broadcasting both received their first licenses through the Expanded Band proceeding, creating their entry point and catalyst for growth. Only three minority broadcasters control more than twenty-five commercial radio stations in 2009. African-American– owned Radio One controls fifty-two commercial radio stations; AsianAmerican–owned Multicultural Broadcasting controls forty-three radio stations, fifteen of which it acquired from the bankruptcy of formerly Hispanic-owned Radio Unica in 2004 (BusinessWire 2004); and South-Asian American–controlled SS Holdings owns forty-three stations. African-American–owned AccessOne Communications obtained its first license through the Expanded Band Proceeding and in mid-2009 controls seventeen commercial radio stations and two television stations. Minorities acquired 184 commercial radio stations in 1980 or earlier, including the twenty-six stations acquired through the Expanded Band proceeding in 1978 and 1979. Of the 324 minority owners of commercial radio stations in 2009, 126 (38.8 percent) acquired their licenses in 1980 or earlier, mostly in the years between the FCC’s 1978 Minority Ownership Policy Statement and 1980. Twenty-four minority commercial broadcasters entered between 1981 and 1985. In total, 150 (46 percent) of those minority owners who still control commercial radio stations in 2009 acquired their first license before 1985. 98

catherine j.k. sandoval

Among minority-owned commercial broadcasters who still hold their station licenses in mid-2009, eleven entered between 1986 and 1990, acquiring twenty-eight licenses. Between 1990 and 1995, eleven more minority broadcasters entered, also obtaining twenty-eight licenses they still hold today. In the late 1980s through 1990, the FCC increased by seven hundred the number of FM broadcast stations through its 80-90 Docket initiated in 1985 (FCC 1985). Most of those stations operated with limited power or during limited hours, constraining their reach and revenue potential (Hunsaker 1994, 22). While some minorities entered broadcasting through comparative hearings held for the award of those seven hundred licenses, the CDBS database provides little information on the proceedings through which the licenses were obtained during this time period. Additional research into the FCC’s archives and comparative hearing records would be necessary to determine how many of the seven hundred licenses the FCC authorized in the 80-90 docket were awarded to minority owners. The laws restricting national and local multiple ownership of radio stations were conducive to minority entry during this time period (Hammond 2008). From 1953 to 1985, FCC rules permitted common control of no more than seven FM radio stations, seven AM radio stations and seven television stations nationally and one station within a local market (Ivy Group 2000). This permitted single station owners to enter unconsolidated markets and establish a foothold for service that many minority broadcasters rely on today. In 1985 the FCC raised the national ownership cap to twelve AM, twelve FM, and twelve TV stations. In 1992 the FCC permitted broadcasters to control two or more stations in medium-sized markets with fifteen or more radio stations, as long as their combined audience share was below 25 percent. Most of today’s minority commercial radio broadcasters entered during this period of relatively unconsolidated markets and FCC policies that took minority ownership into account to determine license assignment in the public interest. Of the 324 minority commercial radio owners in mid-2009, 172 (53 percent) were awarded their first license prior to the 1996 Act. Nearly 35 percent (285) of the 815 minority commercial radio stations still held in mid-2009 were obtained before the 1996 Act. Fewer new minority owners who still hold their licenses in mid-2009 entered the commercial radio field after 1996, compared to those who entered between 1978 and 1995. The year preceding the Telecommunications Act’s passage saw two significant developments that affected minority ownership, one legal and the other legislative. The Supreme Court imposed a strict scrutiny standard of review on federal programs taking race into account in Adarand v. Pena in 1995. Other government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation, whose program was challenged in Adarand, conducted studies to minority commercial radio ownership

99

discern whether there was a basis for programs that considered race as a factor in contract awards, and successfully defended their program (Adarand v. Slater 2000). The FCC commissioned several studies on minority ownership and market entry barriers in the late 1990s and published most of those studies on the eve of President George W. Bush’s election (Ofori 1999; Ivy Group 2000; KPMG 2000; Bachen et al. 2000; Ernst & Young 2000; KPMG, LLP 2000). The FCC did not initiate a request for comments or a rulemaking concerning the studies’ evidence and findings, and instead, switched to race neutral rules (Baynes 2004). In 1995, Congress also repealed the tax certificate program that encouraged sales to minorities, although incumbent broadcasters were still allowed to engage in tax-free exchanges that deferred capital gains. Since the 1996 Act’s passage, minorities obtained 521 commercial radio licenses they still control today. Between 2001 and 2005, the FCC licensed 241 commercial radio stations to minorities, marking the largest expansion of minority radio station ownership. Consolidation characterized this time period in the radio industry, although most minorities remained single station owners. That trend continued from 2006 to 2008, when 126 stations were licensed to minorities. At the same time, many minorities sold their stations, finding it unprofitable to broadcast in consolidated local, national, and regional markets (Ivy Group 2000). In 2007, the FCC auctioned 120 FM construction permits, which were previously awarded for free. The FCC offered ‘‘designated entity’’ bidding credits in that auction based on the bidder’s revenues. In 2009, the FCC auctioned more FM construction permits. The CDBS database does not provide a means to search for construction permits obtained through the auction process. This study found twenty-four construction permits currently pending for minority owners, some of which were obtained in auctions. This report recommends that the FCC synch the auction and media bureau databases to enable identification of minority auction participants and winners, and monitor their success in transforming construction permits into viable stations. This report recommends that as part of the FCC’s evaluation of its broadcast ownership rules, the FCC must examine its auction rules now used to assign construction permits. Such a unified analysis would combat the FCC’s practice of fractured rulemakings that do not consider all relevant issues as a whole. Despite the Third Circuit’s remand of the FCC’s 2002 ownership rules and order to consider minority ownership issues at the same time as other broadcast rules, the Commission analyzed minority ownership separately from the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules and other consolidation issues (Prometheus 2004, FCC 2008, Bachen et al. 2007). 100

catherine j.k. sandoval

The FCC must not replicate that pattern in its 2010 analysis of the broadcast rules and should concurrently consider the effect of auctions on minority broadcast entry. As of August 2009, only fifty-eight new stations were licensed to minority commercial radio operators during 2009. The forty-three stations DMG transferred to SSH accounts for more than 74 percent of the minority radio stations acquired in 2009. The broadcasting industry as a whole saw a dramatic decrease in station deals in 2009 as lenders froze lines of credit or refused to extend credit to new borrowers. Decreases in stock prices and uncertainty about the value of radio stations paralyzed equity markets. Between 2007 and 2009, sixty-three minority-controlled radio stations were sold and twenty-one stations were the subject of a pending sale. Completed sales are not counted in the 815 minority-owned stations in 2009. Some stations were sold in bankruptcy, while others were a sale of all or some of the company’s radio licenses. The FCC should improve its databases to facilitate longitudinal analysis to determine the significance of this level of station sales over time, across all broadcasters, and the effect of these sales on service to the community and competition. the link between minority radio ownership and content The Supreme Court has recognized that broadcasters are given broad editorial discretion to determine the content of their programs and schedules, consistent with their mandate under the Communications Act of 1934 to serve the public interest (FCC v. League of Women Voters 1984). In mid2009, 72.5 percent (591) of the 815 minority-owned stations air minorityoriented formats: Spanish, Urban, Urban News, Asian, Ethnic and Minority-oriented Religious formats such as Gospel and Spanish-Christian. If the twenty-four silent minority-owned stations are eliminated, 74.7 percent of all minority-owned stations broadcasting programming air minorityoriented programming. This pattern refutes Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s assertion in Metro Broadcasting v. FCC (1990, 617) that the proposition that minority ownership contributes to diversity is based on stereotypes. The correlation between minority radio ownership and diversity in program service is robust. These findings are consistent with the Free Press 2007 study, which found that two-thirds of minority radio broadcasters aired minority formats (Turner 2007). Several studies using different methodologies and examining different time periods have reached the same conclusion (Congressional Research Service 1987; Dubin and Spitzer 1994; Siegelman and Waldfogel 2001; Bachen et al. 2000). This pattern of a nexus between minority radio ownership and content has been repeated for more than thirty years. Absent government compulsion to offer any particular type of broadcast format, 74 minority commercial radio ownership

101

percent of minority commercial radio owners actively broadcasting chose to do so in 2009. Spanish, Urban, Asian, Gospel, and Other Minority-Oriented Programming Spanish is the most popular format among minority commercial radio owners in mid-2009, airing on 291 (35.7 percent) of the 815 minorityowned radio stations. Urban, African-American–targeted formats are broadcast on 135 minority-owned commercial radio stations. Six of those stations broadcast an Urban News/Talk format, airing a News/Talk format addressing the African-American community’s concerns. Offering a different viewpoint from what Russell (1995) calls the ‘‘dominant gaze,’’ Urban radio has created and supported an African-American public sphere where news of the day is highlighted from an African-American perspective (The Black Public Sphere, 1995; Folami 2007). Likewise Spanish radio creates a counterspace on the radio dial where broadcasters and listeners can use Spanish to communicate news, public affairs and culture (Sandoval 2008; Patton 2006). Nine companies controlled by Native Americans and five Native-American tribal governments operate commercial radio stations programmed in a general market format, primarily Country. Examination of data on a station’s audience composition, if reported for such stations, would reveal whether Country is a popular format with Native Americans living in areas where those stations broadcast. Programming in Country also makes these stations eligible for local, national, and regional buys targeted at Country audiences, a large market since it is the nation’s second-most popular format and was for decades the nation’s number one radio format (Arbitron 2008a). Format alone does not tell the story of a station’s service to its community of license, including minority-group listeners. Although the radio station run by the Navajo Nation programs in a Country format, their web site indicates that they deliver news and information in both English and Navajo. Their DJs teach the Navajo ‘‘Word of the Day’’ on air to reinforce tribal members Navajo language skills and share their language and culture. Bachen, Hammond, and Craft (2000) highlighted similar contributions to news and public programming by minority owners in their study commissioned by the FCC. Twenty-eight of the 815 minority-owned full power radio stations were programmed to serve Asian communities, airing Korean, Chinese, and other Asian formats. Arbitron (2009b) recently started tracking Chinese radio formats and reported that audience members in New York and Los Angeles spend more than sixteen hours each week listening to Chinese radio programs. 102

catherine j.k. sandoval

Fourteen stations broadcast in other minority formats such as programming provided through brokered programming agreements, whereby different people rent time from the radio station. Brokered programming stations include a mix of Asian programming, including South Asian programming, Spanish, and other minority-language or -oriented programming. Scholars have debated about whether to classify stations programmed in Religious formats as minority-oriented or majority-oriented formats (Ofori 1999). Arbitron distinguishes between Gospel and Religious formats and classifies Gospel as a format targeted at African-Americans (Arbitron 2008b). This study classifies Gospel as an African-American–targeted format. This study categorizes Spanish Religious stations as both Spanish and minority religious stations, including their numbers in both categories, but subtracting that duplication from the calculation of total minority-formatted stations. One hundred and forty-four minority-owned stations air Gospel and Spanish Christian programs. Minority-religious programs are the secondmost popular format among minority-controlled commercial radio stations after Spanish. Of those stations, 123 offer Gospel programs designed to inspire African-American communities, while twenty-one air Spanish religious formats, ministering to the Latino community. Some Urban stations air a Sunday Gospel Brunch, but are counted as Urban for this study since that is their predominant format. WFLT AM in Flint, Michigan, airs Gospel programming because they felt ‘‘the African-American community needed a voice, and a vehicle to be heard.’’9 WFLT’s station is designed to provide a ‘‘seat on the front pew of the African-American church—the historical platform for all social and political change.’’ WFLT’s mission reflects the desire of many minority broadcasters to interact with their listeners as members of the community, not just as consumers to be commodified as an audience and sold to advertisers (Gandy 2000; Ang 1991; Webster and Phalen 1994). Many of the eighteen stations that are silent for financial reasons aired Spanish formats and may have aired other minority-targeted formats before the economy made their operation unfeasible. Other stations are silent for technical reasons as they upgrade their towers or other facilities. Thus, minority owners may have planned to offer even more minority programming than these numbers suggest, but were hampered by the economic downturn, their relatively small size and commensurately fewer resources. Minority Commercial Radio Owners and General Market Formats Of the 815 minority-owned full power radio stations, 183 (approximately 22.4 percent) aired General Market formats. Analysis of audience composition data would be helpful to determine if minority radio broadcasters are largely minority commercial radio ownership

103

serving minority audiences even when they choose a General Market format such as Smooth Jazz. Detailed audience composition data are available only through private research companies for thousands of dollars and do not include information for all stations, particularly for small groups or single stations. Some of the minority radio owners who air general market formats may do so to escape advertising practices that exclude minority formats from consideration for advertising buys or pay broadcasters offering minority formats or serving minority communities less (Ofori 1999; Napoli 2002; Reed-Huff 2006). Napoli (2002) found that when more than 50 percent of a broadcaster’s audience was constituted by racial or ethnic minorities, the broadcaster earned less in advertising revenue relative to its share of audience ratings. The FCC in 2008 barred ‘‘No Urban Dictates’’ and ‘‘No Spanish Dictates,’’ the practice of excluding radio stations from advertising buys based on their format (FCC 2008; Ofori 1999). These advertising practices yield less revenue for broadcasters, making it more difficult and expensive to raise capital or secure debt, leaving less reserve for hard economic times, and may discourage service to communities desiring these formats. Justice O’Connor espoused a market view of broadcasting in her dissent in Metro Broadcasting v. FCC (1990), questioning whether minority ownership contributes to diversity because ‘‘the market shapes programming to a tremendous extent’’ (626). In the face of advertising practices that create economic disincentives to broadcast in formats designed to appeal to minority audiences, more than 74 percent of minority broadcasters who air programming offer minority-targeted formats. This signals that the nexus between ownership and content transcends ‘‘the market.’’

reflections on collaborative research This study was greatly enhanced by the collaboration of its research partners: the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, directed by David Honig; Professor Catherine Sandoval and Professor Allen Hammond IV, both of Santa Clara University School of Law. To identify research questions based on issues critical to minority broadcasters and the communities they serve, MMTC reached out to its members in 2008 and 2009 while Professors Sandoval and Hammond worked with the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (NABOB), the Spanish Broadcasters’ Association (SBA), and experts in the field. Repeated themes from this outreach included the importance of the tax certificate program to enable minority broadcasters to obtain their first radio license, the critical role of that first license and prevailing FCC licensing 104

catherine j.k. sandoval

and consolidation policies in broadcast entry, and the consequences of the deepening recession. The recession exacted a toll on both the communities broadcasters serve and their advertising mainstays: automotive, retail, banking, and real estate. It also led to the cancellation of some media conferences that increased challenges in collecting data for this study. This process underscored the need for collaborative research to extend beyond a partnership between the research team members and to include collaboration with the community of experts, scholars, and businesses in the field to identify research questions relevant to the public interest. This outreach guided our research and led to this study’s examination of the largely unexplored research question about entry into commercial broadcasting. Professor Sandoval’s inquiry answered that question by mining the FCC database, application by application, to find out when broadcasters acquired their licenses, particularly their first license among those they still control. This collaborative research process worked well, providing the complementary resources and perspectives of a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting minority media ownership and service, the Santa Clara University School of Law, and the Broadband Institute of California, founded by Professor Hammond. The research partners had worked together previously, submitting comments to the FCC in 2004 analyzing cases and scholarly articles relevant to media ownership diversity, and exchanging information on their analysis of the FCC’s 2007–2008 media ownership proceeding. Professor Hammond and David Honig have over thirty years of experience each in the communications field and Professor Sandoval has over fifteen years of expertise in this field. The deep experience of each research team member, their long history of collaboration, and their dedication to media ownership diversity greatly facilitated this work. Through our work with MMTC staff and volunteers and Santa Clara Law School students, we also built the expertise for future generations of scholars. The support of Derek Turner from Free Press and Dr. Carolyn Byerly were critical to this research as their 2007 analysis of FCC ownership forms paved the way for this examination of minority radio ownership. We plan to continue this collaboration and to use the database of minority owners we have identified for further research on policies necessary to support service to diverse communities using the medium of radio on which 90 percent of Americans continue to rely. The biggest challenge for our collaborative research efforts was and remains the way the FCC collects and reports data. The FCC’s highly inefficient, incomplete and burdensome system frustrates analysis and monitoring of important trends. Critical issues such as the link between licensing and consolidation policies and minority broadcast entry, as well as the fate of small and minority broadcasters during the recession, minority commercial radio ownership

105

are hidden in the FCC’s labyrinthine databases. Improving the ability to search, sort, examine and analyze that information will enhance the ability of the public and the FCC to determine whether the FCC’s broadcast policies serve the public interest.

conclusion The law, as manifested by statutes and FCC regulations, has profoundly shaped the broadcast media and its power to create, project, and disseminate news and images (Folami 2007; Coombes 1999). The commercial broadcast ownership structure is now characterized by massive consolidation, which affects service in the vast majority of local markets. At the other end of the spectrum are the minority owners, most of whom control a single station. The FCC must consider the effect of its structural rules regarding multiple ownership and the programs it once implemented to encourage minority ownership in designing license allocation and assignment processes, including auctions and broadcast rules. It should consider this study’s analysis of the effect of its licensing and consolidation policies on minority entry and exit as it evaluates broadcast ownership rules in 2010. It should commission additional studies on access to capital and the effect of auction rules on minority ownership and weigh those findings in its rulemakings. The FCC must recognize the secondary market’s importance to broadcast ownership and examine methods to encourage transactions with minority buyers, such as tax certificates that would level the playing field with incumbents able to engage in tax-free exchanges. The FCC must also make its database more robust to analyze trends in stations going dark for financial reasons, bankruptcies, liquidations, and lender workouts. This study’s findings about the number of minority commercial broadcast owners in dire financial status cries out for more examination of this issue across time and across the spectrum of broadcast owners. This study confirms that minority owners overwhelmingly provide minority-oriented content that contributes to diversity and the public interest. In 2007, the Supreme Court cited with favor the Bakke decision’s rationale that diversity may be a compelling state interest (which can survive strict scrutiny as it serves forward-looking values underlying diversity and the First Amendment) where race is part of a broader effort to achieve ‘‘exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas and viewpoints’’ (Parents Involved 2007, 703, citing Bakke 1978, 330). Minority broadcasters provide that exposure through news, public affairs, and entertainment programming relevant to minority communities. The FCC should recognize minority broadcasters’ contributions to our nation’s democratic dialogue and analyze 106

catherine j.k. sandoval

how its media ownership rules can ensure that minority broadcasters and the communities they serve thrive in the twenty-first century.

notes Thanks to the Social Sciences Research Council, Necessary Knowledge for the Public Sphere and their staff and committee members for their support of this research, especially Joe Karaganis, Minna Aslama and Jaewon Chung. Special thanks to my research partners SCU Law Professor Allen Hammond, IV and David Honig, Executive Director of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. The SCU Law Faculty Development Fund and SCU Law Dean Don Polden were instrumental in funding this research. Special thanks to Jim Winston, Executive Director of the National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters, Lois Wright, and the NABOB members. Special thanks also to Francisco Montero, Derek Turner, Dr. Carolyn Byerly, Philip Napoli, Leonard Baynes, Angela Campbell, Becky Lentz, S. Jenell Trigg, Howard Topell, Amador Bustos, Mark Lloyd, Karen Beverly, Judy Herman, and the FCC’s Mass Media Bureau. Workshops at American University, Washington College of Law, and St. John’s University School of Law provided valuable comments and insights into this work. The extraordinary research assistance of Michelle Schaefer, Carrie Wooley, Ravi Mohan, and Eli Edwards enhanced this work. 1. Since 1998 the FCC has required those with an attributable interest in a broadcast station to provide information on their gender, race and ethnicity, voting, and equity control of the license. The FCC defines minority owners as African-American/Black, Hispanic, Native American or Alaska Native, AsianAmerican or Asian-Pacific Islander (FCC 2009a). 2. Turner included Border Media and Urban Radio in the Free Press 2007 report on minority-controlled commercial radio stations. Border Media was founded by a Hispanic, Tom Castro, who acquired his first license in 1979 and then built up El Dorado Broadcasting, which led the way to the creation of Border Media after El Dorado’s sale (Campo Flores 2004). Border Media’s President was Jeff Hinson, a Hispanic. The latest Form 323 reports Border Media filed indicate that minorities no longer controlled 50 percent of the votes for the twenty-five stations it transferred to the company’s lenders in 2009 as a debt settlement or for the four stations Border Media retained. Likewise, Urban Radio’s thirteen stations are included in this report as minority-owned although minorities control less than 50 percent of the voting stock due to substantial equity investments by Goldman Sachs and other investors which carried commensurate voting rights. To track the stations Free Press identified in 2007 as minority owned, including Border Media and Urban Radio, this report classifies both companies and their stations as minority owned. minority commercial radio ownership

107

3. A 50-50 percent partnership arguably creates negative control by either the minority or the non-minority shareholder; the remaining shareholders cannot approve a major transaction without a majority, necessitating the support of the shareholders who control the other 50 percent of the votes. This study follows the FCC’s past practice of requiring greater than 50 percent voting control to define the licensee as a minority. The three stations controlled by The Milwaukee Radio Alliance, a partnership between African-American All Pro Broadcasting, which obtained its first radio license before 1980, and Shamrock Communications; the two stations controlled by Buckalew Media, a 5050 percent partnership between a minority and non-minority husband and wife; the station controlled by John and Katrina Ostlund, a minority and non-minority husband and wife; and six stations controlled by Glades Media and Key Media, a partnership between Robert Castellanos and James Johnson, a minority and nonminority, respectively, are excluded from this report’s count of minority owners. The Milwaukee Radio Alliance deal is an example of how a minority owner leveraged his early control of a radio station into a partnership with a large commercial broadcaster. 4. The 50 percent or more voting control threshold excludes Bustos Media Group (BMG) from this report’s count of minority-owned stations and BMG was not included in the Free Press 2007 report. Amador Bustos, a Mexican-American, is BMG’s president and founder, and is in charge of the company’s day-to-day operations. Three sets of shareholders each have one-third voting control over BMG, and two of those shareholder groups are not minority controlled (KDDS AM Form 323). The Bustos family obtained their first controlling interest in a radio station in 1992 through an FCC tax certificate designed to encourage the licensee to sell its station to a minority company (Ivy Group 2000). Amador and Rosalie Bustos control three stations they own through Bustos Media LLC and program in Vietnamese that are counted as minority owned in this analysis (KZSJ AM, KREH, AM and KTXV AM). 5. Noncommercial educational stations are excluded from this analysis because they have different eligibility requirements and licensing procedures than commercial radio stations. Only nonprofit corporations and educational institutions are eligible for non-commercial educational station licensees (FCC 2008b). Three stations are notable regarding their status as commercial or noncommercial. KBMI FM was a commercial station sold by Hispanic-controlled Border Media in 2008 and the new owner has since filed an application for the FCC to convert the station’s status to non-commercial. This report counts KBMI FM as sold by a minority-owner. The FCC Station Status database classifies KRGE AM owned by Christian Ministries of the Valley as commercial but its 323 ownership form filed in March 2009 lists that station as noncommercial. No request appears in the application database to convert that station from a commercial to noncommercial status. The same Hispanic-controlled entity holds the license so it is included in this report’s count of minority-controlled 108

catherine j.k. sandoval

commercial stations. The 2009 Form 323 for WARR AM lists the station as non-commercial, but there is no pending application to convert its status from commercial to non-commercial so it too is included in this report. The FCC should ensure that applicants indicate the proper commercial or non-commercial status on their ownership forms and permit non-commercial filings only where the FCC has designated the station as such or granted an application to convert the station’s status. 6. These numbers exclude minority-owned stations in Puerto Rico. The Island’s broadcast traditions created many opportunities for Hispanic broadcasters to serve their communities, factors not representative of the mainland. 7. Congress had previously delegated authority to the FCC to issue Tax Certificates where ‘‘necessary and appropriate to effectuate a change in a policy of, or the adoption of a new policy by, the Commission with respect to the ownership and control of radio broadcasting stations’’ (26 U.S.C. §1071). 8. To qualify for a tax certificate the minority buyer had to control 50.1 percent of the votes of the entity acquiring the licenses and 20.1 percent of the equity (Ivy Group 2000). 9. WFLT AM. 2009. Home page. http://www.wflt.netfirms.com (accessed August 15, 2009).

references Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). Adarand v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147, 1168-1175 (2000). Ang, Ien. 1991. Desparately Seeking the Audience, London, Routledge. Arbitron. 2008a. Radio Today, How America Listens to Radio. http://www .arbitron.com/downloads/radiotoday08.pdf (accessed September 16, 2009). ———. 2008b, Black Radio Today. ———. 2009a. Arbitron Details Plans to Increase Sample Size Across All PPM Markets. http://arbitron.mediaroom.com/index.php?s⳱43& item⳱634 (accessed October 2, 2009). ———. 2009b. Chinese Language Radio Results, http://www.arbitron.com/ ad_agencies/chinese_ratings.htm (accessed September 15, 2009). Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327 (1945). Bachen, Christina, Allen Hammond, Laurie Mason, and Stephanie Craft. 1999. Diversity of Programming in the Broadcast Spectrum: Is There a Link Between Owner Race or Ethnicity and News and Public Affairs Programming? Report submitted to the Office of Communications Business Opportunities, Federal Communications Commission. http://www.fcc.gov/opportunity/meb_study/content_ownership_ study.pdf (accessed July 11, 2009). minority commercial radio ownership

109

Bachen, Christine, Allen Hammond, and Catherine Sandoval. 2007. Serving the Public Interest: Broadcast News, Public Affairs Programming, and the Case for Minority Ownership. In Media Diversity and Localism, Meaning and Metrics, ed. P.M. Napoli, 69–306. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Bankruptcy. 2009. 11 U.S.C.A. § 101(41), 109(b), 1101, Pub. L. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2549. Baynes, Leonard. 2004. Making the Case for a Compelling Government Interest and Re-Establishing FCC Affirmative Action Programs for Broadcast Licensing. Rutgers Law Review 57:235–300. Bechtel v. FCC, 10 F.3d 875 (1993). Black Public Sphere Collective, ed. 1995. The Black Public Sphere: A Public Culture Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Business Wire. 2004. MultiCultural Radio Broadcasting Acquires Radio Unica; Merger Will Produce Nation’s Largest Group of AsianLanguage Radio Stations. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/ 1G1-113045845.html (accessed October 1, 2009). Byerly, Carolyn. 2007. Questioning Media Access, Analysis of FCC Women and Minority Ownership Data. Washington D.C.: Benton Foundation. Campo-Flores, Arian. 2004. Tom Castro: He Got in Early, and Put Spanish-Language Radio on the Map, Newsweek. December 27. http:// www.newsweek.com/id/56232/output/ (accessed September 1, 2009). CBS. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 136 (1973). Coombe, Rosemary, and Jonathan Cohen. 1999. The Law and Late Modern Culture: Reflections on Between Facts and Norms from the Perspective of Critical Culture Legal Studies, Denver University Law Review 76:1029–1055. Congressional Research Service. 1988. Minority Broadcast Station Ownership and Broadcast Programming: Is There a Nexus? (On file with the Library of Congress, Washington D.C.). Dubin, Jeffrey, and Matthew Spitzer. 1995. Testing Minority Preferences in Broadcasting. Southern California Law Review 68:841–883. Ernst & Young LLP. 2000. FCC Econometric Analysis of Potential Discrimination Utilization Ratios for Minority-owned and Women-owned Companies in FCC Wireless Spectrum Auctions. http://www.fcc.gov/ opportunity/meb_study (accessed July 1, 2009). Federal Communications Commission. 1965. Policy Statement on Comparative Hearings. 1 F.C.C. 2d 393. ———. 1978. Statement of Policy on Minority Ownership of Broadcasting Facilities. 68 F.C.C. 2d 979, 982-83. 110

catherine j.k. sandoval

———. 1985. Implementation of Docket 80-90 to Increase the Availability of FM Broadcast Assignments (Second R&O). 101 FCC2d 638, 647– 49, recon. denied, 59 RR2d 1121, 1226-28 (1985), aff ’d sub nom. NBMC v. FCC, 822 F.2d 277 (2nd Cir. 1987). ———. 2008a. In the Matter of Promoting Diversification in Ownership in the Broadcasting Services. (MB 07-294), 24 F.C.C. Rcd. 5896. ———. 2008b. The Public and Broadcasting. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.pdf (accessed July 1, 2009). ———. 2009a. In the Matter of Promoting Diversification in Ownership in the Broadcasting Services. (MB 07-294), 23 F.C.C. Rcd. 5922. ———. 2009b. Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Promoting Diversification in Ownership in the Broadcasting Services. (MB 07-294), 2009 WL 333. ———. 2009c. Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2009. http:// hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293245A1.pdf (accessed July 1, 2009). ———. 2009d. Notice of Inquiry, In the Matter of Impact of Arbitron Audience Ratings Measurements on Radio Broadcasters. 24 F.C.C.R. 6141. FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364, n. 21 (1984). Fox, Susannah, and Jessica Vitak. 2008. Degrees of Access. http://www .pewinternet.org/Presentations/2008/Degrees-of-Access-(May-2008data).aspx (accessed August 14, 2009). Folami, Akilah. Spring 2007. From Habermas to ‘‘Get Rich or Die Trying’’: Hip Hop, The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and The Black Public Sphere. Michigan Journal of Race & Law. 12:235–304. Gandy, Oscar H. 2000. Audience Construction, Race, Ethnicity and Segmentation in Popular Media. http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/ targeting.pdf (accessed September 15, 2009). Government Accountability Office. 2008. Media Ownership: Economic Factors Influence the Number of Media Outlets in Local Markets, While Ownership by Minorities and Women Appears Limited and Is Difficult to Assess. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08383.pdf ?source ⳱ra (accessed September 11, 2009). Hammond, Allen. 2007. The Impact of the FCC’s TV Duopoly Rule Relaxation on Minority and Women Owned Broadcast Stations 1999 to 2006. FCC, Washington D.C. Hunsaker, David M. 1994. Duopoly Wars: Analysis and Case Studies of The FCC’s Radio Contour Overlap Rules. CommLaw Conspectus 2:21–41. Ivy Group. 2000. Whose Spectrum is It Anyway? Historical Study of Market Entry Barriers, Discrimination and Changes in Broadcast and minority commercial radio ownership

111

Wireless Licensing, 1950 to Present. Prepared for the Office of General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission. http://www.fcc .gov/opportunity/meb_study/historical_study.doc (accessed September 1, 2009). Kolko, Jed. 2007. Broadband for All? Gaps in California’s Broadband Adoption and Availability. http://www.ppic.org/main/publication .asp?i⳱758 (accessed August 2, 2009). ———. 2000. Broadcast Licensing Study: Estimation of Utilization Rates/ Probabilities of Obtaining Broadcast Licenses from the FCC. http:// www.fcc.gov/opportunity/meb_study/ (accessed September 1, 2009). Krasnow, Erwin, and Lisa Fowlkes. 1999. The FCC’s Minority Tax Certificate Program: Life after Death. Federal Communications Law Journal 51:671–679. Media Access Project. 1995. In the Matter of Advanced Television Systems and their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service. March 7. MM Docket No. 87-268. http://www.mediaaccess.org/ programs/digitaltv/comments/atvcmts.htm (accessed July 15, 2009). Napoli, Philip M. 2002. Audience Valuation and Minority Media: An Analysis of the Determinants of the Value of Radio Audiences. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46 (2):169–184. Napoli, Philip M. 2008. Paradoxes of Media Policy Analysis: Implications for Public Interest Media Regulation. Administrative Law Review 60 (4):801–812. Napoli, Philip M., and Joe Karaganis. 2007. Toward a Federal Data Agenda for Communications Policymaking. CommLaw Conspectus, 16 (1), 53–96. Ofori, Kofi. 1999. When Being No.1 Is Not Enough: The Impact of Advertising Practices on Minority-Owned & Minority-Formatted Broadcast Stations. http://www.civilrightsforum.org/fccadvertising.htm (accessed August 15, 2009). Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District. 2007. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701. Patton, Lori D. 2006. The Voice of Reason: A Qualitative Examination of Black Student Perceptions of Black Culture Centers. Journal. of College Student Development 47 (6): 628–646. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372, 396 (3d Cir. 2004). Radio Business Report. 2009. Davidson Media Becomes SS Holdings. February 13. http://www.rbr.com/radio/radio_deals/12906.html (accessed August 10, 2009). Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. 1978. 539 U.S. 306, 328. Reed-Huff, LaVonda. 2006. Radio Regulation: The Effect of a Pro-Localism Agenda on Black Radio. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights & Social Justice 12:97–154. 112

catherine j.k. sandoval

Ruitenberg, Rudy. 2008. Internet Ad Spending to Overtake Radio in 2008, Publicist Says, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid⳱ 20601204&sid⳱aeJ2MQBDVzKA (accessed August 21, 2009). Sandoval, Catherine. 2008. Antitrust Language Barriers; First Amendment Constraints on Defining an Antitrust Market by a Broadcast’s Language, and its Implications for Audiences, Competition and Democracy. Federal Communications Law Journal, 60:407–478. Siegelman, Peter, and Joel Waldfogel. 2001. Race and Radio: Preference Externalities, Minority Ownership, and the Provision of Programming to Minorities. In Advertising and Differentiated Products, eds M. R. Baye and J. P. Nelson, 73–108. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier. Telecommunications Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, § 202(a), (b)(1), (c)(1)(B) (1996) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 303(a) (2000)). Turner, S. Derek. 2007. Off the Dial: Female and Minority Radio Ownership in the United States, How FCC Policy and Media Consolidation Diminished Diversity on the Public Airwaves, Review of Current Status and Comparative Statistical Analysis. http://www.freepress.net/ files/off_the_dial.pdf (accessed April 1, 2009). TV9 Inc. v. FCC, 495 F.2d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 986 (1974). U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2009. News Release. May 14. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/ population/013733.html (accessed June 30, 2009). Webster, James G., and Patricia F. Phalen. 1997. The Mass Audience, Rediscovering the Dominant Model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

minority commercial radio ownership

113

CHAPTER 6

Cross-Ownership, Markets, and Content on Local TV News danilo yanich

This study examined the effect that the cross-ownership of local television stations and newspapers may have on the local content of newscasts across television markets.1 It was carried out as a partnership between researchers (University of Delaware) and activists (Consumer Federation of America and Free Press) in response to the actions of a regulating agency that, for the most part, dismissed policy research that did not comply with its preferred policy choices. The purpose of the project was to subject data that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) controlled to outside scrutiny. It is particularly timely for two reasons: first, the FCC significantly reduced the prohibitions to cross-ownership in an order issued after a December 2007 meeting; second, the current economic crisis has increased the calls for media consolidation by the media industry as a mechanism for staving off financial ruin. Further, this study applies a new coding scheme to specific research that was commissioned by the FCC to examine issues of cross-ownership. That particular FCC research, Media Ownership Study No. 6 (Milyo 2007), was among ten studies that the FCC commissioned in November 2006. Study 6 analyzed the effect of cross-ownership on political slant and local content. The FCC relied heavily on the findings of Study 6 in its December 2007 decision to significantly relax the restrictions on the cross-ownership of local television stations. This research, partially funded by the Social Science Research Council, used the same broadcasts as Study 6. We were able to acquire copies of the broadcasts only after protracted negotiations with the FCC on the part of the Consumer Federation of America. We subjected 114

the broadcasts to a coding scheme that has been used in previous research (Brown and Alexander 2004; Higgins and Sussman 2007; Yanich 2007; Yanich 2009). This research focused on the issue of localism because that is one of the three principles (along with diversity and competition) on which the FCC can regulate broadcast stations. Specifically, the research question for this project focused on what effect, if any, did the proportion of cross-owned television stations with a television market have on the amount of total news and the amount of local content within the market.

background The Federal Communications Act of 1934 stipulated that the three fundamental principles that should guide media regulation and policymaking are competition, diversity, and localism. Therefore, in its mandated periodic reviews of the state of the media, the FCC is obliged to use these principles as the touchstone for any policy consideration. In December 2007, the FCC completed its quadrennial review of the major broadcast ownership rules with the adoption of the Quadrennial Review Order (FCC 2007). The decision contained within the Order significantly relaxed the thirty-twoyear-old restrictions on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership within television markets. The Order was the latest in a series of developments regarding media ownership with which the agency has dealt since 2002. One of the most significant events in the period was the FCC’s decision in the 2002 Biennial Review Order (FCC 2003) which was adopted in June 2003. The vote was 3-2 with the Republican commissioners voting for the rules and the Democratic commissioners voting against the changes. Considerations of localism were at the heart of the fundamental decisions within the Order. In the Order, some regulations (such as the newspaper-television station cross-ownership rule) were relaxed in part because the FCC stated that such an action would promote localism. Other regulations were modified (such as the number of television stations that one firm could own in a television market) because the FCC believed that their relaxation would not significantly harm localism due to the FCC’s belief that there was a wide array of media outlets available in most markets (Napoli 2004). Among the actions taken against the Order, arguably the most important was a lawsuit that was filed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Prometheus v. FCC 2004). In response to the suit, the Court stayed the rules changes in September 2003 and in July 2004 remanded the Order back to the FCC indicating that the agency could either appeal to the United States Supreme Court or reconsider the rules. In its remand, the Court cited the cross-ownership, markets, and content on local tv news

115

flawed research methods of the FCC that produced absurd results. For example, the FCC’s ‘‘diversity index’’ did not account for the market share of the media firm. That produced a result in New York City in which the television station for Dutchess Community College was considered more influential than the New York Times (Cooper 2003). The FCC decided not to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and it took some steps to respond to the Court after the Order was stayed. In August 2003, then Chairman Michael Powell created a Localism Task Force to examine the performance of broadcasters in local markets. FCC Chair Powell resigned in January 2005 and was replaced by Commissioner Kevin Martin. During the last half of 2006 and through November 2007, Martin consistently insisted that the agency would reconsider all of the rules governing media ownership, specifically media consolidation (duopolies) and newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership. By all indications, the FCC was poised to relax the restrictions not only on the number of television stations that could be owned by one firm in a television market, but also the rules regarding the cross-media ownership of television stations and newspapers. However, in November 2007, Martin seemingly changed his position. He gave up the effort to allow more consolidated ownership of television stations in and across markets and he focused on the cross-ownership aspects of media policy. In an op-ed piece in the New York Times on November 13, 2007, he proposed lifting the thirty-two-year-old ban on television and newspaper cross-ownership. Further, he announced that the FCC would vote on that issue at a December 18, 2007, meeting of the Commission. Despite withering criticism from two of the FCC’s five commissioners, Congress, media advocacy groups and the public, Martin prevailed in forcing the vote. The lifting of the cross-ownership ban was approved by a 32 vote with the Republican commissioners voting with Martin and the Democratic commissioners voting against the proposal.

differences between the studies In its decision to essentially vacate the restrictions on television/newspaper cross-ownership in local television markets, the FCC relied on a variety of information sources to support its view. One of the pieces of research to which it paid particular attention was one that it funded, The Effects of Cross-Ownership on the Local Content and Political Slant of Local Television News (Milyo 2007). The FCC referred to this research as Media Ownership Study No. 6 (hereafter referred to as Study 6). The study came to the conclusion that cross-ownership is positively associated with the amount of total news and the amount of local content produced by local television stations. Essentially, the study found that cross-ownership enhances the 116

danilo yanich

cause of localism. Study 6 underwent two peer reviews and both found substantial methodological difficulties with the research.2 The purpose of this research was to take the raw data (the local television newscast content) that Study 6 used and to subject it to a new coding scheme and analysis. Given this background for this research, it is appropriate to indicate the differences between the two studies, particularly as they relate to their fundamental attributes. One difference involves research questions. In addition to examining the amount of total news and local news on newscasts, Study 6 also analyzed political slant. That was not part of this research and, while it may be of interest, the FCC does not regulate broadcast television based on a determination of political slant. Therefore, this analysis is confined to the issue of localism. Within the examination of local content, there are important substantive differences between this analysis and Study 6. They relate to the definition of a local story; the inclusion/exclusion of sports and weather segments in the overall determination of local content; and the use of the television market (DMA) rather than the individual stations as a unit of analysis. the definition of local A fundamental consideration for any analysis of local content is the definition of local. Obviously, a broad definition of the term will, necessarily, yield a higher proportion of local content for the broadcasts under study. Conversely, a more narrow definition of local would produce a lower proportion of local content. But, whatever the definition, the notion of what is local must make some intuitive and conceptual sense. The FCC and Nielsen Media Research identify 210 television markets (DMAs) in the United States. Each DMA consists of all of the counties in which the home market stations receive a preponderance of viewing. Every county in the United States is allocated exclusively to one DMA. Each market is given a rank depending on its size as measured by the number of television households in the DMA. In a very real sense, this specification of television markets (some of which cross state borders) represents a cognitively (as expressed in viewing) and geographically bounded definition of local. In contrast to the use of the DMA as a local entity, Study 6 defines local very broadly so that local is not bounded by DMA. In a footnote, the study states: ‘‘ ‘Local news’ includes any coverage of events in the same state; for DMA’s which cross or abut state borders, coverage of the neighboring state is considered ‘local’ ’’ (Milyo 2007, 11). There are three attributes that are embedded in the study’s definition of local, all of which render the conception of local extremely problematic. cross-ownership, markets, and content on local tv news

117

First, there is the within state conception of local. Let us think of the implications of such an approach. By this definition, a crime story about a robbery in Pittsburgh that was broadcast by a Philadelphia station would be considered a local story for the Philadelphia DMA. But Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are three hundred miles apart. In this approach, any local story anywhere in Pennsylvania would be considered local in all of the DMAs in the state, not just in the DMA in which it occurred. That seems farfetched and not able to withstand the common sense test. Second, let us look at DMAs that cross state borders. One such DMA in the study was Cincinnati, Ohio. The market includes counties in three states: southwestern Ohio, southeastern Indiana, and northern Kentucky. By the definition of local advanced in Study 6, local stories from any DMA in all three of these states that were broadcast in the Cincinnati DMA would be considered local. Third, what about the extension of local to stories from a state that abuts the DMA under scrutiny? For example, the Hartford DMA includes seven of the eight counties in Connecticut. Fairfield County, in southwestern Connecticut, is part of the New York DMA. The Hartford DMA directly abuts western Massachusetts, western Rhode Island, and eastern New York (north of Fairfield County). Again, the broad definition of local in Study 6 would render all of the stories broadcast in Hartford about local events in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island as local stories for Hartford. This definition of local is so broad as to make its application highly questionable. It even violates the FCC’s own definition of local (as I explain below). The effect, though, of this broad definition is to render any analysis based on this conception unsustainable. Specifically, given this definition, almost any story would be considered local. Not surprisingly, using this definition, Study 6 finds a high proportion of local content on the newscasts among the stations that were examined. The definition of a local story employed here is based on that used by the FCC in its examination of media consolidation and localism and previous research. The FCC researchers determined the definition of localism, in part, by the delineation of Designated Market Areas (DMA) by Nielsen Media Research. In a letter dated April 3, 2003, to the FCC, Nielsen Media Research offered the following explanation for the construction of DMAs: ‘‘In designing the DMA regions, Nielsen Media Research uses proprietary criteria, testing methodologies and data to partition regions of the United States into geographically distinct television viewing areas, and then expresses them in unique, carefully defined regions that are meaningful to the specific business we conduct’’ (Alexander and Brown, 4). The FCC researchers established necessary and sufficient conditions for localism. The necessary condition for localism was that the story had to take 118

danilo yanich

place within the DMA. That is, the area that was bounded by the geography of the television market. The sufficient condition concerned the news stories themselves. When was a story broadcast by a station in a DMA considered a local story? The decision rule used by the FCC researchers and adopted in this analysis stipulated that the story was local if the story was of at least marginally greater importance to the average individual residing within the DMA and that the individual would identify the story as local. ‘‘Thus, it is the value of the story to the individual within the DMA, and that individual’s perception of the story as local relative to individuals in other DMAs, that gives the story its ‘sufficient’ local context’’ (Alexander and Brown, 5). Therefore, this research used a definition of local that meets the FCC’s conception of the term. Consider the following example. A story about the New York Stock Exchange and its effect on the economy that was broadcast in the New York DMA would necessarily interest persons in that television market whose professional activity was tied to the stock market. However, the average individual in the New York television market would likely view that story as a national issue. Therefore, we would code the story as national rather than local. For the most part, the local versus nonlocal nature of the story was relatively straightforward. However, in the cases where there was a question regarding that specification, our approach was to consider the story as a local issue first. That is, the coding of local versus nonlocal gave the benefit of the doubt to a specification as a local story. The result was that the distribution of the stories along the local/nonlocal dimension cast the widest net possible to include local stories. total news, sports, and weather segments Study 6 used specifications regarding the amount of total news on a broadcast and the consideration of the sports and weather segments that are inconsistent with the professional literature regarding the composition of local television newscasts. The study states: ‘‘Local stations broadcast approximately 26 minutes of total news coverage, with about 80% of this time devoted to local stories. However, a fair amount of local news is devoted to sports and weather. Local news, excluding sports and weather, accounts for a little less than half (46%) of the total news time’’ (Milyo 2007, 16). Let us take the claim that a thirty-minute newscast contains twenty-six minutes of total news. According to the professional literature regarding the construction of a newscast, that claim cannot be justified. In his Winning with the News Media, Clarence Jones calls local television news the seventeen-minute newscast. He states: ‘‘Time is absolute, and it is precious. After you subtract commercials, weather, sports, good evening and good-bye, a 30-minute local TV newscast is only about 17 minutes of news. Most stories cross-ownership, markets, and content on local tv news

119

will run 30 seconds, or less. A few will have the luxury of a full minute. For a major story—90 seconds. Half-hour network newscasts contain about 22 minutes of news. They don’t have weather and sports segments’’ (Jones 2004, 345). By this calculus, the claim of a twenty-six-minute portion of a newscast devoted to news is virtually impossible. Further, in Jones’ characterization of the components of the newscast, he specifically separates the sports and weather segments from the news component. That characterization of the separation of the components of a local newscast is consistent with other authors: ‘‘The typical 1/2-hour local newscast allocates a relatively fixed amount of time to local (and sometimes national) ‘hard’ news, commercial breaks, sports, weather and perhaps a feature story’’ (Donald and Spann 2000, 282). The professional literature regarding the construction of a newscast recognizes that the sports and weather segments are structural features of the broadcast. They are always included in the newscast and, as a result, they are not subject to the news selection calculus that is applied to all other stories. They are always in the broadcast. And, even within the segments, the in-or-out decision model is less stark than that with the general news outside of the segments. In general, the sports segments on local television news deal with the day’s scores or activities of whatever sport is in season and not with in-depth sports reporting. As for the weather segment, it is, by definition, prescribed. The weather reporter necessarily includes whatever information he or she gets from the weather service and it is truly local or it would have no meaning for the viewer. It seems nonsensical to claim the weather report as part of the local content of a newscast in relation to the notion of localism. Study 6 conducted analysis of local content in which the sports and weather segments were both included and excluded. However, Study 6 states that the inclusion of the sports and weather segments is ‘‘the preferred definition of local news’’ (Milyo 2007, 5). The inclusion and exclusion of these segments significantly affected the findings. Including sports and weather, Study 6 asserted that 80 percent of news time was devoted to local news; excluding the two segments, the proportion of news time used for local news decreased to 46 percent (Milyo 2007). That is a significant difference. In this research, the sports and weather segments were not included in the analysis to determine the proportion of total news and local news on the broadcasts. However, sports and weather stories that were presented outside of those segments were coded as news. For example, a story regarding the effects of flooding that was broadcast outside of the weather segment was coded as a news story. Likewise, a sports story concerning the level of 120

danilo yanich

steroid use in professional baseball that was presented outside of the sports segment was also coded as a news story. dma as unit of analysis Study 6 focused on the individual television station as the unit of analysis. However, the policies of the FCC regarding media regulation, while they are directed at media entities, have their effect on the overall television market. All of the FCC’s language regarding media policy is directed at the effect of the agency’s actions on the local media market. As was noted previously, the FCC regulates the broadcast industry based on three principles—diversity, competition, and localism. Each of those terms has practical meaning only within the context of the local television market. The language of the Order that lifted the cross-ownership ban makes it clear that the FCC is concerned with the conditions in the DMA. When ruling on cross-ownership applications, the FCC will consider: whether the crossownership will increase the amount of local news disseminated through the affected media outlets in the combination; whether each affected media outlet in the combination will exercise its own independent news judgment; the level of concentration in the Nielsen DMA; and the financial condition of the newspaper or broadcast outlet, and if the newspaper or broadcast station is in financial distress, the proposed owner’s commitment to invest significantly in newsroom operations (FCC 2007). These factors refer to the television market, therefore, this research employs the DMA as the appropriate unit of analysis.

methodology The purpose of this study was to examine the amount of total news and the extent of local content on locally produced newscasts and what effect, if any, media cross-ownership had on that content. This analysis focused on the individual stories that comprised the newscasts. The basic methodology for this research was content analysis (Riffe et al. 2005; Krippendorf 1980). It is a method that produces a systematic and objective description of information content. The analytical method used in this research was multiple regression. The specification of the independent and dependent variables in the regression equation are specified later in this chapter. sample The sample for this study was derived from the raw content that was used for Study 6. Specifically, after some period of negotiation, the FCC provided the Consumer Federation of America with copies of the Study 6 cross-ownership, markets, and content on local tv news

121

broadcasts on DVD that were then transferred to me for coding and content analysis. The sample included the local television news broadcasts of multiple stations in each of the twenty-seven DMAs with a cross-owned station in November 2006. No DMAs without cross-owned stations were included in the database. The markets that were included in the database accounted for over 30 percent of the television households in the United States (see Table 6-1). Specifically, the sample included the local newscasts of November 1, 3, and 6—the Wednesday, Friday, and Monday immediately before Election Day 2006 (Tuesday, November 7). This study examined the broadcasts of 104 stations, 75 of which were not cross-owned and 29 of which were crossowned. However, some of the DVDs that were delivered by the FCC were unreadable or contained only partial broadcasts. As a result, we could not examine thirteen broadcasts out of the 312 that Study 6 used. Three of the thirteen broadcasts that were missing were broadcast by station WKPT (not cross-owned) in the Tri-Cities DMA. Therefore, that station was not included in the sample for this research. The remaining ten missing broadcasts were random occurrences and did not diminish the number of stations for which we had data. We examined 299 broadcasts, 230 of which were thirtyminute newscasts and 69 of which were sixty-minute newscasts. In addition, the DVDs that were sent to us by the FCC contained the broadcasts of station WMAQ in Chicago. This station was not cross-owned and it was not included in Study 6. The broadcasts for WMAQ were included in the sample for this research. In order to ensure that WMAQ’s presence in the database did not unduly affect the findings, analyses were run with and without WMAQ’s broadcasts included in the data. There was virtually no difference in the findings and the broadcasts were included. Therefore, both Study 6 and this research examined the broadcasts of 104 stations, 103 of which were the same stations and, except for the caveat noted above, the same broadcasts. Study 6 explained that the choice of this sample of broadcasts was based on the expectation to ‘‘observe local news during a particularly focal and salient time period’’ (Milyo 2007, 8) and that the approach departed ‘‘from the common practice of content analysis that examines a ‘constructed week’ (e.g., Monday of one week, Tuesday from another and so on) in order to minimize the influence of any particular news event in a given week’’ (Milyo 2007, 8)3. Therefore, as the peer reviews stated, the sample that was used in Study 6 was not representative of the broadcast of local television stations throughout other periods of the year. In fact, the methodology used in Study 6 would overstate the quantity of election stories because studies indicate that the amount of election coverage increases in the last days of the campaign (Fowler et al. 2007). Four research assistants of the Local 122

danilo yanich

table 6-1 䡠 distribution of dmas, dma rank, and tv households DMA

DMA Rank*

噛 of TV Households

% of U.S. Audience in DMA

New York

1

7,375,530

6.6

Los Angeles

2

5,536,430

5.0

Chicago

3

3,430,790

3.1

Dallas

6

2,336,140

2.1

Atlanta

9

2,097,220

1.9

Tampa

12

1,710,400

1.5

Phoenix

13

1,660,430

1.5

Miami

16

1,522,960

1.4

Hartford

28

1,013,350

0.9

Columbus, OH

32

890,770

0.8

Cincinnati

33

880,190

0.8

Milwaukee

34

880,390

0.8

Salt Lake City

35

810,830

0.7

Dayton

58

513,610

0.5

Spokane

77

389,630

0.3

Paducah

80

383,330

0.3

South Bend

88

333,190

0.3

Cedar Rapids

89

331,480

0.3

Tri-Cities, TN-VA

92

323,690

0.3

Baton Rouge

93

305,810

0.3

Waco

95

310,960

0.3

Youngstown

103

276,720

0.2

Myrtle Beach

107

265,770

0.2

Fargo

119

234,190

0.2

Columbus, GA

128

205,300

0.2

Panama City

156

136,450

0.1

Quincy, IL

171

103,890

0.1

34,259,450

30.7

Total

*Rank is determined by the number of television households in the market. source: Nielsen Media Research. The total number of television households in the United States in 2006 was 111,400,000.

cross-ownership, markets, and content on local tv news

123

Television News Media Project at the University of Delaware coded the broadcasts. In order to assure intercoder reliability, there were weekly meetings throughout the coding process to resolve any coding questions that may have arisen. Tests for intercoder reliability for the local/nonlocal variable yielded a rating of 100 percent. Tests for intercoder reliability yielded a rating above 95 percent for all other variables. stories: the unit of observation The unit of observation was the individual story that was shown on the newscast. The 299 broadcasts from the twenty-seven markets yielded 5,372 separate stories, excluding the sports and weather segments. Crime stories accounted for a significant proportion of broadcast time (27 percent) and that was consistent with previous research (Yanich 2004). The public issues category (including public issues such as housing, education, environment, health, but excluding crime) occupied 29 percent of broadcast time. Across the newscasts, stories about government and the election were 23 percent of broadcast time. Fires, disasters and accidents occupied just under 9 percent of broadcast time. The other category (human interest, entertainment, and so on) accounted for about 12 percent of broadcast time.

how much news? news content and television markets A primary question regarding local news broadcasts was how much time was devoted to news. In a thirty-minute newscast the conventional wisdom is that 22.5 minutes of the broadcast is available for news. The other 7.5 minutes is devoted to commercials. For sixty-minute broadcasts, the conventional wisdom identifies about forty-five minutes that is available for news with the remaining fifteen minutes devoted to commercials, lead-in, and so on. In this research, everyday weather and sports segments of the newscasts were not included in the analysis because they were structural features of the broadcast. Their inclusion in the newscast was a foregone conclusion and they were not subject to the zero-sum game of news selection. The segments may have been shorter or longer across the broadcasts, but the segments were not treated as separate news stories in the broadcasts. Given these attributes, it was possible to determine the amount of time that the broadcasts devoted to news by subtracting the combined time applied to the sports and weather segments from the 22.5 minutes (for thirtyminute broadcasts; 45 minutes for sixty-minute broadcasts) available for news selection. The remaining time after that subtraction for each broadcast rendered the amount of time utilized for total news. It was specified as a proportion of the 22.5 minutes that was available for news. For example, if 124

danilo yanich

the sports and weather segments combined accounted for five minutes of the broadcast time, the amount of time left for total news was 17.5 minutes. Therefore, the proportion of total news in the broadcast was 77.7 percent (17.5/22.5). This was an important distinction because, outside of the sports and weather segments, the zero-sum news selection process was carried out in earnest. That is, if one story was in, another story was out. And that played out across all types of stories, from crime to human-interest stories. This same calculus was used for sixty-minute newscasts with the exception that 45 minutes was used as the denominator rather than 22.5 minutes. Once the amount of total news was calculated for a broadcast, the question was what proportion of that news was dedicated to local stories. The amount of local news on the broadcasts was specified as the amount of time devoted to local stories out of the amount of time allotted to total news. It was specified as a proportion. Continuing the previous example, it means that if there were 17.5 minutes of total news on the broadcast and 13 minutes of that time were devoted to local stories, the proportion of local news on the broadcast was 74.2 percent (13/17.5). In short, the denominator for calculating the proportion of total news for a thirty-minute broadcast was always 22.5 (the amount of time available to a thirty-minute newscast absent the time allotted for commercials). Of course, that denominator was 45 minutes for a sixty-minute newscast. The denominator for calculating the proportion of local news changed within each broadcast to reflect the amount of time that each broadcast devoted to total news. total news for the dma Given that the unit of analysis for this research was the DMA, it was necessary to determine the total amount of news and the amount of local news that were possible for the entire television market. The first step in that process was to calculate the total amount of time that was available for news across all of the broadcasts that occurred in the DMA. That was accomplished by specifying the total number of thirty-minute and sixty-minute broadcasts that were recorded in each DMA. Then the total number of possible news minutes was calculated by multiplying the appropriate number of minutes that were available on each type of broadcast by the number of those broadcasts in the DMA. For example, the Atlanta DMA had nine thirty-minute broadcasts and three sixty-minute broadcasts. Therefore, the total amount of possible news in the DMA was 337.5 minutes (9 ⳯ 22.5 minutes ⳱ 202.5 minutes and 3 ⳯ 45 minutes ⳱ 135 minutes). In the Atlanta DMA, the amount of time devoted to the sports and weather segments was 141.75 minutes. As a result, the remaining 195.75 minutes was devoted to total news. Therefore, in the Atlanta DMA, 58 percent of the amount of possible news was devoted to total news (195.75/337.5). By this cross-ownership, markets, and content on local tv news

125

method, it was possible to specify the total amount of news that was broadcast in each DMA. local news for the dma Once the amount of total news was calculated for a DMA, the question was what proportion of that news was dedicated to local stories. The amount of local news in the DMA was specified as the amount of time devoted to local stories out of the amount of time allotted to total news. It was specified as a proportion. Using the Atlanta DMA again, the amount of total news that was broadcast in the market was 195.75 minutes. The amount of local content across those broadcasts occupied 142.9 minutes. Therefore, the proportion of local content in the Atlanta DMA was 73 percent (142.9/195.75). The proportion of total news and local news was derived in this manner for each DMA. The denominator for calculating the proportion of local news in a DMA changed within each DMA to reflect the amount of time that each market devoted to total news. In short, the proportion of local news in the DMA was only a proportion of the total news that was presented in the market and the amount of total news in the market was only a proportion of the amount of possible news in the DMA. Therefore, the information in Table 6-2 should be read with that caveat in mind. The table is organized to present the DMAs in a descending order based on the proportion of local news that was broadcast in the market. By that reckoning, the Chicago DMA produced the highest proportion of local news (77 percent). However, that 77 percent was a proportion of the 59 percent of total news that was broadcast in the market (see Table 63). Likewise, the Spokane DMA accounted for the lowest proportion of local news (45 percent) and a very low proportion (51 percent) of total news. The mean proportion across all DMAs for local news and total news was 65 and 53 percent, respectively. The differences in these proportions across the DMAs were statistically significant (p ⳱ .000). When the stations in the DMAs broadcast local stories, they were significantly longer than nonlocal stories. Across all DMAs the average duration for a local story was sixty-two seconds, compared to forty-three seconds for a nonlocal story (see Table 6-2). However, there were significant differences among the DMAs. For example, the largest difference between the local/nonlocal average duration of stories was thirty-eight seconds in Miami. In contrast, that difference was only one second in the Tri-Cities, TV-VA market. In that DMA the average length of a local story (fifty-six seconds) was lower than that across all DMAs (sixty-two seconds) and, conversely, the average length of a nonlocal story (fifty-five seconds) was significantly higher than nonlocal stories (forty-three seconds) across all DMAs. 126

danilo yanich

table 6-2 䡠 distribution of local content, total news, and duration of stories by dma

DMA Chicago

% of Broadcast Time Devoted to Local Content*

% of Broadcast Time Devoted to News*

Mean Duration**, Local Stories

*Mean Duration**, Nonlocal Stories*

77

59

75

47

Salt Lake City

77

69

75

42

Fargo

76

51

54

35

New York

73

66

70

53

Atlanta

73

58

64

39

Cincinnati

73

57

55

48

Columbus, GA

73

42

51

45

Columbus, OH

70

49

66

41

Miami

69

66

86

48

Baton Rouge

69

56

50

35

Dallas

67

61

62

40

Hartford

67

66

56

43

Youngstown, OH

67

40

52

36

Phoenix

66

64

64

28

Los Angeles

65

72

83

50

Cedar Rapids, IA

63

49

53

38

Waco

60

49

51

40

Quincy, IL

60

51

39

28

Tampa

59

50

72

53

Milwaukee

59

64

61

47

Panama City, FL

55

49

66

59

Tri-Cities, TN-VA

54

58

56

55

Myrtle Beach

53

57

64

51

Paducah, KY

51

49

51

49

South Bend, IN

50

52

52

39

Dayton, OH

48

51

57

52

Spokane, WA

45

51

33

24

All DMAs

65

53

62

43

* ⳱ Significant at p ⳱ .000. ** ⳱ Reported in seconds.

cross-ownership, markets, and content on local tv news

127

table 6-3 䡠 relationship of television market characteristics and total news content Television Market Characteristic

OLS Regression Coefficient

t-statistic

% of cross-owned stations in DMA

ⳮ.038

ⳮ7.748*

噛 of thirty-minute broadcasts in DMA

ⳮ.013

ⳮ26.297*

% of U.S. TV households in DMA

ⳮ.007

ⳮ7.913*

% of Internet households in DMA

.001

17.898*

噛 of newspaper parents in DMA

.004

10.544*

噛 of noncommercial TV stations in DMA

.013

18.658*

噛 of commercial TV station parents in DMA

.014

46.042*

* ⳱ Significant at p ⳱ .000. R2 ⳱ .622. 噛 of observations ⳱ 299 broadcasts

news content and dma characteristics Tables 6-3 and 6-4 report the findings of the analysis of the total amount of news content and the amount of local news content on the broadcasts in the DMAs. The dependent variables were specified in this research as the proportion of the broadcasts that was devoted to total news, and the proportion of the broadcasts that were local in content. That is different from the dependent variables that were specified by Study 6 that used: the total number of news seconds and the total number of local news seconds as the dependent variables. Conceptually, however, the two sets of dependent variables are consistent. Each approach measures the amount of total news and the amount of local news on the newscasts. The dependent variables used in this research are expressed in standardized form as proportions. That standardization was developed because the distribution of thirty-minute and sixty-minute broadcasts and, therefore, the amount of possible broadcast time that was available varied across the DMAs. For example, the total amount of possible news in the Atlanta DMA was 337.5 minutes as the result of the broadcast of nine thirty-minute and three sixty-minute newscasts. By contrast, the broadcasts in the Spokane DMA consisted of twelve thirtyminute newscasts and no sixty-minute broadcasts. Therefore, the total amount of possible news time in that market was 270 minutes. Using the number of seconds as the dependent variable in this scenario would make it impossible to compare the amount of total and local news across DMAs. As a result, the amount of total news and local news content had to be

128

danilo yanich

calculated in a standardized form to make comparisons across DMAs possible. That was accomplished by stating the dependent variables as proportions rather than the total amount of time (in seconds) devoted to total news or to local news. The independent variables for this research were a set of market characteristics. They included: the percentage of cross-owned television stations in the DMA; the number of unique parent companies of commercial television stations in the DMA; the number of unique parent companies of newspapers in the DMA; the number of noncommercial television stations in the DMA; the number of thirty-minute newscasts that were broadcast in the DMA; the percentage of the U.S. total of television households that were represented in the DMA; and the percentage of households in the DMA that were connected to the Internet. All of the independent variables were examined for collinearity using the tolerance value and the variance inflation factor (VIF). None of the independent variables used in the model was collinear. These independent variables represent those factors that were statistically significant, not collinear, and that provided the most explanatory power for the regression models. how much total news? The amount of total news in the DMAs was affected by the television market characteristics and those factors carried significant explanatory power, explaining 62 percent (R2 ⳱ .622) of the variance in total news content (see Table 6-3). Interpreting the statistically significant OLS results, three variables negatively affected the amount of total news in the DMA. Most significantly, for every one percent of cross-ownership of television stations in the market, there was a decrease in total news by just under .4 percent (.038). Similarly, the number of thirty-minute broadcasts (ⳮ.013) and the size of the DMA (ⳮ.007), as measured by the percentage of U.S. television households in the DMA, negatively affected the amount of total news in the market. Conversely, there were four variables that positively affected the amount of total news in the market. The percentage of Internet households in the DMA (.001), the number of newspaper parents in the DMA (.004), the number of noncommercial (.013) and commercial (.014) television stations in the DMA all positively affected the amount of total news that was broadcast in the DMA. Although the amount of total news that was affected by these characteristics was quite small, there was a significant relationship among the dependent and independent variables.

cross-ownership, markets, and content on local tv news

129

how much local news? The amount of local news that was presented on the newscasts was affected by the characteristics of the television markets. Again, as with the case of total news content, the size of the effect was not large, but the relationships were statistically significant, explaining just over 27 percent (R2 ⳱ .271; p ⳱ .000) of the variance (see Table 6-4). Consistent with the relationships for total news, three market characteristics negatively affected the amount of local news in the DMAs. The percentage of cross-owned stations in the DMA (ⳮ.136), the number of thirty-minute newscasts in the DMA (ⳮ.012) and the size of the DMA (ⳮ.010) as measured by the percentage of U.S. television households in the DMA, all slightly decreased the amount of local content that was broadcast in the market (see Table 6-4). Alternatively, three variables were positively associated with the amount of local content: the number of commercial television station parents in the DMA (.003); the number of noncommercial television stations in the DMA (.006) and the number of newspaper parents in the DMA (.013). Consistent with the model for the amount of total news, the proportion of local content that was affected by the variables was small. However, the relationship among the dependent and independent variables was statistically significant (p ⳱ .000). discussion It is important to note that there was a consistent finding in this analysis. The variable that most clearly measured consolidation (the proportion of cross-owned stations) most strongly and negatively affected both the amount of total news and local news that was broadcast in the DMAs.

table 6-4 䡠 relationship of television market characteristics and local content Television Market Characteristic

OLS Regression Coefficient

t-statistic

% of cross-owned stations in DMA

ⳮ.136

ⳮ18.242*

噛 of thirty-minute broadcasts in DMA

ⳮ.012

ⳮ17.483*

% of U.S. TV households in DMA

ⳮ.010

ⳮ7.428*

噛 of commercial TV station parents in DMA

.003

6.429*

噛 of non-commercial TV stations in DMA

.006

5.78*

噛 of newspaper parents in DMA

.013

24.398*

* ⳱ Significant at p ⳱ .000. R2 ⳱ .271. 噛 of observations ⳱ 299 broadcasts

130

danilo yanich

Further, the prevalence of more thirty-minute broadcasts (as opposed to sixty-minute broadcasts) also diminished the amount of total and local news in the market. That makes sense, especially in light of the point made earlier in this chapter regarding the broadcast industry’s penchant for a seventeenminute newscast (Jones 2004, 345). Conversely, the factors that were positively associated with total and local news content also mitigated against consolidation. The number of unique newspaper parents, the number of unique commercial television station parents and the number of noncommercial television stations in the DMA all positively affected total and local news content. Each of those variables represents some measure of diversity in the television market. To be sure, the effect, both negatively and positively, of the variables in the models on total and local news content was small. But, the pattern was unmistakable. The issue of the cross-ownership of television stations in local television markets has important political and economic implications. In fact, the reason that long-standing restrictions to such consolidation have existed is the over-riding value that we place on the principle of many voices. Indeed, the FCC’s regulatory guiding principles of competition, diversity and localism are grounded in the belief that many voices are needed in a democracy. Consequently, any change in the ownership regime of television stations within a market must take those principles into account. When the FCC vacated the thirty-two-year ban on cross-ownership in December 2007, it decided that none of those principles would be violated by such an action and it specifically accepted the conclusions of Study 6 that cross-ownership would positively affect the amount of local content in television markets. Even when the FCC acknowledged the critical peer reviews of Study 6, it categorically rejected the majority of the criticisms saying, in part, that different researchers will approach an issue differently. That is certainly true. But there are two aspects of Study 6 that the FCC accepted that bear some scrutiny beyond the ‘‘different approaches’’ axiom, including the sample of broadcasts that was used for the analysis and the definition of local. One of the major foci of Study 6 was an examination of political slant. Therefore, the sample of broadcasts was drawn from three weekdays virtually immediately prior to the midterm election on November 7, 2006. The logic of Study 6 suggested that political slant, to the extent it was present, would be more visible during the political season. By design, then, the sample drawn for Study 6 was not representative of the broadcasts of the stations throughout the year. That sample may have been acceptable to examine political slant (although one peer review questioned that assumption), but it was clearly not appropriate for the examination of the amount of local news on the stations and, by extension, in the DMAs. Study 6 cross-ownership, markets, and content on local tv news

131

acknowledged the data’s unrepresentative nature. The FCC, however, specifically rejected the notion of unrepresentative data ‘‘because Study 6 represents one piece of evidence in a larger body of evidence. We accept that it may not represent the behavior of all news outlets all the time, but it does provide evidence consistent with overall trends and patterns for the period of time that it studies’’ (FCC 2007, 26). What does that mean? That the FCC both accepts and rejects the argument that the sample is unrepresentative of the television news broadcasts? That is not the way the scientific method works. The methodology of any research must be measured against the research question that it is intended to answer. The sample of broadcasts drawn for Study 6 was, by design, unrepresentative of the broadcasts of the stations that were under scrutiny and the sample was not appropriate for the examination of local content.

conclusion This project was a collaboration between scholars and activists and that feature was crucial to its success. We made a fundamental decision at the beginning—the roles would remain separate. I would do the neutral scientific research and they would do the activism. That approach bore fruit immediately. Initially, then FCC Chairman Kevin Martin was very reluctant to provide us the raw data. Mark Cooper of Consumer Federation of America confronted the impasse immediately and convinced the FCC Chairman that, not only was it ethically correct to make the data available, but that the FCC had a legal obligation to do so. Even then Martin wanted to temper our access by suggesting that coders from the University of Delaware could view the broadcasts at the offices of the FCC in Washington, D.C. Given the time required for coding three hundred broadcasts and the logistics of such an effort, that was clearly impossible and Martin knew it. Dr. Cooper negotiated with Martin over the course of weeks and convinced him that complying with the letter and the spirit of the law required the FCC to make available DVD copies of the broadcasts. It was a fundamental development and it created a precedent regarding the public’s access to data that was used by the FCC to make public policy. Collaboration also took the form of considering complimentary data. Derek Turner of Free Press examined the ownership characteristics of stations and television markets. Beyond that, there were many discussions regarding hypotheses and research questions. These are the obvious characteristics of the collaboration, but there are nuances to such endeavors that must be embraced if their full promise is to be realized. Collaboration is based on the premise that the parties bring different perspectives to the enterprise. In a strict sense, the activists brought 132

danilo yanich

a thorough understanding of communications policy to the table and I contributed the research capacity. However, the demarcations are not that clean. Our collaboration was fortunate in that we both knew more than a little something about the sphere of the other. Consequently, the communications among us benefited from that interest, experience and our willingness to hear each other. The findings of this research were very different than those of Study 6. Specifically, this study found that cross-ownership of television stations negatively affected the amount of total news and local news in the DMA. The effect was small, but it was statistically significant and that result obtained even in a sample of broadcasts that, by their very nature (immediately prior to an election), would compel stations to cover local campaign stories, thereby increasing the proportion of local stories due to the timing of the broadcasts. Of course, the sample of broadcasts was not representative of the stations’ activity throughout the year. But, the purpose of this research was to subject the FCC study to a different methodological regimen and to compare the results. Depending on the parties, the discussion of the consolidation of media ownership, whether through cross-ownership arrangements, duopolies or local management agreements, takes place either within the context of information as commodity or within the context of information as a necessary condition for informed citizens. Each applies very different recommendations for what public policy should accomplish. In the first instance, public policy should simply facilitate the operation of the market system in order to distribute information across a set of consumers. In the second instance, public policy should diligently protect the public interest through a reasonable regulation of that market. Further, there is the position that any broadcast regulation has a chilling effect on content (Weare et al. 2001). The broadcast media industry, in which media owners are increasingly firms that have no experience with journalism, insists that it can produce news more efficiently if it could just own more platforms on which to present that news. That is probably true. However, media reformers argue that news is not just another commodity in the marketplace and the means of its production should be carefully considered to preserve the informational needs of citizens (Baker 2007; McChesney 2008). Whatever the context, sound policy research is an essential ingredient in the discussion. This research was offered to add some clarity to that endeavor.

notes 1. This research is partially supported by the Social Science Research Council and conducted in cooperation with the Consumer Federation of America and Free Press. cross-ownership, markets, and content on local tv news

133

2. Invited peer reviews of FCC Media Ownership Study 6: Gentzkow, Matthew. 2007. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/peer_review/prstudy6.pdf (accessed June 8, 2010). Goldstein, Kenneth, Martin Kaplan, and Matthew Hale. 2007. (accessed April 2, 2009). 3. Study 6 notes: ‘‘Nevertheless, an important caveat to keep in mind is that the behavior of local news stations may not be the same during the week just prior to the general elections compared to other times of the year. For example, the temptation and means to slant the news may be particularly abundant during this period. On the other hand, the viewing public may be particularly sensitized to any slant in election coverage, which in turn may serve to deter such behavior. Consequently, the findings of this study may not be representative of differences in local news coverage by cross-ownership throughout the rest of the year. Even so, this study does investigate the presence and extent of such differences during a particularly important period, when local and unbiased news content should be especially valuable and salient for the viewing audience’’ (Milyo 2007, 9).

references Alexander, Peter. J., and Keith Brown. 2004. Do Local Owners Deliver More Localism? Some Evidence from Local Broadcast News. Working Paper, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. Baker, C. Edwin. 2007. Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cooper, Mark. 2003. Abracadabra! Hocus-Pocus! Making Media Market Power Disappear with the FCC’s Diversity Index. http://www.consumer fed.org/elements/www.consumerfed.org/file/abra.pdf. Donald, Ralph, and Thomas Spann. 2000. The Fundamentals of Television Production. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Federal Communications Commission. 2007. Quadrennial Review and Order. FCC 07-216. ———. 2003. Biennial Review Order, FCC 03-127. Fowler, Erika, Kenneth Goldstein, Matthew Hale, and Martin Kaplan. 2007. Does Local News Measure Up? Stanford Law & Policy Review. 18 (2):410-432. Higgins, Edward L., and Gerald Sussman. 2007. Plugola: News for Profit, Entertainment and Network Consolidation. In Urban Communication: Production,Text, Context, eds. T. A. Gibson and M. Lowes. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Jones, Clarence. 2004. Winning with the News Media: A Self-defense Manual when You’re the Story, 8th Edition. Anna Maria, FL: Winning News Media, Inc. 134

danilo yanich

Krippendorf, Klaus. 1980. Content Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. McChesney, Robert. 2008. The Political Economy of Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. New York: Monthly Review Press. Milyo, Jeffrey. 2007. The effects of cross-ownership on the local content and political slant of local television news. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/ edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7.pdf (accessed June 8, 2010) Napoli, Philip M. 2004. The Localism Principle in Communications Policymaking: An Annotated Bibliography. Donald McGannon Communication Research Center. http://www.fordham.edu/images/ undergraduate/communications/localismbibliography.pdf (accessed June 8, 2010). Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission. 2004. 373 F.3d 372 (3r Cir.). Riffe, Daniel, Stephen Lacey, and Frederick Fico. 2005. Analyzing Media Messages. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Weare, Christopher, Titus Levi, and Jordan Raphael. 2001. Media Convergence and the Chilling Effect of Broadcast Licensing. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 6:47–67. Yanich, Danilo. 2004. Crime Creep: Urban and Suburban Crime on Local TV News. Journal of Urban Affairs 26 (5):535–563. ———. 2007. Does Ownership Matter? Content, Localism and Ownership on Local Television News. Paper presented at the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Arlington, VA. ———. 2009. Does Ownership Matter? Localism, Content and the FCC. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communications Association, Chicago.

cross-ownership, markets, and content on local tv news

135

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 7

Measuring Community Radio’s Impact Lessons in Collaboration graciela leo´ n orozco

Community radio stations are mission driven. For WMMT-FM, a community radio station in Whitesburg, Kentucky, the mission is to document, disseminate, and revitalize the lasting traditions and contemporary creativity of Appalachia by providing local people with the means to tell their own stories, and to hear each other’s stories—stories the commercial industries do not tell. WMMT challenges common Appalachian stereotypes of ignorance and backwardness with the real voices of Appalachian people, whose culturally rich history remains alive in songs, stories, and other arts. WMMT accomplishes this through programming traditional Appalachian music and its descendant, bluegrass, other forms of music, as well as call-in talk shows, candidate forums, and local news. Although the racial demographics of WMMT listeners mirror the dominant U.S. demographics in relation to White northern European ancestry, they share other traits more in common with ethnic minority communities, such as persistent poverty, unemployment, lower levels of education than those in the larger society, and feelings of social marginalization. At Radio Bilingu¨e, a bilingual (Spanish/English) Latino community radio network headquartered in Fresno, California, the mission is to reach poor and working-class individuals, particularly farm workers and Latinos, with culturally relevant programming. The station was founded in 1976 by young Mexican-Americans from the agricultural fields and urban barrios of the San Joaquin Valley who believed in the power of community radio for reaching underserved populations. Radio Bilingu¨e produces and airs a daily Spanish-language national newscast, Noticiero Latino; a weekend edition, 139

Edicio´n Semanaria; and a daily national news analysis and commentary program, Lı´nea Abierta. Radio Bilingu¨e fosters Latino civic participation through its coverage of Democratic and Republican Conventions, presidential elections, and Latino voting patterns (Occena 2005, 5). In contrast to the more educated and affluent listeners of National Public Radio (NPR), 31 percent of Radio Bilingu¨e listeners have a high school education or less and 32 percent earn $25,000 or less per year (Cohen 2006); and 60 percent of Radio Bilingu¨e listeners identify Spanish as their primary language (Occena 2005). In striving to serve their audiences, the challenge for Radio Bilingu¨e and WMMT lies in knowing more accurately how many people are listening, who they are, what in particular they are listening to, what makes them tune in, and what makes them tune out. This is vital information for any media outlet to have. It is especially vital for noncommercial mission-driven public service radio stations seeking to give voice and visibility to marginalized communities whose popular culture and cultural diversity might otherwise be lost. Like most rural community radio stations, Radio Bilingu¨e and WMMT struggle to know more about their audiences and the impact of their programming. Reliable data would help their decision-making processes with respect to programming, scheduling, and outreach. Radio managers and producers seek to know whether specific programs make a difference in the lives of listeners and whether there is a demand for programs that are currently not being broadcast. With better data, community radio can make informed decisions about keeping or adapting its present programming in ways that will benefit its audiences. In addition, audience research matters when it comes to securing funding from foundations and government agencies. Public radio generally has two ways to measure impact. First, stations use Arbitron ratings to measure audience size and demographics. The ratings are further analyzed to provide critical information about the value of individual programs and types of programming. However, a limitation of ratings is that they measure exposure to a program, but not necessarily consumer satisfaction with that program (Stavitsky 2000). The Arbitron methodology, considered archaic by many (Bachman 2007), still uses the diary method to ascertain listening in rural areas; that is, a number of diaries are sent to a small sample of adults—with telephones. Recipients are asked to keep track of their radio listening for a week, enter the information in the diary, and return it to Arbitron. Arbitron distributes two million diaries across the United States, a very small sample considering the 240 million adults in this country, and obtains a return rate of roughly one million diaries (Sonderman 2007). Additionally, costs related to Arbitron’s new 140

g r a c i e l a l e o´ n o r o z c o

technology, the Portable People Meter (PPM), which is beginning to replace diary measurement in large markets such as Houston and Philadelphia, prohibits less affluent stations from access to even the most basic audience data (Giovannoni 2007). Second, stations use fundraising metrics, most particularly their ability to raise the majority of their budgets from their listeners. Counting listener donations does not work well for stations that serve populations where a high percentage of residents are below the poverty line. WMMT broadcasts to all or part of 20 counties in three states (Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia), with most on the Appalachian Regional Commission’s economic distressed counties. WMMT is in the center of the Appalachian coalfield region with economies based primarily on mineral extraction. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2000), the median family income in Letcher County, where WMMT is located, was $24,869 in 1999. This is in stark contrast to the audiences of NPR for whom educational attainment is a distinguishing factor, with 70 percent of its core audience holding advanced degrees (McCauley 2002). Contribution data from NPR indicate that the median income of an NPR contributor is $81,271 and only 6.7 percent of its contributors make less than $20,000 (MediaMark Research and Intelligence, Doublebase 2006). This chapter reports on two research projects funded by the Social Science Research Council’s Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere Program, which aimed to develop alternative methods of gathering audience data. Equally important, the collaborative process that emerged between scholars and community media deserves to be highlighted in order that the lessons learned might be useful in future studies. The first research project focused on the historic day of May 1, 2006 when nearly two million people marched in towns and cities across the United States to oppose pending federal immigration legislation. The second research project surveyed radio listeners in the heart of Appalachia, where broadcast signals are difficult to receive due to the mountainous geography, to find out about their listening habits, as well as issues and concerns in their lives. Radio is an ideal medium for reaching people of diverse backgrounds, due to its low operating cost, capacity to reach large numbers, and simple technology. It is considered effective for educating and empowering people (Arnaldo 1997; Jayaweera and Tabing 1997; Price 1997) on a variety of issues (Anderson and Huerta 2003; Fryer 1991; McKinley and Jensen 2003; Wanyeki 2001), with particular success for less literate populations (Longwe 2001; Robinson 1994; Surlin 1986). Community radio is credited with being a medium that facilitates change (Gumucio Dagron 2001), a grassroots vehicle that provides access, equity and participation to individuals who have no voice in mainstream media (Sussman and Estes 2005). Yet, very little has measuring community radio’s impact

141

been written about community radio in the United States (Sussman and Estes 2005), especially its audiences. The following two studies apply a research lens based on elements of participatory communication (Gray-Felder and Deane 1999; Gumucio Dagron 2001; Liao 2006; Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Conference 1997) to the important work of community radio.

radio bilingu¨ e and the pro-immigrant marches of 2006 The first research project, a collaboration between Radio Bilingu¨e and the author, who is a faculty member at San Francisco State University, had as its overarching goal the need to obtain an in-depth understanding of the experiences of participants in the historic May 1, 2006 marches. Beyond learning how listeners think, their motives, and aspirations, another goal of the research was to assess, to the degree possible, the impact of Radio Bilingu¨e’s national coverage of the marches on the lives of the immigrant communities it reaches. Therefore, the study was designed as a qualitative case study, utilizing purposeful sampling approaches based on informationrich cases (Patton 1990). Data were gathered using a mixed-methods approach that included two components: an analysis of archived programs that aired on Radio Bilingu¨e during the days of the marches; and an indepth understanding of the participants of those marches through focus group methodology. The archived material consisted of approximately twenty hours of Radio Bilingu¨e programming that aired on April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2006. Four of the twenty hours of material reviewed consisted of the Lı´nea Abierta (Open Line) Program, a national talk show, and the rest of the hours consisted of musical programs with an improvised call-in component. Over one hundred unique calls were made to Radio Bilingu¨e on April 30 and May 1, 2006. The calls were transcribed in their entirety in Spanish. The data analysis followed an inductive process beginning with the raw data, and then noting specific emerging themes. Initial themes were subsumed into larger categories to construct overarching themes. The data analysis involved some level of abstraction and interpretation to relate the themes to larger frameworks. The three focus groups occurred six months after the marches, with an average of three to six participants each, for a total of fifteen individuals. No demographic data were collected from the participants due to considerations of vulnerability. The researcher assumed that some participants might be undocumented and therefore wanted to protect the confidentiality of all those involved. The only criterion used for participation was that individuals had called in to Radio Bilingu¨e on either April 30 or May 1 to address 142

g r a c i e l a l e o´ n o r o z c o

the issue of the Latino mega-rallies. The researcher was given access to the phone logs of Radio Bilingu¨e and she contacted people by phone to see who was willing and available to meet for the focus groups. The focus group protocol, consisting of open-ended questions, generated data that were spontaneous, flexible, and thoughtful. The questions facilitated direct interaction among the participants and helped them clarify and refine their ideas, expand their perceptions, and examine the personal meaning behind the experience (Patton 1990). The focus groups sessions were audiotaped, transcribed in Spanish, and analyzed in the original Spanish language. Themes that emerged were noted and compared with the themes that emerged from the analysis of the recorded programs. The focus group themes basically echoed the themes that emerged from the analysis of the recorded programs and most importantly, expanded on the role of Radio Bilingu¨e, which will be discussed later. Table 7-1 summarizes the five main themes that emerged from the recorded program material and separately confirmed in the focus groups. Internal validity was established through triangulation of data sources (Creswell 1998)—focus group interviews, the analysis of archival programming material, conversations with Radio Bilingu¨e producers and staff, and the researcher’s own more than fifteen years’ volunteer experience at Radio Bilingu¨e. The researcher was a volunteer at Radio Bilingu¨e between 1981 and 1996 and from 2001 to the present, involved with programming, news production, translations, fundraising, and so on. Between 1996 and 2001, the researcher was primarily involved as a paid consultant to Radio Bilingu¨e in the area of development and fundraising. Theme one, ¡Latinos Unidos! (Latinos United!), mentioned by 56 percent of callers stood out as a call for solidarity, a love for others, a love for family, the feeling of ‘‘we’re all in this together even though I already have papers.’’

table 7-1 䡠 themes based on 103 callers

Theme

Number of Callers Who Mentioned Theme

Percentage

¡Latinos Unidos! (Latinos, United!)

58/103

56

¡A organizarse! (Let’s get organized!)

54/103

52

¡Ya basta! (Enough!)

48/103

46.6

Reported on what was happening

40/103

38.8

We contribute to this country

28/103

27

measuring community radio’s impact

143

Theme two, ¡A organizarse! (Let’s get organized!), was brought up by over half of the callers (54 percent), who addressed the need to educate others about the meaning of the boycott on commercial establishments, as well as logistical matters such as marching in an orderly fashion and being prepared with water, trash bags, and food. Issues of which flag people should carry and whether or not they should send their children to school that day were vigorously discussed on the air. Theme three, ¡Ya basta! (Enough!), was a call for ending discrimination, oppression, exploitation, and victimization. Almost half (48 percent) of the callers made statements such as ‘‘we’re proud to participate in the marches because we’re the ones who do all the work’’ or ‘‘we’re not criminals, we’re workers and we shouldn’t let them talk to us like that.’’ Theme four consisted of factual reporting and observations from listeners in the field. Twofifths (40 percent) of callers reported eyewitness accounts, such as how empty the freeways were, how no one was out working in the fields, which stores had closed for the day in support of the marches, which stores had remained open, how many people were at the rallies, who was out marching, and so on. One caller put it this way: ‘‘We housewives have assigned ourselves the task of being reporters for one day, to report on everything that’s happening . . . we are . . . how shall I put it, working like crazy all over the state.’’ Theme five, reported on by 28 percent of callers, was the notion that immigrants make this a stronger country. Messages reflected strong self-esteem, pride, and future impact: ‘‘I am somebody and I deserve to be here and to be respected’’ and ‘‘I’m proud to be making history.’’ People called in to say that ‘‘it’s time to demonstrate how much we are worth in this country.’’ It is worth noting the role of Radio Bilingu¨e as a facilitator where listeners ‘‘took over’’ the open lines on this community radio network to exchange ideas, debate, voice opinions, and influence their fellow listeners. Callers appealed to each other’s sense of dignity and made impassioned pleas for immediate action because tomorrow would be too late. Sharing suggestions and recommendations for organizing themselves, a larger virtual community congregated on the airwaves of Radio Bilingu¨e and reported on a minute-by-minute basis what they were seeing and experiencing throughout cities and towns across the United States. People from all backgrounds— truck drivers, students, housewives, field-workers—had access to a shared discursive space in which sometimes competing ideas (as in the case of whether or not to send their children to school) were debated and negotiated. One focus group participant stated: ‘‘We call in to Radio Bilingu¨e because it is a network, it connects us nationally and we too wanted to feel and help all those who were out at the marches. [We wanted others to know] that we were also present and we also wanted to feel that they were 144

g r a c i e l a l e o´ n o r o z c o

with us. That’s one way of elevating our voices, to say, here we are! We exist. We live. We are! Radio Bilingu¨e is the facilitator, the one who is always vigilant of what’s happening with Latinos, to make sure that Latinos are aware, in contact, informed, in communication with each other. That’s why we call in to Radio Bilingu¨e.’’ Radio Bilingu¨e listeners who actively made use of the airwaves during the May 1 mega-rallies appeared motivated to ‘‘do’’ media, thus contributing to a process where radio becomes a vehicle of participatory communication that empowers ordinary citizens to take ownership of their lives (GrayFelder and Deane 1999; Huesca 1995). As one female caller said, ‘‘We must not complain. We must participate. We must take action on this important day of national action.’’ Clear that nothing was going to be handed to them, radio callers at the marches took a public stand, helped others speak, and creatively strategized on the air to mobilize. The sentiment that stands out from the callers and the focus group participants was one of celebration, of joy at seeing so many people out on the streets making a statement, speaking about their culture, dignity, and experiences of marginalization and oppression. People actively and creatively participated and empowered themselves through the medium of community radio. In summary, this research illuminates the audiences of Radio Bilingu¨e on one specific historical day, their views as to why they mobilized, and their relationship with community radio. Results from the study have helped Radio Bilingu¨e producers better understand the energy, passion, and values of their audiences. The study served as an impetus for Radio Bilingu¨e to expand its platforms for listener communication upon realizing that listeners, when provided with access to a public space such as community radio, will take the initiative to voice their issues. For example, in the 2007 citrus freeze in the Central Valley of California that left about 5,000 field workers and 7,500 packinghouse workers without jobs,1 Radio Bilingu¨e once again opened the airwaves for affected workers and their families to air their concerns directly to agency representatives. Radio Bilingu¨e continues to be more intentional in using this interactive format on issues of high relevance to its audiences.

the case study of wmmt-fm in appalachia The study involving community radio station WMMT, located in Whitesburg, Kentucky, was a collaboration between the National Federation of Community Broadcasters (NFCB), WMMT, and the author of this chapter. The study was driven by two goals: To survey radio listeners in Pike and Letcher Counties in Kentucky and Wise County in West Virginia—in the heart of Appalachia—to find out more about specific issues, concerns, measuring community radio’s impact

145

or information that would improve the quality of their lives, and to identify radio listeners of WMMT-FM in Whitesburg, Kentucky in order to better understand the extent to which WMMT reaches and impacts its listening communities and fulfills its public service mission. The study posed three questions: What are the top issues and concerns in the lives of those in the WMMT listening audience? What do radio listeners expect from local radio programming? How and to what extent does WMMT meet the needs of listeners? The research design of the project involving WMMT-FM combined qualitative and quantitative approaches. Data were gathered in a face-toface survey utilizing a short interview protocol (15–30 minutes) that contained both open-ended and closed-ended questions. One set of questions helped identify the issues/areas of greatest concern to respondents. A second set of questions was geared more specifically to the programming of WMMT to help assess the listening patterns of respondents, including why respondents listen to WMMT, specific times when they tune in, specific times when they tune out, and programming areas relevant to their lives. Demographic data related to gender, age, education, income level, and other relevant information were also collected. Venues selected for the interviews were public sites, mainly two community events and areas in Letcher and Pike Counties. A survey instrument was developed in collaboration with WMMT, the NFCB, and the author. The research team consisted of two researchers with doctoral degrees and five interviewers. Four of the interviewers were either current or previous volunteers of WMMT. All interviewers were given specific instructions in the study’s goals and interview techniques, and completed the National Institute for Health’s online course in human subjects in advance of the actual interviews. By including lifelong members of the community under investigation, two of whom also served as advance consultants on the area’s culture and dynamics to the principal investigator before the interviewing, we sought to be better informed in our task. The research team collected survey data in Fall, 2007 and again in Spring, 2008. A total of 273 interviews were gathered from several venues: an annual daylong cultural festival on the grounds of Mountain Empire Community College, in late October, 2007, in Wise County, Virginia; the annual threeday, nationally known Hillbilly Days Festival that took place April 17–19, 2008 in Pikeville, Kentucky; and the campus of a private, four-year liberal arts and science college, Pike College in Pikeville, Kentucky, and to a lesser degree in the surrounding areas, including the town of Whitesburg, where WMMT is located. Information was gathered from 273 respondents, 61.2 percent of whom are WMMT listeners and 34.4 percent of whom are not WMMT listeners. 146

g r a c i e l a l e o´ n o r o z c o

Another 4.4 percent did not listen to radio. The picture that emerges of those who listen to WMMT in the three areas studied (Big Stone Gap, Virginia; Whitesburg, Kentucky, and Pikeville, Kentucky) is one of more males (54.5 percent) than females (43.1 percent); White; one-third are over the age of fifty-five and two-thirds are younger than fifty-five; more educated than the general population; slightly more employed; and a little more economically stable in terms of owning their homes (62.9 percent compared to 56 percent for the general population). This study found that WMMT appeals to a large listening audience (61.2 percent). A significant number (68.9 percent) of listeners had heard the station within the previous twenty-four hours or the previous week. More than a third (38.9 percent) of those listen while in their cars. About a third of the listeners prefer to tune in on both weekdays and weekends. This specific sample of WMMT listeners is a relatively heavy radio listening group with 63.5 percent of people tuning in one or more times a week and 16.8 percent tuning in on a daily basis. Males are more apt to tune in on a daily basis. The most popular times of day for listening are during the evening and morning drive times. Approximately 15.9 percent tune in during morning commute hours (7:30–10 a.m.), while 16.7 percent tune in during the evening commute (4–6 p.m.). When asked why they tune in to WMMT, 73 percent of listeners gave music as the reason, naming bluegrass, country, rock, and gospel as the favored genres. Asked to name the radio station that they listen to most frequently, WMMT emerged as the station most often mentioned (15.8 percent), followed by two stations with country formats (WDHR in Pikeville, Kentucky, at 10.6 percent and WZLK in Virgie, Kentucky, at 9.5 percent). While musical programming is a major attraction for those who tune in to WMMT, listeners also indicated a high interest in news. We did not ask interviewees about the news programming at WMMT, but we did ask them about the local news that they access. We learned that a great number of people (46.9 percent) in the sample would like to see an improvement in the quality of the news that they access, citing reasons like the news should focus more on local issues, provide in-depth information, do more interviews, be less biased, cover a broader range of issues, be more timely, include diverse perspectives, stress accuracy in reporting, more national coverage, and highlight more positive stories. Compared to nonlisteners, WMMT listeners were more critical of news quality; 50.3 percent of WMMT listeners compared to 40.4 percent of nonlisteners said they would like to see improved local news. This finding reinforced the direction initiated by WMMT staff in terms of their plans for developing their news programming. measuring community radio’s impact

147

Both WMMT listeners and nonlisteners identified the lack of jobs and prescription drug abuse as their two top concerns. That the lack of jobs should surface as a key concern is expected given the historically depressed economy of the Appalachian region, now further aggravated by the current economic situation of the entire country. What was a surprise, however, was that prescription drug abuse should emerge as such an important topic. We asked participants to identify the most important issue in their community. Approximately one third (34.7 percent) of WMMT listeners said that the lack of jobs was the most important issue in their lives, while nonlisteners identified drugs (prescription) as the most important issue (39.6 percent). The abuse of prescription drugs has been attributed to painkillers dispensed to coal miners by doctors who attempted to keep the coal miners working. That practice led to self-medication, abuse, and addiction to a level that now poses significant threats in the Appalachian region, with drugs such as Vicodin, Lortab, methadone, OxyContin, Xanax, and Valium among the most abused (Department of Justice 2002, 2008). Consequently, as a result of this study, WMMT staff is currently involved in the creation and production of a special twenty-two-part series to address the prescription drug epidemic in Appalachia. This series will conduct an in-depth exploration of all facets of the issue, from availability of potent pain medications to the impact on individuals, communities, and coalfield economies. The following issues were the ones most often mentioned by WMMT listeners: jobs (34.7%); prescription drug abuse (32.3%); housing (5.4%); crime (3.6%); healthcare (3.0%); and lack of options for youth (3.0 %). WMMT non-listeners also identified similar areas as their top choices: prescription drug abuse (39.6%); jobs (33%); healthcare (6.6%); lack of options for youth (6.6%); and housing (5.7%). Although healthcare was not one of the most frequently mentioned areas, nonlisteners brought it up as a concern twice as often as listeners. It is also noteworthy that at the Hillbilly Days Festival, when interviewers distributed free CDs on diabetes-related programming produced by WMMT, an overwhelming majority of interviewees gladly accepted the CDs on behalf of themselves, family members, or friends who are diabetic. In summary, the research sheds light on the audiences of WMMT and identifies issues of concern to those audiences. Results from the study are now being used to guide WMMT’s decision-making process with respect to developing more news programming, strengthening drive-time programs, developing ideas for engaging a younger audience, and appealing to more women. The research results also were used to make the case for grant funding to produce a prescription drug series, which was mentioned earlier.

148

g r a c i e l a l e o´ n o r o z c o

implications of the collaboartive efforts These two studies of the audiences of rural community radio stations in California and Kentucky illustrate how collaborative efforts offer strong possibilities for applying a theoretical lens to the important work of community radio, resulting in rich information about the population that community radio serves. While we know that community radio stations survive under restricted financial circumstances and that conventional methods of audience research are inappropriate (Lewis 2006), it makes sense to turn to participatory methods of research as a viable option. The two research studies described were based on highly collaborative and participatory processes between local community radio stations that accept audience evaluation as one of their strategic goals and a scholar, who brought knowledge and techniques for conducting field research. Implications derived from this study are varied and include the following three points: The area of evaluation and assessment of the audiences of community radio is an untapped area of study (Lewis 2006). Partnerships between community organizations and academic institutions and scholars can lead to informative research that uncovers the richness and complexity of the audiences of community radio. Collaborative research that identifies and addresses the salient needs of low-income audiences, particularly when those populations are an active component of the research, can have farreaching practical consequences beyond those of a mere academic exercise. Community radio stations in rural areas have limited economic resources and the low-income audiences that they serve will most likely not be able to fully support the stations because of their own economic limitations. Since serving these audiences is the raison d’eˆtre, finding alternative funding sources that will make audience evaluation possible is critical. Partnerships with academic institutions can benefit community radio stations that do not have the economic means to carry out the research on their own. Appealing to philanthropic institutions for audience research funding is another possibility, particularly research that measures impact or that leads to a better understanding of the needs of a given population. Small-scale evaluations that assess the impact of, for example, one particular radio series can yield worthwhile data. At the same time, even with limited resources, community radio stations may want to allocate a part of their budget to evaluation and assessment as a way of showing commitment and accountability to their work. Although this may initially seem like a financial burden, audience evaluation can result in an overall finetuning of operations and, in the long run, attract the interest of funders.

measuring community radio’s impact

149

Data are invaluable for decision-making processes. Data can be used as leverage for fundraising efforts. Community radio personnel would do well to consider participatory methods of evaluation using simple methods to conduct self-evaluations. This process of local involvement empowers people to buy into the process of evaluation and take ownership of the outcomes of their labor. The process of self-evaluation offers opportunities to share results immediately. Staff at WMMT, for example, on their own developed an online instrument to get feedback from listeners during the period in which the above-mentioned audience research took place. This was an important self-evaluative step, influenced perhaps by the study that was taking place. Observations from the author of how the self-evaluation process has developed over time at Radio Bilingu¨e include the careful documentation of the range of activities carried out, as well as substantive feedback and stories from listeners. This process of documenting has provided the opportunity for self-reflection and analysis, otherwise forgotten given the hectic schedule of daily deadlines. In brief, implications derived from these two studies of community radio audiences at Radio Bilingu¨e and WMMT point to the mostly untouched opportunity for academics and nonacademics to work jointly on obtaining rigorous data that are invaluable for decision-making processes. Equally important, the group that stands to benefit most from this process of collaborative evaluation is the audience.

reflections on the collaborative process This section is a reflection on the lessons learned in carrying out these collaborative or participatory processes of communication research. In some ways, the participatory process, while intangible, is of great importance because it is, after all, what allows us to cement our work and reach our project goals. Such an examination of the process is aligned with the theoretical underpinnings of the concept of communication for social change, a public and private dialogic process that helps individuals ‘‘define who they are, what they want and how they can get it’’ (Gray-Felder and Deane 1999, 15). Framing these studies of community radio from the perspective of the evolving field of communication for social change makes sense given that the central premise of this field is that affected individuals or communities can hold ownership of the content as well as the process of change. While we recognize that the academic discussion on communication for social change and participatory communication has expanded significantly 150

g r a c i e l a l e o´ n o r o z c o

since the 1980s, we also understand the limitations and realize that there is not yet a unified definition of what these terms mean. In part, this is attributed to the fact that the communication movement is still evolving. Despite a history that spans more than fifty years, participatory communication (such as community radio represents) has only recently emerged as a topic of interest for academics (Gumucio Dagron 2001; Mata 1994; Rian˜o 1994). This new scholarly focus has led researchers to examine case histories and diverse community experiences in search of common or unifying elements to help profile and more clearly define a model of participatory communication. Such interest is international in scope, examining contexts in Africa, Asia, and Latin America where exclusionary and discriminatory practices have marginalized certain populations and kept them out of the social dialogue (Mata 1994; Olorunnisola 2002). An examination of the participatory process involved in conducting these studies leads us first to comment on the role of the researcher, followed by more specific recommendations for those wishing to embark on this type of research. The main researcher and author of this chapter came from outside the Kentuckian WMMT community. Of Latino background, raised in California, bilingual and bicultural in Spanish/English, and highly educated— these were some of the important differences when it came to conducting research in Kentucky, a predominantly monolingual English-speaking, White, impoverished state, with some of the lowest educational levels in the nation. But there were also significant commonalities, such as the researcher’s longtime volunteer experience in community radio, humble family origins, social marginalization due to ethnic and family background, and interest in social justice issues. The researcher’s years of volunteer experience in community radio were a plus when it came to understanding the culture, goals, and day-to-day activities of WMMT. In terms of the Radio Bilingu¨e study, the researcher operated from an insider perspective, sharing many characteristics of the target audience, such as language, culture and life experiences. Based on the two research projects described, three primary process recommendations emerge for scholars and activists who are interested in collaborating on participatory research: Approach the collaboration from a place of not knowing—allow your community partners the space to influence and shape the project; identify and develop a culturally appropriate measurement tool that addresses the salient needs of the population that is to be studied; and ensure a strong representation of individuals from the community in all phases of the study. The first point, approaching the collaboration from a place of not knowing, is based on a key tenet of participatory communication, which is the measuring community radio’s impact

151

idea that horizontal communication allows all people to have expertise; professionals learn from community members and the latter learn from the professionals (Gumucio Dagron 2001; Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Conference 1997). As scholars, we often are tempted to see ourselves as having a monopoly on knowledge; yet, how can we be experts on experiences that we have not lived, but only read about or seen from afar? To support the idea of approaching a partnership with a community from the perspective of not knowing is to recognize that in practice, a community such as community radio has far outpaced the development of theory (Lewis 2006, 14). We have much scholarly work to do before we can fully understand the complexities of community radio and the work that they do. It follows therefore, that the bottom line of the scholar/activist collaboration is to set aside any preconceived notions of scholarly expertise in order that we might fully grasp the contributions of community radio and its role in society with marginalized populations. Prioritizing ‘‘people’s knowledge as situated knowledge’’ (Liao 2006, 103) allows us to discover how daily life and issues shape the perceptions of local residents. Both WMMT and Radio Bilingu¨e are staffed by people from the local community. Professionals and nonprofessionals alike are involved in all stages of doing radio, including but not limited to, providing input on policies, conducting the programming, and broadcasting programs relevant to community needs and interests, which are not typically offered by mainstream media. People-centered and community-centered strategies (Lewis 2006; Wanyeki 2001) are the driving forces behind community radio. To ignore that is to dismiss the social, cultural, and political experiences of an entire community. Creating measurement tools that are both scientifically rigorous as well as culturally appropriate emerged as a second lesson from the research. Identifying and developing a culturally suitable measurement tool that addressed the significant needs of the population to be studied was central to the results of the research. It was imperative to evaluate procedures and review survey questions in light of their appropriateness for the intended community. In the Radio Bilingu¨e study, the interviewers needed to be bilingual and bicultural, capable of communicating in the native language of the interviewees. Working with a potentially vulnerable population meant that trust had to be established very early and language would be a key factor. With the WMMT study, cultural appropriateness was critical too, even though language was not an issue because that group of interviewees spoke English. However, the survey questions had to be tailored to that population and thanks to feedback from WMMT volunteers, a question that asked respondents about their income level was deleted, because it was believed that the item would be culturally offensive to people living in the areas 152

g r a c i e l a l e o´ n o r o z c o

where the survey was to be administered. This aligns with elements of participatory communication (Gumucio Dagron 2001; Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Conference 1997) wherein messages should be crafted, designed, evaluated, and disseminated by the communities themselves in order that ownership of the process will guarantee a space for communication to take place. The third lesson that emerged in the process of conducting these studies was the need to ensure a strong representation of individuals from the community in all phases of the study. In the WMMT project, several staff people were very involved from the start—contributing their ideas, contacting other local individuals as needed, determining timelines, and suggesting venues for gathering the data among other things—and Community radio volunteers as well as local community members were identified as potential interviewers for the study. Initial survey questions were brought in by personnel from NFCB and WMMT. The researcher contributed additional questions from published research. Out of an interactive process involving phone calls, teleconferences, and e-mails arose a long-distance relationship of trust and open communication that evolved on the basis of discovering appropriate levels of community participation and recognizing when community input was essential. Future studies should consider incorporating appropriate representation of individuals from community-based organizations. Ensuring a diverse pool of stakeholders will result in stronger outcomes for the immediate project and possibly a longer-term commitment to creating a culture of research.

conclusion Community radio stations in rural areas of the United States struggle to come up with data about the audiences that they serve. Arbitron, the gold standard in radio for audience measurement, focuses on larger markets where the population density makes its work more cost-effective. Without hard data, community radio stations are less able to present their work to funders, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose small grants can make a big difference to rural stations with few sources of funding. The research experiences presented here were efforts aimed at obtaining audience data to document the vital work of rural community radio stations. Results from the research provide us with powerful arguments on the importance of the work of community radio. These two studies point to unlimited possibilities for designing research that will yield meaningful data for community radio stations. Future studies involving community radio may benefit from being grounded in participatory communication processes measuring community radio’s impact

153

that incorporate the viewpoints of diverse stakeholders, including marginalized populations who are most affected by the issues.

note 1. See 2007 news story ‘‘California: Freeze, new cities’’ in the online publication Rural Migration News: http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more .php?id⳱1194_0_2_0.

references Anderson, D. Michael, and Elmer E. Huerta. 2003. Developing and Evaluating a Radio-linked Telephone Helpline for Hispanics. In Sexual and Reproductive Health Promotion in Latino Populations: Parteras, Promotoras Y Poetas: Case Studies Across the Americas, eds. M. I. Torres and G. P. Cernada, 187–196. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Co. Arnaldo, Carlos A. 1997. By the People, For the People: Self-reliant, Lowcost Community Radio Stations at the Heart of Rural Development. UNESCO Courier, 32–34. Bachman, Katy. 2007. An awkward pause. MediaWeek, 17 (44):5–6. Cohen, Arthur. 2006. Radio Bilingu¨e Audience Analysis. (Report based on Arbitron Survey Data Fall 2005–Spring 2006). Available from Radio Bilingu¨e, 5005 E. Belmont, Fresno, CA 93727. Creswell, John W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Corporation. ———. 1973. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: The Seabury Press. Fryer, Michelle L. 1991. Health Education Through Interactive Radio: A Child-to-Child Project in Bolivia. Health Education Quarterly 18 (1):65–77. Giovannoni, David. 2007. Public Radio and Arbitron: Negotiating the Future. http://www.aranet.com/library/pdf/doc-0115.pdf (accessed August 22, 2008). Gray-Felder, Denise, and James Deane. 1999. Communication for Social Change: A Position Paper and Conference Report. New York: Rockefeller Foundation. http://www.communicationforsocialchange.org/ pdf/positionpaper.pdf (accessed June 8, 2010). Gumucio Dagron, Alfonso. 2001. Making Waves: Stories of Participatory Communication for Social Change. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation. 154

g r a c i e l a l e o´ n o r o z c o

Huesca, Robert. 1995. A Procedural View of Participatory Communication: Lessons from Bolivian Tin Miners’ Radio. Media, Culture & Society 17:101–119. Jayaweera, Wijayananda, and Louie Tabing. 1997. Villages Find Their Voice: Radio Brings Empowerment to Rural Communities in the Philippines. UNESCO Courier, Feb 1997, 34–36. Lewis, Peter M. 2006. Community Media: Giving ‘‘a Voice to the Voiceless.’’ In From the Margins to the Cutting Edge: Community Media and Empowerment, eds. P. M. Lewis and S. Jones, 13–39. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. Liao, Hsiang-Ann. 2006. Toward an Epistemology of Participatory Communication: A Feminist Perspective. The Howard Journal of Communication 17:101–118. Longwe, Lettie. 2001. Changing the Way Women’s Lives Are Portrayed. Nieman Reports, 76–77. Mata, Marita. 1994. Being Women in the Popular Radio. In Women in Grassroots Communication: Furthering Social Change, ed. P. Rian˜o, 192–212. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McCauley, Michael P. 2002. Leveraging the NPR Brand: Serving the Public while Boosting the Bottom Line. Journal of Radio Studies 9 (1):65–91. McKinley, Michelle A., and Lene O. Jensen. 2003. In Our Own Voices: Reproductive Health Radio Programming in the Peruvian Amazon. Critical Studies in Media Communication 20 (2):180 –203. MediaMark Research & Intelligence. 2006. MRI Doublebase. www.mediamark.com. National Drug Intelligence Center. 2002. Kentucky Drug Threat Assessment. http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs1/1540/odd.htm (accessed June 8, 2010). ———. 2008. Appalachia High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Drug Market Analysis 2008. http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs27/27483/ product.htm (accessed August 18, 2008). Occena, Bruce. 2005. Radio Bilingu¨e organizational profile. A report prepared by BTW Consultants, 2550 Ninth St., Suite 113, Berkeley, CA 94710, www.informingchange.com. Olorunnisola, Anthony A. 2002. Community Radio: Participatory Communication in Postapartheid South Africa. Journal of Radio Studies 9 (1):126–145. Patton, Michael Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Price, Gareth. 1997. The Second Half Century (1945–1995): A Continuing Struggle for Access to the Airwaves. UNESCO Courier, 22–27. measuring community radio’s impact

155

Rian˜o, Pilar, ed. 1994. Women in Grassroots Communication: Furthering Social Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Robinson, Richard. 1994. Still Making Waves. Americas (English Edition) 46 (4):44–49. Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Conference. 1997. Communications and Social Change: Forging Strategies for the 21st Century. A report of the conference held in Bellagio, Italy, April 21–25, 1997. Rural Migration News. 2007. California: Freeze, new cities. http:// migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id⳱1194_0_2_0 (accessed May 12, 2010). Sonderman, Joe. 2007. It’s All About the Numbers. St. Louis Journalism Review (April–May), 22–23. Stavitsky, Alan G. 2000. By the Numbers: The Use of Ratings Data in Academic Research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 44 (3):535–539. Surlin, Stuart H. 1986. Uses of Jamaican Talk Radio. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 30 (4):459–466. Sussman, Gerald, and J. R. Estes. 2005. KBOO Community Radio: Organizing Portland’s Disorderly Possibilities. Journal of Radio Studies 12 (2):223–239. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American FactFinder. http://factfinder.census .gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event⳱Search& geo_id⳱&_geoContext⳱ (accessed July 30, 2008). U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. American Community Survey Reports, ACS08, Income, Earnings, and Poverty Data from the 2006 American Community Survey. http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/acs-08 .pdf (accessed August 2, 2008). Wanyeki, Muthoni L. 2001. Community Radio Provides Women a Way to Have Their Voices Heard. Nieman Reports, 55 (4): 75–76.

156

g r a c i e l a l e o´ n o r o z c o

CHAPTER 8

Youth Channel All-City Mapping the Media Needs and Interests of Urban Youth isabel castellanos, amy bach, and rachel kulick

Around the country, public access media centers are facing an identity crisis, an identity opportunity, or perhaps a combination of the two. These centers are a part of a larger media democracy and education movement that seeks to transform the structural, social, and representational arrangements of the current media system. Public access centers are noncommercial spaces for individuals to produce and air their own media. However, their role as a relevant public and free form of communication is currently being questioned by the local municipalities who financially and politically support these centers. New digital technologies and inexpensive consumer equipment allow individuals to create media in their own homes while our Web 2.0 world gives young people and adults alike the capacity to produce and distribute their media texts through Internet platforms such as personal Web sites, podcasts, blogs, and online video sharing sites like YouTube. Accompanied by shifts in local and national policies, public access television centers are rethinking their approach to community media and their strategies towards operations and community inclusivity.1 This chapter focuses on the Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) Youth Channel (YC), a youth media division of a public access center that is taking the traditional public access model in a new direction. The YC, like many emerging independent youth media spaces, takes a communityoriented approach to media production that looks to collaborative production practices, peer-to-peer education models, and other informal mentoring approaches for young people to not only make media but also to 157

cultivate a sense of belonging within a larger youth community and youth culture. Since 2000, the YC has been reframing the traditional public access model of first-come, first-served into one where it emphasizes outreach to marginalized communities of individuals and alliance-building between and within these communities. This chapter centers on a collaborative research project developed at the MNN Youth Channel in which YC participants, staff, and university-based researchers joined together to conduct a community needs assessment of the media needs and interests of urban youth. Together, we launched the community needs assessment with the hopes of cultivating a community process for young people and media educators to inform the direction of a new public access/community media initiative, the YC All-City, which will be a noncommercial youth channel that will provide young people with a citywide platform for media education, production, and programming. We see this chapter, and indeed this study, as an entry point to considering community-oriented approaches to public access, policymaking, and infrastructure development that expand the boundaries of who can be a researcher, policy informant, and policy maker. The first section of this chapter examines how the MNN Youth Channel fits within the larger context of public access media. It focuses on the different inclusivity models that these centers use and, in particular, the alliancebuilding approach the YC strives to cultivate. This section also presents the methodology and methods used in the design and execution of the community needs assessment for this study. In the second section, we explore the findings from the community needs assessment with a critical eye towards examining how young people’s experiences in their communities and with the mainstream media impact their involvement in community-oriented youth media spaces. The third section of this chapter offers a reflection on our collaborative process as a potential entry point to consider communitydriven approaches to policymaking.

a brief look at public access television Public access television in Manhattan started in 1971 when two cable channels were allocated for noncommercial public use. Currently in Manhattan, public access television is provided to cable subscribers on four different public access television channels2 that are operated by MNN, reaching a potential audience of more than 650,000 cable subscribing homes in Manhattan.3 Today more than 3,000 Public, Educational, and Governmental Access television stations are in operation. These stations range in size from multimillion dollar operations in large cities, like MNN, to smaller stations 158

isabel castellanos, amy bach, and rachel kulick

in small communities that operate on shoestring budgets (Davies and Yu 2007).4 These public access centers maintain a media culture of inclusivity in their governance as well as in their constituency base. These centers look to a model of self-governance through the principles of community ownership. They are not entirely nonhierarchical in their governance structures, however, as they do elect a board of directors of local community members— individuals who represent specific community interests—to govern how public access principles play out on a local level. In terms of the populations these centers serve, most public access centers practice a first-come, firstserve policy wherein access to media training, production, and distribution resources are available to ‘‘members of the public on a nondiscriminatory, first-come, first-serve basis’’ (Davies and Yu 2007, 22). First-come, first-serve approaches assume that local communities have existing knowledge of these resources. Some media activists have noted that this type of policy may not be the most effective approach when attempting to work with marginalized communities, since it operates on the assumption that everyone accesses the center from an equal playing field. Media activist Betty Yu and media scholar Lyell Davies explain that marginalized communities (youth, LGBTQ, low-income, immigrant, differently abled, or communities of color) may not take advantage of a first-come, firstserved invitation without some additional outreach and incentive to participate. They also explain that this first-come, first-served approach also conforms to already existing notions of individualism in our society, and tends to attract individuals who want to produce media that reflect personal messages, rather than programming that reflects a larger communal interest or message. Some public access centers, many having recognized the above challenges of a first-come, first-serve model, use an active outreach model and a community-building tool to expand public participation in the production and distribution of media.5 These strategies are oriented towards inclusivity and community-building, as centers actively seek and develop alliances with community groups. To a large extent, the MNN Youth Channel looks to this approach—namely, through school and community youth group partnerships—to build a youth-centered collective approach to media education, production, and distribution. This inclusive focus on building community relations has enabled the YC to become an urban hub for youth media. the manhattan neighborhood network youth channel In 2000, the Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) began a youthcentered program, named the MNN Youth Channel, offering media resources to young people, similar to those it was providing to the general mapping the media needs and interests of urban youth

159

public. The YC specifically seeks the involvement of youth from disenfranchised communities, including youth of color, immigrant youth, young people who struggle in traditional education programs, LGBTQ youth, and young people from low-income families. In its nine years of operation, the YC has built a strong youth-centered education environment at MNN where young people network with their peers, learn media-making skills, and gain confidence, while also serving the New York City community in real and tangible ways. Both MNN and YC television programming are noncommercial media, that is, media that are distributed without advertising dollars supporting it, framing it, or determining its value or content. As commercialized mainstream media programming provides little to no space for local or community issues or stories, independent media spaces, youth media organizations included, become all the more vital to the creation of an alternative form of knowledge—one that does not represent commercial interests, but rather represents the perspectives of individuals and communities who often exist at the margins and whose voices, stories, and concerns are often left out of mainstream media broadcasts. The MNN Youth Channel is currently embarking on a new project to develop a municipal infrastructure for youth media education, production, and distribution, including a noncommercial youth-centered cable television channel that will be aired in all five boroughs of New York City. Working in collaboration with the city’s four other public access television centers, this initiative will bring high-quality television ‘‘made by youth, for youth’’ into more than two million New York City homes and will be the first television channel in the United States to work closely with youth groups to produce, distribute, and promote youth programming. Using the working title ‘‘YC All-City,’’ this project aims to be a dynamic venue for young people to amplify youth voices by distributing their media on the YC All-City channel and online video outlets; to develop twenty-first– century skills in media literacy and media production through hands-on training and collaborative production models; to partake in peer-to-peer networks as a way to foster dialogue and encourage social and political participation in their communities; to participate in the channel’s advisory boards and programming committees; and to contribute to the development of a national network of youth media organizations. The YC All-City initiative will help push forward the public access television movement that was conceived in the late 1960s and early 1970s to ‘‘get your local voice heard’’ into the twenty-first century of social networks and Web 2.0 where collaborative media efforts are shaping the arts and media worlds. This initiative will not only engage the voices of local communities based on geographic location, but also the voices of individuals belonging 160

isabel castellanos, amy bach, and rachel kulick

to differing communities of interest and identity, while also fostering public access centers’ links to new media and mash-up cultures, social networks, and collaborative media productions. the youth channel community needs assessment The above contextual factors set the stage and demand for YC All-City and a community needs assessment, which was supported with the help of a generous grant from the Social Science Research Council. Through this grant, we were able to design and implement a year-long community needs assessment in 2008. Our study draws from participatory action research and Paulo Freire’s (1994) notion of naming and action-reflection as a way to design and implement a community process that identifies and addresses the media needs and visions of young people as we begin to develop a municipal infrastructure for youth media education, production, and distribution. We contend that engaged, reflective, applied research processes are critical for cultivating spaces of inquiry in which researchers, young people, media educators, and other interested constituencies can co-construct knowledge that can be directly applied towards collective action and change. Unlike conventional research in which the authority of the researcher/ academic is often overemphasized—thus reproducing already existing expert systems, preserving the elite status of universities, and reinforcing power imbalances between universities and communities (Croteau et al. 2005), this study attempts to challenge this model by shifting and expanding the boundaries of how research is conceptualized, conducted, and applied. To this end, this project assumes a youth-centered, participatory, feminist epistemology in which young people’s everyday experiences shape the research design and selected methods. The YC research team also looked to a number of theoretical and empirical frameworks (see, for example, Cornwall and Jewkes 1995; Croteau et al 2005; Fals-Borda and Rahman 1991; Fine 1992; Haney and Lykes 2000; McIntyre 2000; Naples 2003). Their goal was to cultivate a research culture in which ‘‘researchers try to couple their training with the expertise of community partners and produce work that can be used by community partners to advance their efforts’’ (Croteau et al 2005, 33). Our project was designed with this intention. The primary aim of the YC community needs assessment was to render visibility and understanding to the media needs and interests of youth, educators, and parents in New York City. This project also sought to challenge and transform conventional research practices by adapting a youthcentered collective process that privileges the leadership and participation of young people. The community needs assessment was a collaborative endeavor between academics, young people, and the staff at the YC and it mapping the media needs and interests of urban youth

161

centered on understanding the rich and complex nuances of youth media with respect to participation, production, and programming. Youth researchers received training and were integrally involved in every phase of the project as much as possible, including the development of the research design, the selection and implementation of the focus groups, data analysis, and feedback on the documentation of the findings in the final report on the study. As such, this study aims to expand the circle of who can produce research to involve populations, in this case young people, that are often excluded from participating in work that has implications for public policy and which will, ultimately, impact them. The first step in conceptualizing our community needs assessment involved a series of participatory planning meetings in which the YC research team, staff, and community organization representatives worked together to define the YC community. After much discussion, the group came up with a long list of constituencies, including youth of color, immigrant youth, LGBTQ youth, youth from low-income families, disconnected youth (young people ages 16–25 that are neither in school nor employed), incarcerated youth, YC participants, media educators, media advocacy and activist groups, school administrators, and parents (young parents, immigrant parents, grandparents/relatives raising children, foster parents, single parents, and parents from low-income backgrounds).6 Almost all of these groups had prior experience with the YC and used the YC as a site to engage in media education workshops and to produce (and later broadcast on public access television) media that presented their particular perspectives or that spoke to the mission and work of their respective organizations. This fairly diverse list of constituencies served as a springboard to consider the content and structure of the methodological tools for the community needs assessment. We also identified a number of guiding themes and interrelated questions and used these as an overall framework for the content that we sought to gather through the community needs assessment. Specifically, our study aimed to answer the following questions: How do young people make sense of their contemporary media landscape? What do young people identify as their media needs and interests? What kinds of media are young people using and how accessible are the resources to make this media? How can a citywide channel best work towards addressing digital divide issues through educational programming and approaches to youth media broadcasting and distribution? What kinds of noncommercial programming would people be interested in watching on a channel dedicated to young people? How can youth media education and production efforts be used as a tool for community organizing and social change efforts? How can the findings yielded from this research 162

isabel castellanos, amy bach, and rachel kulick

inform the media democracy movement more generally, including regional and national youth media networks, media educators, media policy advocates, and other movement constituencies? Drawing from the overall community needs assessment framework, the research team developed a multidimensional approach to gather information based on an understanding that young people vary in how they prefer to communicate their experiences, perspectives, and concerns. Acknowledging the variation in how young people, and individuals in general, express themselves, the research team decided to elicit participation through a range of methodological venues, including an online survey, a series of focus groups, and individual interviews. Each of these methodological tools was initially developed with input from the entire YC research team. The youth researchers led the facilitation of the focus groups, which operated as the primary collective forum for community members to discuss the larger landscape of youth media and possible directions for the citywide youth channel. In addition, YC interns and staff conducted interviews with the YC staff, peer media educators, youth participants, youth producers, and parents of YC participants in order to obtain their input about their experiences at the YC and their visions for the development of a citywide channel. Lastly, we conducted an online survey, which was comprised of nearly fifty questions that were grouped into five sections. We are incredibly grateful to those individuals and organizations that took the time to participate in this study. While this chapter discusses the reflections and suggestions of the participants involved, it is not intended to represent the full scope and depth of insights within the youth media field, but rather the collected insights of specific groups of people who came together through their interest in youth media. We aim to both preserve and synthesize the ideas and recommendations of the respondents while also providing a larger context in which to position the growing field of youth media.

youth media: community spaces to learn and create In the popular imagination and media, images of young people— particularly poor urban youth of color—tend to be overwhelmingly negative ones. Youth are believed to be apathetic or self-absorbed, and to be disinterested in community life. These stereotypes, however, have little to do with the reality of young people’s lives. Individuals working closely with young people, particularly in the last few decades, have revealed that youth are not a problem to be fixed, instead they offer potential; Young people are not disinterested or disengaged; instead, with support and resources, they mapping the media needs and interests of urban youth

163

develop thoughtful, critical, and powerful opinions on, as well as stories about, the world in which they live. Similarly, within the past few decades a growing public discourse has emerged on the dangers of media consumption by young people, as youth are often portrayed as passive receivers of messages and imagery embedded in media. Parents, educators, academics, administrators, and politicians are among those who have expressed concern regarding the negative effects of media consumption on young people. Some of these adults have responded to this contested arena of youth and media with a largely protective and authoritative stance (Buckingham 2000)—a stance, which consequently, leaves young people themselves out of the conversation. Our research shifts the focus towards young people— towards their thoughts on the problems facing their communities, towards their perceptions of the mainstream media, and towards their perceptions of youth media spaces and the role they play in the lives of the young people we spoke with. The young people we spoke with in our study view youth media spaces as cultural platforms and outlets where they can challenge and complicate ideas about societal issues that tend to be disseminated to mainstream media outlets. They discussed in depth the reasons for violence, gangs, drug use, and other problems in their neighborhoods and point to systemic issues of inequality, racism, and other forms of discrimination when thinking through approaches to solving these problems. Young people spoke passionately about issues of racism and classism that extend beyond individual biases and embody larger structural and systemic problems that are woven into the very fabric of our society. They recognize the poverty that exists in their communities, and in society at large, and they are aware of the larger social problems that can surface when there is an absence of resources, job opportunities, or support networks. Young people also expressed concern about issues ranging from policing (namely, the treatment they receive based on their race/ethnicity, gender, or age), to issues concerning education and schooling (such as a lack of rigor and critical perspective in the schools they attend), to issues of immigration (particularly by those youth who come from families who have recently immigrated to the United States and who face issues that are different from their American-born peers). Discussions about the issues they face as urban youth of color, as well as the problems that exist in their communities, led to conversations about how the mainstream media address, or neglect to address, these issues and concerns. The young people we spoke with are very aware of the mechanisms that the mainstream media use to target them—both as consumers and as potential ‘‘problems’’ to be feared—and they identify a wide array of tactics that media networks employ to protect corporate and political interests, to maintain the status quo, and to leverage youth culture as a 164

isabel castellanos, amy bach, and rachel kulick

specific area for cultural co-optation. News coverage in particular, young people argue, relies on tactics such as sensationalism, entertainment, gossip, and quick sound bites to steer the public away from actively thinking about and addressing larger political, social, and economic issues. Young people also recognized the ways in which the mainstream media sensationalize social problems related to poverty, gangs, homelessness, and addiction, and portray low-income and communities of color in racist or discriminatory ways. They also expressed frustration at the prevalence of military recruitment advertising at movie theaters in low-income communities of color; the ethnocentric, biased, and one-sidedness to U.S. mainstream news outlets in presenting positions and viewpoints about the rest of the world; the stereotyping of LGTBQ individuals in television shows and movies; and the prevalence of sexually driven imagery and sexist gender roles in mainstream media outlets. The young people we spoke with viewed youth media spaces as intentional, yet informal, and civically engaged educational environments where they can develop creative, critical, social, cultural, and technical skills in media production, as well as cultivate a sense of belonging within a larger youth community or youth culture. With the growing presence of youth media spaces and new media technologies young people are becoming active producers of media. The individuals we spoke with from the YC and other youth media organizations see youth media spaces as important cultural platforms where they can translate their ideas about issues that concern them into media productions. Even in New York City, a global media center, young people often do not have access to the tools to make their own media, particularly if they live in disenfranchised neighborhoods. Youth media spaces address such digital divide issues by providing opportunities to develop the social, cultural, and technical skills necessary for full involvement in the contemporary media landscape (Jenkins 2008). While the young people we talked with spoke highly of the work they do at the YC and shared their general enthusiasm for their participation in youth media spaces, as well as their excitement at broadcasting the media they produce to a larger audience, some tensions surfaced in our discussion with young people—tensions that highlight the complexity and contradictions of doing youth media work in a largely commercial and mainstream media world. While young people express excitement and attraction to the concept of a channel centered on programming made by and for young people, we learned that this pride and energy does not necessarily translate into young people watching youth-produced media themselves. Aside from logistical challenges,7 young people also identified low production values as a barrier to watching youth-produced media. Given the so-called high production values of mainstream media, young people speak mapping the media needs and interests of urban youth

165

about having a low threshold for technical problems such as camera shake, poor audio, grainy imagery, and shots that are shoddily framed with distracting elements. While many focus group participants value the edginess of content that comes with the ‘‘real’’ voices and stories represented, they also overwhelmingly seek to make media with sophisticated production values. Despite their critiques of youth-produced media, however, the young people we spoke with were overwhelmingly interested in the development of YC All-City and they had many suggestions for the kinds of authentic programs depicting true-to-life content that would be of interest to them and other urban teens. The discussions we had with some young people uncovered other tensions that highlighted their different interests in, and hopes for, the YC AllCity. On the one hand, the YC positions itself very much in opposition to the hyper-commercialized and entertainment-centered mainstream media, and strives to educate young people to produce socially conscious media that is relevant to their lives and communities. At the same time, the conversations we had with some youth highlight their enchantment with mainstream media and their desire to see the YC All-City initiative take a more mainstream turn, a dichotomy that presents an interesting challenge for the MNN Youth Channel and the future YC All-City. Many youth participants recognized being on TV as a powerful draw for other young people and something that might be used to generate further youth participation in the YC. For these young people, the allure of appearing on television took precedent over engaging in the development and production of a media piece that discussed a particular subject or presented a special narrative. Other young people said they would be more open to talking to their friends about the YC, and the work they themselves did at the YC, if it had a more overt commercial purpose, such as if it were used to advertise youth-produced music or music videos as a way to launch individual careers. Other youth echoed this move towards the commercial and noted that they would hold youth media, and the YC in particular, in much higher regard if they saw commercial advertisements for youth-produced media and the YC itself on city buses, Web page banner ads, and t-shirts. While advertising the work and programming of these commercial media centers is not necessarily controversial in and of itself—the YC is considering how to brand the new YC All-City as a way to make the name and mission of the organization identifiable and recognizable to the general public and to generate more youth interest in this new youth media space—the fact that young people look to this advertisement as a form of legitimization raises questions about the inherent value young people find in the production of community media. 166

isabel castellanos, amy bach, and rachel kulick

These discussions also raise questions for the MNN Youth Channel, a noncommercial public access space whose very mission centers on drawing youth interest in their organization based on engaging young people in the production of noncommercial, community-oriented, and socially conscious media. Is the lack of youth interest in watching noncommercial, youthproduced media a result of a failure to create a particular brand? Or is it that young people often fail to see the value of making socially responsible youth-produced media because they see that it is not valued in the larger world? Youth interests in media often do tend to lean towards the commercial and individual, rather than the communal. This seems to be a fairly obvious consequence of growing up in contemporary American society, where the private and individual are privileged over the public and the communal. Our mainstream media system, certainly, plays a role in the promulgation of these values, as the media it produces and broadcasts is rooted in generating capital, rather than in producing media oriented towards the larger public good. Young people, now more than ever, are growing up in a culture produced and reproduced by mainstream media messages. Yet whether branding the YC All-City will contribute to an increased legitimacy of socially conscious, youth-produced media will remain to be seen. Negotiating the delicate balance between supporting young people to pursue their interests and pushing them beyond their zones of familiarity to explore issues that challenge them, to consider a different point of view, or to become more civically involved gets at the heart of the work of youth media spaces and how they strive to improve. We view this tension as one that the MNN Youth Channel and future YC All-City, as well as other youth organizations around the country and world, must acknowledge and wrestle with as the youth media field continues to grow.

reflection on our process Our findings beg a larger policy question: What does it mean to strive for a more democratic sphere within the context of youth media? Through our collaboration, we began to realize that youth participation in a democratic sphere is not only about securing additional pipelines for young people to make media. It is not only about the expansion of youth audiences that watch media created by young people. Rather, we need to recognize a complex set of contextual factors that influence youth participation in the production of noncommercial media. It is only through youth participation and leadership in the investigation of these factors that we can truly understand them from a youth perspective. Through our study, we learned that the tendency to frame the persistence of the digital divide in terms of individual access overlooks collective and mapping the media needs and interests of urban youth

167

community experiences of digital access and participation. This shift in framing digital access and involvement from an individual to a collective experience is particularly relevant for young people living in disenfranchised communities that seek out independent youth media spaces as a platform for not only media-making but also community-building. Along similar lines, we learned that the physicality of youth media spaces is critical for young people to convene and build a social environment by which they learn from each other about the role of media education, production, and distribution in community engagement and activism. Lastly, we learned how informal educational models—and the collective co-production processes of making media amongst young people, media educators, and community groups—enable and constrain inquiry, creative expression, community building, and activism. This section, drawing from our youth-centered approach to conducting a community media needs assessment, highlights some of these contextual factors and explores how they can contribute to community-driven media policymaking and the larger movement for media change and justice. participatory planning As we emphasize throughout this chapter, media policy work with a community-driven focus starts on the ground with an inquiry process that encourages not only collaboration but also the cultivation of community leadership. In our project, alliance building occurred as a dialectic between stakeholders working within the MNN Youth Channel and the larger public access realm, and representatives from the YC constituency base including youth media groups, community youth organizations, and schools. From the onset of our project, the YC research team comprised of YC staff, youth researchers, and academics engaged in a participatory planning process in an effort to elicit input on the overall research design from YC staff, participants, and community representatives. First, we wanted to ensure that our research questions and approaches to gathering information matched the overall goals of the community needs assessment—to identify the media needs and interests of New York City youth. Second, we sought to cultivate a research culture that provided enough time and space for participants to build a sense of trust in the process and a sense of engagement and investment that their input was needed and valued. With some hindsight, we see that the participatory planning stage was much more complicated and time consuming than we had anticipated. For many of us, engaging in a collaborative research approach was somewhat uncharted, so we spent a fair amount of time deliberating on ways to ensure youth participation and leadership as much as possible throughout the different phases of the project. Participatory planning also involved examining 168

isabel castellanos, amy bach, and rachel kulick

our existing beliefs and assumptions about a set of interrelated questions including: What constitutes community-based research? Who can be a researcher? How do we ensure parity for young people, staff, and academics involved in the collaborative process? How are we defining community and who are the communities that we are seeking to include in this research? How do we engage these communities? And how do we translate our findings into information that will be meaningful for these communities? The Center for International Media Action (CIMA) recently released a report entitled Process Is Powerful: Planning and Evaluation for Media Activists. This report highlights some of the opportunities and challenges of participatory planning and evaluation as it relates to activist/academic partnerships within the media justice movement. CIMA developed some valuable handouts about activist/academic partnerships in which they quote S. C. Halpern (1985) who asserts, ‘‘the best way for scholars and activists to work together is like porcupines making love . . . very, very carefully’’ (44). While many practitioners, advocates, and activist in the media justice movement do recognize the value of research to analyze strategies that facilitate and hinder long-term structural change of the media system, many have also encountered ‘‘experiences of disrespect and even exploitation by professional researchers’’ (Dichter et al. 2009, 9). This cautionary stance towards research and academics can also arise when the motives and functions of scholarship are not clearly articulated. In addition, practitioners can take offense to academic research that frames questions and uses jargon that are not accessible, meaningful, or useful to the movement being studied.8 Scholars also indicate that universities tend to stigmatize and dismiss engaged or participatory research methods as less rigorous and credible than conventional approaches to research. Dichter explains that both groups acknowledge that ‘‘differences in language, priorities, and timeframes for their work’’ (9) can pose numerous obstacles to working well together. A salient collaborative moment occurred for us during the planning process when we convened a group of YC alumni to review a draft of questions for the community needs assessment focus groups. Initially, we were planning to ask focus group participants to describe some of the positive and negative stereotypes infused in mainstream media. However, the alumni immediately encouraged us to reframe the questions in terms that would more likely resonate with young people. They suggested we ask participants about the worst mainstream media program they have recently seen and why they disliked it as an entry point into discussing mainstream media content. Similarly, they advised us to ask participants about their favorite media shows and why they like them. We took their advice and revised these and other questions for the focus groups with an eye towards avoiding academic jargon and asking young people questions that related to their mapping the media needs and interests of urban youth

169

everyday experiences. Feedback loops of this kind were critical for the research process in cultivating shared spaces for researchers, YC staff, and young people to experience the inherent messiness of collaborative research in a manner that contributed to, and often complicated, our overall understanding of the project. community ownership of the process and new knowledge We view research as a social act, as an interactive process that is continuously defined by the researchers (academics, YC staff, and young people) as well as participating individuals and organizations (Reinharz 1979). Overall, these community-driven processes operate as a potential starting point to conceive and launch policy and infrastructural plans such as YC All-City in a fashion that encourages inclusivity. For us, inclusivity is not only about including the targeted population (young people) as research participants. Rather, young people were an integral part of the research team, which enabled them to shape the project in ways that would hopefully be meaningful to a larger youth constituency that we were seeking to engage in the project. Given our focus on community discussions in the form of focus groups, we see the community needs assessment outcomes as more oriented towards increasing our understanding of collective notions of media access and opportunities for expression in the form of community building. We see the inclusion of young people’s leadership and perspectives in public discussions about their media needs and interests as a critical tool for youth engagement in public life. Through a multidimensional approach to collecting experiences, stories, and ideas for the future, a number of important recommendations surfaced. First, as we frame youth media as a field, we need to approach youth media from the perspective of young people on their terms. Youth involvement and leadership in strategic planning for organizations and larger networks is critical for cultivating the field in a manner that reflects the interests and experiences of young people. With active participation of young people, we need to ensure also that we include and provide leadership roles to young people, who are generally marginalized or disenfranchised from political power and leadership roles (for example, youth of color, young people who struggle in traditional education programs, immigrant youth, LGTBQ youth, and young people from low-income families). The YC community needs assessment serves as a model for how to actively involve young people in the design, implementation, and analysis of community-engaged research. Engaged youth-centered research processes can be useful tools in cultivating participatory planning spaces by which researchers, young people, educators, and parents can work together. 170

isabel castellanos, amy bach, and rachel kulick

Second, youth media spaces might need to consider clarifying their missions and educational purposes to include the interests of young people as well as the overall principles of social change work. Young people told us that youth media spaces do provide young people with a platform to produce community media, foster dialogue, and engage in social and political activism. The experiences of producing socially conscious media can lead to social change in larger communities. At the same time, casting a wider definition of media production that includes socially oriented media, but also allows for media that reflect individual interests could speak more directly to young people on their terms according to their varying interests. Third, it is important to recognize that there is not an overall agenda, set of principles, or series of long-range visions or plans for the youth media field. Instead, because many youth media groups are overextended and often competing for the same funding resources, they collaborate when they can, but there is limited time allocated for strategic work such as lessons learned, forums, and conferences within the youth media field. There are some important youth media networks doing work in professional development, online video sharing and overall information exchange in the field (for example, the National Youth Media Access Project, the Youth Media Leadership Network, the Video Exchange Network, the Young People’s Media Network, and ListenUp!) emerging on multiple local and global fronts. We see the development of YC-All City as an additional network that has the potential to bring together groups such as local and global youth media groups, public access centers, schools, policy advocates, and funders in a youth-led/-centered approach that we believe will strengthen the overall field of youth media. Fourth, working with young people cannot simply be a cookie-cutter approach, nor do dynamic spaces for youth media learning happen overnight. It is important to be real and upfront with young people to cultivate an environment as one media educator puts it, ‘‘where we don’t have all the answers as instructors . . . we want them to find it themselves, or we’re not always right . . . I can learn from you and you can learn from me.’’ Informal teaching approaches such as peer-to-peer learning and collaborative production practices between staff and participants can help create dynamic and safe spaces for media learning. Equally as vital for youth media organizations is allocating time for reflection and long-range planning for their educators. Instead of attempting to reach as many young people as possible, youth media spaces might need to focus on quality and in-depth training which might mean reducing the number of workshops and training hours to ensure that media educators have adequate time and resources for not only hands-on teaching and facilitating but also planning and evaluation. mapping the media needs and interests of urban youth

171

Fifth, youth media spaces also need to consider how they are approaching the production of socially conscious media. Young people are sometimes drawn towards the commercial potential producing media offers, rather than socially oriented media in and of itself—values that are certainly reflected in our larger society. Similarly, as young people grow up in a world wrought with prejudices and inequities, they (along with adults) are also inclined to internalize some of these discriminatory stereotypes and assumptions as normal and natural. While many youth groups touch upon media literacy on the surface, groups might need to incorporate it into their overall approaches to media education and attend to it as much as the production side of this work. In addition, there needs to be more financial and educational support for the development of this kind of combined media literacy and production curriculum resources both on the organizational level, as well as on the funding level. transitioning from research to action With an overall commitment to a shared sense of ownership in the project, the YC research team engaged in a number of discussions about how to report and disseminate the findings in forms that would resonate with the YC and their diverse constituencies. To this end, we decided that the research would culminate in both a written report and youth-led community presentations that would provide the YC, partnering community organizations, educators, media advocates, media policy makers, and other youth media field stakeholders with an overview of our findings, including obstacles to independent media production as well as possibilities for youth education and community building. Given the wide scope of this project, it has been challenging for us to identify its culmination. Technically speaking, most of the funding to complete the community needs assessment was allocated over the course of a year. But many of us know all too well that the expiration of funding does not necessarily coincide with the overall timeframe of the project. Media activist scholar Dorothy Kidd uses the term embedded researcher to denote academic researchers that not only engage in research with specific groups but also consider themselves a contributing member/activist/advocate/ally of that organization or larger movement. Wearing multiple hats can be an important part of this work, especially for groups and academic researchers to build a sense of connection and trust over time. However, embedded research can also be rather tricky in determining when and how to hand off the project to the larger community. For us, the hand off has been a gradual progression, as the academic researchers are no longer working on the community needs assessment on a regular basis but they are involved in a fair amount of the dissemination process. More attention needs to be directed 172

isabel castellanos, amy bach, and rachel kulick

to this transition, especially in considering the applied face of research and how findings might translate into an agenda for action.

conclusion While our engaged research process by no means provides a blueprint for the media change work, we hope that it can act as a springboard to consider community-driven policy approaches to not only youth media but also more broadly defined social change efforts. There is not a simple recipe for cultivating participatory media spaces for young people to contribute their perspectives and experiences, because the production of socially conscious youth media operates across a diverse array of organizations and initiatives employing political, organizational, cultural, and educational strategies. But given our increasingly commercial world, we cannot underestimate the importance of these spaces that provide young people with the chance to produce media and critique the mainstream media images and messages that we encounter daily. In these spaces, young people create media that speaks to a larger audience and that becomes part of a larger youth culture. Equally important are the possibilities that exist for young people as they explore the larger world through the lens of a camera. They learn how to participate in their larger communities, how to critically navigate power relationships, and how to challenge common assumptions and stereotypes inherent in popular culture and the mainstream media. At the same time, it is important to not romanticize youth media as a site of resistance when the realities are much more complex. While many youth media organizations seem to position young people as inherently drawn towards producing socially conscious and noncommercial media that reflect their own interests and resonates with the communities to which they belong, young people arrive at youth media spaces with a wide range of interests and purposes. Some youths in the focus groups valued the opportunity to make noncommercial media that tell very different stories than those typically broadcast on mainstream media outlets, while others were lured by the legitimization that commercial media offer and are enchanted by what they represent, namely, money, success, and fame. Even though young people are highly critical of what they watch on television and in the movies, they also express an attraction to these mainstream media outlets in terms of the entertainment and the escape valve that they provide. These rich complexities present in doing youth media work offer challenges and opportunities alike to the MNN Youth Channel and to other independent media spaces that identify noncommercial media as a tool for community building and organizing. mapping the media needs and interests of urban youth

173

notes 1. Within the past few years, we have seen a number of public access television centers shut down due to a lack of local and national support. In some cases, public access centers continue to operate but with significantly lower budgets and under different operational models (Smiley 2009). In San Francisco, the Bay Area Video Coalition, a nonprofit organization, runs the city’s two public access channels combining the traditional first-come, firstserved airtime model with an online voting system, along with a curated block, paid for by nonprofit organizations. In Denver, the city council eliminated their public access center’s operating budget. In response, a small media nonprofit group started operating the channels with only a capital budget that limits access to producers uploading videos online and scheduling airings of shows on one of the cable channels. After the initial airing, the videos are rebroadcast through an online public voting system. 2. The availability of the number of access channels made available to the public has depended, in many cases, on the political clout of local governments and the committed, and often unpaid, efforts of local groups to pressure private cable companies to make access channels available (Rennie 2006; Stein 2001). 3. As MNN’s programming is also streamed live on the Internet, the potential audience for MNN and the future YC All-City could extend well beyond Manhattan to those nation-wide and world-wide viewers, who know of these organizations and have access to a high-speed Internet connection that would facilitate streaming media online and viewing it in real time. 4. According to Ellie Rennie (2006), public access television exists on 16.5 percent of all cable television stations. Nationwide nearly one million individuals make shows at access centers across the country and a quarter of a million organizations make and air programming on public access. Public access television stations generate more new and original programming than all mainstream media networks combined (Davies and Yu 2007; Blau 1992), broadcasting in more than forty different languages, twenty-four hours a day (with community-produced programming twenty hours a day). 5. Other access centers working with this alliance-building model include, but are not limited to, Cambridge Community Television, Saint Paul Neighborhood Network, and People TV in Atlanta. This model is often chosen when centers have developed specialty departments, such as youth media or senior and citizen journalism programs. 6. See the Profile of Participating Organizations in the full CNA report that can be found on the Youth Channel Web site at http://www.youthchannel .org. 7. Some of these included not having cable television at home, living outside of Manhattan and therefore not having access to Manhattan public access television channels, or having a slow Internet connection, or no Internet 174

isabel castellanos, amy bach, and rachel kulick

access at all in their homes, thereby preventing them from streaming YC broadcasts online. 8. See Charlotte Ryan, ‘‘Successful Collaboration: Movement Building in the Media Arena’’ in Rhyming Hope and History: Activists, Academics, and Social Movement Scholarship (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2005). Ryan contends that the specialized terminology and specific venues for academic work can be problematic only when it produces isolation. She explains, ‘‘The problem is not that framing theorists debate concepts; the problem is terminological proliferation as a symptom of withering dialogue with activists. More troubling still, theorists do not seem to recognize that the dialogues that they are missing are valuable’’ (118).

references Blau, Andrew. 1992. The Promise of Public Access. The Independent, 15 (3):22–26. Buckingham, David. 2000. After the Death of Childhood: Growing Up in the Age of Electronic Media. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Cornwall, Andrea, and Rachel Jewkes. 1995. What Is Participatory Action Research? Social Science and Medicine 41 (12):1667–76. Croteau, David, William Hoynes, and Charlotte Ryan. 2005. Rhyming Hope and History: Activists, Academics, and Social Movement Scholarship. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Davies, Lyell, and Betty Yu. 2007. Owning the Airwaves Through Community-Access TV. In Imagine the (Un) Thinkable: Community Media Over the Next Five Years. New York: The Media Justice Fund of the Funding Exchange. Dichter, Aliza, Catherine Borgman-Arboleda, Helene Clark, and Rachel Kulick. 2009. Process Is Powerful: Planning and Evaluation for Media Activists. New York: Center for International Media Action. Fals-Borda, Orlando, and Mohammad Anisur Rahman. 1991. Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-Research. New York: The Apex Press. Fine, Michelle. 1992. Disruptive Voices: The Possibilities of Feminist Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Freire, Paul. 1994. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Halpern, Stephen C. 1985. University-Community Projects: Reflections on the Lessons Learned. University and Community Schools 3, 44–48. Haney, Walter, and M. Brinton Lykes. 2000. Practice, Participatory Research and Creative Research Designs: The Continuing Evolution of Ethical Guidelines for Research. In Transforming Social Inquiry, Transforming Social Action: New Paradigms for Crossing the Theory/ mapping the media needs and interests of urban youth

175

Practice Divide in Universities and Communities, eds. F. Sherman and B. Torbert, 275–294. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Jenkins, Henry et al. 2008. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation. McIntyre, Alice. 2000. Constructing Meaning About Violence, School, and Community: Participatory Action Research with Urban Youth. Urban Review 32 (2):123–154. Naples, Nancy. 2003. Feminism and Method: Ethnography, Discourse Analysis, and Activist Research. New York: Routledge. Reinharz, Shulamit. 1979. On Becoming a Social Scientist. From Survey Research and Participant Observation to Experiential Analysis. Washington DC: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Rennie, Ellie. 2006. Community Media: A Global Introduction. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Smiley, Lauren. 2009. Adjust Your Television. SF Weekly. http://www .sfweekly.com (accessed August 12, 2009). Stein, Laura. 2001. Access Television and Grassroots Political Communication in the United States. In J. D. H. Downing, Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

176

isabel castellanos, amy bach, and rachel kulick

CHAPTER 9

Mobile Voices Projecting the Voices of Immigrant Workers by Appropriating Mobile Phones for Popular Communication the vozmob project Mobile Voices, also known as VozMob (www.vozmob.net), is a digital storytelling platform for first-generation, low-wage immigrants in Los Angeles to create and publish stories about their communities, directly from cell phones. The project is a partnership between the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California (USC) and the Institute of Popular Education of Southern California (IDEPSCA), a nonprofit that organizes low-income immigrants in Los Angeles. Founded in 1984, IDEPSCA’s programs are focused on education, economic development, health access and reform, popular communication, and worker rights. Currently IDEPSCA runs six day laborer and household worker centers and two day laborer corners where workers look for jobs in a more humane and dignified way while learning about their rights and gaining valuable leadership skills. The Annenberg School for Communication (the research partner) and IDEPSCA (the community partner) came together around the shared goal of designing communication systems and processes that promote media justice and help those without computer access gain greater participation in the digital public sphere. This chapter is a reflection on popular communication, participatory design, and community-based multimedia practice from the Mobile Voices project team. It was written collaboratively by thirteen members of the project and includes a project overview and an exploration of themes, including the pedagogy of popular communication, participatory technology design, and the dynamics of power sharing and accountability in university-community partnerships. The chapter ends with reflections by members of the Popular Communication Team. 177

project overview Immigrant workers in Los Angeles have little access to digital channels of communication and very limited control over how they are represented in the media. Except in special circumstances, such as the May 2006 immigrant rights mobilizations, low-wage immigrant workers are mostly invisible in English language broadcast media. When they do appear, they often are criminalized or, at best, represented as an aggregate problem to be solved through immigration policy reform. Commercial Spanish language radio, print, and television stations do consider low-wage immigrant workers to be part of their audience, but rarely give them direct voice or report on their organizing efforts. This group also has very little visibility online, which is unsurprising considering that low-income Spanish-speaking households have the lowest levels of computer, Internet, and broadband access of any group in California. A June 2009 statewide survey of 2,502 California residents by the Public Policy Institute of California found that ‘‘just over half of Latinos (52%) say they have home computers, far lower than the percentage of Asians (89%), whites (87%), and blacks (75%) who do.’’ Among Latino households, homes where Spanish is spoken also have the lowest levels of Internet access (31% compared to 83% in English-language Latino households) and broadband adoption (17% compared with 68%). At the same time, Los Angeles is the site of some of the most innovative organizing models in the country. It is home to a rich field of social movement organizations, including a number of independent worker centers that for decades have been organizing new immigrant workers that form the backbone of construction, service, light manufacturing, and garment work in the Los Angeles region (Milkman 2006; Pulido 2006). Many of these organizations and networks have developed sophisticated strategies for getting their voices heard in the media. Some have developed popular communication approaches to build their members’ ability to advocate on their own behalf. Most are currently struggling, with varying degrees of success, to integrate the Internet and digital media into their communications strategies and practices (Costanza-Chock 2008). In 2006, a Small Collaborative Grant from the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) helped support the beginnings of a partnership between scholars from the University of Southern California and immigrant worker organizations in Los Angeles to research the creation of media controlled by low-wage immigrant workers.1 That process grew into VozMob, a formal partnership between IDEPSCA and USC. The following year the SSRC supported the VozMob project to begin a series of workshops in which we could learn how to appropriate mobile phones for popular communication. 178

the vozmob project

the mobile voices approach The IDEPSCA story is one of struggle. The genesis of its popular education practice goes back to the early 1980s when members were part of an organization of Latino immigrant and Chicano parents, teachers, and youth involved in public education and affordable housing development in the city of Pasadena, California. One of the lessons learned through that experience was, according to Paulo Freire (1970), that oppressed individuals carry inside themselves their oppressor and reproduce oppression against others. Through this experience, IDEPSCA learned that popular education is a process of critical reflection of the experiences of impoverished organized groups struggling to transform society in order to make it just and democratic for the interests of the oppressed (IDEPSCA 1997). IDEPSCA has thus been practicing popular education for the last twenty-eight years. Responding to an unjust system in public education and labor exploitation, the organization’s popular education methodology has given the most disenfranchised and exploited workers the methods, tools, and values to understand the root causes of their socio-political, economic, and linguistic reality. IDEPSCA’s experience is like a double helix of DNA where one helix represents its members’ individual subjective stories and the other helix represents group objective formation; both held together by collective actions rooted in values such as dignity, courage, solidarity, humility, and love. IDEPSCA’s growth responds to the endless needs of immigrant day laborers, household workers, parents, and youth who come to the United States to seek employment, often displaced from their countries by corporations with unrestrained power authorized by free trade agreements. Yet, once here, millions of immigrants live in fear, economically segregated, in a system of ever-increasing ‘‘social apartheid’’ (Chossudovsky 2003). The values that have held IDEPSCA’s helix together include not only moral human values, such as human dignity, but also structural change. IDEPSCA works to humanize every process of learning and teaching. Its core values are also about treating everyone as subjects of their own lives rather than objects of oppression. IDEPSCA friend and colleague Michael James has often said that the most radical practice of our society is ‘‘to practice democratic processes with oppressed groups in the heart of a capitalist system.’’2 IDEPSCA tries to do exactly this, and this approach has become a pillar of the VozMob partnership. IDEPSCA’s motto is ‘‘reading reality to write history,’’ and in an age when reality is increasingly shaped by and mediated through digital networks, it is crucial that our communities develop critical multimedia literacy. Popular educators have a long history of popular communication: mobile voices

179

building the capacity of oppressed groups to speak for themselves in the key media platforms of the historical moment. Popular communicators in the past focused on community-controlled radio, as in Bolivian miner’s radio (O’Connor 2004), on social movement newspapers (Vidal-Beneyto 1979), or later, on video, as in the Videazimut network of the late 1980s (Halleck 2002). Communication scholar Jesus Martin-Barbero became known for developing the theory of popular communication in the Latin American context, emphasizing that people have the necessary tools to become agents of change, that they can resist the messages of the mass media and create their own media. For IDEPSCA’s Popular Communication Team (PCT), popular communication is horizontal; that is, it involves the community documenting, analyzing, and discussing its own struggles, demands, victories, and failures. IDEPSCA’s popular communication practice has included a number of print, radio, photography, and video projects in the past. Now, the Internet is increasingly the key media platform, but right-wing hate groups have moved quickly to create negative representations of the immigrant community. For example, a Google search for the term day laborer reveals a site called daylaborers.org as the top result. This site is an immigrant-bashing collection of unflattering photos of some day laborers. The site creators gather these photos by going to day labor corners and yelling racist insults; when day laborers respond, the provocateurs snap photos and later post them to the Web. Against the flood of negative representations of the day-laborer community in the Anglo print, TV, radio, and online media, IDEPSCA sees the need to develop and adapt its popular communication practice to appropriate the new tools and platforms of digital production and distribution. mobile phones When the mobile phone began its global diffusion in earnest at the turn of the new millennium, researchers examined the way this small ‘‘personal, portable, pedestrian’’ device quickly became linked to modes of self-presentation and sociability among middle-class youth populations in Japan, western and northern Europe, and the United States (Katz and Aakhus 2002; Ito, Okabe, and Matsuda 2005; Ling 2004). Other scholars investigated how mobile phones, often in coordination with the Internet, were beginning to play an important role in collective political mobilization, from the anti-WTO protests in Seattle in 1999, to the ‘‘People Power II’’ demonstrations to overthrow Philippine President Joseph Estrada in January 2001 (Castells et al. 2007; Rafael 2003). With the advent of camera phones, it became increasingly common to find personal visual archives made up of spontaneously snapped shots of everyday life that were stored in the phone (Okabe and Ito 2006). Phone pictures of catastrophic events, such as the 180

the vozmob project

Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, also made their way to the mainstream news, serving as a form of amateur or ‘‘citizen journalism’’ and playing a role in mobilizing relief efforts (Koskinen 2008). Nearly a decade into the widespread diffusion of mobile phones, their relative ease of use, multifunctionality, and falling costs have enabled a much larger segment of society to use them to achieve personal goals. In Los Angeles, mobile devices have been more broadly adopted by low-wage, Spanish-speaking, first-generation immigrant households and communities than any other networked communication technology (Modarres 2006). They thus have the potential to become a key content production and distribution tool for immigrant workers. In order to better understand how to integrate mobile phones into IDEPSCA’s popular communication approach, in the spring of 2008 the VozMob team conducted a survey of communication practices among fifty-eight workers at five day laborer centers. The survey included questions on participants’ access to mobile phones and computers, actual and desired uses of these technologies, and monthly expenditure on services. Findings about communication practices helped VozMob’s initial development by describing day laborers’ usage patterns and their ideas on how mobile phones can be effective tools. We found that most workers (78 percent) own mobile phones, and out of these 31 percent use their phone one to five times a day, 36 percent use it five to ten times a day, and 25 percent use it more than ten times a day. A majority of the workers reported using their phones primarily for work purposes and also to contact friends and family in other countries. The workers’ phone models and plans varied greatly, as did their use of specific phone features such as text, video, and photos. About a third of the workers had prepaid plans, and monthly costs of all phone plans ranged from $20 to $180. Only four workers knew for sure that their phone plan included SMS (text messaging), and we found that most were hesitant to text due to uncertainty about the cost. Overage charges, unclear billing, and unexpected rate changes were cited as reasons for leaving monthly phone contracts. When asked how they used their phones, many workers said they knew how to take photos with their camera phones but did not know how to transfer this content to a computer or send it to another phone. This was often a source of frustration because the phone’s memory would fill up quickly, forcing them to delete photos in order to free up more space. The majority of the workers expressed an interest in learning more about their phone’s capabilities so that they could take full advantage of available features. The survey of communication practices was also designed to better understand the workers’ access to, and experience with, computers. An overwhelming 98 percent of the workers said they would like to learn more mobile voices

181

about how to use a computer. Less than one-third (23 percent) owned a computer and half had never used a computer before. For those who did use computers regularly, they usually accessed them at a library or cybercafe to surf the Internet and send e-mail. One worker described how language can be a barrier to using a computer, since the interfaces are mostly in English. Some of the most useful findings from the survey were the anecdotal accounts of how workers used their phones in different ways, such as to document completed jobs or to visually explain a plumbing problem through photos. Many workers mentioned that they would like to have additional features on their phones but without extra costs. One worker in particular expressed the desire to send e-mail from his phone to his family back home so that he could always be connected to them. Overall we found an expressed interest in learning more about mobile phones and their features in order to fully take advantage of this accessible and affordable communication tool. For example, 93 percent said they would be interested in receiving SMS job announcements, and 80 percent said they would be interested in participating in a mobile phone workshop. These findings reinforced our belief in the potential of cell phones as tools for information distribution, media creation, and self-representation, and gave us ideas about possible paths forward for the project. Our goal became to collaboratively design a system that would work with low-cost, prepaid mobile phones (as opposed to a system dependent upon costly smartphones with expensive data plans), and to maximize accessibility, security and customizability for the low-wage immigrant community. toward participatory design Most technological systems are designed by those with power and large amounts of capital, even if users constantly push back by modifying, reworking, and appropriating technologies for their own ends. VozMob strives to involve multiple stakeholders in shaping the platform’s technology and applications from the beginning. All members of our team participate in the design of the system through feature brainstorming, testing, and feedback. Our emphasis on participatory design draws on popular education methods (Freire 1970) as well as technology appropriation theories (Bar, Pisani, and Weber 2007). Participatory design practices directly involve users in technology development to increase the technology’s effectiveness while democratizing the design process and empowering users (Asaro 2000; Spinuzzi 2005; Byrne and Alexander 2006). The aim is to address issues of power inherent in any technology design process, through participation and co-determination of design by stakeholders in an iterative, dialogic, and humanistic fashion (see 182

the vozmob project

Byrne and Alexander, 2006). Challenges of using a participatory process include the need to develop users’ technological literacy and capacities to participate in technology design (Luke et al. 2004), and the fact that participatory approaches often require more time and effort to build consensus throughout the process. VozMob started with an open mind about how best to structure the project’s participatory design process, with hopes that the process itself could also emerge from participatory practices. The core component of the VozMob process is a weekly workshop where we share and analyze stories, test mobile tools (how they can be used and how they should be improved), brainstorm desired features, and discuss overall system design and architecture (for example, privacy issues or free software). Together we discuss these issues as we work hands-on with the phones and online blogging platform. The team tracks features and bugs that come out of the workshops through an online issue tracking system (dev.vozmob.net) and a dedicated Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel (irc://freenode.net/vozmob), which off-site software developers use for meetings. Developers also participate in a weekly conference call, and periodic face-to-face meetings and intensive coding sessions. Outside the workshops, we meet in a weekly seminar to discuss project developments and explore theories and relevant research. Additionally, the developers have led free software workshops and have presented at conferences alongside other project participants. These various channels have allowed developers and other VozMob actors to interact, even though the developers are based off-site in San Francisco and Uruguay. However, physical distance does limit direct collaboration and interaction. The main tool that we have developed through this process is a customized version of the free and open content management software Drupal, which allows users to take photographs, record audio or video, attach descriptions, and send them to the site (vozmob.net) directly from their phone via multimedia messaging (MMS). Once their stories have been posted, users can log in to edit them. We have taken precautions to ensure anonymity of all users who upload to the blog; for example, we randomize default usernames and mask identifying information inserted by the phone companies. Those users who want to do so can register an account in whatever name they choose. We are also now developing the technical capacity to send stories from the site directly to phones and to groups of phones, and for editorial functions to be distributed via phone. A full description of the software functionality we have developed is available at http://wiki.vozmob .net. Learning to use these tools has involved an extensive co-learning process, which we have documented in order to develop a toolkit to share with others. Our experience thus far has been that the participatory elements of mobile voices

183

the design process have had a critical impact on the system design, which we seek to improve continually. power sharing and accountability To implement our joint commitment to social justice and critical analysis, all partners in VozMob are committed to power sharing and accountability, guided by a set of shared principles articulated in a code of conduct. However, despite these common visions, university-community partnerships are always challenging. While they have many potential benefits and productive outcomes, they are also often characterized by distrust, lack of understanding of each party’s needs, and power imbalances that leave participants feeling marginalized, exploited, or simply misunderstood. Those who work in the academy and those who answer to community organizations often view the research process and its desired outcomes in different ways (Nyden and Weiwel 1992). Academic research questions are often driven by current debates in the field, and successful publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal requires making a contribution to these theoretical debates. However, the questions of relevance to the scholarly community may not always be those that are most immediately useful or relevant to the community organization. Inversely, community action must follow organizational or political imperatives that may hold up field research and slow down a research project. These differences can at times lead each party to hold different priorities or expectations of the research, which can potentially lead to conflict. The key to a solid collaboration is for both parties to understand as much as possible the motivations and constraints of the other, to be mindful not to use their expertise or position to dominate the project, and to maximize knowledge and skill sharing in both directions. Ultimately, a recognition of privilege is required: not only the privilege to be part of a wonderful experiment, but also the privilege that this society grants to academics and denies to low-wage and no-wage immigrant workers from the Global South. The challenge before us has been to develop a collaborative partnership that allows us to work together towards our common goals while also taking into account the different realities in which we work. Key to a strong partnership is clear expectations and accountability. While every individual involved may have different goals or aspirations for the project, we have struggled to create mechanisms to ensure that VozMob remains accountable to low-wage immigrant workers. At the beginning of the project, we attempted to put a formal structure in place through a shared written Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that laid out our governance structure and expectations for all project participants. Formally, the project is governed by the Mobile Voices Community Board, which includes two worker 184

the vozmob project

delegates, two IDEPSCA staff delegates, and two delegates from USC. The board is responsible for all key decisions, including budget approval, appointment of staff positions, addition of new organizational partners, approval of grant applications, and involvement in new research initiatives. Our MOU stipulates that for all major research efforts related to the project (including formulation of research questions and hypotheses, data gathering, analysis, project evaluation, and presentation of findings), a collaborative decision be made beforehand regarding how and when community partners will be involved. Day-to-day, the project also strives to share power among participants. We try to encourage all partners to articulate issues as they arise, to participate in shaping discussions, and to remain informed of aspects of the project they may not be part of. For example, agendas are shared in advance and reviewed at the beginning of meetings and workshops so that everyone has an opportunity to bring up topics. We alternate responsibility for facilitating and for taking notes during meetings, and notes are posted on shared web spaces. To the extent practical and appropriate, all project work is conducted in the open, on publicly accessible wikis and blogs, so that all project participants can keep abreast of any aspect and so that others can learn from our process. To democratize nondemocratic systems is not an easy task to accomplish. Our accountability mechanisms and power-sharing practices sound wonderful on paper, but we often struggle with them in our daily practice. Class, gender, race, and educational privilege are deeply entrenched structural inequalities that operate not only on the macro level to shape our life chances, but also on the personal level to influence the way we think and interact with others around us. All of us are committed to the core ideas that every human being has something to learn, and something to teach, but institutionalized structures of privilege constantly militate against true power-sharing practices and towards reinscribing expert knowledge systems. For example, we need to strengthen our community board so that it is able to play its role as an effective accountability mechanism. The top-down model of the academy as the site of knowledge and the community as the site of information to be gathered exerts a powerful pull, even among a group that is intellectually committed to alternative models of participatory community-based research. The reward structure of the academy, where single or primary authorship of peer-reviewed publications is the key yardstick for measuring success, also exerts constant pressure against broadly collaborative research that may produce other important forms of codified knowledge. To take another example, most academic grantmakers require individual ‘‘principal investigators’’ be named even in university-community collaborative research projects. mobile voices

185

The long history of objectification of poor people and communities of color by a research apparatus geared towards extracting knowledge in order to better control and subjugate them does not magically disappear when we utter the word participatory. At the same time, even justifiably guarded reactions to academics can lead to mutual distrust and undermine progress towards project goals that are truly shared. Building a healthy relationship of trust between university researchers and the IDEPSCA community may be the one of the biggest challenges faced by the VozMob project, but it is also potentially one of the most powerful and transformative outcomes. While there are many project participants, the voices of the immigrant workers who volunteer as part of the Popular Communication Team, who help design the VozMob system and produce stories and news about their communities, are particularly crucial. In the spirit of privileging community-based knowledge, we conclude this chapter not with an expert analysis of our key findings, but with reflections by the PCT about their participation in the VozMob project, what it has meant to them, and what they see as the next steps.

popular communication team reflections When we arrive in the United States to live, we face many battles. We hear that immigrants are a calamity for the nation, that we take away jobs and services, that we have no education, that we are ignorant, that we do not have aspirations, that we do not want to integrate ourselves, that we do not want to learn English, and that they (anti-immigrants) must save the nation from the terrible tide of ‘‘illegals.’’ Such attacks make us ill and are one of the key reasons for Mobile Voices to exist. It is worthwhile to meditate on the fact that VozMob’s goal is to create consciousness in our communities. We are struggling tirelessly to form a base for our future, so that new generations can use popular communication to be able to tell their own stories. Thus, the silence that invaded our ancestors and our present ceases to exist, as we speak for social justice and demand our rights as individuals and human beings. The following subsections provide some of our individual reflections on this process. marı´a de lourdes gonza´ lez reyes We have done some of the work of modern storytellers sharing different stories of the common and community immigrant life, especially Hispanics. How do they work? How do they do it? How do they face challenges each day? For example: ‘‘Tamales and atole,’’ ‘‘Jacqueline,’’ ‘‘One more,’’ ‘‘Ana Pinto,’’ and ‘‘Teresa’’ are real testimonials, not fictional.3 And I have saved 186

the vozmob project

many more that I consider authentic treasures, with respect to those who told us about the situations in which they live. Mobile Voices is a window of universal knowledge that connects the world of those who are silent with others who have the opportunity to introduce themselves to the cybernetic universe. The technological development that allows human stories to be told, stories of happiness for life, of each person’s struggle as they cross borders for a better life, but stories that have remained silent due to historic conditions. These are human stories of daily struggles, but told with the certainty that tomorrow will be better, since today they work hard to demonstrate the invincible spirit to achieve a better life together. Storytelling is a responsibility to those who generously yield a fragment of their life to be exposed to public opinion, where information can be used and may affect their personal life. An example is the story ‘‘One more.’’ I held back from asking more questions about this entry and the routine treatment by prison policies. The storyteller tells of the shame she feels, something she never imagined she would experience. ‘‘I really wanted to scream to the world that I did not deserve to experience this horror.’’ I did not ask for a name and did not take a personal photo; I only photographed her left foot. Too much has happened already for me to expose her physically. There are policies, in the media, in which the authorities can intervene if they please. It never hurts to be prudent to protect those who express their stories. Knowledge is power. Knowledge is understanding and knowing ourselves. This provides greater understanding of our world and our human essence. I am absolutely a woman of faith in ourselves, and in human greatness. I’m originally from Mexico, D. F., (no one chooses where to be born). I’m a lover of knowledge and knowing. I am currently taking courses to obtain a high school diploma. Besides volunteering at IDEPSCA, I’m the mother of Alejandra, Gabriela, Miguel A´ngel, and Luis Alberto; grandmother of Valeria, Gabriel, Sabina, Fernanda, Nuria, Sofı´a, Jero´nimo, Adriana, Paola, and Octavio. I arrived at IDEPSCA for a place to work as a volunteer, and I have been volunteering ever since doing a variety of activities and tasks. However, one of the most important experiences has been La Jornada XXII, our community newspaper. The work was arduous and required working long hours after the regular workday. The process of producing this edition was enriching, with the exchange of the different forms of expertise of each member: writing, reading collectively, accepting comments, rewriting, rereading collectively, and finalizing the writings in Spanish was an amazing experience. University of Santa Cruz interns then translated it into English and they mobile voices

187

sent the final version to the printer. It was exciting to participate in the launch of the newspaper written by us with the support of IDEPSCA, in front of the mass media (TV channel 34 Univision, 62, 54 Azteca America); exciting because it was a great opportunity to show a different image of immigrants, an image different from the one implanted in the minds of many: ‘‘immigrants are not good.’’ ‘‘Jornada XXII, written in day laborer ink,’’ said the reporter, while showing the newspaper. This was the most exciting moment of my life as an Angelena. The lack of economic resources left Jornada XXII on hold and a multimedia edition was to come a year later. I was emotionally united with Mobile Voices. Since the invention of the cell phone I said I would not succumb to being a consumer of this service. I remain faithful to not buying it (the project gave me a cell phone). In the beginning it was a fierce battle with the cell phone; it was difficult to handle this new tool. Slowly I became familiar and eventually got it and started my work with the people I meet on the street, on the bus, at events where I go. Today I enjoy the certainty that I can use the phone to capture a segment of life by pressing a button. And I say segment as there are no absolute truths. Each event is like a sphere that can have many points of view, and can provide different readings, considering the social-historical context of each reader. Participating in Mobile Voices has been an excellent opportunity to work with young people who begin their life by developing the skills acquired in their academic experience. I attended some of the research classes, and it’s something I never imagined. I felt like a fish out of water. Despite the language barrier, there is always someone to translate. Being a grandmother already, I fully enjoy feeling mentally young by collectively exercising ideas, thoughts, and different points of view. I also have participated in Mobile Voices presentations and I was invited to speak; an absolutely magical experience. There, I addressed a large group of academics, showing my work in Spanish, my native language, speaking for thousands of silent people, expressing our thoughts, feelings, and desires. In our PCT meetings we practice collective reading and what is called content analysis of some stories. Each of us chooses which story, then, divided into groups, we read and question the content of the story. Each team reviews the story of another member. We take into account the elements of the story. Does it have a local, state, national, or universal focus? What aspects of social life are mentioned? Are they economic, legal, educational, or psychological? What kind of relationship is established between the interviewee and interviewer? The same exercise was done for this chapter. 188

the vozmob project

I must say there are many knowledgeable people that are not recognized here and they adapt to the new process of life, just as those who tell their stories, who face life with courage, with pride. I am grateful for my life and for every one of those involved in this wonderful cybernetic event, but especially to my brothers in life who share their emotions, their expectations and wishes for: a better life. Some would say that the planets aligned to give me a great opportunity to serve others. Mobile Voices is a fantastic and unexpected project that has been part of my life. It’s like being back in my enjoyable time of life, to be a link in this technological and cybernetic Odyssey that has crossed borders and can go beyond, with time. Among the wonderful findings, there is a woman who says: ‘‘A community leader lives for the cause, does not live from the cause.’’ manuel mancia Personally, collaborating in this far-reaching project has been very important for me as an individual. Our investigation has followed the pace of our focus as correspondents, trying to find the right mechanism to reach our community using a new method of information with popular education, having our community as a base, or in this case with the participation of the people. It is worth pointing out that our tools are new mechanisms that we are using, based on a different method of community communication. One example is our cellular telephone, which serves as our most immediate, principal tool for transmitting information. This is what makes us different from the traditional media, reaching people in different ways, with the happenings, news, and events in our community, and allowing the participation of people who travel by bus, in supermarkets, in the streets, and in every place that is frequented. Today, we as a team at VozMob feel proud to serve and at the same time continue collaborating with other organizations. Our effort is and will always be to educate through popular communication. Many years ago, our community leaders came to people, bringing them together in large numbers to promote mechanisms of assistance that might offer support and eradicate slavery and politicians’ disagreements with reference to the poorest people. But these events did not become more than an incomplete news story in the traditional media, which has only focused on reporting what is in their interests, or on news where profits are the fundamental base, making the silence of those who cannot speak even greater. That is why nowadays, we broadcast and we arrive at the truth and when people need to know what is happening around them from the residents in their city. Our people might not have remained silent, nor will they ever be quiet because wherever a citizen finds himself, he will have the adequate mobile voices

189

mechanism to be able to discover every abuse by those who want to maintain uneasiness and injustice in our world. That is our reflection on the collaboration, the participative integration of the neighborhood, by means of communication based on popular education, with mechanisms to continue using our technology. The effect that we have created has been very important in terms of the results that we have obtained concerning our community, since during the process more organizations have become interested. While participating, I have involved youth in the VozMob project, and in that respect, we believe that the results have had a positive effect reaching our community. Our fight and sacrifice are arduous and constant in the creation of new ways to reach our community, a community that has been forgotten because of the demagoguery of a system of traditional communication that only makes its objective marketing. Being a member of the VozMob project has been a very important experience for me since I have learned to develop my skills to transmit my ideas and points of view through the most immediate tool, in this case the cell phone; and helping to teach others a new form of community communication. Our focus will continue to be to create a positive and effective focus among our people so that we no longer live in silence. As for our future, it is very important because using our mechanism, tools, and knowledge, we will reach every community in the world, involving youth and adults who want to be part of this new method of communication based on popular education. The most important factor at this moment is the technology for transmitting the reports with which we reach people without using so many machines or high-cost cameras. That is our advantage, and in that way, we will reach every corner of the world. That will be our objective. adolfo o. cisneros I am pleased to be part of IDEPSCA and Mobile Voices because I can speak and express ideas that may be unknown, and also because it is necessary for people to understand the situation of all the day laborers and household workers that are found throughout the city. The day laborer centers are full of uncertainty since there are many people and jobs are raffled off (Valenzuela Jr. et. al. 2006). We do not know if there is going to be a job today, tomorrow, or in three days. Mobile Voices is the window to our world and for people to watch our way of life. I was invited to work on IDEPSCA’s first newspaper, Jornaleros (Day Laborers), a project that was not easy but that has survived as an important tool to express day laborer and household worker ideas. I am delighted to continue participating in the Mobile Voices project because I feel that I am representing my compan˜eros and compan˜eras from the day laborer centers 190

the vozmob project

and continue supporting the cause of their own existence and that of their families. Survival is not easy anywhere, but with Mobile Voices, the opportunity has arisen to show oneself to the world and to express oneself about situations and mistakes that must be corrected. Poor people have mistakenly been singled out by prejudiced capitalism as people with no will to progress. This is not correct because day laborers are motivated, have high selfesteem, participate in classes of different matters that IDEPSCA and community workers provide. Mobile Voices provides a very effective opportunity for anyone to express any worries they might have on any subject, because the Internet is a very effective tool in this era. In our PCT meetings we always have innovative and very effective ideas to help things be more efficient. In our technical training, construction workers, household workers, and even students have demonstrated great skill in absorbing the learning period. Some of us could send a text, some could not, but our eagerness translated into quick learning. Although the system involves much detail, it has many windows that allow anyone with or without much practice with the Internet or with computer skills to be part of this project. Using tools such as the phones, the keypad, memory, and icons, the construction and sending of a text or multimedia message, we began to put the project into practice—in my case, in the IDEPSCA centers, specifically in the Hollywood Community Center—while also covering sporting and social events from other centers such as West L.A. and Downtown. People in the centers responded with a lot of excitement. The electronic portal is a tool that is not seen as a luxury, but rather as a necessity for survival. The idea is to talk with people and have them talk about their experiences or about topics of general interest. We see Mobile Voices as a way to promote the center and provide an opportunity for employers to find workers who can help in their needs. My experience in this project has been satisfying since we mutually help each other and that is already an enormous advancement. It is also pleasing to hear both day laborers and the communities around the centers speak enthusiastically, since they can count on yet another tool in their efforts to find work and watch people’s histories. I am very interested in people’s opinions of this project and therefore I am always exposing it to people. crispin jimenez For me, IDEPSCA is a support structure to help me feel more confident when I go to work. I belong to the West L.A. Day Labor Center. Besides that, some employers feel more confident seeking a day laborer who comes from a day labor center. IDEPSCA has been for me a site of education that has helped me to educate myself and move forward with more confidence mobile voices

191

and knowledge of the cause that we are fighting for—that is, better treatment for workers, better salaries, and that the employers see us with respect. Also, it has helped me personally to develop myself and better understand the problems of the day laborer and the immigrant. Through IDEPSCA I was invited to participate in a project called VozMob. I agreed to take part, and here I am developing part of the project, cooperating with a group of compan˜eros and compan˜eras so that VozMob will be a successful project through popular communication; using, to that end, the telephone and its diverse techniques so that we are able to communicate ourselves better and more rapidly. I feel very proud to belong to VozMob, and we will all continue to participate so that this project moves forward. Thank you for the invitation and onward we go. marcos rodriguez Every man, every woman, each individual regardless of his or her gender, race, or nationality is born free and will have to continue being free through the rest of life. In that same way, with my understanding based on that freedom, I know that no one can silence anyone, and that everyone must be listened to. Even if absurd to some, every opinion is valid. Ideas can be given about any subject but they cannot be imposed. Hierarchies exist, but unfortunately those who are on top and who fear being supplanted react with distrust, and they become arrogant believing that they have acquired limitless power. In some countries the presidential term is four years; some re-elect themselves; some terms are six years and there is no re-election; some become dictators; power makes them sick and they do not want to leave their posts. Some are so skillful that no one complains about his or her frauds or various crimes. There is some sort of immunity. People get used to thinking, ‘‘this is just politics, I do not understand the legal bureaucracy.’’ There is no follow-up to punish them with all the weight of the laws, and this is the reason why nonprofit organizations are born and characterized by individuals who are hungry for social justice. I, personally, love being a day laborer, and during the time I spent looking for jobs on corners I always wanted to know what I could do to change the image of day laborers. For me, a permanent job means hierarchies, rules. I like being a day laborer because you get to know different people, different races, and different ideologies. I retired for a bit from being a day laborer. I worked as a Los Angeles taxi driver but later on I came back to the corners, and when I went back I was amazed. Someone had chosen to put a worker center on my favorite corner, on the corner of my many experiences as a day laborer. Yes, a true miracle. 192

the vozmob project

IDEPSCA, yes, but I asked myself what does IDEPSCA mean? And I asked myself, who is behind all of this? Are they using us to become rich? Could it be a good cause? I began to repeat the same thing. This is a true miracle. As day laborers we carry the stigma of being lazy, or that we do not represent anything in the social sphere and that apparently we are not worth anything. However, I know that we are valuable. We have begun to understand how the bad employers act and to educate day laborers so that no one goes to work for them. After I joined IDEPSCA’s day laborer program, I was participating in many workshops that the organization develops for the community. Among them are workshops on health and occupational safety. All of them are very important and very valuable. This program is truly marvelous and its reach is limitless. It gathers people from all walks of life: students, day laborers, household workers, and even professors. People from all social levels can become part of VozMob. This is the type of opening that exists within IDEPSCA. There is no discrimination. It is for everyone. This is why you, who are reading these lines, are welcome to become part of VozMob because there is freedom of expression, liberty that I love so much, that I would give my life to preserve. Well, I may be exaggerating, but that is how I feel. Children, ladies, day laborers, many of us have cell phones; VozMob arrives to reform freedom of expression and it is not commercial. I emphasize that we have the cell phone to enhance our communication, but do we use it in an appropriate way? Do we understand the icons that we see on our screen? Text messages, Internet, the last weather news and the works, but as commercial TV puts it, do you drive or are you driven? The news is given to us as the mass media want. But what if you make your own stories and your own interviews? What if you give your own opinion? Well, that is what VozMob is for me, the gate to the world of interaction of many worlds. To define all the windows that exist today with the technology that is available to us and that perhaps we do not perceive. Join VozMob and spread the word.

notes This material is based on work supported in part by the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), the Annenberg Program on Online Communities (APOC), the Nokia Palo Alto Research Center, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation under prime grant no. 08-91858-000-HCD and The Regents of the University of California. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation or The Regents of the University of California. mobile voices

193

Contributors to this chapter are Raul An˜orve, Franc¸ois Bar, Melissa Brough, Adolfo Cisneros, Sasha Costanza-Chock, Amanda Lucı´a Garce´s, Carmen Gonzalez, Marı´a de Lourdes Gonza´lez Reyes, Crispin Jimenez, Charlotte Lapsansky, Manuel Mancia, Marcos Rodriguez, and Cara Wallis. Special thanks to Troy Gabrielson and Natalie Arellano for help with translations and coordination of this chapter. 1. Additional information about this stage of research, including a summary of the context and conditions for low-wage immigrant workers in LA, is available from the SSRC’s Media Research Hub. See http://mediaresearchhub .ssrc.org/news/a-multimedia-tour-of-mobile-voices/. 2. From conversations with Michael D. James, a popular educator who has lived and worked in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. The phrase ‘‘structural dignity’’ also comes from Michael D. James. 3. To view these stories, go to http://vozmob.net/madelou.

references Asaro, Peter M. 2000. Transforming Society by Transforming Technology: The Science and Politics of Participatory Design. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 10 (4):257–290. Bar, Francois, Francis Pisani, and Matthew Weber. 2007. Mobile Technology Appropriation in a Distant Mirror: Baroque Infiltration, Creolization and Cannibalism. Seminario sobre Desarrollo Econo´mico, Desarrollo Social y Comunicaciones Mo´viles en Ame´rica Latina. Byrne, Elaine, and Perry M. Alexander. 2006. Questions of Ethics: Participatory Information Systems Research in Community Settings. Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries. SAICSIT, Vol. 204. Castells, Manuel. 2004. The Power of Identity. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Castells, Manuel, Mirela Fernandez-Ardevol, Jack L. Qiu, and Araba Sey. 2007. Mobile Communication and Society: A Global Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chossudovsky, Michel. 2003. The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order. 2nd ed. Ottawa: Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalization. Costanza-Chock, Sasha. 2008. The Immigrant Rights Movement on the Net: Between ‘‘Web 2.0’’ and Comunicacio´n Popular. American Quarterly 60 (3):851–864. Freire, Paul. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Company. 194

the vozmob project

Halleck, Dee Dee, and John Downing. 2002. Hand-Held Visions: The Impossible Possibilities of Community Media. New York: Fordham University Press. IDEPSCA (1997). IDEPSCA’s 1997 First Methodological Training (Internal document). Los Angeles, CA: IDEPSCA. Ito, Mizuko, Daisuke Okabe, and Misa Matsuda, eds. 2005. Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Katz, James E., and Mark Aakhus, eds. 2002. Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koskinen, Ilpo. 2008. Mobile Multimedia: Uses and Social Consequences. In Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies, ed. J. E. Katz, 241–255. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ling, Rich. 2004. The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone’s Impact on Society. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Luke, Robert, Andrew Clement, Randall Terada, Dominic Bortolussi, Cameron Booth, Derek Brooks, et al. 2004. The Promise and Perils of a Participatory Approach to Developing an Open Source Community Learning Network. In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Participatory Design: Artful Integration: Interweaving Media, Materials and Practices 1:11–19. ACM New York. Martı´n-Barbero, Jesus. 1998. De los medios a las mediaciones: comunicacio´n, cultura y hegemonı´a. Convenio Andre´s Bello. Milkman, Ruth. 2006. LA Story: Immigrant Workers and the Future of the US Labor Movement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications. Modarres, Ali, and Bill Pitkin. 2006. Technology and the Geography of Inequality in Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Edmund G. ‘‘Pat’’ Brown Institute of Public Affairs, California State University Los Angeles. Nyden, Philip, and Wim Wiewel. 1992. Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between researcher and practitioner. The American Sociologist Winter, 43–55. O’Connor, Alan. 2004. Community Radio in Bolivia: The Miners’ Radio Stations. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press. Okabe, Daisuke, and Mizuko Ito. 2006. Everyday Contexts of Camera Phone Use: Steps Toward Techno-Social Ethnographic Frameworks. In Mobile Communication in Everyday Life: Ethnographic Views, Observations and Reflections, eds. J. R. Hoflich and M. Hartmann, 79–102. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Public Policy Institute of California. 2009. Californians and Information Technology. PPIC, California Emerging Technology Fund and ZeroDivide: 5. mobile voices

195

Pulido, Laura. 2006. Black, Brown, Yellow and Left: Radical activism in Los Angeles. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Rafael, Vicente L. 2003. The Cell Phone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in the Contemporary Philippines. Public Culture 15 (3):399–425. Spinuzzi, Clay. 2005. The Methodology of Participatory Design. Technical Communication 52 (2):163–174. Valenzuela Jr, Abel, Nik Theodore, Edwin Mele´ndez, and Ana L. Gonzalez. 2006. On the Corner: Day Labor in the United States. Center for the Study of Urban Poverty. Vidal-Beneyto, Jose et al. 1979. Alternativas populares a las comunicaciones de masas. Coleccio´n Monografı´as. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociolo´gicas (CIS).

196

the vozmob project

CHAPTER 10

Community Connect A Network of Civic Spaces for Public Communication in North Dakota lana f. rakow and diana iulia nastasia Can we build it? Will they join? These were the questions we faced as we started on a grassroots project to create a network of civic spaces for public communication in North Dakota that people will use. We thought these questions were important because we were aware of the paucity of such projects, of venues that were created but not used, and of initiatives with only short-term success. Our work began in 2006 with a handful of community residents and of members of the University of North Dakota who were concerned about the shortage and the shortcomings of means for participating and for sharing information in the state. Meanwhile, it has become a regional effort of dozens of individuals, organizations, and communities, involved in creating and using multiple, interconnected, and viable avenues for collaborations and conversations. This chapter reflects on how the project, currently named Community Connect, has developed. First, we lay out the theories and methodologies that shaped our approach and our initiative, followed by the context of geography, media, and engagement within which we proceeded to work. Next we describe the first two stages of the project: design, involving planning and research; and implementation, involving the launch of in-person, in-print, and online formats and the establishment of an organizational structure. Then we present the evaluation stage, by returning to our questions—if we can build it, will they join?—and assessing implications for public communication of partnerships, policy, and praxis. We conclude by addressing the next stage of sustainability and questions of transferability. 197

theories and methods Theoretical and methodological issues pertaining to Community Connect were outlined, considered, and many times reconsidered during the meetings of the project’s founding group, and later steering committee and executive teams. Minutes of these meetings also record intense exchanges of ideas between and among community and university members. In this chapter, we tie those considerations and exchanges about community (leading to a strategy of shifting from social to civic) and knowledge (leading to a commitment to moving from private to public) to the relevant theoretical literature. We also tie discussions about what research is appropriate to communities (leading to the practice of employing community-based research towards community action) to the relevant methodological literature. Finally, we summarize the methods of discovery, documentation, and reflection used in the project. An important theoretical problem raised in the process of reflection was community: what is community, why is it important, what are its drawbacks, how can it be attained? It was often mentioned by Community Connect contributors that the concept of community, and the concrete making of any community, are ever-changing. This thought is in agreement with what Shepherd and Rothenbuhler (2001) wrote in Communication and Community: Community is found in time or place . . . It is used to control; it is freeing. It is the basis of democracy itself, or a cover for repression. Although some see community entering a new age of access, growth, and vitality, many others see it withering away (x).

Della-Pianna and Anderson’s (1995) assertion that a community is a performance for those inside it and a sign for those outside it, and Friedland’s (2001) statement that communities should be ‘‘communicatively integrated’’ are also in consonance with ideas expressed during Community Connect meetings. But most importantly, theorizing about community featured in a neighborhood communication plan prepared by a community relations class at the University of North Dakota (Rakow et. al. 2008) has become the basis of a proposed shift by Community Connect from the realm of the social to that of the civic. In this view, the social sphere incorporates places and events in and through which community residents get to meet one another (such as neighborhood coffee shops or businesses, block parties or garage sales), whereas the civic sphere comprises spaces and activities by means of which community residents get to contribute to the common good (such as a 198

lana f. rakow and diana iulia nastasia

neighborhood association or link, an awareness campaign, or a conversation on a specific issue). As scholars have noted, for many different reasons the number of civic participation opportunities in communities across the United States has historically been smaller than the number of social interaction opportunities (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). In addition, civic participation has overwhelmingly been rendered as indirect rather than direct; for example, as contacting elected representatives with isolated opinions and problems rather than collaborating with groups of citizens on concerted perspectives and solutions (Roberts 2008). Many communities do not have enough physical capacities for citizens to coalesce their diverse voices and cultures and thus to contribute to policymaking (Keeter et al. 2002). Moreover, although new technologies offer virtual capabilities for community involvement, lack of civic training has led to the use of such technologies predominantly for personal purposes (Mossberger, Tolbert, and McNeal 2008). While acknowledging the importance of social interaction for maintaining the fabric of any community, the Community Connect project advocates for the increase of physical and virtual possibilities for civic encounters, and thus the enhancement of the pursuit and understanding of civic participation. However, we recognize that some rural communities have long had civic inclinations and some urban neighborhoods have taken steps to make civic engagement possible. Another key theoretical issue addressed in the process of reflection that has been an integral part of the Community Connect project administration is knowledge: who is said to have or to not have knowledge, what knowledge is released to everybody, and what is restricted to some? One point made about knowledge during Community Connect meetings refers to the necessary ties between knowledge and democracy, or the need for a renewed concentration on the democratization of knowledge. Cohen (2006) makes the same point when he affirms that education and democracy used to be ‘‘tiles of a single mosaic’’ yet ‘‘have become distanced and isolated,’’ and when he asks whether twenty-first–century people and institutions could re-imagine the public value of education and information (7). Tensions between private and public have marked the consideration of knowledge in Community Connect meetings as well as elsewhere in community and academic discourses (Wyatt, Katz, and Kim 2000). According to Fraser (1990), only deliberative practices through which regulations can be doubted and eventually proposed for change can be considered as public, whereas communicative practices not open to questioning or transformation should be deemed as private. According to Calhoun (2005), public refers to something ‘‘available to all citizens’’ and private to something ‘‘available only to those with money to pay’’ (3). civic spaces for public communication in north dakota

199

Viewed through these lenses, institutions such as media organizations or universities, that claim to produce and provide public knowledge, remain in fact private. Traditional media offer limited opportunities for public deliberation: they communicate information from powerful economic and political interest groups to individuals either isolated from others or fragmented into audiences, rather than allowing and empowering citizens and civic groups to share information among themselves and thus to shape public discourse (Buckingham 1997). Moreover, traditional media have limited availability to people: most of their services are offered for payment, and many of their concerns are related to the bottom line (Stengrim 2005). If we characterize the public realm in terms of deliberation eventually leading to change (as Fraser does) and by availability free of charge (as Calhoun does), then universities—even public universities—are private institutions also. Universities have historically either ignored or dismissed knowledge not amended by highly restrictive academic circles that can become selfcomplacent and self-congratulatory, and that often support the status quo and oppose change (Kuhn 1996). In addition, universities have constructed hierarchies of knowledge that have at the top data generated by a privileged few capable of communicating in specialized jargon and at the bottom information based in communities and conveyed in ordinary language (Eberly 2006). Universities have only recently opened up to those marginalized based on gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class, or ability, and continue to limit access based on financial grounds (Ambrozas 1998). Drawing on such thoughts, the Community Connect project advocates for the production and dissemination of public knowledge that is truly deliberative, transformative, available to everybody, and free of charge. Community Connect contributors have been preoccupied not only with theories but also with methods of putting theories into practice. They have been concerned with finding attainable ways of turning social interaction into civic participation, and of channeling different kinds of knowledge into an inclusive sphere of public knowledge, with and for North Dakota communities. Striving to identify and pursue such ways of helping communities help themselves, this project has itself become a form of civic participation and public knowledge: an innovative network of civic spaces (a continuation of and an alternative to already existing community-based spaces); and a grassroots partnership for public communication (the integration of, as well as an alternative to, traditional media and university activities of information). Methodologically, the Community Connect project has followed a path back and forth between community-based research and community action, in an effort towards openness and inclusiveness. Community-based research has emerged in the past quarter of a century due to criticisms regarding the 200

lana f. rakow and diana iulia nastasia

disconnect between universities and their surrounding communities, and regarding the lack of civic relevance of many academics’ scholarship (Stoecker 2005). CBR has been defined as ‘‘a partnership of students, faculty, and community members’’ who ‘‘collaboratively engage in research with the purpose of solving a pressing community problem or effecting social change’’ (Strand et al 2003, 3). Although CBR has proven useful for documenting community-university partnerships and joint decision making, it has had its subsequent opponents: some assert that in many CBR projects students and faculty work with a limited number of community members, mostly formal officials and informal leaders, neglecting a diversity of community voices, especially those of less powerful and more vulnerable individuals and groups (Srinivasan 2006); and some state that in numerous CBR projects, there is just not enough continuation of research with action (Stringer 2007). Community Connect has moved CBR beyond such concerns by including in its own making a broad coalition of partners with different profiles and values, as well as a wide range of means for combining the analysis of public communication with the elaboration of new means for public communication. The methods we employed, then, were grounded in the processes and circumstances of the project. We used discovery, documentation, and reflection in our approach to the design, implementation, and evaluation of Community Connect. The design stage used open meetings and focus groups to discover people’s needs for public communication. The implementation stage uses strategy meetings and community-university forums, as well as a journal and an upcoming Web site, to document citizens’ work creating and using venues for public knowledge. The evaluation stage uses public feedback and ongoing community input to reflect on the success and efficacy of our new venues for civic participation.

project context It is important to understand the context in which the project was initiated. First, residents of North Dakota face specific problems and opportunities due to the unique demographic, cultural, climatic, geographic, and economic characteristics of the state. Second, the communication needs of the region must be seen in light of the existing traditional forms of media and the lack of alternative types of media. Third, the role played in the state by the University of North Dakota is changing as recognition of the benefits for faculty and students of community engagement has gained ground on campus. North Dakota is challenged by its small and declining population in a large land area: the state has under 640,000 residents on over 70,000 square civic spaces for public communication in north dakota

201

miles, averaging just 9.3 residents per square mile. North Dakota has only three cities with populations between 50,000 and 100,000 (Fargo, Bismarck, and Grand Forks), and many citizens of the state live in communities under 500. With approximately 90 percent white inhabitants, 5 percent Native Americans, and 5 percent other races, North Dakota is one of the least diverse of the United States (North Dakota State Data Center 2000). The outmigration of youth and the decreasing viability of some small towns have been prime concerns. Harsh winter conditions historically, and disastrous spring flooding in recent years, have endangered people’s livelihoods. However, as the state’s economy is based primarily on agriculture and to some extent on oil extraction, North Dakota has weathered recent economic downturns better than most other states. Traditional media offerings in the state are both insufficient and lacking public capabilities. North Dakota has ten daily newspapers in larger communities and eighty weekly newspapers in smaller communities, and these numbers have decreased over the years. About one hundred radio and television stations are broadcasting. Like in other parts of the United States, North Dakota media outlets have been rapidly shifting away from local ownership, albeit in some cases to large family-owned media groups such as Forum Communications. Among the few public media options in North Dakota, the most notable are Prairie Public Broadcasting, providing radio and television coverage throughout the state, and High Plains Reader, providing printed news about arts and politics for the eastern part of the state. North Dakota’s Native American tribal communities have their own newspapers and radio stations. Because of North Dakota’s population and media scarcity, as well as due to the state’s small-town and close-knit community character, residents rely heavily on point-to-point communication (in person and through telephone, mail, and e-mail) using social and organizational networks (Rakow et al. 2003). Grand Forks (population about 50,000), the originating site of the project, has one daily newspaper and one local network-affiliated television station, both owned by Forum Communications, which also owns the daily newspaper and a television station in neighboring Fargo (population about 90,000). Grand Forks has sixteen radio frequencies broadcasting, five owned by the corporate conglomerate Clear Channel Communications, five owned by the regional company Leighton Enterprises, four owned by Christian groups based outside of the city, one managed by the University of North Dakota, and one managed by the public radio network. Only one of these radio stations produces any local news and discussion. Grand Forks has no community access cable station, only two government stations broadcasting City Council meetings and K–12 public school news. Apart from the radio station, the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks 202

lana f. rakow and diana iulia nastasia

features a newspaper published by students twice weekly and a designated educational channel not available for student, faculty, or community general use. New community Internet initiatives have attracted primarily gatherings of younger residents. Also important to the background of Community Connect is the increasing degree of civic commitment at the University of North Dakota. This university is a public higher education institution with an enrollment of approximately 13,000 students and a responsibility for serving the state. Its Center for Community Engagement entered the arena of civic participation when it was launched in 2004, after a statewide needs assessment determined there were gaps in the connections between UND members and North Dakota residents. With a mission to link academic resources to community needs, UND’s Center for Community Engagement made itself available to faculty, students, and communities to help them find common interests and projects. Soon a Public Scholarship Interest Group and Service-Learning Interest Group emerged, hosting and supporting an array of campus-community collaborations. Initiatives stemming from these groups and modestly funded by the Center have included plans to document the extent of academic expertise used by communities and to evaluate the impact of service-learning on communities. Other projects have gathered histories and mapped assets of several rural communities and urban neighborhoods. Citizens and civic groups began to seek out the Center for assistance with efforts ranging from designing main streets to designing Web sites, and from capacity building to recreational improvement. There was definitely no shortage of interest in making connections between town and gown. What seemed to be in short supply were the means for people to find each other and to match their resources and needs. It became clear that the problem required a public communication solution.

project description The project initially dubbed Community-University Conversations, and later entitled Community Connect, was to become the public communication solution to the resource-need disconnect in North Dakota. In this section, we provide the chronology of the project from its design through its implementation. Following informal discussions about the need for increasing communication means to bridge campus and community and to improve exchanges between communities, a planning meeting initiated by the Center for Community Engagement was held at the University of North Dakota on September 15, 2006. To announce this meeting, a notice was sent to almost one hundred faculty, staff, and students who had expressed a prior interest. civic spaces for public communication in north dakota

203

About fifteen people attended, and several thorny issues were addressed. Was it possible to launch a project that was truly community based? Could the rigors for academic research and the requirement to be accountable to community peers be reconciled? Meeting attendees agreed, according to the minutes, to commit to involving communities in all the stages of the project; being accessible in contribution, format, and language; and being vigilant to differences of generation, culture, education, class, and status that may create barriers to participation. A University of North Dakota group, with Diana Nastasia serving as coordinator, stepped forward to pursue an extensive discovery phase of research, seeking community input about the desire for new venues for public communication. A proposal was submitted to the Center for Community Engagement Public Scholarship Fund to support open meetings and focus groups in North Dakota. With an award of $6,000 in hand and Institutional Review Board approval, the project group moved on with a first open meeting at the Grand Forks Herald Community Meeting Room on June 5, 2007. About thirty local community residents attended, and the discussion fleshed out that the project needed to be multidisciplinary and collaborative, to bring the university to the community and the community to the university, to move communication from monologues to dialogues, and to create knowledge about positive and negative aspects of North Dakota communities and means for communication and action in and across communities. Between August 2007 and April 2008, a dozen UND scholars (representing disciplines of anthropology, Indian Studies, sociology, psychology, counseling, communication, earth systems science and policy, and space studies) conducted several additional open meetings, and thirty-three focus groups that took place in the city of Grand Forks and around the state of North Dakota, and that included around three hundred people. An innovative and effective approach to gathering participants for focus groups was envisaged and implemented. Organizations and associations representative of the population (in terms of age, gender, ability, socio-economic status, geography, race and ethnicity, culture and heritage, and life experiences and perspectives) and key contacts within these entities were contacted. Organizations and associations included, for example, the YMCA Child Care Program, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, the Women’s Fund, the Community Violence Intervention Center, the Asperger Syndrome Support Group in Fargo, the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul in Grand Forks, the Spirit Lake Tribal Community, the Center for New Americans, the Dakota Science Center, the North Valley Arts Council, and the state’s historical society and humanities council. Eight small rural communities in the East, West, North, and South of North Dakota, and two small urban 204

lana f. rakow and diana iulia nastasia

communities of the state, were also selected for data collection. Each key contact was asked to establish and to arrange the location and the constituency for a focus group. The dozen UND scholars facilitated and taped sessions in which participants debated the need for local and regional information, their means of contributing to local and regional knowledge, the roles of community-university collaborations in brokering local and regional information, and the potential for a junction of venues for communicating local and regional knowledge. Besides the important opportunity for University of North Dakota researchers to interact with and listen to a variety of residents of rural and urban areas in North Dakota, the results of the open meetings and focus groups confirmed some of the initial thoughts about a community-university project and produced some new insights. In sum, research participants said they seek and access information in their communities and across the state by using word-of-mouth, newspapers, radio, television, and the Internet. However, they pointed out that information and expertise about key community resources and issues is difficult to access and cannot be found in any one place. Research participants said they generate and circulate knowledge in their communities and across the state by being advocates and liaisons, and by posting on Web sites and blogs. However, they stated that knowledge from themselves and others would be more meaningful and accessible if stored in a clearinghouse. Research participants felt that information from the university was one-way and often written in inaccessible language, and that there needed to be more equal partnerships and more intense sharing between communities and the university, inside communities, and across communities. They envisioned a community of communities to incorporate different ways of making and exchanging public information and knowledge, as well as different ideas expressed by—and representative of—diverse citizens and civic groups. They mentioned among desired communication means face-to-face encounters, including local round table conversations and statewide public debate forums, a journal comprising research data and community projects relevant regionally, and online possibilities such as e-mail and listservs. They specified a care for encouraging and empowering those less advantaged and those from rural areas to speak up and make themselves heard. A second grant from the Center for Community Engagement Public Scholarship Fund for $4,680, and another grant from the University of North Dakota Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences Fund for $4,800 permitted the project group to envision moving from the discovery phase of research to the implementation of action and its documentation. Responding to the requests expressed in the open meetings and the focus groups for increasing the opportunities for civic participation in North Dakota, the civic spaces for public communication in north dakota

205

group proceeded to organize a pilot community-university forum and record its proceedings. This forum was held April 18–19, 2008, the first day in an on-campus location offered by the UND Housing Office, and the second in a community location provided by the Grand Forks Housing Authority. The on-campus location, called University Place, was the ground floor of a new apartment complex for students, whereas the community location, called the Link, was the ground floor of a rehabbed apartment complex for seniors and for people with low incomes or with disabilities. The forum committee was led by Gregory Gagnon from UND’s Indian Studies Department and Janet Moen from UND’s Sociology Department. Community partners assisting with the pilot forum were the Community Foundation of Grand Forks, East Grand Forks, and Region, the United Way of Grand Forks, East Grand Forks, and Area, and the North Valley Arts Council. Topics for the forum titled ‘‘Generating Ideas Through Partnerships’’ were solicited through a broad call for proposals at UND and across North Dakota through flyers, mailings to open meeting, and participants of focus groups, as well as other community contacts and media announcements. The call for proposals directed towards campus members invited the submission of scholarship on community issues with community partners, or of ideas for innovative approaches to community issues. The call for proposals addressed to statewide citizens invited the submission of reports of community and community-university projects, and of thoughts about what would make their communities better. Submissions could be as simple as a few words, a title and a list of names, or an abstract. Using the available funds, organizers were able to offer travel stipends of $100 to fifteen community members coming from a distance to attend the forum and committed to contributing to sessions of the forum. From the many suggestions that came in, a forum program was developed around four themes: community-university collaborations, community diversity, community ecology, and community arts. There were four breakout sessions corresponding to each theme, and there were not only specific presenters but also special invitees in each session to build a core of people in each conversation. A series of special events were meant to ensure that the pilot forum provided spaces for both social interaction and civic participation. A plenary program featuring the release of preliminary results from the discovery phase of research allowed participants to meet organizers and debate the purposes of the project. A production by UND’s Theatre Department of Bus Stop by William Inge permitted participants to get involved with the arts and to reflect on the arts’ civic value. Research presentations in multiple formats allowed participants to meet potential partners for projects and learn about different types of expertise. ‘‘Speak-outs’’ for Grand Forks and 206

lana f. rakow and diana iulia nastasia

rural community residents permitted people to voice hopes and concerns and to discuss courses of action available for addressing these. About 150 participants—half from UND and half from communities— attended the events, surprising forum organizers with the turnout and interest. To ensure the continuation of these conversations beyond the forum’s specific space-time limitations, the project group had made provisions for recording and documenting the sessions. Members of a graduate special topics course on public scholarship, taught by Lana Rakow, helped with recording and documenting. Audio recordings, video recordings, transcripts, and summaries of these sessions were to be made available to those who attended and those who did not, through online and in-print postings. Forum feedback suggested there was more than sufficient enthusiasm on and off campus to carry out the project. After a robust design stage and a successful pilot forum, the project group sought input for establishing an organizational structure for the project. A strategy meeting was held at The Link on August 19, 2008, with approximately fifty university and community people, some who had long been involved and some who were new to the table. The comments indicated two somewhat conflicting concerns: a need to proceed slowly to ensure the inclusion in the development of the projects’ components of every voice available; and a need to move ahead to produce results that would prove that the project proponents’ promise of community action had not been just talk. A renewed commitment was made to find ways for reaching out to the disenfranchised—on their terms and in their locales. Meeting attendees had the choice to sign up for a project steering committee, a forum committee, a journal committee, a Web site committee, and a project promotion and funding committee. The organizational structure for the project took shape with guidance from the strategy meeting. Approximately forty individuals representing a broad range of constituents were asked to serve on the steering committee co-chaired by a university representative, Janet Moen (a professor of sociology and a coordinator for the forum), and Karen Schiff (a resident of Grand Forks and a volunteer in the project). When it was set, the steering committee included six UND faculty, four UND students, two UND staff, thirteen representatives of regional community groups, and twelve residents of North Dakota communities. Community groups joining the project through representatives served youth, senior citizens, women, people with disabilities, those experiencing poverty and homelessness, those advocating community preservation and healthy life, community educators, community activists, Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, New Americans, urban neighborhoods, and rural areas. civic spaces for public communication in north dakota

207

The steering committee held its first meeting at the University of North Dakota Center for Community Engagement on November 14, 2008. Steering committee meeting attendees brainstormed a name for the project, deciding upon Community Connect, and started discussing a mission for the project. The steering committee was resolute that the community-university forum should continue in the future and should become an annual activity; but rather than returning to Grand Forks, should be held in a rural or tribal location in the coming year. Steering committee members agreed to meet twice a year, once in the spring at the annual forum and once in the fall in places to be determined. They reviewed plans for the Community Connect journal and its editorial policies, as well as for the Community Connect Web site and its potential for interactive features. They discussed funding possibilities through UND and community contributions, external grants, and journal and Web site sponsorships. That fall of 2008, the project group wrote several external grants to secure funding for further activities. The Social Science Research Council, through the small grants component of its Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere Program (funded by the Ford Foundation), awarded Community Connect $7,500. The proposal described the project’s attempt to create physical as well as virtual spaces where citizens could meet regularly and work collaboratively to share public information, thus shaping public policy. The proposal reflected the interest in bringing action back to its research grounds: it asked for support to move the project forward with a second forum, a first issue of the journal, and a Web site, and with assessment of their possibilities and outcomes. The proposal made a case that documenting and analyzing this experiment in public communication in North Dakota is valuable for its potential to configure a transferable model for civic participation. With the SSRC grant and additional UND funding, Community Connect moved forward toward a second community-university forum. Dallas Knudson, a resident of Towner, North Dakota, came to suggest that Rugby, a community neighboring her own—situated in the center of the state about 150 miles from Grand Forks and known as the geographical center of North America—would be a good community partner for the 2009 forum. She described the number of successful projects, women-led businesses, and thriving arts organizations in this town of under 3,000 residents. Her enthusiasm for such endeavors in Rugby led to establishing the theme of the second forum as ‘‘focus on community entrepreneurship.’’ A forum committee, co-chaired by Janet Moen and Dallas Knutson, joined by eight community members from the Rugby area and around the state, and supported by the Rugby Job Development Authority and Chamber of Commerce and the UND Center for Community Engagement staff and volunteers, began 208

lana f. rakow and diana iulia nastasia

preparations. A visit to Rugby by a UND team helped develop personal relationships and pin down forum spaces. It was decided that the 2009 forum would take place in March, in the meeting rooms of one of Rugby’s two motels. A call for proposals was again broadly distributed at UND and in communities. Discussions with contacts generated ideas for the program, featuring the themes of Resources for Entrepreneurship, Models of Entrepreneurship, and Entrepreneurship and the Arts, and three break-out sessions for each theme. Special events to be included were guided tours of special sites in Rugby, a performance by the local orchestra, exhibits of community and community-university projects and resources, and town hall meetings about youth and seniors as assets in North Dakota communities. The first issue of Community Connect: The Journal of Civic Voices and the project Web site were planned to be launched at the 2009 forum. The March date proved too early for organizers. There were delays in publicizing the forum and in publishing the journal. Weather conditions in the state proved dangerous, with many communities struggling with severe flooding and numerous citizens taking part in sandbagging efforts. Under the circumstances, the Rugby team pressed for a change of date to April. After discussions about unavailable dates due to UND’s spring break, other regional conferences, community athletic tournaments, and UND’s final exams, April 17–18 proved to be the only weekend suitable for both community residents and campus members. Final arrangements were completed, with a statewide announcement of the forum through both traditional media and alternative communication means (including a special focus on the forum in the Center’s annual community newsletter), and with renewed coordination between the Rugby and UND teams. In all, about 140 citizens attended this first rural forum; one hundred people were community affiliated and forty were UND affiliated. Thanks to SSRC funds, forum organizers were able to offer ten travel stipends to community members to attend and participate and thanks to $2,500 in funds from UND’s President, Provost, and Dean of the Graduate School, travel expenses were fully paid for UND faculty, staff, and students. Again, forum sessions were documented through audio recording, video recording, note taking, and later transcription. Forum feedback confirmed that the project had reached maturity in terms of providing a network or a network of networks: a juncture for residents of North Dakota communities to find members of the university or of other communities to collaborate with, learn from, or share information. The third annual community-university forum was held in the spring of 2010 on the Spirit Lake reservation, hosted by Cankdeska Cikana Community College. The project’s journal, Community Connect: The Journal of Civic Voices, was released at the 2009 forum. The editorial team consisted of Gregory civic spaces for public communication in north dakota

209

Gagnon, editor; Diana Nastasia, associate editor; Lana Rakow, editorial consultant; and Sorin Nastasia, graphic designer. The editorial board features a blend of urban and rural community members and university faculty and staff, including the director of UND’s libraries and the executive of North Dakota’s Humanities Council. The first issue contained commentaries by university and community members on the benefits of collaboration; reports from Community Connect’s discovery phase of research and pilot forum; a conversation by urban, rural, and tribal residents of North Dakota about housing in the state; results from various community-based research projects; creations such as autobiographical stories and a readers’ theatre script; and descriptions of resources and projects by North Dakota communities, organizations, and UND departments. Two thousand copies of the thirty-two-page journal were printed, and some were distributed at the 2009 forum. Over the next four months, Center staff and volunteers worked to create a statewide mailing list of almost one thousand contacts in communities and organizations across the state and about three hundred on campus. Despite the use of the university’s nonprofit mailing permit, each journal cost fifty cents to mail and about $3.50 for each returned and nonforwardable piece, a sobering fact in the face of limited budgets. Each journal contained an introductory letter that solicited sponsorships for continued publication twice a year. The second issue was released in the fall of 2009, after the editorial board had established criteria for including academic peerreviewed articles in addition to the already existing features of the journal. With the debut of the journal, the Web site remains the last of the three civic venues for public communication to be launched. It has been delayed because of technical difficulties. We had problems selecting a design program that supports such features as databases and blogs while being user friendly and low cost. Because UND uses Adobe Dreamweaver for its Web sites, the project group began with this program. However, since Dreamweaver requires a sophisticated level of training, Center for Community Engagement staff and Community Connect volunteers spent months learning the program to design the site. Finally, a decision was made to switch to a program easier to learn and use but with less capacity for audio and video streaming, HTML-eZ, created in UND’s aerospace program. The Web site made speedy progress under the new configuration, but the design of its main page halted the site from going live. It became imperative to find a graphic look encompassing all three project formats, the forum, the journal, and the Web site, compatible with the project’s host, UND’s Center for Community Engagement. With support from an information technology group and a graphic design student at UND, and with a commitment of $1,500 in professional services from a local advertising agency, the design standards were set. When launched in the fall of 2009, 210

lana f. rakow and diana iulia nastasia

the Web site included the history and the organization of the project; the documentation and the analysis of the discovery phase of the research and of the two forums; the content and the policies of the journal; and listings of community, university, and community-university resources. It also includes possibilities not just for viewing but also for interacting with the information and with other residents in the region.

results and implications We have provided the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of Community Connect, the geography, media, and engagement background for the project, and an overview of activities. Now it is time to turn to the evaluation stage by employing our method of reflection to answer the questions posed at the beginning of this chapter (Can we build it? Will they join?) and also to address what we have learned from the project about partnerships, policy, and praxis. We believe that the answer is now evident for the question, can we create venues for civic participation? We produced a combination of public communication vehicles in person, in print, and online. Two community-university forums have been held, almost two thousand copies of the initial issue of a journal have been distributed free of charge, and a Web site has been launched. Each of the three formats has unique features and possibilities, and the combinations of these formats yield even more robust access to public knowledge. It appears that in-person or face-to-face communication venues have been the easiest to create and maintain, yet that print and online formats are needed for the stability and the continuance of such a project. It also seems that this network of physical and virtual spaces has enabled new forms of regional civic engagement and participation. We think that we can answer positively the question, will people use and support the venues we have created and launched? Dozens of community and university members have contributed ideas, opinions, presentations, exhibits, texts, art, and resources of time and materials to Community Connect. For example, thirty-seven individuals are published in the first issue of the journal. Since the start of the project, many people affiliated with UND and other colleges or with groups and communities in North Dakota have declared they are more aware of the state’s affairs and more prone to join in community activities. For example, several civic groups were formed in the region as a result of specific discussions in forum sessions. Following two sessions on New Americans in the pilot forum, new immigrants, local leaders, and university faculty have used meetings and e-mails to form a civic spaces for public communication in north dakota

211

coalition. An informal discussion at the second forum has led to information exchanges by telephone and e-mail among several community organizers from rural areas. A student group, Partnership for Student Cultural Engagement, has proposed a special topics Interdisciplinary Studies class on community service and has volunteered to present the results in the next forum. In addition, traditional media in the state have covered the forum and the launch of the journal, are paying attention to Community Connect developments, and appear to have increased their consideration of neighborhood and rural community issues. Additional hope that people will use these spaces for public communication comes from their commentaries on the forum evaluation forms. Under ‘‘best features,’’ one 2008 form specified ‘‘opportunities to listen and speak up’’ and ‘‘interactivity;’’ another 2008 form mentioned ‘‘great networking site’’ and ‘‘lots of sparks of interest;’’ one 2009 form had ‘‘insight and information to keep all community members involved;’’ another 2009 form had ‘‘the knowledge and experience shared.’’ However, evaluation forms from both forums also contained reflections on possible roadblocks to civic participation. Primary concerns were the tendency of some university members and some community leaders to take over the civic conversation, and the constant shortage of minority people and representatives of minority groups at the table in spite of the project organizers’ efforts towards inclusiveness. On reflection, we are satisfied that our project results demonstrate success in answering our initial questions—can we build it, and will they join? Now we turn to broader implications of Community Connect and what we have learned from our research. We take into account the role of partnerships, policy issues, and praxis in reviewing what we learned from all the stages of the project. We learned that community-university partnerships are more difficult than we initially assumed, and that we would need to address them continuously. We were naı¨ve in thinking that people of goodwill, whether in the university or in communities, would easily find common ground. Indeed good-willed university and community contributors to Community Connect shared a sense of the importance of civic and public efforts, as well as concerns about the state’s population decline, quality of the environment and of the schools, and need to understand and welcome our many differences. Yet university and community members involved in the project often diverged about the expectations and strategies for attaining civic participation and public knowledge, or could not find a common time, common space, and common language to pursue collaborations addressing their joint concerns. We found there sometimes were in our approaches gulfs that strained relationships. 212

lana f. rakow and diana iulia nastasia

Among the differing expectations and strategies between community and university members were issues related to motivations, process, and perceptions of each other. Community people have an interest in identifying resources and learning from experts to address community needs and solve community problems. University faculty have expressed the need to get recognition in their performance evaluations for community-based research and service by tying them into teaching and academic publishing. University students have become involved because of their desire to make a difference. Some community residents were impatient with the university members’ ‘‘go slow’’ approach to decision making. One participant in an open meeting said with annoyance that we needed to stop talking and to start producing results. A few contributors to the forums seemed to think that faculty and students have no skills in event planning or carrying out a project. However, some university members had a tendency to romanticize rural communities and to underestimate the sophistication and accomplishments of our nonuniversity colleagues and partners. University time and community time do not necessarily coincide. While universities function around semesters, class periods, class schedules, and breaks, rural communities operate by seasons (winter hazardous driving conditions, spring planting and flooding, summer vacation, fall harvesting), and around school athletic events and association or professional meetings. Finding a time and place, with available meeting and sleeping space, suitable for community members as well as for university faculty and students, is a challenge. Additionally, university spaces might appear unfriendly to community residents whereas community spaces might be disconcerting for university people. When Community Connect meetings were held on campus, many community attendees complained about not knowing where to go and not finding parking. When the second forum was held in Rugby, some university faculty, staff, and students seemed unwilling to adjust to the conditions of hotel, business, and meeting spaces of a rural community. Also, finding a common language between the academic and the vernacular of the community life world represents an ongoing issue. In making the journal and Web site, community people urged short and direct writing presented in everyday language, in contrast with academic style which favors length, nuance, and distance. These differences of expectations and strategies, time, space, and language preceded Community Connect and were revealed through the design and implementation of the project. Paradoxically, the project has both stirred these differences and provided the means for acknowledging and reconciling them. Reconciliation will require community and university members working together over time to develop relationships based on trust and understanding. civic spaces for public communication in north dakota

213

Our project also has implications for the direction of policy. As apparent in our presentation of the relevant scholarly literature on theories and methods, the need for citizens to be informed in a democracy has rarely been disputed, but the critical role for citizens to play in creating that information has not been sufficiently addressed. Yet, our descriptions of the media context in North Dakota and the research results of Community Connect demonstrate that citizens lack the means to do so other than through ad hoc, inconsistent, and incomplete social and professional networks. In other words, university and media systems are supported by policies that presume citizens will receive information, not generate it. However, our work shows that citizens want and will use horizontal, in addition to vertical, systems of communication. The next step in addressing policymaking will be to consider what national and local decisions could alter the public communication landscape, including the perennial issue of allocations of the broadcast spectrum and cable stations for citizen participation (virtually absent from the local context of this project). In addition, the definition of policy will need to be expanded to include institutional and economic decision making that shape use and design of means of public communication, such as postal regulations and costs that are prohibitive to citizens for public communication, availability and cost of technical expertise required to design and maintain Web sites, and bureaucratic imperatives of universities that can stifle interaction off campus and stymie innovations that fall outside of traditional notions of teaching, research, and service. Our experiences with Community Connect suggest that public communication projects can represent praxis in a robust and transformative way, particularly if praxis is taken beyond its usual meaning of engagement of theory and practice. We have certainly reinforced our belief in the need for approaching the project theoretically and for theorizing our actions. The design and implementation of Community Connect were grounded in theoretical considerations of community and knowledge and methodological considerations of community-based research found in the scholarly literature and matched in the conversations that were part of the project. In addition, we have seen that praxis can be more. It can be the engagement of research and action, as evidenced by the grounded methods of discovery, documentation, and reflection used both to accomplish the project and to learn from it—that is, to build civic spaces for public communication as well to reflect on their structuration and outcomes. It can also be the engagement of the community and the university, as we saw demonstrated at the interface of the two in planning and carrying out the project, with assumptions and routines exposed, and new forms of knowledge made possible through the interaction. Finally, it can be the engagement of conversation with participation, opening the possibility of movement away from 214

lana f. rakow and diana iulia nastasia

‘‘just talk’’ to achievement of results—that is, to production of the means for citizens to be citizens.

conclusion So far in this chapter we have provided the theoretical and methodological considerations of the design and implementation of the project, the context and activities of Community Connect, and an evaluation of the project’s results and implications. We close now by providing some insight into the next stage of the project, sustainability, and exploring the potential of transferability to other locales and contexts based on an emerging model of citizenship. With a cycle of implementation and evaluation completed, Community Connect moves to sustainability as the next logical stage toward securing its long-term viability. We anticipate this stage to include regularizing the organization and processes, dividing assignments of work and responsibility, and planning the budget with identified regular funding streams. This attention to the administrative needs of the project should make it possible to sustain an annual forum, a biannual journal, and a current Web site. Now that we experienced the stages of the project, Community Connect may have features transferable to other projects, such as interrelated design techniques, interconnected in print, in-person, and online formats, and overall reflexivity on processes and issues. In addition, Community Connect is based on an emerging model of citizenship that can be employed in other public communication projects. In this model, community members are not talked to through different media by various officials, but rather they use multiple physical settings and new technologies to talk to one another inside and across their localities and regions, while including in their civic conversations representatives of media and universities as well as policy makers. In this model, a network of civic spaces for public communication is created and maintained to offer ongoing opportunities for participation. While we have concluded it is possible to create a viable network of spaces for public communication, we have also noted the many considerations and challenges that come with launching such a network. Community Connect demonstrated that it can be built and it will be joined. The next question is, can it be sustained and made accountable?

note This research was assisted by a grant from the Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere Program of the Social Science Research Council with funds provided by the Ford Foundation. The authors thank the Council civic spaces for public communication in north dakota

215

and other SSRC grant recipients for their support and advice on the project. They also thank all the community and university members who have participated in the project and supported it. The two authors acknowledge their own challenges for collaboration that have paralleled in some ways the challenges of working on this project; for example, one author moved to another state and problems arose related to space, time, and technology. These are topics for later exploration.

references Ambrozas, Diana. 1998. The University as Public Sphere. Canadian Journal of Communications 23 (1):73–89. Buckingham, David. 1997. News Media, Political Socialization and Popular Citizenship: Towards a New Agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14 (4):344–366. Calhoun, Craig. 2005. Rethinking the Public Sphere. Paper presented to the Ford Foundation. http://www.ssrc.org/calhoun/wp-content/ uploads/2008/08/rethinking_the_public_sphere_05_speech.pdf. Cohen, Jeremy. 2006. A Laboratory for Public Scholarship and Democracy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 105:7–15. Della-Piana, Connie K., and James A. Anderson. 1995. Performing community: Community service as cultural conversation. Communication Studies 46:187–200. Eberly, Rosa A. 2006. Rhetorics of public scholarship: Democracy, doxa, and the human barnyard. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 105, 27–39. Fraser, Nancy. 1990. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text 25/26:56–80. Friedland, Lewis A. 2001. Communication, Community, and Democracy: Toward a Theory of the Communicatively Integrated Community. Community Research 28:358–391. Keeter, Scott, Cliff Zukin, Molly Andolina, and Krista Jenkins. 2002. The Civic and Political Health of the Nation: A Generational Portrait. PEW Charitable Trust Report. Kuhn, Thomas. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Ramona S. McNeal. 2008. Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rakow, Lana F., Leslie J. Helgeson, and Ivy L. Arnesen. 2003. Professional Communicators and the Future of North Dakota. North Dakota Professional Communicators Report. http://www.aboutndpc.org/survey_ 2003.pdf (accessed June 10, 2010). 216

lana f. rakow and diana iulia nastasia

Rakow, Lana F., Heather Helgeson, and John J. Weber. 2004. Needs Assessment of North Dakota Communities and Nonprofits: Opportunities for Engagement. www.communityengagement.und.edu. Rakow, Lana F., Sarah Delaquis, Laura Foley, Kendall Fossand, Danica Heichert, Melissa Jaques, Lance Kraemer et al. 2008. Neighborhood Communication Plan: Near North Neighborhood, Grand Forks, North Dakota. Report by a Community Communication class at the University of North Dakota. www.communityengagement.und.edu. Roberts, Nancy C. 2008. The Age of Direct Citizen Participation. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Shepherd, Gregory J., and Eric W. Rothenbuhler. 2001. Communication and Community. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Srinivasan, Ramesh. 2006. Where Information Society and Community Voice Intersect. Information Society 22 (5):355–365. Stengrim, Laura A. 2005. Negotiating Postmodern Democracy, Political Activism, and Knowledge Production: Indymedia’s Grassroots and e-Savvy Answer to Media Oligopoly. Communication and Critical/ Cultural Studies 2 (4):281–304. Stoecker, Randy. 2005. Research Methods for Community Change: A ProjectBased Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strand, Kerry, Sam Marullo, Nick Cutforth, Randy Stoecker, and Patrick Donohue. 2003. Community-Based Research and Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Stringer, Ernest T. 2007. Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. State and County Quickfacts. http:// quickfacts.census.gov. Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman, and Henry Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press. Wyatt, Robert O., Elihu Katz, and Joohan Kim. 2000. Bridging the Spheres: Political and Personal Conversation in Public and Private Spaces. Journal of Communication 50 (1):71–92.

civic spaces for public communication in north dakota

217

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 11

Telecommunications Convergence and Consumer Rights in Brazil estela waksberg guerrini, diogo moyses, and daniela batalha trettel For over two decades, communication services have been a central item on the agenda of consumer defense organizations. In the past ten years, however, the number of issues related to this sector has grown—and continues to grow—exponentially, which increases the pressure to find answers for the numerous problems and demands arising from the offering of both old and new services to the consumer. With recent technological developments in telecommunications, other services have been added to the landline, such as mobile telephony, pay TV, and Internet access. As they expand, these services reveal, with greater or lesser intensity, their essential character to society, as media and information technologies have become an integral part of the personal and professional lives of users worldwide (Ministry of Science and Technology 2000). This, in turn, imposes new costs on the consumer who develops new—and certainly exhausting—relations with the companies providing the services. This same technical progress has led Brazil to begin digitizing open television (Center of Technology and Society 2007). On the one hand, this process forces the entire population, regardless of an individual’s class or place of residence, to acquire new appliances. On the other hand, due to the technical advances and the dynamics generated by the technological transition, this process creates opportunities for service development and improvement. Radio broadcasting is also taking its first, albeit incipient, steps towards its digitization. In both sectors—telecommunications and broadcasting—the implications of the technological convergence are still unclear for consumers and the entities that defend their rights. 221

It is in the context of this evolving convergence process and the accelerated growth of products and services that the ten-year anniversary of the privatization of the Telebras System (the holding company of former Embratel and twenty-seven state telecommunication companies) is being celebrated. After ten years, we feel that an adequate period of time has passed in order to be able to analyze the advances made and setbacks experienced with the new model instituted in Brazil during the state reform process in the 1990s. In this environment of deep and rapid transformations, the work of consumer defense organizations has become more consistent. They now have a greater capacity to evaluate if the new model of the telecommunications sector—which includes both broadcasting and telecommunications—was designed to fit adequately Brazilian socioeconomic reality and if it is capable of facing the main challenges that emerge from the technological convergence process. For this, one must assess if the benefits that the privatization process was believed to generate have in fact been gained. One must also evaluate if the technological and regulatory choices made during the process of broadcasting’s technological migrations respond to society’s interests in a satisfactory manner. That said, the main objective of the Telecommunications Convergence and Consumer Rights project—financed by the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) and coordinated by the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense (IDEC) (with support from the Center of Technology and Society [2007] of the Getulio Vargas Foundation of Rio de Janeiro Law School)—was to identify the issues that, in the beginning of this century, are related to the structure of the communications sector and whose impacts are felt by Brazilian citizens. The study then reveals the rights and wrongs of the current model, as well as the challenges for establishing regulatory policies and instruments to protect the public interest. To meet these objectives, a variety of sources and references were used, namely: official materials published by specialized consultancy firms, companies within the sector and its class associations; and interviews with regulation experts from different spheres, such as public administrators and members of the nonprofit sector. Of equal importance were the academic references from both national and international sources which, in addition to presenting qualified data, contributed with reflections and interpretations that are necessary for the formulation and implementation of public policies. The collaboration with academics was fundamental for this research to be successful. Advocacy can only be done effectively when there’s research behind it, for it brings the guarantee of a scientific-technical aspect to the arguments made in advocacy. 222

e. w. guerrini, d. moyses, and d. b. trettel

the evolution of communications During the first phase of telecommunications development in Brazil, the sector was dominated by a duopoly, shared by a semicolonial state and a powerful foreign business group. The national government, with few resources and administrators who were subservient to or aligned with international interests, managed communication services in rural areas and developed them very little. A British company named Western controlled the connections between the cities of Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Santos, and Belo Horizonte, and from these cities to places abroad. From a regulatory point of view, until the 1960s, several isolated normative instruments were instituted. For approximately one century, the expansion and exploration of the telecommunications and broadcasting networks was regulated in a fragmented and disorganized manner. Regulations were usually adopted in order to address technical requirements or to satisfy urgent political demands. The dispersion in regulation made it difficult to effectively organize the exploration and monitoring of the services as they were being implemented. The CBT (the Brazilian Telecommunications Code), approved and sanctioned in 1962, was conceived amidst manifestations of growing impatience towards telecommunication services provided by the companies in the country. At the time, there were around nine hundred telephone companies spread around the country, yet teledensity was only 1 percent—that is, only one line for every 100 inhabitants. Following world trends, the CBT began to regulate telecommunications and broadcasting activities simultaneously. The situation remained virtually unchanged until the promulgation of the General Telecommunications Law (LGT in Portuguese) in the 1990s. The expansion of urban telephony started in 1972, when the government created Telebra´s, a holding company of Embratel and of a national system of state enterprises, which absorbed the small municipal telephone companies. In the first few years of its implementation by the government, the Telebra´s program contributed to a significant increase in the number of lines. In broadcasting, the efforts to create a major national network resulted in a leap in the number of homes with TV appliances from less than 500,000 in 1960 to nearly thirty million in the early 1980s. state reform and the privatization of telecommunications During the 1990s, countries from Europe, Latin America and Asia underwent processes of deregulating and liberalizing strategic economic sectors, opening the door to the participation of international capital in the privatization of state companies. One of the main targets of this neoliberal universalization was the communications sector, namely the state telecommunications companies that held the monopoly over the markets in telecommunications in brazil

223

their countries. In Brazil, the privatization of the sector and the consequent dismembering of Telebra´s, dates back to the Collor administration (1990s) and the approval of the National Privatization Program (Law 8.031/90). To carry out the project of state reform in the telecommunications sector, in 1995, the Fernando Henrique Cardoso government proposed, and the national Congress approved, Constitutional Amendment 8, which altered the Federal Constitution of 1988. With the amendment, the offering of public telecommunication services was opened to private capital, thereby putting an end to the monopoly that began with the military regime in 1972, and which became a constitutional item in 1985 and maintained by the 1988 Constitution. In the midst of this change, telecommunications and broadcasting services were legally separated, which until then had been constitutionally joined. Brazil went against trends in the rest of the world and created an artificial legal separation between telecommunications and broadcasting. In the new model, the power to regulate operations in the telecommunications sector was awarded to Anatel, the National Telecommunications Agency. Anatel’s (2007b) primary mission was to monitor the quality of consumer services and operators’ compliance with contracts. Also, the agency had the responsibility of adopting measures to prevent the establishment of monopolies in the market and suppressing violations of the economic order. To ensure the universalization of the services, Law 9.998 was approved in 2000, which instituted the Telecommunications Services Universalization Fund (or FUST, in Portuguese). All operators, including those that offered services in a private regime, were to contribute 1 percent of their gross operational revenue to the fund. convergence, the internet, and content digitalization In the first two development phases of communication services, one could see that the services existing at that time were distinct in nature, even though they were connected by the long-distance infrastructure and the same technical-industrial base. On one hand, there were telecommunications services, which initially consisted of landline telephony services and, later on, mobile telephony. On the other, there were broadcasting services—considered to be an evolution of cinema and photography—that consisted primarily of radio and, later on, television. Between the two, one finds pay TV—a service that was originally meant to offer only audiovisual content (similar to open TV), but that is now considered a telecommunications service for normative purposes. The most evident part of the state reform implemented during the last decade of the twentieth century in the Brazilian telecommunications sector 224

e. w. guerrini, d. moyses, and d. b. trettel

was the privatization of the Telebra´s System (which occurred during the initial expansion of pay TV and mobile telephony). However, the most important structural change in the sector was introduced through the appearance and development of the Internet and the digitization of audio, video, and written content. Within a few years, the IP environment became an important informational, work, study, and entertainment tool for millions of consumers around the globe. In this process, the networks dedicated exclusively to landline telephony or cable television started to also provide Internet access. This phenomenon—called Technical Convergence or Digital Convergence—corresponds to a change in the traditional relationship between networks and services, whereby the separation between networks for voice (the terminal being the telephone), data (the terminal being the computer) and image (the terminal being the television) is gradually eliminated, leaving only one network or platform to transport, store, and redistribute all types of media (see, for example, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 1992, 2006). Moreover, the system functions not only through a shared network, but also through one single technological support: the Internet. Even though the convergence process initiated a few years ago has not yet been completely consolidated, some general tendencies have began to emerge: a generic convergence, with the fusion of telecommunications, computers (IT), audiovisual services (pay TV), and broadcasting (open TV); a convergence of services with different networks offering the same applications and content (landline telephony, broadband, and pay TV offered as one service called tripleplay—or, the bundle of all these services and mobile telephony known as quadruplay); a convergence of networks, with the same network offering different services; the convergence between terminals, with the same terminal (fixed or mobile) supporting several services (Anatel 2007a). As a direct result, services that had their own dynamics, relevant distinguished markets, specific leader companies in each one of these activities, and, finally, varying degrees of state regulation and intervention, began to integrate, offering a growing number of services and products. They converged towards a similar business structure and now compete against each other. This phenomenon has several implications and will create unforeseen situations. In this context, the model resulting from the privatization of Brazilian telecommunications—even if it had been forged in an environment where there were clear signs of the beginning of a technological convergence process (at the end of the 1990s)—ended up being fragmented and its regulations dispersed. First, broadcasting services were distinguished from other telecommunications in brazil

225

telecommunication services, with the approval of Constitutional Amendment 8. Second, the similarities in the nature of pay TV and open broadcasting services were ignored, leading to the adoption of distinct regulatory norms. Third, the pay-TV market was split: the cable TV services were regulated by a federal law, while the provision of other services such as DTH and MMDS were regulated via decree, with rules and obligations that were different from those for cable TV. structural evolution of the post-1998 model With the changes in the telecommunications sector model in the 1990s, private companies took over the provision of services from the state companies and Anatel, the national regulatory agency, began to monitor market rules and relations with consumers. According to the LGT, the objective of this new model was to universalize access to telecommunications (mainly to landline telephony services). This was to be achieved by having private concessionaires operate in a competitive environment. Thus, from a structural point of view, universalization and competition were to be the most relevant principles. We will use these principles to evaluate, from the consumer and public interest perspective, the advances and setbacks in the last ten years of the model’s implementation. Regarding landline telephony, Brazil possesses around thirty-nine million telephones in service, or 20.28 operating telephones for every 100 inhabitants. This number falls well below the established goal of fifty-five million active lines. For normative purposes, Anatel considers that the service has been universalized since 2003: according to the agency, a service is universalized when the necessary infrastructure has been installed and is available to consumers. However, it is well known that installed capacity—which has remained at approximately fifty million lines since 2002—does not necessarily mean that these lines are effectively in use. The most appropriate indicator is the one that distinguishes consumers by their family income. Of the Brazilians in Class A1 (5 percent of the population), 99 percent possess a landline. Of those in Class B (15 percent of the population), 90 percent have the service in their homes; in Class C (30 percent of the population), 70 percent. For Classes D and E (50 percent of the population), the number of people that have a landline drops to 40 percent. Up until 1994, the main barrier to the entry of new users in the landline telephony system was the installation charge. With the new model that emerged from the state reform, the main obstacle for new users is the basic monthly fee. What is more, the fee has increased 846 percent since 1995, even though the official inflation rate only rose 184 percent during the same period. 226

e. w. guerrini, d. moyses, and d. b. trettel

Similar to the goal of universalizing access to services, the changes in the model have not resulted in effective competition in the landline telephony market. Local landline telephony concessionaires continue to operate as a monopoly, holding the population hostage; this allows known abuses and disrespect of consumers’ rights to persist. This imposes structural limitations on the current model. Contrary to landline telephony, the advance of mobile telephony coverage is undeniable. During the period of 1990–2003, competition in this market was consolidated, with on average four major operators serving the consumer market in almost every region of the country. In 2009, more than 159 million lines are in use in Brazil. Even though mobile teledensity is substantially greater than the landline, among its Latin American neighbors, Brazil is the country with the lowest level of cellular telephony use. While Brazil rates at 63 percent; in Argentina, it is as high as 100 percent; Chile, 90 percent; Venezuela, 89 percent; and Colombia, 74 percent. Data2 on mobile density per economic class shows that by the end of 2007, 83 percent of the people in Class A had a mobile telephone. The number for Class B is 77 percent; Class C, 53 percent; and D/E, 28 percent. The most important characteristic of this market, however, is the expansion of the service, essentially through the prepaid modality, which corresponds to 80 percent of the appliances currently registered in the country. These users mostly use their cellular phone to receive calls. Faced with the impossibility of maintaining a fixed landline service, families realized that the cheapest way to have a phone is to acquire a prepaid one. The post-paid modality started in 1998 with 99.4 percent of the appliances registered for this service. Today, this number is around 20 percent. In contrast, the prepaid modality started with only 0.6 percent and has risen to over 80 percent of registered phones. With at least four major corporate groups operating in every region, it is possible to affirm that a competitive environment in the mobile telephony market exists. One must also take into account, however, that such competition did not have a positive impact on the prices offered to consumers, especially when compared to those found in neighboring South American countries. The findings of some studies3 have confirmed that Brazil’s level of use is rated as the fourth lowest in the world (after Morocco, Peru, and the Philippines). In pay-TV service, which only began to develop in Brazil in 1995, the level of use is very low, due to a combination of high prices and the low purchasing power of the majority of the population. In 2007, however, a small increase in the number of users was observed. This can be attributed to pay-TV operators’ decision to offer triple-play packages (pay TV, landline, and high-speed Internet), which motivated some clients with a higher telecommunications in brazil

227

level of purchasing power to migrate from the local STFC concessionaires to the cable TV operators. Of the Class A families, 70 percent have pay-TV service; the number drops to 23 percent for those in Class B. In the households of Classes C, D, and E, which together represent approximately 80 percent of the Brazilian population, the service is practically nonexistent: merely 5 percent and 1 percent of families, respectively, subscribe to pay TV. Another characteristic of the sector is the strong level of concentration in the market, which is in the hands of only two operators: NET Services (47 percent) in cable TV, and Sky (31 percent) in DTH. These operators possess respectively 76 percent and 90 percent of their market modality and are the sole providers of these services in many cities. In terms of Internet access, despite being the object of municipal, state, and federal public policies for nearly a decade, approximately 21 percent of people in Brazil use the worldwide network of computers. This includes individuals with all types of access: residential, nonresidential, and public access. The proportion of people that possess some form of broadband access in their homes does not reach 5 percent. An equal number of people access the Internet from their homes through dial-up connections. Other data show that 59 percent of the population has never used the Internet. Of the families composing Class A, 82 percent have Internet access at home, although only 64 percent possess high-speed services. In Class B, 50 percent have Internet and 26 percent have high-speed access. In Class C, the numbers are 16 percent and 7 percent, respectively; and in classes D/E, 2 percent and 0.8 percent (Internet Management Committee of Brazil 2006). Access to the Internet is mainly offered through landline concessionaire networks (ADSL), which are the only option for people who do not live in the high-income neighborhoods of the main urban centers of the country (TeleBrasil and Teleco 2007). Even if access is provided through the landline networks, a significant proportion of municipalities, neighborhoods, and villages do not have the infrastructure needed to transport data, making Internet access possible only through dial-up connections. This generally implies paying additional charges for long-distance calls, which doubly burdens low-income consumers. In addition to contributing significantly to the depreciation of service quality, the absence of competition (which, like in fixed telephony, only exists in the market for corporate or high-income clients), also serves as a stimulus for charging high prices, which prevents potential users from acquiring the service. As in the case of pay TV, one may conclude that the main barrier for subscribing to broadband service is the high monthly cost. Indeed, the service is out of the reach of Classes C, D, and E, in which the percentage of those with the service is 26 percent, 7 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively. 228

e. w. guerrini, d. moyses, and d. b. trettel

Even in Class B, the percentage is only 26 percent and in Class A, 64 percent. Not only is Internet transmission speed low in general (300 kbps to 1 Mbps), which certainly reduces consumers’ ability to take full advantage of technology available, but one also finds that the operators do not even deliver the service at the speed acquired by the user, which is permitted by the regulatory agency. If a consumer signs up for a service with the speed of 1 Mbps, for example, he or she will find in the contract that the operator is allowed to offer the service at only 10 percent of this speed (100 kbps) for numerous reasons, most of which are considered abusive. Summing up, it is possible to conclude that, contrary to what was commonly believed, the privatization of telecommunications in the 1990s did not result in the benefits heralded in terms of universalization of access, competition, and low tariffs. The two main objectives of privatization (universalization and competition) could not be fully reached, due to the low average income of Brazilian consumers and the inactivity or complacency of regulators. This leaves us with the image of the Brazilian communications sector, as a whole, taking its first steps in this century without being guided by a coherent project that aims to protect the public interest.

core ideas for an inclusive convergence process The analysis of the evolution of the communications sector in Brazil and the general characteristics of the technological convergence process, together with the evaluation of the results obtained ten years after the privatization of the sector, allow one to affirm principles that regulatory or legislative agents should observe in order to better serve the public interest and protect consumers’ rights. defining a new institutional framework The fragmentation and dispersion of the sector’s legal framework is certainly one of the central issues to be faced by the Brazilian state. Up to 1997, one single infraconstitutional norm regulated communications in Brazil. With the approval of the General Telecommunications Law (LGT), broadcasting remained tied to the Brazilian Telecommunications Code (CBT) and was no longer understood as a telecommunications service. Thus, even though Brazil was in the midst of the communications convergence process, it decided to embark on a path different from the one taken by other countries that were revising their legal frameworks and broke up the legal-institutional unit that regulated the entire sector. telecommunications in brazil

229

Although the constitutional articles for broadcasting have not yet been regulated, the telecommunication legal framework is internally incoherent and fragmented. The transition to digital television brings to light the nonconverging character of the current communications framework. As broadcasting and audiovisual content are now available on mobile phones, it is becoming less clear who is responsible for monitoring and regulating these services. Faced with these complexities, it is becoming increasingly urgent to define a new institutional framework for the sector—one that simultaneously updates the existing legislation and is capable of guaranteeing the constitutional principles that have not yet been regulated. This process must be carried out with strong social participation. Civil society organizations and movements defending consumers and the democratization of communications must take part in order to prevent the underlying principles for this new legislation, and public policies for the sector, from being defined according to the private aspirations and interests of the economic groups active in the sector. universalize access to broadband internet The second main idea that emerges from the convergence process is the need to universalize high-speed Internet access. This need arises primarily from the importance that this new form of relating to the world has acquired in the different aspects of social, economic, and cultural life. It has become a tool used daily for a variety of activities, ranging from entertainment to work. Furthermore, the failure to include citizens in this environment will certainly perpetuate or increase the already unacceptable socialeconomic inequalities that exist in Brazil. To these reasons, one may add that broadband access is, due to the very essence of the convergence process, the gateway to all other communication services, providing access to video, text, and especially voice services. Video and the Internet can also be provided through an ordinary telephone line. Of equal relevance are the potential social and economic impacts that could be generated by offering universalized broadband access: as experiences in other countries have revealed, it can be a strong motor for development. Ensuring the universalization of high-speed access requires the adoption of a broad stimulus strategy that aims to extend service coverage to the entire country and to all social groups. Before doing so, however, the state must assume its responsibility and officially recognize broadband access as an essential public service with the same status that landline telephony has today. For high-speed Internet, the decision to universalize broadband access must be made and the same responsibilities and obligations of the state and service providers must be recognized. In regard to these obligations, 230

e. w. guerrini, d. moyses, and d. b. trettel

there must be greater state control over service providers, effective mechanisms to define tariffs, and clear universalization targets. the use of fust resources In a monopolist regime, cross-subsidies—that is a tariff system in which commercial establishments and high-income families are charged higher prices in order to cover the costs of universalizing services—were common practice. Cross-subsidies were eventually substituted by universalization funds that were created (even in countries with relatively high income levels) in order to compensate for the market’s inability to ensure all citizens’ right to access to services. In Brazil, this fund—the FUST—must be understood as an instrument of income-distribution, which is indispensable in countries with extreme inequalities. As the only telecommunications service provided as a public service is landline telephony, the FUST, for practical purposes, can only be used to meet obligations regarding the universalization of access to landlines. For the FUST resources to be used for the universalization of high-speed Internet, this service must first be recognized as a public service, together with landline telephony, and then subject to universalization goals. Additionally, it is recommended that a National Broadband Universalization Plan (PNUBL) be elaborated in order to define universalization goals and criteria for the fund’s allocation reduction of basic monthly fees In order to convert landline telephony into a gateway for the convergence of services, the basic monthly fees must be reduced. Otherwise, it will not be possible to broaden the consumer base. Such a reduction, however, must be based on the average expenditure on cellular telephony of consumers using the prepaid modality: as this expenditure currently represents 50 percent of the current basic monthly landline fee, authorities should establish the goal of reducing this fee by the same percentage. The adoption of such a measure would be one way of recognizing the inefficiency of the current model in universalizing access to the only telecommunications service considered essential today. establishment of a fair cost model for network interconnectivity In Brazil, as in many other parts of the world, it is possible to allow for the existence of an essential facility for some telecommunication services, especially in landline telephony and the offering of Internet access, due to the fact that local landline telephony concessionaires hold a monopoly over telecommunications in brazil

231

last-mile access for the provision of these services. Recognizing the essential nature of the service, Article 155 of the LGT stipulates that telecommunication service providers acting in the collective interest must ‘‘make their networks available to other public interest service providers.’’ The rendering of networks available to others, known as unbundling, has never actually been implemented by the Brazilian regulatory agency. As a result, in virtually all regions of the country, telecommunications users are held hostage to only one service provider, which affects prices and service quality in ways that are already well known. Therefore, a strategy that is able to effectively stimulate competition in the provision of landline telephony and broadband Internet services must start with the adoption of multiple mechanisms to ensure sharing between networks. Unbundling must be implemented and a fair rule and cost model for interconnecting networks must be established in order to ensure that other service providers have access to the last mile and backbones of the concessionaires. The international experience offers useful lessons for Brazil, namely the United Kingdom and Finland experiences in unbundling. These countries have already adopted a functional/operational separation between infrastructure and service providers. In this type of environment, it is possible to recognize the advances that could be made through the adoption of a functional/operational separation of the networks. In a country whose conditions make it necessary to adopt a radical strategy to stimulate competition, structural separation represents one alternative for creating improved conditions for the establishment of nondiscriminatory access to networks for all consumer service providers. Through the imposition of a new business model, it could even incite those in control of the networks to become the ones most interested in sharing the network. Thus, it is important to create an environment of greater competition in landline telephony and broadband services, with several providers making use of a concessionaire’s infrastructure to gain direct access to the last mile. This, in turn, will allow the final consumer tariffs to drop and the quality of the services to rise. guaranteeing network neutrality Another core issue that emerges from the study of the ongoing technological convergence, and whose impacts are felt by consumers, is network neutrality. Since the beginning of this decade, telecommunications operators that supply Internet access (meaning basically the landline telephony and cable TV operators) can determine the type of information that circulates in their infrastructure in real time. In some countries, telecommunication operators using these ‘‘scouts’’ intend to act as state censors of the network. In Brazil and in other countries, however, there are commercial reasons for using 232

e. w. guerrini, d. moyses, and d. b. trettel

these devices: they allow operators to degrade the quality of determined services or functions. By not treating their competitors in an equal or just manner—like the way landline telephony operators act towards Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, for example—the companies controlling the network can eliminate their competitors and prevent users from using the service at their convenience or to serve their needs. Management of the networks also allows the inverse to happen: telecommunications companies may charge for privileged access to their networks, increasing or decreasing the speed of transmission for certain kinds of information. With this tactic or approach, the speed at which the content of a given institution or company is transmitted is determined by its capacity to remunerate the network holders. This could have a negative impact on users who may be forced to wait longer to view or receive the content that interests them. telecommunications user privacy The question of user privacy—which is guaranteed by the Fifth Article of the Brazilian Federal Constitution—is another issue that merits special attention. With advances in data storage and transmission techniques, the possibilities of privacy violations have increased drastically, creating an environment in which the user is constantly at risk of one of his or her fundamental rights being violated. One of the most common ways to infringe upon Internet users’ privacy is precisely through the surveillance of their use of the networks, adopting techniques to determine their Internet surfing habits. Several kinds of electronic correspondence violations exist. They can occur in either a business or residential environment and must be considered as being extremely serious. Although one can recognize the importance of developing instruments to investigate and punish illegal Internet activities, such as bank crimes and pedophilia, the initiatives to alter the penal code raise concerns. Some seek to turn practices that are very common today on the Internet, like file exchanges through P2P networks, into crimes. The legality of this function must be widely recognized and criminalizing it would justify the permanent monitoring of Internet users. The use of telecommunications services has changed in a number of ways since 2003. The number of landline phones (again, the only telecommunication service subject to obligations related to universalized access), decreased from 21.8 per 100 inhabitants to 20.6 per 100 inhabitants between 2003 and 2007. The number of mobile phones, as already mentioned, increased. One must keep in mind, however, that nearly 80 percent of the lines correspond to the prepaid modality. However, the number of people with broadband Internet access increased very little during the 2003–2007 telecommunications in brazil

233

period, especially when one considers the social, economic, political, and cultural importance of Internet access, digital inclusion, and the growing use of the IP platform in the convergence of services. To summarize, this chapter proposes a partial review of the model of Brazilian telecommunications and recommends: The establishment of a new, coherent, converging, and flexible regulatory framework for the sector. The universalization of broadband Internet access, starting with the establishment of a public regime for offering the service, the use of the FUST to attain the goal of universalizing access, stimulating the entry of new access providers through different technologies, and reducing landline telephony’s basic monthly fees. Stimulating competition through unbundling, instituting a regime in which infrastructure holders and consumer services provider are separated, and establishing a model of fair costs and tariffs for interconnecting networks. The establishment of a network management policy which guarantees neutrality and user privacy.

policy implications: real-life impact The results of the study on technological convergence in the telecommunications sector and challenges in the regulatory scene in Brazil revealed, in a systematic way, the distortions that exist today in relation to consumer rights. The normative framework does not correspond to the reality of services offered. This study coincided with the beginning of a series of discussions on the structure of the telecommunications sector in Brazil. During this period, Anatel promoted three important public consultations. The data obtained, together with the accumulated expertise of IDEC’s research team, greatly contributed to enhancing the Institute’s contributions to the public consultations and hearings and to increasing the effectiveness of its interventions and its ability to represent consumers’ interests. The first public consultation held by Anatel (Public Consultation 11/ 2009) dealt with the review of the contracts between the Agency and the fixed telephony concession holders. The second one (Public Consultation 13/2009) was on the revision of the General Plan of Targets for the Universalization of Commuted Fixed Telephone Service; and the third (Public Consultation 14/2009) reviewed the General Plan for Quality Goals. 234

e. w. guerrini, d. moyses, and d. b. trettel

IDEC’s contributions became even more relevant when Telefonica, the concessionaire in the State of Sao Paulo (the most populated and developed state in the country), experienced system failure, leaving consumers without access to the Internet or landlines several times and for various hours at a time. In its submissions to Public Consultation 11/2009, IDEC emphasized the importance of the Agency having a clear idea of its role in protecting consumers through its regulatory activities. Furthermore, IDEC presented the numbers collected in this study that demonstrate that access to fixed telephony services has not yet been universalized in the country. The availability of infrastructure is insufficient and disadvantaged classes do not have effective access to services—access being understood as the possibility of installing a telephone line in a residence, maintaining it, and paying affordable tariffs. The number of households with this service is high only among the high and middle classes of the Brazilian population. Another relevant point explored in the contributions to Public Consultation 11 is related to the urgent need for the agency to take measures to disaggregate the network of concessionaires and to establish a model of costs that the companies owning the infrastructure may charge those that want to offer the service to consumers. Without these measures, there will never be competition in the sector, consumers’ freedom of choice will continue to be restricted, and the trend of high prices and poor service quality will continue. In its contributions to Public Consultation 13, IDEC presented data on public telephones to show that they are still important for a large portion of the Brazilian population that relies on this means of communication, as they are unable to pay the basic fee for a land line, for example, or because making calls from a mobile phone is extremely expensive. It is important to note that the majority of people only have cellular phones to be able to receive calls; 80 percent of cellular phone clients have prepaid phone lines. Only 28 percent of Classes D and E, which corresponds to half of the Brazilian population, have a cellular phone. In this context, with the support of data collected during this study, IDEC has fought to have Anatel give up its proposal to reduce the number of public phones that fixed telephony concession holders are obliged to install. Finally, in its proposal for Public Consultation 14, Anatel proposed the creation of a new indicator to measure the quality of fixed telephony services, to be called the indicator of quality as perceived by the user. This indicator would be composed of complaints received by the agency, as well as user surveys conducted or commissioned by Anatel. The Institute stressed the importance of including in the indicator not only the complaints filed telecommunications in brazil

235

with the agency, as it only received claims that have been previously presented to the service operator (by no means representative of the real universe of claims), but also the complaints submitted to procons (public consumer defense organizations that play an important role in receiving and resolving consumer complaints), as well as data from the Sindec (National System of Information on Consumer Defense, administered by the Department for the Protection and Defense of Consumers [DPDC] of the Ministry of Justice). As for the user surveys, IDEC suggested that Anatel consult consumer defense entities and the SNDC (the National Consumer Defense System, made up of public and private consumer defense organs and coordinated by the DPDC) on the elaboration of the survey methodology. Preparing and submitting contributions with this level of depth was only made possible by the results of the studies conducted as part of the SSRC project. Also, the conclusions of the study were and are being publicized in various forms, so that civil society and organized movements can use them as support when pressuring public authorities. IDEC is a consumers’ association that the press often calls on to comment on a wide range of issues related to consumers’ rights and telecommunications (Institute for Consumer Defense 2006). Its spokespeople use the data presented in this study during interviews with various media outlets. This is one way of disseminating the data, the facts, and the conclusions of the study, and ensuring that this information will be widely reproduced, so that all citizens may come to know about the factual and normative reality of the world of communications. With the objective of stimulating social participation in the decision making processes of the communications sector, our aim is to show how current political and technological discussions are related to issues related to consumers’ daily lives and how the decisions being made affect them. Also, in order to reach a broad public—citizens from all over Brazil, including journalists, researchers, and public authorities—IDEC has published on its Web site the full study report (more than 130 pages), as well as a summary written in language that is accessible to the common citizen, who may not be familiar with technological and legal jargon. The main objective of offering this summary in objective and simplified language was to share essential information so that society may participate in the democratic process and exercise social control. With the support of the Ford Foundation, IDEC was able to publish, in August of last year, a study carried out as part of the SSRC project. One thousand copies were made and the books were distributed for free to organizations that are part of the National Forum of Civil Consumer Defense Entities (FNECDC, in Portuguese), to movements or associations that are 236

e. w. guerrini, d. moyses, and d. b. trettel

active in the area of communications, as well as to researchers and public officials. The book was officially launched in October 2009 in an event co-organized with other partner organizations: the Intervozes Collective (2005), the Center of Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation of Rio de Janeiro’s School of Law and the Nupef/Rits Institute. Consumer and communications organizations, members of Anatel and the Ministry of Communications, and representatives of the business sector attended the event. In addition to launching the book, the objective of the event is to promote a discussion on telecommunications, convergence, and proposals for the First National Communications Conference, which was held at the beginning of December 2009. In this conference, where civil society, government, and business representatives were present, it was important to emphasize the need to revise the normative and regulatory framework in the communications sector, and to discuss proposals that will end the fragmentation of regulations by service (mobile telephony, fixed telephony, pay TV, high-speed Internet, and so on), since the current environment is one of convergence.

conclusion In the field of communications, there are several challenges that technological convergence imposes upon the organizations that act to defend the rights of Brazilian consumers. For one, one must maintain a strong watch over consumers’ basic rights, as the number of violations of these rights has grown with the expansion of the telecommunication services over recent years. Second, one must also focus on the formulation and implementation of structural policies that ensure that the principles established for providing services are respected. This second strategy is very important, as we are sure that the impact of this report will ultimately contribute to a greater respect for, and guaranteeing of, consumers’ rights and freedoms. It is very important that consumers’ organizations act in collaboration with universities and academics. This partnership provides greater legitimacy to advocacy, as there is research and solid arguments to underlie the political work. The biggest challenge for the academy-advocacy partnership was the timing. As political situations change quickly—the unanticipated public inquiry is a case in point—a rapid response may be needed, and academic work often happens at a different pace. The lesson learned is that careful planning and anticipation of future events is crucial to maximize the impact of collaborative research. telecommunications in brazil

237

notes 1. For details on the social class categorization scheme regularly employed by Brazilian government, see Brazilian Internet Steering Committee 2010, 98–99. 2. IBGE/PTS 2007. 3. Global Wireless Matrix 2008, Merrill Lynch.

references ANATEL, Conselho Consultivo. 2007a. Relato´rio Sobre Convergeˆncia e Conteu´do Eletroˆnico. Ageˆncia Nacional de Telecomunicac¸o˜es. (Advisory Council. Report on convergence and electronic content.) Rio de Janeiro. ———. 2007b. Estudo Comparativo de Modelos Regulato´rios Nacionais. (Comparative study of national regulatory Models.) http://www.anatel .gov.br/Portal/verificaDocumentos/documento.asp?numeroPublica cao⳱207307&assuntoPublicacao⳱Estudo%20Comparativo%20 de%20Modelos%20Regulato´rios%20Nacionais&caminhoRel⳱ Cida dao-TV%20por%20Assinatura-Estudos%20e%20pesquisas& filtro⳱1&documentoPath⳱207307.pdf (accessed March 5, 2010). Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. 2010. Survey on the Use of Information and Communication Technologies in Brazil ICT Houses and ICT Enterprises 2009. http://op.ceptro.br/cgi-bin/indicadores-cgi br-2009?pais⳱brasil&estado⳱sp&ong⳱ong&age⳱de-25-a-34-anos &education⳱pos-mestrado&purpose⳱politicas-publicas (accessed June 15, 2010). Comiteˆ Gestor da Internet. 2006 Pesquisa sobre o Uso das Tecnologias da Informac¸a˜o e da Comunicac¸a˜o no Brasil: TIC domicı´lios e TIC empresas. (Study on the use of information and communication technology in Brazil: ICT households and ICT companies.) Rio de Janeiro. Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade Escola de Direito da Fundac¸a˜o Getulio Vargas Rio de Janeiro. Estudo Te´cnico-Jurı´dico: Sistema Brasileiro de TV Digital (SBTVD) e Implementac¸a˜o de Tecnologia Antico´pia, 2007. (Technical-Legal Study: Brazilian Digital TV System (SBTVD) and Implementation of Anti-copy Technology.) Instituto de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC). 2006 Avaliac¸a˜o do consumidor: ageˆncias e o´rga˜os governamentais reguladores. (Consumers assessment: Governmental regulatory agencies and bodies.) INTERVOZES—Coletivo Brasil de Comunicac¸a˜o Social. 2005. Direito a` Comunicac¸a˜o no Brasil: Base constitucional e legal, implementac¸a˜o, o papel dos diferentes atores e tendeˆncias atuais e futuras. (Right to 238

e. w. guerrini, d. moyses, and d. b. trettel

Communication in Brazil: Constitutional and legal basis, implementation, role of different actors and current and future trends.) Ministe´rio da Cieˆncia e Tecnologia. 2000. Sociedade da Informac¸a˜o no Brasil—Livro Verde. Rio de Janeiro: Ministe´rio da Cieˆncia e Tecnologia. (Information society in Brazil—the Green Book.) Rio de Janeiro: MCT. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1992. Telecommunications and Broadcasting: Convergence or Collision? Paris. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2006. Policy Considerations for audio-visual content distribution in a multiplatform environment. Paris. TELEBRASIL e TELECO. 2007. O Desempenho do Setor de Telecomunicac¸o˜es no Brasil, 2006. (The performance of the telecommunications sector in Brazil, 2006).

telecommunications in brazil

239

CHAPTER 12

Citizen Political Enfranchisement and Information Access Telecommunications Services in Rural and Remote Areas richard s. wolff As an increasing number of participatory democratic processes assume access to modern, high-speed telecommunications services, this study addressed the question: Are citizens in rural/remote areas being politically disenfranchised by lack of adequate, affordable, and equal communications infrastructure? Electronic media, including high-speed Internet access and local broadcast, play an important role in the democratic process. Citizen enfranchisement is increasingly equated with online activities from blogging to e-government. Residents in metropolitan areas, where high-speed wired and wireless connectivity is widely available, can readily be included in these processes. They can go online to get notices and agendas of community meetings, receive information about issues that particularly affect them through neighborhood and affinity group listservs, learn more about candidates, ballot issues, and campaign finance practices, engage in dialogues with state and local representatives, obtain licenses and permits, file tax returns, and register to vote, to name a few of the growing list information tools that extend enfranchisement and encourage citizen engagement. As statewide and some local governmental entities ‘‘shift resources to online access to government services to reduce costs and increase business sector satisfaction’’ (State of Montana 2008), they must also focus on meeting the needs and enfranchisement of private citizens. With emphasis on e-governance and media consolidation, this study brings to light issues specific to rural areas that need to be addressed to help optimize engagement between government and rural area citizens. In this assessment, we used Montana as a case study, but the results are applicable to rural areas in general. 240

This project was carried out as a collaborative effort by the Montana Media Partnership (MMP), which consisted of staff from Montana Common Cause and Montana State University, with support from the Common Cause national organization. Common Cause works to strengthen public participation and faith in our institutions of self-government; to ensure that government and political processes serve the general interest, rather than special interests; to curb the excessive influence of money on government decisions and elections; to promote fair elections and high ethical standards for government officials; and to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of all. The MMP was established after discussions between the author and Common Cause revealed an opportunity to examine the challenges of disenfranchisement of rural area citizens in the face of expanded use of information age technology in public affairs. Both the author and Montana Common Cause were independently involved in assessment of the scope of these issues and their impact on democratic processes, and successfully applied for a grant from the Social Science Research Council to formalize the MMP, collaboratively conduct a study, and engage in outreach. This partnering between an academic institution and a public advocacy group was instrumental in achieving the project objectives. The resources made available through the efforts of Montana Common Cause were critically important in identifying stakeholders, reaching out to connect with information sources, and in obtaining input, disseminating results, and transitioning ideas into actions. Common Cause was particularly effective in providing avenues for publicizing the study through media contacts and other paths, and engaging the public in dialogue. The academic role was critical in framing the problem statement, examining and analyzing the data in an objective manner, and in putting forth sound conclusions and recommendations. This partnership forms an excellent model for engaging citizens and effecting change.

background Citizens in less populated areas do not necessarily enjoy the growing list of e-governance possibilities. According to the National Center for Frontier Communities, fifty-one out of the fifty-six counties in Montana have a status of frontier, which includes 54.1 percent of Montana’s population (The National Center for Frontier Communities 2007). The International City/ County Management Association (ICMA) surveyed 3,400 local governments countrywide to assess the level of sophistication in their e-government offerings and demonstrated that the level of e-government services being offered by local governments is increasing. Unfortunately, the survey telecommunications services in rural and remote areas

241

excluded municipalities under 2,500 people, the populations of approximately four out of five Montana municipalities. The situation on the ground in the majority of Montana and other rural areas with small towns is difficult to evaluate and often overlooked. There is ongoing debate over the adequacy and extent of broadband communications infrastructure in the United States. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has recently reported extensive broadband growth and a well established national policy reinforcing sustained roll-out, whereas a 2008 Educause study reports contradictory conclusions and raises considerable concerns that the United States is falling behind in broadband infrastructure and lacks a coherent national policy (Windhausen 2008). Neither of these assessments addresses the availability of infrastructure in rural America or the needs of rural citizens. An earlier study on the digital divide sponsored by Free Press and others raised similar concerns (Turner 2006). Considerable data are available on the extent of telecommunications infrastructure both nationally and statewide (Federal Communications Commission 2007b; Federal Communications Commission 2008a), but there is remarkably little data addressing the availability of telecommunications services at local levels. In this study, we examined Internet availability at the community level, including types of technologies used, costs, and services offered. A recent global assessment of information and communication technologies maturity indicates that the United States overall has been gaining in Internet infrastructure and use over the last few years, now ranked fourth among 127 countries studied (Dutta and Mia 2008). Other assessments report conflicting results, placing the United States in fifteenth or twentysecond place, where the differences depend on definitions of broadband, and whether individuals or households are used as the basis for comparison (Turner 2008). While encouraging, these examinations do not address regional differences or demographic factors that may contribute to disparities in enfranchisement. The Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life project completed an assessment of rural broadband Internet use. The Pew study shows that at the end of 2005, 24 percent of rural Americans had high-speed Internet connections in their homes, compared to 39 percent of urban and suburban dwellers (Horrigan and Murray 2006). We examined, in detail, the factors that influence rural Montana Internet usage and whether these areas are being served comparably with urban areas. A recent report on municipal broadband examines the factors associated with models of community ownership, franchising, and other approaches to accelerating the growth of high-speed networks at the local level (Balhoff 242

richard s. wolff

and Rowe 2005). Our study explored the extent of local telecommunications infrastructure in targeted rural areas, including traditional telco and cable-based high-speed network access, municipal broadband networks, Wi-Fi hot spots, high-speed digital cellular networks, library, school, and community center–based Internet access, television, low-power FM (LPFM) broadcasting, and the roles of these in community dialogue and citizen enfranchisement.

internet access in montana By some measures, access to electronic media in Montana is on par with the rest of the nation. Statewide data regarding high-speed Internet penetration is comparable to the national penetration level, and Montana’s citizens have other means of information access, including wireless hot spots, schools, and libraries equipped with Internet access. The following paragraphs summarize the results of our efforts to obtain a comprehensive picture of the availability of information via electronic means across the state of Montana. This assessment extends beyond access provided to homes, to include provision of services to other places where people congregate, such as wireless hotspots, schools, and libraries. statewide high-speed internet access We invested substantial effort to obtain accurate, current, and detailed information on the availability of high-speed Internet services (DSL, wireless, cable) in rural areas. The FCC annually surveys service providers and the most recently published data indicate that, nationwide, high-speed line1 penetration grew by 55 percent (or 35.7 million lines) in the twelve-month period from July 2006 to June 2007 (Federal Communications Commission 2008a). For Montana, the statewide results show that in June 2007, there were a total of 346,230 high-speed lines, or a 149 percent annual increase. On the basis of lines as a percentage of the population, Montana’s high-speed line penetration in June 2007 was about 36 percent compared to a national level of 34 percent. These statewide results indicate that high-speed line penetration in Montana is on par with the rest of the United States. However, these data do not show the gaps associated with rural areas. FCC annual survey data provide the number of high-speed Internet service providers per ZIP code area (Federal Communications Commission 2008a). These data show that there are substantial areas in the state where there are three or fewer highspeed providers. Furthermore, the data do not reveal the actual coverage areas of the providers. That is, the presence of a service provider in a ZIP telecommunications services in rural and remote areas

243

code does not imply that service is available throughout the area, or whether it is available in only a single community. The number of Internet service providers (ISPs) in an area is a measure of access availability and options. We examined these data in more detail, noting the number of ISPs by ZIP code area and compared Montana with the nation overall. Table 12-1 provides results based on December 2006 FCC data (Federal Communications Commission 2007a). These data indicate that a large percentage of Montana areas are served by few or no ISPs. For example, about half of the ZIP code areas in Montana have three or fewer ISPs, while only 36 percent of the nation’s ZIP code areas overall are served by three or fewer ISPs. Conversely, on a national level, 21 percent of the ZIP code areas are served by ten or more ISPs, while in Montana, only 4 percent of the ZIP code areas are served by ten or more ISPs. Data on the number of high-speed Internet lines on a statewide basis as a function of technology are collected annually by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission 2008a). These data indicate that DSL tends to exceed cable in Montana 54 percent to 41 percent, with fixed wireless access serving 4 percent and other technologies serving 1 percent of the population. We examined the availability of high-speed Internet access on a countyby-county basis by using yellow page listings for each of the county seats in Montana’s fifty-six counties. For each community, we looked at the numbers and types of high-speed service providers. While this analysis does not

table 12-1 䡠 isps in zip code areas: montana compared with united states 噛 of ISPs

244

% of Montana ZIP Codes

% of Nationwide ZIP Codes

0

1

1

1

4

7

2

18

12

3

26

15

4

25

14

5

10

10

6

6

7

7

3

6

8

2

5

9

1

4

10 or greater

4

21

richard s. wolff

give a highly detailed view of coverage in remote areas, it does illustrate the extent of Internet access and the choices available. We found that 79 percent of the counties have DSL, 70 percent have cable-based Internet, 75 percent have wireless Internet, and 57 percent have high-speed cellular service, which can be used for Internet access. These results show that DSL, cable, and wireless are widely available, at least in the county seat communities, but high-speed cellular service is lagging significantly. The data are limited in so far as it was not possible to determine the geographic extent of any of the services. For example, it may be the case that a DSL, wireless, or cable network serves only the most densely populated downtown area of the county seat, leaving most of the communities in the county without service. Similarly, high-speed cellular service is typically limited to city center areas and major highway corridors. We had discussions with the Montana Public Services Commission, the Montana Telecommunications Association, several of the independent and cooperative telecommunications service providers, and cable television network providers. These yielded mixed results, as the state does not regulate high-speed services or the cable industry. Our assessment is that more granular data in high-speed penetration can best be obtained by surveying specific communities. wireless hot spots and community networks A growing number of citizens use wireless hot spots (Wi-Fi access points) to obtain Internet connectivity. These are now widely deployed in metro areas in public places such as coffee shops, airport lounges, hotels, schools, and libraries. Community and regional wireless networks have seen growing interest and use. Cities such as Philadelphia and San Francisco have moved aggressively to assure that low-cost high-speed access is widely available. We have examined the availability of wireless Internet access in Montana and find that the state has relatively few public access points. The CNET/Jwire Web site lists over 263,000 Wi-Fi sites nationwide, with only 263 in Montana (Hot Spot Zones 2008). The most recently available data on community wireless networks lists over 350 initiatives nationwide with only one in Montana (Muniwireless 2008). schools and libraries Schools and libraries are increasingly providing high-speed network access to their communities. The Federal government, through a component of the Universal Service Fund (USF) has been subsidizing the costs of telecommunications services and infrastructure investment in rural areas. We examined the use of the USF in Montana, and find that there has been substantial effort to reach out to rural areas. In 2007, over $4 million was telecommunications services in rural and remote areas

245

made available through grants to over 300 schools and libraries in Montana, spread widely across the state (Federal Communications Commission 2007c; USAC 2008). Similar programs provide grants for infrastructure development and operations to Indian reservations (Federal Communications Commission 2005; 2006) and to hospitals and health care clinics (USAC 2008). We examined in detail the recent USF disbursements to Montana schools and libraries for telecommunications services and Internet access to determine the extent to which rural areas are benefiting from this program. In 2007, the USAC disbursed over $4 million in Montana in the schools and libraries program in over 1,300 grants. We aggregated the data to the county level and examined the relationship between population and investment. The results of the correlation between USF dollars per person spent on Internet and telecommunications services for schools and libraries versus total county population indicates that the less populated areas are receiving relatively greater amounts of the investment. In 2007, the most populous counties received about $4 per person, while the least populous counties received an average of $10 per person. The distribution of USF grants by county and per capita indicates that the more remote areas in the northeast section of the state are receiving more of the funds.

community/county websites and online services The move toward e-government has led to widespread use of the Internet for communications with, and delivery of, services to citizens, and a recent assessment evaluates the availability of online services (Barrett and Greene 2008). In many communities, information ranging from school lunch menus to applications for fire permits, from tax filing to license renewals, as well as real-time audio and videocasting of town meetings and other events are available online. We surveyed the use of Web sites by local governments in Montana and found a wide range of services and functionality available to those who have Internet access. We note that effective use of the more extensive sites is predicated on high-speed access, as many of the video and audio services, as well as some of the image-intensive interactive services, are not feasible with low-speed dial-up lines. In this assessment, we used online service categories recently defined by the International City County Management Association (ICMA) in their 2004 survey of electronic government in communities greater than 2,500 people (International City County Management Association 2005). We investigated in detail the scope and extent of Web services available across the state. As Montana has hundreds of small communities, many of 246

richard s. wolff

which have populations of less than one thousand people, we chose to examine the services available in the most populated town in each county, which is typically the county seat. We note that this approach provides a reasonable basis for comparison with the results of the ICMA 2004 national study of online services in towns with populations exceeding 2,500 (International City County Management Association 2005). For Montana, thirteen of the fifty-six counties have populations less than 2,500. We classified the seven most populous counties (Yellowstone, Gallatin, Cascade, Flathead, Butte-Silverbow, Lewis and Clark, and Missoula) as metro and the remaining forty-nine as rural, as the these more populated counties are not as representative of rural areas as the remainder of the state. For each Web site selected, we examined whether it offered streaming audio, streaming video, geographical information services, transaction services such as tax or fee payments, document or application download services, database query services, calendars and meeting agendas, meeting minutes, job postings, e-mail services, links to other resources, and foreign language options. Table 12-2 shows the results, where we compare rural and metro Montana county Internet services with the results of the ICMA study. While this table compares results of the 2004 ICMA study with current (2008) conditions in Montana, the trend to more extensive use of the Internet would favor the availability of more online services nationally if more recent data were available. It is clear that Montana has fewer online services in almost every category. Only 64 percent of the rural counties even have Web sites, while in 2004 over 90 percent of the areas surveyed by the ICMA offered Web sites. None of the Montana counties offer streaming media delivery and only a small percentage offer any kind of interactive online services, such as registrations or access to documents or databases. The difference in online services between rural and metro Montana counties is striking. Table 12-3 compares the average number of online services for the metro and rural area counties. The rural areas are disadvantaged in both the availability of Web sites (64 percent) and the number and types of online services provided.

demographics and electronic media access Montana has an aging population, with a statewide median age of 39.2 years in 2006.2 The state-wide median age in 2000 was 35.3 years. The median age distribution across the state is marked, with the rural area tending toward even older populations, as shown in Table 12-4. These data show that the rural area population is aging relative to the metro area counties, and as indicated above, have fewer online services available. The same tendency is noted in overall population distribution. The rural areas of the telecommunications services in rural and remote areas

247

table 12-2 䡠 comparison of online services in montana counties with icma study results

Service Web site

Rural Montana Counties (49), %

Metro Montana Counties (7), %

79

64

100

91

Tax payments

0

0

0

9

Utility bill payments

2

0

14

9

Payment of fines/fees

2

0

14

7

Completion and submission of permit applications

2

0

14

10

Completion and submission of business license applications/renewals

2

0

14

6

Requests for local government records

5

0

29

27

Delivery of local governments records to the requestor

2

0

14

18

Requests for services, such as pothole repair

2

0

14

30

Registration for use of recreational facilities/activities, such as classes and picnic areas

0

0

0

16

Voter registration

2

3

0

2

Property registration, such as animal, bicycle registration

0

0

0

3

Forms that can be downloaded for manual completion (for example, voter registration or building permits)

9

6

29

28

57

53

86

66

Communication with individual elected and appointed officials

248

All Montana Counties (56), %

ICMA 2004 Data (Localities greater than 2,500), %

GIS mapping/data

11

6

29

27

Employment info./applications

41

39

57

60

Council agendas/minutes

9

6

29

76

Codes/ordinances

2

3

0

66

Electronic newsletters sent to residents/businesses

0

0

0

28

Streaming video

0

0

0

9

richard s. wolff

table 12-3 䡠 comparison of online services in montana counties Region

Average Number of Online Services per Web Site

All counties (56)

1.2

Rural counties (49)

0.9

Metro counties (7)

3.6

table 12-4 䡠 median age of population in montana counties, 2000 census data Region

Median Age

All Montana Counties (56)

42.6

Rural Counties (49)

43.3

Metro Counties (7)

38.2

state, particularly the eastern regions, are experiencing a marked decline in population and an aging of the remaining residents. While the state’s population overall has not changed significantly in the last decade (Montana’s overall growth was 6.2 percent, less than the national change of 6.9 percent), the shift in demographics has been marked. The areas of increased population growth and lowest median age are generally in the western portion of the state and associated with the metro area counties where high-speed Internet access and online services are more widely available. The seven metro counties grew on average 11 percent over the past seven years, with Gallatin and Flathead counties showing growth rates of 28.8 percent and 16.6 percent respectively. These same counties have relatively younger populations, with the percentages of people sixty-five or older in 2006 being 8.8 percent and 12.9 percent, respectively, whereas the statewide average in 2006 was 13.8 percent. In contrast, the areas with declining and aging populations generally are much more rural and remote from the more urban population centers.

online service costs We estimated the costs of obtaining high-speed access across Montana by examining the published pricing plans of the various DSL, cable, and wireless Internet service providers. Side-by-side comparisons are difficult as there telecommunications services in rural and remote areas

249

are no standards for upstream and downstream speeds or additional features such as multiple e-mail addresses, online storage space, contract terms and conditions, equipment installation and rental costs, and so on. Table 12-5 provides a summary of our findings, where average monthly service costs over a range of speeds, for alternative access technologies are presented for Montana and compared with national averages for the various access alternatives. The national cost for high-speed Internet access, averaged across all technologies, is currently $35 per month.3 It should be noted that there are numerous hidden costs, including modem purchase or rental, installation and bundling. It is common in the cable industry to offer Internet service only to customers subscribing to video services and then to offer discounts to customers who subscribe to voice services. The entry for Montana cable Internet service reflects a combination of basic cable and Internet service. Similarly, wireless service requires a radio transceiver and antenna.

local radio and tv coverage Media consolidation has been an increasing concern for rural areas, where small market size has resulted in aggregation and the potential for loss of local control and the availability of local content (Prometheus Radio Project 2008). As community dialogue via broadcast media is seen as an essential component in the democratic process, we explored the availability of locally owned and operated broadcast outlets in Montana. In particular, we examined low-power FM, a relatively new means of empowering communities. Data obtained from FCC license filings show the coverage of conventional commercial FM broadcast services and low-power FM broadcast. Large portions of the state are out of radio range. There are currently thirty-three LPFM stations in Montana, and about half of these are locally owned (Federal Communications Commission 2008b). It is apparent from these figures that large sections of the state are not served, and the low-power, locally owned FM media reaches only the most populated regions of western Montana.

table 12-5 䡠 monthly prices for high-speed internet service Location/Service Type

250

DSL, $/Month (500 kb/s–1.5 Mb/s)

Cable, $/Month (1 Mb/s–8 Mb/s)

Wireless, $/Month (256 kb/s–1 Mb/s)

Montana

$30–70

$70

$50–100

National average

$30–40

$45–55

$50

richard s. wolff

Conventional broadcast television coverage in Montana is also limited. Coverage areas of the commercial and not-for-profit licensed television stations indicate that service is offered in only the more populated areas. These data indicate that broadcast television coverage is not ubiquitous. While satellite television and satellite radio are universally available, these services typically have very limited local content.

policy considerations On a statewide basis, access to electronic media in Montana is on par with the rest of the nation. Statewide data regarding high-speed Internet penetration is comparable to the national penetration level, and Montana’s citizens have other means of information access, including wireless hot spots, schools and libraries equipped with Internet access, locally owned lowpower FM stations, and municipal Web sites. However, statewide averages are misleading. A more careful examination of the data, using county-wide and local information where available, reveals several significant patterns and gaps. Examination of the availability of high-speed Internet access at the community level, rather than at the county level, is not feasible from published data. The relatively large number of Montana’s ZIP codes (over 50 percent) that have three or fewer ISPs suggests that services in remote or sparsely populated areas are not readily available. Montana’s more metropolitan areas are experiencing significant population and economic growth, and much of the growth in information access and online services is centered in these areas. The rural and remote regions of the state are underserved and falling behind. Online services in Montana are uneven. While about two thirds of the counties have Web sites, the services offered in the rural areas are not comparable to those available in the metro areas, and are well behind national levels. Many of the rural county Web sites are sponsored by business interests such as tourist agencies, chambers of commerce, or real estate interests. These sites offer little in the way of transactional services that would enable citizen engagement. The results of our examination of county Web sites show that the rural county Web sites offer online services in less than 50 percent of the categories defined in the ICMA e-government assessment. Even in Montana’s metro counties, there are six of the twenty service categories where none of the counties offer the service online. Services that would offer alternatives to costly travel, such as streaming video, document retrieval, filings, and registrations are available in Montana on an extremely limited basis. With energy and travel costs rising, expanded e-government services could be a valuable investment. These results are not unique to telecommunications services in rural and remote areas

251

Montana. A qualitative study of broadband internet use in rural Pennsylvania identified similar trends (Glasmeier et al. 2008). In that study, which focused on specific communities and used a case study approach, the results indicate that highly interactive use of the Internet for e-government was generally weak in rural counties, particularly where there was little tourism, and local governments rarely made use of the Internet. The Montana state government has an information technology (IT) plan that was updated in March 2008 (Hilmer 2007). The plan lays out goals and action items addressing a broad range of topics but most of the plan is focused on the interaction between the state government and various agencies rather than citizen engagement. The plan does include goals to improve the quality of life of Montana citizens and to improve government services. The objectives and action items associated with these goals address expansion of public safety services, share geographic data across the enterprise, and require new agency applications and systems to consider geographic technology and data as a part of the design. The IT plan provides a platform for increased engagement of citizens and government and could be expanded in both scope and depth to assure greater access and broader participation. The aging demographics and population distribution also are reflected in the trends in electronic media access. Internet services are less available in the areas with older and declining populations, and other electronic media, such as low-power FM and television coverage, are very limited in these same areas. Similarly, these areas are not being served by wireless hot spots or community networks, which are much more prevalent in the more metro parts of the state, which are characterized by population growth and a lower median age. The universal service fund has made a significant impact on the availability of telecommunications services in rural areas. As noted above, the investments in Internet access for schools and libraries have, on a per-capita basis, favored the less populated areas of the state. While universal service fund expenditures for Internet access for schools and libraries have been higher on a per-capita basis in the rural areas of the state, the benefit to the general population is limited. Universal service fund expenditures for individuals are restricted to providing only basic voice telephone service for high-cost areas or for low-income users. These funds cannot be used to provide highspeed Internet service for individuals. Unlike the local exchange telephone carriers, who are monitored and regulated by the state Public Service Commission (PSC) in Montana, the cable network operators are not subject to state oversight. While the local exchange carriers are eligible for universal service funds and the cable network operators are not, this lack of oversight makes it difficult to determine the extent to which cable-based Internet service is reaching rural and remote 252

richard s. wolff

areas. The cable operators have a presence in 70 percent of Montana’s counties, but it is not possible to determine how many subscribers are served, and whether these subscribers are clustered in the most densely populated areas or are widely dispersed. Internet service costs in Montana tend to run higher than in the United States overall. The data in Table 12-5 show that for all access technologies, the average cost in Montana exceeds the U.S. average by 20–40 percent. In Montana and elsewhere in the United States, DSL tends to be the least expensive alternative, but also tends to support lower access speeds than cable. In Montana, while cable is available in almost as many counties as DSL, the actual number of DSL lines exceeds the number of cable lines. There are no data available on the actual extent of either the DSL network footprint or the cable network footprint, but the use of universal service funds to provide basic telephone service may have an effect, as a basic telephone line is needed to provide DSL.

collaborative impact This project was conducted collaboratively by the MMP, bringing together academic research and public advocacy to engage citizens in the process and to reach out widely to a broad range of stakeholders. The partnership proved to be particularly successful in generating avenues for discussion and dissemination that would otherwise be inaccessible to academic researchers. Furthermore, the teaming of an academic institution with an advocacy organization assured that the basis for the study would be founded on a wide range of information resources, extending beyond those typically available through academic channels. Common Cause was instrumental in framing questions and approaching stakeholders for both information and for participation in the study and in taking interest in, and ownership of, the outcomes. The partnership was effective in reaching out to the local, statewide, and national media, and generated opportunities for the study to be discussed on public radio in Montana and at a panel assembled by the Knight Commission chartered to assess changes in media and public interaction. Academic–public advocacy partnerships are not without their own challenges. The pace of public dialogue and the demands of meeting schedules driven by public events are not necessarily convenient to the academic calendar, and the MMP benefited significantly by having members of Common Cause serving to engage directly with stakeholders when the academic members of the partnership were not available. Additionally, the cautious, fact-driven approach of academic research does not necessarily translate directly into policy statements and actionable recommendations. The partnership was essential in bridging these stylistic gaps and assuring that the project would meet its objectives of public engagement. telecommunications services in rural and remote areas

253

conclusion Broadly speaking, in Montana the availability of the infrastructure that is required to enable e-government appears to be on par with the nation overall. On a statewide basis, the percentage of high-speed Internet lines in Montana is comparable to the national level. Internet penetration in the state has grown faster in the last year than in other areas. However, these conclusions mask the problems of achieving connectivity and useful services in rural and sparse areas, as the statistics are strongly weighted by the more populous urbanized areas. The overall population density in Montana is 6.2 people per square mile, but the population density is only 2.9 people per square mile in the rural regions. Detailed data comparing Internet penetration in rural areas in comparison to metro areas are not available. Internet penetration is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for e-government engagement. Our study of the availability and functionality of local Web sites indicates that Montana overall, and the rural areas in particular, are way behind the nation in the availability of interactive Webbased services. An in-depth study of rural Internet penetration needs be undertaken to identify and quantify more carefully the availability of highspeed services. Specifically, the FCC should collect data at the census block level instead of ZIP code level. The United States Congress has passed legislation directing this highly granular data collection, but has not appropriated the necessary funds (Turner 2008). The universal service funds should be extended to include provision of high-speed Internet service to high-cost areas and to support low-income citizens. The Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service has made a similar recommendation, and action on the part of the federal government is pending. The importance of universally available, equitable, and affordable broadband infrastructure has been raised as a national priority by the new administration. Finally, the importance of local and regional service standards deserves attention. The Montana information technology plan should be extended to include standards for local government Web sites and interactive services, and resources should be allocated to enable rural localities to implement these services.

notes 1. The FCC defined a high-speed line as at least 200 kbps in one direction in this data. The FCC definition of a high-speed line was revised to 768 kbps in 2008. 2. For more information, see Montana’s official state Web site at http:// ceic.mt.gov/data_maps.asp. 3. For more information, see the WhiteFence Index at http://www .whitefenceindex.com. 254

richard s. wolff

references Balhoff, Michael J., and Robert C. Rowe. 2005. Municipal Broadband: Digging Beneath the Surface. http://www.caltelassn.com/Reports06/ Broadband/munibroad.pdf (accessed March 4, 2010). Barrett, Katherine, and Richard Greene. 2008. Grading the States: The Mandate to Measure. Governing 21 (6):24–95. Dutta, Soumitra, and Irene Mia. 2008. The Global Information Technology Report 2007–2008. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Federal Communications Commission. 2005. Expanding Telecommunications Access in Indian Country. http://www.fcc.gov/indians/ itibooklet.pdf (accessed March 5, 2010). ———. 2006. Lands of Opportunity: Bringing Telecommunications Services to Rural Communities. http://www.fcc.gov/indians/ opportunity.pdf (accessed March 5, 2010). ———. 2007a. High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2007. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC280906A1.pdf (accessed March 5, 2010). ———. 2007b. Local Telephone Competition: Status as of December 31, 2006. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC279231A1 .pdf (accessed March 5, 2010). ———. 2007c. Universal Service Monitoring Report. http://hraunfoss.fcc .gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279226A1.pdf (accessed August 4, 2009). ———. 2008a. High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2007. http://www.masstech.org/broadband/docs/FCC_June_ 2007_report.pdf (accessed March 5, 2010). ———. 2008b. LP FM Stations. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc/mb/audio/fmg .html (accessed June 10, 2010). Glasmeier, Amy K., Chris Benner, and Chandrani Ohdedar. 2008. Broadband Internet Use in Rural Pennsylvania. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania. http://www.rural.palegislature.us/broadband2008.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). Hilmer, Kyle. 2007. State of Montana Biennial Report for Information Technology 2007. http://www.archive.org/details/ stateofmontanabi2007montrich (accessed March 5, 2010). Horrigan, John, and Katherine Murray. 2006. Rural Broadband Internet Use. Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www .pewinternet.org/⬃/media//Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Rural_ Broadband.pdf.pdf (accessed March 5, 2010). Hot spot Zones. 2008. http://cnet.jiwire.com/ (accessed March 5, 2010). telecommunications services in rural and remote areas

255

International City County Management Association. 2005. Electronic Government 2004. Washington, DC: International City County Management Association. Muniwireless. 2008. City Initiatives. http://www.muniwireless.com/ initiatives/city-initiatives/ (accessed August 5, 2009). National Center for Frontier Communities. 2007. Geography of Frontier America: Consensus Definition—2007 UPDATE. http://www .frontierus.org/documents/consensus.htm (accessed August 5, 2009). National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 2008. Networked Nation: Broadband in America 2007. http://www.ntia.doc .gov/reports/2008/NetworkedNationBroadbandinAmerica2007.pdf (accessed August 2, 2009). Prometheus Radio Project. 2008. Who’s on second, and What’s on third? http://www.prometheusradio.org/media/whos_on_second_LPFM_ rulemaking_analysis_PRP_dec_13_2007.doc (accessed March 5, 2010). State of Montana. 2008. Information Technology Strategic Plan, 2008. http://www.mt.gov/itsd/stratplan/statewideplan.asp (accessed August 5, 2009). Turner, S. Derek. 2006. Broadband Reality Check II: The Truth Behind America’s Digital Decline. Free Press. http://www.freepress.net/files/ bbrc2-final.pdf (accessed August 4, 2009). ———. 2008. Down Payment on Our Digital Future: Stimulus Policies for the 21st Century. Free Press. http://www.freepress.net/files/ DownPayment_DigitalFuture.pdf (accessed August 4, 2009). Universal Service Administration Company. 2008. Universal Service Fund Distribution Report: Schools and Libraries Division. Washington, DC: Universal Service Administration Company. Windhausen, John, Jr. 2008. A Blueprint for Big Broadband. http://net .educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0801.pdf (accessed August 8, 2009).

256

richard s. wolff

CHAPTER 13

Open Access in Africa The Case of Mauritius russell southwood, abiodun jagun, and willie currie How do African countries expand access to the Internet? A significant barrier to the region’s development has been the high price of bandwidth into and out of African countries, which has until recently come through a single submarine cable—the South Atlantic Telephony-3/West African Submarine Cable (SAT-3/WASC). The prices charged for international bandwidth in countries connected to the cable are controlled by the SAT3 consortium member for each country, each of which has been granted a national monopoly. The consortium member is also the country’s largest incumbent telecom operator. In 2006, thirteen SAT3/WASC/SAFE member countries met to discuss the end of national monopolies. During these discussions it became clear that a critical aspect to obtaining open and fair access to SAT3/WASC lies in regulation. Unfortunately, regulators have found it hard to grasp the issues surrounding the submarine cable. A particular area of weakness has been in understanding how to facilitate access to the cable at a price that is reasonable. This project emerged as an effort to provide regulators with background and analysis to help them formulate appropriate responses to this issue. A multicountry case study approach was employed. This was felt to be an appropriate approach in examining the issues relating to SAT-3/WASC in the context in which they occur. The approach sought to facilitate an understanding of the unique factors and circumstances prevailing in each country that influenced access to and the cost of SAT-3/WASC capacity. Key research activities included the analysis of documents and reports; collation of predefined performance indicators using a standardized template 257

specifically developed for the research; and a series of face-to-face interviews with representatives of a cross-section of relevant stakeholder groups, including telecom operators—fixed-line, mobile and Internet Service Providers (ISPs)—government representatives, regulators, and members of civil society organizations. These case studies addressed a number of subject areas. First, they provided a description of the country’s telecom market. This included a brief description of the SAT-3/WASC consortium member and changes in the country’s telecom environment (regulation, number of players and so on) prior to and after the commissioning of SAT-3/WASC. Second, they provided performance indicators assessing the success of the country’s use of SAT-3/WASC. This included capacity, cost of services and subscription and usage figures. Where relevant, these indicators were compared with alternative infrastructures such as satellite. Third, the case studies included an analysis of access. This included documenting (where data were available) who has access to the cable and how this access is decided. The case studies also focused on identifying barriers to access that exist in each country, including regulatory (licensing), legal, financial (in terms of cost of access) and political barriers. Finally, the case studies included an overview of the state of the national backhaul infrastructure. This analysis was conducted as a proxy for assessing external limitations to the performance of the SAT3/WASC cable by measuring the ability of the country to use the cable irrespective of the barriers that are the result of the consortium member. These case studies were a collaboration between researchers and the Association for Progressive Communication (APC). The APC is an international network of civil society organizations dedicated to empowering and supporting groups and individuals working for peace, human rights, development, and protection of the environment through the strategic use of information and communication technologies. The APC seeks to influence at national and global levels, both the policy process—that is, the development, implementation, or monitoring of policy—and the content of policy, with the objective of ensuring that themes identified as critical to equality and development are included in policies, while aspects of policies that are likely to affect society negatively are modified or removed. The APC also recognizes that key to achieving its advocacy objectives is the access it has to relevant and up-to-date information on policy issues, and the understanding it has of the concepts and indicators that define these issues. By having such access and understanding, the APC is able to make contributions that are based on evidence (rather than anecdotes) and that inform as well as influence policy makers and implementers. Consequently, the organization regularly conducts research together with independent and academic researchers. In the case of access to the Internet in 258

russell southwood, abiodun jagun, and willie currie

Africa, the APC co-organized consultations and workshops with key groups (including regulators) which has indirectly caused a downward trend on SAT-3 prices. To inform these discussions, the APC conducted a large-scale research project, SAT-3/WASC Post-Implementation Audit: Country Case Studies, of which the Mauritius case study presented in this chapter was a part. The project began in 2006, and documents the effect that the SAT-3/ WASC submarine cable has had on communications on the African continent and the reasons behind missed opportunities for further development. The overriding objective of the studies was to identify and document both positive and negative lessons that can be learned from the development, implementation, and management of the cable. The APC’s SAT-3 research analyzed the entire life cycle of the cable to date and asked: What happened and why? What is happening and how? What can be made to happen? What are the lessons to be learned, negative factors to avoid, and positive points to recognize?

context: mauritius in focus The APC’s research focused on five countries—Angola, Cameroon, Ghana, Senegal, and Mauritius1—all with their specific challenges. This chapter focuses on Mauritius as a special case. The government has officially declared ICTs as a core component of its economy. In addition, while other countries along the SAT3/SAFE cable have struggled to find ways to address the high costs of monopolized international bandwidth on this cable, Mauritius has used price determination, which involves relying on the interaction of the free market forces of supply and demand to establish the pricing of goods or services. The APC study then looked at the relationship between international bandwidth prices in Mauritius and the impact of its Cyber Island strategy, which, as is discussed below, revolved around trying to bolster the country’s economy by attracting various ICT industry firms. The liberalization process in Mauritius has in some ways been different from elsewhere in Africa, and the current market is characterized by many multinational players. Mauritius Telecom’s mobile subsidiary, Cellplus, launched in 1996, was followed by Emtel, which was launched in 1998. Two years later, the government privatized Mauritius Telecom by selling 40 percent to France Telecom for $261 million. Although other telecom operators and Internet service providers (ISPs) have been licensed, most have remained small alongside Mauritius Telecom’s operations. However, the ICT Authority (ICTA) did license a couple of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers, whose primary purpose was to offer cheaper international calling rates. open access in africa: the case of mauritius

259

At the time of this study, the telecom sector in Mauritius had seven main companies: Mauritius Telecom (40 percent owned by France Telecom), MTML (Indian-owned Mahanagar Telephone Mauritius Ltd.), Emtel (a joint venture between local owners Currimjee Jeewanjee & Co Ltd. and Millicom), NOMAD (owned by Dubai-based Galana), DCL (Data Communications Ltd), Outremar Telecom (French owned), and Hotlink Co, Ltd. Of these, three have licenses to offer mobile services (Emtel, Cellplus [recently rebranded as Orange], and MTML) and two, Mauritius Telecom and MTML, have licenses for fixed services. The latter offers a fixed wireless product to customers. At the end of 2007, there were 843,791 mobile subscribers and 361,319 fixed line subscribers. Mauritius Telecom is still adding fixed line customers. Cellplus has a 60 percent share and Emtel a 40 percent share of the mobile market. MTML’s share is currently negligible. Although estimates vary, there are some 50,000–60,000 Internet subscribers. Of these, Mauritius Telecom has 32,000 DSL subscribers and it has launched a triple play service offering television and video downloads. Emtel introduced High-Speed Down Link Packet Access (HSDPA) in 2007 in some areas (with speeds of up to 1.8 Mbps), and offers a USB modem for the service at a reasonably low price. These services are available in all the main locations on the island. The company also introduced data services in the same year through its own Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (Wi-MAX) network. Currently it runs a microwave backbone, but by October 2008 had built its own fiber backbone. NOMAD was created after a local ISP called Network Plus was taken over by the current owners, African Digital Bridges Networks Ltd., which in turn is owned by Galana. DCL specializes in international Internet telephony and in providing services to the business process outsourcing (BPO) and call center sector. Hotlink also offers international Internet telephony under the brand name of Yello International Call Carrier and has a partnership with an international wholesaler. Outremar Telecom is owned by a company of the same name in France that built its reputation on offering cheap international calls and is doing the same in Mauritius. The combination of liberalization and VoIP has considerably reduced international calling prices with even mobile rates falling to as little as 16 cents a minute for major destinations.

role of regulation The ICT Act of 2001, IT Amendment Act of 2002, and the Telecommunications Directive 1 of 2008 are the key framework legislation instruments for the sector. The first of these acts set up the regulator ICTA. In the same period, the Mauritius government also set up many of the enabling agencies 260

russell southwood, abiodun jagun, and willie currie

that have played a part in the changes described below. These included the National Computer Board and the Board of Investment, and other bodies covering, among other things, business parks, the Freeport, and the export processing zone. The government realized that, in a shifting global economy, the economic significance of commodity exports such as sugar would diminish in value and that Mauritius would have to carve itself a new vision to be part of this changing world. It wanted to move into the smart exports sector where peoples’ brain work adds value to basic tasks. Mauritius remains unique in its region in having identified ICTs as a fifth pillar of its economy, alongside sugar, textiles, tourism, and financial services. However, it not only described a compelling vision but also put it into practice. As demonstrated later, the need for cheaper bandwidth became an essential part of delivering this vision. Mauritius was connected to the SAFE cable in 2000 at the start of this process. The vision had various components. First, Mauritius wanted to attract call centers, BPO, and computer software programming. Second, it wanted to take advantage of the bilingual capability of its citizens, who speak both French and English. Third, it wanted to attract computer assembly work. Its Cybercity project was launched in Ebene, fifteen kilometers south of the capital, in November, 2001. The ‘‘anchor tenant’’ was a twelve-story double tower block to attract companies that could take advantage of a number of existing corporate incentives, including low company taxes (15 percent), free repatriation of profits, and exemption from customs duties on equipment and raw materials. To address ICT skills shortages, it allowed international professionals to come and work with a new green card. Mauritius also wanted to take advantage of its geographical location between Asia and Africa and make this an advantage companies would find attractive. The new SAFE cable gave it the means of communication to make this a reality. Although there was considerable skepticism about the strategy actually delivering change, and fears that the government-constructed double tower in Ebene would become a ‘‘white elephant,’’ the strategy has mostly been successful. With the Mauritian government deeply committed to the idea of developing the country as a cyber island, it made little or no sense if the price of the international, private leased circuits was too high. The price of international fiber would be a significant obstacle to the overall goal of attracting more outsourcing jobs.

the process toward lower costs In early 2006, Mauritius Telecom was charging $12,600 for an E1 circuit (just over 2 mbps per month).2 In other words, $6,300 per Mbps per open access in africa: the case of mauritius

261

month. These high prices for international bandwidth were seen as one of the obstacles to developing the country’s cyber island strategy. As one of the major shareholders in Mauritius Telecom, the government was in a position to take action on this issue. But within the terms of the ICT Act, the regulator ICTA was only able to initiate action on these prices if Mauritius Telecom made an application to change its prices. Within the terms of prevailing legislation, representations from the private sector that prices were too high could not be used to initiate a price review. Therefore, Mauritius Telecom was asked to submit an application to change its prices as the trigger for the price review process. It proposed reducing its existing tariff by 10–12 percent. Under Section 31 of the ICT Act, the regulator then had three options: It could approve the price reduction as submitted; it could discard the proposed reduction; or it could amend the proposed price reduction. Mauritius Telecom chose the third option and said it would amend the price by going through a cost determination process. This meant that ICTA asked Mauritius Telecom to submit capital investment and cost details on its involvement in the SAFE cable. Mauritius Telecom was given spreadsheets with cost headings covering the investment (a 10 percent rate of return on investment was indicated by ICTA), the number of Minimum Investment United (MIU)3 kilometers assigned to the carrier, cost for its MIU kilometers, and the distance between Mauritius and an agreed telehouse in Paris. After a certain amount of discussion over what figures could be made available, the spreadsheet was eventually filled in. During the process of the price review, Mauritius Telecom challenged the 10 percent rate of return on investment and expressed a desire to take the matter to Tribunal for appeal. However, during the period when the appeals Tribunal would be making its judgment, Mauritius Telecom would have had to abide by the initial price determination. The price determination gave an overall reduction of approximately 25 percent. The new price for an E1 was $7,900 and there was a five-tier volume discount with a 25 percent discount on the E1 price for over ten E1s and above. The latter was only likely to be of relevance to two or three customers on the island. The highest level of discount represented a 47 percent decrease on the original price. France Telecom chose not to challenge the rate of return on investment specified by the regulator. Mauritius Telecom made a further 20 percent cut on these rates in November 2007, and it issued a paper giving its response to accusations of overcharging. The company pointed out that the shift from satellite-only access for the island to fiber represented a drop in costs: Furthermore, Mauritius Telecom points out that in order to assist the bid to promote the BPO and call center sector, it took the initiative in installing 262

russell southwood, abiodun jagun, and willie currie

a point of presense (PoP)4 in Paris in 2003. This allowed it to reduce tariffs to $12,300, a further drop of 43 percent. The determination took this down to $7,900 and it further reduced its tariff in September 2007 to $6,300. It went on to make a number of global comparisons. For example, it noted that its $6,300 compares favorably with $6,110 from Bangalore to London for backhaul, restoration, and last mile. The former is a monopoly provider on its international route and the latter (if distance-based charging has any meaning) is surely much cheaper than the Mauritius Telecom equivalent. On wider issues of access and competition, ICTA is believed to have submitted a paper to the Ministry of ICT suggesting five different ways in which these might be improved: To allow other consortium members (particularly international ones) to sell directly to companies within the country; to allow local access providers to co-locate their equipment at the Mauritius Telecom-run SAFE landing station; to unbundle at the level of the landing station itself, allowing other international cable operators who might want to connect to the island to connect at the SAFE landing station; to separate the wholesale and retail elements from the landing station using local loop unbundling, in which Mauritius Telecom would allow reselling of its international capacity; and to add to the competition by authorizing an alternative backbone operator at the national level and to encourage another international cable operator to connect to the island. There are three potential international cable operators that might add a second cable to the island’s connectivity: EASSy, Seacom, and the NEPADsponsored Uhurunet. The latter has largely been overtaken by the existence of the two other cables. At the time of the completion of the study (2008), the government had taken the position that a second cable is desirable but that it is not in a position to fund any part of it, leaving the industry to work out how it will meet future demand. The estimated cost of a second cable is $25 million.

impact of lower pricing Lower prices have meant that Mauritius Telecom took up its option to upgrade its capacity on the SAFE cable in February 2007. However, anticipating future demand, it still wanted to add additional capacity. Mauritius Telecom along with Orange Madagascar and their parent company, France Telecom, have invested in a second cable called Lion. It will connect Mauritius to Toamasina (Madagascar) and from there onwards to one of the new east coast cable systems. The regulator believes that the impact of a second cable not directly associated with the incumbent would be to lower prices, and its existence would provide a paradigm shift in the fundamentals of pricing. A number open access in africa: the case of mauritius

263

of operators who said privately that they would prefer an independent second cable would not speak publicly for fear of upsetting their existing relationship with Mauritius Telecom. Inevitably, Mauritius Telecom will match the price offered by others, and perhaps anticipating competition, it has instituted a loyalty scheme that rewards customers with one month’s free rental after twenty-four and thirty-six months. There is also a clear relationship between the cost of international and national bandwidth. If international bandwidth falls into or below the $500–$1,000 range, then it becomes much more difficult to justify national bandwidth prices that exceed these prices. At the time of the completion of this project, one provider was getting an E1 circuit from Mauritius Telecom between the capital Port Louis and Rose Hill for $2,300 a month. It believes that when it has completed its own network it will be able to obtain a price that will be 60 percent or more cheaper. Lower fiber prices have meant increased traffic volumes. Two sets of price reductions—one caused by the regulator’s determination and the other made by Mauritius Telecom itself—have since July 2006 almost halved prices from their 2003 levels. In 2006, Mauritius Telecom was using 440 Mbps of international bandwidth.5 After the price cuts this figure rose to 1,603 Mbps in 2007—over three and a half times as much bandwidth. Mauritius Telecom has begun the switch from a ‘‘high price, low volume’’ strategy to one of ‘‘low price, high volume.’’

impact on the ict industry In 2003, the call center/BPO sector employed at most 2,000 people. At that point the more frank would have admitted that the island was struggling to find a foothold in this brave new world and was scrambling for low-value telemarketing work. In 2008, the more conservative estimates indicated that this figure has at least doubled in five years. Mauritius is now attracting a much broader range of work, including that of providing the Help Desk functions for Orange, serving France and several other countries. Now the ambition, as Pratima Sewpal of the Mauritius Board of Investment puts it, is for the sector to ‘‘move up the value chain.’’6 It has now targeted high-end finance work, architectural design, and hospitality. More ambitiously, the next phase involves pitching the island as a place to establish data centers for business continuity and disaster recovery. The one drawback is that with only one optic fiber cable, there is no redundancy if the cable is broken. The Mauritius Board of Investment says it has an investor that would come to the island if that issue were to be overcome. The other targeted sector is to develop the media and entertainment sectors, 264

russell southwood, abiodun jagun, and willie currie

but this needs more bandwidth for the activities envisioned that include production, animation, and games. With the reduction in fiber prices, the cost of connectivity has moved from first to second place for most in the call center/BPO sector. The biggest challenge is the quality and quantity of available human resources, something the government hopes to address through the setting up of the Human Resource Development Council and empowerment programs that address the unemployed. According to Franc¸ois de Grivel, chair of the Outsourcing and Telecommunications Association of Mauritius (OTAM): The number one challenge now is human resources. Local people are bi-lingual in French and English. The market is largely European, focused on France, the UK, and Germany, with a small amount of work from the USA, particularly telemarketing. Costs have to be lower than for European companies, which generally seem to be between 8 and 12 Euros per hour. People work hard but the turnover is quite high, somewhere between 15–35%. It is difficult to retain people. We recruit Higher School Certificate graduates and they are trained on-site in the company but there is still a skills problem.7

OTAM is involved in creating an ICT academy with the government to train people. Students would obtain their higher school certificate and then come to the academy, where they would be offered vocationally focused courses. OTAM wants a public-private partnership with the University of Technology of Mauritius that would also offer training to people in Reunion and Madagascar. It would be government funded but much more oriented to the private sector. But beyond the challenge of getting enough of the right people, the cost of bandwidth has become the second-most important issue. Benchmark countries for BPO/call centers in Mauritius on the French-speaking side are North Africa, Senegal, and Madagascar. On the English-speaking side they are India, China, Kenya, and Uganda. Interestingly, South Africa is not seen as a competitor because its bandwidth costs are higher. Many in the industry talked about this possible arrival but representatives interviewed for this study expressed widespread skepticism. As one noted, ‘‘I simply don’t think it is going ahead.’’ According to Grivel: We are negotiating with the government and Mauritius Telecom to get a better rate [on the fiber]. There is also the question of security of communications as there is no redundancy on the route. If there is downtime on the SAFE cable, we have to go to satellite and that is not very satisfactory. There is also the issue of the high intercommunication open access in africa: the case of mauritius

265

costs between Mauritius Telecom and private service providers. The latter want lower prices and we are also negotiating on these costs.8

the current position—low but not low enough? So why are bandwidth prices not lowered further? Findings of this study suggest this may be due to the (delicate) balance the Mauritius government seeks to achieve in its telecom market. While committed to the process of liberalization, the government is also conscious of the pace at which this is implemented and the impact that liberalizing too quickly would have on the incumbent operator. Such (government) concerns affect the decisions ICTA can make regarding pricing, especially as the opening up of the market to newcomers and the competition that follows are thought to be the most effective way of lowering prices. However, Mauritius Telecom initiated another decrease at the end of 2008 and a further decrease in the third quarter of 2009. The latter it believes will double bandwidth demand. The main complaint beyond price that was voiced both by the telecom industry and the call center/BPO sector was that fiber access was sometimes slow and that this factor was acting as a damper on further expansion. The call center/BPO sector is a major bandwidth customer. For example, one of the larger operations is buying 1.5 Mbps for voice and 2 Mbps for data. One of the largest local companies is Rogers Outsourcing, which started as Rogers.com in 2001. In 2005 it formed a joint venture with a large insurance company to create Axa Assistance. It covers the full range of services: inbound calls, telemarketing, BPO, IT help desk levels 1 and 2, and does all this in three different languages. It employs 306 people and is currently recruiting for new business that it has acquired that will take the staff up to 400–420. The ambition is to run a company probably not exceeding five hundred employees. The human resource pool in Mauritius is too small to support a larger staff and it is possible at this level to be profitable. The company offers clients a fully transparent service so that they can see everything that goes on in the company’s offices online and they have real-time access, again something that requires reliable bandwidth. In spite of all the success, there is still some way to go. Three years after the Mauritius government launched its first online services, the National Computer Board reckons that a large part of the population remains reluctant to use the online application forms implemented by the administration. The organization argues that this slow adoption is partly due to the fact that only 24 percent of the 350,000 Mauritian households have computers. Although international fiber prices have come down considerably, they still have to come down further. With operators buying large volumes in 266

russell southwood, abiodun jagun, and willie currie

South Africa getting $1,300 per Mbps per month and the new fiber operators on the east coast of Africa promising prices ranging between $500 and $1,000, overall prices will continue to drop. Although the incumbent will record a loss in revenue as they reduce the price of bandwidth, this is likely to be compensated for by an increase in volume. When the price was high, people could not afford the product and therefore demand was low. With a reduction in price, the product becomes more affordable and the company sells more of its products and can end up making more money in the long run. For example, operator Emtel currently takes 8 Mbps from Mauritus Telecom but expects its capacity requirement to more than triple over the next three years. The call centre/BPO operators spoken to talked about doubling their requirements if cheaper bandwidth were available.

lessons learned from mauritius While it is difficult to draw direct causal links between the lowering of prices and the island’s increasing success at attracting outsourcing business, there is undoubtedly some connection. Both of the towers of Cybercity in Ebene are now full and overall employment has doubled. And while Mauritius arguably is different from other countries in Africa for reasons of distance and geography, it cannot be immune to wider price shifts. This reality is already acknowledged by Mauritius Telecom’s two reductions in bandwidth costs. The only question is whether after these reductions, the prices will help Mauritius to remain competitive in the changing global economy. The example of Mauritius has lessons for other countries in Africa that want to find ways of changing the basis of their economies so that they can add ‘‘smart exports’’ alongside raw materials extraction, agriculture, and tourism. While it is always hard to draw direct causal links between bandwidth prices and wider changes in the economy, it is clear that Mauritius’ call center/BPO sector began to achieve significant growth in the years after international bandwidth prices came down. The nature of ‘‘smart exports’’—where countries use brainpower to add value to basic tasks—may change in the coming period. Although multinational companies have been driven to reduce their operating costs, they are also reflecting on the successes and failures of outsourcing. But there will also be new waves of outsourcing. For example, Lucasfilm (responsible for the Star Wars movies) has set up a new major operation in Asia to do animation and special effects. But whatever happens next, competitive international bandwidth will be essential to any country that wants to obtain this kind of work in the future. open access in africa: the case of mauritius

267

The results of the case studies on fiber optic cable in Africa have been used in two ways. First, they give current and future infrastructure-oriented campaigns better insight into the problems that have occurred as a result of the adoption of a particular set of decisions regarding SAT-3/WASC. Second, despite the conditions under which SAT-3/WASC was implemented, the results of case studies such as this one are useful to campaign partners and operators, should a similar direction be taken on current and future infrastructure projects. The important aspects of this research to the APC include the amount of up-to-date and relevant information that was made available to share with other stakeholders looking to influence policies on open access to communications infrastructure in Africa in general. The research was also useful in making information available on a specific infrastructure (SAT3/WASC) and the impact it has had on the telecom market of a number of African countries. As indicated in the introduction of this chapter, an outcome of the research was the production of findings that influenced policy decisions. The wide variety of channels through which the findings of the research have been presented and discussed may be taken as a measure of the extent to which this outcome has been achieved. In addition to the full report and country case studies being available for download on the APC Web site,9 the research findings have also been presented at ICT and/or telecom specific events10 and discussion forums, including the Internet Governance Forum.11 Reference to the findings of the research have also been made in a number of publications.12 The research has been summarized for a more development-orientated audience13 and was also mentioned by the general media.

conclusion It is hard to establish direct connections between research findings and policy decisions (particularly when the research has not been commissioned by the policy-making body); nonetheless, this research has played a role in advocacy first and foremost as a signifier of serious focus on access to communications infrastructure, and secondly as a prompt in shifting discourse towards issues of open access to universal, affordable broadband. This is of particular importance as submarine cables and their regulation in Africa is now very much on the policy agenda and publicly discussed. As a follow-up to these case studies, the APC is taking up national broadband campaigns in Ghana, Nigeria, and South Africa. When the organizational size of the APC is compared with the many issues/areas in which it engages, it is clear that resource and capacity constraints would have limited its activities were it not for its ability to establish, manage, and benefit from collaborative relationships/partnerships with 268

russell southwood, abiodun jagun, and willie currie

a variety of stakeholders, including academics. Participative/collaborative networks—that is groups/individuals coming with their own competencies working together to achieve common objectives—allow the APC to formulate and advocate for more complete interventions. Scholarly/policy-orientated research therefore matters to the APC because it allows for an increase in capacity to engage more effectively in a wider array of issues; access to up-to-date information that enables it to better identify and present relevant positions on issues; better understanding of the background/context of issues and of the implications of action and/ or inaction; and the opportunity to suggest/influence the focus and areas of research. The collaboration that produced this chapter was unique in the sense that the lead/academic researcher was also an employee of the civil society organization (at the time working part-time for the University of Manchester as well as part-time for the APC). This had a key advantage in that it was easier to translate and incorporate the objectives and needs of the civil society organization into the research agenda. This research originated from an ongoing advocacy program that was undertaken by the APC directed at attaining open access to communications infrastructure on the African continent. The researcher/academic (also a regional coordinator of ICT research within the organization) was involved in defining the objectives of the research, defining the methodology, recruiting country researchers, coordinating/managing the research, signing off on country reports, conducting the comparative analysis, and disseminating the findings of the research. This meant that the scholarly and advocacy elements of the collaboration could be synchronized to a greater extent than may have been achieved in other circumstances. The collaboration nonetheless experienced a number of challenges. These included time constraints—the time frame for conducting the research and disseminating findings was shorter and less flexible than would have been available in purely academic research. This is because the findings of the research were required as input into the policy advocacy program of the organization. Related to this were challenges with respect to accommodating differences in the format and level of detail required for the research report for advocacy, compared with what is required for academic publications. Due to the advocacy needs of the organization, the research findings were documented and presented in a variety of formats (issue paper, article, presentations); however, the more detailed and iterative nature of academic publication meant that the research was not submitted for this form of publication. As a result of the researcher being concurrently employed by the advocacy organization, greater care had to be taken to ensure that the research/collaboration attained some level of objectivity and independence. open access in africa: the case of mauritius

269

A significant learning point from this collaboration was therefore the development of research objectives and methodologies that facilitate the conduct of research to produce findings to influence advocacy, as opposed to research conducted to provide evidence that supports a predetermined position.

notes 1. See the APC Web site at http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/research/ openaccess/africa/case-open-access-communications-infrastructure-afr0. 2. The term E1 circuit refers to a category or unit at which bandwidth is sold. It is the lowest unit at which bandwidth capacity is sold on SAT-3. It is important to note that not all submarine cables offer this unit of bandwidth. 3. The term Minimum Investment Unit (MIU) refers to a unit used in submarine cables. Any telecommunications company that joins a submarine cable consortium is allocated MIU kilometers for their ownership. The operator can then use, sell, or lease this capacity. 4. A Point of Presence (POP) is an interface point between telecommunications entities, such as an access point to the Internet. 5. Mauritius Telecom 2006 Annual Report. 6. Interview with the lead author, April 2008. 7. Interview with author, April 2008. 8. Interview with author, April 2008. 9. Refer to the APC Web site for further details: http://www.apc.org/en/ pubs/issue/case-open-access-communications-infrastructure-afr. 10. This includes part of the conference proceedings of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Telecom Africa 2008 (see http://www.itu .int/wsis/c2/docs/2008-May-19/mdocs/Jagun%20et%20al%20_Telecom% 20Africa%202008_final%20_2_.pdf ) as well as civil society discussions preceding the ITU facilitated Connect Africa Summit in Kigali, Rwanda in 2007. Research findings were also presented at a meeting of the West African Telecommunications Regulators Assembly (WATRA) in Abuja, Nigeria in 2007. 11. Research findings were presented at the ‘‘Regulatory Frameworks for Improving Access’’ workshop that was held during the second Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro, November 2007. 12. This includes the Global Information Society Watch 2008 (http://www .giswatch.org/gisw2008/). 13. For example, the research was highlighted by id21, a knowledge service by the Institute of development Studies in the United Kingdom. Findings from the research were also incorporated in APC’s contributions to the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), and OECD Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy, Seoul, June 2008. 270

russell southwood, abiodun jagun, and willie currie

CHAPTER 14

The Public FM Project Supporting the Licensing of New Noncommercial FM Radio Stations for Student and Community Usage todd urick Common Frequency’s Public FM project dealt with organizing and disseminating information concerning the licensing of new noncommercial radio stations. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opened a limited filing window in 2007 for entities to apply for some of the last remaining reserved educational FM radio channels. Since the opportunity was not well publicized, and the vacant frequency locations were not disclosed by the government, this presented an information gap for those desiring to start a radio station. The Social Science Research Council provided a small grant for the nonprofit Common Frequency to work with students at the University of California, Davis. The project involved researching FM frequency availability for new community radio stations, and organizing that data for public usage. The second part of the project was an exercise in outreach, group communication, and progressive organizing. The overall exercise provided insights into the field of grassroots media organizing, especially outreach techniques and media literacy. The project also displayed how a grassroots organization with limited funding could accomplish a significant amount by partnering and using resources wisely.

background It is not widely known that any domestic nonprofit can apply for its own noncommercial FM radio station free of cost from the federal government (FCC 2008). These are the same FM frequencies National Public Radio uses, ranging from 100–100,000 watts, on frequencies 88.1 FM to 91.9 FM. 271

The FCC refers to these licensed entities as noncommercial, educational (NCE) stations. From the 1950s through the 1970s it was possible to launch a noncommercial radio station from scratch; this is how many college radio stations got their start. In the 1980s and 1990s it became a legal and monetary burden to attempt to license a new station. Often, groups found it necessary to hire an attorney to fight for a frequency because of competing interests from religious groups and NPR. This effectively priced-out smaller, local community and educational groups. From 2000 to 2007, there was a freeze on new applications due to disputes over changes to the method of processing of new station applications. The key disagreement was over what to do with mutually exclusive applications—cases where two or more parties have applied for conflicting frequencies in specific areas. Prior to 2000, comparative hearings in court were used to settle these conflicts until the FCC determined that this was an arbitrary method for choosing the superior applicant (FCC 1995). In the 1990s, the FCC was swamped with applications primarily from national religious broadcasters. As frequencies started to become scarce, with comparative hearings under increased scrutiny, the FCC was pressured to develop new criteria to determine who receives a station license when there is more than one applicant for a single frequency in a specified area. It took several years to finalize this new set of criteria—now referred to as the point system—which is a set of deciding conditions based upon contour engineering, locality of the applicant, number of facilities and applications credited to the licensee (Federal Archives and Records Administration, 2001). The point system, compared to the comparative hearings, makes it feasible for smaller groups to apply and obtain radio stations since it bypasses costly, formal hearings. Approximately seven years after the declaration of this point system, the FCC set up an application filing window (October 12–19, 2007)—the only time a group could submit an application to claim one of the last remaining available NCE FM frequencies (FCC 2007). You can imagine the difficulty of communicating how to apply for a free radio frequency to organizations across the country mere months before the deadline. Consider the hurdles: How do you contact and educate groups across the country? The FCC does not tell you what frequencies are open, or where they are located; you need to hire a broadcast engineer to tell you if any frequency is open near you. You have an eight-day window to apply. A group would need to hire a specialized radio engineer and communications attorney to properly file the application. 272

todd urick

Applying for a frequency does not guarantee you will get one. You may have competitors and may need to spend more money to fight them off. How do you build and operate a radio station if you receive a permit to build?

the project The 501(c)(3) nonprofit Common Frequency (CF) commenced in 2005 out of discouragement that regular community members were missing out on radio opportunities merely because they did not have the information at hand to procure radio channels. What was seen at the close of the 1980s and 1990s was national religious radio networks applying for all of the remaining noncommercial frequencies and hooking them into satellite networks, providing no locally produced content. Take, for example, the Calvary Satellite Network (CSN): They started relaying their signal via satellite from Idaho in 1995 and now they are up to 20 full-power stations and 346 translators (automated repeater transmitters) today. Another religious broadcaster, Educational Media Foundation (EMF), owns 250 stations and 330 translators, all fed via satellite. Religious entities like these can apply for reserved educational frequencies free of charge and chain them into their satellite network. Even before the 1990s, relatively few true community radio stations have been licensed compared to other station formats; CF wanted to know why this was. Our outreach experience did shine some light regarding the complications of organizing and starting new community radio stations. When CF started, it looked to its friends at Prometheus Radio Project in Philadelphia as a model for a grassroots approach to organizing. CF desired to complement Prometheus’ efforts on the West Coast. Founding members of CF were composed of a member from Prometheus, several radio enthusiasts belonging to KDVS—a 9,200-watt free-form community/college FM radio station at the University of California, Davis—and KDRT-LP—a new low-power radio station in Davis. CF did not have any money, but was determined to make a difference. Before our project began, CF had a number of assumptions about our intended work: It would be easy to find people who wanted to start radio stations; the progressive community would probably jump at the chance to start a station; activists were organized enough to take on such a project; people know the value and potential of media ownership; national progressive media-organizing groups were organized enough to handle outreach and education. Few of these assumptions proved to be true. What CF did know was that the FCC was planning to open up noncommercial channels for organizations to apply for. However, there was no the public fm project

273

coordinated effort to communicate this information to the public. CF perceived there was a need for more community radio. Shortly after the effort commenced, CF teamed up with National Federation of Community Broadcasters/Native Public Media, Prometheus, Pacifica Radio, Public Radio Capital (PRC), and Free Press to tap into the organizing expertise of existing media organizations. The coalition effort to promote applying for new stations was named Radio for People (RFP). The primary means of group communication was through a conference call every two weeks. Early on in RFP, the first forms of outreach took the form of established broadcasters, such as relaying the news to community LPFM (low-power FM) stations, community- and student-oriented full-power FM stations, and public radio outlets. It was reasonable to assume that LPFM stations may want to upgrade their signal by switching to an NCE license, and established FM stations may want to obtain an additional signal to serve an adjacent community. CF first looked at which college and universities did not have FM stations, and tried to contact student groups on those campuses. Prometheus worked on contacting names they had on file of people previously interested in starting low-power radio stations in the past. It soon became apparent that what we had were several organizations distributing a hodgepodge of information. It was unclear to RFP membership groups who was outreaching to whom, which recipients were genuinely interested in starting stations (and whether the recipients have enough information, resources, and funding), and if we were outreaching to areas that indeed did have an open frequency. Data coordination and group communication were not as good as they could have been, so RFP members did not know how to efficiently focus an outreach strategy. (For example, without good interpretation of the preliminary engineering studies, energy might have gone into contacting people in San Antonio and Fresno regarding radio opportunities—where no open frequencies existed but studies implied something may be available nearby—and no energy would have gone into contacting people in Portland, Oregon and Reno—where open channels existed but none appeared to exist from preliminary maps). It occurred to CF that all preliminary engineering data needed to be adequately interpreted before outreach; data needed to be presented clearly and shared among participating groups; areas of outreach needed to be coordinated; and groups needed to log and share who they talked to. technical data On the data side, RFP needed to know exactly where the open frequencies were because it was futile to squander energy in contacting groups where there were no open frequencies. A part of the solution came from a broadcast engineering firm called Brown Broadcast Service in Portland, Oregon. 274

todd urick

Proprietor Michael Brown worked together with a company called RF Software to develop a computer program to check points in incremental steps across the United States for open FM frequency availability. Several computers crunched numbers for a few weeks to provide a frequency availability map of the United States. The map provided a rough estimate of where transmitters could be placed, but did not reveal several other indicators needed in order to do pinpointed outreach. Since most of the groups in RFP had limited budgets, we could not afford advanced engineering studies. Public Radio Capital then stepped in to hire broadcast engineers to research the top radio markets to see exactly what frequencies and coverage were available in each market. CF’s next effort was to identify open frequencies close in proximity to sizeable population areas, and somehow compile several dimensions of data that could be updated by participant groups coordinating outreach. With little manpower and money, this proved to be difficult. This is where CF’s collaboration with University of California came into play. CF coordinated a series of research assignments for students through Dr. Andy Jones at UC Davis. These assignments included doing frequency research, compiling data, and investigating ways to present data so it would be easy for RFP to use. The data needed to be in a format in which all RFP participant groups could log their outreach progress and share it with the entire group. Additionally, CF procured radio engineering software, and used software Prometheus had on hand to perform individual detailed engineering studies for use with the students. The technical research included searching the FCC database for all available data and compiling/interpreting the various frequency studies we had. We first thought that the best tool for sharing spatial-oriented data would be with a Google API map editable by all groups. The Google API map connected to a database and allowed participant groups to place icons on an Internet map regarding regional organizing. On it they mapped out all the current licensed community and community-friendly college and LPFM radio stations, including Pacifica affiliates. CF compiled this list from scratch since there was no pre-established comprehensive list of this on record anywhere. First, this pictorially gave us information on potential allies to contact if a frequency was open nearby, or if an open frequency was near an LPFM station (indicating that an LPFM could then upgrade power). This also displayed areas that were devoid of community radio so they could be focused upon. Second, from the data we could mark areas that had key open frequencies with an icon. Additionally, icons could be placed by participant members according to whether they are talking to a group in a certain area, or found a group that desired to file for a new the public fm project

275

station. This allowed for a central record that could be constantly updated online and viewed by the organizers. The Google map seemed like a perfect application of web technology to solve a communication problem—but it was not. It turned out that participants were either reluctant to log in due to lack of expediency of the web interface, or the user had too much data to enter into the map. The map easily conveyed the information in a graphical format, but the following factors seemed to discourage usage: The volume of data: There was too much data to be entered. There were also too many points on the map to be interpreted at once. The original data encompassed multiple dimensions: Although spatial representation was well represented, the remaining dimensions were harder to digest on such a platform. A lower-tech solution was then pursued. A simple Microsoft Excel spreadsheet offered a flexible alternative. A spreadsheet was organized, with data segregated into sections for each state. CF looked at each state to see which metros with populations of around 100,000 people or greater had available frequencies. Also incorporated was information regarding frequency studies already done, and specific nonprotected applications at the FCC (all researched by students). Information regarding established LPFM, community, and student stations—and other useful data—were included on tabbed sheets. Under each state heading was an area for each group to add progress notes on groups interested in starting a station in a prescribed area. If there was an open frequency, and the coalition hadn’t found an applicant, it was highlighted in red. The organizational spreadsheet was well received with coalition groups. The major inconvenience was the spreadsheet had to be passed around and updated by each group one at a time. This proved to be a clumsy system that experienced problems. But this was not the biggest problem. Although RFP knew where the open frequencies were that needed applicants, we could not find applicants. The coalition was primarily using a centralized data dissemination scheme. The coalition members reached out to all parts of the country using the contacts of other key groups in specific activist areas (including environmental/political activists, people of color, and media organizations). CF was primarily concentrating on the West Coast, organizing phone conferences with people of a specific region and visiting folks in-person. In California, CF primarily used the technique of cold calling and e-mailing organizations and then attempted to go visit and give a presentation to the group. The student researchers were also available to use the 276

todd urick

broadcast engineering software CF had to perform free preliminary engineering studies. Early on in our project, we found that people we reached out to were generally enthused about the idea of radio, but the organizations themselves were unresponsive to committing to apply or follow through with passing on the information. Additionally, we tried communicating with larger national groups (Move On, Democracy for America, Unitarian Universalist Church, and so on) and larger regional groups (political parties, regional Sierra Club chapters, unions, among others). Certain members of the large organizations thought it was a decent idea, but the organizations themselves were unable to organize a national effort to bolster such an opportunity. Regional chapters of groups at best could only return e-mails asking to expand upon the information. For example, a 100,000-watt frequency to serve the city of Las Vegas was available. CF contacted just about every progressive, grassroots, arts-affiliated, education-oriented, and environmental activist group in the metro and nobody desired to apply. CF came close to having the local SEIU union take interest but they were too busy. It was unfortunate to think that no group wanted a free radio license potentially worth millions of dollars. In Oregon and Washington, CF persistently scoured contact lists—from historical preservation organizations to arts organizations—and even visited a few. It was very difficult to find people in smaller cities and towns to warm to the idea of community radio. It was sometimes simply luck to find the one person in a town that was so frustrated by the status quo that she wanted to follow through with the idea. Most of the time, young adults in small population areas did not have any interest. Educational institutions were the most difficult to convince to apply. Student groups on campus were either impossible to contact or too busy. The grassroots organizations we visited that were enthused about the prospect of having a station could usually not even afford the associated filing costs. These included costs to hire an engineer and a lawyer to prepare portions of the application. To complicate matters even more, close to the filing window very few engineers and lawyers were available to take applications. CF regrouped and decided on the following: First, CF would provide grants to specific groups for application engineering. Second, CF would learn how to prepare the engineering and legal portions of the FCC application ourselves. For some applicants, Common Frequency took upon the whole application process, including submitting the application to the FCC (equivalent to a cost of $5,000). As for the national campaign, it appeared there were a lot of gaps in which no community applicants could be found where frequencies were vacant, such as Pennsylvania and Texas. CF attempted to contact national groups. Move On was too busy to dig into their outreach roster; the UU the public fm project

277

Church head office could not be reached even though a former regional director was helping us. We did reach out to cable access/community access television outlets; most of them were not interested or could not muster the support. results After the filing window we acquired a list of all the applications from the FCC. CF sorted through a list of 3,800 applications to categorize applicant type, using a fairly rough methodology. The categories created were: Religious (Christian), Public (National Public Radio affiliate), CCN (Community Radio, College/High School Radio, or Native American applicants combined), and Other (none of the above). Within the CCN category, there were very few new student and high school radio stations applications. Religious applicants outnumbered CCN and public applicants in all cases except in Washington State (tying in Oregon, and almost tying in New Mexico). Of course, the quality of organizing in each state cannot be assessed simply by identifying the number of filings in each category. Frequency openings varied per state, and the quality of applicants varied from place to place. For further information regarding the applicant breakdown, refer to 2007 NCE Filing Window: Organizing Assessment, available from Common Frequency.

interpretations gained from the project The goal of the program was to obtain as many applicants as possible by organizing data and maximizing outreach. In the process of reaching out to people—meeting in person, talking on the phone, and e-mailing—CF uncovered many qualitative aspects of people’s outlook on media and organizing. The following summarizes these ideas: regarding media organizing It is easier to find activists in large cities compared to small cities. Possibly an implied notion, but smaller cities and towns are critical areas for education where local media systems generally are less robust. With many activists residing in urban areas, it is easy to overlook rurally situated small-town America, but collectively these regions command sizable political representation. Small cities and towns are often the most desperately in need of local voices on the airwaves. How to effectively organize community radio in these areas is yet to be seen. Full power radio stations have a greater chance of being licensed in areas where an organized activist group, an LPFM, or community access television outlet exists. Many of the applicants CF aided came from this category. 278

todd urick

ACORN was also very responsive to encouraging their local branches to apply. Alliance for Community Media, an entity working with cable access television, was supportive in outreach, although, on the whole, more access television stations could have taken advantage of radio licensing opportunities. Modest success in this area could also be attributed to outreach already done with LPFM. Small organizations can make big impacts; the power is in information, motivation, and coalition making, not just in the size and overall budget of your organization. CF is a small nonprofit with a shoestring budget, but aided in helping dozens of grassroots groups—many of which would not have applied for FCC licenses without CF directly intervening and walking them through the application process. Small organizations benefit by collaborating. CF benefited greatly by partnering with established groups that already had information resources (NFCB, Prometheus, Pacifica, PRC). This information was then proactively applied in regional organizing. Sometimes small organizations can perform professional tasks in a ‘‘do it yourself ’’ manner if they do not have enough money to hire professionals. The key is to focus energy or limited funding on asking professionals how they do it. With a little trial and error, some of these tasks can be done by small organizations. Student research/nonprofit collaborations can bring access to knowledge and resources a group may not have thought about prior to partnering. In addition to researching data, talents may exist with students that may be applicable to your own organization. For CF, students became interested in the nonprofit’s cause and helped out with technical tasks. Additionally, working with UC Davis gave credibility to the project when approaching other educational institutions. A regional organizing approach worked better than a centralized organizing approach when it came to outreach for community radio. RFP was primarily a centralized organizing effort in which the coalition’s groups reached out across the United States to find nonprofits interested in applying for open frequencies. CF and Pacifica dabbled in regional approaches where people located on the ground in specific areas aided in organizing and disseminating information. Pacifica’s work in Mississippi yielded eight community-oriented applications submitted to the FCC. CF concentrated most of its effort in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and New Mexico, with affiliates in the Northwest and New Mexico aiding CF. A large amount of community-related applications resulted in these states (minus Arizona, where few frequencies were available). This implies that it is important to have regional, or decentralized, organizing strategies in national campaigns such as for FCC application windows. Locals may have the public fm project

279

better connections for performing outreach. Additionally, meeting directly face-to-face with those groups interested in applying improves the success rate of organizations that actually follow through with the entire application process. regarding media reform National/larger progressive and reform organizations should take advantage of more media ownership opportunities. Some of these organizations currently spend a sizable amount on television/radio commercials and print ads, but no money actually has been invested in media ownership. If the program officers of many of these organizations were relayed information about the state of noncommercial media ownership and the process of licensing new radio and television facilities, this might encourage media investment where currently there is none. Religious broadcasters understand the power of radio ownership. In the last two decades they have sprung at any FCC application opportunity. It is estimated that almost half of all Americans listen to religious radio on a monthly basis, and one in six Americans listens to religious radio on a daily basis (Barna Group 2005). If reform groups took advantage of those same opportunities, the public may be better informed by a greater diversity of viewpoints. However, it is uncertain how to present the idea of grassroots media ownership opportunities to large organizations since the concept is not well known. RFP and CF had little success in attempting to communicate with organization decision makers regarding the issue. Media reform organizations actively attempt to change regulation and educate the public regarding media literacy, but rarely engage in facilitating community-oriented groups to take advantage of media-licensing opportunities. This can be seen as the missing link in media reform. Organizing around the NCE application window required a lot more community-level outreach than could be coordinated. Regional organizations specializing in local organizing or media literacy—groups like ROP (Rural Organizing Project, Oregon), New Mexico Literacy Project, and ACME (Action Coalition for Media Education)—could not seem to aid in outreach when contacted. It seems that grassroots organizations often are often spread thin with resources and cannot concentrate energy into more projects. In another example, media reform organizations did little to no organizing or outreach regarding the FCC Low-Power Television application opportunity, where the FCC was giving away DTV channels to whomever wanted them. LPTV channels frequently default to commercial speculators in the absence of community or educational applicants. From CF’s outreach effort, there seems to be little interest in LPTV licenses from community 280

todd urick

access (cable) channel operators. It is unclear why such opportunities are overlooked or do not stimulate interest. It is sometimes perceived that progressive voices are outnumbered by opposing viewpoints in broadcast media. The number of community radio applications pale in comparison to religious radio applications for the NCE application window. Progressive organizations may organize street demonstrations and commercial ads, but media ownership is overlooked—maybe because it appears out of reach, or the affiliated broadcast infrastructure is perceived unattainable. An educational campaign directed towards larger nonprofits managed by an organization that had access to higher-ranking officials in these organizations would be beneficial. Christian media is organized, influential, and growing; community media is fragmented and does not appear to have a coordinated expansion plan. Although community broadcasters have the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, an invaluable resource for broadcast information, community radio does not have an active recruitment strategy to extend to areas that currently are not served. National Public Radio affiliates for the most part took advantage of expansion opportunities in the NCE application window, but NPR affiliates are increasingly depending on nationally produced programming run on regional networks. Expansion is innate to religious broadcasting, with churches in every community actively recruiting. The National Religious Broadcasters organization has a boot camp during its annual convention to teach prospective broadcasters. Small enthusiastic groups with people dedicated to the cause of reform (media, political, and so on) seemed most receptive to the idea of applying for a new station even though they did not have the money to do so. It was difficult to find leads to local groups representing the low-income demographic and people of color. Large political/reform organizations were unresponsive to the call even though they did have the money. It was too difficult to communicate with and educate their program decision makers regarding the opportunity. Low-income people and people of color had few locally organized groups we could communicate with and little time and money to organize around the issue. Communication, funding, and lack of representation were all impediments. regarding media literacy and local radio More funding needs to be available for developing community media. There is relatively no funding available for groups to hire professional services to aid them in submitting FCC applications, and no money to help build radio stations. The National Telecommunication and Information Administration has a matching grant program (the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program), but the application process is almost more complex than the public fm project

281

applying for a radio station. Lack of funding was an inhibiting factor in applying for a new station. Community radio is still very relevant in the Internet age. The question has been posed, ‘‘Why not just start an Internet radio station instead of a broadcast radio station?’’ The Internet does not target the same audience as broadcast radio. With the Internet, a person has to already have a preconceived mindset and intent of visiting a Web site every day. Radio, on the other hand, can be a gateway medium. Anyone can press a button on a radio in passing and listen to a broadcast long enough to have their perception of a subject slightly changed. Radio can penetrate locally and educate general regional audiences, which is different than Internet communication, which targets participants that have already made up their minds to visit certain Web sites. Local media can have national impact. Many issues important to people are immediate problems close to home: employment, environment, housing, etc. Many of the communities in the California Central Valley are economically depressed, facing multiple issues. Common Frequency is attempting to start a Central Valley community radio collective where currently only three full power community-related stations exist within the four hundred mile stretch (KDVS, KZFR, and KFCF). CF is directly involved in trying to license roughly ten more stations in the vicinity to deal with issues idiosyncratic to each local community and the valley at large. Collectively community radio can reach many people and make a difference. Fewer frequencies are available for licensing every year. Radio activism needs to be stepped-up before the next FCC application window, which most likely will be for low-power FM stations. The future of community media will be in low power opportunities, and recycling and leasing established frequencies. People do not realize the value and impact of media ownership. Most people we contacted, even activists, were apathetic to the idea of starting a radio station. Even when CF offered to do much of the work, the incentive still was not there. Why people are unresponsive to such an opportunity is a question for further research. The development of new college radio stations is mired in campus bureaucracy. It often takes years for an organized student group to convince university or college administration to pursue applying for a new radio station. We did not encourage that many student groups to apply because they were almost impossible to uncover, convince, and aid in applying. In many instances, the students were either too busy with studies to follow through with the project (such as Humboldt State University, New Mexico Tech, and Willamette University), or the administration did not want to pursue 282

todd urick

the idea (such as the New College of California, Arizona State, University of Arizona, and UC San Diego). We did, however, actively participate in helping Prescott College in Arizona, University of California Merced, California State University Chico, and University of Hawaii Hilo.

conclusion Community media needs to overcome several hurdles in order to proliferate. A coordinated educational program executed by larger nonprofits with ample funding would be necessary, although hiring someone—or some people—with broadcast licensing knowledge (somebody aware of the ‘‘big picture’’ regarding licensing, FCC regulations, and [especially] engineering—possibly an engineer) is essential. Such a program would encompass working on the following: Non-commercial radio (full-power station and translator) ownership rules need to be reformed, while additionally revising FCC main studio waiver rules to discourage large satellite-fed networks. A decentralized outreach network needs to be developed for media activist organizing. A network of regional activists additionally needs a decent communications network. Regional activists should bring together local people and groups to form a coalition that could invest in a broadcast outlet. A media literacy education program needs to be directed towards rural and small cities and towns. Larger progressive organizations need to develop close ties and better communication with smaller regional activist groups. Larger groups should work with regional groups to develop local media outlets for information to freely flow to the public. Larger organizations with media budgets should offer grants to local media activists to start broadcast outlets as a long-term plan for developing alternative media outlets. For this to happen a media ownership educational campaign would need to be directed towards these organizations. Community media as a whole needs more funding to aid the development of new facilities. Further research into the idea that people in general, or activists, are unresponsive or apathetic to the idea of community media is needed to reveal the true perception of the public’s view of starting their own media outlets. The sooner such a program can be implemented the better—fewer frequencies are available to be licensed each year. the public fm project

283

references Barna Group. 2005. More People Use Christian Media Than Attend Church. March 14. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barnaupdate/183-more-people-use-christian-media-than-attend-church (accessed January 12, 2009). Federal Archives and Records Administration. 2001. Federal Register. Reexamination of Comparative Standards for oncommercial Educational Applicants. 65 (111):36375. Federal Communications Commission. 1995. Noncomm. Ed. Comparative Standards: Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket. No. 9531, 2. ———. 2007. Media Bureau Announces NCE FM New Station and Major Modification Application Filing Window for New and Certain Pending Proposals. Public Notice DA 07-1613. ———. 2008. Application for Construction Permit for Reserved Channel. Form 340.

284

todd urick

CHAPTER 15

Cultures of Collaboration in Media Research joe karaganis

My goal in this chapter is to offer some provisional thoughts on the efforts of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) to build a ‘‘culture of collaboration’’ between academic researchers and the media reform and media justice communities. Broadly speaking, our program tried to make the field better at producing and using research in the service of public-interest policy agendas, and more generally in support of a more diverse and participatory public sphere. The centerpiece of this effort was the ‘‘Collaborative Grants in Media and Communications’’ project, through which we funded some forty-four research partnerships between 2006 and 2008.1 The grants project was brief, but it incorporated—and continues to produce—a longer stream of reflection about social movement building, the role of the academy, and the media reform process in particular. To a significant extent, the SSRC project tested a number of hypotheses about the field, from the status of evidence in media policymaking, to the strength of connections between grassroots activism and Washington DC–based advocacy, to the conditions of effective collaboration in academic-activist partnerships. This chapter traces four general hypotheses that helped organize our work at the outset, and that bumped up, inevitably, against the realities of working in a fast-changing research, activist, and policy environment. First among these is what I’ll call the social movement hypothesis—the argument that enduring, systemic change requires a social movement capable of linking policy agendas with grassroots activism. In the media reform field, this argument generally took the form of calls for stronger connections 287

between the diverse social change groups operating within the field—DCbased policy advocates, grassroots activist groups, independent or alternative media organizations, and so on. Second, few of these communities had much capacity to produce or use research, whether for policy advocacy, strategic planning, or organizing purposes, and that this was a systematic weakness of both the nascent movement and the academy, which cut itself off from vital contemporary debates. Third, misaligned incentives and fragmentation within the field could be overcome with the help of a little money, recognition, and coordination, and the resulting models of collaboration could be embedded within academic and advocacy institutions. Fourth, the public esteem in which the academic research model was held could be used to combat the general abuse of that model in media and communications policymaking, especially at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I’ll give away part of the conclusion by saying that I think these hypotheses were—and largely remain—correct. But their application in our work was challenging, and produced a number of important revisions to our thinking and practice. This account is, in some respects, an administrative history of the project. But it’s also an effort to understand the organization of the distinctive spaces of activism and scholarship with which the project was in contact. The project mapped the field as it intervened in it, often at some cost as everyone—SSRC staff, grantees, and numerous other collaborators—moved outside their professional and intellectual comfort zones. These reflections are provisional, too, because the larger effort extends beyond the period in which we made grants. As of September 2009, eight of the projects are still underway. Other components of the Necessary Knowledge work continue—especially on access to data. And we have only a partial record of the downstream effects of the grants, either with respect to the wider impact of the work or longer-term shifts in the research trajectories of engaged scholars and advocates. These effects will play out over several years, and will be the real test of the project’s value.

the field, circa 2005 The Necessary Knowledge project grew out of a series of convenings in 2004 and 2005 with media researchers, activists, and advocates working on public interest media policy and related social justice agendas. These meetings explored a persistent problem facing public-interest groups: the ad hoc, almost always inadequate research infrastructure for their work, which weakened not only short-term advocacy and organizing but—over time— the broader articulation of public interest agendas. 288

joe karaganis

With a few important exceptions that I’ll discuss below, our partners in this early planning effort saw problems on all sides. Few academics worked closely with policy or social change actors, or produced research that was directly relevant to activist or advocate needs. Few activists and advocates had the time, training, or incentives necessary to produce or effectively use research. The slow pace of academic research guaranteed that research supply and demand were perpetually out of synch. Networks for sharing knowledge, defining research needs, and building linkages between issues tended to be improvised and temporary, and dependent on a few committed individuals. Although every sector counted individual exceptions to these rules, there was little systematic support for them, or means of leveraging their abilities, or intentional reproduction of their skills. The notion of a field that joined different professional and activist communities in the common pursuit of democratic media reform was, consequently, more aspirational than real. Participants instead described a disconnected set of communities engaged in distinct spheres of activism, research, policy advocacy, alternative media production, journalism, professional organizing, cultural critique, and so on. Nearly everyone—including the academics—viewed academia as isolated from and, most of the time, irrelevant to civil society activity. The near unanimity on this point profoundly shaped our sense of the program’s mission and potential contribution.2

media justice Longstanding academic isolation was not the only tension in this wider community. Relations between DC-based policy advocates and grassroots activists were also problematic (Wallner 2005; Kidd, Barker-Plummer, and Rodriguez 2005). Distance—geographical, in many cases, but also political and social—made coordinated action between DC-based and grassroots groups challenging and infrequent. Such work was often conditioned upon a high degree of trust building and mediation, which took time away from more pressing tasks and had uncertain payoffs. As with the academic community, the agendas and vocabularies used by the two groups often didn’t align. Unequal access to resources also complicated matters: the national advocacy groups were professionalized in ways that most activist groups were not. Legal careers were the norm in the policy advocacy sector. In our convenings in 2005, all of the policy advocates were lawyers. The activist sector, in contrast, was (and remains) poorly institutionalized by comparison, and far more reliant on volunteer and part-time staff. These differences cultures of collaboration in media research

289

shape the structure and strategy of campaigns. The community of DC advocates was small in both numerical and geographical terms. It also engaged with a small set of institutions compared to the bewildering array of state and local venues. These factors meant that, in practice, there were abundant horizontal links among DC advocates but few strong vertical links with state and local groups. The advocacy community usually furnished its own first tier of partners and collaborators in any policy campaign. And this cohesiveness and concentration in DC offered advantages in fundraising and media attention. Grassroots groups, in contrast, rarely mobilized around the relatively technical issues of media and communications policy. More often, activism grew out of social and cultural politics—concerns with media content, local news coverage, and—for a large and increasingly well-organized number of activists—the role of the media in advancing broader forms of social justice, especially in relation to chronically underserved minority communities. By 2005, these two geographies of activism had partially resolved into distinct movement identities: one originating in a consumer rights–based model of policy advocacy; the other emerging from predominantly civil rights– informed concerns with accountability, representation, and voice in the media. Media reform and media justice became the shorthand for these two orientations. Among adherents of the latter, the distinction sometimes carried a critique of the technocratic, policy-focused approaches to social change characteristic of DC-based advocacy. By 2005, media justice had begun to develop an institutional structure of its own, through organizations like the Media Justice Fund and later the Media Action Grassroots (MAG) network.3 Resource scarcity—especially among the under or unfunded grassroots organizations—meant that issues of strategy, representation, and equity inevitably found their way into the nascent movement itself. Movementbuilding events such as the second and third National Conferences on Media Reform (2007; 2008) became flashpoints for questions of voice and representation within the movement. The chief organizer and— consequently—gatekeeper of this effort, Free Press, became a frequent target of criticism as mundane matters like room assignments and schedules became politically charged. The details of these disputes are uninteresting, but their sources were important—and hard to disentangle from Free Press’ remarkable growth and success after 2004, which made it a dominant institution in an institutionally weak field. No other organization invested as much in movement building and, as a consequence, no other organization asserted as much de facto control over the movement identity, which for Free Press was very clearly media reform. Free Press’ considerable success in consolidating the 290

joe karaganis

movement created—or rather, highlighted—center-periphery dynamics that turned back against the organization and proved difficult to navigate. Inevitably, our position as an intermediary charged with bridging the policy and social justice communities was shaped by these currents, and by the larger implied question of equity and capacity within those communities. Recurrently, the collaborative grants deliberations staged and—always provisionally—managed these tensions.

media ownership Our meetings took place in the wake of what many saw as the catalyzing victory of the media reform movement: the reversal, in 2004, of FCC efforts to loosen media ownership rules. What made the ownership battle distinct from other recent policy fights was the successful mobilization of a large community of supporters and allies at the state and grassroots level, as well as new allies among conservative activist groups (Scott 2004; Wallner 2005). To an unprecedented degree, DC-based policy advocates and grassroots groups worked together so that public policy arguments made at the FCC, on the Hill, and in federal court could be backed by traditional forms of political pressure from local constituents—calls to Congress, local meetings, and local media coverage. Recognizing the need for ways of staging public engagement with a traditionally closed regulatory process, DC advocates pressed the two democratic FCC Commissioners, Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, to hold a series of localism hearings around the country. In the same period, Prometheus Radio Project—a Philadelphia-based lowpower FM activist group—became the lead plaintiff in a suit filed against the FCC by lawyers at the Media Access Project. In June 2004, the Third Circuit court remanded the new FCC rules for further study. Later that year, Congress passed compromise legislation that restored most of the ownership caps. This apparent victory reinforced a theory prevalent among many of the grassroots activists and some of the DC advocates about the conditions for longer-term political success: effective change required a social movement. The small community of public interest policy advocates in DC was not enough. The handful of advocates working for Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, the Media Access Project, the New America Foundation, and a few other groups were chronically overmatched in the struggle for influence and access in legislative and regulatory settings. The FCC was widely perceived as a captured regulator—beholden to the broadcast, cable, and telecom interests. And although this capture reached an apparent high-water mark under FCC Chairman Michael Powell (2003– 2006), it was by no means limited to him: the erosion of public interest cultures of collaboration in media research

291

media regulation had been the work of both parties. The public interest advocacy record, since the 1980s, reflected this diminished political capital. There had been compromises and holding actions, but precious few actual victories. Well-mobilized grassroots support was perceived as a partial equalizer in this contest, as well as the condition of longer-term political change. The grassroots would provide the constituency for a renewal of public interest media and media policy. The ownership victory, in this respect, was the first instance of the contemporary media reform movement, conceived as a political force that encompassed national policy advocates, the social justiceoriented grassroots, and an unexpectedly wide range of political allies.

fcc research A minor irony of this mobilization was that the key victory against the FCC was not the result of political organizing but of a technical court challenge to the FCC’s research. The Prometheus brief made a wide-ranging argument for the validity and value of ownership regulation—arguments the court dismissed in finding that the FCC actions were within its jurisdiction. Prometheus won, however, by convincing the court that the FCC had failed to make a valid research case in defense of its relaxation of cross-ownership rules. The Third Circuit court agreed with the plaintiff that the FCC’s Diversity Index, which claimed to show that relaxed ownership rules would have no measurable impact on the diversity of programming in most markets, failed to recognize basic disparities in the types and reach of the media outlets it counted.4 In a widely ridiculed example from the study, a local college TV station outweighed the New York Times in its contribution to media diversity. The 2004 ruling was the latest in a series of setbacks to FCC research efforts. An initial round of ten FCC-sponsored studies of ownership, prepared in 2002, had been widely criticized on both substance and process. Research questions and researchers were selected without any public discussion. Those inclined to suspect a rigged game felt validated when nine of the ten studies supported deregulatory positions on ownership, and further when the FCC refused to make the data underlying the studies public (it later partly relented). The importance of the Prometheus ruling, beyond the short-term victory, was that it gave such complaints teeth. From now on, research practices were of more than academic interest: they provided a basis for holding the FCC accountable. The message, on one level, was clear: research capacity—both the ability to produce new studies and the ability to analyze evidence presented in the

292

joe karaganis

policy process—was a critical component of effective advocacy. While hardly a new idea, the Third Circuit ruling rendered it concrete for groups that rarely intervened or invested at this level. The successful critique of FCC research, however, did not inspire much confidence in a repeat performance. The Prometheus victory turned on poor work and overreach by the FCC—not on a wider public interest research effort in 2003 and 2004. Only a handful of studies were produced for the proceeding by public interest groups and independent researchers, and most of these were ready only after the FCC’s comment period had ended.5 Ultimately, little research beyond the FCC-sponsored studies was mobilized by either side in the contest. Bauer, Kim, and Wildman (2006) quantified this narrowness in their citation analysis of the 2003 rule making. To no one’s great surprise, they showed that the FCC relied primarily on industry-submitted comments, and that these had scant grounding in the wider research literature on media ownership. The more striking result, for our purposes, was the disproportionate role played by one public interest advocate, Mark Cooper, in introducing research literature into the proceeding. Cooper’s submission was the sixth most-cited comment in the 2003 order, but by far the most heavily sourced in the research literature beyond the FCC studies. Cooper’s extensive research-based comment did not win the day—in fact, the FCC rejected all of Cooper’s claims. But it does suggest how little pressure the public interest advocacy community was able to bring to bear on the FCC to compel it to consider the wider research record. The capacity for mobilizing research in the community was low, and Cooper was personally responsible for a large share of it. In 2005, this seemed like a serious problem for the media reform sector, and one tailor-made for the nascent SSRC program. The program would invest in partnerships that expanded public interest capacities to bring research to bear on policy issues. It would push academics to work on advocacy timelines, and advocates to become better users—and producers—of research. It would help build capacity to navigate the middle ground between the academy and civil society, creating not more Mark Coopers but rather a culture of collaboration in which connections between research producers and research users could proliferate. There were reasons to be hopeful in this context. The advocates saw the need for new intermediaries that could connect the different communities within the larger movement. Enthusiasm for media policy and activism in the academy appeared to be on the rise, fueled by statements from chairs, deans, and other prominent figures in communication schools who saw the new relevance of their enterprise. And the FCC itself was showing signs that it would adopt a more solicitous attitude toward new research.

cultures of collaboration in media research

293

modes of research A related conclusion from these early meetings was that the NK program shouldn’t make a priori decisions about what types of research to prioritize. This step back from specificity was important for both practical and strategic reasons. On a practical level, the legislative and regulatory policy agendas in any given year could be very unpredictable. Initially, for example, we expected to spend much of 2006 ‘‘priming the pump’’ for research relevant to an anticipated omnibus telecom bill—the sequel to the critically important 1996 Act. Instead of coming up for vote, however, the bill died a slow death in committee. In other cases, policy windows opened and closed too quickly to expect the research community to respond. The FCC, for example, habitually announced thirty- to sixty-day comment windows on proceedings—often with little advance notice. Such time frames made it almost impossible to produce research tailored to specific policymaking efforts. Strategic reasons had to do with the composition of the reform community itself, and with the social movement theory prevalent within the community that privileged articulations between different forms and sites of activism. From the outset, we received a steady stream of requests from the DC advocacy community to fund and facilitate more policy research. Collectively, the DC advocates were sophisticated research users. Individually, several of the advocacy organizations had also become sophisticated research producers—sometimes in the context of ongoing collaboration with academics. As a result, such proposals were typically well conceived, and we had a high degree of confidence that such work would be well used. Grassroots groups presented a very different picture. The grassroots space did not lend itself to the mapping of actors and organizations that made the DC advocacy community relatively navigable—and capable of coordination. Grassroots activism encompassed a tremendous range of groups, types of work, and forms of engagement with media. They often had much less experience with issues of research literatures, research design, and practice. And they were often far more interested in participatory research models—in research as a form of activist practice and organizational capacity building—than the advocacy sector, which tended to take a far more instrumental view of research. The Collaborative Grants project expressly traversed these lines. At one level, this was an endorsement of the social movement theory: the long-term viability of the public interest media sector depended on the cultivation of research capacities and evidence-based activism across communities. Intermediary institutions like the SSRC were important in this process because they could provide the connective tissue—funding, convenings, and other activities—that bound separate spheres of action together. 294

joe karaganis

At another level, this was the inevitable position of compromise between competing research and social change agendas. It marked the point of least resistance among the planning participants: everyone would be served, though no one as much as they wanted. This institutional diversity agenda within the program had two significant disadvantages: first, it undermined attention to particular policy issues, and thus diffused the impact of the program. Second, it recurrently hurt us with the DC advocacy community, who were better organized, better able to articulate and advance research proposals, and consequently more frequently denied funding for deserving projects. For my part, I remain ambivalent about these tradeoffs. In retrospect, it implied a commitment to a long game of capacity building that we were not able to sustain. But at the time, the compromise agenda was not a defect of the process, but a feature. On this fragmented terrain of researchers, advocates, and activists, compromise was a means of creating a constituency for the work. The project needed buy-in from groups who would be asked to rethink their activist strategies, and from a broad array of academics, who would pay—at a minimum—opportunity costs for engaging with advocacy. What was needed, nearly everyone agreed back in 2005, was a two-sided approach to the problem of knowledge production: a deeper pool of researchers working on a wide array of topics relevant to media change, complemented by much closer practices of collaboration with activists and advocates to ensure that research in the pipeline could be identified and mobilized when needed. This was the culture of collaboration that we identified early on as our best possible contribution to the field. The resulting grants program was engineered—and arguably over-engineered—to pursue these goals in parallel. We set up overlapping grantmaking strategies for rapid deployment research in support of policy campaigns; longer-term reflection on issue framing, movement capacities, and strategies; and the democratization of research capacities within the field that would strengthen evidence-based activism at all levels. flooding the zone With the core program principles and independent review process in place, the grants project took on a partially independent life, in which SSRC and our partners at CIMA mediated and brokered project partnerships; the protagonists, however, were the applicants and the members of the selection committee. In parallel, we continued to look for other ways to bring researchers into the media policy dialogue—and to identify systemic obstacles to good research practice and policymaking. From 2005 to 2007, most of this work focused on the media ownership debate, which remained the cultures of collaboration in media research

295

main policy drama playing out at the FCC and a major focus of attention in the DC policy community. The most important part of this process, for me and I think for some of our academic partners, was the effort to better understand the context in which research could matter in policymaking—especially within the institutional and political culture of the FCC. The research dialogue foisted on the FCC after 2004 brought this question, and its contradictions, into sharp relief. On one side was the FCC’s public commitment to research and evidence-based policymaking—a commitment Michael Powell reiterated in 2002 prior to commissioning the first ownership studies. In important respects, Powell’s pro-research stance was a typical example of how bureaucracies cultivate the appearance of evidenced-based decision making. Powell’s successors—Kevin Martin and now Julius Genachowski—have done much the same. But Powell also had some basis for assuming that the research would be on his side. The virtues of deregulation were not just an object of faith—though at the Powell FCC they were certainly also that. Rather, they were backed by a twenty-five-year enterprise in deregulatory economic analysis that saw the marketplace as an efficient, self-correcting mechanism for improving consumer welfare (Entman 2005; Horwitz 1989). In the media and telecom sector, such faith was compounded by a belief in the creative destruction of technological change, which would guarantee disruptive competition in the absence of government regulation. Other distinctive public interest claims—claims related to media diversity or localism or educational needs—were not so much rejected as gradually marginalized by this ascendant culture of collaboration between business economists and industry. Powell’s famously snide reference to the missing ‘‘angel of the public interest’’ (2008) was just the endpoint of this process. This other culture of collaboration is worth much closer attention than I can provide here, and to some extent it is just a subset of the larger ascendancy of corporate worldviews since the 1980s. Its remarkable success in reshaping debates about the public interest in media was a clear reference point for our own effort, which we variously expressed as restoring or reinventing the public interest in the digital media environment. As with all such efforts, resources play a decisive long-term role. There is no public information about the sums telecom and media companies spend on commissioned research, but the size of the media and telecom industry lobbying effort is enormous—estimated at $172 million in 2006 alone. Industry support for academic centers is widespread, and generally a matter of public knowledge, as are the major products of industry-sponsored research.6 In contrast, the total amount of research funding available for public interest actors in the 2004 ownership fight was, by most estimates, around $100,000, provided by the Benton and Ford Foundations. The total sum 296

joe karaganis

spent by the Ford Foundation—by far the largest funder in this period—on media-related research, advocacy and activism at all levels probably never broke $4 million in any given year. In this context of dramatic inequality among knowledge producers, Free Press’ Ben Scott’s description of the FCC policy process stuck with me: FCC policymaking was an adversarial contest masquerading as intellectual debate. The expectation that ‘‘better’’ ideas would win the day had very little connection to the actual policymaking process. The disproportion in resources and access simply did not permit it. But little was not zero. And the obvious importance attached to the formal trappings of the research process suggested opportunity. As the Prometheus ruling demonstrated, the FCC could be held accountable to federal—and ultimately even FCC— standards for policy debate. data What interested us in this uneven playing field was not the immediate issue of corruption—of how money shapes policy outcomes—but rather the ways in which it shaped the environment in which policy arguments and evidence are created and used. Philip Napoli and I detailed the ways in which the FCC neglected commitments to data collection in a range of critical policy areas, and how, through this neglect, it undermined the basis for effective regulation (Napoli and Karaganis 2007). We documented the ways in which the resulting reliance on commercial data collection—by the Nielsens, Arbitrons, and BIAs of the world—created structural inequalities in access to data that greatly advantaged media companies and generally locked out public interest advocates and independent researchers. Access to data became one of the leitmotifs of the larger SSRC program. Project after project, in the Collaborative Grants work, faced basic obstacles of access to data—because of exorbitant licensing costs, or the poor quality of existing datasets, or (in what became a personal favorite in this field of perverse outcomes) the FCC being contractually forbidden to release data that it had paid for in the course research it had funded. The basic principle that public policy should be made with publicly available data was—and is—nonoperative at the FCC. It is an environment in which substantive public review of policymaking is frequently impossible. We saw the expansion of academic participation in the policy research process as critical to addressing this larger imbalance in resources. Academic research had an implicit authority that commissioned research and advocacy-produced work simply did not. The peer review process remained the standard of legitimacy, in large part because of the priority it accorded the research process over particular results. We felt—and indeed many of our advocacy partners felt—that because the quantity and quality of research cultures of collaboration in media research

297

input into FCC decision making was low, ‘‘flooding the zone’’ with more credible academic research would be a major gain for the public interest community. fcc peer review, or be careful what you wish for In early 2007, the SSRC and Free Press co-hosted a one-day conference that brought together some two hundred researchers and advocates in advance of the larger National Conference on Media Reform. The preconference was another of our efforts to strengthen connections between research, advocacy, and activist communities. One of the main topics of discussion was the renewed FCC action on media ownership, following the requirements for quadrennial review of the rules as stated in the 1996 Act. The FCC had commissioned another round of research papers, which at the time were not yet complete. Most expected that these papers would—like the prior round—strongly support the deregulatory agenda of Powell’s successor as Chairman, Kevin Martin, and the other Republican majority members on the Commission. We were fortunate enough to have FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein at the event. Adelstein had been a participant in the earlier round of fights over ownership research, and saw how far FCC research practices departed from the academic gold standard of peer review. At his invitation, we agreed to develop an external peer review process for the studies. This sounded like a win-win proposition for the program: we would take a stand for peer review in an otherwise degraded research process, and—if the research proved as weak as in the earlier round—provide a boost to public interest interventions in the ownership proceeding. Because we were working closely with advocacy groups in this period, we first sounded them out to gauge their interest in the idea. Several advocates—especially among the legal advocacy groups—thought that external peer review was exactly what the FCC process needed. With the memory of 2003 still sharp, these groups wanted to head off bad research earlier and more decisively. The neutrality of the SSRC had value in this context. Criticism coming from advocacy groups had the disadvantage of being predictable, and thus easily dismissed. Groups had to think carefully about how and when they intervened. Our expectation was that the research was likely to be similar in orientation, quality, conclusions, to the 2003 studies. Only one of the ten researchers—Alan Hammond—had a strong record of engagement with issues of diversity and inclusion. We expected that a rigorous external review, coming from a wide array of perspectives on the public good, would turn up a range of weaknesses in the FCC’s now familiar approach. But we were also prepared to let the cards fall where they might. 298

joe karaganis

To our surprise, several of our other partners strongly objected to the plan. From their perspective, an injection of peer reviews into the process was a wildcard. As they had learned in 2003, there was no reason to think that the FCC would take the reviews seriously or act on the preponderance of evidence. In fact, the reverse could be true. Any result could be cherry picked and used to justify the preferred deregulatory outcome. And the industry brought far greater resources than the advocacy community to bear on exactly this sort of exercise. The debate boiled down to control. For our part, we wouldn’t guarantee the results of the review; nor would we cede decisions about the publication of reviews to the advocates. Although I disagreed with their position at the time, I came to understand it as an unavoidable resource problem. The peer review process looked like a source of noise and unpredictability, drawing time and attention away from the disciplined effort to respond to the FCC’s ruling in the short comment period. From their perspective, a broader debate was not what they needed. Rather, they needed a more tightly controlled debate, in which critical resources could be carefully managed and deployed to best effect. Ultimately, I think this was an important learning moment for many of the people involved—and certainly an important moment in the evolution of the program’s mission. Advocacy support for a more explicitly academic model of intervention had fractured. For our part, we were unwilling to launch an elaborate peer review exercise that key partners didn’t want. In the end, several advocates convinced Chairman Martin that a peer review process was in the FCC’s interest—in addition to being, in principle, required by recent changes to federal law (2005). As before, however, nearly all the reviews were farmed out to business professors and economists who, by and large, shared the assumptions of the studies and lacked significant expertise in diversity and localism.

study 6 An important exception to this rule was the review of Study 6, conducted by Kenneth Goldstein, Matt Hale, and Martin Kaplan (2007). Study 6 sought to analyze media bias and local news coverage in markets with significant cross-ownership of stations (Milyo 2007). Goldstein et al. argued that Milyo had departed from the longstanding FCC definition of localism as grounded in geographically defined media markets (DMAs)—having instead adopted states as the salient units of measurement. Milyo’s choice— and Goldstein’s critique—proved important when Study 6 was used as the primary source for the FCC’s decision to relax cross-ownership rules for newspapers and television stations. As with the earlier studies, the recorded cultures of collaboration in media research

299

television content used by Milyo as the basis of the study (purchased with FCC money) was declared unavailable for further scrutiny due to licensing restrictions. The Collaborative Grants project played an important role in this exchange when, in fall 2007, the selection committee authorized an emergency grant to re-evaluate Milyo’s data based on the traditional FCC definition of localism. Again the hitch was access to data. After several months of negotiation between advocates and the FCC, the FCC offered to allow a researcher onsite to watch the 1,200 hours of video. For a variety of reasons—including the roughly six months of viewing time required and the difficulty of recoding the data under these circumstances—access in the FCC’s basement wasn’t a practical solution. Fortunately, FCC staff were sensitive to this complaint—indeed similar licensing restrictions frequently hampered internal FCC research. The FCC ultimately provided a copy of the relevant DVDs for offsite analysis. The new analysis, based on FCC localism definitions, reversed Milyo’s results and demonstrated that the quantity of local news coverage in cross-owned markets decreased rather than increased (Yanich 2009). Although this result came too late to figure in the 2007 decisions, it sets the stage for renewed examination of this question when ownership discussions return in 2011. short and long games The peer review proposal brought out tensions between what I saw as the short and the long games in media advocacy. The short game was the set of tactical choices that under-resourced advocacy groups made in response to the ongoing series of policy comment windows, legislative actions, and diverse other crises. High costs of coordination meant that effective advocacy interventions needed to be kept small. Tailored research responses could be developed in short order if those projects were kept under close advocacy control. The collaborative grants accommodated this type of partnership, among others, and several projects of this kind were funded. But contributions—and SSRC efforts—outside the formal process of the collaborative grants proved recurrently difficult on this point. Researchers who were asked to volunteer their time and energy for advocacy purposes chafed at advocacy demands for final say in how research was framed and results characterized. By late 2007, we had largely abandoned these extra efforts in favor of expanded work on access to data and the policymaking process. The long game was the prospect of changing both the community and the policy process, so that they could effectively incorporate more and better policy research. The respect accorded the academic research model—even by those who abused it—seemed to provide leverage for bringing the policy 300

joe karaganis

process into somewhat closer conformance with its ostensible ideal. Although this was a mostly futile exercise at the Powell and Martin FCC, the debates around process and access to data in that period laid the groundwork for a broader discussion of procedural reform and the appropriate uses of research. The long game was critical, too, because of the generational dynamics of the advocacy community: many of its key members, Mark Cooper, Gene Kimmelman, Andrew Schwartzman, Mark Lloyd, Charles Benton and others were in their fifties and sixties. A disproportionate share of the researchcapable advocacy sector was approaching retirement. And there were few figures of authority—and demonstrated research capacity—in their thirties and early forties in the community. We saw—and I think many of our partners saw—the small size and advance median age of this group as a serious capacity and continuity problem for the next decade. The obvious response was to cultivate an advocacy movement that was less reliant on a handful of senior figures. The collaborative grants process, and our effort to expand the research base for media advocacy more generally, was in large part an effort to address this generational challenge. The advocacy groups were also aware of this issue, of course, and by 2009 several had taken steps toward generational renewal. A small but—given the size of this community—significant number of younger, researcheradvocates had found positions of authority in the DC media advocacy community—many of them having left or deferred PhD work to do so. Much of the important work on ownership and spectrum issues—both research and the critical process of deploying such work in advocacy contexts—was done by newcomers in the 2003–2006 period, such as Ben Scott, Sascha Meinrath, Peter DiCola, Kristen Thomas, and Derek Turner. Another cluster of policy researchers at Pennsylvania State organized to intervene in debates about the universal service fund and broadband policy. Significantly, much of this new participation came from outside the legal profession—as, indeed, did a number of the new organizations operating in this space. Free Press was founded in 2003 by an academic and an activist; the New America Foundation in 1999 as an academically grounded policy think tank; the Future of Music Coalition in 2002 by former musicians. The new, less lawyer-driven, more academic face of the policy advocacy community was a boon for research, but it did not offer much evidence of change in the larger relationship with the academy. The career moves of most of these figures remained idiosyncratic, and often professionally costly. Clearly, more researchers had begun to see the need and opportunity to intervene in this ‘‘critical juncture’’ of media change, to borrow Bob McChesney’s characterization (2007). Less clear was whether this was something they did because of the academy, or in spite of it. cultures of collaboration in media research

301

For us, the long game meant cultivating a wider institutional culture that could support and reproduce these types of expertise and career choices. It was an effort at systematizing what had been a realm of largely random, costly professional dislocations.

collaborative research The Collaborative Grants project tried—most of the time successfully, I would argue—to walk a line between these short and long agendas. In important ways, the two were interdependent: the former secured support for the latter among the advocacy partners, especially, by delivering enough short-term payoff to warrant the investment. The centerpiece of this strategy was the collaborative model itself, which privileged three criteria of selection: first, proposals had to have a high likelihood of generating academically-credible research; second, they had to have clear utility to the partnering groups; and third, they had to have wider, systemic effects on the field, such as providing a replicable or extensible research model. Invariably, these criteria required partners to develop a clear account of the collaboration itself, including the roles and expectations of the different partners in the several stages of the work. In practice, these deals often required renegotiation, as the partners’ understanding of the project, its outcomes, and its costs evolved over time. From our perspective, both the initial arrangements and their stressful renegotiations were important features of the larger project. Beyond the applied outcome of the research, the grants were intended to foster learning about how to collaborate, and through that process train people who could mediate effectively between the two (or more) spaces of research and activism. This process mattered because effectiveness in these spaces often required skill sets that had little connection to either academic training or activism, such as the ability to repackage research for different audiences, or to collaborate with practitioner groups in research design. In our account of the field, circa 2005, these skills—not the absolute quantity of available policy research—were the scarce resource. This critique of the organization of knowledge production in the academy proved central to our work. By several measures, there had been an explosion of policy research on media and telecommunications. Between 1997 and 2002, most major law schools created journals focused on the intersection of technology, law, and policy. Telecom policy–specific journals had boomed in the late 1970s and by 2004 numbered around twenty-four (Bauer et al. 2006). But a point of widespread agreement among our planning partners was that publication was not enough. The main forms of scholarly communication—especially peer-reviewed journals and monographs—were invisible to 302

joe karaganis

the advocacy and activist communities, which lacked the time, resources, and in many cases, expertise to sort through extensive academic literatures. Worse, important work was often invisible to the academic community, which for professional reasons read and published primarily within its respective disciplines, and rarely noticed the extensive grey literature produced outside the academy. Even when applicable research was found by advocates, genre norms often got in the way. Academic literature—including the extensive legal and business scholarship—was often poorly suited to advocacy purposes. The hallmarks of a good academic debate—the premium placed on theoretical innovation, the recognition of ambiguity in complex data, the rich arc of commentary between works published over years—were precisely those things that made even most policy research of limited application. The adversarial context of policymaking left little room for ambiguity—a point of recurring tension and occasional conflict between research and advocacy partners in our work. In the planning meetings for the project it became clear, too, that there was no possible consensus about the highest-value targets of research. Was it short-term intervention in the FCC ownership proceedings? Was it institutional research on the future of community media providers in the digital era? Was it the comparison of different approaches to municipal broadband provision? The SSRC didn’t propose an answer but rather a process, passing through discussions among those same constituencies. There was no subject of the collaborative grants work beyond the challenge of renewing public interest and social justice approaches to the media environment. Over three years, the program specialized in issues and perspectives that had fallen through the law, business, and economics-driven policy research boom. Clusters of work on digital inclusion, localism, and media diversity; on communications as a public good; and on the policymaking process itself introduced a small counterweight to what had become an extremely narrow deregulatory approach to the public interest. More importantly, it helped prepare the ground for a more serious conversation about these issues under the new administration.

the field, circa 2009 The field in 2009 looks very different than in 2005. Its composition, goals, and institutional infrastructure have changed in important ways. When we began planning the Collaborative Grants work in 2005, it was hard not to see both fragility and opportunity in the reform and social justice communities: the fragility of the coalition that beat back the ownership rules the prior year; the fragility of the tiny community of advocates who waged the cultures of collaboration in media research

303

public interest fight year after year; and, looking forward, the opportunity to build something larger, more durable, and better anchored in universities and civil society organizations. Four years later, the field still seems overwhelmingly marked by fragility and opportunity, but for different reasons. Fragile because of the continued tenuousness of the support infrastructure for these communities—worse today, in some respects, than it was in 2005. But also newly open because of the promise, at least, of a very different policymaking culture under the new administration. By way of conclusion, I want to look more closely at changes in three of these key institutional contexts for media reform. funding The first is the critical role of philanthropic funding in sustaining work in this area. There are very few advocacy or activist organizations in the sector that have robust revenue models. There are only a couple of organizations that have significant dues-paying memberships; and only one or two with significant external profit centers that subsidize policy advocacy or activism.7 As a result, the sector is extremely dependent on philanthropic support— often for core costs, and almost always for out-of-the-ordinary or large-scale projects. In this context, the hard fact of 2009 is the financial crisis, which has battered foundation portfolios and with them, much of the nonprofit sector that they support. Because of multiyear budgeting and grants, this crisis will play out most acutely in 2010—and depending on the economy, in the years after. But even prior to the crash, it was clear that funding flows into the media policy and activism sector were slowing, and showing signs of entering the bust phase of the boom-and-bust cycle that haunts and often cripples funder-dependent fields. The relevant scale in this context is not media reform in particular, but rather the larger confluence of foundation investments in media and technology activism that marked the first half of the decade. The Ford Foundation—the primary funder of our work—was a central and, in some respects, typical actor in this space. In the 1990s, Ford’s media investments were focused on public broadcasting, documentary filmmaking, and other forms of content production. By 2002 Ford had moved toward a series of important commitments to media policy and activism—primarily but by no means exclusively through the work one Ford program officer, Becky Lentz. Lentz strongly endorsed a field-level, multisectoral approach to media change, and funded the SSRC and several other organizations to act as funding intermediaries between key constituencies in the field. Lentz was not alone in this shift toward policy and activist approaches. With a similar history in content production and support for public broadcasting, Elspeth Revere at the MacArthur Foundation developed a major 304

joe karaganis

program of investment in media and intellectual property policy. Joan Shigekawa at the Rockefeller Foundation used the longstanding Arts program to fund a range of inquiries into the participatory and policy dynamics of digital culture. Carolyn Deere, Anthony So, and later Jake Werksman at Rockefeller made major investments in the IP policy space—and can be justifiably credited with creating the international IP advocacy sector. OSI—smaller than the other foundations—established a series of programs on media and intellectual property policy, with a strong focus on policy advocacy. Numerous other small funders also played a role in this space— the Markle Foundation, the Center for the Public Domain, and the William Penn Foundation.8 Collectively, these funders made possible a major reinvention of media and technology advocacy in the middle years of the decade. In almost all cases, however, this work was poorly institutionalized within the major foundations. Nowhere was media or information policy perceived as central to the foundation mission. As a result, the programs were vulnerable to the periodic reinventions, priority changes, and simple staff turnover of these institutions. Markle exited the field in 2005. Rockefeller and MacArthur in 2006 and 2008. Ford—now coming out of a reorganization of its own— looks likely to remain in this sector, but in a form much more focused on DC policy advocacy. OSI has stayed, and now represents the most enduring—if still comparatively small—institutional commitment to these issues. Large new foundation programs in related areas of media and technology have emerged in the past several years—notably MacArthur’s Digital Media and Learning Initiative and the Knight Foundation’s News Challenge—but neither has reproduced the commitment to policy activism or to social justice issues. Beyond the overall decline in funding for media and information policy reform issues, these developments also signal, I think, a lack of patience with the social movement–grounded approach to change in this sector. In a funding environment focused on short-term metrics, the case for this broad-based approach was always a difficult one. Grassroots activity is by definition hard to aggregate. Wins are frequently smaller, and harder to measure. Certainly we faced this difficulty in trying to make a clear case for the impact of our grantmaking. My view is that, with respect to the tiny number of Foundation staff whose opinions matter, this case has failed. Several of the major intermediaries in this area—our grants project included—have lost funding and closed shop. the academy The financial fragility of the sector was hardly a secret in 2005. Bringing more funders into the sector was a primary goal of the funders themselves, cultures of collaboration in media research

305

and we periodically participated in these educational efforts. Programmatically, however, we operated in a different institutional environment and pursued a different strategy. We saw enormous potential to get universities more involved in supporting models of engaged research, in which engagement signified not activism, necessarily, but a more basic interest in nonacademic audiences. Universities, of course, are awash in research capacity. Faculty and student careers are built around a massive university research subsidy. But in 2005, very little of this work was usefully directed into media and communications-related change. This seemed like a tremendous lost opportunity. Our program was designed not just to fund research but to leverage this research subsidy. Grants were numerous and small—$7500 and $30,000 in the two primary categories. And they paid for very little direct investigator support: less than 25 percent of the awards went toward compensating the primary investigators and, in many cases, grants provided little or no compensation (roughly one-third). Universities paid for the great majority of faculty and student time on the projects—a contribution we estimated at par with or above the value of the grants themselves in many cases. In several cases, SSRC grants helped researchers obtain supplementary funding from the host universities. What the grants funded, primarily, was advocacy participation and the wider infrastructure of the projects: meetings, travel, dissemination and material costs (around 60 percent). What they typically provided, for faculty and students, was enough money to ease the transaction and organizational costs of the collaboration itself—and enough recognition to overcome the general discounting of policy and activist scholarship within home departments. Tacit but sometimes very sharply felt penalties for engagement outside a researcher’s disciplinary community were an unpleasant fact of life for the collaborative grants community. Most grantees were intensely conscious of how they navigated boundaries between disciplinary and activist scholarship; some did so in spite of high opportunity costs and occasionally more clearly articulated professional risks. As we had hoped, the Collaborative Grants provided sufficient funding and recognition to change this calculation—not just among our forty-four funded projects, but for the nearly three hundred applicants to the several rounds of the competition. But at the end of our grantmaking, it was clear that this larger incentives problem remained unresolved. With some notable exceptions in public policy and professional schools, specialized disciplinary communities continue to be the only audience that matters in academic hiring and promotion. It’s clear to us that this will continue to steer researchers away from collaboration and nonacademic applications of their research, and that the public missions of the schools in this sector will suffer as a result. 306

joe karaganis

It is important to add, in this context, that our program was not the only effort to push communications research toward engagement with policy and social change issues. Although our program was strongly identified with an agenda for policy and activist engagement within the field, it was also clearly a symptom of wider concerns in the field. The most important parallel effort in the academy was the COMPASS initiative, which, at its launch in 2004, represented an attempt by chairs and senior faculty at several of the major U.S. communications schools to rethink the public purposes of communications research institutions. In the following years, COMPASS sponsored some useful steps, such as providing graduate-student internships in DC, and institutional cover for several emerging media policy programs and concentrations. But five years later, its impact on the participating schools—much less the wider field—has been very limited. A group of wellplaced chairs, faculty, and deans did not constitute a critical mass that could move the massive, disorganized communications field—in part or in whole. Despite eloquent warnings by Bob McChesney and others, there was no widely felt crisis of the field. Numerous other local institutional challenges—and now the financial crisis—took priority. As a result, the questions about the goals of the field raised by COMPASS, by our work, and by other observers remain largely unanswered. the administration Part of the attraction of the social movement model, especially after 2004, was the obvious blockage of policy opportunities at the federal level. Public interest policy struggles with the Bush-era Congress and FCC were primarily defensive actions, exemplified by the ownership debates, but extending to a wide range of other policy areas, from common carriage requirements for cable providers, to provisions for the Digital TV transition, to spectrum auctions, telecom mergers, low-power FM, and many other issues. A betterdeveloped social movement, many in the advocacy and activist communities argued, could help counterbalance unequal access and bad policymaking processes by bringing a wider range of constituencies and pressures to bear. In our experience, this tactical reasoning underwrote much of the advocacy interest in building links to non–DC-based social movement actors. By the same token, it seems clear that disinvestment from the social movement model should be understood in relation to renewed policy opportunities in DC. It is widely assumed that the Obama administration will be more attuned to public interest goals than the Bush administration, and that this will make for a more receptive context in which public interest advocacy arguments can be heard. The consolidation of funding and attention around the DC policy space is an understandable effort to test—and cultures of collaboration in media research

307

push—these assumptions. It is a return to the short game in a context in which it seems likely to have increased payoff. The Obama administration has foregrounded its own ‘‘long game’’ in the form of commitments to transparency, procedural reform, and evidence-based policymaking. The new FCC Commissioner, Julius Genachowski, has made repeated efforts to distance himself from the research and evidentiary practices of the Powell/Martin FCC.9 Procedural reform and data collection practices in particular have been a hot subject during the first months of the administration—initially around the dysfunctional Bush-era practices for measuring broadband adoption. It remains to be seen how meaningful these changes are, but they have produced a striking shift in the tactical assumptions of some of the advocates. The default assumption is no longer that policy will be driven by blatantly stacked research or cherry-picked results. It seems likely that the audience for research within the FCC will be stronger and more empowered, and that this is likely to produce more pull from the research literature, rather than the aggressive push that has been required to date to bring external evidence to the attention of policymakers. Time will tell. Groups are still assimilating this change in the opportunity structure of DC policymaking, and are still working through the outlines of a more proactive public interest policy agenda (Free Press 2009; Schejter 2009).

conclusion My own view is that the basic research dynamic will not change—that the research that matters in policymaking will continue to be research that is closely integrated into advocacy efforts, and that this will depend on the kinds of partnerships we’ve described above. Effective collaboration—not research per se—will remain the scarce resource. We will also see whether there are as many strongly consensual solutions to public interest media and information policy issues as the conciliatory, postpartisan rhetoric of the administration and new FCC suggests. We are far from a situation in which the policy process ensures a lively, reasoned, intellectual debate. The tactical value of the social movement model—of having a well-developed network of actors mobilized at the local level, and of having multilevel institutions that can tie them together—could reassert itself quickly. The difficulty, as we have seen in earlier rounds of media and telecom activism, is that such networks are hard to cultivate and easy to lose (Dichter 2005). The collaborative grants project has ended, but its impact on the field is, hopefully, something that we will watch play out over the next several years. From my perspective, the program revealed tremendous hunger in both the research and social change communities for ways to make research matter. 308

joe karaganis

The long game for us, ultimately, was not just to reward that community but also to expand it by creating viable, attractive, and ultimately replicable models for collaborative research practice. And like the Obama era promises of change, the jury is still out.

notes 1. Although I’m speaking for myself in this chapter, the Necessary Knowledge program was a collective effort. At different times our SSRC team included Rik Panganiban, Minna Aslama, Jaewon Chung, and Monique Loayza. Catherine Borgman-Arboleda and Aliza Dichter of the Center for International Media Action played central roles in the design, management, and ongoing evaluation of the program. Our advisory and selection committee was critical to the grants project especially, and included, at different times, Philip Napoli, Dorothy Kidd, Hye-Jung Park, Mark Lloyd, Leslie Regan-Shade, Gene Kimmelmann, Ben Scott, Catherine Sandoval, and Hernan Galperin. Some two dozen other researchers and activists played central roles in the planning, and many more provided advice and support. 2. The second convening in March 2005 produced a series of planning papers that drive these points home, notably Feld (2005), Napoli (2005), Dutton (2005), O Siocru Dutton (2005), Kidd et al. (2005), and Costanza-Chock (2005). 3. Recognizing our own lack of connections to the activist sector, we involved the Center for International Media Action in the program design and management to support our efforts with activist communities. CIMA also conducted much of the ongoing evaluation of the work. 4. Prometheus Radio Project vs. FCC, 2004a; Prometheus Radio Project vs. FCC, 2004b 5. The Future of Music Coalition’s report on radio consolidation and Children Now’s report on educational programming were among the few to get the timing right (DiCola and Thomson 2002; Glaubke and Miller 2003). Others sought to get ahead of the next round of ownership debates. 6. Chester (2007) offers a rare account of corporate sponsorship of telecommunications centers and programs in the university system, such as the Quello Center at Michigan State University, Silicon Flatirons at the University of Colorado, the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information at Columbia University, among others. With Chester, it seems fair to ask what such companies get for their money. The answer, in my view, is obvious and usually nonsinister: they get a network of well-connected, well-resourced experts who will, on balance, produce research sympathetic to industry positions, lend their academic authority to industry causes, and participate in the larger game of musical chairs between industry, the academy, and regulatory agencies. This corporate-academic culture of collaboration plays an important role in the wider set of corporate lobbying and advocacy efforts. cultures of collaboration in media research

309

7. Models and degrees of support vary widely, but to make a partial account: Common Cause is one of the few organizations with a strong, duespaying membership; Consumer Federation of America has a large membership of consumer organizations. Consumers Union is one of the only organizations to have a profit center, Consumer Reports, which subsidizes its advocacy work. 8. Again, it’s important to appreciate how small this funding community was—and is. The number of funding officers with significant media or information policy portfolios probably never reached the double digits. In such small communities, funding is personalized in ways that undermine the consistent development of a sector. Personalities and staff changes have a disproportionate effect on the shape, priorities, and sustainability of the community. 9. In a typical statement in reference to the FCC broadband plan announced in July 2009, Genachowski stated: ‘‘I am pleased that we have a plan that will be data-driven. That means not starting with conclusions, but using data to develop analysis. It also means not just accepting data, but digging into data, to find concrete solutions that supersede ideology’’ (Lasar, 2009).

references Bauer, Johannes, Sungjoong Kim, and Steven Wildman. 2006. Making US Telecommunications Policy: Who Participates and Who is Heard? The Role of Research and Ideas. Report prepared for the Ford Foundation. Chester, Jeffrey. 2007. Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy. New York: New Press. Costanza-Chock, Sascha. 2005. Autonomist Tools and Communications Democracy. SSRC Working Paper. http://webarchive.ssrc.org/ programs/media/publications/costanza-c hock.7.final.doc (accessed May 14, 2010). Dichter, Aliza. 2005. Together, we know more: Networks and coalitions to advance media democracy, communication rights and the public sphere 1990–2005. Paper presented to the Social Science Research Council, New York. DiCola, Peter, and Kristin Thomson. 2002. Radio Deregulation: Has it Served Musicians and Citizens? http://futureofmusic.org/article/ research/radio-deregulation-has-it-served-musicians-and-citizens (accessed May 14, 2010). Dutton, William. 2005. Hired Gun or Partner in Media Reform: High Noon for the Social Scientist. SSRC Working Paper. http://papers .ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id⳱1142486 (accessed May 14, 2010). 310

joe karaganis

Entman, Robert. 2005. Putting the First Amendment in Its Place: Enhancing American Democracy Through the Press. In S. Braman, ed., Communication Researchers and Policymaking (pp. 461-484). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Feld, Harold. 2005. The Creation of a Shared Culture of Skills and Vocabulary Between Advocates and Academics. SSRC Working Paper. http:// webarchive.ssrc.org/programs/media/publications/Feld.2.FIN AL.doc (accessed May 14, 2010) Free Press. 2009. Changing Media: Public Interest Policies for the Digital Age. http://www.freepress.net/files/changing_media.pdf (accessed May 14, 2010). Glaubke, Christina, and Patti Miller. 2003. Big Media, Little Kids: Media Consolidation & Children’s Television Programming. Children Now. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/record Details/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb⳱true&_&ERICExtSearch_Search Value_0⳱ED475660&ERICExtSearc h_SearchType_0⳱no& accno⳱ED475660 (accessed May 14, 2010). Goldstein, Kenneth, Matthew Hale, and Martin Kaplan. 2007. Invited Peer Review of FCC Media Ownership Study: The Effects of CrossOwnership on the Local Content and Political Slant of Local Television News. Horwitz, Robert B. 1989. The Irony of Regulatory Reform: the Deregulation of American Telecommunications. New York: Oxford University Press. Kidd, Dorothy, Bernadette Barker-Plummer, and Clemencia Rodriguez. 2005. Media Democracy from the Ground Up: Mapping Communication Practices in the Counter Public Sphere. Report prepared for the SSRC. Lasar, Matthew. 2009. FCC Broadband Roadmap Aims to Bring Order to Stimulus Chaos. Ars Technica July 5. http://arstechnica.com/techpolicy/news/2009/07/the-fccs-broadband-road-map.ars (accessed May 14, 2010). McChesney, Robert. W. 2007. Communication Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of the Media. New York: The New Press. Milyo, Jeffrey. 2007. The Effects of Cross-Ownership on the Local Content and Political Slant of Local Television News. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/ edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3470A7. pdf (accessed June 10, 2010). Napoli, Philip M. 2005. The Broadening of the Media Policy Research Agenda. http://webarchive.ssrc.org/programs/media/publications/ PhilipNapoli.1.Final.doc (accessed June 10, 2010). Napoli, Philip M., and Joseph Karaganis. 2007. Toward a Federal Data Agenda for Media and Communications Policy. Commlaw Conspectus 16:53–96. cultures of collaboration in media research

311

´ Siochru´, Sean. 2005. Mapping Research Activities and Interactions O Against Global Communication Dynamics: The Case of the WSIS and Financing Mechanisms. SSRC Working Paper. http:// webarchive.ssrc.org/programs/media/publications/OSiochru.6.Final Paper.doc (accessed May 14, 2010). Schejter, Amit, ed. 2009. And Communications for All: A Policy Agenda for a New Administration. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Scott, Ben. 2004. The Politics and Policy of Media Ownership. American University Law Review 53:645–677. Wallner, Martha. 2005. From Media Concentration to a Broader Agenda. SSRC Working Paper. http://webarchive.ssrc.org/programs/media/ publications/Wallner.5. FinalReport.doc (accessed May 14, 2010). Yanich, Danilo. 2009. Cross-Ownership, Markets and Content on Local TV News. Report prepared for the SSRC.

312

joe karaganis

CHAPTER 16

Engendering Scholar-Activist Collaborations An Evaluator’s Perspective catherine borgman-arboleda

This chapter offers some reflections based upon my role as an evaluator for the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) Collaborative Grants program, which was the primary component of the Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere (NK) demonstration project that is described in the previous chapter by Joe Karaganis.1 The NK project offered the emerging field of media reform and justice grants and technical assistance to facilitate scholar-activist partnerships. These partnerships had both a tactical and strategic purpose. Tactically, they were intended to produce research that could help bring about progressive policy change in the U.S. media and communications system. Strategically, they were also aimed at addressing another purpose: to nurture a culture of collaboration between scholars and activists (as discussed by Karaganis in Chapter 15). The SSRC program staff and its funders2 premised the program design on prior research that had illuminated a need for institutional research capacity in the emerging field of media reform and media justice. The NK project (a result of more than two years of discussions and interviews by the SSRC and others, such as the OMG Center for Collaborative Learning, with key actors in the field) was initiated as an attempt to address those challenges, but also to take things a bit further. By selecting a highly respected research organization, not a policy advocacy organization, to serve as an intermediary for regranting purposes, the hope was that actors in the field itself, not a funding agency (that is, Ford or SSRC) could develop a process for distributing research funds that was democratic, transparent, and representative of the field’s needs. The role of my organization, the 313

Center for International Media Action (CIMA),3 in partnership with the SSRC, was to provide strategic research and program design and evaluation support for the program. We were also tasked with the design and implementation of the two grantee technical assistance and networking workshops. As evaluators, our role was to help develop a theory of change for this program,4 to document the program’s activities, and to provide continual feedback from the field. Targeted beneficiaries included current and possibly future funders in the field, as well as researchers, public interest policy advocates, and community organizers. The SSRC program was ambitious and highly experimental. Thus, it is in that spirit that I offer my reflections based upon three years of interviews, surveys, and facilitated meetings with grantees, the NK selection committee, external academics from communication programs, and personnel from other grantmaking programs aimed at connecting practitioners and scholars.5 My goal is to inform future endeavors with similar goals and aspirations. What follows then is my rendering of an evaluator’s perspective on the structure and priorities of the NK program. I review what the program sought to accomplish, which was to advance more participatory knowledge building and knowledge mobilization efforts. I identify the following key considerations for academic-practitioner bridge building designed to address social issues: What are the longer-term social change goals, and what is the model of public and community participation needed to reach these goals? How can knowledge production and use support this broader model of participation? Who is positioned to advance this knowledge strategy? What are the persistent barriers and important dynamics involved in the coproduction of knowledge? What are effective approaches for overcoming these challenges, and how can a social movement knowledge strategy be supported?

theoretical background A shift in participation and decision making in democratic processes is now widely understood by social change scholars and practitioners to be fundamental in addressing societal problems, from global to local, and engendering a more equitable distribution of resources. Related assumptions undergirding the change theory adopted by the SSRC and CIMA for the NK project resonate throughout the literature on public policymaking. Skocpol (2003) calls the United States ‘‘the most pluralist polity in the world’’; yet, he also makes the point that ‘‘associations claiming to speak 314

catherine borgman-arboleda

for the people lack incentives and capacities to mobilize large numbers of people,’’ characterizing a ‘‘yawning gap’’ between professional, memberless, Washington DC–based organizations and local community-based organizations’’ (139–140). Many international development research organizations and think tanks, such as the Overseas Development Institute (ODI),6 promote the importance of researcher/practitioner networks in strengthening the participation of grassroots and other civil society organizations in the policymaking process. Inherent in this literature are critiques of centralized decision making and a lack of citizen or constituency engagement. Research undergirding the SSRC NK project found this to be particularly sharp in regards to the media reform and justice movement (Dichter 2005; Sherman 2004). To the extent that organizations that comprise the media reform movement operate without strong connections to broader constituencies, questions have been raised as to whether the movement can be considered representative of the public interest (Dichter 2004). A growing literature by U.S.-focused authors discusses the role that academic-practitioner partnerships can play in the transformation of the processes of political and policy decision making. ‘‘Institutional authority and certified expertise are not sufficient to alter the ability of marginalized people to make claims on increasingly unequally distributed resources of society.’’ The answer lies in ‘‘the development of a sophisticated notion of collaborative justice work, based on community empowerment, where professionals [academics] play an integral role’’ (Barlow 2007, 5). Similarly, Healy and Hinson (2005) discuss the specific contributions that scholarship can make to social movement work. ‘‘It gives people tools and frameworks for discovering, synthesizing, evaluating, and rediscovering things about social and political contexts in which [activists] are working, and for engaging in collective analysis, planning and action for democratic social change’’ (59). We also know that there is increasing evidence that collaborative research approaches are important in building theory as well as contributing to policy advocacy practice. Engaged approaches, specifically, research that is responsive to community information needs, brings a greater ‘‘return on research investment, by joining university and community assets, which yields better quality and availability of data; better questions, reflecting theory and practice; better methods’’ (Stanton 2007, 11). The value of a program such as NK was to help create a movement knowledge strategy that could support the impetus, momentum, and participation in policy change from a broader range of actors, rooted in the day-to-day needs of a diversity of communities. Many academics and activists working in the field of media reform and justice identify democratization of media and communications policymaking as an outcome or an end in itself. However, the goal of broadening engendering scholar-activist collaborations

315

participation is also a critical dimension to consider. Democratizing and strengthening an emergent movement requires knowledge-building efforts that, in many cases, need to take precedence over advancing any particular policy agenda. This is because of the closed circles where media policy debates often occur. Democratizing participation is especially relevant for the media justice/reform movement to create new terms for participation that expand constituencies and build new and hopefully sustainable issue networks. Many scholars and activists have also observed that the ‘‘goals of media reform in many ways provide the communications environment that is fundamental to the growth and development of other social movements’’ (Napoli 2009, 411). It is therefore essential that the media reform and justice movement expand to include these other social issue actors and constituencies.7 In my view, the cultivation of these participatory processes as critical strategies for movement building was the higher calling of the NK program, and, I would argue, for any knowledge-building efforts following in its footsteps. A key premise of the program’s theory of change was that, according to Karaganis, effective change required a social movement. The small community of public-interest policy advocates was not enough. The preconditions that SSRC and CIMA derived for this stronger social movement to emerge around media and communications included more diverse participation in public debate and decision making, rebalancing policy priorities and agendas to reflect social and public needs, and policy debates shaped by high-quality research. This change theory was premised on a need to reconfigure existing political power structures to create more authentically participatory and representative decision-making processes. While it is too early to assess the impact of research projects funded by the Collaborative Grants component of the NK program, only a portion of which have been completed at the time of this writing, there is ample evidence that grantees of the program have already begun to engage this higher calling. Partnerships with academics and groups such as the Manhattan Neighborhood Network, the Media Mobilizing Project, Media Alliance, the Sacramento Media Group, VozMob and several others are demonstrating progress on a number of fronts linked to building collaborative capacity and expanding participation around structural change of the media and communications system. These projects illuminate the value of mechanisms than can help catalyze, facilitate, and support collaboration in knowledge that supports a broader movement-building strategy. The following list details a few highlights of the program’s preliminary outcome that speak to the strategic, not just the tactical goals of the NK program. 316

catherine borgman-arboleda

New sustainable collaborations between scholars and advocates/activists. Our program evaluation8 revealed that of the grantees from the three of seven grant rounds that had completed their research, nearly all of those with no prior collaborative research experience had either initiated another project, or had concrete plans to do so. Follow-up projects included a two-year intensive study on the information society for the South, and a study to include audience and other stakeholder interests in the assessment and preservation of community media. Another collaboration that has emerged as a result of NK support is a study of the use of mobile phones for organizing in immigrant communities. Grantee partners increased their capacity to collaborate. Interviews with grantees confirmed that as partners went through the struggle of learning about what it takes to be part of a collaborative research partnership, they built skills and understanding and were better prepared to engage in similar projects in the future. For example, partners learned to negotiate different timelines and priorities, and to develop research strategies that were mutually beneficial. Practitioner partners learned about the research process, how to develop a knowledge strategy for their organizations, and how to think critically about their work. Scholar partners were able to strengthen their research questions and design, sharpen analysis, and articulate findings in ways that were accessible to nonacademics. Program support and opportunities to share challenges and effective practice were important in building this capacity. Growth and diversification of engaged scholarship networks on media and communications issues. Expanding the participation in structural change around media and communications requires multiple forms of knowledge, which can only evolve through an expanded network of researchers and practitioner partners that bring new perspectives and orientations to the table. The NK program supported partnerships with academics from a variety of disciplines outside the traditional media and communication schools, methodological approaches, and backgrounds. As one selection committee member discussed, ‘‘Innovation often comes from the margins of a discipline, as does creativity, independence and motivation.’’ This diverse pool has been brought into contact with the research needs of a variety of social and political change groups, and historically marginalized communities. The focus on new, participatory methodologies and approaches played an especially important role. One selection committee member described the importance of involving marginalized communities and other under-resourced groups: ‘‘beyond the question of rights, this is where the new claims from for social change will come from, creating new ways of doing, new perspectives.’’ engendering scholar-activist collaborations

317

Shifting the academic perception of engaged research. In terms of sustainability beyond the NK program, an important outcome of the grantmaking is shifting the paradigm of an increasingly unengaged process of inquiry with researchers working primarily in isolation (Van De Ven 2007). The underlying reasons for a lack of engagement have been attributed to a number of factors. Institutional structures of the universities (such as review boards, tenure, or promotion criteria) often penalize scholars that allow their research to be ‘‘tainted’’ through practitioner involvement (Stanton 2007; Van De Ven 2007). Related to this, scholars discuss cultural differences in academic and practitioner goals and priorities, timelines, and world-views (Croteau et. al 2005; Stanton 2007). Another emerging challenge mentioned is the predominance of an industry and business-driven model for funding and using research (Barlow 2007). While these present significant, deeply embedded structural challenges, NK aimed to create incentives and support structures for academics interested in more collaborative approaches. In many cases the NK program provided credibility and raised the profile of collaborative scholarship. As one grantee noted, ‘‘The biggest contribution that my project made to advancing acceptance of applied research within my department was that it allowed others to see how research could be so closely aligned and connected to communities. My research is not an abstract scholarly endeavor; it is grounded in the daily reality of how people live out their lives.’’ Participants surveyed after the February 2008 collaborative workshop felt the conference made what many referred to as a significant contribution to building the applied research field around media and communications. A representative comment included, ‘‘This program is obviously a leader in its field. It is creating spaces no one else is—that I know of. I think a great network/community is growing around this.’’ Grantees also discussed the value of their grant in strengthening connections between universities and communities. As one grantee noted, ‘‘The project is important to long-term capacity building and has planted the seeds for a larger and longer term partnership between university researchers and the community-based organizations.’’ In a number of cases, academic partners were able to use their NK grant to leverage additional resources that without SSRC support would have been difficult to obtain. One academic grantee described her small grant as a highly valuable ‘‘seed grant,’’ leveraging far beyond the original amount. It enabled her to approach her university about the creation of a permanent Media Research Lab with external funding in hand.

318

catherine borgman-arboleda

issues for reflection In documenting learning from a demonstration project, it is important to highlight some of the tensions and challenges, with an eye toward strengthening future bridge-building initiatives. There was a general sense that the goal was to build collaborative research capacity in order to engage and connect key communities operating at different levels—for example, DCbased advocacy organizations and networks, community organizers, activist and educational groups, independent media organizations, and so on— around what was by most accounts a very narrow insider policy game (Dichter 2005; Sherman 2004). In retrospect, feedback from the field suggests that future endeavors might consider a number of additional issues to ensure alignment with strategies and the goal of increasing participation in policymaking. Given the ambiguity around how to best support this shift in participation, my reflections pertain as much to initial program design as to its demonstration phases. The critical component of the program was engaging the participation of a very different group of people and organizations in media and communications change. Knowledge produced by communities and actors marginalized from the policymaking process needs to be seen as expertise in its own right. Tension existed, therefore, due to a lack of clarity around exactly which people, and which institutions, were most likely to transform the status quo and bring about a shift in participation and decision making in the media and communications environment. In his chapter, Joe Karaganis describes the tension arising from the program through the attempt to serve a number of different needs. He characterizes two primary orientations to media change work that the NK program needed to navigate. One orientation, media reform, is often described as the better-organized, professionalized, and more cohesive work of national policy advocacy actors, with more experience in the production and use of instrumental policy research. The other orientation, media justice, is perceived by many as the less organized, less professionalized in terms of legal activism, and underfunded grassroots sector, concerned with the role of media and communication as means to advance broader social justice goals, and which ‘‘sometimes carried a critique of the technocratic, policyfocused approaches to social change characteristic of DC-based advocacy’’ (290). Karaganis concludes that attempting to serve the research needs of these two communities had high costs, and left the NK program in ‘‘the inevitable position of compromise between competing research and social change agendas, where ‘‘everyone would be served, though no one as much as they wanted’’ (295).

engendering scholar-activist collaborations

319

I agree that attempting to serve these potentially competing political interests was an original feature of the program. Based on our evaluation results, I now see it as a program design issue. Supporting short-term policy work is often incompatible with efforts to engender longer-term structural change, which prioritizes increasing civic participation and new leadership. The DC policy community had been struggling for years to have significant sustainable wins. Most individual policy victories, such as the court challenge of the FCC’s media ownership rules, have questionable long-term value. In fact, leaders among the federal policy advocates were clear that community-based, grassroots involvement in these issues was essential for lasting success. Many advocates and scholars believe that the defensive focus of most advocacy efforts, working within rather than outside established institutional channels, has shown to be limited in its ability to significantly affect policymaking and regulatory processes. As Napoli (2009) discusses in his literature review of the media reform field, ‘‘The underlying sentiment of many of these analyses is that the media reform movement seldom has been as radical as it needs to be to successfully ignite significant institutional change’’ (403).9 Just as the environmental movement does not focus exclusively on the EPA (though some organizations and campaigns might), media activists and scholars recognize the necessity of a diversified and publicly grounded movement (Brinson 2007; Dichter 2004). Early on, the program emphasized the need to attract established researchers from tier-one universities—especially economists, political scientists, and other ‘‘hard’’ social scientists—to support national advocates in battles against heavily funded, corporate opponents. However, there were serious doubts from the beginning about how realistic it was to expect relatively small grants to provide enough funds to counter incentives from the corporate community and other sources of funding for established academics. The main consideration for future efforts to support scholar-practitioner collaboration is how a program bolsters and expands a culture of collaboration. The NK grants program was designed early on to fund a variety of political change strategies and advocacy goals. However, in the interest of providing food for thought for future program planners, I would argue that support of research collaborations in the DC community contributed negligibly to building new or stronger capacity in this regard. NK was premised on the idea that the mechanism for building this capacity was supporting new relationships among these communities and strengthening individual and organizational or institutional interest in and skill for engaged research. Yet there were already strong ties between researchers and

320

catherine borgman-arboleda

practitioners in the DC community, and a well-developed capacity to collaborate. While many of the scholar-advocacy collaborations supported outside the DC community—such as Media Alliance, Instituto de Educacion Popular del Sur de California (IDEPSCA) and Chica Luna—did have preexisting relationships, the grants in most cases were the grantee partners’ first attempts at collaborative research projects of this scale. In addition, the grants made to the DC advocacy community tended to go to relatively wellfunded groups such as the New America Foundation or Children Now. Within many of these organizations, research was already a core institutional strategy. An argument could be made that this research would have happened anyway in the absence of NK funding. Another point raised by a number of NK selection committee members was that while limited, there were other sources of funding for the DC advocacy community. Another important issue to keep in mind is that the NK program, while lodged within an institution with considerable resources, had to raise its own funding. Some of the NK program funding went to support, for example, in-kind institutional support costs. Not all program funds could be used entirely for grantmaking, as the learning component of the program also had to be supported. There were choices and trade-offs. The infrastructure needed to support short-term policy research was fundamentally different from that needed to support strengthening the capacity to serve the broader knowledge-collaboration needs. Consequently, resources spent negotiating agendas and dynamics in the DC advocacy community detracted from the program’s ability to serve other needs. We learned from ongoing surveys and interviews that nurturing collaborative relationships and building capacity for further engagement requires well-honed facilitation skills, knowledge of contexts and priorities of communities involved, and staff hours. Feedback from selection committee members underscored the fact that implementation of the Collaborative Grants program ‘‘was much more demanding than expected.’’ Selection committee members were placed in the position of a grantmaker; hence, many came to see that making grants requires its own expertise, infrastructure, and time commitment. From proposal review and applicant feedback, to participation in the program’s strategic planning and assessment, administration of the process required an understanding and commitment to the coproduction of knowledge, and an adequate allocation of resources. As an example, we can look to the annual collaborative research workshop, which aimed to lend credibility to the diverse knowledge production assets possessed by participants and build bridges among these communities. This effort required both a significant commitment by workshop planners and participants, underwritten by line items in the budget. Overall, it called for a strong appreciation for the

engendering scholar-activist collaborations

321

process of creating spaces that successfully support points of intersection for very distinct cultures, priorities, timelines, and often worldviews.

lessons learned I agree with Karaganis that this ‘‘diversity agenda’’ had high costs. The soundness of this conclusion of course depends on the impact that the demonstration program was trying to achieve. From interviews conducted during NK’s first year with other academic-practitioner grantmaking initiatives, the recurring recommendation was that the greatest impact would come from attention to building and strengthening new relationships and a focus on ‘‘transformative people and institutions’’ as the primary focus, the actual subject of the grantmaking, Therefore, in the future, I would propose that collaborative research grantmaking be used primarily to expand participation in policymaking with two primary points of focus: Practitioner groups that represent or reflect the interests of constituencies that could be considered new voices for a movement. Researchers and institutions that can demonstrate a priority and commitment to the coproduction of knowledge. governance and decision making The program funder and the SSRC understood that the NK program needed a governance structure that could prioritize the diversity of research needs to be addressed in advancing the breadth of advocacy and organizing goals of the media reform and media justice sectors. The SSRC invited the Center for International Media Action early on to be a program partner that would contribute to the design, development, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of the program. We were given a seat at the table as we were perceived as having access to the media reform and media justice advocacy and organizing communities and an understanding of their dynamics and context. The funder saw our inclusion as a tactic in the endorsement of ‘‘a field-level, multisectoral approach to media change’’ (Karaganis, 304). This partnership between the SSRC and CIMA was designed to help balance the academic values of the SSRC, which was an inclination to prioritize the academic practice of theory building over its practical application to a policy environment, and a proclivity to support groups in the Washington DC advocacy community, whose projects could be perceived to address research on more urgent short-term political agendas. The other core component of the NK governance structure was the NK selection committee, which made final grant decisions. We established a selection committee of academics that understood and represented various 322

catherine borgman-arboleda

academic research methodologies, departments, and backgrounds. Practitioner members embodied a range of political change theories such as policy advocacy, community media and public access, grassroots organizing, and so on. SSRC senior leadership and program staff made important efforts to create a climate of collaboration and consensus. CIMA’s involvement, and the inclusion of selection committee members with strong community-based orientations, indicated the intention of ensuring that broader movement-building interests had representation at the decision-making level of the program. We heard from committee members that having an organization on the inside (CIMA in this case) that understood the role of a variety of change strategies was important. As one interviewee noted, ‘‘CIMA pushing made the process open.’’ There was healthy and at times even contentious debate around the grant selection process, which often led to the funding of collaborations that spoke to the NK program’s higher calling of supporting expanded participation in a social movement for media change. However, there are a few recommendations I would make for future programs of this nature. As mentioned, while the selection committee did exercise a great deal of autonomy in making grant decisions, feedback commonly received from the selection committee indicated a lack of clarity in terms of what the program was meant to accomplish. As the former program officer at Ford argues, the kind of empowerment that the NK program was seeking to engender in the field itself was sometimes misunderstood. For many, this was the first time that those on selection committees had ever been placed in decision-making positions about resource allocation. Participants asked questions such as the following: Is the main goal to fund projects that represent marginalized communities and voices? Is it to encourage more high-profile research around media and communications? Is it to fund immediate research needs for current FCC battles, where partnerships are already positioned to produce high-quality information? The committee was also unsure at times of their role in contributing to this higher-level strategic thinking; for example, in terms of whether the committee was meant to serve as an authoritative or consultative body. Looking back now, while funding a diversity of political goals and agendas was part of the original design of the program, in future efforts I would recommend greater involvement of the committee and other advisors beyond just grantmaking decisions, to higher-level thinking around criteria and guidelines that inform grantmaking and overall program strategy. Regular opportunities for a governing body to reflect, assess, and inform the program would be especially important, given the tensions that emerged between the media justice and reform orientations and the corresponding imbalances of power, which characterized these two paradigms, as well as engendering scholar-activist collaborations

323

other approaches and political priorities. Committee members possessing a more community-based, movement-building approach to research mentioned at times that it was difficult to be heard. In retrospect, I would argue that committee contribution to setting program strategy and direction, and developing consensus around priorities leads to sharpened grantmaking strategies and grant criteria. A number of recommendations from external program officers we interviewed highlighted the importance of engaging the committee in a clear process for defining strategy. As one interviewee stated: ‘‘Ensure that the decision-making committee includes people who understand the process and goals of the project, not just the issues. Peer reviewers can provide issue expertise, but nothing can supplant the committee’s understanding of the program’s process or change theory.’’ Invariably, though, we found one of the greatest obstacles to such selection committee integration to be the time commitment and attention to process that the development of an effective committee requires. At times when the program did make time for a higher-level discussion of program goals, it was often challenging for the outcome of those discussions to be institutionalized as part of the program itself. My observations of NK lead me to suggest an important consideration for future work that prioritizes collaborative and participatory governance. In the absence of a clear structure and process for decision making, by default decisions often will be made, or strongly influenced, by the actor who has fiscal authority. Certainly the lack of time for consideration and deliberation around decisions also influences how they are made. Finally, in groups less familiar with participatory governance, there is likely a lack of understanding how the process might be more collaborative. Perhaps part of this is the inevitable institutional culture that inflects decision making more generally. Subsequent efforts would benefit from the consideration of how time and resources can be allocated to prioritize a representative external body’s significant engagement in program strategy and participation in decision making. I suspect this would lead to greater clarity around the more strategic versus tactical aims of a program, which would also contribute important learning to grantmaking outcomes. promoting legitimacy for engaged research For scholars, the SSRC’s reputation provided credibility and ‘‘cover’’ in many cases for collaborative work with practitioner communities, especially for researchers working in a context where more participatory approaches are not valued in relation to questions of tenure or other factors. In addition, we heard that the grants had a direct institutional impact, as a catalyst for further work. 324

catherine borgman-arboleda

For advocates, and especially community groups and other organizations lacking experience with the research process, we saw that there was a shift within the organization towards a greater interest in collaboration. This shift was especially evident in collaborations where the academic partner was conscious of power imbalances and different social change priorities. Partners worked to create a mutually beneficial relationship where the work and context of the activist group was clearly valued. We also found that there were a number of deliberate strategies that reinforced the legitimacy of engaged approaches for both practitioner and scholar communities. For example, one effective strategy was the creation of opportunities for presentation of research by both partners at grantee convenings and conferences. Largely in response to grantee requests, the NK program created an annual NK program workshop to share research and effective practices of engaged scholarship, explore new opportunities, and strengthen working relationships. I would recommend that future scholar-practitioner collaborations a focus on joint publication and dissemination of findings. Sharing methodologies and approaches taken by the collaborations can be an important way of shifting acceptance and understanding of engaged scholarship, as well as providing guidance for those with less collaborative research experience. supporting the ability for groups to engage Throughout discussions with grantees, it was clear that the capacity to collaborate was not something that came naturally to anyone. From a lack of understanding of the other’s expectations, related to issues such as timelines, priorities, institutional and resource restraints and realities, to an unfamiliarity with the best practice methods and approaches to collaborative research, the obstacles to building mutually beneficial collaborative processes and products were many. As one grantee discussed, ‘‘this work is messy and it is important to discuss some of the complexities of cultivating parity when researchers and practitioners are working within fairly different frameworks.’’ As Karaganis mentions, this capacity to collaborate is the scare commodity. A fundamental consideration for program design is that building this capacity takes certain staff resources and program infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, at times the diverse goals of the program meant that there was less focus paid to this work. Worth noting for future collaborative grantmaking efforts are a number of strategies the program initiated to address these challenges. network building/creating a cohort Our formal interviews and informal conversations with grantees highlighted that there needed to be a very specific focus on building connections engendering scholar-activist collaborations

325

between projects. From facilitated cohort conference calls to multiday workshops, the program sought to provide opportunities not just for researchers and practitioners to share their research, but also to discuss challenges around the practice of collaboration. A number of grantees engaged in highly participatory projects found the most effective knowledge transfer happened through peer learning opportunities. These efforts are important for building knowledge networks that are sustained postfunding, for deepening the collective understanding of the nature of the engaged research, and for building strategies for advancing academic and activist goals. mentorship, facilitation, peer learning Grantee feedback, as well as conversations with program officers engaged in other scholar-practitioner bridge-building efforts, confirmed the need for ongoing and active attention to collaborations, customized to specific needs. These ‘‘check-ins’’ or ‘‘coaching calls’’ help ensure that collaborations are progressing on target, and help address challenges while they still remain manageable. A program person can provide a sounding board for partners who are navigating through unfamiliar territory. In the NK program, often grantees were unsure how to take advantage of support offered, especially relevant in the case of new collaboration and highly participatory projects. We heard that the available technical assistance needed to be coupled with consideration about best ways to engage grantees so they could benefit from support. supporting parity It is important that grant requirements be structured so the contributions by both academics and practitioners are viewed as equal, although necessarily different. The sharing of resources was felt to be essential, and shared compensation is one of the most fundamental means of addressing a need for parity. This division of resources needs to be reflected in the proposed project budget, and grantees recommend that there be a mechanism for ensuring that the resources are appropriately allocated and that a process for mediation is in place in case conflict occurs. Likewise, the traditional hierarchical power arrangements in academic-practitioner engagements can be counteracted by both parties collaborating on the planning and design of a project. Asking to what extent the partner groups have contributed to the proposal elaboration is one way of ensuring that a project has joint buyin. Establishing a short orientation for new grantees around the particular expectations and responsibilities of engaged research is an important strategy to ensuring that both parties have a clear understanding of expectations and the resources needed to collaborate successfully. 326

catherine borgman-arboleda

from production to application Our initial conversations with experienced program officers emphasized the need to support collaborations in translation and dissemination of research. As one interviewee noted, ‘‘Researchers and practitioners will not be focused on getting the research out beyond its immediate context of use. Thus the program can play an essential translation and dissemination role, distilling the utility of the findings, and telling their story.’’ This is something grantees often find difficult to achieve. Frequently, we heard that the work of trying to produce an academically acceptable report of research findings and develop a product or strategy for disseminating the report to the appropriate practitioner audiences strained the resource and knowledge capacity of the partnership. Thus, collaborative initiatives might consider having a specific program staff person focused on assisting with communicating findings to particular audiences. Similarly, an outside provider would be another way to help ensure that projects received the proper technical assistance to develop communication strategies for identifying and reaching specific audiences. expanding the network of researchers and agendas As discussed by Karaganis, the media reform and justice sector was in need of ‘‘a deeper pool of researchers working on a wide array of topics relevant to media change’’ (295). While some of these potential new researchers and media change organizations were part of CIMA and SSRC’s networks, to a large extent a new outreach strategy also needed to be adopted. At the program’s inception, we found that using the standard request-for-proposal process distributed to media reform/justice lists was not adequate. Often groups either felt the proposal was a standard SSRC fellowship application, or were unsure altogether of the focus of the program. Furthermore, often the academic partners that were most interested and able to conduct engaged research, and thus contribute to building the collaborative capacity for research around media reform and media justice, were located outside the faculties of media, communications, and journalism. Deliberate attention to target audiences, and to outreach strategies that are most likely to motivate groups to apply, is fundamental. We learned that effective outreach often requires more than an e-mail broadcast; it calls for a personalized approach to target organizations and university departments and even individuals. Outreach at a convening or event is another productive way to attract the presence of engaged scholars. Prospective grantees’ involvement in the application process is another area we identified that both academics and practitioner often have difficulty with, and thus benefit from support about this topic. They are often unsure both about how to structure their collaboration as well as how to discuss engendering scholar-activist collaborations

327

their projects in ways that correspond with program goals and criteria. Application questions are often unlike anything applicants have been asked to apply to previously. For example, responses to questions in the NK program around the real world impact of research often were inadequate and vague. Sample applications posted online, conference calls, online question sessions, and individual staff phone calls are all helpful in supporting applicants understanding of collaborative research, and consequently the ability to submit a strong application. incentives and transformations A common concern raised in program planning discussions was the need to attract researchers from top-tier research universities. How to create incentives to attract these researchers, or at the least not create any obvious disincentives, was an ongoing topic of conversation. In our interviews with program officers from other scholar-practitioner grantmaking initiatives, the importance of building adaptive capacity was emphasized. This was described to us as the need to support people in a way that they will then do it on their own once they are no longer grantees. Given the limited duration of the NK program as a demonstration, not an implementation project, we need to question how realistic it is to focus on targeting researchers who will only engage in collaborative research through financial incentives. It was important for the NK program to engage in program promotion and outreach efforts more broadly around the advantages of engaged scholarship. However, given the strong structural disincentives that are endemic to higher education in the United States, it seems most strategic, and the best use of scarce resources, to target those academics that are already more inclined to do collaborative research, either because of their particular institutional proclivities towards participatory and engaged methodologies or their own particular political interests and commitments. program sustainability As mentioned earlier, the NK program was a demonstration project designed to fill a void in the field at a particular juncture of its formation. The longer-term hope was that collaborations would emerge that would carry forward in any number of forms. However, many in the field may not have known this and therefore may have held other expectations for the program. Repeatedly we heard that we needed to convey the models, methodologies, and approaches better to engaged scholarship that were gaining traction— especially those that involved grassroots and local work, which were harder to measure. For the NK program, focus on short-term policy work became the low-hanging fruit, which as Karaganis points out, was more attractive 328

catherine borgman-arboleda

to some funders working in grantmaking institutions focused on short-term metrics. As a result, systemic, strategic work took a back seat. My experience with the NK program leads me to the conclusion that foundations need to engage in the work themselves around what is really needed to change the structure of discourse, policymaking, and resource decisions around media and communications, and social justice issues more broadly. But as one program officer has remarked to me, the field would then be poised to critique the capacity of funders who are too far removed from the work itself to render an adequate strategy without intense field involvement. And involvement of the field in this work raises a host of other concerns having to do with power. Karaganis notes that ‘‘disinvestment from the social movement model should be understood in relation to renewed policy opportunities in DC’’ (307), bolstered by the Obama administration’s apparent commitment to transparency and evidence-based policymaking. The implication here is that this change in administration has somehow reduced the perceived need among funders to support work designed to restructure citizen and civil society participation in policymaking around media and communications, and give voice to those communities who have the most to lose in the equation. On the contrary, it is when policymakers are open to engaging the citizenry that it may be most essential that communities are able to generate useful information.

conclusion This chapter has put forward a number of considerations for those involved in future efforts to draw upon in order to broaden and democratize movements for change in the media and communications system in the United States. As an engaged practitioner myself, the essence of what the NK program has taught me is the need to focus on the people and the organizations that are most likely to transform the status quo. In the case of the emergent media reform and justice sector in the United States, I believe the most promising articulations for change are coming from the media justice community. Recognizing their contributions requires a shift in support of who does research in both the academic and practitioner communities. It also requires attention to legitimizing the types of necessary knowledge all of these communities produce, but most particularly, the most marginal voices because they infuse media change work with the ideas, innovation, and connections to communities needed to democratize and invigorate media reform and justice movements. Second, we need to focus on strategies that both build the capacity of these new partnerships to collaborate, as well as to engendering scholar-activist collaborations

329

demonstrate to academics, practitioners, and funders the value of engaged scholarship.

notes I would like to thank former program officer at the Ford Foundation, Becky Lentz, Aliza Dichter, and Rachel Kulick who provided important and useful insights during my writing of this chapter. 1. A demonstration project is a program designed to test new program concepts with the primary goal of informing what may evolve into future program initiatives. 2. Two funders supported this program: the Ford Foundation and the Phoebe Haas Charitable Trust. 3. CIMA was established in 2003 with a startup grant from the Ford Foundation to help an emerging movement for media change by strengthening alliances: supporting connections, collaboration and communication. SSRC invited CIMA to participate as an equal partner in the NK given CIMA’s understanding of media justice and reform work, and connections to organizations in the field, specifically those with a justice orientation. 4. With the organization ActKnowledge; see http://www.actknowledge .org. 5. Committee assembled by SSRC and CIMA and tasked with making grant decisions. 6. See ODI’s RAPID (Research and Policy in Development) program at http://www.odi.org.uk/programmes/rapid/. 7. This goal was implicit in another Ford Foundation funded demonstration program: the Media Justice Fund. 8. We received post-grant surveys from sixty-six NK grantees, and fiftynine participants in the NK 2008 workshop. Interviews were conducted with the following: A sample of twenty-two NK grantees. Grantees were selected based on self-reports of the strength and weakness of their collaborative experience. Interviews are ongoing, and will be complete by 12/09. Interviews with five NK selection committee members. Four members were interviewed twice. Interviews and facilitated groups discussions were conducted with all selection committee members. Interviews with three nongrantee members of university communications departments. This included two deans of communications programs, and one professor. Three interviews with representatives of other academic-practitioner grantmaking programs, including the Aspen Institute’s Non-Profit Sector Research Fund, Sociological Initiatives Foundation, and The Canadian Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). One interview with one participatory action research scholar completing her dissertation. 330

catherine borgman-arboleda

9. This literature review was an additional evaluative component funded by the Ford Foundation in its learning about the evolution of various fieldbuilding efforts.

references Barlow, Andrew, ed. 2007. Collaborations for Social Justice: Professionals, Publics and Policy Change. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Brinson, Peter. 2007. Lessons from the Free Radio Movement about tactical interaction in the Media Reform Movement. Paper presented at the Social Science Research Pre- Conference on Media Policy Research, Memphis, TN. http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/lessons-from-thefree-radio-move ment-about-tactical-interaction-in-the-mediareform-movement/resource_view (accessed May 14, 2010). Croteau, David, Williams Hoynes, and Charlotte Ryan. 2007. Rhyming Hope and History: Activists, Academics and Social Movement Scholarship. Social Movements, Protest, and Contention. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press. Dichter, Aliza. 2005. Together, We Know More: Networks and Coalitions to Advance Media Democracy, Communication Rights and the Public Sphere 1990–2005. Paper presented to the Social Science Research Council, New York. http://mediaactioncenter.org/node/843/ (accessed August 24, 2009). ———. Where are the People in the ‘Public Interest’? U.S. Media Activism and the Search for a Constituency. http://www.waccglobal.org/en/ 20041-media-reform/612-Where-are-the-people-in-the-publicinterest-US-media-activism-and-the-search-for-constituency.html (accessed May 14, 2010). Healey, Richard, and Sandra Hinson. 2005. Movement Strategy for Organizers. In Rhyming Hope and History: Activists, Academics and Social Movement Scholarship. Social Movements, Protest, and Contention, eds. D. Croteau, W. Hoynes, C. Ryan. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Napoli, Philip M. 2009. Public Interest Media Activism and Advocacy as a Social Movement. Communication Yearbook 33:385–429. Sherman, Tina W. 2004. Champions of the Public or Purveyors of Elite Perspectives? Interest Group Activity in Information and Communications Policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. http://www.lib.umd.edu/drum/bitstream/ 1903/1723/1/umi-umd-1692.pdf (accessed May 14, 2010). Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. engendering scholar-activist collaborations

331

Stanton,Timothy. 2007. New Times Demand New Scholarship. http:// www.compact.org/initiatives/research_universities/ Civic_Engagement.pdf (accessed August 20, 2009). Van De Ven, Andrew. 2007. Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

332

catherine borgman-arboleda

CONCLUSION

Bridging Gaps, Crossing Boundaries minna aslama and philip m. napoli

This volume exemplifies just some of the ways that communications research, when put into action, can contribute to the knowledge necessary to enhance democracy and build a more democratic public sphere. According to Habermas (1996), ‘‘if the public sphere can be best described as a network for communicating information and points of view’’ in which ‘‘the streams of communication are . . . filtered and synthesized in such a way that they coalesce into bundles of topically specified public opinions’’ (30), then it is of paramount importance that there are no impediments to access, or obstacles of freedom of expression, that would weaken those streams. Research is becoming an increasingly important tool for those working at the community, state, federal, and international levels to overcome those obstacles impeding a truly democratic public sphere. As this collection illustrates, research can strengthen and inform policy advocacy, policy analysis, mediamaking, community building, and infrastructure development. And collaborative research can help to better target and structure research to pointedly address specific problems. This collection clearly shows that the communications field has a tremendous amount to offer in terms of contributing to solutions to social and public policy problems. And, at the same time, the activist and advocacy communities have a tremendous amount to offer communications scholars. The collaborations represented in these chapters have produced mutually beneficial results that have enriched the work of all parties involved. That is why this collection is intended not only to inform scholars, activists, advocates, mediamakers, students, and policymakers about the wide range 333

of issues that were the focus of these individual projects. These projects can also serve as inspiration, template, or jumping-off point for additional collaborations. The chapters in this book demonstrate the extent to which there are certain types of research undertakings that cannot be accomplished; certain types of research questions that cannot be effectively investigated; and certain types of advocacy and activism work that cannot be successfully implemented, absent the kind of scholar-activist collaborations presented in this collection. These projects have extended the traditional boundaries of academic research as much as they have extended the traditional boundaries of advocacy and activism work. And, as a result, scholars, activists, advocates, and most important, the public interest, are all well served by the continuance of such collaborations. For this to happen, both academic and activist/advocacy cultures and networks need to continue to change and evolve. On the academic side, for this to happen we need to see a continued expansion of traditional notions of what constitutes academic research. The situation is not unlike the scenario a decade or so back, when the academic community was hesitant to disseminate research online in advance of publication in a rigid adherence to an outmoded model of dissemination that was limited primarily to academic journals and conferences. Now, of course, most academics disseminate their work electronically in advance of publication, bringing their work to relevant audiences in a much more timely manner. Next, we need to see (and are, in fact, starting to see) the accepted forms of academic research expand, so that scholars are sufficiently incentivized not only to produce academic papers and articles, but also to repurpose such work into formats that are more accessible, and more useful, to nonacademic audiences. As noted in the Introduction, we are starting to see, at many universities around the country, organized efforts to promote more engaged scholarship. As should be clear from this collection, engaged scholarship doesn’t necessarily look all that much like traditional scholarship. It doesn’t always need to. And in some instances, it really shouldn’t. On the activist/advocacy side, we are seeing a continuing evolution in response to the recognition that policymaking appears to be increasingly research-driven. Of course, as Joe Karaganis points out in his chapter, it is not always clear whether research is being used to guide the decision-making process or simply to justify decisions made on the basis of other criteria entirely. Indeed, today we find ourselves in the somewhat paradoxical situation in which policymaking—communications policymaking in particular—appears to have become simultaneously more research-driven and more politicized (Napoli 2008). In any case, it seems clear that, in order to participate on equal footing in the realm of policy advocacy, public interest 334

minna aslama and philip m. napoli

advocacy work also needs to be increasingly research-driven. Ideally, collaborations such as those contained in this collection can contribute to this continuing evolution in the nature of advocacy and activist work. What all of this suggests, of course, is a steady blurring of the distinction between scholar and activist/advocate. In some academic sectors (particularly the ‘‘hard’’ social sciences), this is considered anathema. On the other hand, in other academic sectors, such as law, scholarship and advocacy go naturally hand in hand. For the communications field, which has historically served as both a way station and sanctuary of sorts for scholars across a wide range of academic disciplines (including psychology, sociology, economics, and political science), a reasonably tight linkage with advocacy and activist work seems both appropriate and necessary. This linkage seems appropriate in the sense that one could argue that one reason that scholars from other disciplines migrate into the communications field is in order to engage with fundamental questions related to the structure, operation, and effects of our public sphere (or spheres)—questions such as those addressed in this book, whose answers inevitably lead to advocacy or activism of one form or another. Questions related to citizen access to—and use of—media and communications technologies, and to the structure and behavior of our media system, that are at the core of the communications field, as well as at the core of the functioning of the democratic process, are highly charged questions, the answers to which have wide-ranging implications. And the extent to which these questions can be embedded in sometimes contradictory theoretical frameworks makes the linkage of advocacy with communications scholarship almost inevitable. This linkage seems necessary in light of the extent to which the communications field—relatively new, relatively ill-defined, and on the lower end of the pecking order in the academic firmament—has, on occasion, faced difficulties in justifying its existence in the academic world; and, perhaps in part because of this somewhat ambiguous academic status, has tended to reside at the margins of many of the public—and public policy—debates about issues to which the field is well equipped to contribute (Mueller 1995). From this standpoint, the visibility and stature of the field can perhaps be improved via the stronger public engagement that is a consequence of greater scholar-activist/advocate integration and by the greater visibility that is accorded academic work when it is used by activists and advocates in the policymaking arena. This linkage also seems necessary in light of similar accounts in relation to the media reform/media justice movements, and the extent to which they have been successful in creating institutional change. Specifically, some critical assessments of the movement have questioned the extent to which it has been able to affect the structure and functioning of our media system, conclusion

335

due in part to movement actors’ difficulty in participating in a policy dialogue that is increasingly focused on issues of economics and technology (as opposed to content and culture), and is increasingly driven by certain institutionalized forms of empirical policy research (see, for example, Mueller, Page, and Kuerbis 2004; Napoli 2008). From this standpoint, the bottom line may be that activists/advocates and scholars in the communications sector would seem to really need each other. And finally, it is important to recognize the unique, exciting, and in all likelihood very temporary, opportunities for scholar-advocacy work in the media and communications field today (McChesney 2007). The media landscape is undergoing changes of a historic magnitude. New communications technologies are empowering individual citizens in unprecedented ways. Traditional media business models that have, in some instances, been in effect for well over a century, are breaking down; and what, if any, alternative models that will arise remains unclear. Also breaking down are many of the geographical limitations that have traditionally constrained the flow of ideas and information. We are in a period of obvious and dramatic flux, in which questions far outnumber answers. ‘‘Policy windows’’ (Kingdon 1997) that are open now are not likely to stay open. This inevitably temporary period of flux provides a tremendous opportunity, both independently and in concert, for communications scholars, activists, and advocates, to provide innovative, wellresearched, and defensible answers and proposals that can affect the evolution of our public sphere. There is no better, more important time, for communications research to be put into action.

references Habermas, Ju¨rgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kingdon, John. 1997. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson. McChesney, Robert. W. 2007. Communication Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of the Media. New York: The New Press. Mueller, Milton. 1995. Why Communications Policy Is Passing ‘‘Mass Communication’’ by: Political Economy as the Missing Link. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 43:565–581. Mueller, Milton, Christiane Page´, and Brendan Kuerbis. 2004. Civil Society and the Shaping of Communication-Information Policy: Four Decades of Advocacy. The Information Society 20:169–185. Napoli, Philip M. 2008. The Paradoxes of Media Policy Analysis: Implications for Public Interest Media Regulation. Administrative Law Review 60:801–812. 336

minna aslama and philip m. napoli

CONTRIBUTORS

minna aslama is researcher at the University of Helsinki, Department of Communication, and visiting research fellow at the Donald McGannon Research Center at Fordham University. She holds a PhD from the University of Helsinki and has taken part in several international research activities, including The Media Between Culture and Commerce Project by the European Science Foundation, and the research-advocacy project on Global Media Monitoring of news media (GMMP, 1995, 2000, 2005). From 2008– 2009, she served as the program officer for the Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere program at the Social Science Research Council. Prior to her academic career, she worked at the Division of Advancement for Women of the UN Secretariat and at the Finnish Broadcasting Company. She has also served as a consultant for various national and international organizations on research and training, especially with regard to issues of media and gender. Her current research project is a multicountry ethnographic study of digital participation. In addition, she is especially interested in the future of public media and in new forms of collaboration emerging from the media justice and reform movements. Minna has published widely on television and popular culture, as well as on media policy. Her work on this book was funded by a writing grant from the Helsingin Sanomat Foundation. amy bach is a doctoral candidate in Literacy Studies in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research interests center on the study of media, schooling, and the social construction of knowledge and literacy; media production in independent, non-commercial community 337

media outlets; grassroots and youth-produced audio and video documentaries and photography as resources for social commentary and education; and the social, political, economic, and cultural contexts of education and schooling in society. Amy was a co-principal investigator on one of the Social Science Research Council funded collaborative projects in media and communications. This year-long study entitled, ‘‘Youth Channel All-City: Building a Municipal Infrastructure for Media Education, Production, and Distribution,’’ centered on the development and implementation of a citywide community needs assessment that is being used to develop the nation’s first non-commercial youth-dedicated cable TV channel to all five boroughs of New York City. As a current visiting scholar at Temple University’s School of Communication and Theater, Amy is also involved in designing an integrated media arts and literacy program for an alternative school that works with Philadelphia youth who have dropped out of the public school system and who seek an alternative pathway to education. catherine borgman-arboleda is co-founder and prior executive co-director of the Center for International Media Action (CIMA). She is now providing consulting services in evaluation and participatory assessments of social change work. Recent projects include an assessment of the Knowledge Exchange, a pilot project of the Funding Exchange and Consumers’ Union, which aimed to connect national media and communications policy work with local organizing efforts; a formative evaluation of the Social Science Research Council’s Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere; a strategic assessment of the Progressive Technology Project’s VOTER project; a report on knowledge sharing and effective practice for UNDP Vietnam, to inform the development of the country’s first umbrella NGO. She is currently completing an evaluation and strategic planning process for the Funding Exchange’s Media Justice Fund, and a senior consultant on an evaluation of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Tobacco Policy Change program. isabel castellanos is a mediamaker and educator originally from northern New Jersey. She has worked as a television associate producer and researcher on urban planning and educational documentaries, including the PBS special, ‘‘Community Builder: The Life and Legacy of J. C. Nichols.’’ After completing her MA in Media Studies from the New School University in 2005, she began to teach media-making classes at nonprofit centers in New York City. In 2008, she became director of MNN Youth Channel, the youth division of Manhattan Neighborhood Network, which serves as a media distribution outlet and education center for young people ages twelve to twentyfive. Isabel is also a member of the NYC Dept. of Education’s Blueprint Committee for the teaching and learning of the moving image. willie currie is the Communications and Information Policy Programme manager of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC). From

338

contributors

1999 to 2002, he was a counselor on the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) and the South African Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (SATRA). In the mid-1990s, he was special advisor to Dr. Pallo Jordan, Minister of Posts, Telecommunications, and Broadcasting in the first post-apartheid government. In this capacity, he coordinated the telecommunications policy process that led to the White Paper on Telecommunications Policy. Prior to this, as general secretary of the Film and Allied Workers Organisation (FAWO), he was involved in the development of broadcasting policy during the transition to democracy in South Africa. He holds an MA in Film and Television Studies for Education from the University of London, Institute of Education. He is an associate of the LINK Centre at the University of the Witwatersrand. dharma dailey has over a decade of experience as a community media activist and researcher. Her research on the purported risks to public safety of lowpower FM (LPFM) broadcasting, as claimed by large commercial broadcasters, played a timely role in the FCC’s decision to begin re-issuing LPFM licenses. For the last three years, Dharma’s work has focused on the task of taking the issues of Spectrum Reform beyond the beltway. From Hackers on Planet Earth to the Ford Foundation, she provides expert testimony on many topics (including smart radios, FCC licensing regimes, appropriate technology, and community media) to audiences across North America. She is regularly sought out for input by a variety of media reform groups and researchers and is a member of the New America Foundation’s Wireless Futures Advisory Board. christina romano glaubke is the director of the Children & the Media Program at Children Now. Christy has directed numerous research studies including Educationally/Insufficient?, Big Media, Little Kids 2, Fair Play? and Fall Colors 2003–04. Her current policy efforts include ensuring that the nation’s media laws and regulations adequately serve the unique needs of children, specifically with regard to advertising and educational programming. Prior to Children Now, Christy worked for the Walt Disney Company, developing products for the feature film, interactive games, and online divisions. Christy earned her BA in Communication Studies and MA in Educational Psychology from UCLA. estela waksberg guerrini is a lawyer at the Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC), where she advocates for consumers’ rights with a specialization in telecommunication and access to knowledge issues. She also serves as a legal researcher at the Getu´lio Vargas Foundation, where she focuses on civil liability and on legal teaching, democracy and courts of justice. Guerrini is currently completing her masters in human rights at the University of Sa˜o Paulo Faculty of Law.

contributors

339

katharine e. heintz, PhD, is a media analyst, researcher, and university professor specializing in the impact of electronic media on children and families. She teaches in the Communication Department at Santa Clara University in Santa Clara, California, and conducts research on media messages targeted to children and teens. She has worked with groups such as Children Now, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the National Partnership for Women and Families and has presented her work to the Federal Communications Commission, the White House Conference on Teens, and the California State Legislature. Her work has been featured in over one hundred newspapers nationwide, including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and U.S.A. Today, as well as national magazines such as Parents Magazine, Parenting, and TV Guide. In addition to her research and consulting, Dr. Heintz conducts workshops for parents and educators, and is currently working on a parents’ guide to children’s media. abiodun jagun is a research fellow at the Management Science Department of Strathclyde Business School. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Strathclyde in 2006, with a thesis on ‘‘Telecommunications and the Structure of Economic Organizations.’’ She also has an MBA from the University of Cardiff and an M.S. in Operational Research from the University of Strathclyde. Prior to joining the Management Science Department, she worked with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) as ICT Policy Research Officer for the African region and also as a lecturer in Information Systems and Development, with the Institute for Development Policy Management at the University of Manchester. She has worked also in the Nigerian office of the international consultancy Accenture. Her research interest is in the impact of technology on society, specifically the ways in which mobile communication devices affect socio-economic development. joe karaganis directs a range of SSRC projects on media, technology, and culture, including the Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere program and the Culture, Creativity, and Information Technology program. His research focuses on the relationship between digital convergence and cultural production, and has recently included work on the politics of open source adoption, the culture industries, and the impact of intellectual property expansion on the philanthropic field. He is an associate editor of the Oxford Dictionary of the Social Sciences (2002), and editor of the volume, Structures of Participation in Digital Culture (2006). He has also worked as a consultant for the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. dorothy kidd is an associate professor in the Department of Media Studies at the University of San Francisco. Her work focuses on documenting and educating about the efforts of social justice movements to build more democratic and sustainable communications and media. Her research has been published by academic presses, including the forthcoming two-volume Making Our Media: Global Initiatives Toward a Democratic Public Sphere, as well 340

contributors

as by advocacy publications, such as Race, Poverty and the Environment, published by Urban Habitat. A long-time producer, educator, and policy advocate for community video, television, print, radio and web-based media, she is the Principal Investigator of Media Alliance’s research project, ‘‘Digital Inclusion: Working Both Sides of the Equation.’’ rachel kulick holds an MEd from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education and is currently a doctoral candidate in Sociology at Brandeis University. Her research areas include contemporary social movements, youth media and activism, visual culture in social change work, and engaged feminist research methods. Rachel is a Co-Principal Investigator on the collaborative media project funded by the Social Science Research Council, ‘‘Youth Channel All-City: Building a Municipal Infrastructure for Media Education, Production, and Distribution.’’ Since 2004, she has worked as a Research Consultant for the Center for International Media Action (CIMA), where she conducts engaged research projects with media and cultural advocacy and activist groups on movement building possibilities and challenges for the media justice movement. Her recent publications are ‘‘Building a Media Justice and Communication Rights Movement: Recommendations, Challenges, Needs and Resources’’ (a 2007 report completed for CIMA) and ‘‘Reading between the Lines: Feminist Content Analysis into the 2nd Millennium,’’ an article co-authored with Shulamit Reinharz that was included in the 2006 Handbook of Feminist Research. eloise lee is the program director at Media Alliance in Oakland, California. In 2008, she organized and facilitated Oakland’s first Digital Inclusion Summit, which brought together educators, direct-service providers, social justice groups, policymakers, and technology professionals to discuss strategies to bridge the acute digital divide in underserved communities. She coordinates the Raising Our Voices Media Training Program in East Oakland, Calif., part of Media Alliance’s mission to support the development of a more democratic public sphere through the creation and circulation of media content from working class communities and immigrant women of color. Lee holds a BFA in Film and an M.A. in Asian-American Studies. She has worked in ethnographic research at SUNY-Buffalo and in the Philippines, and as an organizer and teacher at the Filipino Community Center, Dream Yard Action and Pinay Educational Partnerships. becky lentz is an assistant professor in the Department of Art History and Communication Studies at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. She is also affiliated with Media@McGill, a hub of research, scholarship and public outreach on issues and controversies in media, technology, and culture. Her research focuses on critical study of policy discourse and social change as well as transnational activism on information society policy issues. She has published in journals such as The Information Society, Telecommunications Policy, and Info on a range of topics that include rural telecommunications contributors

341

and economic development, engaged scholarship in the communications policy field, and critique of digital divide policy discourse. She served as the Program Officer for the Ford Foundation’s Electronic Media Policy Program from 2001 through 2007. diogo moyses is a journalist and co-founder and former editor of Observatory of Communication Rights. A graduate of the Social Communication School at the University of Sa˜o Paulo, he is currently completing his master’s degree in human rights at the University of Sa˜o Paulo Faculty of Law. He is also coordinator of the NGO Intervozes and researcher at Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC), where he specializes in telecommunications issues. philip m. napoli is a professor in the Graduate School of Business at Fordham University, director of Fordham’s Donald McGannon Communication Research Center, and series editor of the Center’s Everett C. Parker Book Series. Professor Napoli also serves as a Knight Media Policy Fellow with the New America Foundation and as a docent in the Department of Communication at the University of Helsinki. Professor Napoli’s other books include Foundations of Communications Policy: Principles and Process in the Regulation of Electronic Media (Hampton Press, 2001); Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics (Erlbaum, 2007); Audience Economics: Media Institutions and the Audience Marketplace (Columbia, 2003); and Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the Transformation of Media Audiences (Columbia, 2010). He has provided formal and informal testimony to the U.S. Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Federal Trade Commission, and the New York City Council. His research has been supported by organizations such as the Ford Foundation, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Social Science Research Council, and the Center for American Progress. diana iulia nastasia has served as an assistant professor at the RomanianAmerican University and the National School of Political Studies and Public Administration in Bucharest, Romania. She previously served as the associate editor of the Romanian Review of Communication and Public Relations. In 2002, Diana came to the United States as a Fulbright visiting researcher at the University of North Dakota, and since 2003 has been a PhD student in the Communications Department at UND, where she is a graduate teaching and research assistant. She focuses her scholarship and service on building international understanding in various aspects of socio-cultural life and across theoretical frameworks. graciela leo´ n orozco, EdD, is an associate professor and coordinator of the School Counseling Program at San Francisco State University. She served as a volunteer producer/programmer at Radio Bilingu¨e for over fifteen years. In 1998, she created and hosted an on-air parenting program for immigrants, 342

contributors

which influenced her dissertation, ‘‘The Education and Empowerment of Immigrant Latinos through Talk Radio.’’ She earned her doctorate in Educational Psychology at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, California. Orozco is Chicana of Pure´pecha Indian ancestry and grew up in a farmworker family in California’s Central Valley. alison powell is a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Post-doctoral Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, where she studies digital activism and international examples of telecommunications in the public interest. Alison holds a joint master’s degree in Communication and Culture from York University and Ryerson University. She received her PhD from the Communication Studies program at Concordia University, where her research focused on digital activism and the politicization of technology. Alison was a member of the Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking, the Community Wireless Infrastructure Research Project, and the Ethos Group. lana f. rakow has been the director of the Center for Community Engagement at the University of North Dakota since 2004, and a professor of Communication and Women’s Studies at UND since 1994. Dr. Rakow is the author or editor of four books and dozens of journal articles and book chapters. Her research interests include gender, community communication, the history and philosophy of technology, communication theory and research methodology, and curriculum change. She has experience with complex collaborative research projects, such as a needs assessment of communities in North Dakota, and an asset mapping of neighborhoods in Grand Forks. catherine j. k. sandoval is an assistant professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, where she teaches communications law, antitrust, and contracts. She co-authored a casebook on Communications Law (Aspen Publishers, 2007) and has written about the application of antitrust and constitutional law to Spanish-language media, challenging the Department of Justice’s conclusion that Spanish-language media competes in a separate market from English-language media. Recently, she organized a coalition of scholars to file comments in the Federal Communications Commission’s 2007 media ownership proceeding on the FCC’s research agenda and minority ownership issues. Her research interests include the Internet and the application of telecommunications laws to its governance, the role of antitrust law in shaping media and telecommunications transactions, and access to telecommunications services. leslie regan shade is an associate professor at Concordia University in the Department of Communication Studies. Her research focus since the mid1990s has been on the social, policy, and ethical aspects of information and communication technologies (ICTs), with particular concern toward issues of gender, globalization, and political economy. The research contributions contributors

343

straddle the line between academic and nonacademic audiences, including policy makers and nonprofit groups. She is the author of Gender and Community in the Social Construction of the Internet (Peter Lang, 2002), and coeditor of Feminist Interventions in International Communication (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008), two volumes in Communications in the Public Interest (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives) and For Sale to the Highest Bidder: Telecom Policy in Canada (CCPA, 2008). Her articles have also appeared in Continuum, The Gazette, Canadian Journal of Communication, and Government Information Quarterly. She was a former president of the Canadian Communication Association. russell southwood is the CEO of Balancing Act, which seeks to be the primary source for information on the telecommunication, Internet, and audio-visual media industries in Africa. Balancing Act carries out consultancy assignments for a variety of clients and has expertise in the areas of business planning, sectoral and market assessments, feasibility and development studies, management reviews, and facilitation. Past consultancy projects have included financing infrastructure investment, making an investment appraisal of a broadband wireless investment, advising an SNO bidder, assessing the pay-TV market in selected African countries, reviewing the IT function for two large research organizations, and examining African consumer frameworks for a two-stage study implementing an African Internet Exchange Point. Balancing Act’s News Update is a weekly e-letter (in English) and a fortnightly e-letter (in French) that goes out to over 9,000 subscribers. It addresses a broad range of telecom, Internet, and computing concerns. daniela batalha trettel is a lawyer at the Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC), where she advocates for consumers’ rights, with a specialization in telecommunication and access to knowledge issues, as well as in health insurance issues. Daniela is completing her Master’s degree in human rights at the University of Sa˜o Paulo Faculty of Law. todd urick serves as broadcast consultant for Common Frequency, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing information to the public about noncommercial radio broadcasting in the United States, with the aim of facilitating more public involvement in noncommercial radio. Todd has been an advocate of ‘‘Do it Yourself ’’ ever since encountering punk rock as a kid, participating at Sac’s KCBL community radio, dabbling in micropower broadcasting, engineering studio recordings, and producing television for community access. While studying engineering at UC Davis he became interested in freeform radio, serving as manager and engineer of KDVS, hosting events, and releasing music. the vozmob project (Mobile Voices) is a platform for immigrant workers in Los Angeles to create stories about their lives and communities directly from cell phones. Vozmob helps people with limited computer access gain 344

contributors

greater participation in the digital public sphere. The project is a collaboration between the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California and the Institute of Popular Education of Southern California (IDEPSCA ), a nonprofit organization whose mission is to create a more humane and democratic society by responding to the needs and problems of disenfranchised people through leadership development and educational programs based on Popular Education methodology. richard s. wolff has thirty-six years of university and industry experience in teaching and research in a wide range of topics in communications systems and underlying technologies. He is currently the Gilhousen Telecommunications Chair and professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at Montana State University-Bozeman, appointed to this position in January 2003. His experience in telecommunications industry research, from 1977 to 2003, was at Telcordia, Bellcore and Bell Laboratories. Prior to joining Montana State University, he was Vice President for Advanced Network Systems Research. At Telcordia Technologies (formerly Bellcore), he directed a diverse program that included systems-level research in wireless, wireline, and optical networks. He is an expert in emerging network technologies and systems for telecommunications applications, and his current interests include addressing the needs of rural areas. danilo yanich is director of the Graduate Program in Urban Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Delaware. He also directs the Local TV news Media Project at the University. Dr. Yanich has considerable experience in conducting policy research studies in several fields, especially media issues and criminal justice policy. This work has been accomplished at the local, state, and national levels. His most recent policy research has focused on localism and media conglomeration, particularly the effect of media consolidation on local content of local broadcast news.

contributors

345

This page intentionally left blank

INDEX

51Open, 23–24 academic-practitioner partnerships, 315 academic researchers articles for nonacademic audiences, 57–58 information sharing, 63 mutual distrust in study, 186 policymaking process, resource limitations, 68 publishing creative commons licenses, 60 pressure, 59 academy as site of knowledge, 185 accountability local projects, 49 VozMob, 184 action research, 7, 12 social movement base building, 18 activism, media-related change and, 1 activist scholarship, 306 activists and scholars, point of intersection, 1 adaptive capacity, 328 Administrative Procedures Act. See APA advertisers, Internet spending, versus radio spending, 91 advocacy community collaboration, importance of results, 81 communications researchers and, 1–2 groups, generational renewal, 301 short and long games, 300–2

advocates broadband, 49–50 collaboration, 49 needs, researchable design and, 82 Africa case studies description, 258 results, 268 international bandwidth costs, 257, 261–63 national bandwidth and, 264 SAT-3/WASC, 257 agenda expansion, 327–28 aggregate analysis of cases, 59 alternative media, 4, 137–38 new techonologies, 137 Alt.Telecom Policy Forum, 39 Telecommunications Act (Canada), 39–40 AM radio band expansion, 98 analyzing data, 58 analytical tools, 58 Anatel (Brazil), 224 monitoring and, 226 universalized services, 226 Annenberg School for Communication (USC), 177 APA (Administrative Procedures Act), 90 APC (Association for Progressive Communication), 258–59 SAT-3/WASC and, 259 347

Appalachia news access, 147 prescription drug abuse, 148 Appalachian tradition, WMMT-FM, 139 Arbitron diary method, 140 Gospel versus Religious formats, 103 PPM (Portable People Meter), 141 public radio impact, 140–41 radio listening, 88 Aristotelian mission, 3 articles for nonacademic audiences, 57–58 Asian radio programming, 102 Association for Progressive Communication. See APC audience, low-income, identifying needs, 149 bankruptcy among minority-owned radio stations, 94 behaviors, values and, 83 Bennett, William Children’s Book of Virtues, 82 on the media, 82 Biennial Review Order (FCC), 115 actions against, 115–16 localism and, 115 research methods, 116 Big Media, Little Kids (Children Now), 73 Big Media, Little Kids 2 (Children Now) methodology, 75–76 results, 76–81 Brazil CBT (Brazilian Telecommunications Code), 223 constitutional articles for broadcasting, 230 consumer protection, 235 convergence, inclusiveness, 229–34 cross-subsidies, 231 demographics, 226 Digital Convergence, 225 FUST, income-distribution, 231 General Telecommunications Law, 223 interconnectivity, fair cost model, 231–32 Internet access, 228 barriers to usage, 228–29 transmission speed, 229 universal access, 230–31 usage rate, 228 landline telephony, 226–27 market competition, 227 348

index

mobile telephony coverage advances, 227 level of use rating, 227 National Broadband Universalization Plan, 231 pay TV, 224 level of use, 227–28 NET Services, 228 Sky, 228 triple-play packages, 227–28 public consultations, 234–35 public telephones, 235 Technical Convergence, 225 Telebra´s System, 222 privatization, 225–26 telecommunications Anatel, 224 development, 223 framework issues, 229–30 infrastructure, 235 privatization, 223–24 recommendations, 234 reform, 224 unbundling services, 232 Telecommunications Services Universalization Fund, 224 telephony converting, 231 monthly fees, 231 urban, 223 television digitizing, 221 transition to digital, 230 user privacy, 233–34 broadband advocates, 49–50 benefiting from, 46 definition, 46 democratizing, 12 deployment, 8 development corporate sector, 48 personal contact, 55 personal relationships, 56 social impact, 54–55 state-level legal rulings, 48 diffusion, 8 framework, 46 information dissemination, 57 infrastructure, 242 knowledge, keeping current, 55 mapping, 49 maximizing social benefit, information needed, 50–51

Montana’s access, 243–45 compared with U.S., 244–45 costs, 249–50 rural areas, 243–45 uneven service, 251–52 municipal, 242–43 underserved communities, 11 national strategy, federal-level participation, 48 need-to-know information, 46–48 network design, 46 nuance in development, lack of, 46 planning, proscriptive, 47 policy, evidence-based, 48 policy makers and, 46 as public good, 54–55 public interest aspects, 54 quality, public policy and, 14 research, scientific funding, 54 rural Americans’ percentage, 242 Broadband Census for America Conference, 47 Broadband Data Improvement Act, 48 broadcast television Brazil, constitutional articles, 230 Communications Act of 1934, 71–72 duopoly stations children’s programming, 77 individual markets, 78–81 educational children’s programming, 71 number of children’s programs, 76–77 repurposed programs, 76 scheduling issues, 72 educational/informational programming requirements, 72 Montana, 251 obligations to children, 72 ownership deregulation, 72 broadcasters, opposing viewpoints, x brokered programming agreements in radio, 103 Brown, Michael, 275 building new infrastructure, 46 business models, 48 Byerly, Carolyn, 89, 105 cable television, educational programming, availability, 71 CAIDA Commons Project, 47 Calvary Satellite Network. See CSN camera phones, 180 Cameron, Alex, 33 Canada collaborative research, 28–41

federal elections, CRACIN and, 37 online literacy program, 36 policy making, top-down versus bottomup, 38 Telecommunications Act, Section 7 preservation, 39 telecommunications policy framework, review, 38 Canadian Recording Industry Association. See CRIA Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking. See CRACIN case studies, interdisciplinary, 61 Cavoukian, Ann, 34 CBR (community-based research) Community Connect, 200–1 definition, 201 research and action, 201 CDBS (Consolidated Database System), 88 minority ownership records, 91 cell phones. See mobile phones censoring network, 232–33 Center for International Media Action. See CIMA CF (Common Frequency) Google API map, 275 origins, 273 project overview, 271 team partners, 274 Changing Channels: The Civil Rights Case That Transformed Television (Mills), xiii children cognitive development, educational TV programming, 71 CTA (Children’s Television Act), 72 diversity, mediated world, 81–82 educational development, television and, 72 media environment digital television offerings, 74 local programming, 74 as television characters, values, 83 television programming options, 71 duopoly stations, 78–81 hours of programming, 77–78 obligations to children, 72 scheduling issues, 72 TV viewing habits, 71 as unique audience, 72 Children & the Media Program (Children Now), 73 goal, 84 index

349

Children Now, 67–68 academic foundation, 84 academics’ high standards, 85 advice sought, 85 Big Media, Little Kids, 73 Big Media, Little Kids 2 methodology, 75–76 results, 76–81 Children & the Media Program, 73 credibility from academics, 84 FCC, adoption of recommendation, 75 FCC arguments, 74 Heintz, Katharine, 75 media consolidation and children’s programming, 73–86 first-ever study, 73 media environment for children, 73 digital television offerings, 74 local programming, 74 television ratings system, 84 V-chip, 84 Children’s Book of Virtues (Bennett), 82 Children’s Media Policy Coalition, media ownership rulemaking, arguments for children, 74–75 children’s programming criteria, 75–76 Children’s Television Act. See CTA CIMA (Center for International Media Action) report, 169, 314 CIP (communication and information policy), ix public interest side, xii questions to research community, xii Cisneros, Adolfo O., 190–91 citizen-centered activism, community networks, Canada, 36 citizen enfranchisement, online activities and, 240 citizen journalism, 181 Citizens’ Telecommunications Forum, 39 citizens’ telecommunications movements, 12 civic participation opportunities direct versus indirect, 199 increase of possibilities, 199 versus social interaction opportunities, 199 venue creation, 211 civic spaces for public communication, 197. See also Community Connect civic sphere of community, 198–99 civil rights, FCC erosion of advances in, x Clark, Jesse, 23 class, digital divide, 21 350

index

Clement, Andrew, University of Toronto, Information Policy Research Program, 34 coaching calls, 326 collaboration. See also culture of collaboration advocacy community, importance of results, 81 advocate groups, 49 already happening, 53 capacity to collaborate, 325 challenges, 82 democratizing nondemocratic systems, 185 dissemination of research, 327 extra work created, 59 funding, 60–61, 304–5 Necessary Knowledge Program, 61–62 umbrella, 61 grantee partners, 317 improving, 47 institutional barriers, 59 leveraging resources, 61 MMP (Montana Media Partnership), 253 models, 288 motivation of other side, 184 new forms, 59 outcomes, 62 partners, 317 practitioner partners, 317 process, ecology of broadband data and, 47–48 recognition of privilege, 184 requirements analysis, 51 scholar-activist, 313–29 sustainable, 317 sensitive information, 61 small organizations and, 279 social aspects, 60 Telecommunications Convergence and Consumer Rights project, 222 time frame for work, 83 translation of research, 327 university-community partnerships, 184 VozMob, physical distance and, 183 Collaborative Grants in Media and Communications, 287 FCC research and, 294–95 collaborative learning, research packaging and, 40 collaborative research Canada, 28–41 culture of collaboration, 302–3 grantmaking, 322 theory building, 315

college radio stations, 282–83 Comcast, Media Alliance and, 13 Common Cause, goals, 241 Common Frequency. See CF communication participatory, 151 community representation, 153 horizontal, 152 practices, immigrant workers, 181–82 for social change, 150–51 Communication and Community (Shepherd and Rothenbuhler), 198 communication and information policy. See CIP communications infrastructure, 219–20 rights, 14, 23 Communications Act of 1934, 71–72 communications researchers, public interest and advocacy communities, 1–2 communities communicative integration, 198 infrastructure effects, 47 physical capacities, 199 community civic participation, indirect versus direct, 199 civic sphere, 198–99 as performance, 198 questions about in Community Connect, 198 as site of information, 185 social sphere, 198 university-community partnerships, 184 community action, Community Connect, 200–1 community-based research. See CBR Community Connect, 197 citizens’ receipt of information versus generation, 214 civic encounters, increase of possibilities, 199 civic sphere, 198–99 community action, 200–1 community-based research, 200–1 forum planning, 209 knowledge and, 199 circulation, 205 democracy and, 199 private versus public, 199 methodological issues, 198–201 public knowledge and, 200 questions about community, 198 Schiff, Karen, 207

social sphere, 198 social to civic shift, 198 theoretical issues, 198–201 UND, call for proposals, 206 Community Connect: The Journal of Civic Voices, 209–10 community-controlled media justice production, 20–21 community-controlled radio, 180 community informatics, 36 approach to public computing, 36–37 government policy and, 38 community leadership, cultivating, 168 community media, 4, 137–38 development funding, 281–83 new technologies, 137 research, 137 community networks, 35–36 Canada, 35 aims, 35–36 citizen-centered activism and, 36 community informatics and, 36 free-nets, 35 NCF (National Capital FreeNet), 35–36 TC and, 36 universal access, 36 Montana, 245 Searle, Greg, 36 Stevenson, John, 36 community of communities, 205 community of practice, 49 taxonomy, 47 community partners, trusted individuals, 60 community pull, versus technology push, 22 community radio. See also public radio audience assessment, 149 change and, 141–42 communication for social change and, 150–51 economic resources, 149 Internet and, 282 partnerships, 149 Radio Bilingu¨e, 139–40 WMMT-FM (Whitesburg, Ky.), 139 community representation, 153 community time versus university time, 213 Community Wireless Information Research Project, 47 COMPASS initiative, 307 competition Federal Communications Act of 1934, 115 media ownership and, 74 compromise, culture of collaboration and, 295 index

351

computer access immigrant workers, 181–82 language barriers, 182 implementation, 21 concentration of ownership, 4 conditions for localism, 118–19 Congress, FCC and, xi connectivity, as automatic public good, 54 Consolidated Database System. See CDBS consolidation in media, recession and, 114 constitutional articles for broadcasting (Brazil), 230 construction permits for radio stations, 91 FCC auction, 100 Consumer Federation of America, Study 6, 121–22 content analysis, cross-ownership, 121 contributors, peer recommendations, 49 Cooper, Mark FCC and, 293 localism and, 22 copyright peer-to-peer file sharing, 33 privacy and, 33 corporate decision making broadband development, 48 government decision making and, 48–54 CRACIN (Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking), 28–29, 34 Citizens’ Telecommunications Forum, 39 community informatics, 36 federal elections, 37 funding, 40 goals, 35 multiperspectival action and reflection, 40 participatory action research, agenda and, 40 policy makers and, 37 student involvement, 40 themes, 37 TPRP public interest concerns, 38–39 creative commons licenses, 60 CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association), file sharing suit, 33 cross-ownership content analysis, 121 FCC and, 114 lifting of ban, 116 local content, 116–17 local content and, 114 localism, 115 multiple regression, 121 352

index

news, 116–17 newspapers, 114 political slant and, 114 sample, 121–24 Study 6, FCC, 299–300 television stations, 114 FCC-relaxed restrictions, 114 local markets, 131 cross-subsidies (Brazil), 231 CSN (Calvary Satellite Network), 273 CTA (Children’s Television Act), 72 culturally suitable measurement tools, 152–53 culture of collaboration, 287 academy, 305–7 activist scholarship, 306 collaborative research, 302–3 compromise, 295 Cooper, Mark and, 293 disciplinary scholarship, 306 FCC research, 292–99 the field, 303–4 funding, 304–5 media ownership and, 291–92 models of collaboration, 288 policy advocates versus grassroots activists, 289–91 resource access, 289–90 scholar-practitioner future efforts, 320 universities, 305–7 Data Quality Act. See DQA Davidson Media Group. See DMG Davies, Lyell, 159 day laborers, 180 de Grivel, Franc¸ois, 265 democracy, knowledge and, 199 democratic process decision-making shift, 314 Internet and, 240 participation shift, 314 democratic sphere, youth media and, 167–68 democratization nondemocratic systems, 185 social movements, 316 demographics, Internet users, 88 Designated Market Areas. See DMAs diary method, Arbitron research, 140 digital divide, 4 class, 21 democratizing broadband and, 12 individual access versus collective experience, 167–68

Media Alliance and, 14 racism, 21 youth media spaces, 165 digital exclusion, inequality and, 22 digital inclusion, 7, 11 democratizing broadband and, 12 ‘‘Digital Inclusion: Both Sides of the Equation,’’ 17–18 frame, changing, 21–22 Oakland, 15–17 ODIS, 15 San Francisco Media Alliance and, 14, 15 municipal broadband in underserved committees, 11–24 policy and, 15 widening, 21 digital subscriber line. See DSL digital television educational children’s programming, 74 transition in Brazil, 230 digitizing television, 221 disciplinary scholarship, 306 discrimination, Telecommunications Act (Canada), 39–40 disseminating information, 57, 327 aggregate analysis of cases, 59 form, 57 informally, 58 organizational obstacles, 59 rethinking, 59–62 distributed data management tool, 63 distribution of resources, democratic processes, 314 diversity Federal Communications Act of 1934, 115 mediated world, children and, 81–82 minority radio stations, 90, 92 stereotypes, 101 Diversity Index (FCC), 292 DMAs (Designated Market Areas), 117 characteristics, local content and, 130 crossing state borders, 118 distribution, 123 Internet households and, 129 local, 118 news local, 130 total, 129 newscasts distribution, 126–27 local news, 126–28 time devoted to news, 125 newspapers and, 129

Nielsen Media Research and, 118 Study 6, 299 as unit of analysis, 121 DMG (Davidson Media Group) minority-owned radio stations, 93 purchase by SSH, 93 DQA (Data Quality Act), 90 Drupal, 183–84 DSL (digital subscriber line), number of versus cable in Montana, 253 duopoly stations children’s programming, 77 decreases, 80 individual markets, 78–81 service of audiences, 80 e-government, 3 ICMA (International City County Management Association), 246 increases, 241–42 Montana, 246–47 rural areas, 241 Pennsylvania, 252 e-mail, free-nets, 36 Earthlink, San Francisco broadband system, 15 Eastside Arts Alliance, 17, 19 education, popular education, 179 educational FM radio channels, applications, 271–72 educational TV programming benefit, 72 cognitive development in children, 71 criteria, 75–76 duopoly stations, 77 number of children’s programs, 76–77 repurposed programs, 76 schedule comparison pre- and post-consolidation, 73–74 elections, CRACIN, 37 embedded research, 8, 11 embedded researchers, 172 emergent technologies, privacy and, 33 EMF (Educational Media Foundation), 273 emotional labor, 40 engaged research, 2 ability for groups to engage, 325 academic perception shift, 318 promoting legitimacy, 324–25 youth-centered processes, 170 engaged scholarship networks, media and communications issues, 317 European Commission, media pluralism, 69 evidence-based broadband policy, 48 index

353

Fairness Doctrine suspension, x FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Adelstein, Jonathan, ownership research, 298 AM radio band expansion, 98 Biennial Review Order, 115 research methods, 116 broadcaster information, 89 CDBS (Consolidated Database System), 88 Children Now arguments, 74 adoption of recommendation, 75 Civil Rights era progress, x Congress and, xi construction permits auction, 100 cross-ownership, 114 data, outside scrutiny, 114 data collection and reporting, 89–90, 105–6 neglect, 297 private sources, 90 database, frequency studies, 275 deregulation of media ownership rules, 296 Media Alliance and, 13 Diversity Index, 292 educational FM channels applications, 271–78 point system, 272 Fairness Doctrine suspension, x filing requirements, new, 92–93 local media market, 121 localism, conditions for, 118–19 media ownership proceeding, 67 media ownership rules, Children Now and, 73 Minority Ownership Policy Statement, 97 peer review, 298–99 Quadrennial Review Order, 115 radio licenses awarded 1970–1993, 98 Reagan administration, x research, 292–99 research dialogue, 296 silent radio stations, 94–95 studies on minority ownership and market entry barriers, 100 Tax Certificate program, minority owners and, 97 Urban Dictates, 104 Federal Communications Act of 1934, principles, 115 Federal Communications Commission. See FCC 354

index

federal-level participation, national strategy on broadband, 48 feedback, 326 file sharing, copyright suit, 33 Finland, unbundling services, 232 first-come, first-served approaches, public access centers, 159 FM radio educational channels applications, 271–78 point system, 272 frequencies decreasing numbers, 282 Excel spreadsheet, 276 FCC database and, 275 Google API map, 275 low-power stations, 250 upgrading signal, 274 NCE (noncommercial, educational) frequencies National Public Radio, 272 national religious radio networks, 273 open frequencies, 274–75 RF Software, 275 focus groups, pro-immigrant marches of 2006, 142–43 data generated, 143 Ford Foundation, ix–x Belden, Russonello, and Stewart, xiii OC, Inc. (Office of Communication), xiii Reclaiming the Public Interest in Electronic Media Policy, xi forward-looking approaches to policy, 33–34 Frankfurt School, 3 free-nets, 35 e-mail addresses, 36 Freire, Paulo, 161 oppressed individuals, 179 frontier status in Montana, 241 funding broadband development, 54 collaboration, 60–61, 304–5 Necessary Knowledge Program, 61–62 umbrella, 61 FUST (Brazil) income distribution, 231 Internet and, 231 Gagnon, Gregory (UND), 206 general market format, minority-owned station, 103–4

generational renewal of advocacy groups, 301 Getulio Vargas Foundation (Rio de Janeiro Law School), 222 Gitlin, Todd, 8 Google, San Francisco broadband system, 15 Gospel radio stations, 103 governance structures, 322 government decision making, corporate decision making and, 48–54 government services shift to online, 240 Grant, Oscar, 19 grassroots activists participatory research models, 294 policy advocates and, 289–91 Gurstein, Michael, 34–35 Habermas, Ju¨rgen, 3 Hammond, Allen, IV, 89, 104 Honig, David, 104 horizontal communication, 152 ICMA (International City County Management Association), e-government and, 246 ICTs (information and communication technologies), 29 community networks and, 35–36 development, community informatics and, 38 Mauritius, 259 as fifth pillar of economy, 261 IDEC (Institute for Consumer Defense) (Brazil), 222 consumer protection and, 235 spokespeople, 236 SSRC study, 236–37 IDEPSCA (Institute of Popular Education of Southern California), 177 double helix description, 179 PCT (Popular Communication Team), 180 popular communication, mobile phones, 181 popular education, 179 trust with researchers, 186 immigrant workers attitudes toward, 186 communication practices, 181–82 computers, 181–82 access, 182 language barriers, 182 digital channel access, 178

media representation, control over, 178 mobile phones, capabilities, 181–82 online visibility, 178 partnership with scholars and organizations, 178 social apartheid, 179 Spanish language radio, 178 incentives, 328 inclusivity, 170 income distribution. See FUST (Brazil) INE (Initiative on the New Economy), 28 launch, 30 project, 29–30 research categories, 30 inequality digital exclusion and, 22 information inequality, 19 informal teaching practices, 171 information dissemination academics versus practitioners, 57 aggregate analysis of cases, 59 form, 57 informal, 58 organizational obstacles, 59 rethinking, 59–62 trusted individuals, 57 inequality, 19 requirements, research sharing tool development, 50–51 sensitive, collaboration, 61 information and communication technologies. See ICTs information access, implementation, 21 information needed, tracking, 49–50 information needs context, 52–53 infrastructural inversion, 55 infrastructure broadband, 242 building new, 46 development, public involvement, 55 effect on communities, 47 infrastructural inversion, 55 Internet, United States’ growth, 242 invisible, 55 knowledge-sharing, creating, 53–54 Initiative on the New Economy. See INE insiders, gaining status as, 60 Institute for Consumer Defense. See IDEC Institute of Popular Education of Southern California. See IDEPSCA institutional barriers to collaboration, 59 interconnectivity, Brazil, fair cost model, 231–32 index

355

international bandwidth, costs, 257 Mauritius, 261–63 national bandwidth and, 264 International City County Management Association. See ICMA Internet. See also broadband advertiser spending, 91 Brazil access, 228 barriers to usage, 228–29 Digital Convergence, 225 FUST, 231 Technical Convergence, 225 transmission speed, 229 universal access, 230–31 usage rate, 228 censoring network, 232–33 community radio and, 282 day laborer photos, 180 democratic process and, 240 democratizing, 12 demographics of users, 88 DMAs and, 129 as gateway, 230 infrastructure, United States’ growth, 242 Latino community, 178 media justice and, 14 Montana, 243 broadband, 243–45 community networks, 245 compared with U.S., 244–45 costs, 249–50 ISPs per area, 244 libraries, 245–46 rural areas, 243–45 schools, 245–46 uneven service, 251–52 wireless hot spots, 245 Internet4Everyone campaign, 14 Internet service providers. See ISPs IPC/Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario), 34 ISPs (Internet service providers) per area, 244 James, Michael, oppressed groups, 179 Jimenez, Crispin, 191–92 Jones, Andy, 275 Jones, Clarence seventeen-minute newscast, 119 sports/weather, 120 Winning with the News Media, 119 journalists citizen journalism, 181 356

index

information sharing, 63 research writing, 58 Karaganis, Joe, 319, 340 diversity agenda, 322 Kerr, Dr. Ian, 29 forward-looking approaches to policy, 33–34 knowledge circulation, Community Connect, 205 Community Connect and, 199 private versus public, 199 democracy and, 199 distributing, 51 production, 295 public, 200 Community Connect and, 200 universities and, 200 ways of knowing, 50–51 knowledge-sharing infrastructure, creating, 53–54 landline telephony barrier to new users, 226 Brazil, 226–27 converting, 231 market competition, 227 Latino community Internet access, 178 Radio Bilingu¨e, 139–40 leadership roles to marginalized youth, 170 libraries, high-speed networks, Montana, 245–46 literacy, online literacy programs, 36 local content definition of local, 117–18 television market characteristics, 130 definition, 117–18 markets, cross-ownership of TV stations, 131 media national impact, 282 research, 137 versus national, 119 news definition, 117 preferred definition, 120 projects, accountability, 49 within state concept of, 118 localism, 22 Biennial Review Order, 115 conditions for, 118–19 cross-owned television stations, 115

cross-ownership and, 116–17 Federal Communications Act of 1934, 115 Localism Task Force, 116 low-income audiences, identifying needs, 149 low-power FM, 250 upgrading signal, 274 mainstream media social problems, 165 YC All-City dichotomy, 166 youth on, 164–65 frustrations, 165 Mancia, Manuel, 189–90 mapping, broadband, 49 marginalized communities broadband planning, 12 communications capacities, 12 immigrant workers social apartheid, 179 Spanish language radio, 178 James, Michael, 179 telecommunications deregulation and, 14 YC (Youth Channel), 158 youth leadership roles, 170 market concentration, telecommunications deregulation, 14 Martin, Kevin, 116 Martin-Barbero, Jesus, 180 Mauritius (Africa) business attraction, 261 competition in global economy, 267 Cyber Island strategy, 259 Emtel, 260 entertainment sectors, 264–65 fiber access speed, 265 fiber backbone, 260 high-speed access, 260 Human Resource Development Council, 265 ICTs, 259 as fifth pillar of economy, 261 international bandwidth costs, 261–63 national bandwidth and, 264 liberalization process, 259 effects on operator, 265 location advantages, 261 media sectors, 264–65 NOMAD, 260 OTAM (Outsourcing and Telecommunications Association of Mauritius), 265 price determination, 259

regulation, 260–61 Rogers Outsourcing, 265 slow adaptation, 265 telecom companies, 260 Mauritius Telecom fiber access speed, 265 Lion cable, 263 SAFE cable, capacity upgrade, 263 measurement tools, culturally suitable, 152–53 media activism and advocacy, 3 alternative, 4 community, 4 development funding, 281–83 consolidation recession and, 114 rural areas, 250 consumption by young people, concerns over, 164 corporations, ownership restrictions, x gatekeepers, dependence on, 21 justice, 3 community-controlled, 20–21 Internet and, 14 literacy, youth and, 172 local, national impact, 282 mainstream social problems, 165 youth on, 164–65 youths’ frustration with, 165 organizing, 278–80 policy, voters and, xi policymaking, 17–18 public deliberation opportunities, 200 reform, 3 division among activists, 12 national, Medial Alliance and, 13 social justice organizations, 13 social movements, relationship, 2 youth interests in, 167 Media Alliance, 8, 11 51Open, 23–24 Comcast, San Francisco, 13 digital divide and, 14 digital inclusion and, 14 six dimensions, 15 history, 13 KQED democratization, 13 Pacifica Radio station (KPFA-FM), 13 ROV (Raising Our Voices), 13 Media Democracy Coalition, 16 Media Justice Network, 16 media ownership, 67 analysis, importance of, 88 index

357

arguments for children, Children’s Media Policy Coalition, 74–75 commercial radio numbers, 93 competition and, 74 consolidation, news availability, 68 culture of collaboration and, 291–92 deregulation, 72, 90 duopolies, 72–73 educational children’s programming and, 67–68 Children Now and, 73 FCC, influence efforts, 73 FCC proceeding, 67 minority ownership, 68 African-American, 102 Asian, 102 bankruptcy, 94 commercial radio stations, 91–92 demographics, 93 diversity contributions, 92, 101 FCC filing requirements, 92–93 FCC policies’ effect on, 88 FCC studies, 100 FCC Tax Certificate program, 97 federal programs and race, 99–100 general market format, 103–4 identifying licensees, 92 increase, 96 Native American, 102 number of radio stations controlled in 2007, 92 radio content, 101–4 Radio One, 98 radio structure, 96 silent radio stations, 95 Spanish, 102 statistics, 90–91 tracking before 1998, 92 number of stations, 90 policymaking, 67 progressive organizations, 281 religious radio networks, 281 rules review, 72 triopolies, 72–73 user-generated content, 69 Media Ownership Study No. 6. See Study 6 Memorandum of Understanding. See MOU Merritt College, 19 Mills, Kay, Changing Channels: The Civil Rights Case That Transformed Television, xiii Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. See MMTC 358

index

minority media ownership, 68 commercial radio broadcasters, 89 demographics, 93 diversity in radio programming, 90 stereotypes, 101 FCC licensing’s effect on, 88 multiple ownership policies’ effect on, 88 FCC filing requirements, 92–93 FCC Tax Certificate program, 97 federal programs and race, 99–100 general market format, 103–4 licensees, identifying, 92 market entry barriers, FCC studies, 100 Native American, 102 radio African-American targeted, 102 Asian, 102 bankruptcy, 94 commercial stations, 91–92 content, 101–4 diversity contributions, 92 growth in, 93 increase, 96 number controlled in 2007, 92 silent stations, 95 Spanish radio, 102 station transfer, 89 structure, 96 Radio One, 98 statistics, 90–91 tracking before 1998, 92 Minority Ownership Policy Statement (FCC), 97 MMP (Montana Media Partnership), 219– 20, 241 collaboration, 253 MMS (multimedia messaging), Drupal and, 183–84 MMTC (Minority Media and Telecommunications Council), 89 MNN (Manhattan Neighborhood Network) Youth Channel (YC), 157. See also YC (Youth Channel) history, 159–60 infrastructure, 160 participatory planning, 168–70 mobile phones camera phones, 180 capabilities, immigrant workers, 181–82 citizen journalism, 181 MMS (multimedia messaging), 183 popular communication, integration, 181 rise of, 180–81

mobile telephony, Brazil coverage advances, 227 level of use rating, 227 Mobile Voices, 177. See also VozMob Mobile Voices Community Board, 184–85 models of collaboration, 288 Moen, Janet (UND), 206 Moll, Marita, 29, 35 Montana. See also rural areas broadcast television, 251 cable network operators’ oversight, 252–53 demographics, 247–49 DSL versus cable, 253 e-government, 246–47 Internet access, 243 broadband, 243–45 community networks, 245 compared with U.S., 244–45 costs, 249–50 libraries, 245–46 rural areas, 243–45 schools, 245–46 uneven service, 251–52 wireless hot spots, 245 ISPs per area, 244 online services comparison, 248–49 USF (Universal Service Fund), 245–46 Montana Media Partnership. See MMP MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), 184–85 Multicultural Broadcasting, license, 98 multimedia messaging. See MMS multiperspectival action and reflection, 40 multiple regression, cross-ownership, 121 municipal broadband, 242–43 underserved communities, 11 NAB (National Association of Broadcasters), duopolies, 73 NABOB (National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters), 104 national, versus local, 119 National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters. See NABOB National Association of Broadcasters. See NAB national bandwidth, international bandwidth and, 264 National Broadband Universalization Plan. See PNUBL National Capital FreeNet. See NCF National Federation of Community Broadcasters. See NFCB

National Public Radio, NCE (noncommercial, educational) stations, 272 national strategy on broadband, federallevel participation, 48 National Telecommunications and Information Administration. See NTIA Navajo Nation radio programming, 102 NCE (noncommercial, educational) frequencies, 272 chaining to satellite network, 273 national religious radio networks, 273 point system, 272 NCF (National Capital FreeNet), 35–36 Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere (NKDPS), 28, 313 audience data gathering, 141 funding programs, 61–62 origins, 288–89 need-to-know information of broadband, 46–48 neighborhoods, social movement history, 19 network neutrality, 232–33 networks attributes, important, 53 building, 325–26 censoring, 232–33 development, resources, 54 newscasts, minutes of coverage, 120 social impact, resources, 54 neutrality, 232–33 new technologies, 4 news access in Appalachia, 147 content, DMAs and, 128–32 coverage seventeen-minute newscast, 119 social communities, 22 total, Study 6, 119 local, DMAs, 130 total, DMAs, 129 newscasts construction, 120 content, cross-ownership and, 114 local, preferred definition, 120 local news, 125 DMAs and, 126–28 sports, 120 time devoted to news, 124–25 weather, 120 newspapers cross-ownership, 114 DMAs and, 129 NFCB (National Federation of Community Broadcasters), 145 index

359

Nielsen Media Research, DMAs, 118 nonacademic analysts, research methods, 58 North Dakota demographics, 201–2 Grand Forks, radio stations, 202–3 media offerings, 202 Native American tribal communities, media, 202 University of North Dakota, civic commitment, 203 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. See NPRM NPR (National Public Radio), median income of listeners, 141 NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), 72 NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration), broadband infrastructure, 242 Oakland Digital Inclusion Summit. See ODIS Obama administration, public interest and, 307 observing values, 83 ODI (Overseas Development Institute), 315 ODIS (Oakland Digital Inclusion Summit), 15 Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. See OPC On the Identity Trail, 29 accomplishments, 32–34 Kerr, Dr. Ian, 30 legal precedents from, 33 objectives, 30 central objective, 32 streams, 31 team demographics, 32 ubiquitous technologies, 30–31 online literacy programs, 36 online services, government services shift, 240 OPC (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada), 34 opposing viewpoints, broadcasters’ airing, x organizational obstacles in information sharing, 59 organizing media organizing, 278–80 progressive organizations, media ownership and, 281 reform organizations, 280–81 small organizations and, 279 Otto Haas Charitable Trust, 75 360

index

outcomes, collaboration, 62 Overseas Development Institute. See ODI ownership restrictions for media corporations, x PAR (participatory action research), 4 emotional labor, 40 parity support, 326 participatory action research. See PAR participatory communication, 151 community representation, 153 horizontal communication, 152 participatory design practices, technology development and, 182 process, VozMob, 183 participatory methods of research, 149–50 grassroots activists, 294 objectification of poor and communities of color, 186 participatory planning MNN Youth Channel project, 168–70 youth-centered research processes, 170 participatory processes, users’ technical literacy, 183 participatory research, approach, 151–52 Partnership for Student Cultural Engagement (UND), 212 partnerships, strategic, 20 pay TV (Brazil), 224 level of use, 227–28 NET Services, 228 Sky, 228 triple-play packages, 227–28 PCT (Popular Communication Team), 177, 180 peer review, FCC, 298–99 peer-to-peer file sharing, copyright suits, 33 performance, community as, 198 Perlstein, Jeff (Comcast), 13 personal relationships advantages, 58 broadband development, 56 Pew Convening, 47 Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life project, 242 PIPEDA legislation, 33 PNUBL (National Broadband Universalization Plan), 231 policy community informatics and, 38 digital inclusion and, 15 research, academic participation, 297

policy advocates, grassroots activists and, 289–91 policy analysts information sharing, 63 research writing, 58 trusted individuals and, 60 policy makers asking research questions, 68 broadband and, 46 Canadian, top-down versus bottom-up, 38 CRACIN and, 37 information available, 68 public interest, scholar-activist collaborations, 8 research packaging, 40 policy-relevant research, reactive responses and, 32–33 policymaking academic-practitioner partnerships, 315 academic researchers, resource limitations, 68 media ownership and, 67 research and, 68 political power structures, reconfiguring, 316 political slant cross-ownership and, 114 Study 6 and, 131–32 popular communication community-controlled radio, 180 Martin-Barbero, Jesus, 180 mobile phones, integrating, 181 Popular Communication Team. See PCT popular education, 179 Portable People Meter. See PPM Powell, Michael, 296 Localism Task Force, 116 power sharing, VozMob, 184, 185 PPM (Portable People Meter), 141 practitioners information sharing, 57, 63 knowledge sharing, venues, 56 research cycles and, 56 praxis, research and, 1 prescription drug abuse in Appalachia, 148 privacy, 60 Brazil, 233–34 copyright and, 33 emergent technologies and, 33 private, definition, 199 privatization of telecommunications, Brazil, 223–24 program sustainability, 328–29

progressive organizations, media ownership and, 281 Prometheus Radio Project CF and, 273 new radio licenses, 45 new technologies and, 45 proscriptive planning in broadband, 47 proto-political spheres, 3 public definition, 199 knowledge, 200 Community Connect and, 200 Public, Educational, and Governmental Access television stations, 158–59 public access centers, 157 budget concerns, 174 first-come, first-served approaches, 159 governance inclusivity, 159 outreach models, 159 youths’ view of, 164 percent of stations, 174 television, Manhattan start, 158–59 YC All-City initiative, 160–61 public computing, community informatics, 36–37 public deliberation opportunities, 200 public interest activism, media-related change and, 1 advocacy and activism, 7 broadband, uncovering, 54 communities, communications researchers and, 1–2 Obama administration, 307 policymakers, scholar-activist collaborations, 8 protections, FCC dismantling, x research, technologically determinist hype, 54 public policy, broadband quality and, 14 public radio. See also community radio; NPR (National Public Radio) measuring impact, 140–41 PPM (Portable People Meter), 141 public sphere, 3 public telephones (Brazil), 235 publications, versus relationships, 57–58 Quadrennial Review Order (FCC), 115 Race, Poverty and the Environnment, 23 racism, digital divide, 21 radio. See also FM radio advertiser spending, 91 index

361

African-American targeted, 102 AM band expansion, 98 Arbitron reports, 88 Gospel versus Religious formats, 103 brokered programming agreements, 103 college stations, 282–83 commercial stations growth in, 93 minority controlled, 91–92 community, Internet and, 282 community controlled, 180 diverse backgrounds reached, 141 diversity in, minority-owned stations, 90 education possibility, 141 empowerment possibility, 141 Grand Forks, N.D., 202–3 influence, 89 licenses awarded 1970–1993, 98 low-power FM, 250 minority media ownership, 89 bankruptcy, 94 content, 101–4 diversity contributions, 92 federal programs and race, 99–100 increase, 96 number controlled in 2007, 92 station transfer, 89 structure, 96 tracking before 1998, 92 Navajo Nation, 102 new licenses, 45 ‘‘No Spanish Dictates,’’ 104 ‘‘No Urban Dictates,’’ 104 recession, 105 silent stations, 94–95 Spanish, 102 stations, construction permits, 91, 100 Radio Bilingu¨e, 139–40. See also Spanish language radio archived programs analysis, 142 callers, themes, 143–44 challenges, 140 community representation, 153 culturally suitable measurement tools, 152–53 discrimination’s end, calls for, 144 facilitator for listeners’ calls, 144 Lı´nea Abierta, 142 organization calls, 144 pro-immigrant marches of 2006, 142–45 focus groups, 142–43 triangulation of data, 143 programming, impact, 140 solidarity calls, 143 362

index

Radio for People. See RFP Radio One, license, 98 Raising Our Voices. See ROV Raising Our Voices 3. See ROV 3 reading reality to write history, 179–80 Reagan administration, FCC and, x recession broadcasters, 105 media consolidation and, 114 recognition of privilege in collaboration, 184 recommendations for future, 323 reform organizations, 280–81 relationships versus publications, 57–58 social network analysis, 62 religious radio stations, 103 noncommercial frequencies, 273 power of ownership, 280 repurposed children’s programs, 76 requirements analysis, 51 beneficiaries, 51–52 information needs context, 52–53 steps, 51–54 research action research, 12 adaptive capacity, 328 boundary expansion, 161 broadband, scientific funding, 54 caution regarding, 169 communications technologies, 8 cycles length, 61 linking with practitioners’ needs, 56 defined by researchers, 170 design, 82 advocates’ needs and, 82 embedded research, 8, 11 engaged research, 2 promoting legitimacy, 324–25 youth-centered processes, 170 FCC, 67 information technologies, 8 junior academics, 56 methods, nonacademic analysts, 58 packaging, for policy makers, 40 participatory methods, 149–50 policy-relevant academic participation, 297 reactive responses and, 32–33 policymaking and, 68 praxis and, 1 public interest, technologically determinist hype, 54 results, vehicles, 51

self-reflective, 8 sharing tool, 50–51 as social act, 170 youth-centered collective process, YC and, 161 research community, CIP questions, xii research institutions, xi researcher/practitioner networks, 315 researchers activist scholarship, 306 attracting, 328 disciplinary scholarship, 306 embedded, 172 network expansion, 327–28 as participants, 18 resource constraints, 59 resources, leveraging, collaboration and, 61 Reyes, Maria De Lourdes Gonza´lez, 186–89 RF Software, FM frequency availability, 275 RFP (Radio for People), 274 open frequencies, 274–75 rights, communications, 14, 23 Rio de Janeiro Law School, 222 Rodriguez, Marcos, 192–93 Rogers Outsourcing (Mauritius), 265 Rosenberg, Tracy, 15 ‘‘National Broadband Policy for the Twenty-First Century: Thoughts from the Grassroots,’’ 18 ROV 3 (Raising Our Voices 3), 17 ROV (Raising Our Voices), 11 antipoverty counter-public spheres, 12 Media Alliance and, 13 Rubin, Nan, xii rural areas. See also Montana broadband, percentage of homes with, 242 e-governance and, 241 Pennsylvania, 252 frontier status in Montana, 241 low-power FM, 250 media consolidation, 250 universal service fund, 252 Rural Telecommunications Congress, 47 Sandoval, Catherine, 89, 104 Sanghoee, Sanjay, 93 SAT-3/WASC (South Atlantic Telephony-3/ West African Submarine Cable), 257 access, 257 APC and, 259 consortium members, 257 national monopolies, 257 regulation, 257

satellite television, educational programming, availability, 71 SBA (Spanish Broadcasters’ Association), 104 Schiff, Karen, 207 scholar-activist collaborations, 313–29 effectiveness, 8 future efforts, 320 outside DC community, 321 sustainable, 317 scholars and activists, point of intersection, 1 schools, high-speed networks, Montana, 245–46 scientific funding for broadband development, 54 Searle, Greg, 36 security, 60 self-reflective research, 8 sensitive information, collaboration, 61 seventeen-minute newscast, 119 Sewpal, Pratima, 264 short and long games in media advocacy, 300–2 silent radio stations, 94–95 Sisnett, Ana, xii small organizations, collaboration and, 279 smart exports, 267 social act, research as, 170 social analysis, action research and, 12 social apartheid of immigrant workers, 179 social aspects of collaboration, 60 social benefit of broadband maximizing, information needed, 50–51 measuring, 56 social change action research and, 12 communications, value of, 13 social communities, news coverage, 22 social impact of broadband development, 54–55 resources allocated, 54 social interaction opportunities, versus civic participation opportunities, 199 social movement model attraction to, 307 disinvestment, 307–8 social movements base building, action research and, 18 democratizing, 316 effective change and, 316 hypothesis, 287–88 media, relationship, 2 neighborhoods rich in, 19 index

363

social network analysis, 62 social problems, mainstream media and, 165 Social Science Research Council grant, 161 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. See SSHRC social sphere of community, 198 socially conscious media, youth media spaces, 172 South Atlantic Telephony-3/West African Submarine Cable. See SAT-3/WASC Spanish Broadcasters’ Association. See SBA Spanish Christian radio stations, 103 Spanish language radio. See also Radio Bilingu¨e immigrant workers, 178 spatial communities, 22 SSH (SS Holdings), 93 DMG purchase, 93 SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada), 28 clients, 29 INE project, 29–30 launch, 30 research categories, 30 objects, 29–30 SSRC (Social Science Research Council), ix culture of collaboration, 287 data access, 297 hypotheses tested, 287 social movement hypothesis, 287–88 Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere, 4 station transfer of minority-owned radio, 89 stereotypes of young people, 163–64 Stevenson, John, 36 storing data, 58 storytelling, VozMob and, 187 strategic partnerships, 20 students antiwar movement of 1960s and 1970s, media coverage, 8 CRACIN, 40 Study 6, 114 Consumer Federation of America, 121–22 cross-ownership FCC and, 299–300 local content, 116–17 news, 116–17 DMAs, 299 local, definition, 117–18 news, total news, 119 peer reviews, 117 political slant, 131–32 taxonomy distributed data management tool, 63 364

index

public interest broadband community of practice, 47 shared online data resource, 47 TC (Telecommunities Canada), 36 technologies maturity, 242 technology benefits, 55 development, participatory design practices, 182 liabilities, 55 technology push, versus community pull, 22 Telebra´s System (Brazil), 222 privatization, 225–26 telecommunications Brazil Anatel, 224 development, 223 framework issues, 229–30 infrastructure, 235 interconnectivity fair cost model, 231–32 privatization, 223–24 recommendations, 234 reform, 224 regulations, 223 unbundling services, 232 decisions, voters and, xi deregulation marginalized communities and, 14 market concentration and, 14 unregulated markets, 39 Telecommunications Act (Canada) discrimination, 39–40 Section 7 preservation, 39 Telecommunications Act of 1996, 90 Telecommunications Convergence and Consumer Rights project, 222 collaboration, 222 Telecommunications Policy Review Panel. See TPRP Telecommunities Canada. See TC telephony landline, Brazil, 226–27, 231 mobile, Brazil, 227 urban, Brazil, 223 television Brazil, transition to digital, 230 broadcast educational programming requirements, 72 Montana, 251 number of children’s programs, 76–77 child characters, values, 83 children’s educational development, 72

children’s viewing habits, 71 cross-ownership, 114 FCC relaxed restrictions, 114 localism, 115 digitizing, 221 duopoly stations children’s programming, 77 individual markets, 78–81 educational children’s programming availability, 71 cognitive development in children, 71 commercial broadcast, 71 criteria, 75–76 diverse options, 71 repurposed programs, 76 schedule comparison pre- and postconsolidation, 73–74 media ownership deregulation, 72 pay TV, Brazil, 224, 227–28 ratings system, 84 television markets. See DMAs television stations cross-ownership, local markets and, 131 ownership, educational children’s programming and, 67–68 Public, Educational, and Governmental Access, 158–59 Themba-Nixon, Makani, xii theory building, 315 time frame for collaborative work, 83 TPRP (Telecommunications Policy Review Panel), 38 community concerns, 39 deregulation of telecommunications industries, 38 public interest concerns, 38–39 transformations, 328 translation of research, 327 trust, 60 trusted individuals for information sharing, 57 community partners and, 60 policy analysts, 60 Turner, Derek, 105 ubiquitous technologies, 30–31 umbrella funding, collaboration, 61 unbundling services, 232 UND (University of North Dakota) call for proposals, 206 Center for Community Engagement, 203 steering committee, 208 civic commitment, 203 Gagnon, Gregory, 206

Moen, Janet, 206 Partnership for Student Cultural Engagement, 212 university time versus community time, 213 United Kingdom, unbundling services, 232 United States, most pluralist polity in the world, 314 universal service fund, rural areas, 252 universities culture of collaboration, 305–7 knowledge and, 200 university-community partnerships challenges, 184 difficulties, 212 university time versus community time, 213 unregulated markets, 39 urban telephony, Brazil, 223 user-generated content, media ownership and, 69 user privacy, Brazil, 233–34 USF (Universal Service Fund) in Montana, 245–46 V-chip, Children Now and, 84 values behaviors and, 83 child television characters, 83 observing, 83 vehicles of research results, 51 Videazimut network, 180 VozMob, 177, 344–45 accountability, 184 Cisneros, Adolfo O., 190–91 collaboration democratizing nondemocratic systems, 185 physical distance and, 183 Drupal, 183–84 immigrants, attitudes toward, 186 IRC (Internet Relay Chat), 183 Jimenez, Crispin, 191–92 Mancia, Manuel, 189–90 mobile phone appropriation, 178 online issue tracking system, 183 origins, 178 participatory design process, 183 power sharing, 184, 185 Reyes, Marı´a De Lourdes Gonza´lez, 186–89 Rodriguez, Marcos, 192–93 stakeholder involvement, 182 storytelling, 187 university-community partnerships, 184 index

365

ways of knowing, 50–51 WFLT AM (Flint, Mich.), Gospel programming, 103 Wi-Fi access points in Montana, 245 Winning with the News Media (Jones), 119 wireless hot spots, Montana, 245 WMMT-FM (Whitesburg, Ky.), 139–40 challenges, 140 community representation, 153 competing stations, 147 culturally suitable measurement tools, 152–53 demographics, 141, 147 lifelong community members, 146 listener feedback tool, 150 listeners’ top concerns, 148 NFCB (National Federation of Community Broadcasters), 145 programming, impact, 140 researcher background, 151 statistics, 147 surveys, 146 YC (Youth Channel), 157–58 alumni suggestions, 169–70 constituencies, 162–63 history, 159–60 information gathering, differences in people, 163 marginalized communities, 158 needs assessment, 161–62 conceptualizing, 162–63 research, youth-centered collective process, 161 research team, frameworks, 161

366

index

YC All-City, 158, 160 allure of being on TV, 166 dichotomy with mainstream media, 166 public access movement and, 160–61 youth-led community presentation, 172 young people classism, 164 collaborative production, 171 democratic sphere, 167–68 education, 164 immigration, 164 informal teaching practices, 171 interests in media, 167 leadership roles, 170 on mainstream media, 164–65 media consumption, concerns over, 164 peer-to-peer learning, 171 policing and, 164 poverty, 164 racism, 164 reasons for neighborhood problems, 164 stereotypes, 163–64 youth-produced media, 165–66 youth-centered research processes, 170 youth media as a field, 170 media literacy, 172 networks, 171 youth media spaces benefits provided, 171 as cultural platforms, 165 production values, 166 socially conscious media, 172 view, 164 Yu, Betty, 159