Liberation Frequency: The Free Radio Movement and Alternative Strategies of Media Relations

Abstract

A crucial element of struggle for any social movement is the ability to convey its message to both movement participants and the broader public. Movements frequently deal with problems of reframing and reinterpretation of their messages by mainstream media by trying to build relationships with mainstream media actors. But this is not the only way that movements can gain positive media coverage. This article reveals two little-discussed media strategies that movements may adopt in order to mitigate the problem of how to best get sympathetic news coverage. First, movements can circumvent mainstream media altogether by using alternative media. Second, movements can work to reform the media, thereby changing the rules and structures that govern movement–media relationships. I use data from interviews with participants in the free radio movement to illustrate these two media strategies and how their use helped the movement achieve moderate successes. I argue that control of (or access to) alternative media can help a social movement overcome the difficulties of gaining sympathetic mainstream media coverage. I also argue that the media reform movement, if successful, could further help social movements overcome this problem. This case study suggests that scholars' preoccupation with mainstream media coverage may have caused us to underestimate the power of social movements to generate positive media coverage.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank numerous friends and colleagues for their feedback and support: Pamela Oliver, Lew Friedland, Matt Desmond, John Anderson, David Brain, Sarah Hernandez, Keith Fitzgerald, Uzi Baram, and the anonymous reviewers for this and previous versions of this article. In addition, I want to thank all of my informants who shared their experiences with me, as well as The Refused, whose music has not only been an inspiration but from whom the title of this article is borrowed.

NOTES

Notes

¹ Riismandel's (2002) account of the battle to eliminate the Class D license places the current struggles over low-power FM (LPFM) radio in its proper historical context. In many ways, the arguments of contemporary free radio and LPFM advocates mirror the arguments of those who struggled unsuccessfully to preserve the Class D license, thus illustrating the historical continuity of the fight for low-power, community radio.

² The initial refusal by Judge Claudia Wilken in a California court to grant a temporary injunction against Dunifer on January 20, 1995, constituted a moment of “cognitive liberation” (McAdam 1982) for the movement. As one of my informants, Pete Tridish of Radio Mutiny, put it, “the Dunifer case created the opening that we needed to create a mass movement…. People had a real comfort zone during the Dunifer decision to start a station, 'cause they were like, ‘Well, they're certainly not going to bust me if they haven't even finished with Dunifer yet.’” This perception by movement activists that they might be able to “win,” combined with the technical skills and equipment that Dunifer and others were spreading around the United States, resulted in tremendous growth of the movement.

³ For more information about Kantako's station, Free Radio Berkeley, and the NLG-CDC, see Coopman (1995), Howley (2000), Opel (2001), Shields and Ogles (1995), Soley (1999), Sakolsky (1998), and Walker (2001).

⁴ I was a DJ and a collective member at Free Radio Memphis from 1997 to 1998. During this time, I hosted a weekly radio show, staffed the station, participated in decision-making meetings, and otherwise contributed to promoting and maintaining the station.

⁵ The broadcasters were charged with stealing electricity from the University of Memphis by plugging their equipment into an outlet at the top of the parking garage from which their mobile station broadcast.

⁶ For a thorough discussion of court cases associated with unlicensed broadcasting, focusing on the microradio movement, see Anderson (2004).

⁷ http://www.nlgcdc.org/briefs/microradio_mbanna.html, accessed January 2, 2004.

⁸ As Riismandel (2002) points out, the new LPFM proposal revives the spirit and function of the Class D license, which the FCC eliminated in 1978.

⁹ For an account of Congress' intervention, see Opel (2001).

¹⁰ On February 8, 2005, Senators McCain, Leahy, and Cantwell introduced a bill to the U.S. Senate to reverse the congressional intervention in LPFM, essentially restoring the LPFM service to its original strength. A similar bill was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives on September 13, 2005 by Representative Slaughter. This action is based on the results of the congressionally mandated study of LPFM, which found no merit to the interference arguments advanced by commercial broadcasters that were initially used to justify curtailment of LPFM service.