Community Media and Power

Saeed (2009) sees the biggest challenge for media and public communication as its commodification/commercialization. For as long as it is catering to advertiser and state interests it does not represent the citizen at the grassroots. It is part of the capitalist economy and over time has focused on entertainment but not information and education. Indeed, it is impossible to disregard the power wielded by media institutions. Howley (2010) underlines their influential role: “In highly mediated societies, news organizations play a decisive role in setting the political agenda, framing the terms of the public debate, and shaping public opinion”

(Howley 2010, 5). Given this state of affairs, Saeed (2009) sees community media or alternative media that produce different content, have different means of production, and are free of state or multinational corporation control, as the only hope for decentralization of communication and for giving ordinary citizens a voice. However, they face financial

sustainability issues, and need to find a way to cease their dependence on grants. This could be through attaining a critical mass of community media that is able to influence government policy, to be a stakeholder and therefore negotiate more favourable terms for their survival (the creation of an enabling environment) (Saeed 2009). Atton (2015) also views alternative media as a way to challenge the hegemony of dominant media, especially in terms of offering alternative viewpoints, stating that “The economic power of national and global media companies might be vast, but arguably it is secondary to their symbolic power, the power to construct reality. To study alternative media is to consider how the world might be represented differently” (Atton 2015, 2).

Thomas (2016) points out that the state plays a crucial role in allocating resources to the community broadcasting sector such as frequencies, equipment, training and funding. Like Couldry (2010, 2016), he argues that with the growth of neoliberalism there is less support for 'voice' and the enabling of voice. This is chiefly due to a neo-liberal framework for growth and development, which aims to drastically reduce the role of the state and increase that of the market, the latter of which does not necessarily value voice for all. As such, government policy determines possibilities for voice, as it delineates what is possible and what is not for the media sector. It is therefore important to examine the role of the state in enabling or disabling the community media sector, through its provision or withdrawal of resources (Thomas 2016).

While Saeed’s proposal for media completely free of state or multinational corporation control is hard to achieve, the idea of community media lobbying for more favourable policy is evident in the Kenyan community media sector. As already outlined in the introductory chapter, financial sustainability is an issue at the forefront of community media concerns in Kenya, and influences their networks and operations. Thus, negotiations for policy are part of the issues that I explore in this research.

Speaking from a Ugandan perspective, Nassanga (2009) points out, “…while initially the

‘pure’ or ideal community media were started in the 1990s, these could not withstand the global influence of media commercialization. What we have now is a hybrid of commercialized community media.” (Nassanga 2009, 53). The author argues that the development of community media should be encouraged, because they offer the possibility to provide local content to counter globalized media content which does not address local priorities (Nassanga 2009). Mazrui (2009) argues for the use of local languages in the media as a way to achieve democratisation of information. Through such democratisation of communication, more

people are enabled to participate in political reconstruction. When ideas are expressed in their own language, people are able to engage with and appropriate them, reinterpreting them to fit their realities and ideas (Mazrui 2009). In Kenya, broadcasting in local languages has been accused of promoting ethnic divisions (Mercier 2009; Howard 2009). However, local language broadcasting is not new – it was already taking place through the state broadcaster (King’ara 2011; Ogola 2011). As such, it can be argued that the issue is not that of using local languages, but that of airing xenophobic content – which could occur in any language. Indeed, commercial stations broadcasting in local languages have experienced phenomenal success in the Kenyan media scene since the 2000s, with audiences citing accessibility of content and the possibility for deliberation on public issues in their languages as the biggest incentive for listening (Ogenga 2010; Ogola 2011). As well, Straus (2011) makes a convincing case for limited, conditional effects of radio broadcasts on the Rwandan genocide, which can be extrapolated to other contexts.

Mudhai, in his analysis of Kenyan radio in the era of convergence, approaches the mushrooming of regional radio not as negative but rather, as the creation of a public sphere in the Habermasian sense, proposing that “A more useful perspective – rather than that of provincialism – is the role of these ethnic-based radio stations in the expansion of the public sphere in a manner that is more in tune with ordinary local populations and beyond. These stations may be seen as holding an emancipatory appeal in relation to open, free and fair discourse” (Mudhai 2011, 258). His focus is on the emancipatory potential of radio stations broadcasting in ethnic languages, thus ensuring participation by ordinary people in the mediated public sphere using their local languages. Similarly, Cormack argues that one of the values of minority language broadcasting is that it creates "a public sphere within a language community which allows a political community to develop and indeed allows the community to develop its own news agenda" (Cormack 2001, 2), and that such broadcasters play a vital part in representing the community both to itself and to outsiders, making them "important producers of cultural products in their own right" (Cormack 2001, 2).

As outlined above, community media have often been situated within alternative media, due to their role in opening cultural production to ordinary people and in critiquing dominant perspectives. In the Kenyan context, however, community media are not automatically alternative media. Especially after the advent of multipartyism in the 1990s, one key way to express critique and resistance to state power was through the use of satirical cartoons in the

press. These, arguably, acted as alternative media because they presented discourses counter to hegemonic viewpoints. It would be expected that community broadcasters, who began operations after the liberalisation of the media sector, would exist under the auspices of alternative, counter-hegemonic media. This was however not the case. Instead, most community media projects in Kenya have been started with the overt aim of supporting development in the community rather than as an alternative voice to mainstream media or as a challenge to political power. This non-combative approach may be partly explained by Mbembe’s proposal of conviviality as a way of relating to power.

In his analysis of how power manifests in the postcolonial context, Mbembe (1992) argues that subjects manage multiple identities which they use to negotiate diverse circumstances. He posits that both the dominant and the dominated operate under a logic of not only control, but also of ‘conviviality’, which is characterised by a relationship of ‘domesticity and familiarity’(Mbembe 1992, 10). As such, “pretence (le simulacre) becomes the dominant modality of transactions between the state and society, or between rulers and those who are supposed to obey” (Mbembe 1992, 26). This is to say that rather than openly oppose oppressive power, the dominated relate in friendly, even colluding ways with the powers that be, but express resistance through other avenues such as laughter. As outlined later in the thesis, the managers and producers at the community media stations, as well as the communities they serve, are acutely aware of the political contexts in which they exist and adapt their actions accordingly. For instance, as will be discussed further in Chapter 4, it is much easier to secure a community radio license when one cites development purposes rather than political purposes.

However, this is not to say that there is no room for challenging hegemonic viewpoints in Kenyan community media. Rather, this role is carried out in covert rather than overt ways.

The idea of conviviality as a way of relating to power offer insights into understanding how community broadcasters and community members negotiate their various political and social contexts.