Content is the key product of a media channel. Radio content refers to the programmes offered by a radio station. It consists of the programme schedule, which indicates the time allocated
to each programme, as well as the format17 of each programme. Format gives a clue as to what content to expect in a certain programme, as certain characteristics make up specific formats.
However, increasingly, there is genre hybridisation and content mixing across formats.
Therefore it is fruitful to examine not just formats as listed on a programme schedule, but also the specific content carried within each.
Shoemaker and Reese (1996) see media content as the basis of media impact, and argue that content is of interest not only in its own right, but also because it is an indicator of underlying forces. They propose that the study of content offers a window into the people and the organisations that produce it in the first place. Drawing on Lasswell (1948) and Wright (1986), they identify four main functions of media content. One is surveillance, which refers to information about one’s environment that may be used in determining one’s future actions.
This is similar to the monitorial media role proposed by Christians et al (2009), and refers to news items and coverage on everyday activities such as the stock market. Second is correlation, which refers to the interpretation of events and suggesting possible action that the audience should take based on the information provided. Propaganda and editorial content fall into this category. The third suggested function of media content is transmission, which refers to the passing on of values and norms. Media content that fulfils this role could be of various genres, but includes the reinforcement of societal standards explicitly or implicitly. Fourth is entertainment, which denotes content designed for relaxation, leisure, and escape from everyday problems. The bulk of music played in a radio station, for instance, would be an example of such content.
However, despite the above delineations of content functions, content does not fit exclusively into one box and not another. For instance, hybridised genres such as infotainment – information and entertainment – fall into both the surveillance and entertainment functions.
An example of these is news-based talk shows. Thus, content genres and formats are not neatly demarcated but rather, are combined to create new forms, which, arguably, result in new functions for the media.
In the Kenyan radio context, apart from studying the making of news, exploring radio content as a whole offers insights into the nature and ideology of the radio station. This is because for
17 While television and film use the word ‘genres’ to refer to types of content, radio studies uses the term
‘formats’. In this section, I refer to both formats and genres, since I draw on texts that address genres.
the average Kenyan radio station, news bulletins make up only about one to two hours of the content aired, out of a 24 hour schedule. Therefore, the content carried the rest of the time is equally important as it is what differentiates each station from the others, and is what keeps the audience tuned in. Especially when it comes to music, which makes up the bulk of the radio content in the selected stations, examining the various genres of music aired, their target audience and how the music is sourced, offer insights into the impact of local and global music industries and distribution patterns as forces that play a part in determining the content that is eventually aired in any given station. At the same time, since media content is neither arbitrary nor self-generating, but rather, is the result of the work of individuals and organisations involved in media production, the study of the production processes around media content is also used as an entry point into understanding and accounting for what is aired by a specific media institution. Production practices in journalism are used here to illustrate how such practices impact the nature of programme content.
Hanitzsch (2006) points out that much as “professional ideologies and the actual conduct of journalism display a great deal of similarity across cultural boundaries” (Hanitzsch 2006, 169), there are differences noted across various journalism cultures, and offers a taxonomy of the same. He categorises journalism cultures in six ways. One is territorial, that is, based on spatially defined systems such as nations, and second is essentialist, that is, based on intrinsic characteristics such as race and ethnicity. Third is milieu-specific journalism culture, based on lifestyles of journalists, that is, “socially distinctive practices in everyday life that signal identity, identification and distinction” (Hanitzsch 2006, 172). Fourth is value-centred journalism culture which is based on underlying values, attitudes and beliefs, which spring from, for example, individualistic versus collectivistic cultures. Fifth is organizational journalism culture, based in specific organisations - the “collective values and practices that distinguish the members of one organization from another” (Hanitzsch 2006, 173); and sixth is professional journalism culture, which refers to the “values, orientations and predispositions of a group of professionals” (Hanitzsch 2006, 174), and is regulated by, for example, members of the said profession joining their professional organisations and agreeing to codes of conduct generated there. Hanitzsch also argues that these various strands of journalism cultures are not independent of each other, and often overlap in the same individual or organisation to shape the ideology and day to day practices of the journalist. As such, it is important to look at journalism cultures as multi-layered rather than homogenous.
Nyamnjoh (2005) on the other hand argues that there is a universalism in journalistic values, because of factors like shared training approaches in different regions of the world. He contends that as the technical aspects of journalism are taught, attendant global values from specific schools of thought are transmitted, resulting in similar approaches to news work across the globe. He proposes the development of home-grown curricula in journalism training schools as a way to create more context-appropriate journalism.
However, in a study on journalistic values carried out in Tanzania, Ramaprasad (2001) argues that context-specific journalistic values exist. Based on the idea of collectivism as key in African thought, Ramaprasad identifies several journalistic roles that are specific to developing country contexts, such as development journalism, citizen education, public advocate, culture promotion, positively portraying the country, and news as a social good for national development (Ramaprasad 2001; Ramaprasad and Kelly 2003). In subsequent studies of Nepal, Ramaprasad and Kelly (2003) noted similarities in these specific journalistic values across the two countries, and linked it to the shared postcolonial background of the two countries. From these findings, one can surmise that it is not only training that informs journalistic culture. Rather, social and political contexts create distinctive journalism cultures.
It is of interest to examine the journalistic cultures existent at community radio stations, in view of their shared national setting yet different social contexts. Of interest is whether there are notable differences between the different contexts, or there is a somewhat homogenised national journalistic culture at play.
Zelizer (1993) proposes viewing journalism “not only as a profession but as an interpretive community, united through its shared discourse and collective interpretations of key public events” (Zelizer 1993, 219). She posits that among other factors, informal networking among reporters informs their day to day behaviour without its formal codification. She argues that
“journalists function as a community, even if they do not organize solely along lines of the profession” (Zelizer 1993, 222), and that they are united through their shared interpretations of events through discourse with each other.
On the other hand, Berkowitz and Terkeurst (1999) view sources as interpretive communities based on residing in a given geographical area, and “characterized not just by the socioeconomic background of their members, but by the common modes of interpretation of their social world” (Berkowitz and Terkeurst 1999, 127). Therefore, media workers interpret
community occurrences not through the prism of unlimited possible meanings determined by the media organization, but rather, “through shared social experiences” (Berkowitz and Terkeurst 1999, 127). That is, the experiences that both they and their sources share.
Therefore, all through a reporter-source relationship, there is always a negotiation depending on the relative power of the source and reporter, as well as their efforts to each make meaning of events as they occur.
Nyamnjoh and Zelizer focus on journalistic values that arise from training and those transmitted through relationships among journalists themselves. Hanitzsch however takes a broader approach, focusing on personal and societal characteristics, relationships, and organizational rules. Ramaprasad and Kelly bring further nuance into journalistic values, suggesting that social and political context have an impact. Of the above authors, Zelizer brings out the impact of informal relationships and practices among journalists, which are not necessarily verbally discussed, but are transmitted nevertheless. Berkowitz and Terkeurst add the important variable of relationships with sources, and how these shape the eventual media content produced.
When it comes to the production practices at community radio stations, it is of interest to examine if there are strands of various overlapping journalism cultures. As well, influences by sources and the influence of social milieu are an important consideration in the eventual content that is produced. These macro- and micro-level factors fit into the hierarchy of influences model proposed by Shoemaker and Reese (1996). Thus, it will be used as an explanatory tool for the data collected.
Molotch and Lester (1974/2009) provide a useful framework. They argue that news does not consist of naturally occurring events which stand as objective reality, but rather, it is a reflection of the interests of those who generate the news. They delineate three groups of people involved in the news process as follows. News promoters are those individuals and their associates who identify an occurrence as special (and therefore worth bringing to public attention), news assemblers are those who work with the materials provided by the promoters to transform occurrences into public events through broadcast or publication, and news consumers are those who attend to certain occurrences made available by the media (Molotch and Lester 2009, 291).
Thus, researchers should not look for reality in media content, but rather, “for purposes which
underlie the strategies of creating one reality instead of another” (Molotch and Lester 2009, 300).
Molotch and Lester argue that occurrences go through three processes so as to become news.
First is promoting, in which a certain event is created or attended to by an actor and brought to the attention of others. This includes public relations activities, political activity such as press conferences, or citizen campaigns about health dangers (Molotch and Lester 2009, 291-292).
Promoters tend to be in influential positions in society, and are thus assumed to have more knowledge and credibility. Because they are taken to have things of importance to say, they often have easier access to the media. However, once in a while, the less powerful, who usually do not have easy access to the media, can stage disruptive non-routine events to attract media coverage and make their voices heard. For instance, campaigns by citizens about the health dangers posed by a certain factory’s operations. These events, due to their non-routine nature, get media coverage. However, the views and interpretations of the more powerful (such as the factory owners) are brought to bear on such events, and those who staged the disruption may eventually not have their views receive extensive coverage.
The second step in news making is assembling, which refers to the process via which media personnel select which happenings to air. It refers to the process of researching on a story, verifying the facts, and negotiating the pressures exerted by the various promoters to highlight some stories and not others (Molotch and Lester 2009, 292-293). In this process, the news media seek to balance various interests, including their own, and to come across as objective.
Alternative media, however, do not necessarily seek to be viewed as objective in their news assembling function. Rather, they privilege creating room for ordinary community members to report on their lived experiences and struggles, that is, the practice of native reporting (Atton 2002); (Atton and Wickenden, Sourcing Routines and Representation in Alternative Journalism: A Case Study Approach nd).
The third step in the news process is consuming, which refers to what the audience does with the news presented to them. It refers to the audience’s selection of which news to attend to or not, and their interpretation of news items in light of their already existent repertoire of information. What they do is procedurally identical with what promoters and assemblers do.
However, there are two key differences. One is that they are selecting from a significantly reduced stock of occurrences, because these have already been truncated through the newswork
of other agencies. The second is that unlike assemblers, consumers ordinarily have no institutional means through which to broadcast their newswork. It is with these definitions of promoters, assemblers and consumers in mind that I explore the news production processes at the three stations.
Thus, to investigate how producers work as individuals to produce news and other content, I adopt concepts from the promotion-assembly-consumption process proposed by Molotch and Lester (2009), journalistic cultures as described by Hanitzsch (2006) and Ramaprasad (2001), and the idea of journalists and sources as interpretive communities (Zelizer 1993 and Berkowitz and Terkeurst 1999). These concepts are considered in light of the broader social and political context in which journalists work. They offer tools to examine individual-source-organisational-societal relationships that inform day to day work at the three stations studied.
They provide insights into how and why community media producers do their work, and why some content is produced and other content not. At the same time, producers work with an imagined audience in mind. The following section therefore addresses the audiences of community broadcasting.