Since its invention, radio has been recognised as an important communication medium globally. Initially, radio was an experimental two-way medium through which anyone with the necessary equipment could transmit and receive information. However, starting in the early 1900s and especially following the Titanic18 disaster, regulation of radio transmission was instituted on both sides of the Atlantic. It generally created more room for larger state and
18 The capsizing of the Titanic in 1912. Investigations determined that most of the passengers who drowned could have been rescued if the radio distress signals had been received by other ships (which were close by) on time. In that era, there were no set regulations for maritime radio transmissions. See Aitken 1994, Friedewald 2001 for a history of the disaster.
commercial players, and less room for amateur or hobby broadcasters (Aitken 1994;
Friedewald 2001; Leroy 1938; Whittemore 1929). As such, early in the 19th century, Bertolt Brecht called for radio to be “a means of communication for public life” (Brecht 1967, 30), that is, not to merely be a transmitter of entertainment that retains the power in the hands of a few, but rather, offer possibilities for public debate and democratic communication. He envisioned radio reverting from one-way to two-way communication, not only for leaders to address their people, explain and justify their actions, but also to be a means through which people address their leaders and question them. Thus, the idea of radio as a democratic space for participation, empowerment and engagement in the public sphere is not a recent concept.
In the African context, various authors have outlined the potential of radio to create new publics and counterpublics, and corresponding public and counterpublic spheres (Gunner, Ligaga and Moyo 2011), (Odhiambo 2011), (Mudhai 2011). In the Kenyan context, radio has historically been regarded as an important communication channel that transcends literacy and language barriers. It is hailed as creating new public spheres as well as offering previously unavailable participation possibilities, being a key source of information, a resource for sociability, enabling citizen journalism, identity creation and enhancing the democratic process (Gathigi 2009; Gustafsson 2013; Kijana 2012; Ogenga 2010; Ogola 2011; Ojwang 2015; Okoth 2015;
Wekesa 2015). As a result of “…the loosening of the state’s grip on the broadcast sector in African countries post-1990, through the licensing of several private FM stations – though mostly in cities – has rekindled ‘radio culture’”(Mudhai 2011, 253). However, radio in Kenya has also been accused of fostering violence (Howard 2009; Mercier 2009) through inflammatory broadcasts. It remains questionable, however, if this is actually the case, given that some reports indicate that mobilization of people to commit violent acts was mostly done through mobile phone short messages (Nyabuga and Booker 2013). In addition, audience research has over the years demonstrated that audiences are not passive and merely reactive to media content, but rather, they are active and creative in their uses of media content (Jenkins
& Carpentier, 2013; Livingstone, 2004, 2007, 2015; Mchakulu, 2007; Pettit, Salazar, &
Dagron, 2014; Vokes, 2007; Willems, 2013).
Mano (2011) points out that radio is especially popular in Africa because it is highly adaptable to living conditions on the continent. Although the technology did not originate in Africa, its uptake has been widespread because it meets genuine, pre-existing social and cultural needs.
Using the example of Radio Zimbabwe, Mano illustrates how radio conveys important
information such as death notices, which would otherwise not reach relatives of the deceased in good time. The case is similar in Kenya: radio intertwines with daily life, and is a popular media choice. Indeed, research on the Kenyan media audience shows that traditional media (radio, television and print) are more widely used for news and information than the internet and the mobile phone (AudienceScapes 2010).
2.5.1 Negotiation of the Public and the Private
Loviglio (2005) describes radio’s ritual power to create a previously non-existent social space that is characterised by dualities such as public and private, national and local, as people engage in “collective acts of reception” and the “public space of the street” is turned into an “intimate space of reception”(Loviglio 2005, xiv). Although written from the viewpoint of American history, the idea of new spaces created by radio is applicable in the Kenyan context, especially in view of the participation affordances created by new media and their interaction with radio (Mudhai 2011). Loviglio argues that public and private spheres were simultaneously transgressed and reinforced by “…radio’s ritual power to transform the anonymous space of towns, cities, the nation itself into a new site of reception, a momentary extension of the private space of the family car or home” (Loviglio 2005, xv). When radio was first introduced, audience reception was characterised by collective listening in public spaces, with strangers listening to radio together in public rather than each privately tuning in within the confines of their home. Thus, an intimate public was formed in “the site where public and private…temporarily merged to form a national community” (Loviglio 2005, xv).
“Radio….was an apparatus that helped produce a new kind of social space – the intimate public – in which the terms “public” and “private” came to represent a complex web of social performances perpetually in play rather than distinct and immutable categories” (Loviglio 2005, xvi). Loviglio thus argues that radio’s main cultural work in its first two decades of existence was negotiating the preoccupation with public and private, transgressing social boundaries and re-creating them.
Loviglio (2005) thus proposes viewing electronic media as cultural sites in the negotiation of public and private speech and space. In Kenya, radio plays this role of negotiation between public and private speech, especially in morning shows. Radio is collectively listened to in public spaces, such as public transport during the morning commute. At this hour of the day, on commercial radio channels, shows typically feature people calling in with personal problems, frequently relationship-related, seeking advice from fellow listeners and the
presenter. The issues raised revolve around moral dilemmas or ‘taboo’ topics which were previously not discussed in public (Media Council of Kenya 2014; Odhiambo 2011).
This morning show format first appeared in top Kenyan commercial radio stations following the liberalization of the media sector in the late 1990s. Prior to this liberalization, the closest sensitive topics got to being featured on radio was via the ‘moral play’ (Ligaga 2011). In contrast to the new morning shows which act as a sort of personal confessional, the moral play format focused on general themes drawn from everyday life addressed via theatre. After the media sector liberalization, radio content became bolder, not only challenging the state, but also challenging the boundaries between private and public matters. Such content first raised indignation, but was subsequently emulated by numerous radio stations when it became clear that talk shows on such matters attracted wide listenership. The trend has taken such hold that it has been tracked by media regulators, out of concerns that these shows breach ethical standards for radio talk (Media Council of Kenya 2014). Following these concerns, in early 2016, adult content was banned on radio between 5am and 10am by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA).19 This intervention by the regulator illustrates the ongoing negotiation and renegotiation between what belongs in the public sphere and what stays in the private domain.
2.5.2 Transformations of Radio
Dale and Naylor (2005) argue that the internet has now taken the place of broadcast media in creating a public, social space for dialogue and therefore development, through the notion of cyberspace, because cyberspace offers the possibility for dialogic communication to all regardless of location, while broadcast media now face the challenge of an increasingly fragmented public space due to a focus on local rather than national broadcasting. However, a focus on the local in broadcasting is not necessarily a disadvantage. It allows for highly specific, hyperlocal content, and offers increased possibilities for community building because those engaged in local media share similar material conditions. As well, cyberspace is not the only venue for dialogic communication. Through audiences calling in and texting to broadcast programmes, dialogic communication takes place.
19 Featured in news articles such as ‘Kenya cracks down on sex talk and preacher shows’ (08 Jan 2016) on http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35261898 and ‘Kenyan government bans 'seed' preachers, sex-talk shows’ By Alphonce Shiundu (08 Jan 2016) on: https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000187391/kenyan-government-bans-seed-preachers-sex-talk-shows
Indeed, despite predictions that traditional media would die out in the face of new media, radio has not only survived the emergence of the Internet, the computer and digital mobile entertainment; it has adapted their affordances to create new platforms that extend its reach (Mollgaard 2012). As technology has developed, radio has moved from a non-participative medium to a participative one. Bonini (2014) traces out how over the years, audiences have evolved from being publics that were invisible, in the early days of radio when there was no possibility to respond to broadcasts, then audible publics, when it became possible for audiences to call in, then readable publics, as audiences sent letters to radio stations, to today where they are networked, as participation possibilities have expanded with the affordances of social network sites. However, each new public has not phased out the preceding ones, rather, these four kinds of publics all exist today.
Social networking sites have caused audiences to become more visible and audible, changed the speaker-to-listener relation, listener-to-listener relation, and the value of publics. While social network sites run primarily on social capital, mass media are structured around economic capital, thus both create very different kinds of publics. As well, in the face of co-creating audiences, radio authors have changed from producers to curators who manage the co-created content. Important in this conceptualization is the idea that radio has become a phatic medium, that is, it is mainly used as a means to socialize, rather than to pass messages across (Bonini 2014). This builds on Jenkins’ (2006) conceptualization of the convergence culture, where audiences are actively engaged in creating, appropriating and recirculating content. Similar to Anderson’s (1981) imagined communities that were created through newspaper readership, radio also has the power to create new social spaces based on audience listenership and participation practices. The use of radio as a phatic medium in the Kenyan context is seen in a longstanding feature of Kenyan radio programming: greetings programmes. In these shows, people salute each other either through greeting cards read out by the presenter, or through calling in to radio. As such, even before the affordances of the internet, radio was already being used as a dialogic space, and this kind of use continues to evolve. This greetings aspect of radio at the community broadcasting level is further addressed in the chapter on radio content.
2.5.3 Radio in Development
Radio has often been regarded as a ‘tool’ in development projects; as a channel through which to provide communities with information that they need in order to develop. This approach draws from the diffusion of innovations and the modernisation theories that were prevalent in the 1960s (Rogers 1962; Lerner 1958; Schramm 1964). In diffusion of innovations, communication was proposed as a key factor in the transmission of technology that would transform poor societies for the better. The modernisation theory operated on much the same premise, with the idea that information was the key in transforming a society from a
‘traditional’ one to a ‘modern’ one. In both schools of thought, the underlying assumption was that communities are not developed primarily because they lack information, and therefore providing them with information will cause them to progress. In addition, it implies that the community itself is not aware of the information it needs. It is therefore the role of a development communicator to provide and package information that will promote development, and transmit this information through a widely available medium such as radio.
Development was implied to be primarily economic, and used the urbanised Western societies as the yardstick. In this approach, radio is a communication tool in the hands of the more developed and educated to reach the underdeveloped. Indeed, as Orvis puts it, “the cheap transistor radio has become the only means of penetrating to remote regions, and it has become a potentially powerful instructional and development tool for the struggling masses” (Orvis 1978, 3).
Reviewing the Canadian context, Dale and Naylor (2005) trace the history of how radio was used from the 1940s to the 1960s as a tool to encourage education and dialogue through, for instance, farm forums and citizens’ forums. In these forums, groups would listen to broadcasts together, discuss the issues raised in the broadcast and then send feedback to their regional and national broadcasting office for incorporation into subsequent broadcasts. Through such participation, even though these forums eventually died out, the value of dialogue as a key mode of civic engagement and as a way of forming collective norms and values was entrenched in the national psyche. As such, participation in dialogue through the media is viewed as a way to cultivate civic engagement.
Despite dying out in the 1960s in Canada, the idea of radio listening groups as a means of education and dialogue has been applied in Kenya under the auspices of UNESCO and non-governmental organisations, especially in the context of development, health and agriculture
and civic education projects.20 However, the communication for development approach has been challenged over time. This is especially since many development and communication projects have not produced the expected changes, despite the provision of information. It has become clear that information alone cannot change a given social, economic, and political situation. Information may simply make the poor realise their marginality (Dagron 2009). It is now more of a concern to look at how initiatives aimed for a community’s development are run by the community itself. That is, not only that they exist, but more importantly: is the community involved in them? Is the community a part of spearheading and managing the initiatives? This new interest in the community’s participation is based on the emergent view that rather than being merely channels of useful information, media – not restricted to radio - run by people at the grassroots offers the possibility of engagement in “communication, dialogue and self-expression, by which people can create their own knowledge and alternative sources of power”, and in this way create a community that is empowered and ultimately able to determine its own course (Pettit, Salazar and Dagron 2009, 444). Such small scale media have often been termed as ‘community media’ based on the fact that they operate in specific locales.