Content-Type: text/html Representing Micro Radio Newspaper Coverage of the Micro Radio Issue 1998-2000 by Andy Opel Assistant Professor Department of Communication Florida State University 356 Diffenbaugh Building Tallahassee, FL 32306-1531 (850)-644-8768 Fax: (850)-644-8642 [log in to unmask] Submitted for Presentation to the Critical and Cultural Studies Division of The Association of Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Convention Miami Beach, FL - August 7-10, 2002 Representing Micro Radio: Newspaper Coverage of the Micro Radio Issue 1998-2000 The 1990s were an active period in the development of micro radio theory and practice and the final three years of the decade built to a crescendo with a compelling climax. In the early 1990s, pirate (and later micro) radio gained nominal media attention, largely through the legal cases fought by Stephen Dunifer (U.S. v. Dunifer, 1994.) As Dunifer's legal case developed and many other prosecuted micro radio operators replicated his legal arguments, press coverage of the micro radio movement grew. With the combination of a new set of FCC rules for licensing micro radio and growing opposition to micro radio from the National Association of Broadcasters and National Public Radio, a major story from the Media Activism Movement began to gain traction in local and national newspapers across the country. The news stories from this time period document the positions of key players in this debate and contain indicators about the popular attitude toward a formerly obscure issue. The articles document one form of the public display of discourse and knowledge created by the micro radio community. By examining the newspaper coverage1 of the micro radio for the three years (1998-2000) - a period of increased action at the grassroots, institutional, academic and governmental levels - we will see a pattern of cultural acceptance for the activists' discourse and the evolution of the cognitive space created by the movement from the periphery to the center. 1998-2000: A Summary of the Events In February of 1998, The FCC received two petitions calling for the creation of very small, low power FM stations. These proposals received little formal attention from the press, although they were acknowledged in a number of articles about micro radio. 1998 was a busy year for the FCC as they enforced regulations and closed down almost 300 illegal micro radio stations. This enforcement included confrontation with the micro broadcasters and was often a source of the press coverage during the year. In 1999 the FCC responded to the citizen-initiated petitions from the previous year. The FCC proposed the licensing of micro radio stations. On January 28, 1999, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that would legalize low power FM radio stations ranging from 10 to 1000 watts. This proposal left many questions unanswered. Would the stations be commercial or non-commercial? Would the current illegal broadcasters be eligible for station ownership? Would there be any ownership requirements on the new micro stations? How would the FCC resolve competing applications for available frequencies? These and a host of other questions became the source of a protracted debate within the micro radio community. Twice the FCC, at the request of the NAB, extended the initial 60-day comment period where the public was allowed to submit opinions to these and other questions. The reply comment period, usually 90 days from the initiation of a proposed rule was extended as well. Thus the two comment periods, originally scheduled to end April 12 and May 12 respectively, were extended resulting in comment closing dates of August 2, 1999 and September 1, 1999. Almost one year after the proposed rule to license micro radio, on January 20, 2000, the FCC issued a Report and Order detailing the rules for the new micro radio, low power FM radio service. This action prompted a relatively positive response from the micro radio community and a very negative response from the NAB. With the regulatory action of the FCC favoring the activists over industry, the NAB turned their attention to the U.S. Congress as they worked to overturn the new LPFM rules. After a number of attempts by members of Congress and a number of different pieces of legislation, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Radio Preservation Act of 2000. This severely curtailed the FCC's LPFM rule, reducing the number of possible stations by more than 80% and creating a trial period where stations would be issued licenses subject to review after one year. This summary of the governmental action affecting micro radio from 1998-2000 (See Figure 1) provided the context for the analysis of the news coverage that follows. These three years represent an important time in the trajectory of micro radio, a time where the work of many people culminated in a series of actions by the key players in the micro radio debate. The micro radio debate even reached the White House and the 2000 presidential campaign. Thus the cognitive terrain defined through the micro radio discourse was partially absorbed into dominant institutions. The movement of micro radio discourse from the periphery to the center is part of the predicted evolution of the social movement model proposed by Eyerman & Jamison (1991) and indicated a measure of success on the part of the people involved, who helped move LPFM from the housing projects of Springfield, Illinois into the Federal Register and the halls of Congress. Story Structure Most of the stories across the three years began with a specific, grounded example of one micro radio broadcaster. The person, and the station he or she was affiliated with, were described in relation to government action; closing them down, moving ahead with a proposal that could grant them a license, or new laws limiting the implementation of legal low power radio. Examples of story leads featuring radio pirates include: The nerve center of a nationwide and rapidly growing renegade radio broadcasting movement lies here, in the cluttered and dimly lit home of a frail and soft-spoken radio technician (LA Times, 3/5/98, p. A1). The federal government has seized radio equipment at two more locations where it says unlicensed broadcasting was taking place (St. Petersburg Times, 4/15/98. P. 4B). Inspired by a growing national microbroadcasting movement and a recent conference on pirate radio, a pair of low-power, unlicensed stations are preparing to start broadcasting to East Harlem and the South Bronx (NY Times, 6/7/98, sect. 14 p. 6). The specific activist narrative was usually followed by a summary of the current regulatory situation offered by either an academic from a local university or from a non-profit media policy group such as The Media Access Project. The policy context would usually include a quote from William Kennard, the Chairman of the FCC. Finally, the story would include information from dissenting voices, usually a spokesperson from the NAB and or NPR. This story pattern is significant because the information that was included to tell the story of micro radio, as well as who was chosen to tell what pieces of the story, represent a public space in which the movement disseminated its discourse and knowledge. The news stories often contained information from representatives of the three groups described in the Media Activism Typology. The presence of these three groups points to the unique knowledge that each contributed to the movement and shows how that knowledge was disseminated to a broader public. Frames and Sources: Newspaper Coverage of Micro Radio 1998-2000 In looking at the newspaper coverage of micro radio during this period of significant activity, a number of patterns quickly emerge. The "news" section of the papers contained the most articles about micro radio, followed by the "business" section and the "entertainment" sections. This indicates that the issue of micro radio was largely considered a topic of broad interest and significance, resulting in the placement in the dominant "news" section of the papers. Micro radio was also considered to be a story about "business" and a story about "entertainment." These general categories for the placement of the micro radio struggle are connected to issues within the struggle. As we will see, micro radio was presented as a story of broad social significance, a struggle over money, and a story about access to culture, music and entertainment. The dominant frame for the news coverage of micro radio from 1998-2000 centered on the actions of the illegal broadcasters. The majority of the stories were initiated by the interaction between activists - who were broadcasting illegally - and the FCC who as acting to shut them down. Of the 40 articles examined from 1998, 31 were focused on the "pirates" and their interactions with the FCC. Headlines from 1998 included: Pirate Radio Trial Gets Underway (Tampa Tribune, 2/25/98, p. 4). Radio Pirates Fight The Power Low-Watt: Illegal Stations Spice Up Corporate Ruled Dial (USA Today, 2/27/98, p. 1B). Defiant Pirates Ply The Radio Airwaves (LA Times, 3/5/98, p. 1). Pirates Defend Rights to Airwaves (Baltimore Sun, 4/13/98, p. 2A). Yo Ho Ho and a Battle of Broadcasters (Washington Post, 10/6/98, p. D2). The civil disobedience of the micro broadcasters, going on the air in defiance of FCC regulations, drew the attention of the FCC and in turn, drew the attention of the media. Although many of these stories could have been a simple tale of law enforcement, these stories focused on the broadcasters, giving them ample room to voice their ideas and opinions. Newspapers rarely give extended coverage to the articulations of people accused of other crimes, (i.e., armed robbery, embezzlement, public drunkenness, etc.) but the micro radio issue was more complex than a simple crime story. Thus the civilly disobedient illegal broadcasting of the micro radio community in some cases gained local media attention, although more often the media attention followed law enforcement actions by the FCC. The ensuing legal struggle became "news" at the local and national level. As time progressed and the FCC initiated further proposals to license LPFM, the news frame shifted as well. Of the 29 stories dealing with micro radio examined from 1999, 16 of the stories had headlines centered around the FCC and appeared to be initiated by governmental action to license LPFM. Eleven stories followed the dominant frame, documenting the interaction between the FCC and activists. Thus the news frame progressed as the issue expanded to include more than confrontation between the government and activists. As the FCC picked up and promoted the idea of low power FM (LPFM), the news frame shifted to the struggle over policy. As we know, Congress passed legislation limiting the FCC's authority to license LPFM stations and this intra-governmental struggle came to dominate the newspaper coverage in 2000. Metaphors: Rosa Parks and David and Goliath Another way to examine the newspaper coverage of the micro radio movement is to look at the metaphors that were used to describe the movement. Sometimes the activists themselves, attempting to invoke particular associations, used these metaphors and in other cases reporters used images to develop the themes embodied in the micro radio struggle. Two metaphors emerged that warrant attention because of the images they promote and the connections they make with previous social struggles: Rosa Parks and David and Goliath. In their argument about the connections between social movements, Eyerman & Jamison (1991) contend that successive social movements build on those of the past, learning from, refining and experimenting with previous strategies for advancing a cause. Both feminism and environmentalism are inconceivable without the student movement of the 1960s. Their reconceptualizations of nature and gender, and of social relations more generally, were impossible without the articulation of a more fundamental belief in liberation. The 1960s opened the space for the later social movements to fill with specific meanings (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991. p. 91). In the case of micro radio, activists experimented with varieties of civil disobedience as a way to gain attention while making a political statement. The primary form this took was illegal broadcasting. The metaphor of Rosa Parks appeared in a number of articles and was apt in many ways, linking the present struggle to previous movements for justice and equity. In an article following the FCC announcement of the LPFM licensing rules, The San Francisco Examiner ran a story describing the new rules: The ruling bans current and past pirate radio operators from applying for 10 years unless they closed down after being ordered to do so by the FCC. Many of these radio operators were leaders in the fight that led to the FCC ruling. "This was a civil disobedience movement," said Peter Franck of the National Lawyers Guild's Committee on Democratic Communication, which has been waging the legal battle for micro-radio stations. "It's like saying Rosa Parks is the only one who can't sit in the front of the bus" (The San Francisco Examiner, 1/24/00, p. C1). Though the FCC moved ahead with a plan to license micro radio, the people who were most responsible for advancing the issues behind the technology were set up to be the last ones to benefit from the policy. Thus the metaphor (or simile in this case) of micro broadcasters as similar to Rosa Parks made the connection with the previous work of the civil rights movement. Peter Franck was a lawyer who had been involved with micro radio since the Kantako case in the late 1980s. His quote in this article was another indication of the presence of the various components of the Media Activism Movement. As a civil rights lawyer who spent part of his time on the micro radio issue, he represented an institutional voice within the movement, a voice that worked within established power structures applying his knowledge of law in the service of the movement. Another member of the micro radio community repeated the Rosa Parks metaphor. In this second example, the activist was an illegal broadcaster. This quote revealed a level of communication within the community and between the categories outlined in the movement typology. Jerry Szoka became Cleveland's best-known micro broadcaster in four years of operating unlicensed GRID FM/96.9. GRID, which played commercial-free dance music and a talk show aimed at the gay community, ceased operation in February after U.S. District Judge Kathleen O'Malley granted the FCC a permanent injunction.... One of the (new LPFM) rules would disqualify him from a license, since he operated in violation of an FCC cease-and-desist order. "I did it in a responsible way," he said. "But they're penalizing people who brought the issue to the table. To bar microradio pioneers from the airwaves is equivalent to continuing to require Rosa Parks to ride in the back of the bus. "The radio spectrum, which we the public own, is being monopolized by just a few people, big corporations who are filling the pockets of Congress" (The Plain Dealer, 4/20/00, p. 1E). Thus the link is made again. Although the struggles may contain many similar issues, a close examination of the comparison of media activists to African Americans and their struggle for equal voting, education and opportunity rights may lack balance for some. The comparison may be limited, but the similarity lies with the people who broke laws to make a political statement. The lunch counter sit-in protesters were not denied access once lunch counters were desegregated and the micro radio activists hoped to be allowed to benefit from the work they had done promoting the LPFM issue. A second metaphor that appeared a number of times was the image of David and Goliath. Unlike the previous metaphor, which was used by the activists to describe themselves, this biblical reference was used by the reporters writing the newspaper articles. In a 1998 article from USA Today, the micro broadcasters don't even rise to the level of David. From dining rooms, basements, garages and even car batteries across the nation, these guerrilla broadcasters beam their illicit FM signals at under 100 watts. They are mere flyspecks compared with the 3,000- to 100,000-watt commercial FM goliaths that blanket entire regions (USA Today, 2/27/98, p. 1B). In this case, the micro broadcasters were "mere flyspecks" while the commercial broadcasters were the "goliaths" that dominate the airwaves yet remain vulnerable to their smaller opposition. As the biblical story goes, it was the small boy David who brought down the powerful giant Goliath. Given the commercial broadcasters' wealth and dominance of the airwaves, it is easy to assume they are the goliath in the analogy, although not everyone agreed with this assumption. The battle over low-power FM has been characterized on both sides as David vs. Goliath. But, grumbles NAB communications director Dennis Wharton, "who's David and who's Goliath?" Indeed, the low-power advocates have assembled a mighty lobby, taking full advantage of today's technology--e-mail and Web sites--to spread the gospel... The NAB responded with battle tactics of its own, calling on its longtime relations with members of Congress (Washington Post, 1/20/00, p. C1). Here the NAB attempted to invert the metaphor, positioning themselves as the embattled "David" struggling against the public wielding the tools of the Internet and civil disobedience. The fact that the NAB even felt threatened by the micro radio activists was an indication of the effectiveness of the knowledge and practices developed by the movement. A member of the activist community noted this point in the same article. "This demonstrates that, in the advocacy fight, the Internet and e-mail are forever changing lobbying," says Michael Bracy, a Washington lawyer who is the executive director of the Low Power Radio Coalition, the clearinghouse for low-power advocates. "This would have been a slam-dunk for the NAB five years ago" (Washington Post, 1/20/00, p. C1). This quote emphasized the impact of the digital technology on the power of organization. The Media Activism Movement was influenced by, and had connections to, the lessons of previous social movements; employing strategies of civil disobedience and at the same time exploring new avenues for coordinating action and information. As the micro radio issue moved from a struggle between activists and the FCC into a struggle between the FCC and Congress, the metaphor was reapplied. This story, looking at first blush like a David vs. Goliath tale, turns out to be something else--a classic Washington power struggle of political Olympians clashing miles above Huron's head [Amanda Huron was an activist from Washington, DC] (Washington Post, 5/15/00, p. A1). Though the micro broadcasters (David) had made a significant impact on the commercial broadcasters (Goliath) and the FCC, in the end they were not able to stop a larger political struggle from playing out. It can be argued that they prompted the "clashing of the Olympians," forcing the NAB to turn to Congress when the FCC had initiated action to support micro radio. These metaphors were a small part of the representation of the micro radio discourse that appeared in the newspaper coverage. The images and associations they evoke tell us something about this social struggle and what was at stake. Connecting micro radio to Rosa Parks served to remind the reader of the history of social struggle for equity and justice, and placed the "pirates" in the ranks of social heroes like Parks who stood up (or sat down as the case may be) for what she believed in. Similarly, the association with David and Goliath invoked the age-old image of the small, everyday person struggling against the powerful giant. With this image, the micro broadcasters were given the symbolic power to actually kill commercial broadcasters. Relying on small radio signals, little money and marginal political clout, micro radio posed a very real threat to an industry dominated by a few enormous media conglomerates. Representing Kennard: Prosecutor, Promoter, or Self Promoter? William Kennard, the Chairman of the FCC, played a significant role during this three-year period of the struggle over micro radio. Depending on one's vantage point, he was a vigilant law enforcer, a champion of the people, or a reckless administrator dead set on disrupting the broadcast industry. In addition to using Kennard's own words, the media picked up many of the comments and criticism about Kennard as they portrayed this key player in the micro radio debate. As the Chairman of the FCC, Kennard played a powerful discursive role in this issue and the power of his words was often a source of contention for both the advocates and the opponents of micro radio. As the first African American to head the FCC, William Kennard hoped to integrate his commitment to social justice with his leadership on broadcast policy. His biography on the FCC's web site states, Bill Kennard is committed to making sure that all Americans - no matter where they live, what their age, or what special needs they may have - have access to the technologies that are driving our economy and shaping our society. Kennard has been called, "a consumer advocate for the digital age," fighting to protect consumers in the telecom marketplace and ensuring that they have the information needed to make the best choices for them in a competitive marketplace (www.fcc.gov., accessed 6/5/01). This commitment to "all Americans" proved difficult to implement in an agency known for its commitment to the broadcast industry. Beginning his term as chairman in November 1997, shortly after his first year and the 1998 elections, Kennard was promoting the idea of free airtime to presidential candidates. Concerned about the $500 million spent by candidates on television commercials in 1998, Kennard proposed that television broadcasters be required to provide free airtime to candidates. This idea was ì¥Á€Wd%&0enting Micro Radio Newspaper Coverage of the Micro Radio Issue 1998-2000 by Andy Opel Assistant Professor Department of Communication Florida State University 356 Diffenbaugh Building Tallahassee, FL 32306-1531 (850)-644-8768 Fax: (850)-644-8642 [log in to unmask] Submitted for Presentation to the Critical and Cultural Studies Division of The Association of Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Convention Miami Beach, FL - August 7-10, 2002 Representing Micro Radio: Newspaper Coverage of the Micro Radio Issue 1998-2000 The 1990s were an active period in the development of micro radio theory and practice and the final three years of the decade built to a crescendo with a compelling climax. In the early 1990s, pirate (and later micro) radio gained nominal media attention, largely through the legal cases fought by Stephen Dunifer (U.S. v. Dunifer, 1994.) As Dunifer's legal case developed and many other prosecuted micro radio operators replicate ideas that confronted consolidation and homogenization in the broadcasting industry. This news article included Kennard's comments about the micro radio movement: Kennard says he thinks micro-broadcasting has exploded in popularity in the last five years as a backlash against the consolidation of station ownership spurred by the 1996 federal communications law. The movement, he says, has been fed by the Internet. "The Internet has created a way for them to communicate with one another in ways that are pretty powerful, " he says. "They are able ...to learn how to become a pirate" (LA Times, 3/5/98, p. A1). With this, Kennard picked up the micro radio critique of the current broadcasting arrangement. This critique and the cover it provided Kennard as he moved to legitimize LPFM did not originate with micro radio broadcasters, though it was as a result of their practices (specifically, illegal broadcasting) that the idea was moved from the realm of institutional and academic policy discourse into a public arena. Once in the public arena, Kennard used this "backlash against consolidation" theme repeatedly as he deflected criticism and supported licensed micro radio. 1998 was the year of contradictions for the FCC with regard to micro radio. In February, the FCC began soliciting public comments in response to a petition to initiate rulemaking procedures for licensing LPFM. At the same time, the FCC was aggressively shutting down illegal broadcasters, using tactics some considered extreme. In an article about a micro radio conference, activists' reactions to recent FCC station closures were quoted. "FCC Thugs Back Off"... The air was thick with accusations of "goon-squad tactics" and "SWAT-type raids" on the part of the agency.... 22-year old Kelly Benjamin (radio name: Kelly Kombat) decried the raids. "They handcuffed and hog-tied people," he said. "All we were doing was operating a radio station." ... The argument that low-wattage radio is necessary to bring more diversity to the dial seems to be causing some soul searching at the FCC. Commission Chairman William Kennard has called for full enforcement of licensing regulations but has also expressed concern that media mergers have limited the broadcast outlets available to the public (The Baltimore Sun, 4/13/98, p. 2A). Kennard was positioned as being on the receiving end of the micro radio discourse, responding to protest as opposed to initiating new policy. Although his background as a community radio DJ while an undergraduate at Stanford was noted in a few articles, the majority of the pieces placed the activists at the center of the production of micro radio discourse. The twin roles of Kennard in 1998, as enforcer and advocate, continued in a New York Times piece in August: "If the FCC truly supported free speech, they would be doing everything in their power to make microradio happen," M. Edmondson, 45, of San Francisco Liberation Radio, said. "Instead they're trying to stamp it out." In fact, in a new twist in the labored debate over the fate of tiny community radio stations, the FCC appears to be doing both. It is at once aggressively pursuing and shutting down micro stations, while it also considers licensing radio stations that broadcast below 100 watts of power, compared with 50,000 watts for typical radio stations.... "With consolidation, radio has become the province of multi-billion dollar corporations," Mr. Kennard said. "The loss of small religious stations and local programming is very unfortunate." Mr. Kennard said there was nothing inconsistent in his efforts to crack down on unlicensed stations and to find room for low power stations on the dial. "If there's not some discipline to this process, the spectrum won't work," he said. "We can't have pirates just signing onto frequencies as they chose and broadcasting willy-nilly on the airwaves" (New York Times, 8/20/89, p. G7). Thus the NY Times portrayed Kennard as safeguarding the integrity of the broadcast spectrum while attempting to increase the diversity of the airwaves. Although it was the action of the pirates that initiated the media coverage and the ensuing public dialogue, Kennard was able to separate the FCC from the pirates as he picked up substantive pieces of the pirate's discourse. As 1998 drew to a close, a year of record micro station closures by the FCC, the news coverage shifted to a focus on an emerging plan to license micro radio. The biggest proponent behind this plan was William Kennard. It appears the pirates have found a sympathetic - and seemingly improbable - ear in Washington, a kindred spirit of sorts who is in a position to get things done. He is William E. Kennard, chairman of the FCC and a vocal proponent of licensing "microradio." If Kennard gets his way, scanning the FM dial will once again bring specialized niche broadcasts into the nation's homes, cars and offices... "There are a lot of people who want to find ways to speak to their communities, and these are not just big corporations that can afford to buy radio stations," Kennard said. "These are churches and schools and small businesses and community based organizations."... Kennard is concerned about "the homogenization of radio around the country." He added, "Remember, it belongs to all of us; it doesn't just belong to a few people who can afford to get into it" (The Tampa Tribune, 12/30/98, p. 1). While Kennard continued to reference "churches and schools," the micro broadcasters the FCC shut down included Christian patriot advocates and leftist social justice supporters. This article documented Kennard's use of the micro radio discourse. From the legal arguments in the Dunifer case to statements to the press, the micro radio community consistently referred to the cost of accessing radio as a medium of communication as well as the idea that the airwaves were a public resource that was managed by the FCC in the "public interest." Kennard reiterated these ideas while he repudiated the people who had raised the issue up out of the corridors of regulatory agencies and pages of policy journals. The Tribune article went on to state: Kennard is not too concerned about the pirates' opinions and he denies their assertions that their movement pressed him to support microradio. He said he has been interested in equity issues throughout his nearly 20-year career as a communications lawyer. "I have no interest in protecting pirates or doing anything for them, because they violated the law," he said. "This is for people who want to act responsibly and lawfully and want to come to the FCC and get a license and use it to serve their communities" (The Tampa Tribune, 12/30/98, p. 1). Thus, Kennard made an active effort to separate himself from the activists at the same time that he repeated many pieces of their discourse and moved to address many of their concerns. This may have been a conscious attempt to insulate himself, the FCC, and the micro radio policy proposal from the assault that lay ahead. The National Association of Broadcasters was not going to accept any new stations on the FM dial and they went after Kennard as well as his policies. With the announcement of the new micro rules in January 1999, the NAB enlisted the help of Congress to prevent their implementation. On February 22, 1999, the New York Daily News ran a story with the first indication of this alliance. The National Association of Broadcasters does not care for the idea (LPFM) at all, fearing audio interference with established stations. Rep. Bill Tauzin (R.-La.), chairman of the House Telecommuncations subcommittee, last week backed the NAB, warning of "staggering ramifications" and asking the FCC to drop the issue altogether (New York Daily News, 2/22/99, p. 74). In spite of more than 13,000 requests for licenses to operate micro radio stations from groups and individuals in the two years leading up to the FCC LPFM decision, as well as more than 3000 public comments submitted to the FCC, the vast majority of which were in support of the FCC licensing scheme, a member of Congress asked the FCC to stop its support for micro radio. Although both Kennard and Congressman Tauzin might have agreed on the "staggering ramifications" of LPFM, their visions of these ramifications could not have been further apart. The tension between Congress and the FCC continued, evidenced by a USA Today article published one month later bearing the headline, "FCC Faces Critics in Congress." The House telecommunications subcommittee is expected to grill the five FCC commissioners, particularly on what critics consider a penchant to overstep their mandate. "We're not talking about just tweaking" the agency, says Ken Johnson, a spokesman for subcommittee Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La. "We want to rein in a lot of its assumed authority" (USA Today, 3/17/99, p. 3B). This issue proved divisive for Congress. After the subcommittee hearing, Kennard supporters wrote the Chairman to support the FCC's decision to move ahead with LPFM. In their letter, they wrote: The tremendous public demand for micro radio is demonstrated by the proliferation of illegal radio stations, whose operators broadcast at the risk of financial losses and, in some cases, imprisonment (Kansas City Star, 5/25/99, p. A1). The role of the grassroots activists was highlighted here, drawing the attention of congressional representatives and serving as an indication that something was amiss in radio land. Although academics and institutional researchers had addressed this issue in other forms, it was the practices of the pirates that gained the attention of these congressmen (and the news media) and helped to motivate their defense of Kennard and the LPFM policy. The NAB and Tauzin made a concerted effort to portray Kennard and the FCC as moving too quickly and failing to safeguard existing broadcasters. Another strategy used to discredit the policy was to expose the possibility of micro radio's use by racists. "We do not want to deny schools, churches and civic organizations a voice on the airwaves, but we are not particularly excited about giving the David Dukes of the world a platform either." Said Ken Johnson, spokesman for Billy Tauzin, a republican from Louisiana.... "It's a huge policy decision," Tauzin aide Johnson said. "Billy told Kennard in no uncertain terms that he is not to proceed with microstations without consulting Congress" (Kansas City Star, 5/25/99, p. A1). Thus the chairman of the FCC had a policy not only questioned by Congress, but threatened with intervention prior to any Congressional vote about the matter. Even before the first license was issued, micro radio was causing upheaval in the policy formation process. Throughout 1999 the media focused on this struggle within the government, largely leaving the activists out of the story. In an extended piece in the LA Times, the struggle between Kennard and the NAB was given considerable attention. The NAB continued to accuse the FCC of increasing interference for existing stations. Kennard addressed this argument in a speech to the NAB, quoted in the LA Times. "Frankly, it is not helpful to hear only rhetoric that 'the sky is falling.' " Kennard told the association in a speech before its annual convention in April. "It only serves to undermine the credibility of your arguments in the end." Kennard says later that he understands, but dismisses, the crowded-airwaves argument. "The NAB's approach is to put as few stations out there as possible. My approach is to put as many out there as can be accommodated without creating interference. The airwaves are a public resource and we ought to maximize their use (LA Times, LA Times Magazine, 6/13/99, p. 24). The article continued with a sympathetic tone toward Kennard as it attempted to represent the response of the NAB. His argument is reasoned and delivered in even tones - he hardly sounds like a zealot, as one trade journal described him as "The Man Who Killed Radio."... "It's clear that Kennard is totally 100% committed to this and will go to the wall for this one," one insider says. "There clearly is an agenda that the chairman has," a broadcaster adds (LA Times, LA Times Magazine, 6/13/99, p. 24). This article also revealed that the NAB was not the only group opposing Kennard. In spite of his articulate defense of micro radio and the need to diversify the airwaves, his motives were suspect by some in the micro radio community. Yet not everyone has a place in Kennard's utopian future. Pirates like Dunifer and Gerry, who have ignored the government's broadcast regulations, will probably be denied licenses under the FCC's "character clause." As a result, many unlicensed broadcasters dismiss the FCC's motives as less than genuine. The commission's real intention, they say, is to co-opt the micro radio movement by dividing it into good and bad broadcasters, rewarding the first group and creating pariahs of the second. Worse, they believe the government will turn low power stations into tiny commercial outlets, beholden to the same financial considerations that homogenized mainstream radio (LA Times, LA Times Magazine, 6/13/99, p. 24). Thus we see Kennard as a disputed figure, questioned from all sides as he attempted to respond to the public and political pressures. His quotes revealed significant overlap with the discourse of the micro radio advocates; need for diversity, cost of access, public ownership of the airwaves. Nevertheless, the activist community remained skeptical of Kennard, fearful of being "co-opted." As the fight over micro radio moved from the airwaves and into the halls of government, the media designated Kennard the spokesmen for micro radio. Despite the fact that many micro radio activists were dissatisfied with the FCC policy, Kennard's defenses of the FCC proposal became the dominant discourse in support of micro radio. The tension between the realized goals of a social movement and the idea that once institutionalized, the goals become co-opted, adds a bit of complexity to the evanescent, temporal conception of social movements. Some argue that social movements are successful when they have passed away, the effects of their knowledge production having been integrated into more formal social institutions (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991). The idea of co-opted micro radio points to the actual process of integrating a movement's cognitive space as another site of struggle, where superficial pieces of a movement's knowledge and practices may be appropriated without achieving the larger goals of the movement. When the FCC voted on the Report and Order for the creation of low power FM radio service on January 20, 2000, many of the advocate's fears were assuaged. The order outlined rules limiting ownership to one station per owner, local residency requirements and non-commercial status for all LPFM stations. This ruling drew instant opposition from the NAB, with many newspapers coving the controversy. NAB President Edward Fritz issued a terse statement in response to the vote: "The FCC has turned its back on spectrum integrity. Every legitimate scientific study validates that interference will result from [low-power FM]. This FCC has chosen advancement of social engineering over spectrum integrity. It's a sad day for radio listeners" (The Washington Post, 1/21/00, p. E02). The NAB relied on the issue of interference in most of its statements in opposition to LPFM, claiming the physics of the spectrum could not be altered to include more stations without interference. The above statement accused the FCC of "social engineering," masking the fact that broadcast policy was littered with concepts (public interest, localism, etc.) that attempted to balance first amendment rights with spectrum scarcity. What Fritz argued was that the NAB preferred social engineering that privileged larger stations that occupy larger pieces of the broadcast spectrum. This argument can be seen as naturalizing the current regulatory scheme and making any changes to that "unnatural" and potentially dangerous to radio, as we know it. The struggle between Kennard and the NAB continued as Congress drafted legislation to limit the implementation of LPFM. Kennard defended the new policy and the technical issues within it. He aggressively defended the FCC and its long history of broadcast regulation while questioning how Congress or the NAB could possibly be better positioned to create broadcast policy. The NY Times gave Kennard plenty of space to make his case: "This is not rocket science. We have studied the way FM signals propagate around the country. The interference argument is being used as a smokescreen to mask the historical battle by incumbents who want to protect their markets," Kennard said.... "The FCC has turned it's back on its principle mission of maintaining spectrum integrity," said Edward O. Fritz, president of the National Association of Broadcasters. "The technical arguments are not a smokescreen. They stand on their own merit. If this could be done, it would have been done 20 years ago" (NY Times, 3/27/00, p. C1). As the war of words played out in the media, the NAB successfully enlisted the help of National Public Radio (NPR) in its opposition to LPFM. NPR, like the NAB, was concerned about interference, loss of audience and the possibility that micro stations might encroach on existing FM translators, devices that boost FM signals into rural areas or areas where reception is isolated by mountains. When the U.S. Congress passed legislation limiting the implementation of LPFM and requiring further technical study, Kennard spoke out and again the NY Times covered his speech. "This is very cynical legislation," said William E. Kennard, the chairman of the FCC who first proposed the plan more than a year ago. "As a practical matter it would kill low power FM."... "The FCC has moved without any consideration of the facts," said Representative John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan. "This is a reasonable common sense compromise. It will protect the broadcasters, it will protect the licensees, and above all else, it will protect listeners of the FM spectrum" (NY Times, 4/14/00, p. C1). This debate raged back and forth throughout 2000 as Congress remained active in the dispute. Kennard consistently defended the policy, reiterating the need for increased diversity and community voices on the radio and the NAB and NPR consistently repeated their concerns about the effect of interference on existing stations and listeners. "The FCC wanted to add everything but the kitchen sink into the nation's FM radio spectrum, creating significant interference with existing stations and services," Oxley (R., OH) said.... "I don't know what's fuzzier, said Eddie Fritz, NAB president, "The static that comes from low power FM or the FCC's thinking on the issue." FCC Chairman Kennard saw it differently after the House passed the Oxley bill. "Special interests triumphed over community interests," he said. "What this is about is fear of new entrants into the market. It is no different from the battles to kill low-power TV, cable TV, satellite radio, and satellite television" (The Plain Dealer, 4/20/00, p. 1E). Exchanges such as this were common throughout the news stories during the year 2000. The NAB attempted to portray Kennard as a self-promoter who was willing to risk chaos on the FM dial in order to leave his mark on history. By 2000, the activists' had softened their criticisms of Kennard, no longer portraying him as a vengeful prosecutor instead, echoing his words of support. Thus, the newspaper representations of Kennard moved from that of tough radio cop to people's advocate in the fight against big business. The NAB attempted to portray him as overzealous in his quest for public access to the airwaves, though the media consistently gave more space to Kennard's defense of his policy than to the NAB repeated accusations of interference. After the protracted presidential election was finally resolved through Supreme Court intervention, the U.S. Congress attached the Radio Preservation Act of 2000 to a major appropriations bill. This strategy was chosen because of President Clinton's expressed support for LPFM and vow to veto the Radio Preservation Act. After passage through the Congress and on its way to the President's desk, the now familiar positions on this issue received one more round of coverage. The New York Times described the Radio Preservation Act as: The first time in recent memory that lawmakers actually stripped the agency of the power to manage an important part of the spectrum....Mr. Kennard saw this as the cornerstone of his agenda to promote civil-rights issues at the FCC..... Mr. Kennard said the legislation "shows the dangers of politicizing spectrum management." "This is a resource that everyone has to share," Mr. Kennard said. "We can't allow people who have the spectrum to use their political clout to shut out voices that don't have the same clout. This highlights the power of incumbency. Companies that have spectrum guard it jealously, and they can use Congress to prevent new voices from having access to the airwaves" (NY Times, 12/19/00, p. A1). And with a predictable response, Mr. Fritts was quoted as saying the NAB was: "pleased that Congress has protected radio listeners against additional interference that would have been caused by the FCC low-power initiative" (NY Times, 12/19/00, p. A1). The Radio Preservation Act of 2000 was signed into law the next day. Nevertheless, the FCC proceeded with the licensing of the first 255 stations in 20 states. These stations complied with the more restrictive spectrum spacing imposed by the Radio Preservation Act and the NY Times reported that the 255 stations were less than half of what the initial FCC proposal would have allowed. The majority of the licenses went to churches and schools (NY Times, 12/22/00, p. C5). Most of the approved stations were in rural areas where the radio spectrum is not overly cluttered. This was hardly the end of the policy, however as President Bush took office, Kennard resigned and was replaced by commissioner Michael Powell. The LPFM application and licensing process continued under the more restrictive guidelines set by Congress. The policy remained in play within the FCC and the micro radio community remained active despite the legislative set backs. Conclusion The print media was kind to the micro radio movement and provided a large public platform for the presentation of the movement's ideas. From profiles of local broadcasters to emphatic editorials, the major newspapers played a significant role in advancing the micro radio discourse. If a movement's success is measured by the degree to which its ideas are disseminated and integrated into established social institutions and discourses, the representations examined here suggest a movement that was rather effective at molding the cognitive terrain of micro radio into a socially acceptable form. The extended defense of micro radio by Chairman Kennard is a testament to the power of the discourse of public media access and diversity. Though the specific micro radio policy has been stymied for the moment, the structure of the Media Activism Movement appears to have been strengthened by engaging the micro radio struggle. Making a comparison with the environmental movement, the spotted owl controversy was not solved by the designation of the owl as an endangered species. Logging practices continue that threaten the bird's survival and pressures to ease restrictions on logging never cease. Nevertheless, the environmental movement, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, was strengthened through the work to defend this bird. Networks were established, discursive terrain mapped and articulated, alliances formed and oppositions identified. The same can be said of micro radio. Media consolidation and the struggle to allow local communities to access media technology in non-commercial ways will be an on-going struggle for some time. What this research revealed is that the dominant media (in this case print media) can play a significant role in distributing a social movement's discourse. The representation of a movement discourse can be problematic and subject to misrepresentation or marginalization. Fortunately for the micro radio community, the dominant press gave the activists fair space to make their case and in doing so, provided significant visibility to the issues raised by an emerging media activism movement. Reference List Eyerman, R., & Jamison, A. (1991). Social movements: a cognitive approach. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press. FCC (2000) Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, MM Docket No. 99-25, FCC (proposed Jan. 20, 2000). Report and Order. FCC (1999) Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, MM Docket No. 99-25, FCC (proposed Jan. 28, 1999). For the complete document, see http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/fcc99006.txt, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. McChesney, R. W. (2001, May 14). Kennard, the public & the FCC, The Nation. McChesney, R. W. (1999). Rich media poor democracy: communication politics in dubious times . Chicago: University of Illinois Press. McChesney, R. W. (1998). The political economy of radio, in Sakolsky, R. & Dunifer, S. (Eds.), Seizing the Airwaves: A Free Radio Handbook. San Francisco: AK Press. McChesney, R. W. (1997). Corporate media and the threat to democracy . New York: Seven Stories Press. McChesney, R. W. (1993). Telecommunications, mass media, and democracy : the battle for the control of U.S. broadcasting, 1928-1935. New York : Oxford University Press. U.S. v. Dunifer (1994, Oct. 6). No. C-94-03542 CW. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Commerce, (2000, Feb. 17). FCC's spectrum management responsibilities hearing. 1 This study is an examination of the dominant newspaper coverage of micro radio from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2000. These dates were chosen to match the period of time that the listserv discussion was examined and because previous research had documented many aspects of micro radio up until 1998. The newspapers examined were selected by the Lexus-Nexus database, using the Academic Universe search tool. The Academic Universe selects the newspapers from the 50 largest circulation markets in the United States. Because of limitations of time and space, no magazines, television or radio transcripts were used. The Lexus-Nexus Academic Universe database was searched using the following search terms: Micro radio, pirate radio, and low power radio. This search, using the above dates, yielded a total of 137 articles from the 50 largest newspapers in the United States. These articles were then read using traditional historical method with attention given to the concept of discourse as articulated by Fairclough (1995, 1992). 1 27 Representing Micro Radio