RTV Theory and Practice - Special Issue
netvvorking to share information and programming on an ongoing basis (AMARC , 1987). The conference came at a propitious moment for locai anđ community broađcasters throughout the worlđ. National governments in both North America and in western Europe were in the process of re-thinking the premises upon which the establishment of radio (e.g., the granting of licenses , financing , types of program services) was based . In the United States and in western Europe , in Asia , Australia , Latin America and in Africa , local communities were becoming organized and local peoples were demanđing that they be given access to the airwaves to be heard , as well as an active role in decision-making about what they wanted to hear , in ways that were unprecedenteđ (Braid and Clavel , 1984; Crookes anđ Vittet -Philippe , 1986; Fist and Fist,l9B4; Hein , 1985; Jarren and Widlok , 1985; Schulman , 1985). New ways of producing programs were being shared among peoples from various cultures; novel methods of community organizing through the local radio service were being attempted , and there was a facilitation of growing citizen participation in community-decision making through transformed channels of radio (Lewis, 1984). While experienced radio producers and community organizers were sharing their experiences in Vancouver, Canada, others who had never produced radio for themselves were gathered together in Essen, West Germany , to participate in a conference on "Radio Fantasies" to imagine what radio might be like if only they hađ a chance to produce it for themselves (Radio Phantasien, 1986). Clearly , a change was in the air . While the possibilities of local community members producing and providing rađio programming services for themselves may cause a great deal of interest and excitement, as well as ređefining the uses to which a medium can be put for both receivers as well as senđers , such redefinitions đo contain certain inherent problems . These problems range from a lack of clear đefinition of what constitutes "community radio" , in what ways it differs from "local rađio" (and why that đif f erence may be problematic for community activists) , to problems with financing for eguipment and staff , to ascertaining who speaks for which community , and how differing claims to be heard must be mediated for stations to sur.vive . This paper seeks to ađdress some of these problems in the context of mođels of community radio that have existed in the United States for some time . These problems range from a lack of clear definition of what constitutes "commumty radio" , m what ways it differs from "local rađio" (anđ why that
161