It seems that all is not well with community radio in the US.

The Pacifica Network, flagship of American community' radio, is embroiled in labour-management disputes as well as contention regarding the very nature of its mission. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps federally fund some community radio, has had funds cut by the Congressional right-wing contingent. In turn, the CPB has established new criteria for receiving funds which threatens eligibility for a number of community stations. Within the National Federation of Community Broadcasters (NFCB), there is a perceived preoccupation with "professionalization" of both management and program production and a push for nationally produced programming with a more standardized format. In response, if not quite in opposition, a new organization -- Grassroots Radio -- emerged last year with more than 80 participants at its first conference, almost a third of the typical attendance at NFCB conferences. 

Meanwhile, in the nation at large, consolidation of commercial media ownership continues at an alarming rate with the predictable homogenization of content. The government has decided to "end welfare as we know it," to de-fund the arts and education in favour of policing and prisons, to undertake a series of draconian measures to limit immigration, and, generally, to stifle progressive political discourse in the name of corporate market and labour needs. So, the strains on community radio reflect those at the national (and global) level. 

Why should community radio be immune to the budget shrinkage and labour disciplining that all but the few are experiencing? The critical issue for community radio premised on social justice, anti-racism and inclusion is how to respond to these challenges. The very survival of US community radio is at stake. Let's look at the Pacifica case.

What is clear is that for about two years, there has been increasing turmoil between Pacifica's management and many of its paid and volunteer staff. In some instances, listeners of the network's five stations have sided with staff. A number of paid staff and volunteer programmers have been removed from the air or their jobs, and in February 1997, the National Labour Relations Board ruled against Pacifica in its attempt to remove volunteers from union representation at WBAI in New York. With regard to programming, Pacifica's critics argue that Pacifica's sound is becoming ever less distinguishable from mainstream media, that the boldest journalistic content - that which is most likely to draw Congressional ire -is disappearing. Pacifica has argued that it has been impelled to reorganize programming in order to increase listenership and that dissent comes from only a very small group of former employees and volunteers. It claims to be trying to protect the interests of paid staff which are different than those of volunteers and that it remains committed to providing strong progressive programming. 

Which side one chooses to believe is a personal matter, but there are some realities which cannot be overlooked as they are the most threatening aspects of this dispute. First, Pacifica's national and local governing boards "beholden to no one and self chosen are, in a public institution. autocratic, pure and simple." (Michael Albert, Z Magazine, February' 1997). Secondly, all Pacifica programmers (paid and volunteer) and by extension their listeners are prohibited from discussing these matters on the air. Many community stations prohibit "airing station dirty linen." but complaining that one didn't get a requested time slot, for example, is far distant from discussing issues affecting the very' nature of progressive media. In this case. it has contributed to rumours and conspiracy theories and it has certainly resulted in much bad feeling among staff. I have spoken to various staff who report that they are reluctant to discuss the matter -- even off the air -- for fear of reprisals. They appear at their stations only when absolutely necessary, they no longer know who they can trust at their stations and they physically leave rooms in order to avoid management in social situations. 

While community radio may be subjected to the same economic inequities affecting the rest of the nation/world, it is imperative that we try to respond to them in ways that reflect our mission. Closed doors and mouths should be rejected. But by now there is much bad blood and mistrust, so I applaud Albert's suggestion to convene a board of progressives to hear, mediate and propose resolutions in this conflict which threatens a very critical sector of our community media. We must not only act fairly but be perceived as acting fairly to our workers and our communities. 

With regard to the other problems, the demise of CPB funding might not be a bad thing. Is it a coincidence that Pacifica's programming changes followed the first threatened cutbacks to this federal funding? I think not. No such funding was received by community radio prior to the early 80's which diminished the possibility for political pressure on programming. National programming from Pacifica and elsewhere should also be seen positively as long as broadcasting of specific national programming is decided on an individual basis by local stations. Similarly. the lobbying efforts provided by national representation through the NFCB is crucial. But it is imperative that local perspectives be validated. In this light, the emergence of Grassroots Radio should be seen as a boon rather than a threat to existing organizations. It is an exceedingly important resource for those of us who rely on the efforts of volunteers committed to the vision of community radio.