Explore the Definitions of and possible Tensions Surrounding the Idea of Alternative Media. What do we actually mean by Alternative Media?
Explore the definitions of and possible tensions surrounding the idea of alternative media. What do we actually mean by alternative media?
Introduction
There have been attempts to define alternative media through scholarly research by academicians. It is viewed as critical media, actually mass media, questioning the prevailing capitalist classes of media output, design, content, dissemination and responding. There are many traits of alternative media but all traits are not essential in the forming of alternative media.
Generally, a lack of empirical data is seen as a problem, as intentions of alternative media producers cannot be judged from different sources. Defining the alternative media is a complex task. Out of many traits of alternative media, some are: it is off-beat, distinct from the trodden path; it may refer to the content that is marginalized; events and opinions are not welcomed generally, using such mediums as flyers and podcasts; voicing in favor of oppositional issues, minorities and have-nots; asking and inspiring audiences to take action, seek their participation and making shared decisions (Fuchs, 2010).
There is disagreement over how to draw a line between alternative and mainstream media. It is also proposed that alternative media needs to be non-commercial, with a non-profit approach. Generally, activists of alternative media criticize mainstream media. Some others underscore the need for alternate media to function as producers of opposing information and carriers of growth through socio-political initiatives and through sharing truths and viewpoints via communication means. Empirical study also reveals and corroborates that activist newspaper, online Independent Media Houses, public-radio station and not-for-profit local news streaming indicates that some alternative media outputs work for similar aims and cherish such ideals (Fuchs, 2010).
Academicians have strived to define alternative media with the help of theories and related details. Generally, focus is laid on form of alternative media than its content by evaluating its producers and products instead of the audiences. Form aspect of alternative media stresses on money, framework and technology related procedures of output and apportioning, including features like functioning on a not-for-profit or not-for-commercial basis; remaining prepared for shared possession or on making final decisions; employing two-way dialogue; accepting routine roles or resident producers; limited in scope, as focused on a niche area; using means that permit wider or low-cost reach. The content aspect of alternative media states features like finding fault with mainstream media; publishing confrontational politics and dynamism of culture; including side-lined issues; giving prominence to ignored voices; providing compassionate description of social causes and sharing information to attract readers (Rauch, 2015).
Many academicians avoid defining alternative media in inverted commas, disapproving the duality of approach towards both media by considering them mutually inclusive divisions. Rather both kinds of media are likened as a ‘spectrum’ or ‘continuum’ where some vent their feelings exhibiting more alternative trends to others. Statistical research supports that alternatives are symbiotically connected to mainstream media and as such these divisions are less central or imposing than assumed by some. For example, it is observed that alternative-media users take over from mainstream media. Actually, an exchange is occurring between alternative traits getting visibility in mainstream media companies, the corresponding is also occurring, i.e. mainstream media is also borrowing from alternate media (Rauch, 2015).
It is an indication of media content having a tendency to trump form, which suggests minute distinctions between viewers’ ideations and scholarly theorizing of alternative media. Alternative media, therefore, seems to have a unique system of values that have the scope of many incongruities. Opinions are unanimous over corporate-commercial aims and trends that had been an issue for media shops but not for the preferred ‘alternative’ media. In view of the high value attached to the content, because of the possible value attained by alternative content, it has reduced the degree of any likeliness of damage done by mainstream form. It means that the expected social change is taking place through alternative-media riding on the back of capitalism, but the stakeholders of alternative media are bearing this as an initial essential step towards widening market for the new media (Rauch, 2015).
As stated above, it is not easy to draw a line between alternative media and mainstream media, as both cross over each other’s spaces but there is another trend that indicates a robust connection between alternative media and activism. In other words, alternative media plays a constructive part in creating awareness and rallying activists who form an important segment of becoming their own audience. For instance, research indicates that it is the alternative press that designs voicing of social opposition with sympathy, presenting activists in a positive manner. Complexity of observation is felt when it is seen that audience belonging to activist community make increasing use of alternative media than other audience. At the same time, it is also right that they use mainstream media increasingly in comparison to non-activists. Such a situation allows activists to explain the content of mainstream media using criticism or restraint or most probably inhale alternative content that speaks about opposing the mainstream content only (Fuchs, 2007).
Trend of hybrid practices is also being seen wherein websites are employing resident reporters to bring into focus neglected fields while also controlling non-professional author contributions and making money via sponsorships to survive in the business. It is a flexible approach, which facilitates hiding the drawbacks of definitional approach, allowing space not to approximate alternate media opposite the ideal features of mainstream media. In our current scenario, we see this trend highly popular in alternative media where Viacom’s The Daily Show, News Corporation’s Fox News, AOL-Huffington Post, and Facebook have hierarchical set ups owned by big businesses, run and managed via advertisements, which are not the traits of alternate media otherwise (Rauch, 2015).
What is Alternative Media?
It was Habermas who coined in the term ‘public sphere’ in his works, indicating the presence of individual unitary area of sympathetic communication. It was later renamed as alternative media, encouraging peoples’ participation by providing a platform for communication exchange, called as public spheres. These spheres were used for discovering, voicing and disseminating opposing lectures, helping them to form contrary explanations of their identities, tastes and needs. Such a platform helped in creating a feeling of belongingness besides adding to the participants’ knowledge base, provided by activists. Information is exchanged about impending occurrences, connecting dynamic movements globally (Fuchs, 2007).
As activists carry forward same orientations in the direction of engagement and alternative media, an explanatory community of their network gets created, having common realizations of social truths and intervened content. While all members read uniquely, their explanations present a social output that imbibes inter-subjective meanings particular to the group (Fuchs, 2007).
We can see many examples of activists of alternative media, getting information from their alternate sources. For example, for explaining one episode of World News Tonight, activists named various news sources, including mainstream as well as alternate sources. These included Harper’s Magazine,’ ‘Z Magazine,’ popular media ‘The New York Times,’ an online copy of the ‘Philadelphia Inquirer,’ ‘The Times,’ ‘CN-8,’ – thus media range was quite varied for participants, belonging to communities like Not In Our Name, Jobs with Justice and Refuse and Resist. As we see all media stated above do not fit in the category of alternative media. Then it becomes more pertinent to ask the activists how they define the term ‘alternative’. There is inter-subject unanimity of opinion among activists that is similar to the subject of obscenity, as they have an alternative media source in their minds. They limit the scope of such media, as standing against the mainstream media, which is recognizable as commercial, large, and corporate media, walking the safe path by catering to wider audiences by employing the formula of depoliticizing. Main difference between both categories is that mainstream is controlled by big corporate while alternative media mostly can be differentiated with given examples of being small in size (Fuchs, 2007).
Many activists also referred to Independent Media Centers (IMCs), as non-profit media companies whose members primarily report on social transformations and raise their voice through the web to balance the equation with the media industry’s corporate framework and business tactics. A local campus TV station is a true example of alternative media, as it does not show company advertisements. Their news broadcasting is not interfered with product placement. Taking a lead from this defining principle of alternative media, organizations like PBS and NPR are compromised to some extent by corporate support and government financial backing, therefore, are not ‘truly independent’ or ‘totally public’. Creating awareness among masses, democratic discussion and social development, according to the activists, is the leading force in alternative media (Fuchs, 2007).
Activists of alternative media don’t go through mainstream media knowingly but by chance or sometimes the situation creates the need to view the mainstream content. In a way, they find a sense of belongingness, a symbolic value through genuine and perceived choices of digesting alternative media. Whenever exposure to the mainstream media occurs, activists justify the exposure. There is an incessant attempt by the activists to trivialize their digest of mainstream media by providing genuine clarifications, why and how the situation called for viewing or reading it. There are activists like Janice, who view a number of network-affiliated programs, change the channels to view mainstream TV news just to read the headlines of the day. Such activists then go online to check the actual headlines of the news on their network-affiliated channels. Their interest in mainstream media is limited to the extent of helping them to be interactive with alternative ones. Activists have a strategic aim when they shift their focus on mainstream media, to know the issues and then form an opposing opinion to counter the projected opinion as per their radical beliefs (Fuchs, 2007).
Alternative for Whom
Supporters of alternative media want to present the other side of the popular media stories to the common man, working to impress upon the community, the other side of the story. Activists work for themselves, to cater to their distinct interests and tastes and be the spokespersons of those whose voice is not highlighted by the poplar mainstream media. Like Janice, activists see TV to find out which channel is catering to their distinct needs. If it is not CNN, they would change to MSNBC. Fox News can be an alternative source of news to find traces of secular humanity, not perceivable in this mainstream media. So it is a just excuse to find faults in their reaction to the news stories so that the other side, not covered by Fox News could be interpreted (Fuchs, 2007).
Thus, activists of alternative media present the second option to mainstream media for themselves, their groups, and audiences to impress upon them the social and just cause, the voice not represented by the mainstream media because mainstream media is represented by the corporate class who want advertisements, sponsorships and government funding. Their news broadcasting cannot be believed to be truthful in the sense that it caters to the interests of the wider audiences. For-profit media organizations have the higher possibility of compromising the interests of wider communities and groups (Fuchs, 2007).
There is not any brick & mortar wall dividing alternatives from mainstream media, as alternatives work in the guise of informers, entertaining themselves with the broadcasting of mainstream media but not believing in the genuineness of mainstream sources. Activists check the information for correct reporting, doubting the sources, as one activist has this hobby of corroborating the wrong claims made in the Fox News by its commentator Bill O’Reilly. He just enjoys copying down the commentary of Bill O’ Reilly, analyze and cross-check it for authenticity and revert back to the commentator with the facts of the matter. What was important for the activist was criticism of the statement made by the commentator by checking facts and correcting the news, thus, deriving pleasure from the incident as the commentator Bill O’ Reilly was proved wrong. The activist was not viewing mainstream media just for getting important news from the mainstream media program. At the same time the credit of the whole exercise was partly given to the alternative media (Fuchs, 2007).
Conclusion
We cannot draw lines between mainstream media and alternative media but we need to acknowledge and give credit to the alternative media for playing a positive and balanced role in the wider interest of humanity cause. These niche communities of alternative media need to be created by their stakeholders for representing the truth and other side of the story, not shown on the mainstream media.
References
Fuchs, C. (2010). Alternative media as critical media. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(2), pp. 173–192. doi: 10.1177/1368431010362294
Rauch, J. (2007). Activists as interpretive communities: rituals of consumption and interaction in an alternative media audience. Media Culture & Society, 29 (6), 994-1013. doi: 10.1177/0163443707084345
Rauch, J. (2015). Exploring the alternative–mainstream dialectic: what “alternative media” means to a hybrid audience. Communication, culture & Critique, 8, pp. 124-143. doi:10.1111/cccr.12068
