Tuning in to the Geographies of Radio

Catherine Wilkinson

Edge Hill University

Catherine.wilkinson@edgehill.ac.uk

Radio is a landscape, a place inhibited by heroes and villains(Vowell, 1996)

Introduction

The literature on geography and radio is notably scarce. Though regrettable, the largely

dormant study of radio in the geography literature is not unsurprising, owing to geopolitics’

fixation with visual media (Pinkerton and Dodds, 2009). Smith (1994) supports this point,

highlighting geography’s emphasis on landscapes over soundscapes. More recently, a number

of scholars have presented soundscapes as relevant to geographical debate, moving away

from discussions of space and place which have been embedded within visual

epistemologies, towards a new subfield of sonic geographies (e.g. Boland, 2010; Boyd and

Duffy, 2012; Gallagher and Prior, 2014; Matless, 2005). This chapter devotes attention to the

portable soundscape of radio. Using Truax’s (2000:4) definition, a soundscape is: “the totality

of all sounds within a location with an emphasis on the relationship between individual’s or

society’s perception of, understanding of and interaction with the sonic environment”. In

particular, this chapter presents the origins and historical context of radio, and theoretical

perspectives to the study of radio by scholars across the globe. Radio is defined herein, in line

with Pluskota (2015:327), as the evolving traditional terrestrial-based broadcast model, which

when combined with satellite radio and Internet technologies, make up the “media listening

experience” market we recognise today.

Radio’s character as an invisible and perpetual medium makes it difficult to study. This has

not dissuaded interdisciplinary scholarship from focussing on the history and cultural,

political and economic impacts of radio. However, radio has not been given the study that it

deserves, particularly due to the burgeoning scholarship on television which has attracted

attention as a subject of historical analysis (Sterling, 2009), and its impacts on children and

other vulnerable groups (Hilmes, 2002). As Hilmes (2002) points out, it was not until the rise

of political talk radio in the 1980’s that the medium began to receive due critical attention,

the majority of which was from a sociological perspective. This has led some authors to

contend that, even within academic media research, radio struggles to find voice and

1

definition (Johnson and Foote, 2009). Others have argued that, uniting people

electromagnetically, radio creates a set of intersecting communities, not only radio listeners,

but also those who study radio as a technological, social, cultural, and historical phenomenon

(Squier, 2003a). Geographers are one such community of scholars.

This chapter is structured into three parts. First, it outlines the origins and historical context

of radio. Second, it highlights conceptual debates about how radio has been studied by

geographers. Third, the spatial perspective of radio is outlined. Fourth, technological

convergences in relation to radio are considered, with a particular focus on radio in the digital

age.

A brief history of radio

Radio histories differ across countries and nations; radio in one country or locality is not the

same as it is elsewhere – it is used differently in different places and at different times, and

has different meanings associated with it (Tacchi, 2000). What remains consistent is the way

that radio functions as more than just a technology or a method of communication, but as a

process through which we, as human beings, can represent and negotiate our desires and fears

(Squier, 2003a). This brief outline of the origins and historical context of radio does not focus

on any particular geographical context, but provides a more general trajectory of the

development of radio broadcasting.

Radio is a technology dating back to the nineteenth century, and has been heralded as

comparable to “the apparatus in the labs of Frankenstein movies” (Douglas, 1999:49) during

this time. Even in its infancy, radio made an impact on the cultural imagination (Squier,

2003a). In the 1920s, radio grew into the medium through which farmers followed prices,

weather, and other variables. In rural over and above in urban life, radio became the key

source of information and entertainment, and an invaluable connection to the rest of the

world (Craig, 2001; Ulin, 2003). In 1927, the content of radio programs was under

examination within the context of localism, as a study of broadcasting in New York City

concluded that radio was, at that time, “used almost entirely as an entertainment device for

the advertising of the radio itself, and of the business which provide[d] the programs” (Lichty

and Topping, 1976:49).

The fifties and sixties witnessed the explosion of a youth radio market. With the flourishing

of FM radio during this time, a new audience emerged, largely male and obsessed with “high

2

fidelity” (Squier, 2003a:13). Resultantly, radio became a battlefield between automated

playlists of Top 40 hits, and the non-conforming programming of college FM stations

(Squier, 2003a). By the 1970s and 1980s, the growth of talk radio instigated a new radio-

based activism, as well as alternative models for male selfhood (Squier, 2003a). By the end of

the twentieth century, radio became a taken-for-granted medium, outshone by new

technologies including computers, digital television, and mobile telephones. This was only

the beginning. Changes in radio technology provided a variety of new programming models:

Internet radio, digital radio, and low-power radio (Squier, 2003a). In the process of

constructing these new technologies, certain aspects of radio’s potential were exiled, while

others were enhanced, as I tease out later in this chapter.

Conceptual debates

Radio has long been heralded as holding an “unobtrusive presence in the geography of

domestic space” (Moores, 1988:23). It is used to maintain or alter mood, it is emotionally

evocative, comforting and a part of domestic soundscapes (Tacchi, 2000). Other research

(Cordeiro, 2012:501) has positioned radio as an “everyday companion”, assisting people to

structure their routines and feeding their daily informational needs. With radio being

personified as such, important geographical issues come to the fore concerning radio’s

ubiquitous nature, and holds resonance with Pinkerton and Dodds’ (2009:16) observation that

“radio listening whether in bed, while taking a shower or eating our breakfast is part of the

daily fabric of many people around the world.” As Pinkerton and Dodds (2009) note, much

literature now exists on how sound is entrenched in history, cultures, institutions,

technologies and, indeed, geographies, and the consequences of this, though this is not

specifically related to radio. Heeding Pinkerton and Dodds (2008), when geographical work

is concentrated on radio, this tends to focus on large scale geopolitical questions in relation to

international, as opposed to small scale, stations.

In their seminal paper, Pinkerton and Dodds (2009) note that extant research is dominated by

the social and cultural in music, and that few researchers (cf. Power, 2001) have explored in

substantial empirical depth the geopolitical consequences of radio broadcasting, or listening

more generally. Further, the authors note that radio scholarship has predominantly focussed

on domestic radio environments in the western world. The authors cite Liebes’ (2006)

examination of Israeli broadcasting. According to Liebes (2006), radio has the potential to

create a number of acoustic spaces within which individual listeners, and indeed

3

communities, can communicate their shared identities. The authors conclude by calling for

further critical study of radio, sound and broadcasting/listener engagement within the

geographical literature.

The most poignant example of such in extant literature is Vaillant’s (2002) consideration of

local radio in Chicago between 1921 and 1935. According to the author, during the 1920s,

local broadcasting transcended a ‘radio imaginary’ or an ‘imagined community’, instead

promoting face-to-face community life, for instance by encouraging listeners to participate in

programs or by organising community socials. As Vaillant (2002:26) eloquently asserts:

The airwaves became a neighbourhood as well as a metropolitan stage, and many listeners tuning to independent stations swelled with pleasure and pride at hearing music and cultural programs that acknowledge and validate their particular languages, histories, and cultural backgrounds for both the designated group and the larger audience to hear.

I quote Vaillant (2002) at length here because he evokes an image of radio broadcasting and

listening as a community per se. Vaillant (2002) echoes Keough’s (2010:77) evaluation of

community radio as “more than just an FM frequency, but rather a meaningful place to

station personnel and the listening community”. Through a case study approach, Vaillant

(2002:26) situates independent radio broadcasting and listening within a struggle among

urban ethnic, immigrant, and middle- and working-class Americans at this time to “claim

urban space, shape public culture, and define the contested terms of ethnic difference, racial

differentiation, and Americanism”. This represents an important step in using radio as a

means of empowerment and to give a voice to those deprived of one - those experiencing

voice poverty (see Salazar, 2009).

Other scholarship has explored the subversive power of radio. Douglas (2004) studies radio’s

power to sustain emotional states, to ignite the imagination, and to enable expression of

stigmatised parts of the self. Street (2012:29) tells how radio producers quickly came to

understand the capacity of the medium to cross barriers between fact and imagination, for

naturalism to impressionism. The power of radio to do this has often been demonstrated in

the “other worldliness” of imaginings, an area where the pictorial nature of sound is

particularly suggestive. By activating experiences aurally, radio taps an influential and deep

connection to the human brain, as cognitive scientists are discovering (Squier 2003b).

Radio’s ‘blindness’ in this sense is not a disadvantage, but an opportunity to create a new

kind of intimacy and individual fantasies (Munich, 2003). McChesney (2001:v) heralded

4

radio as “the quintessential people’s medium”. Certainly, establishing a bond with the listener

has been positioned as essential to the success of audio programming (Johnson, 2015). As

Sauls (2011) points out, the dedication of radio broadcasting to connecting to its listeners has

been at the forefront since its inception. As is clear then, in line with Squier (2003a),

scholarship has positioned radio as constructed by, and in its turn helping to shape, society

and culture.

Spatial perspective

In terms of communication technologies, radio is the most local of the mass media

(Hunteman, 2003). Geographically bound by the physical properties of electromagnetic

waves, radio was traditionally defined by its broadcast range (Hunteman, 2003). The idea of

community, so central to broadcast regulation, began to shift from its former definition as a

local phenomenon to something that could extend across an entire nation. By including the

listening audience in the content of radio shows, programs made this new national audience

central to radio entertainment. Audience participation programs accelerated the process by

which the new mass audience of radio came to stand in for the nation in general and “the

people” in particular (Loviglio, 2002:90). However, as Hilmes and Loviglio (2002) remind

us, this shift towards togetherness, often heralded as a positive thing, was for some

considered a threat to traditional notions of both community and individualism. This

changing idea of community most widely impacted on understandings of community radio.

The alternative and community radio pioneered in the turbulent 1960’s and 70’s and provided

a platform for local voices and concerns in hundreds of cities and towns globally. Reed and

Hanson (2006:214) define the community served by community stations as “in a specific

geographic area”. Others take a more networked view, asserting that community stations

reach people who live in dispersed locations, yet have shared interests (e.g. Gumucio-Dagron,

2013; McCain and Lowe, 1990). Encompassing both strands, Coyer (2006) presents

community radio as serving communities of interest, providing the examples of lesbians and

gay men, blind and partially sighted people, Afro-Caribbeans and Asians, and/or small

geographic areas. Crucially, however, while being broad in appeal, these stations remain

situated within the context of their local areas. Taken together then, in line with Squier

(2003b), ‘community radio’ is generally understood to be local programming that serves the

cultural, civic, or informational needs of an audience that is either geographically or

demographically limited.

5

As well as considering the wider community served, Leal (2009) devotes attention to the

community of staff and volunteers working within the stations or, to borrow Gaynor and

O’Brien’s (2011:31) term, the “community within”. Leal (2009) finds that the ‘community

within’ exhibits a considerable degree of diversity with regards to gender, age and cultural

background, although predominantly including marginalised sections of the population,

particularly the unemployed. Leal (2009:156) refers to community radio stations as

“communities manifested from the discursive practices of individuals who share physical

space and a similar social situation”, depicting a community that has a geographical base, yet

serves a common interest. These conceptualisations of community reflect a social network

approach (e.g. Fabiansson, 2006), whereby community is (dis)located - situated in, yet

distinct from, the locale.

Other community radio research has recognised the contested nature of community. Using

the case of Radio KC in Paarl, Western Cape, Davidson (2004) considers the steps that staff

must take to understand the communities they serve. The importance of this lies in

identifying programming content that includes stories and voices from within the community.

From observations and participatory research, Davidson (2004) concludes that the concept of

community extends beyond the geographical community outlined in the station’s broadcast

licence, being cognitive, normative and imagined. Interestingly, Davidson (2004) discovers

that, while staff and volunteers at Radio KC came from within the geographical vicinity of

the station, they did not perceive themselves as ‘the community’, rather they considered

themselves as serving the community. In a study of XK FM, a community radio station in

Platfontain, South Africa, Mhlanga (2009) finds heterogeneity in the community served by

the station. Kanayama (2007) draws the same conclusion in a study of the role of community

radio in Japan. These readings stand to counter understandings of community as homogenous

which, as Young (1990) argues, typically privilege unity over difference.

During the 1930s and 1940s radio played a pivotal role in defining the national community.

Radio was the only medium capable of addressing the entire country simultaneously, and its

voice was both literal and figurative, consisting of an address to a national “we” by radio

networks, as well as providing a model of what a “real American” should sound like (Russo,

2002:258). As Hilmes and Loviglio (2002) point out, radio waves and their impermeable

mobility across social boundaries served as a symbol for national togetherness. This, of

course, builds on Anderson’s (1983) conception of an imagined community (see also Hilmes,

1997 and Karpf, 2013 who position radio this way). ‘Imagined communities’, as outlined by

6

Anderson (1983), counters the idea that communities are defined by territory, claiming that

communities are mental constructs.

Anderson’s (1983:4) point of departure is that nationality, “nation-ness” and nationalism are

cultural artefacts. Anderson (1983:6) defines the nation as “an imagined political community

- and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign”. He argues that it is imagined

because nation members will never know their fellow-members, yet they carry with them the

image of their communion. This is notwithstanding that there may be exploitation and

inequality between fellow citizens. Despite the power of media in shaping ideas of the

modern nation, Anderson (1983) positions geography as remaining important. To explain, the

nation is imagined as ‘limited’ because it has finite boundaries, beyond which other nations

lie. It is in this sense that Anderson (1983) touches on the importance of radio for the

cultivation of nationalism in many colonial settings. In turn, as Spinelli (2003) argues, public

radio imagines its audience, and how it conceives of the dynamics of the relationship between

its producers and its consumers.

Drawing on Anderson (1983), Friedland (2001) argues that, when assuming an imagined

community perspective, identities are formed from a collective sense of history and culture

that meshes communities together. This has resonance with Levine (2008), who discusses

community in relation to identities associated with music, graphic design, narrative history,

and other forms of culture. According to Levine (2008), people form clusters in communities,

each of which has a distinct character. However, for Friedland (2001), the cognitive, moral,

and imagined aspects of community only cohere within the set of social structures that bind

the community domain. Rose (1990) argues that, although communities may be imagined,

they are not idealist, because such imaginings are grounded in specific social, economic and

political circumstances. In sum then, following Loviglio and Hilmes (2013), radio is still a

medium of local specificity and intimacy, but is increasingly defining its audience not

through geography, but through cultural affinity.

Radio in the digital age

Radio has survived numerous market threats: the phonograph, eight track, tape cassette, and

the compact disc. However, perhaps one of the most significant threats to radio, that has yet

to be resolved today, is the threat that the Internet has introduced (Pluskota, 2015). The

digital transformation of radio began with streaming audio in the late 1990s, highlighted by

the introduction of the iPod in 2001. Fast forward a few years, radio had evolved into

7

something different: it was materialised, differentiated, and de-spatialised (Loviglio and

Hilmes, 2013). The debut of podcasting in 2004 combined the mobility of the iPod with

digital syndication software and web-based subscription. With the upsurge of Wifi, the

entrance of the iPhone in 2007, and the rapid proliferation of smartphones, tablets, e-readers

and digital radios, the concept of radio shifted rapidly (Loviglio and Hilmes, 2013). However,

at a time when music, news, and talk can be heard via the Internet, satellite and MP3 sound

files, and films and television programs can be accessed via on-demand technologies, the

future of radio as a distinct medium, and of broadcasting as a technological means, was

considered no longer certain. Hilmes (2013) tells us that, in considering the future of radio,

radio’s death has been predicted as often as its survival. The conclusion that Hilmes (2013)

makes in her chapter on the new materiality of radio is that radio has not only survived, but

revived – both as a creative medium and as a shared cultural experience.

Although the reach of community stations is typically limited, there is increasing recognition

that use of Internet technologies for online simulcasting is expanding this reach, making

content available at the time of broadcast, and afterwards through downloads and podcasts. In

accordance with Coyer (2005), Internet broadcasting offers a redefinition of community

radio, away from geographical restrictions, to transnational broadcasting. As Sujoko

(2011:17) puts it, due to technological advances in mobile phones and the Internet:

Community radio is no longer broadcasting ‘outwards’ and downwards, from a central source of information. Instead, the messages exchanged are multi-sourced, constantly adjusting to and recognising their location(s), and so producing a consistent adaptability and negotiability, even as they rework the existing cultural perspectives of their community.

For certain authors (Algan, 2013; Rooke and Odame, 2013), the Internet holds potential as an

outlet where listeners can learn about, and interact with, station DJs, participate in

competitions, find out about upcoming events, and obtain local news bulletins. Certainly,

internet streaming challenged radio stations to think about the visible face they presented to

the public (Hilmes, 2013). However, the opportunities offered by the Internet, as envisioned

by Sujoko (2011) and Rooke and Odame (2013), have been met with sharp critique. Hallett

and Hintz (2010) argue that community radio’s convergence online has created a widespread

impression that the Internet is a viable alternative for frequency allocation, thus incorrectly

implying that the access problem is solved. For instance, it is assumed that if somebody

listening in a certain location cannot typically access a community radio station via FM, they

8

can listen to the radio station online. However, this does not take into consideration factors

such as the digital divide.

To interrogate this further, it is useful to consider Coyer’s (2005) argument that the aspiration

to create a community radio project, as a collective, transcends the technological means of

distribution afforded by the Internet. Therefore, while the Internet has renovated public

access to content, it fails to acknowledge people’s social or political motivations to create

their own media. Coyer (2005:32) believes that “the potential for endless possibilities within

the digital arena cannot serve as a remedy to the issue of scarcity on the traditional dial”.

Whilst the (relatively) limitless space available to broadcast online in some ways addresses

the problem of restrictions, the authors suggests that the Internet has its own limitations,

including the digital divide and community access, arguing that the traditional format of radio

is more intimate, despite there being fewer opportunities for interaction. If Coyer (2005) is

correct, it is questionable whether there is any advantage, bar increased listening figures, to

moving radio online. However, Coyer (2005:40) confesses that even increased listener

figures may be overly presumptuous: “just because something is online doesn’t mean anyone

is listening”. Other authors, too, believe that debates have a myopic focus and question

whether, owing to technological advancements, radio’s locally distinctive identity is being

demolished (e.g. Dunaway, 1998). What is clear is that technology offers us the opportunity

for connecting the radio listener to a community or a geographical space imaginatively and

physically concurrently (Street, 2012). Despite celebrating success for more than a century,

Pluskota (2015) argues that in order to remain competitive, the radio industry must consider

changing its model to one that can compete with other listening options, particularly

regarding listening choices, customisation, and access. Moody (2010) complements yet

extends this viewpoint, believing that if radio is to innovate, it needs to engage with its

origins in audio.

Conclusion

Despite a wide scope of studies looking at radio through a number of different lenses,

including: social, political, and cultural, few studies devote sufficient attention to radio for

what it is, a sonic medium. Peters (2012:1241), discussing pirate radio, considers how radio

DJs on Radio Caroline1 “harnessed” to depth and dynamism of the sea, to create unique audio

experiences for listeners on land. Though not using the lens of sonic geographies explicitly,

1 Radio Caroline is a British radio station founded in 1964 to circumvent record companies’ control of popular music broadcasting in the United Kingdom and the BBC’s radio broadcasting monopoly (see Chapman, 1990).

9

Peters (2012:1241) is concerned with the management and manipulations of materiality and

affect, particularly of the rough seas, which helped to form new “cocomposed relations” on

the airwaves. Through strategic acts to ‘play up’ the power of the sea, Radio Caroline

listeners became “seduced by…this motionful, dynamic, and uncertain hydroworld” (Peters,

2012:1249). Also devoting attention to sonic properties is Arkette’s (2004) discussion of the

ways in which different radio stations incorporate diverse modes of presentation. For

instance, Radio 3 demonstrates “presenters, in respectful tones and subdued inflections”

conveying their knowledge of musical artefacts to the listeners (Arkette, 2004:165).

Meanwhile, Jazz FM’s “brand of aural image is centred on the often full-bodied and breathy

voice of the presenter” (Arkette, 2004:165). Contrastingly, Capital and Virgin DJs work

collectively, “talking and cracking jokes amongst themselves in an attempt to dispel the

image of radio as a unilateral disembodied voice” (Arkette, 2004:165). The author calls

listeners to play a part in forming their acoustic communities, rather than considering radio an

ambient landscape.

Certainly, there is demand for heightened scholarly attention to geographies of speech.

Brickell (2013:1), for example, has recently argued that geographers have failed to devote

sustained attention to speech as a practice that “provokes meanings in, and of, spaces”. This

is analogous to Livingstone’s (2007) argument that spaces of speech have been disregarded.

Echoing this is Kanngieser’s (2012) call for a geography of voice and a politics of speaking

and listening, composing a sonic geography of voice, including study of tone and volume,

amongst other qualities. The dominant critical discourse about the radio voice is mostly

aesthetic – a voice is beautiful or ugly, grates or is resonant, has good elocution or poor

(Karpf, 2013). Considering voice in relation to radio is important, for as Street (2012:6) tells

us:

It is a ‘voice’ that can show you pictures. It is this which, if we allow it, can open the world of response before understanding which may be found to be, in the end at the root of all trust understanding after all

Bainbridge and Yates (2013) also recognise that there is more research to be done in

considering radio’s deployment of voice as its predominant means of listener engagement.

Central to this, is to unite radio and sound which have typically, and somewhat bizarrely,

been two separate areas of scholarship (Johnson, 2015). I thus advocate that future studies of

radio should adopt a sonic geographical perspective. This will enable exploration of radio’s

new sounds and forms, which comprise of increasing creativity.

10

References

Algan, E. (2013). Youth, New Media, and Radio: Mobile Phone and Local Radio Convergence in Turkey. In Loviglio, J. and Hilmes, M. (2013). Radio’s New Wave: Global Sound in the Digital Era. New York: Routledge. pp. 79-90.

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Arkette, S. (2004). Sounds like City. Theory, Culture and Society. 21. (1). pp. 159-168.

Bainbridge, C. and Yates, C. (2013). The Reparative Spaces of Radio. The Radio Journal - International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media. 11. (1). pp. 7-12.

Boland, P. (2010). Sonic Geography, Place and Race in the Formation of Local Identity: Liverpool and Scousers. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography. 92. (1). pp. 1-22.

Boyd, C. and Duffy, M. (2012). Sonic Geographies of Shifting Bodies. Interference: A Journal of Audio Culture. 1. (2). pp. 1-7.

Brickell, K. (2013). Towards Geographies of Speech: Proverbial Utterances of Home in Contemporary Vietnam. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 38. (2). pp. 207-220.

Chapman, R. (1990). The 1960s Pirates: A Comparative Analysis of Radio London and Radio Caroline. Popular Music. 9. (2). pp. 165-178.

Cordeiro, P. (2012). Radio Becoming R@dio: Convergence, Interactivity and Broadcasting Trends in Perspective. Participations. 9. 2. pp. 492-510.

Coyer, K. (2005). Where the ‘Hyper Local’ and ‘Hyper Global’ Meet: Case Study of Indymedia Radio. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture. 2. (1). pp. 30-50.

Coyer, K. (2006). Community Radio Licensing and Policy. Global Media and Communication. 2. (1). pp. 129-134.

Craig, S. (2001). “The Farmer’s Friend”: Radio Comes to Rural America, 1920-1927. Journal of Radio Studies. 8. (2). pp. 330-346.

Davidson, B. (2004). Mapping the Radio KC Community. Ecquid Novi. 25. (1). pp. 43-60.

Douglas, S. (1999). Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination, from Amos ‘n’ Andy and Edward R. Murrow to Wolfman Jack and Howard Stern. New York: Times Books.

Douglas, S. (2004). Listening In. Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press.

Dunaway, D. (1998). Community Radio at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Commercialism VS. Community Power. The Public. 5. (2). pp. 87-103.

Fabiansson, C. (2006). Being Young in Rural Settings: Young People’s Everyday Community Affiliations and Trepidations. Rural Society. 16. (1). pp. 47-61.

11

Friedland, L.A. (2001). Communication, Community, and Democracy: Toward a Theory of the Communicatively Integrated Community. Communication Research, 28. (4). pp. 358-391.

Gallagher, M. and Prior, J. (2014). Sonic Geographies Exploring Phonographic Methods. Progress in Human Geography, 38. (2). pp. 267-284.

Gaynor, N. and O’Brien, A. (2011). Community Radio in Ireland: “Defeudalising” The Public Sphere?. Javnost – The Public. 18. (3). pp. 23-38.

Gumucio-Dagron, A. (2013). Look Back for the Future of Community Radio. Media Development. 13. (2). pp. 6-12.

Hallett, L. and Hintz, A. (2010). Digital Broadcasting - Challenges and Opportunities for European Community Radio Broadcasters. Telematics and Informatics. 27. (2). pp. 151-161.

Hilmes, M. (1997). Radio Voices: American Broadcasting, 1922-1952. Minneaolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Hilmes, M. and Loviglio, J. (2002). Introduction. Radio Reader: Essays in the Cultural History of Radio. New York: Routledge. pp. xi-xv.

Hilmes, M. (2002). Rethinking Radio. In Hilmes, M. and Loviglio, J. Radio Reader: Essays in the Cultural History of Radio. New York: Routledge. pp. 1-19.

Hilmes, M. (2013). The New Materiality of Radio: Sounds on Screens. In Loviglio, J. and Hilmes, M. (2013). Radio’s New Wave: Global Sound in the Digital Era. New York: Routledge. pp. 43-61.

Hunteman, N. (2003). A Promise Diminished: The Politics of Low-Power Radio. In Squier, S.M. (2003). Communities of The Air: Radio Century, Radio Culture. Durham: Duke University Press. pp. 76-90.

Johnson, P. and Foote, J.S. (2009). Alternative Radio: Other Voices, Other Definitions, Beyond The Mainstream Community As “Public Interest Convenience, and Necessity. Journal of Radio Studies. 7. (2). pp. 282-286.

Johnson, P. (2015). Editor’s Remarks: The Golden Years, Then and Now. Journal of Radio & Audio Media. 22. (2). pp. 142-147.

Kanayama, T. (2007). Community Ties and Revitalization: The Role of Community Radio in Japan. Keio Communication Review. 29. (1). pp. 5-24.

Kanngieser, A. (2012). A Sonic Geography of Voice: Towards an Affective Politics. Progress in Human Geography. 36. (3). pp. 336-353.

Karpf, A. (2013). The Sound of Home? Some Thoughts on How The Radio Voice Anchors, Contains and Sometimes Pierces. International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media. 11. (1). pp 59-73.

Keough, S.B. (2010). The Importance of Place in Community Radio Broadcasting: A Case Study of WDVX, Knoxville, Tennessee. Journal of Cultural Geography. 27. (1). pp. 77-98.

12

Leal, S. (2009). Community Radio Broadcasting in Brazil: Action Rationales and Public Space. Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media. 7. (2). pp. 155-170.

Levine, P. (2008). A Public Voice for Youth: The Audience Problem in Digital Media and Civic Education. In Lance Bennett, W. (Ed.) Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. pp. 119-138.

Lichty, L.W. and Topping, M.C. (1976). American Broadcasting: A Source Book on the History of Radio and Television. New York: Hastings House.

Liebes, T. (2006). Acoustic Space: The Role of Radio in Israeli Collective History. Jewish History. 20. (1). pp. 69-90.

Livingstone, D.N. (2007). Science, Site and Speech Scientific Knowledge and the Spaces of Rhetoric. History of the Human Sciences, 20. (2). pp. 71-98.

Loviglio, J. (2002). Vox Pop: Network Radio and the Voice of the People. In Hilmes, M. and Loviglio, J. Radio Reader: Essays in the Cultural History of Radio. New York: Routledge. pp. 89-111.

Loviglio, J. and Hilmes, M. (2013). Introduction: Making Radio Strange. In Loviglio, J. and Hilmes, M. (2013). Radio’s New Wave: Global Sound in the Digital Era. New York: Routledge. pp. 1-6.

Matless, D. (2005). Sonic Geography in a Nature Region. Social & Cultural Geography. 6. (5). pp. 745-766.

McCain, T.A. and Lowe, G.F. (1990). Localism in Western European Radio Broadcasting: Untangling the Wireless. Journal of Communication. 40. (1). pp. 86-101.

McChesney, R.W. (2001). FOREWARD: Radio and the Responsibility of Radio Scholars. Journal of Radio Studies. 8. (2). pp. v-viii.

Mhlanga, B. (2009). The Community in Community Radio: A Case Study of XK FM, Interrogating Issues of Community Participation, Governance, and Control. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism. 30. (1). pp. 58-72.

Moody, R. (2010). Foreward. In Biewen, J. and Dilworth, A. Reality Radio: Telling True Stories in Sound. Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press. pp. ix-xii

Moores, S. (1988). The Box on the Dresser: Memories of Early Radio and Everyday Life. Media, Culture & Society. 10. (1). pp. 23-40.

Munich, A. (2003). In the Radio Way: Elizabeth II, The Female Voice-Over, And Radio’s Imperial Effects. In Squier, S.M. (2003). Communities of The Air: Radio Century, Radio Culture. Durham: Duke University Press. pp. 217-236.

Peters, K. (2012). Manipulating Material Hydro-worlds: Rethinking Human and More-than-human Relationality through Offshore Radio Piracy. Environment and Planning A. 44. (5). pp. 1241-1254.

13

Pinkerton, A. and Dodds, K. (2009). Radio Geopolitics: Broadcasting, Listening and the Struggle for Acoustic Spaces. Progress in Human Geography. 33. (1). pp. 10-27.

Pluskota, J.P. (2015). The Perfect Technology: Radio and Mobility. Journal of Radio & Audio Media. 22. (2). pp. 325-336.

Power, M. (2001): Acqui Lorenco Marques! Radio Colon-ization and Cultural Identity in Colonial Mozambique. Journal of Historical Geography. 26. pp. 605–28

Reed, M. and Hanson, R.E. (2006). Back to the Future: Allegheny Mountain Radio and Localism in West Virginia Community Radio. Journal of Radio Studies. 13. (2). pp. 214-231.

Rooke, B. and Odame, H.H. (2013). “I have a Blog too?” Radio Jocks and Online Blogging. Journal of Radio & Audio Media. 20. (1). pp. 35-52.

Rose, G. (1990). Imagining Poplar in the 1920s: Contested Concepts of Community. Journal of Historical Geography. 16. (4). pp. 425-437.

Russo, A. (2002). A Dark(ened) Figure on the Airwaves: Race, Nation, and The Green Hornet. In Hilmes, M. and Loviglio, J. Radio Reader: Essays in the Cultural History of Radio. New York: Routledge. pp. 257-276.

Salazar, J. F. (2009). Self-determination in Practice: The Critical Making of Indigenous Media. Development in Practice. 19. (4-5). pp. 504-513.

Sauls, S.J. (2011). Locally and Free: What Broadcast Radio Still Provides. Journal of Radio & Audio Media. 18. (2). pp. 309-318.

Street, S. (2012). The Poetry of Radio – The Colour of Sound. Oxon: Routledge.

Spinelli, M. (2003). Not Hearing Poetry on Public Radio. In Squier, S.M. (2003). Communities of The Air: Radio Century, Radio Culture. Durham: Duke University Press. pp. 195-214.

Squier, S.M. (2003a). Communities of The Air: Introducing The Radio World. In Squier, S.M. (2003). Communities of The Air: Radio Century, Radio Culture. Durham: Duke University Press. pp. 1-35.

Squier, S.M. (2003b). Wireless Possibilities, Posthuman Possibilities: Brain Radio, Community Radio, Radio Lazarus. In Squier, S.M. (2003). Communities of The Air: Radio Century, Radio Culture. Durham: Duke University Press. pp. 275-303.

Smith, S. J. (1994). Soundscape. Area. 26. (3). pp. 232-240.

Sterling, C.H (2009). The Rise of Radio Studies: Scholarly Books Over Four Decades. Journal of Radio & Audio Media. 16. (2). pp. 229-250.

Sujoko, A. (2011). Talking Culture: Indonesian Community Radio and the Active Audience. Social Alternatives. 30. (2). pp. 16-20.

Tacchi, J. (2000). The Need for Radio Theory in the Digital Age. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 3. pp. 289-298.

Truax, B. (2000). Acoustic Communication. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group.

14

Ulin, D. (2003). Science Literacies: The Mandate and Complicity of Popular Science on the Radio. In Squier, S.M. (2003). Communities of The Air: Radio Century, Radio Culture. Durham: Duke University Press. pp. 164-194.

Vaillant, D. W. (2002). Sounds of Whiteness: Local Radio, Racial Formation, and Public Culture in Chicago, 1921-1935. American Quarterly. 54. (1). pp. 25-66.

Vowell, S. (1996). Radio On: A Listener’s Diary. St. Martin’s Griffin: New York.

Young, I.M. (1990). The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference. In Nicholson, L.J. (Ed.) Feminism/Postmodernism. London: Routledge. pp. 300-323.

(5659/6000)

15