2 pages essay

xiaoxiliuuu

Rauch_2015.pdf

Home >English homework help >Article writing homework help >2 pages essay

Communication, Culture & Critique ISSN 1753-9129

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

Exploring the Alternative–Mainstream Dialectic: What “Alternative Media” Means to a Hybrid Audience*

Jennifer Rauch

Department of Journalism & Communication Studies, Long Island University Brooklyn, New York, NY 11201, USA

This article enriches debates about “alternative media” by exploring what the term means to users through an audience survey (n = 224). Responses revealed values and practices that respondents agreed were important to alternative media. Users deemed a wide array of media “alternative”: political blogs, public broadcasting, foreign sources, and alternative-press institutions, as well as The Daily Show, Facebook, Fox News, and The Huffington Post. Despite criticizing corporations and advertising, this audience considered some corporate, commercial outlets “alternative media.” Respondents valued alternative content (neglected issues, diverse voices, mobilizing information) more highly than alternative form (being nonprofit, noncommercial, small-scale). I argue here that the dialectic of alternative media/mainstream media continues to provide a critical and cultural touchstone for users in a converged environment.

Keywords: Alternative Media, Mainstream Media, Audience, Survey, Activism, Citizen Journalism, Hybridity, Culture Jamming.

doi:10.1111/cccr.12068

People throughout the academy and society have long struggled to describe what makes alternative media “alternative.” One early explication said that alternative-media publishers might be noncommercial, might focus on social responsibility, or might simply self-identify as alternative (American Library Asso- ciation, 1980). Scholars have found this conception too amorphous — especially the latter criterion of self-definition, which can render the term an expression of lifestyle politics or a tool for branding (Duncombe, 1998; Sandoval & Fuchs, 2010). In a

*This paper was presented to the Critical and Cultural Studies division of the 2013 meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication, Washington, DC. Corresponding author: Jennifer Rauch; e-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

J. Rauch Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic

similar vein, media producers have disapproved when others label themselves “alter- native” despite having financial structures and decision-making processes akin to mainstream institutions (Albert, 1997). Another seminal definition placed alternative media in opposition to mainstream media: they are not the established order, not the capitalist system, not the mainstream view of a subject, not the conventional way of doing something (Comedia, 1984). Many have viewed this dichotomous conception as problematic, too. In a sense, the term alternative media is “almost oxymoronic,” as John Downing observed, because “Everything, at some point, is alternative to something else” (2001, p. ix).

A deluge of alternate adjectives have been applied to this range of media: radi- cal (Downing, 2001), citizens (Rodriguez, 2001), and activist (Waltz, 2005), as well as independent, autonomous, tactical, horizontal, dialogic, participatory, and commu- nitarian. The term alternative has retained great currency among communication scholars who found the dialectic with mainstream useful in generating discussion and research, as well as among practitioners and audiences. However, theorists increas- ingly consider the category to be porous, flexible, blended, and hybrid (Atton, 2002a; Atton, 2003; Couldry & Curran, 2003; Downing, 2001; Downing, 2003a; Harcup, 2005), and many now conceive of alternative and mainstream media as a “continuum” (Harcup, 2005) or a “converging spectrum” (Kenix, 2012).

The contested term has been further challenged as new technologies subvert what has been called the “hierarchy of access” (Glasgow, 1976). Digital networks seem to afford many empowering practices that proponents of alternative media have long supported (cf. Atton, 2004; Juris, 2008). Thus, new media developments have smudged the already fuzzy lines between what is mainstream and what is alternative. Consider- ing the persistent difficulty of describing alternative media, some wonder whether the category even remains relevant in a converged culture. “The old notion of creating an ‘alternative’ media in opposition to the ‘mainstream’ has become meaningless,” says one political activist and media producer. “At a time when anyone can find any arti- cle or report from almost any news outlet in the world directly and instantaneously, it makes little sense to marginalize ourselves as ‘alternative’” (Micah Sifry, quoted in Hamilton, 2008, p. 94).

Most conversations about the meaning of “alternative media” have centered, to date, on how scholars and producers define the category. Researchers in many fields influenced by interactionism, intersubjectivity, and relational models of social action have shown growing interest in “meaning-based definitions of communication” (Lieu- vrouw, 2011, p. 229). Yet we know relatively little about what alternative media means to members of this active, engaged audience; how they construct and share those meanings; and how those meanings interact with their practices. Downing has argued for more bridges to span the “distinctly disturbing gulf between our currently frag- mentary knowledge or debates concerning how audiences and readers use alternative media, and the mass of descriptions and theorizations of alternative media at last now becoming available” (2003a, p. 625). The fact that few have heeded this call is

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic J. Rauch

paradoxical in a field where producers and scholars often value engaging with com- munity members as partners in praxis, collaboration, and learning.

The study reported here enriches our conception of alternative media by exploring the meanings shared by audience members, for whom the term denotes a distinct system of values and practices. I begin by reviewing scholarship in this field, which illustrates the extent to which the audience has remained absent. Then I report on a survey asking alternative-media users which media they classified as alternative, which media outlets they used most, which attributes of alternative media they valued most highly, and which critiques of mainstream media they identified with. Despite criticizing mainstream media primarily for their corporate and commercial aspects, this hybrid media audience used many such outlets and considered some of them “alternative.” I discuss the finding that users valued attributes relating to alternative content more highly than those relating to form. Based on this audience research, I argue that the alternative – mainstream dialectic remains useful in a converged media environment where it helps users to make sense of the world and relate themselves to the larger cultural order.

A mass of theorizations and descriptions

As scholars strive to explain and understand alternative media, they often emphasize characteristics related to form rather than content and examine producers or their products rather than audiences. The form dimension of alternative media focuses on financial, structural, and technological processes of production and distribution, including attributes such as: operating on a nonprofit or noncommercial basis; being organized for collective ownership or decision-making; using horizontal or two-way communication; embracing de-professionalized roles or citizen producers; being small-scale or niche-oriented; employing channels that allow greater reach or cheaper access (cf. Atton, 2002a; Atton, 2004; Atkinson, 2005; Dowmunt, 2008; Downing, 2001; Fuchs, 2010; Hamilton, 2000; Rodriguez, 2001). The content dimen- sion of alternative media describes attributes such as: criticizing mainstream media; reporting on oppositional politics and radical culture; covering neglected stories; featuring marginalized voices; offering sympathetic coverage of social movements; providing information to mobilize readers (cf. Atton, 2002a; Couldry & Curran, 2003; Downing, 2001; Hamilton, 2000; Makagon, 2000; Traber, 1985).

In discussions about the various indicators of alternative status, media form has tended to trump content (Haas, 2004). Downing, who has published extensively on the topic, stresses being independently owned and managed; operating on a small scale and a low budget; networking laterally; organizing more democratically (2001). Atton also emphasizes processes and relations, such as reproduction-distribution technologies and collective-horizontal organizations (2002a). Some argue that fixat- ing on form risks either fetishizing media techniques (Hamilton, 2001) or neglecting expressions of counterhegemonic interests at the content level of alternative media (e.g., Fuchs, 2010; Marcuse, 1972). Fuchs contends that critical content is a necessary

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

J. Rauch Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic

condition of transformative social action, whereas alternative structures are desirable yet optional (2010). Benson’s content analysis of urban newsweeklies demonstrated that commercial form does not necessarily undermine the oppositional stance of the alternative press (2003). There are limits to the form – content dichotomy, as mediated expressions are not entirely separable from the processes used to create them. For example, featuring marginalized voices might entail both form (production routines that seek out a wide range of nonelite sources) and content (the presence of quotes from such sources in stories).

Many authors now eschew fixed definitions and reject the binarism of earlier work, no longer conceiving of alternative and mainstream media as mutually exclusive cat- egories (Atton, 2002a; Atton, 2003; Couldry & Curran, 2003; Downing, 2001; Down- ing, 2003a; Harcup, 2005; Kenix, 2012). Some characterize alternative and mainstream media as a “spectrum” (Kenix, 2012) or “continuum” (Harcup, 2005), where some out- lets show more alternative tendencies than others. Empirical research confirms that alternatives have a symbiotic relationship with mainstream media and that these cat- egories are less unitary or monolithic than some have imagined. For instance, Atton found alternative-media practitioners borrowing from mainstream media (2002b). Harcup concluded that alternative features were crossing over to mainstream orga- nizations, and vice versa: “People, ideas and practices are moving along this contin- uum in both directions” (Harcup, 2005, p. 370). Kim and Hamilton observed hybrid practices in a website that used citizen reporters to address neglected issues while limiting nonprofessional contributors and financing itself through advertising (2006). This approach “throws into high relief the shortcomings of a definitional, essentialist divide” and requires more nuance than “simply measuring alternative media against an ideal set of characteristics” (Kim & Hamilton, 2006, p. 542).

Characteristics relating to content have received attention in empirical studies of alternative media (cf. Atkinson, 2010; Atkinson & Berg, 2012; Atkinson & Dougherty, 2006; Atton, 2002a, 2002b; Atton, 2006; Rauch, 2003). However, academic interest has often concentrated on forms of alternative production (cf. Atton, 2004; Eliasoph, 1988; Gibbs, 2003; Hamilton, 2001; Min, 2004; Pickard, 2006b). Much research has exam- ined novel participatory structures such as Indymedia, where the line between pro- ducers and audiences is blurred (e.g., Atton, 2004; Downing, 2003b; Ford & Gil, 2001; Meikle, 2002; Platon & Deuze, 2003; Wolfson, 2012). The global Indymedia network presents hybrid characteristics, according to Atton: radical content and news values alongside mainstream production values, institutional frameworks, and professional- ized reporting (2003). Several analysts have also looked at the intentions and practices of alternative-media producers (e.g., Atton, 2002b; Atton & Wickenden, 2005; Elia- soph, 1988; Harcup, 2005, 2011; Khiabany, 2000; Min, 2004; Pickard, 2006a; Rauch, 2004). One study by Harcup examined conceptions of alternative media among UK practitioners and international scholars, revealing considerable agreement on what “alternative journalism” meant in terms of supporting active citizenship and demo- cratic participation (2011).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic J. Rauch

While some studies consider how alternative producers conceive of their audi- ences (Min, 2004) and how alternative readers become alternative journalists (Harcup, 2005), extant research tells us relatively little about what alternative media means in the minds or lives of users. One study found that alternative-media users were more likely to participate in political protests than people who used only mainstream sources (Boyle & Schmierbach, 2009). Another showed that audiences who discussed content with alternative-media producers were typically producers themselves; rarely did any nonproducing activists report sharing feedback (Atkinson, 2010). Other work demonstrated that while alternative-media users felt susceptible to media influence, they imagined that mainstream viewers were even more vulnerable; those people believed that using alternative media helped them resist hegemonic messages perceived in mainstream media (Rauch, 2010). Audience conceptions of alternative media, though, were beyond the scope of such studies.

Some researchers have explored specifically how audiences valorize alternative media in terms of form and content. A survey of readers of a UK activist paper found that people chiefly valued the publication for content, such as information that mobilizes participation and coverage of events ignored by mainstream media (Atton, 2002a, 2002b). According to that audience, the credibility of alternative con- tent rested partly on its nonprofit form and independence from advertisers (Atton, 2002a, 2002b). Audience research on U.S. activists connected alternative content to their critique of corporatism (Atkinson & Dougherty, 2006). Another study of alternative-media users found that they valued news outlets for both form and con- tent: nonprofit and noncommercial orientation, decentralized and nonhierarchical organization, oppositional content, and encouragement of audience participation (Rauch, 2007). This short list illustrates that communication scholars have only begun to investigate the meanings and practices of such audiences, who exercise agency in their daily lives by routinely choosing alternative media over dominant ones.

Surveying people who use alternative media

This study explored what “alternative media” meant to audiences by seeking survey participants among readers of The Nation and Human Events. These publications were chosen because they are circulated weekly to readerships of similar size (around 80,000 at the time) but varying political orientations (liberal or progressive in the former case, conservative in the latter). Founded in 1865, the left-leaning Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States and features columns by the likes of Alexander Cockburn and Naomi Klein. Human Events, launched in 1944, has been called the “Bible of the Right” and praised by people such as Ann Coulter and Ronald Reagan. Such readers were likely to have a wide range of opinions about mainstream and alternative media, as well as motivation to share them in an online survey. Participants were recruited in 2009 through classified ads asking “Why Do We Need Alternative Media?” and offering a link to the survey. Owing to low response from print ads, additional notices were placed on Facebook.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

J. Rauch Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic

The survey was also mentioned in the Altercation blog at TheNation.com. These methods yielded a sample of 224 people who reported using alternative media.1

Survey participants were self-selected, yielding a convenience sample appropriate to research goals. The majority was White (85%), aged 30 – 59 (64%), with a college degree (64%), and male (58%). When compared with 2009 U.S. census data, the sam- ple overrepresents males, Whites, and people who are older and more educated.2 This demographic profile closely corresponds to the average reader of The Nation and Human Events, per publishers’ data. Of participants who provided political ori- entations, 47% called themselves liberal or progressive and 39% were conservative; the remainder answered none of the above. (As Tables 2 and 3 will show, 28.6% of participants reported reading The Nation and 21.8% named it a favorite alternative source; 4% named the Altercation blog. By contrast, 6.1% of respondents said they read Human Events and 4.4% named it a favorite source, whereas 5.5% rated Face- book as a favorite. The fact that 71.4% of respondents did not report being Nation readers suggests that fans of this particular publication did not dominate the sample.)

The survey consisted of 27 items, excluding qualifiers and demographic questions. An open-ended question asked participants to name their “favorite alternative media” at the beginning of the survey, to minimize possible response bias. The remainder were closed-ended questions asking how much they used alternative and mainstream media, which attributes of alternative media they considered important, and which statements about mainstream media they agreed with. I deliberately avoided defin- ing “alternative media” in the questionnaire, so respondents would self-define this category, however they might understand it. Participants indicated agreement or dis- agreement with each item using Likert-style scales, where 1 meant strongly agree and 4 meant strongly disagree, with 4 points to remove the neutral option. Items in the survey were based on scholars’ conceptions of “alternative media” from the previous literature review.3

Alternative-media content. Respondents indicated the extent to which they sup- ported each of the following statements: Alternative media should “be devoted to issues and events not discussed elsewhere,” “allow a wider range of people to express their voices and opinions,” “criticize and analyze the work done by mainstream media,” “pursue social justice,” “advocate for a different system of values than main- stream media do,” “help preserve American traditions,” “promote family values,” “encourage moral behavior or religious action,” “offer favorable coverage to people and groups that I support,” “promote activism and mobilize people to participate,” “promote a certain political point of view,” “encourage people to get involved in civic life.”

Alternative-media form. Respondents indicated the extent to which they sup- ported each of the following statements: Alternative media should “use different technology for gathering, accessing, and sharing information than mainstream media do,” “be more connected to groups and networks that I identify with,” “advo- cate for a different system of values than mainstream media do,” “be noncommercial or advertising-free,” “be produced by small organizations not big companies,”

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic J. Rauch

“appeal to a small or niche audience,” “aim to be nonprofit,” “be produced by profes- sional journalists,” “be produced by amateur and citizen journalists,” “use new and interactive technologies,” “use traditional and familiar technologies.”

Mainstream media. Respondents indicated the extent to which they supported each of the following statements: Mainstream media “are compromised by corpora- tions and corporate interests,” “compromised by advertising and commercial inter- ests,” “have undemocratic practices,” “have unpatriotic practices,” “disempower the public,” “support the status quo,” “are compromised by the egos or career ambitions of journalists,” “are compromised by the antireligious or immoral attitudes of jour- nalists,” “are biased because of the politics of their owners,” “are biased because of the politics of their journalists,” need more “government regulation,” “are motivated too much by profit.”

The questionnaire had an 86% completion rate.

Media practices and values of a hybrid audience

While these survey participants qualified as alternative-media users, they can be bet- ter understood as members of a “hybrid audience.” Respondents reported using a lot of both alternative media and mainstream media, in terms of frequency of use and time spent with these categories, as shown in Table 1. When asked how often they used alternative media, 81.3% of respondents said regularly, whereas only 52.2% reported using mainstream media regularly. Collapsing across frequency categories, those numbers rise to 97.8% of respondents using alternative media regularly or some- times and 78.5% using mainstream media regularly or sometimes. When asked how much time they spent using media on a typical day, 65.5% said they used alternative media for more than 1 hour versus 36.1% who said they used mainstream media for an hour or more. By all 3 measures, these respondents used alternative media more than they did mainstream media.

The survey began with an open-ended item asking participants to name their “favorite alternative media source”; results for this question are shown in Table 2. Indicating how fragmented this audience is, only five media outlets were mentioned by more than 10% of respondents: The Nation (21.8%), The Huffington Post (21.3%), Fox News (18.8%), Democracy Now! (13.4%), and Daily Kos (10.4%). The next most

Table 1 Frequency of Use and Time Spent With Media, Per Hybrid Audience

Type of media Used

regularly Used sometimes

or regularly Spent more than

1 hour daily

Alternative media 81.3 97.8 65.5 Mainstream media 52.2 78.5 36.1

Note. Percentage of respondents who said they used alternative and mainstream media “regularly” or “sometimes” and who reported spending “more than an hour per day” with each type of media (n = 224).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

J. Rauch Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic

Table 2 Favorite “Alternative Media” of Hybrid Audience, Per Open-Ended Responses

Source %

The Nation 21.8 The Huffington Post 21.3 Fox News 18.8 Democracy Now! 13.4 Daily Kos 10.4 Talking Points Memo 8.4 Alternet 6.9 National Public Radio 6.9 Glenn Beck 5.9 Facebook 5.5 Rush Limbaugh 5.4 Drudge Report 4.4 Human Events 4.4 Mother Jones 4.4 Altercation 4.0 The Daily Show 4.0 Politico 4.0 The Progressive 4.0 Sean Hannity 4.0 Truthdig 4.0

Note. Percentage of respondents who offered each source as an example of “favorite alternative media.” The 20 most frequent responses are shown (n = 204).

frequently named outlets for this population included Talking Points Memo (8.4%), Alternet (6.9%), National Public Radio (6.9%), Glenn Beck (5.9%), Facebook (5.5%), Rush Limbaugh (5.4%), Drudge Report (4.4%), Human Events (4.4%), and Mother Jones (4.4%). Rounding out the top 20 were Altercation, The Daily Show, Politico, The Progressive, Sean Hannity, and Truthdig (all 4%). Hundreds of other media outlets — such as Indymedia, Slate, Common Dreams, Yahoo, Boing Boing, Salon, British Broadcasting Corporation, Bill O’Reilly, Adbusters, News Busters, Fire Dog Lake, and Twitter — were offered in this question but named by fewer than 4% of people surveyed. The New York Times and Village Voice were each named once.

In this open-ended item, people named their “favorite alternative media” with- out prompting. Responses indicate the wide array of outlets that readers, listeners, and viewers think of when they name alternative media off the top of their heads: 8 current-events blogs; 6 radio and TV broadcasters focusing on news and opinion; 3 political magazines; a news-based satirical program; an independent news network, and a corporate-owned social network. Five “favorite alternative media” (Table 2) were absent from the responses to subsequent closed-ended items (Table 3): Alternet, Facebook, Altercation, The Daily Show, and Truthdig. The presence of Altercation here might be partially explained by the fact that its author, Eric Alterman of The Nation,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic J. Rauch

Table 3 Media Used Most Frequently, Per Hybrid Audience

Source %

Daily Newspapers 43.4 National Public Radio 31.4 The Huffington Post 30.7 The Nation 28.6 Fox News 22.1 Public Broadcasting Service 21.0 MSNBC 20.0 Newsweeklies 18.9 Democracy Now! 18.7 Talking Points Memo 16.8 Daily Kos 16.2 British Broadcasting Corp. 16.0 The New Yorker 14.8 Glenn Beck 14.1 Cable News Network 13.8 Politico 12.0 Sean Hannity 11.9 C-SPAN 11.3 Time or Newsweek 11.7 The Economist 11.2

Note. Percentage of respondents who said they used each source “regularly” in print, broadcast and/or online. The 20 most frequent responses are shown (n = 192).

posted a link to this survey; some respondents might have clicked through from that blog. Although people named Alternet, Facebook, and Truthdig as favorites, those media outlets do not show up elsewhere in the data.

In addition to asking about audience use of the general categories alternative media and mainstream media, the survey collected data about how often people used par- ticular mainstream and alternative outlets. Table 3 shows the top 20 media used by this hybrid audience — that is, those used by more than 10% of respondents. Legacy print sources included daily newspapers (43.4%) and newsweeklies (18.9%), as well as news-oriented magazines such as The Nation (28.6%), The New Yorker (14.8%), Time or Newsweek (11.7%), and The Economist (11.2%), whether accessed in print or online. (Similar publications such as Harper’s, The Atlantic, Mother Jones, Human Events, National Review, The Progressive, and The New Republic showed levels of sup- port below 10%.) Also important were public or nonprofit broadcast media such as National Public Radio (31.4%), PBS (21.0%), Democracy Now! (18.7%), the BBC (16.0%), and C-SPAN (11.3%). The corporate or for-profit broadcast media named most frequently were Fox News (22.1%), MSNBC (20.0%), Glenn Beck (14.1%), CNN (13.8%), and Sean Hannity (11.9%). The most-read blog for this sample was The Huff- ington Post (30.7%), followed by Talking Points Memo (16.8%), Daily Kos (16.2%),

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

J. Rauch Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic

Table 4 Most Important Attributes of Alternative-Media Content, Per Hybrid Audience

Attribute %

Devoted to issues and events not discussed elsewhere 91.2 Allow a wide range of people to express their voices and opinions 91.2 Encourage people to get involved in civic life 90.7 Advocate for a different system of societal values 84.9 Pursue social justice 82.0 Criticize and analyze the work done by MSM 81.5 Promote activism and mobilize people to participate 74.1 Offer favorable coverage to people and groups that I support 58.0 Help preserve American traditions 46.8 Promote family values 40.0 Encourage moral behavior or religious action 32.7 Promote a certain political point of view 28.3

Note. Percentage of respondents who rated each attribute as “important” or “very important” (n = 205).

and Politico (12.0%). This list illustrates the media outlets — commercial and non- commercial alike — that these respondents held most in common.

After examining media usage, the survey asked people to rate how important they considered certain characteristics related to alternative content and form. Seven responses related to the content dimension of alternative media were supported by a majority of respondents, as demonstrated in Table 4. They believed that alternative media should be devoted to issues and events not discussed elsewhere (91.2%), allow a wide range of people to express their voices and opinions (91.2%), and encourage people to get involved in civic life (90.7%). There also was strong support for the ideas that alternative media should advocate for a different system of societal values (84.9%), pursue social justice (82.0%), criticize and analyze the work done by main- stream media (81.5%), promote activism and mobilize people to participate (74.1%), and offer favorable coverage to people and groups that respondents supported (58%). Characteristics receiving minority support included the ideas that alternative media should help preserve American traditions (46.8%), promote family values (40%), encourage moral behavior or religious action (32.7%), or promote a certain political point of view (28.3%). This list illustrates the alternative content values shared most widely in this sample.

In the dimension of form, 8 responses were supported by a majority of respon- dents; these results are displayed in Table 5. More than two-thirds of respondents agreed that alternative media should use new and interactive technologies (91.2%), be more connected to people in groups and networks that they support (72.7%), and be produced by small organizations rather than big companies (68.8%). More than half of the sample believed it was important for alternative media to use different technology for gathering and sharing information (61.4%), be produced by profes- sional journalists (60.5%), use traditional and familiar technologies (56.1%), aim to

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic J. Rauch

Table 5 Most Important Attributes of Alternative-Media Form, Per Hybrid Audience

Attribute %

Use new and interactive technologies 91.2 Advocate for a different system of societal values 84.9 More connected to people in groups and networks that I support 72.7 Produced by small organizations, not big companies 68.8 Use different technology for gathering, accessing, and sharing info than MSM do 61.4 Produced by professional journalists 60.5 Use traditional and familiar technologies 56.1 Aim to be nonprofit 54.1 Produced by amateur and citizen journalists 54.1 Be noncommercial or advertising-free 47.3 Appeal to a small or niche audience 17.6

Note. Percentage of respondents who rated each attribute as “important” or “very important” (n = 205).

be nonprofit (54.1%), and be produced by amateur and citizen journalists (54.1%). Being noncommercial or advertising-free received minority approval (47.3%) as did, by a wide margin, appealing to a small or niche audience (17.6%). This list illustrates the alternative form values supported most strongly by this audience sample.

After looking at audience conceptions of alternative media, the study asked people how much they agreed with certain ideas about mainstream media. Table 6 shows that 9 criticisms of mainstream outlets were supported by a majority. More than three-fourths agreed that mainstream media were compromised by corporate inter- ests (89.3%), biased by the politics of owners (88.3%), compromised by advertising (85.4%), motivated too much by profit (82.4%), and supported the status quo (78%). Most respondents also thought that mainstream media had undemocratic practices (73.2%) and disempowered the public (72.2%). Individual journalists were viewed as hurting mainstream media with their personal ambitions (71.7%) and their politics (62%). A minority said that immoral or antireligious attitudes of media personnel (30.7%) and a lack of government regulation (28.3%) were important problems with mainstream media. This list illustrates the negative evaluations of mainstream media that these respondents held most in common.

Tolerating capitalism and other contradictions

These audience members shared a common body of values that together helped construct the category alternative media and distinguish it from mainstream media, in their minds. Corporate ownership, commercial interests, and profit motives were some of the top problems with mainstream media that they said necessitated alternative outlets. However, many of the media that they spontaneously identified as alternative could qualify as mainstream, especially in terms of form, by their own standards. Participants perceived corporations, owners, advertising, and profit

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

J. Rauch Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic

Table 6 Most Important Problems With Mainstream Media, Per Hybrid Audience

Problem %

Compromised by corporations and corporate interests 89.3 Biased by politics of their owners 88.3 Compromised by advertising and commercial interests 85.4 Motivated too much by profit 82.4 Support the status quo 78.0 Have undemocratic practices 73.2 Disempower the public 72.2 Compromised by egos or career ambitions of journalists 71.7 Biased by politics of journalists 62.0 Have unpatriotic practices 49.3 Compromised by immoral or antireligious attitudes 30.7 Not enough government regulation 28.3

Note. Percentage of respondents who agreed “strongly” or “somewhat” with each statement (n = 199).

as major factors compromising mainstream media — a perspective associated with political economists such as Chomsky, Herman, and McChesney, whose ideas are familiar to many alternative-media users (Atkinson & Dougherty, 2006; Rauch, 2007). Yet only 54% of respondents thought alternative media should be nonprofit and only 47% thought media should shun advertising. These findings complicate assumptions about the primacy of anticorporate, anticommercial, and antiprofit con- cerns often voiced by proponents of alternative media, including audience members in this survey.

Respondents cited several noncommercial and noncorporate media outlets as preferred alternatives. The high level of support for nonprofit and public broadcasters such as NPR and PBS presents another tension, as they are sometimes judged from one ideological stance as too conservative and dependent on corporate sponsorship while being criticized from another position as too liberal and reliant on public funding. This hybrid audience had a strong appetite for foreign outlets such as The Economist and the BBC — a finding that supports Bicket and Wall’s argument that the BBC has quietly integrated into the U.S. media system and now serves as a domestic “super-alternative” source (2009). When U.S. demand for independent news increased after September 11 and the Iraq invasion, the BBC was well positioned outside of the commercial, profit-seeking pressures that constrain U.S. media (Bicket & Wall, 2009).

Members of this audience showed mixed feelings about the importance of small- ness in media. Small organizations were valued by 69% of respondents and small audiences by 18% — the least supported item in this survey. Thus, they distinguished between scale of production and scale of circulation. It is reasonable to surmise that, as proponents of sociopolitical change, they preferred for small media organizations to reach a larger public, rather than remaining in an alternative “ghetto” (Atton,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic J. Rauch

2002a). Effective movements often derive social impact from mass-circulating media products as well as from centralized, capitalized organization (Hamilton, 2000). They favored media produced by large, long-standing institutions, in contrast with the antiestablishment thrust of many alternative media (Lieuvrouw, 2011). Perhaps users forgave NPR, PBS, and BBC for their bigness because they believed such outlets put public good ahead of profit; perhaps they associate public broadcasting with small-scale organizations, as these media typically operate through a network of local affiliates. And, there were orders of magnitude — in terms of size, budget, and influence — between the alternatives popular with respondents and the “Big Media” they deplored.

Questions about media personnel evoked similar ambivalence, with a slight pref- erence for professional contributors over amateur ones. The two are not dichotomous: The 61% who thought it important for alternative media to be produced by profession- als must overlap with the 54% who valued production by citizens. This finding makes sense in light of strong support for a “wide range of people,” including professional and amateur journalists separately or in collaboration, to share their perspectives. Regarding engagement, it is also notable that respondents valued participation in civic life (90.7%) above citizen participation in media production (54.1%). For an audience attuned to capitalist domination and political – economic criticism, concerns about the free or exploited labor of amateur journalists might have played a role (Sandoval & Fuchs, 2010). Perceptions of media credibility also might be involved, in light of research showing that audiences value citizen journalists but view professional ones as more credible (Nah & Chung, 2012).

This audience comprised of many online readers displayed some indifference toward technological form. While 91% favored using new and interactive technolo- gies, only 61% believed in using different technology for gathering, accessing, and sharing information than mainstream media use. Question wording might have influenced these results, with being “interactive” carrying more weight than being “different” than the mainstream. Alternative vision might have outweighed status quo opposition for these respondents. And, 54% of them agreed that “alternative media should use traditional and familiar technologies,” a number that necessarily includes some of the 91% supporting nontraditional and unfamiliar technologies. People valuing activism might recognize the need to reach diverse communities around the globe through old or low-tech forms of media, such as the radical ones examined by Downing (2001).

Some popular “alternative” media cited by this audience sample were Viacom’s The Daily Show, News Corporation’s Fox News, AOL-Huffington Post, and Facebook. All are products of large, hierarchical organizations with mass audiences that are corporate-owned, advertising-financed, and profit-oriented — features that ought to disqualify them from being alternative media. In the eyes of viewers, oppositional content in The Daily Show might justify its “compromised” form; the show often questions corporate media and challenges journalistic king-making, cynical punditry, self-interest in business reporting, and the failures of objectivity — a form of “culture

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

J. Rauch Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic

jamming” that much academic literature has addressed (e.g., Baym, 2005; Warner, 2007). Fans of Fox News might perceive its content as alternative due to sympathy for conservative values, as did one analyst who suggested that the channel be considered alternative rather than mainstream (Aday, 2010). Readers of The Huffington Post might appreciate the wide spectrum of voices and interactive technologies featured in the blog (Roodhouse, 2009). People might point to similar criteria in judging Facebook — whose status was perhaps more alternative in 2009, when less than 38% of the U.S. population reported getting news through social networks (Pew, 2010).

Many political blogs were named among the ranks of favorite alternative media, including Talking Points Memo, Politico, Daily Kos, and Truthdig. This finding demands closer scrutiny as research suggests that such online publications do not perforce represent meaningful alternatives to corporate – commercial outlets. Kenix’s analysis of political blogs found that they linked to mainstream media more than to diverse sources, spoke in coded language that only frequent readers could understand and offered no meaningful two-way communication (Kenix, 2009). She concluded that many political blogs were homogeneous and served as extensions of corporate news rather than as examples of alternative communication (Kenix, 2009). The blogs in her sample “critiqued mainstream content with mainstream ideology and practices through a far-reaching, once ‘new’ and ‘alternative’ medium,” according to Kenix. “Indeed, it was likely the medium itself that first garnered the ‘alternative’ moniker and not the content” (Kenix, 2009, p. 815).

Despite the ascendance of blogs, social networks, and other new forms of commu- nication, the category “alternative media” retains a wealth of meaning to some users. This audience research suggests that the alternative – mainstream dialectic continues to produce useful tensions. Mainstream media are not necessarily becoming “alterna- tive” in an online age, or vice versa. Indeed, some scholars warn that the progressive potential of digital media is threatened as corporations and traditional institutions exert more control over the Internet’s evolution (cf. Meikle, 2002; McChesney, 2013). Market forces might be converting this new medium into an engine for commer- cialism that is antagonistic toward journalism as a credible, broad-based democratic institution, in McChesney’s analysis (2013).

Multiple meanings of alternative media

The conceptions of alternative media reported here illustrate that the term has sub- stantially consistent meanings to people who read, watch, and listen to such outlets. Precise, universal definitions might be elusive, but in this survey, general parame- ters of what makes alternative media “alternative” were not. These audience meanings offer new understandings of the category alternative media that supplement those of scholars and producers. The point here is not to argue that audience conceptions are necessarily superior to other ones. These users valued the dialectical tension between the alternative and mainstream categories of media, as many authors do. They also distinguished many of the same attributes of alternative media that scholars do. The

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic J. Rauch

finding that media content tended to trump form among users suggests subtle differ- ences between audience conceptions and academic theorizations of alternative media.

For this audience, the term alternative media represented a distinct system of values and practices that nonetheless presents many inconsistencies. People pro- fessed that corporate – commercial motives and practices were a problem for media outlets — but not for the ones that they liked and considered “alternative.” In light of the high value they placed upon content, I propose that they viewed the potential good done by alternative content as mitigating any potential harm done by main- stream form. In other words, the ends of social transformation justify the means of corporate – commercial accommodation. These alternative-media users recognized the limitations of capitalism, but they tolerated it as a necessary adaptation to the expanding market society. These audience members idealized the general notion of alternative media while holding their specific alternative media to pragmatic standards.

Another inconsistency is that while these participants might not consider them- selves to be mainstream-media users due to a predominance of alternatives, they used more mainstream outlets than other people do. This result confirms previous find- ings by Boyle (2005), as well as Rauch, whose comparison of interviews and diary data suggested that alternative audiences formed an “interpretive community” that downplayed exposure to mainstream media (2007). (It is possible, too, that respon- dents here overestimated their use of alternative outlets or underreported their use of mainstream ones.) Despite vocal disapproval of mainstream media that displays rejection of such outlets, there seems to be a “dynamic mental co-habitation among users between the 2 types of media,” as Downing postulated (2003a, p. 637). This alter- native audience is thus hybridized, much like the journalistic personnel and practices that often overlap in alternative and mainstream media production (Atton & Couldry, 2003; Hamilton, 2008; Harcup, 2005; Platon & Deuze, 2003).

This hybrid audience attended to many media that are likewise hybrids: outlets possessing some attributes that align them with alternative culture and some that might define them as mainstream (Hamilton, 2008; Kenix, 2011). Political blogs, public broadcasting, the traditional alternative press, and foreign sources all fit this description, as does the genre-defying Daily Show. Yet, complex blends of commercial means and social-reform ends have long been evident in media forms and content, from 17th-century religious news to 20th-century Socialist publications (Hamilton, 2008). Seemingly antithetical media practices — such as selling advertising space while critiquing commercial culture — that we see today as “hybrid” were not only commonplace but also considered “neutral techniques” in other times, Hamilton observes (2008).

This audience’s use of mainstream outlets, rather than diminishing the impor- tance of the alternative media category, serves to underscore it. In light of capitalism’s dominance, it is easy to imagine that many people attend frequently to media on the corporate – commercial end of the spectrum, but it is harder to conceive of people who completely avoid the mainstream in favor of “pure” alternatives. The people surveyed

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

J. Rauch Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic

here resisted mainstream media to some extent, using alternative media as a comple- ment instead of a replacement. While the label “alternative” might be an expression of lifestyle politics, it counts as more than self-branding if people are committed to living consistently according to their principles. These audience members profess to put their money where their mouths are, by using and supporting alternative media.

Despite occasional tensions and contradictions, the category alternative media not only has meaning to members of this hybrid audience, but also matters to them. Being an “alternative-media user” is often central to the identity of audience members who enjoy creating distinctions between mainstream and alternative media as well as between themselves and other people (Rauch, 2007, 2010). Scholars have argued that alternative media can play a central role in the formation of audience political iden- tities (Meikle, 2002) and act as a boundary or marker that excludes outsiders and reinforces the power of insiders (Lieuvrouw, 2011). Alternative media represents a panoply of related, overlapping categories, and users can signal membership in an alternative community by recognizing and valuing the relevant genre, according to Lieuvrouw (2011). In many ways, using alternative media contributes to how people make sense of the world and relate themselves to the larger cultural order.

The cultural questions about meaning-making, about exploitation and resistance, about identity construction and power relations that I have introduced should be cen- tral to future research on alternative-media audiences. The limitations of this study suggest several jumping-off points for new work. Some alternative audiences would likely report using pirate radio, street theater, homeless newspapers, guerrilla video projects, DIY fanzines, activist fliers, graffiti, pamphlets, and so on — but these respon- dents did not evoke such a rich tapestry of radical, community, and grassroots prod- ucts. The relatively narrow range of alternative media shared here might have resulted from the nature of the convenience sample, derived in large part from readers of The Nation, Human Events, and Facebook. More concerned with political projects than with cultural ones, they leaned toward a particular subset or genre of alterna- tive media: alternative journalism. Other audience samples might be more diverse, in terms of not only media use but also demographics — including more young people, women, and people of color.

While this survey revealed many similarities within this group, it shed less light on variations among respondents. As different people ascribe different meanings to the same media, alternative audience research could look at how conservative mem- bers vary from liberal ones, how younger readers respond differently than older ones, and so on. Popular conceptions of alternative and mainstream media are, of course, products of specific societies at specific times (Dowmunt, 2008). Many comparative studies of alternative-media audiences remain to be done; the meanings reflected in this 2009 U.S. study are bounded by time as well as place. To supplement survey meth- ods, qualitative approaches such as interviews and discourse analyses could provide more subjectivity for participants, capture the complexity of multiple interpretations, and take into better account the contexts in which alternative-media audiences make meaning. More exploration of how audience conceptions are shaped by respective

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic J. Rauch

contexts could help avoid idealist reduction and underscore possibilities for change (Hamilton, 2001).

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Kappa Tau Alpha, the national journalism and mass communication honor society, for a research grant that supported this study. She is also grateful to James F. Hamilton and anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful com- ments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Notes

1 People who accessed the survey through Facebook are not distinguished from those who did so through classified ads. Although online audiences might differ qualitatively from print ones, self-identification as an “alternative media user” was the main qualification for this study.

2 The survey was conducted online and did not collect data about nationalities. This sample likely included a preponderance of U.S. respondents, as they were recruited through U.S.-based media such as Facebook, Human Events, and The Nation.

3 The survey was not designed to test the popularity of alternative form and content per se; these categories emerged from the data as a useful analytical tool. The attribute “advocate for an alternative system of values” appears on both lists, as it spans both dimensions.

References

Aday, S. (2010). Chasing the bad news: An analysis of 2005 Iraq and Afghanistan war coverage on NBC and Fox News channel. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 144 – 164.

Albert, M. (1997). What makes alternative media alternative? Z Magazine. Retrieved from http://zcommunications.org/contents/607

American Library Association. (1980). Alternatives in print: An international catalog of books, pamphlets, periodicals and audiovisual materials. Compiled by the Task Force on Alternatives in Print, Social Responsibilities Round Table. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman.

Atkinson, J. (2005). Conceptualizing global justice audiences of alternative media: The need for power and ideology in performance paradigms of audience research. The Communication Review, 8(2), 137 – 157.

Atkinson, J. (2010). Alternative media & politics of resistance: A communication perspective. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Atkinson, J., & Berg, S. V. L. (2012). Narrow mobilization & tea party activism: A study of right-leaning alternative media. Communication Studies, 63(5), 519 – 535.

Atkinson, J., & Dougherty, D. (2006). Alternative media and social justice movements: The development of a resistance performance paradigm of audience analysis. Western Journal of Communication, 70(1), 64 – 88.

Atton, C. (2002a). Alternative media. London, England: SAGE. Atton, C. (2002b). News cultures and new social movements: Radical journalism and the

mainstream media. Journalism Studies, 3(4), 491 – 505.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

J. Rauch Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic

Atton, C. (2003). Ethical space in alternative journalism. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics, 1(1), 26 – 31.

Atton, C. (2004). An alternative Internet. England: Edinburgh University Press. Atton, C. (2006). Far-right media on the Internet: Culture, discourse, and power. New Media

& Society, 8(4), 573 – 587. Atton, C., & Couldry, N. (2003). Introduction. Media, Culture & Society, 25(3), 579 – 586. Atton, C., & Wickenden, E. (2005). Sourcing routines and representation in alternative

journalism: A case study approach. Journalism Studies, 6(3), 347 – 359. Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political

journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259 – 276. Benson, R. (2003). Commercialization and critique: California’s alternative weeklies. In N.

Couldry & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world (pp. 111 – 127). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bicket, D., & Wall, M. (2009). BBC News in the United States: A “super-alternative” news medium emerges. Media, Culture & Society, 31(3), 365 – 384.

Boyle, M. (2005). Media and protest: Implications of mainstream and alternative media for student protest participation. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, San Antonio, TX.

Boyle, M., & Schmierbach, M. (2009). Media use and protest: The role of mainstream and alternative media use in predicting traditional and protest participation. Communication Quarterly, 57(1), 1 – 17.

Comedia (1984). The development of underdevelopment. Media, Culture & Society, 6(2), 95 – 102.

Couldry, N., & Curran, J. (2003). Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Dowmunt, T. (2008). Introduction. In K. Coyer, T. Dowmunt, & A. Fountain (Eds.), The alternative media handbook (pp. 1 – 12). London, England: Routledge.

Downing, J. D. H. (2001). Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movements. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Downing, J. D. H. (2003a). Audience and readers of alternative media: The absent lure of the virtually unknown. Media, Culture & Society, 25(5), 625 – 645.

Downing, J. D. H. (2003b). The Independent Media Center movement and the anarchist socialist tradition. In N. Couldry & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world (pp. 243 – 257). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Duncombe, S. (1998). Notes from underground: Zines and the politics of alternative culture. New York, NY: Verso.

Eliasoph, N. (1988). Routines and the making of oppositional news. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5(4), 313 – 314.

Ford, T. V., & Gil, G. (2001). Radical Internet use. In J. D. H. Downing (Ed.), Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movements (pp. 201 – 234). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Fuchs, C. (2010). Alternative media as critical media. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(2), 173 – 192.

Gibbs, P. L. (2003). Alternative things considered: A political economic analysis of labour processes and relations at a Honolulu alternative newspaper. Media, Culture & Society, 25(5), 587 – 605.

Glasgow University Media Group. (1976). Bad news. London, England: Routledge.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic J. Rauch

Haas, T. (2004). Alternative media, public journalism, and the pursuit of democratization. Journalism Studies, 5(1), 115 – 121.

Hamilton, J. F. (2000). Alternative media: Conceptual difficulties, critical possibilities. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 24(4), 357 – 378.

Hamilton, J. F. (2001). Theory through history: Exploring scholarly conceptions of U.S. alternative media. The Communication Review, 4(3), 305 – 326.

Hamilton, J. F. (2008). Democratic communications: Formations, projects, possibilities. Washington, DC: Lexington.

Harcup, T. (2005). “I’m doing this to change the world”: Journalism in alternative and mainstream media. Journalism Studies, 6(3), 361 – 374.

Harcup, T. (2011). Alternative journalism as active citizenship. Journalism, 12(1), 15 – 31. Juris, J. (2008). Networking futures: The movements against corporate globalization. Durham,

NC: Duke University Press. Kenix, L. J. (2009). Blogs as alternative. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4),

790 – 822. Kenix, L. J. (2011). The future of alternative media? Observatorio (OBS*) Journal, 5(1),

187 – 214. Kenix, L. J. (2012). Alternative and mainstream media: The converging spectrum. London,

England: Bloomsbury. Khiabany, G. (2000). Red pepper: A new model for the alternative press? Media, Culture &

Society, 22(4), 447 – 463. Kim, E., & Hamilton, J. W. (2006). Capitulation to capital? OhMyNews as alternative media.

Media, Culture & Society, 28(4), 541 – 560. Lieuvrouw, L. (2011). Alternative & activist new media. Malden, MA: Polity. Makagon, D. (2000). Accidents should happen: Cultural disruption through alternative

media. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 24(4), 430 – 447. Marcuse, H. (1972). Counterrevolution and revolt. Boston, MA: Beacon. McChesney, R. (2013). Digital disconnect: How capitalism is turning the Internet away from

democracy. Boston, MA: New Press. Meikle, G. (2002). Future active: Media activism & the Internet. New York, NY: Routledge. Min, I. (2004). Perceptions of the audience by the alternative press producers: A case study of

the Texas Observer. Media, Culture & Society, 26(3), 450 – 458. Nah, S., & Chung, D. (2012). When citizens meet both professional and citizen journalists:

Social trust, media credibility, and perceived journalistic roles among online community news readers. Journalism, 13(6), 714 – 730.

Pew Internet & American Life Project/Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2010). Understanding the participatory news consumer: How Internet and cell phone users have turned news into a social experience instead? Retrieved from http://www. pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Online-News

Pickard, V. (2006a). United yet autonomous: Indymedia and the struggle to sustain a radical democratic network. Media, Culture & Society, 28(3), 315 – 336.

Pickard, V. (2006b). Assessing the radical democracy of Indymedia: Discursive, technical, and institutional constructions. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 23(1), 19 – 38.

Platon, S., & Deuze, M. (2003). Indymedia journalism: A radical way of making, selecting, and sharing news? Journalism, 4(3), 336 – 355.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017

J. Rauch Exploring the Alternative – Mainstream Dialectic

Rauch, J. (2003). Rooted in nations, blossoming in globalization? A cultural perspective on the content of a “Northern” mainstream and “Southern” alternative news agency. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 27(1), 87 – 103.

Rauch, J. (2004). Hands-on communication: Zine circulation rituals and the interactive limitations of web self-publishing. Popular Communication, 2(3), 153 – 169.

Rauch, J. (2007). Activists as interpretive communities: Rituals of consumption and interaction in an alternative media audience. Media, Culture & Society, 29(6), 994 – 1013.

Rauch, J. (2010). Superiority and susceptibility: How activist audiences imagine the influence of mainstream news messages on themselves and others. Discourse & Communication, 4(3), 263 – 277.

Rodriguez, C. (2001). Fissures in the mediascape: An international study of citizens media. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Roodhouse, E. A. (2009). The voice from the base(ment): Stridency, referential structure, and partisan conformity in the political blogosphere. First Monday, 14(9). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/

Sandoval, M., & Fuchs, C. (2010). Towards a critical theory of alternative media. Telematics and Informatics, 27, 141 – 150.

Traber, M. (1985). Alternative journalism, alternative media. (Communication Resources, no. 7). London, England: World Association for Christian Communication.

Waltz, M. (2005). Alternative and activist media. England: Edinburgh University Press. Warner, J. (2007). Political culture jamming: The dissident humor of The Daily Show. Popular

Communication, 5(1), 17 – 36. Wolfson, T. (2012). From the Zapatistas to Indymedia: Dialectics and orthodoxy in

contemporary social movements. Communication, Culture & Critique, 5(2), 149 – 170.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/article-abstract/8/1/124/3979330 by guest on 25 December 2017