RTV Theory and Practice - Special Issue

WHO SPEAKS FOR WHICH COMMUNITIES?/ WHOSE INTERESTS ARE BEING SERVED BY THE STATION? Of equal concern must be some determination of which people аге considered to be spokespersons for the communities they claim to represent, Cohen and Uphoff (1980) describe participation in rural development as four-đimensional: participation in decision-making , implementation , benef its , and evaluation. One of the benefits of radio broadcasting, of course , is the opportunity to be heard , which can bring with it greater yisibility , status , and power within the community . People implementing community radio projects should be concerned with who desires to be on the air and for what purpose . Community leaders may be self-appointed , may be the people who have been in charge of the local есопоту of the group they claim to represent, or they тау have a legitimate claim to be heard . This đecision should come from within the community itself, but with the encouragement of the management of the station . Listeners should be invited to come to participate with the statipn's operations , to work as volunteers , and, eventually , to become staff members . A particular problem faced by a number of community stations in the U.S. is the institutionalization of vested community interests within the station . Once people stake a claim to represent their community on the station , they are frequently loathe to share such access with others who тау have competing claims for representation , preferring instead to allow spokespersons with whom they agree to be heard instead. As Hein (1985) points out , however, community radio can maximize chances for success only when all members of the community are allowed access to the air. White (1983), for ekample says that Radio Popular in Latin America function as a "voice for the voiceless" . What is produced on the station represents the evolution of "a range of alternatlve radio programming which respond to the specific needs of lower-class groups that have no access to the ordlnary local commercial radio stations" (p. 125). That is why programs must be done m the local language , and aimed to the particular cultural norms of the area in which the station exists . ® ' Also , the technology of the station must be demystif led , so that commumty members can easily learn the techmgues to make their messages effective and meaningful to them listeners . Listeners who тау be potential programmers should be tramed and empowered to use the radio

176