Alternative media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Alternative journalism)
Jump to: navigation, search

Alternative media are media (newspapers, radio, television, magazines, movies, Internet, etc.) which provide alternative information to the mainstream media in a given context, whether the mainstream media are commercial, publicly supported, or government-owned. Alternative media differ from mainstream media along one or more of the following dimensions: their content, aesthetic, modes of production, modes of distribution, and audience relations.[1] Alternative media often aim to challenge existing powers, to represent marginalized groups, and to foster horizontal linkages among communities of interest.[2] Proponents of alternative media argue that the mainstream media often perpetuate traditional hegemonic power relations via their selection of content and their rhetorical and structural framing of news and information. While alternative media shares mainstream media’s rhetorical, structural, and discursive potential to promote or perpetuate an ideological framework, alternative media aims to provide a critical perspective and promote counter-hegemonic and subaltern discourse.[3]


Several different categories of media may fall under the heading of alternative media. These include, but are not limited to, radical media, dissident and social movement media, ethnic/racial media, indigenous media, community media, subcultural media, student media, and avant-garde media. Each of these categories highlights the perceived shortcomings of dominant media to serve particular audiences, aims and interests, and attempts to overcome these shortcomings through their own media.



Michael Albert has written that primarily, organizations self-identify as alternative. He suggests that

an alternative media institution...doesn't try to maximize profits, doesn't primarily sell audience to advertisers for revenues (and so seeks broad and non-elite audience), is structured to subvert society's defining hierarchical social relationships, and is structurally profoundly different from and as independent of other major social institutions, particularly corporations, as it can be. An alternative media institution sees itself as part of a project to establish new ways of organizing media and social activity and it is committed to furthering these as a whole, and not just its own preservation.[5]




In his work on alternative and radical media, John D. H. Downing discusses the way this binary definition developed out of the politically polarized Cold War context, which produced a recognizable mainstream to which alternative media could be compared. Downing defined alternative media as radical media, and, like many scholars, critiqued the limiting nature of the binary definition, especially within the contemporary post-modern era.[2] The traditional binary definition of alternative media stated above has been critiqued and expanded in the last decade. Current discussions of alternative media are concerned with the impact of post-industrial culture and how to redefine the term in a post-modern framework. Contemporary definitions of the term increasingly address the critical, contextual, and structural elements of alternative media,[10] as well as the processes involved in its production and its highly fragmented audience. Contemporary definitions also seek to recognize the profound effect that making media can have on the makers.


Propaganda model[edit]

Main article: Propaganda model

Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky proposed a concrete model for the filtering processes (biases) of mainstream media, especially in the United States, called the propaganda model. They tested this empirically and presented extensive quantified evidence supporting the model.[11] Through an extensive analysis of the financial roots that drive American news media as well as an in-depth look at coverage of specific news events, Herman and Chomsky demonstrate that mainstream news content represents the political and economic interests of the state and other varied powerful corporate entities. Any content that runs contrary to this status quo faces challenges in establishing mainstream credibility, and is consequently prohibited from being able to contribute to the democratic public sphere. The model is based upon four "filters" that impact news content. These filters are the consolidation of media ownership to a scant few all-powerful corporations, the influence and integration of advertising in mass media, the dubious reliability of experts and sources utilized by the news, and the concept of “flak,” which involves controlled negative responses to media content. They also note the importance of the historical context of anticommunism in the 20th century as a way to see how the mass media is prioritized to deliver a very specific narrative in the news.[12]


Ben Bagdikian has also written about the takeover of biased media, with particular attention to the giant conglomerates that own them. He argues that because five large conglomerates own the majority of American media, politics and general media influence in America are in jeopardy, and that the practices of these “Big Five” result in cooperation and mutual aid more than competition. Bagdikian contends that while the letter of American law does not cite these dealings as monopolistic, they are, for all intents and purposes, exactly that. In the vein of Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model, politically radical and alternative perspectives are either marginalized or ignored by these conglomerates.[14][15]



Counterpublic Sphere[edit]

Public sphere plays a key role in deliberative democracy model, emphasizing an arena where citizens can meet and exchange ideas as equals. Habermas addressed public sphere as “a domain of our social life in which such a thing as public opinion can be formed”.[17] He further identified three key characters: participation is open to everyone, all participants are considered equal, and any issue can be raised for rational debate.[17] However his early conception of public sphere was “a piece of bourgeois, masculinist ideology that functioned to legitimate an emergent from class rule” that receives abundant criticisms.[18]

First of all, Habermas assumed everyone has the ability to set aside their differences, and be treated as if they were social and economic equals in public sphere for discussion public matters. However this is unrealistic, since systematic social inequalities can never be eliminated, pre-determined social and demographic background will generate inequality and exclusions in public sphere. Moreover, the informal pressures, digital gap, and culture differences will marginalize the participation of subordinate group members.[18]

Secondly, contrary to Habermas’ claim that a single, overarching public sphere is a positive and desirable state of affairs, critics argued the importance of the proliferation of a multiplicity of publics.[18] The promotion of a single sphere does not leave room for dissenting opinion, members of subordinated groups would have no arenas for deliberation among themselves about their needs, and may result in the consequence of the spiral of silence. Therefore marginalized groups must create their own publics, which Fraser calls "subaltern counter-publics".,[18] spaces where these groups can discuss their own identities, opinions, and interests. From these counter publics, groups can then assert their interests into the larger public. Counter-public sphere proposes a politics that not only simply be independent from, but also aims at challenging the dominant public sphere.

Also, in the late capitalism of the twentieth century, Habermas’ bourgeois public sphere was becoming corrupted by mass media in manipulating public opinion, the management of politics and by large organizations in shaping social needs.[19] The citizens’ horizontal communication in the public sphere was constricted by the influence of state and capitalism

As a response to the above deficits of bourgeois public sphere, several counter public sphere models were proposed. One is Hauser’s rhetorical public sphere [20] that focuses on more specific issues enabling marginalized topics to get attention and discussed. Fraser’s model emphasizing on identity, she suggested the existence of “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counter discourses”, feminist subaltern counterpublic is one example.[18] Fraser also proposed a transnational public sphere that going beyond the boundaries of nation states.[21] A proletarian public sphere developed by Negt and Kluge was considered as a “self-defense organ”, aiming at “the protection of individuals from the direct influence of bourgeois interests and ideologies”.[22]


People perceive the world in snippets. Information is selected, organized, and interpreted in moments. Sociologist Eriving Goffman believed that people used primary frameworks particular to their social group to interpret and understand the world.[23] In Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, Goffman explains these analytical frameworks and the vulnerabilities that they can create. He asserts that frames not only organize meaning but also involvement. Framing research that has evolved from Goffman’s work indicates that the media and institutions can frame narratives in ways that yield desired results. These framing tactics silence oppositional voices by altering the discourse, strategically shifting the focus off the oppositional narrative via red herrings, and thus winning public opinion.

In “Journalistic ‘Paradigms’ of Civil Protests: A Case Study in Hong Kong” Joseph Chan and Chi-Chuan Lee show how political ideology creates journalistic paradigms. They explore the leftist, rightist and centralist journalistic paradigm in Hong Kong. Chan and Lee define paradigm as a socially constructed worldview that indicates to journalists where to look and not look, and guides them in what to discover.[24] Essentially, the political views of a news organization influence the manner in which the news is presented.

The “protest paradigm” is the idea that mass media marginalizes protest groups through their depictions of the protesters, and, by doing so, subsequently support the status quo. The “protest paradigm” is the idea that mass media marginalizes protest groups through their depictions of the protesters, and, by doing so, subsequently support the status quo. In “Framing Effects of Television News Coverage of Social Protest” Douglas McLedod and Benjamin Detenber examine viewer’s cognitive response to the framing effects of the protest paradigm. Results indicate that the level of status quo present impacts the viewer’s judgment.[25]

In “The Manufacture of 'Public Opinion’ by Reporters: Informal Cues for Public Perceptions of Protest Groups” McLeod and Hertog (1992) examine news coverage of three anarchists marches from 1986-1988 in Minneapolis. Their findings reveal that mainstream media provide support to major societal institutions, whereas alternative media provide protection from isolation for the anarchists.[26]

Social Movement Communication[edit]

In “Social movement web use in theory and practice: a content analysis of US movement websites,” Stein (2009), drawing from alternative media studies, develops a typology of communication functions for social movements and conducts a random survey of US-based social movement organization websites. According to the survey results, most of US-based social movement organizations don’t utilize the internet to its full potential, and assumes several reasons why this might be the case: organizational objectives, organizational resources and resource sharing.[27]

Connections to Subaltern Studies[edit]

Not much has been written about the related aims found in both alternative media discourse and subaltern studies discourse, yet a concern for disenfranchised and oppressed voices and communities can be found in both academic circles.

There are various definitions for "alternative media," as suggested above. John Downing, for example, defines "radical alternative media" as media "that express an alternative vision to hegemonic policies, priorities, and perspectives" [28] In his assessment of a variety of definitions for the term, Chris Atton notes repeatedly the importance of alternative media production originating from small-scale, counter-hegemonic groups and individuals.[29]

Subaltern studies as well has a varied history in academic thought. Growing out of South Asian studies, subaltern studies draws on Antonio Gramsci's discussion of "subaltern" groups, that is, groups of people considered to be of inferior rank socially, economically, and politically.[30] One of the most significant ideas found throughout subaltern studies is the question posed by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "Can the subaltern speak?" which was posed in her seminal essay of the same name. In her piece, Spivak investigates whether the subaltern have a voice within hegemonic political discourses, and if so if their voices are being heard, allowing them to participate. This is important, as the subaltern's ability to participate in politics and other social and cultural practices is key in establishing—as well as challenging—their subaltern status.[3] This particular body of scholarship is useful to the study and discussion of alternative media due to their shared preoccupation with the ability of disenfranchised peoples to participate and contribute to mainstream hegemonic discourses, especially in regards to ethnic and racial media in which these groups speak from a subaltern position.

This connection is strengthened in the work of alternative media scholar Clemencia Rodriguez. In her discussion of citizenship, Rodriguez comments that, "Citizens have to enact their citizenship on a day-to-day basis, through their participation in everyday political practices...As citizens actively participate in actions that reshape their own identities, the identities of others, and their social environments, they produce power."[31] So it could be said that by subaltern groups creating alternative media, they are indeed expressing their citizenship, producing their power, and letting their voice be heard.

Forms of Media[edit]






Community, low-power or Pirate Radio[edit]




Genres of Alternative and Activist New Media[edit]

Primarily concerned with the growing role of new media in alternative media projects, communication scholar Leah Lievrouw identifies 5 genres of contemporary new media based alternative and activist media: culture jamming, alternative computing, participatory journalism, mediated mobilization, and commons knowledge.[10]

  • Culture jamming generally attempts to critique popular culture such as entertainment, advertising, and art.[10] It tends to comment on issues of corporate capitalism and consumerism, and seeks to provide political commentary. Characteristics of culture jamming texts include the appropriation or repurposing of images, video, sound, or text and that they are ironic or satirical in some sense.[35] Today, culture jamming can come in the form of internet memes and guerrilla marketing.
  • Alternative computing deals with the material infrastructure of informational and communications technologies. It seeks to critique and reconfigure systems with the intention of subverting or evading commercial and political restraints on open access to information and information technologies.[36] Some examples of alternative computing are hacking, open source software or systems, and file sharing.
  • Participatory journalism refers to web-based sources of critical or radical news either in the form of online news services or blogs. These alternative outlets of news often adopt the philosophies of citizen journalism and view themselves as providing an alternative to mainstream news and opinion.[37] Participatory journalism projects may cover underreported groups and issues. Within this genre authors and readers of some of these alternative media projects have the ability contribute alike and therefore has the characteristic of being participatory or interactive. An example of participatory journalism is Indymedia
  • Mobilization media relate to communication practices that mobilization or organization social movements, identity, or cultural projects through the use of new media tools and platforms such as Facebook or YouTube. Characteristics of this genre include the cultivation of interpersonal networks, collective action towards social change, and making information much readily accessible.[37]
  • Commons knowledge as a genre refers to projects that provide alternatives to the traditional top-down creation and dissemination of knowledge. It seeks out and encourages the participation of multiple users, fostering forms of collaborative knowledge production and folksonmoies.[38] Wikipedia is an excellent example of this genre.

Thinking of current forms of alternative media in terms of genre not only allow us to identify the features and conventions of certain modes of communication, but also how “they allow people to express themselves appropriately, and to achieve their various purposes or intentions.”[39] In other words, we can begin to understand how the creators and participants of alternative new media projects actively shape their communication practices.

YouTube is considered to be not only a commercial enterprise, but also a platform designed to encourage cultural participation by ordinary citizens. Although YouTube aimed to be foremost a commercial enterprise, nevertheless, it has become a community media as one of the forms of alternative media. Scholars assume that YouTube’s commercial drive may have increased the probability of participation in online video culture for a broader spectrum of participants than before. This idea allows us to shift our concern away from the false contradiction between market-driven and non-market-driven culture towards the tensions between corporate logics and unruly and emergent traits of participatory culture, and the limits of YouTube model for cross-cultural diversity and global communication. In theory, YouTube stands as a site of cosmopolitan cultural citizenship.[40] Uploading foreign soap opera episodes and dividing into several pieces to pass YouTube’s content limits, can be seen as acts of cultural citizenship similar to the media sharing practices of diverse communities identified by Cunningham and Nguyen (2000).[41] However, people who have the highest chance of encountering other cultural citizens are those who have the access to various contents, information and platforms; this is commonly referred to as the ‘participation gap.’ The notion of participation gap makes both digital literacy and digital divide such important issues for cultural politics. Therefore, it’s still controversial if YouTube is just another conduit for strengthening cultural imperialism or one of alternative media.


Focusing on the “relation between art and mass media,” [2] the role of aesthetics in alternative media can be seen as an organizing principle, inherently political and associated with more experimental and innovative modes of production.

John Downing frames art “as a form of public, political communication,” and thus as a form of media, and traces various artistic movements and practices that have either functioned as political commentary or have enhanced the realm of the political.[2] This body of literature also focuses on the balance between individualism and collectivity, in other words between the creator and the audience, within such practices, while simultaneously introducing or expanding upon the concept of audience and their potential participatory roles.[42]

Culture jamming[edit]

Within Alternative Media literature focusing aesthetics, culture jamming is framed as political action, formal strategy, and creative practice in the form of aesthetic intervention and symbolic discourse. According to Åsa Wettergren, this practice focuses on “mass media as an arena for political struggle,” which she traces back to the Situationist International collective's practice of détournement to undermine the “spectacle” of daily life. Wettergren also raises issues of access and reach by focusing on the practice's reliance on cultural and symbolic capital by way of cultural intermediaries.[43]

Cultural Studies and Style[edit]

The aesthetic with regards to Alternative Media also engages cultural studies literature, specifically the importance of style related to studies of subcultures. For example, focusing on counter-hegemonic cultural flows, Dick Hebdige defines subcultures as “mechanism of semantic disorder,” in which aesthetics and symbols are re-appropriated and given new meaning.[44] This body of literature also mirrors the role of transience and cooptation inherent within alternative media production.[45]


Focusing on participatory genres of art in Defining Participation: An Interdisciplinary Overview, Nico Carpentiere focuses on aesthetically experimental avant-garde movements and their emphasis on the role of the audience and participation within their conception. Some of these artistic movements include Futurism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Situationism, Pop art, Neo-concretism, and the Theatre of the Oppressed.[42]

Political Aesthetics[edit]

In his work on the politics of aesthetics, Jacques Rancière emphasizes “the distribution of the sensible,” as defining what can be perceived through the senses. According to Rancière, it follows that aesthetics are “the system of a priori forms determining what presents itself to sense experience,” the affordances of the individual and the collective, as well as forming that basis of politics as experience.[46] Relating this to alternative media affords an indisputable role for aesthetics as far as expanding the realm of the political, as well as the politics and relations of power inherent within any production and its perception.

Like many makers of alternative media, scholar Crispin Sartwell identifies politics as an aesthetic environment. He argues that within such an environment “Political systems are no more centrally textual than they are centrally systems of imagery, architecture, music, styles of embodiment and movement, clothing and fibers, furnishings, and graphic arts” [47] As such, these artpolitical systems not only use aesthetics as a tool to gain power, but are also constituted via aesthetic forms within all media. Within alternative media, aesthetics are similarly recognized as a political force and often used as a tool to subvert hegemonic power structures that are perpetuated through visual rhetoric and design. Thus, it is not uncommon for alternative media to seek new artistic, non-traditional, or avant-garde means to represent its content. In this case, the use of aesthetics allows alternative media to address what might seem to be otherwise banal content in a manner which re-aligns, re-negotiates, or exposes the politics at work within it.

Racial and Ethnic Media[edit]

Scholars have traditionally regarded ethnic media as alternative media however some scholars and practitioners have challenged this categorization.[2] Ethnic media outlets, including ethnic newspapers, radio stations and television networks, typically target specific ethnic and racial groups instead of the general population, such as recent immigrant audience groups. In many cases, ethnic media are regarded as media that are entirely created by and for ethnic groups within their respective host countries with content in their native languages. However many ethnic media outlets are actually operated by transnational organizations or by mainstream corporations. For example, NBC Universal owns Univision, a Spanish language television network for Latinos in the United States. Additionally some ethnic media outlets obtain their content and programming from mainstream networks in sending countries. For example, Univison derives much of its popular telenovela programming from Televisa, the dominant television network in Mexico. Some argue that despite these factors, ethnic media still arguably fulfills a role as an ethnic/racial representative for their respective communities within the larger media landscape.[48][49]

There remain other issues and controversies surrounding ethnic media as alternative media. While ethnic media might provide a useful category of analysis, it can sometimes, as Shi points out, run the risk of homogenizing all members of a certain given ethnic group into a single overarching descriptive category. Power relations, differences in political views, questions of gender, inter-racial and inter-ethnic differences, and many other key issues can become erased and ignored. For example, news outlets directed towards African-American audiences in the United States contain divergent political agendas and ideologies. Some publishers, such as the California Eagle under the leadership of Charlotta Bass displayed a much more explicitly progressive position than other popular newspapers such as the Chicago Defender. Large ethnic media organizations can also misrepresent or not fully represent members of its ethnic or racial group. For example, in a study Dominican and Puerto Rican youth expressed a desire to see more representation of their own people on networks like Univision, which typically use Mexican and Cuban figures.[50]

While ethnic media may position itself as counter to the dominant racial hegemony of the nation-state it operates in, ethnic media can still maintain hegemonic attitudes and positions in its own content and organization. In an attempt to be seen as legitimate sources of information, ethnic media may also adopt the dominant aesthetic conventions of mainstream media. For example, the website of Al Jazeera America is similarly laid out compared to other mainstream news sites. Additionally, professionals who own and operate ethnic media outlets often come from significantly different backgrounds than their intended audience. America Rodriguez writes in Making Latino News that “Latino journalism is produced by Latino journalists and Latino marketers, Latinos whose cultural and material capital set them apart from much of their intended audience, replicating the social distance that exists between most general market journalists and their audiences.”[51]

A 2005 US survey by New California Media found that 13% of the US adult population consumes ethnic media. A total of 45% of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian American, Native American and Arab Americans preferred their targeted ethnic media over mainstream media, saying that they accessed ethnic media frequently. The survey attributes much of this trend to the limited reach of newspapers to minority populations by traditional media. Perhaps more strikingly, the study found that 90 percent of ethnic populations consumes ethnic media regularly.[52]

In 2011 the Pew Research center found that African American media not only played a valuable role for African Americans, it also faces challenges present with mainstream media. The National Newspaper Associations lists over 200 newspapers owned by blacks. While circulation of the newspapers is significantly less than mainstream newspapers, Elinor Tatum, editor in chief for the New York Times said, “Our circulation may not be the strongest, but people are reading us, and they care what we say”. African American ethnic media is also represented in wire services, magazines, radio, and online. Black newspaper publisher Danny Bakewell Sr. said, “People buy black newspapers for a very simple reason: We want to see ourselves … In terms of getting a perspective of what’s happening in the world and the epic value of the black press… We’re making sure we’re not silent. “[53]

Ethnic media that are clearly alternative media, in that it meets many of the criteria stated above, do exist. For example, the Zapatista movement of Southern Mexico, which represents mostly peasant indigenous people, produced highly sophisticated videos. These videos were distributed though conventional means but had political views outside the mainstream. Ethnic media as a category of alternative media remains controversial and thus inquiry into the intellectual framework takes into account the issues raised by many scholars and practitioners.



Unexplored areas[edit]

A very interesting, though underexplored question is the issue of alternative and mainstream spaces is the idea of crossovers. While at one point scholars agreed that alternative and mainstream spaces were twains that would never meet, later scholarship is questioning the basis of such “binary oppositions” and examining, instead, the ways alternative media borrows and re-works the norms of mainstream media. Alternative media processes and products have been described as inhabiting or being “inseparable” from an “alternative or plebian public sphere” (Atton, 1999, pp. 54, 71; 2002, pp. 35, 50; Habermas, 1989, p. xviii; 1992, p. 430). Within this context, the journalistic practices carried out within alternative media have been described, in a historical context, as ‘‘insurgent journalism’’ (Curran and Seaton, 2003, p. 16); and, in a more contemporary context, as ‘‘counter-hegemonic journalism’’ (Harcup, 2003, p. 372). Journalism practiced within alternative media has typically been understood as being entirely different to and separate from journalism practiced within mainstream media (Harcup, 2003). However, while some scholars see distinct differences between alternative and mainstream media which would suggest that they would frame issues differently, some see overlaps that would suggest that there might be similarities in the way issues are framed. Labels such as “alternative press” have tended to be used as ‘‘broad-brush collective terms for a disparate body of practices’’ (Campbell, 2004), but some common themes can be identified. Alternative media processes and products have been described as existing in opposition to mainstream media whether local, national or global and existing as “propaganda of the deed, highlighting the faults of the established press” (Whitaker, 1981). Noakes and Johnston (2005) have shown clear distinctions between framing issues for the purpose of social movement mobilization that most alternative media is associated with and how those issues are framed by potential participants in response to frames proposed by mainstream media frames (Downing, 2008). Perhaps that why mainstream and alternative media practices have been seen as disparate and uncomplimentary in nature with divided audiences. As Downing (2003) says, “There is a distinctly disturbing gulf between our currently fragmentary knowledge or debates concerning how audiences and readers use alternative media…” Yet lines between alternative and mainstream media are gradually blurring. A significant number of journalists currently working within mainstream media have previously worked in some form of alternative media (Harcup, 2003). While practitioner accounts abound, this is an area largely absent in academic research (Fountain, 1988; Harcup, 1994; Schechter, 2001; Younge, 2004). But now scholars like Atton (2003) and Downing (2001) have opened dialogue about “the complex, hybrid nature of alternative media in relation to its mainstream counterparts”. Much of alternative media works to show “other journalists how newspapers could be different and what was possible” (Whitaker, 1981). But as scholars like Atton and Couldry (2003) have shown that the practices and processes of alternative media should not be considered as “entirely separate” from those of more dominant media. Studies by Harcup (2003) have shown that the longer journalists spend working in mainstream media the more they find that the crossover between the two ‘brands’ of reporting is far greater than outsiders suspect”. Harcup (2003) has suggested that there may be some crossover of ideas, content, style, and, not least, people between what may be termed the alternative and what may be termed the mainstream; that some of the alternative media’s “hybridized voices” (Atton, 2002) may on occasions resonate within the mainstream. It has been suggested that one of the defining differences between the alternative and mainstream press is that they frequently have a different idea of what constitutes a story in the first place (Aubrey et al., 1980: 16; Franklin and Murphy, 1991: 126; Franklin, 1997). An area where mainstream and alternative media coverage of issue might find overlap is that of framing of issues. Examining a specific issue in the UK, Hall et al (1978) have said, “that, despite the very different styles adopted by the various titles, the press produced remarkably similar ‘public images’ which together acted to foreclose discussion before it could go beyond the boundaries of the dominant ideological field.”

See also[edit]


  2. ^ a b c d e f Downing, John. (2001). Radical Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  3. ^ a b Spivak, G. (2010). "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an Idea. Ed. by Rosalind Russel.
  5. ^ Albert, Michael. "What Makes Alternative Media Alternative". ZMagazine. Retrieved 28 February 2014. 
  10. ^ a b c Lievrouw, L. (2011). Introduction. In Alternative and Activist New Media (pp. 1–27). Polity. (p.19)
  11. ^ Peter R. Mitchell, John Schoeffel (2002). "Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky". The New Press. Retrieved 20 June 2012. 
  13. ^ McChesney, Robert W. (2008), Communication Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of Media, New York, New York, United States: The New Press, p. 301, ISBN 978-1-59558-413-7 
  14. ^ Ben Bagdikian. "The New Media Monopoly". Ben Bagdikian Blog. Ben Bagdikian. Retrieved 20 June 2012. 
  15. ^ Bagdikian, B. H. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press.
  16. ^ Michael Albert (October 2007). "What Makes Alternative Media Alternative?". Z Magazine. ZMagazine. Retrieved 20 June 2012. 
  17. ^ a b Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press.pp. 238-239
  18. ^ a b c d e Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social text, 56-80.
  19. ^ Pusey, M. (1987) Jurgen Habermas. London: Routledge. pp.90
  20. ^ Hauser, G. A. (1998). Vernacular dialogue and the rhetoricality of public opinion. Communications Monographs, 65(2), 83-107.
  21. ^ Fraser, N. (2007). Re-framing justice in a globalizing world. T. Lovell (ed.), 17-35
  22. ^ (Negt, O., & Kluge, A. (1993). Public sphere and experience: toward an analysis of the bourgeois and proletarian public sphere (Vol. 73). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  23. ^ Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks.
  24. ^ Chan, J. M., & Lee, C. (1984). Journalistic "paradigms" of civil protests: A case study in Hong Kong. In A. Arno & W. Dissanayake (Eds.), The news media in national and international conflict (p. 187). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  25. ^ McLeod, D. M., & Detenber, B. H. (1999). Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Communication, 3-23.
  26. ^ McLeod, D. M., & Hertog, J. K. (1992, July 1). The manufacture of 'public opinion" by reporters: Informal cues for public perceptions of protest groups. Discourse Society, 3, 259-275.
  27. ^ Stein, Laura (2009). "Social movement web use in theory and practice: a content analysis of US movement websites". New Media & Society 11 (5): 749–771. 
  28. ^ Downing, J. (2001). "Preface." In Radical Media. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  29. ^ Atton, C. (2002). "Approaching Alternative Media: Theory and Methodology." In Alternative Media. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  30. ^ Pandey G. (2000). "Voices from the Edge: The Struggle to Write Subaltern Histories." In Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial. Ed. by Vinayak Chaturvedi.
  31. ^ Rodriguez, C. (2001). "From Alternative Media to 'Citizens' Media." In Fissures in the Mediascape. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  32. ^ a b Gunderloy, Mike (August 1991), "Glossary", Factsheet Five (Rensselaer, NY: Pretzel Press) (44): 86, ISSN 0890-6823, retrieved 2007-11-05 
  33. ^ "10 tactics for turning information into action". Tactical Technology Collective. Tactical Technology Collectiv. Retrieved 20 June 2012. 
  34. ^ "Low Power FM Broadcast Radio Stations (LPFM)". FCC Encyclopedia. Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 20 June 2012. 
  35. ^ Lievrouw, L. (2011). Introduction. In Alternative and Activist New Media (pp. 1–27). Polity. (p.22-23)
  36. ^ Lievrouw, L. (2011). Chapter 4. In Alternative and Activist New Media (pp. 98-108). Polity. (98)
  37. ^ a b Lievrouw, L. (2011). Introduction. In Alternative and Activist New Media (pp. 1–27). Polity. (p.25)
  38. ^ Lievrouw, L. (2011). Chapter 7. In Alternative and Activist New Media (pp. 178). Polity. (p.178)
  40. ^ Burgess, Jean; Green, Joshua (2009). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. Boston, MA: Polity. 
  41. ^ Cunningham, Stuart; Nguyen, T (2000). Popular media of the Vietnamese Diaspora (Floating lives: The media and Asian diasporas ed.). Saint Lucia: University of Queensland Press. pp. 91–135. 
  42. ^ a b Carpentiere, Nico (2011). Media and Participation: A Site of Ideological Democratic Struggle. Chicago: Intellect. pp. 55–64. 
  43. ^ Wettergren, Åsa (2003) "Like Moths To A Flame - Culture Jamming and the Global Spectacle" in Opel, Andy and Pompper, Donnalyn (eds.) Representing Resistance - Media, civil disobedience and the Global Justice Movement, Westport: Praeger
  44. ^ Hebdige, Dick (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge. 
  45. ^ Hall, Stuart, Tony Jefferson (1977). Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain. London: Hutchinson. 
  46. ^ Rancière, Jacques (2004). The Politics of Aesthetics. New York: Bloomsbury. 
  47. ^ Sartwell, Crispin (2010). Political Aesthetics. London: Cornell University Press. 
  50. ^ Dávila, Arlene. "Talking Back: Hispanic Media and US Latinidad." Centro Journal - The City University of New York 12.1 (2000): 37-47.
  51. ^ Rodriguez, América. "Making Latino News: Race, Language, and Class." Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies 24.2 (1999): 13-47
  52. ^ "The Ethnic Media in America: The Giant Hidden in Plain Sight". Retrieved 9 October 2014. 
  53. ^ 