In the face of this, the ABC is fast losing popularity. 'Ratings have dropped by 20 per cent since the start of the year, and the ABC now has a low 13 per cent share of the audience in five capital cities' (The Age, 5/6/01). It is obviously out of touch with its intended audience.

If the ABC were doing their job, there would be no need for a station with a specifically multicultural focus, such as SBS. Similarly, if the government were serious about media for all, funding could be much more effectively channelled to facilitate a broader, more diverse range of voices in the public domain. In this article, I want to consider some of the roles of community media in a democratic society. In particular, I will look at the relations between accessibility and innovation in the media practices of various communities. In doing this, I hope to introduce the notion of a national broadcaster that would genuinely be 'our' ABC; to consider the possibility of transforming the ABC into an auspicing body for independent, community-based media-makers.

Preaching to the converted? Community media in a democratic society.

If most independent media outlets service what the mainstream considers 'niche markets', can they claim to be providing a more open forum? What responsibility do independent media-makers have to produce content that is accessible to the wider population?

It's obvious that news of environmental and social damage, for example, makes the most impact, and has the most catalytic potential, when heard by people outside social justice movements—when it's taken to the people who are (often unknowingly) supporting the policies that cause this damage. Similarly, reducing ignorance, racism and marginalisation depends on educating the wider Australian population on issues of concern to specific minority groups.

On the other hand, targeting a niche audience can be a very productive way of communicating. John Hughes, of SBS Independent, says one of the distinguishing features of SBS is that audiences tend to engage in 'appointment viewing'—they tune in only for certain culturally-specific shows—and the station therefore attracts a more engaged mode of reception than other outlets. As a result, SBS has a broader demographic than commercial broadcasters—who tend to seek specific audience 'loyalty' which they can sell to advertisers. Hughes says 'there is value in the closest possible contact, as well as the widest possible audience. But ratings are only numbers, and are useful for finding the dollar value of air time for advertisersÉ How useful ratings are in cultural analysis or political significance, is another matter.'

It would be a mistake, however, to think of this as an argument between commercial populism and artistic/political ghetto-isation. There are no easy dichotomies to be drawn; the realities are more complex, and offer many possibilities for media-makers to explore. For example, Kutcha Edwards, an Indigenous songwriter and community radio programmer, says that targeting a broad audience is often only a matter of a shift in tone. Over time, says Edwards, his lyrics have become more 'cryptic' in order to make his messages available to a broader audience. When referring to land issues, for example, he would be more likely to say 'pay the rent' than 'give me back my land'. Examples like this emphasise the fact that it's often the tone, not the content, of a message that dictates the breadth of its reception.

But it's also important to recognise that independent media is not just about an abstract idea of generalised communication. It's also about empowerment for specific groups whose existence is either arrogantly disregarded or tokenised by the mainstream. Edwards produces the show 'Songlines' on 3CR with three specific aims: informing the Koori community of upcoming events, empowering young Kooris to know what services are available to them, and giving Koori artists air time that they otherwise would not get. Initiatives like this need to be both part of and apart from the ideal of an inclusive independent media if we want to avoid subsuming cultural difference to an alternative caricature of the 'average viewer' just as reductive as the mainstream's.

Government funding, independence and professionalism.

Independent media is often spurred by instances of misrepresentation. People create their own media when they become frustrated with the idea of media as a product presented to them by someone outside their own areas of experience, and fed up with not being 'catered' for. Independent media often strives to open space for issues that are downplayed or ignored by the corporate sector. Most community media outlets provide a catalyst for a very specific audience—a particular section of the community that does not have ready access to the mainstream. Independent media also plays an important part in pushing the boundaries of what is appropriate discourse for the public arena, discussing topics and perspectives outside the sphere of mainstream debate. Ideally, these should also be vital characteristics of any national broadcaster. However, there are obvious problems involved in the possibility of increased government influence over 'independent' media.

Government funding for community media would inevitably bring up the debatable notion of 'professionalism', and what constitutes acceptable content for a so-called mainstream audience. SBS Independent is an interesting case study of government funding facilitating independent voices. According to Commissioning Editor for Documentary, John Hughes, SBS Independent began in 1994 under the Keating government's Creative Nation strategy, following a number of years of film industry and cultural policy activism. It has commissioned 40 hours of independent documentary to be screened on SBS television over the last few years.

Hughes occupies an interesting position, to a certain extent acting as a facilitator between independent filmmakers and a broader audience. When selecting works for broadcast, how does he remain certain that preconceived notions do not influence his judgements? We all, as part of a media society, possess a strong sense of what a documentary or TV drama 'should be like'. So to what degree does Hughes allow for works to challenge the form? Does he engage in an open process with broad consultation? Hughes explains that there is little time for consultation within his job, but that he does engage in a system of self-monitoring. Would he say that he is predisposed to accepting a certain mould of work? Hughes comments: 'the idea of 'the mould' is a bit of a fiction' but continues that for a film to challenge boundaries effectively 'it needs to be clear to an audience why it's been made in that particular way'.

Community media: in touch with the community?

If independent media outlets are attempting to service a certain portion of the population, they have a responsibility to be accessible to and remain in touch with that community, and to encourage a permanent influx of new voices and points of view. Julia Scott from the English language show on SBS Radio comments that 'catering for a multicultural audience does not necessarily mean a left wing one'—an 'alternative' audience is not necessarily a homogenous one.

But this doesn't mean community media makers have to accept dominant ideas about 'balanced' reporting which merely reproduce mainstream techniques of framing issues. Peter Lane from Channel 31 makes this point when describing SKA TV's 'Access News'. 'It provides diversity within the sector, not necessarily within the program itself.' Rather than striving for a balanced forum, independent media can work to redress the imbalance that is created by corporate media's biases and misrepresentations.

The interesting thing about this of course is that independent media then remains in a kind of parasitical relationship with the corporate sector—constantly determined by mainstream content.

Lane also remarks that in order for independent outlets to be truly representative, their management structures need to remain open and accountable. When you have fought long and hard to carve a niche for your voice to be heard, it's very easy to become protective of that niche. Management boards can be closed and unapproachable—new voices are often denied access through fear that the forum will somehow be corrupted.

Nevertheless, the community and independent media outlets around Australia are doing amazing work in terms of empowering people who would otherwise remain marginalised. They are challenging the notion of media as commodity, reinstating the power of personal and collective expression and constantly redefining the term 'media' itself. They're largely run by volunteers with almost antique equipment and little revenue. They are proof that lack of funds is only a hurdle, it does not stop people from doing what they want to do.

A national broadcaster that does not engage in community consultation—that seeks to invent the voice of the people, rather than facilitate the voices that already exist—is just another symptom of the intrusive attitude that has long governed policy in this country. Instead of pouring money into banal and outdated media products, and welfare- and assimilation-based solutions to the 'problems' of youth and minority groups, the Government must become more responsive to subtle shifts in the status quo and recognise the importance of local and community-based autonomy. The already existing independent media networks throughout this country provide an effective means of reaching these goals, if only the government would acknowledge and prioritise them. But it's also important for activist communities to think critically about the relations of independence, resistance and homogeneity that government funding impacts, and to not just fall back into simplistic pro- and anti-positions. It's only in this way that we will facilitate a culture where the government learns to stop speaking for us, and start listening to what's being said.

marni@thepaper.org.au