Exploring the Alternative-Mainstream Dialectic: What 'Alternative Media' Means to a Hybrid Audience

Exploring the Alternative-Mainstream Dialectic:

What 'Alternative Media' Means to a Hybrid Audience

Jennifer Rauch

Long Island University Brooklyn

Article forthcoming in Communication, Culture & Critique

Author Note

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 comments on an earlier

version of this manuscript. 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, D.C.

Correspondence Address: Department of Journalism & Communication Studies, Long Island

University Brooklyn, 1 University Plaza, M-404, Brooklyn, New York 11201.

Correspondence E-mail: [email protected]

EXPLORING THE ALTERNATIVE-MAINSTREAM DIALECTIC

1

Abstract

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 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; Public Broadcasting; Political Blogs


2

Exploring the Alternative-Mainstream Dialectic:

What 'Alternative Media' Means to a Hybrid Audience

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 non-commercial, might focus on social responsibility, or might simply self-identify as

alternative (American Library Association, 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 similar vein, media producers have disapproved when others label themselves

“alternative” 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: radical

(Downing, 2001), citizens (Rodriguez, 2001), and activist (Waltz, 2005), as well as independent,

autonomous, tactical, horizontal, dialogic, participatory, communitarian. 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 increasingly consider the category to be porous, flexible, blended,


3

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’s mainstream and what’s alternative. Considering 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 article 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” (Lieuvrouw, 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 fragmentary knowledge or debates concerning how audiences and readers

use alternative media, and the mass of descriptions and theorizations of alternative media at last


4

now becoming available” (2003a, p. 625). The fact that few have heeded this call is paradoxical

in a field where producers and scholars often value engaging with community 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 upon 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 non-profit or non-commercial basis; being organized for collective ownership or decision-

making; using horizontal or two-way communication; embracing de-professionalized roles or


5

citizen producers; being small-scale or niche-oriented; and employing channels that allow greater

reach or cheaper access (cf. Atton, 2002a; Atton, 2004; Atkinson, 2006; Dowmunt, 2007;

Downing, 2001; Fuchs, 2010; Hamilton, 2000; Rodriguez, 2001). The content dimension 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; and 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; and organizing more democratically (2001). Atton also emphasizes processes and

relations, such as reproduction-distribution technologies and collective-horizontal organizations

(2002a). Some argue that fixating on form risks either fetishizing media techniques (Hamilton,

2001) or neglecting expressions of counter-hegemonic interests at the content level of alternative

media (e.g. Marcuse, 1972; Fuchs, 2010). Fuchs contends that critical content is a necessary

condition of transformative social action, while 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 non-elite sources) and content (the

presence of quotes from such sources in stories).


6

Many authors now eschew fixed definitions and reject the binarism of earlier work, no

longer conceiving of alternative and mainstream media as mutually exclusive categories (Atton,

2002a; Atton, 2003; Couldry & Curran, 2003; Downing, 2001; Downing 2003a; Harcup, 2005;

Kenix, 2012). Some characterize alternative and mainstream media as a “spectrum” (Kenix,

2012) or “continuum” (Harcup, 2005), where some outlets show more alternative tendencies than

others. Empirical research confirms that alternatives have a symbiotic relationship with

mainstream media and that these categories 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

organizations, and vice versa: “People, ideas and practices are moving along this continuum 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” (ibid., p. 542).

Characteristics relating to content have received attention in empirical studies of alternative

media (c.f. 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 (c.f. Atton, 2004; Eliasoph, 1988; Gibbs, 2003; Hamilton, 2001; Min,

2004; Pickard, 2006b). Much research has examined novel participatory structures such as

Indymedia, where the line between producers 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


7

and news values alongside mainstream production values, institutional frameworks, and

professionalized reporting (2003). Several analysts have also looked at the intentions and

practices of alternative-media producers (e.g. Atton 2002b; Atton & Wickenden 2005; Eliasoph,

1988; Harcup, 2005, 2011; Khiabany, 2000; Min, 2004; Pickard, 2006a; Rauch, 2004). One

study by Harcup examined conceptions of alternative media among U.K. practitioners and

international scholars, revealing considerable agreement on what "alternative journalism" meant

in terms of supporting active citizenship and democratic participation (2011).

While some studies consider how alternative producers conceive of their audiences (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 non-producing 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 U.K. 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, 2002). According to that audience, the credibility


8

of alternative content rested partly on its nonprofit form and independence from advertisers

(ibid.). 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 content: 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. Due to low response from

print ads, additional notices were placed on Facebook. The survey was also mentioned in the


9

Altercation blog at TheNation.com.1 These methods yielded a sample of 224 people who

reported using alternative media.

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 sample over-represents 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 orientations, 47 percent called themselves liberal or

progressive and 39 percent were conservative; the remainder answered none of the above. (As

Tables 2 and 3 will show, 28.6 percent of participants reported reading The Nation and 21.8

percent named it a favorite alternative source; 4 percent naming the Altercation blog. By

contrast, 6.1 percent of respondents said they read Human Events and 4.4 percent named it a

favorite source, while 5.5 percent rated Facebook as a favorite. The fact that 71.4 percent 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 defining “alternative media” in the questionnaire, so

respondents would self-define this category, however they might understand it. Participants

indicated agreement or disagreement with each item using Likert-style scales, where 1 meant


10

strongly agree and 4 meant strongly disagree, with four 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 supported

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 mainstream 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 supported 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,” “advocate for a different system of values than mainstream

media do,” “be noncommercial or advertising-free,” “be produced by small organizations not big

companies,” “appeal to a small or niche audience,” “aim to be nonprofit,” “be produced by

professional 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 corporations and corporate

interests,” “compromised by advertising and commercial interests,” “have un-democratic


11

practices,” “have un-patriotic practices,” “disempower the public,” “support the status quo,” “are

compromised by the egos or career ambitions of journalists,” “are compromised by the anti-

religious or immoral attitudes of journalists,” “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-percent completion rate.

Media Practices and Values of a Hybrid Audience

While these survey participants qualified as alternative-media users, they can be better

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 Table 1 shows. When asked how often they used alternative media, 81.3 percent of

respondents said regularly, while only 52.2 percent reported using mainstream media regularly.

Collapsing across frequency categories, those numbers rise to 97.8 percent of respondents using

alternative media regularly or sometimes and 78.5 percent using mainstream media regularly or

sometimes. When asked how much time they spent using media on a typical day, 65.5 percent

said they used alternative media for more than one hour versus 36.1 percent who said they used

mainstream media for an hour or more. By all three measures, these respondents used alternative

media more than they did mainstream media.

--INSERT TABLE 1 AROUND HERE--


12

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 percent of respondents: The

Nation (21.8%), Huffington Post (21.3%), Fox News (18.8%), Democracy Now! (13.4%), and

Daily Kos (10.4%). The next most-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 four percent 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” without

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: eight current-events blogs; six

radio and TV broadcasters focusing on news and opinion; three 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


13

presence of Altercation here might be partially explained by the fact that its author, Eric

Alterman of The Nation, 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 don’t 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 particular mainstream

and alternative outlets. Table 3 shows the top 20 media used by this hybrid audience—i.e., those

used by more than 10 percent 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 support below 10 percent.) 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 Huffington Post (30.7%), followed by Talking

Points Memo (16.8%), Daily Kos (16.2%), and Politico (12.0%). This list illustrates the media

outlets—commercial and noncommercial alike—that these respondents held most in common.



14

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

Table 4 demonstrates. 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

mainstream 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, eight responses were supported by a majority of respondents;

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


15

produced by professional journalists (60.5%), use traditional and familiar technologies (56.1%),

aim to 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 nine criticisms

of mainstream outlets were supported by a majority. More than three quarters agreed that

mainstream media were compromised by corporate interests (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 anti-religious 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.



16

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 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 percent

of respondents thought alternative media should be nonprofit and only 47 percent thought media

should shun advertising. These findings complicate assumptions about the primacy of anti-

corporate, anti-commercial, and anti-profit concerns often voiced by proponents of alternative

media, including audience members in this survey.

Respondents cited several non-commercial and non-corporate 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


17

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 (ibid.).

Members of this audience showed mixed feelings about the importance of smallness in

media. Small organizations were valued by 69 percent of respondents and small audiences by 18

percent—the least supported item in this survey. Thus, they distinguished between scale of

production and scale of circulation. It's reasonable to surmised that, as proponents of socio-

political change, they preferred for small media organizations to reach a larger public, rather than

remaining in an alternative “ghetto” (Atton, 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 anti-establishment thrust of many alternative media (Lieuvrouw,

2011). Perhaps users forgave NPR, PBS, and BBC their bigness because they believed such

outlets put public good ahead of profit; perhaps they associate public broadcasting with small-

scale organizations, since 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 preference for

professional contributors over amateur ones. The two are not dichotomous: the 61 percent who

thought it important for alternative media to be produced by professionals must overlap with the

54 percent 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


18

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 percent favored using new and interactive technologies, only 61

percent 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 percent of

them agreed that “alternative media should use traditional and familiar technologies,” a number

that necessarily includes some of the 91 percent 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 Corp.’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


19

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 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 (ibid.). 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” (ibid., p. 815).

Despite the ascendance of blogs, social networks, and other new forms of communication,

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 “alternative” in an online age, or vice versa.

Indeed, some scholars warn that the progressive potential of digital media is threatened as


20

corporations and traditional institutions exert more control over the Internet’s evolution (c.f.

Meikle, 2002; McChesney, 2013). Market forces might be converting this new medium into an

engine for commercialism that's 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 substantially

consistent meanings to people who read, watch, and listen to such outlets. Precise, universal

definitions might be elusive, but in this survey, general parameters 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 finding that media content tended to trump form among users suggests subtle differences

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 professed 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 mainstream form. In other words, the ends of social transformation

justify the means of corporate-commercial accommodation. These alternative-media users


21

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 themselves to be

mainstream-media users due to a predominance of alternatives, they used more mainstream

outlets than other people do. This result confirms previous findings 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 respondents here over-estimated their use of alternative outlets or under-

reported 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 two types of media,” as Downing postulated (2003a, 637). This alternative

audience is thus hybridized, much like the journalistic personnel and practices that often overlap

in alternative and mainstream media production (Atton & Couldry, 2003; Harcup, 2005;

Hamilton, 2008; 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


22

only commonplace but also considered "neutral techniques" in other times, Hamilton observes

(ibid.).

This audience's use of mainstream outlets, rather than diminishing the importance of the

alternative media category, serves to underscore it. In light of capitalism’s dominance, it's easy

to imagine that many people attend frequently to media on the corporate-commercial end of the

spectrum, but it's harder to conceive of people who completely avoid the mainstream in favor of

“pure” alternatives. The people surveyed here resisted mainstream media to some extent, using

alternative media as a complement 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 identities (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.


23

The cultural questions about meaning-making, about exploitation and resistance, about

identity construction and power relations that I've introduced should be central 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 respondents did not evoke such a rich tapestry of radical, community, and

grassroots products. 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 alternative 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. Since different people ascribe different meanings to the same

media, alternative audience research could look at how conservative members 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, 2007). 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 methods, 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


24

make meaning. More exploration of how audience conceptions are shaped by respective contexts

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

References

Albert, M. (1997). What makes alternative media alternative? Z Magazine. Archived at

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: 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: Peter Lang.

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.

Atkinson, J. & Berg, S.V.L. (2012). Narrowmobilization & Tea Party activism: A study of right-

leaning alternative media. Communication Studies, 63(5), 519-35.

Atton, C. (2002a). Alternative media. London: Sage.

Atton, C. (2002b). News cultures and new social movements: Radical journalism and the

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


25

Atton, C. (2003). Ethical space in alternative journalism. Ethical Space: International Journal of

Communication Ethics, 1(1), 26-31.

Atton, C. (2004). An alternative Internet. 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), 347-59.

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, Texas, 10-13

August.

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.


26

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.

Downing, J. D. H. (2003a). Audience and readers of alternative media: The absent lure of the

virtually unknown. Media, Culture & Society, 25(5), 625-45.

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.

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

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dowmunt, T. (2008). Introduction. In K. Coyer, T. Dowmunt, & A. Fountain (Eds), The

alternative media handbook (pp. 1-12). London: Routledge.

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

New York: 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.


27

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: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Haas, T. (2004). Alternative media, public journalism, and the pursuit of democratization.

Journalism Studies, 5(1), 115-21.

Hamilton, J. F. (2000). Alternative media: Conceptual difficulties, critical possibilities. Journal

of Communication Inquiry, 24(4), 357-78.

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), 361-74.

Harcup, T. (2011). Alternative journaism 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:

Bloomsbury.


28

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: 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), 450-58.

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? Archived at

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Online-News.

Pickard, V. (2006a). United yet autnomous: Indymedia and the struggle to sustain a radical

democratic network. Media, Culture & Society, 28(3), 315-336.


29

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), 336-55.

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). Archived at

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/

2624密/2289

Sandoval, M. & Fuchs, C. (2010). Towards a critical theory of alternative media. Telematics &

Informatics, 27, 141-150.


30

Traber, M. (1985). Alternative journalism, alternative media. Communication Resources, no. 7.

London: World Association for Christian Communication.

Waltz, M. (2005). Alternative and activist media. Edinburgh: 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.


31

Tables

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 With

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)


32

Table 2

Favorite "Alternative Media" of Hybrid Audience, per Open-Ended Responses

Source % Source %

The Nation 21.8 Rush Limbaugh 5.4

Huffington Post 21.3 Drudge Report 4.4

Fox News 18.8 Human Events 4.4

Democracy Now! 13.4 Mother Jones 4.4

Daily Kos 10.4 Altercation 4.0

Talking Points Memo 8.4 Daily Show 4.0

Alternet 6.9 Politico 4.0

National Public Radio 6.9 Progressive 4.0

Glenn Beck 5.9 Sean Hannity 4.0

Facebook 5.5 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)


33

Table 3

Media Used Most Frequently, per Hybrid Audience

Source % Source %

Daily Newspapers 43.4 Daily Kos 16.2

National Public Radio 31.4 British Broadcasting Corp. 16.0

Huffington Post 30.7 The New Yorker 14.8

The Nation 28.6 Glenn Beck 14.1

Fox News 22.1 Cable News Network 13.8

Public Broadcasting Service 21.0 Politico 12.0

MSNBC 20.0 Sean Hannity 11.9

Newsweeklies 18.9 C-SPAN 11.3

Democracy Now! 18.7 Time or Newsweek 11.7

Talking Points Memo 16.8 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)


34

Table 4

Most Important Attributes of Alternative Media Content, per Hybrid Audience

Attribute %

Devoted to issues & events not discussed elsewhere 91.2

Allow a wide range of people to express their voices & 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 & analyze the work done by MSM 81.5

Promote activism & 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)


35

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

Attribute %

Use new & interactive technologies 91.2

Advocate for a different system of societal values 84.9

More connected to people in groups & networks that I support 72.7

Produced by small organizations, not big companies 68.8

Use different technology for gathering, accessing & 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 & 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)


36

Table 6

Most Important Problems with Mainstream Media, per Hybrid Audience

Problem %

Compromised by corporations & corporate interests 89.3

Biased by politics of their owners 88.3

Compromised by advertising & 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 un-patriotic practices 49.3

Compromised by immoral or anti-religious attitudes 30.7

Not enough government regulation 28.3

Note: Percentage of respondents who agreed "strongly" or "somewhat" with each statement.

(n=199)


37

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, since 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.

Exploring the Alternative-Mainstream Dialectic: What 'Alternative Media' Means to a Hybrid Audience

Documents

Transcript of Exploring the Alternative-Mainstream Dialectic: What 'Alternative Media' Means to a Hybrid Audience