Virtually everyone who works in what is currently called an alternative media institution may already
realize that their workplaces and products should not reproduce the kinds of oppressive gender and
racial structures and divisions of labor and reward so common in the broader society. What the
above definition adds to this awareness is a sensitivity to issues of class relations and economic
structure and a sense of mutual solidarity and outreach.
I think that a media institution is more alternative the more it accomplishes these ends. No doubt the
aims could be further refined and clarified, and there are certainly other accomplishments alternative
media should strive for. Most important, there are lots of ways to pursue these goals. Not only will
different types of alternative media (audio, video, print) have different attributes, but two different
radio projects, video projects, or print projects will often find quite different ways to accomplish the
same aims. Nonetheless, isn’t rejecting profits and surplus as a guiding goal, diminishing or
eliminating advertising as a revenue source, reaching out to broad non-elite audiences, developing
structure that challenges race, gender, and class hierarchies in work roles, norms of remuneration,
and decision making, and avoiding compromising corporate entanglements while pursuing the
alternative project what makes an alternative media institution alternative?
On the assumption that the answer is yes, imagine that alternative media institutions banded
together in a federation such that to be in this federation became a kind of "union label" indicating
the media commitments of members. The federation needn’t be overly narrow, restrictive, or purist,
but it would have to demand that all institutional and individual members adequately pursue
alternative media goals. With this definition the federation could be a vehicle of mutual support,
promotion, activism, sharing of resources and lessons, crisis management and mediation, and help
with the kinds of questions noted at the outset of this article.
But where does such a federation come from? The good news is that media activists in Toronto,
Los Angeles, New York, Boston, and quite a few other cities are now creating bottom-up local
alliances of media workers and activists for mutual support. People working in media in these cities,
intent on creating alternative outcomes, are meeting and discussing how to work together. Coming
out of the last Media and Democracy Congress, an organization of progressive media institutions,
The Independent Press Association, IPA, formed. The IPA has either already provided or is working
on: a Web Site free to all members where info on the publication can be posted
(www.indypress.org); a listserve discussion of matters of concern to the alternative press; a variety
of technical assistance programs ranging from collective paper buying to help with renewals and
mailings lists; an internship program to locate, train, and place talented progressive journalists of
color; a series of discussions and meetings aimed at bridging the gap between the ethnic press and
the progressive press; raising money to provide low-cost or free (and low-hassle) loans to IPA
members to be used for things like direct mail efforts; a national advertising campaign to inform the
American public about the many fine progressive and alternative magazines out there; writing a
series of how-to manuals covering everything from distribution to bar codes; training in how to turn
subscribers into supporters. (And the Zapatista international initiatives described in this issue point
in similar directions.)
Perhaps one thing that has been missing from these efforts, however, is a coherent set of goals and
evaluative norms—not so restrictive as to be alienating, not so judgmental as to be debilitating, but
also not so vague as to negate their alternativeness. Thus, we close with a continuation of a
proposal that we made in Z many months back, incorporating some content from that earlier piece,
this time in the form of a possible mission statement for a possible federation. We hope people will
discuss and improve these ideas as a basis for moving forward. Should we opt to build it, a
federation needs to be inclusive enough to have power sufficient to grow and diversify, but to be
worth growing and diversifying it must also define a real alternative media identity.
Mission Statement for FAMAS
FAMAS is a federation of alternative media projects and institutions plus individuals in support of
alternative media. FAMAS might include producing organizations (such as publishers, radio and
recording projects, film companies, watch dog groups, media institutes), distributing organizations
(such as alternative book stores, speakers’ bureaus, radio stations, organizations and conferences,
etc.), producing individuals (such as writers, film makers, cartoonists, reporters, researchers, web
spinners, speakers, photographers, performers, folk artists, comedians), and also progressive and
alternative media "consumers" (such as readers, listeners, viewers). FAMAS organizational and
individual members are committed not only to their separate agendas, but also to work together to:
Structure
FAMAS has two types of members: Alternative media institutions, and individuals who support
alternative media. Every organizational and individual member of FAMAS commits to FAMAS’s
shared guidelines regarding internal structure, pay scale, and decision making of alternative media,
to:
Regarding class, FAMAS affiliates agree that two known means of working to attain the above
goals are: (1) in the case of smaller projects and organizations, to operate as a collective, often
incorporating a high level of overlap in jobs and lots of rotation; and, (2) in any size operation, to
incorporate balanced job complexes to ensure that each worker has a combination of
responsibilities and tasks comparable in its empowerment effects and in its quality of life effects to
all other workers.
FAMAS affiliates also agree that one clear sign of structural success or failure in incorporating
positive values is income distribution. Reducing the spread of wages from the lowest to the highest
and ensuring a just logic for any remaining differences in remuneration is a goal of all FAMAS
organizations. FAMAS members, therefore, work toward realization of the remunerative norm that
pay should be according to effort and sacrifice with attention to special need.
FAMAS affiliates agree, therefore, that while these goals may take time to attain, ultimately the only
logic justifying differential wages in an alternative media institution would be that those receiving
more were either working harder or longer, or (for some very good reason) enduring a job that was
less fulfilling, or had some pressing need that was being addressed. In such a context, the ratio of
the highest to lowest hourly wage would never be very wide.
Decision Making
Ideally, and within the limits allowed by resources and external constraints, people in FAMAS
institutions make decisions about their organizations and actions (and within FAMAS) in proportion
as they are affected by the outcomes of the decisions.
With decisions affecting only him or herself, as in how one will arrange one’s desk, for example, the
individual has virtually dictatorial say since no one else is significantly affected. With other decisions,
however, where many people are affected, the best approach might be one-person one-vote with
various determinations for deciding outcomes such as 50 percent plus one, two-thirds, consensus,
etc. If a decision primarily affects a work team, it may be that broad guidelines have been
established by the whole project within which the team then decides implementation schemes on its
own.
FAMAS doesn’t sanction one particular voting procedure for all decisions but instead agrees on: (1)
striving for the participation of all those affected in proportion as they are affected, and (2) ensuring
all workers on-the-job empowerment so that when participating everyone can partake with similar
confidence that their desires will impact outcomes.
Decision-making input in proportion as one is affected plus comparable workplace empowerment
for all involved is hard to implement perfectly, especially in our society, for diverse reasons. But
much progress can be made and active commitment to the opposite mainstream norms of exclusion
of workers from proportionate decision making influence and differential (elitist) distribution of the
knowledge and skills associated with organizational decision making, are fairly easy to discern.
FAMAS’s Program
FAMAS membership would become sort of like wearing the union label—a sign of the
organization’s values and commitments. As its ongoing goal, the Federation should seek to enlarge
and enhance alternative journalism and media communication of all kinds, within the mainstream or
via alternative structures.
As FAMAS grows, pressures should rise for all media that considers itself "alternative" to struggle
with and improve on the values and commitments of FAMAS. Affiliate organizations and projects
should come to see the advance of the whole of alternative media and education, as their advance,
and likewise for individual members. FAMAS becomes a hedge against seeking only
self-preservation. Thus each member organization and individual should promote and otherwise try
to benefit all other FAMAS organizations and individuals, as conditions permit. This may involve
efforts to help one another’s outreach and promotion by reviews, ads, commentary, etc., or more
complex arrangements of sharing and coordinating resources or content, as well as individual’s
choices of what to consume, help distribute, etc.
FAMAS shall function democratically, challenge hierarchies, develop alternative participatory
decision making, and pursue its own enlargement and the enrichment and enlargement of the
experiences and affectivity of all its members.
As one obvious project, FAMAS could have a web site incorporating information about itself and
links to or embedded material from all its members. FAMAS could maintain public sites for all its
members/projects, turning materials they submit into attractive online pages, etc., promoting the
sites collectively and singly.
To make the entire FAMAS community larger and stronger, as well as more than just the sum of its
many parts, another project could be to promote the community of institutions to a wide audience in
a collaborative manner. For example, FAMAS might initiate a campaign to educate audiences to
the general importance of supporting alternative media by purchasing its products, donating to its
campaigns, spreading the word about its existence, improving its content through submissions and
critique, writing letters to promote debate, etc. Second, FAMAS could sponsor mass mailings, ads,
and events to publicize lots of alternative media services at once, with options to subscribe to or to
purchase multiple offerings at discounts. FAMAS could also help mediate relations with other
industries—eg., printers and stores.
One could also imagine FAMAS spearheading an attempt to coalesce resources in a shared
alternative mass media project, such as a networking of alternative radio stations or creation of a
network of regional weekly newspapers across the country.
Another related effort could be to urge (or perhaps require as a condition of membership) all
member institutions to make their mailing lists available free to all other member institutions, and to
enact a parallel campaign to (1) educate the progressive public that progressive mailings are
essential to building alternative media institutions, and (2) educate existing alternative media
organizations that it is in everyone’s collective interest that each organization and project benefit
from the outreach of all; (3) FAMAS could also urge that at public events—concerts, conferences,
public talks, rallies, etc—there is always an alternative media presence, and could organize and
mobilize that presence in a collaborative fashion.
Similarly, FAMAS could urge that every member organization make its content available free to
smaller member organizations with non-overlapping audiences. Thus, monthly periodicals would
make their articles available to local weekly newspapers and newsletters or other smaller
publications not in the same genre. Major radio stations and producers could make their shows
available to smaller stations in other regions, free, after some delay. FAMAS could serve as or could
work with existing service bureaus, having all the appropriate materials, written and audio, available
to be faxed, mailed, or sent on disk, paper, or any appropriate medium, to any appropriate media
outlet wanting it. Writers would get the initial payment, from the first (largest) publisher (which is all
they would have gotten otherwise) as well as great visibility from additional appearances of their
work. The increasing size of the alternative media community that FAMAS would promote in this and
other ways would, additionally, mean more funds available to pay better fees to writers, program
producers, and so on.
FAMAS could also act as an agent for freelance writers, photographers, audio production people,
film makers, performers, web page spinners, artists, etc. Individual freelance producers could
submit their materials to be made visible in some simple and indexed manner to all FAMAS
member organizations. Member organizations could then request material from the freelance
providers and conduct payments straight to them. This could be done in many ways, of course, and
the task FAMAS would face, as in other facets of its operation, would be to find a collaborative
approach beneficial to all involved.
Another role of FAMAS could be to facilitate mutual support alliances. These could be within a
single type media, with the Federation bringing print publishers and local weeklies, etc., into mutual
contact, say (an effort that is already underway in the form of IPA), or bringing film and TV producers
together, etc. Or it could occur across media. FAMAS could try, for example, to get alternative radio
to promote alternative print media in their area, and to get the alternative print media to run the
station’s program schedules. Or to get speakers’ bureaus to promote FAMAS members and media
projects, and vice versa. Or to get progressive music performers to have alternative media
presence at their shows, and alternative media to review their work. Or to get information providers
and creators in touch with telecommunications projects like the Institute for Global Communications,
IGC, and ZNet, and vice versa. More generally, FAMAS could facilitate each member bringing other
member’s offerings to the attention of their readers, listeners, or viewers by referencing, reviewing,
reporting on, and otherwise promoting their offerings.
FAMAS could work with alternative publishers, bookstores, and distributors to try to strengthen the
network of alternative outlets for political material through stores and agencies, or at events,
conferences, and talks, etc., or work to create new ones.
FAMAS could provide a way for national activist organizations and local, community and grassroots
projects to communicate their needs to researchers, periodicals, or other information providers, and
various relevant magazines, newspapers, and radio shows, as well as a way for the providers to get
reports and stories from the grassroots efforts.
FAMAS could also serve as a clearing house for interns and as a bulletin board for jobs. And, more,
it could act as a channeling mechanism for each producer to provide lessons to others and learn
from the technical, organizational, and social lessons and innovations of others, or even to share
technical resources, when appropriate.
Another possibility would be for FAMAS to undertake fundraising for its membership, globally, in
one package. The Federation would go to the funding community at large and say support
alternative media, support truth in the mainstream media, here, now, through us—or not at all.
FAMAS would then channel the donor support in accord with the specific desires of the community
of media activists. The Federation would be responsible to disperse moneys raised according to
some internally agreed norms, bylaws, or votes, etc., rather than leaving all such decisions to the
donors themselves.
As to content, the Federation could propose areas of focus or information campaigns such as
keying on affirmative action or on corporate responsibility for poverty, etc., so that there could be a
degree of coherence in the member organization’s communicative efforts.
FAMAS could also promote free exchange of ideas, fight censorship, fight media monopolization,
work to counter mainstream media campaigns and spin, and fight particular Congressional bills,
such as the recent telecommunications bill and other reactionary media policy at the national level,
and could provide defense for FAMAS members under attack by the Right.
FAMAS’s work could be funded by payments from member institutions and individuals. Each person
joining as a freelance writer or artist, reader or viewer, could have yearly dues to pay. Each
organization could likewise have a fee, pegged to its size and budget. As FAMAS becomes larger,
and its financial needs greater, so too will its member organizations’ and individuals’ benefits.
FAMAS could come into existence via continuation of and enlargement on the work of the
Independent Press Association, the local initiatives of media workers in cities throughout the
country, the Media and Democracy Congress, and other related ventures.
The Federation we are suggesting would act so that folks now receptive to alternative media
become more supportive, so that folks who have yet to encounter alternative media hear about it,
and so that every alternative media project and institution, from research groups, to media watch
groups, to film projects, to weekly radio shows, to recording artists and companies, to
telecommunications projects, to alternative bookstores and distributors, to speakers’ bureaus, to
publishing houses and weekly or monthly periodicals, each benefit from the growth of all others and
contribute to that advancement as part of its daily agenda. Solidarity with autonomy.
Retour