Radical Media, according to Robert D.H. Downing, are “media, generally small-scale and in many different forms, that express an alternative vision to hegemonic policies, priorities and perspectives” (v, 2001). In chapter IV of his book, Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements, Downing asks how radical media can strengthen democratic culture in everyday life, stating that traditional analytical frameworks too often ignore the question of communication and the “messy reality” of democratizing media (42).
Under these terms, MAG-Net’s campaign, “Broadband to the People,” can be considered an attempt to promote radical media among America’s often excluded rural communities by way of democratizing broadband access. According to their website, 37% of adult Americans do not have access to broadband – a number that consists disproportionately of minorities, the poor, foreign-born residents, and non-English speakers.
Their corresponding report, Wired and Wireless Broadband: What’s at Stake for Rural Communities? outlines the radical potentials of greater broadband access for technologically-inhibited communities. Based on discussions between organizational leaders at the Center for Media Justice’s Rural Broadband Listening Session, the report lists rural communities’ strengths and weaknesses in order to formulate better strategies for action. They ask: “What’s at Stake?” and answer everything from healthcare, access to information, civic participation, municipal government efficacy and community solidarity. In short – social capital.
As Downing judiciously points out, the realities of local communication networks are often concealed by the dichotomization of grassroots and mainstream media (39-40). Indeed, the term “community” itself is rather problematic, as it glosses over the many inequalities and social divisions that may exist within a group of people.
While I agree that broadband should be made more accessible to all, and that the high level of connectivity it affords us presents vast opportunities for forming social movements and fostering group solidarity, I think that these outcomes can only be expected from a more advanced stage of internet use. My guess is that most rural broadband users will be using their new high-speed connections to download porn and watch videos on YouTube – at least for now. Moreover, one of the most important factors in strengthening communities—generalized trust—is severely threatened by the internet. Take a look at this recent New York Times exposé on the perils of anonymity on small towns’ online forums.
For close-knit communities, social capital can be a double-edged sword – the more favorable the conditions are for solidarity and growth (e.g. a small, homogeneous population), the more vulnerable a group of people becomes when their social capital is not used in the interest of the public good. The internet seems to facilitate the latter outcome. Of course, I’m not suggesting that the Center for Media Justice stop advocating for increased broadband access in rural locales. Merely, I believe that the road to using broadband access as a platform for constructive “radical media” will be a long and sinuous path. Perhaps it’s premature of us to conflate the spread of ICTs into disadvantaged communities with the radicalization of media.