Airwave Broadcasting Summary, Analysis, and Comparison
The readings I give u are from week 4. U can choose one of them for this reading analysis. Please follow the instructions. If you have any questions, please attack me. As you can see, this is actually a reading analysis homework.
Reading Analysis
This assignment asks you to summarize, analyze and compare two of the readings from any one week of classes other than Week 2 with ONE OTHER SCHOLARLY SOURCE you will find on your own. the summaries should encapsulate the author's main arguments and illustrative examples, the analysis should provide a cogent assessment of these arguments, and the comparison should examine how trhei ideas or arguments relate to and connect with each other in light of class discussions. In other words, you must look beyond basic descriptive similarities or differences 9e.g., stating they write about the same or different topipcs0 to explore their substantive similarities or differences.
Summary
Paper 1 (Boyd, 1986)
The programming alternative to sea-based radio broadcasters produces various competing responses, increasing listeners' awareness, particularly at sea. The pirate radio is constructed, operated, and used at sea. It gives the idea that listeners regard it as a mass against the radio elite that does not respond to the people's demands. Land pirates have a limited range of portable transmitters and little equipment. Pirates drove mainstream radio stations to change their programming, deregulating commercial radio in Britain. The article indicates that the British government has tried prohibiting unauthorized broadcasting for 20 years. Carl McIntire, for instance, airs from the U.S. coast and is yet banned.
However, Northern Europe is ideal for both pirate radios for four reasons. First, Northern European nations rely heavily on public broadcasting corporations, which critics claim are insensitive to millennial listeners' need for more entertainment-focused programming. Second, for European licensed stations, obligations to offer "balanced" programming and restrict record playtime make music-oriented radio less prevalent than in other nations. Third, several countries allow public broadcasting firms to augment yearly licensing costs with advertising income but limit commercial breaks. Fourth, European broadcasting firms tend to mirror government agendas; however, several are independent. As a result, the government's action may promote pirate radioactivities. Meanwhile, avoiding detection by the government provides an opportunity for programming alternatives.
Paper 2 (King & Rahemtullah, 2019)
Canada's community radio regulations allow airwave access. Numerous studies find that community radio involves the community, but few evaluate the effect of volunteer participation strategies. The article discusses power allocation, decision-making, openness in information flow, and accountability. Since community radio 'is often considered as a positive thing' and 'it tends to strive for some type of inclusivity,' the author advises a more critical examination of each station 'to define who is "in" and determine who is "out;" who fits and who does not.' Using an anti-oppression philosophy provides a perspective for examining community radio procedures that may incorporate or restrict volunteer members. Better methods are required to re-center local radio within the local and to maintain non-profit programming in Canada, given volunteer encounters with governance deficits and changing station policies.
Analysis and comparison
The broadcasting regulations in the pirate sees as in Britain depend on the licensing pro...