Community radio (CR), which is known in France as “radio associative” and previously “free radio” or “pirate radio”, is “non-profit, open to or accountable to the community that they serve and mainly staffed by volunteers” . So it has to be distinguished from French commercial CR even if it shares some common features. And it constitutes an important, dynamic and highly diverse part of the world’s media landscape.

1. POULAIN Sebastien, «°What can be known about French community radio
audience?°», Actes colloque European Communication Research and Education
Association (ECREA), Barcelone, 25-28/11/2008,
www.ecrea2008barcelona.org/guide/download/963.pdf
“What can be known about French community radio audience?”
Sebastien Poulain
Community radio (CR), which is known in France as “radio associative”1
and
previously “free radio” or “pirate radio”, is “non-profit, open to or accountable to the
community that they serve and mainly staffed by volunteers”2
. So it has to be
distinguished from French commercial CR even if it shares some common features. And
1
“Radio associative” in France is one of five categories of ‘private’ radio recognised in legislation and by
the regulatory authorities: Category A. It is obliged to carry at least 4 hours of specific local programming
every day – to be broadcast between 6.00am and 10.00pm. And it has to achieve a “mission of social
communication of proximity, understood as supporting the exchanges between the social and cultural
groups, support for the local development, environmental protection or the fight against exclusion.” (Law
of September 30, 1986, article 29).
2
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 2007, p I.

2. it constitutes an important, dynamic and highly diverse part of the world’s media
landscape.
In France, CR and other private radio has been allowed to broadcast since
president François Mitterrand put an end to the state monopoly on the use of airwaves in
1981. Nowadays, there are nearly 1,200 private radio operators. These 1,200 private
radio operators include private local stations as well as nearly 600 local CR stations3
.
CR stations represent 50% of the French radio operators, 25% of the frequencies but
only 2% of the cumulative audience.
CR forms a separate sub-group within the media sector. It has a distinctive
contribution to media pluralism and other socio-political objectives. The sector’s
activities are often of cultural, social, economic and political relevance. The purpose of
the stations is to facilitate the free flow of information by encouraging freedom of
speech and by enhancing dialogue within the communities concerned in order to
promote better participation from their populations. So, besides being a “listening
companions”4
, they have important potential “societal contributions”5
with a lot of
“social gain”6
and they can be considered as a “form of public service”7
.
The French CR sector benefits from a “very active sector”8
. It has a supportive
legislative and policy infrastructure which form the critical conditions for sustainable
CR. They have status under law. They have two important “trade unions” (SNRL,
CNRA), a lot of regional federations (FARA, FRALA, FRAMA, FRADIF…), thematic
federations (IASTAR, FERAROCK…) and religious federations (FRTC, ARJ, RCF,
FFRC) which represent the sector, and lobby and advocate on its behalf as well as
advise the national government or the European Commission on CR legislation.
Recent developments in the study and practice of CR have given to both
academics and practitioners a wide range of issues to be discussed, including networks
such as OurMedia9
. At a European level, fora like the Community Media Forum Europe
3
In January 2005, community radio stations are 86 around Toulouse, 71 around Lyon, 56 community
radios around Nancy, 51 around Rennes, 50 around Bordeaux, 46 around Marseille, 40 around Dijon, 36
around Paris, 33 around Caen, 30 around Clermont, 29 around Poitiers, 25 around Lille (CSA).
4
STARKEY, 2008.
5
POULAIN, 2008.
6
The Community Radio Order 2004 of the United Kingdom has given a precise definition of what is a
“social gain” (OFCOM, 2006, p24-25); DCMS, 2008.
7
COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2008, p24.
8
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 2007, p12, COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2008, p31 and PINEAULT, 2005.
9
Ourmedia conferences have been held in Colombia (2003, 2005), Brazil (2004), India (2005), Accra
(2008).

3. and recent events organised by Budapest’s Central European University10
and London
Metropolitan University11
in 2007 have contributed to the discussion of the status of
community media in the continent, focusing specifically on policy, regulation, funding
and the issues emerging from the eventual transition of these services to digital.
Comprehensive reports recently published by the European Parliament12
and Council of
Europe13
, are also signals of growing recognition among European institutions.
International organizations such as AMARC or UNESCO continue to sustain
community media sectors throughout the world.
In the last few years, academic analyses of community media have examined the
sector at a global level14
, focused on nationwide studies15
, cross-national comparative
research16
and the critical evaluation of cross-European projects that have provided
training, access and participation in the media to community groups whose
communicative needs are often neglected by mainstream media17
. Unfortunately, little
information is available regarding the sector’s audiences.
So, the purpose of this communication is to investigate what CR, and the other
institutions which contribute to CR’s development, think about the CR audience and
what can be already known about this audience thanks to the old and new Médiamétrie
audience studies.
The financial problem
Most of Médiamétrie’s audience studies are expensive. And most CR stations do
not appear interested in their audience numbers because they simply don’t need to be18
.
Their revenues don’t come from advertisers. CR is made up of independent, not-for-
profit organisations. That means that it doesn’t need to attract more listeners because it
doesn’t need more advertisers. It doesn’t need growth. CR stations just need to find a
10
“Broadcasting Community: a Workshop on Policies in Europe” (May 2007) and “Access to
communication and democratic media structures in the digital environment” (May 2008).
11
“Finding and Funding Voices: the inner city experience”, London Metropolitan University, 17
September 2007.
12
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 2007.
13
COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2008.
14
RENNIE, 2006.
15
DAY, 2007, DUBOIS, 2007, and MALIK and PAVARALA, 2007.
16
HOWLEY, 2005.
17
JONES, 2006 and DOWMUNT, 2007.
18
RODRIGUEZ, 2001, p154.

4. way to stay alive. But things change and we can observe professionalization of CR with
more journalists, more information, more technology (such as digital), all of which is
very expensive19
. Operating costs are also increasing. As a result, CR needs to find new
resources. And “collective experience agrees that diversity of sources of funding is
desirable in order to avoid dependency on any one source.”20
But how can they justify
new investment from institutions or advertisers without the possibility of showing that a
lot of people are already interested in this kind of radio and that even more people could
become listeners in the future? And why should they have a lesser obligation than
public radio, which by nature must reach out to its audience? Why should CR have the
right to merely exist without any obligations or fewer obligations than other forms of
radio?
A lot of institutions have agreed to invest in these stations no matter what
audience numbers are: the European Union (European Development Fund and
European Social Fund), the Ministry of Culture (FSER), regional and local public
institutions etc. CR’s contribution to the public interest forms the basis of the political
support CR receives. This institutional recognition is very important because “levels of
activity are closely related to public awareness and legal recognition of the sector as
well as to the existence of underlying regulatory procedures”21
. So, audience shares and
the number of participants in CR vary significantly. “Whereas some initiatives are well
known across different communities, others operate on a much smaller scale and may
cater for one specific community”22
. However, CR often reaches out to large
proportions of very specific audience groups. Legal status of CR, gained in 1982, is
important to the development of CR organizations because it enables these
organizations to engage with regulatory authorities and funding partners as well as
advertisers, thus contributing to their sustainable development. Throughout the world, a
lot of broadcasters continue to operate as pirate stations.
But French institutions could change their policies23
. They could decide to ask
CR stations to declare themselves and be less “invisible”24
. They “are pressured today
to conform to mainstream media norms – not least due to financial pressure.”25
The
19
ABDALLAH, 2004.
20
COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2008, p22
21
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 2007, pIII
22
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 2007, pIII
23
If they don’t change their policies, it doesn’t prevent us to study it.
24
LEWIS, 1989.
25
PINSELER, 2008, p81.

5. question has recently been asked by senators26
, who wondered what can legitimate the
FSER (Fond de Soutien à l’Expression Radiophonique), a public fund27
for French CR,
which has made available approximately €25M in funding and contributed
approximately one third of the revenues of each licensed CR station in France in 2008.
This fund is a mix between continuous funding (start-up support, support for equipment
and running costs) and performance based funding (aid can be increased on an
individual basis depending on whether an initiative meets certain criteria regarding
professional training as well as cultural and educational content requirements). Due to
the French radio history, the criterion of the French CR audience isn’t taken into
account by public institutions, especially the Direction du Développement des Médias
which distribute the FSER. But this could change too in the future.
Finally, with regard to the advertisers, French CR stations are allowed to use
advertisements as a source of revenue up to a limit of 20% of their turnover. Despite
this advertising restriction of 20% (one of the prerequisites of being a CR station), most
of them do not earn close to that amount. In fact, only 5% on average of their turnover
comes from advertisements.
We can divide CR into three parts:
-For the first part, many CR stations perceive themselves as operating outside
the media market: Radio Ici et Maintenant, Radio Courtoisie, Radio Aligre, Radio
FPP... They simply refuse on principle to be dependent on advertisers. On the contrary,
they fight against advertisements and criticize commercial media which can’t be
independent and which can’t provide free and objective news because of these
advertisements. This ethical, political, ideological and economic debate emerged at the
beginning of free radio. It explains the way politics have legalised CR in 1981-1984 and
it promises to continue in the future.
-Another part of CR doesn’t attract advertisers. This may happen because many
advertisers find the content and quality of programming not attractive enough.
These two kinds of CR have to diversify their financial resources. They have to
rely on local financial support from listeners and local institutions. They often organise
local fundraising rallies to raise awareness among the community and win support.
26
BELOT, 2006.
27
This Fund for the Support of Expression by Radio is made up of a special tax levied on radio and
television advertising expenditures and paid by advertisers (article 302 bis KD, Code général des impôts).
Of course these medias lobby to stop this tax.

6. Furthermore, some initiatives benefit from special purpose foundations that collect
sponsorship for CR.
-And, the last part of the CR has got the possibility to bring a lot of advertisings
and could become commercial radios (Radio Canal Sambre28
).
In fact, compared to CR in most other countries, the revenue stream of a
French CR station benefits from above average public support. And they benefit from
continuous and high-level of public support compared with most other countries. They
operate on the basis of very different budgets which make it difficult to estimate an
average turnover. Their annual budgets are between € 50.000 and € 200.000. CR
initiatives tend to be managed on a voluntary basis, with an average maximum of three
paid employees. Staff costs generally make up the highest part of the budget, with a
54% average. Overheads (including copyright) rank second, with rent or building costs
accounting for another large part. Transmission and technical costs form the third-
largest part of a budget.
For better or for worse, the absence of a need for audience figures could change.
Under the emerging authority of the CSA, and with the attractiveness of radio to
advertisers, a more stable situation could arise. And it is difficult to imagine investment
from advertisers without any information about the CR audiences. Advertisers need to
know how many people listen to them, who are they and when they listen. If CR
stations don’t need their audiences for their advertisers, they could need them to justify
their public resources and come up with proper estimates of their audiences.
The fact that the audience is not a priority because profit is not a priority doesn’t
mean that CR stations are not interested in their audience. Of course, CRs want to be
listened to by more and more people. And their presenters are proud to say that they are
listened to by thousands even if they don’t really know if the figures they give come
from speculation from listeners who call them during their programs or from what their
friends say. Competition can exist between CR stations (for instance, between Radio Ici
et Maintenant and IDFM about paranormal programs; between Handi FM and Vivre
FM about handicap; between Radio Neo and Radio Campus about musical programs),
between commercial and non-commercial CR about immigrants matters (Beur FM and
FPP) or between CR and public radios (Radio Courtoisie29
and France Culture about
culture; Radio Campus and Le Mouv’ about youth music, indeed any CR and France
28
DELEU, 2006, p203.
29
POULAIN, 2004, p33.

7. Bleu about local information) or between CR and commercial radio about music. Even
if they don’t regard themselves necessarily as being in competition, listeners have to
choose. And there are nearly 600 local CR stations in France.
Non-commercial CR audiences can be targeted the same way as commercial CR
are. “As communities are defined to be a group of people who share common
characteristics and/or interests, they are all but units available to be marketed.”30
Their
audience has a certain age, sex or income. It can be analysed and segmented. And these
listeners are consumers and citizens. Private companies and public institutions are
aware of the fact that “audiences referred to their local stations as ‘family’ or ‘friends’
with surprising frequency”31
. This shouldn’t be neglected in “the age of suspicion”32
especially against commercial media and “political communication”. And if being in
relation with a radio will never be equivalent to being in relation with a friend or a
member or our family33
, this kind of socialization can be a way for private companies to
find new consumers and for public institutions to launch awareness campaigns (against
obesity, racism, tobacco…) and reach out to people who could not otherwise be
reached34
. Advertising media planning has just to be adapted. And paradoxically,
advertising and public institution interests are proves of serious and can be attractive for
new listeners.
Médiamétrie role and its studies
Médiamétrie’s35
studies could become more and more important for CR.
Médiamétrie plays a very important role because this institute controls the definition of
what is called an “audience” in France36
.
Médiamétrie (turnover of 55 million € in 2007) has recently revised its
procedures in order to form a better understanding of French radio in general and
French CR in particular. A French audience survey company is entering the race to
capture data tracking consumers’ complete media usage habits. For instance, the
30
CANKAYA, 2008, p99.
31
FOXWELL, 2008, p16.
32
BAKIR, 2007.
33
DOMENGET, 2003, p143.
34
RENAUD, 2007.
35
AGLIETTA, 2004 and MAUDUIT, 2005.
36
ANTOINE, 2003, DURAND, 1992, and GIROUX, 1998.

8. company will soon begin expanding its ratings coverage with “fingerprint”, a system
developed that embeds inaudible tones emitted from broadcasts37
.
Most of the Médiamétrie studies can be used in order to have a better
understanding about CR audience:
-We can begin with the famous “126 000 Radio” and its 126 000 interviews
(50 000 interviews from the “Médialocales” surveys). This survey used two methods of
measuring how many people are in an audience: share point (or market share) and
ratings point (or cumulative audience). A share point or a market share is the percentage
of all listeners listening radio at a time. A ratings point or a cumulative audience is the
percentage or the sum of all possible listeners. The duration of listening results can be
used too.
-The “Médialocales” study was created in 1989 in order to survey local
audiences (20 regions, 69 departments and 97 agglomerations in 2004-2005) by way of
50 000 interviews and with the “126 000 Radio” methodology.
These two studies give us important information about CR audience at a global
level, but they don’t really fit in because CR is “rendezvous radio” where broadcasts
change depending on animators’ agenda.
-“Le Public des Associatives” was created in 2004 in order to survey CR
audiences specifically. It costs between 1000 and 1300 € and allows us to have
information on global audience (listeners who declare listening to CR every week and
less than every week), regular audience (listeners who declare listening to CR every day
or almost every day) and week audience (listeners who declare listening to CR once or
twice a week). It also gives demographical, economic, sociological and geographical
information such as gender, age (13-24, 25-34, 35-49, 50-64, 65 and more, 13-34, 35
and over, 50 and over), professional status (employed, unemployed, occupation),
economic status, locality (rural or urban). 12 CR stations paid for it in 2004, 60 in 2005
(among them Radio Rencontre) and 50 in 2007, 2008 and 2009. More than 250 listeners
(from the “126 000” surveyed) were interviewed between January and June.
Mediametrie has precise ideas about who the listeners of each French CR station
are, or, at least, most of them. If the audience size is too small to yield sufficiently
reliable samples and if many programs are directed at specially targeted groups within a
community, Mediametrie has interviewed 126 000 people a year for many years, a large
37
CHEVREUX, 2003, p79.

9. amount from which reliable statistics can be obtained. But this information remains
confidential and commercially sensitive.
Mediametrie results
In Holland, OLON, the Dutch community media association of 400 members
has conducted research into the audiences for third sector media (radio, television,
internet) in 2005 thanks to the Ministry of Culture. “Based on responses from a sample
of 5000 users, the research found that CR’s weekly reach was 12%.” “Local community
radio’s audience of about two million people a week is significant compared to many
so-called professional radio stations.”38
In France, according to the audience poll published by Médiamétrie, the daily
radio cumulative audience is 83%. They listen on average for over 3 hours a day. 99%
of French homes have a radio. And they have on average 7 radios at home. 80% of
French households have a car radio, and 26.8% a walkman.
The problem for CR stations is that they have to attract a cumulative audience of
1% at national level in order to be included in the polls published by Médiamétrie. And
none of them can reach this figure. So we can’t get more specific information than
global audience of all CR put together.
CR has a smaller audience39
at the weekend than during the week with a
cumulative audience of 2.7-3.4% (1.7-3.5% in Ile-de-France; 2.1-3% in Paris) during
the week and a cumulative audience of 2.6-3.1% at the weekend. But they have a better
market share at the weekend than during the week with between 1.6% and 3.1% during
the week and 2.2-3.3% (1.2-2.6% in Ile-de-France; 1.2-2.2% in Paris) at the weekend.
Commercial, local or regional radio stations are the same. This can be explained by the
fact that most French radio stations lose a lot of listeners over the weekend. Listeners
don’t work, so they don’t listen to the radio before and after work. And we know that
most of radio’s audience comes from the morning between 6 and 9 am when they have
a lot of things to do so they simply cannot watch TV or use the internet. In fact, there
are two audience peaks during the day: one very important one between 6 and 9 am and
a second peak between 5 and 6 pm.
38
COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2008, p23.
39
MEDIAMETRIE, France, Ile-de-France, Paris Petite Couronne, 2004-2007.

10. Most of the CR audience is outside of these peaks. Contrary to the radio
audience in general, CR audience remains very stable during the day. But most of their
audience listens between 8am and 12pm (with a peak between 9am and 9:30am during
the week; between 9:30am and 9:45am in Ile-de-France), and between 2 and 5 pm
(between 8:30pm and 8:45pm in Ile-de-France, just after national TV news) and they
finish the day with the same audience as thematic and generalist radio stations. CR has
fewer listeners on Sunday (1.2 millions of listeners) than another day (1.5 millions of
listeners). But the weekly peak is on Sunday between 10am and 10:15am. There are
400 000 listeners during these 15 minutes. The Saturday audience structure is not
different from the rest of the week40
.
CR cumulative audience varies a lot, depending on historical and geographical
configurations41
: between 1.1% in Centre (followed by Haute-Normandie, Basse-
Normandie, Poitou-Charente) and 5.3% in Auvergne (followed by Ile-de-France and
Franche-Comté) in June 2003. In Paris, CR has a greater cumulative audience but less
market share because there are more listeners in general but more stations to listen to. In
regional areas, CR has a smaller cumulative audience but more market share because
there are fewer listeners in general but fewer stations to choose from.
In this time, cumulative audience over 21 days is 95% for radio in general, 85%
for commercial radio, 44% for public radio and 6.3% for CR. Between 1997 and 2003,
the number of days of listening on average CR remained at 0.5, whereas radio in general
gained 1 day on average (4.8 in 1997, 5.8 in 2003)42
. The French radio has become
more “fragmented”43
since the 1990s, and lost audience in the 2000s, especially musical
and youth radio, largely due to the impact of the internet.
The duration of listening of CR is shorter than commercial local or regional
radio in particular and for the media radio in general44
. For example, between
November and December 2007, the duration of listening of CR was, during the week,
87 minutes, while it was 104 minutes for commercial local or regional radio stations and
178 minutes for the media radio in general. But the duration of CR listening increases
during the weekend while it decreases for commercial local or regional radios in
particular and for the media radio in general. CR listeners tune in for between 87 and
40
MAUDUIT, 2008.
41
CHEVAL, 2003, p12 ; SAINT ROMAN, 2003, p35.
42
Médiamétrie survey (13 754 €) for Direction du Développement des Médias, June 2003.
43
GLEVAREC, 2008 (b).
44
MEDIAMETRIE, France, Ile-de-France, Paris Petite Couronne, 2004-2007.

11. 117 minutes during the week and for between 97 and 122 minutes at the weekend while
non-CR radio listeners in general consume between 173 and 180 minutes at the week
and between 71.4 and 162 minutes over the weekend. This CR audience duration
increase can be explained by the fact that most of the practitioners involved in CR
production are volunteers. So they work during the week and have more time for CR
activities at the weekend.
There is a big gap (with a ratio from 1 to 13) between a group who used to listen
to their CR everyday and a constellation of listeners who chose to listen to these CR for
specific reasons. They don’t come everyday, but they know exactly when they have to
come and which CR programs they want to listen to45
. The CR audience specificity can
be explained by the fact that CR is firstly a local and “identity radio”46
, a “completing
media” and a “rendez-vous media”47
. So people listen to it firstly for local and
community news and very specific programs but most of the time after mainstream and
national media. In Netherlands, “Among reasons for listening, local news programmes
are mentioned second after local music programmes.”48
It is probably the same in
France.
On the demographic, geographical and economical subject, CR is more popular
with males (55%) than females (45%). Actives and inactives are in the same proportion.
And most of CR’s audience lives in urban areas (70%)49
. Young people (under 18 years
old) represent a very small part of the CR audience because they prefer “youth radio”50
(Skyrock, Fun Radio, NRJ, Le Mouv’…).
In 2004, the first survey “Le Public des Associatives” on 12 CR shows that they
had in average a notoriety of 40.6% (70% for some of them), a regular audience of
4.37% (with important peaks), a cumulative audience of 9% in average per week (4
stations with more than 10%) and a global audience of 17.6% (45% for one of them) 51
.
Radio Rencontre has got 30 volunteers, 3 salaried workers, an annual budget of
125000€ and a unique frequency for 33 cities and 200 000 potential listeners around
Dunkerque. It is the only non-commercial CR in a market that counts 13 other radio
stations. It works with Échanges et Productions Radiophoniques and Radio France
45
MAUDUIT, 2008.
46
GLEVAREC, 2008 (a), p113.
47
MAUDUIT, 2008.
48
COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2008, p23.
49
MAUDUIT, 2008.
50
GLEVAREC, 2005 (a and b).
51
JEHL, 2005.

12. International and broadcasts intercultural and multi-communitarian programs, like many
French CR stations52
. “Le public des associatives january-june 2005” shows that Radio
Rencontre has 8% of the week audience and 2.4% of regular audience. An important
part of its audience comprises women, inactives and more than 50 years old listeners.
For instance, 70% of the weekly audience is more than 50 years old (more than the
region average). But only 55.7% of the regular audience is more than 50 years old. This
can be explained by the fact that the 13-24-year-olds represent 24.8% of the regular
audience (20.4% in the region) thanks to student presenters and networks53
.
Radio Ici et Maintenant, an historical CR in Ile-de-France with an important
cumulative audience (6th
cumulative audience after Radio Notre Dame which is close to
1%, Radio Courtoisie, Espace FM, EFM, Radio Soleil), most of the listeners are
employees, workmen or chairmen of a small companies (CR in general is a form of
“popular radio”54
.). A lot of them are unemployed. Most of them are 35-49 years old.
There are two thirds more men than women. And in Ile-de-France, they tend to come
more from the suburbs than the inner city. This audience hasn’t changed much during
the last 10 years.
The internet represents a chance for CR to be both local and global, and to reach
new audiences55
(for instance diasporas). Radio Ici et Maintenant’s website with
“geolocalisation” shows from which country listeners tune in by identifying them with
computer technology. For instance, at the end of a broadcast (5:30-7:00pm) about
“guardian angels” with Pierre Jovanovic Thursday the 23th
of October 2008, there was 1
active connection in Belgium, 1 in Canada, 125 in France, 1 in Italy, 1 in Portugal, 2 in
Switzerland, 2 in the UK and 32 unknown. There may have been fewer listeners, but
there may also have been more. During the first tour of the French presidential elections
on Sunday the 22nd
of April 2007 at 11:30pm, there were 4 active connections in
Belgium, 367 in France, 1 in Spain, 20 in Switzerland, 45 in United States and 13
unknown.
Conclusion
52
FROISSART, 2004.
53
FURST, 2006.
54
MAUDUIT, 2008.
55
RICAUD, 2008.

13. To conclude, we can say that quantity should equal quality and that the reverse
of this is also true. Statistical surveys must be combined with ethnographic and cultural
studies56
following, for instance, UNESCO’s “ethnographic action research”57
methodology or the Griffith University research group methodology. The latter
methodology could be a model for work elsewhere: following an earlier production
study of the same group, it complements and tests the findings of quantitative audience
research, the McNair Ingenuity questionnaire study, using focus groups and qualitative
methods. Its funding profile could be used as a model for future studies. Both the 200258
and 200759
studies were financed by an impressive collaboration of academic,
government, sector and user organizations60
.
“Le Public des Associatives” survey is a good beginning. But it is still only
statistics. Academic and government organizations are not involved. And it doesn’t
draw attention to CR’s ability to deliver, directly or indirectly, “social gain”. Therefore,
public sociology shouldn’t be separated from audience survey. Academic, government,
Mediametrie, CR and its organisations should work more closely together in the future.
Selected Bibliography
-ABDALLAH Mogniss, “Les radios associatives, entre précarité et
professionnalisation”, alterites.com, 07/06/2004,
http://www.alterites.com/cache/center_media/id_692.php.
-AGLIETTA Jacqueline, “Propos recueillis pas Cécile Méadel”, Le temps des
médias, n°3, 2004.
56
LE GRIGNOU, 2003 and POULAIN, 2006.
57
This methodology is a form of participatory action research which trains project staff in self-evaluation
and aims to instill a “research culture” within projects themselves so that research becomes a part of the
everyday operation (HEARN, 2003).
58
FORDE, 2002.
59
EWART, 2007.
60
Support came from the Australian Research Council, the Community Broadcasting Foundation (the
body which distributes federal funding to the sector), the Federal Department of Communication,
Information, Technology and the Arts, and the representative associations of the third sector, the
Community Association Broadcasting of Australia and its indigenous and ethnic counterpart.

14. -ANTOINE Frédéric, “Méthodologie de la mesure de l’audience en radio :
diversité des méthodes et divergences des résultats. Le cas de la Belgique”, in Jean-
Jacques Cheval (dir.), Audience, Publics et Pratiques radiophoniques, MSHA, Pessac,
2003.
-BAKIR Vian and BARLOW David M (eds.), Communication in the Age of
Suspicion. Trust and the Media, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007.
-BELOT Claude, rapport d’information n° 233 du Sénat, Annexe au procès-
verbal de la séance du 3 mars 2006.
-CANKAYA Özden, GÜNEY H. Serhat and KÖKSALAN M. Emre, “Turkish
radio broadcasts in The Netherlands: Community Communication or Ethnic Market?”,
“Community Radio”, Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture © 2008
(University of Westminster, London), Vol. 5(1): 1-4. ISSN 1744-6708 (Print); 1744-
6716 (Online), http://www.wmin.ac.uk/mad/page-1842.
-CHEVAL Jean-Jacques (dir.), “L’audience de la radio en Aquitaine, les
Médialocales 1999-2000”, in Audiences, publics et pratiques radiophoniques, MSHA,
Pessac, 2003.
-CHEVREUX Marie-Dominique, “La radio pionnière”, Hermès, 37, 2003.
-COUNCIL OF EUROPE, “Promoting social cohesion. The role of community
media”, report from Peter Maynard Lewis for Media and Information Society Division,
Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, July 2008
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-MD/H-Inf(2008)013_en.pdf.
-DAY Rosemary (ed.), Bicycle Highway: Celebrating Community Radio in
Ireland, The Liffey Press, Dublin, 2007.
-DELEU Christophe, Les anonymes à la radio. Usages, fonctions et portée de la
parole, De Boeck, Paris, 2006.

15. -DCMS, “The Community Radio Sector: Looking to the Future”, Department
for Culture, Media and Sport, United Kingdom, December 2006,
www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/communityradioreport_updatedjan07.pdf.
-DOMENGET Jean-Claude, “Au quotidien et au fil de l’âge, pratiques radiophoniques
de retraité”, in Jean-Jacques Cheval (dir.), Audience, Publics et Pratiques
radiophoniques, MSHA, Pessac, 2003.
-DOWMUNT Tony, DUNFORD Mark and HEMERT Nicole Van (eds.),
Inclusion through Media, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, 2007.
-DUBOIS Frédéric et LANGLOIS Andrea (dir.), Médias autonomes. Nourrir la
résistance et la dissidence, Lux, Québec, 2007.
-DURAND Jacques, “Les audiences de la radio. Les méthodes disponibles”, “La
radio”, Réseaux/CNET, no 52, Paris, 1992.
-EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, The State of Community Media in the European
Union, report by Kern European Affairs for Directorate General Internal Policies of the
Union, Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies, Culture and Education,
September 2007,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/expert/eStudies/download.do?file=17791.
-EWART Jacqui, FORDE Susan, FOXWELL Kerrie and MEADOWS Michael,
Community Media Matters: an audience study of the Australian Community
Broadcasting, Griffith University, Brisbane, 2007.
-FORDE Susan, FOXWELL Kerrie, and MEADOWS Michael, Culture,
Commitment, Community: The Australian Community Radio Sector, Griffith University,
Brisbane, 2002.
-FOXWELL Kerrie, EWART Jacqui, FORDE Susan and MEADOWS Michael,
“Sounds like a whisper: Australian Community Broadcasting hosts a quiet revolution”,
“Community Radio”, Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture © 2008

16. (University of Westminster, London), Vol. 5(1): 1-4. ISSN 1744-6708 (Print); 1744-
6716 (Online), http://www.wmin.ac.uk/mad/page-1842.
-FROISSART Catherine, LATAULADE Bénédicte de, MELAS Lucie, Les
radios locales associatives à destinations des publics immigrés : bilan de 20 ans
d’expressions et initiatives. “Du bout de la rue au bout du monde”, Résonance,
FASILD, Mars 2004.
-FURST Anne, “Radio Rencontre”, Projet, Mai 2006, http://www.ceras-
projet.com/index.php?id=929.
-GIROUX Luc et MALO Gérard, “La mesure industrielle des auditoires”, in
Serge PROULX (dir.), Accusé de réception. Le téléspectateur construit par les sciences
sociales, L’Harmattan-Presses de l’Université Laval, Montréal, 1998.
-GLEVAREC Hervé, Libre antenne. La réception de la radio par les
adolescents, INA-Armand Colin, Paris, 2005 (a).
-GLEVAREC Hervé, “Youth radio as 'social object': the social meaning of 'free
radio' shows for young people in France”, Media, Culture and Society, vol. 27, n° 3,
2005 (b).
-GLEVAREC, Hervé and PINET Michel, “Les deux écoutes de la radio:
fréquence et presence au media radiophonique”, Quaderni, Paris, 2008 (a).
-GLEVAREC, Hervé and PINET Michel, “From Liberalization to
Fragmentation: A Sociology of French Radio Audiences Since the 1990s and the
Consequences for Cultural Industries Theory”, Media, Culture and Society, vol. 30, n°
2, 2008 (b).
-HEARN Greg, SLATER Don, TACCHI Jo, Ethnographic Action Research,
UNESCO, Paris and New Delhi, 2003.

17. -HOWLEY Kevin, Community Media: People, Places, and Communication
Technologies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
-JONES Susan and LEWIS Peter Maynard (ed.), From the margins to the
cutting edge. Community Media and Empowerment, Hampton Press, Creskill, New
Jersey, 2006.
-JEHL Franck, “Etude d'audience des radios associatives. Le Public des
associatives - Edition 2006”, e.Revue du CNRA, N°118, 21/10/2005
(http://cnra.free.fr/Archives/e.Revue%20118.htm).
-LE GRIGNOU Brigitte, Du côté du public. Réceptions et usages de la
télévision, Economica, Etudes politiques, Paris, 2003.
-LEWIS Peter Maynard and BOOTH Jerry, The invisible Medium: Public,
Commercial, Community Radio, Macmilian, London, 1989.
-MALIK Kanchan K. and PAVARALA Vinod, Other Voices. The Struggle for
Community Radio in India, Sage Publications, London/New Delhi/Thousand Oaks, CA,
2007.
-MAUDUIT Jean, “Radio et implication ... Vive l'association”, Audience Le
Mag, 25/04/2008.
-MAUDUIT Jean, Le roman vrai de la mesure d’audience, Médiametrie, Paris,
2005.
-OFCOM, Notes of Guidance for Community Radio Licence Applicants and
Licensees, 2006,
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radio/ifi/rbl/commun_radio/tlproc/nogs_r23.pdf.
-PINSELER Jan, “The Politics of Talk on German Free Radio Stations”,
“Community Radio”, Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture © 2008

18. (University of Westminster, London), Vol. 5(1): 1-4. ISSN 1744-6708 (Print); 1744-
6716 (Online), http://www.wmin.ac.uk/mad/page-1842.
-POULAIN Sebastien, “Guérir de la société grâce à la radio : usages des libres
antennes de Radio Ici et Maintenant”, AISLF, Istanbul, 7-11/07/2008.
-POULAIN Sebastien, “Looking for community radio listeners”, IREN,
Louvain-La-Neuve-Bruxelles, 9-10/11/2006.
-POULAIN Sebastien, Les auditeurs de Radio Courtoisie, Mémoire de Master
II, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I), 2004.
-PINEAULT Guy, Les Médias Associatifs Audiovisuels: Bref Historique et Etat
des Lieux, France, January 2005, www.acrimed.org/article1900.html.
-RENAUD Lise (dir.), Les médias et le façonnement des normes en matière de
santé, PUQ, Québec, 2007.
-RENNIE Ellie, Community Media: a global introduction, Rowman &
Littlefield, Lanham Md, 2006.
-RICAUD Pascal, “Radios communautaires, radios militantes en ligne :
nouvelles formes de participation et de 'reliances' radiophoniques ?”, in Jean-Jacques
Cheval et Bernard Wuillème (dir.), La radio au tournant des siècles, Edition de
l’université Jean Moulin Lyon III, Lyon, 2008.
-RODRIGUEZ Clemencia, Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study
of Citizens’ Media, Hampton Press, Cresskill, 2001.
-SAINT ROMAN (de) Arnaud, “L’audience de la radio en France, un exemple
de contrastes régionaux”, in Jean-Jacques Cheval (dir.), Audience, Publics et Pratiques
radiophoniques, MSHA, Pessac, 2003.

19. -STARKEY Guy, “La bande sonore de nos vie”, in Jean-Jacques Cheval (dir.),
“La radio : paroles données, paroles à prendre”, MédiaMorphoses, no
23, Armand Colin/
INA, Paris, 2008.