International Communication Gazette http://gaz.sagepub.

com/

From minority to cross-cultural programmes: Dutch media policy and the politics of integration
Isabel Awad and Andrea Roth International Communication Gazette 2011 73: 400 DOI: 10.1177/1748048511405816 The online version of this article can be found at: http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/73/5/400

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for International Communication Gazette can be found at: Email Alerts: http://gaz.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://gaz.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/73/5/400.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Aug 17, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

Article

From minority to cross-cultural programmes: Dutch media policy and the politics of integration
Isabel Awad
ERMeCC, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

the International Communication Gazette 73(5) 400418 The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1748048511405816 gaz.sagepub.com

Andrea Roth
HTW des Saarlandes University of Applied Sciences, Germany

Abstract Dutch media policy on cultural diversity has undergone an important transformation in the last decades. Support for minority media has been replaced by a focus on crosscultural media targeted at multiple (and in many cases, all) social groups. Although the shift is related to changes in the economics of the media industry and in the composition of Dutch society, it can only be fully understood in relation to the changing politics on immigration and integration in the Netherlands. By underscoring the connection between recent changes in media policy and the broader political context, this article aims at re-politicizing discussions about the media in culturally diverse societies and about the role of the state in supporting minorities effective participation in democracy. Keywords assimilation, cross-cultural programming, immigration, media policy, minority programming, the Netherlands A 2008 report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science synthesizes recent changes in media policy and cultural diversity in the Netherlands as a

Corresponding author: Isabel Awad, ERMeCC, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands Email: awad@eshcc.eur.nl

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

Awad and Roth

401

move from the margin to the mainstream (Leurdijk, 2008).1 Another author has characterized the change as a shift from exclusivity to inclusiveness in Dutch policy on media and minorities (Bink, 2006). In both cases the authors point to a common phenomenon: the substitution of media programmes for specific minority groups with cross-cultural programming. The new cross-cultural programmes aim at all minority and, in most cases, also majority audiences simultaneously. The substitution process occurred gradually from the early 1990s and culminated in September 2008, when the last group-targeted programmes on national public radio were replaced by a new Dutch-language programme called Dichtbij Nederland [Close to the Netherlands]. Each of the group-targeted programmes some of which dated from the mid-1970s had its own editorial team and used the communitys own language. They were in Arabic Moroccan and Berber, Cantonese, Turkish, Papiamentu and Dutch. In contrast, Dichtbij Nederland pays special attention to the areas of the world from which most Dutch immigrants come from, but it speaks to all of them including their children and grandchildren at the same time. Dichtbij Nederland is in Dutch and is advertised as a multicoloured programme about people and emotion (Dichtbij Nederland, 2008). The shift in Dutch policy on media and minorities exemplified by Dichtbij Nederland is commonly related to changes in the media industry and in the composition of Dutch society. With respect to the industry, the Dutch media landscape has undergone a radical transformation over the last decades. Satellite and cable television, commercial broadcasters and the internet have intensified the competition to attract audiences and have put enormous pressure on the public broadcaster. Likewise, the demographics and tastes of the audience have changed significantly. Minority-targeted programmes on Dutch public radio and television were started in the 1960s in order to address immigrants from the former Dutch colonies and guest workers from formerYugoslavia, Spain, Italy, Turkey and Morocco. Today, the minority population is not limited to immigrants themselves, but also includes their descendants. It is reasonable to assume important differences in terms of media preferences and consumption among the different generations. However, while the new conditions of media production and distribution may inescapably affect the media targeted at minority audiences, they cannot fully account for the particular ways in which those media have been restructured. More specifically, this article proposes that the restructuring of minority-related media in the Netherlands must be understood in relation to the policies addressing the countrys ethnic minorities more generally. Grounded in a discussion about normative requirements for social justice in ethnically diverse societies, this article argues that the current Dutch approach to diversity in the media does not foster democratic inclusion. A media and minorities policy that neglects the importance of group-based media undermines minority groups political participation by impeding the development and strengthening of minority counterpublics. The article starts with a theoretical overview of the role of ethnic media in the configuration of minority counter-public spheres and of the importance of these counter-publics in the actual inclusion of disempowered social groups. The article then turns to the Netherlands changing approach to cultural diversity as a necessary, and yet commonly overlooked context, in which the changes in media policy must be

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

402

the International Communication Gazette 73(5)

understood. The connection between the two sets of policies (related to cultural diversity in general and to the media in particular) becomes clearer in the subsequent section, which examines the public broadcasters approach towards cultural diversity from a historical perspective. Discussions surrounding the broadcasters various steps towards cross-cultural programming provide evidence of the politics behind this shift. Finally, the article discusses why the changes in media and minorities policy commonly appear to be apolitical decisions and underscores the importance of re-politicizing this discussion.

Social inclusion, counter-publics and the media

A common argument against multicultural policies in western democracies is that they may lead to social tensions and fragmentation. The recognition of diverse social groups along ethnic and cultural lines is seen as a threat to democracy, which would reinforce divisions and impede a sense of commonness. In the United States, this fear is captured in book titles such as The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society (Schlesinger, 1998) and The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America is Wracked by Culture Wars (Gitlin, 1995). Likewise, in the Netherlands, Paul Scheffer (2000a) has claimed that because of the growing diversity of the population we coexist without interacting. In a provoking article entitled The multicultural drama, he explains that the problem is that There is now much less cultural cohesion within which to experience difference; there are few sources of unity (Scheffer, 2000a).2 Because communication technologies play a crucial role in the constitution and maintenance of the public sphere (Habermas, 1991), the fear of social fragmentation also affects discussions about media and cultural diversity. In the US, for example, some see the growth of Spanish-language media targeting the Latina/o population as a serious threat to democracy. Responsible media, Sleeper (1999) contends, should work together with public education in sustaining an American identity, by enabling an all-inclusive debate and by helping citizens imagine a nationwide community. In this view, the media should operate as a centralized communicational system, an all-encompassing public sphere (for a similar reasoning, see Gitlin, 1998). The fear of social fragmentation is largely based on a sense of nostalgia for a public sphere where all citizens independently of social differences could participate on equal terms.3 This nostalgia, however, is problematic. There is significant evidence of the public spheres historical limitations to include specific social groups. There have always been less equal constituencies notably, working classes, women, ethnic and sexual minorities whose experiences and interests have been marginalized from the dominant sphere of the public. Thus, assuming an all-encompassing and neutral sphere of public deliberation wherein all citizens participate as equals is not only fictitious, but also hegemonic (Eley, 1992; Fraser, 1992; Landes, 1988; Negt and Kluge, 1993; Ryan, 1992; Young, 2000). To counteract the exclusionary effects of a dominant public sphere, critics stress the importance of a plurality of competing publics (Fraser, 1992: 122) and, in particular, the role of the media in supporting these competing publics (Baker, 2002; Jacobs, 2000; Morley, 2000; Warner, 2002). As described by Fraser (1992), subaltern

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

Awad and Roth

403

counter-publics constitute essential venues for the self-representation and, thus, for the empowerment of disempowered social groups. Among other things, counter-publics provide spaces for minority groups to define and articulate their social perspective; develop alternative discourses and styles of communication; and raise their voices against injustice. Strengthened by this possibility of self-representation, minority groups can inform and challenge dominant publics and participate on more equal terms within broader spheres of deliberation. Deprived of this possibility, conversely, minority groups have their interests silenced. The multiplicity of publics that Fraser and others call for does not rule out the existence of an overarching public, nor does it deny the possibility of overlapping publics. On the contrary, a society that has both social equality and cultural diversity must be grounded in citizens ability to communicate within and across publics. Fraser (1992: 124) explains: the concept of a counterpublic militates in the long run against separatism because it assumes a publicist orientation. . . . After all, to interact discursively as a member of public, subaltern or otherwise, is to aspire to disseminate ones discourse to ever widening arenas (emphasis in the original). The above conceptualization of minority public spheres as a prerequisite for democratic inclusion in culturally diverse societies underscores the importance of minority media. Minority media may not only enable the constitution of minority communities, but also the possibilities of democratic dialogue among different communities. More specifically, the relevance of an ethnic medium in culturally diverse democratic societies is linked to the mediums capacity to create and maintain an ethnic public opinion that enables the ethnic elite to speak for their people. It also creates the opportunities for the rank and file, as well as for the counter-elites, to monitor the civic leaders. It fosters the internal cohesion of the ethnic community both horizontally and vertically (Fennema, 2004: 439).

The retreat of Dutch multiculturalism

Changes in the Dutch approach to cultural diversity in the last decade offer a valuable opportunity to examine the potential of minority counter-publics to either foster or hinder democracy. The Netherlands is commonly cited as a paradigmatic example of Europes recent retreat of multiculturalism (Joppke, 2004; see also Kofman, 2005; Sniderman and Hagendoorn, 2007). That is, multiculturalism has been discarded as the core policy goal with respect to cultural minorities. Its successor, integration, carries a very different political agenda, which has substantially different effects on the everyday life of the Dutch population in general and of minorities in particular.4 For some authors, multiculturalism in the Netherlands derived almost spontaneously from the countrys peculiar system of pillarization (e.g. Carle, 2006; Fermin et al., 2005; Sniderman and Hagendoorn, 2007). Institutionalized during the first half of the 20th century, pillarization was an arrangement of peaceful coexistence between disparate groups within a vertically segmented society living apart together in potentially conflictual pillars based on religion and ideology (Brants, 2006: 228). Arguably, the system that had enabled the pacific coexistence of Catholics, Protestants, socialists and liberals could be suitable to accommodate other cultural differences. If Catholics and Protestants

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

404

the International Communication Gazette 73(5)

had their own schools, sports teams, shops and media, it also made sense for the new ethnic groups to have their own institutions. Although pillarization started to weaken during the 1960s (at the time of the arrival of large numbers of immigrants), it is said to have had a direct impact on the 1983 Minderhedennota, the countrys first Ethnic Minorities Policy (e.g. Carle, 2006; Statham and Koopmans, 2004; Vasta, 2007). The Minderhedennota supported the strengthening of minority groups and their cultural identity. Whether this approach was actually meant to help migrants integrate into Dutch society or rather to facilitate the expected return to their home countries (see Vink, 2007), the Dutch case came to be known as exemplary. Since the early 1980s, the Netherlands had pursued Europes most prominent and proudly exhibited multiculturalism policy, which envisaged emancipation for designated ethnic minorities, but within their own state supported ethnic infrastructures, including ethnic school, ethnic hospitals and ethnic media (Joppke, 2007: 5). The underlying assumption of the 1983 policy was that minorities needed to be organized and to have control over different forms of group representation in order to emancipate and, thus, to participate as equals in Dutch political life (Uitermark et al., 2005). Two and a half decades later, however, this double aim the promotion of minorities integration and the support of group identities is seen as a contradiction in terms. More specifically, group identity is presumed to encourage the isolation of minority communities and their rejection of Dutch society. In one of the most popular critiques of the Dutch model, Paul Scheffer (2000a) argues that policies to support group identity have not resulted in integration, but in a clash of cultures and in the greatest threat of social unrest. In Scheffers view, integration demands the weakening of minorities cultural identities and, thereby, the strengthening of a Dutch national identity:
If the Netherlands now says it is an immigration country, it must do what every immigration country does, namely put the emphasis on education in its language, history and laws. In the days of the denominational pillars in Dutch society, it was precisely these sources of unity which prevented the cultural differences from becoming conflicts. Such a sense of unity cannot be taken for granted in a multicultural society. (Scheffer, 2000b)

By the time Scheffer made this call towards minority groups acculturation into the existing Dutch national culture, policy-makers had already initiated major changes in that direction. In 1998, the Minderhedennota was replaced by a Law on Civic Integration for Newcomers requiring non-western immigrants5 to take Dutch language and civic lessons.6 The government stressed that immigrants had to prove their loyalty to the Netherlands and emphasized their civic obligations towards their new country (Joppke, 2004; Kofman, 2005). The emphasis shifted from the group to the individual in the sense that integration became a matter of personal responsibility. In todays public discourse, ones cultural identity if different from the dominant Dutch identity is treated as an impediment to civic participation (Ghorashi, 2003; Uitermark et al., 2005; Van der Veer, 2006). In that sense, the current discourse is assimilationist: it compels cultural minorities to adapt to a dominant model of Dutchness, under the assumption that a well-functioning democracy requires protecting a fixed

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

Awad and Roth

405

national identity (Ghorashi, 2003; see also Entzinger, 2006; Geschiere, 2009; Scholten and Holzhacker, 2009; Vasta, 2007). It is precisely from a democratic perspective, however, that assimilation is particularly problematic. Assimilation, explains Young (1990: 164), always implies coming into the game after it has already begun, after the rules and standards have already been set, and having to prove oneself according to those standards. In other words, assimilation operates as a conservative force against the possible challenges that new social groups may pose to existing institutions and dominant norms.

From multiculturalism to integration in the city: The example of Amsterdam

In line with the new official approach to integration, categorical or group-targeted policies were replaced with general policies at the national, regional and local level. In practice, this change means that policies targeting ethnic or cultural groups were replaced with policies targeting people who are economically, educationally, or socially disadvantaged, irrespective of ethnicity, race or culture (De Zwart and Poppelaars, 2007: 388). Vasta (2007: 717) calls this a process of mainstreaming, because it is aimed at improving the inclusion of immigrants in mainstream services in order to move away from the ethno-specific provision popularly associated with a policy of multiculturalism. Uitermark et al. (2005) examined the implementation of the integrationist approach at the local level, by focusing on Amsterdam. This citys policy during the 1980s put strong emphasis on the role of subsidized migrant organizations and on advisory councils composed of representatives from these organizations. The 1999 draft memorandum The Force of a Diverse City, in contrast, was based on the principle that Everybody is entitled to participate, not as a member of a group but as an individual with a multifaceted identity (Uitermark et al., 2005: 629; see also Kraal, 2001). Accordingly, the city started to allocate its subsidies to specific projects instead of organizations and it abolished the minority advisory councils, which were considered to be outdated. The members of Amsterdams current diversity council are explicitly supposed not to represent a group interest (Uitermark et al., 2005: 630). While the authors recognize valuable intentions behind this policy, their research underscores two major shortcomings:
Firstly, that the focus on projects and differentiated identities leads to the de-politicization rather than effective negotiation of ethnic diversity. Secondly, . . . that the official denial of the legitimacy of ethnic identities reconfigures and reinforces rather than negates power inequalities amongst different ethnic organizations and groups. (Uitermark et al., 2005: 626)

These conclusions concur with other studies on social capital and political participation of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands, which point to the democratic relevance of minorities community organizations. In brief, Ethnic community may contribute rather than hamper the well functioning of a democratic policy (Fennema and Tillie, 2006: 7; see also Fennema and Tillie, 1999; Van Heelsum, 2005).

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

406

the International Communication Gazette 73(5)

To the extent that the new integration approach is based on distrust in ethnic-based organizations and an endorsement of assimilationism as a requisite for social integration, the retreat of multiculturalism in Dutch policy and public discourse has not remained unchallenged. The de-politicization and reification of power inequalities that result from efforts to dissolve minority communities into the larger public sphere have made those efforts increasingly suspicious and subject to criticism. Focusing mainly on the situation of Muslims in the Netherlands, critics have argued that public discourse and policy in the last decade has been characterized by stigmatization and exclusion (Shadid, 2006: 16; see also Fekete, 2006; Ghorashi, 2003; Roggeband and Verloo, 2007; Van der Veer, 2006). Significantly, these kinds of analyses have disregarded media policies.

Dutch minorities and the media

The general shift from multiculturalism to integration in Dutch policy in the late 1990s also translated into significant changes in media policy. The earlier public support for special programmes for the different minority groups has been replaced by the promotion of cross-cultural programmes.7 These are programmes in Dutch language aimed at addressing all social groups or at least a combination of minority groups. Since public policys main impact is on radio and television, the minority media that remain in the Netherlands today are mostly limited to print and the internet. There is also some minority programming in public access radio and television stations in big cities. In all these cases, however, public subsidies are limited or non-existent. Minority media are commonly forced to rely on volunteer work and the good will of members of the community or to (try to) become commercial enterprises. The historical overview that follows shows that this is a different reality from that of a few decades ago.

1960s1980s: The era of migrant media

The Dutch public broadcaster transmitted its first migrant programmes in the mid-1960s. During the two decades that followed, these programmes extended their presence in both radio and television (Breimer, 1995; Schothorst and Bronner, 1995). They included, but were not limited to, news about the Netherlands and about immigrants country of origin, as well as educational programmes aimed at introducing the audience to Dutch language and culture. Some programmes were aimed at immigrants in general, but for the most part this was the era of exclusivity (Bink, 2002) in the sense that each programme was produced for a specific group in the groups own language. By the beginning of the 1980s, the public radio had special transmissions for 10 different minority audiences: in Dutch for Moluccans, Antilleans and Surinamers and in seven other languages for immigrants coming from Morocco, Turkey, Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia, Portugal and Cape Verde (Breimer, 1995: 35). In local television, during the 1980s, Migrant Television started operating in the four largest cities, where most immigrants were concentrated. At the national level, there was a succession of different programmes (see Leurdijk, 2004). The most renowned in this tradition was Paspoort [Passport]. According to a study from 1982, 90 percent of the so-called foreign workers considered Paspoort an important programme. As reasons,

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

Awad and Roth

407

they mentioned: comprehensibility, connection with the motherland, and news from the land of residence (Breimer, 1995: 35). The public broadcaster, in turn, saw Paspoort as a valuable medium to empower immigrants and, in doing that, to help in their process of integration (Leurdijk, 2004: 115; see also Bink, 2002).

1990s2008: The shift towards cross-cultural media

National TV. The first criticisms against targeted programming could already be heard in the mid-1980s. The programmes were accused of ghettoizing minority audiences and offering an alibi for mainstream television to ignore the importance of cultural diversity (Leurdijk, 2004: 11718). However, the shift towards cross-cultural media occurred some years later and focused first on national television. Paspoort was cancelled in 1992, after 17 years on air. A few short-lived targeted programmes remained after that. The discussions surrounding the establishment of the new public broadcaster NPS (literally, Dutch Programme Foundation) in 1995 paid special attention to the kind of programming that would better serve the integration of minority groups. The NPS was created to take over three of the programming obligations of the main public broadcaster (NOS), those related to culture, minorities and children. With respect to cultural minorities, this obligation was translated into minimum percentages: 20 percent of NPSs airtime in television and 25 percent in radio were to be dedicated to minority programming. The question for NPS at the time was what would count as minority programming or, as a story in the newspaper Algemeen Dagblad (1995) put it, Is this broadcaster still morally obliged to do programmes in other languages? Partly as a way to respond to this question, the brand-new NPS organized the congress Gemengde Berichten [Mixed Stories] about the dilemmas of the broadcaster in a diverse society (Van der Wal, 1995). Most of the participants were media policy-makers, researchers and producers. According to Leurdijk (2004), the congress marked the end of the group-targeted programmes in national television. Many speakers in the congress Gemengde Berichten were of the opinion that this kind of programme impairs a successful integration of migrants (Leurdijk, 2004: 128). For some, targeted programmes were old-fashioned, narrow-minded, or simply unjustified since they allegedly addressed only a shrinking number of first generation viewers whose Dutch was not good enough to watch other programmes (Algemeen Dagblad, 1995). When they decided to eliminate targeted programmes from national television, decision-makers relegated at least initially such programming to the local level and the radio, arguing that minorities concentrate in the big cities and that the radio lends itself better to audience segmentation (see, for example, Riemersma, 1995; Van der Ploeg, 1998). These arguments may have helped delay the changes in local television and in radio, but not for long. Local television and radio. The transition to cross-cultural television programming at the local level occurred in 2005. First, in 2001, Migrant Television was restructured and professionalized (Bink, 2002). It became MTNL (Multicultural Television

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

408

the International Communication Gazette 73(5)

Netherlands). Co-funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the municipalities of the four largest Dutch cities (i.e. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague and Utrecht), MTNLs initial remit was to produce separate current affairs programmes for the Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese and Antillean communities in these cities. In 2004, however, under the assumption that the target-group approach was politically outdated (MTNL, 2005), MTNL radically changed its programme policy. As a result, since 2005, MTNLs shows are produced in Dutch and have a combined target audience of people from Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese and Antillean descent. An important precedent for the change in MTNL is FunX radio. Created in 2002, FunX is also co-funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the four largest cities. From the very beginning, FunX has aimed at a cross-cultural audience. In the words of one of its creators and current policy advisor, Martine Huizenga, We have a minority aim, but it is not explicit in our product (March 2008, personal communication). FunX is a music station targeted at the urban youth. It prides itself in offering a unique mix of music that other stations do not transmit (e.g. Arabic Rai and Turkish pop) and more mainstream ones (e.g. hip-hop and R&B), without ignoring the Dutch talent (FunX, 2009). Initially, says Huizenga, FunX was received with scepticism.8 However, the radios popularity among young urban people with a minority background has turned FunX into a model of what successful cross-cultural media may look like. National public radio. National public radio the last bastion of special programming for minority audiences had started its programmes for the Antillean-Dutch and the Suriname-Dutch communities in 1974. A few years later, it created additional programmes for people of Moluccan, Turkish, Moroccan and Chinese descent. In the 1990s even after the group-targeted programmes in national television were dismantled the public radio transmitted its six minority programmes daily from Monday to Friday for 3045 minutes. A closer look at one of these programmes, the Cantonese-language Snelle Berichten Nederland-China [Quick News Netherlands-China; henceforth Snelle Berichten], helps understand the role of minority media for minority communities. A former journalist and presenter for Snelle Berichten, Yiu Fai Chow, recalls how the programme was structured in the 1990s: it started with 10 minutes of news, mainly about the Netherlands, but also from Mainland China and the rest of the world. On the different days of the week, the news was followed by a phone-in discussion with listeners, a current affairs report related to the Chinese-Dutch community, legal information and advice, a segment on popular culture, or a dispatch by the Hong Kong and China correspondents (Chow, October 2008, personal communication). Mainstream newspapers at the time described Snelle Berichten as a bridge between the Netherlands and China (den Ambtman, 1998) and as an important source of information, particularly about workers rights (Trouw, 1999). In 1998, the Algemeen Dagblad reported that more than 40 percent of the Chinese-Dutch community listened to Snelle Berichten at least three times per week (den Ambtman, 1998). According to Chow, the audience included first generation immigrants and their children, for whom listening to the programme was a way to improve their Cantonese and to maintain it alive in the Netherlands (Chow, October 2008, personal communication).

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

Awad and Roth

409

It may well be that Snelle Berichten was exceptional in terms of audience success and general recognition. However, no exception was made to keep it on air. Gradually, all six minority programmes were cancelled. First, in 2003, the year of reflection and discussion about the radio group-programmes at the Dutch public broadcaster (NPS, 2003: 32), the broadcaster decided to reduce their frequency to once a week and use the remaining airtime for a new cross-cultural programme in Dutch. The decision led to contrasting reactions. It was welcomed by the participants in a new congress organized by NPS in 2003 (Huygen, 2003). Meanwhile minority producers and audience members opposed the measure. In the case of Snelle Berichten, hundreds of listeners protested in the Hague and some 6000 signed a letter of support (Trouw, 2004).9 Despite the protests, this and the other five targeted programmes were transferred to the Saturday schedule, with 30 minutes of airtime each. They remained like that until they were definitively dismantled in August 2008. In replacement of the group-targeted programmes, the public broadcaster created Dichtbij Nederland [Close to the Netherlands]. This new programme was launched on the radio in September 2008 and was incorporated into public television in January 2009. It was announced as a news programme aimed at a general public, [f]or both new and original [oorspronkelijke] Dutch people, which wants to show how life looks in the countries of origin of all those people who are normally talked about in the media as a problem (Dichtbij Nederland, 2008). Dichtbij Nederlands cross-cultural approach clearly exemplifies the public broadcasters redefinition of its commitment to cultural diversity in the last decades.

The factors shaping cross-cultural programming

The protests in support of Snelle Berichten in 2003 were rather unique. Most changes in Dutch media and minorities policy have triggered only minor disapproval. Indeed, while there is strong criticism against broader immigration and integration policies in the Netherlands, this criticism rarely, if ever, touches questions of media policy. The disassociation of these two sets of changes in media policy, on the one hand, and in immigration and integration policy, on the other rests on a problematic assumption: changes in media policy are presented as the inevitable result of changes in the media industry and in the population. By examining each of these explanations, this section underscores how media and minorities policy is also if not exclusively shaped politically.

Changes in the media industry

The first set of factors that help de-politicize the turn away from minority media in the Netherlands has to do with the growing competition in the European media landscape due to its liberalization and the implementation of new technologies (see Brants and Van Praag, 2006; Van Cuilenburg and McQuail, 2003). Media commercialization and deregulation justify efforts to broaden the audience for multicultural products. To a large extent, this is true for commercial minority media (Da vila, 2001; Rodriguez, 1999; Tsagarousianou, 1999) as much as for public service broadcasters. The latter are increasingly forced to surrender to market imperatives (Dahlgren, 1991) and to compete for

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

410

the International Communication Gazette 73(5)

their audiences with commercial, satellite and cable television and, more recently, the internet. Furthermore, new communication technologies already provide a significant offer of transnational media for minority groups (Leurdijk, 2006). In this context, the efforts of public broadcasters to bring different audiences together may be seen as a matter of necessity. In fact, the 1990s was not only a critical period in the demise of minority-targeted media in the Netherlands. It was also the decade in which commercial television came onto the scene and, with it, an enormous pressure on the public broadcaster. With the audience fragmenting over the different channels, the audience share of the public channels dropped considerably from approximately 80 percent in 1988 to just under 40 percent in 2000 (Bardoel and Brants, 2003: 172). Moreover, in 2003 the year when the daily radio programmes for minority groups became weekly a report by the McKinsey consultancy called for significant cutbacks in the budget of the public channels (EBU, 2003). NPS documentation suggests a direct connection between the McKinsey report and the reduction of airtime (and employees) for the minority-targeted radio programmes (e.g. NPS, 2004a: 7, 36; 2004b: 2; 2007: 15). However, NPSs 2003 annual report makes explicit that, although McKinsey suggested cutbacks, the specific form that these cutbacks would take depended on politics rather than on anything else. The report announces that a new cross-cultural programme would partially take over the time of the minority-group programmes. It then explains:
The McKinsey organization presents plans for far-reaching cutbacks for the entire public broadcasting system. In the meantime, the notion about the integration of minorities changes.10 On the basis of a policy note from the programme director, all editorial staffs engage in a discussion about the future of the own language programmes. By the end of the year, it becomes clear that the change from daily to weekly shows is considered useful and necessary. There is a lively discussion about what these weekly magazines are supposed to cover. (NPS, 2003: 32, emphasis added)

Changes in the minority population

The second transformation that seems to justify a shift away from minority media, while helping de-politicize discussions about media and diversity, is the changing demographics of minority groups. It is clear that discussions about minority groups in the Netherlands today cannot be limited to immigrants, who (prefer to) speak their home language and who may not be fluent in the language of the host society. Second generation immigrants 40 percent in the case of non-western minority groups are not immigrants anymore (Roes, 2008: 2). They were born in the Netherlands, have lived their whole life there, are fluent in Dutch and in some cases do not even speak another language. Thus, it is unreasonable to equate their media needs and preferences with those of their parents. Equally unreasonable, however, is to expect that the media needs and preferences of Dutch-born members of minority groups will be covered by media produced in Morocco, Turkey or elsewhere outside the Netherlands. While the changing nature of minorities media needs may be obvious, it is less obvious what those needs are. Defining them is a political decision rather than the natural consequence of changing demographics. It is a decision tied to certain assumptions about

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

Awad and Roth

411

the medias power in shaping a culturally diverse society and about the specific shape that such a society should take. These assumptions can be observed in the 2006 Cultural Policy Report from the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (2006: 156):
. . . the current Cabinet believes that there is still a serious problem in the cultural landscape namely the phenomenon of separated, independent cultural circuits. The 20052008 period will pay attention to establishing intercultural connections. Accentuating the separate status of multicultural institutions does not contribute to interconnection. Intercultural encounters should be extended to all sectors of the cultural landscape. The Cabinet intends to stimulate innovative intercultural programming, whereby makers from different backgrounds decide themselves in which manner they interconnect and cooperate.

Although there may be significant differences between first and second generation Turkish-, Moroccan-, Suriname- and Antillean-Dutch, the above quote suggests that the ministry is not concerned with those differences as much as with the fact that minority groups still operate as separated or independent communities. The Cultural Policy Report subsequently argues that this serious problem is being addressed in the arts through a number of programmes to support intercultural talent, and in the media through MTNL and FunX.

The relation between media use and integration

Both changes in the media industry and in the minority population converge in research on minorities media use. Research of this kind informs programming decisions because it explores media preferences (what media and programmes are or could be popular?). Likewise it helps media producers understand how those media preferences relate to demographics. More importantly for the purposes of this article, research on minorities media use can articulate key political assumptions about the medias role in the integration of minority groups. One of the largest and most influential studies of minorities media use in the Netherlands was commissioned in 2002 by the Dutch public broadcaster and the Dutch governments information agency (Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst) (Baardwijk et al., 2004). It surveyed people of Chinese, Antillean, Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese descent. Despite methodological problems that set doubts on the reliability and representativity of some of the results, particularly with respect to the Chinese and Antillean sample (Baardwijk et al., 2004: 4), the study is widely cited. It is the only source of information about this issue in the website of the Dutch governments information agency, as well as in the public broadcasters facts and figures online section. Moreover, the study was officially sent to parliament by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science. It was accompanied by a letter that described the studys methodological flaws, but also referred to it as research for internal policy development (Van der Laan, 2004). The main policy implications of this study derive from its conclusions about the relationship between minorities use of media and levels of integration into Dutch society. The study reported that more integrated minorities use Dutch media more than

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

412

the International Communication Gazette 73(5)

those who are less integrated. Furthermore, according to the study, less integrated minorities rely more than other groups on television and newspapers from their motherland (Baardwijk et al., 2004: 64, 135). In order to identify the politics behind these conclusions, it is necessary to examine the underlying conceptualization of cultural identity. The study assumed that cultural identity is a zero-sum game, that is, that a person is less Dutch, the more that person is Moroccan (or Turkish, or Chinese, etc.). Thus cultural identity one of the dimensions used for integration was measured through questions such as: To what extent do you feel Dutch or not? For the most part, do you feel Dutch, half Dutch, a little Dutch or not Dutch?; To what extent do you feel Turkish or not? For the most part, do you feel Turkish, half Turkish, a little Turkish or not Turkish? (In this last question, Turkish would be replaced by Chinese, Moroccan, etc. depending on the persons background) (Baardwijk et al., 2004: 334, 175). In this zero-sum identity game, minority media are assumed to pull minorities back to their motherland, while mainstream media are assumed to bring them closer to Dutch society. Likewise, it is assumed that the more a person uses minority media, the less the person uses mainstream media (and vice versa). This understanding of cultural identity and of cultural identitys relation to media use fits into todays dominant discourse about the integration of cultural minorities in the Netherlands. As explained earlier, the countrys current integration policy presumes an incompatibility between minority group identity and integration into Dutch society. It expects members of minority groups to assimilate into a dominant model of Dutchness in order to accept them as integrated Dutch citizens. As further evidence of this opposition between a normal Dutch identity and minority identities, the 2002 study used a group of native Dutch people as reference group (Baardwijk et al., 2004: 127).11 This reference group provided a measure of normality, against which the answers of respondents from Chinese, Antillean, Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese descent could be compared.

Conclusion
Two of the most important challenges faced by public media in western democracies today are the increasing heterogeneity of their audiences and the ever more pressing forces of media competition. In the Netherlands, both challenges appear to be the main forces behind the recent transformation in media policy from supporting special media for minority groups until the early 1990s to favouring the production of cross-cultural programmes since then. Because cross-cultural programmes are in Dutch and address multiple social groups at the same time, they are expected to attract broader audiences and thus to be more competitive. Furthermore, these programmes are supposed to be particularly attractive for immigrants descendants, people born in the Netherlands, who have lived between cultures all their life. While the effects of the changing conditions of media production and distribution may be undeniable, they can only partially account for the specific ways in which the Dutch public broadcaster has decided to fulfil its diversity obligations and to approach minority groups. By critically examining the discussions surrounding these changes and

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

Awad and Roth

413

by placing them in a broader political context, this article has underscored the links between Dutch media and minorities policy and the countrys official shift from multiculturalism to integration. The result should not be read as a blind defence of the old minority-targeted programmes, but as an invitation to discuss the kind of media and minorities policy that a diverse and democratic society needs. Like other broadcasting products, the minority programmes that appeared in Dutch radio and television between the 1960s and early 1990s could have been improved and would certainly be out-dated today. However, the evidence presented in this article suggests that quality and innovation were not the main goals behind the programmes demise. Since political, rather than inevitable forces play such a key role in Dutch medias official approach towards cultural diversity, it is in the political realm that this approach needs to be discussed. The discussion should take into account existing power inequalities among different constituencies, as well as the medias potential for the democratic inclusion of disempowered social groups. As explained earlier, the media can help create the conditions for a more inclusive public sphere, by facilitating the constitution of minority publics and the dialogue among these publics. In this model of democratic inclusion, the strengthening of minority groups is not at odds with civic participation, but on the contrary, enables it. As important as acknowledging the links between minorities media policy and policies of integration and assimilation, is to understand the ways in which the two sets of policies relate to each other. It would be a mistake to assume that media policies are a mere reflection of broader political debates. Indeed, this article has underscored the specific ways in which political factors interact with other in this case, economic and demographic factors. More importantly, the starting point for the analysis has been that media policy and its concrete translation into media production are important precisely because of their impact on the public sphere. In other words, the new politics of Dutch integration and assimilation is not only articulated in media policy, but it is also reproduced and reinforced through the media products shaped by this policy. Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes
1. All translations from the original Dutch are ours unless stated otherwise. 2. In quoting Scheffer (2000a, 2000b), we rely on translated versions we received from Scheffer himself. 3. See, for example, Paul Scheffers reaction to the killing of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim fundamentalist (cited in De Leeuw and Van Wichelen, 2005: 335): Not so long ago, Amsterdam was the embodiment of Dutch tolerance: a proud capital of a country that saw itself as a symbol of openness. Until now, Amsterdam stood as a positive exception: here, things were different from the rest of the country, here the suspicious people had not yet proclaimed a revolt. And now we have a body lying there with a butcher knife under a white sheet and everybody knows that we have fooled ourselves.

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

414

the International Communication Gazette 73(5)

4. Multiculturalism and integration are equivocal terms both in the academic literature and in popular discourse. Following the Dutch official terminology, we use these terms to identify the two alternative approaches to cultural diversity in the Netherlands in the 1980s1990s (multiculturalism) and since the end of the 1990s (integration). 5. The Dutch population statistic bureau (CBS) distinguishes minority groups on the basis of country of origin. The strictest integration measures affect non-western immigrants. These are people from Turkey, Latin America, Africa and Asia, with the exception of Japan and Indonesia. 6. Further reforms have become even stricter by requiring potential non-western immigrants to pass a Dutch language and culture test in their own countries in order to be eligible to immigrate. 7. These cross-cultural programmes are usually labelled multicultural. We avoid this label in the article. It is confusing to call the new media programming multicultural, since it is at least partly the result of the official retreat of multiculturalism (Joppke, 2004). 8. As part of the planned national redistribution of FM frequencies in 2000, the government decided that local public broadcasters in the four major cities were to receive FM frequencies for minority programming. These frequencies were ultimately awarded to FunX, which led to significant opposition among minority radio producers. 9. The protests in support of Snelle Berichten in 2003 involved members of the Chinese-Dutch community as well as a group of academics from the Department of Communication Science at the University of Amsterdam and from the Institute of Sinological Studies at the University of Leiden. The professors letters of support are available from the authors. 10. The original citation from NPS (2003) does not use the word minorities [minderheden], but allochtonen, which has distinct connotations in Dutch. Officially, allochtonen refers to all immigrants and their children. However, it is mainly used to refer to people of non-western descent. 11. The study by Baardwijk et al. (2004) refers to native Dutch people as autochtonen (autochthonous), which is the opposite of allochtonen (see note 10).

References
Algemeen Dagblad (1995) Stem van Allochtonen Klinkt te Weinig door op Televisie. 21 January, p. 23. Baardwijk C, Dragt E, Peeters A and Vierkant P (2004) Rapport Mediagebruik Etnische Publieksgroepen 2002. Hilversum: Public Service Broadcasting. Available at: pics.portal.omroep.nl/ upnos/ZsfnwlhHwH_Mediagebruik_etnische_publieksgroepen_2002.pdf Baker E (2002) Media, Markets and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bardoel J and Brants K (2003) From ritual to reality: Public broadcasters and social responsibility in the Netherlands. In: Lowe GF and Hujanen T (eds) Broadcasting and Convergence: New Articulations of the Public Service Remit. Go teborg: Nordicom, 169185. Bink S (2002) Tuning into Diversity: STOA - European Report. Available at: www.socsci.kun.nl/ maw/cw/jeanm/Binkdive.PDF Bink S (2006) Nearly 25 Years of Media and Minorities Policy in the Netherlands. Available at: www.equalisnotenough.org/followup/papers/SusanBink.pdf Brants K (2006) Sure to come, but temporarily delayed: The Netherlands in search of the political ad. In: Kaid LL and Holtz-Bacha C (eds) The Sage Handbook of Political Advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 227240.

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

Awad and Roth

415

Brants K and Van Praag P (2006) Signs of media logic: Half a century of political communication in the Netherlands. Javnost The Public 13(1): 2540. Breimer J (1995) Dertig Jaar Minderhedenprogrammas. In: Van der Wal G (ed.) Gemengde Berichten. De Dilemmas van de Omroep in een Plurale Samenleving. Hilversum: NPS, 3540. Carle R (2006) Demise of Dutch multiculturalism. Society 43: 6874. Dahlgren P (1991) Introduction. In: Dahlgren P and Sparks C (eds) Communication and Citizenship. New York: Routledge, 124. Da vila A (2001) Latinos Inc. The Marketing and Making of the People. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. De Leeuw M and Van Wichelen S (2005) Please, go wake up! Submission, Hirsi Ali, and the War on Terror in the Netherlands. Feminist Media Studies 5(3): 325340. Den Ambtman G (1998) Bij de Viagra-Pil Blijft het Stil. Algemeen Dagblad, 4 November, p. 26. De Zwart F and Poppelaars C (2007) Redistribution and ethnic diversity in the Netherlands: Accommodation, denial and replacement. Acta Sociologica 50(4): 387399. Dichtbij Nederland (2008) Welcome bij Dijchtbij Nederland. Available at: www. dichtbijnederland.nl/ EBU (European Broadcasting Union). (2003) NPB: The Road Ahead. Diffusion online 26. Available at: www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/online_26_e_npb_tcm6-4074.pdf Eley G (1992) Nations, publics, and political cultures: Placing Habermas in the nineteenth century. In: Calhoun C (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 289339. Entzinger H (2006) Changing the rules while the game is on: From multiculturalism to assimilation in the Netherlands. In: Bodemann YM and Yurdakul G (eds) Migration, Citizenship, Ethnos: Incorporation Regimes in Germany, Western Europe and North America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 121144. Fekete L (2006) Enlightened fundamentalism? Immigration, feminism and the right. Race and Class 48(2): 122. Fennema M (2004) The concept and measurement of ethnic community. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 30(3): 429447. Fennema M and Tillie J (1999) Political participation and political trust in Amsterdam: Civic communities and ethnic networks. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 25(4): 703726. Fennema M and Tillie J (2006) Social Capital in Multicultural Democratic Society: Structure, Content and Effects. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Fermin A, Kjellstrand S and Entzinger H (2005) Study on Immigration, Integration and Social Cohesion. Final Report. European Commission Employment and Social Affairs DG. Available at: igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/fss/2007-0227-200324/fermin_05_study_on_immigration.pdf Fraser N (1992) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In: Calhoun C (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 109142. FunX. (2009) Kennismaking met FunX. Available at: www.funx.info/pdf/Kennismaking-FunX2009-2010.pdf Geschiere P (2009) The Perils of Belonging: Autochthony, Citizenship, and Exclusion in Africa and Europe. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ghorashi H (2003) Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Daring or dogmatic? Debates on multiculturalism and emancipation in the Netherlands. Focaal: European Journal of Anthropology 42: 163173.

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

416

the International Communication Gazette 73(5)

Gitlin T (1995) The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America is Wracked by Culture Wars. New York: Holt. Gitlin T (1998) Public sphere or public sphericules? In: Liebes T and Curran J (eds) Media, Ritual and Identity. London: Routledge, 168174. Habermas J (1991) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, trans. Burger T and Lawrence F. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Huygen M (2003) Weg met de Kleurenkitsch 2. NRC Handelsblad, 9 May, p. 31. Jacobs RN (2000) Race, Media and the Crisis of Civil Society: From Watts to Rodney King. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Joppke C (2004) The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory and policy. The British Journal of Sociology 55(2): 237257. Joppke C (2007) Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe. West European Politics 30(1): 122. Kofman E (2005) Citizenship, migration and the reassertion of national identity. Citizenship Studies 18(1): 453467. Kraal K (2001) Amsterdam: From group-specific to problem-oriented policy. In: Tillie J (ed.) Multicultural Policies and Modes of Citizenship in European Cities. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1539. Landes JB (1988) Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Leurdijk A (2004) De eerste zwarte talkshow op de Nederlandse televisie. In: Buikema R and Meijer M (eds) Kunsten in Beweging 19802000. The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers, 113133. Leurdijk A (2006) In search of common ground. European Journal of Communication 9(1): 2546. Leurdijk A (2008) Van Marge naar Mainstream. Essay over Mediabeleid en Culturele Diversiteit 19992008. Available at: www.minocw.nl/documenten/10197a.pdf Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. (2006) Cultural Policies in the Netherlands. Available at: www.minocw.nl/documenten/boekman_cult3.pdf Morley D (2000) Home Territories: Media, Mobility and Identity. London: Routledge. MTNL. (2005) Tussentijdse Rapportage 2005. Available at: www.mtnl.nl/sites/mtnl/files/ site29_20050719141749_Tussentijdse_rapportage_Mtnl_2005.pdf NPS. (2003) NPS Jaarverslag 2003. Available at: www.nps.nl/static/download/npsdoc/ npsjaarverslag2003v2.pdf NPS. (2004a) NPS Jaarverslag 2004. Available at: www.nps.nl/static/download/npsdoc/ NPSJaarverslag2004.pdf NPS. (2004b) NPS Sociaal Jaarverslag 2004. Available at: www.nps.nl/static/download/npsdoc/ NPSSocJaarverslag2004.pdf NPS. (2007) Sociaal Jaarverslag 2007. Available at: www.nps.nl/static/download/npsdoc/ sociaaljaarverslag2007.pdf Negt O and Kluge A (1993) Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Riemersma G (1995) Geen getto, maar her en der een kleurtje. De Volkskrant, 25 February Available at: www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2844/Archief/archief/article/detail/384360/1995/02/ 25/Geen-getto-maar-her-en-der-een-kleurtje.dhtml. Rodriguez A (1999) Making Latino News: Race, Language, Class. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

Awad and Roth

417

Roes T (ed.) (2008) Facts and Figures of the Netherlands: Social and Cultural Trends 19952006. The Hague: SCP. Roggeband C and Verloo M (2007) Dutch women are liberated, migrant women are a problem: The evolution of policy frames on gender and migration in the Netherlands, 19952005. Social Policy and Administration 41: 271288. Ryan MP (1992) Gender and public access: Womens politics in nineteenth-century America. In: Calhoun C (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 259288. Scheffer P (2000a) Het Multiculturele Drama. NRC Handelsblad, 29 January. Available at: www.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Multicultureel/scheffer.html Scheffer P (2000b) Het Multiculturele Drama: Een Repliek. NRC Handelsblad, 25 March. Available at: www.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Multicultureel/000325a.html Schlesinger AM (1998) The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. New York: Norton. Scholten P and Holzhacker R (2009) Bonding, bridging and ethnic minorities in the Netherlands: Changing discourses in a changing nation. Nations and Nationalism 15(1): 81100. Schothorst Y and Bronner F (1995) Mediagebruik van Minderheden (onderzoek 19801992). In: Van der Wal G (ed.) Gemengde Berichten. De Dilemmas van de Omroep in een Plurale Samenleving. Hilversum: NPS, 4164. Shadid WA (2006) Public debates over Islam and the awareness of Muslim identity in the Netherlands. European Education 38: 1022. Sleeper J (1999) Should American Journalism Make us American? Cambridge, MA: The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. JFK School of Government, Harvard University. Available at: www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/discussion_ papers/d38_sleeper.pdf Sniderman PM and Hagendoorn L (2007) When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and its Discontents in the Netherlands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Statham P and Koopmans R (2004) Problems of Cohesion? Multiculturalism and Migrants Claims-Making for Group Demands in Britain and the Netherlands. European Political Communication Working Paper Series, 7/04. Available at: www.eurpolcom.eu/exhibits/ paper_7.pdf Trouw (1999) Chinezen Krijgen Les in Poldermodel. Trouw, 24 March, p. 18. Trouw (2004) Chinezen Willen hun Populaire NOS-journaal houden. 29 June, p. 5. Tsagarousianou R (1999) Gone with the market? The development of Asian and Greek-Cypriot community media in Britain. Javnost The Public 6(1): 5570. Uitermark J, Rossi U and Van Houtum H (2005) Reinventing multiculturalism: Urban citizenship and the negotiation of ethnic diversity in Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29(3): 622640. Van Cuilenburg J and McQuail D (2003) Media policy paradigm shifts. European Journal of Communication 18(2): 181207. Van der Laan MC (2004) Brief van de Staatssecretaris van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap. Available at: ikregeer.nl/static/pdf/KST79285.pdf. Van der Ploeg R (1998) Met Noraly Beyer en Arthur in GTST Zijn Media Nog niet Multicultureel. Trouw, 2 October, p. 12. Van der Veer P (2006) Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, and the politics of tolerance in the Netherlands. Public Culture 18(1): 111124.

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013

418

the International Communication Gazette 73(5)

Van der Wal G (ed.) (1995) Gemengde Berichten. De Dilemmas van de Omroep in een Plurale Samenleving. Hilversum: NPS. Van Heelsum A (2005) Political participation and civic community of ethnic minorities in four cities in the Netherlands. Politics 25(1): 1930. Vasta E (2007) From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(5): 713740. Vink MP (2007) Dutch multiculturalism: Beyond the pillarisation myth. Political Studies Review 5(3): 337350. Warner M (2002) Publics and counterpublics. Public Culture 14(1): 4990. Young IM (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Young IM (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at American University Library on May 26, 2013