Lisa Waller, Tanja Dreher and Kerry McCallum

THE LISTENING KEY: UNLOCKING THE

DEMOCRATIC POTENTIAL OF INDIGENOUS
PARTICIPATORY MEDIA

Abstract
This article explores how a listening approach might address the complex
challenges of researching the relationship between Indigenous participation in
media and mainstream policy-making processes. An overview of contemporary
Indigenous media demonstrates how digital and social media have built on the
vibrant and innovative Indigenous media tradition, and enabled a proliferation
of new Indigenous voices. But do the powerful listen to Indigenous-produced
media, and does this constitute meaningful participation in the political process?
The article distinguishes between participation as involvement in the production
and dissemination of media, and participation as political influence. It argues
that both meanings are crucial for fully realising the potential of Indigenous
participatory media, and contends that a listening approach might offer ways to
research and unlock the democratic potential of Indigenous media participation.

Indigenous participatory media is an exemplary site of participation, advocacy and

activism, as well as creative and innovative uses of media (Forde et al., 2009; Sweet
et al., 2013). It provides an excellent case for rethinking the contested meanings of
participation via the turn to ‘listening’, which offers productive resources to analyse
the opportunities, and the barriers, to full – or ‘maximalist’ – participation in decision-
making (Carpentier, 2011a). Listening broadens the focus on making media participatory
to include patterns of attention and valuing of voice, discursive privilege and refusals
to listen (Dreher, 2009). This article considers Indigenous participatory media and its
potential to challenge and reconfigure the political communication system, which for
so long has run against the grain of democratic involvement of Indigenous Australians
(McCallum et al., 2012).
Definitional work on what ‘participation’ means in the digital age is highly relevant to
our thinking about Indigenous media, and the possibilities and challenges for participation
in policy processes. Drawing on the debates sketched below, we distinguish between
two aspects of participation that are relevant to Indigenous media and Indigenous affairs
policy-making: participation in media production and distribution, and participation in
decision-making. The first – participation in media production and dissemination –
corresponds to the long-standing tradition in citizens’ media scholarship and practice
of participation as ‘taking part’ (Carpentier, 2011a). The second is widely understood
in political communication theory as fundamental to the democratic process (Dobson,
2014; Husband, 1996, 2009; Bickford, 1996). This conceptualisation of participation
aligns with Carpentier’s (2011a) definition of full or ‘maximalist’ participation as an
influence in decision-making. Both minimalist and maximalist approaches are needed

No. 154 — February 2015

57
for understanding the participatory significance of the dynamic and diverse Indigenous
media landscape.
The central question here is how digital and social media might enable more effective
ways of connecting Indigenous voices to institutional democracy. The challenge lies
in the fact that Indigenous people have more media access than ever, but there is a
danger of creating echo chambers if decision-makers do not hear them. The value of
Indigenous media for Indigenous Australians is well established (Forde et al., 2009).
Our concern is with key actors in democratic institutions, including bureaucrats and
mainstream journalists, who we argue have a specific responsibility to listen out for
the voices of those most impacted by their work (McCallum and Waller, 2013).
There are resounding calls to bring listening to the forefront of attention in media
research, practice and policy (Couldry, 2010; Husband, 2009; Penman, 2012). This
turn is particularly important in the context of celebratory claims about the capacity of
digital and social media to ensure increased opportunities for voice. As Burgess (2006)
argues, ‘the question that we ask about “democratic” media participation can no longer
be limited to “who gets to speak?” We must also ask “who is heard, and to what end?”’
The article begins with a discussion of current debates on the definition and
significance of participation, introducing the listening turn as an important theoretical
concept for understanding participation. It then provides a snapshot of Indigenous
participatory media, before problematising the idea that new participatory media forms
are necessarily challenging and reconfiguring mainstream discussion of Indigenous policy.
In conclusion, it considers how a listening approach might offer ways to research and
unlock the democratic potential of Indigenous participatory media.

Theorising participation and listening

The concept of ‘participation’ has come under intense debate in media and cultural
studies in recent years, including in themed editions of the International Journal of
Communication (Andrejevik et al., 2014) and in Cultural Studies (Hay and Couldry,
2010), as well as in the work of Carpentier (2011a, 2011b) and his exchanges with
Jenkins (Jenkins and Carpentier, 2013). These debates reflect concerns that, in the
celebratory rhetoric around the affordances of digital media, ‘participatory culture’
has become an empty signifier used in very superficial ways (Jenkins, in Jenkins and
Carpentier, 2013) and the concept has been over-stretched to the point of becoming
meaningless (Carpentier, 2011a). Kelty (2013: 29) sums up the challenge:
‘Participating’ in Facebook is not the same as participating in a Free Software
project, to say nothing of participating in the democratic governance of a state.
If there are indeed different ‘participatory cultures’ then the work of explaining
their differences must be done by thinking concretely about the practices,
tools, ideologies, and technologies that make them up. Participation is about
power, and, no matter how ‘open’ a platform is, participation will reach a limit
circumscribing power and its distribution.
Carpentier (2011b), Couldry (2010) and others argue for greater engagement with political
theory and the definition of participation as having an influence on decision-making,
in order to develop a normative-critical framework for evaluating the possibilities and
the challenges for participation in the digital age.
Pre-dating the advent of social media and digital communications, scholarship and
practice in community, alternative and citizens’ media has long stressed the importance
of participation in media production for marginalised communities and social movements

Media International Australia

58
(Rodriguez et al., 2014). The May 2002 themed edition of Media International Australia
on Citizens’ Media provided a valuable snapshot of the key concerns in this tradition.
Introducing the collection, Spurgeon said many of the articles ‘are broadly concerned
with the empowering capacities, and limits, of the range of media practices that, in
the Australian context, fall within the category of community broadcasting’ (2002: 5).
This emphasis on the potentially empowering impact of public access to the skills and
resources for media production and dissemination is central to much of the established
scholarship on citizens’ media. Rennie’s analysis of Reclaim the Streets further develops
the theme of citizens’ media as central to participation, which she describes as ‘ shaping
and becoming part of the political process’ (2002: 7).
The advent of digital and social media entails a challenge for the concept of
participation as access to media production and distribution. If the concept of participation
is stretched to include re-tweeting and liking, then it seems that participation is
everywhere – but it may actually count for very little. Jenkins and Carpentier (2013)
pose the crucial question, ‘Participation in what?’ and illustrate the significance with
a reflection on claims that YouTube enables participation:
For starters … the emphasis is on individual self-expression … What kinds of
social-political structure are we joining when we share content on YouTube?
… Participants have no direct voice in governance and do not benefit from the
site’s success except in intangible ways. Ultimately, they have limited power,
collectively or individually. (Jenkins and Carpentier, 2013)
It is in this context that Carpentier has developed his argument for a fuller concept of
participation. He draws on Pateman’s (1970) argument that the conditions for participation
required ‘influence or (even) equal power relations in decision-making processes’
(Carpentier, 2011b: 14). He also engages with Arnstein’s ‘ladder of participation’ metaphor
(1969), which develops a schema to distinguish between manipulation (disguised as
participation) at one extreme, and full citizen control at the top of the ladder. In doing
so, Carpentier (2011b) identifies ‘minimalist’ and ‘maximalist’ versions of participation.
He calls for more careful differentiation of ‘participatory intensities’ and reserves the
term ‘full participation’ for ‘the equal position of all actors in a decision-making process’
(Jenkins and Carpentier 2013). This is a deliberately normative, and even utopian,
ideal, which insists that we foreground relations of power in our understandings of
participation, and work towards participatory processes that more evenly share power
and resources (Kelty, 2013; Dobson, 2014). The turn to ‘listening’ in media studies
and political theory offers productive resources to analyse the opportunities and the
barriers to full, or maximalist, participation in decision-making.
A focus on the politics, practices and ethics of ‘listening’ is beginning to reframe
research on media and democracy (O’Donnell et al., 2009). In contrast to what Crawford
points out is a libertarian version of democracy firmly rooted in a politics of expression
(2009), Lloyd (2009) argues that the listening alternative shifts focus to a politics of
impression. While the concept of ‘voice’ connects neatly with an understanding of
participation as taking part in media production, the concept of ‘listening’ more effectively
brings interlocutors in democratic communication and decision-making into analysis.
Voice is undoubtedly a crucial capacity but a voice that is not heard or recognised
cannot fully achieve the promise of democratic participation (Couldry, 2010; Dobson,
2014). Coleman (in Dobson, 2014) says failure to listen is a powerful means of
closing down voices. Couldry (2010) says that while contemporary democracies offer
proliferating opportunities for voice, there is little attention paid to the necessity of that

No. 154 — February 2015

59
voice being heard. This can result in a ‘recognition crisis’ when ‘a system that provides
formal voice for its citizens but fails so markedly to listen exhibits a crisis of political
voice’ (Couldry, 2010: 101). Research on the mainstream media’s ability to engage with
Indigenous people shows they are for the most part ‘voices in the wilderness’ (Meadows,
2001), due to the limited opportunities afforded for their participation (Waller, 2013).
Participatory media forms offer more hope, and the concept of listening provides ways
of seeing whether new media forms can enable improved participation in mainstream
public spheres where decisions are made.

The Indigenous media sphere

We have taken the first definition of participation – participating in media production
– as a cue to examine media produced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples. The resulting snapshot confirms the sector is mature, prolific, uncertain and
evolving, at times working to redefine what is even meant by media (Michaels, 1986;
Rennie and Featherstone, 2008). It is also increasingly accessible, both for Indigenous
participation and mainstream interaction. Diversity and differences of purpose, as
well as uncertainty, are part of its essence, offering space for difference of opinion
and delivery. This profile of the sector is necessarily a work in progress, reflecting its
dynamic nature. Importantly, the information we have encountered on the histories and
aims of a wide range of Indigenous media outlets confirms the pivotal role they play as
conduits of community information; in Indigenous activism; as mechanisms for debate
and development of public opinion; in language-sharing; and as tools of resilience and
education – all of which have long been recognised (Hartley and McKee, 1996, 2000;
Forde et al., 2009). We make no claim to having generated an exhaustive listing of
the hundreds of organisations, services and content providers. Space has not allowed
us to include film, theatre, art, or the numerous associations that play a crucial role
representing the sector, which would be vital to a comprehensive analysis (Miller et
al., 2002). However, this scoping exercise does provide a picture of the rich history,
proliferation and variety within Australia’s Indigenous media sphere.
Broadcasting
There is one national, state-sponsored television station (NITV), a commercial satellite
licensee (Imparja), a community satellite TV network (ICTV) and three terrestrial open
narrowcasting services (GTV in Broome, Ngarda TV in Roeburn and Larrakia TV in
Darwin). An online initiative, Indigitube (run by ICTV), collects remote community
content and makes it accessible on the web for free. NITV’s move in 2012 from a pay
TV subscription service to a free-to-air broadcaster marks a decisive moment in which
Indigenous voices and stories from across the country – and the world – have become
readily available in the Australian media landscape. Rennie (2013) notes the internal
questioning and debate about NITV, as well as the sometime uneasy relationships within
the sector, arguing that it is not ‘a coherent and independent whole’ (2013: 93). At the
far end of the spectrum from NITV is locally produced Indigenous community radio.
This vibrant and innovative community tradition is reflected by the history and reach
of well-established community-owned organisations such as Brisbane-based National
Indigenous Radio Service Limited (NIRS), which delivers four radio channels of
content produced by Indigenous broadcasting services across Australia. In remote areas,
the Broadcasting for Remote Aboriginal Communities Scheme (BRACS) has given
Indigenous communities access to and control of their own media since 1987, despite

Media International Australia

60
a number of setbacks (IRCA, 2015). In urban areas, content produced by Indigenous
media groups is broadcast via regional ABC radio or community radio stations.
Print media
There is also a long, proud and continuing Indigenous print media tradition. There is
not sufficient space here to chart this history, but scholars including Rose (1996) and
Burrows (2010, 2014) have traced the roles of Indigenous newspapers, and concluded
that these publications have not only ‘kept communities informed about Indigenous
organisations and perspectives on various issues, but have also been tools of resistance,
empowerment and motivation’ (Burrows, 2010: 37). Land Rights News, first printed in
1976, is Australia’s longest-running Aboriginal newspaper. It breaks news across the
Northern Territory and provides a platform for a wide range of Indigenous political
commentary. Published fortnightly since 1991, the Koori Mail is distributed Australia-
wide, providing news, views and advertisements to Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians interested in Indigenous affairs. The National Indigenous Times began
publishing fortnightly in 2002 and went weekly in 2011. It focuses on politics, and
part of its content is reprinted from mainstream media. There are some other notable
print publications, including Deadly Vibe, a national magazine with a circulation of
47,000 each month.
Digital and online
Indigenous activity in the digital space appears to be largely uncharted (Lumby/Carlson,
2011). However, it is clear that the internet has enabled Indigenous people to participate
more vigorously than ever before in forms of ‘mainstream’ media, especially social
media such as Twitter and Facebook (Sweet et al., 2013). Sites such as the Koori
History website (www.kooriweb.org), which dates back to 1994, not only amplify broad
Indigenous concerns, but also enable diverse and dissenting Indigenous voices – which,
as Indigenous blogger Celeste Liddle (2014) argues, is crucial for a healthy democracy.
The enthusiasm for new media technologies is no surprise, given the long history
of Indigenous media innovation and adapting media to culture (Michaels, 1986; Batty,
1993). In addition, the commercial, distribution and aesthetic parameters of internet-
based media are still relatively flexible, offering a field for renegotiation of Indigenous
representation. At the organisational level, many major Indigenous institutions are active
online. Some provide specialised digital news and information sources. For example,
the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) runs
a daily online health news service (www.naccho.org.au), produces the newspaper
NACCHO News and uses social media to publish, circulate and connect with others
interested in Indigenous health-related news.
There are now scores of Indigenous multimedia hubs celebrating music, language
and culture across the country, from Ngaanyatjarra Media in the Western Desert of
Western Australia to Gadigal Information Service’s Kooris in Space, based in Sydney’s
CBD. They share the aim of creating greater appreciation and understanding of
Indigenous cultures and provide opportunities for self-representation through uploading
stories, sounds and images. Other exciting developments include Indigenous digital
media innovators aggregating Web 2.0 content in projects such as @Indigenous X
and Deadly Bloggers, a network that operates across the internet and social media. Its
founder, Leesa Wattego, says it feels good to have a place to ‘speak in my own voice’
and provide a media platform for all Indigenous people who want to use the space
(http://deadlybloggers.com). Others share this goal. Just a hashtag away in the
Twittersphere, @IndigenousX has attracted a strong national following of those willing

No. 154 — February 2015

61
to listen out for Indigenous voices (Sweet et al., 2013). Founded by activist Luke
Pearson, @IndigenousX is a rotating Twitter account that features a different Indigenous
commentator on a new topic each week. It is an example of user-driven innovation
and of how Indigenous voices are emerging strongly in the rapidly evolving digital
landscape. Pearson’s foundational aim was to share the platform he had established
on Twitter for storytelling to an attentive audience. Sweet et al. (2013) argue that its
effectiveness now ranges from it providing the means to ‘both scale and tear down
barriers to participation’ (2013: 108) to fostering cultural emotional and social well-
being, as a journalistic innovation and a community development intervention.

To what extent does the mainstream listen?

The value of Indigenous media for Indigenous Australians is well established and
understood to have a wide range of benefits, as demonstrated above. But the attention
and value afforded to Indigenous participatory media in the contemporary, mainstream
public sphere has yet to be adequately understood, and its potential has not been explored
empirically. The Media and Indigenous Policy project (McCallum, 2012) found that
decision-makers in the field of Indigenous policy had become increasingly dependent
on media in their policy-making practices. Despite the availability of non-mainstream
Indigenous media, senior policy experts were found to be closely attuned to a narrow
range of mainstream media, and to listen to the voices of only a few prominent Indigenous
leaders. The policy agendas of these spokespeople typically aligned closely with, and
were frequently amplified through, influential mainstream news media outlets such as
Rupert Murdoch’s Australian; they tended to reflect the conservative ideological focus
of recent governments on Indigenous affairs (McCallum and Waller, 2013). McCallum
and Waller (2013) concluded that this had significant implications for the range and
quality of policy options considered and implemented by government over the 20-year
period of their study. Yet the role of Indigenous participatory media in mediatised policy
processes has not been a focus of research until now, nor have the uses and impacts of
digital and social media been explored in any detail in relation to Indigenous policy.
Scholars have theorised the links between Indigenous public spheres and mainstream
public and policy discussion (Hartley and McKee, 2000; Avison and Meadows, 2000;
Waller and McCallum, 2014). Forde et al. (2009) say that Indigenous media contribute
to the idea of active citizenry and enhance the democratic process. They describe
Indigenous media as a ‘cultural bridge’, via which citizens can engage in collective
efforts to bring their issues to the dominant public sphere and influence policy decisions
through the weight of public opinion. Sweet et al. (2013) make the same kinds of
arguments about the ways politically active Indigenous people are using social media
forms, including Twitter, as mechanisms to communicate, and to encourage political
participation and vigorous debate, both inside and outside Indigenous public spheres:
The @IndigenousX Twitter project illustrates how digital innovation is helping to
amplify the concerns, interests and conversations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples, and is also creating new channels for engagement and exchange
between Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. (Sweet et al., 2013: 105)
The Media and Indigenous Policy project found that when mainstream media listened
to Indigenous people, their points of view did have an impact – on both public and
policy discussion, and policy outcomes (McCallum et al., 2012). Indigenous media
workers expressed an understanding of the role their news played in bringing stories

Media International Australia

62
that would otherwise go untold to the attention of the mainstream. One former editor
of an Indigenous newspaper emphasised this process of amplification:
We would use the [mainstream] media to break a story, knowing full well if we
broke a great story it would make a heap of difference. Because if the mainstream
media didn’t pick it up, the government wouldn’t … we knew that from day
one, that to get change it had to go nationally, if you like, or it had to get a
big run in the [mainstream] media because politicians are so easily influenced
by what the media say. (McCallum et al., 2012: 108)
This insight suggests policy-makers rely on mainstream journalists to act as filters and
prompts, directing their attention to the Indigenous public sphere when these powerful
media brokers think it appropriate. It raises this question: Does the same kind of attention
determine, to some degree, the mainstream impact of innovative digital Indigenous
media projects? @IndigenousX has the imprimatur of a revered and global mainstream
news outlet: The Guardian. Other new Indigenous voices in digital media are also being
sponsored and promoted by non-Indigenous media outlets, including online news site
Crikey. Those in the Indigenous blogosphere and social media are excited about such
collaborations for amplifying Indigenous concerns (e.g. see Pearson, 2014; Liddle, 2014;
thekooriwoman, 2014). They see significant opportunities for speaking up and having
a voice, but the question remains of how much these new participatory media forms
are challenging and reconfiguring listening on the part of the powerful. Take-up by
outlets such as The Guardian can be thought of in terms of amplification, in a process
whereby Indigenous voice expressed via participatory media can be relayed into more
mainstream public spheres. This provides some evidence of tuning in on the part of
those with a responsibility to listen to Indigenous voices, but does that listening process
go far enough? What does listening on the part of decision-makers in the digital age
involve, in terms of culture, technology and politics?

Conclusion
This final section draws together the evidence from our research on the contemporary
Indigenous media sphere to identify the key questions, next steps and way forward for
future research on the democratic potential of Indigenous participatory media.
We have identified ‘participation’ as a concept open to multiple definitions, with at
least two important definitional aspects in this context (Carpentier, 2011a, 2011b). The
minimalist definition of participation is highly significant for Indigenous participatory
media research, as it allows us to recognise the proliferation and benefits of exciting
and innovative Indigenous media practice. Our snapshot of the contemporary Indigenous
media sphere also suggests the wealth of news, views and opinions with which decision-
makers can engage. The maximalist definition – participation as ‘influence’ or (even) equal
power relations in decision-making processes – shifts the focus from what Indigenous
people do with media to consider the attention and responses of decision-makers and
democratic institutions. This is particularly significant in what has been identified as
an increasingly mediatised policy-making context (McCallum, 2012).
The turn to listening puts the onus on opinion leaders and policy-makers to access
the interests and claims of communities that have been marginalised. In the age of
digital media, the diversity of Indigenous voices easily accessible via participatory
media forms continues to increase. Where the broadcast era was characterised by
information scarcity, the digital environment opens up the possibilities and challenges
of media abundance, raising a range of key questions about listening. This focus on

No. 154 — February 2015

63
the responsibilities of the powerful demands that they afford Indigenous participatory
media the same sorts of attention they pay the voices and positions amplified by the
mainstream media.
The turn to ‘listening’ in media studies and political theory provides productive
resources for acknowledging the importance of participation in media production,
as well as in analysis of the opportunities, and the barriers, to full or maximalist
participation in decision-making. Can listening therefore be understood as the practice
that completes the circuit of participation? That can ensure ‘effective’ participation
in decision-making through bolstering the ‘other side’ of communication – where
participation is understood as influence in decision-making (Carpentier, 2011a)? We
contend that greater attention to those listening challenges can help researchers and
practitioners in the field of Indigenous policy-making to question and reconfigure the
political communication system, which for so long has run against the grain of full
democratic involvement of Indigenous Australians.
An important and difficult task is to develop a nuanced account of listening
responsibilities – from who they might apply to how they might be practised. The
political listening practices of journalists and policy-makers, among others, are significant
in that they can foster improved communications between Indigenous communities
and mainstream institutions of government and media. This creates possibilities for
negotiation, and for developing collaborative responses to stories and the issues and
claims they raise (Thill, 2009). Most importantly, the valuing of Indigenous stories as
legitimate and worthy of attention is a crucial form of recognition (Fraser and Honneth,
2003), one that is central to social well-being and political participation (Dreher, 2012).
The challenge, therefore, is for key democratic institutions and decision-makers to
engage with the proliferation of Indigenous voices enabled by participatory media.

References
Andrejevic, M., Banks, J., Campbell, J.E., Couldry, N., Fish, A., Hearn, A. and Ouellette, L.
2014, ‘Participations: Dialogues on the Participatory Promise of Contemporary Culture and
Politics’, International Journal of Communication, no. 8, pp. 1089–1106.
Arnstein, S.R. 1969, ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 216–24.
Avison, S. and Meadows, M. 2000, ‘Speaking and Hearing: Aboriginal Newspapers and the Public
Sphere in Canada and Australia’, Canadian Journal of Communication, no. 25, pp. 347–66.
Batty, P. 1993, ‘Singing the Electric: Aboriginal Television in Australia’, in T. Dowmunt (ed.),
Channels of Resistance: Global Television and Local Empowerment, British Film Institute,
London, pp. 106–25.
Bickford, S. 1996, The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict and Citizenship, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Burgess, J. 2006, ‘Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital
Storytelling’, Continuum, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 201–14.
Burrows, E. 2010, ‘Tools of Resistance: The Roles of Two Indigenous Newspapers in Building
an Indigenous Public Sphere’, Australian Journalism Review, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 33–46.
—— 2014, ‘Resisting Oppression: The Use of Aboriginal Writing to Influence Public Opinion
and Public Policy in Van Diemen’s Land from 1836–1847’, Media History, vol. 20, no. 3,
pp. 221–38.
Carpentier, N. 2011a, Media and Participation: A Site of Ideological Struggle, Intellect, Bristol.
—— 2011b, ‘The Concept of Participation: If They Have Access and Interact, Do They Really
Participate?’ CM-časopis za upravljanje komuniciranjem, vol. 6, no. 21, pp. 13–36.
Couldry, N. 2010, Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics After Neoliberalism, Sage, London.

Media International Australia

64
Couldry, N. and Jenkins, H. 2014, ‘Participations: Dialogues on the Participatory Promise of
Contemporary Culture and Politics: Introduction’, International Journal of Communication,
no. 8, pp. 1107–12.
Crawford, K. 2009, ‘Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media’, Continuum,
vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 525–35.
Dobson, A. 2014, Listening for Democracy: Recognition, Representation, Reconciliation, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Dreher, T. 2009, ‘Listening Across Difference: Media and Multiculturalism Beyond the Politics
of Voice’, Continuum, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 445–58.
—— 2012, ‘A Partial Promise of Voice: Digital Storytelling and the Limit of Listening’, Media
International Australia, no. 142, pp. 157–66.
Fraser, N. and Honneth, A. 2003, Redistribution or Recognition: A Political–Philosophical
Exchange, Verso, London.
Husband, C. 1996, ‘The Right to Be Understood: Conceiving the Multi-ethnic Public Sphere’,
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 205–15.
—— 2009, ‘Between Listening and Understanding’, Continuum, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 441–3.
Hartley, J. and McKee, A. (eds) 1996, Telling Both Stories: Indigenous Australia and the Media,
Arts Enterprise, Edith Cowan University, Perth.
—— 2000, The Indigenous Public Sphere, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hay, J. and Couldry, N. 2011, ‘Rethinking Convergence/Culture: An Introduction’, Cultural
Studies, vol. 25, nos 4–5, pp. 473–86.
Indigenous Remote Communications Association (IRCA) 2015, ‘IRCA History’, www.irca.net.
au/about-irca/history.
Jenkins, H. and Carpentier, N. 2013, ‘Theorizing Participatory Intensities: A Conversation About
Participation and Politics’, Convergence, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 265–86.
Kelty, C.M. 2012, ‘From Participation to Power’, in A. Delwiche and J. Henderson (eds), The
Participatory Cultures Handbook, Routledge, New York, pp. 22–31.
Liddle, C. 2014, ‘On Diverse Views of Constitutional Recognition’, Rantings of an Aboriginal
Feminist, blackfeministranter.blogspot.com.au.
Lloyd, J. 2009, ‘The Listening Cure’, Continuum, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 477–87.
Lumby/Carlson, B. 2011, ‘Cyber-Indigeneity: Urban Indigenous Identity on Facebook’, Australian
Journal of Indigenous Education, 39 (Supplement), pp. 68–75.
McCallum, K. (ed.) 2012, The Media and Indigenous Policy: How News Media Reporting and
Mediatized Practice Impact on Indigenous Policy, University of Canberra, Canberra.
McCallum, K. and Waller, L. 2013, ‘Media Interventions in Indigenous Policy-making’, Media
International Australia, no. 149, pp. 139–49.
McCallum, K., Waller, L. and Meadows, M. 2012, ‘Raising the Volume: Indigenous Voices in
News Media and Policy’, Media International Australia, no. 142, pp. 101–11.
Meadows, M. 2001, Voices in the Wilderness: Images of Aboriginal People in the Australian
Media. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
Forde, S., Foxwell, K. and Meadows, M. 2009, Developing Dialogues: Indigenous and Ethnic
Community Broadcasting in Australia, Intellect, Bristol.
Michaels, E. 1986, The Aboriginal Invention of Television, AIATSIS, Canberra.
Miller, S. with Blacklock, F. and Wilson-Miller, J. 2002, Bayugul: Contemporary Indigenous
Communication, Powerhouse Publishing, Sydney.
O’Donnell, P., Lloyd, J. and Dreher, T. 2009, ‘Listening, Path-building and Continuations:
A Research Agenda for the Analysis of Listening’, Continuum, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 423–39.
Pateman, C. 1970, Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pearson, L. 2014, IndigenousX: Showcasing and Celebrating Indigenous Diversity,
IndigenousX.com.au.
Penman, R. 2012, ‘On Taking Communication Seriously’, Australian Journal of Communication,
vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 41–63.
Rennie, E. 2002, ‘The Other Road to Media Citizenship’, Media International Australia, no. 103,
pp. 7–13.

No. 154 — February 2015

65
—— 2013, ‘Unintended Consequences: Satellite Policy and Indigenous Television’, Media
International Australia, no. 149, pp. 92–103.
Rennie, E. and Featherstone, D. 2008, ‘The Potential Diversity of Things We Call TV: Indigenous
Community Television, Self-determination and NITV’, Media International Australia,
no. 129, pp. 52–66.
Rodriguez, C., Ferron, B. and Shamas, K. 2014, ‘Four Challenges in the Field of Alternative,
Radical and Citizens’ Media Research’, Media, Culture and Society, 35, pp. 150–66.
Rose, M. 1996, For the Record: 160 Years of Aboriginal Print Journalism, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Spurgeon, C. 2002, ‘Introduction: Citizens’ Media’, Media International Australia, no. 103, pp. 5–6.
Sweet, M., Pearson, L. and Dudgeon, P. 2013, ‘@IndigenousX: A Case Study of Community-led
Innovation in Digital Media’, Media International Australia, no. 149, pp. 104–11.
thekooriwoman 2014, thekooriwoman: Gomeroi. This is MY truth, thedooriwoman.wordpress.com.
Thill, C. 2009, ‘Courageous Listening, Responsibility for the Other and the Northern Territory
Intervention’, Continuum, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 537–48.
Waller, L. 2013, ‘It Comes with the Territory: Remote Indigenous Reporting for Mainstream
Australia’, Australian Journalism Monographs, no. 14, pp. 5–38.
Waller, L. and McCallum, K. 2014, ‘Don’t Cut Off Our Tongues: Yolngu Voices in News Media
and Policymaking’, Communication, Politics and Culture, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 18–31.
Wattego, L. 2013, ‘I Found My Voice: Indigenous Narratives Enduring Through Digital
Participation’, presentation to First Nations Australian Writers Workshop, Brisbane,
www.slideshare.net/leesawatego/deadly-bloggers-wipce-presentation.

Lisa Waller is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Communication and Creative Arts, Deakin
University.

Tanja Dreher is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer in the School
of Social Sciences, Media and Communication, University of Wollongong.

Kerry McCallum is an Associate Professor and Senior Research Fellow in the News and Media
Research Centre, University of Canberra.

Media International Australia

66