Sharp Left Turn for the Media Reform Movement: Toward a Post-Capitalist Democracy

2014 ◽  
Vol 65 (9) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. McChesney
Author(s):  
Simon Dawes ◽  
Des Freedman

In this interview, Des Freedman discusses his work as an activist in the Media Reform movement, as a critic of media policy, and as a theorist of media power. Freedman explains his approach to media power as a material and relational property, distinguishing it from liberal pluralist, cultural studies and political-economic approaches. Discussing media power in the context of the recent BBC charter review process and the earlier Leveson Inquiry into the ethics of the British press, Freedman clarifies his proposal for a research focus on ‘non-decisionmaking’ in the policy field. Ultimately, he explains how guiding principles, programmes of action, and an understanding of the contradictory nature of media power are all necessary to bring about revolutionary reform.


2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Ann Fones-Wolf

Abstract: Historians have paid relatively little attention to labour’s involvement in radio reform in the United States. Unions criticized the poor quality of programming and the lack of public service. They were also concerned about corporate control of radio and particularly about labour’s lack of access. After briefly examining organized labour’s initial efforts to reform radio, this paper focuses on the key role unions played in the postwar media reform movement, which advocated a “listeners’ rights” approach to broadcasting. This concept, along with a commitment to localism, diversity, and community involvement, was among the key ideas championed by media reformers in postwar America. Résumé : Les historiens ont porté peu d’attention à l’implication de la main-d’œuvre dans la réforme de la radio aux États-Unis. Les syndicats à cette époque critiquaient la mauvaise qualité de la programmation et le manque de service au public. Ils se souciaient du contrôle que les entreprises exerçaient sur la radio, particulièrement le manque d’accès à la radio que ce contrôle leur imposait. Cet article, après un bref examen des efforts initiaux de la main-d’œuvre pour réformer la radio, se concentre sur le rôle clé joué par les syndicats dans le mouvement de réforme des médias pendant l’après-guerre ; ceux-ci prônaient une approche de la radiodiffusion qui privilégiait les « droits des auditeurs ». En plus de ce concept, les notions d’engagement vis-à-vis de la localité, la diversité et la participation de la communauté comptaient parmi les idées clés appuyées par les réformateurs des médias dans l’après-guerre aux États-Unis.


2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 767-771 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Nyhan

In Left Turn: How Liberal Bias Distorts The American Mind, Tim Groseclose argues that media effects play a crucial role in American politics. His case rests on three arguments: (1) that journalists tend overwhelmingly to be liberal rather than conservative; (2) that their innate political bias slants their views in empirically measurable ways; and (3) that this bias fundamentally shapes American politics, by bringing US citizens further to the left than they would naturally be. According to Groseclose, in a world where media bias did not exist, American citizens would on average hold views close to those of Ben Stein or Bill O'Reilly. In such a world, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama by a popular vote margin of 56%—42% in the 2008 presidential election.In making these claims, Groseclose draws on his own research, and on recent media scholarship by both political scientists and economists, making the broader claim that peer-reviewed social science—which seeks to deal with problems such as endogeneity and selection bias—should be the starting point for public arguments about the role of the media. His book, then, is clearly an effort to bring social scientific arguments into mainstream debates. Groseclose makes no secret of his conservative political leanings—but recent books from left-leaning political scientists such as Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson are equally unapologetic. It is at least plausible that political scientists' typical unwillingness to engage directly in political arguments has weakened the discipline's capacity for public engagement.In this symposium a diverse group of contributors have been invited to engage with Groseclose's arguments in ways that bring together specific empirical and/or theoretical points and arguments aimed at the broader “political science public sphere” that Perspectives on Politics seeks to nurture. Contributors were asked to consider these five questions: (1): How do we best measure media effects? (2): If media bias exists, what are its plausible sources? (3): Can one use work on media effects to determine what people's views would be in the absence of such bias? (4): Do you agree that American politics is insufficiently representative, and if so what do you consider the primary sources of this problem? (5): What kinds of political and/or media institutions or practices might enhance democratic discourse?—Henry Farrell, Associate Editor


2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 772-774 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nolan McCarty

In Left Turn: How Liberal Bias Distorts The American Mind, Tim Groseclose argues that media effects play a crucial role in American politics. His case rests on three arguments: (1) that journalists tend overwhelmingly to be liberal rather than conservative; (2) that their innate political bias slants their views in empirically measurable ways; and (3) that this bias fundamentally shapes American politics, by bringing US citizens further to the left than they would naturally be. According to Groseclose, in a world where media bias did not exist, American citizens would on average hold views close to those of Ben Stein or Bill O'Reilly. In such a world, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama by a popular vote margin of 56%—42% in the 2008 presidential election.In making these claims, Groseclose draws on his own research, and on recent media scholarship by both political scientists and economists, making the broader claim that peer-reviewed social science—which seeks to deal with problems such as endogeneity and selection bias—should be the starting point for public arguments about the role of the media. His book, then, is clearly an effort to bring social scientific arguments into mainstream debates. Groseclose makes no secret of his conservative political leanings—but recent books from left-leaning political scientists such as Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson are equally unapologetic. It is at least plausible that political scientists' typical unwillingness to engage directly in political arguments has weakened the discipline's capacity for public engagement.In this symposium a diverse group of contributors have been invited to engage with Groseclose's arguments in ways that bring together specific empirical and/or theoretical points and arguments aimed at the broader “political science public sphere” that Perspectives on Politics seeks to nurture. Contributors were asked to consider these five questions: (1): How do we best measure media effects? (2): If media bias exists, what are its plausible sources? (3): Can one use work on media effects to determine what people's views would be in the absence of such bias? (4): Do you agree that American politics is insufficiently representative, and if so what do you consider the primary sources of this problem? (5): What kinds of political and/or media institutions or practices might enhance democratic discourse?—Henry Farrell, Associate Editor


Author(s):  
Janina Islam Abir ◽  
Tanbir Farhad Shamim

Reports by international organizations suggest that physical violence and threats against journalists and bloggers continued with impunity in Bangladesh, resulting in the country being ranked as 146 in the World Press Freedom Index 2018. Considering the increasing incidents of violence against journalists and attacks on media freedom, this chapter specifically aims to shed light on Bangladeshi laws and policies, which are related to media freedom and to protect media from crime against journalists. Relying on Beata Rozumilowicz's concept of media reform and stages of media reform, the study urges that Bangladesh is in under the rule of democratic rule for years that symbolizes the primary transition stage. However, the enactment of statutes on digital media, access to information, defamation, and so on epitomize the pre-transition stage of the media reform concept. Hence, the study questions the legal and media structure of Bangladesh with the historical and document analysis of laws and policies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 775-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin H. Gross ◽  
Cosma Rohilla Shalizi ◽  
Andrew Gelman

In Left Turn: How Liberal Bias Distorts The American Mind, Tim Groseclose argues that media effects play a crucial role in American politics. His case rests on three arguments: (1) that journalists tend overwhelmingly to be liberal rather than conservative; (2) that their innate political bias slants their views in empirically measurable ways; and (3) that this bias fundamentally shapes American politics, by bringing US citizens further to the left than they would naturally be. According to Groseclose, in a world where media bias did not exist, American citizens would on average hold views close to those of Ben Stein or Bill O'Reilly. In such a world, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama by a popular vote margin of 56%—42% in the 2008 presidential election.In making these claims, Groseclose draws on his own research, and on recent media scholarship by both political scientists and economists, making the broader claim that peer-reviewed social science—which seeks to deal with problems such as endogeneity and selection bias—should be the starting point for public arguments about the role of the media. His book, then, is clearly an effort to bring social scientific arguments into mainstream debates. Groseclose makes no secret of his conservative political leanings—but recent books from left-leaning political scientists such as Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson are equally unapologetic. It is at least plausible that political scientists' typical unwillingness to engage directly in political arguments has weakened the discipline's capacity for public engagement.In this symposium a diverse group of contributors have been invited to engage with Groseclose's arguments in ways that bring together specific empirical and/or theoretical points and arguments aimed at the broader “political science public sphere” that Perspectives on Politics seeks to nurture. Contributors were asked to consider these five questions: (1): How do we best measure media effects? (2): If media bias exists, what are its plausible sources? (3): Can one use work on media effects to determine what people's views would be in the absence of such bias? (4): Do you agree that American politics is insufficiently representative, and if so what do you consider the primary sources of this problem? (5): What kinds of political and/or media institutions or practices might enhance democratic discourse?—Henry Farrell, Associate Editor


Author(s):  
Robert Hackett

The Media Democracy Day (MDD) project is an annual event for alternative, independent, and democratic media in Canada. It has approached the project of media reform with a three-pronged ambition: Know the Media, Be the Media, and Change the Media. This year, MDD’s annual conference was held between Nov. 7th and 8th at Vancouver Public Library. For more information about MDD, Please visit http://mediademocracyproject.ca/.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document