Fluent Essays

Based on the readings and lectures explain what media ecology is? Based on the readings and lectures explain what political economy of media is? What is the “cultural/media imperialism” tradition? How did the Soviet press system work and what were some of the main goals of Soviet-style socialist television? Based on the course materials (readings, lectures, and screenings) please answer the following questions in an essay format. You can include short citations (i.e. McLuhan, 23) but you do not have to include bibliography. Each of your answers should be in the vicinity of 500 words. Type your answers on a single word document (12 font, single space) and submit it on Canvas. Each question is worth 25 points for a total of 100 points.1 Introduction 1.1. Life, the Universe, and Everything What does it mean to be human? What are the conditions that shape and in- fluence us as a species? How does human communication, consciousness, and culture change over time, and in concert with the changing circumstances in which we find ourselves? What drives human history? What defines the present moment? And what might the future hold for us? Most important of all, as we move forward, how are we to survive as a species? And beyond mere survival, how are we to retain our humanity in the face of changing circumstances that often seem altogether dehumanizing? These are some of the concerns that have attracted scholars to media ecology, and that have animated our conversations, as many of us have been interested in the kinds of questions relating to, as humorist Douglas Adams put it, life, the uni- verse, and everything. Of course, the big questions are not the only questions that have been discussed in media ecology circles. There is ample room for the pursuit of more modest concerns and specific topics, for research regarding a given his- torical moment, or culture or subculture, or text, artifact or technological innova- tion. But even media ecological studies that are relatively narrow in focus can be Introduction Lance Strate - 9781433140051 Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/05/2020 05:37:39PM via Penn State University 2 | Media Ecology: An Approach to Understanding the Human Condition situated in a much broader context that accords them much greater significance than such studies would otherwise enjoy. My aim in writing this book is to provide an introduction to media ecology that will serve both readers who are new to the subject and those who enjoy a great deal of familiarity with it. For several decades I have been called upon repeatedly to answer the question, what is media ecology? My answers over the years have var- ied somewhat, in part depending on the situation and audience, in part because my understanding has grown and evolved, by which I mean that it has deepened rather than changed in any radical manner, and in part because, as the saying goes, it’s complicated. When the question comes up in conversation, I often respond by answering the question with another question, specifically, have you ever heard of Marshall McLuhan? I often follow this up by mentioning McLuhan’s famous aphorism, the medium is the message, which in many ways sums up what is meant by media ecology (a point I will elaborate on in Chapter 3). Often, I will follow up with a question about Neil Postman, and then maybe some other scholars, also adding the caveat that media ecology is not reducible to the work of any one individual. But my main point here is that one of the best ways to answer the question, what is media ecology?, is to instead answer the question, who is media ecology?, that is, whose work does the term media ecology represent? I was given the opportuChapter 1 What (is) political economy of the media? Introduction If there have been times when the political and economic aspects of communication could be neglected by scholars then it is surely not ours. Media industries and practices are being rapidly transformed worldwide. The promises of digitalisation to distribute communication power widely through society and the manner in which such promises are hampered are vitally important issues. Our dependence on communication resources, vividly realised across the keystrokes and connections of daily life, is accompanied by increasing interest and concern in how these resources are organised and controlled. Recognition of the importance of the political and economic organisation (‘political economy’) of media has never been greater.1 There is no definitive beginning but if we take the late 1960s as the start date, critical political economy of communications represents half a century of scholarship. Many of the questions asked by radical scholars in the twentieth century remain salient – questions about control over the media, the impact of commercialisation, public and private media ownership, inequalities and power relations affecting communications. Yet the contexts in which these are asked and answered are characterised by rapid and far-reaching changes. This book has two main aims: first, to introduce and explore key features of the political economy of media and, second, to contribute to debates about the salience, value and direction of critical media studies in the twenty-first century. The political economy of communications describes all forms of enquiry into the political and economic dimensions of communication. This book discusses and promotes such enquiry. Yet a more delimited approach, that of critical political economy, is the main focus of this book. Within the study of media and communications, attention to political and economic dimensions has often been relatively marginal, with greater attention devoted to ‘texts’ and ‘audiences’ than either ‘production’ or the wider contexts in which communication takes place. Critical political economy describes a tradition of analysis that is concerned with how communication arrangements relate to goals of social justice and emancipation. ‘Critical’, then, divides this tradition off from various alternative, often ‘mainstream’, Hardy, J. (2014). Critical political economy of the media : An introduction. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com,_blank) href=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com target=_blank style=cursor: pointer;>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from pitt-ebooks on 2020-08-31 19:16:45. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 4 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . approaches. I take the critical political economy approach to encompass studies that consider political and economic aspects of communications and which are6 SEPTEMBER 11 AND THE STRUCTURAL LIMITATIONS OF US JOURNALISM Robert W. McChesney The questions before us are elementary. What explains the nature of US news media coverage of the political response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States? Is September 11 a defining event for US journalism? We have been roundly told that “September 11 changes everything,” but does it change journalism? I argue that the US press coverage of the political response to the September 11 attacks was exactly what one would expect from looking at historical precedent. September 11 may be changing a lot of things about our world, but with regard to journalism it has merely highlighted the antidemocratic tendencies already in existence. The war against terrorism and the US press coverage The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, for most Americans, were similar in effect to having a massive attack from outer space. Almost entirely ignorant of global politics, devoid of any understanding of the Islamic world, educated primarily by Hollywood movies featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, and Sylvester Stallone, Americans were ideally prepared for a paranoid and hysterical response. Mix in an opportunistic class of politicians and powerful special interests that benefit by militarism, and you have the recipe for much of what transpired thereafter. The immediate consequence of the September 11 attack was for Congress to pass, by a virtually unanimous vote, and with no substantive debate, an act granting President George W. Bush the power to engage in global war against enemies he is free to define with little accountability to Congress. At the same time Congress authorized a sharp increase in military, intelligence, and national security spending. Within a few weeks the United States began its aerial bombings of Afghanistan. In his public statements President Bush was emphatic that the United States was engaged in a global war on terrorism, and that those nations and peoples who did not support the US effort would be regarded as sympathetic to the enemy Zelizer, B., & Allan, S. (Eds.). (2011). Journalism after september 11. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com,_blank) href=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com target=_blank style=cursor: pointer;>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from pensu on 2020-08-31 19:28:12. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . and dealt with accordingly. Insofar as this was a war without borders, that logic would apply domestically as well as abroad. Moreover, this was to be a war with no end in sight, for as long as terrorists lurked the prospect of another deadly attack loomed, and our forces needed to be on guard. Pre-emptive strikes were justified and necessary. The initial name the US government gave for the war, Operation InfiniteChapter 7 Globalisation, media transnationalisation and culture Introduction Critical political economy is closely associated with a critique of imbalances and inequality in the global flow of media and cultural goods. This cultural imperi- alism thesis was advanced by prominent CPE scholars in the 1960s and 1970s. It was challenged and lost ground in the 1980s as various critiques coalesced around a cultural globalisation thesis (Tomlinson 1991, 1999). In the conven- tional version told, crude, neo-Marxist accounts of cultural imposition, American hegemony and ‘one-way’ cultural flows have given way to an appreciation of multidirectional cultural flows. Yet such framing offers a misleading account of the analysis and contribution of critical scholarship: past and present. Both theory and analysis have developed to try to match the ever more complex patterns and implications of media globalisation. Critical political economy is not char- acterised by adherence to formulations of cultural imperialism from the 1970s but rather to exploring problems of power in communications that belie more benign accounts of reciprocation and cultural exchange. Rival perspectives on cultural domination have structured debates on media transnationalisation and so reviewing these serves as a good way into making sense of contemporary analysis. Yet approaching these debates through media and cultural studies literature alone makes it all too easy to disconnect them from their historical and political economic contexts and their relevance to interventions in policy arenas. This chapter seeks to place contemporary debates on globalisation and media in a wider framework, encompassing the geopolitical shifts to neoliberalism and the political challenges to inequalities in media and cultural flows. Rival polarities of cultural imperialism and cultural globalisation still influence debates but, after reassessing their legacy, this chapter goes on to examine divisions (not least amongst radical scholars themselves) between ‘strong’ globalisation theories and those emphasising the continuing importance and influence of the state and ‘national’ media systems. The chapter also assesses current developments in the transnational political economy of media. Hardy, Jonathan. Critical Political Economy of the Media : An Introduction, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/pitt-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1715800. Created from pitt-ebooks on 2020-09-11 06:57:53. C op yr ig ht © 2 01 4. T ay lo r & F ra nc is G ro up . A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . Modernisation theory A loosely affiliated group of scholars in North America promoted an account of social and economic transformation in which the advanced capitalist economies would lead the development of market economies in other nations by non-coercive means. This account assigned a key role to communications and to the diffusion of communicati