Assessing Media Democracy
There was a time when democracy was directly linked to one's possibility of influencing political decision making. One person was equal to one vote or one voice. Although the spirit of this initial understanding still lingers, democracy is now regarded as a more complex concept, and represents...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Canadian journal of communication 2014-01, Vol.39 (1), p.145-148 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 148 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 145 |
container_title | Canadian journal of communication |
container_volume | 39 |
creator | Bonin, Geneviève A. |
description | There was a time when democracy was directly linked to one's possibility of influencing political decision making. One person was equal to one vote or one voice. Although the spirit of this initial understanding still lingers, democracy is now regarded as a more complex concept, and represents a variety of elements such as a system, a state, a mechanism of control, as well as a series of principles and practices, as is made evident through any modem dictionary's definition of the word. Oxford Dictionaries, for example, defines democracy as "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives," "a state governed under a system of democracy," or the "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members," or "the practice or principles of social equality" (www.oxforddictionaries.com). Some of [Robert McChesney]'s ideas are echoed in Media, Structures, and Power: The Robert E. Babe Collection ([Edward A. Comor], 2011), which provides several arguments that aspire to free "information" from being understood and priced as a commodity. Babe also alludes to [Harold Innis]'s work quite frequently in making a case for "scholars like [Robert] McChesney, [Noam] Chomsky, and [Edward] Herman" to include "a nuanced historical interleaving of technological/media change, shifts in political economic power, changes in culture, media messages, and monopolies of knowledge" (Comor, 2011, p. 227) to their critiques of the press. This comment was made in more recent Babe work, which focuses on Canadian communication thought. It would seem, however, that because McChesney may not have used Innis' vocabulary, particularly the expression "monopolies of knowl- edge," that he has omitted these ideas. Whether or not he formally acknowledges Innis' terminology (he does cite him, by the way), his new book, Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy (2013), is definitely an attempt at consciously or unconsciously reconciling many of these issues. For example, he discusses how various important centres such as the military and corporate entities as well as political pressures have made the Internet what it is today. As part of McChesney's argument, he also makes reference to the importance of free and independent journalism as a factor for ensuring democratic practices. He even suggests that "true free-market capitalism would even benefit from a strong press system" |
doi_str_mv | 10.22230/cjc.2014v39n1a2763 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1514238683</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3270935451</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c157t-dc6095fde159b8250c4dd28c496024a5fd427c74a35ebe4f04c8485c0263ae0b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkE1Lw0AURQdRMFZ_gLgpuE598-bNR5alWhUqbnQ9TF4mkmCbOtMK_fcG68bVXdzDvXCEuJEwQ0QFd9zzDEHSt6o2MqA16kQUkqqqNIbwVBRgQZfKaHsuLnLuAYCMdYW4nuccc-42H9OX2HRheh_XA6fAh0tx1obPHK_-ciLelw9vi6dy9fr4vJivSpba7sqGDVS6baLUVe1QA1PToGOqDCCFsSG0bCkoHetILRA7cpoBjQoRajURt8fdbRq-9jHvfD_s02a89FJLQuWMUyOljhSnIecUW79N3Tqkg5fgfx340YH_70D9AMlkTmo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1514238683</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing Media Democracy</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Bonin, Geneviève A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bonin, Geneviève A.</creatorcontrib><description>There was a time when democracy was directly linked to one's possibility of influencing political decision making. One person was equal to one vote or one voice. Although the spirit of this initial understanding still lingers, democracy is now regarded as a more complex concept, and represents a variety of elements such as a system, a state, a mechanism of control, as well as a series of principles and practices, as is made evident through any modem dictionary's definition of the word. Oxford Dictionaries, for example, defines democracy as "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives," "a state governed under a system of democracy," or the "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members," or "the practice or principles of social equality" (www.oxforddictionaries.com). Some of [Robert McChesney]'s ideas are echoed in Media, Structures, and Power: The Robert E. Babe Collection ([Edward A. Comor], 2011), which provides several arguments that aspire to free "information" from being understood and priced as a commodity. Babe also alludes to [Harold Innis]'s work quite frequently in making a case for "scholars like [Robert] McChesney, [Noam] Chomsky, and [Edward] Herman" to include "a nuanced historical interleaving of technological/media change, shifts in political economic power, changes in culture, media messages, and monopolies of knowledge" (Comor, 2011, p. 227) to their critiques of the press. This comment was made in more recent Babe work, which focuses on Canadian communication thought. It would seem, however, that because McChesney may not have used Innis' vocabulary, particularly the expression "monopolies of knowl- edge," that he has omitted these ideas. Whether or not he formally acknowledges Innis' terminology (he does cite him, by the way), his new book, Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy (2013), is definitely an attempt at consciously or unconsciously reconciling many of these issues. For example, he discusses how various important centres such as the military and corporate entities as well as political pressures have made the Internet what it is today. As part of McChesney's argument, he also makes reference to the importance of free and independent journalism as a factor for ensuring democratic practices. He even suggests that "true free-market capitalism would even benefit from a strong press system" (p. 215). In this respect he makes reference to several journalism and democracy indexes, such as the "Reporters Without Borders Annual World Press Freedom Index" and the "Freedom House Democracy Index," which also recognizes the presence of an independent press. It is in reference to this interest in democracy and journalism that his work ties in to that of Trappei, [Nieminen], and Nord (2011) who published The Media for Democracy Monitor: A Cross National Study of Leading News Media, a compendium of results from an empirical study of democracy in various European countries (Austria, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), as well as Australia. It proposes a toolkit for monitoring advanced democracies using criteria that the authors believe are essential to the study of democratic reasoning: freedom, equality, and control. Each of these elements is then assessed by relevant indicators that are in turn "graded" for each country. According to the authors, their evaluation tool was needed given that other known monitoring initiatives were either unsustainable or volatile. As they suggest, these initiatives are run by "civil-society-based observation desks with little or no social-science background (watch blogs) or they do not cover mature democracies (IREX) or they scrutinize just one country (PEJ)" (Nieminen, Nord, & Trappei, 2011, pp. 21-22).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0705-3657</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1499-6642</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.22230/cjc.2014v39n1a2763</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Toronto: University of Toronto Press</publisher><subject>Blogs ; Capitalism ; Comor, Edward A ; Control systems ; Decision making ; Democracy ; Desks ; Dictionaries ; Freedom of the press ; Internet ; Journalism ; Mass media ; McChesney, Robert W ; Monitoring ; Monopolies ; News media ; Nieminen, Hannu ; Nonfiction ; Nord, Lars ; Politics ; Principles ; Reasoning ; Terminology ; Trappel, Josef ; Voice communication</subject><ispartof>Canadian journal of communication, 2014-01, Vol.39 (1), p.145-148</ispartof><rights>Copyright Canadian Journal of Communications Corporation 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>313,314,780,784,792,27922,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bonin, Geneviève A.</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing Media Democracy</title><title>Canadian journal of communication</title><description>There was a time when democracy was directly linked to one's possibility of influencing political decision making. One person was equal to one vote or one voice. Although the spirit of this initial understanding still lingers, democracy is now regarded as a more complex concept, and represents a variety of elements such as a system, a state, a mechanism of control, as well as a series of principles and practices, as is made evident through any modem dictionary's definition of the word. Oxford Dictionaries, for example, defines democracy as "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives," "a state governed under a system of democracy," or the "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members," or "the practice or principles of social equality" (www.oxforddictionaries.com). Some of [Robert McChesney]'s ideas are echoed in Media, Structures, and Power: The Robert E. Babe Collection ([Edward A. Comor], 2011), which provides several arguments that aspire to free "information" from being understood and priced as a commodity. Babe also alludes to [Harold Innis]'s work quite frequently in making a case for "scholars like [Robert] McChesney, [Noam] Chomsky, and [Edward] Herman" to include "a nuanced historical interleaving of technological/media change, shifts in political economic power, changes in culture, media messages, and monopolies of knowledge" (Comor, 2011, p. 227) to their critiques of the press. This comment was made in more recent Babe work, which focuses on Canadian communication thought. It would seem, however, that because McChesney may not have used Innis' vocabulary, particularly the expression "monopolies of knowl- edge," that he has omitted these ideas. Whether or not he formally acknowledges Innis' terminology (he does cite him, by the way), his new book, Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy (2013), is definitely an attempt at consciously or unconsciously reconciling many of these issues. For example, he discusses how various important centres such as the military and corporate entities as well as political pressures have made the Internet what it is today. As part of McChesney's argument, he also makes reference to the importance of free and independent journalism as a factor for ensuring democratic practices. He even suggests that "true free-market capitalism would even benefit from a strong press system" (p. 215). In this respect he makes reference to several journalism and democracy indexes, such as the "Reporters Without Borders Annual World Press Freedom Index" and the "Freedom House Democracy Index," which also recognizes the presence of an independent press. It is in reference to this interest in democracy and journalism that his work ties in to that of Trappei, [Nieminen], and Nord (2011) who published The Media for Democracy Monitor: A Cross National Study of Leading News Media, a compendium of results from an empirical study of democracy in various European countries (Austria, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), as well as Australia. It proposes a toolkit for monitoring advanced democracies using criteria that the authors believe are essential to the study of democratic reasoning: freedom, equality, and control. Each of these elements is then assessed by relevant indicators that are in turn "graded" for each country. According to the authors, their evaluation tool was needed given that other known monitoring initiatives were either unsustainable or volatile. As they suggest, these initiatives are run by "civil-society-based observation desks with little or no social-science background (watch blogs) or they do not cover mature democracies (IREX) or they scrutinize just one country (PEJ)" (Nieminen, Nord, & Trappei, 2011, pp. 21-22).</description><subject>Blogs</subject><subject>Capitalism</subject><subject>Comor, Edward A</subject><subject>Control systems</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>Desks</subject><subject>Dictionaries</subject><subject>Freedom of the press</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Journalism</subject><subject>Mass media</subject><subject>McChesney, Robert W</subject><subject>Monitoring</subject><subject>Monopolies</subject><subject>News media</subject><subject>Nieminen, Hannu</subject><subject>Nonfiction</subject><subject>Nord, Lars</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Principles</subject><subject>Reasoning</subject><subject>Terminology</subject><subject>Trappel, Josef</subject><subject>Voice communication</subject><issn>0705-3657</issn><issn>1499-6642</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AIMQZ</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkE1Lw0AURQdRMFZ_gLgpuE598-bNR5alWhUqbnQ9TF4mkmCbOtMK_fcG68bVXdzDvXCEuJEwQ0QFd9zzDEHSt6o2MqA16kQUkqqqNIbwVBRgQZfKaHsuLnLuAYCMdYW4nuccc-42H9OX2HRheh_XA6fAh0tx1obPHK_-ciLelw9vi6dy9fr4vJivSpba7sqGDVS6baLUVe1QA1PToGOqDCCFsSG0bCkoHetILRA7cpoBjQoRajURt8fdbRq-9jHvfD_s02a89FJLQuWMUyOljhSnIecUW79N3Tqkg5fgfx340YH_70D9AMlkTmo</recordid><startdate>20140101</startdate><enddate>20140101</enddate><creator>Bonin, Geneviève A.</creator><general>University of Toronto Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8FQ</scope><scope>8FV</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>M3G</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140101</creationdate><title>Assessing Media Democracy</title><author>Bonin, Geneviève A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c157t-dc6095fde159b8250c4dd28c496024a5fd427c74a35ebe4f04c8485c0263ae0b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Blogs</topic><topic>Capitalism</topic><topic>Comor, Edward A</topic><topic>Control systems</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>Desks</topic><topic>Dictionaries</topic><topic>Freedom of the press</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Journalism</topic><topic>Mass media</topic><topic>McChesney, Robert W</topic><topic>Monitoring</topic><topic>Monopolies</topic><topic>News media</topic><topic>Nieminen, Hannu</topic><topic>Nonfiction</topic><topic>Nord, Lars</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Principles</topic><topic>Reasoning</topic><topic>Terminology</topic><topic>Trappel, Josef</topic><topic>Voice communication</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bonin, Geneviève A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>CBCA Reference & Current Events</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of communication</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bonin, Geneviève A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing Media Democracy</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of communication</jtitle><date>2014-01-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>145</spage><epage>148</epage><pages>145-148</pages><issn>0705-3657</issn><eissn>1499-6642</eissn><abstract>There was a time when democracy was directly linked to one's possibility of influencing political decision making. One person was equal to one vote or one voice. Although the spirit of this initial understanding still lingers, democracy is now regarded as a more complex concept, and represents a variety of elements such as a system, a state, a mechanism of control, as well as a series of principles and practices, as is made evident through any modem dictionary's definition of the word. Oxford Dictionaries, for example, defines democracy as "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives," "a state governed under a system of democracy," or the "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members," or "the practice or principles of social equality" (www.oxforddictionaries.com). Some of [Robert McChesney]'s ideas are echoed in Media, Structures, and Power: The Robert E. Babe Collection ([Edward A. Comor], 2011), which provides several arguments that aspire to free "information" from being understood and priced as a commodity. Babe also alludes to [Harold Innis]'s work quite frequently in making a case for "scholars like [Robert] McChesney, [Noam] Chomsky, and [Edward] Herman" to include "a nuanced historical interleaving of technological/media change, shifts in political economic power, changes in culture, media messages, and monopolies of knowledge" (Comor, 2011, p. 227) to their critiques of the press. This comment was made in more recent Babe work, which focuses on Canadian communication thought. It would seem, however, that because McChesney may not have used Innis' vocabulary, particularly the expression "monopolies of knowl- edge," that he has omitted these ideas. Whether or not he formally acknowledges Innis' terminology (he does cite him, by the way), his new book, Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy (2013), is definitely an attempt at consciously or unconsciously reconciling many of these issues. For example, he discusses how various important centres such as the military and corporate entities as well as political pressures have made the Internet what it is today. As part of McChesney's argument, he also makes reference to the importance of free and independent journalism as a factor for ensuring democratic practices. He even suggests that "true free-market capitalism would even benefit from a strong press system" (p. 215). In this respect he makes reference to several journalism and democracy indexes, such as the "Reporters Without Borders Annual World Press Freedom Index" and the "Freedom House Democracy Index," which also recognizes the presence of an independent press. It is in reference to this interest in democracy and journalism that his work ties in to that of Trappei, [Nieminen], and Nord (2011) who published The Media for Democracy Monitor: A Cross National Study of Leading News Media, a compendium of results from an empirical study of democracy in various European countries (Austria, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), as well as Australia. It proposes a toolkit for monitoring advanced democracies using criteria that the authors believe are essential to the study of democratic reasoning: freedom, equality, and control. Each of these elements is then assessed by relevant indicators that are in turn "graded" for each country. According to the authors, their evaluation tool was needed given that other known monitoring initiatives were either unsustainable or volatile. As they suggest, these initiatives are run by "civil-society-based observation desks with little or no social-science background (watch blogs) or they do not cover mature democracies (IREX) or they scrutinize just one country (PEJ)" (Nieminen, Nord, & Trappei, 2011, pp. 21-22).</abstract><cop>Toronto</cop><pub>University of Toronto Press</pub><doi>10.22230/cjc.2014v39n1a2763</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0705-3657 |
ispartof | Canadian journal of communication, 2014-01, Vol.39 (1), p.145-148 |
issn | 0705-3657 1499-6642 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1514238683 |
source | Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Blogs Capitalism Comor, Edward A Control systems Decision making Democracy Desks Dictionaries Freedom of the press Internet Journalism Mass media McChesney, Robert W Monitoring Monopolies News media Nieminen, Hannu Nonfiction Nord, Lars Politics Principles Reasoning Terminology Trappel, Josef Voice communication |
title | Assessing Media Democracy |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T03%3A51%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessing%20Media%20Democracy&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20communication&rft.au=Bonin,%20Genevi%C3%A8ve%20A.&rft.date=2014-01-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=145&rft.epage=148&rft.pages=145-148&rft.issn=0705-3657&rft.eissn=1499-6642&rft_id=info:doi/10.22230/cjc.2014v39n1a2763&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3270935451%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1514238683&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |