3 results
14 - State of the Art of Comparative Political Communication Research: Poised for Maturity?
-
- By Michael Gurevitch, Professor in the College of Journalism, University of Maryland, Jay G. Blumler, Professor of the Social and Political Aspects of Broadcasting, University of Leeds, England; Professor of Journalism, University of Maryland
- Edited by Frank Esser, University of Missouri, Columbia, Barbara Pfetsch, Freie Universität Berlin
-
- Book:
- Comparing Political Communication
- Published online:
- 24 November 2009
- Print publication:
- 06 September 2004, pp 325-343
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter attempts an assessment of the current status of comparative political communication research. Its core concept is maturity. Comparative approaches to political communications, albeit promising and sometimes impressive, can seem ragged when compared, say, with the solidity of their application in other social sciences (e.g., sociology and political science). Our central point is that the quality of comparative research can vary not only in scientific rigor but also, and perhaps more importantly, in its ability to reveal fundamental and broadly influential features of the structures and cultures of the societies being examined. Our concern throughout this chapter therefore is that of how to recognize and to achieve such maturity in the subfield of comparative political communication scholarship.
In fact, this is our third attempt to take stock of the “state of the art” of comparative political communication research. In the first such effort, more than a quarter century ago (Blumler and Gurevitch 1975) we depicted comparative political communication research as a “field in its infancy.” The dominant tone was one of uncertainty, illustrated by the opening paragraph of the essay:
Writing in 1975, nobody could claim to be able to paint an assured portrait of the field of investigation to be described in this essay. It is not merely that few political communication studies have been mounted with a comparative focus. More to the point, there is neither a settled view of what such studies should be concerned with, nor even a firmly crystallized set of alternative options for research between which scholars of diverse philosophic persuasions could choose.
18 - “Americanization” Reconsidered: U.K.–U.S. Campaign Communication Comparisons Across Time
- Edited by W. Lance Bennett, University of Washington, Robert M. Entman, North Carolina State University
-
- Book:
- Mediated Politics
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 20 November 2000, pp 380-404
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The notions of “globalization” and its junior brother “Americanization” have become one of the mantras of the end of the millennium. They are invoked in discussion of the global economy, global culture, indeed the “globalization of everything” including, of course, the globalization of the media. The terms are used, by now, with an almost aken-for-granted air, although they have occasionally been subjected to scrutiny and criticism (Negrine and Papathanassopoulos 1996; Scammell 1998). Their compelling power, however, has not diminished.
Discussions of the processes of globalization and Americanization can be regarded as direct descendants of comparative analysis, inasmuch as the comparative approach casts a cross-cultural, cross-national net and seeks to identify similarities as well as differences among the dominant features of economic or cultural or, in our case, media systems in different societies. The logic of the comparative approach has featured quite prominently in our work in the past, and it is not surprising, therefore, that it has led us to reconsider the notion of Americanization in the present chapter.
Its point of departure is an analysis of political party and mass media roles in the U.K. and U.S. elections of 1983 and 1984, which we conducted, with colleagues, a decade ago (Semetko et al., 1991). Many differences and sources of difference were discovered – albeit allied to a suggestion that they might lessen or disappear in time. This chapter revisits our 1980s portrait of two quite contrasted political communication systems through the lens of what is known about media performance in the U.S. presidential (1996) and U.K. general (1997) elections.
9 - Political communication systems and democratic values
-
- By Michael Gurevitch, University of Maryland, Jay G. Blumler, Leeds University
- Edited by Judith Lichtenberg, University of Maryland, College Park
-
- Book:
- Democracy and the Mass Media
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 25 May 1990, pp 269-289
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The American media system is presumably animated by certain democratic principles. Some of these concern the relationship of the mass media to government – for example, the proposition that, acting on behalf of the citizenry, the media should guard against abuses of power by officeholders. Others concern the relationship of the mass media to diverse opinion sources – for example, the proposition that the media should provide a robust, uninhibited, and wide-open marketplace of ideas, in which opposing views may meet, contend, and take each other's measure. Yet others concern the relationship of the mass media to the public at large – for example, the propositions that they should serve the public's “right to know” and offer options for meaningful political choices and nourishment for effective participation in civic affairs.
Yet, a glance at the world of the American media today reveals a landscape dominated by a few giant media corporations. These enterprises may be as remote from the people as are other powerful and dominant institutions in society. Their inner workings are rarely opened to voluntary outside scrutiny. And they seem committed to the presentation, not of a broad spectrum of ideas but of mainstream opinion currents, whose flows are bounded politically by the two-party system, economically by the imperatives of private enterprise capitalism, and culturally by the values of a consumer society.
This essay deals with the tensions and disparities between the ostensibly democratic ideals that the mass media are supposed to serve and the communication structures and practices that actually prevail.