Notice to authors: Please ask your publishers to send review copies of your books to Professor Shelton Gunaratne , JIC review editor, Mass Communications Department, Moorhead State University, Moorhead, MN 56563, U.S.A.
As the United States' oldest major ally, France has long paid keen
attention to the democratic experiment on the other side of the
Atlantic.
French politicians and journalists may show amity or animosity
toward
America's culture and foreign policy, but they are seldom neutral.
The
author of this slim volume reflects that in his examination of
French
journalistic opinion some 130 years ago, during the America's greatest
trial as a democracy.
Examined here is a hefty representative sampling of
French press
opinion on the American conflict: 13 Paris newspapers, and 62 provincial
newspapers from all corners of the Hexagon. But in France during
this
period of Second Empire, it is not simply a matter of reflecting
opinions
from Marseilles to Saint-Malo; the spectrum of French newspaper
opinion
can be explained only through an understanding of the significant
differences between the French press under Napoleon III and the
American
press under democracy.
Louis Napoleon was an emperor almost obsessively concerned
with press
control, running a tight censorship with frequent jail terms for
offending
editors. At the same time, editors were almost obsessively preoccupied
with undermining the censors. Moreover, newspapers in France were
more
than bearers of news: the highly opinionated sheets were tightly
tied to
political groups. One could argue, in fact, that newspapers substituted
for political parties in a country tinted by a wide spectrum of
political
opinions, royalist to Marxist. The importance of theater, art and
literature in French dailies, too, made reading a French newspaper
for the
bilingual American a truly different experience in 1861.
The author makes this clear in Chapter 1. He briefly
explains the
politics of the Second Empire and the details of major political
ideologies, grouped generally as liberal and conservative. The
rest of the
book is built on this important delineation. Subsequent chapters
treat
permutations of the war and its effect on France through the prism
of
conservative or liberal French newspaper ideologies.
Generally, the author observes, conservatives supported
the South and
blamed the war on Northern economic imperialism. Liberals supported
the
North and blamed the war on slavery. Why? The answer lies in the
ideology:
anti-democratic conservatives might support a rupture of democracy
thanks
to a victory by the South, while pro-democracy liberals would deplore
such
a loss. This actually reflected a break from pre-war French sentiment.
Before Fort Sumter, French conservatives and liberals alike deplored
slavery, and assumed it was the central issue dividing the two
sides.
After war became inevitable, however, conservative newspapers generally
changed sides.
That support seldom wavered from paper to paper during
the war, but
editors did break in different ways over specific events and their
meaning. By 1862, for example, French newspapers saw the possible
economic
implications of the war on French industry, particularly the cotton
industry. While editors blamed the loss of Southern cotton at French
ports
solely on Civil War shipping blockades, newspapers differed on
what ought
to be done. Conservatives requested government mediation;
liberals
favored no intervention. Napoleon III did propose mediation twice
in 1862,
both offers rejected. By 1863, however, French shippers had found
alternative sources for cotton, and French newspapers began to
get bored
with the war, publishing fewer and fewer articles on the conflict.
After the war ended, French newspapers predictably
assessed its
significance through the prism of political ideologies. Conservatives
castigated the "greedy, racist North," while liberals reiterated
that war
was blamed on slavery, which Lincoln "crossed out with a pen."
The role of the censor in guiding U.S. Civil War commentary
in France
can only be surmised. The author contends censors laid a lighter
hand on
articles concerning overseas issues, such as the Civil War: on
this issue,
we can believe what we read. However, the author also notes that
as
government policy changed, so did newspaper opinion. This seems
to show at
least some influence of Napoleon III on the galley proofs. In any
case,
reading this work reveals more about French politics than the American
war. For that reason, the book might seem rather byzantine
to readers not
familiar with French ideological shades during this period. The
author
prepares us in Chapter 1, but might prepare us more extensively.
Too,
keeping track of the newspapers and their political slants through
the
chapters requires careful attention. Could they possibly have been
grouped
chapter by chapter into more clearly defined categories based on
ideology?
And perhaps geography? The author says little about differences
of
location, but Paris dailies will normally reflect different priorities
from, say, Montpellier, which in turn will have different priorities
from
Dijon.
The book is fully endnoted for scholars, and includes
a helpful
bibliographical essay arranged by chapter.
Ross F. Collins, assistant professor
Department of Communication
North Dakota State University
Gross's book has a twofold objective: to provide information about
media
in Romania, and to sum up the lessons for media in the first years
of
post-communism. The three introductory chapters thus offer
a diligent
account on the subject matter of Romanian media, while the next
three
chapters provide more speculative views.
The book opens with a discussion of the Romanian media
legacy, with
most attention given to the Ceausescu era when twists in media
development
were directly linked to political intricacies. Key issues here
are the
party control, the censorship (officially abolished in 1977) and
the
paranoid self-censorship that came to replace it. The journalists,
mostly
party activists whose code of conduct was to be found in the staggering
press law of 1974, were involved in creating a manipulative meta-reality
of information chaos and Orwellian newspeak. Consequently, Gross
claims,
three informational realities co-existed: an official one of
disinformation, a second one of ill-informed gossip, and a third
provided
by the objective Western media. The rejection of "glasnost," the
harsh
treatment of the scarce dissidents, and the expulsions of foreign
correspondents in the last years of Ceausescu's regime had also
added to
the international isolation of the country on the eve of the Velvet
revolutions.
Chapter 2 describes the role of media in the Romanian
coup of December
1989. Gross separately considers the roles played by the press,
the
domestic broadcasting, and the foreign media. He mentions some
media
machinations of the neo-communist government that came to power
because of
this revolution though he does not go into detail. Gross claims
that the
evidence of manipulation of media (TV in particular) is insufficient,
and
avoids commenting on the specifics of the revolution as a "TV"
one.
Next is a discussion of the media on a non-communist
footing. First,
Gross deals with their spectacular growth. The press had tripled
in size
within two years (bringing along pornography, as well as a crisis
in
cultural publications). Independent broadcast media had emerged--more
successfully in radio, less in TV. New media legislation had been
partially introduced encompassing a new constitution (1991), an
audio-visual law (1992), and a public radio and TV law (1994).
Laws on
the press and on access to information continued to be under
consideration.
However, significant shortcomings have characterized
the journalism
that has emerged. In Chapter 4, Gross describes the partisanship
and
irresponsible reporting that has marked the journalistic discourse
as a
reflection of a "marginally developed civil society"(p. 111). The
"quasi-cynical" attitude of Romanian journalists to internationally
accepted codes of conduct, and the fact that "the journalistic
discourse
remains completely unprofessional, tentatively professional, or
only
partially professional" (p. 121) lead Gross to the conclusion that
journalists at all levels need re-training. This is probably the
most
interesting part of the book, as it raises and addresses issues
of
cross-cultural importance.
In his discussion of the effectiveness and influence
of the new media
(Ch. 5) Gross is very critical, and occasionally bitter.
The confidence
in media has sharply decreased, and the public has started viewing
them
"as entertainment, voyeuristic, sensational, and marginally informative,
questionably or distantly relevant" (p. 126). Gross, however, fails
to
answer why things evolved that way. He denounces, for example,
the cynical
disinformation strategy of "Evenimentul Zilei," but does not explain
why
such a tabloid would enjoy the widest circulation.
Chapter 6 contains a systematic account of the lessons
Gross had
learned through his involvement in recent media aid programs in
Romania.
The lessons address confronting partisanship in journalism, improving
foreign media assistance, and providing more adequate training
programs.
Communication scholars and practitioners involved in media assistance
programs in various Eastern European countries would very much
benefit
from reading this part of the book.
Gross's study is a well organized and systematic account
on a subject
that has been underrepresented until now in international communication
scholarship: media in Romania. It also offers a number of
important
observations and conclusions.
Yet, the book has two major shortcomings. First, the
post-1989
political background that Gross provides in his discussion of media
is
insufficient. The lack of explicit discussion of Romanian
politics makes
it impossible to understand the source of the clear-cut partisanship,
which the author so sharply criticizes. Either Gross wrongly
assumes that
his readers are familiar with the peculiar Romanian political context,
or
he wants to avoid getting involved by clearly stating his opinion
on
current Romanian politics. In any case, the author does not
adequately
discuss major situations in which the interaction of Romanian media
and
politicians has been of prime importance: the 1989 TV takeover
and
manipulative staging of TV revolution by Iliescu and his entourage,
the
1990/91 "miner's" incidents, and the University square events.
These
incidents of media manipulation by the post-1989 government, however,
are
the ones that gained notoriety internationally, and it is quite
natural to
expect that the book would address them. It is not that Gross
should have
devoted his study exclusively to these. There is, indeed,
a scattered
discussion on some aspects of media and politics. Nevertheless,
important
questions remain unanswered.
Secondly, Gross completely neglects issues of minority
languages and
media, and the nationalist press. In the case of Romania,
however, with
its large Hungarian, Gypsy, and other minorities, these are of
utmost
importance.
Gross has been involved with the restructuring of media
education in
Romania since 1990. It is, most likely, his involvement with
programs of
media assistance (which necessarily need to be endorsed by the
powers-that-be) that prevents him from confronting politically
awkward
issues.
Dina Iordanova, Rockefeller Fellow
Chicago Humanities Institute
University of Chicago
The Indian economy has seen liberalization on an unprecedented scale
since
1991. This has vastly affected and changed the various components
of the
economy, including communication and telecommunication. Most
middle-class
people now have access to cable TV. They can channel surf from
boring
Doordarshan fare to the ludicrous and rather irrelevant and stupefying
gyrations and sounds emanating on MTV; from the international
programming
on BBC TV to a cornucopia of corny, silly, salacious, stupid and
gratuitous fare that pipettes from Indian commercial cinema and
passes off
as TV programming; and cricket almost everyday, played in the morning
and
in the evenings, from five-day tests to one-day events, and everywhere
from Ahmedabad to Zimbabwe.
Liberalization has affected telecommunication in a
myriad other
ways-from computers to telephones. It is easier to make telephone
calls
from Bangalore in Karnataka to Kirksville in Missouri., and have
a crystal
clear connection, than to try and make local telephone calls in
Bangalore
(though even that is changing, and positively). You can see
computers in
middle-and upper-middleclass homes; and talk of CD ROMs and Windows
'95 is
more common, especially in a city like Bangalore, the electronics
capital
of India, than in most West European or U.S. households.
But
liberalization has still not made much of a dent in certain areas.
For
example, Doordarshan and All India Radio still have a monopoly
over
electronic broadcasting. Thus, Doordarshan can continue,
as it has done
consistently, to tout the government line, censor news, and continue
to be
a bureaucratic and inefficient behemoth. All of these issues,
and more,
are grist for this present book's mill.
However, it is difficult to review a book published
two years ago
simply because of the changes and events that have occurred in
those two
years in India. Liberalization continues, for once the genie
is out of
the bottle it is difficult to put it back in. However, India
has seen so
many political upheavals in the last 24 months, and there is a
major one
brewing even as I write, that the events described in the book
have a
staleness and a passe quality. Moreover, the author, a professor
at the
Haryana Agricultural University, seeks to describe a large sequence
of
events as well as analyze them, all within 200 pages. Thus he clearly
fails to whet the appetite of serious scholars and students of
India
studies or development communication. Gupta claims to "analyze
contemporary trends in media development, including telecommunication,
its
impact on the society and steps needed to counter the negative
impact of
TV and cable programs on young minds" (p. 8), as well as
to relate
communication technologies and their relevance "to the important
and basic
issues confronting the country at present: women (sic) empowerment,
national unity, environmental protection and rural development,
etc."
(blurb on the jacket). Not content with these, he also seeks
to dwell
"upon certain aspects including socio-cultural impact, the gap
between the
information-rich and the information-poor, the impact that TV and
cable
programs are likely to have on young minds, as also the awareness
campaigns launched by NGOs and other voluntary bodies and academic
organizations. He also discusses issues like regulatory and
legal aspects
of cable television, communication policies, watchdog mechanisms
and
significant milestones in communication development in India including
SEWA, Kheda Communication Project, etc." (blurb on jacket)!
Ambitious
yes, but clearly reaching both beyond his expertise and capacity.
The author does rope in two colleagues to write a chapter
each, but
they too are rather superficial and cursory. So, we have
a chapter on
"Women Empowerment--Role of Media" by Vir Bala Aggarwal, an assistant
professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication
at the
Himachal Pradesh University, and a chapter on "Distance Education
and
Media Technologies" by Usha Chander, secretary for development
communication with the government of India.
The Third Revolution in the book's title alludes
to futurist Alvin
Toffler's interpretation. Those in mass communication think
of the first
revolution as the invention of writing, the second as the invention
of the
movable type/printing press, and the third as the present day,
computer-technology-driven changes. Unfortunately, the author
has a
rather limited grasp of many of the issues in modern communication
scholarship and so has provided rather cursory and popular versions
on
them. For example, he provides a one-page description of
interpersonal
influence in decision making with a 1968 cite from Elihu Katz.
He has
titled this section "Interpersonal Communication" (p. 73)!
The author
seems to be unaware that a vast body of scholarship in modern
communication studies is about interpersonal communication.
This book is
also rather outdated because of its over-reliance on work published
in the
'50s, '60s, and '70s. It also has no original scholarship:
the author has
not conducted any surveys or done any experimental research.
Thus, for
example, he merely provides rather simple summaries of popular
Indian
magazine and newspaper surveys of media effects, or quotes works
relating
to U.S. media, which I believe do not have much relevance in the
Indian
context. He also shows an over reliance on opinions and testimony
of
social and political leaders. In this regard, the book reflects
the
journalistic style of Indian newspaper reports that are rife with
politicians' comments rather than containing factual findings based
on
serious investigations.
The book has some strong points. It is fairly
well-edited and
organized, and it is therefore a rather easy read. It provides
thumbnail
sketches and some effective summaries of issues in rural and development
communication. It is a handy and quick reference guide for
graduate
students interested in India studies, and it can be an effective
supplemental text for those teaching development communication.
It
highlights the issues and concerns both traditional and those in
the wake
of liberalization. Thus, for example, there are some pertinent
points
raised about foreign ownership of Indian newspapers and magazines,
and the
influence of TV content beamed to Indian viewers through satellites.
However, it is important to balance opinions with facts, and unless
there
are regular surveys and studies conducted, a la the Cultural Indicators
Research Project, Indian communication and telecommunication policy
will
bend according to the will of political vagary and social pontificating,
and reporting of issues will mostly be puffery and grandstanding.
Closepet N. Ramesh, associate professor
Language and Literature Division
Truman State University
Kirksville, Missouri
The book is a valuable contribution to international
communication as
well. It presents an excellent collection of culture specific
communication practices on the global and international scene.
It also
creates a better understanding of those distinct cultures and should
contribute toward a better understanding of how one can begin to
comunicate more effectively within an international context. As
well, it
sows the seeds for future research with an overwhelming number
of
questions and suggestions for the potential researcher and scholar
to
consider pursuing.
In Part I, the introduction, Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey
provide a
tightly knit, well-developed explanation of the two theoretical
paradigms
applied in studying communication and culture: The emic, which
describes
how members of a culture understand their own communication, and
the etic,
which explains how communication is similar and different in various
cultures. The writers place their discussion within the context
of what is
culture and how the different disciplines of anthropology,
sociolinguistics and ethnography of speaking have applied the emic
approach in their studies. When presenting the etic approach, the
authors
look at the dimensions of cultural variability and the universal
dimensions of personal relationships. They conclude with the premise
that
a complete understanding of communication in personal relationships
requires a combination of both the emic and he etic approaches.
Part II, on etic perspectives, presents two essays.
In the first,
"Cross-Cultural Variability of Communication in Personal Relationships"
by
Gudykunst and Yuko Matsumoto, the writers demonstrate how dimensions
of
cultural variability can be used to explain similarities and differences
in communication in personal relationships across cultures.
They argue
that the dimension of individualism-collectivism must be treated
as a
continuum and not as a dichotomy. They also suggest that the element
of
uncertainty avoidance be considered. They end with a call for the
need for
multicultural research teams conducting systematic lines of inquiry
across
cultures (p. 51). In the second, "Elementary Structures of Social
Interaction" by Angela K. Hoppe, Lisa Snell, and Beth-Ann Cocroft,
the
writers examine Fiske's four structures of social interaction as
a means
of explaining cultural differences and interpersonal relationships.
They
call for the development of a theory based upon an integration
of
different theories and research to enable one to achieve a greater
understanding of a diverse range of events.
Part III, on emic perspectives, contains eight essays
that focus on
communication practices in personal relationships in specific cultures
outside the United States--essentially non-Western/European. These
are the
cultures of China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Iran, Africa,
and
totalitarian societies. The essays are "Self and OTHER: A Chinese
Perspective on Interpersonal Relationships" by Ge Gao, "Communication
in
Personal Relationships in Japan" by Tsukasa Nishida, "Interpersonal
Relationships in Korea" by Tae-Seop Lim and Soo Hyang Choi, "Respeto:
A
Mexican Base for Interpersonal Relationships" by Wintilo Garcia,
"Communication and Personal Relationships in Brazil" by Monica
Rector and
Eduardo Nevia, "Communication in Personal Relationships in Iran:
A
Comparative Analysis" by Fred Zandpour and Glnaz Sadri, "Interpersonal
Communication in Communalistic Societies in Africa" by Andrew Moemeka,
and
"Interpersonal Communication in Totalitarian Societies" by Catalin
Mamali.
These essays are specific in their focus and are perceptive
and
provocative. They provide the reader with a unique perspective
into a
unique aspect of the culture under discussion. In many cases, they
are
seminal works and call for further study to validate and expand
the
initial findings of the writers. The diversity of the various cultural
practices makes for interesting reading and also demonstrates the
untapped
potential richness of the field for further research.
Part IV, the conclusion, consists of one essay, "Cross-Cultural
Interpersonal Communication: Theoretical Trends and Research Directions"
by Ting-Toomey and Leeva Chung. In this section, the writers discuss
the
theoretical trends and research issues in cross-cultural interpersonal
communications. They also attempt to draw from the previous chapters
conclusions and to summarize some of the current theories related
to
cross-cultural or intergroup-interpersonal communication. They
conclude
with suggestions for further theorizing and research in this area.
One can only hope that scholars will accept the challenge
and
invitation to continue pursuing research suggested by the different
writers in this book. The area is a fascinating and interesting
one. And,
as we become more of a global village and are confronted with the
need to
communicate with members of different cultures on issues that affect
all
cultures and societies, our effectiveness can only be enhanced
by a better
understanding of the communication process.
Timothy Y.C. Choy, professor
Department of Speech Communication and Theatre Arts
Moorhead (Minn.) State University
Two events will provide the raw materials for scholars of Western
mass to
mine for decades to come. The death of Princess Diana was the ultimate
popular culture media event. We can be sure that the first
round of
academic papers and books is already in preparation. For
critics of
politics and media, the ultimate event was--and is--the Gulf War.
The war has already been probed in a dozen books but
remains a major
theme in this collection of 13 chapters and is a specific focus
of
several. The universal assumption is that the war was the
ultimate case
study of the triumph of government manipulation of a lapdog press
and the
hollowness of U.S. media's claim to be a watchdog. In the
editor's
introduction, Iranian-born Malek, now on the faculty of Howard
University
in Washington, says he was shocked to find few differences between
the
"controlled" Iranian media and "free" American media when
he arrived in
Washington to begin graduate studies. Both systems served
to reinforce
the power of the government. It is a common thread throughout
this book.
The first five chapters, organized as a "theoretical
perspective,"
expand this theme. Most of the material consists of familiar criticisms
organized into conventional structures. Malek and Krista
Wiegand, Hamid
Mowlana, Bosah Ebo, and Nancy Rivenburgh urge a broader perspective
with a
special plea for their own interests. An incoherent chapter
on
information liberalization finds a new drive for global hegemony.
The
list of authors cited, like the book itself that builds on their
work,
spans an intellectual orientation from conventional liberal to
the far
left.
Part 2 of the book consists of eight "empirical studies"
although only
four in any sense focus on a specific question and array data to
address
it. Only one--Malek^Òs comparison of New York Times
coverage of and State
Department bulletins on Iran--presents systematic quantitative
results,
although two or three others summarize original research.
Topics range
from Canadian-American relations in World War II and coverage of
human
rights in Latin America to a description of the media in Botswana
and two
(more) studies of the Gulf War. The authors represent a variety
of
disciplines, although most are academics in communication programs
with
some extension into journalism and political science. Depending
on one's
own perspectives and interests, the reader will find some chapters
interesting and useful, others less so. In my own view, books
like this
one reflect a chaotic field that rarely moves toward coherence
and even
more rarely advances our understanding of core issues. Several
factors
may be at work.
1. Lack of reliability of observation.
One of the frustrations of
reading the full range of critical research studies is that just
about
everyone is convinced that the media are massively "biased" in
various
ways, but disagree on the nature and direction of that bias.
For every
report from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR, a left-wing
organization), there is a comparable report from Accuracy in Media
(AIM, a
right-wing organization), purporting to document exactly the opposite
tilt. How is it that so many conflicting views can be held
with such
certainty? Instead of reinforcing the confusion, academics
could usefully
try to sort it out.
2. Use of authority instead of evidence.
In most "big picture"
studies of media influence, the main evidence is a familiar set
of quotes
that get repeated and rearranged and then presented as facts.
In foreign
affairs, the main evidence of media power is still that everyone
says they
are powerful. A handful of anecdotes or statistics, often
taken out of
context or misrepresented, is expanded to general principle.
In Lights, Camera, War, Joanna Neuman argues
that modern media speed
up international relations but usually exercise peripheral influence
because policy options are unchanged. The decision to mount
the Gulf War
was a response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, not to TV pictures,
and it
was made in the absence of television coverage. To my knowledge,
no study
so far provides evidence that either military strategy or public
support
of the war was a product of government information policy.
3. Failure to consider full range of evidence.
Folk wisdom aside,
exceptions rarely prove the rule. For every example of television's
influence on foreign relations--Vietnam, the attack on the Sarajevo
marketplace, Somalia--there are at least as many comparable incidents
that
did not provoke a response. Rwanda and the early years of the war
in
Bosnia and Herzegovina are obvious examples. My guess is that future
judgment will downplay the role of the media in the Gulf War, both
as a
force driving the allied intervention and a political force manipulating
public support, as it has in Vietnam.
Media involvement in the phenomenon of Princess Diana
may be something
else, but the cult of celebrities is far removed from issues of
governments and foreign relations. We are left, meanwhile,
with the old
formulation that some media can have some influence in some circumstances,
including the Gulf War and current post-Cold War conflicts.
We should use
these events as more than reinforcement of what we already believe
to be
true.
Robert L. Stevenson, professor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
As variations on the democratic theme come to dominate national
governing
systems, the role of communication and media in the political process
is
receiving increasing scrutiny.
Habermas ("public sphere") and Keane ("public service")
and other
scholars have challenged us to think in new ways to maximize the
democratic precepts that presumably undergird not only mature democratic
states but newly emerging democracies as well.
Now add Negrine's The Communication of Politics
to the list. This
relatively slender work won't take up much bookshelf space, but
it packs a
provocative wallop and covers an amazing amount of material.
In the interplay of politics and media, Negrine focuses
on the news
media and their difficulties in dealing with increasingly complex
and huge
amounts of information. Rather than simply criticizing news
media for
superficial and uninformed coverage, Negrine explores the milieu
in which
journalists work, including deadlines and professional practices.
Though setting himself a formidable task, Negrine states
his intent
modestly, namely, to examine "some of the problems faced by the
media and
by journalists in their efforts to create an 'informed' citizenry
and by
citizens to become 'informed.'" He does this in a thoughtful
and probing
manner drawing extensively on the research of others and supplementing
these findings with his own case studies.
Some of the material in the eight chapters has been
published before.
But this is more than an elaboration of previous work. It
is a synthesis
of a large body of work that imparts fresh perspectives on the
work of
journalists covering politics or news that has political implications.
Negrine, affiliated since 1989 with the Centre for
Mass Communication
Studies at Leicester University (United Kingdom), delivers a smorgasbord
of stimulating intellectual tidbits. Chapter headings provide
the menu:
1--"The Communication of Political Information and the Creation
of an
Informed Citizenry"; 2--"'Public Information,' Leaks and the Production
of
News"; 3--"Reporting Parliament, Reporting Politics"; 4--"Specialization
in News Organizations: Producing Better News?" 5--"Public Opinion,
the
Media and the Democratic Process"; 6--"The Construction of Politics";
7--"Political Communication and the Americanization of Politics:;
and
8--"Political Communication in the Age of Global Electronic Media."
Students of journalism will recognize in Negrine's
book important
questions difficult if not impossible to resolve given present
systems and
practices. The most basic question--not new, of course--is
whether the
news media's goal of providing adequate political coverage fundamentally
conflicts with the media's need to survive economically.
Self-interest
inevitably supersedes public interest.
The solution, Negrine suggests, is "drastic revision"
in professional
conventions, especially allegiance to neutrality and objectivity
and
commitment to the status quo.
Though Negrine deals primarily with the media, he also
points to
government as becoming detached from citizens. One ironic
result, he
suggests, is ". . . to be well informed may actually only increase
the
(citizens') feeling of 'powerlessness.'"
With media growing more distant from government and
government itself
more distant from citizens, the outlook for the democratic process
appears
bleak.
"Both (media and government) are part of the problem
of a lack of
accountability in democratic systems, of a disillusioned citizenry,
and of
a host of other ills which critics can reel off," Negrine writes.
"It
follows that both are part of the solution."
The public should be demanding more of the media and
the media should
stop treating the public less as an audience and more as "a real
participant in the democratic process." This theme parallels
that of
James Fallows in his Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine
American
Democracy (Pantheon 1996). Unfortunately, Negrine
does not deal with the
controversial notion of "civic (or public) journalism" that has
swept
across United States newsrooms.
Negrine provides numerous fresh insights into the world
of
communication and politics. For example, he considers journalists
as
specialists but concludes that how journalism gets carried out
on a
day-to-day basis may be more important than the journalist's expertise.
The author deals perceptively with news leaks, an understudied
subject
that he argues places a premium on "the magical combination of
newsworthiness, timeliness and particular news agendas" rather
than on the
intrinsic importance of information itself. He explores the
"constructionist" approach to politics adroitly contrasting how
children
and adults make sense of political content.
Though Negrine's analysis is consistently careful and
insightful,
several chapters fall short of the caliber of others. The
chapter on
public opinion, the media and democracy probes these interrelationships
thoughtfully but does not provide a summary or conclusion, which
adds to
the worth of all the other chapters.
Likewise, the last chapter--dealing with global electronic
media--lacks
the authority or comprehensiveness of the rest of the work.
The author has tried to infuse the study with a cross-national
approach, an admirable aim. But he only partly succeeds.
He finds
himself relying predominantly on British cases, especially the
British
Aerospace takeover of the Rover group (1988-93), somewhat on the
American
experience and almost insignificantly on other political/media
systems.
But these are minor caveats. The book merits
a close examination by
anyone seriously interested in the interplay of news media and
politics,
especially scholars trying to identify key issues deserving additional
research.
Kenneth Starck, professor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
The University of Iowa
This book is the third in a series devoted to development and
participatory approaches to communication. The first, Perspectives
on
Development Communication, introduced the theory of participatory
communication in development. It was the outcome of a seminar organized
in
Poona, India. The architects of this concept were the editors of
the book,
Nair and White, who wrote in their preface that the thinking and
ideas
reflected in the papers could "stimulate action for future research
on the
issues of participation in the communication process beyond rhetoric"
(p.
10).
White, Nair and Ascroft (1994) edited the second book, Participatory
Communication: Working for Change and Development, the outcome
of the
second Poona conference in February 1989. Servaes, Jacobson
and White
(1996), the editors of the volume Participatory Communication
for Social
Change attribute the origin of this book to an additional
source, the
Participatory Communication Research Network project.
The editors specify two objectives: "to share perspectives
of
participatory approaches focusing specifically on the communication
processes in the development context"; and "to cite case studies
across
the spectrum of development processes focusing on communication
_per se_"
(p. 14).
This book has an index, and 15 chapters (including an introduction
and
conclusion), five of which are written by two of the authors. The
writing
is easy read, despite being redundant in ideas and occasionally
enlightening. The authors are primarily interested in providing
"a single
book devoted to the communication component of development" that
"could be
of value to those who work at the grass-roots level as well as
for
academics in the field of communication" (p. 14).
Chapter 2 (Servaes) and Chapter 3 (Majid Tehranian) provide
historical sketches of theoretical perspectives in development
and
communication. Basically, both chapters are quite similar except
that
Servaes refers to the popular alternative to modernization and
dependency
paradigms as "multiplicity" paradigm and Tehranian calls it the
"communitarian" perspective.
The second set of chapters focus on methodological issues. Thomas
Jacobson
(Chapter 4) argues that despite the realization of numerous ways
to
understanding the relationship between development and communication,
there is a continuing obsession with positivism. Servaes (Chapter
5)
takes off on the multiplicity paradigm and adopts the new social
movements
as a framework to extend his discussion on critical issues involved
in
participatory action and research. Randall Arnst (Chapter 6) identifies
the conflicts between real participation and those professed by
experts,
and attempts to provide a human approach to participatory research.
Njoku Awa (Chapter 7) focuses on indigenous knowledge and the field
insights on how indigenous farmers contribute toward the development
of
agricultural research. Colleen Flynn-Thapalia (Chapter 8) develops
two
important concepts: transformational leadership and animation.
Transformational leadership is commonly attributed to Mahatma Gandhi,
who
envisioned the power in masses to change their living circumstances
within
their own means. Animation is identified with a facilitator in
the human
dynamics of development and social change. Thapalia attempts
to examine
both in combination. Cicilia Peruzzo (Chapter 9) describes
how popular
participation in communication has facilitated social movements
to bridge
the mass media gap in development.
The third part of the book provides six case studies, which take
the
reader on a kind of field visit to reality. However, not all of
them meet
expectations of a serious academic. Daniele Mezzana (Chapter 10)
summarizes cases in West African societies, where grass-roots communities
have displayed the prevalence of strong and permanent communication
networks. She says these networks are an important aspect
of development
and change in the rural context. Sara Stuart and Renuka Berry (Chapter
11)
discuss the role of participatory video in two women's organizations
in
Bangladesh. Pradip Thomas (Chapter 12) explains the origin and
role of
popular theater as an alternative communication strategy and discusses
its
current dismal state. Sylvie Cohen (Chapter 13) describes
approaches to
mobilize communities for participation and change. The penultimate
chapter by Rutger-Jan Schoen describes a model, where communication
contributes in developing a policy.
The book is a beginner's guide. The originality and applicability
of both
theoretical and practical insights make it useful as a textbook
for
undergraduate or graduate classes even though it has glaring shortcomings.
The early chapters by Servaes and Tehranian are bereft of new conceptual
material except for their reinforcement value. Servaes's chapter
appears
to tow the line of governments and international players in national
development. For instance, he writes:
Researchers ... [have called] for upward, participatory,
transactive, open and radical forms of planning that encompass
both grass-roots collective actions ... and large-scale
processes .... This kind of planning is centrally conceived
as
human growth, as a learning process through mobilization.
The
basic aim is to involve the people cooperatively in
the planning
process, with the planner as an observer and co-participant.
(p.
41, emphasis added)
Also, Tehranian appears to have adopted a kind of populist discourse
when
he writes that "(t)he communitarian strategy is based on the proposition
that there is a profound linkage between communication, peace,
democracy
and authentic development" (p. 55). It is unfortunate that the
academia
still continues to play pied piper, indirectly acknowledging an
important
role for the state. The role of the state or any controlling agency
in
development is a contested site, especially when rural peoples
in the
Third World are fighting alternate battles: In fact, they find
the current
development process contradicting their reality (see Sachs, 1993).
Overall, in terms of scholarship, this book does not make any
significant contribution. Two decades after the "passing of the
dominant
paradigm," we may need to consider passing the second paradigm
that has
primarily involved rehashing history and conveniently adopting
new
discourses that do not find a spot in the larger framework of reality.
Participation in the real world means living and relating differently.
In
this sense, Thapalia's concepts of transformational leadership
and
animation has significant implications for scholars interested
in changing
discourses in participatory communication.
References
Nair, K. S., and S. A. White, eds. 1993. Perspectives on development
communication. New Delhi: Sage.
Sachs, W., ed. 1993. The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge
as
power. Johannesburg: Witwatersand University Press
White, S. A., K. S. Nair, and J. Ascroft, eds. 1994. Participatory
communication: Working for change and development. New Delhi:
Sage.
Krishna P. Kandath, graduate student
School of Interpersonal Communication
Ohio University
It has been a great pleasure for me to see the appearance of so
many books
on international broadcasting over the past several years. With
the end of
the Cold War, many predicted the decline of international radio
in
particular. That decline has occurredthe Voice of America, Radio
Free
Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Canada International, the BBC World
Service,
Radio Netherlands, the Deutsche Welle, Radio Australia, and many
more
organizations have suffered deep budget cuts, and even threats
of
annihilation by cost-conscious legislative bodies the world over.
The
rationale has almost always been the same: since those organizations
were
built up in part because of the Cold War, why shouldnt they be
reduced now
that the war is over.
Academics can be just as heavily influenced by specific
events as can
legislatures, and it wouldnt have been surprising to have seen
many of
them lose interest in a now-unfashionable topic. Street, a professor
at
Bridgewater State, and Matelski, a professor at Boston College,
hardly are
veterans in conducting research on international radio. However,
it is to
their credit that they have labored through much of the 1990s to
create
the present study. They have been joined in this effort by better-known
collaborators: Kim Andrew Elliott, currently with the Voice of
America,
and John Nichols, a professor at Penn State. There are also contributions
by John Michalczyk, a professor at Boston College, and Miguel Rapatan,
an
instructor at De La Salle University, Manila; and interviews with
several
international broadcasters. The 12 chapters center on seven organizations:
Vatican Radio, the Voice of America, Radio-TV Marti, Radio Free
Europe-Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, the BBC, and Radio Veritas/DZRV
(Philippines) .
Nine of the chapters are labeled "case studies in
transnational radio."
The term "case studies" is applied very loosely, because there
are few
threads that run through the cases, and thus no way of drawing
systematic,
case study-based, conclusions. Furthermore, some of the studies
are
interviews of international broadcasters by the authors, while
others are
the more usual academic accounts of events. The interviews are
for the
most part conducted uncritically. Although the interviews elicit
a good
deal of interesting material, they lack thoroughness. The academic
accounts are reasonably- to very well documented treatments of
their
subjects. Michalczyks presentation of BBC broadcasts to French
Resistance
members in World War II is both fascinating and thorough, and Streets
two
chapters on Radio Free Asia have some useful first-hand insights
(including her own). Matelski has tilled the soil of international
radio
on at least one previous occasion: her1995 book Vatican Radio:
Propagation by the Airwaves. I have reviewed that book elsewhere,
and not
very favorably, but the materials she offers here, although covered
to
some extent in the earlier work, strikes me as much better focused
and
with far more specific examples of propaganda broadcasts. Still
three of
the 12 chapters deal with Vatican Radio, and one wonders whether
it
deserves that level of prominence.
In the final analysis, there is enough interesting
material here to
make the book a worthwhile acquisition for someone teaching a course
on
international broadcasting, or simply having a great curiosity
about the
subject. Its lack of a solid, well-articulated rationale and framework,
coupled with its nonstandard use of the case study approach and
its
limited variety of cases, prevents it from making a major contribution
to
our understanding of where the medium has been and where it might
be
going. But the cases themselves can help to flesh out pictures
of
well-known broadcasters (BBC, VOA, RFE-RL, Radio-TV Marti), and
can assist
in developing an understanding of lesser-known organizations (Vatican
Radio, Radio Veritas, Radio Free Asia). In other words, certainly
not a
text, but a potentially useful resource.
Donald R. Browne, professor
Department of Speech-Communication
University of Minnesota
The study of press freedom, particularly in a nondemocratic country,
requires more than an examination of that country's constitution
and laws.
Although many countries profess to guarantee press freedom in their
constitutions, they stretch and bend what's in the constitution
and
statutes to accommodate the personal whims and political needs
of the
country's dictatorship. Often, this leads to setting up para-legal
mechanisms, including physical violence against journalists, aimed
at
achieving the dictatorship's goals against the hopes and aspirations
of
the country's citizens and the press.
This book is the work of a South Koreaan native, who
studied the
country's press law for a decade. He examines the evolution of
press
freedom in Korea, reflecting on the changes in statutes and judicial
reviews. His is an attempt to answer "the question of how a free
press has
been established as a permanent fixture of the sociopolitical and
legal
system in Korea," especially after June 1987, when Roh Tae Woo--who
became
president in 1988--proposed a broad program of democratic reforms.
His
proposal was incorporated into a new constitution in October 1987;
and
South Korea moved from authoritarian rule to a more democratic
polity.
Three parts emerge in the content arrangement: Chapters
1 through 4
trace the setting in which press freedom has developed; chapters
5, 6, 9
and 11 outline the development of press freedom resulting from
the
sweeping political reforms; chapters 7, 8, 10 and 12 dwell mainly
on
nonpolitical issues involving press freedom and conflicts with
the
citizens' rights.
The first part provides the background for readers
who have not studied
Korean history and judicial system, familiarity with which is necessary
to
understand the expansion of press freedom in the broader context
The
author provides a good summary of the tumultuous history of modern
Korea,
along with its press history, which was heavily influenced by the
political elements.
This book can help scholars who lack a good command
of the Korean
language to pursue the study of Korean press law because of the
author's
explanation of how the Korean court system works and how to find
translated statutory documents, including major Korean press statues.
Because politics has bad the most critical impact on
press freedom, the
author devotes one third of his book to "politics and the press."
He
explains how the different types of political environments influenced
press freedom in the country: the Japanese colonial rule (1910-45);
the
American military government (1945-48); the authoritarian rules
(1948-87)
with temporary aberrations; and the reform era (1988-present).
Press freedom in Korea is well characterized when it
is understood as a
political favor rather than a civil right. The authoritarian rulers
sometimes went to the point of killing individual news organizations
as
"needed," and "successfully" tamed them as their "voluntary servant"
without effective judicial and legislative checks. However,
with 1987 as
the watershed, Korea transformed itself into a more liberal body
politic.
A legislature more powerful than the executive emerged, along with
a more
independent judiciary. These developments resulted in placing fewer
restraints on the press.
The second part analyzes the notable changes in the
constitution, the
judicial reviews and the press law that emerged following the sweeping
sociopolitical reforms aimed at democratizing society. 1988 saw
the
abrogation of the anti-state defamation clauses of the Korean law,
which
had silenced outspoken opposition to the government. The dreaded
National
Security Act and Military Secrets Protection Act, which were often
employed to justify authoritarian rule, underwent revision thereby
making
them less threatening. However, the Periodicals and Broadcast Acts,
which
replaced the notorious Basic Press Act in late 1987, still gave
the
government the power of suspending periodicals without a court
order.
The book accurately points out that the system has
not reached the
point of protecting the mass media, but it has become definitely
less
regulatory. With the Korean version of glasnost in place by 1987,
the
citizens awakened to their rights and raised their voices against
the mass
media to demand their right of reply, and express concerns on libel
and
invasion of privacy.
The third part describes the Korean people's right
of reply, which the
aggrieved individuals used as an expeditious way to help recover
their
reputational injury. In increasing litigation against the Korean
press,
plaintiffs won in nearly 65 percent of cases. It further describes
how
vulnerable the media organizations had become to libel action even
though
the media could invoke the "reasonable belief in truth," the "fair
report
privilege" or "fair comment and criticism" to claim protection
from libel
action. The mass media still lost nearly 81 percent of the libel
cases
against them during the past 14 years.
Privacy is a new concept to Korea, so the country's
courts have yet to
develop a sophisticated privacy law. Koreans are more conscious
of their
right to privacy. The book treats other publication-related issues,
such
as obscenity, pornography, copyright issues, right of access to
information and cable broadcasting as selected problems of press
law.
Press Law in South Korea is a helpful book for
scholars interested in
comparative study of press law and want to understand how the political
reform since 1987 has lifted Korea's press freedom to a higher
level.
The 110-page-long notes and bibliography and the 88-page-long
translation of the constitution, press-related statutes and the
code of
ethics are a treasure for scholars whether they can read in Korean
or not.
Lawyers and other professionals working for international
media
organizations can start with this book, although the book is now
outdated
in some areas considering that the last of the author's three research
trips to Korea occurred in 1994. Those who are experimenting with
democratization in other parts of the world may also find lessons
from the
recent experience of Korea, which successfully shed authoritative
rule and
embraced a more libertarian press system.
Byung S. Lee, assistant professor
Department of Journalism and Communications
Elon College
Elon College, N.C.