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.
What a difference a decade makes. Today there is no dearth of books and materials on multiculturalism, race, class, gender and media. That is especially good news for women. For since 1989 when these editors published their first work, Communications at the Crossroads: The Gender Gap Connection, the writings about women’s issues and communications. as well as the feminist literature on media and communications, have become plentiful. Thus, if Communications at the Crossroads was unique because it provided a focus on women and communications, Women Transforming Communications: Global Intersections takes the dialogue to the next level.
As the editors point out, this book is about networking, so that women can form connections through communications channels as they work toward equality with men. For there remains a paradox: the social reality within media and the communications systems of today continues to be hierarchical and white male-dominated. One can also say the same about institutions of higher education, where top-down decision-making generally renders research exclusive of women. Put another way, about 10 percent of the world’s male elite control most of the world’s information channels. The sub-elites are the educators, students, scientists, religious and spiritual leaders and social activists, who are vigorously connecting across class, race, gender and age barriers. These people constitute roughly 10 to 20 percent of the population. The rest of the world essentially remains disconnected. The women involved in this book represent those of the middle 20 percent. These then are this anthology’s “working women,” whose goals are to remove the barriers to access of information and to advance global civil development through information and communications. This book contains examples of their ideas and activism, and their connections to other women throughout the world.
The editors have organized the book as a trilogy. In Part I, “Communications Visions,” are the women working toward transforming communication theory and research to reflect more of a feminist perspective. The contributors to Part II, “Communications Chasms,” warn of some of the pitfalls when women work toward transforming communications. This section also reminds readers that a great deal of work in the transformation process remains undone. And in Part III, “Transformative Communications,” writers describe some of the work that has been done—how some communications, in fact, is transorming into equitable, inclusive and diverse relationships worldwide.
The 34 essays in the book include some based on theoretical concepts. One of the best is the first chapter written by co-editor Ramona Rush, whose “Ten Tenets for Deeper Communications” provides a kind of theoretical and strategic road map for the book. Rush argues that a society of global communications and conversation is a reasonable expectation when the technological means to share information increasingly is possible. The transformation envisioned herein, therefore, calls for liberating communication systems worldwide from gender and cultural biases. “Deeper communications,” in this context, is a recurring theme throughout the readings. For example, in “Transforming Faith in the First Amendment,” feminist theologians engage in deeper communications by reclaiming the scripture as a liberating text. Or, in “Environmental Communication,” the author argues that women particularly are effective in the deeper communications of raising awareness and fostering enthusiasm and involvement in environmental issues.
Praxis, which Rush defines as the application of theory and research to improve the conditions of those in need, is another recurring theme in the readings. In “Action Research,” for instance, the author emphasizes the importance of practical knowledge researchers can glean from the community of individuals with whom they interact. Such knowledge should be harnessed to inform social theory as well as to achieve social change.
The quest for social change is underscored in Part III, “Transformative Communications,” where writers describe how communications and media are changing women’s lives. Here, readers can learn about feminist media and other communications projects for women throughout the world. These include the now-defunct feminist periodical New Directions for Women, the Women’s International Network (WIN) News, which today is published in more than 100 countries, and the Feminist International Radio Endeavor (FIRE). And for an overview of the international women-centered media that exist specifically to challenge existing hierarchies of power, Annabelle Sreberny-Mohammadi’s chapter is particularly informative.
A strengthening quality of Women Transforming Communications is the range of topics covered in the readings. For example, in one chapter an Afrocentric or race-centered model provides a foundation to analyze the work of four African American female journalists. In another reading, an Auschwitz survivor recounts her evolutionary relationship with the media—from media consumer to media owner, producer and publisher. And in yet another chapter, the author suggests ways in which those in higher education and the media professions can commit to equality. In short, the subject matter is multifaceted; the voices of the contributors diverse. The book, however, lacks empirical work. (Exceptions are Kathryn Cirksena’s overview of scholarship on feminism and gender in communications since 1983 and Edna F. Einsiedel’s call for theory building through the practice of “Action Research.”). Thus, the problems intrinsic in male-controlled communications systems all too often become the refrain while some of the authors offer little more than what might be termed feminist wishful thinking.
Nonetheless, this book would be useful reading in undergraduate courses because it provides a detailed look at the current feminist agenda in the area of media and communications throughout the world. More, if the goal of the book is to establish connections, it also succeeds. For there is a personal element that permeates many of the readings. For example, the chapters written by Pamela J. Creedon and Gloria Steinem, who candidly and openly assess their own personal transformations, especially resonate. As Frieda Werden, another of the book’s contributors observes, “Without communications, we can’t learn from each other” (p. 225). This book is a step in that direction.
Carol S. Lomicy, assistant professor
Department of Journalism/Mass Communications
University of Nebraska at Kearney
Asante, Clement E. (Comp.)
Press Freedom and Development:
A Research Guide and Selected Bibliography.
Westport,CT: Greenwood Press.
1997. x+216 pp.
Asante’s book falls short of the author’s own goal of building a bridge across literature on press freedom and development communication that he hopes would stimulate ongoing analysis in this area. By discussing the issues in two separate sections, one on press freedom and the other on development, the author fails to examine in depth the links of the elements involved—government, level of media freedom and development—in different regions of the world.
Asante says he hopes this book would lead to “a general theory of media-government relations and national development” (p. 199), but he does not provide any indication or direction for theory building. Though he claims that this is the first book “that tries to infuse the two areas of study” (p.1), this is not the first or the only attempt to link these two areas. Books on international communication contain material on these areas. Merrill’s (1995) book, for instance, shows the relationship between the political system, the media and the economic growth of a nation.
A major drawback of the book is that discussion on several issues are either inadequate, incomplete or not up-to-date. For instance, while analyzing the philosophical foundations of the theories of the press, the author mentions Hachten’s (1987) five concepts: authoritarian, Western, Communist, revolutionary and development. Had he explained that Hachten recorded the rise and fall of the communist concept in the 1992 and 1996 editions of the book, the discussion would have been more complete. In the section dealing with press freedom in the Communist world, the discussion is almost solely devoted to a brief history of the press freedom or the lack of it in the former Soviet republics. Eastern Europe is mentioned in passing despite the fact that the Communist concept prevailed there for a long time and much attention has been focused in recent years on the democratization of this region.
Although writing about press freedom in the Third World, Asante appears to focus on African nations. This section lacks cohesiveness. For example, a paragraph each on Israel, China, Taiwan and India does not provide the reader with a complete picture of the Asian region. The paragraph on India is based on a single 1986 reference. This is so dated that it gives a lopsided image of the press in this sub-continent. More details of the Third World emerge in Part 2, the section on development; but, somehow, the reader loses the connection at that stage as the emphasis changes to development rather than press freedom.
In Part 1, in the discussion on the New World Information and Communication Order, the author could have included details on the current status of the debate and on issues such as how new technologies are empowering individuals and raising new questions about the information flow. Once again, to some extent this discussion appears in the section on development, but the reader loses the thread. Besides, even in that section, the information provided on new technologies is inadequate. The author lists Rogers and Balle’s (1985) definitions of new technologies that does not include technologies such as the Internet and cellular telephones. Again, discussion on how alternative outlets are changing the communication scene in developing countries could have been more detailed.
In Part 2, Asante has traced the history of the role of communication in development. While discussing the diffusion of innovation theory, he refers to Rogers’ 1962 and 1976 books, but he fails to mention the changes this theory has undergone over the last two decades.
On the whole, it appears that the author has tried to address too many issues and has ended up by giving barely adequate information on many of these. The selected annotated bibliography includes 373 sources pertaining to press freedom/media-government relationship and 145 sources related to development communication. The sources include books, theses, dissertations, periodicals, and scholarly or professional journal articles. Some essential names in development journalism (Alan Chalkley, for example) have escaped Asante’s attention. In preparing a revised edition, Asante may benefit from the latest work of Gunaratne (1998).
Another drawback is the haphazard listing of the editions of the books--sometimes the first and sometimes other: they are not necessarily the latest editions. For example, he lists Rogers’ 1962 landmark book Diffusion of Innovations and Merrill’s 1983 edition of Global Journalism though these are not the latest editions. Hachten’s 1981 edition of The World News Prism is not mentioned while the 1992 edition is (but not the 1996 edition). Although sometimes it may not be possible to include the latest editions of books because of the time lag between compiling the information and publication of the same, a future edition of this book ought to include the latest editions of the selected books to make it serve as a useful reference.
In the “Afterword” of the book, Asante has provided a list of names of authors of some of the significant works in the two areas. This would be useful especially to scholars new to the field. The book has a brief foreword by Everett Rogers.
Reference:
Gunaratne, S.A. (1998). Old wine in a new bottle: Public journalism,
developmental journalism, and social responsibility. In M.E. Roloff, ed.,
Communication
Yearbook 21 (pp. 277-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sandhya Rao, assistant professor
Department of Mass Communication
Southwest Texas State University
Crystal, David.
English as a Global Language.
New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1997. x+150 pp.
Dovring, Karin.
English as Lingua Franca:
Double Talk in Global Persuasion.
Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997.
xii+153 pp.
Writing from bicultural northern Wales, Crystal, the author of this small book, makes his position clear: he supports both multilingualism and a common global language. This is the same position advocated by U.S. English at whose suggestion he wrote the book. U.S. English (I was an inactive member for several years) is a lobby group that advocates the curious (to some) notion of declaring English the official language of the United States. The book usefully discusses the American debate, which is currently focused on a public referendum to end bilingual education in California in favor of accelerated English instruction for immigrant children.
Crystal addresses three questions: What makes a world language? Why
is English the only current choice? What will happen to it? He includes
an overview of the common statistics about the dominance of English and
offers two well-accepted explanations for its rise: the British empire
in the 18th and 19th centuries and American geopolitical dominance in the
20th. Although the rise of any international language obviously is linked
to traditional power, I would argue that a third phase is now at hand:
English has been put to work by a global economy and culture, and its
future is in the hands of businessmen, scientists, and rock singers from
all countries, more than the continued influence of the United States,
home to 70 percent of the world’s native speakers.
The book presents concise summaries of the development and spread of English and useful data. Crystal, editor of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, counts countries where English is more or less a native language such as Britain and the United States (L1), an official language such as India and the Philippines (L2), or widely studied, now just about everywhere else (L3). His admittedly rough estimates are 320 million to 380 million people in L1, 150 million to 300 million in L2, and 100 million to 1,000 million in L3, a total that comes close to one person in four in the world. More than 70 countries accord English some level of official status.
Crystal writes about the varieties of English—dialects, Creoles, and pidgin—and is non-committal about its future. Disintegration into a family of languages seems to be inevitable with some lingering common core shared by global users.
The problems of differing meanings of words—even when speakers think they’re using the same language—is the theme of Dovring’s 150-page book. The author, described as a Swedish-born “communications analyst” who worked for many years with Harold Lasswell, emphasizes “body-snatched” English or the “rape of a language.” It is not always clear to me whether problems she describes are more a product of the deliberate misuse of language to deceive or to the inevitable problems arising from a lingua franca that is still foreign to most of its users.
Several chapters describe various international English-language-based misunderstandings—whether deliberate or unintentional is sometimes in question—and are followed by a quantitative analysis of a handful of rhetorical documents, using unspecified methods that presumably have their origins in Lasswell’s well-known work on propaganda that emerged from World War I.
Her core argument is that English is frequently deliberately misused in international relations as an element of negotiating strategy or propaganda or to disguise a change of heart or policy. The assumption is that by digging beneath the surface or rhetoric one can discover true intentions or hidden meanings, an argument reminiscent of both old studies of propaganda and trendy literary deconstruction. Whether such techniques lend themselves as neatly to quantitative analysis—especially from a tiny sample of material as her analysis of a handful of speeches by Gorbachev, Reagan, and Qadhafi suggests—is at least open to question.
I am not aware of any good evidence that propaganda studies contributed significantly to the intelligence effort during World War II or after. Deconstruction, as a method of literary scholarship, had a brief moment of attention and an ignominious end following revelations about its founder’s propaganda activities in occupied Belgium. Aside from a few current examples and a reminder that people can use a global language to deceive as well as to communicate, this book contributes little new to our understanding of the unique importance of English as a global language.
Robert L. Stevenson, Kenan Professor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
De Mooij, Marieke
Global Marketing and
Advertising: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE,
1998. xx+316.
Although almost all international advertising research studies either directly or indirectly involve the cultures of different countries, the literature is scarce in providing a systematic discussion on specifically how culture affects advertising strategies and the practice of consumer research. De Mooij’s book, an attempt to fill this void, offers a unique view on how culture affects consumer behavior and advertising executions, and the implications of the cultural characteristics of different countries to international advertisers. Many issues raised in this book can become hypotheses for future empirical studies in international advertising.
The book consists of five sections. The first reviews the standardization/localization debate in international advertising and introduces the concept of cultural paradoxes in advertising communications. The second reviews the theories on culture. The third links the effect of culture on advertising appeals, advertising forms, executions and style. The fourth critiques the cultural and methodological constraints in cross-cultural advertising research. The fifth discusses the strategic implications of the countries’ cultural differences to international advertising.
Clearly, De Mooij is against standardization in international advertising. To build her case, she begins by immediately refuting the existence of global or universal values. She contends that even if such values exist, they are “superficial.” She argues that the seeming individualization of consumers in collective cultures is just a cultural paradox. Her view of culture is country-specific. She presumes that countries have homogeneous cultures and that subcultures, such as those based on age or profession, are subservient to the national culture.
The underlying theme of the book is “Do as the Romans do” -or what De Mooij calls “multi-domestic” campaigns. Advertisers, she says, should follow the practice of the majority of the domestic advertisers. However, if international advertising success depends on following what the other country’s advertisers are already doing, doesn’t this presume that all domestic advertisers are successful? Over-emphasis on the cultural characteristics of a country will lead advertisers to run into the danger of blindly following the rule, which is contrary to the essence of advertising effectiveness: creativity. What this book lacks is a more sophisticated view that takes into account the unique dilemmas international advertisers usually face, such as balancing image consistency, production quality and the country-of-origin effects.
De Mooij employs Hofstede’s five dimensions of culture to explain the differences in the advertising styles in different countries: 1) power distance, 2) individualism/collectivism, 3) uncertainly avoidance, 4) masculinity/femininity, and 5) time orientation. In Chapter 6, De Mooij correlates Hofstede’s cultural dimension scores with Reader’s Digest’s EuroData, a consumer survey in 17 European countries, and concludes that Hofstede’s scores are very useful predictors of consumer behavior. For example, strong uncertain avoidance scores are correlated to high autofocus camera ownership and low do-it-yourself product ownership. Although such secondary analysis is interesting, she fails to explain the many exceptions to the rule presented in Figures 6.10 to 6.11, such as Switzerland and Denmark which have low uncertainly-avoidance scores but high autofocus camera ownership, or France and Belgium, which have high uncertainly avoidance but high do-it-yourself product ownership.
One of this book’s most original contributions to the field of international advertising is the concept of cultural paradoxes: that two opposing values exist at the same time in a culture. One is the desirable, the implicit one in the culture; the other is the desired, the value the consumer is missing in that culture. To achieve success, advertising has to appeal to the desired value rather than the desirable. It leads readers to expect that De Mooij will provide a theory of how to identify the cultural paradoxes and make use of such paradoxes to find the true desires of the consumer. She lists several cultural paradoxes, such as the individualism/collectivism paradox in Japan, where Japanese prefer advertising that shows the independence of the individual; and the masculinity/femininity paradox that women in masculine culture are portrayed as behaving like men. However, the examples she uses are only anecdotal and seem to apply only to certain countries. She fails to mention cultural dimensions such as long-term/short-term orientation, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance paradoxes. The cultural paradox proposition creates a problem for advertisers rather than helping them. How do they know that a value in a culture is a paradox? If they know that it is a paradox, should they appeal to the desired value, or the mainstream socially desirable value of the consumer?
Similar missing linkages also occur in her discussion on her study of the cultural dimensions and executional styles in Chapter 10. She discusses some of the executions in detail, such as how slice-of-life needs should be adapted in different cultures. However, she mentions nothing about some executions, such as the cross-cultural usage of vignettes, and special effects.
De Mooij is strongly critical of the American ethnocentrism in cross-cultural advertising research and the quantitative approach to advertising research. She suggests the use of qualitative research to avoid the cultural bias. However, this may worsen the problem than solving it because using her study as an example, she admits that the coding of advertising values is subjective and hard to resolve the differences.
Another contribution of the book is the differentiation of a country’s domestic advertising and imported advertising in content analysis. With the P & G effect, or the dominance of multinational advertising in a market, advertisements collected by researchers may not reflect the true culture of that country. She advises researchers to differentiate the indigenous culture and the foreign culture by the country-of-origin of the advertisers. This is an important methodological reminder for researchers who want to use content analysis of advertising to identify the cultural values of a country.
Louisa Ha, research director
The Gallup Organization U.S.A.
Dupagne, Michael, and Peter B. Seel.
High-Definition Television:
A Global Perspective.
Ames: Iowa State University
Press, 1998. xix+372pp.
It is appropriate and fitting that Dupagne and Seel begin their book with a long list of abbreviations, because reading their thorough account of the 30-year trail of HDTV’s development is an alphabet soup to consume. The 150-plus different abbreviations and acronyms (from ACATS to WT) that dot the book from beginning to end make reading the text impossible without constant reference to the list. That fact is not a criticism of Dupagne and Seel’s writing style, but a testament to the complex nature of the subject matter they decided to write about.
The authors say the adoption of standards for high definition television has been an international battle of wills. They state, “The global HDTV policymaking case demonstrates the lengths to which national and regional governments are prepared to go to develop and protect their high-technology industries” (p. 307). Several technical, economic and philosophical differences were among the major forces behind the development of HDTV that ultimately prevented global standards from being set. They add, “These international television standardization negotiations became exposed to all sorts of pressures—trade issues, corporate and national standards, and even programming concerns—that had little to do with the goal of setting up common technical parameters” (p. 42).
Dupagne and Seel provide a detailed account of how manufacturers, government regulators, broadcasters and public perception in Japan, Europe and the United States all played defining roles in how HDTV will be implemented. The goal initially was to provide higher quality sound and image transmissions—quality that exceeded existing television standards. In the beginning, the main thrust for HDTV standardization related to debates over how many lines of resolution television screens should have, the screen’s size and aspect ratio, and the systems’ compatibility or incompatibility with existing systems. In recent years, the debate has shifted somewhat to also include questions related to the transmission and delivery of digital signals. The computer industry is now a major force in deciding the direction that HDTV will take because television and computer technologies are in the process of converging.
The first chapter provides an excellent overview of HDTV’s history. It provides a concise and coherent narrative of how HDTV evolved. The authors then trace HDTV’s development in Japan, Europe and the United States in separate chapters, and they also address the aesthetic differences to be realized from HDTV and the expected cost of implementing the technology.
Dupagne and Seel do a great job of organizing years and years worth of reports laden with technological and/or policy initiatives. From the groundbreaking research of the Japanese broadcasting giant NHK to the collaborative efforts of the European and American Grand Alliance, the authors carefully weave together the mosaic of what would become high-definition television. However, most readers no doubt will have difficulty following the debates and decisions that led to HDTV standards because of the many actors involved, and all of them seem to have abbreviated identities.
The Dupagne-Seel book is a scholarly effort of the highest order as descriptive history. Their work is comprehensive and well-documented. The 16 pages of endnotes provide valuable information to complement the text, and a reference list of 569 entries shows how exhaustive their research was. The authors devote only a small portion of their book (Chapter 9) to model construction and theory building. The authors build upon existing policymaking models to provide their own “global” model aimed at explaining the interaction between and among governments, regulators, broadcasters, and the multinational corporations that manufacture HDTV technologies.
The authors argue that these manufacturer multinationals have been the focal point in determining how high-definition television has been and will be implemented. They state, “Like it or not, the multinational corporation is an intrinsic linking element in the global telecommunications model. Consumers and regulators vary between nation-states, but MNCs do not. The pervasive global reach of the MNCs is based upon the telecommunications linkages developed by corporate giants such as AT&T, Sony, and Philips” (p. 305).
Graduate courses on media technologies, history, or international communication may find this book useful, but it probably would be most helpful if used in courses dealing with telecommunication policymaking processes. Scholars who wish to follow the paper trails that led to the diverse approaches taken by the United States, Europe and Japan in their development of HDTV might find Dupagne and Seel’s book fascinating. Others, however, will likely find the details cumbersome, especially the authors’ reliance on acronyms and other abbreviations. Also, the insights to be gained from reading the book are few. The authors make a strong case for their assertion that policymaking on an international scale is very complex and that multinational manufacturers are key players in shaping telecommunication policies. Would anyone, though, argue otherwise?
Tim England, assistant professor
Department of Mass Communication
Southwest Texas State University
Eribo, Festus, and William Jong-Ebot
(eds.)
Press Freedom and Communication
in Africa.
Trenton, N.J.: Africa World
Press, 1997. xx+362pp.
This book arrives at a crucial time after the end of the Cold War. The global political and economic agenda, which has historically affected Africa’s development, has shifted grounds. Now, the political landscape in Africa features increased response to local and global demands for democratic and economic reforms. Once again, a segment of the press is assisting liberation movements. This time, the colonization is internal. Therefore, the task of the African press is difficult.
The editors’ introduction states that any worthy study of the African press should account for not only the institution’s encounter with colonialism but also its post-colonial adoption by the African political elite. This sets the backdrop for the extensive description of press systems around the continent that oscillate, sometimes in quick succession, between the authoritative and the benevolent disposition of civilian and/or military regimes. The resulting analyses of state-press relations in 15 African countries, by 20 leading scholars, provide an informative guided tour, which is deeply historical and extensively grounded in examples. Some essays assess the futuristic prospects of Africa’s political communication systems.
The volume contains four parts-Anglophone, Arab-speaking, Francophone, and Lusophone-reflecting Africa’s colonial and linguistic experience. This organization also highlights Africa’s different political orientations. The duality of Africa’s colonial exposure notwithstanding, the 15 essays adumbrate how these countries share historical antecedents that have produced a comparable approach to political communication. The history of press development in these countries is synonymous with the history of nationalism. However, harsh techniques of press repression by government have survived colonialism and remained central to the discussion of post-independent state-press relations irrespective of the frequent shifts between civilian and military rule. In most countries-e.g., Egypt (Napoli and Amin), Ghana (Anokwa), Nigeria (Eribo) and Uganda (Robins)-the press did not fare comparably better under one than the other. In Cameroon (Kale II), Kenya (Heath), Tanzania (Grosswiler) and Zaire (Ibelema and Onwudiwe), extensive domination by single ruling parties appears to have given state-press relations much of the flavor of military regimes in the other countries. In the new South Africa (Giffard, de Beer and Steyn), the advent of majority rule has ushered in remarkable but unexpected progress in the political communication system. Determining whether a previously adversarial press will oscillate from watchdog to lapdog is a waiting game, which depends strongly on the success of the transition.
A mixture of press traditions-authoritarian, libertarian and development-prevail in the African political landscape. A mix of ownership structure exits, but the governments permit only so much freedom as they periodically deem fit. Frequently, the boundaries of freedom become flexible when it is to the advantage of the government. Oftentimes, the repression of journalists has been retroactive. The extent of freedom allowed depends on the personality of a leader more than on the type of regime. Hence, there is a constant shift, sometimes involving the same leader, from the benevolent dictator to the democratic autocrat or to the autocratic democrat. Across the board, governments’ extensive control of the media economy enables these shifts. Governments deny the advertising subsidy to the privately owned, advocacy and adversarial press. The control of newsprint remains a uniform weapon against the print media. The exclusive ownership of the electronic media, in nearly all the countries, ensures governments’ access to a market untainted, in programming and content, by private-enterprise competition.
Most of the essays depict the professionals in the press as frequently unsure of what to expect. They are in a constant dance of adjustment where no style appears permanently cost-effective. Superficially, this appeared to have produced a continental press corps adept in the management of conciliation. Yet, the decline of press liberties noted by nearly all the scholar guides should not be completely digested as the eulogy of an emasculated press. Though problematic, the communication strategy adopted by the governments has not eliminated the willingness of the press to remain adversarial often at the risk of the practitioners’ lives. The stringent political control has given rise to an underground press. It may be more useful to read the status of the press as official attempts at forced subservience.
The audience, a third dimension in an exhaustive analysis of a political communication system, is missing in the evaluation of most of the 15 chapters. They make cursory statistical reference to illiteracy in a few instances. This missing discussion may not be peculiar to the treatment of Africa’s political communication system. Readers interested in this dimension will note, however, that the limited media pluralism in Africa remains open only to those with the ability to read such languages as Arabic, English, French, Kiswahili and Portuguese. This condition, aggravated by the lack of diversity in controlled electronic media, is a negative commentary on the readiness of Africa’s population for their roles as citizens. This should seriously concern scholars interested in the state of press freedom in Africa. The epochal social transformation introduced by ongoing democratic reforms makes the latter an urgent concern.
In spite of the foregoing limitation, the volume provides a valuable one-stop source for scholars, at all levels of inquiry, interested in the discussion of press freedom in contemporary Africa. Yet, the essays’ exploration of external and internal influences on the origin and development of the press in Africa help ground unfamiliar readers in strong historical foundation. The reader interested in establishing experiential connections among the countries is quickly able to picture unique, yet regionally common, experiences. In the same vein readers with baseline exposure, who need a refresher in current developments across the regions, have access to very resourceful and readable chapters. Overall, the volume has a good mix of authors with universalistic and relativist approaches to the evaluation of the liberty of thought and expression in Africa.
Anthony A. Olorunnisola, assistant professor
College of Communications
The Pennsylvania State University
Herman, Edward S., and Robert W. McChesney
The Global Media: The
New Missionaries of Global Capitalism.
London & Washington:
Cassell, 1997. x+262pp.
Herman and McChesney offer a concise and provocative analysis of global communication. The book’s eight chapters (i) map the history of global media, (ii) illuminate the missionary role of global media in commercializing culture, (iii) argue that the commercially based global media weaken public service media and democracy, and (iv) discuss political choices and alternative media arrangements that may offset current trends. The initial chapters provide a highly readable account of the history of global media and the factors now pressing for change. The authors recount the mid-19th century advent of the telegraph and news agencies, the emergence of each major medium since then—film, radio, advertising, television, and so on—and the demise of efforts in the 1970s to establish a New World Information and Communication Order.
A key theme of the book is that advertising-financed, corporate-owned media are a threat to democracy. The authors highlight how policy changes worldwide have expanded advertising relative to programming content, especially in children’s programs. They point to new practices that efface the traditional fuzzy line between editors and marketers, as well as to reductions in public affairs programming. They also look at how public broadcasters have been forced to compete for audiences and rely on commercial strategies to enter new media markets. Consequently, weak public broadcasters and fewer public affairs programs no longer serve to counter an all-pervasive commercial media system that treats people according to market values instead of democratic principles. Where many see new media as surmounting these problems, Herman and McChesney see an augmented ability for “advertisers and media to segregate people by class, allowing concentrated services to the affluent ... [while] creating the electronic equivalent of gated communities” (p. 142).
Unfortunately, however, the authors’ case regarding the impact of advertising on democracy often rests more on the eloquence of their argument than the quality of their evidence. They rely too heavily on the press for evidence; and although these sources are crucial, they are not necessarily reliable. Secondly, statistics are bandied about with disregard for a sense of scale. Thirdly, evidence regarding the indistinct line between editors and commercial interests is difficult to judge. The fuzzy line between the two has always posed difficulties for independent journalism, so how do we know it is getting worse? Finally, the evidence behind claims that public affair programming is declining is weak. This is troublesome because studies exist that, at least partially, would bolster the authors’ claims. These studies show that public broadcasters make vital contributions to diversity, that the U.S. media are among the least diverse worldwide, but also that the impact of deregulation varies. For example, deregulation in Sweden has had a positive impact on the diversity of the television system but a negative impact on radio (Hillve, Majanen & Rosengren, 1997). More studies illuminating the conditions where positive outcomes of media change are more or less probable are likely to prove a better guide to policy intervention than cavalier comments about the “general trajectory of the deregulatory and privatization process [being] unmistakable across the planet” (p. 38).
The authors’ model of a “tiered global media market” (p. 52) and case studies of the five largest media companies in chapters 2 and 3 are more successful. Chapter 2 argues that the worldwide media system consists of three tiers: the first comprises the 10 largest media providers with annual revenues between $10 billion and $25 billion, the second tier covers those with global ambitions and revenues between $2 billion and $10 billion, and the last covers those in the competitive fringes of the global media system. The “tiered global media market” is a useful tool that helps us get a grip on the relative size of various players at a time when a deluge of mergers, alliances, etc., threatens to render understanding impossible. The model also furthers understanding of how global providers are related to one another. Firms in the first tier—News Corp, Time Warner, Disney, TCI, Viacom, Bertelsmann, and so on—are shown to have an average of five alliances with others in the same tier and six deals with those in the second tier (p. 56). Case studies in Chapter 3 list these arrangements.
Of course, as the authors indicate, these alignments are not always successful. Nonetheless, the cartel-like arrangements they create do soften the threat of competition and provide global players with an inordinate amount of influence over the evolution of the so-called “new media.”
The authors take up the latter point in Chapter 4, with particular reference to the Internet. They claim that the Internet is a boon for democratic communication, although its radical potential may yet be buried under a deluge of commercialism. They conclude that while the evolutionary path of new media is still open, concerted efforts are pushing them in the direction of the traditional media. In particular, they refer to the push to increase advertising revenue in cyberspace, the advent of “push technologies” that stuff bundles of prepackaged content into subscribers’ desktop PCs, and the push by key players to make the Internet look like television. The authors are at their best in this chapter, offering insightful analysis while remaining open to the fact that nobody yet has a handle on where all this new media stuff is going.
However, the authors exaggerate the extent to which advertising is a force on the Internet. For instance, they mention “that ten firms collected two-thirds of the $300 million spent to advertise on the Internet” in 1996 (p. 128). Yet, alongside broadcast advertising revenues of $36 billion in the United States in 1996, Internet advertising is meager. This does not mean, however, that we should be sanguine about this. My point is that these figures need to be put into perspective and, moreover, that exaggeration runs the risk of dampening vital political energies precisely at the moment they are needed most. This is crucial in light of the potential for an intense politics of media in the upcoming years, as the authors ably demonstrate in the last chapter.
In the end, I am of two minds about The Global Media. On the one hand, I am disappointed by the lack of original research and failure to give readers a more measured sense of the magnitude of the trends documented. On the other hand, I know no other source that does such a remarkable job outlining the most distinctive contours of the global media while simultaneously revealing the vital moral issues and political choices attached to them on the cusp of the 21st century. This is a valuable book that, coupled with a good teacher able to round out some of the sharp edges, will make a significant contribution to the classroom and, more importantly, media politics.
Reference:
Hillve, P., Majanen, P., & Rosengren, K.E. (1997). Aspects of quality
in TV programming: structural diversity compared over time and space. European
Journal of Communication, 12(3), 291-318.
Dwayne Winseck, assistant professor
School of Journalism and Communication
Carleton University
Jeter, James Phillip, Kuldip R. Rampal, Vibert
C. Cambridge, and Cornelius B. Pratt.
International Afro Mass
Media, A Reference Guide.
Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press. 1996. Xiii+297pp.
This book is a laudable attempt to narrate the background and the media history of the natives of Africa and the people of African descent in the Caribbean and the United States, where they originally arrived involuntarily.
The book has four sections dealing with Africa south of the Sahara, North Africa, the Caribbean region, and Afro-America. Each section has four chapters analyzing the media: their settings and philosophical contexts, their development and government relations, the education and training of their personnel, and the challenges in the use of new technologies. Most of the countries that make up the first three sections have several things in common: their struggle against colonial rulers; the efforts to achieve developmental, social and integration goals in the aftermath of independence; and the lack of adequate media training and resources. The last section, which deals with African Americans, tells a different story that pertains to the United States, a superpower with a highly developed media system that enjoys more freedom than most other countries. Yet, the history of African Americans is a story of struggles: struggles to attain equality, to fight misrepresentation in the media, and to gain access to adequate educational opportunities.
Pratt, in his analysis of Sub-Saharan Africa, presents a cohesive picture of the region that includes some 50 nations and “stretches from the Sudan to the Cape of Good Hope—almost three times the size of the United States, about the size of Argentina, China, Europe, India, and New Zealand combined” (p. 3). Despite the diverse cultures and backgrounds of these countries, they have some things in common—authoritarian regimes; influences and legacies of colonial rule; the struggles for self-rule; and inadequate media freedom, training and resources, which bind them together. Journalism education in this region, as in most Third World countries, is based on the two dominant training models: the colonial and the developmental.
Rampal, who examines North Africa, deals with Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Western Sahara, the Sudan and Tunisia. He explains each of these countries separately. Though each has its own characteristics and problems, Rampal claims the most significant common problem these countries face is that of political control over the press. The author would have given the reader a quick and useful picture of the region had he presented the demographics and other information on these countries in a common table. Perhaps a better idea would have been to present the African continent as a whole rather than break it into the northern and Sub-Saharan regions. That would have enabled the authors to give the readers a more unified picture of the region and avoid repetition.
Cambridge examines the historical background, government relations and media resources in the former British colonies in the Caribbean with particular reference to Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Christopher and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. Although Cambridge presents each country separately because of differences in demographics and other details, he also provides an overview of the region’s media system and new technologies. He says that three political ideas have dominated post-independent Caribbean: democracy, integration and socialism. In their colonial background and development needs, they are not very different from the African countries described in the first two sections of the book. Government publications and government control and patronage over the independent press dominated the pre-colonial media. The post-colonial period saw continued attempts of the government to influence social reforms. The influx of new technologies and a deteriorating economy have led to a multiplicity of media outlets and less government control since the early 1980s. VCRs and satellites have begun to offer alternative outlets in the broadcasting area.
One strength of the book is its examination of the impact of new communication technologies on the different regions, and their potential to connect people within the regions and with the rest of the world. The media systems and organizations described include Pan-African Telecommunications Network (PANAFTEL), International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), Arab States Broadcasting Union (ASBU) and Arab Communication Satellite (ARABSAT). Cambridge mentions that continental Africa and its diaspora, a cultural and geographic community constituting ‘global Africa,’ is attracting investments from major international communication conglomerates such as AT&T with its ‘Africa One’ project, a fiber optic network connecting the African continent. Black Entertainment Television Network and World African Network from the United States are also entering this African market.
In discussing new technologies, however, Pratt questions the relevance of capital intensive new technologies such as telecommunications, satellites and computers. He asserts that countries should determine the actual utilitarian value of these technologies. He suggests an issues-management approach to enable the countries to adopt communication technologies based on societal needs and their appropriateness to the indigenous culture. The other authors of the book have more positive approaches toward new technologies and recognize the fact that people of African descent in and outside of Africa cannot afford to lag behind. Although Cambridge fears that the Direct Broadcast Satellite will be a threat to national broadcast systems, he feels that the Caribbean heritage and popular culture could benefit by the vast and valuable market of global programming.
The final section, in which Jeter provides an overview of black American media history in the United States, stands apart. As a minority in the United States, black journalists have used media to fight for black rights and to set right the non-objective media portrayal of blacks. Regarding education and training, Jeter points out that in media-saturated United States where several thousand students graduate with degrees in journalism and mass communication each year, the percentage of blacks who graduate is low. Although the United States is a leader in information technologies, it shows a widening gap between the blacks and whites in the information sector. Jeter concludes: “[T]he future looks bleak for substantial changes in the mass media in terms of portrayal and entrepreneurship for the vast majority of Americans of African descent, and the power to shape the new media environment in a burgeoning industry may elude them” (p. 268). Of the 23 tables in the book, all except three appear in this section. This in itself speaks for the abundance of statistical data available in the United States and the lack of research data in the African and the Caribbean nations.
Overall, the book succeeds in giving an overview of the people of African descent and the history of their media. It is a useful reference guide for mass communicators interested in international and development communication in general and for those focusing on Africa and the people of African descent in particular.
Sandhya Rao, assistant professor
Department of Mass Communication
Southwest Texas State University
Paletz, David (ed.)
Political Communication
in Action: States, Institutions, Movements, Audiences.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton,
1996. xiv+338pp.
This edited volume represents an extremely ambitious project. Paletz’ goal is “to present some of the most interesting research [in political communication] from around the world, research that might otherwise remain unknown” (p. ix). The authors of the 14 essays come from 11 countries. They deal with a wide variety of topics. Such rare international cooperation needs encouragement, especially in political communication, where little serious research is available outside the United States.
It is also important, however, to ensure such works focus on narrow topics lest we lose many benefits associated with comparative research. Unfortunately, the larger the number of countries represented, the more difficult it is to achieve this goal. It is also difficult to ensure the quality of all the contributions. Some work, after all, should remain unknown. These are the two major weaknesses of this volume. Most of the essays have little in common. Thus it lacks a collective voice.
The book has four parts: 1) Theories 2) Statewide 3) Events, Institutions, Social Movements, and 4) Audience Reactions. Even comparison of essays within each section is difficult because of the variety of topics. A large variance in the quality of the research compounds the problem.
However, the book has a number of very good pieces, which justifies buying a copy. These essays provide thought-provoking theories, methods and findings, which are ready for export. Each provides useful insights for those in political communication attempting to create a more comprehensive set of theories. Five such articles deserve further comment.
Van Dijk’s essay, “Power and the news media,” uses discourse analysis to deal with racism in the press. Because he has already written extensively about this topic, a certain amount of overlap is apparent. Nevertheless, this piece provides a concise presentation of some important ideas about how media routines, norms and structures serve to propagate racism. Because many countries face this issue Van Dijk’s concepts could provide a solid base for comparative research. It would be especially important for researchers in this area to explain how and when the news media become less racist in their coverage.
I found Japanese scholar Youichi Ito’s essay, “Mass media’s influence on government decision making,” most enjoyable. He presents his “tripolar Kuuki model,” which posits that collective political decision making is made under the pressure of the “dominant Kuuki (air, atmosphere, or standard of judgment) created and maintained by three major components or sectors of political decision making”-the masses, the media and the government (p. 48). His major thesis is that by measuring the distribution of opinion in each of these groups, one can estimate the climate of opinion on a particular issue. He applies this model to the “United Nations Peace Cooperation Bill” controversy during the Gulf crisis, when former Japanese Prime Minister Kaifu attempted to send troops to help the United Nations. Ito claims that Kaifu’s decision to eventually withdraw his proposal is attributable to the climate of opinion as measured through content analysis, public opinion polls, and opinions within the government.
Political climate is an important issue in modern politics, and communication scholars should spend more time carrying out research on the topic. One reason for the dearth of studies in this area has to do with methodological difficulties associated with measuring political climate. Although one could think of a number of alternative approaches, Ito’s essay provides a significant push in the right direction.
The third article, written by Barrie Gunter, looks at the introduction of television to the British Parliament. The rich set of data collected by the author on a topic of high interest to scholars and legislators in many countries gives this essay great value. Gunter collected survey data from both politicians and the public both before and after the introduction of television in the two houses of parliament. The essay has very little theory. However, it is rare for scholars to have such extensive access to political leaders and to be able to carry out an almost experimental design on such an important topic.
The introduction of television was a success in Britain. Members of parliament and the public expressed approval of the move, and neither seemed to see major problems. Most believed that the live coverage would increase people’s interest and knowledge of the affairs of state. Yet, Gunter found no objective evidence of such changes. Although one would certainly want to collect more data, the introduction of television to a legislature could, at least, have a positive impact on citizens’ trust in the system.
The fourth article, written by Indian scholar K.M. Shrivasta, paints a grim portrait of Indian journalists being threatened and murdered by terrorists intent on turning the press into a propaganda tool. The authorities in India were incapable of doing anything to protect the journalists, and it would seem that terrorists’ campaign was largely successful. One can only wonder whether other parts of the world are keeping similar problems quiet.
Liebes and Grysak’s “Television news and the politicization of women” is the final essay worthy of comment. The authors use ethnographic methods to look at differences in the way in which Israeli men and women (Arabs and Jews) deal with the news. They found that while women were just as likely to view the news, they exhibited interest in a number of different topics and were more hesitant concerning their knowledge of public affairs. Liebes and Grysak write that Israeli women are “connoisseurs of human tragedy” and were more likely to relate to the news stories that appeared about car accidents, ecological disasters, and a nurses strike. The major weakness in this article is that the authors do not provide a good sense of how common such differences were. On the other hand, they do present a number of intriguing explanations about why women may process news very differently than men.
I recommend these five essays to prospective readers. I hope that one byproduct of the communication revolution would be more comparative studies in political communication.
Gadi Wolfsfeld, associate professor
Departments of Political Science and Communication
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Sussman, Gerald.
Communication, Technology,
and Politics in the Information Age.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, 1997. xv+391pp.
The production of articles and books on the “information age/society/ economy/revolution” has been a veritable boom industry in the last two decades. The dominant narrative in this literature is by now very familiar. In essence, information-communication technologies (ICTs) are portrayed as transforming society and culture for the better; these technologies are depicted as permitting the revitalization of democracy, the creation of new forms of community, and the empowerment of individuals. There is too in this literature a well-developed oppositional discourse that seeks to debunk this rosy scenario by demonstrating that ICTs are deeply implicated in various forms of domination.
Sussman’s book is an uncompromising contribution to this oppositional discourse. Guided by a critical political economy perspective, the author’s objective is to demystify the technological determinism of the dominant narrative by exposing the political contexts within which ICTs are developed and institutionalized. In this way, he argues, “we can begin to understand the real meaning of the information revolution.”
In Chapters 1 and 2, the author outlines his interpretation of the main tenets and claims of a critical political economy perspective. Focusing mostly on the U.S. context, Chapters 3 through 6 analyze ICTs in historical and contemporary contexts. The objective here is to show how a range of technologies (television, radio, telephone, computers, and the Internet, for example) “historically and politically relate to one another, where they originated, and what effects they have had on the people involved in their production and use.” The global dimensions of the “information revolution” are examined in Chapter 7. In Chapter 8, Sussman concludes by elaborating the democratic principles he believes should inform the design of communication systems in the next century.
For Sussman, the “real meaning” of the information revolution has to do with various forms of domination that are rooted in the core capitalist processes of accumulation and commodification. He discusses how corporate-driven technological change and government deregulation are reproducing class inequalities; the privileged and business strata, he argues, are able to segregate themselves in terms of access to communication services with fewer subsidies going to the working class and the poor. He details how corporate and state bureaucracies are using ICTs to intensify and extend greatly their surveillance practices thus permitting them to more efficiently control employees, target potential consumers, and govern citizens. He sets out the argument that economic and political elites use mass media to pacify consumers/citizens with a steady diet of brain-numbing programming. And he attempts to demonstrate how a variety of new ICTs (e.g., digital communications and satellites) have permitted transnational corporations to ratchet economic and cultural imperialisms to new levels.
Although none of these observations and arguments are new, Sussman does a good job of connecting and synthesizing much of (though by no means all) the critical literature on the information society. His detailed histories of the emergence and deployment of ICTs draw on a wealth of research and illuminate well the economic and political struggles that become congealed in the resulting technological-institutional configurations. At the same time, however, the author displays a rather selective commitment to providing empirically supported arguments. For example, although Sussman’s analysis of the economic organization of the media is heavily buttressed by empirical evidence his arguments about viewing patterns (i.e., who watches what), what constitutes quality programming, and the power of the mass media vis-à-vis supposedly passive audiences too often take the form of unsupported assertions. With respect to audience behavior, it is rather surprising that Sussman chose not to engage the provocative empirical work that has been produced by cultural studies scholars.
Sussman is surely correct when he argues that corporate capitalists and state organizations are primary shapers of the information revolution, but his portrayal of their interplay could be much more nuanced. In his analysis, economic and political organizations appear as a monolithic force bound together in an unproblematic way. This conception of economic-political relations is not well suited for explaining some of the important events Sussman draws attention to. For example, his discussion of police and military uses of ICTs includes reference to the FBI-sponsored Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and the Clinton administration’s “Clipper Chip” initiative. An explanation of these events requires analysis of the contradictory logics of particular economic and political institutions. Economic forces driving the development of telecommunication and encryption technology have threatened established surveillance practices of particular state agencies (e.g., FBI, NSA), precipitating a crisis of control for the latter. This contradiction has generated conflict between law enforcement officials and national security agencies on the one hand, and a coalition of corporate actors and public interest groups on the other. The point here is that we cannot begin to explain these events unless we have a framework that is sensitive to the contradictions and tensions in the system. Analyzing these contradictions and others (e.g., those operating within the economic sphere) is a key task for a critical political economy that presumes to illuminate the “cracks in the Empire”—something in which the author is very interested.
Communication, Technology, and Politics in the Information Age will be of interest to scholars of the theory, history and social implications of ICTs. Sussman’s accessible prose and his penchant for clearly defining concepts also makes the volume a good source for the general (U.S.-based) reader interested in ICTs and their pervasive social influence. This reader-friendly quality is reinforced by the use of sidebars in each chapter, which allows Sussman to provide further exposition of concepts and to flesh-out more fully the social order within which particular ICTs are deployed. Scholars interested in progressive policy recommendations may be less satisfied. Indeed, much of the author’s analysis focuses on the seemingly overwhelming forces that work on every front to block the advancement of such policies.
Peter Shields, assistant professor
Department of Telecommunications
School of Communication Studies
Bowling Green State University
Taylor, Philip M.
Global Communications,
International Affairs and the Media since 1945.
London and New York: Routledge,
1997. xx+248 pp.
News media don’t do a very good job covering international affairs. A generalization of this sort usually has exceptions, but in this case, unfortunately, not many.
This book takes a hard look at the role of news media in international affairs since the end of the Cold War. The author, a reader in international communications and deputy director of the Institute of Communications Studies at the University of Leeds who has written extensively on mass media and war, effectively juxtaposes his examination of the press with an examination of the government’s role in informational activities.
His premise is that the media deal with world events “erratically, selectively, and sometimes unpredictably.” The book’s objective is “... to explain some of the historical roots of these and other issues being discussed about our information age.” He achieves this modestly stated goal easily. The result is a book that any serious student concerned with the relationship of information and international affairs will find invaluable.
The book’s significance lies in the prominent role assigned information and communication in international affairs. Taylor is one of a number of political and diplomatic historians who have been interpreting events over the past half century from a communication-centered perspective. Taylor begins with a discussion of communications and media in the information age. He draws on Toffler’s Third Wave notion that societies evolved from a base of agriculture (First Wave) to industrialization (Second Wave) and then to information. Since the start of the Cold War in 1945, this knowledge-based third wave has given information a prominent place on the international stage, alongside diplomatic, military and economic affairs.
Taylor divides his book into four main parts.
Part 1--“International communications and international politics since 1945” sketches the emergence of information and communication (“words as weapons”) in a worldwide competitive struggle. The Cuban missile crisis, he writes, was notable because it was probably the last time a U.S. president could act without intensive television scrutiny. This era ushered in cultural imperialism. What emerged was not a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) but “The New World (Dis)order,” in which democratic free-market capitalism gained ascendancy.
Part 2--“Brushfires and firefighters: international affairs and the news media” recounts the entry of news media, especially CNN, into international conflicts. Live coverage has created a “new and, by comparison, chaotic international environment for both global diplomacy and the media.” Unfortunately, television cannot deal well with complex issues, he writes, leading to the conduct of diplomacy in real time which may not provide the necessary time for reflective decision making.
Part 3--“Illusions of reality: the media and the reporting of warfare” reviews the limits of journalism (First drafts of history can be “at best, very much a rough draft.”). War coverage by journalists is not necessarily independent and, in fact, tends to be as patriotic as the public they serve. He labels as myth that media, especially television, helped the United States lose the war in Vietnam. Not so, says Taylor. He cites other factors—not examined in depth in this work—as responsible, including that U.S. media continued to support the war even after the 1968 Tet Offensive and that studies of Gulf War film footage showing scenes of horror repulsed audiences.
Part 4--“Mind games: information warfare and psychological operations” examines in sometimes shocking detail psychological operations (PSYOPS) that have become such a key component of warfare. Here he analyzes different kinds of propaganda—black (covert, deceptive), white (official, based on credible truths) and gray (fails to identify source). Each approach, to be successful, demands its own credibility. He gives examples of the techniques, some bizarre.
There was the dropping by parachute of blocks of ice containing animal blood into the Vietnam jungle. When the ice melted and the North Vietnamese army discovered the blood they—it was hoped—would think non-existent downed pilots were in the vicinity. Another example involved distribution of leaflets in the Gulf War. By the end of the war, some 29 million leaflets were dropped over Iraqi lines—nearly two for every Iraqi citizen or about 50-60 for every enemy soldier within the theater of operations. Post-testing of war prisoners found that 98 percent had been exposed to leaflets and that 80 percent said they believed the message. These messages, it was estimated, persuaded 44 percent of the Iraqi army to desert, more than 17,000 to defect and more than 87,000 to surrender. Taylor discusses the moral dimensions of these “infowar” tactics and suggests words are preferable to bullets, which may be the case, depending on where you stand in relation to the words or the bullets.
Sharply critical of journalists, Taylor believes media should be more responsible in finding ways to inform citizens about international affairs. One solution: educate the next generation of journalists “to concentrate on the message rather than the tricks of the medium.” Admonishing governments “to pay as much attention to matters of presentation and perception as they do to traditional ways of resolving disputes,” he urges the United Nations to do more with PSYOPS.
This is a carefully researched work that synthesizes thoughtfully and critically a vast amount of material from several disciplines. Taylor is right in conjecturing that he would offend some disciplinarians. This would be true for most media scholars because much of his “discovery” of the prominence accorded information and communication has been known for sometime. Nonetheless, in his cross-disciplinary approach, Taylor contributes significantly to the discourse by looking closely at coverage of international events by journalists as well as the burgeoning informational activities of government in international affairs. Besides extensive references, the book includes a useful list of abbreviations and acronyms and a glossary.
My main criticism is that Taylor does not seem to believe in the inherent value of a free press. In his estimation, because media cannot be depended upon, government must be more active in offsetting irresponsible news media.
Kenneth Starck, professor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
The University of Iowa
Wolfsfeld, Gadi.
Media and political conflict:
News from the Middle East.
Cambridge University Press.
1997. xiv+255pp.
This book explores the role of the news media in politics, engaging an approach the author calls a “political contest model.” It expands what might otherwise be reduced to a simplistic approach of media analysis, that is, tracing the role of the news media in terms of direct, linear, and causal effects. Instead, Wolfsfeld assumes that a better understanding of the role of the media should be as part of a larger contest among antagonists for political control. At the heart of his study are issues of mutual influence and social construction, seldom the kinds of problems that lend themselves of simplistic analysis.
The book has three distinct sections. In the first, Wolfsfeld presents his model, describing its underlying arguments and logic. In the second, he presents five situational case studies based on his interviews with antagonists and news content studies focused on Middle East conflicts: the Oslo Accords, the Intifada, and the Gulf War. However, the division of these three cases into five chapters may somewhat confuse the reader. In the third, which Wolfsfeld calls the “multi-purpose arena,” he brings together the evidence in support of his model. The author also has added “a methodological appendix” containing an exhaustive list of interview questions and coding instructions used in the research interviews.
The author’s approach to qualitative analysis, however. conveys some methodological tentativeness. He explains, for instance, that qualitative methods will never adequately “test” a theoretical model, only be applied with greater or lesser success; and that one cannot “prove” a model, but the goal is to be convincing.
Based on his criteria, does this study succeed?
The intricacy of Wolfsfeld’s overall effort here is impressive. His goal is to achieve a deeper-level understanding of the role of the news media in political conflict as it changes over time and circumstance, focusing on the media’s political dependence and independence, how political agents adapt their action with the media in view, and how the balance of political power can shift because of news coverage. This kind of inquiry, indeed, requires some level of theoretical, but not methodological, tentativeness. He stands on firm enough ground as he probes the evidence.
The author explains that tentativeness in this passage: “For several years I had a recurring problem when I was interviewing authorities and group leaders about their relations with the news media. I would always be asking them about the media and they would always be talking to me about politics. I would keep trying to get them back on ‘the track’ and they would keep veering off to talk about political ideologies and strategies. It took me a while, but eventually I got the point: You cannot understand the role of the news media in politics without looking at it within the more general contest for political control” (p. 215).
In truth, Wolfsfeld is rather persuasive in his argument that circumstances between political events are so divergent that it is an intellectual adventure to attempt to draw parallels among them. His key elements are the struggles of advocacy groups to gain media access and control political meaning. These are both intuitive and revealing. He explains how media performance in the Gulf War was heavily dependent on military handlers in terms of their military objectives. On the other extreme, the Intifada was a political contest in which the media exercised a high degree of independence, partly because of foreign media access to contested parties and territories, and partly because of the symbolic nature of the David vs. Goliath struggle played out in front of media cameras.
In terms of theoretical development, Wolfsfeld contributes and expands several useful research techniques in his book. As with most qualitative research, the question of adequacy of generalization is unresolvable. He does, however, engage a method of profiling media content through “framing” of interpretive packages, which he defines as the “attempt to find a narrative fit between incoming information and existing media frames” (p. 34). More specifically, he suggests three research questions to probe the framing processes by journalists who cover political issues: (1) How did we cover this conflict in the past? (context); (2) What is the most newsworthy part of the conflict? (professional consideration); and (3) Who are the good guys? (political influence).
Wolfsfeld adapts William Gamson’s signature matrix, a framing outline, to depict competing frames of political issues. This outline presents each frame beginning at the broadest level as thematic “packages,” and progressing through “core frames,” “metaphors,” “catchphrases,” “visual images” and “consequences,” among various other stages. What results from this matrix is a script that political agents employ in the rhetorical space created by a political struggle.
The author employs the Gamson-type frame structure in this book to make structural sense of how a political problem becomes a descriptive collaboration of participating actors over what a problem is about. It is the artful management of these frames that enables political actors to attract and hold the attention of journalists and constitutes a key problematic in the social construction of political problems. The signature matrix is an interesting approach to depicting political issues. Wolfsfeld’s book is one of the few studies to engage seriously Gamson’s signature matrix, using it as a tool to reach his own conclusions in his political contest model.
This book contributes a level of increased complexity to media analysis in political conflict that is both worthwhile and needed.
Allen W. Palmer, assistant professor
Communications Department
Brigham Young University