Central European Media in Comparative Perspective (original) (raw)
Related papers
Southeastern Europe, 2015
We are pleased to see that our edited collection has generated such interest in the wider scholarly community, and are grateful to all three reviewers for their comments. The decision of the editors of Southeastern Europe journal to host a forum on the topic confirms the timeliness of our intervention and the need for further work in this area. Let us note that the idea for this book was developed in the context of a EU-funded scholarly network 1 that was aimed at increasing the understanding of media landscapes in Central and Eastern Europe, examining the applicability of Western European and North American concepts and theories, and developing novel conceptualisations. Our book was directly tied to these aims-we took an established and increasingly popular 'Western' theory of media systems developed by Hallin and Mancini (2004) as our starting point, thought about whether and how it applied to Central and Eastern European media, how to develop it further to better account for the specificities of media systems in the region, and also how to think in a more sociologically informed way about how to explain media systems thereby broadening out the study of media systems beyond the relationship between media and political systems. From the very start it was clear that we would have to make do with existing resources and data sets, and work within the restraints of time available to our individual contributors. As a result, our main aim was to point out the key contours of a new, better framework for comparative media analysis, and asking our contributors to respond to this framework within the limits of time and data they had available at the time. Systematic new research was, unfortunately, out of question. Likewise, given the geographic focus of the network and expertise, the volume had to be focused on Central and Eastern European media, even though the broader arguments we are developing apply to comparative media research everywhere. With this in mind, let us now turn to the two reviews. We shall start with Anders Todal Jenssen's comments, and then proceed to those provided by Sandra B. Hrvatin and Brankica Petković. In both cases, we shall focus on observations regarding the book in general rather than those related to other individual contributions as the latter are often too specific to be addressed by the editors. Two themes in particular seemed recurrent in the comments-the relationships between different causal factors that affect media systems, and the usefulness of quantitative indicators in comparative media research. The arguments put forward in the comments indicate that we need to restate and clarify our position on each of these. Starting with Jenssen's review, we were of course very pleased to see all the complimentary comments, especially with regard to our argument about the necessity of involving not only political, but also economic, cultural, and more broadly historical and sociological factors
Central and Eastern European media in comparative perspective: politics, economy and culture
typologies designed to account for the diversity of media systems around the world have been a recurring element of communication research for well over half a century. yet, in common with comparative endeavours in other areas of social scientific inquiry, the analysis of media systems has long been plagued by simplistic, teleological and ethnocentric understandings of social change. the four-fold typology of press models proposed by Fred siebert, theodore peterson and wilbur schramm in 1956 -which distinguished between the authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and soviet communist concepts of the presswas designed from the normative perspective of classical liberalism, and ranked the four types of the press on an evolutionary scale culminating in the press model promoted in the West. The analytical framework used was too narrow to capture the varied social and political theories underpinning media policies around the world, and left little scope for acknowledging the unequal distribution of economic, political and communicative power on a global scale (Christians et al. 2009: viii). In this sense, the title of the book -Four Theories of the Press -was a misnomer: instead of offering four theories of the press, it offered 'one theory with four examples' (Nerone 1995: 18).
Central and Eastern European Media in Comparative Perspective
2012
typologies designed to account for the diversity of media systems around the world have been a recurring element of communication research for well over half a century. yet, in common with comparative endeavours in other areas of social scientific inquiry, the analysis of media systems has long been plagued by simplistic, teleological and ethnocentric understandings of social change. the four-fold typology of press models proposed by Fred siebert, theodore peterson and wilbur schramm in 1956 -which distinguished between the authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and soviet communist concepts of the presswas designed from the normative perspective of classical liberalism, and ranked the four types of the press on an evolutionary scale culminating in the press model promoted in the West. The analytical framework used was too narrow to capture the varied social and political theories underpinning media policies around the world, and left little scope for acknowledging the unequal distribution of economic, political and communicative power on a global scale (Christians et al. 2009: viii). In this sense, the title of the book -Four Theories of the Press -was a misnomer: instead of offering four theories of the press, it offered 'one theory with four examples' (Nerone 1995: 18).
Media Transition in Eastern Europe after 1989
In this article the author compares the transformation of media systems of two countries belonging to the former Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe: Albania and Poland. The aim is to highlight differences that occurred in this process, in order to show how, albeit a similar past and the belonging to the same political and economic model until 1989.
Global Media and Communication
A quarter century after the collapse of Communism in the former Eastern bloc, a wide range of scholarly projects have been undertaken to compare and theorize processes of media change in the region. One question that scholars have sought to address is: what were the factors that crucially impacted how these media landscapes evolved? This essay aims to contribute to this debate by juxtaposing media change in two selected cases: the Czech Republic (as a best-case scenario in terms of convergence with the Western model) and Russia (as a scenario where convergence has been limited). Based on secondary analysis of a wide range of sources, the essay systematically exposes 11 crucial differences between the two countries and illustrates how these have impacted the processes of media change. The conclusion sets out how these findings could serve as a starting point and source of inspiration for future comparative research.
Global Media and Communication, 2013
A quarter of a century after the collapse of communism in the former Eastern bloc, a wide range of scholarly projects have been undertaken to compare and theorize processes of media change in the region. One question that scholars have sought to address is: what were the factors that crucially impacted how these media landscapes evolved? This essay aims to contribute to this debate by juxtaposing media change in two selected cases: the Czech Republic (as a best-case scenario in terms of convergence with the Western model) and Russia (as a scenario where convergence has been limited). Based on secondary analysis of a wide range of sources, the essay systematically exposes 11 crucial differences between the two countries and illustrates how these have impacted the processes of media change. The conclusion sets out how these findings could serve as a starting point and source of inspiration for future comparative research.