Why do pluralistic media systems emerge? Comparing media change in the Czech Republic and in Russia after the collapse of communism (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
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).
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 European Media in Comparative Perspective
Firstly, this paper attempts at qualitative comparative analysis of some of major international comparative researches on Central/Eastern Europe done in 1990s. In particular, it tries to show how successful turned out to be predictions about future developments of those media systems that previously followed Marxist-Leninist model. This research is interested in evaluation and utilisation of applied comparative approaches/perspectives with predictive orientation. Secondly, this paper challenges Slavko Splichal´s conclusion that the Central/Eastern European media would be developing along Italian lines. Thirdly, this paper tries to fi nd where do fi t media systems in Central/Eastern Europe according to models suggested by Hallin and Mancini. The argument here is that while in the 1990s it was the Polarized Pluralist Model that was dominant in Central/Eastern Europe, today one can claim that it is more the Liberal Model mixed with the Polarized Pluralist Model. Finally, this paper attempts to answer question why was there such unexpected development of the media system in Central/Eastern Europe, in contrast to ideals declared at the start of the transition.
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.
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
Dependancies, parallelisms, and connections: Central and East European media as systems in flux
Media Transformations, 2012
One of the leading arguments of this paper is that contemporary Central and East European societies are a perfect example of hybrid social systems. Even more, CEE nations could be looked at as if they are 'social laboratories' where all controversies, trends and consequences of modern life are tested. The discussion here concentrates on CEE media transformations, and it mainly moves around the idea that media functions and journalistic routines are indirectly shaped by contextual features. Likewise, media culture is formed on the basis of contextual (political, economic) particularities and is furthermore shaped by the traditions, social relations, behaviors and norms, which characterize society in general, and not only a part of professional culture. Since journalism indirectly confirms a society's culture, it could be said that studying media in any country could become a fascinating and inspiring exercise. For this purpose, this paper offers a conceptual model which could be further used in disclosing the cultural particularities of CEE journalism and media culture.
2012
This paper offers an overview of the Czech Republic’s media landscape, putting it into its demographic, economic and political context. It gives a basic overview of the country’s media structure, including details on media markets; media regulation and regulatory authorities; and journalism culture. The aim is to present this information in such a way as to facilitate comparison across the ten nations studied by the project. The findings are based on secondary academic sources and a series of elite interviews conducted in Prague and Brno in May and June 2010. The report was last updated in August 2012.