• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian journal of communication >Research in Brief Democratizing Communication Policy in Canada: A Social Movement Perspective
【24h】

Research in Brief Democratizing Communication Policy in Canada: A Social Movement Perspective

机译：社会运动视角下的加拿大简短民主化传播政策研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Conclusion The research summarized here is small in scale and thus must be considered exploratory. With that caveat, it does suggest that some of the building blocks identified by social movement theory are in place for media reform in Canada, such as shared dissatisfaction with the current state of Canadian media; a universal concern with and commitment to equitable and affordable Internet access; a tradition of engagement in collaborative campaigns; an expansive social movement and anti-neo-liberal orientation; a reasonable degree of awareness of media issues; previously untapped potential support among human rights, labour, and religious groups; and, arguably, an embryonic sense of media democratization as itself a social movement, especially among groups already in the independent media, culture, and arts fields. Challenges remain, of course. Organizational resources are limited, even for NGOs' primary goals. Corporate media do not loom as "the" enemy for progressive groups in Canada to the same extent as in the U.S. NGO prescriptions for media change do not converge on a single issue or solution, though such diversity is also a resource for building different coalitions on different issues. And finding widely resonant frames for the seemingly abstract issues of media democracy is a longstanding challenge (6 Siochru, 2005). From the viewpoint of movement-building strategy, several implications follow. First, it may be advisable to adopt different frames for different issues and constituencies. Second, NGOs are most likely to invest resources in issues that affect their organizational mandates and sustainability. Third, "positive" frames, such as support for community media or for reinvigorating Canadian journalism, may find broader (albeit likely less intense) support than would adversarial frames, such as opposition to corporate concentration. Fourth, the issue of Internet access and Net neutrality is likely to find wide support and to provide an entree to ongoing collaboration for future campaigns. Finally, as we argue in the full report (Hackett & Anderson, 2010b) and elsewhere (Hackett & Anderson, 2010a), the frame of "open media" could appeal to younger activists, and it complements a focus on equitable access to digital media At the very least, it should take its place alongside other current frames reflecting different emphases, such as media justice, free press, media democratization, and communication rights (Hackett & Carroll, 2006).
机译：结论本文总结的研究规模很小，因此必须视为探索性的。有了这样的警告，它确实暗示了社会运动理论所确定的一些基础要素已经在加拿大进行了媒体改革，例如对加拿大当前媒体的共同不满；普遍关注并致力于公平和负担得起的互联网访问；参与合作运动的传统；广泛的社会运动和反新自由主义取向；对媒体问题的合理程度的认识；以前尚未在人权，劳工和宗教团体中获得潜在的支持；可以说，媒体民主化的雏形本身就是一种社会运动，尤其是在独立媒体，文化和艺术领域中的群体之间。当然，挑战仍然存在。即使对于非政府组织的主要目标，组织资源也是有限的。企业媒体不会像美国非政府组织那样，成为加拿大进步团体的“敌人”，媒体变革的处方并不能集中在一个问题或解决方案上，尽管这种多样性也是建立不同联盟的资源。不同的问题。对于似乎看似抽象的媒体民主问题，找到广泛共鸣的框架是一项长期的挑战（6 Siochru，2005）。从建立运动的策略的角度来看，有几个含义。首先，建议针对不同的问题和选区采用不同的框架。其次，非政府组织最有可能在影响其组织职责和可持续性的问题上投入资源。第三，“积极”框架，例如对社区媒体的支持或对加拿大新闻界的振兴，可能会比对抗性框架（例如反对公司集中化）获得更广泛的支持（尽管强度可能不太强）。第四，互联网访问和网络中立性问题很可能会得到广泛支持，并为正在进行的未来运动协作提供了线索。最后，正如我们在完整报告（Hackett＆Anderson，2010b）和其他报告（Hackett＆Anderson，2010a）中所主张的那样，“开放媒体”的框架可能会吸引年轻的激进主义者，并且补充了对公平获取数字媒体的关注。至少，它应该与其他反映不同重点的当前框架并驾齐驱，例如媒体正义，新闻自由，媒体民主化和传播权（Hackett＆Carroll，2006）。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号