Suchergebnisse

In this article, I will work on the idea of Pre-Truth (as opposed to post-truth) and Semiological Guerrilla (as opposed to fake news), claiming that these two concepts are better equipped to explain what is happening in our contemporary societies, especially if we take into account the world of media and communication. In the first part of the article, I will frame the problems of fake news and post-truth within the dynamics characterizing the relationships between knowledge and power. Taking into account Foucault and Latour's perspectives, I argue that the problem of fake news can be understood as a new kind of relationship between these two instances, previously stably coupled and in the hands of institutional power. Later, I will deal with three different meanings of "fake news," that are usually blended and confused: (a) serendipity, (b) false belief, and (c) mendacity. Consequently, I will deal with the problem of "Semiological Guerrilla Warfare," arguing that the new shape of the "knowledge-power relationship" rendered alternative and non-institutionally certified interpretations the norm. Eventually, I will identify the deep cause of this effect in the machinic production of documents provided by new technologies, causing a return of the medieval sense of "truth" as "trust," independent from knowledge and strictly related to anecdotes and personal experiences. Finally, I will work on the concept of "truth" connected to technology, trying to reveal its genealogy with the aim of explaining some misleading contemporary beliefs on "post-truth."

ABSTRACT
The author of this essay argues that the success or failure of development depends on the availability of technology. The invention and development of new technologies are instrumental in changing the way people live, the way people communicate and the way people respond to their environment. However, despite the advantages of new technologies, the problem of access remains an enduring one. In South Africa, access to new communications and information technologies is limited to a few people owing to the high costs of these technologies. Therefore, the mere acquisition of new technology may not help that much to end the underdevelopment of many parts of the world, including South Africa. Mjwacu claims that the imbalance or gap that the use of new technology and the failure to development the social infrastructure needed to use this technology can lead directly to an infringement of people's right of access to the media. She argues that the emphasis needs to be placed on establishing community-based communication systems in countries such as South Africa to advance both their technological and social development.

The author of this essay argues that the success or failure of development depends on the availability of technology. The invention and development of new technologies are instrumental in changing the way people live, the way people communicate and the way people respond to their environment. However, despite the advantages of new technologies, the problem of access remains an enduring one. In South Africa, access to new communications and information technologies is limited to a few people owing to the high costs of these technologies. Therefore, the mere acquisition of new technology may not help that much to end the underdevelopment of many parts of the world, including South Africa. (...) (AAS/DÜI)

Vivien A. Schmidt's discursive institutionalism (DI) framework has gained considerable popularity in media and communication studies, particularly among scholars studying media institutions. However, while scholars refer to DI to emphasize the importance of ideas and discourses in institutional processes, to date, a critical assessment of the framework is lacking. In this article, we discuss DI from the perspective of media and communication studies and suggest a modified DI framework in which we (1) rethink discourse from a discourse theoretical perspective and emphasize power as a constituting element of media institutions, (2) differentiate between public (mass media) communication and other nonpublic and semipublic forms of communication, and (3) integrate macro perspectives (market, political system, culture, technology, globalization) into Schmidt's micro–meso-focused framework. With these differentiations, our proposition is to be understood as a heuristic for a systematic analysis of media institutions as a field of power.

Vivien A. Schmidt's discursive institutionalism (DI) framework has gained considerable popularity in media and communication studies, particularly among scholars studying media institutions. However, while scholars refer to DI to emphasize the importance of ideas and discourses in institutional processes, to date, a critical assessment of the framework is lacking. In this article, we discuss DI from the perspective of media and communication studies and suggest a modified DI framework in which we (1) rethink discourse from a discourse theoretical perspective and emphasize power as a constituting element of media institutions, (2) differentiate between public (mass media) communication and other nonpublic and semipublic forms of communication, and (3) integrate macro perspectives (market, political system, culture, technology, globalization) into Schmidt's micro–meso-focused framework. With these differentiations, our proposition is to be understood as a heuristic for a systematic analysis of media institutions as a field of power.

This article presents foundations of the analysis of media concentration from the perspective of the approach the critique of the political economy of the media and communication. It outlines the dangers and problems of media concentration, discusses the question of how to measure media concentration, identifies different types of media concentration, and gives a systematic overview of empirical studies of media concentration. As a result of the country comparison on a theoretical (macro) level with an analytically required high level of abstraction, first and foremost identities, commonalities and similarities with regard to the development of media concentration including its causes and consequences can be recognised. The author argues that media concentration also needs to be theorised. The paper distinguishes and discusses two such theoretical approaches: apologetic-normative competition theories of media concentration and critical-empirical theories of media concentration. Critical-empirical theories of media concentration situate media concentration in the context of the development of capitalism, which requires to use the critique of the political economy as theoretical foundation.