Suchergebnisse

We have entered times when increasing inequality feeds growing distrust in social and political institutions. Together, these two tendencies – diminishing equality and a lack of trust – create a challenge to liberal democracy. The media have a pivotal role in these developments. On the one hand, they are central to democracy; on the other, they are part of the process of normalizing inequality. In the media, the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots is the "new normal". Our conclusion is that, as the legal and regulatory instruments on the nation state level can no longer guarantee citizens' democratic rights to information and communications, this must be the task of the European Union. We propose a radical democratic reform of the EU's media and communication policy that would take citizens' democratic rights to information and communications as a starting point. We propose five policy areas that are pertinent to democratic rights to communications: access to information, the availability of information, media competence, dialogue and privacy. ; Go to the full book to find a version of this chapter tagged for accessibility.

Our daily lives have become so immersed in digital Information and Communications Technology that we rarely stop to think about it. We know much about the benefits brought by its recent developments, including the Internet with its numerous applications. At the same time, there is increasing concern that the economic emphasis linked to these technologies will widen the digital divide, potentially sharpening social inequalities in a global scale. However, it has come ever more clear that it is not technology as such that is the cause of the social problems with digital communications technology but the ways how it has been applied, reflecting unequal power relations in our societies. There are a number of disturbing questions concerning the long-term effects of the social and cultural deployment of Information and Communications Technology. Some of the questions we address in this article here are the following: Can digital Information and Communications Technology still be regulated nationally? How do we measure the effects of Information and Communications Technology on academic work? How should we think critically about big data? Has digital Information and Communications Technology improved our lives?

The main argument in this article is that instead of attempting to establish the existence or the non-existence of the European public sphere or public spheres, we could think of Europe as consisting of a multiplicity of networks, each having a public sphere or spheres of their own. The idea of seeing the public sphere from the point of view of networks is critical to the traditional Habermasian idea of conceiving the public sphere as something intrinsically restricted to national boundaries.
The social and cultural networks operate in all areas of life. They have developed, transformed, and vastly expanded in time. It is difficult to make clear distinctions between different networks today as they can operate locally, nationally, trans-nationally, regionally, trans-regionally as well as globally. However, from the point of view of democratic theory it is still important to make a separation between these different spatial embodiments of the networks as they all indicate different modalities for democratic polities. Democracy needs to be thought differently on a local or national scale than on the trans-national or global scale. The idea of seeing the public sphere from the point of view of networks is critical to the traditional idea of conceiving the public sphere as something intrinsically restricted to national boundaries.

The main argument in this article is that instead of attempting to establish the existence or the non-existence of the European public sphere or public spheres, we could think of Europe as consisting of a multiplicity of networks, each having a public sphere or spheres of their own. The idea of seeing the public sphere from the point of view of networks is critical to the traditional Habermasian idea of conceiving the public sphere as something intrinsically restricted to national boundaries. The social and cultural networks operate in all areas of life. They have developed, transformed, and vastly expanded in time. It is difficult to make clear distinctions between different networks today as they can operate locally, nationally, trans-nationally, regionally, trans-regionally as well as globally. However, from the point of view of democratic theory it is still important to make a separation between these different spatial embodiments of the networks as they all indicate different modalities for democratic polities. Democracy needs to be thought differently on a local or national scale than on the trans-national or global scale. The idea of seeing the public sphere from the point of view of networks is critical to the traditional idea of conceiving the public sphere as something intrinsically restricted to national boundaries. ; Pagrindinė straipsnyje plėtojama idėja yra ta: užuot siekę įrodyti, kad Europoje egzistuoja viešoji erdvė, arba, priešingai, kad viešoji erdvė ar viešosios erdvės dar nesusiformavusios, turėtume žvelgti į Europą kaip į daugialypių tinklų darinį. Šiuose tinkluose – daug savitų viešųjų erdvių. Koncepcija, kuri viešąją sritį siūlo tirti remiantis daugialypių tinklų idėja, kritiškai vertina tradicinį Jürgeno Habermaso po­ žiūrį, kuris traktuoja viešąją sritį kaip darinį, iš esmės ribojamą nacionalinių sienų. Socialiniai ir kultūriniai tinklai plėtojami visose gyvenimo srityse. Laikui bėgant, jie bręsta, kinta, gerokai išsiplečia. Šiandieną sunku aiškiai skirti įvairius tinklus, kurie tinkamai funkcionuoja vietiniame, nacionaliniame, transnacionaliniame, regioniniame, viršregioniniame, taipogi ir globaliame, lygmenyse. Vis dėlto, remiantis demokratijos teorijos principais, svarbu apibrėžti erdvines skirtingų tinklų formas, nes jos visos nusako skirtingus demokratinės politikos modalumus. Demokratija vietiniame arba nacionaliniame lygmenyse turi būti traktuojama kitaip, negu demokratija transnacionaliniame arba globaliame lygmenyse.

For functioning well, the media need democracy as much as democracy needs the media. This is the starting point of this analysis of the delicate relation between the news media and democracy which is well defined in constitutional terms both in the European Convention on Human Rights and in national legislation. The relation is best described as social contract – to the benefit of freedom of speech and editorial independence, but also to sound governance of the state and other powerholders in society. Notably, different models of democracy correspond to different roles of the media. In any case, however, media policy is requested to respect media freedom. The Internet, as well as social and networked media require policy answers to challenges such as data protection, content blocking and surveillance. The authors conclude that media policy tools need to be developed along the all-digital media future.

This case study analyses the relationship between European news agencies and the state. On the basis of interviews, official documents and secondary sources, we examine recent developments in the relationship with the state in a sample of four countries – Finland, France, Poland and Spain – representing different kinds of media systems. While the evolution of this relationship has been different and unique in each country, they are all bound by the competition rules of the European Union, and the challenges that the agencies face are similar. In general, European news agencies are struggling to keep their basic news services profitable. We argue that in the age of fake news and disinformation the social and democratic value of these news services is much greater than their economic value to their owners. From the democracy perspective, these services can be understood as a public good, and therefore the subsidising of content with a high information value can be in the public interest if certain preconditions are met. At the same time, safeguarding the editorial, and in particular the structural, independence of the agencies from political control is essential.

For functioning well, the media need democracy as much as democracy needs the media. This is the starting point of this analysis of the delicate relation between the news media and democracy which is well defined in constitutional terms both in the European Convention on Human Rights and in national legislation. The relation is best described as social contract to the benefit of freedom of speech and editorial independence, but also to sound governance of the state and other powerholders in society. Notably, different models of democracy correspond to different roles of the media. In any case, however, media policy is requested to respect media freedom. The Internet, as well as social and networked media require policy answers to challenges such as data protection, content blocking and surveillance. The authors conclude that media policy tools need to be developed along the all-digital media future. ; (VLID)3617897

This article addresses the gap between media reform movements and support for public service media (PSM). It argues that the "critical juncture" created by the challenges of digitalization has shifted the focus from diversity to communication rights as a central aim for media reform. It posits that rights-based approach would position PSM in the framework of different media reform movements, and hence foster new alliances by connecting it to media freedom and digital rights discourses. In addition, it suggests that media reform movements would benefit from supporting PSM as a tool for achieving democratic communication rights. ; El siguiente artículo aborda la distancia existente entre los movimientos que defienden la reforma de los medios y el propio apoyo a los medios públicos. En él, se defiende que el "momento crítico" que se ha generado a partir del reto de la digitalizacion ha acabado por desplazar el foco del tema de la diversidad a la concepción de la comunicación como derecho en tanto que aspiración central dentro de la reforma mediática. El texto argumenta que un acercamiento basado en la comunicación como derecho posicionaría a los medios públicos dentro del marco de acción de los movimientos pro-reforma y, por lo tanto, permitiría promover nuevas alianzas al conectar estos movimientos con discursos centrados en las ideas de la libertad mediática y los derechos digitales. Además, se sugiere que los movimientos proreforma pueden beneficiarse de su propia defensa de los medios públicos como herramienta de cara a lograr derechos democráticos asociados a la comunicación.

In this chapter we discuss recent developments and challenges in European media and communication policy, focussing on the period since the 2008 global financial crisis. We are especially interested in the implications of the financial crisis and its political repercussions nationally (austerity measures and cuts to public services as well as growing anti-politics sentiments and widespread dissatisfaction with free-market capitalism and representative democracy) for media and communication policy, understood here in a broad sense, so to include all electronic communications, such as the Internet, mobile communications, social media etc. Our overarching concern is with the implications of developments in media and communication policy for the democratic functions of the media in Europe.