Suchergebnisse

Klappentext: This volume examines the role of history in the study of new media and of newness itself, discussing how the "new" in new media must be understood to be historically constructed. Furthermore, the new is constructed with an eye on the future, or more correctly, an eye on what we think the future will be. Chapters by eminent scholars address the connection between historical consideration and new media. Some assess the historical descriptions of the development of new media; others hinge on the issue of newness as it relates to existing practices in media history. Remaining essays address the shifting patterns of storage at work in media inscription, as they relate to the practice of history, and to the past and contemporary cultural formations. Together they offer a ground-breaking assessment of the long history of new media, clearly recognizing that the new media of today will be the traditional media of tomorrow, and that an emphasis on the history of the future sheds light on what this newness can be said to represent.

Klappentext: "Strictly speaking", James Carey wrote, "there is no history of mass communication research." This volume is a long-overdue response to Carey's comment about the field's ignorance of its own past. The collection includes essays of historiographical self-scrutiny, as well as new histories that trace the field's institutional evolution and cross-pollination with other academic disciplines. The volume treats the remembered past of mass communication research as crucial terrain where boundaries are marked off and futures plotted. The collection, intended for scholars and advanced graduate students, is an essential compass for the field.

This thematic issue of Media and Communication features articles that address the workings of democracy as understood through the lens of media history. The intersection of democracy and media history brings together two impossibly expansive terms, so expansive that the articles herein cannot provide any meaningful closure to the questions that even a cursory consideration of media history and democracy would provoke. Instead of closure, what these authors develop is a demonstration of the value of media history to our understandings of democracy. Historical methods of inquiry are necessary components for any meaningful understanding of media or democracy, and the authors gathered here work from a multi-hued palette of historiographical approaches. One finds in this issue a careful attention to how issues related to media history and democracy can be investigated through consideration of intellectual history, the history of political debates, journalism history, and the history of media organizations and institutions. These articles make a strong case for the continued relevance of media history to understanding the democracy and the media.

This thematic issue of Media and Communication features articles that address the workings of democracy as understood through the lens of media history. The intersection of democracy and media history brings together two impossibly expansive terms, so expansive that the articles herein cannot provide any meaningful closure to the questions that even a cursory consideration of media history and democracy would provoke. Instead of closure, what these authors develop is a demonstration of the value of media history to our understandings of democracy. Historical methods of inquiry are necessary components for any meaningful understanding of media or democracy, and the authors gathered here work from a multi-hued palette of historiographical approaches. One finds in this issue a careful attention to how issues related to media history and democracy can be investigated through consideration of intellectual history, the history of political debates, journalism history, and the history of media organizations and institutions. These articles make a strong case for the continued relevance of media history to understanding the democracy and the media.

Few scholars have been cited in scholarly work as much as Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002). Bourdieu's ideas have left a vigorous legacy in sociology and in anthropology, and have received ongoing, if more fitful, attention in fields as far flung as English, art, and communication.

Blogs have quickly become prominent parts of the Internet landscape. Attention has largely been focused on a small subset of blogs — the politically-oriented filter blog. This paper examines four of the most-noticed blogs: Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish, Mickey Kaus's Kausfiles, Glenn Reynolds' InstaPundit, and Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo. Using a grounded, qualitative technique, I analyze the methods these bloggers use to cast themselves as authoritative commentators in the world of politics. We find that their authority is largely staked out through their assertions of differences from journalism and of commonality with the audience. Concluding remarks explore the tension between bloggers and journalists and suggest that the success of these bloggers has much to do with how they have managed to position themselves rhetorically.

A continuing debate regarding public intellectuals consistently involves a narrative of decline. This declinist position rests on an assumption that the media are central to the public intellectual role, though the declinists focus strictly on institutional explanations, to the neglect
of the role played by the media. This paper explains how the application of media theory to this debate will give us a better understanding of the public intellectual. I suggest five avenues for the integration of communication theory into the study of public intellectuals. First, there are
fruitful comparisons to be made between public intellectuals and journalists. Second, the ritual dimension of public intellectual communication is worth exploring. Third, we should consider the roles played by media organizations and institutions as they shape the public intellectual role.
Fourth, recent developments in the sphere of public intellectuals demonstrate the need to examine public intellectuals across all media. Fifth, we should be careful to analyse the authority at work in public intellectual communication.

Introduction: remembering communication history / Nicole Maurantonio & David W. Park -- Introduction: communicating space & time -- Interscalarity & the memory spectrum / Emily Keightley, Michael Pickering, and Pawas Bisht -- Archiving ISIS : metastasized archives, lieux de futur, and endless war / Piotr Szpunar -- Introduction: narrative -- Remarkable coincidence : a true story of the Liberty Bell's myth / Deborah Lubken -- Mass media as memory agents : a theoretical & empirical contribution to collective memory research / Michael Meyen -- Mnemonic newswork : exploring the role of journalism in the rereading of national pasts / Oren Meyers -- Introduction: embodiment & materiality -- Badna Naaref (we want to know) : the politics of movement and memory in "postwar" Beirut / Erin E. Cory -- "Taking back" a post-conflict city : tourism, anniversary memory, and the new histories of Belfast / Carolyn Kitch -- Presence and absence : the Berlin wall as strategic platform / Samantha Oliver -- Building an archive for future generations : archival digitization at the national library of Israel / Sharon Ringel -- Introduction: audience -- Digital post-scarcity versus default amnesia : Russian political existence and the online resurrection of memories of the dead at the nord-ost theatre siege / Amanda Lagerkvist & Katerina Linden -- Reclaiming identity : gdr lifeworld memories in digital public spheres / Manuel Menke & Ekaterina Kalinina -- Postscript: once a margin, always a margin / Barbie Zelizer

This article addresses whether dead public intellectuals differ from living public intellectuals in terms of their social network properties in the mass and internet media. Explicated at the theoretical level is the macro-level asynchrony of the web, moving beyond micro-level conceptualizations. Networks for 662 actors which Posner defined as public intellectuals are analyzed based on data from Nexis for magazines, newspapers and broadcast media, and on the web through Google and Google Groups. The differences between the media profiles of dead and living public intellectuals are assessed. As hypothesized, there are no significant differences between living and dead public intellectuals in hits for webpages and for Google Groups threadedness. Also, mass media hits show a significantly higher frequency for the living. Findings show that dead public intellectuals have a social `afterlife', a sociomorphic quality that continues in cyberspace and not in other media.