Media Policy Silences: The Hidden Face of Communications Decision Making

Freedman, Des

doi:10.1177/1940161210368292

Cited by 73 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Neben der Regulierung besteht Medienpolitik aber auch aus der Thematisierung von Problemdeutungen, den Ideen und dem Wissen anderer, nicht-staatlicher Akteure (Raboy und Padovani 2010, S. 160-161). Auch "policy silence", d. h. die Nicht-Ber€ ucksichtigung bestimmter Optionen, die De-Thematisierung politischer Fragen oder die Nicht-Ber€ ucksichtigung von Akteuren und Interessen im politischen Prozess, ist ein Bestandteil von Medienpolitik (Freedman 2010, S. 355) (vgl. auch Bachrach und Morton 1962.…”

Section: Integrierte Regulierungsbehördenunclassified

Medienpolitik in hybriden Mediensystemen

Arnold¹,

Donges²

2015

Handbuch Medienökonomie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungMediensysteme in unserer Zeit können mit Chadwick (2013) als hybrid bezeichnet werden, als geprägt von einem Neben-und Miteinander "alter" und "neuer" Medien. Gleiches gilt f€ ur die Medienpolitik. Digitalisierung und technische Konvergenz haben zur Folge, dass tradierte Grenzziehungen problematisch werden. Entlang der sich in Auflösung befindenden Grenzen entstehen Spannungsfelder, die nicht nur zu veränderten Rahmenbedingungen f€ uhren, unter denen Kommunikationsaussagen entstehen, sondern die zugleich Reformen der Medien-und Kommunikationspolitik notwendig werden lassen. Der Beitrag diskutiert drei ausgewählte Spannungsfelder und ihre medienpolitischen Implikationen: Die Unterscheidung von Anbietertypen und ihrer jeweiligen Rechte und Pflichten, die Gewährleistung von Vielfalt und die regulative Bearbeitung der Konvergenz durch integrierte Regulierungsmodelle bzw. Regulierungsbehörden.

show abstract

Section: Integrierte Regulierungsbehördenunclassified

Medienpolitik in hybriden Mediensystemen

Arnold¹,

Donges²

2015

Handbuch Medienökonomie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The political dimension of regulatory decisions in the face of disruptive innovation is increasingly significant in situations where the status quo is justified in terms of abstract public domestic content to the digital sphere, continuing to focus their efforts on the legacy broadcasting system, and favoring market forces and consumer satisfaction as the driver of innovation, rather than other dimensions of public interest (Freedman, 2015b). On the whole, little effort has been made to secure new digital shared public spaces, which could complement, supplement, or perhaps eventually replace those shared televisual spaces historically safeguarded by legacy broadcasting policy (Freedman, 2010;. Notably, proposals to secure and cultivate shared national spaces in the digital realm are treated as relics of an earlier era.…”

Section: Innovation Regulation and Disruptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Commission appears to have used the seeming inevitability of the changes related to technological disruption, and the unsubstantiated claim that OTTs contribute to the goals of the Broadcasting Act through market forces alone, to ease regulatory requirements. Policy silences (Freedman, 2010), notably the lack of consideration of alternative measures to deal with OTTs, have supported the hands-off approach to streaming services, and failed to consider the development of shared, non-commercial, digital public spaces.…”

Section: Conclusion: Regulate or Chillmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Freedman (2010), policy scholars must "dig a little deeper" than the visible spectrum of the policy process (p. 347). Policy silence refers to the options that are not considered, to the questions that are kept off the policy agenda ... and to the values that are seen as unrealistic or undesirable by those best able to mobilize their policy-making power.…”

Section: Let's Talk Tvmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transnational over-the-top media distribution as a business and policy disruptor: The case of Netflix in Canada

Davis

Zboralska

2017

JOMI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital disruption is often characterized as the conflict between the exponential rate of change in technology, and the slower-paced, incremental rate of change in law, economy, policy, and society writ-large (Franklin, 2012). The rapid encroachment of over-the-top (OTT) content distribution raises policy issues concerning jurisdiction, access, pricing, consolidation of ownership, and source diversity (Holt, 2014), while undermining many of the traditional policy instruments. In this paper, we analyze Netflix’s strategic expansion and meteoric growth in Canada, and focus on a landmark event in Canadian broadcasting policymaking: the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) “Let’s Talk TV” hearings of 2013-2014. Through an examination of public documents, we analyze the ways Netflix is considered an opportunity, ally, or a threat by consumers, broadcasters, independent producers, and governments. We show that in a reprioritization of values, many of the principles that motivated legacy broadcasting policy are being sidelined by a consumerist approach that gives freer rein to streamed services. However, Netflix’s refusal to provide the Commission with information it was ordered to produce suggests the most serious disruption is to the notion that online video distribution can or should be regulated in the public interest.

show abstract

“…7 But I want to argue that these protests constitute a central element of the policy process: the public contestation of the terms on which policies are conceptualized and debated. This is what I call public participation in the policy process, even though it is usually bad-tempered, not within the guidelines of the usual methods for taking part, not couched in particularly parliamentary language, and sometimes not even using the language of media policy at all.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Media Policy Research and the Media Industries

Freedman

2014

Media Industries Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:This essay highlights the need for a critical approach to policy as a key feature of media industries research. All too often media policy is understood and investigated as an administrative procedure that appears to be remote from the more dazzling world of media production and consumption, and of texts and audiences. This essay argues that issues of creativity and practice should not be insulated from analysis of the structural contexts of media environments. It also argues that media policy research itself needs to expand its horizons to include the full range of actors and venues-unofficial as well as official-in which decisions about the distribution of media resources are made. A critical media policy should focus on the interests mobilized and values expressed in relation to different policy areas by situating policy debates in relation to the dynamics of power that circumscribe the institutions, individuals, products, and possibilities of the media industries. Keywords: Policy, Political Economy, RegulationHow the media industries "work" is connected to how they are structured in relation to the various policy frameworks to which they are exposed. In order to fathom the dynamics of these industries, therefore, one of our tasks is to research media policy environments and pressures. And yet there is a problem, based in part on reputation and in part on conception. All too often, media policy research is viewed as not just a poor relative of more exciting media industries research but rather the boring next-door neighbor who spends too long at your house, convinced that he has lots of interesting things to say while everyone else makes polite excuses and tries to usher him out.There is good reason for this. Both media policy and media policy research are frequently reduced to the drawing up of rules and regulations, of laws and liabilities, rather than the setting of boundaries within which these interventions are devised and implemented. Furthermore, media policy lacks the participatory edge of other areas of media production and consumption: it does not have fans or celebrities or the seductive powers of actors and special effects; it lacks exoticism and is "marginal" only to the extent that it appears to be indifferent to everyday life; it lacks transparency and accessibility; and it marginalizes agency. Of course there are media policy "actors" but they are remote and "expert": civil servants, ministers,

show abstract

Media Policy Silences: The Hidden Face of Communications Decision Making

Cited by 73 publications

References 14 publications

Medienpolitik in hybriden Mediensystemen

Medienpolitik in hybriden Mediensystemen

Transnational over-the-top media distribution as a business and policy disruptor: The case of Netflix in Canada

Media Policy Research and the Media Industries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About