Advertisement

Media Policy Activism

  • Des Freedman
Chapter

Abstract

Media policy analysis is a field occupied by multiple actors including civil servants and regulators, industry lobbyists and technological experts, civil society organisations and of course academics. It is designed to be a sober exercise in which facts are sought and consensus reached for the mutual advantage of all stakeholders. However, it is often a technocratic, evidence-based and legalistic process in which the vested interests that often structure the final outcomes are hidden and opaque. Media policy activism seeks to make this process more transparent and to campaign openly for structural changes to media systems that will enhance democracy and redistribute media resources towards those who are currently underserved. This chapter first defines the scope of media policy activism and considers the role of academics within this process. It argues that academics have a unique opportunity in which to embed their scholarly research inside movements for media democracy. It reflects on two UK case studies in which the author has been involved: the Inquiry into the Future of Public Service Television and the research and advocacy work of the Media Reform Coalition. It discusses some of the risks and possibilities of media policy activism—including questions of research agendas, methods, underlying principles and whether academics ought to immerse themselves in social movements—and relates these issues to contemporary policy debates. Drawing on Edward Said’s concept of ‘affiliation’, it suggests that not only academic labour but also activist commitment is required if we are successfully to confront the current crisis of trust and instability inside media landscapes.

References

  1. Berry, M. (2016). No alternative to austerity: How BBC broadcast news reported the deficit debate. Media, Culture and Society, 38(6), 844–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cushion, S., & Lewis, J. (2016, November 28). Lies, damn lies and statistics. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-why-reporters-must-handle-data-with-care-69314.
  3. Freedman, D. (2008). The Politics of Media Policy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  4. Freedman, D. (2014). The contradictions of media power (p. 52). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  5. Freedman, D. (2016). Put a ring on it! Why we need more commitment in media scholarship. Javnost – The Public, 24(2), 186–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freedman, D., & Obar, J. A. (2016). Media reform: An overview. In D. Freedman, J. A. Obar, C. Martens, & R. McChesney (Eds.), Strategies for media reform: International perspectives (pp. 3–18). New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Just, N., & Puppis, M. (2012). Communication policy research: Looking back, moving forward. In N. Just & M. Puppis (Eds.), Trends in communication policy research (pp. 9–29, pp. 17–18). Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  8. Karaganis, J. (2009). Cultures of collaboration in media research (p. 1). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1485181.
  9. Karppinen, K. (2013). Rethinking media pluralism. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Media Reform Coalition. (2015). Corbyn’s first week: Negative agenda setting in the press. http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CorbynCoverageUPDATED.pdf.
  11. Melody, W., & Mansell, R. (1983). The debate over critical vs. administrative research: Circularity or challenge. Journal of Communication, 33(3), 103–116.Google Scholar
  12. Puttnam, D. (2016). A future for public service television. London: Goldsmiths, University of London. www.futureoftv.org.uk/report.
  13. Said, E. (1993). Representations of an intellectual. Reith Lecture 5: Speaking truth to power, transmitted 9 August, BBC. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/radio4/transcripts/1993_reith5.pdf.Google Scholar
  14. Schlosberg, J., & Brevini, B. (2016). Between philosophy and action: The story of the media reform coalition. In D. Freedman, J. A. Obar, C. Martens, & R. McChesney (Eds.), Strategies for media reform: International perspectives (pp. 138–152, p. 141). New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Skeggs, B., & Wood, H. (2012). Reacting to reality television: Performance, audience and value. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tyler, I. (2013). Revolting subjects: Social abjection and resistance in neoliberal britain. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Freedman, D. (2008). The politics of media policy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  2. Freedman, D., Obar, J. A., Martens, C., & McChesney, R. (Eds.). (2016). Strategies for media reform: International perspectives. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Napoli, P. M. (2010). Public interest media advocacy and activism as a social movement. Communication Yearbook 33. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 385–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Pickard, V. (2014). America’s battle for media democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Schlosberg, J. (2016). Media ownership and agenda control: The hidden limits of the information age. London: Routledge. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Des Freedman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department Media Communications, Cultural StudiesGoldsmiths College—University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations