McChesney,R.W.:Communicationrevolution: criticaljuncturesandthefutureofmedia
XVIII,320pp.NewPress,NewYork2007.Paperback,£11.99
ValentinoLarcinese
©Springer-Verlag2008
Achangeinthewayhumanbeingscommunicatewitheachother,asaconsequencefor exampleofanewtechnology,hasthepotentialtodeeplymodifysocialinteractions andthefunctioningofeconomicandpoliticalinstitutions.Thishascertainlybeen thecasewitheventsliketheadventoftheprintingpressintheXVcentury.Robert McChesney,inhisbookCommunicationRevolutions,arguesthatwemightbewitnessingacommunicationtransformationofcomparablerelevancewiththeintroductionof digitaltechnologyandoftheinternet.“Preciselyhowthiscommunicationrevolution willunfoldandwhatitwillmeanforourjournalism,ourculture,ourpolitics,andour economicsarenotatallclear”.1 Inanycase,accordingtoMcChesney,thisrevolution provides“anunprecedented(rarewindowofopportunityinthenextdecadeortwo)to createacommunicationsystemthatwillbeapowerfulimpetus(for)amoreegalitarian,humane,sustainable,andcreative(self-governing)society”.2 Startingfromthis premise,whileillustratingwhatiswrongwiththecurrentUSmediasystem,thebook providesasortofmanifestoforademocraticmediareform.Thebooktakesusthrough abriefhistoryofthepoliticaleconomyofcommunicationfromthe1970suntiltoday, providinganassessmentofthecurrentstatusofcommunicationresearch,endingwith aninvitationtocommunicationscholarstounderstandtheimportanceofthemoment andtoseizethenewopportunitiesofferedbytheseextraordinarytimes.McChesneyis particularlysanguineontheurgentnecessitytocombineseriousandrigorousresearch onmassmediawithnormativelymotivatedactivismformediareform(withenormous synergiestobeexploitedonboththepoliticalandtheacademicsides).Thismightbe theveryreasonwhythisisnotreallyanacademicbook,inthesensethatitdisplays
1 Pageno.3.
2 Pageno.xiiandxiii.
V.Larcinese(B) LondonSchoolofEconomics,London,UK e-mail:V.Larcinese@lse.ac.uk
nonovelfindings.Butprobablythiswasnotitspurpose.Thebook,instead,seems directedtoawideraudiencecomposednotonlyofscholarsbutalsoofpolicy-makers, activistsandthelike.Inthissense,itcertainlymakesvariousvalidandstimulating points.Tocommunicationscholars,McChesneydirectsessentiallyaninvitationto embracewithenthusiasmthiscriticalmoment,tothinkbigandexploitthemomentumtoincreasethestatusofthedisciplineintheacademicworldandintermsofits influenceonpublicpolicy.
Thebookisarticulatedinfourchapters.Thefirstisdevotedtoillustratewhywe arewitnessingacommunicationrevolutionandwhatareitspotentialimplications, goodandbadones.AccordingtoMcChesney,weareata“criticaljuncture,aperiod inwhichtheoldinstitutionsandmoresarecollapsing.(...)Duringacriticaljuncture,whichusuallylastsnomorethanoneortwodecades,therangeofoptionsfor societyismuchgreaterthanitisotherwise.Thedecisionsmadeduringsuchaperiod establishinstitutionsandrulesthatlikelyputusonacoursethatwillbedifficultto changeinanyfundamentalsensefordecadesorgenerations”.3 McChesneyidentifiesthreecriticaljuncturesforthemassmediaduringtheXXcentury,whichshaped infundamentalwaysthemediasystemweexperiencetoday.Thefirstoccurredduringthe“progressiveera”withtheemergingofprofessionaljournalism(earlyXX century),thesecondinthe1930swiththeemergenceofasystemofcommercial broadcastingandthethirdinthe1960sandearly1970swiththeriseandfallof popularsocialmovementsthat,amongotherthings,wereradicallycriticalofmainstreammedia.Thesecriticaljuncturessharedatleasttwoofthefollowingthreefeatures:(1)arevolutionarynewcommunicationtechnologybecameavailable;(2)the contentofthemedia,andespeciallyjournalism,wasbeingincreasinglydiscredited; (3)theUSwereinthemiddleofamajorpoliticalandsocialcrisis.ForMcChesney, atleasttwo,andpossiblyallthreeoftheseconditions,arepresentalsotodayinthe US.First,digitaltechnologyishavingaprofoundimpactonexistingmediaindustries andiscreatingnewuncharteredpossibilitiesforcommunication.Second,journalismandbroadcastinghavelostalotoftheircredibility,becauseoftheirexcessive closenesstopoliticalpower,particularlyaftertheiruncriticalsupportforthewarin Iraq.Third,excessivepoliticalcorruption,growinginequality,andanimpendingprofoundeconomiccrisismaygeneratetheconditionsforrelativepoliticalandsocial instability.
ForMcChesneythecurrentcriticaljuncturerepresentsadefiningmomentforthe futureofAmericandemocracyand,moremodestly,fortheroletobeplayedby communicationstudiesinsocietyandinacademia.Inthisrespect,itissensibleto askwhycommunicationstudiesisonlyasecondtiersubjectinAmericanuniversitiestoday,giventhecrucialroleplayedbyinformationinthecontemporaryworld. Althoughtheauthordoesnotanswerthisquestion,heappearstohintatthepossibility thatcommunicationprogramsarestilllackingaunifyinganddefiningpurpose.For McChesney,thecurrentcommunicationrevolutionmayprovideexactlywhatiscurrentlymissing:theambitiontoshapethefutureofmediasystemsandtoprovidea decisivecontributiontothefunctioningofdemocracy.
3 Pageno.9.
Chaptertwoaddressespreciselythispoint:howdidwegettothecurrentlowstatus forcommunicationresearch?Theauthoraddressesthisquestionbyprovidingasort ofintellectualautobiography,mainlydedicatedtothescholarsandtheorieswhich influencedtheauthoralonghis25-yearcareer.Thelistisverylong,butitisworth mentioningtheverylight,butoverallentertaining,pagesonMarx,alongwiththebrief historyoftheriseandfallofthepoliticaleconomyofcommunicationbetweenthe 1970sandtoday(aprominentexamplearetheworksofChomskyandHernan).Itis importanttoremindthattheexpression“politicaleconomy”canhavequitedifferent meaningsacrossdisciplines.ThedifferencesbetweenMcChesney’sideaofpoliticaleconomyandthatusedbyeconomistsdonotconcerntheresearchquestions, butratherthemethodologiesusedtoaddressthosequestions.4 Whileaneconomist wouldtypicallyrelyonformalmodelsofmicro-foundedrationaldecision-makingto derivepredictions,thatarethentestedusingstatisticalmethods,politicaleconomy ála McChesneyconsistsmainlyofhistoricalresearch,informedbyfamiliaritywith politicaltheory,culturalstudies,journalismand,occasionally,economics.Mainstream politicaleconomyistooquicklydismissedbytheauthor:“foralltheirmasteryof mainstreameconomictheoryorregulatorystatutes,thesescholarstendedtoknow littleaboutjournalism,culture,ordemocratictheory.Therewasalmostnodialogue betweenthesescholarsandthoseinthepoliticaleconomyofcommunicationtradition; theywerelivinginparalleluniverseswithverydifferentassumptions,perspectives, andviewsonthecriticaljunctureoftheirtimes”.5 Itishard,however,nottoagreewith McChesneythatthisisnotapositivedevelopmentforeitherside.Thereareinstead importantsynergiestobeexploited,especiallynowthatthenumberofeconomists interestedinmasscommunicationisgrowingandthequalityofeconomicresearchon massmediaisfastincreasing.
Chapterthreeillustrateswhattheauthoremphaticallycalls“fivetruths”,whichhe claimsare“ofsuchimportancethattheydemandthatallmediascholarreconsider thecorepresuppositionsuponwhichtheirresearchandteachinghavebeenbased”.
(1)Mediasystemsarecreatedbyexplicitpoliciesandsubsidies.Forexample,itis not“natural”thatmonopolylicencesaregivenforfreetocommercialradioandTV stationsanditisalsonot“natural”tohavemailsubsidiesfortheprintedpress.(2)The celebratedFirstAmendmenttotheUSConstitutiondoesnotauthorizeacorporate-run, profit-motivated,commerciallydrivenmediasystem.Iftherightofthecitizenstobe informedisregardedassuperiortotherightoffreeenterpriseinthemediamarket,then thissecondrightcanonlybejustifiedifitservesthefirst,andMcChesneyarguesthat itcurrentlydoesnot.(3)TheAmericanmediasystemisnotafreemarketbecauseit isbasicallysustainedbypoliciesandsubsidies.(4)Consequently,thepolicy-making
4 AccordingtoMcChesneythe“politicaleconomyofcommunicationhastwomaincomponents.First,it addressed inacriticalmanner (inItalicsinthetext)howthemediasysteminteractedwithandaffectedthe overalldispositionofpowerinsociety.Didthemedia,onbalance,serveasaprogressiveforcetodrawthe massesintopoliticaldebateasinformedandeffectiveparticipants,ordidthemediasystemasawholetend toreinforceruleandinegalitariansocialrelations?(...)Thesecondareainthepoliticaleconomyofcommunicationtraditionwaslargelyitsexclusivedomain:anevaluationofhowmarketstructures,advertising support,laborrelations,profitmotivation,technologies,andgovernmentpoliciesshapedmediaindustries, journalisticpractices,occupationalsociology,andthenatureandcontentofthenewsandentertainment”. 5 Pageno.80.
processplaysakeyroleinstructuringamediasystem.Hence,weneedapolitical economyapproachifwewanttounderstandtheworldofcommunicationsandmass media.(5)TheUSpolicy-makingprocessintherealmofcommunicationsisbecoming increasinglyundemocratic,asitisbeingdominatedbypowerfulcorporateinterests withalmostnon-existentpublicparticipation.Forexample,theauthorclaimsthat, behindthefacadeof“deregulation”introducedbythe1996TelecommunicationAct, liesadecreaseincompetitionsince,inthemediaindustry,deregulatingoftensimply increasestheopportunitiesformarketconcentration.
InspiteoftheverynegativeassessmentofthecurrentsituationoftheAmerican mediaindustry,thebookisfullofhopethat,atthiscriticaljuncture,thingsmay radicallyimprove.Therecentemergenceofapopularmovementformediareform thathasmobilizedasubstantialnumberofAmericancitizensisthereforetheobject ofthefourthandfinalchapter.RobertMcChesneyhimselfhasactivelycontributed totheemergenceanddevelopmentofthismovementin2002,byco-foundingFree Press,amediareformadvocacyorganizationwiththeaimofdemocratizingthemedia. Themovementhasemergedandexpandedmainlyasareactiontothemediapolicy oftheBushadministration.Forexample,“whentheBushadministrationattempted toslashfundingforpublicbroadcastingin2005,itproducedmorethanamillion lettersandpetitionsinprotest”.6 Similarreactionsoccurredindefenceofthebanon broadcast/newspapercross-ownership(therulethatpreventsthesamecompanyfrom owningaradioorTVstationandthemajordailynewspaperinthesametown)andof thelimitstothenumberofbroadcaststationsthatacompanycanowninasinglearea.
Thekeyfeatureofthecurrentjuncture,however,concernsnetneutrality,i.e.the policythatprohibitsinternetserviceprovidersfromdiscriminatingbetweenwebsites. Thisensuresthatanythingtravellingontheinternetistreatedonnon-discriminatory termsbytheownersoftheinterconnectednetworksthatmakeuptheinternet.This neutralityprovisiondatesbacktothe1934CommunicationsAct.In1996Congress declaredtheinternetatelecommunicationservice(justliketelephones),and,therefore, madeitsubjecttothenon-discriminationprovisionscontainedinthe1934Act.Forcing theproviderstogivethesamequalityofserviceatequivalentpricestobigcommercial businesses,academicpapersandremotebloggers,itisnotsurprisingthattheproviders perceivetheseprovisionsasaformidableobstacletoprofitmaximization.In2002the FCCacceptedanappealbythecablecompaniesandincludedcablemodemservice inthecategoryof“informationservice”,henceremovingcablebroadbandfromthe requirementsofthe1934Act(includingitsexplicitprohibitionsondiscrimination). AfteraSupremeCourtrulingin2005,theFCCfinallyconfirmedthatcablemodem wouldnotbesubjecttonetneutrality,fundamentallychangingthelegalfoundations onwhichtheinternetoperates.Thishappenedwithvirtuallynocoverageinthemedia andnointerventionbyCongress,whichremainedtheonlybodythatcouldoverrule theFCC.FreePressthenintervenedandformedthesavetheinternet.comcoalition, whichmanagedtomobilizealmosttwomillionAmericansinfavourofreinstating netneutralityintolaw.Suchunprecedentedmobilizationmanagedtocommandthe attentionofseveralCongressmenandbythetimethepresidentialprimariesbegan,
6 Pageno.178.
McChesney,R.W.:Communicationrevolution:criticaljuncturesandthefutureofmedia
everymajordemocraticcandidatehadcomeoutinfavourofnetneutrality.Politicians becameincreasinglyawarethatbloggerscanbeinfluentialonpublicopinionandthat theycaredverymuchaboutnetneutrality(“ifyouarenotfornetneutrality,thenthe blogswillkickyourrear”).7 WhenthecolossalmergerofAT&TandBellSouthwas finallyapprovedbytheFCCattheendof2006,itcontainedanexplicitprotectionof netneutralityfortwoyears.
Althoughthebattlefornetneutralityisprobablyfarfromover,theauthorderives importantconclusionsfromthisexperience.First,thatthegeneralpubliccanbemobilizedonandbecomeevenpassionateaboutissuesthatareapparentlytechnicaland removedfromtheeverydayexperienceofordinarycitizens.Second,thatmobilization forfreemediacanactuallyberegardedasthegatewayforamoregeneralpolitical engagementofcitizensintopubliclife.Thisdramaticshiftinpublicactivismhasbeen madepossiblebytheinternet,whichhaschangedinfundamentalwaysthenature ofpoliticalorganizing,loweringitscostsandmakingitmoreeffectivewithfewer resources.
Whathavethisexperienceandthismovementtodowithcommunicationresearch?
AccordingtoMcChesney“themovementgraspedhowimportantitwastohavefirstratecrediblemediaresearch.(...)Theimmediateneedwasfortraditionalquantitative communicationscholars,foreconomists,andforlegalscholars.Andthesescholars neededtoworkwithussothattheydidn’tgetswallowedupbybaselesspresuppositions”.8 Hence,theeventshowedtheneedforrelevant,rigorousandpolicy-oriented research,tosupportthebattleforfreerandmoredemocraticmedia.
McChesney’sboldclaimsandemphaticlanguagebegthequestion:whyarethe mediasoimportantfordemocraticdecision-making?Whatissospecialaboutmedia comparedtootherbusinesses?Thepresumptionthatrunsalongtheentirebookisthat themassmediacanhaveapowerfulinfluenceonpublicopinion,ontheperception ofreality,evenongeneralvaluesandattitudes.ThisiswhyMcChesneyisalsoso concernedwithprotectingthechildrenfromcommercialadvertising.Althoughthis isnotabookontheeffectsofmassmediaonthepublic,onecouldarguethat,if themediadidnothaveimportanteffectsonpublicopinionandpoliticalbehaviour,its wholeargumentwouldbecondemnedtoirrelevance.Itisthereforeimportanttoremind thatquantitativeresearch,inparticularbyeconomists,hasrecentlyprovidedsomeof themostsolidevidencethatsucheffectsdoexistandthattheyarenotnecessarily small.9 Theseresultsthenbringusforwardtoanotherquestion:ifthemassmediacan substantiallyinfluencepublicopinion,dowehaveawaytoconceptualizeandmeasure thebiaswithrespecttoafaircoverageofreality?Again,theuseofrigorousquantitative methodshasrecentlyledtosubstantialprogressinourunderstandingofmediabias, particularlyoftheroleofthemediaasagendasetters.10 Thisfinallyraisesanumberof policyquestionsthatareextremelyimportantforeveryonethatcaresaboutthefuture
7 Pageno.186.
8 Pageno.172.
9 Seee.g. Stromberg (2004), Gentzkow (2006), Larcinese (2007a), DellaVignaandKaplan (2007)and Petrova (2008).
10 Seee.g. GrosecloseandMilyo (2005), Corneo (2006), Puglisi (2006), Larcinese (2007b), Larcinese etal. (2007)and GentzkowandShapiro (2007).
ofdemocracy.Isitpossibletohaveacompetitivemediaindustry?Whatistheroleto beplayedbypublicregulationofthemediamarket?Wouldcompetitionbetweenfree mediabusinessesbeenoughtogenerateasufficientlywellinformedpublic?What rolecanorshouldbeplayedbypublicbroadcasting?Inshort,whatcanwedoto haveamediasystemthatservesdemocraticinstitutions?Again,thereisnodoubt thateconomistsandquantitativeresearcherscanprovidefundamentalcontributions towardsabetterunderstandingoftheseissues.Thisisnot“economicimperialism”. Itisinsteadtherecognitionthattrulyinterdisciplinaryresearch,whichgoesbeyond theboundariesacrossdisciplinesandmethodologies,isneededtodaymorethanever before.Thisalsomeansthateconomistsshouldbecomemoreawareoftheworkof othersocialscientistsandrecognizethecomplementaritiesbetweendifferentmethods. McChesneysendsamessage,inparticulartocommunicationscholars:“thetraditional splitsbetweenquantitative-orientedresearchersandqualitative-orientedresearchers nolongerseemsevereorimportant”.11 Wecanonlyhopethatthismessagewillresound acrossacademicdepartmentsandprofessionaljournalswheretoooftenscholarsappear muchmoreengagedinprotectingtheirturfthaningenuinelypursuingthesearch fornewknowledge.Thisinterdisciplinaryresearchagendaisverycloselyrelatedto issueslikethereformoftheelectoralsystem,thefinancingofelectoralcampaigns, theinfluenceofmoneyandlobbiesondemocraticlifeandpolicydecisions.Sucha collectiveeffortrequiresthecontributionofeconomistsandcommunicationscholars, aswellasthatofpoliticalscientists,sociologists,socialpsychologistsandmanymore, andwouldhavethepotentialtoinformusonhowtoimprovedemocraticprocesses and,ultimately,thelifeofordinarycitizens.Itisnotnecessarytoshareamilitantview ofacademicresearchtohopethatthissortofpoliticswillbedeemedmoreimportant thandepartmentalpoliticsinacademiccirclesandthatnewinterdisciplinaryresearch onmassmediawillreceivetheattentionitdeserves.
References
CorneoG(2006)Mediacaptureinademocracy:theroleofwealthconcentration.JPublicEcon90:37–58
DellaVignaS,KaplanE(2007)Thefoxnewseffect:mediabiasandvoting.QJEcon122:1187–1234
GentzkowM(2006)Televisionandvoterturnout.QJEcon121:931–972
GentzkowM,ShapiroJ(2007)Whatdrivesmediaslant?EvidencefromUSDailyNewspapers,working paperChicagoBusinessSchool
GrosecloseT,MilyoJ(2005)Ameasureofmediabias.QJEcon120:1191–1237
LarcineseV(2007a)Doespoliticalknowledgeincreaseturnout?Evidencefromthe1997BritishGeneral Election.PublicChoice131:387–411
LarcineseV(2007b)Theinstrumentalvotergoestothenews-agent:informationacquisition,marginality andthemedia.JTheorPolit19:249–276
LarcineseV,PuglisiR,SnyderJ(2007)Partisanbiasineconomicnews:evidenceontheagendasetting behaviorofUSnewspapers.NBERw.p.13378
PetrovaM(2008)Inequalityandmediacapture.JPublicEcon92:183–212
PuglisiR(2006)BeingtheNewYorktimes:thepoliticalbehaviorofanewspaper.STICERDWorking Paper(PEPP)n.20
StrombergD(2004)Radio’simpactonnewdealspending.QJEcon119:189–221 11 Pageno.194.